Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Order and Peace (Easter - Day 32)




(Based on Romans 13:1-14)

In today's passage, Paul spends the first half talking about how the government exists to maintain peace and order. He tells us to live responsibly as citizens, and to follow the rules. As long as the government is maintaining peace, it's God's peace. As long as the government is maintaining order, it's God's order. But, when peace and order are not being maintained, or they're being distorted by human hands, then we should be careful to not blindly credit the government with making decisions that are "God-initiated." Interestingly, this is all coming from a man who has already been put in jail numerous times, and has been whipped by Roman soldiers on several occasions. What is Paul talking about here? How can he call the audience to adhere to a government that is trying to snuff out the message he's trying to carry? 

I think Paul understands something very foreign to us. He gives all credit to God when the government maintains order and peace. In this particular time period though, the government is doing the exact opposite. We can argue that the government is still doing the exact opposite today. But, he only goes so far as to give credit where credit is due. Since the government is not doing the job it was created to do, he is giving the subliminal message that the human institution has decided to take things into its own hands. It was intended for good, but it's creating evil. 

If I were Paul, and I've been beaten and put in jail for carrying a message of God's love for humanity, I don't think I'd want to tell my audience to be responsible citizens to an irresponsible government. I would want to tell the audience the opposite - to revolt against what's wrong with the government. He doesn't do that though. He simply lets the audience's view of the government be a view. If we hold to the position that the government is maintaining peace and order, we can credit that to God. If we hold with the position that the government is not maintaining peace and order, we can credit that to man. 

The point of Paul's writing here is to remind the audience of what the government was created to do, not what it was doing at the time. I think it's good practice for us today to be reminded of what the government is created to do as well. Even though there may be a million things wrong, we give credit where credit is due. Any peace and order that come through the government though are credited to God.

In the second part of the passage, Paul talks about the law code and what it was created to do. We'll call the law code the ten commandments. Although there were about a thousand religious laws (remember, the context is Roman theocracy - the marriage of religion and politics), Paul sums them up with the ten commandments. 

This law was created for one thing: to love others as we love ourselves. We've all heard them: Don't steal, don't cheat, don't lie, don't covet. The intent of all these was to love others as ourselves. But, there came a time in human history where the point of these laws shifted from love to oppression. 

Have you ever had someone beat you over the head with a law they knew you were breaking? Were you able to say, "Thank you for loving me so well!"? This is what happens when man's unloving intentions get in the way of something created to promote love. The law becomes a hammer. The government becomes a form of oppression. 

At the time of Paul's writing, the audience was just about ready to revolt. They were ready to start breaking laws out of their sense of the government's wrongness. They were ready to revolt against the religious leaders. They were ready to make their stand. What does Paul say?

The only debt we have to each other is to love. That's it. If we're letting the twisted philosophies of the government and religious institution dominate our ways of loving, then we've fallen into the same trap. If we let the government or religious leaders define who's redeemable and worthy of love and who's not, then we have chosen to participate in turning what was created for good into a weapon of destruction. 

Paul says that if the government is creating unrest and disorder, then it's from God. Even then, he says to be responsible citizens and to abstain from playing the same tit-for-tat game. The government's unrest and disorder don't have to affect our peace and order when it comes to paying off the debt of love we owe to everyone, regardless of political affiliation, religious belief, gender, or how good or bad they follow the law. 

In the same way, when we break the ten commandments, we don't have to be affected by the idea that guilt and shame are the byproducts. The ten commandments, and any commandments from the scriptures are to be used in a way that promotes love, not division and self-righteousness. Anyone who thinks they haven't broken any laws is delusional anyways. 

Why does Paul tie these two entities together? Because law is created for the promotion of peace, order, and love. Whether we are following the law or breaking it, the intent is still the same. Love. When the people around us are breaking either government laws or moral law, we are to see their wrongdoing through the lens of love and grace, not condemnation and punishment. We are to see their wrongdoing through the lens of forgiveness and redemption, not retaliation and hate. 

When (and yes, we will break moral law and government law) we break the law, we are to see our own wrongdoing through the lens of love and grace, not self-condemnation and self-punishment. We are to see our own wrongdoing through the lens of forgiveness and redemption, not self hate. 

We have the ability to live under the government, no matter how corrupt, disordered, and chaotic it is, and still hold on to the one debt we owe: to love each other. We have the ability to live under an increasingly chaotic mainstream religious system, and still hold on to the one debt we owe to each other: to love. To fall into the trap of letting these institutions define who we're to love and who we're to hate is to ignore the voice inside of each of us that's saying, "You are worth it. You are loved more than you'll ever know. You are forgiven and redeemed, now live it out." 

Today's Action: Examine the ways in which the institutions of government and religion have defined people. Examine how they have influenced how we love people or think of certain people groups.

2 comments:

  1. I actually wrote a comment earlier but erased it. The comment really doesn't go with this post unless I tie it to your statement "ignore the voice inside of each of us that's saying". I'm again looking for an excuse to post.

    That said, my thought was: creativity stops when one joins the old men chuckling. In the comment that I erased I tried to explain what that meant. It went into inner and outer voices.

    Well I just ran across this post of mine and thought I'd cut and paste it. It is a long post and must be split over a few comments:

    This post may not end up coherent and may not reflect what I really think because I'm not sure what I am thinking and thought by writing it I might discover what I'm trying to say. By writing this I expose my own need to express. I realize at this point I am debating the way I introduce this as I am beginning to go into psychobabble and am afraid this sort of thing is what makes people stare in the headlights like a deer on the highway. I will most likely lose you unless I find a way to make this faster or humorous. Now I realize that I have insulted you and your attention span. Okay, here we are. I don't even think I'm going to start a new paragraph because that will make this post seem less formidable. You, you have show great attention at reaching this point. You, you have waded through countless ideas and are listening.

    The "you" up there is this imagined person in my head that, had I kept writing a long post with no breaks, would have poised themselves and listened intently. As tortuous as it was, I did read "War And Peace" - I struggled, whatever that means. This imagined person is probably "my perfect blog reader figment" that I write to - the one that laughs at all my cunning humor, sees depth in the pictures, can't wait for the next post and hopes for pictures of drawings to discover what's in this cavernous mind of mine. I write this to my "figment reader" recursively knowing that you, a real person perhaps, will be reading alongside this "figment reader"... I mean I am writing to the figment reader and you... and it is like the mirrors on the wall in a barbershop... only the figment reader will get that barbershop analogy... well PERHAPS! you too, so I throw that in just in case you can follow... and if you can I'll take you on and on bouncing back and forth until I lose you... or most likely try to hurt you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, hurt you because if I take you far enough the following will most likely happen: you will move to another state, I will realize that you never understood a word I said, you will abandon the trip or you will grow silent.

      If you move to another state, I will most likely write. Inundated, you will most likely grow silent. So moving is about the same as silence. Abandoning the trip is equivalent to silence too. If you never understood a word I said, that means that I had you mistaken, and my figment persona of you has to be separated from the real you. I will go on talking to the figment persona which amounts to silence. So all cases lead to me talking to these imaginary people. If I had you mistaken, I will probably feel bad for the real you because the real you is so earthly, so real - and it could even happen that this real person gets reaccepted as a new play figure in my landscape...

      This isn't the case with all people. Actually, now I think, there are only a handful that put such an impression on me that I adopt them into my - what do I call it? - "conversation". In order to become one of these figures, a figure to please most likely, it is necessary to be mysterious. To be mysterious requires a very simple trick - you just have to not be present, say very little or just be obscure. The best is a combination of those three. A simple way to accomplish that is to move away and shut up.

      Actually, that is disconnection that I'm talking about. It's a phone conversation that ends abruptly. Some people help one to understand oneself and quite possibly the world at large... maybe even the heavens. Maybe I'm mad at pastors that move and are "called" to move, especially to places in the mountains, gardens and meadows. Maybe I'm mad at friends that move and jerk themselves away. Moving location is *away*, because email, facebook and all that is discontinuous, blip ridden and most likely shallow because in the busyness all the electronic connection in the world simply won't cut it... and those people you cared for, respected and needed to make you whole are *gone*.

      One cannot expect others to stay put. I realize that meeting up with my friend from school was like we never parted. The couple years since we last saw each other, the couple thousand miles between us, the few words we had over the past couple years was trite in comparison to the bond of friendship. We met and was like we were never apart.

      Okay, I'll shut up...

      Delete