...John R. W. Stott was one of the most respected evangelical theologians of the twentieth century. In his commentary on Romans 13, he asks:
"Granted that the authority of the rulers is derived from God, what happens if they abuse it, if they reverse their God-given duty, commending those who do evil and punishing those who do good? Does the requirement to submit still stand in such a morally perverse situation? No. The principle is clear. We are to submit right up to the point where obedience to the state would entail disobedience to God. But if the state commands what God forbids, or forbids what God commands, then our plain Christian duty is to resist, not to submit, to disobey the state in order to obey God."...
What Misapplication of Scripture Looks Like
Jeff Sessions' assessment that separating children from their parents is justified because Paul says in Romans 13 that it is God who establishes governments, and that the people should submit to their authority, highlights the legal slippery-slope of an asynchronous application of biblical edicts without regard to biblical context.
...The AG, Jeff Sessions' assessment that separating children from their parents is justified because Paul says in Romans 13 that it is God who establishes governments, and that the people should submit to their authority, is testimony to the Framers' prescience. It also highlights the legal slippery-slope of an asynchronous application of biblical edicts without regard to biblical context
Sessions claimed that he was justified in separating children from their parents at the border because they were lawbreakers, and he was only following the law and, for that matter, had the backing of Romans 13. Forget, for the moment, that the new policy of separating children from their parent was never a US policy for asylum seekers, who are in fact, not lawbreakers. Taking the AG's claim at face value reminds us of the strict interpretation of Judaic laws that elicited a rebuke from the Law Giver. Jesus accused the religious leaders of hypocrisy for being sticklers for the minutiae of the law but "have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness" (Matt 23:23).
Where are those virtues evident in this policy?
Jesus also allowed his disciples to pluck and eat corn on the Sabbath (Luke 6:1-9). When accused by the religious leaders that it was unlawful to do, Jesus reminded them that David and his hungry band also did what was unlawful by eating food that was only meant for the priest according to the commandments. Then Jesus went on to do what was unthinkable on the Sabbath to those religious leaders, by healing the sick. In doing so Jesus asked them "is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to destroy it?"(9).
Is this policy doing good or destroying families?
Sessions seemed to have claimed a law that does not exist, which is to declare that those seeking asylum are criminals subject to criminal punishment, thereby triggering his newly enacted zero-tolerance policy that results in separating children from parents. Therefore, his misapplication of Romans 13 is a politically selective and personal interpretation of scripture.
The use of particular religious scriptures to justify any social, political, or judicial action in a diverse nation is inherently fraught. Here, equity is balanced on a razor's edge. But we run the greater risk of religiously motivated tyranny when scripture is misapplied, intentionally or not, to further those actions; something not unfamiliar in many parts of the world.
I used to wonder what it was like for those living through times when the church wielded political power and misapplied scripture to further misguided and morally questionable policies. Not anymore. I could not understand how it was that the church would allow the atrocities of those days to stand. I understand now.
There are those who say this is the best Administration for the church, ever. God ordained, approved, and installed. A miracle. Does this look like God's work and ways? Does it look like scripture? Does this look like there is concern for defenseless children? Does this look like compassion? Does this look like love, or mercy, or justice?
It does not look good for the Church. It does not look good, and it does not feel good. It feels wrong. It feels so wrong. What is next?
No comments:
Post a Comment