13 responses so far ↓

• 1 David Roberts // Nov 18, 2007 at 7:57 pm

  Hi there,

  I just wanted to let people know about a free Internet and Parental Control program that we use called K9 (see http://www1.k9webprotection.com/index.php) This program is free and allows parents or whoever to control what sort of sites can be accessed on the Internet, (password protected and modifiable) and it also allows time restrictions on access to the Internet. We have been using it for some months now, and it is not only free, but effective and easy to use.

  Regards,
  David Roberts.

• 2 Katja McPherson // Nov 19, 2007 at 7:39 pm

  I wanted to have a bit of discussion about what Pete refers to in the bible study as “pollie-bashing”. Is it ok to comment on the short comings of the government (eg. injustices) and its leaders (eg. if their lives don’t live up top their position)? It is definitely not illegal to do that in Australia and I would argue that it is an essential part of democracy that we comment on what the government is doing so that people make informed choices next election. So I would argue that it is not disrespecting our leaders to highlight their failings (forcing myself not to mention examples here!). What do others think?
  k

• 3 Dave McPherson // Nov 21, 2007 at 6:34 pm

  Great comment wife! I would also like to add that I struggle with obeying the authorities that God has established in our country. I am a bloke who struggles with obeying the road rules and respecting referees and a few other things. I would ask that everyone prays for the blokes in our church because I know I am not the only one - and it is very difficult to change in these areas.

• 4 Mitch // Nov 21, 2007 at 10:32 pm

  Election, shmelection! Is democracy and having our vote such an important thing that we should spend so much time caring about who gets voted in? Timothy, breathing God’s Word, urges us to pray for Kings and all those in Authority. Shouldn’t we spend more time praying for our leaders and less time worrying and caring about who will be the best for us in a government.

  Besides, Christianity thrives under persecution. The wheat is sorted from the chaff. I hate it how people are not easily offended by Christians following Jesus in Australia. Sometimes I wonder why we try to protect freedom of speech. I don’t want to be persecuted but Christianity that looks no different to our culture sucks.

  Steve, (or anyone else who wants to comment), why does Paul not take the same line of motivation for obeying the authorities as Peter does in 1 Peter 2. There Peter is explains that by doing good among pagans, they might see our lives and glorify God. That is how we can be a ‘royal priesthood/holy nation, a light in the darkness, an imitation of Christ who suffered but didn’t retaliate, and so on. Peter’s argument seems compelling, Paul’s seems weaker.

• 5 Steve Cree // Nov 22, 2007 at 8:36 am

  Just a quick reply to Mitch’s question: I think Paul’s approach looks a bit different to what it might appear at 1st glance (and ends up sounding very much like Peter) if you read Romans 13:1-7 in the light of Romans 12:14-21 (the curse of subheadings and chapter divisions breaking the flow). 12:14 shifts the focus of transformed relationships from inside the church to outside (”persecute” is the trigger word for what follows). And especially verses 17-21 sound very similar to Peter’s argument in 1 Peter 2 (’do what is right in the eyes of everybody’; ‘leave room for God’s wrath’; ‘overcome evil with good’) - albeit the ‘imitation of Christ’ is not explicit but perhaps ‘in view of God’s mercy’ (12:1) should still dominate everything in the chapter. So although ch13 then goes on to talk about authority structures, when read together with 12:14-21 Peter & Paul are very much on the same page - a page with Jesus written all over it.

• 6 Mitch // Nov 22, 2007 at 10:11 am

  I’m not convinced…yet. I don’t understand how verses 12:15-16 contribute to the idea that Paul has specifically changed focus from insiders to outsiders. Are the paragraphs translator added too?? because verses 12:14-18 seem to be written in that same short, sharp, simple commands style of writing.

  There definitely is a shift in focus toward how to live in this world where the rulers are among those who reject God’s Authority and so persecution will happen. This shift does begin in Ch12, but not once does Paul say submit to the Authority in order to win over outsiders as is the whole argument of 1 Peter 2. Paul says submit because God established them. I think Paul is saying submit to authorities ‘in view of God’s mercy’ because it’s the right response to God, to be obedient to him, not to be an example ‘of God’s mercy’ as Peter argues.

  I also wonder why you said that Paul is just as much having a dig at the Governing Authorities, as he is saying to submit to them. You said Paul makes it clear that they have been established by God and are God’s servants not to claim to be God themselves. But at each point that Paul says they’ve been established by God the direct consequence from that is for the persecuted Christian. The application each time to the idea that God established the government is “submit/obey”. Never is the application for the rulers “…so govern with justice!” Also, Paul was writing to Christians in Rome, not to the Roman rulers. Did he really expect the Church to pass his letter on to the Govenor?

• 7 Steve Cree // Nov 22, 2007 at 12:06 pm

  I probably can’t put the case much better than my attempt in the talk. Basically, my reading of the section rests not just on the immediate context, although that’s important (no the paragraphs aren’t there in the original) but as much on the historical context (growing persecution of Christians by the Roman empire) alongside the wider theological context of Romans (especially the declaration of Jesus as son of God in Rom 1:4 - the Roman Emperor’s favourite title for himself, along with the loaded language of ‘images made to look like mortal man’ in 1:23.

  I’d suggest there are obvious reasons Paul’s critique of the authorities needs to be implied rather than direct. His emphatic repetition that they are established BY God - and are God’s servants may seem a soft or only implied critique to us, but not in the 1st Century context of Rome. Emperor worship (as opposed to the worship of God in 12:1-2) is the official religion. There’s a strong likelihood that members of Caeasar’s household would be part of the Roman church, so Paul’s teaching would be heard, relayed and closely scrutinised. Paul’s emphasis is, of course, the ordinary Christian in Rome - and calling them to submit to these authorities as part of their submission to God, but I’m concerned that the concomitant critique of the ruling authorities is often missed.

  In terms of winning over outsiders - it may seem a strange way to say it for us - and less clear than Peter’s parallel teaching - but the ‘burning coals’ of 12:20 are to be seen as a way of shaming someone into repentance - thus winning them over. In this way ‘evil is overcome with good’ (12:21).

• 8 Mitch // Nov 22, 2007 at 12:56 pm

  Yeah I like that… I guess it’s hard for me to fully grasp a good understanding of the historical context and realise how much it affected what and how Paul wrote in his letters. I should do some reading about it… any books you would recommend?

  I also find it hard to keep all the pieces of Paul’s arguments fitting together in my head. Thanks for reminding me of the ‘burning coals’ idea… i looked right over it. Where did the idea of the burning coals on the head come from? Why does it mean ’shaming into repentance’ and not just ’shaming’?

  Sorry to be such a pest… I appreciate your answers.

• 9 Andrew Feeney // Nov 23, 2007 at 1:00 am

  Here is a link to an article by John Dickson about voting from a Christian perspective. I think it ties in well with what we’ve been thinking about in terms of authority. Read it for yourself and see what you think. http://www.cdp.org.au/docs/VOTING%20CHRISTIANLY%20by%20Dr%20John%20Dickson.doc

• 10 Pete // Nov 23, 2007 at 2:55 pm

  Good on you Andy. I reckon that article is spot-on. Doesn’t tell us who to vote for but does tell us very helpfully HOW we should think about our vote.

• 11 Dave McPherson // Nov 23, 2007 at 8:31 pm

  Andy, I like the article too and I read it when it was passed around before the last NSW election, however, I think it is more focused on who to vote for in terms of House of representatives(i.e. who you think will run the country the best according to the criteria - Liberal or Labor). The senate is different and I think we need someone to represent Christians there - the Senate is like the ‘conscience’ of our country.

• 12 Dave McPherson // Nov 23, 2007 at 8:59 pm

  Mitch,

  There is so much in your comment ‘Election, shmelection!’ that I do not think you have really thought through what you are saying.

  Who said you have to have one or the other - why can’y you pray and at the same time be concerned about who gets voted in. I think we are called to be responsible citizens when we are Christians and therefore, being informed about the election and how best to vote is being a good steward of what God has given us. God has given us Freedom in our country (which is unusal compared with history), but this freedom is a gift and is to be used wisely by us. I think an election is very heavily connected to our freedoms in this country. I would rather live in peace (as would the Apostles) and be free to explain the Gospel without fear of torture or death and I can be certain that persecuted Christians throughout the world are envious of our situation. I think they would laugh at your ‘wonder to why we protect freedom of speech’ - they would love that opportunity to explain the Gospel without fear.

  I do not believe that persecution will necessarily make us more Godly or more evangelistic - if you can’t be trusted while it is easy how can you be trusted when it is hard. Remember only God’s Spirit can change us (not persecution).

  The Freedom we have as Christians in this Country allows us to have many things which wouldn’t be possible if Christians were persecuted. If we were seriously persecuted there probably wouldn’t be Moore College, SMBC, CMS, AFES, Matthias Media and our financial resources would probably be alot less because we wouldn’t have the decent paying Jobs in society - we would have low paying jobs or none at all. At the moment because of our freedoms we are able to send Missionaries to other countries, if we were persecuted we wouldn’t have that opportunity or BLESSING!

  All this is why we need to think carefully about the election in order to maintain and protect the freedoms that God has given us in this country for the sake of the Gospel!

• 13 Mitch // Nov 24, 2007 at 8:45 am

  Thanks Dave. My comments were more extreme than my actual views probably are.

  I agree with what you have said especially about the freedom we have. I think I will give my comments more thought next time. I guess I was just making the point that I hate watery Christianity and also that I feel my vote will not count to much anyway… even in the senate.

  By the way I never said pray instead of being concerned about voting, but that prayer is probably a more important thing to do.

  And I never said that persecution will make individuals more evangelistic, but nominal Christians who are not representing Christ will not hold on to that claim to be Christians which will make the witness of real Christians more obvious.

  I don’t want persecution ( as I said) but I don’t want us to fear it. I think some other stuff too but I will talk to you about it this arvo at touch footy. I have to go and vote!

Leave a Comment