More reading from Rutherford's Lex, Rex today.
In his question XIV, Rutherford addresses the question of whether the king holds his authority under conditions - that is to say, whether his "right to govern" is based on his being faithful to any sort of conditions. Furthermore, if so, does that indicate the right of the people to depose him as king by rebellion?
In the midst of this very interesting discussion, Rutherford makes some claims about the king... claims that are hard to deny, it seems to me. (Some friends of mine are going to get a kick out of this post, I think)
One of the assertions he makes is that the king is obligated to God for the maintenance of true religion - that kings, judges and magistrates are to maintain religion by their commandments. Further, he says "he is made by God and the people king, for the church and the people of God's sake, that he may defend true religion for the behalf and salvation of all." "There is no condition required in him (the king) before they make him king, but only that he covenant with them to rule according to God's law."
Paul in Romans 13 says that rulers are agents of God for man's good... if we as Christians truly do believe that the highest good for any man is salvation through Christ alone... why do we support in any way rulers who enact policies that suppress and oppose Christianity? One can go much further down that road and ask more stringent questions (and we should ask them).
What i don't get is how people who profess Christ can support the concept that Christian politicians have to remove their faith from policymaking. Mostly I suppose this stems from Christian politicians who have bought the lie that they must do everything "neutrally" (as though that's possible), and a Christian public who have bought the same pablum. Further I just don't get those who claim that we must support religious pluralism in order that we can then practice our faith. The practice of our faith is something we must carry out whether or not the government supports it... must we support lies (i.e. the foundational lies underlying the pluralist model) in order to "save our ability to practice Christianity"? Heavens, no!
Posted by toddpedlar at April 28, 2004 08:37 PM | TrackBack