9th September 2008

Are You Willing to Pray for What You Would Not Provide?

posted in Ethics |

PatriotThis question is particularly addressed at kingdom-minded believers who claim that patriotism, military service, and government authority are the wrong places for Christians to live out their Christianity. It is a very simple question rooted in the golden rule (the universalization of ethical claims; what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.)
What do believers pray will come from government, from those in authority? Simply this: “…that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty” 1 Timothy 2:2. How do “kings and all who are in authority” bring about such a condition? Although Romans 13 does make explicit that it is accomplished with the sword, that passage would not be necessary to figure it out. In all the affairs of men, it is the exercise of authority which prevents the violation of free men by the unjust. Injustice might take the form of fraud, theft, assault, rape, or murder. And the authority might take the form of threatened or enforced fines, restitution, imprisonment, or corporal or capital punishment. Similarly, the injustice and corresponding authority might be personal (as listed above), or it might be corporate (as in the case of war). So in 1 Timothy 2:2, believers pray that government will accomplish the task of its authority under God.
Some Christians apparently believe only normal people, non-Christians, can provide this authority; that since Christians belong to the kingdom of God they should not be caught up in the kingdom of the world.
Now, exactly how does a Christian justify praying for what he himself would not be willing to provide?
To say there is one ethic for Christians and a different one for normal people will not do. Any difference between ethics implied by that phrase is a difference condemning those who are not Christians, not a difference embracing that what is good for one person (a Christian) is not good for another (a non-Christian). Again, the golden rule makes this point. Christians live their ethic to make the point that normal people fail it and need it; not to emphasize some class distinction between citizens of eternity.
So, to repeat the question: how exactly is a Christian supposed to pray that darkness will continue in its darkness (providing peace through authority, using the presumed vocabulary of those who believe such governmental enforcement is somehow wrongful) for the benefit of the lights who are praying for the darkness to continue? The question bears even more consideration in light of the verses which follow the commission to pray for that authority to provide peace: “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” Then believers would presumably be praying for darkness to continue while praying for the darkness to cease. It is not a narrative. It is a contradiction.
Since I cannot conceive of asking God for an item the provision of which would be too unethical for me to undertake if I were asked, I await enlightenment from any so inclined…

Sphere: Related Content

This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 9th, 2008 at 5:30 am and is filed under Ethics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

There are currently 6 responses to “Are You Willing to Pray for What You Would Not Provide?”

let me know what you think

  1. 1 On September 15th, 2008, Patrick Vaughan said:

    I would answer thus…in following Paul’ admonishment in 1 Tim 2:1, a pacifist is not in violation of praying for that which he is unwilling to provide because Paul is not asking believers to pray for their governments to keep a peaceful environment, the means by which could be, and often times is, war. Paul is asking believers to pray on behalf of leaders so that they(believers) might lead a peaceful and godly life without interference, and in the following versus pertaining to Paul’s ministry and God wanting all men to be saved, I think he makes it clear that he is speaking of a peace and quiet to fulfill the ministry of the gospel…to paraphrase Paul…pray for them that they might leave us alone so that we can accomplish the task God has given us. I don’t think this interpretation is far fetched when you consider that Paul live in a Roman occupied territory in which the best a non zealot/rebellious minded Jew cold hope for was to be left alone to practice Torah until God comes and sets up his kingdom…a hope that I don’t think Paul abandons upon conversion, just simply redefined through Christ

    patrick

  2. 2 On September 16th, 2008, barry said:

    I find this response very reasonable in isolation of other passages. And that is, after all, how I addressed it myself. So, nicely done. I do not agree, of course, that yours is the correct way to take the passage. Here’s why I hold to my understanding:
    “Quiet” and “peacable” basically mean “tranquil” and something like “un-disturbing”. Now it seems strange that Paul would be saying a Christian’s goal is to live without being a disturbance, since not only he, but also the recipient of this very letter are notorious for the disturbances they create. Is he praying for the government to leave him and Timothy alone, for instance? To the contrary, more times than not, throughout Acts as the example, Paul stirs up trouble, the people riot, and the governmental authorities swoop in and “save” the day. Consider Acts 21:29 (notice the reference to Ephesus by the way) and following. Even when governmental authorities themselves act badly, it is because they are doing something against their own government (like the Philippians not recognizing Paul’s citizenship in Acts 16:36-38).
    So, while your reading is possible in isolation, it does not look to me like it fits the pattern established throughout Paul’s ministry in the New Testament. Further, of course, there is still the Romans 13 passage–not in isolation, but in the context I have just mentioned.
    Further, to paint Paul’s ethic as somehow shaped by reclusive “torah-observing” seems a great distance from his actual (or “Acts”-ual) practice.
    I still congratulate, respect, and even applaud your considerate, intelligent, and slightly fallacious (IMHO) response. :)

  3. 3 On September 16th, 2008, barry said:

    By the way, Patrick, I should compliment you on the fact that I believe you directly questioned the very part of the argument I considered weakest–by far, especially as I presented it. Again, nicely done.

  4. 4 On September 18th, 2008, Anonymous said:

    much more generous and kind response than i was expecting…ill have to think over the way you are taking peaceful as a state of tranquility…i still take it as relational between the church and the government. Perhaps “leave us alone” should have been better conveyed as tolorance, but i doubt that would have satisfied you either:) Interestingly enough, the Ephesus episode was in the back of my mind when i was thinking about 1 tim. Paul, being restrained from entering the crowd, would have watched as the government official stepped in and declare the christian’s innocent of wrong doing, subverting the crowd’s attack…that is the type of relationship i see Paul asking the Christians to be praying for…

  5. 5 On September 18th, 2008, Patrick Vaughan said:

    forgot to put my name on the comment above

  6. 6 On September 18th, 2008, barry said:

    you said: “government official stepped in and declare the christians innocent of wrong…”
    If you are willing for the government to “step in”, then I am suddenly comfortable with your position. That “stepping in” is all I need to make my point.
    And I am dismayed at your surprise!

Leave a Reply