# Resisting Authority --Case study: Rosa Parks



## amishrockstar (Nov 8, 2010)

_

Was Rosa Parks' actions (on the bus) a model for 
Christian resistance to unjust laws? 

_


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 8, 2010)

On the one hand, I admire a person who is willing to resist what she thinks is wrong, and to accept the consequences of her actions. In an "after-the-fact" manner, she seems to have been vindicated, since the law was changed. But we really can't judge the nature of her actions on 1) her (or anyone's) feelings, or 2) on the results.

On the other hand, I am no fan of action that is defiant to authority, Rom.13. The Bible tells us that there is future reward for suffering injustice now, when we endure such for the sake of Jesus Christ, when we suffer as Christians. Victories gained, changes wrought, that are plainly not attributable to our efforts, are all the more to be praised as his acts on our behalf. Was there a more God-glorifying way in which the changes that came about might have come about?

I think any time we take the law into our own hands, we are going to have to give account to God for that, specifically, and only secondarily for the results.


----------



## seajayrice (Nov 8, 2010)

I happen to be an advocate for states rights so I will make that disclaimer upfront. That said, I think the Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional therefore they violated the highest laws of the land. So while Rosa violated the lower law she acted to uphold the higher law, the SCOTUS agreed. I think that analysis also holds true when testing mans laws against the Law of God. The Constitution (with Amendments) is the final authority pertaining to law in the USA.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 9, 2010)

I can't estimate the need to ask for wisdom. If we lack it we should ask God. I think Reverend Buchanan has done and provided it.


----------



## amishrockstar (Nov 9, 2010)

Thanks for the responses so far. 

The primary reason why I'm asking is because I'm an ESL teacher and I'm selecting a biography to use for my curriculum. Since I'm working at secular universities I've decided to use someone who is not known specifically for being "Christian" (Like Edwards or Bunyan) yet someone who I could use to have in-class discussions about Christian ideals. 

The example that I have is that of MLK Jr.'s "Letter from Birmingham Jail." Although MLK Jr. may or may not have been born again, I have used his text because it's FULL of biblical references and he is someone I can use in a non-Christian school (without too many issues). I use that letter to springboard into discussions about morality, just laws, where laws come from, who Jesus was (what he said), etc. --if you've read the letter than you know that there are biblical references on just about every page. 

I think that MLK and Parks would fall more under the category of "humanist" than Christian. I'm not quite sure on this, but it seems like they used more humanistic means (thinking) in accomplishing their ends than relying upon God. I'm also concerned about teaching a general "humanitarianism" --do good to humanity for its own sake. 

Anyway, those are some of my concerns and thoughts. It's late, so I hope they make sense. 

Thanks again for the insights. 

Matthew


----------



## Jack K (Nov 9, 2010)

Whether or not M. L. King and Rosa Parks were gospel-believing Christians, the non-violent side of the civil rights movement was based in many ways on Christian principles. We should not discount it simply because it defied authority. We are not Amish, prefering to let injustice continue rather than fight for anything. Rather, we understand there are ways to aggresively fight for justice in the world by challenging authority when it is wrong, and still remain subject to authority and respectful of it. The best protests of the civil rights era managed largely to pull this off:

*Participants were to have justice as their motive, not personal vendetta.

*Participants were to be ready to suffer all sorts of injury—physical attack, jail, insults—without in the least fighting back.

*Participants were to appeal to what was morally right—to engage consciences—rather than force change through sheer numbers or threats.

*Many, both whites and blacks, were uncertain they could take part in civil disobedience in such a submissive, subject-to-the-authorities sort of way, and so they were asked not to march or participate in sit-ins and the like.

I'm not saying participants always got this right, or that they acted like Christians in other aspects of their lives, or that their philosophy had solely Christian roots. But at the core of the non-violent side of the movement there were some Christian ideals, which King's _Letter From a Birmingham Jail_ shows.

It was easy in those days for a Christian to look at the principle of submission to authority and condemn the non-violent protestors. It was also easy for others to look at the principle of justice and decide violent methods were needed to change the system. Those who bravely looked for a solution that embraced both submission _and_ justice should not be too quickly criticized. There is a measure of Christian ideals behind their actions.


----------



## Christopher88 (Nov 9, 2010)

Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan,
While I see the point of post and do see how scripture ties into what you are saying I disagree on some terms. 

Rosa Parks went against an unjust law, the mistreatment of people due to color is wrong. That is un-biblical authority. I really feel Romans 13:1 is used to much to back being passive to tyranny. The question to ask is; would God be honored by Rosa allowing racial discrimination or is God honored by the non violent stand for racial equality?

lets go to Nazi Germany; Adolf Hitler passed an unjust law to kill or jail those of the Jewish faith. Christian and non Christian soldiers went into battle to stop the injustice. Which is more God honoring; The fight for freedom, or to be passive and allow Jewish women, children, and men to be slaughtered like sheep? 


I really feel there is a time in which Romans 13:1 does not apply.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 9, 2010)

Chris,
I hear you, and part of me is genuinely sympathetic to the point you make. That's why I had "one one hand/on the other" in my post.

Of course there are times when Rom.13 does not apply. But, there are other, very serious question that need to be a part of the discussion, and the fundamental question is not: "is a law unjust?"

*Was Rosa being asked to sin?* This is the first question that we need to ask any time the issue of "obeying higher power" is raised. Honestly, no matter how unjust the law was, the question for a Christian is: am I showing submission to the Sovereign God, who assigned me my place in history, by blessing those who curse me, by heaping coals of fire on the heads of those who mistreat me.

When we justify ourselves on no more basis than: _I'm sure the law was improper,_ we are implicating our own rule-making authority, as parents, bosses, churchmen. There are lawful, orderly ways of redress in our societies, big and small. Children should be taught respectful methods of addressing perceived injustice in their home life. But, I'm telling you, if I tell my child he has to be last to the table, he has to do the dirty job, or any other distasteful thing by which he feels he is being unfairly treated versus the rest of the family--when he refuses to obey, he is going to be reprimanded. He is not going to get his way, or any changes at all regarding what he feels is "unjust" until he is well and truly sorry for his rebellion. He is not an "equal" to me. And neither I, nor Rosa, is an "equal" to the powers that be.

*Did Rosa possess duly delegated authority?* Some might argue "yes she did, by virtue of her free citizenship." But that is a false comparison, since citizenship, franchise (voting privileges), adult-status, and a host of other factors among our liberties, are not constitutive of authority. No, Rosa was a private citizen. Paul, the apostle, Jew, and Roman citizen, never resisted arrest; he declared that if he was found guilty of a capital crime he did not refuse to die, and we may presume even extending to an injustice done. He entrusted himself to him who judges justly. And Peter tells us if we suffer for well doing (at the hands of fellow-men, or authorities, or you-name-it), we have a reward. But there's nothing said in Scripture about being rewarded for standing up for our "rights."

That's just a couple of the questions that stand well-before we ask about dealing with particular injustices, and what are the divinely lawful ways of dealing with them.

As for being passive to tyranny, firstly, that's how Christians brought the Roman empire to its knees, so there can't be anything fundamentally inadequate about that general approach. Secondly, HOW are we to be passive? Doesn't mean we can't hide, run, or literally fight for our lives and the lives of the weak and helpless (which may be called for in order to obey the 6th Commandment). But the doctrine of "resistance" is tied to the more essential doctrine of authority. The Reformers and their heirs taught "interposition," which holds that lesser authorities may be called on to stand between the defenseless and the oppressor. But without duly delegated authority, there isn't much difference between resistance and vigilantism.

The question you pose concerning how God will be honored is really not well constructed. Because, any situation can be met with God-honoring reactions by God's people. And their may be more than one. God might be honored in his believers, if they allow themselves to be discriminated against unrighteously. But if you assume that he is MORE honored by standing "non-violently" for racial authority, I want to know where the principles of non-violence come from in the Bible, not from Ghandi or MLK. It is evident that some "non-violence" is as sinful and wicked as violent insurrection. I see that junk every time one of my kids does a flop on the floor instead of obeying me. So, it isn't intuitively obvious how "non-violence" must be a lesser evil, or even positive good, in combating tyranny.

Your comparison of the Parks situation to Nazi Germany is invidious. It fails on many levels, including the reason you have said we went to war. It wasn't to stop that injustice, although the successful prosecution of the war finally ended the slaughter of the Jews. Discovery of those camps was quite a shock to most American soldiers who liberated them. A more apt comparison might be to ask if German Christians should have resisted more than they did, or if those Germans or Dutch or whomever who hid Jews were doing a God-honoring service in opposing the officials of their land. I would say that their resistance was attached to their need to obey God, and not sin themselves by complicity. The other thing that is obvious in the comparison is that warfare is generally conceived as one authority fighting a rival authority for dominion. So, even if our army was fighting to prevent the Jewish holocaust, we are talking about one government playing policeman against another.

But it is not the same thing at all on one hand to refuse to sin yourself, and to obey the divine law in disobedience to man's law; versus the other hand, where you approve of a lesser sin of disobedience (or engage in it yourself) when the law has not directed you to sin. Nor is protesting and working lawfully for the elimination of racial discrimination; equal to justifying the overthrow of basic order and blessing of government ordained by God. If the "timetable" seems to lag, that doesn't justify wrong-doing in order to speed it up. Who are we to decide that "enough-is-enough?" Do we not believe in patience, that fruit of the Spirit?

At this point, I'm just looking for the biblical justification for deciding that achieving a good end, by God-honoring means--if it takes a couple centuries and multiple lifetimes--is too high a price to pay; and so we may overthrow the plain teaching of God's Word that commands us to submit, even to the powers that are throwing us to the lions. God will get his glory, no matter what. Which is as much an argument against some course of action as it is for the same, very often. So we can't play that card; we have to go with how Scripture directs us.

I like a difference I've seen spelled out this way:
generally "civil disobedience" is indefensible, sinful--it is all about having my way, regardless of what the authority says.
"Cultic disobedience" on the other hand, is right, where we obey God rather than man, because man would have us sin.


----------



## Christopher88 (Nov 9, 2010)

Rev. Bruce Buchanan,
Thank you for gracious response, I will read and think over it this evening. Thank you for wise posts, you are a gift to the body of Christ.


----------



## seajayrice (Nov 9, 2010)

*You must resist unlawful authority*

It is the duty of all citizens of the USA to defend the Constitution against all enemies-foreign and domestic. Should one wait until the doors of the church are booted down before acting to defend the faith? 

For Naturalized Citizens:
Solemnly, freely, and without mental reservation, I hereby renounce under oath all allegiance to any foreign state. My fidelity and allegiance from this day forward is to the United States of America. I pledge to support, honor, and be loyal to the United States, its Constitution, and its laws. Where and if lawfully required, I further commit myself to defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, either by military, noncombatant, or civilian service. This I do solemnly swear, so help me God. 

3331. Oath of office
An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law.

.


----------



## Edward (Nov 9, 2010)

Jack K said:


> Whether or not M. L. King and Rosa Parks were gospel-believing Christians, the non-violent side of the civil rights movement was based in many ways on Christian principles.



No, it was based on the Hindu principles of Gandhi.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 9, 2010)

CJ,
First, please define for me "resist," as you used it in your post. And "duty". And "defend". Can any of these things take multiple forms? Isn't it possible to "defend" the Faith by playing the part of an innocent victim?

Second, I am having a hard time (from the post) telling what you think is the difference between defending the US Constitution and defending the church. It sounds like it might be one-and-the-same to you.

Note, as well, that the private (naturalized) citizen agrees to defend the Constitution and laws of the land "if *lawfully* required," implying that his situation is never contemplated as being an authority-unto-himself. If you plan to oppose one power, it would be necessary for you to identify the "proper" power to which you would submit. And that power is certainly not in a dead letter on the page, but would needs be settled in an individual ruler or a body of rulers constituting the true and active delegated authority. Without that, the individual is the very definition of an "outlaw." No doubt, the competing authorities would "outlaw" the other side, but that's another issue.

Third, the responsibility of the POTUS to defend the Constitution and nation is greater than mine, and he has delegated authority (which I do not), and some pretty devastating weapons with which to back up his words. It should be obvious that we have different levels of responsibility, and thus the right to act at will. If it is "right to resist UNlawful authority," then it would be "right" for a bad-guy to shoot you as a home-invader, if you (Mr. Private Citizen) took it upon yourself to defend the nation by kicking in the door to his plotting chamber, with gun drawn, to arrest him. Why? Because you aren't the police, and that action doesn't fall within your sphere of authority.

Fourth, it sounds a bit like binding my conscience, to tell me that I must. resist. unlawful authority. On the basis of an (implicit, in my case, as a natural-born citizen) oath, which could turn out to be a sinful oath (thus vitiating it). Plus, I can find approved examples in Scripture that appear to be proper submission, and yet the authority in question appears to be unlawful in some sense. Perhaps I should resist some unlawful authority, however, not on my own (presumed) authority. Resistance per se is not something that the BIBLE requires of me. On the other hand, some form of submission (even when it is a _defecting_ submission, to another authority) is biblically required of me, per se.


----------



## Jack K (Nov 9, 2010)

Edward said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > Whether or not M. L. King and Rosa Parks were gospel-believing Christians, the non-violent side of the civil rights movement was based in many ways on Christian principles.
> ...


 
Partly from Gandhi. But also in part based on Christian principles and King's (and others') Christian backgrounds. Again, _Letter From a Birmingham Jail_ is one of the better places to see this.


----------



## seajayrice (Nov 10, 2010)

Contra_Mundum said:


> CJ,
> First, please define for me "resist," as you used it in your post. And "duty". And "defend". Can any of these things take multiple forms? Isn't it possible to "defend" the Faith by playing the part of an innocent victim?
> 
> Second, I am having a hard time (from the post) telling what you think is the difference between defending the US Constitution and defending the church. It sounds like it might be one-and-the-same to you.
> ...


 
Some excellent points Brother. The difference between God honoring resistance and rebellion is a matter of the heart as Jack has mentioned. 

Resist: to exert force in opposition 
transitive verb
1: to exert oneself so as to counteract or defeat 

Certainly resisting unlawful authority can take many forms, therein lays your liberty. Born citizens or naturalized, duty to uphold the law of the land is God ordained and the fulfillment of civic responsibility. The oaths above except the POTUS – they are for everyone appointed to uphold the Constitution. We should support them in the fulfillment of their lawful oaths. 

Not sure if you refer to the framework of our Republic as a “dead letter”, the Constitution is the source that grants the authority to those elected and or appointed to positions of leadership whose mandate is always to uphold that “dead letter”. US citizens should not confuse fealty with subjecting themselves to authority. We live in a republic, not a monarchy or empire (debatable).

Protecting our religious rights and defending the Constitution are one in the same in my thinking. If we permit the marginalization of the Constitution, what protection do you have for religious freedoms, the good will of our elected officials? Furthermore, do we not have a high calling to love thy neighbor and minister to the least of those in our midst?

Lastly, you laid out some mildly analogous argument. Let me illustrate my point in a like fashion. Was it sin to hide Jews in which lands? Where do you draw the line?
A)	Germany
B)	Poland
C)	France
D)	None of the above
E) All of the above

Queen Mary. 'But yet ye have taught the people to receive another religion than their Princes can allow. How can that doctrine be of God, seeing that God commandeth subjects to obey their Princes?'
John Knox . 'Madam, as right religion took neither original strength nor authority from worldly princes, but from the Eternal God alone, so are not subjects bound to frame their religion according to the appetites of their princes. Princes are oft the most ignorant of all others in God's true religion, as we may read in the Histories, as well before the death of Christ Jesus as after. If all the seed of Abraham should have been of the religion of Pharaoh, to whom they were long subjects, I pray you, Madam, what religion should there have been in the world? Or, if all men in the days of the Apostles should have been of the religion of the Roman Emperors, what religion should there have been upon the face of the earth? Daniel and his fellows were subjects to Nebuchadnezzar and unto Darius, and yet, Madam, they would not be of their religion; for the three children said: "We make it known unto thee, O King, that we will not worship thy Gods." Daniel did pray publicly unto his God against the expressed commandment of the King. And so, Madam, ye may perceive that subjects are not bound to the religion of their princes, although they are commanded to give them obedience.'
Queen Mary . 'Yea, but none of these men raised the sword against their princes.'
John Knox. 'Yet, Madam, ye can not deny that they resisted, for those who obey not the commandments that are given, in some sort resist.'
Queen Mary. 'But yet, they resisted not by the sword?'
John Knox . 'God, Madam, had not given them the power and the means.'
Queen Mary. 'Think ye that subjects, having the power, may resist their princes?'
John Knox. 'If their princes exceed their bounds, Madam, no doubt they may be resisted, even by power. For there is neither greater honor, nor greater obedience, to be given to kings or princes, than God hath commanded to be given unto father and mother. But the father may be stricken with a frenzy, in which he would slay his children. If the children arise, join themselves together, apprehend the father, take the sword from him, bind his hands, and keep him in prison till his frenzy be overpast 4 think ye, Madam, that the children do any wrong? It is even so, Madam, with princes that would murder the children of God that are subjects unto them. Their blind zeal is nothing but a very mad frenzy, and therefore, to take the sword from them, to bind their hands, and to east them into prison, till they be brought to a more sober mind, is no disobedience against princes, but just obedience, because it agreeth with the will of God.'


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 10, 2010)

As long as you allow that one may resist _*and*_ submit in degrees, that is, that submission may contain resistance, then I'll interpret your words in that light. I think we must allow that in some cases--perhaps the majority of them--that going as a lamb to slaughter is a form of resistance. And it might be the most effective form, because our goal isn't simply to simply defeat the foe and retain our liberty, but to see him converted, a result promised not to the sword of metal but the sword of the Spirit.

Knox's words seem judicious enough to me. We must remember that historical precedents differ from biblical precedents; the former are only as good as the complete parallel permits. A low-percentage correlation isn't very strong, and we should search for historic precedents with the strongest correlation. Personally, I think that our days are more analogous to the first-century Christians' days, than they are to the 16th-century Christian's days.

I don't know where in Scripture I can find spelled-out my duty to "uphold the law of the land." Is it my duty to "uphold" the law that ensures the right to abortion? If you only mean the Constitution as THE law of the land, does this mean that the Constitution is flawless, or nearly perfect, or mainly perfect? Was it sinful for Tories to oppose the War of Independence, or support the KoE? I think the present Constitution replaced a superior governing document in the Article of Confederation (call me an Anti-Federalist), and I consider the Constitutional Convention to have been extra-legal, and contrary to the principles used to justify both the War and the government created just a few years prior. The real "Revolution" (in the Enlightenment, rationalistic sense of the term) happened in 1787-89.

The Constitution IS, however, the law of the land right now and has been all my life, and by the same rubric, abortion has been legal for most of my life. My problem is, neither of these situations is ideal to me, nor do these realities strike me as morally defensible, and consequently I have a problem with the language that God ordains that I uphold them, or the one, that is, the US Constitution but only in its "original intent," etc. It seems to me that this stance begins with an axiom that the USC has the inherent right to moral approval (as long as it agrees with me). And I'm not sure how easy it is to define my "civic responsibility" to vote, etc, when thereby I may be legitimating usurped powers. This is the predicament we get into when we start putting a moral cast on any particular government that is not by divine right.

And now we pass on to the question of the "dead-letter." Because if I say, "I am being faithful to the Constitution, and the dead men who wrote it, and who once governed this country according to it," but I cannot find any _personal authority_ in this country who is presently upholding and defending that interpretation of it, I am not thereby authorized to set myself up as arbiter, or find a group of likeminded citizens who will set up a countervailing system of legislative, executive, and judicial authority upon the same territory. That's called "sedition," and it usually leads to suppression or war. So there is no such thing as an "impersonal authority," only "interpreting authority," which is necessarily personal.

And the fact is, while I have a kind of interpretive authority for that document, my interpretation is in competition with lots of peers, and with those who are in the official seats (provided for in the document itself) of interpretation. And their authority to interpret is formally superior to mine, even when they are "wrong." Sure, I'd like to think of myself as "swearing fealty" rather than being a "subject." But I know that if I deem the IRS unConstitutional, and refuse to pay my Federal Income Tax, I am most likely going to end up with fines and/or jail time. Because my interpretation is worthless for the sake of argument at that point.

Look, I once swore an oath to the Constitution--the actual oath, not implied--as a soldier. But one thing is for sure: nobody (sane) puts their life on the line for a piece of paper or nebulous ideals. We risk our lives for people--from the past, at home, or in the future, or by our sides, or above us giving us the orders. Our "religious rights" are only as safe as the PEOPLE who are in power; they are not "safe" because of the words on the page. So, once again, the question for me is: *Whose authority do I recognize?* I'm either an outlaw and a law to myself, or I'm under someone's law, someone's authority.

Finally, who was right to hide the Jews? Yes to all, because it was a duty to God under the 6th commandment, when it was in their power to try to protect them. But my illustration had to do with the _limits_ of personal authority. HE is limited, as a private citizen, but so am I. No court in the land will exonerate me for a "preemptive strike," but they should if I injured a man breaking into my house. But they should not exonerate me if I injured him as he was running away, shot him in the back to prevent him from getting away. At the end of my encounter, we pass out of the realm of my legal-authority to arrest him, using deadly force if necessary.


What's the point? Am I in favor of resistance, submission, the Constitution, freeholding, what?!? I'm in favor of a loose-hand in owning any authority but God's. I think the Bible describes earthly government as *beastly* in nature, and that's an important starting point. The same dog that whines, and begs me to scratch it's tummy when it's chained up, and is a fierce helpful defender of our territory, can turn into a ravening wolf. And that we are citizens of another country before our earthly land. We can appreciate much of what we have here, and work and hope for more; but in the end, we can let it go before we are dragged unwisely into quarrels that will not help us or our loved ones in pursuit and defense our higher allegiance.


----------



## TimV (Nov 10, 2010)

seajayrice said:


> Lastly, you laid out some mildly analogous argument. Let me illustrate my point in a like fashion. Was it sin to hide Jews in which lands? Where do you draw the line?
> A) Germany
> B) Poland
> C) France
> ...



A. Is that a trick question?




Sonny said:


> lets go to Nazi Germany; Adolf Hitler passed an unjust law to kill or jail those of the Jewish faith. Christian and non Christian soldiers went into battle to stop the injustice.



No German law was passed to kill Jews, and no one went to war to stop Jews from being sent to death camps (all of which were liberated by the USSR, and some of which were used by them to imprison Christians).


----------



## TheElk (Nov 10, 2010)

So, was Esther wrong when she interceded for her people? Was Jesus wrong to overturn the money changer tables in the temple? If it were illegal to preach or possess the Bible would you comply?


----------



## TheElk (Nov 10, 2010)

Joshua said:


> TheElk said:
> 
> 
> > So, was Esther wrong when she interceded for her people? Was Jesus wrong to overturn the money changer tables in the temple? If it were illegal to preach or possess the Bible would you comply?
> ...


 
I suppose mainly Rev. Buchanan, but am curious what others think.


----------



## seajayrice (Nov 10, 2010)

TheElk said:


> So, was Esther wrong when she interceded for her people? Was Jesus wrong to overturn the money changer tables in the temple? If it were illegal to preach or possess the Bible would you comply?


 
Rahab is a thornier topic in this context. Did Rahab's deception violate God's law?


----------



## seajayrice (Nov 10, 2010)

Contra_Mundum said:


> As long as you allow that one may resist _*and*_ submit in degrees, that is, that submission may contain resistance, then I'll interpret your words in that light. I think we must allow that in some cases--perhaps the majority of them--that going as a lamb to slaughter is a form of resistance. And it might be the most effective form, because our goal isn't simply to simply defeat the foe and retain our liberty, but to see him converted, a result promised not to the sword of metal but the sword of the Spirit.
> 
> Knox's words seem judicious enough to me. We must remember that historical precedents differ from biblical precedents; the former are only as good as the complete parallel permits. A low-percentage correlation isn't very strong, and we should search for historic precedents with the strongest correlation. Personally, I think that our days are more analogous to the first-century Christians' days, than they are to the 16th-century Christian's days.
> 
> ...


 
I only advocate for mans laws where they do not conflict with God's laws. Abortion of course is murder. So far as establishing and responding to legitimate authority, that is by consensus within the framework of the constitution. Democracy drives the consensus. Heavenly wisdom and God's revealed will are the order. Nowhere do the scriptures suggest a man be his own law. 

Mat 10:16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.


----------

