# Unjust laws



## MW (Jul 14, 2015)

Dear friends,

Christians have been resisting and overcoming unjust laws for two millennia now. The fact that a few laws are made which are inimical to Christianity is no reason to give up fighting the good fight. There are still basic Christian values undergirding most of the laws of Western countries. Why should a few anomalies threaten the whole system? The law is there to be used to the advantage of the upright, so why not use it accordingly? You are a citizen of a free country; you are a Christian. Why not use your legal freedoms as a citizen for the good of your country? Hope for the best, even if you are prepared for the worst.

The political world can teach us a thing or two in this respect. When terrorism became an international threat, they saw that terrorism would win if people gave up their freedoms. We can think of unjust laws as an act of terrorism. The unjust win if the just give up their freedoms.

Consider the example of the Apostle Paul. As a citizen he asserted his legal freedoms and it gave him a tremendous opportunity to witness for Christ's crown, besides serving as a restraint on the unjust:



> And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?
> When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest: for this man is a Roman.
> Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea.
> And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born.
> ...


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 15, 2015)

Thank you, Matthew. I was thinking along these lines earlier today. We do have extraordinary freedom to witness, compared to most of history.


----------



## earl40 (Jul 15, 2015)

Preach it Rev. Winzer from the mountaintops and the pulpit, for the santification of The Saints!


----------



## Miss Marple (Jul 15, 2015)

I'd love some practical application examples.


----------



## MW (Jul 15, 2015)

Miss Marple said:


> I'd love some practical application examples.



Let's consider the recent legislation on homosexual marriage. If the system as a whole still favours the Christian view of marriage, why not press that for the purpose of maintaining one's civil freedom instead of giving in to the fear of litigation and prosecution?


----------



## Miss Marple (Jul 15, 2015)

So for example I'd register my wedding at city hall, order flowers, order cake, rent a hall, all the stuff I might normally do? That would be a way of maintaining my civil freedom?


----------



## MW (Jul 15, 2015)

Miss Marple said:


> all the stuff I might normally do?



Including an officiating Christian minister, if that is what you would normally do.


----------



## Miss Marple (Jul 15, 2015)

My only negative feeling about doing that is, I feel like I'd be going along with all the garbage that has gone on. Like maybe if they are going to redefine marriage, I won't participate in their wedding industry. I am not trying to be argumentative, just think it through.

What if Christians (in Christian freedom, not as some sort of law or something) only got married in their churches by their ministers, used donated flowers, cake, and food, avoided city hall registrars, had amateur photographers and bought regular or made their own dresses, etc., and the wedding industry could just enjoy running without us?


----------



## MW (Jul 15, 2015)

Miss Marple said:


> Like maybe if they are going to redefine marriage, I won't participate in their wedding industry.



There is no "they" if you are a citizen of the country. Why should you not use the law for the purpose it was intended, which is for the praise of those that do well?

Besides, those who are already married are married in the eyes of the same system of law.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 15, 2015)

MW said:


> We can think of unjust laws as an act of terrorism. The unjust win if the just give up their freedoms.


Rev. Winzer, 

Can the citizens of a country willingly give up their freedoms without sinning? Can we, for example, restrict our freedoms of speech, for the presumed "greater good"? Does obedience to the magistrate imply not practicing what the magistrate has declared as "a freedom" or would that be sin against those lawfully ordained of God to rule over us?


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jul 15, 2015)

MW said:


> Miss Marple said:
> 
> 
> > Like maybe if they are going to redefine marriage, I won't participate in their wedding industry.
> ...



Marriage is only defined in one system and that is based upon the creation order and specifically the Law of God. Any other "whatever you want to call it" is NOT marriage but an abomination.


----------



## MW (Jul 15, 2015)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Can the citizens of a country willingly give up their freedoms without sinning? Can we, for example, restrict our freedoms of speech, for the presumed "greater good"? Does obedience to the magistrate imply not practicing what the magistrate has declared as "a freedom" or would that be sin against those lawfully ordained of God to rule over us?



A "freedom," properly defined in a civil conversation, is never a freedom to do evil. It is always understood to be good. Even indifferent things are only free insofar as they are attached to good ends. There is no freedom to use indifferent things for evil ends.

Speaking itself is only a medium and therefore indifferent. If it is good to speak then we should speak. If it is good to keep silent then we should keep silent. If the citizen's voice is paramount to the quality of a democracy it is the duty of a citizen to speak out on civil matters when the time is right and opportunity is afforded.

The civil magistrate is to be obeyed in all lawful things but there is no regulative principle in civil authority. If it is good the superior has an authority to require it in the sphere over which he rules. If it is not good he has no authority. Where the superior makes an unjust law the citizen is free to disregard it and to dissent from it.


----------



## MW (Jul 15, 2015)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Marriage is only defined in one system and that is based upon the creation order and specifically the Law of God. Any other "whatever you want to call it" is NOT marriage but an abomination.



The law of God defines marriage in social terms (leaving father and mother), and therefore requires human authority and law for it to be valid. No human has the authority to make void what God has made valid or to make valid what God has made void. If it is not marriage as God has defined it, no human authority can legislate to make it valid. But this does not negate the proper authority of human government.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jul 15, 2015)

MW said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage is only defined in one system and that is based upon the creation order and specifically the Law of God. Any other "whatever you want to call it" is NOT marriage but an abomination.
> ...


 Correct.



> But this does not negate the proper authority of human government.



Authority by whos standard? Man's standard? or God's?


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 15, 2015)

Miss Marple said:


> My only negative feeling about doing that is, I feel like I'd be going along with all the garbage that has gone on. Like maybe if they are going to redefine marriage, I won't participate in their wedding industry. I am not trying to be argumentative, just think it through.
> 
> What if Christians (in Christian freedom, not as some sort of law or something) only got married in their churches by their ministers, used donated flowers, cake, and food, avoided city hall registrars, had amateur photographers and bought regular or made their own dresses, etc., and the wedding industry could just enjoy running without us?



A couple things I see here. These can be difficult waters to negotiate, especially because our emotions are genuinely upended as a natural result of the perturbation of order.

1. We must be very careful to avoid becoming reactionaries. By reactionary, I mean those who define themselves as opposite of what they oppose.

It's a common thing to fall into, but it is deadly. Because the reference for being is dependent upon something completely out of one’s control. And it is ever shifting.

Hegel was on to something when he observed the proposition, the reaction against the proposition, and the new synthesis between the two opponents. That's exactly how politics works. Dabney made the observation 150 years ago that conservatives were simply behind the liberals by a generation. Now that gap is measured in less than a decade. The reason for this is that the conservatives always identified themselves by what they opposed. That's a moving target leading to double-mindedness.

So, broadly speaking, to the extent that we are reactionaries, I think we are at risk of losing the polar star that is our guide: God's revealed will and the revelation of God in Christ.

2. In contrast, we who trust Christ and know his being and works through God’s Word have access to true liberty. We have an ever-steady reference point (more accurately, an anchor point) that never changes and is always true. We have the promise that we will not be forsaken, and that we can be bold and fear no man because he lives.

With that true liberty, we have access to the courage that Paul had to fearlessly do what he was called to do. Certainly he felt pain and difficulty, but it did not interfere with his freedom. He used whatever legal and customary advantage he had to walk into tumultuous situations and do his task. He was specifically called by God to deliver the Gospel and he did so, saying toward the end of his life that he had run the race—done what he was called to do.

So each of us have been called to do something. Even if some of us are not called to be preachers, all of us are called to be disciples of Christ. Rom 12:18 still applies (“Live peaceably with all men” as much as possible). I take Matthew Winzer’s point to mean something along these lines—that we go about our daily lives as normal and full citizens of where we have been placed. True enough, we are not spiritual citizens of this world, we seek another country. But we are legal citizens of the place we live in, and we have rights recognized by the system.

Among those rights are free association, free expression, freedom of religion, etc. Should we be mocked or persecuted for exercising those freedoms, we should not shy away from fully demanding redress for such wrongs from the system. We do it meekly and in fear of the Lord. In so doing, we can keep mind of the focus: to always be ready to give an answer to those who question your hope. (1 Peter 3:15).

And there lies, I think, an important point: Nobody is going to ask about your hope unless you actually demonstrate that you are _hopeful_. 

That's what came to my mind when I read Matthew's original post.


----------



## MW (Jul 16, 2015)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Authority by whos standard? Man's standard? or God's?



Human authority is ordained by God. We are born into a family with father and mother over us, and citizenship involves personal consent to be governed by the powers that be.


----------



## earl40 (Jul 16, 2015)

Miss Marple said:


> I'd love some practical application examples.



The Oregon bakers have lost the right to refuse to bake a cake at a SSM, and are willing to suffer for the duty that they expressed. Currently our Paators have more freedom to not do something, performing SSM, than the layman in the pew has in their calling in this case.


----------



## Miss Marple (Jul 16, 2015)

"Nobody is going to ask about your hope unless you actually demonstrate that you are hopeful." A very valuable observation, thank you.


----------

