Honor the king

[Grace]

The President of America has repeatedly spoken in favour of killing innocent babies through abortion. I am unclear on how one is supposed to "respect" that action. It is a wicked, evil act, and one that I share a personal concern for every person who affirms and promotes it. I can treat the office with respect, but I can't respect people in authority who promote wickedness.

I would levy the same criticism at a plain Anabaptist minister who looks the other way or even condones people under his authority he knows are engaging in grievous wickedness and sin. It is no different.

We can get bogged down with the actions a president does, no one here suggesting respect for the president means endorsing his actions. You know that isn’t what I am advocating for and this also is what I was pointing out Josh.

You are trying to muddle the primary point with political rhetoric. You certainly should know I don’t endorse his actions or support abortion.

This is getting really confusing. If you don't endorse the President's actions, why when one speaks out against those actions, are they accused of "discrediting" him? ( In a post on the first page of this thread).

[Soloist]

This is getting really confusing. If you don't endorse the President's actions, why when one speaks out against those actions, are they accused of "discrediting" him? ( In a post on the first page of this thread).

Grace, I see repeated statements calling our president incompetent, demented, referring to him as a pedophile and so on. None of this is respectful.
It’s one thing to say you disagree with his policies and explain why. It’s another thing to call him a pedophile and use demeaning language to discredit him.

I think you are missing my point Grace. This is not a bash trump supporters post.
Both sides are doing this. You argued against it so I referenced some of the language you used to discredit him. If you said “Biden supports abortion and I think that is wrong”
Versus “Biden is a evil man, he’s a pedophile wants to kill babies in cold blood”
Do you see the difference between those? You still are speaking against evil in the first without demeaning him to discredit him. You seem content to use harsh language and justify it.
Now I don’t want this to be another political thread. Can we ignore Biden (or trump) and speak in general terms of respect for leaders?

[Ken]

The President of America has repeatedly spoken in favour of killing innocent babies through abortion. I am unclear on how one is supposed to "respect" that action. It is a wicked, evil act, and one that I share a personal concern for every person who affirms and promotes it. I can treat the office with respect, but I can't respect people in authority who promote wickedness.

I would levy the same criticism at a plain Anabaptist minister who looks the other way or even condones people under his authority he knows are engaging in grievous wickedness and sin. It is no different.

We can get bogged down with the actions a president does, no one here suggesting respect for the president means endorsing his actions. You know that isn’t what I am advocating for and this also is what I was pointing out Josh.

You are trying to muddle the primary point with political rhetoric. You certainly should know I don’t endorse his actions or support abortion.

This is getting really confusing. If you don't endorse the President's actions, why when one speaks out against those actions, are they accused of "discrediting" him? ( In a post on the first page of this thread).

We live in a democracy and our actual "sovereign" is not the President but "we the people" and the Constitution that our forefathers established such that we can govern ourselves.

You do not have to agree with President Biden or former President Trump or any other president. But you should respect the process through which your fellow citizens decided to elect them to the office that they temporarily hold. And to the extent that you disagree with any political leader you should honor the process we have created to replace them and the process we have created to govern ourselves. As opposed to taking up arms against it or trying to tear it down.

If your most important issue is abortion, then yes, seek to persuade people and seek to elect leaders who represent your views. But understand that in a democracy, you are unlikely to see every policy enacted exactly as you think it should be. Especially when it comes to issues for which there is widespread public disagreement. Our Constitution with all its many checks and balances makes it DELIBERATELY difficult to implement policies that get out too far ahead of public opinion. That is exactly what our founders intended. And it is their wisdom that you should honor, not any specific leader that you might agree with or disagree with.

This means it is difficult for one side to erase abortion from our national landscape and it is equally difficult for another side to erase firearms or carbon emissions. In a democracy, change is always incremental. That is exactly how our founders intended it. And that is how we avoid tyranny.

[RZehr]

I tend to ask myself what is the purpose and intent behind this teaching. What REASON would he have to be saying this.

So in another it verse says to obey the governor. Sometimes I think that the, or one reason we are instructed to obey those in authority might be as simple as basic pragmatic, practical, wise, advice. He maybe simply saying “Hey, obey these authorities because they are powerful and it will not work out well for you if you do not.” He may not actually be trying to teach some deep spiritual lesson at all.

[ohio jones]

What is evil speaking of leaders of our country? Is speaking facts about the sins leaders are promoting, wrong? Is it wrong to point out the evilness that might be seen in a president or any other leader? And as Christians, shouldn't we always speak out against sin, no matter who is promoting it, from the president to our next door neighbor? And I certainly hope that all Christians speak to God in their prayers for the president, our nation and for our brotherhood.

Grace, I see repeated statements calling our president incompetent, demented, referring to him as a pedophile and so on. None of this is respectful.
It’s one thing to say you disagree with his policies and explain why. It’s another thing to call him a pedophile and use demeaning language to discredit him.

Let me remind you that Jesus used demeaning, disrespectful language when he pointed out the sins of the religious leaders of His day and strongly discredited them. I realize the president is not a religious leader, but do think these verses can be applied

Matthew 23
33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

27 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean.

Yes I have called out the sin of being a borderline pedophile based on the verse, "By their fruits you shall know them". The policies the president and other leaders promote reveal the person/people they are, pushing the sexualization of children (that is what pedophiles do), promoting the killing of unborn babies, denigrating women in sports, etc. If we don't discredit the people and the sins they push and promote upon others, then we are giving those sins credit and credence.

Should we just "whitewash" the sins we see in the president and other leaders?

I would make a distinction between what we say to them and what we say about them. If you have opportunity to meet the president or another political leader and use that opportunity to tell him bluntly of his sins and call him to repentance, sure. If you are called to write him a letter or email in a prophetic tone, do it.

But "calling out sin" and "discrediting" people by repeatedly cataloging their problems here is not the same thing. John did not post on BaptistNet about Herod's infidelity; Jesus did not complain about the Pharisees to the Sadducees. They took their accusations to the source. Claiming to follow their example without, well, actually following their example looks to me like a pretty weak argument.

[Ken]

I tend to ask myself what is the purpose and intent behind this teaching. What REASON would he have to be saying this.

So in another it verse says to obey the governor. Sometimes I think that the, or one reason we are instructed to obey those in authority might be as simple as basic pragmatic, practical, wise, advice. He maybe simply saying “Hey, obey these authorities because they are powerful and it will not work out well for you if you do not.” He may not actually be trying to teach some deep spiritual lesson at all.

Well yes. I think it is part pragmatic but also about priorities. If you are living in 1st Century Judea then engaging in violent uprising against the Empire is only going to lead to death and destruction as every Jewish rebellion found out. That doesn't mean don't engage with the government at all, but respect it. So petition your leaders, use the courts, etc. in a peaceful and respectful manner. But also understand that as Christians you have a higher priority than partisan politics.

In a more modern context the actual sovereign is us..."we the people." So don't take up arms against your fellow citizens to defend slavery as the Confederates did in the 1860s. Or in a present day context, don't assault the police and burn buildings if you are engaged in BLM protests, and don't storm the capitol and try to undermine the peaceful transition of power as people tried to do on 1/6. Respect the process even if the outcome is not what you want. Peaceful protest is actually part of that process guaranteed in the 1st Amendment. Violent protest is not.

[Sudsy]

Pe 2:17  Honour all men. Love the brotherhood(church). Fear God. Honour the king(president)

Is your conduit honoring our president? The brothers/sisters you attend church with?

Consider this a rebuke to evil speaking of leaders of our country. The way you speak of one another slandering and distorting.
If you wouldn’t say it before God or in front of the president, or to someone face to face perhaps you should repent.
Why is our forum looking so similar to Reddit without the language? Or like a news comment section?

This is why people leave, not because of liberals taking over or of backwards conservative thoughts.
If you consider yourself free of this, what exactly does it mean to you to honor all men, honor the king, love the brotherhood?

Going back to Soloist's original post. The NIV translation says "honor the emperor" The KJV says "honor thy king"

I tend to ask myself what is the purpose and intent behind this teaching. What REASON would he have to be saying this. And in the context the Roman Empire in the 1st Century I don't think he is making the argument that the Emperor is necessarily ordained by God and instrument of God's plan on earth. 1 Peter is usually dated to about the time of the emperor Domitian who engaged in various reigns of terror against political enemies as well as Christians. He was a horribly violent and repressive ruler.

I think he is making a different argument. Namely, that Christians should not take up arms against the state and engage in the political rebellions that were taking place across the middle east. The Jewish wars against the Roman Empire were raging at this point in time and so the region was a political caldron. I think he is making more of a 2-Kingdom argument. That one should respect the state and put one's focus on spreading the word of God, not engaging in political rebellion. Perhaps more of a "turn the other cheek" argument when interacting with the state.

Translated and interpreted for the modern day. I think it is more of an argument for respecting the institution of the American State as reflected in the Constitution. All Americans who work for the government take an oath (or affirmation) to support the Constitution, not any specific leader who is elected or chosen under the Constitution. Under the constitution, our "king" is literally us and we hire people to temporarily act on our behalf. The presidency does not "belong" to Trump or Biden. It belongs to us. Honor the institution even if you don't agree with the person who temporarily occupies the office.

So for me the instruction in 1 Peter is to respect the Constitutional process and the outcomes that it produces in terms of presidents, Senators, judges, government policies, etc. And do not spend your time railing or revolting against it. You have more important things to do. And note, I don't think that means complete disengagement from politics. There is no instruction in this verse to not engage in politics. The instruction is to honor the Constitution and process. So I don't interpret this particular verse as as argument not to vote or work for political change. But to honor the process if you do so.

I have a similar view except for your note on disengagement from politics. My understanding of where I should spend my thoughts and efforts is to point people to what has eternal significance. I either am more concerned about the eternal life of others and channel my life accordingly or I get bogged down in things of temporary concern. As scripture says 'what shall it profit a man to gain the whole world yet lose his soul' ?

I think one of the biggest tricks of Satan is getting me to focus on things that will vanish away. I don't need a specific verse that says to disengage from politics as there are many verses regarding what has eternal value, that if I were to be more engaged, I would have little time to concern myself on temporal, earthly matters.

When scriptures say that I am an alien here; a stranger in a foreign land; an ambassador of a country not of this world; a pilgrim passing through; this world is not my home; etc, then my attachments to what is going on outside of Kingdom people should be at a minimum because I am not called to try to make other Kingdoms more like God's Kingdom but rather to persuade others to become citizens of God's Kingdom and live their lives according to that Kingdom.

Discussing politics here obviously produces strife and other works of the flesh. It also has a very temporary view regarding what matters most. Current Events is also an area of big temporal concerns that often seems to lack an eternal perspective.

Well, these are some of my understandings of how I read the NT even though I struggle to live accordingly due to other diversions.

[RZehr]

In a more modern context the actual sovereign is us..."we the people."

I am inclined to agree with you here. In a sense, for the unregenerate man, he does always view himself as sovereign. It’s just that America actually went to bother of codifying the matter. Whereas in history it couldn’t be codified, because that would offend the kings sensibilities.
As a Christian, we have forfeited our personal sovereignty in order to wear His yoke. As such, I inclined to disagree with you when it comes to myself. I honor my Sovereign, and because he tells me to honor all men, I do that as well.

[Ken]

Pe 2:17  Honour all men. Love the brotherhood(church). Fear God. Honour the king(president)

Is your conduit honoring our president? The brothers/sisters you attend church with?

Consider this a rebuke to evil speaking of leaders of our country. The way you speak of one another slandering and distorting.
If you wouldn’t say it before God or in front of the president, or to someone face to face perhaps you should repent.
Why is our forum looking so similar to Reddit without the language? Or like a news comment section?

This is why people leave, not because of liberals taking over or of backwards conservative thoughts.
If you consider yourself free of this, what exactly does it mean to you to honor all men, honor the king, love the brotherhood?

Going back to Soloist's original post. The NIV translation says "honor the emperor" The KJV says "honor thy king"

I tend to ask myself what is the purpose and intent behind this teaching. What REASON would he have to be saying this. And in the context the Roman Empire in the 1st Century I don't think he is making the argument that the Emperor is necessarily ordained by God and instrument of God's plan on earth. 1 Peter is usually dated to about the time of the emperor Domitian who engaged in various reigns of terror against political enemies as well as Christians. He was a horribly violent and repressive ruler.

I think he is making a different argument. Namely, that Christians should not take up arms against the state and engage in the political rebellions that were taking place across the middle east. The Jewish wars against the Roman Empire were raging at this point in time and so the region was a political caldron. I think he is making more of a 2-Kingdom argument. That one should respect the state and put one's focus on spreading the word of God, not engaging in political rebellion. Perhaps more of a "turn the other cheek" argument when interacting with the state.

Translated and interpreted for the modern day. I think it is more of an argument for respecting the institution of the American State as reflected in the Constitution. All Americans who work for the government take an oath (or affirmation) to support the Constitution, not any specific leader who is elected or chosen under the Constitution. Under the constitution, our "king" is literally us and we hire people to temporarily act on our behalf. The presidency does not "belong" to Trump or Biden. It belongs to us. Honor the institution even if you don't agree with the person who temporarily occupies the office.

So for me the instruction in 1 Peter is to respect the Constitutional process and the outcomes that it produces in terms of presidents, Senators, judges, government policies, etc. And do not spend your time railing or revolting against it. You have more important things to do. And note, I don't think that means complete disengagement from politics. There is no instruction in this verse to not engage in politics. The instruction is to honor the Constitution and process. So I don't interpret this particular verse as as argument not to vote or work for political change. But to honor the process if you do so.

I have a similar view except for your note on disengagement from politics. My understanding of where I should spend my thoughts and efforts is to point people to what has eternal significance. I either am more concerned about the eternal life of others and channel my life accordingly or I get bogged down in things of temporary concern. As scripture says 'what shall it profit a man to gain the whole world yet lose his soul' ?

I think one of the biggest tricks of Satan is getting me to focus on things that will vanish away. I don't need a specific verse that says to disengage from politics as there are many verses regarding what has eternal value, that if I were to be more engaged, I would have little time to concern myself on temporal, earthly matters.

When scriptures say that I am an alien here; a stranger in a foreign land; an ambassador of a country not of this world; a pilgrim passing through; this world is not my home; etc, then my attachments to what is going on outside of Kingdom people should be at a minimum because I am not called to try to make other Kingdoms more like God's Kingdom but rather to persuade others to become citizens of God's Kingdom and live their lives according to that Kingdom.

Discussing politics here obviously produces strife and other works of the flesh. It also has a very temporary view regarding what matters most. Current Events is also an area of big temporal concerns that often seems to lack an eternal perspective.

Well, these are some of my understandings of how I read the NT even though I struggle to live accordingly due to other diversions.

I was speaking specifically about 1 Peter. I don't think that passage contains any mandate to disassociate ones self from any connection to the government or state. I think it is simply saying, respect your government and don't spend your time trying to violently tear it down.

If you want to build a 2-kingdom theology in which you completely disengage from the world and politics completely like the Amish then that is a different theological argument that is going to rely on different passages of scripture.

Honestly every subject involving more than one person can cause strife and disagreement. Whether it is national politics, how to manage the affairs of a church, or how to manage the family budget. I don't think the answer is to avoid all points of conflict. They will always be there. The point is to respect those with whom we disagree and seek to find points of agreement and compromise.

[Ken]

In a more modern context the actual sovereign is us..."we the people."

I am inclined to agree with you here. In a sense, for the unregenerate man, he does always view himself as sovereign. It’s just that America actually went to bother of codifying the matter. Whereas in history it couldn’t be codified, because that would offend the kings sensibilities.
As a Christian, we have forfeited our personal sovereignty in order to wear His yoke. As such, I inclined to disagree with you when it comes to myself. I honor my Sovereign, and because he tells me to honor all men, I do that as well.

Well, in 1 Peter I don't think he was talking about God when commanded us to honor the King or Emperor. I think he was talking about the actual earthly authorities.