The Myth of Redemptive Violence

[Bootstrap]

Ah, but I did respond to that. I'm sorry you didn't read it. I'll respond a bit more fully

I may be missing something, but I don’t see a response to the main point I raised.

My central claim was about Romans 13: it is directed to Christians, and it tells us to pay taxes as something we owe, because governing authorities function as God’s servant. There's a modern theology that equates taxes with violence and says anything the government does is actually a form of violence because it is paid for with taxes. This theology is nowhere to be found in the Bible.

I’m trying to understand how you read this passage. How do you interpret Romans 13 with respect to taxation and the role of government? It’s hard for me to see your previous replies as addressing my argument without engaging that directly.

Could you please respond to this central claim? How do you understand Romans 13 and what it says to Christians about taxation and government? It's hard for me to interpret anything that does not address this question as a response to my post.

You also wrote this:

And the Bible pretty much never condemns them for invading other countries, conquering them, and demanding tribute in order to get the needed money.

The Old Testament does describe conquest and tribute as part of ancient political reality, but it frequently criticizes the violence, arrogance, and exploitation that come with empire. And it judges both foreign nations and Israel when they act that way. I think you know the Bible well enough to know that.

I'm also interested in how you’re connecting that claim to your reading of Romans 13.

[Bootstrap]

What Christians are supposed to do is in the last part of Romans 12: not repay anyone evil for evil; do not take revenge, let God repay (through his agents the government, at times); if your enemy is hungry, feed him... If these principles are applied consistently, one will tend to arrive at the conclusion that we should avoid government office and military service, although the text of Scripture sort of lets us arrive at that conclusion for ourselves rather than spelling it out.

I agree with this, broadly, but:

1. I imagine there are some government offices that Christians could hold with clear conscience, e.g. delivering mail. And I am hesitant to judge other Christians who serve in positions I could not.
2. I think it's important to emphasize that Romans 13 is also about what Christians should do. Paul did not write that to the government, and it is very much about the attitude we should take toward the government, taxes, etc. as Christians.

[JohnH]

1. I imagine there are some government offices that Christians could hold with clear conscience, e.g. delivering mail. And I am hesitant to judge other Christians who serve in positions I could not.

A letter-carrier isn't really a government officer, though. They're just a government employee. I don't see something wrong with being a clerk at a BMV, a secretary for a mayor's office, and so on - you are not engaging in the use of force.

2. I think it's important to emphasize that Romans 13 is also about what Christians should do. Paul did not write that to the government, and it is very much about the attitude we should take toward the government, taxes, etc. as Christians.

Agreed, although Romans doesn't say anything about taxation. I think there should be more exploration from sincere believers about Jimfoxvog's position on taxes, considering how much taxation (and how much, in general, economic participation) funds war efforts.

[ken_sylvania]

Ah, but I did respond to that. I'm sorry you didn't read it. I'll respond a bit more fully

I may be missing something, but I don’t see a response to the main point I raised.

My central claim was about Romans 13: it is directed to Christians, and it tells us to pay taxes as something we owe, because governing authorities function as God’s servant. There's a modern theology that equates taxes with violence and says anything the government does is actually a form of violence because it is paid for with taxes. This theology is nowhere to be found in the Bible.

I have literally never heard that theology before and I agree it is not found in the Bible. I don't think that paying for something with tax money turns it into a form of violence.

I’m trying to understand how you read this passage. How do you interpret Romans 13 with respect to taxation and the role of government? It’s hard for me to see your previous replies as addressing my argument without engaging that directly.

Could you please respond to this central claim? How do you understand Romans 13 and what it says to Christians about taxation and government? It's hard for me to interpret anything that does not address this question as a response to my post.

Romans 13 is descriptive about government, not prescriptive, but it is prescriptive about how a Christian should interact with government. And yes, Christians should pay their taxes. But that isn't a statement about whether it's right or wrong to levy taxes on someone else.
If we're going to say that Romans 13 tells us to pay our taxes because they are used for a good purpose, then does it follow that we should refuse to pay taxes that will be used for anything other than "good" law enforcement?

You also wrote this:

And the Bible pretty much never condemns them for invading other countries, conquering them, and demanding tribute in order to get the needed money.

The Old Testament does describe conquest and tribute as part of ancient political reality, but it frequently criticizes the violence, arrogance, and exploitation that come with empire. And it judges both foreign nations and Israel when they act that way. I think you know the Bible well enough to know that.

I'm also interested in how you’re connecting that claim to your reading of Romans 13.

I'm not sure what you're asking here. I don't read Romans 13 on its own, but rather as a part of the whole of Scripture.

[Bootstrap]

My central claim was about Romans 13: it is directed to Christians, and it tells us to pay taxes as something we owe, because governing authorities function as God’s servant. There's a modern theology that equates taxes with violence and says anything the government does is actually a form of violence because it is paid for with taxes. This theology is nowhere to be found in the Bible.

I have literally never heard that theology before and I agree it is not found in the Bible. I don't think that paying for something with tax money turns it into a form of violence.

OK, so we agree on that.

I do think I have seen people reason along these lines here on MN. Even in this thread. But I could be mistaken.

Romans 13 is descriptive about government, not prescriptive, but it is prescriptive about how a Christian should interact with government. And yes, Christians should pay their taxes. But that isn't a statement about whether it's right or wrong to levy taxes on someone else.
If we're going to say that Romans 13 tells us to pay our taxes because they are used for a good purpose, then does it follow that we should refuse to pay taxes that will be used for anything other than "good" law enforcement?

Has anyone suggested such a thing?

You also wrote this:

And the Bible pretty much never condemns them for invading other countries, conquering them, and demanding tribute in order to get the needed money.

The Old Testament does describe conquest and tribute as part of ancient political reality, but it frequently criticizes the violence, arrogance, and exploitation that come with empire. And it judges both foreign nations and Israel when they act that way. I think you know the Bible well enough to know that.

I'm also interested in how you’re connecting that claim to your reading of Romans 13.

I'm not sure what you're asking here. I don't read Romans 13 on its own, but rather as a part of the whole of Scripture.

That's what I was trying to do when I mentioned the Old Testament pattern. I don't think I was using the Old Testament in any of the ways you proposed. What do you think the right way to do it is?

[JohnH]

I do think I have seen people reason along these lines here on MN. Even in this thread. But I could be mistaken.

If this is the case, you could quote that and respond to it, but vague allegations of "people" "here on MN" "Even in this thread" aren't particularly helpful. I don't know if you're mistaken or not.

[ken_sylvania]

My central claim was about Romans 13: it is directed to Christians, and it tells us to pay taxes as something we owe, because governing authorities function as God’s servant. There's a modern theology that equates taxes with violence and says anything the government does is actually a form of violence because it is paid for with taxes. This theology is nowhere to be found in the Bible.

I have literally never heard that theology before and I agree it is not found in the Bible. I don't think that paying for something with tax money turns it into a form of violence.

OK, so we agree on that.

I do think I have seen people reason along these lines here on MN. Even in this thread. But I could be mistaken.

How about you check, and if you find where someone has made that claim then by all means point it out.

Romans 13 is descriptive about government, not prescriptive, but it is prescriptive about how a Christian should interact with government. And yes, Christians should pay their taxes. But that isn't a statement about whether it's right or wrong to levy taxes on someone else.
If we're going to say that Romans 13 tells us to pay our taxes because they are used for a good purpose, then does it follow that we should refuse to pay taxes that will be used for anything other than "good" law enforcement?

Has anyone suggested such a thing?

Has anyone suggested what? That Romans 13 tells us to pay our taxes because they are used for a good purpose?

Well, somebody posted earlier in this thread that Romans 13 tells us to pay our taxes because governing authorities function as God's servant.

My central claim was about Romans 13: it is directed to Christians, and it tells us to pay taxes as something we owe, because governing authorities function as God’s servant.

The Old Testament does describe conquest and tribute as part of ancient political reality, but it frequently criticizes the violence, arrogance, and exploitation that come with empire. And it judges both foreign nations and Israel when they act that way. I think you know the Bible well enough to know that.

I'm also interested in how you’re connecting that claim to your reading of Romans 13.

I'm not sure what you're asking here. I don't read Romans 13 on its own, but rather as a part of the whole of Scripture.

That's what I was trying to do when I mentioned the Old Testament pattern. I don't think I was using the Old Testament in any of the ways you proposed. What do you think the right way to do it is?

I still don't know what you're trying to communicate here. Are you referring to when I said it seems to me that you don't think governments today have to follow all OT commands, just some of them? Or something different. Because you are saying that we can know gratuitous violence is prohibited because God criticized rulers for it in the OT, so you obviously think some OT commands have to be followed by governments today. And it would surprise me if you would advocate for today's government to stamp out idol worship even though God criticized OT governments for being tolerant of the worship of false gods.

[Bootstrap]

How about you check, and if you find where someone has made that claim then by all means point it out.

I did, pages ago. It got lost in all the noise. Original message here, from Mike:

https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.ph ... 94#p300794

JohnH posted in a way that I thought was in support of Mike's understanding:

https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.ph ... 13#p300813

I responded to say that I disagree with that analysis:

https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.ph ... 15#p300815

Ken replied to my response to say this:

What is your basis for concluding that the conclusions of the "it's all just violence" argument is absurd? Is that based on testing against God's word, or against human reasoning?

Perhaps each of you could clarify what you meant in the referenced posts?

Mike, JohnH, Ken?

P.S. Mike already clarified here:

https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.ph ... 49#p300849

And he identifies an important tension. Even when government acts as God's servant, it can do it in ways that we cannot participate in.

[Bootstrap]

The general intent of taxes is for the beneficial running of society. For sure, the tax system can be corrupt and unfair and tax revenues can be misused or even used for evil purposes. That's not our concern, however; we are simply told to pay our taxes to whom we owe them. I will also note that John the Baptist tells tax collectors not to collect more than they were authorized to do.

Well said.

And no matter how good or bad a particular government is, most governments are better than the alternative, living in a failed state where the warlords or the gangs are in control.

[Bootstrap]

I still don't know what you're trying to communicate here. Are you referring to when I said it seems to me that you don't think governments today have to follow all OT commands, just some of them? Or something different. Because you are saying that we can know gratuitous violence is prohibited because God criticized rulers for it in the OT, so you obviously think some OT commands have to be followed by governments today. And it would surprise me if you would advocate for today's government to stamp out idol worship even though God criticized OT governments for being tolerant of the worship of false gods.

"It seems to me that you ..." is often most of the energy in your responses to me. And much of the time, it does not seem to me that you understand how I think.

Why put words in my mouth? I am perfectly capable of expressing myself, and you could simply quote and respond to what I write. You usually get it wrong and try to put me on the defensive, and then I feel like you are cross examining me about something unrelated. Makes it extremely hard to actually discuss the Scripture that I just quoted or the post that I just wrote.

I think it's against forum rules, too.

If you want to free associate theology, please own it as your own thinking, not mine. If you want to understand how I interpret the Old Testament, that would take some time, and it would take a different kind of conversation.