Did Rosa Parks sin by refusing to go to the back of the bus?

[Paprika]

Matthew 17:24
[ The Temple Tax ] When they came to Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax went up to Peter and said, “Does your teacher not pay the tax?”

Was a synagogue the Temple? Or is this another metaphor?

[KingsGambit]

Does anyone know what MLK Jr. said about it? I am much too you to have personal experience with the matter, but I am given to understand Luther was a Reverend who supported civil disobedience? Was he ever confronted by detractors with Scripture? How did he support his position with Scripture? I assume that the easiest way (if perhaps not the most effective) to determine if it is a sin or not is to look at someone with both the motive and opportunity to comment on the subject at hand and then determine if his arguments are flawed or not. Equally you could look toward a segregationist preacher, but I assume that there are more records of MLK than others.

His most well known defense of his views was in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles...irmingham.html

It's a fascinating read, but he doesn't actually engage with Romans 13 in it.

At this point in time I am not 100% sure how to fully apply this chapter. I don't see how Sean's stance of basically ignoring it because he doesn't like it is any different from how people ignore the biblical prohibitions on homosexuality because they don't like them.

[seanD]

His most well known defense of his views was in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles...irmingham.html

It's a fascinating read, but he doesn't actually engage with Romans 13 in it.

At this point in time I am not 100% sure how to fully apply this chapter. I don't see how Sean's stance of basically ignoring it because he doesn't like it is any different from how people ignore the biblical prohibitions on homosexuality because they don't like them.

It's not so much that I'm ignoring it, it's that it doesn't make any sense. The commands against homosexuality at least make sense (though this could be similar to the issue of love thy enemy -- is it even plausible for people to actually follow, which is a different theological issue). If we apply what Paul said in Romans 13 to what happened to Christ, then Christ's crucifixion was well deserved for his evil acts. Then I hear people say it was just hyperbole, but that doesn't solve the problem either, because we have to ask the same question -- where and how we apply it in a practical sense exactly.

[Paprika]

Then I hear people say it was just hyperbole, but that doesn't solve the problem either, because we have to ask the same question -- where and how we apply it in a practical sense exactly.

What the text means and how to apply it are two distinct issues.

[seanD]

What the text means and how to apply it are two distinct issues.

If Paul was talking about church authority, this makes a whole lot more sense to me. Of course, we'd then all be in noncompliance of that command since none of us can possibly obey all authorities in the myriad number of different Christian sects. But at least it makes sense than if he was referring to secular authorities (at the time, there was only one church authority -- the apostolic church authority). But if he was talking about church authority, then Christians need to stop brow beating other Christians with it to get them to submit to secular authority.

[Paprika]

If Paul was talking about church authority, this makes a whole lot more sense to me. Of course, we'd then all be in noncompliance of that command since none of us can possibly obey all authorities in the myriad number of different Christian sects. But at least it makes sense than if he was referring to secular authorities (at the time, there was only one church authority -- the apostolic church authority). But if he was talking about church authority, then Christians need to stop brow beating other Christians with it to get them to submit to secular authority.

So you incline to the metaphoric interpretation like Soyeong, except that you think that "authorities" refer to the church authorities?

[Adrift]

N.T. Wright holds that Romans 13 needs to be understood in the light of the rest of the book in which he sees Paul "consciously parodying and subverting imperial ideology". He makes six points about chapter 13, but I'll only highlight the first here,

Source: http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Paul_Caesar_Romans.htm

First, the fact that Paul needs to stress the need for civil obedience itself tells fairly strongly, if paradoxically, in favour of my overall case. It implies that, without some such restraining counsel, some might have heard his teaching to imply that the church was to become a Christian version of the Jewish ‘fourth philosophy’, owing allegiance to no one except God and therefore under obligation to rebel violently against human rulers, and to refuse to pay taxes. The paragraph can therefore be seen, not as evidence that Paul would not have been saying anything subversive, but that he had been, and now needed to make clear what this did, and particularly what it did not, imply.

© Copyright Original Source

And Thomas R. Schreiner (Professor of New Testament interpretation and Professor of biblical theology) in his commentary on Romans, has this to say about the passage,

Source: Romans by Thomas R. Schreiner, Baker Academic, 1998

This text is misunderstood if it is taken out of context and used as an absolute word so that Christians uncritically comply with the state no matter what is being demanded. What we have here is a general exhortation that delineates what is usually the case: people should normally obey ruling authorities. The text is not intended as a full-blown treatise on the relationship of believers to the state. It is a general exhortation setting forth the typical obligations one has to civil authorities. Indeed, Paul envisions a situation in which the governing authority carries out its task by punishing evildoers and rewarding those who do what is good. I am not persuaded that one can account for this passage by appealing to Paul's good relationship with civil authorities or the more genial part of Nero's reign. Paul was keenly aware that the ruling authorities had put Jesus to death, and as a student of the OT and Jewish tradition he was well schooled in the evil that governments had inflicted on the people of God. It was simply not his intention to detail here the full relationship of believers to the government. Stein (1989: 334) says rightly, "Governments, even oppressive governments, by their very nature seek to prevent the evils of indiscriminate murder, riot, thievery, as well as general instability and chaos, and good acts do at times meet with its approval and praise." Paul would not disagree with the call to obey God rather than rulers when they attempted to squelch the preaching of the gospel (Acts 5:29; cf. Mart. Pol. 10.1-2, where rulers are respected but Polycarp will not render worship to the genius of Caesar). Nor would he dispute the claim that the state can function as an evil beast (Rev. 13), since John's teaching stems from Dan. 7 and Paul himself expects an evil ruler to arise (2 Thess. 2:1-12). The intention in Romans is to sketch in the normal and usual relationship between believers and ruling power (cf. Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13-17). Christians should submit to such authority and carry out its statutes, unless the state commands believers to do that which is contrary to the will of God.

Note: This is rightly discerned by most commentators, See Sandlay and Headlam 1902: 372; Kasemann 1980: 354, 357; J. McDonald 1987: 21-22; Fitzmyer 1993c: 665; Stuhlmacher 1994: 204-6. One cannot evade the text, however, by noting that Paul did not conceive of modern nation-states (contra Leenhardt 1961: 328; Kasemann 1980: 354; Fitzmyer 1993c: 662). Paul believed that all kingdoms were ordained by God (cf. Dan. 2 and 7), regardless of the form of rule. Thus the teaching of Rom. 13 applies to modern nation-states as well. It does not follow from this observation, however, that there are no exceptions to the general principal enunciated in these verses.

© Copyright Original Source

[Bill the Cat]

Hananiah (Shadrach), Mishael (Meshach) and Azariah (Abednego) refused to bow to the image of Nebuchadnezzar, despite that being the law. So, civil disobedience is not against God's design

[Cow Poke]

If Paul was talking about church authority, this makes a whole lot more sense to me. Of course, we'd then all be in noncompliance of that command since none of us can possibly obey all authorities in the myriad number of different Christian sects. But at least it makes sense than if he was referring to secular authorities (at the time, there was only one church authority -- the apostolic church authority). But if he was talking about church authority, then Christians need to stop brow beating other Christians with it to get them to submit to secular authority.

When Peter and John were commanded by the "Church authorities" to stop preaching in the name of Jesus, they made it clear that they would not comply with that order "from men" and, instead, obey God.

Here's another factor... peaceful disobedience CAN be submission to authority, because you realize you are violating the law (or policy or whatever), but will SUBMIT to the penalty that goes with that.

We see, in Exodus 1, we see the midwives disobey their Pharoah by not killing Jewish babies - and the Bible says that they "feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt had commanded, and let the boys live".
Later, we see that they lied to Pharaoh, so God was good to them and "established households" for them.

Rahab disobeyed a command from the king of Jericho, and was blessed, along with her household, for this willful disobedience. Obadiah, Jonathan, Daniel.... there are numerous cases where people disobeyed their governments or kings or rulers, and were blessed by God.

I think the totality of Paul's instruction needs to be considered, and he says "Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil.."

In the case of Rosa Parks, she was not doing "what is evil", and she WAS under subjection to her government, understanding that the penalty for her willful disobedience could result in prosecution.

When I was arrested in the early 80's for homeschooling [gasp] I fully understood that I could be arrested (and I was) and tried, and that it could cost me. (It did - I lost my job).

[Cow Poke]

Hananiah (Shadrach), Mishael (Meshach) and Azariah (Abednego) refused to bow to the image of Nebuchadnezzar, despite that being the law. So, civil disobedience is not against God's design

Yes, and they understood there could be harsh penalties, and were in submission to that system.

[Darth Executor]

N.T. Wright holds that Romans 13 needs to be understood in the light of the rest of the book in which he sees Paul "consciously parodying and subverting imperial ideology". He makes six points about chapter 13, but I'll only highlight the first here,

I don't have a problem with anything in your quotes (in fact they pretty much line up exactly with my own beliefs), but I don't see anything about "consciously parodying and subverting imperial ideology" in them.

[Darth Executor]

If Paul was talking about church authority, this makes a whole lot more sense to me. Of course, we'd then all be in noncompliance of that command since none of us can possibly obey all authorities in the myriad number of different Christian sects. But at least it makes sense than if he was referring to secular authorities (at the time, there was only one church authority -- the apostolic church authority). But if he was talking about church authority, then Christians need to stop brow beating other Christians with it to get them to submit to secular authority.

It wasn't talking about church or synagogue authority so we can lay this one to rest.

[Darth Executor]

Hananiah (Shadrach), Mishael (Meshach) and Azariah (Abednego) refused to bow to the image of Nebuchadnezzar, despite that being the law. So, civil disobedience is not against God's design

They were asked to bow to an idol. There's a pretty large gulf between bowing to idols and objecting to bus seating arrangements.

[Bill the Cat]

They were asked to bow to an idol. There's a pretty large gulf between bowing to idols and objecting to bus seating arrangements.

The point remains that civil disobedience is not necessarily sinful.

[seanD]

So you incline to the metaphoric interpretation like Soyeong, except that you think that "authorities" refer to the church authorities?

I tend to lean towards secular authority. I believe that the Romans letter was written well into the latter of Paul's career, possibly into the early 60s. He indicates that he wants to go to Spain just before he visits them. We know in Acts that he was also planning to visit the church at Rome before he was apprehended at Jerusalem. This would have been at a time talks of a Jewish revolt would have surely been swirling in the air. The church at Rome was likely torn about whether they should side with their Jewish brethren and take up arms against the imperial authority. Thus Paul was making a urgent plea for them to stand down, which is why he was using hyperbole. That's my theory, but I recognize there are at least a couple other explanations. All and all, I just don't think Christians should use that passage to force others to submit to the whims of secular government since the passage comes with many complications and uncertainties, yet I see this all the time.