Going Beyond What Is Written & Doing All In The Name of the Lord in Context

Jay Guin writes,

"We should consider the 'proof' text relied on to assert that authority is essential. The foremost proof text is 1 Cor. 4:6:"

Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

Guin continues,

"What was Paul talking about? First Corinthians is likely the first of the New Testament books to have been written, so he obviously couldn’t have been referring to the New Testament as “what is written.” He wasn’t saying only do in worship those things exemplified in the New Testament, as there was no New Testament. In fact, we also often argue that special gifts of the Holy Spirit were granted in those days because the New Testament had not yet been completed, and so special guidance was required."

"Obviously, therefore, Paul is not referring to written instructions as to how to conduct the assembly. In fact, he’s not saying that the writings the Corinthians had are comprehensive and sufficient. They weren’t at that time. Rather, “what is written” is plainly a reference to the Old Testament, as most commentaries conclude. More precisely, it’s a reference to the Old Testament passages Paul had just quoted:"

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness” and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.” So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future--all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God (1 Cor. 3:19-23).

"His point is to condemn the Corinthians’ letting themselves be judged by humans rather than by God and so being prideful over the others. Do not think you are better than others, for just as soon as you think that, God will judge you. Do not go beyond—do not think more highly of yourselves than what God has said. Don’t think you’re smarter than God! Don’t supplement God’s work to fill in the gaps. Don’t make yourself the judge of your fellow Christians. Don’t consider yourself superior because of your intellectual accomplishments!"

An Excerpt from Straight & Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate by Thomas Schmidt

Thomas Schmidt writes,

"An acquaintance at the office, or a neighbor, approaches you and says, "You're a religious person--tell me, what do you think of all this homosexuality stuff?"

"You reply, "Well, I think the Bible is pretty clear that such activity is inappropriate." You think you have made a simple statement expressing your belief in the authority of Scripture. But what the other person hears may be altogether different."

"To many people today, it is as though you had said, "Well, I think that the Bible makes it pretty clear that light-skinned people are superior to dark-skinned people." Why? Because for increasing numbers of people, sexuality is no longer a moral issue but a civil rights issue."

"How did the shift occur from morality to rights, and why has it proven persuasive? In the broadest terms, we might consider developments in Western and especially American culture. Begin with the affirmation that all people are created equal, and continue with the principle that the state should not rule in matters of personal conscience. Implication: the state should protect privacy."

"But then--and here's the rub--gradually remove the notion of a universal standard by which to evaluate behavior (the Judeo-Christian tradition), and people are left to evaluate their own behavior, which is all equally moral because it is all equally legal. The flip side of this is that it becomes immoral--and it could actually become illegal--to express intolerance, and the definition of intolerance could extend to any challenge to a legally protected behavior or opinion."

"The confusion between what is legal and what is moral, and the emergence of tolerance as the supreme virtue, stands behind most of the important issues being debated today... Within this cultural climate of confusion, in the past few decades there has been considerable civil rights legislation for minorities and women... the key issue in the link with civil rights is the issue of choice. Is homosexuality something you are, like being black or elderly or handicapped or female, or is it something you do, like adultery or polygamy or incest? Those who practice these latter behaviors have certainly been discriminated against... but they are not linked to the civil rights movement."

ROMANS 13:1-7: Did God Write The Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution?

Reading the Scriptures

I will never forget the first time someone told me that God forbids taking up arms and rebelling against the government as the American Revolutionaries did. 

I responded, "What are we supposed to do, then?" They said, "Raise our children. Live the Christian life. Do good deeds, etc."

That may have been the first time it dawned on me that the church and America were different, and that I could no longer view the two as the same any longer.

If America was founded by the willingness to rebel against England and take up arms as an organized group in defense of their rebellion, and God says to be subject to ruling authorities, then there's no way the American Colonists could have been obeying God in doing so. My realization about my country's origin affected my Christian identity, and I didn't know how to fill the void when it was detached from being American. 

In a bizarre way, it is not as upsetting now that America seems to be approaching, if not already at, the point where we can really question the veracity and legitimacy of the view of authority that most of us have been taught from the generations following World War II.

Stanley Hauerwas gives an insightful recommendation when interpreting Romans 13:1-7:

Never read Romans 13 without first reading Romans 12:14ff, because then you begin to see that “bless those who persecute you” applies also to Caesar... Then you’ll see how Americans have failed to read Paul well, because they want to read Paul as underwriting democratic presuppositions of government that assume, ‘somebody’s gotta kill somebody in the name of Jesus.’ Now, that’s what I don’t think Paul will let you do, if you read Romans 12 in relationship to Romans 13. That’s why we have so little good religious discourse in this country, because most American Christians don’t know how to read the Bible well. And they don’t know how to read the Bible well because they’re Americans before they’re Christians.

The part of Hauerwas' quote that stuck with me is, "that's why we have so little good religious discourse in this country" and also that "we don't know how to read the Bible well," because we are "Americans before we are Christians." Wow. This seems so true to me based on the authoritarian society that America has progressively become since World War II.

The Myth of Limited Government

This is Discretionary Spending not the Total Budget

The United States of today is a vastly different country from what it was before World War II. 

For example, virtually no income tax existed back then, but 75 years later, approximately 35% of the $3.9 trillion US budget is spent annually on the military industrial complex. 

The rise of Central Banks at the beginning of the 20th century, the resulting method of perpetual indebtedness, and the growth of the US Government in connection with Big Corporations is now viewed as necessary with little faith in viable alternatives. 

It seems that the American form of government has evolved to leave people with the meaningless power to vote for only two choices--a Warfare State or a Welfare State. It seems that the role of representative government is to spend as much money as they can borrow while keeping their subjects busy, one side blaming the other as the source of all problems, based on the myth that if "my side ran the government all would be better." 

No it wouldn't. 

There is only one side in American Government made up of two parties whose only concern is how to spend the money they receive through taxation.