I've been thinking a bit about the relationship that Christians have to the law of the land. And I hope that these questions will help us define it better.
Would you turn yourself in for murder? If so, why?
Would you turn yourself in for speeding? If not, why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Answer:
Question 1: Yes, I would turn myself in. Because I would only murder someone in self defense and or if it was an accident. If it was a fit of rage I would deserve the punishment.
Question 2: I would if law enforcement cared enough to enforce it like they do murder. One is a felony the other a misdemeanor, and since the cop on the way to the office could care less about me doing 69 in a 65, why should I care?
The good thing about the law of the land is that it is subjective.
Great questions though.
I ask this question because I think it causes a bit of a dilemma in the Christian conscience. Most Christians would probably turn themselves in for murder. However, almost no Christian does the same for speeding. Why? As Christians we should be consistent in our view of the law of the land. I say this to point out what I believe to be a flaw in the law. Though I wouldn't classify pnthrfan as a Christian, I would agree with his conclusion, somewhat. (Pnthrfan, please feel free to speak up if you disagree.) There is an intention behind the face of the law that should bind us. However, when we cross the center line and break the law to go around a construction crew we are technically breaking the law. (If anyone knows the law better than me, please speak up to clarify.) But, as I see it, that's not the intent of the law. There are exceptions to the law based on its intent. And because this is understood, I see that the technical law is at some points subjective. This is a tricky subject, but I am saying that the basis for the Christian's understanding of law is based on the understanding of its intent and not the law at face value.
OK,
I am glad that all the Christians on all of these Blogs are open for "friendly" discussion.
The problem with laws (not really a problem) is that they are not sins, there are different degrees of punishment and offenses...a sin is a sin no way around it, right?
So with that said a minor infraction like speeding gets treated differently than a higher infraction like murder or smuggling drugs.
Here is the catch for Christians, if the bible says that you need to obey the law of the land, and if you dont you will be held accountable then dies that mean that you are being held accountable by God?
If so, dont speed.
So to tweek the conversation a little bit...the Bible says do not break the laws of the land right? What if the law of the land impedes your ability to worship God, or makes you break one of his commandments?
pnthrfan, God does indeed say we need to obey the laws of the land (Romans 13) and your solution sounds easy - however, i don't think it looks at the context of the law and the understanding in which it is given - for instance, does that mean i should not cross the center line when a policeman hasn't pulled far enough off the road - technically, that's breaking a law, but there is a context to it that i believe needs more discussion than has been given before among Christians - i am not trying to justify speeding or anything else, but really want to understand this issue from a biblical standpoint - and, as for your question, God (who created and rules over governments) supercedes governmental authority (again, see Romans 13 and also see Acts 5:17-42)
Joe,
Interesting way you are trying to talk about the issue. I agree that the context does matter. A policeman wants you to cross the yellow line to go around him. I get that. The question still remains as to why it would be necessary or even beneficial to others for you to speed.
Thanks.
Michael,
I'm not sure whose definition of "necessary" or "beneficial" you're referring to; ours or the lawgivers. I think you're talking about the lawgivers. Please correct me if not. But, even if we determine those were the criteria by which they formulated the law, we still aren't privy to the complexities of the issue. Sometimes law-passing can be quite complex and touch a great number of other issues. So, that's why I am suggesting that the context under which the law can best be understood is how we see the government seeking to implement their intentions for it. Hope that makes sense. It seems kind of wordy, but that's the best way I know how to say it right now.
The example of a policeman waving people around a yellow line is a great illustration of the complexities of the US legal system. Specifically, it's a demonstration of the "checks and balances" of the three governing branches. The reason it is ok to go around when the police officer waves is not because it's beneficial or necessary, but because an agent of the administrative branch has declared that they will not be enforcing the written law in this instance. This is a very explicit use of administrative discretion. A more subtle, but equally legitimate, use is to engage in a systematic pattern of allowance e.g. ignoring those going 5 mph over the limit.
The US Constitution was designed to make it difficult to criminalize our citizenry. Therefore it separates these powers and requires the consensus of ALL 3 to do so. A law must be written before an act occurs for it to be declared illegal, an agent of the administrative branch must make an arrest, and only then will an individual be brought before a judge, who has a final opportunity to nullify the efforts of the other two (subject to certain restrictions).
Scripture commands that we obey the ruling authorities, and I try to abide by that command as much as any other. But, remember that our congressmen are NOT the kings of this land. They take their enumerated authorities from the US Constitution. They have no authority beyond what has been apportioned to them.
By the way, I'm well aware of the fact that traffic laws are a state issue, but all 50 states operate as a constitutional government as well. Plus, they are restricted by Federal constitutional and statue law.
Traffic laws should have exceptions for crossing the center line and some thing about what traffic officers overrule.
I once asked an officer in the presence of a government prosecutor whether it is legal to drive over the speed limit and whether you could. The officer said something like "a judge wouldn't charge you for going over by 9 mph", but the prosecutor said it's illegal and not to.
In the end, it seems like the judges decide whether you're guilty or not. It gives me new perspective of the "until you're caught" way of thinking.
Post a Comment