“We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers–and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.” (1 Timothy 1:8-10 )

Ambrosius Spitelmaier wrote, “All government which has existed from the time of Adam until now has been instituted by God. But it has not remained in God for it has exceeded its power and still does today. . . . Now . . . the government begins to judge words and deeds which it thinks to be against God, but which are for God. And in this sense it is like Pilate when he condemned Christ. The true, real Christians who are Christians in Spirit and in truth, of whom he says in Matt. 11: “Learn from me, for I am kind and of a humble heart,” do not require a government, sword or power, for they willingly do righteousness. Paul says in 1 Tim. 1, “To the righteous no law is given.” But those Christians who are Christians only in words, “Lord, Lord,” they require their government at all times for their piety, otherwise they would put out each other’s eyes. A piety which must be enforced does not please God. God wants a voluntary spirit as he said to the rich young ruler (Matt. 19).”

This is a different view of “political authority”; the New Testament sees the authority as benign and not of a concern to faithful believers. The Anabaptist faintly echo the same idea, but Spitelmaier gets is ‘dig’ in about governments that wrongly judge words and deeds. This alludes to the struggles that the persecuted Anabaptists had, but for the most part supports the intent of the scripture.

It seems that suspicion of governments is a trait passed down from Anabaptist to Mennonite. Spitelmaier’s indictment of government is reminiscent of what I heard as a child, that Christians do not need government to encourage them to live within the laws. And that as far as the law goes, Mennonites are not above the law but beside the law because their behavior never runs contrary to the law. And if/when Mennonites run afoul of the law because the law is condoning behavior that is anti-Christian. Not unChristian meaning that it is less than, but anti because it is contrary to.

I would curious to know, gentle reader, how you view the law in our modern society?

While Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews made a united attack on Paul and brought him into court. “This man,” they charged, “is persuading the people to worship God in ways contrary to the law.” Just as Paul was about to speak, Gallio said to the Jews, “If you Jews were making a complaint about some misdemeanor or serious crime, it would be reasonable for me to listen to you. But since it involves questions about words and names and your own law–settle the matter yourselves. I will not be a judge of such things.” So he had them ejected from the court. (Acts 18:12-16)

Gallio’s legal theory–that that government shouldn’t be involved in religious disputes–is much more profound than he realized, I think; and eventually became one of the bedrocks of the US constitutional law: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” I can’t get the government to take my side, or fear the government taking another’s side, on a purely religious matter. Further, of course, Paul was engaging in “speech,” and the US government is prohibited from “abridging the freedom of speech.” The Jews’ case against Paul would be thrown out in US courts just as it was in this Roman court. It is no wonder that many people from the Anabaptist heritage have come to the US and Canada where their freedom to exercise their religion is less restrained.

So, on this Veteran’s Day in the US, and Remembrance Day in Canada, let us be grateful for the religious freedoms we have and (though we be pacifists) let us be grateful for the bravery of men and women who fight to protect those freedoms.

“We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name, he said. Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood. Peter and the other apostles replied: We must obey God rather than men!” ( Acts 5:28-29 )

Acts chapter 5 verses 17 and following tell the reader that Peter and the other disciples had been imprisoned. But God’s angel had let them out and the next morning they were back preaching again. The Sanhedrin and the high priest make the compliant in verse 28 that Peter and the others were doing exactly what they were told not to do. Peter’s statement they must obey God rather than men seems rather cryptic unless one knows that the angel of God told them to continue preaching. Verse 20 says, “Go, stand in the temple courts,” he said, “and tell the people all about this new life.”

At various times in the stories of the followers of Christ, the faithful believers have been told to act and speak contrary what the normal expectation and direction has been. And many times the faithful have been persecuted and punished for it. Indeed verse 41 of this chapter says, “The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name.”

So far under the heading of “Political Authority” we have been told God has established authority but retained authority over Israel for God’s own: that those who wish to be great are to be servants: that which belongs to the government should be given to the government but that which is beholden to God is to be given to God; and now, that God’s authority supersedes man’s authority. I do not think I would be giving away the ending if I said in the days to come that scripture will continue to be divided in supporting and defying political authority.

Peter’s example is definitely on the side of defiance of the law. And for that reason I call him “irrepressible”. In today’s society it takes great courage and conviction, whether for good or for evil, to break laws. Law breakers are usually considered criminals and criminals are usually not faithful believers. But not always. As the days go by let us see how and why Christians are directed to obey or defy. But may we, in all situations, show the courage and conviction of Peter in following Christ our Lord. Selah!

Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” (Matthew 22:21)

This verse has come up before, in the midst of the 2008 US presidential election. Then, I suggested that obsessively paying attention to the election was giving to Caesar more than Caesar deserved. Obsessing about elections can be a besetting sin for me, so I was writing largely to myself.

Peter Riedeman, one of the early Hutterite elders, links this verse to Paul’s words in Romans 13 about paying what is due to the government, not just anything that the government asks for. The Hutterites refused to pay taxes that would go for warfare.

Riedeman’s application of these verses, and mine, are vastly different: mine, just a question of our attention economy; his, a matter of freedom and imprisonment, or even life and death.

Think: in what ways today, small or large, is God asking you to give to the System just what the System owes, and to God everything you owe to God?

Will

“Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave–just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:25-28 )

Michael Sattler wrote “concerning the sword: whether a Christian should be a magistrate if he is chosen? This is answered thus: Christ was to be made king, but fled and did not discern the ordinance of his Father. So we should do as he did and run after him. Then we shall not walk in darkness. For he himself says: “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me,” Matt. 16:24. He himself further forbids the violence of the sword when he says; “The rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, etc. . . . It will not be so among you,” Matt. 20:25.”

I spent some time staring at both these verses and the statement of Sattler’s that Peters and Snyder use in their book Reading from the Anabaptist Bible . And it occurred to me that there could be some pretty political concepts here. I am not fully aware of the differences between Democrats and Republicans, but from what I know historically Republicans could be the “lord it over them” type. And the Democrats could be more of the “servant” of the people sort. But then Republicans have also said that they want to help “the little people”. And with the Democrats controlling both the White House and the House they are not exactly without power. I guess that is why Christians should not structure their faith according to politics. However that is not to say that Christians should not be political.

The political stance of being “the servant of the people” is not the same as what Christ is talking about. In politics the servant of the people is to be their representative in government working for what is best for the people. But that is servant-hood at a distance; that is not to say that a politician can not work for the good of the people and do good things. But Christ’s servant-hood was being with people, where they are, struggling as they struggle, grieving where they are grieving and rejoicing where they are rejoicing. I rather doubt that any political servant would give his/her life for the people he/she is representing. And last time I checked political servants are pretty well compensated for their servant-hood.

May your servant-hood be modeled after our Lord Christ’s and may God sustain you as you continue to be God’s servant in the world. Selah!

“For in the division of the nations of the whole earth he set a ruler over every people; but Israel is the Lord’s portion.” (Sirach 17:17 )

The United States claims to be “one nation under God.” Israel claimed to be a nation under God, but they chafed at God’s laws and pulled away from faithful worship. They sought commerce with other nations and followed the religious traditions of other faiths and other gods. They adopted the practices of other peoples and left behind the laws that God had set down for them. And because they had forsaken God, God left them to their own devices. Theologians tell us that the Jews were not to be the only people, but the first of many people and a light for others to come to faith. Americans have also held themselves up as a light and example for others.

This verses says that the other nations had rulers, but Israel belonged to and was under God. Does this mean that because of self-declaration the United States belongs to and is under God? I have always felt that the U.S.’ declaration of being under God to be presumptuous. And if the course of the United States is analogous to Israel, it is rather dangerous to belong to and be under God. There are major expectations to being ‘God’s nation’ and dire consequences to failing in the calling and charge. Perhaps that is why I am so glad to be a Canadian; less pressure.

But if we are called to and part of the kingdom of God, we belong to God and are under that sovereignty no matter who we are or what our citizenship. The expectations are still daunting, the consequences of not being worthy depressing, but the rewards . . . . . . It is worth it!

May you be ruled by God and find joy in that. Selah!

“Above all, my brothers, do not swear–not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your “Yes” be yes, and your “No,” no, or you will be condemned.” (James 5:12 )

One of the most plaintive cries after the simple sound of tears is the cry “you promised!” And it is cried most effectively by young children. Older children know that things happen, situations change and fate intervenes. But the young who hear, use, and understand language take as ‘gospel’. When a promise is made they believe that is what will be. And when it is not, in their world, all is ruined.

The translations that is cited that the Anabaptists use has the word “beloved” for the word brother, and I like that better. “Beloved” are those whom we give promises to that we most desperately want to keep. And there is nothing that mars the relationship to a beloved than a broke promise. Not the plaintive cry of a child, but the heartfelt sob of a loved one when it is realized that the one they love have failed them. And if it is bad enough to break such a promise, worse would be to break a promise sworn on another item, object, or person of value.

Promises are like covenants entered into by two or more people who desire to do good for one another. To break a covenant and in doing so harm the relationship is a sad breach of trust. And to so misuse the sworn upon object is to double and triple the offense. What is left is a shattered relationship and delicate bonds that have been shredded and torn apart.

No wonder the writer of James says “you will be condemned”. Things happen, situations change, and fate intervenes. Do not compound the hurt by dragging into it other issues, people, and items. Promises will be made; it is part of our human nature to assure and comfort. Promise will be broken; it is part of our human nature to falter and fail. These are truths we must live by!

Above all, gentle readers, hold each other in gentle bonds of promise and assurance. Promise no more than you can do, and promise only with the honor of your spoken and written word. And if you are a person of honor and integrity, that will be enough. If you are not, any promise backed by anything you can name or imagine will be worthless anyway. Shalom, Carole

“When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself, saying, “I will surely bless you and give you many descendants.” And so after waiting patiently, Abraham received what was promised. Men swear by someone greater than themselves, and the oath confirms what is said and puts an end to all argument.” (Hebrews 6:13-16 )

I am waiting for something promised by God. There are some details that I am not sure of, and to be honest there is very little about what I am waiting for that I know of. But just like Abraham had the surety that what he was promised would come about, I have that same surety . . . I think. Now in my defense Abraham was not as sure as the writer of Hebrews makes him out to be. Abraham thought it was in his power to make the promise come about. Thus Ishmael was born. But Ishmael, though God blessed him, was not the promise. The fulfillment of the promise was yet to come. And so as I wait, I cling to that hope; the hope that Abraham had and all of his physical and faith descendents. We are his faith descendents, we who believe and hope in God.

The Anabaptists, concerning the subject of swearing and oaths, interpreted this passage as saying that anything that was promised by swearing to God must be something that was absolute. Menno Simons said, “I will by the grace of God show the sympathetic reader from the Word of God what the holy Scriptures at given times teach and imply concerning the swearing of oaths. . . . the reader should observe that Israel was bound by the law when it concerned a matter of life or death to swear by the name of the Lord and to keep their oath. As Moses says, And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of they God; I am the Lord. This oath settled all disputes among
Israel.”

You may be curious what I am waiting for. But what I am waiting for is less important than how I wait. Really! The temptation is to think like Abraham I am the agent of the fulfillment. Abraham’s task was to be ready for God’s promise to come about. But Abraham overstepped his role thinking that he knew how it should come about. The writer of Hebrews says Abraham patiently waited, but that is not quite true. And the part of Abraham’s story that the writer of Hebrews is pointing to is in fact not when Abraham was waiting for Isaac to be conceived and born, but on the mountain when a ram was provided for a sacrifice instead of Abraham’s precious son.

So I guess it is alright (isn’t it?) if I am impatient, worry, fret, and try to make the promise come about apart from God’s plan. The thing to remember is that it will happen because it is promised by God. My prayer is that I would wait patiently in anticipation of God acting based on God’s actions of the past. If you are waiting also for God’s promise, may you wait in patience also anticipating receiving the fulfillment in God’s time. Selah!

Woe to you, blind guides! You say, “If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.” You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? You also say, “If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.” You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. And he who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it. (Mt 23:16-22).

The lectionary gospel reading this Sunday is the story of the “widow’s mite.” I’ve been hearing radio preachers praise their poor listeners for sending in all they have despite their poverty in support of the radio preachers’ ministries, and I think: woah. I’m glad I’m not a radio preacher.

A friend invites me to be a “fan” of “Bolder Giving” on Facebook, a group which seems to encourage people to give away very significant portions of their incomes to combat the world’s evils (for example, malnutrition, illiteracy and disease). If a hungry person were next to me, and needed food, would I not give it to him or her? But a hungry/ill/illiterate person in the far-away land of There is just as hungry/ill/illiterate as a person in the land of Here. We ourselves are blind if we don’t see the truth of this.

And I write this–not a radio preacher, just a simple blogger with a few readers–and come under the same scrutiny of the just God. No wonder Jesus recommends such extreme modesty when it comes to vows and oaths! How can we promise, when we are so prone to self-aggrandizement and self-deception! But, perhaps, even our choosing to not vow is itself a vow; it is certainly in our so-called “Confession,” which is a promise of believe and action of a sort. Our vowing to not vow can be (and has been, by me, at least) used as a means to escape the righteous request of God.

God, grant us light; turn us from our foolish blindness to wise sight.

“Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, “Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.” But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your “Yes” be “Yes,” and your “No,” “No”; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.”(Matthew 5:33-37 )

This was one of those Mennonite things that in my youth confused me. I was told that Mennonites do not swear. I took it as Mennonites do not use profanity. And that made sense with what I saw of my elders. Especially my mother; she was fearsome about my not using off-color language. It kind of . . . . But I followed her rules, and even now I very seldom use anything worse than darn. Of course I have created my own nonsense words that when uttered with great force and emotionality make good substitutes.

But as my education in Mennonite traditions and understandings grew, I came to realize that it was swearing of oaths, that is promising with more explanation than a simple yes or no. The context of swearing an oath in a court room was the most often mentioned example. You see, along with not using profanity I was told “not to take the Lord’s name in vain” which I construed as meaning that since God was all powerful my trying to do, be, say or promise anything in comparison to God was done “in vain” and it was hopeless to try.

So in my youthful mind, the two ideas sort of swam together leaving me a bit confused as to the meaning but very clear on what I should or should not do or say; and even more on the consequences. And it has resulted in a sort of interesting phenomenon. Along with my ‘clean’ language, I have tried to hold to the standard of keeping my promises. If I do not think I can do a thing or make something come about or however you would phrase endeavors, I will not make a promise about it. But if I truly believer I can do something etc, I will promise and then stick to that promise with all my might and will. And ‘darned’ if I don’t!

May you gentle reader be the giver and receiver of only true promises, and may your language please the ears of the Divine. Selah!