Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asaris
This isn't really true. Romans states very clearly that the state has its authority from God.
|
I'm not claiming early churches were filled with anarchists. I am claiming that the early church was structured in ways to expressly repudiate the order of the day. Gal 3:28 is a counter-cultural manifesto...the instructions concerning the Love Feast in 1 Cor 11 point to a social leveling that is simply unheard of. In many places, particularly the opening of 2 Cor, Paul takes pride in the physical marks of beatings and punishments. These are deeply shameful, the marks of slavery. Paul wears them with utter pride.
All the tools that the state claims, Paul claims right back...the opening of 2 Cor is full of examples. The victory march, the title Lord, the title "soter" or savior... I think it's pretty compelling. Paul also writes about how you aren't supposed to participate in imperial cult activity...a major act of disobedience. That's 1 Cor 10.
Ps...when you know it, please include citations. I assume you're referring to the opening of Rom 13?
Which...reading it, i see your point. Paul doesn't want to subvert the idea that God is control of history. And, so long as the state doesn't expressly disagree with Jesus, you're oblidged to obey. Anti-nomism is one of Paul's banes in trying to relate the doctrine of Grace. But...as soon as Ceasar asks someone to kill, to participate in sacrifice, to stop preaching the Gospel...Paul's answer is clear. Disobey peacefully, and wear the marks not as shameful things, but badges of honor and pride.
I think it's clear where the real loyalty is...