New Thoughts (5/12/02-5/13/02)
Why should we obey? The most sound of reasons have been given us here, the highest of which is that our obedience is unto God. To obey His subordinates is to obey Him. As children of God, we should have a healthy, loving respect for His authority, knowing that He is a good ruler. If we say we have that respect for Him, yet refuse to accept those He sends to rule over us, what truth is there in our words? We serve God, who knows our hearts. Lip service will no more suffice here than it would in the temple. Obedience that comes from fear will not suffice. He doesn't ask for that for Himself. He would not seek it for His subordinates. He seeks those who will follow after Him with loving reverence. He seeks those who will show that love for Him in obeying Him. Obedience without that heartfelt love and reverence will never suffice. It is less than what is due.
God knows the heart and thoughts of man. This knowledge, His subordinates do not share. They can only judge the actions of mankind, they cannot assess the true thoughts that led to the act. This remains God's jurisdiction alone. That is why the motivation for our obedience is so critical. If the thoughts are not in obedience, then there is in reality no obedience at all. The willful child may do what he or she is told, if sufficient force is brought to bear, but the will remains unbent. God is looking for those who will bend their wills willingly to His will.
This is our duty to Him, to hear and obey. This is but a part of our duty, and our duty is to God only in part. His is the first and greatest object of our duty to obedience, but it is not to Him alone. As He has chosen to delegate His authority to others in our lives, He has also chosen to require that we give a share of our obedience to those authorities He has delegated. He remains first in all things. If there is a conflict between His rule and the rule of His delegates, His rule supercedes, and our duty to Him overrules all conflicting commands.
Yet, our duty does not stop with those civil authorities which are over us. In Christ, we were called to become the servants of all. If we are servants of all then all, in some degree or another are in authority over us. This is not a covenanted authority, not a matter of contractual obligation, it is a matter of our own choosing, because Christ has asked it of us. Even to the least of men, we owe honorable and respectful treatment. Even to the least of men, we have a duty to listen and love impartially. This is what God has called us to. This is His commandment for His children.
Returning to the matter of civil authority, the question seems to remain regarding where we can and must draw the line. When does it become proper to cease our obedience? Mr. Clarke finds an answer in the foundations laid when civil rulers are accepted. The constitution upon which the government stands is a covenanted relationship, a contract between the ruler and the ruled. In choosing to live under a particular rule, you have chosen to live under the rules that established it. In choosing to lead a people governed by such rules, you have sworn to act within the bounds of those rules, and to enforce those rules and no other.
From this stance, the constitution, that binding contract between ruler and ruled, is the line. If and only if the ruler crosses the lines established in that contract is there call to break from his rule. In that situation, the ruler has breached contract, and thus made its obligations null and void on both parties. An interesting variant of this applied rule is that where the ruler attempts to change the constitution (one assumes without the approval of the ruled), this is no different than breaking it.
The corollary to this is, of course, that if a people rebels against its government - however vile that government may be - that has adhered to its own constitution, then that people has become party to a contractual breach. They have broken oath, and no oath is sworn without God's witness - even if the parties involved do not call upon Him directly. The morals of the ruler, however bad they may be, do not constitute sufficient cause. For his morals, the ruler is accountable to God. Only in matters of political conduct, in the carrying out of his office, is he accountable to man.