Are We Being Led or Are We Being Ruled?

 People require leadership. People have always required leadership. Not only do people require leadership, they search for it, even long for it. Let's face it, most people are followers, by necessity. If everybody was a leader there would be nobody to follow them. Nothing requiring more than one person would ever get accomplished. Even if you had several like-minded people dedicated to the same outcome, if everybody tried to lead and refused to follow, they would accomplish nothing. This means that we not only need leaders, but we also need followers, and a lot of them. We also need leaders that are willing to follow other leaders while leading those who have chosen to follow them.

We have all likely found someone towards whom we gravitate and whom we greatly respect. We may not even really understand why we gravitate towards that person, there is just something about them that we like or admire, and if that person would ask or tell us to do something we would gladly do as we have been requested or instructed to do. It can be an innate action that we don't even think about.

I am, by nature, a leader to an extensive degree. I have no problem stepping up in a situation, assessing what needs to be done and getting the task completed, including delegating others to assist in one way or another. That being said, over the years I have had some friends to whom I have found that I am willing to submit due to their own air of competence and ability. One in particular is actually younger than me, so we can't even argue that it is only due to a respect due to those who are older than we are. Some people just exude a confidence that draws others to them - that may be the best way that I can explain it.

People have always naturally placed themselves in some type of hierarchy among those with whom they associate. This goes back to all types of organizational systems that have occurred historically. I have not researched the different types but a rough estimation of structures of society that we have seen started with familial which led to tribal organizations. As different classes of people developed, humanity moved into a feudal system which also often existed under a monarchy (which in itself could be called a familial system). Monarchies have mostly succumbed to some type of dictatorship or democracy depending on the circumstances surrounding the changes, but monarchies can often abide side by side with a democratic structure. Again, I have not researched this thoroughly and I will not debate the accuracy of these statements. This is just an rough overview of past and current systems as a basis for the rest of this article.

We, as a people, tend to give a certain level of control over our lives to others, which allows us to navigate the nuts and bolts of our daily existence while others oversee things such as our collective protection and economic needs. In western society we have systems in place that regularly allow us to have a say in who is allowed to hold this kind of authority over our lives. We like to refer to it as a democracy, but true democracy is a very cumbersome system to exercise control over a large province or country, so we democratically elect representatives to speak for us within an assembly that makes up a representative government.

But when does our desire to be led become an entryway for someone to assume powers of a ruler instead of a representative? And if this happens, what is our responsibility as subjects of the "elite" or ruling class? Since these individuals have been elected by us to lead us, are we now subject to their edicts and mandates as subservient masses or are we allowed to speak out against abuses of power and authoritative over-reach? Does being a Christian automatically negate any perceived right to question the decisions or challenge the authority of those whose job it is to lead us?

As of late, I have had well meaning people challenge me with statements that seem to support the premise of that last statement. They like to quote scripture to me, particularly out of Romans 13:4-6, which reads as follows:

^"4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. ⁵ Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

⁶ This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing."(Emphasis added)

The argument is that God has granted us the privilege of living in a nation where we are allowed to choose our leaders, and that once that process has been completed, we are to submit to the government that we have chosen until such time that we are again allowed to choose who will lead us. I have found it useful to dig into the original languages of the Bible in order to better understand what the scriptures are trying to tell us. So let's do that.

The original text of the book of Romans was arguably written in the Greek language. The Greek word for "submit" in verse five is hyppotasso, a compound word. According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon, hyppo is defined as "properly, in a local sense, of situation or position under something higher,". Hyppo is followed by tasso which is defined "to place in a certain order (Xenophon, mem. 3, 1, 7 (9)), to arrange, to assign a place, to appoint". Directly speaking, this means the ascription of a hierarchy, of placement in society. There is no indication of unquestioning obedience to those whom we are under.

Further to this, any interpretation of Scriptures should always align with what we see in the rest of the Scriptures. Is this what is indicated throughout the Bible? Are believers, whether Jew or Gentile always to obey unquestioningly? I don't believe so. There are plenty of instances in the Bible where God fearing Orthodox and Messianic Jews (to use modern parlance) as well as Gentile believers stood against the edicts and actions of rulers who sought to enforce unrighteous laws and edicts on them.

One of my own Bible reading plans has me reading through Daniel right now. In Daniel 3 we read of the story of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego being thrown into the fiery furnace.These were men who were not only subject to the rules of the kingdom, but were also administrators of the province of Babylon according to Daniel 2:49, and they were promoted to their positions by King Nebuchadnezzar himself. They were government employees! When they were placed into a position wherein they were supposed to obey an unrighteous law or face death, they chose to defy the ruler and obey God. The same goes for Daniel himself in chapter six under a different ruler. When ordered to pray to a mortal man upon punishment of death, Daniel defied the unrighteous edict and remained faithful to God's laws.

Now I know what the first argument is going to be against my premise - "What those men were told to do was a direct violation of the Laws of God and they were justified in their actions accordingly. Are the rules that you are today choosing to defy directly violating God's laws in any way?" While that is a valid response to those examples, it does not negate the simple fact that these men did, in fact, defy the rulers of their time, so let's look at some more examples of believers who spoke truth to power.

The apostles Peter and Paul are prime examples of believers that spoke up against the unjust actions of political and religious rulers. These men are raised up as examples of how believers should live boldly and proclaim the Gospel wherever they go. How about the rest of the twelve disciples? (I know Paul was not a disciple) All of them besides John were put to death as martyrs for the Gospel, and John himself was imprisoned on the Island of Patmos as punishment for his actions. This came about because their words and actions were seen as an assault on the powers and positions of those who ruled over the people. Jesus himself was a threat to the religious leaders of the day. They did not have the legal authority to kill him themselves, so they conspired to have the political powers kill Him for them.

But let's look at some more recent examples of people who have risen up against the rulers above them whom we have supported and cheered as they did so.

When apartheid was defeated in South Africa western civilizations cheered. This was a repressive system based on skin color set up by those in power in order to solidify their positions within the government and rule of the country. This was finally defeated with political maneuvering after years of armed conflict.

How about the Arab Spring of 2010 and 2011 in which five different countries rose up and denounced and, for the most part, overthrew the dictatorial government systems that they lived under. Again, we in the west cheered and supported these actions. This came about through political unrest, protests and armed conflict.

Now let's look at the other side of the equation - Nazi Germany. As the Second World War waged on in Europe, the Allied Forces and the countries that provided the forces were not aware of the atrocities that had been inflicted upon the Jews, Blacks and homosexuals by the National Socialist Party of Germany - but the German citizens knew. Ever since the truth was discovered the people of Germany have had it held over their collective heads that the people knew of the crimes that were committed against their friends, neighbours and countrymen, but they did not speak up. They did not revolt against their corrupt, and in that case evil, government. The rest of the world has held that against them as a condemnation for 75 years!

But we, as civilized western Christians, are supposed to submit to our government and not even express our disagreement with the actions of those who govern us? That is neither a logically nor a Biblically sound stance to take. We live in a country where our basic rights and freedoms are legally protected against actions by the government. Those rights are granted not by our governments but by God Himself, as recognized by our founding documents. God placed us in these countries under these laws, as bastions of freedom in a world where many people cannot practice the kinds of freedoms that we supposedly enjoy. We are supposed to be a lighthouse for those in dark places so they have something to which they can attain, to show them that there is something better to which to strive, sometimes by working with their government, sometimes by acting against their government. 

If we take the stance that we have no say in the way in which we are governed except for one day every four years, we are eroding our own foundation of freedoms that are the envy of the world. While the actions of any given government may not be inherently evil, we need to recognize that every new power taken and exercised by any government will inevitably be used to take another power by either the next, or maybe even that same government. These small steps are how countries and peoples lose their freedoms incrementally, and usually under the premise of "what is good for society" or "the greater good". We need to recognize what is happening, we need to engage politically and not allow ourselves to be distracted to the point of irrelevancy. We need to be willing to speak truth to power and defend the rights that we currently have so that our kids and their kids can have the blessing of living with the same freedoms that we have enjoyed. We cannot use Scriptures as a weak argument to excuse our unwillingness to call out the government on their freedom infringing actions, out of fear of fines, imprisonment or retribution.

For when you are afraid to speak up against your government for fear of punishment or imprisonment, then you are not being led, you are being ruled.