Civil Disobedience

This is NOT about civil disobedience as a tool of Mohandas Ghandi. He used nonviolent resistance as his political device.

Nor is Henry David Thoreau's book, Civil Disobedience, the object of this post. As an advocate for people not permitting governments to control a conscience, he urged citizens to avoid acquiescence, thus not becoming agents of injustice.

Being civil disobedient usually is recognized as non-violent passive resistance. Demands are made, but nothing happens.

God agrees. Note these examples.

• In Exodus 1:15-20, the king of Egypt told the Hebrew midwives to execute all males emerging from the womb. But the Hebrew midwives "feared God". They did not obey the kings demand. They let the boys live. Demands were made, but nothing happened.
• Peter was (again) brought before the Sanhedrin, the Jews governing body. They had ordered him (and Jesus' other apostles) to not preach or teach Jesus. But they did. Peter's reply to them: "we must obey God rather than men." Acts 5:29 . Demands were made, but an atypical civil disobedience occurred.

Uncle Sam

Christians are true-blue to Uncle Sam. Christians comply with the edicts of governments. Laws are for our good. But civil disobedience is imperative when laws or government codes collide with God's commands or doctrine.

What should Christians do when homosexuals, and those promoting or protecting them, cloak themselves behind man's laws? (Rom 1:27-32)

Should I pay taxes to a government that endorses embryonic stem cell research, knowing the cells came from a "sacrificed" human embryo?

Should I support the prolonged process of executing a convicted criminal for a capital crime when God says punishment should be prompt. (Eccl 8:11)?

Should I vote for government leaders that champion evil groups (gays, immigration law violators, etc.)?

Besides, who is mightier than the almighty government? Romans 13:2. (LINK)

Make your comments on TheStruggles Facebook corresponding post.

Triumphant Entry

Many of the famous Bible stories can be reviewed with few words. They still refresh us and our faith, plus remind us of how much we are loved.

Here is a short version.

A never-ridden colt

"The Lord needs it."

Garments on road

Branches in road

Hosanna in the highest

BLESSED IS THE KING

"Rebuke your disciples"

"Stones will cry out"

Wept over city

"If you only knew"

Enemies surround

Not one stone on another

--------------------

How many details did you remember? Check yourself. Read the complete story. Click all four links below.

Matthew

Mark

Luke

John

He Touched A Leper

As you probably know for yourself, real stories from life are often better than anything fictional. So, this posting will not approach the creative factor, but will, instead, look at a real event. 

Mark's gospel records Jesus touching a leper. Why did he touch the leper? Why did Mark think that was important? What is significant about touching a leper? Is there a spiritual lesson to be learned here, or is this an exaggerated detail?

To see the significance we must:

• understand what biblical leprosy is.
• see the social implications of being a leper.
• examine the effect of Jesus' actions.
• note any appropriate spiritual application.

What is biblical leprosy? It is important to note from the start the ancient Hebrew word, in Leviticus 12 and 13, does not refer to the same medical condition that the modern English word does. Easton's Bible Dictionary and four internet web sites agree there is a major difference. Note these facts about this biblical disease.

• Leprosy was a "Terrible skin disease", not like modern leprosy which is primarily a nerve disease.
• The Hebrew word was not intended for medical precision.
• Leprosy is characterized by
• scaliness
• bleaching the hair white
• possible rotting flesh.
• It is a non-contagious disease.

What were the social or religious implications for a leper? Again, consider these facts.

• Leprosy was considered a punishment by God. Three times in the Old Testament God used this condition as strong punishment.
• They were required to live outside the camp or city walls. They could not get to the tabernacle or temple to worship.
• Clothes were tattered or torn as a symbol of remorse, whether deserved or not.
• They could not have anything on their heads to cover the white spots and bleached hair caused by the disease.
• They were required to cover their beard with their mantle.
• When a healthy person approached them, the leper was required by law to warn them by shouting, "Unclean! Unclean!"
• They were not allowed to have a conversation with anyone.
• They could not address another person, mostly because their greetings included a hug.
• Lepers were social rejects.

What are the implications of Jesus touching this leper?

1. It would be well to note this leper was not acting in a 'socially/politically correct' manner. He spoke first to Jesus and gained his attention -- a social 'No-No'. Second, he did not shout "Unclean", but pleaded for Jesus' to make him whole. "You can if you want to," he said.
2. Jesus may not have considered his skin disease a punishment from God.
3. Jesus could have been showing that God is approachable outside of a worship setting.
4. Instead of being cut off from society, Jesus was showing acceptance of his person.
5. Jesus was more interested in communicating his care for this person than in keeping religious or social 'customs'. He was showing his compassion instead of religious condemnation.

What are the appropriate spiritual lessons?

1. There are situations that demand us being counter-cultural. Sometimes it is OK to be socially or politically incorrect. When we are despised or out-casts for Jesus sake, it is good.
2. Some things in life are not a 'punishments' from God' but the consequences of sin or evil desires. Don't blame God for the results of your choices.
3. I am so glad I don't have to be in church to approach God. Didn't he tell some Hebrew Christians they could approach God's throne "in times of need"?
4.  I should accept people as they are, sin and all. This doesn't mean I condone their sin, but it does say 'I care.' Then help them fix their problem like Jesus fixed this man's disease and social condemnation.
5. Some things in Christianity are customs or traditions, and some are unchangeable doctrines. If a custom or tradition needs to be broken to reach out to others, what are we waiting on? Jesus did!

How did he get away with it?

How did he get away with it?

First, he wasn't a very promising at selling himself. He went places with very few people, dressed inappropriately, and his eating habits would make most people sick. Furthermore, when he got around the people with clout, he spoke to them in an almost-rude way.

He was the antithesis of political correctness.

And with all this, people flocked TO him. He didn't plead with them. He didn't chase them down. He didn't have any telemarketers. He didn't need any of it. He actually had people tracking him down just to listen to what he had to say. How did he do it?

There have been times when I have expressed my opinions. But unlike this man, sometimes they are looked at with disdain. I plead with people to see my point. I try to do the same things he did, in similar ways, and it is not respected, much less heeded.

So what is makes the difference?

Could it be that his message was one of being different? Instead of hanging on to what they had, he told them to share it. Instead of taking advantage of people in a business situation, he told them to act justly. He even told members of the law enforcement community to 1) don't intimidate, 2) don't accuse anyone falsely, and 3) be content with your pay. He spoke about a political leader's sinful marriage.

Was his message of being different the same as what people saw in him, someone who was different? Could that be what makes the difference?

Maybe I (we) need to look, act and be different so that our message will be heard. But not difference just for the sake of being different. Different in the areas that are truly important.

Oh yes, before I forget, John the Baptizer was not the 'great one' who was truly different. The Man who followed him was more deliberately different.