When someone you like disagrees with you, then you should think about your position. All around great guy Eric Teetsel argues that the Bible does not support the actions of Kim Davis. Teetsel is a good thinker, so I took some time to examine his arguments. I think they fall short of the mark and I remain persuaded that Kim Davis is within her rights. She might have resigned, but she need not have. Her actions are well within the mainstream of Christian thought.
The first problem with Teetsel’s claims is that the situation of Kim Davis, citizen of a Republic, is not addressed in Sacred Scriptures in any direct manner. Thousands of years of (mostly) Christian thought on government have produced a unique relationship in the United States between a person and her state. Davis is not a subject of a King or Emperor, she is a free and equal citizen of a Republic.
She is a subject of no king, but King Jesus. The Bible helped create a situation that can only be indirectly addressed by the Bible. We tried to create a Republic where a weaker central government would interfere with the soul liberty of a citizen as little as possible. We did not make people swear, because Quakers did not take oaths. We accommodated pacifists nearly from the start.
Teetsel begins with Peter in the Garden at the arrest of Jesus. There Jesus rebukes Peter for using His sword. What Teetsel misses is that Jesus does not say: “Shall I not obey the government?” He does say: ” . . . shall I not drink the cup the Father . . .” Jesus had told Peter to buy a sword, but Peter was not to use it in this situation for God was placing this cup before Jesus. The other worldly Kingdom was up to something big, so Peter was not to fight. Of course, this does not imply that Christians are never to fight for justice or revolt as Christian apologist and philosopher John Locke explained in his Biblical case for revolution in the First and Second Treatise. The First is most important and persuasive for the Biblical case.
Like Paul, a Christian can appeal to the law to get what justice one can. Paul did not have to think his martyrdom was right, because having appealed to Caesar (as was his right), he had to “accept” the murderous ruling of Nero. Christians honor the civil law as much as possible, but not more than possible. When the law is an ass, w
e are free to say it is an ass. Paul’s argument was that he was no wrongdoer and so did not deserve death. If he was a wrongdoer, then death was just. This did not mean that when Nero sent him to the executioner , Paul thought: “By gum, I was wrong. I was a wrongdoer.”
Teetsel has read a subtle argument (Paul liked playing his enemies against each other) without subtlety.
The day may come when serving the American Republic in office is incompatible with Christian faith. Perhaps being a marriage clerk soon will be, but one need not rush to that day. If that day comes, then we will appeal to the twisted state when it upholds justice, obeying her when we can, and loyally paying our taxes when we must. For now, as part of “we the people” we have a right to question whether the state is rending a social compact we made with her long ago
This too is our right. The Bible that talks about honoring the King also shows a priest overthrowing a tyrant Queen. Thank God we are no place near that point either.
I belong to a church that is dying in nations across the Middle East. They appeal to the government when they can, foreign states when they must, and do all they can to live peaceable lives. They defend their families when they have the chance. No Christian can ever owe the state absolute allegiance, just provisional obedience. Kim Davis is not taking lives. She is simply refusing to obey an unjust law. The voters of her region can remove her, but they have yet to do so.
The Bible does not condemn her actions.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In