Fountain of Thoughts: Legal vs. Biblical Rights and Wrongs Part 2

I said in Part 1 that I'd be talking about Degrees of Sin. However, as I set out to write the post, I discovered that I had a whole post's worth of background to give before I could even begin on the subject. You see, I had quite a long thought process that led up to the topic of degrees of sin. So, bear with me here.
Part 2, like part 1, was triggered by a book I read. It was The Life of Lieut.-General Stonewall Jackson. I had read biographies of Stonewall and other Southern heroes of the Civil War before, but this book challenged me because the author was so blatantly...Southern. Published just a year or two after the end of the Civil War and written by Professor R.L. Dabney, the book challenged my long-held belief that the North was in the right. It sparked long discussions with some ardent pro-Southern southern friends and eventually it led me towards the topic of degrees of sin. I'd always been pro-North, because most of the books I'd read were pro-North, (though not all), and after all, who likes a loser? Before reading this biography, I'd never really thought about the rights and wrongs of the Civil War. Afterwards, I realized for the first time that even though the War occurred hundreds of years ago, many of the issues behind it are still valid today. Here's the question I asked after reading the book: Was it right, Biblically, for the South to secede? Now, that doesn't seem to apply today, but I'm getting there.
The issue is that of authority, and some of the applicable Bible verses are Romans 13, Acts 4:19, and Acts 5:29. Romans 13 covers the basic principle. 'Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. For there is no power but of God. The powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever resists the power, resists the ordinance of God...' The Scriptures in Acts deal with the second part of the principle. In Acts, Peter and John tell the rulers, or higher powers, that they must obey God rather than man. Here, it is clear that when the higher powers tell us either to do something that Scripture says is wrong, or not to do something that Scripture says to do, then, and only then, is it right to resist the powers.
It took me a long time to understand this. In fact, I didn't understand it until I heard some slight acquaintances discussing the fairly recent DADT policy. (Don't Ask Don't Tell) These people, Christians, ended up concluding that (a paraphrase here) 'aside from Scripture; taking Scripture out of the question, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the government supporting the issue and repealing the policy. They, quote, "could see no reason why it was wrong."
As I listened to the conversation, I couldn't help but screaming silently, 'no, NO, NO!' As Christians, (and there was only one person involved in the conversation who appeared to take this view out of five or six people) we cannot, and must not, take Scripture out of the picture when dealing with any issue. You can have all the legal rights in the world to do something, but if God says not to do it, then we cannot do it. Now, not being an historian, I won't bore you with the rights and wrongs of the Civil War that I thought about; it's the principle that we're dealing with here. Suffice it to say that the above bolded sentence helped me to understand the rights and wrongs of the Civil War much better.
Let's look at a few examples. Hopefully, you'll be able to begin to see how it led me to degrees of sin.
Legally, the issue dealt with in the DADT policy is OK. But the Bible says it's not. Therefore, we cannot endorse it.
Again, socially, if somebody tells a 'little white lie' we excuse it as OK. It wasn't a big lie or anything. But in reality, God does not discriminate between lies. A lie is a lie, and a lie is a sin. Therefore, we cannot even excuse a 'little white lie' because there is no such thing as a such a lie.
And what about getting mad. That too, we excuse as 'being good for clearing the system.' But the Bible says, 'whoever is angry with his brother without a cause is in danger of the judgement' in the same way that someone who kills is in danger of the judgment. (Matthew 5: 21-25)
These are specific, but mostly common, scenarios. I don't think any of them would merit the rising up of an entire people group/country against the government. We can oppose bad policies by speaking out and offering a positive alternative, but do bad policies mean we should overthrow the entire federal government? I would say 'no.'
So, what if the government is terrible, corrupt, and wicked? There appear to be two additional Biblical examples here besides the ones already mentioned. (Romans 13, Acts 4: 19, Acts 5:29) The first are those numerous Scriptures which speak about how it is the Lord who abases the proud and exalts the humble. In other words, it is usually not our prerogative to overthrow the government because of it's wickedness.
On the other hand however, we have the entire book of Judges. Over and over, God punished the people of Israel by putting them under the authority of other, wicked, nations. The same goes for the Babylonian Captivity. (Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Jeremiah, Daniel, etc.) In each case, God was punishing the Israelites for the Israelites wickedness, not the wickedness of the other nations. In the book of Judges, we also see the Israelites repenting many times of their sin. When this happened, God raised up judges in Israel who usually gathered together an army and overthrew the ruling government.
In the case of the Babylonian Captivity, we see that God did not have the Israelites overthrow the government. Instead, God delivered them by the aid of the government. In Ezra and Nehemiah, the Babylonian kings decreed that some of the Israelites could return to Jerusalem. In Esther, the king of Babylon decreed that the Israelites could slaughter their oppressors (led by Haman). In these instances, God 'turned the heart of the king where ever He desired' (Paraphrase, Proverbs 21:1) God used the ruling government to deliver the people from captivity. In the Babylonian Captivity, the Israelites' deliverance was a fulfillment of God's promise. God promised that they would only be in captivity for seventy years.
In the Egyptian Captivity, the Israelites merely spoiled the Egyptians and then left the country. The Egyptians were oppressive, but the Israelites did not just take over. Instead, they fled.
Now, as I see it, these are the options we have when the government is wicked, corrupt, and oppressive.
1st, we can leave the country. It may not be possible, but if it is, then we can. That's why America has so many refugees from Russia for instance.
2nd, we can stay, speak out, non-violently act against bad policies, and pray hard. God can and does change minds. A corrupt government could easily turn around if He wants it to and if we pray. We could also go undercover, like the Russians who stayed and the Chinese Christians. Mind you, going undercover doesn't mean we should stop sharing the Gospel.
As for the examples in Judges. In this case, I believe this was God's especial manner in delivering His people. I would take a lot of convincing before I believed we have the Biblical basis for gathering together an army and overthrowing the government.
So, those are my thoughts on the subject of authority. Part 3, hopefully, will go into more depth on degrees of sin. Let's pray for our country!
(This has been: Fountain of Thoughts. Look in next time to read, A Day in the Life of:__)
Disclaimer: Rest assured, these opinions and conclusions have been formed and arrived at after considerable discussion with my pastor and father. I am not intending to teach doctrine! These are only my thoughts and beliefs on the subject after my personal encounter with the book on Stonewall Jackson.