Biblical Christianity and Islam: Plural Monotheism versus Monolithic Monotheism (Part 7)
Posted on July 29, 2007
Filed Under Islam & Biblical Christianity |
(Continued from last week…)
After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. John 17:1-2
You heard it on the playground a hundred times: “Says who?” Growing up, I asked some form of it at least that many times myself. The modern version is: “Who made you king?” Though we may think of them as childhood questions, it is quite valid to ask the source of one’s authority. Where does “it” come from?
When we played “king of the hill” in school, we got “it” by pushing everyone off whatever mound of dirt we somehow decided was worthy of crowning kingship upon its victor. In our case, the answer to the question “Who made you king?” was might—sheer might. At that point, we were the sole source of our own authority.
But sometimes the answer to “Says who?” turned out to be “Mr. Westover”, our grade school Principle. Nobody challenged Mr. Westover—nobody. If the authority had truly come from him, the discussion ended right there.
So, the source of one’s claim to authority is critical. That is why these words of Jesus are so interesting: “…for you granted him authority…”. The Father “granted authority” to Jesus. This is phenomenal. It means that the notion of delegating and receiving authority is more than just some pragmatic management theory…it has its origin within the very nature of God.
And just as we were not surprised to see a universe filled with relationships because God is pluralistic and internally relational, so we are not surprised to see the delegation of authority throughout His social creation.
In Romans 13:1-7, the great design document for the sphere of the state, we find that God has granted authority to the civil magistrate to punish evil and condone what is good. Here are the opening verses:
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
So, God has “established” and “instituted” positions of authority on earth and delegated His authority to them. We are obliged to submit to them not because of their might, but because of the ultimate source of their authority.
Furthermore, the civil magistrate is the only one who is authorized to bear the sword. In the verses leading up to Romans 13, (Romans 12:17-19), we are commanded to not repay evil for evil or to take revenge, but to “leave room for God’s wrath.” How do we do that? The answer comes immediately in verse 4 of Romans 13 where we are told that God’s wrath is to be executed through the civil authority:
“…he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”
Biblical Christianity finds here the opposite of a general call to “jihad”. We are not authorized to bear the sword. If we do so, we would be in rebellion against what God has established. The wrath of God on evildoers comes through His authorized agent and follows a biblical judicial process before judgment is executed.
This is not a capricious design element in God’s social order. It is a reflection of His own nature and Jesus referred to that internal “granting of authority” in John 17. This is not found in monolithic monotheism and that is why we find Islamic fundamentalists always leaning toward a practical form of “theocracy” because the notion of true delegation of authority is not clearly present there.
Biblical Christianity, however, finds something transcendent and divine in the notion that authority is, and should be, delegated. We view the position of the civil magistrate as holding that authority and all of those to whom he, in turn, grants it. We conduct ceremonies and use symbols to show that the authority to bear the sword has been properly delegated: civil magistrates are “sworn in” to their office; military and policemen take an oath of office and wear the uniform or are given a badge to prove that they hold the authority to act. If we pick up the sword without that authority, we will be found guilty of a crime.
There is a great advantage here for biblical Christianity. God has designed the state in such a way that it can respond to man’s creative acts. If man creates automobiles or new technology, the civil magistrate is authorized to craft laws to deal with them, as long as he recognizes that he is a “servant of God” and the laws he makes are to be in conformance to God’s laws (at least, this was how we “used” to see it in this country).
This also helps us understand, then, why Islamic fundamentalists will often seem to desire to return to a 7th century world, because that is the world in which the law was given and, without further revelation, there is no one who has God’s properly delegated authority to craft laws to deal with modernity. (This may not seem such a negative, however, when one considers how current legislators, in crafting new law, have failed to apply God’s fixed moral standards and we find ourselves with bad laws or a lack of enforcement of good laws.)
I want to wrap all of this up next week, if possible, to show the implications in the family, the church, and our personal relationship to God. All of this presents to us the deepest ramifications for understanding the differences between plural and monolithic monotheism.
Lord, willing, we will do so.
Comments
2 Responses to “Biblical Christianity and Islam: Plural Monotheism versus Monolithic Monotheism (Part 7)”
Leave a Reply
Comments are moderated and will not appear on deltackett.com until they've been approved. While we are eager to facilitate conversation by publishing most comments, we may withhold one from time to time if we deem it offensive, vulgar, overly personal, cynical, disrespectful, irrelevant, redundant or unnecessarily contentious. While we encourage you not to make others' misspellings and grammatical mistakes an issue of debate, please do your best to double-check your spelling, use correct capitalization, and use proper grammar.
Dr. Del Tackett is president of the Focus on the Family Institute and Senior Vice President to Focus on the Family. He is also the architect and chief spokesperson for Focus on the Family's The Truth Project--a nationwide initiative designed to bring the Christian worldview to the body of Christ.
Subscribe in a reader
© 2008 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved.
Doc, if there’s one area that I have a problem with in my walk it’s this one. Having been a soldier I understand authority and all of it’s implications, and why it is so. I was trained to take up the sword, of course only under orders but I wielded the sword none the less. It’s very hard to put a major portion of ones life aside. God has also said that anyone who wishes to break in and steal must first bind the strong man. What if as the widow in John can find no justice and the authority is not performing it’s task to serve and protect the people? Is it not incumbent upon a Man, Father or Husband to protect his family from harm? Or am I misconstruing what is being said. You can do almost anything to me and I wouldn’t be vengful, but if you hurt my family however that’s a bird of another feather. Cannot a man be God’s agent? What about King David, Abraham, Sampson and a host of others in the Bible used by God for the destruction of evil doers? Please help me to have a better understanding, my wife and I disagree on this many times. I don’t wish to know who’s right or wrong, simply what is right.
Sincerely Seeking
Steve
Hello
Very interesting information! Thanks!
Bye