Disobey the Police

Bible Thumping Wingnut, episode 389. I don't know why you're clapping, I'm talking about you. What's wrong with you people? Now, folks, I didn't force Leighton Flowers to come up with the choice meats analogy. It's the type of meat that is favorable over the other lesser favorable meat. That post mill. oh ladies and gentlemen it looks like we may have a new crazy apologist on the block i present to you bible thumping wingnut bible thumping wingnut i'm like where do i know that name you're that guy who said that atheists don't exist Bible Thumping Wingnut is manipulative, dishonest, ineffective, and completely incapable of seeing women as equal human beings.

In that you thought was a lie. Hey, Bible-thumping wingnut, stay in your man cave and keep studying the book written in the Bronze Age. Well, well, well, what have we got here? What do we have here? Bible-thumping wingnut. Keep away from me.

Alright, welcome ladies and gentlemen to another episode of the Bible Thumping Wingnut Podcast. My name is Tim Hurd. This is a special episode. It is May 15th. And that was a long introduction, so I'll be brief. In my promotion of Bible Thumping Wingnut stuff, go to BibleThumpingWingnut.com.

Check out all the other podcasts there. and please consider supporting us. Three different ways to support us. Go to BibleThumpAWeenet.com and click on Support Our Ministry. Thank you very much. All right, eight days ago, I had a Zoom meeting. This is the platform I use to bring guests on live here on YouTube.

And I had a bunch of people on and I took issue with something J.D. Hall had to say. And as usual, Most people agreed with J.D. Hall and not me. And as per the intro of this podcast that I played, the original intro, I'm used to people not agreeing with me. And I'm okay with that.

But there are some people who are able to articulate my position better than me. And there are some people who agree with me. and kind of wanted to put a little bow tie on my position and bring on some gentlemen that I really appreciate their friendship and their ministry in my life, three men that I talk to on a regular basis who over the course of the last week had sent me comments and I had talked to personally about my position and about their position and how their position differs from my position and differs from J.D. Hall's position in regards to, you know, you've been listening to this whole intro.

I didn't even tell you the topic. It's on submitting to the government and what basically two issues. Number one, who are the ruling authorities of Romans 13? And then issue number two, how should we respond when authority figures like the police engage with us many, well, I wouldn't say many times, but when they ask us things that are to do things that we don't agree that we should do, they might be unjust things or they could be things that could be just, but the Constitution says you don't have to submit to them.

So how should we engage with those people? And for the most part, the big riff has been my position is if you're asked to do something unjust or excuse me, unconstitutional, that's unconstitutional. like the the most basic of engagements would be i get pulled over and a policeman says hey tim uh i want to see what's in your trunk open your trunk now constitutionally i know i don't have to open it i could give him a hard time i could say hey you you don't have the right to do that and depending on the officer things could escalate to the point where they get frustrated with me i'm frustrated with them and things could get out of control. I could be not only delayed, I could be detained and all kinds of things could happen.

So my rule of thumb has always been submit to the police. If they ask you something that, uh, anything, just don't fight the police. Don't fight the police. There's plenty of songs. The one by John Cougar that comes to mind. uh i fought authority and authority always wins and a whole bunch of other songs and so the the topic of conversation has been um am i wrong to think that am i wrong to act that way um am i putting other people in danger by acting that way uh is it constitutional for me to act that way And so on and so forth And there many many layers of the conversation So let me introduce the guys that I have brought in today.

Let me find the right screen here. there we go i have three guys here i have uh one who's returning jonathan bradford was here eight days ago uh for the discussion and i brought him back because i did a poor job at leading the discussion eight days ago because jonathan had a lot of things that he wanted to weigh in on and i didn't i didn't call upon him he was waiting uh many times or a few times to to weigh in and i didn't call him. And then Adam Staub, who is here, he's a contributor on the Bible Thumb Buena Network. He has two podcasts on the network, and he was a speaker at last year's Builder's Summit.

Adam Staub of Shine His Lights is here. He is the dark tan man who lays out in the sun a lot. And then all three of these folks are my friend. Another contributor is Michael Coghlan. He is here. Michael Coghlan has a podcast on the network as well called Be a Berean.

All of this content at BibleThumpingWingNet.com. So check that out. So we don't have many live viewers because it's early in the day. A lot of people would not suspect that we would be live, but a lot of people will be watching this later and listening to it on podcast. welcome guys and uh that i don't really know where to start there's so much that we could say but let me just let me let me start with um let's say uh michael coglan because michael i want i want you to weigh in on uh the discussion that was that you listened to that we had eight days ago and give us your take.

And then we'll go to Adam and allow him to weigh in. And then we'll give Jonathan an opportunity and we will go back and forth and just go with the flow. All right, so Michael Coughlin. All right, so if nobody listened to that discussion, they're going to want to go back and check out that episode because there were things said in there that I think people need to understand.

My take was this, that, yeah, it was too broad of a topic with too many different opinions. And so it needed, and I'm not trying to criticize you, but you admitted it, it needed more moderation to keep people on track. And so it just kept going in a lot of directions was the way I felt. And I'll just throw it out there. I tend to agree with Jordan Hall on his exegesis of these verses and application.

And what I felt like I heard happen was Jordan would make statements that will say connected three or four dots. And he just made the end statement a lot. And then when people questioned it, he didn't really trace back and explain it, maybe connecting the dots, one at a time. And so I felt like Jordan, I should say I believe Jordan said some things that were that were very good. and he didn't give as many examples as would help people.

And at times I think he was drawing conclusions that people weren't seeing all the steps intermediate that he's drawn maybe in other episodes that he's done. So my general impression is that we are under authorities. And one of the points that I felt like got lost in the last episode was that when we evaluate what's an authority, we have to be able to ask that question.

You know, if my neighbor walks over right now and tells me I have to, I don't know, cut my grass, I don't have to, because I know my neighbor doesn't have authority to tell me to do that, or at least not in this moment, he doesn't have that authority. And so when we start talking about governmental authorities in Romans 13 and 1 Peter chapter 2, I think it's fair to say, hey, what authority has to be obeyed? And I think that that is where we start getting into the idea of jurisdictions and how do we make those kinds of determinations.

So hopefully tonight I'll get to give a few examples that I thought were helpful in thinking about that. A couple of them I gave Tim during the week that I think those were some of the things you were thinking about when you invited me on. All right, Adam. Yeah, so I would largely agree with both Michael, what he was talking about. I think that the hinge of the conversation, I believe, comes down to recognizing what authorities we have.

And I've also, going back and forth with Tim, gave a couple examples and things like that. So it'll be good to talk through some of that stuff. again I don't I don't know other than just affirming some of those things I think from the conversation I also though as I mentioned to Tim was recognizing some of the other side and the sentiment there of where they were coming from particularly like John John do you go by John or Jonathan Bradford is it can I either one or well if you're gonna ask you're gonna ask I prefer Jonathan, but I got you. So, okay.

I thought it was flat earth Bradford. So thanks for the correction. You know, in this conversation, I do like to say that for me as a Christian, obviously Romans 12 comes before Romans 13, and then Romans 13 is followed by Romans 14. And within there, you get a pretty good package of an ethic that we are supposed to have and a command to be at peace with all men and then recognizing and having to understand and work through what the different authorities are that are established by God and how we live in this world and not be of the world and all those things.

And then in 14, there's also some interesting things, how he transitions into conscience issues. So I think one of the other things that we have to talk about in this conversation is realizing that in the body, there are going to be varying degrees of conscience that we are going to have to deal with because there are going to be certain brothers who, you know, are okay, both within the law and within their Christian liberty to do something that other brothers in the faith or sisters in the faith are not going to be able to do because of, you know, their personal convictions of what, you know, where the line of, not that sin is black and white, of course it's not, but there are certain areas and maybe we'll get into some examples where, you know, we're going to have some varying conscience issues that play into this conversation as well. Before we go to Jonathan, I just want to point out, Adam, you, like a big part of the discussion eight days ago, and yes, thank you for the person who pointed it out in the chat, It is June.

It is not May. Sorry about that. It is June 15th right now. Adam, when we talked, well, excuse me, when I talked to Jordan, a lot of the discussion was who's the ruling authority in America? And he was hard fast that it's the Constitution. And my point was, you know, Paul and Peter were thinking of somebody with flesh and blood.

But you stated to me that everything that Jordan said in regards to the Constitution, you agreed with. Yes, I do. Yep. I would say that in regards to Romans 13, it says, you know, submit to the higher power, the higher powers, the highest power in our land and our actual form of God. I mean, this is to me, this is, you know, civics 101 that we live in a constitutional republic and a constitutional republic is where you choose leaders.

You have representatives who govern according to the law. And within our law, it not only gives permission, but it basically gives a duty not only to the constituents and the citizens to uphold that constitution and hold their their leaders to that standard. But the leaders themselves have to swear an oath to uphold that, and they're only an authority in as much as they are in line with that Constitution.

That's just what a constitutional republic is. And can I give one example I gave this to you, Tim and I know it's not a perfect example but I think we already think this way in a certain area, yet, for some reason, we're having a disconnect here, but none of us I mean we're all Protestants none of us submit to the Pope. Okay. And, you know, I would say, why don't you submit to the Pope?

He is a, he is the authority of the church Catholic, right? And you say, no, he's not. He's only an authority in as much as he's in line with the scriptures. And so you're, you're appealing to a higher authority and, and, and that authority is actually a document. Now I understand it's the word of God and it's the highest authority, but you already think that way in that realm.

Yet when it comes to how our government was set up with those principles and with that kind of same ideas in mind that we are submitting to a law here and the authorities are put in place in accordance to that law, that higher power. It's the same kind of thinking. And to be clear, I don't take issue with that. I don't take issue with that at all. And I think a lot of the people's comments where they're saying, oh, I agree with Jordan.

I agree with Jordan. I agree with Jordan, which has been the overwhelming feedback on all social media platforms. I think they're referring to that point. And that is not that I don't even take issue with his position on that. I take it. My my my my my thing that I am encouraging people to do is to submit to.

And I made it clear on the title of this a title of this episode. Submit to the police. As we engage with the police, it's my policy, submit to the police. And the people who disagree with me are quick to point out, you don't have to. You don't have to because of the Constitution. Well, we'll get into it further, but it's also my constitutional right to not hold them to the standard and put aside my rights if I choose. so i'm saying my position is submit to them even if they're unreasonable even if they're abusing their power and get your day in court don't get roughed up don't get shot by bad cops submit and then you know lift live another day and and i'm not saying submit in the courts as well and don't stick up for your rights.

I'm not, I'm not saying that at all. All right, Jonathan. For me, having some, some reflection on, on the discussion we had since I was a part of it last week, and then conversations about it with, with yourself, Tim, and then with other friends here in my local area. A couple of things that came to the forefront for me were sort of maybe two big questions to answer.

Number one, the question of who is the governing authority or what is the governing authority, which you guys have already touched on. And what do we get? How do we answer that question biblically And then the other big question is if we have certain rights and freedoms the issue of exercising them versus voluntarily temporarily giving them up in a certain situation and whether or not that a Christian ethic that we are taught to do And so I'll just throw my thoughts quickly on those two, how I would answer them.

Number one, although I will happily agree that according to the American system, the answer to who the ultimate governing authority is would be the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, these things, documents, laws, that kind of stuff. I would say that's the American answer, but is that the biblical answer? And I would say, biblically, I can't get to the place where there is a biblical understanding that the highest authority would be a set of laws, would be a document that was written.

And I think the Bible very clearly is talking about people, submitting yourself to the people who have the power, as opposed to any specific laws, any specific constitution. So I would say, biblically, I can't get to the answer that Jordan would give. And it sounds like maybe a couple of you guys are giving. I just, I can't get that out of 1 Peter 2. I can't get, I definitely can't get that out of Romans 13.

I think it shows the exact opposite. And so that would be my answer to that. The second question that sort of came up a lot in the discussion in that previous discussion was the issue of voluntarily setting aside any rights that we may have or freedoms that we may have. And I think overwhelmingly, and even after I went back and looked at it after that discussion, I think overwhelmingly the Bible really pushes the Christian in a way of being willing to set aside your rights for the sake of others, whether it be in giving to someone in need, whether it be any act of self-sacrificial love that you can come up with.

I think that's an overarching principle that the Christian is really strongly exhorted to. And I think that comes into play a lot in this. So I'll stop there. There's a couple other things as we get into details, but I'll leave it there for you, Tim. All right. I want to go back to Michael Coughlin, and we don't have to do this here.

Michael, you said that you had a few examples for clarity that would help us out on this topic. Excuse me. I got to do that before I unmute myself. So I want to respond a little bit to what Jonathan said. and but but for for clarity i i don't understand i i don't think we can really i'm trying to be respectful like but i would say pigeonhole the bible into saying it only could have been talking about obeying authorities that happen to be flesh and blood humans and say that the fact that humans drafted a fantastic document to create the greatest nation that's ever existed, that we shouldn't try to continue to appeal to that.

I can't reconcile that with the Bible. That's the authority that we have in the United States. And maybe if you don't live here and you don't understand that, I can understand why it would sound strange, like if it was a hypothetical, but it's not for us. Can I just say something? Yeah, that and I would say if you if you don't live outside of the United States, you may have trouble seeing how unique your system is and and able to see that from an outside standpoint and going in any other case that wouldn't make sense yet. how is America the special case just because of how they have constituted themselves?

And I can give you some examples as to where I see that. But the same principle would apply, though, that if I start to have multiple layers of government that are either outside their jurisdiction or that are giving me contradictory commands even within their own jurisdiction, I have no choice in the second one to disobey one of them. If I have one government telling me one thing and another government telling me something else, at some point, I got to pick which government I'm obeying.

We're just simply saying the Constitution is one layer of those authorities that we think we can appeal to, which in fact, we can appeal to. I mean, it is what we are told to appeal to. Every military person swears an oath to the Constitution in the United States. They don't swear an oath to the king, to the president, to the first lady. And that's their protection from bad managers and bad supervisors or majors or whatever those names of things are in the armies and stuff.

I don't know all the ranks. Their protection is that they always get to appeal the constitution. And then if somebody tells me to do something that's outside their jurisdiction, I get to decide whether I want to come to terms quickly with that person and make peace with them. So the government. So here would be an example of government governor shows up at my house and says, I'm not allowed to eat chicken.

Right. It's a silly example, and everybody knows it's silly because everyone knows my governor has no right to just decide I can eat chicken. And and that we would know, no, I'm the head of this household, I'll decide what we eat inside this house, I'll decide what TV shows my kids watch and all those things. And we all understand that concept. And so my question is, why don't we understand that concept when it comes to, for example, the government telling the church what to do?

And so that's my thinking on that topic. And I do understand what you're saying that, you know, if my human experience is never outside the United States, I can't exactly speak on what it would be like if I didn't live here. But it doesn't mean I can't read the scripture and understand what it says about obeying authorities. And then I wanted to bring up one other thing.

I feel like I don't want to get into too many topics, but you mentioned setting aside your rights out of love, you know? And when we talk about that in the Bible, we're talking about like, you know, I have the right to drink a glass of wine, right? But if I'm going to be around people who that might cause them to sin, love for them is going to dictate that, hey, you know, maybe I don't bring the wine glasses out that night.

Or, you know, maybe I don't indulge in certain things where it doesn't bother me and my family, but maybe a new Christian guy comes over and some TV show might have some women that aren't perfectly dressed. Maybe they're not totally immodest, so it's okay to watch, but I don't even want this guy to see it. So I set aside my rights to things out of love, but setting aside certain liberties governmentally is not necessarily like just loving in that definition, because for me to let the cops come to my house and do an illegal search and seizure, I'm now opening the door for them to do that to my neighbor and plant stuff in my neighbor's house and actually, you know, do things that are really wicked.

And for me to allow cops to confiscate guns, like I have to love my neighbor. And part of loving my neighbor is actually fighting for his rights. And I think sometimes, and I'll criticize Jordan here, sometimes Jordan comes across as, these are my rights, and I'm going to fight for them. And he doesn't. But I know that's not what he really thinks, because I've listened to him more.

It's about loving the other people who need those rights. I don't want my neighbor's kids enslaved. I don't want the government to come and take my neighbor's kids or mine. And so I'm going to stand up to things that I think are wrong. actually out of love. And it's not a matter of whether I'm setting aside my liberties or not in that biblical sense. It's a matter of trying to do what's right to protect my neighbor.

Looked like Adam was ready to say something there. If you don't mind, and too, just biblically, when I work through this, I see Paul, and I know this was brought up multiple times, but it would be right in line with this conversation. I think it's four times in the book of Acts for different scenarios, he appeals to his Roman citizenship. And so Paul wasn't, you know, none of the other apostles and disciples at that time, not none in the context that, you know, we're talking Peter, James, all these martyrs early on, they weren't able to appeal to that citizenship to get to escape death like Paul was.

But that didn't just because he had that unique position didn't make it wrong, you know, or didn't make it foreign biblically. In fact, it is biblical. That is exactly what he was able to do because he had certain rights as a Roman citizen that helped and were a blessing from God for the furtherance of the gospel. So he took full advantage of them when it was advantageous for the spreading of the gospel and for, you know, even his own preservation in that plan.

And I think when you look at the founding of this country and you say, you know, why is America this special thing? Listen, I can't answer that in the sovereignty of God, but I can absolutely say that the people who came here, when you look at the historical documents and why they were doing what they were doing, why they set things up the way they set them up, was they did not want a king or an emperor. They set this system up this way with the Bible in mind and also for the free practice of religion so that they weren't being killed like they were by kings.

And so it is a special system, whether you like it or not. It's true. I'm an American citizen. I'm not, you know, I don't live in Ethiopia. I don't live in Africa. So I've got to find out what authority I need to follow.

All right, Jonathan Bradford, I would really like to bring it down to the simplest scenario. I just think my example is easier than Michael Coghlan's. Michael has given the example of the police. Before you give that, can I just say one thing real quick? in in reference to um the apostle paul um this came up briefly on in the previous discussion um you know that he did uh exercise his rights as a roman citizen a couple times in the book of but i think i think that's clearly the exception and not the rule um you look at the life of paul And the overwhelming rule is that he does not appeal to his Roman citizenship in many, many places where he could.

He languished in prison for two years before he finally spoke up and said, you know what, I've got it right here. I'm going to exercise. He, you know, in Philippi, he was brought before the magistrates there and they threw him in prison. He didn't speak up and say, hey, I'm a Roman citizen. I've got these rights. He spent the night in jail.

Wasn't until the next day when they tried to, you know, sneak him out quietly that he said, oh, wait a second. You know what? Come back and stand up on the decision that you've made and sort of call them out in that regard. I think yes he does use his rights at times but I think the overwhelming example of the Apostle Paul is that he consistently set those aside consistently overwhelmingly Anyway sorry go ahead Can we look to 1 Corinthians 9.19?

Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone to win as many as possible the scenario i wanted to to go to rather than the people they knock on your door i want to search your house all right let's go to an even simpler thing you're pulled over and they want to search your trunk of your car um michael does all the same things apply that if if you allow them to search your car you're not protecting your neighbor and all that all that other stuff that you had mentioned so i'm not i'm not 100 certain what all the laws are so i i know like the fourth fourth amendment i think search and seizure and stuff but um i do i do think that there are laws that allow police officers to have probable cause to want to play over. And, and I do think that, that, uh, well, just like knocking on your, knocking on your house, asking me to search my car and me saying, sure, go ahead. I know I don't have anything to hide.

Um, to me, I, I, this is where I think I would differ from what Jordan communicated last week. And I think he's communicated this consistently is I, I would probably say, yeah, because to me in a, in an innocuous seeming situation where I'm relatively comfortable that I'm not guilty or being targeted for, for some, you know, nefarious reason, I would, I might just say, yeah, like, I think it'd be a good idea that, you know, I'm not the guy you're looking for. So you can just move on and save one of my neighbors from whoever had a car like mine that you need to go find.

Well, could the same thing. So I'm not saying every single time somebody does something that's not perfectly constitutional that I have to object like that I was the one that gave you the example like if the governor says you can't stay out after nine I'm going to bed at nine anyway and Jordan Hall's like staying up late just to disobey because he wants to show that but to me it's like I'm not going to necessarily disobey if I don't care so I'm not saying you have to disobey either necessarily in every situation but there are situations where you would be right to disobey and of course i think we'd agree with the statement that if the government tells you to sin you you should resist the authority and if the government tells you to do something that isn't necessarily sin then the position like a reformed baptist position would be you you have the option to obey or resist in some senses and i think where we're to diverge is because I'm a sabbatarian. I think attending church on Sunday morning is, is, is mandated.

And I think it'd be a sin not to. And so if the government tells me you got to shut down your church that I don't think they have that jurisdiction. And I think they're asking me to sin. But the, the situation with being pulled over with your car is in your mind different than them knocking on your door and saying, I want to search your house. I don't, I don't know if it's different because I'm not really that well versed on all the laws.

I know some of the general concepts, but them coming to my house and asking to search, I think I can say no. I think I can say yes. I think if I have reason to believe that this guy's about to go in and plant something that I know is not in my house because I'm being investigated for whatever reason, I think I might try to exercise the resistance to that police officer to say, no, you are not allowed to do this without a warrant.

And so you go through due process before you deprive me of my pursuit of happiness. I think I would potentially at least try to say that. All right. Yeah. I think we have to be able to weigh the options here because, so, and Jordan mentioned this and I would just affirm it and I reiterated it when I was talking with you, Tim, that there's a pragmatic answer to this and there's a moral answer.

And the pragmatic answer looks at the situation and says, you know, okay, so the police pulls me over. Let me start with the moral. Morally, because our highest authority is the constitution, I have legal right. I can be as a Christian in clear conscience to check that authority of that person and potentially, you know, resist this or exert my citizenship and everything like that.

But I need to answer the question pragmatically, though, too, as a Christian, because I have that call to be at peace with all men. So I want to use wisdom and say, OK, what are my options here? One, I have the moral ability to do it. I can have a clear conscience with it. But is it smart for me to do it in this situation when this cop pulls me over? If I resist, maybe it'll good thing and he'll respond to it and he'll check the authority and it'll be great.

But there's also the option where I get tased or pepper sprayed or drug out of my car and end up on the evening news. My kids, you know, lose a parent to a jail cell for a couple days. And was that really worth the exercise of my right at that time? I think you need to ask that question and work through some of those scenarios, because from our perspective, I'm saying our perspective, like, I won't speak for any, from my perspective, I'm giving the freedom to you, Tim, to lay down your rights.

If you want to say, hey, constitutionally, I can stand up this, but I'm going to submit to this police officer and let him search my car. I'm laying that down. I'm giving you that freedom of conscience to do that. But in your scenario with us you saying we in sin for rejecting the authority of that police officer at that time So this is where we do kind of have a rub Because if your interpretation of that is that everyone, you are to submit to that police officer always because that police officer is the flesh and blood governing authority over you all the time by the state. then the extension of that is the person who's standing on the constitution and not that police officer is sinning against Romans 13 and so there is a rub there but I think you have to be able to distinguish between the the pragmatic approach and the moral approach where the moral approach I would say we have freedom of morality it just may not be wise to do that in that scenario I don't know if that made sense sorry I was that that definitely made sense and it highlighted one of the things that I said to you the other day, Tim, about there's the pragmatic side of things, and there's the moral side of things.

I just want to say one thing in reference to what you said, Adam. I know that you didn't mean this, but just for clarification, because it does affect the conversation, when you said our highest authority is the Constitution, I know that you know the highest authority is God and his word yeah I was meaning in our I was putting in the context of our land yeah but but the the position that I would would hold and I think I think you are hitting the nail on the head there that um in the position that I would hold I would think that those who are uh resisting and you may not call it resisting but from from my point of view resisting governing authorities like a police officer or or um a governor or that kind of thing those who are resisting those people in authority um are actually uh depending on details because there's always the question of if they're asking me to sin i'm not going to um but in in general uh resisting the authority on an issue that is not a sin issue um is a in turn a moral issue of yes it is going against romans 13 it is going against that so i would say that a lot of those things there's there's not that issue of of conscience um and uh one other thing to throw out there and i i said this to me so in reference to the pragmatic and the moral issue um to look at the moral side of things more, the concept of submission and recognizing that we submit, the whole concept of submission, God has created this world in a certain way. And things that he asks us to do or commands us to do reflect greater things.

They are pictures of greater realities. Certain things in the physical world are pictures of spiritual truths. And I would say that the concept of submission, where we are asked to submit in various realms, are meant to be a picture of our submission to God. For example, children submit to your fathers is meant to be a living picture around this world of how we, as children of God, are meant to submit to our Father God. so all these families around the world where there are parents and children that concept of children submitting is meant to be a picture of that wives submit to your husbands we know quite clearly that's meant to be a picture of the church submitting to christ slaves submit to your masters but that's meant to be a picture of how we as servants are to submit to christ our master and I would say that it's the exact same with governing authorities when we are told to submit to the governing authorities it's meant to be a picture of how we as citizens of the kingdom of God are to submit to Christ our king now because humanity is sinful we have done a terrible job we taint and mar that concept of submission all the time and we've tainted fatherhood we've tainted husband-marriage-spousal relationship.

We've tainted our relationships with how we even govern. Mankind is fantastic at sinning in a lot of ways. But even in the midst of that, that picture is meant to be there. In looking at 1 Peter 2, Paul goes through a bunch of those. There's submit to governing authorities, but then the very next thing is slaves submit to your masters and then it's talking about the marriage relationship as well that whole concept and and and you wouldn't ask a woman oh sorry you wouldn't ask a woman to submit to someone who wasn't her husband she has to determine who is her authority slaves don't submit to every master out there but you have to understand who is the authority and so nobody nobody on this line is saying resist authorities that were given by god the people on this line and what people were saying last week is we have to determine who is an actual authority at the time and then we can go ahead and we can ignore people who are not you walk in my house and you tell my wife to make a sandwich she does not have to make it even though you're a husband and she's a wife but the point on that was was less about figuring out which is the right authority but more about having the posture of submission so back to the point yeah but see that's what i'm saying is we're all for that i'm gonna see that's the thing i'm gonna submit to the right authorities The position that Adam just talked about is saying I have a freedom to submit or not to submit.

And I would say I think there's less freedom there than you otherwise might think. And the reason I think that is because the moral component does have a bigger picture that we can't forget. When I submit to a governing authority it not just because I commanded to It not just because pragmatic reasons It because that is meant to be a picture of the way mankind should be submitting to God I just don't want to say, except God's not a tyrant.

Well, and so we got to break down analogies at some point, like, except, except God is also, God is not an unjust master. He still says to slaves, be willing to submit to unjust masters. Yeah, absolutely. Because they're actually submitting to him in the process right um so i'm not convinced that submission is is necessarily to picture god so much as as just uh how we live out the christian life there but i like i agree with the point you were making but but my point is is if i have two competing authorities if i which one should i resist i think i think you know you're you're acting like i just want to resist authority when it's like no i i just want to do what the authorities i actually have been given by god telling me to do there's right there's two different we keep going back and forth between two different topics really um because jonathan puts forth you know we're supposed to submit in all these categories every single one of those categories the authority on earth is sinful struggles and imperfect so yeah even even when even when it's the right authority Michael, we still have to consider that right authority not being perfect and whether we should submit to them when they're not being perfect or not.

Yeah, but first you have to determine what are the authorities, and then second you have to determine are they asking you to break a command of God, right? And in my case, when I make those determinations, I submit to the authorities God's given me. I do it with joy in my heart and trusting my soul to a faithful creator while doing good. Suffering like Jesus Christ suffered was led to the slaughter.

And if somebody comes to me who's not my authority and says, you have to do this, even if they are in authority, like if my boss tells me I'm not allowed to kiss my wife tonight, I don't submit to my boss, even though I interpret those scriptures that I should obey my boss like a slave would obey a master. because I know my boss doesn't have authority to decide whether I kiss my wife tonight. It's outside his jurisdiction, even though he is a God appointed authority in my life. And so God gave us the ability to think through these things.

And I really liked Adam's point because that's what's funny about it is I feel the same way that we're kind of giving everyone the freedom to say, hey, do what you want. Obey the authorities that you have. And if you think that giving up all your guns and not drinking out of plastic straws or whatever all the different things are that you lay down your rights, you think that's what God wants you to do, then I guess go right ahead.

I might disagree, but I'm not going to say you're in sin for it. But to say that people are in sin who are basically appealing to the Constitution, which is our way of governing here, that's what we have to do. We have no other way. it's like saying you disobeyed your pastor because you referred to the bible when your pastor told you to do something that the bible tells you not to do i'm not going to obey my pastor if i know the truth i'm going to appeal to the higher authority that that that i have and that's a really quick short answer to that i would say that's uh i from my point of view i would say that's a false analogy because we would all agree that bible is higher authority than pastor pastor tells me something different in the bible um and you want to translate that over to constitution is higher authority than uh a governor it is and i would say i mean this is just basic no this is just how it works like well i i get that the american answer to that question is that i don't think you want to talk about canadian submission we can talk about like well i would say let's jonathan finish his let's jonathan finish how does how does the bible determine the concept of what a governing authority is and i would say that biblically from romans 13 we can't get to an idea where constitution person is biblical understanding of that concept who ordained that who ordained that the constitutional congress would come together and establish the law of the land and form a constitutional republic for the land of america who ordained that who rose up that kingdom according to Daniel chapter four.

Oh God, but that doesn't mean that it's good and doesn't mean that it's the way I should, it's the way I should understand Romans 13. And I have a perfect counter example that I'm. Well, so those authority, that authority was ordained by God to be a rule over this land. And I mean, that's, I mean, You know, he made from one man every nation of mankind and, you know, having determined the allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place.

Every single, you know, area of this, this world has its laws and it has its context. And so the Bible, being what it is, transcends those in principle. And you have to know, I mean, it is the basics of this is we've got to be able to establish what our authority is. And the authority in America is ultimately, God's word is the ultimate authority for the Christian.

But as a citizen of America, our authority that we submit to when I'm submitting as a citizen is to the Constitution. So if it was if it was a different authority that was set up We're having a different conversation, but if it was a different authority would you submit if it wasn't causing you to sin? Yeah, because that would then we have an emperor or a king or a you know okay jonathan let me ask you this jonathan give the example let's say let's say we go back in time to the founding of the united states all the founding fathers they come together um they they want to throw off the chains of the monarchy in britain and and they're establishing a new country and they recognize that man is sinful and they believe in the you know divesting of powers we shouldn't have a king you know checks and balances and all this kind of stuff.

And they go, we are going to institute a country where the governing, you know what, we don't want to put the power in the hands of those people. So the governing authority is this set of dice. And you know what, we throw the dice and the dice make the decision for us. And the legislature is submissive to the dice. The president is submissive to the dice.

The court system is submissive to the dice. The set of dice is our governing authority. And that is how your country was set up and governed that way for 200 years. And you're sitting here today and you're going, you know what, I am, I'm a dice man. I submit myself to the dice. I am, you know, the dice is, is my governing authority. do you think that would be a valid extrapolation of Romans 13 that when when someone says I'm supposed to submit to my governing authorities according to first Peter 2 Romans 13 well I in my country the governing authority is this set of dice so I'm going to do what the set of dice do you think that would be a valid application no because that's actually exactly what you're asking us to do no no no no that's what you said when you're telling us obey whoever shows up at our door governor police officer city councilman mayor um federal agent you're telling us like hey we'll just roll the dice no that's that country wouldn't have lasted 200 years it wouldn't have lasted 200 days like you're misunderstanding me you're misunderstanding me i'm not saying roll the dice with whoever comes i'm saying no i i know what you're saying i'm i believe scripture but i think you misrepresented me i was i was kind of playing with a little bit because I thought it was a silly example.

But sure, if that was what was happening, if that is the governing authority, I mean, in some respect, as long as you have a rotating king and monarchy, that's what you're doing. Getting a random, whatever that person feels like. But instead, what we did is we got some really good laws written at the beginning that were based on biblical wisdom. And we obey those.

And I obey laws today that were written 50 years before I was born. Should I just not obey those? because it's not what a current authority believes. I mean, Obama didn't believe a lot of stuff. I still obeyed the law when Obama contradicted it, even though he was my president for eight years. Obama wanted us to do some terrible things. My point is, I believe that the Bible is talking about submitting to governing people.

I don't think it's a valid interpretive principle to be able to take that and translate it to a document any more than I would say it's a valid biblical principle to take that and transfer that to a set of dice or a tree that we've carved in the woods that, you know, however the wind blows its branches, that's how we govern. I think the Bible is very clear in Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 that it's talking about submitting yourself to the people who are in positions of power as opposed to something that is not people. But people get their authority from somewhere.

So if you were Pharaoh in Egypt back then, you were getting that authority was recognized because it was a family secession, you know, or if you're in England and you're a part of the monarchy, it's a family, that authority is coming from somewhere on the earthly realm as well, if you want to put it that way. And so it happens that in our country, what determines whether or not a person is an authority is the law of the land, the constitution. So if that person is acting outside of that law, they have forfeited their authority.

They don't have authority. It's not there. So it isn't just people in our land. It's actually, those people derive authority from somewhere just like anywhere else so you would say that if the police officer stops me and wants to search my trunk and i say you know what the dice that they rolled this morning says that i'm i'm i don't have to submit so i'm not going to you would say well you know why don't i just declare myself his authority what what basis would he have to say i have no authority you're saying that you're saying that the the people derive their authority from somewhere and in your country it's the constitution well but you're saying it's not the constitution so why can't i just be the authority when i want to be i and your answer's got to be well because of rule of law or because somebody else declared themselves authority but that's so it's it's too arbitrary then somebody gave them the authority i am well and and again the dice gave that person their authority so i submit to the to the dice but my dice gave it to me so well and you're making my point for me michael You're saying that that system is absurd and you would never submit to something that was created like that.

The Constitution. No, because dice by their very nature change. The Constitution doesn't. That's the whole point of it. Yeah, but that's not a valid argument because emperors by their very nature change their mind. Sure.

And I don't live under an emperor right now. But if I did, I'd have to obey the next one and the next one and the next one, which is one of the reasons we don't want to give all these fools power. Because I don't want Donald Trump, who I agree with sometimes, to get a bunch of power, that then the next guy who comes in is going to like rape and pillage my whole country and all my neighbors.

That's one of the reasons we take away their power. We try to limit it We try to fight for the Constitution as said for 225 years So it sounds like you have a problem with the United States way we do government And I can't really argue with that. Like, I live here. It's not a question. Like, this is my authority. It's not a question of whether or not I think it's a good or bad way to do government.

It's a question of whether or not the way that the American system is set up trumps what the Bible says. You're using a loaded term and it doesn't trump anything. The way the American system is set up is simply how it's set up. And we just interpret the Bible and apply it to the system. You're saying that we can't do that because it's a document and not a living human being that's changing his mind as often as he wants.

It's not a question of – it's back to the question of recognizing the authorities from a biblical standpoint. Why don't you just declare yourself the prime minister of Canada? You would do a better job than who's in there now. That's a red herring that's irrelevant, so let's not do that. Don't play logical fallacy game. Why don't you? because there's a system that you follow that dictates how someone becomes that position.

And you know, you can't just buck that system. And you're telling us we should just ignore the constitution. You're dancing around the question that I'm addressing. No, not at all, brother. Like, I love it. And I hear what you're saying, but my position is that the Bible is talking about people.

Yeah. And I disagree with that on its surface anyway. So, okay, well then we've got an exegetical issue yeah i mean like so you know i i don't think that the bible at the time having been talking about systems not that god didn't understand the way the united states would be set up well but let's go back to the scripture and see whether or not we can get to that point okay happily say romans 13 does not allow that okay i uh let me jump in here okay i just muted both of you because I want to be, uh, I want to be sensitive to Adam Stobbs time because Adam, uh, has to go.

Uh, Adam wanted to commit 45 minutes and we're at the one hour mark. Adam, you told me as, as you leave. So let, let's, let's give you some time before you bow out. Um, you told me you agree with, uh, Jordan Hall's position and you agree with Michael as he's, he's talking now, but at the same time, you're a pacifist. Um, maybe, uh, expound on, expound on that and, uh, give, give your take on what's been, what's been, uh, talked about here and then we'll bid you farewell.

Yeah. Um, I mean, I think pretty much the same principle applies. I don't know that there's anything new that I would have to offer with that particular point other than my, so for instance, the second amendment, the constitution allows me morally as, as a citizen to exercise that right to bear arms, to have a militia, to overthrow a tyrannical government, if possible.

Morally, that is allowed for me. In my case, when it comes to my biblical convictions of, I'm not killing anyone. So when it comes down to that particular point, to me, that is sin. So I'm not, I'm going to exercise my rights and my freedoms as a citizen to the point of where I'm, you know, going to sin or not sin. And that's going to be my threshold, you know?

So, but it's the same thing with, with what we've been talking about. I would still work through those points in the exact same way. You know, however, what, what we've been articulating up to this point. What was your other point? I'm sorry. I just don't know that there's anything to throw in over that specific point.

You say you're a pacifist too. Yeah. But I mean, that's, I, I would take it to the same, to the same place, you know, so the, the officer, the cop comes and once in my house, I have a legal constitutional right. I would say even as a, you know, and again, my conscience would not be clear with this, uh, to defend my house from that person, even if it means bearing arms, I'm personally not going to do that.

But I think morally, according to the law, a citizen does have that right. I don't know if that – so I'm distinguishing. And you have the right – within the Constitution, you have the right not to. Not to bear arms. And you know what the beauty of this Constitution and the thought that went into it was we know of conscientious objectors to government rule because that's what they thought of in the – that's what they were working out biblically and in the Constitution, was they wanted to give that separation of church and state.

And so the separation of church and state was not necessarily that the church would not be involved in the state. It was Thomas Jefferson writing to the Danbury Baptist saying the state is going to stay out of the church. And so that's, I mean, one of the other things, and I know we didn't get into it, but we were talking about when it comes to how this impacts the church, Romans 13 on a level, man, unfortunately, we as the church have melded so much together with the state more than we ever should have already.

And we're not gathering because of the threat to 501c3s or our licensings or the governor says you can't gather, so I'm not getting in my church. We shouldn't have been in bed with them anyway. They have no jurisdiction there. And that is a biblical print. I mean, that's a biblical and a, you know, give to God what is God and give to Caesar what is Caesar's.

And so I would just apply it the same way in my personal life I mean I believe the Bible the Bible is individualistic and I believe that the Christian faith as well what was put into this the the in the minds and the hearts of the the founders of the country was a voluntarism, voluntarianism. I guess you want to say that is that the, you know, over some of these matters, we need to have a, a differing of conscience to be able to deal with it. You can lay down these rights if you want to lay down these rights, or you can stand on the authority that you have as a citizen in the Constitution.

I was rambling over a bunch of stuff there, but if I'm bowing out, I guess I'll just spew it all out there. So you said that my position is that people are sinning if they choose to call upon the Constitution when somebody's being abusive? No, isn't that I mean, I would just say, isn't that essentially what you you guys are articulating? I mean, that's that's what it sounds like is that if I'm appealing to the law, I need to become a lawbreaker and not obey my constitution, the constitution.

And therefore be in submission to that. You're not you're not a lawbreaker by putting your rights aside. okay wrong term yeah but essentially you don't want me to uphold the law no i the point that i think that they're sinning is when you go get in your car to go confront for the for the sole purpose of confronting uh unnecessarily unnecessarily um confronting a bad cop or border patrol or you know i i i think conscious wise for me if they said um there's a there's a curfew after 9 p.m in your town and i'm i'm usually going to bed at nine o'clock because i i get up early in the morning i think it would be a sin for me to go out at nine o'clock just to prove the point that I have the right to do this and go give those who have been given the task of enforcing a curfew a hard time. For me, I think that that would be a sin.

Yeah. And I would differentiate and say it may be unwise. Maybe you shouldn't do that. But to say that, and again, we're dealing with, I mean, honestly, in the conversation, I feel like we're dealing with two underlying different presuppositions. One is that my obedience to the constitution is in my land, the authority that I am under yours again, is this, this people thing.

But if I choose, if I choose to go out after nine o'clock because somebody made an arbitrary command that is against the constitution that infringes on the bill of rights and what I need to do morally, there's no problem. Like I am in clear conscience to do so because I'm submitted to the governing authority in my land. Yeah. I think my frustration is when people choose to not submit to police when it really makes no difference whether you submit or not, in my understanding. when they ask you something that they like you're driving down the road and they stop you they've got a checkpoint and they're asking everybody for their ids you don't have to constitution says you don't have to show it to them right but i see i i see no reason to give them a hard time and and i think the majority just like michael articulated earlier, I think the majority of people in the majority of situations, we'd affirm and take that pragmatic approach and go, you know what, this isn't a battle worth fighting right now, you know, or it's, this is no big deal, whatever.

But to then also say that someone is in sin for actually obeying the law that tells them that they can, they do have rights and they can not turn that over to someone who's acting outside of their authority, which makes them not an authority again i mean you could get a little pun intended you can get a little dicey there all right because it may be unwise but but to say that it's sin then i you know i just think it's stupid i think i just think that there are people who who are um they they uh suffer the consequences of saying, I don't have to obey you. They may be right, but I'm saying submit to them during that engagement and then appeal to your constitution in the courts. That's what I'm saying.

And again, I don't think any of us would disagree with that, at least fundamentally to go, there's this pragmatic, yeah, that makes sense. Yeah. Do that. That's fine. But if, but there may be situations where you draw the line and that's not what we do because we're protecting, you know, our neighbors, our family, whatever. The, the further, like fundamentally I would say the, in the same way that Paul, and I believe in, in my thought process of how I work through this in the ways, and I'll even grant to you, Jonathan, too, you know, Paul had a pattern of not appealing, you know, maybe just being at peace with all men, and then when he needed to, he appealed to his rights as a citizen, and for the furtherance of the gospel, and for, you know, a greater, better cause.

If we grant that, I think sometimes, and what I get sometimes from your conversation is you guys approach this as if the fundamental rights that are that are recognized in our Constitution are some bad thing or they not helpful in the furtherance of the gospel Like if we I not saying we need them The constitution could burn tomorrow Somebody could come in and get rid of it and take it away. It's not going to change. You know, I'm not going out there and, you know, going nuts for it or killing a bunch of people and overthrowing them and stuff like that.

Because I'm not promised that in the scriptures, but I do recognize that it's advantageous for the furtherance of the gospel to have a recognition of the freedom of speech and of, you know, my, my household and the authority of my household not being, you know, overrun by some cop who just wants to come in and plant something or, you know, exercise his, you know, whatever authority he thinks he has to potentially harm my family or do something or whatever. So I think there's, there's nothing wrong when it comes down to it of the hope of preserving these rights as long as we can. They're a blessing from God.

They are the authority of our land. All right, Adam, I'll let you go. I'm done. Yeah. You're done. Thank you, guy.

I really appreciate the conversation. Yeah, bro. Good meeting you. Yeah, absolutely. And thank you, Jonathan. thanks for the conversation absolutely all right see you guys yeah so when um when jonathan agreed to come he asked me if this was going to turn into a debate i'm like i don't i don't i don't think so jonathan i don't think so at all i mean it's just um so here we are um and i to let you guys know you're not going to see me for a while but i i will be back quicker than quicker than before either of you quit and hang up on each other i will be back all right um it looks like it's just you and me michael uh i i wanted to i guess just highlight a couple of things that adam said on the issues of conscience uh conscience issues are hard as as Christians, because what do you do with an issue that someone thinks is a conscience issue and another person doesn't think is a conscience issue?

Which I think we're sort of recognized that that's sort of where we've landed. I don't want to speak for Tim, but at least for myself, I would say that in some of these, what Adam is saying, it's a conscience issue where you can do this or that, I would say, I think some of those are, it's not actually a conscience issue and you should do this and to not do it would be sin. And just to give you an example, to flip it around, you mentioned earlier, you're a sabbatarian.

I am not. So I say it's a conscience issue. If someone wants to observe one day of the week a certain way, that's great. If another person doesn't, that's great that's a conscience issue um whereas it sounds like you would say that's not a conscience issue and that i would be in sin if i'm not going to church on a sunday or however you would say sabbath observance should be should be followed am i understanding that correct when you say yeah and and the thing about confidence issues is one of the reasons why they're hard is we have so many things that we interpret the scripture differently about right yeah so when two people agree that something is a conscience issue yeah then it's easy right then it's not as hard yeah but if one person says this is a conscience issue and the other says no it's not then it's really yeah and and i think that that for the most part what we hope for is that there's enough maturity to know that there's effectively different denominations right i mean i mean you're you're baptist right yeah so i'd probably lean more anabaptist but but but you're not a presbyterian no and so we see presbyterians sprinkle babies and there's actually no other alternative than to say we think they're wrong yeah and and but you know i know why they do it and and i'm not i'm not gonna like make a big stink out of that but i can't go to church with them right and and so that's one of the reasons why you know we have different different opinions about some of those things.

But like, you know, for example, I would say that, and I don't want to speak for him, but you know, like Jordan, who was on last week, I think Jordan thinks men are somewhat obligated to carry a gun or some kind of protection so that they are ready to defend innocent life, like basically on a moment's notice. And I know other men, if Jordan wouldn't say that, who, who have communicated that and they've, they've actually tried to teach it from the scripture. And it was, you know, it's always convincing when you hear an argument the first time it seems like.

And, and, and yet, I don't know if any of the guys on this phone call or those kinds of guys, you know what I mean? So I, I think that that sometimes we just have to have some level of understanding that, Hey, other guys are either at different points than we are in this process or, or literally like your NCT, like I know, like kind of what you, I know what you probably think about some things based on what I know about NCT and I'm a Reformed Baptist. So, you know what I probably think about some things.

I mean, I'm sure there's places we would both diverge from our label, but I think we can respect that. That's why I'm not going to say you're a bad guy if you closed your church if your philosophy of the Sabbath and the Lord's day is maybe different from mine. I'm not going to tell you, you should have resisted the authority or resisted a governor, whatever it was in that situation necessarily, because I know you have a fundamentally different view of why you would do it in the first place.

But when people tell a guy like me, hey, you should have shut your shirt, you should have shut down your church, and you didn't, so you're in rebellion. The response is, no, I'm trying to obey what I'm think is God's command. And, and I'm just trying not to sin. So that's, you know, I think, I think sometimes, and this is what I said earlier, sometimes we, we've connected dots, and we talk about the last dot, and we see the whole picture completed.

And other people, they don't know your first two, three dots, because their presuppositions are different, or, you know, like NCT reform back, you know, there's some, there's something fundamentally different that says, hey, we're going to exegete things differently. But I would maintain that whether or not the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Peter had in mind flesh and blood kings when they wrote passages about obeying authorities, I would maintain that a rule of law like the United States has created falls under what they were talking about. No different than if I left my wife a note and my kids a note of things they needed to do while I was on a work trip that they needed to obey it.

Because it came from the authority and, and the way nations are divided up, I don't know all the answers, but it seems like we, we kind of know it. We look around, we know when we have a nation and we know when we don't. And so the way the United States was founded is, is in this way that we have inherited and we're just trying to we're just trying to roll with it the way it is i mean i mean that's that's like the whole the whole point of being able to make amendments is like we've literally amended it right we have what 30 amendments or something now so it's not like it's unamendable but it's also not so easily changeable that one tyrant can pop in and and just you know basically like do a hitler type thing you know or stalin now you can't just i mean even as bad as obama and trump are as people they they haven't been able to completely destroy our country yet you know now that's that's theoretically a good thing you know although they're trying now i would uh i i would and i would definitely agree there are There are a lot of good things that have come out of the way the American founding fathers set things up.

I was going to say something, but that will open up a different can of worms. It might go down a different direction. There are a lot of good things that come out of that. The way God has ordained. Well, let me say it this way. The way that God has ordained the United States as a country, a lot of good things have come out of it.

But at the same time, a lot of horrible things have come out of it. And so, you know, I look at that the same in my country. We have freedom of religion here in Canada. I love that that lets me have, I don't have to, I can have a lot less concerns about how to practice my faith. We have freedom of speech, so I can go out and share the gospel in the street corner with relative ease.

I am happy that God has ordained my country for me to have these rights for the furtherance of his kingdom. At the same time, and this is probably going to be quite controversial, I think freedom of religion is a wicked thing. I think freedom of speech is a wicked thing. I don't think these are righteous things. Freedom of religion allows and enables rampant idolatry, and idolatry is horrifically wicked.

When we look at whatever your eschatology is, when we get to the other side of it and we're living in the eternal state, there's no concept of freedom of religion, because freedom of religion is not a good thing. it's a temporary condescension of God in his long suffering and patience and forbearance with us that he allows people to go around committing idolatrous acts all the time freedom of speech I don't think it's a good thing for people have freedom to lie lying is wicked I think in the eternal state there won't be any concept of having the freedom to lie I recognize that it's a condescension that god allows people to lie in society right now um our country has uh established that in its in its laws and rights and freedoms um it's a wicked thing it allows me opportunities that i might not otherwise have for the furtherance of god's kingdom which is a great thing God can always bring good out of bad. But I look at that and go, that doesn't necessarily mean that those things, how they've been enshrined, those rights, those freedoms, aren't necessarily good just because it allows me to pursue good in certain ways. Anyway, a little bit sidetracked there.

And I know that would be very controversial to most Americans for me to say that some of those rights are are evil. But so you're a new covenant theonomist. Define what you mean by that. No, I don't have to define I'm playing around with you. Well, I've never heard those two terms. Well, that was the joke was you just said some things that.

No, obviously, you know, if the goal is, hey, well, let's find the perfect government on earth for people who are unredeemed. Yeah. So so at some point, people are applying the best understanding of biblical principles that they think are actually, you know, useful and applicable. And laws against idolatry are effectively unenforceable in a sense So much of it just from the heart anyway And in a pagan society I don know how you would enforce some of that But we can enforce things like you shall not murder, that children ought to be submissive to their parents, and an unruly child is a problem.

We can enforce things like adultery laws and the covenant of marriage. We can enforce property rights and you can't steal. And even lying, we can enforce that there are certain things you cannot lie about. We have slander laws, libel laws. And so there are laws we can have for the breaking of God's commands that manifest themselves in some, we'll say, tangible way.

And so, yeah, it's kind of hard to say everyone must worship God as a law. because we know in the end they're not doing it anyway in their heart but i don't know if i go so far to say something's wicked because we give people freedom that's that's what god's given them in a sense in this time is the freedom and so i don't i don't know if i call it wicked but yeah i'll agree with you as long as we're on this side of this side of heaven it's always going to go bad right so you know john adams i think is the guy or james man i don't it doesn't matter who one of the guys that started all this said you know these laws are only good for basically moral people so yeah a democracy is like a horrible form of government if you want to get some change made and right now we need some change and we don't we don't have a king who can do what like the guy in Nineveh did and just declare a fast for the whole country so that they can all repent and sackcloth and ash like that would be a really effective thing right now if we had a good king and and so there's different forms of government that people try for different reasons and we're we're in a we're in a tough spot here right now so submit to the police i think try to come to terms quickly with your accuser while you're going with them to court try to be at peace with all men uh try to work things out in a reasonable way i mean uh whenever i see a video of guys getting roughed up by police there's usually some point where you're like, yeah, he didn't have to do that thing, though. You know, I don't like to be a victim blamer. And I know, sometimes the police are more brutal than they are.

But I think you're right, Tim, that we can be way wiser. And I've had many, many encounters with police. And, you know, I, my life, my rights have been laid down many times. So I'm not saying every single opportunity we get, we make a fight. And in fact, I learned from a lawyer, a First Amendment lawyer who I consult with now, he said, the most important thing is not to get arrested.

He said, do not resist. He said, just make sure you get on camera, the interaction. So we have it recorded that he was restricting your rights. And he said, and then you go home. And I thought I was supposed to get arrested so I could get like a court case. And he's like, no, you don't want to get arrested.

Go home and then we'll go and fight it later in court like Tim advised. Yeah, I just get so frustrated, which is my point in starting this whole conversation. I didn't say anything to anybody. Well, I said some stuff about the church closing, but then when Jordan took the church closing and likened it to George Floyd's death and saying that George Floyd just should have submitted, where are the Romans 13 guys saying that George Floyd should have submitted to the police? that's how I started this conversation and I still hold fast to that and I think you guys would agree with my with my my argument George Floyd should have submitted to the police he should have submitted to to the laws of our of our nation he shouldn't have been on drugs he shouldn't have been trying to pass a $20 bill now I'm not going to say he's guilty of doing that the that was never proven but that's what the police were called police were called because he was he was doing something that appeared to be illegal and he should have submitted to the police's requests when they were attempting to detain him and take him to the police station.

It's foolish to resist the police. The gentleman who was just shot a couple nights ago in Atlanta, he was submitting to the police for over 20 minutes uh maybe as many as 30 but as soon as they said we're going to arrest you in suspicion of uh driving drunk then he wasn't submitting anymore you know the police are the police are telling you to back down back off this street and they're marching down the street, that's not a time, whether you're 75 years old or 15 years old, that's not the time to stand in front of a police officer and talk to them about the gear that they're wearing. I understand what you're saying.

I will say this, though, that one of the major issues in the abortion abolition movement is educating people at a state government level that we do not have to obey the Supreme Court's decision, Roe v. Wade. And we literally are trying to tell state governments, look, even though the Supreme Court ruled that abortion should be a right states have a sovereign right over their the Supreme Court The Supreme Court has The Supreme Court has a decision to put a ban on the Supreme Court in their area to resist that perceived authority of the Supreme Court decision Roe v Wade and say no we are going to outlaw all murder in our state and we are going to enforce the murder of human beings with the full force of law.

Frankly, in most states, it's already on the books, which is there's some type of due process for managing murder. It just simply makes an exception for abortion right now. And it's one of the things we try to tell people is you need to understand that every time you submit to the Supreme Court with any kind of capitulation, that you're actually setting a precedent for the fact the Supreme Court is your authority, instead of recognizing that the Supreme Court has made an unjust decision that should be disobeyed, just like when they declared the Dred Scott thing where slaves could be returned.

There's been people who have done unjust things, and we need to know how your own government works enough that you know how to at least try to effect change from within through the means that are granted in that government. By God, I mean, if you have an emperor, you go to the emperor. If you have a legislature, you would try to do a legislature thing.

But too often what happens is a state asserts their right to abolish abortion or limit it in some way, which, you know, it's a different discussion, the effectiveness of that. And then the Supreme Defense come and they say, well, you can't limit abortion because Roe v. Wade says. And the states just lie back and say, well, you're some kind of authority.

And instead, the state can say, no, you're not an authority over us, first of all. And second of all, you're certainly not an authority to allow murder. That's like totally off topic, but the concept I thought sort of applied. Maybe it didn't. There's just some crickets there. But it's, you know, you're pointing out an example when when you would disobey.

See, you're not disobeying your authority. You're disobeying someone's interpretation of your authority from your position. Yeah, and we're trying to educate people that there are spheres of authority, of jurisdiction that really exist. And the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority that it's supposedly exercising sometimes from the bench. And just like with the John MacArthur thing, when he said, we're not going to have church because our governor said no church. then Trump said hey you can all have church make America great again and then John MacArthur said hey we're having church because this other authority said it and then the ninth circuit court says no you can't have church and and the whole point there was is like well who should he listen to just the last one to talk what if a local cop showed up that day and just said hey I don't want you to have church even after they thought they could and then another local cop said hey I think they ought to be allowed like how did they decide what to obey and that's really been the question the whole time.

And that's where you have to understand what are the jurisdictions that God's actually given. Fathers over children, husbands over wives, masters, or we'll say employers over slaves and employees and governing authorities over the people, right? And my point is, my point isn't all that. It isn't. My point is 20 cops show up to your church and say, you have to go home now you have to go home now or we will drag you from the building my point is submit to them they don't they they don't have the right i don't i would they don't like you said i would submit to them because it's it's just like hey like these people are going to hurt us let's just roll with it because they're they're acting in a way that we can't resist because they have power and they have weaponry and things like that but not because they're of the authority right and and deal with it in court.

Absolutely. And go to church next Sunday and do the same thing. Yeah, record the whole thing. Yeah. And George... But would you act the same way then if, when you say it's sort of pragmatic because they have weapons or anything like that, if it was 20 cops that show up or if it's 20 non-police people that just happen to show up with guns?

Would you act the same way simply because it's completely pragmatic versus... I think I probably would, yeah. If 20 people showed up that didn't have authority to tell me I couldn't do church, but they threatened to kill everybody, I'd probably say, let's live and fight another day about this. I would leave quicker than if they were police. Here's the other thing is where I live, we generally think cops are good still.

I know there's some people that probably don't, but in my city, we have very good police force. And so where I happen to live, when cops tell me something or try to talk to me, I'm like, hey, I want to get along with you. I want you on my side. I think you're very reasonable people. I don't live in a society, though, where I'm at a point where I'm thinking I'm really afraid of cops yet.

And I know there's some people that are in a situation like that where they might be ready to be more resistant, too. So I'm very fortunate in that sense, I have to admit. But it's easier for me to want to submit to the police where I live because I think they're all very good. I mean, even the bad ones around here. Even if they're – let's say you are another ethnicity, okay?

Okay. You're a black man, and the cops in your town are abusive to black folks. And you're walking down the street, and they tell you to do something. I would submit. It's all the... They're unjust.

They're unjust. They overbearing They abusive in their powers They abusing their powers I say stay away be non answer their questions Stop if they tell you to stop. Walk on the sidewalk if they tell you to walk on the sidewalk. Whether you're a believer or not, it's best to do that. and then fight in the courts, fight for those that feel led to fight for reforms and all this stuff and reform the police department in those areas.

I'm all for it. I'm all for it. Yeah, I think I would agree with that. I just want peace in the streets. Yeah, I think that I would agree with that advice to someone, but I really have to admit, I can't speak on what it's like to just be a guy walking down the street and be stopped because of my race and it's a different topic but if that's really happening to people i can understand why they would start to think they they have no recourse i can understand why somebody might get to that point but as a christian i think i think that'd be the kind of advice we try to give is hey like live to fight another day at least right well and remember the fact that the scriptures were written to people who were way more in that kind of situation yeah paul's telling christians to submit to governing authorities uh he's he's telling a group of people who are uh highly persecuted and considered um considered outlaws even yeah anyways um to be submitting to uh governing authorities who in general are tyrannical in general who are hostile towards the group of people Paul's talking to.

So he's talking about that kind of a concept way more than he's talking to me having the wide open rights and freedoms that I have in my country and a police force that I, in general, don't fear. Yeah. no i think that's what we have to prepare our hearts for is that when when the time comes that we don't have these ways to appeal when when like adam said if the somebody burned the constitution tomorrow and we became a new kind of country i i definitely have a new way i'd have to deal with some things because i don't have that to appeal to anymore and we'd have to decide when are we licking someone's boots or when are we just obeying God like Daniel with Nebuchadnezzar. And I take issue with folks that say if that were to happen, they still would fight for the Constitution to the point of death, including the death of their whole family.

I've heard two people make that argument in the last two weeks. And I'm sure there's a whole bunch more. Some people did that. I'm a citizen of a different country, a different kingdom. I'm an ambassador here. I'm here only temporarily.

And yeah, like you said, Mike, we need to prepare our hearts for whatever form of government or whatever form of society or culture we end up living in as things change. you know at the end of the day my concern uh is much more about how do i as a christian respond to whatever circumstance god places me in as opposed to me saying no i need to change my circumstances hey if i have opportunity to do that that's great my focus needs to be how do i respond in a christ-like way yeah that's excellent and what you said is that i mean that's the lead-in to the second the first peter to admonition of of honoring the emperor is as sojourners and exiles do not give into the passions of the flesh which wage war against your soul right and so that's the whole lead-in you get this isn't this isn't you're not really citizens here in in the truest sense you're citizens of heaven right yeah no i think i think we're in a lot of agreement i think there's i i think there's room for the guy that says he would fight for the constitution because he thinks that's how he loves his neighbor though and and and that may not be the the position i would take um i i may not be you know i i may not be ready to shoot people i you know all these things but i respect that there's people out there that maybe in god's plan they are more of the hey we're gonna we're gonna do this and i i don't necessarily think i'd tell them they were wrong either um but in the situation i might think they are you know too i'm not necessarily saying they aren't either but you know that's where we need to have we need to have grace towards fellow believers yeah i i think well back to you i don't i don't want this to be a topic but i'll just use an example i i think you're wrong in your sabbatarian view you think i'm wrong in my non-sabbatarian view um how do we have that conversation graciously how do we interact with each other graciously how do we how do we go on living this christian life knowing that we differ on an issue it's it's like so many other issues just know that i'm watching how many sticks you pick up on Sunday. If it crosses the threshold, I'll be there. I do have these little Sabbath-keeping light switch covers that you put over top of the light switch so you don't actually turn their light on or off on a Sunday.

Smart. I have them for entirely different reasons. What about... Yeah, so to wrap some of it up then, this I would say, Tim, is that we all need to prepare our hearts for the chance that, hey, one day you might be the one that's being led to the slaughter. And the church history is littered with men and women who effectively happily did that singing hymns to the Lord God, entrusting their souls to a faithful creator while doing good.

And at least at some point they had submitted. And they just said there's no more resistance, there's no more arguing. I'm going to go and suffer the punishment for my faith. And, and I think we want to all have some, some attitude that we're ready for that. We don't have martyr complexes and go look for it, but you know, I have a friend who I haven't heard from in a while.

And like two days ago, I get a text from him. And he wrote a blog post that blew up and he was on some radio show and it blew up and they took him out of context. And now he's getting death threats. He's going to lose his job. And his name's Major Travis Yates of the Tulsa Police Department. And you can look up, he's got a website now, defendtheheroes.com, where you can try to help him with legal fees.

But this guy's all of a sudden just going through the ringer. And like three days ago, he wasn't yet. It can happen fast with the way our media moves things around and being able to take quotes out of context. And this guy right now is kind of walking that path. And it could happen to any one of us. And I think the key, and I think Jonathan said this, is some of it's our holiness during the situation.

How are people going to view us? That's what 1 Peter 2 is about, is so that keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good conduct, right? And then they'll glorify God on the day of visitation. And that the lead into the whole thing about authorities and then Jesus going to the cross and then chapter three which goes on and on about submitting to authority I mean you going that there there more than first Peter to about all this and so that that where we as are you Are you going to be the guy that becomes unfaithful In your resistance if you're going to give any, is it going to be sinful?

Go ahead, Tim. Is it a sin to submit to tyranny? Some people think so. Jonathan was ready to I would say no, simply we look at the example of Christ. Yeah, Jesus Christ. But like, you know, John the Baptist spoke against the tyrant, but then John the Baptist was submissive to the penalty.

Yeah. You know, and so, yeah, go ahead. I've said that a couple times. I said it in the discussion last week. I said it to you a couple times this week, Tim. I am all for verbally expressing the truth.

You know, if I get stopped, your example, Tim, if I get stopped for, you know, by a police officer and he wants to look at my trunk, I'm all for, you know, telling him, you know, you don't actually have that authority. You're actually abusing your power, that kind of stuff. I'm all for doing that while I'm still, you know, pop my trunk open and let him see.

I am all for verbally exposing evil, speaking truth. Absolutely. Absolutely. While still going, you know, in my actions, I am going to take a more submissive response. And I think that's the pattern we see. Like you say, you know, we see that with Christ, he calls them out while he's still submitting to them we see that with the Apostle Paul we see that with John the Baptist like you said never let the posture of submission silence my tongue when it time for me to speak Well I appreciate you guys coming on And I hope this will be the end of me talking about this for a while.

I think we solved it all. Yes, we did. You could name the episode that last line that Jonathan said, never let the posture of submission silence my tongue when it's time to speak like just post that out there that was excellent thank you guys any more uh closing comments before we wrap it up thank you tim my only comment uh i'll say thank you to michael and to adam as well um and you know i'll say thank you to the guys who were on last week thanks to jd and um john and ed and you know what we disagree on some things and we can even disagree a little bit um passionately but conversation like this helps us work through issues it helps helps educate me and hopefully it helps uh educate others as well we learn we grow um i appreciate uh my brothers and sisters in christ even when i disagree with them and so uh thanks for the conversation michael yeah man I had great time I'm glad you guys had me on and glad Tim calmed things down when they got a little passionate and then we got back to normal so that was good submit submit to the Bible thumping wingnut guy that's right yeah he's the authority in this chat room alrighty I'll talk to you guys tomorrow probably see you later bye guys alright everybody we'll wrap that up.

This is episode number 389 of the Bible Thump and Wingnut Show, originating on video. If you haven't subscribed to the YouTube channel, please do. And this is June 15th 2020 If you listening on the podcast realize there is a video If you like to watch video I realize there a lot of people who will only watch a video and there's a lot of people who will only listen via podcast.

So whatever way you're listening, I appreciate it. And if you appreciate this type of a program and all the other stuff going on here and at BibleThumpingWeenet.com, please consider supporting us. We could really use your help. We've got a Patreon account that you can donate to. We've got a PayPal account, and we have a P.O. box you can send financial gifts to as well.

So go to BibleThumpingWingNet.com and click on Support Our Ministry. And also everything there, of course, is free, so there's lots of content. There's Michael Coghlan's podcast, mine and the other ones that I do, and Jordan Hall's. And who was the other guy that was here? I'm looking at you, Jonathan. Adam Staub was here.

His podcast is there, too. He has lots of podcasts, lots of content. Go to BibleThumpingWeanet.com. Check it all out. Thank you for those who watched live and I've been reading your comments and responding to some of you. If you have a comment or a question or something you would like addressed on this podcast, send me a message, email message at BibleThumpingWingnut at gmail.com.

BibleThumpingWingnut at gmail.com. And men, don't forget, just two more weeks to register for the Builders Summit at the early bird price of $169. Go to buildersummit.org for all the information there about the Builders Summit. Any questions, you can email me as well. Alrighty, thanks again for watching. Until next time, take care and God bless.