Given the biblical call to submit to governing authorities (e.g., Romans 13:1–2, 1 Peter 2:13–17), and yet also the examples of godly resistance (e.g., Acts 5:29, Daniel 3, Exodus 1), is it ever appropriate for a Christian to protest government actions? If so, what would such a protest look like in a way that remains faithful to the character and teachings of Christ—especially in light of commands to love enemies, be peacemakers, and turn the other cheek? Are there historical or biblical examples that support the idea of Christ-like protest? How have various Christian traditions understood this tension between submission and resistance?

The phrase “May God save the Queen” (or “...the King,” depending on the reigning monarch) is famously part of the British national anthem and is regularly used in royal ceremonies and public prayers. It reflects a deep-rooted tradition in the United Kingdom, where the monarch also holds the title of Supreme Governor of the Church of England. According to Anglican theology, what is the basis for invoking God’s saving help on the monarch? How does this relate to Anglican understandings of divine providence, the God-ordained nature of civil authority (e.g., Romans 13:1–7), and the Church’s duty to intercede for rulers (e.g., 1 Timothy 2:1–2)? Does this phrase carry a spiritual significance regarding the monarch’s role, or is it mainly a formal civic expression? I’m looking for answers grounded in Anglican theological thought and liturgical practice, rather than purely historical or political explanations.

I was in a debate with someone recently who claimed that "God does not require governments to follow Christian behaviour", even if those governments are composed of Christians, are elected by Christians, and explicitly call themselves Christian. The claim is that this means it's OK for Christians to vote for a government that violates Christian behaviour on a regular basis. I'm interested in arguments *against* this position, and in order not to make this question an argument let's restrict ourselves to reasons that governments *should* (in general) follow Christian teaching. I'm aware that there will be some things that governments are permitted to do that a private individual shouldn't, like enforce the law or go to war, but I'm not talking about those. I'm interested in countering the idea that governments may do anything they like, no matter how much it contradicts Christian teaching. Answers from a Protestant viewpoint preferred, especially Evangelical Protestant.

Genesis 1:26-28, along with passages like Genesis 2, Psalm 8, and Romans 8, makes it pretty clear that God gave humanity the job of looking after His creation. And I think that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in this responsibility. (Just like most other Christians do) > Other people look to political organizations to solve man’s problems. By doing this, they are rejecting God’s Kingdom. (Who is the devil? , §5, JW.org) > We know that we originate with God, but **the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.** (1 John 5:19 New world translation ) So, the JW steer clear of politics because Satan’s in charge. But from what I can tell they also believe that we’re all called to actively care for creation during our lives. Not taking action does leave creation vulnerable to harm from the wicked one, and God commanded us to protect it. So how does this duty to be good stewards of creation fit with their beliefs on a large scale, **how would a fully JW society operate before God’s Kingdom fully arrives**? As in *a realistic society the size of Germany or Belize that needs to feed people, manage waste, prevent crime, manage a power grid, and handle things like pollution or sickness.*

As I understand, Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to serve in the military in countries with compulsory national service, since it's viewed as directly violating or participating in violation of the sixth commandment as well as the principle of political neutrality. Many countries with national service (including mine) offer alternative national service based on religious convictions, often in hospitals or postal services. However, a (now edited) answer on this question quotes a former member of the JW Governing Body (now rejected by JWs as apostate) as saying: > "...doing civilian work in lieu of military duty is... a tacit or implied acknowledgement of one's obligation to Caesar's war machine... A Christian therefore cannot be required to support the military establishment either directly or indirectly." > "For one of Jehovah's Witnesses to tell a judge that he is willing to accept work in a hospital or similar work would be making a 'deal' with the judge, and he would be breaking his integrity with God." > "To accept the alternative civil service is a form of moral support to the entire arrangement." Alternative service is rejected as implicitly supporting "Caesar's war machine", but it seems obvious that someone who works a regular 40-hour week in an office supports "Caesar's war machine" more substantially and more directly by paying taxes than someone working in a hospital (which seems a fairly worthy profession for a believer). Nevertheless, Jehovah's Witnesses pay taxes . They justify this (reasonably enough) based on Romans 13. However, I don't really see the distinction between a government taking my *money* (and possibly using it for immoral purposes) and taking my *time* (and using it for purposes that aren't inherently immoral). Is there an official explanation of why Romans 13 doesn't apply to alternative national service? Or, I noted that there is some controversy over the source of the quotes above, are they not in fact representative of the JW position?

### Bible verses in question Bible translation accepted by my church: NKJV (for the New Testament) Romans 13:1-7 NKJV >**1** Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. **For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God**. **2** Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will [a]bring judgment on themselves. **3** For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. **4** For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. **5** **Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.** **6** For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. **7** Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. 1 Peter 2:13-17, NKJV > **13** Therefore **submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake**, whether to the king as supreme, **14** or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. **15** For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men— **16** as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. **17** Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king. To show that I'm not being unfair, and trying to be unbiased here is the New World Translation of Romans 13 which the Jehovah's Witnesses recognize. Romans 13:1-7 >**1** Let every person be in subjection to the superior authorities, for **there is no authority except by God the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God**. **2**  Therefore, whoever opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will bring judgment against themselves. **3** For those rulers are an object of fear, not to the good deed, but to the bad. Do you want to be free of fear of the authority? Keep doing good, and you will have praise from it; **4**  for it is God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear, for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword. It is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath against the one practicing what is bad. **5** **There is therefore compelling reason for you to be in subjection, not only on account of that wrath but also on account of your conscience.** **6** That is why you are also paying taxes; for they are God’s public servants constantly serving this very purpose. **7** Render to all their dues: to the one who calls for the tax, the tax; to the one who calls for the tribute, the tribute; to the one who calls for fear, such fear; to the one who calls for honor, such honor. To my understanding, Jehovah's Witnesses do not participate in government at all. Wouldn't participating in representative democracy be part of being in subjection to the superior authority on account of your conscience? Participating: **As in voting!**. You can supply additional comments about running for office or being in a governmental position, but I'm only interested in the voting aspect as it applies to the majority of people. *Answers not presenting the perspective of the Jehovah's Witness will be rejected.*

The article below appears on 'Historica Fandom' and I am seeking to substantiate what it says. My question is not about issues arising from the content of the article as such. I am only seeking to substantiate it as being factual. Is this an accurate resume of the current status of the Unification Sanctuary Church ? >The World Peace and Unification Sanctuary Church is a far-right new religious movement in the United States which was founded in 2013 by Hyung Jin Moon and his wife Yeon Ah Lee Moon as a schismatic splinter from the Unification Church. The church officially commenced in Newfoundland, Pennsylvania in January 2015, and it became infamous for its fetishization of firearms as their interpretation of the "rod of iron" mentioned in the Bible. In early 2018, not long after a deadly school shooting in Parkland, Florida, the church gained notoriety for holding a marriage vows renewal ceremony that asked participants to bring their AR-15 rifles. Moon and other members of the church participated in the 2021 United States coup d'etat attempt in Washington DC, and, that same year, the church relocated to a compound near Waco, Texas, the site of the Branch Davidians' former compound. Historica Fandom

> Another attempt to restore the original sinless world was the coming of Jesus Christ when God sent the Messiah to establish the perfect family and thus create the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. **Jesus did not fulfill this mission** because he was crucified. Wikipedia - Unification Church >Christ will be successful at His Second Coming – God will send the 'True Parents of humanity' and through them fulfill the purpose of creation. During the previous two thousand years, God has prepared, according to the principle of restoration, a suitable democratic, social, and legal environment that will protect Christ at the Second Coming. Wikipedia - Unification Church It would seem that the Unification Church does not see the sufferings, death, bloodshed, resurrection, ascension and enthronement of Jesus Christ as a 'triumph' - >And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, **triumphing** over them [Colossians 2:15 KJV] What scriptures does the Unification Church use to support their view of the sufferings and death of Christ as being 'unsuccessful' ?

Are Catholics allowed to oppose women holding public office? related question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103246/1787

Are Catholics allowed to oppose women's suffrage? related question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103247/1787

In Romans 13:3, the scriptures state that the authorities hold no terror for those who do right. Considering all the martyrs who have been persecuted for doing right, then how can this scripture be true in every situation?

Europe underwent major economic upheavals during the creation of Protestantism (cf. E. Michael Jones, *Barren Metal* or *Goy Guide to World History* ). Is this one reason why Protestants upheld iconoclasm ? Was it a sense of necessity or utilitarianism (that having a minimally decorated church is better than having no church at all) that inspired or justified their iconoclasm ? In other words: Was there an economic reason for Protestants' iconoclasm ?

A Catholic Diocese in a certain locality in my country invited the president to oversee the ordination of a certain episcopal rank, I was shocked to see the security team of the president lining up all episcopal authorities clothed in their service robes to frisk and search them to see if they posed any security threat to the president. This exercise shows that the president and his team do not trust the Catholic Church leadership, why would the Catholic Church allow the public image and trust of their Church to be damaged this way for it would have been better if this leader didn't visit the church foe Christ and the Church is above all men including governments?

Within American evangelicalism a debate has recently been reignited on economic policy, and I've been astonished at the number of people saying that some or all taxation should be considered to be theft. This recent debate got started with a blog post by Rick Phillips on the Alliance of Confessing Evangelical's Reformation21 site, entitled ["Socialism Is Evil"](http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/02/socialism-is-evil.php) : > So, biblically speaking, why is socialism evil? ... Because socialism is a system based on stealing. The whole point of socialism is for the government to seize control of private property, mainly involving the proceeds of peoples' work, in order to give it to others. (Note the compulsory aspect of socialism, which so differs from voluntary forms of communalism.) This activity is the very thing pronounced as evil by the 8th Commandment: "You shall not steal" (Ex. 20:15). ... While there is a legitimate basis for government taxation, the simple taking of one's possessions in order to give them to others is not one of them. Socialism is evil because it inherently involves stealing. R. C. Sproul Jr [has written](http://rcsprouljr.com/blog/the-non-volunteer-state/) : > Now, in my political circles, there are plenty of hot-headed young men that love to make the claim, have as their own particular banner, “Taxation is theft.” I’m not sure what I think about that, I do believe certainly, at the very least, that any taxation above and beyond what is needed to do the biblically and constitutionally limited functions of government is in fact theft, but even if you don’t believe that, you have to recognize at least this, that taxation is done by force. That’s why it’s called taxation. That’s its defining quality. It is the government taking wealth from its citizens. You can say it’s not theft if you want, but it has in common with theft that you don’t have a choice. When a man comes up to you with a gun in his hand and he says “Your money or your life”, he doesn’t mean “I’m going to give you a choice. You can keep your life or you can keep your money.” There is no choice where you get to keep your money. If he takes your life, do you know what he’s going to do next? He’s going to take your money. He also [reportedly wrote](http://theweeflea.com/2016/02/23/is-the-church-capitalist-is-the-american-church-too-compromised-with-the-culture/) : > I wonder if the author would affirm that any tax can be theft. His argument that Jesus said to pay our taxes, means that taxes can’t be theft is odd. I wonder if, because Jesus says we should give our shirt to someone who takes our coat that taking coats cannot be theft. And in [a comments section on theweeflea.com](http://theweeflea.com/2016/02/22/is-socialism-satanic-why-has-the-alliance-of-confessing-evangelicals-gone-all-political/#comments) , several other people agreed and put forwards arguments that taxation was theft: > Socialism is theft, as all taxation is theft. Yes, Christ told us to render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and because of that, I do… but that doesn’t negate the act of taxation being theft just like “if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” doesn’t negate the first slap from being assault. If I saw someone getting punched in the face, especially if they are a non-Christian, I wouldn’t tell him “That’s not assault, as Christ told you to turn your other cheek as well.” No, it’s assault and all taxation is theft. How are we to react? Just like Christ told us. But it doesn’t absolve the aggressor (Caesar or an abuser) of their sin. [](http://theweeflea.com/2016/02/22/is-socialism-satanic-why-has-the-alliance-of-confessing-evangelicals-gone-all-political/#comment-7091) > > Are you seriously saying that taxation is not theft, simply because Christ told His followers to pay Caesar? What about our non-believing neighbors that abhor paying taxes? I understand that Christ’s words are binding on my soul, they compel me, but my non-Christian neighbor doesn’t feel that way. Is it theft for him? Who will stick up for him? [](http://theweeflea.com/2016/02/22/is-socialism-satanic-why-has-the-alliance-of-confessing-evangelicals-gone-all-political/#comment-7097) > > So are taxes theft? Absolutely. We submit to paying those taxes only because the consequences of not paying them are worse. This is no different than a highway bandit that positions himself at the beginning of a route and demands all passers-by pay a toll in exchange for “safe passage” along the road. Is the bandit a thief? Or a champion of wealth redistribution? You are splitting hairs. [](http://theweeflea.com/2016/02/22/is-socialism-satanic-why-has-the-alliance-of-confessing-evangelicals-gone-all-political/#comment-7101) As an outsider to the American situation, from a country which must seem extremely socialistic to those who hold views such as these (because of course *only* socialists could support universal health care), this taxation-is-theft idea seems like a political ideology its adherents have unquestioningly accepted, which they then confused with their theology, and have then desperately looked for any proof texts they can find to support their position. But is this the case? Or is there a longer theological history and background to this economic policy? Can this position be traced back to before the modern libertarian ideology arose?

Not sure I understand what's going on here Excommunication of Margaret McBride . It says 1. > McBride was an administrator and member of the ethics committee at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona, which is owned by Catholic Healthcare West, later, Dignity Health On 27 November 2009, the committee was consulted on the case of a 27-year-old woman who was eleven weeks pregnant with her fifth child and suffering from pulmonary hypertension Her doctors stated that the woman's chance of dying if the pregnancy was allowed to continue was "close to 100 percent" McBride joined the ethics committee in approving the decision to terminate the pregnancy through an induced abortion. The abortion took place and the mother survived. 2. > Afterwards, the abortion came to the attention of Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, the bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Phoenix. Olmsted spoke to McBride privately and she confirmed her participation in the procurement of the abortion. Olmsted informed her that in allowing the abortion, she had incurred a latae sententiae (an automatic) excommunication. McBride was subsequently reassigned from her post as vice president of mission integration at the hospital. 3. > In December 2011, a statement from St. Joseph's Hospital was emailed to the Catholic News Service announcing that McBride had since her excommunication "met the requirements for reinstatement with the church and she is no longer excommunicated. She continues to be a member in good standing with the Sisters of Mercy and is a valued member of the St. Joseph's executive team". The hospital did not provide further details. At the time, McBride was the St. Joseph's Hospital's vice president for organizational outreach. In particular for the parts > is no longer excommunicated and > The hospital did not provide further details. It sounds like they don't confirm which of the following happened: 1. **Forgiven** - McBride was wrong but then apologised. McBride was wrong because ______ (fill in the blank as to how an abortion for 'close to 100 percent' death isn't justified?) 2. **Exonerated** - McBride was right and then was exonerated meaning McBride's excommunication was like 'annulled' or 'void ab initio' or something. 3. **Other** - What happened?

What was the Investiture Controversy and lay investiture, and why exactly was it condemned? Fr. Hardon, S.J., defines "lay investiture ": >The act by which a sovereign, in the Middle Ages, granted titles, possessions, and temporal rights to bishops, abbots, and other spiritual leaders. The ritual of investiture consisted in the delivery of the spiritual emblems, ring and crosier, and sometimes the keys of the church. This privilege of secular princes and lords dates from the time of Charlemagne. So long as these princes had the Church's welfare at heart, lay investiture was tolerated. But when ecclesiastical offices were bought and sold, and free elections of bishops hindered, the Church vigorously opposed it with anti-investiture legislation, which was sporadically enforced. Pope Gregory VII, upon becoming Pope, enacted stringent measures against investiture, even to excommunicating those who continued it. The Concordat of Worms in 1122 finally ended the strife between the emperors and the Holy See. Once the major concessions were made by the emperors, the Pope agreed that all elections would be held in the emperor's presence and his bestowal of the temporalities of the bestowed office would be continued. The conflict over lay investiture reached its peak in Germany. Was "lay investiture" condemned because it enabled spiritual leaders to dictate in matters that properly belonged only to the temporal order (or *vice versa*)?

Kinsella, *The Wife Desired* p. 77 claims: >It has been stated that money is the root of all evil. [1 Tim. 6:10 : "the desire of money is the root of all evils"; cf. *Summa Theologica* I-II q. 84 a. 1 ] Money represents the material possessions of this world, the things which militate against the spirit and the good in mankind. Because money and selfishness are boon companions and because there is selfishness or lack of love in all evil, the truth of the statement becomes clearer. > >Money is a consequence of original sin. We never should have had to bother with it except for Adam’s disloyalty and fall. We could almost say that money in itself is an evil. Yet, out of evil good often comes. [St. Augustine does say that "to use evil well is not a sin." ] Christ and Redemption was a good to come out of the evil of Adam’s sin. According to Catholic theologians, is money a consequence of Original Sin? This seems related to whether the Church-State distinction is a consequence of Original Sin: "The Augustinian tradition has in fact presented the state, having solely in mind the supernatural order, as a punishment for original sin." (Jaki, O.S.B., *New Trends in Ecclesiology* p. 18); *Integralism* ch. 5 thesis "(ii) The distinction in title to temporal and spiritual authority results from the Fall of man." Yet, even before the Fall, there still would have been a hierarchical temporal order; however, it would've been strictly patriarchal (fathers of families the only political leaders): thesis "(xvi) The need for non-patriarchal rule derives from the Fall of man." (*ibid.* , ch. 3). Thus, it seems money could have existed before the Fall, but it would've been restricted to direct commerce between families. On the other hand, why would money, trade, or private property even be needed before the Fall, if there were no scarce resources Garden of Eden?

According to sedeprivationism , does a material pope (*papa materialiter*) have temporal authority ?

Is a Catholic who belongs to a political party that supports sins in its party platform excommunicated? Before Vatican II, a Catholic belonging to the Communist Party (or any other association machinating against the Church) was *ipso facto* excommunicated. 1917 Code of Canon Law : >Can. 2335— Those giving their name to masonic sects or other associations of this sort that machinate against the Church or legitimate civil powers contract by that fact excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See. 1983 Code of Canon Law : >Can. 1374— A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; one who promotes or takes office in such an association is to be punished with an interdict.

Did ancient Roman Christians celebrate any Roman national holidays? Or were all their national holidays festivities which honored pagan gods?