E-Dissidence

I’ve been struggling for many years with the state of politics in America. Although I attempt to follow Biblical commands to pray for my leaders (yes, sometimes it’s just “please let their term end with no re-election”), over the last decade or so I’ve felt a growing discontent with the decisions that have been made in the name of tolerance with no tolerance or allowance for conservatives (and even some extremists) who don’t agree.

And I freely admit too that I review my lack of proper attitude with the Lord during the times when I pray (yes, pray and not rant). I’ve even joked with Him that I’m the first in a new breed of American e-dissident. He let it go for a while, but then He asked me to ensure I knew exactly what I was calling myself before I used it again.

Ouch. After all, I thought I knew. I am a writer, and I know how to use words. Maybe He knows I don’t, or maybe He knows I’ve not thought this out well. So let’s review some of the definitions, courtesy of dictionary.com.

American — Of or pertaining to the United States of America and its inhabitants

Okay, this is an adjective, a describing word that means that I am an inhabitant of the US. I don’t have to be a citizen, and I don’t even have to be a good citizen. There is another definition lower down that does require citizenship to be involved, but the higher, more frequently used definition doesn’t.

E-, short for electronic — of or relating to electronics or to devices, circuits, or systems developed through electronics

The internet is simply a collection of devices and systems connected through circuits to each other, so it would be electronic. If I am using my computer to access the Internet to research, learn, and grow, thus forming my opinions and attitudes, then I believe that e- does fit.

Dissident — a person who dissents, that is to disagree with the methods, goals, etc. of a political party or government, to take an opposing view

This was a two-for definition. That means that in defining dissident I had to expand on dissent to fully understand the entire term. From my poetry, I can see that I disagree and take an opposing view to the methods and goals of American government as it currently exists. I love the Constitution, but I don’t love how it’s currently enacted or ignored.

So I think I can claim the title of American e-dissident based on definition alone. But that leads me to wonder why the Lord challenged that term.

It boils down to the question: can a Christian still claim the name of Christ and yet challenge the ruling authorities on issues of moral and social importance?

Several passages in Proverbs show the importance of righteousness, morality, and integrity in government.

Proverbs 16:10–15 provides a series of wise sayings about kings, which could be extended to include all government officials.

• The lips of a king speak as an oracle, and his mouth does not betray justice.
  An oracle is an authoritative, wise, influential statement. Those in office should be viewed as if they make these statements all the time. In an ideal world, all the statements made by leaders would be just.
• Honest scales and balances belong to the Lord; all the weights in the bag are of his making.
  This passage suggests that justice, fairness, and similar sets of rules and evaluations are critical to running a business or a country. Favoritism and incentives can cause ill will.
• Kings detest wrongdoing, for a throne is established through righteousness.
  Governments must establish proper standards of behavior. With lawlessness or laws that promote behaviors that don’t build community, government disintegrates.
• Kings take pleasure in honest lips; they value the one who speaks what is right.
  Honesty results in trust. If we all spoke what we thought and if we all truly valued and promoted honesty, our country would have more trust and less volatility.
• A king’s wrath is a messenger of death, but the wise will appease it. When a king’s face brightens, it means life; his favor is like a rain cloud in spring.
  It is important to know your leaders and how to work with them. A proper working relationship will get you further in life than an attitude and demeanor that cause frustration and mistrust.

Another passage (Proverbs 25:5) talks about preventing wicked people from entering the king’s presence and thus ensuring the throne endures. This argument is a bit like one bad apple can spoil the barrel.

The final passage in Proverbs argues that a government endures when the kings uses fair standards to judge people and situations. This goes back again to equality and eliminating favoritism.

Romans 13:1–5 discusses the importance of obeying rulers and the government. It also suggests that God places all rulers and governments in power. It also suggests rebellion against such an authority is rebellion against God Himself.

In 1 Timothy 2:2, Paul urges Christians to pray for leaders and those in authority.

This still begs the question: what is a Christian to do when the leaders and authorities, though permitted by God, clearly violate the standards of His Word and good common sense?

This wrestling isn’t new. Early Christians did it under the Roman emperors. The Founding Fathers did it at the start of the Revolution. I’m sure those in the resistance in Europe did it during World War II.

It’s about knowing what God actually said in His Word instead of believing what other say He says. Then it’s about applying it.

The Founding Fathers were very good at this. Despite the admonition of Romans 13:1–5, the Founding Fathers based a significant portion of the arguments for the Revolution in Scripture. They had a common fund of Scripture knowledge that far surpasses what most Americans have today; even those who didn’t believe in a personal relationship with God could quote chapter and verse from memory.

The book of Judges is full of leaders like Gideon and Deborah that the Lord specifically called to topple unjust authorities. In Acts, the religious authorities commanded Peter and John not to speak about Jesus, and those apostles chose to disobey the commands of men. In Daniel, Daniel twice disobeyed the king’s command to worship a god other than Yahweh.

The common thread was that in each case the authorities expressly required God’s people to honor laws that clearly violated God’s rules. Also, those who violated the law accepted and expected to pay the full penalty for breaking the law, including death; God could choose to honor them by changing their circumstances, but they first had to accept potentially devastating consequence.

So do we need another Revolution? Probably not. And it’s the job of the dissident to keep us from getting there.

I just need to determine the consequences before I truly publicly claim that title. Until then, I’ll just keep making bad jokes between me and the Lord.