A beloved member of our church wrote a question in reponse to my message last Sunday from Ephesians 6:5-9 about slaves submitting to masters.

"Are there times when it is okay to resist authority or to leave a situation? If so, when?"

Here's my long-winded and somewhat unstructured response...

Great question, and something I should have and could have addressed in the message, but unfortunately did not for various reasons. There is one verse that I neglected to cite during the message, and that is Paul telling those who are slaves:

1 Corinthians 7:21 (NIV84) 21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so.

While it appears that Paul might be condoning slavery in his teachings, here in this verse, he implies that it's not an ideal state of affairs, to say the least. In a related verse, he also tells the Christian married to an unbeliever to stay with him/her, unless the unbeliever chooses to leave the marriage, in which case, "let him do so" (v.15). Again, implying that in a less-than-ideal situation, if the opportunity presents itself, the Christian is free to gain a better one. (of course, the reader shouldn't take the liberty to impose these verses indiscriminately on any kind of difficult situation as justification to get out of it.)

The difficult matter about these teachings, is the attitude with which we continue to serve our less-than-ideal masters while we are still "stuck" with them. We are to serve with sincerity, good will, respect and reverence, and yet at the same time, if we can get out, then to get out! In real life, it's hard to maintain such a delicate balance: to honor our bosses, and at the same time, to want to get out if the opportunity presents itself. Paul's response is that we have this atittude because--and only because--we see that we are serving Christ--as our ultimate Master and Lord.

As for when is it appropriate to "get out"? In the case of a slave, Paul just simply said, "If you can gain your freedom, do so." We might be able to discern Paul's spirit by reading his brief letter to Philemon--a letter discussing Philemon's runaway slave whom Paul is voluntarily returning to him "no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord...(v.16)." Paul, instead of retaining Onesimus as a freed man, returns him to his former master because he wants Philemon to give his consent--to wilingly agree to Onesimus' freedom by appealing to Philemon's conscience as a fellow brother in Christ. In other words, instead of advocating or even giving tacit approval to Onesimus' act of running away, Paul basically says, "Let's gain your freedom the right way--by getting your master to consent to it first."

Another difficult question to answer: why would God want us to tolerate injustice by revering the perpetrator of injustice? Well, there are several explanations: 1) Specifically in the case of institutionalized slavery, to foment revolution against an ingrained institution would have been to bring unnecessary hardship upon the Church and to harm the cause of the Gospel--which was already under attack for being "anti-Caesar" and "anarchist", and 2) God's program of overturning evil is to overcome evil with good, and that does not just happen, on a broad scale, overnight. This is what one commentator says about Philemon:

Rather than attacking social structures and relationships, Christianity works within the human conscience. In this way, a more thorough and lasting change occurs. When Christian ethics and cultural practices conflict, the Christian response is reformation of the heart and mind rather than revolution over social institutions. (Larson, K. (2000). Vol. 9: I & II Thessalonians, I & II Timothy, Titus, Philemon. Holman New Testament Commentary (406). Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers.)

God's redemption history involved His Son Jesus dying on the cross. This act was the effective and decisive event that overcame sin, death and Satan's hold, and yet, society was not instantly transformed overnight, but rather over a period of centuries (leading up to today). What that means for any given person living in an unjust situation is that God does not necessarily deliver people out of them, but gives them "grace sufficient" to endure them...being confident that good will triumph over evil in God's good time.

Furthermore, I don't believe that honoring our master means that we don't speak up when there is injustice. Certainly, Christ was not totally silent while being arrested, tried and crucified. He spoke up, but at the same time did not fight the powers (which, of course, would not have been a fight at all).

So, what Scripture teaches is that we do our best to overcome injustice and to persuade our leaders to do what is right by being the best employee/servant/student/subordinate as to Christ that we can be. At the same time, it would not be against God's will to leave if the opportunity presents itself. Trouble is, Apostle Paul never guarantees that we'll prevail in our current situation, no matter how godly our attitude might be. He never said that you will win over your boss by being a winsome and persuasive Christian; that he will transform into a kind/considerate/impartial person because of your behavior. However, as mentioned earlier, he did say that (1) we overcome evil with good (Romans 12:21), and (2) that the Lord will reward us for the good we do (Ephesians 6:8). Peter wrote a parallel passage about submission to cruel masters, and even said that it's commendable to suffer for doing good (1 Peter 2:13-25).

Christianity is definitely not a religion predicated on human power. Christ himself stared into the eyes of evil men, and said, "do what you came for, friends" (Matt 26:50) before they put Him on trial, scourged Him and finally crucified Him. And this was God's plan of salvation--to willingly give up His Son. Though Christ could have called down legions of angels (v.53) and slaughtered every last man standing before Him, the way of salvation called for laying down His life. Personally speaking, if this was the first and only teaching I received about Christianity, I would say that it is an utterly foolish religion. Why would anyone lay down his life willingly before an unjust tyrant? Why not instead go down in a blaze of glory defending and fighting for what you know is right?

One final thought in regards to those who wonder whether it is right and just for governments to go to war. Obviously, another huge topic and worthy of much discussion. I'll try to summarize one aspect here in regards to Christ's teaching: as I understand it, the concept of "turning the other cheek" presumes a personal relationship. He must be literally and figuratively close enough to slap you, or sue you, or take your tunic, or force you to go a mile (Matt 5:38-42). Christ's words here does not apply to nations. Governments are given the right and responsibility to protect its citizens, from one another and from outside threats (Romans 13:1-7). Governments do not "turn the other cheek", individuals do. Governments "bear the sword" to protect its citizens--at least they should as just governments. When Paul wrote this, what kind of government was in power, and was it just? The answer seems to be "no" and yet, he still commanded that the Roman Christians submit to all authority, because all authority on earth have been established by God.

I'm no expert/authority on the subject of submission to authority. I appreciate your feedback and further discussion.