Rosa Parks, dead at 92

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by rlvaughn:
Gold Dragon, I'm not sure as to what point you're making. While Romans 13 is clear in teaching obeying authority, it is not the totality of the New Testament teaching on the subject - Peter for example, clearly states that "We ought to obey God rather than men." Sometimes we must make that choice.

Entering this thread, I could not think of any reason to be critical of Rosa Parks. I asked for a clear explanation of why some may be and realized through Craig's posting of Romans 13 how inconsistent we often are in our application of those verses.

From there, I've been wanting to seriously address how we apply Romans 13 to those we consider to be justly rebelling against a God ordained authority. I am definitely open to rightly dividing the word of God to address this.

 

[Craigbythesea]

JGrubbs wrote,

Hitler loved to use Romans 13 to keep the Christians under his rule.

Who has and who has not used the Bible to accomplish sinful ends is not the subject of this tread, nor is it relevant to what happened on Dec. 1, 1955. Hitler commanded his soldiers to kill the Jews contrary to the explicit law of God. Rosa Parks defied the authority of the police officer, a minister of God for her good, not because the Bible told her to, but because she wanted to in spite of the fact that the Bible told her to obey those in authority over her.

The fact that African Americans were an oppressed people and the fact that Rosa Parks is now dead have no bearing at all on the fact that she chose, on the evening of December 1, 1955, to behave in a manner contrary to both the law of man and the ordinance of God.

 

[Craigbythesea]

tinytim wrote,

Maybe I am wrong, but I am noticing that most, if not all, that condemn Rosa in this thread is also KJVO.

NNE IS CONDEMNING ROSA PARKS, and let's give her the dignity of calling her Rosa Parks rather than "Rosa" because in the African American culture that constitutes a crude insult. And the translation of the Bible that one prefers is irrelevant to this thread, but I for one am about as far as one can get from being KJVO. Rosa Parks sinned on the evening of Dec. 1, 1955, when she refused to submit to the authority of God in the person of the police officer who ordered her to surrender her seat.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by tinytim:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rlvaughn:

BTW, which scripture or scriptures teach that we are to "stand up for our rights"?

To answer you in the simplest of terms:
Exo 20:15 Thou shalt not steal.

The white guy was trying to steal her seat. </font>[/QUOTE]Let’s not post fictitious information on this message board. The white man was only asking for what was legally his at the time.

 

[rlvaughn]

Tinytim, I believe you are confusing the concept of duties and rights. We can add "pray without ceasing" to my list of "thou shalt worship no other gods, preach the gospel to every creature, and thou shalt not kill." These are not optional; they are commands of God. We have no choice (scripturally) but to do them. There is no command to "stand up for your rights." "Thou shalt not steal" is not a command to people to stand up for their rights. It is a command to leave other folks' stuff alone. But even if you try to come at this from the reverse - stand up for what is ours because folks shouldn't steal - you still have to deal with Jesus' New Testament teachings such as these:

"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. (Matthew 5:39-41, KJV)"

"But I tell you, don't stand up against an evil person. If someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other cheek also. If someone wants to sue you in court and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. If someone forces you to go with him one mile, go with him two miles. (Matthew 5:39-41, NCV)"

Gold Dragon, thanks for the explanation. My interpretation is that we as Christians are supposed to obey even bad laws unless they require us to violate our duty to God. Therefore the Christian should violate a law forbidding not preaching the gospel, but obey laws regarding speed limits, riding buses, wearing seat belts, paying taxes, and thousands of others we could think of, regardless whether we think them unjust or a violation of rights.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Rosa Parks defied the authority of the police officer, a minister of God for her good,

Please allow me to ponder a thought here:

What the police officer was trying to do....was that for her good? Is it possible that this disqualified him as a minister of God? If I had been an Iraqi under the Saddam regime and he was going to torture and kill me like he did to many, would it be wrong for me to resist this "minister of God to do me good"?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[blackbird]

Originally posted by rlvaughn:
Tinytim, I believe you are confusing the concept of duties and rights. We can add "pray without ceasing" to my list of "thou shalt worship no other gods, preach the gospel to every creature, and thou shalt not kill." These are not optional; they are commands of God. We have no choice (scripturally) but to do them. There is no command to "stand up for your rights." "Thou shalt not steal" is not a command to people to stand up for their rights. It is a command to leave other folks' stuff alone. But even if you try to come at this from the reverse - stand up for what is ours because folks shouldn't steal - you still have to deal with Jesus' New Testament teachings such as these:

"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. (Matthew 5:39-41, KJV)"

"But I tell you, don't stand up against an evil person. If someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other cheek also. If someone wants to sue you in court and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. If someone forces you to go with him one mile, go with him two miles. (Matthew 5:39-41, NCV)"

Gold Dragon, thanks for the explanation. My interpretation is that we as Christians are supposed to obey even bad laws unless they require us to violate our duty to God. Therefore the Christian should violate a law forbidding not preaching the gospel, but obey laws regarding speed limits, riding buses, wearing seat belts, paying taxes, and thousands of others we could think of, regardless whether we think them unjust or a violation of rights.

I believe what we have here in the words of the Lord Jesus is the response that should be expected from born-again believers under severe persecution for simply being born-again believers---these verses have nothing to do with somebody scrambling and scrappin' over who gets to ride where in the bus seat in downtown Montgomery, Alabama-----if someone starts slappin' me for being a born-again believer---and for that sole purpose he is slappin' me----then I turn the other cheek----but if someone gets on the bus and looks at me and tells me---"You ain't my skin color---get up out of that seat!!"-----Well---Mister Bus driver---pull the bus over---cause me and this dude is fixin' to "duke it out!!!"

 

[JGrubbs]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Rosa Parks defied the authority of the police officer, a minister of God for her good,

Please allow me to ponder a thought here:

What the police officer was trying to do....was that for her good? Is it possible that this disqualified him as a minister of God? If I had been an Iraqi under the Saddam regime and he was going to torture and kill me like he did to many, would it be wrong for me to resist this "minister of God to do me good"?

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]Thank you Joseph!! If a government is not a "minister of God to do me good", then it is not ordained by God! Romans 13 is one of the most misused sections of Scripture, the churches in pre-Nazi Germany misused it, there were some who misused it against those who rebelled against England in the 1700's, and there are those who use it today to say that Christians must blindly follow the governments of today around the world.

 

[Filmproducer]

let's give her the dignity of calling her Rosa Parks rather than "Rosa" because in the African American culture that constitutes a crude insult.

No it does not, but it is a common curtesy to use someone's full name when addressing the person (i.e., Mrs. Parks). Many African American authors, from Cornell West to the lesser known Natasha Tarpley, have referred to Mrs. Parks as "Rosa", at one time or another. They were definitely not disrespectful of her either.

To your other remarks...

I agree with Joseph. The police officer was not doing anything for the "good of Rosa Parks", therefore I do not think he was a "minister of God". He was in effect disobeying federal law, which has always superseded state or local laws. The state was in effect disobeying the "powers that are ordained by God", as stated in Romans 13.

Also, although the Bible does not explicitly say "stand up for your rights", it does not, imo, explicitly say "do not stand up for your rights". Let's face it Rosa Parks did not just stand up for her right to sit freely on a bus. Her "stand" was much, much more than that. It was about saving her people from "torture" and abuse of power, because that is what was happening to them.

 

[tinytim]

I did not mean to disrespect Rosa Parks in any way by just using her first name. I'm sorry if it came across as that.

I have the utmost respect for her as i view her as an American Hero that stood for the rights of the oppressed everywhere.

Jesus said, "The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave [it] again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears."
(Luk 4:18-21)

I believe she was carrying out the message that Jesus gave.
Jesus preached deliverance to the captives, Rosa Parks acted on the message.

Isn't that what we want the people in the pews to do today? We should be carrying out the message of the sermon and acting on it.

Be ye doers....

Too many will shake the hand of the minister and say, "good sermon" but never let it effect their lives. She lived what Jesus preached.

 

[blackbird]

Originally posted by tinytim:
I did not mean to disrespect Rosa Parks in any way by just using her first name. I'm sorry if it came across as that.

I have the utmost respect for her as i view her as an American Hero that stood for the rights of the oppressed everywhere.

Jesus said, "The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave [it] again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears."
(Luk 4:18-21)

I believe she was carrying out the message that Jesus gave.
Jesus preached deliverance to the captives, Rosa Parks acted on the message.

Isn't that what we want the people in the pews to do today? We should be carrying out the message of the sermon and acting on it.

Be ye doers....

Too many will shake the hand of the minister and say, "good sermon" but never let it effect their lives. She lived what Jesus preached.

Tinytim---true here, too! The context of the message that Jesus presents in the text above fits like a round peg in a round hole for Rosa Parks in her dilemma.

I believe---She was not being persecuted for being a Christian but for being black skinned in a world of thick skinned people!! In the middle of a society then who had yellow streaks down their backs---Miss Parks rose to her feet!!! Long live her message!! God bless people like her who have backbones to stand for whats right in a wrong way society!!!

Blackbird

 

[canadyjd]

Originally posted by JGrubbs:
[/qb]

Thank you Joseph!! If a government is not a "minister of God to do me good", then it is not ordained by God!

The only problem with that logic is that when Paul wrote Romans, the mad-man Nero was on the throne. Within a few years, he will take several thousand Chrisitians, dip them in oil and burn them alive on crosses to light up his garden for a party.

 

[rlvaughn]

Thanks, canadyjd, for making this important point. There were probably three Roman emperors during Paul's ministry - Caligula (or Gaius), Claudius and Nero (probably Nero when he was writing) - none of whom would meet modern American standards of "ministers of God for good". We must understand Romans 13 in context, not with our American mindset.

Blackbird (hoping the grin means you're not serious about "duking it out"), I can agree that Jesus' teaching quoted from Matthew 5 is to His believers. Yet it is reading into the text to assume this only applies to persecution as believers.

The Bible neither explicitly nor implicitly says "stand up for your rights". But it does have some explicit teaching regarding not standing up for them. Nor should a specific prophecy about and fulfilled by Jesus be misinterpreted to overturn His explicit commands to His people.

 

[JGrubbs]

Originally posted by canadyjd:

Originally posted by JGrubbs:

Thank you Joseph!! If a government is not a "minister of God to do me good", then it is not ordained by God!

The only problem with that logic is that when Paul wrote Romans, the mad-man Nero was on the throne. Within a few years, he will take several thousand Chrisitians, dip them in oil and burn them alive on crosses to light up his garden for a party. [/QB]

The best way to bring understanding on Romans 13 is to ask, "Who was apostle Paul writing to at Rome?" The answer is found at Romans 1:7: Paul was writing to all those in Rome who are "beloved of God, called to be saints." He was not writing to the general population at Rome. He was specifically addressing the "called out ones," the Body of Christ.

If apostle Paul was advocating obedience to secular authorities, then Caesar would have no cause against him. Why would Caesar have Paul beheaded if he was promoting obedience to Rome?

The truth is that Apostle Paul was beheaded for promoting a rival government known as the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven. Already this new government was turning the world upside down. Caesar had Paul killed to help stop this threat to Rome's power.

If Romans 13 does not mean "obey the State," what does it mean? Romans 13 means, "Remember them which have the rule over you," as you will also find at Hebrews 13:7. Since Paul was addressing the saints at Rome, it is logical that he would instruct them to submit to those who look after their souls. It is a reminder to be obedient to the authorities God has placed over His people. For they are truly the "ministers of God to thee for good." Unlike worldly rulers, God's ministers are not a terror to good works but to the evil. Therefore, "do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same."

Romans 13 is probably the most devastating thing to a Christian in the hands of the ungodly. It sounds so convincing to obey those who appear to be in power. For too long, secular governments have used Romans 13 as a club to beat Christians into obedience to them. Just because a group maintains power through their guns and jails, does not mean God put them there.

God said there are powers not ordained by Him at Hosea 8:4, "They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not."

Source: http://romans13.embassyofheaven.com/understanding.htm

 

[rlvaughn]

I started a thread specifically on the interpretation of Romans 13. Click link below to go there:

The Interpretation and Application of Romans 13

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Rosa Parks defied the authority of the police officer, a minister of God for her good,

Please allow me to ponder a thought here:

What the police officer was trying to do....was that for her good? Is it possible that this disqualified him as a minister of God? If I had been an Iraqi under the Saddam regime and he was going to torture and kill me like he did to many, would it be wrong for me to resist this "minister of God to do me good"?

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]Joseph,

I already addressed this issue in this thread.

 

[Craigbythesea]

JGrubbs wrote,

If Romans 13 does not mean "obey the State," what does it mean? Romans 13 means, "Remember them which have the rule over you," as you will also find at Hebrews 13:7. Since Paul was addressing the saints at Rome, it is logical that he would instruct them to submit to those who look after their souls. It is a reminder to be obedient to the authorities God has placed over His people. For they are truly the "ministers of God to thee for good." Unlike worldly rulers, God's ministers are not a terror to good works but to the evil. Therefore, "do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same."

Romans 13 is probably the most devastating thing to a Christian in the hands of the ungodly. It sounds so convincing to obey those who appear to be in power. For too long, secular governments have used Romans 13 as a club to beat Christians into obedience to them. Just because a group maintains power through their guns and jails, does not mean God put them there.

Please read Paul's Epistle to the Romans!

 

[TexasSky]

I'm curious.

For those of you saying Ms. Parks was wrong.

Do you think the women in China who refuse to abort female children are wrong?

Do you think the founding Fathers of America were wrong?

Do you think Paul and the Apostles who continued to preach the message of Christ, even when Rome was feeding Christians to lions, were wrong?

Was Corrie Ten Boom wrong for sheltering Jews?

Was John Huss wrong?

 

[tinytim]

When laws are corrupted by prejudice and racism then this cuts against the very grain of God's treatment of humanity, not to mention His holiness. Racism and prejudice are sins, and laws that promote sin are morally wrong.

Or are you going to tell me that the law that was broken wasn't a racist law?

If a law is morally wrong, we have no reason to obey it. Actually if a person were to obey it, they would be committing the sin.

Is racism morally wrong?
If so, then any law based in racism is morally wrong.
And if that is true, then Rosa Parks had a divine right to break that law, not just a right but a duty!

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by tinytim:
When laws are corrupted by prejudice and racism then this cuts against the very grain of God's treatment of humanity, not to mention His holiness. Racism and prejudice are sins, and laws that promote sin are morally wrong.

Or are you going to tell me that the law that was broken wasn't a racist law?

If a law is morally wrong, we have no reason to obey it. Actually if a person were to obey it, they would be committing the sin.

Is racism morally wrong?
If so, then any law based in racism is morally wrong.
And if that is true, then Rosa Parks had a divine right to break that law, not just a right but a duty!

Unless you can show us in Rom. 13 where the Bible expressly supports your personal opinion regarding civil rights and your right to disobey the law if it is contrary to your personal opinion of fairness, your opinion is nothing but modern, humanistic philosophy based upon currents trends in human opinion rather that the word of God.