In the latest episode of Mere Fidelity, I join Matt and Derek to continue our discussion of Augustine’s Confessions, exploring Book 10 of the work.
You can also follow the podcast on iTunes, or using this RSS feed. Listen to past episodes on Soundcloud and on this page on my blog.
If you would like to support the production of the podcast, you can do so over on Patreon.
Sorry to post this question here, but I’m not sure if you are checking your Curious Cat account.
I can’t help but note that every single sermon I’ve seen so far approach submission to government as if Roman kings and Western presidents were exactly the same thing. I can’t get my head around that because democracy makes a huge difference, it’s seems strange to simply transpose meaning this way.
This message concerns me specially in weaker democracies around the globe. I can’t see it as unbiblical if a Christian stands against leaders who take power in antidemocratic ways, who betray electoral promises or who violate human rights. Nor I can see it as unbiblical if a Christian joins a pro-democratic revolution if he lives under a dictatorship (Peter’s world wouldn’t conceive a regime change, but this is not the same 2k years later). Or even Cataluña, who tried independence via democracy but got stuck because their PM and king were against it – for obvious reasons.
Shouldn’t it be the other way around in modern world: presidents and PMs should honour and obey the people, as stewards and representatives of the people’s authority? I’d appreciate your insight, specially if I’m looking at this with the wrong lens.
Yes, there are very significant differences in modern democracies, where we can submit to the authority structures and honour those in rule, while still taking advantage of the significant avenues of recourse and representation that are afforded to us.
Thank you for replying.