Re: Priests as freedom fighters

Steve Hayes, <news:[email protected]>
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 20:51:00 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov" <[email protected]>

>> | Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is
>> | no authority except that which God has established. The authorities
>> | that exist have been established by God. (Romans 13)
>>
>> Those "priests as freedom fighters" are heretics.
>>
>> Any authority is a good from God, it's established by God.
>
> See here:
>
> <https://skeireins.substack.com/p/on-being-subject-to-authority>
>
> Saint Paul, in his letter to the Romans, famously writes:
>
> Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is
> no authority except from God, and those that exist have been
> instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists
> what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. (Rom
> 13:1-2)
>
> Seems straightforward, no? St Paul wants the Romans in his communities
> to obey the state, because states get their authority from God.
>
> The only problem is, because Saint Paul did not speak English, this is
> not what he actually wrote. This is a translation-specifically, the
> Revised Standard Version. Although I prefer the RSV to any other
> translation as a matter of course, it is still a translation, and
> therefore-like all translations into English!-an act of theft, a
> necessarily partial and selective transmission of the author's actual
> words.
>
> Read it here, because some of the characters do not reproduce on
> Usenet.
>
> <https://skeireins.substack.com/p/on-being-subject-to-authority>

Speculations on "translation-specifically" may be relevant, but
also it can lead to a dead-end trap similar to that Islam fell into
("meanings of the Koran can be grasped in original Arabic only").

Saint Paul gave the guidelines at the time and at the place when
monarchy was the dominant form of governance. And for monarchy it's
natural to consider someone's social status/role as something that
is given by God and cannot be disputed. So that, "slaves, obey your
earthly masters ..."

The New Testament doesn't teach "to fight for freedom". Moreover, 
the basic setting is to leave the topic of secular authority simply
without interpretation, except it's someting which God has 
established. Some accents / narratives in some sections of the New 
Testament may seem mutually at odds, but the very basic setting is 
clear that the Spirit is primary while the earthly life - including
its probable sufferings, injustices - is of secondary importance. 

So when Christian priests take part in a secular political activism
then it's err.. controversial, at least. On the other hand, it's 
impossible for any person to be completely aloof from any political 
activism. That's a controversy within the Christian ethics, and it 
remains unsolved.

Besides, the fact that "freedom fighters" has now become a meme-like 
term, manifests a widespread implication that a pursuit of freedom 
should [always] be carried out by "a fight", but if a thinker thinks
better on what freedom really means then this implication also may
seem somewhat controversial.