Recently, Scott Roche became aware about the now 6 year old legal battle Christian Legal Society vs. Martinez (UC Hastings) because it has finally reached the Supreme Court and the oral argument was presented on April 19, 2010 (transcript pdf available here). I posted some comments on his blog post.
My thought model sort of worked. It allowed me to see the driving principles that ran through Israel’s treatment of immigrants while yielding some information about how those principles might be applied today; but it kept catching one snag. Our problem isn’t immigration—it’s illegal immigration.
Because of that, I had to reflect on human laws, authority and a Christian’s responsibility.
Tonight at the Roman’s study there was a question regarding Romans 4:15—why is it there?
The questioner was confused about the nature of violation of Law since this entire chapter doesn’t seem to be dealing with Law at all. After all, asked the student, isn’t the nature of Law to (1) prescribe and punish; and hasn’t Paul already established the (2) equality of Jew and Gentile to enter in by faith: why go back and deal with condemnation that comes about from Law breaking?
You’re sitting at a dinner table and the conversation takes a left at Albuquerque when you know it should’ve gone right. The person across from you notices that you ordered the Grilled Chicken and a shadow darkened their normally bright face. With your fork poised to insert a juicy piece of said chicken into your mouth you feel it necessary to ask your table mate what’s wrong. Their answer is as follows: “Christians can’t eat chicken. To be a true believer, one must not eat chicken.” What do you do with that? Do you let it slide as a moral issue that falls under the purview of liberty and bearing with weakness of the weak or not?