The pastor hypothesizes this is because Christ is our master.
The presupposition is correct but the conclusion the pastor deduces from that principle is at best only partially correct if at all.
It must be point out that, because Christ is our master, no man or government can ever be in the ultimate meaning of that concept.
Pulpit expositors must be exceedingly cautious when making claims such as the thesis around which the sermon under consideration is based.
For what if there is some kind of calamity and ISIS-like insurgents establish something akin to Sharia law somewhere in the United States?
If this doctrinal pronouncement is taken to its logical conclusion, when these savages threaten to kill you and rape your wife, as a Christian brainwashed by such urine deficient sermonizing would you just stand there and do nothing with the glazed over smile of an Oral Roberts back up singer plastered across your face?
And what about in a case not so extreme and out of the realm of the possibility in the dark days in which we live?
For if we really have no rights and are to endure everything that is as what Christ deems us worthy of enduring, on what grounds do you defend yourself or family members against a pastor with “wandering hands”?
Or by enunciating this very concern, have I stumbled upon the reason why this particular theory of jurisprudence is shockingly pervasive among certain extremist elements?
By Frederick Meekins