Paying Taxes

Tonight as I was sitting in a coffee shop, I overheard an interesting conversation. Three young people were talking about the idea that people should not have to pay taxes because it is wrong. Their support? The man who was most vocal in the conversation pointed out that the only time tax collectors were presented in a positive light was when they were repentant. His argument immediately went from this point to say that because of this and the fact that all other presentations of taxes in Scripture is negative, paying taxes must be wrong.

What is wrong with this argument? The first and perhaps most obvious is the question of context. What is the nature of the repentance the tax collectors sought? Was it that they collected taxes? Of course not. Their repentance was in regard to the fact that they had collected an unfair amount of taxes above and beyond what they were told to collect for the Roman government. They repented and as one tax collector announced, he would return to the people not just what he over-charged, but even with interest. The group that was discussing this issue in the coffee shop in no way dealt with this aspect of the relevant passages.

Another obvious overlook in their argument is the debate between the religious leaders and Christ. Did not the religious leaders ask if they should pay taxes to Caesar? And what was Jesus' response? "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

This conversation serves as an extreme example of how we can allow our own wishes and desires to govern our interpretation of Scripture. We have a specific desire, such as finding an excuse to not pay taxes, then seek support for our desire, with no regard for context or message. This is considered an inductive fallacy in which evidence is left out (intentionally or not) for the purpose of proving our desired thesis. We really need to be careful when exegeting Scripture, that we are taking into account the whole counsel of God and not just what supports our personal interests.

Church Structure

One of the important facets of understanding and interpreting the New Testament is to seek to understand how the authors used and understood the Old Testament. Often times this will enhance our understanding of the New Testament and sometimes even enlighten us on theological points we may have missed before.

I recently have been working through a book study on Titus, and while going through it, I have been seeking out cross-references for each verse. In the first chapter Paul is giving Titus instructions and lists some qualifications for leaders of the church. One curious comparison is to view Titus 1 and 2 Timothy 2 as they relate to Leviticus. Is it possible that Paul is drawing upon the qualifications and mandates made for the priests to establish his own listing of qualifications for elders in the church?

The other question this presents regards the existence and need for church structure. It seems there is a movement in today's church toward a decentralization of authority and a move away from structure. Rather than have certain men placed into a position of authority to lead and teach, we prefer to be 'conversational.' Rather than have established authority within the church, the movement is toward a more fluid understanding of church polity.

Paul is drawing on Old Testament regulations and creating regulations for the church. He is pulling something out of one culture and establishing a more general outline for church leadership. It seems that he has established something supra-cultural.

By taking away leadership within the church and becoming more 'conversational', is it possible that we are opening ourselves up for the entrance of false theology?