Wow, I am starting to get on a roll with this Defending Minarchy category/series. That said, before I begin, I suggest this essay by Dave Black as a context for where I am beginning with Romans 13.
It is often repeated by Christians that any law which does not violate God's laws is one that we must obey. This argument, however, does not make sense once it is carried to its natural conclusion. Politics and law, being what they are, are more complicated than such simplistic directions.
There are a few problems with this "obedience" model for the law. The Bible's command here is to submit to the state, not obey the state. Colossians 3 makes a distinction between these two when it tells a wife to submit to her husband, and a child to obey his or her parents. Submission is a voluntary decision to follow the will of a lawful authority, obedience is a commandment.
If an agent of the state is breaking the law, should a Christian obey the agent of the state? If the state itself is in rebellion against its constitution, should a Christian obey the unconstitutional dictates of the state? If someone tries to overthrow the system entirely, why would it be immoral for a Christian to fight back, and even kill the usurper in order to restore the old regime?
To blindly obey the state, and to say that it can dictate as it pleases without regard to the law, is to foster lawlessness, which is itself a sinful state. Would it be any less of an act of rebellion against God's established authority for the state to defy its constitution, than it would be for a citizen to break a legitimate, constitutional law? These are real questions that the simplistic takes on Romans 13 go to great pains to avoid.
It is the duty of Christians to defend the constitutional order, for in this way Christians uphold Romans 13 by ensuring the least amount of moral conflict in submitting to the state. By refusing to submit to the state when it violates the constitution of the state, Christians are in fact upholding Romans 13 by standing firmly beside the underlying law that the state rests upon.
Great piece, Mike. and very apt.
Most Christians, especially of the "social conservative" variety, treat the state as if it is given permission to implement, by force, God's entire will on earth. But that's not what it's for; it has specific limitations and they are very strict.
The problem perhaps arises out of the Christian habit of "universalizing" specific verses, taking a verse and making it apply to everything. You know, like applying "judge not" as if it means Christians should never serve as judges for a boxing match. It's a sign of intellectual laziness, and God is no supporter of any kind of laziness.
I don't know if I'm understanding your greater point Mike. Are you suggesting that if our government is not abiding by the guidelines laid out for it in our constitution, then we we don't have to follow the laws laid out for us by the state. If you are saying that, I'm having trouble reconciling that idea to what seems to be a clear statement in Romans 13.
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."
El Borak,
I'm failing to see the universalism in that. It seems pretty specific.
Mike,
I'm curious as to what ways you might go about NOT submitting to the states authority under this model.
I'm not trying to argue with either one of you, but rather trying to get a better understanding of what you are trying to say.
Maybe it would help me if you defined what you believe submission is.
Perhaps I should have been more clear. I am talking about situational submission. Romans 13 assumes that you would not submit to the state in a way that violates God's laws or that undermines the laws of your land. For example, if a police officer told you to get out of his face after you saw him trying to beat to death a suspect in custody, would you obey the officer? I wouldn't because to do so would violate the state's laws, violate the constitution and violate God's laws. What I am saying is that you cannot submit to the state's will when it violates the constitution because the constitution is a higher law in the land than the state, and your submission must first be to the constitution, not the government that is established from it. All other areas you must submit, but not in the areas where it violates the constitution.
seems sensible. Thanks.
Nice post and comments.
I like the line of reasoning.
Thanks.
"I'm failing to see the universalism in that. It seems pretty specific."
The universalism is not in the verse itself, but in the application. When one takes the verse, "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established" and make it apply to *whatever* any government does* so that the Christian cannot oppose any government in any way, that's universalizing.
5 seconds of thought will be sufficient to realize that such a verse simply has never been universalized in practice and cannot be universalized in practice.
First of all we have the example of the apostles (c.f. Acts 5:29) who recognized that there is often a dichotomy between what God commands and what human rulers command.
Then we can look at the fact that we simply do not obey a lot of authorities - in fact, we ignore the vast majority.
First off, we may ignore those in other countries. They are not 'our' authorities.
Second, we may ignore orders that are not "lawful" laws. If the governor of your state orders you to come to his house and make him a cup of coffee, you have no requirement to do that, because his authority is limited by law; it is not universal. We may also ignore a 'law' passed by the legislature of Alaska and signed by the governor of New York. Are they not "governing authorities"? Sure they are, but their law in that case has no legitimacy.
Third, we may or may not obey a law that we believe to be unconstitutional. Even the courts (ergo the government) agree that an unconstitutional law is no law; it is illegitimate and the government has no authority to pass it. Of course, one is probably wise to obey it while it stands on a cost/benefit basis alone.
I do not believe that there is any moral requirement to obey a law that one honestly believes to be illegitimate. There is, on the other hand, a moral requirement to *disobey* a law that either commands evil or bans good. In those cases we are to "obey God rather than men."
So all that to say this: Christians are required to obey rulers *only* when they exercise lawful power towards constraining evil. That is what God created government for, and that purpose of government is assumed in Romans 13. Those who universalize the verse are interpreting it incorrectly.
* like this guy:
http://www.horizonsnet.org/sermons/rom41.html
In all fairness to "that guy" he did turn it around a bit in the second half when he said, "When a government begins to reward evil and punish the good, however, it loses its biblical authority and has no legitimate ground for its existence."
The only problem is that no government simply "begins to reward evil and punish good." All governments are evil in some places and good in others, i.e. they may ban murder yet provide abortions, they may ban theft and yet steal. Are they good or are they evil? They are both*, as people are both.
But at what point does such a government lose its biblical authority? When it becomes 25% evil? 55%? 80%? It's an impossible question to answer, if only because it's impossible to measure.
* Even Hitler's Germany was not 100% evil in every act it did.
But is it really the government, as an institution, that is doing this? The FBI uses asset forfeiture laws, but the military does not. Both are parts of the federal government, and should be judged separately. I think you have to look at the big picture, and weigh the total good done by each department against the total evil done by each department to figure out how far gone the entire government really is.