This post by Elusive Wapiti reminds me of an issue that I often have with people who use Romans 13 and the "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" arguments in favor of Christians either being mindlessly obedient to government officials until they become psychotically oppressive or go to their death like lambs to the slaughter. These extremes put many Christians into a passive position which render them impotent, and worse yet, make the church look weak and useless as a source of reform and renewal in the eyes of non-Christians.
Christians frequently say "if it doesn't violate's God's law, then the government can do it." That is true to a large extent, but where they go wrong is forgetting that a group may never do that which is forbidden to an individual. Just as an individual may not murder, a group of people cannot take for themselves the authority to commit murder. Capital punishment is no exception to this rule, as individuals had a right in ancient Israel and most ancient societies to carry out a private execution against someone they knew had killed a kinsman. Moral limits scale up from the individual to the entire society.
Romans 13 assumes a reasonable, sensible government. There is no way that Paul would seriously try to convince Christians that an Emperor like Nero is God's servant to do them good because his actions toward them were unjustifiable, cruel and outright satanic. Rather, what Paul was addressing was the common civil servant in the empire who was just a normal person, of normal character, trying to enforce reasonable laws and taxes. Regardless of law and policy, this aspect of the state stays constant between regimes, flowing from one form to another. The vast majority of regime changes always have been, and always will be, at the top of the government, in the body politic, not in the machinery of the state.
The lawlessness and rebellion that is condemned is not opposition to laws and policies, but rather to the very basis and authority of the government itself. It is fundamentally philosophically and morally different to rebel against a civil servant or leader who is carrying out a grossly unjust action, as compared to rebelling against mundane, banal laws and public officials just because one finds them inconvenient. Here is an example of the difference: it is impermissible to rebel against a police officer who seizes your license for driving 50mph over the speed limit; it is morally licit to rebel against a police officer who tries to seize your property and tries to beat you and your family to death for the same offense, even if the law permits that punishment. To rebel in the former case is to rebel against authority because it is authority and inconvenient, to rebel against the latter is a moral position because the law and officer's actions are irreconcilably immoral, cruel and unjust.
The motivation of the authorities also plays into this issue. I assume that other Christians are familiar with the teachings on martyrdom, so I won't rehash them, but will point out that the motivation of the authorities is of paramount importance here. One is not a Christian martyr because one is persecuted and happens to be a Christian, but rather one becomes a Christian martyr when their mere act of being a Christian is the fundamental first cause of their persecution. This is the difference between the deaths of the Apostles and the persecution of many believers. For many believers throughout history, their faith was only a tangential issue in their persecution, if even one at all. Rather than glorifying God, their unwillingness to openly defy that persecution merely made them a run-of-the-mill victim.
The founding fathers of the United States are an excellent case study in how Christians can openly rebel against the state without incurring the wrath of God. Their act of rebellion was morally licit because they first sought reconciliation with their government, then gained the support of their colonial governments and the general public, isolating the king from support from the majority of the population (1/3 supported the rebellion, 1/3 did not and 1/3 quite frankly didn't care). By gaining the support of most of their countrymen in positions of authority, they kept the fundamental machinery of state intact and allowed it to carry out its God-appointed duties. By gaining the support or passive of acceptance of the majority of the population, they would ensure a legitimate regime that would be able to govern the country without resorting to immoral behavior to assert control.
The prevailing mentality is not entirely without justification, in that it is better for Christians to patiently deal with obnoxious laws than to become regarded as scofflaws or to have the church regarded as believing that its relationship with god immunizes it from earthly authority. It bears good testimony to reasonably obey such laws and to be a martyr for one's faith and calling. It does not, however, bear good testimony to quietly, patiently take arbitrary, capricious abuse, especially when it is directed at society as a whole.
Matthew 22:18-21
18But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, 20and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
21"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
I have always thought this to mean that since men are created in the image (portrait) of God, they should give themselves to Him.
Maybe that's too simple.
No, that's EXACTLY right.
Why is everything made out to be so freaking tricky all the time?
KISS = keep it simple stupid!
Pablo,
Thanks for bringing up the context of that verse. I think it is important that every time the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus they came up with a scenario where they thought he could only answer one of two ways. Each time, Jesus answers a third and unexpected way.
In this particular instance the expected responses would have been to say to pay taxes, and then be in trouble with the religious Jews. Or to say to not pay taxes which would get him in trouble with Rome. Of course Jesus answered them in a third way, saying to give to G-d what belongs to Him. So the right quetion to ask is, just what belongs to G-d?
Psalm 24:1 The earth [is] the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.
Psalm 89:11 The heavens [are] thine, the earth also [is] thine: [as for] the world and the fulness thereof, thou hast founded them.
There are others, tho I am too tired to find them now. But I think Jesus was simply saying to them, you already know the answer.
I am less than certain on this. I disagree about things being licit for authorities only if they are licit for individuals. There are many cases where the Bible authorises authority for things that do not apply to individuals. And the case you use about ancient Israel needs to be seen in the context of local governance. While the offended were part of the retaliation, there is involvement of the community leaders and priests in community discipline.
Further, there are documented authority structures in Scripture.
Verses like 1 Peter 3 need to be considered:
Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.
And the example of David and Saul is most instructive.
Christianity is radical and its focus is eternal. I am not advocating pacifism, but there may be much truth in the saying that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.
Mike thanks for the link.
An interesting point you make about the (relative) morality of disobedience. Not only is there a duty to disobey a government in open rebellion to God's law, but you make the point that rebellion is morally permissible when the means as well as the end are more congruent with God's law than is the government itself.
Interesting...
I am less than certain on this. I disagree about things being licit for authorities only if they are licit for individuals. There are many cases where the Bible authorises authority for things that do not apply to individuals.
Taxation is the only example that I can think of where there might be some mild exception to this, and that's only because by nature an organized government needs revenues to fund itself, whereas an individual, on his own, can rely on his own labor.
And the case you use about ancient Israel needs to be seen in the context of local governance. While the offended were part of the retaliation, there is involvement of the community leaders and priests in community discipline.
True, but the individual is the one carrying out the punishment and it's more of a matter of the community restricting what the avenger may do, rather than denying the right of the avenger to visit justice on those who murdered his kin. Furthermore, in a state of anarchy like in Somalia, it would be morally licit for non-governmental authorities to carry out their own trials and executions of serious criminals like murderers. It's important to remember that in the case of ancient Israel, we were still talking about a society with some established, organized government, but in the absence of that government, it would still have been morally licit for individual Jews to abide by and enforce the Mosaic Law to the best of their abilities.
The point here is that there are times when an individual can carry out their own executions. In a state of anarchy, it is morally licit for you to execute someone you know committed cold-blooded murder. In a society with a government, that is transferred collectively to the government in most cases, but the underlying authority comes from the fact that there are cases where an individual may carry out a capital punishment of another individual for murder.