Sunday, February 9, 2014

Christians & Governmental Powers: Thinking Through Romans 13:1-7

           
 While this is not necessarily a follow up to the last post, giving Romans 13 a stronger interpretation could address some questions that may have been raised by my restorative justice propositions.  Plus, it has been on my mind lately as an under-addressed problematic text in mainstream Christianity so this is my not so original (though no less prolific) resolve.  Romans 13:1-7 says:

1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.  Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.  For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer.  Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience.  6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing.  Pay to all what is due them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due (NRSV).

The mainstream interpretation of this often occurs in one of two ways.  The first is that all governments are a Godly entity which one should blindly follow because, after all, they are God’s authority used for “sword-wielding” (i.e. wrathful) purposes.  This is obviously problematic because it has given rise to the Constantines, Crusaders, Nazis and other likeminded regimes that would use this verse to justify total allegiance to governing tyrants. 

The second way of looking at Romans 13 has been to attempt a “reasonable” approach that says one should then only submit to moral governments and vehemently revolt against the immoral governments.  However, we are then faced with the dilemma of not only deciding at what point of immoral a government should become disqualified, but now distinctions are being made about governments which are obviously not even conceptualized within Paul’s thinking.[1]  So allow me to suggest a third view. 

            John Howard Yoder makes, what I believe, to be an indisputable observation about the text. This is that Romans 13 cannot be read apart from Romans 12 because they were composed as a literary whole. Leading up to these chapters Paul is explaining God’s mercy bestowed on the Gentiles (1-5), then the unearned renewal of the “body through the Spirit” (6-8) and followed by the continuation of unmerited redemptive concern that God maintains for Israel (9-11). Then in Romans 12 Paul is suggesting that God’s mercies on humankind should elicit the human response of non-conformity to the world, suffering love, abandoning vengeance and overcoming evil with good(specifically by those who have responded to and accepted God’s redemptive mercies). This extended from Paul’s understanding that God’s victorious progress is moving from merciful past to triumphant future.[2]  How does this line up with the previous interpretations of chapter 13?  Well, it doesn’t. 

Perhaps when we read 12 and 13 together Paul is making a moral statement on Christian conduct rather than a metaphysical one about government (metaphysical meaning that God is creator or the initial causation of governmental powers).   Rather, Paul seems to suppose that mankind took that initiative upon himself and now God merely ordered them as if Sovereignly allowing governments to have a place within the created order of the universe.  The fact remains that hierarchy, power struggles and disregard for human dignity, both violent and non-violent, has been at work since the dawn of human-sin.  So, this does not mean that God approves of every government or that what they do is good human behavior, but they at the moment do have a place and God will use them for what good he can so to maintain some amount of societal order (and yes I am making this statement from the belief that we are to some extent free-agents and God does not force or coerce creation).  Nevertheless, this is not instruction for Christians to assert themselves in that role.[3]

If anything there is a contrariness that separates government from Christianity. Christians exist in a time between times (i.e. the time before God sets all things to right once and for all) and are thereby subject to the world’s systems and social-orders as is. The sword-bearing secular government creates some order by means of force and self-preservation while the Christian seeks God's way of peace and altruism as the means to restore God’s intended order.  It is no mistake that between Paul’s instruction for Christian life and service (Rom.12:1-21), & his desire to apply the law of love for others (13:8-14), that he place his appeal to submit to government.  He is essentially telling the Christian-Jews of his present time, who were being oppressed by their anti-Semitic Roman government, to become nonresistant.  This does not mean that they are to submit in a way that will carryout the evil of the government, but they were never to respond to the government’s evil, violence and force with their own versions of evil, violence and force (Rom. 12:17; Matt. 5:39).  To return to the eye-for-eye tactics is to do exactly what Paul warns against and conform to the world’s behavior (Rom.12:2).  Why would God bestow mercy so that we could continue down the same path and in the manner that human trajectory has long been on?  So also, what is the foremost mark that God has given his Spirit if not a transformed character of person and thus a renewed way of living in the world?




[1] John Howard Yoder. The Politics of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans 1994), 200.
[2] Ibid, 196-197.
[3]  Ibid, 201-202. 

No comments:

Post a Comment