Sacred Space: A Life Devoted to Prayer

Anyone who has read even some of my past posts knows I have spent a lot of time talking about the relational nature of God, but now I want to ask what is the point of knowing it if that knowledge does not lead us to enter into it?  God has offered an invitation to journey that allows one to commune and co-labor with him, but upon accepting that request our moving forward in unity hinges on both participants’ (God & Persons) willingness to communicate and communicate often (just as any healthy relationship requires) and for this God has given us the avenue of prayer.  I believe most people to some degree do know this, but what many do not take into account is the extent of their un-readiness for the giving of the self that is required when approaching God.  When we invite Him to communicate with us in prayer and try to respond to him in prayer we should find communicating with God necessitates participation of our entire selves: our disposition, thought, desire, hope, will, activities, and direction of life.  It is only when this happens that prayer can finally evolve, in a more adequate sense, into a holistic practice that allows God to individually and communally shape us, interact with us as-well-as us with him. 

Subconsciously, I think, many avoid prayer altogether for several reasons.  First is because they somehow feel they are not worthy, or are too far removed, but the reality is the feelings of inadequacy and distance have been overcome by grace. The simplicity of coming to God in the humble act of prayer is now enough to close the gap and makes experiencing belonging a real possibility.  Second, are those who make prayer the way to control situations or even use it as a means to maximize personal happiness, but both dispositions will come up short.  Still others neglect the vulnerability of having to face themselves and only focus on prayer for others, but the inability to look inward also renders their actions incomplete.  Thomas Merton rightly said, “Those who attempt to do things for others or for the world without deepening their own self-understanding, freedom, integrity, and capacity to love, will not have anything to give to others.  They will communicate nothing to them but the contagion of their own obsessions, their aggresivity, and their ego-centered ambitions, their delusions about the end and means.”[1]  God uses our prayer-filled lives to bring us into wholeness, hence the reason we devote ourselves to it, but it comes first from responding to God’s love by falling in love with Him. 

Richard Foster expounds on this throughout his book on prayer in which he says to pray is to change and that is a great grace that provides a way for “our lives to be taken over by love and joy and peace and patience and kindness and goodness and faithfulness and gentleness and self-control.”[2]  He shows this comes by way of three main streams of prayer: inward, upward and outward.[3]

             1. Inward: We pray prayers of self-examination, prayers of tears for personal wounds, and prayers for inner transformation because we wholly rely on God and thereby posture ourselves before Him in honesty of brokenness allowing His renovating of our will and desire (Eph. 1:17-23).

2.      Upward: We pray prayers that give adoration back to God in response to His overwhelming outpouring of Self and love onto us (Heb. 13:14-15).  We pray to interact with God meditatively, contemplatively and from our heart to His heart.

3.      Outward: We pray prayers in faith to petition, to heal and to intercede on behalf of others despite insurmountable odds (1 Thess. 1:11-12; 3:1-2). We pray because we know that God’s desire to set all things right in the natural is intrinsically tied to unseen and the real conflict is not flesh and blood (Eph. 6:10-12). Therefore, we consistently pray God’s Kingdom into the despair of all situations and conflicts.

So it is not just one of these facets but in all of them that we can discover the heart of prayer is a moment by moment living with God.  

[1] Thomas Merton. Contemplation in a World of Action (Garden City, NY: Doubleday 1971), cited by Lee Camp, Mere Discipleship: Radical Christianity in a Radical World (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press 2008), 178.

[2] Richard Foster. Prayer: Finding the Hearts True Home (NY: HarperCollins Publisher 1992), 6.

[3] This is Foster’s three-part outline throughout the book and is certainly worth reading for those wanting know more about prayer.

Christians and the Death Penalty

Al Mohler recently posted an article titled “Why Christians should support the death penalty” (click here to see).  In his post he attempts to show that based on Genesis 6:9 and Romans 13:4, the Bible sometimes mandates the use of capital punishment, but he goes on to suggest that it is only qualified under right and just circumstances.  While I have to applaud Mohler for at least attempting to face and deal with this very real issue, I have to disagree with his conclusions.  I believe Mohler is unfortunately following suit with what a large number of Christians have, meaning that he is attempting to justify occasions of vengeful-retributive-justice. It is often easier for us to employ an eye for an eye response to intentionally-monstrous violence than it is to consider the response the imagines a new future with that person still in it.  We rarely like what refuses to satisfy the hurt and rage we have clung to over these instances, and this is a problem. Moreover, the scriptural passages employed do not reflect what they seem to and other pertinent passages are ignored altogether.

The Problem With Al’s Usage 

I think many will agree we most often run into problems when we disconnect a single verse of Scripture from its context.  Romans 13:4 does say, “But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he (the government) does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (ESV).  In a previous post I laid out why Romans 13 does not actually support things like the death penalty or even involvement in government (read here).  To sum it up, however, I contend that Romans 13 should not be taken apart from Romans 12 because together Paul draws a stark distinction between God’s allowance of governmental authority to maintain some order, for better or for worse, and the Christian responsibility to bear witness to God’s Kingdom. 

Mohler’s usage of Genesis 9:6 is perhaps as equally misused.  The passage does read, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image” (ESV).   While I will spare you the drawn out interpretation, I do want to suggest something about it.  In a broad stroke, Genesis 8:20-9:7 is God’s dealing with the survivors of the flood within the context of a world that has for sometime been marred by human violence. This is to the degree that it has become woven into its very fabric, yet God has a plan to continue its future and his relationship with humanity. In doing so, he slowly begins to reintroduce a moral duty that takes very seriously the importance of life within its inherently violent social disorder.  Hence the reason human life should never be taken in the first place (9:6). This may suggest that God had to make some accommodations so to reach a broken violent people thereby gradually persuading and leading them toward his ideal way of living that is purposed in peace and wholeness.  This seems to be more the case as God continues forward with the Law given to Moses (which envisions a new way of living within the world) and the prophets (who reinforce the covenantal Law message and even came to see that God desired mercy and not sacrifice Hosea 6:6). I do not believe we can then say that God has really ever desired humans to become arbitrators over one another, but, as I have said so many times before, desires a creation that cares for the other.

... But What About Jesus?   

There is so much of Jesus’ ministry, death and resurrection that reiterates and reinterprets Israel’s Law and ethic as a thing of mercy and in a way that demonstrates God’s heart more than ever before.   Shockingly he does this by negating the eye for eye/tit for tat mindset of Moses’ day and calls for an action that loves selflessly (Mathew 5:38-48; 9:12-13).   Jesus goes on to demonstrate this for the Pharisees after they drag a woman caught in the act of adultery before him. They test him by pointing out that according to the law they were well within their right to stone her.  Yet, Jesus replies by saying whichever one of them was without sin may throw the first stone. As each man threw down his stone and walked away, Jesus stooped down and asked the woman who was around to condemn her.  Upon replying that nobody was, Jesus then said neither do I condemn you (John 8:1-11). While Jesus did not contest the fact that her action was worthy of death by law, he makes two points here: one, that only a person void of sin is just in carrying out this act of judgment, and two, that being the one void of sin, as he was believed to be,  had the clearer vision that was more interested in extending mercy to a broken person then ending the life of a law violating enemy. 

I believe this is as Yoder suggested the gospel itself meaning that Christ died for his enemies which gives way to a people who are ultimately responsible for the life of neighbor and especially the enemy. So also, we can then only say this to another if we are willing to say to ourselves that we cannot dispose of a person according to our will.[1]  So, as a Christian whose ethics are qualified by Christ’s teaching and God’s broader story with humanity, I would have to say no, we cannot support the death penalty.   

[1] John Howard Yoder. The Original Revolution (Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press 1971), 42.

  

Does Christ’s Physical Resurrection Matter?

           

The topic of Christ’s resurrection has often been a topic of intrigue and debate mainly because of theories that have been formed over what really occurred. The theories have ranged from accusations that Jesus mysteriously survived the crucifixion, to his disciples stole the body and fabricated the whole thing, to his disciples suffered hallucinations, to it being a metaphorical resurrection of Christ coming to life in the hearts of the disciples, to the argument that the disciples, among many, really did witness the miraculous.  I personally find the evidence for a real resurrection account to be sufficient over all the other theories. So, if any of you would like to hear my thoughts on that, say so and I would be more than happy to make it my next post.  However, my main point here is to show why it is vital that it be true otherwise Christ was no Messiah, but would have been the failed revolutionary or false prophet as others claimed him to be.

            The Claim

Throughout the Synoptic Gospels there is plenty of anticipated warning given by Jesus that both his death and resurrection were on the horizon given that his demise had already been in the hearts and on the agendas of the elders, chief priests and scribes (Matt. 12:40, 16:21; Mk 8:31; Lk. 9:22).  It must, nevertheless, be understood that in this first-century world any talk of rising from the dead or resurrection was understood to denote an occurrence happening to the physical body.  As N.T. Wright has extensively laid out, bodily resurrection was something the many Jews believed could and would happen as a future event while most of the Pagan world, along with some Jews, denied especially in the context of a future life.[1]  Death was a one way road.  Now I know the tendency to assume that the Pagan world was just being faithless, but what reason did they have to think any different?  The eventual death of the body had never not occurred as far as they knew.  The idea of new life was something God reveled to Israel via Abraham, Moses and the Law, Israel’s oracles and so on and became inherent within Jewish theology and hope. 

Decay

However, this is most pronounced in their view of sin.  Sin is ultimately disobedience to YHWH not because he has some sick need to dominate and smite, but because he is the source of life and working contrary to that source of life was going to cause bondage unto death.  An appropriate analogy is like that of a flower that has been cut from its root.  While it too appears to still be healthy and alive, it is only a matter of time before its decay becomes evident the longer it is away from its root system.  So also, sin irreversibly crosses that boundary that initiates the curse of being severed from our life source thus bringing death to both the organic aspect of humanity as-well-as the spiritual (Gen. 2:17; 3:3).  From that point forward humanity is in need of an act of mere regeneration by way of re-creation. This act is essentially what we see initiated by the Ten Commandments as God’s new act of creation (hence the Law’s intrinsic purpose of setting the Hebrews apart through restored fidelity to YHWH)  that comes to further completion in the Messiah who was obedient/faithful to the point of death (Matt. 5:17-19).     

    

New Life   

Paul expounds on this notion for the church of Corinth (a people steeped in Pagan thought and tradition) who had trouble grappling with this concept:

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures… If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.  Then those also who have died in Christ have perished.  If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. (1 Cor. 15:3-4, 17-19 NRSV). 

In essence it is that simple; if Jesus did have a bodily resurrection, then sin and subsequent death have really been overcome, but if he did not rise then nothing has changed and we are still in bondage to sin. However, since we believe Jesus did rise from the dead, we do have a reason to believe that we are in the initial stages of freedom and things are different.  Therefore, we have entered into an overlap of time between times.  This is to say that “‘the present evil age’ has been invaded by the ‘age to come,’ and is the time of restoration, return, covenant renewal and forgiveness”.[2]  Therefore, God’s initial act toward the completion of re-creation could not end except in a literal reanimating of both organic and spiritual life in Christ the “firstborn of creation” (Col. 1:15).  Perhaps this raises more questions than it answers, but it is the beginning of understanding.

[1] N.T. Wright. Surprised By Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection and the Mission of the Church (New York: Harper Collins Publishing 2009), 37.

[2] N.T. Wright. Christian Origins and the Question of God: The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press 2003), 332.

Tradition!

This year I decided to take part in Lent and I must say I have come to some new conclusions about the practice.  Now I know there are some of us who come from denominations that for whatever reason don’t participate in it, but I want to use my Lenten observations as a means to look at how we Christians should approach our traditions.  Of course it would not be terrible if it also helped us discern what traditions were worth keeping and what are worth abandoning.   

Nevertheless, in its historical setting Lent was practiced in the days and weeks leading up to someone’s baptism in which each person would prepare themselves via confession, prayerful solitude, fasting and so forth before the public declaration of their faith.  However, Lent today is different.  It is now an communal activity practiced annually with the same reflective aims, yet it has become more of a time to daringly give up something cherished (i.e. food, unnecessary spending, social media etc..) between point A (Ash Wednesday) and point B (Easter Sunday). This then raises the question, does anything really change?  Don’t get me wrong it is good that this has become an annual tradition for all Christians, but it is meant to be an avenue for drawing near to God while God draws near to us in a way that allows God to transfors the human-self toward inner Christ-likeness.  This is, as Judy Bauer says, for the purpose of spiritual growth in a way that carries us from an old state of being to a new way of living.[1]  Thus, some might see the Lenten tradition is reminiscent of the “spiritual disciplines”. The disciplines also seek to purposely enter into a place where we set aside external things in exchange for God’s direct renovation of our interior life.   

    

These observations have come from my going without while feeling like I am only going through the motions.  We so often fall into the trap of trying to rush through these things which I suspect happens because first, we have let the hurried aspect of our social-sphere demand it’s way in to the deepest part of inner spiritual self, and second, because we are blinded by illusory ideas that our spiritual health and nourishment has been met and requires nothing further.  However, grace and the sanctifying process say otherwise (Phil. 2:12-13). The truth is life with God is a journey that begins new every day requiring fresh submission and willful dependence on him.  Therefore whether we are participating in Lent, taking communion, or merely entering into daily prayer, it is all purposeful for growing us in God.          

      

Tradition as whole exists to pass-on “ideas, commitments, customs, manners, and celebrations of life in its complexity” all for the sake of memory and community.[2]   I believe Christian traditions do the same thing, but are intrinsically tied to a memory and community belonging to a larger picture of past, present and future divine outworkings which draw an entire creation home from exile (Ps. 96:10; Isa 56:7; Matt. 25:31-32; 28:19-20).  Therefore, all Christian traditions that refocus human thought and life back on our patient God and his work should never be approached arbitrarily or superficially. It is always working to further the development of new Christlike character in our personhood and thus requires active participation. In essence our aim should always be deeper communion with God. 

[1] Judy Bauer. Lent Easter Wisdom Nouwen (Ligouri, MO: Ligouri Publications 2005), viii.

[2] Richard E. Wentz. American Religious Traditions: The Shaping of Religion in the United States (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress 2003), xi.

Earning Worth: When Personhood is Cheapened

How do you define the worth of a person?  Is it by what they do; is it how much they have; or is worth ascribed via different means?  Whether we admit it or not there are obvious norms woven into our social fabric which say a person’s worth is based on their ability to contribute to and enhance the society to which they belong.  Those who cannot contribute are seen as drains on community resources and therefore drains on society and we show it.  One example of this, offered by Hauerwas and Vanier,  is seen in the way the people who are considered “normal” contributors in the world have found subtle ways of hiding or segregating the so-called “abnormal” non-contributors in the world (e.g. mentally or physically disabled, blind, deaf, homeless etc…).[1]  This has been done to greater and lesser degrees through the formations of various institutions that intentionally keep the often vulnerable non-contributors out of sight, out of mind and without a voice.[2] So should we now say that people are more commodity than human? Have subjects been turned into objects?  I propose that life is much more important than this. Perhaps even a sacred thing from conception onward, and take notice of the word onward because the average pro-lifer only seems concerned with beginnings. 

Throughout both the Hebrew Scriptures and NT there is a moral ethic which says that human life is of unsurpassable worth.  This begins with the outworking of human creation in which Yahweh authors life (Gen. 2:7; Psa. 139:13-16), shares the enterprise of creating with the biological world (Gen. 1:11), but then explicitly makes humankind in his very image (Gen. 1:26-27).  However, we must ask to what extent do we bear God’s likeness? The usual erroneous ways of concluding this either begins with anthropomorphisms (i.e. projecting human attributes onto God as if God were also made of bone, flesh, brain, organs and so forth), or we ascribe all of God’s overwhelming power, absolute control, autonomous nature and unilateral action onto humanity. The problem with the second is that it would then make the entire “natural world available for human manipulation and exploitation” which would have led to self-destruction long ago.[3]  

Conceivably we might then take it to mean that God shared his power in more productive ways such as offering humanity the unique capacity to be intentionally-faithful, to love, to will, to imaginatively create, to be relational and care for the rest of creation in ways that it cannot in return do for us.  Subsequently, when God gives humans the God-like permission to fill the earth, subdue it and take dominion over it (Gen. 1:28) it might be better understood that we were and are to take responsibility for it in creative word and conscientious deed, as appose to coercion and violence.  Psalms 8 echoes this as it seemingly draws from the Genesis 1-2 polemic against chaos with Yahweh’s ordering the cosmos and then establishing humanity as a center of sorts for helping maintain that established order (8:3-5).  In verses 5-8 humanity is celebrated as royal personhood that again has authority and responsibility to order and care for creation for the sake of “establishing justice and righteousness.”[4]  Therefore, humanity is a little more than some arbitrary addition to a biological universe, but has a multifaceted purpose that is privileged to help bring order as-well-as the potentiality to usher in its restoration, hence the God/human Messiah with all restorative teachings and implications.

     Likewise, God early on made declarations of human life being beautiful and worthy of respect and saving.  In the Levitcal law for Jubilee the Israelites were commanded to never take advantage of one another but to care for each other’s needs especially concerning those with less (Lev. 25:13-17; 35-36). So also, it is said that oppressing the weaker and poor is altogether an insult to the world’s Maker. Instead, it is in kindness we honor Him and display morality and integrity (Prov. 14:31-32).  Perhaps most profound of all is when Jesus says what you do, or do not do, for the least of these you have in turn done to Me (Matthew 25:45).  The connection between Creator and personhood exists as an intimate connection that we not only hinder by disconnecting the two, but commit a holy offense.  Therefore, it is in this image-bearing way that human life has a sacred purpose and responsibility to care for and make new avenues of togetherness and community that include all persons from least to greatest. This idea of community, as I have demonstrated in past posts, must be done even when the only benefit is for that of another.  

So, why is it that we still struggle to make this a consistent feature in our life ethic and mind-set toward the other?  Perhaps it is because we fail to see that our socially formed ideas and practices, which disable others, have left us unaware of two things: first, those deemed lesser in society share a core commonality of humanity, but secondly we have become blind to our own inefficacies and need for care, grace and mercy.  My initial attention toward those who are disabled is indicative of the bigger problem whereby we build and protect self-images.  There is not one who is free from absolute dependence, yet we belong to a world that, at its core, believes a person is stunted if they are not self-reliant.  The reality is we come into this world relying on the care and mercy of others and we often go out of this world relying on it as well.  The in between time where many believe they have reached independence is a lie because within any societal context one’s daily needs for human necessity often rests in the hands someone else (doctors, farmers, water sourcing, clothing makers, and so forth).  We would then be remiss to think that this dependent feature does not overlap into things of the unseen. Humanity bears the image of a God that oversees our needs in both and intimate and broader sense.  So what all this points to, or attempts to point to, is that God in turn desires a people who will do what He does within their societal existence as ambassadors of His Kingdom that defines human life and worth as that of a chosen consecration. 

[1] Stanley Hauerwas & Jean Vanier. Living Gently in a Violent World (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press 2008), 29.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Terrence E. Fretheim. God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press 2005), 48-49.

[4] Walter Brueggemann. The Message of the Psalms (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Press 1984), 37.

Why Does God Allow Evil and Suffering?

Chances are if you are a living/breathing/cognitive human being you have either heard it asked, been asked, or you yourself have asked the question “if God is so good and loving then why does he permit evil?”  There are many generic answers to this question of evil (also known as theodicy) that are often more harmful than helpful.  These range from God allows bad things to happen for a reason -to- it is part of His plan -to- suffering is God’s mercy in disguise- and even to- in God’s sovereign ways (or perhaps diabolical plan) He has predestined some for good and some for bad and then judges each according to how he made them to be (no cynicism towards Calvinism here).  Nevertheless, one’s worldview tends to frame how they understand and answer the question, so perhaps we need to reframe our view.  Greg Boyd has done some of the most concise work that looks at scripture’s constant interplay between God working toward the good of the world, while both humanity and some in the angelic realms work more against God’s will than for it.  In Satan and the Problem of Evil, Boyd outlines probably the best model for this warfare theodicy which I have adopted into my own theology and essentially outlined here. So here it goes:

1.  Love must be freely chosen: While this may seem contrary to rational thought, the allowance for evil begins with the nature of love.  If we can agree on the assumption that we are to be participatory agents in God’s love then love by definition is not legitimate if humans or angels are programmed like machines to have it. Rather, it requires all to be capable of a certain amount of self-determining freedom to choose or reject it.[1] 

2. Freedom suggests risk: The very idea that the participatory agents have the freedom to accept or reject love means that the future to some degree is open for God. The story of Jonah (and likewise for many of the prophet’s messages) shows an open future in that God sends Jonah to warn Nineveh that unless they change they will be destroyed due to their continuous wickedness. This carries implications for the possibility of painful risk for God that while He is in control of the final outcome He has to some extent relinquished absolute control of His agents for the sake of having relationship with them.[2]

3. Risk requires moral responsibility: Risk implies that we are not just free agents, but also moral agents who can be held accountable for how we use our freedom.  For better or for worse we become responsible for our actions toward one another and thus in many ways responsible for each other.[3]

4. Moral responsibility implies the principal of proportionality and its ability to influence: This is to say that because our moral responsibility comes in our capacity to bless and our capacity to curse it will always carry the same potential and proportion for evil as it has for love.[4]  This gives way for the constant mistreatment of others or self as we often see in our daily life and experience. 

5.  The power of influence is irrevocable: It is not as if the perpetual destructiveness carried out by the world’s rebellious agents is working for God’s or human’s greater good. Rather, God has allowed it to continue because to revoke our ability to influence would unhinge our moral responsibility that remains central for relationally-mutual love.[5]

6. The power to influence is finite: While humans and angels have the irrevocable self-determining freedom and moral responsibility to influence, it does not stipulate the scope or duration of that freedom.  In a sense the quality of freedom will cut both ways given that God’s creatures are finite and God is omnipotent. There are plenty of scriptural implications illustrating that God will not allow those who misuse their freedom to eternally continue as the time will come when Christ will return to set all things right.[6]

---

[1] Gregory A. Boyd. Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy(Downers Grove, IL; InterVarsity Press 2001), 53-56.

[2] Ibid, 115.

[3] Ibid, 165.

[4] Ibid, 169-170.

[5] Ibid, 181.

[6] Ibid, 190-191.

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.  ² Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.  ³ 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; ⁴ 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.  ⁵ 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.  ⁷ 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.