Wednesday, July 04, 2012

Happy violation of Romans 13 Day!

My annual repost of A nation born of rebellion against God ....

----
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

With these words, the Declaration of Independence begins to list the grievances suffered under the despotic rule of King George over the English colonies in America. After a lengthy list of grievances, the Declaration declares that the colonies are no longer under the rule of England but are instead free and independent.

Powerful words. Solemn words. Words that, at least until recently, were taught to all schoolchildren and words that are part of our American lore. I am in awe of the power and eloquence of the Declaration and the subsequent Constitution that at one time was the law of the land in America. So that is great, we all agree that America is swell. So what is the point? Here is where I am going with this: Are these statements in the Declaration of Independence the founding words of a Christian nation, a country founded on "Judeo-Christian" values?

Simply put: No.

Why in the world would I say that?

Because America was birthed by an ungodly act of rebellion against authority.

Yikes! Stay with me here. This is a long one but I think it is important and thought provoking.

This post is not intended to bash America. I would not choose to live anywhere else in the world unless I was led to do so in God's providence. I love my country, in fact I love my country more than may be healthy as a Christian. I am also not saying that the founding fathers were wrong or that the end result is bad. Clearly America has been a force for more good than ill in the world. This statement is intended as a wake-up call to the church. Evangelicals must remember that being an evangelical Christian must of necessity take priority over being an American. I hear lots of lip-service to that effect but practically speaking our American upbringing impacts our doctrine and practice in some troubling ways. There are no special secular nations, even ones where the founding is full of religious overtones. I think this is important because there is such a blurring of the distinction between the church and America that it sometimes seems as if we are evangelists for American culture more than witnesses of the risen Christ. So if you will, please indulge me for a few minutes to explain why I would make that assertion.

The core issue here is one of submission. Submission gets a bad rap in the church in America because it is either tip-toed around or it is used as a club. Americans don't like to submit to anyone for any reason. The Founding Fathers decided that at some point they no longer wished to submit to King George, to pay his taxes without representation. I think most historians would agree that King George was a poor ruler. So it is little wonder that the colonies eventually revolted. The question we are pondering here is a dramatically different one: Is our submission to authority based on the worthiness of the one in authority? That is an important question because we are called on to submit all over the place in the Bible, a subject we looked at yesterday when the church gathered.

Let's take a look at what the Bible says about submission to authorities and it says a lot.

The first place I want to look is at the third chapter of Paul’s letter to Titus.

Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. (Titus 3:1)

Paul is somewhat vague here. He exhorts Titus to remind Christians to be submissive to authorities. Who these rulers and authorities are doesn’t get much clarification but I certainly think that Paul is at least implying governing officials. The following sections of Scripture reinforce this idea quite powerfully.

Next we have a powerful statement from the lips of Christ Himself. Pay careful attention here.

He entered his headquarters again and said to Jesus, “Where are you from?” But Jesus gave him no answer. So Pilate said to him, “You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you?” Jesus answered him, “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.” (John 19:10-11)

Here is Christ, mere hours away from His death on the cross, telling Pontius Pilate that he has no authority (including the authority to condemn Christ to die) except that which he has received “from above”, i.e. from God. Stop and think about what Christ is saying here. Pontius Pilate received his authority from Caesar. So by proxy Caesar has been granted the authority by God to put Jesus Christ to death. I can’t overemphasize this point that the most unjust and tyrannical government ever faced by Christians was given its authority directly from God and it used that authority to crucify Christ and persecute the church for the next three centuries. Roman Emperors like Nero and Caligula make King George look like Mr. Rogers in comparison. Ponder that as we move forward.

Next, a look at what Peter wrote regarding this issue. I think this is important as well because this is not a “Paul-only” doctrine. It is something found in the words of Christ and Peter as well as Paul. Just once in Scripture should be sufficient but for purposes of staking a position I think it adds even more weight when there are multiple sources.

Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. (1 Peter 2:13-17)

Please note a few things here. Be subject to every human institution, emperor and governors. Not to be subject to only the just rulers or those you voted for. Remember again as a frame of reference that when Peter says “emperor” he must be referring to Caesar and when he refers to “governor” that likely refers to men like Pilate. Verse 17 is especially telling; we are to honor everyone, love the brotherhood, fear God and honor the emperor. Honor Caesar? Absolutely.

Next up is Romans 13, the seminal passage on human governing authorities.

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he 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. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. (Romans 13: 1-7)

There is no authority other than those God has instituted. That would obviously include the Roman empire and of course the good ole United States of America. Wouldn’t it similarly include Nazi Germany? The Stalinist Soviet Union? Castro’s Cuba? North Korea? England under the reign of King George? Lichtenstein! All of the above. So Paul is saying that by resisting the authorities placed over us, we resist God and bring judgment upon ourselves. We are to submit and pay taxes, whether we consider them just or not.

Look at what precedes Romans 13, keeping in mind that the chapter breaks are not in the original. What Paul wrote right before this passage is vital to understanding Romans 13: 1-7.

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12: 14-21)

That is important to remember. Christians in Rome would be facing persecution just as Paul himself, a frequent guest in prison cells, was subjected to. In the face of such injustice, the natural response as an American is to overthrow the scoundrels, the whole refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots thing. Paul is saying just the opposite and we must consider the end of chapter 12 and the beginning of chapter 13 as one continuous thought. Is the government unjust? God will judge that nation. Are the rulers despotic? God is the one who will avenge their injustice, either immediately (see the death of Herod in Acts 12: 20-23) or at the Judgment seat. “Don’t tread on me” is not a concept that would be understood by Paul.

What is the overarching message here? It strikes me that God is sovereign over all nations, not just Western democracies but all nations, and that God will judge those nations. We all understand this and accept this, at least in theory. Submission is an easy topic to talk about but when you apply it as a practical matter, it gets messy and sometimes flies in the face of certain ideals that we hold dear. This issue is one that is easily turned from “Scripture says” to “Well, I think”.

So that brings me back to my original point. Was the founding of America a “Christian” action? I have to say “No”. No matter that the lofty ideals espoused by the Founders sound pleasing to our ears or that we can argue that no secular nation on earth is a better one. The notion that America was once a “Christian nation” and needs to return to that state is demonstrably false because the very founding of America was done as an act of rebellion against the very authorities that God had ordained.

Am I missing something here? Is there anything in the New Testament that would lead a follower of Jesus Christ to think that we are called to overthrow unjust rulers? Should we pray for our leaders? Well certainly we should and that is perfectly Biblical. Should we take up arms to overthrow them? Absolutely not, not even if they force high taxes on us or unjust laws. Not even if they persecute the church and not even if they put Christians to death. God will avenge, not us and we are never called to return evil for evil, even when we are sure that our cause is right. We shouldn’t turn to George Washington and Patrick Henry to form our beliefs regarding human government. Our model for how we should relate to the government is found in Scripture, in Paul and Peter and most especially in Jesus Christ.

15 comments:

Jeremy VanGelder said...

Hi Arthur, Andrew Marner just linked me to this post. Good to meet you. Anyways, I was just wondering if you have read "A Christian Manifesto" by Schaeffer. He works through Romans 13 and arrives at a slightly different conclusion than you do :).

John Mureiko said...

I have to comment at least on how much I love the title! Totally cracked me up! Excellent thoughts and insights as well. I knew there would be some good posts out today. :-)

James said...

One of your better posts my man. Go frame it, slang it on ebay yo.

Bean said...

Thank you for the reminder of what the bible says about respecting authority. This applies to all areas of life, parents, bosses, teachers, the church, police, government, the IRS, and it is not an easy teaching to live. Not sure I would go so far as renaming July 4th :), but you made a very good argument for why we should respect authority if we are Christians and the reason being because God is ultimately in control of everything.

Arthur Sido said...

Hi Jeremy

I have read A Christian Manifesto, I reviewed it here: http://thesidos.blogspot.com/2011/09/book-review-christian-manifesto.html

Needless to say I disagreed with many of his conclusions!

Arthur Sido said...

Thanks John, Bean and James!

Debbie said...

I understand what you are saying here, and agree with you regarding submission to authority. Gotta say that first, so you know that I'm not questioning any of that!

I wonder how all this relates to two parties who have a contract, though. The colonies had a contract with King George, and he violated it. When there is a contract and the more powerful party violates it, is it an authority/submission issue?

Arthur Sido said...

Debbie

Keep in mind that when Paul wrote his letter to the church in Rome, he was living under a despotic ruler that makes King George look like Mary Poppins. The Romans violated every sort of human right imaginable and the Roman occupying government crucified Christ. I don't think that a contract, real or imagined, between the British colonies and the crown negate what Paul wrote.

Debbie said...

Arthur,

Gotta love the implication that I'm imagining that there were contracts (charters) between the colonies and the crown....

I am fully aware of what Roman rule was like, and I'm not questioning what Paul was saying.

My question still stands (unanswered), though. When one party breaks a contract/charter, and the other party reacts to that, is it an authority/submission issue which falls under Paul's writings?

Arthur Sido said...

I don't see how the question is relevant. There is not a clause in what Paul wrote to indicate that we should submit to authority unless the break a charter with us. God placed King George on the throne and it was a violation of Romans 13 (as well as the Sermon on the Mount among other Scriptures) to engage in armed rebellion against the crown.

Debbie said...

Generally speaking, we don't have contracts with our governing authorities, so I'm wondering if/how that affects things when there is a contract (charter). If, for example, I have an agreement with my local governing authorities that I will do certain work for them and they will pay me $x, and they decide after I do the work that they will not pay me, do I have no recourse because they are in authority? Yes, I know the Romans did far worse things than not paying people. But in a situation with a written agreement that both parties sign, doesn't accountability go both ways?

Arthur Sido said...

I agree from a secular standpoint. If I have a legal right to something there is a system to redress it. But as followers of Christ we are often knowingly put into one way situations where we do all the giving and none of the getting. It is hard to disentangle our rights as private citizens and our calling as citizens of the Kingdom.

Brian Herrick said...

So how does God punish these corrupt governments? Is it not lawful as a people to establish your own form of governance in response to the injustice of the current regime. Could this new form of government not also be appointed by God as well? Clearly there are circumstances when we should not obey the government (Daniel for example). Now do I believe that as Christians our number one priority should be to rout out injustice and start revolutions, by no means. To say that the founding fathers had no biblical justification in airing out their grievances with England, in a newly discovered land is just plain silly. Romans 13 is stating that you should obey the government, not that you shouldn't be politically active in trying to fight injustice, or even possibly establish a more just form of governance. What's next? Was MLK wrong for civil disobience? Yes? He should have just stayed at the back of the bus? Christ calls us to fight injustice and oppression, freedom is one of his main causes. For freedoms sake we were set free. Just because they endured oppression, doesn't mean they didn't sometimes disobey the government. They were fed to lions for it. Now, every peaceful means of reconciliation to ones government should be taken first, but is there never a time to fight or establish new government? I think there is, and your "exegesis" of Romans 13 is reaching for some strange condemnation of God's establishment of new leaders. His bringing about the aforementioned justice upon the corrupt guard.

Anonymous said...

Thought-provoking post! I like your obvious desire to understand and follow all of God's Word. Truly refreshing. Thank you very much! Blessings to you and your family. Please check out the work of Skip Moen and Passion for Truth Ministries.

http://www.youtube.com/user/PassionForTruthVideo

Some more awesome Truth!

Arthur Sido said...

Brian, your comments always leave a "yeah but...". Do you think perhaps it is that we find it difficult to be even a little critical of the founding of this nation because it is part of the religious culture that we grew up in, a culture that seeks to deify the founders and mythologize America as a "Christian nation"?

There is an enormous difference between refusing to comply in those areas God has clearly spoken (like refusing to go to war) and taking up arms in violent rebellion. If you can't distinguish Daniel between refusing to worship a false god and a secular armed revolt you need to reevaluate your critical thinking and your own exegesis.