Thursday, July 04, 2013

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.


Chuck McKnight said...

You posted my thoughts exactly, brother. I agree completely.

MikeSnow said...

John Wesley Sermon that shows us the spirit of those times:

Anonymous said...

Hi Arthur,
When I think of the Antichrist, he will be in authority, and we are told in scripture that we as believers are not to take the 'mark of the Antichrist' that he will require of people.

This would be considered rebellion, I think. This is a refusal to obey the governing authority as a Christian believer.

So, I think that there are times when we can and should take a stand against ungodliness. Should we never question government
decisions or try to change legislation? What about laws governing abortion? should we believers go along with this law? Silently, and obediently, without voicing our objections and what God's word says about the value of life?

Here I go, saying..."I think" that the apostles are speaking about circumstances in our lives beyond our ability to change? perhaps? A slave to a master (although, direction is given for the slave to seek freedom if he/she can), a wife to a husband, a citizen to a country asking reasonable requests of its people. If our nations decided tomorrow to ask all Christians to forsake the name of Christ, we would have to refuse, we may have to defend ourselves, we may have to fight.

The Bible says 'live peaceably with all men if at all possible'.

Arthur Sido said...


Setting aside the notion of an individual anti-Christ which I think is not what was intended, there is a "render unto Caesar" issue here. Would I forsake Christ, even under order of the government and threat of death? No because that would violate God's command. I would be resisting by refusing. The American rebellion was not in any way supportable as Biblical refusal to submit to the government (eg. Daniel or the apostles in Acts 4) and is instead a double violation of God's command by refusing to render to Caesar (i.e. King George) what is his and by refusing to submit to authority (Romans 13), not to mention a gross violation of the commands to love our enemies and to not kill.

Anonymous said...

Hi Arthur,
At the time of Christ's death we were delivered from the "Law". We came under the authority of the Spirit of Christ in His ressurection. I think? :)

Under this 'law of the Spirit' the Bible says that all things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. We are to be led by the Spirit of Christ. The Bible says that this (the following of the Spirit)is what distinguishes us as the 'sons and daughters' of the living God.

Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty. There is freedom. We don't abuse this freedom. If we have the Spirit of Christ, in the measure that we should have, we can judge, we can make 'wise' decisions in the moment, so to speak. This was not allowable under the first covenant of the "Law" that was given to God's people in the time of Moses.

Hebrews tells us that the covenant we have now with God (presently) far surpasses the covenant we had with God under the "Law". Because the builder of the house is greater than the house itself.

We see God allowing discretion under the OT covenant when David took the bread from the Holy Place for him and his men to eat. They were extremely in need of food. This was unlawful under the "Law". Totally forbidden. David was not of the lineage of Levi.

This might be similar to someone today being disobedient to 'authority'. I think that there is discretion under the 'new covenant'. This will make it more difficult in the days ahead to follow what we think is 'God'.

Compassion matters, people matter, mercy matters, love matters. It's not going to be black and white. We're not necessarily going to be able to point to a rule and say to whoever breaks this law, "this can't be God".

Anonymous said...

We see this discretion also in Jesus when he walked the earth. The woman caught in adultery. The "Law" which we were under at that time said the woman should be stoned. Jesus departed from that "Law". He said, 'whoever is without fault, throw the first stone at her'

We see it when his disciples picked the heads of grain on the Sabbath as they were travelling because they were hungry. Jesus said there 'man is not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath is made for man'. Essentially saying that the needs of his disciples for food (in that circumstance and in that particular day) superceded the Sabbath laws.

So we see discretion from Jesus himself when he walked on the earth. According to circumstance. According to the need. According to kindness, mercy, justice, the value of a life, etc.

Just some thoughts from me.

Anonymous said...

I have something else I thought of. David bringing the ark into Jerusalem when the tabernacle of God was standing at Shilo. The altar of sacrifice was at Shilo. The ark had been taken captive in battle. The Philistines had sent it back to Judah? on the new cart with the bronze mice (I think). The ark had been residing in a home not far from Jeruslem when David determined to bring it to the city.

David did this, because he determined that it was needful for the people that God's 'ark of the covenant' should be in the city of Jerusalem. He changed the worship style, he added music, singing, rejoicing, giving of thanks, etc etc.

Scripture says in Acts that in the last days God is going to restore the 'tabernalce of David'. what did David do? He altered some things that were set down in 'stone', (the tablets), so to speak. He changed the worship, the location, the style, etc. etc

I'm excited this morning. Thanks for your post.

Theda said...