ANOTHER LOOK AT ROMANS 13

I was recently invited to dinner at a friend’s house and I found myself sitting with 10 people who were joyfully enjoying each other’s company. During the meal we noticed a car passing back and forth on the residential street in front of the house. In days past we would have thought nothing of this. Perhaps someone was lost. But in these days of Covid all of us immediately began to wonder if we were being watched. None of us had any idea if we were breaking an executive order or not. They change so frequently. But the idea that someone might be watching us and garnering evidence to turn us into the “authorities” was on everyone’s mind. Ten months ago such thinking would have been unthinkable. But here we were, in “free” America, wondering if we were going to get turned in for eating a meal in a private home. I had a quick visual in my mind that I was sitting in Beijing. Then I woke up and discovered I was in America. America? The home of the free? The place where our forefathers bled and died for the sacred principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Yep, that America. What has saddened me most about this pandemic is not the capricious actions of autocratic demigods who take it upon themselves to create “unlegislated laws.” No, what has grieved me the most is the response by many well meaning Christians who believe it is their sworn Christian duty to obey these executive mandates based on Paul’s injunction in Romans chapter 13:1-7. Many want to pick up on Paul’s phrase “whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves” and use it to make a universal law that Christians must obey all governments at all times. God have mercy on us if that is what the text means. “We must obey the governor,” this group says. They add, “That is what the Bible commands us to do isn’t it?” But is it? Paul tells the saints at Rome to obey the duly constituted government officials, the ones granted the “authority” or “right” (exousia) to rule in society. Herein lies the first problem. What was the duly constituted authority in 1st Century Rome? The emperor. Being a monarchy he had the right to legislate and enforce laws. In the American system that is not how it works. The duly constituted authority in a representative republic is the founding documents that outline the limits of authority. In other words the Constitution, not the mayor, not the governor, not the president is the ultimate authority. And to whom does the constitution give the ultimate authority? Certainly not the executive branch whose role is to act upon existing laws. No, it is the people. This is one of the many marvelous checks and balances endemic in our prized system. No one can just do what he wants. Authority must be divided. One branch of government must be checked by another branch. And ultimately all branches are to be governed where the true seat of power lies, with the people themselves. James Madison in Federalist #51 said, “It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices [checks and balances] should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government.” The governor does not control the people, says Madison, but the people control the governor. The authority in the American system is a government “of the people, by the people and for the people.” The government is the people. The government is not the governor. In himself he has no authority. Paul goes on to define what he means by a government. He defines the ruler in this way, ‘“For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.” The only legitimate government is one that punishes evil-doers and rewards those who do good. That is Paul’s functional definition of government. So what if the government rewards evil doers and punishes those who do good? Are we required to obey that despotic form of rule? The real question is, “Does such a government that rewards evil-doers and punishes the righteous cease to be a legitimate government?” According to Paul the answer is “yes.” Such would be no government at all, but a arbitrary self-acclaimed power grab of a tyrant who desires to enslave his fellow man. Let’s look at the current situation in America. What do we see? Rulers rewarding thugs and rioters in the streets of our cities while punishing people who go to church who by and large are law abiding citizens. In other words many local governors and mayors across America have abrogated their high position of authority by doing exactly what legitimate governments don’t do. In other words, many rulers in America are doing things that are completely contrary to Paul’s definition of a government. The question every Christian must then ask is, “Am I required to obey them?” There is much more to say on this topic. But I’ll leave it alone for now. I only intend at this point to caution those who quote Romans 13 as if it were an absolute mandate to obey all governments for all time. It would be wise to look at Paul’s definition of what a government is and then make a decision based on an enlightened conscience as to whether the government is performing its biblical role or if the government has in fact abrogated that role and need not be obeyed. May all Christians continue to wrestle with this sticky issue.