Original article "It’s Time to Get Real About Romans 13 on July 4th" found at Altar and Throne, a Christian Anarcho-Capitalist collective.
Whenever a Christian insists that the rule of the state be eclipsed by just, fair (and thus non-coercive) governance, the inevitable refrain from a number of statist Christians is the simplistic mantra, “Romans 13!” It’s as if such a proclamation a divinely sealed and signed bludgeon that needs only a single mention to melt away the multitidinous critiques of human power throughout the holy corpus of scripture.
Well, it’s time to get real about that. Not only does such an unreflective, prima facie interpretation become a frighteningly horrendous doctrine serving as a de facto condemnation of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who stood up in the face of the monstrous figure of Hitler, but it also becomes untraceably confusing and self-contradictory when the power balance shifts and new governments form in rebellion.
It’s all fine and well when the power above you sits comfortably content in its roost, with no significant contenders for its political authority, to insist that authority qua authority is to be obeyed simply for what it is, unless and until the gospel is being preached, or a handful of rules are broken. But it’s quite another when one is not even sure which authority to obey!
"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor." ~Romans 13:1-7
Is the U.S. government, under the purview of Romans 13, divinely sanctioned? If so, then at what moment did it gain such a status? The Declaration of Independence proclaimed that the colonies would now be self-governing, and the monarchy thrown off. Was this a legitimate claim? If so, then even rebellion can be divinely sanctioned, and the unthinking layman’s interpretation of Romans 13 is thrown into confusion.
Should the Christian colonists have obeyed the Crown and remained Loyalists, or rebelled and joined the signers of the Declaration, and become Revolutionaries? Was it evil to align oneself with the Articles of Confederation? Which governing body was divinely sanctioned, and if both, which should they have chosen?
Or perhaps Christians should not have become involved at all. But this is an anachronism. Colonists were commanded by the Crown to offer refuge for British soldiers. Surely this is not, on its face, a violation of God’s commands. But if one were to pledge loyalty to the colonist separatists, they would have to refuse. And if they did not refuse, they would by their very action be exercising loyalty unto the Crown. What’s a saint to do?
Or maybe it’s time to admit that the simplistic, unstudied reading of Romans 13 just doesn’t work. We have to delve deeper into the text to understand exactly what Paul was getting at, and what deeper theological streams he was drawing off of.
Perhaps on this holiday, especially under such an out-of-control, off-the-rails tyranny that Americans live under today, more Christians will think more seriously about the relationship between divine ordinance and earthly power.
This has been a deconstructive argument tearing down typical interpretations of Romans 13. Stay tuned for articles exploring the real theological and contextual meaning of that passage in the future.
It's incredibly awesome to me to read this article because I've been saying the exact same thing for the last couple of years. If we are to quote Romans 13 now, why don't we think about the American fight for independence and it's lack of loyalty to the English throne? This article actually reminded me of the Quartering Acts and made me think of the concept found in Matthew 5:41 where Christians are not only to do what we are asked, but to actually do more than we are asked to.
I've started some issues on facebook in the past about about these topics, but this year I've decided to stay low-key. However, I've seen there are some people here that may like this viewpoint.