“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.” This little instruction occurs in the latter half of Paul’s inspired letter to the first-century church in Rome, where, as some say, he moves from preaching to meddling. Once you agree with his insistence that we are all guilty sinners, the first chapters in Romans are a joy to read. In spite of our sins, God loves us, justifies us, frees us from bondage, and gives us so much grace Paul worries some might think it could be abused. Then in chapter 12, he begins to give practical instructions on how we should be gratefully offering ourselves to God as living sacrifices in response to the mercies he has been describing.
This is the context in which Paul uses his apostolic authority to explain that not conforming to the world (12:2) does not mean Christians are exempted from subjection to governing authorities or from paying taxes (13:1-7). He argues this in two ways. His first appeal is that subjection is in order because governing authority comes from God, and to resist it is to resist what God has appointed. Secondly, he reminds us that governing authorities can be a terror to those who do wrong, and that there is an avenging sword to reckon with (13:1-4). In verse 5, he recaps both reasons for subjection, but in reverse order. He ends saying we should be subject “for the sake of conscience.”
The instruction and the rationale for it are straightforward enough; which is exactly the problem. We look desperately for qualifiers, for exceptions, for a place to plug in our political ideas about which orders or governing authorities are worthy of our subjection, but they are hard to find.
Because the Greek word Paul used – hypotasso – means to submit, or in essence to place oneself below, and is therefore not a direct command to obey every demand made by a governing authority, here at last is the wiggle room our claustrophobic independence has been searching for! But is it really?
If the instruction were to obey, we could be biblical by conforming to the law while being as defiant as we liked in our attitude, like the proverbial child who obeys by sitting down, but remains standing on the inside. Being subject means that even when we can’t in good conscience obey, we don’t disobey as an expression of our personal sovereignty, but in submission to God, since his authority is ultimate.
If I understand biblical submission, it means that I am never justified in flaunting the law, but I may be bound to respectfully disobey. In what situations? Likely not as many as I feel naturally inclined to defend.
Forced to choose between direct disobedience to God or to governing authorities, the Christian must say Jesus is Lord, not Caesar.
One scholar put it this way, “The history of interpretation on this passage is basically a history of attempts to avoid what it seems to be stating plainly.” A generation ago, James Stifler boldly commented, “Paul’s words are unmistakable, and yet there stand Cromwell and Washington.” The American revolutionary slogan, “Taxation without representation is tyranny” seems a valid political comment to me, but I doubt Paul would have found it a relevant observation. His most specific application of the general command to be subject is to pay whatever taxes are due. And he wrote that to the church in Rome in a season of active tax revolt.
Of course, forced to choose between direct disobedience to God or to governing authorities, the Christian must say Jesus is Lord, not Caesar. I also realize that government-sanctioned violence and oppression may create real ambiguity for followers of Jesus. In times of chaos, it may not even be clear who the governing authority is.
But the burden of Romans 13, and I think the rest of biblical instruction regarding our response to governing authority, on balance, is that submitting to Christ will normally mean submitting to governing authority. The further my civil disobedience gets from avoidance of evil, the more danger I am in of dodging New Testament instruction. It is possible to disobey government in God’s name, while actually disobeying both God and man!
5 Responses
If we are truly open to the leading of the Spirit the issue seems to largely settles itself. When I quiet myself before God, he reveals my true motivation- whether He is leading me or if I am seeking to feed my own selfish motivations. The question is am I taking time to do that consistently throughout the day so that God is at the helm, or am I taking side trips to feed my own emotions about the authorities / political system I am under?
In today’s political climate, I often find myself having to reclaim thoughts that I have in the flesh about social-political situations and ask God to temper them with the forgiveness and grace he offers to all of us.
It seems, perhaps, that one of the ear marks of “submissive disobedience” is the quiet willingness to accept the consequences of the disobedience. Two examples are the Anabaptists during the Reformation, and more recently the conscientious objectors during the war.
Thanks for this article, Phil. I was reminded of a funeral I attended of a man who had been a conscientious objector during WWII. In addition to stories about his experiences as a young man on a “cattle boat” after the war, a memory shared at the funeral involved his persistent refusal to wear a seat belt while driving. Many in CMC seem quite willing to forsake civil disobedience when it involves killing others in war, while embracing the gone-to-seed individualism of American culture that resists personal submission to authority while demanding it of others.
The preaching\meddling distinction seems to be with us yet. It seems we often hear about soft fuzzy conceptual Christianity but almost never hard specific instruction. I suppose we like it that way. “Saved by Grace” is far more palatable than “Thou shalt not” or “Submit” and defining what that instruction means in a contemporary setting is sure to raise someone’s hackles.
It is possible to get around nearly anything Paul wrote by simply holding that he wrote to a specific culture and things are different now. For example in this case, we live under a representative form of government, so we, the people, are actually the governing authority. Pretty much poppycock but the creative mind is hardly limited when our self interest is in play.
The idea of submission is not an exclusively academic one. It would perhaps be interesting to hear views on the Peace Tax fund, but maybe more timely would be what Mr Weber thinks is the proper response to government orders against congregating. Simple compliance or a proper defiance?
Hear, hear!