Tag Archives: justice

Guest Post: Romans 13 and the American Christian

(NOTE:  For anyone concerned by the direction Western Civilization is headed, Romans 13 can seem like an impossible passage. How do we balance, for instance, the commandment to honor marriage in a society that seems to think it can redefine marriage? How do we protect human life inside the womb in a society that thinks in can redefine personhood? Indeed, Christians throughout millennia have wrestled with exactly how to balance obedience to Romans 13 with obedience to God’s commands. For example, if we take Romans 13 as literally as possible, then the priests who saluted Hitler were doing the right thing. Do we actually believe that?

As the moral fabric of our society continues to deteriorate, how are we to balance the tension between being subject to the governing authorities with honoring God with our lives? Josh and I have discussed this topic off and on for a few years now and I feel like he has articulated a very helpful understanding of what it actually means to steward our American citizenship. While our identity is in no way based upon where we live, we have been granted certain freedoms and their inherent responsibilities. We have a duty to use our freedoms to love our neighbor and honor our Maker (Gal. 5:1). On this 4th of July, I hope Josh’s perspective–with which I agree wholeheartedly–will challenge you to rethink what it means to be a Christian in America. Take some time to think consider it, wrestle with it, and let us know what you think! – daniel)

Romans 13 and the American Christian

I’m an American. For years I’ve watched our country go in a direction contrary to wisdom, righteousness, and the standards I see in Scripture. With that in mind, I’ve struggled greatly with the lessons inherent in Romans 13, which teaches that we must subject ourselves to the governing authorities and leaves no room for rebellion. The chapter doesn’t give us leeway to “obey until this point” or “submit until X line is crossed.” So how does that work for me, as an American?

For the moment, I’m not concerned with what Romans 13 looks like for the rest of the world, or what it looked like for Americans as far back as the Revolutionary War (which, by nature, was a rebellion). I’m not even primarily concerned with what this looked like for the Romans to whom Paul was writing – although this has some bearing on the issue at hand, the first application of these principles (Romans under Nero) is less of a concern to me than the present application of these principles (Josh under the current American government). These are all valid concerns, discussions, and Bible studies; however, they’re beyond the scope of what I’m going to be discussing today.

First off, it’s essential to review the Scripture at hand:

“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

Application of this passage requires a basic understanding of the government system under which you live: if you live in an empire (as did the first readers of this passage), that would be defined as a “rule by an emperor” and he would be your ultimate earthly authority. If you lived under a monarchy, defined as “rule by a king,” then he would be your ultimate earthly authority. In the same way those under a democracy (rule by the people), an oligarchy (rule by a ruling class), or a theocracy (rule by God or a god) would have different authority figures. This is essential because you would be disobedient to Romans 13 if you tried to obey an emperor if you lived under a monarchy, or if you appealed to public opinion when you lived under a theocracy.

The government system in the United States is a constitutional republic, defined as a “rule by law.” Wait a second, that doesn’t make sense – don’t all nations have laws? Yes, all nations have “rule of law” but only a republic is “rule by law.” What’s the difference? In the same way that the definitions of the other types of governments identified the highest authority (e.g., emperor, king) a republic identifies the highest authority: in this case, the Constitution of the United States. How do we know this is true and it isn’t some ruling body or person? Check out the oaths of office below:

President of the United States:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Congressmen, Senators, and Justices of the Supreme Court:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely,without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

Each of these officials, representing the highest positions of the three branches of the federal government, pledge allegiance and subordination to the Constitution. The men and women who inhabit these offices are merely representatives for the Constitution; they bear no legitimate power or authority outside of those confines.

But what happens if Congress passes a law, or the President issues an executive order, or even if the Supreme Court makes a ruling contrary to what the Constitution says? By definition, that law, order, or ruling would be unconstitutional and unenforceable. But when would it be unenforceable? If Congress passes a law that you think is unconstitutional, are you required to obey it until it is struck down by the Supreme Court or rescinded by Congress? For guidance on this, let us turn to the Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177:

“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”

“Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…. A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” (emphasis mine)

Per Romans 13, we are absolutely required to be faithful and obedient to the supreme earthly authority governing the land in which we live (as long as that doesn’t require us to compromise our faith). The supreme authority in the United States is the Constitution; all public officials are required to swear that they will uphold it. Per the summary above, no unconstitutional law is ever required to be obeyed, since it is unconstitutional and illegal (read: null and void) from the first moment it was passed and not when it was first declared unconstitutional by a court.

The question then becomes how we can accomplish this. The first step is education: we have to know what the Constitution says and how it is applied in our lives. If we are ignorant of the text of the Constitution and its application we are as unfaithful citizens as we would be unfaithful Christians if we ignored the text of the Bible and its application in our lives; since Romans 13 requires us to be good earthly citizens, being poor earthly citizens means we’re being poor Christians as well. The second step is inspection: we must constantly compare the laws imposed upon us with the ideals of the Constitution; if/when we find inconsistency we are then obligated to participate in the third step: disobedience to those laws which aren’t laws at all. This is, by far, the most difficult step for the average Christian to take. We want to believe that our government has our best interests in mind, that anything they do will be within the boundaries of the authority they are given. Sadly, such is often not the case.

Let us examine the difference between the right to command and the power to command. If a gang of thugs bursts into your home in the middle of the night and overpowers you, beats your children, and rapes your wife and daughters, there’s no doubt that, in that moment, they have power over you. They do not, however, have the right to command power over you. If you were to sit idly by and allow them to have their way with your family, such would be completely contrary to the spirit of Romans 13. You should actively resist them, to the death.

Per Ephesians 5:22-24, the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church; the wife is required to submit to the husband. That, however, doesn’t mean any wife is required to submit to any husband; just because I’m a husband doesn’t give me the right to go around and command wives who have husbands with less upper body strength than me (although I may have power over their husbands, I do not have the right to command that power).

Hopefully through these extreme examples the difference between someone who has power to command and someone who has the right to command is evident.

We must be educated. We must apply what we know. And when those who have physical power over us command us to do something contrary to the Constitution, per Romans 13 we have no choice but to disobey that illegal edict; per our allegiance to Christ we are required to resist anyone and any order that would attempt to usurp authority from that which we are required to obey – the Constitution.

Joshua S. Burnett
Virescit Vulnere Virtus

John Piper on the Death of Christ

The death of Christ is the wisdom of God by which the love of God saves sinners from the wrath of God, all the while upholding and demonstrating the righteousness of God in Christ.

John Piper, Desiring God, Revised Edition: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist (Colorado Springs: Multnohmah, 2011), 61-62.

Why such harsh discipline?

I’ve heard it asked many times and in many different ways: “Why is God so harsh in the Old Testament?” Or perhaps it’s phrased like this:  “How could a loving God command His people to kill ‘innocent’ women and children?” One buddy of mine even suggests that the God of the Old Testament is not the same God as the one of the New Testament.
Does the punishment fit the crime?

For example, consider the story of Achan:  In Joshua 6:18 the people of Israel (Achan included) were told to keep themselves from the things devoted to destruction, otherwise they would bring trouble upon Israel. Then in Joshua 7:1, Achan decides that rule doesn’t really apply to him, so he took some of the devoted things. Next in Joshua 7:11-12, God is pronouncing Israel guilty of breaking the covenant and declares that they will be unable to defend themselves in any military engagement. For a group of desert nomads who just entered enemy territory, this is a death sentence!
Stoning of Achan
Joshua 7:24-25:  “The Stoning of Achan”
In order to satisfy God’s wrath, everyone in Israel stoned Achan and his entire family (Josh 7:24-25). All this because he took some silver, a cloak, and a bar of gold (Josh 7:25). Does the punishment fit the crime? Many skeptics use stories like this to claim that God is not good, but I think they fail to take everything into account.
However, before answering this question, I would like to point out what I believe to be a fatal flaw in its logic. In order to even ask this question, you have to assume that you have the authority to question the will and actions of God. You have to assume that you somehow have the authority to demand an explanation of God. I know this statement won’t be popular, but I believe that reveals an arrogant heart. So if you’re a believer, consider whether or not you have any authority to question God. If you’re a non-believer, then consider that, if there is a Creator-God, then why wouldn’t he have the authority to make these demands? Also, whether you’re a believer or a non-believer, ask yourself who gets to define what is and is not “loving.” People will often phrase this question “How could a loving God…” as though they understand what love is and God needs to correct His behavior to match our definition. The Bible says that God is love (1 Jn 4:8). Do we define what “love” is and then demand that God conforms to our definition, or do read the Scriptures in order to better understand God and, when necessary, make adjustments to our definition of love?
Before answering the questions posed at the beginning of this post, it’s important that you examine your heart to determine why you think this is unjust in the first place. And one last thing before we get into our answers:  it’s easy to take one small instance like this out of context and try to use it as “ammo” against God. In order to do this though, you have to ignore the 40 years that God was patient with a stiff-necked, faithless, disobedient people. You have to ignore the parts where God patiently and repeatedly spares the nation of Israel. You have to ignore the parts where God miraculously parts the Red Sea, saves His people, and within a week they’re already complaining about how much better it was in Egypt. You have to ignore the parts where God faithfully provided daily bread for His people. In order to find these nuggets of “ammo” you literally have to sift through a mountain of evidence for the grace of God. This is intellectually dishonest. So, with those two digressions out of the way, let’s look at the rest of the story.

God had clearly demonstrated His power to His people for His glory.
Read what happens earlier in the story, consider who these people were, and let’s look at just three miracles they had witnessed:  the bread, the sea, and the fall of Jericho.
Achan and his generation of Israelites were a group that had grown up subsisting primarily off of God’s manna. If anyone should have known to trust and obey God, it would have been a generation that had lived their entire life wandering in the desert, with God in their midst, living off his daily bread. At this point in Achan’s life, God should have earned at least the benefit of the doubt. Instead, Achan decided that God wasn’t really trustworthy and that he could make his own decisions for himself.
This group had also crossed the Jordan River; in fact, it had stopped much like the Red Sea (Josh 3:16-17). What I find most amazing about this account is that—as far as I can tell—it looks like the priests literally had to step out into the water and as their feet were coming down the water stopped and dry ground appeared. There was an element of “stepping out” that they were responsible for. Achan would have been one of the people who walked across the dry ground where a river had just been. Achan would have witnessed undeniable evidence of God’s power over nature and authority over all creation. What excuse would Achan have for denying such power and authority?
Next this group witnessed the walls of Jericho fall as the result of them shouting and playing some musical instruments; clearly the work of the Lord (Josh 7:20). There’s no way they could explain this except that the hand of God had been working for them. It’s likely they expected some brilliant military strategy to be revealed to them from God once they entered the Promised Land. But God wanted Jericho to fall in a way that would make it clear that He was responsible for the victory. God says as much in Joshua 6:2 when He tells Joshua, “See, I have given Jericho into your hand, with its king and mighty men of valor.” God had clearly demonstrated His power to His people for His glory.
Suicide.

Which brings me to a question:  After God had so clearly revealed Himself to His people, shouldn’t Achan have known better?
Wouldn’t it be foolish to disobey God after He had provided so many undeniable revelations of Himself? Who could deny both God’s power and His authority after literally subsisting off His daily bread, witnessing His supreme authority over creation, and witnessing His unstoppable power in war? It would be suicide to rebel against such authority—indeed, it proves to be just that. Achan, once he’s revealed as the traitor (by God, no less) readily admitted his guilt (Josh 7:20). Achan knew he was doing wrong and he knew Who he was disobeying. It’s honestly quite foolish, isn’t it? It’s suicide, isn’t it? Ravi Zacharias put it this way when he came to Alaska:  “Where there is a dramatic display of his power in the miraculous, there is an equal dramatic judgment when that miracle is disregarded and violated. To whom much is given, much is required.”
While doing a little background research for this post I ran across another good explanation for a similar account in Numbers 15 where a man is stoned for picking up sticks on the Sabbath. The argument basically goes that it’s not our place to determine which commands from God are important to follow and which are optional. Imagine if God’s people saw this man breaking the Sabbath so they decided they could also disregard many of the sanitary and dietary laws. In the long run, it’s not hard to imagine that thousands of people would have died as a result of infections, epidemics, food poisoning, and the like. Thus, it was far more merciful to kill one law breaker as an example to emphasize the necessity of following God than to be “merciful” and let thousands of people kill themselves through disobedience.
Another perspective is found in Daniel 4:34-35: 
For his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
   and his kingdom endures from generation to generation;
all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing,
   and he does according to his will among the host of heaven
   and among the inhabitants of the earth;
and none can stay his hand
   or say to him, “What have you done?”
Of course, we don’t like that explanation, do we? “How dare God assume any authority over His creation. How dare God assume that He can command us. We have rights! Doesn’t God know we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Duh, God; get with the times. It’s the 21st century! That authority thing is so out-dated.”
Just reading it like that should make you realize how ridiculous that mentality is. The truth is that the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and God does according to His will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His hand or say to Him, “What have you done?”  (Pastor Matt Chandler did an amazing series about authority that I would highly recommend.)
So here are—in my opinion—three good answers to why God was so “harsh” with Achan:
  1. Achan had seen God’s power in undeniable ways and knowingly signed his own death warrant when he denied God’s authority.
  2. Achan’s selfish trespass could have easily led to the deaths of thousands of others had they witnessed his disobedience go unpunished and decided to imitate his rebellion.
  3. Achan lacked any power or authority to question God or to stop Him.
The good news is that God is merciful and patient with us, but it’s certainly not because we deserve it.