It's never pleasant to encounter passages in the Bible that flatly contradict one's political philosophy. For me, the most challenging passages on this subject are Romans 13:1-7:
1Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
2Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
3For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
4for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
5Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake.
6For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.
7Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.
And 1st Peter 2:13-16:
13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority,
14or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.
15For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.
16Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God.
The words of Peter and Paul would appear to be direct refutations of libertarianism -- a political philosophy which advocates the maximization of liberty for every individual. As I interpret these passages, I hope to divorce myself from my own biases so that I may discern God's will clearly, but if I am honest with myself, my God, and my readers, then I will admit that at the subconscious level I will probably try to find a way to weasel out of these difficult commands.
On the surface, these passages provide God's stamp of approval on statism. Rather than hold that government is a necessary evil, Peter and Paul are saying that government is inherently good. In fact, it is a holy institution put in place by God. Needless to say, these are shaking thoughts for anyone who supports political freedom.
I can see three possible interpretations:
1. Peter and Paul are speaking literally. Governments are instituted by God to serve a moral basis -- to punish the wicked and reward the righteous. The inevitable and painful conclusion of this reading is that all governments, even those of genocidal totalitarian states, are legitimate and sanctioned by God. Rebellion against them is wicked.
2. Peter and Paul sent these messages over great distances at a time when the Roman government was concerned about the new Christian sect. The apostles assumed that the Romans were reading their mail and planted Christian evidence of loyalty to the Roman state within the letters to ensure a favorable Roman opinion of Christianity. The words of the apostles, therefore, were situational and not binding on modern Christians.
3. Peter and Paul anticipated the imminent return of Christ and considered political activity to be a distraction from the hurried rush to evangelize the world. It would be easier to work within the state than from outside of it (or against it), so the apostles urged cooperation with the Roman overlords.
Do you know of any other interpretations? What are your thoughts on the subject?
Saturday, September 10, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I suggest you read John Howard Yoder's book, The Politics of Jesus. He has a chapter devoted to Romans 13. Romans 13 must be read in the context of Romans 12, which commands us to love our enemies, and Romans 14, which says to owe no one anything - except to love one another. Romans 13 does not say "obey Caesar." It says to "submit" to Caesar, which is different. When Martin Luther King led the Civil Rights movement, he did not obey Caesar or his laws. But he "submitted" to Caesar because he was willing to let Caesar put him in prison. Again, read John Howard Yoder! None of your three options are satisfactory.
N.T. Wright once noted in a lecture at Asbury Seminary that a common title for Ceasar was "my lord and my god." So when we read Thomas calling Jesus "my Lord and my God," Luke's Gospel is making a statement about who has real authority, Christ or Ceasar.
Just food for thought.
I just finished a sermon series on submission that included my own struggle with these passages. It seems to me that when the apostles were encouraging folks to submit to the authorities, it may have been more for the sake of good order than anything else. Jonathan makes a good point about the Romans context in that we cannot really be who we are called to be if we are fighting with anyone. And chaos seems to breed chaos.
I came to the conclusion that the crux of the message was no different than for wives to be submissive to their husbands or for husbands to love their wives. There is an element of submission in each.
I don't think your libertarian principles are in conflict because you are a Christian first. You have therefore been set free. The next command is to not allow your freedom to become a stumbling block to others who share your struggle.
Interesting views. Thanks for the input!
ditto jonathan's post. yoder's politics of jesus- definite read!! i couldn't say what he said any better.
shalom,
jn
John, It seems to me a hard comparison to make to todays rulers who are democratically elected. In the days of kings most people believed this to be a hereditarially right passed down directly from God these passages looked at in that light would just be showing a chain of command.I also think there is a difference between people called leaders such as Hitler,Saddam,Stalin or Idi Amin, seeking to control people is not leading them.
I'm not quite following you, Bob. Are you saying that these commands were expressions of the political culture of day and no longer apply to us?
John,I wouldn't say it has lost it's relevence to today on the contrary I think maybe were even called to a higher perspective. In that we must guard against false leaders and in fact in many parts of the world have a say in who our leaders are going to be.So the application must be different God never meant for us to follow leaders such as I mentioned above so I think it leaves us with discerning when our leaders are Godly leaders. I know this doesn't seem to come off as real coherent but I sometimes need to poke away at thyese type of questions until they make total sense.
Perfectly fair, Bob. I often try to poke around at ideas that I'm still trying to grasp. Like this condundrum.
I don't think your three opinions are satistfactory either. There is an obvious fourth choice which is that these are ideal cases of how government is supposed to work.
I'll try to weigh in more later on my blog, but it is my opinion that there is not a single perfect political philosophy. Centralized government leads to corruption and abuse. Decentralized leads to fragmentation and replication of effort.
Or to quote Solomon and the Byrds:
To everything (turn turn turn)
There is a season (turn turn turn)
And a time for ever purpose under Heaven...
As a pacifist who shares your libertarian convictions, I'd echo those who suggested John Howard Yoder, though I'd recommend another one of his books in addition to The Politics of Jesus. These passages only look statist if our ecclesiology isn't quite right -- on that point try Yoder's Body Politics, perhaps along with Hauerwas & Willimon's popular little book Resident Aliens.
Post a Comment