God, government, and liberty
Political, Theology, Law ·Sunday January 24, 2010 @ 17:58 EST (link)
Not too long ago I got a note from a friend regarding her views of Christians and their government, and it coincided with a desire to write up a note on the subject based on aggregated thoughts and conversations over the past few months. She takes what is a not uncommon view that a Christian should unilaterally and cheerfully obey all government edicts; in fact, a step further, as we will see, with an implication that government, being permitted to exist by God, has as such an inherent moral right. We will examine these assumptions herein. Naturally, this note means little to readers that do not hold the Bible as authoritative; this is not written for you; in fact this note is written primarily for myself, as a method of organizing my thoughts, but if anyone else can benefit from it thatÂs great. The format will be to examine a common set of verses that relate Christians to their government. There are, perhaps, more questions than answers here, although sometimes the questions are rhetorical or the answers implied.
1 Peter 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
This is first due to its primacy and fundamentality. Obedience is called for; pay your taxes, obey the police (as, in the following verses, ministers of the sovereign), etc. The word for "submit" is the same word as Ephesians 5:22 and Colossians 3:18 (wives, submit to your husbands) but those say "as unto the Lord" or "as it is fit in the Lord"; this is "for the LordÂs sake" (on his account, for his purpose), possibly in view to a common view of Christians as political agitators at the time. But it is specifically not "as unto the Lord" here; if that was intended it would be so written. Since submission of the Christian to the Lord and wife to husband is because of love, it would be confusing to write it that way anyway—most people do not love their government and to pretend so would be hypocrisy, which would be an unlikely commandment. However, obedience does not require love. (For reflection: What's "every ordinance of man"? If several warlords claim control over a territory—remembering that we have to obey tyrants like Nero, or Mao, or Stalin—does one have to obey them all? If my county declares independence from a former ruler, which do I obey? As a man, is my command as good as anyone's? Etc.)
Is the command absolute? Prima facie, yes. But there are opposing commandments that could conflict. For example, as if one was necessary, if government orders one person to kill another (stipulating that they knew and even admitted this person was innocent of any crime), that would bring a believer up against the commandment not to murder; and so on regarding commandments not to steal, lie, etc. More about this later, but itÂs important to bear in mind that there are superseding edicts.
Government is not held up as by definition "good"; it is just "the system" in place (in some cases, just the biggest gangster or strongest tyrant; there can only be one in ultimate control of a particular region, even with subsidiarity, and always through violence); we are to pray for, but not (hyperbolically) to government (no divine right of kings exists). We are to pray for the wellbeing of governors, that is, individuals with power of force over others, and for their salvation, and for the righteous fruits of that salvation; but not even necessarily for the continuance of their reign if they are unjust. To quote a devout believer, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master"; and also, "It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible." (This believer was, of course, George Washington, first President of these United States.)
1 Peter 2:16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
In what sense is "free" intended there? Free in Christ, of course, but what is the practical outworking of that freedom? I would suggest freedom to do ChristÂs work, whatever it would be for us. Never, of course, for evil, in an "ends justify the means" manner—hence the immediately-following admonition.
1 Peter 2:17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.
In what way should all men be honored? Do we honor equally the saint and the pornographer, the murderer and the healer? Or do we honor them as children of God, made in his image? Does it mean we obey every man equally? Of course not; honor where due (flowing from what? a God-honoring life, reasonably).
Romans 13:1-3 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same.
Rulers frequently are a terror to good works, or to works that are not evil. What then? Is this all null and void? Was it necessary to follow the tyrants of the time when they commanded evil (or called evil good, or caused evil, or punished non-evil?) It is arguable that they should be paid taxes, but is it necessary to show them where the Jews are because thatÂs what they or their agents demand if you know said Jews will then be killed? We ought to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). Was the American Revolution and War for Independence (and other independence, such as Canada's, which changed government even though no war was required) evil? The American revolutionaries contained among them many God-fearing men.
Romans 13:4-7 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
When is tribute due? Is it due, for example, to a highwayman in a lawless region (as the most powerful force therein, hence as ruler over it)? Are the dishonorable due honor? Rhetorical questions, of course; the answer is no. When a government does evil, is it due tribute, custom, or honor? This passage appears to indicate not. In a similar vein:
Luke 20:25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.
What is Caesar's (government's)? Payment for services might be legitimately claimed (in Jesus' day, the pax Romana, roads, and such things; in our day, similarly national defense, roads again, and other useful services that government provides, at a reasonable rate, that is, as if they were provided on the free market). But there is so much we are mulcted of that is not merely a fair payment for services used; and so, even as the proceeds of the robber do not belong to him, those do not belong to government, but we pay from fear—of further theft, or of violence.
Romans 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
This is tangential to the issue since it does not bless the actions or rule of Pharaoh, just GodÂs use of him. Cf. "Our God turned the curse into a blessing" (Neh. 13:2), or Corrie Ten BoomÂs thankfulness for the lice in their cells that prevented the guards from abusing them. Neither is stating the subject as an unequivocal good.
1Timothy 2:1-2 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
I try to refrain from unwarranted personal attacks against anyone in authority and will continue to do so. This does not mean that it is wrong to speak the truth when they fail. And I pray that my government—and all government—will become a godly government.
Now, how about a verse that applies not just to individuals as subjects or citizens, but also to governments (which are of course composed of individuals). Disobedience would certainly make them unworthy of honor or even tribute, and aiding in these would make one partake of the guilt:
Matthew 19:18 … Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness.
But government, that is, the individuals with the power of legitimized violence, do all these things:
Murder: Consider the killing of innocents, whether through the legal system, sending troops to unnecessary wars, sanctioning of abortion, or "collateral damage" in wars and police misconduct, to just name a few. (I will not extend Âtaking of life to the Randian extent of taking away the right to life and all that entails, since only physical murder is implied, although it would be quite legitimate to take it to the Âwhosoever hateth his brother level.)
Adultery: More difficult, but in the same sphere (sexual crimes) we can certainly point to governmentÂs tacit consent to prison rape, and lay the guilt for it at their feet (e.g., under James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.).
Steal: Any time an agent of government takes anything, a liberty, property, time, involuntarily, it is theft (or more accurately robbery, if done by violence or threat of violence as it always is).
False witness: Government cover-ups and lies are legendary.
There are many verses that condemn bad government, and many that praise or demand good government, such as Deuteronomy 25:15 But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
In the Bible, judges are called "unjust"; kings do "that which was evil in the sight of the Lord"; is that criticism? Is it wrong? We are commanded to not bear false witness; sometimes speaking truth will result in criticism of government. God clearly does not approve of all government. (It seems the idea of government in the Bible is simply "Whoever has the most power in a region"; regardless of how legitimately acquired; it is a fait accompli. Does this mean we should not try to do better? Of course not! And we can do that while paying taxes and obeying the just laws.)
God is far more concerned with individuals than groups or societies. Individuals are to resist evil and do good, speak truth, eschew violence, etc. (cf. OT and NT commandments). "Government" as a group cannot be saved; rulers as individuals can be. Government is background noise to most (being inured to it by indoctrination from birth), or repression to be borne stoically, but some few are called to resist evil in it, or reform it, or even to establish new more righteous governments.
My friend wrote "you obviously feel very strongly about political things." I do, because politics is not some theoretical science; it is ultimately individual—the smallest minority and the most neglected. Must the future be "a boot stamping on a human face—forever"? Perish the thought! Politics is about rights, and a government that violates them can be no minister of God for good. In the same way, a Christian that supports, aids, or silently condones such violations can be no representative of Christ.
A couple of other good Christian commentaries on Romans 13 and government: preacher and Constitution Party 2008 presidential nominee Chuck Baldwin's Romans Chapter 13 Revisited, and Greg A. Dixon's Rethinking Romans 13.
Books finished: The Virtue of Selfishness.DVDs finished: Gone in 60 Seconds.
