Christians: The State

[Dunemeister]

I'd like to keep this discussion between professing Christians. Others are welcome to ask questions of clarification or whatever, but this is intended as an internal discussion where others may listen in.

This topic arose as a result of another discussion (darned if I can remember which one). In that discussion, my interlocutor appealed to the following passage from Paul (as have Protestants traditionally) as meaning that Christians should by and large remain loyal to their government up to and including participation in war:

Originally Posted by Romans 13:1-7

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing. Pay to all what is due to them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honour to whom honour is due.

I argue that this is a misreading of the passage. I will employ the following arguments, generally following John Howard Yoder's reasoning from his book, The politics of Jesus, chapter 10. I'll lay out the six points first, and then provide the arguments in later posts.

(1) The New Testament speaks in many ways about the problem of the state; Romans 13 does not represent the center of this teaching.

(2) In the structure of the Epistle to the Church at Rome, chapters 12 and 13 form one literary unit; therefore 12:1-7 does not stand alone and cannot be used as a quick and dirty proof text to advocate Christian submission to the state as though the passage were both isolatable and representative. Looking at the passage in context, we find the traditional interpretation problematic.

(3) In the text, the subordination called for is the recognition of whatever power or structure of sovereignty that exists; it does not affirm that any particular government is divinely instituted.

(4) The instructions to the Roman church are to be subordinate to a state in which they had no voice; the text does not call upon church folk to participate in military or police service.

(5) The function of bearing the sword to which Christians are called to be subject is the judicial police function; it does not refer to the death penalty or to war.

(6) Christians who accept their subjection to government retain their moral independence and judgement. The authority of government is not self-justifying. Whatever government exists is ordered by God; but the text does not say that whatever the government does or asks of its citizens is good.

Therefore, Romans 13 does not advocate unreflective obedience to government. Nor does it authorize, let alone advocate, Christian participation in war. It advocates submission to a state in which Christians have no voice. This means, among other things, that Christians may have to do things that violate the law and suffer the legal consequences. In the first century, that meant that Christians couldn't venerate Caesar. For their crime, Christians were routinely sent to the Coliseum and other forums to be killed by wild animals or gladiators. There were other, less grisly punishments as well. Christians were called by God then to submit to these indignities rather than do the unthinkable -- deny Christ and venerate Caesar. After all, the Roman government was there to keep order, and Christians had to acknowledge the fact that keeping order is a legitimate concern of governments.

Today, Christians HAVE a voice in government (at least in the West). We can actually change unjust laws. Yet, we are still called to submit to the government's authority when it turns against us. So if pacifism is the correct view of Christian ethics (a point I've not argued here, but I happen to believe it), the Christian must BOTH refuse to go to war AND submit to the legal processes that would necessarily ensue.

The main point I'm making here is that the passage in question cannot be used to justify a Christian's participation in the military, in killing on any level.

[Dunemeister]

(1) The New Testament speaks in many ways about the problem of the state; Romans 13 does not represent the center of this teaching.

In some parts of scripture, government is seen as the province of Satan. Certainly this seems the view of the temptation narratives, in which Satan offers Jesus the governments and the submission of the nations, and in which Jesus does not dispute his authority to do so. This perspective puts Romans 13 into a new light.

Others view the state in light of a Christus Victor perspective, according to which Jesus has overcome and made subordinate the powers, including the nations and their governments. On this view, the state is not a stable institution as such. Rather, the state is subsumed under a wider view of the saving work of Christ as this work extends beyond the walls and geography of the church. The use of the language of "powers" in Romans 13 reminds us that we ought not to take the passage in isolation.

Revelation 13 presents another view of government. There, the "powers" are persecuting the church; the same is widely taken to be the background of the Petrine and James traditions. Thus, the view of the NT is not quite as simple and affirmative as frequently supposed.

The Sermon on the Mount also presents a different view of the state. There, Jesus is constituting a new community that operates on different principles than what generally obtains in the world. It is expected that the world will hate and persecute this new community. Again, the picture is not simplistically affirmative of the powers. There's a definite antagonism supposed between the powers and the community (communities?) Jesus was setting up.

It is therefore mistaken to assume that Romans 13 represents the center of NT teaching on the state. Things are a tad more complex than that. Rather, the NT supposes antagonism between the church and state because of the different agendas and values of each. Seen this way, Romans 13 can be seen as helping Christians understand how they are to understand and respond to the state. But that understanding and response does not include unreflective acceptance of whatever the state does, and if the rest of the NT has any say, it does not involve accepting a call to arms.

We can discuss this point for a while or move on, depending on how the conversation proceeds.

[Jeremy Mason]

I agree. Some people have stated in other threads that a Christian could take a non combative role in a war, however, those people are required to fight if the time should come. So, in order to be honest to your fellow soldier, don't join the military or police if you follow Jesus' example.

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Mason

I agree. Some people have stated in other threads that a Christian could take a non combative role in a war, however, those people are required to fight if the time should come. So, in order to be honest to your fellow soldier, don't join the military or police if you follow Jesus' example.

I'm not so confident about the police, but I have to say that I'm very sympathetic with that view.

[Random]

The Book of Romans is a lie, writen to justify the opposite of what Christ taught, IMO.

Logically, people who believe in God cannot accept any wordly state as the ultimate, supreme authority because the supreme ultimate authority IS God, and God only.

Therefore, the Christian (despite commonly believing otherwise) is obliged to offer only conditional observance of worldly rules, state bodies and governments. His or her ultimate authority is and should be God alone - God as God speaks to each and every human heart, mind and soul in conscience...and no less.

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by Random

The Book of Romans is a lie, writen to justify the opposite of what Christ taught, IMO.

I'll get into this a bit later, but I think that's a misreading of Paul. I think Paul and Jesus were on the same page, both advocating pacifism.

Logically, people who believe in God cannot accept any wordly state as the ultimate, supreme authority because the supreme ultimate authority IS God, and God only.

Agreed, and as I've said, I think that that's Paul's view. Caesar isn't Lord; Jesus is.

Therefore, the Christian (despite commonly believing otherwise) is obliged to offer only conditional observance of worldly rules, state bodies and governments. His or her ultimate authority is and should be God alone - God as God speaks to each and every human heart, mind and soul in conscience...and no less.

Amen.

[ChristineES]

I take it to mean that we should obey the law of the land. "Pay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and pay to God what belongs to God". Whether that means we should have to fight in wars if we are pacifists, I am not sure. I, personally, would be unable to take another person's life. I doubt I could kill anything outside of a few insects. But I have never starved--If my children were starving, would I be able to kill an animal so they can eat? I have also never had my or my children's life in danger-- If my child was in danger, I feel I would do anything to save my child, I wonder if that would include harming or killing someone.

This is about fighting in a war I find immoral and wrong. Could I do it? I don't know. If a country attacked ours, should we stop them? I think we should. If a war isn't about that but about something else, such as oil, should we fight? No, that would be immoral, IMO. But the answers are not easily found.

I think it would be better if pacifists weren't forced to kill, whether they have a religion or not.

[Jeremy Mason]

Originally Posted by ChristineES

I have also never had