You are trying to take a moral precept that Paul intended for the individual and the Church, and twist it into some sort of civil law.
What's the difference? Isn't the law based on moral precepts and their consequences? Isn't "the church" the people; the community of the faithful?
Isn't what's right and moral for the individual right and moral for the community -- and for mankind in general?
In Romans 13 Paul clearly identifies the government, any government, as an entity to be supported and respected by the Christian. Obviously he wasn't speaking of a world government, but rather national governments.
And here I disagree with him. This obviates Christ's teachings. This disallows freedom of conscience. It requires people to violate christian moral principles when they clash with the current whims of The Leader or the government.
Paul says "follow orders", be a moral automaton. Jesus, on the other hand, preaches peace, love, fairness and harmlessness. He preaches universal,
individual moral principles, to be followed, irrespective of local laws to the contrary.
People are individual moral agents, not amoral creatures of the state, duty bound to blindly support current social norms or the interests of the aristocracy; to "just follow orders."
National governments exist because people are divided by language, race, religion,language, and ideas of government. Ideally, a national government is best at providing what it's particular people need based upon their characteristics.
Practically, governments are rarely "of, by and for" the people. More often, they exist to serve the interests of an aristocracy or oligarch. Language, race, religion &c are tools used to manipulate the people, to unite them into tribes and use them to fight for the interests of others -- and usually against their own interests.
Jesus blesses the peacemakers, He says love your neighbor, return good for evil and pray for -- not kill -- those who despitefully use you. Paul, apparently, says just follow orders.
Are Christians moral agents or not? What good are Christ's words if we're to ignore them when told to?
Again, in Romans 13 Paul, declares that the Christian should show respect for the military. Christ himself lauded two Roman military Officers, and one of them He declared as having the greatest faith that he found in Israel.Christ firmly grounded the right of self defense when he ordered the Disciples to buy and carry swords. The military is just an extension of that concept.
I find this problematic, as well. This Christ you describe seems a mass of contradictions, and, if we're to blindly follow our leaders, what's the need for Him? Are we moral agents, or tools?
Q: Do all Nazis go to Heaven?
Christ made it clear that until the end times, His kingdom would exist only in the church, no theocracy would exist until the world made new. The sermon on the mount wasn't for civil governments, it was for believers and the Church. He wasn't instructing Pilate or Caesar, or the Roman senate, He was instructing individual believers who compose the Church as to how THEY should relate to others.
I thought the church
was the people.
So Christ's message wasn't for today, but for the "end times?"
So why all the religious brouhaha, if it doesn't apply; if we can ignore it till He comes back and establishes His kingdom?