I’ve got questions, questions about respecting authority and respecting authorities.
- At what point would Christians be justified in rising up in armed revolt against an existing government?
- To what degree can Christians resist and oppose a government they view as evil?
- Does “respect the king” leave room for us to speak about governing officials in insulting ways? Does that command apply today? Does it apply beyond a head of state?
Thanks for your input!
Back in the earliest days, Christians had no political standing before the Roman authorities and were facing persecution from the government. In more particular circumstances, Paul wrote to the Christians in Rome most likely after the Jewish Christian had just returned to Rome after a five-year expulsion by the Emperor. Even more, it is not a stretch to think that these Christians had a growing sense that greater persecution was coming. Yet in Romans 13, Paul instructs the Christians against violent revolution. Paul is not telling them to confess Caesar as Lord when he instructs them to submit to the governing authorities, rather he is teaching against rebellion (v. 2). Given his instructions about how to love in the previous chapter, which include not repaying evil with evil but leaving room for God’s wrath, it seem reasonable to conclude that this prohibition against rebellion would at the very least include any sort of violent revolution.
So while there may be room for non-violent resistance or protest such a participating in a march as a demonstration against any number of injustices, I don’t see any room for Christians ever participating in a violent revolution against their governing authorities. And who are we to say that in the economy of God, Christians, as faithful followers of Jesus, suffering under the oppressive hand of their governments is not God’s way of shining his light even brighter against the darkness. That certainly has been the case in other periods of Christianity, such as the first three centuries.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Good questions. I appreciate Rex’s answer above. I think there may be an even more pressing background to the admonitions in Romans 13 and in I Peter (although I would not deny the one Rex mentioned…I think they are tied). In the 50’s and 60’s there is growing unrest against Rome, and the revolt is already brewing which will culminate in the seige on Jerusalem in AD 70. This is happening among the Jewish people and spilling over into Christians via their Jewish brethren. Revolt and revolution are brewing…this is specifically what Paul and Peter are addressing. So, to the questions…
To me the third one is easiest… “No, you don’t get to speak about people in authority in insulting ways.” That does not mean you cannot disagree, or oppose very loudly and publicly, but it must be with due show of respect. “Respect,” however, is a community standard, thus how that actually is translated into conduct will vary.
The second one is tougher, as is the third. In most every government there is a legal way to resist the government, that way is always open to Christians. (“Always” might be too big a word.) Organizing political involvement, creating social pressure via the media, print, etc, working for elections, votes,… are avenues in the U.S. system. I also think “resistance” is always an option. If the government directs us to do that which we cannot in good conscience do, we can oppose by resistance…ie. refusing to do what the government demands. However, respect demands we accept the prescribed punishments for such actions. Note: we can challenge it in court, what we can’t do is evade capture or use deception to evade punishment.
The issue of armed revolt is tougher. I am not going to say “never,” because that seems too big a condition. However, the only case I see armed revolt justified is in the case of a government victimizing its own people, and most likely that is going to have to be in a violent manner. (I am not sure about the more “white collar” ways a government can attack its own people…that is a much tougher issue for me.) In this case the government has abdicated its role as a restraint to evil and has become the source of evil…thus it is abusing the authority conferred in Romans 13.
Assasination of heads of state, etc… is something I would rule out. However, Bonhoeffer’s perspective about protecting the chickens from the fox is very unsettling to me… and I don’t have a good answer.
There’s my opinion as of 2-7-13. I am still learning. I am looking forward to other’s thoughts, and to yours as well Tim.
Thanks to Danny for that added background about what is going on in Rome during the first century.
I also wonder how Ephesians 6:10-20 might bear upon the way Christian act when they find themselves in a hostile and even oppressive context? In the past, Americans have tended to “spiritualize” this text and read it against the struggles with “fleshly” sins such as sexual immorality, anger, drunkenness, etc… While that text certainly seems applicable to these moral struggles we face, I doubt that is all that would have came to mind when the churches in Ephesus had this letter read to them.
Thanks, guys, for the input. And Danny… I just ask the questions, I don’t try to answer. :-)
Actually, I tend to agree with the background you mentioned. One reason I don’t give Romans 13 the universal application that many do. However, I think general principles can be drawn from that and similar passages, with respect for authorities being one of those. I don’t think that requires us to be in the military, to vote, or to do many of the other things that I hear people claim these passages teach. But I do think the concept of honoring those in power is taught.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Am I to assume, then, that when Jesus called Herod “that fox,” he was complimenting him for his luxurious red hair and his keen political acumen? :)
Just stirrin’ the pot a little…
Nick,
Goes to show that “Fox” News has been around longer than we thought. :-)