Stop Using Romans 13 as a Bludgeon

What do we do with Romans 13:1–2?

“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. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.“

I’ve seen this passage referenced after every single election since I was a new voter. Of course, it’s ALWAYS quoted by the winning team. And each time, people on the losing team reply how that’s not an appropriate use of those verses. And a few years later, when the tables are turned, so do the arguments. The former losers, now as winners, adopt that passage for themselves, and the former winners decry its abuse from the position of losers.

Well, this year, I have a blog, so I’d like to post some thoughts of my own.

Unfortunately, that scripture passage is most often used as a bludgeon to coerce people into meekly giving in to the current political regime and gaslighting their appropriate Spirit-led responses to the politics du jour. I’ve grown up enough to recognize it as outright spiritual abuse. And I’ve never heard it preached anytime other than during trying political seasons.

Here’s the thing: the person who wrote that verse – the Apostle Paul, by a broad consensus of scholars – was frequently in trouble with the political and religious authorities himself.

He was beaten and jailed in Philippi for casting a demon out of a slave girl, going against the city’s economic interests.

In Thessalonica he riled up the city by preaching “Too often, Romans 13:1-2 is used as a bludgeon to coerce people into meekly giving in to the current political regime and gaslighting their appropriate Spirit-led responses to the politics du jour. I’ve grown up enough to recognize it as outright spiritual abuse. And I’ve never heard it preached anytime other than during trying political seasons. That needs to stop..”

In Corinth, he was hauled before the Proconsul Gallio and accused of persuading people to worship a different god than the Jews.

For continuing to stir up the Jewish people and disrupting the peace, and then refusing to be quiet about his faith, he was arrested in Jerusalem, tried in Caesarea, and tried in Rome, imprisoned there, eventually released, and (according to tradition at least) re-arrested by Nero and executed. At any of those times, he could likely have recanted or chosen to be silent and had things go much better for him. But he persevered in resisting unrighteousness and preaching the Gospel, and was willing to pay the ultimate price for fighting against the government.

Most of this misbehavior was not about resisting Roman rule, per se – but his continued drive to preach, knowing it would cause trouble, wasn’t submitting to Roman peace.

And he certainly didn’t submit to government rule when he agreed to illegally escape from Damascus by being lowered over the city wall in a basket.

Does this sound like a man who really meant to tell us “don’t do or say anything against the elected government?”

Let’s not forget Jesus Himself – who was ultimately crucified explicitly because He insisted that He was a king, knowing full well that this could only be humanly interpreted as political dissent.

So, clearly there are times when we are supposed to stand up against the powers that exist, as we feel led by the Holy Spirit. And I would even submit that the majority of stories in the Bible concern the people of God explicitly standing up against those who were oppressing them – against the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Romans, Jewish leaders, more Romans….

We should also be careful to recognize that Romans 13:1-7 describe submission to a government that will do good to those who do good. Does this require submission to a government that is clearly doing evil? “Respect to whom respect is due; honor to whom honor is due.” That sounds like a bit of a caveat, built right into this passage.

In so many parts of the Bible, one can grab a verse or passage out of context and bend that scripture to our own political will, instead of letting ourselves be shaped by the entirety of the Bible, and thinking how best to love and serve and sacrifice for the people around us.

As a specific example, in the context of our history, consider that the United States of America would not even exist as an independent nation if our founding fathers had not recognized that there were times when unquestioning submission to existing government was inappropriate.

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

And to top it off, they were willing to sacrifice everything:

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

Well. That doesn’t sound much like “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.” It’s not like the colonists didn’t know about the Divine Right of Kings – they were all English subjects who had been indoctrinated since birth that the King was God’s very own anointed ruler over his domain.

I have actually heard people argue that the entire founding of America was fundamentally sinful because it was initiated via rebellion. How does one weigh that claim against the alternate viewpoint that America was founded righteously to give religious freedom to worship God to so many people?

This is a perfect example of the danger of blindly appropriating a scripture for our own purposes, without diligently and prayerfully considering the totality of the Bible in its application. We can come up with all kinds of contradictory interpretations, and there are always going to be people that advocate for any of them.

So in the end, we must go with our conscience, with what we truly believe the Spirit has spoken to us. And sometimes, that will mean opposing the system.

But let’s be clear: I’m not advocating any specific actions or rebellion here. I am, however, trying to make it clear that no believer should allow themselves to be browbeaten into silence by those who claim that God’s Word says they must submit to whatever the government wants to do. That applies to Democrats under a Republican administration, and it also applies to Republicans under a Democrat administration.

In fact, the really tricky part is that it doesn’t let anyone off the hook – more than just yelling at those not in power that “you need to submit,” it puts us each on notice of the need to govern to be worthy of honor and respect. “Respect to whom respect is due; honor to whom honor is due.” There is very hard work to do for all of us as we constantly evaluate what’s happening against the written scriptures, and more importantly perhaps, against the leading of the Holy Spirit that Jesus sent from the Father to teach us all things and to remind us of all that Jesus taught us – in other words, to bring the Living Word to bear on the written word.

So when we see our fellow humans being mistreated, when we see people being oppressed, or famished, or unhoused, or even killed by a badly-behaving government, we who follow Jesus have a much higher calling than merely being submissively “subject to the governing authorities.” We have a requirement to defend the defenseless.

But we don’t have license to be unchristian in doing so: rudeness, unrighteous anger, bearing false witness, violence unless absolutely necessary – we cannot mix the unholy in with a good cause. If it seems less efficient to follow the way of Jesus, so be it; we must firmly hold to righteousness.

Because the unrighteous pursuit of power and control is what got us to exactly where we are today: too many people in both parties with no qualms about massive abuses for the sake of supposedly righteous goals. When we act like that, everyone loses. If not now, then soon enough, as everyone begins behaving badly in pursuit of their own goals: “…all the people did what was right in their own eyes.” (Judges 21:25)

So the hard questions we face, when considering a government with which we disagree, might be:

• Whose good am I pursuing here? My own, or someone else’s? The wealthy, or the poor? The majority or the minority?
• Am I fighting for a policy that is sacrificial, or self-serving?
• Am I fighting for a policy that seeks to control others, or to surrender my privilege?
• Are my plans going to require me or others to fight in ways that oppose the Way of Jesus?
• Is my fight promoting tribalism, or unity between diverse groups of people?

Looking back on the American Revolution: those fighting against England were self-sacrificing. They wanted freedom from oppression. They wanted unity among diverse groups in America. They wanted the ability to pursue their own destiny, instead of doing the bidding of a foreign king. But at the same time, they were wealthy land-owners fighting for their own interests; they were all slaveowners who relied on oppression to build their estates; not everyone was considered fully human and made in the image of God; equality was only for a select few.

History is complex.

Bible interpretation is complex.

Application of our Bible interpretation is complex.

So I suppose a good metric for measuring our interpretations or applications of a passage like Romans 13, then, is to ask myself: would this lead me to pursue the good of others, to be self-sacrificial, to follow the way that Jesus showed, to bring unity of the Body of Christ?

If not, I have to reject that interpretation or that application. And even when I settle upon what I believe is a Godly interpretation and application, I cannot use it as a bludgeon against my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Thanks for spending some time with me today. We’ll talk again soon.

Some extra reading:

https://knowingscripture.com/articles/romans-13-civil-disobedience-to-unconstitutional-unjust-laws

https://bible.org/article/paul-and-civil-obedience-romans-131-7