https://agradio.org/paul-and-his-roman-constitutional-rights
This reading of Paul is common in Evangelical circles but a more careful reading of the passage reveals that it has been misunderstood.
Chris Gordon reflects the Evangelical zeitgeist of the
present period and while his exegesis is flawed, even his preliminary comments
leading up to his textual interaction, reveal a series of false assumptions.
Government overreach and the 'rights' of Christians are
concerns generated by sacral thinking and the philosophically-rooted theology
and ethics it relies upon. These concerns are not found in the New Testament,
all the more when one realises that the political context of the gospels is
that of Octavian, Tiberius, and the Herods, and the bulk of the epistles were
written under Nero. These were tyrants, conquerors, and merciless killers –
enemies of Christ all. And yet these realities did not concern the early
Christian community and while John would reveal Rome under Domitian as a Beast,
at the same time Paul's words in not just Romans 13, but his exhortations in
the pastoral epistles, and the examples given in the gospels were (and still
are) every bit as pertinent.
Overreach and the question of rights are not on the table. As
Christians we have no rights and we claim none. We obey God and suffer (or
flee) to His glory and for the furtherance of the Church and its testimony on
Earth. Our lives, conduct, and worship are not dependent on the state. We act
out of concern for Christian ethics and as such we obey laws and pay taxes –
whether just or unjust, it doesn't matter. Rome used its revenues to build
pagan temples, monuments to sin, idols, and to fund its wicked bestial empire.
It didn't matter because as Christians we understand the powers that be are
ordained by God (for the good of man) and as such we submit. That submission is
not unqualified but our resistance is never out of a political motivation or on
the basis of rights. It's a very different way of looking at these questions –
a pilgrim and sojourner way it might be said.
In keeping with the Evangelical ethos, the author stumbles
over the nonresistance of Hebrews 10, a sentiment that is found elsewhere in
the Scriptures including 1 Corinthians 6. This is the abdication of rights and
claims. It's only when one is invested in the society and seeks status and
respectability within it, and wishes to rely on its security, that such
questions of rights, privileges, and responsibilities come into play.
Gordon attempts to wriggle out from under this by placing it
in the context of persecution. We've seen such tactics before utilised by the
Theonomists in their attempts to nullify the clear examples and imperatives
found within passage such as the Sermon on the Mount. Turn the other cheek (to
their understanding) actually becomes a sinful act when Christians are in
control of the political order. Then the Christian obligation is to strike
back. In such a context we're called to not give up one's cloak but to press
charges and file a lawsuit. Black is white, white is black, good is called evil
and evil is transformed into good. The bottom line is they reject New Testament
teaching and their sentiments, ethics, and attitudes about power and money are
more in keeping with Lamech and the Rich Young Ruler than they are Christ or
the apostles.
Paul's goal in Acts 16 was not for the preservation of
society. That's to read into the text something that isn't there. Gordon is
better than some other exegetes in connecting Paul's submission to Providence
with his conduct. Paul was willing to suffer and die. So why then did he call
the magistrates to account? He was calling out their evil, exposing their
corruption and shaming them.
Many Evangelicals would respond, "Exactly so!" and
believe they are therefore justified in their political activism. But they're
not thinking it through.
Paul didn't pursue the matter. He shamed them and then
dropped it. How was Roman society served? Were corrupt magistrates led away in
chains? Paul could have pursued it and that may have been the result. He could
have had them 'recalled' or removed. He could have petitioned the courts and so
forth. He could have done a lot of things and good middle class Americans would
say that's your duty as a citizen to do so – for the sake of us all and the
good of society.
Paul didn't do that and we should follow his example – he told
us to. In 1 Corinthians 5 he lays out
his position regarding the Christian and the powers within society. What have I
to do those who are without? God will judge them. That's his ethic – the pilgrim
ethic and doctrine he revealed to the status and rights-minded Corinthians.
His motivations were not political, nor even social per se.
Rather he was testifying to the judgment aspects of the gospel – and its mercy.
He called out their sin and corruption and then showed them grace and walked
away. They stood condemned not before Roman society (as they were not held to
account) but before God.
Paul did not assert his rights. He abdicated them. It's the
exact opposite of what we're usually told.
As Christians we call out evil and shame the powers that be.
That's one of our tasks and it reminds them of the impending doom that is
implied in the Gospel-Kingdom claims of Christ. He's coming and they're doomed.
Out motives aren't political. They'll often be perceived that
way and we'll be persecuted. Woe unto the Christians who engage in such
rhetoric and combine it with political action. The New Testament speaks to this
too – the Christians who challenge the powers and bring judgment and shame on
the Church. They are punished, but their sufferings are not persecution but the
due they receive for their disobedience to the state and frankly their rejection
of Providence and even the celestial order. Yes, at this point the larger
spiritual discussion (initiated by Peter) regarding their resistance of the
thrones, principalities, and dominions, the elohim-angelic powers that
represent the nations (or rather are represented by the nations) is ignored.
When men challenge the state, take up arms against the state, or ally with the
state – they're playing with fire, challenging the spiritual realm, and
questioning Providence.
Gordon's conclusions are wrong and they don't match Paul's
own words and conduct. We shouldn't petition the state and we shouldn't
participate in its bearing of the sword. We don't call on the state for justice
– Paul's very point in Romans 12. The next chapter (Romans 13) is part of the
same discussion, a point lost to many who fall prey to the unfortunate,
misplaced and certainly uninspired chapter division which artificially divides
the argument in two – the unified argument of Christian conduct in chapter 12
versus the state and its role in chapter 13. The state is ordained by God for a
very real purpose – the prevention of rank chaos. We acknowledge it according
Romans 13 but it being another entity with a different temporal charter is not us and we don't ally with it,
call upon it to bear the sword on our behalf, or resist it.
Generally speaking it will leave us alone expect when it
waxes bestial and society becomes sacral. At which point we become the social
heretics and are subject to persecution. It's only because of Christian compromise
and syncretism that we haven't experienced this all along – even in the context
of a liberal democratic republic. This has nothing do with Left or Right,
Republicans or Democrats. All such regimes are given to the sword and mammon
and are opposed to Christ. And all will persecute the faithful. The problem is
the Western and in particular the American Church has not been faithful. It's
almost indistinguishable from the world. It embraces the political ideology,
rhetoric, and ethics of the world not to mention its attitudes toward wealth
and poverty and power. It has embraced its myths and it goals. The world has
had little reason to persecute. It's only now with the polarity in society –
one in which both sides are wholly self-serving and wicked – that the Church
having allied itself with one wicked faction faces the threat of punishment
(more often than persecution) at the hands of the other faction.
This is not the time to focus on 'rights' and other such
nonsense. A return to the Scriptures and in particular the New Testament is
badly needed. At this point in time most Christians aren't even clear in terms of
their allegiance or to which Kingdom they belong.