A pastor praying outside an ICE facility in Chicago gets shot in the head by a pepper pellet and collapses to the ground in pain. Commentators dispute whether the protesters had been warned to leave, although currently circulating videos don’t substantiate either this or claims that the protesters were throwing rocks. Some commenters praise David Black’s peaceful protest, while others condemn him for not “biblically submitting” to governmental authority.
What are we to make of these opposing views of the same event?
For several years, I taught a college-level human sexuality class where we examined online debates. Any topic on sexuality evokes strong opinions and debate. Much of it features dogmatic suggestions like “That’s easy!” That claim guarantees the topic to be complicated.
“One complicating factor in discussing moral issues arises from our need to assess both what is done and how it is done.”
One complicating factor in discussing moral issues arises from our need to assess both what is done and how it is done. For instance, the basic physical mechanics of a healthy sexual encounter are identical to that of rape. How something is done matters very much.
Jesus disapproved of the behavior of the woman caught in adultery, telling her to “go and sin no more.” However, he interrupted how her breaking of the law was being handled.
Many Americans believe deporting illegal aliens helps promote safe and legal immigration. However, these same people strongly oppose enforcing the law through brutal sadism.
Regarding the pellet-shooting of the pastor, one online commenter said Jesus told Christians to submit to government authorities. Actually, Jesus said, regarding taxation, to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. It was Paul, in Romans 13:1-5 who said:
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 judgment. … The authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the agent of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore, one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience.
See? Just submit. Easy.
Not so easy
Nope. I’ve spent several hours reading commentaries on this passage and previous articles in Baptist News Global by Matthew Tennant, David Gushee, Stephen Shoemaker and David Jordan. I was reminded of the story of an astronomer telling a Christian ethicist, “Your job must be easy because of the simplicity of the Golden Rule.” The ethicist replied to the astronomer, “Your job must be easy because of the simplicity of the song Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star.”
Here’s a digest of the online debate and the commentaries I’ve read.
Critics of the pastor in particular and federal-police-state behavior in general have said things like:
- Romans 13 says to submit to authorities.
- Early Christians accepted death for protesting rather than attack the government.
- The pastor should be taking care of his congregation, not stirring up protest.
I asked one such commenter, “Those early Christians who were killed for protesting: How were they protesting?” I never got an answer to that.
When I asked about Jesus stirring up trouble by cleansing the temple, the person replied that Jesus was resisting people breaking God’s law, not resisting the government. I pointed out that the religious leaders’ exploitation flowed from what Roman authority allowed.
Kink vs. perversion
In sexuality, “kink” is used to describe behavior that might be outside the norm but is not inherently unhealthy. The literature on kink frequently establishes that healthy behavior is “safe, sane and consensual.” Those in the kink scene take strong stances against abuse.
“Perversion” is to kink as alcoholism is to an occasional glass of wine.
“Christian nationalists pervert Romans 13 when they use it to condemn opposition to abuse.”
Christian nationalists pervert Romans 13 when they use it to condemn opposition to abuse. This perversion harms both biblical fidelity and the people whose abuse is not prevented. It’s also a perversion of history for Christian nationalists to oppose dissent in a country founded through an uprising against the king of England.
Those criticizing protests often are not concerned with how the protests happen but that protests happen at all. In fact, many support brutality as a form of addressing illegal immigration. They tend to ignore questions about innocent people being attacked, or they assert those attacked still deserved it. Many are clearly thrilled by seeing the harm. It’s like in the movie Quills where it is not the kinky writer but the Christian zealot who tortures him who turns out to be the true sadist.
So how is it a perversion to use Romans 13 to say Christians must submit to the government’s abuse of others? Here’s a digest of commentaries on Romans 13:1-5:
- The Apostle Paul was writing to Christians converted from conservative Judaism steeped in theocracy. His encouragement to accept a form of government other than theocracy was a very liberal notion. Commentator James Edwards asserted Paul was trying to strike a balance between two groups: those who said government had no authority over them at all versus zealots who might stir up the ire of Rome to repress the emerging church. He said the passage must be understood in light of other passages like Acts 5:29: “We must obey God rather than (people).” Tennant quoted theologian Karl Barth’s point that understanding Romans 13 requires understanding the book as a whole.
- Paul Achtemeier: German Christians used Romans 13 to justify allegiance to Adolf Hitler. Romans 13 asserts that godly government establishes order. “The believer is just as obligated to obey traffic lights as the unbeliever.” However, John Calvin said, “Tyrannies, and unjust exercise of power, as they are full of disorder, are not an ordained government.” Achtemeier clarifies that dissenting against the government “cannot legitimately be based on personal desires or personal advantages.”
- com utilizes 13 commentaries. A passage from Gill’s Exposition of the Bible captures the gist of most of them: “‘Subjection’ to the civil magistrates … includes … showing them respect … praying … for them; … (and) obeying their lawful commands, which do not contradict the laws of God, nature and right reason.
- A saying of uncertain origin asserts: “We must obey the law unless it commands what God forbids or forbids what God commands.”
Tennant added a compelling point. In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul said, “Do not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good.” Thus, vindictive governments would be wise not to cite Romans 13, since Paul’s overarching message includes how to depose an abusive government in a Christlike way.
Even secular morals draw a line against abuse. If a dominatrix clad in black leather with a metal-studded collar can require their community to be “safe, sane and consensual”— surely a pastor clad in black with a white collar can, too.
When we find the Statue of Liberty holding an abusive whip rather than illuminating torch, it is not only acceptable, it is morally required for us to strongly object to her behavior that is not safe or sane — removing our consent when she has transgressed from civil partner to harmful abuser.
Taken with the whole of Scripture, Romans 13 exhorts that when we encounter an abusive Statue of Liberty, we demonstrate civility by respectfully addressing her office as “Ma’am” when we strongly dissent and peacefully interrupt her abuse.
Brad Bull
Brad Bull has served as a hospital chaplain, pastor, professor and therapist. As a seminarian, driving home from a psychiatric hospital where he had followed orders to assist in the unnecessarily violent restraint of a patient, he prayed, “God, for the rest of my life, I will be the last person to follow a good order, before I am ever again the first one to follow a bad one.”
Related articles:
Evangelicals quoting Scripture: Whatever happened to Romans 13? | Opinion by David Jordan
Living between Romans 13 and Revelation 13 as we celebrate our nation’s birthday | Opinion by Stephen Shoemaker
Out of context: misunderstanding Romans 13 | Opinion by Matthew Tennant