Christ himself raises up certain servants. Some of them are vessels pre-fitted for destruction (cf. Rom. 9), but it is still God who creates them and raises them up. That applies to political leaders—not just in our country, but throughout the world. Similarly, God raises up others who serve him in righteousness and who are to be thanked. In either case, Christians are to submit to these rulers—unless they forfeit their right to rule by directly breaking God’s law and compelling others to do so.

This is part of a mini-series on foundational building blocks for Bible followers who wish to think about politics in accord with Scripture. As such, this mini-series explores a chapter from the Bible with as much concentrated political core material as any.

[Continued from Part 1, last week] A modern teaching that originates in a different tradition reaches similar conclusions. John Yoder maintains certain hermeneutical principles that are helpful. Among them are the following: (1) The NT has many passages that speak to matters of state. Romans 13 is not the only text and must be harmonized with other passages; (2) Romans 13 must be seen in its context, as part of the literary unit beginning with Romans 12; and (3) “The subordination that is called for recognizes whatever power exists, accepts whatever structure of sovereignty happens to prevail. The text does not affirm…a divine act of institution or ordination of a particular government.”^[1] Yoder proceeds to criticize a “positivistic” view that absolutely accepts any government—no matter how immoral—as a feature of God’s providence. The deficiency of this positivistic view is that it confuses the institution in general with governments in particular. Yoder prefers the “normative” view, which he associates with Zwingli, Calvin, Cromwell, Barth, and Brunner: “What is ordained is not a particular government but the concept of proper government, the principle of government as such. As long as a given government lives up to a certain minimum set of requirements, then that government may properly claim the sanction of divine institution. If, however, a government fails adequately to fulfill the functions divinely assigned to it, it loses its authority.”^[2] While it is fine to articulate in this manner, it should not be thought, however, that this is exactly what Calvin and Knox taught, nor does it (as Yoder admits) solve other difficult problems. All in all, the Reformation doctrine of forfeiture provides a better conceptual framework.

In the well-known life-story of Corrie Ten Boom, many are acquainted with how she and her family worked to shelter Jewish people as part of the Dutch Resistance movement in WWII. The state had ordered all people of Jewish heritage to be killed, simply because of their ethnic background. Moreover, citizens were required to turn them over to officers of the state, and citizens knew they were handing over people to be slaughtered. In essence, the state was commanding these citizens to break the sixth commandment, and Christians owed a higher allegiance to God than to a wicked state; thus, they resisted. Had the government not required direct participation in murder, Christians could have submitted. Christians are called to obey the state, even if it is less than perfect. Christians disobey it, only when it reaches a point of corruption such that it legislates in opposition to God.

Specific governments may forfeit their charter. They are set up to obey God. If they consistently and willfully disobey God, they may reach a point at which Christians cannot obey. Corrie Ten Boom and others are good examples of keeping the state under God and serving God first.

The same is true in any relationship of submission. A superior may forfeit the right to have obedience, if he directly opposes God. Those in positions of authority must remember that they serve God and not themselves. They are not licensed to do anything they wish, but to serve the wishes of God. If they abandon that charter, they lose their license. In these cases, to invoke forfeiture there must be a case of actual violation of God’s standards, not merely legislation that one does not especially prefer.

In all the cases above, the superior should not be obeyed, for to do so would be to sin against God. Submission is limited.^[3] Nevertheless, as long as the government is not contradicting God, then Christians must submit.

Later in Romans 13, there are two reasons given (v. 5) for submitting to the law: (1) because of possible punishment—pragmatically to keep Christians from squandering their time and resources in criminal sentences, and (2) for conscience sake. That is, to keep our consciences from being guilty, we should obey the law, lest we have to continually look over our shoulders wondering if the authorities will catch us.

Duty #2: Pay taxes. The command in Scripture is clear that the civil ruler can require the payment of taxes. These are civil funds, and not to be confused with the tithe which belongs uniquely to the church. Revenue is also permissible. Revenue is slightly different from taxes; more like user-fees or custom payments. In one sense they are all taxes, but revenue differs slightly from taxes in that services rendered are more immediate for revenues. In Scripture (and most ancient cultures), rates of taxation or revenue were equal rates or equal amounts.

Duty #3: Respect. Sometimes it is difficult for Christians to give respect; it is a responsibility that should not be shirked, regardless of the leaders in office. Christians should not despise God’s work by disrespecting those God has given over them. Respect should be given to those in positions of leadership.

Duty #4: Honor. This is the same word used for “honor your father and mother.” The use of this word nuances this duty. Christians are summoned to honor civil leaders like parents. Christians should look for ways to build them up and give them proper praise, support, and encouragement.

Let me add one final duty to the list from 1 Timothy 2.

Read More