I think I've been on about this before, months ago. It;s hard to remember. Anyway, it keeps coming up.
I have a special problem with Romans 13, or at least with the way it is often interpreted. Some people say the book of Job is the most abused part of the Bible, in the sense that it has (they claim) been used to justify unjust or at least inexplicable suffering. But I say the most abused part of the Bible is Romans 13, in the sense that is still IS used to justify or rationalize government tyranny and tame submission to same.
" In recent years, Christians have interpreted Romans 13 as a command for unlimited submission to government by God. Many proponents of this belief have sat passively by, in the soft pews of their place of worship, while evil has triumphed in most areas of family and church life. In our pacifistic smugness, many have allowed government to become god without even knowing.
Yet, when confronted with the true meaning of Romans 13, absurd accusations are shouted in religious rhetoric toward those who would dare to break an unjust law or even to question the almighty government. The opponents of unlimited submission to government are deemed as rebellious, anarchist and disobedient."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=22417
' Did Moses violate God's principle of submission to authority when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew?
Did Elijah violate God's principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab and Jezebel?
Did David violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to surrender to Saul's troops?
Did Daniel violate God's principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed the king's law to not pray audibly to God?
Did the three Hebrew children violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to bow to the image of the state?
Did John the Baptist violate God's principle of submission to authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity?
Did Simon Peter and the other Apostles violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem?
Did Paul violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to obey those authorities who demanded that he abandon his missionary work? In fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.
Remember that every apostle of Christ (except John) was killed by hostile civil authorities opposed to their endeavors. Christians throughout church history were imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities of all stripes for refusing to submit to their various laws and prohibitions. Did all of these Christian martyrs violate God's principle of submission to authority?
So, even the great prophets, apostles, and writers of the Bible (including the writer of Romans Chapter 13) understood that human authority – even civil authority – is limited.
Plus, Paul makes it clear that our submission to civil authority must be predicated on more than fear of governmental retaliation. Notice, he said, "Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake." Meaning, our obedience to civil authority is more than just "because they said so." It is also a matter of conscience.
This means we must think and reason for ourselves regarding the justness and rightness of our government's laws. Obedience is not automatic or robotic. It is a result of both rational deliberation and moral approbation.
Therefore, there are times when civil authority may need to be resisted. Either governmental abuse of power or the violation of conscience (or both) could precipitate civil disobedience. Of course, how and when we decide to resist civil authority is an entirely separate issue. And I will reserve that discussion for another time.
Beyond that, we in the United States of America do not live under a monarchy. We have no king. There is no single governing official in this country.
America's "supreme Law" does not rest with any man or any group of men. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with the President, the Congress, or even the Supreme Court.
In America, the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land." Under our laws, every governing official publicly promises to submit to the Constitution of the United States. Do readers understand the significance of this distinction? I hope so.
This means that in America the "higher powers" are not the men who occupy elected office, they are the tenets and principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Under our laws and form of government, it is the duty of every citizen, including our elected officials, to obey the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, this is how Romans Chapter 13 reads to Americans:
"Let every soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.] For there is no [Constitution] but of God: the [Constitution] that be [is] ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the [Constitution], resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For [the Constitution is] not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the [Constitution]? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For [the Constitution] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for [the Constitution] beareth not the sword in vain: for [the Constitution] is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for [the Constitution is] God's minister, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."
Dear Christian friend, the above is exactly the proper understanding of our responsibility to civil authority in these United States, as per the teaching of Romans Chapter 13.
Furthermore, Christians, above all people, should desire that their elected representatives submit to the Constitution, because it is constitutional government that has done more to protect Christian liberty than any governing document ever devised by man. As I have noted before in this column, Biblical principles form the foundation of all three of America's founding documents: The Declaration of Independence, The U.S. Constitution, and The Bill of Rights.
As a result, Christians in America (for the most part) have not had to face the painful decision to "obey God rather than men" and defy their civil authorities.
The problem in America today is that we have allowed our political leaders to violate their oaths of office and to ignore, and blatantly disobey, the "supreme Law of the Land," the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, if we truly believe Romans Chapter 13, we will insist and demand that our civil magistrates submit to the U.S. Constitution.
Now, how many of us Christians are going to truly obey Romans Chapter 13?'
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/baldwin1.html
Unfortunately, the foregoing may not be as clear to many as it is to the author and me. He and I are thinking of the Constitution as written -- NOT as "interpreted" centuries later. We're going by what's actually there on the page, NOT whatever bizarre and unprecedented, unheard of meaning that, by whatever sophistry, may be teased out of the "emanations and penumbras."
Ours is NOT a "living Constitution," into which whoever happens to be in power at the moment may breath whtever new meaning he likes. To us it says what it means, and means what it says, and, aside from certain grammatical problems posed by its over-punctuated 18th century diction, is pretty plain in its meaning to anyone not wearing a black robe.
As for my occasional references to the legal and criminal "justice" system, even a very little experience of being on the wrong end of it will suffice. I mean a little really goes a long way. Get charged with even the most trivial, rinky-dink little thing sometime, maybe under some very vague, catch-all type charge. Unless you are really a SOMEBODY in all capital letters (and sometimes even then), you quickly find out out just how much all your "rights" DON"T mean, and to what extent that you are a nobody, a nothing, a nonentity.
Whether you are actually guilty as charged, or guilty of anything at all that ever really happened or even could have happened, or entirely innocent, is almost completely immaterial and irrelevant, and is scarcely even considered. Outside of an interrogation room, no one is interested in anything you have to say, and even there they are only interested in getting you (by hook or by crook) to tell them whatever it is they want to hear. If you persist in refusing to confess, they may charge you with lying to them, or obstructing justice, or Malicious Intent to commit Statutory Conspiracy. (See: "Scooter" Libby, Martha Stewart, et al.)
Once in the court room, all anyone wants to hear is you pleading guilty. Try to say much else and you may quickly find yourself gagged, or muzzled, or wearing a remote-controlled "shock belt" to save them the bother of Tasing you. You were probably already shackled.
Don't believe all the propaganda about "revolving door justice" and obviously gulty criminals getting off Scot-free "on a technicality." The whole thing is basically set up to be an assembly line conviction mill. You don't even have to be the "customer" (defendant) to see it. Just spend a day or two "court-watching." Watch a hundred shackled prisoners shuffle and hop up to a microphone and plead "guilty," after falsely answering "no" to the question, "Were any threats or promises made to secure this plea agreement?"
The last time I sat I sat in, I was longing for just one of them to answer, "Why, of course threats and/or promises were made to secure this plea agreement? Why else would I confess to something I never did, or that never happened?" But no one ever said that. Less than one in a hundred wanted to go to trial. That usually ended badly for them too.
I have no faith in juries either. They are easily rigged (I mean it's easy to exclude anyone remotely likey to acquit anyone), and they tend to convict people of things they were never even charged with, just to "send a message" to someone or other, about this or that.
Seriously, I have observed pre-trial hearings and trials that weren't a whole lot better than this:
Frito: [Acting as Joe's public defender] It says here you robbed a hospital. Why'd you do that?
Pvt. Joe Bowers[a.k.a. "Not Sure"] : I'm not guilty!
Frito: That's not what the other lawyer said.
Judge Hank "The Hangman" BMW: Now prosecutor, why you think he done it?
Prosecutor: 'Kay. Number one your honor, just look at him. And B, we've got all this, like, evidence, of how, like, this guy didn't even pay at the hospital. And I heard that he doesn't even have his tattoo.
[crowd boos]
Prosecutor: I know! And I'm all, 'you've gotta be [kiddin'] me!' But check this out man, judge should be like
[bangs fist on table]
Prosecutor: 'guilty!' Peace.
Female [Trial] Reporter: It started off boring and slow with 'Not Sure' trying to [fool] everyone with a bunch of smart talk: 'Blah blah blah. You gotta believe me!' That part of the trial sucked! But then the Chief J. just went off. He said, 'Man, whatever! The guy's guilty as [heck]! We all know that.' And he sentenced his [hindquarters] to one night of 'rehabilitation.' -- Idiocracy (2006)
DWM