The Covid pandemic has brought to light deficiencies in our understanding of the church’s relationship with government. Though this pandemic is waning, and arguably the time for parsing out the details between church and government has passed, this issue is perennial. Next year or next decade another clashing will occur just as it has in the past, and we must be prepared to interact with it with our wits about us. None of these thoughts are unique; indeed, novel thoughts after 2000 years of thoughtful Christians usually land in the heresy category anyway. They have been picked from the pockets of sundry thinkers and pawned as my own. Here they are.
As Christians, we are concerned with what God has said about these interactions with the government and the meat of these instructions are found in two places in particular in the Scriptures, Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2. These passages, like all passages in the Bible, need to be understood in their historical context as well as the context of the rest of the scriptures. Paul, who told us to submit to authority, was also running roadblocks set up by the government for his capture. Peter, who said submit to every human institution, disappears from the book of Acts a wanted fugitive on the run. Clearly there is more here than meets the eye.
We have all read Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2, the two passages which speak most directly to this relationship, and most of us have a theoretical knowledge of these texts. But when it came time for our theoretical knowledge to be tested by experience, we became flustered and herded towards conformity led by evangelical leaders piping about loving others and obeying the government, like Romans 13 tells us to. Having never studied the text in depth myself, I have attempted to shed some light on these verses in the context of our current government, exploring the idea of whether the gospel is better served by conforming to lockdown restrictions or by opposing them.
We do not exist for the purpose of being governed. However, mankind being fallen and sinful, it is necessary. It is the servant of God (Romans 13:4) and is meant to be an earthly means of meting out justice on evil and rewarding good. Since the government is made of sinful men governing over sinful men, the stage is set for some obvious conflicts. Ideally, the ones governing fear God and acknowledge his sovereignty; they rule only by his leave alone. And, ideally, the governed acknowledge their authorities are instituted by God for their good. What we have in America today is a crumbling foundation of Christianity with a terrace of paganism built on the roof. We do not trust that those in authority want our good, nor do we believe they would know what that good is even if it laid an egg on their pillow. For those of us who do fear God and love his Word, we are confronted with circumstances which sometimes require us to disobey these authorities.
When the key turned in the padlock and the country was locked down, there seemed to be a strange metric emerging from the government. Churches and schools were shut down, slapped with the red letter of “non-essential”. But abortion clinics, liquor stores, marijuana dispensaries and casinos were considered essential and remained open. Churches immediately lowered the Christian flag flying over their churches and raised the Romans 13 flag – a flag of pure white cloth, with Romans 13 embroidered into the corner in a size 8 font. It was our Christian duty to obey the government and by doing so we were obeying God..
Many church leaders scrupled over this with many much scruplings. However, when the dust settled churches agreed to shut their doors in a move that could be construed as agreeing with the valuation assigned by the State: that churches were indeed non-essential, and by proxy, that the abortion clinics, liquor stores, casinos and marijuana dispensaries were essential. If I agree my side is heads then I am also agreeing the other side is a tails.
Through all this Romans 13 banner hung limply over our sanctuaries and it is in the name of obedience to God we submitted to these valuations. With very few exceptions, this was the disposition of Evangelical churches. But is the dictate of Romans 13 meant to be applied as liberally as it has been? And should we lay down our arms, so to speak, under this banner, or by doing so are we scattering to the wind what God has gathered in our country?
As we look at government over the course of history we see the rise of limited government coinciding with the rise of Christianity in the West. Though not perfectly linear, general trends can be seen starting with the dictatorship of imperial Rome and culminating in the American Experiment 1700 years later. In early America, the laws passed over the colonies without parliamentary representation and the consolidated power of the monarchy left a bitter taste in colonial mouths. The new government would take the form of one in which the power was spread out and counterbalanced with other branches to ensure no one person or entity could grab enough to do anything awful with it.
Certain types of government give sinful man unmitigated access to power, and, as we all know, absolute power corrupts absolutely, which is about as close to absolute truth as you can get outside the Bible. Given their experiential knowledge of this, the American founders spread out the power so as to be effectively useless without the cooperation of the other branches. It took the Tower of Babel with one man sitting gloriously on top, and dismantled it into 30 city blocks of one story tenements.
Two important concepts are present in the Constitution of the United Stated that were not present in other forms of government. It accurately sees the nature of man in his sinful state, his desire to consolidate power to himself, and it accurately acknowledges the inherent freedom of man. These two realities are Biblical and true.
There is a misunderstanding about the intention of God for man that I have heard whispers of in some evangelical circles I haunt, that freedom is not something to which man is entitled. If I say I have the freedom and right to own personal property, for example, someone will be quick to say this freedom is not something granted by God, but a perk allowed by our particular form of government; a perk to which we feel entitled. The word entitled is confusing. Saying man is not entitled to freedoms God has granted is like saying a bird is not entitled to fly. Flying has nothing to do with entitlement and everything to do with purpose and created intention. Man is made in the image of his Creator, and his Creator is free. The more a government acknowledges the freedom of individuals to act in a way which coincides with personal accountability, responsibility and self determination, the more in line it is with how God created man to be. It is part of our spiritual DNA just as wings are a part of a bird’s genetic code.
Freedom is most encompassing of God’s nature. In Exodus, God revealed to Moses his name: Yahweh. I am what I am. He expands on this by saying I show mercy on whom I show mercy and compassion on whom I show compassion. He will do what pleases Him. There are zero constraints on God being himself. He doesn’t consult anyone on how to be God; he is never frustrated; he has no problems.
In Romans, Paul juxtaposed this freedom with the expectations of man based on tradition and formality by drawing attention to God’s choice of Jacob over Esau. By all rights, Esau should have received the inheritance. But God, in His freedom, chose the younger. Romans 9:21 hammers this point home by rhetorically asking, “Can’t God do what He wants with his own power?” This theme is consistent in scripture as God goes against human institution and norms to manifest his freedom.
When God made man in his image, freedom was the binding agent in the clay. However, though man has freedom in his spiritual DNA, he is a finite and fallen creature. “There is no one righteous, not even one,” Romans tells us. When it comes to governing, these two criteria taken together mean he is already in over his head. Whenever a man takes a position of authority he does so in skin no less finite, and a soul no less sinful than anyone else he is in authority over. This means limited government is by definition the best form of government. His finitude means he cannot know what is best for all lives of individuals he is governing; his falleness means he oughtn’t be able to try because it will quickly go to his head. For this reason limited government is the destiny of even the most – especially the most – Christian nations.
As the government acts as the servant of God, this means there is an acknowledgement of an authority higher than itself. In other words, as the gospel spreads through a land, the government will take the shape of profound limitations rather than profound officiousness, humbly recognizing its own shortcomings and proclivities, and acknowledging the sovereignty and authority of God above it. This is a result of the image of God seeding itself in a culture through the growth of the gospel. The United States of America was founded on principles in line with this reality of man and God’s image inside, by recognizing both human freedom and fallenness.
What we have seen in the past nine months of Covid-19 is that the evangelical church is ready to abandon this manifestation of Biblical truth in our Constitution and accept it’s dismantling as a matter of course. As if it isn’t worth holding onto. As if it isn’t a blessing from God.
We have a strange fascination with a “Left Behind” eschatology in which the forces of darkness win out in the end. Out comes our playbill for the End Times: cue the one world Government, the mark of the beast, and when is this Nicolae Carpathia guy going to show up? The squashing of our freedoms is the preamble to our Apocalypse. “Well, it’s about time,” we say. However, the problem is in the premise. We assume eternal victory comes only after defeat. But what if that is wrong? What if we are sacrificing a hard won manifestation of the image of God in the Constitution for a faulty premise?
Before I explore the passages, some questions need to be asked about our peculiar situation compared to that of other Christians in the past, and in the present under different regimes. Are the freedoms which I am defending temporal and situational, or are they transferable to every situation? In other words, could the hidden church in North Korea make the same arguments in the same way to Kim Jong Un as we are making to our representatives in our democratic republic? No. And to make things more complex, probably most of the governments under which these passages have been read by the church throughout history were ungodly, officious, repressive and unjust. First century Christians were not picketing outside the Coliseum to boycott the gladiator games. Such godly objections, true as they were, would have landed them in the Coliseum, on the business end of a lion, while having the simultaneous effect of changing nothing.
What are we to make of our current stance on the extant freedoms? The maintenance of godly freedoms is the continuation of the same gospel march that establishing those freedoms in the first place. It is the housekeeping after the house is built, the daily plugging of the dike’s leaks. It is not the “just-so” particulars of an entitled and well-to-do church. It is the continuation of the same fight, the unveiling of the image of God in man as won through the gospel of Jesus Christ. That some countries even today are in the early stages of this recognition does not mean that our established freedoms are superfluous or the cherry on the sundae. As the gospel spreads, freedoms follow in its wake. Free God, free grace, free people. One follows the other necessarily, even if it follows by hundreds of years. Preserve and cherish the freedoms won, and work to realize those granted by God to all men through the gospel as it marches through the world terraforming civilizations and their governments.
This slight detour being navigated, let us get back on the highway and unpack Paul and Peter’s letters.
Romans 13 is predicated on certain realities we can see in the text. I have highlighted some words which I will expound upon in Greek. Not because I know Greek and I’m trying to be all smart, but because I can read English and there exist Greek dictionaries. Plus the Greek words convey a sharper meaning than the dull graphite pencil that is the English language.
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed
First, the directive to obedience, if we just read verse one, is unqualified. All authority is given by God. Since he is sovereign over everything, if you are resisting authority whom God appointed, you are resisting God. But there seems to be some qualifiers as we read on which need explaining. We find in verse 3 words like ‘good’, ‘bad’ and ‘wrong’. Am I to assume that what is good and bad is confined to whatever the current government deems so? This is demonstrably false. “Good” here in Greek is agatho, meaning that which originates in God and has its power through him. “Evil” in Greek is kako (also the root word for wrong and wrongdoer) and is defined here as rotten, literally the rot that exists in wood. So good and evil are used in the classic sense of the words. Paul is saying “If you don’t want to be afraid of the government that God established, then do those actions which are permitted by God, originate, and have their power from him, and do not do morally rotten things. Then you will be praised by the authorities and will have no reason to fear.” But is this the case in our current situation? Are not 50 years of slaughtering innocent babies, and the fouling of God’s image in same sex marriage alone enough to cast doubt on their ability to call balls and strikes? And does this clear misalignment between a corrupt government making laws for political gain disqualify them from our obedience in this instance?
Climbing back up a verse, we have the word “resist” which means squaring off in opposition; setting yourself up to be 180 degrees from your opposition. Think of this as oppositional defiance disorder that will stand against whatever law simply because it comes from authority, the goodness or badness of the law notwithstanding. That this is disobedient to God and counterproductive is clear enough. In fact, this mindset has as its lord, not God, but merely the photo negative of their opposition. Defiance is its principle. Christians are meant to bless their societies and bring good. If we maintain a position of propitiousness toward our government with a desire to bless society, then a specific act of disobedience is not of the same ilk as the resistance Paul speaks of here.
Lastly, in verse 4 Paul says God set the authority of government over you as an “avenger” to carry out God’s wrath on the rotten ones. The word for avenger here is ekdikos meaning “the one executing a just judgement.” Authority stands in a position of punishing wrongdoing with the underlying assumption it knows what constitutes right and wrong action. Is our government able or willing to distinguish between these two? The matter is complicated because we have a large and diverse government, not only with separate branches, but layers of authority within those branches. Considering if the authority has compromised its ability to deal out just judgement is complex and requires wisdom.
Using an example from our Covid crisis, lockdown mandates have been put in place in some locations as directed by the governor. Local sheriffs of certain counties, however, have stated clearly they will not enforce these lockdowns as they are encroachments on individual freedom. In this case the local magistrate, if we can use these colloquial terms, is acting justly, and the higher authority unjustly.
More complicated still are situations like in Michigan where the governor places harsh and unjust restrictions on the state, which the federal government denounces. Are we to submit to the governor as we live in a federal union, which recognizes states rights, or cleave to the federal government? And, in the end, are we just hopping around to whichever entity we happen to agree with?
In 1 Peter 2:13-17 Paul uses similar terminology to talk of submission to kings and governors:
Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution,b whether it be to the emperorc as supreme, 14or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 15For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. 16Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servantsd of God. 17Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.
We have a similar set up here. Be subject to kings and governors as sent by God to punish those who do evil and praise those who do good. In both of these passages the specific jobs of authority delineated by Paul are punishing the wicked and rewarding the good. Good and evil in verse 14 are agatho and kako, the same Greek words used in the Romans passage.
But what do we do when the government calls what is evil good and good evil? Isaiah 5:20,
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
What is our obligation to a government that is filled with so much funk the valuations of God have been twisted to be the opposite of what was intended? And what if there is evidence those in authority are no longer acting as servants of God, but as a god themselves, using their position to secure power? It is in these situations that we maintain our obedience to God, for at this point it is the government breaking the law, not those keeping in step with God
Interestingly, Peter admonishes the believers to recognize their freedom, but not to assume that this freedom in Christ gives them license to be above the laws of God or men. The phrase “not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil” has some curious origins. Some scholars think the word “covering” refers to the second covering of the tabernacle. They draw the conclusion that Peter intends to discourage the brashness that comes with freedom, as people tend to overlook the undesirable qualities of loudmouths simply because they are loudmouthing about their freedom, which they applaud. We certainly know people who are like this. Other scholars take the phrase to simply mean licentiousness because of their freedom in Christ. He ends by reminding them they are servants of God. We get a sense of the preciousness of freedom and to treat it as such, not to squander it on filthy living and rampant disobedience to authority.
Christians are meant to be a blessing to their society and, through the spread of the gospel and changed lives, make their job of ruling easier. It is the natural man that despises authority and sets up his own little kingdom in a spirit of resistance. The godly man honors the limitations God has set in place for his own good. Peter ends this section with commands to love the brothers, fear God and honor the king. This is the disposition we should take towards our authorities. It goes without saying, however, that this disposition is not synonymous with unqualified submission.
Based on these observations, it is important for us to remember that we do not exist to be governed, but to enjoy and magnify God. Because we are fallen, God has given us the government to act as his servant and do justice in his stead. Since government is composed of fallen, finite men, limited government, which acknowledges God’s rule over it, is the most reasonable and godly form it can take on this earth. America was founded on such principles, which ought to be vigorously maintained, not passively pissed away. Even this limited government, however, can get out of line with God’s valuation of goodness and evil. In the case of the lockdown orders, I believe our government has overstepped their boundaries by trampling the livelihood of its citizens and their free expression, proved itself to be deficient in valuing what is essential, demonstrated self-interest by moving goal posts to end lockdowns, and disobeyed it’s own law, the first amendment of the constitution, by keeping churches from meeting. We are to maintain obedience to God rather than men, while maintaining a disposition of honor to those God has placed in authority over us.
Thought Butter 