Should we always obey the government?
Donald Trump's 'zero tolerance' policy on immigration, leading to the separation of children from their parents at the US/United mexican states border, has dominated the strange news in the U.k. this week. Equally with all such news items, information technology is much more circuitous than at first reported, and nosotros need to understand advisedly what has been going on.
The situation hit the headlines with an unconfirmed recording of children crying who had been separated from their parents, and a picture circulated on Twitter plainly showing children in cages considering of Trump'south policy—but this turned out to be from 2014. In fact, the policy of separating some children from their parents came from Obama'south period in office, and the aforementioned happens in the UK in cases of illegal immigration where parents are deemed to take committed an offence. The reason for this is that children cannot be imprisoned along with their parents—and the change that Trump made was to criminalise all those crossing the border, rather than trying to dissever out illegal immigrants from genuine asylum seekers. Trump'due south reversal of the separation policy came in response to the outcry—though information technology was non clear exactly what it specified or what information technology would mean for those already separated.
Adding to the emotion and confusion in this situation, the Attorney Full general Jeff Sessions cited Paul'south words in Romans 13 to deflect criticism and propose that Christians should simply have the Government's approach:
"I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the regime because God has ordained the government for his purposes," Sessions said during a speech to law enforcement officers in Fort Wayne, Ind. "Orderly and lawful processes are skilful in themselves. Consistent and fair awarding of the law is in itself a practiced and moral thing, and that protects the weak and protects the lawful."
What is odd nigh Sessions reaching for this text is that it was previously called upon in ii key moments of U.s. history:
"At that place are two dominant places in American history when Romans xiii is invoked," said John Fea, a professor of American history at Messiah College in Pennsylvania. "One is during the American Revolution [when] it was invoked by loyalists, those who opposed the American Revolution." The other, Fea said, "is in the 1840s and 1850s, when Romans 13 is invoked by defenders of the Southward or defenders of slavery to ward off abolitionists who believed that slavery is incorrect. I mean, this is the same argument that Southern slaveholders and the advocates of a Southern mode of life fabricated."
The electric current employ (and previous use in Europe to justify loyalty to Adolf Hitler in pre-war Frg) might suggest that the Bible is useless as a guide for anything, since its texts are so pliable and can exist used to support reverse positions. Merely this is not a trouble with the Bible—it is a problem with language! Any text, taken out of its context, tin be made to hateful anything. This is the footing of the entertaining videos past the comedy duo Cassette Boy.
Although Cassette Male child is cutting upwards words and phrases, the aforementioned issue applies when you lot cut up whole sentences. This can be seen clearly in the joke about the person wanting guidance from the Bible, and sticking a pin in it three times, but to read:
Judas went out and hanged himself (Matt 27.5)
Go chiliad and practice besides (Luke 10.37)
What you have to exercise, practise it quickly (John 13.27)
This is the problem with all 'sampling' approaches to the Bible—not because it is the Bible, simply because it consists of human linguistic communication, and this is a trouble with treating language of any kind in this way.
So how should we read Paul's injunction in Romans 13? We need to read information technology as we need to read whatsoever biblical text—but asking what kind of writing it is (genre), exploring its context, seeing where it comes in the canon of Scripture, and paying attention to its content, what the text actually says. (See my Grove bookletHow to Interpret the Bible for a longer exploration of these principles.)
The first thing to note is that this is a letter of the alphabet, and not part of a doctrine text book. This ways that it was written in a particular time and place to detail people in a particular situation; like all letters it is 'occasional', that is, written on and for a particular occasion. That does not mean it is trapped in its context or that we cannot learn of import theological truths from it. Only we need to recollect that, whilst as role of Scripture it is writtenfor us, it is not writtento united states. Paul was not thinking of protests nearly child separation at mod borders when he was writing it, and nosotros demand to go on a cursory hermeneutical (interpretive) journey to run into how it applies to us.
Secondly, what is the context in which Paul is writing? Perhaps the most of import thing to remember is that Paul is writing to a very pocket-size minority group in the upper-case letter city of a massive, powerful empire which dominated what was considered the known earth. He was not writing as a powerful office-holder in the world'southward largest economical and military ability. This is of import, since power dynamics are key to shaping the significant of texts, and when the power dynamics are inverted (as in this instance) this is the most direct mode to modify what a texts means and what it implies.
More specifically, Paul is writing (unusually) to a church community that he did not plant, and i that was in some tension. The Emperor Claudius had expelled all Jews from Rome at some point around 50; Luke says that this is why the Jewish Priscilla and Aquila had concluded upwardly in Corinth, along with many other Jews (Acts 18.2). This explains why there is a ready market for Paul'due south tent-making skills, providing temporary lodging for the many refugees. If Romans was written by Paul in the subsequently 50s, then by now Claudius has died and the Jews have been able to return. But Suetonius notes that Claudius' edict 'was on account of Chrestus' which could signal that it was the outcome of Jewish objections to the announcement of the good news well-nigh Jesus (we see similar agitation happening in Thessaloniki and Ephesus in Acts). If so, this would explain why Jewish-Gentile relations betwixt believers shapes Paul'southward argument in Romans, as he deploys classic Jewish criticisms of gentiles in Romans i and so Old Testament texts in Romans 2. (When he says 'all have sinned' in Rom 3.23, this refers less to 'all humanity' and more to 'all, both Jew and gentile'.) In this context, it is vital that the Jewish-gentile Christian community is not seen by the authorities to be agitating and disruptive.
The 3rd issue in reading well is looking at the canonical context—that is, the place of the text in the context of the Bible equally a whole, considering both the firsthand verses around information technology likewise as other related passages. This is where Jeff Sessions' use because even more ironic. Romans 13.1 needs to be read in the context of the whole of Romans 12 and 13; nosotros must non be misled by the chapter divisions (introduced by Archbishop of Canterbury Stephen Langton) to detach the beginning of ane chapter from the end of another. In the previous verses Paul is addressing those tempted to take the law into their own easily by seeking revenge, and Paul'due south injunction is to go out judgement to God, and instead 'kill' people with kindness, citing Proverbs 25.21–22:
If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, requite him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.
It is inthis context that Paul encourages submission to 'the powers that be'; they are the ones to whom God has given the authority to reward skilful and punish wrongdoing, so we should not presume to practice this for ourselves. Paul then continues past outlining what laws nosotros are obliged to keep—reaching a climax with the police to 'honey your neighbor equally yourself', echoing the explicit teaching of Jesus in Mark 12.31. Both Paul and Jesus are citing Lev 19.xviii, which comes in the context of rehearsing many of the Ten Commandments, and includes not only the prohibition on taking revenge, simply also the injunction to care for the 'poor and the foreigner':
When you lot reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Go out them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the LORD your God. (Lev xix.9–10)
And the context of of the whole of Romans 12–13 is set by Paul'due south opening words:
Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God'south mercy, to offering your bodies every bit a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is true worship. Do not conform to the pattern of this world, simply be transformed past the renewing of your listen. So you lot will be able to examination and approve what God'southward will is—his good, pleasing and perfect volition. (Romans 12.1–two)
Rather than pressing united states into a docile acceptance of whatever the regime of the twenty-four hour period says, Paul is here advocating a radically distinctive way of living—though one that avoids any unnecessary disharmonize with the authorities ('every bit far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone' Rom 12.eighteen).
We are and so led to consider the wider biblical context of Paul'due south teaching nigh governments and political ability. One of the abiding themes running through scripture is the tension between the volition of God and the actions of those in power, even amongst the people of God. A key moment in the Old Testament history comes when the people demand a king 'like the other nations' in 1 Samuel 8. The prophet Samuel warns them extensively of the dangers of political power, and how easily a king will exploit resource, take what is not his, pb the immature men off to death in boxing and exploit the people with heavy taxes for his own do good (i Sam 8.10–18). The uneasy settlement over kingship (and with it all political authorization) can exist seen in the subsequent account of the kings, some proficient, but many 'who did evil in the sight of God' and led his people into defiance and, ultimately, the destruction of exile.
This ambivalence is captured in 2 quite singled-out episodes in the New Testament. One is Jesus' substitution with the Pharisees in Marker 12.sixteen–17 on whether we should pay taxes (an issue still to the forefront in Romans 13). Jesus highlights the trouble inherent in the question, past noting the coin'southward image of Caesar, something that breaks the second commandment, and that inside the temple precincts. But in his answer 'Requite to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's' Jesus is non dividing the world into the two regions of the secular and the sacred, but highlight thelimitations of 'Caesar's' demands and thetotal nature of God's. In other words, the demands of secular power cannever trump (!) the moral demands of God. There is a similar stardom bear witness in 1 Peter ii.14–17; governors should be 'honoured' but it is God who is to be 'feared'.
The other very unlike episode comes in Revelation 13, a description of Roman Imperial power every bit the 'beast from the sea' (redeploying the imagery of Daniel's four beasts in Daniel vii) who makes claims that but God tin can make, tramples on his people, and is an amanuensis of the devil in opposing God's work. Romans 13 tin never be read without as well reading Revelation xiii.
This all points u.s. back, finally, to the bodily content of Romans xiii. At the centre of the pericope (the unit of measurement of text) is Paul'due south assertion that 'the 1 in potency is God's servant for your good.' This implies an obligation to submit to good law—but as well enjoins Christians in contexts where they have a free vocalisation to remind governments whose ability they truly do and therefore to whom they must give an account. 'You lot would have no power over me if it were not given to you from in a higher place' Jesus reminds Pilate (John 19.11), pointing out to whom he must be accountable in this exercise of power.
So what does Romans 13.one means for u.s. in this context? Obey the authorities as far every bit you are able; recognise that God institutes governments for the proficient of people, to render judgement between skillful and evil. Don't cause unnecessary trouble, living at peace with all every bit far as you lot are able. Only recognise, as well, that the ultimate authorisation is God's, and this calls y'all to live distinctive lives, following in the first instance God'south commands for holy living. This includes treat the weakest and the vulnerable, including the refugee and the foreigner.
All this is not to say that biblical interpretation is somehow more important than caring for children. But information technology is to note that reading the Bible badly can be used to shield our conscience from what is evidently wrong—and reading the Bible well makes it clear what God'southward priorities are in this kind of state of affairs.
Follow me on Twitter @psephizo.Like my folio on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance footing. If you accept valued this post, would you lot considerdonating £one.xx a month to support the product of this web log?
If y'all enjoyed this, exercise share information technology on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Similar my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you accept valued this post, you tin make a unmarried or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Good comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful contend, tin add real value. Seek first to sympathize, so to be understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view debate as a conflict to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.
killeenthatter1999.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/should-we-always-obey-the-government/
Post a Comment for "Should we always obey the government?"