Kerk en Staat PT 3: Behoudens de Regerende Autoriteiten (de seconde van een Christelijke Anarchist bekijkt Romeinen 13)
Geschreven door Mark Van Steenwyk: 30 januari, 2007
Vandaag, zal ik mijn onderzoek van Romeinen 13 voortzetten. In het bijzonder, zal ik Romeinen 13:1 - 2 uitpakken. Bij het volgende van posten, zal ik mijn algemeen begrip van Romeinen 13, evenals ministerieimplicaties van dat begrip aanbieden.
Romeinen 13:1 - 2 (NRSV)
Laat onderworpen elke persoon aan de regerende autoriteiten zijn; want er geen gezag behalve van God is, en die autoriteiten die bestaan door God zijn ingesteld. Daarom whoever zich verzet tegen verzet het gezag zich tegen wat de God heeft benoemd, en zij die zich verzetten tegen zullen oordeel oplopen.
Romeinen 13:1 - 2 (TNIV)
Laat onderworpen iedereen aan de regerende autoriteiten zijn, voor is er geen gezag behalve dat dat de God heeft gevestigd. De autoriteiten die bestaan zijn gevestigd door God. Derhalve whoever tegen het gezag rebelleert rebelleert tegen welke God heeft ingesteld, en zij die dit doen zullen oordeel op zich brengen.
Ik laat toe, bij gezichtswaarde schijnen deze passages om crap uit de Christelijke traditie van de Anarchist te schoppen. Vandaar dat hebben vele Christelijke Anarchisten de werkzaamheden van Paul verworpen en geopteerd. Maar ik houd van Paul en bevestig Scripture -scripture-ness van zijn geschrift. Als ik intellectueel oneerlijk was, zou ik voor het argument gaan dat Paul slechts ironisch is. Ik ben niet overtuigd van dat. My instincts as a quasi-academic, and as a practioner, is that Paul is trying to say someting very important in this passage, and that it shouldn’t be dismissed. Nor should it be argued around. So, what’s a Christian Anarchist to do?
How one answers four questions seems to determine how one understands the message of Romans 13:
- What does “subject” mean in this passage?
- What manner of authority do governing authorities have?
- Who are these “governing authorities?”
- What does it mean that they have been “instituted/established” by God?
Let me address these one at a time:
Q: What does it mean to be subject?
I’d argue that we need to think of “being subject” along the same line as “turn the other cheek.” Context here is key. As Jacques Ellul reminds us (from his book Anarchy and Christianity):
…Paul goes on to teach at length about love: love among Christians in teh church (12:3-8), love for all people (12:9-13), and love for enemies (not avenging oneself, but blessing those who persecute), with a further exhortation to live peaceably with all (12:14-21). The passage on the authorities comes next. Then all the commandments are summed up in the commandment of love and of doing no wrong to others (13:8-10). In ch. 14 some details are offered as to the practices of love…
I find it almost impossible to believe that when Paul was writing chapters 12 and 13 (I remind you that the distinction between these two chapters is artificial) that he wasn’t thinking of Jesus’ teachings about love of enemy. It is our love of our enemies that allows us to authentically turn the other cheek. And so it is also our love of our enemies (and our recognition that we are Children of the One who is Lord over everything) that we can be subject to their orders. Not out of recognition of their authority. But out of love for them and our recognition of God’s authority (more on that later).
Q: What manner of authority do governing authorities have?
In a sense, they have no authority. God has all the authority. What power the state has isn’t God-sanctioned. Instead, it is allowed and “kept-in-line” by the One to Whom all Powers are Subject. In other words, the authority of Rome isn’t sanctioned by God so much as it is de facto authority restrained and used by God. As Jacques Ellul has written: “Power is indeed from God, but all power is overcome in Christ.” In my next post on the series, I’ll explore how this understanding of the authority of Rome affects one’s reading of the rest of Romans 13.
Q: Who are these governing authorities?
In Rome, the governing authority is Caesar. Everyone else down the hierarchy represents Caesar. This understanding of governance is foreign to most within the West, since we understand authority to come from the people. We (often mistakenly) believe that we actually share in power, and that we bestow that power to officials who act according to our collective will.
Within this text (we need to be careful that we don’t universalize this passage too much, as though it presents a doctrine of political engagement or Church and State), it seems likely that the authorities in view are both those who are a part of the Roman power structure who somehow embody spiritual powers (think Ephesians 6). Our task is to submit to the authorities while also resisting the “powers.” This is why nonviolent resistance is incredibly nifty, since it allows for one to submit and resist at the same time–submitting to the government and its agents while resisting the spiritual forces that empower them.
Q: What does it mean that they have been instituted/established by God?
Here (as one might expect) I agree with John Howard Yoder, who understands the term “instituted” (Greek: tasso) not as “establishing” or “instituting” but “ordering.” In other words, God orders the otherwise chaotic authorities by “keeping them in line.” In other words, this passage doesn’t establish or support the notion that God has formally ordained Caesar’s reign. Nor does it support the notion that God has ordained two institutions whose job it is to bring justice: the Church and the State.
God doesn’t sanction state authority. Instead, as Yoder argues, God brings governments in line. In other words, he “providentially and permissively lines them up with divine purposes” (Politics of Jesus, 202). In this sense, then, God is ordering Rome in much the same way he ordered any of the great imperial powers that he uses to accomplish his purposes. God’s use of Assyria to judge Israel doesn’t mean that God sanctioned Assyria, after all.
Paul’s reason, then, in calling the Church in Rome to submit to the authorities isn’t to give an endorsement of Rome. Nor is it to say to them “be good citizens.” Instead, they ought to submit (turn the other cheek) out of love for God and neighbor. They ought not rebel, instead they out to live a life of faithful nonviolence (though this leaves the door for nonviolent resitance open) within their city.
for further reading . . .
- None Found
I suppose the option of renouncing Xtn Anarchism as an oxymoron and becoming a Pietist was not considered?
dlw
I don’t know how to respond to that.
I think you approach to Romans 13 is better than many. I am almost a Christian anarchist. I would be interested in you view of my take on Romans 13.. I just cannot see how Paul was urging subission to the Roman empire.
My earlier statement stems from how Anarchism as an ideology sprung up in the very fallen political conditions in Europe. It was an ideology that generally was against Christianity. And my skepticism is against whether it can truly be Christianized without glossing over some important Christian understandings.
I think one needs to look at being subject or submit in light of how else Paul uses the term. We also cannot forget that in Romans 13:4, the political authorities are referred to as God’s servant…
This makes the love your enemy analogous interp less likely…
MVS:Instead, it is allowed and “kept-in-line” by the One to Whom all Powers are Subject.
dlw: Isn’t this extendable to everyone?
I don’t think Paul meant that the political authorities are always being “kept-in-line” by God, but that he was presenting a positive vision for the political authorities that shd be the focus of Christians. Ie, that it ideally shd perform the subsidiary role for the advancement of the kingship of God in constraining human sinfulness.
MVS:In other words, the authority of Rome isn’t sanctioned by God so much as it is de facto authority restrained and used by God. As Jacques Ellul has written: “Power is indeed from God, but all power is overcome in Christ.” In my next post on the series, I’ll explore how this understanding of the authority of Rome affects one’s reading of the rest of Romans 13.
dlw: What does “sanction” mean here? If God uses it how can it not be meant for the purpose of the advancement of the kingship of God? To what other purposes does God act in our world?
To say that all power is overcome in Christ does not per se deal with how we inevitably use what (political-economic) power we have as Christians. So long as Christian communities possess property, they will also wield some of such power.
Even Caesar, for the sake of order, would respect some of the customs of his governed. There were part of the clearly set out rules that made their use of violence somewhat less common. There typically is a reciprocity of sorts in political governance, made moreso by democratic or parliamentary participation in changes in authorities and laws. Romans 13:1-2 does not deal with participation in political/legal changes, but rather the need to submit to what laws and authorities are in place, though faithful submission to existing laws does tend inevitably to alter the way the sword of the state is wielded. This nonviolent “resistance” that affects the way the state does its job is part of us following through with our duty of overcoming evil, without hypocripsy, though self-sacrifical acts of love. We don’t resist the state because it is our enemy, we resist it so it can better fulfill its God-given subsidiary role to the Church.
I think this is very much key for a doctrine of Church-State relations. You’re just in denial
. Political authorities still wield the legit use of violence to restrain human sinfulness, regardless of what specific political system determines who specifically are in positions of political authority.
I think that the rise of the Roman Empire did do a lot to abet the spread of Christianity(not unlike the rise of the US) and so I don’t think one can truly say God did not institute its rise. This would also fit with some of the predictions made in the book of Daniel, about the rise of the reign of iron. In this sense, God orders the authorities, as part of God’s plan for the spread of God’s word. This does not mean that the rise of hierarchy within Christian churches and their eventual Constantinization was right. It simply makes State-Church relations a critical part of how we go about spreading the kingship of God.
dlw
Just a couple of clarifying statements:
1) I’m not interested in Christianizing anarchism. Instead, I am interested in being authentic to my read of Scripture in my particular context. This has led me in a strongly Anabaptist direction. I find “Christian Anarchism,” as it is currently articulated by folks who think of themselves as “Christian Anarchists” (who are usually working from within the Anabaptist or Catholic traditions), to be a very useful term. Most of these folks aren’t starting with Anarchism and trying to “Christianize” it. Instead, they are folks who resonate with a long strand of their tradition and are looking for ways of articulating their position. I’m not a Christian Anarchist because I like Anarchism any more than I’m a Christian Pacifist because I like pacifism. If I weren’t a follower of Jesus Christ, I wouldn’t have any leanings in those directions at all. I come to the Christian Anarchist view because I don’t believe a “Two Kingdoms” approach is remotely scriptural, I believe that Jesus is a pacifist who communicated a Gospel of peace (peace in a very holistic and far-reaching sense), and I have a largely realized eschatology.
2) It is really these three doctrinal positions that I just mentioned that create all the differences in our approaches to this. Do you agree? I’m more interested, at this point, at understanding the fundamental disagreements we have and why we have them than I am interested in convincing you (or anyone else) of anything. For example, if one comes to the conclusion that pacifism is central to the Gospel, it is hard to say that there is any legitimate use of violence. Since that is largely the rationale for the State’s very existence, it is easy to see how one would move towards “Christian Anarchism.”
3) I think your comments raise an important question–and one that I’m not really prepared to address now (though I’d love for others to tackle it): What are some ways we can understand God’s “use” of governments and “powers” that moves beyond simply he-uses-them-therefore-they’re-sanctioned or he-simply-allows-them-to-do-what-they-do-yet-keeps-his-hands-clean.
Basically, I see the “governing authorities” being used by God in the same way that the “principalities and powers” (and even Satan) are used by God. Is Satan “sanctioned” by God? No. Does God “order” Satan for God’s own purposes? Yes. I believe we are called to overcome evil with good instead of through violence or rebellion or “resistance” in the conventional sense of the word. We are, however, supposed to “resist” the powers in a very different way–through the “weapons” of the Spirit–peace, love, nonviolence, goodness, etc.
1. Okay. I think it would be interesting to look at the history of Christian Anarchism in more detail and its relation to anarchism.
I think I was a little to quick to be judgmental in above posts.
I honestly think Anabaptist thought/practices are not necessarily ideal for our settings. I remember when Boyd first started calling himself an anabaptist. I thought it was absurd, because of the radically different circumstances of him and the anabaptists of yore. I don’t have problems with learning from them, but my intuition tells me that there are serious problems with translation of their thought/practices for today and there still are the typical problems of the free-church tradition.
I’m not arguing for a “two kingdoms” approach. I am arguing for missional holism, rather than the implicit dualism found in Anabaptist thought.
2. That seems like a contructive approach.
I am not a pacifist because I believe that it is acceptable for Christians to participate in the administration of the sword of the state, though I believe there is risk in doing so and that the goal of such participation shd be to make it better conform to its proper role of constraining human sinfulness rather than exploitation or serve to advance imperialistic ambitions. As such, I think what matters most is changing the institutions of a country to make it less likely to go to war, rather than abstaining from any participation in the state-based use of violence or opposing every such use of violence.
I am not sure what the other two doctrinal statements are. I can see how you might derive an anarchist view from pacifism, but I have just as much interest in “consistent pacifism” as I have in “consistent calvinism”. Consistency and validity are not the same and we have to ask ourselves, by what criterion would we be willing to change on minds on what we believe?
I think the historical facts on how the Roman Empire and the US Empire abetted the spread of Christianity are very serious. So when I read Boyd referring to them as demonic, it is somewhat jarring. There are serious problems with them and they do offer very flawed stories that contradict the story of the Gospel. And yet, I think both Rome/Greek was influenced by Judaism(when it was in exile in large part thru Pythagoras) and that the USA has been a country impacted by Christianity(things wd have been quite diff if it were not for the great awakenings in US History) that has taken a wrong turn, particularly since mid-20th ctry.
3. I don’t think such a question is worth discussing in the abstract apart from how we cultivate/encourage deeper habits of political deliberation as part of our witness to the world. We need to keep our thoughts tied down to their significance for more practical matters.
I agree that there is a very strong analogy between “principalities” and governing authorities. My view is that they are basically good, but have been significantly corrupted and need to be reformed and have in the past been very corrupted/depraved. These are also like tthe birds referred to by Jesus in his parables. They can both eat up the seeds, or it can be part of the goal of the “elect” to provide shade for the birds of the air (or heaven). They are not totally depraved or irreversibly pagan.
My view is that the sorts of disciplines we shd use to “resist” the fallen orders of our world are both through emulation of Jesus and learning from experience. This can include the experiences of non-Christians who were influenced by Christ. Henry David Thoreau, a Transcendalist, came up with the idea of civil disobedience by reading the Bible. Likewise, Gandhi, as an outsider, was capable of seeing the implications of Jesus’ teaching for his country, though they have not followed him in following Jesus and he . I think this diff might be describable as the diff between a consequentialist pov and maybe a virtue or deontological approach?
dlw
You might like to contribute to :
http://www.rad.net.nz/anarchist_bible_commentary/
Restarted after a server move and spam almost killed it.
[…] But I am not an anarchist. Anarchism is the rejection of rule (government). Christian anarchists are Christians that reject government. And while the phrase “Christian Anarchist” could apply to me (and in fact I’ve used it to describe myself in the past), I don’t believe we should reject government. Instead, we should embrace the government of Jesus Christ. He is our ruler. Hence, I am a CHRISTarchist. Furthermore, I don’t believe we should actively pursue the dismantling of earthly government. Instead, we are to submit to them. That isn’t to say that we should OBEY them per se. Instead, we should live at peace and submit in the same way that one would go the extra mile or turn the other cheek. I’ve written about this more here. […]