"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." - Romans 13:1-2
I can't tell you how many times the above verse was thrown in my face during Trump's last presidency. Christians were so mad at me for not falling in line behind him like they were. They were furious that I would question his authority and call his actions - in particular when it came to the border - cruel and inhumane.
I found this confusing and hurtful, yes, but also, rather hypocritical. After all, wasn't it the same group of Christians who objected all throughout Obama's eight years of presidency? Who called him names, debated his legitimacy as president, and named evil nearly everything he did? This verse apparently didn't apply to Obama, but it certainly does to Trump.
During both election cycles and so far through both of Trump's presidencies, Christians have hailed him, calling him "anointed", a "savior" of Christianity, and even "appointed by God". This idolatry of a very flawed and sinful man is what the rest of us Christians criticize and are concerned about. Christianity already has a Savior - and no need for another.
But what about this verse, you might ask. Are Christians supposed to follow the government, regardless of what decisions they make?
Let's consider. First of all, let's take the context of Romans 13. The apostle Paul is writing to the church in Rome during the days of the Roman Empire. Israel had been for centuries their own country and people group with their own internal leadership. However, they were conquered, first by the Greeks then by the Romans, and no longer had such independence. Part of the reason why many in Israel denied Jesus as the Messiah is because He did not free them from Roman rule. They were expecting to be re-established as a free nation, but that was not Jesus' mission (because Jesus cared more about souls than about building nations - I think there might be a lesson here for us...).
Roman rule was at first fairly lenient, but in the days of Paul it was becoming less so. The Romans were concerned about the growing group of Christians and their dedication to Jesus - Jesus, who had declared Himself a king before Pilate. To the Romans, only the Emperor was due such respect and authority. Christian persecution was beginning to rise. Paul, with this background in mind, encourages Christians to obey local authorities - to follow the rules of the Roman Empire and reigning government. Don't make waves, he says. Be peaceful people.
It is important to note, however, that sometimes, this was not possible. In the book of Acts, which records the beginning movements of the Christian church, there were many times when the governing bodies told the disciples to stop preaching Jesus, stop doing miracles, stop spreading the gospel. Peter and John says to them, “Whether it is right in God’s sight to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge; for we cannot keep from speaking about what we have seen and heard.” (Acts 4:19-20) Later when they are once more in trouble, they add, "We must obey God rather than any human authority." (Acts 5:29) Therefore, there is clear Biblical precedent for following God's law over human authority when the government is acting against God's principles.
This type of civil disobedience was not new to the people of Israel. Take for example the famous story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in Daniel 3. They were captives living in Babylon under Babylonian rule. They followed all the rules of the kingdom - except one. They refused to bow down to the king's golden idol when commanded to do so, saying, we will bow down to God alone, even if He doesn't save us. They are thrown into the burning furnace... and God does save them. Then the king changes his mind and lets the people worship God, no longer requiring they bow to an idol.
One last thing about God's "appointed". Consider the story of Saul in 1 Samuel. The people had always had prophets and judges watching over them and helping them follow the rule of God in the land. However, the nations around them had kings with powerful armies. They began to feel afraid, and therefore, they asked the prophet Samuel for a human king to rule over them as well, someone who could build an army and present a force against other nations. Listen to God's words from 1 Samuel 8 in response to their request: "They have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. Just as they have done to me from the day I brought them up out of Egypt to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods."
God was their King, but they rejected Him. The prophet Samuel warned them of what a human king would do and the chaos he would wreck, but they didn't care. They wanted him anywhere. Therefore, Saul's appointment as king wasn't so much because it was God's best, but rather because God gave the people what they asked for. He was their consequence.
I think there are similarities we could pull here to our current situation. Many Christians are struggling economically (as is most of the country) and feeling as though their privilege is being threatened, so they asked for a king. God said, I'm your King, but they wanted someone else, a human king, someone who would fight for them. God warned through prophets what that would mean for them, for the church, for the country, but they didn't care. I believe Trump's elevation to president is not because this is God's best or he is God's appointed, but because God gave the people what they asked for. This is their consequence.
My only prayer is that the havoc that is ensuing and will continue to ensue will wake the Church up. We already have a King.
We have no need for another.
DID YOU KNOW... You can subscribe to my blog through Substack? No membership required and free! Check it out, here: https://substack.com/@jadedevangelical.
Add comment
Comments