Romans 13 and Jefferson's "Resistance of Tyranny"

[Singalphile]

I agree with you, Darin, in your discussion there with David.

In particular ...

We are sojourners -- strangers in a strange land - ambassadors of the Kingdom of God -- I think we must honor the rules of our host nation or leave. I don't like it either. But, if we want to follow the teachings of Christ and the Apostles, I can't see it any other way.

I cannot either, in light of the passages you allude to, Rom 13, 1 Peter 2, and many others. I think we should be very careful about getting involved in political movements and alliances (2 Cor 6:14ff).

[Paidion]

1 ¶ Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.
4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. (Rom. 13 NKJV)

Richard Wurmbrand spent 14 years in a Communist prison in Romania. When he was required to give the names of other Christians to the "authorities", he gave them names. But they were the names of those who had already died or of those who had escaped the country. Richard believed it was morally RIGHT to lie to the Communist "authorities".

He used verse 3 and 4 of Romans 13 to justify his position. According to Romans 13, the authorities appointed by God are those authorities who praise those who do right and bring wrath kupon those who do wrong. Brother Wurmbrand said that the Communists did exactly the opposite. They praised wrongdoers and brought punishment and/or death on those who did righteous acts.

[darinhouston]

1 ¶ Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.
4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. (Rom. 13 NKJV)

Richard Wurmbrand spent 14 years in a Communist prison in Romania. When he was required to give the names of other Christians to the "authorities", he gave them names. But they were the names of those who had already died or of those who had escaped the country. Richard believed it was morally RIGHT to lie to the Communist "authorities".

He used verse 3 and 4 of Romans 13 to justify his position. According to Romans 13, the authorities appointed by God are those authorities who praise those who do right and bring wrath kupon those who do wrong. Brother Wurmbrand said that the Communists did exactly the opposite. They praised wrongdoers and brought punishment and/or death on those who did righteous acts.

Yes, but couldn't he have been wrong (on the exegesis, perhaps not in the decision)? In light of 1 Peter 2, it seems not to matter so much whether the authorities are "just." Otherwise, we're left with highly subjective decisions when to obey authorities -- I can justify SOOO much on that basis that the exceptions would all but completely subvert the rule. One could say there's a great chasm between "unreasonable" authorities and communist pagans seeking to kill Christians, but the latter is sort of the context Paul wrote this in, isn't it?

[Paidion]

it seems not to matter so much whether the authorities are "just."

But it does seem to matter according to 1 Peter 2:13,14

Be subject, then, to every human creation, because of the Lord, whether to a king, as the highest, whether to governors, as to those sent through him, for punishment, indeed, of evil-doers, and a praise of those doing good. (1 Peter 2:13,14)

Peter says that it doesn't matter whether it's a king or governors sent in the name of the king, but he specifies that the authorities punish evil-doers and praise those doing good.

Wurbrand's point was that since the communists did the opposite of the authorities appointed by God, praising evil-doers and punishing those doing good, they were NOT authorities appointed by God. It makes sense to me. Otherwise, we would be saying that the Nazi regime was appointed by God to kill more than 6 million Jewish people by the most tortuous methods imaginable.

[jarrod]

Do you think there is a difference in America's form of government where the affairs of the state are public matters versus the type of historical monarchies we find? I am the least knowledgeable when it comes to history and government, but it seems to me the type of government the founders established was to give more power to the people than that of a ruler -> subordinate relationship. If that is the case, then if the people do not speak up or voice their beliefs the system is broken?

I truly do not even consider myself an "American" anymore, but a citizen of the kingdom of God. The thought that convicts me is being more upset about the downward spiral of an earthly kingdom than the lack of boldness and attention to our Heavenly one.

Jarrod

[darinhouston]

I don't know, Paidion -- I don't think Paul is saying that everything that an authority does is in furtherance of God's purposes, but that their continued authority serves some purpose of God and because of that and to continue our witness, trusting God to avenge in His time, that we are to remain subject unless doing so requires us to do something God specifically requires (or the converse). I can't imagine an authority that always does Justice, so the slope is VERY slippery if that's our basis for submission. (consider a wife's own submission).

[Paidion]

...that we are to remain subject unless doing so requires us to do something God specifically requires ...

Do you mean "unless doing so requires us to do something God specifically forbids"?

In the case of Richard Wurmbrand, I don't think God specifically forbids giving the "authorities" the names of other Christians. Yet, had Wurmbrand done so, those Christians would have been arrested and tortured, too. Yet, I am sure it is the heart of God (as well as that of Wurmbrand) that His people do what is necessary to prevent such torture of His people.

Should Corrie Ten Boom have revealed the place she hid Jews during the 2nd World War on the basis that God didn't specifically forbid doing so?

[darinhouston]

No, as I said, I think it was his exegesis that was poor, not his decision. At the extremes, the exceptions come into play -- in most situations, we are trying to defend our own rights instead of those of others being persecuted. I think that's the main difference and can still be a fine line when it comes to defending rights, generally, compared to specific acts of defense/protection of others out of individual love for them. Collective generalized civil disobedience to move a government to change its unreasonable or even evil ways just doesn't seem very much in line with Paul's words. As an example, Moses could easily have led a revolt with that many Jews in Egypt, don't you think? Or conducted a sit-in and refuse to do work for Pharaoh, or many other things. In fact, when Moses struck the guard, he was "on his own" and had to flee.