Saeculum: government, law and culture

Romans 13:1–7 is the classic New Testament text about the role and scope of civil government, and the Christian duty of obedience. It seems to me that the text is sometimes misunderstood and misused by the church today.

Here is the text in full:

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. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For 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, for 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. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay 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.

This post comments on a few aspects of this text.

First, it sets out a general principle and requirement of obedience. Other passages of Scripture commend those who disobey the ruling authorities (eg Exodus 1; Acts 4:19–20). Thus, the requirement of obedience is not absolute.

I came across an interesting discussion of this in an unlikely place, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined by John Austin. Austin said that, in relation to the question of civil disobedience: “We must try it by a direct resort to the ultimate or presiding principle, and not by the Divine rule which the principle clearly indicates. To consult the rule, were absurd. For, the rule being general and applicable to ordinary cases, it ordains obedience to government, and excludes the question”.

That is, Romans 13:1–7 sets out a general principle of obedience, but there are exceptions to that general principle. The question of obedience to laws is, more often than not, a question of wisdom. We must beware the twin temptations of over-obedience and under-obedience.

Secondly, Romans 13 is not an excuse for intellectual laziness. My sense is that there is a growing temptation or tendency for Christians and churches not to do the hard work of thinking through difficult issues, because Romans 13. Whenever new regulations are imposed or difficult issues arise (whether child safety or covid or whatever it might be), the church simply wraps those issues in the Romans 13 blanket and follows whatever regulations are imposed from the government. And this is understandable, given that questions of civil government and obedience can be very complex. But it means that the church does not rigorously think through those difficult issues for itself from a thoroughly biblical perspective.

This is regrettable, because the church could have a powerful voice speaking to contemporary issues – especially to those who are hurting through unjust government overreach. We may obey regulations which we strongly disagree with, but we nevertheless ought to think through the issues carefully, and, if necessary, register our protest.

Another crucial issue about Romans 13:1–7 relates to the proper scope of the role of civil government. Or more precisely, what Christians must believe about the scope of civil government. It is common to hear Christians assert (for example) that the civil government is the God-appointed authority which has the responsibility for creating and enforcing building codes, or for protecting public health, among other things.

But notice what the text actually says about the proper scope of the civil government’s role: “he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer”. That is, the civil government’s role is to punish evil, thereby contributing to earthly peace and order.

Now, I do not think that this is an exhaustive statement of the outer limits of the role of civil government, and I think that civil governments have legitimate responsibility for other things such as building codes and some aspects of public health. As a general rule, Christians should obey building codes and most aspects of public health regulation.

My point is this: Christians are not required, as a matter of conscience or faithfulness to Scripture, to believe that civil government is the authority with the responsibility for enforcing building codes and protecting public health.

Why? Because Scripture does not teach those things. It simply says that the civil ruler is God’s servant to punish evil. Christians are bound as a matter of conscience to follow the clear teaching of Scripture, but are not conscience-bound to believe things that are not clearly taught in Scripture. As Charles Hodge wrote, “the people of God are bound by nothing but the Word of God”.

This means that ministers and church leaders ought to be very careful before asserting things such as that building codes and public health are proper functions of the civil authority. There is no warrant from Scripture for such assertions.

To be clear, it is not wrong to believe those things. But it is wrong to assert that Christians must believe those things. To make such assertions potentially goes beyond the legitimate role of the church. As I argued in an earlier post, the Presbyterian understanding is that the power of the church and church officers is purely ministerial and declaratory, being confined to the declaration of the Scriptures, and no further.

Therefore, any chain of reasoning from the church or the pulpit which includes the assertion that building codes or public health (etc) are proper functions of the civil authority and therefore Christians must obey those regulations runs the risk of trespassing onto the conscience, which is rightfully God’s alone. It risks teaching as doctrines the commandments of men (Matt 15:9; Mark 7:7).

Another key point is that there are limits to the reach of the civil government. These limits come from the natural law (or moral law), and also from the various other “spheres” of authority that God has created, especially church and family.

Core to the Presbyterian understanding of the church is the sense of a robust independence from the civil government: “the Lord Jesus, as king and head of His Church, has therein appointed a government, in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate” (Westminster Confession of Faith, 30.1).

The Code book of the General Assembly of Australia contains a Declaration on the Spiritual Freedom of the Church, which fleshes out what this means:

the Lord Jesus, as King and Head of His Church, has therein appointed a government and jurisdiction, in the hands of Church Officers, distinct from the Civil Magistrate. With this distinct jurisdiction, which is directly from Christ, the only King and Head of His Church, the Civil Magistrate has no lawful right to interfere or to assume to himself any authoritative control over the same. This jurisdiction comprehends the determining, interpreting, changing, adding to and modifying its constitution and laws, its subordinate standards and Church formulas; the preaching of the Word; the administration of the Sacraments; the exercise of ecclesiastical discipline, including the admission and exclusion of members, and the ordination, induction, and suspension, or deposition of office-bearers; and generally all matters touching the doctrine, worship, discipline and government of the Church.

This paragraph essentially states that the fundamental nature and character of the church is to be determined by the church in light of Scripture, and that the civil government has no lawful right to interfere in matters relating to the nature and character of the church.

Whatever it is that Romans 13:1–7 requires of Christians, it is subject to overriding limits. I fear that this sense of robust independence is in danger of becoming lost today.

Finally, Romans 13 is about submission to civil government. Civil government is a jurisdiction separate from the church and possesses its own regulatory and enforcement apparatus. As noted, the church’s role, and church power, is purely ministerial and declaratory. The church has no coercive power or jurisdiction. To quote from Zacharius Ursinus:

there is a great difference between the civil magistrate, whose province it is to exercise authority over his subjects, and to compel such as are obstinate to yield obedience by corporal punishment, and the ministry of the church, to whom no such power is granted; but who are entrusted with the office of teaching men in reference to the will of God.

This means that churches and church leaders have no role in enforcing civil laws and regulations. If the civil government wishes to impose laws and regulations about a particular issue, then it can enforce those laws. But the church has no business doing so.

Romans 13 is followed, surprisingly enough, by Romans 14, which is the classic New Testament text about Christian unity. Given all that I have said above, there is legitimate scope for Christians to disagree about many aspects of Romans 13. These disagreements need to be navigated with a desire to maintain unity, respecting the consciences of our fellow believers – and again, not acting as civil enforcement agents.