This has been a central text in the ideology of the white ruling class in SA. Anyone who rebels against their form of law and order are seen to be rebelling against God and hence the government feels justified in punishing them.
In 1985, when Michael Cassidy visited President Botha, the first thing Botha did was show him a Bible opened to this passage. After Cassidy had read it, Botha then asked “Now what can I do for you?”
The passage also has some importance for us in the way we relate to the laws and the government of Australia.
Let’s first look at what the passage says, and then later at what it doesn’t say.
v1 provides a concise summary of the principle – Everyone must submit to the governing authorities
Three reasons are given:
- Since the authorities are God-ordained, rebelling against the authorities is the same as rebelling against God.
- If you rebel against the authorities you can expect punishment. But if you do right, then there is no reason to fear that the authority will do you any harm.
- “because of conscience” ie it should be clear to our sense of morality that rebelliousness against authorities is wrong.
The NT speaks frequently about keeping our conscience clear.
- Peter brings it into evangelism saying that when explaining our faith to people, we must “keep a clear conscience so that those who speak maliciously about your good behaviour in Christ may be ashamed of their slander” (1Pet 3:16)
- Paul advises Titus that when teaching people in the church, his example should be such that “those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about you” (Tit 2:8)
- And here Paul says that obedience to authority is part of keeping a clear conscience.
Notice the psychological mix of these three reasons. The first is authoritarian (“do it because God says”), the second very negative (to avoid pain), the third positive (it’s clearly the best thing to do).
Then there are two applications of this principle:
- v6 Paying taxes. The authorities are doing legitimate work and so they should be paid for it. If we fail to pay taxes, it shows that we aren’t supporting the legitimate work of the government. This ought to be a challenging word to many Australians. It is not a Christian action to try to avoid paying taxes. Cash payments which aren’t declared as income and other ways of minimising the tax we have to pay are deceitful and undermine our integrity.
- v7 Don’t be lax in paying people their due, but always remember that you’re never free from the obligation to love them.
We could add our own examples of how this works out in practice. In fact we should spend time examining what submission to authorities means in our personal day-to-day lives.
For instance, think of the road laws. How many Australian Christians live in submission to speed restrictions? I think we should make a conscious decision to drive within the speed limits. I believe this for three reasons (which roughly correspond the the three we’ve already discussed). First, its what we ought to do as part of our submission to God. Second, it is right to be scared of getting speeding fines. Third, it’s clear that speeding laws are good: they protect lives, and its on;y sane that we follow them.
For another example, think of copyright laws. These are designed to protect the livelihood of artists, writer, inventors etc. This is only just. In general, these are laws I think we should obey, although there are some aspects which I think should be opposed. (For instance, did you know that singing songs in church without written permission of the copyright holder is illegal?)
What happens when the government is unjust?
It would be nice if we could always trust earthly authorities to act with godliness. But what happens when they don’t? Should we still be submissive?
Is it a valid option to stick to the commission to preach the Gospel and to make disciples but keep our noses out of politics? Should the church remain neutral?
The answer is NO, this isn’t a valid option. For we have not only been given the commission to preach the Gospel and to make disciples; we are also commissioned to the ministry of reconciliation and we are called to promote justice. To attempt to be neutral is to side with the status quo.
Allan Boesak writes “in a situation where there is a constant struggle for justice and human dignity and against structures promoting iniquity, neutrality is not possible. On the contrary, neutrality is the most revolting partisanship there is. It is to take the side of the powerful, of injustice, without accepting responsibility for it.” (“If this is treason”, p13)
Does this mean that we have to reject Rom 13 and say that it’s wrong? No, but we must note that Paul wrote it with a particular presupposition in mind: the presupposition that the governing authorities are faithful to God’s authority. The passage gives no direction for situations when this is not the case.If we want to know how to act when the earthly authorities don’t promote law and order based on kindness, justice and righteousness, then we have to look at passages other than Rom 13
In Matt 28 Jesus claims that “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me”. Earthly authorities gain their authority from God, but that doesn’t imply that they always act under his authority. The power comes from God, but the abuse of power comes from sin. Like all sin, it must be condemned.
In Luke 20 Jesus tells us to “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”
We need to pursue the same ends that Jesus pursued: “to preach good news to the poor, to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour” (Luke 4:18).
We need to examine to examples of the apostles. It is clear from Paul’s actions that he did not intent Rom 13 to be a blanket statement forcing us to always obey earthly authorities. If that we so then he wouldn’t have been given 39 lashes by the Jews on 5 separate occasions; he wouldn’t have ended his days under house arrest in Rome.
Similarly, we should learn from Peter and John’s refusal to obey the authorities in Acts 4.
The church (and that means you and I) need to speak with the voice of the OT prophets who repeatedly condemned the governments of their day for not protecting the poor; for plotting to kill their subjects (like David with Bathsheba’s husband); for acting unjustly; for slaughtering the flock they were supposed to be caring for; for shedding innocent blood; for forcibly removing people from the land they had ancestral rights to; for lining their own pockets while ignoring the pain of their subjects.Are there laws, practices or social structures in Australia where our obedience to God will bring us into opposition to the governing authorities? If there are (and I think there are) then we should take a stand on them. We shouldn’t just ignore them, nor should we quietly break the laws hoping not to be discovered: we should actively work for their removal.