Bible study. Let's talk about Bible study. I become most insistent that Christians engage in it when I hear scripture misused. Then I know we need more of it, the deep kind, so we don't pull texts out of context for our own purposes. That happened recently, as in this past week.
The misuse of scripture came on the lips of a politician who was justifying his political decisions. The fact that it was a public statement ups the ante. A public statement deserves a public response. Once that happens it becomes "public theology," something that can and should be debated in the public forum.
The statement came from our Attorney General as he attempted to justify immigration policy - not immigration law, but policy made by the administration. He quoted Romans 13:1 - "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."
This is a politician quoting scripture about governmental authority, insisting that it is God's will and that we should follow it. God has granted that authority in the first place so we should comply. If there is a law you should obey it.
First, let's pretend that this is not about immigration but rather about any law. Second, let's pretend that it's not Jeff Sessions who said it but any politician anytime.
This would not be the first time political leaders have appealed to scripture. Lincoln certainly did, and with facility and lofty eloquence. Others have used it in more self-serving and cavalier ways, usually supporting their ideological purposes. With that in mind, let's go straight for the text. Then we can talk about how this text has been interpreted throughout history.
The first seven verses of Romans 13 construct an argument for obedience to earthly authorities. It has baffled scholars. Was this council to Christians who had dismissed lawfulness, dismissing all human authority? Did they confuse Gospel freedom with a license to dismiss social norms? Did they refuse to pay taxes (which is cited specifically)? Scholars ask these questions because Paul and other Christian leaders were often arrested for breaking the law. Jesus himself was executed by the state. Paul often defended himself on the basis of his Roman citizenship though it didn't always work out. Whatever the reasons that led to these words of Paul scholars have been left scratching their heads.
What is less confusing is the remainder of the chapter. Paul pivots from verse 8 forward and changes the sense of "law" from civil law to the religious law, the Torah. He says in characteristically Pauline tone that "Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law." (10) Love fulfills every aspect of the law. It harms no one. If we follow the path of love then the law becomes superfluous.
Here is where the history of interpretation of the text comes into play. Political figures - especially ones who want to reinforce the status quo and encourage citizens to heel - have spent much time with the first part of Romans 13, the obey civil authority section. They almost always ignore the second part, that love fulfills the law and never does wrong to the neighbor. The ones who quote the authority section generally overlook the wronging the neighbor section. A few examples:
The first portion of Romans 13 was routinely used by the State Lutheran Church in Nazi Germany to insist that the public should be obedient to the power that had been granted by God to the Third Reich. If people resisted that authority they were resisting not only temporal authority but God's; they were understood to be one in the same.
In similar fashion the first part of Romans 13 was often cited in American pro-slavery pulpits. God has ordained earthly authority and slavery is the law of the land, therefore you should be obedient to God and be a good slave and a good master to slaves if you have slaves (for assumed existence of slavery also see I Pet 2, Eph 6).
People today also appeal to Romans 13 for many of the same reasons, usually when they are defending unpopular or unjust laws. They argue that one should obey civil authorities in all times and ways, even if those authorities are violating the second part of Romans 13, the love does no harm to the neighbor part.
That is how Romans 13 has been used and misused throughout the ages by those with power and who desire obedience from their subjects. Monarchies and Kings have frequently appealed to it in this same way. Henry VIII masterfully created an English state church in exactly this way, going so far as to declare that the King was also head of the church; there is no difference between eternal and temporal authority.
Christians, however, have frequently protested and then changed unjust laws on the basis on religious conviction. They have known that humanly made laws are always flawed and in need of reformation. No earthly ruler has the same status or authority as God. That would be idolatry. A quick review of tyrants and their laws throughout the centuries confirms the difference.
When Christians respond to laws or policies the first question is not about obedience to temporal authorities. The first question should go to matters of truth and justice: Are these laws just? Are these laws based on goodness and love? Who do these laws harm? Do these decisions lift up our shared values? These are the first questions Christians must ask.
Regardless of the political leader, country, issue or era, whenever people begin quoting the first part of Romans 13 we must always read ahead to the second half, that love is the fulfillment of the law and does no harm to the neighbor. We also read the rest of the New Testament, especially the Jesus parts. Then we will discover a balanced Christian view of ethics and moral theology and hear a very different voice speaking in the public market place of ideas.
