You wrote:

What is your take on this (from an email Chris had received)?

   It is Romans 13: 1-7

 “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which god has established.  The authorities that exist have been established by god.  Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what god has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.  For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but those who do wrong.  Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority?  Then do what is right and he shall commend you.  For he is god’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing.  He is god’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. There fore it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

    This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are god’s servants, who give their full time to governing.  Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes, if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”

Dear Chris,

There is a short answer and a long answer.

On the short side, there are some obvious answers to from this passage on Authority.

Notice that Paul says the ruler is a servant of God to either commute blessing or punishment upon other humans in accordance with God’s definitions of good and evil. This implies that the ruler, himself, will be rewarded or punished by God, depending on how well he executes the right capital criminals, enacts proper restitution for property crimes, and appropriate punishments for the stuff in between.

Our emailer makes the mistake of equating God’s revealed standard of righteousness in the Bible, with: whatever the voter or emperor happen to be doing at any particular moment in history. Because he happens to like one of the laws of this administration, he wants to imply that there is authority higher than the momentary desires of those holding the reigns of power. This exalts man to the same level with the infinite, personal, triune God of the Bible. This is Rex Lex (the human king is the law) instead of Lex Rex ([God’s] law is king). Think back on your history of the horrors of religious persecution where men were routinely tortured and murdered and starved in prisons because they refused to regard either the Bishop in the Cathedral as God, or the King in the Capitol as God.

That, in turn, was small potatoes compared to the massive genocide that has gone on in Asia, Africa, and Europe in the most recent three centuries where a country’s own government have massacred and starved tens of millions of their own citizens, all because they refused to adequately “acknowledge” the power and authority of those wielding government power.

Shall there be no Reformation of these atrocities? Were they the will of God, in a principled sense, or were they the promised consequences towards a culture that had rejected the Word of God and the Lordship of Christ?

Authority cannot come from men. Men cannot consistently attribute ultimate ethical authority to men. Yet the authors above chide us for not recognizing that whatever  [a man, committee, or majority of men] defines as crime and punishment is the supreme ethic. They actually equate God’s moral decree with whatever men chose to legislate or enforce for punishment. What if the God of the Bible disagreed with the Majority? What if He disagrees with the President? Are the congressmen and Supreme Court justices under a law that describes what the consequences will be to them if they deviate from a standard external to themselves? Or are they to be relied on to predict what will or should happen to whoever deviates from their moral standards for behavior?

Are they under a written, or unwritten law, or is law – should law – be what they say it should be? Are they under the Bible and the Constitution of the country, or do those writings mean whatever these contemporary men say it should mean? The Constitution of the United States can be dispensed with as an autonomous absolute reference point for law or morality. It was just a “will of some people” at a particular point in the history of man. Many students of history point out that it was an illegal political motion from Day 1.

The men who were delegated the responsibility to improve one opus of law (Articles of Confederation), started from scratch to craft a completely different one, and then submitted their product to completely different groups to ratify – than the State legislatures who had commissioned them to work. It was no more a Majority Vote, than Roe v. Wade has been a majority vote. Yet the law is respected and ignored and enforced. There is an important mystery here.

Think of the possibilities for the source/origin of ethical authority:

1. Every individual on his own. This is uncomfortably very near the most popular view. Since Adam in the Garden succumbing to the temptation to “know good and evil”, or decide what is right and wrong for himself, men, generally, do not want to relinquish the idea of personal Sovereignty. It is very natural to insist on reserving the “right” to judge every other competing authority that would contradict what we think is right and wrong. Contradiction here is that, most obviously, if one human being is acknowledged as the highest and best authority to define what is good, evil, right, and wrong – no other human being can be. And they won’t stand for it. Besides, no one person has enough power to enforce his definitions upon the rest of the human race. His biceps are not big enough, and his life is not long enough. Scratch that. In other words, if one human being has zero amount of ethical authority, no matter how large a multiplier you use you still get zero. Zero times infinity is only zero.
2. A king, emperor, dictator who is temporarily recognized (or tolerated, at least) by a significant percentage of society as being the best definer of good. This is the Divine Right of Kings: the law should be what the king says it should be. The more people approve of him, are willing to defend his person and principles with their labor and possessions, the more feasible it will look that this single ruler has sufficient power to judge and reward others. But here again, we run into logical inconsistencies. If this king is supposedly highest and best and defining good and most powerful with this people. What about that king over there with that people. Why should one be better/stronger than another? What is so different about one over the other? Are they not both men whose breath is in their nostrils? Take that away for 5 minutes, and they both revert to piece of dirt the same way.
3. The Committee (minority, oligarchy) consisting of a legislature, congress, parliament, council. If we get the cream of the wisest, most influential, good-hearted humans together to talk to each other and decide things, could that be more consistent? Same problems. How do we know this committee is more right or strong than another? Which one should the majority of the population support to make strong enough to punish and bless? And when they seek majority in committee, if we are assuming ethical authority is determined by majority vote of the committee, each individual in the committee is under obligation to vote in agreement with the final decision of the committee (by definition, if you follow). Yet you cannot ascertain that determination of what is ‘good’ until after the committee has voted. They won’t know how to cast their vote in the election until after the election. This cannot be bootstrapped logically.
4. Democratic Majority. And this is just as obviously impossible as the Committee. You can never develop the necessary authority to dictate the rules of exactly who gets to vote (age, sex, property, mental capacity, criminal record). You cannot construct the ethic to direct the voter as to how to vote until after the election tells them what is “right” to vote for. Besides, the history of mankind does not recommend mob rule as a satisfactory source of ethical authority. Democracies lead to Dictatorships. French Revolutions result in Napoleons. If it is not the majority that decrees the morality of how a man should vote, what does?

There is a simple passage in Exodus that brings out an important reflection on “democracy”:

"You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice,

(Exo 23:1-2 ESV)

The Democratic Ethic says it is the “The Many” that define what is good and evil. Under that logic, it would be impossible for the Multitude to do evil, because “justice” would be what the Many decide to do. We cannot argue with the history of the human race that shows how changeable and contradictory and destructive the will of the majority can be at times.

Every person will judge using some non-democratic ethical principles, whether the Majority, Committee, or Dictator is doing what they think is “right”. We betray ourselves and demonstrate that we all have a sense of authority that comes from somewhere besides Man.

Yet our emailer above insists upon the respect for a law (feticide on demand for any reason up through all 9 months of pregnancy) that was put in place by the authoritative god of Recent American “Democracy”. The God of the Bible has actually given mankind the dignity of never mentioning in His Revelation – the prohibition of butchering their sons and daughters into little pieces or vacuuming out their brains while INSIDE their mother’s wombs. He does mention that it would have never occurred to Him that men would worship imaginary gods or demons by sacrificing their newborns by placing them on the red-hot metal arms of a pot-bellied statue so that they would writhe off and be burned up in the furnace. But aside from requiring a father-determined-fine on top of life-for-life, damage-for-damage punishment (if there is any harm after physical accident to a mother which causes a premature birth (technical abortion)] – there is no mention in the Bible of parents intentionally murdering their children in utero (only dashing out the brains of already-born infants).

God did say, when He made the covenant with Noah after the Flood:

And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image. And you, be fruitful and multiply, teem on the earth and multiply in it."

(Gen 9:5-7 ESV)

And if that wasn’t enough, the rest of the Old Testament and the New – helpfully details out for our thinking just how we can love our neighbor as ourselves by not murdering him, or striking against God’s image in Man by taking away his property or freedom that represents his “life”.

Life, property, and the freedom to use that property (starting with one’s body and working out to what’s exchanged for the labor of that body): These are all in view in God’s announcement that, henceforth, He will require a reckoning. He will be the one who designs, and enforces consequences for those who strike at His Image in man by striking at a man’s physical life, his freedom to express that life, and his ownership and control of his property.

“I will require it,” say some translations. Not only did God give men the privilege to punish other men, but also He requires that they fulfill this responsibility, either by direct participation or by proxy. Romans 13 says “for this cause you pay tax”. What cause? Punishing crime. Execute God’s wrath on the evildoer. God’s wrath, not the majority’s wrath. For what God counts evil, not what men count evil. Men only have two choices, either they will punish the men God defines as guilty of crime, and bless with life and freedom those God defines as innocent – or – they will bless with life and freedom those whom God defines as evil-doers, and punish those whom God defines as innocent.

Now, maybe I’m missing something, you can correct me if there is a third way.

If men offend against God’s revealed standard, either by commission, or omission, God promises to require it of them.

In a way, every culture is a PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.

“People’s” because whether Bible, monarch, committee, or democracy is considered the ethical sovereign – it will be the majority of people who demand or tolerate what the Powers-that-be are doing. What those people think are the proper definitions of crime and punishment will make all the difference between heaven- and hell-on-earth.

“Democratic” because the majority will carry the day, even though none of the individuals who make up the majority can logically think that the Ethic derives from any election.

“Republic” because, in practical terms, no direct voting by majority can run a country – there will always be the few men of ability, wealth, and influence that will end up understanding, initiating, and administering the decisions that direct the soldiers and policemen.

So if we look at your emailer’s paragraph, we are going to come to think of the “god” he mentions as either the God of the Bible (he is arguing this from a Biblical passage), or the Democracy, which a majority in our American culture at the present time irrationally thinks is the source of ethical authority. The God of the Bible says it is not logically possible or ethically “good” to have the majority be the source of defining crime and punishment. The prevailing democratic idea says it is not possible to have any theocratic meddling in law making. I think logic forces us to realize that it is never possible for any people to define laws – except out of the moral base that derives from their practical religion.

The God of the Bible promises to judge every man – short- and long-term – by His own Law. He will judge the king as well as the subject. If the king tells the soldiers and policemen to execute/kidnap a man for something that the God of the Bible denies is a crime at all – those governmental officials will be culpable for committing that capital crime before the Great Judge. If the voters vote for the soldiers and policemen to take money away from the people that earned it, to construct a “safety net” to enslave the poor in dependency, then the voters will share the culpability for that property crime before the Great Judge.

The contradiction drives us crazy, because we see God’s standards for behavior of human king and peasant -- that they lead to maximum human dignity, freedom, prosperity, and enjoyment of family stewardship of property. Yet we see men in high places of power, ruling with just the opposite effect. They are causing the premature deaths of millions, starvation, war, disease, severe restrictions on freedom, and property confiscation on unimaginable scales. If God ordains them, why are they so bad?

The short/obvious answer that your emailer completely misses is that there are offenses worse than those committed between one human and another. If the human offenses against his own Creator and Redeemer are greater than those possible between humans – we could expect that a righteous God might discipline rebellious communities that refuse to show gratitude and honor Him. He would have a way to “spank” those nations through the powers of those “ordained” authorities He allows to rise to the place of influence. He uses civil governments, policemen, and soldiers. He can use the nation-next-door to strike the nation, or he can use a nation’s own government to afflict its own citizens.

It is proper to think of God’s direct actions bringing these events about. But it also true, if you trace the history in the light of those good healthy laws God gave mankind: that men pull down their house with their own hands. They want the types of men and policies that end up hurting them, just like a drug addict craves the very things that are damaging his body. When they want free and subsidized things from the govt and cheap loans from a govt-protected fiat/fractional-reserve banking system -- they do not have the foresight to see that this “wealth” can only come to them to the degree that it is coerced and stolen from the very community that thinks they are “benefiting” from this legal travesty.

If the community of men are mindful of the basic rules Paul highlights right after this passage focusing on govt….

Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

(Rom 13:1-10 ESV)

…they will understand that kings, judges, policemen, and soldiers are also under authority to God to not murder, steal from, or do wrong to those they are ordained to protect. If they understand that an infinite God is the ethical sovereign over all govt, they will not be thinking WeThePeople are the sovereigns over govt officials. If the majority has the right to define good and evil in terms of the crimes officers are to punish, they will always fall to the temptation to craft laws that will justify legal plunder. The common people will desire the govt to be coercive to their advantage, but only coerce “the other guy”. That is when you end up with a Bad Govt.

The People eagerly desire and ordain it to their own harm (because – through its defiance of God’s laws of love – the law has to steal from one to give to another), and God also ordains it for the People’s discipline for their rebellion against His gracious rule. So both are ordaining it. That is why we see such verses in the Bible that show the equal function by God, and The People in the establishment of oppressive central government:

And now behold the king whom you have chosen,

for whom you have asked;

behold, the LORD has set a king over you.

(1Sa 12:13 ESV)

Now, to be fair, Saul was actually a better king, in marital fidelity, taxation, and freedom than David, David’s son Solomon & grandson,  Rehoboam. The people groaned under the increasing oppression until they rebelled against Rehoboam and started another nation – just like God had prophesied at the beginning. So when you see a government oppressing people, realize that the People wanted it that way, and God wants it that way.

But this is not something God delights in. He delights in Reform and turning, changing direction, and voluntary action. As long as People imagine that they can keep ignoring God and His Word, and – next election – (this time for sure) they will force the Govt to charge less taxes and be less oppressive -- they only end up being more oppressive to each other, and getting deceived and robbed by a more-savvy Elite. But….if they will acknowledge the justice of God in His ordination of their oppressive government and switch to honoring God’s ethical authority over both king and Majority, they will repent of using human government to steal from each other. Love will not be partner with a thief and eagerly share in the benefits of confiscatory taxation. Love knows that God will judge both the thief and the customer who gets his discounted goods from the thief.

When Christians start laying down their lives by voluntarily refusing the plunder offered them by Govt coercion, whether it be in the form of:

Education,

Food,

Housing,

Transportation,

energy-efficient appliances,

lower-interest loans of money,

higher interest rates or

more security to their savings,

protections or privileges for their business,

health insurance and care,

pensions and retirement wealth

– the govt will not have to tax so much. If this is done in obedience and reverence for God, God will look down and withdraw His hand of judgment by changing the government into one more worthy of a self-controlled and non-coercive society.

Only a People like this will have their eyes opened to recognize the kind of men that will serve them best in political office:

Furthermore, you shall select out of all the people able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain; and you shall place these over them as leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens. 22 Let them judge the people at all times;

Ex 18: 21 NASB

They will understand, that just as they, as a people, need to hate dishonest/unjust gain – they must also reject wanna-be leaders who are eager for stealing from productive people and kicking back benefits to the Populace, as bribes, to justify their behavior. But in most times of Reformation, the humans who are in power, collecting the wealth of the fooled and passives Masses – will not give up their place of privilege without a fight. Some of us will need to lay down our lives, just like the example of the True King and Owner of us all. We will have to give up our property, freedom, and our lives voluntarily (just like we got ourselves into this jam by voluntarily claiming property, freedom, and life that was not ours – especially denying the Life, Freedom, and Property of God Almighty).

We invite you to come and join the Benefit Revolt.