|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
I’m writing this because of a conversation I had recently on Facebook with a young guy I know. It felt like we were kind of talking past each other, so I wanted to clear the air. We were discussing the current headlines where state governors and city mayors are rebelling against the Federal government over immigration policy in Minnesota. It raises a massive question: When is it okay to say "no" to the people in charge?
A lot of people get tripped up by Romans 13, thinking it means we have to agree with everything the government does. Luckily, back in the 90s, I had the chance to dive deep into this with a friend of mine, Dr. Robert Morey. He was an "International Who’s Who" scholar and wrote a powerhouse book called When Is It Right to Fight? (RIP, Doc).
If you think the Bible demands blind obedience to every politician based on Romans 13, Dr. Morey’s research might blow your mind. Here’s the breakdown.
The "Job Description" Argument
Dr. Morey pointed out something we usually skip over: Romans 13 isn't just a command for us; it’s a job description for them. Paul says the government is "God’s servant for your good."
Morey’s logic is simple: A "minister of God" must actually do God’s work. * If a government protects the innocent and keeps things orderly, it’s doing its job.
- If a government starts ignoring the law, hurting the innocent, or letting chaos run wild, it’s failing its "performance review" from God.
- In the case of Minnesota it is obvious that the Governor and Minneapolis Mayor did more than ignore the law. They promoted anarchy by creating rules preventing their law enforcement from helping to uphold the law. In addition, they encouraged citizens to interfere with law enforcement causing absolute chaos.
- What is the evidence? Simple. The same Federal Law is being enacted in other states and cities that have similar views against law enforcement. However, their leaders are not encouraging civilian interference. This may change, but for now the evidence is clear.
As Morey explains, when a government stops fulfilling its divine purpose, it loses that "divine right" to be obeyed without question. It’s like a contract—if one side breaks it, the whole deal changes.
The Office vs. The Officer
This is a huge point for the current debate between states and the Feds. Morey made a big distinction between the office of government and the person (or politician) holding it.
We respect the office because God likes order, not anarchy. But we don't have to respect or obey a corrupt officer who is breaking the law themselves. If a leader at the top violates the Constitution or God's higher law, they are actually the ones being "rebellious." In that case, lower-level leaders (like governors or mayors) might actually have a duty to stand up and follow the law instead of a rogue leader.
If that were the case they would be within their God given rights to rebel. However, that is not the case. Like it or not the current Federal law on immigration and deportation stands. In a Republic, such as ours, if you don't like a law it can be modified or terminated by Federal Representatives. To date, neither party has changed the law.
Was 1776 a Sin?
This is where my friend on Facebook got stuck. If we have to obey all authorities, then the American Revolution was a sin, right?
Dr. Morey’s answer was a firm no. He argued that the Founders weren't just a random mob. They were "lower magistrates"—local leaders who realized the King had become a tyrant. They tried to work with the King and Parliament for 11 years.
People living in England had representatives in Parliament during King George III's reign (1760–1820), but the system was not democratic by modern standards. However, British subjects in England, Wales, and Scotland were represented, the American colonists were not, leading to the "taxation without representation" complaint. By fighting back, they weren't rejecting Romans 13.
Roman Practices in Paul's Day
Roman Emperors and the Roman state generally allowed for the representation and, more importantly, the retention of local cultural, political, and social institutions in conquered lands. Rather than immediately forcing total assimilation, the Romans adopted a pragmatic approach to governance, often keeping local elites in power to maintain stability, provided they paid taxes, supplied soldiers, and remained loyal to Rome. They actually had taxation with representation.
So, When Is It Right to Fight?
Morey didn't believe in starting a riot over every little disagreement. In his book, he explains that for a "pushback" to be biblically okay, it usually needs to meet some high bars:
- A Just Cause: You’re protecting life, liberty, or the rule of law. The Trump Administration is doing just that.
- Last Resort: You’ve tried talking, voting, and taking it to court, and the higher power is still acting like a tyrant. The House and Senate have not changed the law and Supreme Court orders are being followed.
- Lawful Authority: It’s usually led by "lower" leaders (like states) protecting the people from a "higher" leader who has gone off the rails.The American Constitution puts Federal law above State law. This was settled during the Civil War.
The Bottom Line
Romans 13 wasn't written to turn Christians into "yes-men" for the state. It was written to show that God values justice and order.
As Dr. Morey put it, the Bible doesn't teach "peace at any price." It teaches that our highest loyalty is to God and His standards of justice. If a government tells you to do what God forbids, or if it stops protecting the people it was hired to serve, the "blank check" of obedience is cancelled.
So, whether we’re talking about 1776 or modern-day clashes between states and the Feds, remember: We follow the Boss (God), not the middle managers (politicians) when they start breaking the rules.
I am sure this will lead to further questions. Feel free to leave them in the comments below.