Romans 13, a Different Perspective.

"Now there are many who would say that  we should be obedient to state laws. Romans thirteen is thrown at me so many times that I just expect it automatically and now I come up with it in the course of a talk. In fact one person told me I had no right to criticize the federal reserve system, this was a minister, turned out that his uncle was a member of the federal reserve board.  Or that we have no right to criticize politicians, well I hardly see that; and it’s wrong for us to resist. Well that always leads me to ask in return “well what was saint Paul doing in prison so many times?”

 Now what Romans thirteen tells us is that the powers that be are ordained of God indeed. But it also tells us they are to be ministers of God. That God has ordained on the one hand a ministry of grace, and then a ministry of justice. Now do you mean if I’m sitting in a church where the ministry of grace is being turned into a ministry of abomination by a modernist preacher I’m to say nothing? I’m to protest. And if I’m in a state where the ministry of justice is turned into a ministry of injustice I’m to use every Godly means to protest that… So we cannot use Romans thirteen to silence Christians, that’s an excuse to evade Christian responsibility"

~Rousas John Rushdoony

I came across this in my transcribing this week (which, by the way I set a new record of 38,707 words this week) and thought it was excellent, as much of Rushdoony's work is.

When I was attending a church out in Idaho I actually had a preacher use the West Minister Catechism to preach on how we need to submit to the government and that we could not criticize politicians or speak ill of them.

This is where I believe the problem lies. Rushdoony uses the example of protesting when the ministry of grace is being perverted abominably. Well maybe back in 1965ish when he was talking somebody might have protested, but not anymore. The churches are as guilty of perverting their God given duties as the Civil Government is, hence why we have people believing the common Roman's 13 interpretation of "lay down and let the government destroy all that is true, honest, just, pure, lovely, and of good report, because that is
your Biblical duty" (Philippians 4:8 reference). If we will not stand up for what is right in the church, how can we expect anyone to stand up for what is right in the civil government?

“Rebellion to tyranny is obedience to God.” - Thomas Jefferson

Obviously our forefathers did not have the same view of Romans 13 as we do. Granted, Thomas Jefferson is not a good example of Christianity (he was a deist who didn't believe in miracles, just Google the "Jefferson Bible") however it was a largely Puritan nation that went to war against the injustices of parliament. Ministers during the Revolutionary war were known as the "Black Robed Regiment" by the British due to the powerful sermons they would preach (while wearing the traditional black robes of ministers) against the injustices of England's rule and the necessity for liberty in Christ that would stir their congregations into resisting the tyranny of the Brits.

Thus we can see that the current popular interpretation of Roman's thirteen is not only Unbiblical but spits in the face of out heritage, the very ideals that this country was founded on. You'd think that we would have thought this through a little more before adopting a communistic Statist interpretation of the Bible.