Re-Thinking Romans 13 (Part 5)

Avoiding Conflicts of Authority

Read Parts One, Two, Three and Four.

The majority view of Romans 13 within Christianity that we are to obey the state has a large problem: conflict of authority.

It must be remembered that all authority has been given to Jesus (Matt 28) so all human authority is derivative and delegated. But all of us have been given authority in our various positions within the realms of individual, family, church and civil government. And this authority comes directly from God through His word. And along with that authority delegated to us from God comes the authority to act on that authority. This seems obvious, but it is necessary to point out, as I will show.

The fault with the "obey the state" view, is that nearly the entire history of human civil governments is one of usurpation of the authority of another. States are tyrannical. The "obey the state" view sets up the civil government as an authority that is an authority over all other authorities; it is the highest authority. Thus it has implicit veto power over God's direct commands to others who have authority. If it then has veto power over God Himself, then the state is higher than God, which is idolatry. So, those who view Romans 13 as a call to obey the state hold an idolatrous view.

For example, parents are given authority over their children and are commanded to raise them in the admonition of the Lord. If this is so, then the parents, not the state, are in charge in the family. If parents think it right to train their teenage children in the proper consumption of alcohol in order to have self control as adults, this is good. How then can the state legislate a drinking age of 21? If the parents have authority in the family, then the civil government is subject to the parents' authority in the matter, and not the other way around.

Another example is in exercise of gifts. If one has the gift of healing (not necessarily in the miraculous sense), and has talents that enable him to heal people of diseases, and God has already commanded us to exercise our gifts in serving others, then he has the authority from God Himself to heal. If he heals somebody, nobody but a bunch of Pharisees would cry foul. So then how could the state have authority to prosecute (read persecute) this man for "practicing medicine without a license" unless the state held a higher authority than God? The exercising of gifts for the good of others would come under the realm of individual government, with the individual holding the position of authority, and again not the state.

So for Christians to claim that the state has veto power authority over already delegated authority is to claim the sovereignty of Caesar over God. When Christians give the state authority to do more than its only granted authority of punishment of evildoers, contradictions arise. The beauty of Christian liberty is the authority that God gives us to carry out our duties before God. We have the authority and duty to do good, no matter what man may say.

Part 4 . . . . . . . . Part 6