A Thinking Reed

St. Paul vs. Jefferson or Can a Christian be a liberal?

Written by

Lee M.

in

Earlier I suggested my approval of the liberal theory of government that holds that “governments are instituted among Men” to “secure” the rights of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,” and that governments dervie “their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

On its face, though, this seems to contradict the Christian understanding of government given in what Josh called the “much-abused” Romans 13:

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 for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will 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. Therefore, 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. (Rom. 13:1-7)

On the one hand we have governement as essentially a human construct that exists to serve the needs of people (and could theoretically be changed or even abolished if it failed to do that).

On the other hand we have a notion of government as an instrument of divine wrath that serves to punish evil, requiring obedience. But how does that fit with the idea that we must “obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29)?

Are these two notions compatible? Or does one or the other have to go?

Comments

2 responses to “St. Paul vs. Jefferson or Can a Christian be a liberal?”

  1. jack perry

    My suggestion: What Paul is talking about is not the circumstance you are talking about later. He is talking about obeying the legitimate law that is compatible with God’s law, or at least is not clearly incompatible: for example, pay your taxes. After all, Paul did give his life for Christ in Rome.

    Then apply “Grace builds on nature.” God may establish and use the governing authority, but that doesn’t mean that God “prefers” (if I may use such a word) the governing authorities.

    Having said all this & realizing that this may not be a very convincing argument, I will appeal finally to “mercy vs. justice.” I think there is a false paradox in both cases.

    Reply
  2. Marcus

    I think Paul alludes to the very same concept of the state found in ancient, pagan conservatism and to which I subscribe.

    But it is part of this concept that civil disobedience, and perhaps more active forms of resistance, may be justified or even a duty in case a government attempts to coerce wrongdoing, or obstruct duty.

    Reply

Leave a reply to jack perry Cancel reply

More posts