This post is not my opinion on a video, constitutional law, civil rights, etc. This post is me, as a pastor, weighing in on theology.

I have seen pastors recently cite Romans 13 as if it were the answer to all the questions we might have about how we interact with the state. Some seem to imply that biblical teaching can be summed up in a single word: comply. After all, Paul writes, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.”

That is, I think it’s fair to say, the starting point. God has established governing authorities – kings, presidents, governors, and magistrates – to provide stability and establish justice. They are there to be a blessing to those who do good and a terror to those who do evil. They are to be supported by our taxes and our prayers.

But that does not adequately represent the robust teaching of Scripture. Here are a few ideas we need to hold in balance and tension.

First, while Romans 13 states that God has established ruling authorities to “carry out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer,” we can also be certain that God will hold rulers accountable for how they use this authority. This authority is a responsibility granted to the state and delegated to individual representatives that the state chooses to wield it. But, as with anything given by God, the recipient will give an account to God of how they stewarded that gift. To Christians, God has given spiritual gifts to be used for the common good. Peter writes, “As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God” (1 Peter 4:10-11). We will be held accountable for how we use those gifts. The parable of the talents (Matthew 25) clearly makes this point: use the things God has delegated to us responsibly, or else. This extends beyond the church. John the Baptist’s words to the tax collectors and soldiers make that point – don’t go beyond or abuse your God-given authority, or else (Luke 3). We can be certain that God will hold the state, not abstractly, but actual actors of the state, responsible for their stewardship of God-given authority. If they use the sword not simply to punish wrongdoers, but to wage wars of conquest, spread empire, silence those who’d dare to criticize or protest – woe to them.

Second, being accountable to God does not mean they are not accountable to man. Moses called Pharaoh to account. Samuel called King Saul to account. Nathan called King David to account. John the Baptist opposed Herod to his face. Peter told Caiaphas and the rulers that their decree exceeded their authority (and they could shove it). In the United States, we have the right & responsibility to hold our leaders accountable at the ballot box, as well as constitutionally guaranteed rights to hold them accountable through the free exercise of speech and the press, and the right to assemble and protest.

Third, legal is not the same as moral. An agent of the state may be enforcing laws, acting in legally permissible ways, and still be in the wrong. Paul went through Damascus carrying letters from the rulers giving him the authority to arrest followers of the Way and bring them bound to Jerusalem (Acts 9). This persecution was legal, but Paul considers it a great evil, expressing gratitude that he “received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.” His legal actions were immoral and evil, and required the costly forgiveness of God. The beheading of John the Baptist, the persecution of the early church, the execution of Peter, Paul, James, and even the crucifixion of Jesus were all legal, but grossly immoral, immensely wicked. The prophet Isaiah calls down woes on those rulers who would enact unjust laws.

Woe to those who make unjust laws,
to those who issue oppressive decrees,
2 to deprive the poor of their rights
and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people,
making widows their prey
and robbing the fatherless. (Isaiah 10:1-2)

Legal doesn’t mean moral. Decreed doesn’t mean right. Ordered doesn’t mean just.

Fourth, disobedience is sometimes required. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego defied King Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel did not comply with Darius. Peter continued to preach despite being ordered to cease. Roda harbored an escaped fugitive (Peter). Hypothetically, had Paul demanded the Christians in Damascus be brought to the center of town for stoning, refusing to turn over Christian’s despite the ‘lawful order’ would have been right. [Some] Christians rightly helped runaway slaves get north. European Christians (sadly, not all) defied Nazi’s and kept Jews safely hidden. We must obey God rather than man, and when complying with the state would be immoral, we must refuse.

Russell Moore, in a piece written last week, rightly contends that Romans 13 is not intended to be the one-size-fits-all text about Christians and the state. It does not lead to the conclusion that Christians owe obedience to the governing authorities in every instance. He writes, “Romans 13 is about refusing to become what oppresses you, not about baptizing whatever the oppressor does. And Romans 13 puts moral limits around what authorities can and cannot do—it tells them to use the sword against “the wrongdoer,” for instance. Paul wrote Romans 13 not to protect the state from critique but to shield the church from vengeance.”

Pastors have their own biases to contend with, and we often struggle to navigate them. It frequently seems to be true that if a pastor supports a given administration, they’ll trot out Romans 13 at any (and every) sign of resistance. But if the pastor opposes a given administration, they’ll trot out Acts 5 to justify their defiance of government authority.