If you have friends who are Christian and are talking about Jeff Sessions and his attempt to cover for our governmentâs policies around how we are currently handling families who are attempting to migrate into the United States along the Southern Border by using a Biblical reference I would encourage you to read the following from Reverend Anne Dunlap who is the Faith Coordinator for Showing Up for Racial Justice (SURJ).
âThe one who loves another has fulfilled the law...Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.â
This is Paul, in Romans 13. Â The same Paul who says in Romans 12:2 âDo not be conformed to this world...so that you may discern what is the will of God.â
The same Paul who, we are told, argues that one should âobeyâ the âgoverning authoritiesâ (13:1). Â Or as Attorney General Jeff Sessions put it yesterday as a defense for separating immigrant families (i.e. taking children from their parents) one should âobey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order.â
In this understanding, to be lawful, to obey the government is a good thing. Â Those who are not âlawfulâ are, in Sessionsâs words, âsubject to prosecution.â Â Â Paulâs apparent sanctioning of law and government as good is thus given the weight of scriptural moral authority. Â
Romans 13:1-7 has a long and troubled history of being used by governing bodies to support whatever action they have deemed âlawful,â regardless of how oppressive or violent that law might be. Â In the history of the U.S., just as one example, those who defended enslavement often used Romans 13 as their biblical source of moral authority. Â Enslavement was the law, and therefore everyone must follow the law. Â
This is essentially the argument Sessions and this administration are trying to make about immigration laws.
Iâve spent a lot of time scrutinizing this text, digging into the original Greek language, reading it in the context of the whole of Paulâs letter to the Romans and Paulâs other letters, and taking into account the historical context in which Paul was writing. Â What is Paul talking about here? Â Why do these verses seem so out of place after chapter 12 and even the rest of chapter 13? Â How can Paul say âdo not be conformed to this worldâ and then say in the next breath âobey the governmentâ?
The fact that 13:1-7 seems out of character with what has come before and after should be a clue for us that something else is going on here. Â We might also think about how often Paul proudly ended up in Roman prisons and, tradition tells us, was executed by the Roman Empire -- perhaps even under the order of Nero himself. Â Does that sound like someone who simply âobeyed the government?â
So, what if what we have been told Romans 13:1-7 means is not actually what Paul means? What if âobeying the laws of the governmentâ is not what Paul is saying at all?
I could say so much about this! Â But briefly: Letter to the Romans is first and foremost Paulâs argument about the sovereignty of God -- in the face of Rome and Caesar. Â This is important! Â The Roman emperors claimed both to be divine and to have divine authority to rule (including with the title âSon of Godâ - though not the One God of Paul). Â Throughout Paulâs letters, including Romans, we see Paul both outrightly and subtly condemning Roman imperial culture and Caesar - they âworshiped and served the creature rather than the Creatorâ (Rom 1:25). Â In Romans, Paul takes every logic of the Roman empire, every power claimed by Caesar - âlaw and order,â âmercy,â âgrace,â âjustification,â âsanctification,â âpiety,â âstrong and weak,â âpeace and security,â (these should all sound familiar to Christians) - and turns them on their heads to defend the sovereignty of God. Â
Basically, in Romans Paul demolishes Roman imperial theology that defends (âjustifiesâ) its violence and corruption through divine moral authority ascribed to Caesar. For Paul, God is sovereign, not Caesar. Â Such a claim would most certainly be a violation of what Rome considered âlawfulâ and âgood.â Â
Paul is making this argument not just for argumentâs sake, though. Â Â Heâs making a theological and ethical argument to remind the Roman citizens who were members of the Jesus-following community that they are to be faithful to Godâs ways, not Roman ways (one way we might think of âthe fleshâ in Paulâs usage). Â Those with privilege in this multi-ethnic, multi-class community made up not only of Roman citizens but also returned-from-exile Jews, enslaved people, and poor laborers need the reminder to ânot be conformed to this world.â Â Indeed all the instructions in Romans 12 - share power, love with affection, practice humility, be hospitable to strangers, redistribute your wealth, feed your enemies - are values and practices completely counter to Roman ways.
So where does that leave us with Romans 13? Â Well, first of all itâs clear here that God is sovereign, and that those in authority are servants of the One God - which is actually limiting the power of Caesar and Rome by naming them as âtable-waitersâ in Godâs overall plan. Â Talk about putting Rome in its place!
Also! Â Nowhere does it actually say âobey.â Â The verb Paul chooses, translated as âbe subject toâ in the NIV and NRSV, is one Paul uses throughout his letters and implies agency and discernment (see again 12:2). Â One makes a choice -- to be faithful to the One God or not. Â The threat of judgement and âthe swordâ tells us that contrary to Neroâs propaganda of a new age of peace, the threat of violence against those who do not âworship the creatureâ is still very real -- as many of those in this Jesus-following Roman community knew very well. Â
âBe subject toâ does not mean âobey the laws because laws are good and government is good because God said so.â Â Â Â It means to make a choice. Â Godâs way, or Romeâs way? Â
For the privileged Roman citizens to whom this letter was written, Â Romans 13:1 - âbe subject to the governing authoritiesâ - is the reminder to take themselves out of Romeâs death-dealing ways and align themselves with those in their community who are most oppressed by Rome, to throw in their lot with those most marginalized and accept the consequences -- to be subject to Rome, not part of the power structure inflicting violence on others.
Today, when those with governmental power are inflicting harm and calling it âlawfulâ and therefore âgoodâ and are using Romans 13 as their biblical moral authority to do so, itâs not enough to say that some laws are good and some are not; that message still implies that Romans 13 says what the powerful say it does.
Those of us who find ourselves in a similar position to the privileged Roman citizens - especially those of us who are middle and upper class white Christian folks - can push back and say Romans 13 doesnât mean âobey the government.â Â Romans 13 means being faithful to God, it means refusing the power to inflict harm and living instead into Godâs vision, practicing Godâs values. Â Romans 13 means âlove does no wrong to a neighborâ and refusing to accept wrong to a neighbor even if that wrong is âlawful.â
Love does no wrong to a neighbor. Â That is the fulfilling of the law, Paul says. That is everything and all that matters, and we are under no obligation to faithful to anything else, regardless of what the government tries to tell us is âgoodâ and âlawful.â
Taking children from their parents? Â Thatâs wrong. Â There is no biblical defense for that. Period.
With love and solidarity,
P.S. Â Whew, that was a lot, right? Â Check out Rev. Anneâs podcast on Romans to learn more about how to read Romans differently and in a way that supports collective liberation (transcript with resources here). Â SURJ-Faithâs âCommunity Safety for Allâ campaign invites us to live into that alternative vision; learn more here.