One very clear point of scripture – clearer than many seem to give due regard to the plain meaning of the text – is that Christians are subject to the authorities, are to submit to their government and are to obey them. Writing to Titus in Crete, Paul is pretty clear: ‘Remind them to submit to rulers and authorities, to obey’ (3:1). Nor is this the only place where Paul says this. Romans 13:1-7 is fairly comprehensive.
Nor, it should be said, is Paul the only one to say these things. Peter says the following:
Submit to every human authority because of the Lord, whether to the emperor as the supreme authority or to governors as those sent out by him to punish those who do what is evil and to praise those who do what is good. For it is God’s will that you silence the ignorance of foolish people by doing good. Submit as free people, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but as God’s slaves. Honour everyone. Love the brothers and sisters. Fear God. Honour the emperor. – 1 Peter 2:13-17
These comments are entirely in line with Jesus’ own in Matthew 22. Not only that, in line with Jesus’ own submission to authorities in Matthew 26. In fact, Matthew 26 is quite instructive as Peter is told he will fall away because of Jesus that very night. Clearly Peter does not fall away because he is afraid to fight; he is the one who pulls out his sword and insists he is ready to die for Jesus. The point at which his disciples run away is when Jesus says this:
Then Jesus told him, ‘Put your sword back in its place because all who take up the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot call on my Father, and he will provide me here and now with more than twelve legions of angels? How, then, would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen this way? ’
At that time Jesus said to the crowds, ‘Have you come out with swords and clubs, as if I were a criminal, to capture me? Every day I used to sit, teaching in the temple, and you didn’t arrest me. But all this has happened so that the writings of the prophets would be fulfilled.’ Then all the disciples deserted him and ran away. – Matthew 26:52-56
What scandalised the disciples – and Peter in particular – was that Jesus refused to fight. It wasn’t the enemy that made him fall away, as Jesus said specifically, it was ‘because of me’. He was not the Messiah they expected even then. Jesus submitted himself to the authorities, even as they arrest him unjustly.
All of these things must be understood together. Jesus taught that we are to submit to the authorities. Jesus submitted himself to the authorities. Both Paul and Peter – in line with Jesus – call believers to submit to the authorities. The overwhelming tenor of scripture is that we are called to submit and obey.
What is more, we cannot argue that this is fine so long as the government is not unjust or totalitarian. These comments were made under the rule of Emperor Nero. Nero was not famed for his just laws, his benevolence toward Christian people and could not be described as anything less than a totalitarian despot. He was responsible for the death of the very Apostles who told Christian people to submit to him. Unless we are living under a government that is more totalitarian, tyrannical and despotic than Nero – and you would be hard-pressed to make that case in almost any modern Western country today – we have no grounds not to obey our government.
The only exception given to us in scripture – and it is an inference drawn from example – is when Peter and the Apostles are specifically commanded not to preach any longer in the name of Jesus (cf. Acts 5:17-32). Specifically, Peter asserts: ‘We must obey God rather than people.’ The inference being, where we are specifically commanded to do something by Jesus and we are being actively stopped from doing it unreasonably, we must obey God rather than people. That is, where there is a direct conflict, we must (though we would rather not have to) obey God and, therefore, disobey the ruling authorities. What is frequently overlooked is that – having been first arrested and then miraculously released from prison by an angel – the Apostles are directly command in v20: ‘Go and stand in the temple, and tell the people all about this life.’ They are not operating in this instance under the general command to go into all the world and preach the gospel. They are responding to a direct and specific command to go to the temple in particular and preach the gospel publicly there. This is the context in which Peter makes his comments in response to the High Priest insisting, ‘Didn’t we strictly order you not to teach in this name?’ Several things are worth saying here.
First, the overwhelming tenor of scripture when it comes to our relationship to the authorities is submission and obedience. Acts 5 presents an exception – what should otherwise be an unusual exception at that – to the overall tenor of scripture relating to authorities. As a general rule, we are to submit and obey. Exceptions must be exactly that; exceptional. We should be very wary of those who seem to find so many exceptions that they end up constituting the ordinary rule. The exception only applies where we are being commanded to submit to something by the government that would contravene another command of Christ to us. In such circumstances, we have to weigh the command in question bearing in mind he equally commands us to submit to government.
Second, we cannot invoke the exception where the Bible doesn’t. Claims of government overreach, for example, are simply not biblical. There is no such exception given to us in scripture. Nero would be a classic example of tyrannical overreach such as there could ever be one. This was not given as grounds to disobey. The only grounds for disobedience is strict and direct contradiction of things Jesus absolutely commands of his followers. Tyranny and totalitarian reach into our everyday lives – unpleasant and objectionable as that may be for all manner of reasons – is not strictly, in and of itself, a biblical grounds to disobey the authorities.
Third, if we are going to invoke the exception, we need to be clear specifically how this is directly causing us to disobey God. For example, I have been involved in Open Air and beach mission evangelism most of my life. I have, on occasion, been involved in situations where local authorities have sought to stop one mode of outreach. Some were very quick to claim government overreach and that this was stopping us obeying God. I was, however, less convinced.
Scripture commands us to share the gospel and make disciples; it does not command us to do Open Air outreach. Authorities shutting down one means (albeit a legitimate means) of sharing the gospel is not the same as them stopping the sharing of the gospel. It bears remembering again, the Apostles in Peter’s exceptional circumstance were directly commanded to stand and preach in the temple itself. Both the means and the location were expressly commanded in a way those things have not been commanded to us. To not be allowed to do Open Airs ever again would not be to force us to disobey any direct command of Christ; it would simply mean we had to find other ways of fulfilling the mandate to share the gospel and make disciples.
Fourth, we need to be careful not to call anti-Christian or anti-gospel what is, more likely, driven by altogether different motivations. A lot of the things I have run into that appear to stop certain means of evangelism usually (though not always) have nothing to do with anybody seeking to stop the sharing of the gospel. Usually, the concerns are more to do with general noise issues, by-laws on littering or all manner of other quite mundane things that have some impact on the means we might use to share the gospel. We don’t commend the gospel by crying foul every time these things happen when, in fact, the motivations and concerns – which are legitimately public concerns – are altogether different. Again, rather than defy the government and insist this is government overreach, we do well to simply find a third way.
Fifth, if we are absolutely clear that this is stopping us obeying a direct command of Christ for us and this absolutely warrants invoking the exception, we should do so quietly. Crowing about our civil disobedience is seeking to make ourselves martyrs. The Apostles did not do that when they invoked the exception. In fact, the authorities had no idea they had escaped prison nor that they were preaching again in the temple. They simply got on and did it until they were arrested again. We are not called to make ourselves martyrs nor invite martyrdom upon ourselves. If we are adamant that we cannot obey this command because it means we, personally, would be disobeying Christ to do it, we are to quietly opt out not to parade our disobedience as a badge of honour.
Sixth, if we quietly invoke our exception, we haven’t crowed about it and yet our disobedience is discovered, submission to the authorities still demands that we submit ourselves to their sanctions. I think Richard Wurmbrand – the Romanian pastor who was arrested for the practice of Christianity under the Soviet Union who had a position of enforced State Atheism – helps us understand the situation well.
When the USSR enforced state control of churches, Wurmbrand demurred and quietly began an underground ministry. He was arrested for doing so. Once in prion, he famously said this in his book Tortured for Christ:
It was strictly forbidden to preach to other prisoners. It was understood that whoever was caught doing this received a severe beating. A number of us decided to pay the price for the privilege of preaching, so we accepted their [the communists’] terms. It was a deal; we preached and they beat us. We were happy preaching. They were happy beating us, so everyone was happy.
Wurmbrand did not crow about his civil disobedience. He quietly disobeyed. When he was discovered, he submitted to the imprisonment. When he was in prison, he submitted to “the deal” of preaching for beatings. Wrong as these laws may have been, Wurmbrand submitted to the consequences of disobedience and did not seek to make a martyr of himself in doing so.
My purpose in writing all of this is not to say there are never exceptions to our submission. As I note above, I think there are. However, I think the tendency of many is to invoke those exceptions far more readily and regularly than the Bible would give us grounds to do so. There are some who seem to forget that the overwhelming majority of what the Bible has to say about our relationship to government authority is simply this: obey and submit to the authorities; honour your leaders. The grounds many cite for not doing so are rarely, in my view, biblical or justified given what the Bible has to say on this matter.
This is specifically a problem because the whole letter of Titus (where we started) is about godliness. Paul is specifically concerned with the growth in godliness of the believers in Crete. Chapter 3 concerns godliness in society. Specifically, our obedience and submission to our government is a mark of our godliness. Those quick to crow about overreach and quick to find exceptions to the clear and direct command must reckon with what this says about their own godliness. Let us be clear about the command: ‘Remind them to submit to rulers and authorities, to obey’.
Thanks for the thoughtful article. One question. In your opinion, was Wurmbrand justified in preaching to the prisoners? It seems from your article (and I’m not disagreeing at this point) that he should have submitted to his authorities since they didn’t prohibit him from doing something God commanded him to do–i.e. God hadn’t commanded him to preach to these prisoners at this point in time. Can you help me make sure I’m understanding your argument. Thanks.
I think Wurmbrand was justified in preaching to prisoners because scripture does command us to preach the gospel and he had no other means of doing so given he was in prison. I would argue he still, nevertheless, submitted to the authorities because he accepted their punishment (he called it ‘a deal’) for preaching given that he was compelled to preach the gospel, which i think is scripturally born out and for which he a) had no other way of doing it and b) didn’t go crowing about it trying to make a martyr of himself.
Good words! God could not be clearer: the DEFAULT is to submit. Exceptions are rare. You did a great job.
This article misses the point a bit. I live in the United States, where the authority is the people and the constitution, not the government. The government is the servant of the people and the constitution, to say what you are saying in this situation is incoherent, since the government is responsible before the people and by law ought to be held accountable if it does not follow what the constitution and the people require. It would have been helpful if you addressed how to apply scripture to the different types of government, especially those which don’t function as a kingship does.
Why does it miss the point? The question is not ‘what does the American constitution say’, but what does the Bible say. Nothing in what I wrote depends on a king being the authority (and it would be a misunderstanding of how the British constitution works to think of our king properly holding power and it being any different to the view of the electorate holding authority that you claim is vastly different).
Nevertheless, nothing I wrote here fails to address the American situation.
It matters because the Bible tells us to submit to our authorities, not anyone who claims to be an authority. Both the Bible and the Constitution describe what kinds of authority certain people have. Just because someone claims some of that authority for himself, doesn’t mean he actually has it.
So Sergiu has a legitimate question that your article doesn’t address. How do we respond to someone who claims an authority that has not been given to them by Christ or, to a lesser extent, by the social contracts we live under?
Much of what is tossed around in American society as authoritative is usurped authority found nowhere in our governing documents. I believe you are correct to emphasize a default posture to remind us how Christ’s kingdom spreads throughout the lump of society. But the question remains, “Must I submit to everyone who claims authority over me?”
I’m afraid I find the question perverse in the face, and the plain reading, of Romans 13.1-2. It makes no such distinction that you make. ‘Governing authorities’ is comprehensive in scope as is ‘there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.’ It is sophistry to try and wriggle around this by referring to ‘usurped authority’, as if that isn’t precisely the authority with which Nero (under whom Paul writes and to whom he refers when calling believers to submit) was not usurped a) in the broader sense in which the Romans took power from the Greeks; b) when Nero took power from Tiberius (his mother poisoned her second husband so he could take power), and; c) in the way he exercised his power once he obtained it.
I find the exegetical hoops some will jump through to defend a clearly culturally bound view of law and authority, fundamentally to justify their righteousness in flouting it as and when it suits them, to be absolutely incredible.