Romans 13 and National DefenseRecently by Laurence M. Vance: Five Lies of the Religious Right About Ron Paul
Christian apologists for the state, its leaders (when they are Republicans), its military, its spy agencies, and especially its wars (and especially when they are started by Republicans) sometimes refer to the above passage from the Book of Romans as if it somehow justifies their blind nationalism, their cheerleading for the Republican Party, their childish devotion to the military, their acceptance of national-security state, and their support for perpetual war.
There is no greater abuse of this passage than when it is applied to national defense. I have come across two examples of this recently. The first is from an exchange between a readers of my columns and his theologian friend. Earlier this year, when the United States had just begun its military adventure in Libya, a reader informed me of a conversation with a friend who happened to be a theologian and seminary professor. Said professor posted something on Facebook about Libya and how Obama the evil Democrat wouldn’t hesitate to use force on Americans if they tried to institute a new government like the Libyans. My reader agreed, but then added: "So would Bush. Statism knows no party." The response of the theologian was simply: "Governments have a God-given right to defend themselves. Romans." Pointing out the similarities between Obama the Democrat and Bush the Republican is a cardinal sin according to some Christian conservatives. Although Bush expanded federal spending on and control over education, expanded Medicare to greater heights than LBJ ever dreamed, started two unnecessary wars, doubled the national debt, had bailout and stimulus programs, increased farm subsidies and foreign aid, increased government spending and regulations, gave us the first trillion-dollar budget deficit, instituted torture, violated civil liberties, and expanded the police state – none of this matters because he was a Christian and a Republican. As for Bush’s ecumenical, inclusive, warped, and unorthodox Christianity, I have dealt with that in an article here. As for the failings (to put it mildly) of the Republican Party, I have written about them here and in many other articles. And to say that Romans 13 has anything to do with a government defending itself is absolutely ludicrous. Being a warmonger and military apologist makes even some of the best Bible students lose their mind.
The second example of theological lunacy is from a column by Craig Parshall about the killing of Osama bin Laden (which he favored) in the magazine Israel My Glory. Parshall is senior vice president and general counsel for the National Religious Broadcasters. In response to the question he raised of "Can Christians ethically support the U.S. government’s deliberate targeting of individuals for death?", Parshall says:
Opposing the extra-judicial assassination of Osama bin Laden has nothing to do with pacifism. Moreover, even Christians who oppose the death penalty might change their minds if bin Laden had been lawfully tried, found guilty, and sentenced to death. And just because the "powers that be" bear the sword doesn’t mean that the state should execute people without trial. More importantly, however, to say that Romans 13 has anything to do with a government defending its citizens is ludicrous. I can’t resist commenting on something Parshall says in the next paragraph of his article: "In all of the New Testament references to soldiers and Roman centurions, there is no suggestion that their work, which often involved using force and violence against others, was somehow sinful or inappropriate." So, the soldiers who scourged, smote, and crucified the Son of God didn’t do anything sinful or inappropriate? I thought so.
I have been asked many times over the years to write something on Romans 13. Although this is something I have thought a great deal about and know that I must eventually do, this brief look at Romans 13 and national defense is not that article. Actually, a large monograph or small book is what is called for. In the meantime, here is a collection of comments of mine on Romans 13 in my LRC articles. From "Christian Killers?" (December 2, 2004):
From "The Warmonger’s Psalm" (June 2, 2005):
From "The Hypocrisy of Christian Warmongers" (August 11, 2006):
From "Elijah vs. the State" (August 4, 2008):
From "Herod’s Henchmen" (December 25, 2008):
From "Is Libertarianism Compatible With Religion?" (March 15, 2011):
I have also quoted and/or discussed what three authors have written about Romans 13. "A Christian Against the State" is a review of Christian Theology of Public Policy: Highlighting the American Experience, by John Cobin. "The Doctrine of a Christian Warmonger" is a critique of a presentation by Pastor Tod Kennedy called "The Doctrine of God and War." "Can a Christian Kill for His Government?" is a review of a book of the same name by Bennie Lee Fudge. There are a lot of things that could be said about Romans 13, but that it has reference to national defense is not one of them. October 13, 2011 Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] writes from central Florida. He is the author of Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State, The Revolution that Wasn't, and Rethinking the Good War. His latest book is The Quatercentenary of the King James Bible. Visit his website. Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
|
