Romans 13, Nationalism, and Immigration

Romans 13:1-7

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. ² Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. ³ For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. ⁴ For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. ⁵ Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. ⁶ For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. ⁷ Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

___________________

In mid-2018, former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions referred to Romans 13 as a defense for President Donald Trump's immigration policies, noting the typical "law and order" stance that has come to undergird the Republican Party. On the surface, it makes full sense. If we are a nation of laws, then laws must be followed. If illegal immigrants are breaking the law by crossing the border, then they must be held to account or we risk unraveling the fabric of civil society. How can anyone argue against such logic?

Several years ago this would have been my position too. Romans 13:1-2 seems to clearly state that God is the source of all civil authority, so breaking civil law is a moral violation against God himself. This is a line of reasoning built deeply into America's Anglican and Puritan heritage, but I challenge that it may be at odds with its Enlightenment era liberalism and revolutionary impetus. 

In Tudor England, the Crown often used Romans 13 as a biblical prooftext toward civil obligation and obedience to the magistrates. Henry VIII's pamphleteers referred to the passage often and Edward VI used it heavily to promote fidelity to the Crown. England's chief religious leaders also used the verse to denounce Puritan and Catholic rebellions to the pervading Anglican middle-ground between Protestantism and Catholicism. 

From the time of the English Reformation to British colonization of the Americas, the Romans passage was used as a primary declaration for moral obedience to the state. Under the temporary reign of Catholic Mary I (aka Bloody Mary), Protestants found themselves persecuted, but many retained the use of Romans 13's civil obligation, preaching for non-resistance, but not all. Some Protestant exiles noted the primacy of God in the passage and believed that if a political leader acts contrary to God's known character and disposition as revealed in Scripture, then their imparted civil authority is negated. 

Later, under Mary's half sister Elizabeth I, the tables were slightly turned and Catholics found themselves scrutinized by the Protestant Crown and they interpreted authorities granted by God hierarchically. They agreed with civil obedience in general, but ranked papal authority a tier above English government, so that God came first, next the Pope, and then the King. It was thinking like this that caused great skepticism in Protestantism against the Pope as an interloping monarch in competition with local authorities. This eventually led to concepts that built into government a tone of separation of church and state for the preservation of both. By the time of Thomas Paine's 1776 pamphlet Common Sense, which was instrumental in turning the colonial mindset toward independence, both Crown and Pope were seen as monarchical threats to liberty in general. Romans 13 then, seems to be the prooftext used by power structures, kings, and pontiffs. Why has it suddenly become vogue in Republicanism when it was largely used historically as a control against liberty? 

Let's briefly evaluate Romans 13:1-7...

First, is this a Pauline endorsement of the absolutism demanded by contemporary Republicans and historical leaders?

Paul seems to connect his thoughts directly to Jesus' admonition in Mark 12:17 to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. In a very real sense, it has more to do with preserving the status quo than it does promoting civil authorities as always enacting God's authority. When Paul wrote Romans it was probably about the time Nero Caesar took reign. A decade later and Nero would blame Christians for a fire that nearly destroyed Rome. So this is the bloke to unquestioningly obey? Do leaders ever err?  Do we still obey when they screw up? If we must, then the whole Revolutionary War was rebellion and we were 100% wrong to disobey our sovereign England. What political hypocrisy!

Prior to Nero, Emperor Claudius ruled and he at one point expelled Jewish zealots from Rome who in part acted out against Christian evangelism. In this Judeo-Christian in-fighting, Jewish and Gentile Christians were largely lumped together with Jews by Roman authorities and Christians undoubtedly received some harsh treatment in Rome. It seems that Paul is really calling for Christians to retain a peacefulness and civility in order keep the status quo and not draw undue and persecutory attention on themselves. In other words, "live life, obey the general law, and pay your taxes." This was a call by Paul for the behavior of Christians in light of overarching authorities and not an endorsement of any government or leader as an absolute. The point was not to seal and stamp all government laws as equally just or right. The point was to protect Christians from pressure so that they could continue the tasks of the Kingdom.

So then, is it appropriate that Sessions, Trump, and the Republican Party use[d] Romans 13 as a prooftext against illegal immigration on grounds of law and order? 

In many political debates I enter with other Republican Christians, this one verse is the go to verse. It is an "Ah ha! I gotcha" verse. Yet, it is used outside the historical context of the first century and reveals its Protestant English monarchical roots. The Bible is replete with calls to care for the poor, widows, aliens, and refugees. One of the reasons for Hebrew captivity in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 22:3) was the failure to enact justice for the stranger. God owns the whole earth and so we are obliged, if we are Christians, to not turn people [created in His image] away from any part of the earth (His earth). Yes, we may have laws against illegally crossing, but to cite Scripture invokes God's approval of such codes, when Scripture on the whole is affirming of the alien. It is a theological misreading. It is entirely possible, and dare I say a reality that American immigration policy is at odds with Christian theology. It conflates modern nation-states (border-defined sovereign countries) with ancient nations (people groups who settled known areas). 

We need to stop using Scripture to support our presuppositions and ideologies.
 
I close simply with this quote,

“I never said the land was mine to do with as I choose. The one who has a right to dispose of it is the one who has created it.” –Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce