Romans 13 and Pacifism: Stanley Hauerwas

This post will not interest all of you. I am following up on a public forum I was in at the Duke Law School on Monday night. Some of you have asked for my transcript; it is here. The actual streaming video or MP3 download is found at http://www.law.duke.edu/webcast/. Just scroll down and you’ll see it...

On Monday night of this week I had a chance to be a part of a 3-way debate/panel discussion at the Duke Law School with Howard Lesnick of the Univ of Penn and Stanley Hauerwas of Duke Div. During the course of the discussion Dr. Hauerwas objected to my use of Romans 13 to justify the government's authority.

Romans 13 says that every one of us should be subject to the governmental powers, because they are "ordained by God" and "His (earthly) ministers" of justice and righteousness. Therefore (I said), the government has the authority to prosecute justice, using force and punishment if necessary. Paul says "They do not bear the sword in vain."

Dr. Hauerwas said that I was reading Romans 13 without putting it into the context of Romans 12. Romans 12 tells us to never return evil for evil, but only good for evil. This, of course, is Paul's repetition of the mind-boggling morality of Jesus, who taught us to turn the other cheek. When it came to fight, rather than kill, Jesus let Himself be killed. Hauerwas asked the question, "What happens when 'Caesar' becomes a disciple of Jesus, and has to live in Romans 12? How can he possibly use force, let alone capital punishment or war, to enforce justice?

It is an intriguing question, but reads the passage, in my opinion, exactly backwards.

Paul tells us in Romans 12, "Never take vengeance on anyone, for vengeance (Greek: ekdikasis) is mine says the Lord." But in Romans 13 Paul says "The governing powers are the avengers (Greek: ekdikos) of God's wrath on those practicing evil." In other words, no human being, especially not a disciple of Jesus, ever has the right to take the right of vengeance to himself. We are never to repay evil for evil. The right of vengeance belongs only to God. BUT God HAS given that right, temporally, to governmental institutions.

So, when a government acts in the pursuit of justice, it is literally doing so as "God's MINISTER." The government avenges justice on God's behalf and "in His name." That is why every year at the Summit we host a banquet for all of Durham's new policemen--we pray over them that God would use them to protect our city. They are ministers whom God, in His mercy, has given us to keep society from disintegrating into chaos. We charge them, as John the Baptist did to the Roman soldiers, to only use force in the pursuit of justice.

Now, a few questions: What if the government uses its powers to enact injustice, whether in war or on its citizens? Surely the greatest crimes in human history have been perpetrated not by individuals, but by governments! That is where each Christian policeman or soldier must conscientiously refuse to obey an unjust order. We, the citizenry, should be diligent in keeping our government in check so it does not abuse its power. As the church, we must rebuke "Caesar" for his injustice, even if it costs us, as it did John the Baptist, our heads! And, as the body of Christ, if we ourselves are the ones who are treated unjustly, then we should live as Jesus did and not return evil for evil.

But if a governmental official is a Christian, must he not also "turn the other cheek" when he encounters injustice? Shouldn't our government live according to Jesus' new morality? I suppose there are individual cases where this might be prudent, but turning the other cheek is not the role of the government in fallen society. God gave them His right to enact justice on earth. They must be diligent in that pursuit, just as God will be one day. They cannot, of course, know the hearts as God does, which is why their ability to enact justice will always be only temporal.

The church (the community of the disciples), on the other hand, is never to take upon herself the cause of justice. She only knows the cross and grace. But Christians in the government must act according to a different set of responsibilities.

But isn't this a "dual morality?" How can we say it's right for a Christian to act one way in one sphere (i.e. for the individual to turn the other cheek) but exactly opposite in another sphere (i.e. execute justice as an officer of the gov't)?

No, God left different institutions on earth for different purposes. God knew that until He comes men will commit heinous crimes against each other. So, in His mercy, He created two ministries: one the church, who bears in her own body the injustice of the cross; the other, the government, who "bears not the sword in vain." Are the ministries "equal" in value? Of course not. The church preaches an eternal Gospel; the government maintains a temporary peace.

In every epoch of Biblical history God has, in His mercy, commissioned someone to bear the sword. In Israel, the church and state were one. After the cross, they are separate. But that does not mean that the government is to be no more. Ironically, what Hauerwas wants us to do is return to the union of church and state, where the state is subsumed under the church. That will not happen until Jesus returns.

Insofar as our government fulfills her God-given role of the pursuit of justice, we must submit to her and support her, for she does as the ministers of God. Paul recognized there were things that gave the government the right to take a life (Acts 23:29, Paul said, "If I have done anything worthy of death, I do not object to die.").

As Christians, when others or the government treats us unjustly, we must bear it as our cross (Romans 12:14). When our government treats others unjustly, we should lovingly use our democratic powers to restrain them, and pray for them. This is what we see Paul doing, by the way, when he often uses his appearances before Roman officials to appeal for religious liberty (Acts 16:37-38, et al) , and when he tells Timothy to have the church pray for peace from the ruling authorities so they can live out their Christianity and evangelize peacefully  (1 Timothy 2:1-4). We should entreat them to act justly, as John the Baptist told the repentant soldiers to do. (Luke 3:14: note John the Baptist did not tell the soldiers to resign, but to act forcibly only in pursuit of justice).

We are the church. We will never pick up a sword. We will never go to war and never take up the cause of vengeance. Our mission is to proclaim the mercy of Christ and to demonsrate that mercy by yielding our lives sacrificially to others, giving ourselves freely to them, even as the victims of their injustice. In so doing, we imitate our Savior.

One day, when Jesus returns, church and state will again be rejoined. He will rule the earth Himself and eradicate all injustice. In that day all governments will relinquish their "right" of the sword, and "beat them into plowshares" (Isaiah 65). Until then, governments are commissioned to rule justly. Do not be afraid of them, for they are a terror only to those who do evil (Romans 13:2).

Let us pray they do so well, and support them insofar that they do this. And let us fulfill our role of preaching the Gospel and demonsrating the mercy of Christ. May each us preach the cross boldly and bear the cross of other's injustice to us lovingly, just as Jesus did.

The hope of the world is not found in the United States of America. It is not in our Constitution or our democracy. Those are only temporary stand-ins, given mercifully to keep unrighteousness in check, until the King of Righteousness Himself appears. Jesus died to make people truly righteous, and so I am commissioned to do something the government cannot do. That is why, being called as a preacher, I would never stoop to be the President.

We have the greatest job in the world. I used to want to be a lawyer so I could represent the criminals before the judge. Now, you and I get to represent the Merciful judge before a world of criminals.

Comments

[David Baker]

Two Things:

1. Thank you J.D. for standing up for the text and properly and honestly examining this passage. Many times, it is quite easy to "read into" a passage what we would like it to say; quickly excusing away what might otherwise be a somewhat difficult reading. However, Romans 12 and 13 are not in conflict, they are one thought and that's the way the text reads. After all the confusion from the debate Monday night, I thank you for posting your exegesis of that passage her on your blog for us to learn from. I appreciate your willigness to always instruct and teach us as a body to go deeper, examining the original texts, searching out the authentic interpretation.

2. For all who will read this post and did not attend the debate Monday. Sunday, go up to J.D. and thank him for the way he represented the Summit Church, evangelical Christians, and Christ on Monday night. He handled himself with class and dignity, even when it would have been easy not to do so. In addition, he presented very logical, well-thought answers to many pressing and muddled questions. Furthermore, he stayed two hours after the debate conclusion, just to answer questions from those who had attended. You should be proud.

[Brian Goldstone]

just watched the video. "hexagon, octagon..." so smug, so clever, so unfortunately like the kinds of pastors this country is producing. what a witness.

[Politik]

Hmmmmm..... so much to digest here. I can't even begin to logically respond yet. I appreciate your thoughts - see your points - agree w/ some - & disagree with others. I'm not exactly sure why I agree or disagree, but I'm going to find out, & then I'll post it.

[student]

This was an intense and interesting debate with important insights from all sides. It could have benefited from further discussion of two issues:

1) Religious underpinnings of political views. Much of the "intra-Christian" disputes between Dr. Hauerwas and Dr. Greear appeared to be tied to deeper assumptions about the proper ways to approach and interpret scripture as well as the meaning and person of Christ. I would have loved to hear both panel participants clearly state their presuppositions regarding scriptural approaches (hermeneutics, etc.) and their respective Christologies. I would have also liked to hear them connect this explicitly to their political philosophies (e.g., views of Christian participation in the public sphere and attitudes toward coercion). I think this is important because so much of the debate among anarchists, pacifists, neocons, and other Christians about proper conceptions of politics and political participation occur at a surface level of political discussion without subjecting alternate claims to religious legitimacy to explicit examination For example, Dr. Hauerwas's statement that "much of American Christianity is more American than Christian" is a common sentiment that, funny enough, has been used by both orthodox evangelicals and Christians who are most emphatically not orthodox evangelicals - social gospel liberals, mainliners, pacifists, etc. Such a statement used by any side is fine. It may even be empirically accurate. However, such a statement also implies an underlying understanding of what some unproblematic category "Christianity" is that then can be used to identify more "authentic" features within one or another tradition of Christianity that can further be used to legitimize political approaches flowing from that particularly authenticated religious tradition. The locus debate should perhaps shift to debating authentic visions of Christianity rather than authentic views of Christian politics. The first issue is prior and primary to the second, which necessarily depends on the first. Simply put, Dr. Hauerwas and Dr. Greear clearly have different views of what constitutes authentic Christianity. Why not just directly acknowledge this and debate rival claims to authenticity?

2)The meaning of democracy. Anyone who has studied democracy even superficially knows that democracy is a heavily contested term and reality that encompasses diverse ideals and practical manifestations (political institutions, processes, interactions, etc.) as well as power-laden struggles for meaning. For example, much of the debate about the spread of liberal democracy outside the developed Western World in recent years has centered on what democracy actually means, how it interacts with local contexts, and how we can actually know that a given regime is a democracy or not (whether or not it is of the liberal variety or constituted in some alternate practical or philosophical form). The debate as I heard it gave surprisingly little thought to the importance of definitions of democracy in engaging wider discussions of religion and public life. I was surprised to hear such a reputable theologian as Hauerwas unproblematically categorize Weimar Germany and the ascent of Hitler as clear cases of democratic processes or ethoses of governance. This move to me seemed to be a red herring. Clearly democracy requires more than popular elections, even in its most simplistic liberal versions. Otherwise, there would be no contemporary discussions about the quality or actuality of democracy in countries like Turkey, Iran, or Iraq, not to mention the vast majority of the rest of the non-Western world and - dare I say it - even the established Western democracies themselves. Thus, as Hauerwas rightly noted or at least implied in talking about the black American experience (as if this was monolithically uniform?), that American democracy in its early years and even through today, some would argue, has represented diminished forms of some ideal type (and in the case of eras prior to universal suffrage and civil rights and even after, perhaps so diminished that it cannot be called unproblematically democratic anyways). Perhaps Hauerwas's point was simply to point out that democratic constitutions are not to be revered for any reason and he was just taking the most blatant example of this to prove the point. This is true but it is also banal. The discussion should have gone in the direction of what varieties of constitutions and constitutional features are important for realizing more "authentic" (and still contested) visions of democracy and how religious ideas inform and enrich these different constitutional varieties. Hauerwas should be credited with recognizing American democracy - however steeped or not in Christian ideals - has neither perfect form nor modality and Christians should not be prostrate before it. An important and well-taken point. For the realities of the everyday lives of real people, though, the more important issue is how we can make our diverse polities more authentically democratic (and yes, let's receptively and not pejoratively engage what that means) and what religious beliefs and insights can add to this project.

[Politik]

Holy cow, student! Was your response in English?!? Makes me want to quote lines of an old tune, "shove me in the shallow water, before I get too deep".

Just teasing! :) I think it's really cool that there's people out there really thinking about things, & not just accepting everything they hear. I have to admit though... some of what you said went so fast over my head, the national weather service issued high wind warnings for cental NC! I hope you laugh as hard as you think, or you'll certainly "fly the coup" one day!

But on a more serious note... what little I did understand of what you had to say... I COMMEND you in your thought process. The whole issue of the blurring line between religion & politics - it's something that gets under my skin to no end!

I understand that if one professes to be a Christian, then that will (hopefully) affect everything else of interest to the person (including politics). But I have seen problems, that trouble me greatly. In another decade (trying not to give away my age, here!), I was absolutely taught (directly & indirectly) within the church, that the Republican party is the party of this country that God has blessed, & personally favors. I heard many a sermon perpetuating this point of view. I bought it - believed in it - totally supported it.

Then I lived. I moved. I got to know other people - REALLY got to know, not just as an acquaintance, learned their viewpoints & how they came to have them. And eventually, I got to know folks who are absolutely Christians, and yes.... they align themselves w/ the Democratic party! I was floored! It totally went against everything that was engrained in me - to vote for a Democrat over a Republican!

Anyway... since then, I have been really saddened when I hear preached in the pulpit... the gospel according to the Republican, or Democratic party. I understand that politics & religious beliefs are going to be intermingled at times. But I think that "lines" are definitely crossed sometimes, & folks are inclined to rally behind party lines, rather than to truly seek guidance from their Creator.

Keep learning "student", until the day you die. Never think you've gotten even close to learning half of what there is to know. Respect your elders. Seek your Creator with all of your being. And please never forget... laugh & smile A LOT!!! :)

[Pastor J.D.]

Student, you should have taken my place in the debate! Seriously! Wow... I hope you will put much of that onto "paper" and publish it.

Evangelicals are rather 'shallow' and 'reactionary' when it comes to politics. We react to immediate criticism or deficiency, not according to a well thought out political theory.

Shouldn't Jesus be Lord over how we think about government? As Abraham Kuyper once said, "There is not one square inch of the whole cosmos over which Jesus does not emphatically declare "mine!"

Your point about Hauerwas (and me) begging the question when it comes to authentic Christianity was dead-on. When Hauerwas says that I am more American than I am Christian, he assumes his definition of Christian, which I might dispute. We would further the discussion by talking about what "authentic Christianity" as taught by Jesus really was and is.

I'd love a follow up debate with him on what Christian discipleship really is, but I can't get him to call me back :).

[Student 2]

With regard to the interpretation of Romans 13, it seems we are trying to absolutize Paul's statements regarding government in this particular text. Shouldn't our first question be, "why is Paul writing this to the Christians in Rome during that time?" When we ask this, it makes it difficult for us to view this passage as a set of arbitrary statements regarding politics (which is what we keep trying to do). Afterall, no matter what your stance on Biblical interpretation is, Paul is not writing with a modern audience in mind. It's not as if these statements are made in a vacuum. Paul is concerned that these Roman Christians are going to take vengeance on governing officials for the way they are being treated (Romans 12-13). We must remember that Paul realizes Christians are immanently in danger of persecution for their obvious lack of piety for the Roman state religion. You can feel the tension in this text. Paul knows trouble is brewing between the Roman empire and Christian believers. If Christians react violently (as their Lord did not) what witness would that be. As we all know from history it was the Christian willingness to face death for their faith that ultimately turned the Roman world upside down. Violence would not have done this!

We must also ask why Jesus was so radically uninvolved in politics during his lifetime. Homosexuality, sexual orgies, exposure of infants (worse than partial birth abortion), government oppression were rampant during Jesus lifetime. Yet, we don't see him trying to alter the state of political institutions to address these things. Nor do we see him try to garner political power to confront the injustice as so many Jews were hoping for in their conception of what a Messianic figure should look like. Rather, we see him poor out his love and grace on these people. He gives them a vision of something greater - the gospel. The gospel is the answer to injustice! What would it look like today if Christians stopped picketing, stopped lobbying, stopped debating and instead put forth a grand ethic characterized by personal transformation as a result of loving relationships. What would it look like it if we stopped trying to make homosexuality illegal and went out to these people and loved them into the kingdom of God just like every other sinner we come in contact with? Is homosexuality ok? Of course not. But we must couple our attempts at convicting them with relationships of caring. People are smart. They know when you actually care about them versus when you coldly desire for them to conform to your worldview.

The Roman world became so transformed by Christianity in so little time not because of political efforts at justice but because Christians so boldly accepted injustice upon themselves.

The attrocities of Nazi Germany were due primarily to German Christians' tacit approval of the Nazi ideology. The danger of Chrisitan Politics is that by trying to enforce justice politically, we would abandon the Gospel and enforce something totally unChristian in the process. A "big enough" army would not have been needed to stop Nazi Germany, had Christians in that region not been lured by Hitler's pursuit of power!
Food for thought.

[Craig Watts]

In Rom. 13:1-7 Paul spoke to Christians as subjects of the government, NOT as agents of the government. Your interpretation of the passage is anachronistic; there were no Christian soldiers, judges or governors at the time Paul wrote. In essense what he sought to do was discourage any move toward anarchy based on liberty in Christ. When the passage is understood in this way there is no need to make the strange suggestion that Paul was speaking to Christians "as individuals" in Rom.12 and as something else -implimenters and enforcers of government policy- in Rom. 13. The government is the servant of God, bearing the sword, much like Assyria, doing evil to accomplish God's good ends. That role is not one that is ever given to Christians. You would do well to listen more carefully to Hauerwas.

[J.D. Greear]

Craig, hey man, thanks for the post. You objected to my interpretation saying that Romans 12-13 only applies to people under government, not in it. What hermeneutical rule do you employ to assert that? And can you be consistent with it? Ifthe truth of a text is determined by how much we resemble the people to whom it was first given, how could we ever apply ANY passage of Scripture to us? Philemon was written to an indentured servant holder... does that mean that since I am not a slaveholder I can disregard what Paul says in Philemon? John 3:3 appears to given to Nicodemus, an ethnic, religious Jew--does that mean the need to be born again doesn't apply to me, who heard about Christ as a non-religious Gentile? If this is our hermeneutic, the Scriptures become meaningless, as we are left to arbitrarily decide whether or not we think a Scripture ought to apply to us. I think a much safer hermeneutic is that unless the context ITSELF limits the application, we should not. is an argument from silence. Paul never limited his directive with the parameters you say,

In addition to that, we do see places where the New Testament DOES address soldiers and other government officials. In the Gospels, when soldiers repented at the preaching of John the Baptist, he told them to not extort or be unjust--he did not tell them to quit soldiering. And when Paul appeared before the Roman representatives, he never demanded they repent from being in government. In fact, Paul said to them in Acts, "If I have done anything worthy of death, I do not object to be tried for such," thus conceding that they have such a right! The Scriptures are nothing if not consistent on this—human governments are the gracious gift of God to us and while able to be abused, we can serve God within them.

I know I have a lot to learn, but it seems to me that a consistent, unbiased (as much as that is possible) interpretation would lead us to say that people can serve God in the government. Christians do not need to abdicate their roles as policeman, military or government officials. They must , however, as John the Baptist proscribes, refuse to use their positions for corruption and live according to the principles of justice.

[J.D. Greear]

Student 2,
I can't say that I disagree substantively with any of your post, either in substance or in tone. As a believer and representative of the church, I pray God would give us the grace to live up to what you say should be true.

My only objection is that your statements, while true, are incomplete. Human governments, as Paul indicated in Romans 13, are given by God in a fallen world as a means of his grace to us. (Regardless of the context of Romans 13, Paul is asserting that government was made the "minister of God for righteousness." Peter said the same thing). Human governments cannot bring in the Kingdom of God, as you say… only the Gospel can do that... which is why we as Christians must make as our primary (though not necessarily only) task the preaching of the Gospel… but until the triumph of Jesus God has mercifully left us governments as a grace to keep us from killing ourselves.

Sure, in Nazi Germany it would have been best if German Christians infiltrated the government and confronted the Nazis. Some did. And if more had, maybe the holocaust would have been avoided. But they didn't, and that is just the world we live in. Real evil exists… and sometimes it is because we do nothing, but sometimes its because we’re not there or not in a position to stop it without coercion. It would be nice to think that if whenever someone came to rape someone else in downtown Durham that Christians would peacably place themselves in the way of the victim. But we don't always do that, and usually we don’t even know when it’s happening… so we have policemen.

The only effective way to bring real righteousness is through the Gospel, and that is (as you note) the primary task of any Christian. But that doesn't mean all grace shown to men is located exclusively WITHIN the church or that the Gospel is the ONLY grace at work on earth now. The Scriptures say that “God makes his sun to shine on the just and the unjust,” and in the same manner He shows His grace for people by allowing governments to exercise justice in His name. To say all Christians must withdraw from the world and that system of grace insists on a separation from the world that the New Testament does not advocate.

I like how you are thinking, and it appears you think deeply and passionately. Thanks for posting.