• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Romans 13 - Verses much loved by governments

Status
Not open for further replies.

ylop

Member
Real Person*
Here is a great article on Romans 13 by Laurence Vance

Sourced from Lew Rockwell - http://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/laurence-m-vance/hitlers-favorite-bible-verse/

I said last year in my article on “Romans 13 and National Defense” that I had been asked many times over the years to write something on Romans 13, that it was something I had thought about a great deal, and that it was something I knew that I must eventually do. Unfortunately, this is still not that article. However, because of questions about Romans 13 that I recently received and answered, I thought I would expand upon my answer here.

First, the text:

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. (Romans 13:1-5)

Christian apologists for the state’s military “defending our freedoms” and its wars “over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” incessantly quote their “obey the powers that be” mantra derived from Romans 13 in an attempt to justify their blind nationalism, American exceptionalism, flag waving, God and country rhetoric, warmongering, prayers for the troops, illicit affection for the military, and unholy desire to legitimize killing in war – as well as justify the state’s imperialism, militarism, and unjust wars.

But even worse than Christian warmongers reciting their “obey the powers that be” mantra, is the chant of “Romans 13″ after some statement justifying war or the military:

The war in Iraq was a just war. Romans 13. The troop surge was necessary. Romans 13. Dropping the atomic bombs on Japan was necessary. Romans 13. President Bush did the right thing with the intelligence he had. Romans 13. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Romans 13. Collateral damage happens. Romans 13. The Vietnam War was necessary to fight communism. Romans 13. My country, right or wrong. Romans 13. Soldiers are just following orders. Romans 13. We must fight them “over there” so we don’t have to fight them “over here.” Romans 13. Osama bin Laden needed to be killed. Romans 13. Governments have a God-given right to defend themselves. Romans 13. Waterboarding is not torture. Romans 13. Drone strikes are necessary to protect Americans. Romans 13. Support the troops. Romans 13.

The chant of “Romans 13″ is used to put a divine stamp of approval on U.S. wars and militarism. It is never used to put a divine stamp of approval on other countries’ wars and militarism, unless, of course, they are allied with the United States at the time.

Now, regarding Romans 13, I just want to briefly mention five things to provide a longer and more thought-out answer to that which I recently gave a young man who is now, thank God, out of the military.

First of all, it won’t do any good to explain it away, correct it, revise it, limit it to godly governments, or limit it to the Constitution. This is because there are two other passages that are even more explicit:


Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, (Titus 3:1)

Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king; as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: (1 Peter 2:13-15)

Second, I continue to be puzzled that some Christians stumble over this. Only a madman would say that obeying the government in Romans 13 is absolute. Even the most diehard Christian apologist for the state, its military, and its wars would never think of saying such a thing. Although the way some Christians repeat the “obey the powers that be” mantra may make one think they would slit their own mothers’ throats if the state told them to do so, they wouldn’t do it no matter how they were threatened by the state. If government agents came to them and said, “Here, put on this uniform, take this gun, and go shoot your neighbor,” they would likewise refuse and suffer the consequences. No Christian is going to make his wife get an abortion because the government says he has too many children. No Christian is going to accept every government pronouncement, support every government program, or blindly follow whatever the president or the government says – even when the Republicans are in control. Any admonition in Scripture to obey the government is tempered by command to “obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29) and the sixth commandment “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13), which is repeated in Romans 13:9.

Third, what about Christians in other countries? Shouldn’t they also “obey the powers that be”? Aren’t their powers that be likewise ordained of God? What if their government instructs them to conduct drone attacks in the United States, bomb the United States, commit acts of terrorism against the United States, or invade the United States? Aren’t they resisting the ordinance of God if they don’t do it? Should all Christian soldiers in the German army during World War II have disobeyed orders and laid down their weapons when America entered the war? Christian warmongers are such hypocrites. They are very selective about which governments they think Christians should obey. What they really mean by their mantra is that all people everywhere in the world should only obey the powers that be in the United States.

Fourth, obedience is not really the issue. Obeying the government is not absolute when the government commands something that is contrary to the word of God. The problem with the former-Marine pastor of the former soldier who wrote to me and other Christian warmongers is in what they believe to be contrary to the word of God. It is here that we are at an impasse. When someone defends unjust foreign wars (are there any other kind?), bloated military budgets, torture, drone strikes, bombing campaigns, secret prison camps, indefinite detention, CIA meddling and black ops, almost anything the military does, an empire of troops and bases around the world, and an interventionist U.S. foreign policy in general as not contrary to the word of God as long as it is Americans are doing these things to foreigners and not foreigners to Americans, I say that he is a Christian warmonger who needs to rethink his position. So the issue is not actually obedience, it is what constitutes something contrary to the word of God. The real issue is what extent of disobedience is obedience to God.

Fifth, Christians who recite their “obey the powers that be” mantra and chant “Romans 13″ when they want to put a divine stamp of approval on U.S. wars and militarism are falsely leading people to believe that defending U.S. wars and military interventions has something to do with obeying the government. Obeying the government has nothing to do with believing everything the government says, accepting everything the government does, supporting the government’s troops, or defending the government’s wars. The U.S. government hasn’t commanded any American to think or say that the war on terror is a good thing, that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are just wars, that U.S. foreign policy should be supported, that prayers should be made for U.S. troops, or that the U.S. Navy is “a global force for good.” And the government certainly hasn’t commanded any individual to go kill and maim on its behalf in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no draft. No one was forced to join the military. And no one who bothered to study U.S. military history for five minutes would have joined before these wars began and not known that there was a chance he would have to kill and maim for the state.

In conclusion, I will just say this.

When I see a sign in a government-owned park that says “Don’t Walk on the Grass,” I don’t walk on the grass. When I see a sign at a government-owned zoo that says “Don’t Feed the Animals,” I don’t feed the animals. When a situation arises like when I see a sign on the Interstate that says “Speed Limit 65″ while everyone is passing me doing 75, I speed up, but always mindful that some connoisseur of coffee and doughnuts might be lurking around the bend, just waiting to give me a ticket.

But when I am told to sit at a desk and kill foreigners via drone, fly over some foreign country and drop bombs, invade some foreign country that was no threat to the United States, indefinitely detain some foreigner in prison without trial, or occupy some foreign country that I would have to look up on a map to know where it was, I dissent and refuse to obey.
 
1) The government exists to punish wrongdoers.
2) A wrongdoer is, in the simplest terms, someone who harms others.
3) Therefore a government can punish someone who steals or murders within the country, to prevent crime within the country.
4) Therefore a government can punish someone who steals or murders from outside the country, through national defence.
5) National defence may sometimes require a pre-emptive strike to most effectively achieve the role of defence while minimising casualties.
6) Point 5 is very easily stretched, and stretched, and stretched, until it no longer has any relation whatsoever to points 4 and below...

Were all governments focussed simply on punishing the wrongdoers in society, there would be no government aggression to other states, and no war. But war can never be entirely prevented, and there will remain a role for defensive militaries.

I fully agree however with the point about Romans 13 being used to falsely justify blind nationalism. We forget that Christians on all sides think that they're justly following their own governments. Not only did Christians fight for the Nazis, Christians in the Arab states also fought against Israel in the various Israeli wars - did they justify this using Romans 13 also? Christians are not citizens of this world, so should not be getting caught up in worldly nationalistic allegiances, we have a greater calling.

Israel is a separate case in my mind as that becomes religious, I'm talking about blind allegience to other countries.

And I wouldn't condemn people for joining the military, on the contrary I find that admirable, because defence is required and there are few riskier jobs you can take. And if an unjust war starts, you can always refuse to go, face a court-martial at home but at least feel comfortable with yourself. I'm talking about aggressive nationalism, not the dispensing of legitimate justice in defence.
 
Government exists, because some time in the past, some people because much better at killing, stealing, controlling and intimidating people than the other warlords around them.

They built up a power structure and passed it onto their successors.

They didn't want the hassle of raiding and forcefully robbing people all the time, so they invented kinder and gentler ways like income withholding.

That is why government exist, for the benefit of the rich, powerful political class and their associates.

Any control of wrongdoers is a positive side-effect for those enslaved.

Also, one of the key goals when running a government is to convince all your slaves that they are in this together, as one nation; and that people outside that particular government's control are foreigners.

A few other good tricks to do when running a government are to convince people that the government exists for their benefit.

Also, if the people are getting a bit restless, let them believe they can achieve change and are in control of their destiny by giving them voting and such frills. A change in titular head distracts them for years.

Also some very clever governments can even convince people that God has put them on the throne (or parliament, or whatever).
 
Wow! There seems to be plenty of black and white thinking going on here.

Some wars are wrong = all wars are wrong

Defend our nation = war mongering

What should we do then? Should we dismantle our national defense and let any two-bit dictator with an army walk in here and take over?

That's nonsense!
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2mabTnMHe8

"Masters of War" by Bob Dylan

Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build all the bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks.

You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly.

Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain.

You fasten all the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion'
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud.

You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins.

How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
That even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do.

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul.

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand over your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead.
 
ylop said:
"Masters of War" by Bob Dylan

Again with human wisdom. I'll trust the Bible over human wisdom any day of the week.
 
Well, I enjoyed the article, even if I don't quite agree with everything that was said.

I don't know that there are just wars, and with the frequnecy that governments lie to their people, I don't know that we could ever expect to know one if we saw it. I do know that wars will continue until the end. I also think that John the Baptist's advice to the soldiers is worth mentioning:“Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.”. I would not expect every killing that a soldier carried out would be deserved and righteous, and even if it were I would not expect that fact to be adequately explained to every 19 year old soldier's understanding. He would be as full of propaganda and conditioning as the government could make him so that he could kill quickly and efficiently. Their burden is not to second guess what is or isn't a just war, or what is and isn't a justified or honorable action. Theirs is to fulfill their duty, and not to act dishonorably, using force and their position for personal gain.

I keep in mind that the Government at the time of the writing of the book of Romans, was the Roman Empire. Just war was not their concern. Committing heinous atrocities at war in the name of Pagan gods was always job number one. What's a converted soldier to do? Desert? I mean you try not to commit any overt offenses against God, but war is hell. Did every person truly deserve the bullet you gave them? Is anyone qualified to 'justify' a war down to every last detail? Everything's going great for God and country until you have to return fire on people literally hiding behind their children.

I think the reason John's answer to the soldiers was geared towards the soldier's personal conduct outside of the context of his orders is because asking more of him is a good way to make sure he has to spend time talking to a psychologist that won't ever really help him.
 
Slumberfreeze said:
I think the reason John's answer to the soldiers was geared towards the soldier's personal conduct outside of the context of his orders is because asking more of him is a good way to make sure he has to spend time talking to a psychologist that won't ever really help him.

I resemble that remark.

Slumberfreeze said:
Theirs is to fulfill their duty, and not to act dishonorably

This is a fact that is lost on the military's detractors. I've said it many, many times. If you have a problem with what the men and women in uniform are doing then take it up with...
  • The politicians because they're the ones giving the orders
  • The voters because they're the ones who elected the politicians
Taking it up with the men and women in uniform is not only pointless, it's stupid. It's pointless because the men and women in uniform are not likely to disobey orders. It's stupid because they're holding guns. A lot of them.
 
Hear hear Wesley. Let's not blame the men and women who purpose to serve and protect their country mates. Protesters of Vietnam did this and it just made everything they'd suffered worse.

I remember my dad, who was an airman, saying that they couldn't go anywhere off base in uniform, not even stop at the store to pick something up on the way home. Why? Because people would attack them.

I never understood why attacking military members on U.S. soil was used as a form of protest. It never made any sense to me.

Also, Wesley and any other veterans here. Thank you.
 
Slumberfreeze said:
I would not expect every killing that a soldier carried out would be deserved and righteous, and even if it were I would not expect that fact to be adequately explained to every 19 year old soldier's understanding. He would be as full of propaganda and conditioning as the government could make him so that he could kill quickly and efficiently. Their burden is not to second guess what is or isn't a just war, or what is and isn't a justified or honorable action. Theirs is to fulfill their duty, and not to act dishonorably, using force and their position for personal gain.

In all actuality, individual lawful combatants (such as soldiers, airmen, seamen, or riflemen) are held to very specific standards, and are in fact subject to prosecution Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) if they obey an order that is unlawful according to the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). There are 3 levels of LOAC training. Every member of the armed forces gets level A, then B and C are trained depending on job or assignment. LOAC even applies to POWs, and upon release their actions are subject to review and potentially prosecution.

So while it may not be within the purview of a given combatant to just what is or is not a just war, it is very much their responsibility to engage their brain on what is or is not a just action. The trouble of course is that the world is rarely black and white. It can be easy (though in reality it's not) to sit back from the comfort of your living room and judge the actions of a country or war fighter. I believe we should turn our critical eye on the actions of our government, that's important. Governments require oversight. That doesn't mean that everything that happens in a war should be reviewed as it happens, as that exposes boots on the ground to undue danger, but it should be reviewed at some point by civilian authority. Individual combatants actions should not be set before the court of public opinion though. Those actions should only be judged by someone who has actually been there. There are far too many factors at play in a war zone for someone who has only known peace to judge. Do atrocities happen at the individual soldier level? Of course they do, and they should be judged, but only by those who are actually qualified to do so. I know I risk hearing "ahhhh, but then come the military coverups!", but I'll say this, cover-ups might happen, but those would happen to protect a command or country's reputation, individual soldiers, airmen, seamen, and marines are FAR more likely to be sacrificed so that the command or unit's good name can be saved.
 
Wesley said:
Taking it up with the men and women in uniform is not only pointless, it's stupid. It's pointless because the men and women in uniform are not likely to disobey orders. It's stupid because they're holding guns. A lot of them.

I take it up with the men and women in uniform.

In most cases they have volunteered.

They are willing to obey the orders of a group of powerful people in return for money.

They are the ones that make the psychopaths dreams a reality.

Every gang leader needs followers, or there is no gang.

Without the soldiers, there would be no war.

Soldiers make wars possible.

Everyone in the western countries military forces had a choice. They could have chosen to pursue industry, commerce, service to others; working by voluntary association, receiving payment from willing customers. Instead, they chose the alternative of a career of service to a machine of death and destruction, in return for pay taken by lethal force in taxes stolen by 'government' from other productive people.
 
UntoldGlory said:
In all actuality, individual lawful combatants (such as soldiers, airmen, seamen, or riflemen) are held to very specific standards, and are in fact subject to prosecution Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) if they obey an order that is unlawful according to the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). There are 3 levels of LOAC training. Every member of the armed forces gets level A, then B and C are trained depending on job or assignment. LOAC even applies to POWs, and upon release their actions are subject to review and potentially prosecution.

This is true. It is also a fact that many people, such as apparently ylop, either overlook or flat-out ignore.

UntoldGlory said:
That doesn't mean that everything that happens in a war should be reviewed as it happens, as that exposes boots on the ground to undue danger, but it should be reviewed at some point by civilian authority.

Again this is true and a fact that people, such as apparently ylop, seem to ignore. They prattle on about the danger to themselves without ever thinking of the danger to others.




UntoldGlory said:
Individual combatants actions should not be set before the court of public opinion though. Those actions should only be judged by someone who has actually been there. There are far too many factors at play in a war zone for someone who has only known peace to judge. Do atrocities happen at the individual soldier level? Of course they do, and they should be judged, but only by those who are actually qualified to do so. I know I risk hearing "ahhhh, but then come the military coverups!", but I'll say this, cover-ups might happen, but those would happen to protect a command or country's reputation, individual soldiers, airmen, seamen, and marines are FAR more likely to be sacrificed so that the command or unit's good name can be saved.

That is another reality that is ignored by people like ylop. It is far, far, far more common for an innocent soldier to be sacrificed to the court of public opinion than it is for a soldier's actions to be covered up.
 
By the same reasoning Ylop, all who choose to pursue industry, commerce, service to others, etc. contribute to the 'war machine' even more so than the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines do. In particular, the money military personnel receive is so small that it is insignificant by comparison to the financing that originates with the other pursuits you mentioned. So the gang needs followers. Some are submariners like I was, and some are businessmen like you are.

I'd be interested to hear your proposed solution, as well as your assessment of wars such as World War II. For example, I think national defense is biblically justifiable. However, I also agree that, more often than not these days, we participate in war-making activities that are not likely defensive in nature (i.e. the slippery slope of the best defense is a good offense). Nevertheless, I also think it irresponsible to ignore psychopaths like Stalin (responsible for 20,000,000 deaths or so) who, with nuclear weapons and a knack for enticing smaller wanna-be dictators to poke his rivals, might have done a lot more harm than he did had he been given free reign on the world's stage.

In any case, I'm always a bit torn about this particular subject because it is one case where decisions with potentially terrible consequences must be made based upon sparse information and a whole stack of assumptions. I don't envy the folks that need to make such decisions, nor do I trust them.
 
Well since you mentioned WW2 and Stalin in the same post, I will comment.

Going back a step.

WW1 was a stalemate and likely to end in a ceasefire, until the USA entered the war in 1917. This tipped the balance into the allies favour and allowed victory and the one-sided terms of Versailles. Which led directly to the rise of Hitler and WW2.

In WW2, again that would likely have ended in a stalemate, with Germany and the USSR slowly grinding each other to pulp. Except for USA intervention. Which made Stalin's victory possible, and his conquest of Eastern Europe.

The casus belli of WW2, Poland, was lost to communism for 40 years.

BTW it was a funny casus belli, because the allied declaration of war was in response to Germany's invasion, but the reality was that both the USSR and Germany invaded Poland and split it between themselves (USSR also invaded Finland around that time).

WW2 = USA and other allied countries assisting the USSR to defeat Germany and conquer eastern Europe.
 
Oreslag said:
Nevertheless, I also think it irresponsible to ignore psychopaths like Stalin (responsible for 20,000,000 deaths or so) who, with nuclear weapons and a knack for enticing smaller wanna-be dictators to poke his rivals, might have done a lot more harm than he did had he been given free reign on the world's stage.

Just checking, are we talking about Stalin or the USA here?

Who spends the most on military? USA check
Who is the only country to use nuclear weapons on people? USA check
Who has military bases all over the world? USA check
Who has been at war 222 out of 239 years since 1776? USA check
Who entices smaller wanna-be dictators all over the world? USA check
 
PS I am no fan of Stalin, he is an evil mass murderer.

But still he is second to Mao in terms of mass killing.

Hmm, didn't the representative of a large country shake hands with Mao in 1972?
 
Wesley said:
Again this is true and a fact that people, such as apparently ylop, seem to ignore. They prattle on about the danger to themselves without ever thinking of the danger to others....
That is another reality that is ignored by people like ylop. It is far, far, far more common for an innocent soldier to be sacrificed to the court of public opinion than it is for a soldier's actions to be covered up.

Prattle on? Nice phrase ;) I don't seem to recall mentioning danger to myself.

There is plenty of danger to the population of the world from the military's actions in general, and that of the USA military specifically. In particular if you are from a third-world nation and don't have the ability to strike back in any significant way. Or as George Carlin said, "Especially if your country is full of brown people. Oh, we like that, don't we? That's our hobby! That's our new job in the world, bombing brown people!"

As far as innocent soldiers sacrificed, I find that a bit of an oxymoron. Every soldier in the western world has voluntarily agreed to take orders and conduct military action in return for pay.

Lets talk about the real innocents - people in other countries minding their own business until some napalm sprays through their roof like 9-year old Kim Phuc (who is a Christian now).

Or what about the innocents in My Lai - 400 innocent villagers murdered. All USA armed forced involved were acquitted except for Lt Calley who was commuted to house arrest and then paroled.

Those incidents are just the tip of the iceberg.
 
ylop said:
WW1 was a stalemate and likely to end in a ceasefire, until the USA entered the war in 1917. This tipped the balance into the allies favour and allowed victory and the one-sided terms of Versailles. Which led directly to the rise of Hitler and WW2.

In WW2, again that would likely have ended in a stalemate, with Germany and the USSR slowly grinding each other to pulp. Except for USA intervention. Which made Stalin's victory possible, and his conquest of Eastern Europe.

Wow, now there's a distortion for you.

Fact: The US did not want any part of WWI in Europe, and considered a European problem, until US Citizens on board the ocean liner Lusitania were attacked and killed by a German U-boat.

Fact: Germany was the one who declared war on the US not the other way around. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 and Germany declared war on the US three days later on December 10 because of the Tripartite Pact. (Even though none of the terms of the Tripartite pact actually required such a declaration.)

Let me know when you decide you want to live in the real world. Until then perhaps it's best if we just don't say anything to each other.

P.S.
The real cost of socialism...
  • Mao Tse Tung - death toll from 45 to 75 million people
  • Stalin - death toll from 40 to 62 million people
  • Hitler - death toll from 17 to 20 million people
  • Vladimir Lenin - death toll: four million people
  • Pol Pot - death toll from 1.7 to 2.4 million people
  • Ho Chi Minh - death toll: 1.7 million people
 
Wesley you need to read a little wider before making such assertions.

The USA manipulated public opinion into entering both WW1 and 2, for its own interests.

The Lusitania was carrying arms, and the German government advertised in USA newspapers recommending USA citizens not to travel on the ship.

The USA was substantially aiding the UK and carrying out offensive naval actions against Germany prior to the German declaration of war.
 
ylop said:
Wesley you need to read a little wider before making such assertions.

One of us certainly does. Which one seems to be a matter of dispute because I personally doubt that it's me. I don't buy into conspiracy theories such as the ones you are referring to unless there is a lot more evidence to support it than exists to support your theories.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top