03.05
The other side of my thinking on Romans 13 stems from the conundrum it presents when you think about how the doctrine relates to human action. Under the traditional interpretation of the passage, we’re left with a doctrine that turns ordinary, non-doctrinal decisions into mere externalities, which then become doctrinal conditionals by inheritence. In essence, this view creates a regress of negative externalities upon all issues related to itself. That can’t be correct because it’s logically incoherent. Let me try to explain this more clearly through a couple of examples.
The first thing that comes to mind is the simple act of changing jobs. Let’s say that in the last year, your particular industry experiences a major increase in taxes and regulations that leaves you making far less money. Should you look for a new job? Well, if you take Romans 13 in the traditional sense, it would be wrong to do so. You would be trying to usurp God’s authority as he carries out his plan through the hand of government. After all, that’s exactly what it says:
[2] Therefore, whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
But, that doesn’t make any sense. Changing jobs is a common sense thing to do based on a set of conditions. It doesn’t matter how those conditions, such as reduced pay, hostile work environment, etc., come about. That’s incidental. A hostile or dangerous work environment is a condition in and of itself. How that condition arises – whether by government, change of management, natural disaster, etc. – can’t be a conditional that valid adherence to a doctrine requires, because of the possibility of conflicting conditionals. For instance, what if you are employed by the government? In that scenario, two conditionals(one that violates the doctrine and one that fulfills it) now coexist.
The same problem arises when you think about moving. Let’s say you live right on the Eastern border of Alabama. One day, the Georgia legislature decides to eliminate their state income tax. Moving 30 minutes away to Georgia could save you a few thousand dollars a year. Can you move? Are you violating Romans 13 if you do by not subjecting yourself to the governing authorities?
Here’s a clearer example. Let’s say that you live in Hawaii and you’re independently wealthy. You decide to buy an island in the pacific and move there. The island has no government. It’s government is you. Now, did God ordain you as the government of that island? Who do you submit to? Yourself? Is everything you do right by default?
See the problems here? The traditional view of this passage creates so many interdependent conditionals that it’s impossible to fulfill. As I said last time, I think the best interpretation of this passage is that Paul is saying that God ordains what good government is. If you find yourself under such a government then submit to it. If you find yourself under a “government” that violates what Paul describes, you are not under any obligation, because that isn’t the government he is talking about.
