On Romans 13 and government

Copied below is a comment from the previous post that I have moved up to be a main post because it brings up several good issues.  I have slightly edited it to remove comments that refer to another blogger. The comments are from Fr. Greg, who has his own blog.

First, regarding the legitimacy of government in general: That government, in general, is legitimate is well-attested, not only in Romans, but also in I Peter 2:13-17 as well as in the writings of the Fathers. However, there is a complementary principle, “We ought to be obey God rather than men” which must be invoked any time that the state or any other entity attempts to require us to do something that God has prohibited. However, the citation from Romans 13 expressly prohibits us from refusing to pay taxes under the latter principle, and it most certainly excludes any understanding of taxation which would equate it with theft.

You say that you did not intend to imply that, and I will take you at your word on that, but I’m sure you can see how a reasonable person would likely infer that idea from what you wrote, especially since rhetoric similar to yours is often used to advance precisely that notion, an idea which calls into question, explicitly or implicitly, the legitimacy of any government whatsoever and which posits that the right to private property is absolute.

For all that, there is nothing here that stops us from criticizing the actions of civil authorities, especially in a system such as ours. Here, we are almost duty-bound to do so when it is warranted. Making revolution is another matter, and I would note that Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin/Stalin, and Hitler all came to power by overthrowing the government that preceded them. Further, while convinced and devout Christians came down on both sides of the American revolution, I think that it can be seen, not as a revolution, but as the struggle of a people who had become a separate nation in freeing itself from the British monarchy which had gone from being the legitimate government to becoming nothing more than a foreign force of occupation in the colonies.

At the same time, I would not say that revolution is never allowable. It would seem, however, that some theory of “just revolution”, analogous to Augustine’s “just war” must be posited here. Under any such theory, revolution would be the last resort, and the default position would be to assume that a given governmental structure is legitimate; in any event, evacuating refugees from a smaller neighbor undergoing a state of emergency would certainly fall within any conceivable governmental mandate and would therefore be subject to funding by compulsory taxation. (And if anyone chooses to give alms in this regard, above and beyond what they have paid in taxes, may God bless them; however, no one should confuse paying taxes for giving alms.)

Father Greg in this comment brings up several of the problems of the Religious Right when they incautiously use rhetoric from those who believe in a laissez faire capitalism and in a type of populism/libertarianism that is all too negative towards government. I will remind those who read this blog that laissez faire capitalism is only one type of capitalism. As I posted several months ago, people like President Theodore Roosevelt followed a different type of capitalism, which actually helps me to bring up the first of several points, not all of which are directly from Fr. Greg.

1. Too many in the Religious Right have fallen into the error of speaking as though the only two governmental choices are a laissez faire capitalism or socialism. When they do that, they clearly ignore the history of both capitalism and of the Republican party itself. For instance, President Theodore Roosevelt was clearly a capitalist and a Republican, but clearly favored government regulation to protect society from uncontrolled monopolies. He was a capitalist, but not a laissez faire capitalist. When the Religious Right promotes only one type of capitalism as though it were the only capitalism, and deliberately claims that all other options are socialism, they are frankly guilty of violating the commandment against false witness. It is either a very uninformed tactic, or, given all the information put out over the last year, a sadly misguided attempt to take a politically advantageous tactic regardless of its truth.
2. Fr. Greg is correct to say that much of the political propaganda tries to picture taxes as being a form of theft or to picture governments as being a barely legitimate part of society that is tolerated only at the “consent of the governed.” But, both Saint Paul in Romans 13 and Jesus in Matthew 22:21 say otherwise. In answer to those who felt that they could refuse to pay taxes to an illegitimate and/or inappropriate government, both Our Lord Jesus and Saint Paul assumed the right of government to levy and collect taxes, even without the “consent of the governed.” Does this mean that all taxes are soundly levied? Of course not, but taxes are not pictured as theft by either Our Lord or Saint Paul, even when levied by a non-elected authority. When the Religious Right agrees with the depiction of taxes as the government taking our money as though it were a form of theft, they go against Our Lord (and Saint Paul).
3. Saint Paul in Romans 13 makes it clear that a government, whether elected or imposed, is somehow part of the common grace which God gives this world. He who makes the rain to fall on both the just and the unjust uses the institutions of governments as a way to restrict the lawless and reward those who are good. By and large, governments do more good than evil. We love to cite the exceptions, but the reality is that that nation building, police, self-defense, infrastructure, and other functions of governments are part of the common good, the common grace, which God, our Father, has given to us. Barring special situations, when the Religious Right pictures government as the enemy rather than as part of God’s common grace for humanity, they go against Saint Paul. When they encourage a constant mindset of warfare against the government, as though it were a type of invading authority, when the reality is that our government is freely elected, they violate their own democratic principles and supposed belief in free elections. Simply losing an election does not make you captive to an invading authority or place you under a tyranny. Too many in the Religious Right are beginning to sound like some in an extreme wing of the militia movement. (NOTE: There are many members of the militia movement who reject the extreme wing. Please do not label all militia alike.)

Father Greg is correct that we have no Christian “just revolution” theory. Yet, there have been several revolutions around the world led by Christians. But, in every revolution Christians have had serious questions about the legitimacy of Christians engaging in revolutions. Some of those who left the USA for Canada during and after the American Revolution were not supporters of the British Crown. Rather, they were goodly minded Christians who felt that they could not support a revolution. I am convinced that part of the reason that there is no “just revolution” theory in Christianity is because revolution itself is such a dangerous instrument of change. There are too many Scriptures in both Old and New Testament that appear to encourage the believer to live within the system that is. (The exception was pointed out by Fr. Greg when he speaks of the complementary system that we must obey God rather than men. Nevertheless, in both Scripture and Holy Tradition the use of that principle is often limited to clear and unequivocal violations of Scripture and common morality.) All to often, the result of a revolution is a period of injustice, which may be long or short. In fact, I doubt that a Christian could develop a theology of “just revolution” precisely because revolutions are so dangerous and unpredictable. (Let alone those who believe Christians should generally be pacifists.)

Even Saint Augustine’s theory of a just war consistently limits the power of the government to wage war. Giving either a government or a group of individuals the right to commit violence has always been seen by Scripture and Holy Tradition as a dangerous thing. That is why limits are always imposed. In fact if you read about Saint Augustine’s just war theory, it actually forbids war unless certain criteria are met. This is why the Founding Fathers of the USA worked so hard on their philosophical justification in the Declaration of Independence. They had to list the criteria by which they had justified a violence that would normally be unjustifiable.

It is one thing to use the word “revolution” in a context in which everyone knows that one is not advocating a physical violent revolution. For instance one can hear people talk of a financial revolution or a voter’s revolution, etc. It is clear in that context that the word “revolution” does not really mean “revolution” but rather means overwhelming change. But, the Religious Right has been all too close to giving signals that it would possibly be in favor of a violent revolution. Using words such as “tyranny”, “socialism”, and speaking about “tea parties” are all invoking concepts that, when tied together, remind people of the day when violence was used to separate this country from England. On top of that using healthcare forums to silence opponents linked with the massive increase in gun sales after President Obama’s election, all appeared to point to a country dangerously edging towards real violence. I would urge the Religious Right to be more cautious in their use of connotative language.

I would remind all of us, whether on the Left, in the Middle, on the Right, whether Libertarian, Populist, or Anarchist, that the Anabaptists remind us that verbal violence is just as bad as physical violence. This is why Our Lord said that to even call our brother a fool was tantamount to murder. We need to keep on the right side of the line on political debate. It is possible to have strong powerful debate without the use of language that crosses a Scriptural line. One need only look at the Old Testament prophets to see how incredibly strong the language could get. Nevertheless, they never crossed certain lines. Among them, with one exception, they never appeared to advocate violent revolution. They never misrepresented the views of those whom they upbraided. And, they never engaged in wrongful words (or behavior) while then excusing it with the phrase that someone on the other side had done it first. In Holy Tradition, there is more than one Patriarch, more than one Saint that refused to back the government on certain issues. Some of them paid with their life. St. Thomas à Becket and St. Thomas More are two such examples. But, one would be hard pressed to find a saint that began and led a revolution.

Finally, let me give you one example of a saint who engaged in war in defense of her homeland. The action of this saint was eventually judged by Church history to be so correct that the Roman Church sainted her. Who was that saint? Saint Joan of Arc.