The Violence of Silence: Rereading Romans 13
By Alston Ng
While hundreds of thousands of Americans – outraged at the death of George Floyd – risked their lives to protest institutionalised racism and police brutality, a certain commentary began to emerge from an unlikely corner of the world. Our tiny island, it seems, has no shortage of armchair analysts, many of whom are all-too-ready to label these protests and demonstrations ‘riots and anarchy’. All this, despite having no experience with collective politics or civic participation themselves.
Some adherents of the Christian faith have also been quick to apply Paul’s epistle to the Romans (specifically Romans 13) to justify unswerving obedience to the order and laws of the state.
Is it Christ-like to reject civil disobedience?
Romans 13 begins with the injunction: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” Or in some versions like the NIV, be subject to is translated as submit to.
From this, it seems like acts of civil disobedience like protesting are out of the question, and that acceptance of the status quo, however unjust or unpalatable it may be, is the only way forward.
But I struggle to find this very submission acceptable if that requires us keeping mum about the violence, cruelty, and degradation inflicted on human lives? Are we supposed to submit to laws that justify locking children of refugees in cages at the border? (See footnote 1) Should we turn a blind eye to the dangerous living and working conditions of migrant workers in Singapore, or ignore the systematic oppression of minorities?
In such instances, isn’t ‘submission’ practically abetting violence?
What then does it mean to be subject to the state?
If ‘submission’ is indeed not right, why then does Paul instruct us to ‘be subject’ to the state? And if God’s kingdom is set against the kingdoms of the world, then why does the Bible contain an apparent sanction for state power?
Perhaps the answer lies in going beyond the face value of the text and viewing it in its appropriate historical context.
One interpretation (2) of Romans 13 is that Paul was trying to dissuade the early believers from revolting against the Roman empire. Assuming the scholarly consensus dating this epistle is accurate, this would mean that the followers of Jesus in Paul’s time were already in a very vulnerable position, with the Jews having just been expelled from Rome in 49 C.E. Paul’s message to the Christian Romans could thus have been to lay low and play the long game instead of giving their opponents any reason to strike them down in one fell swoop. In other words, scholars who subscribe to this interpretation believe that this epistle was primarily meant to discourage a historically-specific messianic revolt. It was not intended to discourage a faith-based desire to stand for equality or justice in our everyday lives.
Still a more interesting interpretation opens us to the possibility that Paul was being ironic (or sarcastic) when he asked the Christians in Rome to “submit to authority”. The New Testament scholar T L Carter (3) believes that Paul might in fact be trying to subvert the authority of the Roman government in his letter. This might seem rather far-fetched to many readers, but Carter suggests one key reason why he believes this to be reasonable: Paul is not a tone-deaf writer.
It is important to recognise that Paul, being a pastor, was not only addressing the converts of Rome, but also seeking their help and hospitality in receiving him. It thus seems counterintuitive, possibly even offensive, for him to claim that “rulers are not a terror to good conduct” (Romans 13:3). In light of the persecution faced by the early Christians, the address, when taken at face value, would have appeared out of touch with reality or plain naive. But we know this can’t be the case because in 1 Corinthians 2:8, Paul acknowledged that "None of the rulers of this age understood the wisdom of God; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." Paul was acutely aware that in putting to death the blameless Jesus, governing authorities proved that they were in fact, a terror to good conduct.
It is not unlikely that Paul trusted his audience to read between the lines and discern the underlying subtext. After all, it was widely known that Paul himself had faced persecution at the hands of the authorities, and had evaded capture (e.g. Acts 9:23-31), which is in itself an act of civil disobedience.
Faith and politics: Can they co-exist?
Admittedly, these interpretations do not illuminate a clear path out of the woods, nor do they rule out submission to the governing authorities. But hopefully they give us pause and stop us from being too quick to conclude that civil disobedience is inherently unbiblical. I am of the belief that we cannot use Romans 13 to insulate ourselves from the politics of the world nor use it to justify why faith and politics should be kept apart. More often than not, the platitude ‘Stop politicking and be faithful’ is not a call to faith but rather a defense of inequity and injustice, resonating from the ivory tower of privilege.
Answering the call to love righteousness and justice
If it were at all possible to privatise faith, to keep it out of the ‘public space’, surely the labours of the evangelists would have withered and died. In the long arc of biblical history, from kings and prophets to disciples and martyrs, there is not a moment where faith may be isolated from politics. Rather, the broken bodies of martyrs like Zechariah, John the Baptist, and Stephen reveal that the truly faithful have no qualms losing their lives to speak out against the establishment and its political masters for they understood the psalmist as he sang, “He loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of the steadfast love of the Lord.” (Psalm 33:5)
Faith does not deliver us from the sodden earth but calls us to sow in it.
Isaiah 1:17 tells us to “learn to do right” by “(seeking) justice” and “(defending) the oppressed”. Wouldn’t it be our grave if we claim to behold the glory of God but remain silent on the structures of injustice and oppression? One of my greatest fears is to someday find myself before God, called to account for my deeds, only to hear these dreadful words, “Depart from me, your cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” (Matthew 25:41).
Footnotes
Romans 13:1-7 has been used by ex-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to justify the Trump administration’s xenophobic immigration policies. Other contexts in which it was invoked to legitimate the state’s actions include the American civil war (or in the years leading up thereto) and Nazi Germany.
Among others, American New Testament scholar and theologian Marcus Borg made a compelling and relatively accessible case against universalising Romans 13 in his article cited here: Borg, M. 1973. “A New Context for Romans XIII,” Novum Testamentum, 19 (1972–73): 205–18.
Carter, T. L. 2004. “The Irony of Romans 13.” Novum Testamentum, 46 (3): 209-228.