Romans 13 and the Liberal Tradition

Jonathan Leeman, Editorial Director of the 9Marks ministry spoke at the Second Prince George’s Conference on Reformed Theology at Greembelt Baptist Church in Greenbelt, Maryland on September 30 regarding the authority of governments expounded in Romans chapter 13. He examined the question of whether, in fact, God commands obedience to all governments, and how in particular people who have a liberal democratic background should understand Paul’s teaching in this chapter.

“American Christians don’t quite know what to do with this particular text,” Leeman said. Does it mean that Christians are obliged to submit to every government, no matter how bad? Does it mean that “if you resist Hitler, really, you resist God?” People “sit uneasily … with the text.” We may think that certain laws or policies enacted by the government we live under are evil and should not be obeyed. Leeman endeavored to unpack exactly what the text means, but turned first to the background Americans bring to the text.

Biblical Morality and Liberal Doctrine

American government was founded, he said, on “some version of philosophical liberalism.” Liberalism has its different varieties, but that America was founded on general principles that, whatever else they are, must be acknowledged as liberal is undeniable. A just government, it is thought, is established to secure people’s liberties. It “maximizes” liberties as far as possible.

Political debate in American history generally involves which liberties people want and should have. People on the Left want “social liberties,” or “moral liberties.” Some want freedom to dispose of their unborn children. Others on the Right want economic freedom, to be realized in some measure by lowering taxes, and reducing the size and presence of government. This latter objective was an important motive for the American Revolution. But both Left and Right “foreground” liberty to justify their claims. The Protestant Reformation and its doctrine of “the priesthood of all believers” contributed to ideas of self-government and liberty, Leeman maintained. The contending Protestant sects at the time of the American Revolution made religious liberty important in the constitutional order.

But he pointed out that at the time of the Revolution, “there was a broad moral consensus” based on Judeo-Christian morality. Americans were divided “on the sacraments [and] church government.” But since there was consensus on Biblical morality, if not ecclesiastical doctrine and practice, the new nation was able to “get a long way towards justice.”

American liberalism’s goal is “maximizing liberty.” But “is that what the Bible says?” he asked. “Not quite. The Bible says a just government is the one the punishes the wrong and approves the right” (Rom. 13:3). Similarly, the First Epistle of Peter commands submission to government authority, since government authorities were established “to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right” (I Pet. 2:13-14). So despite early American agreement on Biblical morality, Biblical and liberal morality are “two different forms of moral evaluation.”

Because of the difference between Biblical and liberal moral evaluation, “the more Americans define justice as maximizing liberty, the more we tend to set aside” ideas of right and wrong. Doing this, he said, “works when there is a broad moral consensus, when we all basically agree on right and wrong.” But, he asked, “what happens when that moral consensus vanishes?” What happens to “rights, freedom” in that case? As the moral consensus vanishes, “different values” are put into the logic and rhetoric of freedom. There are now “rights” to things that would have been wrong before. More individual rights will work against those with disfavored moral doctrines. Grave and very basic violations of morality can occur, as when the state sanctions the killing of unborn children for the quality of life of adults. With the same justification, the government can declare a right to define one’s own sex. If the new freedoms are held to involve social approval, those holding to the old morality are penalized.

Privatizing and Eliminating Biblical Morality

One way to handle this conflict has been to claim that one is “personally opposed” to a new freedom (such as the right to abortion), but in favor of the right to make that choice. This is, of course, ludicrous. If abortion is in fact evil, it should be illegal. He noted that David French takes the same position on same-sex marriage. Leeman said that French appealed to “the logic religious liberty” in doing so. French claimed that America “can create space for people who have deeply different world views to live together, work together, and thrive together even as they stay true to their different religious faiths and moral convictions.”

But some conviction must prevail in the public square, and for French, Congress correctly determined it would be same-sex marriage in its Respect for Marriage Act (2022). Thus, privately French opposes same-sex marriage, but publicly supports it. To this way of thinking that gives priority to personal freedom and peace of mind, there is “no rational, publicly acceptable” argument in support of Biblical or other traditional, religious morality, Leeman said. This writer would add that to say that abortion or same-sex marriage should be legal is necessarily to say that they are not evil, which contradicts both the Bible and the natural law on which all reasonable people should agree. But as Leeman observed, the application of Biblical principles (even if they coincide with common sense) are regarded by many as an imposition. Personal freedom is held to override both religious doctrine and rational argument. “My freedom, my rights, my choice” is the slogan regardless of any other considerations. This attitude (which it is, more than an argument) can be used against any moral principle and can be seen even among Christians. They are effectively “working within a liberal framework.”

A Biblical Framework for Just Government

But Leeman said, “something about this isn’t right.” The apostle Peter declares that “governments exist to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do good” (I Pet. 2:14). “What language do we use,” Leeman asked, if we may not speak with the voice of either faith or reason to moral deficiencies in society?

Of course there is none if personal freedom against traditional culture is held supreme in public law and policy. But if political authorities are allowed to reasonably consider the things that make for a good life and society (as really must be done to know what rights people should have), then Biblical principles can be advanced as the superior basis for society. Leeman addressed how Christians should engage questions of justice based on Romans 13, and offered six principles:

1. We should be subject to the governing authorities, because authority comes from God.
2. Resisting the government incurs just judgment. Neither laws nor governments are always just, however. They should not “be obeyed in all circumstances.” Governments have the authority they do from God, not simply from the ruler(s) or the people. If it did, it could be unlimited. But because the government’s authority comes from God, it is also limited by him.
3. A just government approves what is good.
4. The government should bear the sword against wrongdoing. But this is based on what God declares to be good and bad. The government exceeds its authority if it does otherwise and becomes “an unjust government.” (This leads to a discussion of “civil disobedience, rebellion, [and] revolution,” but Leeman said he would not address that).
5. We should obey governments to avoid punishment, but also for the sake of conscience (doing the right thing).
6. We should pay taxes and give honor to those in the government to whom it is owed.

“Paul is not laying out an entire philosophy of government,” Leeman said. Romans 13 must be read in light of what was said in Romans 12: “vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord” (Rom. 12:19). Individuals are not authorized to execute justice. It is through the state that God executes punitive justice. “We all know what good and bad are based on natural law,” as the Epistle to the Romans asserts (Rom. 1:20-21, 2:14-15). But Leeman proposed that Romans 13 does not charge the government with addressing “every conceivable good, every conceivable bad.” Human authorities, he said, are specific to particular tasks or “domains.” A pastor has authority in a church, a parent has authority in a family, a teacher has authority in a classroom, a workplace manager has authority in a workplace, a store clerk has a certain authority in a store. Similarly, the government has a proper authority. The question is, what does it extend to? Government is primarily charged with keeping the peace, Leeman maintained. He pointed out that Paul was speaking of pagan rulers, yet they had authority from God to keep the peace. Rulers have a temporal authority, in the here and now. The shedding of blood is to be requited by the shedding of blood (Gen. 9:6). The government’s power extends only to this life. Thus, our ultimate fear should not be toward the state, but toward God.

Because governments have only temporal authority, we should work to further the “protectionist” function of government, whereas the church exists for a “perfectionist” function. “The state has the power of the sword,” whereas the church has the power of the keys of heaven. The church’s counsel is “be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Of course, Leeman said, governments from that of Pharoah to the Beast of the Book of Revelation have sought “not to protect God’s people, but to devour God’s people.” But such governments are not exercising legitimate authority. God given functions of government do not interfere with discipleship.

Although governments have only temporal authority, nevertheless, the purpose for which God has ordained them is to prepare persons for redemption. “What is the purpose of guardrails on the road?” Leeman asked. They have a “proximate” purpose “to keep the car on the road.” But their “ultimate purpose” is to ensure that one reaches one’s destination. Similarly, governments first of all exist “to keep people alive.” But governments are finally intended to keep people alive “so that they might know God.” The “common grace” which God gives governments to carry out their functions “sets the stage” for saving grace.

Two passages from the Bible make this clear, Leeman said. He referred to Acts 17:26-28: “From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him.” Secondly, I Tim. 2:1-4 commands that “petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.” Governments are justly charged with giving freedom “to live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness,” not with giving freedom to do anything one wants.

Although the ultimate objective of government is the salvation of souls, governments are “not to make disciples … That’s the church’s job” Leeman said. The government is exercising its “limited jurisdiction” of maintaining public order when, for instance, it “builds the streets … protects the womb, protects the currency, protects marriage and the family (‘not redefining marriage’),” and provides equal protection before the law “so that the church can call people to salvation.” It must recognize the sanctity of life, because all people are “made in God’s image, and we’re all called to love and serve one another.” Legitimate government thus has a limited jurisdiction. We should “vote for the party or the candidate” which furthers the government’s legitimate protective functions.  

Romans 13 is thus not a mandate to obey any and all tyrannies, nor to obey commands that involve disobedience to God, but to protect life, ensure liberty within in the bounds of human nature, and preserve rights to property so that people may flourish and fulfill their ultimate duty, which is the greater glory of God.