What about Submitting to Oppressive Governments?

Is Christianity credible in all its “Biblical” doctrines or what it asks of its followers? Or put another way, “Is there any belief or practice that Biblical Christians hold to that does not have a sound reason behind it?

One such issue could be raised in the area of the Christian and Politics. Specifically as it relates to Romans 13, to what extent are Christians expected to collaborate with leaders of oppressive regimes because “God has given them power to rule”. How does one who is a “pacifist” accept the basic principle of Romans 13: 1-3 without condoning the oppression, or how would they “object” without “rebelling” against what the oppressive government may decree and therefore be acting contrary to what Romans seems to be saying?

Of course this consideration is worthy of a book length answer or treatise, so I will make just a few general sweeping statements or observations.

First, let's recognize that Paul is writing to believers in Rome and very early in the reign of Nero, who had to be one of the worst of the Roman emperors. And he is writing as a Jewish believer, to a “church” that had both Jewish and Gentile converts in it. A basic worldview of the Old Testament was that God was sovereign and the He did set up and tear down rulers to accomplish His will. Therefore, Paul comes to the writing of Romans with all this as the background and context of what he is about to teach.

Secondly, in the context of what Jesus taught about the Kingdom of God, being NOT OF THIS WORLD, and that His followers would be “pilgrims and strangers” and “citizens of heaven” but nevertheless, called to be responsible citizens in a “foreign land”., They were to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's”. This was the message which would have been part of the “introduction” through which these believers would have come to Christ..

Thirdly, the Roman Government no matter how “oppressive” of the surrounding nations they may have been, and no matter how cruel and corrupt its “ruler” might be, (especially to the Christians) it was successful in bringing about the Pax Romana, and a well ordered “justice” system of what we would call “law and order”. Not that the emperor was subject to it of course.

Fourthly The Roman soldier was not only a military person but also the police officer.

Now in that setting Paul writes:
“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment, but also because of conscience. This is why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants , who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honour, then honour.” (Romans 13:1-7 NIV)

The rest of the chapter then goes on to reiterate the moral and civic commandments AND the higher demand to “behave decently”. It appeals to the Christian to “clothe yourself with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh.” (vs.14).

In this rendering at least there is NO suggestion that to submit to an authority (that is by keeping the law) is in any way “collaborating” with their “oppressive policies.” Nor does the passage suggest that God has set them up to be oppressive. It says in essence that they have been appointed to maintain “law and order” and apart from the corruption of the politicians themselves and the extent to which they may be breaking the law, nevertheless, the “common people” were “policed” so that crime did not go unpunished.

Now, this was not a democracy as we know it, and if a believer objected to a “policy” he could not write to the member of parliament and say “I object.” And as a believer, the same “pacifist” admonitions that would have him object to war or oppression or violence against another country would also prevent him from partaking in a “demonstration” or any form of anarchy. They were encouraged to “pay their taxes” but there was no out that said if one felt the tax was unfair he was exempt or under no obligation to pay it. He was expected to pay the same as everyone else, and if he could not, or chose not to, then he was expected to pay the consequence instead.

Note the teaching that Peter gives in First Peter 3:13-17 that if our good was spoken evil of, that that was a different matter. If the believer did wrong he should expect to pay the penalty but if he did right and was falsely accused he was to bear it as part of the “suffering for righteousness sake” and the one accusing would know that the believer had been wrongly convicted but still took “the high road” and in so doing the false accuser would “be ashamed”.

Is there anything unreasonable in the Biblical expectation that a believer “submits” to a regime no matter how corrupt, if it does not force one to do evil? In other words if it upholds “law and order” there is no question about submission. And if it forces one to contradict the moral obligations of the believer, it does not demand an “uprising” per se, it just means the believer refuses to obey man rather than God, and is prepared to suffer the consequences. Thus we have the believers going to the arena as martyrs rather than “bend the knee to Caesar”, and throughout history, believers who took whatever door was open to them to change the “laws”, whether it was Wilberforce entering politics and fighting for 45 years to end slavery, or Dietrich Bonhoeffer opposing Hitler and being hung in a German concentration camp because of his preaching and writings. What else can we say?

As far as I understand Romans 13 and taken in context with the rest of the Scriptures about the believer and his place as a civilian of any country, I think the expectation or practice or belief is “reasonable”. Do we have a concrete “for instance” that would suggest otherwise?