No I don't think a casual reading of any part of scripture is a wise idea. But the idea that you stated: "However they are not blest or sanctioned by him." seems incompatible with any honest reading of Romans 13...or I Peter 2 or I Timothy 2 or Titus 3 for that matter. Indeed your statement, calling Romans 13 (and I suppose the other texts like it) "proverbial" and "generally true" seems like the more casual reading of the two so far discussed. I think too we should also be careful in our terminology, as a casual use of say, 'sanctioned', 'blest', or 'divine right' may unintentionally muddy the waters. Institution of rulers and subjection or submission to rulers, is not the same as being 'sanctioned' or 'blest' and does not ipso facto lead to the concept of 'divine right' nor, I stress, should one assume a kind latent divine right theory in Romans 13. That (Divine Right) was a novel political theory landed upon most fully by James I & VI, using Romans 13 language, and should be seen as a kind of desperate doubling down on a system of thought that was rapidly giving way to Liberalism and the idea that the source of all authority is found not in God but rather 'the consent of the governed'. It was a last ditch effort on the part of James I and it cost his son Charles I his head. Finally, I think we should put your Christian Anarchism in a kind of historical context. You're not without some admirable advocates, Tolstoy & Jacques Ellul for certain. Our tradition though, the Anabaptists, have historically, consistently and coherently taken the 'casual reading' as you call it, though most people that raised me would call it the 'plain reading' - most recently a 1995 Inter-Mennonite statement, recapitulated our long-standing view of the State in light of Romans 13 and other passages when they wrote:joshuabgood wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 8:35 pmIt requires a little bit of mental gymnastics to be sure, but it seems obvious that a casual reading doesn't work for Romans 13...as clearly the Roman government was, in the end, not "God's servant for good" to Paul, and was, in fact, "a terror to those" of good works. Further, it seems obvious a simple "divine right" reading doesn't work in situations like Lancaster county in 1776, or Harrisonburg in 1865. Further, it seems obvious a simple reading doesn't work because Hitler/Nero/Henry the VIII etc are not godly ministers, Henry's protestations aside.HondurasKeiser wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 8:19 pmI don’t understand how you square that with scripture that clearly states that God ordains them.joshuabgood wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 1:21 pm I would say he sets them up only in the sense that he allows people to form them and in the sense that he can use them for his own purposes just like he might use an earthquake...or wild bears.
However they are not blest or sanctioned by him. Rather he is actively leading the building of his kingdom. Therefore, if we buy into the principles of his kingdom, we ought to espouse those to the worldly kingdom. And the damage that violence does needs to be confronted with salt and light.
Therefore, and as a principle axiom of my hermeneutic, I'd rather harmonize Roman's 13 with the teachings and witness of Jesus rather than the other way around.
So I see Romans 13 as a more or less proverbial teaching that is generally true but not a prescription of divine right...or some divinely sanctioned authority that escapes the teachings/witness of the real King.
That is how I square it...and those gymnastics are easier for me than calling Hitler, or Osama, or Henry the VIII God's annointed minister who exercise godly (that is Christly) authority.
We happy, state-eschewing Mennonites have managed to hold 2 ideas in our heads at once for nigh on 500 years, namely that Christ is Lord and demands our total allegiance and that Paul means what he writes in the plain English and that both are normative for the life of the Christian and the Church; and we haven't had to twist ourselves into hermeneutical knots to get there (a Mr. Ox might beg to differ about that last part but that's for him to lay out). Yours then is an unnecessary hermeneutical twist that leaves you exposed on 2 fronts:"In contrast to the church, governing authorities of the world have been instituted by God for maintaining order in societies. Such governments and other human institutions as servants of God are called to act justly and provide order. But like all such institutions, nations tend to demand total allegiance. They then become idolatrous and rebellious against the will of God. Even at its best, government cannot act completely according to the justice of God because no nation, except the church, confesses Christ's rule as its foundation" (Inter-Mennonite Confession of Faith Committee 1995: 85).
1. You have less recourse against a novel hermeneutical twist that comes along after yours that you deem anathema e.g. an argument from silence about the blessedness of loving and monogamous same-sex marriages.
2. Your Christian Anarchism or King Jesusism renders you unable to speak truth, in any sort of coherent way, to power because in the end so what? The Mennonites of say Eastern Pennsylvania circa 1775, in the face of increasing persecution, were at least able to remind their state authorities that they were violating a universally binding concept of Justice that they had the responsibility and ability to adhere to and implement. And that is because our forbears believed that there is a standard of Justice that flows from God that rulers are obliged to implement in particular contexts, and which they violate at their peril, indeed their imposition of that Justice is their very reason for existence. Your position leaves you mute or at least a little muted in the face of say Russia invading Ukraine because well: "Evil Kingdoms will do what Evil Kingdoms will do." Yours makes no functional or categorical distinction between a Hitler, a Henry VIII an Obama or a Coolidge for all are rulers in worldly kingdoms so it makes little difference in the end if they do a little evil or a lot because all will receive the same end. Why then should a Putin qua Putin not be the next Hitler? Why shouldn't he invade Ukraine? Why shouldn't he commit genocide in the Donbas - if as a ruler he is already his own standard of justice inasmuch as he refuses to submit to Jesus; then why not do whatever he will?
Carry on. I'll show myself out.