“For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” Romans 13:4
When taking Russian lessons in Moscow, my Russian language teacher and I became sidetracked into a discussion about Christianity and the government. She taught at the Russian military academy and had traveled to over thirty countries under Soviet communism, and thus, was clearly a former communist member (perhaps even former KGB or current FSB). At one point in our discussion, I read Romans 13:1-7 to her. Interestingly, her first response was this question: “But Perry, what about Stalin?”
It is a good question that every Christian should ask. Whether it concerns the tens of millions Stalin killed through the Gulag system, the millions he killed in the government-caused famine in Ukraine known as the Holodomor, or any of his other atrocities, Stalin did not produce good for most citizens of the Soviet Union. How do we make sense of Romans 13:4 in light of Stalin’s example or other evil rulers, such as Mao, Pol Pot, Khomeini, and others throughout history? We can also add evil rulers of today, such as Putin, who commits war crimes through indiscriminate killing of civilians, the leaders of Iran, who recently butchered tens of thousands of their own people, or the leaders of Cuba, who oppress their own people to enrich themselves.
Close to the 250th anniversary of the American Declaration of Independence, which commemorates the American colonists’ fight against perceived government injustices, it can be helpful to contemplate their answer to this question, as well as certain American Founders’ visions of the virtues necessary for a good government.
Holding Governments to a God-Given Natural Standard
One interpretive approach to the above question, adopted by many Reformed Protestants, including early Puritans in England and America, was to argue that Romans 13 sets forth God’s standard by which we judge contemporary governments. If a government fails to fulfill the twofold divine functions of fostering the people’s good and punishing evil, it becomes illegitimate and therefore subject both to God’s judgment and human rejection. They drew upon John Calvin’s view “that tyrannies and unjust exercise of power, as they are full of disorder, (ἀταξίας)are not an ordained government.” This view led English Puritans to justify rebellion against what they thought were tyrannies. For example, the English Reformed theologian and vice chancellor of the University of Oxford, John Owen (1616-1683) supported Oliver Cromwell’s civil war against Charles I (1654-55) and later served as an aide and chaplain to Cromwell.
His later namesake, the Welsh John Owens (1788-1867), who edited and translated Calvin’s commentaries, would include this note in his edited version of John Calvin’s Commentary on Romans when discussing Romans 13:
But it is remarkable, that often in Scripture things are stated broadly and without any qualifying terms, and yet they have limits, as it is clear from other portions. This peculiarity is worthy of notice. Power is from God, the abuse of power is from what is evil in men. The Apostle throughout refers only to power justly exercised. He does not enter into the subject of tyranny and oppression. And this is probably the reason why he does not set limits to the obedience required: he contemplated no other than the proper and legitimate use of power.
Indeed, one could point to moral and legal limits we place on honoring and obeying parental authority when parents are abusive–even though NT commands regarding children obeying parents do not explicitly discuss the limits of parental authority (e.g., Eph. 6:1; Col. 3:20).
This Calvinistic outlook would influence many American Founders, especially those with Reformed roots from New England. Of course, the key question is how one determines “the proper and legitimate use of power.” America’s founders did not think this determination was provided by the theocratic norms of the Old Testament law. Instead, as the writers and signers of the Declaration of Independence argued, they expected a government to respect certain, God-given “unalienable rights” revealed through natural revelation. That is why they concluded in the Declaration of Independence, “to dissolve the political bands” with King George III (who is not named in the Declaration of Independence but instead simply called “the present King of Great Britain”). They claimed the “present King” failed to respect the colonists’ natural rights from God and that the colonists could therefore reject his authority as illegitimate and separate from it. They also believed, as is usually the case in revolutions led by theists, that God was on their side.
The Need for God’s Virtues
Certain founders also agreed on one other important Christian-informed element in their thinking about government and God. They agreed that the people needed to acquire virtues to sustain their newly formed democracy. This belief was not necessarily a new one developed after independence. When Congress called for a day of public humiliation, fasting, and prayer in June 1775, a year before the Declaration of Independence, they not only asked people to pray for “a reconciliation with the parent state” but they also asked for prayer “that virtue and true religion may revive and flourish throughout the land” (p. 217).1
In fact, “virtue” is a word used repeatedly by a whole variety of founders during this time. Not surprisingly, we find that the years between 1750 and 1822 were the time period in which the word “virtue” was used the most in English-language books. The same is true of “vice.”
Yet, we need to pay attention to the particular virtues they thought were important. They did not promote just any popular set of virtues like character education sometimes does today. In fact, a couple of decades ago, I studied all the character education laws in the United States and made a list of the virtues listed in these laws. The list contained sixty-six virtues. It is interesting to compare this contemporary list to the list of virtues that the Founders highlighted as important for citizens.
The Founders focused on what I would call redemptive virtues demonstrated by the triune God. For example, in a 1783 “Circular to the States,” Washington closed with a prayer that related a specific list of the virtues that were derived directly from Scripture. He prayed that God would “dispose us all to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation” (p. 298). Interestingly, charity, mercy, and humility were not on the contemporary list of virtues found in state character education laws that I compiled.
Or consider two other examples. The final 1776 version of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, drafted largely by George Mason, proclaimed a positive set of virtues everyone should follow: “it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance [i.e., patience], love, and charity towards each other.” (p. 241). Interestingly, love and charity were not on the contemporary list, and patience was only mentioned in five state laws.
Thomas Reese’s 1778 “Essay on the Influence of Religion in Civil Society” provides one of the most straightforward summaries, “that unbounded benevolence, which Christianity requires, necessarily leads to the performance of all duties of charity, hospitality, gratitude, mercy, and compassion, which we have shown human laws cannot enforce, and which are nevertheless necessary to the peace and happiness of civil government” (p. 322). He would go on to mention forgiveness later.
Charity, hospitality, humility, forgiveness, gratitude, love, mercy, and peace are all Christian virtues missing from the list of 66 virtues that contemporary state laws suggest should be taught (actually, the state of Arizona’s character education law did mention forgiveness, but it was the only state to do so). Of course, these virtues are usually missing from other countries’ lists of preferred virtues. For example, Chinese moral education does not include any of these particular virtues unless one counts “Loving the nation, the party, and the people” (p. 15785)–its number one principle (and Americans think they have a problem with nationalism!).
American founders, such as Washington, Mason, and Reese, recognized that we do not simply need agreed-upon general virtues, such as courage, justice, respect, honesty, industriousness, and responsibility (some of the most-often mentioned virtues on this list and lists from other countries). We need the particular virtues of God, revealed in Scripture, to prosper. I would merely add what they do not make clear. The reason why is that we are made in God’s image and thus we flourish when we acquire and demonstrate God’s virtues. We fulfill our created purpose (for more on this point, see my forthcoming book, Unleashing the Image of God: Discovering Your Identity, Purpose, Vocation, and Character).
Thus, on the 250th anniversary of the American nation, it can be helpful for Christians from any country to reflect on what the early American thinkers thought about the source of natural rights, the limits of government, and the need for the promotion of specific virtues prioritized within the Christian tradition–virtues vital for human flourishing. Perhaps their example can still inspire us. As Reese advised the new country’s elites, “Lead the way then; show us a pattern we may dare to imitate; and use that influence and authority which Heaven has put into your hands, so that you may be a ‘Terror to evil-doers, and a praise to those that do well’” (p. 334).
Editor’s Note: We will not be posting next week due to the July 4th holiday week, except for the monthly newsletter.
