We Southern Baptists are back in the news this week, and it isn’t for our gospel efforts.
A few days ago, in a statement to the Brody File, Robert Jeffress, the pastor of First Baptist Church, Dallas, made this statement.
When it comes to how we should deal with evil doers, the Bible, in the book of Romans, is very clear: God has endowed rulers full power to use whatever means necessary — including war — to stop evil. In the case of North Korea, God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong-Un. I’m heartened to see that our president — contrary to what we’ve seen with past administrations who have taken, at best, a sheepish stance toward dictators and oppressors — will not tolerate any threat against the American people. When President Trump draws a red line, he will not erase it, move it, or back away from it. Thank God for a President who is serious about protecting our country.
A story at Dallas News by Sarah Pulliam Bailey contained some follow-up quotes from Pastor Jeffress.
He made it clear that he sees Romans 13 as authorizing Trump’s administration to undertake almost unlimited actions against Kim from North Korea.
That gives the government to the authority to do whatever, whether it’s assassination, capital punishment or evil punishment to quell the actions of evildoers like Kim Jong Un.
Did he say that the government has the authority to do evil (evil punishment) to quell evildoers? Am I reading him right there?
Of course, he also denigrated anyone who did not see this passage as he does.
Some Christians, perhaps younger Christians, have to think this through. It’s antithetical to some of the mushy rhetoric you hear from some circles today. Frankly, it’s because they are not well taught in the scriptures.
One need never wonder where Robert Jeffress stands – that is squarely behind President Trump. But is he right that his view of Romans 13 is the only view, and that anyone who doesn’t agree with him is theologically ignorant? Does Romans 13 grant our government unfettered right to destroy the clearly unhinged ruler of North Korea?
And when is it unwise to “think this through?” Isn’t thoughtful exegesis a good thing?
I would offer the following thoughts.
1. Kim is undoubtedly a cruel and evil dictator who has caused great harm to this world. He appears to be detached from reality, vicious, and violent. He ignores basic human rights, abuses his own people, persecutes Christians, and makes wild threats against other nations. He claims to have nuclear weapons. An evil madman with nuclear weapons – yes, our government has legitimate interests in dealing with him. The question is not whether we should deal with him, but how. More importantly, the question is what kinds of violence are justified in that effort.
2. Evangelical Christians have generally followed the theory of Just War since Augustine first began to develop these principles. They are not spelled out biblically or universally adhered to, and some pacifists reject them entirely. But one site gives a fair summary.
- A just war must be undertaken as a last resort after peaceful options are considered and exhausted.
- A just war is waged by a legitimate governmental authority, not by individuals or groups.
- A just war must have a just cause. It must be a response to a wrong suffered. Either it should be self-defense or the pursuit of a noble and just goal.
- A just war should have a rational probability of success. Entering into hopeless causes is not just.
- A just war must be undertaken with the right intentions – to establish peace and to enforce justice.
- A just war must engage only in violence proportional to the casualties suffered. Only that amount of force necessary to accomplish the just goal should be used.
- A just war must distinguish between military and civilians. Civilians must never be the target of military action. Civilian deaths are unavoidable in war, but they should be avoided as much as is possible.
Is military action against North Korea and Kim Jong Un justified? He seems to be dangerous and is threatening peaceful nations around him. Have all peaceful options been exhausted? I am not an expert in geo-political affairs, but it seems like nothing has worked so far. Military action may well be our only option.
The question is whether the force of some of Jeffress’ words is in the spirit of just war. Perhaps he is engaging in hyperbole for effect, but the tone of his words is troubling. Are there limits to how far we can go in destroying Kim and his regime? Does anything go? Does Romans 13 authorize a no-holds-barred destruction of North Korea?
3. Romans 13 is not just for America.
Ultimately, this is my quarrel with the tone of many “God and country” homilies – they seem to imply a special place for America in the heart of God. Romans 13 was written in the Roman Empire. The authority given power there was Nero – if he was an improvement on Kim, it was not by much.
Bart Barber tweeted an interesting thought, which I assume was in response to this kerfuffle.
Kim Jong Un is a murderous dictator, but Romans 13 gives him just as much authority as it does to President Trump. #Exegesis.
He followed that up with a Facebook comment.
Apart from the politics, I think the meaning of Romans 13 is lost if we think that it applies only to leaders we favor of our own country in those decisions with which we agree. It applied, you know, to a dictatorial, anti-Christian, foreign oppressor named Nero.
Romans 13 does not just apply to America – we are not God’s special chosen.
4. No government’s authority is unlimited.
The statement that causes me the greatest angst is his statement, “That gives the government to the authority to do whatever…” Following that statement, he included assassinations, something most civilized governments frown on as a tactic of war, and “evil punishment.” I don’t know what that means, but it sounds ominous.
No, we do not have the right to do evil in the pursuit of good. The ends do not justify the means. Civilized nations put limits on the extent of warfare and a prominent pastor encouraging war without moral limits is troubling.
5. As pastors, we ought to remember what team we play for.
Yes, Kim is nuts. Military action against him may be necessary, just, and wise. As an American, I would cheer for the removal of Kim from power. Still, my highest calling is not as an American, but as an ambassador of Christ. As such, I must remember that the North Koreans are not our enemy, they are the battleground. We don’t fight AGAINST them, we fight FOR them. We wrestle against principalities and powers for people who are enslaved in the darkness. We are here FOR Muslims and FOR North Koreans and FOR Chinese and FOR…well, people of every tribe and language.
Our citizenship is in heaven.
Our loyalties will always be divided. As Americans, we will rejoice when an evil dictator is confronted and brought low. History has not supported the idea that good results when evil is allowed to fester. But our hearts, our focus, AND OUR PUBLIC WORDS should be focused on gospel concerns. Is it really best for a Baptist preacher to be cheerleading for war? Is that the message we want to send to the world? Does that further the cause of the Great Commission?
6. Jeffress’ statement that he didn’t want Trump to obey the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount is baffling.
The Dallas news article has this quote.
A Christian writer asked me, ‘Don’t you want the president to embody the Sermon on the Mount? I said absolutely not.
Why would he instruct the President not to live out the teachings of Jesus’ sermon in Matthew 5-7. I was bothered when his inaugural message left out the gospel entirely, but actively instructing the President not to conform his life to the teachings of God’s word? I don’t get it. I am not going to read an explanation into it, but I sure wish he’d explain his comments.
Ought we ever to encourage people not to obey Scripture?
7. Robert Jeffress is NOT a spokesman for the Southern Baptist Convention.
I say this for the many secular and non-SBC readers who have begun to follow our blogposts here. Southern Baptist churches are autonomous and no Southern Baptist speaks for all Southern Baptists. FBC, Dallas, is certainly one of our most famous pulpits, but the pastor of that church speaks for himself, perhaps his church, and not for the convention. Yes, many agree with him, but many do not.
I speak for myself. I don’t represent the SBC. I don’t even speak for my church on this blog. Robert Jeffress does not speak for me, or for Southern Baptists. Whether his opinions are a majority or not, I don’t know. Yes, most evangelicals voted for Trump, but most I talked to did so with much less enthusiasm than Jeffress did.
Simply put, in Southern Baptist life, no individual speaks for all of us.
Wrapping It Up
I do not anathematize Jeffress’ comments, but they disturb me. I agree with some of his points but he goes too far and his excesses nullify the value of the truths he shares, in my view.
- I agree with him that Romans 13 authorizes governments to deal with evildoers. I do not believe it applies to America in any way over other nations. I do not believe it gives the government of our nation or any other unchecked authority to do whatever it wants. I do not think that Robert Jeffress is giving a full and accurate exposition of Romans 13 in his comments.
- I agree with him that our government should be concerned about Kim and North Korea but I do not believe that Jeffress’ rhetoric is helpful. As pastors, we ought to serve as the conscience of the land, not as cheerleaders for the war machine. We ought to be examining Scripture and applying just war principles, not encouraging assassinations and “evil punishment” in other lands. Our hearts ought to be focused on gospel efforts more than military ones. Yes, it is true that the removal of Kim would, in the long run, open doors in Korea (depending on what follows), but we are always courting disaster when we become the rooting section for a politician or for an administration.
- I agree with him that we want a president with backbone willing to stand up against those who would do evil in the world. However, his rhetoric drifts into dangerous waters. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Our system is designed to make sure no one has unhindered power.
- I am not sure what he meant when he encouraged the president not to live out the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount, but that statement baffles me, befuddles me, and bothers me. (Got 3 alliterated words in there!)
- Perhaps most disturbing is Jeffress’ tone, obviously a subjective thing. He seems combative and aggressive. Dr. Mohler had a comment on Facebook last night that captured what I believe is a much more biblical attitude in a situation like this.
With heavy hearts, thoughtful and biblical Christians recognize that military action is sometimes absolutely called for; but it’s never called for for Christians to be bellicose, in any way to celebrate war.
While Dr. Jeffress has a nugget of truth, his erroneous statements and false applications of those truths, coupled with his bellicose tone and indiscriminate support of war are red flags. Was he just being hyperbolic? Unguarded? Maybe. But he usually seems to know what he’s saying.
Yes, I believe there is still reason to “think this through” not to be mushy, but to come to greater clarity than his words offer.
NOTE: An excellent article by Christianity Today’s Mark Galli explored some of these topics, especially the subject of nuclear war and also Jeffress’ use of Romans 13. It is not Scripture and not inerrant, but it makes some interesting points and is worth reading.
DISCUSSION NOTES: I realize this is a “trigger” post. Criticizing Jeffress has become an SBC taboo. I am not denigrating him, but I do question his statements – whether they are wise. So, if you wish to discuss this, you will NOT insult Jeffress personally nor will you insult personally anyone who questions Jeffress. Deal with the IDEAS.
And, I may be a little more heavy-handed with moderation to keep us on topic. Rabbit trails here are fraught with land mines!
There is no doubt that this is a hot-button topic and chances are that tensions may run high. There has been much tweeted, Facebooked, and blogged about this – I’m hardly giving breaking news here.
But stick to the topic, speak to the issues, not to personalities. Be reasonable, reasoned, and biblical.
Be excellent to each other.
OK view from the pews:
To my ear, Dr. Jeffers takes an unwise, disdainful dig at “past administrations.” Disdain is such a problem in public discourse; it’s always jarring to hear from a Christian leader who knows they have a large audience. You know what I mean. It just makes you wince and say “That’s unnecessary.”
And I’m wondering how many laypeople, even in his own church, agree with Dr. Jeffers’ point-blank application of Romans 13 in saying “In the case of N. Korea, God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong-Un.” Doesn’t that go pretty far beyond exegesis? Isn’t it extraordinarily specific? It’s shocking, really. What compelled him to say that? I’m trying to imagine what it would take for my pastor — or any pastor I have known — to make such a public proclamation. Probably a direct order from God, followed by weeks of wrestling in prayer, saying please God, I don’t want to be this messenger, I don’t want to say this!!! Please don’t make me!! Maybe that happened, I don’t know.
We all need a dose of humility – especially about who has the right to “take out” whom.
A dose of humility would hurt none of us, and sometimes it seems that our quarrel with moderates made us think moderation was somehow ungodly.
Do we perhaps forget about the last phrase of Gal 6:1? Even when correction or rebuke is needed, it brings its own temptations with it, which we need to be watchful of.
Karen,
Of the many things that bothered me was his intentional – political swipe at the previous administrations. Thanks for mentioning it.
My heart breaks for FBCD as their what should be… privileged pastor has become a wanna be… political pundit. This isn’t even a church state comment but a call to pastor a people. I have a great love for FBCD as I went to Criswell, worked for FBCD, while a student) all during the 79 and following SBC tumultuous years.
As far as NOKO… something has to be done. Is the tough rhetoric coming now from the WH what is needed? I do not know but it is fair to say, silence and ignoring the situation has not worked and has allowed NOKO to gain more missiles and nukes and whatever else.
Let the WH and politicians discover the best way to keep all safe. For us pastors, let’s pray / pastor / preach. The world who needs to know Jesus will not find him in words used to denigrate others or call for a people to be wiped out.
Where are the voices in the SBC that when speaking out we stop and listen to the wisdom? I am missing those days.
Solid exegesis / balanced grace / Spiritual authority… because you knew where they had been prior to opening their mouths… WITH GOD!
Thank you, Todd.
Unfortunately this seems to be the outcome when you mix Christianity with politics and nationalism. We move away from sharing Christ and become just another political bloc.
There is always that danger. I don’t think anyone MEANS to do that, but it can happen.
I’m not a pacifist. I am glad we have a strong military. I think those men and women should be commended for serving for us. God uses armies to accomplish His will.
Now I don’t own a gun but I support the right of those who are legally allowed to carry. And I won’t shoot you if you break into my house but I would hope to make you feel regret for doing so.
I’m not a pacifist. But I also believe that as representives of our Lord and King, we should not be using His Words to further the military objectives of any secular nation including our own.
We understand that God has granted authority and power to earthly kingdoms to deal with internal and external enemies, and that God’s uses these kingdoms to further His plan.
But unless we are called to serve in a government and thus obligated to make such decisions we are to not meddle in war.
Our role on earth is not too see America thrive and prosper but to proclaim the Gospel. And in that proclamation we call on all people everywhere to surrender to the King of Kings. And to lay down their rebellious ways, and their false gods, and to submit all their allegiances to the way of the Lord.
For we know that the true struggle is not against men but as we are told:
Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.
Thank you for this verse!
“Our role on earth is not too see America thrive and prosper but to proclaim the Gospel.”
I agree that our mandate as followers of Christ is spreading the gospel/making disciples but I also believe there is a place for patriotism and wanting your country to thrive. I do not see these two ideas as antithetical.
Jeff,
What if revival would only come to America when its gods of materialism and leisure were brought low?
The point is that when a people look to the world first they are not living for God’s glory at all.
So if it is true then would you rather promote America’s prosperity or its hard times?
And since we don’t know, to assume that revival and prosperity go hand in hand is wrong.
And since we know it is the blessing of God to be revived than we shouldn’t think that prosperity is a necessary good future?
Mike,
I do not assume prosperity and revival go hand in. I also do not believe they are mutually exclusive. I seek to bring up my children in the nurture and adminition of the Lord. I also like to “prosper” them with material gifts. I try to obey God in every thought word and deed. If this leads to great riches, I will praise God. If I end up in a cardboard box, I will praise God while seeking to better my circumstances and praying that He will raise my standard of living.
Unfortunately, this tone exhibited by Robert Jeffress is not new. Keep in mind the names he has called NeverTrump conservatives over the past two years – “fools…hypocrites…evangelical gnats…namby-pamby, panty-waisted, weak kneed Christians.” The time has come for all Christians to have real dialogue with each other about the issues of the day without throwing brickbats at each other.
Jeff,
I don’t think we are disagreeing.
But I got confused because you quoted me and then under that quote posted what seemed to me a negatory response.
I spoke of our duty and you spoke of our desire. But since you quoted me I thought you were speaking of both.
Mike,
Thanks for the dialogue. I think we are in agreement. I think Mr. Miller makes some great points and who knows maybe someday we can all attain Mr. Jeffress’ level of scriptural enlightment. Until then I aint buyin it.
You’re right, Jeffress has taken a nugget of truth and used it to unconditionally support Trump. I think Jeffress is a self-aggrandizing shyster (look at his twitter feed), perhaps second only to the president. I am embarrassed by him just as I am embarrassed by the president. Since when do we use the bible to justify assassination? It’s easy to call for someone’s murder when you’re not the one holding the gun. God help this country when we’ve got people who think we’re in some kind of golden-age theocracy with Trump leading it. Other so called Christian leaders like Huckabee and Falwell are just as bad.
I know you have strong feelings about these issues, Bill, but lets not walk down that path, okay?
I would like to keep the discussion off of our feelings about Robert Jeffress and on the topic.
Yeah, sorry about that. The christian response to this president has got me baffled and frustrated. I particularly withdraw the word shyster in regard to Jeffress.
Any time the Bible and our faith intersect with politics and geopolitics, we have to be really careful to extract and apply the truth in the Bible without ending up claiming that Jesus supports my political views or particular prescription for a problem or issue.
President Obama once claimed that Jesus would support his budget because of Obama’s allocations for spending in certain areas.
Last night I read dozens of statements in social media by Christians on what God would have pastors preach this morning and what God would have our current President say about the violence in VA yesterday.
Any time pastors and Christians taint our calling to speak truth and be prophetic by adding political spin and flare, we surrender the moral force that comes with truly prophetic speech.
We would just do better to say, “This is the way I see it” and leave Jesus out of it.
War is awful. Sometimes it’s necessary and sometimes it’s unavoidable.
Of course God has given government the power to punish evil. I have never seen that as applying to geopolitical struggles, but to the enforcement of law in areas where the government already has jurisdiction. That is, the Roman Emperor had the right to punish assault and theft in its boarders, but did not (by using this verse) have a right to invade Gaul as a matter of conquest. I suppose in extreme cases, a case can be made. But I would do so on the grounds that any moral government should protect its citizens.
I would not want any US President to try and use the Sermon on the Mount as a grid for decisions for the nation. “Turn the other cheek” might be seen to require doing nothing in response to a military attack.
Inasmuch as government leaders are fiduciaries over others, it’s one thing to turn one’s own cheek, but quite another to endanger others by turning their cheeks.
Dr. Jeffress is sincere, but he should be more careful in my view.
I agree with Dr. Jeffress in his primary point. The passage in Romans 13:1-7 does indeed teach that the leader of a nation “does not bear the sword for nothing.” (Romans 13:4) The authority Jeffress claims for the President is accurate.
I agree with Dr. Jeffress in his evaluation of the previous administration. One certainly does not have to look far to find those in the early days of the Obama administration pointing fingers at the perceived weaknesses of George W. Bush. I do not think foreign policy was Obama’s strong suit—whether looking at Benghazi, the “trade” for Bergdahl, or anything else, really. (Obama’s other area of weakness was domestic policy.) I think Jeffress is celebrating Trump’s willingness to address the kinds of threats admitted in the OP as being real.
From a spiritual standpoint, the Romans 13 passage is properly applied to the issue of international relations. The Baptist Faith and Message lists this very passage of Scripture under the article entitled “Peace and War” in our confessional statement. For Jeffress to claim that the general principle also applies here as we deal with North Korea does not strike me as nearly as provocative a statement as others suggest. It is the logical application of a well-founded biblical principle.
From a national defense perspective, I believe Jeffress is right once again. As mentioned in the Original Post, Un is a “cruel and evil dictator” who is “detached from reality, vicious, and violent,” one who “ignores basic human rights, abuses his own people, persecutes Christians, and makes wild threats against other nations.” It is in this context that I find the statements by Jeffress to be entirely appropriate.
Frankly, I do not quite understand the dustup. An evil dictator is practicing lobbing nuclear bombs at America, and a Minister quotes the Bible in defense of our leader’s authority to protect us. In the Reagan Administration, this was boilerplate stuff.
Granted, Jeffress does not speak for all Southern Baptists. But for this Southern Baptist, and millions of others, his views are more reflective of our geopolitical philosophy than almost any other Southern Baptist leader in public life. Since 80% of us watch Fox News, Jeffress is becoming, for all practical purposes, the primary mouthpiece for Southern Baptists.
We could do worse.
Rick,
With the possibility of excluding the persecution of Christians, couldn’t all those attributes be applied to Vladimir Putin? And yet Jeffress is not calling for “taking out” him. I’ll ask again, since when does the bible advocate assassination?
For this Southern Baptist, the thought that Jeffress purportedly speaks for me is horrifying. We would be better served if he stuck to the job he gets paid to do.
Bill Mac,
1. Yes, Romans 13 also gives Putin biblical authority to punish evildoers. Perhaps if Jeffress were Russian, he would so advise Putin to address the madman making nuclear bombs in North Korea. Or are you saying that, under this scenario, Putin’s level of insanity and immorality rivals that of Un? I’m not quite ready to concede such a notion. Technically, however, it is true. Trump possesses Romans 13 authority to punish evildoers even if they are Russian and not North Korean.
2. The Bible advocates the killing of evil people, the assassination of evil leaders, and in some cases the entire population of nations, in the context of warfare and national defense, sometimes even carried out by God Himself, in Genesis 7:23, 1 Samuel 17:50-51, 2 Kings 9:32-33, Deuteronomy 2:33-34, and Revelation 19:15. Murder is wrong and is condemned in the Bible, but killing in self-defense or criminal punishment or warfare is not only permitted in the Bible, but it is at times even commanded.
3. Sorry to horrify you with the fact that the views of Jeffress represent the views of most Southern Baptists, but they do. We learned this last November, but some have apparently forgotten, and are “shocked” that a Southern Baptist Pastor believes Romans 13 teaches that the leader of the free world “does not bear the sword for nothing.” As for the job Jeffress is paid to do, some of the regular Fox News Contributors are indeed paid, I believe, so it is likely that in sharing his opinion, he is, in fact, “doing a job he is paid to do.” As for whether or not a Christian Pastor has a prophetic role to address the biblical impact of domestic and international policies, I would argue that Jeffress has just as much of a right to share his views as, say, Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or John Pavlovitz. Christian ministers on the left and on the right politically are permitted to share their views in this country—unlike those in North Korea.
Just because a majority of evangelicals voted as Jeffress did is not proof that they share his unbridled passion for everything Trump says or does.
Many claimed to vote for Trump out of necessity not passion.
Putin is a brutal, evil, and dangerous dictator. He is an enemy of the United States, even if he is not an enemy of Trump. He may be slightly less crazy than Un, but that difference is not reflected in the difference in how Putin is viewed by our president vs Un (at least recently).
“Sorry to horrify you with the fact that the views of Jeffress represent the views of most Southern Baptists, but they do.”
Sorry, but how do you know this? Just because the majority of SBCers voted for Trump, that doesn’t mean they think like Jeffress.
My remark about Jeffress doing what he is paid for is to say that no one in the SBC chose Jeffress to represent us. He does not represent us. He has not been hire, elected, or appointed to speak for us. He has a completely uncritical support for Trump that any Christian should be ashamed to hold, let alone suggest that the majority of us hold the same.
Rick,
Can you provide for us the text in the “Peace and War” article that you believe is applying Romans 13 to the war-making powers of the head of state?
I think the very inclusions of Romans 13 implies this truth. The key I think is to “seek peace with all men on principles of righteousness”
I heard Adrian Rogers say you cannot over come a bad ideal with a bomb only with a better Ideal. The Gospel is a better ideal!!
I believe most evangelicals hold to the just war theory.
Peace and War
It is the duty of Christians to seek peace with all men on principles of righteousness. In accordance with the spirit and teachings of Christ they should do all in their power to put an end to war.
The true remedy for the war spirit is the gospel of our Lord. The supreme need of the world is the acceptance of His teachings in all the affairs of men and nations, and the practical application of His law of love. Christian people throughout the world should pray for the reign of the Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 2:4; Matthew 5:9,38-48; 6:33; 26:52; Luke 22:36,38; Romans 12:18-19; 13:1-7; 14:19; Hebrews 12:14; James 4:1-2.
Bart,
I have little to add to Greg’s excellent answer, except to simply say, “Amen.”
Indeed, the inclusion of the biblical passage itself implies the connection of Romans 13 with the geopolitical issues faced by heads of state in their administration of justice, including whether or not to authorize the use of military force for either a special operation or a more extended period of engagement.
“Seeking peace with all men on principles of righteousness” sometimes requires the use of force. It did, for example, in order to rid our nation of the blight of slavery in the Civil War. It was necessary to win our independence from the oppressive policies of King George in the American Revolution.
I do certainly “pray for the reign of the Prince of Peace.” I long for peace. But sometimes, in “seeking peace with all men on principles of righteousness,” the men with whom we must concern ourselves do not share our principles. To bring about peace in a world where nuclear weapons are being lobbed at us, the POTUS, whoever he is, may need to exercise legitimate, “not bearing the sword for nothing” biblical authority.
I would rather the POTUS act *before* the nuclear weapons start flying rather than afterward. We have a bully on our hands, and bullies are easier to put in their place before they grow in their military power.
Greg, what I see is an article about peace. There’s no articulation of Just War Theory there.
Now, I myself AGREE with Just War Theory, but I don’t see it in this article from the BF&M at all, and I don’t see it in Romans 13 at all. Romans 13 is clearly about the relationship between a state and its subjects.
Perhaps the BF&M cites Romans 13 as a key passage in preventing CIVIL war. This interpretation would have the benefit of squaring up with both the actual context of Romans 13 AND the actual text of the article on Peace and War. Thus, the submission to the sword of state taught in Romans 13 is part of “[seeking] peace with all men on principles of righteousness” and “[doing] all in their power to put an end to war” and “acceptance of His teachings in all the affairs of men and nations, and the practical application of His law of love.” Rather than fomenting insurrection against legitimate government, Christians should yield to the sword of state on temporal matters as God has commanded through Paul in Romans 13.
Rick,
I have little to add to Greg’s excellent answer below.
Rick,
I will ask this, however, about your exegesis of Romans 13. There the text commands that all “be in subjection” to the “governing authorities” and to do so “not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.”
Is it your opinion that Donald Trump is the ruler of the world? Does Kim Jong Un have a Romans 13 responsibility to be in subjection to Donald Trump? Do all world rulers and all citizens of the world have that same responsibility to be in subjection to Donald Trump?
I believe that I do have a Romans 13 obligation to be in subjection to the American government. Do you believe that all citizens of the world have that same responsibility?
If you do believe that, then I do not disagree that, in line with that belief, the American President, if he were to make war against North Korea, would be doing so in a way justified by Romans 13. I do not share that belief, but I can see how holding it would lead to the conclusion that you have advanced.
If you do not believe that all of the world’s leaders and citizens owe allegiance and submission to the government of the USA, then do you just take the “bear the sword for nothing” phrase to be a text with no applicable context to be applied in any way imaginable? Or could you otherwise help me by explaining how the whole pericope, and not just snippets removed from it, has to do with Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un?
My effort here is not so much to refute you—although I’m not above doing that later 🙂 —as it is to UNDERSTAND you. Perhaps you could just walk us through the entire paragraph, replacing all of the pronouns and generics with “Donald Trump” and “Kim Jong Un” to show us how you believe this passage, in its full context, applies to the present situation.
Bart wrote:
Perhaps you could just walk us through the entire paragraph, replacing all of the pronouns and generics with “Donald Trump” and “Kim Jong Un” to show us how you believe this passage, in its full context, applies to the present situation.
I suppose it would look something like this:
1 Every person [including every Never Trumper] is to be in subjection to the governing authorities [including Trump]. For there is no authority [including Trump in America and Un in North Korea] except from God, and those which exist [including Trump and Un] are established by God.
2 Therefore whoever resists authority [including the American Commander in Chief who demands that Un stop lobbing practice nuclear warheads at us] has opposed the ordinance of God; and they [evildoers, both at home and abroad] who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves [condemnation stemming from the principled peace and freedom loving people of the world].
3 For rulers [like Trump and Un] are not a cause of fear for good behavior [like Trump for issuing a gracious warning first], but for evil [like the madman Un, who starves his people to make bombs and unwisely threatens to attack the greatest military superpower in the history of the world]. Do you want to have no fear of authority? [Do you, Un?] Do what is good [by abandoning your tests and feeding your people instead] and you will have praise from the same;
4 for it is a minister of God [yes, even Trump] to you for good. But if you do what is evil [picking a fight with America that America did not start], be afraid [Un, rather than trying to make America afraid]; for it [the Commander in Chief of the United States of America, who is, according to law, one Donald J. Trump] does not bear the sword for nothing [there is a reason Trump has been given the nuclear codes to bombs that actually do work]; for it is a minister of God [yes, Trump once again], an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil [whether the Unabomber in America or the next Hitler overseas.]
5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection [to all governing authorities, from your parents to the local city council to the state tax assessor to the United States to the pilot of the aircraft to the Judge in the courtroom to the United Nations Security Council, and ultimately, to God] , not only because of wrath [you will likely face punishment], but also for conscience’ sake [it is right to submit to the rule of law, even international law when nations impose sanctions against you to induce proper behavior]
6 For because of this you also pay taxes [and, in the case of Un, sanctions], for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing [the protection of people from crime domestically and war internationally]
7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due [pay your taxes]; custom to whom custom [pay your sanctions]; fear to whom fear [respect the military power of the United States of America]; honor to whom honor [the American people, who have been patient with you while you lob warheads in our direction, but will not be patient forever].
Of course, this assumes a broader scope of authority for the President of the United States than merely what happens within our own borders, but this is frankly the case the minute one admits the legitimacy of any type of foreign policy whatsoever.
Since that which occurs *outside* America can have an enomous impact on that which occurs *inside* America, I think one can argue that the President not only has the moral authority but even the moral responsibility to protect American lives from harm. This is why he bears the sword—both in the case of the police and in the case of the Armed Forces.
In the context of modern diplomacy, our shrinking world, and the reality of warheads that can travel from North Korea to America in a little over twenty minutes, I’m comfortable expanding the parameters of Romans 13:1-7 to include a nation’s leader exercising his divine authority to bear the sword even when the blade is drawn to fall upon the head of an evil and ruthless foreign dictator whose reckless actions endanger the lives of 323 million Americans, including yours and mine.
Finally, I don’t think the drafters of the Baptist Faith and Message limited their application of Romans 13:1-7 to cases of Civil War only when they listed it among the verses under the “Peace and War” article. I believe they applied it more broadly to the protection provided by both the police domestically and the military abroad. Clearly, I embrace such a parameter.
Rick,
It seems you are arbitrarily assigning names to pronouns with an inconsistent method.
If so, that is called eisigesis, is it not? Fitting the Scripture to your view instead of the other way around.
I suppose then one could make the scriptures “say” whatever one wants them to say, if one was ding that, that is.
Rick,
I missed this paragraph, sorry:
“In the context of modern diplomacy, our shrinking world, and the reality of warheads that can travel from North Korea to America in a little over twenty minutes, I’m comfortable expanding the parameters of Romans 13:1-7…”
If only God had known ahead of time that such terrible conditions were going to exist, we are sure that He would have included your interpretation when he had Paul write those verses.
Thanks Rick for helping God out and expanding the parameters of His Word to cover modern day circumstances.
Mike,
The assignment I was given was to take the text itself, and by means of “walking through it” and “replacing pronouns” explain how I would *apply* the truth of the text of Romans 13:1-7 in the broader context of the international “Peace and War” article in The Baptist Faith and Message, under which it is clearly listed.
I am certainly not the first Southern Baptist to apply Romans 13 both to the police and to the military. My assignment of names was not arbitrary in the least, but explanatory. Yes, it would be *eisegesis* at the *interpretation* phase, since I am adding to the text (as I was asked to do!) but I already provided Bart with the broader interpretation parameters requested.
At this juncture, he did not ask for my *interpretation* of the text, but for my *application* of the text, which was already bound to the international scope I had previously discussed.
As for your smart aleck second response, we both agree that God foreknew the conditions of our world today. He inspired men like John and Paul to write down words in the First Century that sometimes may strike us as antiquated semantically. For example, we are limited to the word “sword” because Paul never saw a nuclear warhead. Again, God knew about them, but Paul didn’t. Thus, we do not find them in the biblical text.
Of course, there is no sense in which God needs me to “help Him out” as you put it. It’s a good thing you were being sarcastic; otherwise, you would be guilty of blasphemy. The process works like this: (a) inspiration of the text by God, (b) inscription of the text by biblical authors, (c) interpretation of the text by biblical readers, and (d) application of the text by doers of the Word.
I was asked to work on (d) and that is what I did.
Rick,
It is possible to (a) affirm Just War Theory and affirm Donald Trump’s authority to make war while also (b) concluding that there is no sound exegetical basis for grounding that authority in the wording of Romans 13.
I would observe that you didn’t exactly do what I asked. Rather than just swapping out pronouns for names, you gave a whole lot of extra verbiage to try to make the passage make sense as you are applying it, and (it seemed to me) to avoid the major questions that I was posing (viz., whether Donald Trump is the ruler of the world and whether all rulers and citizens of the world owe him subservience).
Of course, I am not Donald Trump, and you owe neither fealty nor submission to me, and it is your right and privilege not to answer the questions in any straightforward manner.
To speak frankly for a moment, I think it is rather unimportant whether you and I differ politically about this. I didn’t tweet or blog any alarmist criticism of Donald Trump’s interaction with Kim Jong Un. If I thought there were more bite behind the bark, I might be alarmed, but I’m not all that worried about it. If global thermonuclear war descends upon us tomorrow, that would be colossally bad, but you and I would be in Heaven together at the end of it all, which is where we’ll soon be no matter what transpires geopolitically.
It does, however, matter quite a bit more to me whether we exegete scripture responsibly or make it the lapdog to our political allegiances. In my mind’s eye, the question of our faith and doctrine is a much, much bigger one than the question of how well we feel our vote from last November is turning out.
Rick,
Rather than just citing the heading of the article, can you provide us with actual wording from the text of the article on “Peace and War” that address the authority of a head of state to make war, or “the protection provided by both the police domestically and the military abroad”? That would be helpful.
Bart,
I think I will bow out after this, because the words I am using in trying to answer your questions are apparently not answers you believe address your questions, even though I am trying to do so.
In my view, you have more or less placed a “Just War Theory” and “War Powers Discussion” template over the top of both Jeffress’ comments and Romans 13.
My application will not make sense to you in that specific grid, but then again, I disagree with the grid itself. I’m honestly not trying to dodge your questions or be evasive. You asked me to explain my application, to “walk you through” it, so I explained my application.
My contextual boundaries for Romans 13 are simply broader than yours, and I think this must be the source of our disagreement.
To clarify, now that you have asked a very specific question in your second paragraph, my answer is simply, “No, Donald Trump is not the Ruler of the World, and everyone does not owe him subservience.”
I am not sure what you mean by your “frank” paragraph, but I think Un may very well be a threat, and I think the President has the authority to address such a threat, based on Romans 13:4, since he does not “bear the sword for nothing.” I agree, of course, that in the event of thermonuclear war, we will be with Jesus.
I want to exegete scripture responsibly. I don’t want to make it the lapdog of any political allegiances. Long before Trump’s campaign, I already believed that Romans 13 had applications both for the police and for the military. This is not a Trump thing.
In response to your last question asking for the section of the article on “Peace and War” that I believe gives the President the right to take actions necessary to preserve peace at home and abroad, the phrase I would cite is in the very first sentence, where his duty and ours is generally “…to seek peace with all men on principles of righteousness.”
Again, the assumption that because someone watches FOX and is SB they view Jeffress as a spokesman is a gross miscalculation.
I have had discussions with a number of SB, FOX-watching, fire-engine red folks who dismiss Jeffress and find his views unacceptable.
First of all, thank you Dave for writing this article. I always enjoy your progression of thought, content, and format. The preacher in you certainly comes out in your posts.
I have an older pastor friend who really likes both Dr. Jeffress and President Trump. For the record, I respect both of them as well, in fact, Dr. Jeffress when he is not hung up on politics is a fine preacher. However, this older pastor’s admiration makes him unwilling to accept any criticism of or disagreement with these men. He made the mistake of asking me what I thought about Dr. Jeffress’s comments, and he did not like what I said. In a nutshell, I informed him that being an advocate for preemptive war is outside the purview of a Gospel preacher.
Gentlemen, we preach the Gospel of peace, and regardless of our philosophical stances on war, we should NEVER be a spokesperson FOR war. Delving into such things is a step down for us. We should leave this to our generals and president.
Lastly, I pray that we do not got to war in this matter. My concern is not only for us and our allies in the region, but also for the people of North Korea themselves. I’ve got to believe that every mama when she holds her children, regardless of background, hopes for peace.
“contrary to what we’ve seen with past administrations who have taken, at best, a sheepish stance toward dictators and oppressors ”
Jeffress seems to have a selective memory regarding a sheepish stance towards dictators and oppressors. Vladimir Putin anyone? Trump seems to have never met a dictator he didn’t admire. Until this recent dustup with North Korea, he praised Un’s leadership and said he’d be honored to meet him. Trump’s tough (and most likely dishonest) recent rhetoric towards NK doesn’t excuse his appeasement of Russia, no matter how many bible verses you trot out. Trump isn’t tough, he’s volatile, and that’s not good for anyone.
“Trump isn’t tough, he’s volatile, and that’s not good for anyone.”
Exactly!
Reading this thread has been edifying, and I appreciate hearing pastors’ differing views. I’m really wondering if most Southern Baptists agree with Jeffers…? (I’m in a Bible church). We’ve all watched “taking out” efforts by every administration, with mixed results and after-messes. We’ve learned we’re not as wise or powerful as we thought, and we laypeople hate to think we were useful tools, or that we helped increase suffering in an effort to prevent/stop it. So it had better be a word from God, rather than political loyalty or a simple application of QED logic to Romans 13. Genie, bottle.
Bart Barber says
“Greg, what I see is an article about peace. There’s no articulation of Just War Theory there.
Now, I myself AGREE with Just War Theory, but I don’t see it in this article from the BF&M at all, and I don’t see it in Romans 13 at all. Romans 13 is clearly about the relationship between a state and its subjects.
Perhaps the BF&M cites Romans 13 as a key passage in preventing CIVIL war. This interpretation would have the benefit of squaring up with both the actual context of Romans 13 AND the actual text of the article on Peace and War. Thus, the submission to the sword of state taught in Romans 13 is part of “[seeking] peace with all men on principles of righteousness” and “[doing] all in their power to put an end to war” and “acceptance of His teachings in all the affairs of men and nations, and the practical application of His law of love.” Rather than fomenting insurrection against legitimate government, Christians should yield to the sword of state on temporal matters as God has commanded through Paul in Romans 13.”
I agree with all the above. Peace between us
Amen!
When it comes to the interpretation of scripture I tend to follow the inductive method which has you ask some questions to understand the verses. Some of these questions are who wrote it; who was he writing to and why did he write it. 2 Peter 1: 20-21 states whose words the scripture contains; so I believe this tells us who wrote it through Paul. If we read Chapter 1 of Romans verse 7 along with Chapter 16(though some say this chapter was not part of the original manuscripts) I believe we can learn who is being written to; the church.
A quick look at history shows that the church in Rome comprised mainly of Jewish-Christians, though not under sever persecution, were not being treated well. Which I think goes with the opening verse in Chapter 13 that says, “every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities.” Therefore I think this chapter was directed at the church as a reason to comply with the government and not to be a cause of sedition.
Daniel when talking to a tyrannical leader in Chapter 2 verses 20-21 states that it is God who, “removes kings and establishes kings;”. I am no pacifist and I do believe in protecting my country and my self, but taking a passage of scripture out of context does not give Trump the right to pick a fight.
Amen
There seems to be very little humility in some of the comments as to how scripture relates to our current political situation. I do find it strange that I read none of these exegetical analysis during the administration of the last POTUS. In fact, I mainly heard the opposite. I guess when your team is in, it’s a different story.
1. Donald Trump has the authority to lead the military and the foreign policy of this nation.
2. North Korea poses a clear threat to the United States.
3. I support President Trump in working to defend our nation from Kim Jong Un.
4. Romans 13 has absolutely nothing to say about any of this, except that both the American and the North Korean governments are established by God, whose ways are mysterious and are above our own.
5. Other texts, however, I would take as giving us better foundations for understanding Christian ethics in times of war.
Bro. Barber,
I agree with you that the context of Rom. 13:1-17 is the governor-subject relationship, not international relationships. But I’m not sure it has absolutely nothing to ‘say’ about current events.
If it is fair to assume that 1st Century believers had little-to-no input into international dealings, then it is not surprising that the NT doesn’t speak to these directly.
I don’t see it a stretch but a natural extrapolation of Rom. 13:4 to consider that the same sword used to punish murderous subjects would also be used to wage war with other nations.
Yours in Christ
I do not see that as a stretch, either, but it is not the point of the text, is it?
Romans 13 does not authorize war, but civil government.
In Romans 13th chapter and the very first sentence in verses three and four states if any leader doesn’t do “good works,” he is not a minister of God. A minister of God is to thee for good works. I think some here have taken Romans 13 out of it’s context. Evil rulers are not appointed to office by God. Read further down in verse three and verse four. Here in the New Testament for God to appoint an evil doer to office would be to accuse God of sin, and God doesn’t sin. I really don’t see how Romans 13 can be anymore clear about the issue of good and evil.
Jess, your exegesis is seriously flawed.
The passage opens with a general and universal statement in verse 1.
Everyone. No authority except from God. No exceptions. Includes godly leaders and ungodly men. Remember, this was written in the Roman Empire and included a man like Nero – so it includes flawed men like Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump.
Your assertion that “evil rulers are not appointed to office by God” simply is contrary to what this passage says. It violates God’s word.
We must, then be submissive citizens in our nations. Of course, there are limits to that submission. Our highest loyalty is to the Lordship of Christ.
These verses, though written in the ideal, are not addressed only to “good” rulers or to godly ones. They grant authority to enforce justice to human governments. None do it perfectly and some abuse it horribly. Governments are God’s servants insofar as they enforce justice. That does not mean all they do is right or good, but that this passage does grant them divine authority to “carry the sword.”
Your exegesis is not textually accurate.
Excellent rebuttal, Dave.
Dave, my pastor shared your blog with me because I have been very outspoken about Dr. Jeffress and his conversion from being a pastor to a political pundit. I know you have asked us to taper our remarks to an upright level of civility, so I will do my best to adhere. I wrote a three page letter to the Chairman of the Deacons of FBCD explaining that as messianic Jew, my parents attended that church for years under the leadership of Dr. Criswell. Of course the reply I received back was thoughtful, kind and addressed my genuine concerns….. not really, I had no reply.
I am a Vietnam veteran who served this country as a Christian fulfilling his duty, a patriot and a serviceman. At no time did I ever gibe a second thought about what I was doing. But at no time did I rely on the fact that this world and this country is my permanent home. I have always known that I am a sojourner passing through. I am a lay man and in no way can I wax as eloquently as you and your peers over what I see as the debacle of Dr. Jeffress. So I ask that all of you indulge this old veteran for a moment and allow me simple observations.
At no time have I heard Dr. Jeffress suggest, recommend. compel or admonish all of us as believers to pray for NOKO and ask G-d for his direction. At no time have we heard him say that he encouraged the president to pray about his words and his actions. In World War II I an assure you that we had leaders praying for G-d’s direction and yest intervention. Why now in 2017 have we stopped believing that G-d can do as He will in this situation. That is not to say that we can’t take military action, that is not to say we shouldn’t take military action and that is not to say that if provoked we should not act swiftly and with resolve. But shouldn’t we at least acknowledge G-d in all of this and ask Him for His help and direction and goodness ask for His divine intervention? Have we become so wrapped up in this world and politics that we think the we alone can handle these situations. Are we so theologically shallow now that we stopped believing the omnipotence and power of G-d. Have we forgotten that He is the creator and as such all things are created by Him. What about His allowing things to happen. I am a Jew by race; why did he allow millions of Jews to be slaughtered? I am at a point in my life where I don’t ask that anymore, I accept it and don’t question Him over it.
These are questions from a much older Christian who I suppose Dr. Jeffress would say doe snot understand scripture. I am no theologian like all of you, my reliance on understanding scripture comes mainly from discernment of the Holy Spirit. I did not vote for Donald Trump but I do pray for him and will support him when support is warranted. I can excuse him for many things because i do not believe he is one who is saved. But I cannot excuse the words and actions of Dr. Jeffress, from his latest assertions to his castigating any Christian in particular, Southern Baptist who may disagree with him. What was it he called us a few weeks ago, “theological lightweights or something to that effect.
Dave, you and others have encouraged me in that you have taken a stand that needs to be taken and while Dr. Jeffress doe snot speak for any of us or the SBC, tragically, the world does. That is exactly how Dr. Jeffress likes it. You should be proud of me, i am doing my best to stay the course of civility. All of this is important folks but the bigger looming issue is that we have taken the pulpit and turned it into a political podium and the plat form has been to use politics to change the culture instead of using the gospel and now; tragically, I see the culture has changed the gospel. Dr. Jeffress is not the only one guilty of this but he has been one of the loudest.
I will close with this and thank you for the time and allowing me to rant a little. We had for the first time that I can recall, some of the most wonderful talented and experienced people running for President, many of them godly wonderful people and because they weren’t America First, or make America Great Again, Dr. Jeffress along with many other well known evangelicals pitched their tent with a man who said he didn’t need to ask G-d for forgiveness, who is immoral and who is a narcissist. We forsook the SBC resolution from years ago and threw it out the door. As my son who is a Boyce graduate and fed up with all of this and truthfully the SBC, said we are no longer an entity sharing that shares the gospel and stands for morality and character but have become yet another lobbying group to Washington DC. I don’t agree with all of that but I get his point. I blame Dr. Jeffress and others for how we are now viewed.
Again, thank you for allowing me to speak my mind about this. Excuse me too for being all over the place.
Hey, did you guys see that Dr. Evil called off the bombing of Guam?
I would not have taken the President’s tack. But I have assumed that he has been advised that Dr. Evil was not crazy at all, but actually very rational, and that the last thing Dr. Evil wanted was the destruction of his way of life and himself.
The President, therefore, I believe, calculated that despite the rhetoric, there was no way that NK was going to bomb Guam.
Therefore, Trump decided he could basically say anything to the NK leader and it would result in no reprisals.
Never in my life time have I seen a President so belittle another leader or its country. Again, not my style, but it is this President’s style – Manahattan Real Estate Negotiation 101.
I was really pleased with Tillerson all around. I think he would make an excellent President.
Dr. Evil blinked.
Armageddon is now canceled.