DISQUS

graham · 2 years ago

Hi Mark,

I can't believe I haven't properly responded to any of these posts yet!

Though I'd agree with most of what's in your other posts, I'm not sure that I'd go along with this paraphrase. It seems to allow too close a co-operation between the State and God. I'd also want to argue that God is 'in charge' of "America" in the same sense that he is in charge of Creation. I'm not sure that it makes any statement about how good or (usually godly) the State is. I find it preferable to think that God has set America in its place, namely under Him. And any authority she does has is from Him.

The passage is then a call to Christian Anarchy in that rather than asserting the authority of the State it is putting the State in its place as nothing but an instrument under God.

markvans · 2 years ago

I agree with what you are saying, Graham. Maybe you can point out where my paraphrase is allowing too close of a co-operation between the State and God. I think the passage does support (or at least doesn't take away from) a Christian Anarchist perspective...though it does seem to say that Rome (I don't want to universalize this too much) can "do God's bidding" in its functions, even if they aren't legitimized and sanctioned by God.

graham · 2 years ago

I may have misread your meaning, but I know that I wouldn't have been comfortable with a paraphrase like this:

'Instead, you should submit to them. Why? Because God is in charge and America is restrained by God. If you rebel against America, you will get slapped down.'

I wouldn't have used the word 'submit', personally. It also sounds a little too like, 'when you are slapped down you are actually being slapped by God'. I know that some would agree with that, but I'm not sure you would.

markvans · 2 years ago

Great point Graham...I agree. I'm open to suggestions for better wording...