JUNE 4 — I’d like to consider this essay a supplement to Erna Mahyuni’s well-written piece on that controversial faith-and-politics passage in the Bible, Romans 13:1-7.

She was responding to Christians for Peace & Harmony (CHPM)’s sugar-coating of the abuse of religious freedom in the country which must’ve left many Christians wondering if Rev Wong Kim Kong was doing a June Fool gig.

Mahyuni quoted almost the entire passage (originally written by the Apostle Paul), but the main line would be, “Let everyone be subject 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, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.” (Romans 13:1-2) 

As Mahyuni mentioned, prima facie this verse more or less throws civil activism against the wall and props up whatever existing government is in place. 

But everybody knows that ain’t the end of the story. Heck, that isn’t even the start of it. Mahyuni offered two counter-state interpretations of the verse. Here I’d like to show that there are in fact about 13 ways to look at this verse.

Check them out (and choose wisely):

1.  All existing governments are endorsed by God without condition i.e. Christians should stay out of activist protests and in fact have a divinely ordained duty to obey, honour and serve the government (more than a few folks in Malaysia would love this take, eh?).

2.  All existing governments are allowed by God in the interim period whilst Christians await the full “already” of the kingdom of God i.e. existing governments are like Nature. They can be bad, frightening and evil-wrecking but in the end that’s what we have until New Creation pops up. Good Christians are to respect and honour them even if we don’t like it.

3.  All governments, no matter how unjust or oppressive, are secretly controlled by God and (mysteriously) reflect His will for nations. Political activism, therefore, would be acting “against” God’s ultimate designs and reflect a lack of trust.

4.  This is a Weberian “ideal-type”, an abstract best-case scenario model which assumes a God-fearing government acting in just ways; the apostle Paul was writing in a relatively oppression-free climate (some say in the early-Nero years).

5.  Paul was ticked off by people accusing the apostles of being insurrectionists and rebels, so he had to produce something to counter such portraits. Likewise, this could also be Paul countering the “extreme” zealots and anti-government groups, seeking to promote a Christian mindset oriented around communal harmony, peace and order.

6.  This is pacifism qua pacifism, independent of actual states. Paul needs to get the radical message of peace-making and reconciliation out, hence he had to remove the nature of governments from the equation. This is a version of #2 above, except the former view focuses on the “theodicy” of bad governments whereas this view focuses on the necessity of a peace-loving heart and church.

7.  Paul was himself pro-ruling regime. Full stop.

8.  Paul is telling Christians to respect and submit to the Jewish authorities in Rome; the context is the emergence of new churches within  Jewish ecclesial “jurisdiction” ( the view of Reformed Jewish scholar Mark Nanos) - in one stroke the verse is severed from the usual political debates surrounding it.

9.  This verse pertains to Christians as Christians and prohibits activism by the church as an institution. It doesn’t, however, explicitly disallow Christians to engage in activism. This is another version of the theological separation of church and state.

10.       This is a partial and delimited perspective which must be read holistically with other less pro-government passages in Scripture (e.g. Revelations 18, the Prophets, etc.)

11.       This is a coded warning to states themselves of God’s ultimate governance! It is an ambiguously veiled reminder to governments that their office is God-given (and thus can be God-removed), that God Himself will judge those who rebel against true authority, that in fact those who do wrong have much to fear!

12.       Far from prohibiting civil activism by Christians, this verse subtly commands it, for isn’t the church the Body of Christ and His Ambassadors on earth? The government may be God’s servants, but the church is Jesus’ friend and bride and whatever we “bind” on earth is likewise the case in heaven. If governments don’t walk the talk of justice and righteousness, then the Church has the duty to fight against them.

13.       All existing governments are endorsed by God on condition that they reflect His goodness. The moment they misbehave, all bets are off and an alternative/higher voice beckons (cf. Acts 5:29).

My point is that only the theologically or historiographically naïve will conclude that there is one and only one take on that verse. That an organisation associated with the government (and possibly funded by it) so conveniently selects Perspective #1 involves as much coincidence as a Manchester United fan asserting that Wayne Rooney, having fallen down in the 18-yard box, deserves a penalty.

Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek cites an anecdote about the exchange of telegrams between German and Austrian army headquarters during WWI. The Germans sent the message “Here, on our part of the front, the situation is serious, but not catastrophic – how about you?” Guess what the Austrians replied: “Here, the situation is catastrophic, but not serious.” 

The CPHM’s endorsement of Putrajaya (despite being fully aware of the abuses the ruling regime has been committing) approximates such a stance: It’s catastrophic, but it’s nothing serious.

* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.