Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 8
In critiquing Romans 13 used to justify Hiroshima/Nagasaki and even China’s forced abortions under the one-child policy, the speaker presses that “minister of God” does not equal “morally right.” How should Christians read Romans 13 without excusing evil, and what practical boundaries does “obey the government unless it opposes Christ” require when governments command or permit injustice?
Another way to ask: How can Christians read Romans 13 and still say the government can do evil? What does it look like to obey the government, but refuse when it goes against Christ or supports injustice?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The transcript suggests Christians should read Romans 13 as a command to generally obey governing authorities, while refusing to treat government authorization as automatic moral approval. Practically, the boundary is clear: obey laws where possible, but disobey when government commands conflict with Christ—like prohibiting gospel preaching.
- He rejects the idea that government authorization makes an act non-murder, challenging the Hiroshima/Nagasaki example as morally justified “by Romans 13.”
- He applies the same logic to China: forced abortions under the one-child policy would become “right” if the state is always a “minister of God”—and he says, “No… they’re murdering.”
- In discussion he clarifies: being a “minister” doesn’t mean rulers are “preachers… spiritual leaders… or that they write with God,” but that God “is using them” for restraint/order.
- He repeats the rule: “We’re sojourners… where we can follow the laws… we do, as long as it’s not in opposition to him.”
- He gives his own boundary example: “I did not obey when they said, ‘You can’t preach the gospel.’ I preached the gospel.”