Stanley Hauerwas on Romans 13

Norman, I agree with Hauerwas.  The disconnect between Romans 12 and 13 is a serious problem.   It really blew me away when I looked at them together for the first time.  The other problem with Romans 13 is that the first popular English translation was sponsored by King James.  His scholar put the most statist spin they could on Romans 13.  This problem has been perpetrated until today.  I have written about this in detail at 
http://kingwatch.co.nz/Law_Government/romans_13.htm.

Another point that should be remembered is that Romans 13 is a rule, and every rule has exceptions. The Bible is not concerned with communicating the exceptions, but rules.  We live by rules, not by their exceptions. Servants and told to submit to their masters, wives to husbands, children to parents, but we all recognize exceptions to these admonitions exist. We are told not to resist evil, to turn the other cheek, etc.  But if someone kicked in our door in the middle of the night to molest our family, rape our daughters, and plunder our possession, we recognize our right and duty to meet force with force. The rule of passive nonresistance is how we live 99% of our lives, but the right and duty to meet force with force is universally admitted in the appropriate situation.  God instructs us about the rules of godly living, not the exceptions, which he leaves us to work out for ourselves. The same with government. The rule is to obey and submit, but there are exceptions and vocal remonstrance for evil is certainly our right and duty as the long history of the prophets demonstrates. The context of Romans 12 and the persecution by Jews is the historical setting: Christians are told to take their complaints to the civil authority, not avenge themselves. When the government becomes an instrument of evil, then flight or fight are authorized as prudence and discretion direct.

Hey Anna, check out my article about Romans 13 here: http://libertarianchristians.com/2008/11/28/new-testament-theology-2/