Christians, the Law and Romans 13: Immigration Considerations

The Apostle Paul in prison . . .
writing favorably about submission to earthly laws?

What part of 'illegal' don't you understand?

Romans 13 has been getting a lot of attention lately in the U.S. immigration debate. To paraphrase what I hear: We're a nation of laws, and too bad if you get punished, because you shouldn't have broken the law! It is often used in an attempt to shut down discussion about the economic, political and cultural drivers of immigration into the U.S., especially humanitarian concerns.

At this point, some Christians like to add theological muscle and cite Romans 13 as a command to blindly follow all the laws of the land. They read that passage as saying that earthly authorities are all divinely appointed by God and that citizens must accept that this is God's will for them at this moment in history. That certainly seem to be what Romans 13 is saying, at first glance.

However, you don't have to be a scholar of the Bible to realize that there must be another way to understand this passage. There have been (and still are) all sorts of cruel and inhumane governments all through history. Do you think that the North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un was appointed by God to be a brutal dictator?

In most communist countries, it has been illegal to practice religion at all. That presents more than a small logical conundrum. That would be like saying: God commands in Romans 13 that you don't believe Romans 13. It's the theological equivalent of an M.C. Escher painting.

In Nazi Germany, it was illegal to helps a Jewish person escape the concentration camps. After World War II, Nazi soldiers were put on trial for crimes against humanity. In their defense, many said that they were just "following the law." That argument did not hold at the Nuremberg trials.

We don't have to go that far to find examples. If that strict read of Romans 13 were true, that would mean that every action by Barack Obama, Donald Trump and every other president and Congress has been "divine inspired" and deserving of our blind obedience. I'm sure virtually all Americans would not be okay with that statement, regardless of their political party affiliation.

Scripture itself gives us a clue that there must be another way to understand Romans 13. There are plenty of instances where God encourages people to go against the law of the land. In Exodus, the captive Israelites rebel against the commands of Pharaoh, just to give one of many examples. Blind obedience to the law of the land does not seem to be what God is asking of us.

Further, Jesus told us to give to Cesar what is Cesar's (Matthew 22:21), but his idea of what belonged to Cesar seemed to be different than just following blindly the letter of the law. Jesus broke both Jewish and Roman laws: He fed the hungry on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-13) and overturned tables in the temple (John 2:15, among other passages). He said that love of God and neighbor are the greatest commandments and that "all the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:40).

So then what does it mean when Romans 13 seems to tell us to submit to government authority? Apostle Paul, right in line with Jesus, gives us the right lens himself at the conclusion of this passage. He writes: "Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law" (Romans 13:10).

Slavery was practiced in North America for nearly 400 years. In the U.S., People faced severe consequences (even to the point of death) to assist runaway slaves in any capacity. Today, we call those folks heroes. Why? Because the laws were unjust. This is key. The underground railroad may have been violating the law of the land, but it was right in line with God's law.

I am not suggesting that Christians should go around breaking laws willy-nilly. But we also can't shrug out shoulders and say, "too bad, that's the law." Unjust laws have no right to exist and must be changed. People who break unjust laws should be given extreme leniency, if not an outright pardon.

So yes, people have the responsibility to follow the laws, but the nation has a responsibility to enact only just laws in the first place. Both are required for an ordered society. I think this is actually what both the Apostle Paul was trying to tell us in Romans 13.

Thomas Aquinas and Government

Catholic teaching has typically had a favorable view of government. As my grad school professor in Catholic Social Teaching taught:

People in the U.S. often say that 'government is a necessary evil.' In Catholic teaching, we would simply say that it is 'necessary.'

America has that strong libertarian and isolationist streak. By contrast, the Catholic tradition is aware of the problems that can come by and through governments, but it also is aware of the good. In addition, it recognizes that there is no getting around the necessity of humans having to learn to work together. Government is one of the major ways in which we do that.

However, that favorable view is not open ended.  Theological juggernaut St. Thomas Aquinas weighs in from the 13th century:

“... in so far as it deviates from right reason it is called an unjust law; in such case it is no law at all, but rather a species of violence."

Government may be necessary, but not all government is good. We have a moral duty to oppose unjust laws, which, as the great Dominican saint tells us, is really just a form of violence.