Render unto Caesar: Paul’s Political Theology in the Era of Liberal Democracy

[1] 2025 marked 1,700 years since the Council of Nicaea (325 CE), where bishops gathered—including from Bichvinta in what is now occupied Abkhazia to articulate the Church’s faith. Yet, in the last century, neither together nor separately did the Christian churches, East or West, protect humanity from the Holocaust and the Gulag. Today, the occupying Russian Church now lords over Bichvinta cathedral, while the Kremlin destroys churches and kills people in Ukraine under the pretext of fabricated threats. Neither together nor separately do we hear ecclesiastical curse against these policies. What remains from Nicaea are scattered fragments: a handful of theologians at the best universities of the Americas, Europe, Africa, and the East; and life-loving young people by the sea and in the mountains—these dispersed faithful are Christ’s hope. We await the eschatological gathering, the final assembly of the Kingdom of Heaven, whose spirit we seek desperately on journal pages and among those standing in prayer in churches. This article is written in that spirit of expectation and accountability.

 

Introduction: The Problematic Legacy of Romans 13:1- 7

[2] Few biblical texts have been as instrumentalized for political purposes as Paul’s words in Rom 13:1: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.” Throughout history, this passage has been invoked to legitimize virtually every form of government—from benevolent monarchies to genocidal dictatorships. The 20th century witnessed the catastrophic consequences of this theological approach. German Christians used Romans 13 to justify submission to the Nazi regime; Orthodox believers in the Soviet Union found themselves paralyzed by a theology that equated any resistance to state authority with resistance to God himself. The question that emerges with urgent force is this: Did Paul intend to provide theological legitimation for tyranny? Or have we fundamentally misread his text?

[3] This article proposes a radical reinterpretation of Romans 13:1-7 through three integrated lenses:

* Evolutionary anthropology – understanding humanity as a species biologically prone to violence, requiring social structures for survival

* Historical theology – examining how misinterpretation of this text enabled totalitarian evil

* Contemporary political theology – arguing that “rendering unto Caesar” in the 21st century means fidelity to liberal democratic and republican institutions

[4] The central argument is that authority is legitimate only insofar as it fulfills its evolutionary-divine function: the restraint of evil and protection of universal good. When authority becomes a source of evil rather than its restraint, it loses divine legitimacy, and resistance becomes not only permissible but obligatory.

 

Evolutionary-Theological Anthropology: Humanity as Homo Violens

The Biological Reality of Human Violence

[5] Contemporary evolutionary psychology and anthropology have demonstrated what theologians have long known under the category of “original sin”: humanity possesses an inherent capacity for violence. This is not merely a moral failing but a biological reality shaped by millions of years of evolutionary pressure. Steven Pinker’s research demonstrates that violence has been a constant feature of human societies, though its forms and frequencies have varied dramatically. From a theological perspective informed by evolutionary science, we can understand this violence not as a deviation from human nature but as an integral aspect of our evolutionary heritage. The question then becomes: How did humanity survive despite this propensity toward self-destruction?

 

Social Institutions as Divine-Evolutionary Mechanisms

[6] The answer lies in what can be termed the co-evolution of violence and cooperation. Humanity developed increasingly sophisticated social institutions—norms, laws, rituals, and governance structures—precisely to channel, regulate, and restrain destructive impulses. These institutions are not “artificial” constructions imposed upon a pristine natural state; rather, they are themselves part of humanity’s natural evolutionary strategy for survival. Theologically, we can say: God works through evolution. The capacity to create social institutions that restrain evil is itself a dimension of the imago dei—the image of God in humanity. When Paul says “there is no authority except from God” (Rom 13:1), he is not endorsing specific rulers but recognizing this fundamental truth: the need for social order is built into creation itself as a protection against chaos and mutual destruction.

 

The Progressive Evolution of Political Forms

[7] Human political organization has evolved through distinct stages:

* Tribal/clan order – Small-group kinship-based governance with direct personal authority

* Monarchy/empire – Centralized power capable of maintaining order over large populations, but prone to tyranny

*  Republic/democracy – Distributed power, institutional checks and balances, recognition of universal human dignity

[8] This progression is not morally neutral. Each stage represents an attempt to solve the same fundamental problem: How can we prevent the concentration of power from becoming a source of evil rather than its restraint? The movement toward republican and democratic forms represents genuine moral progress—not because democracy is “natural” in some romantic sense, but because it has proven more effective at limiting evil and expanding the circle of those whose good is protected.

 

Paul’s Text in Context: What Did He Actually Mean?

[9] Paul wrote Romans around 57-58 CE during the reign of Nero, before the emperor’s most severe persecutions of Christians. The Christian community in Rome was small, vulnerable, and under constant suspicion. In this context, Paul’s counsel to “be subject to the governing authorities” (Rom 13:1) was tactical prudence, not theological absolutism. Importantly, Paul frames this teaching within a larger ethical discourse that begins in Romans 12 with commands to “bless those who persecute you” (12:14), “overcome evil with good” (12:21), and culminates in Romans 13:8-10 with the declaration that “love is the fulfillment of the law” (13:10). The structural placement of the authority teaching between these love commandments is crucial: obedience to authority must serve love and justice, not contradict them.

[10] Paul specifies clearly what makes authority legitimate: “For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad… [The ruler] is God’s servant for your good” (Rom 13:3-4). This is a functional definition of legitimate authority. Authority derives its legitimacy not from heredity, force, or even divine appointment in some mystical sense, but from its actual performance of the role God intends: promoting good and restraining evil. This means that when a government fails to perform this function—or worse, when it becomes the primary source of evil—it loses its theological legitimacy. The ruler who “bears the sword” (Rom 13:4) as an instrument of justice has divine sanction; the ruler who bears the sword as an instrument of terror and oppression does not.

 

Biblical Precedents for Resisting Unjust Authority

[11] Paul’s teaching must be read alongside the entire biblical witness, which contains numerous examples of righteous resistance to unjust authority:

* The Hebrew midwives who defied Pharaoh’s genocidal decree (Exodus 1:15- 21)

* Daniel’s refusal to obey the king’s idolatrous command (Daniel 6)

* Peter and John’s declaration: “We must obey God rather than any human authority.” (Acts 5:29)

* The entire prophetic tradition of confronting unjust kings in the name of divine justice

[12] If Romans 13:1-7 is read as absolute submission to any and all governmental authority, it contradicts these clear biblical precedents. The resolution lies in understanding that legitimate authority is defined by its function, not its mere existence.

 

The Logical Absurdity of Literal Interpretation

The Historical Regime-Change Problem

[13] A critical logical problem emerges when we attempt to read Romans 13:1-7 as a command for absolute, unchanging submission to whatever political authority exists at any given moment. Consider the following: If Paul’s text means that the specific regime in power is “instituted by God” and must therefore be obeyed permanently, then, the Roman Empire under Nero was “God’s instituted authority” in Paul’s time. When the Roman Empire fell and was replaced by other governing structures (Byzantine Empire, various kingdoms, nation-states), this represented a violation of God’s established order.

[14] Every subsequent political change in history—every revolution, every transfer of power from one regime to another—would constitute rebellion against God’s appointment. The Church should have consistently called for restoration of previous regimes as the only God-ordained authorities.

[15] Yet this never happened. The Church lived under Roman imperial rule, then Byzantine authority, then various national monarchies, then constitutional democracies—and at no point did ecclesiastical teaching demand a return to the “originally God-instituted” Roman regime of Paul’s era.

 

The Interpretive Implications

[16] This historical reality reveals something crucial about how Romans 13:1-7 must be understood. The text cannot mean that any particular political configuration is divinely mandated to exist permanently. If it did, then: The fall of Rome was sin. The rise of nation-states was rebellion. Democratic revolutions were apostasy. Every transfer of power throughout history violated divine will.

[17] The manifest absurdity of these conclusions demonstrates that a literalist, static interpretation of Romans 13 is logically untenable.

 

Two Possible Explanations

[18] This leaves us with an open question regarding how the Church has historically navigated regime changes: Possibility 1: The Church implicitly understood Paul’s teaching functionally—recognizing that “authority from God” referred not to specific regimes but to the principle of social order as necessary for restraining evil. Each new governing structure was accepted insofar as it performed this function.

[19] Possibility 2: The Church simply practiced pragmatic conformism—accepting whatever regime held power out of necessity or self-preservation, without deep theological reflection on whether this contradicted a literal reading of Romans 13.

[20] We leave this question open. What matters for our purposes is not determining the Church’s historical motivations, but recognizing that the historical pattern of accepting regime changes without demanding restoration of “divinely instituted” previous governments demonstrates that a purely literalist reading of Romans 13:1-7 is impossible to maintain consistently.

[21] This strengthens the case for a functional, evolutionary interpretation: authority structures change and develop, and what remains constant is not any particular political form but the necessity of institutional mechanisms to restrain evil and promote human flourishing.

 

Historical Catastrophes: When Misinterpretation Enables Evil

Tyranny as Perversion, Not Fulfillment, of Divine Order

[22] The totalitarian horrors of the 20th century—Hitler’s Third Reich, Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s Cultural Revolution—represent not the fulfillment but the catastrophic perversion of the protective mechanism Paul describes. These regimes did not restrain evil; they concentrated and amplified it to unprecedented scales. Using medical analogy: just as cancer is not a “natural” part of bodily function but a pathological breakdown of cellular regulation, tyranny is not a natural expression of authority but a pathological breakdown of its protective function. To say that Hitler’s regime was “instituted by God” because it held governmental power is as absurd as saying cancer is “instituted by God” because it exists in the body.

 

The Role of Theological Misinterpretation

[23] It is painful but necessary to acknowledge that Christian theological interpretation of Romans 13 contributed to these catastrophes. When German Lutheran theologians preached submission to the Nazi state based on Romans 13, they provided religious legitimation for genocide. When Orthodox hierarchies counseled passivity before Stalin’s terror, they paralyzed potential resistance. This misinterpretation operated through several mechanisms:

* Abstracting authority from its function – treating “government” as intrinsically legitimate regardless of what it does

* Prioritizing order over justice – fearing chaos more than tyranny

* Individualizing religion – reducing Christianity to private piety while ceding the public sphere entirely to state power

* Conflating submission with faithfulness – treating any resistance to governmental authority as sin

 

Could Clearer Language Have Prevented This?

[24] One might ask: Could Paul have written more clearly to prevent such misinterpretation? The answer is complex. Even if Paul had added explicit caveats— “obey authority only when it serves justice; resist when it becomes tyrannical”— history suggests such qualifications would have been ignored or reinterpreted when convenient. Consider: Christians have found ways to circumvent or ignore far more explicit biblical commands. “Thou shalt not kill” did not prevent the Crusades. “Love your enemies” did not prevent religious wars. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” did not prevent Christian participation in slavery and colonialism. The problem is not linguistic precision but human willingness to find loopholes when motivated by fear, self-interest, or ideological commitment. As Jesus himself observed, “If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” (Luke 16:31).

[25] Nevertheless, the 20th century’s catastrophes place a special burden on contemporary theology: we must now read Romans 13 in light of what we have learned about where traditional interpretation leads. Post-Holocaust, post-Gulag theology cannot simply repeat pre-modern readings as if nothing had happened.

 

“Render Unto Caesar” in the 21st Century

Caesar as Metaphor: From Emperor to Principle

[26] When Christ says “Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” (Matthew 22:21), he is speaking in the context of Roman imperial occupation. The question posed to him—”Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar (emperor)?” –was a political trap. Both a simple “yes” and a simple “no” would have been dangerous. Christ’s response is deliberately ambiguous at one level, yet profoundly clear at another: There is a sphere of legitimate earthly governance (“Caesar’s”), but it is limited and subordinate to a higher allegiance (“God’s”). The critical question is: What constitutes “Caesar” in different historical contexts?

[27] In the 21st century, “Caesar” is no longer an autocratic emperor but the institutional framework of liberal democratic republicanism. To “render unto Caesar” today means:

* Participating in democratic processes (voting, civic engagement, public discourse)

* Paying taxes that fund public goods and services

* Respecting constitutional order and rule of law

* Supporting institutions that balance power and prevent its concentration

[28] Metaphorically and theologically, we can say: In the modern era, “Caesar” IS democracy itself—or more precisely, the republican ideal.

 

Why Specifically “Liberal Democracy” and “Republican Ideals”?

[29] The specification of liberal democracy and republican principles requires careful justification, as “democracy” alone is insufficient and historically ambiguous.

 

Ancient Democracy vs. Modern Liberal Democracy

[30] Ancient Athenian democracy, while revolutionary for its time, had severe limitations. Only adult male citizens could participate (excluding women, slaves, foreigners).  There was no conception of individual rights against majority tyranny. The democracies were susceptible to demagogic manipulation and mob rule, and these sometimes led to unjust outcomes (e.g. execution of Socrates).

[31] Ancient democracy was about collective self-governance for the privileged few, not universal human dignity and rights. Modern liberal democracy adds crucial elements:

* Universal suffrage – recognition that all persons, regardless of gender, race, class, have the right to participate

* Constitutional limits – protection of minority rights against majority tyranny

* Separation of powers – preventing concentration of authority

* Rule of law – even rulers are subject to law, not above it

* Individual rights – recognition of human dignity independent of collective will

 

The Republican Principle: Res Publica as Universal Good

[32] The term “republic” derives from Latin res publica—”the public thing” or “common wealth.” Republican theory holds that government exists for the common good of all, not the private benefit of rulers or any particular faction. This principle resonates deeply with Christian theological commitments. The Kingdom of God proclaims universal blessing, not privilege for an elite. Christ’s teaching that “the last shall be first” challenges all hierarchies of domination. The early church’s practice of holding goods in common (Acts 2:44-45) embodied economic justice. The biblical prophets consistently condemned exploitation of the vulnerable.

[33] Liberal republican institutions—constitutional democracy with protected rights and distributed power—represent the most developed form yet achieved of restraining evil and extending good to all members of society.

 

Theological Proximity to the Kingdom

[34] The claim that liberal democratic republicanism approaches closest to Kingdom values requires careful articulation. This is not to equate any earthly political system with the Kingdom of God, which remains eschatological and transcendent. Rather, it is to recognize that some political forms are more consonant with Kingdom principles than others.

[35] This is not to romanticize liberal democracies, which remain deeply flawed and often hypocritical. But structurally and institutionally, they embody mechanisms that align with Kingdom ethics far better than autocracy, theocracy, or totalitarianism.

 

When Democracy Is Usurped: The Christian Obligation to Resist

Recognizing Usurpation of Democratic Authority

[36] In nations with established democratic constitutions, the usurpation of power represents not merely a change of government but the destruction of “Caesar” itself—the legitimate institutional framework. Usurpation can take many forms:

* Coup d’état – violent overthrow of constitutional government

* Autogolpe (“self-coup”) – elected leader dismantles democratic institutions from within

* Electoral fraud – systematic manipulation invalidating democratic choice

* Constitutional violations – ignoring or rewriting fundamental law to concentrate power

* Institutional capture – corrupting courts, media, civil service to serve partisan interests rather than public good

[37] In such situations, Christians face a theological crisis: How can we “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” when “Caesar” (democratic legitimacy) has been stolen or destroyed?

 

The Christian’s Right and Obligation to Resist

[38] When democratic institutions are usurped, Christians not only may resist—they must resist. This is not political preference but theological necessity, based on several grounds.

[39] If “rendering unto Caesar” means supporting the legitimate institutional framework (democratic republicanism), then resisting its usurpation is obedience to Christ’s command. We can articulate this as a prophetic declaration: “We cannot render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, because Caesar (democratic legitimacy) has been stolen. To pretend that the usurper is Caesar would be a lie—and Christ calls us to truth.”

[40] Moreover, the biblical prophets consistently confronted kings who violated justice. Nathan confronted David over Uriah’s murder (2 Samuel 12). Elijah confronted Ahab over Naboth’s vineyard (1 Kings 21). Amos condemned exploitation of the poor (Amos 2:6-8) John the Baptist criticized Herod’s unlawful marriage (Mark 6:17-18).

[41] Christians in democratic societies stand in this prophetic tradition when they name injustice and demand accountability from those in power.

 

The Primacy of Justice Over Order

[42] Traditional readings of Romans 13 prioritized order above all else, fearing that resistance to authority would lead to chaos. But biblical ethics consistently subordinates order to justice. The prophets did not say, “This king is unjust, but criticizing him might cause instability, so remain silent.” Rather, they proclaimed that injustice itself creates instability, and that true peace (shalom) requires justice (tzedakah). Similarly, democratic norms broken by usurpers will not be preserved by Christian passivity. They will be preserved—if at all—by active defense.

[43] In democratic societies, citizens are not merely subjects but participants in sovereignty. We inherit constitutional frameworks established through centuries of struggle—often by Christians motivated by their faith—to limit tyranny and protect human dignity. To passively accept the destruction of these institutions is to fail in our stewardship of this inheritance. It is to betray those who suffered to create them and those who will suffer if they are lost.

 

Forms of Faithful Resistance

[44] Resistance to the usurpation of democracy takes many forms, all of which can be theologically grounded.  These include civil resistance, such as mass demonstrations and protests, civil disobedience against unjust laws, and strikes and economic non-cooperation.  These also include making legal challenges to unconstitutional actions, documenting abuses for accountability, and protecting independent judiciary, press, civil service. Also important are international appeals and pressure.

 

Prophetic Witness

[45] The following are acts of prophetic witness:

* Public truth-telling and refusing complicity through silence

* Providing sanctuary and protection to threatened persons

* Maintaining alternative narratives against propaganda

 

Electoral Engagement:

[46] Within the democratic process, one can work to defend voting rights and electoral integrity while mobilizing civic participation such as running for office or supporting democratic candidates. International election monitoring is also important.

 

Cultural resistance:

[47] Creating art, literature, and theology that embody freedom and providing education that forms critical consciousness is critical. Preserving historical memory against revisionism and building communities of mutual support and resilience are all forms of resistance which  can be understood as “rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” when Caesar (democracy) is under threat. They are not rebellion against legitimate authority but defense of legitimate authority against its illegitimate usurpers.

 

Synthesis: A Theology of Democratic Citizenship

[48] Based on the foregoing analysis, we can articulate several core propositions for a contemporary Christian political theology:

*  Proposition 1: Authority exists to restrain evil and promote universal good. This is the functional definition of legitimate authority. Any government, regardless of its formal structure or claims to divine mandate, is legitimate only insofar as it actually fulfills this purpose.

*  Proposition 2: Humanity creates political institutions as co-creators with God. The capacity to establish governance structures is part of the imago dei. Political forms are not decreed from heaven in their specific details, but emerge through human creativity working within God’s providential guidance. We are responsible for the quality of institutions we create and maintain.

* Proposition 3: Political forms evolve, and this evolution can represent moral progress. The movement from tribal violence to rule of law, from monarchy to constitutional democracy, from exclusionary citizenship to universal human rights—these are not morally neutral changes but represent genuine progress in restraining evil and expanding the circle of protected persons. This progress is fragile and reversible, requiring constant vigilance and renewal.

* Proposition 4: Liberal democracy with republican principles is the most Kingdom-proximate political form yet achieved. While no earthly system embodies the Kingdom of God, liberal democratic republicanism—with its commitments to universal dignity, distributed power, rule of law, and protection of minorities—aligns structurally with Kingdom ethics more closely than any alternative system humanity has developed.

* Proposition 5: Usurpation of democracy is a theological crisis requiring Christian response. When democratic institutions are undermined or destroyed, Christians face not merely a political problem but a theological emergency. Fidelity to Christ’s teaching about authority requires defending legitimate institutional frameworks against their illegitimate usurpers.

* Proposition 6: Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God. The traditional reading that equates submission to any governmental authority with obedience to God must be reversed in cases of tyranny or usurpation. In such contexts, resistance is faithfulness, and passivity is sin.

 

Practical Implications for Christian Communities

[49] These theological propositions have concrete implications for how Christian communities should engage politically.  Churches must form disciples who understand civic participation as a dimension of Christian discipleship, not a distraction from it. This includes:

* Teaching political theology alongside personal ethics

* Developing civic literacy (understanding constitutional order, rights, institutions)

* Cultivating virtues of democratic citizenship (critical thinking, civil discourse, coalition-building)

* Learning from historical examples of faithful political witness (anti- slavery movement, civil rights, anti-apartheid struggle)

[50] Pastors and theologians must recover the prophetic dimension of Christian proclamation, which includes:

* Naming injustice clearly and specifically

* Challenging idolatries of nationalism, authoritarianism, and market fundamentalism

* Proclaiming the ethical implications of the Kingdom for public life

* Refusing to provide religious legitimation for political evil

[51] Churches as institutions should model democratic governance internally, encouraging lay participation, transparency, accountability. Churches should defend religious liberty—for all faiths, not merely Christian privilege. Churches should provide sanctuary and support for vulnerable persons targeted by unjust policies. They should participate in interfaith and ecumenical coalitions for justice and exercise prophetic advocacy before governmental bodies.

[52] Christian individuals should understand that their citizenship involves:  informed voting as an act of stewardship, participation in community organizing and advocacy, professional service in democratic institutions, speaking truth in their social networks, workplaces, and public spaces, and offering material support for institutions that defend democracy such as independent media, legal defense funds, civil rights organizations.

 

Anticipating Objections

[53] “This Politicizes the Gospel!” The Gospel is inherently political in the sense that it proclaims the Kingdom of God—an alternative sovereignty that relativizes all earthly powers. Jesus was crucified by political authorities because his message was perceived (correctly) as politically subversive. The question is not whether Christianity engages politics, but how it does so. Faithful political engagement means refusing to equate the Kingdom with any earthly political party or ideology, maintaining critical distance from all power structures, prioritizing the vulnerable over the powerful, and proclaiming truth even when politically inconvenient. What truly “politicizes” the Gospel is using it to baptize existing power arrangements or to render Christians passive before injustice.

[54] “Christians Should Focus on Evangelism, Not Politics!” This creates a false dichotomy. The Great Commission to “make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19) includes teaching them “to observe all that I have commanded you”—which necessarily includes Jesus’s ethical teaching about justice, mercy, and treatment of the marginalized. Moreover, political systems profoundly affect people’s ability to hear and respond to the Gospel. When Christians stood against slavery, they were not being “distracted” from evangelism—they were removing a massive barrier to human flourishing that made genuine response to God’s love nearly impossible for millions.

[55] “Both Sides Are Flawed; Christians Should Remain Neutral!” While it is true that all political movements are imperfect, this does not mean all are equally just or unjust. The assertion that “both sides are the same” often functions as an excuse for inaction in the face of clear moral distinctions. Christians are called to discernment, not neutrality. There is a difference between a flawed democracy and a consolidating autocracy as well as between imperfect justice and systematic oppression. There is all a difference between political disagreement within democratic norms and attempted usurpation of democratic institutions. Prudential judgment is required, but pretending we cannot make such judgments abandons the prophetic task.

[56] “This Theology Could Justify Revolution and Violence!” This article argues for resistance to the usurpation of democracy, but it does not endorse violence as a general strategy. The Christian tradition of just war theory and legitimate defense applies, but the primary forms of resistance advocated here are legal and constitutional challenges, nonviolent civil resistance, electoral mobilization, and prophetic witness and truth-telling. The burden of proof is always on those who would use violence, and in democratic contexts with functioning civil society, nonviolent resistance is both more faithful to Gospel principles and more strategically effective. That said, the article does reject absolute pacifism in the face of genocide or totalitarian violence. Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s participation in the plot to assassinate Hitler represents a tragic but defensible choice when all other avenues to stop massive evil had been exhausted. Such extreme cases do not negate the general principle of nonviolence but acknowledge the complexity of moral reasoning in catastrophic circumstances.

[57] “This Elevates Democracy to an Idol!” This article explicitly denies that any political system is equivalent to the Kingdom of God. Liberal democracy is relatively better at restraining evil and protecting human dignity than alternatives, but it remains a fallen human construction, susceptible to corruption, hypocrisy, and injustice. The theological claim is not that democracy is sacred, but that the principles it embodies—human dignity, distributed power, rule of law, protection of minorities—are closer to Kingdom ethics than the principles embodied in autocracy or totalitarianism. Christians should be democracy’s most insightful critics precisely because we hold it to transcendent standards it can never fully meet. But this critique must be distinguished from the cynicism that says “all systems are equally corrupt, so why defend any of them?” Such cynicism serves the interests of tyrants.

 

Conclusion: Rendering What Is Due

[58] Paul’s teaching in Romans 13:1-7 has been gravely misunderstood and tragically misused. Read properly—within its immediate literary context, its broader biblical framework, and its historical-evolutionary understanding of human social development—it does not provide legitimation for tyranny but rather a functional definition of legitimate authority. Authority exists to restrain evil and promote good. When it fails in this function, it loses divine sanction. When it actively becomes a source of evil, resistance becomes not merely permissible but obligatory.

[59] The logical absurdity of interpreting Paul’s text as permanent endorsement of any specific regime is demonstrated by Church history itself: no Christian tradition has ever called for the restoration of the Roman Empire simply because it was the governing authority in Paul’s time. This historical reality confirms that authority must be understood functionally, not statically—legitimate insofar as it fulfills its protective purpose, illegitimate when it becomes a source of harm.

[60] In the 21st century, Christ’s command to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” must be understood in light of humanity’s political evolution. “Caesar” today is not an autocrat but the institutional framework of liberal democratic republicanism—the most developed mechanism yet achieved for limiting evil and protecting universal good. When these democratic institutions are usurped—whether by coup, fraud, or institutional capture—Christians cannot “render unto Caesar” because Caesar (legitimate democratic authority) has been stolen. In such moments, faithful Christian witness requires truth-telling, prophetic resistance, solidarity, and hope.

[61] This is not a departure from biblical teaching but its fulfillment. When Christians defend democracy, we are not worshiping an idol; we are stewarding a political inheritance that, for all its flaws, restrains evil more effectively and protects human dignity more completely than any alternative system humanity has created. We render unto the republican Caesar what is due: our engaged citizenship, our prophetic critique, our defense against usurpation. And we render unto God what is God’s: our ultimate allegiance, our eschatological hope, our commitment to a Kingdom of justice and peace that transcends all earthly political arrangements.

[62] May the unity of churches recover this theological clarity in time to meet the challenges of our age. The cost of continuing misinterpretation is too high. The witness of the 20th century’s martyrs—those who died under tyrannies enabled by Christian passivity—demands that we read Romans 13 with new eyes, informed by what we have learned through tragedy about where traditional readings lead. “Render unto Caesar” means defending democracy. This is not political preference. This is theological faithfulness.

 

 

Bibliography

Augustine of Hippo. The City of God. Translated by Marcus Dods. Modern Library, 2000. Barth, Karl. Church and State. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2004.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Ethics. Edited by Clifford Green. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005. Cavanaugh, William

Cone, James H. The Cross and the Lynching Tree. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2011.

Hauerwas, Stanley, and William H. Willimon. Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989.

King, Martin Luther, Jr. “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” In Why We Can’t Wait, 77-100. New York: Signet Classics, 2000.

O’Donovan, Oliver. The Desire of the Nations: Rediscovering the Roots of Political Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Pinker, Steven. The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. New York: Viking, 2011.

Wolterstorff, Nicholas. Justice: Rights and Wrongs. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.

Yoder, John Howard. The Politics of Jesus. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.

Zizioulas, John. Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church. Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985.