Women Bishops and Sexism


I’ve been exploring this issue for a bit; the texts usually quoted are from the ‘Pastoral Epistles’ – I & II Timothy and Titus.  They do prove the basic point I believe, but it needs detailed examination.  Then I came across a text in Acts, easily overlooked because of the way it’s usually translated.  It’s pretty clear so makes a nice short cut about women bishops.  It’s Acts 20; 17,28.

And from Miletus Paul sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church….

“Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you guardians, to feed the Church of the Lord….”

Elders’ of course translates ‘Presbyters’ which gradually changed into ‘priests’.  ‘Guardians’ translates ‘episkopoi’, or as we call them ‘bishops’.  Now ‘guardians’ is quite a good translation of a word which, in New Testament times hadn’t yet acquired its distinctively ecclesiastical meaning.  Literally from its Greek roots it means ‘overseers’ – ‘epi’ as in ‘epidermis’ plus ‘skopos’ as in ‘telescope/microscope/etc.’ and so ‘managers’ and similar. 

As used in Acts 20 it shows us that to Paul, ‘presbyters’ and ‘bishops’ are the same thing.  As I said, the Pastoral Epistles show the same thing but it’s harder to work out from them. 

Applying this to our modern situation, if the Church of England has ordained women as ‘priests’, then as far as the Bible is concerned, they have already ordained them as ‘bishops’, and they are entitled to do anything that any ‘presbyter/episkopos’ can do.    It might well be logical and biblical for Anglicans to go back and change their minds about ordaining women at all, but otherwise, if they are ‘priests’ they are ‘bishops’.  Simples!! 

The current argument is therefore not about some theological issue of obedience to God.  It’s just that long after the New Testament was written the concepts of ‘priest’ and ‘bishop’ somehow slipped apart so that the word ‘bishop’ came to be applied to a kind of ‘regional CEO’ figure of which the New Testament knows nothing.  The modern dispute is whether the church is willing to let women do that unbiblical role or not – no theological issue, just old-fashioned sexism!

There is a lot more to be said about ministry in general, of course; none of the Anglican grades of ‘priest’, up to and including ‘archbishop’ seem to be really in line with the biblical teaching.  I suspect a lot of trouble could have been avoided if, before arguing about women being priests, the Anglicans had first asked what kind of priests men are supposed to be, biblically speaking….


A Passionate God??


I was recently in an online forum and another participant mentioned how many early creeds etc. said that God was ‘without passions’ and so presumably had no emotions.  I’ve come across similar interpretations in other recent books and discussions, seeing this as an abstract philosophical depiction of God as what we’d call a ‘cold fish’ – remote, distant, uninvolved, unmoved, with nothing much corresponding to our feelings and emotions.  And rightly, this is rejected – God is not like that.  But then, in an attempt to attribute passion and feeling to God, modern writers and speakers somehow slip into the idea of a rather weak and vulnerable God.

This couldn’t be more wrong; just read some of Augustine’s words where he prays to God and celebrates God’s love for him.  Now I agree that in modern English usage it is broadly right to talk about a God who has ‘passions’ and who ‘passionately’ cares about things.  The trouble is, the older theologians whose ideas are being questioned were Latin (or Greek) speakers, or later theologians trained in ‘classics’, for whom the connotations of ‘passion’ and its related words were very different.  Like ‘gay’ in modern times, ‘passion’ has somewhat changed its meaning over the years ….


In the ‘classic’ languages, ‘passion’ is associated with ‘passive’ and with a whole notion of ‘suffering’.  In this context a ‘passion’ is something that happens to you; something overpowering from outside that takes you over, that grabs you by the scruff of the neck and drags you along to do something.  Now the limited gods of paganism could have passions in that sense – look at Zeus, only has to see a pretty girl (or boy) and he is smitten and out of control, and cannot be satisfied till he’s had that pretty young thing in bed (often he’s too impatient to actually make it to a proper bed!). He cheerfully betrays his own goddess wife, Hera, and often not merely seduces but kidnaps and rapes, or deceives, the object of his ‘passion’.  In other contexts also the pagan gods are portrayed as indeed moved by ‘passions’ – losing control and acting pettily, meanly, and with fickle inconstancy from one day to another. 


However, when you think of the one true God, the Creator, the fount and origin of all things, the perfect being, can you really think of him having that kind of passion?  If God could have that sort of passion – or rather, that sort of passion could have God – then there would be something(s), and likely not very desirable something(s), more powerful than God, able to frustrate his intentions and drag him into things against his better judgement.  If God is truly God, there cannot be other things outside him that can so affect him.  God is not a passive victim of wildly inconsistent passions.  That was the real point being made by these ancient theologians.


But they did not depict God as cold and remote and unfeeling – far from it.  They depict a God of warmth of feeling, of white-hot caring, way beyond human ‘passions’ in their sense of ‘passion’.  But they didn’t see God as ‘passive’ in his feelings; God’s caring is all active, he takes the initiative and actively throws his whole magnificent wonderful self into his caring.  Not that some external force grabs him and controls him, but that he himself is the very embodiment of that caring, that it flows out of him in majestic generosity.  God is active love, not the passive victim of forces beyond his control.  I’m tempted to coin a new word to get across the difference between our usage and the usage of those wise Latin-speakers.  They would not, with their usage of words, describe God as ‘passionate’ – what they wanted to say about God might rather be conveyed by the word ‘actionate’.


Our God is Love!!

A modern case supporting ‘Christendom’

Some time back I came across a book called ‘A Higher Throne’, proceedings of sessions of the eleventh ‘Annual School of Theology’ of Oak Hill College, an Anglican institution in the UK.  Among the essays was one by David Field, in which he argued for a ‘Christendomite’ view of ‘confessional Christian states’, derived from the arguments of Samuel Rutherford’s book Lex Rex from the Stuart era.  Early in the essay he sets forth the kind of thing he has in mind, as seen in the following quotes

….Those who want … a Christian nation … could be identified as those who assert;

The first line (paragraph? SL) of the constitution of each and every nation on earth should include a statement such as ‘The triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is the one true living God and he is the maker, ruler redeemer and judge of the world.  The Bible is his infallible and altogether authoritative Word.  Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is King of kings and Lord of lords and has all authority in heaven and on earth.’ 

And later

In summary then, Samuel Rutherford’s arguments in ‘Lex, Rex  are intended to provide a defence of taking up arms against the tyrant and are founded upon an exposition of the  purpose, origin, nature and raw materials of civil government.  That same exposition also shows how Rutherford would straightforwardly be a supporter of what might be called the covenanted Christian nation, or the confessional state. 

Three Questions may be asked about the relationship between the lordship of Jesus and the kings of the earth;

  1. 1.       Is Jesus Christ the ruler of the kings of the earth?
  2. 2.       Is it desirable that the kings of the earth should acknowledge this?
  3. 3.       Is it desirable that the kings of the earth qua kings should publicly confess this? 

Non-Christians and Christians are of course distinguished by their answers to the first two questions, but those who support and those who oppose the Christian confessional state are distinguished by their answer to the third.  Rutherford and the covenanting tradition answer the third question with no less a ringing and confident ‘yes’ than they give to the first two. 

Given the purpose, origin, nature and stuff of the human person, it is clear and important that each human being confess the triune God, recognise Jesus as Lord, and live with the Word of God as his or her supreme authority.  To Rutherford and the covenanting tradition it is no less clear and important, given the purpose, origin, nature and stuff of human government, that each human ruler also confess the triune God, recognise Jesus as Lord, and live with the Word of God as his or her supreme authority. 

In referring to ‘the kings of the earth’ Field means all kinds of human rulers, not just those who have the specific title ‘king’.  I must admit I’m not quite clear how he regards democracy; he does later describe ‘pluralist democracy’ as being a ‘tyranny’ – I kind of see why he says that (material for a future post perhaps), but I also think he is misconceiving how plural democracy is supposed to work and to think of itself.  I am guessing that he would find acceptable a democracy which was not pluralist but was limited by that specifically Christian opening to its constitution – but he doesn’t fully face some of the implications of that either. 

Looking at those ‘three questions’, yes, Christians believe that Jesus Christ IS the ruler of the ‘kings of the earth’ whether they acknowledge it or not, and overrules for ultimate good even their worst and most ungodly actions, which they can only do at all by divine permission anyway. 

Clearly it is desirable that everybody, king or not, should personally acknowledge Jesus’ rulership; after all those who don’t accept him as Lord are putting their souls at risk, and that is clearly undesirable.  However I’m not sure that this point is quite as clear-cut as Field seems to suggest; if a person who is a king or other ruler accepts Jesus as Lord, he will in many cases find it at least difficult to both follow Jesus and to be a regular-type worldly ruler.  There is quite a bit to be worked out here.  Following Field’s suggested path is an easy solution at first glance, but has its own problems as we will see!

In the third question the expression, rarely used nowadays, ‘qua kings’ means in this case the idea that the ruler doesn’t just as an individual person acknowledge Jesus’ authority; he also acknowledges it in his office as ruler, and so in the way he rules his subjects.  That is, he becomes an explicitly Christian ruler who rules the state as a Christian state based on a Christian constitution like the one quoted above, to which the subjects are expected to conform.  

The logic of these three questions seems impeccable; but it is actually severely flawed.  In the first place, it overlooks some issues about what is really desirable and really practical given the purpose, origin, nature and stuff of the human person and given the purpose, origin, nature and stuff of human government.  And in the second place and even more importantly, the New Testament doesn’t teach this Christian country solution at all, but proposes a very different way to bring people to acknowledge that “the triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is the one true living God and He is the maker, ruler redeemer and judge of the world.  The Bible is his infallible and altogether authoritative Word.  Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is King of kings and Lord of lords and has all authority in heaven and on earth”.

Thing is, the only power that can make people Christians is the power of God himself.  Human power, be it king, emperor, president, or dictator, cannot achieve spiritual rebirth; the biggest army can’t make people Christian – not even with the threat of nukes – nor can threats of torture, or for that matter offers of worldly advantage for those who profess faith.  The most that such human power can achieve is a superficial conformity, an external acting out of Christian profession and rituals, from either fear or other worldly motives.  To compare it to education, it’s fairly straightforward to make and enforce the rule that all pupils must wear their school ties; but it needs a lot more than such rules and external conformity for children to actually learn their lessons, let alone learn willingly and joyfully!   

And part of the trouble is that the superficial conformity imposed in the ‘confessional state’ can actually work against people truly coming to faith.  It is all too easy for the status of ‘Christian country’ to be taken for granted so that everyone just assumes they are Christian, and they don’t see the need to be born again and truly personally reconciled to God; as Wesley found out, even bishops can fall into the error of thinking that preaching of the new birth is just unnecessary because ‘England has been a Christian country for centuries’.  Infant baptism and the idea of a magical ‘Christ-ening’ thereby can reinforce such assumptions.  At the other end those who realise the basic falseness of the situation may be put off faith altogether; they may continue external conformity through fear or desire for a quiet life, but again superficial conformity is all it will be.  In other cases this underlying dissatisfaction may eventually lead to open atheism and rebellion against the faith and the power structure of the state that upholds it.  Others will conform through fear of consequences, or hypocritically for the worldly advantages of it.  Desirable as it is for people to acknowledge Jesus as Lord, it is undesirable for that to be muddied by these false situations. 

Also important – the Church is supposed to be the fellowship of believers; but how real can that be when there are lots of people formally in the state church, even at ministry level, who haven’t been born again but are only conforming because the state is a ‘confessional Christian state’, people who are ministers because it’s a profitable and respected career?  OK, even the best church on earth will probably have a few hypocrites or other not-quite-Christians, but in a state privileged church those may be the majority, whereas when there is no special social benefit to a profession of faith it is much more likely that church attenders will be sincere.  Of course if the state actually compels church-going this situation will be even worse.  It is hypothetically possible to imagine a formally ‘Christian country’ that doesn’t contain a single true born-again Christian – indeed England got uncomfortably close to that situation just before the Wesleyan revival.

Then there’s an interesting point; Charles I, opposed by Rutherford and the Scots Covenanters as a ‘tyrant’ was not a bloodthirsty evil pagan like Nero, or the likes of Hitler and Stalin.  No, he would have seen himself as a Christian king, indeed a Protestant king; as far as I can discover, he too would have quite happily adopted Field’s suggested ‘first paragraph of the constitution’ as the position of the state, and would have given a rousing ‘Yes!’ in response to all three of Field’s questions.  He would have seen himself as a king, ‘qua king’, publicly confessing Christ as his ruler, and aiming in his rule to confess the triune God, recognise Jesus as Lord, and live with the Word of God as his supreme authority.  The only problem was that he wasn’t supporting the exact flavour of Christianity favoured by Rutherford and the Covenanter party, but was seeking to suppress their version – basically he saw himself as doing the will of God and the opponents as the tyrants!  Rutherford, it should be pointed out, actually wrote a book against the ‘pretended’ liberty of conscience and probably would have imposed a narrower version of the faith than Charles (though I grant slightly more biblical)….

One thing you can be sure of about the nature and stuff of humans, and so of their governments – “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God”, and even those who have become Christians face a lifetime of temptation and occasionally getting it wrong.  You simply can’t guarantee that the ruler will get Christian things right; you can’t guarantee that he will actually be the Christian he professes to be, let alone be himself a competent theologian.  You can’t guarantee that about the ruler’s advisers, and in the superficial conformity of the ‘confessional state’, you also can’t even guarantee that about church leaders.  What you can be pretty sure of is that the rulers of state and state church will be subject to the temptations of worldly power and also the spiritual temptations from believing that God is on their side in what they do, and that they are therefore entitled to use their powers to impose conformity on others – partly by bribes and influence offering benefits to those who conform, but ultimately by the state force of police and army.  And others who have the same kind of belief in state religion, but disagree with the particular ruler – well, whether they are right or wrong where they differ from the ruler’s beliefs, they too will think it’s all right to resist by force in order to impose their better version of the Christian state, to ‘take up arms against the tyrant’ as Field puts it.

In simple terms, the ‘Christian state’ though aiming at unity, is all too likely to lead to war and division between Christians in practice, even persecution of Christians by other Christians using the power of the state[i].  This started even in the time of Constantine, with the tragedy of the Donatist rebellion – classic case, as in modern Ulster, of both sides really being wrong, though as an Anabaptist I think the Donatists came out marginally better when they eventually challenged the state church by asking “Quid est imperator cum ecclesiae?” – in modern terms “since when is the Church the Emperor’s business?”  Being ‘Christian’ led to religious wars between and within nations; but it also didn’t stop ‘Christian’ nations warring against each other for the other traditional reasons of human greed, pride, etc. yet claiming often to do it in God’s name.  The claims on all sides in the First World War to have God on their side in the carnage was arguably a major cause of modern disillusionment with Christianity and ironically the decline of ‘Christendom’. 

And just there is the beginning of an argument why this whole approach is wrong in Christian terms; because Paul, for example, clearly said (II Corinthians 10; 3) “…we do not war with carnal weapons.  For the weapons of our warfare are not physical…”  And Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world, and ordered Peter to put up his sword, and Paul clearly said in Romans (and Peter in a parallel passage in I Peter) that Christians are not to rebel against the state authorities, even when in Paul’s and Peter’s day the ‘authorities’ meant Nero himself.   Yet neither the establishment nor defence of the ‘Christian state’ is practical without those ‘carnal weapons’!  Just from that text alone Field’s thesis seems to be unravelling….

I commented above that ‘the New Testament doesn’t teach this Christian country solution at all’.  Field’s lecture/paper/essay has just over 30 pages expounding his Christian confessional state – and yet offers very little biblical evidence.  It’s all logical argument and assumptions.  Now there is truth behind some of these assumptions, even biblical truth.  But as the saying has it, ‘assume’ makes an ‘ass’ out of ‘u’ and ‘me’; does the actual teaching of the NT about state and church match the assumptions in this case?

Specifically it is very obviously true that in preparing the first advent of Jesus, his coming into the world to make atonement for our sins, God used the nation of Israel and did indeed set it up as a ‘confessional state’.  It is an easy assumption that after Jesus came, the same pattern would continue, of God’s people manifesting in yet more earthly religious nations under earthly religious rulers, but Christian/Messianic rather than Jewish. 

It is also true that ultimately Jesus will be recognised as king of kings and Lord of lords – and ultimately every knee will indeed bow to him.  Again, it’s an easy assumption that God wants this to be realised in the here and now with Christian kings ensuring that their subjects bow the knee.

But if so, the New Testament is strikingly silent about these ‘obvious’ ideas, these easy assumptions.  If you check out doctrinal standards and statements of faith like the Anglican 39 Articles or the Westminster Confession, you’ll find that they don’t offer many ‘proof texts’ for the establishment/Christian country’ position, and most of what they do offer are Old Testament generalities, not the specific instructions of the NT for the Church.   Furthermore on close examination the texts generally don’t actually prove the Christian country idea; more a case of you can interpret them in line with that position if you already hold it for other reasons – which reasons don’t seem to be found in the NT!  I’d also suggest that if you check such texts out for yourself you’ll probably agree with me that they’re being, shall we say, stretched a bit; and that they can also be interpreted comfortably in line with the anti-establishment position, and in many cases more so!  In more recent times many Anglicans and other ‘Christian country’ types seem to have given up the idea that there is NT proof; for example, I’ve just been taking part in an online discussion forum in which a few of the participants seemed to think the Bible didn’t express an opinion either way.  Again a few years ago I found an essay from well-known Anglican evangelical JI Packer including the following (heavily but I hope fairly edited to isolate ‘establishment’ from four other issues in a long passage)….

“….one finds that the main theological issues that have divided Protestants who hold to sola Scriptura have been… (4) how the churches should be related to the state – the issue in debates about establishment throughout the world since the seventeenth century

What are we to say to these matters of debate?    … The fourth debate reflected the presupposition that Scripture must legislate on the issue in question, even though no biblical author addresses himself to (it).” 

I think Packer is wrong here; he is right in that no biblical author positively teaches the establishment of the Christian church, but wrong in that they do address the issue – to present a positive alternative view.  It is both surprising and sad that Packer, normally so acute, should have failed to notice this. 

What the New Testament positively teaches?  I’m only giving an outline here – and at that a sketchy one; for more details and (so far just the beginnings of) biblical exposition see various other posts on this blog and especially the ‘But Seriously’ strand which deals with this topic .

Starting with Jesus’ disciples, God has been calling people out from the nations of the world, not to the forced and grudging superficial conformity of an institutional state ‘church’, but to a loving relationship with Jesus based on a living faith, and also a loving relationship with others who have heard and followed Jesus’ call.  When the state and its coercive power isn’t involved, those who hear and freely follow that call join God’s real holy nation on earth, the Church itself, the worldwide community of their fellow-believers.  In turn by the power of God’s Word and Spirit these voluntary believers call others to repent and believe, and to worship God freely ‘in spirit and truth’, not just turn up to go through the motions of worship because the law says so or because they are offered worldly benefits to conform outwardly[ii].

Christians live in the state – even the state which is their native land – as ‘resident aliens’ whose primary citizenship is the kingdom of heaven.  To be sure they respect the state they live in, and they are ‘subject to the authorities’ as both Peter and Paul say; but in the last resort if there is conflict between the demands of state and kingdom of heaven, Christians will ‘obey God rather than man’.  Contrary to Field’s and Rutherford’s suggestion this disobedience does not lead to ‘taking up arms against the tyrant’, instead Christians follow the example of Paul, Peter, and indeed Jesus himself by submitting to the state’s punishment even though that punishment is ultimately unjust.  Christians do not need worldly power, Christendom as a ‘kingdom of this world’, to advance God’s agenda of true reconciliation between God and man; on the contrary worldly power can compromise God’s work.

 OK, I too think those two paragraphs are sketchy; but I want you to go back to the New Testament itself and check it out.  Over and over the NT speaks against worldly power and merely physical weapons, and in favour of that worldwide spiritual unity of Christians that the state is powerless to bring about, a church of those ‘called out’ from the world and ‘gathered together’ by God as Jesus’ disciples and friends.  (The Greek word for ‘Church’, ekklesia, combines those two ideas of ‘called’ and ‘gathered’)

Jesus’ kingdom is ‘not of this world’; we must resist people like Field and Rutherford who can’t see beyond the superficial conformity of state religion.

[i] There are also issues of all kinds between Christian states and states committed to other kinds of religion, particularly Islam at present, and often those issues are adverse to the spread of the gospel. For this post I’m not going there – this is already one of my longest essays – but hopefully you’ll see some of those aspects in other future posts.

[ii] These days with freedom of religion in most western countries even where there still is a state religion, we probably see most church members being such voluntary believers, in whatever denomination.  But in a country so long formally Christian, and still offering some respect and social status to churchgoers, there is still a confusing legacy of nominal Christianity for worldly and social reasons, not only in the state churches but among non-conformists as well.  Worryingly, seemingly in reaction to the challenge of Islam, I’m seeing increasing numbers of people who seem to have little understanding of biblical faith and whose profession of Christianity seems to be more an assertion of British/English national identity against ‘immigrants’.  This is particularly problematic when you realise that according to the New Testament Christianity is meant to be very anti-racist, a faith where ‘in Christ’ racial differences do not matter.   Another place where the notion of a ‘Christian country’ distorts Christianity itself….

Miscellaneous – including Ann Widdecombe and more on ‘divine right of kings’.

With a couple of longish essays still being worked on, just a brief post of ‘bits and pieces’.

First, I’d intended quite a long examination of Ann Widdecombe’s TV presentation ‘Are you having a laugh?’ in which essentially she complained about comedians making fun of Christianity.  But in the end I thought the Bible says it better

…it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom but we preach Christ crucified (a crucified Messiah), a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and Christ the wisdom of God.  For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

In other words, we are preaching a somewhat counter-intuitive message which at first sight people will find either scandalous or funny; if we want respect for such a message we need to earn it, not just take it for granted or expect it as of right, nor complain when some people joke about us.  Be humble among our non-Christian neighbours….

On the ‘crumbling cathedral’ issue I’m wondering was I a bit polite – I mean, a supposedly ‘Christian country’ runs a national lottery almost all of which is anti-Christian in implication (appeal to greed, trust in chance…) and the supposed national Christian Church is seeking to profit from the gambling!!  Do we really have to politely pretend there is nothing wrong with this picture??

Looking through the ‘Stats’ bit of ‘Blog Admin’ I came across some anomalous ‘search terms’; and I’ve been wondering whether someone was really searching for those things or if they were trying to comment on the blog but being unused to blogs had put the question in the wrong window or something like that.  Two of these seemed to deserve a response anyway…

First, “What has Rameses to do with Church and State?”  Answer, not a lot – but my blog is ‘mostly’ about church-and-state issues, not ‘exclusively’ on that topic, and other things that interest me like the Exodus date will crop up from time to time.

Second, “What happens to the ‘divine right of kings’ when you kill into it?”  I assume that means when somebody usurps the previous king and kills him, or when a king is defeated in battle.

Basically, most kings and similar rulers have wanted their subjects to believe they either are divine (see Emperors of Rome and Japan) or that they otherwise have divine backing so that the subjects mustn’t dare object and especially don’t plot to kill them!  Such divine right has of course its own limitations – ‘divine emperors’ are usually only demigods rather than full gods, while others by claiming divine right risk that the priesthood of their religion will interfere with the ruler in the name of the gods in question.  When one country defeats and takes over another, the assumption will be that ‘the gods’ favoured the winner who thus has the divine right.  Usurpation is tricky; a really strong usurper won’t be challenged anyway on grounds of sheer brute force, a weaker usurper will probably have to do a lot of propaganda to satisfy their subjects that the usurped king had either forfeited his divine right or never had it in the first place….  That kind of thing could be seen throughout the ‘Wars of the Roses’ particularly when Richard III usurped the throne of his young nephew, and then when Henry Tudor in turn usurped Richard.

In the kind of case I was putting in the original blog on ‘divine right of kings’ I was really cutting through all that as irrelevant to Christians.  We don’t accept the ‘divine right’ claimed by non-Christian kings because we don’t believe in the god(s) in question.  We also reject the idea found among many kings of ‘Christendom’ that they are ‘anointed’ kings like David and Solomon, because the position of God’s anointed king over his people is already eternally filled by the resurrected and very much alive Jesus himself.  For Christians the ‘divine right’ doesn’t actually exist in the first place, except for Jesus himself, so you can’t ‘kill into it’ as the question implied.

But what about Romans 13    “There is no authority except from God, and those in charge are divinely constituted, so that the rebel against the authority is resisting God’s appointment”.  Isn’t that the ‘divine right of kings’?  Well, sort of – for a detailed explanation of the text see a forthcoming post on Romans 13; actually a two-parter because I believe in context, so a post about Romans 12 will come first….