I am absolutely convinced that both Scripture and church history demonstrate the necessity of Christian civil disobedience whenever the ethics of God’s kingdom conflicts with the expectations of the state.
Romans 13:1-7 is the standard text cited by those who confuse faithful 
Christianity with obedience to state power. My book, I Pledge Allegiance, focuses considerable attention on disentangling the many confusions behind this popular misunderstanding. For, as the commentator J. C. O’Neill once wrote,
“These seven… verses have caused more unhappiness and misery… than any other seven verses in the New Testament by the license they have given to tyrants, and the support for tyrants the church has felt called on to offer.”
In and of itself, O’Neill’s observation does not necessarily prove or disprove anyone’s preferred way of reading Romans 13. But I believe that the investigation offered here and in Part 1 of this study, will make the point clear.
This excerpt is from pages 59-62:
“Civil Disobedience”
“We are now at a point where we can recognize three components of Paul’s instructions that offer a solid foundation for the legitimacy of Christian civil disobedience.
“First, by explaining God’s role in ordering the place of government in human relations, Paul subordinates all civil authorities under God, and not just any god,
but Paul’s God, the Father of Jesus Christ. In effect, Paul has desacralized the Roman state and its emperor, both of which regularly received sacrifices from its citizens. Caesar is being told (were he ever to read the book of Romans) that he serves at the pleasure of the Christian God, a revolutionary claim. Rather than propping up the arrogant authoritarianism of Roman rule— or anyone else’s rule, for that matter—Paul is actually taking his theological ax to its woody trunk and chopping it down to proper size. It is difficult for us today to fully grasp the provocative and subversive nature of Paul’s words. He twice describes civil authorities, including the emperor, as “God’s servant” (Rom. 13:4), not because they predictably execute God’s desires as a good servant should, nor because God promises to back up their every decision, whatever it may be, but because they function in a capacity that was “ordered” for them by the God who brings world redemption through the Son, Jesus Christ. Paul is dramatically leveling the playing field between rulers and the ruled. More than that, he has switched the parameters of the Roman playing field for another one entirely. Roman officials thought they stood on political grounds that were established by the gods Mars and Jupiter. To that fantasy Paul’s says, “Not on your life!” Actually, though they do not know it, Roman officials stood on a playing field created and marked out by the Christian God. On that playing field everyone is equal, and all people, no matter their station in this life, will eventually be judged in the same way, by the same standard, by this same God.
“Second, there is a subtle turn to Paul’s teaching strategy that is quite pro- found. Overtly, he is instructing believers to remain cooperative, submissive members of society. Yet, even as he offers this highly conventional message, he is implicitly underscoring the church’s supreme allegiance to the King of Kings above and beyond all other authority figures. The force of this reminder is to enable every Christian citizen to ask a crucial question: Are government authorities behaving like God’s obedient servants in asking me to perform this action? And if I do what the government asks, will I be doing something that I believe is right and acceptable before God? Paul is implicitly reminding the church that obedience to Christ supersedes all other responsibilities. We obey the government when such obedience coincides with obedience to God; otherwise, we submit to governing authority by virtue of our disobedience, accepting the negative consequences, including suffering, of our higher obedience to the King of Kings. Standing alongside the apostle Peter as he defied a direct order from the Sanhedrin, Christians testify with their lives that they “must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29; also 4:19).
“Third, the thoughtful disciple is now left to deal with questions of personal conscience, a matter that Paul raises himself in verse 5: “It is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.” Paul’s argument is that government officials (ideally) ask citizens to do what is right and then (only) punish those who do what is wrong—not wrong as defined by an arbitrary authority, but wrong as defined by God and our God-given conscience. Paul obviously does not believe that paying taxes, even to unscrupulous tax collectors, is either disobedient to God or a violation of Christian conscience, so he emphatically concludes, “This is why you pay taxes” (v. 6). But that conclusion hardly constitutes a blank check for necessarily prioritizing every government policy over Christian conscience per se. “Because of conscience” is a crucial declaration in its own right, especially when we remember that the real world does not operate in the way Paul describes governing authorities throughout this passage. “Because of conscience” becomes the church’s inevitable explanation for its civil disobedience whenever the governing authorities come to believe their own mythology about extraordinary powers, providential selection, and divine right. The long and bloody history of Christian martyrs who died for their faith while defying local government should remind every disciple of the nonnegotiable priority of Paul’s warning—“because of conscience.”
“Several issues of conscience arise when we take chapters 12 and 13 together, as they should be. Paul, in Romans 12:14, 17, and 19, insists that believers must never retaliate, seek vengeance, or resort to violence, but must always leave judgment to God’s wrath. Paul then goes on (in Rom. 13:4) to grant the governing authorities responsibility for exercising the very functions that Christians are commanded to leave with God. Consequently, there are certain government activities that must forever remain alien to the followers of Jesus. Whatever “bearing the sword” may mean, whether it is the power of law enforcement, imposing capital punishment, or sending men to war, it involves some degree of violence and some acts of punishment, all of which must be foreign territory to the Christian.
“Early Christian leaders understood this to mean, at the very least, that Christians could not join the military (see chapter 10) or serve as judges. Aside from the fact that men in these positions were required to participate in any number of idolatrous Roman rituals, soldiers had to be ready to use force in law enforcement; more important, they could be ordered to kill at any time. Similarly, judges were responsible to punish, imprison, and impose the death penalty; but Christians were forbidden to involve themselves in any of these things. A typical discussion appears in On Idolatry (17.2–3) by Tertullian (AD 160–ca. 225). When answering the suggestion that Christians should seek positions of official authority—such as becoming a judge—in order to influence government positively, Tertullian points out that a man would have to find some way “to avoid the functions of his office . . . without passing judgment on a man’s life [i.e., imposing capital punishment] or honor . . . without condemning or forejudging, without putting anybody in chains or prison or torturing.” In other words, a Christian could only take the job after first deciding never actually to do the job, an obviously impossible scenario.
“In a similar vein, one version of the Apostolic Constitutions 16.10 (ca. AD 375–380) makes an allusion to Romans 13:4 while insisting that “anyone who has the power of the sword, or who is a civil magistrate wearing the purple, either let him cease (i.e., resign his post in government) or be cast out (i.e., excommunicated from the church).” The only way a Christian could honestly serve in the Roman government (and a post-Constantine government, at that!) was by deliberately avoiding all of his major responsibilities. It is apparent that early Christian leaders were not interpreting Romans 13 in light of a two-kingdoms theology, in which a temporal realm and a spiritual realm make parallel claims on the Christian’s attention. Instead, the disciple was a citizen of only one kingdom, the kingdom of God, which is now invading a fallen world. John Howard Yoder explains that “these two aspects of God’s work are not distinguished by God’s having created two realms but by the actual rebelliousness of men.”
“Martin Luther’s two-kingdoms theology allowed him to recommend that Christians volunteer for the civic roles of hangman and executioner because “it is not man, but God, who hangs, tortures, beheads, kills and fights” when the state punishes criminals and goes to war. Unfortunately, Luther merely demonstrates how blind he was to both the role of conscience and the priority of God’s kingdom for every believer. God may well be the ultimate executioner standing behind a judge’s guilty verdict, but that does not change the fact that the Father forbids his children from having anything to do with a process that kills, demeans, tortures, or seeks vengeance against another human being. Government authority is God’s remedial measure to preserve some semblance of order among sinful human beings. Luther was correct to say that God is the one who punishes when a just, properly functioning judiciary renders a guilty verdict; but he was sorely mistaken in assuming that the divine Judge invites members of the church to share in his work of punishment.”
