This past March, as our nation was making preparations to go to war in Iraq, Bishop Desmond Tutu and other world religious leaders issued an invitation for a Sunday evening candlelight vigil for peace. At 7:00 in every time zone, neighbors and friends gathered to light candles and pray publicly for peace. The word spread, and across the world, people gathered in groups large and small, around public landmarks, on street corners, or in family compounds. I’m sure many of you joined in these gatherings. I chose to participate in the prayer vigil in my own neighborhood, and for half an hour, about eight of us stood on the street corner with candles and a sign that said simply, “Pray for peace.” We shared with one another our hopes and fears, and it was a beautiful time turning strangers to friends. As the cars drove by, some waved or honked in support. Others shouted profanities at us. But what disturbed me most was the shout I heard repeated several times: “If you don’t like America, get out.”

Throughout the last year, no matter whether you consider yourself liberal or conservative, hawk or dove, Democrat or Republican, whether your complaint is with the President, the Congress or the Supreme Court, it seems that almost everyone has had a disagreement with some policy or decision made by our government. And yet, even in the midst of these ongoing debates and disagreements, our country this week will make its annual Fourth of July celebration. Which raises the question: must you be free from mixed emotions, reservations or disagreements with our government in order to celebrate? Should dissenters heed the shouts and just get out? As Christians, how does our faith inform our celebrations and our dissentions from the doings of our government? Is it unchristian to disagree with one’s government, or is it unchristian not to?

Let us begin with a contrast. First, these famous words from the Apostle Paul, which Steve just read for us. “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.” Now, these famous words from Thomas Jefferson: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Back to St. Paul: “Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” And back to Jefferson: “whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” And Paul, again: “Rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God’s servant for your good.” And Mr. Jefferson, one more time: “When a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations … evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.”

It seems to me we have a difference of opinion here. According to Paul, civil governments are the arm of God, resisting civil government is resisting God, and rulers pose no danger to righteous people. According to Jefferson and the other founders of our nation, civil governments originate in the consent of free human beings, and human beings are free to dissolve or reform such government as they choose. Jefferson even wrote to James Madison, “that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” This Fourth of July holiday that is upon us is really a celebration of a band of traitors, a group of rabble-rousers who refused to submit to the king. Their actions seem incompatible with the Christian teachings we find in Paul.

What then are we to do? I believe most of us in the 21st century United States are already Jeffersonians. We value independent thinking and freedom of expression, and those of us liberal Christians who do not find it important to take the Bible literally, we probably would rather just dismiss this part of Paul and hold fast to Jefferson. We say that Paul got it wrong, just like he got it wrong about women being subordinate to men and slaves being obedient to their masters, wrong about purity and chastity laws and certain strictures of sexuality. He got our attitude about government wrong too. That’s probably why this passage never once appears in the three-year cycle of the lectionary. You have to go out of your way to preach about it. So why do I bother bringing it up at all? Because this passage undergirds those who shout, “If you don’t like America, get out,” sometimes seen on bumper stickers as “America: Love it or Leave It.” And because for centuries, this passage has been used to justify Christian quietude in the face of governmental injustices and atrocities, and ignoring this text will not make it go away. Paul’s words remain a part of our body of scripture, so we must wrestle with his challenge, even if, in the end, we come to disagree with him.

Let us begin our wrestling by looking at Paul’s context.  This letter was written to the Christian community in Rome, the center of the Mediterranean universe, about the year 57 AD. The soon-to-be infamous Emperor Nero was on the throne, but at the time of Paul’s letter, Nero had not yet begun his reign of terror, and Christians lived and worshipped peacefully in the city. The widespread Pax Romana even aided their missionary travels. The key context to understand, however, was the context of an absolute monarchy. The Christian community had two choices when it came to relating to civil government: submit or don’t submit. Commentator John A.T. Robinson puts it this way: “(Submission) was the only relevant relation of the early Christian to political power. (Paul) does not answer for us the much more difficult problems which arise when the Christian’s relation to power (in a democracy such as ours) is not simply one of responsibility to but responsibility for, when we are not only at the receiving end (of power), but at the dispensing end.” (Wrestling with Romans, 138)

Thanks to the likes of Jefferson and the other founders of our nation, our government is founded not upon the belief in the absolute submission to a divine monarch, but the mutual consent of all parties to work for the common good. Most commentators on Romans use this change of governmental forms as yet another reason to abandon Paul’s words, to dismiss him as out of step and no longer relevant. But I would argue that the change of governmental systems does not absolve us from following Paul’s decree to be model citizens, but it does fundamentally change the nature of that citizenship. A different kind of government requires a different kind of subject. Paul urges us to be model citizens. For him, a good Christian is a compliant citizen, but under our form of democracy, our model citizens, Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, the Roosevelts, Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King-our model citizens are the least compliant of them all. In the context of democracy, one becomes a faithful citizen not by submission, but by participation-and that means involving oneself in ongoing debate.

If he were here, I believe even the stubborn Apostle Paul might be convinced that dissent and disagreement could be appropriate responses for a democratic citizen. But even if he held fast that we Christians must submit to authority as the representative of God on earth, who is the authority we must submit to? In a democratic system, it is the authority of one another. Instead of submitting ourselves to the will of one monarch, we must mutually give ourselves over to one another, ensuring that each one secures the opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In other words, the authority of God rests with one another, so in a democracy, we must come to see God in each person with whom we share this world. And even Paul could mount no argument against that kind of mutual accountability and faithfulness, because it mirrors the vision he puts forth for the Christian community just a few verses earlier.

Listen again his charge to the Christian community: “Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good.” Is that not a warrant to struggle against the evils of injustice in order to form a community of love? “Love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honor.” Is that not a call to work together for the common good? “Do not lag in zeal, be ardent in spirit, serve the Lord. … Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them.” Zealous, ardent spirits are not usually compliant-instead, this sounds like a model for cooperative debate and decision-making in the community. “Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; do not claim to be wiser than you are.” Therein lies the humility and equality that are the necessary foundations of democratic citizenship-recognizing God’s authority even in the most lowly. “Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.” Peace and reconciliation are indeed to be our goal as Christians, but the mutual care in the community Paul describes also requires that we stand up for brothers and sisters, as the presence of God’s authority on earth. So as it comes around, Paul’s words begin to resemble Mr. Jefferson’s, at the conclusion of the Declaration: “with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” Perhaps, more correctly, it is Jefferson who begins to sound like Paul.

In the end, I do not believe we are faced with a simple choice between being good democratic citizens and good Christians, but instead we must negotiate the uncertain path of patriotic dissent and reconciliation. Indeed, it is only reading across both the Apostle Paul and Mr. Jefferson that I can find my answer to those who shout, “If you don’t like America, get out!” My calling as a Christian and my duties as a citizen of this democracy both demand that I work on behalf of the common good, recognizing the authority of God in each of my fellow human beings. Sometimes, in a democracy, that means dissenting from the popular opinion or the actions of public officials when they elevate the worth of some at the expense of others. But the vision of mutuality shared by Paul and Jefferson means that a responsible citizen and a faithful Christian never simply abandons the community, but always remains faithful, caring for the children of God, even when we disagree. So this Fourth of July, let us celebrate, because we have one more year to try to live up to the vision of mutuality both the Apostle Paul and the patriot Jefferson laid out for us. Thanks be to God.

Let us pray:

Gracious and loving God, amid the confusion and frustration of these times in the life of our nation, help us to stay close to you to find our path. Teach us to remember always to be people of your reconciling love, caring for the needs of all your people, even if that means dissent from the popular view. Thank you, God, for the strength to stay firm and never abandon one another or you. Amen.