The Bible is Anti-statist

Introduction

In this article, we shall see that the Bible is an explicitly anti-state collection of books throughout and that the few supposed exceptions to that rule are not exceptions at all. 

Genesis

As Norman Horn of LibertarianChristians.com has pointed out, Josephus does describe the origin of tyranny in the rise of Nimrod and the Tower of Babel.  Whilst this is entirely correct, the text of Genesis would have had an even more explicitly Anti-statist message to its original readers. 

 

The vast majority of scholars recognise that chapters 1-11 of Genesis are intended as a polemic against Babylonian and other ancient Near-Eastern myths.  The Epic of Gilgamesh presents an account in which the barbarian, Enkidu, discovers the wonders of city-life (equal to Statism in that age) after being seduced and lured to the city of Uruk by a prostitute.  But Genesis responds with a ‘decidedly anti-urban bias’ against the city-state propaganda of the Babylonian text.[1]  Whilst Nimrod the tyrant wishes to utilise mankind as a resource to his own ends, God wishes that each person be His representative and steward over the earth and its habitats (Genesis 1:26-28), not over each other.  The biblical perspective therefore promotes the free, ‘uncivilised’ (i.e. unconquered), stateless society and the individual sovereignty of the so-called Barbarians. 

Indeed, we can see that, far from the historical evidence conveying people rushing to the city-states by the rivers in the plains, where food production was more predictable and occupations more varied, people have actually ‘been fleeing the oppressions of state-making projects’ to be free from enslavement, conscription, war, taxation and disease.[2]  Yet, the historical context of Genesis as a valuable, ancient, political voice against the rise of the city-state (and later Imperialism) is apparently never explained to the average churchgoer; many of whom, particularly in the US, believe that God and nation go hand-in-hand. 

Certainly, the rest of Scripture presents us with illustrations of government as various monstrous beasts which are destructive and ungodly (most notably in the books of Daniel and the Revelation).  After all, the agent of evil himself, Satan, expresses to Jesus that all governments belong to him (Luke 4:5-6) and their very existence and purpose directly contradict the golden rule taught by Jesus Christ.  But what of the nation of Israel which God established?  Was that evil?  And why does Paul speak favourably of the state in Romans 13?

Israel

Did God vindicate Statism by creating the nation of Israel?  It is important to recognise that the government of ancient Israel was wholly synonymous with the covenant which God made with Moses and the Israelites.  In the ancient Near-East, nations were typically created using the same covenantal method, including the tablets and laws that we read of coming from Mount Sinai in Exodus 20.[3]  Therefore, you cannot have ancient Israel without the Law or vice versa. 

So, was the Old Covenant a perfect system, designed to last forever?  Or was it put forward for us to learn that such a thing was impossible because of our nature?  Of course, many Jews today would insist on the former answer, but as Christians we recognise that the latter is true.  The Law of Moses embodies that purely judicial system of government which was originally established in ancient Israel (see Judges).  However, the New Testament writers are explicit that this was not a perfect system and was only intended to last until the Messiah came to establish His spiritual covenant and kingdom (Hebrews 7-8).  Furthermore, the Mosaic Covenant did not have the purpose of showing us how lovely we could all be but of showing us how frequently or seriously we all fail ethically (Romans 3 & Galatians 3).  It should be of no surprise then that the national framework which was set in place to administer this legal system was wholly for the same purpose – showing us that government cannot and should not be in the hands of fallible men.

Yes, God established a system of government, but it was apparently preconceived that the Israelites would demand more government to their own detriment (Deuteronomy 17:14-20).  As Thomas Jefferson put it, ‘The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield [sic.], and government to gain ground.’[4]  It is for this reason that Samuel called the Israelites’ act of asking for a king ‘wicked’ and a sin (1Samuel 12:17 & 19) and warned of the calamities of taxation etc. which would come upon the people as a result (1Samuel 8:10-18).

God never intended the Old Covenant nation of Israel to be perfect or to perfect anyone, but to show us our imperfection, especially in demanding increasingly oppressive state control over our neighbours.  We shall never find angels to govern us impeccably, nor can people be trusted to vigilantly ensure their government remains limited in power.  We are obliged to learn this important lesson from the example of ancient Israel.

Romans 13

As for Paul’s comment regarding governments being ordained in Romans 13, I admit that I was (like most Christians) convinced that these verses were ipso facto supporting the immoral practice of government, contrary to my conscience and my rationale.  However, upon studying the matter personally, I am utterly convinced of how short-sightedly erroneous that position is.

Whilst these verses are often read as ‘Paul’s Theology of the State’, many scholars have argued that because verses 1-7 stand in such contrast to the many godly rebellions against the state in the Old Testament, the immediate context and normal Pauline language suggest that the passage was a later edition.  For example, Paul says to obey and never resist government for the sake of conscience, but what about when Israel did the exact opposite for the sake of conscience, such as the coup against Queen Athaliah (2Kings 11) or the threat to revolt against King Saul because of the unjust law he implemented (1Samuel 14:24-45).

Assuming, however, this passage is a genuine part of the text, there were good reasons Paul would suddenly write about government in the middle of a discourse about Christian love and everyday behaviour.  Throughout Romans, Paul deals with divisions in the church, specifically between rich/poor and Gentile/Jew.  In its historical context,

‘Paul’s argument responds to an incipient anti-Judaism, which was already established among Roman aristocrats and was beginning to emerge among Gentile believers as well. Given the horrors of an anti-Jewish pogrom in Alexandria in Egypt (38–41 ce), and even more recent market tax riots that had turned deadly in Puteoli, a city south of Rome, Paul was concerned to prevent in Rome the sort of civic disturbance in which the city’s minority Jewish population would be especially vulnerable. This danger may explain the notorious exhortation to “be subject to the governing authorities”.’[5] 

Furthermore, there was the expulsion of Jews from Rome under Claudius in 49 A.D.; thus, there were significant political events motivating Paul to command peaceful, law-abiding behaviour from the ‘Jewish sect’ of Christianity alongside the command for Romans and Jews to love each other as brothers. 

Jesus had continuously warned in apocalyptic language that Jerusalem would soon be destroyed, something Paul knew was imminent (1Thessalonians 2:16) and which did occur in 70 A.D.  Naturally, he wanted to protect his fellow-Christians by discouraging any unsavoury behaviour which would incur state punishment and consequently give Christians a bad name during that tense period.  This passage is therefore not commanding absolute obedience to all governments and the rules they impose, but would have been addressing specific political issues which were affecting the congregation at Rome, particularly as they expectantly awaited the First Jewish-Roman War.

The only argument against the Libertarian interpretation of this passage is presented indirectly by Schreiner.  Discussing the ‘sword’ wielded by the Roman authorities, he comments:

‘The reference…is to the broader judicial function of the state, particularly its right to deprive of life those who had committed crimes worthy of death. Paul would not have flinched in endorsing the right of ruling authorities to practice capital punishment since Gen. 9:6 supports it by appealing to the fact that human beings are made in God’s image.’[6]

Certainly, it is most likely that Paul is referencing Genesis 9:6, as most scholars have recognised and the covenant God made with Noah to establish a system of Capital Punishment and the general principle of lex talionis-style retributive justice for crimes against person (and property).  In context, this was done to avoid the savagery before the flood.  But do Genesis 9:6 or Romans 13:4 insist that such things must be carried out by the state? 

Luther certainly could not see any way in which a judicial system could function without the state and so assumed that ‘[b]y these words temporal government was established, and the sword placed in its hand by God.’  Sadly, the vast majority of Westerners continue to share this superstition.  However, according to the Talmud, among other sources, the ancient Jewish understanding of the covenant with Noah was that courts should be established, not the state.[7]

Paul was simply re-affirming the Jewish belief frequently stated throughout the Old Testament - if a government comes to power or is conquered or ceases altogether, all these things are in the providence of God.  Paul explicitly says that those governments ‘which exist’ only do so because God predetermined it.  Did God not also predetermine those times in human history when societies were stateless?  Paul does not say that states must exist for judicial punishment to take place, rather those which exist should perform that function.  Indeed, the era in which the story of Noah is set is prior to and outside of the ancient Near-Eastern city-states.  Therefore, the sort of system administering Capital Punishment was understood by the author of Genesis to be a stateless one, perhaps not unlike the Anglo-Saxon Common Law system which ‘developed over the centuries by the competing judges applying time-honored principles rather than the shifting decrees of the State…by applying rational-and very often libertarian-principles to the cases before them.’[8] 

An argument I previously made against Libertarianism was that my ideological belief (Capital Punishment for the crime of murder) would not be properly administrable in a stateless society.  However, upon reflection and study, I found that some of the greatest Libertarian thinkers were and are advocates of Capital Punishment, arguing that it would inevitably become normative in a stateless society.  One notable example is the great scholar, Murray Rothbard who, in his article, The Libertarian Position on Capital Punishment, wrote:

‘It is relatively easy to allot monetary penalties in the case of theft. But what about such a crime as murder? Here, in my view, the murderer loses precisely the right of which he has deprived another human being: the right to have one's life preserved from the violence of another person. The murderer therefore deserves to be killed in return. Or, to put it more precisely, the victim — in this case his surrogate, in the form of his heir or the executor of his estate should have the right to kill the murderer in return.’[9]

Many typical questions are subsequently raised when one suggests the unspoken idea of people actually having basic rules in a society without a state.  But these have been thoroughly answered in numerous works, a more recent book would be Chaos Theory by the Christian Economist, Robert P. Murphy.

Conclusion

Isaiah 9:7  Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.

Frederic Bastiat, an Economist and Statesman of France during its revolutionary period, noted: ‘antiquity presents everywhere - in Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome - the spectacle of a few men moulding mankind according to their whims, thanks to the prestige of force and of fraud.’[10]  Napoleon himself may also have regretfully agreed with this assertion at the end of his life; in this controversial quote, he compared his military conquests to Jesus winning the hearts of empires and nations:

‘I know men; and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man. Between Him and every person in the world there is no possible term of comparison. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded His empire upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for him.’[11]

The Kingdom Jesus founded exists in our hearts.  It is a clear conscience before God and men whereby we recall the example of the love of Jesus and remember His command for us to love each other, our neighbours and our enemies.  Jesus did not come to force people to do His will - to love and respect each other - but to live it out and become the greatest example to men and women so that we would willingly do the same, from the heart.  Generally, the principle of this kingdom is to do to others as we would have them do to us and to never use force to coerce others to do our will; Libertarians commonly call this the ‘Non-Aggression Principle’.  It is this universally recognised ‘golden rule’, naturally at work in our conscience, which Jesus came to hold up as the objective moral law for all people. 

We do not need that chief manifestation of coercion and evil, the state, to control us and our families.  We only need our freedom, especially freedom of conscience, and the example of the love of Jesus to live out our lives, as stewards of God to the earth, in peace.  I invite you to imagine such a beautiful world and to pray and act with me that God’s kingdom would come and that the dominion of the evil of a past age would be extinguished forever.

---

[1] HarperCollins Study Bible (1993) HarperCollins Publishers, p.18

[2] Scott, J. (2009) The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia, Yale University Press, Preface

[3] Lopez, R. (2004) ‘Israelite Covenants in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Covenants (Part 2 of 2)’, CTS Journal, Spring 2004

[4] Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, Paris, May 27, 1788 - http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-13-02-0120

[5] The New Oxford Annotated Bible (Fourth Edition, 2010) Oxford University Press, p.1975

[6] Schreiner, T. (1998) Romans: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Baker Academic,

 p.692

[7] See Talmud Sanhedrin, 56a

[8] Rothbard, M. (1978) For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, Ludwig von Mises Institute, p.283

[9] Rothbard, M. (1978) The Libertarian Position on Capital Punishment - http://mises.org/daily/4468 (20/10/2014)

[10] Bastiat, F. (2008 ed.) The Law, Misbach Enterprises, Kindle Edition, p.36

[11] See Conversations avec General Bertrand à St. Helena

Does the Bible teach Pacifism?

The answer is seemingly clear from Scripture – God advocates capital punishment in Genesis 9:6 and Romans 13:4 and therefore, at least for civil authority, there cannot be an absolute Pacifism.  But many would disagree for the individual Christian.  So, let us thoroughly refute this notion from Scripture.  We must decide whether it is even acceptable in God’s eyes for an individual to take up arms.  Is it ungodly to serve in the military, for instance, or to be called to arms by national authority?    

This is not a novel contention; the early church had some debate on the matter, with some writings by Tertullian and Origen being against military service.  However this view was based on the fact that the Roman army conducted many Pagan ceremonies which were unfitting for Christians, not that personal or civil defence are ungodly. 

The Christian Pacifist’s contention, however, lies in one verse of the New Testament:

Matthew 5:39  But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Now, this does not mean we are not to resist any sort of evil.  We are of course called to resist the devil (James 4:7), false doctrine (Romans 16:17) etc.  But, when we look at the context, we see that this is regarding sins committed against one personally.

Matthew 5:38-39  You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.  (NASB)

The primary meaning of this verse is in reference to a Jewish custom; such a slap was symbolic of an insult.  This direction from the Lord Jesus calls us not to answer an insult with insult and get caught up in fleshly argument.  More deeply, however, Christ is calling us to not to feel vengeful at all.  These thoughts are echoed by the Holy Spirit in Romans 12:17-21.

Self-defence
So, seeing as Matthew 5:39 is clearly regarding personal insults, what warrant is there from Scripture to believe that we should not defend ourselves from physical attack?  The Lord does not condemn the disciples carrying swords and in fact requests that they should carry them at night, when it would have been commonplace to travel armed for self-defence:

Luke 22:36 & 38  He said to them…“And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one…”
And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”

Furthermore, the Scriptures are clear that defending your home and family with weapons is perfectly acceptable:

Exodus 22:2  If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him…  (ESV)

Defending others
On that note, what does the Bible say about defending another person?  There is nothing in the context here to assume that we should not defend someone else who is being attacked, assaulted or caused harm of any kind.  In fact, from the context of some the verses we have read, we are called to show love towards others.  Our very conscience declares that the loving thing to do would be to defend an old lady if we saw her being mugged in the street?  Indeed, we must overcome evil with good.  And it is good to defend those who are vulnerable from sins which might be committed against them.  It cannot be justified from the New Testament, and certainly not from Christ’s words in Matthew, that we should ignore that old lady being mugged.  We do not believe in Karma, like the Hindus, so we must not assume that it is God’s will for that old lady to suffer unaided.  God allows death, suffering and poverty to exist too but commands us to resist them with love, care and charity, like the Good Samaritan.

 

Look at Christ - He is our High Priest after the order of Melchizedek.  But who was Melchizedek?  In Genesis 14, we see that certain kings began warring through the land, taking Abraham’s nephew, Lot, and others as slaves.  When Abraham heard of this, what did he do?

Genesis 14:14-16  And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.

And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus.

And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.

And what was the Lord’s reaction to this?

Genesis 14:18-20  And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:

And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.  (KJV)

So, as Christ is a priest of the order of Melchizedek, who blessed Abraham and received a tithe after he had slaughtered these kings and returned the captives, should we assume that it is un-Christian to take up arms in defence of loved ones, indeed of anyone we are called to love?  By no means.  We should bear a good witness in defending our fellow-citizens from any acts of violence which (God forbid) we might encounter. 

But doesn’t the Bible teach that if we live by the sword, we shall die by the sword?  Not at all, the context of the verse is important to understand.

Matthew 26:52-56  Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? …But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left him and fled.

Zechariah 13:7  “Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who stands next to me,” declares the LORD of hosts. “Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered; I will turn my hand against the little ones.”  (KJV)

Here, we not only see that Jesus actually affirms that He could destroy the Pharisees with a supernatural army of His own if He wanted to, but also that the disciples should not bring swords out at this particular point in time because they were resisting His will.  Jesus declares that He is fulfilling Scripture by voluntarily laying down His life.  The fact is that the Jews were expecting a conquering Messiah who would overthrow the Roman Empire; the spiritual kingdom of Christ was beyond their carnal understanding.  By resisting the arrest, the disciples were actually trying to prevent Christ from finishing His work at the cross and so were stuck in that same carnal mindset.  It must be noted - Jesus points to the swords brought by those who were coming to arrest Him and calls His disciples to put away their own swords.  This is the immediate context surrounding those who are taking the sword and consequently perishing by the sword.  Furthermore, this event is a fulfilment of prophecy, both of Zechariah and of Christ’s own words:

John 18:9  This was to fulfill the word that he had spoken: “Of those whom you gave me I have lost not one.”  (ESV)

The disciples were scattered to spare their lives temporarily for God’s specific purposes.  As for the Jews, they brought the sword of the state against the Lord Jesus, calling out to Pilate for Jesus’ blood to be on their hands (Matthew 27:25) and in 70 A.D. the sword of Rome was brought against Jerusalem as the city fell under siege.  As Jesus explicitly states, this verse refers to the fulfilment of Scripture and is not a universal command for Pacifism.

Christians in the armed forces

We also see in the New Testament that it is acceptable for Christians to continue serving in the army.  Indeed, the first Gentile convert we see in the Scriptures was a soldier and we are nowhere told that he was to cease from his duty to his nation.  Roman soldiers even came to inquire about repentance to John the Baptist and what did he say?

Luke 3:14  Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.”  (NASB)

The Greek word for extort, ‘diaseio’, literally means to intimidate or bully with the sword as often happens when certain men are allowed to abuse whatever authority they have to police and protect.  But, returning to the soldiers’ occupation, John the Baptist calls them to uphold their duties to police and soldier as ministers for good and, rather than leave their occupation, he tells them to be content with their wages.

So, here we see both the refutation of ‘conscientious objection’ from military service and, also, we have a good example of those in a position of civil authority being commanded to minister for the good of those they are responsible for.

Some Christian Pacifists would quote John 18:36 to prove that Christians should not fight in the military:

John 18:36  Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."  (NASB)

We see here that Jesus was not addressing whether Christians are permitted to be employed in the military of nation states.  Jesus was telling Pilate that His kingdom is a spiritual one, existing in the hearts of believers; His victory of course would be won at the cross.  For the same reasons He told Peter to put away his sword, when being arrested, He now tells Pilate that His kingdom surpasses the physical realm. 

As citizens of Christ’s kingdom we are in a spiritual battle for the furtherance of the Gospel and the salvation of souls; the earthly kingdoms, however, have other objectives, all within the providence of God.  We must retain the simple doctrine that the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world are separate things.  So long as we do not confuse the two, as sadly the Roman Catholics did during the Crusades, we cannot conclude from this verse that Christians are excluded from serving in national or private armed forces.

Just War

If it is loving to defend our neighbours from attack, can there be a just war?  Numerous early church writers and the Reformers seemed to think so ‘upon just and necessary occasions’[1], but what was their biblical justification for believing so?  Certainly, the Law taught Israel to love their neighbours and yet also gave commands for conduct during war.  But we are not under the Law; what does the New Testament teach us on this point?  The ESV Study Bible notes explain this systematically:

‘Over time, the just war ethic has developed a common set of criteria that can be used to decide if going to war in a specific situation is right. These include the following:
(1) just cause (is the reason for going to war a morally right cause, such as defense of a nation? cf. Rev. 19:11);
(2) competent authority (has the war been declared not simply by a renegade band within a nation but by a recognized, competent authority within the nation? cf. Rom. 13:1);
(3) comparative justice (it should be clear that the actions of the enemy are morally wrong, and the motives and actions of one’s own nation in going to war are, in comparison, morally right; cf. Rom. 13:3);
(4) right intention (is the purpose of going to war to protect justice and righteousness rather than simply to rob and pillage and destroy another nation? cf. Prov. 21:2);
(5) last resort (have all other reasonable means of resolving the conflict been exhausted? cf. Matt. 5:9; Rom. 12:18);
(6) probability of success (is there a reasonable expectation that the war can be won? cf. Luke 14:31);
(7) proportionality of projected results (will the good results that come from a victory in a war be significantly greater than the harm and loss that will inevitably come with pursuing the war? cf. Rom. 12:21 with 13:4); and
(8) right spirit (is the war undertaken with great reluctance and sorrow at the harm that will come rather than simply with a “delight in war,” as in Ps. 68:30?).’

Therefore, we can conclude that the Bible certainly does not teach a strict Pacifism at all.  We can and should defend ourselves, our families and neighbours and we are permitted to serve in the military.

---

[1] London Baptist Confession (1689), chapter XXIV

Are the Ten Commandments the Moral Law of God?

The Biblical Model for Civil Government - Libertarianism

Here’s what the vast majority of Evangelical Christians think, summarised by Wayne Grudem in his book, Politics According to the Bible: ‘until Christ returns to reign, some form of democracy seems to be the best form of government’ (p.96).

Two problems: 1. The Bible NOWHERE teaches that; and 2. Grudem spends entire pages moaning about the problems with Democracy without even realising it.

You see, if 51% of people tell the other 49% what to do then you end up with lots of sad Wayne Grudems who are oppressed by the mob rule stealing their rights to religious freedom.  So you end up with groups lobbying to force their will on each other and neither of them are completely free (even though their governments tell them they are).  Worse still, the richest lobbies can take advantage of this big, all-powerful government system by paying for their own politicians.  They can use government to stifle competing businesses by over-regulating the entrepreneurs and they can even use taxpayer-funded armies to take resources from other nations by force.  This is called ‘Crony-Capitalism’ or ‘Corporatism’ – the market would be free if it weren’t for government interference.

‘I’ve got it!’ exclaim some other Christians, ‘Why don’t we all become Socialists?  Maybe if government took control of the businesses instead, we wouldn’t have this problem!’

Again, two problems: 1. The Bible NOWHERE teaches Socialism; and 2. Despite what moody, narcissistic university professors might teach you, Socialism has never, ever worked (Star Trek doesn't count).  Free Markets are the only system for prosperity - fact.

‘But the Bible does teach Socialism!  The early church had “all things in common”!’ exclaim the Christian Socialists.  Historical evidence shows that the early church were not Socialists at all and the Bible is clear that people still owned houses etc. decades after Pentecost.  They hadn’t surrendered property rights at all but were in fact just charitable with what they owned, because ‘God loves a cheerful giver’.  And, in any case, what does the charitable nature of fellow-Christians with their property have to do with government seizing control of everyone’s stuff and the fruit of their labours by force?  Charity is the place of individuals, like the Good Samaritan, which invokes a sense of gratitude in the recipient. Government forcing you to hand over your money to someone else only invokes a sense of entitlement.

And yet other Christians then say, ‘Well, to hell with government altogether.  Big governments are represented as destructive monsters in Scripture and they are enemies of Christ and His church.  I want everyone to be free and to have personal responsibility and to stop having government poke their nose into everything.  I’m going to be an Anarchist!’

Slow down there, Tolstoy!  I want people to be free too.  I don’t want one sinful king or dictator with absolute power, nor do I want 51% of people with absolute power, but firstly we need to deal with Romans 13!

Romans 13:1 & 4  Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God…for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.

Most people interpret this as teaching God ordained government, just like marriage.  Read it again.  The authorities 'which exist' are there in providence of God - that's all the OT teaches and it's all Paul taught.  If they did not exist, would that no also be predetermined by God?  Certainly, they bear the sword or rather should administer justice, but is government needed to do this?

The sword reference has been recognised by the majority of scholars to be from Genesis:

Genesis 9:6  Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.

After the flood, the world had been overrun by cruel tyrants who completely opposed the purpose for which God made us – to be His stewards and representatives on the earth, loving God and each other.  We each personally bear this responsibility before God with the life and the property and the neighbours He has given us.  But men want to dominate everything, including other men, taking from them the freedom to serve God according to their conscience, instead forcing them to serve their own desires.  Ultimately, they seek to put themselves in the place of God, ruling over and often being worshipped by men.  God wanted to stop this and so after the flood had destroyed those tyrants, God made a covenant in which He commanded all mankind to enact Capital Punishment as retribution for murder.  This command would have been understood by its ancient audience to be referring to crimes against property also, as Leviticus 24:17ff. reveals.

Therefore, if any government exists, it is for the sole purpose of protecting life, property and liberty.  The biblical limit of government's function is intended to counteract the actions of those who would infringe those rights.  So, government should not take it upon itself to seize some property from one group of citizens and give it to another or to take some liberty and give it to others, to create monopolies by providing services to the public, becoming the people’s doctor, banker etc. and becoming so large and powerful that it can be abused by the same tyrants God intended to thwart in the first place!

A biblical government would be a very small government which only acts judicially against crimes to the person or property of those it serves.  But, we must understand that government does not necessarily need to exist for judicial punishment to be administered or even for Capital Punishment to be normative (as many Anarcho-Capitalists have pointed out - e.g. Block & Rothbard).  Nevertheless, where government does exist, it must rightly be reduced to its least despotic purpose or, preferably, removed altogether.
 
Today, this view is called Libertarian Christianity and it is frequently misunderstood and dismissed.  Recently, Al Mohler rashly declared, ‘The ideological base of Libertarianism is idolatry.  It’s Ayn Rand, it’s Randian individualism.’  Mohler and others need to do their homework because this view actually grew out of the Protestant Reformation, the separation of church and state and real life struggles in which Christians sought to reform to a biblical system of government and/or self-determination.  The agnostic economist and historian, Murray Rothbard, had to confirm that the original Libertarian experiments in the U.S., during the 1600's, were conducted by Christians.  (For a helpful summary Libertarianism, see this video)

We’re not called to pray that government would force everyone to behave more like Christians when they don’t want to.  We’re called to pray for peace and freedom and, if we want it for ourselves, we should expect others to have it also, so long as they aren’t harming another’s person or property.
The church’s place in this world is to live godly lives, reflecting the love of Christ and preaching the Gospel to our fellow-sinners, our neighbours, with the desire that they might be saved.  Whether they are walking in obedience to Christ or not is no concern for a lobbied government, but for a loving pastor and brother in Christ.

See also my article The Bible is Anti-statist