Monya Stubbs, "Subjection, Reflection, Resistance: A Three-Dimensional Process of Empowerment
    in Romans 13 and the Free-Market Economy, "Seminar Papers of the Society of Biblical Literature, 1999 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1999).
    Subjection, Reflection, Resistance: A Three-Dimensional Process of Empowerment
    in Romans 13 and the Free-Market Economy

    I. Personal Point of Departure

    I had reasoned it out in my mind, there was one or two things I had a right to--freedom or death. If I could not have the one, I would have the other, but no man would take me alive. I would fight for my freedom as long as my breath lasted, and when the time come for me to go, the Lord would let them take me (quote by Harriet Tubman). Life is replete with revelatory moments. We experience events, meet people, or encounter ideas that transform or clarify our purpose in the world. Lerone Bennett=s discussion on Harriet Tubman=s life gave me such an occasion. When asked why she returned to the South some nineteen times, helping more than 300 slaves escape to freedom, Tubman responded with the above quotation. Her words have long intrigued me. She reveals through her statement three important aspects of her character that now serve as a paradigm, framing how I comprehend and engage the world. Tubman understood herself and those she rescued as subject to a Agoverning authority,@ namely, the institution of slavery. To Afight@ for freedom, first she had to recognize that she was subject. Second, Tubman valued the process of careful examination that leads to a conviction. She Areasoned it out in her mind@ that the institution of slavery denied her the dignity warranted by her humanness. After carefully reflecting on the condition she shared with her enslaved cohorts, Tubman became convicted that slavery stood outside the will of God. Third, and finally, as a response to her recognizing her subjection and reflecting upon it, Tubman resisted the subjection. She seized her own freedom by escaping from the slave South and then returned repeatedly, leading other slaves to the metaphoric Apromised land.@ Tubman=s statement therefore reflects a three-dimensional process of empowerment that I define as Subjection-Reflection-Resistance. Although the institution of chattel slavery did not end by Tubman=s resistance alone, her subjection-reflection-resistance did prove that slavery was not absolute for either the slaves or slave owners. Ultimately, through this process, Tubman envisioned and created a faith reality beyond her slave experience.

    II. Introduction: The Paul in Tubman

    I experienced this Tubman revelatory moment during my junior year of college. Now, some seven years later, I sit staring at Romans 13:1-7, trying to make sense of Paul=s supposed call for Christian Asubjection@ to civil and state authorities. This is no simple task. As learned from the preceding years of the Romans Consultation through critical studies as biblical scholars, we must assume responsibility for our interpretations by explicitly identifying the frames and categories we employ to make sense of the text. Interpreters should make clear not only the analytical frame used to ground a particular reading in textual evidence, but should also identify two other frames that critical interpretations often fail to explain: the hermeneutical frame (s), used to circumscribe the dialogue with the text, as done in theological commentaries; and the contextual frame (s), used to relate life and text--the frame commonly emphasized in believers= interpretations and sermons. Considering these issues, this paper revisits Romans 13:1-7, and presents the view that if this passage is read in light of its surrounding verses (12:1-13:14), it reads less like a prescriptive demand and more like a call for Roman Christians to acknowledge their social reality in relation to the Roman state which is part of the existence of life in the Christian community. This broader text shifts the emphasis from subjection as a single hermeneutical frame and expands the frame to include subjection-reflection-resistance as a three-dimensional process that Paul espouses for empowering those who may feel powerless in their relationship with governing authorities.

    The paper is divided into two major sections: the contextual frame and the hermeneutical frame. The paper=s first section, the contextual frame, outlines the author=s perspective of the free market economy and its present role as the Agoverning authority@ today. Economics or the way in which money influences the human condition concerned both Paul and the Christian community at Rome. For instance, Romans 12.13 reminds the community to support the needs (cre\aiV) of each other. 13:6 speaks of the Christians= duty to pay taxes (f`rouV). Romans 13:7 refers to the Christians= responsibility to discharge all dues (ÏfeilaV), including taxes and other types of revenue (tXloV) owed (Ïfeilw) to the state or to an individual. Therefore, considering the importance of economics (finances) to the first century world of the text, it is reasonable to employ the free market economy as a contextual frame that helps me to recognize as particularly significant the way in which the text integrates economic political, and social power structures and their implications for human relationships.

    The hermeneutical frame is subdivided into three parts. Part A discusses subjection, the first step in the three-dimensional process of empowerment. First, it offers a brief analysis of Paul=s usage of Asubjection@ throughout Romans, noting the ambiguity in Paul=s usage of the term, vacillating between voluntarily offering self in subjection to an authority and offering self to an authority because of coercion. Second, the paper examines Asubjection@ in Romans 13:1, where one faces the challenge of deciding if Paul wants psa nuc¬ ßpotassXsqw ¦xous\aiV ßperecobsaiV understood as an imperative middle (let every soul subject her or himself to governing authorities) or as an imperative passive (let every soul be subjected by governing authorities). Ultimately, I argue that although the Christians at Rome act as agents in their subjection, they do so because of the ideological influence the governing authority holds over their lives. Finally, I briefly consider the implications for modern readers whom the free market economy subjects.

    Section B on reflection discusses Paul=s call for the Christians at Rome to reflect upon the perceived conception of their relationship with the Agoverning authority.@ It further argues that Paul challenges them to a careful reflection that leads to the conviction that God dwells both in and beyond their subjection. The analysis pulls important textual support from Romans 12:2 and Romans 1:1-23, showing these texts= significance to Romans 13:1-7 as an empowering passage for those in a subjected relationship to governing authorities. Section B ends with a model for discerning resistance language and/or actions within Paul=s seemingly pro-empire comments.

    Finally, section C argues that Paul offers in Romans 12 and Romans 13:8-14 resistance language that denies the absolute authority of the Roman system of authority and (re) defines love as Adebt of love@or the voluntary commitment one makes to addressing the physical and spiritual needs of both self and others. In closing, section C analyzes the free market economy in light of Paul=s call to resist governing authorities as absolute. The discussion characterizes the free market doctrine as an absolute, highlights features of the free market ideology, points out its contradictions, and finally offers Paul=s Alove of neighbor@ (13:9) for envisioning and creating a reality beyond our subjection by and to the free market economy and its culture.

    III. The Contextual Frame: The Ethos of the Free Market Economy

    The free-market economy functions as the ethos of our social and economic context, whether actively or passively, voluntarily or involuntarily, we are Asubject@ to its rules and demands. Since 1989, and the fall of USSR (communism), the free-market economy reigns as what appears to be the absolute system of maintenance in which the world functions. The United States, however, since its inception, has promoted a free-market economy. It is the transcendent economic order of history and it represents a development through which human beings have sought to meet their economic needs (food, clothing, shelter). At the same time, the free-market economy has served as a historical development through which individuals, or groups, or classes, or races have sought to gain a privileged position at the expense of others. This economic order will therefore present anytime in history a development in which there is much that is good and much that is evil.

    The free market economy, however, is not driven merely by the dynamics of market production nor does the term economy refer solely to the economic power in capital itself. The free-market economy relies on a specific type of culture to support it. AThoroughly privatized, the American economy only moves in response to personal initiatives to invest in productive enterprises, to mobilize resources for work, and to save or spend according to individual dictates.@ Appleby, Hunt and Jacob argue that the American economy is sustained by cultural models such as Aindividual fortitude, prosperity, agricultural abundance, open opportunity, hard work, free choice, inventive genius and productive know-how.@ These models, according to Appleby, Hunt and Jacob, permeate America=s historical consciousness. America=s people have come to understand or accept these Acoerced@ values as natural:

    History texts have provided American children with exemplary models of trailblazing initiatives, disciplined efforts, and individual sacrifices for progress. Beginning with the accounts of nation-building in the revolutionary era, national history has imparted the kinds of moral lessons that have enabled capitalism to flourish, but like the roots of a plant, this vital cultural sustenance is hard to see. The force of the free-market economy lies in its ability to appear fundamental to the human condition or as essential to the human exchange of services and goods. The deception, masked in the ideal of Afreedom@ and fueled by the presumed naturalness of self-interest, creates an environment where the very act of Acommercial transactions appear voluntary and its participants feel as if they are free to choose.@ Appleby, Jacob and Hunt provide a simple yet profound example: The fact that people must earn before they can eat is a commonly recognized connection between need and work, but it presents itself as a natural link embedded in the necessity of eating rather than as arising from a particular arrangement for distributing food through market exchanges. Despite the fact that men and women must buy and sell in order to live, the optional aspects of the market remain most salient. It is the specific individual or the specific group who decides to take certain actions and suffers the misfortune or enjoys the benefits. Nevertheless, as Appleby, Hunt and Jacob remind us, because we have become so accustomed to natural and personal (freedom/voluntary) presentations of how people provide for the necessities of life, the Asocial and compulsory@ aspects of capitalism elude us. The situation is comparable to recent discussions in biblical scholarship regarding proper modes of interpretation. For centuries the historical-critical method served as the normative model for biblical hermeneutics (the subjection). One was Afree@ to analyze any passage within the Bible, however that freedom was qualified by the underlining notion that biblical interpretation is that type of analysis that looks Abehind@ the text, seeking to uncover the meaning intended by the authors themselves. Although biblical scholars had conclusions about what a given text Ameant@ the methodology used for arriving at their conclusions and its Auniversal@ intent were never questioned. Like the veiled significance of the free-market in the lives of Americans, the historical-critical method, until some thirty years ago was Athe@ way of being a biblical scholar, it was the governing system in which we lived and scholars were only Afree@ to follow the rules which governed historical-criticism.

    Like the historical-critical method functioned as the governing authority for over a century in the world of biblical scholarship, the free-market economy and its culture functions as the Agoverning authority@ in our current social structure. The marketplace-demand influences, even guides our decision making process. It decides who will die of disease and who will receive adequate health care. It decides who will receive a viable education and become equipped with the appropriate information required for rational thought, judgment, and planning, and who will fall prey to the vultures of ignorance. The marketplace-demand decides who will be demonized as an enemy and who will be extolled as a friend. The free-market economy is the transcendent structure in which we live. We are Asubject@ to it and subjected by it. So, as we explore Paul=s three-dimensional process for Christians= relationship to the state or Agoverning authorities,@ Paul=s opening statement, ALet every soul be subjected by/to (psa nuc¬ ßpotassXsqw) governing authorities@ sets the interpretive tone for the remainder of the chapter in that it introduces the first step (subjection) in our hermeneutical frame.

    IV. The Hermeneutical Frame

    A. Subjection in Romans: The Imperative Middle or the Imperative Passive?

    Paul uses ßpotVssw, in four different contexts within his letter to the Romans: 8:7; 8:20; 10:3; and 13:1. Romans 8:7 reads: AFor the mind belonging to flesh is enmity against God: for it is not subject (ßpotVssetai) to the law of God, indeed it lacks the power (dbnatai).@ Flesh-oriented humanity=s concern is death, which directly opposes the Alife@ offered by God through the law of the Spirit in Christ Jesus (see 8:1). Therefore, those with a mind of the flesh resists what God desires. Building on 7:15-25, Paul asserts that the refusal by those whose minds are set on Athis world@ to Asubject@ to the will of God moves beyond the matter of one=s personal will. Paul raises the question of ability. Flesh-oriented humanity, dominated by sin, lacks the power to free itself when confronted by the law of God.

    Romans 8:20 offers a more concise example of subjection as a consequence of coercion: Afor the creation was subjected to (ßpetVgh) futility (matai`thti) not of its own will, but by the will of the one who subjected it (ßpotVxanta).@ The creation is subject to purposelessness through no fault of its own. Rather, it lacks the ability to free itself from the bondage of decay (vs. 21). From this perspective, a pattern arises in Paul=s employment of Asubjection@ which emphasizes his recognition that subjection can result both from acting as an agent by will, as well as from being acted upon because of a lack of power.

    Romans 13:1 stresses an issue central to Walter Wink=s argument in Engaging the Powers: why do people tolerate subjection? Paul suggests that people willingly tolerate and perpetuate their subjection because they lack the ability to recognize or resist the power=s influence. psa nuc¬ ßpotassXsqw can be translated either as an imperative middle or an imperative passive. At first glance, the distinction between the translations may seem irrelevant. But, a closer examination uncovers, in my estimation, a central point of Paul=s argument in Romans 13:1 and its co-text. If translated as a middle imperative, the phrase reads Aevery person subject herself or himself@ to governing authorities. On the other hand, if translated as a passive imperative, taking into account the dative of means (¦xous\aiV ßperecobsaiV), the phrase reads Abe every person subjected@ by governing authorities. The first reading suggests that Christians possesses the power to socially situate themselves within the order of their environment. ASubjection@ then, is a matter of will, only. The second translation, on the other hand, suggests that the Agoverning authority@ is a structure in which the Christian is placed or already exists and it acts upon the Christian=s existence. The Christian cannot but live within a preexisting social system that limits how one can best express one=s Christian faith within the parameters of the Agoverning@ structure. The power of Paul=s logic does not, however, rest in the either/or of these two translations but in the both/and. Taking seriously the ambiguity embedded within the imperative mood as both middle and passive reveals a provocative alternative meaning: Christians act as agents, tolerating and perpetuating their subjection to the Agoverning authority,@ because of its power upon them. Essentially, Christians subject themselves to the governing authority (middle imperative) because they are subjected by the governing authority (passive imperative). Paul=s exhortation, in my hermeneutical analysis, is not a prescriptive demand for some sort of subjective action or an admonition to prevent subversive action against the state or civil authorities. Instead, Paul=s comment calls the Roman Christians to acknowledge the social reality of their relation to the Roman state.

    Jan Botha=s observations on the rhetorical effect of Romans 13:1-7 is helpful at this juncture. Not allowing Paul=s comments to remain within the realm of narrative, Botha=s conclusions forces the reader to look at the passage=s ideological dimension. Botha argues that Romans 13:1-7 reflects the Aexisting and well-known values of Paul=s Jewish audience.@ Values, he adds, which were Aheld more or less as self-evident truths in the wider context of the Hellenistic world@. Botha substantiates his claim by referring to Strobel and Van Unnik=s works which demonstrate that the vocabulary used is that of the Hellenistic administration and that the Greek ideals of the just and honorable man are evidenced in Romans 13:1-7. Furthermore, the ideals expressed in Romans 13:1-7 reveal certain universal values attributed to God and ascribed to authorities: everyone should submit to God; God punishes those who resist God=s ordinations; God always does what is good; everything belongs to God. Thus, everyone should submit to governing authorities. God punishes through the governing authorities those who resist the governing authorities; the governing authorities always do what is good; everything belongs to God, therefore that which one gives to governing authorities, one gives to God. The power of the rhetorical analysis then, according to Botha, is that it brings to the Afore the implicit and unspoken/unwritten values which underpin the argumentation.@ The rhetorical analysis illuminates the ideological underpinnings of Paul=s statement. Reading Romans 13:1 as both an imperative passive (every soul be subjected by governing authorities) and an imperative middle (every soul subject him or herself to governing authorities) shifts Paul=s statement from a prescriptive charge, advising on what people should and should not do, to a religious perception of the relations between God and humanity via worldly Agoverning authorities.@ In this light, the value system functioning in Romans 13:1-7 reflects an ideology in Louis Althusser understanding of the term, according to which people are Aalways already subject@ to the normative ideas or values which lay at the roots of particular societies.

    Althusser maintains that ideology is a Arepresentation of the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence.@ In other words, ideology is that which is self-evident. Yet, that which is self-evident is a construct, is created through the imagination. The relevant question is what exactly is this ideological construct? It is a construct of a relationship to one=s condition of existence. Using Romans 13:1 as an example, the construct, according to Althusser, is not the fact that governing authorities exist nor that they have power. The construct is the way in which human beings conceive of their relationship with the governing structure and to other individuals. The construct is the illusion of subjection. At the same time, however, illusion becomes reality as human beings accept the ideology as a natural ordering of human relations: the illusion equals the obvious. So, while Romans 13:1 describes the unspoken/unwritten values that underpin Roman social life, Althusser makes clear that this perceived relationship is but an illusion, an ideological construction of the community=s perception of their relationship to the governing authority. This phrase read as both an imperative middle and passive recognizes that Christians are agents of their subjection, (they subject themselves to the governing authority) because they are subjected by the governing authority. The combined reading takes seriously the enormity of the social and religious ideological weight placed on the lives of individuals within given communities.

    Romans 1:18-25 supports reading Paul=s opening statement as both an imperative middle and an imperative passive. Humanity=s wickedness, according to Paul, rests in its conspiracy to suppress the truth that we are indeed subjected by a governing authority: God the Creator. Paul argues that humanity has taken God=s partial manifestation in nature as an absolute manifestation. Consequently, we suppress the truth about God in our glorification and worship of the creature rather than God, thus making it an absolute. The result is exploitive and destructive human relationships. Romans 1:21-24 describes these Afalse@ governing authorities as •sbnetoV minds, proven Aworthless and base in not recognizing God@ for what God is (1:28). In the end, we subject ourselves to (imperative middle) the governing authorities, because we failed to acknowledge that we are subjected by (imperative passive) the governing authorities. In Romans 12:2 Paul calls for a Arenewal of the mind@ as a way of redeeming and resisting the evil indicative of humanity=s current mind-set (this analysis continues in the reflection section).

    In our contemporary context, we too have created an absolute reality out of our constructed relationship with the free market economy (see section on contextual frame). Therefore, Paul=s comments in Romans 13:1-2 fit well as consequences for one=s cooperation with or negligence of the free market ideology. After Paul=s opening charge, he moves into a more detailed discussion regarding the necessity and consequences of the community=s voluntary, yet imposed subjection. AEvery soul be subjected by and to governing authorities for there is no authority if not by God and the existing ones have been appointed by God. So that the ones to resist the authority resists what God has ordained, and those who resist shall themselves receive judgment@ (vss. 1-2). Paul has presented a reality made possible by the social acceptance of the people=s perceived relation to governing authority. To resist subjection to the authority of the free-market economy, to resist understanding and participation in the free-enterprise economic system (failure to gain prosperity is interpreted as a form of resistance) results in a person or a community receiving the wrath of God. In a free-market economy one is subject, therefore, free to pursue the aim of economic advancement: he or she is free to respond to the marketplace demand with the hope that one=s response (creating a supply to meet the demand) will afford one (as an individual or a specific group) the opportunity to enjoy fortune and dispose of it as one chooses; without regard for other human beings and independently of society.

    Moreover, according to Romans 13:2, systems of power are ordained by God. To resist the system is to resist God and live in a state of alienation from God. Alienation from God is manifested in misfortunes within the system of authority: Afor if you do what is wrong or what is evil, fear, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain@ (vs. 4). In a free-market economy such alienation or misfortune, or the wrath of God often manifests itself in the forms of poverty and social, political and cultural disenfranchisement. Such an understanding of God=s wrath within the free-market economy promotes the theory that poverty is caused by individual defects not the result of a mismanaged economic system. People are poor or experience the wrath of God because of their inability to succeed within the economic system. Their poverty is the result of their sin.

    By drawing such conclusions, I am forced to ask: Is salvation characterized by economic advancement? Have we transformed an ideology into a reality by accepting as absolute the Aillusion@ that we are in a righteous or unrighteous relationship with God based solely on our economic prosperity? Has the free-market economy become a subjection that blinds us to a faith reality of a higher order of humanity and human relationships that brings us into a more perfect relationship with God and each other?

    B. Discerning Awareness: Reflections on the Subjection Subjection alone is an oppressive posture and mere submission forces one to remain in a powerless state. Therefore, acknowledging one=s subjection by the governing authority represents the first step in Paul=s three dimensional-process of empowerment, but, Paul moves a step further. He challenges the Christians at Rome to reflect upon the situation in which they live; he challenges them to engage in the process of careful examination that leads to the conviction that God dwells both in and beyond their Asubjection by governing authorities.@ Paul makes clear the empowering quality of reflection within the lives of the Christian community at Rome in his comments in 12:2:

    and do not be conformed by this world, but let yourselves be transformed by the renewing of your mind so that you may discern (dokimVzein) what is the will of God - the good and acceptable and complete (will of God) (12:2). In light of the discussion on subjection, our first hermeneutical category, we see that Paul has already advised the Christian community against accepting as absolute the apparent order of Athis world.@ Argentinean theologian Enrique Dussel=s observations on community ethics and social morality are highly relevant here. According to Dussel, the term Athis world@ functions in the bible both as a reality and a category. He writes: This world, is a >practical= totality (a totality constituted and characterized by relationships of praxis), a system or structure of prevailing, dominant social actions and relationships, under the hegemony of evil. AThis world@ for instance, referred to Egypt, not simply as a nation, but as a Asystem of practices@ confronting or engaging Moses. AThis world,@ Dussel notes, is self-totalizing, it lifts itself as an absolute system of authority which is opposed to the will of God. This world is under the domination of sin. Paul too, I suggest, employs Athis world@ as a means of referring to a system of social actions and relationships opposed to the will of God.

    Hence, Christians are not to be conformed (suschmat\zesqe) to/by Athis world/age.@ They are to recognize the prevailing norms of the society in which they live but not fashion their personal or communal behavior by it. Dunn notes that the significance of Paul=s warning lies in its recognition of a Apower or force which molds character and conduct. Paul in effect recognizes the power of social groups, cultural norms, institutions, and traditions to mold patterns of individual behavior.@ At the same time, however, Paul recognizes that the mind is the seat of conformity. Therefore, he argues that Christians must have a renewal of mind, a change in their attitude, in their way of thinking: metamorfoØsqe t± •nakain;sei toØ noÎV. The renewing of the mind is evidenced by one=s rational discrimination, therefore Paul argues that one is able to discern the will of God, because one=s thinking and attitude are renewed and no longer fashioned by the norms of Athis world.@

    Finally, reflection is a process of discernment. Walter Wink=s comments on discernment are worth noting here. Wink writes, Adiscernment does not entail esoteric knowledge, but rather the gift of seeing reality as it really is. Nothing is more rare, or more truly revolutionary, than an accurate description of reality.@ Reflection, the renewal of the mind, empowers those oppressed by what I describe as an Aillusionary relationship of subjection to the Agoverning authorities@ or what Wink calls the Adelusional power of the System of Domination@ with the ability to discern that subjection to Aworldly@ authority is not absolute. Instead, the standard for Christian conduct is measured by a Aknowledge@ of what God desires. One does not Aknow@ what is Aright@ or Awrong@ through the normative values of Athis age/world@ whether it be Roman values or Jewish law. Instead, Paul suggests that it is in fact the renewal of Christians= mind (s) from these prescribed norms which allow them to Aknow@ God=s will. The significance of reflection, however, is not to end the subjection. Instead reflection prevents the Christians at Rome from making absolute the Roman political authority, thus worshiping it instead of God (worshiping the creature rather than the Creator, Rom. 1:19-23). Or as Wink states, Athe seer=s gift is not to be immune to invasion by the empire=s spirituality, but to be able to discern the internalized spirituality, name it, and externalize it.@ The subjection remains, but not as an absolute reality within the life of the Aseer.@ Consequently, humanity in a state of reflection stands in direct opposition to the state of humanity described in Romans 1:21: Afor though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened@ (recall discussion in previous section). Reflective humanity, on the other hand, possesses the capacity to see anew, to envision and understand realities of the power and presence of God beyond their immediate subjection.

    Comparing God with the artistic concept of negative space offers a powerful example of Paul=s call for Christians to reflect upon their subjection in order to reach the conviction that God dwells both in and beyond the structure or the ordering of relationships that we deem absolute. Artists refer to the hollow, empty area surrounding the edges and contours of an object as Anegative space.@ For instance, draw a circle on a sheet of blank paper and fill the circle with a solid color, the outer white space defines the edge of that circle. The white area is negative space because it is not recognizable. It is nothingness. Without this negative space, however, the viewer would not be able to identify a solid blue circle. The blue circle represents Apositive@ space because it occupies an area of the negative space and is defined by that negative space.

    At the same time, Apositive@ objects possess the capacity to partially frame negative space. Although positive space partially frames negative space, negative space cannot be transformed into positive space. A brief interactive exercise will help further clarify this point. Take your hands and bring them together into a praying posture. Slowly release your hands, allowing only your finger tips to touch, including your thumbs. Adjust your hands so that you create an upside down heart. Your eyes tell you that you see a heart. If you now completely pull your hands apart, however, do you see a heart? No. Your eyes really saw your two hands coming together to create a heart shape. Negative space always define your hands, regardless of the shape they take.

    In the same way artists discuss negative and positive space, I argue that Paul speaks of God and human relationship. Like negative space, God is infinite and undefinable. Similar to the way negative space circumscribes the reality of the solid circle and the hands, God circumscribes and defines finite humanity. God reminds us that we are creatures within the boundaries of our finite existence precisely because we are able to construct more than a Aheart,@ or a Acircle,@ - negative space reveals many revelations of itself through positive space. Likewise, God engages our humanness and offers other possible revelations of itself beyond what we presently see. According to Paul, reflection represents freedom. We argued in the previous section that Afreedom@ rests in one=s participation within the governing structure as absolute. On the contrary, freedom as reflection involves participation in the governing structure with the discerning awareness that it represents one but not the absolute way of being in the world.

    Discerning the Resistance: A Foundation for Analysis

    Using James C. Scott=s recent study Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts as a interpretive frame, the remainder of the paper explores how Paul=s call to reflection leads to his ultimate call for the Christian community to respond to, in words and/or gestures, the empowering awareness that its subjection to the governing authority is but an illusion, an ideology. Scott suggests that in any given political situation where an elite class dominates segments of the population, there exists a public transcript of events managed by the ruling elites and hidden transcripts of the same events produced secretly by the oppressed. Scott defines Apublic transcript@ as Aa shorthand way of describing the open interaction between subordinates and those who dominate.@ Hidden transcript, on the other hand, characterizes Adiscourse that takes place >offstage,= beyond direct observation by powerholders.@ Produced by the dominant class, public transcript presents Athe self-portrait of the elite as they would have themselves seen.@ Although each group has both a public and hidden transcript, the public transcript produced by the elites serves as the social/cultural ideological subjection which conforms to the Aflattering self-image of the elite.@ The oppressed group=s survival usually depends on their seeming compliance and obedience to the Aonstage@ script and political play of the elite, hoping to find recourse for their interest within the Aprevailing ideology without appearing in the least seditious.@ Of course, the hidden transcript of the oppressed offers another form of political discourse, but it is regulated to the Aoffstage@, beyond the purview of the powerholders. Therefore, the oppressed actions Aonstage@ seems consistently to affirm the subjection, limiting the hidden transcript of the oppressed to little more than a private venting mechanism. The power of the hidden transcript of the oppressed group, however, is that it is not limited to the Aoffstage.@ Rather the oppressed hidden transcript functions as a Apolitics of disguise and anonymity that takes place in public view but is designed to have a double meaning or to shield the identity of the actors.@ For instance, during the period of chattel slavery in America, spirituals functioned as hidden transcripts or resistance songs. Although these songs were sang in the public arena and employed the language of Christian piety, they were coded messages signaling revolt, rebellion, or simple disgust with the institution of slavery and the slave masters. For example, whenever Harriet Tubman planned an escape, the enslaved men and women often sang in the fields throughout the day, Aswing low, sweet chariot coming for to carry me home@ or Asteal away, steal away to Jesus! Steal away, steal away home, I ain=t got long to stay here@ as an indicator of their impending flight to freedom. In essence, ASpirituals were the indispensable device that slaves used to transmit a worldview fundamentally different from and opposed to that of slaveholders.@

    C. Resistance: How Much Do I Owe You?

    Whereas reflection makes obvious the subjection, and allows one to envision other possibilities of God=s reality beyond subjection, resistance represents the state of transformation: It represents those acts that a person or a community makes, based on reflection, which places both their minds and bodies beyond the given subjection. Resistance is about acting and speaking in such a way that reflects commitment against conformity both to and by this world. Paul speaks of this metaphorically in 12:1 where he urges the Christians at Rome:

    I appeal to you therefore brothers and sisters by the mercies of God, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your reasonable worship. Worshiping God requires the giving of one=s life and body. In essence, Paul suggests that Aworship@ of God only happens as a consequence of resisting conformity to Athis world.@ Because one has engaged the process of reflection, she is now able to offer her body as a living sacrifice--able to engage in speech and action which moves beyond the boundaries established by societal norms. Let us now, in light of Scott=s concept of Ahidden transcripts,@ examine more closely Paul=s call to resistance. Reading Romans in light of its resistance features is not a common mode of interpretation. But, neither is it a novel one. William R. Herzog argues that Paul=s exhortation in 13:1-7 to the Christian community at Rome represents Adissembling@ speech. Paul=s comments Afeign obedience and loyalty to the colonial overlords while pursuing its own hidden agenda.@ Herzog=s study suggests that Romans 13:1-7 alone, functions as resistance text. Herzog builds his thesis around Paul=s usage of diVkon`V (13:4) and leitourgo (13:6), arguing that rulers, as Aservants@ stood diametrically opposed in the Roman world. Therefore, Paul=s description of the rulers as servants is a Ahidden transcript.@ Paul specifies that the military, as servants of God, be used solely to suppress anarchy and wrong behavior. In reality however, the military and its sword functioned more as a Ameans of intimidation and brutality that ensured that subjected populations would quietly endure the so-called Pax Romana.@ Thus, by using this coded term, Paul suggests loyalty to a non-existent empire while actually critiquing it for not following the will of God.

    Similarly, Paul characterizes the authorities as leitourgoi, a variant on diakonoi. These figures carried out the public and bureaucratic functions of the state. Thus, Ajust as the military devotes itself to physical control, the financial bureaucrats devote themselves to economic control.@ So, Paul writes: APay to all what is due them, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due@ (vs. 7). Financially, this implies resistance to conceding to the finance minsters, who were obsessive about extracting from the population everything but the barest necessities, more than is their due. Likewise, Christians are to offer respect (phobon) and honor (timen), not as enthusiastic support of the empire. Instead, APaul most likely means that Christians should always display the public deference that the oppressed show their masters.@ Paul offers allegiance to empire that does not exist while using the Aweapons of the weak to reinforce the survival skills of the fledgling community.@

    This paper broadens the textual range for examining the interaction between public transcripts and hidden transcripts, or between subjection and resistance. I propose that Romans 13:1-7 functions as the public transcript or the subjection and Paul=s mentioning it reminds the Christians at Rome to acknowledge it as the ideological system in which they live because by not recognizing the system, they are not only subjected by it, but they also subject themselves to it. The hidden transcript surfaces not so much in 13:1-7 (although Herzog has proven this to be a legitimate claim), but in verses 8-10. In his summary statement on the Roman Christian community=s relationship to governing authorities, Paul writes: Aowe (ÏfeÆlete) no one anything, except to love (•gapn) one another, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law@ (vs. 8). Paul has just described in verse 7 that according to the public transcript of the Roman empire, giving all (military and financial bureaucrats) their expected dues (ÏfeilaV) is a service to both humanity and God. But in verse 8 Paul encourages his readers to discharge all debts except the debt of love. Herein lies Paul=s resistance language, where the hidden transcript imposes itself upon the public transcript. Before offering an analysis of verse 8, let us explore Paul=s utilization of ÏfeilZ in Romans.

    ÏfeilZ or one of its derivatives appears seven times in Romans: 1:14, 4:4, 8:12; 13:7, 13:8, 15:1, 15:27. Paul uses the term in varying contexts which affords the reader several interpretive options. For instance, Romans 4:4 describes one incurring a monetary debt to the one who performs a service for hire. The employer Aowes@ the employee for the work he has performed on behalf of the employer. Romans 15:27 describes a debt incurred out of an obligation to repay one group for what they have done for another. Gentiles are indebted to share their material resources with the saints at Jerusalem since the Jerusalem saints shared their Aspiritual blessings@ with the Gentiles. New Testament scholar Revelation Velunta clarifies Paul=s usage of ÏfeilZ. Explaining the notion of debt from a Filipino perspective, Velunta notes that debts can be voluntarily incurred or imposed.

    A debt incurred voluntarily arises either from the asking of a loan or favor. If the loan or favor is paid back in equivalent terms or with the margin agreed on, both parties can consider themselves discharged. Involuntary debts would occur when a loan or favor is offered or done without having been preceded by a formal request. Even here both loan or favor could be repaid in equivalent or with profit in order to be absolved of the debt (14). The subjection listed in Romans 13:7 concerning the payment of dues represents a type of imposed debt. Velunta rightly argues that involuntary debts, like taxes and tribute are exactly what Paul wants everyone to cancel. The problem for Paul is that one=s continued indebtedness to the structures described in verse 7 forces one to remain a Adebtor to the flesh,@ therefore living Aaccording to the flesh@ (Romans 8:12). Yet, Paul maintains that those empowered by the Spirit of God are no longer ÏfeilXtai t± sarkÂ. More importantly, Paul associates indebtedness with subjection. He suggests that if one is indebted to the Aflesh@ then the Aflesh@ possesses the authority to create the ideological presuppositions under which one must live. Paul is concerned here with right actions (including gestures and speech)--the world created by the flesh forces one to engage nature and other human beings in a manner that results in death (see 8:13). But, those no longer indebted to the flesh, no longer kata sarka z­n (live according to the flesh) (8:12). In light of 8:12, one sees clearly how Paul=s usage of debt (ÏfeilZ) speaks to his call to resistance; he employs the language most indicative of Roman social, political, and economic structure to describe how Christian=s ought not engage in relationship with each other.

    Surprisingly, Paul returns to ÏfeilZ as a means of discussing human love for other human beings. Velunta suggests that there is yet another way of understanding opheilei which he calls utang na loob. Utang na loob refers to a debt of volition which is unresolvable.

    Utang na loob is a unique kind of debt: however it may have been incurred, no matter how insignificant the debt, there is no way by which one is absolved of the debt except perhaps by having the >lender= him/herself incur a similar utang na loob. The debt goes beyond the legal-juridical framework; it creates an extra-legal but even more binding debt because it involves a personal debt, one that can only be paid back not only in person but with one=s person . . . one is bound no longer by a single compensating act but binds him/herself voluntarily to be committed beyond repayment. Debt as a voluntary commitment sheds new light on Paul=s use of what Fitzmyer calls oxymoronic language: APaul states it strangely, speaking of love as something owed like a debt. Love does not constitute one being under an obligation to pay or repay another for something received.@ Yet, debt is an appropriate representation of humanity=s responsibility to one another. Paul moves beyond the traditional ideas of indebtedness and challenges the community to understand their debt to humanity as the logical consequence of love. The two terms, opheilei and agape, actually redefines the other. Paul equates debt with love and love with debt as the voluntary commitment to love. The Roman state often characterized human relationships asymmetrically, associating Adebt@ with parties of an unequal status (= debtor to the flesh) (feeding off the classic patron-client dynamics). Paul, on the other hand, offers a more horizontal model of human relationships in 13:9 where he summarizes proper human relationships as Alove your neighbor.@ The aim now focuses on wholesome relationships amongst people with a commitment to use their talents and skills to effect qualitative good in the community rather than on relationships guided by selfish motivations for social status (12:3-21).

    Ultimately, debt as a voluntary commitment to love functions as resistance ideology in the midst of Paul=s seemingly pro-empire language. Paul=s hidden transcript offers a supreme critique of Asecular authority,@ suggesting that true servants or ministers of God occupy themselves with addressing the physical and spiritual needs of the citizens, not in exacting burdensome taxes and forced military might to maintain control of the masses of people for the benefit of the governing elite. Thus, Paul=s juxtaposition of opheilie (debt/owe) and agape (love) challenges the Roman social structure as an absolute authority and offers Adebt of love@ as an alternative system of authority, as a measuring stick which gauges the actions and intentions of both individuals and governing institutions.

    Chapter 13 reaches its climax in 11b; subjection-reflection-resistance is made purposeful as Paul exclaims: Afor now is nearer our salvation ( swthr\a) than when we (first) believed.@ The community of believers having acknowledged its subjection by the governing authorities, reflected upon the subjection and now are convicted that God exists both within and beyond their subjection, and finally, resisted their subjection by allowing Alove of neighbor@ to have dominion over their lives, the community has stepped into the process of salvation--it has come near. (Paul does not say this is full revelation--love of neighbor--it just brings it closer to realization). Paul=s understanding of salvation is best summarized in Romans 6 where he explains that on the one hand, salvation was made possible (in the past) through the death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. However, salvation continues (the fruits of salvation) in the lives of those dedicated to the worship of God through their voluntary commitment to seek and serve the good of others (in the present and future). Paul begins his explanation of salvation in chapter 6, describing it as Awalking in the newness of life@ (6:4). We are unable to grasp the fullness of his soteriological argument until chapters 12 and 13 (particularly 13:9-love of neighbor as fulfillment of law). But, his argument against idolizing the law reflects his expectation that the Christian community, in their process of salvation, would change (through the grace and power offer by God through the Holy Spirit) both their habit of thinking and their habit of living. He explains:

    We know that Christ, being raised (¦gerqeÂV) from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. The death he died, he died to sin, once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore, do not let sin exercise dominion in your mortal bodies, to make you obey its passions. No longer present your members as instruments of wickedness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and present your members to God as instruments of righteousness (6:9-13) (see also 8:10-11). The language and the implications of this passage are reminiscent of what we have already discussed regarding the community of Christians at Rome being Atransformed-nonconformist.@ But, what is central here is that like in 12:1 or 8:12 or 13:9, Paul is concerned with resistance. He wants the community of believers to act in a manner that gives priority to personhood in God, not to the judicial or legalistic prescriptions of the law or the hierarchal and exploitive social relations of the Roman state. Being raised from the dead, raised from a death-sleep--a state where love of neighbor is not a vigorous, operative power--speaks to the essence of Paul=s soteriological stance in that it reemphasizes the connection he establishes between humanity=s relationship with God and their relationship with one another. Ultimately, Asalvation comes near@ in the process of subjection-reflection-resistance, empowering the Christians at Rome to break through the idolatries of Aworldly@ structures and build a community and an ideological stance grounded in offering their minds and bodies to the worship of God through the (voluntary indebtedness) Alove of neighbor.@

    Resistance and the Free-Market Economy

    In light of Alove of neighbor@ as a model of resistance, let us revisit my earlier argument which suggests that as world citizens at the end of the 20th century, the power (s) which govern our lives is the free-market economy and its culture. Full participation within the Aaim of economic advancement@ is imperative for the salvation of an individual or a community. The economic structure itself, however is not God. Therefore if one seeks full participation in it without at some point and in some way resisting the structure, the free-market economy is forever perpetuated and affirmed, therefore deemed absolute. In our modern context, to be subject by/to the aim of economic advancement and to fully participate, without resisting is idolatrous. This paper argues, however, that although the historical circumstances which surround our 20th century situation within the subjection by/to the free-market economy differs from those about which Paul was writing, the command to love remains the same. Let us now explore a few examples as to why Alove of neighbor@ is needed as a model of resistance in order to counter the free-market economy as absolute--as a Ademonic spiritual force.@

    Six basic arguments contribute to the authoritative dominance of the free-market economy in contemporary society: 1) the freedom to consume; 2) the freedom of the seller; 3) the freedom of the producer; 4) freedom from government interference; 5) lower costs; 6) promotion of democracy. John McMurtry explores each of these arguments noting the incoherency in the market=s doctrine because it fails to consider the power of Aexternal influence in the production and exchange of goods between buyers and sellers who agree to the transaction.@ As explained in the section on subjection, this essential Afreedom@ to buy and sell applies to every aspect of our lives, therefore it is critical that we examine, and as McMurtry advises, reflect on how the Aveiled@ inconsistencies of the doctrine contribute to the betterment or detriment of human lives and relationships and at those points where we find detriment make the necessary steps towards resistance.

    It is beyond the scope of this paper to present McMurtry=s analysis of each of the arguments. However, let us briefly consider two of the arguments along with McMurtry=s counter-arguments. First, the free market doctrine maintains that individuals are Afree@ to consume. But, freedom to consume presupposes one has the money to buy those things she needs or desires. AUnder the rules of the free market, need without effective demand (i.e. the purchasing power of money) is not recognized. It counts for nothing. Need with no money to back it has no reality or value for the market . . . . The >freedom of the consumer= in the free market, is really only the freedom of those who have enough money to demand what they need or want.@ And so it seems that under the rules of the free market those without the money to purchase the things they need do not have the right to live.

    Second, the free-market argues that it reduces the costs of production and distribution. In a free market producers and sellers must compete to produce and sell their goods at the lowest price, thereby ensuring lower costs for consumers. The problem with this argument is that Ait looks only to lower costs for the consumers, not to the way these lower costs are achieved.@ For instance, private businesses can lower their costs by avoiding or eliminating pollution control, minimum wages, workers= benefits, health and safety standards, etc.). McMurtry points to the highly controversial NAFTA as an example of how businesses promote lower costs at the expense of the environment and human integrity. New trade laws established by NAFTA have encouraged the recent trend of major companies relocating to areas where they are not required to pay the costs of protecting human life and the environment. For instance, many private corporations move to the Maquiladora Zone Awhere wages are a small fraction of what they are in Canada or the U.S., effective pollution controls are non-existent and taxes for public health and education have been reduced or abolished.@ Moreover, under the rules of the international free market, the obvious consequence of companies relocating is that unemployment increases in the home country and lowers the price of labor. Ultimately, lower costs to private businesses results in lower wages paid to employees.

    A further way of reducing costs in the free market is by Aeconomies of scale.@ The danger here is that small producers or businesses, without Aeconomies of scale@ are unable to compete in the price of their goods. Consequently, these smaller, Ahome town@ businesses are forced to close. These negative aspects of the free market are referred to as Aexternalities@ which means they are not recognized as business costs. Ultimately, consumer goods for sale in the market may carry a lower price for those who can afford to purchase them, but all suffer the social costs produced by these non-factored Aexternalities:@

    While consumer goods may become less expensive, though this is by no means assured by the current oligopoly conditions of competition, the shared goods of life such as our air and water, social conditions, mutual security and cultural diversity deteriorate, with no limit in free market doctrine to their decline. In the end, McMurtry likens the current free market doctrine to an Aabsolutist religion.@ The inevitable hand of free trade governs human events Awith an omniscient logic >which cannot be interfered with=.@ Those loyal to this true faith will be rewarded with prosperity, perhaps immediately, or in some indeterminate time in the future. On the other hand, those who resist its strict necessity suffer the Awrath of God.@ The responsibility of failure rests on the shoulders of those under the doctrine=s rule and Ano amount of human suffering or natural destruction exacted by the doctrine=s implementation can alter its prescriptions or prove it false because its truths are eternal and not subject to falsifying evidence.@ Salvation then, can only be won by successful participation in the free market system. And those who participate and life grows more desperate (the majority of those under its rule), are characterized as sinners, undeserving or unworthy of the blessings offered by the free-market economy and its culture.

    As in the time of Paul, Alove of neighbor@ serves as a resistance ideology against an absolutist structure which rules out any social alternative. It functions as a hidden transcript because it challenges us to make decisions and take actions based not on the minimization of costs and the maximization of profits, but on how we can best maximize our service in helping to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, educate the illiterate. Love of neighbor as resistance ideology disrupts policies and ideologies that promote the (inalienable) Afreedom to consume,@ yet denies this freedom to those unable to afford it. It critiques the logic of profit for private investors as the ruling absolute of global life:

    the free market in fact flourishes by the dynamic new outlets for investment which social crisis provide: producing and selling arms to the combatants; selling ever more narcotic stimulants; producing and selling costly new pharmaceuticals to the environmentally diseased who can afford them . . . generally making the rich richer, the poor poorer and the environment more uniform and more degraded. Unchallenged, the free market increasingly becomes an unethical structure or in Paul=s words, a system of sin. Ultimately, love of neighbor calls us to Ainternalize the externalities.@ That is, social responsibility must accompany Athe aim of economic advancement.@ Social responsibility resists the free market economy as a transcendent power upon individuals through the recognition of our Adebt@ of love as the love of neighbor evidenced in our voluntary commitment to the service of humanity. Yet, Adebt of love@ cannot be manifested in a simple appendixed welfare system. Instead, it must be incorporated into the fabric of our society, allowing, inviting even, love of neighbor to dominate our hearts and minds. We must subject ourselves to love, so that we are subjected by love. In this way, humanity pays homage to God. In this way, we experience the nearness of salvation.

    Reading Romans 13.1-7 in light of subjection-reflection-resistance is my way of entering into the dialogue that deals with the challenges of the world economic order. Creating a language and a focus to address the economic displacement and dysfunction of the dominant economic system is vital. We have become immune to the old language (socialism, marxism, communism have become demonized). Entering the 21st century Christian believers face the wondrous challenge of identifying, acknowledging and resisting our subjection to the notion that salvation is reflected in economic prosperity. The means of resistance are not yet clear, and will only become clear as we prioritize Alove of neighbor@ in light of our subjection.

     


     
    Works Cited
    Althusser, Louis. Essays on Ideology. London: Verso, 1984.

    Appleby, Joyce, & Hunt, Lynn, & Jacob, Margaret. Telling the Truth About History. W. W. Norton & Company. New York, 1994.

    Bennett, Lerone Jr. They Came Before the Mayflower. Penguin Books. New York, 1984.

    Botha, Jan. Subject to Whose Authority? Scholars Press. Atlanta, Georgia, 1994.

    Cranfield, C.E.B. A Commentary on Romans 12-13. Oliver and Boyd. Edinburgh, 1965.

    Cranfield, C.E.B. On Romans. T&T Clark: Edinburgh, 1998.

    Dunn, James D. J. World Biblical Commentary. V. 38a and 38b. Word Books: Dallas, Texas, 1988.

    Dussel, Enrique. Ethics and Community. Orbis Books: Maryknoll, New York, 1988.

    Herzog, Paul. ADissembling, A Weapon of the Weak: The Case of Christ and Caesar in Mark 12:13-17 and Romans 13:1-7 in Perspectives in Religious Studies. 339-360.

    Horsley, Richard A, edt. Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society. Trinity Press International: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,1997.

    Fitzmyer, Joseph.The Anchor Bible. Romans. Doubleday: New York, 1993.

    King, Martin Luther, Jr. Strength to Love. Fortress Press: Philadelphia, 1981.

    McMurtry, John. AThe Contradictions of the Free Market Doctrine: Is There a Solution?@ Journal of Business Ethics. 16: 1997. Pp. 645-662.

    Scott, James C. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. Yale University Press: New Haven and London, 1990.

    Stuhlmacher, Peter. Paul=s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. Westminister/John Knox Press: Louisville, Kentucky, 1994.

    Velunta, Revelation E. AEK PisteÇs Es Pistin and the Filipinos= Sense of Indebtedness.@ SBL Papers. 37: 1998. Pp. 33-59.

    Wink, Walter. Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination. Fortress Press: Minneapolis, 1992.