When Authority Breaks Covenant

Who Christians Really Submit To

Christians are often told to "submit to authority." Romans 13 gets quoted. 1 Peter 2 gets invoked. The conversation usually stops there.

But it shouldn't.

Submission—biblically and historically—has never meant blind obedience to power. In the United States, it especially doesn't. In a constitutional republic, Christians submit not to unchecked power but to authority bounded by law. When enforcement detaches from due process or produces fear rather than justice, the church must speak—not as a political body, but as a faithful witness.

Here's the uncomfortable truth many Christians have never been asked to wrestle with: The highest governing authority in the United States is not a person. It is a document.

When leaders operate outside the Constitution, the question is no longer whether Christians should submit—but to whom. Most Christians default to one of two bad options: silence framed as neutrality, or partisan speech framed as prophetic courage.

Both fail.

Silence abandons the vulnerable. Partisanship trades the gospel for a tribe.

There's a third way—and it's more biblical.

Authority in Scripture Is Purpose-Bound

Paul writes in Romans 13 that governing authorities are "established by God." Peter urges believers to submit to authorities who punish wrongdoing and commend good. But both apostles tie authority to function, not mere existence.

Authority is legitimate because of what it is meant to do: restrain evil, commend what is good, protect the vulnerable, and preserve justice

The Bible never claims authority is self-justifying. It assumes authority can drift, corrupt, or collapse into coercion. That's why Scripture includes prophets.

Acts 5:29 Is Not a Loophole—It's a Boundary

When Peter declares, "We must obey God rather than men," he isn't inventing rebellion. He's naming a limit. Authority has a ceiling. And when that ceiling is breached, submission changes shape. Biblically speaking, submission is not endorsement. Respect is not silence. Order is not moral neutrality.

When authority violates its God-given purpose, faithful obedience may require resistance—not revolt, but refusal.

The American Distinction Christians Often Miss

In the United States, governing authority is not embodied in a ruler. It is embedded in a covenantal framework. The Constitution and its amendments function as the highest authority.

Every officeholder, agency, and institution derives legitimacy only insofar as it operates within that frame.

Presidents do not sit above it. Courts do not replace it. Law enforcement does not supersede it. They serve under it.

Which means: When leaders act outside the Constitution, they are no longer exercising authority—they are abandoning it.

Submitting to the Constitution may require resisting the actions of those who claim to represent it. Defending constitutional limits is the most faithful form of submission to governing authority available. 

That's not liberal. That's not conservative. That's deeply biblical.

Romans 13 in a Constitutional Republic

Romans 13 is not written to governments. It is written to Christians. It does not tell us which authority is always right. It does not require us to pick a team. It does not demand emotional loyalty to power. It tells believers how to live faithfully in a fractured system.

In a constitutional system, the law restrains power, due process protects dignity, and authority answers to something higher than itself.

When Christians defend unconstitutional actions in the name of "submission," they are not submitting to authority—they are submitting to power unmoored from covenant.

Scripture never commands that.

The Office, Not the Individual

American Christians have developed a dangerous habit: defending personalities when we should be evaluating offices. When a leader we supported violates constitutional limits, we instinctively protect the person rather than ask whether they're still operating within their mandate. This is tribalism, not biblical submission.

The Constitution makes no provision for personal loyalty. It establishes offices with defined powers and explicit constraints.

Christians submit to those offices when they function lawfully—not to the individuals who happen to occupy them. The moment we shift from "Is this action constitutional?" to "How do I defend the person I voted for?" we've left biblical submission behind.

This isn't a left or right problem. It's a church problem. And it reveals whether our allegiance is truly to Christ's kingdom—or to maintaining our political team.

When Authorities Conflict, Discernment Is Required

Modern governance includes overlapping authorities: federal and state, executive and legislative and judicial, enforcement and oversight. Scripture never assumes these will agree. When authorities contradict one another, Christians are not asked to pick a team. They are asked to evaluate which authority is acting within its mandate.

Submission becomes layered: allegiance to God first, fidelity to the constitutional order second, cooperation with officeholders only when they remain within those bounds. This is not political cleverness. It is biblical discernment.

This is what submission looks like when authority is fragmented but truth is not.

Enforcement Without Law Is Not Authority

Law enforcement derives legitimacy from law—not fear, profiling, or expediency. When enforcement actions bypass due process, rely on racial or ethnic suspicion, detain without cause, or produce widespread fear among lawful residents, Christians must ask the Romans 13 question honestly: Is this restraining evil—or producing it?

If enforcement detaches from law, submission to that behavior is no longer submission to authority. It is complicity with coercion. The prophets would recognize this immediately.

A Case Study: ICE and Due Process

ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is a law-enforcement authority, not a sovereign authority. Biblically and constitutionally, enforcement authority is always derivative. ICE's legitimacy depends on three layers above it: law passed by Congress, judicial interpretation, and constitutional constraints.

Romans 13 doesn't ask, "Is ICE an authority?"

It asks: Is this authority punishing wrongdoing and commending good within its lawful mandate?

This leads to several unavoidable Christian conclusions.

• Due process is not a liberal idea—it is the mechanism by which authority restrains evil rather than becomes it.

• Profiling is not neutral enforcement—it violates equal protection and collapses justice into suspicion.

• Detaining lawful residents or citizens without cause is not "law and order"—it is authority acting outside covenantal bounds.

When enforcement breaks the law it claims to uphold, Christians are not obligated to defend it in the name of submission. Submitting to governing authority may require naming when enforcement has detached from law.

This is not a blanket indictment of immigration enforcement, but an evaluation of whether enforcement remains tethered to law.

What the Prophets Would Say

The prophets didn't oppose authority. They opposed corrupted authority acting outside its covenant. In U.S. terms, that's violating due process, profiling, unlawful detention, suppression of speech, or selective enforcement. They would say: "You are still in office—but you are no longer acting within the authority given to you."

• Nathan confronted David after the king used his power to commit adultery and murder (2 Samuel 12). He didn't deny David's kingship or call for rebellion. He told a parable, let David condemn himself, then delivered the verdict: "You are the man." Nathan said, in effect, "You are still king—but you have acted outside the authority God gave you. You used royal power to commit the very crimes a king exists to prevent."

  
  

• Samuel rebuked Saul when the king usurped priestly authority and later disobeyed explicit divine commands (1 Samuel 13, 15). Samuel didn't question Saul's office. He questioned whether Saul was still operating within it: "Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has rejected you as king." The office remained. But Samuel named the breach.

  
  

• Elijah confronted Ahab after the king orchestrated Naboth's judicial murder to seize his vineyard (1 Kings 21). Ahab still wore the crown. Elijah still acknowledged his authority. But the prophet made clear that using legal mechanisms to commit injustice doesn't make it lawful—it makes authority corrupt.

  
  

• John the Baptist told Herod, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife" (Mark 6:18). He didn't lead an insurrection. He simply named a violation of God's law by someone in power. It cost him his life, but he never confused Herod's position with permission to violate covenant.

The pattern is consistent: Prophets acknowledged office while exposing actions that violated the purpose of that office. They didn't say, "You're not really the king." They said, "You're still the king—but you're not acting like one."

"Law and Order" Has Conditions

Scripture affirms order—but never order without justice. Order without justice becomes oppression. Peace enforced by fear is not peace. Stability purchased through dehumanization is not righteousness.

Christians who confuse "law and order" with unquestioned compliance have quietly replaced covenantal authority with authoritarian instinct.

When constitutional rights are violated—especially due process, equal protection, or freedom from unlawful detention—the Christian posture is not "stay quiet so we don't cause disorder." It's "how do we remain faithful witnesses to truth, justice, and human dignity within the law?"

That's straight prophetic tradition.

Jesus and Authority: The Pattern Still Holds

Jesus acknowledged Roman authority, submitted to unjust processes, refused violent resistance, and publicly exposed corruption. He did not confuse submission with endorsement. He did not sanctify abusive systems. And he did not remain silent when authority harmed the vulnerable.

Christians who claim to follow Jesus cannot selectively forget this.

The Question We Keep Avoiding

The real question facing the Church is not political. It's theological: Are we submitting for the Lord's sake—or for our own sense of control, order, and security?

Because those are not the same thing.

When Christians rush to defend leaders rather than examine whether those leaders are operating within constitutional and moral bounds, something has gone wrong.

Faithful submission in a constitutional republic means honoring lawful authority, resisting unconstitutional action, defending due process, protecting human dignity, and refusing to baptize power as righteousness.

It looks like truth-telling—not silence.

It looks like restraint—not rage.

It looks like courage without capture.

A Final Word to the Church

Christians are not called to stabilize the state. We are called to bear witness. And sometimes that witness requires saying—calmly, clearly, and publicly: "You may hold office, but you are no longer acting within the authority entrusted to you."

That is not rebellion. That is covenant faithfulness.

And Scripture has always sided with that voice.