In the wake of political unrest, social protests, or government overreach, it’s become common to hear a familiar refrain from some corners of American evangelicalism: “Romans 13 says we must submit to governing authorities.” Often quoted by Christian conservatives, this passage is wielded like a hammer against those who dare question or resist state power, especially when that resistance comes from marginalized communities or voices perceived as “too political.”

But is that really what Romans 13 demands? Is all dissent against governing authorities inherently sinful? And perhaps more importantly, is it biblical to appeal to our civil rights and seek accountability from civil leaders?

When Romans 13 is read in isolation, it can appear to command blind submission. But Scripture interprets Scripture and when we hold Romans 13 alongside Acts 16:35-40, a richer and more faithful understanding emerges—one in which Christian witness involves not just obedience but bold protest when the state violates justice and disregards human dignity.

The Misuse of Romans 13:1-7

Romans 13:1-7 is often cited to claim that Christians must always submit to government authority because that authority is “instituted by God.” This has led some to assert that resistance—whether in the form of protest, civil disobedience, or even public critique—is a form of rebellion against God Himself.

This interpretation gained traction during moments of national upheaval (think of the civil rights movement, attention directed towards certain policing practices, and the weaponization of ICE). When Christian leaders, especially from historically oppressed communities, rise to name injustice, they’re sometimes met with rebuke from fellow believers quoting Romans 13, urging silence and compliance.

But this reading flattens Paul’s theology and ignores the broader witness of Scripture. It misses the fact that Paul himself, the author of Romans, didn’t passively accept state abuse. On the contrary, in Acts 16, Paul resists corrupt state authority in a way that’s both public and deliberate.

Paul’s Protest in Acts 16:35-40

In Acts 16, Paul and Silas are wrongly arrested, stripped, beaten, and imprisoned in Philippi—without due process. This wasn’t just a religious misunderstanding; it was a gross violation of Roman law. Paul, a Roman citizen, was entitled to a fair trial and protection from punishment without conviction.

When the city magistrates discover they have unlawfully punished Roman citizens, they try to cover it up by releasing Paul and Silas quietly: “Let those men go.” But Paul doesn’t let them off the hook. He says: “They have beaten us publicly, uncondemned, men who are Roman citizens, and have thrown us into prison; and do they now throw us out secretly? No! Let them come themselves and take us out” (Acts 16:37).

This isn’t a polite request. It’s a public protest and a demand for accountability. Paul insists, not out of vengeance or personal vindication, that the magistrates acknowledge their wrongdoing in front of the very public that saw them abuse their power. Rather, Paul’s desire is to protect the fledgling Christian community in Philippi by holding the authorities accountable, resulting in a space for the gospel to be preached without fear of similar abuse. His resistance isn’t an act of rebellion—it’s an act of shepherding and public witness.

Biblical Submission Includes Accountability

Romans 13 isn’t a blank check for tyranny. When Paul says that rulers are “God’s servants for your good,” he’s articulating a vision for government authority based on justice. The ideal Paul sketches assumes that rulers punish evil and reward good. But what happens when rulers do the opposite?

Paul’s actions in Acts 16 suggest that submission to governing authorities includes a prophetic responsibility to call them to their God-given purpose. Submission doesn’t mean silence in the face of injustice; it means recognizing the legitimacy of the state while insisting that it live up to its God-ordained role.

To be clear, Paul doesn’t incite violence. His protest is lawful, principled, and public. But it’s still forceful. He leverages his rights as a Roman citizen not to preserve his own comfort but to protect the church and to uphold justice for private citizens, thus reinforcing the church’s public witness.

A Word to the Churches in America

In our current moment, many Christian conservatives appeal to Romans 13 to discourage critique of policies that harm the poor, immigrants, or refugees—even those in our family of faith. But when Paul himself exercises his civil rights to confront injustice, how can we say that faithful Christianity requires political passivity?

Romans 13 must not be used to baptize the status quo. To do so is to turn Scripture into a tool of oppression rather than liberation. Paul’s life testifies that obedience to God may at times require protest against the very authorities God has permitted to rule.

If we truly believe in the authority of Scripture, then we must allow the tension between Romans 13 and Acts 16 to shape us. Faithful discipleship in the public square will sometimes mean quiet submission and at other times it will mean courageous protest.

Conclusion: The Gospel and Public Witness

Jesus Christ submitted to the cross, not to affirm Rome’s power, but to subvert it. The resurrection vindicates not the state but the Suffering Servant. And those who follow Jesus are called to bear witness not only in what we endure but in what we resist.

Romans 13 isn’t meant to muzzle justice. Instead, Paul’s example demonstrates how to hold our leaders accountable—not because we reject authority, but because we believe that all authority ultimately belongs to Christ, who reigns with justice and righteousness.

In a culture where silence often masquerades as faithfulness, may the church recover the courage to say with Paul out of love for our neighbor and reverence for our Lord: “They have wronged us—let them come and answer for it.”

Moses Y. Lee is the lead pastor of Rosebrook Presbyterian Church in Rockville, Maryland, and a PhD student at the University of Edinburgh, where he is conducting research on Herman Bavinck, J.H. Bavinck, and Harvie Conn.