Chapter 2 of Esau McCaulley’s book Reading While Black discusses ‘The New Testament and a Theology of Policing.’

McCauley selects two texts for consideration.  The first has implications for the state, and the second for the individual law enforcer.

Romans 13:1-7

13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God’s appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 13:2 So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment 13:3 (for rulers cause no fear for good conduct but for bad). Do you desire not to fear authority? Do good and you will receive its commendation, 13:4 for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be in fear, for it does not bear the sword in vain. It is God’s servant to administer retribution on the wrongdoer. 13:5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath of the authorities but also because of your conscience. 13:6 For this reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants devoted to governing. 13:7 Pay everyone what is owed: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

McCaulley argues that those enforcing the law in Rome had something in common with today’s police officers.  Roman Christians might meet situations remarkably similar to those encountered by African Americans today:

‘They might be questioned by the vigiles or Octavian’s guard simply for living in this neighborhood. They might have been bullied by officers trying to get a few extra dollars when tax collection season came around. Christian shop owners might have been pressured to pay the “fee” for doing business or risk being beat out by a competitor. Whenever the city was alive with festival and celebration, the Roman Christian might have had to watch out for an anxious officer who was keen to keep said festivities from spiraling out of control. In short, at any moment in the lives of Roman church members, they might come face to face with the state and its sword.’

McCaulley, like other commentators, observes that Paul, in saying that no-one will be harmed by the state for doing good, is stating the ideal.  His mention of Pharaoh is sufficient evidence that he knew that human ruers often fall short of that ideal.

The same writer notes that Paul’s attention falls less on the individual law enforcer than on those who control ‘the word’ by making policy:

‘This gives the Christian thinker and advocate the space to think structurally about how a just society should treat its people. Paul also speaks about the absence of fear, a central concern for Black folks. Yes, Paul does speak about the Christian’s responsibility to the government. This is fine. We do not want anarchy. We gladly acknowledge the potential goods of government. We also recognize the church’s ability to discern evil in government actions even if we lack the sovereignty over history to know when God will bring judgment. Nonetheless, we must always remember that Paul’s words on submission to government come in the context of a Bible that shows God active in history to bring about his purposes. God lifts up and God tears down. To avoid that tearing down, those who have the task of government must do all in their power to construct a society in which Black persons can live and move and work freely.’

Luke 3

In Luke 3, many are coming to John the Baptist.  He urges them to ‘produce fruit that proves [their] repentance.  First the crowds, then tax collectors, and then some soldiers as John what they must do.

To the soldiers, John responds: “Take money from no one by violence or by false accusation, and be content with your pay.”

These soldiers were Roman troops sent to keep peace in the province. Many would have abused their power by oppressing the poor.

Esau McCaulley applies this exchange with the soldiers to the duties and responsibilities of law enforcement officers in the United States (with particular reference to black citizens).  He suggests that, whereas Paul in Romans 13:3f oncusses on the responsibilities of the state, then the present verse sheds light on those of the individual officer.

Regarding John’s condemnation of extortion, McCaulley comments:

‘Do not underestimate the weight of this critique. Extortion goes beyond mere bribes. Extortion involves using your power to prey on the weak. Extortion is only possible when the extorted have no recourse. This means that John was concerned with a form of policing in which those who have power use it as a means of pursuing their own agenda at the cost of those most at risk. For this reason, his criticism of false accusations should not be separated from extortion because false accusations often undergird extortion. If the people being extorted refused to comply they might find themselves “accused” of crimes that they did not commit.’

The passage also speaks to the human dignity of oppressed and brutalised people.  They too have been made in the image of God:

John also might have in mind a soldier offering up a person for a crime to satisfy the whim of their superior or to achieve some political end. This giving over of bodies as sacrificial offerings for the maintenance of the status quo denies the imago Dei in each of us. The story of Jesus’ crucifixion contains the paradigmatic false accusation. When John’s Gospel recounts Pilate’s unintentionally profound words, “Behold the man,” it speaks to Jesus as the one true human who came to restore us all. At the same time, John makes it clear that even as an innocent person condemned to die Jesus is in fact a person. This is the Black claim on the conscience of those who police us. See us as persons worthy of respect in every instance. Jesus’ treatment by the soldiers strikes us as egregious because he was innocent of the charges (Mt 27:27–30), but do the guilty deserve beatings and mockery? Matthew 27:27–30 speaks to how a corrupt system can distort the souls of those charged with functioning in a broken system. John calls on those in that system to rise above the temptation to dehumanize and act with integrity.’

John further commands that those charge with law enforcement should be satisfied with their wages:

‘This again points to the link between policing and money. Soldiers/officers must be satisfied with what they receive for the work that they do. In our day, this speaks to excessive fines and tickets given to the poor that only serve to enrich the state. For John the Baptist, money can never trump justice.’

In conclusion:

‘What does John add to a Christian theology of policing? He adds the personal responsibility and integrity of the officers themselves. He calls upon those with power to use that power to uphold the inherent dignity of all residents and to never use that power for their own ends.’