This is a tough one to read, and it was certainly a tough one to write. This is one of those texts where “quick to listen, slow to speak about it, and slow to become angry [at scripture]” (Js 1.19) certainly applies. Those who know me know where I stand on most political and social issues. As a Christian, though, some of those things occasionally have to take second place. This is extremely difficult (even painful), as some of these things completely fly in the face of our political convictions. We sometimes conflate our political and spiritual values. While our political values should absolutely be influenced by our spiritual ones, the two aren’t inseparable. Sometimes we have to go against our political convictions if pursuing them means violating a Christian principle.
I Peter 2.13-25 is a difficult passage for many of us to swallow because it’s about giving up our own rights and freedoms for the sake of the message. God expects us to obey all government officials, even when their policies are unfair (or blatantly unconstitutional). Only when what they tell us to do violates God’s law are we permitted to disobey them. What does this mean practically? As a Christian, we have to comply with any policy upheld by a governing body who has authority over us (2.13-14, 16). This applies to any regulation that — even though unconstitutional — is upheld by government (cf. Rom 13). God expects us to comply because that falls in line with not causing trouble and living a quiet, peaceful life (I Tim 2). We often talk about how difficult the Christian life is, but these kinds of things make it real. My inalienable rights aren’t worth losing my eternal soul.
In 2.16-17, Peter addresses a loophole we might be tempted to exploit. Yes, we’re God’s people first. Yes, we’re an independent nation as his church, and we’re subject to him first before government. But that doesn’t give us the right to disobey laws we don’t agree with. We’re told to “live as servants of God”, which in context means “complying with all government regulations that don’t violate God’s law.” That’s hard. Nothing about this is easy, especially for us Americans who enjoy life in a country whose founding documents recognize and legally restrain government from interfering with natural freedoms. But the reward for following God’s word on this issue is immortality on a perfect new earth where — among many other blessings — there are no three-letter agencies or any other corrupt human act of authoritarianism.
The Preacher Pollard Blog 
I have also thought about this topic often. One thing (principle) that sticks with me (in regards to how our government ought to govern) is that the government doesn’t regulate the constitution, the constitution regulates the government (which is of, for and by the people); and the preamble recognizes that we, as a person and an American citizen, have unalienable rights regardless of our government’s position on the matter. The purpose of government (within the American framework) is that it supposed to ensure that these rights are protected, not removed.
Render unto Caesar and unto God no doubt, but who decides whom Caesar is going to be in America (a direct “contradiction” of the roots of American politics) and how much authority does he really have (in light of the constitution) regardless of personal wishes is where the spiritual and political conflict often arises.
Good challenging thoughts.
And I apologize for this additional comment. I meant to add in regards to your title, I believe a part of the challenge is that unconstitutional equates to illegal, and illegal can easily relate to being unscriptural (Acts 22:22-29); although that definitely did not stop every occasion of violated rights (2 Corinthians 11:25).
Hi Eugene, thank you for your thoughtful comments! I too struggled with those exact issues. The constitution is a restraining order against government, not something that grants rights, and many, many laws and government agencies exist in direct defiance of our founding documents. There we agree completely.
The Roman people worked the same way — there were deeply engrained concepts at that time, like “exercitus, imperium, iudicia, honores, consules, voluntas” and “populis liber” and “civis Romanus”. The Senate served the people, and were subject to the people by law. This culture had existed for about 150 years by the time Paul and Peter wrote their letters.
Yet when emperors, governors, judges, military officials, or any other representative of government outright broke the law, Jesus, Peter, and Paul all said, “Do what they tell you and don’t cause trouble.” Jesus’s arrest, trial, and execution were all illegal, but “he never even opened his mouth against them.” Paul was illegally imprisoned, and constantly harassed and assaulted because of his faith. He wrote, “All of you must obey the government rulers. Everyone who rules was given the power to rule by God. And all those who rule now were given that power by God. So anyone who is against the government is really against something God has commanded. Those who are against the government bring punishment on themselves” (Rom 13.1-3).
I have zero love for our federal government (and most state/local governments), just to be clear. It seems like they wake up every day looking for new ways to infringe on our rights and take our freedoms. They are, almost to the person, unimaginably corrupt and evil.
In response to your question, though, I believe God decides who “Caesar” is and how much power he has (Rom 13, I Pt 2). As much as I love the Bill of Rights, the history, text, and tradition of our constitution, and case law like Miranda v Arizona (1966), Ex parte Siebold, 100 US 371 (1879), Norton v Shelby County, 118 US 425 (1886), Marbury v Madison (1803), and Unconstitutional Official Acts 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256, these do not supersede the authority of scripture (I Pt 2.16-17). The Roman government often acted — as ours does — in direct defiance of the will of the people and established law. It was in that historical-cultural context that the inspired writers passed on those commands.
In my opinion, these are among the hardest commands to accept in all of scripture. But the inheritance waiting for us is orders of magnitude greater than establishing (or re-establishing) a more perfect union! Thank you, again, for your thoughtful comments, hope you have an excellent week!
Just to clarify, I agree God decides who Caesar “is going to be” but my thought was more about someone making themself king and how that mindset runs directly against the roots (and laws) of American politics. Were the founding fathers guilty of sin through their rebellion against the crown? And what of the kings in Israel who became kings directly through rebellion? Or even the kings of gentile nations who were overthrown by other kings? Some of these individuals were directly used by God to accomplish his purpose of judgment against unrighteousness and “constitutionally” reigning leaders. I believe Daniel 5:21 is alive and well, but are the unrighteous alone used to carry out a righteous purpose within government or (while thinking about Esther) even governmental influences? That was the underlying thought of the “question” you referenced.