Civil Disobedience

This is not something
the Founding Fathers would have worn.

Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. (Romans 13:2)

It isn't wrong for Christians to engage in civil disobedience. That isn't what Paul is saying to the Romans.

If we aren't we should be doing so. We should be worshipping in defiance of gathering restrictions and masking mandates because these things are paving the way for further violations of our religious liberties.

We should obey God rather than men. 

At the beginning of the pandemic, it made sense to follow the government's recommendations. No one knew what we were actually dealing with and there wasn't any data to go by. After the BLM riots in June 2020, however, circumstances changed. When government officials encouraged the riots because systemic racism in American society was a bigger concern than COVID-19, the proverbial cat was let out of the bag. All of a sudden the governing authorities were not worried about mass gatherings of people without masks and social distancing. They weren't worried about super-spreader events.

That's because the pandemic restrictions were much more about controlling our thoughts, words, and deeds than they were about public health.

Before you point to Romans 13 and Paul's words about submitting to the governing authorities, remember that the Roman Empire in which Paul found himself and the United States of America aren't the same, regardless of what the Marxist history professors say. At the very least, they shouldn't be held up as a 1:1 comparison.

Our government isn't like the government of the Roman Empire. In our system, the people are the governing authorities. It's even written down in the Constitution. Our elected officials are supposed to protect the civil liberties which God has given mankind. When they fail to do this, the people have the right under the Constitution to alter or abolish that government. Usually, we do this by holding elections. Sometimes other actions are necessary.

The issue is that American Christians are looking for a type of persecution that is unlikely to come, and we're ignoring the creeping persecution which actually threatens us. We are waiting for jack-booted thugs to come to our doors and order us to turn over our Bibles at the point of a gun.

But the kind of persecution we are dealing with isn't harsh and violent yet. It's soft and bureaucratic.

Our governing authorities won't directly say "stop worshipping", not yet. Instead, they will progressively change conditions in society by passing laws that paint Christian beliefs and morality as fringe and racist. They will use the media to propagandize the masses into right-think, as they have done so successfully over the past decades until it becomes impossible to worship openly.

Mask mandates are a part of this process.

And, if we keep allowing this type of soft tyranny, it won't be long before the hard tyranny is knocking on our doors, figuratively and literally.

And before I'm reminded for the 56th time today, I know George Washington mandated smallpox vaccinations in the Continental Army. This is not the same situation as that was. 

Mask mandates should be defied because they don't stop transmission of COVID-19, and no thinking person actually thinks that they are protected while wearing a mask. What they actually do is create divisions between people. They make people suspicious of each other, and keep them separated. They make Christians hesitate when it is time to gather around word and sacrament. It is more than an inconvenience. They stifle worship.

Also, this disease is not smallpox.

Another part of Romans 13 that we also shouldn't forget about, however, is the part about the governing authorities bearing the sword for a purpose. If we engage in civil disobedience we need to be prepared to accept the consequences of our actions. The legitimate governing authorities may legally punish us for breaking the law. And, if they do, we must submit to that punishment including, segregation, ridicule, persecution, arrest, prosecution, imprisonment, and if it comes to it, death.

I'm not saying that we should volunteer to be thrown to the lions in the coliseum over compelled mask-wearing. Pushing back against an unjust mask mandate is relatively easy, though. If these circumstances are allowed to stand without opposition, things will only get worse. The next infringement will be more difficult to stand against.

If we aren't willing to push back now, we are less likely to do it when the stakes are higher. ###

I Love Big Brother

I stopped wearing a mask several months ago.

There is enough scientific evidence to convince me I should be more worried about the possible health consequences of wearing a mask all my waking life than the dangers of contracting COVID-19 (from which I have already recovered). Couple that with absolute lack of evidence that masks stop transmission of the disease and the incredible hypocrisy of the elites who institute such draconian mandates, and I've had enough. I'm done wearing masks. Either I will not wear one, or I won't go to places that require them, even if that is incredibly inconvenient.

I thought everyone else around me was done as well. They certainly complained about it enough. All my friends and colleagues expressed staunch support for my civil disobedience. Imagine my surprise when I was the only person at work and in my neighborhood to stop wearing a mask indoors, in deliberate disobedience to the inconsistent and ridiculous mandates. Everyone likes to talk a good game, but no one wants to subject themselves to the slightest possibility of discomfort or conflict, even if it means retaking control of their lives.

Civil disobedience only works, however, if it is coordinated and undertaken by large groups of citizens. Mine has failed.

So, I give up. No one is following me. They are content to do as their progressive overlords demand and grumble about it quietly behind their face diapers. I can't continue to fight a one-man battle against the usurpers of our civil liberties.

Especially since I have now been beaten down back into my place. The powers that be have finally taken notice of my pathetic attempt at civil disobedience and cut me off at the knees. If I weren't alone in my defiance, there might have been a chance for it to succeed.

Mel Gibson's movie "The Patriot," tells the story of one patriot standing against the oppressive regime, fighting single-handedly to save his family and his country. There are two problems: 1) it is fiction, and 2) the character on whom The Patriot is loosely based, Francis Marion (the Swamp Fox), had an organized network of other patriots to support him in his resistance.

And that is something I don't have. A network of support. Watching Fox News, sharing conservative links on Facebook and Twitter, and making snide passive-aggressive comments about Democrats under your breath when someone comments about inflation or the price of gas may make conservatives feel smugly superior, but it doesn't actually do anything to help.

No one person can be successful in resisting the government. He may at some point be vindicated in his beliefs, but he will first be crushed.

I don't mean to be hyperbolic. I'm not saying I'm on the level of an American founding father because I don't put on a mask when I walk into Target. The stakes aren't that high yet.

Yet.

That's the thing that discourages me the most, I suppose. If we aren't willing to push back against this relatively moderate infringement of our rights by refusing to wear a mask in public, who in their right mind thinks any significant number of people will resist serious oppression, if and when it comes?

We are talking about mask mandates, which the vast majority of people subject to them rightly think are ridiculous.

I know for a fact that the vast majority of people around whom I live and with whom I work think they are ridiculous. I know my family thinks they are stupid. We literally talk about it all the time.

Nevertheless, everyone continues to submit to them. It's just easier that way, I get it. But it's only more manageable in the short term. It's less of a hassle to get into the Walmart or to go buy stamps. But when you look around a year or two later, and everyone is still wearing masks without a thought, only now you're required to get the vaccine and like it or else you'll lose your job, and people who dare to ask common-sense questions like, "If the vaccine is supposed to protect you and you get one, how am I a threat to you if I don't?" are called fringe lunatics, and you can't go places without showing the government-directed corporate Gestapo your vaccine papers...you start to realize that maybe we, as a society, should have pumped the brakes on this whole thing a lot sooner.

That's something we could have done...something we could still be doing by refusing to abide by ridiculous indoor mask mandates. This march toward total domination of the individual by the State will only end when we, as free people, decide that it will end.

But I quit. I'm out.

I've now been formally ordered to submit. I will spare the gory details, but I have now concluded that I have no reasonable alternative but to comply. If all the people who had hushed subversive conversations with me about how stupid the mask thing was would have translated their words into actions, things might be different for us all. But they didn't, and they're not. I held out as long as I could, but without broader support, I now capitulate.

Perhaps in the end, before the bullet enters my brain, I to will also win the victory over myself and come to love Big Brother, in addition to just submitting to him. ###

Paying Taxes to Caesar

Then they sent to Him some of the Pharisees and the Herodians, to catch Him in His words. When they had come, they said to Him, “Teacher, we know that You are true, and care about no one; for You do not regard the person of men, but teach the way of God in truth. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Shall we pay, or shall we not pay?” But He, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, “Why do you test Me? Bring Me a denarius that I may see it.” So they brought it. And He said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?” They said to Him, “Caesar’s.” And Jesus answered and said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at Him (Mark 12:13-17).

The Pharisees and Herodians are hoping to catch Jesus in a misstatement. They were afraid of the reaction of the crowds if they should come out against Jesus overtly and imprison or murder Him[1]. They figured that the only way for them to get rid of Jesus without causing a riot would be for Him to incriminate Himself. Their question is designed to put Jesus between a rock, and a hard place. If He answers that they shouldn't pay taxes to Rome, He is a subversive, a threat to Rome, and subject to it’s punishment. If He advocates paying taxes, then the Pharisees can say that He is a traitor to His people and the people would then call for His head. They open with a bit of flattery. We know you are true, they say; we know you care about no one, that is, Jesus is no respecter of persons. He’s not diplomatic and will speak what He thinks regardless of who is listening. These statements are made to soften Jesus up. If they thought, as they said, that Jesus taught the way of God in truth, why did the Pharisees and Herodians not simply accept what Jesus was teaching, rather than questioning Him?

These men, who knew what God’s Word said to look for, saw what Jesus did, and they knew what it meant. They saw Him heal the sick, restore the sight of the blind, make the lame to walk, and they understood that these were signs that pointed to the coming Messiah[2]. But they weren’t looking for the right kind of Messiah. They were looking for a political savior rather than a spiritual one. They were looking for a messiah who would save them from their bondage to Rome, not from their bondage to sin. Rather than embrace His coming, rather than repent and believe, the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians were more concerned with holding on to their political power and religious authority[3].

Jesus would not assent to the faulty premise of their question. He uses the chance to show the true relationship between temporal and spiritual things. Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. Jesus tells us that, while our first allegiance is to God and His kingdom, we are bound to obey all legitimate civil authority[4]. He has instituted government for good order and our protection. Where the two come into conflict, we must obey God rather than men, as the Apostles showed us when they were imprisoned for preaching the Gospel after being ordered by the authorities to stop.[5] But, concerning earthly matters we are to obey the government which has authority over us.[6] Jesus tells us bluntly to keep our priorities straight. May we be careful to always render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and render unto God what is God’s.

---

[1] Matthew 21:45-46

[2] Luke 7:22; Luke 4:16-21

[3] John 11:48-53; 18:13-14

[4] Romans 13:1-8

[5] Acts 5:22-32

[6] Kretzmann, P. E. (1921). Popular Commentary of the Bible (Vol. I). St. Louis, MO, USA: Concordia Publishing House.

Pro-Life, Pro-Gun, and Pro-Vocation

I like guns.

It’s not a big secret. As a police officer I spend a lot of time around guns. I’m a life member of the National Rifle Association. I’m an advocate of concealed and open carry. In fact, I carry a firearm on my person every day, both on and off duty. I’m a student of history and have a modest collection of odd and historic firearms. I’m a constitutional conservative who recognizes that Americans have a constitutionally protected individual right to keep and bear arms.

Reading the paper a couple weeks ago, I came across an opinion piece by Rob Schenck chastising Christians who are pro-gun and pro-life, and it brought up an issue that I have struggled with for a long time – self-defense. To summarize the opinion piece, the author cites Christ’s injunction to, “bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.” Mr. Schenck maintains that the Bible strictly limits the use of deadly force. He reminds Christians that we have an obligation to love everyone, even those who mean us harm.

The Christian gospel should quell our fears and remind us of our Christ-like obligation to love all people, even those who intend us harm. This generous view of the world calls us to demonstrate God's love toward others, regardless of who they are, where they come from or what religion they practice. Assuming a permanently defensive posture against others, especially when it includes a willingness to kill, is inimical to a life of faith (Schenck 2015).

I can’t say that I necessarily disagree with Mr. Schenck’s broader point. Christians are certainly called to love their neighbors as themselves. I believe that Mr. Schenck however, who states in the article that he is an Evangelical, jumps to a conclusion which cannot be reached, and on which the Biblical doctrine of vocation could possibly shed some light.

The question is, is there ever a time when a Christian may use deadly force to protect themselves, or others, from the violence that would be done to them by evil men?

Our gut reaction as Americans may be a resounding yes, but this attitude of self-preservation does not seem to reconcile with the “turn the other cheek” attitude Christians are allegedly supposed to exhibit at all times and in all situations. Several Biblical passages which deal with this issue come to mind.

You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you…Do not say, “I will do to him as he has done to me; I will pay the man back for what he has done…” See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand” (Matt. 5:38-42; Prov. 24:29; Deut. 32:39).

In these passages, and in many other places, Christians are told not to resist evil. In fact, St. Paul, quoting Proverbs, tells us to heap burning coals on the heads of our enemies by doing good to them.

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.”Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:14-21).

This would seem to bring the question to a close. We must consider, however, that God has ordered his creation and placed men into vocations so that this world can be governed. In fact, this is the purpose for which God has instituted government, as St. Paul describes in Romans 13.

In his explanation of the Fifth Commandment in the Small Catechism, Dr. Martin Luther explains what God requires of man when he commands, “You shall not murder.”

We should fear and love God so that we do not hurt or harm our neighbor in his body, but help and support him in every physical need (Concordia Publishing House 1991).

Indeed, speaking in terms of vocation, Dr. Luther certainly did not believe that Holy Scripture commanded the Christian to be a pacifist who refrained from violence of any kind. In his commentary on The Sermon on the Mount, Dr. Luther wrote the following:

You see, now we are talking about a Christian-in-relation: not about his being a Christian, but about this life and his obligation in it to some other person, whether under him or over him or even alongside him, like a lord or a lady, a wife or children or neighbors, whom he is obliged, if possible, to defend, guard, and protect. Here it would be a mistake to teach: “Turn the other cheek, and throw your cloak away with your coat.” That would be ridiculous, like the case of the crazy saint who let the lice nibble at him and refused to kill any of them on account of this text, maintaining that he had to suffer and could not resist evil (Luther, The Sermon on the Mount and the Magnificat 1999).

So, not only does the Christian have a duty not to harm his neighbor, he also has a duty to help and protect him in every bodily need.

A police officer, for example, serves his neighbor by serving in his vocation, by protecting life and property and keeping the peace. Sometimes this service may necessitate using deadly force. A person, however, does not simply hold one vocation. In addition to my vocation as a police officer, I am also a father, a son, and a citizen. Those vocations may also, at times, necessitate using deadly force. For example, a father, in fulfilling his vocation and obligation to protect his family, may be compelled to use deadly force. Dr. Luther, in his commentary on The Sermon on the Mount, continues:

Do you want to know what your duty is as a prince or a judge or a lord or a lady, with people under you? You do not have to ask Christ about your duty. Ask the imperial or the territorial law. It will soon tell you your duty toward your inferiors as their protector. It gives you both the power and the might to protect and to punish within the limits of your authority and commission, not as a Christian but as an imperial subject. What kind of crazy mother would it be who would refuse to defend and save her child from a dog or a wolf and who would say: “A Christian must not defend himself”? Should we not teach her a lesson with a good whipping and say: “Are you a mother? Then do your duty as a mother, as you are charged to do it. Christ did not abrogate this but rather confirmed it” (Luther, The Sermon on the Mount and the Magnificat 1999).

The laws of the state of Illinois confer upon the citizen the power to effect arrest and the right to use appropriate force in order to stop crime, just as it does for a Peace Officer[1]. Therefore, I would urge Mr. Schenck to consider that a citizen, acting in his vocation as such, is not committing sin if he lawfully owns or carries a gun for the purpose of lawful protection. He is simply acting according to the vocation of citizen into which God has placed him, under the stewardship of the government which God has ordained.

The implication of this view is, however, that while one may be justified in using force to protect his neighbor according to his vocation, he may not be so justified to protect himself. I suppose this “good citizen” argument might be extended to include the individual protecting himself from crime, but for me the jury is still out. It seems to me that, when I meet that robber or terrorist who wishes to do me harm, as an individual Christian I am bound to turn the other cheek. Luther seems to agree with this view.

We have now [with the first four commandments] finished teaching about both the spiritual and the temporal government, that is the divine and the parental authority and obedience. But now we go forth from our house among our neighbors to learn how we should live with one another, everyone himself toward his neighbor. Therefore, God and government are not included in this commandment. Nor is the power to kill taken away, which God and government have. To punish evildoers, God has delegated His authority to the government, not parents. In earlier times, as we read in Moses, parents were required to bring their own children to judgment and even to sentence them to death (Deut. 21:18-21). Therefore, what is forbidden in this commandment is forbidden to the individual in his relationship with anyone else, but not to the government (LC 1, 180-181) (McCain, et al. 2005).

Of course, there is a difference between punishing evil-doers and defending one’s self or one’s neighbor from harm. A police officer foiling an armed robbery is not punishing the perpetrator when he uses force to stop the crime and make an arrest. The punishment comes after the criminal is tried, found guilty, and sentenced by a judge. Similarly, when a citizen uses force likely to cause great bodily harm or death to stop the same armed robbery, he is not “punishing evil-doers” outside of the bounds of his vocation. Rather, he living up to his obligation to protect and defend his neighbor.

The problem with Mr. Schenck’s statement that one cannot be pro-gun and pro-life is that it is not accurate and causes the Christian the type of cognitive dissonance Mr. Schenck exhibits in his article when considered apart from the doctrine of vocation.

Works Cited

Concordia Publishing House. Luther's Small Catechism. Translated by Concordia Publishing House. Saint Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 1991.

Luther, Martin. "The Large Catechism." Chap. 1, 181 in The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, edited by T. G. Tappert. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Luther, Martin. The Sermon on the Mount and the Magnificat. Vol. 21. Edited by J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999.

Schenck, Rob. "Commentary: You can't be pro-life and pro-gun." The Chicago Tribune, December 30, 2015.

End Notes

[1] 720 ILCS 5.0/7-6 (2015): Private Person’s Use of Force in Making Arrest (Illinois Compiled Statutes).