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. ###

Slavery in the Bible

In a fortune cookie I once read what was purported to be a Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times. In these current interesting times, everything one says or does, no matter how innocent the circumstances, seems to cause offense. Particularly, everything the Christian says or does; particularly on social media.

A friend of mine at work came to me seeking some advice after a nasty exchange on Facebook with one of his militant atheist friends. My friend, who is a Christian, but could not be considered a “Bible-thumper” by any stretch of the imagination, had posted a rather popular meme on his Facebook page. The meme elicited such a vigorous response in the form of comments attempting to “refute” Christianity that my friend was confused and troubled. 

The meme (pictured above) depicts the thin blue line, and a Bible verse. The thin blue line is a symbol used by law enforcement around the world to commemorate fallen law enforcement officers and to symbolize the relationship of law enforcement in the community as the protectors of fellow civilians from criminal elements. The Bible verse was Romans 13:4, “…for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.”

Anti-police sentiment in today’s political climate is hardly surprising, especially to most police officers. The comment which bothered my friend the most, however, was one which misused another verse of Scripture:

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly (Leviticus 25:44-46).

The commenter went on to say how despicable it was for the Bible to advocate slavery, to instruct God’s Chosen People to oppress their neighbors, and that we certainly shouldn’t heed anything it has to say because we have evolved to become more enlightened. 

My friend was unaware of such a verse in the Bible, and did not know how to respond. He came and asked me what I would say to his friend. Well, here goes…

First (addressing my Christian friend), when speaking with people such as this, we must always remember that the sinful mind in hostile to God, and it cannot submit to God. No amount of clever debating will ever reason anyone into the faith. The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. That being said, St. Peter instructs us to always be ready to make a defense to anyone who asks from us a reason for our hope.

That being said (addressing the militant atheist), slavery is absolutely in the Bible. There is also murder, adultery, homosexuality, incest, theft, war, lying, and all manner of other evil described in the Bible. Just as no sane person who has a command of the English language would try to make the case that the Bible supports any of these other evils (let’s call them sins, in keeping with how the Bible refers to them), no one who has seriously studied the Bible would ever try to make that case regarding slavery.

Slavery in the Bible is something completely different than the slavery a 21st Century American thinks of when they hear the word. We have images of oppressed blacks being hunted and captured like animals, transported against their will to work on large cotton plantations in the antebellum south. According to Lenny Esposito, Christian apologist, president, and founder of Come Reason Ministries, most slave situations were not primarily due to a person being taken against his will, but because poor people either sold themselves or their children into slavery.

Slavery was designed to pay a debt to a debtor, and once the debt was paid, the person was free. A slave could buy his own freedom from the profits of his selling his property. It is noteworthy that many people became bond-slaves (pledged to remain in his master's household for life) because their situation was better as a slave than as a free person. We sometimes assume a modern frame of reference when we talk about these things, but one must remember that life was extremely hard during these times, and to be free meant you had no guarantees that you would have enough food to eat or even a decent house to shelter your family. Add to that taxes from the ruling governments, no protection from raiding parties or foreign invaders and the expense of buying tools to accomplish tasks and you can see how being part of a larger organization could be inviting. You would share in the collective efforts of many people and have access to the resources of a rich master - much the same way the feudal serf system was constructed in the Middle Ages (Esposito n.d.).

In fact, some theologians, such as John Nordling, suggest that slavery in antiquity, at least during New Testament times, may have been viewed by society as a morally ambiguous institution. Nordling goes on to make a connection between the New Testament type of slavery and the Christian doctrine of vocation.

Usually emphasized are certain undeniably negative aspects of slavery to which slaves were subject, such as violence and sexual exploitation. Although one may not dispute these findings, I find problematic the idea that gratuitous violence, disgrace, and degradation were endemic to ancient slavery as such. That opinion cannot abide the possibility that slavery—at other times and amid other peoples—may have existed far differently than it did among Americans in the antebellum South, for example. The first Christians offer a case in point: for them, slavery was arguably a morally ambiguous institution. One might say that slavery for them was neither completely good nor uniformly bad but simply the place where untold numbers of Christians demonstrated their faith in Christ by engaging in service to the neighbor. If this is approximately the role that slavery played among the first Christians, then one could reasonably argue that biblical slavery remains pertinent for Christians still today and so should be studied for its applicability to actually being a Christian in concrete situations (Nordling 2009).

19th Century American slavery accounted for the slave as property to be exploited by the owner for his profit, without any further regard to the slave than one would give to a valuable piece of farm equipment or farm animal. This debate regarding whether or not slaves should be counted as persons or property was one which was argued from before the beginning of the United States, and was immortalized in the US Constitution by the famous Three-Fifths Compromise. In somewhat of an ironic twist, southern slave states wished to have slaves counted as person when determining a state’s population for representation in the House of Representatives and for taxation purposes. Northern free states, in an effort to limit the power of the slave states, argued that slaves should not be counted as persons. The compromise counted slaves as three-fifths of a person. This insured that the slave states would not have overwhelming representation in the House, and they therefore could not block anti-slavery efforts. In the Bible, however, there is no such debate. A survey of the laws of the Bible shows that they guard the rights of each individual and his family (Packer and Tenney 1980).

Each slave kept his dignity as a human being. No Israelite could be forced into slavery. Even if he signed a contract to become another man’s servant, God’s Law cancelled the contract at the end of 7 years (Exodus 21:2-6). A slave became a member of his owner’s family. He enjoyed the rights of any other family member (except the right of inheritance, of course). If the slave was a foreigner, his owner could circumcise him and invite him to worship with other Jews (Exodus 12:44; Deuteronomy 12:18; 16:10-11)…Even though the Bible allowed slavery, its regulations reminded the Israelites that every person was created in the image of God – including the slave (Packer and Tenney 1980).

In fact, the Bible tells us that we are all slaves. Mankind, since the Fall, is in bondage to sin. What’s more, we are bound to self-centeredness, doomed to death, and blind to our slavery (Engelbrecht 2009). We are only set free from our slavery to sin and death by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. 

What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification. For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:15-23).

Americans can be fiercely independent, and we prize our rights. Essentially, however, we are all slaves. Either we are slaves to sin, death and the Devil, or slaves to righteousness. Those of us who are slaves to righteousness are called to be slaves to our fellow men, serving them through our vocations. The editors of the Lutheran Study Bible put it this way:

Although many people consider freedom to be the ultimate human right, no one is truly free spiritually. We were slaves to sin and bound to death. Knowing this, Jesus came to serve us by giving His life on the cross and rising for us. Freed from sin, we can now serve God. Only when we are “slaves” to God will we have freedom to be the people he created us to be (Engelbrecht 2009).

Finally, race had very little to do with slavery of the type during Greco-Roman times. The type of slavery chronicled in the Bible has great application for us today to show us how we are to relate to our bosses and fellow men as we serve them in our vocations. Substitute “employees” and “bosses” for the Greek words for “slaves” and “masters” respectively, and there remains still today essentially the same relationship as obtained long ago in the assemblies of the New Testament[1] (Engelbrecht 2009).

Works Cited

Engelbrecht, Rev. Edward A., ed. The Lutheran Study Bible. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2009.

Esposito, Lenny. "Does the Bible Aprove of Slavery?" Come Reason Ministries. http://www.comereason.org/slavery-in-the-bible.asp (accessed March 12, 2016).

Nordling, John G. "A More Positive View of Slavery: Establishing Servile Identity in the Christian Assemblies." Bulletin for Biblical Research, 2009: 63-84.

Packer, J. I., and M. C. Tenney, . Illustrated Manners and Customs of the Bible. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1980.

End Notes

[1] John G. Nordling, Philemon, CC (St. Louis: Concordia, 2004), 43, 44, 59, 69-70, 138.

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).