About a week ago, six protesters were arrested in Grand Rapids, Michigan while performing a rescue at an infanticide house (more commonly known as an abortion clinic). Although a rescue is an act of restraint, not violence, it is still very much illegal because it happens to block access to the building where children are carried “like lambs to the slaughter.”
Arrests were inevitable, and while these men are not currently being held, they are facing charges; so it’s very important that we all keep them on our Hebrews 13:3 list. For people all over the political spectrum, this is the kind of thing that makes hearts overflow; and because “from the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks,” another inevitable thing was lots and lots and lots of speaking. One of the protesters spoke the Gospel and their mission in a news interview:
“We’re just all Christians who decided we want to do what’s right and honor God. So, they decided to make sure that the doors were covered in the back, so that people couldn’t sneak in and do killing while we’re standing in the front.”
The chief of police spoke the words “we don’t write the law; we just enforce it,” as if he were the first to pretend that’s not worse. And of course, it didn’t take long for social media’s comments sections to claim their territory on the cloud.
In keeping with 1 John 3:13, it is not surprising that most of the world has nothing but hateful things to say about the rescuers; so I am not here to answer fools according to their folly, lest I become like them myself. But if I see a nominally pro-life Christian attempt to reprove the rescuers for what they did—albeit gently—I will answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happened in a YouTube comment. Let’s take a look.
“As a Christian, I understand and agree with their abortion beliefs. But, as a Christian, I also know that God’s law grants the power to kill to the government and we are commanded to obey their law as long as it doesn’t require us to sin. So while I am horrified the children are being killed, I know that the law has the right to kill them and it is neither our responsibility or right to stop them by force. Our cause must be fought in the heart, mind, and courts.”
Now on the surface, I do not blame anyone if their initial thought is this guy has lost his marbles, and I have lost my pearls if I have written a whole article about this comment. But hear me out. The comment is more relevant than you may think. You see, this guy is not just some radical odd man out. He’s just your average statist. Really. What makes his comment so conspicuous is the fact that he is openly closer to consistent than most people who try to reconcile Christianity with statism. And if there are any statist viewers right now who are up for a sword drill, I’ll beat you to you know what passage:
Romans 13:1-2
“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.”
No, don’t slap your Bible shut just yet. Continuing in verses 3-4:
“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.”
It is true that, in God’s sovereign will, even tyrants will ultimately work together for our good and His glory. But these celestial reformed doctrines of God’s sovereignty must not be conflated with the terms in which this passage is written. It is a passage about God’s revealed practical will. Now the author of this comment is by no means the only statist to try to bastardize Romans 13 into a doctrine of selective antinomianism. This is done all the time.
He is, however, one of the few to take that to its logical conclusion. And, in this case, that means insinuating that child murder must fall under God’s revealed will, so long as it is done by a ruler—because, after all, rulers are inherently servants of God, right? Rulers get a free pass to carry that title unconditionally, right? Well, if this is what the passage was actually saying, then yes, that would be the logical conclusion; and there would be no way around it.
But, as it turns out, this passage is not just calling all rulers “servants of God” just because they rule. They have to actually serve God. Every man has a function in God’s divine plan, but that does not make every man God’s servant. That would be reminiscent of hyper-calvinism. When the Scriptures speak of serving, it’s always in reference to who the server is striving to please. “No man can serve two masters.” So the question is: who does the magistrate serve?
“You will know them by their fruits.” If he makes a practice of sinning, he is of the devil; so to call him God’s servant would be in the same ballpark as the Pharisees saying that Jesus cast out demons by the prince of demons—and I trust we’re all aware of Jesus’s response to that. But now, all this begs the question: to whom does this apply?
Well, Paul simply uses the vague word “rulers” to make one concise, general statement before allowing the extensive list of qualifications to draw out his real points. So to pluck fragments from this passage, like “he does not bear the sword in vain” or “he is God’s minister to you” is to ignore both the theological and grammatical context.
But, make no mistake: when a ruler is disqualified, that does not give civilians a free pass either. It’s not a license to embrace rebellion. Nero, the man who happened to be the badge daddy at the time Romans 13 was written, was disqualified to the uttermost—yet this by no means undermines our broad Biblical duty to strive for peaceful, honorable, meek, patient, and sacrificial living among all. We are called to turn the other cheek no matter who slaps us—whether he be Nero, Will Smith, or anyone else. But this command to us as civilians does not validate the actions of aggressors.
In other words, I readily acknowledge the importance of applying Scripture to history—so much, in fact, that I’m urging us to do so indiscriminately. Either all of this passage applies to Nero, or none of it does. There is no in between. The passage plainly states that rulers are not a terror to good works, but to bad. Nero was the opposite. It says rulers give praise to those who do good work. Nero did the polar opposite. These are rigid qualifications, and no amount of eisegesis can reconcile them with Nero. Furthermore, there are other Scriptures we must heed before applying them to just anyone who scores the most brute power and starts barking orders.
Isaiah 5:20
“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”
Matthew 12:30
“He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.”
So, we know that there is no authority except from God; and we know that authority itself is an immaterial thing to be given or taken by God. But what happens if God sees fit to allow someone to occupy an office for which he is not Biblically qualified? Well, if an elder or a deacon disqualifies himself, he can simply be removed; but when rulers disqualify themselves, it’s often near impossible to remove them—on obvious account of that sword that they don’t bear in vain.
In many cases, the most Christ-like response to this will be to continue submitting even in the face of injustice. While self-defense is worlds apart from returning a slap on the cheek, it is often honorable to physically surrender even in the face of violence. But a man may only lay down his own life. Under no circumstances may he lay down the lives of women and children willfully. Jesus never said, “if someone takes the life of your son, let him have your daughter as well.” This is not what manly sacrifice looks like. What manly sacrifice looks like is for men to individually protect their families and to collectively protect the next generation of God’s image.
Proverbs 24:11-12
“Deliver those who are drawn toward death,
And hold back those stumbling to the slaughter.
If you say, ‘Surely we did not know this,’
Does not He who weighs the hearts consider it?
He who keeps your soul, does He not know it?
And will He not render to each man according to his deeds?”
Now, before I run too far with this, I should probably clarify that I’m not saying all men are called to do what those rescuers did last week. I’ve never done that. When Gideon was assembling his army against the Midianites, God sent thousands of men home. Fighting in that particular battle was not His calling for them. Not all men are called to fight abortion in the same way or with the same measure of risk, especially considering that men with families are foremostly responsible to be present as husbands and fathers. But by no stretch can this mean that these men were wrong to disobey because they hadn’t technically been commanded to sin.
No, the Bible doesn’t expressly command us to block the doors of infanticide houses. That is merely a method. I can already hear the naive cries of “so just find another method that’s legal!” Well, what happens when the tyranny in Grand Rapids escalates to the level of tyranny in Canada? If the rulers see that we’re complacent to let them dictate how we fulfill our Christian manly duties, then they’ll just outlaw all possible methods. So no more holding signs, no more offering adoption help, no more using the words “abortion” and “murder” in the same sentence. And guess what? None of these things are expressly commanded in Scripture either.
So, at what point do you draw your arbitrary line and say you’re being commanded to sin by being silent? In truth, you already sinned the very first time you compromised; and if you think you’ll ever draw any such line in the face of escalating persecution, you’re kidding yourself. You’ll continue to sleep on the cozy bed of your twisting of Romans 13, hogging all the covers.
This is why I said the guy is closer to a consistent Christian statist than most. He has by no means achieved the consistent reconciliation of Christianity with statism, “for this too is vanity and grasping for the wind.” If God gave the government the right to kill these children, then why is he horrified by it? Where’s the horror in people exercising their God-given rights?
If America decides the world is overpopulated and starts mandating abortions, will he take his wife to get one? Will he be horrified to do it, but at least take acceptance in knowing that he’s just “rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s?” Will he cower out of protecting his family, because it’s not his right or responsibility to do so? I don’t know the answer to these questions, and maybe I don’t want to. But, what I do know is that the Bible has given men a calling, and there is no room for the US of A or any other earthly institution to add stipulations to this.
The Creator of life has not surrendered children to the state for consumption; He has entrusted children to their parents for protection. These six men who were arrested will, no doubt, receive a great and special Heavenly reward for what they did. No matter how their court cases turn out here on earth, their courage before God and their example to others is already well established.
This comment we’ve examined, on the other hand, has—hopefully unwittingly—stripped men of all God made them to be; because without the responsibility to protect, men are unfit and incapacitated to be left with anything else. Its author seems to have taken up Paul on his suggestion in Galatians 5:12.