Introduction and Background
Minneapolis, it turns out, is ground zero for lots of things. George Floyd lost his life there, victim of a drug overdose, and his death was falsely blamed on the officer who was restraining him. Subsequently, hundreds of buildings were burned in rage over that incident—all for the sake of George, not the police officer. Under intense pressure from the mob, that officer, Derek Chauvin, was unjustly convicted and is still incarcerated. Our generation for years has pretended to be vastly superior to the lynching culture of the early twentieth century South, but this superiority turns out to have been a flickering shadow of our own conceits.
In the meantime, there had been an ongoing and massive influx of Somalians into Minneapolis, worrisome to some and celebrated by many. That Somalian community made itself notorious by serving as the delivery platform for a significant number of fraudulent operators, who vacuumed up billions of dollars from the government by running day cares with no kids in them. That way reduces overhead. As the investigations into that are proceeding, it looks as though a lot of government officials are in legal trouble—either because they greased the skids for the fraud, or because they were too afraid of being called racist to say anything about it. And incidentally, this fraud investigation is revealing what a crackerjack vetting team the Harris campaign must have had. I mean, they landed on Tim Walz as candidate for veep. Jeepers.
In the meantime, Donald Trump was elected by the people of this country in order that he might take an aggressive approach to the deportations of illegals, and his fulfillment of that part of his platform has brought ICE to Minneapolis in force. Liberals there of course mobilized, harassing ICE, interfering with their work, and protesting. In the course of one of those protests, Renee Good attempted to run over an ICE agent with her car, and was fatally shot by him. The left has wanted to use this to the same incendiary effect as the death of George Floyd, but so far that has not been the case. There has been a lot of churn and controversy over it, but no massive rioting.
Two Sundays ago, Andy Naselli, a pastor in the Minneapolis area, offered up a public prayer on behalf of ICE, which excited some comment. In the context of an amalgam of Minnesota nice and the quasi-woke Reformed there, that prayer was heroic. Really good. And then last Sunday, as I think you may have heard, along with the rest of the world, the worship service of Cities Church was disrupted by outside agitators because, they said, someone who works for ICE is on their board of elders. That shameful display has gone around the world a few times, and continues to go around the world as I write these words.
Then there was this connection. One of the protesters at the church in Minneapolis—William Kelly—has also been at our Christ Church service in DC, haranguing members of our church there with vile language as they make their way inside to worship. Shameful behavior in Minneapolis and shameful behavior in DC. That’s one connection. But it turns out that we have two points of personal connection to all of this. Not just the protester, but Joe Rigney, a minister here at Christ Church, helped to plant Cities Church in Minneapolis and served there as a pastor for years, and he is now the Christ Church liaison to our DC service. Small world.
So this whole mess has become an international story. There is a lot of good commentary on many of the larger aspects of it, and I don’t have that much to add. The bottom line is that this kind of thing is not going to be settled by debate. It will only be settled if there are prosecutions and hard consequences in real time.
But one side aspect of it can be settled by debate. I want to spend the remainder of my time, Mr. Chairman, interacting with an article Russell Moore wrote about Romans 13 in the aftermath of Renee Good’s death. And so here we go.
A Second Introduction
A very interesting cherry on top of this milkshake was Russell Moore admonishing Christians who reflexively apply Romans 13 to occasions of state violence.
There were handful of striking things about Moore’s argument that stood out to me. Let’s consider them in turn.
What Are We Talking About?
The first issue is my befuddlement over who Moore is debating exactly, along with my follow-up question of why so much straw is sticking out of his opponent’s collar.
“What some Christians draw from this, then, is that whatever the state does in using lethal force . . . is morally legitimate and those who question it are wrong.”
Russell Moore, “Christians, Let’s Stop Abusing Romans 13”
I think it is fair to say that I don’t know any conservative Christians who assume that if lethal violence is involved, the state must be in the right—and they must be in the right according to Romans 13. I live just down the road a piece from Ruby Ridge. In situations like this one, Moore would be well-served if he could just cite someone who was arguing that point in that way, and interact with a specific person.
“Romans 13 is most often invoked not when the state is acting justly but when Christians feel the urge to quiet their consciences.”
Russell Moore, “Christians, Let’s Stop Abusing Romans 13”
Yeah, that really would be an abuse of Romans 13. But who exactly is doing that?
Didn’t We Just Do This?
The second thing of interest is that he did an entire piece on Romans 13 without once referring to the Great COVID Debacle. The entire American church was roiled with controversies that swirled around Romans 13—on issues like church closures, lock downs, masking mandates, vaccines and employment. And during that time, Russell Moore was a vigorous advocate of straight up the middle compliance. The center of resistance to this overreach by the state was in the conservative wing of evangelicalism. Instead of quarantining the sick, the overweening state wanted to quarantine the world, and all the healthy people in it. We were the ones arguing that Romans 13 does not mean abject and craven compliance, a position that Moore has just recently discovered. He has also apparently forgotten what he thought at the time about those people who anticipated his arguments by some years. We were the ones resisting government tyrannies—you know, protests, arrests, and court cases that continue to this day.
It was this issue that actually caused Russell Moore to lose a great deal of his credibility in evangelical circles. Before COVID, if the secular media wanted a comment from “the evangelicals,” Moore was one of the people they would call. After COVID, not really. Not so much.
And during COVID, the things that the non-compliant were resisting were alleged by us to have been more than a little dodgy. And now, years afterwards, it is turning out that, on point after point, the things that were required as mandatory were in fact dodgy. Just as an aside, have any of you heard anyone say, “Oh, how I regret not taking the vaccine”?
Now I understand that on this point, Moore could make a turnabout counterargument. I chided him for his strong advocacy of compliance during COVID, and his stout willingness to resist when it comes to the enforcement of immigration law. But could he not do the same? Chide me for my insistence on enforcing immigration law, but leading the way in resisting when it came to COVID measures? If it is inconsistent one way, how is it not inconsistent the other way?
The short answer is that the COVID restrictions were unbiblical, unconstitutional, and illegal. Border enforcement is not any of those. And this is where the debate actually should be joined—does the biblical virtue of hospitality require open borders, massive benefits to massive numbers of immigrants, birthright citizenship, and immunity for illegal entry? The answer is no. If an elder in the church is called to be hospitable (1 Tim. 3:2), and he is, does it follow that he needs to invite all the residents of all the homeless shelters in his city to come over for dinner that night, and to do so without telling his wife? One would think not.
Moore Tries On Christian Nationalism
The third thing is that—imagine my surprise—I agreed with much of what Moore said in this piece. I have used some of those same arguments myself. So what the heck is going on here? Am I becoming a liberal? (Okay, somebody should tell the teutonic-trolls to pipe down. Smarty, smarty, had a party, nobody came.)
Or is Russell Moore trying to become a Christian nationalist? He said:
“Romans 13 is about refusing to become what oppresses you, not about baptizing whatever the oppressor does.”
Russell Moore, “Christians, Let’s Stop Abusing Romans 13”
Amen. And Moore said this: “Romans 13 puts moral limits around what authorities can and cannot do.” This is exactly right. The apostle tells us that the state is God’s deacon (diakonos, twice in v. 4) and God’s servant or minister (leitourgos, v. 6). Now a servant is under authority, and in this case Paul argues that the magistrate is under the authority of God, tasked with rewarding the righteous and punishing the wrongdoer (vv. 3-4).
But here is where the pinch point comes. When a Christian challenges the state because of the state’s wrongdoing, what standard is the Christian using? Yes, you guessed it. The only standard a Christian can consistently use to define wrongdoing would be God’s standard. One of my favorite questions is coming, and you should brace yourselves for it. By what standard?
“That authority [Romans 13] exists for something; restraining wrongdoing, protecting the vulnerable.”
Russell Moore, “Christians, Let’s Stop Abusing Romans 13”
So the Christian is in possession of a standard of right and wrong. This standard is rooted in Scripture, and for a case in point, you can look at the phrase Moore just used—”protecting the vulnerable.” That is a Christian value. Not all worldviews share it. Not all religions value protection of the vulnerable in the same way, and some worldviews don’t value it at all. So why is Russell Moore trying to cram his biblical values down our throats? Why is he trying to privilege Christian values? I thought this was America!
Moving the Issue Out of the Combat Zone
The last thing is that Moore gravitated to the shooting of Renee Good, as though that awful episode were the nexus of the immigration/ICE/Romans 13 debate. But the enforcement of any law could lead to regrettable violence. Regrettable violence could occur at an ordinary traffic stop, and this tells us nothing one way or the other about whether we should comply the the law or not.
But here is the question as it should be framed. “Should the Romans 13 absolutists from COVID days be counseling parishioners who are here in America illegally to turn themselves in? Or to self-deport in an orderly fashion?” That is the question. Should a pastor with Russell Moore’s convictions help or not help an illegal parishioner who wants to avoid ICE. Leave the protests out of it. Leave any possible clashes out of it. It is a simple case of conscience and Romans 13. “Pastor, do I need to self-deport?” How would Russell Moore answer the question? How would he advise those pastors who still listen to him?
The most likely answer we would get is something like “you know, borders are simply a social construct. No person, created in the image of God, can ever truly be illegal . . .” I will ponder that for a moment, and then I will appear to change the subject . . . but not really.
Borders are just lines on a map? Greenland it is, then!