Jan 9, 20216 min read

A Laughable Coup Trumped by a Laughable Reaction

Updated: Feb 22, 2021

I must admit, the protestors storming the Capitol building armed with flags and cell phones I found to be mostly entertaining; even if, as some are reporting, there were Antifa plants instigating action. It was not an attempted coup; it was an act of civil disobedience for most involved. The Viking guy was particularly amusing; but not someone you’d want as the face of your movement.

Not to downplay any property damage and unnecessary injuries, but they were mostly peaceful even after they entered the Capital, except for some broken windows which they usually tell us is good for the economy (The Broken Window Fallacy, remember Bastiat?). Nancy Pelosi should be glad for an opportunity to stimulate the janitorial sector of the economy, paying to clean up the papers strewn through a couple of offices. There were a few injured when the crowds tried to juke past the officers holding the line. Tragically one unarmed lady (an Air force vet of 14 years) was prematurely shot (instead of detained) trying to jump through a window, as well as one Capitol police officer (a 12-year vet of the police as well as a military vet) who later died. Beside these unnecessary and horrible deaths, the crowds basically walked around with flags taking selfies until back up police drove the stragglers off the premises. (Update: Sadly, 3 other protestors apparently died as well.)

But if you listen to the emotionally charged narrative building headlines and propaganda arm (thank you Edward Bernays) of the deep state/corporate apparatus (mainstream media) you would have thought the Republic was on the brink of collapse. (Hitler never let a crisis go to waste. see here also) And yet in the face of it a host of brave Senators stood strong in their unwavering commitments to liberty (...yawn). And then our overlords holding high offices condemned violence in unison as grandstanding virtuosi (missing from actual rioting and looting all last year). It was called ‘a violent insurrection’ etcetera, as they mostly talked to police in the Capitol while touring the people’s building freely and taking selfies, from the videos I've seen. So, Congresspeople one after another denounced the episode in particular and violence in general without qualification. But the founding of the country was with an extreme amount of violence and the denial of Southern secession was likewise met with extreme violence. The presupposition they seem to be importing (is that you again Bernays?) is that there is never a time for violence and their authority is “never rightfully resistible”.

As citizens of the U.S. they cannot consistently make such claims. But their inconsistencies aren’t what I wanted to consider; hypocrisy is par for the course in D.C. Rather, as Christians I want to ask is there in Just War theory a flash point for a Christian to ‘take up arms’ or a “time to kill” (Ecc.3:3). We, thankfully have not had to think about this often, having police and military securing our life, liberty and property. But can a Christian be a policeman or soldier? John the Baptist didn’t see a conflict with a righteous man being a soldier. (Lk.3:14 Calvin quoting Augustine reflected “Those whom he orders to be contented with their pay he certainly does not forbid to serve.” Bk.4 Ch.20 Sec.12) Paul didn’t reject the legitimate role of the government to kill if he’d committed anything worthy of death. (Ac.25:11) The Apostles taught the role of the state is to punish evil as the bearers of the sword. (1 Pt.2:14, Rom.13:1-5), Paul said are they are ‘ministers of God’ and Peter said they are “sent by him”. We are instructed to pray for our civil leadership (1 Tim.2:1-3) and be subject to them (Tit.3:1-2). Unless you are arguing as a Passivist you have to acknowledge righteous men can serve in civil capacities. And in our (former) Constitutional Republic we can (or could) vote for our representatives.

If a Christian can enforce civil laws as a member of the “powers that be” (e.g. police or military) then he is functioning in his role as a civil delegate and not a Christian church officer. He may later in the day serve his local assembly as a pastor or teacher or deacon and not a delegate of the state. As a matter of principle these two realms of authority are opposites in their execution of power (Mt.20:25-28, Mk.10:42, Lk.22:25). But this isn’t overly complex, as that same man may operate in authority as the head of his home (Tit.2:5, Eph.5:22-26, 1 Tim.5:8) and not execute those duties in the same manner (like arrest and handcuff his kids for a 10-year prison term). Different things operate differently and we can do different things as the same people. When Jesus drove the thieves from the national temple with physical violence on two occasions, this was a civil act not to be repeated in the churches. (Jn.2:14-16, Mt.21:12-13) Just as corporal punishment may be asserted in the home and not in the churches. (Prv.13:24, 22:15, 23:13-14, 29:15, Matt. 18:15-17, 1 Cor.5) Can you imagine churches collecting offerings like the IRS collecting taxes?

As we have previously discussed the nature of government is rooted in the laws of morality placed in the hearts of men by God (Rom.2:14-15). Not by divine revelation and anointing by a prophet as we see in the theocratic Israel of Old Testament times (e.g. Jehu 2 Kin.9 ‘regime change’). We choose our delegated authority to enforce morality and protect life, liberty and property (not plunder it and use it to stay in power). This is the most rudimentary level of government, the delegating of authority through the vote (the consent of the governed), to authorize men to bear the sword against evil doers. So, when this is breached and usurpation of authority occurs, what is next? What alternative to tyranny is available? What is it that gentlemen wish?

What about “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism”? The right to abolish destructive government was the point of the 2nd Amendment. While Jesus instructed his disciples to arm themselves for self-defense (Lk.22:35-8) and not for a political revolution (i.e. collective self defense), Christians can serve in a civil capacity as a magistrate, soldier or policeman; they are ministers of God. Jesus didn’t come to establish a physical government (Jn.18:36) and so, there are no instructions for Christians regarding establishing one. Reasoning from the scriptures would be necessary for this state craft. Jesus did not prohibit his followers from engaging in the governments of this world either. But what if Christians are given an opportunity to "institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"? Can they avail themselves of the chance as the Pilgrims did?

Our founders asked “If it was possible for men, who exercise their reason to believe, that the divine Author of our existence intended a part of the human race to hold an absolute property in, and an unbounded power over others, marked out by his infinite goodness and wisdom, as the objects of a legal domination never rightfully resistible, however severe and oppressive, the inhabitants of these colonies might at least require from the parliament of Great-Britain some evidence, that this dreadful authority over them, has been granted to that body.” What are we to believe as those called upon to exercise our reason? (Heb.5:14, Ecc.1:13) What if “Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne.” Not as Christians exercising church authority or trying to establish a church state, but Christian legal citizens engaged in civil authority, what should we do? “Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?” Maybe we will at some point very soon have to think as Patrick Henry “What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” May God grant us wisdom and save us from cowardice.