I am writing this in response to this widely circulated Substack post that uses Scripture to interpret recent events in Minnesota. I am responding not because I enjoy public disagreement, but because the framing being offered is shaping how Christians understand authority, protest, and the use of force. When Scripture is invoked to shut down moral questions rather than illuminate them, it deserves careful and public examination. What follows is an attempt to speak plainly, biblically, and honestly about where I believe that framing goes wrong and why it matters for Christian discipleship.
During seminary, I heard a quote by St. Augustine that stuck with me:
"Justice being taken away, what are kingdoms but great robberies?" - St. Augustine, City of God
Over the past several weeks, I have been writing a multi-part series on Medium titled Following Christ When Scripture and Power Collide. The series grew out of a concern I share with many other Christians: the way Scripture is increasingly used to excuse cruelty, silence moral questions, and defend the use of state power without restraint.
The articles are not about partisan politics. They are about discipleship. They ask a simple question that is becoming harder for some Christians to answer honestly. What does it actually mean to follow Jesus when law, order, and human dignity come into conflict?
This post is a response to a pastoral statement about recent events in Minnesota. I am not responding to attack a person or a denomination. I am Lutheran, WELS, in case anyone is curious. I am responding to a pattern of reasoning that misuses Scripture, collapses important distinctions, and confuses obedience with moral silence.
For readers who want the fuller theological groundwork behind what follows, earlier parts of the series are linked where relevant.
One of the core problems with the argument being made is that it collapses several very different things together and treats them as if they are the same. Protest is treated as rebellion. Observation is treated as interference. Questioning the use of force is treated as lawlessness. Rioting is treated as the inevitable fruit of dissent.
Scripture does not make those moves.
Questioning the use of force, demanding accountability, and exercising constitutional rights are not rebellion. They are not riots. They are not lawlessness dressed up as love. They are part of living in a society that recognizes limits on power.
In Part 1 of my series, I argued that following Christ sometimes means refusing to bless authority when it contradicts the life and teaching of Jesus. That is not about disliking a policy. It is about refusing to confuse power with righteousness.
Romans 13 is repeatedly invoked as if it settles the matter. It does not.
Scripture calls Christians to respect governing authorities, but it does not declare every action taken by those authorities righteous by default. Authority in Scripture is always accountable to God’s standards. Justice, mercy, restraint, and the protection of the vulnerable are not optional additions. They are core biblical concerns.
In Part 2, I addressed this directly. Order without restraint is not biblical order. Power without accountability is not righteousness. Scripture never teaches that Christians must suspend moral judgment whenever the state acts.
Throughout Scripture, the prophets confronted kings. Jesus confronted religious and political power. The apostles accepted punishment without endorsing injustice. Respect for authority is not the same thing as declaring authority morally infallible.
Another major failure in the argument is the move from saying riots have occurred to claiming that anyone questioning enforcement is endorsing riots. That is simply not true.
Many Christians condemn destruction and violence while also questioning whether lethal force was justified and whether due process was respected. Those positions do not contradict each other.
In Part 3, I drew a clear line between violence that harms neighbors and dissent that challenges power. Scripture condemns the first. It does not forbid the second.
Calling peaceful protest or observation rebellion shuts down moral reasoning rather than engaging it.
Saying the law was being enforced does not answer whether force was proportional, whether escalation was avoidable, or whether rights were respected. Lawful authority still has limits.
Romans 13 speaks of the sword being used to punish wrongdoing. It does not say the sword may be used recklessly. It does not say the sword may be used without restraint. It does not say the sword may be used first and explained later.
In Part 4, I warned against baptizing harm with religious language. Scripture consistently condemns the use of God’s name to excuse injustice. That is what the prophets were sent to confront.
The most troubling move in the argument is the way moral concern is reframed as rebellion and compassion is treated as deception. That move does not protect the Gospel. It empties it.
Scripture does not teach that civil authority defines justice. God does. God commands justice, mercy, and humility. Following Christ means holding power accountable to those standards, not sanctifying every use of force because it comes from the state.
Christians are called to honor lawful authority when it acts justly. Christians are also commanded to defend the vulnerable and speak truth when authority causes harm. Silence in the face of injustice is not obedience. It is abdication.
This is not about blessing chaos or denying the rule of law. It is about refusing to excuse death, escalation, and rights violations by calling them order.
When Scripture is used to shut down questions about restraint, due process, and the sanctity of life, it is not being defended. It is being misapplied.
This moment should grieve us. But grief does not suspend moral responsibility.
Christians are not asked to choose between order and faithfulness. We are asked to follow Christ. Christ does not bless cruelty, excuse violence, or demand that we look away when power wounds instead of heals.
The question before us is not whether authority exists. It is whether we will apply God’s standards consistently, even when doing so is uncomfortable. That is the work of discipleship.
I am still working on Part 5. It should be published soon.
"The most troubling move in the argument is the way moral concern is reframed as rebellion and compassion is treated as deception. That move does not protect the Gospel. It empties it.
Scripture does not teach that civil authority defines justice. God does. "
Your whole comment is nuanced and clear. Thank you for sharing. Dig more on how God defines justice. This is something that we have language for as lutherans but haven't really dove into much. We love talking about how God puts people in authority over us. We even talk about how governments and societies should reflect God's will! (i.e. more recent discussions on Christian Nationalism) BUT rarely are those conversations coupled with steps for handling the use of power, the use of authority, and it's prevention or abuse. All of those are included in God's justice.
Jon, thank you. (Great name BTW!) I think you’ve put your finger on the exact gap I was circling in the earlier parts.
You’re right. As Lutherans, we are very good at articulating vocation, authority, and the goodness of order, but we are far less practiced at naming how power is meant to be exercised, restrained, and judged when it harms rather than serves. We talk often about God placing people in authority, but much less about how God defines justice, limits authority, and holds rulers accountable when that authority is abused. Yet all of that is clearly part of God’s justice.
That is actually why I kept the earlier parts focused on clearing ground rather than rushing to prescriptions. I wanted to show where Scripture was being misused before trying to say what Scripture positively requires.
The good news is that Part 5 is now finished, and it does exactly what you’re asking for. (It’s here on Substack as well as Medium.) It turns explicitly to Christ Himself. Not abstract principles, not slogans, but Jesus’ own pattern of authority, restraint, truth-telling, and refusal to legitimize violence even when it was legally justified. That’s where I finally try to answer the question, “If God defines justice, what does that look like when power is exercised in His name?”
I appreciate you naming this so clearly. You’re pushing the conversation deeper. And that’s exactly where it needs to go. ❤️
This post isn't about preventing lawlessness. It’s an opportunity to push secular conservative talking points on the laity. I visited my parents’ new church recently and it was depressing to see a congregation completely captured by this secular obsession.
Your reliance on Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants is telling. Luther wrote that as a political compromise to appease 16th-century German princes and ensure the Reformation's survival. Using it today to frame American civil discourse as "rebellion" is a choice to prioritize the regime over the Word.
You claim "to oppose law enforcement simply because one dislikes the law is not protest; it is rebellion." That is a political opinion disguised as theology. You are carrying water for those in government performing cruel and arguably illegal actions. We are a nation of laws and a Constitution, not an empire. In our system, legal opposition to the conduct of the regime is a fundamental right. It is not a sin against God.
To function rhetorically your whole post really presumes that there is a major problem of pastors encouraging riots. This idea is of course laughable. You mention being told these things are "loving" or "necessary," yet you offer no specifics. It’s a sneaky, formulated strawman designed to be impossible to rebut while making your partisan targets clear. You are attempting to turn any action taken in response to the recognition of the failures of law enforcement into "violent rebellion." You argue that "Christians should not be surprised when resistance to the sword results in the sword being used," but you stay silent when the regime itself acts lawlessly. You say "fellowship is preserved by truth," but you only apply that truth to one side. Pastors of all political stripes should leave their secular opinions at the door, but that should start with this drivel. This post is just another great example of the erosion of the Lutheran Church's spiritual foundation by secular forces.
Excellent article on the turmoil we're seeing in the world today and what should be our Christian response.
I am writing this in response to this widely circulated Substack post that uses Scripture to interpret recent events in Minnesota. I am responding not because I enjoy public disagreement, but because the framing being offered is shaping how Christians understand authority, protest, and the use of force. When Scripture is invoked to shut down moral questions rather than illuminate them, it deserves careful and public examination. What follows is an attempt to speak plainly, biblically, and honestly about where I believe that framing goes wrong and why it matters for Christian discipleship.
During seminary, I heard a quote by St. Augustine that stuck with me:
"Justice being taken away, what are kingdoms but great robberies?" - St. Augustine, City of God
Over the past several weeks, I have been writing a multi-part series on Medium titled Following Christ When Scripture and Power Collide. The series grew out of a concern I share with many other Christians: the way Scripture is increasingly used to excuse cruelty, silence moral questions, and defend the use of state power without restraint.
The articles are not about partisan politics. They are about discipleship. They ask a simple question that is becoming harder for some Christians to answer honestly. What does it actually mean to follow Jesus when law, order, and human dignity come into conflict?
This post is a response to a pastoral statement about recent events in Minnesota. I am not responding to attack a person or a denomination. I am Lutheran, WELS, in case anyone is curious. I am responding to a pattern of reasoning that misuses Scripture, collapses important distinctions, and confuses obedience with moral silence.
For readers who want the fuller theological groundwork behind what follows, earlier parts of the series are linked where relevant.
One of the core problems with the argument being made is that it collapses several very different things together and treats them as if they are the same. Protest is treated as rebellion. Observation is treated as interference. Questioning the use of force is treated as lawlessness. Rioting is treated as the inevitable fruit of dissent.
Scripture does not make those moves.
Questioning the use of force, demanding accountability, and exercising constitutional rights are not rebellion. They are not riots. They are not lawlessness dressed up as love. They are part of living in a society that recognizes limits on power.
In Part 1 of my series, I argued that following Christ sometimes means refusing to bless authority when it contradicts the life and teaching of Jesus. That is not about disliking a policy. It is about refusing to confuse power with righteousness.
https://medium.com/@hexbus/following-christ-when-scripture-and-power-collide-f945e823eb0b
Romans 13 is repeatedly invoked as if it settles the matter. It does not.
Scripture calls Christians to respect governing authorities, but it does not declare every action taken by those authorities righteous by default. Authority in Scripture is always accountable to God’s standards. Justice, mercy, restraint, and the protection of the vulnerable are not optional additions. They are core biblical concerns.
In Part 2, I addressed this directly. Order without restraint is not biblical order. Power without accountability is not righteousness. Scripture never teaches that Christians must suspend moral judgment whenever the state acts.
https://medium.com/@hexbus/following-christ-when-scripture-and-power-collide-d68fe0f8e4e6
Throughout Scripture, the prophets confronted kings. Jesus confronted religious and political power. The apostles accepted punishment without endorsing injustice. Respect for authority is not the same thing as declaring authority morally infallible.
Another major failure in the argument is the move from saying riots have occurred to claiming that anyone questioning enforcement is endorsing riots. That is simply not true.
Many Christians condemn destruction and violence while also questioning whether lethal force was justified and whether due process was respected. Those positions do not contradict each other.
In Part 3, I drew a clear line between violence that harms neighbors and dissent that challenges power. Scripture condemns the first. It does not forbid the second.
https://medium.com/@hexbus/following-christ-when-scripture-and-power-collide-4b03257a84aa
Calling peaceful protest or observation rebellion shuts down moral reasoning rather than engaging it.
Saying the law was being enforced does not answer whether force was proportional, whether escalation was avoidable, or whether rights were respected. Lawful authority still has limits.
Romans 13 speaks of the sword being used to punish wrongdoing. It does not say the sword may be used recklessly. It does not say the sword may be used without restraint. It does not say the sword may be used first and explained later.
In Part 4, I warned against baptizing harm with religious language. Scripture consistently condemns the use of God’s name to excuse injustice. That is what the prophets were sent to confront.
https://medium.com/@hexbus/following-christ-when-scripture-and-power-collide-e7923d78ddf8
The most troubling move in the argument is the way moral concern is reframed as rebellion and compassion is treated as deception. That move does not protect the Gospel. It empties it.
Scripture does not teach that civil authority defines justice. God does. God commands justice, mercy, and humility. Following Christ means holding power accountable to those standards, not sanctifying every use of force because it comes from the state.
Christians are called to honor lawful authority when it acts justly. Christians are also commanded to defend the vulnerable and speak truth when authority causes harm. Silence in the face of injustice is not obedience. It is abdication.
This is not about blessing chaos or denying the rule of law. It is about refusing to excuse death, escalation, and rights violations by calling them order.
When Scripture is used to shut down questions about restraint, due process, and the sanctity of life, it is not being defended. It is being misapplied.
This moment should grieve us. But grief does not suspend moral responsibility.
Christians are not asked to choose between order and faithfulness. We are asked to follow Christ. Christ does not bless cruelty, excuse violence, or demand that we look away when power wounds instead of heals.
The question before us is not whether authority exists. It is whether we will apply God’s standards consistently, even when doing so is uncomfortable. That is the work of discipleship.
I am still working on Part 5. It should be published soon.
"The most troubling move in the argument is the way moral concern is reframed as rebellion and compassion is treated as deception. That move does not protect the Gospel. It empties it.
Scripture does not teach that civil authority defines justice. God does. "
Your whole comment is nuanced and clear. Thank you for sharing. Dig more on how God defines justice. This is something that we have language for as lutherans but haven't really dove into much. We love talking about how God puts people in authority over us. We even talk about how governments and societies should reflect God's will! (i.e. more recent discussions on Christian Nationalism) BUT rarely are those conversations coupled with steps for handling the use of power, the use of authority, and it's prevention or abuse. All of those are included in God's justice.
Jon, thank you. (Great name BTW!) I think you’ve put your finger on the exact gap I was circling in the earlier parts.
You’re right. As Lutherans, we are very good at articulating vocation, authority, and the goodness of order, but we are far less practiced at naming how power is meant to be exercised, restrained, and judged when it harms rather than serves. We talk often about God placing people in authority, but much less about how God defines justice, limits authority, and holds rulers accountable when that authority is abused. Yet all of that is clearly part of God’s justice.
That is actually why I kept the earlier parts focused on clearing ground rather than rushing to prescriptions. I wanted to show where Scripture was being misused before trying to say what Scripture positively requires.
The good news is that Part 5 is now finished, and it does exactly what you’re asking for. (It’s here on Substack as well as Medium.) It turns explicitly to Christ Himself. Not abstract principles, not slogans, but Jesus’ own pattern of authority, restraint, truth-telling, and refusal to legitimize violence even when it was legally justified. That’s where I finally try to answer the question, “If God defines justice, what does that look like when power is exercised in His name?”
I appreciate you naming this so clearly. You’re pushing the conversation deeper. And that’s exactly where it needs to go. ❤️
This post isn't about preventing lawlessness. It’s an opportunity to push secular conservative talking points on the laity. I visited my parents’ new church recently and it was depressing to see a congregation completely captured by this secular obsession.
Your reliance on Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants is telling. Luther wrote that as a political compromise to appease 16th-century German princes and ensure the Reformation's survival. Using it today to frame American civil discourse as "rebellion" is a choice to prioritize the regime over the Word.
You claim "to oppose law enforcement simply because one dislikes the law is not protest; it is rebellion." That is a political opinion disguised as theology. You are carrying water for those in government performing cruel and arguably illegal actions. We are a nation of laws and a Constitution, not an empire. In our system, legal opposition to the conduct of the regime is a fundamental right. It is not a sin against God.
To function rhetorically your whole post really presumes that there is a major problem of pastors encouraging riots. This idea is of course laughable. You mention being told these things are "loving" or "necessary," yet you offer no specifics. It’s a sneaky, formulated strawman designed to be impossible to rebut while making your partisan targets clear. You are attempting to turn any action taken in response to the recognition of the failures of law enforcement into "violent rebellion." You argue that "Christians should not be surprised when resistance to the sword results in the sword being used," but you stay silent when the regime itself acts lawlessly. You say "fellowship is preserved by truth," but you only apply that truth to one side. Pastors of all political stripes should leave their secular opinions at the door, but that should start with this drivel. This post is just another great example of the erosion of the Lutheran Church's spiritual foundation by secular forces.