Tag Archives: Romans 13

Uncategorized

Documentation On John Macarthur

The bad thing about how the internet works is people can just take things down and break links, so many of the links on this site are just not viewable anymore, and even I don’t know what they were in reference to 100% of the time. I posted this video about John Macarthur’s response to Operation Rescue in the 1980s. One of the links went to an LA Times article, and the link changed. I want to post the article here for safe keeping. It will be easy to find on their website by searching any of the longer phrases.

Here is the video I made, and below that is the text of the LA Times article:

ABORTION PROTESTS IN THE SOUTHLAND : Clerics’ Views Differ Over Militant Action

BY RUSSELL CHANDLER AND JOHN DARTMARCH 25, 1989 12 AM PTTIMES RELIGION WRITERS

The militant Operation Rescue anti-abortion movement has divided the ranks of Southern California Christians and stirred moderate opposition from pro-choice clergy.

But the vast majority of religious leaders–already immersed in Holy Week activities–stayed on the sidelines, in part because of disagreement over the protesters’ tactics of civil disobedience and fundamentalist rhetoric.

Devout Roman Catholics on both sides of the emotionally charged abortion protest paraded, prayed and held signs with opposing messages Friday outside a Long Beach family planning clinic targeted by Operation Rescue.

“I’m not pro-abortion, I’m pro-choice,” declared Armida Brashears, 54, of Huntington Beach, a Catholic mother of three and a member of the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights. Brashears was accompanied by her placard-carrying mother, 77, “a pro-choice Catholic who goes to church religiously every week,” in the words of her daughter.

But also marching back and forth in front of the clinic was Maria Famolaro, 15, of Cypress, who prayed loudly and earnestly while fingering her rosary.

“We are praying for the people so they will understand abortion is killing those who can’t speak for themselves,” she said.

Few Catholic priests apparently took part in the demonstrations, and Los Angeles Archbishop Roger M. Mahony extended only lukewarm support to Operation Rescue, giving its goals his “blessing” but questioning the effectiveness of its methods.

Norbertine Father Leo John Celano of St. Michael’s Abbey in the Diocese of Orange and a member of the Operation Rescue steering committee said he believed that more Catholic priests did not join him in Long Beach Friday because they are “the least available” just before Easter.

Clergy leadership in Operation Rescue, both nationally and in Southern California, is largely made up of theologically conservative Protestants.

The Rev. Randy Adler, 43, pastor of the nondenominational Stone Mountain Church in Laguna Hills, stressed God’s judgment upon a disobedient nation–a theme heard often in fundamentalist and charismatic church groups.

“The babies are secondary,” Adler, who was arrested during Thursday’s Operation Rescue sit-in in Cypress, said in a brief interview Friday.

“God has always judged nations that have destroyed classes of people. . . . (Abortionists) are brutally murdering the defenseless and innocent. . . . We’ve got their blood on our hands.”

But not all conservative Protestants agree with that interpretation of Scripture.

Grace Community Church in Panorama City, whose senior pastor, John MacArthur, is influential among evangelicals and fundamentalists, explained its opposition to Operation Rescue and civil disobedience in general in an article distributed to its nearly 10,000 churchgoers.

The statement noted that no government authority is requiring abortions to be performed and that the Apostle Paul said that civil law must be obeyed.

While opposing all forms of abortion, MacArthur’s church facetiously chided Operation Rescue for not preventing gays from going into bathhouses, parents from abusing children or otherwise stepping into other situations where “any of God’s laws (are) being broken.”

“The church has never been called to prevent sin by force or intrusion but to proclaim the Gospel to sinners,” the church statement said.

Operation Rescue’s approach provoked opposite responses from two popular Southern California evangelical talk-show hosts.

Rich Buhler of KBRT participated in Friday’s Long Beach demonstration and said he saw nothing wrong with Rescue’s civil disobedience.

“If we really believe it’s a human life in the womb, then we have to do more than print pamphlets and march in front of clinics,” he said.

However, KKLA’s John Stewart said in an interview he remains convinced that day-to-day “sidewalk counseling” by anti-abortion workers outside clinics is much more effective than the dramatic attempts to close down clinics for a day or two.

“God bless the people putting themselves on the line, but this seems almost like a frustrated reaction to the fact that abortion laws have not changed,” Stewart said.

Meanwhile, in a Friday morning news conference at Hollywood United Methodist Church, several pro-choice religious leaders emphasized that religious people within all denominations have differing views on abortion.

“But we disagree in a friendly way . . . rather than this circus attitude that Operation Rescue has brought to Los Angeles,” said the Rev. Ignacio Castuera, pastor of the Hollywood church.

Two Reform Jewish rabbis and Lisa Desposito, the six-months-pregnant state director of Catholics for Free Choice, challenged the tactics of Operation Rescue and defended the “choice” stance on abortion as morally justified.

Judaism has always recognized that when pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, an abortion is permissible, but rabbinical opinion differs on other difficulties surrounding giving birth, said Rabbi Janet Marder, assistant regional director for Reform Jewish congregations in Southern California.

Referring to the protesters, Desposito said: “I don’t see Martin Luther Kings. . . . I see bigots, moral absolutists.”

The Rev. E .V. Hill of Mt. Zion Missionary Baptist Church in Los Angeles disagreed. In a telephone interview, the pastor said there is a valid comparison between the Rescue operation and the arrest-drawing civil rights movement led by King.

However, Hill and most other prominent Southern California ministers have neither been involved in Operation Rescue nor issued public statements about it.

But on Good Friday, some clergy who did take a stand appealed to the scriptural model of Jesus for support.

“We would honor (Jesus) most this day by following his example,” said the Rev. Martha Siegel, who chairs the Los Angeles Episcopal Diocese Commission on Theology and Human Sexuality.

“In this holy season, we remember Jesus Christ, who did not coerce belief or intimidate people into improper behavior but drew them through his example of self-giving love,” Siegel said at the Hollywood news conference.

And in the crowd Friday, the Rev. Dusty Pruett, 42, pastor of the homosexual-oriented Metropolitan Community Church in Long Beach, declared:

“I think Jesus would be here for women holding up a sign saying, ‘I’m for pro-choice.’ He had a heart for the oppressed.”

The Rev. Joseph Foreman, 34, of the Presbyterian Church in America and national field director of Operation Rescue, also thought that Christ would have been in Long Beach.

“This is Good Friday, when Jesus led the first ‘rescue,’ ” he said, referring to the Christian belief that Jesus saved humanity from sin by his death on the cross.

At least one banner-carrying demonstrator Friday thought the uproar over abortion was beside the point. Premarital sex, insisted Stephen Christian of Los Angeles, is the culprit making abortions necessary.

Abolish The Police, Christianity

Thank God for Police Body Cameras and the Cameras In Our Pockets

A Christian, cop friend of mine posted this:

You may remember Rodney King. He was badly beaten by a few cops, whose trial was moved from LA and a jury of Rodney’s peers to Simi Valley, which is about 90% white. The jury found the cops not guilty, and that sparked the LA riots in 1992. Rodney’s beating was video taped from afar by a guy with a big VHS video camera. If it weren’t for that guy’s video, no one would have ever known about those evil cops.

Today, a lot of cops wear a body camera, and people have video cameras in their pockets, and carry them everywhere. It has led to hundreds of cops being exposed as evil, crooked, power-tripping, dirt bags. However, just as with Rodney King, prosecutors (who are on the same side as the cops) manage to get cops off for the crimes they commit, even when there is video.

For example, several cops have been caught planting drugs by their body cam.  Cop apologists say that is the 1% of bad cops they’re talking about. I have a couple of questions about that. Did the police departments in these cases volunteer this video to the defense or the media? Wouldn’t the real measure of the effectiveness of body cams be the rate at which the “good” cops voluntarily use the footage to pursue justice against cops who do bad things? How often, when a cop sees another cop doing something wrong has the good cop requested the footage or taken his own footage of the incident and sought justice for the wrongdoing, or even made an arrest? Are the relatively small proportion of body cams catching bad cops due to defendants, prosecutors or media requesting footage? How hard is it for people to get the footage of any given incident, and are we sure the footage isn’t doctored?

I have no doubt that cops love body cams when they’re falsely accused, and they spread the footage far and wide. I also have no doubt that people have often falsely accused them, and “good” cops ought to love body cams.

All of that is interesting, but the big question this meme raises is: By what standard do we measure “good”? Greg Bahnsen wrote books on that topic, one of which is titled “By What Standard?” I vehemently reject that the standard for what makes a good cop can be found in man’s law. A cop that goes through his career having never abused any citizens, but strictly enforcing unjust laws is not a good cop. The standard for goodness must come from Scripture. God owns the terms good, bad, evil, wicked, righteous and just. Those are terms only he can define.

So what is the biblical definition of a good cop? First of all, socialist-funded security services wouldn’t be permitted in Scripture. Second, individuals having executive power to arrest people on the spot is also biblically prohibited. Third, forgetting the first two issues, the definition for good government would come from Romans 13 (among other places). That chapter teaches that rulers are supposed to be God’s servants to carry out His wrath against evildoers. Every level of U.S. government is prohibited from seeking to be a servant of the God of the Bible. It is unconstitutional.

Did you catch that? It is unconstitutional for our government to be good by God’s definition. There are no good cops, judges, street sweepers, TSA agents, bureaucrats, etc., unless they are somehow sabotaging the system, disobeying orders or refusing to do the sinful things they may be asked to do.

So, body cams have shown that there are plenty of bad cops. And for a Christian to post this meme only goes to show the sad state of the American church.

Body cams are great, because even though they may not be effective all the time, and may be tampered with, they have exposed many dirty cops. I would also think that police would be less likely to abuse people with their body cams on. Ultimately, the only thing that will improve police behavior is if they’re prosecuted and treated under the same law as everyone else. Having cops commit a crime on body cam and then having the prosecutor not prosecute or throw the case is useless.

 

 

 

Abolish The Police, Police Abuse, Power Trip

Biblical Illeteracy

A knowledgeable Christian cop posted this:

I’ve discussed the general error of this meme before, but I ran across it again, and thought I would point out another error it puts forth.

When discussing government, many Christians will quote Romans 13 to you as if that is an argument in itself. Romans 13 defines the purpose of government. Biblical government has one purpose and that is to punish criminals. It’s not the government’s job to protect anyone.

For a knowledgeable Christian to espouse an unbiblical purpose for government shows the level of knowledge among American Christians.

Abolish The Police, Christianity, Police Abuse, Power Trip, Theonomy

Romans 13 Is So Misunderstood

Many Christians seem to take a blind obedience interpretation of Romans 13, but in actuality, it is dynamite laid at the foundation of tyrannical government. It says if you do good, you will have nothing to worry about from the civil magistrates, because they are God’s servants to carry out God’s wrath. Who defines good and evil? It’s saying if you follow God’s law, you won’t have any problems. And that the government’s job is to punish wrongdoers. The Supreme Court doesn’t define who the wrongdoers are. Government by God’s definition is to punish criminals as defined by God’s law.

And Romans 13 is also saying that punishing criminals is their ONLY job. It’s not their job to issue currency, build roads, provide welfare, educate children or even protect life and property. To believe that the government ought to do anything other than punish criminals is to have a misunderstanding of Scripture.

Taxation, Theonomy

What Belongs To Caesar?

So many Christians quote the passage below (Mark 12:13-17) and say Jesus was teaching that you have to pay taxes, and that taxation is valid, because Jesus even gave his blessing here to Rome’s taxation. But is that really what He was saying?

Paying Taxes to Caesar

13 And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, totrap him in his talk. 14 And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone’s opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances,[c] but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to paytaxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?” 15 But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius[d] and let me look at it.” 16 And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar’s.” 17 Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him.

Rome’s occupation of Israel was God’s judgment on them, along with this tax. Additionally, the individuals attempting to trap Jesus were in rebellion to Christ, they were carrying Roman coins with blasphemous sayings on them into the temple. They were deserving of God’s judgment. I don’t think God’s use of Caesar to judge Israel is something that should be taken to legitimize such taxation or even a less brutal form of taxation. It certainly can’t be taken to mean that taxation by threat of violence is something that ought to be desired.

Jesus telling these individuals that they ought to pay the tax is not the same as saying that this particular tax is righteous. And Jesus wasn’t saying that future governments can implement whatever tax they might dream up. He just didn’t even speak on that, because He wasn’t addressing Caesar, but the taxpayers. When Jesus said they they were to render unto God the things that are God’s, He would also have told Caesar that he needs to render unto God the things that are God’s. It may be Caesar’s image on the coin, but God owns everything.

You see this scenario play out in the book of Philemon where Paul sends the slave Onesimus back to Philemon, his slave owner. This isn’t the Lord blessing the institution of Roman-style slavery or human ownership. It is taking things one step at a time, knowing that the gospel applied to culture will kill slavery eventually. It did destroy slavery in Rome, and it will destroy unjust taxation someday.

For a much more thorough examination of this passage, from someone much smarter than me, check out this article.

Abolish The Police, Gospel, Power Trip, Resistance to Tyranny is Obedience to God

Twisting Romans 13 Has Consequences

This is a video of the unjust arrest of Tatsuo Akamine in February 2015 in Torrance California. Seeing the arrest is shocking. What is even more shocking is the warped commentary on this video from Tony Miano, which you can read in full here. Tony is a retired LA Sheriff’s deputy and a street preacher. Brevity is not the soul of wit in Tony’s world, so here are the highlights of his article along with my own comments.

Tony says,

“The moment Tatsuo refused to show his identification to the officer, he was subject to arrest. The officer was not required to ask Tatsuo more than once for his identification. The officer was under no obligation whatsoever to negotiate with Tatsuo.”

Apparently that’s the garbage that police are taught, and it appears that Tony never thought to ask whether it’s biblical or not. If an officer walks up to someone, he can make up something about disturbing the peace (which Tony later acknowledges is well-known as a catch-all accusation) and then the cop’s victim is “lawfully” (U.S. law–not God’s law) subject to all kinds of arbitrary orders and searches.

I have a question: What does Tatsuo’s name and address have to do with whether he was disturbing the peace?

As far as Tony is concerned, there is no room for disobeying a man-god wearing a badge. You must submit, regardless of whether the accusations have any basis in reality.

After this, the officer says that Tatsuo isn’t under arrest, but he wants to search him for weapons.

Tony says,

“The moment Tatsuo refused to comply with the officer’s lawful orders to turn around and place his hands over his head…he was subject to arrest. The officer, at that moment, could use whatever amount of force he deemed both reasonable and necessary to overcome Tatsuo’s resistance.”

We’ve seen people murdered at the hands of these cops who use reasonable and necessary force. Of course, when I say murdered, I’m referring to murder under God’s definition, not man’s. The man-gods who murdered Eric Garner were found not guilty of murder by man’s definition, but they will die like men and stand before the Judge of the earth (Psalm 82).

Tony says,

“The way Tatsuo locked up his body and clenched his hands together, which are behaviors that are obvious to even the untrained eye watching the video, were aggressive acts, which could lead a reasonable officer to believe a physical altercation was imminent.”

To Tony, it’s obvious that Tatsuo resisting a cop having him put his hands over his head is an aggressive act. This is because Tony thinks the cop is a man-god who must be obeyed. Disobeying a man-god is justification for a “reasonable” officer to believe this is a prelude to fisticuffs. What tender egos they must have! The truth is Tatsuo wasn’t aggressive in any way whatsoever, and a child could see it.

Tony says,

“Even though Tatsuo was resisting, the officer shows commendable restraint by trying to deescalate the situation through conversation–explaining his “plan” to Tatsuo.”

Well, by golly, let’s pin a medal on the man-god’s chest. It doesn’t matter whether that cop is there for a valid reason, or whether his accusation is completely preposterous. He has sauntered on to the scene and has given his orders and the mere humans must humbly obey. He showed tremendous restraint in not blowing everyone away, right then and there.

Tony says,

“Tatsuo then refuses to spread his legs and resists, multiple times, the officer’s efforts to move his legs so he could safely conduct a search of Tatsuo’s person, incident to a lawful arrest.”

First of all, at 4:10 in the video, after the cop tries to move Tatsuo’s legs, he says that Tatsuo isn’t under arrest, but being detained. Second, Tony will later acknowledge, and explain that Tatsuo wasn’t disturbing the peace. So where is the lawful arrest? Tony must be saying that it’s lawful to be arrested solely for disobeying a cop. That is un-American, and much more importantly unbiblical.

Where in the Bible are civil magistrates given the right to search people to see if they have weapons? They’re so special that they can only talk to people who have no weapons? They certainly are a timid bunch.

Tony says,

“Then, Tatsuo and his friends begin to make a scene by shouting. Any officer–any reasonable officer–would experience myriad of emotions as a result of recognizing he or she was in real and present danger…I cannot get into the officer’s head to ascertain to what degree he was in fear for his safety.”

At this point, it crossed my mind that Tony was making all of this up as a joke. This is the most preposterous thing I’ve read in some time. Tony thinks that reasonable officers experience a myriad of emotions when they hear shouting. Really? If shouting can upset someone, I’d think they must be an emotionally tender person.

But, what exactly is it that Tony calls shouting that he thinks might cause the officer to suffer fear and a virtual panoply of emotion? Are they cussing the cop out? Are they referring to him as various cuts of pork? Are they threatening him? No. They raise their voices to say, “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake”, “Hallelujah!”, “Thank you Lord Jesus”. Tony actually says that such words could strike fear in the heart of a reasonable officer. I’m sure his life flashed before his eyes!

No wonder Tony isn’t a pentecostal where they shout such things in church. He would probably wilt in fear.

Maybe if these cops are so sensitive, emotional and fearful they could find a more suitable line of work. But, I imagine it would be hard for them to give up the rush of a good power trip that comes from knowing that you have the ability to lock up everyone who doesn’t hang on your every word.

Tony says,

“Tatsuo then foolishly asks his friend with the camera to follow him, now putting his friend in potential danger and maybe even making him subject to arrest.”

“For reasons of officer safety, the officer’s order to Tatsuo’s friend not to follow him was reasonable and appropriate, considering the circumstances. The officer even told Tatsuo’s friend, “You’re violating my officer safety!” But foolishly, the person behind the camera argues with the officer.”

Just when you think Tony couldn’t get any more ridiculous, he starts calling Tatsuo and his friends fools. These people aren’t crackheads, gang bangers or bikers, (as if that would be justification for the tyrannical behavior of this cop). They’re Christians. But this cop is afraid to have a Christian with a video camera walking behind him. It is a violation of his officer safety. He is a god walking among us and his safety takes precedence over any American’s right to walk through a parking lot, right?

Not only that, but Tony thinks Tatsuo is a fool for asking his friend to follow. According to Tony, only through the mind of a fool could a thought of someone freely walking across a strip mall parking lot cross. And Tatsuo isn’t the only one behaving foolishly. The cameraman also foolishly dares to question the orders of this man-god. I’m surprised the cop didn’t obliterate the petulant cameraman where he stood for daring to question a government official of the almighty state of California. One day that foolish man will run out of mercy and receive his full cup of wrath.

Tony says,

“While I do not believe Tatsuo was in violation of California Penal Code section 415 (disturbing the peace), I also do not believe Tatsuo was persecuted for his faith. I believe he simply suffered the consequences for his unlawful behavior. And, sadly, that same behavior brought a reproach upon Christ and His gospel.”

This is an amazing paragraph. Tony doesn’t believe that Tatsuo broke a law, but believes that he suffered the consequences for his unlawful behavior. Tatsuo’s only unlawful behavior, according to Tony, was disobeying the arbitrary, unjust orders of a government employee. Hello? I wish every Christian went out and disobeyed at least one arbitrary, unjust order every day. The world would be a better place.

Tony then goes on to explain how the officer was mistaken about pretty much everything he said about sound amplification, loud preaching and disturbing the peace.

At this point, Tony, like an unending number of American Christians, twists Romans 13 into a pretzel to teach that Christians must blindly obey the arbitrary orders of a cop. Tatsuo took pains to obey the law as written, but this isn’t enough. Tony accuses him of sin for disobeying a cop’s arbitrary and unjust orders!

I’ve been faced with this situation in the past, and I handled it differently than Tatsuo. I think that there is little justice in the American justice system and to put one’s life into the hands of a wicked judge is something I want to avoid. However, I certainly don’t think that what Tatsuo did was a sin. We are to stand for righteousness, and resist tyranny. If that’s the way Tatsuo wants to do it, then God bless him.

I have searched and searched for what has come of Tatsuo and this case. I can’t find anything on it, and he keeps a very low profile; he has no website, Facebook or Twitter that I can find. I hope that this is an indication that the charges were dropped. Another possibility is that Tatsuo was never actually arrested.

I can see cops thinking that they’re gods and their orders must be obeyed. I can see government passing laws that give such favors to their collection agents. What I can’t see is a Christian like Tony actually defending this wicked system, or saying that Tatsuo is sinning when he resists.

As we bemoan the pitiful condition of our country and our eroding liberties, we have Christian men like Tony to thank. Christians are supposed to be salt and light–to preserve society–maintain godliness and truth. Truth leads to freedom (John 8:32). When Christians warp Romans 13 to defend tyrants, they’ve abandoned the truth, and they might as well just beg for more tyranny.

Whose law you obey reveals who your god is. If you dutifully obey the laws of the state, even when the laws of the state and the law of God contradict each other, then the state is your god.

Tony is wrong, and his article is reprehensible. We need to fear God–not men.

Abolish The Police, Theonomy

Romans 13 Abuse

It seems like almost every time I discuss what Christians should be doing about the terrible state of our country, they whip out the ridiculous interpretation of Romans 13 card.  You can see a few examples here, and here (where a pastor comes out saying that Romans 13 means they must rent their parking lot to the cops) as just a couple examples.

This is another egregious example from a conversation on Facebook. I posted a reasoned response to his original post, and his comeback is to type “Romans 13”. He didn’t offer any sort of interpretation. He just expects that Romans 13 just so obviously teaches blind obedience to government that just its mere utterance is adequate to win a debate, as if I’ve never read that before. It’s kind of funny, so I thought I’d post a picture of the conversation with the names removed.

r13convo

I’ve written about the proper interpretation of Romans 13 before, but here are some more thoughts.

Colossians 3:20 says, “Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.”

Ephesians 5:24 says, “But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.”

As you can see, children should obey their parents, without exception. Wives should submit to their husbands without exception.  No Christians take these verses to mean that children and wives obey no matter what. If a mother tells her kids to rob a convenience store, they should disobey. If a husband tells his wife to murder someone, she should disobey.

Those verses place no qualifications on the obedience of children and wives, but we still realize they’re not absolute. Romans 13 places qualifications on obedience to government (saying magistrates are ministers of God, and telling us their role is to punish evil), but so many Christians say we should shut up and obey.

And in case you think you should obey the government unless it tells you to sin, you’re being naive.

The Way Things Ought to Be

Does Romans 13:1-7 Teach Blind Obedience?

mayhewIn 1749, Pastor Jonathan Mayhew argued against the “blind obedience to the government” interpretation to Romans 13 that some Christians take when he proclaimed, “It is blasphemy to call tyrants and oppressors God’s ministers. They are more properly ‘The Messengers of Satan to buffet us.’ No rulers are properly God’s ministers, but such as are ‘just, ruling in the fear of God.’ When once magistrates act contrary to their office, and the end of their institution when they rob and ruin the public, instead of being guardians of its peace… they immediately cease to be the ordinance and ministers of God, and no more deserve that glorious character than common pirates and highwaymen.”

“Thus, upon a careful review of the apostle’s reasoning in this passage, it appears that [Paul’s] arguments to enforce submission are of such a nature as to conclude only in favor of submission to such rulers as he himself describes; i.e., such as rule for the good of society, which is the only end of their institution. Common tyrants and public oppressors are not entitled to obedience from their subjects by virtue of anything here laid down by the inspired apostle.”