Abolition Bills and Serving Two Masters

 
serving two masters abolition bill.png
 

In Oklahoma, there are legislators, activists, and pastors hard at work attempting to abolition abortion. A big part of this effort is working to pass SB13, a solid bill of abortion abolition.

Yet, there are concerns about supporting such a bill. We should listen to these concerns, but also answer them. There were many similar concerns a few years ago when an abolitionist ran for the office of governor in Oklahoma. Even years ago, there was a small group of good and well-intentioned men and women who claimed that working for, within, or with the state was serving two masters or an endorsement of any evil actions taken by the state. This attitude is also similar to how some factions within the "anarcho-capitalism" community will call voting an act of violence (while many others in the same community reject this idea). 

Concerns

One of the sincere concerns some have raised with a bill of abolition is that the enforcement of such a bill will be by unreliable and often corrupt law enforcement agencies and a broken criminal justice system. Further, there is a concern that the bill could solely punish women and not the men that enabled, paid for, cooperated with, or sometimes coerced the abortion. 

However, it should be stated that the bill establishes equal protection, while not explicitly claiming that only mothers would be culpable. Accomplices would be investigated and tried the same as any other murder. In the horrifying situations in which a threat of violence coerces a woman, the same guidelines would apply as in any other crime. The point of the bill, and the actual content of the bill, does not place special or particular judgment upon the mother, but only establishes the intentional killing of the preborn as murder whoever is responsible for that action. Still, the criminal justice system can abuse the bill, if it were to become law. That, however, is not because SB13 is a bad bill, but because even the best bills can be abused. This is true and will be true until the final resurrection and final judgment. 

To add further context, much of the reason for why women being punished is even a topic of conversation is because the Pro Life Movement has been laser focused on ensuring that no women ever be punished for abortion. Even so, we need to be careful to not allow our rhetoric against abortion to become needlessly focused on only women.

Working within the civil government, voting for a candidate, or voting for a bill should all be judged ethically according to each action's intrinsic merits. If the content of a bill is righteous, we cannot blame the bill or those who supported it if somewhere down the road it is abused. We certainly should not preemptively hold back our support because of this hypothetical future abuse when we do not have any way of knowing how, why, when, or even if that abuse will happen. To simplify, a fundamental aspect of Biblical ethics is that you are responsible for your own actions, not the actions of those you opposed or would oppose. 

None of this is to say that we should not take great care when considering possible "twistings" or abuses. We should be diligent and do whatever we can to prevent abuse, preemptively work against them, and when and if they happen, be ready to condemn those abuses and work to right any wrongs loudly. Part of this diligence includes speaking very clearly about the possible legal culpability of many fathers, husbands, brothers, and boyfriends — not just mothers. Other ways to work against these potential misuses of an abolition law will differ depending on the nature of the abuse. We should not and cannot close our eyes to the possibility of abuse. 

Though some have a view of civil government that prohibits their involvement until the government reaches a level of perfect justice, I do not hold to that view, nor do I believe scripture or Church history teaches this. 

Personally, I hold to a view of civil government that has a fundamentally voluntary view of societal cooperation based on theonomic law. That is the long term goal and the trajectory of the Kingdom of God (it is also a topic for another time). 

Within scripture, a civil society that maximized liberty and private judgment was the model we see pre-Saul (1 Samuel 9). However, there is little to no evidence to indicate the intrinsic sinfulness of participating in a form of civil governance that does not meet strict theonomic standards. Here are two examples. 

Joseph

Joseph, as a young man, was betrayed by his brothers and sold into slavery. Joseph eventually rose to the position of vizier in the Egyptian pharaoh's household. The vizier was the second most powerful man in the whole kingdom. Egypt, however, was still a thoroughly pagan nation that did not serve the Living God or consistently uphold justice. When a man like Joseph can serve a very pagan pharaoh in a very pagan society (Gen. 41:40-44), and he does so willfully, we see a stark contrast between justifying a particular form of civil governance and working within the same form of government for the good of others according to God's Law. 

Daniel

And then we have Daniel. It is important to note that Daniel, like Joseph, did not obey all commands given to him. Daniel refuses the tyranny of Nebuchadnezzar more than once. He refused to eat from the king's table and defile himself (Daniel 1:8). When Daniel's friends refuse to bow to a statue of the king, God spares them from the fire, and then the king promotes them (Daniel 3). Later, Daniel is raised to a high position of authority within the "Darius Administration." Daniel does not only serve; he is incredibly successful (Daniel 6:3). Yet, while Daniel serves within the government of an autocratic pagan ruler, Daniel does not obey all commands. Famously, Daniel refuses to sin against God by ignoring the command to only worship the King. This leads, as we know, to the lion's den (Daniel 6:10-28). God delivers him, and Darius restores his high position in the state. 

Both the service and the disobedience of Daniel is very significant. These texts do not indicate that his status as a servant ethically justifies his position as a civil administrator. Are we to believe that Daniel was disobeying God by participating in the civil governments of wicked kings like Nebuchadnezzar and Darius? Or, instead, are we to see that working to uphold justice, even in a broken system, is honorable and justified?

Within ancient Babylon and Egypt, the system proclaimed that the pharaohs and kings were divine. This historical fact is significant when claims are made that by working in a pagan government, you are, by necessity, "worshiping," "supporting," or "praying" to a false god. Unlike modern America, these ancient pagan civil governments did worship their leaders as gods, yet men like Joseph and Daniel still worked within these pagan kingdoms for the Glory of God. 

Did Joseph and Daniel have a choice?

Some may say, "well, Joseph and Daniel had no choice," and yes, that should be a consideration. Yet, we are also considering men who were righteous in their service to evil and pagan civil governments. If it was a sin to work within these wicked systems (pagan Egypt and pagan Babylon, respectively), then they should have obeyed God rather than man (Acts 5:27-29). Joseph "just doing his job" is not an excuse or a way to sidestep their responsibility. Further, though they started in lowly positions, they did not remain so. These men were not weak, but had a great deal of authority. 

There is a Biblical command to obey masters (Ephesians 6:5-9), but this command is not divorced from ethics. This command does not justify or excuse sin when the sin is commanded by an individual with civil (or ecclesiastical) power. If it is a sin to work in civil government, it is a sin whether or not you're in slavery. If your master commands you to sin, you say no and take the punishment — even death. Obedience to masters does not extend to sin. What is clear is that if it were intrinsically (note this word) sinful to participate in a tyrannical, tax-based, pagan nation, then Joseph and Daniel would have sinned by working within these governments. These men, being righteous men, would have refused to serve these tyrants. However, this is not what we see in scripture. Not at all. We see Joseph taking the position given to him, along with the power vested in that position, and using his power for the betterment of Egypt. Joseph worked faithfully in a pagan nation, and thus Egypt thrived. And because of this faithfulness in a paid non-voluntary governmental system, Joseph helped his family. Yes. That family (Genesis 37:23-28). We see Daniel refusing to sin, but otherwise, we see Daniel working diligently within that system. He does such a great job that bitter and envious men attempt to have him killed. 

Serving Two Masters 

One point of confusion is in regards to "serving two masters" and authority. Some have claimed that recognition of civil authority is an affront against the authority of God. Similarly, being engaged formally in the state, supporting candidates, or supporting legislation is seen as an example of serving two masters. This, as seen by the above Biblical examples, is not valid. God delegates authority. Any and all legitimate spiritual authority, whether it is civil authority or ecclesiological authority, comes from God and God alone. When men and women in positions of authority do not righteously use their authority, their authority is illegitimate and can be ignored (if wise and prudent). However, if these men and women within man-made institutions use their earthly authority according to the Law/Word of God, then their authority is legitimate. This real and holistic authority is vested, or delegated, authority. It is based not on titles and positions but on adherence to the ethics of God's Law/Word. It is not an authority separated from God. To obey your parents isn't "serving two masters." To faithfully serve as an elder in a local fellowship isn't crowing yourself as king. To respect and obey your workplace boss isn't to "serve the kingdom of man." Likewise, to support an abolition bill that is genuinely seeking justice isn't "serving two masters," nor is it endorsing the entirety of the criminal justice system.

Isn't this incrementalism? 

The claim that believing the government should be significantly decreased or even abolished (in its current form) while simultaneously working within or with that government is in no way a denial of immediatism. Civil governance is not intrinsically sinful; therefore, the same attitude and method of changing civil government should not be used. Immediatism is a doctrine of repentance, and unless we can show by good and necessary consequence that working among an unrighteous system is sin, we should not speak where God has not and call it a sin. We cannot apply immediatism to holding a civil office or voting any more than we can apply it to being employed by a secular company. 

Many actions of the government are intrinsically sinful, but the same could be said of the governments of Egypt and Babylon. To participate in and speak for the injustices is sin, but to merely vote or be a civil officer is no sin. There is an obligation placed on all Christians within any corporate body to speak out against the sin within that corporate body. Still, this obligation applies to citizens of a state, nation, members of Christ's Body, families, etc. It is not limited to formal members of a legislative body or members of an executive branch of a state. We are all members of corporate bodies that are guilty of vast crimes. Refusing to vote for abolitionist candidates, bills, or generally isolating oneself from the civil sphere of society does not make you any less covenantly guilty. 

Therefore, unless we can show that voting or participation in the civil sphere is dehumanizing or sinful, immediatism does not apply. Incrementalism is not simply changing or improving things over time. It is compromising with sin and working with sinful presuppositions.

Conclusion 

What does this teach us? It teaches us that if someone does what they can for good (according to God's Law) with the position or political power available to him, God will judge him according to his actions. God will not judge him or her based on how Godly that government is insofar as that lack of godliness is not dependent on the Christian. God will not judge him or her based on what other people do in that same government. A faithful second in command of all of Egypt is not guilty of the blatant tyranny and idolatry of the government of Egypt. Likewise, a faithful modern State Representative is not guilty of the blatant oppression and idolatry of the US Government. Further, Christians voting for a sold bill of abolition, or voting for a good man, is not "violence" or an endorsement of any kind of injustice. 

Political engagement is one facet of abolition, but it is not the foundation of abolition or the totality of aboliton. It can be a distraction, but it does not need to be. My fervant prayer and hope is that, even while working on making abortion illegal, we do not lose focus on making abortion unthinkable by the power of the Gospel.

Like God's Law being twisted by the Pharisees, corruptions and twistings of good ideas and good laws do not condemn what was twisted. God's law is good, no matter how it is used and abused.

Likewise, a solid bill of abolition is good, no matter if it is hypothetically abused at some later time.

This does not mean that we should not be cautious or show a flippant disregard for possible abuses. But it does mean that we should support what is just now, and then continue working to ensure that it is justly applied.