An Invitation to a National Conversation on When Civilians Should Impede Police Activity: Can Corrie ten Boom Lead Us to a Consensus?

At first glance, the scenario of civilians impeding police activity seems to be just another insurmountable division in our deeply polarized country. Take for example the shooting death of Renee Good in Minneapolis by an ICE official last week. The sides were clearly defined almost immediately. On the one side was the Administration and on the other side the protesters. Kristi Noem, head of the Department of Homeland Security, assuming the innocence of the ICE agent, declared that he fired the shots in self defense and accused Ms. Good of trying to run over the official with her car. Later, Vice President Vance clearly summarized the Administration’s position. “You have a woman who was trying to obstruct a legitimate law enforcement operation. Nobody debates that. You have a woman who aimed her car at a law enforcement officer and pressed on the accelerator. Nobody debates that. I can believe that her death is a tragedy, while also believing it is a tragedy of her own making, and a tragedy of the far left who has marshaled an entire movement, a lunatic fringe, against our law enforcement officers.”

Many on the other side of the debate reach a totally different conclusion. They argue that the videos show that the ICE agent’s life was not at risk and the woman was not trying to ram her vehicle into him, based on the positioning of the tires. Minnesota Governor, Tim Walz argued against pre-judging the shooting and the need for “a thorough investigation… that will take all factors in, and it will come up with a fair and just conclusion. And we will accept that.”

Over the past few days, the stakes have heightened. Usually in cases where a civilian is killed by a police officer, the Department of Justice conducts a thorough investigation regarding the shooting. Nevertheless, the DOJ Deputy Attorney General Todd Bianchi issued a statement that the Department of Justice will not be investigating the shooting. To the contrary, the DOJ will be investigating the contacts of the deceased victim. Several senior prosecutors of the DOJ have resigned to protest what is, from their perspective, a total lack of justice!. The heart of this issue is the question whether there are situations that merit actions by civilians that impede police activity. Although in the Minneapolis shooting the answers that are given lie along ideological lines, history shows us a more complicated perspective. At times conservatives have defended civilian interference (examples of pro-lifers who block entrance to abortion clinics). On other occasions it has been more progressive folk who have implemented such interference (MLK pacific marches and sit-ins in the South).

Fifty years ago, the film The Hiding Place had quite an impact on conservatives in the United States. It tells the true story of Corrie ten Boom and her family that hid persecuted Jews from Nazi soldiers and police in German controlled Holland during WWII. The film was produced by World Wide Pictures, a ministry of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. The ten Boom family, motivated by their love for the vulnerable, most definitely impeded the police activity of their day. They lied to the police officials. The family remodeled their home to create a “hiding place” where the Jews could take refuge. They developed a system of signals in order to alert the refugees when the Nazi police were nearby. They provided for the needs of the Jews with food, clothes and passage to areas that were safer. In the beginning the ten Booms were not aware of the cruel death that awaited Jews in the gas chambers. They just knew that innocent people were being detained for the crime of “being Jewish”. In the United States, most conservatives, especially evangelicals, defended the actions of the ten Boom family and other thousands in Nazi controlled Europe who were trying to impede the immoral activity of the police and military.

The story of “The Hiding Place” has many similarities with our situation today regarding the protests against ICE officials. Many protesters acknowledge a legitimate role for ICE but they accuse many current ICE agents of going far beyond what is legal. The fact that over 70% of ICE detainees have no criminal record shows that ICE is not prioritizing deporting “the worst of the worst”. There are hundreds of cases where US citizens or foreigners with legal status have been apprehended and/or deported. Before searching a person’s residence, ICE must have the name of a specific criminal and must obtain a judge authorized search warrant, but on hundreds of occasions, they have not done so. Protesters believe they are acting morally when they distribute information about the rights of all people in the United States or when they alert their neighbors regarding the presence of ICE agents in their communities. Recent polls show that a majority of Americans believe the presence of ICE agent has made their cities less safe.

The Holy Scriptures describe and praise many individuals who impeded police activity when it was immoral. Hebrew midwives defended human life by practicing civil disobedience. “The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live.” (Exodus 1:17) Rahab was praised and her life was spared because she provided a hiding place for Joshua’s men. (Joshua 6) The “Wise Men” heeded a vision from God and they disobeyed King Herod’s command. (Matthew 2) Although believers in Scripture are urged to respect human authorities, there are times when these authorities are in conflict with God’s will. The apostolic teaching in these situations is clear, “We must obey God rather than human beings”. (Acts 5:29)

We need a national conversation about when the impeding of police activity is warranted and necessary. May grace and truth guide that discussion!

Martin Luther King, Civil Disobedience and the Bible

Today we have a federal holiday to honor the life and service of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.  He became known around the world for his defense of civil rights. He was a strong example of producing social change through non-violent means. Although he had flaws like all of us, there is much too learn from his life.

In this writing I would like to comment on another aspect of his life: civil disobedience. I believe that citizens generally should obey the laws of their country. Although most laws have been established for the common good of people, on some occasions, laws or commands by authorities are so morally wrong that they need to be disobeyed. Civil disobedience is not an easy decision. It requires courage and a willingness to be arrested and to accept the punishment.

In this regard, Martin Luther King had a specific word for Christians. He said, “The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state.” Christians look to Scripture for guidance whether it be the establishment of just laws or the occasional need to disobey unjust laws. It might come as a surprise to some readers, but civil disobedience appears frequently in the Bible. Three passages will suffice to illustrate the most important principles.

In the Book of Acts, the early Christians were turning the world upside down through their preaching and practice of the gospel. The religious authorities of the Sanhedrin did not like the changes that were occurring and prohibited the apostles from sharing the gospel. Nevertheless, the early followers of Jesus continued their evangelism. Peter and the other apostles replied, “We must obey God rather than human beings! (Acts 5:29). Here is the clear principle: When human rules violate God´s laws, believers need to obey God, the highest authority. Our allegiance to family, political party, or nation must always be limited and conditioned by our obedience to God.

A clear example of civil disobedience in the Old Testament took place when the Israelites were slaves in Egypt. The Pharaoh was oppressing the Hebrews and feared their numerical growth. He then ordered the two Hebrew midwives, Shiphrah and Puah, to kill the baby boys immediately after they were born. This command to murder the baby boys clearly was against God´s teaching. What would these two women do? Scripture tells us that ¨the midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live” (Exodus 1:17). The ethical principle is obvious: the taking of innocent life is wrong. Believers must obey God rather than dictatorial rulers. Shiphrah and Puah are my heroines.

Earlier this month, Christians celebrated the visit of the Magi to baby Jesus, Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem. In their search for the Messiah, the Magi came across King Herod in Jerusalem. Herod was alarmed at the news of a newborn King of the Jews, and told them, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.” This was a lie. After they found and worshipped Jesus, the Magi were told by God to not return to Herod (Matthew 2:7-12). The lesson to be learned is that people need to exercise a healthy dose of suspicion and discernment to avoid becoming accomplices in the sins of unjust rulers.

Let us strive to contribute to the conscience of our world through our word and our actions!