How should progressive Christians respond to evangelical “law and order” arguments?

Once again, a pro-Trump evangelical leader has appealed to Biblical teachings on law and order to defend an Administration policy Christians should oppose. This has come up multiple times in the past few years; pro-Trump Christians counter opposition to Trump policies by claiming Christians needs to support the government and rule of law. These “law and order” arguments can help conservative Christians wary of Trump’s actions justify their continued support. Thankfully, there are several ways progressive Christians can counter them.

The latest “law and order” appeal is from Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, pro-Trump Christian and commissioner on a US watchdog agency on international religious freedom. In response to criticism over Trump’s alarmist rhetoric about a Central American migrant caravan headed to America, Perkins argued Trump’s policies are “Biblical” because the Old Testament emphasized law and order.

Others have made similar points. As I discussed, pro-Trump evangelical Robert Jeffress pointed to Romans 13 to defend Trump’s bellicose rhetoric towards North Korea. And Jeff Sessions — before he was fired as Attorney General — used the same verse to counter Christian critics of his policies.

The gist of these arguments is that the Bible calls on Christians to love one another, but it also emphasize following the rule of law. They argue Trump’s policies are meant to uphold the rule of law, so they’re ok despite their unloving nature. Romans 13 emphasize the divine authority of earthly leaders. Perkins didn’t actually reference any verses, so I’m not sure what exactly he is referring to (and I’m averse to doing someone’s homework for them). But let’s say, sure, the Old Testament does talk about law and order.

This is a dangerous rhetorical move by pro-Trump Christians. It justifies the mistreatment of people through appeal to law and order and secular authority. It also gives Christians who may be troubled by Trump’s demonizing of the Central American migrants an excuse to still support him; they’re not against caring for people, they will say, they just want them to follow the laws.

How should progressive Christians respond to these arguments? One potential response is to question the Bible verses they are based on. Some, for example, have pointed to historical examples of people using Romans 13 to defend things like white supremacy. It is important to interrogate the uses and misuses of verses, but I think there are ways to counter these arguments without rejecting the verses they appeal to.

One is questioning whether any laws are actually being broken. People like Sessions argue that the Trump Administration response is necessary in order to stop migrants from breaking or ignoring US law. But that’s not really what’s happening. Under international legal standards, refugees are allowed to present themselves at the border to claim asylum. The host country then needs to adjudicate their case. That is what this migrant caravan is trying to do. So no laws are being broken, and the Biblical references don’t hold up.

Another is to highlight the context of the passages. This is not, as Perkins suggests, ignoring the details of Scripture. Instead, it is taking the Bible seriously, as opposed to picking random quotes out of the Bible (or vague references like his). As I discussed after Jeffress’ use of Romans 13 and others have noted in response to Sessions, this verse does not call on Christians to blindly acquiesce to laws, no matter how unjust they appear. Instead, Christians are told to be good citizens, and not unduly disrupt society. In this case, Christians are calling on the government to stop implementing policies that demonize other people; there’s nothing in there that contradicts Romans 13.

Moreover, as Stephen Colbert pointed out, it’s worth reading the whole Biblical passage, not just the bit that fits your argument. Romans 13 clarifies that “love is the fulfillment of the law.” Trump’s rhetoric on the migrant caravan (or the policy of separating migrant families that preceded it) is even more clearly out of line with Romans 13.

What about Perkins argument that the Old Testament calls for assimilation? Again, I don’t like to do others’ homework for them. But there are plenty of Old Testament verses about caring for strangers, like Deuteronomy 10:19 or Leviticus 19:34. There are also condemnations of the state’s failure to care for the oppressed. A particular favorite is Isaiah 58:6–8:

Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke?Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter, when you see the naked, to clothe them, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?

So it’s hard to come up with a Biblical basis for Perkins’ claim that the Bible emphasizes the “need to assimilate” over compassion; I’d encourage him and his supporters to be more specific next time.

Finally, as Barber argued, highlighting the essence of Biblical teachings is an option. Again, this is not ignoring the details of Scripture; it is checking our assertions against the complete message of the Bible. If an argument we are making — for example, that it is ok to demonize a group of people fleeing for their lives — doesn’t fit with the Bible’s emphasis on love and justice, then we should rethink our argument.

So there are Biblical ways to respond to conservative “law and order” defenses of Trump’s immigration policies. Is it worth raising them? I think so. This is an issue conservative evangelicals claim to care about. Some may be using the law and order defense to cover up their general unwillingness to care for migrants. Others, however, are likely conflicted. If their political inclinations lead them to support Trump’s immigration policies, but their religious sensibilities make them uneasy, arguments like Perkins may convince them it’s alright to back Trump’s immigration policies.

This is where progressive Christians can step in. There are very clear Biblical arguments against the sort of policies Trump has implemented, and against the vague or twisted Scriptural defenses we’ve seen from pro-Trump Christians. Deploying these in the face of “law and order” arguments may help sway some conservative evangelicals to oppose these policies. There are plenty of other issues progressives and conservatives will continue to differ on, but we may be able to agree on this one.