In Defense of Principled Protestors
This is a defense of the righteousness of some of the protestors we saw parked in Ottawa this month. Having been there twice, having listened to them, prayed with them, and after some consideration, I am convinced that Christian men who parked their trucks in Ottawa were well within the bounds of Christian liberty. Their stand was principled, civil, and honorable. They can be defended from scripture and the laws of our land.
First, the Bible allows for protesting before authorities. Moses and Aaron were sent by God to confront Pharaoh’s abuses, and even to do so repetitively. We, of course, do not have the same direct divine guidance that they had, neither do we have plagues at our disposal! Yet it is an early example of God allowing His children to confront the sins of their king. Another example is the case of Rehoboam, a young and prideful king. When he inherited the throne, some protestors came to ask him to lighten their tax burden. His response was, “My little finger shall be thicker than my father’s waist! And now, whereas my father put a heavy yoke on you, I will add to your yoke; my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scourges!” (1 Kings 12:10–11). It is pretty clear from the narrative that the responsibility for the fallout was with Rehoboam. Government will answer to God for their sins as well! The prophet Amos was one of many prophets who persistently called out government for oppressing the poor. (Amos 5:11) Jeremiah annoyed his government so much he got thrown in a pit! (Jeremiah 38) The Lord Jesus used a persistent widow as an example of piety. Even a “…judge who did not fear God not regard man” said …because this widow troubles me I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.” (Luke 18:5). The point of this parable is to turn us to persistent prayer, which I hope the present situation does more than anything. But persistent protest is clearly countenanced by the Lord Jesus as effective and admirable. Finally, the apostles were not shy in the public square, Paul appealed to Caesar and dragged out his case. (Acts 25:11) In the scriptures, righteous kings and queens, and even some pagan ones, allowed citizens to come and air grievances. Church history is filled with godly protestants. At critical times, it is permissible and even good for crowds of Christians to gather in order to make a visible demonstration that proclaims the value of truth or justice.
Counterpoint: We need to be realistic, many protests in history have not been righteous or biblical. Many involve roots of covetousness, then anarchy, heresy, humanistic revolution, utopianism, or destructive methods. The sobering part for those that protested against Rehoboam was that though they got their way in the short term, in the long term the rebels of northern Israel did not fare well. If the character of a protest turns anarchist and violent, Christians ought to leave and regroup distinctively. Some true Christians still need to publicly to take up righteous causes in the midst of confusion, but must do so in principled and peaceful ways. We should be very thankful for the peaceable character of the vast majority of protestors in these past weeks. It was a stark contrast to many protests in history.
Second, assembly for protest becomes necessary at times for some Christians. First, this must involve a righteous cause as defined by God’s Word. There must be weighty principles of fairness, equity, justice or life at stake. Then there must be a conscience that is burdened to move, speak, and demonstrate righteously. This needs to be done when people are suffering, starving, dying, or in dangerous conditions which are not being recognized by government or the public. Ideally, protest is not selfish, but is mediation by the strong for the weak and helpless. (Isaiah 1:17) Physical movement towards protest should ordinarily be used after means such as letter writing or meetings have been exhausted. These are points where the injustices of the nation and government must be brought to light more visibly. I would see many of the large pro-life marches as good examples of how demonstrations can bring an issue to bear on the consciences of others. In many cases, when those demonstrators demonstrate in love, with clarity, and with truth, hearts and minds may indeed be changed. There is nothing in scripture that allows us to point the finger at such protests when they are done well. They may aid in giving the nation a conscience, or they may harden the nation. Either way, they are a righteous testimony.
Counterpoint: Righteous causes may stir up diverse masses. Again, this does not mean that Christians cannot be conscientiously involved if the cause is a matter of principle. "If any now takes offense at the existence of heretics, let him remember that it was so from the beginning, the devil always setting up error by the side of truth." - John Chrysostom. It is the responsibility of Christian protestors to visibly differentiate themselves from the wicked. I saw visible evidence of that in Ottawa even in how and where trucks were parked, and in messaging. It is also the responsibility of government to weed out any troublemakers in a mostly-peaceful protest. (Romans 13:4)
Third, since the dawn of civilization there has been the concept of a literal public square. This was a space in the middle of cities where people met, made deals, and even protested from time to time. It was usually surrounded by halls of government, palaces, castles, or temples. Travelers would camp out in the square. (Gen. 19:2, Judges 19:15-16). Read those passages, and then think about the ethics of the surrounding city in our cultural context! It was, until this past week, an accepted principle that the common people had an inviolable right to come to that place and even to camp out. It was a place of refuge, assembly, commerce, and communication. As a side note, I would argue that crackdowns on the homeless are often actually problematic in this regard. Open, public space should be provided for the poor and sojourners in cities. Though that would hurt the hotels and look messy, it is plain hospitable, and it also keeps issues in the public square. The not-in-my-backyard attitudes prevalent in cities have led to gross intolerance of the less fortunate. Ironically, the homeless never had it better than when the "peasants" came to town and joined them in Ottawa. Civilization must keep the concept of a physical public square functioning in cities, and especially in proximity to government. It is a matter of accountability.
Counterpoint: It is possible to abuse the right to the public square with bad behavior. This, of course, is the matter of debate. City folk and country folk have contrasting social contracts in this area. I saw that there were quite a few truckers that used their horns judiciously, attempted to be courteous, kept things clean, and who worked with the authorities conscientiously. Do not paint all of the protestors with the same brush.
Third, Canada stands at the end of a long history of even welcoming peaceful sojourners of any type in the public square. This, I would argue, is even a matter that relates to our nation’s Christian foundations. (Genesis 19:1, Hebrews 13:2) It was expected that righteous city dwellers would offer sojourners, peasants, or protestors hospitality. Thankfully, many in Ottawa did this! This was principle was also exercised when the police and the municipality made arrangements to facilitate protestors on January 29th. They directed them to their spots. They specifically offered them the municipal parking lot on Coventry Road. Many of the Christian truckers I met were parked where police put them, and were told by legal counsel that no fines would stand against them. Part of this welcome is also the responsibility of government to countenance the concerns of commoners. (2 Samuel 15:2, 1 Kings 3:16-28) Our Prime Minister even joined a Black Lives Matter protest in June of 2020, an action which sent a message of welcome to that particular movement. A warm welcome and an open ear goes a long way.
Counterpoint: It is notable that some truckers were less cooperative with the welcoming committee. They intentionally blocked certain intersections and parked in ways that were obstructive. Some brought vulgar insults against the Prime Minister very visibly. Those that did not work reasonably with police instructions could have been towed, in my opinion, much earlier in the process. The government has the responsibility to manage such things, and I would support them in that.
Fifth, Canadian law has specifically recognized the right to tenaciously protest in the public square. This right is seen even as sacred. (Luke 18:1-8) So much so that many protests were tolerated at even the peaks of COVID. It is ironic that our nation and many churches accepted that worship could be done virtually, while left-wing protest was somehow a higher ideal. Virtual protest is obviously ineffective. As is virtual "church." The prophet Ezekiel was called to use some unusual “protest” methods in a dark time to expose sin. (See Ezekiel 4 and 5:1-4) Maybe I should stay in Ottawa for 390 days, and then shave off and burn my beard at the center of Parliament Hill? Due to this historic right and pattern, a peaceful protestor had significant protections in a free country, even to protest for significant lengths of time. There has been a long history of protestors being protected legally as they sat up trees, in specific meaningful locations, and in the public squares for weeks or months. I would argue that in a democratic and diverse society that the right to tenacious protest is critical. If the steam is not allowed to escape, the pressure will only build somewhere else. It keeps critical issues of marginalized minorities out of the margins and in the public square where they need to be.
Counterpoint: Many bring up the accusation of occupation. My opinion is that occupation would be happening when permanent structures are erected in the public square. Squatting. Authorities have every right and responsibility to remove those. Trucks and motorhomes made this issue complicated, but only for the not-in-my-backyard movement. If the government had at least listened, it might have seemed more reasonable to move most of the truckers out at some point. I would argue, however, that government should have made it clear that they would still allow at least a symbolic visible representation of the protest to remain in the public square. For as long as that representation felt it needed to be there.
Sixth, there is a place for principled civil disobedience. For a Reformed Christian, this would be when the law is “repugnant to the Word of God.” (Belgic Confession Article 36) There was the point where the apostles “…obeyed God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29) They preached in the public squares of their time, even though they were repeatedly pushed out. Though a different situation, Martin Luther King’s insistence on eating in a “white’s only” restaurant could be argued to fit in this category. Or Rosa Park’s unwillingness to follow similar laws for buses. Like the apostles, they were willing to be arrested peacefully, and to pay the civil price for their “disobedience.“ Some truckers are unvaccinated, others have loved ones who are. There are people who have religious principles that mean they, their parents, and grandparents never were vaccinated. Some of my own family is in that boat, and I personally have at least one foot in it. I met some there who had concerning medical conditions, and were not being allowed exceptions or freedom of choice. They were surrounded by loving family and co-workers who were laying it all down for them. They were making a statement that the law is actually lawless. Yet their goal was not at all to overthrow government, but rather to obey God, to stand for others, and to aid in shaping the conscience of the nation. Even if parking tickets were to stand, many truckers were arguing that their plight and that of those they love made it critical for them to be “taking up space” in the public square. They even had church services in the public square, that was a meaningful stand for them. They brought the diversity of their “villages” into the city, though that came with some baggage. It was necessary for them to reach the end of the road publicly together, and lose their livelihoods in view of the government that had condemned them to the fringes. It was a testimony to the consequences of lawless laws. Unjust laws that struck at the very core of human dignity and which divided society. This was, for Christian truckers, a reasonable, equitable, and honorable stand. It was taken in the most appropriate of places.
Addendum: (Feb. 24) - A brother made a point about this section on civil disobedience. In the past two years, many Christians have worshipped or protested in ways that were historically legal pre-COVID or pre-Emergency Order. Though they were called disobedient by many others, their cases have not yet been heard by judges. In the case of Grace Community Church in Los Angeles, the courts ruled in their favor. This arguably meant that no civil disobedience was committed. Many tickets given to churches in Canada have been thrown out of court, showing that regulations were either lawless or misapplied. Even in the case of many Ottawa protestors has already show hints of this, they were caught and released immediately, because their actions were not illegal. Protest itself is legal, gathering for worship is highly protected, the courts have yet to decide on individual cases. Some insist that as we decline into tyranny, holding the line on precious freedoms is not civil disobedience until the courts rule. It is principled, legal stand. After that is ruled illegal, there may still be a time for civil disobedience that is within the bounds of Christian liberty.
First, the Bible allows for protesting before authorities. Moses and Aaron were sent by God to confront Pharaoh’s abuses, and even to do so repetitively. We, of course, do not have the same direct divine guidance that they had, neither do we have plagues at our disposal! Yet it is an early example of God allowing His children to confront the sins of their king. Another example is the case of Rehoboam, a young and prideful king. When he inherited the throne, some protestors came to ask him to lighten their tax burden. His response was, “My little finger shall be thicker than my father’s waist! And now, whereas my father put a heavy yoke on you, I will add to your yoke; my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scourges!” (1 Kings 12:10–11). It is pretty clear from the narrative that the responsibility for the fallout was with Rehoboam. Government will answer to God for their sins as well! The prophet Amos was one of many prophets who persistently called out government for oppressing the poor. (Amos 5:11) Jeremiah annoyed his government so much he got thrown in a pit! (Jeremiah 38) The Lord Jesus used a persistent widow as an example of piety. Even a “…judge who did not fear God not regard man” said …because this widow troubles me I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.” (Luke 18:5). The point of this parable is to turn us to persistent prayer, which I hope the present situation does more than anything. But persistent protest is clearly countenanced by the Lord Jesus as effective and admirable. Finally, the apostles were not shy in the public square, Paul appealed to Caesar and dragged out his case. (Acts 25:11) In the scriptures, righteous kings and queens, and even some pagan ones, allowed citizens to come and air grievances. Church history is filled with godly protestants. At critical times, it is permissible and even good for crowds of Christians to gather in order to make a visible demonstration that proclaims the value of truth or justice.
Counterpoint: We need to be realistic, many protests in history have not been righteous or biblical. Many involve roots of covetousness, then anarchy, heresy, humanistic revolution, utopianism, or destructive methods. The sobering part for those that protested against Rehoboam was that though they got their way in the short term, in the long term the rebels of northern Israel did not fare well. If the character of a protest turns anarchist and violent, Christians ought to leave and regroup distinctively. Some true Christians still need to publicly to take up righteous causes in the midst of confusion, but must do so in principled and peaceful ways. We should be very thankful for the peaceable character of the vast majority of protestors in these past weeks. It was a stark contrast to many protests in history.
Second, assembly for protest becomes necessary at times for some Christians. First, this must involve a righteous cause as defined by God’s Word. There must be weighty principles of fairness, equity, justice or life at stake. Then there must be a conscience that is burdened to move, speak, and demonstrate righteously. This needs to be done when people are suffering, starving, dying, or in dangerous conditions which are not being recognized by government or the public. Ideally, protest is not selfish, but is mediation by the strong for the weak and helpless. (Isaiah 1:17) Physical movement towards protest should ordinarily be used after means such as letter writing or meetings have been exhausted. These are points where the injustices of the nation and government must be brought to light more visibly. I would see many of the large pro-life marches as good examples of how demonstrations can bring an issue to bear on the consciences of others. In many cases, when those demonstrators demonstrate in love, with clarity, and with truth, hearts and minds may indeed be changed. There is nothing in scripture that allows us to point the finger at such protests when they are done well. They may aid in giving the nation a conscience, or they may harden the nation. Either way, they are a righteous testimony.
Counterpoint: Righteous causes may stir up diverse masses. Again, this does not mean that Christians cannot be conscientiously involved if the cause is a matter of principle. "If any now takes offense at the existence of heretics, let him remember that it was so from the beginning, the devil always setting up error by the side of truth." - John Chrysostom. It is the responsibility of Christian protestors to visibly differentiate themselves from the wicked. I saw visible evidence of that in Ottawa even in how and where trucks were parked, and in messaging. It is also the responsibility of government to weed out any troublemakers in a mostly-peaceful protest. (Romans 13:4)
Third, since the dawn of civilization there has been the concept of a literal public square. This was a space in the middle of cities where people met, made deals, and even protested from time to time. It was usually surrounded by halls of government, palaces, castles, or temples. Travelers would camp out in the square. (Gen. 19:2, Judges 19:15-16). Read those passages, and then think about the ethics of the surrounding city in our cultural context! It was, until this past week, an accepted principle that the common people had an inviolable right to come to that place and even to camp out. It was a place of refuge, assembly, commerce, and communication. As a side note, I would argue that crackdowns on the homeless are often actually problematic in this regard. Open, public space should be provided for the poor and sojourners in cities. Though that would hurt the hotels and look messy, it is plain hospitable, and it also keeps issues in the public square. The not-in-my-backyard attitudes prevalent in cities have led to gross intolerance of the less fortunate. Ironically, the homeless never had it better than when the "peasants" came to town and joined them in Ottawa. Civilization must keep the concept of a physical public square functioning in cities, and especially in proximity to government. It is a matter of accountability.
Counterpoint: It is possible to abuse the right to the public square with bad behavior. This, of course, is the matter of debate. City folk and country folk have contrasting social contracts in this area. I saw that there were quite a few truckers that used their horns judiciously, attempted to be courteous, kept things clean, and who worked with the authorities conscientiously. Do not paint all of the protestors with the same brush.
Third, Canada stands at the end of a long history of even welcoming peaceful sojourners of any type in the public square. This, I would argue, is even a matter that relates to our nation’s Christian foundations. (Genesis 19:1, Hebrews 13:2) It was expected that righteous city dwellers would offer sojourners, peasants, or protestors hospitality. Thankfully, many in Ottawa did this! This was principle was also exercised when the police and the municipality made arrangements to facilitate protestors on January 29th. They directed them to their spots. They specifically offered them the municipal parking lot on Coventry Road. Many of the Christian truckers I met were parked where police put them, and were told by legal counsel that no fines would stand against them. Part of this welcome is also the responsibility of government to countenance the concerns of commoners. (2 Samuel 15:2, 1 Kings 3:16-28) Our Prime Minister even joined a Black Lives Matter protest in June of 2020, an action which sent a message of welcome to that particular movement. A warm welcome and an open ear goes a long way.
Counterpoint: It is notable that some truckers were less cooperative with the welcoming committee. They intentionally blocked certain intersections and parked in ways that were obstructive. Some brought vulgar insults against the Prime Minister very visibly. Those that did not work reasonably with police instructions could have been towed, in my opinion, much earlier in the process. The government has the responsibility to manage such things, and I would support them in that.
Fifth, Canadian law has specifically recognized the right to tenaciously protest in the public square. This right is seen even as sacred. (Luke 18:1-8) So much so that many protests were tolerated at even the peaks of COVID. It is ironic that our nation and many churches accepted that worship could be done virtually, while left-wing protest was somehow a higher ideal. Virtual protest is obviously ineffective. As is virtual "church." The prophet Ezekiel was called to use some unusual “protest” methods in a dark time to expose sin. (See Ezekiel 4 and 5:1-4) Maybe I should stay in Ottawa for 390 days, and then shave off and burn my beard at the center of Parliament Hill? Due to this historic right and pattern, a peaceful protestor had significant protections in a free country, even to protest for significant lengths of time. There has been a long history of protestors being protected legally as they sat up trees, in specific meaningful locations, and in the public squares for weeks or months. I would argue that in a democratic and diverse society that the right to tenacious protest is critical. If the steam is not allowed to escape, the pressure will only build somewhere else. It keeps critical issues of marginalized minorities out of the margins and in the public square where they need to be.
Counterpoint: Many bring up the accusation of occupation. My opinion is that occupation would be happening when permanent structures are erected in the public square. Squatting. Authorities have every right and responsibility to remove those. Trucks and motorhomes made this issue complicated, but only for the not-in-my-backyard movement. If the government had at least listened, it might have seemed more reasonable to move most of the truckers out at some point. I would argue, however, that government should have made it clear that they would still allow at least a symbolic visible representation of the protest to remain in the public square. For as long as that representation felt it needed to be there.
Sixth, there is a place for principled civil disobedience. For a Reformed Christian, this would be when the law is “repugnant to the Word of God.” (Belgic Confession Article 36) There was the point where the apostles “…obeyed God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29) They preached in the public squares of their time, even though they were repeatedly pushed out. Though a different situation, Martin Luther King’s insistence on eating in a “white’s only” restaurant could be argued to fit in this category. Or Rosa Park’s unwillingness to follow similar laws for buses. Like the apostles, they were willing to be arrested peacefully, and to pay the civil price for their “disobedience.“ Some truckers are unvaccinated, others have loved ones who are. There are people who have religious principles that mean they, their parents, and grandparents never were vaccinated. Some of my own family is in that boat, and I personally have at least one foot in it. I met some there who had concerning medical conditions, and were not being allowed exceptions or freedom of choice. They were surrounded by loving family and co-workers who were laying it all down for them. They were making a statement that the law is actually lawless. Yet their goal was not at all to overthrow government, but rather to obey God, to stand for others, and to aid in shaping the conscience of the nation. Even if parking tickets were to stand, many truckers were arguing that their plight and that of those they love made it critical for them to be “taking up space” in the public square. They even had church services in the public square, that was a meaningful stand for them. They brought the diversity of their “villages” into the city, though that came with some baggage. It was necessary for them to reach the end of the road publicly together, and lose their livelihoods in view of the government that had condemned them to the fringes. It was a testimony to the consequences of lawless laws. Unjust laws that struck at the very core of human dignity and which divided society. This was, for Christian truckers, a reasonable, equitable, and honorable stand. It was taken in the most appropriate of places.
Addendum: (Feb. 24) - A brother made a point about this section on civil disobedience. In the past two years, many Christians have worshipped or protested in ways that were historically legal pre-COVID or pre-Emergency Order. Though they were called disobedient by many others, their cases have not yet been heard by judges. In the case of Grace Community Church in Los Angeles, the courts ruled in their favor. This arguably meant that no civil disobedience was committed. Many tickets given to churches in Canada have been thrown out of court, showing that regulations were either lawless or misapplied. Even in the case of many Ottawa protestors has already show hints of this, they were caught and released immediately, because their actions were not illegal. Protest itself is legal, gathering for worship is highly protected, the courts have yet to decide on individual cases. Some insist that as we decline into tyranny, holding the line on precious freedoms is not civil disobedience until the courts rule. It is principled, legal stand. After that is ruled illegal, there may still be a time for civil disobedience that is within the bounds of Christian liberty.
Addendum: (Feb. 28) - Another brother contacted me to tell me the above addendum is wrong. Even at the first stage of breaking a new regulation, he is convinced that this is properly understood as civil disobedience because the executive branch of government is still being disobeyed. I am not sure who to believe. Individual cases, and different legal contexts, may change this.
Counterpoint: A level of civil disobedience which demonstrably harms innocent citizens is not defensible from scripture. Neither, of course, are hateful flags, language, or signs. I would not rise to defend you in a church court if you were blocking the Windsor border for a few weeks, and millions of people went hungry or lost jobs. Or if you were giving government the middle finger and refused to repent. Or if you blocked someone’s driveway or completely blocked their safe passage, or damaged their property. My own experience was that it was quite reasonable and very safe to get around Ottawa. For the other side, see also my post on Not Robbing Peter to Pay Paul.
How did the government respond to a principled yet inevitably flawed protest? By ignoring, slandering most of the truckers, name-calling, changing rules, stealing from truckers, stealing from donors, harassing, vilifying, violence, fencing them away, fencing them off, and then by driving and trampling the "peasants" out of the public square. By giving some of them undeserved beatings. Then by chasing them right into their private life and by freezing bank accounts in order to punish them. Then by fencing them out of the public square.
How did the government respond to a principled yet inevitably flawed protest? By ignoring, slandering most of the truckers, name-calling, changing rules, stealing from truckers, stealing from donors, harassing, vilifying, violence, fencing them away, fencing them off, and then by driving and trampling the "peasants" out of the public square. By giving some of them undeserved beatings. Then by chasing them right into their private life and by freezing bank accounts in order to punish them. Then by fencing them out of the public square.
Which was the whole point. The truckers won by exposing reality.
The division that exists all across Canada has now played out in the public square. As it had to. The truckers forced the government to reveal their true hand. Today is a good day. I am thankful for this state of emergency, as it reflects a reality that many have been living with for months or even years. It will give great opportunity for charity and compassion amongst Christians and others.
The division that exists all across Canada has now played out in the public square. As it had to. The truckers forced the government to reveal their true hand. Today is a good day. I am thankful for this state of emergency, as it reflects a reality that many have been living with for months or even years. It will give great opportunity for charity and compassion amongst Christians and others.
I, for one, will publicly thank truckers for their courageous demonstration of Christian love towards me and my family.
"If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?" - Romans 8:31–35