By What Standard? ICE, COVID, and Romans 13
Applying Equal Weights and Measures
Alex Pretti was killed during a federal immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis after inserting himself into an active arrest. According to federal statements and contemporaneous reporting, Pretti was part of an organized effort to obstruct ICE operations across the city. Video has since emerged of Pretti engaging federal law enforcement a week prior to his death, wherein he kicked the taillight off an SUV carrying ICE agents. Pretti participated in coordinated activity through encrypted Signal chats, blocked traffic, and attempted to interfere with arrests. At the scene, he physically involved himself in law enforcement activity, attempting to prevent agents from taking a suspect into custody while armed. Federal authorities say Pretti resisted efforts to detain and disarm him during the confrontation, at which point agents discharged their weapons. The incident occurred amid broader, coordinated attempts to “de-arrest” detainees and disrupt federal enforcement through physical obstruction and force.
This episode has reignited a familiar debate about the use of force and the limits of lawful protest. During that debate over the past few weeks, I shared Romans 13 on social media:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore, one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. (Romans 13:1-7 ESV)
Upon sharing this passage (with no commentary), I was met with various strong responses—including several defending Pretti or condemning federal agents for allegedly acting unjustly. But at least one honest questioner cited Christian resistance during COVID and asked why resistance to immigration enforcement should be treated differently.
Scripture requires equal weights and equal measures (Prov. 11:1). That requirement governs how Romans 13 is read and applied. So, the question stands: How could resistance to COVID mandates be lawful for Christians, while resistance to ICE enforcement today is not? If Romans 13 governs both situations, what explains the difference? Or, more simply put—by what standard?
The answer lies in applying the same biblical standard to materially different circumstances. There are at least three reasons the situations are not morally equivalent.
1. The Nature of the State’s Action
Romans 13 presents civil government as God’s servant. Paul does not describe the magistrate as an autonomous power, but as a minister with a defined task. The ruler is “God’s servant for your good,” appointed to reward good and punish evil (Rom. 13:4). That description establishes both authority and limits. Government does not determine the standards of justice but administers justice under God.
During the COVID era, civil authority in the United States and throughout much of the world ran afoul this standard. Governments created sweeping, discriminatory regulations that displaced long-standing freedoms and intruded into areas beyond their lawful jurisdiction. Churches were closed while casinos, liquor stores, and large retailers remained open. Worship was restricted while mass protests were permitted. Singing, preaching, and assembling were treated as discretionary, non-essential activities subject to bureaucratic approval. In other words, civil priorities were unbalanced and out of step with the priorities baked into the magistrate’s authority received from God.
These actions did not merely regulate public safety; they asserted authority over the gathered church and its ordinary ministry; areas Christ has entrusted to the church itself (Matt. 16:18; Heb. 10:25). In doing so, the state violated the assumption built into Romans 13:4 that the magistrate acts as God’s servant, for the good of those under his authority, and not as a rival, antagonistic authority.
By contrast, enforcing standing immigration law falls squarely within the state’s prescribed sphere. Scripture affirms that God establishes nations and their boundaries. Paul tells the Athenians that God “determined allotted periods and the boundaries” of the nations (Acts 17:26). The Old Testament repeatedly condemns the removal of boundary markers as injustice (Deut. 19:14; Prov. 22:28). Borders and jurisdictions are not mere political constructs but reflect God’s natural ordering of human society.
Government, then, clearly possesses authority from God. The question is whether that authority is being exercised within the sphere God has assigned to the civil magistrate. This is a stark point of contrast between 2020 and 2026.
2. The Nature of the Resistance
A second distinction lies in how resistance is carried out. Historic Protestant resistance theory has always drawn careful lines on this point; even when resistance is justified, it is constrained. Scripture never licenses lawlessness for its own sake.
Violent resistance to civil authority is not justified simply by disagreement or perceived injustice. Scripture and the Protestant tradition recognize that force may only be morally legitimate when far higher thresholds are met, including sustained violations of God’s law (or natural law), the collapse of lawful process, and the interposition of a lower magistrate who bears responsibility for public order. In several instances, those conditions were present in COVID-era church resistance. Yet they are notably absent in contemporary efforts to obstruct immigration enforcement through private violence.
During COVID, resistance from churches and many on the political right took the form of peaceful civil disobedience; churches continued to gather for worship, business owners opened their doors, and individuals declined to comply with arbitrary distancing rules. These actions involved incidental violations of administrative edicts, not physical resistance to officers executing lawful arrests. In some cases, churches that dissented from COVID policies endured litigious reprisals, complied with the process, and were later vindicated. The mode of resistance was through lawful channels that amounted to appeals to civil authorities for relief.
The present situation is materially different. Recent immigration protests have involved physical obstruction, attempted “de-arrests,” assaults on federal agents, blocking traffic, and coordinated efforts to interfere with law enforcement. In documented cases, officers were assaulted while performing their duties. Vehicles were used as weapons while organized networks facilitated obstruction and resistance. That conduct cannot be justified by appeal to Romans 13 or to Protestant resistance theory, even if some state-level magistrates are looking the other way, signaling tacit approval of the disorder for their own political ends. At least under today’s circumstances, it is not principled civil disobedience but lawless rebellion against a magistrate acting within his office.
By what standard do we judge the difference? By the same standard in both cases. Romans 13 explicitly condemns violent resistance to lawful authority just as surely as it implicitly condemns tyrannical overreach.
3. The Nature of the Underlying Violation
A third distinction concerns the acts that prompt government enforcement in the first place. Not all violations are morally equivalent.
Illegal immigration violates both civil law and moral law. It involves trespass, the unlawful crossing of boundaries, and often the appropriation of goods and services to which one has no lawful claim. Scripture consistently treats theft and unlawful seizure of property as sin. Trespassing is not the same thing as sojourning; Scripture draws a distinction between lawful residence under authority and unauthorized entry that disregards jurisdiction and order (Gen. 23:3–4; Exod. 22:1; Deut. 19:14; Ruth 1:1; Acts 17:26).
By contrast, gathering for worship, standing within six feet of another person, or declining to wear a mask do not violate natural law. At most, they violated modern positive law—and often not law at all but administrative edicts issued without proper legislative authority. The burden of proof lies with those who continue to support COVID-era health policies to demonstrate that such pronouncements aligned both with legal precedent and Western legal tradition in general, derived from both Scripture and reason. Thus, the moral weight of these actions is not comparable.
Equal weights and equal measures require us to recognize a government response to conduct that violates the moral law of God is not the same as a government response to conduct that violates no moral law at all.
Applying Romans 13 to Contemporary Resistance
The unfortunate consequence of the ham-fisted attempt to retroactively condemn resistance under the COVID era is to sidestep the plain application of Paul’s teachings on the state. How then should we understand the apostle’s essential argument in Romans 13:1–7?
First, Paul begins, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities” (v. 1). Believers are called to submit to established government, not to pick and choose which authorities they will acknowledge. Submission is not a matter of convenience but conscience before God (cf. v. 5).
Second, the text reminds us that there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Civil government is neither an arbitrary construct nor a mere consequence of the fall but exists as instituted by God, accountable to him, and constrained by his law. Christians must recognize that in some sense, even behind governments they dislike, stands the authority of their Creator. Thus, Paul adds, “Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment” (v. 2). This is personal and categorical. To resist civil authority as a matter of course is to resist what God has appointed.
Third, Paul clarifies the role of the magistrate, stating that rulers are not a terror to good conduct but to bad (v. 3). This assumes that civil authority bears the sword to restrain wrongdoing. In situations where law enforcement is enforcing standing law, even if imperfectly—assuming that law does not conflict with the natural law—that enforcement is within the scope God has assigned to the civil magistrate.
Fourth, the apostle asks, “Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval” (v. 3). The way to avoid conflict with the magistrate is not escalation or confrontation, à la Minneapolis’ unruly protests, but doing what is lawful and good. Submission is a practical safeguard against unnecessary collision with authority.
Fifth, Paul adds, “For [the governing authority] is God’s servant for your good” (v. 4). The civil officer, insofar as he carries out his calling to uphold order and restrain disorder, is to serve God’s good purpose. Christians should acknowledge that reality even amid disagreement or protest.
Finally, Paul instructs believers to “pay taxes . . . respect . . . [and] honor . . . [those] to whom honor is owed” (v. 7). Christians are therefore called to a general disposition of deference and formal support for civil institutions that exist for the public good. Acts of physical confrontation and street-level violence, especially when not aimed at rescuing the innocent from immediate harm, stand in direct opposition to that posture.
Applied to the events in Minneapolis (and elsewhere), these verses mean that Christians must honestly ask whether the conduct they are resisting falls outside the proper scope of civil authority as God has defined it. Protests against abuses or genuine violations of conscience may have a place; but resistance that actively obstructs the enforcement of standing law, that involves physical interference with officers carrying out their duties, or that invites violent confrontation is not the kind of submission or protest Romans 13 even theoretically permits. In every case, the Christian is called to recognize both the divine origin of authority and the limits Scripture places on resistance.
Conclusion
None of this removes the need for prudence. Allegations of injustice by law enforcement must be investigated. Christians should care deeply about truth and justice wherever they are threatened.
Prudence, however, must not be confused with uncritical empathy, which is easily exploited by bad actors. Scripture consistently warns against judging by appearances and instead calls God’s people to discernment. As Michael Clary has recently noted in his reflections on Philippians 1, Paul does not pray that the church’s love would simply grow in intensity, but that it would abound “with knowledge and all discernment” (Phil. 1:9). Love severed from discernment is not virtuous but misdirected.
There is a long Protestant tradition of resistance theory, grounded in Scripture and developed through careful reflection on the limits of civil authority. That tradition demands consistency. The standard has not changed; Romans 13 still governs our thinking. When the magistrate exceeds his office, faithful resistance may be required. When the magistrate acts within his God-given role, submission is owed. The question is not whether one side feels aggrieved but by what unchanging standard we are to judge.