The book of Judges contains an interesting phrase. Once in Judges 17:6, and again in 21:25, we read "In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes." Reading the rest of Judges, we see that this was as terrible a state of affairs as one might imagine, but in Scripture as a whole, we see that even the addition of a king was barely a little better.
As the world stands, government is a necessary evil, but it turns out it is an evil nonetheless. The concept of a government looks good on paper. Indeed, the Bible itself is one such paper, declaring that government is "...the minister of God to thee for good..." (Romans 13:4). For this cause, Christians are generally called to obey government. Do good, don't do evil, obey the government, because they are designed to punish evil and do good.
But especially in recent years, we see that even this fails. Like wearing a jacket in the arctic, it merely delays the inevitable onset of hypothermia. It is far better to have these guards in place, but they will not hold indefinitely. Sooner or later, even the best of governments will become so evil, it would be better if they lost power.
But why is this the case, and what should we do about it? The answer to the former question is easy: Sin. All systems fall because they must inevitably be entrusted to sinful human beings. The latter question is significantly more complex, requiring more time and effort than I could expect to sink into a book series, much less an article. Nevertheless, there is a Christian answer.
Human nature and politicians
First and foremost, the answer isn't more government. There is a common delusion, of course propagated by governments themselves, that the government, rather than being a necessary evil, are the solution to evil. People allegedly lack the sense to govern themselves, and so the government must step in and do it for them. The problem with this delusion is evident in its own statement. When you say people can't solve their own problems, so government must do it for us, what you're actually saying is people can't solve their own problems, so let a specific group of people solve the problems for them.
This, of course, is contradictory. If people cannot solve their own problems, people cannot solve their problems. Politicians are not special classes of people in either sense. There may be one group that wants you to believe the government is entirely populated by alien lizard people in need of immediate eradication, and another group who believes they are divine beings whose only purpose is our health and prosperity, but the truth is, a politician is exactly as human when they run for, win, take, and leave office as they were before the idea of entering politics first entered their minds.
This is actually said to be true of even the Nazis. In our modern culture, we look back on the Nazis as monsters, and in one sense, justly so. Their actions were monstrous. Nevertheless, we must remember that they were as human as you or I. In fact, while I have never been able to recover the article, I remember distinctly reading a Holocaust survivor saying the scariest thing about the Nazis was how frightfully normal they were. They had friends and family. They had hobbies. They bled red blood, they ate and pooped, they slept. The Nazis were 100% human, and humans have every chance of becoming like the Nazis. We distance ourselves from it, because we hate it, but just as the Nazis were normal people, normal people can become Nazis.
This is particularly visible in a series of experiments performed by social psychologist Stanley Milgram. In the early 1960s, experiments were conducted in which test subjects were lead to believe they were administering electric shocks to human beings. The shocks were fake, but participants were unaware of this. They were told to continue administering the shocks, up to 450 volts, which is more than enough to kill a human being. The experiment aimed to see if they would obey the authority figures by administering the shocks, and while they were often reluctant to do so, they did.
Milgram's experiments show, first of all, just how willing people are to do stupid, dangerous, and flat out evil things just because an authority figure told them to. It's not even a matter of duress. During the experiment, it wasn't "shock this person, or I'll kill you". It was just "hey, I'm a scientist, I know what I'm doing, now do what I tell you."
The scope of government authority
But of course, while people are quite willing to obey authority, Milgram's experiments are also a great example of why we shouldn't. When obeying an authority, we can often do unimaginably evil things. The greater irony is that even authorities submit to other authorities. You can as easily deceive or bribe a prime minister as a primary school student. Because of all of the above, it is necessary to limit government authority.
One of the main problems in this issue is centralisation. Centralisation is both a strength and a weakness. On the one hand, it is a strength, because it allows for organisation. Anarchy, and even a true Democracy (mob rule) both fail due to a lack of centralisation. Power is so sparsely distributed that, ironically, it becomes centralised in the wrong places. A gang of armed thieves vs. a small group of frail innocents is not a fair fight. But centralisation is a weakness for that very reason: The gang of armed thieves can become the government.
Therefore, government authority must be permitted to exist, but within a limited scope. There are ways in which this can be done, starting with ensuring the right to question where these limits are.
Freedom of expression: A primary right
Freedom of speech, and the broader concept of freedom of expression, are two of the most important values human beings can enjoy. With a grand total of zero exceptions, evil governments have limited freedom of expression, and with a grand total of one exception (that being Theocratic Israel under the law of Moses, i.e. that which was delivered by the infallible and Holy God), governments that limit free expression have nefarious motives for doing so.
We see this right now with the Russian assault on Ukraine. Freedom of expression is not a Russian value. In fact, Russia has recently banned Facebook and Twitter (1). In the mean time, Russian media is forbidden from criticising the war, instead pushing the narrative that Ukraine is attacking its own people, while Russia is attempting to liberate the Ukrainian people. They claim they are not targeting civilians, only military bases, and that if civilians are injured at all, it is the fault of the Ukrainian government for using civilians as shields. This propaganda is so effective that even Russians with family in Ukraine are actually hesitant to believe anything is wrong with the war. (2).
And so we see that not only is freedom of expression an important right to maintain, evil governments recognise this fact, and because it poses such a threat to their evil agendas, they seek to suppress it. When good people are allowed to speak freely, they tend to speak against evil. On the flip side, silence in the face of evil is evil in and of itself. Silence, as they say, is consent.
Scripture, as it turns out, addresses this concept directly, commanding us "Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow." (Isaiah 1:17). It is worth noting here that there is a textual variant. While the KJV says "relieve the oppressed", other versions say "rebuke/correct the oppressor". Both renderings have similar applications, but given every other statement in the verse, "rebuke the oppressor" seems to be the best rendering. At any rate, speaking against bad government is both commended, and even exemplified, in Scripture. Indeed, it is the very reason John the Baptist was beheaded.
This, unfortunately, is an occupational hazard of the Christian faith. When freedom of expression is attacked, Christians tend to suffer the brunt of it, simply because we are the most likely to freely express the truth regardless of the law. This is exemplified by the Apostles themselves, who, when they were commanded by the Sanhedrin "do not teach in this name", instead answered "We ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:28-29).
Furthermore, we are commanded to pray for our leaders. "I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:1-4).
Although persecution is an occupational hazard of the Christian faith, and enduring it with grace is a Godly value, it is nevertheless preferable that it be avoided. Where possible, Christians should flee persecution, and we should absolutely be praying that it does not happen in the first place. This does not mean it won't happen, it just means it's evil when it does.
Legitimate power can be abused
We see this in the way Christ Himself was treated. It is undeniable that what happened to Christ was the ultimate good. It pleased the Lord to crush Him as an offering for sin (Isaiah 53:10), and while Christ Himself prayed "let this cup pass from me" (Matthew 26:38-39), He also prayed "not my will, but yours be done" (Matthew 26:42). It was God's will that Christ be crucified, and in the end, His glory is magnified by every penitent sinner who receives an inheritance in the Kingdom. Yet does God not take what man intends for evil and use it for good? (Genesis 50:20; Romans 8:28). Absolutely He does!
Now pay attention to what Christ says to Pilate: "Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin." (John 19:10-11).
This, again, closely mirrors what Paul tells us in Romans 13: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." (v1-2). Every soul, of course limited only to Pilate's jurisdiction, was justly subject to his power, and resisting him was akin to resisting God. Yet, when put on trial, Jesus said to him "...he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin". But a greater requires a lesser. Due to his position, Pilate's sin was lesser, yet it was sin nonetheless.
And so we see a bit of a web. On the one hand, we are required to obey government as we would obey God, because God Himself instituted them. On the other hand, their power is not absolute, it can be abused, they're sinning when they abuse it, and we can both speak out against, and are even required to disobey them.
What do we do when the government messes up?
All of this gets particularly messy when it comes to particularly evil governments. With humans in charge, it is inevitable that even the best governments will fall. It is convenient, at least for the intellect, that the same Paul who exhorts us not to resist the government, but to instead pray for them, actually lived under one of the most evil governments imaginable. Indeed, the aforementioned Pilate was a particularly nasty individual, mixing the blood of Galileans with their sacrifices (Luke 13:1). Paul spent, and eventually even lost his life being persecuted for the sake of the Gospel, and so if he can say "For for this cause pay ye tribute also..." and "Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour" (Romans 13:6-7), it is incumbent upon us to obey. It may not always be easy, but it will usually be Godly.
Nevertheless, the question then becomes can we overthrow bad governments if we seek to institute a new one? Every government in existence today owes its existence to some revolution or another, some of which were even lead by faithful and knowledgeable Christians. They resisted the powers, yet rather than damn them, God rewarded their efforts. The most obvious example would be the American Revolutionary war. How do we address these issues?
To answer that, it can be helpful to ask how the revolutionaries themselves justified it. With many revolutions, it is merely a case of one ungodly regime replacing another, but the American Revolution was fought by Godly Christians with Godly motivations. And as it turns out, they did consider Romans 13.
However, their thoughts on the passage were quite interesting. For one thing, they also considered (keeping in mind that Scripture interprets Scripture) the phrasing of 1 Peter 2:13: "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake...". That phrase "for the Lord's sake", in the eyes of the revolutionaries, was enough to justify interpreting Romans 13 as subject to certain exceptions. After all, when the government commands sin, and even when they command silence (going back to Acts 5:29 as our example), it is necessary to disobey. The question becomes, then, how can you obey a bad law "for the Lord's sake"? Is it not better to overthrow a tyranny, establishing a more Christ-friendly government more hospitable to freely worship God? After all, this is what we pray for, and God certainly does not expect us to merely sit on a shovel and pray for a hole; faith without works is dead!
Self defence - Another justification for war
Furthermore, war was not their first thought. Initially, they sought reform by way of the pen. The trouble is, contrary to popular cliché, the pen is not mightier than the sword, much less the musket. The king was so bloodthirsty, even his own laws were not much of a hindrance to him. Tragic events, such as the Boston Massacre in which armed British soldiers opened fire on a crowd of unarmed citizens, were more than enough motivation to fight back.
The sanctity of life and government
Of course, the sanctity of life is a primary Christian value. From the dawn of humanity, the Author of life has made His stance clear on its importance. The wages of sin may well be death, but God demands an account for every drop of blood. As we read in Genesis 6:5-6, "And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."
Because human beings are made in the image of God, we have a certain inherent value. Though He is obviously not against capital punishment, outright demanding it in the above passage, He is thoroughly opposed to death. Indeed, in Ezekiel 18, we read "Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal? Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord God. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye." (Ezekiel 18:23-32).
Death, while it is a just consequence for sin, is not something God takes pleasure in. Even when it is deserved, God is not happy with it. Therefore, we can reasonably say it should be preserved at heavy cost.
The just lie?
This actually includes in disobedience to government. For example, when the Egyptian midwives, Shiphrah and Puah, received orders to kill male Hebrew babies, they rebelled, lying to Pharaoh. For this, God rewarded them with their own families (Exodus 1:15-21). This answers the question of the "just lie". Lying, of course, is forbidden in Christianity, yet there are scenarios in which it is the lesser evil. The most commonly cited example is, once again, during the Nazi regime. If the Nazis asked if you knew where they could find Jews, could you lie and say no, or would that be sin?
The answer, as shown by both the Egyptian midwives lying to Pharaoh, and later by Rahab lying for the Hebrew spies, is that it is entirely permissible to lie when telling the truth leads to a great injustice. Of course, there are limits. You cannot justify lying willy nilly because "the ends justify the means". But "the spies went that way", or "the Hebrews give birth too fast", were just lies, because they prevented murder.
Self defence - A vital human right
But exactly how far are we permitted to go to prevent murder? Thankfully, the Bible does not leave us floundering. The book of Esther is an excellent place to look for an example. Following deceit by Haman, king Ahasuerus authorised Haman to do as he saw fit (Esther 3:11). Unfortunately, what he saw fit to do was issue an order in the king's name that Persian officials were to kill all the Jews.
But Mordecai, a faithful Jew, encouraged Esther "For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place; but thou and thy father's house shall be destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?" (Esther 4:14). This is significant. The implication (and of course, following the logic of God's sovereignty, the fact) is that the events that followed were all in God's plan. This is how the Lord would preserve His covenant people, and by His grace, Esther was privileged to be a part of it.
How this eventually played out was that the king issued a new order. "Wherein the king granted the Jews which were in every city to gather themselves together, and to stand for their life, to destroy, to slay and to cause to perish, all the power of the people and province that would assault them, both little ones and women, and to take the spoil of them for a prey, Upon one day in all the provinces of king Ahasuerus, namely, upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar. The copy of the writing for a commandment to be given in every province was published unto all people, and that the Jews should be ready against that day to avenge themselves on their enemies." (Esther 8:11-13).
In Esther 9, we see just how effective this was. The attack on the Jews did indeed take place, but it did not go well for the attackers. The Jews absolutely minced their oppressors, including Haman, who instead ended up hanging from the very gallows he intended for Mordecai.
From this, we see an excellent example of self defence approved, and even ordained, by God, but we actually do not need to read as far as Esther to see His approval. In fact, it seems enshrined in the law of Moses. In Exodus 22:2-3, we read "If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."
Some might object that this has nothing to do with self defence, and at least explicitly they may have a point. However, I am a strong believer in the use of the purposive approach to interpreting Mosaic law. And I believe I can prove it with an example in 1 Corinthians 9:9-10: "For it is written in the law of Moses, thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope."
Here, Paul clearly tells us that although the law says not to muzzle an ox while it treads corn (Deuteronomy 25:4), the purpose of this law is not for the benefit of the oxen, but for us. Now, I must contend, based on Scriptures such as Matthew 10:29 and Jonah 4:11 that God absolutely cares for oxen, however it is to a significantly lesser degree. We can flat out eat oxen (Genesis 9:3; Romans 14:2), whereas humans, being made in God's image, are to be preserved. Nevertheless, "doth God care" is not a dispute of the legitimacy of the law, but a command to consider God's intentions.
So consider the intentions of Exodus 22:2-3. "Doth God care" about the sun? Surely not. It's not as if God expects lawful behavior during the day, but as soon as the sun goes down, it's the puuuuuuuuurge! No, the intention is clearly the level of threat posed by the thief. The thief himself has identical value during both night and day, but so does the homeowner. The crime is also equally sinful. Theft doesn't become more evil during the night, nor does it suddenly become ok during the day. But especially in a time before electricity, or even the invention of the light bulb, a thief was significantly more dangerous during the night than during the day. He cannot be as easily identified, his intentions are harder to discern, you might not even be able to tell if he's armed or not. Thus, when God says there is no bloodshed due for killing a thief at night, He is effectively advocating castle doctrine. It is evident, at least to me, that if it comes down to a sinner's life or his victim's, even if the victim is a private citizen, he has the right to do what is necessary to protect himself.
The right to keep and bear arms
It seems redundant to point out that private ownership of weapons is beneficial for both purposes. Private weapon ownership makes both the security of a free state, and the safety of innocent civilians, far easier to maintain. It seems, therefore, to be no coincidence that the right to keep and bear arms is also a commonly attacked right for bad governments. Bad governments do not want their victims shooting back, and so they typically ban weapons as soon as possible. Bonus points if it has already been done for them.
Once again, the Nazis are an excellent example of this. While gun control was not a policy unique to the Nazis, nor were they even the first to implement it in Germany, Hitler certainly tightened Germany's gun laws, depriving his victims of their ability to defend themselves. As one pro-gun meme once put it, "I saw a movie where only the police and military were allowed to have guns once. It was called Schindler's List." Schindler's List is a non-fictional historical drama set during the Holocaust, depicting many of its horrors, including scenes, such as the one above, in which an armed Nazi attempts (though if memory serves, the gun jammed) to shoot a Jew in the back of the head for the "crime" of correcting him.
We can contrast this with the example of the Warsaw Ghetto revolt. On April 19th 1943, the S.S. entered Warsaw Ghetto, seeking to cart off the Jews to the death camps, but they were met with heavy resistance. In spite of their harsh living conditions, the Jews in the ghetto had amassed an army 1,000 men strong, and had armed them with home made explosives, and smuggled firearms. General Heinrich Himmler promised Hitler that he would crush the ghetto in 3 days, but the resistance managed to hold out for four weeks before the Ghetto was finally defeated, and the surviving Jews were taken to the death camps. The question must be asked, if a rag tag militia with such improvised weaponry could hold off the well-trained, fully equipped S.S. for 4 weeks, what might have happened had Germany enshrined the right to keep and bear arms into their constitution, similar to America's second amendment, and maintained it until Hitler took power?
Sadly, the world will never know what would have happened if Hitler's 6 million Jewish victims had armed themselves as their ancestors did in the days of Esther. Nevertheless, it can be assumed the balance would have been significantly less skewed in Hitler's favor. The question is, would Jesus want it that way?
It is interesting to note that Jesus was quite comfortable with His own Apostles "packing heat". Although He is famous for His saying "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" (Matthew 26:52), it is actually He who commanded him to carry the sword in the first place. "And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough." (Luke 22:35-38).
Now, I think it can be quite reasonably assumed Jesus did not intend those two swords for gardening purposes. That's just not what swords are used for. Swords are weapons, specifically intended to harm living beings in combat. Furthermore, that harm is less than ideally dealt to animals. It doesn't really work as a hunting instrument because prey runs too fast for melee attacks, and predators, particularly of the variety around in those days, were too dangerous for close quarters combat to be a wise endeavor. No, Jesus fully intended that those swords be used against human beings.
So what did Jesus mean by "all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword"? He can't mean swords are sinful, He explicitly commanded them. "...he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one". Nor was this a one-off command, He knew and expressed that the two swords already present were enough to fulfill the immediate purpose. There were enough swords there for the immediate purpose, but there were men present who had no sword, and thus, by His command, should have sold their cloak to buy one. So what gives?
The answer is obvious: While Jesus was not a Pacifist, He was certainly no Jihadist either. He did not expect His followers to fight, even in His own defence (John 18:36). We, as Christians, are not charged with waging some Holy war for world domination. Nevertheless, as long as men are both equipped and inclined to do violence, we must also be prepared to face violence. The best way to do that is to have access to the most effective weaponry available.
Of course, that does not necessarily mean we need these weapons. After all, Christ reminded them of a time when He sent them out without so much as shoes, and they lacked nothing. God is more than capable of providing for our needs, and so when He tells us to do something, you will be fully equipped to do it, even if you cannot obtain what you would ordinarily need for it. Nevertheless, only a fool fails to prepare contingency plans. "For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish. Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace." (Luke 14:28-32).
And so it seems the right to keep and bear arms is just God-approved common sense. The Christian attitude, I believe, should be "better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war". That is, peace should absolutely be our default. After all, in Romans 12:18, Paul commands us "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men."
But what if it is not possible? What if it doesn't lie with us? What if, for example, some senile old fool rises to power and makes a dog's dinner of a military withdrawal from a certain country, allowing a savage group of murderers to not only overthrow their government and take possession of an entire country, but also of large quantities of military grade weapons? When those weapons are turned on you, I think Scripture tells us it is entirely acceptable to shoot back, even if it is only to over our retreat.
The sovereignty of God
In spite of God's instructions, it is unfortunate that the authorities He ordains will often betray Him. They will make bad laws, not only stupid ones, but outright immoral ones. They will kill, they will steal, they will lie. They will constantly violate the rights of their people, even to the extent of flat out commanding sin. As Pilate gave Christ to be crucified, government will always be prone to persecute His Church.
But it's not like they could put up a fight.
Scripture is clear, no government has power apart from God. If any government abuses its power, it does so against God, but well within His will. Not that He wills for them to sin, but He uses that sin sinlessly, taking what man intends for evil and turning it out for good, both for His own glory, and for the sake of those who love Him. Was not Pharaoh an evil ruler? And yet, the Lord says to him "...for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth." (Exodus 9:16, cf. Romans 9:17).
This tells us that, strangely enough, even bad governments are a good thing. They are evil, doing many bad things, and are certainly bad for the world as a whole, but the world is already perishing, as are we. In some strange way, this life both matters and doesn't matter simultaneously. As one drop of urine pollutes a whole glass of water, so also is sin significant enough to earn God's wrath, but just as every drop of water has likely passed through at least one animal before you drink it, so also will the Lord purify all things in the end. Therefore, the Christian attitude to politics is to simply obey God and let Him deal with how that works out. If the king sins, rebuke him. If he takes your head, we have a God who will give you a new one (Daniel 3:17-18). If the world hates you, remember it hated Christ first (John 15:18-19). If you suffer, don't act as if some strange thing happened to you (1 Peter 4:12), but rejoice that you were counted worthy to suffer for Him (Acts 5:41).
You cannot lose if you obey God, even if that means obeying bad governments. If you must disobey the government, do it in obedience to God, honoring Him in all you do (Colossians 3:23). Perhaps you may bring change, but in the end, our goal is not necessarily to bring good things to this world. Rather, even if we suffer in this life, our good things are in the next (Luke 16:25), and they are so great, our present sufferings are not worthy to be compared (Romans 8:18). Ideally, the government should do good, and be a terror to evil (Romans 13:3-4), and we should pray for them so that, at the very least, they leave us in peace (1 Timothy 2:1-4). But even if they thirst for blood, even if they seek to interrupt our worship, we should worship Him all the more, knowing that one day the true King of kings will reign forever, and unlike our governments, He will neither fail nor fall.
References
1. Milmo, Dan - Russia blocks access to Facebook and Twitter, The Guardian, March 4th 2022 (link)
2. Korenyuk, Maria and Goodman, Jack - Ukraine war: 'My city's being shelled, but mum won’t believe me', BBC News, March 5th 2022 (link)