God, Choice, and the Meaning of Moral Responsibility

by Rev. William M. Brennan, TH.D. 

The idea that God is “pro-choice” is often misunderstood, especially in modern political discourse. In Scripture, God undeniably affirms human choice—but not in the shallow sense of moral neutrality. Rather, God grants choice as a weighty, soul-shaping responsibility, one that always unfolds within a clear moral framework. Choice, in the biblical sense, is never detached from truth, consequence, or accountability.

From the beginning, God places human beings before decisive alternatives. “Choose life,” He urges, and then immediately asks, “Why should you die?” This is not the language of indifference. God does not say all options are equal or morally interchangeable; He pleads with humanity to choose rightly. The freedom He gives is real, but it is ordered toward the good. Choice exists so that love, obedience, and faith may be genuine—not coerced—but it never redefines evil as good.

This is especially clear in the central Christian claim that each person must decide whether to put faith in Christ or to reject Him. That decision is often described as a “choice,” yet no serious Christian would call apostasy a morally neutral option. To reject Christ is not merely to select an alternative lifestyle; it is to choose separation from God, with eternal consequences. Scripture consistently treats this choice with gravity, warning, and sorrow—not with celebratory language about personal autonomy.

When this theological understanding of choice is applied to abortion, the moral tension becomes clear. Those who describe themselves as “pro-choice” insist that the central issue is the right to choose. But the question is not whether choice exists—clearly it does—but what, precisely, is being chosen. If abortion involves the deliberate ending of an innocent human life, then the “choice” in question is not morally analogous to choosing a career or a belief system. It is a choice about whether to commit an act of lethal violence against the most vulnerable.

To call this stance “pro-choice” rather than “pro-infant homicide” is therefore deeply disingenuous, at least from a Christian moral perspective. Language matters because it frames moral reality. We do not describe theft as “pro-property redistribution,” nor do we describe adultery as “pro-relationship choice.” In each case, euphemism serves to soften or obscure the gravity of the act itself. Likewise, calling abortion “choice” shifts attention away from the child whose life is at stake and centers it instead on the autonomy of the stronger party.

God’s affirmation of choice is never an endorsement of every possible decision. He permits human beings to choose evil, but He never blesses that choice or pretends it is morally neutral. His question—“Why should you die?”—reveals His heart: permission without approval, freedom without moral confusion. Divine love warns, exhorts, and calls people toward life, even while respecting their capacity to reject it.

In this light, the claim that God is “pro-choice” only makes sense if the term is stripped of its modern political meaning and restored to its biblical depth. God is pro-choice in that He allows human beings to make decisions with eternal consequences. He is not pro-choice in the sense that He redefines evil as a legitimate option or cloaks acts of injustice in morally sanitized language. True choice, in the Christian worldview, always stands before a stark reality: life or death, faith or rejection, obedience or rebellion. And God’s counsel has never changed—choose life.

The Death of the Unborn and Biblical Penology: Why “Life for Life” Applies in Principle

 by Rev. William M. Brennan, TH.D.

Introduction

A central question in biblical ethics is whether Scripture treats unborn life as fully human life under God’s justice. If the unborn child is truly a human person, then the destruction of that life cannot be treated as a mere inconvenience or private loss, but must be evaluated under the Bible’s highest moral categories. Scripture consistently teaches that human beings bear God’s image, that innocent bloodshed is a profound evil, and that civil justice exists to uphold the sanctity of human life. When these principles are brought together, a coherent biblical-penological argument emerges: if the unborn is fully human, then the intentional killing of the unborn falls under the same “life for life” moral logic Scripture applies to intentional homicide.

This essay argues that (1) Scripture recognizes the unborn as truly human, (2) Scripture distinguishes accidental from intentional killing, and (3) Scripture assigns “life for life” as the fitting judicial response to deliberate, unjust killing of a human being. Taken together, these principles establish that, within the Bible’s own categories, the deliberate destruction of unborn life would be treated as a capital offense in principle.

1. The unborn as a human life under biblical moral concern

The Bible does not treat personhood as something earned after birth, nor does it ground human dignity in development, independence, or social recognition. Instead, it presents human worth as rooted in God’s creative act and purpose.

This is seen throughout Scripture’s way of speaking about life in the womb. The unborn are not described as “potential people” but as real subjects of God’s knowledge, calling, and care. The biblical worldview treats the womb as a place where human life truly exists and where God is already at work in forming persons. Thus, unborn life falls under the category of human life that matters morally, not simply biologically.

This framework is essential: if the unborn is within the moral category of “human being,” then what is done to the unborn cannot be treated as morally trivial.

2. Exodus 21:22–25: injury to the unborn and “life for life”

Exodus 21:22–25 is a key legal text because it places pregnancy outcomes inside the court’s concern and assigns penalties based on harm.

The case describes men fighting who strike a pregnant woman so that “her children come out.” The law then divides outcomes:

• If the children come out but no harm follows, a fine is imposed under judicial oversight.

• If harm follows, the legal principle becomes lex talionis: “life for life, eye for eye…”

The critical point is that this is not merely a fine-for-loss framework. When harm is present, the text moves immediately into the Bible’s highest judicial language: the proportional justice of life and limb.

Within biblical penology, “life for life” is the category used when a human life has been wrongfully taken. Exodus 21 does not treat pregnancy loss as automatically outside that category; rather, it introduces a scenario where a pregnancy crisis can trigger the law’s strongest justice principle. That strongly supports the conclusion that the unborn child is regarded as the kind of being who can suffer legally cognizable harm—up to and including death—and that such harm invokes proportionate justice.

In other words, Exodus 21 places the unborn within the realm of persons protected by the same judicial logic used to protect any human life.

3. Genesis 9:5–6: the image of God and the principle of capital accountability

Genesis 9:5–6 provides the foundational rationale for biblical penology concerning homicide:

“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.”

This passage grounds the seriousness of murder in the doctrine of the imago Dei: human beings uniquely bear God’s image. For that reason, the unjust shedding of human blood requires an equally weighty judicial response. The principle is straightforward:

• Murder violates the image of God in the victim.

• Therefore justice requires the life of the offender in response.

This is not presented as emotional revenge but as moral accounting. The penalty corresponds to the value of what was destroyed. Since the victim’s life was image-bearing life, the punishment is proportionate: “by man shall his blood be shed.”

The relevance to unborn life is clear in principle: if the unborn is truly human—an image-bearing human life—then the deliberate destruction of that life is the deliberate shedding of human blood, the category Genesis 9 places under the ultimate judicial sanction.

4. Numbers 35: the Bible’s sharpest legal logic on intentional killing

Numbers 35 offers some of the most explicit penal instruction in Scripture on homicide. It distinguishes accidental killing from intentional killing and repeatedly affirms that the murderer “shall be put to death.” It also forbids commutation:

“You shall accept no ransom for the life of a murderer… he shall be put to death.”

This is central to biblical penology: some crimes are so severe that they cannot be made right with compensation. The life taken cannot be bought back. The law treats intentional homicide as a unique offense that threatens the moral fabric of the community.

Numbers 35 also describes bloodshed as defiling the land and insists that justice must address it rather than ignore it. Thus, the penalty is not a private vendetta but a public moral act intended to uphold the sanctity of life and restrain further violence.

Applied as a principle, the logic would be: if intentional killing of a human life is what triggers this sanction, and if unborn life is human life, then intentional killing of unborn life falls under the same moral classification.

5. Intent and culpability: why deliberate killing is treated more severely than accidental harm

Biblical law does not treat all killing as morally identical. It recognizes categories such as:

• accidental death without malice,

• negligent harm,

• deliberate murder with intent and cunning.

Exodus 21 itself distinguishes between a killing that occurs without intention and one that is carried out intentionally: the former may involve refuge or lesser penalties; the latter requires death even if the offender seeks sanctuary.

This distinction is important because it means the Bible treats intentionality not as a minor detail but as a core moral difference. The more deliberate the act, the greater the culpability.

Therefore, when reasoning within biblical penology, an act that is intentional and aimed at the death of a human being is categorized in the same moral space as murder, not accident.

6. Lex talionis and the moral shape of justice

“Eye for eye” is often misunderstood as primitive vengeance, but in Scripture it functions as a restraint and a measure:

• punishment must match harm,

• justice must not be arbitrary,

• the poor and weak must not be discounted,

• the powerful must not escape accountability.

Because the loss of life is the greatest harm, the logic of lex talionis culminates in “life for life.” It represents the principle that the law exists to treat human life as morally sacred and not negotiable.

If the unborn is fully human, then the law’s “life for life” structure becomes morally relevant whenever unborn life is unjustly taken.

7. The synthesized conclusion inside the biblical system

When the biblical principles are assembled, the argument forms a consistent chain:

1. Human life bears God’s image and therefore has inviolable moral value (Genesis 9:6).

2. The unborn is treated in Scripture as real human life, not as a non-personal object.

3. Exodus 21:22–25 places pregnancy harm within judicial concern and applies “life for life” when harm rises to the level of fatality.

4. Biblical law treats deliberate killing as uniquely severe, distinguishing it from accident and negligence (Exodus 21; Numbers 35).

5. Therefore, within the Bible’s own categories, the deliberate killing of unborn human life falls under the same moral classification as intentional homicide and thus under the “life for life” principle of biblical penology.

This does not depend on later philosophy, medical knowledge, or social convention. It is an argument from the Bible’s own view of life, justice, and moral accountability.

Conclusion

Biblical penology is built on the sanctity of human life as image-bearing life. Exodus 21:22–25 is significant because it brings unborn life into the legal sphere of harm and justice and employs the strongest judicial principle—“life for life”—in a pregnancy-related case. Genesis 9:5–6 establishes that the shedding of human blood requires capital accountability because the victim bears God’s image, and Numbers 35 clarifies that intentional homicide is a crime that cannot be settled through compensation but demands the highest sanction.

If the unborn is fully human, then the deliberate destruction of unborn life necessarily falls within the Bible’s category of unjust bloodshed and therefore within the moral logic of “life for life.” Within the biblical system itself, this conclusion is not an emotional leap but an application of the Bible’s consistent justice principles to the status of the unborn as fully human persons.

Christian Submission to Governing Authorities

 Personal Obedience, Moral Limits, and the Absence of a Mandate for Political Interference

by Rev. William M. Brennan, TH.D.

Introduction

Few biblical teachings generate as much modern controversy as the New Testament’s command that Christians submit to governing authorities. Contemporary debates often assume that obedience to God requires resistance to unjust governments or immoral public policies. Yet such assumptions frequently exceed what Scripture itself authorizes. This essay argues that the New Testament teaches a robust doctrine of submission to governing authorities, limited only where the state commands direct personal sin or explicit unfaithfulness to God, and that it does not authorize Christians to interfere with or resist governmental operations merely on the basis of perceived injustice. This position is not only biblically grounded but also historically confirmed by the practice and teaching of the early Church.

---

I. The New Testament’s Positive Doctrine of Submission

The foundational text is Romans 13:1–7, where the apostle Paul commands believers to be subject to governing authorities on the basis that all authority exists by God’s ordination. Paul’s language is comprehensive: “Let every person be subject,” leaving no indication that the command applies only to just or righteous governments. The Roman Empire under which Paul wrote was pagan, coercive, and often brutal, yet submission is presented as a matter of conscience before God rather than approval of the state’s moral character.

Parallel teachings appear in 1 Peter 2:13–17, where submission is commanded “for the Lord’s sake,” even to rulers who punish unjustly, and in Titus 3:1, which exhorts Christians to obedience and readiness for good works. Notably, none of these texts condition submission on the justice of laws, the morality of rulers, or the outcomes of policy. The concern is order, witness, and faithfulness—not political reform.

---

II. The Narrow Biblical Exception: Obedience to God over Men

The New Testament does recognize a limit to submission. The oft-cited declaration, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29), establishes that obedience to civil authority is not absolute. However, the scope of this exception is precise and consistently applied.

In Acts 5, the apostles are explicitly commanded by governing authorities to cease preaching in the name of Jesus—a direct contradiction of Christ’s commission. Their refusal does not involve overthrow, protest, or institutional interference. Rather, they decline to perform a specific act that would constitute personal disobedience to God and accept the legal consequences.

This same pattern appears throughout Scripture. The Hebrew midwives in Exodus 1 refuse to kill infants. Daniel refuses idolatry and prayer prohibitions in Daniel 3 and 6. In every case, disobedience is limited to the sinful command itself. There is no biblical precedent for resisting government action merely because it produces injustice affecting others or society at large.

Thus, the biblical principle is not opposition to injustice as such, but refusal to personally commit sin when commanded by the state.

---

III. What the New Testament Does Not Authorize

Crucially, the New Testament does not instruct Christians to interfere with governmental operations, disrupt political systems, or resist laws on the basis of unjust outcomes alone. Jesus Himself submits to a deeply unjust legal process, offering no resistance and explicitly rejecting violent or coercive defense (Matthew 26–27). His teaching to “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” establishes a dual obligation without collapsing the state into a moral extension of the Church.

The apostles likewise assume injustice as a normal condition of life under pagan rule. Yet they never exhort believers to reform Roman law, challenge imperial authority, or withdraw cooperation from the state. Instead, suffering unjustly is presented as participation in Christ’s own pattern of obedience (1 Peter 2:18–23).

---

IV. Early Church Interpretation and Practice

The interpretation outlined above is strongly corroborated by early Christian practice. For approximately three centuries, Christians lived under regimes that were often hostile, arbitrary, and unjust. Nevertheless, there is no historical evidence of organized Christian political resistance during this period.

Second- and third-century writers consistently emphasized Christian obedience, civic responsibility, and peaceful endurance. Justin Martyr argued that Christians made the best citizens precisely because they obeyed laws and paid taxes while reserving worship for God alone. Tertullian famously observed that Christians filled cities and institutions yet never revolted, insisting that Christian victory came through suffering, not power. Origen rejected Christian participation in coercive political authority, claiming that the Church aided the empire more through prayer and virtue than governance.

Martyrdom, not reform, was understood as the faithful response when the state demanded idolatry or denial of Christ. The early Church clearly distinguished between refusing personal sin and attempting to correct the state.

---

V. Theological Implications and Modern Misreadings

Modern Christian political activism often collapses this distinction by treating perceived injustice as sufficient grounds for resistance. In doing so, it subtly shifts the question from “May I obey this command?” to “Must the government stop this action?” That shift moves beyond the New Testament’s ethical focus on discipleship and personal faithfulness into a moralized theory of political obligation that Scripture itself does not articulate.

This does not necessarily render all political activism illegitimate, but it does mean such activity cannot be claimed as biblically mandated Christian obedience. The New Testament presents a cross-shaped ethic oriented toward witness, endurance, and trust in divine judgment rather than immediate political correction.

---

VI. Contemporary Case Study: Protests and Interference in Federal Operations

A salient contemporary context for reflecting on the biblical doctrine of submission to governing authorities is the 2025–26 federal immigration enforcement operation in Minnesota, which has generated sustained public protest and, on some occasions, confrontation with law enforcement. Federal immigration agencies, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection, were deployed to Minneapolis–Saint Paul as part of “Operation Metro Surge”—a large-scale effort to enforce federal immigration law and remove individuals subject to deportation orders. The operation drew intense controversy after two Minnesota residents, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, were fatally shot by federal officers during enforcement actions, sparking widespread civil unrest and national demonstrations.

Protests in Minneapolis and other cities have included large-scale marches, rallies, and strikes calling for accountability and changes to federal immigration policy. Thousands of demonstrators have participated, with demonstrations spreading to cities nationwide. In addition to peaceful marches and signs, some demonstrators have engaged in practices such as sounding whistles, banging drums, and obstructing traffic in efforts perceived as attempts to influence or disrupt federal operations. In one documented incident, protestors outside a hotel where they believed ICE agents were present used drums and whistles in a manner that blurred the line between demonstration and direct interference with the function of federal personnel.

From a legal standpoint, the right to peaceful assembly and protest is protected under the First Amendment, encompassing activities such as holding signs, marching, and vocal expression. Some legal commentators have observed that nonviolent sound-making, including whistles and other noise, would generally fall within that protected sphere so long as it does not involve threats of force. Protestors have argued their actions are lawful political expression and monitoring of federal agents, while federal authorities in some cases have charged individuals with assaulting or impeding officers when protest conduct crossed into physical interference with officers’ duties.

Theologically and ethically, these events raise questions about the appropriate Christian response to government action and protest. The New Testament’s teaching, as articulated above, does not grant Christians an open-ended mandate to resist or interfere with lawful operations merely on the basis of disagreement with policy or moral outcomes. Submission to governing authorities is commanded insofar as individual obedience to civil law does not require personal sin or direct disobedience to God. Acts of protest are morally distinct from acts that impede or disrupt lawful governmental functions. In the biblical model, even when believers suffer at the hands of the state or perceive the state’s actions as unjust, the proper Christian posture remains personal obedience, peaceful witness, and trust in divine justice rather than efforts to hinder the lawful operations of government agencies.

As the Apostle Peter’s exhortation illustrates, Christians are called to submit to rulers, not only to avoid punishment but “for the Lord’s sake,” reflecting a higher loyalty that shapes conduct even under injustice (1 Peter 2:13–17). Protest activities that remain within the bounds of peaceful assembly and nonviolent witness align with that witness. However, actions that risk obstructing lawful federal functions — such as blocking traffic or intentionally seeking to prevent officers from performing their duties — arguably drift into interference with legitimate authority, raising concerns about obedience to civil law absent a command to sin.

Thus, in evaluating contemporary protest conduct, one must distinguish carefully between lawful, peaceful protest — which may be morally permissible and socially significant — and interference with the operations of government, which Scripture does not authorize as Christian conduct except in the narrow case where compliance would require direct violation of God’s commands. The Minnesota context serves as a vivid case study where this distinction can be both legally and theologically delineated, emphasizing the ongoing relevance of the biblical doctrine of submission in complex and contested civic environments.

---

Conclusion

The biblical doctrine of submission to governing authorities is neither naïve nor absolute. It acknowledges injustice, anticipates persecution, and permits disobedience—but only where obedience would require direct personal sin or explicit unfaithfulness to God. Scripture does not authorize Christians to interfere with or resist governmental operations simply because those operations are unjust. Instead, it calls believers to obedience, faithfulness, and, when necessary, suffering after the pattern of Christ Himself.

This restrained but demanding ethic shaped the life of the early Church and remains a corrective to contemporary tendencies to conflate Christian discipleship with political intervention. The judgment of nations belongs to God; the calling of the Church is faithfulness.