Christians and Civil Disobedience

All throughout the history of Christianity civil disobedience has been practiced by Christians.  First, let me define what I mean by civil disobedience as it pertains to a Christian:  Purposeful, nonviolent action or refusal to act, by a Christian who believes such action or inaction is required of him or her to be faithful to God, and which they know will be treated by the governing authorities as a violation of law.

Even though I believe in a strong defense and the right to be armed, and use whatever force is needed to protect others, I also think that malicious violence is not a means to any end.  I believe as Christians we have the right to defend ourselves, our families, our church and our community against the evil that may come our way.

I am aware of the three passages of Scripture that are used to bring Christians into compliance with the government. (For my friends that have a difficulty with KJV here is the NIV)

Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to the governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men (1 Peter 2:13-15 NIV).

Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men (Titus 3:1-2 NIV).

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities which exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves (Romans 13:1-2 NIV)

There has been a historical record of Christians being disobedient to the government and church leadership.  In the book of Acts chapter 4, we are given the account of civil disobedience.  When the Sanhedrin orders Peter and John not to teach or speak in the name of Jesus, they ask whether it is right to obey God or men? They obeyed God.   Paul was quite willing to use the Roman legal system when he was arrested in Jerusalem rather than be flogged and was able to witness in new ways because of it. Being a Christian was itself a violation of law in much of the civilized world until Constantine endorsed Christianity.

It is also important to remember that before Jesus began to preach the Jews were indeed in tension with their rulers. Josephus, in his Antiquities of the Jews, tells the story of Jewish resistance to Pilate’s introduction of images of the emperor into Jerusalem. Many Jews lay in the courtyard for five days in protest, and when Pilate ordered his soldiers to surround them and threatened slaughter if the Jews did not submit, they instead bared their necks and said slaughter was preferable to the images. Pilate relented.

Historically, the points of conflict between Christians and their governments have centered upon either the government’s demand that all citizens subscribe to and follow the practices of a state religion or the government’s prohibition of Christian practices which are central to the faith. Military service has been a problem for both reasons since in pre-Constantin times emperor worship or sacrifice to idols tended to be required of soldiers of Rome and since the early Christians understood that killing was contrary to Jesus’ teaching whether done in peace or war. Marcellus the centurion, who was martyred in A.D. 298, objected for both reasons. He is quoted as saying in part:

I cease from this military service of your emperors, and I scorn to adore your gods of stone and wood, which are deaf and dumb idols. If such is the position of those who render military service that they should be compelled to sacrifice to gods and emperors, then I cast down my vine-staff and belt, I renounce the standards, and I refuse to serve as a soldier . . . I threw down my arms; for it was not seemly that a Christian man, who renders military service to the Lord Christ, should render it also by inflicting earthly injuries.

The idea of civil disobedience has been applied to social issues such as slavery, child labor, women’s suffrage, and prohibition of alcohol. When I am speaking of civil disobedience, it is in the light of the actions of Marcellus.  Marcellus did not throw down his staff and belt to make a statement about who he was as an individual nor to strike a blow for individual liberty. Marcellus renounced soldiering as being unfaithful to his true Lord. When we talk about Christian civil disobedience, we are not talking about Thoreau and his New England Transcendentalism which focused on private conscience as against majority expediency.  We are talking about faithfulness to God which transcends all earthly loyalties.

Nevertheless, the scripture passages quoted at the beginning makes it clear that we are to be subject to the governing authorities. How is it that one is subject to government, yet refuses to obey it? That would appear to be a contradiction. John Howard Yoder offers an explanation that I find plausible:

It is not by accident that the imperative of [Romans] 13:1 is not literally one of obedience. The Greek language has good words to denote obedience, in the sense of completely bending one’s will and one’s actions to the desires of another. What Paul calls for, however, is subordination. This verb is based on the same root as the ordering of the powers by God. Subordination is significantly different from obedience. The conscientious objector who refuses to do what his government asks him to do, but still remains under the sovereignty of that government and accepts the penalties which it imposes, . . . is being subordinate even though he is not obeying.

It is clear from the New Testament that Jesus’ followers did not blindly obey the governments under which they found themselves. Faithfulness to God was first. It is also clear that the sixteenth-century Quakers were faithful to God first and the state second. Jesus knew that his followers would be in tension with the authorities. He instructed them:

You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me, you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them. And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit (Mark 13:9b-11 NIV).

These are hardly the instructions of a leader expecting his followers to obey every authority instituted among men. For the sake of the gospel followers of Jesus will refuse to obey men. But, for the Lord’s sake, the followers of Jesus will submit to every authority instituted among men, and by so doing will bear witness to those authorities. As John Howard Yoder puts it: “We subject ourselves to government because it was in so doing that Jesus revealed and achieved God’s victory.”

Granting our desire to submit to government, and allowing our desire to be faithful, what do we do when we believe the state is asking us to behave contrary to God’s will for us?

Peter’s brief instructions [1 Peter 2:13] did not deal with the believer’s response whenever government demands that which is contrary to the Christian faith. In Acts 4:19 and 5:29 we have the example of Peter himself concerning the Christian response under such conditions. For the Christian the state is not the highest authority, and whenever government demands that which conflicts with the dictates of the conscience enlightened by the Holy Spirit and the Word, then the Christian must obey the Word of God and suffer the results. ‘The Church soon learned by bitter experience that there are some things which the state has no right to do and that therefore the counsel of submission has its limitations: But under ordinary circumstances, believers should actively support civil government in its promotion of law and order.

The key here would seem to be a conscience enlightened by the Holy Spirit and the Word. I cannot speak for other Christian denominations, but as a Quaker, I believe that the Holy Spirit speaks through the body of believers, this would indicate another test. The Word and the Spirit speaking in concert with the body of believers will tell us when the state has overstepped its bounds and when a Christian must say “no” to the state. But what shape does that holy “no” take?

Looking back at our definition of Christian civil disobedience, we need a way of testing what we do. One commentator has suggested five qualifications on civil disobedience (not necessarily Christian in its motivation):

The law opposed is immoral in conflict with a higher claim; every possible non-disobedient recourse has been exhausted, with the definition of “possible” and “exhausted” being tempered by the situation; the protest is not clandestine; there is a likelihood of success (drawing a distinction between purely personal action taken for conscience sake and the sort of social disobedience which seeks to change society and thus must have its potential adverse effects balanced against the good likely to emerge); there is willingness to accept the penalty.

Looking more specifically at the church’s witness to the state, another commentator finds three additional tests, which also apply to individual Christian witness to the state:  The witness must be representative of the church’s clear conviction; the witness of the church must be consistent with her own behavior; the church should speak only when she has something to say, rather than feeling obligated to “cover the field.” If we follow these suggestions, there is much more likelihood of civil disobedience being truly holy obedience.

We should also recognize that the current North American governmental systems are set in place with civil disobedience as a valid method of speaking to government. A quotation from the Declaration of Independence of the United States should remind us of our freedom of choice:

. . . We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute a new government. . . .

When the government acts in a way which violates Christian conscience under the tests set out above, Christians have several ways to work with the situation. They can seek legislation which changes that which they dislike, they can use the courts to determine whether the law actually applies to them in the way it seems to, they can use the courts in an effort to overturn the law as being a violation of the Constitution, or they can submit to the government while refusing to obey the law.

However, this is what I find frustrating there are so many people protesting a wide variety of issues for their own advantage that it is difficult for anyone to distinguish between those who speak from firmly held religious convictions and those who speak only from self-interest. My questions are what is the Scriptural basis for the protest?  What Christian belief does it support?  Would I go to jail for this cause?

All resistance and every attack against the gods of this world will be unfruitful unless the church itself is without sin.  Judgment must first begin at the House of God.  If we are to be the witness for the LORD, we must be faithful to HIS cause.  Unless the Church can demonstrate the transforming power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, we will not have authority over the gods of this world. 

Most of the modern Church has been an organization of reactors rather than being proactive on the issues of sin. WE would much rather be the “spiritual ambulance” which picks up the broken and bloody victims of a destructive social structure than trying to change the structure.  We are faced with the destruction of our society and culture.  Murder, drugs, sexual immorality, and a loss of respect and love for our fellowman.  We need to hold people responsible for their actions.  We must stop turning our heads to the evil that is overtaking us and expose those who are destroying our families, our communities, our churches, and our government.