Thoughts on Civil Disobedience

The question I grapple with in this post is twofold: “Should our obedience to civil power and authority (governments) be absolute and unquestioning?” and “Is there a legitimate exercise of civil disobedience for Christians?” The three NT passages most reflective of apostolic teaching on the subject are Romans 13:1-10, Titus 3:1-8 and 1 Peter 2:13-17.

In essence, my argument runs as follows: I don’t believe that these passages are teaching blind and unthinking obedience to the will of government as is too often understood by Christians; rather they are teaching that it should be the normal, everyday, God-honouring experience of believers to be obedient, which is not the same thing. When the full context of these verses, especially Romans 13:8-10, is considered, we see the sharp outline of obedience against the background of God’s moral law. That is to say, obedience as a right attitude or action must be in keeping with God’s law and can not be divorced from it, without great risk. This means that for a government to act as “a minister of God to you for good” it must not ask the believer to contravene God’s law. A government looses its God-given authority when it—by its laws or demands upon its citizens—causes any to break the law of God and thus commit sin.

The question for the believer then is simple: “Will my submission to this law be wrong or cause harm?” In other words, “Will I be breaking God’s law if I submit to this human law?” And it would seem from Romans 13:8-10 (as well as Titus 3:8 and 1 Peter 2:15) that if the answer for the believer is “Yes, this would cause harm and would be wrong” (in light of God’s law) then he must not submit, or at least limit his submission as much as his conscience and his circumstances will allow.

The only qualifying factor is that Paul, in Romans, speaks of love for one’s neighbour and indeed reminds his readers of the great commandment of our Lord, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (Lev.19:18; Mark 12:31) which is often referred to as one of the two great summary statements of God’s Law. And he has just finished saying that if you love your neighbour you will do him no wrong or harm. It would seem then that only one question remains, “Who is my neighbour?” Another man asked that of the Lord a long time ago and we remember the Lord gave him his answer in the form of a parable (Luke 10:25-37).

In the parable, a man is robbed, beaten and left by the side of the road for dead. He is passed by and ignored by two travelers, both representatives of the proper authorities. However, a contemptible stranger—a Samaritan—is also on the road that day and discovers the beaten man. His immediate response is to help him and get him to a place of safety so he could convalesce in peace, even providing the wherewithal for him to do so. This parable is used by Christ to help us understand what His message is about and what expectations He has of His followers. In telling His story, the Lord is saying that the definition of who our neighbour is must be expanded and thought of in a completely new way. Our neighbour, according to Christ, is the one who suffers when we can rescue, the one who struggles when we can lift up, the one who cries when we can comfort.

Peter says we should submit to “…every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake” (1 Peter 2:13) whether such ordinances are from the highest authority in the land or from designated governors. We should do this, says Peter, voluntarily as people free to choose and act. This sense of voluntary subjection is also found in Roman 13:1 where the word translated as “be subject” has connotations of a subjection that is freely given and not compelled. Such subjection should be consistent with the moral and saintly lives we now have as God's adopted sons and daughters. Peter's qualification—that we should act this way for the sake of Jesus—introduces the notion that there may legitimately be times when obedience to human authorities places us in opposition to the will of God. Remember that Christ came to the cross to fulfill all righteousness; to fulfill the law as a substitutionary sacrifice. In light of this, the Christian must use as his only criteria the law of God and the life and death of Christ that was the law’s fulfillment. If he can see no conflict between this and the demands being made by his government, then he is free to obey the government. But if the demands of the government would necessitate the Christian to wrong or harm his neighbour, he is not free to obey but must disobey for the sake of Christ.

An example we take from scripture is Acts 4:5-21. Because Peter and John had just healed a man in the name of Christ, and were preaching the gospel against the wishes of the authorities, they were thrown into jail and later brought before the Sanhedrin or ruling council (the proper and legitimate governing authority of the Jews). After some interrogation, the Council decided to order them to desist from spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ. Peter and John both responded by saying in effect that the Sanhedrin could do as it pleased (which could have resulted in the death of the two apostles) but that both of them would continue to testify about Jesus. Thereupon, due mainly to public pressure, they were released. This scene is important as it shows the two seemingly breaking their own apostolic admonition to obey the proper authorities. In this case the Sanhedrin had, by the time of the apostles, become corrupt through the gradual turning away from the law as given by God's Holy Spirit and the ossification of the institution into a largely man-made structure ruled by tradition. Jesus recognized the same thing when he confronted the rulers and called them “white-washed sepulchers.” Incidentally, this is an ironic example of the admonition by Paul in verse seven of the passage from Romans, “Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.” In calling the rulers white-washed sepulchers the Lord was indeed rendering them their due, but it was their right and proper due from His perspective, not theirs.

And too, we have testimony from such Reformation luminaries as the Scottish Presbyterian and Westminster divine Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661) who, in his work Lex Rex, argued that when the government gave up its rightful authority as delegated from God it became an instrument of oppression and should be resisted. One of the points of Lex Rex is that the Law (Lex) is king (Rex) and not the reverse, so rulers are not to be a law unto themselves. Nor should they use the law for unlawful ends. Other godly men of the Reformation have also either resorted to civil disobedience or have defended it in principle, including Martin Luther (1483-1546), William Tyndale (c.1490-1536), John Knox (1505-1572) and John Bunyan (1628-1688). Two modern defenders of the Christian’s right to civil disobedience were Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) and Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984). I cite these examples simply to point out the fact that Christians have a history of resorting to civil disobedience in the face of an authority that forces them to do wrong and to break God’s commandments. (Nowadays many of us tend to forget that the Reformation was itself the greatest of all Christian movements of civil disobedience.)

I should clarify, at this point, that this argument applies to believing Christians only, those whose consciences are, like Luther’s, “taken captive by the word of God.” I believe that they have a justifiable excuse for civil disobedience in some circumstances, simply because they are, paradoxically, trying to be obedient to law. But the law which they attempt to obey is a higher law. It is in fact God’s law, which Christians are not to willingly disobey.

This issue of civil disobedience is far from clear and whatever believing people think, I believe they should be patient with others who are going through much distress over the issue. Yet one thing is clear: each believer must respond according to the dictates of a conscience ruled not by the opinions of others, but by God, who is Lord of the conscience (WCF 20:2). Let us therefore be ruled by God’s requirements first, then by consciences ready to be forgiving and charitable to brothers and sisters who may disagree but are ready to put everything on the line for their convictions.

(It is my own conviction that the Christian religion, to the degree it maintains integrity with the commands and teachings of Christ, will always run afoul of human (as well as spiritual) powers, authorities and dominions. It cannot be otherwise. The teachings—not to mention the actions—of Christ are prominently and unashamedly counter-cultural and anti-worldly. There is simply no way for true biblical Christianity to co-exist on a peaceful footing with any other rival authority. This means that true biblical Christianity will always be in a state of persecution to one degree or another. And that degree is determined, not by the standards of the world, but by its own internal standards. As Christians more strictly maintain those standards, the more they will be persecuted.)

Soli Deo Gloria.