The Christian and Civil Disobedience
Introduction: I am going to do something quite out of the ordinary this morning. Those of you who are regulars with us know that our standard procedure is to take a portion of Scripture and to expound it, i.e., to show its structure, its meaning, and its application. Rarely do I depart from the text of the day, except to use parallel passages of Scripture.
However, this morning I would like to preach a topical sermon. The instigation for doing so comes from the nature of today’s passage in our expository series on the book of Acts. Acts 5 is so similar to Acts 4 that I felt I had to either skip it entirely or preach the same message I preached two weeks ago or focus not so much on the passage as upon one of the key issues raised in the passage. I have chosen the latter approach and have decided to address the subject of civil disobedience, since this is one of the major biblical passages relating to that theme.
Before going further perhaps we ought to define what we’re talking about when we speak of civil disobedience. One political philosophy professor has defined it as “non-violent, public, constitutionally illegal actions for which the agent voluntarily accepts the penalty and which are specifically designed to protest, frustrate, or influence the repeal, enactment, reinterpretation or alteration of any law, policy, or decision of the State.”
I think a simpler definition, and one that would fit better the biblical data that we will see, would be “the nonviolent refusal to obey the laws of the state in favor of observing what is believed to be a higher law.” I like that better because sometimes civil disobedience may take place even when there is virtually no hope of changing what is believed to be an unjust law.
The first thing I want to do is to address the relevance of this issue.
The relevance of the issue
Whether we realize it or not the debate over civil disobedience is a very relevant one. Let me mention a few issues which have been much in the news lately.
The Sanctuary Movement has involved a network of several hundred churches which, in defiance of the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization, have offered sanctuary to refugees from Central America. Several clergy and laity from these churches have recently been convicted in federal court and sentenced to prison.
The Nuclear Disarmament Movement has staged numerous illegal protests at dozens of nuclear facilities in our country and in Western Europe. These protests have involved everything from trespassing on nuclear power plants to blocking trains carrying nuclear waste. Thousands have been arrested. We will undoubtedly see an increase in civil disobedience at nuclear facilities in the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident.
The Divestiture Movement has been demanding that American companies quit doing business in South Africa and that American Universities divest themselves of stock in American companies that refuse to quit doing business in South Africa. When I was at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire last Fall I saw a shantytown that students had illegally built on the lawn of the Administration Building to protest the treatment of blacks in South Africa and to dramatize the demand for divestiture.
The Christian School and Home School Movement in some states has involved Christians in civil disobedience. One pastor of an independent Baptist church in Nebraska spent many months in jail for contempt of court when he refused to seek licensure for the Christian school meeting in his church. In numerous states parents have adopted home schooling in defiance of laws in those states requiring parents to send their children to a recognized public or private school.
The Home Church Movement in China cannot be thought of as an organized effort, but nevertheless involves a kind of civil disobedience. When the Communists took over China in 1949, they closed the churches and forbade the people to meet for religious purposes. Millions of Chinese defied the government and continued to meet clandestinely in private homes for worship and fellowship, the result being that in the 35 years since, the church in China has grown geometrically, from 2 million to perhaps 50 million believers.
The Right to Life Movement has a radical fringe that practices civil disobedience. The bombing of abortion clinics and the murder of abortionists does not qualify as civil disobedience. It is criminal. However, here in West County a few weeks ago a number of protesters at the Regency Center were arrested merely for trespassing.
The Athens 3. It is against the law to evangelize in Greece. In the opinion of the Greek government, the Athens 3 violated that law and were sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison. Fortunately, when their case was appealed this week, the court found them innocent of the charges.
I don’t suggest for a moment that all these examples have equal merits. On the contrary, I believe some of them to be justifiable on biblical grounds and others completely unjustifiable, but they should suffice to demonstrate that civil disobedience is a very relevant issue for Christians in the world today.
Now the next thing I would like to do is to very briefly discuss what the world’s answer is to the question of when civil disobedience is permissible. After looking at some philosophical arguments we will examine what the Bible has to say.
Philosophical arguments concerning the justification of civil disobedience.
When I in graduate school at Southern Methodist University I took a number of courses in political philosophy. It was at the very height of the Viet Nam War, and civil disobedience was naturally a very hot topic. I’d like to share very briefly some of the arguments used by political philosophers then, and still today, to justify draft evasion, illegal civil rights demonstrations, and other acts of civil disobedience.
The principal philosophical positions on civil disobedience can be summarized as follows:
Disobedience is justified when the entire legal system can be shown to be corrupt. That is, when an entire government is tyrannical, like for example, the government of Baby Doc Duvalier in Haiti or Marcos in the Philippines, disobedience of its laws is justified.
Disobedience is justified in cases of widespread disobedience of a law. For example, if the majority of the people on the Interstate drive 65 mph, when the stated speed limit is 55 mph, then it’s permissible for the rest of us. Or, if there is widespread disobedience of the law on selective service registration, the draft resistor is justified in refusing to register.
Disobedience is justified in inverse proportion to the stake of the citizen in his government. In other words, in a democracy there is more obligation to obey laws than in a dictatorship. Also a white person in South Africa has more obligation to obey laws than a black person, since the latter isn’t even allowed to vote.
Disobedience is justified in cases where the law is judged unconstitutional. For example, Martin Luther King broke many of the Jim Crow laws in Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi, challenging the constitutionality of those laws and ultimately winning his case.
Disobedience is justified when moral or human rights or ideals are jeopardized. An example might be a pacifist who refuses draft registration but does not belong to one of the legally recognized religions that are exempted. Or even a pornography peddler may violate the local obscenity laws on the grounds that he believes those laws to unconstitutionally violate his rights to read whatever he wants.
Now all of these arguments have one thing in common, namely that the individual is the judge of which laws can be disobeyed. The individual decides whether the political system is too corrupt to be redeemed. The individual decides if disobedience is sufficiently widespread to negate a law’s claim to obedience. The individual decides whether his stake in the government is large or small, and therefore whether he can demand a larger stake. The individual decides whether a particular law in unconstitutional, until, of course, the courts say so, at which time violation is no longer illegal. And the individual must decide if his moral or human rights or ideals are jeopardized.
And knowing human nature as we do, it should surprise none of us that virtually any act of civil disobedience can be justified by someone. If these are the best criteria for civil disobedience that our political philosophers can come up with, it should be no wonder to us that our society at times resembles that of the time of the Judges when “everyone did what was right in his own eyes.”
What we need is a word from God about the subject.
The Bible’s answer concerning when civil disobedience is justified.
We need to start with a proposition that will serve as a foundation for what comes next:
God has given government authority over the individual.
1. Jesus’ teaching. Out Lord clearly taught that His followers are citizens of two worlds and that they must discharge responsibilities in both realms. His classic statement on the subject was: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” (Mark 12:17)
2. Paul’s teaching. In Romans 13:1-7 the Apostle Paul commanded submission to the government because authority is ordained by God, because resistance to government is ultimately resistance to God, because government opposes evil, and because our conscience tells us to. Interestingly, no exceptions are given for those living under an autocratic government, which was the only kind known in that day. In addition, some of the areas in which a citizen is to show obedience are spelled out: personal taxes, export and import taxes, fear, and honor.
Eight or nine years later, after having had many negative encounters with the Roman government, Paul still had not changed his mind about this subject. He wrote in Titus 3:1: “Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed.”
3. Peter’s teaching. At the same time Paul was writing to Titus, Peter wrote a similar word on submitting to government in 1 Peter 2:13-14. Among the reasons he gives for obeying government are the following: (1) in order to show our obedience to God Himself, (2) because it is the will of God, and (3) because it is a good testimony to the unsaved. This obedience, according to Peter, should extend to every ordinance and to all rulers. Again, no exceptions are indicated either because of the type of government or the individual conscience of the believer.
This Biblical teaching on the government’s authority is more striking when we consider that both Paul’s and Peter’s teaching were offered under the reign of the Emperor Nero (54-68), one of the cruelest rulers ever to occupy a position of world leadership. When Rome burned, the populace wanted a scapegoat and suspicion surrounded Nero. To divert blame from himself he attempted to lay the blame on the Christians. Tacitus, the Roman historian, described the scene as follows:
“Wherefore in order to allay the rumor he put forward as guilty, and afflicted with the most exquisite punishments those who were hated for their abominations and called ‘Christians’ by the populace …. Therefore, first of all those who confessed to being Christians were arrested, and then as a result of their information a large number were implicated, not so much on the charge of incendiarism as for hatred of the human race. They died by methods of mockery; some were covered with the skins of wild beasts and then torn by dogs, some were crucified, some were burned as torches at give light at night …. Men felt that their destruction was not on account of the public welfare but to gratify the cruelty of one Nero.”
Not even conditions such as these produced from the apostles a call for revolution or mass civil disobedience against the government. However, the Scriptures also teach a second important principle:
God has put limits on the government’s authority over the individual. Let’s consider some biblical examples.
1. The case of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. These three Hebrew young men faced a law of the Babylonian government which was heralded in this fashion: “To you the command is give, O peoples, nations and men of every language, that at the moment you hear the sound of the horn, flute, lyre, trigon, psaltery, bagpipe, and all kinds of music, you are to fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king has set up. But whoever does not fall down and worship shall immediately be cast into the midst of a furnace of blazing fire.”
Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refused and were promptly thrown into the fiery furnace. The story is clearly presented in such a fashion that the reader is led to believe that they were fully justified in their disobedience.
2. The case of Daniel. You remember well the case of Daniel, who was faced with an unalterable law of the Medes and Persians forbidding anyone from making a petition to any god or human being besides King Darius for thirty days. Daniel 6:10 gives us his response to this governmental mandate: “Now when Daniel knew that the document was signed, he entered his house (now in his roof chamber he had windows open toward Jerusalem); and he continued kneeling on his knees three times a day, praying and giving thanks before his God, as he had been doing previously.” Again the story is presented in such a fashion that the reader is led to believe that Daniel’s civil disobedience had heaven’s approval.
3. The case of Peter and John. Finally, we’ve come to today’s text, Acts 5:12-42:
At the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were taking place among the people; and they were all together in Solomon’s portico. 13 But none of the rest dared to associate with them; however, the people held them in high esteem. 14 And increasingly believers in the Lord, large numbers of men and women, were being added to their number, 15 to such an extent that they even carried the sick out into the streets and laid them on cots and pallets, so that when Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on any of them. 16 The people from the cities in the vicinity of Jerusalem were coming together as well, bringing people who were sick or tormented with unclean spirits, and they were all being healed.
17 But the high priest stood up, along with all his associates (that is the sect of the Sadducees), and they were filled with jealousy. 18 They laid hands on the apostles and put them in a public prison. 19 But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the gates of the prison, and leading them out, he said, 20 “Go, stand and speak to the people in the temple area the whole message of this Life.” 21 Upon hearing this, they entered into the temple area about daybreak and began to teach.
Now when the high priest and his associates came, they called the Council together, that is, all the Senate of the sons of Israel, and sent orders to the prison for them to be brought. 22 But the officers who came did not find them in the prison; and they returned and reported, 23 saying, “We found the prison locked quite securely and the guards standing at the doors; but when we opened them, we found no one inside.” 24 Now when the captain of the temple guard and the chief priests heard these words, they were greatly perplexed about them as to what would come of this. 25 But someone came and reported to them, “The men whom you put in prison are standing in the temple area and teaching the people!” 26 Then the captain went along with the officers and proceeded to bring them back without violence (for they were afraid of the people, that they might be stoned).
27 When they had brought them, they had them stand before the Council. The high priest interrogated them, 28 saying, “We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this Man’s blood upon us.” 29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you put to death by hanging Him on a cross. 31 He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him.”
33 But when they heard this, they became infuriated and nearly decided to execute them. 34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in the Council and gave orders to put the men outside for a short time. 35 And he said to them, “Men of Israel, be careful as to what you are about to do with these men. 36 For, some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined him. But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. 37 After this man, Judas of Galilee appeared in the days of the census and drew away some people after him; he also perished, and all those who followed him were scattered. 38 And so in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and leave them alone, for if the source of this plan or movement is men, it will be overthrown; 39 but if the source is God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God.”
40 They followed his advice; and after calling the apostles in, they flogged them and ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and then released them. 41 So they went on their way from the presence of the Council, rejoicing that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for His name. 42 And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not stop teaching and preaching the good news of Jesus as the Christ.
You recall from chapter 4 that following the healing of the lame man and Peter’s preaching on Solomon’s portico, the Apostles were ordered not to speak anymore in the name of Jesus. They did it anyway. Then in chapter 5 they were re-arrested, again for healing and preaching, but an angel of the Lord let them out of jail and ordered them to speak to the people in the temple the whole message of Life. They did so. Once again, they were arrested and were rebuked for their civil disobedience. In verse 28 the High Priest said, “We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.”
Then Peter and the apostles gave the classic answer, which serves as the believer’s motto when it comes to civil disobedience: “We must obey God rather than men.” That response almost caused their death, except for the fact that God raised up a certain Pharisee to calm the Sanhedrin down. His name was Gamaliel and he argued that if you give revolutionaries enough rope, they’ll usually hang themselves; if you kill them, you make martyrs out of them; therefore, it is best to just leave them alone.
They were ordered once again to speak no more in the name of Jesus and were flogged for their previous disobedience, but verse 41-42 tell us, “So they went on their way from the presence of the Council, rejoicing that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for His name. And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they kept right on teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.”
Having seen some examples where civil disobedience appears to have been approved by God, it is necessary for us to consider one other issue, namely the question of when civil disobedience is justified. In short, we can say it is justified when obeying God requires disobeying human authority.
Now I think it would be helpful for us to note that …
The Biblical examples of civil disobedience have the following common characteristics:
1. The law being disobeyed contradicts a specific law of God. Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were ordered to violate the first and second of the Ten Commandments. Daniel was ordered not to pray to God for thirty days, while God’s law taught the necessity of prayer. Peter and John were ordered not to speak the name of Jesus, from whom they had been given the Great Commission to preach the Gospel to every creature. Clearly in each case a known commandment of God was being controverted by man.
I would say that if and when we are confronted by human laws that clearly violate God’s laws, we too would be justified in disobeying those laws. But not everything that is repulsive to us as Christians fits into this category. There is no commandment from God that orders us to give sanctuary to political prisoners, or that condemns the peaceful use of nuclear power, or that forbids parents to send their kids to school. There may be biblical principles that relate to each of these situations, but what I am suggesting is that a biblical principle is not a sufficient ground for civil disobedience. The law being disobeyed must contradict a clear commandment of God. The reason for this should be obvious. If all we needed was a biblical principle, most of us could find one that would justify any civil disobedience that we might want to engage in.
But then what are we as Christians supposed to do when we see injustices perpetrated under our legal system? If the government under which we live allows for means of legitimate protest and change, we surely may use them. We have the right to march outside the Regency Center, protesting the 1973 Roe-Wade decision that permits innocent children to be murdered by the hundreds within just a few blocks of where some of us live. We have a right to send petitions to our representatives to change repressive laws against home schooling. We certainly have the privilege of voting for representatives who will, in turn, vote for better policies. These things we can and should do when our consciences are exercised on ethical issues in our society.
But the only time we have the right to disobey a law of the land is when that law clearly contradicts a revealed law of God. Whenever a believer engages in civil disobedience, he must be sure it is not because the government has denied him his rights but because it has denied him God’s rights.
It is well to remember that the New Testament writers did not crusade against one of the worst social ills of their day—slavery. Paul advised Christian slaves not to let it matter to them (1 Cor. 7:22). He did not advise them to become martyrs in the cause of liberation. Indeed, even when writing to a Christian master about a runaway slave who had become a believer, Paul only suggested that the slave be taken back and not punished. He never ordered the master to free his slaves (Philemon 17).
2. The punishment sanctioned by the law is accepted without violent resistance. Daniel accepted his consignment to the Lion’s Den. The three Hebrew young men willingly, though perhaps not enthusiastically, accepted the fiery furnace as their destiny. Peter and John apparently did not try to escape from jail, nor did they protest the 39 stripes they received. Each of them recognized that the law presents a clear alternative: obey this law or suffer this penalty. But they also saw it as a precious right to be able to say to government: “I will not obey this law, but I will accept the punishment connected with that disobedience. I will endure your penalty rather than endure the penalty for breaking God’s law.”
True, God rescued His faithful in each of these cases (except from the flogging), but He does not promise to rescue those who obey Him rather than human authority. Hebrews 11:35-37 tells us that “Others were tortured … others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings …. of bonds and imprisonments; they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword; they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented.” It must not be assumed that the path of civil disobedience in the name of obedience to God will always result in divine intervention for deliverance.
3. The disobedience was generally open and public. Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego stood straight in public when everyone else was bowing to the image of Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel refused to draw his shades when praying before his open window. Peter and John went right back to the Temple to preach in broad daylight and in clear view of the authorities. This seems to be a characteristic of the major biblical examples of civil disobedience. In other words, it is not so much a defensive maneuver as an offensive one. Believers were on the attack, challenging human government to enforce its godless laws and answer to God.
Not every biblical example of civil disobedience, however, fits neatly into this pattern. Several weeks ago, in our evening study on the life of Elijah we came across a case of secret civil disobedience. Obadiah was a key person in King Ahab’s corrupt administration. When Ahab’s wife, Jezebel, ordered the prophets of the Lord killed, he took a hundred prophets and hid them by fifties in a cave and provided them with bread and water. He knew very well that if his action was discovered, Ahab would put him to death, but at great risk to himself he acted secretly in disobedience of the governmental edict. One might also point to the effort of Moses’ mother to avoid the murderous edict of Pharaoh to kill the Hebrew children by hiding her son in the bulrushes.
I would not want to cast aspersions on Obadiah, or on Moses’ mother, or on the Christians in China who have met clandestinely for the past 35 years, or even on those who smuggle Bibles behind the Iron Curtain. Who am I to stand here in the comfort of my freedom and say that they should risk their lives by doing those things publicly rather than secretly? We should thank God for those who hide prophets. However, there are also times when Ahab and Jezebel need to be confronted with open, public disobedience.
Now there’s one more thing I want to do this morning, and that is to take one issue and suggest how we might apply the Biblical principles regarding civil disobedience to this issue. I am going to choose abortion, regarding the immorality of which I would hope there would be little dispute among us.
In the first place, as citizens of a free country we have the right to protest abortion in numerous legal ways, and we should do so. But what about violating the “no trespassing” laws at abortion clinics in order to get arrested and draw attention to the issue? I would say that one would have a hard time justifying that biblically. Certainly, there would be no justification for bombing abortion clinics. While a commandment of God is being violated every time an innocent child is aborted, the abortion law does not require us to violate God’s commandment; it simply allows others to do so. And God has not commanded us to keep others from violating His commandments.
However, if we lived in a government which was enforcing population control by demandingabortions for all who already had one child, then I would say that a Christian doctor or nurse would be justified and even obligated to refuse to participate in such abortions, and a pregnant Christian woman would be justified and even obligated to disobey the government’s orders and attempt to carry the child to term.
A similar situation actually occurred in the Old Testament when Pharaoh ordered the Hebrew midwives to put every male child to death. But “the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt had commanded them, but let the boys live.” (Exodus 1:17) So, the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said to them, “Why have you done this thing, and let the boys live?’ And the midwives said to Pharaoh, ‘Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptians women; for they are vigorous, and they give birth before the midwife can get to them.’ So, God was good to the midwives, and the people multiplied, and became very mighty. And it came about because the midwives feared God, that He established households for them.”
Once again disobedience was vindicated by God, because they refused to violate His commandment which says, “Thou shalt not kill.”
Conclusion: The doctrine of submission to governmental authority is but a part of the larger teaching of Scripture on subjection to constituted authority. Angelic beings are subject to Christ; believers are to be subject to one another; the church is subject to Christ; the Son shall be subject to the Father; servants are subject to their master; children are under the authority of their parents; wives are subject to their husbands; young people subject to their elders; church members are subject to their leaders; and believers are subject to their government. It is a part of the total doctrine of obedience.
Dr. Max Rafferty, a well-known educator, lays the blame for much of the present chaos in our society on misdirected ministers, soft judges, permissive psychologists, but above all on parents, who have abdicated their parental authority. Civil disobedience of the unbiblical sort we see so much of in our world, starts with disobedience in the home, moves on to the church, and eventually to the state. The Christian is called upon to demonstrate orderliness within the various spheres to which he is related. When he is under authority he should submit obediently; when he is in a position of authority he should lead righteously.
The Christian’s primary responsibilities are evangelism and godly living. Through witnessing he changes men; through righteous living he affects society; through private and public obedience he honors God. On rare occasion there will be times when Caesar oversteps his bounds, and then the faithful believer will be called upon to obey God rather than man. To serve Caesar, the Christian must do; to worship Caesar, he must never do.
Tags:
Civil disobedience
Resistance