Christian Civil Disobedience

My dear pastor shocked me this Sunday by emphatically stating that there is no place for Christian civil disobedience. He went on to state that while he disagreed with the judicial rulings in the Schiavo case, that all those who were arrested (peacefully)seeking to bring water to her in the hospice were wrong and those being arrested outside abortion clinics were wrong (and he opposes abortion). He cites Romans 13 as the basis for Christians always obeying the law. I am stunned. While I knew Christians disagreed on when civil disobedience should be practiced or how it should be practiced, I have never heard of the belief that it should never be practiced by Christians. I can think of many biblical examples of those chosing to 'obey God rather than man'. I know my pastor does not elevate the law of man over God's law but somehow, from what he said, I gather he believes that God's law requires us to always obey the government.
My question: Does anyone out there believe that civil disobedience is scripturally forbidden--or know someone with this belief? What is the scriptural basis for this? You won't change my mind on the subject but I would like to understand where he might be coming from.

 

Good point. It demonstrates the complexity of this issue. I still haven't heard from anyone that believes that civil disobedience is never an option for Christians.

 

Something to think about:
"Three weeks later Bonhoeffer spoke before a group of Berlin pastors on “The Church and the Jewish Question.” This talk was to be the first and only reaction from within the Protestant church as early as 1933 to the abolition of civil rights for Jewish citizens, which began with the boycott of Jewish stores and the proscription of Jewish civil servants, and which was to end in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and Treblinka. The “Law on the Reconstruction of the Civil Service,” the so-called Aryan Paragraph, adopted in April 1933, was reason enough for Bonhoeffer to resist the state: “The church has an unconditional obligation to the victims ...” Moreover, the church has the possibility and the duty, “not just to bandage the victims under the wheel, but to put a spoke in the wheel itself.” (Or, more exactly: the church has to throw itself between the spokes of the wheel in order to stop it!) After these words, Bonhoeffer continued his lecture to an almost empty room. With his call for political resistance he remained alone in his church."
From "A Spoke in the Wheel" by Renate Wind

 

I think StefanM's point is that there are sins of ommission as well as commission. For instance, some Christians felt that it was necessary for them to at least try to bring water to an innocent, helpless woman who was being forcibly starved and dehydrated by order of a judge. Likewise there were Christians in Germany who felt it necessary to hide Jews from the Nazis. Neither group was being forced by law to commit an act against God's law but both groups considered themselves to be in a position where to do nothing to help victims of evil or injustice would be in opposition to God's Word and His command to love our neighbor as ourselves. These are complex matters of Christian conscience and appear to me to fall into the area of disputable matters. Certainly, in these matters, no one should make a decision to act, or not act, without much prayer and searching of the scriptures.

 

[/qb][/QUOTE]In that situation, the Germans were being asked by the gov't to boycott Jewish stores and clear actions were being taken against the Jews. This is a case where the gov't was requiring its citizens to act against other human beings and would fall under what I said before as far as resisting the gov't when it requires or mandates unbiblical actions. [/QB][/QUOTE]

True. But in the case of the killing of Jews, no one was being required to do that--yet people risked their own lives, hiding Jews, in order to save them from being murdered by the authorities in power. The government in these cases is no longer functioning as God's instrument of justice to punish the wicked but as an instrument of evil. Here, in our country, today, the issues aren't (yet) always quite so clear.

[/qb][/QUOTE]
I often wonder what Christians in the U.S. would really do in such a situation. What if we had a gov't that required us to close the churches or be put in jail? Or abort after one child or die? How many believers would "resist?" [/QB][/QUOTE]

Far fewer than we would hope, I'm afraid

 

(I am such a 'newbie' I haven't yet learned how to use the forum's 'quote' features, icons, etc.!)

I agree much of the civil disobedience in this country is 'symbolic'. However, I have heard of women who have been convinced to not have abortions by witnessing the efforts and sacrifices of those seeking so earnestly to turn them back. And sometimes symbolic acts are necessary in order to demonstrate the depths of depravity to which we have descended. The concentration camp survivor who was the first to kneel before the police officer (who was just following orders) requesting permission to bring a glass of water to Terri S. was a powerful symbol. One thing it pointed out was the fact that the judge had ruled that not only was her feeding tube to be removed but that she was not to have so much as a drop of water on her lips. There was much evidence that she could swallow--yet she was not to be given food or water.
Anyway, I didn't mean to digress on Terri. The point is that the news shots of people being arrested for trying to give a dying woman water is a pretty powerful statement about the condition or our country--regardless of what was in the hearts and minds of those doing it. God also calls us to do what is right regardless of our chances of success and to point out evil regardless of whether or not anyone listens.

 

Rome was a ruthless authority, but it did maintain law and order and even a harsh government is better at keeping wickedness under control than no government at all. But there is a difference between harsh and evil. Eventually Christians did have to disobey Roman law. When they refused to participate in the worship of Caesar they were considered in rebellion and thrown to the lions. (Revelations tells of a time when Christians will have to defy the laws of an evil government and will be killed or unable to buy or sell.)

I don't believe that Romans 13 was addressing the problem of an evil government or edicts from evil rulers. It was addressing the problems of a harsh government, hated by many--but one which nevertheless was to be recognized as God's instrument of bringing 'punishment on the wrongdoer'v.4 At that time, their rulers 'held no terror for those who did right' v. 3 But that was not always to be the case. And has not always been the case at various times and places throughout history. Romans 13 tells us that we cannot disregard the law, be disrespectful, refuse to pay taxes, etc. simply because we don't like the laws or the government. It was addressed to the Romans at that particular time in history and does have some application for us today. But we have to look at the whole of scripture and God's overriding principals to determine what to do in individual circumstances.

Again it's just not a simple issue. We are in agreement that there are times when we have to obey God rather than man--just not when that becomes necessary.