Christian Civil Disobedience

I agree that that is a real danger. It is a principal that could be (and is) easily abused. That is why it should never be undertaken lightly.

But I disagree that we can say it is never Christian. Although it can, and in most cases should be, conducted civilly, I don't think we are always required to be 'civil'(i.e. polite) in the face of evil or wrongdoing.(Our Lord was not always considered 'polite' in his dealings with wrongdoers) And yes, it is disobedience, but the question is: disobedient to what or to whom? We just need to make sure our actions (or lack thereof) are not in disobedience to our Lord

Francis Schaeffer has much to say on this topic in his book 'A Christian Manifesto'. Interesting reading, Brothers and Sisters.

Though disagreeing with me on some points, I really do appreciate your thoughtful perspectives on this. It really has been very helpful to me in understanding what is probably my pastor's point of view, as well.

 

Marcia,
I agree that Romans 13 does point out the fact that all governments have been appointed by God. We do indeed get the government we deserve. And as such, our govermnent, no matter how bad, should be recognized as an authority over us and respected. One way or another God is dispensing judgement on wrongdoers through their leaders---whether they rule justly or with tyranny. However, those leaders derive their authority from God and therefore the Bible leaves no room for doubt as to who ulitmately should be obeyed when the two come into conflict with one another.

Any human institution is going to have some degree of corruption. Rome was a cruel master--and there was much evil in it at the time of Paul's writing to the Romans. But the aggressive persecution of Christians for not worshiping Caesar had not yet begun. Paul is telling them as Matthew Henry comments: "In the general course of human affairs, rulers are not a terror to honest, quiet, and good subjects, but to evil-doers. Such is the power of sin and corruption, that many will be kept back from crimes only by the fear of punishment. Thou hast the benefit of the government, therefore do what thou canst to preserve it, and nothing to disturb it. This directs private persons to behave quietly and peaceably where God has set them, 1Ti 2:1, 2. Christians must not use any trick or fraud. All smuggling, dealing in contraband goods, withholding or evading duties, is rebellion against the express command of God. Thus honest neighbours are robbed, who will have to pay the more; and the crimes of smugglers, and others who join with them, are abetted."

There are no easy answers, here. Our, mostly, scholarly, Christian founding fathers found no scriptural conflict in their decision to throw off what they considered un-Godly, unjust rulers. The American Revolution occurred just after a great spiritual awakening and revival in the colonies. Rebellion is the ultimate 'civil (i.e. related to government) disobedience' and I am not advocating that for us. Fortunately, we are still a long way from a government like Nazi Germany. I have my concerns, but, I am praying hard that we will never get there.

But the bottom line is that scripture should not be interpreted in isolation. It must be studied in depth and taken as a whole. Simply reading verses, out of their biblical and historical context, can lead to all sorts of confusion and misunderstanding. I'm not stating here, uncategorically, that I am competely right in my understanding of Romans 13--just that I believe that their is room here for honest, righteous Christian disagreement. This is not a simple issue. If the founding fathers were in error, I am glad that God used their error to bring about a nation that, with all it's weaknesses, has been such a light to the nations--spreading the Gospel and inspiring freedom.

What I hope to do now is to use what I have learned from your perspective to lovingly and respectfully address my pastor and point out another viewpoint on this and that this issue really does, in my opinion, fall into the area of 'disputable matters'. Hopefully, he did not really mean no civil disobedience for Christians, whatsoever, but that, as you believe, it should only be applied only when the law directly commands the Believer to commit an act contrary to God's Law. But I would like him to understand that other Christians believe that obeying God rather than Man also includes the willingness to stand up and 'submit to the authorities' by letting them arrest you for attempting to do right (just getting onesself arrested for sticking your toe over the line would be pointless & resisting arrest would be un-Christlike). And others, like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, believed a Christian is obligated to go even further than that when evil has taken complete control. We are told to turn the other cheek when we are struck, but I do not think the Spirit of Our Lord would tell us to stand by when someone else is beaten.

Again, Marcia--and Brother Edwards--for helping me to understand another perspective on this. You have been an answer to prayer. I hope you have (or had--depending on when you read this) a nice trip, Marcia!

In Him,
'Ana'

 

Oops!

That should have read:
"Again, Marcia--and Brother Edwards--Thanks so much for helping me to understand another perspective on this."

(And thanks, too, Marcia, for the tips on how to use the quote functions!)

 

Very well put.
I wish I could be so concise---but that's just not one of my gifts.

 

And well you should have! I've been to that part of Wales. You should have gotten another ticket just for rushing past all that gorgeous display of God's creation!

 

I agree. The ends never justify the means. We have all cringed at the sight of people protesting in the name of the Lord and behaving in a very un-Christlike manner.
And I agree that, gone about in a Godly manner, there will be those you effect in a positive way. But unfortunately the reactions of men aren't always going to be a good guide as to what is right or wrong. Look at Jesus. He raises Lazarus from the dead. Many go away rejoicing and praising God---others run to report him to the religious leaders. There were always be those who hate people doing God's work. When Jesus preached there were always those who turned away. I'm just saying that untimately it boils down to studying the Word, looking at Christ's examples and praying for the Holy Spirit's guidance as to what we should do and how we should it, regardless of the reactions of men.

 

What to do if the authority specifically outlaws spreading the Gospel or praying is easy. Everyone has been in agreement that they would stand up and violate a law that commanded them to do something contrary to God's Law.

The little more difficult question for some seems to be what to do about unjust laws that effect others. Can we honor the spirit of Christ that tells us to love our neighbor as ourselves and do nothing just because it doesn't happen to effect us, directly? This is precisely what happened in Nazi Germany. If we lived in a country where we were free to worship, free to pray, free to earn a living, free to live-- but knew that there were those who were others who were being persecuted and killed--should we violate the law to help them (if all other methods had been exhausted)?

And even if we all agree the answer is yes, then people begin arguing about whether or not certain specific acts of civil disobedience really do help others or are just well meaning people breaking the law and violating scripture.

We should be very slow to judge these things.

 

Ah! I forgot--'Never say never!'
By the ends never (I should have said rarely) justifies the means, I simply meant that we cannot justify bad or evil behavior because of our good intentions. Since I wouldn't consider lying to save someone's life bad or evil behavior--the ends, in that case did justify the means. But you must admit that that is a rare exception.
My point was that we can't go around acting in any manner we choose simply because we have a righteous intent.