Introduction: Peace on Earth
David Porter

Civil Disobedience
Norris Wilson

Sectarianism: Root & Branch
James Williamson

For God and Ulster
John Dickinson

< Past Issues Archive

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE - A Biblical Outline
In the Encyclopaedia of Biblical and Christian Ethics, civil disobedience is defined as, "...a conscious demonstration of disloyalty toward some enactment, statute, or ordinance promulgated by a body that has power to make legally binding regulations.... it describes defiance of promulgations enacted by the state. Through disobedience of particular ordinances it poses a direct challenge to the authority of the promulgating body."

John Rawls, in his chapter entitled "The justification of Civil Disobedience" (Moral Problems) says it is ".... a public, non-violent and conscientious act contrary to law, usually done with the intent to bring about a change in the policies or laws of the government." Notice his stress on the non-violent nature of the act - this, he says, is to distinguish it from an act of insurrection or revolution. Motivated by conscientious conviction such an action will be undertaken to draw attention to a state of affairs considered unjust, to raise the moral consciousness of citizens and to set in motion the dynamics of appropriate social change.

In the context of N. Ireland there are many questions for us to consider. When is civil disobedience a permissible option for the Christian? When does it become morally mandatory? And if we grant that such action is either permissible or mandatory what form should it take?

Romans 13 - responsible obedience
Our starting point however must be with the Biblical perspective of the sovereignty of God over every nation (Dan 2: 21a; 4:17,31). The ethical implication of this, is that Christians have a God-given responsibility to be in subjection to legitimate governing authorities.

In Romans 13:1-7 the Apostle Paul sets out his teaching on this which we can summarise in six propositions:

(1) God has established, or instituted, all governing authorities (vs. 1b, 2b).
(2) As such the government of a state is God's servant, responsible to reward those who do right and punish those who do wrong (vs. 3-4).
(3) To rebel against a civil authority is to rebel against what God has instituted (v 2a).
(4) Such rebellion rightly brings punishment (vs. 2b, 4b) N.B. "the sword" here symbolises the force that may legitimately be used to maintain law and order.
(5) The proper response of every citizen is submission (vs. 1,5.). N.B. how in 1 Pet. 3: 5-6 submission and obedience are used as parallel terms.
(6) One example of submission (obedience) is payment of taxes (vs. 6-7 cf.). Supported by Christ's statement on paying Roman taxes in Mall. 22:17-21. (see also 1 Pet.2:3-17 and Titus 3:1-2)

Occasions for conscientious disobedience
It is however equally clear from Biblical teaching that there are occasions when disobedience to governing authorities is appropriate. God disapproves of unjust legislation and evil actions by any government, and in such circumstances acts of civil disobedience may be appropriate.

If we look again at Rom.13:4 we see that". .the one in authority is God's servant.." This does not mean that the ruling authority is God's servant in a general sense but a servant under the sovereignty of God. Governments are God's servants in the particular sense that they are held accountable to divine standards of justice as revealed in scripture. The power of governance is a trust exercised according to rules. The rewarding of good and evil according to their merits is a criterion whereby citizens can measure whether a government is fulfilling its God-ordained function or not. When that ruler is no longer "God's servant to do you good" (v.4) then serious questions need to be asked, for it is clear from scripture that far from being a servant government has the potential of becoming a "beast" (Rev. 13).

Paul speaks of being submissive not just out of fear (respect) of authority but also for the sake of a good conscience (v.5). This raises an important question - what happens when a government's actions go against the voice of a Biblically informed Christian's conscience?

While being "submissive" (vs. 1 & 5), as opposed to "rebelling" (v.2), means obeying the government, the situation alters when that government introduces a law that is contrary to scripture. In that case a Christian citizen can be submissive to the authority of that government in general while refusing to comply with that particular law. This will mean accepting the penalty for such an action, thus acknowledging in principle that government's legitimacy. We know from early church history that this was the stance of the martyrs when resisting the Roman emperor's command to sacrifice to idols.

In Matthew 22:21 Christ's masterful reply to those who were trying to entrap him has quite a radical sting in its tail! "Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's". In a world that thought of the state's power as being absolute, unaccountable and unlimited Christ's words limit the power of the state by relating it to the absolute and unlimited claims of God. We cannot give submission to Caesar when that would bring us into conflict with that higher revealed Law of the One who has given Caesar his authority.

We must also take into account the prophetic condemnation of evil governments found in Scripture. This condemnation is not confined to the nations of Israel and Judah, but to most of the nations in the ancient world of the Bible. Large tracts of the writings of the prophets are taken up with this (e.g. Isaiah chs43-23, Jeremiah chs.46-51, Ezekiel chs.25-32, the Book of Revelation, etc.). The message is clear, God may have ordained governments, but God does not approve of their evil. Christians living under such evil regimes have a responsibility to call them to repentance (e.g. Jonah in Ninevah) and, where that government would force us to act against God's Word, to disobey, no matter the cost (e.g. Daniel and his friends in Babylon in Dan.1 & 3).

There are many Biblical precedents for refusing to obey the state
There are many precedents for civil disobedience in the Bible. The Hebrew midwives who refused to obey the order of the king of Egypt to kill the new-born male Hebrew babies (Exod. 1: 15-22). Moses refusal to accept the king of Egypt's order that the Israelites were to remain in privations and enforced slavery (Exod. 5: 248). Obadiah's refusal to help in Queen Jezebel's policy of killing the prophets. Instead his deliberate opposition to that policy was seen in his attempts to rescue them (1 Kings 18: 3-13). Jeremiah's public defiance of the policy of King Zedekiah when he counselled the people of Jerusalem to surrender to the invading Babylonians rather than offer resistance. (Jer. 38: 1-6). The refusal of Daniel and his three friends to eat food that was ceremonially unclean, even though this was official government policy (Dan.1). The refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to comply with King Nebucadnezzar's compulsory state religion which demanded that all should worship the golden image (Dan. 3). The refusal of Daniel to address prayer to King Darius as a god even though this was state policy for 30 days, and despite the consequences of the lion's den (Dan. 6).

The refusal of the Apostles to stop preaching the gospel (Acts 4:1-21; 5: 17-42 N.B. esp. 4: 18-20 & 5: 18-21, 40-42). It is of course from Acts 4:19 that those who engage in civil disobedience for religious reasons find their classic text: "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God...We must obey God rather than men". The Apostles saw themselves as being under the orders of the highest power (Matt. 28: 18-20 cf. Acts 1:8; 5:18-21 a). However this right to preach was also qualified - they were not to preach in places where they were strongly opposed. They were not to deliberately cause civil unrest. Christ had given clear instruction on the matter (Matt. 10: 11-16, 23). It's instructive to see how these tensions worked out in practise (Acts - See 13: 50-51; 14: 5-7; 16: 22-40 (N.B. vs. 39-40; 17: 5-10, 13-14; 18: 6-11; 19: 8-10, 23,30-M; 20:1). Paul's attitude to the State was clear - while being thankful for the privilege of pax romana (16:37-40; 22: 24-29), he was also prepared to be submissive to the state's ultimate sanctions if necessary (25:11).

The book of Revelation portrays the committed opposition of the church to state authority. (Rev.11:19 - 14:20). Satan is seen as using the state (the two beasts) to try to overcome the church by enforcing false worship. The church, in obeying God's commandments and remaining faithful to Jesus (13:10; 14:12), stands against this even though it results in conflict (12:17) and ends in death (12:11). The principle of civil disobedience is clearly present in these texts when the interests of the kingdom of Caesar clash with the kingdom of God.

In each of these cases the essential elements of divinely approved civil disobedience are as follows: There is a demand by the authorities that goes contrary to the Word of God. There follows disobedience to that command, which often brings dire consequences. There is some kind of explicit or implicit divine approval of this disobedience.

Acts of civil disobedience are permissible and even mandatory
We should now consider the nature of civil disobedience in a modern "pluralist" society. In particular, when is civil disobedience permissible or even mandatory in the life of contemporary Christians?

Civil disobedience would be mandatory when a government commands or compels what is clearly contrary to God's Word or seeks to prohibit obedience to it. In the scriptural instances mentioned above it is clear that acts of disobedience to the authorities were in response to any command contrary to the Word of God. Francis Schaeffer in his book A Christian Manifesto states, "when any office commands that which is contrary to the Word of God those who hold that office abrogate their authority and they are not to be obeyed, and that includes the state". He goes on, "When the state commits illegitimate acts against a corporate body -such as a .. .church.. .there are two levels of resistance: remonstration (or protest) and then, if necessary, force employed in self defence." An example would be where a government refused to allow Christians to meet for worship, banned the reading of the bible or the teaching of its doctrines. Suppose a law was passed, for example, commanding that the doctrine of the divine creation be declared false. Or take the dilemma of a Christian couple in China ordered to have an abortion under the state's "one child" policy. In such cases mandatory civil disobedience seems to be the only option for the Christian.

Civil disobedience would be permissible if a government promulgates a law merely permitting (rather than enforcing) what is contrary to the Word of God (in effect giving society the "right" to act contrary to it). For example, in 1982 the federal government of Arkansas ruled that creation could not be taught in public schools. In 1987 the U.S. Supreme court ruled that no state could insist on teaching creation along with evolution in their public schools. Many Christians (including Schaeffer) felt this was a case for mandatory civil disobedience. However others, while accepting that civil disobedience was permissible, nevertheless declined to engage in it because they argued that the law here was not compelling believers to believe or teach that creation was false, or negating their freedom to teach it outside the public school classroom. Likewise the law that permits abortion. Some Christians in the USA have felt this merits mandatory civil disobedience, on the basis of such texts as Prov.24:11 (and this camp has split into two - those favouring violent action and those favouring non-violent). Others have felt that, while civil disobedience may be permissible, it is not necessary since the law is not commanding or requiring abortions.

There is a general criteria to help us define appropriate acts of resistance
It is obviously not easy to define when acts of civil disobedience are appropriate against a law that permits others a freedom to do something you do not have to participate in. However, we may say it is permissible if the following criteria are met: (a) The law being resisted must be clearly unjust and immoral. A particular law may be inconvenient or burdensome but respect for law and order will require putting up with it. (b) Civil disobedience will only come into play once all legal means of changing an unjust situation have been exhausted. It is therefore a method of last resort. A public moral campaign to win the hearts and minds of people could be more effective. (c) The act of civil disobedience should be a public one before the authorities. (d) The action should be peaceful as much as it depends on you. (e) There should be some likelihood of achieving a successful end. This should be evaluated in the light of possible evil side effects such as social disruption, the danger of helping promote a more general spirit of lawlessness and disrespect for the law, the possible loss of one's personal freedom and how this will impinge on one's other responsibilities such as to one's family etc. (f) Those who participate must be willing to accept any penalty for law-breaking. This attitude will demonstrate their respect for the principle of the rule of law and distinguish their action from insurrection or mere anarchy.

A commitment to prayer and peace should inform our acts of disobedience
Given that civil disobedience is a last resort there are other Biblical issues that should inform our reaction to the unjust rules of governments.

While it may be necessary to disobey individual commands of a government we are not thereby free to rebel against that government. We are still obligated to be submissive as part of our Christian witness (1Pet. 2: 13-15; cf. Prov.24:21).

Justified civil resistance should always be non-violent resistance. Moses was not to lead a bloody revolt against the Egyptians. Indeed in his first hasty attempt to right Israel's wrongs, he murdered an Egyptian. This not only was wrong, it arguably, set back Israel's liberation for forty years. While it is debatable about the just cause of revolutions the Bible is consistent in its condemnation of violent rebellion (e.g. Korah's, Absolom's, Jeroboam's etc.). The peaceful civil disobedience campaigns of Ghandi and Martin Luther King are worthy of consideration in this regard.

The first duty for Christians contemplating acts of civil disobedience is prayer (1Tim 2:1-2). The second duty is to work peacefully and within the law to seek to effect needed change, always bearing in mind scripture's teaching on the need for patient endurance that comes from being a Christian (lPet.4:12-13, Rev.13:10). Thirdly, all civil disobedience should be informed by Christ's teaching against retaliation in our personal relationships (Matt.5:38-39).

Christian realism should always be present in the precarious world of social and political change. We may succeed with others in transforming social institutions, but we know that the real change needed is in human nature. As we work for justice in this world we realises that perfect justice is not attainable under the present conditions. It will only come about when Christ returns and brings in the fullness of the kingdom of God. Therefore our first priority will be the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom. Nothing will be done that will undermine that.

Norris Wilson - Minister of Dervock Reformed Presbyterian Church, Ballymoney