Magistralis

Civil Disobedience

Greg Dickison

he most vexing civil government question confronting Christians is, what do we do when the civil authority goes beyond the limits of its biblical jurisdiction?

By way of review, we must remember that we are always to be under authority. Rebel is a word that should never fit a Christian. When we disobey one authority, we must always be able to appeal to a higher authority to which we are in submission, whether that authority be a higher magistrate, a court, a constitution, or the Bible.

When the civil ruler, as a minister of God, issues commands consistent with the duties of his ministry, we must obey: "For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves" (Rom. 13:1-2). When he issues commands which call for us to violate the revealed will of God, then we must obey God, and thereby disobey the civil ruler; for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard, and we ought to obey God rather than men (Acts 4:20, 5:29).

The difficulty comes with the "gray" areas, those laws which are obviously outside the jurisdiction of the civil government, yet do not necessarily require us as citizens to violate the revealed will of God. Social Security, for example, or health care legislation. Do we obey the civil law anyway? Or do we stand on the principle of limited jurisdiction and commit civil disobedience?

Matthew 17:24-27 records a conversation between the Lord and Peter which answers the question for us. When the subject of the temple tax came up, Jesus' illustration to Peter clearly implied that He was exempt from making the payment. "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their own sons, or from strangers?" Peter said to Him, "From strangers." Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free. Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth, you will find a piece of money; take that and give it to them for me and you."

Jesus paid the temple tax to avoid giving unnecessary offense. It is difficult, given our finite perspective, but we need to keep in mind the lesson that there are issues more important than our civil rights. Paul did not exhort Timothy to pray for kings so that he could enjoy lower taxes. Paul wanted a peaceful environment in which the gospel could flourish (1 Tim. 2:1-2). Certainly, the gospel will produce civil blessings, but that is not the goal. It is more important that souls be saved than that our taxes be reduced.

The New Testament uses the word offense ( skandalon ) or offend ( skandalizo ) to depict putting a snare or a stumbling block before someone in such a way that their obedience to the gospel is hindered. Thus, Christ was not concerned with merely upsetting people by not paying the temple tax; He was concerned that it might prevent people from hearing the gospel. While the Lord did not hesitate to offend where it was necessary, such as with the unbelief of the Jews, He avoided offending people where it was unnecessary. Standing on His rights and not paying the tax would have accomplished nothing for the kingdom of God. He was willing to lay aside His rights for the sake of the gospel. This is our guiding principle.

Deciding what to do in any situation requires wisdom. We must ask three essential questions. First, is the particular law within the jurisdiction of the civil government? If so, then we must cheerfully obey. If not, then we must also ask whether obedience to that law will place us in sin. (It is not enough that the magistrate is in sin for promulgating the law. The law must require me to sin. Think of it this way: it is a sin to steal; it is not a sin to be stolen from.) If so, then, in submission to God's law, we must disobey the civil law. But if a law is outside the civil jurisdiction, yet does not require me to sin, I have to ask a third question: If I disobey the law, will I give needless offense and thus hinder the gospel? I have to make a judgment call. What will do the most good for the gospel?

There are obviously a host of other factors to consider. What is required is a careful analysis of the law in question, the biblical principles involved, the impact of the law on the church and the family, the ramifications of our response to it, and its relative importance in the overall scheme of things, all in the context of the gospel. There are no formulaic answers. What is of utmost importance in one time and place will be inconsequential in another.

Two final points. First, submission to a law so as not to give offense is not acquiescence in the usurpation of authority which the law represents. I do not, for example, grant the point that the legislature has the authority to compel me to save for retirement. I only grant that it is not worth disobeying, if the gospel will be hindered.

Second, by obeying the law, we do not forfeit our responsibility to oppose the law in other ways. In fact, the credibility of the opposition is usually enhanced, when the opposition is from a stance of obedience.

"For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men as free, yet not using your liberty as a cloak for vice, but as servants of God" (1 Pet. 2:15-16).