Civil disobedience is generally inspired by principled convictions and meant to call attention to a society about unjust matters for the purpose of introducing social changes. As part of a Christian ethic, understanding when civil disobedience is permissible, how to protest and do so without alienating those we are trying to reach is a key understanding for this issue. This issue is important for believers under both free and tyrannical governments.
Here in the U.S., Americans have a long history of civil disobedience beginning with the American Revolution followed by the Civil War over slavery and in the last century, the Civil Rights movement, the Vietnam War, the protest against nuclear arms, the gay rights movement and the environmental movement. Interestingly, even our declaration of Independence also professes a conviction of using just revolutions against tyrannical governments.
However, Scripture takes a different stance on civil disobedience. The apostles Peter and Paul teach from 1 Peter 2:13-14 and in Romans 13:1-5 respectively, that every believer must submit to the governing authorities and that to be rebellious towards a governing authority was to be rebellious against the very God who established every human state authority.
While there is no exhaustive treatment on the issue, the Bible distinctly shows the criteria in which civil disobedience is allowed. It also shows clear precedents for when and how civil disobedience is to be exercised.
Geisler comments that the patterns we see from Scripture shows that disobedience is done by refusal and not rebellion. Civil disobedience is to be a non-violent resistance and does not refuse discipline by the government. It is not to be a violent rebellion rejecting punishment. Resistance without rebellion should involve a spiritual, moral and political campaign against in-just governments and need not be a passive acceptance. However, Francis Schaeffer takes a slightly different stance from Geisler in justifying armed revolution under limited circumstances.
In Lex Rex [author Samuel Rutherford] does not propose armed revolution as an automatic solution. Instead, he sets forth the appropriate response to interferency by the state in the liberties of the citizenry. Specifically, he stated that if the state deliberately is committed to destroying its ethical commitment to God, the resistance is appropriate.
Schaeffer, Francis A. 1981. A Christian Manifesto. rev. ed. Westchester, Il: Crossway.
In such an instance, for the private person, the individual, Rutherford suggested that there are three appropriate levels of resistance: First, he must defend himself by protest (in contemporary society this would most often be by legal action); second, he must flee if at all possible; and third, he may use force, if necessary, to defend himself. One should not employ force if he may save himself by flight; nor should one employ flight if he can save himself and defend himself by protest and the employment of constitutional means of regress.
The big question about civil disobedience is whether resistance by force is ever justified. The key phrase in Schaeffer’s justification is “if the state deliberately is committed to destroying it’s ethical commitment to God, the resistance is appropriate.” This is where Schaeffer seems to differ from Geisler, Therefore, in this one most extreme circumstance of the state abandoning it’s commitment to God is Schaeffer’s position agreeable.
Scripture does give basic guidelines which clearly command obeying civil authorities and also reports on civil disobedience. The Egyptian midwives Shiphrah and Puah refused Pharaoh to kill all male Israelite babies, Exod. 1:15-21. Rahab hid the Jewish spies opposing the king of Jericho, Josh. 2:1-14. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused by command of Nebuchadnezzar to bow before his golden image, Dan. 3. In the same book, Daniel refused the edict not to pray to God by King Darius or else face the lions den. In all of these examples, each feared God more than their governments. We are to obey the authorities over us so long as we are not required to do anything that contradicts God.
Davis makes the case from Scripture that there is biblical rationale for revolutionary action against governments, though these circumstances are extremely limited. Interestingly, he asks a key question when stating that the people of God are to be “subject to the governing authorities” (Rom. 13:1). His question, “Who is the legitimate authority in the sight of God?”
When the call of God came to Gideon (Judg. 6), Gideon, rather than the Midianite rulers, became the legitimate authority for the people of Israel, and Gideon was called of God to forcibly overthrow the existing order. Although the example of the judges is taken from the history of theocratic Israel, the principle never-theless is valid: God sometimes wills the overthrow of existing authority; he even calls his own people to be the instruments of that purpose.
Davis, John Jefferson. 2015. Evangelical Ethics, Issues facing the church today: Zondervan Publishing House. Pg. 230.
Clearly, God may accomplish His purposes through the use of human instruments.
As citizens of a nation, specifically here in the U.S., we have a civil duty to take part in the election process and share in civic forms of government. As Kaiser states:
Nowhere does the Bible teach isolationism from all forms of the nation-state. Therefore, to take just one or two examples of non-involvement, a decision not to vote in any local or national elections or not to participate in any civic forms of government would be contrary to our calling as Christians and our calling as citizens in a local setting.
Kaiser, Walter C. 2009. What Does The LORD Require? Grand Rapids, Michigan. Pg. 173.
By taking part in positions of government, we as Christians are able to provide better moral examples and leadership to a nation that is morally bankrupt. Without Christian ethics, this nation will not be able to stand and civil disobedience will occur as it has in the past. If and when this time comes, we will have no choice but to make decisions about whether it is duly constituted to disobey the authorities.
Not all Christians have the same views or the same forms of government. It is likely that this latitude is to a small degree and does not mean we may do as we would like. Scripture never condones anarchy. Perhaps the greatest Scriptural verse in the New Testament concerning this matter is that of Peter and John being summoned before the Sanhedrin for teaching the people from Acts 4:19-20.
But Peter and John replied, “Whether it is right before God to obey you rather than God, you decide, for it is impossible for us not to speak about what we have seen and heard.
New English Translation, Acts 4:19-20.
Biblical Studies 