Christian Civil Obedience

Christian Civil Obedience

Seeking Christ’s Political Ethic

by Tobias Philip

When faced with a government inimical to Christian values in a world saturated with injustice, Christians find themselves obligated to work towards change. The Bible is inundated with injunctions to pursue societal justice; 1 “learn to do well: seek judgment, relieve the oppressed.” 2 Nevertheless, when evil has reached the organs of the State, and has even been absorbed into law, Christians are torn between the right subjection owed to legitimate government and the impulse to resist. In the apostles’ letters and Christ’s own submission to the Roman state, secular power is shown to be derived from God, and Christians are thus bound by temporal law. The existence of unjust laws, then, creates a difficult situation for the Christian who practices civil disobedience. In our nation, marred as it is by deep division, political strife has recently manifested in violence, and resistance to the President has caused unabashed breaches of the law. Whatever the immorality that we may perceive in our government, Christ bids us to offer our submission, insofar as God’s law allows, in reverence for the God-given power that rules us.

Considering the relative religious freedom

we enjoy today, it is easy to forget that the Christian religion was born under an oppressive state. Whereas believers today in the United States and similar nations may face undue pressures from the State in their exercise of public practice, the early Christians were seldom guaranteed their very survival. Very much aware of their lives’ temporality, Christians in the early Church regarded themselves as pilgrims in their lives on earth. Tertullian, a second to third century Church apologist, is well known to have written that “nothing is more foreign to us [Christians] than the state.” 3 And, rightly so, as Christ himself clarified, “my kingdom is not of this world.” 4 To the association of believers, for whom earthly life is but a way-stop to life eternal, nothing could be more indifferent than matters of State. This attitude carried over to the writings of Saint Augustine, perhaps the first great Christian political theorist. Augustine denied that the Platonic ideal for the perfect society of men could ever be realized on earth. For him, “there is only one true republic in which perfect peace, harmony, justice, and satisfaction are assured to all citizens; that society is the civitas Dei, which exists eternally in God’s heaven and is the goal of

God’s elect while they sojourn as pilgrims in this sin-ridden, wretched earthly life.” 5 Only in heaven can man experience perfect society, while the world is bound to experience unrest. Christ even promised his disciples persecution, saying, “in the world you shall have distress.” 6 With this counsel in mind, Augustine did not advise Christians to withdraw from civil society, quite the contrary, but he was certain not to conflate the end of the State with that of the Church, which is the salvation of believers.

What, then, is the end ordained to the State? Certainly it is a force for good, as Saint Paul, who praised temporal authority even as he died by it, wrote, “for princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil...For he is God’s minister to thee, for good.” 7 Using an Aristotelian argument, Thomas Aquinas reasoned that a ruler is a necessary directive principle whereby the many members of human society may be led to a common end. 8 The common end that the State facilitates is human fulfilment, insofar as man can be fulfilled in his temporal life. The State as a human society, however, can only assist in purely human goods, which exclude the eternal salvation for which Christ is the only way. Human

2 | Christian Civil Obedience

fulfilment finds its ideal setting in community, since “it is better therefore that two should be together, than one: for they have the advantage of their society.” 9 If there is to be a properly functioning community of individuals, moreover, there must be leadership by some element of the community. For this reason the State is necessary: to direct a community of human beings on earth and protect them, for as it is written, “where there is no governor, the people shall fall.” 10 The peace established by the State, however, must not be identified with heavenly peace, of which Christ says “not as the world giveth, do I give unto you.” 11

The end of the State, though inferior to that of the Church, is nevertheless one appointed by God. Therefore, Paul commands: “let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God.” 12 This statement alone is sufficient for an explicit warrant of the divine right of rulership. Dante, moreover, makes a fairly convincing argument that the very salvation of mankind depends on the legitimacy of the State. His logic is as follows: unless Christ’s punishment was under a power of “penal jurisdiction,” it would not be just punishment,

but simply murder unauthorized by divine providence, and, unless Christ’s death was just punishment, it could not be a satisfaction for our sins. 13 Therefore, unless the Roman governor exercised authority over Jesus Christ, we could not be saved. Of course, the crucifixion of the most innocent man ever to live is per se unjust, but the executive permission God gave to Pilate in fulfilment of the highest justice was the greatest legitimization the State has ever received. God did not choose to hand his only son over to the mobs to be murdered, but to the lawful ministry of the Roman governor, thus establishing the State as God’s chosen instrument of salvation. Christ told Pontius Pilate “thou shouldst not have any power against me, unless it were given thee from above.” 14 Either Pilate has no power over Christ, or Pilate’s power over Christ was given by God. Clearly Pilate had power over Christ, else he could not crucify him. Therefore, Pilate’s power was divinely authorized. Pilate did, indeed, act unjustly insofar as he killed an innocent man, but he did so in the service of a greater justice unknown to him, namely the satisfaction of sin. In no way does the State’s role in salvation history absolve it from all unjust acts,

but if God permitted the State to kill his own son, then how much more should he permit the “social injustice” to whose defeat many Christians dedicate their lives?

Since secular government arises from sacred ordinance, it is the duty of every Christian to obey the lawful authority. Justin Martyr, a second century Christian apologist, defended the Christian sense of civic responsibility to the Romans, saying, “whence to God alone we render worship, but in other things we gladly serve you.” 15 Christians are religiously, as well as legally, obligated to civil obedience in reverence for Christ’s words, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God, the things that are God’s,” which not only distinguishes religious and secular authority, but also enjoins us to obedience of the temporal ruler along with God. 16 Let us not forget that this government to which Christ instructed his disciples to pay taxes would use those very tax funds to carry out an agenda of religious persecution, expansionist war, and slavery among other acts of injustice. Nevertheless, as Christians we are bidden by Christ himself to obey those governments even to the point of financial support of evil regimes, when we are thus

Swarthmore Peripateo | 3

In circumstances in which the laws of the State do not cause us to sin, there is absolutely no scriptural injunction to disobey.

commanded by the law. Such a juxtaposition of religious and temporal duty appears again in Peter’s admonition, “Fear God. Honour the king.” 17 If such an injunction could be made in an empire that martyred Christians, then the laws of the State are binding, not only insofar as they are agreeable to any particular individual, but per se as laws of the State.

Unjust laws present a problem of conscience for Christians, who are enjoined to subject themselves to State authority. Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. cited the traditional Christian consensus that, “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’” 18 I resist the notion that we ought to discern for ourselves which earthlylaws meet the standard of God’s justice. In doing so, we run the risk of neglecting Christ’s command to give Caesar what is his due, namely obedience. King provides the example of the martyrs who, long before him, exemplified a breach of temporal law. Of course, these martyrs were faced with law that, if obeyed, would lead them to the grave sin of rejecting worship of Christ. In such circumstances the choice is clear and we must defer to God’s commandments over those of the State, lest we incur sin. In circumstances in which the laws of the State do not cause us to sin, however, there is absolutely no scriptural injunction to disobey. As Augustine argued, since in a conflict of powers the superior authority is to be obeyed, the authority of God’s explicit commands must be followed before all else. 19 When law is to be thus justly broken, that breach comes not by subversion, but, rather, by adherence to the hierarchy of authority in which God is supreme.

Kim Davis presents an appropriate example of failure to give due deference to government. Davis was a county clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to a same-sex couple, citing religious

objections. 20 Her Christian objection to same-sex marriage is wellfounded scripturally, but her disobedience seems less so. 21 As an agent of the State she was bound to execute its laws, leaving the two alternatives of resignation or the full enactment of her lawful duty. Davis chose neither option, but persisted in her refusal to contradict her religious principles, or even allowing her deputies to do so, to the point of accepting a jail sentence. Keeping in mind that the law has authority per se as long as it does not cause its subject to sin, Kim Davis ought to have carried the new legal definition of marriage to its executive conclusion or resigned her office. In executing the law, it would be just for Davis to continue to advocate that the American government restore its definition civil marriage to realign with the Biblical understanding. Her Christian activism, however, should not lead to disobedience. Perhaps she could judge her participation in a government office that undermines Christian morality imprudent. In that case, she ought to have withdrawn from her position after the innovation of same-sex civil marriage. Whether she executed the law while manifesting her opposition otherwise or withdrew from government, neither would occasion civil disobedience.

For a counterexample and perfect model Christian political dissent, I offer the pious acts of Saint Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England. Once a favorite of the court, Saint Thomas was martyred by King Henry VIII for refusing to acknowledge royal supremacy over the Church. When faced with a law that contradicted his Christianly-informed conscience, More voluntarily withdrew from civic life before being brought to trial, at which he declared his resistance to the ordinance and submitted himself to death, declaring as his famous last words, “I die the King’s good servant, but God’s first.” 22 Note that More never rejected his government, but, at the bidding of Scripture, deferred on this single matter to a higher authority. Christian resistance on any issue could, with great moral benefit, take its cue from such perfect servitude to God and government.

4 | Christian Civil Obedience

In accordance with a Christian political ethic, it is right to maintain reverent opposition to a Trump administration. It is just to be active against abuses to human dignity, in keeping with Christian charity. Although our President does no dignity to his office, however, his office necessarily gives dignity to his government. There is most certainly ample room for religious objection to a Trump presidency, and there is absolutely nothing un-Christian about opposing a politician in power. Nevertheless, a sense of disdain for the entire political system in response to (what is perceived to be) its absolute injustice permeates contemporary political resistance. The impulse of movements such as “Not my President” tend towards the contemptuous shrugging of subjection, rather than the corrective charity of conscientious objection. Few among us will assert that Trump sufficiently represents all Americans, but we, as Christians, ought cooperate with those divinely-ordained powers that govern our earthly sojourn. It is right that Christ’s law finds expression in government, but when it does not we ought still to honor those powers that be, while anticipating a world in which they will no longer hold sway.

It must be remembered that, Christianly speaking, politics are a means to an end and never the end itself. At best the state can establish a temporal peace, but this is not the peace Christ promises us, since his kingdom is not of this world, 23 and he refers to no earthly domain when he bids us, “Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice.” 24 Thus informed, even as we confront the politics that disturb this our pilgrimage on earth, let us keep in mind his kingdom and his justice, which transcend earthly life. r

Endnotes 1. I refrain from using “social justice” to distinguish justice pursued within society from seeking a truly just society. 2. Isaiah 1:17. 3. Tertullian, Apology x. I, xxviii. 2-3, xxxv. I, xl. 1-2; Translation from Loeb Classical Library, from N. Lewis and M.

Reinhold (eds.), Roman Civilization Selected Readings: vol II The Empire, (Columbia University Press; 3rd edition, 1990), http://www.u.arizona.edu/~afutrell/survey/ web%20readings/L%20&%20R%202%20 167-171.htm. 4. John 18:36 5. Herbert A. Deane, The Political and Social Ideas of Saint Augustine, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1963), 11. 6. John 16:33. 7. Romans 13:3-4. 8. Thomas Aquinas, De Regno, translated by Gerald B. Phelan, revised by I. Th. Eschmann, O.P., (Toronto: The Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1949), http:// dhspriory.org/thomas/DeRegno.htm. 9. Ecclesiastes 4:9. 10. Proverbs 11:14. 11. John14:27. 12. Rom. 13:1. 13. Dante, De Monarchia, 127. 14. John 19:11. 15. Justin Martyr, First Apology, translated by Marcus Dods and George Reith, from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885), revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight, <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm>. 16. Matthew 22:21. 17. 1 Peter 2:17. 18. Martin Luther King Jr, “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” edited by Ali B. Ali Dinar, https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html. 19. Ibid., 147-148. 20. Alan Binder and Tamar Lewin, “Clerk in Kentucky Chooses Jail Over Deal on Same-Sex Marriage,” The New York Times, Sept. 3, 2015. 21. See Genesis 2:24 and Mark 19:4-5 22. Thomas More, according to Paris Newsletter, August 4, 1535: “qu’il mouroit son bon serviteur et de Dieu premierement,” http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/ morequotes.htm. 23. John 18:36. 24. Matthew 6:33.

Swarthmore Peripateo | 5