Civil Disobedience: A High Form of Virtue?

America is a unique experiment in government. Seldom have a people been so brazen to believe they could rule themselves. Americans have strived to create a country where the common man and the gentle man alike have equal rights and opportunities. But these unique freedoms do not relieve Americans from responsibility to obey the law. The laws and leaders Americans have participated in instituting should be respected and followed. Yet are there exceptions? Although some Christians interpret from scriptures such as Romans 13, that man must always be subject to the governing authorities because they are God’s established servants, when a law is unjust, morally wrong or forces a citizen to go against his religious convictions, civil disobedience is called for because Christians have a higher obligation to follow God’s law and protect the morality of the people.

Throughout history, as well as in the scriptures, men have stressed the importance of submitting to those in authority over them. In his political writings, John Locke emphasized that men are under submission to their governing authority since they have voluntarily agreed to do so and since they enjoy the rights and benefits of citizenship.“We have a duty to follow the law…when we have consented to its rule” (Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 69-70). Paul’s writings in Romans 13, emphasizes this theme:

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authority. For there is no authority

except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever

resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God (NASB, Romans 13:1-2).

Some Christians take this to mean that disobeying governing rulers or laws would be interfering with the authorities God has established over man.

However, these verses do not apply to a participatory government such as the American government. Paul’s letter refers to the citizens under the rule of Emperor Nero and those who ruled in a similar manner to him. The rule of Emperor Nero was a monarchy. The American government is a government “of the people, by the people, for the people” (Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, 405). The people of America have direct participation in political decisions. The people have the power to amend bad laws and oust bad officials. The Founding Fathers proclaimed this through the Declaration of Independence which states that:

“all men are created equal…with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it (Federalist Papers, 528).”

The Anti-Federalists claimed that the only way man can withstand the destructiveness of the government is by force. “When the people once part with power, they can seldom or never resume it again but by force” (Anti-Federalists Papers, 271). Men must use force whether by voice or action in order to ensure a just government. Henry Thoreau later coined a term for this force, when he defied paying taxes to the government to prosecute the Mexican war and the Slave laws (Thoreau, Civil Disobedience, 385-387). His term was “civil disobedience”, a refusal to obey civil authorities or commands in means of forcing concessions from the government. A disobedient voices his disapproval of a law and draws public attention to that particular issue in hopes to instigate a change in that law or policy.

What conditions warrant such action? Disobedience is a valid action when the law is unjust, morally wrong or forces a citizen to act against his religious convictions. Martin Luther King Jr. describes the circumstance of an unjust law.

The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws (Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail).

How though does man determine what laws are just or unjust? To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas, “an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law… any law that degrades human personality is unjust” (Thomas Aquinas, Selected Essays). Laws may also be unjust when “the power of the majority compel[s] a minority group to obey [a law] but [does] not make binding on itself” (Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail).

Furthermore, a citizen should refuse the law when it is morally wrong. A citizen should never resign his conscience to the legislature. A conscientious objector may believe that a law is morally wrong or that the law extends to certain cases which it should not cover. Thoreau argues that although man should lawfully obey the government, under certain circumstance “the only obligation which I have a right to assume, is to do at any time what I think is right” (Thoreau, 387). If a situation occurs when a man must decide between following his conscience and following the law, man has a higher obligation to follow what he knows is morally right instead of following his civil authorities.

Likewise, man should strive be at peace with the state as long as the state allows him to live by his religious convictions. Man should never allow the government to interfere with their obedience to God’s law. There is no earthly government that should replace God’s authority. Fletcher exhorts:

to disregard the king’s righteous commands, as the colonists do, is bad: But to despite the first-table commandments of the King of kings, as we do, is still worse. Nor do I see how we can be so intent on forcing [government] laws, and so remiss in yielding obedience to the laws of God (Fletcher, The Bible and the Sword, 564).

Man’s obedience to God is always above his subjection to the government. Although God establishes authorities which man is subjected to, ultimately God is the highest authority and any government which contradicts God should be resisted.

In order to prevent injustice and corruption, leaders including Daniel from the Old Testament, America’s founding fathers, and Martin Luther King Jr. felt that it was their fundamental right to take disobedient action against the governing authorities. Martin Luther King Jr. took nonviolent action against the prejudice against African Americans. He argued that the government was allowing unjust laws which were discriminatory to a minority group (Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail). The government inhibited the civil rights and liberties of the African American minority. Laws segregated blacks in schools, transportation, and other public places. On account of these discriminations, Martin Luther King Jr. preached, protested, and refused to obey the governing authorities. On the other hand, American colonists approached civil disobedience in an active and revolutionary way. American colonists decided to challenge the prevailing government by separating from England. They “recognize[d] the right to revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance and to resist, the government when its tyranny or its efficiency are great and unendurable” (Thoreau, 389). Under the rule of King George III, the American colonists believed that they were unjustly taxed and forced to quarter troops. They argued that this was misuse of the King’s authority. In the Bible, men like Daniel have fought against the abuse of authority as well. Daniel’s decision to challenge his authority occurred when King Darius outlawed prayer to any god except himself. In spite of the law, Daniel continued to pray to his sovereign Lord (NASB, Daniel 6:10). Daniel made no attempt to hide his daily prayer routine from his enemies in government, even though he knew he would be disobeying King Darius’ new law.

If Americans today are faced with circumstances in which they feel that to obey the law would violate their morals, they should be willing to civilly disobey just as these leaders have done. For example, a controversy is swirling around a conscience protection for health care workers put in place by former President G. W. Bush. President Barack Obama is contemplating the repeal of this protection which allows healthcare workers at federally funded institutions to excuse themselves from practices which conflict with their moral or religious beliefs such as performing abortions and sterilizations. If President Obama reverses this protection, doctors and nurses may be forced under the law to perform procedures which they find morally objectionable. They will be put in the hard position of choosing between following the law or their conscience. Under these circumstances, men should find civil disobedience an acceptable action and in fact Senator Tom Coburn announced that he and several medical practitioners would go to prison before performing abortions or other procedures (Donald Wildmon, paragraph 1-3). Health care workers in the U.S. may soon face the uncomfortable decision of whether to break the law in order to follow their consciences.

It is not a supportable argument that Christians should not interfere with government. Whether a man participates in his government by obeying just laws and opposing unjust laws or sits by and allows injustice and corruption to happen, he is, either way, involved with his governement by direct action or by passively allowing civil injustice. As Martin Luther King, Jr. states, “He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to penetrate it” (Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail). If Christians do not speak out, they are not fulfilling their God given duty to preach the truth and rebuke error (NASB, Ephesians 5:11). Since God has called Christians to be salt and light to the world (NASB, Mathew 5:13), and Christians are called to be faithful soldiers of God, then they are compelled to be politically engaged: voicing their opinion through voting, engagement with political leaders and by opposing unjust laws. As Francis Shaffer states, “true spirituality covers all of reality” (Francis Shaffer, True Spirituality). Therefore, Christians have a spiritual obligation to amend or disobey an unjust government.

Throughout the years it has often been the Christians who have been civilly disobedient. Daniel, America’s Founding Fathers and Martin Luther King Jr. are all examples of men who found it necessary to challenge the governing authorities. Men like Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. have argued that challenging and resisting the prevailing laws are among the highest forms of virtue. Although man is under submission to the government, man’s responsibility as a citizen goes well beyond mere obligation to follow the law of the land. He should first and furthermore be obliged to the higher law and to protect the morality of the people. The bible informs that “it is a sin to know what you ought to do and then not do it” (NASB, James 4: 17). When a man realizes that a law is unjust, he must stand against it. It is man’s responsibility to stay faithful above all else to the Law of God. “We should live or die as faithful soldiers of our lord Jesus Christ” (Fletcher, 577).