The Believer’s call to Civil Disobedience?

They will tell you to obey authorities as the Apostles said but they will not tell you that the Apostles disobeyed authorities. This article by Adventist Review answers believers' questions about why and when to disobey state authorities.

Civil disobedience and Christianity faithful believers

Over the years Christians have faced the question of what to do when following religious convictions come in direct conflict with obedience to governmental authority.

There are two ways that this conflict occurs, and there are biblical examples for both.

The first happens when a government mandates something that stands in conflict with religious convictions.

The book of Daniel offers a helpful example of this form of conflict when King Nebuchadnezzar issued the decree that everyone was to bow down to the golden image, in direct violation of the second commandment (Dan. 3; cf. Ex. 20:4-6).

Another example of this can be found in the book of Exodus, where Pharaoh commanded the Hebrew midwives to kill all Hebrew boys when they were born (Ex. 1:15-20).

This conflict also occurs when a government forbids something that God commands as the book of Daniel for the example of this type of conflict, where we see King Darius forbidding everyone to pray to anyone other than him for 30 days (Dan. 6).

In both instances, God’s people were placed in a position of whether to submit to a government authority or to God and in all three examples, God’s people chose to follow Him and defy the laws of the leaders of the time.

The New Testament doesn’t say that we, as believers, are always to obey government authority, but that we are to be subject to it

 

However, when we get to the New Testament, we find guidance that we, as followers of Christ, should submit to government authority because leaders are appointed by God.

For example, in Romans Paul says, “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.

The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves” (Rom. 13:1, 2, NIV; cf. Titus 3:1).

Peter offers similar counsel when he states, “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right” (1 Peter 2:13, 14).

Jesus also taught that believers have a duty to the government when He responded to the question posed by the Pharisees to trick Him regarding whether they should pay taxes to Caesar.

In response, Jesus gave the guidance to “render . . . to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22:21, NKJV; cf. Luke 20:19-26 and Mark 12:13-17). 

Considering the biblical examples and the guidance given in both the Old and New Testaments, two questions come to mind.

First, what is our duty to submit to a governmental authority, especially when that authority prohibits believers from freely worshiping as they see fit?

Second, what safeguards have governments put in place to protect an individual’s rights to worship freely without constraints from the government?

Religious Liberty Protections Basics

Since 1948 the international community has recognized the freedom of conscience and religion as a fundamental human right.

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,” including “freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

Even before this Universal Declaration, though, the United States has recognized the importance of this fundamental right from when it became a nation.

Part of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution known as the “free exercise clause” states that an individual should be able to practice his or her religion, or no religion at all, without constraints from the government.   

This right, however, is not an absolute one, and over the years courts have been defining what it means to freely exercise one’s religion and what the limitations of this right are.

Courts have recognized that there is a difference between an individual’s right to hold a religious belief and the right to freely practice that belief.

While the right to hold a religious belief is absolute, the right to practice that belief is not.

For example, the right to freely exercise one’s religion does not include the right to harm others or interfere with others’ rights.

Early Adventist pioneers also understood that at times civil disobedience may be called for.

Currently, the law in the United States is that as long as the federal government has a compelling government interest and the law is the least-restrictive means of furthering its interest, it can place limits on an individual’s ability to freely practice his or her religious beliefs.

For state governments the standard is even lower: as long as the law is neutral and generally applicable, it will be legal even if it limits religious practice in some way.

Many countries also have laws regarding religious liberty and the freedom of people to practice their faith, although each country balances the importance of individual freedom versus government interest differently.

While the concept of freedom of religion is a well-recognized principle, there have been times, and will continue to be times, that governments will limit freedom of conscience and religion in the name of fulfilling other government interests.

We’ve seen this take place when religious speech is labelled as hate speech when students and employees are forced to decide between taking school exams and working on the Sabbath or honouring God’s Day when governments make laws forbidding proselytizing, or demanding the bearing of arms against an individual’s conscience.

Please find the second part HERE