8 The Use of Civil Disobedience 103
The Founding Fathers and those in the thirteen states understood what they were building upon. We have reached a place today which is violently opposed to what the Founding Fathers of this country and those in the thirteen individual states had in mind when they came together and formed the union.
It is time to think to the bottom line as our forefathers did. What was the bottom line that our forefathers thought to that made it possible for them to act as they did?
First, what is the final relationship to the state on the part of anyone whose base is the existence of God? How would you answer that question?
You must understand that those in our present material-energy, chance oriented generation have no reason to obey the state except that the state has the guns and has the patronage. That is the only reason they have for obeying the state. A material-energy, chance orientation gives no base, no reason, except force and patronage, as to why citizens should obey the state.
The Christian, the God-fearing person, is not like that. The Bible tells us that God has commanded us to obey the state.
But now a second question follows very quickly. Has God set up an authority in the state that is autonomous from Himself? Are we to obey the state no matter what? Are we? In this one area is indeed Man the measure of all things? And I would answer, not at all, not at all.
When Jesus says in Matthew 22:21: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's," it is not:
GOD and CAESAR
It was, is, and it always will be:
GOD
and
CAESAR
The civil government, as all of life, stands under the Law of God. In this fallen world God has given us certain offices to protect us from the chaos which is the natural result of that fallenness. But when any office commands that which is contrary to the Word of God, those who hold that office abrogate their author ity and they are not to be obeyed. And that includes the state.
Romans 13:1-4 says
Everyone must submit himself 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, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
God has ordained the state as a delegated authority; it is not autonomous. The state is to be an agent of justice, to restrain evil by punishing the wrongdoer, and to protect the good in society. When it does the reverse, it has no proper authority. It is then a usurped authority and as such it becomes lawless and is tyranny.
In 1 Peter 2:13-17 we read:
Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, 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. For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.
Peter says here that civil authority is to be honored and that God is to be feared. The state, as he defines it, is to punish those who do wrong and commend those who do right. If this is not so, then the whole structure falls apart. Clearly, the state is to be a ministry of justice. This is the legitimate function of the state, and in this structure Christians are to obey the state as a matter of "conscience" (Romans 13:5).
But what is to be done when the state does that which violates its legitimate function? The early Christians died because they would not obey the state in a civil matter. People often say to us that the early church did not show any civil disobedience. They do not know church history. Why were the Christians in the Roman Empire thrown to the lions? From the Christian's viewpoint it was for a religious reason. But from the viewpoint of the Roman State they were in civil disobedience, they were civil rebels. The Roman State did not care what anybody believed religiously; you could believe anything, or you could be an atheist. But you had to worship Caesar as a sign of your loyalty to the state. The Christians said they would not worship Caesar, anybody, or anything, but the living God. Thus to the Roman Empire they were rebels, and it was civil disobedience. That is why they were thrown to the lions.
Francis Legge in volume one of his book Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity from 330 B.C. to A.D. 330 writes: "The officials of the Roman Empire in times of persecution sought to force the Christians to sacrifice, not to any heathen gods, but to the Genius of the Emperor and the Fortune of the City of Rome; and at all times the Christians' refusal was looked upon not as a religious but as a political offense."I
The bottom line is that at a certain point there is not only the right, but the duty, to disobey the state.
Through the ages Christians have taken the same position as did the early church in disobeying the state when it commanded what was contrary to God's Law. William Tyndale (c. 1490-1536), the English translator of the Bible, advocated the supreme authority of the Scripture over and against the state and the church. Government authorities continually sought to capture him, but Tyndale was successful in evading them for years. Tyndale was eventually condemned as a heretic, tried and executed on October 6, 1536. John Bunyan (1628-1688) was found guilty of breaking the king's law. Arrested three times for preaching without a state license and for failing to attend the Church of England, he spent twelve years in an English jail. He wrote many works from this jail cell, including Pilgrim's Progress.
In almost every place where the Reformation had success there was some form of civil disobedience or armed rebellion:
Netherlands: Catholic Spain had isolated the nonCatholic population both politically and geographically. Thus the Protestants concentrated in what is now Holland which became the last holdout against the Spanish power. The leaders of the revolt established Protestantism as the dominant religious form of the country. The turning point was the battle for Leyden in 1574. The Dutch Protestants fought a very hard and costly battle. When they finally won, the door was open not only for the subsequent political entity of Holland, but also for the successful Dutch Reformation with all its cultural as well as religious results.
Sweden: In 1527 the Vasa family broke away from Denmark as an act of rebellion and established Sweden as a Lutheran country. Later, in 1630, it was the Swedish king, Gustavus Adolphus, a sincere champion of Lutheranism, who marched his army out of Sweden and into Germany against the Emperor to protect Protestant Germany with his force of arms.
Denmark: In 1536 the Protestant party of nobles overthrew the Danish dynasty-an act of "civil disobedience" with accompanying strife. They then set up a new government and a new dynasty and established Lutheranism in the country.
Germany: Luther was protected by the Duke of Saxony against the political and military power of the Emperor. After many wars in which the Duke of Saxony and other German nobles kept the Emperor at bay, the Peace of Augsburg was signed in 1555. In this it was established that the ruler's religion would determine the religion of his geographical location. Thus the German Reformation won its right to exist. Later, with the rise of the Roman Catholic CounterReformation, the Thirty Years War was fought, and out of this came the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 which ratified the 1555 Peace of Augsburg. By this, German Protestantism was protected from the reprisals of the Counter-Reformation.
Switzerland: Bern established reform and Protestantism between 1523 and 1525 by Communal vote. Yet for what is now the Canton of Vaud (where I live), it was Protestant Bern's military control of this area at that time which gave William Farel his opportunity to preach the gospel in Aigle and Ollon, leading to reformation in French-speaking Switzerland.
Geneva: This area became Protestant by vote of the Common Council in 1533-1534. Calvin came to Geneva in 1536. There was no open war, but the Reformation was established despite the constant threat of war by the House of Savoy.
Because John Knox of Scotland is such a clear example I will give more detail concerning him.2 Knox was ordained to the priesthood in 1536 (the year William Tyndale was executed) after studying at St. Andrews University near Edinburgh where Samuel Rutherford later was Rector. Knox was also a lawyer and a bodyguard to the fiery evangelist George Wishart.
Shortly thereafter, Knox accepted a call to the ministry and began attacking the Roman Catholic Church. This was extremely dangerous since the Roman Catholic Church exerted a dominant influence over the Scottish State. Knox was prevented from preaching on Sundays (the dates were conveniently filled by priests). Knox held services on weekdays during which he refuted what was said by others on Sundays. So successful were his efforts that a majority of those in Edinburgh made an open profession of the Protestant faith by participating in the Lord's Supper as administered by Knox.
On June 30, 1547, Knox, along with others, was captured by French forces in the war with England. Disaster that this was, it was better than what would have happened if the Scottish government had apprehended him. Most likely, he would have been burned at the stake.
After almost two years as a galley slave, Knox gained his liberty. He landed as a refugee in England in 1549 and resumed preaching. He was so effective that Protestant families in Scotland, hearing of his ministry, crossed the border illegally and resettled in Berwick, England, so as to be near him.
Knox is rightly thought of as a radical reformer. There is, however, an important distinction to keep in mind concerning him. Throughout his ministry, Knox appealed for moderation and compromise whenever truly fundamental issues were not at stake.
Attempts to keep the English crown in Protestant hands failed and in August of 1553 the Roman Catholic Mary Tudor entered London. Many of the outspoken Protestants were taken captive and imprisoned. Knox was able to escape from the country to Geneva, Switzerland.
It was during this time that Knox developed a theology of resistance to tyranny. He began smuggling pamphlets into England. The most significant of these was the Admonition to England (for complete title see References in the back of this book), published in July of 1554. With this move, he had stepped into new territory, going further than any Reformer had previously gone. Within a few years, tens of thousands of Huguenots were offering armed resistance to the French government; and the year Knox died saw the beginning of the successful revolt and saving of Holland. Knox had shocked the world with his Admonition to England, but he had also been convincing. Jasper Ridley in John Knox writes, "The theory of the justification of revolution is Knox's special contribution to theological and political thought. "3
Whereas Reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin had reserved the right to rebellion to the civil rulers alone, Knox went further. He maintained that the common people had the right and duty to disobedience and rebellion if state officials ruled contrary to the Bible. To do otherwise would be rebellion against God.
Knox was not against civil government per se. He knew well that civil government is ordained of God. Knox maintained, however, that state officials have the duty of obeying God's Laws. He wrote: "Kings then have not an absolute power in their regiment to do what pleases them; but their power is limited by God's word."4 A ruler must consider that he is "Lieutenant to One whose eyes watch upon him. "5 All life and all actions, he reiterated, must have their base in God's Word.
Knox finally arrived back in Scotland on May 2, 1559. Scotland became a Protestant country. The effectiveness of the Presbyterian system there' was so great that the persecutions of the following century were unable to root it out. The Reformation had come to stay. And it was John Knox, an exponent of godly resistance in the face of tyranny, who planted the seeds that were later nurtured by such men as Samuel Rutherford.
In contrast to the countries named above where there was success for the Reformation-in each case involving various forms of civil disobedience or armed rebellion-one can think of where the Reformation was exterminated by force because of the lack of such protection:
Hungary: The Reformation had great initial success. But when the Turks pulled out of the country, the Roman Catholic authorities had unchecked power and used it to eliminate the Reformation-largely by kill ing off just about all of the Protestants.
France: The Huguenots were most successful in numbers and position. But on St. Bartholomew's Day (1572), lacking protection, the Reformation was broken in France by the mass assassination of most of its leadership.
Spain: There was a small Reformation movement among the monks of Seville. Lacking any protection, they were totally eliminated by martyrdom.
Thus, in almost every place where the Reformation flourished there was not only religious noncompliance; there was civil disobedience as well.
It was in this setting that Samuel Rutherford (16001661) wrote his Lex Rex: or The Law and the Prince (1644). What is the concept in Lex Rex? Very simply: The law is king, and if the king and the government disobey the law they are to be disobeyed. And the law is founded on the Law of God. Lex Rex was outlawed in both England and Scotland. The parliament of Scotland was meeting in order to condemn Samuel Rutherford to death for his views, and the only reason he was not executed as a civil rebel is because he died first.
In his classic work, Lex Rex, Rutherford set forth the proper Christian response to nonbiblical acts by the state. Rutherford, a Presbyterian, was one of the Scottish commissioners at the Westminster Assembly in London (1643-1647) and later became Rector at St. Andrews University in Scotland. The book Lex Rex, in a society of landed classes and monarchy, created an immediate controversy.
The governing authorities were concerned about Lex Rex because of its attack on the undergirding foundation of seventeenth century political government in Europe-"the divine right of kings." This doctrine held that the king or state ruled as God's appointed regent and, this being so, the king's word was law. Placed against this position was Rutherford's assertion that the basic premise of civil government and, therefore, law, must be based on God's Law as given in the Bible. As such, Rutherford argued, all men, even the king, are under the Law and not above it. This concept was considered political rebellion and punishable as treason.
Rutherford argued that Romans 13 indicates that all power is from God and that government is ordained and instituted by God. The state, however, is to be administered according to the principles of God's Law. Acts of the state which contradicted God's Law were illegitimate and acts of tyranny. Tyranny was defined as ruling without the sanction of God.
Rutherford held that a tyrannical government is always immoral. He said that "a power ethical, politic, or moral, to oppress, is not from God, and is not a power, but a licentious deviation of a power; and is no more from God, but from sinful nature and the old serpent, than a license to sin. "6
Rutherford presents several arguments to establish the right and duty of resistance to unlawful government.7 First, since tyranny is satanic, not to resist it is to resist God-to resist tyranny is to honor God. Second, since the ruler is granted power conditionally, it follows that the people have the power to withdraw their sanction if the proper conditions are not fulfilled. The civil magistrate is a "fiduciary figure"-that is, he holds his authority in trust for the people. Violation of the trust gives the people a legitimate base for resistance.
It follows from Rutherford's thesis that citizens have a moral obligation to resist unjust and tyrannical government. While we must always be subject to the office of the magistrate, we are not to be subject to the man in that office who commands that which is contrary to the Bible.
Rutherford offered suggestions concerning illegitimate acts of the state. A ruler, he wrote, should not be deposed merely because he commits a single breach of the compact he has with the people. Only when the magistrate acts in such a way that the governing structure of the country is being destroyed-that is, when he is attacking the fundamental structure of societyis he to be relieved of his power and authority.
That is exactly what we are facing today. The whole structure of our society is being attacked and destroyed. It is being given an entirely opposite base which gives exactly opposite results. The reversal is much more total and destructive than that which Rutherford or any of the Reformers faced in their day.