Justin Taylor has recently run a couple of posts on the question of Christian civil disobedience. Not surprisingly, his two posts have generated some negative reaction.
A number of Christians justifiably feel that our gov’t has abused its authority. That our gov’t frequently goes beyond its Constitutional mandate. Indeed, that our gov’t often violates the Constitution.
And I agree with that.
However, some Christians think this entitles them to break the law. Their reasoning is that if our gov’t is breaking the law by making unconstitutional demands on the public, then we have the right to break unconstitutional laws.
As a matter of principle, this contention is not without intrinsic merit. However, it also fails to distinguish between what is right and what is prudent. Indeed, it’s rather naïve and contradictory.
To the extent that our gov’t is unjust or tyrannical, then it is futile to imagine that you can flout its policies simply because you have the truth on your side. For if the gov’t truly is unjust or tyrannical, then having the truth on your side is no protection. If you’re dealing with a corrupt or unjust civil magistrate, then appealing to truth and justice will fall on deaf ears.
To pick a fight on those terms is a losing battle. For the state has all the powers of the state at its disposal.
So we also need to consider the issue from a prudential standpoint. Even if the gov’t is in the wrong, this doesn’t mean you can defy the gov’t with impunity just because you are right and the gov’t is wrong. To the contrary, if the gov’t is wrong, then it doesn’t care whether or not you happen to be right.
We need to remember what Jesus said about taking a headcount before going to war (Lk 14:31-32). Even if your side has a just cause, if it’s also the case that you’re outnumbered and outgunned, then it would be foolhardy to provoke a direct confrontation. That’s not a battle that you can win. You can’t fight city hall on its own turf.
We live in a fallen world. As such, we must learn to put up with a certain amount of injustice. You may have the Constitutional on your side, but if comes down to their firepower (i.e. police, FBI, IRS, ATF) versus your Constitution, that’s no contest. Like Ruby Ridge, you can make this your last stand, but when the smoke clears, guess who comes out on top–every time?
Finally, the electorate still holds the high cards. If we have runaway gov’t, that’s because voters are too passive or disorganized to operate through the democratic process in order to curb the Beast.
Not only is civil disobedience counterproductive at this juncture, it is simply unnecessary. We can use the preexisting system if we have the political will to do so.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteRomans 13 has come up frequently in these conversations, and I remember you citing Jewett's commentary on the matter. Could you briefly give your take on the passage?
Thanks.
That would be this post:
ReplyDeletehttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/11/rom-13-then-and-now.html
Does that answer your question, or did I leave something out?
steve is the doubting and self doubting the title about your article about the assurance of salvation, cant seem to find it
ReplyDeleteI think that answers my question.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
You wrote, “As a matter of principle, this contention [if our gov’t is breaking the law by making unconstitutional demands on the public, then we have the right to break unconstitutional laws] is not without intrinsic merit. However, it also fails to distinguish between what is right and what is prudent. Indeed, it’s rather naïve and contradictory.”
ReplyDeleteTo what unconstitutional laws are you referring?
I get the impression that you think that if a person could break an unconstitutional law in a prudent manner (e.g., they could get away with it), then that would be licit. Is that accurate?
Thanks in Advance said...
ReplyDelete"To what unconstitutional laws are you referring?"
Take the unconstitutional Chicago gun-ban. Or take the fictitious Constitutional right to an abortion. Or the fictitious Constitutional right to engage in sodomy.
Or take SCOTUS turning the Establishment Clause on its head by making it a disestablishment clause.
"I get the impression that you think that if a person could break an unconstitutional law in a prudent manner (e.g., they could get away with it), then that would be licit. Is that accurate?"
Depends on the variables. But there are situations in which civil disobedience is permissible or even obligatory (e.g. Exod 1:17ff).
Keep in mind that the Revolutionary War was, itself, an act of civil disobedience.
Lonelyboy,
ReplyDeleteI've posted frequently on this subject. Here's a recent example:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/01/witness-of-spirit.html
I am looking for the article about doubt and assurance wherein you mentioned something like if the doubt is from within and cannot be changed one must look to Christ instead. I forgot the title though it is an old article about doubt if one believes in Christ I think.
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind that this may have nothing to do with the assurance of salvation. Doubts can be emotional doubts rather than intellectual doubts.
ReplyDeleteIf our present circumstances are dismal, and our future looks bleak, then we tend to be discouraged. We feel trapped. We're stuck in time. We can't escape. We have to go on living one day at a time even if the foreseeable future seems hopeless.
That's due to one's external situation. It doesn't represent a loss of faith, but a loss of hope and joy.
I see what if you feel uncertain if you genuinely believe/trust in Christ as Savior and you are afraid that this feeling of doubt wont be gone? what is the best thing to do?
ReplyDeleteLONELYBOY SAID:
ReplyDelete"I see what if you feel uncertain if you genuinely believe/trust in Christ as Savior and you are afraid that this feeling of doubt wont be gone? what is the best thing to do?"
It's only true believers who worry about whether or not they truly believe in Christ. It's only true believers who care enough about Jesus and their relationship to Jesus to be anxious about their relationship with Jesus. So that's actually a mark of faith, not a mark of doubt.
I see, what is the best thing to do to get rid of this nagging feeling that one may not genuinely believe/trust in the Lord Jesus .
ReplyDeleteIt's a confirmation of God's grace in your life that you care about God's grace in your life.
ReplyDeleteIf you cant change your feelings what must a person do to continue in the Christian faith
ReplyDeleteBelieve in Jesus. Live by Scripture.
ReplyDeleteI see what is the title of your article wherein you mentioned that if doubt comes from within and cannot be changed look outside (to Christ) instead.
ReplyDeleteNot all doubts come from the inside. Doubts can also arise due to circumstances beyond our immediate control.
ReplyDeletelonelyboy,
ReplyDeletePatrick Chan mentioned in another thread:
For reference, Steve has written several posts on the topic:
* Without a doubt
* Election & assurance
* "Calvinism's Unassuring Assurance"?
* Do we know we're saved?
* Religious affections