VI The Just Grounds for Revolt or Civil Disobedience

1. Injustice is insufficient grounds to dishonor/disobey authority

It is not difficult to find some biblical precedence for civil disobedience in certain cases, but it is necessary to see what cases are insufficient for civil disobedience. Not many would argue that civil disobedience is permitted under ‘good’ rulers and righteous laws. It is when the rulers are rotten, and the laws are unjust that we begin to wonder what is truly required of us. This is a natural reaction, but the saints throughout Scripture leave us examples of unnatural reactions: submission and honor in the face of injustice. 

First, we have a couple examples of “the man after God’s own heart” found in 1 Samuel. In both cases, once in chapter 24 and again in chapter 26, David refuses to raise his hand against the king that God anointed despite the fact that that king was trying to unjustly kill him. Although God had anointed Saul to be king, Saul had rejected God’s law and was rebelling against Him. Nevertheless, David did not reason that since Saul was not carrying out his duty before God, he was allowed to rebel and take matters into his own hand. Instead, David patiently waited for God’s justice to work itself out (Heb. 10:30). So, we see that David continued to honor his God-appointed ruler even when that ruler was derelict in his own duty. If we should think to ourselves that this was a special case, one that applied to the ancient Israeli monarchy only, remember that “… there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” (Rom. 13:1b ESV). 

The second example is especially relevant to our topic, not only to this section, but to the whole essay. It is the example of Paul in Acts 22:1-23:5. Here, the narrative illustrates the truth about the people and the government, and Paul, by the grace of God, provides the perfect model of the Christian citizen. First, in verses 1-21 of chapter 22, Paul preaches a rousing sermon to his fellow Jews that ends with him announcing that he will depart from them and preach to the Gentiles instead (verse 21). This, and what preceded, greatly angered the crowd and they cried, “Away with such a fellow from the earth! For he should not be allowed to live.” (Acts 22:22b ESV). And they certainly would not have allowed him to live except that the Roman authorities removed him from the frenzied mob. Not being upright rulers as they were, the Roman tribune ordered Paul to be flogged in order to get the truth out of him (verse 24). At this, Paul humbly appeals to his rights as a Roman citizen not to be beaten uncondemned (verse 25). The tribune then honors this fact and determines to be more careful with Paul from then on. The next day, the tribune brings Paul before the Sanhedrin in hopes of getting to the bottom of the controversy. As Paul is addressing them, the high priest (apparently unbeknownst to Paul) tells those near Paul to strike him on the mouth (23:2). Paul then rebukes them for striking him contrary to the Law (verse 3). Upon this, they reveal that the high priest commanded them by asking, “Would you revile God’s high priest?” (verse 4b ESV). Realizing now that the high priest is guilty of this injustice, Paul unnaturally reacts by apologizing and saying, “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’” (verse 5b ESV). Here he is quoting Ex. 22:28.

There are three pertinent lessons to be drawn from this passage. The first lesson is that we have as much to fear from the people as from the authorities. Injustices done by the authorities are certainly a problem but doing away with the authorities altogether will inevitably lead to greater injustices at the hands of the mob. Instead, Paul teaches us the second lesson by humbly appealing to his protection under the law. In this case, it worked, although it is not guaranteed to always work. This shows that it is not wrong for a Christian to appeal to his or her rights in a respectful manner, leaving the outcome to God. Finally, the third lesson pertains especially to the immediate topic. It is the fact that Paul, though unjustly stricken, strives to honor the ruler God has placed over him. 

I hope I have shown from these examples that injustice by itself is insufficient for Christians to dishonor and/or disobey their authorities. Eventually, I would like to show when it is permissible for citizens, including Christian citizens, to revolt against their authorities, but since this ought to be a rare and weighty occasion, it is first necessary to clarify the insufficient cases. 

2. Distinguishing people and the People

In consideration of the just grounds for a full-scale revolt, an important distinction must be made, especially with regard to the American Constitution. The American People are well aware that the Constitution begins with “We the People….” They rightly reason that this implies that the power of the government resides in the People. However, many people reason further and quite fallaciously thus: “the government is subject to the will of the People; I am of the People; therefore, the government is subject to my will.” Clearly, no one would make this reasoning explicit because the fallacy would be immediately discovered; nevertheless, many seem to operate according to this argument. The will of the People obviously refers in some way to the collective will of the whole People and not to some subdivision of it. It should also be added that the will of the People is also more than the instantaneous will of the majority. It must take into account the will of the whole People ideally for all time. That is, a single, instantaneous majority must not be allowed to strip the minority, themselves or their posterity of essential liberties. This is why the American Constitution does not proscribe a pure democracy.  The distinction between the whole People and a part of the People was a major thrust of Chief Justice John Marshall’s Opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819 where the subdivision in question was the State of Maryland (McCULLOCH v. STATE OF MARYLAND et al.). The point here is that even in a free society based on the will of the People, the will of individuals may be curtailed without the will of the People being subverted. In fact, when the mechanisms of a free government are still operational, a revolt against the laws of the nation is a revolt against the will of the People. If the individual is the arbiter of what the government is and is not allowed to do, the whole idea of government would be undermined. Wherever the right of revolt resides, it is not in the judgment of private persons alone. 

At this point, a couple caveats are in order. First, very often, governing authorities make laws that are contrary to the Rule of Law. The individual, so long as they are quite sure, may disobey such a law in order to bring it before the judgement of the courts. This is not contrary to what I am driving at for it is not arbitrary to the individual and it appeals to the overarching law of the land. Second, it is to be understood that the right to self-defense still applies even if the assailant is an arm of the law. That is, where it would be considered to be self-defense against an ordinary assailant, you may use force to protect yourself and your family against those who would do violence against you even if they are sent by the ruling authorities. Although, even here, as Christians, we may forgo the right to self-defense when it may be helpful for the cause of the gospel, i.e. in the case of martyrdom for the faith. However, when persecution is absent, there is no reason for a Christian to not utilize self-defense. Indeed, our obligation to defend innocent life may require the use of self-defense in most self-defense situations. 

Returning to the subject of private persons and their right to revolt, Calvin in his Institutes concludes much the same as what I have concluded about private persons and their responsibilities regarding revolt. However he then makes a very penetrating point that lays the basis for just revolt against tyranny. Here is what he says: 

For though the correction of tyrannical domination is the vengeance of God, we are not, therefore, to conclude that it is committed to us, who have received no other command than to obey and suffer. This observation I always apply to private persons. For if there be, in the present day, any magistrates appointed for the protection of the people and the moderation of the power of kings, such as were, in ancient times, the Ephori, who were a check upon the kings among the Lacedaemonians, or the popular tribunes upon the consuls among the Romans, or the Demarchi upon the senate among the Athenians; or with power such as perhaps is now possessed by the three estates in every kingdom when they are assembled; I am so far from prohibiting them, in the discharge of their duty, to oppose the violence or cruelty of kings, that I affirm, that if they connive at kings in their oppression of their people, such forbearance involves the most nefarious perfidy, because they fraudulently betray the liberty of the people, of which they know that they have been appointed protectors by the ordination of God. (Calvin 804). 

John Calvin

To summarize, Calvin is saying that it is not our place as private persons to take vengeance on tyrants, but that there are and have been throughout history certain institutions whose job it is to check tyrants, and they have a solemn duty to do that. For Calvin’s homeland of France, that institution was the meeting of the three estates.

When we look for just revolts in the past, it is usually through one of these kinds of institutions. In the days of the English Civil War, the equivalent to the three estates was the English Parliament. For Americans during the Revolutionary period, since representation by Parliament was denied them, they appointed the Continental Congress to serve the purpose. In both these occasions of revolts against tyranny, the revolters did not act as private persons but at the behest of these institutions whose purpose it was to check tyranny. In our own day, our equivalent for the three estates is our houses of congress. However, when I hear talk of revolt from my christian brothers and sisters today, it is aimed at none other than the laws of these institutions. If the laws of these houses of congress are onerous to our income or even unjust to some persons, this is a state of affairs that we should resist with every legal means, but beyond these legal means, we should not be entertaining contumacious designs. For, as Calvin has said, and I believe it to be consonant with the Scriptural teaching, “[we] have received no other command than to obey and suffer.”  

3. The grounds of just revolts and civil disobedience

In the last section I mentioned two revolts that I believe were just: the English Civil War and the American Revolution. Each of these had three marks that are necessary in my estimation for a revolt to be just. The first mark has already been covered: the revolts were not carried out via the will of individuals as such nor via the will of the mob, which is the aggregate will of individuals, but it was carried out via the auspices of an organized and deliberate body. The second mark is that both appealed to an higher law: in both cases, the tradition of the English Constitution was the higher law. Finally, the third is that all peaceful avenues of redress were exhausted. 

These three are the marks of a just revolt that apply equally to Christians and non-Christians alike. Specific civil disobedience for the individual Christian as opposed to general revolt is another matter. We have clear example of civil disobedience (especially in the cause of the gospel) in Acts 5:29 where Peter and the Apostles said, “We must obey God rather than men.” Again, just like in the case for a general revolt, we see the need to appeal to higher authority. In verse 20, God directly told them to preach the gospel in the temple, which was directly against what the high priest had told them. In this situation, the lesser authority directly contradicted the higher authority. Given Paul’s attitude in Acts 23, we may be sure that they would have sought some avenue to obey both if it were possible. So, we see that the grounds for civil disobedience are very similar to the grounds for revolt, except that revolts require even greater deliberation and general support considering their scale and effects. 

A great deal more could be said with regard to the sufficient and necessary grounds for just revolt from the Christian perspective. It was not my intent to delineate them fully, although this would be a worthy task for someone of greater skill to take on. My main point was to show what was insufficient for revolt, namely, injustice in rulers. However, it was necessary that I should sketch out a little what would constitute a just revolt because I do believe that such a thing exists. As we as Christians think about the grounds for revolt or disobedience to authority, we must, as in everything, fence our conclusions in by what we know from Scripture. We know that God establishes the authorities in our lives for our benefit in general. We know that a Christlike heart is a submissive heart. We know that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. We know that we are to protect the innocent as much as is in our power. By these truths and those like them we may hone in on right thoughts and attitudes. But these thoughts and attitudes will not come by following the political trends or anti-trends of our current times. Rather, it is through careful, prayerful consideration of the whole council of God’s Word and by taking council from fellow Christians including those with varying perspectives.

Bibliography

Calvin, John. “Book IV Chapter 20:31.” Institutes of the Christian Religion. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949.

McCULLOCH v. STATE OF MARYLAND et al. No. 17 US 316. The Supreme Court. 7 March 1819.