When resistance to the State is not just permitted, but is our Christian duty
Conflict with Caesar is not inevitable.
“Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.” (Matthew 22:21)
It only becomes inevitable when Caesar demands for himself that which belongs to God. As long as the State does not claim absolute authority and autonomy, it can play a lawful role in establishing law and order. In this capacity it is the ‘servant of God’ (Romans 13:4)
Problems arise when the State assumes not a derivative or a relative authority, but claims for itself absolute and autonomous authority. In seeking to make itself the centre of all human loyalties, the goal of human aspiration, the source of human values, the final arbiter of human destiny without using religious language, then just like pagan Rome is has become a modern deity.
Government has now become a religion and is in direct conflict with genuine Christian faith. It claims to be a modern ‘divine Caesar’ without saying as much lest there be widespread civil unrest. As Christians and good men sleep, the pagan State enlarges itself and consolidates its gains. The Church wilts before the Leviathan State instead of slaying it.
Early Christians went to the lions rather than transgress God’s law or make compromises with the secular power. Their faith was viewed by Rome as insurrection. The battle for our existence and for our identity as Christians is upon us. The paganism deepens as the improper exertion of the State’s claims widen. Only the Christian faith has a reference point outside the State. Christian rebels alone can effectively resist, challenge, protest and stem the swelling tide.
We need a theology of resistance before we can have a strategy of resistance. In the worldview of humanists all things have their origin in chance. This has led directly to irrational and evil government, domestic and foreign policy. Increasing State interference is a sign of God’s displeasure and judgement. What is the proper Christian response to the illegal acts of the State? It is delusory to think that the humanistic State exists to perpetuate good government; it is there solely to perpetuate itself.
Aware of it or not, every genuine Christian is on a fast-moving collision course with the modern technological State. We must recognize this and be prepared. The State does not want an active Church, but a silent one. There is no room for God. These people have taken over His place. We are not in the business of working out a peace pact with Satan. Jesus said: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34) The Church of today in most of its branches and versions has sought compromise with the world and allowed humanism to take over everything everywhere. Nothing has been said about the increasing power and illegal acts of government or how the State is abusing its power. We know the State is not absolute and must be halted in its tracks.
Whether it is permissible for Christian believers to resist lawfully constituted authority is something that we shall face increasingly today. Paul makes it clear that obedience to authorities is required. Some instances are very clear, others are not. We must ask ourselves what constitutes a lawfully constituted authority or what are the ‘powers that be’. Must we really unquestioningly obey every command of ‘Caesar’? The New Testament, for example, establishes that disobedience to governments is required when they attempt in any way to suppress the preaching of the Gospel
“Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:28-29)
What constitutes an unlawful infringement on preaching? Having decided upon resistance, what ways are open to us?
Society is made up of sinful men who will seek to exploit the potential powers of the State extending them to the utmost limits and therefore they must be carefully restrained. Rebellion and disobedience against the unlawful acts of government is itself obedience to the law and in such circumstances, the ruler or parliament is to be declared the lawbreaker. It is parliament that is rebellious in this instance and not those who oppose them. No absolutism is to be tolerated either in the State, the Church or from whatever source.
Our governments arrogantly assume for themselves unlimited powers being dissatisfied with those God has given them. Surrounding them are many who flatter their vanity, who follow and praise them whilst despising them all in their hearts. They sanction tyranny, demanding all obey their laws without exception. Within their imagined all-embracing authority everyone is trapped. They reject the yoke of God and seek to assign to themselves that which belongs to God alone. Not content with providing properly for the physical prosperity and welfare of their subjects, and few are interested in doing this, they seek furthermore to determine the direction of the human conscience in a way that belongs to God alone. They sit on earth, but would conquer heaven, snatch from heaven a sacred flame to reignite the dying embers of their godless ambition.
Resisting the civil authorities does not necessarily mean taking up arms or using some other means to legitimately drive rulers from office. However, it is our Christian duty to resist when the State goes beyond its God-given sphere of authority encroaching upon that which belongs exclusively to the family, the Church or other God-ordained sphere, taking to itself authority it has not been given. Nor can we give up to the State areas for which we bear sole responsibility. Once we relinquish one thing the State will inevitably come back for more and eventually take all. For this we must answer to God. Very effective resistance can be achieved simply by staking out that over which we have authority and responsibility given to us by God and for which we must answer to Him. We cannot allow the State or anyone else to wrest this from us. Caesar can ask of us what is his, but not demand that which does not belong to him.
Over recent decades the hostility and venom of the State and various human authorities in general have been unleashed against the Christian faith. The enmity against the teachings of the Scriptures and those seeking to follow them has frankly been breath-taking and astonishing. Yet, this is a foolish thing for them to do. God laughs at their impudence and folly: “He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision” (Psalm 2:4). It is from believing circles that the most loyal and law-abiding of citizens are to be found. In making life difficult for believers, in persecuting them, they undermine the foundation of stability and the prosperity of the nation. Social disintegration continues apace where there is perverse and godless government legislation.
In Romans 13 we are admonished by Paul to obey kings and magistrates, but equally all men should subject themselves to God and obey him. Nowhere in Scripture are we taught that unlimited obedience to rulers is justified. Verse 1 makes it clear that no one is exempt, not even rulers, “every soul”. Clearly, if rulers ought to obey God, it follows that subjects and citizens are also bound not to offend God in anything they may do in obeying the authorities.
We are given the example of Elijah in Scripture. King Ahab kills the prophets of God and so Elijah calls the people together. Elijah requires that they immediately stop worshipping Baal and that the priests of Baal be put to death. What the king neglected to do, the people should now do, not by mob violence but by the execution of justice. On many occasions in Israel the people refused to oppose a king who was out to overthrow the service of God. The King can be punished, but so too can the people for their failure to act against him. It follows that a people who fail to act, or support their rulers in their crime make themselves guilty of the same misdemeanour and should bear like punishment as the rulers.
When speaking of ‘the people’ it is understood that we mean in the first instance those who stand for the people legally, e.g. the judiciary, or a tribunal authority that can restrain the encroachments of sovereignty and represent the people. In Israel there were seventy, six from each tribe with the high priest as president. There is an equivalent today with judges, provosts and similar. If the ruler uses his lieutenants to force us into idolatry, should we not seek to depose him? The New Testament teaches that magistrates do not carry the sword in vain. This is not something the private individual ought necessarily to take upon himself.
There can be no greater tyranny than that which rules over the souls of men. If it is permitted to make war to preserve the borders and towns of a country, all of which are set in place by God according to Acts 17, is it not then even more reasonable to take up arms to preserve and defend honest men and to suppress the wicked, to defend the bounds of the Church which is the kingdom of Christ? Whilst the Church cannot be extended by force of arms, it may be justly preserved by such. In history we have the example of the Waldenses in northern Italy. Those who die in a holy war are martyrs. Those who refuse to drive out all forms of impiety bring down upon themselves the judgement of God.
Subjects must be regarded by rulers as their equals not as their inferiors or slaves as they so often are and treated with contempt. Subjects taken as a whole body are themselves lords. God calls upon rulers not to lift their hearts above those from whom they were chosen. Servile fear is a bad guardian, for whom we fear we also hate. Affection maintains authority. Love preserves the foundation of greatness. Those who govern us as equals live securely. Those who rule us treating us with contempt must live in constant fear.
Does the property of the people belong to the State? This is an issue of increasing relevance today and should it not be resisted? Can governments with right expropriate property at will for its own or the perceived common good? Some rulers seem to believe that the blood, sweat and tears, the industry of their subjects is their proper revenue. In such a situation, miserable subjects are here little more than kept beasts to till the earth for their master’s good and profit, whereas rulers were given of God for the benefit of the people and those who work for private ends and pleasures are little better than tyrants. Instead of extorting goods from their true owners, they ought to be defending them against thieves and oppressors and not becoming such themselves. What difference is it if some foreign invader, villain, or State or some dreadful thief takes all I possess from me and leaves me a beggar? Is this not all the same?
Ahab could not compel Naboth to sell him his vineyard. Nor under Roman law was such a thing possible although at first it seems to have been the case. According to civil law everything belonged to the king. Caesar was lord of all things. There is, of course, only One who is Lord of all. Although the dominion of all belonged to Caesar, particular persons maintained the right of possession and commanding and the right of inheritance. A king may claim a right to a kingdom, but has no right to appropriate an honest man’s belongings, should he do so it is an injustice.
The distinction between private and public expenditure must be rigidly maintained. It is an evil thing to employ public funds for anything other than the public good.
Many in positions of authority tend to believe anything that their own appetites suggest to them must therefore be lawful. It is a dangerous thing to put power into the hands of a weak-minded man with a perverse disposition and who believes his authority is unlimited.
If we can rightfully resist and remove governments by some means, rulers who bring ruin to the nation, by whom, and to what extent is it permitted by God? If we look into the Christian Scriptures and look at the two covenants: one exists between God and the ruler; the other between God and the people. God holds each party to account both for what they do. If any party breaks the covenant, God can demand satisfaction from the other. Should any of the people default, then the ruler is called upon to execute punishment. Who may punish the godless ruler for not keeping his side of the bargain? The answer must be the people.
All Israel’s kings received the Law of God. These two covenants were recognised, between God and the king and people, but also between the king and the people. The people ask the king whether he will govern the nation justly and according to God’s Law. He promises he will. Then the people answer, and not before, that as long as he governs uprightly, they will obey faithfully. The king promises simply, absolutely and unconditionally. The people promise conditionally. If the king fails the people, they are relieved of their promise. Similarly, as we agree to be law-abiding citizens, should governments fail us, break the covenant, we are relieved of our side of the contract.
In God’s eyes, therefore in reality and in truth, His is the only covenant on the table. All other covenants, compacts or contracts are but a figment of the human imagination, a fabrication of rebellious minds to escape responsibility before God. For the people the two covenants move in two directions: to the government but also to God. We had better forsake and disobey our rulers rather than God. We do not refuse to obey, provided what we are asked to do is lawful and also not against God. We are willing to pay taxes provided these do not abolish all that we owe to God. We obey Caesar whilst he fulfils the office of Caesar. When a ruler exceeds his limitations, takes to himself authority to which he has no right, wars against God, we think it then quite reasonable not to obey, even if initially this amounts only to passive resistance. We cannot have peace with our enemies when they are not willing and will not disarm.
The whole body of the people is above the government, above the rulers. The people should choose and establish their rulers. The one who is established by another is under him. Those who receive authority are under those who give it. The people may live without a ruler, but there cannot be a ruler apart from the people to rule. Those who are raised to rule do not do so because of their own wisdom, excellence or status, but because of the mass of the people. When the people forsake a ruler, he falls and this must lead to his removal. This is something our own rulers should remember: to lose the people is always to lose power and the right to rule. Officers of government receive their authority from the people and this can only be removed by those who gave them that authority. Where it is not feasible for all the people to meet together, then the principal members of society gather as representatives of the whole and undertake the removal.
Governments do not receive power and authority from the people in order to make it serve or pander to their own pleasures. Augustine of Hippo said: “These are properly called lords and masters who provide for the good and profit of others.” They must therefore obey them who provide for them. In truth, those who govern in this way serve those over whom they have command. To govern is nothing other than to make provision for those whom they rule. It is the duty of rulers is to provide for the peoples’ good.
Justice comes first, but also the rulers are there to repulse enemies, purely in defence and not to wage wars to further their own selfish ends. Rulers are ordained by God and established by the people to procure and provide for the good of those over whom they rule. A ruler who applies himself largely to working for his own profit and pleasures, perverts the law, makes cruel use of his subjects and can be regarded as nothing better than a tyrant and should be ousted.
Are rulers above the law as Hobbes suggests? Does a ruler have it in his power to determine everything merely according to his own will and pleasure? Is he himself subject to the law or does the law depend upon him? Certainly, governments ought to be the guardians of the law. Just in case the ruler should go against the law, the people invariably also appoint associates, counsellors. Nothing in the office of a ruler exempts him from obedience to the law. Under God, rulers receive laws from the people. A government may make new laws and abrogate the old, but only by common consent.
Does a government have the power of life and death over subjects? Some think so. However, the ruler is but a minister and executor of the law and may only pull the sword from its sheath and use it against those whom the law of God also condemns. To do anything other than this makes him a tyrant, someone who goes beyond what is permitted him. In which case he is no longer a ruler but a tyrant; no longer a judge but is a criminal himself; not a conserver of the law but a violator of it. Can the ruler then pardon those whom the law condemns? No, he cannot. Only cruel pity supports thieves, robbers, murderers, rapists, and others who plague us. Where this happens offences will only increase and provide the wrongdoer with yet more ammunition against the law. They become wolves among the sheep.
Is it right for private individuals to take up arms against the authorities? That which is required of the people as a whole cannot be performed by individuals. In Scripture, God does not put his sword into the hands of private persons. There is no power, no calling to draw the sword of authority. The word must be, “put up thy sword into the sheath” (John 18:11). Individuals who draw the sword in this way make themselves delinquents. If magistrates fail to use the sword when they should, then they too are guilty.
We cannot promote anarchy, nor revolution. We must find an appropriate response to interference by the State in the liberties of the citizen. If the State is deliberately committed to destroying its own and our ethical commitment to God, then resistance is not just appropriate, but is our duty.
Armed revolution against the modern State is likely to be futile, ill-advised, unlikely to succeed. There is no example or mandate in the Bible for this, to set out to overthrow a government using violence. We must follow the Scriptures and God’s Law to the letter, without regard for the consequences.
The Pilgrims fled to America, but the world is now getting smaller and the places to run to are fewer. It is perhaps not the best idea to flee. Many have been doing this and surely it is a time to stand and fight totalitarianism. We must force people to listen to things they do not want to hear. Must do all we can to undermine tyrannical governments.
Where God is shut out all we are left with is arbitrary law. There is no real basis to law, which is left to the decisions of a small group of people who think they know what is best for us. Thus, there is no real basis for what law should be. What will inevitably accompany this is the loss of intrinsic value of individual persons. We are left with relative values, arbitrary law. Governments persecute and prosecute whom they will for no very good reason. There is no absolute standard which all must recognize. Only the good of the State matters.
Today we are ready to accept without question what a generation ago would have been an abomination. Abortion has moved to being infanticide: killing babies after they are born if they do not match up to someone’s arbitrary standard. This has drifted on to euthanasia of the elderly or those suffering from ‘depression’. There is a very low view of human life: domestic oppression of population; international expansion and oppression is part of the integral system. There is a fundamental lowering of the view of human life, a loss of compassion. There is an unbreakable link between the existence of an infinite, personal God of the Bible and the unique value of human life. There are no fixed values. Through government, the courts, media, have been vehicles to force this worldview on the whole population.
Pharisees and similar hypocrites demand that we “must in all things subject ourselves to the higher power.” This is manifestly unbiblical. Rahab is honoured for defying the king. Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were thrown into the fiery furnace for doing so and Daniel landed in the lion’s den. There are many such examples in the Old and the New Testaments. Blind submission by citizens gave their nations Hitler and Mussolini. The Lord mandates submission to government when it is just. Government for its part must also obey the Lord’s rules. Christian’s good intentions are often disastrous. We need to do something at this moment about our drift into tyranny.
Professing Christians in Western industrialized societies may not feel such direct pressure against them as say they would do in strictly Muslim countries. Nevertheless, opposition will still be there. They may be vaguely aware that the State and society is generally pluralistic and then them to be religiously ‘neutral’. Nevertheless, they are confronted with pornography, abortion issues, councils that ban Christmas or replace it with something else banning Christ in a manger in schools. This will intensify as godlessness increases. Do we then have reason as Christians to take a stand against the ‘powers that be’. If so, exactly what form should it take?
In the Old Testament, prophets came before kings and the people to tell them how the nation had departed from righteousness. They promised the judgement of God on the whole nation should they not repent and turn back to God. In doing so they were quite specific in their accusations and so were in constant trouble. They did not speak of sin in general terms and so avoid the wrath of those whom they were addressing, but named specific sins and the judgement that those sins would bring upon them.
David W. Norris