Civil Disobedience “The Bible Way”
Part 1 of 2 – The Book of Daniel
In his remarkable “Letter from Birmingham Jail” (April, 1963) the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote about just and unjust laws and how the latter should be resisted.
“[T]here are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.
“I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’
“Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.”
Dr. King explains how an unjust law can be broken “justly”:
“In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.”
Dr. King then cites one of three Bible accounts I wish to highlight here. It is the story of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego (Daniel 3). The Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar had elevated these excellent Jewish men to roles of high responsibility. But this status didn’t make them immune to the king’s threat of fiery execution when they refused to obey his demand that they worship the image he had set up. To bow to the image would require them to break a higher commandment—God’s commandment against idolatry.
“…our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.” (Daniel 3:17-18)
They refused, said Dr. King, “on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire.”
The story tells how God delivered these three men from the fire. But God gives no guarantee of this, and the men announced their willingness to join the company of martyrs if God so willed: “God will deliver…but even if not…we will obey him and not the king when commandments are in conflict.”
A second earlier account in the Book of Daniel shows how civil disobedience was averted. Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were being groomed for their service to the king (Daniel 1). Part of this grooming was for them to eat the king’s choice food and drink. This created a moral challenge to the four men, because of the food restrictions taught in the Law of Moses.
“But Daniel resolved not to defile himself with the royal food and wine” (Daniel 1:8). This in itself could be a death sentence to the four men, but Daniel was creative and offered an alternative (you vegetarians will love it!!) to Ashpenaz, the chief court official. “Please test your servants for ten days. Give us nothing but vegetables to eat and water to drink. Then compare our appearance with that of the young men who eat the royal food, and treat your servants in accordance with what you see” (1:12-13).
“At the end of ten days they looked better than any of the young men who ate the royal food. So the guard took away their choice food and the wine they were to drink and gave them vegetables instead” (1:15-16).
Here’s a good policy: Before actually engaging in an act of civil disobedience seek a “win/win” alternative that preserves obedience to both “lower” and “higher” authority. Allow a reasonable period for an accommodation to be made. If the request is refused or ignored, then proceed with the act of civil disobedience against the lower, inferior authority.
The third account involved the Prophet Daniel himself. Deeply dedicated to his service in the Persian government, he became the victim of tricky, jealous men who wanted to turn King Darius against him. They looked for some way to accuse him of failing in his secular duties, but they found none. These men had to admit, “We shall not find any ground for complaint against this Daniel unless we find it in connection with the law of his God.” (Daniel 6:5)
So they concocted the suggestion that the king forbid all prayer to anyone other than himself for 30 days. In weakness and pride the king foolishly approved the decree.
Then what did Daniel do?
When Daniel knew that the document had been signed, he went to his house where he had windows in his upper chamber open toward Jerusalem. He got down on his knees three times a day and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as he had done previously. (6:10)
Notice: Daniel fully knew he was violating the king’s decree.
Notice: Daniel could have prayed secretly but chose to continue his open and purposeful prayer practice just as before.
Notice: Daniel didn’t start doing something new (in order, for example, to challenge the king’s decree directly and intentionally).
In these three accounts we see two forms of civil disobedience (resistance to an unjust law or authority with willingness to suffer the penalty):
- Refusing to do what the state demands we do, to obey a higher law.
- Doing what we ought to do, in spite of the state forbidding us.
We also see important qualities in those who practiced civil disobedience:
- Their lives were honorable in the sight of both God and man.Their loyalty and diligence fulfilling secular duties under secular authority were beyond question and above reproach.
- They upheld the rule of law by willingly submitting to the consequences of breaking it. Not for personal gain or pleasure, like constant speeding and accepting the occasional citation, but for living honorably before the presence of God.
The earliest Christians likewise faced questions about their loyalty to a pagan state and where to draw the line. The First Epistle of Peter gave them excellent guidance and the words still instruct us today:
Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution,whether it be to the emperoras supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. (2:13-17)
But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler. Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. (4:15-16)
Therefore let those who suffer according to God’s will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good. (4:19)
How do you think these lessons apply to living by a higher command today?