DG Hart is the author and co-author of several books, mostly on the politics of faith. He’s an elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Pennsylvania and one of writers at OldLife.org. A post at Old Life just prior to President Trump’s first inauguration entitled “Is Donald Trump Mainstreaming Apostasy?” generated an impressive 568 comments from readers, including many from Hart.
Maybe the clickbait title, do you think?
Authority and Disobedience
What’s my interest, you ask? Well, those comments also veered speedily off topic, as is common with long comment threads, into territory much explored here in times past. So let’s have a look today at what Mr. Hart had to say in early 2017 about the authorities ordained by God and what happens (or ought to happen) when Christians disobey them — civilly, of course.
It’s a different take, to be sure:
“Just because a believer has a special relationship with God doesn’t let the believer disobey the magistrate’s laws. Christianity is not a license for civil disobedience.
That’s why the debates about resisting a tyrant were so intricate. The best the Reformers could come up with was the doctrine of a lesser magistrate. A citizen could not disobey. But a magistrate might be able to.
If a law is unjust or if we must obey God rather than men, then we suffer the consequences of disobedience. That’s what the apostles did. They didn’t form political action committees to overturn Roman laws.”
Despite his affection for Reformed theology, I’m right with Hart up to this point. Christians do not have a God-given right to free speech or other modes of civil disobedience, but Christ commanded us to engage in what may well become very costly speech and necessary violations of the edicts of those making the laws. Where the civil authorities Paul speaks of in Romans 13 say otherwise, we ought to obey God rather than men. Nothing controversial there.
Off the Rails
Here’s where it goes off the rails in my view:
“Nero did not violate God’s law if he executed Christians who obeyed God rather than man. If Paul continued to preach after the emperor said he may not, then Nero was doing what God ordained government to do. Christians don’t get a pass from civil law just because they follow a higher law.”
Whoa Nelly! Just a minute there. That does not follow at all. The fact that God has established the authority of an individual does not automatically render all his acts lawful. Just because a man is functioning in an authoritative role God gave him does not mean he is doing the job the way God wants him to. Ask King Saul about that one. Or Ahab. Or Jeroboam. Does Hart really mean this?
“If I break the civil law, I should be punished. God gave us authorities to uphold the law and maintain order and peace. It’s disorderly and unpeaceful if you think you can pick and choose which laws to obey because you have Jesus in your heart.”
Hmm, apparently so. If “I should be punished” every time I break a law out of obedience to the law’s Higher Authority, that makes the magistrate’s action in punishing me “lawful” ... at least according to Hart.
Two Questions
Okay, let’s stop and examine that proposition critically for a moment. When a believer defies authority out of biblical conviction, consistent with the civil disobedience of the apostles as chronicled in the New Testament, did the Head of the Church really intend that every such act ought to be punished? Moreover, is or is not such punishment a violation of God’s law?
Firstly, if Christians should be punished for obeying God rather than men, why did the Lord send his angel to rescue Peter from imprisonment? Should Peter not have had to live with the consequences of his choices?
Were the Christians who let Paul down in a basket through a window in the wall of Damascus acting disobediently? Was Paul, in cooperating with their efforts to save him from the governor, who was trying to seize him on the king’s authority?
If every violation of the expressed wishes of a God-given authority deserves punishment, why didn’t the apostle stay put and take his medicine like a man? Shouldn’t Peter have politely declined to participate in his own miraculous rescue?
Secondly, if the authorities are not violating God’s law when they execute Christians for obeying God rather than men, why did the believers name Herod and Pilate (who acted with God-given authority) as members of the doomed conspiracy described by David in Psalm 2, men who “gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed”? Surely we cannot argue that what Herod and Pilate did was lawful simply because their authority was given to them by God? Not when we’re talking about “lawful” in terms of God’s law.
To take another example, if the leaders of the church will give an account for how they watch over the souls of those under their care, how can we imagine God’s appointed secular authorities will not? But if even the execution of believers acting under the direct authority of Christ himself is not “a violation of God’s law”, then for what will they give an account?
The State Absolute
To suppose that the execution of Christians who choose to obey God rather then men is not itself a violation of God’s law is to assume that the authority of the state is absolute. Quite obviously, this is not the case.
Might it not be less binary, more consistent (and most importantly, more biblical) to draw the conclusion that when Christians obey the higher authority over the lower authority acting outside the sphere of responsibility God has given him (to be God’s servant “for your good”), they are not in violation of God’s law? The arbitrary or malevolent edicts of the state, administered in the interest of its own self-perpetuation or enrichment, are not “God’s law”. This being the case, subjecting a believer to the “punishment that fits the crime” is not a moral imperative. It’s not that he should be punished, it’s that he may be in the rare event no deliverance comes. In such an event, we can be sure the Lord has a higher purpose and will use that injustice to his glory, and punish those who inflict it in his good time. However, if the Lord has made a way of escape for the Christian in conflict with badly administered law, it is perfectly lawful for him to take it, despite being technically a “lawbreaker” in the eyes of the state.
If tradition is to be believed, most of the apostles were eventually executed by the state, but not at the time the secular authorities originally ordained or determined. Rather, all happened in accordance with God’s purposes in the world and at the time of his choosing. No doubt there were many close calls along the way as the Lord paved the way for them to finish their work notwithstanding frequent intense opposition from the secular authorities.
God is sovereign. The state is his servant for our good, but servants may engage in all sorts of disobedience, as the Lord’s parables frequently demonstrate.
Legal vs. Not Yet Overturned
Furthermore, when earthly authorities exceed their mandate and execute Christians merely for acting under the authority of Christ, the Lord will certainly hold them accountable for their sins. In no way is such conduct lawful.
There is a difference between a lawful act and an unlawful act for which sentence has yet to be executed. God’s silence on such matters is not permissive; it’s gracious and forbearing. To an earthly observer who sees the authorities blithely continuing as usual after warping and bludgeoning justice in their treatment of the Lord’s servants, “legal” and “not yet overturned” may appear identical.
From heaven’s perspective, God’s judgment is only a matter of time.
No comments :
Post a Comment