Christians and Principles of Civil Disobedience
Monday, 1 December 2014
| Nick Jensen
I must confess that from the first instance of hearing about the actions of “Love Makes a Way” (LMAW), I felt uncomfortable. I watched the news clip as a group of Christians, including ministers, were led out of the Minister for Immigration’s office, arrested for sitting in his waiting area singing songs and refusing to leave. I watched as they were interviewed by the pre-organised media to explain their campaign—to put pressure on the Coalition government to reverse the ‘children in detention’ policy.
I was unsure, however, as to why I initially felt uncomfortable. In part, I think I was frustrated that prayer and worship were being used primarily as a political statement and what could easily be accused of being a ‘media stunt’. I also wondered whether their critique was simplistic given the complexities of the issue and that they did not present a practical alternative. It could have also been a concern of a perceived partisanship and the targeting of a government rather than the facts surrounding the policy.
But these issues were not at the heart of the matter. After some months of reflection—and, in the meantime, many more political Christian activist office arrests occurred—I realised my core discomfort was theological. Therefore, I offer this reflection to stimulate further friendly discussion on some principles of civil disobedience.
Romans 13 and ‘Civil Disobedience’
Recently Matthew Anslow, a development worker and supporter of LMAW, wrote a piece for Engage.Mail (with a fuller version in Crucible) that explored the question of whether Romans 13 allowed for civil disobedience by Christians. Anslow points out that the government of Paul’s time was an imperial dictatorship and that, in the wider context of Romans, an interpretation of unquestioning obedience to authorities was inconsistent. He also points to broader biblical stories involving, and seemingly affirming, forms of civil disobedience, particularly in the Old Testament but also in the life of Jesus. Lastly, he makes compelling points regarding times Christians will need to choose whether to follow Caesar’s authority when it conflicts which a command of God, but making sure it is in a non-violent way.
All in all, I see this as a valuable addition to the discussion around civil disobedience and a helpful exegesis of Romans 13 from this perspective. However, I believe there is a need to take this issue further and to distinguish different types of civil disobedience and the theological principles behind appropriate and consistent use.
‘Civil Disobedience’ Defined
Civil disobedience is the refusal to obey certain laws, demands, or commands of a government (or occupying power) for the sake of a ‘higher law’. If we translate this into a Christian context, as Anslow has done, it might be defined as disobeying the government on an important matter of principle where God’s will, as understood through Scripture, is contravened. This act of disobedience would be constrained by the principle of non-violence. This is exactly what LMAW have aimed to do with their protest movement.
However, the problem here is breadth. With just this definition to guide us, a vast array of civil disobedience actions—some very unwise—could find legitimation. For example, I could refuse to pay my taxes due to the knowledge that some were being used to pay for things I objected to—perhaps abortions or unjustified wars. To what extent, then, ought I urge others to follow my lead (to follow the moral principle of universalizability)? This would fit well within the above definition of civil obedience, but could have unforeseen consequences—done en masse, withholding taxes might have damaging results for the provision of State services for those in need.
What we need therefore, assuming that civil disobedience is sometimes necessary, are additional principles to clarify when and how a Christian should engage in these actions. In order to develop a fuller picture of civil disobedience from a Christian perspective, we might consult some leading Christian thinkers in history who have wrestled with questions of the relationship between Christian faith and civil law. Here is a start.
Augustine and ‘Unjust laws’
The towering theological figure of St. Augustine (AD 354-430) gives us our first principle for our approach to ‘Caesar’ when he says:
A law which is not just does not seem to me to be a law at all
– ‘On the Free Choice of the Will’ (Book 1, Section 5.11)
This now famous maxim—often paraphrased as “An unjust law is not law at all”—has formed part of the basis for natural law theory. It fits neatly with the Christian definition of civil disobedience (above) since justice (broadly defined) is the basis of all law and, from a Christian perspective, originates in God’s character of goodness and righteousness. Therefore, any government making a law that is not just is acting contrary to God’s will and ultimately cannot be recognised as authentic law by a Christian.
This initially seems pretty straightforward, but for me it raises a question about the approach of LMAW. It could be reasonably argued that children being held in detention is an unjust law and should not be recognised. That law might be resisted. But here is my problem. This is not the law that is being broken by the sit-in movement. Instead they are breaking a just law in order to make a point about an unjust one.
Think back to Rosa Parks and the black civil rights movement. Parks defied a State government law by intentionally sitting at the front of the bus rather than the back which was designated for ‘Negros’. Her act of civil disobedience was the breaking of an unjust law that promoted racial segregation and inequality, contrary to the dignity of being made in God’s image and welcomed equally as sons and daughters of God in Christ (Gen. 1:26-28 and Gal. 3:28). Laws banning appropriate protests, forcing doctors to refer for abortion against conscience, or inhibiting the people to gather their own resources (as in Ghandi’s great salt walk) would also generally fall into this category of ‘unjust laws’ and civil disobedience might directly challenge them.
However, intentionally trespassing and disrupting the work of an elected official does not fit with this principle. It is breaking a just and reasonable—indeed fundamental—law, albeit for the sake of challenging an unjust one, and therefore does not fit within Augustine’s justification.
A direct challenge, fitting with the principle, might be to break into a detention centre in order to release the children. Indeed, Augustine once contemplated whether to pull a group together to storm a ship with illegal slaves on board. St. Ambrose of Milan and other monks were willing to put their heads on the blocks alongside citizens who were being punished excessively for vandalism. The Old Testament examples of civil disobedience and Jesus’ disruptive acts in the Temple can all be considered the breaking of unjust laws. For civil disobedience to cohere well with the Romans 13 exhortation to submit to authorities, I contend that it must be an unjust law that is being broken, not a just one.
Aquinas and Avoiding Disturbance
However, before we decide to organise covert non-violent operations to free children in detention, we might consider one more principle. This one comes from the great ethicist and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) who famously sought a critical synthesis between Aristotle and Augustine. Following in the steps of Aristotle, one of his key ideas was that the means, environment, and ends all need to be good for an action to be considered good in itself. So, when talking about whether human law binds a man’s conscience he says:
“Augustine says ‘a law that is not just, seems to be no law at all.’ Wherefore such laws do not bind in conscience, except perhaps in order to avoid scandal or disturbance, for which cause a man should even yield his right”.
Summa Theologica (Q96 – Article 4)
Taking the broader context of Aquinas into account, I understand him to be saying that even when an unjust law has been determined, civil disobedience still needs to be subject to an ethical framework. If the breaking of an unjust law has a good intention but the consequences are worse than the results of the law itself, then it is not a good act.
So, if Christians broke into the detention centres to release the children, the consequences of this action might well be worse than those under the law holding them in the first place. Not only would there most likely be serious injury (to the protestors or the children), but the children would also then cease to have access to Australian services by becoming fugitives. It may be justified due to child detention arguably being an unjust law, but according to Aquinas that ‘right’ should be yielded if greater damage is the result.
This is also why Christians shouldn’t stop paying their taxes even when they see Government money being used in part for things they oppose—necessary services for many people who rely in whole or part upon them would be hampered or worse. Although the motivation is good, the evil resulting needs to be taken into consideration. (Please note that I am not accusing LMAW of causing greater evil in their sit-ins. I am simply adding to the original principle of keeping consequences in mind when breaking unjust laws.)
Conclusion
These two principles—that of only breaking ‘unjust laws’ and only taking action ‘if the ends are less evil than the ends of the unjust law itself’—give us a more consistent and ethical picture of civil disobedience from a Christian perspective. I would happily include in this the original non-violent principle that Matthew Anslow has articulated from the book of Romans. Any violent act done by a group in civil disobedience would be very difficult to justify (including under Christian forms of ‘just war’ theory). Moreover, the effective practice is usually to submit to whatever punishment the State may inflict even if it is unjust or excessive as a further witness to a failure in justice. LMAW have been upfront about accepting this punishment for their actions.
I understand the heart and motivation of fellow followers of Christ. I also respect that God may often call us to engage in different ways and play different parts in redeeming our public policy. However, I would want to continue the discussion to challenge the movement to consider not only good motivations and strategy, but also to consider in principled terms the precedents they are setting. If deliberately breaking just or foundational laws become an acceptable part of civil disobedience for Christians then what will the potential consequences be?
One issue of consequence here is the question of perception. When media is involved, we can be too easily accused of creating ‘stunts’ for media attention rather than more clearly challenging the validity of law and working respectfully with those engaged in very complex policy. This is a difficult space in which to tread. For example, some Christians I know who work as political staffers have questioned whether some of the protesters they encountered genuinely wanted to engage with the politicians or were simply pushing for arrest and attention. This perception should not be summarily dismissed.
My alternative at this stage would be to keep working with government as far as possible to creatively develop policy that could balance the spectrum of issues rather than focus on one, albeit vitally important, element. In the meantime, we must continue to do what the church does best: build relationships with elected members and refugees alike, be generous and provide presents, education, and encouragement for these children, continue to advocate for fair and generous treatment, and to invite refugee families into our communities when they are released. There may come a time for stronger civil disobedience—that I don’t deny—but I don’t believe the issue is extreme enough yet. And when that time comes, it should be in a way that not only recognises the complexity of the issues and hard work of policy makers, but also does so without breaking just laws.
Let the conversation continue!
Nick Jensen is the Director of the Lachlan Macquarie Internship, a program initiated by the Australian Christian Lobby designed for developing Christian leaders in public policy.