In recent articles I have discussed questions of persecution
and punishment, of those who suffer as a result of the gospel versus those who
are answering for their lawbreaking which is all too often rooted in political
activism.
Generally speaking the New Testament is clear in its call to
obedience and submission, for Christians to obey the laws of the land. We all
know there are points where the law must be disobeyed and yet in these
increasingly Libertarian times there is a great deal of confusion about the
former point, the call to submission and obedience. This is further confused by
the post-Enlightenment Liberal heritage concerning rights, democracy and the
like, concepts that are not only absent in the New Testament but actually (in
many cases) are in opposition to its ethics.
We may refuse and thus break a law but this is not because of
'rights'. The New Testament doesn't cast our ethics or relationship to the
state in terms of rights, social contract or concepts such as limited power. On
the contrary Paul penned his famous and yet much misunderstood passage in
Romans during the reign of Nero. The same is true of Peter and Christ's
teachings in the gospels take place under Tiberius an emperor who may indeed
shine when compared to the likes of Nero, but was nevertheless a cruel and
immoral tyrant.
How then are we to discern these questions in the modern
world, under modern frameworks?
First, the assumptions of Classical Liberalism must be
dispensed with. Again, this is not about rights, concepts of citizenship and
citizen-rights vis-à-vis a Constitution written by flawed and fallen men. We
live under these laws and can appeal to them when put under strain by corrupt
rulers who would harm us but we cannot use these (otherwise immoral) frameworks
to assert power, intimidate others or even protect our wealth and property. The
Christians who argue to the contrary and embrace political combat and actual
violent resistance are in sin and stand condemned by the Scriptures. The New
Testament calls us to a life and ethic that stands in contrast to this. I
realise that many struggle with such concepts. Their allegiance and affection
with regard to the state and/or cultural narratives mold their thinking and
many have (on a Sacralist) basis contrived theological schemes that support
this way of thinking. It's nothing new and it's not easy to get people to see
through these issues.
Like Paul in Acts we can employ shame as we call out and
expose corruption and yet our motives are not political or rooted in
retribution. Paul sought no redress or compensation. He shamed them and walked
away. In another instance he appealed to the law in order to deflect torture
and as discussed elsewhere his appeal to the court of Caesar was a tactical
move to prevent certain assassination and a show trial and on a theological-strategic
level it was part of a larger narrative in which he the apostle to the Gentiles
was destined to go to Rome... and the fact that he would enter the city in
chains was especially poetic and Christ-like to Paul.
While on the one hand I argue that we're called to
anti-power, to submission, obedience, humility and by implication a degree of
poverty, there are moments when we are certainly called upon to 'break the law'.
The first instance is in reference to what I would call the
Bestial Line. If the state has fully embraced its bestial tendency and claims
prerogatives that belong only to God and would enforce those prerogatives,
mandating idolatry as it were... then we must disobey.
Again this is confused by many. Some have all but deified the
US Constitution and thus when they perceive that it's being violated they would
accuse said state government or federal administration of 'turning beast' and
they think that they not only ought to disobey but in some cases are compelled
to do so.
Let's be very clear. The US Constitution is not the standard.
It's not of Divine origin. It's not inspired and many of its concepts are
patently un-Christian. In one sense it's a good document in terms of fallen
humanity. In another sense, it's rooted in false philosophical assumptions and
destined to produce a broken order and wickedness. If you can't understand
this, then you'll never be able to work through these issues.
Constitutional law is also complicated. In one sense the
document has relevance. In another it's been dead for generations. To put it
another way, it has changed and ever changes. The document is vague on certain
points. Whether this was deliberate or not can be debated. Regardless, the
powers that be are ordained by God. And to what degree they pay lip service to
the Constitution (or dispense with it altogether) doesn't really matter.
I find it ironic that those on the Right who push for the
fiction of Originalism are at the same time so eager to support someone like
Donald Trump who has no regard for the document and repeatedly tramples it. In
the end, even they reveal it's all about politics and their view of the
Constitution (especially on certain issues) is a malleable as that of their
Democratic opponents.
The Bible is our standard for wrestling with such questions
and it tells us that we're not engaged or entangled in the politics of this
age. That said, we live within political entities and polities and must
interact with them. And so when the state (regardless of its polity, claimed or
otherwise) crosses the bestial line and begins to mandate and compel idolatry,
we must disobey.
This isn't about unfair taxes, the seizure of guns or even of
property. The state has the 'right' (so to speak) to do those things and we're
called to obey. Many Christians chafe at this and without realising it are in
fact chafing against Paul's plainly spoken declaration in Romans 13. Once again
the passage isn't about an idealised limited state. Hardly. It's a call to
faith and a submission to Providence, something Western Liberal Christianity
has a real problem with.
Nowhere are we called to resist tyranny. But we are to bear
witness and speak truth, not in a political sense but in the sense of revelatory-prophetic
truth-telling, warning and proclamation of the gospel. This will at times be
perceived as political by a bestial state that seeks total obedience, control
and devotion. At that point, we're living under a monstrosity and we will have
a hard row to hoe. We will suffer and many will need to flee.
When the state starts seizing such power, we best pay
attention and warn, but we're never called to fight. And fighting begins long
before swords are taken up. Politics is a form of fighting as is the
utilisation of the judiciary which is a form of proxy swordplay. These things
are forbidden to us and we have nothing to do with them. Both Christ and the
apostles make this very clear and yet the sacralist impulses which drive and
motivate mainstream Christianity not only fail to understand this point, they
utterly reject it. For in acknowledging it, their project all but collapses.
The best example of this is found in Daniel. When the
Babylonian king commanded the worship of the idol, Daniel's friends refused and
rightly answered the king in saying they would not do it and thus faced the
fire. God delivered them but makes no such promise to us.
Likewise, Daniel rejected the ungodly decree concerning
prayer issued by the Persian ruler. No one asserted rights or resorted to
political argument or judicial appeal. They simply refused. This is our
pattern.
In Acts the disciples did not contest with the Sanhedrin when
prohibited to preach. They did not run to the Roman procurator or the courts.
They did not employ Jewish lawyers to make a case for them. They simply
refused.
When the state tries to regulate the worship of the Church we
must refuse. Of course the Church has largely bowed to the state on this point
and in order to receive tax breaks they have allowed the state a say in
everything from polity, to finances and even how we must arrange our meeting
spaces. Once again, this way of thinking needs to be dispensed with.
The state has absolutely no jurisdiction when it comes to the
Church, the Kingdom of Christ. The state cannot claim prerogative over our
children. We are covenantally bound to raise them in the fear and admonition of
the Lord... a point further confused by many Evangelical assumptions... and
thus we cannot hand over our children to the state-educational temple for eight
hours a day to be indoctrinated. We must refuse. We can submit to their
paperwork and financial disadvantage (another point Christians are wrong to
resist and agitate against) and yet we will not hand over our kids. What's
happening in countries like Norway and Germany are indeed cases of
persecution... but the debates are often confused by a mix of theological
principle and Western Liberal assumption and argument.
Please note when I draw a parallel between the Church and the
Kingdom, this point also presents difficulties, for many have erroneously
redefined the Biblical concept of Kingdom into a larger category that includes
the culture. And thus, the line regarding the state's jurisdiction and
prerogatives is confused. While such sacralists may not like state intrusion
the truth is they actually embrace the concept of state intrusion into the
affairs of the covenant, the Church and family. They simply want it to be them
who are in control.
We disobey when the state calls us to commit idolatry. We
will not be compelled to venerate the flag. We will not be compelled to sing
hymns to the state and glorify its wars. We will not be compelled to swear
oaths (pledge allegiance) to the state and its system.
We pay our taxes, obey the laws, show deference to office holders
and otherwise (in civic terms) mind our own business and quietly work with our
hands, refusing to entangle ourselves in the affairs of this life. These are
the teachings of the New Testament written under the tyranny that was the Roman
Empire.
This is a rejection of the libertarian ideal, the nationalist
ethos and certainly the citizenship values of the middle class. We live as
pilgrim-subjects and throughout history there have been many polities happy to
have such people populating its shores. Quiet, hard-working productive people
who aren't engaged in political agitation? Many a magistrate is happy to have
such people within his borders.
And yet for those governed by the bestial or sacralist
impulse (for they are closely related), such a state of affairs is an
abomination. All must 'join' the social project and give of all their time and
energy to it. They must sacrifice their ideals, energies and even their
children to this ideal. They must be willing to give their lives in war and more
importantly kill others for the ideal.
This, the ethos of mainstream Christianity, the governing
impulse behind apostate Evangelicalism is antithetical to New Testament
Christianity and all who would be faithful to Christ must reject it.
So apart from calls to idolatry and/or a mandate to engage in
what is clearly sin, when are we called upon to disobey the law?
We can disobey (in a limited sense) when it's a matter of
survival and in reference to the gospel. The latter is of course related to the
former question but here I will place it in a slightly different context.
First, the question of survival. If we break the law, again
it must be understood in a non-revolutionary non-political context. We break
the law to eat, to feed our hungry children. It's not to maintain a middle
class life, or to flourish on our property or feed our dreams of success and
autonomy. It's a desperate move, one we engage in begrudgingly and with no
small degree of apprehension.
For example I know of contractors that refuse to be licensed
and refuse to obey labour laws because they believe such legislation is
anti-Constitutional and thus bestial. They may not put it in these exact terms,
but this is what they're getting at. And so, they pay 'under the table', refuse
to be licensed and thus obviously are uninsured and do not interact with
building and zoning departments.
If caught they will face fines, possible court orders, tax
penalties and in many cases they will likely be sued by homeowners who will as
a result face their own set of fines and troubles for having work done that is
reckoned illegal in the eyes of the state.
Are these laws just? Is this system fair? Is it
constitutional?
It doesn't matter. This is the system we live under. In terms
of my own work I restrict my activity and suffer a degree of loss in
deliberately keeping my business as simple and basic as possible. Since I
loathe the state bureaucracy and business entanglements I turn away work and
keep things very simple. I will sometimes avoid work in certain municipalities
that I know to be a headache. My time and stress level are more important to me
than the prospect of making more money.
These Christians who have turned outlaw on this point are
wrong. That said, it's not hard to envision a day in which it becomes all but
impossible to operate a small business. In many sectors the Wal-Mart effect
(for want of a better term) crushes small business. In the construction sector,
as well as farming and other occupations you have to attain a certain size to
be viable. Otherwise you can't make the numbers work. In that case you either
fail or turn outlaw-underground and in avoiding the system you can make the
math work out.
I feel the pain of the people who do this and like I said I
wrestle with it on a nearly constant basis. I have sympathies for the argument
that says we live in a society in which we're all lawbreakers. Every time you
step out of your house you're probably committing a felony. What kind of
society is that? It's a racket. I was reminded of that once again the other day
as I sat down to do my taxes.
I've shared the story before but I'll briefly tell it again.
Many years ago I briefly worked for UPS at a distribution centre. It was
intense physical work, unloading trailers packed to the ceiling with boxes and
at other times loading the brown delivery vans all Americans are familiar with.
It was a very fast paced job. You were told at the beginning that an error,
putting a box on the wrong shelf for example would result in a 'write-up' and
after three write-ups you would be terminated.
Given that we were literally handling thousands of boxes
every shift it seemed impossible that mistakes wouldn't be made. And indeed
they were and within a few weeks and after handling thousands of boxes, I had
my third write-up. I expected to be fired but it didn't happen. In fact I was
being promoted up the chain because I worked very hard and did well. I was
clearly one of the popular workers. So what was the write-up narrative about?
It's little more than labour insurance for the company. Once
they have you written up three times they can fire you on that basis should
they want to do so. They don't want to fire you for things that you could
dispute, things that might make you seek a lawyer or file for unemployment
compensation. In other words it was a game, a largely empty threat (that was
filed away) but a trump card that could be pulled out if they wanted to use it.
Is this dishonest paradigm any different than our society? I
don't think so. The state can clamp down on you if it wants to and we're all
'guilty' of something. Law enforcement can always find something that you've
done. Such a state is a racket, a dishonest and unjust form of government.
But so what? It doesn't concern us. That said, how seriously
should we take it? Should I obey the speed limit? I should but if I'm driving
on I-79 outside of Pittsburgh or on the New Jersey Turnpike and I'm going
slower than 75, I'm actually a danger to other drivers who are going 85 or faster.
In one sense an argument could be made that it's safer and perhaps more 'loving
to your neighbour' to go with the flow, so to speak. And yet in terms of the
law, that's a dangerous statement to make.