It is not uncommon for Christians to leap to accusations of government overreach and the need to civilly disobey the authorities. I am charitable enough to believe such people usually are a) genuinely convinced that obedience will mean breaking commands of Christ and b) whatever this is, they sincerely believe it is properly an attack upon the gospel. I have no reason to doubt their intentions at all. But a few thoughts are worth bearing in mind before we make such calls.
Is this actually an attack on the gospel?
One question worth asking is whether this is actually an attack on the gospel or not. Just as we have to search our own hearts and think about our own motivations, so we have to think about the intentions and motivations of the authorities. Some are overly quick (wrongly in my view) to assume there is some anti-gospel, anti-Christian intent at play.
Now, I’m not saying that is never an issue. Clearly in some authoritarian, totalitarian settings, there is a specifically anti-Christian anti-gospel element at play. But for the most part, I don’t think it is usually at issue, certainly not in most Western Christian-heritage nations. Frankly, in the contemporary West, Christians – particularly Evangelical Christians – are not really thought about much at all. It’s not that we’re being persecuted, it’s usually that people are so oblivious to us that they have little to no thought for the impact on us. Even when Evangelicals do raise a noise, we’re just not big enough or important enough for it to generate much more than a collective shrug and a hand-waving reference to the overwhelming majority (which has the fact it is true on its side). We shouldn’t jump to authoritarian persecution when unthinking lack of concern has greater explanatory power.
Is this actually forcing us into disobedience?
This may seem like an obvious question. Why would we be insisting on disobeying if it doesn’t force us into disobedience? The answer is because we often mix-up commands of Christ with legitimate, but not commanded, applications of Christ’s commands. For example, I have long had involvement with Open Air outreach. I maintain it is a good and godly means, in the right context, of sharing the gospel. But let’s just presume, for a second, a local council want to stop us preaching in the Open Air. Is this forcing us into disobedience or not? Must we preach in the Open Air to obey Jesus? Honesty forces us to say, no. This might limit a particular means of sharing the gospel. It might not be ideal. But at the end of the day, Jesus doesn’t command us to do Open Airs. He commands us to make disciples and, if we can’t do Open Airs, then we find another way standing on the actual command Jesus gives us, not the means by which we have decided it would be good to fulfil it.
Consider intent
The other question when certain means close to us is: what is the actual intent here? If the very specific intent is to stop the preaching of the gospel in particular through this particular medium, we may have a point (but, if true, we should revisit the previous point). However, more often than not, this is not the intent. Councils trying to limit the number of people vying for your attention – street performers, chuggers, businesses trying to get you to sign up to their wares, etc, etc – might lead them to put broad measures in place to address overcrowding and general public displeasure at being harangued all along the high street. No doubt religious groups might get caught up in those sorts of by-laws if tracting or street preaching, but there is a clear difference between the intent to limit all forms of (what some consider to be) harassment by interested parties and specifically targeting Christians or religious groups. Very often the intent of the law, and the fairness with which it is applied to other similar groups, does matter a little before we jump to assume this is anti-Christian, anti-gospel overreach. Even if this does specifically target religious groups, we have to consider the previous point about whether this law is actually stopping us sharing the gospel or if it is just limiting this particular means in this specific context, which isn’t the same thing.
Understand the biblical examples properly
The key biblical example we have in favour of any sort of civil disobedience is Acts 5. The relevant section is vv12-42. You can read it below:
Apostolic Signs and Wonders
12 Many signs and wonders were being done among the people through the hands of the apostles. They were all together in Solomon’s Colonnade. 13 No one else dared to join them, but the people spoke well of them. 14 Believers were added to the Lord in increasing numbers—multitudes of both men and women. 15 As a result, they would carry the sick out into the streets and lay them on cots and mats so that when Peter came by, at least his shadow might fall on some of them. 16 In addition, a multitude came together from the towns surrounding Jerusalem, bringing the sick and those who were tormented by unclean spirits, and they were all healed.
In and out of Prison
17 Then the high priest rose up. He and all who were with him, who belonged to the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. 18 So they arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail. 19 But an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail during the night, brought them out, and said, 20 “Go and stand in the temple, and tell the people all about this life.” 21 Hearing this, they entered the temple at daybreak and began to teach.
The Apostles on Trial Again
When the high priest and those who were with him arrived, they convened the Sanhedrin—the full council of the Israelites—and sent orders to the jail to have them brought. 22 But when the servants[a] got there, they did not find them in the jail; so they returned and reported, 23 “We found the jail securely locked, with the guards standing in front of the doors, but when we opened them, we found no one inside.” 24 As[b] the captain of the temple police and the chief priests heard these things, they were baffled about them, wondering what would come of this.
25 Someone came and reported to them, “Look! The men you put in jail are standing in the temple and teaching the people.” 26 Then the commander went with the servants and brought them in without force, because they were afraid the people might stone them. 27 After they brought them in, they had them stand before the Sanhedrin, and the high priest asked, 28 “Didn’t we strictly order you not to teach in this name? Look, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”
29 Peter and the apostles replied, “We must obey God rather than people. 30 The God of our ancestors raised up Jesus, whom you had murdered by hanging him on a tree. 31 God exalted this man to his right hand as ruler and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32 We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him.”
Gamaliel’s Advice
33 When they heard this, they were enraged and wanted to kill them. 34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law who was respected by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered the men[c] to be taken outside for a little while. 35 He said to them, “Men of Israel, be careful about what you’re about to do to these men. 36 Some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, and all his followers were dispersed and came to nothing. 37 After this man, Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and attracted a following. He also perished, and all his followers were scattered. 38 So in the present case, I tell you, stay away from these men and leave them alone. For if this plan or this work is of human origin, it will fail; 39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You may even be found fighting against God.” They were persuaded by him. 40 After they called in the apostles and had them flogged, they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus and released them. 41 Then they went out from the presence of the Sanhedrin, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to be treated shamefully on behalf of the Name.[d] 42 Every day in the temple, and in various homes, they continued teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Messiah.
This verse must be weighed against the more direct instructions of Paul in Romans 13 and Titus 3 concerning submission and obedience to authorities and Peter’s comments in 1 Pet 2 and 1 Pet 3, specifically 2:17. Nevertheless, Acts 5 makes clear there is a time when it is appropriate to ‘obey God rather than people’. But a few things are worth noting about this.
For a start, vv17-18 makes clear the intent. The high priest and the Sadducees were jealous of the crowds drawn by the Apostles. Clearly, this involved anti-gospel intentions and they were locked up because of the gospel work they were doing. So this is more than just stopping a particular means, it was actively seeking to stop the message. In case that isn’t clear (‘jealous’ does a lot of heavy lifting early on), v28 spells it out from their own mouths: ‘Didn’t we strictly order you not to teach in this name?’ This is not just limiting one means because it is causing an issue of public order (or for any other reason), this is actively stopping the message itself. It isn’t ‘don’t speak like that in that way‘, it is ‘don’t speak about that at all‘.
The key biblical example we have, then, is very much one of stopping the Apostles from speaking about Jesus at all. Privately worship your Jesus, but don’t tell anyone else about him and we will lock you up if you do. Certainly don’t be saying we crucified him! This is to actively and specifically try to stop the spread of the gospel by any means and to force the Christians to disobey Jesus and stop making disciples. It is this that leads Peter to say, ‘it is better to obey God and not people’. They will continue to share the gospel even if the authorities say they must not by any means.
But this is clearly different to the authorities saying that we cannot share the gospel through a particular means. If we can share the gospel another way, then we aren’t necessarily justified in civil disobedience over this means. We have to be clear we understand the specific circumstances of the biblical examples and then ask the questions above (all of which clearly are at play) in the example we have in Acts 5. We can safely say they are often not at play in many of the modern claims of the need to disobey.
Standard biblical ethics
We also have to consider the longer, fuller comments from Peter and Paul on submission and obedience. We similarly have to understand the context of these comments came under the authoritarian, tyrannical rule of Nero, who was quite actively persecuting Christians. If we are going to suspend ordinary biblical ethics – and make a case that we live in such extraordinary times that standard ethical and public square norms for Christians must be set aside – that we properly weigh our culture and times in the West against Christians living under the rule and reign of Nero in the ancient Roman Empire. The test must properly be, for the suspension of standard biblical ethics in extraordinary times, whether this government is acting and behaving in worse fashion than Nero. If they are not, we are compelled to maintain that the ethics that held under Nero for believers must still hold for us.
Concluding comments
None of that is to say there are no circumstances in which we might ever have to civilly disobey. It is not to say there are no circumstances under which it might be important. But the examples we have in scripture, the standard form of biblical ethics for believers in pagan nations, the clarifying questions that were all actually at play in Acts 5 suggest that many of us might be far to quick to leap to accusations of overreach and calls for civil disobedience.