CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE - A Biblical Outline

In the Encyclopedia of Biblical and Christian Ethics, civil disobedience is defined as, "...a conscious demonstration of disloyalty toward some enactment, statute, or ordinance promulgated by a body that has power to make legally binding regulations.... it describes defiance of promulgations enacted by the state. Through disobedience of particular ordinances it poses a direct challenge to the authority of the promulgating body."

John Rawls, in his chapter entitled "The justification of Civil Disobedience" (Moral Problems) says it is ".... a public, non-violent and conscientious act contrary to law, usually done with the intent to bring about a change in the policies or laws of the government." Notice his stress on the non-violent nature of the act - this, he says, is to distinguish it from an act of insurrection or revolution. Motivated by conscientious conviction such an action will be undertaken to draw attention to a state of affairs considered unjust, to raise the moral consciousness of citizens and to set in motion the dynamics of appropriate social change.

In the context of N. Ireland there are many questions for us to consider. When is civil disobedience a permissible option for the Christian? When does it become morally mandatory? And if we grant that such action is either permissible or mandatory what form should it take?

Scripture instructs believers, "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. . . . He who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted" (Romans 13:1,2). Over and against that command is the divinely inspired response of the disciples when the civil authorities ordered them not to speak or teach in the name of Jesus: "We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard" (Acts 4:20).

Christians are called to unqualified obedience to God (John 14:15). When the civil government forbids our doing the things God has commanded us to do, or orders us to do things God has commanded that we not do, we have solid scriptural grounds for peacefully disobeying the government.

We must carefully distinguish, though, between a biblically warranted occasion for civil disobedience and a selfish justification for illegal protest. Much prayer and searching God’s Word should precede an open act of civil disobedience. The consensus of a praying, biblically informed church provides safety against self-centered motivation.

Romans 13 - responsible obedience
Our starting point however must be with the Biblical perspective of the sovereignty of God over every nation (Dan 2: 21a; 4:17,31). The ethical implication of this, is that Christians have a God-given responsibility to be in subjection to legitimate governing authorities.

In Romans 13:1-7 the Apostle Paul sets out his teaching on this which we can summarize in six propositions:

(1) God has established, or instituted, all governing authorities (vs. 1b, 2b).
(2) As such the government of a state is God's servant, responsible to reward those who do right and punish those who do wrong (vs. 3-4).
(3) To rebel against a civil authority is to rebel against what God has instituted (v 2a).
(4) Such rebellion rightly brings punishment (vs. 2b, 4b) N.B. "the sword" here symbolises the force that may legitimately be used to maintain law and order.
(5) The proper response of every citizen is submission (vs. 1,5.). N.B. how in 1 Pet. 3: 5-6 submission and obedience are used as parallel terms.
(6) One example of submission (obedience) is payment of taxes (vs. 6-7 cf.). Supported by Christ's statement on paying Roman taxes in Mall. 22:17-21. (see also 1 Pet.2:3-17 and Titus 3:1-2)

Occasions for conscientious disobedience
It is however equally clear from Biblical teaching that there are occasions when disobedience to governing authorities is appropriate. God disapproves of unjust legislation and evil actions by any government, and in such circumstances acts of civil disobedience may be appropriate.

If we look again at Rom.13:4 we see that". .the one in authority is God's servant.." This does not mean that the ruling authority is God's servant in a general sense but a servant under the sovereignty of God. Governments are God's servants in the particular sense that they are held accountable to divine standards of justice as revealed in scripture. The power of governance is a trust exercised according to rules. The rewarding of good and evil according to their merits is a criterion whereby citizens can measure whether a government is fulfilling its God-ordained function or not. When that ruler is no longer "God's servant to do you good" (v.4) then serious questions need to be asked, for it is clear from scripture that far from being a servant government has the potential of becoming a "beast" (Rev. 13).

Paul speaks of being submissive not just out of fear (respect) of authority but also for the sake of a good conscience (v.5). This raises an important question - what happens when a government's actions go against the voice of a Biblically informed Christian's conscience?

While being "submissive" (vs. 1 & 5), as opposed to "rebelling" (v.2), means obeying the government, the situation alters when that government introduces a law that is contrary to scripture. In that case a Christian citizen can be submissive to the authority of that government in general while refusing to comply with that particular law. This will mean accepting the penalty for such an action, thus acknowledging in principle that government's legitimacy. We know from early church history that this was the stance of the martyrs when resisting the Roman emperor's command to sacrifice to idols.

In Matthew 22:21 Christ's masterful reply to those who were trying to entrap him has quite a radical sting in its tail! "Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's". In a world that thought of the state's power as being absolute, unaccountable and unlimited Christ's words limit the power of the state by relating it to the absolute and unlimited claims of God. We cannot give submission to Caesar when that would bring us into conflict with that higher revealed Law of the One who has given Caesar his authority.

We must also take into account the prophetic condemnation of evil governments found in Scripture. This condemnation is not confined to the nations of Israel and Judah, but to most of the nations in the ancient world of the Bible. Large tracts of the writings of the prophets are taken up with this (e.g. Isaiah chs43-23, Jeremiah chs.46-51, Ezekiel chs.25-32, the Book of Revelation, etc.). The message is clear, God may have ordained governments, but God does not approve of their evil. Christians living under such evil regimes have a responsibility to call them to repentance (e.g. Jonah in Ninevah) and, where that government would force us to act against God's Word, to disobey, no matter the cost (e.g. Daniel and his friends in Babylon in Dan.1 & 3).

There are many Biblical precedents for refusing to obey the state
There are many precedents for civil disobedience in the Bible.

The Hebrew midwives who refused to obey the order of the king of Egypt to kill the new-born male Hebrew babies (Exod. 1: 15-22).

Moses refusal to accept the king of Egypt's order that the Israelites were to remain in privations and enforced slavery (Exod. 5: 248).

Obadiah's refusal to help in Queen Jezebel's policy of killing the prophets. Instead his deliberate opposition to that policy was seen in his attempts to rescue them (1 Kings 18: 3-13).

Jeremiah's public defiance of the policy of King Zedekiah when he encouraged the people of Jerusalem to surrender to the invading Babylonians rather than offer resistance. (Jer. 38: 1-6).

The refusal of Daniel and his three friends to eat food that was ceremonially unclean, even though this was official government policy (Dan.1).

The refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to comply with King Nebucadnezzar's compulsory state religion which demanded that all should worship the golden image (Dan. 3).

The refusal of Daniel to address prayer to King Darius as a god even though this was state policy for 30 days, and despite the consequences of the lion's den (Dan. 6).

The refusal of the Apostles to stop preaching the gospel (Acts 4:1-21; 5: 17-42 N.B. esp. 4: 18-20 & 5: 18-21, 40-42). It is of course from Acts 4:19 that those who engage in civil disobedience for religious reasons find their classic text: "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God...We must obey God rather than men". The Apostles saw themselves as being under the orders of the highest power (Matt. 28: 18-20 cf. Acts 1:8; 5:18-21 a). However this right to preach was also qualified - they were not to preach in places where they were strongly opposed. They were not to deliberately cause civil unrest. Christ had given clear instruction on the matter (Matt. 10: 11-16, 23). It's instructive to see how these tensions worked out in practice (Acts - See 13: 50-51; 14: 5-7; 16: 22-40 (N.B. vs. 39-40; 17: 5-10, 13-14; 18: 6-11; 19: 8-10, 23,30-M; 20:1). Paul's attitude to the State was clear - while being thankful for the privilege of pax romana (16:37-40; 22: 24-29), he was also prepared to be submissive to the state's ultimate sanctions if necessary (25:11).

The book of Revelation portrays the committed opposition of the church to state authority. (Rev.11:19 - 14:20). Satan is seen as using the state (the two beasts) to try to overcome the church by enforcing false worship. The church, in obeying God's commandments and remaining faithful to Jesus (13:10; 14:12), stands against this even though it results in conflict (12:17) and ends in death (12:11). The principle of civil disobedience is clearly present in these texts when the interests of

There are times when the laws of the land will conflict with the laws of God, according to His Word.  What should be a Christian's position regarding so-called "Christian civil disobedience"?  There are several Scriptural examples that come to mind where the same question arose.

OLD TESTAMENT EXAMPLES

Daniel 6 - King Darius signs an irrevocable document into law, stating that, among other things, anyone who makes a petition to God will be put to death (in the lions' den, in this case).  But, verse 10 says, "When Daniel knew that the document was signed, he entered his house...and he continued kneeling on his knees three times a day, praying...as he had been doing previously."  And God miraculously delivered him!

Daniel 3 - King Nebuchadnezzar forbids worship of anyone but himself at the sound of his trumpets.  But Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, unwilling to compromise, said "Our God...will deliver us out of your hand....  But even if He does not...we are not going to serve your gods... (v. 17-18)."  Then the king had them thrown into the intensely hot furnace as a judgment.  But Jesus Himself appeared, standing with them in the fire.  And they were miraculously delivered from certain death!

Exodus 1 - "The king of Egypt commanded the Hebrew midwives..., 'When you help the Hebrew women in childbirth and observe them on the delivery stool, if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live'....  The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live."  And because the midwives feared God, He rewarded them accordingly (v. 15-21).

NEW TESTAMENT EXAMPLES

Acts 4 - Peter and John are arrested for publicly teaching the people about Jesus and for healing the sick.  Then the council of rulers and elders ordered them not to speak or teach anyone in the Name of Jesus.  But the disciples confidently told them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge: for we cannot stop speaking what we have see and heard (v. 19-20)."  And they continued to teach publicly.

Acts 5 - After the disciples were arrested again and thrown into jail for preaching publicly and healing in the Name of Jesus, an angel appeared to them and opened the jail during the night, encouraging them to continue to speak to the people about Jesus.  But when the rulers found them back in the temple, publicly teaching the people, they had them arrested a third time, and demanded an answer why they were disobeying their strict orders.  The answer that Peter and the other disciples gave them is significant -- they said, "We must obey

God rather than men" (v. 29).  And every day in the temple and from house to house, they kept right on teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ (v. 42).

I Peter 2 - "It is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God.... If you suffer (punishment) for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps" (v. 19-21).  When we are confronted by governmental authorities regarding our disobedience to their conflicting laws with God's commands, we can often expect to be punished.  However God will honor and reward us for our obedience to Him.

RULERS: MINISTERS OF GOD

Romans 13:4 teaches us that God gave us the governing authorities as "a minister of God to you for good" and "a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil."  We don't often think of those in secular government as "ministers of God," but they are.  And just as those in the Church who are ministers of God must live according to godly principle, so must the secular authorities live by His laws which He has written upon the hearts of men.  (Remember that the root of "authority" is "author" -- referring to Christ Himself, the Author of our faith and of all rule.)

Yet, when the governing authorities no longer subject themselves to God's authority, stepping outside of His own commands and precepts according to His Word, we who are believers have a dilemma.  We must now choose between obeying unrighteous rulers or obeying God -- the same choices that the early disciples and other godly men and women had.

I Peter 2 also teaches us that kings and governors are sent by God "for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.  For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men."  (Note that the root of the word "ignorance" is "ignore" -- implying that their foolishness is willful defiance against God.)  But, when the kings and governors begin to punish the righteous in defiance against God, a choice of obedience must then be made by all.

"WE MUST OBEY GOD"

The proper focus of the believer under such ungodly rule is never on disobedience, but rather on OBEDIENCE -- "WE MUST OBEY GOD, rather than men."  This is the act of a godly people obeying the Author of all rule and authority, God Himself, rather then the twisted laws and commands of ungodly men.  Our accountability is always to our God, often by way of those leaders who function under His authority, but never contrary to it.  In so doing, we may silence the ignorance of foolish men.

In this way, we are able to keep our perspective of what is right and what is wrong, especially when men contradict God's laws and wrongly legislate against them. And this remains true regardless of where we live or who rules over us, because God's laws are always higher than man's laws.  We must always obey God rather than men!

When good men rule, they extend His commandments to us, and we must obey God.  When evil men rule, they contradict His commandments, and we must obey God.  In every case, the outcome of our allegiance is always the same: obedience to God and His commands.  And God will deliver us out of the hands of the wicked.  And even if he doesn't, as the three patriarchs in Daniel said, we must still obey God.

At the same time, we are called to pray for those who rule over us (I Timothy 2:2) "in order that we may lead a tranquil and quite life in all godliness and dignity."  And if we as believers continue to do so, our leaders will more often rule in righteousness, and not make laws and judgments that run counter to the Word and will of God.  If we live ungodly lives, how can we expect our leaders to be any different?

Let's raise the standard of righteous living, and pray for our rulers that they will not give us cause to disregard ungodly edicts that run contrary to that which is good and acceptable in the sight of God.

New Testament Examples of Civil Disobedience

As we will see, the New Testament is loaded with examples of Jesus, the apostles and early Christians knowingly and deliberately disobeying authorities on specific matters. In some cases, God even directed people through angels to disobey an earthly authority or intervened against authorities on their behalf. This was not anarchy, but obedience to a higher authority. Keep the previous teaching about submission to authority in mind as we study the following scriptures.

At the very beginning of the New Testament, we see God countering an order of the King of Israel. King Herod told the Magi, "Go and make a careful search for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him." But after the Magi found baby Jesus and gave their gifts, they were "warned in a dream not to go back to Herod" and they "returned to their country by another route." Apparently, God told them not to do what the King had instructed. This was during a time when disobeying a King was a capital offense (Mt 2:8, 12).

"When [the Magi] had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. 'Get up,' he said, 'take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.'" Again, God in effect thwarts the plans of the King (Mt 2:13).

Since we are considering how God thwarted a human ruler, let us go briefly to the end of Jesus' life and see God doing it again. After Jesus' death, Pilate the Governor of Israel instructed that Jesus' tomb be made secure by putting an official seal on the stone and posting a guard. Two days later, "an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it" (Mt 27:65-66; 28:2). It is clear God would do his work regardless of any earthly king or governor's intent.

Now let us look at Jesus during his ministry, examining the four gospels mostly in the order in which the verses occur.

One day some Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!" Jesus responded by asking them why they break the command of God for the sake of their tradition. He then proceeded to rebuke them publicly, calling them hypocrites and stating they nullify the word of God for the sake of their traditions (Mt 15:1-14).

In Matthew 16, we see the Pharisees and Sadducees testing Jesus by asking for a sign from heaven. He rebuked them by saying they didn't know how to interpret the signs of the times and calling them a "wicked and adulterous generation." Then he left them and went away without giving them what they requested (Mt 16:1-4).

Later Jesus warned his disciples to guard against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Mt 16:6-12). That is, they were not to accept everything the religious leaders said, though they were the religious authorities.

Matthew 21 shows the chief priests demanding that Jesus tell them by what authority he was teaching and healing (see Mk 11:15, 28). He basically refused to answer them (Mt 21:23-27).

Near the end of his ministry, Jesus pronounced seven woes on the teachers of the law and the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, for oppressing the people they should be serving and for distorting God's law. He repeatedly said they were blind guides, hypocrites, snakes and full of wickedness, and asked how long they will escape being condemned to hell (Mt 23:13-36). Consider whether Jesus' behavior passes the criteria given in Romans 13:6-7: "Give everyone what you owe him: . . . if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor." What about the instruction of Titus 3:1-2: "Remind the people . . . to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men." Did Jesus lose control and just blow off at the religious leaders? No, as God's representative on earth, Jesus pronounced judgment on them for violating God's system. Jesus said he judged only as he heard from the Father, that the Father commanded him what to say and how to say it, that even his words were from the Father (Jn 5:30; 12:49-50; 14:10. Also, 5:19; 6:38; 8:28-29). His blast against the religious leaders was not an emotional outburst; it was a legitimate pronouncement of judgment from the Father.

Throughout Jesus' ministry, we see him in frequent conflict over matters of religious law with those who were unquestionably the religious authorities of his day. It was these authorities who ultimately would have him executed. Over the centuries, the religious leaders had interpreted the Mosaic Law and applied it to daily life by creating "fence laws." These were very specific laws designed to keep people from violating the Law of Moses. The result was a huge number of detailed laws that eventually eclipsed the intent of the Mosaic Law and put the people in bondage to legalism.

One particular issue led to frequent conflicts between Jesus and the authorities, and that was the Sabbath. Let us examine the gospels to see how frequently Jesus deliberately disobeyed their Sabbath laws and publicly rebuked them for abusing the system God created. You may be surprised when these verses reveal a Jesus very different from the image most people have of him.

"One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grain fields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, 'Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?'

"He answered, 'Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.'

"Then he said to them, 'The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath'" (Mk 2:23-28).

The Pharisees accused the disciples of breaking the law, which they did. Jesus defended his disciples, however, and showed that King David had done something even less acceptable; he ate the consecrated bread on the altar. Jesus did not dispute the validity of the law prohibiting harvesting grain on the Sabbath. He instead put things in right perspective: the Sabbath was for man's benefit, not to restrict him, and human needs take precedence over the law of the Sabbath. This actually is a broad principle and applies to more than the Sabbath; human law was made for human welfare.

"Another time he went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, 'Stand up in front of everyone.'

"Then Jesus asked them, 'Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or kill?' But they remained silent.

"He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, 'Stretch out your hand.' He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus" (Mk 3:1-6).

Jesus knew the Pharisees were trying to catch him breaking the Sabbath law. So he openly confronted them by having the man stand where everyone could see. He asked them a challenging question but they refused to answer him. Notice his reaction to their strict, condemning attitude regarding the law: "He looked around at them in anger . . . deeply distressed." Scripture identifies only a few times Jesus became angry and it was usually the result of people's strict legal interpretation of the law which violated the intent of the law. How serious was this event? As a result of this confrontation, the Pharisees began to plot how to kill him.

"On a Sabbath Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues, and a woman was there who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not straighten up at all. When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, 'Woman, you are set free from your infirmity.' Then he put his hands on her, and immediately she straightened up and praised God.

"Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue ruler said to the people, 'There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath.'

"The Lord answered him, 'You hypocrites! Doesn't each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?'

"When he said this, all his opponents were humiliated" (Lk 13:10-17).

There's the "h" word again; "hypocrites." This time Jesus was speaking to the synagogue ruler, another religious authority. He contrasts a beast of burden with the woman, whom he calls a "daughter of Abraham," which people would consider an honorable title. His point was so obvious, it humiliated those who challenged him.

"One Sabbath, when Jesus went to eat in the house of a prominent Pharisee, he was being carefully watched. There in front of him was a man suffering from dropsy. Jesus asked the Pharisees and experts in the law, 'Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not?' [By now this was a rhetorical question, because the leaders had made their point clear.] But they remained silent. So taking hold of the man, he healed him and sent him

"Then he asked them, 'If one of you has a son or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull him out?' And they had nothing to say" (Lk 14:1-6).

Again, the Pharisees and other religious leaders were so obsessed with the details of their man-made laws, they overlooked the intent of God's law. That is what Jesus was addressing, and that is why he was unconcerned about violating their law.

One day Jesus passed by the pool at Bethesda and saw a man who had been an invalid for 38 years. Jesus said to him, "Get up! Pick up your mat and walk," and at once the man was cured. "The day on which this took place was a Sabbath, and so the Jews said to the man who had been healed, 'It is the Sabbath; the law forbids you to carry your mat.'" They didn't celebrate his healing after 38 years of lameness; they adamantly insisted the man stop violating their Sabbath laws (Jn 5:1-18). Do you see a trend? Jesus ministered to people's needs, even if he broke the law by doing so.

Then there was the incident in which Jesus healed a man blind from birth by spitting on the ground and putting mud on the man's eyes. This was also on a Sabbath. The Pharisees interrogated the man, but he did not know who Jesus was. Their response to this man's healing? They said the man who did this was "not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath" (Jn 9:1-41). Again, Jesus ministered to people's needs, even if it required breaking the law.

Jesus' position on the Sabbath was very clear: man's needs supersede the law of the Sabbath. He did not discredit the Sabbath or say it was unimportant; rather, meeting people's needs was more important. He knowingly disobeyed an earthly law to adhere to a higher law. The dispute was essentially a legal issue. Jesus knew the current law not only violated the intent of the Mosaic Law on which it was based, it also put the people into legalistic bondage. He was so strongly opposed to the current law he openly broke the law and rebuked the authorities for making it. And for that, they arrested and executed him.

Yet when we consider the earlier study on submitting to authorities, we note that Jesus submitted to their torture and execution, though he could have called thousands of angels to deliver him. Jesus was clearly disobedient to the authorities on the legal issue, but he submitted to their authority.

Jesus broke other laws, as well. For example, he associated with people the religious law said to avoid, such as sinners and tax collectors (Mk 2:15-16).

He even spoke parables against the religious leaders, such as the parable of the tenants who killed the vineyard owner's son. When they heard the parable, they knew he had spoken the parable against them and looked for a way to arrest him (Mk 12:1-12). At times it seemed Jesus said and did things just to antagonize them. He publicly rebuked them on many occasions (see Mk 12:38-40; Lk 20:45-47).

It seems Jesus drove the moneychangers and merchants from the temple twice. The Gospel of John records one instance at the beginning of Jesus' ministry after his first miracle, turning the water to wine (Jn 2:13-16). The Gospel of Mark records a similar instance near the end of his ministry after his triumphal entry into Jerusalem on a colt. This time he looked around at everything in the temple, but since it was already late, he went to Bethany. The next day he returned to the temple area and drove the moneychangers and merchants from the temple (Mk 11:11-17). This was a premeditated act, not an emotional outburst. He evaluated the situation the day before and decided to wait. To get the full impact of what he did, we must realize the moneychangers and merchants were part of the system the religious leaders had developed. So again Jesus was attacking the religious leadership, only this time with physical violence.

Soon after Jesus forcefully cleared the temple the second time, possibly the next day, he returned to the temple and was walking through the temple courts. He returned to the scene in public. He had to know the leadership would come after him, and they did. They demanded to know what authority he had to do these things and who gave him that authority. Basically he refused to tell them. He asked them a question they would not answer, so he said, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things" (Mk 11:27-33).

Let us consider one final instance in which Jesus knowingly violated the religious law. He and his disciples were passing through Samaria and he sat down by a well while his disciples went into town to buy food. A Samaritan woman came to draw water and Jesus asked her for a drink. This violated the religious law and the woman knew it, because she replied, "You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?" (Jn 4:4-9).

As we stated earlier, Jesus clearly was disobedient to the authorities in regard to very specific issues in the religious law. He publicly denounced them for their hypocrisy and abuse of the religious system to oppress the people while benefiting themselves. He was not reluctant to confront them, yet he used discretion, and they hated him. They had authority to arrest him and they did. They presented him to the governor who had authority to execute him and pressed for his execution. Jesus submitted to the process and laid down his life voluntarily.

This is the man, the Son of God, whom we worship and serve. He taught that anyone who would come after him must deny himself (reject his selfish concerns), take up his cross (willingly embrace that which has the potential to do great harm), and follow him (emulate him, do what he would do in the situation). To be fair, we must recognize the legal conflict was a result of Jesus coming to earth, not the purpose. His purpose was to die on the cross for the sins of mankind, and the conflict with the religious authorities was only the catalyst, though it was a legitimate issue. Jesus did not die because he broke a religious law. He died because he willingly gave himself as the perfect sacrifice, as an atonement for sin. Our purpose for examining his disobedience was to show that civil disobedience by his followers can be appropriate.

I recently was discussing these scriptures about Jesus' civil disobedience with someone who replied he had trouble reconciling this with his image of a meek Jesus. He raised a good point, so let's investigate it.

The scriptures clearly describe Jesus as meek. For example, Matthew 11:29: "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart" (KJV). Also, 2 Corinthians 10:1 refers to the "meekness and gentleness of Christ."

My dictionary defines "meek" as follows: (1) showing patience and humility; gentle. (2) easily imposed upon; submissive. The widely-held image of Jesus is one who is non-assertive, mild mannered, weak and almost effeminate. This is a distorted image possibly caused by changes in the English language over the centuries since the King James Version was written, as well as the difficulties translating Greek to English. Our understanding of meekness today does not convey the strength of the New Testament Greek.

The Greek word translated "meekness" is prautes. It was applied to mild objects, tame animals, and gentle or pleasant people. But the word has significance only if the subject has great power or strength. An example would be a tame horse, which has great strength but is under the control of its rider. Similarly, Jesus was meek while on earth, yet he had power and authority as King of kings and Lord of lords to do whatever was necessary. He chose to invite, persuade and even rebuke, when he could have commanded. He submitted himself to physical abuse and execution, when he could have called thousands of angels to deliver him. That is the meekness of Jesus.

Meekness is not weakness. It is the exercise of patience and restraint; it is choosing to be gentle when you have opportunity to use overwhelming force.

Now we will examine instances in which Jesus' followers disobeyed the law and the authorities.

Peter and John healed a beggar as they went to the temple one day, and this drew a crowd. The priests, the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up while Peter and John were speaking to the crowd and were very disturbed to hear them teaching about Jesus. They seized the disciples and put them in jail. The next day they brought the disciples before the Sanhedrin.

"Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: 'Rulers and elders of the people! If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, then know this, you and everyone else in Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you completely healed. He is "the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone." Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved'" (Acts 4:8-12).

After interrogating them, the Sanhedrin commanded the disciples not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard" (Acts 4:19-20). The leaders made additional threats and released them, because they could not decide how to punish them, for all the people were praising God for healing the beggar.

On their release, Peter and John met with their own people and told them what had happened. Their friends began to pray and asked the Lord to "consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness" (4:29). Afterward, "with great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was with them all" (v 33). They considered the threats, prayed for boldness, and continued to teach in the name of Jesus, the very thing they were commanded not to do.

The Book of Acts then records the incident with Ananias and Sapphira. After this, all the believers used to meet in Solomon's Colonnade, which was part of the temple, and crowds gathered to be healed. As a result, the high priest and his associates were filled with jealousy.

"They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail. But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and brought them out. 'Go, stand in the temple courts,' he said, 'and tell the people the full message of this new life.'

"At daybreak they entered the temple courts, as they had been told, and began to teach the people" (5:18-21).

Notice the angel told them to do exactly what the Sanhedrin had ordered them not to do. When the high priest and his associates heard the apostles were back in the temple courts teaching the people, the captain of the guard took his officers and brought the apostles back for questioning. But they did not use force because they were afraid the people would stone them. They brought the apostles before the Sanhedrin again to be questioned by the high priest. "We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name. Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood," he said to them. Peter and the other apostles replied, "We must obey God rather than men!" (5:28-29). The apostles then stated the Sanhedrin was in fact guilty of Jesus' blood, but that God had exalted him and granted repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel.

When the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and wanted to put the disciples to death, but Gamaliel persuaded them not to. The leaders had the apostles flogged and ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus. "The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ" (5:41-42). Arrested, flogged and commanded again to cease, they returned to teaching in the temple courts, in public and in the very place they had been arrested. Even before the Sanhedrin, the religious court, they refused to back down and spoke the truth boldly. They were flagrantly disobeying and clearly endangering themselves.

Notice there was a clear contradiction between God's command and that of the religious leadership. This was not a disagreement on some vague point of law. The apostles could either do what God commanded, or they could obey the Sanhedrin. There was no middle ground. We should also note that the apostles never claimed the Sanhedrin was an illegitimate government, nor did they seek to overthrow the system or ignore all of its laws. They did not advocate a revolt. They did not promote anarchy. When the human authorities demanded they stop teaching in the Lord's name, they publicly stated they would not stop and they accepted the consequences. It is that simple. And that is the only legitimate interpretation of their declaration, "We must obey God rather than men!"

Every human government will violate God's law on some point, because all humans are imperfect, including those in leadership or government positions. God alone is perfect. So it is foolish for Christians to pledge obedience to their human authorities as long as they do not violate God's Word. The civil disobedience we see in Acts 5:29 ("We must obey God rather than men!") was selective and limited to that single area where the authorities contradicted the clear command of God.

Stephen's arrest, interrogation and execution are described in detail in Acts 6-7 and these chapters give us a glimpse of what we ourselves might expect. "Now Stephen, a man full of God's grace and power, did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people" (Acts 6:8). May the same be said of us, and soon. But whenever one speaks the truth of God and God demonstrates his power, we can expect opposition to arise as it did with Stephen. His opponents argued with him but could not stand up against his wisdom or the Spirit by which he spoke. Stephen was not just speaking on his own ("his wisdom") but was being led by God ("full of God's grace and power" and "the Spirit by which he spoke"). May that also be true of us. His opponents couldn't counter him, so they physically seized him, took him before the Sanhedrin and falsely accused him. The high priest asked Stephen if the charges were true and the Book of Acts records Stephen's response, which must have taken several minutes for him to present. For nearly 50 verses, Stephen recounts Jewish history.

Then he responds to the Sanhedrin and his accusers:

"You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him -- you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it" (Acts 7:51-53).

Everyone was furious at Stephen for saying this. "But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God" (7:55). He was "full of the Holy Spirit," which indicates his own motivations were set aside and God was working in him and through him. When he described what he saw, everyone basically went berserk. "At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voice, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him" (vs 57-58). Stephen's last words were these: "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. Lord, do not hold this sin against them."

Stephen had done what God expected of him, which included rebuking the Sanhedrin, and he asked God to forgive those who accused him and executed him. Can you see that Stephen did not just lose control and mouth off at his accusers and the religious leaders? He did not say those things because he was personally angry at them. Not only was he full of the Holy Spirit, he also asked God to forgive them. Unfortunately, most of us would feel like telling everyone off if we were in Stephen's situation, thinking we were justified in doing so. We must distinguish between the demands of our own sinful natures and the leading of the Holy Spirit. Stephen did so, and the Lord Jesus stood in his honor (7:56). In much the same way Jesus did, as we saw earlier, Stephen rebuked the hypocrisy of the authorities. He recognized their error, as evidenced by his request that God forgive them, but he did not protect himself or ask God to do so.

On the day of Stephen's execution, great persecution broke out against the believers in Jerusalem and all except the apostles were forced to leave the city.

Acts Chapter 10 gives us the account of Cornelius and Peter. The point of this story is that God showed Peter that he was not to be limited by the teaching of the Jewish authorities. When Peter entered Cornelius' home, he said, "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean" (Acts 10:28). It was against the law, but God told him to do it. Keep in mind that every follower of Jesus up to that moment had been Jewish. When Peter returned to Jerusalem, the circumcised (Jewish) believers criticized him for entering a Gentile's home and eating with him. But when Peter explained what God had shown him and how the Holy Spirit came on the Gentiles, his critics had no further objections and praised God for granting the Gentiles repentance unto life (11:2-3, 18). They were also willing to accept what God said, though it clearly violated their law.

A short time later, King Herod arrested some of the believers, including James the brother of John whom he executed. When Herod saw the Jews were pleased with this, he seized Peter and planned to put him on public trial. The night before the trial, and angel of the Lord woke Peter up, removed his chains, opened the prison doors and led him out the main gate of the prison (Acts 12:1-10). Peter had been arrested by the king of Israel, but God set aside the king's order and released Peter from prison. Notice that God did not rescue James, whom Herod executed. There is no explanation for God allowing one to be executed and setting another free; and since there is no explanation, we simply must acknowledge God's wisdom and sovereignty. In Peter's case, God violated the king's order.

We see a similar incident in Acts Chapter 16. Paul and Silas encountered a slave girl in Jerusalem who disrupted them for days until Paul commanded the evil spirit to come out of her. The slave's owners had earned a lot of money from her ability to predict the future, so they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them to the authorities. At the magistrates' orders, they were stripped, severely flogged and thrown into prison. About midnight, Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God when a violent earthquake shook the prison, opening all the cell doors. When the jailer discovered what had happened, Paul and Silas led him to the Lord. The authorities had flogged and imprisoned them, but God violated the orders by setting them free.

At daylight, the magistrates sent orders for the jailer to release Paul and Silas. Paul then does something very interesting; he refuses to leave under those conditions. He told the officers who were sent to release him, "They beat us publicly without a trial, even though we are Roman citizens, and threw us into prison. And now do they want to get rid of us quietly? No! Let them come themselves and escort us out" (Acts 16:37). Paul's legal rights as a Roman citizen had been violated, and he insisted the authorities come personally, which they did because they were alarmed to discover Paul's Roman citizenship.

What do we see in this incident? We see God again breaking the authorities' orders by releasing his people from prison. And we see that it was appropriate for Paul to stand up for his legal rights as a citizen.

Acts 21:21 shows us that Paul publicly taught the people not to obey the official religious teaching. He taught "all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs." Paul, a former Pharisee, broke the Jewish laws and customs, and taught others to do the same.

Later, when Paul was in Damascus, the city governor had the city guarded to arrest him. But other believers lowered Paul in a basket from a window in the wall so he could escape (2 Co 11:32-33). From the brief description given of the incident and the absence of any correction, we can conclude it was appropriate for Paul to escape arrest.

The New Testament includes references to some incidents of civil disobedience in the Old Testament. The Book of Hebrews includes an honor roll of Old Testament people who lived by faith. Included among them are Moses' parents who rejected the king's edict and hid their son. And as a man, Moses himself left Egypt, "not fearing the king's anger" (Heb 11:27). He was not afraid of the king's retribution for walking away from his position and responsibilities as the son of Pharaoh's daughter (Ex 2:10).

The Book of James describes Rahab the prostitute as righteous for protecting Israel's spies. Joshua 2:1-21 tells us the king ordered Rahab to surrender the spies, but Rahab refused to do so. Instead, she diverted the troops sent to arrest them, then helped the spies escape. Let me make a very clear point: God is not condoning her prostitution or her lying to the king's troops; she was a sinner, not a moral example. God honors her instead for obeying God's will, which motivated her to disobey her king's authority.

The church was founded by a man whom the authorities considered a criminal. Christians will not fulfill their role in life without coming into conflict with the world system. The New Testament is full of instances in which Jesus and those who followed him knowingly and deliberately broke the human laws that countered God's will. They rebuked leadership for its hypocrisy and unrighteousness, but they never advocated overthrowing the leaders. Civil disobedience with submission; opposition without anarchy. That is the example Jesus sets before us.

What About Revolt?

The existence of an oppressive government does not justify an individual's rebellion. But does it justify a united revolt? Are men justified in pledging their lives to protect others, dying to save others from oppression? Some would argue the Maccabees were wrong to revolt against Roman rule in 66 AD, that their defeat is evidence of God's disapproval. Some would argue the American colonists were wrong to revolt against British rule, that it was wrong to kill British troops in defense of their perceived rights.

But is it really wrong to be willing to sacrifice your life to protect the innocent, to defend their freedom, to throw off the oppression that threatens to crush them? Is not self-sacrifice for the benefit of others the basic definition of agape? Is violence never justified? Even in someone else's defense? Or is it only appropriate to stand by and watch someone being abused?

I think refusal to protect or defend another reflects a complete misunderstanding of agape, one of the most fundamental and obvious characteristics of godly nature. The only question in my mind relates to the use of physical force to protect or defend another. I address that and related issues in an article on self defense.

The Nature of Civil Disobedience that Honors God

We must make careful distinctions when considering civil disobedience. Just as we are to distinguish between sin and sinner -- to hate the sin and love the sinner -- we must carefully distinguish between any law that we must break and the authorities who stand behind it.

In Matthew 17:24-27, we see that Jesus and his disciples were exempt from the temple tax, but paid it so they would not offend those who collected the tax. This could be a major point: They were members of a spiritual kingdom and owed no allegiance to any earthly kingdom, but they submitted to avoid offending the lesser government.

In Matthew 22:15-21, the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus over paying taxes to Caesar. Jesus' response was to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. The same point appears in Romans 13:7-8, which says to give what is due, whether it is taxes, revenue, respect or honor.

Jesus clearly told the crowds and his disciples to obey the Pharisees because of their position, but not to emulate them because they don't practice what they preach (Mt 23:2-3).

Romans 12:17-21 gives us guidelines for life that are certainly relevant in the context of civil disobedience:

"Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord. On the contrary: 'If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.' Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

God's covenant with us includes his pledge to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves. He repeatedly tells us to care for the needs of others rather than ourselves, so he can take care of us. That same theme appears in this passage, even in reference to those we consider enemies.

In the context of civil disobedience, we are not to repay others with evil for evil they have done. As far as it depends on us, we are to live at peace with everyone; when the lines are drawn and we cannot serve both God and men, it is no longer possible for us to have complete peace with men. We are not to take revenge, but allow God to handle the problem. This is how God's justice works: if we punish someone, there is no need for God to punish them, too. By withholding our own punishment or justice, however, we are allowing God to do whatever is appropriate. We don't refrain just so God can get them worse than we could. Our position is to care for the needs even of those who oppose us, whether they are a personal enemy or an authority over us. We overcome evil with good; we do what is good and allow God to do the rest.

Generally, only nonviolent protest is acceptable. Nonviolence includes a variety of expressions such as protest, non-cooperation and intervention; doing or refusing to do certain things without using physical violence. Nonviolence is not passive; it is active but non-threatening.

Does Jesus' use of physical violence in clearing the temple set a precedent for us? Jesus was the Son of God and the temple was the center for worship of God. Yet the religious leaders had made it a place for commerce and they enjoyed a percentage of the profit. What was Jesus' statement when he cleared the temple? "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!" (Jn 2:16). There are no other aggressive acts of civil disobedience described in the New Testament. Jesus clearing the temple was a unique situation, a display of God's judgment on the priests who were abusing the people who came to worship God, so it cannot serve as precedent for violent civil disobedience.

Civil disobedience is valid if it is carried out in a nonviolent, non-subversive and open manner. Therefore it stands in contrast with underground movements. Though its efforts may result in violence, it does not advocate violence. If we disobey in an appropriate manner and others respond to us violently, we are not responsible for their violence. Our civil disobedience must not lead to a vicious exchange between violence and counter-violence. Since in civil disobedience the goal is noble, it uses noble means to accomplish its purpose. We overcome evil with good and we are willing to face the consequences of our actions. Provided our consciences are clear, our aim noble and our method peaceful, we can boldly face arrest, trial, mistreatment, imprisonment and even death. We will not resort to counter-violence in dealing with violence inflicted on us by the powers-that-be. We will still adhere to the rule of law.

Christians must be people of convictions, not conformity. We must not conform to the world, but be transformed by the renewing of our minds. This includes refusing to conform to civil pressure that would require us to violate God's higher laws. We are commanded to come out from the world and be different.

We are primarily spiritual beings with psyches (souls), temporarily living in physical bodies. The most important part of our being is our spirit. So if we rely primarily on intellectual and physical methods, we are behaving foolishly. That would be like crawling the rest of our lives, never learning to walk or run.

In this world, we are engaged in the spiritual battle between God and Satan's kingdoms. This is not a physical or psychological war, though our bodies and psyches are involved in it. "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" (Eph 6:12). The humans in positions of authority are not the source of the unrighteous laws and demands. They are enslaved by their own sinful natures and are subject to the spiritual forces of evil that govern the world system. So do not be surprised if you talk to an official and he either cannot comprehend anything other than what he believes, or is unwilling to even discuss it. For example, if someone is not a Christian, he cannot accept spiritual truths, no matter how convincing your intellectual presentation might be. Why not? "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of

God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Co 2:14). Spiritual principles and truths are irrational to the non-believer. So our human efforts will have very limited effect. God is the only one who can affect positive long-term change.

If civil disobedience becomes necessary, it must be spiritually motivated to be successful. And our definition of success must be based on God's will: that his kingdom would come and his will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Civil disobedience is not about us making something happen. We cannot be victorious in a spiritual battle if we use only psychological and physical methods.

Scripture addresses the issue of individual godliness and is not a primer on civil government. Nowhere does the New Testament encourage believers to actively oppose wicked rulers or their actions. Jesus will judge unjust authorities when he returns, but in the meantime we are to affect our world by winning converts for God's kingdom, one soul at a time. To claim that Christians should reject any unjust government is to state that Christians should not submit to any human government, because all human governments are unjust. God created human authority and places sinful humans in positions of authority, and we are to obey them, respect them and honor them as God's agents, regardless of their sinful condition. Some claim it is blasphemy to say tyrants and oppressors are God's servants; that when they act contrary to their God-given charge or when they abuse the populace instead of protecting it, they cease to be God's representatives. However, there is no such exception in the New Testament. Nowhere does the New Testament even imply that we are only to submit to godly rulers.

Consider Paul's writings. He wrote that we must live such that men's accusations against us are silenced. We should not earn punishment for doing wrong, but if punished unjustly, we should bear it. This doesn't sound like rejecting the authority of a tyrant. Instead, this is living by a higher standard and accepting the earthly consequences.

I  suggest that while a Christian may not, in good conscience before God, be able to obey the government in every instance, true submission to the government is never actually set aside. Generally, submission is exhibited by one's obedience. But when one cannot obey, one can still demonstrate a submissive spirit by accepting the consequences of his disobedience. This submissive spirit should never be set aside when it comes to those in authority over us. That is why our disobedience must not deteriorate to lawlessness.

It is only appropriate to disobey laws or authorities under certain conditions. Clearly we are to disobey when they would require us to do what God forbids or prohibit us from doing what God requires. Some say we should disobey if the authorities or laws would hinder our relationship with God, but since our relationship is spiritual and not physical, I do not see how they can do that. They could certainly try to hinder the expression of our relationship by prohibiting us from worshiping, singing praises or praying aloud. That would clearly be a violation of God's commands that we worship and praise him, and pray to him. Any time it is impossible to obey both man's law and God's law, there is no question what we are to do. Civil disobedience is our response to a law that in good conscience we cannot obey. But it must be lawful resistance, not lawlessness.

Scripture teaches we are to submit to earthly authorities, so when conflicts arise, it is appropriate for our first efforts to be directed toward working within the system. Disobedience must always be a last resort and it must be directed by a conscience renewed by God's word; if we disobey simply because we want to, then we are being rebellious and dishonoring God. If we can honor God's will without disobeying the government, civil disobedience is inappropriate.

I suggest that the combination of our attitude and action influences God's ability to do what is needed. If we are hostile, belligerent or threatening, God has to distance himself because he is holy and righteous, incompatible with sinful human nature. Instead, we are to put off sinful traits such as self-centeredness and reject the demands of our sinful nature to seize control and cause things to be as we think they should. Then we are to emulate Jesus' nature and seek God's will in the situation. This gets our sinfulness out of the way and allows God to intervene. When we relinquish control to him, significant changes can occur.

Many times we create problems for ourselves and other Christians by the way we view situations. We still think like the world, so we think the way to get something done is to use intellectual and physical methods. If an authority makes an unjust demand, for example, we try to reason with him, we try to persuade other people, we appeal to other authorities; these are intellectual methods. If we are unable to get the desired results with intellectual methods, we might resort to physical methods of civil disobedience: refusing to cooperate with the demand, performing a demonstration or sit-in, or even more physically aggressive methods in rare cases. These may be legitimate things to do, but relying on these methods alone completely ignores the spiritual reality of the situation. Civil disobedience is not primarily about us trying to make something happen. It is about us obeying God under all circumstances.

We can work to affect change through normal human efforts, such as active participation in the government process or even by civil disobedience. Politicians are like most other people, in that they are influenced by the pressure and petitions they receive. We can bring about changes by persuading our authorities, but as soon as the pressure shifts, so do the policies. We need to use influence, work within the system, and use normal human methods, but real long-term changes occur when we work with God and allow him to intervene. When we do this, he may direct us to use typical human methods, but there will be significant differences in our attitudes and motives. And this permits God to promote his will and his kingdom.

"The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds" (2 Co 10:4). It seems that as we develop spiritually to become more like our Lord Jesus -- which includes learning to use spiritual authority correctly -- then we have less need for the inferior weapons and tactics of this world. Face it: When a single angel can kill 185,000 soldiers in an enemy's camp during the night causing the army to withdraw (2 Kings 19:35), then why should we concern ourselves with worldly weapons and tactics? "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world" (Rom 12:2).

I agree we need highly trained Christian warriors, but they must be trained in the weapons and tactics of God's kingdom, not those of lobbyists or philosophers or protesters, and not those of Army Rangers or Navy Seals. When we can use (and should be using) God's authority and resources to conduct God's business, what use would we have for the ridiculously inferior methods of this world? We need to make radical changes in our thinking. This world system operates by the "law of the jungle," where the biggest and "baddest" wins. But we're not of this world, we are not to think like this world, and we are not limited to its methods.

If we limited ourselves to the world's tactics of lobbying, voting, writing our representatives, appealing unjust laws, and such, we will be no more successful than the rest of the world. It is appropriate to do these things and it is our duty to address problems at this level. After all, we are humans interacting with human authorities, so human methods are worthwhile. But if we consider these our only options, we are limiting ourselves to worldly methods and we will get the same kind of results the world does. Paul wrote, "For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come" (1 Tim 4:8). Likewise, active participation in the political and governmental system is worthwhile, but we can achieve greater results through other means.

If we invest in guns and ammunition, and train in military tactics, what good would that do? The world applies brute force to make people comply, but that is not God's way; nor should it be our way. If we try to fight the world system with the world's strategies, we will lose; we very possibly would be acting in opposition to God's will and die for nothing.

Why can we not realize the combined political and military strength of the world is nothing compared to the power and authority of God? If we limit ourselves to physical action motivated by human intellect, we lose the war before we begin. We must also realize we cannot rely solely on intellect in our struggle against unrighteousness. Spiritual rebirth and transformation are not the products of a convincing argument. The flesh counts for nothing (Jn 6:63), so we should not rely on it. Use the intellectual and physical methods, but realize they alone will not produce long term change.

What kind of changes might we might expect if we do things God's way? From our vantage point, we're looking to change an untenable situation. God may do that, and he may use our efforts because he has chosen to work through his people. But God is also interested in using our situations and experiences to change us into his image, so we may not always see the changes we expect.

What if we do what we're supposed to do and the situation doesn't improve or even gets worse? The normal human response is to seize control and apply greater pressure to get the results we want. Again, because we are not to conform to this world, our response needs to be very different. We must absolutely trust God. Period. If we do what he directs and we don't see the results we expect, we must trust him to do what is best for us and whatever promotes his will. It's his kingdom, not ours. He is God Almighty, we are not. His will is the solution, ours is part of the problem.

We can be confident God will work everything together for our personal benefit; that is, he will take all of our experiences, both pleasant and painful, and cause the overall combined results to be for our long term good (Rom 8:28). For one thing, he will use our experiences to mold our character and develop us spiritually. That is of much, much greater value than changing a civil law or ordinance.

If we view Christian martyrs throughout history as failures because they died without affecting changes in their societies, this reveals a lot about our perspective. It may reveal how focused we are on the world, as though our temporary existence in this sin-infested world is of greatest importance. Step into the future with me for a moment. 50,000 years from now as you ponder your present life, what will be more important -- whether you were instrumental in changing a local ordinance, or that you were obedient to God? Keep in mind that your obedience may have resulted i