Studies & Actions
of the General Assembly of
The Presbyterian Church in America
V. PROPRIETY OF THE CHRISTIAN'S
NONVIOLENT DISOBEDIENCE
TO THE
CIVIL MAGISTRATE
IN THE ABORTION CONTROVERSY
by Mark Belz and Linward Crowe
[15th General Assembly (1987), Appendix Q, p. 459-463.]
[Click
here for a pdf version of this text]
I. The Issue.
Evangelical Christians in America, in increasing numbers, have been expressing
their opposition to abortion and the current law in America which permits
and protects that practice, by open violation of the civil law. Some members
of the Presbyterian Church in America, both lay and clergy, have joined
ranks with members of other denominations in both legal and illegal protests
at abortion clinics. [76]
Some of these protests have included illegal pickets at abortion clinics,
"sit-ins," or similar actions. The scope of this committee's work is limited
to a discussion of such non-violent actions. The open confrontation which
takes place between the protester and the abortion clinic personnel or
local police force is an expected and usual result. This confrontation
often results in the arrest, prosecution and conviction of the protester.
The Christian who undertakes this kind of protest finds himself in the
strained position of intentionally confronting and resisting the civil
magistrate and government. The Christian who protests in this way typically
is an otherwise law-abiding citizen who desires to promote respect for
the civil order, and who loves a peaceful, well-ordered society. But he
is also a person who feels conscience-stricken regarding the issue of
abortion and believes, on the basis of Scripture, that the act of abortion
is a direct and immediate violation of the Sixth Commandment, "Thou shalt
not kill." The Presbyterian Church in America has emphatically adopted
this position:
We cannot stress too strongly our authority in this matter. God
in His Word speaks of the unborn child as a person and treats
him as such, and so must we. The Bible teaches the sanctity of
life, and so must we. The Bible, especially in the Sixth Commandment,
gives concrete protection to that life which bears the image of
God. We must uphold that commandment. [77]
|
But while the constituency of the Presbyterian Church in
America may be clearly united in their opposition to abortion, i.e., that
the act of abortion is a violation of the Sixth Commandment, they are
by no means of one mind on the issue of disobedience to the civil magistrate
in the abortion controversy. Like the "underground railway" issue in the
slavery controversy more than a century age ago,[78]
the internal conflict sharply divides members of the Presbyterian Church
in America, sometimes even within our local churches. Thus, in one of
our presbyteries, in the Spring of 1985, we find a Presbyterian Church
in America pastor and members of his church refusing to leave the parking
lot of an abortion clinic, while a member of another Presbyterian Church
in America church in the same presbytery--the chief of the county policy
force- ordered, directed and presided over their arrest and imprisonment.[79]
And where political conservatism is prevalent in the Presbyterian Church
in America, two current themes of that conservatism come into apparent
conflict: law and order, on the one hand, and open resistance to the laws
which protect the right of abortion, on the other.
Recognizing the need for some guidelines, then, in this area, and being
convinced that Christians within the Presbyterian Church in America on
both sides of the issue desire to speak and act on the matter in a way
consonant with Scripture, your committee has attempted to bring Scriptural
principles to bear on these questions: What are the broad Scriptural principles
regarding submission to the civil magistrate? What examples or teaching
can be found in Scripture where disobedience to the civil government was
approved or required? Is resistance to abortion through disobedienc to
the civil law an area where the Christian may disobey the law? What guidelines
or safeguards should the Christian adhere to if he is civilly disobedient?
II. Scriptural Principles.
Discussions regarding the Christian's responsibility to the civil government
inevitably begin with a look at two of the more obvious texts on the subject:
Romans 13:1-7 and I Peter 2:13-17. Both texts deal specifically with the
issue of submission to the civil authorities, and both were written to
Christians who were living their day-to- day lives under a pagan civil
government. These passages make it clear (a) that civil government is
established by God, (b) that God establishes civil government to promote
good and punish evil, (c) that the civil magistrate, in his governing
function, is God's servant, (d) that therefore the Christian must submit
to the civil magistrate in his governing function, (e) that rebellion
against the civil order is rebellion against God and results in judgment.
In short, the Christian has a high duty to respect and obey the civil
law, not because government is intrinsically good or right, but because
the child of God must obey God who ordained government, even pagan government,
for His glory and our good. (See also Titus 3:1 and I Timothy 2:1,2).
The Christian's responsibility to submit to or obey the civil magistrate,
like all other "lateral duties in Scripture, arises out of his duty to
obey God. Similarly, children are to obey parents "in the Lord;" slaves
are to obey their masters out of obedience to Christ; the wife is to submit
to her husband as to the Lord; the husband is to love his wife as Christ
loves the church (Ephesians 5:22-6:9). We pay taxes and we also tithe
not because we answer to two ultimate authorities but because it is King
Jesus who has told us to do both (Luke 20:20-26 and Romans 13:6, 7). The
Christian has but one Lord-he answers to only one ultimate authority.
It is clear, therefore, that the authority of another human being or institution
is not intrinsic, and thus not absolute. If obedience to any human authority
requires disobedience to God, then a child must disobey his parent, a
wife must refuse to submit to her husband, and a servant cannot follow
his master's orders. Nor can the Christian citizen comply with an order
from the civil magistrate which requires disobedience to God's commands.
Scripture itself reveals numerous incidents where this principle was at
work, some of the more outstanding examples of which are:
(a) The Hebrew Midwives, under orders to kill boy babies born to Hebrew
women, rather "feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told
them to do, but saved the babies alive, and in fact misled Pharaoh about
what they had done. Because they "feared God and did not do what the King
of Egypt had told them to do", they received not the condemnation of God
but His blessing: "...because the midwives feared God, He gave them families
of their own" (Exodus 1:15-22). Likewise, Moses' parents, who violated
the same law by hiding their child from the civil authorities, enjoy distinction
in the faith "hall of fame" because "they were not afraid of the king's
edict" (Hebrews 11:23).
(b) Rahab the prostitute is also listed as one of the heroes of faith
(Hebrews 11:31) specifically for hiding the Israelite spies in direct
disobedience to the king of Jericho's command. She also deceived the king
and surreptitiously delivered the spies to safety (Joshua 2). Because
of her disobedience to the civil magistrate, she and all her family were
spared destruction and judgment (Joshua 6:17b, 25).
(c) When Ahab and Jezebel, king and queen of Israel, issued death warrants
for Elijah and others of the Lord's prophets, Obadiah, who had been given
charge of the king's palace, appears as a "devout believer in the Lord."
He hid one hundred of the Lord's prophets in two caves, to protect them
from the state's power (I Kings 18:1-15).
(d) Two accounts in the book of Daniel provide us with some of the most
important Biblical data concerning the relationship of the child of God
to the state. The first is the story of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego-all
government officials in Babylon under King Nebuchadnezzar. They were commanded
by the civil magistrate to disobey the God of Israel: to fall down and
worship a golden image, Nebuchadnezzar's symbol of state sovereignty.
The king was requiring them to perform an act which was actively disobedient
to the God of Israel. Their refusal, of course, resulted in immediate
prosecution and the death sentence, from which God miraculously delivered
them (Daniel 3). By way of contrast, the story of Daniel's confrontation
with King Darius in chapter 6 displays the other side of the principle:
Daniel was commanded by the government to cease praying to the God of
Israel; i.e., to omit to perform an act which was required by the God
of Israel. He was required by civil law to sin by omission; his three
friends had been required to sin by commission. But whether the civil
law required "want of conformity unto" or "transgression of" the law of
God, the answer of the child of God is the same: God's command is superior
and must be obeyed.
(e) Peter and the apostles' dispute with the Sanhedrin (Acts 5:17-42)
was of the same genre as the Daniel-Darius crisis. The apostles were commanded
to desist from their peace-disturbing preaching. Though they had been
jailed and were under strict orders not to preach and teach in the name
of Jesus, Peter and the apostles boldly responded: "we must obey God rather
than men!" (Acts 5:29b). Like Daniel, they could not neglect positive
duty required of them by God even though the civil magistrate outlawed
their actions.
John Calvin, in the Institutes of the Christian Religion (Book IV, Chapter
20), clearly sets forth the divine institution and support of the civil
magistrate, and the Christian's high duty to respect and obey even unworthy
or evil rulers (IV, 20, 1-31).
But Calvin ends that discussion with the following words:
But in the obedience which we have shown to be due to the authority
of governors, it is always necessary to make one exception, and
that is entitled to our first attention -- that it do not seduce
us from obedience to him to whose will the desires of all kings
ought to be subject, to whose decrees all their commands ought to
yield, to whose majesty all their scepters ought to submit. And,
indeed, how preposterous it would be for us, with a view to satisfy
men, to incur the displeasure of him on whose account we yield obedience
to men! The Lord, therefore, is the King of kings; who, when he
has opened his sacred mouth, is to be heard alone, above all, for
all, and before all; in the next place, we are subject to those
men who preside over us, but no otherwise than in him. If they command
anything against him, it ought not to have the least attention,
nor, in this case, ought we to pay any regard to all that dignity
attached to magistrates, to which no injury is done when it is subjected
to the unrivaled and supreme power of God... [A]s if God had resigned
his right to mortal men when he made them rulers of mankind, or
as if earthly power were diminished by being subordinated to its
author before whom even the principalities of heaven tremble with
awe. I know what great and present danger awaits this constancy,
for kings cannot bear to be disregarded without the greatest indignation;
and "the wrath of a king," says Solomon, "is as messengers of death"
(Prov. 16:14). But since this edict has been proclaimed by that
celestial herald, Peter, "We ought to obey God rather than men,"
(Acts 5:29)-let us console ourselves with this thought, that we
truly perform the obedience which God requires of us when we suffer
anything rather than deviate from piety. And that our hearts may
not fail us, Paul stimulates us with another consideration--that
Christ has redeemed us at the immense price which our redemption
cost him, that we may not be submissive to the corrupt desires of
men, much less be slaves to their impiety (I Cor. 7:23). [80]
(Emphasis added). |
In summary, Scripture teaches that the child of God has
a high duty to obey the civil law. That duty arises out of his duty to
obey God. Where the civil law requires the Christian to disobey the commands
of Scripture, either through a sin of commission or omission, the Christian
must reject that provision of the civil law. He has only one God; he must
obey Him rather than men. [81]
III. Application of Biblical Principles to the Abortion Controversy.
The 1973 United States Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade [82]
legalized abortion on demand in this country, as a matter of constitutional
law. The Court held that the United States Constitution implies a "right
to privacy" which gives every pregnant woman in America the freedom, in
consultation with her doctor, to choose to destroy her pre-born infant.
Between 1973 and 1985, it is estimated that over 18 million abortions
had been obtained in the United States under the guidelines of the Roe
v. Wade decision.
Neither Roe v. Wade nor any other known law in the United States requires
any person to obtain an abortion, or to participate in the abortion procedure.
Therefore, current law does not make the sin of abortion obligatory upon
the Christian. The Christian in America today is not faced precisely with
the Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego kind of crisis. The state has guaranteed
to the citizenry generally that abortion is permissible, but the state
has required it of no one. How, then, does a Christian justify disobedience
to the civil magistrate at the abortion clinic?
The Christian abortion protester blocks the doorway at the abortion clinic
out of a deep sense of Christian duty. He is willing to attempt to forbid
entrance of a pregnant woman to an abortion clinic, even to the extent
of violating the law, in order to save the child's life. He feels the
need to intervene on behalf of the child. His purpose in blocking the
doorway is not primarily or essentially for publicity, nor to work a change
in the law, nor to impose his moral code on the mother or doctor involved.
Rather, he believes it is his duty to do what he can to protect and preserve
the life of the unborn child who is only moments away from death. In this
regard, his action is substantially identical with that of the Hebrew
midwives. Unlike the Supreme Court, but like the Presbyterian Church in
America, he believes the unborn child to be a person. He believes that
this person has a right to expect a helping hand in his time of need.
His sense of duty in this regard derives from the positive duty implicit
in the Sixth Commandment, "thou shalt not kill." This is the duty to protect
and preserve our own lives and the lives of our neighbors, clearly set
forth in both the Larger and Shorter Catechisms.[83]
It is also the duty which Jesus taught in the parable of the Good Samaritan
(Luke 10:25-37) and which Moses summarized as "Love your neighbor as yourself"
(Lev. 19:18 and Mt. 22:39). The Christian who attempts to put himself
between the pregnant woman and the abortionist does so in a direct attempt
to protect and preserve the life of the unborn child, his neighbor. It
is the duty most succinctly summarized by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount:
"In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this
sums up the Law and the Prophets" (Mt. 7:12).
It should be noted that God's people have a high duty to defend, protect,
and support the innocent, the widow, the weak, and the orphan (Mk. 12:40,
Isa. 1:16-20, Ex. 22:22, Micah 6:8 and I Thess. 5:5, 22). This duty could
exclude the unborn child only to the extent that the unborn child is excluded
from personhood. The duty is specifically emphasized in Proverbs 24:11,
12:
Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering
toward slaughter. If you say, "But we knew nothing about this,"
does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who
guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according
to what he has done? (NIV)
|
It is crucial to note at this point that the duty which
the Christian has to protect the physical well-being (especially the life)
of his neighbor, is really a duty which good government otherwise should
undertake through keeping the peace (I Tim. 2:1, 2 and Romans 13). Interestingly,
Paul's discussion in Romans 13 on civil government is all within the context
of love (Romans 12:9-21 and 13:8-10); Paul closes this discussion with
these words: "Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the
fulfillment of the law" (Romans 13:10). Civil government, established
by God, is meant to work in generally the same direction as the law of
love; when, as under current abortion laws, the civil law punishes those
who protect the helpless from death, the civil authority is (to that extent)
at war with itself and with God, having denied the basic foundation of
law itself.
Assuming that a moral duty exists, then, toward the unborn child, i.e.,
that the Christian has the same duty to love him and to protect his life
as the Christian owes to born children or adults, the Christian is not
absolved of that duty when the civil law tells him that he cannot protect
the unborn child's life. The Christian abortion protester sees neglect
of the duty to protect the helpless unborn as constituting neglect of
duty to God.
It should be noted that many evils exist in modern society and government,
and that the Christian's opposition to other evils does not necessarily
justify violation of the civil law. For example, evils such as divorce
or pornography should also be opposed, but direct intervention involving
disobedience to the civil law would not be warranted. But several aspects
of abortion make it unique: (1) every abortion involves the intentional,
premeditated taking of a human being's life; (2) the consequences of the
act of abortion are immediate and irretrievable; and (3) the act of abortion
always involves a helpless, non-consenting victim. Furthermore, it should
be re-emphasized that disobedience to the civil law in opposing abortion
is not primarily to compel the pregnant woman or the doctor to lives of
holiness, but rather to save the life of the child.
IV. Conclusion.
Without question, the abortion controversy in the United States today
has brought the Christian into direct conflict with the state. Where the
Christian openly resists the state through his attempt to intervene for
the life of an unborn child, his act of disobedience to the civil law
seems clearly justifiable on the basis of Scripture. Christians within
the Presbyterian Church in America who, after careful study of the Scriptures
and prayer, believe that they must personally intervene for the unborn
child and thus violate the civil law, should have the concerned support
of the body of believers. However, certain cautions should be borne in
mind:
1. Recognizing that God has ordained all civil government, the participant
should maintain a generally high respect for the civil law and the magistrate.
While particular acts of non-violent civil disobedience might be necessary
to fulfill Christian duty, the Christian still must recognize that not
all government or law is thus to be disrespected or demeaned (Romans 13
and I Peter 2).
2. The Christian who violates the law within the confines of this issue
must remember that many fellow Christians will disagree; uncertainty and
ambiguity usually surround any acts of civil disobedience. The Christian
should act with humility, out of a sense of duty rather than superiority,
and should refrain from harsh judgment of brothers and sisters who stop
short of violation of the law.
3. Whenever the Christian stands in direct opposition to evil, as in the
present controversy, it is essential that he remember that "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
evil in the heavenly realms" (Eph. 6:12). Because the battle is spiritual
at its roots, all acts of resistance to the civil magistrate must be supported
by much prayer, recognizing that ultimate victory on the abortion crisis,
as in any issue, will be a result not of our work but of God's grace in
answer to the prayers of his saints.
[76] The Presbyterian Journal, Vol. 43, No. 28,
Nov. 7, 1984, pp. 3, 6-8.
[77] Report of the Ad Interim Committee
on Abortion, adopted by the Sixth General Assembly of the Presbyterian
Church in America, Grand Rapids, Michigan, June 19-23, 1978, p. 11.
[78] Andrew E. Murray, Presbyterians
and the Negro--A History, Presbyterian Historical Society, Philadelphia,
PA 1966, pp. 63-130.
[79] St. Louis County v. Dye and MacNaughton,
filed May 20, 1985, Division 36, St. Louis Missouri, Associate Circuit
Court.
[80] John Calvin, Institutes of the
Christian Religion, Book IV, Chapter 20, Section 32.
[81] See also Samuel Rutherford, Lex
Rex, or the Law and the Prince, Sprinkle Publications, Harrisonburg,
Virginia, reprinted 1980; John Knox, "Letter to the Commonality of Scotland,"
in Select Practical Writings of John Knox, Committee of the General
Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, 1845; Robert L. Dabney, Lectures
in Systematic Theology, Presbyterian Committee of Publication, Richmond,
VA 1871.
[82] Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113,93
S.Ct. 705 (1973).
[83] Westminster Larger Catechism,
Questions 135, 136; Westminster Shorter Catechism, Questions 68,
69. |