A Higher Loyalty

Civil disobedience is not a new issue for us at Sojourners. From our earliest days we have published articles about the Christian's relationship to the state and the biblical basis for civil disobedience, issued calls for nonviolent resistance to particular government policies, and covered the witness of Christians involved in civil disobedience. Because of the heightened consciousness of the nuclear threat and the strength of Christian response to it, more and more people in the churches are ready to consider civil disobedience as an option for registering their opposition to the nuclear arms race.

A central reality of the arms race is that, by United States domestic laws, it is perfectly legal. Many Christians have challenged nuclear weapons on the basis of moral or international law, but neither argument has been accepted in U.S. courts. Not only does the law of the land make clear that there is no illegality in the escalation of nuclear weapons, it also upholds the arms race by collecting and appropriating our tax dollars for nuclear weapons, shrouding decision-making regarding nuclear policy in a veil of secrecy, and keeping people outside the fences and boundaries of nuclear facilities.

A.J. Muste, a leading figure in resistance to America's wars from World War I to Vietnam, has said: "Non-conformity, Holy Disobedience, becomes a virtue, indeed a necessary and indispensable measure of spiritual self-preservation, in a day when the impulse to conform, to acquiesce, to go along, is used as an instrument to subject men [sic] to totalitarian rule and involve them in permanent war."

Increasing numbers of Christians are finding that a serious commitment to peacemaking will ultimately lead them to confront the question of civil disobedience. To say no to nuclear weapons means to say no to the habits, assumptions, and laws that make their existence possible.

In recent months the church has proclaimed its opposition to the nuclear arms race in both grassroots action and official statements. The government has not responded to this plea for peace except by attacking the church and impugning the motivations and responsibility of Christian leaders. The race for nuclear superiority continues and now enters a new and even more dangerous era as Congress debates funding for the new generation of counterforce weapons.

It is unlikely that the arms race will be ended by the use of traditional political channels alone. Important legislative initiatives like the nuclear freeze deserve our full support. But it will undoubtedly take a deeper level of sacrifice to end the perilous threat to human life and all God's creation that we now face. Indeed, it will take a powerful movement of conscience and direct action at least as strong as the abolitionist movement in the 19th century, the civil rights struggle in the 20th century, or Gandhi's nonviolent campaign to free India of British domination.

For that kind of movement, the vision and resources of faith will be required. The struggle to abolish nuclear weapons must be rooted in a spiritual commitment. Never has leadership and an alternative vision been more needed from the churches.

The church could lead the way in a disciplined and prayerful movement of nonviolent action. An approach to civil disobedience that is biblically, pastorally, and politically sound is greatly needed at the local church level. A clear call needs to be issued that puts forth the theological legitimacy, even imperative, for Christian civil disobedience in the face of escalating preparations for nuclear war.

Jesus and Authority
For Christians, commitment to peace begins by looking to the life and example of Jesus. A key interaction between Jesus and the Pharisees goes right to the heart of the question of the Christian's relationship to ruling authority:

Then the Pharisees went and took counsel how to entangle him in his talk. And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, "Teacher, we know that you are true, and teach the way of God truthfully, and care for no man; for you do not regard the position of men. Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?"

But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, "Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the money for the tax." And they brought him a coin. And Jesus said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" They said, "Caesar's." Then he said to them, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." When they heard it, they marveled; and they left him and went away (Matthew 22:15-22).

The questioners in this story were trying to lay a trap for Jesus in the hopes of dividing his followers. Roman occupation had created strong Jewish resentment, and the payment of taxes was a very controversial issue. Jesus was faced with a highly charged question.

A simple yes would have turned the revolutionary zealots against Jesus and made him appear to the people to be advocating collaboration with the hated Romans. A simple no would have enabled the Pharisees and scribes to use his answer against him in their plot to destroy him.

Jesus didn't give a clear and direct answer to the specific question being asked. Rather, he put it in a larger framework of worship, idolatry, and ultimate loyalty. The issue at stake here is: what do we owe to whom?

The first element to note in this passage is that conflict is already assumed. The antagonists' question implies that Jesus' teaching leads to conflict with the demands of the state. The situation is perceived by all parties involved as a confrontation of rival lordships. If there had been no political implications to the things Jesus was saying and doing, the question would probably never have come up and the confrontation would never have occurred.

This same assumption of potential conflict is the backdrop for all New Testament teaching on the subject of civil authority. Following Jesus created a tendency toward disobedience and resistance to the demands of repressive political authority.

Jesus' reply to his questioners establishes the need for discrimination in responding to the demands of the governing authorities. Jesus makes clear that the final authority as to what belongs to Caesar rests, not with Caesar, but with God. This is not a question of equal claims being made on our lives. Caesar's place is determined by God. God's place is never determined by Caesar. God, not Caesar, is the final arbiter of what we owe the government. The existence of a people who exercise the right to obey or disobey based on a higher loyalty is always a fundamental challenge and rebuke to the power of the state. The foundation of Christian opposition to the absolute authority of the state is the assertion of the absolute authority of God.

The New Testament is abundantly clear in asserting that Jesus was killed because he was a threat to the ruling authorities. The Romans and the chief priests who governed day-to-day activities in Palestine for the Romans were the ones who tried and executed Jesus. These religious and political leaders were Jesus' principal adversaries throughout his ministry (Luke 19:47).

Jesus frequently had confrontations with these rulers and often treated them with disdain and scorn (Luke 20:9-19). He spared no words in his criticism of the rich and powerful (Luke 6:24-25; 16:14-15; 18:24-25; 20:45-47). He called Herod a "fox" (Luke 13:32) and specifically condemned "the kings of the Gentiles" who sought power and dominated their subjects while calling themselves "benefactors" (Luke 22:24-27). Jesus tells his disciples to expect persecution from political authorities on his account, and he instructs them in how to bear witness when they are "brought before kings and governors for my name's sake" (Luke 21:12-19).

Jesus' "cleansing" of the temple during the week of his arrest and crucifixion was a dramatic act of civil disobedience aimed at the religious, economic, and political power center of the established order (Luke 19:45-46). Jesus acted directly against their authority by accusing them of corrupting the worship of the temple and by challenging their economic base. The temple action sparked the chain of events that led to his execution.

Authority and Truth
At his trials before the Sanhedrin, Herod, and Pilate, Jesus showed little respect and no deference toward the political authorities. Rather, he risked antagonizing them in his answers to their questions and with his general lack of cooperation.

Not only did Jesus confront the authorities directly, he also taught a new way of living that undermined the entire system upon which their rule was based. He sought not to kill or violently overthrow them, but to confront them with a whole new order called the kingdom of God. In breaking the official Roman seal and guard placed on his tomb, even his resurrection was an act of civil disobedience.

Later apostolic teaching also deals with the conflict between the demands of faith and the requirements of the state. With the teaching of Jesus as the backdrop, the passages in the Epistles often seem to have the purpose of correcting a natural inclination toward complete disobedience. The authors seem to want to show that, despite perceptions to the contrary, Christians are not those who disobey every rule of the political order.

The apostles teach that there is a rightful place and purpose for civil authority (Romans 13; 1 Timothy 2; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13-17). Those purposes are, however, limited and provisional, and are for protecting justice and preserving peace and order.

In Romans 13, the word "submission" is frequently mistranslated and interpreted as meaning simply obedience. Paul could have used other words if he had meant obedience, as he did in other contexts. Submission here refers to recognizing the other's standing in the plan of God. In this context, it means recognizing the place of civil authority in the divine order of things. Obedience, on the other hand, means the complete bending of will to the will of another, as in being the obedient servant of the Lord.

Many biblical scholars point out that proper submission to governmental authority will sometimes require disobedience. Such disobedience results from taking civil authority more seriously than it takes itself. When civil authority goes beyond its proper boundaries and is demanding a kind of allegiance and obedience that is not the state's to require, a proper submission to the government at that point may require disobedience.

There is clearly a need for discrimination here. To say that Christians should always obey the government, no matter what it asks, is to say that Caesar has priority over the authority of God in our lives. We are to obey civil authority when we can do so without disobeying God. But when it requires that we disobey our conscience as people under the authority of God, then we must disobey the law.

The apostles themselves often ran into conflicts with the ruling authorities (Acts 4:1-31; 5:17-42; 16:19-40; 17:6-9; Thessalonians 2:17-18), showed ambivalence toward the secular court system (1 Corinthians 6:1-11), and were quick to clarify their ultimate allegiance when the governing powers were encroaching: "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). The book of Revelation, written by John when he was exiled on Patmos, was a theological and political manifesto against the Roman empire, which described the demonic character of a state that assumes absolute authority. The fact that Paul, the author of the Romans 13 passage that is so frequently cited to support obedience to the government, spent considerable time in prison for his faith, seems not to dissuade many contemporary Christians from interpreting him to be teaching a complete and uncritical obedience to every demand and policy of the state.

When biblical passages are removed from their context and distorted to support an unquestioning loyalty to the government, it says far less about the meaning of the scriptures involved than it does about the state of the church. Whole books of the Bible have come to us from prison. Courtrooms and jails have been part of the lives of Christians down through the years, and the blood of martyrs has been the seed of the church.

To advocate total obedience to political authority under any circumstance is nothing but heresy. To support such a position from scripture is to compound the offense. The conflicts with political and religious authority experienced by the early Christians were not born out of political ideology or personal alienation, but out of their worship of God and obedience to Jesus Christ. Fervent love and loyalty to God are what generated conflict with the political authorities.

The early Christians decided when to say yes and when to say no to the established authorities on the basis of the authority of God in their lives. Christian worship was perceived as political by the authorities, and so it was. Worship of the Lord and refusal to pay homage to the false worship of the Roman empire cost many Christians their lives.

With such a rich legacy of disobedience to law that contradicts allegiance to God, we can discern from scripture a clear basis for challenging the immorality of nuclear weapons. However, among those who have made that commitment, serious and divisive questions have arisen regarding the way civil disobedience should be understood and undertaken in our present situation.

There are questions about the role of civil disobedience in the lives of Christians and Christian communities. Does civil disobedience become our primary vocation in such a time of crisis, or is it rather undertaken in the midst of our many and diverse vocations and callings which continue to have integrity?

Other questions have been raised in regard to the spirit and style of civil disobedience actions. How can we be more self-critical of our own actions? What about the anger, hostility, and egoism that sometimes are hidden beneath the cloak of nonviolent civil disobedience? How really prayerful, humble, and joyful are we when we undertake civil disobedience?

The ongoing debate over faithfulness and effectiveness seems to be more easily resolved rhetorically than in the actual practice of decision-making. Is our motivation to try to raise the issue publicly as strongly as we can, or is it to express our own personal convictions and faith? Are our actions part of a nonviolent campaign with particular goals, or are they public liturgy?

How important is communication in our actions? What are the best symbols for us to use, and how do we choose them? How much should we worry about alienating observers or about speaking in language and symbols that they can understand? What about the problems of secrecy, openness with our adversaries, and property destruction?

Sometimes it seems that certain counter-cultural assumptions about lifestyle, personal values, and decision-making become almost institutionalized as a part of the way civil disobedience is done. Does someone have to agree with a wholly negative view of the legal system and of law itself in order to engage in civil disobedience? Do some of the discussions about relationship to the police, courts, lawyers, and legal procedure reflect anarchist philosophies more than they do a commitment to peacemaking?

Different understandings of these issues lead to different choices in the actions we undertake.

Finally, there are pastoral issues that must be dealt with more honestly and openly. In our sincere desire to call people to civil disobedience, are they sometimes being pressured or even manipulated into doing things they are not ready for or should not be doing? What kind of pastoral process do we have to help people sort out their involvement in civil disobedience? What new pastoral problems are created for those engaged in civil disobedience, especially where engagement leads to serious consequences and jail sentences?

What about the complicated and painful questions of civil disobedience and family responsibilities? How do we put together civil disobedience with our other commitments to community and ministry? What about the dangers of self-righteousness, bitterness, resentment, and judgment of others who don't choose civil disobedience? How can we be single-minded in our commitments while at the same time respecting the integrity and diversity of Christian calling?

These are difficult questions. We have often hesitated to deal with them in Sojourners because they are so sensitive. However, we have finally decided, after much conversation with others, that they need a public airing. We need to speak directly and honestly about them, even if doing so reveals some of our differences. Such revelation could prove to be clarifying and healthy.

Gandhi offered some words that are helpful to our situation:

We dare not pin our faith solely on civil disobedience. It is like the use of a knife to be used most sparingly if at all. A man who cuts away without ceasing cuts at the very root, and finds himself without the substance he was trying to reach by cutting off the superficial hard crust.

The use of civil disobedience will be healthy, necessary, and effective only if we otherwise conform to the laws of all growth. We must therefore give full and therefore greater value to the adjective "civil" than to "disobedience." Disobedience without civility, discipline, discrimination, nonviolence, is certain destruction. Disobedience combined with love is the living water of life.

At Sojourners we believe that nonviolent law-breaking can be a spiritual tool of rebirth and social change. However, we do not regard civil disobedience as the only thing, the most important thing, or the ultimate thing for faithful Christians to do.

Civil disobedience is a part of our calling, but not the whole of it. Preaching, teaching, and pastoral work for peace are also very central to us. I personally resonate with the importance that Thomas Merton, among others, attached to such work. Clearly, if we didn't feel this way, Sojourners, and all the work it takes to publish it, would make little sense.

My major concern is ultimately not with questions of the priority of civil disobedience, the appropriateness of particular symbols, or questions of tactics and style. Rather, it is with the need for mutual respect and support among all those who work, sacrifice, and risk for peace because of their faith. None of us can do enough, but every faithful effort must be affirmed.

Dialogue, vigorous conversation, challenging of one another, sorting out difficult issues are all important, but they must be carried on in an atmosphere of trust, respect, and love for one another. I've become most uncomfortable when those who take strong positions on particular matters begin to level accusations and judgments against others who have not taken the same positions. Our personal choices must not be made into ideological commitments.

Above all, Christian conscience, Christian vocation, and the versatility of the Holy Spirit must be respected and, in fact, welcomed. It is tragic when movements based on Christian conscience end up showing such little respect for conscience exercised differently.

We hope and pray for a large movement of conscience in this country that can confront the idolatry of the nuclear arms race. Each of us, in our own way, has a part to play and can take encouragement from the words of A. J. Muste:

Precisely on that day when the individual appears to be utterly hopeless, to have no choice, when the aim of the system is to convince him [sic] that he is helpless as an individual and that the only way to meet regimentation is by regimentation, there is absolutely no hope save in going back to the beginning.

The human being, the child of God, must assert his humanity and his son-ship again. He must exercise the choice which no longer is accorded him by society, which, "naked, weaponless, armourless, without shield or spear, but only with naked hands and open eyes," he must create again.

He must understand that this naked human being is the one real thing in the face of the machines and the mechanized institutions of our age. He, by the grace of God, is the seed of all the human life there will be on the earth, though he may have to die to make that harvest possible.

Jim Wallis was editor-in-chief of Sojourners when this article was published.