Civil Disobedience

Civil disobedience means breaking the law nonviolently for conscientious reasons. The term is a recent one, probably coined in the nineteenth century by Henry David Thoreau, but the practice is an old one, found in ancient Greek drama, in the life of the prophet Daniel and, arguably, in Israel’s exodus from Egypt. More recent noteworthy examples include the campaigns against slavery and the slave trade, the fight for women’s suffrage, Gandhi’s campaigns against the British in South Africa and India, and Martin Luther King’s campaigns for civil rights in the United States. Tactics can include sit-ins, illegal marches, tax boycotts and blockades. Should a Christian be involved in such actions? Are there situations in which it would be wrong not to be? After defining the term, this article will explore options, ethics and cautions.

The Meaning of Civil Disobedience

The term civil disobedience is not a terribly precise one, for it attempts to bring together two ideas. One describes an action: disobedience, usually meaning disobeying someone in authority. The other describes the manner of disobeying: civil, that is, it is not just any kind of disobedience. The notion of civility can be understood in two ways: (1) as the disobedience of civil, that is, political, authorities and/or (2) as disobedience carried out in a civil manner. To say disobedience is carried out in a civil manner can also be understood in two ways: (1) the disobedience is carried out in a respectful way, and/or (2) the one disobeying recognizes the legitimacy of the authority being opposed. We shall look at each of these in turn.

Types of Civil Disobedience

Disobedience is different from rebellion, revolution or any other attempt unconstitutionally and violently to overthrow a government, a regime or a political order. It is an attempt not to overthrow an order but to dissent from it in some way and to show that dissent in actions more than words. In some cases, for instance, in blocking a logging road, a nuclear plant or an abortion clinic, it is an attempt to impose an outcome by nonviolent means. It is not merely a symbol or a statement, though it will have these overtones as well, but an active attempt to stop something from happening or to start something. In other cases it is simply a collective, or an individual, act of conscientious refusal to pay a tax or to obey a law or an order because people believe that they cannot morally carry out a particular directive from a government. They have no wish to start a political movement; they just will not violate their conscience.

Some say that civil disobedience is not restricted to opposition to the government, that it includes actions such as blocking an entrance to support or protest women priests. Since there is no official definition of what civil disobedience means, this usage cannot be faulted. However, the fact that the state is usually recognized as the only body authorized to use coercion in public life means that opposition to it has a particular edge. With other bodies in society we may be not so much disobeying as dissenting: they have fewer means to compel us. Also, if we do cause problems for other bodies by physical disruption, it is usually the state as the enforcer of last resort with whom we must deal eventually.

Disobedience can be carried out against an entire regime, against only a particular law or against only a particular government action. If the disobedience is against a particular law or action, typically those involved continue to accept the overall legitimacy of the government as such. People who protest certain types of logging do not (usually) deny all legitimacy to government or deny the validity of other laws. They think that in one or more instances government has overstepped its bounds. One common manifestation of this is a protester’s calm acceptance of being arrested and fined or imprisoned. Sometimes fines are refused as a matter of conscience, whereas prison cannot really be refused. So the government is both opposed and accepted at the same time, hence the common sight of people being carried away from demonstrations by police. The demonstrators will not cooperate in their own arrest, but they will not run away from or actively oppose the police. Civil disobedience always contains this duality of rejection and acceptance.

The situation in which a regime as such is opposed is a little more complicated. A person may oppose a regime in its entirety but, for practical reasons, disobey only certain of its commands. Hence in countries such as the Netherlands during World War II, some people took up arms against the occupying Nazi regime, whereas others obeyed most laws except those, for example, requiring that Jews be handed over. The latter group would be practicing civil disobedience; the former, rebellion. The basic view of the legitimacy of the regime might have been the same, but the strategies were different.

Civil Disobedience and Christian Ethics

One of the major elements that distinguishes civil disobedience from other forms of opposition is civility. It neither casts all discretion to the winds nor demonizes its opponents. It is carried out with a modicum of respect; it grants a certain legitimacy to those whom it fights. Gandhi developed this into a view of satyagraha, or “truth force,” wherein the disobedience must be carried out without hatred or anger as an act of love; this is the core of its essential power.

Civil disobedience’s duality of acceptance and refusal has commended it to Christian ethicists, especially to those, such as Anabaptist and other pacifist theologians, who reject the notion of violent opposition to government. Civil disobedience forswears violence. At the same time it denies certain things to Caesar all the while respecting Paul’s stricture that the powers that be are God’s ministers (Romans 13:1-8) and also Peter’s claim that “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29; compare 1 Peter 2:13-14). Obedience to God and God’s ministers are combined in Jesus’ admonition to give to God the things that are God’s and to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s (Mark 12:13-17). Hence civil disobedience has won the respect and support of people in many Christian communions as an avenue of Christian action, though of course they disagree on when it is appropriate. It is practiced by groups as divergent as Operation Rescue on abortion and Sojourners on refugees or nuclear arms. Even Christian groups who do not think of themselves as politically active engage in widespread acts of civil disobedience, such as smuggling Bibles into closed countries, making contacts with underground Christians in countries such as China or conducting evangelism in areas where it is forbidden.

Cautions About Civil Disobedience

The notion of civil disobedience has become accepted so widely, particularly among Western Christians, that it would be wise to be more careful than we often are in advocating it. In particular we should beware of reducing the Christian tradition of civil disobedience to the American tradition of individual rights against government. The gospel emphasizes not so much a right of disobedience as a duty of disobedience. It is not a matter of personal discretion but a matter of Christian obligation.

This necessarily raises the vexed question not only of the legitimacy of a ruler but also of the legitimacy of an opponent. Who has the authority to say that the government is wrong and that a law should be disobeyed? The anarchic idea that any individual Christian (or congregation) should just decide simply to “obey God rather than men” is a manifestation of Western individualism more than biblical insight. What is necessary is some form of legitimate authority within the Christian community, something that Protestants especially are loath to face. In addition, what we loosely call democracy—the growth of representative government, the division of political powers and the legitimizing of legal opposition—raises these questions to a higher pitch. If a government has been constitutionally elected by most of the members of a state (including most of the Christian members), who has the authority to challenge its laws and why?

It might be useful to apply the criteria of a just war to civil disobedience. In particular, we need to ask whether it is a last resort. Have all legal avenues been exhausted? Are the actions appropriate to the cause and proportionate to the outcomes? Is there a specific and achievable end? The growth of democracy means that there are a wide variety of legal means available to oppose bad laws or a corrupt government as a whole. This is not to say, of course, that a democracy guarantees right government. “The people” are no more inherently righteous than their rulers and are quite capable of supporting genocide: Nazi Germany was a “democracy.” But there are legal means of opposition: elections, lobbying, media and party organizations. Within a democracy, however, Christians—especially younger ones—may find civil disobedience more attractive because it is easier and more glamorous than the often boring day-to-day work of politics. If we have not yet campaigned, organized, voted, lobbied long and strenuously and found it utterly futile, we should not quickly leap to civil disobedience, which, by alienating people, can sometimes hinder more than help.

Despite these caveats, civil disobedience should be seen in principle as an important and authentic expression of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Karl Barth once said, “To clasp the hands in prayer is the beginning of an uprising against the disorder of the world.”

» See also: Civility

» See also: Justice

» See also: Law

» See also: Organizational Culture and Change

» See also: Politics

» See also: Power

» See also: Principalities and Powers

» See also: Structures

References and Resources

H. Bedau, ed., Civil Disobedience: Theory and Practice (New York: Pegasus, 1969); J. F. Childress, Civil Disobedience and Political Obligation (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1971); L. Rasmussen, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Reality and Resistance (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972); J. H. Redekop, The Christian and Civil Disobedience (Hillsboro, Kans.: Kindred Press, 1990).

—Paul Marshall