The only valid justification for disobeying civil government would be in the case of laws which require disobedience to God, to whom we owe our ultimate allegiance. The most often cited example of this is the story of Daniel in the Lion’s Den found in Daniel 6:6-22.
This view is incorrect because it confuses the unanimity of Scripture on one view--that when forced to choose between God and Caesar, one must choose God--with the idea that Scripture exhaustively rules out other possibilities. Again, Grotius discusses this at great length. In Locke's Paraphrase of Romans 13, he suggests that the point of the Romans passage is to say something about Christian liberty, and its limits. What we know, according to the New Testament, about human relations is that Christianity radically transforms them, and in some important way effaces distinctions that had been held to matter (one thinks immediately of Galatians 3, but there are other passages that cover this subject).
But it's "in some important way," not "altogether." If one looks at Romans, the upshot of that section on civil government is "just because you're a Christian doesn't mean you can avoid paying taxes." Yes, it's true that Jesus has replaced Caesar (or any other claimant) as Lord, and with that comes true freedom, but that's not an excuse for license (as the 1 Peter 2 passage indicates) nor anarchy. All those orders have been instituted for a reason.
To return to Locke, he says all that Romans is meant to demonstrate is that a Christian does not have more freedom than the average citizen. To say that he cannot rebel when a theory of government would say other citizens can rebel is to (in fact) argue that the Christian has less political freedom than the average citizen, which would be paradoxical, to say the least. I am not fully persuaded Locke's position is the right one, but it seems (so far as it goes) to be within orthodoxy.
No comments:
Post a Comment