The Magistrate and the Conscience: a case for civil disobedience

 

The Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us. - Isaiah 33:22

Thomas Manton says if we take these words in a spiritual sense "the words are exclusive: God, and no other, our only judge, our only lawgiver, &c.  God only knoweth the conscience, and therefore God only must judge it, and give laws to it.  God only can punish the conscience for sins, and therefore he only can make a sin."

But this raises a question (and probably from some quarters an objection).  What about Romans 13:5?  Paul says, "Wherefore ye must be subject, not only for wrath, but for conscience' sake."  Doesn't this mean that the laws of men can 'oblige' the conscience.  

True - to a point.  The laws of men do oblige the conscience, but - as Manton put it - "not in that order and manner that God's do."  He names three differences.  I will name them here and explain them in my own words.

1. "Not directly and immediately, but by the intervention of God's command."  If we are obligated to obey man it is for God's sake rather than for man's sake.  We obey "in the Lord (Ephesians 6:1)."  We submit "for the Lord's sake (1 Peter 2:13)."  As Manton explained, "It is God's command that bindeth my conscience to observe man's."  

I don't do it for the magistrate, I do it out of conscience to God.   In other words, there is nothing intrinsically binding about man's authority.  He has no inherent right to rule.  He is to be obeyed for conscience sake in obedience to the One who is our only Judge, Lawgiver and King.

What does this mean?  

Simple.  There can be no real conflict when the two are at odds.  If there is any discrepancy between the laws of men and the laws of God, He not man is to obeyed.  Remember, we are obeying magistrates out of conscience to God.  He was our reason in the first place.  To give preference to man's law over any point of God's law is sheer folly.  After all, what is man?  What is the civil magistrate?  Whether he happens to be king, president or prime minister he also has a King to whom he must one day give an account.  Our obedience to him (as magistrate) was never direct and immediate but by the intervention of God's command.  We obeyed him only for God.  To then argue that out of conscience to God we must disobey God to obey man is profoundly illogical and deceptive. 

Of course, we will be told that no one is arguing that we should disobey God.  

Men who are now urging obedience to the magistrate will tell us they aren't disobeying God when out of deference to the magistrate they choose not to sing, and - they tell us - they aren't disobeying God when they stream worship online instead of gathering.  

The reasoning sounds terribly like Satan's conversation with Eve:  "... hath God said?"  Consider the following:

• The first commandment tells us who to worship, 
• the second commandment tells us how to worship, 
• the third commandment tells us the manner of worship 
• and the fourth commandment tells us the when of worship. 

Is there nothing here about singing?  The regulative commandment (ie. the second) forbids us from doing anything in worship other than what God has commanded.  So if it isn't commanded by God it is forbidden.  So, has God commanded singing or hasn't He?  Has God commanded His people to gather together for worship or hasn't He?   We could highlight Paul's warning to the Hebrews about "forsaking the assembling of ourselves together" (10:25), but the question before us is much more foundational than that.  It goes to the heart of the first table of the law: whether God has actually told us to worship Him and told us how to worship Him and even when to worship Him.  To deny this is to set aside the whole of the first table of the law and leave us with obligations to no one but our neighbours. 

2. "Not so universally and unlimitedly."  So here's the difference.  I must obey God "upon the bare sight of his will."  Whatever God asks I must do without question and without hesitation.  I may not understand the reason for the command but I am bound to obey.  However, as Manton points out, I am not bound to the magistrate in the same way.  Rather, as he says, "I must examine the laws of men, whether they be just, equal, suiting with charity and public safety; and in many cases active obedience must be withheld."  

Today when men speak of obedience to the civil authorities they seem to assume that the conscience is obliged to them universally and unlimitedly - as if we were obliged to render unto them in the same way we render unto God.  So, don't examine, just obey.  Actually this has never been the case.  Our forefathers never saw the magistrate's authority in this light.  They knew that while we are not to examine the laws of God, we must examine the laws of men.  That is our duty.  And whereas active obedience to God must never be withheld, there are many cases in which active obedience to men must be.  

I find it incredible that the Church of Christ is almost universally unwilling to examine the laws of men.  We have recently allowed them to prevent us from gathering.  Some have allowed them to prevent them from singing.  Many have allowed them to arbitrarily require masking and distancing.  Instead of examining the laws, we are giving to them universal and unlimited authority... and so rendering unto Caesar what is God's.

3. "Not so absolutely."  Manton explains, "Whatever God commandeth, I am bound to do it even in secret, though it be to my absolute prejudice; but now submission to man may be performed by suffering the penalty, though the obedience required be forborne; and in some cases a man may do contrary in private, where the thing is indifferent, and there is no danger of scandal and contempt of authority.  Well, then, hear no voice but God's in your consciences, no doctrines in the church but Christ's."  

Conclusion:  Something is very wrong when the Church's instinct is to obey the magistrate in the same way they obey God.  

But am I being fair?  Is that actually the case?   Please think this through carefully.  Before the magistrate asked us to stop gathering we never dreamed we would stop gathering unless confined to a sick bed or bound in chains.   Before the magistrate asked us not to sing we never dreamed a day would come when we would stop singing.   I realize that men will tell us that they don't obey the magistrate in the way they obey God.  But examine again the 3 headings above.  Do you see this distinction in the way the Church relates to the magistrate?  

Let me put it this way... Is the instinct on the part of the Church to examine or obey?  

The fact that many church leaders are unwilling to examine the lawfulness of a government's commands suggests something very wrong with the Church's relationship with the magistrate.  We speak as if we had no King but Jesus and function as if we had two masters.