When should a Christian disobey the law?

When should a Christian disobey the law?

Since the laws of the United States were originally based on a Judeo-Christian world view, Christians in our country have not had to deal with a great deal of conflict between law and morality. The notable exception to that moral/legal harmony was during the legality of slavery early in this nation's history. It is worth noting that the resolution of that conflict between morality and legality bathed this continent in blood. It is entirely possible that we are headed toward another monumental national moral conflict as competing worldviews collide. 

It is reasonable to assume that as our laws drift from their Judeo-Christian origins we will, with increasing frequency, be forced to choose between that which is legal and that which is right.

Just to be clear, a Christian's obligation to do the right thing is greater than his or her obligation to obey any particular law.

So here is the thing: If a law is morally right or morally neutral (i.e. traffic laws) we are morally obliged to follow those laws, but when obedience to a law of government forces a Christian to wilfully violate God's moral law, he or she is obliged to do that which is right in the sight of God at the expense of that which is legal in the sight of men.

So, what are we to do? 

1. We must know God's Word. If you don't study it, you won't know it, and you will be easily deceived. 
2. Pray for wisdom. We must keep our consciences tender before God, allowing his Spirit to lead us in all things in accordance with his Word. 
3. We need to be able to tell the difference between our own preferences/traditions and the moral declarations of God. We can sacrifice our preferences and traditions and remain righteous before God, but we must not sacrifice that which we know to be morally right. 
4. We must realize that we have a mandate from Jesus to speak his truth. We must also continue to participate, as long as possible, in the governmental process. In a constitutional republic such as ours, "citizen" is just as much an office as "Senator". We have a responsibility to individually and collectively be heard, even if self-imposed silence would be easier. 
5. We must expect that there will be consequences from government for defying its immoral laws, and those consequences will be extremely uncomfortable and stressful. 
6. We can expect to be betrayed and vilified by those we once considered friends and fellow believers. We will be shocked and saddened to see those we once viewed as stalwart believers abandon the faith for the sake of expediency. 
7. We must remember that Jesus has promised to never leave us or forsake us despite whatever our obedience to him may cost us. This life is temporary. Truth is eternal. 

And he said to all, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. - Luke 9:23-26 ESV

Was the American Revolution contrary to good Christian behavior?

[These are questions and comments excerpted from a discussion a few months back. I felt they were worth preserving before the disappeared into the FB ether.]This is the question posed: "I am asking if you think that was the mind set of our founding fathers. I have asked myself "if the church of today had to make the choice they made would we still be free?"ANSWER:

 If you notice in the Declaration of Independence the complaints are against the King because the Colonies had a legal contract with the King. If my memory serves me correctly, the political situation in England had changed since those contracts were written and Parliament was calling the shots. The colonies did not have a contract with Parliament but with a king whose power was greatly diminished. Rather than extending the same courtesy of representation to the colonies which was now enjoyed in England, they chose to treat English citizens on our side of the Atlantic as second class citizens by imposing taxes (which may have been reasonable) but denying representation in the legislative process. Additionally, the English had disbanded local forms of government necessary for civil preservation. The revolution was not just to overthrow "bad" government, but in many ways born out of a necessity. English civil government in the colonies was in many ways almost non-existent. This then, was a situation which left the colonies vulnerable to perils from within and without. To summarize then, the King was in breach of contract, Parliament had no legal jurisdiction over the colonies because they were chartered by the King, and there was a widespread absence of (and prevention of) necessary civil governing bodies.I'm not sure they had much choice.  It is also worth noting, I think, that the colonies did not declare "war" but "independence".

The follow up question: " Could their effort to gain independence be justified in New Testament scripture or would it be contrary to its teaching?"ANSWER:

 I think I can make a compelling case for them. Remember that the colonies were corporate ventures chartered by the king. Prior to the "revolution" their original governing system had been arbitrarily abolished, effectively putting the now impotent king in breach of contract. The new government system (essentially martial law) was being imposed by forces to whom they had neither contract nor obligation. Had they submitted to the marshal law as their new government they would not have been justified in the revolution, in my estimation. [The Boston tea party was to demonstrate non-submission].Because they did not submit to Parliament rule (unless afforded representation), they could view the British Army controlled by Parliament as an invading force, which it was. The purpose of the British army in the colonies was not to protect the colonies but to subjugate them to Parliament.The crazy thing is, that had they been granted representation, the revolution would not have occurred. Had they been granted limited self government, the revolution would not have occurred.Theirs was somewhat a unique situation in history. Since two of the older men who signed the DoI were ministers (Lyman Hall and John Witherspoon), I am sure your question was raised and addressed way back in the 1770's.The questions in light of this verse, I suppose, is [1] Did they pursue peace, and [2] were their motives just?

RE the U.S. Constitution:The Constitution is a whole other ball of wax, written several years later. Yes, separation of powers refers to branches of government. To be sure, the founders did not want to found a theocracy (or any other kind of "ocracy") but a Republic. The Republic worked because it's citizen's (by and large) recognized the virtue of Christian morality and ethics as individuals. This is reflected in our fundamental laws. Restitution, multiple witnesses for conviction, property rights, etc. are all based in a Judeo-Christian world view.

Another question: " In terms of relative hostility and/or oppressiveness, how would you rate the British rule over the colonies versus Rome with the Jews (and later, Christians) in the NT?"

ANSWER:The history of the Roman Empire is a long one and I am not sure that is an "apples to apples comparison". The Jews did somewhat successfully resist Roman occupation during the Maccabean era, and were justified to do so in my estimation. By the time of Christ however the hope of self government was pretty much gone and the working civil authority was in fact Roman. The judicial system was Roman. The roads were built by Romans. (Martial) law enforcement was Roman.While that system was far from perfect (ie. political manipulation led Pilate to sentence Jesus to death), it was a functional, established governmental system that did allow a considerable amount of freedom (as long as you were not perceived to be a threat to the system itself). Pilate "found no fault" in Christ and later Paul was held in protective custody and transported to Rome on Caesar's dime, just to make sure he received his appeal process.Roman persecution of the Jews was mostly the result, I think, of the unwillingness of the Jews to surrender to the invaders and the lingering zealot influence. If you do take up arms against a government, you can't really cry "foul" when things don't go your way.Early Christian persecution, ironically, was not fueled by the Roman's but by the local quasi-autonomous religious leadership and in some cases (ie. John the Baptizer) a personal vendetta.So, Jesus tells his disciples to "render unto Caesar" because that is existing established governmental system. It also seems to be the best viable governmental option at the time (try to visualize what Judea governed by the Sanhedrin would have looked like.) Paul also characterized the Roman governmental system as not being "a terror to good works".Later persecution of Christians was conducted by Rome under the Emperor Nero on a larger scale. By that time the Roman system was well on its way to a full implosion.The American Revolution is much more comparable to the early Maccabean period, I think, than the time of Christ. The governmental systems within the colonies was in a state of flux before hostilities began. The governmental system that had been a work under a British Sovereign (with whom they had contractual agreements) were being changed by Parliament who had engaged in usurpation within Britain proper. Theirs was a question of whether or not allegiance could or should be transferred. They had been content to be subjects of a monarch. They were not content to be the subjects of Parliament. I don't think the degree of hostilities and oppressiveness had a lot to do with it.

REFERENCES:http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.htmlhttp://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle%3D816&chapter=69270&layout=html&Itemid=27option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle%3D816&chapter=69270&layout=html&Itemid=27

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero

Concerning the imprisonment of Pastor Saeed Abedini

It seems to me that today there is a great deal of hand wringing going on among evangelicals concerning the imprisonment on Pastor Saeed Abedini. 

By all accounts he is a good man on a mission of mercy to help orphans. He has been accused of Christian evangelism and sentenced to eight years in an Iranian prison. He had to have known the risks when he went to Iran. I understand that this is a fearful time for his family and those close to him. I get all of that, and for that reason I write this with a great deal of somberness. 

We as Christians need to take a step back for a little "Kingdom" perspective.

This is not the first time a Christian preacher has been put in prison for the sake of the gospel. In fact Jesus told us these things would happen. As much as we love religious liberty, we should not forget that great revivals can happen in prison.

Do I want Pastor Abedini to be freed? Yes, but my hope is not in a rescue by the U.S. Government. My prayer is that he will bear such a witness to the saving power of Jesus Christ, that prisoners and guards alike will believe on Jesus Christ as their Savior. I want his freedom to come in a way that brings glory to Jesus Christ. 

As I understand it, he is being held in a notorious Iranian prison called "Evin Prison". It seems that in addition to hardened criminals, this prison holds many Iranian intellectuals who are incarcerated for political reasons. 


It is unlikely that any missions organization would be able to penetrate this Iranian prison, but now there is an evangelical pastor of Iranian descent, in this Iranian prison filled with potential national leaders. The Lord Jesus now has a light in a very dark place.

"Our Father in heaven, please grant Pastor Saeed Abedini courage and wisdom and favor and confirm you word in amazing ways!"

Pastor Saeed Abedini