Is Non-Violent Resistance a Viable Christian Option?

on November 18, 2013

Presbyterians envision the church’s relationship with society and government in a variety of ways. Take the Westminster Divines for example. Authors of the single most influential Presbyterian confession, they evince a deferential relationship between church and state. In the Confession of Faith the church is understood to have a religious mission related to the maintenance of divine worship and spiritual growth (see WCF 25). The state’s role is envisioned as principally one of restraint—it exists to stop people doing wicked things and to punish them when they do. A corollary to this is the state’s role in defending the innocent. The expectation is that Christians will ordinarily demur to the state in matters temporal (WCF 23.4).

The Divines were clear that it is the duty of the Christian to obey the magistrates’ “just and legal authority” regardless of his opinion either of the magistrate or of the ruling. The Confession makes no provision for non-violent resistance or intentional disobedience: “…[T]hey who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God” (WCF 20.4).

At the same time, the Confession sets the duty of the magistrate in the context of what it calls, “the public good.” The state cannot do whatsoever it wishes. It may only do what serves the public good and, “maintain[s] piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth.”

The state has a duty to protect the ius naturalis—that is, the natural rights—of its countrymen. These rights are established in nature and demonstrable in the tradition of western civilization. Incidentally, they differ from rights that are created out of nothing by a government (positive rights).

What happens when a duly elected legislature enacts a series of laws that many of its constituents believe are unfair and/or unjust? How ought Christians to respond?

Does the church, as the church, have anything to say in such an instance? These questions are quite real in the state of North Carolina where a movement of clergy has regularly protested actions of the state legislature and in so doing resist the lawful and duly elected General Assembly.

Moral Monday—as this clergy movement has called itself—was on the docket for the recent annual meeting of the Social Ethics Network, a group of Presbyterian ethicists and ethicists of other denominational affiliation who teach at Presbyterian-related schools.

The network serves as a consultant to the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy, which in turn guides the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) in the formation of social witness policy.

The denominational website describes the network’s major roles as follows: (1) to foster community among Presbyterian ethicists, (2) to learn about social witness on that campus through interaction with faculty, administrators and students, (3) to consult with one another on current concerns in church and society, and (4) to expand their teaching range and engagement with the church by examining recent and under-preparation Presbyterian social witness reports.

Meeting at Wake Forest University the gathering was co-convened by Wake Forest Divinity School faculty member John Senior and Columbia Seminary ethicist Mark Douglas and featured a panel presentation and discussion of the non-violent protest movement that has arisen to protest actions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

The legislative agenda of the North Carolina Republican majority has been comprehensive. In 2012, for the first time since reconstruction, the Republican Party held majorities in both houses of the General Assembly and also the Governor’s mansion.

Seizing this historic opportunity the General Assembly enacted, and the Governor signed, a series of controversial laws. These included: repealing the North Carolina estate tax, substantial changes to North Carolina election law, repeal of the North Carolina Racial Justice Act, abolition of the teacher tenure system, refusal to expand the state Medicaid program, and significant strengthening of state abortion law. Changes to the state unemployment program, for example, decreased the maximum benefit payable to the unemployed by more than 33%. This made the state ineligible for more than $700 million in federal aid. Repealing the Racial Justice Act means that death row inmates may not appeal their sentence exclusively on the basis of their race, there must also be some alleged error of law to precipitate an appeal.

The response from mainline clergy has been swift and visible. Speaking to the Washington Post, North Carolina NAACP president Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II said, “They [NC Republicans] are literally hurting people, and it is wrong. It’s about violating people’s deepest moral values. Even when you have a majority, you’re not allowed to violate moral values.” This, of course, sounds compelling but in reality it happens every day. The act of paying taxes, for example, funds our armed forces in violation of the moral values of pacifists.

Many speculate on the motivations of the Republican majority. The Rev Frank Dew of Salem Presbytery of the PC (USA) noted, “I feel like our state has been hijacked.” It is, of course, an understandable feeling given the rapid and extensive nature of the change. At the same time, however, it ought to be noted that these changes are not happening in a vacuum.

With an unemployment rate of close to 9% North Carolina has the fifth highest jobless rate and has been struggling with a $2 billion debt to the Federal government. That debt was created when the state found itself needing to borrow in order to meet its benefits obligations during the height of the Great Recession.

The reduction of the unemployment benefit is part of a two-pronged approach to shoring up the state’s finances. The second prong includes an increase of state corporation tax, something not typically associated with the Republican Party.

It seems then that there are competing interests here. And the way in which Presbyterian Christians respond to this situation will vary. On the one hand, the argument can clearly be made that seeking the common good must necessarily include benefits such as unemployment compensation for those who have, through no faulty of their own, lost their job. At the same given the high rate of unemployment in the state, could maintaining or expanding the amount of the benefit place the entire system in jeopardy? Given the fact that record high benefits payouts necessitated borrowing from the Federal government to meet them, the answer seems to be yes. As the state struggles to pay benefits to a staggeringly high number of residents it could be endangering its own financial stability thereby jeopardizing more than those who are unemployed but all of us.

As the state government considers how it can advance the good of the commonwealth, its first duty is to protect the natural rights of its people. The Declaration of Independence enumerates these unalienable rights as: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” And while many find the actions of the North Carolina General Assembly objectionable, none of those actions impinges the natural rights of North Carolinians. Even the repeal of the Racial Justice Act doesn’t rise to that level. It simply removes a special condition that existed to make an appeal. It does not alter the burden of proof born by the prosecution—to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Every action alters a legal right, one created by the legislature and therefore within the legislature’s prerogative to remove. Christians may disagree with these actions, but we are not in a place to disobey or defy the lawful act of our government. Instead, we are called both to pray for our public servants and to act within the system to create a better way forward. Let’s do just that.

No comments yet

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.