Several days ago, I wrote a post titled Are Evangelicals Being “Persecuted” When Prosecuted for Breaking the Law? Burr left a thoughtful comment to which I would like to respond.
Burr wrote:
I agree that God’s law supersedes human law.
I’m thinking of Dr. King, Mahatma Gandhi, and Mr. Thoreau.
Which does raise questions:
Does God’s law require honoring man’s law where possible?
Does that require we willingly accept any and all legal consequences?
Does acceptance of all penalties fulfill the social contract?
Should Christians who break the law demand that all legal penalties be applied to them?
While Christians are free to believe that God’s law supersedes human law, we live in a secular society; one governed by secular laws applicable to all citizens regardless of religious belief. For Christians, God’s law is, at best, the moral and ethical framework by which they govern their lives. As a secular humanist, I have a moral and ethical framework governing my life too. Regardless of religious beliefs, all of us have moral and ethical values. However, those values are personal, and I would never demand others live by my moral and ethical beliefs. This is where (many) Christians get themselves in trouble. They assume their (allegedly) God-given values should apply to all people, in all circumstances. If we lived in a theocracy, I might agree with this claim, but we don’t. As citizens of a secular state, our goal should be to determine the laws and regulations by which we govern ourselves. That process is ongoing. The goal is the common good, and not adherence to the Bible (even though those two might, at times, overlap).
Separate from society’s laws are our own moral and ethical values. These may or may not agree with secular law. When there’s conflict, we must choose whether to obey the law or our values. If Christians choose to break the law and are arrested and prosecuted, does that mean they are being persecuted? Of course not. They are lawbreakers. Their obedience or disobedience to God is immaterial in a court of law. Their beliefs may drive them to break the law, but if they are arrested, it is because they are lawbreakers. And how could it be otherwise? It is impractical, if not impossible, to expect courts to divine theology. All that matters is whether the law was broken.
Religious persecution happens when the state or citizens attack churches, clerics, and congregants solely for their religious beliefs and practices. If the government goes after people of faith solely because their beliefs and practices are offensive or unacceptable in their eyes — but without legal justification — then that’s persecution. However, if a church violates building codes or Christians refuse to honor buffer zones at abortion clinics and are arrested, that’s not persecution. They are lawbreakers. Christians, due to their moral and ethical beliefs, are free to disobey the law, but if they are arrested, they are not being persecuted. Here’s the test: would a non-Christian receive the same punishment for the same crime? If so, it’s not persecution. Taking moral stands can and does put us in conflict with human law. It’s up to us to decide if we are willing to pay the price for our disobedience. If we are prosecuted, it is because we are lawbreakers, not persecution.
As a believer, Burr asks, “Does God’s law require honoring man’s law where possible?” The short answer is yes. Romans 13:1-7 says
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
It seems this text is saying that Christians should obey government authorities and pay taxes.
I Peter 2:13-17 adds:
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.
Again, it seems believers are commanded to obey the law. Not God’s law, human law. Of course, we do have Acts 5:25-29:
Then came one and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching the people. Then went the captain with the officers, and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned. And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
Peter and the other apostles said, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” Notice carefully that it is not the Roman government that arrested them. This was an internecine conflict between Christians and Jewish leaders. What legal authority Jewish leaders may or may not have had is unknown. While the Roman government would later persecute Christians, that’s not what is going on here. What we have is a clash between competing religious beliefs.
As a devout Christian, I thought I was commanded to obey human law, and the only time I should not do so was when that law conflicted with God’s law. A question that must be answered is what, exactly, is God’s law? No two Christians agree on the definition of God’s law. At best, “God’s law” is a believer’s personal interpretation of the Bible. This leads to Christians deeming all sorts of human laws contrary to God’s law. I have met Christians who believe government requiring a driver’s license, car insurance, or speed limits are violations of God’s law. To the person, they are libertarians. Their political views determine how they interpret the Bible and how they view government.
Christians are free to live according to God’s law — however it is interpreted. However, when obeying God’s law conflicts with human law, they shouldn’t expect to be given a pass. Sometimes, living out your faith comes at a cost. Christians are citizens of two countries — earthly and heavenly — and this will lead to conflict between their interpretations of the Bible and our secular legal code. If Christians choose to obey God over man and are arrested and prosecuted, their appearance before the court is not persecution. They are lawbreakers, regardless of their beliefs. Some Mormon sects believe men can marry young girls and have multiple wives. They choose to obey God over men. However, when arrested and prosecuted, are they being persecuted? No, they are lawbreakers.
Hopefully, this post fleshes out my thoughts a bit on this important subject. Please leave your thoughts in the comment section.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.
I agree entirely. Successful democratic countries require good government, and good government requires a sound system of law and justice. Those rules that determine how we co-exist in the societies in which we live are very much part of the social contract, and individuals are subject to those rules via the contract. Of course, those rules have been fabricated having heed to the thousands of conflicting opinions, customs, religions, and all the other issues that help form our society. Individuals are bound by those rules and can, in practice, opt out only by moving to a different regime. People think they are entitled to act independently of the society in which they live, but it’s impossible to opt out whilst living in a country: simply using the roads, buying goods, access to medical facilities, paying taxes, all are part of the social contract, and people can’t be allowed to cherrypick which laws they obey because of some personal belief.
Countries that place the laws of God above secular ones are not countries in which decent people want to live. Afghanistan, Iran, Syria and the likes come to mind. Though the way some US states are developing suggests that the problem may be getting nearer to home!
“Christians are free to live according to God’s law — however it is interpreted.”
In that statement is the exact reason why Christian nationalists wouldn’t want to live in a Christian theocracy of any kind. Whose interpretation of God’s law would they follow.? Forget about the disputes between Catholics, members of Evangelical and Fundamentalist churches, Mormons and any other group of believers you care to name. People within sects can’t always agree on what a particular Bible verse, let alone a clause in the Constitution, means. And every one of them—save, perhaps for liberal-ish Catholics and mainstream Protestants —believes they are not interpreting; rather, they are convicted they are reading the Word—whether in Romans or the Second Amendment—exactly as it’s intended.
That is what makes theocracies such awful places to live: No matter how pious you are, you never know when your beliefs will come into conflict with those of whoever is in power.
Let’s not forget individuals who sincerely believe they are obeying God’s command while they are breaking secular law (like Lori and Chad Daybell who killed 2 children because of a religious belief that they had become zombies and needed to be killed to be free of zombie-ism). Most reasonable people, even fundamentalist Christians, would agree that the Daybells’ killing of the 2 children was wrong. But a case could be made that they were sincere in following their religious beliefs, obeying God rather than man. Where is the line? Whose sincere religious beliefs take precedence?
I think a certain type of Christian also calls anything difficult “persecution.” They are collecting grievances they can parade. There is nothing humble or loving about these types, because in reality, they are puffing up themselves.
A thoughtful, and quite correct, answer.
Thank you, Bruce. You do honor me with your response.
Further, this follows an informed discussion of the meaning of the social contract, and how it applies to law.
I like to think I would be willing to break a clearly immoral law, and would do so openly.
But I hope I would also demand that penalties against me be rigidly applied.
One clear exception would be when doing so would put innocents into harm’s way. For example, I would be breaking the law in Nazi controlled countries in the 1930s and 40s if I helped Jews to hide from extermination. Acting in the open would endanger those I was hiding.
Mohandas Gandhi openly broke British law in India, said so in court, and was convicted. His famous lecture to a judge at sentencing serves as an example to me.
Gandhi suggested that, if the magistrate truly believed in the system of law he had sworn to uphold, he had a moral obligation to impose the harshest possible punishment allowed by that law. Otherwise, Gandhi said, the judge was obligated to resign his position.
I think willing accepting penalties is an important part in fulfilling the social contract.
I am saddened whenever my brothers and sisters in Christ break the law, then leave this part out.
Thank you again, Bruce.
I suspect you are not offended when I say you are a blessing.
Yes, Mr. Deming, Bruce’s blog IS a blessing, because for one thing, the topics he covers are about things that need to be known and discussed. I do worry about Christians supporting policies and leaders who could really harm this country, like with Project 2025. And leaders who are part of the White supremacists movement, who have hijacked the churches, much of this because church goers are told to only pray, not think. If P25 goes through, this indeed could lead to Anti- Christian hate, which some groups really want, because persecution would validate their position.
Yes, Bruce is a blessing. I turn to this blog when I get frustrated about things like Project 2025 so I do not make my husband listen to my frustrations all the time. Some Christians think scientific research which has proven humans are heating up the planet with CO2 from fossil fuel use are not correct. They should not have to obey laws which limit CO2 production. They are breaking human law just like if they poured gasoline on their neighbor’s front yard and set it on fire.
Hi Elliot-
I copied a link from the US State Department about this topic. There are a small number of sanctioned churches in N. Korea (including a recently opened Russian Orthodox Church, opened at Putin’s request), but in reality the free practice of religion for their citizens is reportedly a no-no. I can only post what I find, but I don’t think the human rights abuses of N. Korea are false or exaggerated. Of course, religious folks are not the only ones persecuted in the Hermit Kingdom, plenty of atheists who inadvertently say the wrong thing about Kim Jung Un end up in labor-death camps as well.
From what I have read, the government of N. Korea is the closest thing to Orwell’s fictional government of “1984”.
Hence my original argument that Christians in the US have no idea what real persecution looks like. Even in the most liberal of states, folks have no impediments to the practice of their religion. It’s just that they have to actually tolerate folks who don’t feel the same way they do on just about everything. So they conflate discomfort with “persecution”.
https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/north-korea/