When Breaking the Law Becomes a Moral Obligation
A Greenland or Gyr Falcon, circa 1900 by Archibald Thornburn
A couple of months ago I was standing outside the home of a young Canadian pastor when he showed me an email he had just received. A human rights case has been launched against a small church in rural Ontario, Canada. If it is successful, the church will be forced to revise its hiring policy to be "inclusive" of the full range of sexual expression and gender identities that secular Canadian culture currently accepts and promotes. It may take months before a ruling is made, but if successful, churches that desire to follow an authentic Christianity (1) will find it morally impossible to comply with the ruling, regardless of what the penalties may be.
This issue is not limited to devout Christians. A few weeks ago, I had a most enjoyable visit one evening with a thoughtful, insightful man who describes himself as an atheist. Over the course of our conversation, it struck me that he and I share very similar moral convictions, which should not be surprising given the moral intuitions God has given all people (though they can often be suppressed or distorted). He illustrated the fact that one does not have to believe in God to experience a trampling of moral values by our contemporary, sexuality-centered, and gender-focused culture to the extent that it seemed to him our institutions today have taken leave of their senses. The depth and speed of this moral and rational collapse make it seem as if there is something driving humanity to destroy itself in every way, with the consequence that many find themselves in a very difficult moral dilemma between freedom of conscience and obeying increasingly immoral and destructive laws.
Dehumanization of humanity: When our basic, undisciplined desires and (shall we say) ‘animal’ drives become the central focus of our lives and are supported and enforced by the legislation of institutional authorities, then what we witness is the dehumanization or ‘animalization’ of our society. Human beings are living souls with minds that should mature toward higher levels of truth and beauty, but when our basic animal desires and wants overrule the mind, we abdicate a major attribute of what makes us human and distinct from other animals. We have a moral obligation from God to obey those in authority, but when the laws of an increasingly morally bankrupt society reach a point where they begin to contradict and violate higher moral laws, a moral choice must be made in favor of the higher authority.
A hideous strength: In C.S. Lewis's novel That Hideous Strength, an obscene evil is unleashed on humanity––an allegory of what the Bible prophesies concerning the end of human history. Such a hideous strength exists, spoken of by Jesus of Nazareth, and it is the driving force behind the speed and depth of what can be described as the dehumanization of humanity. Jesus spoke of a very real being who, temporarily, is the "ruler of this world" (2) and "the Father of Lies." (3) There is nothing more dangerous than an enemy that is already within the castle walls but the population is blissfully unaware.
Think about this for a moment … when we combine "ruler of this world" with "Father of Lies," we have a being who is the Master of Deception––the Ultimate Puppeteer under whose influence are all the human institutions and governments. We have a master manipulator before whom the most artful, nuanced, and brilliant human negotiators and deal-makers are naïve ‘children in the woods’ by comparison––if they rely on their own intelligence and wisdom rather than God's. The Father of Lies has an endgame for humanity––to manipulate humanity into total, mutual self-destruction, both individually and collectively. It is within this context that one of Jesus's titles, "Savior,” gains a whole new level of appreciation because there is someone vastly higher than the "ruler of this world.” This "King of Kings" will come at a time such that, "if those days had not been cut short, no life would have been saved." (4)
Stay on task: When everything is disintegrating around us it is easy to become distracted from one’s specific mission in life and become reactive. Even if one is morally compelled to break the law, one must continue to stay the course in fulfilling one’s mission. So, what is the specific mission that God has given you? Few people have a clear understanding and conviction of their personal, specific calling, which is most unfortunate. Our overall mission in this world is to prepare to meet God and help others do the same. Within that context, we are all different, with a variety of gifts and callings that God has equipped us with to carry out our particular part in that larger mission. No matter how bad it gets, one must not allow oneself to be distracted from the specific mission God has given us.
We are on a collision course with that hideous strength that is gaining increased control over all human institutions and governments. There will come a day and it is already at the gates, when we will be forced to choose who we will surrender to and serve, and when that day comes, breaking laws spawned in the mind of the Father of Lies and legislated by human authorities will become a moral obligation. This raises three problems.
Three problems: When the authorities and institutions of a society begin to violate the moral convictions of the individual, there are three questions:
Where is the moral line that must not be crossed?
What should we do as “salt and light” to stand up for what is right?
If we are morally obligated to break the law, how should we proceed?
Each of these warrants sober and careful thought. Here, I will focus only on the third problem. When an authority or institution requires them to violate their own conscience if they are a non-theist, or violate the basic moral laws God has given humanity if they are a devout Christian, both the non-theist and the authentic Christian find themselves in a dilemma––how should they proceed in the face of an immoral law?
The dilemma: The dilemma is that we are generally expected to obey those in authority and the laws of the land, whether one is a Christian or not. For the sincere Christian who has the obligation of representing Jesus Christ to our culture, to go against the institutional authorities may be very unpopular, possibly driving people away from God whom we represent. We desire to build bridges, not burn them. But Jesus has already said that humanity will reach such a state of evil that those who follow Christ “will be hated by all because of my name.” (5) We cannot both please the world as well as God. To submit to laws that violate our conscience and God's moral laws is to abdicate our duty as an "ambassador of Christ." (6) One cannot become servile to the Father of Lies and still serve the "King of kings.” (7)
The New Testament contains a general command to be subject to the governing authorities. (8) The reason given is that "there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God," even if the government is not at all what one desires. (9) As in most judicial systems around the world, however, a law often includes specific exceptions, and when the law requires a person to cross the moral line, God’s expectation is that we choose to obey God rather than man.
"Just following orders": At the Nuremberg Trials after World War II, most of the defendants did not deny their involvement in the deaths of an enormous number of innocent people. Rather, they excused what they did on the basis that they were following the orders of their superiors, more technically known as the 'Superior orders' defense, often used throughout history and into the current day. (10) It is usually recognized as a valid defense if the person was forced, especially on pain of death, to carry out the order. For the defendants at the Nuremberg trials, however, this was not the case, as pointed out by historian Doris Bergen––the Nazi system did not force its soldiers to carry out an order against their conscience––there were plenty of others who were willing to step in instead. (11) The 'Superior orders' defense, however, does not stand in a court of law if the person ordered to carry out the command is aware that it violates a higher law such as International Law, the Geneva Convention, or as Nitesh Mishra wrote, if it is "blatantly immoral." (10) This has implications if institutions of authority make up laws that are immoral.
The point of non-compliance: There is general agreement that lower court rulings must give way to rulings made by a higher court. Similarly, the commands of lesser authorities are overruled by the commands of those higher in authority. The question is, what is the highest authority of all? There are many people in our culture today who believe their own, personal authority trumps all other authority. Of all people, they are most easily manipulated by the 'ultimate puppeteer.' For others, it is the Supreme Court or the government. Highest of all is God, the creator of the universe and the origin of "every good thing given and every perfect gift." (12) For the non-theist, the point of non-compliance is reached when an authority, court, or government makes a ruling, or law that violates their own, strongly-held moral values although the grounds and/or authority of those values can be problematic. For the authentic Christian, the tipping point is reached when a law or ruling stands in contradiction to what God, the ultimate authority, has commanded. When a higher authority overrules a lower authority, one is morally obligated to disobey the law made by the lower authority, even if it is one's own Supreme Court or government.
Question: How should one proceed when one has a moral obligation to break the law?
Choice historical context: We have accounts of three different approaches that took place during the Babylon and Medo-Persian Empires that are as relevant today as they were in the past. Each one illustrates a different situation and a different solution as described below.
The setting: In 597 BC, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, conquered Judea, deported many of the Jews to Babylon, and subsequently utterly destroyed the city of Jerusalem and the temple. It is likely that thousands of Jews were killed by the Babylonians. What makes this historical context so interesting is that God revealed to Nebuchadnezzar, as well as the prophet Daniel and the Jews, that he sets up all human rulers and takes them down and that it was God who had raised up Nebuchadnezzar to destroy God's own people due to their great wickedness at the time.
Three solutions: The fascinating point is this; all three of the following examples occur within the context of a government that caused terrible suffering to the Jews but was actually set up by God, yet there was a moral obligation to break a particular law by that very government.
1. Find a solution within the system: After Jerusalem was taken by the Babylonians, three exceptional, young Jewish men, connected with Judean royalty, were taken into the service of the king of Babylon. They were first castrated to become eunuchs (a common practice in ancient courts), then given three years of the best education in the Babylonian Empire. During their training, they were to be fed with Nebuchadnezzar's choice food and wine––normally considered to be a great honor and privilege. The problem, however, was that the king's choice of food included items that violated the food laws given by God at Mt Sinai, resulting in a moral conflict for the young men.
In this case, we read that one of the four, Daniel, resolved that he would not comply with the king's command but his first move was to seek permission from the commander of the eunuchs to be exempted from the King's command. Since the intent of the King's law was to have his officials appear to be in good health, Daniel proposed a ten-day period of eating only food that God permitted the Jews to eat, to see what effect it had on their health. The official granted the experiment and it turned out that it was a success. Thus, Daniel and his friends were given an exemption negotiated within the system, that satisfied the intent of the king's decree, but not the literal 'letter of the law.’
Application today: The first option is to see if a solution can be worked out within the existing governing system. For example, if the authorities recognize freedom of religion, one might obtain an exception from having to comply with certain laws. (13) Within the workplace, one might be granted an exception by presenting one's case through the appropriate channels or in the courts.
2. Quiet non-compliance: Daniel became a highly-ranked official in both the Babylonian and Medo-Persian Empires. During the reign of Darius, a number of other officials saw Daniel as an impediment to their own ambitions. They persuaded Darius to sign an injunction preventing anyone from petitioning god or man for 30 days; only petitions to King Darius would be permitted during this period. They devised this knowing that Daniel was a devout man who could not possibly comply with a Medo-Persian law that he knew was superseded by God.
Daniel's solution was quiet non-compliance. He made no public announcements and did not tell the King he was going to disobey the law. He simply went to the privacy of his own upper room and continued his daily practice of praying to God. The conspirators, however, arranged to catch him in the act and he was punished as specified in the law––thrown alive into an enclosure of lions. We cannot say something is good simply because it is recorded in a historical narrative in the Bible but in this case, we observe that God protected Daniel throughout the night. We can, therefore, infer that quiet non-compliance is an option when breaking the law becomes a moral obligation.
More recent example: In the 1980's I worked in the USSR and three other communist countries where telling people about Jesus Christ was against the law. One pastor, in one of those countries, told me they had 60 house churches meeting in secret throughout the city ... quiet non-compliance in action.
3. Open non-compliance: During the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, the king had his craftsmen build a golden image roughly 30 meters high and 3 meters wide. He then ordered all his officials throughout his empire to attend the dedication of the image. When the music played, they were all to fall down and worship the image. The three colleagues of Daniel who were involved in the earlier food example, were among those officials who were commanded to worship the image.
They were in a very awkward spot indeed. The unfolding situation made negotiation impossible. When the music played and everyone fell down on their faces to worship the image, they stood out in the crowd “like sore thumbs,” as it were. Their backs to the wall, committed to worship God alone, and completely out of options, they flat-out disobeyed the law in the presence of hundreds of the top officials of the land. Even when Nebuchadnezzar was willing to give them a second chance their reply was,
“Be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.” (14)
The king became enraged at this blatant, very public insubordination and the consequences were immediate. They were thrown alive into a raging-hot furnace stoked so powerfully that the men who threw them in were killed. In this case, God appeared in the fire and kept them and their clothes from being harmed. However, that may not always happen––thousands of authentic Christians die for their faith every year around the world. (15)
We have another example in the New Testament where the apostles were commanded by the authorities to no longer speak about Jesus Christ. Their reply was,
"Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard." (16)
They got off that time with a warning, but as they continued to tell people about Jesus Christ, every one of the twelve was killed save for John, who died in exile on the Isle of Patmos. In both cases, a reason was given to the authorities as to why they would not be complying. Whether the authorities liked or agreed with the reason was utterly irrelevant; it was simply a courtesy stating there would be no compliance and why.
What about fighting back?: Our natural instinct is to immediately think of human institutions as the enemy when, in fact, God says that our enemy is not "flesh and blood" but the "world forces of darkness." Human governments and institutions are the puppets; it is the Puppeteer––the ‘Father of Lies’ who is the real enemy. (17) We are already in a very real war, far more lethal and dangerous than any physical war fought throughout history and that is where we should, right now as we speak, be engaged. How we do that deserves a major article on its own.
Summary: There is a hierarchy of authority in this world that does not end with a Supreme Court, government, or dictator. The highest authority of all is God. If we are to represent God in this world and share the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then when we find ourselves morally obligated to break the law we have three options illustrated in the Bible, all of which honor God. It is essential, however, that when that happens, we stay on task, focused on our mission––both the overall mission of preparing to meet God and helping others do the same––as well as the personal calling God has given the individual as part of that larger mission.
Note: If you would like to know more about how to prepare to meet God, you may be interested in this article I wrote, or anonymously connecting with an online mentor.
References:
By ‘authentic Christianity’ I think of the kind of Christianity whereby one has honestly and sincerely put their faith in Christ and totally desires to follow him rather than a merely religious set of rules, or a culture-led type of secular Christianity. Something Jesus said describes this, when he said, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it.” (Luke 9:23,24)
Romans 13:1 and Titus 3:1
In Daniel 4 we have a case where Nebuchadnezzar was clearly set into power by God, yet he had conquered Judah, killed many Jews, and destroyed Jerusalem and the temple. The observation here is that God may set up rulers and governments but that does not mean we should expect them to be wonderful. Some of them are put in place to discipline a nation.
Obeying Orders, Facing History and Ourselves, 2017. For a more technical discussion, see Nitesh Mishra, 'Superior orders as a defence in criminal law’, Law Times Journal, 2019.
Doris L. Bergen, War and Genocide: A Concise History of the Holocaust, 3rd ed. 2016.
A religious exemption or accommodation may have certain legal prerequisites that vary from country to country. One should obtain legal guidance before claiming a religious exemption so that it is applied for with the best chance of success. If one anticipates a possible situation in the future where a religious exemption might be required, it is definitely wise to get well-informed, legal advice right now so that the legal prerequisites are in place if needed.
‘Christian persecution higher than ever as Open Door’s World Watch list marks 30 years’, January 17, 2023