In the mid ‘80’s, a national movement arose in Britain called the Snowball campaign. It grew from CND, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. It started in a small way, but it grew bigger and bigger, hence the name Snowball.
The campaign involved cutting a single strand of the perimeter fence of any military establishment which carried nuclear weapons. One such establishment was said to be the US airbase at Sculthorpe, on the outskirts of Fakenham.
One of the protesters was a young woman deacon whom the campaigners made sure they used for maximum publicity. That of course, was the object of the exercise. They made sure the police were informed of their intentions, so that as soon as that single strand of wire was cut, the police had no option but to arrest those responsible. Then the courts throughout the land became quickly clogged up hearing cases against the protesters, and justice in Britain for everyone else ground almost to a halt.
Opinions were strongly divided over this issue. An argument was that every citizen had the right to protest, but no-one had the right to break the law by causing criminal damage, even a small degree of criminal damage. And no-one had the right to protest at the expense of other people already waiting perhaps a long time in the justice system.
Many agreed with that argument. "There are channels through which to protest," they said. "In a democracy, people who feel that strongly should use the proper channels, and protest through parliament, not go around damaging defence property."
The campaign involved cutting a single strand of the perimeter fence of any military establishment which carried nuclear weapons. One such establishment was said to be the US airbase at Sculthorpe, on the outskirts of Fakenham.
One of the protesters was a young woman deacon whom the campaigners made sure they used for maximum publicity. That of course, was the object of the exercise. They made sure the police were informed of their intentions, so that as soon as that single strand of wire was cut, the police had no option but to arrest those responsible. Then the courts throughout the land became quickly clogged up hearing cases against the protesters, and justice in Britain for everyone else ground almost to a halt.
Opinions were strongly divided over this issue. An argument was that every citizen had the right to protest, but no-one had the right to break the law by causing criminal damage, even a small degree of criminal damage. And no-one had the right to protest at the expense of other people already waiting perhaps a long time in the justice system.
Many agreed with that argument. "There are channels through which to protest," they said. "In a democracy, people who feel that strongly should use the proper channels, and protest through parliament, not go around damaging defence property."
Those who supported the protesters said: "Not so. We could all be wiped out through nuclear war before parliament gets round to doing anything. This is a very good way of raising public awareness of the huge dangers of nuclear war. And this is a very gentle protest, with no violence involved. If the law is wrong or inadequate, it needs to be broken. These people are protesting on behalf of all of us, and they're prepared to go to prison for their beliefs."
And prison was the eventual consequence for all those who cut a strand of wire, including the woman deacon.
So, should Christians obey the law, whatever their individual beliefs? Should Christians always choose legal ways of protesting if they don't like the actions of the government? Or should Christians break the law if they consider government is itself breaking God's law?
St. Paul is pretty clear in his letter to the Romans, often considered to be his foundation document, the letter which most clearly sets out his theology. In chapter 13 he says: "You must all obey the governing authorities….The authorities are appointed by God and are there to serve God…. All government officials are God's officers." (Rom. 13:1-7)
The letter to the Romans is thought to have been written between AD 54 and AD 59, a time when the state was authoritarian. Paul's words in Romans seem to affirm the words of Jesus in today's gospel reading: "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. And give to God what belongs to God." And this desire to uphold the Roman empire as the divinely ordained protector of law and order, is echoed in the first letter of Peter, despite the Roman persecution of Christians which was current at the time.
So the NT is clearly warning against anarchism. But conversely, the book of Revelation regards Rome as the enemy of God. And Acts 5:29 says: We must obey God rather than men.
Perhaps Jesus' words and the implication in the letter to the Romans isn't unquestioning obedience under any circumstances, but is rather a claim on Christians to behave responsibly. Surely if obedience to the state is in clear conflict with God's laws, Christians can still consider themselves subject to the state, yet seriously and responsibly oppose the state.
Let’s look at Nazi Germany in the 1930’s and 40’s. The eminent theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer shifted from Christian pacifism to a point when in 1939 Bonhoeffer joined a hidden group of high-ranking military officers based in the Military Intelligence Office, who wanted to overthrow the National Socialist regime by killing Hitler. He was arrested in April 1943 after money used to help Jews escape to Switzerland was traced to him, and he was charged with conspiracy. He was imprisoned in Berlin for a year and a half. After the unsuccessful July 20 Plot in 1944, connections of Bonhoeffer to the conspirators were discovered, he was moved to a series of prisons and concentration camps ending at Flossenburg. Here, Bonhoeffer was executed by hanging at dawn on 9 April 1945, just three weeks before the liberation of the city. Bonhoeffer considered that killing Hitler would have been the less bad option. Less bad than letting Hitler carry on with the mass killings.
For us in England in 2007, the problem perhaps arises in identifying whether or not the State is in conflict with God's laws. All types of government, even corrupt ones, will probably act in accordance with God's laws some of the time, and against them the rest of the time.
We're fortunate enough to live in a country where the State, generally, follows God's laws most of the time. But that probably makes it even more difficult to identify any moves away from God's laws. And because the State has largely Christian values, does it mean we should accept the whole package with unquestioning obedience? Or should we be looking much more carefully at the actions of the State, and raising Christian uproar whenever we think the State is moving away from God's laws?
Is the State acting for or against God's laws in its stance towards nuclear weapons, the Middle East, poverty or fair trade? Is it for or against God's laws in its objective to maintain income tax levels, when the NHS and our education system appear to be in danger of crumbling for lack of funds? In the level of aid it gives to third World countries? In regarding some degree of pollution as acceptable? In encouraging the use of GM foods? And so on.
And if any of these things are against God's laws, are any of them sufficiently important to justify breaking the law of the land?
The press often complains about lack of leadership in the Church of England. About how the established church is perceived to keep silent when it should be protesting. But we are the Church of England. If we felt strongly enough to inform our leaders, perhaps the Church would speak out more often.
Politics, the rule of government, is about real people and the lives they lead. Maybe the challenge to Christians today is to take much more interest in politics. To become much better informed about politics and the law of the land, even at the risk that that interest might cause us to protest against the government.
Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. But let's also make sure that Caesar as well as us gives unto God that which is God's.
And prison was the eventual consequence for all those who cut a strand of wire, including the woman deacon.
So, should Christians obey the law, whatever their individual beliefs? Should Christians always choose legal ways of protesting if they don't like the actions of the government? Or should Christians break the law if they consider government is itself breaking God's law?
St. Paul is pretty clear in his letter to the Romans, often considered to be his foundation document, the letter which most clearly sets out his theology. In chapter 13 he says: "You must all obey the governing authorities….The authorities are appointed by God and are there to serve God…. All government officials are God's officers." (Rom. 13:1-7)
The letter to the Romans is thought to have been written between AD 54 and AD 59, a time when the state was authoritarian. Paul's words in Romans seem to affirm the words of Jesus in today's gospel reading: "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. And give to God what belongs to God." And this desire to uphold the Roman empire as the divinely ordained protector of law and order, is echoed in the first letter of Peter, despite the Roman persecution of Christians which was current at the time.
So the NT is clearly warning against anarchism. But conversely, the book of Revelation regards Rome as the enemy of God. And Acts 5:29 says: We must obey God rather than men.
Perhaps Jesus' words and the implication in the letter to the Romans isn't unquestioning obedience under any circumstances, but is rather a claim on Christians to behave responsibly. Surely if obedience to the state is in clear conflict with God's laws, Christians can still consider themselves subject to the state, yet seriously and responsibly oppose the state.
Let’s look at Nazi Germany in the 1930’s and 40’s. The eminent theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer shifted from Christian pacifism to a point when in 1939 Bonhoeffer joined a hidden group of high-ranking military officers based in the Military Intelligence Office, who wanted to overthrow the National Socialist regime by killing Hitler. He was arrested in April 1943 after money used to help Jews escape to Switzerland was traced to him, and he was charged with conspiracy. He was imprisoned in Berlin for a year and a half. After the unsuccessful July 20 Plot in 1944, connections of Bonhoeffer to the conspirators were discovered, he was moved to a series of prisons and concentration camps ending at Flossenburg. Here, Bonhoeffer was executed by hanging at dawn on 9 April 1945, just three weeks before the liberation of the city. Bonhoeffer considered that killing Hitler would have been the less bad option. Less bad than letting Hitler carry on with the mass killings.
For us in England in 2007, the problem perhaps arises in identifying whether or not the State is in conflict with God's laws. All types of government, even corrupt ones, will probably act in accordance with God's laws some of the time, and against them the rest of the time.
We're fortunate enough to live in a country where the State, generally, follows God's laws most of the time. But that probably makes it even more difficult to identify any moves away from God's laws. And because the State has largely Christian values, does it mean we should accept the whole package with unquestioning obedience? Or should we be looking much more carefully at the actions of the State, and raising Christian uproar whenever we think the State is moving away from God's laws?
Is the State acting for or against God's laws in its stance towards nuclear weapons, the Middle East, poverty or fair trade? Is it for or against God's laws in its objective to maintain income tax levels, when the NHS and our education system appear to be in danger of crumbling for lack of funds? In the level of aid it gives to third World countries? In regarding some degree of pollution as acceptable? In encouraging the use of GM foods? And so on.
And if any of these things are against God's laws, are any of them sufficiently important to justify breaking the law of the land?
The press often complains about lack of leadership in the Church of England. About how the established church is perceived to keep silent when it should be protesting. But we are the Church of England. If we felt strongly enough to inform our leaders, perhaps the Church would speak out more often.
Politics, the rule of government, is about real people and the lives they lead. Maybe the challenge to Christians today is to take much more interest in politics. To become much better informed about politics and the law of the land, even at the risk that that interest might cause us to protest against the government.
Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. But let's also make sure that Caesar as well as us gives unto God that which is God's.
Many Blessings,
Gareth
