In 1849, writer/philosopher Henry Thoreau published the well-known essay Civil Disobedience. He was an abolitionist and objected to the institution of slavery as well as involvement in the Mexican-American War. Thoreau argues that our government is based on the point of view of the majority, which may not necessarily be morally right. Thoreau indicated that an individual does not have the responsibility to eliminate evils, but that he has the moral imperative to not participate in them. He further argues that the individual has the obligation to follow what he believes is right, and in so doing should disobey unjust laws. The question of when civil disobedience is better than obedience to law is intriguing, and certainly not reserved for the 19th century. It is as timely a topic today as it was during Thoreau’s life.
When does belief trump law? Some time ago, a pastor in Arizona made the headlines because he received a jail sentence and $12,000 fine for conducting a Bible study in his home. It was an issue over building code usage in an addition he had build that attached to his house. Apparently there had been a four-year conflict involving the homeowner, his neighbors, and the town’s officials. Some argue that he deserved the consequences because he violated the codes. The media argued that he was wrong to not comply with municipal codes, but that the punishment meted out to him was excessive and unjust. Finally, others argue that he should not have been fined or jailed at all because he has the right to use his home as he chooses.
What does God’s word have to say about our civic responsibilities and response to government? In Mark 12:17, in response to whether or not the disciples should give tribute to Caesar, Jesus says, “…Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Romans 13:1-7) reiterates the same principle of obeying the law of the land and that is the godly thing to do. As law abiding and peace loving people, we should indeed obey the law so that there is civil rest and safety for our communities. Our testimony of living should be one of peaceable living that brings honor to the Kingdom of God.
BUT… what if the laws of the land are unjust? What if the laws conflict with God’s Word? An example of this occurred when Peter and the disciples were brought before the authorities. They were given strict orders by the high priest to refrain from spreading the gospel, but then disregarded those directives and continued to preach. When brought before the law again, Peter and the apostles responded, “We must obey God rather than man (Acts 5:29).” Paul’s imprisonment was a result of his conflict with Roman law for the sake of the gospel. When given the ultimatum to either obey man’s law or God’s Word, scripture clearly tells us that we must obey God. The history of Christianity has abundant examples of martyrs who gave their lives rather than disobey God. In some places Christians are enduring violent conflict with their country’s laws and are being brutally persecuted and murdered for the sake of the gospel.
Let’s think about that Arizona pastor as an example. Was he right to continue having Bible studies in his home when he was duly served notice about the building codes? On the one hand, we can see that having a Bible study at your home regularly twice a week with cars lined up along the streets might annoy some neighbors. Furthermore, we can agree that building codes are presumably designed for the safety and protection of the community. We also can agree that the complete information on this case has been sketchy and there may be some misinformation as we can only rely on new media for information. It also seems obvious that the penalty that was meted out was designed to be harsh enough to send the message that the community wants that activity in that location stopped. The nagging question is whether the complaint was about people being annoyed about an on-going weekly meeting in a residential area or the fact that is was a religious activity.
We question whether or not the same would have applied if the building were used for some other activities other than Bible studies. Would the town crack down on people having parties or other social activities on a regular basis? Is government now going to judge what constitutes social gatherings? Millions of people gather weekly in homes all over the country to share their faith and look into the Bible for edification, instruction, and comfort. Is it less of a social event than baby shower? Because people choose to discuss religious doctrine rather than the color of the new baby’s diaper bag, doesn’t make it less a social event.
Beyond criminal activities (illegal drugs, violent abuse, etc.), it is unjust for government that claims to be democratic to control what goes on in someone’s home. It is a slippery slope when the right to privacy is compromised. It would seem that building codes are appropriate to determine the number of people a room can safely hold to prevent collapse regardless of the activity, but it doesn’t appear that the number of people was the issue in this case. This case was about the regularity of the activity, the content being religious, or both.
Building use codes are most likely passed to restrict and tie specific activity to specific locations. Business and residential areas are kept relatively separate in suburban communities. To engage in business, one would have to comply with codes and be licensed to operate. Okay…then if that be the case, those who participate in direct sales products like cosmetic or jewelry parties, kitchen wares parties or garages sales may not be in compliance with building use codes. Are we holding to the rule of law to one but wink at another? If these activities are acceptable, why is there brouhaha over a Bible study being interpreted as activity beyond mere socializing? Although some church activity is business-like, it is not just a business. It is a community of believers—the family of God meeting to express their care for one another.
Beyond the political and social arguments of democratic liberties, the theological question remains unanswered. Did the Arizona pastor and his Bible study group violate God’s Word with regard to “rendering unto Caesar” in non-compliance to the municipality’s citation; or were they justified in their civil disobedience based on Acts 5:29? If we look the first century church examples of house churches as a model, we have examples of churches meeting in homes as well as buildings set aside for that purpose. No clear directive about location either way is evident in Scripture. However, we do have the injunction to assemble.
Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; for he is faithful that promised; And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching (Heb. 10:23–25 KJV).
The injunction to assemble is not a command as to location. The decision about location should comply with local laws only to the degree to where the law would prevent a group from assembling at all. If the Arizona church group were to be denied the right to assemble altogether or in a place suitable for their purposes of assembly, then they would not be wrong in civil disobedience since God’s Word takes precedence. The issue then remains as to whether or not denying a Bible study in a home constitutes the denial of assembly to exercise the freedom of worship. Clearly they are being denied the right to assemble in the pastor’s home, which may be a denial of their right to follow the early church model of meeting in homes. We simply do not know this group’s beliefs about how to “do church.” If the number of people attending the Bible study is such that it is a danger of structural collapse, then putting people in such danger would be a violation of Scripture, but if not, then the church group may not be scripturally wrong in defying the municipal codes.
Finally, one could argue that the Bible study could have been held elsewhere in a location that would not have been problematic for the neighbors. However, a meeting in a “public” location takes away the intimacy of the group setting in a home and may infringe on the group’s religious beliefs. Some legitimate Christian groups meet in homes as a matter of doctrine. A well-known example would be the Amish community where there are no church buildings and they have been meeting for church services in their homes for more than two centuries. Would denying people to meet for Bible studies in Arizona set a precedence that the Amish could no longer have their religious activity in their homes? Unthinkable! Structures like cell-based churches are no different. And to add to the impasse, what if this happened in a place where there were no other appropriate locations? Would the right to religious activity in that case be denied to a community?
At the end of the day, a harbinger bleeds through the whole matter. If we are not diligent to preserve and defend our right to assemble, to protect the right to privacy, and our right to worship as we see fit as long as we do not place anyone in danger, then the liberty we profess is in danger of being seriously eroded and we may be on our way to repeat the sins of fascism Europe experienced in the 20th century. Everything that is legal is not necessarily right. I want to believe that things could have worked out to a win-win situation in Arizona if people of good will had committed to resolving the conflict, but that’s my enduring optimism. Let it be a clear message to be alert to the winds of persecution that may be kicking up in the name of government protection. A little here, a little there, and before you could have ever imagined it, you may have to make a serious decision about civil disobedience.
Copyright 2015 by Eva Benevento. All rights reserved.