Building Peace Rather than Falling to Pieces
Building Peace Rather than Falling to Pieces
“If possible, so far as it depends on you,
live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves,
but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written,
‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay says the Lord.’”
Romans 12:18-19, ESV
[Photo credit: "A Public Witness" -- Word & Way]
This article was originally published in the Center's E-News on Oct. 31, 2024
Introduction
I arrived prior to sun-up on Tuesday of this week at a designated early-voting site in my city. My hope, as I walked across the pitch-dark parking lot toward a light at the front door, was that all voters would be enlightened to the responsibilities of citizenship. Perhaps they would cast their ballots and then leave reinvigorated to seek the best for, and offer service to, our country. Admittedly, I had doubts that such moral good would occur. I soon stepped into the voting booth, cast my vote, received an "I Voted!" sticker, then exited the building. The dark cloud of melancholy did not lift, however. My concerns led me to explore, in this Pathway Perspectives article, one specific element of Christian civic responsibility that Christ-followers fulfill, which is the proper exercise of "civil disobedience." I will focus on what lies beyond election day on November 5, 2024, even as January 6, 2021 remains on our minds. Why so?
Numerous media sources are reporting that millions of Americans are fearful of a repeat of the violence of January 6, 2021, if former President Trump is not reelected to office and refuses to concede the election to the current Vice-President Kamala Harris. Various levels of the federal government are taking precautionary steps to safeguard the Capitol if violence erupts in Washington D.C. Researchers and conflict mitigation practitioners also express concern over continuing forms of political violence, like hate crimes, political homicides, and "people driving into protesters," which have been on the rise since 2015. [1] While many experts do not believe that violence will break out in the Capitol, they are expressing worries about organized efforts to obstruct state certification processes or tallying efforts of local votes.
Furthermore, I am reminded that some January 6, 2021, rioters held Bibles aloft, prayed in "Christ's holy name" in the Senate chambers, carried Christian flags, and openly stated their motivations. Additionally, four Capitol police officers were assaulted by the crowd, one died following the event, and many others resigned their positions in the following months. Federal property was also damaged or destroyed. These circumstances lead me to ask at what point Christians have a responsibility to participate in civil disobedience, and whether violence is a permissible form of the same when seeking justice.
Numerous media sources are reporting that millions of Americans are fearful of a repeat of the violence of January 6, 2021, if former President Trump is not reelected to office and refuses to concede the election to the current Vice-President Kamala Harris. Various levels of the federal government are taking precautionary steps to safeguard the Capitol if violence erupts in Washington D.C. Researchers and conflict mitigation practitioners also express concern over continuing forms of political violence, like hate crimes, political homicides, and "people driving into protesters," which have been on the rise since 2015. [1] While many experts do not believe that violence will break out in the Capitol, they are expressing worries about organized efforts to obstruct state certification processes or tallying efforts of local votes.
Furthermore, I am reminded that some January 6, 2021, rioters held Bibles aloft, prayed in "Christ's holy name" in the Senate chambers, carried Christian flags, and openly stated their motivations. Additionally, four Capitol police officers were assaulted by the crowd, one died following the event, and many others resigned their positions in the following months. Federal property was also damaged or destroyed. These circumstances lead me to ask at what point Christians have a responsibility to participate in civil disobedience, and whether violence is a permissible form of the same when seeking justice.
Past and present realities
Peter writes "Honor the emperor" to the churches in Asia Minor, which is modern day Türkiye (1 Peter 2:17d). His prescription causes me to pause, because both then and now, governments and governors are very often capricious. This fact holds true throughout the Bible. In its pages we read that citizens often encountered great difficulties through burdensome taxation, unjust laws, and outright brutality. Opposing nations quite often threatened an entire way of life (cf. 2 Kings 20:16-18; Isaiah 39:6). And leadership frequently left much to be desired (cf. 2 Kings 20; Isaiah 38-39; Hezekiah’s pride and political-military naiveté)! Sound familiar!?
Consider, for example, that the Christians in Asia Minor, around A.D. 60, were encountering some of the persecution that emerged during the reign of the Roman emperor Nero. Even though the persecution at this time did not reach the point where believers had to choose between God and the state, there was much hardship. Peter writes to encourage Christians to behave Christian-ly even when harassed outwardly. Easier said than done!
Consider, for example, that the Christians in Asia Minor, around A.D. 60, were encountering some of the persecution that emerged during the reign of the Roman emperor Nero. Even though the persecution at this time did not reach the point where believers had to choose between God and the state, there was much hardship. Peter writes to encourage Christians to behave Christian-ly even when harassed outwardly. Easier said than done!
Duty vs. Utility: Ethical reflection on civil disobedience
Political rhetoric has escalated in recent years and inflammatory remarks and social media interaction has been hate-filled and laden with calls for violence. Hateful bombasts have increased following the civil disobedience and violence that occurred on January 6, 2021. A Christian ethical reflection upon such attitudes and actions is timely as we approach election day next Tuesday, November 5, 2024.
Part of our Christian civic responsibility requires us to evaluate the events that transpired following the 2020 presidential election and our own actions in this election year. A mob of supporters of then U.S. President Donald Trump stormed the United States Capitol Building in Washington D.C. in an attempted self-coup d'état on January 6, 2021. [2] The event itself was horrifying to watch on the nightly news, but a particularly disconcerting element was the claim by many in the crowd to be Christian. The stated intent of those storming the Capitol (including Christians) was to prevent Congress from certifying the election results from the vote that was held in November of 2020.
Two basic moral arguments for civil disobedience were utilized: 1) the rioters believed that there was no practicable alternative (e.g. the legal processes for change were believed to have been too lengthy or to have been denied to certain groups); 2) They claimed that the United States government had exceeded its authority (e.g. The belief that COVID-19 laws had truncated the normal length of the primary season, and mail-in balloting had been used, a process that typically favored Democrats). Fiery rhetoric at the Capitol on January 6th ignited the already-smoldering embers of resentment and so a riot ensued. [3] There is more to consider.
Christians should strive to understand the complexities that surround the justice claims of the rioters and future assertions about the same. Will Durant, the American historian and philosopher (1885-1981), when reflecting upon Immanuel Kant's (1724-1804) concept of "practical reason," wrote, "The only thing unqualifiedly good in this world is a good will—the will to follow the moral law, regardless of profit or loss for ourselves. Never mind your happiness; do your duty [italics mine]. Morality is not properly the doctrine of how we may make ourselves happy, but how we may make ourselves worthy of happiness.” [4] The responsibility of a citizen from this perspective would be to exercise the duty, to support the laws of our country. From a Kantian perspective, it would not be proper to "universalize" the types of actions that took place on January 6, so that form of protest should have been avoided. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), by way of utilitarian reasoning, might view civil disobedience as a necessary action in order to lead to the desired end of maximizing social change for millions of Americans who were subjected to unjust laws. Law-breaking in this case, Mill might say, could be a means to resolving injustices. One wonders, however, whether violence should ever be used as a means of civil disobedience.
The use of violence crosses a Rubicon, of sorts, because of its nature as a great social evil. And it breaks the law. Some rioters believed that coercive means were necessary to get the government to pay attention to their claims that injustices had occurred. Christians, however, should look with suspicion upon such arguments. Bluntly, the moral divide in our nation lies deeper than any one candidate or justice claim and requires building up peace rather than tearing down our democracy. Christians must consider God's word and abide by His will when pondering the use of civil disobedience. Several key biblical principles will help believers to build peace in this highly contentious time.
Part of our Christian civic responsibility requires us to evaluate the events that transpired following the 2020 presidential election and our own actions in this election year. A mob of supporters of then U.S. President Donald Trump stormed the United States Capitol Building in Washington D.C. in an attempted self-coup d'état on January 6, 2021. [2] The event itself was horrifying to watch on the nightly news, but a particularly disconcerting element was the claim by many in the crowd to be Christian. The stated intent of those storming the Capitol (including Christians) was to prevent Congress from certifying the election results from the vote that was held in November of 2020.
Two basic moral arguments for civil disobedience were utilized: 1) the rioters believed that there was no practicable alternative (e.g. the legal processes for change were believed to have been too lengthy or to have been denied to certain groups); 2) They claimed that the United States government had exceeded its authority (e.g. The belief that COVID-19 laws had truncated the normal length of the primary season, and mail-in balloting had been used, a process that typically favored Democrats). Fiery rhetoric at the Capitol on January 6th ignited the already-smoldering embers of resentment and so a riot ensued. [3] There is more to consider.
Christians should strive to understand the complexities that surround the justice claims of the rioters and future assertions about the same. Will Durant, the American historian and philosopher (1885-1981), when reflecting upon Immanuel Kant's (1724-1804) concept of "practical reason," wrote, "The only thing unqualifiedly good in this world is a good will—the will to follow the moral law, regardless of profit or loss for ourselves. Never mind your happiness; do your duty [italics mine]. Morality is not properly the doctrine of how we may make ourselves happy, but how we may make ourselves worthy of happiness.” [4] The responsibility of a citizen from this perspective would be to exercise the duty, to support the laws of our country. From a Kantian perspective, it would not be proper to "universalize" the types of actions that took place on January 6, so that form of protest should have been avoided. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), by way of utilitarian reasoning, might view civil disobedience as a necessary action in order to lead to the desired end of maximizing social change for millions of Americans who were subjected to unjust laws. Law-breaking in this case, Mill might say, could be a means to resolving injustices. One wonders, however, whether violence should ever be used as a means of civil disobedience.
The use of violence crosses a Rubicon, of sorts, because of its nature as a great social evil. And it breaks the law. Some rioters believed that coercive means were necessary to get the government to pay attention to their claims that injustices had occurred. Christians, however, should look with suspicion upon such arguments. Bluntly, the moral divide in our nation lies deeper than any one candidate or justice claim and requires building up peace rather than tearing down our democracy. Christians must consider God's word and abide by His will when pondering the use of civil disobedience. Several key biblical principles will help believers to build peace in this highly contentious time.
Principles that build peace and prevent falling to pieces
Foremost, trust God. Christians have a God-given responsibility to submit to governing authorities (13:1). This approach is good, right, and just. Paul writes: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God [italics mine], and those that exist have been instituted by God” (Romans 13:1, ESV; cf. Ephesians 5:21). The principle is: God brings about what is right and just, even from the rule of one who is patently unjust.
There are four moral pillars to this core principle: a. God requires faithfulness (cf. Prov 21:1). Regardless of how the king/ruler governs, God expects us to honor that position (cf. prophetic voice and principled opposition). b. The converse is also true. God reigns supreme over every king, and he requires the faithful exercise of power to reflect his just nature (i.e., God’s sovereignty). c. The underlying moral support is that God uses kings to dispense moral justice as He sees fit (21:1b; “turns it wherever he will"). d. Paul puts forward that our supreme commitment to God does not “negate” our responsibility to submit to governing authorities (13:1, 6-7; i.e., use freedom wisely to do good and right).
I know that there appears to be very little “wiggle room” in this word of instruction, but we cannot get ahead of ourselves. The Apostle states clearly that those who govern are placed there by God’s authority (cf. John 19:11 and Jesus’ words to Pilate). Government is God’s instrument to maintain the public good and direct the affairs of state, and those who govern are ultimately answerable to Him. We are to place ourselves beneath their God-ordained authority as our Christian duty. God is sovereign and in control, even when it may appear to be otherwise.
Secondly, those who rule have responsibilities as well. Solomon writes, "the king’s decisions stem from the heart but they are in the hands of God" (Proverbs 21:1). God channels the decisions (stream of water) wherever he wants. He even “regulates its flow” (NAC). Let’s not get too near-sighted with our view of the verse. Solomon simply wants us to know that no human ruler is supreme (Ezra 7:21; Isaiah 10:6-7; 41:2-4; Daniel 2:21; John 19:11; NAC). They will rise and fall, come and go, but God stands and stays.
The text also reminds us that the Lord evaluates motives and not merely actions (cf. duty and utility above)! We often hear elected officials tout their economic and military successes while overlooking their own moral failings. Our text reminds us that God, however, knows our hearts, and his judgment is evaluative (21:2). Things get politically complicated in our “Christian” nation when we merge faith and politics; but we also may say that the Lord requires real righteousness over and against religious lip service (21:3). Therefore, in God’s moral calculation, you may have a soaring economy, but you may be bankrupt if you are not performing rightly and justly.
Thirdly, Christians have a specific duty, even when governance is evil. We are resisting what God has ordained when we resist governmental authority (13:2-3). Paul uses an interesting word in Romans 13:2. The word is “resist,” and “it is a perfect participle, which suggests that their rebellion had hardened into an established policy” (NAC). The New English Bible translates v. 2b, “Those who so resist have themselves to thank for the punishment they receive.” The bottom line is that they will answer to God. Now, for me, this redirects my attention away from mayors, governors, Congress, and the President, back to the Heavenly Father—the merciful Father (cf. Romans 1-11). We need to examine another perspective in our democracy, a form of government Paul did not experience in his life. The principles he taught, however, do apply to our lives today.
Finally, Paul’s words do not forbid resistance to government when it oversteps its “rightful domain.” We are obliged to disobey the ruler when this occurs. (For specific cases see Acts 4:19; 5:29.) “The believer’s ultimate allegiance is to God” (NAC). The key is to know when we are to resist and how to do it properly (Cf. Dietrich Bonhoeffer's involvement in an assassination attempt against Adolph Hitler). What may Christians say and do when a ruler acts capriciously, even within the boundaries of the law? We are free to lodge our protests responsibly. What do believers do when moral claims to rights and justice appear to be circumvented to advance power agendas? Act decisively within the bounds of Christian restraint. We honor Christ best by speaking out and doing so as a matter of Christian principle, taking care to protest within the boundaries of Christian discipleship.
The Scriptures teach us to lead our daily, post-2024-election- lives by building peace rather than falling to pieces. Peter reminds us to take to heart the sufferings of Christ and permit them to become the necessary catalyst for our Christian lives to make a kingdom impact (2:21-25). Disciples, intent on leading holy lives, cannot excuse themselves from imitating Christ in this regard. Christ was a good man, as all will attest, but it was not the fact that He was good alone that brought about the transformation in sinners’ lives. He gave his good life through non-violent suffering on the cross so that we might receive new life.
The call upon our lives is to separate ourselves from the world, and then to sacrificially offer ourselves to it for God’s glory. This attitude and action, in part, is our kingdom of God and civic responsibility. Our sacrificial labor of love in Christ’s name is desperately needed at home and in our world.
There are four moral pillars to this core principle: a. God requires faithfulness (cf. Prov 21:1). Regardless of how the king/ruler governs, God expects us to honor that position (cf. prophetic voice and principled opposition). b. The converse is also true. God reigns supreme over every king, and he requires the faithful exercise of power to reflect his just nature (i.e., God’s sovereignty). c. The underlying moral support is that God uses kings to dispense moral justice as He sees fit (21:1b; “turns it wherever he will"). d. Paul puts forward that our supreme commitment to God does not “negate” our responsibility to submit to governing authorities (13:1, 6-7; i.e., use freedom wisely to do good and right).
I know that there appears to be very little “wiggle room” in this word of instruction, but we cannot get ahead of ourselves. The Apostle states clearly that those who govern are placed there by God’s authority (cf. John 19:11 and Jesus’ words to Pilate). Government is God’s instrument to maintain the public good and direct the affairs of state, and those who govern are ultimately answerable to Him. We are to place ourselves beneath their God-ordained authority as our Christian duty. God is sovereign and in control, even when it may appear to be otherwise.
Secondly, those who rule have responsibilities as well. Solomon writes, "the king’s decisions stem from the heart but they are in the hands of God" (Proverbs 21:1). God channels the decisions (stream of water) wherever he wants. He even “regulates its flow” (NAC). Let’s not get too near-sighted with our view of the verse. Solomon simply wants us to know that no human ruler is supreme (Ezra 7:21; Isaiah 10:6-7; 41:2-4; Daniel 2:21; John 19:11; NAC). They will rise and fall, come and go, but God stands and stays.
The text also reminds us that the Lord evaluates motives and not merely actions (cf. duty and utility above)! We often hear elected officials tout their economic and military successes while overlooking their own moral failings. Our text reminds us that God, however, knows our hearts, and his judgment is evaluative (21:2). Things get politically complicated in our “Christian” nation when we merge faith and politics; but we also may say that the Lord requires real righteousness over and against religious lip service (21:3). Therefore, in God’s moral calculation, you may have a soaring economy, but you may be bankrupt if you are not performing rightly and justly.
Thirdly, Christians have a specific duty, even when governance is evil. We are resisting what God has ordained when we resist governmental authority (13:2-3). Paul uses an interesting word in Romans 13:2. The word is “resist,” and “it is a perfect participle, which suggests that their rebellion had hardened into an established policy” (NAC). The New English Bible translates v. 2b, “Those who so resist have themselves to thank for the punishment they receive.” The bottom line is that they will answer to God. Now, for me, this redirects my attention away from mayors, governors, Congress, and the President, back to the Heavenly Father—the merciful Father (cf. Romans 1-11). We need to examine another perspective in our democracy, a form of government Paul did not experience in his life. The principles he taught, however, do apply to our lives today.
Finally, Paul’s words do not forbid resistance to government when it oversteps its “rightful domain.” We are obliged to disobey the ruler when this occurs. (For specific cases see Acts 4:19; 5:29.) “The believer’s ultimate allegiance is to God” (NAC). The key is to know when we are to resist and how to do it properly (Cf. Dietrich Bonhoeffer's involvement in an assassination attempt against Adolph Hitler). What may Christians say and do when a ruler acts capriciously, even within the boundaries of the law? We are free to lodge our protests responsibly. What do believers do when moral claims to rights and justice appear to be circumvented to advance power agendas? Act decisively within the bounds of Christian restraint. We honor Christ best by speaking out and doing so as a matter of Christian principle, taking care to protest within the boundaries of Christian discipleship.
The Scriptures teach us to lead our daily, post-2024-election- lives by building peace rather than falling to pieces. Peter reminds us to take to heart the sufferings of Christ and permit them to become the necessary catalyst for our Christian lives to make a kingdom impact (2:21-25). Disciples, intent on leading holy lives, cannot excuse themselves from imitating Christ in this regard. Christ was a good man, as all will attest, but it was not the fact that He was good alone that brought about the transformation in sinners’ lives. He gave his good life through non-violent suffering on the cross so that we might receive new life.
The call upon our lives is to separate ourselves from the world, and then to sacrificially offer ourselves to it for God’s glory. This attitude and action, in part, is our kingdom of God and civic responsibility. Our sacrificial labor of love in Christ’s name is desperately needed at home and in our world.
Conclusion
Albert Schweitzer said, “Day by day we should weigh what we have granted to the spirit of the world against what we have denied to the spirit of Jesus, in thought and especially in deed.” When we divest ourselves of the entire human portfolio of “desires,” and invest our lives in the folder that contains the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), then our witness bears dividends personally; and also for those who have yet to receive Christ. Therefore, we should obey God, build peace, and spread the gospel in and beyond this election season.
Larry C. Ashlock
Larry C. Ashlock
Notes:
1. See, for example, NPR.
2. Britannica, accessed 28 October 2024.
3. Carl Wellman, Morals & Ethics, 2d ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1988), 1-26. The nature of this Pathway Perspectives article does not permit an expanded examination of civil disobedience. However, Wellman provides an analysis and critique of civil disobedience and violence.
4. Will Durant. The Story of Philosophy (p. 321). General Press. Kindle Edition.
1. See, for example, NPR.
2. Britannica, accessed 28 October 2024.
3. Carl Wellman, Morals & Ethics, 2d ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1988), 1-26. The nature of this Pathway Perspectives article does not permit an expanded examination of civil disobedience. However, Wellman provides an analysis and critique of civil disobedience and violence.
4. Will Durant. The Story of Philosophy (p. 321). General Press. Kindle Edition.
Posted in Pathway Perspectives