“A Christian Manifesto” for Civil Disobedience by Christians by Francis A. Schaeffer [1]
“The bottom line is that at a certain point there is not only the right, but the duty, to disobey the state.”
Rev. Francis A. Schaeffer’s description of God’s call upon Christians to Defy Tyrants through Civil Disobedience is set forth in his book “A Christian Manifesto,” which he wrote in 1981, just a few years after the 1973 abortion decision in Roe v. Wade, and just a few years before his death in 1984. Here are just a few quotes that will give the reader a flavor for his argument for Civil Disobedience by Christians against tyrannical civil government.
“If there is no final place for civil disobedience, then the government has been made autonomous, and as such, it has been put in the place of the Living God.”
“What is the Christian’s relationship to government, law, and civil disobedience?” (page 10)
“Christianity is not just a series of truths but Truth – Truth about all of reality.” (page 20)
“Humanism is the placing of Man at the center of all things and making him the measure of all things.” (page 23)
“The problem always was, and is, What is an adequate base for law? What is adequate so that the human aspiration for freedom can exist without anarchy, and yet provides a form that will not become arbitrary tyranny?” (page27)
“The humanists push for “freedom,” but having no Christian consensus to contain it, that “freedom” leads to chaos or to slavery under the state (or under an elite). Humanism, with its lack of any final base for values or law, always leads to chaos. It then naturally leads to some form of authoritarianism to control the chaos. Having produced the sickness, humanism gives more of the same kind of medicine for a cure. With its mistaken concept of final reality, it has no intrinsic reason to be interested in the individual, the human being. Its natural interest is the two collectives: the state and society.” (pages 29-30)
“John Witherspoon knew and stood consciously in the stream off Samuel Rutherford, a Scotsman who lived from 1600-1661 and who wrote Les Rex in 1644. Les Rex means law is king – a phrase that was absolutely earthshaking. Prior to that it had been rex lex, the king is law. In Les Rex he wrote that the law, and no one else, is king. Therefore, the heads of government are under the law, not a law unto themselves.” (page32)
“If we are not governed by God, then we will be ruled by tyrants.”
“This concept was the same as William Penn (1644-1718) had expressed earlier: “If we are not governed by God, then we will be ruled by tyrants.”” (page 34)
“When the First Amendment was passed it only had two purposes. The first purpose was that there would be no established, national church for the united thirteen states. To say it another way: There would be no “Church of the United States.” (page 34). …. The second purpose of the First Amendment was the very opposite of what is being made of it today. It states expressly that government should not impede or interfere with the free practice of religion.” (page 35). …. Today the separation of church and state in America is used to silence the church …. totally reversed from the original intent.” (page 36)
“Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780) was an English jurist who in the 1760s wrote a very famous work called Commentaries on the Law of England. … To William Blackstone there were only two foundations for law, nature and revelation, and he stated clearly that he was speaking of the “holy Scripture.”(page 38)
“In most law schools today almost no one studies William Blackstone unless he or she is taking a course in the history of law. We live in a secularized society and in secularized, sociological law. By sociological law we mean law that has ho fixed base but law in which a group of people decides what is sociologically good for society at the given moment; and what they arbitrarily decide becomes law. … (and quoting the U.S. Supreme Court) “Nothing is more certain in modern society than the principle that there are no absolutes.” (page 41)
“The law, and especially the courts, is the vehicle to force this totally humanistic way of thinking upon the entire population.”
“The law, and especially the courts, is the vehicle to force this totally humanistic way of thinking upon the entire population. This is what has happened. The abortion law is a perfect example. The Supreme Court (in Roe v. Wade in 1973) arbitrarily ruled that abortion was legal, and overnight they overthrew the state laws and forced onto American thinking only that abortion was legal, but that it was ethical. They, as an elite, thus forced their will on the majority, even though their ruling was arbitrary both legally and medically. Thus law and the courts became the vehicle for forcing a totally secular concept on the population.” (page 49)
“The humanist view has infiltrated every level of society.”
“The humanist view has infiltrated every level of society. If we are going to join the battle in a way that has any hope of effectiveness – with Christians truly being salt and the light in our culture and our society – then we must do battle on the entire front. We must not finally even battle on the front for freedom, and specifically not only our freedom. It must be on the basis of Truth. Not just religious truths, but he Truth of what the final reality is. Is it impersonal material or is it the living God?” (page 53-54)
“Most fundamentally, our culture, society, government, and law are in the condition they are in, not because of a conspiracy, but because the church has forsaken its duty to be the salt of the culture.” (page 56)
“Spirituality to the evangelical leadership often has not included the Lordship of Christ over the whole spectrum of life.”
“As we turn to the evangelical leadership of the country in the last decades, unhappily, we must come to the conclusion that often it has not been much help. It has shown the mark of a platonic, overly spiritualized Christianity all to often. Spirituality to the evangelical leadership often has not included the Lordship of Christ over the whole spectrum of life.” (page 63)
“If a law is wrong, you must disobey it.”
“Jonathan Blanchard (1811-1892), who was the founder and president of Wheaton College, and Charles Finney (1792-1875), who was the president of Oberlin College, were tremendously interested in the question of social action concerning slavery. They were two great forces in America calling out for social action, and both of the said something very firmly: If a law is wrong, you must disobey it. Both of them call, when it is necessary, for civil disobedience. Finney in his book Systematic Theology on page 58 has a heading: “I propose now to make several remarks respecting forms of government, the right and duty of revolution.” Do note the phrase “The right and duty of revolution.” (page 66-67)
“Two bankrupt values – personal peace and affluence.”
“The majority of the Silent Majority were those who had only two bankrupt values – personal peace and affluence. Personal peace means just to be let alone, not to be troubled by the troubles of other people, whether across the world or across the city. Affluence means an overwhelming and ever-increasing prosperity – a life made up of things and more things – a success judged by an ever-higher level of material abundance.” (page 77)
“Are we to obey the state no matter what? Are we?”
“The Bible tells us that God has commanded us to obey the state. But now a second question follows very quickly. Has God set up an authority in the sate that is autonomous from Himself? Are we to obey the state no matter what? Are we? In this one area is indeed Man the measure of all things? And I would answer, no at all, not at all. …. The civil government, as all of life, stands under the Law of God. In this fallen world God has given us certain offices to protect us from the chaos which is the natural result of that fallenness. But when any office commands that which is contrary to the Word of God, those who hold that office abrogate their authority and they are not to be obeyed. And that includes the State.” (page 90)
“God has ordained the state as a delegated authority; it is not autonomous.”
“God has ordained the state as a delegated authority; it is not autonomous. The state is to be an agent of justice, to restrain evil by punishing the wrongdoer, and to protect the good in society. When it does the reverse, it has no proper authority. It is then a usurped authority and as such it becomes lawless and is tyranny.” (page 91)
“But what is to be done when the state does that which violates its legitimate function?” (page 92)
“Not only the right, but the duty, to disobey the state.”
“The bottom line is that at a certain point there is not only the right, but the duty, to disobey the state.” (page 93)
“In almost every place where the Reformation had success there was some form of civil disobedience or armed rebellion.” (page 93)
“Knox developed a theology of resistance to tyranny.”
“It was during this time (approximately 1553) that Knox developed a theology of resistance to tyranny. He began smuggling pamphlets into England. The most significant of these was the Admonition to England, published in July of 1554. With this move, he had stepped into new territory, going further than any Reformer had previously gone. Within a few years, tens of thousands of Huguenots were offering armed resistance to the French government, and the year Knox died saw the beginning of the successful revolt and saving of Holland. Knox had shocked the world with his Admonition to England, but he had also been convincing. Jasper Ridley in John Knox writes, “The theory of the justification of revolution is Knox’s special contribution to theological and political thought.” (page 97)
“Knox … maintained that the common people had the right and duty to disobedience and rebellion if state officials ruled contrary to the Bible. To do otherwise would be rebellion against God.”
“Whereas Reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin had reserved the right to rebellion to the civil rulers alone, Knox went further. He maintained that the common people had the right and duty to disobedience and rebellion if state officials ruled contrary to the Bible. To do otherwise would be rebellion against God.” (page 97)
“And it was John Knox, an exponent of godly resistance in the face of tyranny who planted the seeds that were later nurtured by such men as Samuel Rutherford.” (page 98)
“What is the concept in Lex Rex? Very simply: The law is king, and if the king and the government disobey the law they are to be disobeyed.”
“It was in this setting that Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661) wrote his Les Rex: or the Law and the Prince (1644). What is the concept in Lex Rex? Very simply: The law is king, and if the king and the government disobey the law they are to be disobeyed. And the law is founded on the Law of God. Lex Rex was outlawed in both England and Scotland. The parliament of Scotland was meeting in order to condemn Samuel Rutherford to death for his views, and the only reason he was not executed as a civil rebel is because he died first.” (page 99)
“In his classic work Lex Rex, Rutherford set forth the proper Christian response to non-biblical acts by the state. Rutherford, a Presbyterian, was one of the Scottish commissioners at the Westminster Assembly in London (1643-1647).” (page 99)
“The Divine Right of Kings”
“Rutherford argued all men, even the king, are under the Law and not above it.”
“The governing authorities were concerned about Lex Rex because of its attack on the undergirding foundation of seventeenth century political government in Europe – “the divine right of Kings.” This doctrine held that the king or state ruled as God’s appointed regent and, this being so, the king’s word was law. Placed against this position was Rutherford’s assertion that the basic premise of civil government and, therefore, law, must be based on God’s Law as given in the Bible. As such Rutherford argued all men, even the king, are under the Law and not above it. This concept was considered political rebellion and punishable as treason.” (page 100)
“Tyranny was defined as ruling without the sanction of God.”
“Rutherford argued that Romans 13 indicates that all power is from God and that government is ordained and instituted by God. The state, however, is to be administered according to the principles of God’s Law. Acts of the state which contradicted God’s Law were illegitimate and acts of tyranny. Tyranny was defined as ruling without the sanction of God.
“Rutherford held that a tyrannical government is always immoral.”
“Rutherford held that a tyrannical government is always immoral. He said that “a power ethical, politic, or moral, to oppress, is not from God, and is not a power; but a licentious deviation of a power; and is no more from God, but from sinful nature and the old serpent, than a license to sin.” (page 100)
“Rutherford presents several arguments to establish the right and duty of resistance to unlawful government.”
“Rutherford presents several arguments to establish the right and duty of resistance to unlawful government. First, since tyranny is satanic, not to resist it is to resist God – to resist tyranny is to honor God. Second, since the ruler is granted power conditionally, it follows that the people have the power to withdraw their sanction if the proper conditions are not fulfilled. The civil magistrate is a “fiduciary figure” – that is, he holds his authority in trust for the people. Violation of the trust gives the people a legitimate base for resistance.” (page 101)
“Citizens have a moral obligation to resist unjust and tyrannical government.”
It follows from Rutherford’s thesis that citizens have a moral obligation to resist unjust and tyrannical government. While we must always be subject to the office of the magistrate, we are not to be subject to the man in that office who commands that which is contrary to the Bible.” (page 101)
“Rutherford offered suggestions concerning illegitimate acts of the State. A ruler, he wrote, should not be deposed merely because he commits a single breach of the compact he has with the people. Only when the magistrate acts in such a way that the governing structure of the country is being destroyed – that is, when he is attacking the fundamental structure of society – is he to be relieved of his power and authority.” (page 101)
“That is exactly what we are facing today. The whole structure of our society is being attacked and destroyed.”
“That is exactly what we are facing today [Schaeffer wrote this in 1981]. The whole structure of our society is being attacked and destroyed. It is being given an entirely opposite base which gives exactly opposite results. The reversal is much more total and destructive than that which Rutherford or any of the Reformers faced in their day.” (page 101)
“Civil disobedience is, of course, a very serious matter and it must be stressed that Rutherford was the very opposite of an anarchist. In Lex Rex he does not propose armed revolution as an automatic solution. Specifically, he stated that if the state deliberately is committed to destroying its ethical commitment to God then resistance is appropriate. (page 103)
“In such an instance, for the private person, the individual, Rutherford suggested that there are three appropriate levels of resistance: first, he must defend himself by protest (in contemporary society this would most often be by legal action); second, he must flee if at all possible; and, third, he may use force, if necessary, to defend himself. One should not employ force if he may save himself by flight; nor should one employ flight if he can save himself and defend himself by protest and the employment of constitutional means of redress.” (pages 103-104)
“The Rule of the Lesser Magistrates”
“For a corporate body – such as a duly constituted state or local body, or even a church, … then, if possible, it should be under the Rule of the Lesser Magistrates (local officials). (page 104)
“Locke took Rutherford’s Lex Rex and secularized it.”
“In a similar way John Locke (1632-1704) approached the same problem. Locke took Rutherford’s Lex Rex and secularized it. … Locke made four basic points: (1) inalienable rights; (2) government by consent; (3) separation of powers; and (4) the right of revolution (or you could word it, the right to resist unlawful authority). (page 104)
“It is worth repeating James Madison’s statement concerning the purpose of the United States Constitution: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite.” (page 115)
“It is not too strong to say that we are at war. One either confesses that God is the final authority, or one confesses that Caesar is Lord.”
“Again we must see that what we face is a totality and not just bits and pieces. It is not too strong to say that we are at war, and there are no neutral parties in the struggle. One either confesses that God is the final authority, or one confesses that Caesar is Lord.” (page 115)
“We must make people aware that this is not a political game, but totally crucial and serious. And we must also demonstrate to people that there is indeed a proper bottom line. To repeat: the bottom line is that at a certain point there is not only right, but the duty, to disobey the state.” (page 120)
“The Declaration of Independence”
“Simply put, the Declaration of Independence states that the people, if they find that their basic rights are being systematically attached by the state, have a duty to try to change that government, and if they cannot do so, to abolish it.” (page 128)
“If there is no final place for civil disobedience, then the government … has been put in the place of the Living God.”
“Please read most thoughtfully what I am going to say in the next sentence: If there is no final place for civil disobedience, then the government has been made autonomous, and as such, it has been put in the place of the Living God. If there is no final place for civil disobedience, then the government has been put in the place of the Living God, because then you are to obey it even when it tells you in its own way at that time to worship Caesar. And that point is exactly where the early Christians performed their acts of civil disobedience even when it cost them their lives.” (page 130)
[1] Francis August Schaeffer (1912–1984) was an American evangelical theologian, philosopher, filmmaker, and Presbyterian pastor. He is best known for co-founding the L’Abri Community in Switzerland with his wife Edith Schaeffer. Perhaps his most well-known book is “How Should We Then Live” (1976). Covenant Theological Seminary (PCA) hosts and sponsors a permanent Francis Schaeffer Institute on their campus in St. Louis, Missouri.