There are plenty of examples that we could pick out of the Scriptures of where folk have - on the basis of their confession of Christ as Lord - been compelled to defy civil and at times religious authority. It hasn’t always been public or confrontational. II Kings 18, there is a conversation between Elijah and a palace administrtator called Obadiah (not the prophet!). Elijah’s very opn defiance of Ahab, is counter-balanced by Obadiah’s much more discreet disobedience. At a time when ‘Jezebel was killing off the Lord’s prophets, (18:3) Obadiah hid a hundred of them in caves and kept them fed and watered. Here is a costly but unobtrusive civil disobedience, one that genuinely put Obadiah’s life at risk. Apart from his conversation with Elijah, it is never mentioned.

Or we could look at Jeremiah, whose relationship with the civil and religious authorities of his day was, well … tense, to say the least. Jeremiah’s behaviour is consistently understood in terms of treachery, and he is arrested at one point on the charge of deserting to the Babylonians (Ch.37). His message is seen as so subversive to national and religous interest that he is regularly found under various strictures of arrest and imprisonment; and there are those who would gladly see him dead, and who conspire to that end. Yet he continues to recognise those in authority as God’s appointed leaders, and is willing to be obedient even when he is banned from the Temple (Jer.36:5). Although it has to be said that while he keeps the letter of the law, he is perhaps more nuanced when it comes to the spirit of it! Although he is ‘restricted’, he simply sends Baruch and a dictated sermon in his place.

What drives Jeremiah’s seemingly ambiguous relationship with those in authority. It is his call to be a prophet; and the Word of God that burns like a fire in his bones (20:9). His love for the people and for God drives him on in spite of a devestating lack of response. I have mentioned before that this ‘prophetic’ element must conincide with any form of civil disobedience that the Church might feel compelled to engage in. Indeed, more of the former might at times mitigate the need for the latter.

We sometimes hear it said that we cannot expect those individuals or societies that are not Christian to behave in Christian ways. At one level this is true (although various Bible teachers troughout history have understood part of the role of the DIvine Law to be to restrict sin and shape behaviour even in those who aren’t Christians themselves). Joyful Christian discipleship requires relationship with God, the redeeming work of Christ, and the presence of the Holy Spirit making possible a way of life that is not possible otherwise. But that is not to say that the Living God will not judge a fallen world by the standards of His justice and righeousness.

We might think that Jeremiah was right to speak prophetically to the nation of Judah. This is where we find the ancient Church. But Jeremiah clearly sees his prophetic mandate as extending beyond the Church. Egypt, Philistia, Moab, Ammon, Kedar, Hazor, Elam and Babylon all find themselves in his sights (Ch.46-51). And he isn’t alone. Other prophets are called to speak into the situations of nations that in no way acknowledge the Lordship of Christ (Isaiah, Ezekiel, Amos all have lengthy sections to this effect; Obadiah’s whole book is addressed to Edom; and Nahum’s is addressed to Nineveh). The theological basis for this is simply that the God of Israel is the God of the nations, whether He is recognised as such or not (see e.g. Dan.4:32). This remains the case, and in our own context, we confess that Jesus is Lord not just over the Church in the UK, but over the UK itself. The Government remains answerable to Him who has ordained it, the nation to Him who has called it - like all nations - into being (Amos 9:7). All humanity, at personal and corporate levels, remains accountable to God.

In an established Church such as the Church of England, in which Bishops are enmeshed in the legislative structures of national life, we might expect this to be a more pronounced facet of Ecclesiastical ministry. In an ideal world civil and religious structures of authoirty would work in partnership, each fulfilling its God-given mandate to shape the life of society according to God’s holy Law. Government would seek to create an environment in which justice is prevalent, and citizens are protected and provided for, and which is conducive to Christians ‘living peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness’; this would provide the context in which the Church would fulfil her duties, joys and responsiblities.

But we don’t live in an ideal world.

Bonhoeffer (whose example and thinking we’ll look at more closely in a future post) suggested that there are three ways in which the Church can relate to Government when it fails to act in line with it’s God-given mandate:

(i) to question the State regarding its actions and their legitimacy

(ii) to aid those who suffer as a result of unjust or inappropriate State action

(iii) directly take action against the state to stop it from perpetrating evil - though this is only legitimate in situations where the Church sees its very existence as being threatened by the State.

For Bonhoeffer we can do such things because we have a better knowledge of the nature and purpose of the State, and of its limitations, than the State itself does. When the State stops behaving as God has ordained, the Church must prophetically call it back to its proper role… whatever that might cost the people of God in the process.