I’ll do two more posts on Biblical examples of the Church’s relationship to civil and religious authorities: this one on Acts, and one on the Book of Revelation.
So, Acts… It is worth starting by recognising the extent to which the Church in Acts complies with the statutes and decrees of the Roman Empire. Indeed, as we saw the other day in our Bible Read Through Breakfast on Acts, one of the points of Luke writing it might have been precisely to show that Roman authorities consistently have no complaint against followers of the Way. Paul knows and uses is legal ‘rights’; is willing to use his legal status as a Roman Citizen when it will benefit the Church; and he is consistently compliant with legal processes, even when this is the cause of significant inconvenience, suffering and the unjust loss of freedom (see e.g. Acts 16:22-24; 25:10-12; also I ICor.11:23-25). He sees the State as entitled to enact punishment. All this we would expect from the man who penned Rom.13:1-7. He is conversant with local legal customs and formal precedents which he regualrly takes advantage of in the cause of the Gospel (e.g. Acts 17:22f.). Further, his claim is that he has enver violated Jewish Law, properly understood. At one point he inadvertently ‘insults’ the High Priest; which illicites immediate repentance (Acts 23:3-5).
And yet it’s hard to escape the conclusion that Paul’s relationship with the legal structures is profoundly subversive. He is an apostle of the Kingdom of God, and as such knows both (at one level) his indispensibility, but also that the movement of which he is a part will far outlast the transience of the Roman Empire. It is this which liberates Paul - and all Christians - to submit to the authorities. This is an important point. Paul’s submission to Civil Authority is not on the basis of that Authority as an end in itself. Paul (and other Christians) are free to obey or not obey as is deemed in the best interests of the Gospel. His obedience - and His disobedience - is in relation to a higher authority. This is why authoritarian and totalitarian regimes have a hard time with the Church.
We see the same attitide in other Apostles and Church leaders. Their adherence to the laws of the Roman Empire and their willingness to subject themselves even to manifestly unjust rulings by courts is breathtaking. But there is again a subversive element that is exacerbated by the propensity of angelic beings to break them out of prison periodically. In such extraordinary circumstances, it is interesting to note that Peter is variously willing to continue public preaching in defiance of religoius authorities (Acts 5:42), or to ‘leave for another place’ (Acts 12:17).
Perhaps the most explicit moments of DISobedience are found in Acts 4:19 & 5:29. Both are in relation to the Sanhedrin; and specifically to their command not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus (Acts 4:18). Evangelism is an integral part of Christian discipleship. How are we to react when another authority structure within society demands that the Church ceases an activity that is fundamental to our dsicipleship? It is a simple question of w/Who has a higher authority (Matt.28:18). The One with higher authority has the greater claim on our obedience. This is always the case - whether it involves Government legislation, work place policy, cultural norms, family expectations or any other structure that makes demands contrary to those of Christ. To the extent that we are commanded to believe or behave in ways contrary to God’s will revealed in Christ, we remain free to disobey. How such non-cooperation is enacted, and whether it is overt or clandestine are questions we’ll put on hold for a couple more articles.
It is often suggested that such behaviour would constituate a bad witness. The Apostles would beg to differ. They were in fact bearing witness to the reality of the majesty of Jesus, and of their conviction that in Him and in His Kingdom they had found something worth suffering for.