Christians, as a whole, want to be a cooperative and peaceful people. There are of course, exceptions in any group, but I am convinced that the vast majority of Jesus followers would rather be left alone in peace rather than look for a fight. The reason is because at heart, Christians are commanded to love people and that includes our enemies. So, as a people group, Christians try to find ways to demonstrate that love to a world which is inherently selfish and power-hungry. This perspective should be of no surprise to anyone in or out of the Church.
The problem with that proposition arises when the culture and those who “rule” it become increasingly more hostile and tyrannical to the faithful. Do we, as believers, simply receive adversity passively, like a doormat, for anyone or everyone to stomp on for any reason -or- do we resist those challenges when necessary and disobey when asked to violate significantly important values and convictions?
Those questions are becoming an increasingly relevant discussion within the Church at large. Just ask Pastor John MacArthur.
How these questions are answered will in no small measure determine what Christianity looks like in America for the foreseeable future.
The good news is that we don’t have to reinvent biblical positions or rethink all the repercussions these questions generate. The question of Christianity and civil disobedience has been wrestled with long before the 21st century. There are most importantly the Scriptures which speak to these questions, but also the wisdom of believers all through the centuries. One of the most fascinating examples is The Magdeburg Confession. It was written, signed, and released on April 13, 1550, by 9 protestant (Lutheran) pastors under siege by Emperor Charles V in the city of Magdeburg, (Saxony) Germany for refusing to assimilate back into Roman Catholicism. It’s a long and intricate story, however, suffice it to say that these 9 pastors were refusing the edict (law) of the Emperor to assimilate back into Catholicism and thereby compromising their faith and ministry.
Their model to this radical stand was the notable reformer, Martin Luther. Luther had been called in 1521 by Pope Leo X, to attend what would become known as the Diet of Worms to answer the charges of heresy with regards to his writings. When Luther failed to renounce his beliefs and subsequently would return to Wittenberg, Emperor Charles V ordered Luther’s capture. Providentially and no doubt strategically, Prince Frederick, an elector of Saxony, staged a fake kidnapping to hide Luther and protect him. Frederick, acting as a subordinate magistrate to Charles V, willfully contravened this unjust edict, and saved Luther’s life. It would be analogous to a county Sheriff defying a Presidential order. It was no small act.
This single act by Frederick, along with the pastors’ study of the Scriptures, empowered the people of Magdeburg to stand against the despotism of Charles V as he would send soldiers to this city to confront these pastors and churchmen who dared defy his edict. History records over 4,000 of Charles’ forces were killed along with 468 Magdeburgians who laid down their lives. The siege ended approximately 18 months after the release of this confession with terms beneficial to the city and its people. Their (not so) “civil” disobedience won the day and in no small measure affirmed Protestant doctrine and life.
All of this occurred over a doctrinal dispute. It is difficult for us to comprehend such things in America as we are thoroughly immersed into pluralism and to some degree religious tolerance in the 21st century. But the question of, “What rights does a government have to enforce beliefs upon the citizens?”, still plagues us to this very day. How much accommodation should the Church demonstrate to its earthly governments? Where are the lines of submission and defiance?
The Confession itself begins with the pastors clearly outlining Protestant beliefs juxtaposed to Roman Catholic doctrine. This was short and to the point (thankfully), ending with a short instruction on the place of governance. From this declaration the pastors move to what will be our greatest concern and that is resistance to governing authorities and most specifically the responsibilities of subordinate (lesser) authorities (or what we will define as “disobedience”).
THE FIRST ARGUMENT
If indeed, the pastors write, the magistrate is a minister of God to honor and esteem good works and a “terror” or restraint to evil works (Romans 13:1-4), then when a ruler begins to be an obstacle or adversary for good works and in fact facilitates evil works, he therefore no longer carries the ordinance of God, but rather the ordinance of the devil. Equally understood that the one who resists such an evil ruler, no longer resists the ordinance of God, but rather the ordinance of the devil. In fact, a Christian’s resistance is a matter of calling.
The pastors interestingly deal with and distinguish different degrees of offense or injury, lest a person arbitrarily decides to make any or all offenses an opportunity to disobey their superiors. They offer four (4) tiers of injustice. These tiers are important to discern for the subordinate magistrate as they will guide his decision making with regards to contravening a superior’s orders.
Tier 1 – Not excessively atrocious injustices, but remediable.
These might be analogous to “inconveniences” or a disruption or nuisance. The Christian is expected to endure things they may disagree with, but not necessarily find themselves in opposition to the Scriptures. These are light and temporary afflictions and can be endured with patience and longsuffering.
Tier 2 – Unjust violence, contrary to law or oath, that takes away life, spouse, children, privilege, or sovereignty.
This injustice may indeed be linked to rash, emotional decisions which occur only sporadically. This is injury which may be tolerated by a subordinate magistrate so long as they do not enter into sinful partnership with the superior magistrate. These egregious offenses can be left to the vengeance of God. The subordinate magistrate must suffer for righteousness sake in these instances as well.
Tier 3 – This is as the second, only the inferior magistrate cannot endure it without sinning himself if a defense is omitted.
This is similar to tier two, except lower magistrates are expected to partner in the sinful injustice.
Tier 4 – The highest level of injury by superiors is when they are so mad (crazy) that they persecute with guile, malice, and force. Their tyranny extends to also challenging God, not by any sudden or momentary fury, but with a deliberate and persistent action to destroy good works for posterity.
This magistrate is the “devil” himself and must be resisted and disobeyed with all might. This tyrant has forfeited any appeal to be a “minister of God” (Romans 13) and instead represents the kingdom of the devil. Subordinate magistrates who are Christians, may exercise all resistance necessary by whatever power they hold as a true “minister of God”.
THE SECOND ARGUMENT
The pastors write that when Christ commanded the things which are Caesar’s to be rendered unto Caesar and the things that are God’s to be rendered unto God, He was clearly defining jurisdictional boundaries. When government (Caesar) reaches over its ordained boundaries it is an attempt to snatch divine honor from such actions on the pretext of its power to claim it for itself by the “sword”. It is de facto, substituting itself for God. This act is analogous to the devil himself, who sought to usurp the place of the God (Is.14:14).
In the Magdeburg siege, Charles V was attempting to force a religious belief (conviction) upon a people by the sword. It was clearly out of his jurisdiction to do such according to the Scriptures.
I might add a small point of commentary at this juncture. Religion and state, up to this point, had been so mixed that the statements (and implications) of the Reformers were staggering. For the first time in over 1,000 years, pastors were advocating a philosophy which said that no earthly king, magistrate, or Pope could claim authority over the Scriptures by Divine right. They maintained there was an authority beyond and transcendent to their governments. And, should these governments find itself in opposition to the Scriptures, the Scripture was to be obeyed.
THE THIRD ARGUMENT
The pastors of Magdeburg are probably best quoted themselves at this point:
“If God wanted superior magistrates who have become tyrants to be inviolable because of His ordinance and commandment, how many impious and absurd things would follow from this? Chiefly, it would follow that God, by His own ordinance and command, is strengthening, nay, honoring and abetting evil works, and is hindering, nay, destroying good works; that there are contraries in the nature of God Himself, and in this ordinance by which He has instituted the magistrate; that God is no less against His own ordinance than He is for the human race.”
The biblical logic they espouse is simple: If God has granted such liberty to the tyrant by His own Word and command, who will prevent the tyrant from laying waste all of nature (even if the tyrant could) and remain innocent before God? Who will do what is right, contrary to the will of the tyrant, when in (convoluted) fact they are resisting the very ordinance of God? God now is the author Who originates and builds up evil by His own ordinances in the tyrannical magistrate.
THE FINAL EXHORTATION
The Confession concludes by giving an exhortation to action by those who would read it. This exhortation can be summarized into four (4) relevant points.
First, no Christian person can bring aid to an enemy (those who would attack the authority of the Scriptures) of any sort. This would include military plans, arms, money, counsel or comfort. To do this would in fact be assisting to establish an antichrist worldview. The Magdeburg pastors were specifically addressing those leaders and believers who were equivocating their allegiance to the supremacy of the Scriptures by either betrayal or compromise.
Secondly, those who deserted the Magdeburgians with reasons which are not based in the Scriptures (which in their mind were none), are guilty of betrayal and of a darkened conscience. This exhortation was a call for the Protestant sympathizers to get off the pew and into the battle happening at Magdeburg. The pastors saw this as a solemn duty for Protestant Christians to respond.
Thirdly, Protestant Christians from across Europe should put forth the same effort at preserving Christ and the true Gospel as those enemies put forth in destroying Him.
Fourthly, this is the duty of all Christians for the glory of God and the sake of the Gospel. Men’s souls are at stake and true salvation is being contended. This transcends personal concerns and focuses on eternal destinies. This is about the preservation of true religion. Christian men ought to undertake upright actions.
I would encourage all Christians to take the time to read through The Magdeburg Confession and consider the points these brave pastors made before the armies of Charles V. We know that their stand and writings highly impacted John Knox (“Give me Scotland lest I die”) and Theodore Beza (Calvin’s successor). The issues we face in the 21st century are not that dissimilar to those in the 16th century. Ironically, it was a group of pastors who led the way out of 1550 A.D. passivity. My sanctified intuition tells me that it will be pastors who lead us out of this era’s challenges as well.
God give us men who have Your voice….
(This is my synopsis from the only English translation from the Latin provided by Dr Matthew Colvin. I also thank Pastor Matt Trewhella for his ground breaking work in this arena.)
No Comments