“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God” (Romans 13:1, New International Version [NIV]).
“The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live…  So God was kind to the midwives and the people increased and became even more numerous” (Exodus 1:17, 20 [NIV]).
As a long-time student of the history of philosophy and theology, I have often struggled with the two texts cited above from the standpoint of acceptable civil disobedience.
The first, from Romans 13, appears to give a blanket decree to obey governing authorities because these have been established by God.  Elsewhere in the NT, we read how the religious leaders sought to trap Jesus by asking him whether it was right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar (Mark 12; also in Matthew 22 and Luke 20).  Jesus answers that one should “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” (Mark 12:17 [NIV]).
Note that in neither Romans 13 nor the gospel accounts is there any qualifying condition laid down.  Paul does not say, “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities unless they are clearly evil.”  Jesus does not say that we should “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s unless Caesar is an immoral scumbag of a human being.”  Both commands seem to be absolute in tone, intention, and language.
On the other hand, there are also narratives in Scripture where civil disobedience is not only reported but is also praised.  Our passage from Exodus 1 states explicitly that the Hebrew midwives “did not do what the King of Egypt had told them to do” and that as a consequence of this disobedience, “God was kind to the midwives.”
Other texts follow a similar pattern.  Rahab disobeys her governing authority who ordered her to produce the two Hebrew spies that she was hiding (Joshua 2).  In Daniel 3, the three Hebrews Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego do not obey King Nebuchadnezzar’s order to worship the golden image, while in Daniel 6 Daniel does not obey King Darius’ edict not to pray to any deity or human other than himself.
What’s a Bible-believing Christian to do when one part of Scripture contains commands that say one thing, and and another part provides laudatory narratives that promote quite the opposite?
What a Bible-believing Christian should not is simply quote Romans 13 against those who don’t support a particular political party and accuse them of unfaithfulness.  Note that this applies equally to those progressive Christians who wonder why fundamentalists weren’t supporting the Obama administration and to those fundamentalists  who wonder why progressive Christians aren’t supporting the Trump administration.
Both sides are wrong – or at least, both sides are theologically naive – because neither position takes into account the reality that the Bible also sanctions civil disobedience.
Therefore, the conversation that we should be having is around the question, “When is civil disobedience justified for Christians?”
What about Christian athletes who kneel for the national anthem?  Or Christian parents who were opposed to school desegregation?
What about Christian bakers and florists who don’t support gay marriage, or who want to reverse Roe vs. Wade?
When is civil disobedience justified for the Christian?
That’s a hard question that’s not going to admit of clear, easy, or simple answers.   We might agree that this current administration is a corrupt mess of immoral white supremacy.  We might alternatively agree that the previous administration was a corrupt overreach of federal power.  But that does not mean that we will agree on whether civil disobedience is the right response, or which form of civil disobedience is more likely to be productive.
But that’s the nature of these kinds of conversations.  And just as there is room in the canonical Scriptures for a range of views on this (and many other) topics, so there must be room in the family of faith for a range of views on this (and other) topics.
And because there is room in the canonical Scriptures for a range of view, a defining characteristic of those who seek to live with a vibrant faith in the 21st century must be a humble tolerance that concedes that I might be wrong while you might be right.  It follows that all voices within the family of faith are worth hearing and taking seriously – even those that seem to a progressive Christian to be hopelessly outdated, or a fundamentalist like an inexcusable accomodation to modern culture.
The church has not historically handled well such matters of theological dissent within its ranks, in large part because it has failed to recognize the room created by Scripture itself for dissent, as in the question of civil disobedience.  As the church moves forward, it is my prayer that dissent and disagreement will be acknowledged and taken seriously, and that the church will make room for those who question traditional norms as an act of their vibrant faith.

Sharing is caring!