Philip Melanchthon, in his 1521 Loci Communes, provides 3 points concerning the relationship of the Christian citizen to the Civil leaders: those who wield the sword. Now, this is one of his earlier writings, however, it should be of particular interest for those currently reflecting on the relationship between church and state in our day. The three points are:
(1) "if princes command anything against God, they should not be obeyed. (p. 187)"
The specific example provided by Melanchthon is Amos 7:10-17, where the king of Israel tells Amos to cease prophesying in Israel. Melanchthon's point is very similar to what the Apostle's said to the council in Jerusalem when they were told to cease preaching the gospel: "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard (Acts 4:19-20)." It is perhaps worth noting that in both cases, we are not dealing with a situation such as we are currently seeing in relation to the Covid-19 (where all gatherings are being prohibited, unless specific restraints are in place), but, a situation in which the prophet Amos, and the Apostles, were being told to cease publicly proclaiming the Word of God. The governments of Canada and the United States have not prohibited the public pronouncement of the Word of God. As such, I doubt that the current situation would fall under this first principle.
(2) "if they command what is in the public's best interest, they should be obeyed. (p. 187)"
Support for this principle is drawn from Romans 13:5 (a verse currently heavily debated). This is also a principle of political theory which can be traced back to Aristotle. That is, that the purpose of the civil magistrate is to do everything with the common good in mind. Melanchthon's comment on this point is short and quite simple, "For love obligates us to all kinds of civil responsibilities. (p. 187)" That is, out of love for our neighbours, and those in our society, we are morally obliged to engage in all kinds of actions.
This is one of the areas where there is currently (in relation to covid-19 restrictions) a great deal of debate. My observation, of current opinions related to covid restrictions on the church, is that the debate turns, almost entirely, around the question: "is the current situation so dire that the government restrictions can be said to be in the public's best interest?" Some say "No! This is tyranny". To them, Melanchthon would present his 3rd principle. Some would answer that question with a "Yes! The situation is sufficiently dire that the government restrictions are in the public's best interest." To them, Melanchthon would say, "Therefore, they should be obeyed."
(3) "if they issue any tyrannical commands when nothing can be done about it short of a disturbance or sedition, we should also bear with this magistracy because of love. For this is what Christ says, 'If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him also the left'. But if you can disobey it without scandal and a public disturbance, do so. (p. 187)"
This third point speaks directly to those who think that the current regulations and restrictions are overbearing, not in the public's best interest, or are straight up tyrannical. There is almost no comment needed on this point. For Melanchthon, if nothing can be done about the tyrannical commands other than public disturbances and public disobedience, then, "we should also bear with this magistracy [in other words, obey] because of love." For Melanchthon, if public disturbance or sedition are the only ways to effect change, then obedience out of love for our society is the better route. However, note the last line. This is clearly referring to a form of "private civil disobedience". For Melanchthon, if it is possible to disobey the civil magistrate in a way that will not result in public scandal, sedition, or disturbance, then "do so!" The example that Melanchthon provides is that being unlawfully accused and put in prison. Melanchthon suggests that in this case, if you are able to escape, then you are within your rights to do so (Lutheran Shawshank Redemption anybody?).
For Melanchthon, therefore, "Public" civil disobedience or sedition which would result in "public" disturbances, even against a tyrant, is uncalled for. However, if you are able to privately, without creating a scandal or public disturbance, disobey an unjust law, then, says Melanchthon, do so (you are within your rights).
The question remains, for our current situation, are the government restrictions truly in the public's best interest or not? If they are, then it would be wrong to disobey them in any way (publicly or privately). If they are not (if they are indeed overbearing or tyrannical), then, according to Melanchthon, it is wrong to disobey them in a way that creates a public scandal or disturbance; though it would be acceptable to disobey them in a way that does not create a public scandal or disturbance (thus, privately and in secret).
All quotes taken from: Philip Melanchthon, Commonplaces: Loci Communes 1521, trans. and ed. Christian Preus (Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2014).
No comments:
Post a Comment