Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Proverbs 3:13 ¶ How blessed is the man who finds wisdom And the man who gains understanding. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Proverbs 3:13 ¶ Happy [blessed, considered fortunate, to be admired] is the man who finds [skillful and godly] wisdom, And the man who gains understanding and insight [learning from God's word and life's experiences], |
Subject: Is civil disobedience OK when... |
Bible Note: Hi, Kathy; Traditionally, an act of civil disobedience has involved two things, (1) publicly violating a law perceived to be unjust and (2) publicly accepting the correspondingly unjust punishment. The intent is to change the law. A modern variant (60s and 70s) is to violate a law in order to call public attention to some other injustice. An example of the more tradional form was 42-year-old Rosa Parks' refusal to sit at the back of the bus (as the law in Montgomery, Alabama required all blacks to do) in 1955. She was subsequently arrested and the resulting publicity eventually produced a change in the law. This kind of civil disobedience is nearly always peaceful - at least on the part of the protester. Probably the most famous practitioner of non-violent civil disobedience was Mohandas Gandhi, who almost single-handedly broke British rule of India by doing nothing more than sit quietly and refuse to obey a particular law. An example of the modern variant was the Berrigan brothers (Phillip and Daniel, both Catholic priests) who occupied or vandalized government property to protest the war in Vietnam. It is important to note that the Berrigans were not protesting the trespassing and vandalism laws they broke; they broke the laws to call attention to their views on the war. This form of civil disobedience is also more prone to violence on the part of the protester. The key, of course, is determining whether or not a law is so unjust that obedience to it is unconscionable. The protesters I mentioned believed that to leave such laws intact was to stand by and see fellow citizens suffer intolerable treatment. To remain passive in the face of oppression was to participate in the oppression. Gandhi's conscience was shaped by his Hindu beliefs. Most of the early Civil Rights leaders' consciences were shaped by the Bible and Christianity. Anti-war protesters' consciences were shaped by many things - Christianity, universal human rights, pacifism, hatred of Richard Nixon, and popular culture. For the Christian, the heart of the matter is probably Romans 13:5 and 7: "Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience." "Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor." My follow-up to kalos' question is this: When one breaks a law and waits quietly for the authorities, offers no resistance to arrest, offers no defense other than conscience, and accepts the punishment, has one submitted to the authorities as Paul admonished us to do? Sorry to be so long-winded. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |