A friend of mine recently drew my attention to this article from the Gospel Coalition about the issue of civil disobedience against President Obama's healthcare plan, which provides contraception to those it covers. Evangelical leaders like Chuck Colson and Rick Warren are calling on their constituents to join with Catholics in engaging in civil disobedience against this initiative.Rather than discussing the issue of contraception itself, I am curious to hear what you all think about whether this counts as worthy of civil disobedience against the state.
I have discussed the topic of civil disobedience here, here, and here, and my take on it is that it is permissible under certain conditions. First, is it the result of being forced to break an explicit command of God's law? Second, is it non-violent? And third, does it avoid appealing to spiritual liberty as our ground for civil liberty? If the answers to these questions is yes, then it seems to me that civil disobedience is allowable for the Christian.
The question for us is, Are my criteria valid, and if so, does the Obamacare contraception debacle qualify?
"Are my criteria valid, and if so, does the Obamacare contraception debacle qualify?"
ReplyDeleteYou (you) outta know.
Sorry, couldn't resist. I think civil disobedience would be called for here, yes.
Devin,
ReplyDeleteIf CD is called for in your opinion, then you obviously have a broader allowance for such a thing than my criteria allow, right? I ask, because this issue does not meet criterion #1, in that the person who runs the institution and therefore provides health insurance is not being forced to disobey a direct command of God simply because contraception is included in the coverage.
It's like worrying that part of the money from the paycheck I give my secretary might be used to purchase a handgun so she can kill her husband. Obviously I don't think she can do that, but there's a difference between this and being forced to personally disobey a divine command.
Re your criterion #1, it's a fascinating moral topic. Roman Catholic moral teaching is very rich on what acts the church or a member can take as a moral agent without being deemed the principal actor. There is a wealth of case law (casuisitic law) that the church draws on that goes back about 1500 years of Christian church history. The gist of it is that a church/Christian cannot escape moral culpability for violtion of God's commands by doing indirectly what he can't do directly. The canon law reasons that if a moral actor is the proximate cause of the violation, he incurs guilt the same as the person performing the act. To be a proximate cause requires a case by case analysis by asking such questions as how attenuated is the act from the result, how involved is the actor, would the act have occured but for the actor's involvement, and how active is the actor in facilitating the sin? Ample church teaching in canon law supports the finding that for the church to purchase a product such as insurance that pays for abortion or contraception is to actively faciliate and be the proximate cause of an abortion. An analogy is if a person hired a contract killer but didn't himself pull the trigger. The law recognizes that the person who hired the killer is guilty. And of course the Catholic church teaches that contracepton is a sin and abortion is a grave sin that is the moral equivalent of murder. Thus, paying for an abortion through the provision of health insurance would make the church a facilitator and actor, incuring the same moral condemnation and opporbrium for the sin as the person performing or causing the abortion or contraceptive act. The canon law draws on writings of churchmen back to about 450 A.D.
DeleteI think the question of whether your criterion #1 is met is a complicated, tough question. Personally, I don't dismiss the Catholic church's moral teaching on proximate cause here. I have't read all the church law on the topic, but the initial analyses by a bishop that I read were very persusasive, at least to me.
Jason,
DeleteCVanDyke had an interesting response. I do not know whether this would be considered a material cooperation with evil, but I think it could be. I will have to research it more.
My problem is that I see the NT doing pretty much going out of its way to promote civil obedience, which just seems to make it really hard to find any warrant for disobedience. Obedience seems to be the obvious biblical virtue, and I just can’t see Paul or Peter, after saying what they do in Romans 13:1-7 or 1 peter 2:13-25, ever saying, “Yeah, I said all that and was trying to privilege the virtue of obedience over the vice of disobedience, but obviously there’s a place for disobedience.” Huh? True, if we are compelled to directly and personally violate a clear mandate of God then we are to disobey. But is that really something that could be called civil disobedience? And isn’t it possible to obey God rather than men and still be civilly obedient?
ReplyDeleteBut I also tend to think that what these evangies mean in relation to the current healthcare question is to disagree and push back on certain policies. And I don’t see how disagreement or protest can be honestly construed as disobedience. My kids push back all the time, but I rarely think it’s being disobedient (though there is a point at which is unbecoming and can turn into disobedience). Frankly, I think that rhetoric is more a function of evangies with a martyr complex, constructing things in such a way that makes it look like they are suffering religious persecution in a polity that makes that pretty hard. And so now they must righteously disobey. I’m sure that’s pretty good for feeling righteous and all, but the effect is to look whiny and not a little silly.
Which churches are affected by this besides the Catholic Church? Is it isolated to churches that provide medical care?
ReplyDeleteAny church or organization could and likely will be affected by this. And it requires covering the morning after pill as well, which causes the baby to be aborted.
DeleteVoicing disagreement over what the gov is doing is just being American. Having a sit in @ a planned parenthood clinic is more like CB. This provision in obamacare could rise to that level when you include the morning after pill. IMO
ReplyDeleteI have issues with the culpability argument (although I have not researched it at all). It just seems like it can be taken so far as to include almost anything we do. If I harvest grain that is turned into bread that nourishes a boy who grows up to be a serial killer, am I culpable?
ReplyDeleteOr to take a less extreme example, what's the difference between providing health insurance that includes contraception and my employee using her paycheck to buy it?
Jason,
DeleteYes, I agree that the causation argument can be stretched too thin so that culpability is laid at the door of persons whose involvement was too attenuated to have any moral significance. But the ethical or at least moral analysis focuses on "proximate cause" and necessiates a close analysis of how attenuated or how close is the causation. Your example of harvesting grain would be an easy case for a Christian ethicist to say no proxmiate cause, no culpability, because there are many closer proximate causes in the chain of causation. Nor is there any foreseeability. But purchasing health insurance that mandates coverage for abortion or contraception (assuming one's moral compass finds those objectionable) is not so easily dismissed, IMO. It is clearly foreseeable that a female would invoke the coverage to obtain an abortion; indeed that's the whole purpose behind the insurance mandate. Further, the "but for" test of proximate cause is apparently met in that, but for the insurance coverage of abortion/contraceptive faciliated by the employer, many women (most?) would not be able to afford it on a regular basis; that's why they want insurance coverage in the first place. So the ethical causation argument seems to me to tip toward moral culpability under traditional ethical analsysis as practiced by Christian churches, and delineated in detail in the casuistic and canon law of the Catholic Church.
The "Obamacare" manadate is that all employers must provide/pay for health insurance that covers the abortion/contraceptive coverage, unless you have an exemption. The exemption applies only to churches qua churches, not to any other activity of the church. So a church-related charity, hospital, counseling center, school, or other church institution other than a worship center would not have the exemption and would have to provide the insurance for their employees.
Wes,
ReplyDeleteWhich churches are affected by this besides the Catholic Church? Is it isolated to churches that provide medical care?
My understanding is that churches are not affected by this at all, but "religious institutions" are. But Devin seems to think otherwise.
Another question would be, Could a religious institution ask their employees to sign a contract saying they will not exercise the contraception option?
My understanding is that any organization that provides insurance to its employees will fall under this mandate, unless they meet the incredibly narrow exemption of having only employees or people they serve who belong to their specific religion/denomination. So if a church provides insurance to its employees and has admins or cleaning staff or whoever that do not belong to their religion, then they are not exempted.
DeleteWhat do you mean by your third point: "does it avoid appealing to spiritual liberty as our ground for civil liberty?"
ReplyDeleteWhat I mean is that the WCF is pretty clear that our liberty in Christ is spiritual and not civil in nature (we're free from sin, death, hell, &c). So the divines say that it is wrong to disobey the civil magistrate under the guise of Christian liberty (for example, "The Son has set me free, so therefore I can't be forced to pay taxes").
ReplyDeleteI think MLK violated this principle unnecessarily. He did have grounds to do what he did without needing to invoke spiritual liberty to do it, in my opinion.
Hope that helps.
Voicing disagreement over what the gov is doing is just being American. Having a sit in @ a planned parenthood clinic is more like CB.
ReplyDeleteNo, it's more like unbecoming public behavior. But wisdom and decorum don't tend to be the long suit for activists occupying Planned Parenthood or Wall Street.
Zrim,
ReplyDeleteDo you see all public demonstration as unbecoming of civility?
JJS, I wouldn’t put it that way. I’d say that there are more becoming ways to express disagreement and protest. I think the kinds of public demonstration we most often see in our day seem to be mainly unconcerned about how we behave publicly, mostly because the moral cause is everything and so concern for decorum and civility becomes silly and even weak-minded. After all, “there are babies dying and crooks stealing money!” I just think how we protest is as important as what we protest.
ReplyDeleteHow about MLK's protests? Were they ruly enough for you? And do you drink your tea with a pinky extended?
ReplyDeleteMLK's protests and those who followed his example (e.g., Rosa Parks) were, IMO, a good model for protests. The civil rights movement yeilded tremendous positive reform (justice, equity, opportunity, alleviation of poverty and suffering, etc.) that probably would not have happened without it. And the movement was motivated by Christian principle for the most part. Some recent work in the last 5 years has analyzed the explicit Christian dimension of the movement. MLK bios have commented that MLK and the movement was at its core motivated by Christian conviction. That King involved churches qua churches was, IMO, unfortunate and an infringement of the spirituality of the church. But the involvement of individual Christians was praiseworthy. Dr. Horton has commented on individual Christian involvement in the protests of the civil rights movement as an example of praiseworthy Christian cultural engagement that is consistent with 2K.
ReplyDeleteI agree, I appreciate the non-violence of the civil rights protests, while cringing at the couching of it all in biblical rhetoric.
ReplyDeletePersonally, one thing that shapes my thinking on these things is the fact that equal rights (for blacks, women, the poor) are NEVER bequeathed from the powerful or the majority, but they always have to be won by popular struggle.
Extended pinkies beat upraised middles. But seriously, while aspects of MLK strike me as dignified, I don’t see how being non-violently disobedient meets the NT virtues of obedience and decorum.
ReplyDeleteThis is what makes me wonder when folks claim that MLK’s movement was at its core motivated by Christian conviction. Try as I might, I don’t find anything in the NT, that place I presume reveals Christian convictions, that props up anything but civil obedience.
But that's the point I am trying to make: Although the Bible does not promise believers equal civil rights in Christ, natural law and the state do. So King could march as an American black man, and not necessarily as a Christian.
ReplyDeleteBut what I'm saying is that it's not quite that bifurcated. If one claims Christian then shouldn't he behave according to NT ethics, which seem to reveal nothing but obedience and preclude disobedience? And I'm not saying marching is disobedient. It could be, if your civil authority says it's not allowed. But I am saying that marching, even if perfectly lawful, seems unseemly public behavior and there seem more dignified ways to push back against things we don't like.
ReplyDeleteThis is the part where someone says nothing gets done the old-fashioned way, but that raises more questions about what animates activism.
I agree with Jason that often equal rights have historically required popular struggle. Or they don't happen. When we ask what motivates activism, what motivated MLK and the civil rights movement of the 1960s to 70s was, according to MLK as he is revealed in his bios, Christian conviction: Ex: : "So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith." (Gal. 6:10). "Do to others as you would have them do to you" (Lk.6:31), etc, etc. To be sure, MLK misapplied some verses with some unfortuante exegegesis and he confused the two kingdoms on occasion, but there is no shortage of biblical support in Scripture for alleviating suffering and helping our fellow citizen.
ReplyDeleteFurther, I would point out that in our nation's system of laws, laws that are unconstitutional are "ultra vires" (beyond the power of the government) and need not be obeyed as they are a nullity. So when Rosa Parks broke the law and sat at the back of the bus, the local ordinance or state law (I don't recall which it was) that made that unlawful was void as violative of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause and need not be obeyed. Even the Westminster Standards require us to obey the lawful laws of the magistrate. Indeed, a soldier or policeman who is ordered to murder innocent civilians can be convicted for obeying his superior officer.
The upshot is that Christiain obedience to the powers that be must take into account what the powers that be say is the law, and if the system of law says that an unlawful law is not a law, then it follows logically that Christians are not biblically bound to obey it.Further, the law itself says that to challenge an unlawful law, a citizen must usually break it, get convicted, and challenge his/her conviction on appeal to have the law overturned. That is what the magistrate says. For this reason, I personally have no problem with MLK and his followers' peaceful civil disobedience back in the 60s because, insofar as they were disobeying unlawful laws, those were not laws at all.
Correction: Rosa Parks sat at the FRONT of the bus. Methinks I'm typing too fast...
ReplyDeleteI recommend David Chappell, A Stone of Hope, an account of the intellectual and social origins of the civil rights movement ("CRM").
ReplyDeleteHe argues that the CRM was the most successful social movement in American history, and that its success is not a story of the ultimate triumph of liberal ideas after decades of gradual progress. Rather, it was a story of the power of Christian ideas and Christian tradition. Chappell reviews the intellectual roots of civil rights reform, and he demonstrates that northern liberals' faith in the power of human reason to overcome prejudice was at odds with the CRM's goal of immediate change. Even when liberals sincerely wanted change, they saw that they couldn't inspire others to unite and fight for it. Enter the prophetic tradition of the Old Testament --sometimes translated into secular language--drove African American activists to huge solidarity and self-sacrifice. MLK, Fannie Lou Hamer, James Lawson, Modjeska Simkins, and other African American leaders believed, as the Hebrew prophets believed, that they had to stand apart from society and instigate really dramatic changes to force an unwilling world to abandon its sinful ways. The embarked on an impassioned campaign to stamp out "the sin of segregation" and, Chappell argues, created the vitality of a Christian revival to their cause. Meanwhile, segregationists found little support within their white southern Christian mainline denominations. Even though white segregationists outvoted and outgunned black integrationists, the segregationists lost because mainly they lacked a Christian commitment to their cause. In short, secular liberalism didn't generate enough fire in the belly to propel a movement, but a Christian tradition drawing upon the "prophetic" tradition, as MLK understood it, ignited a firestorm of motivation that caught on broadly.
Further, I would point out that in our nation's system of laws, laws that are unconstitutional are "ultra vires" (beyond the power of the government) and need not be obeyed as they are a nullity…The upshot is that Christiain obedience to the powers that be must take into account what the powers that be say is the law, and if the system of law says that an unlawful law is not a law, then it follows logically that Christians are not biblically bound to obey it.
ReplyDeleteBut WCF 23.4 says: “It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates, to honor their persons, to pay them tribute or other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience' sake. Infidelity, or difference in religion, does not make void the magistrates' just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted, much less has the Pope any power and jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and, least of all, to deprive them of their dominions, or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretence whatsoever.”
The point being made doesn’t seem to be one of finding legal loopholes in order to justify any form of civil disobedience. It sounds like the only virtue to be cultivated by the Christian (at least the one persuaded a Presbyterian) is obedience. I get that modern political theory, while winking at obedience, is all about finding reasons to go beyond the law. But for those who claim Christian confession, there just isn’t much confessionally or biblically to warrant it. Particularly vexing for those who claim Christian and the liberty to disobey is 1 Peter 2:
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.
Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly.
The charge to obey authorities that are unjust flies in the face of modern political theory which seems to hold that one is free, even encouraged, to disobey unjust authorities. It even suggests that to do so is virtuous, whereas modern political theory would suggest it is foolish to endure unjustly. Modern political theory says disobedience is virtue, the Bible says it’s vice. The irony is how adherents of the former conceive of themselves as counter-cultural, but it could be that to sit at the back of the bus and endure it is what it means to push back on American ethos.
Zrim, perhaps you didn't read my post or the WCF 23.4 that your cite. The cited WCF section states that it is the duty of people to obey the magistrate's "lawful commands." A command that is unlawful is ultra vires, according to the magistrate. You seem to not grasp that life in a constitutional republic is not the same as life under a monarch. In the constitutional republic in which you are a citizen, as contrasted with monarchies and despotisms, governmental bodies have limited powers under the consitution and are held in check by the constitution and the people. Where their actions offend the constitution, their purported laws are unlawful, a nullity, and need not be obeyed, both according the law of the land and the WCF 23.4. Further, as any 12th grade civics student is taught, it is the duty of a citizen, not as a Christian but as a citizen, to hold the government accountable, for the good of all the citizens. Your simplictic analysis and proof texting fail to come to grips with that. Any analysis of Christian obedience or non-Christian obedience cannot be undertaken in a vacuum or assume we live under Louix XIV, but must take into account what the legal system says is the law. If the legal system, the constituion, the courts, and the codes say that an unlawful law is not a law, nothing in 1 Peter 2 or the WCF is to the contrary. You have cited nothing in support of your position that, as I understand it, that a Christian is duty bound somehow to obey laws of the land that are not laws even when the law says it need not, indeed should not, be obeyed. Accordingly, your position is incoherent or unpersuasive at best.
ReplyDeleteCVD, I think I understand the point that modern political theory says some laws which at some point fail Constitutional legitimacy are not in fact laws to be obeyed and so may be, indeed should be, trespassed. But my point is that the Bible seems to teach that the only authorities which may be disobeyed are those that compel us to personally trespass God’s law. So what I hear modern political theory saying, as you convey it, is that when I am told I mayn’t sit in a certain seat on a bus or lunch counter I am actually duty-bound to sit there. But what I am saying is that there is nothing in God’s law about seating arrangements, so it isn’t obvious to me that by following the law and sitting in the back I am being compelled to personally trespass God’s law. Further, to disobey my civil authority’s law just doesn’t seem to comport with Peter’s and Paul’s unequivocal charges to obey my civil magistrate.
ReplyDeleteOr put another way, the NT has two commands: obey God rather than men, and obey civil magistrates. Disobedience is never privileged. The only time I am to obey God rather than men is when men tell me to disobey God, otherwise I am to obey my authorities because there is no authority that God didn’t raise up and so to disobey him is to disobey God.
I understand these two NT commands may cause us conundrum, especially those of us Yanks who find Jim Crow laws odious. But it isn’t satisfactory to me to construct a theory that ends up saying I may, even should, disobey my civil authority when he hasn’t compelled me to trespass God’s laws. I love our constitutional republic, too, and for many of the same reason I bet you’d give, but the way you put things makes it sound like there are no down sides to it. Which is odd if we are to put no hope in princes and Presidents; there has to be something that bumps up against biblical ethics. Otherwise, I don’t know why anybody would long for a better country. You seem to talk about a constitutional republic the way theonomists talk about a Bible-based state, as if God wants one or the other and nothing will ever ultimately go wrong as long as we follow the respective blueprints.
Zrim, we have to agree to disagree on this point. Civil disobedience is a large and complex topic and much needs to be said. But on the narrow point I have tried to make clear to you, you persist in misstating the facts and failing to address the position I set forth. You fail to comprehend my point and are attacking straw men. I have said nothing about "modern political theory." I am speaking about the law. It would seem elementary logic to me that neither the law nor the Bible require a Christian to obey a purported law that is not a law. Where the Bible says to obey the magistrate, it is fundamental that you have to determine what the magistrate commands. The people and the Constituion in our constitutional republic are the magistrate, the decisive authority. It is not "disobedience" to the magistrate to obey the magistrate. If it is not disobedience within the meaning of the law, then it is not disobedience within the meaning of Rom. 13 or 1 Peter.2 or WCF 23.4. If this is not clear to you, I can say nothing to make it clearer.
ReplyDeleteIt is plain to me that what drives your position is not exegesis or doctrine, but your temperament. You have long made clear that you are a "quietist." That's fine for you, but it is not your place to impose your personal temperamental preference upon other Christians who feel called to work for justice and equality without violating Scriptural norms.
I am speaking about the law. It would seem elementary logic to me that neither the law nor the Bible require a Christian to obey a purported law that is not a law. Where the Bible says to obey the magistrate, it is fundamental that you have to determine what the magistrate commands. The people and the Constituion in our constitutional republic are the magistrate, the decisive authority.
ReplyDeleteCVD, but Paul doesn’t seem to suggest that I am in fact my own magistrate and may thus set myself up over the one that God has ordained over me by determining if purported law is indeed a law to be obeyed. I am not the decicive authority according to the NT. I am a man under authority. And this is my point: what you are arguing for sure seems opposite of what Peter and Paul plainly set forth. Do you honestly think the apostles would affirm this idea that I am the final authority and may determine whether or not I will obey?
And when you say the whole issue is “large and complex” and then end up saying I am the decisive authority, I can’t help but think you sound an awful lot like the egalitarians who say the same thing about female ordination (another authority issue): “Look, yes, Paul says he forbids a woman to have authority over a man, but Paul didn’t have our modern understanding of things. So when he says a woman shouldn’t have authority over a man that was good for then, but it just doesn’t work for a church in a modern world that understands the world is flat.” So you may want to wave a “large and complex” over it all, but Paul is as plain about civil obedience as he is about female authority. The irony for me is how I’m betting you oppose female ordination largely based upon a plain reading of Paul’s forbidding it. If so, that sure seems like cafeteria conservatism.
It is plain to me that what drives your position is not exegesis or doctrine, but your temperament. You have long made clear that you are a "quietist." That's fine for you, but it is not your place to impose your personal temperamental preference upon other Christians who feel called to work for justice and equality without violating Scriptural norms.
So, not only do you know “what drives me,” it’s also merely personal temperament? More hand waving it seems. But maybe you should try and just tell me what you think Peter means when he says to obey an unjust authority? For my part, I don’t know how you’re logic can be harmonized with it. And nobody is binding you and telling you your vocational place. I am only posing what apparently are very hard questions for your political philosophy to answer without resorting to sophistry.
Zrim, I am sorry you are having so much trouble understanding me. I had thought my posts were clear, but evidenctly not. Let me try one last time, and then I have to sign off.
ReplyDeleteI did not say and do not believe that Zrim is the final authority or that I am. The constituion and the people collectively are the sovereign under U.S. law, not any one person individually. Nor did I say that you determine whether you will obey. The law does. When a statute or ordinance is on the books is unconstitutional, the law says you need not obey it. Not Zrim. The law. The magistrate, to use the words of the WCF. The powers that are ordained of God say you need not obey.
Finally, your straw man will not do. I have not argued that citizens of this nation should disobey a merely unjust law. I said we may disobey an illegal "law" that is not a law.
Perhaps a syllogism will help.
1. Scripture says to obey the magistrate.
2. The magistrate says an illegal law need not be obeyed, and in some cases, may not be obeyed.
3. Therefore, Scripture holds that an illegal law need not be obeyed, and in some case may not be obeyed.
Let give you something to consider. A real life hypo. An assistant superintendent of a large school district follows an ordinance by the County Board of Supervisors requiring that his district use County funds to pay certain bond holders. Being a retired admiral used to following orders, he follows the ordinance of the County Board of Supervisors. The Board is the "magistrate" for him. But it happens that the County Board's ordinance was unlawful because the state constutution made it unlawful to make that kind of payment. Should the assistant superintendent follow the County law? No, because it was an unlawful order. But because he did follow it, the superintendent was charged by the district attorney with malfeasance, fined, and tried and found guilty of a misdemeanor. Career over.
In short, under our system of government, the "magistrate" requires all citizens to follow the law, but you had better find out what the law is. And if the law is illegal, it need not be obeyed, and indeed in some cases may not be obeyed.
I suspect that you do get my point, and are merely being disingenuous in your argumentation. I have to sign off for now. Thanks for the exchange.
CVD, I do understand your point about the people being the collective sovereign. But my point is about what it means for a person, individual or collective, who claims Christian to behave in ways that are directly contrary to what the Bible says about obeying. I can see how citizens of a constitutional republic may disobey a law that the magistrate says is illegal. What I have trouble with is how adherents of the Bible, which says unequivocally to obey, may disobey. It doesn’t seem to do to bifurcate things and say I may behave accordingly to a constitutional republic that permits me to obey when another text, one that presumably supersedes human law, says I mayn’t. To my mind, this is a mis-read of 2k: we may be citizens of two kingdoms, but it’s hardly clear how that means we have two masters.
ReplyDeletePerhaps an analogy will help. A father makes the sophisticated argument that his son may disobey a rule he lays down (that does not require a trespass of God’s law) today because tomorrow he may decide it’s no good anymore. But children are to obey their fathers, even if fathers decide it’s ok to disobey for whatever reason. Fathers and magistrates are not above God, they are also under authority, and they mayn’t allow disobedience. The son and citizen must obey God rather than men, and when God says it’s not ok to disobey and men do then they must heed God rather than men.
I suspect that you understand my point as well. But instead of imputing disingenuousness and density, I’d rather just say you disagree…and feel no need to answer what Peter means to obey unjust authorities.