May a Christian Engage in Active Civil Disobedience?

My long-time readers know that I have posted a number of articles here on the case for active civil disobedience under the broader heading of Christian resistance theory and practice.  I recently entered into a discussion on this question at my Facebook page with Archbishop Mark Haverland, the Presiding Bishop and Metropolitan of the Anglican Catholic Church, O.P.  Today Archbishop Haverland  posted an article about our exchange at his blog.  As currently written, the article refers to me as "Fr. Smith", perhaps the Archbishop's gracious intent to preserve my anonimity so as to keep me from being publicly embarrassed. :>)  However, I stand by what I have written and accordingly have no objection to having my real name attached to my argument.  The Archbishop and I have chatted about this today and he may edit his article accordingly.

As I recently explained, other duties have kept me away from writing much here at The Old Jamestown Church, and that has not changed.  I am under a mountain of obligations just now.  I do intend to publish a point-by-point reply to His Eminence's article, but I accordingly won't have time for it for awhile.  However, I am publishing here our entire exchange from my Facebook page, along with a few comments from other friends involved in it.  What I'd ask you all to do is to read the Archbishop's article and the two previous articles of his on civil disobedience to which he provides links.  Then come here and read the Facebook exchange, as it wll obviously serve as part of the basis of my forthcoming reply.

As mentioned in His Eminence's article, our exchange began with his response to the meme below.  I am currently involved in COVID-19 activism related to what I believe is the politically-motivated overreach of mainly Democratic governors, county commissioners and city councils in response to the virus.  One of the issues is their mask mandates.  I am absolutely convinced that the real science does not support the  recommendations of our state "health experts" regarding masks, and therefore that the mask mandate is irrational.  I also believe it is unconstitutional.  In addition to local activism, I have been posting comments, links to articles and memes on my Facebook page, including the one that touched off our exchange.   Here it is, followed by the text of that exchange: 

           

Mark Haverland Or that I have moderately good manners and care about the feelings of others....  

Christopher Little Allow me to respond by posting something a friend wrote a few days about the mask controversy:

"I don’t do crazy. I don’t care how comfortable it might make crazy people feel. Some people think that if you step on a crack you will break your mother’s back. I’m not going to avoid cracks just to make them feel better. They will just have to learn coping skills for their own psychotic manias. I’m not going to join them in their folly."

I realize I've stepped on some toes here, but I did it and will continue to justify it for two reasons, one, the adoption of moderately good manners and care about the feelings of others can only be taken so far, and relatedly, people need to be awakened from their slumber. Memes such as the offending one here is one way to do that on Facebook.

In connection with memes, I've posted a number of scholarly articles and videos that I believe wholly refute the "science" that our vaunted "health experts" say they are relying upon. I believe these studies show that the emperor has no clothes, and while that may both befuddle and offend the fans of the naked emperor, it's truth that is paramount, not people's feelings.

David T. Nethery I tried to explain "I don't do crazy" to someone the other day and they just could not grasp it. So frustrating. The constant propaganda and brainwashing has made it hard for many people to even consider that many "experts" have been wrong or else have been deliberately lying because of their political affiliation. -- The example of "don't step on a crack, you'll break your mother's back" is great . An example I've used is that the mask is a lucky rabbit's foot . Some well meaning , but gullible person says: "Here, take this lucky rabbit's foot and it will protect you from all manner of hoo-doo and floobershazam." Uh, no, sorry , I don't do superstition. And please don't tell me what you saw in the tea leaves or when you were reading your Tarot cards either. Not interested.

Mark Haverland  But nobody in the world thinks stepping on a crack will break anybody's back, while plenty of people believe that wearing a mask, if one is sick, lessens the chance that I will spread disease to others. Even if they are wrong, good manners dictates a reasonable accommodation to the mistaken feelings of others. In which case, my comment was, I think, a reasonable response to the meme. When in doubt, err on the side of kindness and consideration. Having said which, I am sure we both can agree to disagree agreeably.

Caoimhín P. Connell With respect, Y.G. (Haverland), helping people wallow in the mire of superstition and enabling their unfounded fear is not charitable. Bringing light to ignorance is charitable, thus breaking the chains of that ignorance and releasing the superstitious from their fetters.

Mark Haverland to  Caoimhín P. Connell I am not a doctor, but for years when I have visited people in the hospital with an infectious disease. I have been asked to put on a mask, for everyone's protection. I am not an expert, but it makes sense that a barrier that prevents water droplets from being as prevalent also limits the spread of disease. And people who ARE experts also suggest that that precaution is almost certainly helpful. So if one's common perceptions and expert opinion agree, there clearly is enough authority to suggest compliance for the sake of good manners with the wishes of others. And when public authority requires that, the authority of Romans 13 mandates such compliance to avoid sin. If you are arguing that CoVid-19 is not real, not contagious, or is not a potentially very serious disease - particularly for the elderly and for those with co-morbidities, then you up against every physician I know - and I know many.

Christopher Little But the issue, Your Eminence, is that there is no doubt. Like I said, you can only take good manners so far. The science simply does not support what our "health experts" say, the mask mandates are accordingly irrational and unjust, and many of us are simply not going to sacrifice *truth* and our liberty to the "mistaken feelings" of others. We need to be leading the way, not passively acquiescing to such ill-conceived mandates and thereby propagating falsehood.

Christopher Little Please listen carefully to what Rancourt says both about unbiased RCT studies and why the "health experts" should be questioned.

https://youtu.be/C1ODBTdNiG0

ANTI-MASKERS: RIGHT OR SELFISH?

Christopher Little https://www.americanthinker.com/.../what_good_do_the...

What good do the masks do, really?

Mark Haverland Christians are obliged to obey even foolish and ineffective laws, so long as they do not mandate the performance of a clearly immoral act. The only moral disobedience permitted is the refusal to perform a positively immoral act (e.g., if the government commands that you abort a child or commit blasphemy or adultery). If the government required that we all wear orange beanies, we would be obliged to obey until we were able to vote them out of office As for the science, I'm going to go with all the physicians I know, the public experts, and public officials (of all political stripes).

Christopher Little I simply don't agree with your interpretation of the Romans and other pertinent texts, especially given the American theory of the derivation of political power. I know you have written on your blog about this, but I have researched and written fairly extensively on this matter as well, with respect to Christian resistance theory and how it relates to the right to keep and bear arms.

Christopher Little The conclusion for me is that I am under no obligation to obey unconstitutional or irrational laws.

BTW, in many places around the country it is no longer possible to vote them out of office.

Caoimhín P. Connell to Mark Haverland But I AM an internationally recognized expert in respiratory protection and contamination control and although the tautological argument is made that there is "consensus" that community mask wearing slows the spread of the virus, no such consensus exists, and the scientific consensus is that community mask wearing promotes the spread of disease.

As a scientist, I'm held to an higher standard (from a liability perspective as well as a technical and moral perspective) and we advise our clients to follow evidence-based decision-making criteria and therefore do not wear masks.

Mark Haverland to Caoimhín P. Connell I take your expertise seriously and am not inclined over time to accept generally agreed upon ideas just because they are generally agreed upon. In this case, I will revert to good manners and continue to wear a mask when I go into a grocery store.

Mark Haverland Christopher Little This is good Americanism but bad Anglicanism. The sons of Locke are appalled as their children turn into followers of Rousseau. But they are all children of the Enlightenment. 

Christopher Little I've known for quite some that this is your position, but it is not mine. I don't believe there is only one Anglican understanding of this issue. That's why some Anglicans fought on the side of the colonists, drafted a constitution that is anything but monarchical, and fought on the side of the Confederacy, including Leonidas Polk, the "Fighting Bishop." Even the stalwart monarchist Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn recognized that "anarchism" held a place in the monarchist framework as a means to check a king's power unjustly exercised.

So no, I am not about to be cowed by the assertion that my view isn't Anglican.

Christopher Little One more thing: your articles on resistance theory show that you recognize its roots in medieval theology, so you can't dismiss it as merely the brainchild of the Enlightenment.

Mark Haverland I have no wish to cow you or anyone. I would encourage you to consider the central errors of modern political developments and the anti-theological ire embedded in the thought of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, and the rest. There IS only one classically Anglican theory, I think, in regard to obedience. The Deist Virginians were only nominally Anglican - they had to be to hold office. Religiously Jefferson and Madison and Washington all had abandoned Christianity by middle age. They saw some utility in the educative and moral influence thereof, but they were not in any serious sense Anglican or Christian. I have no problem with checking monarchical power: a mixed regime is usually superior to a purely monarchical regime: but 18th century Britain WAS a mixed regime with a limited monarchy, powerful Lords, a powerful Commons, and an official place for the Church in the constitution. To see the modern problem, start with Locke's first letter on toleration. The problem is very clear: the only 'heresy' is asserting that there is heresy and the only thing that is intolerable is asserting that somethings should not be tolerated. The only essential doctrine, in other words, is asserting that there are essential doctrines. There is our current world. We live in Lockeland, and its dissolution around us is simply the working out of its internal principles and confusions. The answer is not another version of modern ideology.

Christopher Little Again, you cannot reduce resistance theory to Lockeanism. It goes back from the Enlightenment to the Protestant Reformation to a stream of resistance theory running from St. Augustine to St. Thomas Aquinas. That is, it stems from *Catholic* theology. Now, I know from your articles that you conclude those Catholic theorists were in error. I conclude that they were right, based in no small part on biblical data. So you have chosen one theologoumenon and I have chosen another.

I would also say this: whatever you may believe about the secession of the colonies, I believe our constitutional system has successfully - thus far anyway and only generally speaking - protected the traditional rights of Englishmen whereas the Commonwealth and its vaunted monarchy have pretty much tossed them wholesale out the window. Most Commonwealth folks are mindlessly deferential to government, and this is an unfortunate vestige of the "Anglican" view as you understand it. The nation brought into bring through our secession remains the last, best hope for liberty in the world, and I believe that is by God's design.

And it's why I won't wear a mask, based on the science referenced in this discussion.

Mark Haverland There's actually very little in Thomas that supports a right of active resistance. The more I've read Thomas, the most he seems opposed. John of Salisbury is a more promising example for your case. He was special-pleading for Becket and Becket's ilk, and all of that gets swept up quickly into the issue of extravagant papal claims and the reasonable desire of the kings to control baronial and Church power. In a 'Thomas vs. Henry' fight, no Anglican in the 16th or 17th century would support the Thomas, whether Becket or More. There certainly is a Catholic case for active resistance. That's why Anglicans identified your position as the 'Jesuitical-Puritanical' view. Calvinists and RCs, yes. Anglicans? Not so much. On the more recent effects of the American vs. the English systems - I think you have a good case. But the fact that there are some good effects in fact from an earlier action only proves divine Providence, which neither of us doubts. As for Biblical data, again, Cranmer, Hooker, Andrewes, Laud, Hammond, Taylor, the Wesleys interpret it the same way I do. I am content.

Christopher Little I am content as well. The historical minutiae do not concern me; it is enough for me that there is a case for resistance based on both biblical precedent and the Church's reflection, which provide us with two theologoumena. One of these influenced both England's Glorious Revolution and the American Revolution. The right to resist unjust and irrational laws is as American as pumpkin pie, and a good thing it is too if the thought of Cranmer, Hooker, Andrewes et al. lead us to the conclusion that if the government requires us to wear orange beanies we are obligated to obey.

Mark Haverland  I would be interested in the limits to the supposed right to break the law. The Calvinists used to limit active resistance to cases when lesser magistrates led the charge, but you don't seem to support such a qualification. The 'Declaration' implies that it takes an extraordinary train of grave impositions and violations to justify rebellion, but again, you seem to think individual laws may be rejected. Is you argument, Father Little, that every individual is free to break laws that he deems unjust or finds irksome? Are there qualifications? And what are the Christian and Anglican authorities that support that theory? If this is too much for a Facebook thread, perhaps write an essay.

Christopher Little I might do that. In fact I came this II close to responding to your essays on resistance at my own blog, but got distracted and put it on the back burner. Maybe now is the obvious time, though at present I have more pressing matters to deal with.

As I mull over my answer to your questions, I'm thinking about starting at the patently absurd proposition that if the government requires us to wear beanies we are obligated to do so, and then working back from there. ;)

As to what "Christian and Anglican" sources say about my theory, well, I'm guessing I won't find anything in those sources that truly speak to the orange beanie example; that would probably fall, rather, under the category of common sense, that is, reason. (Hooker would therefore probably approve of my method.)

Reason: that is precisely why I said I won't obey unjust or *irrational* laws, not unjust or personally irksome ones. Please don't twist my words.

And yes, I don't exactly follow the Calvinist view on the fallback to the lesser magistrate as the sole recourse for resisting tyranny. This is due in part to our American "legal fiction" concerning the derivation of political power: People -> States -> Federal government. The Ninth amendment refers to certain unnamed rights retained by the people. The Tenth Amendment refers to powers retained by either the states or the people. There is no lesser magistrate here, but there certainly is a recognition of the rights and powers of the people. In our system, I think it's the county governments that are the kind of lesser magistrates to which that doctrine refers.

The long and the short of all this is that the people may assert certain rights and powers. One of those rights and powers would be to tell a government who required orange beanie wearing to go pound sand, and if it came to it, to rise up in revolt, with armed revolt as the last resort. And I don't particularly care whether such a belief isn't Anglican. I'm not infallible, but then again, neither are Anglican musings on political theory - or anything else for that matter. We Anglicans say that Scripture is the font of what we should believe and practice, and I think Scripture's answer on this looks significantly different than that of the Anglican divines you reference. As does the answer of reason.

Mark Haverland But everybody who wants to break the law believes he has a good reason for doing so. If the locus of the right to pick and choose laws and the right actively to disobey laws that are not immoral (e.g., demanding blasphemy) or 'indifferent' (wearing a hat or beanie is in moral terms just that) is the individual, then we seem to invite chaos. To explain your position, you'll need to show how you avoid that conclusion. The U.S. is, or was, a well-ordered regime. Here if the government seeks to infringe liberty unconstitutionally, then there are constitutional and legal remedies. The answer to the command to wear an orange beanie is not to break the law, but to challenge the law lawfully. Even if the command were intrinsically immoral as well as silly, traditional Christian civil disobedience doctrine requires that the disobedience be public and accepting of the consequences so as to prove sincerity. Which is why those who believed that a given war is immoral are not free to run away to Canada, but must stay, refuse a draft, but then accept punishment. If there are no real Anglican or Christian authorities for a position, then I return to the conclusion that it may be good Americanism, but isn't good Anglicanism. Hooker would not accept the idea that individuals have the right to pick and choose laws, deciding that laws they don't like may be refused as 'unreasonable' or 'unconstitutional'. Not even the Founding Fathers would accept such an argument.

Mark Haverland I would suggest you write an essay indeed. I may write on the same subject. I've dealt with the general issue of obedience and the general Anglican position traditionally called 'passive obedience'. I haven't written on the positions to the left of those Anglicans have favored - and the subject might be worth pursuing. I'll answer yesterday's question about Machiavelli later after reviewing. I haven't read 'The Prince' or the discourses on Livy in years and need review.

Christopher Little First of all I, reject the proposition that every person who breaks the law believing “he has a good reason for doing so” actually does have good reason. He may have some sort of “rationale”, but that doesn’t mean it’s based on either reason or a valid exercise of one of the class of unspecified rights referenced in the 9th Amendment. There is *good reason* to obey the traffic laws, and none of them violate constitutional rights. There is *no good reason* behind an arbitrary orange beanie law, and it is violative of a person’s right to wear or not wear a beanie of any color. I submit that is not a prescription for chaos.

Secondly, yes, there are remedies at law – except in cases such as when there are way more orange beanie voters than there are anti-orange beanie voters. No possibility of throwing the bum orange beanie tyrant out because too many irrational voters are on his side. And except when the courts have become hopelessly politicized. (Ahem.) That’s when the recourse to civil disobedience is taken. I don’t agree with your stance that for Christians civil disobedience must only be passive. Our revolution was anything but passive, and this idea of the legitimacy of active resistance is enshrined in our fundamental law, principally the Second Amendment.

Lastly, I bear back my former answer to you regarding whether my view is “Anglican.” I don't particularly care whether my position is or isn't "Anglican". I'm not infallible, but then again, neither are Anglican musings on political theory - or anything else for that matter. We Anglicans say that Scripture is the font of what we should believe and practice, and I think Scripture's answer on this looks significantly different than that of the Anglican divines you reference. As does the answer from reason.

We Anglicans are subject to the political milieu in which we live, and if we simply can’t come to terms with one of the basic facts of our American political system, which is that active resistance is justified in some cases, well, maybe we’d be happier living in the UK, the land of the Anglican divines you keep referencing. Things are just peachy for Anglicans there these days. ;)

Your Eminence, I believe that we are at an impasse here and further exchanges here would be pointless, though I will indeed take you up on the challenge of writing an article and posting it at my blog. Thanks for this challenging and irenic exchange.