An interesting commentary on this article can be found here: The Entire Sad Contraception Issue Explained

Also read here about how the Japanese population is going to drop by one third in the next fifty years due to their love affair with contraceptives and abortions:

from The Blaze:

We’ve covered the Catholic Church’s ongoing battle with the Obama administration over contraception health care mandates for quite some time. Over the weekend, though, the stand-off took an unusual turn, as Catholic churches across America read a letter to congregants that perfectly encapsulated the church’s stance against the impending federal requirements.

The Church’s vocal arguments against the Obama administration are centered upon a Health and Human Services Department requirement that employers must include contraception and abortion-inducing drugs in health-care coverage. While this requirement doesn’t apply to houses of worship, it will force Catholic colleges, hospitals and other Christian groups to provide these drugs despite their faith-based opposition to them.

Over the weekend, the Catholic Church’s letter went beyond simply issuing oppositional rhetoric to media. Instead, priests read an open note to congregations across the country, dubbing the administration‘s take on women’s health and religious violations as an attack on their faith. In the letter, Bishops highlighted what they called “an alarming and serious matter,“ as their words contended that the federal government has ”dealt a heavy blow” to the Catholic population.

In it, Catholic leaders went on to say that the Church “cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law,” as it violates the Catholic conscience. Additionally, the church says that it is faced with a difficult decision — either comply and violate its faith or drop coverage for employees and suffer the consequences. The letter urges congregants to take action and to call Congress in an attempt to overturn the regulation.

A controversy is brewing over three reputable Christian organizations, which are based in North America, whose efforts have ousted the words “Father” and “Son” from new Bibles. Wycliffe Bible Translators, Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) and Frontiers are under fire for “producing Bibles that remove “Father,” “Son” and “Son of God” because these terms are offensive to Muslims.”

And this small minority will not only be persecuted by the state, but they will also be persecuted by those Churches that have chosen to put their allegiance to the state over their allegiance to God.

A classic fairly recent example is Nazi Germany during WWII. The Nazi government required ALL Churches,Seminary’s and Ministers to swear loyalty to the National Socialist Government or be faced with being dissolved by the government or ministers being defrocked and prohibited from being a minister.

Read Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s “The Cost of Discipleship“

Just for Clarity: I do not endorse the Roman Catholic Church  by posting this article. Nor do I endorse the Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The Roman Catholic Church is an apostate church that practices idolatry, however what this article is saying has a much broader impact upon the religious freedom of all those denominations and individual believers that identify themselves as Christian.

And likewise Dietrich Bonhoeffer had many questionable beliefs, but again what happened to churches and individuals that identified themselves as Christian in Nazi Germany and occupied Europe during WWII is a good case study and “Type” of will happen to Christians in the latter days who will be forced to either deny their faith or not be allowed to openly practice their faith!

from The Washington Times:

Like many leftists, President Obama has deep contempt for Christianity and democracy. This is why his administration has declared war on the Catholic Church and religious liberty.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius recently went ahead and approved last year’s decision to mandate that many religious organizations provide health insurance plans to their employees that include contraception, abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization coverage – and this must be done without charging a co-pay. In other words, Mr. Obama has done something that is ominous and unprecedented: compelling religious groups to embrace and subsidize free birth control. Catholic universities, hospitals and charities must either betray their fundamental social teachings or drop insurance coverage for their employees, thereby triggering massive financial penalties under Obamacare. The choice is simple: Abandon Catholic doctrine or go out of business.

The ruling will not simply devastate the Catholic heath care system and elaborate social network, which includes soup kitchens, adoption centers, immigrant services and parochial schools. It directly assaults and violates the conscience rights of Catholics. The church teaches that contraception is a sin, an immoral attempt to obstruct God’s will of when and whether human life should be created. It is the ultimate embodiment of pride: man trying to act as God. That is why opposition to birth control is at the heart of the Catholic faith.

The church teaches that the primary purpose of sexual activity within the sacred bonds of marriage is procreation – to perpetuate humanity from one generation to the next. For nearly 1,500 years, such thinking underpinned the Christian West. That was then; this is now. Since the 1960s, modern society is obsessed with contraception, abortion and sexual hedonism. The results have been declining birth rates and shrinking native populations. Literally, the West is dying. As the late Pope John Paul II put it, we are in the grips of “a culture of death.” Birth control is a key pillar. It is a seminal aspect of the socialist drive to establish a secular utopia – smash the traditional family by relentlessly advancing the sexual revolution. The pill and the condom are the hammer and sickle of cultural Marxism. Decades ago, the Vatican warned that birth control eventually would lead to the West’s demise. A civilization unable – and unwilling – to reproduce itself is doomed. . . . . .

Employers will be forced to offer free contraception in their healthcare plans, it was announced yesterday.

Religious organisations had been pushing for exemption from the ruling, but the Obama administration has said they will be allowed just a one-year delay in implementing the policy.

The vast majority of healthcare plans will have to offer birth control without any co-pays or deductibles from the beginning of August.

Republicans in Congress argued that the administration’s ‘unbending’ refusal to make an exception for religious groups would undermine freedom of worship.

But reproductive-rights activists hailed the decision as ‘common sense’ which would uphold employees’ access to ‘basic health care’.

The decision was announced by Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who said she had considered ‘the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty’, according to The Hill.

She added: ‘I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.’

Churches, synagogues, mosques and other houses of worship are exempted from the requirement, but other religious bodies – such a universities, hospitals and charities – will have to offer free contraception from August 2013.

‘This ruling forces religious organizations to violate the fundamental tenets of their faith, or stop offering health insurance coverage to their employees,’ said the Republican Policy Committee.

The GOP leadership also criticised the government’s ‘unbending approach to appease its liberal base’.

The ‘Obamacare’ health reforms are designed to make insurers offer preventive measures such as contraception free, on the grounds that that will save on the future costs of treating illness.

Although most insurance plans already include contraception, some religious groups say they would rather shut down than offer birth control.

Nashville’s Dominican congregation told The Hill: ‘What war and disease could not do to the congregation, the government of the United States will do – it will shut them down.’

The president of Planned Parenthood welcomed the ruling, saying: ‘Birth control is not just basic health care for women, it is an economic concern.

‘This common sense decision means that millions of women, who would otherwise pay $15 to $50 a month, will have access to affordable birth control, helping them save hundreds of dollars each year.’

Psalm 53:1:

“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good”

And God’s word will offend those who reject it:

Galatians 5:11:

“And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offense of the cross ceased”

from The Daily Mail:

A church advertising campaign that depicted atheists as stupid has been banned by a watchdog in South Africa.

Officials ruled a billboard that suggested non-believers considered their existence to be accidental was likely to be found offensive.

The advertisement, which had been erected beside a church in Johannesburg, was pulled down following the ruling by South Africa’s Advertising Standards Authority.

The “offending” poster showed a picture of a man holding his hands against his temples in thought above the line ‘An atheist is a man who believes himself to be an accident’, famously attributed to British poet Francis Thompson.

It was erected last year in a prominent position on the property of the Rivers Church in the Sandton suburb of Johannesburg.

However, the ASA noted that it was obliged to consider the advertisement’s content after it received a complaint from a non-Christian member of the public.

Laying out its judgement on the matter, the authority stated that the complainant, Eugene Gerber, felt offended by the suggestion he was stupid.

The ruling stated: ‘In essence, the complainant submitted that the billboard offends him as an atheist as he does not consider his existence to be an accident.

‘Secondly, the depiction of a man with an empty head communicates that atheists are stupid.’

In a four-page judgement, the ASA noted that it had considered the billboard in terms of a clause in South Africa’s advertising code preventing content which could offend.

The authority stated that the church leaders had responded to the complaint by saying they believed the public would recognise the quote as the work of Thompson, who wrote during the late nineteenth century and died in 1907.

The ASA wrote: ‘The respondent submitted that the advertisement is based on Psalm 14v and Psalm 53v1, which say “only foolish say in their hearts there is no God”.

‘The implication of the image was meant to convey that if someone does not believe in God, then they are not wise.

‘It quoted the famous English poet Francis Thompson thinking that most people would be familiar with his work and would possibly respect his comment.’

However, the advertising authority judgement said the watchdog believed the quotation printed alongside an image of a man shaking his head was likely to cause gratuitous offence to atheists.

It wrote: ‘It is apparent that the proverbial line is drawn when advertising propagates statements that undermine the dignity and constitutionally protected right to freedom of religious beliefs of any identifiable sector of society.

‘The Directorate notes that the respondent has made use of a quote “An atheist is a man who believes himself to be an accident” by Francis Thompson, however this does not justify its use in this context.

‘The Merriam Webster online dictionary defines an accident as, “An unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance”.

‘The quote therefore suggests that atheists believe that their existence is a result of an unforeseen and unplanned event. 

‘The use of the word believe further strengthens this communication.

‘Furthermore, the visuals of a man holding the sides of his empty head suggest that atheists are ‘empty-headed’ or lack intelligence, presumably as a result of the above “belief” communicated.

‘This is something that would likely offend all atheists in a manner that the Code seeks to prevent.’

The ruling added: ‘While the directorate accepts that the respondent is entitled to promote its view and commentary to all who choose to attend its services, it cannot ignore the fact that the respondent has chosen to publicly proclaim its viewpoint.’

The ASA ruling, published on January 6, concluded by stating that the complaint against the church had been upheld.

The institution was ordered to pull down the advert immediately and was banned from using the material again.

from The Stonegate Institute:

Nigerian Christians are under attack. On Christmas day, the Islamist group Boko Haram targeted churches in Nigeria’s capital, killing 40 innocent people. Boko Haram — literally “Western Education is a Sin ” — opposes whatever comes from the West, such as education, culture and science, and considers Christians as an obstacle to building an Islamic caliphate.

Boko Haram has recently increased its attacks against Christian Nigerians, who make up 48.2% of the country’s population. Last November, of Boko Haram killed 150 Christians and bombed 11 churches. “It was a direct attack against Christians. Members of Boko Haram asked: ‘Are you a Christian or a Muslim’ If you said you were a Christian, they killed you. […] I saw someone who was slaughtered like a lamb in front of a church,”said a representative of the Christian Association of Nigeria.

According to the Nigerian newspaper, Sunday Tribune, Nigerian intelligence believes that the intensification in the activities of Boko Haram is aimed at putting the group in advantageous position to secure the leadership of “Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.” A report in the hands of the Nigerian government allegedly confirms that after the killing of the U.S.-born Al-Qaeda top leader ,Anwar Al-Awlaki, in an air strike in Yemen by a joint CIA-U.S. military operation, Al-Qaeda is seeking to relocate from the Arabian Peninsula to Africa.

“International and local intelligence agencies indicate that the activities of Boko Haram in recent weeks were aimed at getting the attention of the Al-Qaeda organizations and securing the headquarters,” the Sunday Tribune reports, adding that Al-Awlaki’s replacement will be chosen from among the African terrorist group that have the most impressive record of terror acts. The Nigerian newspapers mention that several terrorist groups based on the African continent hope to take over Al-Qaeda’s leadership to be able to access more financial aid. “The contest is hot,” states the Sunday Tribune.

According to Nigerian media, despite the competition, Boko Haram has strong ties to[N the Africa-based Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb [North Africa],and with the Shabaab rebel group in Somalia. As this alliance could transform the central belt of Africa into an immense operational ground for terrorist operations, it is — or should be — of major concern.

Washington does appear to be worried about Boko Haram’s activities, probably fearing that the Nigerian group might attack U.S. interests. Recently, The Security Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security had a hearing on emerging threats to the U.S. posed by Boko Haram. The subcommittee stressed that Boko Haram has evolved quickly, and can be a threat to U.S. interests and to the U.S. homeland. “Boko Haram has the intent and may be developing capability to coordinate on a rhetorical and operational level with Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Shabaab,” the subcommittee concluded, adding that “Boko Haram’s evolution in targeting and tactics closely tracks that of other Al Qaeda affiliates that have targeted the U.S. Homeland”.

The subcommittee further revealed the need for the collection of more intelligence on Boko Haram, as the U.S. Intelligence Community has until now wrongly underestimated the capabilities of the Nigerian terrorist group to target the U.S. homeland . The U.S – commented the subcommittee – incorrectly assessed that Boko Haram had only regional ambitions and that threats against the U.S. homeland were merely “aspirational.” Nigerian sources confirm, however, that if Boko Haram will not be stopped in time, it could shake the entire African region, targeting U.S. embassies and American civilians, and that it could recruit can recruit Boko Haram’s Nigerian sympathizers in the U.S.. Last August, Boko Haram had already claimed responsibility for a bomb attack on a U.N. headquarters in Nigeria that killed 23 people.

In light of Boko Haram’s violent escalation, it is urgent first of all officially to designate it as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). The U.S. should also cooperate with the government of Nigeria to counter Boko Haram. The U.S. security subcommittee further recommended that it is especially necessary to increase the U.S. Intelligence Community collection of human intelligence on Boko Haram, by gathering information on the ground through interpersonal contacts with Boko Haram’s members the better to combat the threat posed by the terrorist group to both Nigerian and U.S. interests.

So we know where this resolution is headed, its aim is to muzzle Christians from speaking the truth, and witnessing to non-Christians!

And to protect Muslimes and allow them to continue to persecute non-Muslims!

from Todays Zaman:

A worker who claims she was the victim of a race-hate campaign by fundamentalist Muslims because of her Christian beliefs has launched a  landmark case against her former employers.

Nouhad Halawi, a saleswoman at Heathrow Airport’s World Duty Free shop, said she and other Christian staff were systematically harassed by Muslims.

She alleged the intimidation included:

• Bullying a friend at the airport for wearing crosses.
• Muslims telling her she would go to hell if she didn’t convert.
• A Muslim colleague insisting she read the Koran. And;
• That Jews were responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Mrs Halawi lost her job at the perfume counter in Terminal 3 in July after 13 years when she spoke out about bullying by a small group of ‘extremist’ Muslims at the airport.

The mother-of-two had been the subject of a complaint by an Islamic colleague but when she raised her own concerns as a Christian, she said she was the one who was dismissed.

Her case for unfair dismissal is being supported by the Christian Legal Centre, who believe it raises important legal issues over whether Muslims and Christians are treated differently by employers.

Mrs Halawi, 47, who came to Britain from Lebanon in 1977, said: ‘I have been sacked on the basis of unsubstantiated complaints.

‘There is now great fear amongst my former colleagues that the same could happen to them if one of the Muslims turns on them.

‘This is supposed to be a Christian country, but the law seems to be on the side of the Muslims.’

She says that she had always got on well with her Muslim colleagues,but  the atmosphere changed with a growing number of employees promoting ‘fundamentalist Islam’.

Mrs Halawi told the Sunday Telegraph: ‘One man brought in the Koran to work and insisted I read it and another brought in Islamic leaflets and handed them out to other employees.

‘They said that 9/11 served the Americans right and that they hated the West, but that they had come here because they want to convert people to Islam.

‘They say that Jesus is s***** and bullied a Christian friend of mine so much for wearing her crosses that she came to me crying.’

She claimed she became a targeted for the fundamentalists after she stood up for her friend who wants to be anonymous because she still works at the terminal.

In May, five of her Muslim colleagues complained to David Tunnicliffe, the trading manager at World Duty Free, accusing her of being anti-Islamic following a heated conversation in the store.

According to the Telegraph, her description of a Muslim colleague as an allawhi – ‘man of God’ in Arabic -  sparked a row when another worker overheard the remark and thought she said Alawi, which was his branch of Islam.

Following the complaints she was suspended but was not told on what  grounds until she met Mr Tunnicliffe in July.

Two days after the meeting she received a letter withdrawing her Heathrow security pass – needed to work at World Duty Free – because her comments were deemed ‘extremely inappropriate.’

Mrs Halawi, paid at World Duty Free on a freelance basis by cosmetic staff agency Caroline South Associates, was told that she would not be unable to continue working without her pass.

A petition signed by 28 colleagues, some of them Muslims, argued that she has been dismissed on the basis of ‘malicious lies.’

The Christian Legal Centre has instructed Paul Diamond, a leading human rights barrister, to represent Mrs Halawi in taking both Caroline South Associates and Autogrill Retail UK Limited, which trades as World Duty Free, to an employment tribunal.

A lawyer acting for CSA told the Sunday Telegraph: ‘The case is still pending so the company is not in a position to comment, but as far as the company is concerned she’s never been an employee and has never been dismissed.’

A World Duty Free spokesman said they were unable to comment because of  ‘ongoing legal proceedings’.

Last week, Jewish businessman Arieh Zucker complained that he has been repeatedly singled out for full-body scans by Muslim security staff at the airport.

The 41-year-old mortgage broker, from London, has accused them of ‘race hate’ and is threatening to sue for racial discrimination after being made to ‘feel like a criminal’ while being scanned.

Pro-gay activists have launched a boycott of an Iowa baker who declined to create a wedding cake for a lesbian couple based on her religious beliefs.

Victoria Childress, the owner of Victoria’s Cake Cottage in Des Moines, has been accused of being anti-gay, homophobic, and a bigot after she refused to make a cake for Trina Vodraska and Janelle Sievers.

Childress told Fox News & Commentary that she made five cakes for the couple to taste – unaware that they were lesbians.

“She introduced herself, and I said, ‘Is this your sister?’” Childress said. “She said, ‘No. This is my partner.’”

At that point Childress told the couple that she would not be willing to make their wedding cake.

“I was straight-forward with them and explained that I’m a Christian and that I have very strong convictions,” she said.  “I chose to be honest about it. They said they appreciated it and left. That was all that was said.”

But that wasn’t the end of the story. Soon Childress began receiving hateful emails and then – the local media called.

Vodraska told KCCI that she was offended by Childress.

“It was degrading,” she told the television station. “It was like she chastised us for wanting to do business with her. I know Jesus loves me. I didn’t need her to tell me that. I didn’t go there for that. I just wanted to go there for a cake.”

The pair also released a statement, calling the Christian cake baker a “bigot.”

“Awareness of equality was our only goal in bringing this to light, it is not about cake or someone’s right to refuse service to a customer,” they wrote in a statement posted on KCCI’s website.

The Iowa Civil Rights Act was amended in 2007 to include protections for sexual orientation. The couple told the television station they had not decided whether they would file a Civil Rights complaint against the baker.

A spokesperson for the Iowa Civil Rights Commission declined to confirm or deny whether they’ve launched an investigation.

State law only allows exemptions from discrimination laws to  a bona fide religious institution.

Childress said her decision had nothing to do with discrimination or the lesbian couple.

“It doesn’t have anything to do with them – it was about my convictions,” she stressed. “They can get their cake anywhere.”

Childress said money is not the issue.

“I’m being attacked because of my beliefs – my convictions to their lifestyle,” she said.

Childress said she stopped reading the hate mail.

“It’s really hard to read things like that,” she said. “I’m a pretty quiet, soft-spoken person. But when I stand up for my convictions against things, I’m very strong when it comes to that.”

She said she’s received a positive reaction from local business owners – along with some cake orders.

“People are telling me they were proud of me for standing up for my beliefs because not many people do that these days,” she said. “Business people are afraid to because they’re afraid to lose money.”

But there have been plenty of critics – even among some of her competitors.

“To have someone say, ‘Well, I’m sorry because your lifestyle is different from mine, I’m not going to take care of you and help you. And I don’t want your business,’ it’s wrong on so many levels,” said Dana Schaub, a local baker told KCCI.

Childress said she was simply stating her belief.

“I was not rude,” she said. “I was not condescending. It was matter-of-fact. I told them, ‘I’m sorry, I just can’t do that.’”

The emperor of Rome from A.D. 54 to 68 was Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, also known simply as Nero. The emperor was not known for being a godly person and engaged in a variety of illicit acts, homosexual marriage being among them. In 64 A.D., the great Roman fire occurred with Nero himself being suspected of the act of arson. In his writings, the Roman senator and historian Tacitus recorded: “To get rid of the report [that he had started the fire], Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace” (Annals XV).

It was during the reign of Nero that the Apostle Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans. While one might expect him to encourage the Christians in Rome to rise up against their oppressive ruler, in the chapter 13, we find this instead:

“Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor ” (Romans 13:1–7).

Even under the reign of a ruthless and godless emperor, Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, tells his readers to be in subjection to the government. Moreover, he states that no authority exists other than that established by God, and that rulers are serving God in their political office.

Peter writes nearly the same thing in one of this two New Testament letters:

“Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king” (1 Peter 2:13–17).

Both Paul’s and Peter’s teachings have led to quite a few questions from Christians where civil disobedience is concerned. Do Paul and Peter mean that Christians are always to submit to whatever the government commands, no matter what is asked of them?

A Brief Look at the Various Views of Civil Disobedience

There are at least three general positions on the matter of civil disobedience. The anarchist view says that a person can choose to disobey the government whenever they like and whenever they feel they are personally justified in doing so. Such a stance has no biblical support whatsoever as evidenced in the writings of Paul in Romans 13.

The extremist patriot says that a person should always follow and obey their country no matter what the command. As will be shown in a moment, this view also does not have biblical support. Moreover, it is not supported in the history of nations either. For example, during the Nuremberg trials, the attorneys for the war criminals attempted to use the defense that their clients were only following the direct orders of the government and therefore could not be held responsible for their actions. However, one of the judges dismissed their argument with the simple question: “But gentlemen, is there not a law above our laws?”

The position the Scriptures uphold is one of biblical submission, with a Christian being allowed to act in civil disobedience to the government if it commands evil, such that it requires a Christian to act in a manner that is contrary to the clear teachings and requirements of God’s Word.

Civil Disobedience – Examples in Scripture

In Exodus 1, the Egyptian Pharaoh gave the clear command to two Hebrew midwives that they were to kill all male Jewish babies. An extreme patriot would have carried out the government’s order, yet the Bible says the midwives disobeyed Pharaoh and “feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt had commanded them, but let the boys live” (Exodus 1:17). The Bible goes on to say the midwives lied to Pharaoh about why they were letting the children live; yet even though they lied and disobeyed their government, “God was good to the midwives, and the people multiplied, and became very mighty. Because the midwives feared God, He established households for them” (Exodus 1:20–21).

In Joshua 2, Rahab directly disobeyed a command from the king of Jericho to produce the Israelite spies who had entered the city to gain intelligence for battle. Instead, she let them down via a rope so they could escape. Even though Rahab had received a clear order from the top government official, she resisted the command and was redeemed from the city’s destruction when Joshua and the Israeli army destroyed it.

The book of 1 Samuel records a command given by King Saul during a military campaign that no one could eat until Saul had won his battle with the Philistines. However, Saul’s son Jonathan defied his father’s order and ate honey to refresh himself from the hard battle the army had waged. When Saul found out about it, he ordered his son to die. However, the people resisted Saul and his command and saved Jonathan from being put to death (1 Samuel 14:45).

Another example of civil disobedience in keeping with biblical submission is found in 1 Kings 18. That chapter briefly introduces a man named Obadiah who “feared the Lord greatly.” When the queen Jezebel was killing God’s prophets, Obadiah took a hundred of them and hid them from her so they could live. Such an act was in clear defiance of the ruling authority’s wishes.

In 2 Kings, the only apparent approved revolt against a reigning government official is recorded. Athaliah, the mother of Ahaziah, began to destroy the royal offspring of the house of Judah. However, Joash the son of Ahaziah was taken by the king’s daughter and hidden from Athaliah so that the bloodline would be preserved. Six years later, Jehoiada gathered men around him, declared Joash to be king, and put Athaliah to death.

Daniel records a number of civil disobedience examples. The first is found in chapter 3 where Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refused to bow down to the golden idol in disobedience to King Nebuchadnezzar’s command. The second is in chapter 6 where Daniel defies King Darius’ decree to not pray to anyone other than the king. In both cases, God rescued His people from the death penalty that was imposed, signaling His approval of their actions.

In the New Testament, the book of Acts records the civil disobedience of Peter and John towards the authorities that were in power at the time. After Peter healed a man born lame, they were arrested for preaching about Jesus and put in jail. The religious authorities were determined to stop them from teaching about Jesus; however, Peter said: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19–20). Later, the rulers confronted the apostles again and reminded them of their command to not teach about Jesus, but Peter responded, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

One last example of civil disobedience is found in the book of Revelation where the Antichrist commands all those who are alive during the end times to worship an image of himself. But the apostle John who wrote Revelation states that those who become Christians at the time will disobey the Antichrist and his government and refuse to worship the image (Reveleation 13:15) just as Daniel’s companions violated Nebuchadnezzar’s decree to worship his idol.

Civil Disobedience – Conclusion

What conclusions can be drawn from the above biblical examples? The guidelines for a Christian’s civil disobedience can be summed as follows:

• Christians should resist a government that commands or compels evil, and should work nonviolently within the laws of the land to change a
government that permits evil.

• Civil disobedience is permitted when the government’s laws or commands are in direct violation of God’s laws and commands.

• If a Christian disobeys an evil government, unless they can flee from the government, they should accept that government’s punishment for their actions.

• Christians are certainly permitted to work to install new government leaders within the laws that have been established.

Lastly, Christians are commanded to pray for their leaders and for God to intervene in His time to change any ungodly path that they are pursuing: “Firstof all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity” (1 Timothy 2:1–2).