Civil Disobedience, Civil Initiative, or Civil Disarray?

Elaborating the comments I made here. First, some background on No More Deaths:

---

We are a diverse coalition of individuals, faith communities, human rights advocates, and grassroots organizers who have joined together to work for justice along the U.S.- Mexico border.

We have mobilized in response to the escalating numbers of migrant deaths in the deserts of the American Southwest. Since 1998, over 2000 men, women, and children have lost their lives attempting to cross the border.

We are a bi-national network of migrant-friendly organizations and individuals throughout the United States and northern Mexico that participate through symbolic and direct action.

We offer a strategy to intervene and put a stop to migrant deaths in the Borderlands.

---

No More Deaths is in the news because two of its volunteers have been charged with a crime:

---

No More Deaths volunteers, Shanti Sellz and Daniel Strauss, both 23, were arrested by the U.S. Border Patrol for medically evacuating 3 people in critical condition from the 105-degree Arizona desert in July 2005.

Shanti and Daniel were following the protocol of NMD training (acknowledged by NMD and US Border Patrol) by consulting medical professionals who advised them to evacuate the critically ill men to a medical facility, and then consulting a NMD attorney who approved the evacuation.

Their arrest and subsequent prosecution for providing humanitarian aid has shocked people of conscience around the world. These young humanitarians are facing prosecution by the US government which could result in a 15 year prison sentence.

---

Here's what happened:

---

Strauss looked back and saw that they were being followed by a Border Patrol vehicle. The officers trailed them for maybe 13 miles before pulling them over; they stopped, shutting down their engine and letting the heat outside creep in.

Strauss gazed at his three passengers, cowering in the tattered black clothes they had hoped would help them evade detection.

There was nothing we can do for you, the volunteers said _ you are going to be arrested. "We had warned them before they got evacuated what the rules were, and that we couldn't hide them in any way," Strauss says. "We did our best to try to tell them it was going to be all right, but we didn't know if it would."

The officer asked, "Are your three passengers illegal?"

"I don't know," Strauss said.

Then, Sellz recalls, the officer poked his head into the car and asked the passengers: "Do you guys speak English?"

No one answered.

"The officer turned to us and said, 'Those guys are illegal and you know it.'"

Two more Border Patrol vehicles arrived. They arrested Hidalgo-Solis and his companions.

But they also arrested Strauss and Sellz.

"Are you really arresting me?" Sellz recalls asking, in amazement.

"I know you guys are good people but what you're doing is illegal," she was told....

Sellz and Strauss...are slated to go to trial on April 25 on felony charges of knowingly and intentionally conspiring to transport an illegal alien, and with transporting an illegal alien, knowing and in reckless disregard of the fact that he had come to, entered and remained in the U.S. in violation of law.

If convicted, they could face up to 15 years in federal prison.

They have declined two different plea offers, one that came just a week after their arrests, that would have wiped their records clean in exchange for a no-contest plea. They insist that in transporting sick people, they were not in any way breaking the law.

"Humanitarian work needs to be applauded, not prosecuted," says Strauss.

---

No More Deaths believes that their actions fall under the category of "civil initiative," which Jim Corbett has defined as follows (emphasis mine):

---

"Isn't what you do illegal?" No. We work within the law to save lives. We do not engage in civil disobedience, but rather civil initiative.

Civil initiative is formed by this function; our responsibility for protecting the persecuted must be balanced by our accountability to the legal order.

As formed by accountability, civil initiative is nonviolent, truthful, catholic, dialogical, germane, volunteer-based, and community-centered.

Nonviolence checks vigilantism. Civil initiative neither evades nor seizes police powers.

Truthfulness is the foundation for accountability. Civil initiative must be open and subject to public examination.

Civil initiative is catholic (in the sense of all-embracing) rather than factional, protecting those whose rights are being violated regardless of the victim’s ideological position or political usefulness.

Civil initiative is dialogical, addressing government officials as persons, not just as adversaries or functionaries. Any genuine reconciliation of civil initiative with bureaucratic practice- the discovery of an accommodation that does not compromise human rights-is a joint achievement: civil initiative can never be based on non-negotiable demands.

Action that is germane to victims’ needs for protection distinguishes civil initiative from reactions that are primarily symbolic or expressive. As a corollary, media coverage and public opinion are of secondary importance when our central concern is to do justice rather than to petition others to do it.

Civil initiative’s emergency exercise of governmental functions is volunteer-based. The community must never forfeit its duty to protect the victims of human rights violations, but no new bureaucracy should be formed that would oppose the return of governmental functions to those constitutionally designated to assume responsibility.

Civil initiative is community-centered. To actualize the Nuremberg mandate, our exercise of civil initiative must be socially sustained and congregationally coherent; it must integrate, outlast and outreach individual acts of conscience.

---

One could misread (or read) this to say that civil initiative people make up their own laws in certain situations, but that's not exactly what they're saying.

This post explains civil initiative's views on the law...and the Law:

---

Basically, civil disobedience breaks the law, and civil initiative upholds the Law. (Corbett distinguishes between law as in statutes, and Law in a larger sense.)

---

Or, to put it another way (emphasis mine):

---

Civil initiative is the name that Corbett, the Quaker founder of the Sanctuary Movement, gives to his understanding of nonviolent response. Civil initiative has deeper spiritual insight than Thoreau's civil disobedience and clearer cultural relevance to the United States than Gandhi's satyagraha. Corbett asserts the duty of the individual to obey the law when the government defiles the law by calling illegal acts legal. He places the fundamental root of the law in spiritual experience. As a goat tender in the Arizona desert he experienced the deep meaning of the Jewish experience of Exodus and this prepared him to assist refugees from Central American in their flight to Canada. His Quaker commitment to helping those in need on any side of the conflict and to maintaining the rule of law without consenting to illegal law separated him from other activists protesting the Central American civil wars.

---

Or, human governmental laws themselves are illegal and not to be obeyed. Legal is illegal, and illegal is legal.

Let's look at the ramifications of this:

• There's the argument above that laws against illegal aliens are immoral and therefore invalid and not to be obeyed.


• There's the argument that government laws legalizing abortion are a violation of the moral Law, and that these invalid laws must be resisted, and that resisters are not guilty of a crime. Although I believe that Jim Corbett, a Quaker, would not agree with the tactics used by Eric Rudolph, the act of physically blocking access to abortion clinics, even when illegal to do so, would presumably be in line with his philosophy.


• There's the argument that the Afghan government itself violated the law by using trumped-up procedures to free Abdul Rahman, who (in the eyes of some people) was guilty of a crime against higher Law, and thus deserved death. Granted that we're talking about a different higher Law, but the Islamic equivalent of Jim Corbett would probably have some views on this.

Regarding the second point above, there is a web page that, while not using the term civil initiative, certainly agrees with the philosophy that (small l) laws can be disobeyed when they conflict with the (capital L) law. (Emphasis mine.)

---

In Romans 13:1-7 Paul says the Christian should obey government. Why? He says it is because government fulfills the God-intended purpose of rewarding righteousness and punishing evil (Deut. 25:1). What is God's posture toward civil laws which protect evil-doing, and punish righteousness? "Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent--the LORD detests them both" (Prov. 17:15).

Paul says the government we are to obey is "God's servant" (Rom. 13:4). The state is the representative of God to society in the same sense that a baby-sitter is the representative of parents to their children. God delegates authority to the state just as parents delegate authority to the baby-sitter. But God does not give unconditional authority to the state any more than parents give unconditional authority to the baby-sitter.

We must realize that the law does not only permit abortion. It actually prohibits intervention to save lives at the very place they are being taken. It actively facilitates abortion, in that it forcibly removes those who would peacefully prevent it. It fines such people, puts them in jail, and awards their money to abortion clinics, in order to assure that child-killing can continue.

---

Further, the text states that we must not allow evil to take place:

---

The fact that we are not forced to get abortions does not settle the moral issue. It is rare that laws directly command people to do what is evil. In a republic such as our own they almost never will. More often they will command people to allow evil, to not interfere with evil, to not intervene for innocent lives. In other words, governments order sins of omission much more often than sins of commission.

---

Next the Nazis are examined (which raises the question, not discussed here, of those Christians that participated in the attempted assassination plot against Hitler; was it wrong for the government to execute them?).

---

The law did not require that the German people kill Jews. The law only required that they stand passively by while others killed them. Likewise, our law "only" requires that no one be able to go to the killing place and stand between the baby and the knife. (Some object to comparing Nazi Germany and the United States, which were two very different countries. But the point of the comparison is not the intent of the governments, but the reality of the victims. True as it may be, it is no consolation to 4500 innocent victims a day that they are being killed in the greatest republic the world has ever known.)

Scripture doesn't say, "anyone who knows the evil he shouldn't do and does it, sins." That is obviously true, but the Bible says something more: "Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins" (James 4:17). This means we cannot say "no one requires me to sin by killing my child, therefore I am not morally obligated to save the lives of children being killed by others." God doesn't simply tell us not to kill--he also tells us to rescue those about to be killed. If it is right to intervene for the innocent, then a law that prevents intervention prevents people from doing what is right....

Jesus said that there was one law above all others, and upon which all others were based--love God with all you are, and "love your neighbor as yourself" (Matt. 22:37-40). Jesus extends this law in the form of the golden rule: "In everything, do for others as you would have them do for you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets" (Matt. 7:12). We should ask ourselves the question, if we were being taken to a brutal death, what would we like someone to do for us at that moment? Take all the arguments against civil disobedience to save the unborn, and imagine yourself stating them before an audience of slaves, Jews or unborn children about to die.

In cases where helping victims is illegal, there are two conflicting ethical demands, one of which will be met and one unmet no matter what we do. One demand is to love your neighbor by saving his life. The other demand is to obey civil law. One of these ethical demands must be placed over the other. The question, then, is not should we disobey an authority, but which authority should we disobey--man's or God's?

---

So, are Christians called to disobey immoral governmental laws? Probably.

Are Christians called to plead innocent to charges of violating immoral governmental laws? I answer this with a qualified no.

Three Examples

Let's look at three trials/convictions in the Bible - one in which the person was guilty of the crime with which he was charged, and two in which the persons, while probably not guilty of the specific crime with which they were charged, were guilty of a crime against the civil authorities nonetheless.

Let's start in Daniel 6. In this case, the accused was clearly guilty of a crime against the state:

---

Daniel 6:7-10 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

7 The royal administrators, prefects, satraps, advisers and governors have all agreed that the king should issue an edict and enforce the decree that anyone who prays to any god or man during the next thirty days, except to you, O king, shall be thrown into the lions' den. 8 Now, O king, issue the decree and put it in writing so that it cannot be altered—in accordance with the laws of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be repealed." 9 So King Darius put the decree in writing.

10 Now when Daniel learned that the decree had been published, he went home to his upstairs room where the windows opened toward Jerusalem. Three times a day he got down on his knees and prayed, giving thanks to his God, just as he had done before.

---

His crime was discovered, and was reported to the governing authorities. In this particular case, it was the government itself that wanted to save him, but was forced to conclude that Daniel was guilty:

---

Daniel 6:14-16 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

14 When the king heard this, he was greatly distressed; he was determined to rescue Daniel and made every effort until sundown to save him.

15 Then the men went as a group to the king and said to him, "Remember, O king, that according to the law of the Medes and Persians no decree or edict that the king issues can be changed."

16 So the king gave the order, and they brought Daniel and threw him into the lions' den. The king said to Daniel, "May your God, whom you serve continually, rescue you!"

---

Let's skip to Acts, and the initial charges against Paul:

---

Acts 21:27-29 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

27When the seven days were nearly over, some Jews from the province of Asia saw Paul at the temple. They stirred up the whole crowd and seized him, 28shouting, "Men of Israel, help us! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple area and defiled this holy place." 29(They had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian in the city with Paul and assumed that Paul had brought him into the temple area.)

---

This case involved issues regarding the violation of civil liberties, which demonstrate that Paul, rather than being agreeable like Daniel, was taking a different tone:

---

Acts 22:22-29 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

22The crowd listened to Paul until he said this. Then they raised their voices and shouted, "Rid the earth of him! He's not fit to live!"
23As they were shouting and throwing off their cloaks and flinging dust into the air, 24the commander ordered Paul to be taken into the barracks. He directed that he be flogged and questioned in order to find out why the people were shouting at him like this. 25As they stretched him out to flog him, Paul said to the centurion standing there, "Is it legal for you to flog a Roman citizen who hasn't even been found guilty?"

26When the centurion heard this, he went to the commander and reported it. "What are you going to do?" he asked. "This man is a Roman citizen."

27The commander went to Paul and asked, "Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?"
"Yes, I am," he answered.

28Then the commander said, "I had to pay a big price for my citizenship."
"But I was born a citizen," Paul replied.

29Those who were about to question him withdrew immediately. The commander himself was alarmed when he realized that he had put Paul, a Roman citizen, in chains.

---

Later on, after appearing before the Sanhedrin, Paul petitioned for a change in venue:

---

Acts 25:9-12 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

9Festus, wishing to do the Jews a favor, said to Paul, "Are you willing to go up to Jerusalem and stand trial before me there on these charges?"

10Paul answered: "I am now standing before Caesar's court, where I ought to be tried. I have not done any wrong to the Jews, as you yourself know very well. 11If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die. But if the charges brought against me by these Jews are not true, no one has the right to hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar!"

12After Festus had conferred with his council, he declared: "You have appealed to Caesar. To Caesar you will go!"

---

So, unlike Daniel's model of acquiescence, Paul fought the charges all the way. But there is another model:

---

Matthew 26:59-65 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

59The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. 60But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward.

Finally two came forward 61and declared, "This fellow said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.' "

62Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" 63But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ,[a] the Son of God."

64"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

65Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.

Footnotes:
Matthew 26:63 Or Messiah; also in verse 68

---

In this case, Jesus was not technically guilty of the false charges lodged against Him; he was guilty of a much more serious charge. And he didn't dodge it; he admitted to it.

Then he went before another court, a court that could save him:

---

Matthew 27:11-14 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

11Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?"
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied.
12When he was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he gave no answer. 13Then Pilate asked him, "Don't you hear the testimony they are bringing against you?" 14But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge—to the great amazement of the governor.

---

So Jesus talked in front of the court that wanted to convict Him, and kept His mouth shut in front of the court that wanted to save Him.

So, if you ask that time-worn (and lucrative) question "What Would Jesus Do?" I believe that Jesus would have aided the dehydrated illegal aliens...and would have been arrested...and would have made sure that he was convicted.

From the Ontario Empoblog (Latest OVVA news here)