Should we obey the law?

Here are the reasons that come to mind for why we do obey the law:

(1) We believe what the law is promoting: The law, at least in democracies, is based around the social consensus of what is worth protecting. So, most people recognize right to the security of the person, so assault and battery are criminalized; people tend to think property rights are valuable, so theft and robbery are criminalized. Laws, therefore, are not arbitrary but based on society’s beliefs. Thus, most individuals in society respect the principles on which the law is built. Presumably then, even if the law did not state that murder was wrong, we would still not murder. We desist from breaking the law because the behavior it prohibits, when adopted, compromises our own sense of morality.

(2) The law promotes peace and order: By having a legal institution that deters destructive behavior and promotes constructive behavior we create a society which is ordered and in which we can live in peace. We will sacrifice our immediate desires because, ultimately, more of our desires will be satisfied we if preserve the peace by honoring the law.

(3) Fear of retribution: The law has the authority to inflict punishment – such as, fines, jail, deportation (for non-citizens), corporal punishment (whipping, or amputation of hands in Sharia law) etc. – and naturally we will avoid action that may result in such penalties. When this is the motive for obedience, is likely that the law will only be followed if there is likelihood that it will be discovered by authorities.

(4) Habit: To some extent we are conditioned for certain behavior which is generally beneficial to our person. Whilst the reasons given thus far are all conscious, following the law by course of habit is subconscious.

For example, when I am crossing the road at the lights often I will begin walking before the man has gone green if it is clear that by doing so I will not put myself in danger or cause inconvenience to any drivers. Yet, oftentimes will pedestrians choose to wait for the man to go green despite (a) a lack of danger, (b) no fear of retribution, and (c) no moral quandary with jaywalking. One could make the argument that it promotes order (Point 2), but I think a more common explanation is that is simply does not occur to the pedestrian that they have the agency to disobey the law; waiting for the green man is simply a matter of habit.

(5) Religious imperatives: This is probably the reason that I come across least often, but it’s certainly out there and pretty central to some people.

The Bible says, “Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right” (1 Peter 2:13-14, also Romans 13:1, Titus 3:1). If we isolate this command from the reasons for which it was given, then it seems Christians are compelled to follow the law (except where it is in conflict with God’s law, see Acts 5:29). I have friends who oppose violation of the law as they see the Bible giving inherent value to the law.

Personally, I reject this interpretation. I think the Bible consistently promotes following the spirit of the law rather than legalistically following the details of the law. Take, for example, Matthew 12:1-7:

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath." He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent.

Or take Mark 10:2-9:

Some Pharisees came and tested Jesus by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
"What did Moses command you?" he replied.
They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

In the first case he endorses what, technically, is illegal and in the second he criticizes behavior that is technically legal but contradicts the spirit of the law.

The other night my friend and I were offered a lift home by a P1 driver. I accepted the offer, knowing that doing so was breaking a state law that was recently brought in, limiting P1 drivers to one passenger between the ages of 16 and 21. In the end we didn’t end up breaking the law because another friend had an ethical dilemma with it. I, on the other hand, did not.

The restrictions placed on P1 drivers are, to me, entirely reasonable. Many accidents occur as a result of P drivers carrying multiple peers who distract them or urge them on to reckless acts, thereby creating danger and disorder. This graph of when casualty crashes occur shows why such laws are important.

But, in the five minute trip home, I could predict that this would not occur, knowing myself and knowing the driver. I felt as though the law, in its spirit, did not apply to our case and therefore could be disobeyed. I could see nothing immoral about the situation as we would not be causing any undue risk to ourselves or others. Being a new law I was certainly not in the habit of adjusting my behavior to account for such a law. Since it was a short trip and we wouldn’t be driving recklessly there was also almost no chance that we would be caught. And I don’t think our intended action would have discouraged a peaceful society by legitimizing contravention of the law.

It seems I am quite happy to disregard details of the law, if the intentions of the law are being honored.

Humanism at Easter

Way back in Easter I took the time to visit a number of very different churches and was pretty startled and concerned about the humanist philosophy which had sunk through to Church teaching. Here are two examples that, although rather radical, seem to reflect ideas common throughout the church.

St Michael’s Uniting
Francis Macnab, minister of St Michael’s Uniting, is something of an old hat in ways, repeating the same heresies popularised by Bishop Spong years ago in the US – but I had never read Spong and, not having prepared myself, his message came as a bit of a shock.

The Good Friday address was entitled ‘The Churches Love Affair - With Violence. Time to Choose a Better Way.’

Humans, he suggests, are naturally fascinated by violence – as evidenced by our captivation with violent films, our love of high contact sport. The Church’s concentration on the cross – which he rightly observes to be a symbol of brutality, criminality and domination – is another symptom of this. Substitutionary atonement, he claims, promotes a cycle of violence by suggesting that violence cancels out violence.

The ‘better way’ suggested by Macnab is for Christians to stop focusing on the figure of Jesus and the cross and find instead the good within themselves. This internal goodness (‘god’) allows one to break the cycle of violence. You can watch it for yourself here.

The message was clearly humanism wrapped up in a rather unconvincing guise of Christianity. Gone were any suggestions of human depravity or helplessness. We are the solution to our own problems – the power is within.

St Patrick’s Cathedral Not quite so explicitly heretical, but still problematic, was the message given at the Catholic Cathedral on Easter Sunday. The priest presented the story of two (fictional) couples. One of which were good Catholics who went to Mass, had children and basically lived happy lives. The second could have been equally blessed, except for the abortion they chose to take which, naturally, led to relationship breakdown and a stream of other unfortunate events.

The obligatory defamation of abortion done, he proceeded to inform us of the message of Easter, is one of hope – hope that in the bad times, good times will follow; hope that in our sadness, happiness will follow; hope that (assuming we don’t have an abortion) God will look after us. Look at the disciples after Jesus died –afraid and hopeless, but then comes Easter Sunday and everything is somehow okay again, he didn’t actually explain why this was though.

Much like at St Michael’s, the message was easy words to comfort the heart. There was no explanation of the cross, no assumption of sinfulness. Rather, we can forge for ourselves a happy future by remembering the ‘hope of Easter’ and doing good (or rather avoiding evil, i.e. abortion). We are the solution to our own problems – the power is within.

This is common in the church when we emphasise works over the absolute grace of God. We live in an arrogant age where we can’t accept that we are far gone and desperately in need of saving. At St Pat’s, the motivation for obeying the Church was that God would make our lives easier; it is not God but our own abilities, needs and interests that are central to understanding and living in the world.