(The following is taken from ‘Christian Ethics’ by Norman L. Geisler)
Should Christians ever disobey their government? If so, when? If not, why not? Is it ever right to revolt against an unjust government or to assassinate a tyrant?
There are three basic positions on civil disobedience: it is always right, never right, or sometimes right. The first view is called anarchism, the second is radical patriotism, and the third is biblical submissionism. Since the first view lacks any Christian justification, our attention will be focused on the latter two.
Should one ever disobey any law of the land? Radical patriotism says no.
Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
God expects obedience to human government. Not only did God establish government; he also expects us to obey it. This is obvious for two reasons. First, we are told to ‘submit’ to it. Second, Paul explicitly enjoins Christians to obey their government when he writes:
Titus 3:1 Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,
Obedience is necessary even to evil governments. When Paul exhorted the Romans to submit to the governing authorities, Nero was emperor. He killed his mother to ascend to the throne, burned Rome, and even burned Christians alive for streetlights. Nero was a brutal and wicked man, yet Paul called him ‘the minister of God’ and asked Christians to obey him. God told Daniel that “the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.” Sometimes this includes [evil men]. But, whomever God establishes is to be obeyed, good or evil. Peter said plainly,
1 Peter 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
Isaiah said, “Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed” (Is 10:1). God appointed government, but he surely does not approve of its evils.
Obedience to government is not unqualified. While it is true that God demands obedience to human authorities, this obedience is not without some limitations. Peter said to the authorities who commanded him not to preach the gospel,
Acts 4:19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.
We need not obey the evils of government. The Bible does enjoin obedience to governments even if they are evil, but it does not demand obedience to the evils of government. Indeed, it forbids doing evil no matter who says so. This is clear from the midwives’ refusal to kill innocent babies at the command of Pharaoh (Ex 1) and from the unwillingness of the three Hebrew youths to worship an idol (Dan 3). Christians can obey a government that permits evil, but not when one commands them to do an evil. Blind obedience to the evils of government is not patriotic; it is idiotic. Unqualified submission to an oppressive government is not patriotism. It is patriolatry, and patriolatry is idolatry.
[Is ‘anarchism’ ever allowable?] A right cause should not be undertaken in the wrong way. The truth is that almost any law is better than no law. A monarchy is better than total anarchy. [Who says that those against a government’s law(s) are correct? If the government is toppled, who might arise to be in charge? A dictator? Do you want lawlessness? Do you want a European nation to come in and take over during our rise of anarchy?]
There is a time and a place for disobedience to government; however, it should not be done in a violent manner. Citizens are not given the sword to use on the government. Rather, the government is given the sword to use on rebellious citizens. (Gen 9:6, Rom 13:4). In short, two wrongs do not make a right.
Saving the environment is a noble cause, but ecological terrorism is not a proper way to do it. [The group] Earth First! has engaged in a series of protests and civil disobedience. However, in 1984, members introduced ‘tree spiking’ (insertion of metal or ceramic spikes in trees in an effort to damage saws) as a tactic to thwart logging. Resistance to evil is necessary, but the resistance should not itself be an evil.
There is general agreement among Christians that there are times when a Christian should engage in civil disobedience. The real problem is where to draw the line, and there are two positions on this. One view holds that government should be disobeyed when it promulgates a law that is contrary to the Word of God [(Antipromulgation)]. The other view contends that government should be disobeyed only when it commands the Christian to do evil [(Anticompulsion)].
The Antipromulgation Position: Disobedience to government when it promulgates unbiblical laws
Christians have the right to disobey their government when it promulgates (creates) laws or actions contrary to the Word of God. A broader version of this position would say, when it contradicts the moral law or an individual’s conscience. The deist Thomas Jefferson espoused a form of this view.
The power of government is not absolute (in this view). All men, even the king, are under the law and not above it. The law is king; the king is not the law. Government is under God’s law; it is not God’s law.
The Christian’s obedience, then, is to God’s law and to government only insofar as it is in accordance with God’s law.
Governments that rule contrary to God’s law are tyrannical. Citizens should resist a tyrannical government. Not only should citizens disobey a 
tyrannical government; they also should actively resist it (Francis Schaeffer holds to this view). [This involves resisting the oppressive tyrannical government ‘in general’, and not resisting specific unbiblical laws that they may have created. It involves becoming, in a sense, antigovernment. It promotes rebellion against one’s government.]
Resistance takes two forms [in this view]: protest and force. Citizens should first protest the laws contrary to God’s Word. If this fails, then force may be necessary. ‘Force’, according to Schaeffer, ‘means compulsion or constraint exerted upon a person (or persons) or an entity such as a state’. Force can be used by local government, or even by a church, against an oppressive state. ‘There are two levels of resistance: remonstration (or protest) and then, if necessary, force employed in self-defense [(defense of what holds to be true…not necessarily the classic idea of protecting one’s own life.)].
The Anticompulsion Position: Disobedience to laws that compel us to do evil
This position agrees with the antipromulgation position in maintaining that there are times when a Christian should disobey civil laws. They differ only on what those occasions are, and the differences between these two positions on civil disobedience are highlighted [here:]
Antipromulgation – disobey when it permits evil; when it creates evil laws; when it is politically oppressive
Anticompulsion – disobey when it commands evil; when it compels evil actions; when it is religiously oppressive
The difference between the two views can be brought out by a couple of illustrations. According to the antipromulgation position, a citizen should disobey the government when it forbids the teaching of creation in the public schools, because this pronouncement is contrary to the Word of God. This, they claim, limits the freedom of creationists to express their views, which are based on the Word of God. However, according to the anticompulsion position, the Christians should not disobey this law, because it does not compel them to believe or teach that creation is false, nor does it negate their freedom to teach creation outside the public school classrooms. If a government commanded that creation could not be taught anywhere, that would be oppressive and could be disobeyed [in this view].
Abortion is another issue that focuses the difference between the two viewpoints. Agreeing that abortion is contrary to the Word of God, the antipromulgation view insists that a citizen has the right to engage in civil disobedience in order to oppose abortion [(abortion in general…anywhere…)]. Here the antipromulgationsists are split between two camps: those favoring such violent actions such as bombing clinics and killing doctors; and others favoring only nonviolent disobedience such as illegal clinic sit-ins.
Anticompulsionists, on the other hand, believe that it is wrong to disobey the law in order to protest abortion. This is because there is a difference between a law that permits abortions and one that commands abortions. We should legally protest unjust laws, but we should not disobey them. It is one thing for a government to allow others to do evil, but it is another thing for it to force an individual to do evil. Only in the latter case is civil disobedience justified.
The Biblical Basis for the Anticompulsion Position
There are several biblical instances of divinely approved civil disobedience. In each case, there are three essential elements: first, [there is] a command [given] by divinely appointed authorities that is contrary to the Word of God; second, [there is] an act of disobedience to that command; and finally, [there is] some kind of explicit or implicit divine approval of the refusal to obey the authorities.
Refusal to kill innocent babies. In Exodus 1:15-21, Pharaoh commanded that every male Hebrew baby be killed by the midwives. But the Hebrew midwives Shiphrah and Puah ‘feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live’. As a result God was kind to the midwives and the people increased and became even more numerous. And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families of their own.
Refusal of Pharaoh’s command not to worship God. Moses requested of Pharaoh, ‘Let my people go’. But Pharaoh said, ‘Who is the Lord, that I should obey him and let Israel go?’ But the children of Israel left Egypt with a spectacular display of miraculous interventions on their behalf.
Refusal to worship the antichrist. During the tribulation period, the faithful remnant of believers will refuse to worship the antichrist or his image. In a vision, John saw that the false prophet ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast. But they refused and overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by word of their testimony. God rewarded them with the crown of life.
Each civil command given in these illustrations, if followed, would compel believers to act contrary to God’s commands. The civil commands do not simply allow others to act contrary to God’s law; they also would force believers to disobey God’s law. This is oppressive and should be disobeyed.
How to Disobey Oppressive Laws
The Bible prescribes not only when civil laws should be disobeyed, but also how they should be disobeyed. Here again there are two views that need to be distinguished: one recommends revolt, and the other merely refusal. The biblical pattern is to refuse to obey its compulsive commands, but not to revolt against it. This is evident in all biblical examples just discussed. The midwives, for example, refused to obey Pharaoh’s order to kill the male babies, but they did not lead a revolt against Egypt’s oppressive government.
Biblical civil disobedience does not reject the government’s punishment, but it accepts the penalties for disobeying the law. For example, the three Hebrew youths refuse to worship the idol, but they do not refuse to go into the fiery furnace. Likewise, Daniel rejects the order to pray to the king but accepts the consequent punishment of the lions’ den. And the apostles refuse to stop preaching Christ but accept the consequence of going to prison.
Revolt: violent; fight it; reject its punishment
Refusal: nonviolent; flee it; accept its punishment
It is legitimate civil disobedience to flee, if possible, from an oppressive government and not to fight it. Israel fled from Egypt; Obadiah and Elijah fled from the wicked Jezebel. But none of them engaged in a war against the government. So, whenever a government is tyrannical, a Christian should refuse to obey its compulsive commands to do evil but should not revolt against it because of its unbiblical commands that permit evil.
Revolution: The Ultimate Revolt against Government
The Declaration of Independence manifestly proclaims a belief in ‘just revolutions’ against ‘unjust governments’. The grounds of such revolutions are based in God-given moral rights such as ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’. When government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it. Continued action by such a government to suppress these freedoms is an absolute despotism. [Was the American Revolutionary War biblical? It appears that the Revolutionary War was not biblically sanctioned, and that any Christians fighting in that war voluntarily were involved in leading a ‘revolt’ against their government…which is rebellion against God’s ordained minister (i.e. the government).
God gave the sword to the government to rule, not to the citizens to revolt.
God exhorts against joining revolutionaries. The scriptures declare explicitly, ‘Fear the Lord and the king, my son, and do not join with the rebellious’ (Pv 24:21). Since the context of the exhortation deals with fearing God and the king, whom he has ordained, it is evident that it is a command not to engage in a rebellion against one’s government.
Revolutions are consistently condemned by God. Korah led a rebellion against Moses, and the earth opened up to swallow Korah and his followers (Num 16). Likewise, Absalom’s revolution against David backfired, and Absalom was killed (2 Sam 15-18). Jeroboam led a revolt of the ten northern tribes against Judah in the south, which God severely condemned (1 Ki 12). [Also, it is interesting that David, when being hunted down by King Saul, never fought against him…and his government’s military; David had several opportunities to kill Saul, but would not stretch forth his hand against the Lord’s anointed.]
Moses was judged for his violent act in Egypt. Exodus tells us that when Moses saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew and saw there was no one around, he struck down the Egyptian and hid him in the sand. As a consequence of this violent act, Moses was forced to flee from Egypt and spend forty years in the desert. After that, God used Moses to lead Israel out of Egypt without a revolution. Israel did not fight Pharaoh; they fled from him. True, God miraculously intervened to deliver them, but the lesson is the same: trust God to take care of evil tyrants, but do not rebel against them. God sovereignly set them up, and he will sovereignly take them down (Dn 4:17).
Jesus exhorted against using the sword. Jesus warned [Peter to put the sword back into its sheath; for all who take up the sword shall die by the sword.] He was not opposed to using a sword in self-defense, but swinging a sword at the servant of an existing authority was another thing. ‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.’
How to Respond to Oppression
The Bible says that it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men (1 Pet 2:15). Civil disobedience is a bad testimony for a follower of Christ. Christians should be known as law-abiding citizens, not rebels. The best way to effect lasting change in an unjust government is by being a spiritual example, not by leading a revolution.
Paul urged Christians that [they should pray for kings and all those in authority so that we can all lead a peaceful life and be free to preach the gospel to those in our communities.]
We should fight oppression in our government with the ballot, not the bullet. It should be resisted with good, not with guns.
Christians do not need to be passive targets of tyranny. We need not be dartboards for despots. When oppressed, we have the right to flee to freedom.
Admittedly, fleeing is not always possible or successful. Sometimes Christians must suffer patiently for Christ’s sake.