Philosophy short paper #5

God is the measuring stick of all law. This is the main thesis of Martin Luther King’s response to his clerical critics in “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” These critics were perturbed by King’s willingness to break the law. They viewed this as antithetical (and counterproductive) to the whole purpose of the Civil Rights Movement: that being equal protection under the law for all people. King responds that neither laws nor the governments that write them can demand obedience in and of themselves. Indeed, according to King, “…there are just and there are unjust laws. I would agree with Saint Augustine that ‘An unjust law is no law at all.’” (1215). According to King, a just law finds its foundation in the law of God. Unjust laws, on the other hand, are “not rooted in eternal and natural law.” (1215).

This transcendent nature of moral law necessarily means that, at least on a basic level, no secret wisdom or special knowledge is needed to discern between the two types. King offers a couple of examples to demonstrate. First, he outlines the obvious injustice of a majority holding a minority to a statute it does not hold itself to (1215). He also reminds his readers that Hitler’s actions were totally legal during his diabolical reign (1216). Likely his strongest argument--particularly considering his audience--comes in pointing to those in Scripture who broke laws and yet were vindicated by God (1216). Thus, a law does not necessarily mean “right,” and breaking a law does not necessarily mean “wrong.”

I agree emphatically with King’s assessment. God is chief lawgiver and Judge of all the earth; He dictates the rules by which humans may interact, including governments and all human institutions. These laws (again, on a very basic level) are written on our hearts (Romans 2:15). We know them and are accountable to them. Laws that contradict God’s law (either by commanding something God forbids or forbidding something God commands) must be broken. King cites Shadrach, Meshack, and Abednego, and the Apostles, as well he should. All of them acted in line with the principle King commends: They disobeyed lovingly and took the punishment willingly.

But there are obvious problems. King was writing a letter, not a theological treatise, so the brevity of his comments is understandable. Nonetheless, a deeper look is worthwhile. Consider homosexuality. The biblical witness is clear that homosexuality is sinful. Romans 1 describes it as a sin that is proof of God’s wrath. The Law of God refers to it as an abomination, and homosexuals were to be executed (Leviticus 20:13). How would King feel about the United States government executing gay people? Would altering the sentence to jail time or a fine make it more or less palatable in his view? God, as giver, definer, and governor of human sexuality is clear in His pronouncement of the nature of homosexual acts, and He himself instituted civil punishments for them. Under King’s assessment then, a government passing similar laws has done nothing unjust. This would likely be a bit perturbing to those who use the Civil Rights Movement as a basis for (for lack of a better phrase) the Gay Rights Movement.