Was Rosa Parks Right? An Unpopular Opinion
Ever have one of those weird experiences where you’re talking or reading or hearing about someone, and the very same day, some huge news item about them appears? The absolute weirdest one for me came a few years back. I’m listening to Roger Hedgecock on the radio, filling in for Rush, and he’s responding to the near-beatification of Princess Di, who’d passed away just a couple of days earlier. She was, as are all of us to one degree or another, a mixed bag of good and bad; certain of her moral shortcomings were pretty well-known. Roger wondered out loud, and discussed for a few moments, whether or not Mother Teresa would receive such lofty accolades as Di. He cuts away to a commercial, and comes back having received the news that, indeed, Mother Teresa had in fact passed away. The moment was surreal…
Anyway, yesterday I’m reading in Don’t Know Much about History, about how Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat 
on the Montgomery bus, and the spark that that brave act provided for the civil rights movement. I actually paused for a moment and wondered, “is Rosa Parks still alive?” Ironically, then, today we learn of the death of Ms. Parks, who lived into her nineties and was a crusader and a symbol for civil rights her entire life.
But here’s the question: was Rosa Parks, a professing Christian (and I mean to cast absolutely zero aspersion on that profession!), right to act as she did? Was her act of “civil disobedience” biblically justifiable? As I understand the Bible—and I freely confess that there is so much of it that I do not understand—Ms. Parks was not justified in doing what she did. Now, in our rabid age of slogan-slinging, and to avoid being tarred with some ridiculous brush, let me assure you that I wholeheartedly agree with the cause for which she was acting. Racial prejudice and bigotry is a reprehensible evil. That is beyond discussion.
But my question is simple: in light of Romans 13, and in light of the actions of the disciples of Jesus, is “civil disobedience” justifiable?
Martin Luther King, in his famous “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”, wrote,
One may ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust…One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all”.
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.
OK, I can certainly pretty much agree with Dr. King’s second paragraph above…but biblically, do we have “a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws?” Not according to Romans 13, as I read it. Is there ever a justification for breaking human laws? Of course…when it comes to a clear, unmistakeable, unavoidable choice between obeying God and obeying men, we must obey God. The apostles were told not to proclaim forgiveness in the name of Jesus. To obey this would be to clearly disobey God—and thus their conclusion: “we must obey God rather than men.”
But Rosa Parks would not have been sinning against God to give up her seat to a white person. The law was certainly unjust and morally repugnant, but are we given any exemption from Romans 13 other than when we clearly have to choose between obeying God and men?
I honor Rosa Parks’ courage and her cause, and mourn her passing as do so many millions of Americans tonight. I disagree with her method, from a Biblical standpoint, although my opinion is undoubtedly unpopular. As Bill O’Reilly would say, what say you?
This phrase comes from the 1978 "Jonestown massacre" in which most members of the Peoples Temple cult, blindly following their leader Jim Jones, committed suicide by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid.
Osborne: A Contrarian's Guide to Knowing God
Schlossberg: Idols For Destruction
21 Responses to “Was Rosa Parks Right? An Unpopular Opinion”
Oh boy, here we go again. Another hot-button issue for moi. Rosa was actually doing the whole nation a favor. This was a nation who fought a terribly bloody civil war in order to guarantee freedom to the blacks, and there we were (the US that is) in the 1960′s, pretending that the blacks were equal and free. They had been given freedom ideologically, but there was so much resistance to the concept of true equality (for more info read Under God by Toby Mac and Michael Tait). Obey God or men? Depends on what men are telling you to do! I think we can safely say that Rosa spent many mornings and afternoons moving to the back of the bus for people who thought nothing of her – except that she was 2/5 human. It is not situational ethics when the underpinning factor is the freedom and equality of all men and women who, by the way, are all created in the image of God. Who knows how many times she wanted to remain in her seat, but actually was motivated to do the wrong thing (move) because of the right reason (respect for ‘authority’). For some reason this reminds me of a question a past pastor once asked our congregation: If you lived in Nazi Germany and were hiding Jews in your house, and the Gestapo came to your door and asked you if any Jews were in your house-would you lie to them or tell the truth? Well, the pastor said that we shouldn’t ever lie and that if we really believed in the sovereignty of God we wouldn’t – even to protect the lives of people being mistreated. Isn’t there a responsibility on the part of ‘authority’ to actually resemble authority? Or can any despot gain power and automatically gain control of every Christian within his reach? We hear about Nazi Germany and are amazed that seemingly normal, ordinary, common people could actually carry out the orders that Hitler was giving them (to capture and kill Jews). Well, why does that amaze us if we believe that we need to follow the law of the land without any distinction about who is telling us to do what? If we take this concept and make it fit in a corrupt society (following leaders blindly because the Bible apparently [see blindly] says to), then we run the risk of holding the truth in contempt at the expense of our overconcern for the standing of our own righteousness. Do ambulances have to stop for red lights – even if no one is coming and someone is dying inside the vehicle? Better yet, if I am taking someone to the hospital because they are bleeding to death, do I have to obey all speed limits? Wouldn’t that be selfish to only think of my standing with the law at the expense of another’s life? I think that would qualify for following the letter of the law at the expense of the intent of the law – to save lives. Another case in point, what if mom and dad ask their child to do something clearly wrong? Does the literal and complete interpretation of ‘Honor your Father and Mother’ take precedent over what we know is the INTENT of that command? (to ultimately honor God). What about wife-beaters and child-beaters? They have Biblical authority over their household. Do they not have a greater responsibility?
Mark Merritt ~ Oct 26, 2005 at 12:16 pm
Byron, using your theology we’d all still be paying homage to jolly ol’ England. Ever hear of the Boston Tea Party? I think Thomas Jefferson put it this way…
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Rosa Parks was justified in doing what she did because it was the RIGHT thing to do, not only for herself but for all Americans of every race, color, or creed. It is indeed RIGHT to take a stand against any law that singles out a group of people and oppresses them. And I believe Christians DO have a moral right to take a stand against such laws.
Don ~ Oct 27, 2005 at 6:40 pm
Two responses, both from pastor friends, and I appreciate the interaction, but neither deals much with the actual biblical theology of it. Of course it is right to “take a stand” against immoral laws—but is it scripturally right to disobey them? The Nazi Germany allusion, Mark, is not well-taken; I have already granted that there are Biblical exceptions to the Romans 13 principle, but can we honestly equate hiding Jews with refusing to abide by bus rules? Strrrrrreeeetccchhhhh. There is scriptural guidance for refusing to go against God’s law, in the unhappy event that Mom’s or Dad’s will goes against God’s. I don’t think your examples do much of a job of helping your case—because I’ve clearly granted the existence of legitimate, biblically-grounded exceptions. Does the seating arrangement on a bus—no matter how racist, wrong, egregious it might be—fall under this category? And why, biblically?
Don, you’re dead-right on the historical implications of my belief. Was the Boston Tea Party scripturally right? Burden of proof, much as we Americans relish our freedom, would seem to be on those who say “yes”; I say, “no”, even though I live under the freedom provided by the American patriots. I’m asking what’s scripturally right, not what Tom Jefferson thinks, nor what serves to justify my own freedom.
I am, by the way, open to changing my mind on this one, but I need to be convinced Biblically that an exception to Romans 13′s general principle is correct in this case.
Byron ~ Oct 27, 2005 at 7:08 pm
In the book “The Light and the Glory†Peter Marshall and David Manuel do a really good job of addressing this very issue.
“When does tyranny become tyranny? Is there a time when it is not only morally correct but the will of God for one to resist legally constituted authority? When does the “Lord’s anointed†lose His anointing? When did it become God’s will for America to throw off the yoke of Britain? Was it God’s will at all?â€
It’s interesting to note here that America’s pulpits lead the charge to resist oppression for more than a century before the Revolution. Two biblical passages come to mind…
In 1 Kings chapter 21 Naboth the Jezreelite was pressured to sell his vineyard to the king, who wanted it for a vegetable garden. Naboth refused saying, “The Lord forbid that I should give the inheritance of my fathers to you!†(1 Kings 21:3). His defiance of the king ultimately cost him his life. Yet he stood against tyranny despite the consequences, because he believed it was God’s will for him to do so.
In Galatians 5:1 we read, “Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.â€
Marshall writes, “That would be exactly what the new Americans would be guilty of, if, having been given their freedom by God, they voluntarily gave up their authority to govern themselves. It would be like the Israelites – after all God had done for them to bring them out of Egypt – turning around and inviting Pharaoh to bring his troops to Canaan and put them back under servitude.â€
I maintain that the same can be said for the black civil rights movement of the 1960’s. The United States government WAS in fact guilty of tyranny. Courageous individuals like Rosa Parks had the intestinal fortitude to resist that tyranny despite the consequences in order to bring the injustice to the attention of an entire nation. The result of their bold stand produced sweeping reform, which likely would not have taken place any other way. Rosa Parks WAS right!
Don ~ Oct 28, 2005 at 11:08 am
Rosa was right.
Julana ~ Oct 29, 2005 at 10:00 pm
Rosa Parks was right in that the law she was disobeying is transcended by the higher law of God which Scripturally teaches the dictum that all peoples are created equal.
Romans 13 (and 1 Peter) are never meant to be obedient or submissive to those human laws that contradict God’s laws (e.g., Christians breaking Nazi law by hiding Jews. Wrong in your book? Surely not. But right according to God’s Book.)
Ted Gossard ~ Oct 30, 2005 at 8:44 am
I expected this kind of response, because I admit that mine is an unpopular and, clearly, minority position. And, as I reiterate because many read this blog who don’t know me personally, I admire both Rosa’s courage and her cause. Her cause was right; I only question her method. Further, I might be wrong on this one…
To answer a little: one, Don, the Galatians reference seems to me to have no bearing on this situation. Paul isn’t writing about anything approaching this subject, and I think it’s a massive stretch to try to make it fit. To Ted, I agree and disagree; again, the law Rosa broke involved bus-seating. The Bible has nothing to say about such subjects. Granted, it was an unjust law, and represented something more sinister: the attempt to subjugate a race of people out of mere prejudice. But it’s a huge stretch to liken it to hiding Jews, it seems to me, and a bad parallel.
Remember, Paul wrote Romans 13 when Nero was in charge. Nero. The only exception to it that we can make an airtight case for is when the apostles are commanded not to preach in Jesus’ name. To obey the law would literally mean disobeying God. To sit in a given bus seat doesn’t involve disobeying God’s law.
My question for all who disagree with me is, “where is the dividing line?” What if I think I’m overtaxed? Taxation involves the loss of a bit of freedom—which is, I think, fine to a point. But at one point in time, I’m given to understand that the upper tax bracket was 90%. That’s outrageous and clearly wrong (and no, I am not interested in arguing that point, and won’t engage in it). Would a wealthy person be right to disobey that unjust law? I think that your points are aided mightily by the vindication of history, and of course by the fact that Ms. Parks’ cause was right. But do we have carte blanche, as individual citizens, to act in disobedience to any law we find unjust? I think Peter Marshall benefits by the passage of time as well, but at that moment when the colonists were dumping tea into Boston Harbor, were they acting on biblical grounds? They were demonstrating against unfair taxation, after all.
Despite my arguments, I remain open to being convinced that I’m wrong. But I’m not there yet…
Byron ~ Oct 30, 2005 at 1:37 pm
Byron,
You messed up on this one…she did obey the authorities and went to jail. The bus driver did not need to move her…there was room for the white guy. It was his poor racist judgement and the racism of the police that led to her arrest to which she humbly submitted. But as Condi so eloquently said yesterday without Rosa she would not have had the opportunity to be Secretary of State.
There is a world of difference between a tired black worker and the rebellion of the 1700′s which to this day has given this nation a spirit of rebellion that we need to repent of.
Less you think I have dropped off the left edge…Alito is the right choice in more than one way.
Bill
Bill ~ Oct 31, 2005 at 1:20 pm
Byron, I realize that the Nazi comparison is a stretch on the surface, but these things almost always begin as a simple minor infraction against one’s conscience. In time however, the manipulated find themselves in situations that defy explaining away. Call it the domino effect, with each successive domino representing a steeper decline in ethical and moral resilience on the part of the manipulated. Obviously, Hitler didn’t assume power on Monday and start executing Jews on Wednesday. That type of control takes time. It’s a matter of being able to gauge just what people will tolerate for the moment, always keeping in mind the ultimate objective, while never seeming overly abusive. It’s still not a water-proof argument, but I think I’ve patched a hole or two here.
Mark Merritt ~ Oct 31, 2005 at 5:27 pm
Principally I don’t see the difference between Rosa Parks not being allowed to remain seated on the bus and what the Nazis did to the Jews. Yes, the latter was the greater crime, no doubt- and in that sense there is no comparison. But they are one and the same in that the principle of all people created by God as equals in being human and to-be neighbors (“neighbor” carries a moral overtone with Jesus- Lk 10) is violated just as badly in both.
Ted Gossard ~ Oct 31, 2005 at 6:31 pm
This is a good discussion; let me respond a little further. Bill, I’m not certain we’re reading off the same page of music; Rosa refused to give up her seat, which was a violation of the law in Montgomery, right? Am I missing something there? If so, let me know.
Here’s where I’ll poke a hole in your analogy, Mark, or at least attempt to: Hitler was moving in a direction of greater control/inhumanity, whereas the situation for blacks was in some ways improving prior to Rosa Parks’ stand. Brown v. Board of Education, for instance, had already been handed down (1954) prior to Rosa’s stance (12/1/55). Did her bold move perhaps hasten what was probably inevitable? Probably so; almost certainly so, in fact. But there were other wheels set in motion prior to Rosa’s actions; the trends were in the right direction in her case, as opposed to Hitler’s. Would Condi Rice not be Secretary of State were it not for Rosa Parks? I honestly don’t know; I actually am not at all sure one way or the other.
My point, Ted, is that the actual law that Rosa broke did not in itself involve a “God or the state” scenario; she could have changed seats and not broken God’s law. In fact, my case is built on the idea that honoring the laws of the state are equal to honoring the law of God in non-moral matters. One’s seat on the bus is a non-moral matter.
Further, Ted, while you’re right in what you say about God’s creation of all of us as equals, is it our place to stand up for ourselves because of that. I’m not so sure.
Again, I understand how, with the benefit of history, and the fact that her cause was right, my opinion is unpopular. But I’m still not sure from Scripture on this one that a good case can be made. If Rosa had come to me as her pastor, would I have told her to disobey the law? An interest pursuit would be to come up with a real-time, modern-day parallel. Operation Rescue doesn’t fit the same parameters. Anybody got an idea of a modern-day parallel?
Byron ~ Oct 31, 2005 at 9:35 pm
Here’s a wonderful, worthy accomplishment of Rosa Parks that is beyond question!
http://tinyurl.com/dgnhc
Byron ~ Oct 31, 2005 at 9:40 pm
“…the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life†-2 Corinthians 3:6. Let me try this from a different angle. The key to whether or not Rosa was right can be found in the words of Thomas Jefferson that you dismissed as being irrelevant. I believe that they ARE relevant in that they are the basis for the “governing authority†under which we as Americans are to be subject. In America we are not subject to Nero or King James or Hitler. We are governed by “We the people.†And by the way, that’s the way it’s always been, dating all the way back to the time of the Pilgrims. (See the Mayflower Compact.) The governing authority in America is liberty under God. That’s what makes the American experience so unique. And as such we ought not be “entangled again with a yoke of bondage.†That’s what America’s pastors were preaching as early as 1684 when King Charles revoked the Massachusetts charter.
In America we have no rulers since we are self governing. We only have elected officials. Our laws are not determined by a king or a monarch as in the days of Paul. When our government is guilty of injustice we have an “unalienable right†as Americans, and even a responsibility, if I read Jefferson correctly, to take a stand and to make our voices heard. Americans have been fighting and dieing for that belief for over 200 years in order to secure that right for you and me. Surely you don’t mean to suggest that those Americans have died in vain.
Don ~ Nov 1, 2005 at 11:27 am
Wow, this whole discussion seems pretty familiar! As far as I can tell, none of the participants are the same, but basically the same thing has been going on here. Some points have occurred there that I didn’t noticed being made here. In particular, I think Keith DeRose has the best account of how Parks’s action could be morally justified, but as my comments say I’m not yet convinced. It’s nice to see someone else making the same sorts of observations.
Jeremy Pierce ~ Nov 2, 2005 at 2:22 pm
Thanks for the gracious responses to my comments
Byron.
I would say that for her to move to another seat would have been going along with a status quo that said, “Negroes are not equal to us.” She was taking a stand against a human law which was in violation to the law of God. This is how I see it. To take another seat would be to acquiesce to that which is contradictory to the law of God. It is more than just a personal affront to her as a person.
Good discussion and I think you have good thoughts, as well as others here.
Ted Gossard ~ Nov 2, 2005 at 10:29 pm
I’m over at Parableman’s site (Jeremy, above), and he’s right: they’re having a great discussion on the same topic. I’d encourage all to go check it out; just follow this link.
Byron ~ Nov 4, 2005 at 10:33 am
i think rosa did the right thing! and everyone should of done the same thing
rita ~ Nov 7, 2005 at 10:34 am
this was lame. how is it going to question rosa parks and then agree with her. that’s just plain stupid!
Werita ~ Oct 30, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Werita,
Thanks for posting; we haven’t touched this one for awhile! That said, your words aren’t clear as to what was “lame” or “stupid”, but I’d encourage you, instead of just “flaming”, to provide an argument on the topic. My argument is that her cause was clearly right, and that her courage is admirable, but that her actions themselves might not be Scripturally justifiable. Please explain how I might be wrong, instead of just throwing out epithets. Thanks.
Byron ~ Oct 30, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Due to my muslim heritage, i have had a strong background in knowing what is right and good for this earth….. the decisions made by people affect everyone on earth, everyone is connected and when someone decides to overthrow the authority of the time, in such a way as not giving up her seat, we see sometimes drastic consequences. These consequences should not be tolerated as they provide net deficits to the life-force which surrounds and connects us all. Rosa Parks was a dissenter and a violator of the rights of people to live life to the fullest. she disrupted the life-force and should be known forever as a terrible person who changed history forever and made life more difficult for you me and everyone
Conscerned Reader ~ Nov 10, 2007 at 2:20 am
Thanks, Concerned, for posting. I would not agree with your conclusions, but I do respect your right to be heard. Your philosophy of “life-force” sounds to my untrained ear a bit more eastern (Buddhist, perhaps?) than it does Muslim, and it’s not one that, as a follower of Christ, I’d agree with, nor do I believe that Rosa Parks’ actions did the damage you suggest, whether they were in line with the Bible I believe or not.
Byron ~ Nov 10, 2007 at 10:35 am