There is perpetual unrest in Hong Kong. Hongkongers, as they prefer to be called, continue to assemble in the streets by the thousands—a regular practice for the last dozen years. However, 2019 marks a unique shift. The Christian community in Hong Kong continues to peacefully protest a bill that would move Hongkongers back under Chinese authority, even as it has since become suspended due to the overwhelming tensions. 

If Hong Kong were to come under the same laws as mainland China, then religious assembly would be outlawed under the communist regime. As one report puts it, “they fear the persecution of religious denominations in mainland China may spread to Hong Kong.” Still, in the face of this impending assimilation, there is a portion of protestors singing praises to Jesus Christ.

Is Protest Biblical? 

Hear what the Bible has to offer concerning governmental authority in Romans 13:5: “Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.” One may read this with an understanding that the Hongkongers are sinning against God by protesting God’s authority over them. Even prior to this we read in verse two, “Whoever resists the authorities resists what God as appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” This is exceptionally interesting given the amount of “RESIST” bumper stickers I see on a daily basis.

But why did God ordain these regimes? Romans 13:3 explains how authorities are put in place as a form of common grace to draw the sword of wrath against condemnable people. Is this what is happening in China? Or is there more nuance than at first glance? 

Another aspect of verse five is found in the phrase “for the sake of conscience.” How does this play into a citizens’ subjection? What is it about our consciences that require subjection by an external force? This is a vital element within the equation.

As a proper starting place, we must recognize that God has set a standard for morality. In His common grace, He has established and ordained governing forces to both recognize certain standards of human morality and to execute judgments for breeches against those set standards. So what room do citizens have when they observe governing forces opposing the moral standards established by God? Such a question has tasked the Hongkongers and it is being broached in two distinct ways: peaceful expression and violent aggression.

Gentleness in Confrontation

America is well acquainted with both peaceful expressions of dissent (think Rosa Parks) as well as malicious, violent aggressions (think Antifa). What does the Bible say concerning expressing oneself in a political landscape? This is a difficult question that requires much interpretation, as the thousand years wherein the Bible was written contain many types of governments, none of which are direct representations of America’s or Hong Kong’s.

Two verses come to mind relating to the biblical expectation of citizenship. Romans 12:18, “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all,” and Philippians 4:5, “Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand.” How do we set these verses against the displays of ongoing civil unrest witnessed in Hong Kong?

There is a piece in the story of Hong Kong that reminds me of another protest movement. Champlin Burrage, a significant church historian, details the account of a nonconformist church which met on June 19th, 1568 at Plumbers’ Hall, London.[1] The private meeting of about 150 persons disguised itself as a wedding due to England’s inhospitable government, which had enacted laws against nonconformity with the Church of England (considering the contemporary turmoils between Elizabeth I, Mary Queen of Scots, and the perpetual religious tensions within the kingdoms across Western Europe). 

Not long after the worship began, the church assembly was broken up and numerous men were arrested as this worship service was against the government’s laws. When these few men were released the assembly met again and over 75 men and women were again arrested. 

These types of separatists, who would later become known as Puritans, were known as being divisive, but did this go against subjection to rulers and authorities? I think not. Luther, Calvin, Knox and so many other exceptional churchmen and churchwomen held to an idea of righteous rebellion. The small Puritan church expressed itself peaceably to the point of imprisonment and even threat of martyrdom (which would be the reality as turmoil continued).

It is, indeed, true that God’s common grace is exercised in the governments’ role of order and punishing evil deeds. God is known for allowing one evil power as His instrument in judging or chastising another (even in the interesting events of Job 1:15, 17).  This is the doctrine of concurrence—God utilizes sinful men, while not being the author of sin. However, the governing authorities are at times judged themselves (see the history of biblical Babylon). It is not true that governing authorities should be seen as sovereign, “As if God had made over his right to mortal men, giving them the rule over mankind!”[2] John Calvin insists that, as is the case with Daniel 6, the king abrogates his power when it is used to raise himself higher than God or to wield his power in order to diminish the dignity of other men. Leave it to the Philistines to argue otherwise. 

For these Hongkongers, there is absolutely good reason for peaceful protest. God’s people are advocating for their right to worship Him; this is a necessary charge against the government, again reminiscent of Daniel 6, where Daniel peacefully prays and abstains from idol worship to King Darius’ schadenfreudian henchmen. Daniel saw his actions as both a right observance of God’s commands, likewise a call and witness to pagan regimes that what they sought to do was sinful. 

For the Hongkongers to keep silent under ungodly governance would not only heap judgment on their own heads but would heap further wrath on the governing party as well. Not confronting evil with rebuke or correction goes against the principles of evangelism, even as it concerns the public square. Calvin remarks, “How willful would it be if, to satisfy men, we incurred the anger of Him for whose sake we obey men?”[3]  And how willful would it be if, to satisfy our own comforts, we allowed for those in power to heap greater wrath upon their own heads by unjust subjection, rather than to point them toward the True King?

Like the account from 1568, the Chinese church is seeking to do all they can to remain steadfast in subjection to Christ’s authority, above that of their increasingly inhospitable government authority. Like the Puritans of old, and like the early church in its peaceable yet stalwart state under Rome, our brothers and sisters in Hong Kong are seeking to worship God as He desires to be worshipped.

When authorities “hold up their horns to God” as Calvin put it, the church cannot budge on such tyranny. As an act of mercy, the church must confront the evil while remaining as peaceable as possible, like Daniel—honest, with conviction, even before the lion’s den.

Confrontation without Conscience

Make no mistake, there are a multitude of protests taking place in Hong Kong, the majority of which are not necessarily motivated by the above considerations. We must be quick to distinguish between those seeking peace and those seeking strife. As Christians, we are called to live according to those above-mentioned verses (Rom 12:18 and Phil 4:5), even in protests. Though we are not all called to martyrdom, we have a rich cloud of witnesses—former saints—who paved the way for peaceful protest during the protestant reformation. The standard is set in Scripture. Our confrontation is not for the sake of our self-centeredness, appeasing our appetites, or neglecting to see the gravity of our willfulness. Protesting with violence goes against the mandate to live above reproach.

We are not called to brutality. Even when defending ourselves, restraint and violence should be quick but not hasty, justifiable, and without unnecessary torment. Romans 12:21, a verse that acts as a transitional statement heading into Paul’s discourse on subjection to authorities, reads, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

If it is in my power to live peaceably—and with honest convictions—before the eyes of a tyrant, then I will and I must. This may mean protest, but I am not seeking for murder or for burning authorities in effigy. (Though I would love to discuss this further with Dietrich Bonhoffer, a man who suffered with these anxious questions under the reign of Adolf Hitler.)

For conscience sake, we must discern what it is within us that should be subjected to the good moral laws of the State. For conscience sake, we ought to ever-be measuring our sins against the rulings we see judged by the governing authorities, seeking repentance and mortification of sin. But we cannot in good conscience uphold and praise disorder, both in terms of unrighteous subjection and unrighteous protestation.   

Weighing the Balance

For better or worse, the protests in Hong Kong are effective in bringing the governing authorities to think through their means of order; just how they are subjecting their citizens rightly or wrongly. This is a good fruit of protest. However, the unpeaceful branch of protesting will inevitably result in more stringent laws. Make no mistake, bad fruit will grow from it. 

I contemplate the American Revolution; prior to the war, citizens under the subjection of British rule practiced peaceful confrontation, even going so far as to remove themselves from subjection by means of the Atlantic ocean. After tyranny continued to encroach upon the New England shores something further than destroying boxes of tea was necessary. There were many reasons for the unpeaceful approach and I cannot imagine making those sorts of decisions. The desires the colonists sought were peaceful, even when the means of defense were not. 

Rightly revolting requires significant forthought as well as significant study in interpreting God’s word, such issues plagued the minds of so many theologians throughout church history (especially the Reformers and the Puritan divines). So how might Hongkongers remedy their situation, that minority protesting for the sake of religious freedom?  Would I be so courageous in declaring my faith in the face of ever-encroaching dangers? Would I become strident, belligerent in my expressions? I know I’ve become that way too many times in my heart, scowling behind the screen of social media. Perhaps the union of heart and mind is not such an easy thing to control when amassed under an unrighteous government.

We are enslaved to sin, depraved, under subjection. But we must remember to groan for our peace and hope that comes with resurrection morning (Rom 8:20-23). Our subjection to authorities is both a mercy and a necessary chastisement. We sought to make gods out of humanity, now we deal with those consequences. 

I think of God’s response and characterization of the process, “Today you have rejected your God, who saves you from all your calamities and distresses, and you have said to him, ‘Set a king over us’” (1 Samuel 10:8). The warning came to us so clearly, “And in that day you will cry out because of your king” (1 Sam 8:18). We know how this turned out, even our best king sent righteous men to die for his lusts. Never expect fallible men to reign infallibly. 

Likewise, never expect protestors to provide salvation. We have the promise of a True King who does save from all calamities and distresses; we yearn for Him and express such yearning peaceably even in the face of subjection. We have a hope beyond subjection, a song that demands a lifestyle, even for those who sing the words without knowledge of what they mean, “Sing hallelujah to the Lord, sing Christ is risen from the dead.”

These words continue to be a far greater threat to tyrannical governments than any human protest, just as they were almost 2000 years ago: Jesus is Lord. To Babylon, Jesus is Lord. To Rome, Jesus is Lord. To America, Jesus is Lord. And certainly to China, Jesus is Lord.

[1]Champlin Burrage, The Early English Dissenters, vol. 1 (1912; rprn, Paris, AR: Baptist Standard Bearer, 2001), 80.

[2]John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 2 (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 1520.

[3]John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Robert White (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 2017), 783.