[Excuse the length of this post. I have tried to condense it as much as possible, but to do any justice to this book I am going to have to spend extra time addressing it.]
First, I admit (as Gilliard so compellingly proves) I am privileged. Although I am the son of coal miner, from a long line of coal miners, and although I am from a broken home, compared to most people I have lived a life of ease and comfort – comparatively. I attended a private high school. My college education was paid for. I had many opportunities that other will never have. Simply by living in the West, I enjoy a level of material comfort, health, and abundance even kings two hundred years ago could not have imagined.
Second, any benefit, blessing, health, wealth, talent, or privilege I have, I have because they were gifted to me by God. As such, they are not mine to enjoy. I am but a steward of them for the benefit of his kingdom. Privilege is obligation.
Third, there are gross, systemic injustice in our world and in our country. As an attorney, I saw firsthand the injustice of our criminal justice system, though I would say the inequity is due to poverty more than race. If you don’t have money, you can’t buy justice. If you’re rich, you avoid it. This is sinful.
On these matters, I agree with Gilliard and appreciate the insights he brings to the table. Where I part company with him (I think, because, honestly, at times it is hard to determine exactly what he is proposing) regards how to leverage that privilege. To what purpose? To what end? By what means?
To keep this review of manageable length, I am going to organize my criticisms around what I see as two gaps in his argument, two glaring omissions, and, finally, what I believe is the cause of much of the problem with the book.
Two Gaps
Gap #1 – What laws may I disobey and how? Imagine two scenarios. Scenario 1, Law A requires that I do X (which would violate a law of God which would entail a sin of commission on my part) or that I refrain from doing Y (which would forbid me to do something God requires that I do, and so entail a sin of omission). As a Christian, I must obey God rather than man, so I would be entirely justified in disobeying Law A, at least to the extend it would require sin on my part. Gilliard presents illustrations from Scripture of this type of “civil disobedience” as he calls it: the Hebrew midwives, Moses (though he doesn’t specify exactly how he disobeyed – everything he lists as example of protest is actually a direct act of God rather than an act of Moses or the Israelites).
Scenario 2, Law B is unjust to some group, but does not require me to do X or refrain from doing Y. It’s an unjust law but does not require that I commit sin. May I break it anyway? Can I break it? If a law were passed requiring all undocumented peoples to be rounded up and incarcerated for the remainder of their natural lives, that would be unjust, but there is no way for me to break this law – unless I am a law enforcement officer charged with enforcing it. How would I commit civil disobedience in this instance? What Galliard seems to hint at, and what he seems to be defending as a strategy, is to break some other Law C as a protest – civil disruption, property damage, etc. He offers no instance of Scripture where this happens. Since most of the injustice he (rightly) protests fall in this second scenario, he needs to come up with some Scriptural backing for this type of civil disobedience. He does not.
While Galliard proves Christians should be willing to risk all to disobey laws that cause them to disobey the law of God, there is a huge gap between doing that and disobeying some other, unrelated law in order to protest a law that is unjust. He doesn’t seem to be aware of this gap. He just leaps across it and declares that Scripture mandates this type of disobedience. I am unconvinced.
Gap #2 – Changing society vs. building the church. Galliard posits that we are called to confront and address societal evils. “We are commissioned to exercise our citizenship as a tool to create a more equitable society” (p.89).
He provides as an example Paul and Silas in Acts 16. After they were arrested and flogged, the authorities discovered they were citizens and ordered them released. Paul insisted the authorities come and escort them out. Galliard believes this is an example of addressing a systemic problem (p.88). This passage helps us reimagine how we can use our citizenship to “pursue collective liberation rather than individual freedoms.” P.90. “Paul and Silas recognized and seized the opportunity to wield their power politically, engaging in advocacy to create judicial accountability, reform, and transparency. (p.90). This is an incredibly idiosyncratic and anachronistic reading of the passage. But Paul didn’t address any systemic issue. He called for no judicial reform. He didn’t seek liberation for all prisoners, just himself and Silas. None of the narrative fits the point he attempts to make.
He also makes much of Acts 6 where the church confronts the issue of Greek widows being left out of the distribution. The church leadership owned up to the problem of unjust distribution, saw it as systemic, and took steps to address it. All well and good, but as Galliard says, this was “discrimination in their midst” (p. xix) not in society. He introduces no biblical narrative wherein Christians addressed systemic problems in the society at large. They did address injustice within the church, but never in society.
There is a wide gap between working to ameliorate sinful conditions within the church (as a contrast society) and within society as a whole. Again, Gilliard does not seem to be aware of this gap and does nothing to convince the reader that it can be bridged. As the church, our goal is not to make society better so that it looks like the Kingdom of God, but to call people from that society into the real Kingdom of God, where true freedom is found. Why create an ersatz kingdom when the vibrant living kingdom of God is here and available?
Two Omissions
First, sadly (maddeningly?), Galliard never addresses the elephant in the room. What more oppressive, sinful and systemic injustice could there be than slavery? Yet the Bible launches no protest against it. Jesus healed slaves, but never suggested to anyone that they free them. Paul had every opportunity in his letters (especially to Philemon) to at least hint that perhaps Christians should not own other human beings. He did not. No acts of civil disobedience were undertaken or suggested. Christian slaves are urged to obey their masters. Christian masters are urged to treat their slaves well with no mention of freeing them. If ending societal injustice and oppression were the goal, why say such things? According to Galliard, “Corporate sin is more than active participation in sin; it includes apathy and complicity, or failing to act, in the face of evil amid oppressive contexts.” Jesus and Paul failed to act in the face of one of the most systemically evil forms of oppression imaginable. This would seem to make them cowardly collaborators with the oppressors. Or, perhaps, addressing systemic, societal wrongs was not the mission.
Second – and then there was Rome. Galliard quotes Esau McCaulley to insist that we do not have to obey unjust governments (p. 164). Examining Romans 12, he tells us that Paul was saying we should obey the state when the state is doing what it should do – being a terror to those who do evil. If any government is not doing what it is intended to do, he suggests rather provocatively, God will use humans to remove those authorities. Therefore, we are not absolutely forbidden to resist the powers that be. This line of interpretation is brought forward every time Christians want to rebel against the government. It always runs into the same insurmountable issue: Paul was writing about Rome and the Roman emperor. An evil man (likely Claudius or Nero) heading, perhaps, the most evil and systemically unjust, oppressive regime in history, viciously persecuting Christians. Yet, Paul tells his readers, who live in Rome, to obey because God appointed these authorities. If Christians cannot disobey that government, what would allow us to rebel now?
Source
I believe the anachronistic use of modern political terminology leads Galliard into many of the problems, specifically to the eisegesis of certain scripture passages. This (mis)use of terminology ends up being misleading. Some examples:
- “Civil disobedience.” Galliard tells us that Vashti engaged in civil disobedience against toxic masculinity and rape culture (two more terms used anachronistically). A wife did not want to be publicly paraded before his friends. This was not a protest against the state or its laws. This is hardly civil disobedience for the sake of her oppressed sisters. This term is used throughout the book in contexts where it is completely inappropriate.
- “Judicial accountability and reform.” As examined above, this is a fanciful interpretation of what happened with Paul.
- “Ghetto.” Nazareth and Galilee are described as ghettoes. If this word has any meaning at all, it simply does not fit here.
- “Disenfranchised.” This modern term does not fit at all in the contexts in which he uses it. Very few people had any rights or privileges that could be taken from them, and none had the vote. So virtually everyone in the ancient world was never enfranchised to begin with. This term makes little sense outside of the modern democratic state.
Reading this terminology into the biblical narratives allows him to back fill the stories with modern political meanings they do not have.
Conclusion
In the final chapter, after much discussion of the need to act in some unspecified way to end systemic, societal injustice, we finally get a list of steps we can take in faith to make it happen. Unfortunately, these steps are also vague and non-specific, except for the last one. For each step, I found myself asking exactly what he means and exactly how I would do it: break unjust laws, endure incarceration for resisting, confront the powers that be to demand God’s people be freed, speak truth to power, demand institutional accountability, and lastly, give half of your possession to the poor. At last, a concrete action step – to which I would say “Amen”! The others are too vague and ambiguous and could be used to justify many dangerous and unholy actions. Readers are simply left to themselves to apply as they see fit to justify whatever acts they may deem necessary. A recipe for disaster.
In the end, what Gilliard proved from scripture is that Christians should not obey laws that require that they disobey God’s law, and they should work to sanctify the church by ridding it of sinful behaviors and injustices. Unfortunately, what Galliard advocates for seems to go far beyond this. Perhaps he can produce some scriptural basis for his prescriptions, but I am not sanguine about his prospects.