Biblical Approach to an Oppressive Government

I think it would completely depend on the form of gov't of that country. If one of the purposes of gov't is to punish evildoers, and a wicked man uses deception and extortion to gain power, then I think it might be acceptable for Christians to play a part in seeing that this person is removed. Conniving with the Rebel Alliance to do so might be taking that too far, though. I think the Christian's focus should still be serving God whatever the current political climate, but there is more than one way to skin a dictator.

I think it's wise to look directly to the Bible for the answer. Peter writes to a group of people who were scattered across the known world. These believers lived in potentially volatile social and political situations and his instruction to them was to be focused on outward testimony. Depending on when I Peter was written, the believers reading it were quite possibly under the rule of the emperor Nero. Whoever it may have been, it is clear that the believers were driven abroad by the ruling authorities, and yet Peter writes the following:

Honor the emperor? I think the message Peter is trying to get across is crystal clear. We are not to be swayed by current socio-political events. Our allegiance is to Christ and as followers of Christ we are to submit ourselves to the existing government, even when the existing government is corrupt (as it was in the days of Peter). Jesus made this concise statement, "My kingdom is not of this world."

One quick opinion (and it is merely that) - the reason many evangelical Christians would contradict what I've just written is because their view of future events doesn't coincide with ours. If our goal is to in one form or another usher Christ's kingdom into this present age, how depressing would it be to watch this present age go down in flames? Also, if you'd like to watch me pull out a soapbox real fast, create a thread and attempt to defend the statement that "America is a Christian nation."

And one fun exercise where I will refer to actual events that have transpired recently: We are told to be subject to those in authority over us. If you live in Texas where there have been one or two whisperings of secession in months past and Texas hypothetically did decide to do just that, would you be subject to the new government of Texas or the United States government? Not that it would happen or that it even matters biblically - just a thought I had a while back.

I believe the Brothers pretty much followed your thinking on the matter and on the same basis (I have the Englsih translation of their Statement of Faith available as a rtf file). And they did so to the point of martyrdom. I was only trying to give a "modern" example of a Biblical truth.

SNIP

One of the rallying cries of the American Revolution: "No taxation without representation"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representation

We could debate it until the cows come home. In my view "no"

Discussed multiple times on Old Sharper Iron. Eg.

http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=8906

As I understand the situation, the colonists were initially asserting their rights as free born subjects of the British Crown. They viewed such rights as having been established over the centuries up to and including the Glorious Revolution. To the best of my knowledge none of the duly elected and well established colonial legislative bodies took a loyalist stand. The governors of the various colonies are a different matter.

As for the genuine believers, huh? While the overall colonial population was split 1/3 Continental, 1/3 Loyalist, 1/3 Neutral, Baptists (especially in the Carolinas) were solidly in the Continental column due to the non-enforcement of the Acts of Toleration passed by Westminster and signed by HM the King.

So, the question becomes which government are you going to be loyal to, London or the duly elected colonial bodies. My point is they "didn't rebel and set up their own governments." They just stayed loyal to there local authorities and told London to take a hike.

but i don't think this is a question for the church (leaders?) to decide. i think it's "every man for himself" with the Holy Spirit . . . if we can stand allowing that freedom to another brother

I actually wrote an article on my blog (the Reformed Baptist Blog) on February 6, entitled, "The American Revolution: Was it Biblical? " I tried to deal with various arguments in favor of rebellion but concluded in the end that is was wrong.

Tyork,

I couldn't agree more, as my aforementioned article ("The American Revolution: Was it Biblical? ") demonstrates:

http://reformedbaptist.blogspot.com/2010/02/american-revolution-was-it-b...

In this article, I attempt to address various arguments Christians have made in an attempt to support involvement in the American revolution. The primary focus, of course, is on the proper understanding of Romans 13. Hope this helps.

Keith

Rob,

I appreciate your perspective, even though I don't think I can agree with you on some things.

When tyork referred to "a nation," it doesn't seem to me that he was referring to the thirteen colonies as such, but rather to the larger political body of which they were a part and under whose authority they were, namely the government in England. Thus you correctly point out that "they looked at themselves as simply exercising their rights as free born Protestant subjects of the British crown." But the real issue here is not what they thought their rights were as English subjects, but rather what right the Bible may or may not grant them to rebel against the governing authorities that were over them. Supposing it was true that they had a right to rebel against the government under English law (a point I doubt can be shown), this would not mean that Christian citizens should have done so. For, if the Bible teaches that it is wrong to rebel against the governing authorities, then none of these authorities can legitimately grant such a right in the first place.

I don't follow you here. I know of no evidence that the governing authorities in the individual colonies ever viewed themselves as the "equivalent of London," if by that you mean that they saw themselves as possessing authority equal to that of Parliament. To my knowledge, they never questioned the right of Parliament, for example, to pass laws governing the colonies and to which the colonies must submit. The issue was rather that they questioned the "constitutionality" or fairness of some of these laws.

These are exactly the issues I address in the article I mentioned in an earlier post. Here, it seems to me, you are assuming the view that sates that we may overthrow the government if in doing so we obey an interpositional authority. Here is my response to that point:

If you want to read the entire article, you can do so here:

http://reformedbaptist.blogspot.com/2010/02/american-revolution-was-it-b...

I see no reason not to see the issue as clear cut, given the clear teaching of Scripture. Interestingly, however, any evidence you have been citing appears to be consistently focused on the cultural and political situation of the early colonies rather than on what Scripture does or does not teach. But the primary issue is whether or not Scriptural teaching on the matter is clear cut or not, isn't it?

Now, I don't mean to say that we should ignore the cultural and political situation in which we apply Scriptural teaching. We definitely should take it in to consideration. We just shouldn't let such considerations overwhelm our reading of Scripture to the point that we can no longer see what it says and to the point where we make excuses for disobeying it (however high-minded and just such excuses may sound to us.) Sadly, however, this appears to be exactly what many of the colonists did when joining in the revolution. At least that is what the views that were expressed at the time concerning the meaning of Romans 13 appear to me to be.

By these I mean, a situation in Colony of Virginia in the mid-18th century is different than a situation in the Commonwealth of Virginia in the mid 19th Century and most certainly different than in the early 21st Century. Further, how Romans 13 is applied most certainly is specific to the then current circumstances. Remember, many of the Puritan divines we look to sided with Parliment in the ECW and the Glorious Revolution. One king lost his head and his grandson (and his heirs) lost his throne.

Simply put, how do you apply Romans 13 to the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution? Keeping in mind, the GR (1688-89) was less than a hundred years in the past from 1776

A couple of relevant wiki articles:

The Glorious Revolution

the Dominon of New England

I am aware of such things, but I still say they are beside the point if the Scriptures do not allow us to rebel against our government. You can keep posting these things if you want, but I will just keep reminding you that the issue for me is, "What does Scripture say?" If you want to give me some evidence that the Founders were right to revolt, then give me evidence of any Scriptural arguments they may have made that demonstrate that I have misread the Bible on this point. So I will simply reiterate what I said before:

Your response to this was basically to say that you "simply assume that Godly men like John Witherspoon of Princeton (who though a Scotsman opposed the '45 Rising) and John Leland properly interpreted Romans 13." Well, I would like more that your assumptions. In the article I wrote I tried to deal with several alternative readings of Romans 13 that were offered during the Revolutionary period. Do you know of arguments that I missed? Was I wrong in my critique?

Frankly, I find it hard to believe that you are willing simply to assume that the Founders understood Scripture correctly with no clear arguments to support that they did, in fact, do so. This is, after all, the issue for a Christian, isn't it?

What is your position? You seem to be assuming that those who participated in the English Civil War(s) and the Glorious Revolution were right in doing so and that, therefore, those who participated in the American Revolution were also right to do so? Is this your position? If so, then I would just point out that you have offered no Biblical support for it at all. And I would also point out that you haven't demonstrated that the situations were actually parallel, as you apparently assume they were.

As for my own position, I would argue that, based upon Romans 13, Christians who took part in the efforts of Parliament to overthrow or circumvent the authority of the king were wrong to do so. This doesn't mean that I do not appreciate the fact that in God's providence a lot of good came about as a result of each of these wars. But that is a separate issue. That God can bring good from an thing does not mean that the thing itself was therefore good.

Hmmm .....? Do you have different presuppositions about the nature of Scripture as our ultimate authority? The Doctrinal Statement of this forum states belief in "the plenary Divine inspiration of the Scriptures in the original languages, [and] their consequent inerrancy and infallibility, and as the Word of God, the supreme and final authority in faith and life." These are the presuppositions that are guiding me in this discussion. And this is why I am saying that we need to look to Scripture and apply it to the situation of the American Revolution, not try to draw parallels with other wars to avoid doing this, or assume that Christians who fought it in must have interpreted Scripture correctly so that we don't have to, etc. I appreciate much of what the Puritans wrote and did, but they are not my authority. I also appreciate much of what my Baptist forefathers in early America wrote and did, but they are not my authority either. Scripture is my authority, and yours too (ostensibly), so why not make a Scriptural case rather than keep citing what you assume must have been right thinking in previous generations?

on the subject of the American Revolution