Can We Celebrate Independence without Celebrating Revolution?
Something doesn’t add up. We refer to July 4 as Independence Day. We refer to the war that followed as the Revolutionary War. But if we viewed ourselves as independent of British rule on July 4, how could we have engaged in revolution after July 4? Revolution normally precedes independence. Either the day or the war is a misnomer.
For Christians the incongruity raises deeper questions. Given the response to government that Scripture requires, shouldn’t we oppose the whole idea of revolution, regardless of the circumstances? And if we’re opposed to revolution, can we rejoice in independence?
The Bible and revolution
Genesis 9 is understood by many to represent God’s re-founding of the institution of human government. The NT emphasizes submission to that institution as our Christian duty.
And He said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?” They said to Him, “Caesar’s.” 17 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at Him. (Mark 12:16–17)
Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work… (Titus 3:1)
Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, 14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. (1 Peter 2:13–15)
In addition to these, Romans 13:1-7 represents “the governing authorities” (exousias huperechousais) as “from God” and “appointed by God,” and asserts that resisting them is resisting “the ordinance of God.”
It’s hard to imagine how prohibiting the overthrow of governments could be put in stronger terms.
Celebrating independence
Believers must be anti-revolution, just as they are anti-disobedience. But must we be anti-independence? Is there a way Americans can be opposed to revolution yet rejoice in American independence? I believe at least two ways to do this exist.
1. Deny the revolution.
The idea that what occurred in the late 1700s here was not really a revolution has been around for a while. A professor of mine at BJU (back in the 80s) was adamant that no revolution occurred. He had written a book on the subject. (Copies appear to be available still at Amazon).
Though parts of his argument were unclear to me at the time, the gist seemed to be that a British document (perhaps one of the “Intolerable Acts”?) had already effectively ousted the colonies from the empire and that the 1776 Declaration was little more than an acknowledgment of that fact. In this version of events, the war that followed was one of defense, not of revolution—and, though various acts of rebellion did occur, our independence is not the result of a war of rebellion.
More recently, I’ve encountered a different revolution-denial argument (though it is, perhaps, compatible with the previous one). This view reasons that no revolution occurred because the “governing authorities” (to use Paul’s Romans 13 term) were not actually King George and Parliament, but law itself—and the laws of England in particular.
Thomas Paine wrote that “in America the law is king” (Common Sense). Certainly this way of thinking was strong in the “revolutionary” era and echoes some of the thought of Samuel Rutherford (1644: Lex, Rex) and, later, John Locke and Charles (etc.) Montesquieu. (Some trace the idea of “rule of law” or “law as king” back to the Roman Republic, then further to Aristotle. The case could be made that the spirit of it dates to the days of Moses.)
Accordingly, some have argued that Britain violated the terms of its own agreements with the colonies, and some of its own laws in the process, and that, therefore, the contractual relationship between the crown and the colonies was nullified.
In this version of events, no revolution occurred. The colonists who fought in resistance of Britain were fighting in support of law—and the law was the real king. The wording of the Declaration of Independence would seem to support the idea that, right or wrong, the colonists were thinking in these terms.
Perhaps we’ve done them all a disservice by naming the war “revolutionary,” though it seems probable that the likes of Patrick Henry wouldn’t object to the term. (Perhaps the writings of the patriots of that era are full of calls to “revolution.” If I ever knew that, I’ve forgotten. I’m sure a historian will straighten me out.)
2. Separate the result from the process.
If you have no stomach for revolution-denial, you can still rejoice in American independence. Sometimes people do the wrong thing and God graciously overrules their conduct to produce a wonderful result (to Him be praise!). Perhaps we American Christians can proudly sing our “revolutionary” national anthem and salute our flag through teary eyes on the conviction that “God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20), even though we’re uncertain that armed resistance was the right thing to do—or even if we strongly believe both the Declaration and the War were unchristian acts.
One thing is certain. Our duty and opportunity as believers is to give thanks for everything (1 Thess. 5:18, Eph. 5:20). Regardless of our view of revolution in general, or the “American Revolution” in particular, God has greatly blessed us, and the independence we now enjoy is a major part of that blessing.
Aaron Blumer Bio
Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.
Aaron,
I want to tread lightly here, but I do not think that this statement can be made so dogmatically -
I want to tread lightly here, but I do not think that this statement can be made so dogmatically -
Believers must be anti-revolution…Perhaps it would be better to say “generally ought to be” than “must.”
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
The no revolution view - Über-historical revisionism
It happened … I’m celebrating with
It happened … I’m celebrating with
Man, it’s been way too long since I’ve had brats-n-kraut!
Accordingly, some have argued that Britain violated the terms of its own agreements with the colonies, and some of its own laws in the process, and that, therefore, the contractual relationship between the crown and the colonies was nullified.I wonder what proponents of this view would allow as a justifiable response to the disregard of our constitution that’s been going on for a while now.
Great article, Aaron.
The Constitution specifies that the Supreme Court has the authority to decide what it means. As long as they’re doing that, we can’t really say it’s being “disregarded.”
Of course, it’s entirely possible for the Supreme Court to be wrong, but the Constitution does not authorize citizens to disregard the court. Rather, the constitutional solutions to that scenario are…
a. Elect a president who will replace retiring judges with better ones (Americans chose not to do this in 2008), or
b. Build enough public support to adopt an amendment
Barring either of those solutions, the law is the law.
Recently somebody raised the question, what if a law is clearly unconstitutional but the Supreme Ct has not had an opportunity to review it? How are they going to do that unless someone brings a suit? …and this usually happens by someone breaking the law. But it really seems like sophistry to me to suppose something like “breaking the law to uphold the Constitution.” The Const. is law, so we break law to uphold law? I don’t think this is the Christian way.
Chip… if you can explain to me how Christians can engage in revolution while obeying Romans 13 (and the other passages), I’d be interested in hearing that.
Of course, it’s entirely possible for the Supreme Court to be wrong, but the Constitution does not authorize citizens to disregard the court. Rather, the constitutional solutions to that scenario are…
a. Elect a president who will replace retiring judges with better ones (Americans chose not to do this in 2008), or
b. Build enough public support to adopt an amendment
Barring either of those solutions, the law is the law.
Recently somebody raised the question, what if a law is clearly unconstitutional but the Supreme Ct has not had an opportunity to review it? How are they going to do that unless someone brings a suit? …and this usually happens by someone breaking the law. But it really seems like sophistry to me to suppose something like “breaking the law to uphold the Constitution.” The Const. is law, so we break law to uphold law? I don’t think this is the Christian way.
Chip… if you can explain to me how Christians can engage in revolution while obeying Romans 13 (and the other passages), I’d be interested in hearing that.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
The statement that “believers must be anti-revolution” probably causes consternation for those believing that America is a Christian nation or that its founding documents embody Christian virtues.
Several dictionaries on “revolution”:
the overthrow or repudiation of a regime or political system by the governed
an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.
a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, especially one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence.
Some Englishmen, including I believe Edmund Burke, argued that the colonists were in fact in the right with many of their complaints. Further, English history certainly includes a few precedents - Magna Charta, Glorious Revolution - for “the people” taking action against “tyrants” restricting their “liberties,” the quoted words all subject to some fluidity of definition. On the other hand, it’s clear that several of the individual acts along the way, particularly by the Sons of Liberty, were illegal and hardly compatible with the English spirit.
Even if we embrace the idea of legitimacy, though, I’m not sure that’s the same thing as a non-revolution. That seems to assume that all revolutions are, by nature, illegitimate. The common definitions of revolution do not make that assumption. The fact is that the colonies were not able to transition from one government to another without violence. The coins changed, the flag changed, the polity changed, etc. Seems hard to write revolution out of that without a terribly restrictive definition.
Christians have written on the subject of just vs. unjust uprisings for a long time. Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, and John Knox all wrote concerning this issue in the context of the Reformation. Christian political theory, of course, goes back even farther, but with less explicit attention to this subject.
the overthrow or repudiation of a regime or political system by the governed
an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.
a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, especially one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence.
Some Englishmen, including I believe Edmund Burke, argued that the colonists were in fact in the right with many of their complaints. Further, English history certainly includes a few precedents - Magna Charta, Glorious Revolution - for “the people” taking action against “tyrants” restricting their “liberties,” the quoted words all subject to some fluidity of definition. On the other hand, it’s clear that several of the individual acts along the way, particularly by the Sons of Liberty, were illegal and hardly compatible with the English spirit.
Even if we embrace the idea of legitimacy, though, I’m not sure that’s the same thing as a non-revolution. That seems to assume that all revolutions are, by nature, illegitimate. The common definitions of revolution do not make that assumption. The fact is that the colonies were not able to transition from one government to another without violence. The coins changed, the flag changed, the polity changed, etc. Seems hard to write revolution out of that without a terribly restrictive definition.
Christians have written on the subject of just vs. unjust uprisings for a long time. Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, and John Knox all wrote concerning this issue in the context of the Reformation. Christian political theory, of course, goes back even farther, but with less explicit attention to this subject.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
The Constitution does NOT specifiy that the Supreme Court has the authority to decide what it means. It hints at it, and Marshall took that vagueness and ran with it in Marbury v Madison. That has now become an accepted principle, but that is a matter of custom and necessity, not Constitutional specification.
I’m reading A Tale of Two Cities in order to “break in” the Kindle my wife gave me for my birthday. There are some parallels between 1789 France and 2011 America. America has arrogant and elitist rulers who are “livin’ large” off the back of the collective people, and the economy is cause for great concern. But we’re not hungry yet. In fact, we (and this includes me!) are fat.
God has used America as a “force for good” for many years. We have a military with a tradition of defeating cruel, despotic dictators. Our govenment destoys these dictators, rebuilds the destruction, and then gives the country back to the nationals. No country sends more missionaries than America and no country supports them better. What other country responds to disasters worldwide as do Americans? These readers know that the American church is all messed up. I like to think that the American church is still the best and most effective church on earth. Yes, we look with envyat the African church’s explosive growth. But can the Africans deploy missionaries and then support them? Maybe in a century.
God in his wisdom and sovereignty led the Founders and the Revolutionaries to throw-off the shackles of British injustice. Yes, it took violence to do it. We didn’t have the luxury of a “Velvet Revolution” to gain our freedom because the oppressor was rotten to the core and couldn’t hold its client states any longer. America had to fight for its freedom. “Four score and seven years” later we had to fight again in order to rid the nation of the injustice of slavery.
In a fallen world sometimes a nation has to fight in order to rid the world of an injustice. God is sovereign over the nations and can use even bad nations to eradicate an evil nation of its injustice. Is it preferable? No. But sometimes it must be done.
God has used America as a “force for good” for many years. We have a military with a tradition of defeating cruel, despotic dictators. Our govenment destoys these dictators, rebuilds the destruction, and then gives the country back to the nationals. No country sends more missionaries than America and no country supports them better. What other country responds to disasters worldwide as do Americans? These readers know that the American church is all messed up. I like to think that the American church is still the best and most effective church on earth. Yes, we look with envyat the African church’s explosive growth. But can the Africans deploy missionaries and then support them? Maybe in a century.
God in his wisdom and sovereignty led the Founders and the Revolutionaries to throw-off the shackles of British injustice. Yes, it took violence to do it. We didn’t have the luxury of a “Velvet Revolution” to gain our freedom because the oppressor was rotten to the core and couldn’t hold its client states any longer. America had to fight for its freedom. “Four score and seven years” later we had to fight again in order to rid the nation of the injustice of slavery.
In a fallen world sometimes a nation has to fight in order to rid the world of an injustice. God is sovereign over the nations and can use even bad nations to eradicate an evil nation of its injustice. Is it preferable? No. But sometimes it must be done.
[Aaron Blumer] Chip… if you can explain to me how Christians can engage in revolution while obeying Romans 13 (and the other passages), I’d be interested in hearing that.Aaron - you would agree that the duty to obey God supercedes the duty to obey government, right? In that instance, a Christian must not be anti-revolution but actually must revolt against government, right? Is disobeying government in order to obey God a violation of Romans 13?
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
The Constitution does NOT specifiy that the Supreme Court has the authority to decide what it means. It hints at it, and Marshall took that vagueness and…Well, basically, the way it works is that the Const gives the Supreme Ct ultimate judicial authority over everything. This is mostly in Article III. Judicial authority is the authority to decide what law means, how it applies. Since there is no higher judicial authority in the land than SC and no higher law in the land than the Const., the SC is authorized by the Const. to interpret the constitution.
Whether Marbury vs. Madison expanded idea more than it should have, I don’t know, but if want to deny that SCOTUS has the ultimate authority to interpret the Const., who are we going to say has that authority?
The argument could be made that “the people” do, but even then, only as the law (the Const.) permits: i.e., the amendment process, legislation, etc.
But the Const. does not speak of judicial power belonging to the people.
(The Federalist Papers would be helpful on that question I think, but off hand, I’m not sure what the answer to that is… If memory serves, the relationship of “the people” to law was meant to consist mainly in their influence on making law through their reps and not in decisions of consistency between one law and another or between laws and the Const.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Jim Peet] It happened … I’m celebrating withI, for one, am squarely on the wood side of the debate. Oh, we’re talking about revolutions, not grilling fuel… :)
[Chip Van Emmerik]We must obey God rather than man, but God has not commanded us to replace our government with another. So individual laws, commands, etc., are superseded by God’s instructions (when the two are contradictory), but there’s no hint in Scripture of resisting a government as a whole or overthrowing it.[Aaron Blumer] Chip… if you can explain to me how Christians can engage in revolution while obeying Romans 13 (and the other passages), I’d be interested in hearing that.Aaron - you would agree that the duty to obey God supercedes the duty to obey government, right? In that instance, a Christian must not be anti-revolution but actually must revolt against government, right? Is disobeying government in order to obey God a violation of Romans 13?
People have made a case for this using natural law reasoning, and some of that’s pretty persuasive, but I don’t think it’s something we can claim is “biblically justified.”
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron,
Jesus told the jews to obey Caesar by giving what was his. The whole question from there is what is Caesar’s and what is God’s? That’s still up to interpretation. It was clear that as an existing authority, Rome could demand taxes. But that doesn’t preclude another authority coming into existence. I don’t think it’s absolutely clear from any passage in the NT that revolution is always wrong. But revolution appart from governing authority is clearly wrong.
What if another governing authority rose up to challenge existing governing authority? This happens all the time in politics around the world. John Calvin wrote about legitimate revolutions by pointing to “Heros” who could rise up, gather a large group of people around him and have a form of legitimacy. It’s funny though to read Calvin at different times. When he was in power in Geneva he would be a strong anti-revolution guy from the Bible, but when he wasn’t, he suddenly rechecked his thinking. ;-)
Jesus told the jews to obey Caesar by giving what was his. The whole question from there is what is Caesar’s and what is God’s? That’s still up to interpretation. It was clear that as an existing authority, Rome could demand taxes. But that doesn’t preclude another authority coming into existence. I don’t think it’s absolutely clear from any passage in the NT that revolution is always wrong. But revolution appart from governing authority is clearly wrong.
What if another governing authority rose up to challenge existing governing authority? This happens all the time in politics around the world. John Calvin wrote about legitimate revolutions by pointing to “Heros” who could rise up, gather a large group of people around him and have a form of legitimacy. It’s funny though to read Calvin at different times. When he was in power in Geneva he would be a strong anti-revolution guy from the Bible, but when he wasn’t, he suddenly rechecked his thinking. ;-)
Here is how David Barton answers this issue - http://wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=24548
Not David Barton…
Somebody loaned me a David Barton video a few years ago. In that video (and perhaps others) his main point was that America was founded as a Christian nation and that it needs to return to its Christian roots as laid down by the founding fathers.
I recently read Carl Trueman’s book Histories and Fallacies in which he writes “Few would deny that America’s founding documents embody civic virtues, though what makes those virtues distinctively Christian is surely rather debatable” (p. 159).
I recently read Carl Trueman’s book Histories and Fallacies in which he writes “Few would deny that America’s founding documents embody civic virtues, though what makes those virtues distinctively Christian is surely rather debatable” (p. 159).
I greatly appreciated the article, Aaron. I’ve been thinking about this for decades, and gotten nowhere. But as I read this morning, I thought about the period of the Judges in old Israel.
The governmental authority was the Philistines. They ruled the area, forbade the Israelites from using iron forges, and took a portion of their crops. When there was resistance to their authority, occasional punitive raids “set things right” [from the Philistine viewpoint].
Now, one might argue that clearly the Philistines weren’t the legitimate authority. After all, God had called His people to that area to take it and govern it. Only their failure to fulfill God’s command put them in subjection. Yet, at the time, I suppose an argument could have been made that the Philistines were the governing power, and the Israelites, from time to time, at the behest of strong leaders (judges), rose in rebellion.
I’m still puzzling through whether this has any implications for the American Revolution, since the clear difference is a clearly defined VERBAL command from the Lord to take the land in the case of Israel, and what the founding fathers of our nation seemed to presume was a calling to be a distinctive people.
While I agree with your application of Romans 13 (in fact, will be touching on it in my sermon this Sunday), the problem with making it a Primary command that supersedes all other values is that it quickly spins out into a “might makes right” ethic. The government is the government, therefore, it is right to follow it (laws to violate God’s law, of course, being the exception). Thus the government can be as abusive as it wishes, and our duty is to preach submission. Does it really go that far?
I think Shaynus might be on to something: the U.S. founding fathers were a government, rising up against another governing authority. The states were saying “We are independent”. It was not a riot, but a congress. That might make a difference.
The governmental authority was the Philistines. They ruled the area, forbade the Israelites from using iron forges, and took a portion of their crops. When there was resistance to their authority, occasional punitive raids “set things right” [from the Philistine viewpoint].
Now, one might argue that clearly the Philistines weren’t the legitimate authority. After all, God had called His people to that area to take it and govern it. Only their failure to fulfill God’s command put them in subjection. Yet, at the time, I suppose an argument could have been made that the Philistines were the governing power, and the Israelites, from time to time, at the behest of strong leaders (judges), rose in rebellion.
I’m still puzzling through whether this has any implications for the American Revolution, since the clear difference is a clearly defined VERBAL command from the Lord to take the land in the case of Israel, and what the founding fathers of our nation seemed to presume was a calling to be a distinctive people.
While I agree with your application of Romans 13 (in fact, will be touching on it in my sermon this Sunday), the problem with making it a Primary command that supersedes all other values is that it quickly spins out into a “might makes right” ethic. The government is the government, therefore, it is right to follow it (laws to violate God’s law, of course, being the exception). Thus the government can be as abusive as it wishes, and our duty is to preach submission. Does it really go that far?
I think Shaynus might be on to something: the U.S. founding fathers were a government, rising up against another governing authority. The states were saying “We are independent”. It was not a riot, but a congress. That might make a difference.
Please see my post under the article on Roman rulers and Respect and Romans 13.
IMHO Romans 13 does not demand absolute submission nor does any biblical passage if taken in context and due consideration of the exact wording. Hebrews 11 has several whose acts of faith involved resisting and disobedience to human governmental authority.
Also, the American war of Independence was not rebellion or revolution. It was organized governments standing against an organized distant government which acted contrary to its own governmental laws and which with time had no more legitimate claim over a people who were now Americans more than English.
Let us consider the entire panorama of scriptural presentation on human government. We should also gain a true historical view of the American war for independence and the establishing of the government.
Where is God mentioned in the American Constitution? In the same place He is mentioned in the book of Esther! The opening phrase of the constitution is; “We the people.” This harkens back to the declaration of Independence where we the pwople gain their rights and authority from God. We the people form a government as the mediating authorities for God. In a sense God is in every word written to be part of a compact for governance. If no God then the constitution becomes a document without foundation. We the people have no right of govrnmental compact.
My other post gives more explanation.
IMHO Romans 13 does not demand absolute submission nor does any biblical passage if taken in context and due consideration of the exact wording. Hebrews 11 has several whose acts of faith involved resisting and disobedience to human governmental authority.
Also, the American war of Independence was not rebellion or revolution. It was organized governments standing against an organized distant government which acted contrary to its own governmental laws and which with time had no more legitimate claim over a people who were now Americans more than English.
Let us consider the entire panorama of scriptural presentation on human government. We should also gain a true historical view of the American war for independence and the establishing of the government.
Where is God mentioned in the American Constitution? In the same place He is mentioned in the book of Esther! The opening phrase of the constitution is; “We the people.” This harkens back to the declaration of Independence where we the pwople gain their rights and authority from God. We the people form a government as the mediating authorities for God. In a sense God is in every word written to be part of a compact for governance. If no God then the constitution becomes a document without foundation. We the people have no right of govrnmental compact.
My other post gives more explanation.
[Brenda T] Somebody loaned me a David Barton video a few years ago. In that video (and perhaps others) his main point was that America was founded as a Christian nation and that it needs to return to its Christian roots as laid down by the founding fathers.America was not founded to be a Christian nation but rather a religiously free nation where Christianity may flourish. It allowed freedom of religious belief. That itself was done based on Christian values influencing at law. The principles upon which America was founded were Christian. The founding fathers were of varied faithfulness to Christ and Christianity. But all had a world view that was pre Darwinianism and which had values influenced by family and education that were biblically based. Even Thomas Jefferson, in his rebellion against God, could not help but advocate the principles and values that emerged from those who believed in God, and some who even had a personal faith in the Christ of the Bible. To say that the sources of American founding values are debatable is like saying that water’s wetness is debatable. Sounds very much like the progressive history view of American Foundations. Most historical scholars are now accepting of the progressive views errors or are keeping silent about them. Arthur Schlesinger, former Kennedy aid, and noted liberal historical scholar, was part, with other progressives, who authored an excellent 2 Vol. text on American history titled “The American Experience” which acknowledged in foot notes the errors of the progressive historians, and presented a fair view of American history. Unfortunately, there are those who teach at the university level who still advocate the progressive rewritten view of American history. They are either selective in exposure or just advocating their view against all reason and facts.
I recently read Carl Trueman’s book Histories and Fallacies in which he writes “Few would deny that America’s founding documents embody civic virtues, though what makes those virtues distinctively Christian is surely rather debatable” (p. 159).
The American government’s war for independence was inseparably linked to the prior great awakening, writings of John Locke, teaching at the schools,Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law, and under many various influences that all emerged to various degrees from the values and doctrines of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. Was America a Christian nation? Absolutely not. Was America founded upon and dependent upon Christian values and principles? Absolutely yes. Without Christianity there is no America.
See my post under the article about Nero and Romans 13. By the way, I do recognize that David Barton at times advocates claims that are an exaggeration or often without adequate foundation.
[Shaynus] What if another governing authority rose up to challenge existing governing authority? This happens all the time in politics around the world. John Calvin wrote about legitimate revolutions by pointing to “Heros” who could rise up, gather a large group of people around him and have a form of legitimacy.This is the Lesser Magistrate doctrine. I’ve not studied it in any depth, but my understanding is that lesser leaders have the authority (obligation?) to—on behalf of the people they lead—resist the tyranny of the greater leaders. This notion seems plausible, but I won’t make a judgment call on the American Revolution as relates to it.
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
[Shaynus] It was clear that as an existing authority, Rome could demand taxes. But that doesn’t preclude another authority coming into existence. I don’t think it’s absolutely clear from any passage in the NT that revolution is always wrong. But revolution appart from governing authority is clearly wrong.Well, I’m making some assumptions here that I thought were fairly safe assumptions.
What if another governing authority rose up to challenge existing governing authority? This happens all the time in politics around the world. John Calvin wrote about legitimate revolutions by pointing to “Heros” who could rise up, gather a large group of people around him and have a form of legitimacy.
1. Revolution involves the overthrow of an existing government/authority that you are under.
2. Revolution involves total rejection of that authority. What can be more nonsubmissive than saying “I’m not going to let you stay in power anymore”?
So I guess if someone can tell me how to accomplish revolution without rebelling against existing authority, I’ll know how you can do it in obedience to Romans 13.
I’ll grant this much, though. It is possible in geographies with long and complicated political histories that there is uncertainty as to who has the legitimate claim to authority. But in these cases, I would personally not use the term “revolution” for returning a legitimate regime to power in place of a usurper. I’d call it “regime change” or “restoration” or something along those lines.
Suppose the UK got an inkling to take over the USA. This would never happen for all kinds of reasons, but suppose it did. Some might argue that the Crown was the legitimate authority and so replacing the US govt. w/that of the UK would not be a revolution from their point of view. Or suppose several tribes of Native Americans got together and attempted a take over. Some could argue that this is not a revolution because the US took the land away from them illegitimately.
These would not be easy situations to apply Romans 13 to.
But colonies chartered by a nation throwing off that nation? It’s a bit harder to see how that could be done in compliance w/Rom.13. (I’ve found the natural law arguments most persuasive on this point… though I’m not quite convinced yet)
In any case, when I say categorically that “revolution is not Christian,” I’m talking about “resisting” (a Rom.13 term) to the ultimate degree: removing an existing legitimate authority from power. I don’t see how that can be done obediently.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Bob,
I think he’s a really nice man. I was on a tour of the US Capitol with him a few years ago, and his DC apartment was in the same house as mine just above me. I’ve attended his lectures, and he’s a really engaging man. I just think he’s a bad historian. A lot of his errors tend to relate to looking up terms in period dictionaries and reading the meaning he found too far into a different period writing. You’re right, he does tend to exaggerate.
I think your characterization of the influence of Christian values is pretty accurate. Here’s the question though, do we really think that the founders’ method of integrating their values into policy really would work nowadays without an overwhelmingly solid base of Christians to support it. If we’re going to Christianize our society, we must resist the urge to do it from the top down. The difference between now and 200 years ago is not so much that the government has taken away our liberties and moral values. It’s that government is reflecting the values of its citizens.
Shayne
I think he’s a really nice man. I was on a tour of the US Capitol with him a few years ago, and his DC apartment was in the same house as mine just above me. I’ve attended his lectures, and he’s a really engaging man. I just think he’s a bad historian. A lot of his errors tend to relate to looking up terms in period dictionaries and reading the meaning he found too far into a different period writing. You’re right, he does tend to exaggerate.
I think your characterization of the influence of Christian values is pretty accurate. Here’s the question though, do we really think that the founders’ method of integrating their values into policy really would work nowadays without an overwhelmingly solid base of Christians to support it. If we’re going to Christianize our society, we must resist the urge to do it from the top down. The difference between now and 200 years ago is not so much that the government has taken away our liberties and moral values. It’s that government is reflecting the values of its citizens.
Shayne
In every case that I have seen David Barton speak, live and in videos, his “exaggerations” were well sourced with original books or pamphlets, plainly spoken, and contemporary with the founding of this country or the Biblical concepts of liberty. I disagree that he exaggerates, and would appreciate citations for your opinions, please. Especially if you find any at his website, http://www.wallbuilders.com/ wallbuilders.com Thank you.
To the best of my knowledge none of the legislatures of the various colonies (e.g. The Virginia House of Burgesses) remained loyal to London. So, if I’m a average Joe who do I owe my loyalty to Williamsburg or London. Remember based the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution, the British crown is no longer as supreme as the French or Spanish.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
Aaron,
I do see your point. I also took “French Revolution and Napoleon” at BJU with Linda Abrams. Awesome class. That was a revolution that, from start to finish, no Christian could have supported biblically.
What made the American revolution different was that there were other official subordinate authorities already in place (the “lesser magistrate” as MOsborne pointed out) that were relatively united in opposition to the greater. To them though, it was revolution because that’s what they called it. They knew they were revolting. Christians who are conservatives are different kinds of conservatives. Christians who are Democrats are a hopefully a different kind of Democrat. And Christians who revolt, should revolt differently.
Shayne
I do see your point. I also took “French Revolution and Napoleon” at BJU with Linda Abrams. Awesome class. That was a revolution that, from start to finish, no Christian could have supported biblically.
What made the American revolution different was that there were other official subordinate authorities already in place (the “lesser magistrate” as MOsborne pointed out) that were relatively united in opposition to the greater. To them though, it was revolution because that’s what they called it. They knew they were revolting. Christians who are conservatives are different kinds of conservatives. Christians who are Democrats are a hopefully a different kind of Democrat. And Christians who revolt, should revolt differently.
Shayne
If anyone was justified in rebelling against a civil state and its rulers, it would have been Jesus Christ and the early church. Both the Roman Empire and the Herodian Jewish kingdom were corrupt, and the people were horribly oppressed by both. Yet, Jesus Christ made no attempt to challenge or overthrow either the Herodians or the Romans. Quite the contrary, He called the revolutionaries who did robbers, false messiahs, murderers and basically equated them with followers of Satan. Please recall that Barabbas, the insurrectionist, was freed in Jesus Christ’s place.
After the ascension of Jesus Christ, the Jewish Christians pointedly refused to join in the Jewish wars, the various revolts against the Roman Empire. (By that time, the Jewish religious and political leaders had gone from attempting to suppress such movements to fully supporting it.) Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians refused to cast in their lots with those who provoked the Romans to destroy the temple in 70 AD, and later totally destroy Jerusalem in 132 AD, and kill millions of Jews in the process.
Now please realize that the Jews of that time were absolutely convinced that God was on their side, and in that respect were little different from the band of freemasons, deists and Unitarians (along with some orthodox Christians) who made similar claims regarding America’s own revolutionary and founding principles. But truthfully, the only difference between the rebellion led by Simeon bar Kochba (and the other false Jewish messiahs) and the rebellion led by George Washington is that the former failed where the latter succeeded.
Not one verse of the New Testament can be construed as advocating the church’s involvement in or endorsement of warfare. And though I am not a strict cessationist, I feel comfortable in asserting that there has been no legitimate prophet in our time with the authority from God to call His people to war. (Some radical Anabaptists claimed otherwise, and we all see how that turned out.) And the book of Revelation does not speak of such a thing ever coming to pass in the future of the church that it lays out. Quite the contrary, it speaks of the church suffering persecution and martyrdom in a way that brings glory to its Master, Jesus Christ, which will climax when the beast will be given to make war against the saints, and to overcome them.
In light of these facts, it is shocking that pacifism is a position often adopted by people with radical leftist beliefs who prefer a low view, i.e. political or liberation theology, reading of the Bible, while so many theological conservatives with a high view of scripture (inerrancy et al) are so often hawkish in their defense of wars past, present and future. It is even more distressing that the primary justification for such wars is not based on the Bible, but rather whose “side” you are on, and whether “our side” wins. This is particularly amazing in the case of the war between America and Britain, as there were not a few Christians alive in Britain at the time.
We justify our sedition against Britain by depicting them as a corrupt, tyrannical empire that needed to be rebelled against in order to form a Christian nation. The truth is that where America at no point has ever actually been a Christian nation (but instead purposefully a secular one) or founded on Christian or Biblical principles (it was actually founded on a combination of Enlightenment principles and common law, and any “Christian” influence was of the liberal variety espoused by Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and the like), Great Britain at the time actually was a Christian nation ruled by a Christian monarch who was the head of the Church of England. So, basically we committed violent sedition in order to trade the head of the Anglican church (King George III) for the cult of reason.
That was why after helping us win the war, the French freemasons gave us our original “American idol”, the statue of liberty, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Liberty] which is actually an image of the Roman goddess Libertas designed by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Bartholdi] a prominent freemason for the purpose of providing “enlightenment” from a source other than Jesus Christ. And George Washington, the leader of the Revolutionary Army and first president, was such an active, prominent freemason that he presided over the freemason ceremony accompanying the laying of the cornerstone of the capital building.
So, how many good British Christians, whether Anglican, Baptist, Congregationalist (which at the time was still a legitimate denomination), Presbyterian, Methodist etc. perished on the battlefield as a result of our sedition (which caused not only the Revolutionary War, but the War of 1812)? How many of those might have lived to hear Charles Spurgeon preach? Or support the missionary efforts of William Carey or Hudson Taylor? Better to sweep such thoughts under the rug I suppose. If you want omelettes, you have to break eggs, right?
We Christians cannot, should not deceive ourselves concerning not only our revolt from what was at the time an official Christian nation (which again Britain actually was but America has pointedly, purposefully never been), but from what America was founded to be and has been from the very beginning. So, not only do we have clear New Testament teachings which are fundamentally against Christian support of and participation in violent sedition, but the added context that this sedition was an Enlightenment/humanist/freemason affair against a Christian nation ruled by a king who was also the leader of the Anglican church. When we consider the role that taxation played in justifying this revolution (and please note that George Washington violently put down a revolt against taxes when he became president … funny how we so fondly remember the Tea Party but the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion] Whiskey Rebellion not so much … gee I wonder why) … how does the “Tea Party” uphold the command of Jesus Christ to render to Caesar (or in this case King George III) that which is Caesar’s?
After the ascension of Jesus Christ, the Jewish Christians pointedly refused to join in the Jewish wars, the various revolts against the Roman Empire. (By that time, the Jewish religious and political leaders had gone from attempting to suppress such movements to fully supporting it.) Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians refused to cast in their lots with those who provoked the Romans to destroy the temple in 70 AD, and later totally destroy Jerusalem in 132 AD, and kill millions of Jews in the process.
Now please realize that the Jews of that time were absolutely convinced that God was on their side, and in that respect were little different from the band of freemasons, deists and Unitarians (along with some orthodox Christians) who made similar claims regarding America’s own revolutionary and founding principles. But truthfully, the only difference between the rebellion led by Simeon bar Kochba (and the other false Jewish messiahs) and the rebellion led by George Washington is that the former failed where the latter succeeded.
Not one verse of the New Testament can be construed as advocating the church’s involvement in or endorsement of warfare. And though I am not a strict cessationist, I feel comfortable in asserting that there has been no legitimate prophet in our time with the authority from God to call His people to war. (Some radical Anabaptists claimed otherwise, and we all see how that turned out.) And the book of Revelation does not speak of such a thing ever coming to pass in the future of the church that it lays out. Quite the contrary, it speaks of the church suffering persecution and martyrdom in a way that brings glory to its Master, Jesus Christ, which will climax when the beast will be given to make war against the saints, and to overcome them.
In light of these facts, it is shocking that pacifism is a position often adopted by people with radical leftist beliefs who prefer a low view, i.e. political or liberation theology, reading of the Bible, while so many theological conservatives with a high view of scripture (inerrancy et al) are so often hawkish in their defense of wars past, present and future. It is even more distressing that the primary justification for such wars is not based on the Bible, but rather whose “side” you are on, and whether “our side” wins. This is particularly amazing in the case of the war between America and Britain, as there were not a few Christians alive in Britain at the time.
We justify our sedition against Britain by depicting them as a corrupt, tyrannical empire that needed to be rebelled against in order to form a Christian nation. The truth is that where America at no point has ever actually been a Christian nation (but instead purposefully a secular one) or founded on Christian or Biblical principles (it was actually founded on a combination of Enlightenment principles and common law, and any “Christian” influence was of the liberal variety espoused by Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and the like), Great Britain at the time actually was a Christian nation ruled by a Christian monarch who was the head of the Church of England. So, basically we committed violent sedition in order to trade the head of the Anglican church (King George III) for the cult of reason.
That was why after helping us win the war, the French freemasons gave us our original “American idol”, the statue of liberty, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Liberty] which is actually an image of the Roman goddess Libertas designed by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Bartholdi] a prominent freemason for the purpose of providing “enlightenment” from a source other than Jesus Christ. And George Washington, the leader of the Revolutionary Army and first president, was such an active, prominent freemason that he presided over the freemason ceremony accompanying the laying of the cornerstone of the capital building.
So, how many good British Christians, whether Anglican, Baptist, Congregationalist (which at the time was still a legitimate denomination), Presbyterian, Methodist etc. perished on the battlefield as a result of our sedition (which caused not only the Revolutionary War, but the War of 1812)? How many of those might have lived to hear Charles Spurgeon preach? Or support the missionary efforts of William Carey or Hudson Taylor? Better to sweep such thoughts under the rug I suppose. If you want omelettes, you have to break eggs, right?
We Christians cannot, should not deceive ourselves concerning not only our revolt from what was at the time an official Christian nation (which again Britain actually was but America has pointedly, purposefully never been), but from what America was founded to be and has been from the very beginning. So, not only do we have clear New Testament teachings which are fundamentally against Christian support of and participation in violent sedition, but the added context that this sedition was an Enlightenment/humanist/freemason affair against a Christian nation ruled by a king who was also the leader of the Anglican church. When we consider the role that taxation played in justifying this revolution (and please note that George Washington violently put down a revolt against taxes when he became president … funny how we so fondly remember the Tea Party but the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion] Whiskey Rebellion not so much … gee I wonder why) … how does the “Tea Party” uphold the command of Jesus Christ to render to Caesar (or in this case King George III) that which is Caesar’s?
Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com
And by the way, despite the caricature of the corrupt, incompetent tyrant often erected to justify the seditionists, King George III was most certainly no Caesar. Quite the contrary, by all accounts he was a pious, devoted Christian who seems to have been heavily influenced by the Methodist movements. For example, his “Proclamation For the Encouragement of Piety and Virtue” was an early stand against the scourge of pornography that George issued at the request of William Wilberforce. (The proclamation called for “the suppression of all ‘loose and licentious Prints, Books, and Publications, dispersing Poison to the minds of the Young and Unwary and to Punish the Publishers and Vendors thereof.” Small wonder that the modern liberal historians despise the guy!) Conservapedia.com, in their hatchet job against the fellow in the interests of “patriotism”, denigrates his religious tendencies as “prudish.” Oh had our Founding Fathers been such “prudes” when they crafted the Bill of Rights in such a way that did not contain the reasonable limits that would have prevented our gigantic pornography culture. http://www.lewrockwell.com/attarian/attarian9.html This link says “As anyone who’s actually read up on him can tell you, George III was a devout Christian, an unswervingly faithful husband, a fervent patriot, a gentleman, and a painfully conscientious ruler who meant well and did his honest best. His insanity was due to an unfortunate blood disease called porphyria.” And http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/kolkey3.1.1.html this one shatters the “America was being ruled by a tyrant” myth as utter nonsense cooked up by people bent on sedition.
Look, it is bad enough that this false history is taught in our schools. (But then again, these are government schools with the agenda to disseminate propaganda in support of the government. And you wonder why education is compulsory until age 16 in “the land of the freedom and individual rights.”) It has no place in our churches.
Look, it is bad enough that this false history is taught in our schools. (But then again, these are government schools with the agenda to disseminate propaganda in support of the government. And you wonder why education is compulsory until age 16 in “the land of the freedom and individual rights.”) It has no place in our churches.
Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com
Whatever you may think of Barton generally, the piece linked in post 15 had some excellent thoughts. Here are some excerpts.
Americans embraced two specific theological positions that guided their thinking and conduct in the conflict with Great Britain.
The first was that most Christian denominations during the Founding Era held that while they were forbidden to overthrow the institution of government and live in anarchy, they were not required blindly to submit to every law and policy. Those in the Founding Era understood that the general institution of government was unequivocally ordained by God and was not to be overthrown, but that did not mean that God approved every specific government; God had ordained government in lieu of anarchy – He opposed anarchy, rebellion, lawlessness, and wickedness and wanted civil government in society.
The Founders clearly believed that they were not in rebellion to God’s ordained institution of civil government; they were only resisting tyranny and not the institution itself. In fact, Rev. Jacob Duché (a supporter of the British) argued from the Bible in favor of the American position, explaining:
Inasmuch as all rulers are in fact the servants of the public and appointed for no other purpose than to be “a terror to evil-doers and a praise to them that do well”
The second Scriptural viewpoint overwhelmingly embraced by most Americans during the Revolutionary Era was that God would not honor an offensive war, but that He did permit civil self-defense
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
@Chip:
Where in the New Testament did anyone rebel against tyranny? Instead, the New Testament depicts Jesus Christ, the apostles and various others submitting to civil authorities even to the point of death. The early Christians glorified God that they were accounted worthy to suffer as Christ did!
Where in the New Testament are we commanded to rebel against tyranny? The New Testament condemns violent sedition in a great many places, including the Jews who led insurrections against Rome.
And where is the evidence that the British Empire was tyrannical in its treatment of the colonies? The claims of the seditionists do not make it so. Quite the contrary, it appears that the seditionists concocted those charges against the Empire to justify their own lust for power, and their own radical political, economic and social aims. Look, if ANYONE was justified in taking up violent sedition in response to tyrannical treatment, it was not the colonists against King George III, but the SLAVES against the colonists! Yet, the colonists used an attempt by some British folk (WHO WERE NOT REPRESENTATIVES OF THE KING OR THE GOVERNMENT) to incite a slave rebellion as justification for their own rebellion against Britain! Talk about hypocrisy …
The Revolutionary War is not something that any Christian should defend. At the very best, it can be called a state matter and not a church one.
Where in the New Testament did anyone rebel against tyranny? Instead, the New Testament depicts Jesus Christ, the apostles and various others submitting to civil authorities even to the point of death. The early Christians glorified God that they were accounted worthy to suffer as Christ did!
Where in the New Testament are we commanded to rebel against tyranny? The New Testament condemns violent sedition in a great many places, including the Jews who led insurrections against Rome.
And where is the evidence that the British Empire was tyrannical in its treatment of the colonies? The claims of the seditionists do not make it so. Quite the contrary, it appears that the seditionists concocted those charges against the Empire to justify their own lust for power, and their own radical political, economic and social aims. Look, if ANYONE was justified in taking up violent sedition in response to tyrannical treatment, it was not the colonists against King George III, but the SLAVES against the colonists! Yet, the colonists used an attempt by some British folk (WHO WERE NOT REPRESENTATIVES OF THE KING OR THE GOVERNMENT) to incite a slave rebellion as justification for their own rebellion against Britain! Talk about hypocrisy …
The Revolutionary War is not something that any Christian should defend. At the very best, it can be called a state matter and not a church one.
Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com
Here is some intriguing insight from John Wesley:
http://books.google.com/books?id=CZEPAAAAIAAJ&vq=american%20colonies&pg…] A Calm Address to Our American Colonies
http://books.google.com/books?id=CZEPAAAAIAAJ&vq=american%20colonies&pg…] A Calm Address to Our American Colonies
A friend of mine who “lurks” on SI called to remind me that Romans 13 (government authority) comes right after Romans 12 (submission). And that I Peter 2, with similar government submission themes, follows I Peter 1, with a significant suffering theme.
This may not be a popular message in our culture, but it may in fact be the Christian’s calling in such circumstances.
This may not be a popular message in our culture, but it may in fact be the Christian’s calling in such circumstances.
[Mike Durning] A friend of mine who “lurks” on SI called to remind me that Romans 13 (government authority) comes right after Romans 12 (submission). And that I Peter 2, with similar government submission themes, follows I Peter 1, with a significant suffering theme.Better call your friend back because submission is not the issue. The issue is submission to what?
This may not be a popular message in our culture, but it may in fact be the Christian’s calling in such circumstances.
The reasons God has appointed and given authority to human government are quite clear in the passage. If you resist a government that is carrying out the God ordained purposes you do resist the ordinance of God. That government is not to be feared if we are of good behavior. Why? Because they are a minister of God. If you do evil you should fear because this government does not bear the sword (or punish) in vain. They do not do so for an improper or empty reason. We are to be in subjection to avoid this governments wrath and because our Christian conscience should tell us to. We are then told to give taxes and honor to whom they are due. To whom are they due? The government just described in the passage. There is no duty of absolute submission to any government or to every government act. Governments that act contrary to the ordinance of God are obviously not operating within God given authority. Is a woman to submit to government police authority when a policeman acts with evil and attempts to rape her? Are we to submit to government authority when they knock on the door and ask if we are harboring Jews in our homes as they did in Nazi held territory in WW2? Did Rahab have a duty to submit to the authorities request regarding the spies? Hebrews 11 calls her very act of government disobedience an act of faith. The same acknowledgment is given for the Hebrew midwives.
There is always the question within the realm of human authority of to whom do we submit and when. Our Christian conscience is to be active in our minds with reference to the morals and values of scripture. We sometimes have a greater duty to love others than to submit to evil and put some of those others in danger.
The message of absolute submission points us first to God who is entitled to our full obedience. This is seen in the incident with Abraham and Isaac. All other duties to submit are based upon that demand being in conformity to all the morals and duties that God demands of us in His revealed word.
It should also be said that the assumed silence of scripture is not to be taken as either permission or prevention. The scripture does not speak directly to our being involved with government in every aspect. Our Lord did acknowledge that there were some things that were in the realm of Caesar such as taxes. He did treat Roman Centurions favorably and raised no objection to their service. However, there are many elements of the Christian’s existence as a citizen not directly spoken to. Can we vote? Can we work for the government? Can we serve in law enforcement? Can we serve in the military? Can we obey one government entity and resist another? To these and other numerous questions the various values of scripture must be brought together by our knowledge and our conscience.
When the full panorama of scripture is considered it is very difficult to see the NT passages that speak to the Christian and human authority as demanding some absolute unquestioning obedience. It is possible to see that in light of historical context Roman 13 is very deftly classifying Emperor Nero as not exercising the ordinances of God and as operating outside of the God ordained purposes for allowing for the establishment of human government.
The interpretation that Romans 13 that requires submission of the Christian to all government excersised authority at all times is not taking into consideration the direct statements of all the sentences. It also is not in accordance with the other duties placed upon the believers.
So far as the American war for independence is concerned. We do know that many Christians then living and involved saw it as a just war. It became a revolution politically in that it established the worlds first national democracy. That democracy would operate within the framework of a Republic. Those who fought did not see themselves as violating Romans 13 and many of the Pastors did not see it as contrary to scripture at all.
Todd, thanks for the Wesley link. Haven’t had a chance to read that yet, but I’m more than a little curious.
A couple of folks have raised the issue, in one way or another, of how participating or not participating in the “American Revolution” would have involved for ordinary folks.
Its a good question and illustrates the different ways Rom.13 (and 1 Pet.2) would apply, depending on whether you are involved in government or not and to what extent.
For example, if I’m John Adams (who seems have one of the more credible claims to Christian faith in the bunch), what I do with Rom.13 is going to be different from what farmer John does who isn’t in the legislature or congress or whatever.
Once the local “powers that be” make a decision against the more distant “powers that be,” yeah… farmer John does not have a cut and dried choice, seems to me.
But if I’m involved in the legislature… I definitely can’t just say “Let’s tell George to take a long walk off a short peer because he’s taking too much money from us.” I’m going to have to find some way to deal with Romans 13… either along the lines that the regime in England is illegal (and therefore not really “the powers that be”) or along the lines that what I’m doing is not “resisting.”
Seems to me it has to be one or the other.
But I agree that the guy who doesn’t get a vote has to figure out which authority he owes his allegiance to… then submit to that.
A couple of folks have raised the issue, in one way or another, of how participating or not participating in the “American Revolution” would have involved for ordinary folks.
Its a good question and illustrates the different ways Rom.13 (and 1 Pet.2) would apply, depending on whether you are involved in government or not and to what extent.
For example, if I’m John Adams (who seems have one of the more credible claims to Christian faith in the bunch), what I do with Rom.13 is going to be different from what farmer John does who isn’t in the legislature or congress or whatever.
Once the local “powers that be” make a decision against the more distant “powers that be,” yeah… farmer John does not have a cut and dried choice, seems to me.
But if I’m involved in the legislature… I definitely can’t just say “Let’s tell George to take a long walk off a short peer because he’s taking too much money from us.” I’m going to have to find some way to deal with Romans 13… either along the lines that the regime in England is illegal (and therefore not really “the powers that be”) or along the lines that what I’m doing is not “resisting.”
Seems to me it has to be one or the other.
But I agree that the guy who doesn’t get a vote has to figure out which authority he owes his allegiance to… then submit to that.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Todd Mitchell] Here is some intriguing insight from John Wesley:John Wesley did not comprehend what was going on. He is upholding the right of kings to rule. This was based upon the concept that God had ordained a certain group to rule. It was based upon the OT Theocracy and seeing the NT church as a continuation of Israel. Taxation as the main issue was the lie of the English view and of some who accept the revised view of the American war of independence. However, the Declaration of Independence sets forth the issues quite clearly and gives the several issues involved. Taxation was but one of many issues. Also, under the right of Kings, a king’s authority had often had no perpetuity. Therefore, the fact that one king granted the right of a colony under certain conditions did not mean that such conditions remained in perpetuity. At English law the right of perpetuity in land agreements was often ruled against as creating unfair future property rights. Also, the right of kings was changing under the rising authority of parliament. Under the Monarchy today the UK gives honor to the history of the right of kings while having completely denied that concepts authority. We denied the concept of the right of kings with the declaration of independence. It just took England a great deal of time to agree.
http://books.google.com/books?id=CZEPAAAAIAAJ&vq=american%20colonies&pg…] A Calm Address to Our American Colonies
Where in the New Testament did anyone rebel against tyranny? Instead, the New Testament depicts Jesus Christ, the apostles and various others submitting to civil authorities even to the point of death. The early Christians glorified God that they were accounted worthy to suffer as Christ did!Perhaps these passages indicate some exceptions to absolute obedience (Acts 4:18-20 and Acts 5:17-20).
Once the condition of possible exception is admitted then there must be the consideration of scripture giving permission of other exceptions by indirect inference and application. Second and third premise applications may be in order.
Read Wesley. Very interesting. Definitely was a monarchist… not just in the particular case of George III but a huge fan of monarchy in general.
Also interesting that he thought himself unbiased.
He has some good points, but was better as a preacher than as a political theorist I think.
All the same, there is no way to prove from the Bible that monarchy is inferior to the democratic republic. Still, I think a compelling case can be made from history.
Also interesting that he thought himself unbiased.
He has some good points, but was better as a preacher than as a political theorist I think.
All the same, there is no way to prove from the Bible that monarchy is inferior to the democratic republic. Still, I think a compelling case can be made from history.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Bob T. wrote:
We denied the concept of the right of kings with the declaration of independence.That pretty much sums it up. How utterly dreadful.
On Monday we will celebrate the Declaration of Independence and the following just war against the King and the government of England. We should do so with clear conscience and recognizing the great sacrifices and hardships suffered by both the men in arms and the many families who suffered and endured in this eight year war which took place in the streets of their cities and the fields of their farms and country sides. We live in a time when few are asked to take up arms to defend our nation. Those who do so now are volunteers. Those who serve in harms way deserve our respect for that service. Those who lived through and fought in the war for independence against England deserve our gratitude for enduring the often endurable and having the beliefs and convictions that gave us freedom and set an example for all mankind.
We should be thankful for the Christians, churches, and pastors who acted upon convictions and fought and supported a conflict based upon their view of rights granted by God and of salvation through Christ alone. Many born again Christians led the way and fought with willingness to die.
Without the great awakening there would have been no Declaration of Independence and those willing to endure an eight year war at their door steps. May we today have the humility to see our freedom as a gift earned by others and of great value not for self indulgence but for the declaration of the Gospel.
May July 4TH be a time of patriotism and spiritual dedication. I will endeavor that it be so for me and my family. My wife is a lifetime regent in the DAR (Daughters of the American Revolution). Her family history is filled with veterans from the war for independence to the wars of today. My family was filled with veterans from WWII to today. I served in the Navy and our oldest son in the Marines. Every person has a right to their interpretation of scripture and view of government and the war for Independence. However, we should endeavor to do so with some appreciation of what has given us this unique place and time in history that we call America. I hope you all will celebrate independence and even have a time of acknowledgment in your churches. It fills my heart with sorrow whenever I realize that I preach because someone died. So many times that someone died without Christ. Young men who gave to me from the revolution until today. Then there are the thousands of Christians around the world without freedom and who are persecuted for their faith. Freedom, revolution and America are more than academic exercises and debate.
We should be thankful for the Christians, churches, and pastors who acted upon convictions and fought and supported a conflict based upon their view of rights granted by God and of salvation through Christ alone. Many born again Christians led the way and fought with willingness to die.
Without the great awakening there would have been no Declaration of Independence and those willing to endure an eight year war at their door steps. May we today have the humility to see our freedom as a gift earned by others and of great value not for self indulgence but for the declaration of the Gospel.
May July 4TH be a time of patriotism and spiritual dedication. I will endeavor that it be so for me and my family. My wife is a lifetime regent in the DAR (Daughters of the American Revolution). Her family history is filled with veterans from the war for independence to the wars of today. My family was filled with veterans from WWII to today. I served in the Navy and our oldest son in the Marines. Every person has a right to their interpretation of scripture and view of government and the war for Independence. However, we should endeavor to do so with some appreciation of what has given us this unique place and time in history that we call America. I hope you all will celebrate independence and even have a time of acknowledgment in your churches. It fills my heart with sorrow whenever I realize that I preach because someone died. So many times that someone died without Christ. Young men who gave to me from the revolution until today. Then there are the thousands of Christians around the world without freedom and who are persecuted for their faith. Freedom, revolution and America are more than academic exercises and debate.
I’m all for displays of affection for and loyalty to our country ( http://www.firstbaptistgranitefalls.org/pdf/PastorsQuarry201106.pdf] as long as it doesn’t happen during worship !). I’m even in favor (unlike the early church fathers) of wielding the sword for our country, too. (Bob, I served in uniform as a cop for ten years, and my wife served 23 years active duty in the military.)
But Aaron’s question is valid. Independence Day has troubled me for some time. Just because I am grateful for the country God has ordained (he does, after all, ordain the rise and fall of nations), I am hesitant to celebrate the act of rebellion that gave birth to this country. I’m not dogmatic on this, since I’ve only been contemplating the matter for a single decade and have had no knowledge of others who share the same reservation.
I’ve compared this matter to an illegitimate child conceived in the back seat of a Chevy on prom night. I don’t despise the child that is born. I’d celebrate his birthday. But I don’t think I’d celebrate what happened in the back seat.
But Aaron’s question is valid. Independence Day has troubled me for some time. Just because I am grateful for the country God has ordained (he does, after all, ordain the rise and fall of nations), I am hesitant to celebrate the act of rebellion that gave birth to this country. I’m not dogmatic on this, since I’ve only been contemplating the matter for a single decade and have had no knowledge of others who share the same reservation.
I’ve compared this matter to an illegitimate child conceived in the back seat of a Chevy on prom night. I don’t despise the child that is born. I’d celebrate his birthday. But I don’t think I’d celebrate what happened in the back seat.
I’m not sure, but President Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper could talk it out, and Canada might not object to getting it all fixed with the U.S. as its 11th Province of the Dominion.
:D
:D
Bob T.
Thanks for your input. You summed up in posts 33 and 36 where I have been heading without having time to get there yet (and probably did it much better than I would have). I understand the position taken by those who declare a Christian must never endorse revolt against the government, but I think it is too simplistic an approach. Human government is rooted in Gen 9. While gov wields Godly authority (the source of all authority), they serve at the pleasure of the people governed. I see this relationship much the way most of us see the relationship between the pastor and congregation in a church setting. The leader is the leader, but the people have the right and responsibility to remove ungodly leaders and establish Godly leadership - in both realms. This is largely the direction the founders indicate they were looking in the quotes provided in the Barton piece.
Thanks for your input. You summed up in posts 33 and 36 where I have been heading without having time to get there yet (and probably did it much better than I would have). I understand the position taken by those who declare a Christian must never endorse revolt against the government, but I think it is too simplistic an approach. Human government is rooted in Gen 9. While gov wields Godly authority (the source of all authority), they serve at the pleasure of the people governed. I see this relationship much the way most of us see the relationship between the pastor and congregation in a church setting. The leader is the leader, but the people have the right and responsibility to remove ungodly leaders and establish Godly leadership - in both realms. This is largely the direction the founders indicate they were looking in the quotes provided in the Barton piece.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
All
First, the right of kings or the Monarchial view was based upon Israel being continued in the church or replacement theology. Scripture appears clear in presenting the church as not being a continuation of the Theocracy of Israel. This is so even if one adopts a replacement theology. There is no continuation of the Temple, sacrifices, or kings. Also, Israel having a king is presented as that which God consented to but not His preference. So the basis for the European Monarchial system has no real foundation. The arguments of Robert Filbert in his writings were simply not supported by scripture as he proposed.
Second, many see a definite allowance and establishment of human government in the covenant at Genesis 9. The recipients of this covenant were Noah, his family, and all his descendants. This is every person of the entire human race after the flood. Based upon this there is no authorization for any special ordained ruling class. The right of government is given to all people to establish. This of course was the argument of John Locke as he wrote against Robert Filbert.
Therefore, biblical evidence does not support the divine right of kings but does appear to give some evidence for the right of all people to establish government. Perhaps we could even call it God given inalienable rights? It can be argued that from the flood on most governments were established based upon human depravity and rebellion against God. It involved the usurping of power by the most ruthless and those willing to do violence to others for that power. The tower of Babel is an example of human depravity in social structure. God had to intervene in order to prevent world dictatorship. The tribulation political Anti Christ will be an example of final government established in rebellion against God. It will be disobeyed by the 144 thousand witnesses, the two witnesses, and all who come to believe in Christ. Perhaps there will be those admonishing believers to obey government, take the mark of the beast, and submit to every ordinance of man as the ordinance of God?
The scriptures do not handle the subject human government as a main topic. However, there is no divine right of kings set forth and there is evidence of authority given to all men to establish government.
It could be argued that since the divine right of kings, as established and practiced in Europe, went to the authority of the Pope who would acknowledge the kings and their divine right, that Henry the VIII had made the English Monarchial line illegitimate by European standards. Also, since such right has no biblical basis it was the English King that had an illegitimate government and the Colonists were following their legitimate local governments.
the same, there is no way to prove from the Bible that monarchy is inferior to the democratic republic. Still, I think a compelling case can be madefrom history.
First, the right of kings or the Monarchial view was based upon Israel being continued in the church or replacement theology. Scripture appears clear in presenting the church as not being a continuation of the Theocracy of Israel. This is so even if one adopts a replacement theology. There is no continuation of the Temple, sacrifices, or kings. Also, Israel having a king is presented as that which God consented to but not His preference. So the basis for the European Monarchial system has no real foundation. The arguments of Robert Filbert in his writings were simply not supported by scripture as he proposed.
Second, many see a definite allowance and establishment of human government in the covenant at Genesis 9. The recipients of this covenant were Noah, his family, and all his descendants. This is every person of the entire human race after the flood. Based upon this there is no authorization for any special ordained ruling class. The right of government is given to all people to establish. This of course was the argument of John Locke as he wrote against Robert Filbert.
Therefore, biblical evidence does not support the divine right of kings but does appear to give some evidence for the right of all people to establish government. Perhaps we could even call it God given inalienable rights? It can be argued that from the flood on most governments were established based upon human depravity and rebellion against God. It involved the usurping of power by the most ruthless and those willing to do violence to others for that power. The tower of Babel is an example of human depravity in social structure. God had to intervene in order to prevent world dictatorship. The tribulation political Anti Christ will be an example of final government established in rebellion against God. It will be disobeyed by the 144 thousand witnesses, the two witnesses, and all who come to believe in Christ. Perhaps there will be those admonishing believers to obey government, take the mark of the beast, and submit to every ordinance of man as the ordinance of God?
The scriptures do not handle the subject human government as a main topic. However, there is no divine right of kings set forth and there is evidence of authority given to all men to establish government.
It could be argued that since the divine right of kings, as established and practiced in Europe, went to the authority of the Pope who would acknowledge the kings and their divine right, that Henry the VIII had made the English Monarchial line illegitimate by European standards. Also, since such right has no biblical basis it was the English King that had an illegitimate government and the Colonists were following their legitimate local governments.
As I understand it, the late Gene Fisher of BJU’s history department argues in his Revolution Myth
that there was no revolution at all given that the monarchy had effectively abdicated its duties to the colonies through the Stamp Act or something like that. So the war that was simply reflected an effort to evict what was viewed as an illegal occupation, much like what’s going on in many parts of the world today. I don’t know if that view’s got much currency, even in Fundamentalist circles, but in this view there would be no rebellion against a legally binding, divinely ordained government.
Not that the Canadian loyalists bought any of it!
that there was no revolution at all given that the monarchy had effectively abdicated its duties to the colonies through the Stamp Act or something like that. So the war that was simply reflected an effort to evict what was viewed as an illegal occupation, much like what’s going on in many parts of the world today. I don’t know if that view’s got much currency, even in Fundamentalist circles, but in this view there would be no rebellion against a legally binding, divinely ordained government.Not that the Canadian loyalists bought any of it!
It may seem strange for someone in Germany to chime in. In the first half of the 19th century, there were pathetic apologies for slavery in the US, based on the Bible, from Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian ministers in the South. These were, in fact, good believing men, who pointed out that both the Old Testament and New Testament accepted slavery. It was pathetic because they had already hailed the principle that “All men are created equal” (etc). The endorsement of slavery in America was therefore hypocritical. By the same token, major strides in democracy had been made in England by the mid-1700s, of which both England and the colonists were well aware. Most of the colonists felt that mother England was being hypocritical in her treatment of them. If you read the appeals of the various colonial legislatures to the King of England just prior to the War of Independence, they continually referred to their already granted rights as Englishmen, which were being violated. The King had already sent troops to America to subdue the colonists a year before the Declaration of Independence. As an Englishman recently told me, “We invaded your land. You had every right to fight our armies.”
Many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were devout, orthodox Christians who had no time for the Masons, even if Thomas Jefferson did.
There is a difference between a “Christian nation” in the sense of having an established church and a “Christian nation” as a society functioning according to Christian principles. Most European nations were the former for a time. The dissenters of Europe fled their “Christian nations” and established colonies based on the idea of the freedom to exercise their religion. Though imperfectly practiced, this principle grew to genuine freedom of Religion for all by the early 19th century. One can debate long about Romans 13; both the dissenters in America and in Great Britian saw what was happening as the Revolutionary War began and gave it their support. It was on this basis, for instance that many very devout Christians joined politically with the likes of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. When de Tocqueville visited the US 50 years after the war, he found it to be a nation full of Bible reading people. The constitution facilitated the growth of this phenomenon.
I wish any of you well who celebrate the birth of the US republic tomorrow. I of course will not be doing it here.
Many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were devout, orthodox Christians who had no time for the Masons, even if Thomas Jefferson did.
There is a difference between a “Christian nation” in the sense of having an established church and a “Christian nation” as a society functioning according to Christian principles. Most European nations were the former for a time. The dissenters of Europe fled their “Christian nations” and established colonies based on the idea of the freedom to exercise their religion. Though imperfectly practiced, this principle grew to genuine freedom of Religion for all by the early 19th century. One can debate long about Romans 13; both the dissenters in America and in Great Britian saw what was happening as the Revolutionary War began and gave it their support. It was on this basis, for instance that many very devout Christians joined politically with the likes of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. When de Tocqueville visited the US 50 years after the war, he found it to be a nation full of Bible reading people. The constitution facilitated the growth of this phenomenon.
I wish any of you well who celebrate the birth of the US republic tomorrow. I of course will not be doing it here.
Jeff Brown
Did Jesus join in the commemoration of the Maccabean revolt (John 10:22)?
Jesus did attend the celebration of Hanukkah, but the cleansing of the Temple would fit with the principle of Acts 5:29, wouldn’t it?
Don’t smoke, don’t drink, don’t…er…revolt? Yes, that’s what we need, more rules for the Christian Faith. A free grace institution is marriage, and God’s will and common sense throughout history has been that you are free to protect your own home and family. “If the Son of Man hath set you free you are free indeed!” In a constitutional democracy you render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s by VOTING.
I know some of you will say that verse is meant for the spiritual life, and that’s good, however - can you also say that liberty and justice are not in the N.T.? Hogwash if you do - Christ died for God’s justice and our liberty…
God says he knows when a sparrow gets grounded - He does not know when tyranny exists? Come on, now, you know there were a lot more problems with George than a tea tax (he was bonkers) or stamp act. The Brits knew if the colonies were independent they would loose a lot if money, especially from tobacco sales taxes and slavery shipping. See war of 1812.
The fact that there were some slave holders in the Founding Fathers means nothing today, as the slaves are free in spite of 600,000 lives lost in the Civil War another rebellion). As Michele Bachmann proved, they (FF) were, for the most part, against slavery and entered the 3/5ths rule so that the south could not count each slave as part of their census and get more representation in the House of Reps, as opposed to not be represented at all.
I’m still waiting for back up as far as David Barton ‘exaggeration’ is concerned, (crickets chirping).
Thanks…
I know some of you will say that verse is meant for the spiritual life, and that’s good, however - can you also say that liberty and justice are not in the N.T.? Hogwash if you do - Christ died for God’s justice and our liberty…
God says he knows when a sparrow gets grounded - He does not know when tyranny exists? Come on, now, you know there were a lot more problems with George than a tea tax (he was bonkers) or stamp act. The Brits knew if the colonies were independent they would loose a lot if money, especially from tobacco sales taxes and slavery shipping. See war of 1812.
The fact that there were some slave holders in the Founding Fathers means nothing today, as the slaves are free in spite of 600,000 lives lost in the Civil War another rebellion). As Michele Bachmann proved, they (FF) were, for the most part, against slavery and entered the 3/5ths rule so that the south could not count each slave as part of their census and get more representation in the House of Reps, as opposed to not be represented at all.
I’m still waiting for back up as far as David Barton ‘exaggeration’ is concerned, (crickets chirping).
Thanks…
One of the comments on the article posted July 1 (comment #8) suggested reading Joyce Appleby. Her expertise is early American history and she wrote an interesting article in March 1976 that was published in The New England Quarterly dealing with the American Revolution. In that article she brings together various factors that led to the Declaration of Independence.
Regarding the Great Awakening Appleby wrote that its appeal “to individual sensibilities” caused “dissension” that “bred contempt for much of the church hierarchy, and the voluntary nature of the conversion experience undermined authority” resulting in “an explicit recognition of religious pluralism” (p. 15). Appleby wrote that the Great Awakening was one of many factors that generated “a liberal vision of society” which was easily induced to panic and encouraged a violent response when threats from Britain were perceived as “tyrannical, unjust, unnatural, and unnaceptable” (p. 24).
Appleby stated that political pamphlets in the 1760s “repeatedly compared” the “acceptance of Parliamentary authority” to “slavery” and that “The imagery of subjugation, submission, and subordination courses through the literature that marked the way to Independence” (p. 20). She also wrote “In his Summary View of the Rights of British America, Jefferson claimed that the series of oppressions by parliament ‘too plainly prove a deliberate and systematic plan of reducing us to slavery’.” (p. 21). Jefferson believed that the British Parliament intended to enslave all Americans.
The anonymous author of Letter to the People of Pennsylvania predicted that cooperation with royal officials would result in Americans becoming “slaves indeed, in no respect different from the sooty Africans, whose persons and properties are subject to the disposal of their tyrannical masters” (p. 22).
John Adams said “There are but two sorts of men in the world, freemen and slaves.” He then defined a freeman as “one who is bound by no law to which he has not consented” (p. 23).
John Wesley (in the work cited by Todd Mitchell above) addresses this topic of consent and asks “how has any man consented to those laws which were made before he was born?”
So, the slaveholders thought slavery was wrong if it meant they themselves would be enslaved (This does not mean that Britain intended to enslave them, but it was their fear nonetheless). And, John Adams thought the only laws he and other freemen should have to obey were the ones they wrote themselves.
There are other factors as well that led to the Declaration of Independence and consequent war, but the ones addressed in these quotes seemed apropos to the discussion.
Regarding the Great Awakening Appleby wrote that its appeal “to individual sensibilities” caused “dissension” that “bred contempt for much of the church hierarchy, and the voluntary nature of the conversion experience undermined authority” resulting in “an explicit recognition of religious pluralism” (p. 15). Appleby wrote that the Great Awakening was one of many factors that generated “a liberal vision of society” which was easily induced to panic and encouraged a violent response when threats from Britain were perceived as “tyrannical, unjust, unnatural, and unnaceptable” (p. 24).
Appleby stated that political pamphlets in the 1760s “repeatedly compared” the “acceptance of Parliamentary authority” to “slavery” and that “The imagery of subjugation, submission, and subordination courses through the literature that marked the way to Independence” (p. 20). She also wrote “In his Summary View of the Rights of British America, Jefferson claimed that the series of oppressions by parliament ‘too plainly prove a deliberate and systematic plan of reducing us to slavery’.” (p. 21). Jefferson believed that the British Parliament intended to enslave all Americans.
The anonymous author of Letter to the People of Pennsylvania predicted that cooperation with royal officials would result in Americans becoming “slaves indeed, in no respect different from the sooty Africans, whose persons and properties are subject to the disposal of their tyrannical masters” (p. 22).
John Adams said “There are but two sorts of men in the world, freemen and slaves.” He then defined a freeman as “one who is bound by no law to which he has not consented” (p. 23).
John Wesley (in the work cited by Todd Mitchell above) addresses this topic of consent and asks “how has any man consented to those laws which were made before he was born?”
So, the slaveholders thought slavery was wrong if it meant they themselves would be enslaved (This does not mean that Britain intended to enslave them, but it was their fear nonetheless). And, John Adams thought the only laws he and other freemen should have to obey were the ones they wrote themselves.
There are other factors as well that led to the Declaration of Independence and consequent war, but the ones addressed in these quotes seemed apropos to the discussion.
Is there ever a time when people are to fight to remove tyrannical oppression? We can contest whether what was happening in the colonies amounted to that, but we could go back to Scripture and see Israel fight against enemies in “revolutionary” ways. I would think the people of Jericho would agree (at least the few that lived through it)! Furthermore, they were doing so at God’s direction. Granted, we are not a theocracy, but we could definitely say that Americans came to this country for freedom. Those who sent or allowed them to go would not have objected when they left. However, the Brits certainly were objecting by the time 1776 came. To have taken the journey across the sea and live in a “new” land, and to have your freedoms taken away could be seen as intolerable.
Didn’t the founders see the British monarchy as having abdicated its responsibility and therefore illegitimate?
Didn’t the founders see the British monarchy as having abdicated its responsibility and therefore illegitimate?
Discussion