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.
- 63 views
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 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.
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.
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
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
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
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
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
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?
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
Discussion