Can We Celebrate Independence without Celebrating Armed Rebellion?
First appeared at SI in July of 2011.
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.
- 6 views
[amazon 1573833339 thumbnail]
[amazon B00AEIIXAW thumbnail]
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.
From Dictionary.com
interposition
1.
the act or fact of interposing or the condition of being interposed.
2.
something interposed.
interpose
1.
to place between; cause to intervene: to interpose an opaque body between a light and the eye.
2.
to put (a barrier, obstacle, etc.) between or in the way of.
3.
to put in (a remark, question, etc.) in the midst of a conversation, discourse, or the like.
4.
to bring (influence, action, etc.) to bear between parties, or on behalf of a party or person.
verb (used without object)
5.
to come between other things; assume an intervening position or relation.
6.
to step in between parties at variance; mediate.
Do not confuse the act of interposing with only a political meaning. To interpose is to come between two parties or positions. Christ put His shed blood between our sinful condition and a Righteous Holy God.
Ephesians 2:13
but now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
I John 1:7
…..and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
Revelation 1:5
and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness…… Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood.
Colossians 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20 and, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled 22 in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:
If Christ’s blood is not an interposition between a Holy God and sinful man, what exactly is it that saves us?
It is interesting. It’s easy to read post enlightenment assumptions into Scripture because they’re so much a part of the cultural air we’ve been breathing for the last few centuries.
But I think the contract idea is not so far removed from the family idea as it might initially seem. All that is meant by contract—at the most basic level—is an agreement between parties that something will be exchanged. In the case of political theory, it’s the idea that “the people” posess the power—so they are the initiates in the transaction—and they agree to grant power to gov’t (and pay taxes etc) in exchange for the government performing certain services, usually protecting them from invasion, ensuring basic property rights, maintaining law and order.
Then the reasoning goes that if the gov’t fails in these functions the people have right, maybe even duty, to replace the gov’t with one that will do its job.
In the case of gov’t-as-extension-of-family… I’m not sure much would change. Even in families there are some vaguely contractual understandings of things, depending on the culture. If a man fails to provide for his family and cheats on his wife, man societies consider the wife entitled to end their marriage. Some believe the Scriptures to teach this as well.
But in an extended family situation, I’m sure we could come up scenarios where responsibilities are taken on conditionally and then “privileges” or powers in connection with the responsibilities. Failure would be grounds for removal of both the responsibility and the power. It’s pretty much contractual.
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 agree wholeheartedly with your last post Aaron.
The founders referred to it as, the consent of the governed.
“That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, the attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good.”
Virginia Bill of Rights
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
The Declaration of Independence
To me, the burning question—and here I’ve either not learned what I should have or have just forgotten it—is whether the powers that be in England fully embraced “consent of the governed” at the time the colonies were founded. That is, what the social contract idea—as well as the law is king idea—among the terms of the relationship to begin with.
That may not be easy to determine, because the ideas may be expressed indirectly or voiced by some in parliament (Edmund Burke for example?) and not others, etc.
But the reason it matters to me is this: whether social contract is a sound principle or not, if it is part of the legal “terms and conditions” (to use a modern phrase) under which the colonies were set up, then the colonies had an obviously strong legal case for breach of contract and a strong legal case for severing the relationship. And the fighting was merely defensive.
In that scenario “revolution” is more poetic than actual.
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.
This is a serious question. Not a snarky one or a gotcha.
Did the founders, in their writings and speeches refer to the events as a war of revolution or a war for Independence?
I heard a talk show host argue rather forcefully once that they always referred to it as a War for Independence.
I’ve never examined the record myself, nor have I ever seen anyone write about it.
That might help greatly in giving us a clearer understanding of the founders philosophical view of what they were doing.
BTW, if I were loyal to the British and or had an interest in protecting the crown, I would most certainly refer to the War as a revolution.
It would also help to look at the events from 1774-1783 in British North America as a continuation of the armed struggles beginning with the English Civil War and continuing through the Glorious Revolution.
[Aaron Blumer]To me, the burning question—and here I’ve either not learned what I should have or have just forgotten it—is whether the powers that be in England fully embraced “consent of the governed” at the time the colonies were founded. That is, what the social contract idea—as well as the law is king idea—among the terms of the relationship to begin with.
That may not be easy to determine, because the ideas may be expressed indirectly or voiced by some in parliament (Edmund Burke for example?) and not others, etc.
But the reason it matters to me is this: whether social contract is a sound principle or not, if it is part of the legal “terms and conditions” (to use a modern phrase) under which the colonies were set up, then the colonies had an obviously strong legal case for breach of contract and a strong legal case for severing the relationship. And the fighting was merely defensive.
In that scenario “revolution” is more poetic than actual.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
[Rob Fall]I believe many do not take into account the 151 year period between the accession of Charles I in 1625 and the Declaration of Independence in 1776. The English Civil Wars 1642-1651 and the Glorious Revolution of 1688 set the precedents for the Founding Fathers. If one is going to take the Loyalist position for the AmRev. then that individual should be prepared to take the Royalist potion in the ECW and the Stuart’s\Jacobite side in the GR.
This is one of the most important points in this argument. Many Americans who have a view that this was a rebellion against a rightful king, and therefore wrong, ignore just how weak the king of England’s authority was thorough most of history. In this period kings across Europe were trying to consolidate and gain power over nobles and normal people. A flat, simplistic view of English history will lead a simplistic view of what authority actually existed in the colonies.
I recommend the British Documentary “Monarchy” on Netflix.
I think I have to be anti-revolution (properly defined) but I’m certainly not one of these…
Mourn on the Fourth of July: Inside the Christian anti-patriot movement
An excerpt
“We thank you, O God, for the good things we enjoy in our lives,” reads a prayer the Mennonite community recites each year, “but lament that our abundance has brought destitution to sisters and brothers throughout the Earth.”
(Just how does our abundance bring destitution, I’d like to know!)
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 do not want to beat a dead horse. It tend to smell rather badly and splatters all over the person doing the beating, BUT,
I heard this interview on the radio today,
and I instantly thought of this discussion,
Take the time to listen to it. At first you will think it has nothing to do with the discussion, however, eventually the Sheriff will get to the point.
When should the Sheriff place himself between the people and the higher magistrates?
Aaron, regarding argument #1, I cannot find my copy of Gene Fisher’s book right now, but the relevant act is the American Prohibitory Act of 1775. Do not think that this is a recent view, however. Fisher was trying to draw attention to how he understood the Act was viewed by colonists in 1776. Some Googling tonight led me to the following attributed to John Adams (source here in Google Books):
I know not whether you have seen the act of Parliament called the Restraining Act, or Prohibitory Act, or Piratical Act, or Plundering Act, or Act of Independency—for by all these titles it is called. I think the most apposite is the Act of Independency; for King, Lords, and Commons, have united in sundering this country from that, I think, forever. It is a complete dismemberment of the British Empire. It throws thirteen Colonies out of the Royal protection, levels all distinctions, and makes us independent in spite of our supplications and entreaties.
It may be fortunate that the Act of Independency should come from the British Parliament rather than the American Congress.
The source cited has some additional discussion of the point. Other sources led me to the following from the Memoirs of Thomas Jefferson (source here in Google Books) in which he discusses debates in the Second Continental Congress about what became the Declaration of Independence:
On the other side it was urged by J. Adams, Lee, Wythe, and others, that no gentleman had argued against the policy or the right of separation from Britain, nor had supposed it possible we should ever renew our connection; that they had only opposed it now being declared.
That the question was not whether, by a Declaration of Independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact that already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them …
That, as to the King, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us, a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection; it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn.
It is interesting to me, as it was to Fisher, how little attention is given to the Prohibitory Act. It is difficult, however, to understand what the Second Continental Congress did without accounting for it.
As the quantity of communication increases, so does its quality decline; and the most important sign of this is that it is no longer acceptable to say so.--RScruton
I remember some of that now. When I read the book (and sat in the class) there wasn’t really much opportunity to explore this question: why is the Prohibitory Act so obscure? At the time, it struck me as pretty dubious to build a case for “there was no revolution” based on a single document nobody’s heard of.
The way I’m inclined to see it now is that the Act might be a strong component of a larger argument that the crown-colonies relationship was understood as one under law more than under king and nation to begin with. And in that scenario… well, it certainly sounds like Adams saw the Prohib. Act as something pretty close to illegal in itself.
I think it’s safe to say that when you step away from theory into real-world scenarios, things get very messy and it’s seldom crystal clear when a government has stepped beyond the bounds of its own authority and is acting illegally. But that “when” question is only possible at all if “law is king” is accepted as a premise.
Rom. 13 doesn’t talk about a law is king situation but it does not preclude governments operating that way and there being times when “the powers that be” are the law. In that situation citizens authorized by law are not really rebelling if they take their government to task on legal grounds. Can they take that so far as to overturn the government? It’s a difference of degree, not one of kind, as far as I can tell.
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.
Discussion