Was the American Revolution sinful?

Martin has some arguments I haven’t heard before.

But in his P.S., he claims that many of the founding fathers were “good Presbyterians.” Makes me wonder how many of his other facts are off.

He’s right about Lex Rex and its influence on the founders. But logically I’m not sure that helps with Rom.13—written many centuries before Lex Rex. The relevant question is, was Paul thinking the law is king when he penned Rom. 13 (i.e., was God telling us “obey those in authority except when they disregard enough laws… then you can not only disobey them but revolt too”?)

Until I visited SI in my entire life I never heard any Christian try to claim that the American revolution was sinful. Frankly, I find the claim odd. Forgive me for what follows because I am positive that people who actually believe this have thought this through….

First, and I’ll keep it to that due to my time limitation, consider Romans 13:1

Romans 13:1 (ESV)
1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

The claim that the revolution was sinful hangs its hat on the first sentence of the verse. The thought being that there is almost no just cause for a revolution. What about the second. What if God in His sovereign majesty decided that the American colonies would become a separate country and thus implanted the desire into the heart of the revolutionaries to lead the development of the United States? In that case, which is unprovable I guess, the revolution was not a sin but people carrying out God’s plan to institute a government!

Mark,

I do not see the American Revolution as sinful, but I will play Devil’s advocate. If the first sentence or Romans 13:1 means what you have ascribed to the other party, then God would never put a desire to disobey His commands in the hearts of men by interpreting the rest of the verse the way you have described.

if I had tried to tell my parents that God had implanted the desire in my heart to disobey their authority …. I think that my dad would’ve responded with, “Well, God has implanted the desire in my heart to whip your butt!”

I am making a serious comment, not passing “rebellion” off as pure human lust and sin, but COULD IT BE that God planned it that way. Is that not a legitimate possibility? To use Chip’s comment, does that “subject to authorities” clause trump the “instituted by God” clause. Can God not cause the US to form?

In fact, many of the people involved in the Revolutionary War noted many times that Providence (their word) protected them. As one simple example, I believe after the loss at the battle of Bunker Hill (Breed’s Hill), the troops needed to retreat across the river. They tried to do it under the cover of darkness, but were not done when sunrise came. As one writer put it a “mysterious” mist rose up and covered the river, shielding their escape. There are literally dozens of examples of this that I am aware of, and I am no expert.

Of course God can “cause the US to form.” But, I hope that regardless of which side of this question people fall on, their justification is not limited (at the least) to individualistic mysticism. For example, having grown up in Florida, there is nothing mysterious about a dense, early morning mist rising from a body of water. Did God cause that mist to arise? Of course. But does that mean that He smiles with favor upon the actions hidden by that mist? Not necessarily. What people “feel” isn’t nearly as important as how their actions comport with the teachings of scripture.

Took a quick look at the article, and what he’s arguing is historic; the kingdom in England was reinstituted in 1688 under the 1688 Bill of Rights, which served as a Constitution for the Commonwealth. So what the Founders were arguing, more or less, is that since the King had not defended the colonies in their need but chose to tax them anyways, and violated the 1688 Bill of Rights in many ways, King George had effectively abdicated. And the British did often call it the “Presbyterian parsons’ rebellion”, whether they were right or wrong.

Mark,

The founders certainly believed Providence was at work on their behalf, but they did not arrive at their justification through the line of thought you have suggested. They went back to the founding of human government in Genesis 9 and understood the thread of authority as extending from God, through the governed, to the government. They saw the authority as delegated authority given by the people to the leaders that could be revoked by the people for certain justifiable reasons. Somewhat along the lines of congregational polity in the church. If you look back at the Declaration of Independence through this lens, you will see this line of thinking very clearly.

for Europeans 100 miles (161Km) is a long distance, while for Americans 100 years is a long time.

Many treat the AmRev in isolation from the the previous 100+ years of Anglo-American history. If one says supporting the Continental side of the AmRev was sin, which side do you support in the 1600s Parliament or the Crown? Would you be a Royalist or a Parliamentarian? Which side would you support in the Glorious Revolution, the Jacobite or Parliament?

[Bert Perry]

Took a quick look at the article, and what he’s arguing is historic; the kingdom in England was reinstituted in 1688 under the 1688 Bill of Rights, which served as a Constitution for the Commonwealth. So what the Founders were arguing, more or less, is that since the King had not defended the colonies in their need but chose to tax them anyways, and violated the 1688 Bill of Rights in many ways, King George had effectively abdicated. And the British did often call it the “Presbyterian parsons’ rebellion”, whether they were right or wrong.

….and to understand the 1600s, you’ve got to understand the Magna Carta, I think, and probably as well the shifting sands of feudal society since Roman times, as well as the Anglo-Saxon and Norman invasions, no? All in all, my take is that the response of the Parliamentarians to the question of Romans 13 would have been similar to mine. King Charles had, for all intents and purposes, abdicated by refusing to honor the authority of Parliament. Certainly this is the implication of the 1688 Bill of Rights, as well as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

My neighbor is associate professor of history at Rutgers with PhD from Princeton. I find interesting his comments on the revolution.

http://www.courierpostonline.com/story/opinion/2014/06/29/forum-profess…

I have a few favorite books on the Revolutionary War I thought I’d throw out here for anyone who is interested:

• Washington’s Crossing, by David H. Fischer. An amazing, detailed book about Washington’s disastrous defeat in Manhattan, the retreat across New Jersey and the fateful battles at Trenton and Princeton.
• Almost a Miracle, by John Ferling. A good book on the military side of the revolution. His portrayal of the disastrous British retreat from Lexington and Concord is chilling.
• A Leap in the Dark, also by Ferling. This is a political history on the intellectual background of the revolution. Not so much action on the battlefield, but political intrigue instead.
• Independence: The Struggle to Set America Free, by Ferling. I just started this one. It looks to be a broad overview of the movement from resistance to outright declaration of independence.

Don’t forget 1776 by David McCullough.

Chip: I didn’t say that the founders justified the Revolution based off of subjectivism or Romans 13. They had a lot of reasons, many of them from secular reasoning and sources of philosophy.

JohnE: I never said that the justification for the Revolution is based off of “feelings”.

What I did say is that while God tells us to obey authority because He places it in power, He clearly also has the power to have other men rise up to replace or modify the government. I suggest that the evidence of Providence from the time of the Revolution and our ability to see from 230 years later lets us see that there was some divine intervention to help the cause of America’s founding. I AM NOT suggesting that America is a perfect nation or a godly one! Just that it is clear that the rebels had no business winning that war…yet they did. The hand of Providence is all over it.

Sometimes we over-react to charismaticism by neglecting the obvious power of God to directly influence events. I am not saying that God pulled an overt miracle like He did when He freed Israel, but it is clear that He was acting nonetheless.

In a way it doesn’t matter. Why:

• 200+ years ago
• We weren’t there
• In saying this, I’ve always thought I would have been a loyal Tory