Was the American Revolution sinful?

not about social contract theory, the popularity of the rebellion in the colonies, and whether you’d be a tory or a patriot, correct?

I was looking forward to a discussion on that aspect…but, oh well.

Mark,

You may not be seeing this for some reason, but “social contract theory” plays a direct role in whether or not the American “revolution” was sinful or not, at least to the Christians involved.

I know some argue that because America now exists, God must have done it, and therefore it’s not sinful. There’s no doubt that God brought it to pass, but in the OT, he also moved pagan nations to punish Israel, and then punished those nations for what they did to Israel! So the fact that God brought America into existence is not in itself a good reason for Christians to have fought against Britain. Unless they had a direct word from God, like Joshua did, they can’t just up and go to war because if they succeed it is then justified because it’s now God’s will.

On the other hand, if a significant number of true Christians accepted the ideas in social contract theory, then it may have allowed them to participate on the side of the colonies without going against their conscience (though that also doesn’t prove that they weren’t sinning). Like some here, I tend to be on the side of the colonists that believed that the governmental contract was broken by England, and so fighting England’s troops was justified in that light, rather than being justified because of something like taxes, even though I’m sure there were plenty of colonists that just didn’t want to be ruled by England any longer and were willing to fight England whether it was right or not.

Certainly, given what we read in scripture, I think most of us would agree that simply “rebelling” against England without proper justification would indeed be sinful. Many Christians at the time saw the issue in that light and hence stayed on the side of England. We can’t just look back and say now that since America exists, those who fought to create it were in the right.

But I was envisioning a discussion about what we think now about the appropriateness of the Revolution rather than what they thought then in 1776. I FREELY ADMIT I am NOT expert on Thomas Hobbes, and the host of other political philosophers the patriots were well aware of. I can in no way talk intelligently about Hobbes or Montesceau, etc, but I can talk about Bible verses!

I have been thinking a great deal this idea for the past day or so. I am getting more and more convinced that it’s at best a gloss, and at worse a white-wash of what the facts really were on the ground. I came across this from John Ferling just now about the steps colonists took to enforce the boycott on British goods agreed upon at the First Continental Congress. This is a short synopsis of events in Massachusetts:

“Some Association committees instituted loyalty oaths. Those who signed the oath pledged their willingness to abide by the boycott. Those who refused to take the oath were designated as Tories. This was the first instance in the colonial protest that an entire segment of the population was readily identified as Loyalists or Tories„ and the first time too that those who were seen as hostile to the popular cause were placed under surveillance. In some locales Tories were disarmed. In rare instances they were incarcerated. Nearly everywhere Tories were forced to resign from public offices. In some villages throughout Massachusetts, the local Association committee denied Loyalists admittance to worship services …” (Independence: The Struggle To Set America Free, 106-107).

Sounds lovely. What it doesn’t sound like is social contract theory. It sounds like passions and stupidity were getting the best of everybody.

[TylerR]

Sounds lovely. What it doesn’t sound like is social contract theory. It sounds like passions and stupidity were getting the best of everybody.

No doubt that was true in many cases. I’m sure there were plenty of people who didn’t need much of an excuse to fight England. And, as I said before, there were plenty of Christians who stayed on the Tory side. All I’m saying is that it was discussed at the time, and may indeed have been a factor for those Christians who chose to fight for independence. I would guess those same Christians probably stayed out of incidents like you quoted, as well as tarring and feathering of tax collectors etc. There’s no doubt there was plenty of ugliness to go around during the Revolutionary War.

I believe the theory is still a good argument for our looking back on the war with reserved approval. I understand that many Christians (like you) don’t take that view.

I wasn’t trying to be nasty when I spoke about social contract theory, and I apologize if it came across that way. I think it depends entirely on how you look at things.

• From the “big picture” point of view, tracing the philosophies and ideas that gave rise to the independence movement, social contract theory and certainly some Enlightenment thinking would likely be a good place to start
• From the “little picture” point of view, we see a very different, and messier picture. I’m looking at things from this point of view. I think Chip is looking more at the big picture.

as a dispassionate war based on logic and reason alone, let alone a civil war or revolution.

Ex: How many people joined the military in WW2 for the MAIN PURPOSE of getting revenge on those “Japs” who bombed Pearl Harbor rather than the logic of defeating imperialism in the Pacific?

[Mark_Smith]

as a dispassionate war based on logic and reason alone, let alone a civil war or revolution.

Ex: How many people joined the military in WW2 for the MAIN PURPOSE of getting revenge on those “Japs” who bombed Pearl Harbor rather than the logic of defeating imperialism in the Pacific?

Mark, I agree that no war is fought on logic and reason alone. However, I think it has to come into play when we are considering (as Christians should) whether or not to get involved. I think the WWII example is a bit different for those drafted, since they have Romans 13 on their side. For those who may have volunteered, I would think a Christian would want to consider carefully whether it is right for him to be involved (and getting “revenge on the Japs” would be a tough sell as a biblical motivation).

• I have cousins who are Christian pacifists (Church of the Brethren)


• War is messy (for a good documentary about this consider Fog of War …. or read Hiroshima)


• All wars kill innocents (children and women)


• All wars have unintended negative consequences

is a legitimate position, assuming you really are one! I think the government is correct to be very careful in who they give draft exemptions to.

that is why David was not allowed to build the Temple, right?

• I’m not a pacifist but


• I believe lengths should be expended to avoid war

Did anyone catch this part of the article:

This took on a rather different character after the Boston Tea Party, in consequence of which the London Parliament ordered the naval blockade of the Port of Boston and the cessation of all lawful commerce therein. This is to this very day in international law an act of war, and the colonists rightly understood it to be an act of war by the London Parliament against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. They sought redress from their king—whose veto was absolute and in whom was vested supreme command of the Royal Navy—but he did nothing. Quite the contrary: He took the position of the London Parliament and enforced it. And over time the offenses mounted, from the Boston Massacre to the passage of bills of attainder to the military occupation of American cities and the dismissal of American parliaments.

True, the Americans destroyed a lot of tea - some 600,000 pounds of it, according to Wikipedia - but no lives were taken. It was a financial blow, and the Bostonians had clearly been pushing for a non-violent solution to the Tea and the British insisted that if the ship returned to sea with the tea onboard, it would be sunk (according the Jeff Shaara’s historical fiction books). The response of the British Parliment to the Tea party escalated it into open war, and it was rightly recognized as such. This was a few years before Lexington and Concord.

There’s a very helpful timeline available at Wikipedia, if anyone is interested, and it traces the roots all the way back to the English - French war in North America.

the revolution was probably sinful, but also willed by God, in a way similar to Jesus’ crucifixion: God used sinful man to accomplish His will.

My daily reading has been in 1 Samuel lately, where it shows how David reacted to King Saul’s sinful persecution towards him. Saul basically declared war on David, but David didn’t use this as an excuse to rebel against the Lord’s anointed. He waited for God to handle the situation.

I agree with Jim. I’m not a pacifist either, but I would probably side with the Torys also, or move… at least until we gained independence.

A great many of the colonists were reluctantly dragged along by the pull of events. Again and again, they tried to reconcile with England, but Lord North’s government only responded by force each time. A few shrewd English politicians, fully aware how divided the rebels were, advocated negotiations which would only divide them further. They saw no need to use force at all. North repudiated all these suggestions, and King George III wasn’t interested in subtlety anyway.

After England declared a commercial blockage of virtually the entire East Coast and ignored the so-called Olive Branch Petition, the delegates to the Continental Congress moved rapidly towards a declaration of independence. Public opinion shifted dramatically in a matter of weeks. I think many folks who were otherwise moderates felt they had no choice but to go along:

• They lived in America - was it really practical to move to England?
• Their families were in America
• England’s increasingly harsh measures were, in essence, a death-blow to hopes for reconciliation and a recipe for economic suicide for Americans. They could either submit to England, or open trade with other nations - a step that was virtually tantamount to a declaration of independence anyway!
• What other choice was there, but to choose independence?