Biblical Approach to an Oppressive Government

I don’t know Trinidad’s history or government well enough to give a specific answer. However, in the U.S.A., our laws ultimately require us to subject ourselves to the Constitution. If one of our Presidents declared martial law or monarchy, the law of my land allows me to resist with force (2nd Amendment). But the 2nd Amendment implies that such armed resistance should be within an organized militia (presumably under the authority of my state).

That being said, I should focus on my eternal mission. If my efforts to produce societal change are compatible with the eternal goal of my personal sanctification and winning others to Christ, I should proceed. However, if my efforts to produce societal change are competitive with my eternal goals, I should not allow myself to be distracted by temporal persuits.

Because we as Christians are admonished to obey God rather than men, we still meet secretly as a church. However, we have also been approached by an opposition group that is preparing to rise up and overthrow the current regime and restore the democracy the Tridians so much enjoyed for so long. In light of the fact that Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 both tell us that leaders are ordained by God and we should be obedient to those that rule, we are struggling with a biblical approach to this opposition group.

1. Is it Biblical for a Christian to participate in overthrowing that which God has ordained?

2. Is there a Biblical precedent for such activity?

3. Should Christians really be political pacifists?

There are many more questions, but that is a place for us to start.

1. No. Do you see Paul - anywhere - preaching any kind of unlawful activity to depose Nero or Jesus trying to get Pilate removed from office? How about David taking matters into his own hands and killing Saul when he had opportunity?

2. No.

3. If what you mean by political pacifists are people who are not involved in politics, then no, I don’t think that we should be - Paul was not afraid to use his citizenship to ensure that he was not unjustly punished and that he recv’d a fair trial for criminal charges.

I think it would completely depend on the form of gov’t of that country. If one of the purposes of gov’t is to punish evildoers, and a wicked man uses deception and extortion to gain power, then I think it might be acceptable for Christians to play a part in seeing that this person is removed. Conniving with the Rebel Alliance to do so might be taking that too far, though. I think the Christian’s focus should still be serving God whatever the current political climate, but there is more than one way to skin a dictator.

of the underground/unregistered Evangelical Christian-Baptists of the Soviet Union as an answer to some of the questions above.

Speaking from an Anglo-American perspective, I’d try to take a neutral stance. On the whole, I wouldn’t snitch out either side to the other. But that would get me shot either way.

[wbarkema] Rob, that answers the questions of should a group of believers still organize and meet as a church. But what about joining a revolution against the current government?

[Rob Fall] Look to the example of the underground/unregistered Evangelical Christian-Baptists of the Soviet Union as an answer to some of the questions above.

I think it’s wise to look directly to the Bible for the answer. Peter writes to a group of people who were scattered across the known world. These believers lived in potentially volatile social and political situations and his instruction to them was to be focused on outward testimony. Depending on when I Peter was written, the believers reading it were quite possibly under the rule of the emperor Nero. Whoever it may have been, it is clear that the believers were driven abroad by the ruling authorities, and yet Peter writes the following:

Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

- I Peter 2:13-17

Honor the emperor? I think the message Peter is trying to get across is crystal clear. We are not to be swayed by current socio-political events. Our allegiance is to Christ and as followers of Christ we are to submit ourselves to the existing government, even when the existing government is corrupt (as it was in the days of Peter). Jesus made this concise statement, “My kingdom is not of this world.”

One quick opinion (and it is merely that) - the reason many evangelical Christians would contradict what I’ve just written is because their view of future events doesn’t coincide with ours. If our goal is to in one form or another usher Christ’s kingdom into this present age, how depressing would it be to watch this present age go down in flames? Also, if you’d like to watch me pull out a soapbox real fast, create a thread and attempt to defend the statement that “America is a Christian nation.”

And one fun exercise where I will refer to actual events that have transpired recently: We are told to be subject to those in authority over us. If you live in Texas where there have been one or two whisperings of secession in months past and Texas hypothetically did decide to do just that, would you be subject to the new government of Texas or the United States government? Not that it would happen or that it even matters biblically - just a thought I had a while back. :)

I believe the Brothers pretty much followed your thinking on the matter and on the same basis (I have the Englsih translation of their Statement of Faith available as a rtf file). And they did so to the point of martyrdom. I was only trying to give a “modern” example of a Biblical truth.

[ncgolden]

[Rob Fall] Look to the example of the underground/unregistered Evangelical Christian-Baptists of the Soviet Union as an answer to some of the questions above.

I think it’s wise to look directly to the Bible for the answer. Peter writes to a group of people who were scattered across the known world. These believers lived in potentially volatile social and political situations and his instruction to them was to be focused on outward testimony. Depending on when I Peter was written, the believers reading it were quite possibly under the rule of the emperor Nero. Whoever it may have been, it is clear that the believers were driven abroad by the ruling authorities, and yet Peter writes the following:

Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

- I Peter 2:13-17

SNIP

[wbarkema] If we are to believe our history books, the United States was a product of rebellion from the government due to religious oppression, purportedly by godly men. Was this wrong or right?

One of the rallying cries of the American Revolution: “No taxation without representation”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representation

[wbarkema]…. was it right for the colonists to rebel and eventually set up their own government.

We could debate it http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/382900.html until the cows come home . In my view “no”

Discussed multiple times on Old Sharper Iron. Eg.

http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=8906

As I understand the situation, the colonists were initially asserting their rights as free born subjects of the British Crown. They viewed such rights as having been established over the centuries up to and including the Glorious Revolution. To the best of my knowledge none of the duly elected and well established colonial legislative bodies took a loyalist stand. The governors of the various colonies are a different matter.

As for the genuine believers, huh? While the overall colonial population was split 1/3 Continental, 1/3 Loyalist, 1/3 Neutral, Baptists (especially in the Carolinas) were solidly in the Continental column due to the non-enforcement of the Acts of Toleration passed by Westminster and signed by HM the King.

So, the question becomes which government are you going to be loyal to, London or the duly elected colonial bodies. My point is they “didn’t rebel and set up their own governments.” They just stayed loyal to there local authorities and told London to take a hike.

but i don’t think this is a question for the church (leaders?) to decide. i think it’s “every man for himself” with the Holy Spirit … if we can stand allowing that freedom to another brother :)

I actually wrote an article on my blog (the Reformed Baptist Blog) on February 6, entitled, “The American Revolution: Was it Biblical? ” I tried to deal with various arguments in favor of rebellion but concluded in the end that is was wrong.

[Rob Fall] As I understand the situation, the colonists were initially asserting their rights as free born subjects of the British Crown. They viewed such rights as having been established over the centuries up to and including the Glorious Revolution. To the best of my knowledge none of the duly elected and well established colonial legislative bodies took a loyalist stand. The governors of the various colonies are a different matter.

As for the genuine believers, huh? While the overall colonial population was split 1/3 Continental, 1/3 Loyalist, 1/3 Neutral, Baptists (especially in the Carolinas) were solidly in the Continental column due to the non-enforcement of the Acts of Toleration passed by Westminster and signed by HM the King.

So, the question becomes which government are you going to be loyal to, London or the duly elected colonial bodies. My point is they “didn’t rebel and set up their own governments.” They just stayed loyal to there local authorities and told London to take a hike.

I guess that you would also say that the Confederate states were also right to rebel against the United States. The question there was also which government were they going to be loyal to. The problem I have with what you state is that much of it is based on social contract theory which I do not find in the Bible. We can play semantics on the relationship between citizen and government and whether we are ruled by a constitution or elected officials, but the commands of Scripture are clear when it comes to how to respond to government, including oppressive governments such as the Roman Empire. The option is obedience to the government unless obedience means disobeying God. We obey God first, but even then as we see with Daniel and Shadrach, Meshack, and Abednego, we should be prepared to take the consequences of disobeying the government. As for the American Revolution, the issue was representation or the lack of it in England and increasing measures by England to reign in the colonies. The colonies rebelled against these measures. Although I doubt the rebellion had much to do with avoiding religious persecution, religious persecution does not justify a rebellion to overthrow a nation.

Tyork,

I couldn’t agree more, as my aforementioned article (“The American Revolution: Was it Biblical? “) demonstrates:

http://reformedbaptist.blogspot.com/2010/02/american-revolution-was-it-…

In this article, I attempt to address various arguments Christians have made in an attempt to support involvement in the American revolution. The primary focus, of course, is on the proper understanding of Romans 13. Hope this helps.

Keith

A. There was no “a nation.” There were thirteen (independent of each other) colonies. In the early days, they looked at themselves as simply exercising their rights as free born Protestant subjects of the British crown.

B. I’m not going to re-fight the ACW. Other than to say the south should have challenged Jackson during the Nullification Controversy. They would have stood a better chance.

C. The supremacy of Parliament had been established. Remember Charles the First and James the Second of England and the Seventh of Scotland. Not to mention the developments under Queen Anne and Georges I and II. The colonial legislatures viewed themselves as the local equivalent of London. Sorry, but the development of the English constitutional monarchy, from the time of the Magna Carta through the reign of George III, works against your position. It had been settled over the last hundred+ years that English\British monarchs were not absolute like their continental counterparts. IOW, there was no Divine Right of Kings in Great Britain. Kings who had tried to practice that Right either lost their head (Charles I) or lost their throne (James II/VII).

If I’m a Virginian the question becomes which government do I obey, the King through the Parliament in London or the House of Burgesses in Williamsburg.

If I’m a South Carolinian, do I support a government that operates in direct contravention of the law (the Acts of Toleration) or do I support the other side. You have to ask yourself why did these Godly men present a unified front when their neighbors were split into thirds.

[tyork]

I guess that you would also say that the Confederate states were also right to rebel against the United States. The question there was also which government were they going to be loyal to. The problem I have with what you state is that much of it is based on social contract theory which I do not find in the Bible. We can play semantics on the relationship between citizen and government and whether we are ruled by a constitution or elected officials, but the commands of Scripture are clear when it comes to how to respond to government, including oppressive governments such as the Roman Empire. The option is obedience to the government unless obedience means disobeying God. We obey God first, but even then as we see with Daniel and Shadrach, Meshack, and Abednego, we should be prepared to take the consequences of disobeying the government. As for the American Revolution, the issue was representation or the lack of it in England and increasing measures by England to reign in the colonies. The colonies rebelled against these measures. Although I doubt the rebellion had much to do with avoiding religious persecution, religious persecution does not justify a rebellion to overthrow a nation.

Rob,

I appreciate your perspective, even though I don’t think I can agree with you on some things.

There was no “a nation.” There were thirteen (independent of each other) colonies. In the early days, they looked at themselves as simply exercising their rights as free born Protestant subjects of the British crown.

When tyork referred to “a nation,” it doesn’t seem to me that he was referring to the thirteen colonies as such, but rather to the larger political body of which they were a part and under whose authority they were, namely the government in England. Thus you correctly point out that “they looked at themselves as simply exercising their rights as free born Protestant subjects of the British crown.” But the real issue here is not what they thought their rights were as English subjects, but rather what right the Bible may or may not grant them to rebel against the governing authorities that were over them. Supposing it was true that they had a right to rebel against the government under English law (a point I doubt can be shown), this would not mean that Christian citizens should have done so. For, if the Bible teaches that it is wrong to rebel against the governing authorities, then none of these authorities can legitimately grant such a right in the first place.

The supremacy of Parliament had been established. Remember Charles the First and James the Second of England and the Seventh of Scotland. Not to mention the developments under Queen Anne and Georges I and II. The colonial legislatures viewed themselves as the local equivalent of London.

I don’t follow you here. I know of no evidence that the governing authorities in the individual colonies ever viewed themselves as the “equivalent of London,” if by that you mean that they saw themselves as possessing authority equal to that of Parliament. To my knowledge, they never questioned the right of Parliament, for example, to pass laws governing the colonies and to which the colonies must submit. The issue was rather that they questioned the “constitutionality” or fairness of some of these laws.

If I’m a Virginian the question becomes which government do I obey, the King through the Parliament in London or the House of Burgesses in Williamsburg.

If I’m a South Carolinian, do I support a government that operates in direct contravention of the law (the Acts of Toleration) or do I support the other side. You have to ask yourself why did these Godly men present a unified front when their neighbors were split into thirds.

These are exactly the issues I address in the article I mentioned in an earlier post. Here, it seems to me, you are assuming the view that sates that we may overthrow the government if in doing so we obey an interpositional authority. Here is my response to that point:

Second, some Christians make the argument that we may overthrow the government if in doing so we obey an interpositional authority. That is, if we are subject to a lesser authority which rebels against a higher authority, then we may obey that lesser authority by joining in the rebellion. And the magistrates in early America, it is argued, constituted just such lesser authorities.

But notice that this argument assumes that it would be right for a lesser authority to seek to overthrow a higher authority in the first place. But what if it isn’t right? Does Paul assume in Romans 13 that it would be right? Or does his position indicate that it would be wrong? It appears to me that it would indeed be wrong, because it would in any case entail resistance of a God ordained authority, and such resistance would be considered sin by Paul. In fact, couldn’t I argue on the basis of Romans 13 that, when a lesser authority requires me to disobey and resist a higher authority, I must disobey that lesser authority because it is requiring me to sin against God?

If you want to read the entire article, you can do so here:

http://reformedbaptist.blogspot.com/2010/02/american-revolution-was-it-…

is all I’m trying to lay out. Many times we tend to view historical events through a 2010, American, post Appomattox Court House, set of lens. My point about the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution is if one takes the position that the colonialists were in error, then the Parliamentarians (ECW) and the anti-James II\VII (GR) were in error. At least, George III didn’t loose his head like Charles I.

I haven’t read the material in years. But IIRC, the colonial legislatures did view them selves as being equal with Westminster at least on the matter of raising taxes within their jurisdictions. London made the mistake of not raising regular formations in the colonies. Instead they sent regulars from Great Britain and only allowed the colonies militia formations. If the troops had been local, there would have been much less friction. Not to mention the merchantilist trade policies followed by London.

I would also think men like Witherspoon and Leland would not have joined the Continental Cause if the issue was as clear cut as you (IMHO) make it out to be.

I see no reason not to see the issue as clear cut, given the clear teaching of Scripture. Interestingly, however, any evidence you have been citing appears to be consistently focused on the cultural and political situation of the early colonies rather than on what Scripture does or does not teach. But the primary issue is whether or not Scriptural teaching on the matter is clear cut or not, isn’t it?

Now, I don’t mean to say that we should ignore the cultural and political situation in which we apply Scriptural teaching. We definitely should take it in to consideration. We just shouldn’t let such considerations overwhelm our reading of Scripture to the point that we can no longer see what it says and to the point where we make excuses for disobeying it (however high-minded and just such excuses may sound to us.) Sadly, however, this appears to be exactly what many of the colonists did when joining in the revolution. At least that is what the views that were expressed at the time concerning the meaning of Romans 13 appear to me to be.

I simply assume that Godly men like John Witherspoon of Princeton (who though a Scotsman opposed the ‘45 Rising) and John Leland properly interpreted Romans 13. I am trying to give the reasons why they would. When (according to Armitage) the Baptists throughout the 13 Colonies were solidly in the Continental camp and the rest of the population was divided into thirds (Patriot, Loyalist, Neutral), I assume they knew what they were doing. Unless of course you want to put them in the same category as the PTSS folks in Muenster.

[Pastork] I see no reason not to see the issue as clear cut, given the clear teaching of Scripture. Interestingly, however, any evidence you have been citing appears to be consistently focused on the cultural and political situation of the early colonies rather than on what Scripture does or does not teach. But the primary issue is whether or not Scriptural teaching on the matter is clear cut or not, isn’t it?

Now, I don’t mean to say that we should ignore the cultural and political situation in which we apply Scriptural teaching. We definitely should take it in to consideration. We just shouldn’t let such considerations overwhelm our reading of Scripture to the point that we can no longer see what it says and to the point where we make excuses for disobeying it (however high-minded and just such excuses may sound to us.) Sadly, however, this appears to be exactly what many of the colonists did when joining in the revolution. At least that is what the views that were expressed at the time concerning the meaning of Romans 13 appear to me to be.

By these I mean, a situation in Colony of Virginia in the mid-18th century is different than a situation in the Commonwealth of Virginia in the mid 19th Century and most certainly different than in the early 21st Century. Further, how Romans 13 is applied most certainly is specific to the then current circumstances. Remember, many of the Puritan divines we look to sided with Parliment in the ECW and the Glorious Revolution. One king lost his head and his grandson (and his heirs) lost his throne.

Simply put, how do you apply Romans 13 to the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution? Keeping in mind, the GR (1688-89) was less than a hundred years in the past from 1776

A couple of relevant wiki articles:

[URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution] The Glorious Revolution[/URL]

[URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_of_New_England] the Dominon of New England[/URL]

“We in the colonies are willing to pay taxes to the Crown, but we insist on our right as Britons to be taxed only with our consent, given either in person to the King, or in our legislature through our elected representatives. If the Crown wishes to tax us, let it ask the colonial legislatures for revenue, explaining the need and the amount desired, and we will act on it. But don’t try to tax us via acts in the British Parliament, where we have no seats.” For details, see Edmund S. Morgan and Helen Morgan: The Stamp Act Crisis,

http://www.amazon.com/Stamp-Crisis-Edmund-Helen-Morgan/dp/B000MS28AA/re… and Edmund S. Morgan Prologue to Revolution: Sources and Documents on the Stamp Act Crisis, 1764-1766, http://www.amazon.com/Prologue-Revolution-Sources-Documents-1764-1766/d…, passim.

The claim that the colonies wouldn’t pay taxes was a piece of anti-rebel propaganda exploded long ago. In fact, when the Prime Minister began talking about taxing the colonies, colonial representatives in London asked him how much he thought was required, and what it would be for, and he refused to tell them. The attempt to establish the principle that London could do as it pleased with the colonies was more important than the money ostensibly sought.

Stephen M. St. Onge

I am aware of such things, but I still say they are beside the point if the Scriptures do not allow us to rebel against our government. You can keep posting these things if you want, but I will just keep reminding you that the issue for me is, “What does Scripture say?” If you want to give me some evidence that the Founders were right to revolt, then give me evidence of any Scriptural arguments they may have made that demonstrate that I have misread the Bible on this point. So I will simply reiterate what I said before:

I see no reason not to see the issue as clear cut, given the clear teaching of Scripture. Interestingly, however, any evidence you have been citing appears to be consistently focused on the cultural and political situation of the early colonies rather than on what Scripture does or does not teach. But the primary issue is whether or not Scriptural teaching on the matter is clear cut or not, isn’t it?

Now, I don’t mean to say that we should ignore the cultural and political situation in which we apply Scriptural teaching. We definitely should take it in to consideration. We just shouldn’t let such considerations overwhelm our reading of Scripture to the point that we can no longer see what it says and to the point where we make excuses for disobeying it (however high-minded and just such excuses may sound to us.) Sadly, however, this appears to be exactly what many of the colonists did when joining in the revolution. At least that is what the views that were expressed at the time concerning the meaning of Romans 13 appear to me to be.

Your response to this was basically to say that you “simply assume that Godly men like John Witherspoon of Princeton (who though a Scotsman opposed the ‘45 Rising) and John Leland properly interpreted Romans 13.” Well, I would like more that your assumptions. In the article I wrote I tried to deal with several alternative readings of Romans 13 that were offered during the Revolutionary period. Do you know of arguments that I missed? Was I wrong in my critique?

Frankly, I find it hard to believe that you are willing simply to assume that the Founders understood Scripture correctly with no clear arguments to support that they did, in fact, do so. This is, after all, the issue for a Christian, isn’t it?

I’ve read you blog article. It doesn’t answer my position. The Continentals and their legislatures were as correct in their position as the Parliamentarians were in the ECW and the Glorious Revolution. To deny the Continentals legitimacy. you also deny supporters of Parliament in the ECW and GR theirs.

One problem I see in this discussion is differing presuppositions. I am not a Reformed Baptist. I am a Historic Northern Regular Baptist.

I’ve read you blog article. It doesn’t answer my position. The Continentals and their legislatures were as correct in their position as the Parliamentarians were in the ECW and the Glorious Revolution. To deny the Continentals legitimacy. you also deny supporters of Parliament in the ECW and GR theirs.

What is your position? You seem to be assuming that those who participated in the English Civil War(s) and the Glorious Revolution were right in doing so and that, therefore, those who participated in the American Revolution were also right to do so? Is this your position? If so, then I would just point out that you have offered no Biblical support for it at all. And I would also point out that you haven’t demonstrated that the situations were actually parallel, as you apparently assume they were.

As for my own position, I would argue that, based upon Romans 13, Christians who took part in the efforts of Parliament to overthrow or circumvent the authority of the king were wrong to do so. This doesn’t mean that I do not appreciate the fact that in God’s providence a lot of good came about as a result of each of these wars. But that is a separate issue. That God can bring good from an thing does not mean that the thing itself was therefore good.

One problem I see in this discussion is differing presuppositions. I am not a Reformed Baptist. I am a Historic Northern Regular Baptist.

Hmmm …..? Do you have different presuppositions about the nature of Scripture as our ultimate authority? The Doctrinal Statement of this forum states belief in “the plenary Divine inspiration of the Scriptures in the original languages, [and] their consequent inerrancy and infallibility, and as the Word of God, the supreme and final authority in faith and life.” These are the presuppositions that are guiding me in this discussion. And this is why I am saying that we need to look to Scripture and apply it to the situation of the American Revolution, not try to draw parallels with other wars to avoid doing this, or assume that Christians who fought it in must have interpreted Scripture correctly so that we don’t have to, etc. I appreciate much of what the Puritans wrote and did, but they are not my authority. I also appreciate much of what my Baptist forefathers in early America wrote and did, but they are not my authority either. Scripture is my authority, and yours too (ostensibly), so why not make a Scriptural case rather than keep citing what you assume must have been right thinking in previous generations?

Yes, you read my position correctly. Our difference is I view Romans 13 as being able to deal with various forms of government not just an absolute monarchy. Simply put, I’m a Roundhead and you’re a Cavalier. IMO, the English long before the Civil War had put limits on the powers of the Crown to rule autocratically (e.g. the Magna Carta). What was Parliament to do roll over and play dead when the king acted unconstitutionally or when he endangered the realm by his religious loyalties. I think not. If you want to blame any one for violating Romans 13:1, blame the barons at Runnymede.

on the subject of the American Revolution

[Squire Robertsson] If one can not properly understand the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s without a knowledge of the preceding hundred years of American history, the same can be said of the AmRev.