Was the American Revolution justified?

[Josh]

This is a post from early October 2005:

This subject is in light of a conversation with Steve K. in Germany that I just had on the phone regarding the book 1776.

Earlier, in a discussion of Romans 13:1-7, which states:

13 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

I had said:

"The solution to persecuting emperors in the early church was never revolution. Apollinaris of Laodicea (c.350 AD) and others make the case that this should be condemned.

What do we say about the American Revolution in light of that?

Are there situations that are even worse than Emperial Rome's persecution in which armed uprising is justified? I can't imagine anyone arguing that things were anywhere near as bad for the American colonists as they were for the early Christians under Rome.

Now, I think a case could be made for uprising being justified in a situation like Nazi Germany, which was arguably worse than emperial Rome. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a conscientious Christian, came to the conclusion that joining a conspiracy to kill Hitler was the only moral thing to do.

But, does the American Revolution seem justified by Scripture or the early fathers?"

Thoughts anyone? (I'm baiting Steve, here, but anyone else, join in!)

[hume]

Originally posted Oct. 2005:

There's no wiggle room here: "there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." Your mentioning of Hitler is important, because if you allow for that exception (as I would also), then you've decided that at least one human authority was not "established by God," and you've pretty much opened the door.

I don't know what to say to this really, except that apparently I disagree with Paul's politics. I'd prefer to classify this passage along with his comments about women and the residents of Crete.

As a sincere Roman citizen, Paul's perspective on goverment was perhaps fundamentally different than ours. To him, democracy was a theory (if indeed he ever thought about it at all).

[Josh]

Originally posted Oct. 2005:


Yet how could he have meant under any circumstance when clearly in Jewish history and religious thought there were 'authorities' which God authorized them to overthrow or resist. One thinks of the rebellion under Judas Maccabeus- weren't these rebels held in high regard in Jesus' day? Although, I wonder if some of Paul's Pharisitical thought is coming thru here, being that the Pharisees were probably the most willing of all the Jewish groups to placate the Romans.

[michelle]

Originally posted Oct. 2005:

I think it is important to note a couple of key phrases. "For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong" and "For he is God’s servant to do you good" and even "He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer". If there is an evil ruler, those who do right will fear him/her even though they do right because the ruler is evil. And if a leader is "God's servant" to do "good", then can't one infer that if someone is doing evil he/she is not God's servant because he/she is not doing "good"?? And if a leader is bringing his/her wrath on people who are not wrongdoers, can't one infer that he/she is not God's servant? If these inferences can be made then Paul's statement that we are to follow authority "under any circumstances" is not an absolute.

Just as God told the Isrealites that Levitical law was a "permanent law" (even though they no longer apply because we have Jesus Christ) I think Paul was trying to emphasize to Christians the importance of submitting to authority knowing that it wasn't an absolute. Rather, I think it was something that he had to present as a hard and fast rule to create unity among believers. Also, I think it is somewhat symbollic of the fact that there would be times they would have to struggle under the leadership and to perservere through those times.

Does this mean the American Revolution is justified or not?? I have no idea.

[hume]

Originally posted Oct. 2005:

Good point M. I think you found the big loophole. I still revert to my old literalist upbringing at times

[Josh]

Originally posted Oct. 2005:

Great point, Michelle. You beat me to the punch. I was re-reading the passage and thought- aha- a loophole! I think it's a credible loophole, too. If the ruler isn't fulfilling those God-ordained mandates, then his title is in question.

I think it can be said that all rulers are institued by God in the sense that all rulers are given that power by God- it's their choice whether they abuse it or not and therefore forfeit the title.

Keep in mind that the Roman Emperors from the time of Christ's birth (Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius, with the short exception of the crazed Caligula) were actually quite able and fair-minded emporers who did restrain evil and reward good in large degree. Although Nero had started to rule at the time Romans was written, I believe he started off his Emperorship with a fair amount of promise. No one knew yet what kind of evil he would bring.

Still, after saying all this, we might return to the question of why the early Church was so against rebellion even when they suffered violent persecutions several different times in the first couple centuries.

[steve]

Originally posted Oct. 2005:

You both make good arguments. It's rather difficult to compare being thrown to the lions and being taxed without representation. However, upon retrospect of the actual American revolution, I believe I can see several dimensions to this story. 1)There is the philosophical righteousness of the cause, which you have both already nobely labored. 2) The personal morality which ensued in the several groups involved. The British, the Americans and the Hessians were all Christians and for the most part, behaved as such. It was a gentlemanly war. 3) What God wanted to accomplish apart from all of that. In the american revolution, there seems to be the unmistakeable hand of providence which after a rocky first year, seemed to lead the rebels from one success to another. The were very quick to thank the Lord for his mercy in the matter. And a particuliar point, the for the most moral British nation, conceded the colonies there soveriegnty. (Also in India with Ghandi)

We should not forget the sincere bravery and passion with which George Washington lead the army. If he was wrong from the outset on the morality of the campaign, he was certainly moral personaly within the campaign. Listen to a snippet from the journal of a fellow soldier who was with him at the battle of Trenton as he lead the charge like Gandalf at Helms deep;

"I shall never forget what I felt... when I saw him brave all the dangers of the field and his important life hanging as it were by a single hair with a thousand deaths flying around him. Believe me, I thought not of myself."

His courage and determination strenghthened the resolve of a group of untrained farmers to defeat the most powerful army in the world.
Steve

[krhagan19]

I think that things would be awesome if we were still subjects of the crown. We would probably have devolved by now like Canada and Australia and have the Queen as our head of state but our own Prime Minister. Also we would have universal healthcare, no death penalty and London would be the center of the civilized world, NOT New York, as a result, Bin Laden would have flown Virgin Atlantic or BA jets into MI6 MI5 and 10 Downing, and of course the Houses of Parliament, and our pentagon and world trade center would have been saved.

[Josh]

Well, bad ends don't justify bad means, if one assumes that the revolution was bad means.