The American Revolution

Perhaps you don't know it, living in modern times as you do with its worship of freedom, individuality, and democracy, but there has been, in some corners of the room, disagreements about the American Revolution we celebrate today. Most argue that it was good, moral, even Christian. Others ... not so much. The question isn't as clear as one might think (if one might think at all). A good number of the Founding Fathers were not, in fact, theists, but deists and, as such, not, in fact, Christians. They held Christian moral values, but not Christian doctrines. So they wouldn't be qualified to argue about whether or not the Revolution was Christian. They would argue that it was moral. But was it Christian? Was it biblical?

The primary point of contention is Romans 13.

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. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment (Rom 13:1-2).

You see the question now, right? The Founding Fathers declared:

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 American Revolution, interestingly enough, was premised on the concept of a Creator. That would put a stick in the spokes of modern morality. The basic notion was that the Creator has given us rights that a government can secure for us. A government owes its existence and power to the people governed. Thus, if the government fails to properly secure the God-given rights to which the people are entitled, that government can be abolished and replaced.

And most (nearly all?) Americans would shout "Hurrah!" (if they had that kind of a shout in their vocabulary). But, the question remains. Is it true?

The notion that the government derives "their just powers from the consent of the governed" seems in direct opposition to "there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." So, who gives the government power; the governed, or God? And if "those that exist have been instituted by God", under what circumstances can they be abolished? Paul argues that "whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed." How do we correlate that statement with "it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"?

The problem at this point is that it is not possible to align the Declaration of Independence with the plain reading of Romans 13. The problem at this point is that a plain reading of Romans 13 does not offer solutions to evil governments. That is, if you take the passage at face value, you would have to assume that the overthrow of a Hussein or a Hitler would be evil itself. It appears that we either side with God against removing evil governments and, thus, perpetuate sin, or we move against evil governments in opposition to God. Neither is a good option. So it looks like we have a dilemma.

Philippe du Plessis Mornay in 1579 argued in his essay, "A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants", that Romans 13's description was not about individual governments, but about government in general. God ordained that there would be governments rather than anarchy. When governments fail to govern, they could be removed because they weren't operating in the role God designed for them. And we can see how this would be so. In World War II Germany, for instance, it was illegal to harbor Jews. Christians did it as a matter of Christian duty. This would be in direct opposition to a face-value reading of Romans 13. Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego defied the government ruling to worship the king and God defended them for it (Dan 3). Rahab hid the Israeli spies and was listed in the Halls of Faith for it (Heb 11:31). The book of Judges is full people raised up by God to overthrow the existing oppressive governments (Heb 11:32-33). So it would seem clear that submission to every government law and power is not biblically mandated.

Another key component in the Christians' view of the American Revolution is found in Paul's epistle to the Galatians. "Brethren, ye have been called unto liberty" (Gal 5:13). Liberty in Christ, to be sure, but wouldn't that also include freedom from tyranny? At least, that was a popular theme among preachers at the time.

So, where do we stand now? You have to decide. Perhaps Romans 13:1-2 is not clear enough for you. Perhaps it's more vague than it appears. Perhaps it is, as many of the Christians in the Revolution argued, just a reference to "authority", and if you submit to an authority rather than to mere anarchy, you're okay. I don't see it. Perhaps freedom is the overarching rule of God. I don't see it. To me that would make the passage unreadable and negate any real sense of it. So I have to figure out on what basis I would oppose (and go to prison for if necessary) obeying laws that require the deaths of unborn children or the celebration of immorality (as examples of human laws that violate biblical commands). I'm personally having a hard time justifying in biblical terms the American Revolution, so would I also oppose the elimination of the Third Reich (as an example of an overthrow of a government)? Some of it is moot, of course. I did not participate in either. And I'm too old to go to actual war against any government. But I will oppose laws that command me to violate Scripture and I do oppose the government's assault on religious freedom and biblical principles. So how do I do that? For those of you who have no problems with it, how do you read Romans 13 to coincide with your position? No one is exempt from issues here.
________
Postscript: Consider 1 Peter 2:13-17.

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.

The requirement is that we be subject to "every human institution" and figure out how to overthrow them when necessary. The link to "Fear God" and "Honor the emperor" is there, and calculating when "Fear God" requires the removal of that emperor is difficult. Particularly when the next verses in the text required slaves to be "subject to your masters" and "not only to the good and gentle, but also to the unjust" (1 Peter 2:18) and commends us for enduring sorrow while suffering unjustly (1 Peter 2:19). Put that in your calculations.