You Say You Want a Revolution…
September 2nd, 2009
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about what it would take for full-fledged revolution to break out in this country. Understand I’m not just talking about a revolution in the generic sense of radical sociological change. I’m talking about people literally taking up arms against their government because they are no longer willing to stand idly by in the face of tyranny and injustice. Now let me be clear, I’m in no way advocating such a thing, only pondering its prospect. Here’s why.
Americans are becoming increasingly outraged about the growing expansion of governmental control over the private sector. People are afraid. They fear government intrusion into their private lives and the loss of personal freedoms. They’re worried about the exploding deficit and the increased inflation it will bring. They’re overwhelmed by the mountain of debt and the crippling effect it is having on the US economy. But worst of all, they are outraged that their elected officials seem disinterested in hearing their concerns and desires, particularly when they are at odds with an expansionist agenda.
I’m reminded of a passage from the Declaration of Independence:
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to 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.
If you look at the United Nations this year, there are 192 nations at the UN. Do you know that America is the only nation in the world that doesn’t average a revolution every thirty to forty years? We kinda take it for granted. We just assume that stability is natural but stability is NOT natural. With the polarization of American politics and the growing public unrest one wonders if American exceptionalism in that regard is about to come to an end.
Proverbs 24:21-22 says, “My son, fear the LORD and the king; Do not associate with those given to change; For their calamity will rise suddenly, And who knows the ruin those two can bring?” Scripture tells us that both the Lord and our government officials are to be revered since both have the power to punish the rebellious. It’s for that reason that we are exhorted not to even associate with those who would overthrow the government. But how then should we be true to a government that is against the wisdom and righteousness of God? Is there a line in the sand that would compel the believer in Christ to seek “to alter or to abolish” their government. And for that matter were the founding fathers correct in their rebellion against the King of England.
In Romans 13:1-3 we read “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.” There are those who would use this as a proof text that the American Revolution was unbiblical. I say it proves just the opposite. If authorities are from God and are instituted by God, by what means are unholy governments removed and righteous governments established. Who can deny the hand of God on 200 plus years of American history? Who can deny the fact that Americans have done more to further the Kingdom of God than any other people in the history of the church? Without question that’s God’s blessing.
History tells us that in the decades leading up to the Revolution most of New England’s pulpits were filled with men who were solidly behind the resistance of the colonies. In fact every right set forth in the Declaration had been preached from the American pulpits prior to its conception. Did you know that half the signers of the Declaration had some form of seminary training? Being 200 years removed from of the context of their grievances it is not inconceivable that a good deal of their experience has been lost in the historical record. It’s easy for us to stand in criticism over circumstances we cannot hope to fully comprehend. However, we would be remiss if we could not at least acknowledge that men of good will did what they believed with all of their hearts God would have them do.
In Acts chapter 5 Peter and John were brought before the ruling authorities in Israel for disobeying a command not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus:
And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men” – Acts 5:27-29.
Have we reached that point in time where it is our duty “to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for [our] future security.” Even the founding fathers agreed that “governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;” and that “mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable.” I’m not sure we’ve come anywhere near the level of tyranny that compelled them to act as they did. But if fear of God puts us at odds with fear of the king, we know that God is preeminent regardless of the consequences. We must obey God and know that the outcome is in His hands.
September 4th, 2009 at 10:39 am
John MacArthur leads the list of those who would say that Romans 13 causes us to see the American Revolution as unbiblical. That’s a bitter pill to swallow, given that we are patriotic Americans, but I’m not sure he’s wrong. But without wading into that too deeply, you have to at least acknowledge, Don, that you’re building your argument, not on Scripture, but on circumstance, with your “who can deny” questions. Scripture is replete with God blessing imperfect people who sometimes make wrong decisions, and so I don’t take “God’s hand of blessing” as any evidence for the rightness of the Revolution.
Further, I think it a big stretch to marshal Acts 5 in support of revolution. We have to be careful to draw the right parallels when applying Scripture. Peter and John were placed, by the authorities, in a cut-and-dried, obey-God-or-obey-men position. To do one was to not do the other: period. In that circumstance, our responsibility is, of course, quite clear: we must obey God. A parallel might be if the government (a la “Science Czar” John Holdren’s thinking of the 1970’s) were to demand a woman submit to a forced abortion: that would be a clear either/or circumstance, and to submit to man would be wrong there. But how elastic can that Scripture be? I’d suggest extreme caution.
That said (he said, sounding like he’s contradicting himself), I do wrestle with some of the same questions and concerns as you’ve expressed. What about this healthcare debacle? Would a tax revolt be Scripturally-justified if taxpayers are forced to fund abortion against their consciences? I think that’s a fair question, one which could at least conceivably fit the strictures of Acts 5.
Summing up: I don’t think it’s easy to make a Scriptural case for revolution, the good intents of the Founding Fathers, and preachers of the day aside (chances are, some of those same preachers held slaves, you know). But it’s a question that certainly is fitting to begin to consider; on that point, we clearly agree.
September 4th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
“I don’t take ‘God’s hand of blessing’ as any evidence for the rightness of the Revolution.” Wow, that’s an amazing statement.
“Blessings are on the head of the righteous, But violence covers the mouth of the wicked” – Proverbs 10:6.
“A good man obtains favor from the LORD, but a man of evil devices he condemns” – Proverbs 12:2.
“The house of the wicked will be destroyed, but the tent of the upright will flourish” – Proverbs 14:11.
You know I have a great deal of respect for John MacArthur. It’s generally pretty hard to argue with much of anything he has to say. Nonetheless I dare say that the brightest theological minds in America during the time leading up to the Revolution would have taken issue with his assessment. As I have stated, it’s easy for us to sit in judgment over events that took place over 230 years ago. Our perspective is radically different today then it was back then. Let me give you a couple of examples.
It is generally accepted that the colonies were dependent on England for their survival when in reality there is little research to support this. American independence from England can be traced all the way back to the Puritans. Within a generation of their founding, the colonies were being run by men who had been born in America and never experienced what it was like to live under a king. The only government they had ever known was pure democracy. American independence had been established nearly a century before England decided to put an end to it.
Something else. One of the laws passed by the King of England that was in place for decades was that if you lived in an English speaking colony it was illegal to print any Bible in the English language. Within a year after the British were defeated at Yorktown the very first English language Bible rolled off the presses in America.
You may not agree with the Revolution. But if we believe there is no authority except from God, shouldn’t we also agree that America could not exist unless it had been instituted by God? And couldn’t we further agree that men of good will did what they believed with all of their hearts God would have them do, even to the extent that they were willing to die for the sake of their convictions?
September 6th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Really not so sure what you find so amazing about the statement you mention; God makes the rain fall upon the just and the unjust, and David the psalmist laments the way the wicked seem to prosper and the godly are persecuted. Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris have clearly prospered by the atheist diatribes, and many faithful Christians are martyred. With these things in mind, it seems unremarkable to suggest that the blessing of God upon America isn’t necessarily a sign that the American Revolution was in accordance with His moral will (and do remember to separate God’s moral from his sovereign will). I certainly believe that those Proverbs constitute general truths–as they were given to illustrate–but not to serve as absolute, in-every-situation guarantees. We must read them for what they were intended to be.
I have not reached an opinion, contrary to what my words may seem to suggest, about the rightness of the Revolution. I do think that Johnny Mac makes some persuasive arguments, that’s all. I would simply suggest that it’s easy to justify it, in hindsight, in a variety of ways, but if we were faced with the same set of circumstances, I’m just not sure…
Finally, I can agree with your final paragraph if we can agree, as I suggest above, not to confuse the moral will of God and His sovereign will. Yes, America was instituted by God, according to Romans 13–but so was Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Mao’s China, even Hitler’s Third Reich. These are all true in the sense of His sovereign will, but certainly not all true in the sense of His moral. And of course I can agree with your final statement, adding only that the best of men are men at best.
September 7th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
I’m happy we are able to agree on at least some level, despite your devotion to MacArthor’s view on this issue, but I wonder if you’ve taken time to examine any other theological perspectives. During the Reformation the topic of civil disobedience and resistance to governing authorities was directly addressed by theologians such as John Calvin, Martin Luther, Huldreich Zwingli, and numerous others. They made some persuasive arguments as well that would tend to disagree with MacArther’s theology on the Revolution. There’s a recent article by David Barton founder and president of WallBuilders entitled The American Revolution: Was it an Act of Biblical Rebellion? It discusses at length the biblical principles that lead the Founding Fathers to take a stand against the King of England. I can tell you that they most certainly did not believe they were in violation of New Testament principles, nor did they believe that “any blessings God has bestowed on America have come in spite of that disobedience by the Founding Fathers” and by the way neither do I.
September 7th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
And I don’t doubt what you say about the Founding Fathers; we have enough problems agreeing on what the Bible teaches on many subjects even today, so it’s not surprising that on this issue, there’s not unanimity, and I would of course hope that they acted in keeping with what they BELIEVED was right. My only caveat would be that people in certain situations are quick to justify their positions–we’ve both been in ministry long enough to know that this is true, that sometimes peoples’ beliefs are colored by their circumstances.
And no, I’ve not really taken a lot of time to wrassle through the perspectives of a lot of theologians on the issue of civil disobedience–but the way things are going in America, perhaps that would be time well-spent, eh?