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?

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.

“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?

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.