I have heard more than one person argue that the American Revolution was biblically unjustifiable.
The argument usually invokes one of the following passages: Matthew 22:20-21,
Romans 13:1-7, or 1 Peter 2:13-7, and takes the form:
We are to obey the human institutions of government.
The Crown and Parliament were the legitimate government.
Game over: colonists lose, Crown wins.
There are several problems with this argument, which arrogantly presumes to "solve" with a simple syllogism a crisis which humbled far greater men. I will attempt to give the argument from the other side, as it were.
To begin, the legislatures in the colonies were well established, both known to and approved by the British Crown. More importantly, the (unwritten) British constitution was ambiguous as to the nature of the relationship between the colonial parliaments and Parliament in London.
Was the freedom from taxation except by legislative consent in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 a guarantee of the British right of representation, or of the authority of the Houses of Parliament in London? Did 1689 grant Englishmen the right to be governed by laws of their own consent, or did it grant London the right to govern the empire?
Those in the colonies generally held the former understanding. Consider this resolution (among others) by the "Stamp Act Congress,"
"That all supplies to the crown, being free gifts of the people, it is unreasonable, and inconsistent with the principles and spirit of the British Constitution, for the people of Great Britain to grant to his Majesty the property of the colonies [emphasis mine] ."
The Stamp Act of 1765 was repealed--evidence the colonies could argue tenably that the legitimate governing authority lay in their own legislatures, despite Parliament making equally tenable arguments on its own behalf.
It should be well noted that the Declaration of Independence was not a sudden thing, but the end of a long transatlantic conversation. Its final paragraphs speak of colonial appeals to the king and to the British people regarding the jurisdiction of London.
The great accusation of the Declaration is not that the colonists have had their substance eaten out by taxes and officers, but that the King of Great Britain has undermined the very rule of law in the colonies, obstructing, neglecting and dismantling the legislatures which were their right as British subjects.
Romans 13 does not speak to constitutional questions of legitimacy. It tells us that as individual believers and as a Church, we ought to obey legitimate authority. The Declaration was not petulant rebellion against "the governing authorities" but a last attempt to preserve the rule of law as the Founders understood it.
The argument usually invokes one of the following passages: Matthew 22:20-21,
Romans 13:1-7, or 1 Peter 2:13-7, and takes the form:
We are to obey the human institutions of government.
The Crown and Parliament were the legitimate government.
Game over: colonists lose, Crown wins.
There are several problems with this argument, which arrogantly presumes to "solve" with a simple syllogism a crisis which humbled far greater men. I will attempt to give the argument from the other side, as it were.
To begin, the legislatures in the colonies were well established, both known to and approved by the British Crown. More importantly, the (unwritten) British constitution was ambiguous as to the nature of the relationship between the colonial parliaments and Parliament in London.
Was the freedom from taxation except by legislative consent in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 a guarantee of the British right of representation, or of the authority of the Houses of Parliament in London? Did 1689 grant Englishmen the right to be governed by laws of their own consent, or did it grant London the right to govern the empire?
Those in the colonies generally held the former understanding. Consider this resolution (among others) by the "Stamp Act Congress,"
"That all supplies to the crown, being free gifts of the people, it is unreasonable, and inconsistent with the principles and spirit of the British Constitution, for the people of Great Britain to grant to his Majesty the property of the colonies [emphasis mine] ."
The Stamp Act of 1765 was repealed--evidence the colonies could argue tenably that the legitimate governing authority lay in their own legislatures, despite Parliament making equally tenable arguments on its own behalf.
It should be well noted that the Declaration of Independence was not a sudden thing, but the end of a long transatlantic conversation. Its final paragraphs speak of colonial appeals to the king and to the British people regarding the jurisdiction of London.
The great accusation of the Declaration is not that the colonists have had their substance eaten out by taxes and officers, but that the King of Great Britain has undermined the very rule of law in the colonies, obstructing, neglecting and dismantling the legislatures which were their right as British subjects.
Romans 13 does not speak to constitutional questions of legitimacy. It tells us that as individual believers and as a Church, we ought to obey legitimate authority. The Declaration was not petulant rebellion against "the governing authorities" but a last attempt to preserve the rule of law as the Founders understood it.
Yeah. This is a thorny one for me, too. I'm not settled on a position, but think another solid argument for yours here runs like: perhaps people acting as people should not overrule their civil authorities, per Romans 13. But what about when people are the civil authorities themselves? In that situation, one would think their position requires they seek a more godly government...hence the revolution.
ReplyDeleteAlso...when you note the vast differences between the American and French revolutions, it's apparent that revolutions can be grounded wisely or foolishly.
If we are only obligated to obey legitimate authority, why is St. Paul telling Christians to submit to the rule of Nero?
ReplyDeleteI don't think legitimacy has anything to do with it. We are to obey the authorities that exist. Therefore the Christian thing to do would have been to support the King and refuse to actively participate in open and armed rebellion. Granted, George III was kind of a royal jerk. But he was the king. There had been bad kings before. But in the words of another king, King Lear, "not all the water in the rough-rude sea can wash the balm off an anointed king." Honor the office, and give to it its due.
Now, things change after the Revolution. Now there is a new authority: where before the buck had ultimately stopped at the throne of the English monarch, it now stops at the colonial legislatures for a time, and shortly after that, at the government which was formed under the Articles of Confederation. These became the new authorities. Then the Constitution. Etc.
These thorny questions and tangled lines are the result of the dissolution of monarchy and the exaltation of eighteenth century liberalism with its emphasis on sacrosanct individual rights, chief among which must be the "Right of Revolution" laid out in the Declaration of Independence:
"[W]henever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends (the securement of the unalienable individual rights of man: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; government by consent of the governed), 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."
That right to abolish the government bit. It's just not Biblical. At all. Compare it to this (NB: I just assigned this comparison as homework to my 5-8 grade American History class):
"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves" (Epistle to the Romans 13.1-2).
The problem, Joy, is that the people are never the civil authorities themselves. That is such a legal fiction -- when does that ever exist? That's anarchy; that's no government at all. The King at the time was the ultimate authority, and they transgressed his edict. That is not to say that he wasn't a terrible king. In many respects he was. The Revolution was really probably his fault: he pushed the colonists to the breaking point; he forced them out of his care -- this was what William Pitt the elder and Edmund Burke cautioned both King and Parliament about until the very end. Both of these men were ardent defenders of the colonists as such; they maintained that what King and Parliament had been doing was no way to treat good English colonists. And they were right. But this is a case of conflicting absolutes -- one with which I am satisfied, but which Jody feels the need to resolve: the King ought not to have treated the colonists the way he did, but that does not mean that they had any right to declare independence.
Yes, the American and French revolutions were different, but the distinction between the two is only one of degree. Both uphold a supposed right of the people to abolish their governments which is entirely inconsistent with the precious little which Scripture does have to say about the matter.
For the Christian, there can be no such right, "for there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves."