Was the American Revolution sinful?

A father explains to his son why the Founding Fathers were justified in overthrowing the rule of King George...

There is a recurring—albeit ill-informed—question in Christian circles regarding Romans 13 (which counsels dutiful subordination to legally established authorities) and the American Revolution: Were the Founding Fathers in sin when they rebelled against King George?

Most recently, my son (a Harvard- and Yale-educated Mayo Clinic doctor who performs heart and lung transplants daily but does not have a lot of time for historiography) asked me for some references he could read to help answer this question, which was raised by some of his friends at church. This is my response:

I am not in my library, and thus not in a good position right now to refer you to works of scholarship, but I can briefly explain the position and why it is incorrect.

Your friends are reading Romans 13 and assuming from its admonition to obey the duly constituted authorities that any rebellion is necessarily wrong. This is incorrect, as follows.

1. Unlawful orders—even of duly constituted authority—may never lawfully be followed. E.g., in the case of the Sanhedrin’s ordering of the apostles to cease preaching Christ, their response was, “We must obey God rather than men.” Likewise, should a leader command the murder of 6 million Jews, or a husband command the abortion of his child, those so ordered not only may not but also must not obey. (Your mother reminds me to note the Egyptian midwives here also.)

2. God Himself shows us repeatedly the lawful overthrow of duly constituted governments, both by conquest and by internal processes. The most relevant of these is David’s displacement of Saul as king of Israel. This took place in two steps: First, the elders of Judah, Benjamin, and Simeon seceded from the united kingdom and established David as king of an independent kingdom of Judah. Later, the elders of the northern tribes elected David as their king also.

This teaches us two things (well, actually, two things relevant to this abbreviated discussion today): First, that in the system of government God personally designed, the legislative body (admittedly a bit less of a Congress and more of a constitutional convention, but elected and representative, which is the principal point) had power to elect and to dismiss kings; and second, that this power was in fact used lawfully, more than once (it comes up again after David’s death as well) and with God’s express approval.

3. In Anglo-American law, a parliament may not tax or otherwise encumber (such as with military service) a jurisdiction that has no representation in that parliament. This, of course, was the principal point of the American Revolution, and the principal constitutional debate within the United Kingdom at the time, as well. The London Parliament asserted its (unlawful and unprecedented) right to legislate for all subjects of the Crown, whereas the Jacobites (supporters of the restoration of the Stuarts) became the defenders of the historic constitutional tenet that though the king ruled over all, parliaments must be local and representative in nature with jurisdiction only over that territory from which they had been elected. (The irony of the party espousing the divine right of kings taking this quasi-republican position is a discussion best left for another day.)

In any case, when the London Parliament began imposing taxes, levies, quartering of soldiers, and other unlawful requirements upon 13 English provinces, each with its own parliament (the king being the chief executive of each one separately, the royal governor being his representative locally, just as governors-general represent the queen in Australia or Barbados today), it caused a constitutional crisis in the Colonies. England had largely neglected the Colonies early on because of the Civil War and then the Commonwealth and Restoration, and barely more than two more decades passed before the Glorious Revolution. During this long period of preoccupation, the Colonies had developed as though they were Scotland or Ireland, with their own institutions and their citizens possessed of the fullness of the rights of Englishmen. But when the French and Indian War (which to the English was the Seven Years War, the first truly global conflict) greatly stretched the Exchequer, the feeling in London was that the Colonies should be expected to pay “their fair share.” And thus the long descent to Revolution began.

It is important for you to re-read the Declaration of Independence, which after this email I suspect you will see through new eyes. You will find that, though it never references Romans 13, the entire document is a justification of independence, to people who knew Romans 13 well, in terms of the king having broken covenant with his subjects. And it is that last bit to which I’m seeking to draw your attention.

Anglo-American government is by covenant. Even in England, the king is not sovereign; Parliament is. And the colonists—law-abiding Englishmen, regardless of the province in which they happened to reside—were in covenant with a king who ceased keeping that covenant, and who allowed them to be rendered slaves rather than free men, that freedom being their lawfully acknowledged birthright.

This took on a rather different character after the Boston Tea Party, in consequence of which the London Parliament ordered the naval blockade of the Port of Boston and the cessation of all lawful commerce therein. This is to this very day in international law an act of war, and the colonists rightly understood it to be an act of war by the London Parliament against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. They sought redress from their king—whose veto was absolute and in whom was vested supreme command of the Royal Navy—but he did nothing. Quite the contrary: He took the position of the London Parliament and enforced it. And over time the offenses mounted, from the Boston Massacre to the passage of bills of attainder to the military occupation of American cities and the dismissal of American parliaments.

In this environment, which broke into actual hostilities beginning in April 1775, the Colonial leaders sought what might be considered transatlantic marriage counseling and reconciliation for an extensive period. But when the king refused to relent from the equivalent of wife-beating and adultery, they came to the conclusion not only that the covenant had been broken but also that it ought to be broken. The Declaration of Independence was neither entered into lightly nor without abuses above and beyond those required for a lawful exit. To support the king was to reject right and support sin, period. The Revolution was no different in this regard than the refusal of Judah to accept Jeroboam as their king. It was the king who left his American subjects and provinces, not the other way around.

Your friends will at this point say something about Rome, and note that Paul was speaking to people under a far worse regime when under the Spirit’s inspiration he wrote Romans 13. They will be right, so far as that goes. But these are apples and oranges. Again, I will leave a proper discussion of Roman citizenship, and of Roman rule in Israel, for another day, but Scripture must interpret Scripture, and Romans 13 is only applicable to lawful commands no matter what position you take (see item 1 above). And as to America, each separate colony—like each of England, Scotland, and Ireland—was in covenant with the king, a covenant that was shattered by that king, who began daily giving unlawful orders both to them and to others regarding them. The colonists were right to rebel and were completely within their rights to rebel, not only by the precedent of Scripture but (crucially) by the terms of the constitution of the United Kingdom, of the principles of the Glorious Revolution, and of the English Bill of Rights.

Most likely your friends will not have an adequate answer to that, nor can they have without becoming scholars in this area, something they will not wish to do. If they wish to discuss this, though, I will be happy to make some time to visit with them for your sake.

P.S. If your friends would like a more explicitly Presbyterian answer, have them read John Knox, or better yet, Samuel Rutherford’s Lex Rex (the title of which means “the law is the king,” the exact opposite of the dominant political theory of his time, which was rex lex, or “the king is the law”). In reading this, they will start to understand our Founding Fathers, a large percentage of whom were good Presbyterians, far far better.

Presbyterian is the operative word here, as the American Revolution was a Calvinist/Presbyterian project. The 13 colonies were founded and/or dominated by non-conformist Reformation sects, who a century before had murdered their annointed king. Their ecclesial preoccupations with self-sufficiency and independence heavily colored their political views and continue to trouble us to this day. Anglo America is liberal in its DNA, as are most members of this forum as soon as they scratch the surface.

On the surface some of the leadership was Presbyterian, but there were others of other denominations in the leadership as well. As usual, one must get into the details of following the money and influence. Ultimately one finds that it's a few with a lot of influence who are heavy on political activism and influence, and have the backing of monied powers, while being not so "heavy" into strict aherence to the Word of God. While they were professing Christians seen to be "pillars of the community", the leadership of the revolution was largely those heavily concerned with political activism. If one honestly researches the details one finds other "pillars" in the Presbyterian community that applied Scripture more uniformly in their words and deeds, and were typically more "reactive supporters" once the revolution process was a fait accompli. Once the bullets start flying, and your community is actually uder attack, of course the Scriptural right of self defense of one's home and hearth from attack applies.

I found the same effect when I perused the list of those who signed the execution order for Charles I; there were a few no votes on the actual execution from those who did not fit the purely political activist mold. It's the "men of action" in rebellions that are the real movers and shakers.

This is a complex subject which this article only scratches the surface of and gets a few things very wrong. For example there is a gross error of omission of the Scriptural concept of God placing wicked kings over those who he chastises, and the Bible teaching that submission to such kings is called for except in the case of not submitting to unscriptural edicts or laws issuing from such a king. Also, we see that God overthrows the wicked, even though he does not direct the righteous to take this upon themselves. David did NOT kill Saul, who was ALSO God's annointed, even when David had the opportunity in Saul's camp.

Proverbs 12:7 "The wicked are overthrown, and are not: but the house of the righteous shall stand."

Proverbs 21:12 "The righteous man wisely considereth the house of the wicked: but God overthroweth the wicked for their wickedness."

Amos 4:11 "I have overthrown some of you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and ye were as a firebrand plucked out of the burning: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the Lord."

Psalm 140
"11 Let not an evil speaker be established in the earth: evil shall hunt the violent man to overthrow him.
12 I know that the Lord will maintain the cause of the afflicted, and the right of the poor."

2 Peter 2:6 "And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;"

We see a clear pattern that God overthrows and preserves, according to his will. He hears the cries of what I constantly refer to as the "sheeple", the "little people" who just work away and pay taxes and have no real control over anything save their own humble households. God wants his people to look to Him alone to care for, provide for and protect them. God chastises his children when they continually go farther and farther astray from his commandments. If they place their faith in governments of sinful men, small wonder they get what they asked for as chastisement.

The real turning point of the argument in terms of Romans 13 is the question of whether a government has actually reversed it's role in regards to verses 3 and 4 of Romans 13, and actually become a terror to the good and a friend to evil:

Romans 13

"13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."

Purely "taxes too high", taken at face value, clearly is not a role reversal. Clearly, if a revolution is engineered by wicked financial elites in order that they should have a new, weak, disorganized government inside of which they can greatly increase their control and power, that's an ulterior motive. What we actually have in the American Revolution was more along those lines and therefore we went from being ruled by one government that was controlled by evil elites behind the scenes to one that was soon due to become the same thing.

But for a season, we had such blessing of freedom that we scarcely could recognize the vulnerability of our new "throneless" nation's government to the financial elites who quietly backed its "enlightened" beginnings, providing the "philosophy" and a little nudge here and there.

The primary rationalization of the American Revolution was not Christian doctrine, and the Declaration of Independence wording is decidedly unscriptural. I quote:

"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."

While one could construct a Scriptural argument for a right given by God to life and liberty (which I'll defer), there is no Scriptural basis for the idea that whenever the government interferes with a "right to the pursuit of happiness", such a government can legitimately be overthrown. Every statement in that paragraph contradicts Biblical doctrine; everyone should study the Bible and learn what the contradictions are.

The "enlightment" thinking of the time was largely guided by the writings of men like John Locke who, although they were nominally Presbyterian or some other Protestant denomination, were literally in up to their eyeballs with the financial elites of money and power in the UK in their day. No one ever mentions much of those connections in historical accounts. Lock, for example, was Secretary to the Board of Trade and Plantations, and most of the influence on his thinking came not from the Bible but from the "free thinking" "enlightenment" thinkers such as Spinoza.

What we see in our modern histories of early America is cloaking of elite finance's "enlightenment" philosophy in false, yet subtly so, Biblical interpretation. Both the Roman Catholic and Protestant denominations have always had big problems with elites concerned with money and power both using the Church and at the same time influencing it. The descendants of the early Puritans of the northeast over the generations turned their back on the Bible and God. The descendants of few of the wealthiest of these families came to not only reject God outright, but they became the "old money", espionage and godless hubris that forms the backbone of American new world order.

No matter the fine details of who, what and when that manuevered the beginnings of the U.S., in its earliest times, American leaders made various proclamations of covenants with God Almighty, America has been truly blessed by God as evidenced by many wonderful blessings, and at the same time America as a nation continues to increasingly turn away from and mock God as a nation, under the shadowy influences and temptations of the ever-present godless financial elites.

Today we need not wonder why our nation turns away from God - the founding documents are based on enlightenment "reasoning" and they do not explicitly reference Scripture as the foundation of our nation and our nation's government and laws. America is becoming what its founding documents left room for it to become.

Lawyers, legislators and judges have always been free to twist and contort legal reasoning by simply using the latitude and ambiguity of the founding documents.

If the Bible was specifically referenced as our ultimate founding document, and our founding documents simply stated that the government had to be obedient to it, we would have an unchanging guide to hold our legislative, executive and judicial branches of government accountable to - at the the national, state and local level. While the Church would have no ability to enforce anything in the civil government realm, the Church could and should exhort the government to do its duty in a Biblical manner, thus the yardstick would always be there, and the whole nation would be faced with the comparison of Bible and our civil government at all times - and the legal requirement that the government contain itself to ONLY that which is within its purview, Scripturally, would be legally actionable. Likewise, if the Church wass "falling down on the job", government leaders could and should exhort the Church to do its duty in a Biblical manner.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.