Was the War for Independence Biblical?

Dear Doug, Recently some of the men in our congregation were studying the scriptures regarding submitting to the governing authorities, recognizing that God had put them there (e.g. Rom 13, 1 Pet 2, Tit. 3). We were somewhat impressed that every single one of the cases, as well as all the examples we could think of, indicated that this was an attitude we should have even if the ruler was not good. The question came up as to whether we were justified in presenting the efforts of Christian leaders of the American Revolution as being consistent with the scriptures. There was no questioning of the goals, or the intentions, etc., or that the final results were by God's blessing, but we were at a loss to find any scriptural support for the concept of a civil revolution, or for the concept in the Declaration of Independence that if a government became clearly bent on tyranny that it was the right and duty of the people to alter or abolish it. The scriptures mentioned above seem to indicate our response was to submit, suffer if necessary, and beseech the Lord to deal with the situation, like Israel in Egypt. Realizing that many Christians have strenuously supported the nobility of the founding fathers' decisions and actions, we are reluctant to draw any conclusions quickly. It occurred to me that you would be a potential source that could point us to the scriptural justification and reasoning to support a revolution when the current authority is a tyrant. Please don't think of this question as an opposition to patriotism, but rather as a zeal for being sure we are consistent with scripture…Thanks for any input. Grace and peace to you and your family, Keith N.

The American War for Independence was neither a rebellion, nor an insurrection as was the French Revolution. It was a biblical act of self-defense against a foreign invader. That foreign invader, the nation of Great Britain, acted without legal basis for its attempted conquest of the people of America. For this reason, I have long thought that a more appropriate title for the struggle would be "The War of British Aggression."

The Bible teaches that the Christian owes due allegiance and submission to the government authorities in most, but not all cases. Normally, we are to obey every ordinance of man. Exceptions include those cases where the State commands the Christian to do what Christ has forbidden, or prevents a Christian from doing what Christ has required. All authority is limited including government authority. No monarch or civil leader has absolute power, nor does he have the right to expect others to reject the law of God. Peter gave Christians a very practical example of State tyranny and of the biblical necessity of civil disobedience when he refused to honor the unjust prohibitions against preaching. Peter proclaimed: "we must obey God before men." Concerning self-defense, the Scripture makes it clear that men are permitted to use lethal force if necessary when acting in defense of self or others, be the threat personal or national.

Finally, while Christians may be forced to temporarily submit to others who threaten them with violence, the mere fact that a person claims authority and attempts to back up the claim with force does not validate the individual as a lawful authority. This is a fundamental difference between Rome at the time of Christ, and Great Britain at the time of the War. Rome was a wicked, but lawful authority (i.e. they lawfully could claim jurisdiction over the people of Rome). Great Britain was a wicked and unlawful usurper. In the same way that Christians do not owe Romans 13 allegiance to the hijackers of an airplane, neither did the colonials owe allegiance to the King.

Several important factors were at play: First, the American people were united with the King of Great Britain by virtue of covenants and charters which were freely entered into by the colonists during the 17th century. These charters provided for lawful self-government. The charters were abrogated and annulled by Great Britain, thus severing the covenantal and legal basis of the relationship between the two peoples. Second, to the extent that Parliament attempted to regulate and tax the colonies they did so without legal authority. As John Adams pointed out "The Authority of Parliament was never generally acknowledged in the United States." Third, the very actions of Great Britain evidenced the fact that a legal relationship between the nations no longer existed. British law required that neither the King, nor Parliament could suspend the privileges of the citizens of the nation, yet centuries-old rules giving citizens the rights to be secure in the private property, to have trial by juries, to require representation as a prerequisite to taxation, etc. were suspended for the Americans, thus adding additional proof to the claim that American people were not members of the British nation, but slaves being held prisoner by an occupying nation.

Finally, the specific actions of the Great Britain against the men, women and children of the Americas were the murderous and treacherous acts of an invading nation, not of a parent, or even a brother country. It was Britain who de facto declared war on the Americas by inciting Indians to perform barbaric acts of violence against innocents, who fired upon Americans, who stationed troops in private residences, and who sometimes proceeded to debauch American women and children, free of all legal accountability for their actions. Colonial fathers would have been in sin not to have mounted a defense of their homes, their wives and children against so tyrannical an aggressor and invader.

One last thought: In large part, the war was actively encouraged and facilitated by the men who made up the colonial and Puritan pulpit. It is important to note that the war was described by the British as a "Presbyterian parsons rebellion" because of the fact that the theological and legal basis for the war was soundly defended by the greatest Christian theologians of the day. These preachers based their arguments on a thorough review of all Scripture, especially Romans 13; a careful examination of British law; the charters upon which the colonies were founded; and the historic rights of Englishmen, They pointed out that (1) no authority is absolute; (2) the King had gone beyond his biblical and legal authority; (3) by breaking his own law, the king was acting without jurisdiction ; (4) the legal basis for the relationship between England and the colonies were various charters, which had been nullified by Parliament, thus severing the legal and binding nature of the relationship between the two peoples; and (6) the decision of the King to send troops to America and actively wage war against the citizenry, placed Americans under the biblical obligation to defend their wives and children against a foreign aggressor.

For a detailed study on this issue, we recommend that you purchase Patriots vs. Tories and Christians vs. Deists, both by Dr. Joe Morecraft.

Fitting Christianity into Politics

Gregory Koukl

How should your Christianity inform your political decisions?

I want to talk a little bit about Christianity and politics. In fact, I am going to do something very unusual today. I'm going to talk about a political issue which I don't usually do. But before I do that, I have to preface my comments with some reflection on the process of integrating our faith and political views, because of late there's been a lot of confusion about that in the midst of what some have called culture wars. There has not been a proper distinction between a couple of concepts, we've gotten muddled and wrong- headed in our thinking, and I'd like to talk a little bit about how to fit Christianity into politics before I want to talk about the particular issue I want to discuss. I'll tell you up front what it is. It has to do with the health plan, and I'll be getting to that a little later. I'll start with fitting Christianity into politics.

I hope that you will see that even decisions related to what appears on the surface to be politics are still decisions that need to be Biblically informed as much as possible.

I hope that you will see that even decisions related to what appears on the surface to be politics are still decisions that need to be Biblically informed as much as possible. The reason I say as much as possible is because it's not always clear that there is a Biblical principle, or a Biblical teaching, or some aspect of Biblical morality that relates to the particular element that is being decided in the political arena. But often times there are and to the degree that the Bible and Christianity speak or influence a particular element in our political point of view, we ought to take that into consideration in forming our political viewpoints.
Even though political views are different kinds of things from theological views that are the foundation of the gospel, for example those particular things that relate to salvation, political views are different than that. Political views are different kinds of things than moral viewpoints that guide Biblical ethics. The teachings and the principles of the Scriptures can and ought to inform our political views, such that certain views seem to flow naturally from the text while other views seem at odds with the Bible's teachings. I make these distinctions because when one claims that their view is "Christian" and another's view is "unchristian", well that statement can mean a couple of different things. For example, it can mean that the view is Christian in that it is an essential part of the gospel. In other words, it is essential for salvation. Or it could mean that the Biblical truth, whether it's an explicit doctrine or an explicit morality, leads to particular applications in conduct or political views or whatever. And these applications are considered Christian or non-Christian depending on how accurately they follow from the Biblical truth that speaks to the issue.

Let me give you an example. The Bible teaches that Jesus is uniquely God in the flesh. He died, rose from the dead and will return to establish his kingdom. Those are basic things, and if you think differently on any of those details--and there are actually more than that, but those are examples of essential doctrines--if you think differently on any of those details, then your view is not Christian. You have a non-Christian viewpoint. But not only that, you are also not a Christian. Why? Because these are views that define what Christianity is, and if you don't fit the definition you are not a Christian. It's that simple.

Now the Bible also teaches clearly that man is made in the image of God and therefore has transcendent value in a way that no other creature has. From this teaching flows God's ethical command not to murder, and from this flows, in the minds of many people, the obligation to protect the lives of unborn children. Therefore we campaign--sometimes very aggressively--for laws that protect the lives of unborn infants. Now, if you believe that it is permissible to take the life of an unborn infant--in other words, if you believe in the permissibility of abortion--then your view is unchristian also. But it's not unchristian in the same way that the first view is. In the first case, the view is not Christian because it undermines the distinctive and defining doctrines of the faith. In the second case, the view is unchristian, in my view at least, because it is inconsistent with Biblical teaching and with Biblical ethics. Do you see the difference there? The difference is very important. This distinguishes gospel--that which is essential for salvation--from Biblical morality--those particular things the Bible teaches about right and wrong--and then from partisan ethical political views.

You might argue or believe a point of view that is inconsistent or that doesn't follow from Biblical morality, so in that sense you would be unchristian in the application of your viewpoints, but you might still be a Christian because you hold to the essential defining doctrines of the faith.

You have gospel, you have morality, and you have applicational items that have to do with ethical viewpoints in your life and have to do with political viewpoints in the realm of politics--things you vote on and debate on in the public square. If you're a Christian, those last things ought to be informed by the first two, but they are different from those first couple of things, certainly from the very first one, orthodox or essential doctrines. You might argue or believe a point of view that is inconsistent or that doesn't follow from Biblical morality, so in that sense you would be unchristian in the application of your viewpoints, but you might still be a Christian because you hold to the essential defining doctrines of the faith. This distinction is important because it's possible to hold an unchristian view in application, and still be a Christian, even though you are in error and you're at fault. But if you hold certain fundamental views in error in the first sense, you're not merely mistaken, you're not a Christian because you hold views contrary to what Christianity is as defined by the church and by history.
Now, the current culture war between Christianity and secularism is muddled precisely at that point. It is often wrong-headed in part because this distinction is not made clear. I don't want to make that same mistake here today. I don't want you to make it either. I'm about to give you some of those third-level opinions that I believe are Christian in the second sense, in other words, they're the kind of views you ought to hold if you also hold Biblical ethics and Biblical doctrines. I'll give you the reasons why I think my views flow from Biblical principles. In fact, this is precisely the way I argue with other believers on my position on abortion. If you're a Christian and my analysis is correct, you're obliged, I believe, to hold the same positions as I do. If you don't, I think you're wrong and I think your view is unchristian, but I'll have to say in these issues, even though you disagree with me, you're still within the pale of Christianity. In other words, you remain a brother and sister in Christ.

I'm going to give you my broader political principle first, then I'm going to give you an historical example, one that actually went bad, and a current example in which I hope we can learn from our past mistakes, and then I'll argue my point. Please understand the distinction between these two types of non-Christian beliefs. I'm arguing for the second, but in so doing I am not saying that what I believe is orthodoxy, and that you can't be a Christian if you believe these other things contrary to me. I am simply saying that I suspect and I will argue that you are being inconsistent with your Christian teaching and heritage if you support certain current political points of view.

I wanted to lay a predicate for you for some reflections on health care. I tell you frankly, I know very little about the health care options that are being offered. I have not been interested in the details. You know that's the case, that I think that the ideas are much more important than the details. One might ask, then how can you criticize if you don't know the details? Well, because I know the ideas that back it and I think the ideas themselves are faulty, so I try to critique or criticize the ideas. First of all, it deals with the details in a much more fundamental level. It's much more accessible to the rank and file. Finally, it's not always possible to get accurate details, but it seems generally the case that you can get at the heart and core of the ideas that propel the details and that's where it should be dealt with anyway--at the root, as it were.

Having made the distinction between non-Christian ideas which are critical (that being non-Christian ideas that would disqualify you from the faith) and non-Christian ideas that are more applicational and are contrary to Christian teaching and ethics but wouldn't disqualify you from the faith, I want to talk about something in the second category: my view about government in general, and making an application from a general view to a particular thing like health care. I want to use two historical examples, one the current example of health care, but another one an example from some 40-50 years ago that I think went bad.

The last election demonstrated for me that Christians are not thinking soundly on the issue because the overwhelming issue it seemed for even those who claim to be Christians was economics, which should be the final thing on the rung of government concerns and government priorities.

I want to also underscore that I am still in the process of working through some of these things, as I mentioned before. I am trying to reason carefully and proceed carefully one step at a time, working from the known to the unknown so I can't give you my full sketch of the relationship of God and politics, Athens to Jerusalem, as it were. But there are a couple of things that I feel comfortable in saying today that I think have ramifications for health care and for broader decisions that you have to make as a Christian who should be voting. The last election demonstrated for me that Christians are not thinking soundly on the issue because the overwhelming issue it seemed for even those who claim to be Christians was economics, which should be the final thing on the rung of government concerns and government priorities. I'm thinking Biblically here. Although from a personal perspective, more people are concerned with economic issues than they are with justice.
Let me start with my principle first, and then I'll try to make some application to it. My principle is this: I am not for strong government. I am for weak government. That may sound strange in a way, but think about it. I am not for giving government enough power to be despotic. I think that governments ought to perform a limited function and ought to perform that well. They should be strong in their limited function, but in the big picture their strength should be very limited. In other words, they should be weak not strong on the broad scale of things.

Paul says in Romans 13 that government does have a legitimate function and the Scriptures largely define this function, but it's very limited. A legitimate function that God gives to government is the punishment of evil doers and the praise of those who do right. Proverbs talks about just governments in which the weak are protected from the strong. Justice and equity are the responsibilities of governments, but that's a very limited thing. Now I didn't say justice and equality. I said justice and equity. In other words, every person should receive fairness and equity, not that everyone should have the same status, the same wealth, the same access and the same privileges, which seems to be an emphasis now. The Bible doesn't teach that everyone should be the same. Those are the functions of an individual's contribution, not the state's contribution. The state is supposed to provide an even playing field in which everyone has protection to move forward. Praise of people who do good and punishment of evil doers makes sure that justice and fairness reign. But then it's up to the individual to go from there. As Lincoln said, the state establishes the conditions that allow an individual to rise as high as his cleverness or his hard work or his enterprise can take him.

Biblically, the government has a very limited role. It is used by God to mitigate the impact of evil in society and also to ensure justice and equity. Some people think, Well, society is responsible for all of our problems. Listen, it's organized society that makes the world a nicer place to live in . It can contribute to evil and often it does, but it's much better than anarchy. When anarchy reigns there is greater evil. God gives us government to constrain evil, and that it ought to do. But God does not give government the liberty to be despotic in areas that ought to be part of human liberty and freedom. This is why I view government as having a legitimate role, but a very limited role Biblically. It's ironic that for the last sixty years or so the tail has been wagging the dog in this situation.

Government has spent much of its energy the last sixty years trying to establish equality rather than equity, and it has used immoral means, theft and despotism, which I will talk about in just a minute, to accomplish inappropriate ends of social and financial equality. So it has done this thing, but it has fallen down badly in its principle obligation to "ensure the domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense", protect life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That kind of thing is the obligation that God has given to government to fulfill, and our Founding Fathers acknowledged and established these goals, and in this sense the goals of the Founding Fathers were indeed consistent with the Biblical view of man and government. But now the government characteristically has fallen down in that and cannot establish law and order, but is doing a very good job of redistributing wealth which is not its job at all.

What I believe is that it is Biblical to believe in limited government, very limited government, a government whose principle job is to ensure justice and equity, but not to pursue equality.

What I believe is that it is Biblical to believe in limited government, very limited government, a government whose principle job is to ensure justice and equity, but not to pursue equality. There is nothing wrong with equality, that each individual person has the same as the other; but if the government is the one responsible for seeing that equality happens, if government creates equality, it must become despotic to do so. And despotic government, or despotism, is immoral. The reason it is immoral is that it robs people of God-given liberties. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. You give the government power over you and it will exercise that power excessively and in an increasingly corrupt fashion such that men and women who are under that power can no longer effectively exercise self direction of that government. That's what happened 200 years ago, we established this government, and now it's out of the control of the peoples' hands even though we have elected officials. It's gone screwy.
Another thing is I believe in private property. The Bible teaches that a worker is worthy of his wages. It teaches rewards for our efforts. What happens is the government takes our wage that we earn, which God says belongs to us, and it uses it for illegitimate purpose. And not only that, they charge you for the services. In other words, they want to redistribute wealth, give it to those that don't have it, so they take what you have earned and give it to someone else. Not only do they take your money and give it to someone else, which I consider theft because it's not theirs to take and it is not their legitimate prerogative to exercise, they also charge you for the service of doing the transfer. You have to pay for big government bureaucracy that goes along with it.

There are two quick illustrations that I will give you. I think you'll see how this carries out. One is from the past and one is from the present that shows how this is goofy. The first one is social security. I think it's gone totally bad. The idea in social security was that people were growing old without money so the government said, Give us the money and we'll hold it for you, and then you can have it when you get old and you'll have security. By and large, that's what it was about. Now the system is pretty much bankrupt, and we have an inverted pyramid where the people who are receiving are increasing and those who are giving are decreasing, and they've used the money for a lot of other things because the government has held it. It would have been better for them to say, You are obliged to put money aside (now it's something like 14%) but you should put that in a self-directed fund. We'll make sure you take it out of your paycheck, but put it in a self directed fund, don't put it in our hands where we can steal.

Isn't that wonderful? Weak government still doing an effective job because human beings are able to direct their own destiny with the money that they make themselves and should belong to them.

We need health coverage for all people? Fine, you just make it a law that everyone has to buy health insurance. Period. The employer can take it out of the paycheck just like any other deductions. Except that the government doesn't get the money. It is self-directed in a health care program. Then everyone who is working will have health care and you don't have to put the money into the hands of the government, so they can't steal it from you when you are not looking. Secondly, you don't have the government bureaucracy to pay for. Instead, it all goes into private enterprise and it does it's job. What a great idea! Why is this so hard? Well, it doesn't take care of the people who are not employed. But it covers most of the people. What do we do about the unemployed? We give them free clinics which they basically have now. No hospital turns away a person who is ill. They go to the clinic and we take care of the unemployed, too. That diminishes the government's direct involvement to about 3-4% of the population instead of 100%. We don't have this burgeoning bureaucracy. We don't have all this meddling and we don't have us giving the government money that they shouldn't have in their hands anyway.

Isn't that wonderful? Weak government still doing an effective job because human beings are able to direct their own destiny with the money that they make themselves and should belong to them. That is very simple. What is the big deal? One of the big deals is government. It's big. It's despotic. It steals from you to fulfill inappropriate ends and it's got to feed itself, and as it feeds itself, it gets bigger and hungrier and it gets more expensive to feed it. Now we have an animal out of control. That is unchristian. At least in my view.

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.