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.

Jefferson had almost no religious influence on the American churches at the time as well... Liberal theologians of the "higher criticism" school led originally by Schlermacher (who was highly influenced by Kant) were the ones who in the later 19th Century up until the present day moved Protestant mainline denominations into heresy, not Jefferson's amature & individualistic musings on religion, or his famous cut and paste "bible."

perhaps...but the evidence suggests that the mainline protestant churches were liberal in everything but name by the time the germans got here. There's no need to go to the second great awakening of the 1830's which was rank with all manner of heresies.

the unitarians were already making inroads into harvard in the early 1800's and then there was emerson... here's an extended piece on the guy

Emerson's Influence At Harvard

Ralph Waldo Emerson had muttered into his journal for 30 years or more about new laws, new religion, a new race, and other things equally enigmatic. Emerson's defection from the Christian faith provided a hinge upon which to turn an entire nation. Preaching and lecturing as occasion arose and pocketbook demanded, he spoke in terms that could only be called spiritual:

"If there be one lesson more than another which should pierce (the scholar's) ear, it is, The world is nothing, the man is all: in yourself is the law of all nature ... in yourself slumbers the whole of Reason: it is for you to know all; it is for you to dare all. A nation of men for the first time exist, because each believes himself inspired by the Divine Soul which also inspires all men."

The Concord philosopher was invited by students to address the senior class of the Divinity school. Emerson told students that Christ had come to teach that God was incarnate in man - all men. He suggested that what man has been unable to find in the Church may be found in the soul: "In the soul let redemption be sought." The Boston Daily Advertiser carried an article deploring Emerson's address because it rejected the revelation upon which Christianity is based and demonstrated the work of evil forces seeking to draw men from the Church. Emerson's philosophy clearly struck at the roots of Christianity, denying both experience and tradition. The Divinity School Address resulted in his banishment from Harvard for almost 30 years.

In 1854, when a student opened his dormitory room for Emerson's lecture on "Poetry," an investigation was made to discover why the philosopher was on campus. Clearly Harvard administrators, after 14 years, still remembered the Divinity School address. A change of climate became evident at Commencement 1866, when Harvard awarded Emerson the LL.D. degree and the alumni elected him to the board of overseers. Harvard was ready to enter the new era.

At the time of Eliot's inauguration, erosion of the old faith had been making way for change at Harvard for more than a generation. Until 1865, Harvard University had administrative ties with the State of Massachusetts. When these ties were cut, selection of the board of overseers fell into the hands of the school's alumni. Some perceived the time had come for Emerson's "American Scholar." With president and governing board ready to work together, a new system was inaugurated at Harvard that required a new kind of educator and a new curriculum.

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0286_Hijacking_American_L.html

Consider Emerson's words "in yourself is the law of all nature ... in yourself slumbers the whole of Reason: it is for you to know all; it is for you to dare all."

Don't those words sound a lot like Hitler's words.

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.