Was the American Revolution a sinful undertaking? Were the “unalienable rights” written about in the Declaration of Independence not really “endowed by [our] Creator?” It seems to me that the Evangelical church may be forgetting the theological basis upon which our independent nation was established.
Triablogue featured a linked video of an interview of John MacArthur by Ben Shapiro, in which Rev. MacArthur denied that Christians ought ever to be involved in revolutions. Shapiro asks, (at 17:04), “…So, early on, you mentioned that you weren’t sure that the American Revolution is in consonance with biblical values. I was wondering if you could expound on that a little bit, ‘cause I think it’s an interesting idea.” MacArthur replied:
Well, the Scripture says, “Submit to the powers that be—that they are ordained of God.” That does not mean that every ruler represents God. Clearly, that is not the case. But, that governmental authority is a God-given institution to repress evil and to reward good behavior—just as parents have that role, and the conscience has that role […] So, when I talk about the government,… I’m not saying that the government is a divine authority or that the rulers are divine authorities; but what I am saying is that they represent a God-given constraint to human behavior. And that’s why they have to be upheld and not broken down. So, Christians don’t attack the government. We don’t protest. We don’t riot. We don’t start shooting people who are in the government—even if the government is King George from England and we don’t like him, and even if we’re upset with taxation, we don’t start riots and we don’t start revolutions. We live quiet (according to the New Testament), we live peaceable lives, we pray for those that are over us, we pray for rulers, we pray for all those who are in authority, we pray that they might come to know God through the Savior, the Lord, Jesus Christ. So we pray regularly for our rulers—we do not overthrow them. And that is how a Christian—a real, biblical Christian—would look at the American Revolution. I mean, I hate to say that because that’s not a popular idea. But it is nonetheless what the Scripture says Christians are to do: submit; pray, pray for the salvation of your leaders; live a quiet and peaceable life; and let the character of your life—the godliness, the virtue of your life affect that society one soul at a time.
Shapiro then penetrates to the heart of the matter (at 19:01):
So, what does that mean for individual rights?—because, obviously, the American Revolution was based on the idea that we are individuals with certain rights that are inherent in us. I think that has a history going all the way back to Genesis talking about us being made in God’s image with certain creative faculties… and that comes along with the ability to think for ourselves, the ability to worship God, the ability to build these families. The Federal ideology was based around the idea that if the government itself was a threat to your fundamental rights, including as a religious person, then the government had lost its legitimacy. Is there a point in your philosophy where the government loses its legitimacy? It’s the Soviet Union; they’re cracking down on churches. It’s Nazi Germany. Is there a point where a revolution would be justifiable and necessary?
MacArthur’s answer stunned me, although I don’t doubt that many Evangelicals would agree with him (at 19:44):
Not in a biblical sense, no. I don’t think there’s ever a time when you would be justified in starting to kill the people that are in power… I don’t see any justification for that. That is not what Christians do. We would rather suffer. But I don’t want to say we don’t dissent; because we do. […]
It’s clear that the founders pointed to God as justification for the rebellion against England. Can we fairly dismiss them as simply contradicting Scripture?
Rom. 13:1-7 NKJV
13 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. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.
Merely because we’re forgetting the theological reasoning behind the Revolution does not mean that none existed. Do we not owe it to the truth to examine this reasoning prior to rejecting it?
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.
The founders held that God has endowed all men with certain rights, authorizing and obligating governments to secure these rights, and has conditioned the legitimacy of any government on its fulfillment of this obligation. From this, it follows that God has authorized and obligated any people to “alter and abolish [government], and to institute new Government,” “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends.”
While some of the founders were Deists, most were Christian—and all were steeped in the philosophy of Federalism, which the Pilgrims had brought over from England. What had begun in theology had spread into politics and government. According to a leading Federalist of the 16th century, Althusius, (as analyzed by Charles McCoy and Wayne Baker, in their book, Fountainhead of Federalism), all of life, including government, is based on covenants (Latin: foedus, root of federal).
The covenants of humanity exist within the covenant of God. Because all are bound within human covenants to the covenant of God, rulers who administer the sovereignty belonging to the people lose their authority when they violate their covenant with the people, by virtue of which they rule, or transgress the covenant of God. They are legitimate representatives of the people and have the right to administer the government only so long as they are faithful to these covenants. […] The federal political philosophy thus makes room for resisting tyrants and for revolution.[1]
McCoy and Baker explain how the “tradition of federalism… pervaded the entire colonial era in America:
Though ignored by most historians of the Constitution, there is a tradition of federalism that pervaded the entire colonial era, developed in distinctive ways apart from European thinkers, and formed the background of experience upon which the leaders of the Revolution and new nation relied as they shaped the institutions of what became the United States of America.[2]
The idea of rights comes from the moral right… and it is God who establishes what is morally right. An important distinction here is between the civil rights of citizens and the rights of any man before God—between civil justice and divine justice. When a sinner stands before God, it is right that he be sentenced to destruction. However, when that same citizen stands before a governmental ruler, having committed no capital offense, it is not right that he be sentenced to destruction. Further, it is not right that he be robbed of his valuables, raped, or imprisoned without cause.
Some may argue that there is no list of civil rights in the Bible; but if you survey the Bible to discover what is right and what is wrong—what is just and what is unjust—you cannot avoid finding the concept of rights (as well as wrongs). A “right” is simply that which is right. It is right that people not be unjustly deprived of life, liberty and their pursuit of happiness. And by “unjustly,” I am speaking of civil justice. God instituted government among men for precisely the purpose of securing this civil justice between them. But any government that is more accurately described as a minister of injustice has lost its divine ordination (if it ever had one).
It may also be argued that Christians ought not to assert any rights for ourselves. We are sinners, after all, worthy only of death and hell. Many believers have gladly sacrificed their rights and even their lives for the cause of Christ. Our liberty may be taken away merely because we are believers. And while many Christians have willingly given up these rights, they remain rights nonetheless. We might not demand our rights, but we ought to recognize them for what they are.
As for the pursuit of happiness, it is simply an expression for freedom of will (and assumes that people generally will to be happy). If you want to hand out Bibles or tracts or witness or preach the gospel in your pursuit of happiness, then that is your right. The world may deny this right or others, but such rights are unalienable because they are given by God. How? By setting up, in eternity past, what is right and what is not. It is not right to deny a people such things. Therefore, such things are rights, and we are endowed by our Creator with them.
Would you not agree that when the pilgrims started their settlements in America, where there was no civil government, they were obligated by God to start one? God’s ordaining of civil government is not merely a stamp of approval on all present governments. It is a divinely ordained obligation to have a government to serve as His minister of justice. If none are present, then the people are authorized and obligated to institute such a government. And, I would argue that whenever a people finds that their current government no longer serves its rightful role as God’s minister of justice, then they are authorized and obligated to overthrow that so-called “government” and institute a proper one—even on pain of death and destruction.
Having said that, though, the mere fact that the form of government is a monarchy or dictatorship does not in itself mean that the government is failing in its God-given role. Is civil justice being served? Are people being unjustly deprived of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness? Are bribes and corruption the norm? Are the scales of justice tilted? Is the government actually doing what John MacArthur said is its role, to repress evil and reward good behavior? When a government has become corrupt and has turned its back on its proper role, then it is no longer really a government. Instead, it is a group of organized criminals claiming to be the government—and in reality, the people are living without a government, and are obligated to start one (even if it means the destruction of what currently claims to be the government).
This is exactly what those who founded our nation did. They were not some rioting mob who didn’t like King George and were angry about taxation. These were men who organized a governmental body to replace the illegitimate English government, who grounded their actions on the Bible, who deliberated and agreed by mutual dedication of their lives and fortunes, and who by every measure did all things properly and in order, producing official documents to announce to the world and record for history that a new government had been established, and to explain how the legitimacy of that new government was justified. Based on the new government’s explanation and their actions in forming this new government and organizing a military force, I contend that it was England, and not the so-called “rebels,” who tried to overthrow the God-ordained government in America during the Revolution.
[1] Charles S. McCoy and J. Wayne Baker, Fountainhead of Federalism: Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenantal Tradition (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991), p. 61.
[2] Ibid., p. 88.
…
Interesting. I always thought that was a complex question.
JMac’s stock has been falling for some time now. Not the go-to guy on much of anything now.
I still hold him in high regard. I just disagree with him on this issue. It seems to me that he has not thought it through very well. But since we’re now 242 years past the Declaration of Independence, I wonder how many of us have forgotten the theological rationale behind it.
He has NO stock with me. An unfortunate figure in American Christianity.
So then, Dave, could George Washington have counted on you to fight along side him?
For me, maybe, maybe not. Unanswerable hypothetical, though I did have one ancestor who was a spy… for the colonials.
That feels overly brash and combative, Dave. Care to elaborate?
Wow, pretty harsh. Care to elaborate?
I disagree with some things, but I can easily think of a large number of famous American preachers I would put Jmac well ahead of.
Dave’s still recuperating… He get’s a pass!
It started when I attended the Shepherd’s Conference in 1993. They spent more time blasting other Christians than building up. I began to question my admiration for JMac at that point. Over the years I have noticed his increasing rigidity and insularity. I find him one of the more negative influences on modern Christianity.
According to Rom. 13:1-7, any so-called “rulers” who are a terror to good works but not to evil, rewarding the bad and punishing the good, actually fall outside the Bible’s definition of “governing authorities… appointed by God,” since the definition is clear: “rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil… God’s minister to you for good,… an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.” Certainly, not every group who holds power and claims to be the governing authority fits this definition.
Good article Ken.. thank you. I trust JMac but I don’t agree here. I do put stock in a lot of what he says. I would submit that the apostle Paul demanded his rights as a Roman citizen…
I would guess based on this that MacArthur doesn’t believe a Christian can serve in the military as that might cause you to be involved in the overthrow (in a war) of the rulers and authorities of another country. Seems like a logical implication to me.
Alan & Scott,
Good points. Thanks!
Of course, the very complicated question that the colonial Baptists faced was this one: Side with the Crown who persecuted them in England and harried them out of the land, or side with the American colonial leaders—these advocates of liberty—who persecuted them in the American colonies (but for rare exceptions like Rhode Island and Pennsylvania)? These devotees of individual rights who led the Revolution were slow to recognize the most important right of them all.
But soon the Baptists decided that they would side with the local governments, and by God’s grace, eventually they convinced first the Federal government and then the several states to leave their citizens free to follow Christ.
Bart,
That would make a very informative article in itself.
For Bart’s bi-monthly post
The American Revolution is the Reformation brought to civil governance.
I am not surprised that more and more evangelicals in 2018 sound so separatist and really irrelevant. Too many of us sound like Shakers, Quakers, JWs.
MacArthur has done a great service raising the question of so-called “Social Justice”. Some of his thoughts on that topic are consistent with someone who can’t decide whether representative democracy is a good idea or not. Christians, it seems, are just logs in a stream. We just float along with whatever happens.
These are complex questions and I suppose we will never get it totally right.
But I do not subscribe to MacArthur ‘s thinking on this one.
I think both arguments are compelling. I don’t have any particular beef with MacArthur, although I’m not a fan. I’m thankful to live in the country I do, even these days, but I can’t say I would have made the same decisions the founders did. Remember that the phrase “all men” did not, in the minds of the founders, really mean “all men”.
Yes, it’s easy for us to see the earthly foibles when looking back; but how impressively the heavenly principles shine through!
When Paul wrote Romans 13 Rome was an extremely oppressive government, and yet there was no call by Paul to rebel against the Roman government. The NT does not endorse armed revolution of any kind, nor does it advocate assertion of rights. This article is a classic example of where American Christianity diverges from biblical Christianity.
John,
We have no reason not to believe that, as bad as the Romans were at the time, they did meet with Paul’s definition of God’s minister of justice rewarding good behavior and punishing evil. We certainly see a sense of justice being the goal in how Festus and Agrippa dealt with Paul. I’m not saying they weren’t oppressive, but only that, perhaps, they hadn’t yet reached the point where that had lost their divine ordination. But it’s quite obvious that they did soon after, when they started throwing Christians to the lions, etc. But even then, believers were nowhere near numerous enough to form an alternative government and defend it from the old government.
The Federal thinking formed by men like Althusius was about a nearly ideal state in which the people as a whole could be accurately described as being in covenant with God. In such a state, with both the people and the government in their proper roles, if the latter grew corrupt and failed in its role, then the people were obligated by God to remedy the problem. Bad government that doesn’t provide justice for the poor, the fatherless and the widows will not result in its own people remaining guiltless if they do not stand up against that power in the name of all that is right. If any people rise up en masse to establish a proper government or die trying, then no government can continue to exist except by the will of its people.
The problem with your view is that it’s absolutely antithetical to NT christianity. No where will you find armed rebellion being espoused in the NT. This is nothing more than Americanity rather than Christianity.
Federalism originated in Europe, not America. Armed rebellion or duly established government defending itself against an evil organization claiming to be the government? That is the question.
Duly elected has nothing to do with anything. God alone is the elector that matters. Babylon was a evil organization, so was Persia, so was Rome, and yet all were appointed by God.
John,
I meant that the new government must be duly established. You’re right that mere armed resistance is wrong, if it entails merely picking up arms and fighting against the powers that be. But if a government is first established, then it has the right to form a military force and use it. The idea of armed resistance is somewhat of a red herring. Military service is honorable and biblical. The real question is what is required, biblically, to duly establish a new government.
Simple question. If God is sovereign and picks who the rulers of nations are, why cannot God have chosen George Washington et al to establish a new nation?
That doesn’t make the actions of those who rebelled any less sinful. God used Babylon as the rod of correction for Israel then He judged them for laying a hand on Israel.
OK, what if God RIGHTEOUSLY called George Washington et al to make the 13 colonies a new nation. They told George III the reasons they were leaving. He said no, so a war started. God Himself told Israel to conquer Canaan, overthrowing every leader there that they did.
As far as I can tell in the NT economy there is no scenario where Christians engaging in armed rebellion is anything other than sin.
John and all,
You are right in that the NT does not have Christians engaging in armed rebellion.
Neither does it have Christians join legitimate governmnet run armies.
It, the NT, doesnt speak of Chrisitans going off to foreign soil and waging war against oppressive regimes.
So one could go that pacifist route. Are you?
Another way to look at it is through the lens of dual citizenship.
We are citizens of our country and of God’s Kingdom.
What then about the Civil War? Should we fight against our own countrymen?
Where is that in the New T?
Should we fight to protect our cities?
Our neighborhoods?
Our homes?
Thus we could expand the idea of citizenship from just of one of our country to a citizen of our state, or our city, or our neighborhood, and of our home. As a citizen then of the world, the secular world that is, where do we draw the line to protect our homes, our neighborhoods, our cities and our states, our nation? To protect our way of life?
These ideas are not covered in the New Testament. But unless one is a strict pacifist they are ideas that must be dealt with.
Abraham went to war. Israel once wasnt a nation. It fought to become one. God raises up kingdoms and countries and He puts them down as well. Thus it is safe to say that the USA was instituted by God. And also that someday it may be also wiped out by His decree.
JMac is a dispensationalist and divorces the Old from the New Testament. And therein lies a deficiency in his theology. [speaking here at this time only of the subject at hand].Therefore my comments on Abraham and Israel dont figure into his thinking. But as he is wrong is his dispensationalism, he is wrong for discounting how OT truths affect present day dealings with the world around us.
So rather than attacking our brothers for fighting in and the supporting of the Revolutionary War, we should be looking to how we as Christians can act now, TODAY, to be good witnesses and ambassadors for our Lord and King. Our nation is rapidly reaping the destructive consequences of its continued and increasing rebellion against God, and we Christians, by the grace of God, stand alone in providing the only message that can chnage hearts and minds -the Gospel. Soon, I fear, the USA will reap as Sodom did and destruction will be devastating.
The USA is not NT Israel. But to understand how nations are to act, we can look at the OT and earn valuable lessons. We can see where God used a pagan nation to punish and overthrow Israel due to their rebellion against God. We also see that God punished that same pagan nation for its part in overthrowing Israel.
We can see where God blesses nations for seeking to live right and destroys those that do not [WARNING to the USA]
America America God shed His grace on thee,
But you have defiled your hearts,
and killed your unborn children,
May God have mercy on thee.
Romans 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
You’re not reading carefully my comments. I didn’t simply say that Christians in armed rebellion against their government was in the NT, I said that it is antithetical to the NT, and it is. Rebellion against God ordained government is sin.
John,
Hmmm.
It seems that you stopped reading too soon.
1Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same
And those that do good and yet need fear authority? What does that say about that authority?
It says that that authority has opposed the ordinance of God. When they declare wrong right and right wrong, they lose that plcae where their people need be subjected to them.
If the USA made it illegal to preach Christ, should we stop preaching Christ?
It says nothing about it. God made it clear that all authority is appointed by God. And youre not supposed to resist that authority. It’s pretty clear.
So if the government declared it illegal to preach the Gospel, you wouldn’t.
And if the government declared it illegal to meet to worship together, you wouldn’t.
Here is another Scripture for you:
Acts 4…
5 On the next day, their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem…
17 But so that it will not spread any further among the people, let us warn them to speak no longer to any man in this name.” 18 And when they had summoned them, they commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John answered and said to them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; 20 for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.”
Thus it seems that there are times to disobey “governing authorities”.
The question then becomes, are these ‘times’ limited to this one issue or to anytime when a person believes they are acting in accordance with what God wants them to do.
But the Scriptures also tell us this:
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
That most certainly includes the Old Testament.
And our brothers used all of the Scriptures as they debated and eventully decided to stand against England.
Maybe you don’t think the Old T is revelant for New T believers. But they did and they made their decision.
And they will stand before their judge and account for their choices.
But neither you nor John MacArthur is their judge.
Good points, as usual, Mike.
That is a far cry from armed revolution. I do believe based on the scripture you gave that we don’t obey laws that violate our religious conscience. But to use that as the impetus for taking up arms against a God ordained government is not tenable.
And while I believe that the OT is useful, it is certainly superseded by the NT. In the NT there is no justification whatsoever for armed rebellion against government.
John,
Have you read the reasoning our brothers used for their choice?
Second, and more important, the Old T is more than simply useful.
When Paul wrote to Timothy and said this:
“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness,”
he was speaking about the Old Testament.
Likewise the OldT is quoted by the New T writers and they also have Jesus quoting from it teaching us that its words are in fact profitable in making decisions in life. Which exact verses or passages our brothers used to decide their choice canbe easily found on the internet.
God’s Word is completely true and without contradiction.. But many people take this verse or that one and elevate over others. We all probably do that in some way. Its why we have different denominations and different belief systems within denominations. Its why there is Trads and Cals, paedos and credos, postmils and premils, and so forth.
Thus when we differ on some doctrinal points we have to decide how important that point is: is it worth judging and declaring as sinful that which we disagree with or do we agree to disagree.
I think you have the right to disagree with their choice, but if you havent studied the reasoning of those you disagree with, it seems really harsh to simply declare their choice as one without justification.
Maybe you have studied their reasoning and still disagree.
But they thought they had justification for their actions.
I’ll let them answer to God. They dont have my condemnation.
Yes all scrupture is the word of God. But the whole idea of the Bible is to arrive at Christ in the NT. The physical and material in the OT is designed to bring us to the spiritual and heavenly in the NT. Jesus brought a new ethic that was foreign to the OT. (See the Sermon on the Mount)
One commentor brought up Israel’s conquering of Canaan as an example of just war. In the NT we see spiritual warfare, but no call for physical warfare. In fact the NT reminds us that our fight is not against human beings. I have no problem with the OT, but I do have a problem with its misapplication.
Lastly, Romans 13 is clear, armed rebellion against authority is rebellion against the authority of God. Christians should never be engaged in such activity.
John Wylie,
Do you agree that whenever Christians find the absence of civil government, such as when the Pilgrims started a new settlement with hundreds of people, there is a biblical obligation to establish a government?
What, in your mind, would qualify the new government as properly and biblically established?
The question then becomes one of how a proper government, according to biblical standards, is defined. In your mind, John, are there any circumstances, or any degree to which a government may devolve, that a government can become so bad as to no longer qualify under a biblical definition of what a government is, much less attain what is ideal. Take for example, a government that dissolves: all of its officials have abandoned their posts or died. Does a government remain? And what of a government that becomes so corrupt that it provides no governmental function, takes no more interest in justice, protects only its own officials, kills and imprisons those of good behavior while rewarding the evil? Compare that with anarchy, where evil gangs loot and kill while good men stand by and do nothing?
If a government, as the Bible defines it, does not exist, then the people are authorized and obligated to establish one. That’s not armed rebellion—that’s a proper government that is not bearing the sword in vain.
I’m late to the party on this thread but it does provide for interesting (and relevant) discussion on Rom. 13:1-7, hermeneutics, and government legitimacy. Some questions and comments beyond America’s history:
a) Did Paul write Rom. 13:1-7 in an absolute sense?
a1) Meaning, are all governments on earth (and throughout history) appointed by God so that anyone in anyway at anytime who disobeys receives condemnation (by God?)?
a2) Or might the case be that Paul foregoes stating the obvious in Rom. 13, i.e., gov’t legitimacy ends when it coerces its citizens/subjects to disobey God. A related example would be I Co. 15:27 where Paul does make explicit the obvious.
-a3) How did Paul view the acts of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego? Nebuchadnezzar appears to have legitimacy before God as a ruler (see Jer. 25:9, 27:6, 43:10 “My servant”). Yet he was defied by Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. You know the story well. The OT narrative, Nebuchadnezzar himself (Dan. 3:28-30), and the NT (Heb. 11:34, “quenched the power of fire”), all ‘bless’ Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego’s defiance (toward man) and faith (toward God). And Nebuchadnezzar notes specifically that they “changed the king’s word” (Dan. 3:28).
a4) Wouldn’t an ‘absolute sense’ then prohibit not only armed rebellion, but any expression of dissent (verbal, written, peaceful protest, physical but non-violent)?
b) Was Bonhoeffer right to take part in a plot to blow Hitler to smithereens?
c) I think John Wylie goes too far in his view of the OT Scriptures. IMO, there is continuity and discontinuity between the OT-NT. Everything written in the NT is written against an OT backdrop.