I'm glad I caught your attention with that title.
I've long followed the debate on whether Romans 13 -- a passage in the Bible where St. Paul sounds like he commands unlimited submission to any government -- ever permits rebellion/revolution or is an absolute categorical norm. If absolute, all revolt is forbidden, even to Hitler or Stalin. That's quite an unpalatable outcome. But so what? The fundamentalist (the Bible is the inerrant infallible Word of God) fatalistic mentality is supposed to be immune from such a "reductio ad absurdum." Yes, submitting to Hitler or Stalin seems bad; however the notion that the overwhelming majority of folks spend eternity in Hell because they didn't accept Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior is worse.
The same kind of reasoning that leads believers to explain away such an absolute interpretation of Romans 13 (because of the undesirable outcome) just as well leads other believers to reject the idea that folks who don't accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior, 2nd person in the Trinity who made an infinite Atonement (i.e., the overwhelming majority of humanity who ever lived, including arguably the majority of self professed "Christians") spend eternity in Hell. Indeed, the pro-revolt theologians of the American Founding era tended disproportionately to believe in theological universalism (and unitarianism) for that very reason, i.e., "we cannot accept a result so absurd, regardless of what the Bible on its surface seems to teach." Look for a more "reasoned" interpretation. This is America's Founding political theology 101. This is why evangelicals and fundamentalists especially should reject the idea of a "Christian Nation."
I have seen folks try to argue the Bible (Sola Scriptura) permits rebellion; but such citations of verses and chapters of scripture do not convince. There simply is NO POSITIVE RIGHT to rebel (that is try to overthrow, not simply disobey) EVER to be found in the text of the Bible alone, if one properly understands the context of said passages. However, if one looked "outside" the Bible to "nature" via man's reason and "found" a right to revolt and then went back and put various verses and chapters of scripture into "context," while holding the right to rebel as an a-biblical a-priori, one could make a "reasoned" case for a God given right to rebel against tyrants. This is what the pro-revolt preachers of the American Founding did. Sola Scriptura, however, just won't do it.
Some have tried; for instance see Joe Farah's attempt and failure to make a "biblical case" for rebellion. He might as well try to make a biblical case for incest. Essentially what the pro-revolt evangelical theologians do is look to stories in the Bible where characters seem to or supposedly rebel against authority. The problem is, the Bible is full of characters -- characters who loved God and vice-versa -- who do sinful things. Simply noting a biblical character did X (i.e., rebelled against authority, committed polygamy, incest or even MURDER) does not mean the Bible approves of X.
What brings this specific example, incest, to mind is the debate Frank Zappa had with John Lofton. In short, Lofton supported censorship of rock music, in part because it advocated such evil things as "incest." Zappa replied that if we are going to ban discussion of incest why not ban the Bible because look at what Lot did after Sodom and Gomorrah. Lofton replied that such passages were not about "advocacy" of incest. (And I'm not sure the rock lyrics that Lofton wants to censor were about advocacy of incest either.)
So the biblical examples that figures like Joe Farah use to argue for "righteous rebellion" against government, inevitably yield one of two outcomes: 1) they are not talking about rebellion; Moses didn't rebel against Pharaoh -- he and his people just left and God did the rest of the work. Or 2) the context of the Bible DOES NOT suggest God approves the rebellion against authority. I.e., it's Lot committing incest with his daughters. Yes the characters may have done X; but the context doesn't suggest that God approved of the sinful act of resisting authority any more than God approved of the incest Lot had with his daughters.
26 comments:
Ugh, Jon. Here you are again using fundamentalist arguments that you don't even believe yourself against whoever's in your way, in this case, Joe Farah.
Whom I'm not particularly interested in defending, but he already acknowledges your point:
"Whenever I question the timidity of today's church in America, I receive lectures accusing me of violating a biblical principle that supposedly provides a blanket condemnation of Christian resistance to tyranny."
Those "lectures" are undoubtedly from the sola scriptura fundamentalist Gregg Frazer-type camp who indeed oppose the "Christian Nation" thesis for the reasons you give.
[They of course are arguing theologically and not historically, and have no relevance outside their own little circle. But here they are again on our pages.]
But to engage these sophistries, the Americans didn't actually revolt in the strict sense you're employing here: they separated from Britain, they didn't overthrow the king. Therefore, Farah's examples of Old Testament figures like Ehud in Judges 3 slaying Israel's conqueror are of far more relevance than you permit, and your strict use of Romans 13 and the Bible as having "NO POSITIVE RIGHT to rebel" falls into the same literalist trap that you're setting for others.
Ugh, Jon. Here you are again using fundamentalist arguments that you don't even believe yourself against whoever's in your way, in this case, Joe Farah.
Yes, that's something I like to do. :) And quite frankly, as an intellectual exercise, what is wrong with it? Taking certain premises as givens and arguing them to their logical conclusion.
[They of course are arguing theologically and not historically, and have no relevance outside their own little circle. But here they are again on our pages.]
I think they were arguing both; and they come from a school of thought that teaches you ought not necessarily separate the historical from your personal theology. Gregg's point, as an historic matter, is that his position on Romans 13 was the dominant one among Roman Catholics, Anglicans and Reformed Protestants up until the English Revolution when the historical tide began to turn. Still, the historical revolters could have been wrong. A Protestant might note look at how long the "corrupt" Roman Catholic Church was in charge before Martin Luther came along. When one examines history, one must step back and look at the ENTIRE 2000 + picture of Christendom.
But to engage these sophistries, the Americans didn't actually revolt in the strict sense you're employing here: they separated from Britain, they didn't overthrow the king.
I'm willing to engage this POV. I think one could make the case that what America did was "separate" or even "interpose" their positive law magistrates against the higher magistrates ala Rutherford's extensions of Calvin's teachings on Romans 13. One would have to focus entirely on how GB violated English positive law in how it dealt with America.
The problem is while that might take care of what America's Founders DID, it doesn't take care of what they SAID. The DOI says REVOLT and the FFs had no problem calling what they did a "revolution," not necessarily a "separation," or an "interposition," but a "revolution." One reason why I bring up the French Revolution so much is, while there are clear differences between the two events, I think we all understand the FR turned out to be inconsistent with Christianity. BUT, drawing upon the Christian "revolutionary rhetoric" that was used to justify the AR, "Christian" sources likewise tried to justify the FR -- at least until things started to go wrong. Still Ezra Stiles was defending the FR on "Christian" grounds as late as 1795 when he died.
The D of I says "separate" at the close of its very first paragraph.
The word "revolt" does not appear in the text.
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
And "revolt," even if some speakers elsewhere used it elsewhere, is not how you use it per Romans 13 or the Bible. Farah's cite of Judges 3, physical resistance to an outside power, is therefore quite appropriate.
And for the record, let's note they called it the "War with Britain," not the American Revolution.
[In fact "revolt" applies much more closely to Britain's Glorious Revolution of the 1600s. In the end, their sophists decided that James II had "abdicated."]
...the Americans didn't actually revolt in the strict sense you're employing here: they separated from Britain, they didn't overthrow the king.
But they did deny George their obedience and overthrew his sovereignty on the big island while bestowing sovereignty on the people of the new nation and in the process much blood was shed. Sounds rebellious to me. I'm sure that if George'd set up the thrown over here he would have been appropriately overthrown.
As to how they, the participants, viewed the action:
Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms
July 6, 1775
Thomas Jefferson and John Dickinson (apparently toned down from Jefferson's first draft)
- "Several threatening expressions against the colonies were inserted in his majesty's speech; our petition, tho' we were told it was a decent one, and that his majesty had been pleased to receive it graciously, and to promise laying it before his parliament, was huddled into both houses among a bundle of American papers, and there neglected. The lords and commons in their address, in the month of February, said, that "a rebellion at that time actually existed within the province of Massachusetts-Bay; and that those concerned with it, had been countenanced and encouraged by unlawful combinations and engagements, entered into by his majesty's subjects in several of the other colonies; and therefore they besought his majesty, that he would take the most effectual measures to inforce due obediance to the laws and authority of the supreme legislature."
[…]
"The general [jrb – Gage], further emulating his ministerial masters, by a proclamation bearing date on the 12th day of June, after venting the grossest falsehoods and calumnies against the good people of these colonies, proceeds to "declare them all, either by name or description, to be rebels and traitors, to supercede the course of the common law, and instead thereof to publish and order the use and exercise of the law martial."
John Adams, letter to William Cushing, June 9, 1776
- "Objects of the most stupendous magnitude, and measure in which the lives and liberties of millions yet unborn are intimately interested, are now before us. We are in the very midst of a revolution the most complete, unexpected and remarkable of any in the history of nations."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Washington, Apr. 16, 1784
- "DEAR SIR -- I received your favor of Apr. 8. by Colo. Harrison. The subject of it is interesting, and, so far as you have stood connected with it, has been matter of anxiety to me; because whatever may be the ultimate fate of the institution of the Cincinnati, as in it's course it draws to it some degree of disapprobation, I have wished to see you standing on ground separated from it, and that the character which will be handed to future ages at the head of our revolution may in no instance be compromitted in subordinate altercations.
[...]
"...that the moderation & virtue of a single character has probably prevented this revolution from being closed as most others have been, by a subversion of that liberty it was intended to establish; that he is not immortal, & his successor, or some of his successors, may be led by false calculation into a less certain road to glory:..."
As to war v. rebellion/revolution:
John Adams, Letter to H. Niles (February 13, 1818)
- “But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people.”
JRB beat me to the punch. The record is replete with the FFs consciously asserting that they engaged in the act of "revolution" and they used that word specifically.
Likewise this part of the DOI is what we refer to when we discuss the revolution/rebellion of the American Founding:
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. [Bold mine.]
As Padre Zappa said, they're just words--even in the case of that square Paul (see Nietzsche on Paul of Tarsus for the authentic L-word (libertarianism)).
That said, I think, contra FZ, that at some point some words --or rock lyrics--might merit censorship in SOME contexts, if they were suitably violent or obscene: most reasonable people would probably agree that grammar school students not be required to memorize the lyrics to Dynamo Hum. So it may become an age of minority issue. But I don't think the govt. ever has a right to prevent adults from consuming any artistic product, whether Zappa or DeSade.
(I don't think the central Framers held to "inerrant" views of scripture either --nor did Locke (who said Romans 13 was to be interpreted of the laws/customs of a particular society or something)).
JRB beat me to the punch. The record is replete with the FFs consciously asserting that they engaged in the act of "revolution" and they used that word specifically.
Well, I stipulated there probably were. But you quote people who didn't give a damn about Romans 13 anyway.
The D of I also sez of The Crown:
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
"Abdicated." Loophole. All is sunny in Romans 13Land.
Farah wasn't really wrong, except in the eyes of those like Gregg Frazer who would have been Loyalists anyway and probably fled to Canada.
I think they were arguing both; and they come from a school of thought that teaches you ought not necessarily separate the historical from your personal theology.
Basically you're trying to get these people into the game, and they don't belong.
History is not theology: we give no standing to "truth claims" here.
Tom,
I agree that in the abstract philosophical sense, we all need to put our biases and desires aside; though cleansing ourselves of them entirely may be impossible. However, these folks have every right to be involved in the debate as we do. And that's why when they want their theology to match up perfectly with history and founding politics, we should challenge them on it as they will challenge us the same.
Farah wasn't really wrong, except in the eyes of those like Gregg Frazer who would have been Loyalists anyway and probably fled to Canada.
And maybe the loyalist had the proper interpretation of Romans 13. I see the argument made that if rebellion really were a "sin" God would not have blessed America. Well, did God "curse" Canada for remaining loyal?
And maybe the loyalist had the proper interpretation of Romans 13.
But that's a truth claim. Nix. We're all Protestants here---Nobody can speak for God.
;-)
I see the argument made that if rebellion really were a "sin" God would not have blessed America. Well, did God "curse" Canada for remaining loyal?
In the [apocryphal] words of Chou en-Lai about the French Revolution, it's too soon to tell. But 30-below-zero weather ain't exactly a blessing.
However, these folks have every right to be involved in the debate as we do.
No they don't, unless they agree on common ground rules, which they don't. [See the late great OFT.] If they want to confine themselves to a self-imposed ghetto of fundamentalist theology, fine. But they can't bring their baseball bats to a football game.
But 30-below-zero weather ain't exactly a blessing.
As my friends in Montana/Wyoming would say, it keeps out the riff-raff.
I'll take California, thank you, despite the riffs and the raffs.
[Oh, and the fires.]
Here is what Gregg wrote re Judges 3 in a past post responding to KOI:
As for the Judges 3 example, GOD may raise up a deliverer to accomplish His purposes – but the reason that the passage specifies that God raised him up and that the Spirit of the Lord was given to him is BECAUSE WITHOUT SPECIFIC REVELATION FROM GOD, what he did was wrong. It would be wrong for any person not specifically and specially “raised up by God.”
So, if you can point to revelation from God saying that He raised up George Washington and gave His Spirit to him, then I’ll agree that the American Revolution was a case in which it was right for someone to overthrow authority via rebellion.
Or one could, instead, recall that the central Framers--certainly the Jeffersonians--most likely read scripture, including Romans 13, through "Lockean spectacles". Locke (and his ally Sydney) considered the New Testament a document in favor of liberty, ie democratic values, and thus thought it supported their anti-monarchic cause.
Locke had little respect for magistrates. Really, RH Lee's writing contra-Federalism sounds rather Lockean at times.
JC Himself does not exactly bless the powers-that-be, does he. "I bring a sword," etc.. The Beatitudes are not exactly Aristotle (or congenial to caesarism). Romans 13 does not take precedence over St. Matthew.
AC seems to want it both ways--they favor states rights/democracy/legislature at times, and at the same time, they bless those judges/federal powers that help conservatives. We might term that a sort of unprincipled, machiavellian conservatism--exactly what Locke opposed, at least in principle.
For the record AC is pluralisitic. TVD is not AC. He is a Burkean conservative. I am a libertarian. I'm more sympathetic to Jeffersonian-Madisonian ideals than he is.
Judges 3 says Ehud "was raised up," but I can't find specific instructions from God to Ehud [although I did find one commentary saying that Joe Average shouldn't do such things---the commentator apparently supporting Romans 13 prohibiting it.]
It does say God "delivered" Israel, and you'll find very much talk crediting Providence for the success of the American revolution.
As for J speaking of machiavellianism, please stop. It is cant, not argument. I do admit favoring textualism over living constitutionalism, and have explained why.
“The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the States are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign affairs...”
“On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
---Jefferson
Which is OK, but I like Madison even better:
"As a guide in expounding and applying the provisions of the Constitution, the debates and incidental decisions of the Convention can have no authoritative character. However desirable it be that they should be preserved as a gratification to the laudable curiosity felt by every people to trace the origin and progress of their political Insitutions, & as a source parhaps of some lights on the Science of Govt. the legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it recd. all the authority which it possesses."
A Burbean conservative? Rah-thur.
TvD blesses Scalia; ergo, TvD approves of Machiavelli (I'll let y'all figure out the enthymeme).
How about my points on Locke, liberty, and Reason having precedence over zealous faith? (or dogmatic readings of Romans13). That's amply supported in the historical record. Locke and Sydney were the key influences on the states rights' faction--that's not to say the only influences, or that they consistently follow Locke, who did at times support abolition (though not without some hypocrisy)).
Really, there are no necessary political arguments re the Constitution, or founding of America. There are intepretations, inferences, guestimates as AC itself indicates. Jefferson himself waffles, greatly--though even the aged Jefferson opposed the increasing power of SCOTUS (via Judicial review, NOT proscribed in the Constitution).
How about my points on Locke, liberty, and Reason having precedence over zealous faith? (or dogmatic readings of Romans13)
You got nothing but agreement. So stop personalizing this.
Jon stated:
"The problem is, the Bible is full of characters -- characters who loved God and vice-versa -- who do sinful things. Simply noting a biblical character did X (i.e., rebelled against authority, committed polygamy, incest or even MURDER) does not mean the Bible approves of X."
Othniel in Judges 3 rebelled and overthrew the government and he did it "with the spirit of God" i.e. the blessing of God. We have been over this and not one person has refuted this passage. Including Dr. Fraser. Nor has anyone refuted Locke's interpretation that I quoted weeks back in a post I did.f
Jon stated:
The DOI says REVOLT and the FFs had no problem calling what they did a "revolution," not necessarily a "separation," or an "interposition," but a "revolution."
This is actually one of the main things Gary Amos refutes in his book about the DOI. He gives some compelling evidence that once they gave up on their rights as Englishmen being recognized they picked up on Hooker and Locke's interposition ideas that were based on natural rights from the creator. I have been busy with teaching and football lately but am planning as series of posts that outline the arguments of Amos.
Jon,
Othniel had a revelation from God. I already posted about George Washington feeling that he was raised up by God. No response to either from anyone. This includes Frazer. We are rehashing old arguments here. Until he responds to the challenges he gave me I will not take anything he says serious anymore.
KOI,
Wasn't this Frazer's argument. You may not agree with it, but it is an "answer."
As for the Judges 3 example, GOD may raise up a deliverer to accomplish His purposes – but the reason that the passage specifies that God raised him up and that the Spirit of the Lord was given to him is BECAUSE WITHOUT SPECIFIC REVELATION FROM GOD, what he did was wrong. It would be wrong for any person not specifically and specially “raised up by God.”
So, if you can point to revelation from God saying that He raised up George Washington and gave His Spirit to him, then I’ll agree that the American Revolution was a case in which it was right for someone to overthrow authority via rebellion.
And couldn't one believe, as Dr. Frazer believes, that moral norms that are almost absolute in a sense have specific exceptions ordained by God via specific revelation (and if you don't have specific revelation for that exception it's categorically wrong).
Again, incest seems the operative analogy. For a YEC, Adam and Eve's children had to have committed brother sister incest by God's design.
But the specific instances for that exception are over.
Any brother sister incest committed today would be categorically prohibited by the Bible.
As for Locke, I don't see him making much of a biblical case for rebellion, but a naturalistic one.
So, if you can point to revelation from God saying that He raised up George Washington and gave His Spirit to him, then I’ll agree that the American Revolution was a case in which it was right for someone to overthrow authority via rebellion.
"Overthrow authority via rebellion" isn't the same thing as "separation."
Further, the founding is rife with quotes that the "separation" could not have been possible but with the intervention of Providence.
Perhaps a ex post facto argument, but a very real one of the era.
Further, when the D of I submitted their actions to the "Supreme Judge of the world," they asked for God's blessing for their efforts.
This isn't to say their theological reasoning per Romans 13 was "correct," but it does seem they were concerned about their obligation to it.
Jon,
Othniel was GIVEN a specific revelation from God. It was to rebel. If Romans 13 is the way Fraser said then God must have contradicted himself when he gave him his spirit to rebel?
My post on Washington needs to be revisited. Frazer asked the question and did not respond when I answered it. I no longer take any quotes from him serious because he did not respond. Nor should others in my opinion. Go back and read the post. Tom is right when he says they are quoted as saying Providence was with them a lot. Frazer should now this but his biases blind him to some things in my opinion.
Post a Comment