YES, by David Barton |
NO by a Christian Anarcho-Pacifist |
Some today contend that the American Revolution represented a complete violation of basic Biblical principles and embodied rebellion or a spirit of anarchy. They argue from Romans 13 that since government is of God, then all government decrees are to be obeyed as proceeding from God. Yet, this is only one of two theological interpretations of Romans 13 — interpretations representing a debate that has existed among American Christians for centuries. |
The Bible says we are to pay our taxes. America's revolutionary Founders chose not to. They knew that refusing to pay would bring armed troops to America. The British troops consisted largely of Christians who believed the Americas were lawless rebels who were selfishly destroying the government that brought order and commerce to the colonies. Killing these Christians rather than paying taxes cannot be a Biblically justified act.
As a Christian Anarchist, I do not contend that the American Revolution represented a complete violation of Biblical principles because it embodied a "spirit of anarchy." I don't not believe that Romans 13 teaches that God approves of any form of socialism, and all "government" is socialistic. The Apostles said "We must obey God rather than man," and that was addressed to and included men in government. |
On one side was the belief that when government speaks, God requires us to obey. Interestingly, it was this same theological position that resulted in the “Divine Right of Kings” philosophy which reasoned that since the King was Divinely chosen by God, God therefore expected all citizens to obey the King in all circumstances; anything less, they reasoned, was rebellion against God. Historically, this position was supported primarily and almost exclusively by the Quakers. |
I repudiate the doctrine of "the Divine Right of Kings." |
The other interpretation of Romans 13 was set out forcefully in a theological work first printed in 1579 by Frenchman Philippe du Plessis Mornay. Written originally in Latin, it was titled Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, but was later reprinted in English as “A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants” under the pen name “Junius Brutus.” This treatise took the position that government being ordained of God was referring to the general institution of government rather than to each and every distinct government. |
The entire concept of "civil government" is unBiblical. |
That is, the institution of government was ordained by God, but that did not mean that God approved of every specific government. God ordained government in lieu of anarchy — He opposes anarchy, He opposes rebelliousness and lawlessness, and He opposes wickedness. Yet, there are clearly have been governments in recent years that promote anarchy, rebellion, and wickedness (e.g. Ghadaffi in Libya, Hussein in Iraq, Bin Laden in Afghanistan, Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, Idi Amin in Uganda, etc.). Has God endorsed those specific governments that promote that which He hates? If so, He has contradicted His nature and is commanding submission and support to the very things that He hates — such is not possible. |
Actually, God oppose "archy." True, "He opposes rebelliousness and lawlessness, and He opposes wickedness." But this is the very definition of "archy." "Archy" is stealing, killing, and raping to expand an empire. |
The Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists, Congregationalists, and most other Christian denominations during the American Revolution all believed that Romans 13 meant they were not to overthrow government as an institution and live in anarchy, but that this passage did not mean they had to submit to every civil law (note that in Hebrews 11, a number of those who made the cut in the “Faith Hall of Fame” as heroes of the faith were guilty of civil disobedience — including Daniel, the three Hebrew Children, the Hebrew Midwives, Moses, etc.). Furthermore, the Apostles in Acts 4-5 also declared their willingness to be civilly disobedient —they would obey God rather than their civil authorities. |
The Biblical ideal is to live in "anarchy," after all "archists" repent of their violence and beat their "swords into plowshares." It would be sinful for any government to say, "You must wear a pink bow-tie, or we will lock you up in federal prison with a psychopath who will sodomize you." But it's not sinful to wear a pink bow-tie. If the government says "You must not preach the gospel," then "We must obey God rather than man." |
The real key to understanding civil disobedience and Romans 13 under this latter view, then, is to determine if the purpose of opposition is simply to resist the institution of government in general (which would be anarchy and would promote a rebellious spirit), or if it is to specifically resist bad laws, bad acts, or bad governments. The American Founding Fathers understood and embraced the second interpretation of Romans 13, and therefore strongly opposed the “Divine Right of Kings” theology which was an outworking of the first interpretation of Romans 13. |
There is no Biblical justification for disobeying "bad laws, bad acts, or bad governments," like the pink bow-tie law, above. America's Founding Fathers were rebelling against the payment of taxes. God says pay your taxes. God does not say it would be a sin to pay taxes. Therefore if the government says "Wear a pink bow-tie and pay taxes," the Christian should obey.
Therefore the American Revolution was unBiblical. |
For example, Founding Father James Otis (a leader of the Sons of Liberty and the mentor of Samuel Adams) in a 1766 work argued that the only king who had any Divine right was God Himself; beyond that, God had ordained power to rest with the people: |
|
|
|
Even John Dickinson (not only a signer of the Constitution and the Governor of Pennsylvania, but also a devout Quaker and thus a member of a denomination favorably disposed toward the King) recognized the spiritual basis for the position taken by the Americans: |
|
|
|
Despite their rejection of the theory that the King spoke for God, a generally submissive attitude prevailed among the Americans. Stephen Hopkins, a signer of the Declaration and the Governor of Rhode Island, confirmed this in his work, The Rights of the Colonies Examined. Hopkins explained: |
|
|
|
The Founders pursued peaceful reconciliation and entreaty; it was Great Britain who terminated the discussions. After the separation had occurred — following years of peaceful entreaties — some British leaders specifically accused the Americans of anarchy and rebellion. To this charge, John Quincy Adams forcefully responded: |
The British imposed taxes. The American Colonists refused to pay. The British began enforcing the law the way any government would do. The Colonists wanted to "discuss" the issue. What's to discuss? Does a government have a right to levy taxes or not?
A government has no right to prohibit the preaching of the Gospel. A citizen has no right to disobey a law requiring the wearing of a pink bow-tie. The Bible commands Christians to pay their taxes. The British were only taxing one-twentieth as much as Washington D.C. is today. The only thing to discuss is whether it is a sin to levy a tax. It is, but that wasn't even on the table in 1776. So the British "terminated the discussions," and now the Colonists have the right to get out their muskets?? Where is that in the Bible? |
|
|
As a confirmation of this fact, Samuel Adams, in 1772 in one of the most famous of his writings, urged Americans to study the Scriptures to understand the basis of the struggle to preserve their God-given rights. He declared: |
|
|
|
The spiritual nature of the American resistance became so clear that even in the debates of the British Parliament: |
|
|
Does that mean he has no duty to pay the governor's taxes? Where is that in the Bible? |
Therefore, under the Framers’ understanding of Romans 13, the American Revolution was not an act of anarchy or rebellion; rather it was an act of resistance to a government which violated the Biblical purposes for which God had ordained civil government. In fact, so cognizant were the Founders that they would account to God for what they had done and be justified in His eyes, that the flag of the Massachusetts Army proclaimed “An Appeal to God,” and the flag of the Massachusetts Navy likewise declared “An Appeal to Heaven.” [7] |
Again, the amount of taxes imposed on the colonies was less than 3% -- about one-twentieth the level of taxes imposed by Washington D.C. today. How does this minimal amount violate 'the Biblical purposes for which God had ordained civil government?" |
Additionally, the Framers were so opposed to anarchy in general, that immediately upon their separation from Great Britain, great care was taken to reinstitute government immediately so anarchy would not prevail. And the original State constitutions were overtly Christ-centered in their wordings and appeals. Quite simply, the Framers and most American Christians of that day — except the Quakers — believed they had conducted themselves in a manner in which they were not in rebellion to God or the Scriptures. |
|
The second factor which the Framers believed gave them Biblical justification for their actions was the fact they did not initiate the conflict. The Framers had been fully committed to peaceful reconciliation and had pursued that course for 11 consecutive years before the separation from Great Britain. There was no desire to raise arms against England, their mother country and the land of their birth. Nevertheless, in the last two years of their peaceful reconciliation attempts (e.g., as in May 1776 with their Olive Branch Petition), their entreaties and appeals were met solely by military force. In fact, King George III dispatched 25,000 British troops to invade his own Colonies, enter into the homes of his own citizens, take their private possessions and goods, and imprison them without trials — all in violation of his own British common law, English Bill of Rights, and Magna Carta. |
Who today believes that "tax protesters" will not be met with police or even military force if they refuse to pay taxes and refuse to go to jail? Who today believes that "tax protesters" get to have "discussions" with the IRS about their tax bill? What would President George W. Bush do if everyone in Las Vegas refused to pay federal income taxes? What if the entire city threatened to secede from the United States? What if there was a stand-off for 11 years? Is it conceivable that Bush would send the National Guard or something to prevent Las Vegas from seceding? |
When their peaceful entreaties were met with armed attackers, the Framers cited full Biblical justification to defend their own homes, families, properties, and possessions — an important point to them. In their understanding of the Scriptures, God could bless a defensive war but not an offensive war. This was their great point of spiritual appeal: they had not attacked Great Britain; they had never fired the first shot — not in the British Massacre of 1770, nor in the Lexington and Concord engagements of 1775, nor in the bombing of Boston in 1774. Yet, now fired upon, they could defend themselves. In fact, so reticent were they to separate from Great Britain that it was a full three years after King George III had drawn the sword and sent armed troops against his own citizens in America before they announced their separation. As signer of the Declaration John Witherspoon confirmed: |
|
|
|
When the decision for a separation was finally made, however, the Founders continued to maintain their strong entreaty to God for the justness of their actions. For example, in a letter to British officials, Samuel Adams, the “Father of the American Revolution,” declared: |
|
|
|
Adams also authored a manifesto for the Continental Congress which reflected a similar tone of submission to God: |
|
|
|
It was the fact that they had been attacked which — in their understanding of the Bible — completely changed their status in the eyes of God, for the Bible clearly authorized and justified self-defense against an aggressor as righteous before God. But some object that the American Revolution resulted in a loss of life, and therefore cannot be justifiable in the eyes of God. This position demonstrates a lack of Biblical understanding about life. |
|
Clearly, protecting innocent life is a key and recurring theme in the Bible. Life is God-given; He formed us, made us, and breathed life into us. Therefore, He gave clear commands both on preserving innocent life and on punishing those who take it (See, for example, Exodus 23:7, Deuteronomy 27:25 & 21:8-9 & 19:10, Proverbs 6:16-17, 2 Kings 24:4, Psalm 10:2,8, et al.) Since God is the author of life, and since He alone holds the keys of death (see 1 Samuel 2:6), He – not man – is to determine when life is to end. |
|
However, the taking of life is not always the taking of innocent life. God allows man justifiably to take human life on three occasions. |
|
The first occasion is for the cause of civil justice (e.g., Deuteronomy 19:11-13, Numbers 35:16-27, 2 Samuel 4:11, etc.). The shedding of blood in such cases is not the shedding of innocent blood. |
|
The second justifiable cause is general military conflict (e.g., Numbers 32:27, 2 Chronicles 32:8, 1 Samuel 4:1). | |
The third cause is in defense of one’s life, family, or property (e.g., Nehemiah 4:13-14 & 20-21, Zechariah 9:8, 2 Samuel 10:12). In these three situations, the taking of life is not viewed by God as the shedding of innocent blood. | It is almost universally agreed by Christian theologians that if I violate a government law -- whether I'm also violating God's Law or not -- and the government comes after me to exact a fine, sentence me to jail, or execute me, I cannot claim "self-defense" in resisting imprisonment or other government punishment.
America's Founding Fathers not only refused to pay the taxes they were required to pay, they vandalized merchants who weren't required to pay a tax (The "Boston Tea Party"). The tax enforcement agents then came to America's door. America cannot claim "self-defense." If you refuse to pay taxes and the tax collector comes to your door, you cannot get out your musket and kill the tax collector. This is an elementary Christian principle. This holds true even if you believe -- as I do -- that taxation is morally illegitimate, the moral equivalent of theft. No human being has the right to "tax" another human being. But the Bible says to give your money to the tax collector. Don't try to defend yourself or your property. |
Similarly, Jewish scholars point out that the prohibition in the Sixth Commandment is not against killing but rather is against murder. That is, they assert that the proper translation from the Hebrew is not “Thou shalt not kill,” but rather “Thou shalt not murder.” Murder is the taking of innocent life, while killing may not be (e.g., the three Biblically justified examples given above). |
|
Therefore, the fact that the American Revolution was a defensive rather than an offensive war made all the difference in whether it could be a righteous war before God. The Framers’ writings emphasized this fact. For example, Francis Hopkinson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence (and a church choir leader, musician, noted poet and literary figure), made this clear in his 1777 work “A Political Catechism”: |
|
|
|
James Wilson (a signer of the Declaration and the Constitution, an original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court and the father of the first organized legal training in America), explained in to his law students more about defensive rights: |
|
|
|
A final indication that the Framers believed they were engaged in a defensive war was the fact that throughout the course of the struggle, the conflict was often described by the Americans as a civil war rather than a revolution. Only in later years was it consistently called a revolution rather than a civil war. Very clearly, the Framers did not view the American Revolution as an act of anarchy or of rebellion against God, the Bible or any of its teachings. Under the view of Romans 13 as understood by the Framers, the American Revolution was indeed a Biblically-justifiable act. |
|
|
|
[1] James Otis, The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved (Boston: J. Williams 1766), pp. 11, 12, 13, 98. |
|
[2] John Dickinson, The Political Writings of John Dickinson (Wilmington: Bonsal and Niles, 1801), Vol. I, pp. 111-112. |
|
[3] Stephen Hopkins, The Rights of Colonies Examined (Providence: William Goddard, 1765), pp. 23-24. |
|
[4] John Quincy Adams, An Address Delivered at the Request of the Committee of Arrangements for the Celebrating the Anniversary of Independence at the City of Washington on the Fourth of July 1821 upon the Occasion of Reading The Declaration of Independence (Cambridge: Hilliard and Metcalf, 1821), p. 28. |
|
[5] Samuel Adams, The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams, William V. Wells, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1865), Vol. I, p. 504. |
|
[6] Hezekiah Niles, Principles and Acts of the Revolution in America (Baltimore: William Ogden Niles, 1822), p. 198. |
|
[7] House Journals, 1775. A Journal of the . . . House of Representatives (Watertown, MA: 1776), pp. 196-197, April 29, 1776. |
|
[8] John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: |
|
[9] Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel Adams, Harry Alonzo Cushing, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904), Vol. IV, p. 38, to the Earl of Carlisle and Others on July 16, 1778. |
|
[10] Samuel Adams, Writings, Vol. IV, p. 86, “Manifesto of the Continental Congress” on October 30, 1778. |
|
[11] Francis Hopkinson, The Miscellaneous Essays and Occasional Writings of Francis Hopkinson, Esq. (Philadelphia: T. Dobson, 1792), Vol. I, pp. 111-116. |
|
[12] James Wilson, The Works of the Honorable James Wilson, Bird Wilson, editor (Philadelphia: Bronson and Chuncey, 1804), Vol. II, pp. 495-497. |