Introduction:
Americans love the classic story of a rag-tag group of rebels rising up against a massive tyrannical empire in the name of freedom. No matter what form or variation the story is told in, it never grows old. A little liberty talk here, a couple Thomas Jefferson quotes there, and you’ve got yourself the story of the American Revolution, at least the story we’ve been taught since childhood. As the saying goes, “history is written by the victors,” and so it is easy for our sympathies to lie with the rebels. But should they? From a biblical perspective, was the American Revolution justified? And were its aims actually righteous?
Just War Theory:
While a strain of pacifism has been seen throughout certain Christian sects, classical Christian thought has held that some wars are indeed justifiable. This idea of the “just war” was first articulated by Augustine in the 5th century. He says in “The City of God,” XIX.VII:
“A good man would be under compulsion to wage no wars at all if there were not such things as just wars. A just war, moreover, is justified only by the injustice of an aggressor…”
Thomas Aquinas expanded upon Augustine’s thoughts, and the same sentiment is held by Protestants. Even our own confession, the 1689 London Baptist reads in 24.2:
It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate when called there unto; in the management whereof, as they ought especially to maintain justice and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each kingdom and commonwealth, so for that end they may lawfully now, under the New Testament wage war upon just and necessary occasions.
But what exactly qualifies as just war? And what constitutes a just and necessary occasion? Dr. Greg Bahsen, a modern voice in this area of theology, provided a helpful 6-point condensation in one of his lectures in 1991:1
1) A Just War’s cause and intent must be just. It must be used to protect the innocents. Its goal is to save lives, preserving law and order.
2) Before there can be a Just War there must exist a right to intervene with violence. There must be an official and explicit declaration of war.
3) The Just War must be an act of last resort. All other options to avoid war must be exercised.
4) The Just War must have the possibility of success.
5) The cost incurred in a Just War must not be a greater evil than that which is to be remedied.
6) The means employed in a Just War must be discriminate and proportionate.
As you can see, Bahnsen’s points clearly reflect those made by Augustine and Aquinas. Using this background information, we can assess the ethical legitimacy of the American Revolution.
Examining the Declaration of Independence
A primary source of reasoning for the American Revolution is none other than the Declaration of Independence itself. Within the document is a section dedicated to listing all the grievances the patriots had against the British crown. Examining those grievances and filtering them through the biblical justifications laid out by Augustine, Aquinas, and Bahnsen can greatly help in determining whether or not the narrative fed to us for years holds up against the word of God.
The first grievance to examine is arguably the most notorious of all:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent…
We’ve all heard the famous saying “no taxation without representation,” and the argument made by proponents of the saying claimed that the Colonies must be represented by local authorities and not by the British House of Commons.2 However, the Apostle Paul in Romans 13:6-7 makes it clear when he wrote,
For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
Romans 13 is a controversial chapter, especially in today’s political climate, but by and large, Christians are to obey laws and pay taxes, and their reaction to small taxes on luxury goods was far out of proportion. To revolt, therefore, against a government and risk the lives of many on the basis of unfair taxation would violate Bahnsen’s fifth tenet of just war. But that wasn’t their only argument.
The second grievance would seem to be a clearly just cause to revolt against the British crown:
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
If the claim is true, then Bahnsen’s first and second tenets of just war would support this cause of the Revolution as a legitimate one. However, history is never unanimous and there are other contemporaneous sources which dispute the accuracy of the Declaration’s claims here. Thomas Hutchinson, the royal governor of Massachusetts from 1771-1774 extensively rebutted the arguments of the patriots.3 He says:
The Acts of a justly incensed Sovereign for suppressing a most unnatural, unprovoked Rebellion, are here assigned as the causes of this Rebellion. It is immaterial whether they are true or false. They are all short of the penalty of the laws which had been violated. Before the date of any one of them, the Colonists had...taken up arms, and made a public declaration of their resolution to defend themselves, against the forces employed to support his legal authority over them.
In other words, Hutchinson is arguing that any military actions against the Colonists were militarily provoked by the Colonists. Since there is historical disagreement, it’s difficult to take one side over the other, but we can acknowledge that things certainly weren’t as black-and-white as the Declaration paints them.
The last grievance we’ll examine here pertains to the differing methods of governing by the British crown in its numerous provinces.
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies…
The immediate context of this grievance was that the British crown was establishing a different form of rule in the Quebec territory by putting the governing authority upon a local governor and his council, hence the accusation of an “arbitrary” government. Again, Thomas Hutchinson did not agree with this grievance and actually saw it as hypocritical:
But what, my Lord, have the American Colonies to do with it? There are four New England Colonies: In two of them, both Governor and Council are annually elected by the body of the people; in a third, the Council is annually elected by the Assembly; in the fourth, both Governor and Council are appointed by the Crown…
In addition to the rank hypocrisy, when examined critically, the first, second, and fifth of Bahnsen’s just war tenets would dictate that this grievance does not warrant the revolution that resulted.
While additional points could be examined, so far, what is clear in this analysis is that the revolt against the British crown had much less warrant than we’re frequently led to believe. While this certainly goes against the grain of many of our preconceived notions about the War, it is important as Christians to examine these facts through a godly lens, and not an American one.
The Presbyterian Revolt
The philosophical and political debates that ensued within the American legislative bodies were also discussed widely within the church. In the mid-to-late 18th century, different denominations were at odds in determining whether or not this Revolution was just. The Quakers and Anglicans generally opposed the Revolution, while the Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Congregationalists supported it.4 Interestingly enough, John Adams explicitly recommended the theological works of Poynet and Duplessis-Mornay to readers who wanted to understand the theological reasoning for the founding of the newly independent United States.5 It was this theological debate on top of the many previous conflicts between the Presbyterian and Anglican bodies that prompted King George III to remark, “Are they not Presbyterians?” In fact, Christian preachers were so vocal about the War and the justification for it that the British referred to them as the “Black Robed Regiment” (it was common for clergymen of the time to wear black robes during their services).
The pro-revolution clergy offered numerous theological and biblical arguments for their position.6 They also argued that God would not condone an offensive war, but only a defensive one (consistent with Bahsnen’s third tenet of just war). Self-defense is a biblically grounded concept7, and proponents of the Revolution would argue that the British did strike first by shooting five dead in the infamous Boston Massacre and the burning of Charlestown. However, the Colonists were no stranger to egregious acts such as tarring and feathering and public flogging/humiliation of British loyalists, and harassment of British servicemen. The famous quote from Captain John Parker would also seem to support this idea of defensive war: “Don't fire unless fired upon. But, if they want to have a war, let it begin here.” The founders and pro-revolution clergymen thought that the British had drawn first blood.
Conclusion
There is room for Christians to disagree on whether the American Revolution was or wasn’t justified. But it’s a good time to begin discussing these matters of applied theology because it allows us as Americans to properly assess our place in history. In addition, as the number and power of unjust rulers in America grows, we need to be thinking through this now more than ever. We need to think about how to deal with illegitimate rulers, understand Romans 13, know the Mosaic law, draw our lines in the sand, and begin making preparations to deal with a hostile political situation. In short, the church needs a refresher on just war theory so we can wisely and honorably deal with our rulers. Revisiting our past is a great way to begin our study of civil resistance and just war as we attempt to glorify the Lord every step of the way. God bless.
https://nickvoss.wordpress.com/2014/08/05/bahnsen-the-just-war/
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/resolu65.asp
https://americainclass.org/sources/makingrevolution/rebellion/text8/hutchinsonrebuttal.pdf
https://wallbuilders.com/american-revolution-act-biblical-rebellion/
John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (Philadelphia: William Young, 1797), Vol. III, pp. 210-211.
A prime example of a congregationalist pastoral advocate for the resistance of tyranny lies in Johnathan Mayhew. https://providencemag.com/2020/10/jonathan-mayhew-colonial-pastor-against-tyranny/#_edn1
See Nehemiah 4:13-14 & 20-21, 2 Samuel 10:12, and Zechariah 9:8
Article by C.J.
Was the American Revolution Justified?
DECLARING independence is not waging (or even initiating) a war. But it is provocative. The Branch Davidians, Clive Bundy, etc are smaller examples of the same sort of root cause thinking. "I disagree with your laws (or how you interpret them) and so I declare independence from them". Clearly, the framers of the Declaration intended more than a "95 thesis posted to a door" moment alone.
It is small minded to simply declare independence without thinking beyond that initial step to anticipate what is likely to come next. By design "declarations of independence" are meant to illicit action. King George III could have negotiated a "BREXIT" deal. And would we now suggest that the declaration step alone was "un-Biblical"? That King George III chose to respond to the Declaration with physical enforcement (which was not initially war) led to further escalation, and ultimately is why we are now, with the benefit of hind-sight, able to discuss the concept of "just" or "unjustified" war.
But seems to me that the reasoning used herein misses a more important and difficult point. What are the principals that govern when precisely "peaceful" civil disobedience crosses the line of "just" and becomes "unjust"? At some point, physical intervention becomes necessary to quell insurrection ... or to make your point. Physical intervention is not always war, however. War is merely the result of many decision-tree decisions where-in neither side was willing to stand down.
Specifically for Christians, at what point or under what context is it OK for Christians to "stand down", to "shut up" about an idea? We're seeing that play out now in current society. You don't go from freedom of expression in your churches to "all sermons need to be state reviewed" in a single step. You get there in 1000 steps. WHICH step is worth taking up arms and introducing physical means to bolster your position? And when you take that first physical step (e.g. blockading police entry) knowing a physical response will result, when does that "equivalent retaliation" become "unjust"?
It's easy to look back now with a view of the entire Revolutionary War and argue "just" vs "unjust" war theory (though likely fraught with naivete born from "not being there" and relying on 200+ year old accounts). But as it was happening could you have effectively defined the line? Are you defining it now in America?