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?
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?
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?