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?
Lots of interesting remarks, but what's the overall point? It's always difficult to weigh the point at which Christians disobey the magistrate (hence why we're still discussing the revolution 250 years after the fact). And since it is so difficult, that makes it all the more urgent for Christians to define clear standards today. After all, it's not "freedom of expression" that's being quelled, it's specifically Christians' freedom of expression. And so perhaps it would be prudent to discuss our position on where that line is.
I think as you wrote your reply you ended up getting the point I was trying to make (my last paragraph). Your last sentence is one I would look forward to reading (thank you in advance :) ).
One clarification to your reply: it is not just Christians' whose freedom of expression is being quelled; Christians are included for sure, but are only a subset. All "non-woke" thought is being bullied/suppressed with cute terminology like "cancel culture". I hope we call it what it is: bullying. Thank you for the dialog/exchange (and more importantly your weekly essays, which take far more prep than a comment posting :) ).
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?
Lots of interesting remarks, but what's the overall point? It's always difficult to weigh the point at which Christians disobey the magistrate (hence why we're still discussing the revolution 250 years after the fact). And since it is so difficult, that makes it all the more urgent for Christians to define clear standards today. After all, it's not "freedom of expression" that's being quelled, it's specifically Christians' freedom of expression. And so perhaps it would be prudent to discuss our position on where that line is.
I think as you wrote your reply you ended up getting the point I was trying to make (my last paragraph). Your last sentence is one I would look forward to reading (thank you in advance :) ).
One clarification to your reply: it is not just Christians' whose freedom of expression is being quelled; Christians are included for sure, but are only a subset. All "non-woke" thought is being bullied/suppressed with cute terminology like "cancel culture". I hope we call it what it is: bullying. Thank you for the dialog/exchange (and more importantly your weekly essays, which take far more prep than a comment posting :) ).