I'm still pondering the revolution issue.
It seems at least possible that Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 could be addressed to Christians in their capacity as citizens, not to Christians in a capacity as government officials. So it might be legitimate for one branch of government to resist another branch, even through violent means, if the latter were acting illegally. The Massachusetts General Assembly could thus stand up to Parliament for the rights of Englishmen without disobeying the commands of Scripture.
However, this is at best only an intermediate solution. It lets the American colonists neatly off the hook and might also help the House of Commons in standing up to Charles I, but it fails to address the deeper issue. The colonists could stand up to Parliament and the Commons to the King precisely because there was already a tradition of limited government in the English-speaking world.
How did that tradition arise? What if there is no separation of powers, no legal standard (such as Magna Charta) to which to appeal? History seems to indicate that absolute monarchs rarely give up their power through mere persuasion. Somebody has to stand up to them in the first instance -- if not with force, then at least with the threat of force (as in the case of King John). Is that wrong?
Without forgetting for a moment that the French Revolution was strongly anti-Christian in many respects and got dramatically out of hand, should the peasants have waited for Louis XVI and his ministers to experience a change of heart and volutarily surrender their powers to a constitutional republic? Is there a Christian way to rectify such a situation, when the highest authorities remain unconcerned about the suffering of the people? Is endurance always the right and only answer?
I've added a label to the revolution posts in an effort to maintain some continuity across all my digressions about postboxes, crumpets, etc.
4 comments:
It's not an answer to your questions, but here's something I feel could play into the discussion.
There seems to be a fine line between some governments and organized crime (the protection racket) to the extent that which category it falls under is determined more by which people like to think of it as than by a clear distinction from the other category.
The questions you are asking are good ones. I think that the answer may be tied up in a variety of other questions. First is the question of whether or not objective moral rules change over time. I am quite sure that they don’t. Genuine moral rules flow from the nature of God Himself, and God never changes. Sometimes individuals or societies come to know more about God, but God Himself doesn’t change, and His rules don’t change. If God doesn’t change, then the events that are approved of morally in the Old Testament can give us some guidance. We have to be careful because there are some events in the Old Testament that were immoral that the text does not comment on clearly. With respect to revolts, we do find a couple of examples in the Old Testament. First, we find a revolt against foreign tyranny or hegemony in the book of Judges. There is clearly in Judges 3:12 where Ehud kills the king of Moab. One does have to be careful with the book of Judges though. Another revolt takes place in Judah itself. In II Kings 11, there is a rebellion against the usurping queen Athaliah by the priests, the military, and the true heir to the throne, Joash. This revolt seems to meet with nothing but approval from the text. While Athaliah was a usurper, she did represent the status quo.
These examples lead to a second problem. What makes a government a government from God’s point of view anyway? This is related to Becca Irene's question.
The third problem in trying to resolve the issue of rebellions is whether or not there is a hierarchy to moral rules. While there are many nuanced positions available, popular theologian Norman Geisler has pointed out that there are basically three positions among Christians who hold a strong view of Scripture. First, the classic Pietist position that moral principles never come into conflict and there is no real hierarchy of moral principles. Second, the Lutheran position that there is a hierarchy of morals, but when they come into conflict we do the lesser evil. The lesser evil is still a sin, but often a necessary one which God can forgive. Third is the Calvinist position that there is a hierarchy of moral principles and that you are not sinning when you follow the greatest good. You can readily see how this might apply with the problem of rebellion. If it is a moral truth that we are to obey the government, what happens when it comes into conflict with a higher moral principle like preserving innocent human life or preventing the murder of innocent human life? It becomes even more complicated in states where the government and the people are intertwined so that the people become accomplices in whatever the state undertakes or fails to undertake. Pietists would tend to say that you could never rebel against the government because no moral principle can override any other. Lutherans would say that if the government is up to serious evil like murdering innocents, you may rebel against the government in an emergency, but doing so would be a sin for which repentance and forgiveness would be necessary. The classic Calvinist position would be that if the government is going around killing innocent people, it is actually your duty to rebel against it and replace it with a better government, but that you need to be awfully cautious about taking this step and what the actual results are going to turn out to be. Under the Calvinist position, you are not sinning by rebelling against the government because preserving innocent human life and maintaining appropriate and legitimate government override the general moral principle of obedience to the state. By the way, while the Pietists, Calvin, and Luther are the names associated with these views, all these views have been around as long as there have been human beings. Their application has merely been less systematic or group linked.
A fourth major issue is the question of whether or not application of moral principles should be based on playing it safe or on accepting moral adventure in which we may do the wrong thing for good reasons. Pietist groups generally stick with playing it safe. Calvinists, like Presbyterians and Congregationalists in the early United States, and the Puritan Anglicans have tended to practice moral adventure. Certainly there is always a danger of arrogance or mistake involved in any choice to use violence. Nevertheless, I think it is arguable from the parable of the talents and other passages in Scripture that God probably does call us to moral adventure rather than to moral safety. But the use of violence is so serious it should only occur in very unusual circumstances – such as when no alternative of the ballot box or the news paper is available.
oops. Sorry for the typographical errors in the prior post.
Thank you, Becca and Don, for such interesting comments.
I'm not sure what constitutes a government from God's point of view, esp. with a view to the organized crime example. Must think more about that
On the question of whether objective moral rules change over time, I firmly agree that they don't. However, there does seem to be some evidence in Scripture for progressive revelation of moral rules over time, culminating in the New Testament. For example, the law of Moses prohibited murder, but Jesus extended that prohibition to include angry thoughts. So with respect to the rebellions in the book of Judges, perhaps one could argue that the command of Romans 13 had not yet been given. (I suggest this tentatively, not having thought much about it). In the case of Athaliah, the text seems to imply that her government was not legitimate because the rightful heir, Joash, was still living.
On the question of whether there exists a hierarchy of moral rules, I am confident that such a hierarchy does exist. I cannot accept what you describe as the Pietist position because of Peter's words "We ought to obey God rather than men." Obeying human authorities is a moral rule, but clearly subservient to obeying God's commands. Similarly, I cannot accept the Lutheran position because I believe that God never places His children in a position where they have to sin (I Cor. 10:13). So I'm left in the Calvinist camp, affirming a hierarchy of moral rules and that breaking a lower to fulfill a higher is not a sin.
However, I'm not so comfortable with the assertion that "if the government is going around killing innocent people, it is actually your duty to rebel against it and replace it with a better government." In such a situation, I would have no problems with civil disobedience (i.e. refusing to kill innocents and taking steps to save them). However, I'm not sure the Bible sanctions taking the step from civil disobedience to actually seeking to overthrow the government -- that is the very heart of all my questions. I haven't ruled out the possibility that such a step is biblical (I actually hope it is), but I'm not yet convinced.
Many thanks for your previous suggestion of Samuel Rutherford. I bought a copy of Lex Rex and am look forward to digging into it when term has finished.
Post a Comment