An Unjust War?

Romans 13:1 "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God."

1 Peter 2:13-14 "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution,  whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good."

"But were the admitted abuses serious enough to warrant an armed revolution? Patriot leaders thought so, but there is a problem with why they thought so. They were troubled less by actual evils (like the tax on tea, which, ironically, had made tea cheaper in the colonies than in England). Rather, they interpreted the bumbling British actions as a conspiracy to exterminate liberty in the colonies."
~ Mark Noll, Historian, Was the Revolutionary War Justified?, Christianity Today

According to classical Christian reasoning about war, the American revolution was an unjust war argues historian Mark Noll in Christianity Today.  He has a strong proof text for his argument from Romans and 1 Peter.

Noll argues that the colonists acted preemptively based on what they perceived the intentions of parliament to be.  Noll argues that sermons from America's pulpits argued for and against armed conflict, but few did serious exegesis of Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2.  Both loyalists and patriots alike used scripture to add authority to their argument, but it was most often done to support an existing position than it was to reason from scripture.

We ought to be careful how we handle God's word.  We need to practice sound hermeneutics, understand the context of verses, and systematically look at the corpus of scripture to take a Biblically informed position.

For your reading pleasure, I link to a John Witherspoon sermon from 1776 called "The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men".  Witherspoon was a Scottish Presbyterian minister and the only cleric to sign the Declaration of Independence.   His sermon begins with an exhortation to answer the call of the gospel.  It ends with his own stated opinion that the American cause "is the cause of justice, of liberty, and of human nature."  He qualifies his own opinion with "If your cause is just, you may look with confidence to the Lord, and intreat him to plead it as his own."  He does not say that it is God's opinion that the colonists should take up arms, but he argues that religious liberty is only possible in a land where civil liberty exists.  Clearly he felt the need for religious liberty and preaching the gospel trumped the biblical teaching to "honor the emperor" in Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2.  In support of Noll's point, however, Witherspoon does not reference Romans or 1 Peter in his sermon.  I wish he had.

Comments

[Nick]

I was under the impression that Noll's argument was more or less the conventional wisdom. Certainly, I have heard it from both liberal and conservative Christians, including those who think it very important for Christians to be patriots.

We ought to be careful how we handle God's word. We need to practice sound hermeneutics, understand the context of verses, and systematically look at the corpus of scripture to take a Biblically informed position.

Excellent advice, but I don't really see Witherspoon doing that. The sermon contains remarkably little Scriptural exegesis (with only one out-of-context snippet of Scripture quoted, I think). Like Mr. D, I wish he had attempted to construct a Biblical argument to support the contention that political freedom is required for religious freedom. Appealing to the cause of justice and human nature sounds more like something from an Enlightenment political philosopher than Biblical hermeneutics. Witherspoon might be right, but it's not obvious that Paul wants us too be worried about that. He just went on spreading the Gospel, regardless.

And even if Witherspoon is right that spreading the Gospel depends on religious freedom, and religious freedom on civil freedom, could it not be argued that the degree of religious and political freedom in the British Empire of 1776 was already greater than that in the Roman Empire of Paul's time? As a matter of historical fact, was the degree of religious freedom in post-revolutionary USA significantly greater than that in, for instance, Canada of the same period? Anyone know?

[SteveC]

The scriptures quoted here have no bearing whatever on the argument that Mr. Noll makes in this book (as I understand the discussion). His use of them is a non-sequitur.

Few Christians in that time and place (or non-Christians for that matter) struggled with whether it was right or just to submit to authority. I think that it is clear that all considered it necessary to obey those scriptures, politically, if not in faith.

The question was not whether they should submit to authority, but rather who the legitimate authority was. The American Revolution was a political movement to decide the proper secular government of the region at the time.

These scriptures do not apply to political entities, but to a Christian's individual walk in Christ. Scripture deliberately does not address when a state should go to war- just that if it does, an individual Christian must submit to that authority. Scripture does not prescribe what form a government must take (democratic or tyrannical), or how leadership and power are changed (peacefully or violently)… just that we are to submit to the new government like the old one.

Christians are to submit to the "authority placed over them." During the Revolution that was changing. Once the secular leadership decided it was time to declare independence and to go to war, Christians were and are required to submit to the decisions of that authority. Of course there was an honest struggle (and room for disagreement) within the Christian community as to whether believers should submit to the local “king” or the distant one. This has been true throughout the history of our faith.

The idea of a just or unjust war has no application here because Paul was preaching to individual Christians, not states. States (kingdoms of whatever size or form) do unjust things all the time and Paul knew this... Jesus knew this. We are just to submit to the laws of the land, whether we live in the U.S. or North Korea.

It is my opinion that this is where Christians get mixed up by the concept of “Christian World View.” My understanding of our call is to have a Christian => World View, not a Christian World => view. I hope that makes sense.

[Mr. D]

"I was under the impression that Noll's argument was more or less the conventional wisdom. Certainly, I have heard it from both liberal and conservative Christians, including those who think it very important for Christians to be patriots."

I have not heard conservative evangelicals argue that we should have remained loyal to Great Britain and King George. I have heard arguments against the war in Iraq on grounds that it was an unjust war ... but never that the American Revolution was an unjust (hence sinful) rebellion.

Just because I have not heard conservative evangelicals argue against it, does not mean that they haven't. It was new to me is all I am saying.

"Excellent advice, but I don't really see Witherspoon doing that. The sermon contains remarkably little Scriptural exegesis (with only one out-of-context snippet of Scripture quoted, I think)."

Agreed. I don't see it either. I respect Witherspoon immensely, but this sermon is not one that I would hold up as a model for preachers to follow.

The sermon is actually more about salvation with some political commentary thrown in at the end.

I linked to the Witherspoon sermon because it is a famous sermon from the time period, and it actually supports Noll's argument.

I would like to see other Witherspoon sermons which do a better job arguing from scripture.

"As a matter of historical fact, was the degree of religious freedom in post-revolutionary USA significantly greater than that in, for instance, Canada of the same period? Anyone know?"

Great question. I don't know.

"Like Mr. D, I wish he had attempted to construct a Biblical argument to support the contention that political freedom is required for religious freedom. Appealing to the cause of justice and human nature sounds more like something from an Enlightenment political philosopher than Biblical hermeneutics."

Witherspoon's argument is one I ponder a good bit, actually. The persecuted church has a way of growing dynamically. Two examples. One, the persecuted church in the Roman empire. Two, the persecuted church in communist China.

Both are examples of Christianity thriving and flourishing in the midst of adversity.

I think the spread of capitalism to China may be the death of the Christian explosion there ... food for thought.

[Mr. D]

"It is my opinion that this is where Christians get mixed up by the concept of “Christian World View.” My understanding of our call is to have a Christian => World View, not a Christian World => view. I hope that makes sense."

Intriguing. Elaborate further. I am not following entirely.

Well, I really don't want to get off topic on this thread, but here goes...

Jesus did not die for, and scripture does not directly command secular entities, only individuals and the church. No government has a personal relationship with Christ.

Christian principles can inform the judgment and actions of a government, of course, as they should. But government, society, the world- cannot have a personal relationship with Christ, only individual souls do. To apply heart-targeted scripture directly to impersonal non-church organizations is really bad hermeneutics.

In my view, a "Christian World View" is a scriptural perspective on the world we live in and our place in it, not a goal to transform the world through government force.

So, the idea of an unjust war is really nonsense from a scriptural perspective, because only Spiritual battle is just in this fallen world. However, if our authority commands us to go to war, I understand Peter and Paul as teaching that we are to submit to that command- whether it is just or not.

I wonder if it is okay to change your authority by emigration. That is the only scriptural loophole I can think of if you seriously disagree with your government.

[matt curtis]

Steve,

I tend to agree with your argument here. Living your life as a Christian must be a matter of choice, not of civil directive. Perhaps the risk involved in professing yourself a Christian in countries such as China results in a deeper and more thoughtful commitment to Christ.

What is interesting to consider is how Paul's (and Peter's?) direction to Christians to submit to authority would apply to a soldier given an unlawful order. The military requires a soldier given an unlawful order of his superior to disobey that order. For example, Lt. Calley could not justify his actions at Mi Lai by relying on orders of his superiors.

The immediate response to this is that there was a higher authority to whom the soldier is required to submit. But I suspect that most of us see that we might apply the same reasoning to an order of our local government that conflicts with federal law; or a federal law in conflict with the Constitution. Clearly, there was a point at which Peter and Paul, and many others, disobeyed the authorities. Consequently, we must accept that either Peter and Paul were acting contrary to God's will in disobeying civil authority, or that there is more to the command to submit to authority.

[Mr. D]

Well stated, Matt.

If the command to submit to authority is unequivocal, then those Christians who disobeyed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 by harboring runaway slaves were violating God's word and therefore sinning. Yet, I doubt many thoughtful Christians would take that position and use claim Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 as their proof text.

There is a moral law above human law. In some cases, we have a higher law to obey.

I believe I agree with the other things you said ... just not the part that seemed to suggest that we comply with unjust authority.

[Ron]

I am going to argue against Noll here. The notion of natural rights is deeply inbedded in political philosophy which was influenced heavily by John Locke. Scripture provides some key pointers for Christians but it isn't a percise guide on political questions. The claim of the Declaration of Independance was that Britain had violated the natural rights of Americans and thus was no longer a legitimate government.

I actually don't think the British really violated a natural right until the war started. 'Taxation without representation' is robbery in the English political tradition but this certainly isn't true by nature. Most people throughout history have not had a republican government. Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's..." So when it came to taxes, the Christian thing to do would be to pay them.

I do believe that the American Christian would be justified in fighting that war though. The British did violate the natural rights of Americans at Lexington and Concord, namely the right to life. After that moment the Americans had the right (perhaps the duty) to take up arms in defense of both their country and their democratically elected governments.

[SteveC]

Thanks Matt and Mr. D,

I agree with you both. I lean toward libertarianism, so you can imagine the struggles I have over those verses. My main purpose for the post was to argue that Mr. Noll misused those verses terribly.

I would like to continue with your thoughts on where to draw the line on submitting to authority versus standing for what we believe is right and moral. There is a pastor of a church that I used to attend that suggested that a German during the Nazi era would be compelled by these verses to cooperate with the government.

On the other hand, a Christian History and Philosophy professor who spoke at the same church during a recent Wilberforce event said something very interesting and provocative: "Bad laws are just violence." I don't know if anyone really caught that, but I thought it was awesome. He was referring to medical marijuana- I don't think many caught that either.

Where do we draw the line? Can we resist bad laws while submitting to authority? Martin Luther King Jr. instructed his followers to peacefully disobey the civil authority, then submit to being jailed under the law.

I work in cancer research and believe that laws prohibiting medical marijuana are immoral. Constitutionally, the DEA only has jurisdiction if the stuff crosses state lines. As everyone knows, that does not concern them. This is just one of many gray areas for us Christians.

[Nick]

Mr. D:

If the command to submit to authority is unequivocal, then those Christians who disobeyed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 by harboring runaway slaves were violating God's word and therefore sinning. Yet, I doubt many thoughtful Christians would take that position and use claim Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 as their proof text.

Yes, I agree. I don't think anyone, least of all Noll, has suggested that the command to submit to authority is unequivocal. The issue, and a complex one, is when is a Christian permitted (or even required) to resist the commands of authority? One simple answer is that Christians should resist when the authority commands them to do something contrary to God's command. For example, if the government commands you not to evangelize, you should not submit. The question for Noll and for us, then, is whether the British government was forcing the colonists to act contrary to God's commandments in such a way that submitting to its authority would be sinful. If the answer is "yes," then the next question is whether armed revolution was the appropriate response.

Once the revolutionary army was victorious, the equation changed and presumably Christians would be required to submit to the newborn USA.

Stevec:
These scriptures do not apply to political entities, but to a Christian's individual walk in Christ. Scripture deliberately does not address when a state should go to war- just that if it does, an individual Christian must submit to that authority

I think we need to be careful not to be too glib about the separation of private morality from government actions. Government is created by the actions of individuals. So, although Jesus's and Paul's commands are targeted at individuals, they will inevitably affect the actions of government if that government includes Christians, and they will inevitably inform the way that Christians can submit to the authority of the government. Since Christianity tells us how to live and interact with other individuals, there is a sense in which it is always political.

Steve? (The post is anonymous)
However, if our authority commands us to go to war, I understand Peter and Paul as teaching that we are to submit to that command- whether it is just or not.

Whereas I would understand Peter and Paul to be teaching that we should submit to that command, if and only if, that command does not require us to sin. As a Mennonite, I further believe that Jesus's and Paul's commands require me to love my enemies, and that command, though targeted at me personally, will inevitably affect whether I submit to the government's command to go to war. I cannot cleanly divorce personal morality from the actions I perform as an agent of the state.

The only way that I can see to totally free the government from the constraints of Christian personal morality is to argue that although Christians should submit to the government, they shouldn't participate in it. That's the Amish approach, I guess.

[Steve Clarke]

I've always thought that the command to "be subject" to government doesn't mean we must obey all laws, but merely that we need to accept the consequences for not obeying the laws.

[Nick]

Mr. D
Both are examples of Christianity thriving and flourishing in the midst of adversity.

I think the spread of capitalism to China may be the death of the Christian explosion there ... food for thought.

Food for thought indeed. The flourishing of the church during times of persecution is both inspiring and kind of frightening. I want the church to grow, but I also like living comfortably in the USA with my freedom to worship almost completely unconstrained.

Steve Clarke,

I've always thought that the command to "be subject" to government doesn't mean we must obey all laws, but merely that we need to accept the consequences for not obeying the laws.

Right... the MLK Jr. model. So how do you apply that logic to the time of changing authority in America during the late 1700's?

[SteveC]

Sorry... that MLK question was mine. I keep forgetting to sign my post.

[Steve Clarke]

SteveC, I don't know. I'm conflicted as to whether it was sinful for the colonists to rebel in the way they did, and I disagree with the notion that it was ok simply because it was a government that was rebelling, and not individuals. However, I'm not sure that the passages quoted are very applicable to a democratic form of government, where by nature the people are the government.

[tgirsch]

I don't think the MLK, Jr. model (which is actually the Ghandi model) works very well in the absence of something like the modern media. Without radio, telegraphs, newspapers with photos, and the like, it's hard for the impacts of passive resistance to be felt by anyone other than the resistors. It works because there's a strong public aversion to brutal treatment of people who aren't fighting back. But unless a lot of people witness that somehow, either directly, or indirectly through modern media, it wouldn't do much good, I wouldn't think.

[Susannah]

I'm with SteveC. Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England would have informed the founders' understanding of just law.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/blacksto.htm

Even though Blackstone himself was pro-monarchy, his ideas, which he took pains to derive biblically, had logical consequences for the American Revolution.

[Alan Grey]

"I think the spread of capitalism to China may be the death of the Christian explosion there ... food for thought."

China is an interesting case. If China proceeds forward with Capitalism and nothing really changes, I'd have to agree with you, but I just don't see that happening.

For example, it is still controlled by Communists, who view the current capitalism as just a phase before a negation back to socialism.

China is also gearing their military towards being able to invade Taiwan.

Finally, due to their one child policy, China has some 100 Million extra men over women, which will cause a "few" social problems.

All in all, China is unstable, and expect some big changes in the next couple of years.

As an aside, I think I made my home group a little nervous when I asked a related question. (We were discussing where Christian ideas and influence should focus on in forming societies laws and structures). I asked them, if the chief duties of Christians were to worship God and evangelism (i.e. having more people come to Christ) AND if the Christian religion grows most under extreme persecution, should we structure society to persecute Christians....