Day Five - Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God

Today's lecture was titled A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants.  This phrase is central to any social studies teacher's discussion of the revolutionary time period.  We have been taught (and I continue to teach) that the protests of the American colonists was due to their perception of King George and his assault on the civil and natural rights of the people, which made him a tyrant.  But as I discovered today, if it was only that simple...

Dr. Dreisbach had us read Romans 13:1-7.  This was of particular interest to me, as our church spent 14 months on the book of Romans, a book that some scholars say is the "constitution" of the Christian faith (knowing what I know now, I may have some disagreement with the use of the word "constitution" there, but that's another discussion for another day).  Romans, and other sources in the New Testament, say that the civil government is established by God, and that the magistrates and officials are ministers of God.  It is the duty of the magistrate to follow the orders of God, and the duty of the people to obey (dare I say submit) to the magistrate.  Romans tells us that the rulers "are not a terror to good works, but to the evil" (v. 3a) and that "he is the minister of God to thee for good.  But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain...a revenger to execute wrate upon him that doeth evil" (v. 4).  Verse 2 puts it even more powerfully, "Whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."  

Now, my initial interpretation of the Romans scripture was that Paul is telling the people not to rebel against the government, that they are held accountable to God only.  Dr. Dreisbach made the comment that maybe by discussing what a good and Godly ruler was, the people would understand that Nero (the Roman emperor at the time) was not that ruler, and that they could rebel.  That is a logical point, though I'm not sure if I buy it yet.  If Romans is the "constitution", then somewhere in Romans, it would have said, these are the times you may resist.  After all, the Old Testament is chock-full of stories of resistance (see: Moses, Daniel, Shadrach/Meshach/Abednego).  

At any rate, over time, through the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic counter-reformation, we find writing after writing on this very issue.  Luther promotes resistance (though clarifies to say don't resist against properly constituted authority), as do many others (Calvin, Tyndal, Knox, etc.).  In 1579, the Vindiciae contra Tyrannos is published.  Translated as A Defence of Liberty Against Tyrants, the purpose is to show when the ruler becomes a tyrant, and when it is permissible to rebel.  This is followed by Lex, Rex (or The Law and the Prince), and we start to see writings that will influence the English Civil War, which will have a direct effect on the mindset of the colonists in the Americas.  

After passage of the Declaration of Independence, a Committee of Three is assigned the task of creating a seal for the new United States.  Below is an artist's rendition of the seal Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin decide on.

So the thread took us from the civil leaders are ministers of God and are given authority by God to rule to open rebellion against tyranny.

So here is my conundrum.  For the purposes of this class, I follow the logic.  However, I feel that if I don't buy into the original premise that Romans may insinuate the permissibility of rebellion (or at least insistence), the rest of the line of thought may crumble (I don't know enough to say for sure though).  What I am sure of is that the American Revolution would not have been possible without Biblical and scriptural reference.  So my religious beliefs are in conflict with my historical beliefs.  Those that know my political beliefs know that I try to separate what I view as a religious issue from a political issue.  It is harder to do that with historical beliefs that I see to be true.  I guess I could reconcile the two by saying that the writers constructed their arguments based on faulty reasoning, but I don't know if I feel right taking that way out.  So I sit here and ponder this more...

I don't know if this makes any sense, but I do know that future posts won't be this full of lecture ideas and notes.

MEET THE FELLOWS: Ross Hill, my suitemate, is from Florence, SC.  He is married with two kids.  I swore that he was older than me, but his is a young'un at 26 years old.  He married his high school sweetheart in college in one of those fairy tale stories.  He is active in his church, and his Biblical knowledge has been very impressive and insightful, especially today.  

TOMORROW: Pictures and stories from Jefferson's estate at Monticello and Madison's estate at Montpelier!