[These are questions and comments excerpted from a discussion a few months back. I felt they were worth preserving before the disappeared into the FB ether.]This is the question posed: "I am asking if you think that was the mind set of our founding fathers. I have asked myself "if the church of today had to make the choice they made would we still be free?"ANSWER:
If you notice in the Declaration of Independence the complaints are against the King because the Colonies had a legal contract with the King. If my memory serves me correctly, the political situation in England had changed since those contracts were written and Parliament was calling the shots. The colonies did not have a contract with Parliament but with a king whose power was greatly diminished. Rather than extending the same courtesy of representation to the colonies which was now enjoyed in England, they chose to treat English citizens on our side of the Atlantic as second class citizens by imposing taxes (which may have been reasonable) but denying representation in the legislative process. Additionally, the English had disbanded local forms of government necessary for civil preservation. The revolution was not just to overthrow "bad" government, but in many ways born out of a necessity. English civil government in the colonies was in many ways almost non-existent. This then, was a situation which left the colonies vulnerable to perils from within and without. To summarize then, the King was in breach of contract, Parliament had no legal jurisdiction over the colonies because they were chartered by the King, and there was a widespread absence of (and prevention of) necessary civil governing bodies.I'm not sure they had much choice. It is also worth noting, I think, that the colonies did not declare "war" but "independence".
The follow up question: " Could their effort to gain independence be justified in New Testament scripture or would it be contrary to its teaching?"ANSWER:
I think I can make a compelling case for them. Remember that the colonies were corporate ventures chartered by the king. Prior to the "revolution" their original governing system had been arbitrarily abolished, effectively putting the now impotent king in breach of contract. The new government system (essentially martial law) was being imposed by forces to whom they had neither contract nor obligation. Had they submitted to the marshal law as their new government they would not have been justified in the revolution, in my estimation. [The Boston tea party was to demonstrate non-submission].Because they did not submit to Parliament rule (unless afforded representation), they could view the British Army controlled by Parliament as an invading force, which it was. The purpose of the British army in the colonies was not to protect the colonies but to subjugate them to Parliament.The crazy thing is, that had they been granted representation, the revolution would not have occurred. Had they been granted limited self government, the revolution would not have occurred.Theirs was somewhat a unique situation in history. Since two of the older men who signed the DoI were ministers (Lyman Hall and John Witherspoon), I am sure your question was raised and addressed way back in the 1770's.The questions in light of this verse, I suppose, is [1] Did they pursue peace, and [2] were their motives just?
RE the U.S. Constitution:The Constitution is a whole other ball of wax, written several years later. Yes, separation of powers refers to branches of government. To be sure, the founders did not want to found a theocracy (or any other kind of "ocracy") but a Republic. The Republic worked because it's citizen's (by and large) recognized the virtue of Christian morality and ethics as individuals. This is reflected in our fundamental laws. Restitution, multiple witnesses for conviction, property rights, etc. are all based in a Judeo-Christian world view.
Another question: " In terms of relative hostility and/or oppressiveness, how would you rate the British rule over the colonies versus Rome with the Jews (and later, Christians) in the NT?"
ANSWER:The history of the Roman Empire is a long one and I am not sure that is an "apples to apples comparison". The Jews did somewhat successfully resist Roman occupation during the Maccabean era, and were justified to do so in my estimation. By the time of Christ however the hope of self government was pretty much gone and the working civil authority was in fact Roman. The judicial system was Roman. The roads were built by Romans. (Martial) law enforcement was Roman.While that system was far from perfect (ie. political manipulation led Pilate to sentence Jesus to death), it was a functional, established governmental system that did allow a considerable amount of freedom (as long as you were not perceived to be a threat to the system itself). Pilate "found no fault" in Christ and later Paul was held in protective custody and transported to Rome on Caesar's dime, just to make sure he received his appeal process.Roman persecution of the Jews was mostly the result, I think, of the unwillingness of the Jews to surrender to the invaders and the lingering zealot influence. If you do take up arms against a government, you can't really cry "foul" when things don't go your way.Early Christian persecution, ironically, was not fueled by the Roman's but by the local quasi-autonomous religious leadership and in some cases (ie. John the Baptizer) a personal vendetta.So, Jesus tells his disciples to "render unto Caesar" because that is existing established governmental system. It also seems to be the best viable governmental option at the time (try to visualize what Judea governed by the Sanhedrin would have looked like.) Paul also characterized the Roman governmental system as not being "a terror to good works".Later persecution of Christians was conducted by Rome under the Emperor Nero on a larger scale. By that time the Roman system was well on its way to a full implosion.The American Revolution is much more comparable to the early Maccabean period, I think, than the time of Christ. The governmental systems within the colonies was in a state of flux before hostilities began. The governmental system that had been a work under a British Sovereign (with whom they had contractual agreements) were being changed by Parliament who had engaged in usurpation within Britain proper. Theirs was a question of whether or not allegiance could or should be transferred. They had been content to be subjects of a monarch. They were not content to be the subjects of Parliament. I don't think the degree of hostilities and oppressiveness had a lot to do with it.
REFERENCES:http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.htmlhttp://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle%3D816&chapter=69270&layout=html&Itemid=27option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle%3D816&chapter=69270&layout=html&Itemid=27
If you notice in the Declaration of Independence the complaints are against the King because the Colonies had a legal contract with the King. If my memory serves me correctly, the political situation in England had changed since those contracts were written and Parliament was calling the shots. The colonies did not have a contract with Parliament but with a king whose power was greatly diminished. Rather than extending the same courtesy of representation to the colonies which was now enjoyed in England, they chose to treat English citizens on our side of the Atlantic as second class citizens by imposing taxes (which may have been reasonable) but denying representation in the legislative process. Additionally, the English had disbanded local forms of government necessary for civil preservation. The revolution was not just to overthrow "bad" government, but in many ways born out of a necessity. English civil government in the colonies was in many ways almost non-existent. This then, was a situation which left the colonies vulnerable to perils from within and without. To summarize then, the King was in breach of contract, Parliament had no legal jurisdiction over the colonies because they were chartered by the King, and there was a widespread absence of (and prevention of) necessary civil governing bodies.I'm not sure they had much choice. It is also worth noting, I think, that the colonies did not declare "war" but "independence".
The follow up question: " Could their effort to gain independence be justified in New Testament scripture or would it be contrary to its teaching?"ANSWER:
I think I can make a compelling case for them. Remember that the colonies were corporate ventures chartered by the king. Prior to the "revolution" their original governing system had been arbitrarily abolished, effectively putting the now impotent king in breach of contract. The new government system (essentially martial law) was being imposed by forces to whom they had neither contract nor obligation. Had they submitted to the marshal law as their new government they would not have been justified in the revolution, in my estimation. [The Boston tea party was to demonstrate non-submission].Because they did not submit to Parliament rule (unless afforded representation), they could view the British Army controlled by Parliament as an invading force, which it was. The purpose of the British army in the colonies was not to protect the colonies but to subjugate them to Parliament.The crazy thing is, that had they been granted representation, the revolution would not have occurred. Had they been granted limited self government, the revolution would not have occurred.Theirs was somewhat a unique situation in history. Since two of the older men who signed the DoI were ministers (Lyman Hall and John Witherspoon), I am sure your question was raised and addressed way back in the 1770's.The questions in light of this verse, I suppose, is [1] Did they pursue peace, and [2] were their motives just?
RE the U.S. Constitution:The Constitution is a whole other ball of wax, written several years later. Yes, separation of powers refers to branches of government. To be sure, the founders did not want to found a theocracy (or any other kind of "ocracy") but a Republic. The Republic worked because it's citizen's (by and large) recognized the virtue of Christian morality and ethics as individuals. This is reflected in our fundamental laws. Restitution, multiple witnesses for conviction, property rights, etc. are all based in a Judeo-Christian world view.
Another question: " In terms of relative hostility and/or oppressiveness, how would you rate the British rule over the colonies versus Rome with the Jews (and later, Christians) in the NT?"
ANSWER:The history of the Roman Empire is a long one and I am not sure that is an "apples to apples comparison". The Jews did somewhat successfully resist Roman occupation during the Maccabean era, and were justified to do so in my estimation. By the time of Christ however the hope of self government was pretty much gone and the working civil authority was in fact Roman. The judicial system was Roman. The roads were built by Romans. (Martial) law enforcement was Roman.While that system was far from perfect (ie. political manipulation led Pilate to sentence Jesus to death), it was a functional, established governmental system that did allow a considerable amount of freedom (as long as you were not perceived to be a threat to the system itself). Pilate "found no fault" in Christ and later Paul was held in protective custody and transported to Rome on Caesar's dime, just to make sure he received his appeal process.Roman persecution of the Jews was mostly the result, I think, of the unwillingness of the Jews to surrender to the invaders and the lingering zealot influence. If you do take up arms against a government, you can't really cry "foul" when things don't go your way.Early Christian persecution, ironically, was not fueled by the Roman's but by the local quasi-autonomous religious leadership and in some cases (ie. John the Baptizer) a personal vendetta.So, Jesus tells his disciples to "render unto Caesar" because that is existing established governmental system. It also seems to be the best viable governmental option at the time (try to visualize what Judea governed by the Sanhedrin would have looked like.) Paul also characterized the Roman governmental system as not being "a terror to good works".Later persecution of Christians was conducted by Rome under the Emperor Nero on a larger scale. By that time the Roman system was well on its way to a full implosion.The American Revolution is much more comparable to the early Maccabean period, I think, than the time of Christ. The governmental systems within the colonies was in a state of flux before hostilities began. The governmental system that had been a work under a British Sovereign (with whom they had contractual agreements) were being changed by Parliament who had engaged in usurpation within Britain proper. Theirs was a question of whether or not allegiance could or should be transferred. They had been content to be subjects of a monarch. They were not content to be the subjects of Parliament. I don't think the degree of hostilities and oppressiveness had a lot to do with it.
REFERENCES:http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.htmlhttp://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle%3D816&chapter=69270&layout=html&Itemid=27option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle%3D816&chapter=69270&layout=html&Itemid=27
