In my last post I talked about the US goal of establishing democracy in Iraq and whether that was a reasonable or achievable goal.  A reader, Brad, brought up a side issue that bears discussion.  What his point boiled down to is this.  If all civil government is established by God (Romans 13) then is revolution ever justified?  From Brad’s comment:

I was simply wondering how the founding fathers came to the conclusion that God gave human beings inalienable rights. Is this a Biblical concept? In my reading of the Bible I have never come across this notion (not to say that I have been looking for it within the text). My impression (and it is only a personal impression) is that we have the choice to obey God and the choice to disobey. We have the right to die for our sins. We have the duty to submit to our Earthly authorities, even English kings that we may or may not care for. (Rom 13). By the way, how did the fathers get around that bit of text? We will be blessed when we?re persecuted, by Muslims and liberals alike. (Matt 5). But as far as inalienable human rights, handed down by God? that seems to me like people were either reading into the text a little too deeply, or they just wanted to live as they wish, far away from any lifestyle or governing system ever presented in the Bible, and still be able to sleep at night.

Brad brings up an interesting question.  Is there a biblical case for inalienable rights and is revolution ever justified?  Brad wasn’t impressed with my quick response.  I said that Romans 13 does not only talk about our responsibility to obey earthly authorities.  It also defines the responsibility of those authorities.  While the passage doesn’t spell out consequences of bad government, it seems to me that it at least implies that we have some kind of rights of civil authority is not just.

Well, since that exchange with Brad I’ve been continuing my reading of Francis Schaeffer.  Specifically, I’ve been reading A Christian Manifesto and interestingly, Schaeffer addresses this very topic.  Schaeffer asks, “What is the final relationship to the state on the part of anyone whose base is the existence of God?”  Schaeffer rightly points out that for the anti-religious, for the atheist, there is no reason to obey the state other than the threat of force.  “The Christian, the God-fearing person, is not like that.  The Bible tells us that God has commanded us to obey the state.”  Schaeffer goes on to say:

But now a second question follows very quickly.  Has God set up an authority in the state that is autonomous from Himself?  Are we to obey the state no matter what?  Are we?  In this one area is indeed Man the measure of all things?  And I would answer, not at all, not at all.

When Jesus says in Matthew 22:21: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s,” is is not:

GOD and CAESAR

It was, is, and it will always be:

GOD
and
CAESAR

The civil government, as all of life, stands under the Law of God.  In this fallen world God has given us certain office to protect us from the chaos which is the natural result of that fallenness.  But when any office commands that which is contrary to the Word of God, those who hold that office abrogate their authority and they are not to be obeyed.  And that includes the state.

That’s pretty much the argument I made with Brad.  Schaeffer points out, rightly in my view, based on the text of Romans 13, that:

God has ordained the state as a delegated authority; it is not autonomous.  The state is to be an agent of justice, to restrain evil by punishing the wrongdoer, and to protect the good in society.  When it does the reverse, it has no proper authority.  It is then a usurped authority and as such it becomes lawless and is tyranny.

Schaeffer then goes on to 1 Peter 2:13-17 which parallels Paul’s word is Romans 13 and supports the same conclusions.  Those who would argue that we as Christians are bound to always obey the state would surely concede that when the state demands actions contrary to scripture we have the right, indeed the duty, to disobey.  This seems to me inarguable.  That is precisely what Daniel did in the Old Testament and God protected him.  His three Hebrew companions did the same and were thrown into the furnace where God rescued them.  So clearly we are on safe ground in disobeying the state when it demands action contrary to God’s law.

But what about revolution?  What about the concept of inalienable rights?  Schaeffer says that “in almost every place where the Reformation had success there was some form of civil disobedience or armed rebellion.”  He gives specific examples in the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland and Geneva.  Each case involved at least armed resistance if not outright rebellion.

One of the nest examples Schaeffer gives is that of John Knox whom he calls a radical reformer.  But he also points out that Knox always called for “moderation and compromise whenever truly fundamental issues were not at stake.”  Knox developed a theology of resistance to tyranny.  Schaeffer says:

Whereas Reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin had reserved the right to rebellion to the civil rulers alone, Knox went further.  He maintained that the common people had the right and the duty to disobedience and rebellion if state officials ruled contrary to the Bible.  To do otherwise would be rebellion against God.

Schaeffer gives numerous examples where the Reformation was not accompanied by any threat of force and in each case it was snuffed.  His list includes Hungary where the Catholic Church stopped the Reformation by killing the protestants, France where the Huguenots suffered “the mass assassination of most of its leadership” and Spain where the small Reformation movement among the monks of Seville ended with the martyrdom of most of them.  It seems clear that the Reformation flourished only where there was some protection.

Next Schaeffer turns his attention to Samuel Rutherford who write Lex Rex.  Lex Rex means the law is king.  This was absolutely contrary to all thinking of the day where it would have been Rex Lex or the king is law.  The difference is quite astounding.  Under Rex Lex, the king is the source of all law and is, therefore, above the law.  But with Lex Rex, the source of law is above the king and the king is subject to the law.  According to Schaeffer:

In his classic work, Lex Rex, Rutherford set forth the proper Christian response to nonbiblical acts by the state. 

Rutherford presents several arguments to establish the right and duty of resistance to unlawful government.  First, since tyranny is satanic, not to resist it is to resist God - to resist tyranny is to honor God.  Second, since the ruler is granted power conditionally, it follows that the people have the power to withdraw their sanction if the proper conditions are not fulfilled.  The civil magistrate is a “fiduciary figure” - that is, he holds his authority in trust for the people.  Violation of the trust gives the people a legitimate base for resistance.

It follows from Rutherford’s thesis that citizens have a moral obligation to resist unjust and tyrannical government.  While we must always be subject to the office of magistrate, we are not to be subject to the man in that office who commands that which is contrary to the Bible.

Now, I don’t imagine that many will be convinced by the above who aren’t already sympathetic to this position.  Certainly groups like the Quakers will not be convinced.  They will die to the last man rather than offer any resistance at all.  While I admire their courage and conviction, I do not agree with them.  I think Schaeffer has it right.  And by extension, I think the founding fathers of the United States had it right in the Declaration of Independence.  They followed every possible option to avoid a revolution but the King of England was having none of it.  They eventually resorted to the only option left to them, open rebellion and revolution.  They also got it right, in my view, when they listed certain inalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 

I’m pretty sure Brad will disagree but there is sound reasoning on my side.  I understand that those who disagree also have sound reasoning and I respect their opinions.  But I respectfully disagree with them.