Romans 13 and the American Revolution

From The Public Discourse.com (May 14):

As the United States approaches its 250th anniversary, Christians are once again debating the moral significance of the American Founding. Was the American Revolution an act of justified resistance, or a failure of obedience?

On a first reading, Scripture seems to leave little room for ambiguity; Romans chapter 13 declares, in no uncertain terms: “be subject to the governing authorities.” This came at a time of Roman oppression and persecution of Christians, yet Paul still describes Caesar and the government as a magistrate intended to maintain order, “the one in authority … God’s servant for your good.”

Many American Christians nevertheless have long believed the Revolution, the ultimate act of resistance to the crown’s authority, was not only permissible, but righteous. But the Revolution, and in connection, the Founding, did not conform to one single theological vision. It produced competing views, some grounded in rights, others in order, and still others in providence. The tension between these three approaches creates downstream questions, like the role of faith in public life. How should Christians engage in public life, and to what extent is the American experiment a godly enterprise? Revisiting the Founding’s approaches can clarify what faithful political judgment requires today.

Rights First

The rights-first approach aligns most closely with the political philosophy of John Locke. This approach views liberty as a birthright and upholds the concept of government by consent. This approach is exemplified by John Allen’s Oration Upon the Beauties of Liberty, which was delivered from a distinctively Baptist-separatist standpoint. Allen stresses the right of everyone to freedom, “according to their own sphere of life,” and the crown’s actions taking away the birthright of its citizens as being “contrary to the spirit of the law and the rights of an Englishman.” For Allen, monarchy is legitimate only insofar as it rests on the will and consent of the people; for him, it exists primarily to secure individual freedoms.

Allen invokes Scripture in suggesting law as the prerequisite and standard for government, arguing that “where there is no Law, there is no transgression.” Though framed in biblical language, Allen’s argument is unmistakably Lockean: liberty grounded in rights, consent as the basis of authority, and resistance justified by arbitrary power, with tyranny constituting an effective dissolution of political obligation. Instead of submitting Scripture to sustained exegesis, Allen isolates particular themes to the detriment of Romans 13:5’s insistence that subjection is owed “not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.”

In America’s Appeal to the Impartial World, congregational minister Moses Mather uses similarly Lockean language of God-given natural rights, stating: “Free agency, or a rational existence, with its powers and faculties … is the gift of God to man … hence man hath an absolute property in, and right of dominion over himself.” This leads to an argument for government based on consent and a general principle of non-coercion, whereby “whatever is absolutely the property of a man, he cannot be divested of, but by his own voluntary act, or consent, either expressed, or implied.” This lays the groundwork for civil authority as by the “voice and consent” of the people.

This view sits uneasily with Romans 13, placing ultimate authority in the people’s consent alone. Mather ultimately urges colonists to “withstand and repel the attacks of tyranny,” once again baptizing Lockean categories more than offering a distinctively Christian account of political resistance. [read more]

Happy 250th Birthday, America! 😊💓🎆