When American patriots resisted British rule, were they sinning by resisting the law?

Question

I was discussing this the other day, and thought I'd post it here: Basically, back during the time of the American revolution, when American patriots (particularly those who were Christians amongst this group) resisted British rule and commited various acts of rebellion such as, say, when they stole and dumped tea into Boston harbor; although they were resisting unfair taxation from Britian at the time, all the same, were they not sinning by breaking the law?

I see the greater good of liberty that came out of resistance, but all the same, these patriots were breaking the law, and the law, it could be argued, was still God-ordained, and these people were not honoring God by obeying the laws of the government, right?

I'm not knocking America or being unpatriotic, by the way. I love this country and I'm fascinated by its history. I'm posting this simply for the sake of discussion. I'm just curious how the actions of the original patriots could be construed from a Christian standpoint

Answer 1

This is an old question (the debate predates the American Revolution by about a hundred years -- back to the British civil war). The Library Of Congress (of course -- see the link below) has a long running exhibit on the subject, and I discussed it with my former pastor, Michael Easley (who is now president of the Moody Bible Institute).

The long and short of it is that you can argue it both ways. I suppose that with complex subjects that have no easy answer, God looks at a person's intentions and motives to see if he is sinning (Romans 14). Any honest mistakes will probably be forgiven.

The first section (below) is a response from Easley. The second is a response from the pastor of McLean Bible Church. The bottom excerpt is from the library of congress website

..................................
Ahh... ethics 101 :-)

1. Many have observed that the American Revolution was "sin." You hear me frequently say, "I do not think America is a Theocracy." Meaning, I do not believe we have any unique connections to covenant blessings as did Israel. That said, I do believe God has been incredibly kind and gracious to America because there are many true believers. I am not a prosperity theologian, but OT blessings involved land, produce, crops, harvests, bounty, etc. as a sign of God's favor. So, in some sense, you have to wonder if our great prosperity and blessings is because of God's kindness. I think it is a great oversimplification to say that A + B = C and we must be humble and cautious to say we are great and blessed and prosperous BECAUSE we are Christians. That breaks down for believers in many countries were evil tryants rule.

2. One way believers could have responded to the Brits (and even in our own Civil war) would have been civil disobedience. That honors Rom. 13, 1 Tim. 2, and many parallels in Acts. By civil disobedience I mean a passive resistance to an evil government. To do so, would more than likely meant death, imprisonment, etc.

3. The governemt is given for our good. When a government "sins," so goes one ethical argument, they have abused their role and we are no longer required to submit. We have to be careful in how we push this but if painted into a corner re. my daughter, I would probably appeal to doing all I could to obey the law but not submit to an evil government. (And of course, we'd quickly add, "what government ISN'T evil?!") That might look like fleeing, resisting, hiding, etc. If I had no option, I would bear arms.

The challenge of these discussions is that they are always in a nice neat vacuum. OT history is rich w/ God's kindness when His people disobeyed and God's judgment at different points. Rahab is always the test case. She is honored in the NT for her role in helping Israel, but she lied. There are some clever ways around her lie, but I think the Bible is saying, God can use even sinful people in terrible predicaments. What OT patriarch did not sin oodles of times yet they are called faithful? I happen to believe that if Rahab had "told the truth" and revealed the spies, God would have still taken care of the situation. The Bible seems to honor Rahab, not for her lie, but that she believed in a 40 year old story/rumor about the God of Israel and that her belief/faith is what gains respect, favor.

The greater lesson, and I think more important application than these painted scenarios is, God wants us to be men and women of integrity ALL THE TIME. Psalm 101. From this flows our descisons to be honest, moral, above reproach, etc.

Well, nuff rambling.

If you want, there are some good resources on the whole ethical dilemma realm as it relates to Christianity.
M
.................................
Thanks again for your e-mail. Sorry for the delay in responding, but I
wanted to give it some thought and then things got very busy for me. I
hope I’m not too late in responding.

Romans 13:1-2 is certainly a difficult passage to fully accept and
apply. And yet, it is both fairly clear and is echoed throughout Scripture
(see, 1 Peter 2:13-17; 1 Timothy 2:1-4; Titus 3:1 and 1 Samuel
16:8-11). As such, I believe that Christians are to obey it to its fullest
extent. The clear limitation, however, is that Christians do NOT need to
obey the government when they order us to do that which is contrary to
God’s commands (for example, Acts 4:18-20).

As this relates to your friend’s first question, here are my
thoughts. First, my understanding is that people originally came to America to
escape religious persecution. In this regard, I think “rebelling”
against the authority could be seen as acceptable depending on what the
British were at that time prohibiting Christians from doing. As such,
a case could be made that the colonialists were doing the right thing
in trying to separate from England.

In the specific case of the Boston Tea Party, however, my understanding
is that that was a demonstration against taxes upon the colonialists.
If that’s the case (my U.S. history is a bit rusty!), then I would
say I probably wouldn’t have been involved with it.

More importantly, I’m not sure I would agree with your friend’s
assertion that “if the rebels were to practise that part [Romans
13:1-2], and then America as we know it today would never have come about.”
That is, there could have been other events or paths that God could
have used to bring about the formation of the USA without Christians
specifically being involved with the Boston Tea Party. It may have taken
longer or have followed a different path, but certainly God is in control
enough that He can bring about that which He wants without requiring
believers to go against His expressed will. Consider, for example, the
problems that Abraham caused by trying to get a son his own way (with
Hagar) rather than waiting for God to cause he and Sarah to have Isaac.

In addition, Scripture clearly teaches that the “ends” do not
justify “the means” (see Romans 3:5-8). God is seriously concerned with
how we handle the process. As such, I do not think that the result (an
independent USA) necessarily justifies the means (participating in the
Boston Tea Party).

Finally, in answer to your friends second question (“He wants to know
your take on it. Scenario: You are drafted into the military to fight
a war you don't believe in. How would you handle it?”), here are my
thoughts. If I were drafted to fight a war I didn’t believe in, I
would express to my authorities my disagreement and request that I be used
in a non-combat arena (for example, in a hospital or something like
that). If that were denied, I would go ahead and serve trusting that God
knows that I tried to not be involved, but that I am a citizen of the
USA and thus under the authority of the US government which has drafted
me. Of course, I hope I never find myself in the situation, but I
believe that this is what I would do.

I hope this helps in some way. I would be happy to talk with either
you or your friend in more detail (or to explain anything I’ve written)
if that would be helpful. Just let me know. God bless!

Ken
.........................................

Resistance to Tyranny as a Christian Duty

Jonathan Mayhew delivered this sermon--one of the most influential in American history--on the anniversary of the execution of Charles I. In it, he explored the idea that Christians were obliged to suffer under an oppressive ruler, as some Anglicans argued. Mayhew asserted that resistance to a tyrant was a "glorious" Christian duty. In offering moral sanction for political and military resistance, Mayhew anticipated the position that most ministers took during the conflict with Britain.

Answer 2

In a country where the government is totally ruled by religious sect, then maybe the church will put a law against sedition as grave sin. The British rule then fall under Monarchial rule and not purely religious so the American Patriots committed crime against the King and not against God or religion.

Answer 3

Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar is one instance where established law was to be humbly rejected while honoring God. A good question might be whether there are any good reasons to think that the relationship between the colonies and British government was unjust. The Declaration of Independence seems to cite numerous such reasons...

Answer 4

A very interesting question. I think they would justify it by saying God gave ruling power to the people, and they were simply restoring that God given power.

Or it could have had nothing to do with Christianity at all. Either way it happened. The fun thing U.S. government now is that the power IS given to the people. So from a Biblical standpoint it's ok to rebel against your own authority because you are the authority. Weird isn't it?

Answer 5

Dear Rob,

Yes. However, God can use sinful man to carry out His eternal plan. May I call to your remembrance that Judas Iscariot was not a saved man but the Lord used him to bring about the betrayal and crucifiction of the Lord. Christ entire mission was the atonement. The Lord had to be crucified on the cross to fulfill the Scripture, "Cursed is every man that hangeth on a tree." Christ came under the wrath of God for the sins of God's elect (chosen).

Answer 6

Well, good question. In the example of the Boston Tea Party, I don't know how to answer that. I will say yes. This is why....

Matthew Chapter 22
15 ¶ Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Hero'di-ans, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? 19 Show me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. 20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? 21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. 22 When they had heard these words, they marveled, and left him, and went their way.

Answer 7

This is something I've often pondered myself. I'm guessing that a lot of the unlawful things done by the "Patriots" were probably sins; that's just human nature.

Answer 8

So the Americans who fought against British occupation were patriots while Iraqis who fight against American occupation are murdering terrorists. Do I detect a double standard there?

Answer 9

not all human law are God inspired or ordained. all u need is ungodly law giver to make such laws.

Answer 10

No the Britsih were taxing evrything and the people here were not represented and later we had our people killed and we decided it was time to get out of the UK.