Should Christians resist tyranny?

[John81]

NWV Poll
Should Christians resist tyranny?
http://www.newswithviewsstore.com/polls.html

I don't really care for the poll options but considering some of what is going on now, this is an important topic and one other generations of Christians have wrestled with as well.

What say you?

[bzmomo7]

I think it would depend on what circumstances surrounded your question. What exactly is meant by "resist" and what the given political circumstances are. There is a huge difference say between participating in public demonstrations, petitioning against etc. "socialist" politicians who are running for are currently in office vs. supporting directly an all out coup against a dictator who has risen up.

[John81]

The poll is very vague and biased.

Whatever government, whatever type of government, if that government allows or forces things we don't agree with, is it ever biblical to forcefully go against such?

I think most, if not all, of us here would agree that if a government is doing or promoting something sinful, we should oppose such through prayer and perhaps fasting. We should counter governmental evils the same as we counter all evil, by spreading the Gospel and edifying our fellow Christians.

Are Christians ever biblically correct in taking up arms against their government?

[bzmomo7]

The poll is very vague and biased.

Whatever government, whatever type of government, if that government allows or forces things we don't agree with, is it ever biblical to forcefully go against such?

I think most, if not all, of us here would agree that if a government is doing or promoting something sinful, we should oppose such through prayer and perhaps fasting. We should counter governmental evils the same as we counter all evil, by spreading the Gospel and edifying our fellow Christians.

Are Christians ever biblically correct in taking up arms against their government?

John, if it were not, then we would be speaking against those very forefathers who founded this country. Obviously, when they took up arms against England, they were taking up arms against their own government, and yes, I do think it is the same thing.

[Annie]

Should Christians resist tyranny?

This is a different question than this:

Are Christians ever biblically correct in taking up arms against their government?

In answer to your first question (assuming that resist means to take physical action against--like taking up arms), I don't think that Christians are biblically obligated to take up arms against anyone at all, government or not. I also don't think that Scripture speaks to your second question. We read a lot about Christians turning the other cheek, living cheerful, faithful lives in the midst of an evil generation/culture, being ready to die rather than to renounce Christ, and living as pilgrims in this world, looking to the next as their true home. Their lives are to be "light and salt," and "as much as lieth in [them, they are to] live peaceably with all men." I see nothing in Scripture that advocates Christians rising up against tyranny.

Someone mentioned the founding fathers...They were not acting "as Christians"...IOW, they weren't saying, "As a group of Christians, we are rising up against tyranny." Yes, many of them were true Christians, but the War for Independence had nothing to do with matters of faith. (Many of the British soldiers were Christians as well.) The War for Independence was fought because a civil (not a religious) group of people (British colonists) felt that King George was being unfair in how he was taxing them without representation. They no longer wanted to be British subjects, but fought--as a civil body composed of Christians and nonChristians alike--for independence. The issues were not religious, but civil.

[bzmomo7]

This is a different question than this:



In answer to your first question (assuming that resist means to take physical action against--like taking up arms), I don't think that Christians are biblically obligated to take up arms against anyone at all, government or not. I also don't think that Scripture speaks to your second question. We read a lot about Christians turning the other cheek, living cheerful, faithful lives in the midst of an evil generation/culture, being ready to die rather than to renounce Christ, and living as pilgrims in this world, looking to the next as their true home. Their lives are to be "light and salt," and "as much as lieth in [them, they are to] live peaceably with all men." I see nothing in Scripture that advocates Christians rising up against tyranny.

Someone mentioned the founding fathers...They were not acting "as Christians"...IOW, they weren't saying, "As a group of Christians, we are rising up against tyranny." Yes, many of them were true Christians, but the War for Independence had nothing to do with matters of faith. (Many of the British soldiers were Christians as well.) The War for Independence was fought because a civil (not a religious) group of people (British colonists) felt that King George was being unfair in how he was taxing them without representation. They no longer wanted to be British subjects, but fought--as a civil body composed of Christians and nonChristians alike--for independence. The issues were not religious, but civil.

The question of "Are Christians ever biblically correct in taking up arms against their government" doesn't mean that the issue has to do with religion, does it?

[John81]

John, if it were not, then we would be speaking against those very forefathers who founded this country. Obviously, when they took up arms against England, they were taking up arms against their own government, and yes, I do think it is the same thing.

Indeed, the American Revolution fits into this. Were the revolutionaries biblically correct in what they did or not? Some Christians say yes, some say no. Do we all agree here one way or another on this?

[John81]

This is a different question than this:



In answer to your first question (assuming that resist means to take physical action against--like taking up arms), I don't think that Christians are biblically obligated to take up arms against anyone at all, government or not. I also don't think that Scripture speaks to your second question. We read a lot about Christians turning the other cheek, living cheerful, faithful lives in the midst of an evil generation/culture, being ready to die rather than to renounce Christ, and living as pilgrims in this world, looking to the next as their true home. Their lives are to be "light and salt," and "as much as lieth in [them, they are to] live peaceably with all men." I see nothing in Scripture that advocates Christians rising up against tyranny.

Someone mentioned the founding fathers...They were not acting "as Christians"...IOW, they weren't saying, "As a group of Christians, we are rising up against tyranny." Yes, many of them were true Christians, but the War for Independence had nothing to do with matters of faith. (Many of the British soldiers were Christians as well.) The War for Independence was fought because a civil (not a religious) group of people (British colonists) felt that King George was being unfair in how he was taxing them without representation. They no longer wanted to be British subjects, but fought--as a civil body composed of Christians and nonChristians alike--for independence. The issues were not religious, but civil.

Yes, those questions are different, though they could be viewed as the same. Since the poll at the website I linked to was so flawed I though I would post a more direct question, hence the "second" question.

Christians are Christians at all times and we are supposed to live like it. One can't commit an act and say since I'm not doing this as a Christian it's different. Either those Christians who helped to instigate and fight the American Revolution had biblical standing for their actions or they did not.

[John81]

The question of "Are Christians ever biblically correct in taking up arms against their government" doesn't mean that the issue has to do with religion, does it?

No, of course not. Christians are to abide by Scripture whether what they are doing is directly "religious", civil, social, or anything else.

The issue of abortion, for instance, could be viewed as a matter of religion, women's rights, law, governmental authority, etc.

As with all things, the question we should first ask is, "What does Scripture say?" Does the Bible say there is a time when Christians should take up arms against their government or not?

[Annie]

Christians are Christians at all times and we are supposed to live like it. One can't commit an act and say since I'm not doing this as a Christian it's different. Either those Christians who helped to instigate and fight the American Revolution had biblical standing for their actions or they did not.

I don't believe they had biblical standing, as in a biblical mandate, to start the War for Independence. IOW, they could not say, "Scripture commands us to start this war against the tyranny of King George." Nowhere, to my knowledge, does Scripture mandate or even suggest that Christians rise up against tyranny (whatever that is...Scripture doesn't even define it or use that term, as far as I know). It's just not there. BUT....neither does it say that Christians are forbidden to "rise up" against tyranny (in a civil/war situation, not acting alone or outside the law as the abortion doctor shooter did). There are times when civil groups of people, composed of Christians and nonChristians alike, band together in a common cause, like a war for independence, for whatever reason. IMO, the War for Independence was inevitable, because George was an inefficient ruler who couldn't control his far-flung colonies. The conditions were just right for the colonists' action. The reason for the war was not that King George was immoral or enacting wicked laws, such as permitting abortion or gay marriage, but that the colonists didn't believe he was governing them fairly. IOW, the issues had nothing to do with wickedness, but everything to do with civil matters.

All that said, I'm not sure how this discussion applies to today's American society. We are not being governed by a tyrant. There is no real reason to revolt against the American government, IMO. Sure, society is wicked and is getting worse, but true Christianity generally thrives in such conditions. I say bring it on...We fat and lazy Christians would do well to experience persecution for a change...to learn what true dependence on God is, because we have no one else to turn to...no money to trust in...to have our faith tried and come forth as gold...to be reviled as Christ was...to take part in His sufferings...to yearn for the next world instead of loving this one so much.

[John81]

I don't believe they had biblical standing, as in a biblical mandate, to start the War for Independence. IOW, they could not say, "Scripture commands us to start this war against the tyranny of King George." Nowhere, to my knowledge, does Scripture mandate or even suggest that Christians rise up against tyranny (whatever that is...Scripture doesn't even define it or use that term, as far as I know). It's just not there. BUT....neither does it say that Christians are forbidden to "rise up" against tyranny (in a civil/war situation, not acting alone or outside the law as the abortion doctor shooter did). There are times when civil groups of people, composed of Christians and nonChristians alike, band together in a common cause, like a war for independence, for whatever reason. IMO, the War for Independence was inevitable, because George was an inefficient ruler who couldn't control his far-flung colonies. The conditions were just right for the colonists' action. The reason for the war was not that King George was immoral or enacting wicked laws, such as permitting abortion or gay marriage, but that the colonists didn't believe he was governing them fairly. IOW, the issues had nothing to do with wickedness, but everything to do with civil matters.

All that said, I'm not sure how this discussion applies to today's American society. We are not being governed by a tyrant. There is no real reason to revolt against the American government, IMO. Sure, society is wicked and is getting worse, but true Christianity generally thrives in such conditions. I say bring it on...We fat and lazy Christians would do well to experience persecution for a change...to learn what true dependence on God is, because we have no one else to turn to...no money to trust in...to have our faith tried and come forth as gold...to be reviled as Christ was...to take part in His sufferings...to yearn for the next world instead of loving this one so much.

Tyranny takes many forms. The colonists revolted mostly based upon matters of commerce, with taxation being a focal point. The American government today holds far more control over commerce and imposses far more taxes than England ever did. We also live with a government that's in massive violation of the Constitution. We are living with rulers who lie when the take the oath of office as they rule without regard to the Constitution. Under the form of government the Founders established, what we see today is an illigitimate government far worse than what the Founders faced with England.

What does the Bible say about our dealings with government/leaders? We know the Bible doesn't have a 'thou must take up arms against unjust governments'. However, the Bible holds the answer to all things in life. Does what the Bible teaches give Christians liberty to take up arms against their government or not?

Those who have taken up arms against their government, in whatever country, in whatever year, all had reasons for what they did, but does the Bible support Christians doing such?

The Bible says much about government and a Christians interaction with such. The Bible also says much about how the Christian is to live their lives. Is taking up arms against your government biblical?

[Annie]

Tyranny takes many forms. The colonists revolted mostly based upon matters of commerce, with taxation being a focal point. The American government today holds far more control over commerce and imposses far more taxes than England ever did. We also live with a government that's in massive violation of the Constitution. We are living with rulers who lie when the take the oath of office as they rule without regard to the Constitution. Under the form of government the Founders established, what we see today is an illigitimate government far worse than what the Founders faced with England.

You're probably right about this. There may come a time when, as in the 1770's, we are ripe for a revolt. But conditions don't seem ideal for that right now. There is no massive, nationwide movement of people who are concerned enough to get off the computer and actually form groups of resistance which would be strong enough to challenge the US military. There are no strong leaders who are able to galvanize the public, appealing to their righteous anger, and inspiring them to revolt. People (even the people who don't like what the government's doing) generally enjoy healthy, wealthy lives, compared to the rest of the world. Sure, the economy is going south, but it really hasn't affected a whole lot of people when it comes to basic needs and even extras like internet access, cable TV, etc. IMO, people will not act with physical force until there is widespread poverty (like in Communist Romania), and people are affected enough to band together and do something about it.

The situation in the colonies was vastly different; the mother country was across the ocean, and there were enough people upset to form resistance groups which could be effective against the British soldiers and mercenaries stationed there on behalf of Britain.

What does the Bible say about our dealings with government/leaders? We know the Bible doesn't have a 'thou must take up arms against unjust governments'. However, the Bible holds the answer to all things in life. Does what the Bible teaches give Christians liberty to take up arms against their government or not?

Those who have taken up arms against their government, in whatever country, in whatever year, all had reasons for what they did, but does the Bible support Christians doing such?

I think it would help if we defined "taking up arms against their government." I don't think that's what the American colonists did, when I think about it. What they did was to form a completely NEW government (simple and informal though it was in the beginning), and to become subjects of that new government. So, as subjects of this new government (in unilateral "submission" to this new government), they committed acts of war against the country they previously (but no longer, per the Declaration of Independence) belonged to. They separated themselves into a new unit, and were no longer British subjects, but Americans fighting for freedom from Britain. They were not as the French or the Bolsheviks, who staged bloody, in-house revolutions in order to tear down and reorganize the existing government to fit their ideals. On the contrary, the Americans formed an entirely independent unit, and then acted as subjects of that independent unit. The result of their success had nothing to do with changing the essence of British government, but with formal recognition that they were indeed their own, new unit. They were not acting as British citizens against Britain, but as American subjects against a country from which they desired independence.

The single idea that we get from the Bible regarding this issue is this: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, for the powers that be are ordained of God." This verse could be used to defend two opposing points of view, IMO. On one hand, someone could say, "Since Britain was "a higher power" over America, Americans should not have committed acts of war against her." On the other hand is an equally viable perspective: God ordains the "powers that be." The fledgling American government, therefore, was a "higher power" that was ordained by God, and hence was a legitimate authority to subject oneself to. As a subject of this government, it was appropriate to war against a different country...one that at that point had no legitimate authority over the American citizens, who had formed a new group.

My personal take on Romans 13 is that Christians should not be lawless, but should submit themselves to a civil government, whether that government is an old one or a new one. We should not be "a law unto ourselves," but should act in accordance with the laws which govern the civil body to which we attach ourselves. It is no crime to change civil status, as in to give up one's current citizenship and become a citizen of a different country. People do this all the time. Latinos are now doing it by the hundreds. As long as we place ourselves (or are involuntarily placed under) a definite governing body, and are subject to its laws, we are following Romans 13. I think it is safe to say that the American colonists, far from advocating anarchy, had established a new governing, or civil, unit, to which they pledged allegiance. They were not lawless, acting singly, apart from any governance. Thus, they were obeying Romans 13, in the sense of the latter view.

Of course, the subject is debatable....but Scripture doesn't conclusively solve the debate. It gives the principle: "Obey the government," and leaves us to apply this mandate in our own situation. I think it was entirely possible for the Americans to be in complete submission to a higher power, per Romans 13, (the newly-formed colonial coalition) while simultaneously warring with Britain.

[John81]

You're probably right about this. There may come a time when, as in the 1770's, we are ripe for a revolt. But conditions don't seem ideal for that right now. There is no massive, nationwide movement of people who are concerned enough to get off the computer and actually form groups of resistance which would be strong enough to challenge the US military. People (even the people who don't like what the government's doing) generally enjoy healthy, wealthy lives, compared to the rest of the world. Sure, the economy is going south, but it really hasn't affected a whole lot of people when it comes to basic needs and even extras like internet access, cable TV, etc. IMO, people will not act with physical force until there is widespread poverty (like in Communist Romania), and people are affected enough to band together and do something about it.

The situation in the colonies was vastly different; the mother country was across the ocean, and there were enough people upset to form resistance groups which could be effective against the British soldiers and mercenaries stationed there on behalf of Britain.



I think it would help if we defined "taking up arms against their government." I don't think that's what the American colonists did, when I think about it. What they did was to form a completely NEW government (simple and informal though it was in the beginning), and to become subjects of that new government. So, as subjects of this new government (in unilateral "submission" to this new government), they committed acts of war against the country they previously (but no longer, per the Declaration of Independence) belonged to. They separated themselves into a new unit, and were no longer British subjects, but Americans fighting for freedom from Britain. They were not as the French or the Bolsheviks, who staged bloody, in-house revolutions in order to tear down and reorganize the existing government to fit their ideals. On the contrary, the Americans formed an entirely independent unit, and then acted as subjects of that independent unit. The result of their success had nothing to do with changing the essence of British government, but with formal recognition that they were indeed their own, new unit. They were not acting as British citizens against Britain, but as American subjects against a country from which they desired independence.

The single idea that we get from the Bible regarding this issue is this: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, for the powers that be are ordained of God." This verse could be used to defend two opposing points of view, IMO. On one hand, someone could say, "Since Britain was "a higher power" over America, Americans should not have committed acts of war against her." On the other hand is an equally viable perspective: God ordains the "powers that be." The fledgling American government, therefore, was a "higher power" that was ordained by God, and hence was a legitimate authority to subject oneself to. As a subject of this government, it was appropriate to war against a different country...one that at that point had no legitimate authority over the American citizens, who had formed a new group.

My personal take on Romans 13 is that Christians should not be lawless, but should submit themselves to a civil government, whether that government is an old one or a new one. We should not be "a law unto ourselves," but should act in accordance with the laws which govern the civil body to which we attach ourselves. It is no crime to change civil status, as in to give up one's current citizenship and become a citizen of a different country. People do this all the time. Latinos are now doing it by the hundreds. As long as we place ourselves (or are involuntarily placed under) a definite governing body, and are subject to its laws, we are following Romans 13. I think it is safe to say that the American colonists, far from advocating anarchy, had established a new governing, or civil, unit, to which they pledged allegiance. They were not lawless, acting singly, apart from any governance. Thus, they were obeying Romans 13, in the sense of the latter view.

Of course, the subject is debatable....but Scripture doesn't conclusively solve the debate. It gives the principle: "Obey the government," and leaves us to apply this mandate in our own situation. I think it was entirely possible for the Americans to be in complete submission to a higher power, per Romans 13, (the newly-formed colonial coalition) while simultaneously warring with Britain.

So if a group rises up against their government and declares themselves to be a new government forming a new nation out of the old one then they are not really going against their government?

At the time of the American Revolution there was not a mass movement for war or independence. Prior to the actual declaration of independence, many who were supporting efforts against England thought they were simply supporting efforts to get England to lower taxes and give them some representation politically. It's been calculated that no more than one-third of colonists ever supported the Revolution. About another third were Loyalists (those who stood by the King of England) and about a third were indifferent or simply fence-sitters.

How does the Bible say Christians are to live their lives in this world? What does Scripture declare about a Christians citizenship and what they are to do while in this world? What Scripture, if any, supports Christians turning against the government which is over them and establishing a new government?

[Annie]

So if a group rises up against their government and declares themselves to be a new government forming a new nation out of the old one then they are not really going against their government?

No, I don't think so, since they have pledged their allegiance to a new government (which then becomes "their government"), just like anyone else who changes their citizenship.

At the time of the American Revolution there was not a mass movement for war or independence. Prior to the actual declaration of independence, many who were supporting efforts against England thought they were simply supporting efforts to get England to lower taxes and give them some representation politically. It's been calculated that no more than one-third of colonists ever supported the Revolution. About another third were Loyalists (those who stood by the King of England) and about a third were indifferent or simply fence-sitters.

Right. I'm familiar with these statistics. Let's look at Romans 13 from each third's perspective.

First, the supporters of the war--those who kept current with the times and reasons for it, and who followed the spirit of the Declaration of Independence--were acting in submission to the new government they had formed, in accordance with the expectations of wartime behavior. They were not a law unto themselves, but were a separate governmental unit from Britain (and informed Britain of this in so many words). They had changed their "citizenship" from "British" to "American." They were not seeking to reform British government, but to have their own government formally recognized. So, no, it can be argued that they were not acting in opposition to Romans 13. They were being subject unto the higher powers, the powers that be, namely the American government. They were not acting in the absence of governance.

Second, the Loyalists. They had not changed their citizenship, and they also operated in keeping with Romans 13 by submitting themselves to the British government, which they claimed as their own.

Third, the fence-sitters. They didn't care either way, and were not committing lawless acts. They were just sitting it out to see which government was going to triumph...which government they would find themselves submitting to. Again, they were not lawless; they submitted themselves to whatever laws they found themselves under, which surely got confusing for a while, but eventually became clearer.

How does the Bible say Christians are to live their lives in this world? What does Scripture declare about a Christians citizenship and what they are to do while in this world? What Scripture, if any, supports Christians turning against the government which is over them and establishing a new government?

The Bible says that a Christian's citizenship is in heaven and that Christians are to be salt and light in this world. God has set up civil authorities to govern lawless men while we are on earth. IOW, we are, while on this earth, citizens of whatever country we occupy.

You ask what Scripture supports establishment of a new government. I'll do better than that...Romans 13 says that the powers that be are ordained of God. If a new government is established, it is not man's doing, but God's. The guiding principle in Romans 13 is this: obey your government. It is no crime to change citizenship, or to act in submission to new governments. I could ask you in turn, "Which Scripture forbids the establishment of new governments, or pledging your allegiance to a different government and abiding by its laws?" The point is that Scripture is silent on the establishment of new govts, except to say that God Himself establishes them. As I said, either perspective (for/against American War for Independence) can be supported by Romans 13. We could go round and round about it, each using the same Scripture as support. And I also said that what the Americans did in 1776 contrasts sharply with what the French did in storming their own government, executing their leaders, and radically changing the structure of the existing order. IMO, the Americans acted with honor, informing George of their independence and remaining under the authority of government--the new government that they had discussed, voted on, and set up. What they did was rational and orderly, unlike the French Revolution, which was radical and anarchistic. The Americans did not "turn against" the government that was over them; on the contrary, when they realized that their ideals differed so severely from their mother country's, they simply and regretfully announced their independence from it. They did not attack Britain; Britain attacked them.

If I remember right, John, you've defended the Confederate states' right to secede from the Union and to establish their own government, and have called Lincoln some nasty names for fighting against them in an effort to restore the Union. (I might not be remembering right, so please correct me if I'm wrong.) If that is indeed your perspective, then how can you not apply the same principles to the War for Independence?

[trc123]

If I remember right' date=' John, you've defended the Confederate states' right to secede from the Union and to establish their own government, and have called Lincoln some nasty names for fighting against them in an effort to restore the Union. (I might not be remembering right, so please correct me if I'm wrong.) If that is indeed your perspective, then how can you not apply the same principles to the War for Independence?[/quote']

John is consistent in that he enjoys taking the opposing view in an intellectually stimulating debate!