American Revolution: Biblical or Not?

[John81]

In light of the clear command in Romans 13 regarding government, were those who promoted and prosecuted the American Revolution violating the Word of God?

Romans 13
1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

7Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

[sfspurlock]

I had never thought about that before. My opinion--God's word is the final authority. I'm sure interested to see what everyone else says about this one.

[JerryNumbers]

Yes, its true, yet many of or brothers and sisters in Jesus will heavily disagree.

And what brings wars.

Jas 4:1 ¶ From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?
Jas 4:2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot OBtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.

Lust & sin.

1Jo 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

And it is not of the Father.

[Wilchbla]

Would we have been better off spiritually if we stayed under English rule? Canada did and look at them.

[HappyChristian]

Jonathan Mayhew explains Romans 13 quite well. He was a pastor during that time period. Just one of several who preached strongly against the tyranny of the king: who was a terror to GOOD works, not the evil - exactly the opposite of what Romans 13 says...

Be prepared. It's lengthy but it's definitely appropos to this discussion. And I'm challenging those who think Romans 13 teaches us that we have to roll over and allow tyranny to squash us to read it...

http://hushmoney.org/UnlimitedSubmission_Mayhew.htm


The war didn't start out as a revolution. It started out as a separation, a dissolution of political bands. Reading the Declaration(http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html) shows that it's quite clear a coup was not planned, but rather a peaceful severing of ties. Britain is the one who forced hands...

[chev1958]

Rom 13:3 - For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil ...
Rom 13:4a - For he is the minister of God to thee for good ...

So, if the secular rulers God places over us becomes a "terror to good works" and is no longer "the minister of God to thee for good" (basically violating God's word), then aren't we supposed to follow God instead of men?

God calls a man into the pulpit to preach the gospel. We are to submit to his authority. But he commits a gross moral sin, and we're clearly instructed to remove him from the pulpit. God ordained him into that position, yet the preacher could not/would not adhere to the qualifications.

I believe application can be made that when government becomes anti-God, then we have the God-given right to go against that government. Daniel and his friends defied the king; Jesus threw out the temple money-changers even though their business was legal. God Himself authorized Israel to wipe out entire cities due to the wickedness allowed by their governments, supposedly ordained of God.

King George was head of a government that became a "terror to good works" not only toward the American colonies, but to the rest of its colonial empire. He was driven by lust and power. He was no longer "the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." King George had become the very evil God ordained him to keep us from.

[Brother Rick]

If all war comes from lust and sin, then why did God call Himself a "Man of War"?

Ex. 15:3, "The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name."

[HappyChristian]

So, if the secular rulers God places over us becomes a "terror to good works" and is no longer "the minister of God to thee for good" (basically violating God's word), then aren't we supposed to follow God instead of men?

God calls a man into the pulpit to preach the gospel. We are to submit to his authority. But he commits a gross moral sin, and we're clearly instructed to remove him from the pulpit. God ordained him into that position, yet the preacher could not/would not adhere to the qualifications.

I believe application can be made that when government becomes anti-God, then we have the God-given right to go against that government. Daniel and his friends defied the king; Jesus threw out the temple money-changers even though their business was legal. God Himself authorized Israel to wipe out entire cities due to the wickedness allowed by their governments, supposedly ordained of God.

King George was head of a government that became a "terror to good works" not only toward the American colonies, but to the rest of its colonial empire. He was driven by lust and power. He was no longer "the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." King George had become the very evil God ordained him to keep us from.

Hey, you must've read Mayhew!

[Covenanter]

As a Christian & an Englishman ....

General Biblical advice on submission to authorities should be followed, as we get on with Christian living. Where the authorities act to control our witness, that we should resist, by continuing to do what has become illegal - our first OBedience is to God. The Apostles suffered prison & death, but never physically resisted the persecutions. Jesus command was Mat 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another:

OTOH the European settlers in America did not recognise the authorities already there. Land grab & conquest were the procedures. Governments have always been established by military conquest.

Why should a country seek to establish an empire? Has a country the divine right to rule a people in another land because of conquest? or settlement? Is the American empire a positive influence for godliness in the world? Are indigenous Christians more secure in the countries America (& Britain) have invaded in "self-defence?"

IMO England should have recognised the situation, & allowed the colonies self government while keeping good trading relationships, as we have done particularly since WWII. Sadly, in many countries, self government has been disastrous for the people, as the change has been from a responsible colonial government to a dictator acting in self interest.

[HappyChristian]

As a Christian & an Englishman ....

General Biblical advice on submission to authorities should be followed, as we get on with Christian living. Where the authorities act to control our witness, that we should resist, by continuing to do what has become illegal - our first OBedience is to God. The Apostles suffered prison & death, but never physically resisted the persecutions. Jesus command was Mat 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another:

OTOH the European settlers in America did not recognise the authorities already there. Land grab & conquest were the procedures. Governments have always been established by military conquest.

Why should a country seek to establish an empire? Has a country the divine right to rule a people in another land because of conquest? or settlement? Is the American empire a positive influence for godliness in the world? Are indigenous Christians more secure in the countries America (& Britain) have invaded in "self-defence?"

IMO England should have recognised the situation, & allowed the colonies self government while keeping good trading relationships, as we have done particularly since WWII. Sadly, in many countries, self government has been disastrous for the people, as the change has been from a responsible colonial government to a dictator acting in self interest.

During the colonial period, England was seeking to control religious liberty. You may not recall, but Patrick Henry defended two men whom the english law was trying to prosecute for preaching without the permission of the crown. And they were just two...

Had England acceded to colonial request for proper representation, that would most likely have been an end to things (at least for a time period - the British Empire began shrinking, and it's likely that one way or another political ties would have been severed). The colonies petitioned the king and his response was constantly more oppression.

Actually, the colonies did recognize the authorities that were here, when they moved here. They OBeyed the laws of the country from whence they came to colonize. The indians were not in authority, so there were no laws (other than civility, actually, in some cases) that were broken. In many instances, land was purchased from the indians - even though the indians themselves knew that the land wasn't theirs...

[Wilchbla]

Jonathan Mayhew explains Romans 13 quite well. He was a pastor during that time period. Just one of several who preached strongly against the tyranny of the king: who was a terror to GOOD works, not the evil - exactly the opposite of what Romans 13 says...

Wasn't Nero a terror to good works? He would have been "king" when Paul wrote Romans 13.

[JerryNumbers]

Take a study of the government that was in place prior to Jesus birth, and the writing of the Scriptures, we see nothing of Jesus, nor His 12, trying to over throw this evil government. While at it, see what the Bible tells us about OBeying those who are in charge. We are to OBey them as long as they do not make us do something that is a sin against God.

We can explain it away, as many going with our thoughts on the matter, yet it will never change the written Word of God.

Now, is there anything we can do about the matter after it has been done? No, of course not, yet that does not mean we should uphold it.

Its clear, the Bible tells us, war comes because of the lust man has.

Jas 4:1 ¶ From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?

That is if you believe what the Bble, God, has to say about the matter.

[John81]

I found this while searching and reading Mayhew and others:


The American Revolution: Was it Biblical?

Was the American Revolution Biblical? This question was posed to me recently, and in this post I would like to share some thoughts on the matter.

I acknowledge up front that this question is one that has been strongly debated by Christians at times. In fact, there was not consistent agreement among Christians at the time of the Revolution either.

I think that the following assessment by Derek H. Davis, Director of the Institute of Church-State Studies at Baylor University, in an article entitled How Christian Was the American Revolution?, shows the diversity of opinion among Christians at the time:
How Christian was the American Revolution? The answer perhaps depends upon how we understand the question. If we seek to know whether there was an adequate biblical justification for the Revolution, we prOBably cannot give a very satisfactory answer because while there were many Christian patriots who supported the Independence movement, there were many Christian Tories who supported submission to Great Britain and many Christian pacifists who thought that war under any circumstances was wrong. In other words, Christians disagreed on whether the Revolution was a part of God’s will. If, however, we seek to know whether the Revolutionary movement was sustained by Christian ideals, we can prOBably come closer to saying that the Revolution was indeed Christian, since so much of the Revolution's ideological underpinnings were theological arguments advanced by Christians.
When we come to Scripture for an answer as to whether or not the American Revolution was, in fact, Biblical, the primary passage has to be found in Romans:

NKJ Romans 13:1-7 “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists [ὁ, followed by the present participle of ἀντιτάσσω] the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.”
Here the key verses are verses 1-2, which appear to be as universal a statement for Christians as one could imagine. These verses clearly assert that “every soul” must be subject to the governing authorities, that there is “no authority” that has not come from God, and that all the “authorities that exist are appointed by God” (vs. 1). They further clearly assert that “whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God” (vs. 2). (For a restatement of the general principle see also Titus 3:1.)

Indeed, this passage appears to be so clear that it has led John MacArthur to declare:

Over the past several centuries, people have mistakenly linked democracy and political freedom to Christianity. That's why many contemporary evangelicals believe the American Revolution was completely justified, both politically and scripturally. They follow the arguments of the Declaration of Independence, which declares that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are divinely endowed rights.

Therefore those believers say such rights are part of a Christian worldview, worth attaining and defending at all cost including military insurrection at times. But such a position is contrary to the clear teachings and commands of Romans 13:1-7. So the United States was actually born out of a violation of New Testament principles, and any blessings God has bestowed on America have come in spite of that disOBedience by the Founding Fathers. (Why Government Can't Save You: An Alternative to Political Activism, p. 6)
But, of course, the many Christians who supported the Revolution at the time were not OBlivious to the importance of this passage. In fact, it was at the heart of the debate about whether or not they should offer their support to the cause. Historian Derek H. Davis, in the aforementioned article, is again helpful here:

Christians seeking a scriptural perspective on a possible war with England were especially challenged by Romans 13:1: "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God." This verse was an OBstacle to many Christian colonists. How could a Christian support independence in the face of such a clear statement that God ordains all governmental authority and OBedient Christian citizenship requires submission to such authority? Anglican minister Jonathan Boucher of Maryland, for example, concluded in a 1775 sermon that "OBedience to government is every man's duty . . . because . . . it is enjoined by the positive commands of God." Loyalists (those who opposed the Revolution) numbered about one-third of the American population and many of them cited Romans 13:1 as the basis of their loyalty to the mother country.

But Romans 13:1 could be interpreted differently. Many patriot preachers taught that the passage did not require unlimited passive OBedience unto despotic, evil governments; it rather approved of human government in a broad, generic way in which submission would be the normal practice. Prominent Congregational minister Jonathan Mayhew, for example, held this view, stating that civil magistrates should be OBeyed only so long as “they do not grossly abuse their power and trust, but exercise it for the good of those that are governed.” This interpretation of Romans 13:1 became widespread among other colonial preachers, thus removing the verse as an OBstacle to revolution.

Patriot ministers regularly preached on the theme of liberty as well. If God's people had "been called to liberty," as Galatians 5:13 promised, meaning liberty in Christ, then it did not seem too much a stretch to believe that this also meant freedom from political tyranny. This theme was further supported by the social contract and natural right theories of such philosophical divines as John Milton, Algernon Sydney, and especially John Locke. Modern researchers have affirmed that outside of the Bible, the writings of John Locke were the most frequently cited source for justifying the Revolution.
The prOBlem with the interpretation of Romans 13:1 offered by Jonathan Mayhew – i.e. that civil magistrates should be OBeyed so long as “they do not grossly abuse their power and trust, but exercise it for the good of those that are governed” – is that Paul seems to envision no such qualification. And one would certainly have expected him to offer such a qualification if he agreed with it, especially since at the time he was writing Nero was most likely the Emperor. But whoever the Emperor was at the time, corruption was fairly common in Roman government in the latter half of the first century. Perhaps it would be good, then, to take a look at a couple of other arguments for a different understanding of Romans 13:

1) the argument that we must not overthrow government as an institution, and

2) the argument that we may overthrow the government if in doing so we OBey an interpositional authority.
First, some Christians make the argument that we must not overthrow government as an institution and live in anarchy. David Barton (“the Founder and President of WallBuilders, a national pro-family organization that presents America's forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on our moral, religious and constitutional heritage") argues in an online article entitled The American Revolution: Was it an Act of Biblical Rebellion? that:

Americans embraced two specific theological positions that guided their thinking and conduct in the conflict with Great Britain.

The first was that most Christian denominations during the Founding Era held that while they were forbidden to overthrow the institution of government and live in anarchy, they were not required blindly to submit to every law and policy. Those in the Founding Era understood that the general institution of government was unequivocally ordained by God and was not to be overthrown, but that did not mean that God approved every specific government; God had ordained government in lieu of anarchy – He opposed anarchy, rebellion, lawlessness, and wickedness and wanted civil government in society. Therefore, a crucial determination in the colonists’ Biblical exegesis was whether opposition to authority was simply to resist the general institution of government (an institution ordained by God Himself), or whether it was instead to resist tyrannical leaders who had themselves rebelled against God. (The Scriptural model for this position was repeatedly validated when God Himself raised up leaders such as Gideon, Ehud, Jepthah, Samson, and Deborah to throw off tyrannical governments – leaders subsequently praised in Hebrews 11:32 for those acts of faith.)

[And later in the article he says] The second Scriptural viewpoint overwhelmingly embraced by most Americans during the Revolutionary Era was that God would not honor an offensive war, but that He did permit civil self-defense (e.g., Nehemiah 4:13-14 & 20-21, Zechariah 9:8, 2 Samuel 10:12, etc.). The fact that the American Revolution was an act of self-defense and was not an offensive war undertaken by the Americans remained a point of frequent spiritual appeal for the Founding Fathers. After all, Great Britain had attacked America, not vice versa; the Americans had never fired the first shot – not in the Boston Massacre of 1770, the bombing of Boston and burning of Charlestown in 1774, or in the attacks on Williamsburg, Concord, or Lexington in 1775.
Notice that the first argument here must assume that Paul had in mind only that we should not resist the institution of government in general and so opt for anarchy when he said, “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God …” (Rom. 13:1-2a). But the prOBlem is that Paul is not speaking in this way. He is quite plainly asserting that any particular authority over us has been placed there by God when he says in explanation of the command to “be subject to the governing authorities” that “there is no authority except from God.” In my opinion, to argue that Paul only has in mind resistance to the establishment of any kind of government at all is to read into the text.

As for Barton's allusion to Old Testament examples of rebellion against a governing authority, I would respond that, in my view, these cases were all instances of God's special revelation that such should be done or of His divine intervention on behalf of a people whose position was that of a national entity under His rule. Can we really apply such cases in the history of national Israel to the Church? I think not. I think this would fail to properly take into account the differences between the nature of the Old Covenant people of God as a nation among nations and the New covenant people of God as a family of believers from among all nations. Under the Old Covenant the very nature of the case often required rebellion against foreign oppressors or the overthrow of wicked kings, and then only with Divine sanction and guidance. But the New Covenant Church is not such an entity. As Jesus said to Pontius Pilate:

NKJ John 18:36 “Jesus answered, 'My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.'”
As for part two of Barton's argument, I suppose we would have to debate whether or not the Revolution was in reality a war of self defense or whether or not it was the resistance of an authority that had the right to quell opposition by means of force. As I consider this notion in the context of Romans 13, I can't help but wonder why the early Church did not avail herself of such an argument, especially when one considers just how unjust the Roman government could often be in its use of force.

Second, some Christians make the argument that we may overthrow the government if in doing so we OBey an interpositional authority. That is, if we are subject to a lesser authority which rebels against a higher authority, then we may OBey that lesser authority by joining in the rebellion. And the magistrates in early America, it is argued, constituted just such lesser authorities.

But notice that this argument assumes that it would be right for a lesser authority to seek to overthrow a higher authority in the first place. But what if it isn't right? Does Paul assume in Romans 13 that it would be right? Or does his position indicate that it would be wrong? It appears to me that it would indeed be wrong, because it would in any case entail resistance of a God ordained authority, and such resistance would be considered sin by Paul. In fact, couldn't I argue on the basis of Romans 13 that, when a lesser authority requires me to disOBey and resist a higher authority, I must disOBey that lesser authority because it is requiring me to sin against God?

Now, I OBviously do agree that Paul expects the governing authorities to wield their authority justly, but he does not say that resistance is acceptable if they fail to do so. Not that he wouldn't agree that civil disOBedience is permissible at times, for I have no doubt that he would agree with Peter and John and the rest of the Apostles when they practiced civil disOBedience. For example:

NKJ Acts 4:18-20 “18 And they called them and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John answered and said to them, 'Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. 20 For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.'”
NKJ Acts 5:27-29 “27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, 28 saying, 'Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man's blood on us!' 29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: 'We ought to OBey God rather than men.'” (For Peter's general point of view, which of course agrees with Paul, see 1 Peter 2:13-14.)
Of course we could add other Scriptural examples of civil disOBedience, such as the Hebrew midwives in ancient Egypt (Exod. 1:15-21) or Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah in ancient Babylon (otherwise known as Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, Dan. 3:8-18), or Daniel in Persia (Dan. 6:1-23). But the point is that in none of these cases is overthrow of the government involved. They disOBeyed only at those points where the governing authority expressly required them to disOBey God.

Now, I suppose one could give Old Testament examples where overthrow of the government did take place, such as when JerOBoam the son of Nebat rebelled against RehOBoam, but aside from the prOBlems with directly applying such Old Covenant situations to the New Covenant Church, I would simply OBserve that in this case (and others like it) there was special revelation from God calling for the rebellion (1 Kings 11:29-39). Kirby Anderson, President of PrOBe Ministries, cites such examples in an online article entitled Civil DisOBedience, and he makes the following helpful OBservations:

Notice that in each of these examples there are at least two common elements. First, there was a direct, specific conflict between God's law and man's law. Pharaoh commanded the Hebrew midwives to kill male Hebrew babies. Nebuchadnezzar commanded his subjects to bow before the golden image. King Darius ruled that no one could pray. And, in the New Testament, the High Priest and the Council forbade the apostles from proclaiming the gospel.

Second, in choosing to OBey God's higher law, believers paid the normal consequence for disOBedience. Although most of those previously cited escaped the consequence through supernatural intervention, we know from biblical and secular history that others paid for their disOBedience with their lives.
Actually, we may be called upon to carry out such civil disOBedience in the near future. As the recently drafted Manhattan Declaration asserts in its final paragraph:

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s. (This document was drafted OctOBer 20, 2009 and released November 20, 2009.)
Although I personally could not sign the Manhattan Declaration because of the way it leads to confusion concerning the nature of the Gospel (as I indicated here), I certainly agree with these concluding sentiments. However, these sentiments do not call for a revolution, but only for disOBedience of the government at those points where the government would call upon us to disOBey God. And this is a crucial distinction.

[JerryNumbers]

We can surely reason it out that it was OK, and its tough to say it was no OK. I had to think long and hard on this subject to come to the point the Revolutionary war was wrong. Plus I knew when I took such a stand many would stand against me and even ridicule me, mainly because of what was pounded into our heads in public school and allegiance to this nation.

To me, way to many professing Christians seem to have more allegiance to this country than they do Christ and His Father. What to many Christians thinks the American way is God's way. Way to many Christians will openly show and give their allegiance to this nation yet will not talk openly nor speak about their allegiance to Christ and the Father, and giving all kinds of excuse why they can't and will not.

Ro 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

I've seen so man men that will talk boldly about any subject in the coffee shop, except about God, and these same men act like a mouse when they are in church, yet outside of the church doors again they talk boldly and loudly about worldly matters.While many make excuses why they cannot speak about Christian matters in church services.

I remember a though I had when I was growing up in church, seems I remember having mentioned it to my mother, the main difference I see in the pastor and the other men in our church services is the pastor will speak openly about his love for Christ and his dependence in him for heaven while the other men seem to act ashamed to mention Christ, their love for Him, and their dependence on Him for salvation.

And having said all of that its no surprising to me that many men will stand up for the Revolutionary War. War, resisting authority, comes quite natural to men, yet walking with God, in His ways, does not come natural to us. To walk in God's paths we have to, must, deny self, that is hard for us men to do.

[rancher824]

I'm just wondering from those who believe the revolution was against God. Is it biblical or against the Bible for a man to be a soldier. I know Jerry was a soldier, and has posted about things to honor soldiers. But can we find in the NT any example of a man becoming a soldier after his conversion (I realize the centurion had faith not found in Israel, but he was not a part of the church and was a soldier before this.) Once a man is a soldier he has not the choice of who or what to fight. Lets look at it considering some of the wars our (America's) soldiers have participated in. Vietnam. Were we as a nation allowing the powers that be to be, or did we divide a nation into two? Even WWII, Though we would have every right to protect ourselves at Pearl Harbor, and any other place that belonged to us, would we have a right to GO to another country to put down their "powers". When our soldiers entered Germany were they not going against the Govt leaders of the place they were in? Would this not be against the same verses? Let's then consider Iraq. It is still very much debated as to whether or not there was any reason to enter Iraq. But our entire mission was to put down their leader, and to build a new Govt. Now were our soldiers OBeying our Govt, or disOBeying theirs? If the first, how seeing they were on Iraq soil? If the second, were they not going against Romans? If they were, is it not unbiblical for a man to put himself in a position to have to go against some Govt. over secular issues? Thus would it not be wrong for us to build up these men who are by the very nature of their jOB putting themselves into a place of disOBeying scripture. If the revolution was wrong, so was iraq, and most any other war. And if this is true we should be as I believe it was the Quackers of the past and say it is wrong for a man to be a soldier. But, even considering them at the time of the Revolution, I have an ancester who would not fight, nor believe in fighting. Yet when General Washington was camped near by provided hay for the winter to feed the horses. I do believe the Revolution was acceptable to God, and he blessed it.