Happy 4th of July!
I was glancing over the Declaration of Independence--it's a nice piece of work. I think I would have enjoyed talking to Thomas Jefferson, or at least listening to many of these individuals. It's funny the significance a document of this sort can have. Some men (unfortunately they were all men) get together and agree to sign a piece of paper. The consequences were massive.
As I recall, Washington was already in the middle of engagement with British troops in New York when this document was signed, so the document itself was not the direct initiation of the Revolutionary War. I suppose it was the "line in the sand" that "sealed the deal." These men would have hung for sure if they had lost.
Should they have signed it from a Christian perspective? That's not a completely straightforward question for me. For one thing, I'm no expert on the details that led up to it, although the Declaration itself has a long list of (what appears to me to be) legitimate grievances against King George. It seems to me that the colonists had many legitimate grievances against the king. Patrick Henry and others had long been making their voice and votes heard against various British practices (e.g., taxation without representation).
I might note that they had nothing like the grievances the Iraqis had against Saddam or the ones so many countries have against their leaders. In the light of twentieth and twenty-first century atrocities (e.g., genocide in Rwanda or Sudan), we must consider the grievances of the colonists pretty wimpy.
On the one hand, I don't think it would have been Christian to cross the sea and launch an attack against England on its own soil. But it seems to me you could argue (successfully?) that the colonist's actions could fall under the heading of self-defense. The colonists disobeyed and the British troops come after them. Then they defend themselves against the troops. In a full war, that defense includes offensive warfare.
From this perspective, the question of a Christian perspective asks 1) was it Christian to disobey the king in the first place, 2) was it Christian to defend oneself, one's own, and one's neighbors when the king sought to enact consequences of disobedience, and 3) was it appropriate to sign a document (or do other acts of disobedience) that you knew would eventuate in a war?
Various Christians will disagree on various points here. 1) Since I believe that social action is appropriate for a Christian, I think a Christian can engage in civil disobedience, especially when it is for the welfare of others (e.g., slavery, women, etc...) and you are willing to suffer the consequences. 2) I'm not sure if it is appropriate to defend oneself in acts of civil disobedience, but I think it is appropriate to defend others and/or to make offensive actions against systemic evil. I doubt the British empire qualifies as systemic evil here. But I am not a pacifist. I personally don't think it would have been unchristian to defend one's family and city from encroaching British troops.
3) By the time the Declaration of Independence was signed, I wonder if the train was already so far out of the station that it was time either to submit or go all the way. Again, they were not promising to attack England. They were telling England what it was fighting for. And submission at this point probably would not have been pretty.
I still don't know for sure what Jesus would have had those men do in that room. But I think I would have signed it. I think I would have been reluctant to participate in the defiance in the days leading up to July 2. But by that point, it seems to me it was time to defend the colonies in the face of what would have been hard times for all if they had lost.
What would you have done?
Right or wrong, I am selfishly glad it happened. Part of the moral complexity of the universe is that good things can come even from bad things. Children we love with all our heart can come out of sexual encounters that should never have happened. Good (or at least better) nations can rise from inappropriate wars or political decisions. I don't know with certainty if the Revolutionary War was ultimately right or wrong from a Christian perspective. But two hundred years later I gladly enjoy its great benefits.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Everything I know about the Declaration, I learned from watching the musical, 1776.
I am glad as well that it happened. I detest fish and chips!
The issue of grievances is well thought out here. It's one that I often consider when I'm thinking of making any kind of "Christian" decision. On one hand, I feel that taking issue with a person over a grievance isn't exactly Scriptural. On the other hand, the Lord is very clear about His desire for social justice. Since, however, Jesus never outlined what makes a "Christian" decision different from a "non-Christian" decision (politically speaking), I'll say that I likely would have been a Loyalist. (Note: I am now VERY glad to be an American.)
Had I been there I suppose I would have thought like most of Americans at the time and I would have signed. In this I would have disagreed with John Wesley and sided with the rebels insisting on our freedom from a distant government that taxes its people too much. ;-)
But I suppose I would have switched sides on the issue when the several Southern states decided to do a similar thing and declare their own “freedom.”
But I think today the revolutionary war was evil though we celebrate the glorious victory today. I think all war is evil and it is never God’s perfect will.
However I am (reluctantly) with you (and Russ and Bounds) on the issue of war sometimes being a “necessary evil” or at least it can be an evil-turned-good. But that position I think may be more political than religious. Luther’s two-kingdoms approach of course helps me here.
As to pacifism I too am not a pacifist. If I had greater faith in God and were a better Christian I’d probably be one though.
I heard an interesting statistic on the radio yesterday, claiming that only a third of the colonists actually supported the idea of separation from England.
We have another reminder of the evils of war in the current rape and murder investigation going on with a discharged soldier. If he is guilty (and as usual the principle is not just about the guiltiness or innocence of a single individual), then we have another example of the inevitable evil done by all sides in almost any war. The reasons for warring may be justified, righteous, or even holy, but evil will be inevitably be done by all sides because violence (even when "justified") begets violence. The act itself too soon forgets intention.
After further study of the Revolutionary War and the grievances for which the rebels fought, I have come to the conclusion that "taxation without representation" was the only legitimate claim. (I, however, also am enjoying the benefits of our independence despite that fact.) It was always the contention of Dr. Glenn Martin--gasp!--that the rebellion was un-Christian, so your specific inquiry upon that campus is not a new one. ;) The estimate you heard about only 1/3rd of the colonists being for the Revolution is a figure taken from John Adams. It is likely that 1/3rd were for the rebellion, 1/3rd against it, and 1/3rd were "undecided" (i.e. wanted independence but not through war, or rather, not through an immediate war). As for your question whether the "train had already left the station"... as late as 1775, the rebels would've settled for a grant of status quo ante [Seven Years War]. They required a bit more during '76, but as an historian (and an Arminian), I don't think anything is "inevitable" until it actually happens. Until July 2nd, 1776 (the date on which Congress declared independence), I think British concessions would/could have changed things.
Hey Micah! Thanks for filling in the blanks. I hear there's a new book out titled 1776 this year by someone named McCullough or something. NPR discussed it but I didn't hear the whole interview. Is it worth getting?
P.S. Where are you at these days?
McCullough is one of those historians that other historians love to hate... he has a reputation for simply compiling the work of others and then re-writing/publishing it under his name... it's not illegal, it's just a bit seamy. He's a good writer--hence his success outside the field--but he isn't well known for his research skills or seminal interpretations. His book on John Adams is worth reading, but there are better options than his 1776 book.
As for me, I'm getting ready to start my second (and final) year of my MA (in history) at Purdue. I'd like to stay here and get my PhD, but all of that depends on funding... as well as God. :) If I can't stay here, I'll go somewhere else for my doctoral work (South Atlantic states maybe?) or "take a year off" and teach history at Ivy Tech or something (IWU APS? hahah!). Thanks for your interest!
Post a Comment