(This may qualify as a “Great Debate”, so a moderator might decide to move this thread to that forum)
In your opinion, by a conservative, literalist reading of Romans 13 : 1-7, were the Founding Fathers of this country committing a grievous sin by rebelling against King George III and Parliament?
Here is the text of the seven verses :
May not have been a big deal. I don’t think the founding fathers were being disloyal to Nero.
No, I mean that, in the “Conservative Christian” way of thinking, you are supposed to take the Bible seriously and literally. And it seems to me that Roman 13 states that you are not to rebel against the higher powers, who were put there by God.
If you go by this way of thinking, the rebelling colonists would have some major problems when they met their Maker. They disobeyed his Holy Scripture.
Does any one else see it that way, or am I just crazy?
…
Quite a number of years ago, I asked this question in Sunday School class. (A very conservative congregation of the “Churches of Christ”.) Say you were a colonist rebelling against the crown and parliament during the War, got shot in a battle, and died. You were disobeying Romans 13, so you really wouldn’t have a place in Heaven , now would you?
All I got were blank stares…
As an American and a Christian, yes I do believe that the rebellion of the “Founding Fathers” was sinful and unjustified. But it’s quite a lonely position.
I am an agnostic, but my upbringing was conservative “Church of Christ”. I tend to think that Jesus would not have approved of the Revolution at all. How could he? He was not at all concerned about taxes or representation!
Of course, after the Revolution was over, the victorious colonists would become the new rulers, and you would need to obey them, I would suppose.
I used to think so, but, now, I wonder.To me, a colony MAY be different than a nation proper, even though this was a colony populated, originally, by Englishmen, under the English flag.
Still, as a quick assessment, I would say yes, it was a sin. He was their king, wasn’t he?
I have often wondered if the French Revolution was a judgement by God on Louis XVI for his aiding in a rebellion. OTOH, Louis was aiding his own country by sticking it to the English, so…
You aren’t exactly alone, Dr MacArthur would agree with you along with the Mennonites.
I’m a very, very conservative Christian. There are a few passages where it’s possible to take the Bible TOO literally, and this is one.
I’ll never forget an article on that passage I once read. I don’t remember who wrote it, but he was fairly conservative. It left a bad taste, because it sounded to me like the author was well-nigh worshiping the government.
Here is what I consider to be the TRUE conservative viewpoint–God clearly doesn’t think very much of government, because it took Him 1400 years (give or take) to get around to establishing it. Only after the Flood, in Genesis 9:5-6, when God instituted the death penalty for murder, did He establish government. And in I Samuel 8, when the ancient Israelites wanted a king, God warned them that government is an unpleasant thing.
Now back to Romans 13–
verse 3 says, “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.” That clearly means that the only government which God sanctions is a just government.
Mankind, as a being created in dignity by God, has both a right and a duty to resist an unjust govenment.
An American Baptist? Quite interesting. Us reactionary monarchists are usually Catholics or Anglicans.
Maybe so, but the 1st-century Roman Empire was far more unjust than the 18th-century British Empire. And Christians never fought against Rome. So clearly the threshold for acceptable rebellion was not present in 1776.
And I think it’s rather strange that you seem to imply Loyalists are “well-nigh worshiping the government”, because it seems to me that there is a significant segment of “patriotic” American Christians who treat the Constitution and Declaration as scripture, and the Founding Fathers as prophets. Such people are far closer to idolatry than those who follow St. Peter’s simple admonition of “fear God, honour the king”.
All of these type verses should be read with an implied “unless it contradicts the instructions of God” - the broader context of the entire Bible. Paul himself, who penned these verses, spent time in prison on several occasions for openly disobeying a government order to stop preaching. Jesus violently rebelled against the temple authorities for turning a place of worship into a money centered tourist trap.
I’m not saying this “exemption” applies to the American Revolution, nor that I have studied this verse in light of specific wars, but I am saying that it can be very misleading to take a verse or small section of verses (or any text, for that matter) and apply a literal interpretation outside of the broader context.