I guess the answer to the question would shape our attitude towards celebrations like Independence Day, which is probably why the question came up now.

The larger question in your last sentence is probably the more interesting one, though.

__________________
Scott Roper
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA): "A bunch of hippie Calvinists"
Winston-Salem, NC

Okay, in terms of Biblical principles, we've got the fact that we ought to obey magistrates except when they cause us to sin. In that case, we can disobey by revolting or by simply refusing to obey those specific commands. Is there ever Biblical warrant for revolting? If so, where are the verses?

Also, there was talk about lesser magistrates and some kind of hierarchical structure. I have heard of that before but I don't know how categorically that fits into the morality of rebellion. Could someone explain this?

I am undecided but currently, as long as the Brits were not causing the colonists to sin, it seems that the colonists were not Biblically permitted to rebel.

__________________
Ben Maas. . . . .Facebook
In college, attending First Presbyterian Church (PCUSA), Ada, OH, and
Belle Center Reformed Presbyterian Church (RPCNA), Belle Center, OH
When at home, attending Covenant Presbyterian Church (OPC), Mansfield, OH

“Prayer is as natural an expression of faith as breathing is of life.”
-Jonathan Edwards-

I think it is funny that am accused as being blinded by the starts and stripes; particularly because I am extremely critical of my country and the policies they create and exactly where my tax money goes. I wouldn’t say am reading the Bible through 21 century but a combination of two lens. The first one being the initial application of the test within redemptive history and the second is how does this relate within God’s Law and Gospel; this does not mean I don’t read it through a 20 century lens at times. Ok, so let us step back and look at it as a citizen of heaven and as Jesus as the King. If we were in heaven and we went directly against the clear word of God on a matter then yes we would be in violation of God’s law. However, does scripture clearly teach that even if it is legal within your law to rebel against a ruling nation across an ocean that you shouldn’t rebel for the betterment of society? Remember there were pastor for and against that preached the subject of independence and was probably why churches like The Cathedral of Kingston were burned down. The English during the time of the rebellion were not exactly civil and did not always show partiality on who they killed and why.

I think it is a mistake to try to equate the American Revolution to the life’s work of Oliver Cromwell. First of all the American Revolution did not seek to destory the Monarchy, just to have freedom to govern themselves. Second, Cromwell’s war with the Irish went further then just protecting the Protestant, but was fueled probably with his hatred of the Roman Catholic theological system. No such fueling existed with the American Revolution against the crown directly. Another major difference between Cromwell and the American Revolution is also the distribution of fame and power, which Cromwell had to much of. And I think the practices Cromwell/parliament and the founding fathers were also quite different with the form of government and who was to be the successor. So I do not think its completely a fair comparisons. And regards to criticisms of his theology, let face we can do the same to just about anyone then, today, even our church fathers when it comes to biblical interpretation.
I still do not see a clear cut passage that condemns the revolution. I think that at this point it is an issue of conscience and liberty that God has not granted to vast majority of governments and empires, for most within their own laws do not allow for the legal right to rebel if the citizens rights were not being upheld.

__________________
David Jolley
Currently SBC, may change
Confessions: 1680-SLBCF/ 2000-BFAM
Escondido, CA

Ben, there was an allusion in an earlier post which implied that the citizens were merely obeying their regional magistrates, who, it is supposed could lead a rebellion against a tyrant king without violating Romans 13. I think that such reasoning is specious. It is interesting that the Colonists themselves opined that they were not under the jurisdiction of the English Parliament, but were admittedly under the rightful rule of King George.


James Madison writing in 1800, and reflecting back upon the separation from Great Briton, said:
“The fundamental principle of the revolution was, that the colonies were co-ordinate members with each other, and with Great-Britain; of an Empire, united by a common Executive Sovereign, but not united by any common Legislative Sovereign. The Legislative power was maintained to be as complete in each American Parliament, as in the British Parliament.”-James Madison, Writings,p.633

__________________
Bob, elder, RBC Louisville. 1689 LBCF

"... Of such also, or of those who make a credible profession of being such, all those particular churches consist, which constitute our Lord's visible kingdom. ... Consequently, all the subjects of His government must have spiritual dispositions, , and yield spiritual obedience- obedience proceeding from an enlightened understanding, an awakened conscience, and a renewed heart."- Abraham Booth 1788

It has been implied (if not stated) that the signers of the Declaration were "magistrates" acting on behalf of their constituency.

I do agree with the principle of a "lesser" magistrate rising up against a "greater" magistrate in defense of the people... but I want to challenge the notion that the Founders can be properly understood as "magistrates."

Were they REALLY magistrates?

What lawfully appointed office did any of them hold in which they had a public obligation?

I think that for the most part they were wealthy, well-connected men emerging from a still aristocratic culture... but I can't think of any off the top of my head who were actual magistrates at any level at the time of the Declaration.

__________________
Ben
Chaplain, US Army
Ft. Riley, KS
TE Ohio Valley Presbytery, PCA

The Declaration of Independence was adopted by elected delegates to the Continental Congress.
List of delegates to the Continental Congress

See also:
Continental_Congress

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

Interesting thread.

__________________
Ben Castaneda
member of Faith Presbyterian Church (PCA)
San Antonio, TX
MDiv student at WSC
Escondido, CA

"Not all prison bars are made from metal, And not all prisoners walk about in chains." -Lysander from Weatherby, Earl of Gloucester

Do I understand that you actually approve a subordinate official rebelling against a superior official? How can that be allowed in light of the Word of God?
1 Peter 2:13-17 13 Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme, 14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men -- 16 as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. 17 Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.


For Thomas Jefferson, the right, the duty to throw off one’s government was among those “self-evident truths” of which the Declaration speaks. But Madison and his peers just eleven years later feared this “principle” and regarded it as less than axiomatic. It was, in fact, comparatively new in English political thought.

It has been well understood in Christian nations that ultimate human authority resided in the king. As Josh noted in an earlier post Calvin argued scripturally and well that we must obey even harsh rulers. This understanding of what is sometimes referred to as the DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS was, however, perverted in the seventeenth century by such writers as Thomas Hobbes and Sir Robert Filmer. These men detached the principal of the sovereignty of the king from its biblical foundation and postulated raw or naked power as the foundation for the authority of the king.

It was against this perverted concept, more than that of Christian writers like Calvin, that Locke wrote, positing his even more tenuous theory of SOCIAL CONTRACT. It was likewise against Hobbes and Filmer that the justification for both the English Civil War, and the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 was argued.

During this turbulent period of the 17th century a new understanding of sovereignty was developed. Absolute, incontestable authority came to be viewed as resting in Parliament, which represented the people. In this milieu John Locke published his famous SECOND TREATISE ON GOVERNMENT which was widely disseminated throughout the Colonies. In that work he gave encouragement to those who believed they were being ill treated by their rulers saying “… tell the people they are absolved from obedience … and may oppose the unlawful violence of those who were their magistrates.”

Elected by whom?

Or more appropriately, appointed by what lawful authority?

The whole point of the argument about a lesser magistrate resisting a greater magistrate is that the lesser magistrate is in fact a lawfully recognized magistrate.

Yes, I actually approve of that.

The problem with simplisitic prima facie readings of Scripture is that one quickly absolutizes things to the "insaneth" degree. Take for example Ephesians 5:24... Wives are told to submit to their husbands "in everything." Really? Absolutely EVERYTHING? After all, isn't the word "EVERYTHING" absolute in its comprehensiveness? But as we both know (at least I hope we BOTH know...) there are other things that have to factor into how we interpret this passage.

The same is true in regards to submitting to rulers. Since all human authority/submission commandments stem from the 5th Commandment, I think this is a decent example...

If a FATHER is brutally abusing the son or daughter, does the MOTHER have the right - the duty, perhaps - to rise up and defend the child in defiance against her husband, the head of the house, the "greater ruler?" Both are rulers in the home, though the mother is the "lesser."

What if the father is brutalizing the mother? Can the children - the ones who owe obedience and honor to both "rulers in the home" - legitimately use force to defend their mother in defiance against their father?

I say yes in both cases. In neither case does being the "greater ruler" in the home give him the absolute right to brutalize with impunity.

Since both governmental and parenting authority/submission relationships flow from the 5th Commandment, I believe that this example would hold true at the governmental/citizenry level as well.

As to why Paul didn't write about rebelling... well, it was probably for the same reason that he didn't write against slavery or any other social issue.

According to one encyclopaedia article, they were sent in the main as representatives from their respective Colonial Assemblies.

So, they were elected by the bodies who had been elected by the people of those Colonies (who had the franchise).

In similar fashion, according to the original Constitution of these United States, the State Legislatures used to elect and send the two State Representatives as delegates to the US Senate.

So, unless one argues successfully that the Colonial Assemblies had no right (as Englishmen or subjects of the Crown) to a regional assembly of powers with common cause or interest, I cannot see how this Congress violated any principles of English Common Law.


In contrast, SFAIK, the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was organized beginning with a plebiscite, contrary to the ordinary principles of law and order. If anything, the work of 1787 (which typically gets the highest praise from the Christian America crowd) was exactly the sort of end-run "appeal to the masses" to subvert lawful authority, by finding the seat of final authority in a 51% vote.

There, it was exactly a special-interest crowd, organized and gathered as a special interest, who were unhappy with the greater independency the Articles of Confederation accorded the free and independent States. It was too messy and impossible to enforce whatever dictatorial whims of the central-power.

Call me an "Anti-Federalist."

Now that line of argument could convince me that my prior convictions are wrong!

__________________
James N. Walling
Center Grove Presbyterian Church (PCA)
IL

κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς

View some of my photography at http://www.puritanboard.com/members/...s-my-life.html

Excellent post Ben.

Regarding the issue of rebellion, how do some of you interpret the rebellion against Athaliah in 2 Kings 11?

You may argue that Athaliah obtained power in Judah by illegimate means with the killing of many of the royal family after the death of Ahaziah. But have not government leaders throughout the past obtained power through illegitimate means, either by force of arms or by LYING and DECEIT in order to obtain votes at the ballot box?

Look at King Charles II. He SWORE AN OATH to the Covenanters that he would abide by the Solemn League and Covenant, and that he would remain loyal to Jesus Christ, recognizing him as Head alone of the Church.

Of course, Charles II broke that vow and instituted Anglicanism as the true worship and that HE would be the head of the Church. He proceeded to then persecute all that opposed his blatant blasphemy, even imprisoning, torturing, and killing brethren.

Finally, the Covenanters took up arms in the Battle of Rullion Green in 1666.

Comments, please.

__________________
Randy Harris
Heritage PCA Church
Oklahoma City, OK

Thank you for being willing to consider that another position may be correct and for not bull-doggedly refusing to consider changing views.

I think this is simply to say that the mother is dutifully obliged to protect life per the sixth commandment, and therefore this is a case of obeying God rather than man, for her husband's ordering her not to defend the children would be an order that she sin.

In other words, this seems to be an example where you ought to disobey if you are ordered to sin. But I don't know how this relates to the American Revolution.

-----Added 7/2/2009 at 12:07:55 EST-----

Good points, Randy.

I would like to politely ask those who are implying that rebellion is ok in certain circumstances (I am not speaking of the extreme circumstances mentioned by our brother a few posts ago): Where do you draw the line? How do you determine what is worthy of rebellion and what is not? Personally I don't think that the Scripture gives us that right as my earlier posts have shown. But where would it stop, we would always be at war because there would always be something that we don't agree with in government. I could say that Obama's foreign policy is endangering our country, so we should rebel to protect ourselves or his blatant acceptance of false religions and ungodliness puts in danger my right to worship freely in this country so we should rebel. I could go on and on and when would it stop. We would be in constant rebellion whenever we found something that we disagreed with. I don't see that logic in Paul's writings.

__________________
John Lanier
Elder in Training
Reformed Baptist Church
Topeka, KS

I have a couple questions:

(1) Is the lesser magistrate morally permitted to rebel against a greater magistrate? If so, why?

(2) Where is the Biblical evidence for this principle of following the just magistrate when they conflict? Is Judges the best book to look for that?

I think you are missing the point and trying to create too narrow a line by trying to make this an issue in which someone is being "ordered to sin."
The 5th Commandment principle as I decscribed it applies to the government as to the parents.

In my example, the father doesn't have to order her to do anything... the mother goes against Eph 5 by refusing to sit idly by, but is justified by her defense of her kids. Likewise, the kids are justified if they use force to protect their mother from a cruel father.

How it relates to the American Revolution...

Magistrates, like parents, are dutifully bound to protect and defend their charges.

If the list of grievances in the Declaration is accurate, then we get a picture of a government that was essentially raping the populace. The Founding Fathers (acting here as the mother from my previous illustration) stood up and said, "No more" to the Crown (acting here as the father from my previous illustration). It was the Crown that then initiated military action. (Kind of like a cruel father turning his wrath on the mother when she stands up to protect the children.)

If you want to do what you did and try to make my illustration one in which the wife is justified because the father was "ordering" her to sin by "ordering" her to sit by in violation of the 6th Commandment... well... then I think that would apply in the case of the Revolution in that the Crown essentially told the Founders to be quiet. Except in the case of the Revolution, the Founders weren't ordered to be quiet as the Crown violated the 6th Commandment alone... they were told to submit as the Crown forced violation of the 6th, 7th and 8th and 10th!

Submission to any human authority is always conditional and never unflinchingly and unswervingly absolute.

One more question:

Is it impossible for the greater magistrate to be considered a rebel or does being the highest magistrate exempt you from that charge?

__________________
Brian Eschen
Ruling Elder, PCA
Pleasanton, California

Ben,

First, I wasn't saying that the father was breaking the sixth commandment; therefore the mother was obliged to help. My point was that the sixth commandment involves the obligation to protect life, and if the father forbade that the mother fulfill that obligation, then he would be commanding her to sin. EDIT - Never mind this first point.

Second, as a result, I was trying to point out that whether you want to view the mother as a "lesser magistrate" or "ordinary citizen," it follows that she is obligated to disobey the father because she is being commanded to sin. Seeing as the American Revolution involved a situation where (presumably) the citizens were not being forced to sin, it would seem that the argument from analogy breaks down at this point. We would need some analogy where the "citizen" is obliged to obey but the "lesser magistrate" is permitted/obliged to arise against the "greater magistrate." In your analogy, all "citizens" would be obliged to disobey against the "greater magistrate," in which case it doesn't accurately represent the American Revolution.

Third, if it can be shown that lesser magistrates are permitted (perhaps obliged) to arise against greater magistrates, and that the Founding Fathers were indeed lesser magistrates, then you've got me convinced that the American Revolution was not an unlawful rebellion.

I think to answer this question, 1 Samuel 15, is the perfect example because of his rebellious action against the word of God. So they cannot be exempted from the charge.

(1) If it would be a violation of his trust to NOT resist. His authority is ultimately from God as well, and not just a trust from his earthly superior.

Now, the question comes: what if he miscalculates? What if his judgment is in error? This warning suffices: Jas.3:1 "My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation." That counsel is true whether the leader is sacred or secular.

(2) It is a commonsense observation, but one that highlights the responsibility of private judgment.

The magistrate's subjects are never absolved entirely of all individual responsibility to judgment. There is a common view today (odd, to find it among so many nominal Protestants) that whatever the President decides, we are simply to follow, asking no "questions fo conscience' sake." Really? We are to exercise private judgment in matters ecclesial, but not secular?

The problem that all leaders face today is that they do not have a prophet, as Israel did of old. They are not graced with an infallible oracle to decide for them the godly course of action. How much a blessing, then, to have a truly godly leader, surrounded by wise counselors (not sycophants and contributors to his election), who is himself steeped for years in the revealed prophecies of the Bible.

Failing that, I wish we could just get a "wise turk"...

Rev. Buchanan,

If lesser magistrates are obliged to disobey greater magistrates, then where should lines be drawn, if any? For instance, is a state governor allowed to rebel against the president? What about a village mayor?

And how does this fit in with the fact that magistrates are arranged hierarchically? What use is it to speak of lesser magistrates if they are allowed to rebel against any higher magistrates?

Actually, suddenly, I think I may have the general principle down, but please correct me if I am wrong: citizens must disobey any magistrates if and only if they are ordered to sin. Lesser magistrates must disobey any greater magistrates if and only if the greater magistrates are themselves unduly wicked. (This wickedness may be hard to demarcate, but the principle is still there.) Does that sound good?

That is what I have always believed myself. Also, a point that has not been mentioned is the political context where St. Paul was coming from. There were no Christian magistrates in the Roman empire; Christians were entirely under the control of heathens, both in the form of lesser and higher magistrates. Christians were also very much the minority and thus it was the early church's duty not to become some confrontational political force but rather a converting force to the thousands upon thousands who had no idea about the tenets of Christianity, much less the persecutions that the Church was suffering. A modern day example would be an evangelist sent to witness in Iraq -- it would be perfectly within his rights to preach to anyone he wanted to, but to become a political opponent of the regime? That would send the wrong message to his hearers -- a message suggesting that Christianity is less a spiritual force and more a political instrument of revolution. Such an attitude would have been fatal to the early Church and would have associated it in Roman minds with zealous Messianic Jewish terrorist cults bent on overthrowing Roman rule. It was absolutely essential that Christianity remain as apolitical as possible for the message to be heard -- something that St. Paul understood very well. St. Peter made this motivation clear as well in 1 Peter 2:15 when, after telling the Church to remain subject to "all manner ordinance of man," he said, "For so is the will of God, that by well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of the foolish men."

For both the English Revolution and the American Revolution, however, the context is very different and much more similar to Old Testament conflicts within the Jewish government. All the magistrates involved were at least nominally Christian (or adhered to Christianity's ethical system for the most part) and thus it was within their right to act in their capacities as magistrates to act against the higher power of the King in order to fulfill their sworn duties to the populace whom they held power over to rule and protect. Otherwise, what point would there be in having lesser magistrates? The Founding Fathers were faced with the ugly prospect of having to allow King George to send soldiers into Boston households, possibly to rape and plunder innocent townsfolk in the process of financially oppressing them, whilst King Charles' Parliament was faced with the even more hideous prospect of sending aggressive forces to Scotland in order to brutally subject their fellow Scottish Puritans to a tyrannical prelacy and to stand by whilst Archbishop Laud and his Star Chamber continued to cut pamphleteers' ears off and flog religious dissenters. If, as St. Paul says in Romans 13:1-2, the powers that be are ordained by God, then in Heaven's name what else could He expect the magistrates that He has ordained to do but to protect those whom He has given them to rule over?

__________________
Christabella Warren
Fourth Presbyterian Church
Bethesda, MD
========================
These evils I deserve, and more . . . . Justly, yet despair not of his final pardon, Whose ear is ever open, and his eye Gracious to re-admit the suppliant. -- John Milton's Samson Agonistes

Awesome point! That basically establishes how the "follow God rather than man" principle applies differently to magistrates than to citizens. When magistrates are confronted with the options of permitting a wicked magistrate to continue his oppression or resisting him, then to follow God they must choose the former. They would be sinning in choosing the latter.

Cool. I like when things fit together like this.

I have noted with a surprised sadness a number of those who seem to be entrenched in justifying rebellion which God has so clearly condemned. The abiding imperatives of the Lord are, it seems, set at naught in order to hold to an imagined and cherished right.
Even those who grudgingly acknowledge that these commands should usually be followed the ever lurking subjective trump card of “my case isn’t covered by this biblical principal. Our situation is extraordinary!”

As I noted in post #40,
Cromwell thought, as do all revolutionaries, that his circumstances were extraordinary and therefore provided an exception to the rules which rightfully bind others. He professed to be a Christian and, though there may be evidence to call such a profession into question, there is yet indication that he desired to obey God. He was familiar with his bible and sought to order his life by its precepts. He seems not to have understood the apostle Paul who asked and why not say, let us do evil that goood may come? as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.

As one of Cromwell's biographers noted:

No doubt there are errors [in Cromwell] 'It is lawful for the lesser party, when in the right to force the majority, Cromwell says. But where is the lesser party the minority, that does not think it is right?

I note with thankfulness that several of you have demonstrated a spirit of willingness to seriously consider bringing long cherished views to the bar of Scripture and change if need be.

Others however have more or less said that plain sense of these passages does not mean what is clearly said. May I say that merely asserting that they can’t or don’t mean that will not do. Apart from one very untenable interpretation of Romans 13 there has been no genuine effort to demonstrate that these verses (Rom 13; 1 Pet 2) do not forbid rebellion against the authorities established by God. Indeed it requires standing the Scriptures on their head to attempt it.

May I appeal to those of you who will give an account of those sheep under your watch-care. Be very sure that you ground them in the truth of these passages. We will give an account to the Chief Shepherd for what they do with them, having trusted us with rightly handling the Word.
And we may ere long (may God spare us) be put to the test in our own land. Sooner or later, whether in our generation or that of our offspring, a cry will ring out in the streets and passions will run high. What will be the response of God’s people?

Allow me to say that none of this is abstract or theoretical to me. Our brethren in Iran, Iraq, Pakistan (where two dear friends of mine were martyred nearly two years ago), China (where dear friends of mine are now risking their lives), and in many, many other nations, regimes, and forms of government are reading the same bible as you and me, attempting to take the same principles and apply them consistently in every diverse setting.

Isaiah 66:2 For all those things My hand has made, And all those things exist," Says the LORD. "But on this one will I look: On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, And who trembles at My word.

Psalm 119:161 Princes persecute me without a cause, But my heart stands in awe of Your word.

Matthew 15:4 "For God commanded, saying, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' 5 "But you say, [you can insert here your own exception clause] 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God" -- 6 'then he need not honor his father or mother.' Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. 7 "Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: 8 'These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me.

1 Peter 2:13 Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme, 14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men -- 16 as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. 17 Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.

Some of you will likely be offended at my words. I fear it cannot be helped. I will love you still. And I pledge to pray for you still.

In the bonds of Christian love,

And yet I note that you cannot (or at least do not) logically refute my own argument about the differences between the duties of magistrates and those of ordinary citizens...

Christabella,
I will try to read and respond in the next day or two. Candidly, I am exhausted.

The Lord bless you and keep you.

Ben,
I would just say that people these days don't seem ready to put up with anything. And this is a sinful attitude. The first time, the least instance someone oversteps his authority or tramples someone's rights, and people want their pound of flesh.

Forbearance is also a duty. If the argument is: "You tweaked my nose, so now I don't have to pay my taxes, etc, etc..." then it would appear that all human authority is compromised by man's inherent and pervasive sin-nature.

Calvin is not being inconsistent with himself when he says on the one hand that private and public persons must be willing to endure unjustified attacks on their persons and property. Because there may be no lawful recourse besides the court of heaven, or because the results of resistance would be even worse, or some other factor.

And on the other hand, he says (in effect) that there will be occasions when justice demands that defense of the 6th commandment means that a previously obtaining 5th-commandment situation has been removed. In an imperfect world, these kinds of decisions are not going to be cut-and-dried.


There's another factor that weighs into this whole discussion. What about the lawful magistrate, exercising lawful jurisdiction, and dealing with an unlawfully rebellious subordinate? He also has an obligation to exercise forbearance. To de-escalate, to use minimal force, and force-as-a-last-resort. This attitude is rapidly disappearing among those wielding authority, and with it so is moral authority (each corresponding loss contributing to the other in a downward spiral).


The main body of Reformed thought since the 16th century has resisted simplistic solutions to either extreme. We are neither committed to utter passivity, nor are we able to sign-on to any group that asserts its "right" or "might" to have it's rebellious way.

We are obliged to long-suffering. This is God's example as king. It is the way we should behave toward tyranny, praying that God would soften the tyrant (or break him) from on high. But if God raises up a judge-intermediate, we are going to have to make a conscience-decision.