Garrulous talk on Terrorism and Revolution. What makes a Revolution Just?

[Anton Bruckner]

brainwashing causes terrorism.
Poverty also at times causes violent outburst on the privileged classes, this we term revolution if successful, terrorism and rebellion if not successful. Notable revolutions that were perceived as terrorist acts before their successes were the American and French Revolutions. Even the Chinese Revolution.

What is interesting about this modern phenomenon of terrorism, is that it is radically religious in nature, whereas the American, French and Russian Revolutions were humanistically philosophic and economic in nature.

It will be interesting to see if the Islamic terrorists get any degree of success, if it will be relabled as a Revolutionaries. Arafat got close by calling himself a freedom fighter at the U.N, unfortunately he died before his cause ever became a success, and thus is still relegated to the "terrorist category" by many, and as a Revolutionary Freedom Fighter by others..

What is even more interesting is to justify their cause some Islamic terrorist and sympathizers are using the violent actions that establish the Modern Israel as a state by radical Zionists as examples of why they too should use similar and more extreme actions.

While radical zionists of the Irgun group bombed the King David Hotel and other such in Post WW2/Pre Israeli Palestine, it never reached to the extent of suicide bombings and hijackings.

Ok I started off with my ramblings. How about if someone define to me what makes a Revolution Just? How is a Christian to respond to a revolution in lieu of Romans 13?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

There is much that could be said here. Your questions are good and worthy of consideration. Here are a few points to ponder:

First, the issue of Romans 13 and whether Christians may lawfully resist or overthrow tyrants has been much discussed in separate threads on this board. Christians should always be the best of citizens and work to live at peace insofar as they are able at all times. However, I argue that the Bible teaches that the civil magistrate may lawfully be resisted under certain conditions, as noted below.

Second, revolution and rebellion are terms that carry certain connotations of unlawfulness, and rightly so. Hence, I refer to the 1776 conflict as the American War of Indpendence, not the American Revolution. Terrorism is an evil that Christians should repudiate emphatically. It is true as the saying goes that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, but the means as well as the goals of such warriors can and should be evaluated through the lens of Scripture.

Third, Romans 13 is not the only Scripture that addresses or gives examples of a believers' duties to the authorities appointed by God over him. Scripture is replete with relevant passages. To cite one, as Peter said, "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5.29). It is commonly argued by those who say that tyrants cannot ever be lawfully be overthrown that Romans 13 requires nothing more than passive disobedience by Christian citizens in the face of tyranny. However, even passive disobedience is "resistance," which is on the surface condemned by Romans 13. Hence, one must distinguish between lawful resistance and unlawful resistance in order to rightly comprehend what Paul is saying.

Fourth, there is a doctrine known as the principle of interposition, which John Calvin discusses in the Institutes, Book IV, Chap. 20, Sec. 30-31. It says that the tyranny of greater civil magistrates may be checked, ie., resisted, by lesser civil magistrates whose duty it is to protect the people under them even from the abuses of those in authority over them. This must also be an action of last resort. Apart from such lawful resistance, private individuals do not have any warrant to take up arms against even a tyrannical government. That is the distinction that Scripture is making in Romans 13.

Fifth, elsewhere in this forum I have listed numerous references to writings on this subject by Augustine, the Magesterial Reformers, Huguenots, Scottish Covenanters and others who dealt with these issues in concrete terms, as well as on Biblical and historical grounds. Godly Christian men of old have had much to say on this subject and can speak better than I on behalf of the Reformed doctrine of lawful resistance to tyranny. Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex and Junius Brutus' A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants are two classic examples off hand.

Sixth, A Biblical analysis of revolutions throughout history, with special emphasis on the ones you mentioned, such as the American conflict of 1776, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, and the English Civil War and the European revolutions of 1848, will reveal that some were justified and some were not. The particular circumstances of each vary widely. Each may be critiqued and, history being history, no example will be without sin but some may warrant general approval on Biblical and constitutional grounds when considered thoroughly. As an example, Groen Van Prinsterer, the Dutch Calvinist scholar and stateman, wrote about unBiblical revolutions in his "Lectures on Unbelief and Revolution," which I highly commend if one wishes to explore the revolutions of his era. Other conflicts have been critiqued on this forum and elsewhere.

I hope this brief response is helpful as you explore this important issue.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

I am now tackling Calvin Institutes so I wouldn't be able to speak on that.

But using the story of David and Saul as an example, we see that David killed the man who killed Saul eventhough Saul had been rejected by God.

If we also consider Romans that says that all Authority are ordained by God, I don't see a clear cut case for Revolution. As a Christian I only see a clear cut case for Civil Disobedience, which the early Christians did, when they were coerced to deny Christ or face death. None of these acts in my opinion were tantamount to taking up arms and overthrowing a Government.

When one considers that unbelievers usually take up arms against unbelievers who rule them unjustly, whereas Christians are required to only disobey unjust rulers if urged to disobey God by these rulers, it seems to me that the Christian is bound by Eternal principles of which God takes vengeance on behalf of him, whereas the unbeliever is bound by a temporary view of things, hence the hastiness in setting things right for himself to prosper least he dies.

When I consider the French Revolution, I do see the fact that the masses were oppressed by the monarchy and the nobility, but when one examines their Rights of Man, the document is overwhelmingly secular humanistic in nature, and this is contrary to the word of God. So how could that revolution be justified. Maybe God in His Providence used the enlightment followers to bring vengeance upon the monarchy for their misdeeds, but that in no way excuses the enlightment followers for their erroneous beliefs.

[Edited on 11-29-2004 by Slippery]

 

[RamistThomist]

A question:
Was Jael sinful for killing Sisera?
Didn't Sisera's death elicit a song of praise for Deborah?

 

[Anton Bruckner]

oops I forgot Jael and Sissera. Man did that woman have guts.

I think the Jael had Divine mandate on her side to do what she did. Joshua had such a mandate as well as Moses, not that God specifically spoke to Jael, but I think Jael's actions was within the mandate of God.

But what I see with Revolutions and Counter Revolutions of the 18th, 19th and 20th Century is that a purely just cause is sorely lacking.

 

[RamistThomist]

I think the Jael had divine mandate on her side to do what she did

You think? I think otherwise. I don't see a divine mandate. I see a very nasty way of someone getting himself killed. I see God blessing that act of resisting tyranny (through Deborah).

Of the revolutions and counter-revolutions, I wouldn't lump the French Revolution alongside say the godly resistance of the Covenanters and the Huguenots in the same category. The French Revolution was inspired by Satan and we are reaping the fruits of it this day.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

I would agree with you on the Hugenots and the Covenanters, but I still think that Jael had an direct mandate through Deborah a la Moses and Joshua.

In terms of uprooting a present order, God usually does it Himself and at times uses mankind either by direct or indirect mandates. I believe Sodom and Gomorrah was good uprooting a nation by Himself, whereas using Moses, David, Gideon, Barak and Joshua were direct mandates. I think Jael fell into this category.

Indirect mandates I see as Babylon conquering Judah, and Assyria conquering the Northern tribes. Whereas Babylon and Assyria were inspired by satanic greed, lust and ambition, God in His Providence used it to bring discipline to Israel, but Babylon and Assyria were still held guilty for their wanton acts of murderous brutality.

The problem I guess I have with Revolutions/terrorism/rebellions in this day and age and in recent ages is how to evaluate them. Should I condemn them all because they all go against Romans 13,( with the exception of the Reformation and such like it) in their pursuit of an ameliorated order in terms of physical blessings or should I go through a tedious analysis.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Slippery
I would agree with you on the Hugenots and the Covenanters, but I still think that Jael had an direct mandate through Deborah a la Moses and Joshua.

In terms of uprooting a present order, God usually does it Himself and at times uses mankind either by direct or indirect mandates. I believe Sodom and Gomorrah was good uprooting a nation by Himself, whereas using Moses, David, Gideon, Barak and Joshua were direct mandates. I think Jael fell into this category.

Indirect mandates I see as Babylon conquering Judah, and Assyria conquering the Northern tribes. Whereas Babylon and Assyria were inspired by satanic greed, lust and ambition, God in His Providence used it to bring discipline to Israel, but Babylon and Assyria were still held guilty for their wanton acts of murderous brutality.

The problem I guess I have with Revolutions/terrorism/rebellions in this day and age and in recent ages is how to evaluate them. Should I condemn them all because they all go against Romans 13,( with the exception of the Reformation and such like it) in their pursuit of an ameliorated order in terms of physical blessings or should I go through a tedious analysis.

Short answer, tedious analysis.

Longer answer, just as one might evaluate a war by the Biblical principles of "just war theory," so likewise, one can evaluate civil disobedience (whether passive or active) by principles found in Scripture.

There is a qualitative difference between the French and American Revolutions. There was no reign of terror in America for one thing. For another, petitions for redress of grievances to the King by the colonists and their appointed legislative bodies were not only ignored but viewed as treasonous requiring punishment and still more tyrannical government. The Declaration of Independence tells the story and spells out the grounds for the severing of the political bonds between the mother country and the colonies. I am not blind to the Deistic influences of its author, however, but it was preceeded by a more thoroughly Calvinstic Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence which I think expresses the views of many who fought for freedom from tyranny, not to mention Junius Brutus' A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants, which was a strong influence on the movement for freedom. The French Declaration of the Rights of Man, in contrast, is a thoroughly evil and humanistic document. It has more in common with the UN charter.

My point in comparing these two conflicts is to note that one is different from the other; hence, each must be evaluated separately.

The communist revolutions in Europe, Russia, China, Cuba and elsewhere are of a different essence than, say, the English Civil War. The circumstances were different, the motivations were different, the justifications and goals were different.

Let it again be noted that revolution and rebellion are not the same as lawful resistance to tyranny.

I encourage you to search this forum for the word "tyrant" to find other threads that have addressed the Biblical and historical arguments on this subject if you wish to delve more deeply. It is a subject that the Reformers had a great deal to say about because it was relevant in their day (such as during the French Wars of Religion, the Scottish Killing Times, and in the early days of the Reformation when Martin Luther opposed the tyranny of the Holy Roman Emperor and put himself under the armed protection of a lesser civil magistrate). Now with the terrorism and rebellions that erupt all around us today, the subject is quite relevant, as you know, so I commend your study in this matter.