Thursday, November 16, 2006

"These are the times that try men's souls"

“Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. freedom and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with show, or our ears deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and of reason will say, it is right” (Paine. Common Sense. Pg. 7. Bold Emphasis Mine).

I’m currently reading through some of Thomas Paine’s more famous works: Common Sense, various letters following Common Sense, Rights of Man, and selections of his other works.

Common Sense was written during the American Colonial War of Independence. Many have described this work as the spark that ignited the passion for the Colonists. With no formal training, Paine proved himself to be a natural writer. He wrote with passion and inspires the reader to take up arms against the British Crown. I nearly bought myself a musket and marched off to join Washington’s cause for freedom from tyranny =). Paine’s arguments are dripping with Enlightenment ideas but makes some compelling arguments (or maybe they just seem compelling because I’m raised in a post-Enlightenment era?).

“…here too is the design and end of government, viz. freedom and security.” Definitely agree with him here. Paine’s entire argument for breaking away from England is summed up in the belief that the isle of Britain has not and cannot govern the North American continent. The Atlantic Ocean is simply too vast a distance for her to govern. Add to that all of Britain’s abuses against the Colonies, and he’s got some good points. So you have Britain claiming the Americas. But Britain has stripped the colonists of their freedoms and security. The colonists know they can do a better job. Suddenly, you’ve got a war for independence.

Thomas Paine had his share of critics. He responds to arguments of the day:

“But Britain is the parent country, say some. Then the more shame upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their families; wherefore the assertion, if true, turns to her reproach; but it happens not to be true, or only partly so, and the phrase parent or mother country hath been jesuitically adopted by the king and his parasites, with a low papistical design of gaining an unfair bias on the credulous weakness of our minds. Europe, and no England, is the parent country of America. This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues their descendants still” (Pain. Common Sense. Pg. 24. Bold Mine).

I cannot help but smile when I read this. Such boldness. Such fierceness. Remember that for most American colonists at that time, they had never seen the “mother country,” England. England was a distant land - a place and a people they did not identify with. They did not consider themselves Englishmen, but American colonists. And now, these British “foreigners” were stepping on their rights. It is no wonder the colonists were upset.

If you are interested, Paine is said to have become a Deist near the end of his life (probably closer to the French Revolution), but so much of his writing is filled with references to Christianity. It seems to me that Paine remained a professing Christian man until he was better influenced by the French Enlightenment Thinker, Voltaire.

“Every thing that is right or natural pleads for separation. The blood of the slain, the weeping voice of nature cries, ‘Tis time to part. Even the distance at which the Almighty hath placed England and America, is a strong and natural proof, that the authority of the one, over the other, was never the design of Heaven. The time likewise at which the continent was discovered, adds weight to the argument, and the manner in which it was peopled increases the force of it. The reformation was preceded by the discovery of America, as if the Almighty graciously meant to open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future years, when home should afford neither friendship nor safety” (Paine. Common Sense. Pg. 27. Bold Emphasis Mine).

Here is a question for my audience: what is your opinion of the American Revolution in light of Romans 13:1-7? I’ll go first. Honestly, this is something that has troubled me for years. ESPECIALLY when you consider that Paul penned those words during a time of fierce persecution for Christians. An Enlightenment Thinker would argue that it was the duty of Christians (and non-Christians) living in the first century to revolt against the Roman government to get rid of tyranny and provide a government that functions as God intends. Ouch, this paragraph is difficult for me to read – and I penned those words! But seriously, how well do the arguments of our nation’s founding fathers hold up to the teaching of Scripture? If it is true that England could not effectively govern the Americas, that might be a point to consider. But then again, I’m just not sure… yet. Lemme know what ya’ll think.

Here again is this very argument:

“As to government matters, it is not in the power of Britain to do this continent justice: The business of it will soon be too weighty, and intricate, to be managed with any tolerable degree of convenience, by a power so distant from us, and so very ignorant of us; for it they cannot conquer us, they cannot govern us. To be always running three or four thousand miles with a tale or a petition, waiting four or five months for an answer, which when obtained requires five or six more to explain it in, will in a few years be looked upon as folly and childishness—There was a time when it was proper, and there is a proper time for it to cease. Small islands not capable of protecting themselves, are the proper objects for kingdoms to take under their care; but there is something very absurd, in supposing a continent to be perpetually governed by an island. In no instance hath nature made the satellite larger than its primary planet, and as England and America, with respect to each other, reverses the common order of nature, it is evident they belong to different systems; England to Europe, America to itself” (Paine. Common Sense. Pg. 30-31. Bold Emphasis Mine).

“But where, says some, is the King of America? I’ll tell you. Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far we approve of monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony, be demonlished, and scattered among the people whose right it is” (Paine. Common Sense. Pg. 37-38. Bold Emphasis Mine).

I have got to say Amen to that! Monarchy is an effective form of government when the King is just. But we know all too well how quickly the crown can be corrupted. One sinner ought not to be put in such a supreme position. I was utterly caught off guard when Thomas Paine made an extensive argument against monarchy from the Bible, pointing out that it was only because of the jealousy of other nations that Israel demanded a King to rule over them. Democracy is the best form of government for this sinful world.

I will close with an excerpt from a letter Thomas wrote to a British commanding General, General Howe:

“As the blood of the martyrs hath been the seed of the Christian church, so the political persecutions of England will and hath already enriched America with industry, experience, union and importance. Before the present era she was a mere chaos of uncemented Colonies, individually exposed to the ravages of the Indians and the invasion of any power that Britain should be at war with. She had nothing she could call her own. Her felicity depended upon accident. The convulsions of Europe might have thrown her from one conqueror to another, till she had been the slave of all and ruined by every one; for until she had spirit enough to become her own master, there was no knowing to which master she should belong. That period, thank God, is past, and she is no longer the dependant, disunited Colonies of Britain, but the independent and United States of America, knowing no master but Heaven and herself. You or your king may call this “Delusion,” “Rebellion,” or what name you please. To us it is perfectly indifferent. The issue will determine the character and time will give it a name as lasting as his own” (Paine. Letter to General Howe March 21, 1778. Pg. 105-106. Bold Emphasis Mine).

What’s done is done. I am glad we are a nation filled with many freedoms. Indeed, we are the most free nation the world has ever known. My prayer is that God continues to be gracious to our land in granting to us such liberty.

I love America,
Rusty

12 Comments:

At 4:21 AM, Blogger rustypth said...

Hannah - two more posts comin' laterz today (Lw).

Everyone - I apologize for any grammatical mistakes yos (the plural form of "yo"). You don't want to know what time this entry was written =)

The Rusted One

 
At 12:26 PM, Blogger Lockheed said...

Its fascinating to me that when speaking to slaves, rather than tell them to rise up against the injustice of slavery, Paul tells them to be good slaves. To those under the authority of a govt, to be good citizens.

We may feel some sense of justice and goodness from rebelling against tyranny, yet the Gospel is strangely upside-down to use, actually, it is we who are upside-down. To believe the Gospel is to recognize that loving one's neighbor means loving the tyrant too and allowing God to be God in such situations.

America was a set of colonies, established by various countries, bound to their laws and the like. It could be argued that in establishing a new country the founders effectively side-stepped any Romans 13 conflict, but in that age of 'enlightenment' the common belief of God was much more a deistic one, as you note of Paine. I also think of writings of Jefferson and the like. Their view could be summed up in the old adage "God helps those who help themselves..."

Regardless of Paine, Jefferson or even Adam's opinion of freedom and the like, the believer's foundation must be Scripture.

The fact of the matter is that the founders did rebel against the established government and sought to do violence to them. Apart from directing men to specifically disobey God, I don't see where Romans 13 allows for any such activity.
You write: "..Thomas Paine made an extensive argument against monarchy from the Bible, pointing out that it was only because of the jealousy of other nations that Israel demanded a King to rule over them. Democracy is the best form of government for this sinful world."

While it is true that Israel wanted a king and God warned them against it, He didn't tell them that democracy was the proper answer. Far from it. God points out that He is their king, and He is the lawgiver and the theocratic establishment he set up was the proper governmental form (the judges etc.) He allows Israel to have kings. I believe the very same argument can be made against democracy, which is much more a 'Babel' form of government, where a multitude of sinners choose what is lawful. Rather than one bad king, we have a multitude.

While this might work in a civilization whose roots harken back to the enlightenment's lingering deism, we see now that once those trappings are lost, democracy is perhaps the worst, not the best, form of government in a sinful world. For where tyranny might oppress, democracy allows for the false expression of liberty through sin and now the legalization thereof to the opposition of morality.

For all the praise of America that American Christians proclaim, America and American churches are in the moral dumpster. We're caught up in their individualistic pursuits that democracy and its "freedom" to the "pursuit of happiness" provide that the Gospel is nearly non-existant in our churches and our religion has become one of self-help and self-esteem.

In the final scope of things, the believer is to be primarily focused on preaching the Gospel and praying for those in government rather than seeking to change it by force.

I'd take an unbelieving Nebuchadnezzar over "christian" democrats any day.

 
At 2:36 PM, Blogger rustypth said...

Micah,

First, thanks for being the only one to engage me on this subject =). I appreciate your thoughts and comments very much.

You began, “It’s fascinating to me that when speaking to slaves, rather than tell them to rise up against the injustice of slavery, Paul tells them to be good slaves. To those under the authority of a gov’t, to be good citizens.”

I couldn’t agree more. If the United States of America one day strips us of our liberties and begins persecuting Christians, even then we would not have the “right” to form a rebellion against the government.

You said, “America was a set of colonies, established by various countries, bound to their laws and the like.”

The only argument I am giving any serious thought is that England lacked the ability to effectively govern the Americas. Thomas Paine humorously comments at one point: “To be always running three or four thousand miles with a tale or a petition, waiting four or five months for an answer, which when obtained requires five or six more to explain it in, will in a few years be looked upon as folly and childishness.” It seems reasonable to me that a government requiring 5 months to send simple messages from one part of its empire might not actually be ruling that part of the empire.

I want to be clear, that I do disagree with much of Paine’s Enlightenment arguments. A government who is cruel to its citizens does not give people the “right” to rebel. But if a government lacks the ability to rule a foreign land … what then? That’s the unique situation the American colonies found themselves in.

Anywho, just some ideas I’m workin with.

Let me know how you would respond to such an argument.

Rusty

 
At 11:12 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

The only argument I am giving any serious thought is that England lacked the ability to effectively govern the Americas.

This may be true, this doesn't make rebellion right.

But if a government lacks the ability to rule a foreign land … what then? That’s the unique situation the American colonies found themselves in.

The question of whether or not a state should or should not declare independence from its mother country on this basis is one of a political and ethical nature. I would certainly say that the colonists decision to rebel and declare independence was ultimately a good one, however things could have gone differently had Britian had the foresight to ally with other countries to rule the continent, establish a more centralized colonial govt etc.

But I believe that what might be good for a country, might not always be the right thing to do Biblically. Consider the comments of the chief priest when they sought to kill Christ. It WAS good from a political standpoint )using worldly understanding) that the person Jesus of Nazareth be eliminated so as not to draw the ire of Rome in the case of an uprising, but ultimately their actions were utterly sinful. Likewise, the rebellion against the established authority is, for the believer, sinful, according to Paul in Rom 13.

I had a long discussion about Rom 13 and the rebellion with Kobra and Solarblogger at theomony.blogspot.com and old solar (I'll have to dig up the exact link), but he argued that the passage does not apply to govts, but specific rulers instead. I totally disagree, for the whole point of the passage could be expressed as "God established every authority and therefore rebelling against them is rebelling against God." ... more later?

 
At 2:32 PM, Blogger rustypth said...

"m" = Micah?

just wondering before I respond =)

 
At 3:28 PM, Blogger rustypth said...

“M,”

You said, “But I believe that what might be good for a country, might not always be the right thing to do Biblically.”

If you refer specifically to rebellion, excellent point.

You continued, “Likewise, the rebellion against the established authority is, for the believer, sinful, according to Paul in Rom 13.”

I will agree with you that rebellion against established authority is sinful – for believers and unbelievers. I guess, then, the issue becomes: was Great Britain’s authority established in the American colonies? I believe a good argument can be made that Britain’s authority was limited to a claimed authority, and not any meaningful authority. Or am I wrong? I look forward to hearing your thoughts =)

Rusty

 
At 6:35 PM, Blogger Lockheed said...

Rusty

Sorry, since I changed my blog over to google blogger thingamagig its messed up my name.

...was Great Britain’s authority established in the American colonies? I believe a good argument can be made that Britain’s authority was limited to a claimed authority, and not any meaningful authority.
Would "meaningful authority" demand a different response from a Christian than "claimed authority" based on Romans 13? The whole point of Romans 13 seems to negate any sort of conundrum for the believer to begin with.

Can a good argument be made against the sovereignty of Britain over the colonies? Perhaps, but the Colonists were paying taxes (without representation ;) ) etc... therefore regardless of one's opinion of Britain's capability to govern the colonies, they none-the-less established them (specific ones) and claimed governing rights over them. I don't see any clause that allows the rebellion against a weak government or one that wasn't governing properly. Remember, the colonists main charge against British rule was not that they were incapable of governing, but that they were taxing and making decisions for the colonists without fair representation.

Was British rule over-stretched? Yes. Was it unfair? Yes. Was it brutal? Yes. Does that give a Christian the right to rebel against it? No.

Was the out come positive for the colonies? Yes. Did it allow for more religious freedom? Yes. But still, it doesn't make it right.

Micah

 
At 1:33 AM, Blogger rustypth said...

Micah,

Happy Thanksgiving!

You said, “Can a good argument be made against the sovereignty of Britain over the colonies? Perhaps, but the Colonists were paying taxes (without representation ;) ) etc... therefore regardless of one's opinion of Britain's capability to govern the colonies, they none-the-less established them (specific ones) and claimed governing rights over them. I don't see any clause that allows the rebellion against a weak government or one that wasn't governing properly.”

While Great Britain allowed various Companies to form colonies, I believe it is debatable as to whether the “mother country” ever had any real authority over the Americas. Everyone agrees England claimed to rule the colonies. However, the American colonists believed they had been governing themselves.

I agree with you that a weak government doesn’t justify rebellion. The argument I would make is that the mere claim of governmental rule doesn’t equal true governmental rule. In our case, I’m making the argument that Britain had a claimed authority, but no actual authority.

It might be helpful from this point on to use specific examples of colonial government during the 18th century – so we have something to work with. What say you?

Thanks again for your input, brother.

In our Sovereign King,
Rusty

 
At 12:39 PM, Blogger Lockheed said...

The argument I would make is that the mere claim of governmental rule doesn’t equal true governmental rule.

Is the individual Christian allowed to make such a judgement so as to justify rebellion? Does a rebel group that declares independence enable the Christian to make such a decision?

I'm not sure I have the answers, but time and again the Revolutionary War is historically framed as a fight against an oppressive regieme rather than a non-existant one.

In our case, I’m making the argument that Britain had a claimed authority, but no actual authority.

I realize.. I just don't believe that the individual Christian could make such a distinction so as to justify fighting a war against the declared govt.

Micah

 
At 3:50 PM, Blogger rustypth said...

Micah,

You said, “Is the individual Christian allowed to make such a judgment so as to justify rebellion? Does a rebel group that declares independence enable the Christian to make such a decision?”

Yes, a Christian and an unbeliever are allowed to recognize if a foreign government is actually ruling their land. But I don’t think the issue is whether people are “allowed” to realize if a government is actually ruling over THEM. Rather, isn’t the real issue whether people can recognize who is ruling them?

You said, “I'm not sure I have the answers, but time and again the Revolutionary War is historically framed as a fight against an oppressive regime rather than a non-existent one.”

You are half right. The American colonists and the leaders of the revolution would have argued that they had already been governing themselves, so why should a foreign oppressor do nothing but tax them? Once the colonials realized this they first tried to reason with the British crown. Later they committed acts of terror against a government they considered a foreign power.

I think you should know that I have reached a conclusion: I believe it is reasonable to say that Great Britain was not actually governing the Americas, minus taxes. However, something should be said for the colonials’ actions leading up to the war. Why appeal to the King of England if he does not have dominion over you? Therefore, at best, I see the cause for independence as a grey area. And since I am one to avoid grey areas, I would rather side with the conservative outlook on things. Had I lived during the 18th century, I would not have participated or supported a war for independence.

Undoubtedly, you will see a blog about this in the near future.

Casey

 
At 4:48 PM, Blogger rustypth said...

btw, sorry for the all caps "them" ... honestly dunno what happened there

 
At 6:09 PM, Blogger Lockheed said...

Yes, a Christian and an unbeliever are allowed to recognize if a foreign government is actually ruling their land.

In the specific situation we're discussing, the colonies wer enot "foreign" land but specifically established colonies of said mother country.

Had I lived during the 18th century, I would not have participated or supported a war for independence.

I lean this way too... but doesn't the situation provided in "The Patriot" cause you to wonder?

Micah

 

Post a Comment

<< Home