Now having said what I said on the first two posts in this series, you might assume that I am against any possibility of revolution. But, that would be wrong. My question was whether one could develop any Christian theology of a just revolution. And, I have pointed out that this is a very difficult subject and that there are several conservative theologians who doubt that the American Revolution qualifies as a just revolution. What is the main problem in developing a theology of just revolution?
The main problem is encapsulated in the word “rebellion.” Remember that rebellion (disobedience) against God is considered by Scriptures and Holy Tradition to be a primal sin. Christians, correctly and rightfully, are very hesitant about endorsing any theology that appears to give countenance to rebellion. Among many theologically conservative Christians, there are some very conflicted feelings and opinions about dissent and rebellion. On the one hand, one can find repeated teachings about the necessity of obedience to God, to country, to church leaders, to husbands, to parents, etc. Look at older teachings from 20 to 30 years ago by Bill Gothard. On the other hand, and most ironically, it seems that almost any reason is grounds to leave a church, while almost no reason is grounds to dissent against the USA. We see the American Revolution as right but the Confederate Revolution as wrong. Many Christians saw any dissent against the previous President as morally wrong, while openly encouraging dissent against the current President. I have even read the viewpoint that it was right for the colonists to rebel against England, but it could not possibly be right for anyone to ever rebel against the USA. We are internally conflicted about rebellion and dissent. This makes it hard to write about just revolution because, ultimately, a theology of just revolution speaks about when a people have the right to rebel.
On the other hand, one of God’s greatest movements in history, The Exodus, is the record of a massive and successful slave and peasant rebellion against the Egyptian overlords. And Scriptures say that this rebellion was not only a good and just rebellion but that God Himself instigated the rebellion and convinced Moses to lead it. In the Early Church Fathers, the Exodus is seen as the parallel to what Christ did for us in leading us out of our spiritual Egypt. Thus Saint Gregory of Nyssa allegorizes The Exodus to be for us an image of the soul’s journey from sin to God. In another movement in history, God sends the prophet Ahijah to Jeroboam to tell him that he is to rebel against Rehoboam, Solomon’s son:
About that time Jeroboam was going out of Jerusalem, and Ahijah the prophet of Shiloh met him on the way, wearing a new cloak. The two of them were alone out in the country, and Ahijah took hold of the new cloak he was wearing and tore it into twelve pieces. Then he said to Jeroboam, “Take ten pieces for yourself, for this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘See, I am going to tear the kingdom out of Solomon’s hand and give you ten tribes.
Thus it would appear that there is such a thing as a God-sanctioned just revolution. There is a question about whether such would apply in the New Testament, as there are those who argue that Jesus’ saying about his Kingdom not being of this world precludes Christian revolution. Again, I repeat, the reason why there is such difficulty and hesitancy in trying to come up with one is that it is almost impossible to write about just revolution without appearing to condone rebellion. Nevertheless, at least according to the Old Testament, a just revolution is a possible event.
Unfortunately, I am not sure at this time how such a theology would be written.
ME neither–the freight train brains coems up with lots of but ifs and if onlys and in that cases….
I have some ideas about to write such as theology, but, at the moment, can’t even begin to put any of them down in writing.
I wonder, however, if the topic came up because we as citizens of the United States have deep-seated, lingering doubts about the legitimacy of our government, even after all these years.
And, BTW, Fr. Ernesto, the Exodus can ALSO be understood as a struggle for national liberation, not a revolution per se. 😉
Well, except that there was no nation to liberate. Twelve families went into Egypt. Four hundred years later over 60,000 people were involved, but they were never a separate nation taken over by Egypt.
Not a nation-state, but certainly a nation, defined in terms of ethnicity: common language, culture, etc.
Okay, so I’m just gonna throw out a couple of hints here:
The place to begin, I think, is with with the consequences of the Fall: death, patriarchy, the master/slave thing, the emergence of the state, right up until the giving of the Law, and the establishment of Israel as a monarchy.
While these are, indeed, “curses,” they are also “blessings”. (In many language, the word for “blessing” and “curse” is the same, basically meaning “to be set apart” or negatively, “to be banished”. Death keeps us from becoming like the demons: fallen and immortal in our fallen state. The other things keep us from destroying ourselves and the human race.
But these things are not absolutes. They cannot be idolized. The Exodus begins the process of subverting these things. And, in the fullness of time, when these the means by which the incarnate Son of God is injustly executed as a criminal, they are radically relativized, to be ultimately destroyed in the Eschaton, along with sin and Satan. In the meantime, in this place of already-but-not-yet, we still have to deal with them, sometimes as having been given by God, sometimes as obstacles to our ultimate salvation.
“the Exodus can ALSO be understood as a struggle for national liberation, not a revolution per se.”
That’s the point. The Exodus is a divinely-initiated event whereby the children of Israel were called out of Egypt, not primarily for the purpose of “national liberation,” but for the purpose of conducting proper and true worship before Yawheh. The final chapters of the Book of Exodus is all about how to build a tabernacle, with great detail. Ancient Israel is, for lack of a better way of phrasing it, a “holiness theme park,” where all aspects of life was supposed to show forth life as consecrated-set apart-to the service of Yahweh.
The nation that came out of the American Revolution is more of an individualist rebellion and freedom theme park. Rebellion is enshrined in many aspects of our national life.
Well, let’s throw another little piece of information into the mix: the UK, by all accounts, is today much more secular and non, even anti-Christian than is the United States. What are we to make of this?
And several of the African former colonies are more “Christian” than the USA with far fewer denominations. LOL. It means that Enlightment thinking has come much farther along in Europe than in the USA and in other parts of the world, but that Christianity is holding out better in other parts of the world not as influenced by both the Enlightenment and rampant individualism.
You’re right, Father. That is interesting (and speaks more cultural factor than to political). I wonder what the relationship is between the Enlightenment and individualism.
I’m reminded of something Heinlein wrote, about how wars are reasonably regular, but every revolution is completely different. It was in his novella about the overthrow of the religious dictatorship in the US; I forget the exact quote.
In the Church you grew up in – the Roman Catholic one – there is a theology of just insurrection.
As in: if Mexican state was forcing atheism on school children, Cristeros had a right to insurrect. Or, if Azanha was doing same thing in Spain, and his supporters were on top of that violent againts the Church, Franco had a right to protect the Church by just insurrection.
As for founding revolution of the US, Catholic opinion is divided: on the one hand the loyalists had a case, on the other the Hanoverans were a) usurpers of a throne belonging to the Stuarts and b) persecutors of Catholics through unjust Penal laws.
Here is St Thomas Aquinas on sedition
Answer to objection 3 on article 2 contains the foundation of theology of just insurrection, that I was speaking of in previous comment.