The American Revolution: Just War or Holy War?
You may think it absurd to suggest that the American Revolution
was a Holy War. The term conjures up images of wild-eyed
religious fanatics seeking the glory of martyrdom. However,
in view of the historical revisionist tactics of the Christian
Right, the question should be asked plainly: Was the American
Revolution a holy war?
The most objective indication of the motivations of those
early Americans in separating from England is the Declaration
of Independence. This document states that all men are
given certain rights by God that cannot be revoked, and
it is only when a government becomes destructive of those
rights that the people then have the right to oppose it.
The Declaration of Independence listed the "long train
of abuses" that justified their revolt, for this was a
decision they did not take lightly. It stated that the
king "plundered [their] seas, ravaged [their] coasts, burned
[their] towns, and destroyed the lives of [their] people." It
accused England of inciting violence between Americans,
as well as stirring up the natives against them, along
with many other acts of cruelty.
The American war for independence represented the struggle
of men who had endured under great tyranny until their
consciences would no longer permit them to remain passive.
If ever there was a just war, they were persuaded
that this was it. Certainly there were Christian zealots
on both sides who pounded the pulpits claiming that God
was on their side, but on America's side it was a resistance
to tyranny, not a war of conquest in the name of Christ.
Today there are those who claim that America was established
as a "Christian Nation" founded on "Christian values" and
are lobbying for its return to that foundation. Using carefully
selected quotations apart from their historical and cultural
context, they imply that those who fought the revolution
were fighting for a Christian cause. However, the leading
statesmen of that day declared explicitly the opposite.
For example, the Treaty of Tripoli, drafted and signed
under President Adams in 1797, put it quite bluntly: "The
government of the United States is not in any sense founded
on the Christian religion..." It was intended to assure the
Muslims of Tripoli that they had no need to fear American
aggression or prejudice due to religious conviction.
One of the foremost revisionists of the Christian Right,
David Barton, was forced to admit the use of fraudulent
quotations in his book, The Myth of Separation ,
to strengthen his case that the founding fathers of America
never intended there to be a wall of separation between
church and state. He asserts that what they really intended
was a semi-permeable barrier that would keep the state
from controlling the church, but allow the church to influence
the state. His argument merely illustrates the fact that
Christianity cannot be trusted to stay within the boundaries
established by Christ Himself.
If it actually were a Christian cause that the early Americans
were fighting for -- that is, a war compelled by the teachings
of Christ -- they would certainly not have been fighting
with physical weapons, but rather spiritual . [1] For
Christ taught His followers to "love their enemies" and
to "turn the other cheek." [2] If
they were fighting for His cause they would have
to remember that He said, "My kingdom is not of this world.
If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants
fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but
my kingdom is not of this realm." [3]
Benedict Arnold was a famous traitor of the war whose
action led to the king's advantage. However if America
was truly establishing itself as a holy nation, then Benedict
Arnold should have been applauded for his service
to the king. For the New Testament scriptures say, "Submit
yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted
among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority...
not only to those who are good and considerate, but also
to those who are harsh... if you suffer for doing good and
you endure it, this is commendable before God." [4]
Now obviously Benedict Arnold deserves no such honor.
Clearly he was not motivated by such noble ideals. But
the high standards of Messiah's teachings are not binding
upon natural men. The writings of the New Testament are
addressed to the followers of the Messiah -- those who
have fully surrendered and devoted themselves to Him. Such
men and women are fully persuaded that God will protect
them from their enemies if they are doing His will; or
if it pleases Him to allow their death, they are content
to die rather than defend themselves.
But natural men are accountable to natural law -- the instinctive
law of the conscience. As the Apostle Paul said, "Indeed,
when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things
required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even
though they do not have the law, since they show that the
requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their
consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now
accusing, now even defending them." [5]
The founding fathers of America were God-fearing "Gentiles" who
understood the natural laws of conscience. Their heart-wrenching
decision to fight for their independence from England was
borne of their conviction in their conscience that their
cause was just, not from a religious zeal that demonized
their enemy. Whether they waged a "just war" in the eyes
of God is not for us to say, but clearly it was not a "holy
war" such as Christians had waged for nearly fifteen centuries.
The founding fathers of America would have no part of that.
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment
of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits?
More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the
Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both,
superstition, bigotry and persecution." [6]
[1] 2 Corinthians 10:4
[2] Matthew 5:39,44
[3] John 18:36
[4] 1 Peter 2:13,18,19
[5] Romans 2:14-15
[6] James Madison, A
Biography in his Own Words , edited by Joseph Gardner,
p. 93
Back
Printer-friendly
