tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11244887.post112050720039171394..comments2023-10-03T06:59:25.428-10:00Comments on The Joshua Victor Theory: Submission to the Government or Independence?The Joshua Victor Theoryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03684296967627057287noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11244887.post-1122352535578222412005-07-25T18:35:00.000-10:002005-07-25T18:35:00.000-10:00Do you have a definition of revolution? Do we jus...Do you have a definition of revolution? Do we just go by the historical label?<BR/><BR/>The Continental Congress was called in part to respond to the king's actions, one of which was to restrict the activities of the Massachusetts legislature. So you have a legal question as to whether or not the king had the right to restrict such activities.<BR/><BR/>The term 'insurgent' itself begs the question.<BR/><BR/>While I would likely side with Bonhoeffer against Sasse, I don't see even Bonhoeffer's action in the same light as the American Revolution. You would have a better parallel if when Hitler dissolved the German parliament, it had continued to meet and it called for armed resistance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11244887.post-1121541017014549152005-07-16T09:10:00.000-10:002005-07-16T09:10:00.000-10:00Rick, I agree there is gray area, but I think wher...Rick, I agree there is gray area, but I think where Sasse is saying it comes to black and white is when it turns to revolution. He says, "But the insurgent never has legal right...He can be the instrument of divine wrath, but his rebellion remains guilt. As God does his 'alien work' in the midst of war, so may he also allow the outbreak of human sin in revolution in order to fulfill his angry judgment." So I would say he probably does mean 'within the laws' of a country, as he says the insurgent has 'no legal right.' <BR/><BR/>I see your problem with the quote, that he seems to suggest "the American government was only legitimate AFTER the Revolution." I think that is a correct assessment of his position, because he's basically saying that even though our government had an immoral or sinful inception because of the Revolution, yet it is now a legitimate government. I would probably say it this way--just because we have a legitimate government now (as it fulfills the God-ordained duties of governing (see original quote)), doesn't mean we have to or should try to justify the act of rebellion. When God does his 'alien' work of punishing the evildoer--as for example through the Babylonians taking Judah into captivity--that doesn't justify the cruelties of war or conquest. Yet God's purpose is accomplished despite the evil that man brings about. I certainly don't think that Sasse is trying to downplay the grievances that the colonists had against the British Government. Remember that Sasse experienced the same question of resisting a tyrannical government, as he lived and taught in Nazi Germany before he had to flee the country. Though he vigorously opposed Nazism and Hitler, he did not condone the actions of contemporaries like Bonhoeffer, who attempted to assasinate Hitler.The Joshua Victor Theoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03684296967627057287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11244887.post-1121452365744926062005-07-15T08:32:00.000-10:002005-07-15T08:32:00.000-10:00I follow that to a point.The question would be, "W...I follow that to a point.<BR/><BR/>The question would be, "What does <I>within the government</I> entail?" Within its laws? Using its functionaries? I think there is a bit of a gray area.<BR/><BR/>I think I would agree that in most cases I would be against pure revolution, where there is no continuity whatsoever. (Though if the government were an anti-government which did the opposite of what it is called to do, I would prefer anarchy. Lawlessness is not worse than mechanized evil.)<BR/><BR/>My problem with the Sasse quote (It may be cured by further reading, but I doubt it.) is that he suggests that the American government was only legitimate AFTER the Revolution.<BR/><BR/>Our revolution was not a bunch of people firing randomly and creating a power vacuum which was later filled.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11244887.post-1120970548348181092005-07-09T18:42:00.000-10:002005-07-09T18:42:00.000-10:00Rick, I haven't studied this particular issue in g...Rick, I haven't studied this particular issue in great enough depth to speak too definitively on it. But it seems that the defense against the abuse of authority by either the emperor or his agents in your quote, is still to be understood <I>within</I> the realm of the government. IOW, protecting oneself and even resisting corrupt authorities, but not necessarily overthrow of that government and the ensuing temporary anarchy. So if I read this rightly, it means opposition and reform, not revolution per se. <BR/><BR/>Again, briefly back to the Sasse quote, he regards the new American government as a legitimate governing authority because it rightly takes up the tasks of government. But the act of revolution is nevertheless not a God-given perogative. If you have access to the Sasse essays in the Lonely Way, I'd recommend reading the whole article in context. I'm sure my quotes have not quite rounded out all the issues as it pertains to the American Revolution.The Joshua Victor Theoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03684296967627057287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11244887.post-1120938819664428722005-07-09T09:53:00.000-10:002005-07-09T09:53:00.000-10:00Sasse's essay doesn't really answer the questions ...Sasse's essay doesn't really answer the questions posed by the American Revolution. I would suggest it needs to be balanced by the following quote:<BR/><BR/>"Since we have always taught that one should acknowledge civil laws, submit to them, and respect their authority, inasmuch as the gospel does not militate against civil laws, we cannot invalidate from Scripture the right of men to defend themselves even against the emperor in person, or anyone acting in his name....In previously teaching that resistance to government authorities is altogether forbidden, we were unaware that this right has been granted by the government's own laws, which we have diligently taught are to be obeyed at all times." (LW vol 47:8, quoted by Eric W. Gritsch in "Martin -- God's Court Jester" pp. 126-127.)<BR/><BR/>The question would be whether or not British Law granted rights to the citizens that the king had failed to honor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11244887.post-1120512645612154032005-07-04T11:30:00.000-10:002005-07-04T11:30:00.000-10:00Good post. Interesting and almost scary stuff.I t...Good post. Interesting and almost scary stuff.<BR/><BR/>I think some people have been sold that mercy, rather than justice, should be the role of the state. In an attempt to turn the other cheek, they inadvertantly give evildoers a pass and promote more bad behavior.Dan @ Necessary Roughnesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14815354600299927976noreply@blogger.com