The evolution of political theory based on God, Nature, and Reason over the preceding century laid the groundwork for the reasoning articulated in the Declaration. This was the migration from the divine right of kings to rule as God’s appointed agents to the concept of a compact between rulers and the ruled, based on the revelation of natural law. If men and nature are created by God, then reason can be used to deduce from what we learn from nature through science human nature and how people ought to interact in social and political structures. Over the course of the 18th century philosophers had expounded theories of how this leads to the right form of government. The Founding Fathers (and Thomas Jefferson in particular) leaned heavily on this to write the Declaration of Independence. The logic led to conclusions such as “the British Parliament must be limited by the law of nature, which affirms that the happiness of the society is the first law of every government.” But the logic of the colonies was fluid, adapting to the changing circumstances over the ten years preceding the declaration, as the politics evolved and the colonists sought redress from perceived wrongs. In fact, although the Declaration blames the king, a large part of the offensive actions came from Parliament, where the colonists had neither voice nor vote. In the end, the justification and declaration were largely written for the justification of the rebellion to those on the sidelines, the other nations of Europe.
After lengthy discussion of the editing process and the literary qualities of the Declaration, Becker goes on to its impact on nineteenth century events and issues such as the French Revolution and slavery. He discusses how Rousseau and Hegel and other philosophers interpreted and either endorsed or rejected the concept of inalienable rights. He states, “To ask whether the natural rights philosophy of the Declaration of Independence is true or false is essentially a meaningless question.” He explains that it is the application of the higher law by humans (he does not use the words fallen or sinful, but the concept is there) that addresses whether government promotes the general welfare or the private agenda of the rulers.
Returning to the fundamental question, when is rebellion against authority justified? What are the fundamental principles for resolving conflict in governance? I think that Carl Becker is trying to address these questions, but perhaps not so baldly stated:
- What is the government supposed to do? What is its ultimate objective, and what should it do to achieve that objective?
- How do people discern and decide what these objectives and actions should be?
- If people do not agree, what is the process for resolving disagreements and making a decision?
- What are the limits for which living with actions that are disagreed with becomes unacceptable, and breaking the relationship becomes necessary?
We can see this in the church, clearly laid out in the Bible, at least by example. The Bible tells us the objectives, and the church should do what Jesus wants. (Carry out the Great Commission, teach new believers, care for the poor, etc.) In the book of Acts we see how the early disciples discerned God’s will, and how they handled disagreements about what God wanted. They waited for the call of God through the Holy Spirit. (Acts 1:14, 2:4; 4:23-31 ) When they had differences of opinion they held discussions or councils at various levels to talk through the issues. (Acts 15:6-29; 15:36-40) The Holy Spirit spoke through various means and people and the apostles recognized this. Occasionally Paul gave instructions to expel someone who was clearly either not a believer and/or had the intent of damaging the church, and could not be persuaded by discussion. (1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Thessalonians 3:14; 2 Timothy 4:14)
Becker does not consider church governance, so implications of this for the book being reviewed are a bit far afield, but not totally irrelevant as they set a context. As regards secular governance, the prevailing philosophy of the 18th century included the divine right of kings, based on passages such as Romans 13:1-7 and Jesus’ comments on paying taxes to Caesar (Matthew 22:15-21; Mark 12:14-17; Luke 20:21-25). On the other hand, in Acts 5:27-32 the disciples argued with the Sanhedrin (not the king, but they had authority in Jerusalem to imprison) and asserted that when God commanded them to do something and rulers forbade it, they would reject that usurpation of divine authority. The Founding Fathers were making no claim about a direct command from God. Instead, their reasoning was that the Bible says that God had made humans as His image bearers. In addition, natural law (discovered through scientific research) was considered as a divine revelation of the God of nature and and the nature of God and could be cited. Hence, rulers who mistreated them violated their Divine commission and image, and therefore were as evil as the Pharaoh who enslaved the Israelites. They did not claim a call like the one Moses received, because God’s revelation had already been recorded in the Bible.
What does philosophizing about 18th century philosophy of governance have to do with the 21st century? The government of England in 1776 had a concept that it was all about earthly and secular matters, that the role of spiritual matters in governance was that the Bible said what it said and that was it (ignoring Acts 5), political governance was in the hands of man, and the Church of England spoke for God. The colonials had a view that God is an active participant in these matters in the daily conduct of life.
In our era there is a similar dichotomy between those who believe that the separation of church and state means that God is disconnected from governance, and those who believe the Bible should be our guide. Both views ignore a third perspective: the entire fabric of the unseen realm, the rulers and battles that Daniel the prophet was told about, warfare in heavenly places (Ephesians 6), and the ultimate authority of Christ and His imminent return to earth to rule over it. Even those who advocate for morality, righteousness, justice, and mercy often do not address human government from the perspective of dealing with rulers, authorities, powers of the dark world, and spiritual forces of evil in the heavenlies. (Ephesians 6:12) The Declaration of Independence was a statement that invoked spiritual values as a motivation for actions; in our day, the times and seasons force us to consider how to deal directly with the spiritual realities that are unseen.
