The American Revolution and Lockean Philosophy
2005-01-06
Introduction
After reading articles on the American Revolution in Christian History, I though it might be good to write a bit about John Locke’s influence on American political thought, with primary sources from the era of the Revolution and compare it with what the Bible has to say. It is a little controversial, and my intent is not to be offensive or disrespectful. Nonetheless, I do want to be honest about what the Bible has to say about honoring the government and fighting wars.
Who Is John Locke? A Brief Look
John Locke was a teacher of philosophy and a student of medicine who lived during the seventeenth century. He spent time in exile in Holland before the Glorious Revolution in England in 1688, and served the new king, William of Orange as advisor in Holland. He lived during a time of great change in England. Freedom of religion (with some strings attached) and trial by jury were new institutions in England during this time. Locke, though never acknowledging his greatest political work Two Treatises of Government in his lifetime, was an admirer of his father, a supporter of the cause against Charles I (Tannenbaum 166-167).
Locke’s medical and scientific background influenced his political method. His political method begins with the human mind at birth, which is tabula rasa, or a clean slate. People are not born with ideas, but as they grow up, they are influenced by their observations, experience and training. Simple ideas that one learns become more complex, and “a moral sense develops through experience and learning” (Tannenbaum 168).
Locke’s view on human nature is that all are born free and equal, and given reason and a conscience, which distinguishes them from animals. Reason, developed through experience, with an awareness of good and bad, “points toward nature’s moral laws” that are “established by God” (Tannenbaum 168). These laws direct people to act “freely and equally” as ethical beings (168). Egoism is an element of human nature, which is not necessarily selfish, if it is to improve oneself and not to harm others.
Locke on Property
Locke believes the state of nature began in a state of freedom of equality, a moral state with mutual trust and respect that most people have with one another, their rights and their property. Property includes three aspects, according to Locke: life, liberty, and estate (compare this with The Declaration of Independence, that men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”). Economic inequality changed in this state of nature. Though nobody has a right to own parts of the earth initially, God gave the world to mankind and “commanded man to labor” that people will “make the best possible use of the earth by working it” (Tannenbaum, 169-170, see Second Treatise, sec. 32). Though the earth is common to man, “every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labor of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his” (Second Treatise, sec 27). There are exceptions to right to private property: that no one can have all the land, and that no one may have too much of something that they cannot use of its produce before it spoils. However, money, which does not spoil, has no limit on how much one can have.
Locke’s basis of government is when the people “surrender their individual right to enforce natural law against offenders when they consent to a social contract” (Tannenbaum, 172). It is approved by unanimous consent, according to Locke, but then unanimity is no longer a prerequisite for governing. The majority has the right to act on behalf of all. Only those with property are entitled to vote (as you will see why below). The social contract enables both civil society and government. The former is the united people, and gives the power to the government.
Locke states “the great and chief end... of men’s uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property” (Second Treatise, sec. 124). His preferred form of government is the representative democracy, where first citizens by election transfer their power to a legislative body. This body determines laws (See The Constitution of the United States of America, Article I). This is the supreme power for Locke. An executive will enforce the laws that the legislature produces, which is accountable to legislature for its power (cf. The Constitution, Article II, Sections 1-3).
Locke on Revolution
If a system of government, even that of a representative democracy, becomes despotic, and violates natural law by taking property or giving its power to another source, the people have the supreme power to remove or to change the legislature. This can come about peacefully or by force. The latter should only be undertaken when there is a series of abuses (Tannenbaum, 178).
Now you might see many correlations between the circumstances of the American colonies on the eve of the Revolution. The question I want to challenge you with is what, from any of this, could possibly be Christian or Biblical? Is there mandate from the Word of God to ever rebel against the government forcefully? We will examine these things after we look more at the historical circumstances of the American Revolution.
America’s Christian Foundation
What, then, is Christian about America’s foundation? Historical circumstances play a major role in the vast emigration to the Americas from Europe because of religious reasons. Because of unrest in England, 20,000 Puritans left for the Americas during the years 1628-1640, fleeing kingship that claimed divine right.
In 1620, emigrants from England, Separatists, landed in the Americas. Their “Puritanism... was scarcely less a political than a religious doctrine” (Tocqueville, II). They drew up The Mayflower Compact, a document written “in the name of God,” a covenant signed by all the men aboard the ship that they would abide by whatever laws that the group would make.
Tocqueville notes that the earliest historical and legislative records of New England “continually exercised the rights of sovereignty [apart from England]; they named their magistrates, concluded peace or declared war, made police regulations, and enacted laws, as if their allegiance as due only to God” (Tocqueville, II). He also notes rigorous laws that punished immorality, such as rape, adultery, fornication, and even notes a sentence declared on May 1, 1660, charging a “fine and reprimand on a young woman who was accused of improper language, and of allowing herself to be kissed.” Drunkenness and lying were punished; the latter could be punished by fine or flogging. Morality was closely legislated in the earliest days of the American colonies.
Puritans came to America with the idea that they could set up a Bible state in the new world, to be an example to the rest of the world. Many towns in Massachusetts and Connecticut were called Canaan or New Canaan, making comparisons of themselves to the Israelites settling in the Promised Land.
However, things changed over time. The first generation of Puritans wanted to build a holy commonwealth, but the second generation, in 1662, came together to build a half-way covenant. They could not keep a covenant because the next generation did not make a profession of faith as the first generation did. Unbelievers finally could vote, but could not take communion. When moving onto the third generation, these people could do anything without professing faith in Christ. An increase of wealth attributed to this, along with perhaps the infiltration of rationalism from the Enlightenment. Such things as this in the colonies lead to a Great Awakening beginning as early as the 1720’s, reaching its height in the 1740’s. Though there was great reform in the people’s spiritual lives in the colonies, it also proved to be a democratic movement. It emphasized the equality of people and separation of church and state, the latter stemming from the realization that a relationship with God is personal. Since this Great Awakening was an inter-colony phenomenon, a unifying effect came over the colonies.
There was much division over Revolution in the church of America. Three major denominations supported breaking away from England because of their emphasis on covenants: Congregationalists, Baptists, and Presbyterians. The king allegedly broke a covenant with God and broke the social contract (see discussion under Locke).
Events Leading to Revolution
It is good to recognize that trading companies, religious groups, and other such entities founded the colonies. Only Georgia was founded formerly by the British government. The British mercantile system, which defined the relationship of the colonies to the mother country (the former is to economically benefit the latter), did not become a big problem until the end of the Seven Years’ War in 1763. The Navigation Laws, which forbade ships other than English ships to come to colonial harbors, were not strictly enforced until this time.
The end of the Seven Years War in 1763 marked a new era in the relationship between Britain and its transatlantic colonies. British colonial policy precipitated the American Revolution (Bailey 124). Coming off a victory and with one of the largest empires of the world, they had enormous debt to pay off, in which they were to use the colonies to pay off some of the cost.
Following this, there were a long series of taxes placed on the colonists, which were received with disdain and answered with rebellion, boycott, and “tea party.” Prime Minister George Grenville answered the colonists’ cries of “no taxation without representation” with a concept of virtual representation, that Parliament represented all Englishmen including those of the colonies that did not vote.
Common Sense: Influencing the Revolution at a Late Hour
Thomas Paine discusses monarchy and tyranny at length in Common Sense. In this pamphlet, he discusses America’s “sacred mission” and “moral obligation to the world” to set itself apart from Britain and become a republic uncontaminated from Britain’s monarchy (Bailey 143). Paine notes that heathens introduced monarchy into the world, that Israel copied them and that the Christian world “improved on the plan” by honoring living kings as the heathens honored dead ones. Paine also states, “It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the promotion of idolatry.” The Scriptures, he says, talk about the shortcomings of monarchy through the examples of Gideon and Samuel. Acknowledgment of being under any king was “sinful,” save the Lord of Hosts.
Paine, quoting Judges 8, says that the men of Israel pleaded with Gideon after military success against Midian, “Rule thou over us, both thou, and thy son, and thy son’s son” (Judges 8:22). Gideon’s reply: “I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you: the Lord shall rule over you” (8:23). Commenting on the narrative, Paine concludes,
“Words need not be more explicit; Gideon doth not decline the honour, but denieth their right to give it; neither doth he compliment them with invented declarations of his thanks, but in the positive style of a prophet charges them with disaffection to their proper Sovereign, the King of heaven.”
Again Paine turns to the Scriptures, in 1 Samuel 8:6-9, where the Lord states that asking for a king was rejection not of Samuel, but of the Lord Himself. The consequences of monarchy are explained in 1 Samuel 8:10-18, that kings will meddle in the people’s affairs for the king’s own good. Paine refers again to 1 Samuel 12:17-19, that it was evil to ask for a king. He states later, “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.”
He also shows that English history demonstrates that few monarchs are honorable. He uses the example of William the Conqueror, an illegitimate Frenchman who established himself as king against the will of the natives, as an undeniable usurper. Such men who deem themselves as born to reign for others to obey “soon grow insolent” and are ignorant of the world’s needs and are overall unfit for rule.
Speaking on the issue of American independence, a cause for an entire continent, Paine states, the “sun never shined on a cause of greater worth.” In respect to the Navigation Laws, Paine says, “It is the interest of all Europe to have America a FREE PORT”, and they would gain friendship with all of Europe. Otherwise, the American economy will be ruined.
He denies reconciliation with the mother country on the grounds of Lexington and Concord:
“No man was a warmer wisher for reconciliation than myself, before the fatal nineteenth of April 1775, but the moment the event of that day was made known, I rejected the hardened, sullen tempered Pharaoh of England for ever; and disdain the wretch, that with the pretended title of FATHER OF HIS PEOPLE can unfeelingly hear of their slaughter, and composedly sleep with their blood upon his soul.”
The Declaration of Independence: A Commentary on Lockean Philosophy
Thomas Jefferson’s The Declaration of Independence resonates with Lockean philosophy, line by line:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Jefferson continues, line after line, stating that it is mankind’s duty, when under despotism and tyranny, to “to throw off such Government.” He then also lists the crimes of George III of Britain, all of which that tie to certain events, laws, taxes, and violence that happened in the preceding years. He reminds the British of their disregard of their former appeals to them, and in the last paragraph, declares that the colonies are “Free and Independent States” and “Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown.”
Is There Biblical Support for the Revolution?
You can see why someone might be annoyed or angry with the English over many of the events the American Colonists experienced. We would be just as angry if we were living in those days. But is revolution a Biblical response? Or, if choosing revolution, can one possibly call for revolution in the name of God?
The Bible in no way condones revolution in any circumstance. The reasons that Paine and Jefferson put forth for revolution and independence are contrary to the Scriptures in every way.
The first thing that Paine falsely assumes is Locke’s Social Contract, that people surrender their wills voluntarily for the protection of the government, and therefore, people have a right to replace the government. In the Scriptures, this is simply not so, as Daniel says, “Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings” (Daniel 2:20-21). God allows who He wills to come to power. Again, God prophetically calls Cyrus His shepherd, even though he is a pagan ruler that will rule over the Jews (Isaiah 44:28).
Paine also calls monarchy an invention of the Devil for the promotion of idolatry. But how can this be, for it is written, “For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God” (Romans 13:1)?
Acknowledgement of being under a king, Paine says, is sinful. He evens attempts to use the Scriptures to defend it. If such acknowledgement is sinful, then did Daniel sin when he said to Darius, “O king, live for ever” (Daniel 6:21)? And what about when Peter says, “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors” (1 Peter 2:13-14), and again, “Fear God. Honour the king” (1 Peter 2:17)?
The second thing that Paine falsely assumes is that Israel’s situation in the ancient world is the same situation as Gentile Christians alongside non-Christians that are seeking to create a new nation in the post-Constantine world. This thinking will cause much confusion in interpreting the Scriptures because national Israel is not the same as local churches, which consist of a conglomerate of nationalities (cf. Romans 11:1ff). It is said that believers in Jesus ought to be obedient to higher governmental powers,
“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour” (Romans 13:1-7).
It is worth noting that Paul was speaking about Emperor Nero, who had begun reigning shortly before the writing of this letter. This same Emperor allegedly put him to death a decade later. Nero was a ruthless ruler that would eventually torture Christians. If what Paul said is not enough, think about the Lord Jesus, who stated, “whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39). He also says later, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 5:44).
It is very ironic that Paine quotes “render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s,” but states that it is “scripture doctrine of courts.” He is wrong on two accounts. First, Jesus is talking about paying taxes to Caesar (cf. Matthew 22:17). Second, Paine states that Israel had no king, but was “in a state of vassalage to the Romans.” Was not Caesar emperor over the entire known world? And was it a superior thing to serve Caesar, a pagan king, and not, for example, Josiah, a former righteous king of Israel?
I could go on at length, but the reality of this matter is that Paine’s Common Sense is not interested in promoting Biblical truth, but espousing rhetoric to get people on fire for revolution. The Bible is just there to be quoted inappropriately to support violence, where Jesus Christ never supported violence. For example, when Peter cut off Malchus’ ear in Gethsemane, Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?” (John 18:11).
The Declaration of Independence speaks for itself. God is mentioned at best indirectly, such as “Creator” in the second paragraph, because Jefferson is not interested in Biblical truth, but in the reason and philosophy of his day. To note that the entire document is contrary to the Word of God, as I have quoted above, is not difficult. The parallels to Lockean philosophy, however, are remarkable.
Conclusion
Revolution against the government should never be an option for Christians. Humankind’s opinions, emotions, and doctrines might seem savory when discontent with laws and ordinances of government, but the Word of God does not condone revolution or insolence at any time for believers. Lockean philosophy is the backbone of the American Revolution, and property is the backbone of Lockean philosophy. This is incompatible with Christian teaching, for the Scriptures say, “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal” (Matthew 6:19).
Their personal feelings, and not the Word of God, led the colonists of those days to revolution. But God did allow the Revolution to successfully take place, and the world has been a very different place since. And we can be sure that God has truly blessed America, not because of Americans’ virtuousness or righteousness, but by His grace. And with God’s blessing comes responsibility to be a blessing to others. As a believer in Jesus Christ and an American, I pray that I will not fall short here.
Now what can we do with all of this information? As a believer in Jesus, I am humbled, knowing that I may have given into the rhetoric of the day. I am thankful to the Lord that I live in a land where I can freely speak of Christ and to further my walk with God, and any believer in America should be thankful for the right to serve God openly without fear of persecution.
But we ought to learn from our mistakes. I beseech the Christian population of America, and of any other nation, that revolution is not condoned by the Lord. If we are in such a situation in the future where revolution seems like an answer, we must seek God instead, for the Psalms say, “Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the Lord our God” (Psalm 20:7).
There will be days ahead where things will not be so easy. In the end times, “then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be” (Matthew 24:21). Regardless, we are called to honor all the officials of governments, even the Neros and the George IIIs. The rapidly changing modern world is testifying that times are getting more difficult. The Lord, however, will be faithful to His promises no matter what. He knows the world is not right, and He will return to make things right in His time. In the meantime, He wants the world to turn to Him, and not try to make things right in this world without Him. Jesus Christ came to earth, suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was put to death on the cross. He died in our place, to pay for our rebellion against God. He rose from the dead, proving Himself to be the Son of God, and ascended to Heaven.
We have a choice to make: we can either futilely rely on our own methods to live, trying to please ourselves or even attempt to please God by our own good deeds. Or we can trust that Jesus paid our debt to God in full, so we can have eternal life. Think about these things.
Sources
Bailey, Thomas A. and Kennedy, David M. The American Pageant: A History of the Republic, Tenth Edition. Lexington: D.C. Heath, 1994.
Tannenbaum, Donald G. and Schultz, David. Inventors of Ideas: An Introduction to Western Political Philosophy. New York: St. Martin’s, 1998.
Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. First published in 1835. Edited and abridged by Richard D. Heffner. New York: Penguin Group, 1956.