More than a year ago I wrote that I was making my way through a book called, “Justifying Revolution: The American Clergy’s Argument for Political Resistance, 1750-1776” by Gary L. Steward. I had said at the time that I would take notes and eventually share with you what I learned, and finished reading it sometime in late 2022.

While I can’t write a comprehensive review in a short blog post, I’ll try to sum up some of the key learnings I came away with.

The book is an academic study of how patriot clergy drew on a long history of Protestant tradition of resistance to unjust political power. In his introduction, Steward writes,

The majority of historians today, it seems, interpret the clergy’s support of the American Revolution as an accommodation of Christian teaching to various forms of secular thought. They must have ignored the clear teaching of the Bible and closed their ears to the authority of scripture to justify disobedience and armed warfare against the established political authorities. After all, doesn’t scripture condemn political resistance?

The question I wanted answered was, “how did the clergy who supported the revolution justify their resistance, even when it became violent?” There are three ways that impressed me from the book (although there were others).

First, Steward’s book is a survey of some of the key events, documents and sermons that influenced resistance to British rule and demonstrates that the clergy were entirely consistent with their rich theological traditions of resistance. He covers things like Jonathan Mayhew’s doctrine of political resistance (a 1750 sermon), which John Adams suggested “orators on the fourth of July” should study, and wrote that Mayhew “‘had great influence on the commencement of the Revolution’ and his famed sermon was ‘read by everyone.'”

The overthrow of Governor Edmund Adros in 1689 was a key event in the lead up to the revolution. Andros had been appointed royal governor of the Dominion of New England and when he arrived, he nullified the colonial charters — and thereby the legislatures — of Massachusetts, Plymouth, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York and New Jersey and took them under his direct control. He then raised property taxes and excise taxers without the consent of any local assembly. Many more abuses were heaped on the citizens until King James II abdicated the throne, when the Massachusetts colonists deposed Governor Andros on April 18 and threw him in jail, eventually sending him back to England.

Steward quotes many sermons and pamphlets throughout his book. In his chapter on self-defense he quotes Elisha Fish, a Congregationalist clergyman from Upton, Massachusetts, who “laid out a full justification of defensive warfare in his The Art of War Lawful and Necessary for a Christian People” (with my emphasis):

For if it be in the nature and reason of things lawful for Christians to enjoy their lives, liberties and property, it must be lawful, in the same nature and reason of things, to use the means necessary to defend and preserve these enjoyments, for to suppose a right to life, liberty and property, and no right to the means necessary for the defense and preservation of the same, is one of the greatest absurdities in nature.

That is a justification from reason, but the colonists also reasoned from the scriptures. In particular, they argued that Paul’s admonition to submit to the “governing authorities” in Romans 13:1-5 is not absolute. The reason it’s not absolute is because civil and political power is derivative, meaning that the power any authority has is derived from God first, then secondarily through men (e.g. through elections or appointments). Therefore, magistrates have a duty to exercise their authority according to godly principles and if they don’t, they forfeit their prerogatives and the citizens have a right to resist, sometimes violently, if their natural, God-given rights (i.e. the right to life, liberty and happiness) are trampled.

However, nearly all patriot clergy cautioned that such resistance should only come after respectfully petitioning for redress, waiting patiently, and then acting in an orderly, measured and restrained response. This was in direct contradiction to the doctrine of passive obedience and nonresistance advocated by other clergy, one of whom said that a king is to be submitted to “absolutely, without exceptions to any other commands than those directly from God, who is so far from justifying our resistance that he commands our passive obedience.”

One of the strongest arguments for a right of resistance in light of Romans 13 was from Andrew Eliot, who preached an annual election sermon (an ANNUAL. ELECTION. SERMON!) on May 25, 1765, from which Steward quotes extensively.

Some have argued the doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance in all cases whatsoever or that we are not to oppose those who are in authority, although they evidently act contrary to the design of their institution and are bent to ruin the society, which it is their duty to defend and promote. A doctrine so big with absurdity that one would think of no one of common understanding could embrace it, certainly he must have the temper of a slave that can practice upon it. St. Paul very plainly teaches us how far subjection is due to a civil magistrate, when he gives it as a reason for this subjection, “for he is the minister of God to thee for good.” The end for which God has placed men in authority is that they may promote the public happiness. When they improve their power to contrary purposes, when they endeavor to subvert the constitution and to enslave a free people, they are no longer the ministers of God, they do not act by his authority; if we are obliged to be subject, it is only for wrath and not for conscience sake, and they who support such rulers betray their country and deserve the misery they bring on themselves.”

Steward gives many other examples throughout the book of the colonists resisting tyranny and advocating for, and protecting, their civil and religious rights and liberties.

Historical theological tradition, a rejection of passive obedience, and a measured response were all reasons supporting resistance to ruling authorities.

So where do I land after reading it? It helped solidify my thinking that Christians and other citizens have the right to resist rulers who clearly begin operating outside of their derived powers. It challenged my understanding of Romans 13, which often confused me because I took it as absolute; but Paul’s explanation is more nuanced than that and supports a limited view of being subject to the authorities. And I particularly agree with being organized and measured in response to magisterial abuses once the decision to actively resist is taken.

Having read Steward’s book, I’ve challenged myself to read a book written from an opposing viewpoint — one that Steward himself mentions in his book. It’s written by Gregg L. Frazer and is called, “God Against the Revolution: The Loyalist Clergy’s Case Against the American Revolution.” I’ll read that one this year then (if I’m still blogging when I’m done with it) I’ll write a short review of it like this one.

Let me know what you think in the comments.