On July 4^th this year, America will celebrate the 250^th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.  The document is a snapshot of the philosophical values embodied in our government.  Moreover, if we are a creedal nation, as Justice Neil Gorsuch recently asserted, the Declaration is the prime candidate for our creed.  Abraham Lincoln claimed, “I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.”  His Gettysburg address would frame the Civil War as a struggle to more fully embody its values.  So too would the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.

Yet 250 years on, we find post-liberals and Christian Nationalists are questioning the liberalism enshrined in the Declaration—the assertion that the ultimate purpose of government is to safeguard life, liberty, and property and revolutions are a justifiable means to do so.  While this challenge raises concerns, it is helpful to remember that the Declaration itself was the product of centuries of theological debate among Christians, and that not all Americans initially affirmed its values.

Historically, Christians broadly believed they were obligated to submit to authorities (both political and spiritual) unless commanded to do something sinful.  Passages like Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 were cited as proof texts.  Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation challenged this view.  If a Pope could be defied, what about a king?  German peasants thought so and rebelled, but their actions were sharply condemned by Luther and violently suppressed.  The question lingered, however, in large part because the Reformation had split Europe into warring factions of Catholics and Protestants.  Each side condemned the other as heretics.

In Britain, the conflict between Protestants and Catholics involved multiple monarchs.  Henry VIII broke from the Catholic Church, beginning the Reformation there.  His daughter Mary, conversely, would persecute Protestants in an attempt to reverse it. It was in this context that Protestant theologian John Knox argued Christians had a duty to rebel against Mary.  

Later during the English Civil War, theologian Samuel Rutherford, a fellow Scot and Protestant, similarly argued that Christians had a duty to rebel against Charles I because he was ungodly.  Charles I was not a professing Catholic, but he favored a centralized, ceremonial form of Anglicanism that struck many Protestants as Catholicism in disguise.  He also sought to levy taxes without the consent of Parliament (more on this later).  Puritan forces led by Oliver Cromwell eventually executed Charles, but before they did, thousands of Puritans migrated to New England to escape persecution.

A generation later, Protestants in England feared the establishment of an enduring Catholic monarchy under Charles’ son, James II.  This once again raised the question of whether it was a sin for Christians to rebel.  Supporters of James, called Tories, published Patriarcha by Robert Filmer which argued kings ruled by divine right from God.  God gave Adam authority over all of creation individually, thus making him a king and establishing monarchy as the only biblical form of government.  The argument, however, failed to stop a political faction in Parliament known as the Whigs from inviting Dutch Prince William of Orange to launch a successful coup against James in 1688.  

At this point, John Locke authored his famous Two Treatises of Government to theologically justify the coup.  In the first treatise, Locke directly challenged Filmer, arguing that God did not entrust creation to Adam individually, but to mankind collectively.  Kings thus did not have a divine right to rule; all had an equal share of authority.  In the second treatise, Locke argued that since we all have an equal share of authority, government must have the consent of the governed.

When Parliament and the colonies were at loggerheads over the issue of taxes and political authority, the colonists interpreted the conflict through the lens of this history and theological debate.  The descendants of Puritans in New England, who had left the Anglican Church and become Congregationalists and Presbyterians, saw Parliament and George III as no different from Charles I or James II. Like Charles, Parliament was attempting to raise taxes without proper authority.  Even prior to the Revolution, Congregationalist preacher Jonathan Mayhew had celebrated the execution of Charles I, arguing Christians owe no obedience to ungodly rulers.  Colonists resisting Britian’s authority were referred to as Whigs in a nod to the earlier conflict with James.  Later, they would be called Patriots.

Conversely, descendants of ceremonial Anglicans were more sympathetic to the Crown.  The Anglican Book of Common Prayer venerated Charles I as a martyr, his execution described as a heinous sin.  Anglican minister Jonathan Boucher argued Christians had no right to rebel against political authorities and he wasn’t alone.  A significant number of Americans, like Benjamin Franklin’s son William, were Loyalists who supported Britain.  George III even referred to the conflict as a “Presbyterian rebellion” because, in his mistaken view, only the descendants of Puritans were revolting.  Tellingly, the King’s supporters were initially called Tories in reference to the conflict with James II a generation before.

The debate eventually turned violent at Lexington and Concord.  A year later, the Continental Congress issued the Declaration of Independence, which clearly echoed Locke’s second treatise.  Yet gone was the theological foundation of the first treatise; the idea that God had entrusted creation to mankind collectively, thus giving each person a share of authority.  As we reflect on the Declaration a quarter of a millennium later, remembering the theological debate that led to it will help us better interpret it and our current politics.