2.11.2008
grudem on law, politics, & gov't part 4
I am currently taking a course with Dr. Wayne Grudem called "Biblical Theology of Law, Politics & Government." This is a series of posts with reactions and lessons from that class.
Wow, I can't believe it's been almost two weeks since I posted. Time flies. Last time I posted related to the Grudem class, I asked the question, "Is the founding of our "Christian" nation actually built on disobedience to God's word? Why or why not?"
In this post I'll share Dr. Grudem's response. For what it's worth, I find it a plausible but unsatisfactory answer.
In short, Dr. Grudem's answer was that the signers of the Declaration of Independence viewed themselves as also being an authority put in place by God at the local level. These leaders were then left with an option: 1) obey King George and allow him to hurt the people or 2) revolt against King George in order to serve and protect the people under their care.
This is along the lines of what Jason wrote in his comment on the previous post:
If my memory serves me, the colonies for many years were largely self ruling. They elected their own gov'ts in some colonies. The English had a fairly well developed theory of gov't that said that the power of gov't ultimately resided in the people, not the king...
In this circumstance, the founders believed that THEY were the authority instituted by God. England was the one attempting to destroy their legitimate authority, and they were resisting that attempt. From the perspective of a common American, the King George III wasn't the ONLY authority. The colonists had been electing their own gov'ts for years, free from significant interference by England. So which authority do you submit to? King George, who claims the colonies are essentially the property of England? Or your fellow colonists, who claim that the power of the gov't resides in the people?
This is a plausible argument, however I am historically unclear on the degree to which the signers of the Declaration were viewed as a civil authority other than the authority they asserted in leading a revolution. If you have insights on this, particularly backed up by history, it would be great to see them as I am quite ignorant of this aspect.
Tell me what you think. Is this a good enough solution?