Back in the Reformed days I used to be a big proponent of “rebelling against tyrants to restore the Constitution in the land.” Partly due to the fact the Bible says “rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,” along with numerous NT references, I realized my position is simply untenable. Of course, while I should point out that the adolescents at Puritan Board were incapable of answering my arguments at the time, I still retract my arguments.
One of the reasons is that if “rebellion” against the political entity is justified (and I am not saying that it is), it can only be done so if it is to restore the moral order to the land, or something like that. For example, the Cossacks rebelled against the Masonic rulers in St Petersburg to protect Old Russia and Holy Russia (and to fight freemasonry, obviously). That’s conceivably legitimate.
But what of us in America? Am I a TEA partier who wants to protect the Constitution and get “constitutionally-minded” leaders back in the land? An emphatic no! I agree that the current regime is corrupt beyond all imagination (as was its predecessor and as will be its successor), but why should I want to protect and restore the Constitution? It is a Masonic document imposed by an oligarchic elite with the intention of eradicating and marginalizing the small, Christian farmer.
Even the (likely) occultic roots notwithstanding, I’ve argued before that restoring the Constitution (for some reason these right-wing folks honestly think the Regime in Washington will let them do that. They’re more likely to end up in a FEMA camp per Janet Napolitano’s wishes). Anyway, restoring the Constitution will simply reinforce the dialectic, eventually producing the same problems later on.
I reject the dialectic altogether and cannot imagine any realist scenario where I would condone a rebellion. As bad as D.C. is (and sadly, we are about to see it get much worse), it still provides (however incompetently) some form of stability, and that should be encouraged.