Rebelling to Restore…what exactly?

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.

11 comments on “Rebelling to Restore…what exactly?

  1. Sermonwriter says:

    Hey tesla,

    Great topic. I’ve already introduced myself as a former theonomist, and this stuff still plagues me as a new Orthodoxinian (made that up?).

    I heard an EO priest state to me recently that the EO does not subscribe to the ‘just war’ theory as does Rome, so what would be the basis of legitimacy in the EO for your Cossack example?

    You see, I “hate” tyrants, and now as a convinced soon-to-be EO Catechumen, I am finding my own former convictions of “justice” to be in need of different kinds of justification. I still have to believe that defending one’s neighbor from evil tyrants (with force if necessary), is an act of love, even in Orthodoxy…I think. Any input would be much appreciated. Thanks.

    • tesla1389 says:

      I’m no expert on it, but I’ll take a guess. The Just War Theory was used to justify many evils against Orthodox Christians. Secondly, while Blessed Augustine didn’t intend this, it is not a far leap to go for justifying war in certain contexts to actually see it as a positive good. Thirdly, I think many Orthodox dismiss Augustine out of hand (even though he is considered an Eastern Saint).

      The Orthodox have no problem going to war, but they see it as fallen and evil and thus seek forgiveness afterwards. They don’t really bother justifying it.

      As to the Cossacks, they just felt they were restoring Holy Russia (which they were indeed trying to do). We don’t have a “Holy America” to restore, for our heritage is largely Masonic.

  2. Sermonwriter says:

    Thanks tesla, especially, “they don’t really bother justifying it”, lol. Not funny really, but well said. This sounds very Orthodox to my new Orthodox ears. However, strictly speaking, or practically speaking, there must be some sort of line of justification that precedes violence on the part of Orthodox. I can understand the humility of not trying to justify a violent course of action, but I would have to think that for Orthodox, love for others must play a significant part in this decision making process.

    In that regard, as far as the U.S. goes, what is the ‘loving’ thing to do when we see our neighbors or our family being rounded up for the FEMA camps? Our we “justified” in our humility to refrain from a violent defense? Scripture such as Isaiah 58 and Proverbs 24 cross my mind thinking of such a scenario. Even though we have no Holy America to restore, we still have innocent people to defend, (at least as I am seeing it now).

    I’m not trying to make this more complicated, but I do believe we will all unfortunately have to make this decision before too long, and I’d rather make it now than at the moment of crisis.

    • tesla1389 says:

      I understand your question. Here is what I would say (which is in no way authoritative). If someone came to my local parish (I’m in Louisiana) or village and began deporting my people, I would ask for Christ’s mercy and rescue them. That’s what the Cossacks did in the 1600s when Turkish Muslims (aided by Jewish slavers) began taking Slavic women (which is still happening today).

      I would not say I am making an argument to restore America, but rather to protect my people, especially the poor.

  3. Sermonwriter says:

    p.s. . . in light of what I just said, (if I’m right), wouldn’t it be more prudent for the Church to actually plan and organize for position, to physically resist the imminent attack on ourselves, the Church, and our neighbor?

  4. vjhogan says:

    In the primitive Church, those who were soldiers were not allowed to enter without first giving up their commission. Later, that was relaxed and any soldier who went to war was expected to do three years penance regardless if it was a defensive or offensive war (penance in this instance meant they were effectively barred from the Mysteries of the Church).

    AFAIK, the three years penance is no longer seriously applied (let’s face it, penance these days is a much easier matter), though one is still expected to receive sacramental absolution for acts of war.

    • Sermonwriter says:

      This discussion is forcing me to seriously consider the attitude that may or may not exist within the Church concerning members who are also enlisted with the military. While in the RCC, (not too long ago), the attitude was nothing like I just heard from you vjhogan, nor from you tesla. Am I to assume that the Church in the United States is encouraging war by patronizing military members, giving them justification, and by not upholding the traditional standard of humility about this? I think in the RCC, from my own experience, this is a big fat yes, but being new to Orthodoxy, I haven’t noticed this yet to say for sure.

      • vjhogan says:

        I can’t really speak about Orthodoxy anywhere but in the deep South (my experience is limited to churches in Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee), where our status as a minority religion is so pronounced the vast majority of people who filter in are intellectuals, religious weirdoes/former Evangelical boutiquers and the ethnically Orthodox, but…My general experience is that in Orthodoxy you won’t find the rah-rahing for the military that you do in some circles, even though two of the four priests I’ve known were former military men themselves. (Although I did cringe one time when I heard a visiting priest change the litany to say “…and for the armed forces, who protect us and defend freedom everywhere…”)

        Basically, what I’ve seen is that – when issues of war come up – the general attitude among the Orthodox tends to be “Shit happens. Let us pray to the Lord. Lord have mercy (x 3)” Perhaps it is different in areas where Orthodoxy is more present and more likely filled with Evangelodox, but I don’t think you would have an Orthodox priest refuse to hear someone’s confession for acts of war, which I have thirdhand heard of happening in a Roman church (“You have done nothing wrong, you were defending freedom, etc.”)

        I’m not sure which attitude is worse, really, the one that excuses or the one that shrugs it off.

  5. Sermonwriter says:

    Btw, this also has me wondering if this discussion is applicable toward any law enforcement personnel within the Church…any ideas?

    • vjhogan says:

      I tend to think to ally oneself with the Empire is a dangerous position, but I am not sure local government counts as the Empire (even though the Feds are mixed up in just about everything these days). It may be a hangup from my fundamentalist upbringing, but I am too aware of the eternal consequences at the end of a bullet to want to get involved with that sort of thing myself. On a more high-minded note, War — and by extension, killing in the line of duty as a law officer — is one one of the ultimate acts of iconoclasm.

      This is only my opinion, of course, and by no means the consensus of the Church.

  6. tesla1389 says:

    I really don’t have any good answers to that regarding the opinion of the church inside America. American orthodoxy (if such a thing exists) is a very tricky issue.

    The American mentality in general, especially in politics, is to shed as much blood as possible in order that Goldman Sachs and the Rothschild bankers can rule the world. Unfortunately, this mentality can infect Evangelicals, RCC, and EO.

Comments are closed.