For almost my entire life I have struggled to make sense of what may be termed as “the secession problem.” What are the boundaries of authority, the points at which larger units break apart into their constituent parts? The secession problem can be as small as the break-up of a family, or as large as the collapse of empires. It is a problem that has shaped my thoughts and attitudes in a variety of ways at key times of crisis in my life and those of other people around me. It may be called “the divorce problem,” for those who wish. In my life I have seen families crumble apart (too many of them, including my own), churches and empires disintegrate, and I have struggled to make sense of the circumstances that may justify such a collapse of power, especially in a world that shows a marked bias for agglomeration (even in the absence of effective central government). By some people I have been considered a rebellious anarchist, hostile to any authority (and, truth be told, I am ambivalent about authority). By other people I have been called a supporter of tyranny and oppression, a fanatical believer in statist centralization. I do not believe I am either.

I am, however, deeply interested in the nature of group cohesion, and the justifications that can be found for maintaining such unions in the existence of separatist tensions as well as for dissolving those unions. I am interested in those issues from the smallest scale–such as marriages–to the largest scale–such as nations. It is my firm belief that the same sort of justification for exercising or resisting authority exists across the entire spectrum of human unions. It is also my belief that such justifications are not one-sided or simplistic, but are rather a very complicated matter. Then again, I believe that almost everything is complicated, and very little is as straightforward as it seems to people on either the side of authority or the side of secession. In my life I have found myself on both sides, depending on the particular situation, I hope without any justifiable charge of inconsistency.

One of the clearest causes of the thorny nature of the secession problem is its religious and moral foundations. To justly rebel from authority, one must be obedient to a higher authority, and the behavior of the authority one is rebelling against must be weighed in the balance and found wanting by a higher standard than that represented by the authority itself. If the state is the highest authority, than there is no appeal that can be made against its commands, no standard that is higher than the decrees of Caesar, and no justification for any kind of resistance to the state–whether personal or collective. Indeed, none of the actions of a brutal, despotic empire (whether that of Rome or Nazi Germany, or Communist Russia, or any number of examples) could be considered wrong, since there is no higher authority to which one can appeal for redress for its thieving and murdering. Likewise, if the highest authority is each individual, then there can be no justification for any sort of union whatsoever except personal interest, no covenantal standard by which individuals are accountable to. In such a situation humankind is in a Hobbesian state of nature, of bellum omnium contra omnes (the war of all against all). The only unions in such a state are those that exist by force or fraud, without any legitimacy whatsoever except the power of those who hold them together. Likewise, to say that any human organization is the ultimate authority is likewise to place that authority, whether it be a pope or a father or a company president or any other man beyond accountability to any higher standard. It is, in other words, to make that man (whoever he is) into a god, and is therefore an act of idolatry and treason.

Without the existence of an Ultimate Authority beyond space and time and human frailty, and of an ultimate standard that exists beyond individual whim or collective prejudice, there can be no hope of escaping from either anarchy or tyranny. There an be no just government unless there is a just standard by which it may be judged. There an be no comparison of regimes or types of government beyond personal preference unless there is a common standard that exists externally and whose justification comes from beyond and above human reasoning and human authority. However, if there is such a standard, then anyone may call any authority to that standard, with the realization that all thoughts and words and actions are accountable to that standard. If all are subject to the law, there is no one above the law, not king nor priest, not defender of power nor rebel. It is only with the existence of such a transcendent standard that one can determine the legitimate boundaries of authority, and the situations where resistance and rebellion are justified. Otherwise, the only justification is power–and those who do not have the power do not have the right even to protest what is done against them.

What, therefore, are the situations in which rebellion or secession or divorce are justified? Several can be determined, which relate to the situations of tyranny and anarchy listed above. If the authority has abandoned their responsibilities, then those under that authority who wish to form a more perfect union to provide for the common benefit may form such unions and covenants themselves. Mankind need not suffer under anarchy if they are willing and able to govern themselves. An authority not wiling or able to handle its responsibilities should be judged accordingly as unfit to bear the title of having that authority. Let us give several examples. In 1835 the state of Texas rebelled against the nation of Mexico in part due to the anarchy that nation had fallen into, in order to form its own nation, since Mexico was unable to govern its own territories under the rule of law. This rebellion was justified because of the anarchy of Mexico as well as the tyranny of its rulers. Likewise, there exists a de facto state called Somaliland that rules over a substantial portion of the Horn of Africa. This nation rebelled against the tyranny of a dictator and formed a more perfect union in the face of the anarchy to which Somalia as a whole has succumbed, even though this nation has not been recognized by the outside world. Clearly, as Somalia has no effective central government, those areas which have an interest in governing themselves and have established their own effective and representative institutions have earned the right to be recognized accordingly.

Another justification for secession is the tyranny of that authority. Many examples of this exist from scripture and history that are informative and worthy of study. For example, the ten northern tribes of Israel were justified in their rebellion against Rehoboam because of the idolatrous rebellion of Solomon against God and because of his desire to tyrannically govern over the northern tribes with oppressive taxation and forced labor. Likewise, the people of Israel were justified in their secession from Egypt because of its oppressive slavery. It is slaves, not slaveowners, who have the right of rebellion against their oppressive God-hating masters. For example, the plucky little Baltic nations of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia were justified in their secession against Soviet Russia, who had illegitimately taken them over in 1940. Likewise, Slovenia and Croatia and Bosnia and Macedonia and Kossovo and Montenegro had the right to be independent from a tyrannical Yugoslav government controlled by the Serbians. Likewise, the United States was justified in its rebellion against Great Britain because that empire wished to rule over the colonists like slaves, destroying the power of their local assemblies and denying them a voice in their own government. In all of these cases, rebellion to a corrupt central authority was obedience to a higher one because that authority had acted tyrannically and in opposition to the covenant by which it was bound. Similar situations of abusive government would justify divorce within marriages, division among churches and businesses, and secession within nations. It should also be noted that actual tyrannical behavior is required to justify such a revolt, not merely the fear of such behavior.

Why, then, is there a presumption of legitimacy in this world across the board for authorities that have either abandoned their duties and responsibilities of government or who exercise that authority tyrannically and oppressively? Despite the fact that just authority only exists by consent, plenty of authority is abused in this world. Those who rule by power do not wish to recognize the right of the oppressed to shake off their chains, and those whose authority is only fictive do not wish to admit that the emperor has no clothes, and thus suffer a loss of respect from their peers. They would rather let “their people” suffer than admit the right of those people to be recognized for their achievements in institution-building–whether those people be in Kurdistan, Somaliland, Northern Cyprus, Nagorno-Karabagh, Taiwan, Bouganville, or any number of other places. This is true of families, churches, and businesses as much as it is of nations.

The benefits of union are an increase in efficiency, as long as the same standards are fairly and justly applied across the board. So long as there is a common culture and a common rule of law, a common basis for business and travel, it is better to be united than separate. The work that is required to keep things going is easier for many than for few–whether this is in families or in nations, assuming they rule in the best interests and with the support of the governed. Coercion, however, is inefficient, as people do the least they can afford to do, and may intentionally sabotage the efforts of a hated over-class, and the mistrust that such a government has over a hostile and restive people causes it to misappropriate resources to espionage and security instead of in development. In such an environment, it is more efficient to break up an unwilling union into smaller parts, so that the energies of people may be turned from power struggles to the work of internal improvement and external trade. Rather than wasting resources on spy software or internal security forces, it is better to put money into capital investments and wages, better to spend money on books and classes than lawyers and paddles. However, this happy state requires a mature people possessed of self-control as well as a government ruled by those who serve others rather than lord it over others. Neither of these conditions is easy to meet.

Let us assume, however, that such a world may exist where larger governments (whether families, churches, or businesses as well as civil governments) recognize the presence of distinct cultures within them. Instead of seeking to coerce obedience from these separate peoples to force cultural change, why not recognize such differences with autonomy? Why not allow such regions a great degree of latitude, subject to their working for the common good, to reduce tensions and allow energies to be spent towards productive labor rather than either coercion or rebellion, which waste resources and destroy productivity, to say nothing of common spirit and goodwill? Why not agree to looser unions while they may be agreed to, before conflict erodes what common feeling still exists, forcing the need for a hostile secession? Why make a god of the size of one’s government or organization rather than recognizing the only purpose of such institutions is to serve the interests of all its people? Instead of striving to preserve institutions that have been corrupted so that they only serve the interests of a single tyrant bullying others or the interests of a small and selfish ruling clique, why not let them crumble and begin again? Why not build up unity on what grounds it may be found, to whatever limited extent it exists through mutual respect and the development of goodwill, instead of the naked sword of hostility and the sullen attitude of rebellion. Are we so addicted to power over others that we are blind to the purposes for which God ordains governments of all kind to act as models of His perfect and loving government on this earth He has created? Can we not be faithful servants and loving brethren rather than either abusive tyrants or treacherous rebels? Can we not, like Paul and Barnabas, part in peace to preserve our ability to work separately for the glory of God rather than waste our energy in feuding and fighting over our own prestige and the size of our domain, and so that we may calm down from the heat of argument and come to a mutual respect of the variety of purposes for which we are all so fitfully made? I hope I do not torture myself with these questions in vain.