Doctrines, Focus and Tactics: Lessons From Wilberforce
We have been considering the political and social philosophy of lawful Christian resistance to tyrannical government. As persecution of Christians increases in the West--an inevitable outcome of militant secular and atheistic doctrines--this is something that Christians will have to bone up upon, fast.
There are some factors working to our advantage in this up-schooling process, however. Firstly, there is plenty of instruction and counsel within the Scriptures on these matters. Those professing Christians who revere the Bible as the very Word of the Living God will find much to teach, instruct and counsel them as they work through the issues. Secondly, the history of the First Christendom--centred in Western Europe and then latterly in the modern and post-modern Anglo-Saxon world--reflects a great deal of the principles of rule, government, law, justice, and freedoms derived from the Scriptures. Thus, in general Western political history provides a work book of faithful Christian doctrines of the State and lawful government, on the one hand, and the opposite notions, on the other--together with their respective outworkings and consequences.
The watershed issue, however, which divides the Christian doctrine of government from all other political ideologies is this:
Showing posts with label Lesser Magistrates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lesser Magistrates. Show all posts
Monday, 19 October 2015
Friday, 11 September 2015
Douglas Wilson's Letter From Moscow
In Which I Paint With Some Bright Yellows
A consensus appears to be developing among otherwise reasonable people that Kim Davis, of Rowan County fame, either needs to start issuing marriage licenses or quit her job.
For those just joining us, a county clerk in Kentucky is refusing to issue marriage licenses against her conscience and is also refusing to resign. Her name, which should be on a bronze plaque on the side of the courthouse, is Kim Davis. A federal judge has ordered her to appear in his courtroom Thursday to explain why Davis should not be held in contempt of court for refusing to issue marriage licenses.
Now while florists and bakers and photographers enjoy a great deal of active support from the broader Christian world, the most people like Davis will get is a sympathetic lack of sympathy. It falls out this way because Christians generally understand the private sector — that’s where they live, after all — but they don’t understand the nature of government. They don’t understand the public sector and the relationship of God’s Word to it. Their theology develops a distinct limp as soon as they step into the public square, but it is not the kind of limp you might acquire by wrestling with God at Peniel. It is more like what might happen if you dropped the Collected Works of Immanuel Kant on your foot. That results in quite a distinctive limp, one you see everywhere.
Here is a quick sampling of that sympathetic lack of sympathy:
Lawful Christian Resistance
Siding with the Pagan Satraps and Presidents
The wider issues cascading out of the Kim Davis event in the United States are probably going to occupy our attention for a stretch. Whilst the particularities of this situation will fade, the fundamental principles at stake are, well, fundamental and so require Christians to think about them seriously.
OK, for those who have just joined us, the essential "facts of the matter" are these:
1. Kim Davis had been jailed for contempt of court for refusing to grant marriage licenses to homosexual "couples". She had refused on the grounds of Christian law and doctrine. In taking this action she has set herself and her office against the "command" of the US Supreme Court.
2. Davis has been "elected as Rowan County [Kentucky] clerk in November to replace her mother, who retired. As an elected official, Kim Davis cannot be fired, but the state Legislature can impeach her. That's unlikely in a state where many lawmakers agree with her position and won't meet in regular legislative session until January." [USA Today]
Some are asking, why does she just not resign? Here is where the matter gets more complicated--and it is the complication which is the really important part. All Christians should listen up and and take notice.
The wider issues cascading out of the Kim Davis event in the United States are probably going to occupy our attention for a stretch. Whilst the particularities of this situation will fade, the fundamental principles at stake are, well, fundamental and so require Christians to think about them seriously.
OK, for those who have just joined us, the essential "facts of the matter" are these:
1. Kim Davis had been jailed for contempt of court for refusing to grant marriage licenses to homosexual "couples". She had refused on the grounds of Christian law and doctrine. In taking this action she has set herself and her office against the "command" of the US Supreme Court.
2. Davis has been "elected as Rowan County [Kentucky] clerk in November to replace her mother, who retired. As an elected official, Kim Davis cannot be fired, but the state Legislature can impeach her. That's unlikely in a state where many lawmakers agree with her position and won't meet in regular legislative session until January." [USA Today]
Some are asking, why does she just not resign? Here is where the matter gets more complicated--and it is the complication which is the really important part. All Christians should listen up and and take notice.
Friday, 14 October 2011
Studies in I Samuel
The Divided Robe
Expository - Book of Samuel
Written by Douglas Wilson
Saturday, October 08, 2011
INTRODUCTION:
God has made it plain in many diverse ways that Saul has lost it, and what Saul has lost, David has been given. But all Saul does is double down in his disobedience. The irony is that, even after the Spirit had departed from him, and come upon David, the Spirit was still there at Saul's court—until Saul drove him away with a spear.
THE TEXT:
“And it came to pass, when Saul was returned from following the Philistines, that it was told him, saying, Behold, David is in the wilderness of Engedi . . .” (1 Sam. 24:1-22).
SUMMARY OF THE TEXT:
When Saul returned from chasing (not fighting) the Philistines, he was told that David was in the wilderness of Engedi (v. 1)
Expository - Book of Samuel
Written by Douglas Wilson
Saturday, October 08, 2011
INTRODUCTION:
God has made it plain in many diverse ways that Saul has lost it, and what Saul has lost, David has been given. But all Saul does is double down in his disobedience. The irony is that, even after the Spirit had departed from him, and come upon David, the Spirit was still there at Saul's court—until Saul drove him away with a spear.
THE TEXT:
“And it came to pass, when Saul was returned from following the Philistines, that it was told him, saying, Behold, David is in the wilderness of Engedi . . .” (1 Sam. 24:1-22).
SUMMARY OF THE TEXT:
When Saul returned from chasing (not fighting) the Philistines, he was told that David was in the wilderness of Engedi (v. 1)
Wednesday, 28 April 2010
Douglas Wilson's Letter From America
Tax Cheats
Culture and Politics - Obama Nation Building
Written by Douglas Wilson
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
When considering the subject of our duty to pay taxes, the Bible seems plain enough. But let's consider the difference a few italics can make.
"For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour" (Romans 13:6-7).
Now try it this way:
"For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour" (Romans 13:6-7).
Now I am making a general point here, and am not giving you advice on your own personal taxes. I am not a tax attorney, and I do not play one on television.
We need to get the theology of this thing straight first. If governments can steal, then they can obviously do so through the tax code. Tax codes can be passed illegally and unjustly. Legislators can be bribed to get them to vote for it. The agents charged with enforcement can throw aside all biblical rules of evidence, and so on. If this can in fact happen, and it clearly can, then there are circumstances in which a tax dispute between the government and the citizenry is a dispute which exists because the government is cheating on taxes.
In other words, we should not assume that whenever the government says that money is owed, and blood-donating turnip says that it isn't, that it is the turnip who is cheating. In short, the biggest tax cheat in America today is the federal government.
Governments exist by covenant, and governments like ours explicitly claim to exist by covenant. The word federal comes from the Latin word foedus, which means covenant. Our founding documents say that the government draws its authority to govern from the consent of the governed. That consent can be withdrawn, and when it is, the process is frequently quite messy. But messy or not, it can be withdrawn. And, like it or not, I think that we are already into the process of it being withdrawn.
The problem is that whenever this obvious truth about governmental tax cheats is pointed out (and it is an obvious truth), certain independent-minded tax resisters charge off and stop paying their taxes all by their own selves. And while (in some cases) I admire the courage and tenacity involved, tactical wisdom is almost always entirely absent. Tactically, this kind of thing is actually a boon to the the organized tax cheats -- for whom it is child's play to make the disorganized tax cheats look like they are the real problem here.
Moreover, it makes resistance seem futile. Nothing is easier than for the feds to pick off this guy, who thinks taxes can't be paid with Federal Reserve Notes, and that guy, who thinks that the income tax is not really in the Constitution because Ohio never ratified it properly, and the other guy over there, who formed an independent republic with his buddies at a hunting cabin in Montana, and in their republic they don't have income taxes.
What is necessary here is for us to return to Calvin's doctrine of the lesser magistrates. Since the Enlightenment, we have been trained to think of the nation/state as a monolithic entity, indivisible, instead of thinking of magistrates holding office as individuals with personal and individual responsibilities to defend the law. When someone takes an oath of office to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic, is it possible for said enemy to be an office holder, and to be an office holder senior to the person who took the oath? If the answer is yes, then what is the oath-taker supposed to do?
Run this scenario. Suppose Obamacare is upheld in the federal courts, and they then move to implementation. Suppose at that point one of the states, Texas, let us say, resurrects the old doctrine of state nullification. Let us say that the governor and legislature of Texas together say that this bill is an unconstitutional monstrosity, which is true enough, and they declare it null and void within the state of Texas. That being the case, they call upon the citizens of Texas to refrain from filing their income taxes in the coming year. Now what?
My point is a very limited one here. If that were to happen, what would the duty of Christians be? No, I am not arguing that it would be our duty to move to Texas. I am talking about Christians who are living in Texas already. What does Romans 13 require of them? Taxes to whom taxes are due, and Texas to whom Texas is due.
When a magistrate tells you to disobey a magistrate, what then? It is too facile to say that must always obey the highest one in the hierarchy, the one named Yertle, because in the American system, the consent of the governed is the highest one in the hierarchy. One man in the grip of historical arcana about the Constitution is not obviously the voice of the people. But if this sentiment were expressed in an orderly way, by millions of people, through the existing magistrates, then the situation is entirely different.
What to do now? Well, it seems to me that this is a reasonable question to ask candidates for state and local office, in the next round of elections. "Do you believe that someone in the office you are aspiring to has the right and responsibility to protect the people he represents from an overweening, centralized government, and to provide them with a lawful avenue for resisting such encroachments? Why or why not?"
Culture and Politics - Obama Nation Building
Written by Douglas Wilson
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
When considering the subject of our duty to pay taxes, the Bible seems plain enough. But let's consider the difference a few italics can make.
"For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour" (Romans 13:6-7).
Now try it this way:
"For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour" (Romans 13:6-7).
Now I am making a general point here, and am not giving you advice on your own personal taxes. I am not a tax attorney, and I do not play one on television.
We need to get the theology of this thing straight first. If governments can steal, then they can obviously do so through the tax code. Tax codes can be passed illegally and unjustly. Legislators can be bribed to get them to vote for it. The agents charged with enforcement can throw aside all biblical rules of evidence, and so on. If this can in fact happen, and it clearly can, then there are circumstances in which a tax dispute between the government and the citizenry is a dispute which exists because the government is cheating on taxes.
In other words, we should not assume that whenever the government says that money is owed, and blood-donating turnip says that it isn't, that it is the turnip who is cheating. In short, the biggest tax cheat in America today is the federal government.
Governments exist by covenant, and governments like ours explicitly claim to exist by covenant. The word federal comes from the Latin word foedus, which means covenant. Our founding documents say that the government draws its authority to govern from the consent of the governed. That consent can be withdrawn, and when it is, the process is frequently quite messy. But messy or not, it can be withdrawn. And, like it or not, I think that we are already into the process of it being withdrawn.
The problem is that whenever this obvious truth about governmental tax cheats is pointed out (and it is an obvious truth), certain independent-minded tax resisters charge off and stop paying their taxes all by their own selves. And while (in some cases) I admire the courage and tenacity involved, tactical wisdom is almost always entirely absent. Tactically, this kind of thing is actually a boon to the the organized tax cheats -- for whom it is child's play to make the disorganized tax cheats look like they are the real problem here.
Moreover, it makes resistance seem futile. Nothing is easier than for the feds to pick off this guy, who thinks taxes can't be paid with Federal Reserve Notes, and that guy, who thinks that the income tax is not really in the Constitution because Ohio never ratified it properly, and the other guy over there, who formed an independent republic with his buddies at a hunting cabin in Montana, and in their republic they don't have income taxes.
What is necessary here is for us to return to Calvin's doctrine of the lesser magistrates. Since the Enlightenment, we have been trained to think of the nation/state as a monolithic entity, indivisible, instead of thinking of magistrates holding office as individuals with personal and individual responsibilities to defend the law. When someone takes an oath of office to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic, is it possible for said enemy to be an office holder, and to be an office holder senior to the person who took the oath? If the answer is yes, then what is the oath-taker supposed to do?
Run this scenario. Suppose Obamacare is upheld in the federal courts, and they then move to implementation. Suppose at that point one of the states, Texas, let us say, resurrects the old doctrine of state nullification. Let us say that the governor and legislature of Texas together say that this bill is an unconstitutional monstrosity, which is true enough, and they declare it null and void within the state of Texas. That being the case, they call upon the citizens of Texas to refrain from filing their income taxes in the coming year. Now what?
My point is a very limited one here. If that were to happen, what would the duty of Christians be? No, I am not arguing that it would be our duty to move to Texas. I am talking about Christians who are living in Texas already. What does Romans 13 require of them? Taxes to whom taxes are due, and Texas to whom Texas is due.
When a magistrate tells you to disobey a magistrate, what then? It is too facile to say that must always obey the highest one in the hierarchy, the one named Yertle, because in the American system, the consent of the governed is the highest one in the hierarchy. One man in the grip of historical arcana about the Constitution is not obviously the voice of the people. But if this sentiment were expressed in an orderly way, by millions of people, through the existing magistrates, then the situation is entirely different.
What to do now? Well, it seems to me that this is a reasonable question to ask candidates for state and local office, in the next round of elections. "Do you believe that someone in the office you are aspiring to has the right and responsibility to protect the people he represents from an overweening, centralized government, and to provide them with a lawful avenue for resisting such encroachments? Why or why not?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)