A Long and Winding Road

We have already seen that Christ is the foundation of every true form of liberty. Civic liberty is an impossibility for a people who are enslaved to their lusts. For such a people, constitutional liberties are nothing but paper liberties — the kind of thin surety that tends to satisfy slaves who need to be flattered by their masters.

Here is Samuel Adams on the subject: “Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.”

His cousin John Adams said that our Constitution presupposes a moral and a religious people. It is “wholly unfit” for any other.

This is why Jesus is absolutely necessary to any civic reformation worth having. If you want a nation of potsmoking fornicators to be free you want something that is not going to happen. Before giving speeches in favor of such a proposition, you might want to consider saving your breath for walking uphill. Republics do not exist without republican virtue. And virtue does not exist apart from the grace of God, as offered in the message of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is why, if our freedoms are to return, secularism has to go.

So liberty is the work of the Spirit of God, which brings us to another crucial point. The Spirit moves as He wills. He is like the breeze, which cannot be bottled or contained. This is quite true when it comes to evangelism and the growth of the church, but it remains true when we trace the work of the Spirit through the church in bringing about civic liberty.

At different times in history, the Spirit anoints different men, different movements, different civic currents, different nations, making them the delivery platform of His glorious work. If the Spirit then moves on, the besotted curators of the Ichabod museum will still want to lecture us all on the importance of their dead relics. But liberty — and follow me closely here — liberty itself is free.

Well, I may be an extremist now, but centuries from now I will be a logo for insurance companies.

Well, I may be an extremist now, but centuries from now I will be a logo for insurance companies.

Liberty cannot be locked up in a cage, whether that cage is a party platform, a national constitution, a bill of rights, or a campaign slogan. Liberty exists, or does not exist, in the hearts of the people. If the people are free, then civic freedom for the people becomes a possibility.

In a previous post on this general topic, a reader from the UK objected to my characterization of the House of Hanover as tyrannical. Britain was the birthplace of constitutional liberties, and so how was it possible for me to characterize the actions of Parliament as tyrannical? The answer is that it is easy — the battle for liberty never ceases, and it never ceases anywhere. Tyrants are always waiting in the wings, looking for an opportunity. When the people become complacent, drifting into sloth and lust, they have that opportunity — and they always take it. What do you have to do in order to have a garden full of weeds? The answer to this trick question is nothing.

A great blow for civic liberty was struck in the establishment of the Magna Carta. Arbitrary taxation was out. That was established as a foundational legal principle in England. But the battle for liberty ebbs and flows. Liberty does not take off like a rocket ship — there are advances, there are setbacks, there is confusion about the setbacks, there is a revival of learning, there are advances, and the cycle starts over again. You don’t banish arbitrary taxation from the world, and then forget about it. And why? Because kings like arbitrary taxation. So the whole mess crept back in again. Royal prerogative courts, like the Star Chamber, came into existence and began to rob the English people of the liberties they were supposed to have, and still did have, on paper anyway.

As part of the long battle for liberty, the English people in the 17th century rose up, and abolished arbitrary government. But like a burglar who finds one window locked, and who moves on to the next one, those with a despotic turn of mind immediately moved on to another device. They had not all been banished to the moon. They were all still here, and people with power soon want more of it. It is “necessary,” they say, with a deeply concerned look. “What about the children?”

So in the 17th century the battle for liberty was between the Crown and Parliament, and Parliament was in the right. In the 18th century, the battle for liberty was between Parliament and the colonies, and the colonies were in the right. No one institution or nation or entity is indefectible. Bad men show up everywhere, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if our final liberties were eventually removed by the Czar of All Fourth of July Celebrations.

In our time, the central threat to our liberties is the administrative state. Among a free people, laws are only binding (i.e. they are only laws) if they are passed and approved by the legislature. The legislature is not authorized to delegate this authority to anyone, and when they attempt to do so it is dereliction of their solemn responsibility. Someone might plead necessity, and say that administrative law is too extensive and too complex for a legislature to understand, still less to pass. The reply to this is simple — if a set of regulations is too burdensome for the legislature to pass, then it is too burdensome for us to live under.

The next question is therefore a practical one. Say that we have come to our senses, and have found that our representatives in Congress have sold us into bondage. What now? There are two aspects of this “what now?” problem. The first has to do with lawfulness. We have to fix it in our minds that the current set-up is deeply and profoundly unconstitutional, illegal, unlawful, and immoral. The second has to do with prudence. How may we best resist this massive encroachment?

That may be described as the problem of getting Gideon out of the wine vat and over to the city park where the Baal is. And that discussion we will defer until our next installment.

An Unknown Known Language

For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries” (1 Cor. 14:2).

The gift of tongues is an exercise in mystery. A man speaking in tongues is a man who is speaking mysteries in his spirit. It is a mystery because the language is unknown to those present, and unknown to him.

Because he is speaking to God, we know that God understands him. This means that the language is unknown, not that it is unknowable. It is an unknown tongue, which is not the same thing as gibberish.

When the disciples spoke in tongues at Pentecost, it happened that many foreign speakers were present in Jerusalem because of the festival. What Paul says here about tongue-speaking Corinth was not the case in Jerusalem. They began speaking in other tongues (glossa, Acts 2:4), and when a crowd gathered, they heard them speaking in their own languages (dialektos, Acts 2:6). We get the word dialect from that word. They were speaking in known languages.

The saints in Corinth were doing the same thing, but the languages were not known to anyone on the premises—we will learn what the point of that was a bit later in the chapter.

A Longing for Liberty

One of the things that the Holy Spirit gloriously does in this sorry world of ours is His liberating work. The Holy Spirit is an agent of liberty. The Spirit sets men free, and He does it through the gospel.

“The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; Because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; He hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives, And the opening of the prison to them that are bound” (Is. 61:1).

The Lord Jesus quoted this verse in Luke, using it to describe the work that he had come to do (Luke 4:18). So this is in fact all about the gospel. But when that is said, there are too many Christians who might be tempted to say that they are glad I was not getting into politics. Oh, but I was getting into politics, because politics is part of everything, and the gospel gets into everything.

This Spirit of liberty is not a spirit of stoicism, which cares only for an internal liberation, where the slave is liberated by pure thoughts and cares not that his chains are clanking. There is an approximation of this in Paul’s exhortation to slaves, but note that Paul tells them to take the first door out when they have opportunity. “Were you a bondservant when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.)” (1 Cor. 7:21, ESV). There is a stark difference between Christian teleological patience in affliction and a Stoic acquiescent patience in affliction.

Christian patience is all about patience as we await deliverance, which means that it knows which direction to look, to long, to pray, and to labor. This means that one of our central tasks as culturally engaged Christians is the task of advancing the blessings of liberty, real liberty — not the potsmoking kind. “Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (2 Cor. 3:17).

A people who are enslaved to their lusts will never be the kind of people who successfully throw off tyrants. We have been offered a series of bribes — free love, porn, drunkenness, government handouts, and other forms of lotus-eating — and these are the bribes that make us content with the dimensions of our prison cell. But a man set free by the gospel will be begin to think like a free man, and that will soon enough affect his body, his business, his travel plans, and so on. It is all grounded in obedience, and obedience is not possible apart from the grace of God that is offered to us in the gospel. Efficacious grace is first, and holiness second.

“So shall I keep thy law continually For ever and ever. And I will walk at liberty: For I seek thy precepts” (Ps. 119:44–45).

The verse that is inscribed on the Liberty Bell is this one:

“And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family” (Lev. 25:10).

That is why it is called the Liberty Bell. That is why we as a people used to be free. Jesus used to be with us.

Used to be free? Right. More on that later, along with what we should do about it. We need to learn the kind of obedience to God that is bane of all administrators of the royal prerogative.

Ten Notes on the Driscoll Dogpile

1. In what follows I want to make some observations about what has clearly become the Driscoll dogpile. But in this, I don’t want to say anything that might come off as though I am privy to any back room information. I am not part of the private reconciliation or accountability processes, and so I want to compose myself as one who is not (Prov. 18:17). At the same time, elements of the whole saga have spilled out into the open, and I believe it is legitimate to talk about those aspects of it that are public, or which are acknowledged by all. For example, if Mark Driscoll says that he needs to seek forgiveness from certain people, he doesn’t need any defenders who are more catholic than the pope, saying that “no, he doesn’t really need to.”

2. I feel a bit sheepish about all the links to my own stuff, but as I say in one of them, this ain’t my first rodeo. If you would like to be critical, just chalk it up to my laziness, not wanting to write a bunch of the same stuff over again. That’s the ticket — laziness, not vanity. That said, here are a couple of posts that remain relevant, found here and here.

3. One of the criticisms I have had of “the resurgence” is the tendency to look to the business model of governance and ministry instead of looking into the very dry and boring topic of church government, as part of the exhilarating process of becoming a Presbyterian — which Mark Driscoll really needs to do. But the business mentality leads to a tendency to focus on numbers, demographics, non-compete clauses, image consultants, and protection of the brand. Now the problem is that if you live by the brand, you die by the brand. The fact that this is a problem in this quadrant of the church is seen in how easy it is to view the actions of the Acts 29 board as “protection of the brand” and not as an act of ecclesiastical discipline.

4. Completely aside from the issue of whether or not Mark Driscoll needs to seek forgiveness from anyone, we have clearly gotten to the point of this melodrama where demands for public apologies are being used as a weapon of war, and where compliance with the demand will only serve to further infuriate those making it. Everyone involved needs to sharply distinguish requests for forgiveness, which occur in the context of personal relationships, and demands for public apologies which become — in situations like this one — simply gasoline for the fire.

5. To the extent we are concerned about the optics, Mark needs to be careful that his apologies don’t come off as doing “whatever he has to do” to retain his position. And because more than one player needs to be concerned about the optics, the Acts 29 consortium needs to labor to demonstrate that what they are doing is more than “brand protection.” And while they are at it, they need to take care not to come off as a haphazard remake of The Revenge of the Beta Males.

Virtues Capitalism

The Virtues of Capitalism (Chicago: Northfield Publishing, 2010)

A decent book. I enjoyed it, and learned some things, but I much prefer my defenses of capitalism to be Strident. These guys were mellow, but they still had some good things to say. My favorite was their observation that the opposite of contentment was not ambition, but rather envy.

Well, That Was Nice

While flipping through my latest edition of Chronicles – a magazine I recommend to you, by the way — I came across an article by Jack Trotter entitled “Conservative Education: Caveat Emptor!” It was a good article, and while I didn’t agree with all his criticisms of the other colleges he discussed, I really appreciated his conclusion.

“At least two colleges have begun to recover the full scope of the classical and Christian traditions in higher education: New Saint Andrews College (founded in 1994) in Moscow, Idaho, and the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts (founded in 1978) in Merrimack, New Hampshire. At both these institutions, the core curriculum is the curriculum; there are no majors, or, rather, every student shares the same concentration in classical and Christian liberal arts, and classical languages are required of all. Just as importantly, both colleges are closely affiliated with religious establishments. New Saint Andrews is very much a work of Moscow’s Christ Church, a large and dynamic congregation of traditional Calvinists who also run a pastoral-training program featuring rigorous study of biblical Greek and Hebrew . . .”