When confronted with the prospect of a devolution into tyranny, most Christians are clear on the nature of such tyranny, and the fact that it is bad, but are unclear on their liberty to oppose and disregard it. No, I should say more — on their duty to oppose and disregard it.
The evangelical baker and the Roman Catholic flower arranger who are hauled off into sensitivity training for refusing to strike an insufficiently celebratory pose over same sex mirage are being abused, no question. But . . . what about Romans 13, and the lions, and the coliseum? Shouldn’t we just take it?
Well, yes and no. If we were in the position of the early Christians, building a new civilization from scratch, we should do exactly what they did. When we are not starting from scratch, we should live up to what we have attained. And one of the things we have attained — because the Spirit has been at work in the world on this particular project for two thousand years now — is the rule of law.
Our current system of administrative rules, regulations, laws, and penalty kicks, is not just a bad system of governance, although it is that. It is — all of it — profoundly unlawful. Most of it has gone well past the point of being unconstitutional, and is now overtly anti-constitutional.
The system of governance we are operating under today is the very kind of governance that our constitutional system was designed to preclude and prevent. Administrative law, hidden for a time under the executive, is the assertion of the old absolutist prerogative. What Obama has been doing is taking the dictatorial impulse that has been running riot in the agencies for some time now, and exercising it out in the broad light of day, along with an invitation to “sue me.”
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the outlaws are those who are violating it. The outlaws are not those who want to live by it. Should I go over this again?
But — and here is where a knowledge of the American War for Independence is necessary — what if the authorities designated by the Constitution to determine whether such things are constitutional say that everything is a-okay? What then?
We really need to work through this stuff. We defend our freedoms, in the first instance, not by bombing Bedouins, but by besting the bureaucrats, swarms of which have been sent to eat out our substance.
In the English Constitution, the king was the executive. He was the executive for different nations and colonies, and those nations and colonies had their own legislatures. A shared executive did not mean that there was a shared legislature.
There was also a remaining feudal relationship between the king and his vassals. The king owed the vassals protection, and the vassals, in return, owed him allegiance. When Parliament began exercising direct control over the colonies, they were doing something profoundly illegal, and it was the king’s responsibility to prevent it. The reason the king did not prevent it is that there had been a revolution in England, in 1688, one that radically altered the relationship between king and Parliament. After James II was removed, and William and Mary installed, Parliament had a lot more power in England than previously. They assumed that this simply extended to the colonies — which it did not. The colonies had been on the other side of the ocean, operating with their own charters and legislatures for over a century — longer in some cases, in other words, than Idaho has been a state.
So, back then, being taxed by Parliament directly, if you lived in Massachusetts, was tantamount to someone today who lives in Indiana receiving a tax bill from the legislature of California. What legal authority does that have? None, and you may round file it with a clean conscience. And the amount of the tax does not matter. It might be less than a dollar, but you would have an obligation to not pay it. To pay such a tax would be unlawful. You would be joining in with the disobedience. You would be violating Romans 13 — when we are told to obey the existing authorities, this does not mean the pretend authorities.
Allow me to illustrate with an absurd example. Sitting here at my computer, the notion has seized me to declare myself the emperor of all who read my blog, and so “I command thee” to touch your nose with your finger three times. I see you there, hesitating . . . but I have an argument. Romans 13!
But what if a bunch of people thought it had legal authority? What if the king is going along with it? Well, the king is responsible to protect against such usurpation, and when he does not, the responsibility of reciprocal allegiance is gone. This is why, although Parliament was the presenting problem, all the complaints in the Declaration were directed against the king. The king had an obligation, by his terms of office, to prevent such things.
Our president, by his oath of office, taken in public, with the world listening, has an obligation to defend and protect the Constitution. He has no responsibility whatever to turn it on its head. We wrote the Constitution down for a reason, and that reason was not so that legal scholars could take it into a back room to ransack its penumbrae. Obama might argue — and most certainly would argue — that he is a constitutional lawyer, and that this, and all the foregoing, is not his interpretation.
Ah, but it is ours.
Thank you.
I just wanted to point out that there are no “authorities designated by the Constitution.” The constitution leaves it vague as to who gets to decide constitutionality. It was the Supreme Court who decided that the Supreme Court gets to decide.
First, let me just say that I think your dog cartoon is a good depiction of the growth of the Federal Government from Bush to Obama even if it was unintentional on your part…I note that Obama’s gov’t has teeth and an seems to weigh about 2.5 times more. Oh yeah, and there is a menacing look in its eyes. If you were to include in the illustration a depiction of the founding fathers idea of the size of the federal government, I imagine it would be the size of a flee on back of one of the dogs…or perhaps… Read more »
Thanks, Doug. I’ve been thinking about these very issues for a couple of years now, trying to reconcile the biblical admonition to be subject to the governing authorities with a deep conviction that what we are doing in this country is profoundly unlawful and contrary to Christian liberty. This post helps with that.
Very Chestertonian: “We defend our freedoms, in the first instance, not by bombing Bedouins, but by besting the bureaucrats.”
Dan Glover wrote: “So, rather than beginning with an armed standoff with fed authorities, why don’t like minded small gov’t conservatives stage a large scale symbolic but real tax revolt.” This comment goes to the heart of my concern. I’m in full agreement with Doug’s reasoning and interpretation of history. There is certainly a basis and principle on which to resist government tyranny. But I am curious how that resistance should begin. Not that we can necessarily plan such things as a step-by-step guide, but it seems to me that Americans are much more likely to envision themselves as lone… Read more »
Taking a page from Lois Lerner’s playbook, here’s an example of what an individualistic protest might look like:
1040EZ
Unfortunately, without any authorization or organization, these kinds of protests never end well. Organization (i.e. representation) seems to be critical. This should be a lesson for believers. We need to become more organized as Christians. This is probably the last thing many Christians want to hear. We know ourselves too well.
On the other hand, hardship and necessity tends to coincide with the Church at her best.
I think I meant to say “black robed regiment” above.
Always wondered how our rebellious North American colonists dealt with the Rom 13 issue whilst overthrowing their God-ordained king.
At least now I can see how you justify calling the world’s first and finest constitutional monarchy a “tyranny” and throwing that noisy party that the whole Atlantic neighbourhood has to listen to every July.
Your reasoning is imaginative, I’ll grant you that :)
Dan, I must take issue with your tax revolt proposal, and here’s why. Suppose I hire you to fix my roof, and we agree that I will pay you 10 ounces of silver. You fix my roof, I check it out, it all looks good, so I pull out my bag of 1 oz silver coins and take out ten, but just before I drop them in your hand, someone from the government comes over and says, “Wait a minute, we’ve got some potholes that need to be fixed, and there’s a poor lady a few miles from here with… Read more »
Whose picture is on that money again? Oh, yes – dead presidents. Ones who upheld the Constitution and rule of law.
When he Wall came down, the focus was the Thomaskirche in Leipzig
Hi Ben, You’re right, my proposed $250 is arbitrary because it is a symbol. In point of fact, a lot more than $250 doesn’t belong to the government but I had to pick some number. Another potential act of civil disobedience would be to organize a movement to write letters to government requesting tax rebates for the amount of tax that was paid in a given year that went toward things that your particular household did not use. An example would be state school education and state funded abortion. If every Christian family withheld the percentage of their tax dollars… Read more »
Here’s another thought, prompted by Ben’s comment. What if all liberty and small gov’t loving citizens decided to purchase gold or silver with their US dollars and conducted all trade possible with either an exchange of service for service, service for product, or product or service for gold or silver (value defined by the world commodity market) and thereby avoid tax? Again, not an easy thing to do but the broader the message got out and the clearer the reasons were expounded (to minimize the amount of tax flowing to the various levels of gov’t) the more powerful a symbolic… Read more »
Excellent!!! Again, for all its imperfections and failure to “chain” the powers-that-be in their manifold bids for tyranny throughout our history, it is what those same powers and we who commission or enlist in the armed forces swear to support and defend. Certainly, in the case of military folk, we are under a chain of command, but only insofar as that chain, from fire team leader all the way up to the Commander-in-Chief, remains bound by those same chains. Does this place a tremendous degree of responsibility, even on Private Snuffy? Yep! But that’s part of the price of liberty:… Read more »
Well, yes and no. If we were in the position of the early Christians, building a new civilization from scratch, we should do exactly what they did. When we are not starting from scratch, we should live up to what we have attained. And one of the things we have attained — because the Spirit has been at work in the world on this particular project for two thousand years now — is the rule of law. We see our Lord’s creative work in this progression. We should carefully note the characteristics of that creative work; He is teaching us… Read more »
But Dan, you’re still advocating for not giving to Caesar everything he asks for. Therefore you are going against what most American Christians, and Christian leaders, believe the Bible teaches. You are advocating disobeying the governing authorities that God has put there for your benefit, to protect the good and punish the evildoer. Isn’t this what the Bible says they do? Are you suggesting that our current leaders aren’t in fact doing that? Are you suggesting that maybe Paul’s teachings leave open the possibility that some governing authorities are not legitimate? Regarding your plan to simply refuse to pay for… Read more »
I think I’m tracking closer with Dan Glover than with anyone else on this one. Nations and empires all pass away, and so will constitutions. In the meantime I’m not ready to declare Romans 13 a dead letter.
Romans 13 comes immediately after Romans 12:21 “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” It seems that the way we overcome an evil government is through submitting to them. Christ overcame Rome by submitting to the point of death. Daniel served Babylon faithfully, even to the point of being horrified when the ruler of that nation was sentenced to God’s judgement. Being a law abiding citizen aware of God’s sovereign control can be the most revolutionary thing possible. That all said, being “a law abiding citizen” when the constitution is the law and the leaders are… Read more »
It is good to see other men wrestling with these ideas.
As it happens, Pastor Wilson has done an excellent job of teaching us the biblical principles involved.
http://www.canonwired.com/sermons/21-principles/
http://www.canonwired.com/sermons/governmental-tax-cheats/
There used to be mp3 downloads of those sermons, but I could not find them at the link. Then again, I have not finished my first cup of coffee…
What I want to know is what is Doug’s advice for all the faithful Christians who work for federal and state administrative agencies. Quit your jobs immediately because we have a duty to oppose such unlawful agencies? I think not. Further, what’s needed is for Doug to submit a real alternative proposal for how a modern, industrial economy can function without administrative agencies. The private sector? Let Congress oversee it all? The Founders unfortunately did not live in our advanced industrial states. I don’t see anyone calling for it to be rolled back to a more agrarian society.
timothy,
As a brief aside, since you mentioned Colonel Boyd’s baby, I think that you might enjoy this: http://www.jvminc.com/boydsrealooda_loop.pdf
I think that what happened is that quite a few people with a less than operable understanding of the principles involved have used a cardboard cutout of the tool and were then dismayed when it failed.
Doug says the Bible teaches rule by “consent of the governed,” but I’ve never quite understood what that phrase meant. It can’t be referring to every individual person, since there’s always going to be a minority of people who disagree with what the leaders are doing, even if what they’re doing is perfectly righteous. It seems to me that the only way to truly have consent of the governed is for each person to actually sign a literal contract with the leaders (as opposed to this silly “social contract” business) so that it is truly voluntary. It doesn’t mean there… Read more »
Hi RFB,
Thanks for the link. I have read of its failures and its history. I used the term as a short-cut to get the ideas flowing and was wondering if anybody would call me out on it. (:
Since you did, the larger idea is to be forcing the other side to react to events and break out of this pattern of us reacting to them.
Thats what I want to accomplish–make them scramble while we relax.
cheers.
t
Dear Pastor Wilson, I don’t understand your distinction between Ancient Rome on one hand and Colonial Britain and Modern America on the other. You grant Paul’s condemnation of rebelling against tyranny in the first case, whereas in the second case you call this same kind of rebellion a moral imperative. I do not know how you are defining “the rule of law”, but Rome certainly had laws, and at least a kind of general idea that these ought to be obeyed; the elevation of the princeps to divine dignity, as I recall, was a matter of senatorial decree. I grant… Read more »