A Duty to Interpose

One of the things we must absolutely learn how to do better than we do is distinguish things that differ, especially things that look similar but which differ radically. We must learn to say, as Dorothy Sayers once famously said, distinguo. I distinguish.

There is a profound difference between the doctrine of interposition/lesser magistrates on the one hand and the doctrine of liberty of conscience on the other. There are places where they overlap, but there are also instances where they have nothing to do with each other. When a magistrate decides to interpose, he is doing it as a matter of conscience. But he is not exercising his liberty — he is discharging a duty.

Yea, He commandeth no obedience.
Yea, He commandeth no obedience.

A citizen has the right to be left alone in any number of areas. We ought not to tell him what days on which he must mow his lawn, we ought not require him to photograph homosexual unions, we ought not to tell him that the Department of Agriculture requires him to floss daily.  Even if he is mistaken, and his conscience along with him, we should still let him close his shop in honor of the coming of the Great Pumpkin. What he does with his time, his money, his business is, in fact, his business.

Now in some instances, a person’s private religious convictions can become a public matter, as when the Thugs of India used their free exercise of religion in the pursuit of killing and robbing people. The point is that the exact boundaries of the liberties of every citizen is a religious issue, and is a issue that cannot be settled from up behind the Agnostic Bench. If you don’t know what truth is, then the first thing you should do is quit deciding what truths are acceptable. A Christian judge would say that the Thug’s religious liberties are a matter of no consequence. The Communist judge says that the Christian’s religious liberties are a matter of no consequence. The Agnostic judge doesn’t know what is going on, but just sits there, trying to look wise. He thinks nobody will notice, but we have.

An agent of the state occupies a different station than does the private citizen; it is a different office entirely. The law that governs his behavior cannot be neutral any more than the law that bounds the private citizen’s liberties can be neutral. Scripture asks, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3). The answer, in case you were wondering, is no.

So that means that a society has to decide what it will allow its citizens to do and why, and what it will require its officers to do and why. The religious framework that encompasses both of these needs to be the same one. Because I am a Christian, I believe that this framework needs to be a Christian one. When it comes down to differences between Christians, and it is an area where the state must act or not act (e.g. divorce), the state must decide which of the two Christian positions is right. When they do this, they must take great care to be right. Neutrality is impossible.

Kim Davis refused to issue a marriage license to homosexuals, and she was right. But would a devout Roman Catholic, on the basis of an absolutist rejection of remarriage after divorce, have the right to refuse a marriage license to Kim Davis on one of her later marriage? I would say no, but my purpose here is not to get into that debate. My point is that the society cannot be neutral about that debate. The applicants must either be served or refused. One or the other must happen. So if we say no, and are asked why, we need to be able to say more than just because.

This is why secularism is dead on its feet. We have gotten to the reductio ad absurdum portion of the Q&A session and we are no longer bound together by a hidden-generic-protestant-north-american consensus. For decades, we thought that this consensus was what everyone “just knew.” Turns out they don’t.

The doctrine of interposition means that Christian magistrates must be looking for an opportunity to just say no, and to do so on an issue of sufficient moral magnitude as to justify the societal dislocations that will result. Whether the municipal snowplows should run on the sabbath (and when do sabbath hours start anyway?) is not one of those issues. The two issues that I think are ripe candidates for interposition are abortion and same sex mirage. Mayors, judges, governors, county clerks, etc. should simply refuse to cooperate with evil mandates concerning them, and should issue decisions of their own restricting them. A Christian governor should simply outlaw abortion in his state.

Some are concerned that this would lead to a shooting war, but I don’t think that is necessary at all. If the feds send in the troops to keep the abortion clinics in Texas open, then another three states should follow suit and ban abortion. They can’t put everyone in jail. The Civil Rights movement didn’t lead to a shooting war. All that is necessary for this to become completely unwieldy for the bad guys is for enough good guys to say enough. As Edmund Burke might put it, were he here, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to have reservations about the doctrine of interposition.

These issues — abortion and same sex mirage — are good issues. They are weighty issues, whether weighed in the balances of Scripture, nature, or history. They are pressing issues — everyone knows a great deal about both of them. They are issues where victory is actually attainable. If everyone who objected to abortion acted like it, it would be gone this time next week. The same thing is true of same sex mirage.

The problem is not that we don’t have enough people who object. The problem is that those who object are so darn sweet. The problem is not that we don’t have enough resources. Our problem is that we won’t use what we have.

And so in the meantime it is fully appropriate for us to be fighting for “carve outs” in the law for private citizens. Pacifists shouldn’t have to fight in the army, and evangelical photographers and bakers should not be forced to celebrate abominations. But officers have a duty to interpose. They have a duty to prevent. A photographer should accept the carve out when it is offered. The official should not. For an officer of society to ratify high disobedience to God is as much compromise as would be exhibited by a florist who celebrated a same sex reception.

The secularist says that if you are not willing to issue a license to a same sex couple, then you should resign the position. I say something that sounds similar, only reversed. I would say that if you are not willing to interpose, you should resign the position. Why? Because you are not willing to fulfill the obligations that God assigned to that office. It is the will of God that all lesser officials, all lesser magistrates, hold their offices in the fear of God, which means that they must be willing to interpose when the greater magistrates mandate broad social rebellion.

And that is exactly where we are right now. We need leaders, at every level, who will refuse to participate in the rebellion.

Skip to 285 Comments
Letters
Submit A Letter to the Editor. Well-written, fair-minded letters may be interacted with in featured posts. Also, please mention the title of the post which you are addressing.

285
Leave a Reply

avatar
 
14 Comment threads
271 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
37 Comment authors
Kelly M. HaggartimothyKrychek_2Barnabasashv Recent comment authors

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Nord357
Guest
Nord357

Ho! Now the fat is in the fire!
Amen!

Katecho
Member

Wilson adds some great principles to the discussion. We need to distinguish several things at the same time: We need to distinguish between civil laws/rules that are legitimately within its God-given sphere, and those laws which are clearly overreach and a violation of civil jurisdiction. We need to distinguish civil laws which may be overreach, but are not requiring us to do something sinful of itself (examples would be Dept of Ag requiring flossing on Tuesdays, or rendering a tax to Caesar). This must be distinguished from laws which require us to do something sinful of itself (for example, glorify… Read more »

JohnM
Guest
JohnM

Agreed, that is a critical distinction that makes the critical difference in how we may or should respond. Might we not still make a distinction between overreach that does not require sin but does us, or someone, some injury, and overreach that does not require sin and also does no one real injury? Or for that matter, overreach which though it is that, we can also see does work some good? Might not the Christian bias in those cases be toward compliance, for the sake of obedience to scripture, for the sake of good order, for the sake of choosing… Read more »

Jane Dunsworth
Guest
Jane Dunsworth

So long as we don’t confuse godly compliance, good order, and not being cranks with condoning and not speaking out against that which is wrong.

But again, your point is taken — the necessity to speak against wrong does not give a green light for spending all our time and energy complaining and agitating.

Jess R. Monnette
Guest
Jess R. Monnette

“A Christian governor should simply outlaw abortion in his state.” Doug – do you mean that the governor should clearly overstep the constitutional boundaries of his office (in effect becoming a legislator) in “outlawing” abortion, or did you mean that he should take all action within his constitutional authority to achieve that effective end?

Andrew
Guest
Andrew

The trick here is that Roe vs Wade and Obergefell are actually dual rulings. In both cases, the Court made two claims – we have the right to rule on this, and this is our ruling. For the second ruling to be meaningful, you have to get past the first. But in both cases it’s not even clear that the Court is constitutionally authorised to get involved, which means that it’s a valid question whether it is the lesser or greater magistrate “overstepping their constitutional authority”. Now, in the case of the greater Court, the desire to rule on the… Read more »

Jess R. Monnette
Guest
Jess R. Monnette

My point about constitutional boundaries is that the governor serves an executive function and as such cannot make (or change) laws. That is the constitutional authority of the legislature. Thus my question to Doug about what he meant about “outlawing abortion in his state.”

Nathan Smith
Member

Its a good question. How exactly can a governor go about this? He can have his state prosecuting attorneys begin to file murder charges against abortion doctors, or even the parents for that matter. But then a judge can dismiss the case pretty easily, saying abortion is not murder and no crime has been committed. It may make headlines, but until the legislature passes a law against it, I’m not sure how much the governor can do. But if several governors did it, it may move some momentum to the legislatures. I like the idea though. Someone smarter than me… Read more »

Nord357
Guest
Nord357

If your citizens are on board the judge could get recalled and another put in his place.

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Won’t work against any federal judge, plus the whole legacy of the original Civil Rights Acts and 1983 “color of law” works against nearly all these state acts infringing on what federal courts have determined are rights.

We get different federal judges by getting a different Prez in 2016.

Nord357
Guest
Nord357

Understand your point. I am thinking of pressure, like horses people tend to move away from pressure.

Following your last comment I would like to visit “good behavior” as it relates to federal judgeship.

Katecho
Member

I agree that it’s a fair question for clarification from Wilson.

In the case of Obergefell, the state law in Kentucky was already on the
side of Kim Davis (she was obeying it), so no state law needed to be passed in order for a Kentucky governor to simply instruct clerks to disregard the overreach by the feral government. I understand that Kim Davis was instructing those under her authority to follow the state law as well.

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

“. . . no state law needed to be passed in order for a Kentucky governor to simply instruct clerks to disregard the overreach by the feral government.”

This just brings us back to “nullification.” We settled that question at Gettysburg.

Katecho
Member

Haggar keeps referring to Gettysburg as if somehow there can never be another civil war, or successful U.S. secession in the future of human history. Perhaps when Haggar recites that bit of the Pledge of Allegiance that refers to “one Nation, indivisible” he thinks that God has actually bestowed His eternal property of indivisibility onto the United States for all time and history. I, for one, don’t believe that the US is indivisible at all. I think that kind of talk is Statist hubris; the kind that God likes to tip over. When, not if, some region decides to break… Read more »

ashv
Guest
ashv

Hard to feel bad about the ever-increasing influence of feminism and diversity in the US military, when you look at it from that angle.

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

New Secretary of the Army. lolz

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Perhaps? As if somehow? You mean you’re not certain?

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

No, hubris is thinking we’re in charge of sea level. Or that we can keep the Mississippi River locked into Frazier delta 16 when it’s hydraulically contracting and shifting to what Fraizer would call “delta 17” if he were writing today instead of in 1967. THOSE are hubris in action. However, looking at the strength of conviction of the two sides, much less counting noses, the Gaystopo wants to win much more than the believers do. Jacob to Moses was 400 years. My take on scripture tells me that we’re more likely to exercise Remnant duty in the next 50… Read more »

ashv
Guest
ashv

Well, now. What makes it clear that that oversteps the bounds of his office? Who says?

Jane Dunsworth
Guest
Jane Dunsworth

Presumably the state constitution under which he was elected, and to which he has sworn an oath.

Nord357
Guest
Nord357

Murder is already prohibited by law in each of the 50 states.

All it really needs is for a governor to order the AG to prosecute the murder of unborn citizens, just as he would the murder of post natal citizens.
PS
Simplified for brevity’s sake. I do realize there would be some bumps to navigate, but there you are.

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Looks like an earlier comment did not post. This way leads to Geo Wallace in the doorway, followed by federal marshals, the Nat’l Guard, or the Army showing up. I’m rusty on the procedure here, but this isn’t a “comity” thing because the state law making abortion per se a murder cannot stand. The Dr will get a declaratory judgment, an injunction, or a writ (habeas corpus; “produce the body” – show the judge how you have the right to hold me). That will be followed by 1983 (color of law), false arrest, and boatload of damages. That state would… Read more »

ashv
Guest
ashv

It *is* a terrible idea — unless he believes he has a strategy that can win in that scenario. (Where “winning” is defined as achieving a tactical goal of reducing number of abortions committed or a strategic goal of weakening the moral, legal, or physical position of the enemy.) A principled stand that doesn’t gain you ground or support is foolish, I agree.

Nord357
Guest
Nord357

Roger the consequences you see as being likely. I disagree that this means its a bad idea. The difference in scenarios is primarily this.Geo Wallace was trying to stop the fed’s from doing something right. Our hypothetical Christian governor X is engaged in stopping a grievous wrong. At some point, (I would argue that point is now) the right thing needs to be done just because it is the right thing to do, regardless of consequence. Understand that this would never happen in a vacuum. “Our” governor would have been elected by people who understood his position on such things.… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

We’ve all been along the “Ps 2/protest/Birmingham jail/Gettysburg” continuum enough times already, plus Pastor Doug’s call excludes violence and doubts the US will wind up settling this dispute with any shooting. So, how about this . . . rather than any legalistic maneuvers, why not try sit-ins? If hundreds of people every day sat down on the sidewalks and doorways of every abortion clinic or PP offices (or in the doorways of Reps & Sens who oppose defunding PP), peacefully, and did not resist arrest, the jails would quickly overflow. That would be a witness without frightening the neutrals, the… Read more »

Nord357
Guest
Nord357

OK I think that is a great place to start.
I think I will call my friend Flip Benham and see what hay we can make of your plan.
EDIT/UPDATE
Just talked to Flip he reminded me that the FACE act has imposed some pretty nasty consequences for the individual. Life in prison for third offense. Makes it difficult to attract everyday folks to (sit in)

asdf
Guest
asdf

It would suffice to send his state’s National Guard to all of its abortion clinics with orders to render them nonfunctional.

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Getting late, but there’s a ton of problems with this approach. About 30 sec after a Guv tried this the Prez would federalize that guard . . . presuming you could find an American guard unit willing to obey such an obviously illegal order.

Wasn’t Jeb Bush the Gov of FL during Terri Schaivo? Look into how that turned out. Not even the FL courts backed his attempt to intervene.

The guard is simply not a Palace Guard.

antexw
Member

However, some States do have State Defense Forces (SDFs), which may not be federally exercised per 32 USC, Sec. 109.

timothy
Guest
timothy

So that means that a society has to decide what it will allow its citizens to do and why, and what it will require its officers to do and why This inverts our Founding. Our society decided what it will allow its government to do and why … As a Christian, I care deeply for the lost and their fate. As a citizen of our Republic if they decide to destroy themselves it is up to them. The key is that they cannot force me to come to their aid. I do not pretend that FedGov adheres to our founding… Read more »

ashv
Guest
ashv

The fundamental problem with the phrase “limited government” is the passive voice; limited by whom, or what? The nature of government is to have the power to compel obedience; it’s fine-sounding to talk of what the government will be allowed to do, but as the old fable asks, “Who will bell the cat?”

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Justice Thomas said, I think after Raisch (2005) but I’m only going on memory, that we no longer had a gummit of limited and enumerated powers.

David Zuniga
Guest
David Zuniga

That’s one man’s cynical opinion, Kelly. If Thomas actually believed that, he wouldn’t be on the bench (‘SOCTUS’ as you like to abbreviate it) or should retire. Ever since Marshall issued his dictum-from-on-high in *Marbury*, the federal law guild has thought itself just shy of deity. It’s all a ruse, effective though it may be. In reality, as former Stanford Law dean Larry Kramer posits in ‘The People Themselves’, We The People are the highest authority on what the Constitution means. When he was SCOTUS Chief Justice, John Jay — speaking of the ‘sovereignty’ of the court, suggested the same… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Noted.

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

“A Christian judge would say that the Thug’s religious liberties are a matter of no consequence. The Communist judge says that the Christian’s religious liberties are a matter of no consequence.” Then neither one is being a faithful judge, at least not in America. Another part of the problem is a lack of mutual agreement on what the word “neutral” means. Is it quite correct that the “Adam and Steve” marriage license will issue – – or it won’t. Or the bakers in OR get charged a $135K fine – – or the Kleins won’t. In that sense, the word… Read more »

Nord357
Guest
Nord357

You are going to be no fun.

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Well, not as troll bait ;) . But anyone else who feels froggy, hop on.

Besides, “fun” is relative. My classmates sweated law school. I was sorry it ended. All the mind candy I could lift.

ashv
Guest
ashv

I don’t have a problem with your legal knowledge, I just think you’re making a category mistake; we are not currently facing a legal or political dispute between opposing factions in a single nation, but a clash-of-civilizations/fourth generation warfare scenario where law is just another weapon in the arsenal to subjugate one’s enemies with.

timothy
Guest
timothy

I concur with ashv.

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Not for nothing has Scalia been writing dissents for the last 20 years in no small part based on objections to “taking sides in the culture war.” That’s what I see as the heart of his dissent in Obergefell. I’ll bet you’ve seen the phrase “lawfare.” Might be just a semantics thing; not sure an “opposing factors” and a “clash of civilizations” correctly describes abortion. Both sides are still Americans and both profess to following the same legal structure, if not the same religion. (Never understood how it’s possible to be a “pro-choice Catholic” but lots of people claim to… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

I see your blindspot. I will let ashv (barnabas?) carry the ball on that as they are fluent in what is occuring.

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

See above, and I’m pretty much off the air for the next few days.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

But he does take sides in the culture war; that’s the only way to explain his vote in Raich. He had a choice between preserving the war on drugs, or acting consistent with what up until then had been his position on federalism. He chose the war on drugs over federalism. His claim that he’s not taking sides is disingenuous.

holmegm
Guest
holmegm

“She exceeded the proper limits of accommodation when she ordered her deputies to also not issue any licenses. ”

When she ordered them to obey state law?

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Which was no longer in effect because of the supremacy clause; Art 6 Sec 2.

holmegm
Guest
holmegm

Neither the Constitution nor federal law require states to “marry” two men or two women.

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

except that Obergefell got 5 votes saying the KY law violates the 14th ad. 5 of them say federal law DOES require it.

back after supper Sun night

RandMan
Guest
RandMan

‘Carve out’ in the private sector to one’s hearts content. Get elected and ‘carve out’ in public office- go to jail.

Interpose about gay marriage while on your very own fourth marriage? Be a hypocrite and look ridiculous. And go to jail.

Christopher
Member

But not as hyocritical as not interposing.

timothy
Guest
timothy

If we the people elect her as a giant middle finger to your ‘secular state’ then you will have to kill us to send us to jail.

You are getting there.

You want to look ridiculous? Put your genitals up another man’s rectum and call it marriage.

drewnchick
Member

A great, cringe-worthy retort!

RandMan
Guest
RandMan

That seemed a little bit hostile.

I would direct you to this- maybe you beat the stats here? http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/homophobes-might-be-hidden-homosexuals/:

holmegm
Guest
holmegm

I wondered how long it would take you to (pathetically) go there.

RandMan
Guest
RandMan

Just posting the facts here friend. A little data from a peer reviewed study. Do with it what you will.

Timothy seemed to really get into the spirit of the description of what he suggested I call marriage- combined with a touch of hostility.

holmegm
Guest
holmegm

It’s a classic no-win setup. Nice work if you can get it.

Makes no sense though. I may find dog poop on the sidewalk disgusting, but that doesn’t mean that I secretly find dog poop attractive.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

I don’t think all homophobes, or even most of them, are secretly homosexual, though some are. But I do have to wonder about the raw intensity of the hatred toward homosexuals that some display. If human rights for cats were to become the law of the land, a lot of people (including me) would think it was silly, but I very much doubt that we would see the raw hatred of felines on display that we see in some quarters toward homosexuals. Anyone who hates something as much as some people hate gays cannot come from a mere policy disagreement.

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

You have reversed the causality. A more apt metaphor would be if a group decided that disgust with rats was irrational and needed to be countered and declared that children should be taught in school that rats are beautiful and beneficial, parades should be held to honor rats, etc. People aren’t disgusted with homosexuals because they have been given special social recognition and rights. They have been given special recognition because people have a natural disgust towards the aberrant.

RandMan
Guest
RandMan

Well, your position requires starting with the idea that some humans who are specifically different than you (or not?) should be thought of as disgusting and aberrant. Certain types of christians are disgusted that the inherent rights of homosexuals are finally being recognized. It’s another brick pulled from the base of the certainty- one of the promises of the bible: the relief that comes from knowing you have all the answers. That is disturbing to christians who want to say. “God has decided everything. It’s says it all in the book.” So, I understand why some christians are so hysterical… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Even assuming that to be the case, would the anti-rat forces really go to the same lengths as the anti-gay forces do? I suspect the people who would be disgusted would mostly make jokes and go on about their lives; I really doubt that that a dozen anti-rat 501(c)(3) organizations would spring up or that you’d find people collecting hundreds of thousands of signatures to put the issue on the ballot. Not long ago I overheard a conversation at a party in which someone raised in the rural South mentioned that he was fond of possum meat. The host launched… Read more »

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

A few problems with the study. The sample size was so small that it is useless other than as a setup to fund a larger study. It is suspicious that all of the homophobes experienced tumescence and non of the non-homophobes did. Looking at the academic history of the lead author he appears to have a pro-degenerate agenda and probably just enjoys strapping equipment to men’s penises.

RandMan
Guest
RandMan

It is interesting isn’t it? I also do not believe that all homophobes are homosexual and have said so twice already on this board.

I do think however, that some probably and some may be bisexual and disgusted with their own nature due to the teachings of the church.

carole
Guest
carole

Posting this study as a shame game only proves Timothy’s point, though. You clearly want to embarrass him in some way, but this would only be embarrassing if you too “secretly” find homosexuality to be disgusting.
I have observed that octogenarians are often cool shamed into denying what they really think about homosexual relationships, are you too? Now that would be an interesting study!

RandMan
Guest
RandMan

If timothy feels shame then that is up to him and his conscience. I think his weirdly specific description of marriage that he posted was embarrassing enough.

I am personally overjoyed that the Supreme Court has recognized the rights so long denied to a group do long vilified by bad thinking.

carole
Guest
carole

Now you are either lying or you don’t understand what the word “enough” means. If you thought what he posted was enough, why did you add to it?
And by any chance is good thinking like that of Ayn Rand, the teenager’s favorite pop-philosopher?

RandMan
Guest
RandMan

A bit narrow there carole. Am I supposed to coddle timothy’s feeling re homophobia?: “Jeez,,, Poor guy! I mustn’t call him out… how might he feel about being outed with a regurgitation of his downright imaginative description of a male-on-male sex act?!” Adorably progressive of you! Yes, we can that Ayn Rand is ridiculous. Even as a teen I found her to be garbage. So, is any notion other than biblical wisdom to be derisively labeled pop-philosophy or pop-psych? Two of my fave christian community codes for: you can top paying attention to what this guy is saying. Or you’re… Read more »

carole
Guest
carole

P.1 I actually have no idea what maneuver you are trying to make but all your hand waving doesn’t obliterate what your comment revealed.
P.2 Yes, Ayn Rand is surely ridiculous, I asked because of your name….moving on to all other notions from there, is more hand waving
P.3 Thanks for sharing.

fp
Guest
fp

RM, do you hate Nazis? How about white supremacists? A simple “yes” or “no” will do.

RandMan
Guest
RandMan

No and no. Their views I find repugnant however. Their right to their ideas and speech of any kind re their views I support 100%.

timothy
Guest
timothy

Bless your heart. My imagery get you all hot and bothered; your attempt to change the subject is understandable. Christian’s don’t usually punch back or pull a Phineas on “the smart set”. You wrote: ‘Carve out’ in the private sector to one’s hearts content. Get elected and ‘carve out’ in public office- go to jail. Ahhh, jail. Judges! law! DEMOCRACY!!!!!! The NY Safe Act required the registration of rifles (by law, disobey go to jail…your world view of the way things are…) . The compliance rate is < 3%. Nobody has gone to jail. Why? What are you missing? I… Read more »

somethingclever
Guest
somethingclever

I believe that the chronology is that she didn’t act like a Christian when she wasn’t one, and she is acting like a Christian now that she is one. That’s the opposite of hypocrisy.

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

‘carve out’ is only a problem if you exceed the limits of Thomas/RFRA. Haven’t read the 6th Cir’s rejection of her latest appeal yet, but I do know it says to file her state RFRA claim in state court (sounds legit despite 28 USC 1267 if I recall supplemental jurisdiction correctly) but I’m slightly curious why she does not have a federal RFRA defense since the case has always been in US court, not KY.
another long day tomorrow back after supper.

RandMan
Guest
RandMan

Absolutely correct there. Always good to pin down details.

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

Asking for the system for religious exemptions and carve outs is nonsensical. The primary purpose of the entire concept of gay marriage and the downstream cake baking, etc is to enforce secular egalitarianism on bigots. Any benefits to the small fraction of a small fraction of the population who are gays wanting marriage is secondary. You’re going to ask for state permission to be a bigot? Of course, you can’t have that.

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

“enforce secular egalitarianism on bigots”

Got a smile out of that bon mot. “Selma Envy” and “cheap grace” all in one pill. Nice!

David Zuniga
Guest
David Zuniga

Distinguo. To posit a citizen duty to *interpose* is to concede that an outlaw magistrate has first laid down a legitimate law. That is not the case in abortuary infanticide or in sexual pervert mirage; in both those cases, judicial camels ridden by lawless thugs simply brought the tent down on our heads. A sheriff and posse do not ‘interpose’ in the midst of daylight banditry by known felons; they enforce the law as agreed by the entire community before the bandits ever showed their faces. You know the book I just sent you in PDF, Doug, my latest one… Read more »

drewnchick
Member

Our Republic, as constituted in that famous document, is a relatively new and unique system of governance in human history. God’s Word concerning kings, governors, rulers, et. al. is true, and is equally applicable upon whatever form of civil government exists. We rightly champion the virtues of our US Constitution and thank God for it, and yet even this mighty document has flaws. That said, Doug is right. The lesser magistrates have a DUTY to interpose, which is to refuse to carry out ungodly edicts. The common citizenry cannot interpose because they are not officers; they can only rebel. Now,… Read more »

David Zuniga
Guest
David Zuniga

Thanks for engaging, Malachi. But no straw men, please. First: It’s not a “famous document”; it is today’s LAW. Second: a 1,001 year old rule of law is not ‘relatively new’. Our present Constitution was not born in a Philadelphia meetinghouse in 1787, but in the Compact of Ethelred in 1014 A.D., when the English people forced a king to meet their demands and set the tone for English common law ever since; for the first time, kings could not do as they pleased. The rest of our Constitution’s genealogy: – Charter of Liberties (1100 A.D.) – Magna Carta (1215… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

First: It’s not a “famous document”; it is today’s LAW.

Bingo.

This ties into the Covenant nature of our country as founded.
It puts the usurpers on defense–make them defend their usurpation.
It gives our people a legal “thing” to wave.
It exists. It is like salvation, we have it.

David Zuniga
Guest
David Zuniga

You assert that, “the Constitution doesn’t allow 98% of what goes on inside the Beltway”; actually, as of the 2012 budget, the number is closer to 74% of federal expenditures, agencies, bureaus, departments, programs and regulations are illegal. They violate the U.S. Constitution, and there exists no higher law in this republic. I propose no “overnight change”, nor do I propose anarchy or armed rebellion. Ironically, the title of my 2010 book is ‘This Bloodless Liberty’.. http://www.amazon.com/This-Bloodless-Liberty-David-Zuniga/dp/1609572157/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1442585856&sr=1-1&keywords=this+bloodless+liberty The title of my current book project (coming out in 2016, God willing) is, ‘The Statesman’s Manual: A Citizen-Statesman’s Guide to Writing and… Read more »

scttsmmns
Guest
scttsmmns

when researching the lessor magistrate doctrine ,I was surprised that Calvin could find no biblical justification for it and instead relied on historical pagan practices to support it. Can someone give a solid biblical defense for the doctrine without relying on history or doctrine outside of the bible?

Job
Guest
Job

I can give you some examples from scripture off the top of my head. Saul’s men refused to kill the priests who sheltered David (1 Samuel 22:17). They did, however, stand by while a gentile killed them. Athalia seized power by killing the royal family and ruled for several years. A priest hid the surviving heir until he was old enough to be crowned in secret. We are informed by the historical record that such acts are “Treason! Treason!” Jehu was commissioned by God to kill two kings, their families, and the Baal worshipers. The Hebrew midwives refused to kill… Read more »

scttsmmns
Guest
scttsmmns

Hi Job,
Thank you for your reply. However, which among your examples are “magistrates”? Perhaps to clarify ,you may wish to offer a definition of magistrate?
Thanks,

Job
Guest
Job

I like the Online Etymological Dictionary’s definition of magistrate: A civil officer in charge of administering laws. Naturally the definition has quite a bit since the Reformation and now has an almost exclusively judicial connotation, so it comes off as a little anachronistic to use the word. In the first case Saul’s men are lesser magistrates with a responsibility to obey Saul. The priests are lesser magistrates too. Saul is a greater magistrate. In the second case the priests and temple guards are lesser magistrates with a responsibility to obey Athalia the queen. Athalia is a greater magistrate. Keep in… Read more »

scttsmmns
Guest
scttsmmns

Hi Job , Thanks for the follow up. First I would submit that your choice for a definition of magistrate differs remarkably from Calvin”s. Perhaps for clarity of my position I should refer to Calvin’s words below as found here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.vi.xxi.html But the reader, by the help of a perspicuous arrangement, will better understand what view is to be taken of the whole order of civil government, if we treat of each of its parts separately. Now these are three: The Magistrate, who is president and guardian of the laws; the Laws, according to which he governs; and the People,… Read more »

Job
Guest
Job

Thanks for your in depth response. I hope to respond in kind within the next few days.

Job
Guest
Job

After a cursory look, I would say my opinion on who is a magistrate likely differs from Calvin’s because I am heavily influenced by the last 400 years of Anglo-american history and thought.

ashv
Guest
ashv

Good points. I also think the story of David and Saul has a lot of application to our current situation: David was the legitimate ruler, Saul was not, yet David neither submitted himself to Saul nor sought to kill him, but trusted to God for his vindication.

Job
Guest
Job

David really is a great example of someone who trusted God. Psalm 27:14 is a fitting reminder of how we should conduct ourselves before our enemies: “Wait for the LORD; be strong, and let your heart take courage; wait for the LORD!” This reminds me of Jonathan too. He was faithful to David as the true king and warned him of Saul’s plot, but he still died defending his father in a battle. Abigail also defied her husband’s authority when he refused to pay tribute to David. He basically called David a traitor: “Who is David? Who is the son… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

“Wait for the LORD; be strong, and let your heart take courage; wait for the LORD!”

bingo. While I speak harshly and forthrightly about the consequenses that are as plain as day to me, the only motive will be The Holy Spirit. If He ain’t willing it, I ain’t doing it.

JohnM
Guest
JohnM

However, David’s own view seems to be that Saul was the legitimate ruler – “my master, the Lord’s anointed” (NKJV) – until God worked out that vindication David by faith knew would come.

timothy
Guest
timothy

Peter’s command to the exiles to obey the authorities is (too) frequently cited, by verse, as an admonition not to rebel. The lessons Job provides and Pastor Wilson’s “on The Lam For Jesus” lesson are rarely considered.

JohnM
Guest
JohnM

But the subject brought up was the story of David and Saul. Pastor Wilson’s view of Peter’s command, even if one supposes it is correct, changes nothing of the facts when it comes to David’s attitude and actions toward Saul. Our take away from the story is not that David should of wacked him. Some people thought so but David wasn’t one of them.

john k
Guest
john k

Why is a biblical example needed, if the concept is wise, and consistent with what the Bible says about government? Lesser magistrates working together (and the more, the better) are more likely to direct a measured and orderly response to tyranny than the ad hoc leaders of a crowd.

timothy
Guest
timothy

St. Peter’s command to the exiles to obey the authorities is (too) frequently cited, by verse, as an admonition not to rebel. The lessons Job provides and Pastor Wilson’s “on The Lam For Jesus” lesson are rarely considered.

scttsmmns
Guest
scttsmmns

Hi Timothy,Thanks,Do you have a link for “on The Lam for Jesus”?

timothy
Guest
timothy

You are very welcome.

The link is: https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/on-the-lam-for-jesus.html

The search bar is at the right under “Search from here to Beersheba”

scttsmmns
Guest
scttsmmns

Hi Timothy, Thank you for the link. I read the blog and it is a good justification for individual civil disobedience but not for interposition by the lessor magistrate. Peter did not stand and interpose himself between higher authority and protect those beneath him but rather simply cut and ran. This is what makes these discussions so difficult. There is a failure, as Doug would say, to distinguo. Every example that has been posited so far serves as a great example of personal civil stands or of personal response to a direct call from God. I have yet to get… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

Hi scttsmmns

I am not a lawyer, nor do I have a mind for history so I rely on my bettors for this sort of stuff.

From my understanding there was a historical basis for it is The Magdeberg Confession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdeburg_Confession

I concur that in 20/21 century America the doctrine is dormant. I am hopeful that (convinced actually) that we will be wielding it soon enough.

God Bless and good luck.

t

scttsmmns
Guest
scttsmmns

HI Timothy,
I tried to look up the Magdeburg Confession and could not find it in English. I did find a book review that indicated they used the same justification as Calvin but I will have to hold off on comments on it’s entirety until I can get a copy. thank you for the pointer in that direction.

scttsmmns
Guest
scttsmmns

Hi John, I did not ask for a biblical example but rather a biblical justification. Calvin could not come up with it so I laid the question before those titans which posit on these pages to see if they could do better. The challenge is to keep true to Calvin’s definition of a “Magistrate” and find a biblical justification. The question is fair and important because if there exists no solid biblical justification then the doctrine is not a doctrine of God but rather a doctrine of men. The first is a rod worthy of being wielded from the pulpit… Read more »

john k
Guest
john k

The kind of justification you said Calvin gave was “pagan practices,” not pagan arguments. Nor did you take Job to task for providing biblical “examples,” rather than a defense by exposition of a biblical text. So you accepted that example is at least one kind of justification. It is illegitimate to demand that Scripture justify details of church government, let alone civil government. All forms of greater magistrates that avoid idolatrous divine right make the higher leaders responsible to some group, and that group’s authority is also included in Romans 13. The United States have structures of accountability, if the… Read more »

scttsmmns
Guest
scttsmmns

Hi John, When you read back,you will see that I did not accept Calvin’s reasoning nor did I accept Job’s(though he did attempt to show a pattern). I am fully aware of the accountability systems built into our governmental structure having used the courts on multiple occasions to correct government missteps and the political process to remove politicians. But that is not what this blog was about is it. Here we are discussing the use of the “lessor magistrate doctrine” which is supposedly christian in nature and thus imposes a duty on christian magistrates to bypass the methods of accountability… Read more »

john k
Guest
john k

imposes a duty on christian magistrates to bypass the methods of accountability in some form of rebellion Well, that is certainly putting the lesser magistrate idea in the worst possible light, contrary to the actual post above. When the lesser magistrates exercise their legitimate authority in holding a greater magistrate accountable for his rebellion, how is that bypassing methods of accountability? It is actually faithfulness to their own office and to the civil bonds that unite a people. The greater magistrate may call it rebellion, but the question of who is in rebellion must be determined by the rights, customs,… Read more »

scttsmmns
Guest
scttsmmns

Hi John, Did you actually read the blog? Would you mind taking the time to point out which course of action , outside of resigning in protest, that conforms to the “laws of the people”? The pastor is correct in asserting that the courts no longer recognize that laws should be considered and ruled on in light of unspoken protestant christian views of moral authority (and haven’t since O. W. Holmes). However rather than advocating the laws be changed through established methods of accountability which, (in the case of the supreme court decisions at hand) would require a change, at… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Or we could replace 1 or 2 justices out of the “Gang of Five” and reverse Obergefell. The fastest reversal I know about was Gobitis to Barnette, in only 3 years (1940 to 1943). In fact, I’m convinced trying the change the 14th Ad would be a mistake. Such an effort presumes Obergefell properly understands the 14th. Butler in 1972 said SSM is not a federal question, By 2015 it had become mandatory. Of course not a comma has changed in the 14th Ad in well over a century. Obviously one of those opinions must be incorrect.

john k
Guest
john k

The Bible does not say that a wife may appeal to the church or state in regard to some deficiency of her husband. So do you agree that she would be following a “doctrine of men” to do so. If not, then you must agree that every ethical procedure does not need a chapter and verse justification. If the Westminster Confession is correct that there is a place for action in worship and church government apart from Scripture (“by the light of nature and Christian prudence”), how much more can reason and prudence guide actions in civil government, which does… Read more »

David Zuniga
Guest
David Zuniga

There is no power granted by We The People to the federal judiciary servant over sexual practices, murder of infants, or the institution of marriage. Sexual perversion is an institution of the LORD, on those recalcitrant blockheads who refuse to acknowledge or glorify Him (see Paul’s statement and reiteration, twice, in Romans 1:19ff; God ‘gives them over’ to perversion and you can’t arm-wrestle God and win). Interpose? No; enforce the law that exists, and hoot the miscreants’ supporters off the stage of history. THAT is how the body of Christ — a free, self-governing people by law — will go… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

First, welcome to the Blog.
I have bookmarked your site and look forward to reading up on your position over the coming months.

Ilíon
Member

A Christian judge would say that the Thug’s religious liberties are a matter of no consequence. The Communist judge says that the Christian’s religious liberties are a matter of no consequence.
.
Is that what you’d meant to write?

Nord357
Guest
Nord357

Where the Thugs religious liberties give him license, beat, rob and, murder. I would suppose so.

Ilíon
Member

But that is the *misuse* of his (religious) liberty.
So, again I must wonder whether Mr Wilson *really* meant to say that the Christian echoes the Communist in saying that the Thugee’s religious liberty is of no account.

David Zuniga
Guest
David Zuniga

Um…I think you missed the whole point, as Nord is suggesting. If one’s “religion” stipulates that one is to kill (as the Thuggee did to appease their false deity ‘Kali’) then any judge with an ounce of sense would say that religion’s liberty equates to this society’s criminality. Get it?

Ilíon
Member

… and that religious liberty which equates to (this) society’s criminality is, as Mr Wilson put it, “a matter of no consequence”?

Really? And you (plural) think that I’m not getting it?

Look, we agree, do we not, that the hypothetical Communist judge errs when he imagines that the Christian’s religious liberties “are a matter of no consequence”? Why is it so difficult to grasp that the hypothetical Christian judge *also* errs when he imagines that the Thugee’s religious liberties “are a matter of no consequence”?

holmegm
Guest
holmegm

Because the Christian judge doesn’t err. The one is right; the other wrong. That was the whole point.

Ilíon
Member

So, “the whole point” is that if a Thugee misuses his (religious) liberty, and murders others, thinking that act to be a religious obligation, that somehow makes his (religious) liberty “a matter of no consequence”?

“Religious liberty” is not really a thing distinct from (unqualified) liberty, and *no one’s* liberty is “a matter of no consequence” — whether or not they misuse it .

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

RFRA two step; first is the belief sincere? Second, does the gummit’s restriction (a) serve a compelling interest (b) least restrictive way to achieve it?

Murder One easily meets both tests.

Unilateral Divorce Is Unconsti
Guest
Unilateral Divorce Is Unconsti

Civil disobedience in a government role may have an impact, and I’m not worried about a shooting war that the other side started anyway. My concern with all this however, is it’s only a Band-Aid. It is dealing with symptoms without dealing with the root cause of the malady, which is that the totalitarianism of the Sexual Revolution has already done its damage because it was not resisted 45 years ago when governments began unilaterally issuing paper to “dissolve” a fundamental right without cause or compelling state interest. In Kim Davis terms, those unconstitutional pieces of paper were honored and… Read more »

Bro. Steve
Guest
Bro. Steve

I believe you’re mistaken that it would not lead to a shooting war. Those who have gotten control of the commanding heights in the secular state now have overwhelming firepower at their disposal. Being Bolsheviks at heart, they will not hesitate to use it if a genuine challenge appears.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

There would be no need for a shooting war. Suppose an anti-abortion and anti-gay state like Alabama decided it would simply ban abortion, re-criminalize homosexuality and ignore any federal court rulings to the contrary. About 38% of Alabama’s budget comes from the federal government. That does not include direct payments to individuals through programs like social security; that is money that goes to state and local government to fund their programs. The feds would simply shut off the money pipe and watch Alabama’s economy collapse. Which is why there will never be widespread interposition by the lesser magistrates. They can… Read more »

holmegm
Guest
holmegm

That’s an interesting belief. I’d be willing to try the experiment.

ashv
Guest
ashv

Amusing, but you only looked at a single move in that game. Once federal money is out of the picture, and ignoring undesirable federal laws is on the table, there’s a whole swath of money-saving things that can be done. How much manufacturing do you think could be attracted to a region that didn’t require EPA, OSHA, or EEOC compliance? How much leaner do you think a state budget could be if it could use actually-effective methods of policing without DoJ interference and could completely ignore federal requirements around government schools? Heck, forget all that — no more federal income… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

The lesser magistrates and people of Alabama would notice cuts to necessary services like fire departments and schools long before they would notice any improvement to the business climate. You cut anyone’s budget by 38% and disaster will follow long before any purported benefits start to arise.

ashv
Guest
ashv

Schools aren’t “necessary services”. What kind of disaster did you have in mind? You seem to be picturing a scenario where things would continue business as usual rather than a drastic realignment of state and federal relations. Why?

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

It would be the law of unintended consequences on steroids. A number of disasters would happen simultaneously, but let’s just take one for illustrative purposes: I just looked it up, and as of March 2013 Alabama had 317,499 state and municipal employees. If state and local budgets lost 38% of their revenue and therefore had to lay off 38% of their employees, then in one fell swoop you’ve just added 120,649 people to the ranks of the unemployed. Let’s say state government finds a way to make up part of the shortfall and only lays off 100,000 people, but that’s… Read more »

ashv
Guest
ashv

Hilarious dream logic. The kind of scenario you’re picturing would not even start unless there were state leaders who had applied a minimum of thought and research to the consequences and how to respond to them.

Besides, subjects of USA need to prepare for this anyway, because it’s going to happen for one reason or another in the next 20-30 years.

timothy
Guest
timothy

Note the apocalyptic imagery employed by those who do not worship God.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

All right, humor me. You are the governor of Alabama. You just found out you are losing 38% of your budget. How would you respond?

ashv
Guest
ashv

There’s lots of options. Step one is to instruct sheriffs and state troopers to arrest all IRS personnel that remain in the state, thus guaranteeing my permanent popularity. After that, the big obvious one is to cut the legislature’s budget to zero, which would more than make up the shortfall. Further restructuring to reduce the cost of medical care and put the able-bodied poor to work would continue to improve things from there.

Is this politically possible? No. But one flavour of impossible or another will happen eventually.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Arresting federal agents would result in the immediate federalization of your national guard, your own arrest by federal agents, and quite possibly a shooting war. But what’s most telling in your answer is that the first thing you thought of was your permanent popularity. Since the budget is set by the legislature I’m not sure you would get them to agree to cut their own budget to zero.

Benjamin Bowman
Guest