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.
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.
That is like having to wait for next week’s Batman to find out how the fight turns out. I am anxious for your proposed solutions.
Really glad you are doing these.
I’m curious, do you have any concise summary stating the case for why parliament was more at fault than king George for the British oppression?
Dear pastor.
Two grammmatical errors. (If I was any good at grammar, I would name them for you; sadly, I can only put them in bold)
and
Grace and Peace.
t
Doug, Thank you for your post. I have a question about this quote: “If you want a nation of potsmoking fornicators to be free you want something that is not going to happen.” I don’t want a nation of potsmoking fornicators, but I do like the idea of a free society. Maybe “liberty” isn’t the right word for this, but don’t the potsmoking fornicators need the “liberty” or “freedom” to fail? You didn’t explicitly say that we should have laws against their sins, but it seemed implied. If they are forced to refrain from sexual immorality and drugs through government… Read more »
Which is, of course, why Christ said “render unto Caesar, as long as it’s not arbitrary.” Its also why Paul organized early Roman converts into a Sons of Liberty to tar and feather patricians. In doing this, he was following biblical examples such as Daniel, Joseph, and Shadrach and company who responded to oppressive leadership with bloody rebellion. “Bad men show up everywhere” – Which is why subjects should not submit to kings, wives should not submit to husbands, and children should not submit to fathers. If the concept of Christian liberty calls for a shooting people and burning things… Read more »
Barnabas, The tar and feathers that Paul and the early Christians used was the Gospel that declared, among other things, that there is no king but Christ. This was a traitorous concept to the Romans and it cost many of them their lives. Nero may have been insane, but he was not stupid. I he read what Paul wrote in Chapter 13 of Romans (Which I’m sure he was familiar with or else Paul wouldn’t’ have lost his head), he would have been furious! Something else to consider is the fact that government exists to protect from and to punish… Read more »
” If they are forced to refrain from sexual immorality and drugs through government laws, are they truly free?”
@Drew, if they are enslaved by sexual immorality and drugs, then are they truly free? I think the point of Doug’s sentence is that potsmoking fornicators have no concept of what it means to be free; no concept of liberty.
Len: “The tar and feathers that Paul and the early Christians used was the Gospel that declared, among other things, that there is no king but Christ. This was a traitorous concept to the Romans and it cost many of them their lives.” Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” By all means, go about tarring and feathering with the gospel. My argument is with literal tarring… Read more »
Barnabas,
Who here is advocating any of what you are sarcastically raging against?
But one question for you. Romans 13 says that the magistrate is God’s servant. So if my colonial legislature, magistrates and God’s servants all of them, decided to secede, what is my obligation under Romans 13?
Anyway, the tarring is not really the point and I don’t get satisfaction pricking fellow American’s piety towards their foundational myths. My concern would be this. What is this American civic liberty? Is that just a rebellion that I hold dear? If I twist scripture to sanctify that rebellion does it leave me vulnerable to accepting every subsequent act of rebellion? Was that godly and civil nation, to the extent that it existed, coasting on the social and moral capital built up prior to this revolutionary concept of liberty? Will a country so conceived in “liberty” be doomed to enslave… Read more »
David R, I agree with you what Doug’s point is, and I think it’s a good point. And that’s why I clarified that “liberty” and “freedom” might not be the best terms to use when referring to fornication and drug use. But I probably wasn’t clear enough. The point I want to make is that if you prosecute potsmoking fornicators for their sins through legal means, then you’re using force, which is something Doug rails against the liberals for doing when it comes to making conservatives pay for Obamacare and other things he doesn’t like. I want people to choose… Read more »
And come on, most of what I know about sarcasm, I learned from our good host.
“I want people to choose not to fornicate and do drugs because of the Gospel, not because the law poses a threat.” @Drew – I fully agree with this statement. I would also agree that if Christians are trying to change the culture or spread the Gospel by passing laws, then they are doing it wrong. But to your point of using force, the issue is not whether force is used, but when is it appropriate. One group will say it is only appropriate to protect persons and property. Another group says it is appropriate to prevent the flushing of… Read more »
Paul makes it abundantly clear that government is required to use force to prevent evil. In Romans 13, God says, “he [government] is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.”
Len:
Above you write that the gospel says that we have no king but Jesus. You will NOT find that in the Bible but you WILL find it referenced as a Revolutionary War call to arms. This illustrates my point about the influence of revolutionary rhetoric on Christians.
Len, I worry that once we say a legitimate role of government is to prevent people from sinning in order to save them from the wrath to come, we are authorizing the worst kind of tyranny: that which claims to be in the person’s best interest. If we say that a valid function of government or law is to save souls, we are siding with the Inquisition. A timid person such as myself could be restrained by law from committing overt sin, but my refraining from bread-stealing or gay sex will not save me on judgment day if my mind… Read more »
Jill, Singapore is a “…well governed, civilly obedient, and public-minded population in a non-Christian society…” because the consequences of disobeying even the most inane laws result in extremely stiff fines and prison sentences. All you need to do is google their laws and your eyes will pop out. For instance, “chewing gum is banned in Singapore and this law was imposed since 1992. First time offenders will be fined from USD500 to USD1000 and repeat offender will be fined to USD2000 and assigned a Corrective Work Order(CWO).”
– See more at: http://www.best-singapore-guide.com/singapore-law.html#sthash.uHubPUsC.dpuf
Barnabas,
Jesus is described as King of kings in several places in the Bible.
Jill Smith is correct to point out “…my refraining from bread-stealing or gay sex will not save me on judgment day if my mind has been a hotbed of sin and rebellion. ” The old refrain about not being able to legislate morality is true enough if we’re talking about true morality. On the other hand the outward form can be imposed on those who lack the inner substance, up to a point anyway. If people can’t be made to be good they can at least be made to behave. If that ultimately doesn’t help them at least it proximately… Read more »
Or a beer logo, as Sam Adams is? It would not displease you (if the beer was good.) East Asia? Japan, after stifling her Christians and stagnating A.D. 1600-1854, got one dose of Victorian semi-Christianity under Meiji and another dose under MacArthur. Hong Kong, the last colony, got a dose from a Victorian government. Trickled down to Singapore and Korea, where, by the way, the Church has grown somewhat, salting and enlightening. Our Lord Jesus Christ is not without credit for these things. Even in Pakistan older Pakistanis would tell my father, ‘Mr Lohr, the further we get from British… Read more »
David R., Well said. But I want to respond to this quote: “But to your point of using force, the issue is not whether force is used, but when is it appropriate. One group will say it is only appropriate to protect persons and property. Another group says it is appropriate to prevent the flushing of too much water. To me it should depend on much firmer footing. On eternal truths and not on the whims of men.” I assume that when you say “eternal truths”, you’re referring to the commandments that God gives us in Scripture. I don’t know… Read more »
Before we talk about whether pot smoking, fornication, or any other behavior must be left legal to preserve freedom, we need a good working definition of what we mean by freedom. Most dictionary definitions can only seem to muster that it is the absence of coercion and that it is synonymous with liberty. Of course, when one looks up liberty we get similarly circled back to freedom. So I think we can all agree that Freedom is the absence of something we will call coercion, but not merely that absence, but also the presence of something harder to define. I… Read more »
I might be wrong, but I think y’all are missing the point on the pot-smoking fornicators angle. I don’t think Doug is saying, “If you want a nation of potsmoking fornicators to be free you want something that is not going to happen, so therefore we must suppress pot smoking and fornication.” I think his point is that that the pot-smoking, fornicating view of libertarianism can never give us a free society; the only truly free society can be the society submitted to Christ. It’s not that we have to stop the pot-smoking fornicators by force in order to be… Read more »
Isn’t it like giving someone the freedom to enslave them self. On one hand there is no freedom, but on the other they are free to do it.
I’ve been looking forward to this post, well, about as much as I do its follow up post now.
Barnabas, wherever it is you are coming from, it is to soon, to quick. Tune in for the sequel. I think your preemptive strike will be found to have hit the morgue and not the armory.
I really hate your titles. Do you make them that way so that no one can figure out what the content is going to be or because you think it smart? I think I’ve read all your books and most of your blog posts in the last couple of years and appreciate your gift of simple communication. Just hate the frickin blog titles.
@Drew – The role of law with regards to God’s Law and Natural Law is best explained by Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica. That “the purpose of human law is to lead men to virtue, not suddenly, but gradually. ” and that the end of law is the common good. So lets focus on homosexuality. I believe that homosexuality violates God’s Law and Natural Law. I also view laws prohibiting such behavior as moral and just. Now, according to Aquinas, “laws imposed on men should also be in keeping with their condition… should be “possible both according to nature, and… Read more »
Luke,
Very edifying Sir!
An airplane is free to fly only if and so long as it submits to the laws of aerodynamics.
David R,
I have no quarrel with your (IMO) intent. I do have cordial questions, and hopefully not just strangling a gnat.
The issue of prohibition of alcohol does not seem to be a law against an objective scripturally defined evil (such as drunkenness), but an attempt at false piety. It did nonetheless stimulate a rebellion.
Also, the premise of enacting law impulsively seems misplaced in you argument. I say this because what we have seen is not the enacting of laws, but the removal of those laws that were historically in place. (for example: Lawrence v. Texas)
And, just saw this, right on cue.
@RFB – I used Prohibition as an example of a law that actually generated more lawlessness. I wasn’t trying to argue whether Prohibition was a Scripturally sound law. Sorry for the confusion. At one time, all the states had laws prohibiting homosexual behavior. And you are correct in pointing out that these laws are being invalidated, primarily through the courts. But I think you would also agree that the culture views homosexuality much differently then it has historically. So much so, that a law that prohibited homosexual behavior would actually be viewed as immoral and unjust by this wicked culture.… Read more »
David R, So in effect, what you are really seeing is a culture (that could still reasonably be called nominally Christian) departing from “moral and just” laws “prohibiting such behavior”, not a new imposition of law. I see the pulpit as the prow of a ship; the stern always follows. The is never an “absence of leadership”; only the direction is in question. Another operative part of the dynamic is the “if”. God says “if My people, who are called by My Name…” He does not say “those guys over there who are not “My People”. It has not been… Read more »
supposed to be: “There is never an “absence of leadership”; only the direction is in question.”
I dont know if it is surrender as much as it is an inability to use our weapons of war. So instead of using the Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, we are content on using the limp noodle of politicians, or putting our hope in elections. In the process, we are being routed on the battle field.
What I was broadly alluding to was the “equipping of the saints…”
When I think of that phraseology, I think of warfare. (For the sake of clarity, I do not think of politicians for any level of salvation, temporal or otherwise.)
The pulpit has become embarrassed of the fact that we no longer have a suffering Savior, but that instead He is the King of kings, The Strongest Man Who has bound all other strong men.
The pulpit currently (I am speaking generally) equips by issuing sweaters that are zipped up and then partly down, and comfy slippers.
@Jane.
Exactly, thanks.
@melody,
Thank you for the link.
@Jill
Expect frequent references to @melody’s Signapore link in future disagreements about the role/responsibilities of the state (:
grace and peace.
“Paul makes it abundantly clear that government is required to use force to prevent evil. In Romans 13, God says, “he [government] is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.”” Context is important. That’s pulled right out of the middle of a passage that extends from 12:1 through 13:10. That passage also includes: “Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. Share with the Lord’s people who… Read more »
Johnathan,
By your reading, the only proper response by a Christian is pacifism. Is this correct?
Hi Johnathan.
Sorry for the open-ended question. If I can make time this weekend, I will compose Pastor Wilson’s arguments that he has made in previous threads on this subject. In my view, they refute your p.o.v.
cordially,
t
Timothy, I never use the word “pacifism” myself because I’m not even sure exactly what it means, nor what other people might think it means. I think there are innumerable proper responses for Christians to the very many different situations that could be considered. I would simply state that every response would have be guided by love towards the person being responded to, and that in some sense the principle of refusal to judge them must be applied (we should certainly have a discussion of what kind of “judgement” we are refusing though, since Jesus and Paul certainly didn’t mean… Read more »
Hi @Johnathan
How about a tent-peg through the temple?
cheers.
t
Timothy, I believe that the nation of Israel before Christ’s incarnation and death and the church of God under Christ are not direct equivalents, and that your brand of arbitrary old covenant proof-texting is not the least bit determinative for our actions under the new covenant.
Good Morning Johnathan.
I am trying to understand your p.o.v correctly before responding; please answer my question in the yes or no.
Are there any circumstances where (in your view) that a christian is justified in putting a tent-peg through the temple of an enemy? A simple yes or no, please and then I will have 1 or 2 more simple questions before proceeding.
thank you.
@johnathan.
I have just realized that you have made extensive arguments to others on the board. It will take me several days for me to summarize your arguments and outlook and to go through the exercise of why I find them so repellent.
grace and peace.
t
No, I can’t think of any time when putting a tent peg through the temple of my enemy would be in accordance with a redeemed life of following Jesus Christ as my Lord. It would go against the basic and simple command to love my enemy, the absolute centrality of loving my neighbor in the New Testament, any interpretation whatsoever of not judging others, and the entire New Testament witness against violence.
@Johnathan. Thanks for your reply. I am unable to decouple violence from our life in Christ on principle and I am trying to figure out by what principles that I should. You have elsewhere affirmed ‘breaking the civil law’ is permissible against unjust tyranny (as described in the ‘On the Lam for Jesus’ post). We know that we shall not murder (as distinct from kill). I do not see a limiting principle that says, “you may break out of the tyrants jail, but you may not slit the tyrants throat’. As this discussion develops (if you care to continue) there… Read more »
You have a lot of different questions there. I’ll answer the quick ones first. 1) I wouldn’t have killed people in those battles, or helped other people to kill. I don’t know enough about those particular historical situations to know if I would have tried to force a particular outcome through the sacrifice of my own life and other non-violent means. 2) I’m not familiar with that Chesterton analogy. I love reading Chesterton for his language and his arguments, but I never have gotten anything new from him theologically. (He seems to be more about the rhetoric and less deep-thinking… Read more »
Hi Johnathan. Yes, that is the Chesterton quote. What do we see from it. We see that the Church has wrestled with these questions for a long time. We see that the Church has fought wars over doctrinal issues. We see that the Church at times is called to violence. Your argument is the common argument I have always heard and it is a very good one. I cannot discount either–almost like a Lion and a Lamb balanced on the edge of a knife. We know The Lion of Judah became The Lamb and was led to the slaughter. We… Read more »
“We know The Lion of Judah became The Lamb and was led to the slaughter. We are to be like Him. But….He is risen…and the story is just beginning isn’t it?” Yet we see the story in Acts, and the apostolic letters, and it seems to me to be a clear continuation of the example that Jesus not only set, but commanded through his teaching. And even in Revelation, it is the slain lamb of God, through the sword of his WORD, and the voice of the martyrs, that defeats the beast. No Christ-following human hand ever is raised in… Read more »