Some, like myself, believe that coercion without warrant from Scripture is a very bad thing. For others this category of coercion is largely invisible. It just appears to be part of the way things are.
In this installment, I want to explain how unlawful coercion is a very real characteristic of our governmental system, and also explain why it is so destructive. This is important for us to grasp because the “powers that be,” to use Tyndale’s phrase, are entrusted by God with the lawful power of coercion. They do not bear the sword for nothing (Rom. 13:4). At the same time, these authorities, who may lawfully coerce, can also cross over a particular line and become abusive and tyrannical. If we don’t know where that line is, or how to police it, then we are naifs, babes in the woods, tyros, despot-fodder.
I have been working off the phrase in the Declaration that says that men have certain inalienable rights, including “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This was a more elegant and poetic way of saying “life, liberty, and property” — a phrase that comes up in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. No one may “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Incidentally, while on this subject, the “due process of law” referred to here prohibits administrative agencies from doing a number on us. When an administrative agency (say, the IRS) conducts an inquisitorial investigation, finds against the one investigated, and levies a fine, it is acting like a prime example of the kind of government our Constitution was expressly designed to prohibit. Our current form of government is profoundly illegal. But while we are here, on the point of “due process,” we can also point out that the word choice of unalienable in the Declaration was not strictly speaking accurate. The word means “impossible to take away or give up,” and what was meant — as the Constitution made clear — these rights may not be taken away without due process in each individual instance. It did not mean “impossible to take away.” A man may lawfully be deprived of his life, his liberty, or his property. That is what criminal courts do to felons.
Now recognition by the government that the right to life, liberty and property are rights that are given by God, and not by the Congress assembled in their majesty, is the first step toward the government doing its appointed job of guarding and protecting these rights. In effect, when the government recognizes that these rights are God-given, it means that the government is in a position to perform its God-given function, which is to protect the citizenry from being murdered, enslaved, or robbed. When the government does not recognize that these rights are God-given, this means that they are actually first in line to be the abusers of these rights.
When men who rule do not fear God, the people mourn (Prov. 29:2). To take these three categories as representative, our godless government is responsible for the murder of 50 million Americans (abortion), the enslavement of a million others Americans (our demented prison system), and the pillaging of millions of children yet unborn (our rapacious and absurd national debt).
The authorities that exist are charged by God to reward the righteous and punish the wrongdoer, and these categories are defined by the standard of what God tells us in Scripture. And when it comes to our own cases, we all know what these standards are. We know and protect our own right to life, our own desire for freedom, and our own stuff.
I want to argue that our right to these things is the right to the same things regardless of whether the one threatening them is a thug in an alley, or a bureaucrat behind a desk. Life means the same thing in both instances. So does liberty. This being the case, property refers to the same thing as well. What a mugger takes and what the IRS takes is, at bottom, the same thing — my hard earned cash.
The key difference is found in that a government official may possibly be doing what he is doing legitimately.
Even though it is possible for the government to behave coercively without being unrighteous, we have to recognize the potential for abuse here. Because of that potential, the burden of proof is on the government to show that they are not acting like thieving scoundrels. A high threshold, I know . . . So this is what due process means. In order for the government to be doing the right thing when it seizes property, and to be known to be doing the right thing, it is necessary for the laws to be grounded in God’s moral order as revealed in nature and Scripture, to be understandable in principle, to be published beforehand, to have been established by representatives of the people, and to be enforced even-handedly in open courts of law, and not by star chambers or high commissions. Our current form of government does not meet these standards.
And anything else is called stealing.
Doug,
You say, “Our current form of government is profoundly illegal.”
Some questions to consider:
1. By what standard do you make this pronouncement?
2. Can a “form of government” be illegal? Would it not be specific acts of individuals that are illegal (or legal)?
3. What is an unconstitutional act under our Constitution?
4. Under our Constitution, at what point does an unconstitutional act become illegal?
FWIW, “due process” is provided by the IRS to taxpayers, at least on paper. See the IRS “Taxpayer Bill of Rights”.
“But while we are here, on the point of “due process,” we can also point out that the word choice of unalienable in the Declaration was not strictly speaking accurate. The word means “impossible to take away or give up,” and what was meant — as the Constitution made clear — these rights may not be taken away without due process in each individual instance. It did not mean “impossible to take away.” A man may lawfully be deprived of his life, his liberty, or his property. That is what criminal courts do to felons.” Pastor Wilson, while I am… Read more »
John,
In re: to your question #1, I think Doug’s 6th para pretty much answers it. #2 is answered by understanding the just purpose of the law — to protect life, liberty and property — and thus any time the government ceases to be the protector and enforcer of the law and instead becomes a transgressor, it is “illegal” (lit. “anti-law”) in that sense.
#3 is answered by the enumerated powers expressly granted to the federal government (see Article I, Section 8). If and when it goes beyond those granted powers, it is acting unconstitutionally (se Amendment X).
Eric, I like your explanation. It seems to me that the *rights* listed in the founding documents are unalienable, but that does not mean that the things that you have a right to are unalienable. That is, you can’t be, by choice or government fiat, made into an unperson with no claim on those rights. However, by means of due process, the things you have a right to can be taken from you if those rights are exercised in a way that violates duly passed law. The guy in jail can have his liberty taken from him for the term… Read more »
It’s not the “right to life” that gets taken away by due process. It’s the life itself that gets taken away. The right to life just means the right not to be murdered (by individual or by government). Other than that, I agree.
The “due process” strikes me as weak without an overarching principle.
Roe v. Wade was due process.
Overturning prop 8. in California was due process.
Colorado Baker tyranny was due process.
Obamacare tyranny was due process.
Something is out of whack and “due process” ain’t fixin’ it.
Eric,
You write:
“#3 is answered by the enumerated powers expressly granted to the federal government (see Article I, Section 8). If and when it goes beyond those granted powers, it is acting unconstitutionally (se Amendment X).”
Who determines that our federal government has gone beyond the powers granted it? And how is this determined?
@John:
These articles, wherein Pr. Wilson claims to be a better Constitutional Attorney than any Constitutional Attorneys, are a little funny. But probably shouldn’t be taken very seriously beyond the laugh.
@matt Peterson These articles, wherein Pr. Wilson claims to be a better Constitutional Attorney than any Constitutional Attorneys, are a little funny. But probably shouldn’t be taken very seriously beyond the laugh. Mark Levin, is a constitutional attorney and he thinks we have quite possibly lost the country. He is the best-selling author of the books “Liberty and Tyranny” , “Ameritopia” , and most recently, “The Liberty Amendments” where he is organizing an Article V convention of the states to remove power from D.C. as a last ditch effort to peacefully restore the republic. I would love to hear you… Read more »
Matthew, you need to take a deep breath and think about what you are typing. Wilson is expressing views held by serious scholars and authors of our founding documents both prior to and during the American Revolution. Those views are solid ground even though you think otherwise. The reason that young men such as yourself don’t see this distinction is because you were raised in a time which our founders warned us about. Today, we hear about American democracy in print, on the TV and on the internet. In fact, we are supposed to have a Constitutional Republic and yet… Read more »
Matt Petersen wrote:
Unless Petersen has elevated the Constitution to the level of Scriptural authority, then, whether we find him persuasive or not, Wilson is easily qualified to apply Scriptural principles to the content and modern (mis)application of our founding civil document. Neither the Constitution nor the magistrate is above Scriptural critique.
Petersen needs to bring something more substantive than his usual ad hominem dismissals of Wilson.
Yes, I suppose it is possible that Pr. Wilson is correct, and, the few who argue that our system today is unconstitutional–not only in a few details–are correct. But he’s not saying “in my opinion, which may be based on crackpot legal “scholars'” writings, our current taxation is unconstitutional, and so theft, but that: [N]ot being able to see theft in all this is tantamount to standing on the top of the levee in the middle of Hurricane Katrina and being unable to “detect the breeze,” and asking the rescue worker pulling on your elbow to please “define breeze.” And… Read more »
“DISQUALIFY, DISQUALIFY, DISQUALIFY”
I mentioned this on another thread. Here is Mathew’s signature technique being utilized again. See it for what it is, point it out and give it all the due it is worth.
cheers.
t
Exhibit A (Matt Petersen) is having trouble identifying himself in this illustration.
What’s more important: the fact that the declaration was clearly inspired by the dictum “life, liberty, and the pursuit of property,” or the fact that “property” was deliberately altered to “happiness”? If the founders meant so say “property” as opposed to “happiness” then they would have (right?)–but they didn’t. But who knows, they were a disagreeable bunch, so I am sure some of the founders would have agreed with Pastor Wilson while others would have dissented. You don’t have to go all Pomo to come to the conclusion that claims towards an ultimate and incontrovertible Truth is a slippery business… Read more »
Oh, no, I know he’s talking about me. In the post in question, he quotes two or three of my comments before making that claim. And even that claim itself clearly alludes to my argument. If anything, it’s a little flattering. And fun that he’s stopped saying that he gets to presuppose his conclusion, abandoning his poor Scriptural argument (where he has some competence, though the argument is bad), and opted instead to make an obscure constitutional argument that none of us (including him) are qualified to evaluate. The funny part is that he thinks these obscure constitutional arguments are… Read more »
John, “Who determines that our federal government has gone beyond the powers granted it? And how is this determined?” See the first three words of the Preamble, as well as the last three words each of Amendments IX and X. The Constitution is a lodestar for the people. It isn’t that hard to read. Nor was it to be mere suggestive document to be handled only by an aristocracy of “experts.” We have representatives, we have justices, but in the end, we have ourselves. As Jefferson said, “the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” He wasn’t talking to a small… Read more »
John,
John,
See the first three words of the Preamble, as well as the last three words each of Amendments IX and X. The Constitution is a lodestar for the people. It was never to be mere suggestive document to be handled only by an aristocracy of “experts.” We have representatives, we have justices, but in the end, we have ourselves. As Jefferson said, “the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” He wasn’t talking to a small cadre of elites.
Where is your authority to speak, Matthew? Have you read the Anti-Federalist Papers? Have you read the Federalist Papers? Have you read the papers of Samuel Adams or Thomas Jefferson or Patrick Henry? Yes or No. In fact, our founding documents were written so that the common man would be able to understand them and apply them properly. Wilson’s arguments are not obscure they are correct. I am qualified to speak on our Constitution and Wilson is on the mark — that is to say he is stating 2+2 = 4. It is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer… Read more »
Does anybody else miss Eric the Red? This Matthew character is annoying…
Eric The Red grew predictable–yes, he is missed as I am praying for him. It is very good to see so many strong, christian men stand in defense of our God given right-reason and rights against the foolishness of the young-pup Matt Peterson. Matt does not know the grief he is calling down on his head. He has no conception of how hard it was to provide him the freedom to spout his foolishness. Matt has a head–a thing that we used to take as a given before our nation fell into judgement. I hope Wisdom prevails and Matt learns… Read more »
But how would he learn? It seems relatively obvious to me that Matthew doesn’t take the Bible seriously. Likewise, there is no reason to take Matthew seriously.
But how would he learn? It seems relatively obvious to me that Matthew doesn’t take the Bible seriously. Likewise, there is no reason to take Matthew seriously. He is our brother in Christ. Rebellion and doubt are to be expected (in my experience as I was/am rebellious and doubting). The transformation from “snarky little snit” to what God has in store for Matt is God’s to do in Matt in God’s own time (which, can take decades) . Matt’s flesh is rebelling and Matt will discover that in good time. This “is” the Christian growth process–it ain’t pretty. We are… Read more »
Whether I agree with him or not and whatever I think of his arguments it’s plain to see “This Matthew character” has got ya’ll’s goat. But why do you want to make it so plain to see?
John M, this is not a matter of Matthew getting anyone’s goat. It is a matter of a young man who claims Christ but is acting the fool and harboring ill will against fellow Christians. For well over a year, Matthew maintains that his view is correct even though wiser men point out his errors. He heaps disdain and derision upon those Christians who disagree with him but actually know what they are talking about. The Bible gives us warnings concerning this situation. Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool… Read more »
Good stuff but I seem to remember reading in Charles Murray that for the founders “pursuit of happiness” had a specific technical meaning connected to the idea of summum bonum.
Great, so when are you going to do that? Other than a vague allusion to the IRS, I see nothing here.
Granted that abuses happen, but if you want to propose something systemic then…propose it.
I find myself wondering what is the big picture point of all of these posts? If the goal is to have a clear understanding of the relationships between God, man and the State then why not take a step back and look at the whole of civil history, at least since the time of Christ? We have been swimming in American propaganda our whole lives. Can we objectively draw lessons from US history and the writings of John Adams or should we perhaps read some Plato and Machiavelli. Is there a more utilitarian goal in mind? Is Pastor Wilson looking… Read more »
That may be true for the older among us. but clearly recent generations have been swimming in various shades of communist propaganda for most of theirs.
Barnabas is right that we are still in the big-picture stage of conversation. The goal isn’t nostalgia, or nationalism. Wilson is clearly trying to get us back to principles, and that begins by showing us how to recognize our own enslavement. If we have all become socialists, unable to recognize the proper place of the State, then we will not recognize what it means to have freedom concerning property and even life. How many Americans think it is normal for a nation to have $17.5 trillion in debt, and rising? How many Americans think it is normal for the State… Read more »
Having read and pretty much agreed with Pr. Wilson’s reasoning here thus far, I will admit that I am befuddled and confused by the attempts at refutation (?), particularly by, yes, Mr. Petersen! Honestly, how much of a gnostic must one be? How abstracted from real life itself must we all be to parse down to the gnat’s hindquarters? I realize the need for well-reasoned argument, but don’t we need to be connected to Reality at some point? I believe all of us – and again, yes, with all due respect, Mr. Petersen, you in particular – would profit from… Read more »
From Barnabas, St Lee and Katecho. Yes. We must not be focused on America. America is dead in sin. I look forward to her resurrection in Christ. While Pastor Wilson is patiently opening the eyes of those who do not see, those of us who can see must do the work that God has appointed to us. What is that work? What has God done, what has been the trend-line for His people (4’th and long to first and goal) , where is He leading us? What does He want us to do? As I watch our former nation kill… Read more »
Turning the conversation to US constitutional law does not address the summation of the argument which – if I read it right – comes in the final paragraph.
In that paragraph, human government is clearly – and corrected – subjugated to Scripture.
So, I do not want to read a refutation of that final paragraph that relies on discrediting the foundations of the argument.
What I do want to read is a refutation of that paragraph that positively states why a government that seizes property is not required to demonstrate that is not committing theft, etc.
What I do want to read is a refutation of that paragraph that positively states why a government that seizes property is not required to demonstrate that is not committing theft, etc. Ok, here are, as far as I can tell, the main claims: “…it is necessary for the laws… 1. …to be grounded in God’s moral order as revealed in nature and Scripture 2. …to be understandable in principle 3. …to be published beforehand 4. …to have been established by representatives of the people 5. …to be enforced even-handedly in open courts of law Of these, 1 is false,… Read more »
@matt
That is funny.
I rank 1. primary and the rest as failing miserably.
You rank 1 as optional/ok and the rest as success.
Same planet, different worlds.
Why in the world do you call this guy a “brother in Christ”? I assert that he is probably an atheist.
Please note that, while I mostly agree with his post (except for the stuff on natural law) I am not that Matt. Though, I do find it rather comical that if I think his argument is plausible, I am “sinning”. And the grounds for that is now, not Scripture, but Pope Hamburger.
@DrewJ
If you are addressing me, 3 things.
1. I am quite adept at confusing names and arguments.
2. Matt Peterson is the brother in Christ I was referring to, not Matt of points 1 to 5.
If you are not addressing me, then please see bullet point 1. above.
cheers.
t
Matt Petersen:
You’re arguing that our government does have to demonstrate that it is not a crook?
That’s nice to use the standards of the author.
Since you seem to agree that the government has the onus to prove it’s not stealing, what’s YOUR argument for this?
Apologies for my oversight. It was “Matt” not “Matt Petersen” that responded to my post. In turn, my response should be to “Matt”.
I very well may stop using my nickname and simply use my entire name, first middle last.
It would seem, for the Christian brothers and sisters, this might be the best course of action in general. Otherwise, your para-church church-planting network may one day need to remove you from their fellowship…
Matt
After re-reading your response, your final sentence finally registered with me. It is:
“These are the questions that never seem to get answered.”
But, your response didn’t answer my question! Thanks for making me laugh.
I’m still interested to hear your thoughts (not a restatement of the author’s) on why (or why not) a government should demonstrate it is not stealing.
Matt wrote: “Of these, 1 is false, as there is no requirement that the laws of the US conform to any religious holy writings, including the Bible, or any religious notions of natural law.” Contrast Matt’s secular position with the following: Now therefore, O kings, show discernment; Take warning, O judges of the earth. Worship the LORD with reverence And rejoice with trembling. Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way, For His wrath may soon be kindled. No requirement, eh? It’s addressed directly, and is one of the most quoted passages… Read more »
Thanks Katcho.
Let’s see how America’s “rulers” stand up.
Now therefore, O kings, show discernment; (nope)
Take warning, O judges of the earth. (nope)
Worship the LORD with reverence (heh, definitely nope)
And rejoice with trembling. (nope)
Do homage to the Son, (nope) that He not become angry, and you perish in the way, (no clue)
For His wrath may soon be kindled. (yep, it is.)
cheers.
t
In 1816, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to John Taylor:
So we don’t really have to ask what founders of our country would think of today’s runaway, centrally-planned, fiat monetary system. They already told us. (In this case, they called it swindling, instead of theft or stealing.)
@Katecho – Technically that quote demonstrates what one man, rather than founders (plural) of our country believed. He did have a point. Borrowing is swindling does make better sense than taxation is theft. That’s why I favor higher taxes rather than lower, as long as spending remains what it is. Curb your appetite or pay the bill.
Hi Katecho. So we don’t really have to ask what founders of our country would think of today’s runaway, centrally-planned, fiat monetary system. They already told us. (In this case, they called it swindling, instead of theft or stealing.) My heart recoils at this thought, but I will post it here for discussion. My thoughs run like this 1. In my opinion the u.s. dollar is over the event horizon and will not be coming back. 2. Christians will need sound money to conduct their affairs. 3. Christian (pastors) should work to establish a Christian banking system independent of the… Read more »
No requirement, eh? It doesn’t matter what the Bible says, as it is not a binding legal document. I’m just stating a simple matter of fact, that the US government is not beholden to follow anything the Bible says, except insofar as the Constitution says something similar. More broadly, if not following the Bible rendered a government “unrighteous”, then it would be impossible for any government made up of non-Christians to be acceptable, no matter how well behaved and upright. That’s clearly too strong of a conclusion. So we don’t really have to ask what founders of our country would… Read more »
This is only true if God is some kind of theoretical construct, rather than the actual ruler of the universe and judge of all mankind. That not being the case, Matt’s assertion is clearly false. It matters always, in every way, for every purpose, and to everyone what the Bible says.
Let’s look at it another way. You can try to challenge any law by bringing some Biblical case against it in court. Your case will lose or even be thrown out, because the Bible has no legal authority in the US. If we were in a theocracy that might not be the case, but thankfully we aren’t.
Matt
I believe that the Christian position is that a law which is unjust is no law–hence, for instance, a law against parades, designed to preserve segregation is no law. (This was MLK’s reason for breaking said law.) But, we need to be humble and recognize that the standards for me to prove this isn’t a law are very high, and “just” dies not include in its definition “enforced by Christians” or “based on the Bible.”