Positive Liberty

THE TRICKINESS OF ORTHODOXY

Jon Rowe writes, regarding his favor for the Declaration of Independence, “…as a non-Christian, I don’t have Romans 13 on my conscience.”

Well, forgive me for my mild paraphrase, but as a Christian, I don’t have Romans 13 on my conscience either.

In fact, this doesn’t seem to be a very widespread problem amongst Biblically-focused Christians. Most of them think they wrote the Declaration of Independence!

Romans 13, for the uninitiated, was written by the Apostle Paul. In this passage he basically says, “Hey, if you want to live a peaceful life and focus on The Thing that really matters, then you’ll give the Kings of this world the respect they require and continue about your much more important business.”

Yes, Paul says that the king has power because God wills it. But as any Christian who has been so for more than a day can tell you, God’s Will is tricky business. One of the themes of the book of Job is largely about how we simple humans will never quite get our heads around providence. For example, just because a person holds the office at this moment, that doesn’t mean he’s “God’s man (or woman),” as the story of King Saul can attest. But how do we human beings know God’s will regarding a tyrant?

God warned his people about the dangers of a king, yet they insisted they wanted one. So he gave them Saul. Saul was a great disappointment — even to God. Open Theism theologians are demonstrating that God can indeed by disappointed. David was anointed a decade before Saul’s rule was ended.

On most days, I think Jon Rowe does an excellent job of delivering clues and digging up evidence, then delivering it to a popular audience. He demonstrates that the United States wasn’t a nation founded either exclusively or primarily by conservative Christians (ala David Barton), but was instead premised on Enlightenment ideals. His balanced approach recognizes that even the brilliant men of the Enlightenment swam in a Christian milieu. Jon is meticulous, honest, and fair.

But this article makes hash out of Romans 13 and presents a view of it which no Christian I know, would adhere to. Granted, most of them haven’t thought through all of the implications of the American Revolution in light of Romans 13, but if they did, they could easily come to a different conclusion than the one Jon has chosen.

Also, orthodoxy is a tricky thing. But it’s an important concept in Jon’s ongoing treatment of the Founder’s motives. But unless it can be demonstrated that the orthodox Christians amongst the nation’s founders thought that Calvin was the be all and end all on Romans 13, there is no reason they would’ve had Romans 13 on their conscience either.

CALVINISM AND ROMANS 13

Jon’s article has, whether he intended it to or not, assumed that Calvinism = Orthodoxy. Millions of Christians would object. But let’s start with that assumption.

An entire web page, by a Calvinist no less, has devoted itself to things like the allegedly “sticky wicket” of Romans 13 in light of Calvinist thought. See Monergism.com’s extensive Government & Politics page, where you can read early Calvinists (not just Samuel Rutherford but also) like Theodore Beza and John Ponet (a gentleman that John Adams himself indicated was influential on the American Founding). There are a bunch of books and articles, right up to the present age, for everyone reading this blog post to peruse. Here you’ll find real Calvinists who take a different view on Romans 13.

That page, however, is filled with articles of two types: 1) Old language — people who wrote before the age of Hemingway, and 2) Scholarly language — people who purposely refuse to write in the style of Hemingway. What’s needed is someone who can, “Put the cookies on the lowest shelf.”

In steps Steve Scott, a blogger who, just recently declared himself, “Lucky to be a Calvinist” (the irony isn’t lost on those who believe or worry that Calvinists might be right). Steve Scott posted a 13 part series on Romans 13. The trend-line on Steve Scott’s posts is that each one gets smaller than the one before, to the point where #11, for example, is but 271 words.

Still, I would highly encourage you to read the Steve Scott posts first, and if this issue really tickles your fancy, then visit the aforementioned Monergism.com.

Once you do so, you will see for yourself that, even if Calvinism = Orthodoxy, we still find that many pro-Declaration Calvinists don’t “have Romans 13 on their conscience.”

NON-CALVINIST, PRO-LIBERTARIAN CHRISTIANITY

Millions of Christians would dislike the suggestion that Calvinism = Orthodoxy. Thomas Jefferson suggested that Five Point Calvinism was a theology of demons. It is, as far as I’m concerned, at best, a highly unattractive view of God. And Jon Rowe has gone so far as to point out (correctly in my opinion) that Calvinism, carried to its logical extension, is exactly what Fred Phelps is preaching.

But an individual’s tastes are not reliable arbiters of “truth.” But as a proposed Christian truth, Calvinism fails. Calvinism is a misinterpretation of God’s Omniscience and a misunderstanding of Jehovah’s magnificent grace, which is INDIVIDUALLY “prevenient,” not INDIVIDUALLY “predetermined.”

Further, Calvinism doesn’t square with the evidence we have available to weigh the claim. Calvinist theology:

* must be contorted to accommodate several parts of scripture into its five point system, including “the right strawy epistle” of James.
* doesn’t comport with the abundant demonstrations of the backslidden Christians — a phenomenon that Calvinists recognize but either refuse to acknowledge or explain satisfactorily.
* doesn’t square with the latest discoveries in science which demonstrate that chaos is an important part of order. Calvinists agree with Einstein on one thing — God does NOT play dice.

As a Christian myself, the history of how God demonstrated his will, in relation to human will, is central to my theology — and, of course, my ideology.

I don’t have space or time to completely unpack that last sentence. I do intend, at some point in the future, to write about the history of God’s Will as it relates to Human Freedom. Suffice it to say that God is not caught off guard by our decisions or our actions, yet it appears he leaves us “free to choose.”

It appears that God places greater value on our freedom than he does on our obedience.

The Bible itself is a history of an “evolving” relationship between God and humanity. Even the most ardent secularist would agree that we, as a species, have come a long way from the Bronze Age. As that relationship has “matured,” our understanding of how God’s world actually works has deepened (though we’re nowhere near the bottom of it).

As Jon correctly implies, a Christian, if they are to be “orthodox,” must, at a minimum, avoid contradicting the Bible. However, understanding and applying scripture can be a complex exercise — just as interpreting law and issuing rulings requires training and a deft touch. And, just as in law, the conclusions are frequently debatable.

I’d like to think I start in the same place the Bible does. I view this world as God’s world. And, I view the individual as being the very image of God — a position of worth and intrinsic value.

Then, I prefer to interpret the Bible through the lens of Jesus Christ. The book really does seem to point to him as its central figure. So what were Christ’s words? What were his actions? These represent the very face of and character of God (which is why I value the concept that Jesus himself was, somehow, a part of God — I don’t think Thomas Jefferson did Christ justice).

Finally, I believe that because this is God’s world, all truth is, essentially, God’s truth. I have found the Wesleyan Quadrilateral to be very helpful to me (something else I plan to write about in the future) in determining the proper hermeneutical rule necessary to each passage.

When, for example, I see the fruit of separating organized religion from the state compared with the history of union between these two forces, I recognize a truth as it occurs in God’s world. And I’m pretty certain (faith) that the principle can either be validated in scripture or that it was never addressed by scripture, and in the latter case, I have liberty.

So far, that faith has been rewarded. And, quite often it turns out the principle was waiting for me to discover it in the Bible.

Jesus Christ said, “My Kingdom is not of this world.” He suggested that his followers must, “become servants,” and “be the least,” and “take up their cross.” None of this advice is found in the campaign training manuals at Republican or Democratic headquarters. Yet men like Ghandi and King both took seriously the notion that, “the meek will inherit the Earth.” Their causes justified them. The evidence is reliable and available to everyone reading this message.

But then along comes Paul. He picks up on Jesus telling his “political” opponents, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and the things that are God’s, unto God.” Some fights just aren’t worth having or the time is just not right.

In Romans 13 the Apostle Paul is also giving sound advice that is in-line with what some folks might call, “Zen.” He’s suggesting that a) it’s not the Christian’s primary mission to foment revolution, and b) if you choose to do it anyway, you’ll have “judgment” in our life.

Indeed, should an individual choose to stop paying their taxes, they’ll find judgment coming to take their home! Civil disobedience can come at a high price. One must weigh carefully, not only whether or not the potential price is worth it, but also whether they should divert themselves from the quiet life of a positive testimony. As Christians . . .

* We should recognize the quintessential libertarian principle: “Utopia (here on Earth) is never an option.” Heaven comes on “the other side.” Several 20th century governments have proved that the quest for Utopia is deadly.
* We have the option and opportunity to enrich the lives of our families and our neighbors by offering our quiet service to them instead of trying to build Paradise by force. And it’s hard to dispute; conservative Christianity in America has become a real turn-off thanks to men like Falwell, Robertson, etc.

Paul is offering advice for how to live peacefully. He is also saying that politics isn’t the method of spreading the gospel.

But any passage must be interpreted in context. The chapter-verse breakdown of scripture is not divinely inspired, but rather a later invention. That innovation can sometimes get in the way of complete understanding. To be understood, Romans 13 must be read with Romans 12.

Paul urges believers to a) present their bodies as living sacrifices, b) love one another in their Christian fellowship and work well together so as to be a testimony to the outside world, c) love and pray for those who persecute them for their faith, d) seek peace with as many people as you possibly can, e) reject vengeance as a tactic, and f) overcome evil with good.

Then comes Romans 13.

The Kingdom of God, unlike any kingdom in human history, does not advance by force. The Crusades, The Inquisition, and the Salem Witch Trials were all contrary to both the example and council of Jesus Christ, as well as the advice of New Testament writers. God’s method is NOT coercive force. God reaches out, in prevenient grace, with but a “still small voice.” The Gospel (a.k.a., “good news’) is that God is willing to suffer and die to convince us of his deep love for us.

God conquers my heart with love. What king dies for his people?

Yet God permits force for one purpose, and Paul specifies it — to be a terror to evildoers.

NOTES ON INTERPOSITION

Calvin’s Doctrine of Interposition is a good start. But like all doctrines it is subject to enhanced understanding as knowledge and experience expand. Anything that stands in one place becomes dead and stale. This is true of all forms of knowledge and theology is no exception.

Simply put, Interposition is intervention. Calvin is suggesting, rightly in my opinion, that interposition is acceptable, even in light of Romans 13, but only via a magistrate.

Where Calvin and most theologians since his time, particularly Americans, would depart is in our definition of a magistrate. In modern Christian parlance, a magistrate is a qualified leader.

A leader is someone who has followers! The leader’s qualification would be that the leader has sufficient followers to interpose between king and subjects. In other words, “Does the leader represent people other than himself?” Under Christian Just War Theory, even the monarch lacks the power to take his people into a battle they are sure to lose. The magistrate is under no less a restriction. Nowhere does scripture suggest that kings treat their subjects, or leaders consider their followers, as “living sacrifices.”

The magistrate, who finds himself in a position where interposition is potentially called for, must move cautiously and with deference to the king. If the magistrate is an obnoxious hot-head, he’s the wrong guy. The magistrate should work within the legal process. He should be methodical — even plodding.

INTERPOSITION IN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

I realize what follows is a bit of an oversimplification of events and that not all of the colonist’s actions could be defended under this doctrine, but…

Our Founding Fathers were magistrates. They worked within a legal process, appealing to the King of England.

The King returned the courtesy by taxing and regulating them further — even charging John Hancock with smuggling. Hancock responded by organizing a boycott. The King responded by shutting down the colonist’s tea industry and imposing an English monopoly.

After yet more appeals, the Boston Sons of Liberty responded with a “tea party.” Even in their conduct of the Tea Party, these men broke nothing but a lock. Only the tea was dumped. No other persons or property was harmed. Still, no less than Ben Franklin suggested the tea should be paid for and some colonial merchants offered to pay for it. The British refused.

Instead, the King imposed the “Intolerable Acts,” taking away Massachusetts’ right to self-government, as well as permitting his troops to quarter themselves in colonial homes and receive get out of jail free cards for their crimes.

This “train of abuses” heightened tensions and, in the Spring of 1775, the King ordered his men to seize their guns — something no free man can tolerate. Violence ensued. Yet, even then, the organized colonists only prepared a defense.

Then the Continental Congress sent the Olive Branch Petition to King George. The King refused to read the Olive Branch Petition and it was HE that declared the colonists to be in an “open state of rebellion” (not the other way around).

The Continental Congress, ever accountable, responded by explaining their actions to the world in Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of taking up Arms — a full year before the Declaration of Independence was signed. It would take that long just to round up the political will to make that significant and final step of actual rebellion.

The magistrates in this story were patient to the point of plodding. They appealed to authority at every step. And it was the King, not the magistrates, which declared the state of the people to be one of rebellion.

INDIVIDUAL AND COMMUNAL REBELLION, A DISTINCTION

The Christian faith is not an individualist faith. American Evangelicals, starting in the 19th century, have increasingly treated it as individualism. But Christianity is, itself, communal (Romans 12, by the way, is one of the passages that demonstrate this point).

Liberal Christians take the voluntary communal nature of Christianity and apply it where it doesn’t belong. They have come to view civil government as the vehicle through which ALL Justice, Mercy, and Humility should be carried out or imposed.

Government is an agency of coercion, so essentially the liberals are guilty of imposing their morality on everyone else. Conservatives make the same mistake when it comes to individual behavior.

Both groups are easily moved to the position, “There ought to be a law.”

Well, there is a law. It’s the Natural Law. It says that humans are, by nature, free — that they own their lives and the right to pursue their bliss. A Christian who recognizes the Book of Nature as a work of God (Romans 1:20) appreciates the discovery and demonstration of Natural Law.

But the student of the Bible must go even further. He or she must recognize the aforementioned Image of God and corresponding Human Will in others, as well as take into account concepts such as Grace and Love and Humility while dealing with others.

And for practical, hands-on training in living such a life, Christians are to form communities. These communities are called “church.” Church is not, what the forces of Organized Religion have erroneously turned them into — a building people visit for an hour on Sundays. For it is in church, properly practiced, believers are schooled in patience, mutual submission, and the sharing of one another’s burdens.

And part of mutual submission is that one doesn’t strike out on their own. Christians are told to seek counsel from a variety of sources and live their life in the pursuit of Wisdom.

So Interposition is the means by which a sufficient community can make begin a “process of appeal,” to the ruling authority. In our culture, we have the ability to vote, to organize, to publish, and to lobby members of Congress, guaranteed by the supreme law of this land in the First Amendment. These means have narrowed but have not been closed. These tactics have, in several recent instances, proved efficacious. Therefore, Open Rebellion in the United States, at this juncture, is an improper response (at least for Christians) to the tyranny we presently face.

Lone Ranger civil disobedience is neither prudent nor proper for a Christian, who would then, “have Romans 13 on their conscience.”

ANOTHER DISTINCTION, PERSECUTION
AND THE BIBLICAL RESPONSE, PACIFISM

Romans 12 and other passages of the New Testament, including some words in red letters (words of Christ like), strongly suggest that the proper Christian response to persecution for The Faith is continued obedience to God’s law, even if it means disobedience to authority (Acts 5:29). Such civil disobedience should be accompanied by a willingness to suffer (turn the other cheek) — even up the point of death.

One is neither to seek martyrdom, nor resist it through violence. The early Church saw an explosion of growth in a period of martyrdom. Today, even though banned by criminal law, the Underground Church in China is growing at compounding proportions. No one takes up arms to defend this Kingdom.

Ironically, the conservative Evangelicals in the United States care little, if at all, about the Sermon on the Mount. They act as if some delusional hippie expressed many of those words. They are essentially crying, “Who are these meek and how can they turn the other cheek and pray for their culture war enemies who would take ‘under God’ out of The Pledge of Allegiance or would ban saying the word Christmas in government schools? Certainly these rules don’t apply to our times.”

But these rules do apply. I cannot get excited by the so-called War on Christmas, bans on prayer in government schools, and anything having to do with the Pledge of Allegiance because, if these really are persecution of Christians (and they’re not), then Paul says, we believers should “rejoice.”

The great danger in David Barton’s work and the reason that Jon Rowe’s writing is so important to me is that modern American Evangelicals have come to believe that God’s Kingdom just might be the United States. Sure, they’d chafe at my characterization, but their behavior betrays them. Remember, it’s by one’s fruit that we know them!

I appreciate Jon for telling the truth. And I think his voice is moderate enough on the history of the Founders that it should be heeded by Christians. However, this interpretation of Romans 13 is neither sufficient nor accurate. The American Revolution was Interposition, properly applied.

Hardball delenda est.

Trackback URI |