Wittenberg Gate

By What Authority and By What Standard?

...if some men are to have authority over others, the source of authority must come from somewhere. It must come from somewhere where the seat of authority over all men lies. It must transcend mankind if it is not to be simply some men, even a majority, imposing their will upon others. The only reasonable source of that kind of authority is God Himself, and the only reasonable definition of how that authority is defined is by God's own revelation in Scripture.

This is a continuation of a previous discussion that you can catch up on by starting here.

Since I wrote my last post, responding to hers, Margaret Romao Toigo has written again on The Difference Between Crime and Sin. It would probably be best to read her post before reading this response to it.

First, I want to note some of the things we agree on. First, we both agree that working out these things is very important. I would go so far as to argue that this is the essence of the difference between liberty and tyranny, that is, finding that balance, in which civil government is big enough to effectively protect the rights of the people and yet limited enough to not infringe upon them itself. We also agree that a fundamental purpose for civil government is to protect the rights of the people from those (including but not limited to those in the government) who would violate them.  I would also add that there is a role the civil government has in punishment of crime, which is not necessarily directly protective of others, but a goal in itself.

Where we differ, though, is on how to reach those goals we seem to agree upon. She wrote:

The question of whether any given law protects or infringes upon civil and human rights is the fundamental difference between the prosecution of crime and the judgment of sin, which is why we must guard our rights by recognizing the distinction between transient social conventions and the unchanging, unalterable truths of conscience as well as the difference between the mortal humans we elect to protect and defend our rights and the institutions we turn to for guidance in matters of conscience.

As mere mortals filled with pride, prejudice and all of the other weaknesses of the flesh, we are not fit to judge the finer points of the subjective concepts of virtue and sin, but our conscience is able to discern consensual acts and behaviors which do not directly encroach upon the civil and human rights of others from acts that cause direct harm to others.

I'm with her for the gist of this, but there are two concepts here that I'm sticking on. One is that I question the existence of, "unalterable truths of conscience," or the practicality of  using such a standard to determine what should or should not be civil law. How does one determine if something is an unalterable truth of conscience? Is it by doing a survey of current thinking or by looking at cultural trends historically? Do we have experts who can decide these things? And then, who sets the standard by which these things are judged? It seems to me that this solution to the problem of determining when civil government should intrude and when it should not would be completely unworkable. All any tyrant would have to say is that this or that standard is an unalterable truth of conscience and that would be that. By what concrete standard could anyone object? 

The second problem I'm having is the last line which seems to set up two opposites, that is, "consensual acts and behaviors which do not directly encroach upon the civil and human rights of others," as opposed to "acts that cause direct harm to others." Now I'm not completely clear on what is meant here, but Margaret seems to be saying that the standard we should apply is whether or not an act harms others. Again, I would say that this is a totally unworkable standard.

Let's say I'm in business and I start spreading information about my competitor, that he overcharges his customers and sells an inferior product. As a result of the information I have spread, his business suffers and mine prospers. I have clearly done him harm. Is my behavior criminal? Well, if my stories were false, then yes, I have slandered him. If my allegations are true, however, I have not committed a crime. But it is not the harm done that determines the nature of my actions, it is something else altogether.

I can cause harm to others in many legal ways. I could set up a business that competes with an existing business and never say a word about my competitor and yet still reduce his profits. I could build my house on my lot in a position that blocks my neighbor's view of a distant lake. I can have a party in my back yard with noisy children playing and screaming that intrudes on my neighbor's solitude.

So, who defines harm? I home school my son. Is someone in authority going to determine that I am harming him by not meeting some standard that they think must be met? Will someone decide I am harming him by requiring him to accompany us to church services on Sundays? Does the Jehovah's Witness harm me when she knocks at my door and tries to share her faith with me? Do I cause harm when I decide I am safer without a seat belt or am I allowed to be stupid? Again, just about any action could be said to be harmful, especially if we are willing to twist reality just a bit, which of course, is something tyrants are always willing to do. (I share Margaret's assessment of the weakness of the human condition.)

The problem I see with both of these points is not only that they are unworkable, but also that they are ultimately man-centered. I am not referring to a man-centered purpose--civil government inherently has a man-centered purpose--I am referring to a man-centered source of authority and a man-centered definition of standards. Man-centered standards are as fickle and varied as are men and women. The authority of civil government to restrict a person's choices of action, to imprison or compel restitution or even taxation has to come form somewhere other than mankind itself. Otherwise, by what right do people impose their will upon me? Why must I submit to them? Is it simply because I have a minority opinion? Is it because my opinion has been determined to be counter to an unalterable truth of conscience that someone else has defined or my action has an impact upon others in a way that someone else has determined to be "harmful"?

My point is, that if some men are to have authority over others, the source of authority must come from somewhere. It must come from somewhere where the seat of authority over all men lies. It must transcend mankind if it is not to be simply some men, even a majority, imposing their will upon others. The only reasonable source of that kind of authority is God Himself, and the only reasonable definition of how that authority is defined is by God's own revelation in Scripture.

Let me anticipate some objections to this assertion and address them here.

On Judgment vs. Discernment and Sin vs. Crime

Today I visited a blog I hadn't visited before, Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, written by Margaret Romao Toigo. She had an interesting post called Traditional Judeo-Christian Morality. I left comments there, but I wanted to post my thoughts here, too.

Margaret makes an argument that is perhaps often made, however, she says it better than most. I don't know if she considers herself to be a Christian or not, but she quotes Matthew 7:1-5 (Judge not, that ye be not judged, etc.) and uses it to criticize the approach of the "Christian Right," toward politics.

The so called “Christian Right” (may God have mercy upon their poor lost and tormented souls), who appear to be so proud that they believe their own wrath to be virtuous, have been confusing truth with doctrine to the point where they must now engage in the practice of intellectual dishonesty in order to justify the continued politicization of their faith for the purpose of promoting its dogma as the one and only truth. But this dynamic is not exclusive to religious fundamentalists as some secularists also appear to have a difficult time distinguishing ethics from morals.

Although I agree with her that hateful rhetoric on either side is not proper, I differ with many of the conclusions she draws from these verses and comment on them below.  It would probably make more sense to go read her post before continuing with mine.

First, I don't think that it is accurate to say that the "basic Judeo-Christian ethic upon which our country was founded," can be summarized by this one (or any one) passage of Scripture. There is a whole, complex understanding of the roles of God, the Church, the civil government, the family, and the individual which can be derived from the Scriptures (both Old and New Testament, but mostly OT). It is this whole system of government(s) that I believe the founders applied to the establishment of our government, even though some of them agreed to it because they considered the Scriptures authoritative, and others agreed to it because they felt it was the system that Natural Law also revealed.

There are many aspects of this overall system, such as the people calling their leaders in church and state based on their qualifications and holding them accountable, rule by councils of leaders rather than vesting overall power in individuals, etc., but in regards to Margaret's post, I want to comment on a distinction between judgment and discernment, and also between crimes and sins.

All people are called upon to discern. Only those with authority are called upon to judge, and then only within the defined bounds of that authority. Individuals, for example are warned in Proverbs 20:19 against getting involved with talebearers and flatterers. How can this be done without discerning who qualifies as a talebearer or flatterer?

The verse you quoted is addressed to individuals and warns them not to judge, but not to not discern. Judging is what the gossip and the talebearer, and those who listen to them, do. They listen to gossip, and in an unjust way, weigh that evidence and pronounce a judgment on that person. Calling someone damned or lost is judging. Saying one ought to avoid dealings with this person, or not call him or her as a leader because of his or her character or morals flaws is discernment.

That being said, however, judgment is within the authority and responsibility of the Church and the state governments. The church is to judge its people (voluntarily bound to the church by vows or covenant) for sin, and the state is to judge all people within its borders for crimes. In so doing, these church and state officers are given the authority to call for and examine evidence, place witnesses under oath and compel testimony, etc. These are powers that seek to assure that the judgment will be as just as is humanly possible. The judgment of an individual could never hope to be just, because these powers are lacking.

The difference between judging and discerning is that judgment carries with it an official declaration of someone's state as either (in the case of sin), lost or in rebellion against God vs. saved or blessed, or (in the case of crimes) either a criminal or not a criminal. Also the authority to judge also bears with it the authority to sentence. The church can excommunicate (or declare them to be outside of Israel in the OT,) and deny the sacraments, and the state can execute, require restitution, etc., as appropriate. These judgments were considered binding because of the God-given authority of the church or state.

So someone is in the church if the church says they are and someone is a criminal if the state says they are. Both types of judgment are subject to human error. No individual, (that is, not vested with official authority) as the verses she quoted say well, could ever be qualified to judge as an individual unless he or she was without sin. (First take the log out of your own eye...) Only one person ever qualified on that score, and He is the judge of all, under whom all human judges serve.

In medieval Europe this distinction between church and state had become blurred. The officials of the states were ruling state churches, appointing church leaders, and compelling people to worship there and/or not worship elsewhere. All this was counter to the Biblical system and it was one of the main political issues of the Reformation.

This is the problem the Establishment Clause was addressing. Our government was clearly and precisely prohibited from taking any powers of the church, including regulating worship, judging sin, etc.

However, this does not mean that the state does not have the authority to judge crimes, or that that judgment cannot be based upon a Biblical definition of those crimes. For example, the Scriptures define the degrees of manslaying our system of laws uses: premeditated murder, unpremeditated murder, and manslaughter. And these are definitions of crimes, not definitions of sins. The definition of murder as a sin is much broader, and even includes hateful thoughts, though the state is not given the authority to judge those kinds of lesser cases.

Margaret speaks of a free will. If she means that in the sense of a freedom of conscience, (as opposed to the theological understanding of those words), I heartily agree. This concept, too, is entirely Biblical. Biblical government (both church and state) is very limited on what areas it can judge. For example, coveting is a sin, but no church or state authority is ever seen in Scripture to have the authority to find someone guilty of it. That is a matter of individual conscience and God will ultimately judge. Also, the American founders recognized that different churches had come to differing conclusions on issues of worship, however, they chose not to interfere with them, but to allow individuals to decide which church, if any, they would bind themselves to, and leave it to the church authorities to judge those things.

However, just because the conscience is left free to discern in some areas, does not mean it is free to discern in all areas. We are not free to murder or rape, for example. I think most people would agree on that whether they are coming to that from a Scriptural basis or not.

So when Christians say rape is wrong and a crime, and cite a Scripture to support that assertion, most people wouldn't object, because they agree with the conclusion, if not the source. However, when someone says unborn life has legal standing and quotes Scripture for that, suddenly the Christian is said to be foisting his or her morality on someone else or blurring the line between Church and State. Because one disagrees with the conclusion, one attacks the source, rather than admit that in both cases the Christian relied on an authoritative source outside of him- or herself, and the non-Christian relied on his or her own self-defined source. Somehow, the person with the Biblically-informed opinion is to be considered less than the person with the self-informed opinion. Yet both are opinions, aren't they?

But I think people who do not view the Bible as authoritative fear large groups of people who do, because they see the Bible as conflicting with their way of life. Likewise, those who see the Scriptures as authoritative fear what will happen when they see large groups of people who do not share that conviction, because they fear that rights their Creator has endowed may not continue to be protected by a godless state. There is a mutual mistrust or fear, and if we are not careful, that mistrust can become bitterness and hatred, neither of which is helpful in solving the issues we need to settle in order to live with one another. (I believe that happens on both sides.)

Let me criticize my own. Christians sometimes err by attempting to legislate, in both the church and the state, where God gives freedom of conscience. One historical example comes to mind from our country's prohibition days. The move to prohibit alcohol was driven by Christian groups. However, though the Scriptures prohibit drunkenness, they do not prohibit alcohol altogether. The law violated the liberty of conscience we spoke of before, and Christians, in my opinion, would have been wise to reject the legislation on that basis.

As Christians in the marketplace of ideas, we do expect our voices to be heard, and our standing in politics and in the courts to be equal to those who claim to be nonreligious. Yet, reading criticisms such as Margaret's ought to also remind us that we must communicate fairly and without bitterness, even as we hold to the absolute truths that God declares in His Word, and we ought to guard ourselves against attempting to bind anyone where the Scriptures leave us free.

The Source of All Authority

And Jesus came and spoke to them saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." Matthew 28:18

In this verse Jesus claims to be the possessor of all authority. So from where does human authority derive? How is it that a human authority can justly place any restrictions on us, if it is Jesus who has all authority? The answer is, of course, through delegation.

A shop owner might be said to have all authority, over his business. Yet, he might delegate certain authority to some employees. Perhaps one is authorized to make up the work schedule for part time employees and to approve of overtime when the owner is absent and the store is very busy. However, this same employee is not given authority in other areas. For example, he cannot hire someone new or hand out pay raises. When authority is delegated, it is delegated within defined areas, and remains under the higher authority of the one who delegates it.

This concept of clearly defined areas of delegation is essential to determining the difference between just rule and tyranny. If a ruler makes a claim to have authority over others in a certain area, he must show how that authority has been derived.

The Scriptures do make some direct statements of authority and responsibility. In Romans 13 there are statements affirming the right of the civil government to wield the sword and compel taxes to accomplish their work. Deuteronomy 6 places the responsibility to educate children with parents. The pastoral letters to Timothy and Titus, and Jesus’ instructions in Matthew 18 directly give responsibility and authority to church leaders.

At other times, instruction is less direct. The civil laws for Israel do not necessarily apply directly to the laws of other nations at other times, but the principles they teach do apply. For example, Deuteronomy 22:8 says that when new houses are built, a parapet, or a fence must be built around it so there might not be guilt brought upon the family if someone falls from it. Certainly there is little need for American law to require fences around all our roofs, as we have, in most cases, pitched roofs and we are not in the habit of sleeping or dining on them. Even though the law does not apply directly in our case, the principle behind it does. Civil governments wishing to impose laws about deck railings, swimming pool fences, or barriers around construction sites can point to this law and demonstrate that civil governments have the authority to require property owners to protect people from hazards.

Applying the principles of delegated specific authority can clarify many questions about the justice of laws and rules within church and civil governments. The church has the authority to judge immoral behavior. Yet if a church body requires a standard of behavior where the Scriptures give freedom, they have become tyrannical on that point. Likewise, the civil government has been charged with the responsibility of protecting the lives and property of the people. When it claims authority where it has not been delegated, it, too, has become tyrannical on that point. Sometimes they do this as they take responsibility for areas with which other governments are charged (For example they may take education from the family and caring for the poor from families and churches.), and in some cases they attempt to rule where God has given no man authority over another, such as judging the thoughts in so-called hate crimes.

By remembering the boundaries within which Jesus Christ has delegated human authority, we can avoid capricious and sinful intrusion into the lives, liberty and property of the people so they might be free to serve God in the callings in which He has placed them.

This and That

Welcome New Readers!

If you are new to Wittenberg Gate, be sure to check out the Favorite Posts on the left sidebar. Thanks to Michelle Malkin for her kind words and for sending lots of folks my way today.

Civil Rights Legislation Breaks New Ground

Be sure to read Joshua Clayborn of In the Agora on new civil rights legislation in Illinois. He says:

What makes Illinois unique is that unlike most municipal prohibitions on sexual orientation discrimination, Illinois does not expressly exempt religious organizations from their coverage. What does this mean, practically speaking? The bill may very well compel religious organizations to set aside convictions about homosexuality when hiring clergy and other staff.

Read the whole post here. I wonder why we haven't heard more of this story.

Curriculum Adjustment

Homeschool at our house has had a change of lesson plans for the last two days. All other lessons have been set aside in favor of some real-life economics lessons. So far we have learned:

* Letting potential customers know of your service shortly before they need it (in our case once the weather report predicted snow, but before the storm started) gives you a jump on the competition.

* Hard work brings financial rewards.

* Doing a very good job results in repeat business (in this case after the second round of the storm).

* Being faithful when there is little accountability (in this case the uninhabited house that was to be kept looking lived in), brings trust and repeat business.

* Kindness in the name of Christ (helping the widowed and the infirmed without pay) needs no financial reward.

Sometimes snow shovels teach more than textbooks.

Are You a PCA Blogger?

David Wayne of JollyBlogger is starting an aggregator site for blogs written by folks who are members of PCA churches and in agreement with the Westminster Standards. If that's you, stop by his site and let him know of your interest.

The PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) is a small denomination, but we sure have a lot of bloggers! I'm meeting more every day. Many are pastors, many are laymen, and a lot of us are ladies. I guess the Internet is a medium that suits the typical Presbyterian approach to the Scriptures...analyze, systematize, then get it down in writing! (A great approach, I think, as long as we remember to live it out.)

Broken Leaders and Second Chances

Last week I wrote about the Biblical qualifications for leadership after reading a post by La Shawn Barber about Newt Gingrich's character flaws. On his blog, James Jewell of the Rooftop Blog posed an interesting question to La Shawn and I,

"Newt will have to deal with the character issue openly and honestly. But ladies, don’t politicians get second chances, too?"

I think this is a great question and, as Christians, one with which we have to wrestle. What is the role of repentance, forgiveness, and second chances at leadership?

These are the issues I think we need to consider: 1) the words of repentance, 2) the immediate works of repentance, 3) a record that demonstrates victory over this sin.

In My Name

It happened again today. In the mail was notification that we are included in a class action lawsuit against someone with whom we do business. It works something like this. A group of lawyers decide they want to make some money, so they pick a nice big corporation, such as an insurance company, and find some reason--it doesn't matter how trivial--to sue them. They file the necessary papers and then, in the discovery phase, they compel this company to supply the names of their customers. Then they sue in the name of those customers. My name. They sue in my name. I don't hire these lawyers. I don't want to hire these lawyers. I'm perfectly happy with my insurance company, and I want them to make money for the service they provide, and I want their expenses to be as low as possible, so my insurance premiums remain low. Nevertheless, they are being sued in my name. Then the lawyers settle out of court, and take millions of dollars in "legal fees," from this company for the work they did in my name so I could gain some worthless something.

A rock shattered my windshield once. (That's windscreen for my British readers.) I called the insurance company from the school at which I was teaching at the time. They sent a glass company to my workplace that very day and replaced the windshield on my van while I worked. Was I pleased? Pleased as punch. I even called my agent to compliment him on the wonderful service. However, for this incident, they were sued in my name. The basis of the suit? It is alleged they didn't make it clear enough to me that they weren't installing original factory parts. Actually, my agent did give me the option to choose factory parts, which would have involved a much more inconvenient process. But the truth doesn't matter so much here, does it? My gain? If I had the paperwork from several years before when the incident happened, I could apply for a refund of a small portion of any money I spent.Of course I didn't spend any. But the lawyers got millions for suing in my name.

Biblical Qualifications for Leadership

La Shawn Barber has written a piece on why she would not support Newt Gingrich as the Republican presidential nominee. She feels his character flaws, especially infidelity, disqualify him for elected office. As much as I like Newt in other respects, I tend to agree. Reading her piece got me to thinking about what qualities we are told in the Scriptures to look for as we are choosing leaders.

Exodus 18:14-24 records the advice Moses' father-in-law Jethro gave him when Moses was burdened by the task of judging crimes and civil cases among the people of Israel. Jethro advises Moses on what kind of men to choose to serve as judges. First Timothy, in the third chapter and also the first chapter of Titus also give us qualifications for church leaders. Using these passages as a reference, I have compiled the following list of biblical leadership qualities:

Dred Scott & Roe v. Wade

Check out this fascinating comparison of the Dred Scott case to Roe v. Wade by Joshua Davey on the Letters from Babylon web site. Both cases involve the Supreme Court finding extra-constitutional "rights," on which to base their decisions.

Deut. 4:9 Lest they depart...

A teacher in California was prohibited from giving his students copies of the Declaration of Independence and other historical documents because they referenced God.

A Maryland school district ruled that the history of the Pilgrims and Thanksgiving will be taught with any references to God or Christianity forbidden.

Dear Christian brothers and sisters, are YOUR children still in the government schools?

Maryland! My Maryland!

Explaining why it is Maryland school students will be taught about the first Thanksgiving without reference to the fact that it was God the Pilgrims were thanking, the St. Mary's County Public School curriculum director said, "We teach about Thanksgiving from a purely historical perspective, not from a religious perspective."  (according to this Fox News story)

An historical perspective? What sort of historical perspective leaves Christianity out the story of the Pilgrims?

From the Maryland State song:

The despot's heel is on thy shore,

Maryland!

His torch is at thy temple door,

Maryland!

Avenge the patriotic gore,

That flecked the streets of Baltimore,

And be the battle queen of yore,

Maryland! My Maryland!