Aren’t you in essence saying here that an Authority’s power is contingent on the efficaciousness of their decisions? What then is the point of Authority if it’s up to those underneath it to judge the wisdom or effectiveness of an authority’s actions before following orders?
1 Like
BTW, the Great Ejection was over worship—not masks, quarantines, or vaccines. Which is what I was saying before: those in the tradition of anabaptists are inclined to run amuck with their conscience against civil authorities. They refuse to limit it to worship and faith, but claim everything as matters of faith—and thus their fighting Luther, Calvin, etc. as they sought to overthrow their civil authorities.
Also if one wants to go to England’s Civil Wars, note well that the Independents fought the Presbyterians and the Presbyterians fought each other as well as the Independents, not to mention each faction among them fighting the Church of England. So, after biting and devouring each other for a number of years, they all let out a great gasp and the wars ended with the restoration of the King, and look what we have now. It’s what I’d expect if our agitators today actually had the courage of Oliver Cromwell and did what they threaten, and started shooting. Even if they were able to man up and start shooting their intentions, they could neither rule nor be ruled. It would be mayhem.
Then, take a look at the New England Puritans who a few years after arriving and setting up their theocracy, split over both Arminianism and Sacramentalism. As Cotton Mather put it, they had to invent the Halfway Covenant (about both baptism and communion) because their whole purpose in coming over was to protect the souls of “our lambs.” So again, how did that all work out? Whether or not Joseph S. is demonstrating anabaptist rejection of civil authority is something I’ll leave him to talk about. What I’m talking about are much better-known agitators today who have divided churches across the country, and divide them still. Love,
2 Likes
If that was as a result of laws on the books, I’ll humbly retract my assertion.
Laws on Sunday commerce (and blue laws for that matter) are slightly different however.
This is a great question, getting to the heart of some of our discussions while working on this statement.
Yes, in some sense, authority is contingent on its decisions. In cases where an authority countermands God, we understand his authority fails to justify his command. But there are other ways for an authority to delegitimize his commands. If they are illegal, for example.
In this case we have an overstepping of authority not on the basis of “you can’t ever address this question” but rather on the basis of “this case doesn’t justify it.”
It’s easy to see examples. Doctors have the authority in some cases to hold a child for medical care for the child’s protection. But the doctor must have a very good reason for overriding the authority of the parents. A child being overweight because the parents feed him junk food and don’t discipline him is not enough of a reason. A parent may disregard the command of a doctor to leave the child for liposuction in such a case. They could fight it in court, or they could just take their child and walk out.
1 Like
Interesting example that. I think it’s Bonhoeffer who argued they had to obligation to fight (and essentially die) for their nation as a result of their failure to bring a better government in then they had. He wasn’t saying go join the SS, but he didn’t see disagreement with the regime as negating one’s needing to honour and even suffer for their father-land.
I’m not doubting he would declare being forced to fight and die to be God’s judgment on their failure, but I’d like to see some reference for him saying there was an obligation to fight for the Nazi’s.
I’ve yet to see any meaningful pushback on this. There just seems to be an assumption that Rutherford had masks in mind in Lex Rex or that his logic would apply to masks.
1 Like
The Stuarts won the Restoration, to be sure, but Parliament won its decisive victory when it established its supremacy over the crown in the Glorious Revolution. That led in a mostly straight line to where we are now where Queen Elizabeth finds herself with less real power in the British constitution than a mid-level functionary in the NHS.
I believe it was.
Even in the 1990s, the “X Number of Shopping Days Till Christmas!” feature on the front page of my local newspaper did not count Sunday as a shopping day, though I believe most department-type stores were open on Sundays by then. I can’t recall clearly though, as we did almost all of our shopping in NH!
Laws on Sunday commerce are called “Blue Laws” in Massachusetts and the Mass state government manages multiple pages with the term “Blue Laws” in their title.
The Blue Laws in Massachusetts grew directly from a Puritan understanding of the Sabbath and a Puritan view of civil government.
But who judges if they are illegal? In our system we have defined court procedures for this, but what to do when the Supreme Court is itself lawless? Ultimately the men with weapons do what the Supreme Court tells them to do.
Tomayto Tomato. If this is what we are arguing about, I couldn’t care less if you want to make that distinction. It’s angels on a pinhead to me.
The French Huguenot book vindiciae contra tyrannos argues not only in defense against tyrants on the issue of worship and faith but in respect to civil abuse. They were hardly anabaptists. Lex Rex isn’t just about issues of worship but is specifically the idea that the king must obey the law.
Francis Schaeffer said part of our problem is that we see things in bits and pieces. Masks and vaccine mandates are bits and pieces and if we take them as bits and pieces then yes it’s absolutely silly that we would make a big deal about them. But these bits and pieces are of a whole cloth in which our civil magistrates have disregarded the authority of other spheres, have played the part of tyrants, disregarding their oath of office for years and years.
I’ve been racking my brain trying to figure out what the difference between you guys and those who shall not be named. The closest thing I can think of is that there is a fundamental difference in how you see these “overreaches” with Covid. It seems to me that you all see them on one hand as just more of the same and so as bits and pieces not that much to write home about. Whereas those “beligerators” see them as also fitting into what the civil magistrates have been doing for years but as bits and pieces they are a huge leap forward in that direction which ought to be fought now before they are allowed to take precedent and become the norm.
I don’t know if that makes sense but God bless
1 Like
It’s getting hard to take you seriously, brother.
1 Like
We’ve certainly gone around and around this one already, but let me try to take a hack at it.
First, we all thought long and hard about whether or not we could, in good conscience, 1) wear masks, or 2) get vaccinated. Final opinions vary somewhat, and some here wear masks/are vaccinated, and some don’t and aren’t. But we determined that it’s no sin to do either of those things, and many churches, including the ones you reference above, indicate that it is. And they encourage people to leave their church over it.
And so, you’re right, I believe that the agitating about masks and vaccines is out of proportion when you compare it to things like abortion or the loss of freedom of speech going on right now.
And if you combine the binding of men’s consciences about masks and vaccines with the clear political opportunism of the agitation in a country that absolutely hates authority… I think it’s a toxic-no-good-very-bad mix.
We talk about this precise thing on today’s episode of the Out of Our Minds podcast beginning around 18:43, and I think it’s a helpful discussion.
3 Likes
Seriously? I’m gobsmacked and rest my case. Wow. As I’ve said to you in person, you need to learn how to argue. Love,
This, too, is related to authority. In the past it was understood that the servant was morally obligated to obey his master if it did not require engaging in immoral actions, and for this reason, the servant was not held responsible for immoral decisions made by the master that were outside the control and knowledge of the servant. Accordingly, private soldiers who did not personally engage in atrocities have never been charged with war crimes or viewed as responsible for unjust wars carried out by their nation’s leaders. And it’s not merely an issue of “just following orders” – the private soldier is simply not in a position to judge the justness of a war because he is not privy to the information available to the leaders. All nations declare their wars are just and provide reasons. How is the private soldier going to know whether there really are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that will shortly be used to attack America or whether French ships are really going to be handed over to Germany?
It may sound like a great idea to propose that a private person may conscientiously object to this war but not that war or this vaccine but not that vaccine, but this places a heavy yoke on people. If it is claimed that a private person may judge the rightness or wrongness of a decision made by a superior, then it necessarily follows that the private person must judge the rightness or wrongness of a decision made by a superior. After all, when one is in a position to make a moral judgement, then one is obligated to make a moral judgement – there’s no longer any good faith exemption. But how can a private person have all the information needed to judge rightly? I would hate to carry that moral burden.
Getting more specific, public health authorities and civil magistrates have an obligation before God to preserve the health of the people, and one day they will be judged on the rightness or wrongness of any decision to mandate or recommend vaccines or masks, or any decision to not mandate or not recommend vaccines or masks. If I submit to their decisions in good faith, then God will not judge me even if their decisions are wrong. But if I decide that they don’t have the right to tell me what to do or that their recommendations are stupid so I won’t follow them, then I am making myself accountable before God for whether my own decisions are right or wrong with respect to preserving public health. Do I think I know more than the public health authorities and can make better decisions than they? No. Even though I’ve certainly had my doubts and made my criticisms of those in authority, I wouldn’t want to take on the responsibility of the public health of the people with my limited knowledge as a private person.
Bottom line: anyone who decides not to submit to civil magistrate with regard to vaccines/masks/etc. is going to be accountable before God if their actions cause other people to become sick or die. Maybe not submitting is still the right thing to do, but let’s make sure we are fully aware of the moral burden that is being taken on. And let us not think that in freeing ourselves from submission to the civil magistrate that we are not also taking on the obligations that the civil magistrate has before God.
12 Likes
I think there are numerous examples in Scripture of subordinates doing things under the order of a superior that we 21st Century Schizoid Men would judge as sin, but Scripture apparently does not.
Great point and great example.
2 Likes
Well we are sitting here arguing over writing a letter of recommendation versus a letter for religious exemption. I don’t really care to argue that distinction. If you want to make that distinction then go ahead. I’m not wanting to debate that.
You can’t see the difference between saying “our church’s official teaching requires parishioners to…” vs “so-and-so sincerely believes he must…”?
Surely that distinction is clear.
Likewise, the content of what you’re willing to publicly declare as the official teaching of your church, vs the content of what one of your members believes is a major difference that certainly matters.
If you want to call those distinctions so minor as to be wrangling about angels on pinheads, then there is no purpose to having the Westminster Standards for pastors vs a simple believable profession of faith for members.
5 Likes
Well, every individual has the opportunity to judge it and then it will be tried in court if one disobeys and is charged.
In the end, if something illegal or immoral is judged legal, over our opposition, and the men with guns come to punish us, we will suffer for doing right, rather than wrong. Unless we are wrong, in which case we will suffer for thinking we are right but actually being wrong. Which is part of the reason we should hesitate to simply act on our own judgment without concern for what those in authority over us tell us.
That’s part of what Joel is getting at here:
Yes, but the converse is also true. The deeper the knowledge and control the deeper the responsibility.
Agreed.
But on the flip side, if no Christian ever stands up for the authority of the other spheres, then there is a long historical track record of those other authorities being forfeit. And the damage from that is also real. We are accountable to God for not having said “no” to the authorities at some points where we should have known better what was going on. The engineer driving the trains to Auschwitz may or may not be convicted under human law, but God looks at the heart.
3 Likes
Dear Joseph, I’ve repeatedly said to you that the difference is they call people to leave their church over masks. From the beginning of Covid, they have promoted schism. Then they brag they have brought a bunch of people into their church by doing so. But, as one pastor quoting his elder in regard to them put it to me in an email yesterday, “What you win them with is what you win them to.” After saying this for a year and a half, I’d prefer not to repeat ourselves again. Love,
2 Likes
Thanks for this, Joel. It crystallizes some things that have been inchoate in my mind. It is no sin to obey the authorities when they are foolish, unless they are leading you into sin. On the other hand we take on a great responsibility when we make ourself judge over those who have been placed above us. I do believe we should defend the prerogatives of various spheres of authority, but we should do so with humility, not over sure of our abilities in judgement.
5 Likes