Tag Archives: Freedom

A Draft Brief on the Importance of the Court Protecting Freedom of Speech and Religion

16 Friday Jul 2021

Posted by in law

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

I am currently working on a brief in a federal case involving the Virginia Values Act. This is a law whose effect is to require some to photograph a same sex wedding or sell book which advocates a particular sexual morality even when it conflicts with their religion to do so. Since the refusal in this instance is certainly the unpopular position (the law was made by the elected officials, which makes this the majority position), and since it would be surprising that some (or all) of the judges or their clerks would think a religious objection to bigoted if not immoral, it is necessary first to explain the importance of protecting these people and their opinions, even if the majority of the public and even if the judge (or clerk) believes otherwise. The First Amendment is put in place specifically to protect that which “we” find abhorrent.

We should also remember that freedom of speech and freedom of religion function when it is protected for all of us. If the government, at my request, has the power to shut down your speech, tomorrow the government will have the power to shut down my speech.

(This is a draft, so there will typos, missing words, and such. If anyone is kind enough to offer criticism, such as I don’t understand this sentence, please do. This also is not the entire argument. It is merely a preface.)

IT IS THE DUTY OF THIS COURT TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF AMICI PRECISELY BECAUSE THEIR BELIEFS ARE NOT THE MAJORITY POSITION

         When any two human beings come together in any sort of society, there will be things upon which they disagree[1]. When those disagreements are trivial, a preference for chartreuse over forest green, the disagreement is tolerated if it is noted at all. 

         The trivial warrants no response and thus causes no conflict nor needs any protection. 

         However, when we move to matters of greater concern, matters of religion, of politics, those matters which make us human by which we define ourselves[2], we find the grace of overlooking a distinction or even civil toleration difficult.

         In matter of impiety, Socrates must be sentenced to death. When one’s dignity is assaulted, Hamilton must die at Burr’s gun. When tribes differ in religion, war erupts. When politics clash, the entire world can plunged into war on all sides. And should political distinctions arise within a country, dissidents are “disappeared.” 

         Matters of human sexuality touch upon all these points at once[3]. It is undisputed by anyone that human sexual plays a fundamental point in religions. Buddhist monks are monks[4]. A man in Mali may have multiple wives[5], and a Roman Catholic priest in Italy may have none. The male priests of Cybele in the Roman Empire castrated themselves and dressed as women[6]. The ancient Hebrews were forbidden to dress as the opposite sex[7]. Shakers lived in a communal life; but also lived celibate lives[8]. 

         That human beings choose among these variations and far more is undisputed. It is also undisputed that the human beings who make these determinations do so honestly and in good faith. They believe that their personal good and the good of the society in which they live in part depends upon their moral decisions in the matter of sexuality[9]. 

         Moreover, the belief held by various people seem to be undisputable and matters of common sense. Even matters upon which we all hold to abhorrent and criminal are matters upon which others have disagreed. Pedophilia was tolerated among the Roman aristocracy. Moreover, the glorious history of the city of Rome included the kidnap and rape of the Sabine women. In our recent history, the members of Isis under the guise religion approved kidnap, rape, and slavery of women. Slavery was shamefully tolerated in the United States for nearly 100 years of nation (and longer when we count it in the colonies). Aztecs worshipped their god by murdering parents before children so that they could murder the child while the child was weeping. 

         How then will we resolve these matters? Our options range between (enforced) conformity of opinion and conduct or civil toleration. All decisions will entail a combination of both: conformity here, toleration there.

         We in America demand conformity among everyone in agreeing that pedophilia, kidnapping, rape, slavery, murder are utterly abhorrent and not to be tolerated under any circumstances. (And rightly so.) Our civil tolerance turns upon the concept of consent: a child does not consent; the victim of rape does not consent. 

         And while consent is the moral boundary which marks our degree of civil toleration when it comes to conduct; there is no need for consent when it comes to opinion. Indeed we hold that one may advocate for these matters provided they do not result in the conduct.[10]

         When it comes to what I think, believe, hold dear, or despise; I do not need your consent, nor do you need mine. I will make my decision about such things; you will make yours. The government will not become involved unless you infringe upon my conduct and either coerce or prevent me from making my own decision in such matters. 

         Only where your belief results in violence to my body or property will the government will the government impose itself. As Thomas Jefferson stated the principle, which has been repeatedly found in the law:

The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subjects to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

(Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVII, “Religion”)

         It is the resolution which we have reached in matters of religion and politics. The European wars between Roman Catholics and Protestants during the Colonial Period of America and the religious wars which are taking place in our time in many places do not have a place in America. In some other country, the people may take up weapons over opinion and religion. In our country, these things cannot be matters of war. It the job of the government is to keep the peace and permit both sides to hold vigorously disputed and contradictory position. 

         This toleration does not mean that each individual feels happy about that toleration. We each, confirmed in the commonsense and moral goodness of our own position, think those who disagree to be either mad or immoral. Thus, the temptation always arises to seek an imposition of conformity to our position. 

         That desire for conformity and the rejection of that conformity is made in good faith; it is made honestly. Should you and I disagree, we will seek to rescue the other from error (and from the concomitant danger to our society)[11]. If enough agree with me or with you, we will go to the legislature and demand a law prohibiting the exhibition of this dangerous, offensive position. 

         That is the nature of the world. Laws prohibiting blasphemy and lese majeste are not uncommon in history. The State Department has published advisements about current laws prohibiting blasphemy[12] and lèse majesté[13] around the world. The laws are always popular: A majority constituency is always pleased[14].

         And if it were not for the independence of the judiciary, such laws would be promulgated and enforced throughout this country. But there are courts: these courts were put into place precisely because the temptation to maximize conformity to the general will always be the most popular to reach a psychological state of comfort for the greatest number of people. 

         This is not to deny that the psychological state is a good. The distress that an honest adherent feels by those who disagree may be profound. It does feel degrading to hear and see those who disagree do so publicly.[15]

         But, however important that psychological well-being, even the psychological well-being of the greatest number, and however much the individual judge in personal life sympathizes with one-side in the debate, the duty remains that the individual having donned a robe and taken an oath has the obligation to protect the speech and religion of those whom the judge personally finds repellant. 

         As Justice Stevens wrote, “[T]he federal courts — and particularly this Court — have a primary obligation to protect the rights of the individual that are embodied in the Federal Constitution.” ( Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 267 (1989), Stevens, J., concurring; Cobell v. Norton 212 F.R.D. 14, 20, (D.D.C. 2002) [“ the Court is mindful of its obligation to protect the free speech rights of defendants.”])

         Moreover, “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.” (Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2593) That is not a liberty which ends merely because you do not like or approve my identity, or because you find my identity, my opinions, or beliefs wrong. And where the political process will not act to protect fundamental rights to speech, to religion, it is the duty of the court to protect those rights even for those whose beliefs and opinions do repel the majority:

The dynamic of our constitutional system is that individuals need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. The Nation’s courts are open to injured individuals who come to them to vindicate their own direct, personal stake in our basic charter. An individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act.

(Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2605.). The issues raised by the Virginia Values Act (the “VVA”) concern not merely speech and religion, but speech and religion which touches upon the most fundamental values as human beings and fundamental rights as those within the protection of the Constitution. As Justice Kennedy explained in arguing that same-sex marriage was protected by the constitution:

[T]he right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause. See 388 U.S., at 12, 87 S.Ct. 1817 ; see also Zablocki, supra, at 384, 98 S.Ct. 673 (observing Loving held “the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals”). Like choices concerning contraception, family relationships, procreation, and childrearing, all of which are protected by the Constitution, decisions concerning marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make. See Lawrence, supra, at 574, 123 S.Ct. 2472. Indeed, the Court has noted it would be contradictory “to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society.” Zablocki, supra, at 386, 98 S.Ct. 673.

(Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2599 (2015).) The VVA (as applied to Amici) seeks not merely to give space to one opinion but to foreclose all others. The constitutional privileges and obligations of the courts which led to Obergefell establishing a right to same-sex marriage, likewise give protection to those who disagree with the decision, whose religious beliefs or conscience conclude differently. Indeed, the very importance and sensitivity of the subject and the importance to all involved is precisely why this Court must protect those interests:

As Stromberg and Lovell demonstrate, there are some purported interests — such as a desire to suppress support for a minority party or an unpopular cause, or to exclude the expression of certain points of view from the marketplace of ideas — that are so plainly illegitimate that they would immediately invalidate the rule. The general principle that has emerged from this line of cases is that the First Amendment forbids the government to regulate speech in ways that favor some viewpoints or ideas at the expense of others. See Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 65, 72 (1983); Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, 447 U.S. 530, 535-536 (1980); Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 462-463 (1980); Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 63-65, 67-68 (1976) (plurality opinion); Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95-96 (1972).

(City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 804 (1984)) In the act of protecting the minority position, the Court protects the dignity of those persons as human beings:  “our basic concept of the essential dignity and worth of every human being — a concept at the root of any decent system of ordered liberty. ” (Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. (1985) 472 U.S. 749, 769 [citation and internal quotation marks removed])

         This dignity is upheld by means of the Court prohibiting the political branches from forbidding certain opinions and dictating others. In fact, by forbidding restrictions on speech – even unpopular speech — the Court upholds the legitimacy of the political branches by maintaining the democratic and republican ideals. 

         First, where citizens conclude that they cannot speak, that they cannot influence, they will begin to conceive of the government not as representative of them but as a tyranny that rules over them. 

         Second, the presupposition of a democratic system is that you have the same moral value as me: we are “created equal” and have equal merit to voice our opinions and give our vote. To the extent we have the power to shut-up or shut-down our fellow citizens using the power of the government, we undermine the legitimacy of the government. 

         Third, it protects the right to hear ideas with which I currently disagree:

The constitutional guarantee of free speech “serves significant societal interests” wholly apart from the speaker’s interest in self-expression. F irst National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 776 (1978). By protecting those who wish to enter the marketplace of ideas from government attack, the First Amendment protects the public’s interest in receiving information. See Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 102 (1940); Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., 417 U.S. 843, 863-864 (1974) (POWELL, J., dissenting).

Pacific Gas Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n (1986) 475 U.S. 1, 8. It is because the issues raised by this appeal are of such importance to the people on all sides that the Court’s obligation is to make room for speech and religion (even if we will hear things which distress us):

If the topic of debate is, for example, racism, then exclusion of several views on that problem is just as offensive to the First Amendment as exclusion of only one. It is as objectionable to exclude both a theistic and an atheistic perspective on the debate as it is to exclude one, the other, or yet another political, economic, or social viewpoint

Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of University of Virginia (1995) 515 U.S. 819, 831. The First Amendment is offended when anyone is kept from “marketplace”.

         It is that public marketplace, unregulated by the government (in almost all circumstances) that provides the response to those who readily support the law in question. Rather than obtaining government power to forbid my opponent to speak, the sides are to go to their fellow citizens (however much they think the other wrong) and persuade them. Likewise, they can both go to the public and persuade them: Do not patronize that photographer, do not buy books from that publisher, do not hire that painter, because they advocate things which should offend us all. 

         But the government may not do so. 

         The parties herein before the Court contend that the Virginia Values Act, however well meaning, however good for the greatest number, is also precisely the sort of law – when applied to these parties – which offends against the Constitution and which this Court has no choice but to strike down as applied to appellant and as applied to these amici of the Court. 

[1] The literature upon conflict, tolerance, social organization is immense. Plato and Aristotle, opined on the issue. Hammurabi and the Bible law out rules for what may and may not be done or thought. The issues at stake involve political theory, law, psychology (individual and social), et cetera. To provide an example of some contemporary overview of these issues as involved with legal one could perhaps start here: Pluralism and the Law, ed. Arend Soeteman and editor First Name editor Last Name or author special case (Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing, 2001), 1.

[2] “Finding oneself is a misnomer: a self is not found but made.” Jacques Barzun, From Dawn to Decadence(Harper Collins: New York 1972), 785 *****

[3] See, e.g., Carole M. Cusack, ed., Religion, Sexuality, and Spirituality: Critical Concepts in Religious Studies(New York: Routledge, 2016), 1; Mark Jordan, “Spiritual, Sexual—and Religious?,” Harvard Divinity Bulletin (Autumn/Winter 2019), https://bulletin.hds.harvard.edu/spiritual-sexual-and-religious/.

[4] Soko Morinaga, “Celibacy: The View of a Zen Monk from Japan,” Vatican, accessed July 15, 2021, https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_zen_en.html.

[5] Stephanie Kramer, “Polygamy Is Rare Around the World and Mostly Confined to a Few Regions,” Pew Research, December 7, 2020, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/12/07/polygamy-is-rare-around-the-world-and-mostly-confined-to-a-few-regions/.

[6] Benedikt Eckhardt, “Meals in the Cults of Cybele and Attis,” in The Eucharist – Its Origins and Contexts, ed. David Hellholm and Dieter Sänger, vol. 3, Near Eastern and Graeco-Roman Traditions, Archeology (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 1779-94.

[7] Deuteronomy 22:5.

[8] Erin Blakemore, “There Are Only Two Shakers Left in the World,” Smithsonian Magazine, January 6, 2017, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/there-are-only-two-shakers-left-world-180961701/.

[9] “Decision” herein means one’s moral valuation of human sexuality. No inference is made that one chooses their sexual desires as one would choose a pair of shoes. Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2596 (“ Only in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable.”)

[10] See for example, The Atlantic at least obliquely raised a question about mandatory reporting laws for child pornography (Alice Dreger, “What Can Be Done About Pedophilia?” The Atlantic, August 26, 2013, https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/08/what-can-be-done-about-pedophilia/279024/.) And the substance of the article was responded to by The National Review (Wesley Smith, “Normalizing Pedophila 2,” The National Review, August 27, 2013, https://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism/normalizing-pedophilia-2-wesley-j-smith/) The government permitted speech which would be at troubling to many and perhaps overwhelmingly unthinkable to others. The government then permitted a response. We could provide examples pertaining to slavery and racism.

[11] “We see this in the fact that things which were borne for centuries are now declared to be unbearable ….It is tempting for those out of sympathy with this turn to see it simply in the light of illusions; to see authenticity, or the affirmation of sensuality, as simply egoism and the pursuit of pleasure, for example; or to see the aspiration to self-expression exclusively in the light of consumer choice. It is tempting on the other side for proponents of the turn to affirm the values of the new ideal as though they were unproblematic, cost-free and could never be trivialized. Both see the turn as a move within a stable, perennial game. For the critics, it involves the embracing of vices which were and are the main threats to virtue; for the boosters, we have reversed age-old forms which were and are mode of oppression.” Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007), 480.

[12] https://www.osac.gov/Content/Report/8a3d7716-5743-4f14-b430-195206ddb577

Security Alert: Peshawar (Pakistan), Online Threats Against Religious Minorities, ‘Blasphemers’

8/2/2020

[13] “Lèse Majesté: Watching what you say (and type) abroad” 8/29/2019 | Report  OSAC Analysis

https://www.osac.gov/Content/Report/e48a9599-9258-483c-9cd4-169f9c8946f5

[14] Rousseau, general will

[15]  It must be noted that such psychological distress is mutual. The sides have each issued an anathema upon the other. Each side sincerely believes the other benighted. And each side can justify the infliction of psychological distress upon the other with the justification that the other “deserves” to feel bad. 

Philip Rieff, The Triumph of the Therapeutic, 4.1

09 Thursday Jul 2020

Posted by in Freud, Thomas Manton

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Chapter 4: In Defense of the Analytic Attitude

This chapter concerns Freud’s defense of his analysis. To understand this, Rieff notes two distinct understanding of the “theory of theory”.  First, there was the understanding of theory bringing the human into conformity with reality: “They being what we know them to be, the intellectual and emotional task of life is to make our actions confirm to the right order, so that we too can be right.”  The model is the true paradigm. 

There is a natural inherent order which we seek to understand and then order life. The underlying order the “model” (as Rieff) calls it is the point. There is a final end, and that end is God. 

But there is another understanding of theory which sets out to destroy gods. This sort of theory “arms us with the weapons for transforming reality instead of forcing us to conform to it.” (73) There is no purpose, no final cause. Theory is merely a way of navigating an otherwise incomprehensible universe and mitigating the pain of life. “A good theory becomes the creator of power.” (Ibid.)

It is such a power creating, reality bending theory that produces Freud and Marx. 

At this point, Rieff distinguishes Adler and Jung from Freud. Freud sought merely to set forth a theory which would give on the power to choose to live any sort of life.  He would not “cure” anyone: cure was a “religious category.”  (74) “He merely wanted to give men more options than their raw experience of life permitted them.” (74)

Freud’s mechanism leaves one nowhere: you finally kill off the old gods but there is nothing with which to replace it. Rieff notes that Adler and Jung sought to construct a basis for establishing a new cure on the other-side of analysis despite their attempts. 

The end point was the Genesis 3 promise of the Serpent, “You shall be as gods knowing good and evil.” “Freud risked the correlative implication: that healthy men need no gods.” (76)

This second form of theory and its Freudian aim of a man who no longer needs the consolation of religion or the search of a pre-existing meaning and order in nature leaves man as a carver of his good.

Freud’s concept of a world freed of gods leaves every person the one who decides his own good, which has profound implications for law. In a series of cases, the courts have found this power to create one’s own “meaning” as the basis for constitutional rights: 

The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Id., at 851. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows: 

[“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.] [At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.] Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.” Ibid.

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 573-74 (2003). In the dissent of Lawrence, Justice Scalia wrote:

And if the Court is referring not to the holding of Casey, but to the dictum of its famed sweet-mystery-of-life passage, ante, at 13 (“`At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life'”): That “casts some doubt” upon either the totality of our jurisprudence or else (presumably the right answer) nothing at all. I have never heard of a law that attempted to restrict one’s “right to define” certain concepts; and if the passage calls into question the government’s power to regulate actions based on one’s self-defined “concept of existence, etc.,” it is the passage that ate the rule of law. 

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 588 (2003). Scalia’s point is that all law defines some sort of public character: it is a “theory” in the first sense referenced above. But in a series of decisions involving human sexuality and procreation, the courts have adopted a Freudian theory of law, in which freedom from the “gods” of any culture can be set aside. 

But such self-carving of happiness does remain a personal decision – however personally the decision is made:

Incorporating the “mystery of life” logic into these spheres deludes individuals into thinking that personal failures in socially important roles only have personal consequences. Society thus lacks the authority to explain how the personal choice of one hurts the wellbeing of others.

In other words, society cannot say whether marriage ensures that children have the benefit of a mother and a father—marriage is whatever a person wants it to be. Society cannot say whether a child suffers from no-fault divorce—divorce is a personal choice. Society cannot say whether a child is raised by parents in a relationship that society needs to survive—relationships are personal.

Should the detriments of a child’s upbringing become a social harm when he takes society’s reins as an adult, that new adult now also lacks the right moral framework to refine social standards for the benefit of his children.  Life’s “mystery” about what crafts and constitutes good conduct thus endures—even when harmful consequences counsel society to encourage some choices over others from reason and experience.

William Haun, “The “mystery of Life” Makes Law a Mystery,” The Public Discourse (July 26, 2013), https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/07/10091/.  The justification for Freud’s freeing men from deformed gods is that the culture simply no longer functions nor does it provide the ability to define character and human good. These commitment therapies are simply outdated. 

Now perhaps when an occasional person behaves along their on lines there is little communal effect. Indeed, even the most prolific murderer or robber will have only limited effect upon a society of any size. But when there is no communal standards for even the most basic means of living, then the results will profoundly damaging. Freud’s theory made constitutional right will not end well when extended to all. 

As Justice Scalia noted, the doctrine applied consistently means there can be no order, which is precisely the duty of law and culture. But, as Freud contends, there is no order to be had. 

I know that an utterly chaotic society would have been a horror to Freud. I have read nowhere that he was a anarchist. But the results of his analytic theory aim in only one direction. Indeed, he felt that Adler and Jung were wrong to try find a new basis for order. 

On the other side is the first understanding of theory, that human happiness and well-being are defined not by ourselves but by God:

Men would be happy with that kind of happiness which is true happiness, but not in the way which God propoundeth, being prepossessed with carnal fancies. It is counted a foolish thing to wait upon God in the midst of straits, conflicts, and temptations: 1 Cor. 2:14, ‘The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.’ More prejudices lie against the means than the end; therefore, out of despair, they sit down with a carnal choice, as persons disappointed in a match take the next offer. Since they cannot have God’s happiness, they resolve to be their own carvers, and to make themselves as happy as they can in the enjoyment of present things

Thomas Manton, The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, vol. 6 (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1872), 7.

The Freedom of a Christian

26 Friday Jul 2013

Posted by in 1 Peter

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Freedom of the Christian: 1 Peter 2:16

In the midst of his instructions on how the Christian is to live with the State (1 Peter 2:13-17), Peter writes, “Live as people who are free” (1 Peter 2:16a).

There are two aspects in which this is true. First, the Christian is free from the power of the State. Second, the Christian owes allegiance to a power greater than the State.

The power of the State is violence (Romans 13:4). When the State sets boundaries, gives directives or whatnot, the rules and power and are not self-enforcing. Thus, to enforce it power, the State must rely upon violence.

Sometimes the use of force can be a good thing. The ability to stop a murderer rampaging through a playground is good. Paul writes that the State has the power of the sword to stop the “wrongdoer.”  Peter writes that such authority has been given, “to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good” (1 Peter 2:14). (While there may be differences as to what constitutes the “good” or the “evil”, it is a generally assumed position that some-things must be stopped and others rewarded.)

However, the use of force often and easily turns to oppression (Ecclesiastes 4:1-3); therefore, wouldn’t shouldn’t be “amazed” at the matter (Ecclesiastes 5:8), even though we know oppression to be an evil.

Christians, of all people, should be the understanding and sensitive to the matter of oppressive use of political violence. Jesus was executed in a context of political oppression. Pilate’s concerns were profoundly political as well as personal (he was trying to figure a way to avoid a riot, among other concerns). Herod killed James, because it pleased a constituency (Acts 12:1-3). The book of Acts reads in part like a series of political arrests.

Both Peter and Paul would find themselves at the wrong end of Roman political violence. Why then would both counsel a general position of obedience to the government’s laws?

Because ultimately the Christian is “free.”

4 “I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do. 5 But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him! 6 Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? And not one of them is forgotten before God. 7 Why, even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not; you are of more value than many sparrows. Luke 12:4–7 (ESV)

The power of the State can run no further than the edge of the grave.  During the 19th Century wars between the United States and the Plains Indians, the Native Americans learned the US troops wouldn’t cross the Canadian border. To the Native Americans, something magic seemed at work and thus they called it the “medicine line.”

The grave acts as a sort of medicine line which the State cannot cross. When the Christian dies (and dies not at the same time), the Christian is forever free of the State’s conduct.

What the Christian must learn then is the freedom is existent now. The State seeks to gain power by means of fear.  The Christian who follows the instruction of Jesus has nothing to fear. Jesus commands us not to fear the one who can only kill us.

In Pilgrim’s Progress, Timorous and Mistrust come running down the hill due to the lions. Yet, as Christian soon learns, the lions are chained.

Even at its most violent, the State can go no further than permitted by God:

9 He entered his headquarters again and said to Jesus, “Where are you from?” But Jesus gave him no answer. 10 So Pilate said to him, “You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you?” 11 Jesus answered him, “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.” John 19:9–11 (ESV)

Thus, not only is the State’s power limited to violence; even the violence can go no further than God will permit.

In fact, the violence and threat of the State can only work to the Christian’s good. The trial of this world is real and wickedness is common. Yet, even in the infliction of trial, God transforms such trial into blessing:

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. Romans 8:18 (ESV)

16 So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day. 17 For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, 18 as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal. 2 Corinthians 4:16–18 (ESV)

6 In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, 7 so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 1:6–7 (ESV)

3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. 4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” Revelation 21:3–4 (ESV)

Thus, the Christian is free of any constraint imposed by the State.

Second, the Christian is the citizen of another kingdom – and thus not at home in this world. Peter calls Christians “exiles of the dispersion” (1 Peter 1:1); those in a “time of .. exile” (1:17); “sojourners and exiles” (2:11).

13 These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. Hebrews 11:13 (ESV)

Yet, the Christian is not without a home, “Our citizenship is in heaven” (Phil. 3:20). Yet, the Christian does not seek to disrupt the nature of this world with bare political rebellion:

36 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.” John 18:36 (ESV)

The response of the Christian is not for political rebellion. In the end, all political revolution will fail. While history bears this out, the Christian knows that the ultimate reason for oppression is not merely political structures, but sin welling out of the human heart:

20 And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” Mark 7:20–23 (ESV)

Therefore, while the Christian must abhor oppression and wickedness; and while the Christian must call upon those with power to use their power in a righteous manner; we must also realize that such work will always fall far short of what is required. Until God transforms the heart, there can be no real transformation of any individual human being – much less a society.  The Christian must labor as Wilberforce to stand up against wickedness in all its forms. But the Christian must never settle for the lesser goal of a change in law and seek the greater change of a change of heart.

            Application: How then must the Christian live in this world? Does the Christian simply deny all law, being free?

            Of course not. Jesus, Peter, and Paul all instruct Christians, as a general rule, to lead lives of lawful compliance: paying taxes, being civil, et cetera; even though the country and the government have serious bents toward wickedness. However, such obedience is not aim primarily at the civil authority but rather at God. As Peter writes, “Be subject for the Lord’s sake ….” (1 Peter 2:13). The obedience is owed to the Lord alone. Our Lord instructs us to live quiet and peaceable lives in the midst of the countries where we may find ourselves.

            In the second century, Justin Martyr wrote to the Roman Emperor and explained the lives of Christians. He noted that the Christian is no threat to good civil order, because the Christian owes his allegiance ultimately toward God:

And more than all other men are we your helpers and allies in promoting peace, seeing that we hold this view, that it is alike impossible for the wicked, the covetous, the conspirator, and for the virtuous, to escape the notice of God, and that each man goes to everlasting punishment or salvation according to the value of his actions. For if all men knew this, no one would choose wickedness even for a little, knowing that he goes to the everlasting punishment of fire; but would by all means restrain himself, and adorn himself with virtue, that he might obtain the good gifts of God, and escape the punishments. For those who, on account of the laws and punishments you impose, endeavour to escape detection when they offend (and they offend, too, under the impression that it is quite possible to escape your detection, since you are but men), those persons, if they learned and were convinced that nothing, whether actually done or only intended, can escape the knowledge of God, would by all means live decently on account of the penalties threatened, as even you yourselves will admit. But you seem to fear lest all men become righteous, and you no longer have any to punish.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Freedom as Choice

27 Thursday Sep 2012

Posted by in Bruce Ware

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

If, as we’ve argued here, our freedom consistent are choosing to act according to her strongest desires or inclinations, but it stands to reason that we can change her behavior only one or strongest desires and inclinations change. Character transformation is the key to behavior modification. And, of course, this is why Scripture is so consistently concerned with the renewal of our minds, our hearts, our characters, and her inner persons. Only as the spirit of God works in us to transform our deepest desires we choose and act in ways, and increasingly, that are pleasing to the Lord. What hope there isn’t here. We can be assured, as Jesus himself indicated, that is the spirit and the word transform our characters so that we become good trees, the fruit repair will evidence the new trees that we are. Unlike libertarian freedom, which bifurcates character from conduct space parentheses with its insistence on freedom as a suppose it power of contrary choice), space here we take great strength and direction from the fact that is God works to make us increasingly holy in Christ like we live out what we love. Character matters, and it holds the key, ultimately, to living to transform lives that God calls and empowers us to live.

 

Bruce A. Ware, God’s Greater Glory: The Exalted God of Scripture and the Christian Faith (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004), 81.

Bruce Ware: We Act Out of Our Changed Desires

02 Thursday Feb 2012

Posted by in Bruce Ware

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

But the very reason that we are called to work at the transformation of our minds (Romans 12:1 – 2) and the renewal of our characters (Col. 3:8 — 10) is precisely that as we become more like Christ, we  choose and act more like Christ. In other words, we still act out of her natures, even as believers. It’s just that now her natures have been regenerated and they are in the process of renewal. But if we fail to grow and fail to be more and more transformed, we will continue to choose and act out of nature still strongly inclined towards sin. We will do what we want most, and because we are not as transform as we ought to be, we want most of sin. But as we submit to the discipline to the spirit (E. G., Bible meditation, prayer, corporate worship, preaching, teaching), space and as her character undergoes increasing transformation, our “want tos” change. We begin, more and more, choosing an acting according to her deepest desires, but these deepest desires now have changed. By the transformation of her characters, we long more and more to please the Lord, to obey his word, to follow his voice, and in all these ways we live out the true and transform natures of our heart. Believers, then, act out of their natures just as unbelievers do. But by grace, believers are granted new natures that are in the process of transformation necessary to alter radically the deepest inclinations and strongest longings of our hearts.

 

Bibliography:

Ware, Bruce A. God’s Greater Glory: The Exalted God of Scripture and the Christian Faith. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004.

Footnote:
Bruce A. Ware, God’s Greater Glory: The Exalted God of Scripture and the Christian Faith (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004), 94.

Bruce Ware on Freedom

02 Thursday Feb 2012

Posted by in Bruce Ware

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

If, as we’ve argued here, our freedom consistent are choosing to act according to her strongest desires or inclinations, but it stands to reason that we can change her behavior only one or strongest desires and inclinations change. Character transformation is the key to behavior modification. And, of course, this is why Scripture is so consistently concerned with the renewal of our minds, our hearts, our characters, and her inner persons. Only as the spirit of God works in us to transform our deepest desires we choose and act in ways, and increasingly, that are pleasing to the Lord. What hope there isn’t here. We can be assured, as Jesus himself indicated, that is the spirit and the word transform our characters so that we become good trees, the fruit repair will evidence the new trees that we are. Unlike libertarian freedom, which bifurcates character from conduct space parentheses with its insistence on freedom as a suppose it power of contrary choice), space here we take great strength and direction from the fact that is God works to make us increasingly holy in Christ like we live out what we love. Character matters, and it holds the key, ultimately, to living to transform lives that God calls and empowers us to live.

 Bibliography:

Ware, Bruce A. God’s Greater Glory: The Exalted God of Scripture and the Christian Faith. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004.

Footnote:
Bruce A. Ware, God’s Greater Glory: The Exalted God of Scripture and the Christian Faith (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004), 81.