Response to Greg Frazer on Romans 13-Part IV

This post will resume my quest to respond to some of the arguments of Dr. Gregg Frazer regarding Romans 13. Nonetheless, in an attempt to more align my thoughts with the unique character and format of this blog I have modified my quest that was stated in my last post to attempting to explain why many Clergy at the time of the Revolution:

1) Did not believe that the Declaration of Independence was rebellion against God.

2) Believed that the Bible seemed to uphold the duty of the Christian to submit to the institution of government but also allowed(and perhaps demanded)resistance to tyranny in certain circumstances. 3) Validated the THEOLOGICAL and philosophical ideas on government of Shaftesberry and Locke in their pulpits; whether they mentioned them by name or not or agreed with their views on salvation or not.

The sermon that has been the center of this dialogue is the most famous of this period: "Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to Government Powers." It was preached by a man named Jonathan Mayhew and his core theme was that "rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God." For this to be true then the more absolute interpretations of Romans 13 and the extreme doctrines that came with them had to be proven wrong. In short, Mayhew was out to disprove the interpretations of the Bible that lead to the doctrine of the "Divine Right of Kings."

The following is the crux of his argument against a more absolute interpretation that seeks to argue that people must submit to tyrants no matter what they do:

"For what can be more absurd than an argument thus framed? “Rulers are, by their office, bound to consult the public welfare and the good of society: therefore you are bound to pay them tribute, to honor, and to submit to them, even when they destroy the public welfare, and are a common pest to society, by acting in direct contradiction to the nature and end of their office.”

Mayhew is pointing out the inherent contradiction of what Paul would have to be saying if the more absolutist interpretations are to be believed. To interpret this the way loyalists of that day and Frazer do, one would have to believe that Paul was saying not only did we have to submit to people who were obviously violating clear biblical mandates about the duties and obligations of civil rulers but that we had to pay honor to men who were killing people for their own pleasure! Thus, unless one believes that honor is due a tyrant then the first verse of Romans 13 can not mean what they say it does. Either submission does not mean what they say it does or what we are to submit to means something different than what they say it does. In other words, if Frazer and the loyalists are wrong then Paul would seem to be talking about the institution of government in general and not tyrants.

Another sermon of the era, preached by a man named Abraham Keteltas, seems to shed more light on the thoughts of the time on this matter. It was called "God Arising and Pleading His People's Cause." It more or less was stating that God was with the people of the Revolution and was pleading their cause because it was his cause. One would probably ask, If God ordains all authority and the leaders are his anointed then how could the fight of the common people to secure their rights from a King be God's cause?

I think Keteltas sheds great light on this with this excerpt:

"God commanded the Israelites, saying, ye shall not oppress one another. Leviticus 25, 14–17. When the ten tribes had revolted from Rehoboam, because of oppression, and when Rehoboam and Judah went out to fight against them to bring them back to subjection, God sent his prophet to Rehoboam and Judah, saying, ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren! 1 Kings 12, 24. God declared to Abraham, I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee. See also 1. Chron. 16, 22, compared with Psalm 105, 15, where Jehovah is represented, saying, touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm: i.e. God’s anointed people, and not kings, because it is said in the preceeding verse, he suffered no man to do them wrong, yea, he reproved kings for their sake.

If this is to be believed, then God's anointed people can be kings and common folk alike. This would seem to indicate that what God ordained to be submitted to was something different than a tyrant King and possibly just the institution of government itself intimated before.

This brings me to a question that gives us insight into the reasoning behind the Frazer/Loyalist argument:

"If Romans 13 does not mandate subjection to wicked, ungodly, tyrannical rulers -- what sense did it make to the addressees of the letter? What sense did it make to those for whom the letter was written and to whom it was sent -- Christians living under Nero?"

Since this is not a new debate and to bring this discussion into line with the history of this debate lets allow for the fact that Frazer is not just questioning my theological and philosophical line of reasoning when it comes to government. He is questioning a line of reasoning that goes back to Locke, Shaftsberry, and possibly some of the scholastics. I put theological in bold face because it seems that most want to read Locke's Second Treatise and ignore his First Treatise. The first is filled with biblical arguments against the Divine Right of Kings and the second is his philosophical views that are grounded in his theology. Thus, if true, this line of reasoning that Frazer questions is based on a theological argument not a non-theological enlightenment one. In other words, Frazer and company will have to answer the question and stop changing the subject by calling everyone who disagrees with them "Theistic Rationalists."

Thus, I will attempt to answer this question as one who is a modern heir to the theological line of reasoning that Locke and others applied to civil government. With that said, a simple look at the History answers Frazer's question. According to several sources I read, Paul wrote Romans in either 54 AD or 56 AD. Since Nero took office in 54 AD it would seem like this question/argument would destroy the whole "Paul was referring to good government/institution of government line of reasoning" that Mayhew and company used. As I mulled this over yesterday I assumed that Frazer knew his history so I began to doubt Mayhew's whole line of reasoning.

However, after many hours of reciting story after story in the Bible that would seem to contradict the loyalist/Frazer absolute interpretation, I decided to check the history this morning. As it turns out, this is either a foolish question by Frazer or there is something about the History of this I do not know. If it is the former then this is really a non-question because Nero did not start his persecution until around 64 AD or at least 8 years after Romans was written. Simply, one of Frazer's strongest arguments turns out to be paper thin. Nero's persecution seems to have no bearing at all on what Paul wrote which leaves the door open for the argument that says that Paul was talking about submission to the institution of government in general not to unconditionally to tyrants.

Another argument that Frazer uses against the Lockean style of theological reasoning about civil government is that while there are examples in the Bible of men disobeying authority they should never cross the line into resistance or rebellion. When asked what the difference is because they both seem to be NON-SUBMISSION and a violation of Paul's admonition in Romans 13:1, Frazer responds that submission and obedience are two different things. He states that one can disobey an authority and still submit himself to that authority. He adds that we should only disobey if that authority asks us to do something that God commands us not to do.

The following question was posed as a challenge to me:

"You have not responded to my EVIDENCE for the difference between "subjection" and "obedience." I gave you the Greek meanings of the terms and showed you how they are consciously separated in Titus 3:1. You just keep saying they're the same thing -- do you have any EVIDENCE to support your view?

Titus 3:1 states:

"Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good.

I have two thoughts on this. The first is that if submission is absolute in Romans 13 then obedience is absolute according to Titus 3:1. In other words, Paul is telling Titus to tell the people to submit to AND obey the authorities. He adds obedience in this passage to the submission in Romans 13. So this verse actually destroys Frazer's argument that submission is absolute and obedience is conditional. If Romans 13 is absolute then Titus 3:1 has to be as well. Inversely, this would mean that if obedience is conditional then submission must be as well which contradicts Frazer. If I am right there is no way Romans 13 says what he says it means. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Accordingly, we need to look for another explanation.

This brings me to my second thought on this verse. Paul seems to hint at the type of governments he is talking about when he tells the people to be ready to do "good" in their obedience and submission. This seems to go right along with the stream of theological reasoning as handed down by Shaftsberry and Locke that Paul is talking about the institution government in general should be submitted to and obeyed. How could they possibly be ready to do "good" by carry out the commands of a lunatic like Hitler? There has to be more than meets the eye to this right?

Well it seems that there is. In fact, I found a copy of Locke paraphrasing Romans on line last night. I think he can answer for himself as Frazer's line of reasoning continues:

"How can the proper interpretation of a passage of Scripture change based on how it is applied or misapplied? Did God not have a particular message? Did He not know what He was saying -- it depends on how people use it? How could the people to whom the message was originally given know what God wants them to do, since they cannot see into the future to see how men misuse the passage?"

Locke:

"And St. Paul had taught them, in his epistle, that all Christians were free from Mosaic Law. Hence corrupt and mistaken men, especially Jewish converts, impatient as we have observed of any heathen dominion might be ready to infer that Christians were exempt from subjection to the laws of heathen governments. This he obviates by telling them that all other governments derived the power they had from God as well as that of the Jews, though they had not the whole frame of their government immediately from him as the Jews had."

I think his thoughts are self explantory but I think it would be helpful to expound on a couple things. First, is that this kind of interpretation would be consistent with the rest of Romans and epistles in general in that they are often written in response to letters from the people with specific questions and usually to deal with some sort of false teaching that was going on. When Locke uses the phrase "impatient as we have observed of any heathen dominion" refering to the Jewish converts, it would seem that he was referencing other parts of the letter. Accordingly, since most of the letter was written to stress that the Jews were no better than the Gentiles(a common theme in Paul's letter) this would seem to jive. Secondly, from other things I have read, it seems that the people he was writing to were mainly Jewish converts.

In response to Frazer, it would seem that the message that God seems to want to convey according to the theology of Locke, Mayhew, Keteltas, is clear and consistent. It is also specific and relevant to the people of that time as Frazer demands it be. They see that God wants all men to submit to and obey the institution of government itself even if one is a Jew and the government of Gentile. It would seem that they all thought this was as simple as Paul validating Gentile government. It might be possible that he was essentially stating that "all governments, not just Jewish ones, are ordained by God." Also, I think that the fact that Romans 13 was misapplied in the "Divine Right of Kings" is important in that often that is the smoking gun that the the theological interpretation behind the philosophical stance is as flawed as the stance itself. This would seem to be whether Frazer thinks this is relevant or not.

I would also state that some of the doctrines least friendly to liberty were constructed on the shaky foundation of theological interpretations that seek to apply a specific exhortation to a specific people at a specific time and make it universal.(Modern Day Domionists) The best example I can give is Paul telling people it is better not to get married in one letter and in a later letter telling windows to get married if they are going to be busy bodies. Either he changed his mind or there are missing pieces we do not understand because he was addressing a specific audience and more than likely specific questions we are not privy to. I think some of his exhortations to women fall into this trap as well when used to make universal dogma. This can be avoided if we look beyond the surface of what the text seems to indicate to the whole counsel of scripture. We have to realize that there is often information left out of the text of the letters because it would be redundant to the people who are receiving the letter. Thus, a possible reason that "including Non-Jewish" was omitted to give context.

Well enough said. I hope I have done a credible job representing the theological and philosophical ideas on government that were passed on from Shaftsberry to Locke and that made it into numerous pulpits in colonial America during the time of the founding. I know that this dialogue kind of turned into what Tom would call a "intramural battle" of competing doctrines at times. However, I do not want people to lose sight of the three most important points that these posts have tried to make:

1. Many of the Christian philosophical ideas on civil government from the Founding Era are grounded in a stream of theology that is taken from the text of the Bible.

2. That this stream of theology and philosophy on civil government preceded the enlightenment.

3. That to state that these preachers' ideas were shaped more by Enlightenment Philosophy than Christian Theology is wrong.

I part with a quote in response to the charge of number three above from David Barton that I do believe is TRUE:

"While such charges certainly reflect the personal views of these critics, they definitely do not accurately reflect the extended theological debates that occurred at the time of the American Revolution. In fact, contrary to Dr. Cornett's claim that the Founding Fathers turned to Enlightenment rhetoric for validation of the American Revolution, the topic of civil disobedience and resistance to governing authorities had been a subject of serious theological inquiries for centuries before the Enlightenment. This was especially true during the Reformation, when the subject was directly addressed by theologians such as Frenchman John Calvin, German Martin Luther, Swiss Reformation leader Huldreich Zwingli, and numerous others."

Maybe Barton is right about some things. Oh and least someone try to use the old "they are all Theistic Rationalist" lines of thinking, Ketelas was an orthodox as they come judging by the first half of his sermon that was quoted above. From a lot of the reading I have done about Locke I think he was orthodox and liberal. The trouble most have in reading him is that he separated doctrine regarding salvation(Where at first glance he seems Orthodox)from doctrines on civil affairs.(Where he is obviously Liberal) I think we would be wise to do the same and avoid the pitfall of labeling everyone a "Theistic Rationalist" that disagrees with the loyalist/Frazer line of reasoning.

Response to Greg Frazer on Romans 13-Part III

This post is substantially shorter than the book I posted last time. I apologize in that I had no idea how much space what I wrote would take up. Nonetheless, I am going to stay with my theme of attempting to prove that the Declaration of Independence was not rebellion against God, the Bible seems to allow for resistance to tyranny in certain circumstances, and that a proper understanding of Romans 13 played a huge role in the American founding. I intend to continue to accomplish this task within the framework of answering some questions from Dr. Gregg Frazer. Hopefully, this will lay the ground work for a rebuttal to Jon Rowe and Ed Brayton's assertion that the subject of political liberty and inalienable rights are foreign to the Bible. But the idea of "Divine Right of Kings" as being sanctioned by the Bible needs to be exposed as the fraud it is first.


This is second part of my response to a question that Gregg Frazer asked me in regards to several posts on the blog American Creation. The first part went into a more philosophical answer to his question. This part will be based solely on the Bible. This is part of an overall discussion on the proper interpretation of Romans 13 and its application to the American Revolution. This is the first question of 7 he asked me and I will follow up this post with several more until I answer all his questions in thorough way.


Frazer stated:

"You are upset that my view of Romans 13 seems to favor those with the "bigger guns" and you question the legitimacy of regimes founded or maintained thusly. The United States and the current governments of Japan and Germany were established as a result of wars--established by those with "bigger guns." The U.S. expanded itself by wiping out Indian tribes and taking over the land on which they lived. Do you question the legitimacy of these governments? If not, why is my position unreasonable in this regard?"


My second response:


So now that I have answered that I do question the legitimacy of government established through tyranny, in my last post, the only thing left to see if my view is the view of a "Theistic Rationalist" who trumps the literal text of the Bible with my use of "reason" or if the Bible actually could back up what I am saying? Perhaps the place to start would be with the favorite story cited by most self appointed church tyrants to stifle discussion in church: Saul and David. It does say, "Do not touch my anointed" right? Can we simplify and just call it not touching God's "appointed"? This would seem to align with your interpretation of Romans 13 for sure. But let's look a little deeper into the story than most do.

God's "appointed" man for the Israelites was King Saul. Why did God appoint him?:

"So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. They said to him, 'You are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways, now appoint a king to lead us such as all the other nations have."' Why did they want a king?:"And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as King."Essentially, the people of Israel were rejecting God just as they had done off and on since they had left Egypt. So to teach them a lesson in watching what they ask for God, gave them their request.

However, it came with a strong warning about what was going to happen:

"This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves."

The end of having a king was that they would become slaves. The worst part is that God told them that when cried out to Him He would not answer to help them. That is how Saul became king of Israel.

So what about David? He was raised up to replace Saul when Saul had offended God to the point where God felt the need to bring judgement on him. So to cut to the chase one would need to ask why he just does not go and kill Saul and take over since Saul was no longer in God's favor because of his tyranny? The clear answer is that he has an understanding that Saul is God's appointed leader to Israel to bring judgement upon them. When does this judgement end? When God says it does. That is why David does not kill him.

How is this different than the example I gave about Othniel in Judges 3? The Spirit of the Lord came upon him... and he went to war against the invading tyrant. Why? The people had cried out to God and God heard them, sent them a deliverer, and set them free. The question is: Why did God not do this when they cried out about Saul? He said he was not going to listen when they insisted on having a King. It is that simple. Is the story of David proof of some dogmatic order to never revolt? The story of Othniel revolting against the conqueror with bigger guns with the clear aid of God would seem to say no.

Two cases with two different circumstances. The people had turned away from God, an oppressor was sent to get their attention, and in one case a deliverer was sent after 8 years and took the tyrant out and in another case it took much longer and the replacement King waited until God took the tyrant out. Why? In my opinion, in the case of Saul the people of the generation who asked for the king probably had to die off just the the unfaithful generation in the desert. This is certainly debatable but possible. Either way, the people were warned that God was not going to listen and they would become slaves. To revolt would be a clear revolt against the clear will of God.

Another example would be when the people rose up to fight against the Babylonians. God told them not to revolt because he had sent them as judgement. They tried to fight back but nothing worked at all. I feel that this was the same reason that Daniel and the Hebrew boys submitted but disobeyed too.(An argument that you say I did not address but have now numerous times) They knew that God had sent them to live under the oppressors and knew exactly how long it would be. Jeremiah told them ahead of time. At a different time King Hezekiah held out in 2 Kings 18-20 because God told him that the oppressor was going to fall. As I have stated several times: There is a time for everything under the sun according to Solomon in Ecclesiastes.

In other words, the oppressor can certainly be God's "appointed" instrument to judge evil right in line with Romans 13. Equally true, though, is that this "appointed" authority can come under judgement themselves and their former slaves can even be the ones to take them out. We see this time and time again. Why can't the Declaration of Independence be an example of this?

I guess your contention is that God disposes these rulers so we should never fight back. I will call that the David model: Just sit and wait on God. My contention is that there is a time to do that and also a time to have the Spirit come upon you like Othniel and Jehu, among others, and be the instrument of God deposing that authority. I believe these are examples of doing good to overcome evil.(Romans) Perhaps destroying the works of the devil(1st John) as Mayhew seems to argue.

The last thing to address in response to your question is whether kings were God's original intent? I would say no. He told Moses to let the people pick elders to judge. God used this model up until the point that they asked for a King. This would seem to point to some sort of consent being associated with "appointed authority." This is bared out in another scripture where it states that the apostles appointed elders. Appointed from the original Greek in this context was a word that was used to elect people in Greek Assemblies. That is according to Vines.

Finally, you mentioned 1 Peter 2 in support of your view of Romans 13. The word was instituted in regards to authority means created in this passage. By whom? Humans according to the context. In fact, the root word talks about states. Man created states would seem to be what he was talking about. Man created implies some role for man in establishing government. This seems to cut through your, "God does it all and all is his will" mantra. It seems to point to some sort of human involvement.

So there we are. I hope I answered your question thoroughly and clearly. In short, no I do not think just because someone has "bigger guns" and conquers someone without their consent that that is evidence of being "God's appointed authority." I think it is fatalistic hyper-Calvinism that teachers that everything that happens is God's will so why bother trying to stop it? I have shown evidence from the Bible that I feel backs this claim up.

I do disagree a bit with Mayhew in that he does not seem to leave room that evil empires can and have been used of God as judgement upon a people and that when this is clear the people should not revolt to God's discipline. A tyrant is not necessarily a work of the devil as he seems to conclude.(As the story of Saul proves) I disagree with you as well in that you do not leave room that evil empires can and have been used of the devil to do his work on earth. The former should be submitted too out of respect for the sovereignty of God the latter should be resisted. Why?

1 John 3:8:

"The reason the son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the Devil" The outcome of the doctrine of the "Divine Right of Kings" and how it was used to destroy innocent people's lives is a work of the devil in my opinion. It was in Mayhew's as well. As far as the connection between Trinitarians and literal interpretation of Romans 13 I have to disclose that I am a Trinitarian in that I believe there is evidence of the Trinity in the Bible. If I believe in the right to revolt and the Trinity could there have been others 200 years ago? Is there a possible false dilemma here?

Response to Greg Frazer on Romans 13-Part II

About three weeks ago I wrote a long post on the subject of Romans 13 as a response to Dr. Greg Frazer's comments that he left on the blog "American Creation" titled "Response to Gregg Frazer on Romans 13". It was linked to a post on that site and a good dialogue ensued between him, Tom Van Dyke, Jon Rowe, and I. I think it has generated three posts and over 200 comments up to date. For anyone who would be interested, the title of the first post is "Frazer Responds to King of Ireland Again" and the second is "Frazer KOI Dialogue Continues". One is from May 2009 and the other is from June, 2009. The original post where Frazer responded to my comments is from May 2009 as well. The address is americancreation.blogspot.com.

With all that stated, my next posts will be dedicated to answering some very good questions that Dr. Frazer has asked me to address to support my contention that a reasoned interpretation of Romans 13 leaves room for the right of "revolution" under certain circumstances. More specifically, I contend that the American "Revolution" was not in conflict with my interpretation of the Bible. Though I do object to the term revolution and prefer to look at it as a "liberation". But I digress.

To summarize briefly, I replied to Jon Rowe's use of Dr. Frazer's interpretation of Romans 13 with the example of Moses liberating Israel from the control of Egypt. He responded with several comments and questions that I replied to in my last post. This spurred a back and forth that resulted in the two posts on "American Creation" cited above. In that exchange, many ideas were addressed and bantered about.

Unfortunately, I think we all lost track of what we were talking about and became overwhelmed with sheer volume of complex issues associated with these debates.

After realizing that Dr. Frazer was accurate in his assessment that we were beginning to just talk past each other, I agreed to have him ask me 7 questions and I would respond. Hopefully this will create a good frame for enlightened discussion about Romans 13 and the role of its interpretation in the American Revolution.

My response will be constructed in many separate posts. This will allow me to address each question thoroughly and separately. After these various responses I will post on some ideas that will hopefully crystallize the argument I started from Romans 12 about overcoming evil with good in the last post. Nonetheless, out of sincere respect for the amount of time that Dr. Frazer has dedicated to responding to my thoughts I want to use these posts to respond in kind before I continue outlining my own thoughts. I hope these posts answer his questions even if we disagree. My response to his first question will be separated into two posts. One will be philosophical and the other biblical. The following is part 1 of my response to the first question he asked me:

Dr. Frazer stated:

"You are upset that my view of Romans 13 seems to favor those with the "bigger guns" and you question the legitimacy of regimes founded or maintained thusly. The United States and the current governments of Japan and Germany were established as a result of wars--established by those with "bigger guns." The U.S. expanded itself by wiping out Indian tribes and taking over the land on which they lived. Do you question the legitimacy of these governments? If not, why is my position unreasonable in this regard?"

My response is:

First of all I am not upset about anything. I am simply, not convinced by your interpretation and the manner in which you use it to support your overall thesis. This is in large degree based on the lack of application with your theory. I asked you several hypothetical questions in an attempt to allow you to mesh the two and you responded to a few. I am still not convinced. I guess I can best answer this by restating the original question and then giving my take.

I went back and looked at the dialogue from Jon's post labeled "Frazer Responds to King of Ireland Again" and it seems my original question was: What is "legitimate authority." You responded that all authority is legitimate. This was in the context whether a tribal leader who was conquered by Montezuma and his people should submit to him and fight against the invaders or submit to Montezuma and go against his own people. You called the tribal leader a "lower magistrate". I call him someone who got conquered against his will by some bully with bigger guns. Both parties are authorities. Which one should be submitted to was my question?

I would say it is impossible to submit to both in that the orders conflict. So by definition "all" authority is not legitimate. This same verse was quoted to me by a missions leader that wanted to sit home in comfort while I did all the hard work. We had a new "elder" at the church who was a jerk and he was telling me that I had to submit to him because all authority is from God and in His sovereign will God brought me to that church. He threatened to bring me home because I questioned the sanity of this man and eventually did when I refused to endorse this idiot.

I asked him what kept me from calling myself the authority and telling them that I was part of the "all" which meant that they had to obey me based on the fact that I was DOING what they liked to talk about. I am not sure he ever got the point. It all comes down to who we can believe is really a legitimate authority. The "elder" turned out to be such a moron that most of the church left over him being placed in a position of authority. Was he a legitimate authority just because some "apostle" who turned out to be a cult leader told all of us we had to recognize him as such? What does "all" mean in regards to authority?

As far as the verses from Romans 13 in question, I think the "all" is qualified by the phrase "ordained by God". Can we just change the words "legitimate authority" to "ordained authority" for the sake of this discussion? If so, ordained seems to mean appointed in the original Greek. The "appointed authority" would be a simpler way of putting it.

So let's ask the question again in these terms: Who is the "appointed authority" in the case of the poor Aztec that would want to obey God and submit to God's "appointed authority"? Is it Montezuma the conqueror or the poor tribal leader? One tells him to submit to the great King and the other tells him to resist and be loyal to his tribe. Who does he submit to? Who is the "appointed authority"?

Personally, I would take your advice(in one comment) about what to do when there are two kings who claim authority. I would pray, meditate on the Bible, and try to reason an understanding of what God wanted me to do.(Your words) But if I was the Aztec I would have to apply "right" reason based on nature and conscience(Romans 2)since I would not have a Bible and if I did I would not be able to read it.

What would nature and conscience tell him about authority? I think Locke has it right and he should only consent if it secures him the greatest amount of liberty. Since this never happened under Montezuma he would be best served to fight off the invader and fight along with his tribe to be free from oppression. Just because Montezuma claims authority does not mean this is "appointed authority". Or does it?

Accordingly, I think we both can see that not all who claim authority are appointed by God. I would hope you would concede this point. I would also add that part of "right" reason, in my mind, would include giving legitimacy to "claimed" authority that actually had the consent of the governed as I alluded to above.

Despite what you say, these are not rare and isolated incidents. Many nations of people claim their own sovereignty but are not recognized because they do not have enough power to make it happen. Many of these peoples are Christians(Karen people of Thailand among others). Who gets to say which borders on a map should be recognized? Is it always so crystal clear as you make it seem according to your interpretation of Romans 13?

Anyway, my advice to the Navajo would stand unless I became convinced that somehow the conquering tribe had been sent by God and was appointed to conquer as part of judgement against that people. This would be His way of purging evil and in alignment with Romans 13 and consistent with the rest of scripture.

My issue with you is that it seems to me that you assume judgement due to the some perceived evil of the conquered people. Thus, my contention that your theory seems to imply that whoever wins a battle over sovereignty(bigger guns) is by default the "appointed authority". I think this is what you are talking about when you allude to these governments being "established."

Taken to its logical collusion it would seem to equally state: The loser of the battle for sovereignty(war) is assumed to have offended God and should be deemed evil and worthy of the "judgement" of being conquered. You even seem to admit this, to at least some degree, when you state(in a comment) that this is usually the norm in the establishment of governments.

This brings us to a natural bridge to the meat of your question about the sovereignty of the United States, Japan, Germany, and Native Americans and the fact that "bigger guns" decided who was able to enforce their view of sovereignty. Since I would like to keep this post as short as possible and still respond to your questions in a thorough manner I will just respond in regards to the Native Americans.

This will also tie in well with my whole Aztec, Cortes, and human rights scenario that we went back and forth on in the comments section at American Creation that I have briefly mentioned here. To sway away from theory and drift toward ideas in practice I would like narrow it down further to the Navajos because I have actually worked among them.

Actually, I do question the legitimacy of the United States government to rule over a group that never has consented to that rule. They were a sovereign nation of people invaded by another sovereign nation. To this day a real Navajo only grudgingly gives an ascent to what our government tells them to do. They have a Tibetan type of autonomy but what does that really mean? It is certainly not sovereignty in their own affairs. Their story is a story that has been repeated throughout history: A people of a different language, culture, and traditions invades a sovereign people and uses the persistent threat of force to maintain control.

Unless, we assume that it is God's judgement that the United States of America conquered and ruled over the Navajo simply because we had "bigger guns" I would like have their consent before I would tell them to submit to the "appointed authority" of the United States government. Some might say that the treaties they were beaten into signing provide this consent but I would counter that treaties signed at gun point are dubious at best.

Nonetheless, I turn the question back to you. You assert that the fact that these AUTHORITIES EMERGED PROVES THEIR LEGITIMACY; that they are "appointed authority." Based on what? Why would you assume it is God's will for the United States to use "bigger guns" to rape a people of their culture and amputate their spirit? If so why would God do that? Was it judgement? How would you know? If it is not judgement then how is this legitimate?

I think it gets down to your disdain for the "pagan" Navajo that has no interest in God and thus is deserving of judgement based on Romans 3 right? This is a huge leap in my view. Thinking like this led to the mass murder of millions of Native Americans. It is the spirit of Cortes at it's worst. But back to that discussion at a later date.....

So who does the Navajo submit to: the tribal leader or the President of the conquerors? Why? You stated the the Aztecs were not under the authority of Cortes right? Then why would the Navajos be under the authority of the United States government upon invasion then let alone hundreds of years later now? Does consent play any part in these decisions?

I would say yes and question whether the United States government is the "appointed authority" sent by God to rule over the Navajos. Though I do think that God has used this injustice for some good the same way he used Joseph's brothers, I do not think it makes it right nor His will. Just because something happens does not mean God intended it to be that way.

Well that is the first part of my response to your first question. I had to split this up into two posts because it was getting far to long. The second post will deal with the same question from a biblical point of view ending with something interesting I found in 1 Peter 3 that you quoted to me. I look forward to your response to my ideas expressed here....

Response to Gregg Fraser on Romans 13

Gregg Fraser responded to some comments I made on the blog "American Creation" a few weeks back. The questions are about the liberation of Israel from Egypt and whether this is an example of revolt against legitimate authority. This was all in the context of a discussion about whether The American Revolution can be supported from the Bible.

The disagreement is over the interpretation of Romans 13 where it states:

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is not authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgement on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment to the wrongdoer."

This verse is the lynch pin of the "Divine Right" for kings to rule argument that was used throughout European History. It also is somewhat supportive of the Roman, Persian, and Mongolian Empires' idea of Kings being God on earth. In short, this line of thinking has been used by tyrants to discriminate against, enslave, and even kill off people who get in the way of their expansionist ideas. Since I reject this practice I reject this interpretation of scripture. I think it sets reason and logic aside and sends one down the road toward fatalism.


Perhaps the best example of this idea is Hitler and the Jews. I asked my World History class why the vast majority of Jews did not fight back? Some Jews did not realize that Hitler was out to exterminate them until they went into the shower room and the poison gas came out of the shower heads. What caused this passive reaction to such brutality? I am not sure that anyone really has a good answer to this question but it should be asked. Why? So it does not happen again.


History is filled with examples of people living under oppressive and abusive governments simply because they were told that to oppose the will of the King was to oppose the will of God. I see this theme repeated over and over again in the Showtime series "The Tudors". One advisor to the King exterminated thousands of woman and children based on the flawed reasoning mentioned above. He went against his conscience to appease the King based on not wanting to disobey God.


This was the same King who had revolted against the Pope so he could marry who he wanted. If the Pope was God's authority then when the King refused to submit to him did he lose his authority? For that matter who says these men are the authorities? What keeps someone else from claiming "Divine Right" and refusing to listen to either? It seems that whoever manages to raise the largest army has God's favor since that is usually what settles these disputes over who is King. Sounds more like Darwin's "survival of the fittest" gone mad than anything to do with Christianity.




These questions open up a huge can of worms about what legitimate authority really means. This issue really is the crux of the entire discussion. I share these thoughts to put the discussion of Romans 13 and the revolt of the Israelites against Pharaoh into the context of the larger subject of legitimate authority, God's use of it to punish wrong doers, and in what context disobedience, resistance, rebellion, and revolution are permitted.


I say all this to illuminate my main issue with Dr. Fraser's interpretation: If he is right then Hitler was established by God to exterminate the Jews as punishment for something. If that is true then logically anyone who tried to help a Jew was fighting against God. For that matter anyone who ever questions "authority" is opposing God's will. That is if we take his ideas to their logical conclusion. At least in my view.


This whole discussion comes down to government. I would say that the more specific issue is borders. A drawn border represents a government. The problem with most borders in the world were drawn by outsiders. The best example is along the Silk Road in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The largest Nation of people without a border around them is near the Khyber pass region. Years ago the British came along and decided to split the area, and thus the Nation, into two countries. I assume that this was done to divide and conquer so that they could control this vital trade route between China and Europe.(No time to prove this thesis in this post beyond the following example)


If I am right then Romans 13 prohibits this Nation of people from doing anything about it because they have to submit to the authority. What authority? Is it the British and Cecil Rhodes? If it is then God supports the following statement:

"We must find new lands from which we can easily obtain raw materials and at the same time exploit the cheap slave labor that is available from the natives of the colonies. The colonies would also provide a dumping ground for the surplus goods produced in our factories."

If the British were the authority then God was behind these plans just the same way he must have been behind Cortes and company when the discriminated against, enslaved, and killed off the Aztecs.


If the legitimate authority is Pakistan and Afghanistan governments why so? Why should this Nation of people submit to governments that someone else set up with greed as motivation? Do these governments override their tribal or clan governments? If so why? What if the Tribal government tells someone to resist the outsiders and the National government tells them not too? Which do you listen to? Which one is establishing God's will?


I am sure Dr. Fraser gets my point philosophical point. I also get his Biblical point: God uses both just and unjust governments to judge the Nations. This is in the Bible and is indisputable in my view. My problem is how can we know for sure when this is taking place? If not, then why not error on the side of overcoming evil with good. This is the verse that precedes Romans 13. I know this verse would seem to support Mr. Fraser's pacifist reading of Romans 13 but I am not so sure.


Ecclesiastes 3:8:

"There is a time for war and a time for peace"


If this is true then war can be good. In fact, your interpretation of Romans 13 would seem to confirm this. King George was God's authority and he liked to start wars. Thus war is good. In fact, war is God's will because His authority on earth that starts wars against the weak of the world for profit is God's way of bringing wrath on the evil doer. If this is true then the Revolutionaries refusal to pay taxes to support this is opposing God too. That is part of Romans 13 also. Maybe God was punishing the colonists for their audacity to go against his chosen servant by sending Red Coats to kill them off? This assumes that the weak are guilty of some sort of sin and leads down the theological flaws of Job's friends.


Could the time for war possibly be to defend the weak against the strong? Can this be "good" that resists evil? If it is then it is a valid way to overcome evil biblically. I ask you, Dr. Fraser, which form of war would seem to be "good"? The former or the latter? Is the loser automatically assumed to have been on the wrong side of God? Several wars in history have had both sides claiming the favor of God. The Civil War would be a good example. Can we at least agree that to discern the will of God and his use of judgement in the punishment of evil is a complex affair?


Now that I feel this discussion has been put into the right logical and biblical context, I will address the topic that led to Dr. Fraser's direct questions to me about the liberation of the Israelites. This was part of a long discussion about the Founding of America and whether we are a Christian Nation or not. Dr. Fraser's contention is that we are not. I would agree in the sense that most Christian Nationalists and members of the Religious Right would see it.(Though I do believe the Millenial Reign will come to earth but I will post on this later) I just do not think this is a legitimate argument to prove his point that we both agree on. Furthermore, I think it dangerous reasoning for oppressed peoples. I also have seen tyrant pastors use this verse to control people which has led to severe emotional baggage. I have had personal experience with this.


The whole "God said because I am in charge" movement needs to die a slow death. I hope the Religious Right and Christian Nationalist movements die with it too. I respond to Dr. Fraser with these goals in mind that I think we both share. I also respond to what I feel is an overreaction by some to these movements to just completely separate religion and politics all together. I believe Dr. Fraser is an associate of John Mac Arthur and they both share the view that the Christians focus should be on promoting the gospel not politics because God's kingdom is not of this world according to scripture.


This view can easily lead one down the road toward fatalism as well. This fatalism seems to promote an undue focus on the spiritual world and the afterlife at the expense of doing good in this life. The same type of reasoning overcame China in the Middle Ages.


Neo-Confucianists responded to the overemphasis of Buddhists on the spiritual world and the after life by teaching more or less that this world is real and that the key to happiness is to participate in the world. Within a few hundred years, land reform came about and a new educated class used the Civil Service Exam to break the hold of the Buddhist elite that had been buying up and controlling all the land. By the time of Marco Polo he was able to describe the progress of "Kinsay" in glowing terms. This progress included the new educated class that overthrew the Buddhists.


I think the Neo-Confucianists had it more right philosophically then modern Christians. Why? Modern Christians seem to have thrown out the Lord's Prayer:

"This is then how you should pray: Our Father in heaven, hallowed by your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven."


This clearly seems to state that we should pray that God's will would come to earth through his kingdom. I know this is a loaded topic and that much has been written about it. But I think my point is clear. To emphasize the spiritual world over the physical and the afterlife over this life to an extreme can distort the picture of who God is. He can come off to the world as an uncaring tyrant. Possibly almost like the Deist God that sets things in motion and just stands back and watches. Or like the Calvinist God that only intervenes on behalf of "His Children".


It is with these goals in mind I addressed Mr. Fraser's argument and commented on "American Creation". At the core of the discussion is the meaning of Romans 13. I have read some different interpretations of this verse that seem plausible and the best I have heard is that God is talking about legitimate government that should not be feared by those out to do good. Which leads back to my question about what it really means to overcome evil with good as stated in Romans 12 that precedes the verses in question.


I think the key to understanding this passage is Romans 12:18. It states to be at peace with all men IF it is possible. The key word is if. I know the next verses talk about feeding your enemy and doing nice things to him to put hot coals on his head. I struggle with these verses and always have in that I am not sure how far to take this stance. It goes into the whole turn the other cheek argument. I also think it is clear that Jesus did not come to lift the Jews from their political oppression. I just do not think this eliminates political revolution as a Biblical concept. I think it was more of Jesus showing priorities. His priority was to die. Any type of revolt would have been counter productive to his main goal.


As far as that goes, I can imagine someone feeling a calling from God to die in order to show the love of God. I have no problem with this and have read many accounts of martyrs that chose this path rather than fight back that I can logically and biblically see support for. I can see the merits of the tactics of Martin Luther King and Gandhi and the good that came about from civil disobedience.


My question is if this would have worked against Hitler? I think not. I also acknowledge the merits in letting God repay as it states in Romans 12. But this taken to an extreme can lead to severe pacifism that puts the weak of the world as risk if they buy into these types of teaching.

With all that stated, I think it can be "good" to actively resist evil by taking up arms and fighting when it is no longer possible to be at peace. I think Mr. Fraser would agree with me to a point until I talk about arms and war. He stated on "American Creation"in response to a comment I left:

"There is a difference between "disobedience" and "resistance". Authorities should be disobeyed when they command disobedience to God, but "resistance" is never justified."

This quote is a good place to start my response to his specific comments and questions.


I have no idea what the difference between "disobedience" and "resistance" is in this context. In fact, if Mr. Fraser's interpretation is right then "disobedience" could be ruled out with a strict interpretation of Romans 13. But this cannot be because we both understand that Jesus himself disobeyed the authorities at times. His disciples did as well at times. What makes this "disobedience" and not "resistance"? If the King is God's vessel to punish wrong doers then how it is ever permissible to question him period? I wonder if Mr. Fraser has a list of what constitutes "disobedience" and "resistance"? I guess my question would be: if "disobedience", which by definition is not submission, is okay in some instances then why not "resistance"?
Both are non-submission which seems to be outlawed in Romans 13.


The context of this comment was his disagreement of my example of Moses being sent to liberate the Israelites as support for revolution/resistance against tyrants. My comment

stated:

"If revolution is always wrong then God is a liar. He told Moses to go and break away from Pharaoh and even helped him. So many people take one scripture our of context. There are numerous times that Kings were taken out by someone and it says God was behind it. Ahab comes to mind. A reading of the books of Kings and Chronicles proves this"

Dr. Fraser replied:

"God did NOT tell Moses to "break away from Pharaoh"-where? What verse? Told Moses to go to Pharaoh (not to organize a rebellion) and repeat to him God's demand that he let the Israelites go. When Pharaoh refused, Moses still did not organize a rebellion- He just kept repeating God's words to Pharaoh. Revolution is always wrong and God is not a liar."

Lets go through the Socratic Method here to gain clarity. What I need is a definition of revolution and rebellion. I am sure that Pharaoh, or any tyrant that thought he was God or sent by God, felt that coming to ask to be let go was rebellion. It is certainly lack of submission to authority. As far as revolution, it can mean anything. I guess it implies armed revolt. But it does not have to be of the Russian variety. I also think the Declaration of Independence is part of the American Revolution. The arms were not taken up until the British came to enforce the King's will and peace was no longer possible. I wonder if Dr. Fraser has a problem with the Declaration of Independence and would deem it rebellion or revolution.


If so he should have just as much of a problem with Moses going to Pharaoh. Why? The essence of the story is the same: People invoke the name of God as the reason to relieved from the oppression of a tyrant. This was more than likely in response to the tyrants insistence that God had told him they existed to fulfill his will because we was god or sent by god. To question Pharaoh's right to hold them was to question the gods. The Declaration was written to confront the "Divine Right" of Kings. What is the difference?


If Dr. Fraser's problem with the rebellion is only when arms come into play than this should be clarified. If this is so then I still have a problem. Why does disobedience, rebellion, revolution have to stop short of self defense? Is it possible that the Israelites did not take up arms because they had none? Another reason could have been because they had not been attacked. How do we know that God would have a problem with them if they had fought back when attacked? There are numerous instances when they encountered a foreign authority in the desert and were told to fight. What was different about Pharaoh? This gets back to what authority is legitimate? Was Moses legitimate when he told them to go and attack the people in the desert or was the foreign king the authority that was not to be revolted against?


As far a when Moses was told to break away from Pharaoh it seems obvious to me when he states in Exodus 3:10, "I am sending you to Pharaoh to bring my people out of Egypt." Since they were under the government of Pharaoh and God was sending Moses to bring them out of Egypt I think that states clearly that he was sent to break away from the government of Pharaoh. How is this not breaking away?


I do not understand unless you take a hyper-Calvinist approach that we are all robot vessels that just stand by and God does everything. If this is true then why tell Adam to work the ground. Why not just sit by and let God do everything. Another example is David. One time he asked God if he should attack and God said yes and he routed his enemies. The next time when they came he asked again and God told him to wait and listen for the breeze in the trees. The former does not rule out the latter as a way in which God brings about His will on earth.


Dr. Fraser also responded to my question as to when it clearly states that God sent someone to kill a king and how this jives with his theory:

"As for rulers going down, God uses the sinful activity of men for his purposes and makes it work to fulfill his plan-but that does not change the fact that the action was sinful/wrong(the end does not justify the means)."

I could use various examples to prove this nonsensical(is that a word?) but one that seems to leave Dr. Fraser's argument lifeless comes to mind in Judges 3:8-11:

"The anger of the LORD burned against Israel so that he sold them into the hands of Cushan-Risha-thaim king of Aram Naharaim, to whom the Israelites were subject for eight years. But when they cried out to the LORD and he gave them a deliverer, Othniel son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger, who saved them. THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD CAME UPON HIM, SO THAT HE BECAME ISREAL'S JUDGE AND WENT TO WAR. The Lord gave Cushan-Rishathaim king of Aramin into the hands of Othniel, who overpowered him. So the land had peace for forty years."

So God punished someone by sending an oppressor in accordance with Romans 13. This backs up your contention that God uses evil empires to punish or judge people. This included Israel. But it also seems to prove my point that it could be "good" to resist this evil in a war. It clearly states that God raised him up and the Spirit of God was with him. If this is sin then God is a sinner. Dr. Fraser's refutation and interpretation die here it would seem. Logic and the Bible prove him wrong in my view.


There are two more comments I would like to respond to. The first is:


"Jesus did NOT tell his disciples to "get their swords" when they came for him-what's the verse? BEFORE they came for Him, He told his disciples to CARRY swords in order to fulfill prophecy. When they said they had two swords( For 12 men), He said that was enough-because they were not to be used. He rebuked Peter for USING a sword, which was never the intent."


The point about prophecy is non-sensical. It is much like your thoughts that God did not send Moses to break away from Pharoah's rule. Two swords does not seem like many I agree. Maybe it is all they had. I think my point about him getting mad at Peter is because Peter struck before being struck.


It was probably more about Peter trying to prevent the death of Jesus again. I would also say that even though His purpose was to die he did not expect his friends to just sit there and take it if they were attacked. If you can supply any verse where someone is attacked first, then seek to keep peace if at all possible, and then protect themselves and God rebukes them then I will listen. You will not because it is not in the Bible. I also refer again to the story of Othniel above for support of my contention.


The final Fraser comment I would like to address is:


"I disagree with your assessment: I think most people have a problem with Christianity because 'men love the darkness rather than the light, for their deeds are evil." You complain about lack of choice but when men have a choice they reject God."




My assessment was based on missionary travel, numerous conversations with unbelievers from almost all religious backgrounds, and how I felt before I was saved. What about you? I am pretty sure I have talked to at least a few hundred thousand people about this. I sent out a church kid who thought I was wrong to ask 100 people if they wanted to go to church. Not one did just like I told him. Most for the same reason I stated that you reject. Do church people have any responsility to represent God the right way at all? If not they why did Jesus send out witnesses? I chose God. Even if no one else does this refutes your comments on choice.


By they way if we are talking about who the Christian(many resort to this when confronted with people who disagree) is I have tickets ready for anyone who doubts me to some of the places I have been to share about Christ(I actually regret it now I went about it the wrong way) and see who is willing to really die for this and who just sits around running their mouth. Comments like the last one is is why people hate church. This includes me now too.


I got tired of trying to defend it so I left. Best year of my life. I spent this Sunday writing this. Made me think. Sermons never do so this was time well spent. I apologize if the last comment here offends you(Dr. Fraser) but I mean it. Arrogant Christians turn off people. You seem like the type that may be so sure your right you do not listen. I could be wrong but it comes across that way. Get out of the church scene and maybe it will sharpen your message.


I think it is good that you come on sites like "American Creation" but that is still probably preaching to the choir. Go on Dispatches on the Culture Wars and see how others think, get roughed up some, and people may listen more. Just a thought. Maybe you do it I do not know. I would just watch how you and church people come off. It is not all about people liking darkness. Some of the concerns are valid and comments like the last one just blows them off and makes you all look ridiculous to unbelievers. It is a persecution complex.


It is also dangerous. Most Christians I have met that were raised in a certain tradition and base their beliefs on what they were taught never question it. When one thing they have believed is proven wrong when reason is applied the house of cards crumbles. Up to 80% of church kids lose their faith in the first year of college. I hear not too many are coming back. These same words have fallen on deaf ears before. I do hope you consider retracting your last comment and acknowledge that people have some legitimate concerns with the church. I think the thing that tops the list is the authoritarian stuff that starts with abuse of Romans 13.


Thanks for the discussion, you made me think. I am sure my reasoning and application of scripture is flawed in some points. But I think I have proven my case. At least to myself. I look forward to further exchange to sharpen my thoughts.

Book Review: Our Undemocratic Constitution

I have spent the last week reading a book by a man named Sandy Levinson called: "Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong." Mr. Levinson wrote the book in hopes of inspiring an effort to call for a new Constitution Convention to address the issues that he sees need to be dealt with with our current version. Despite my initial suspicions, I actually see some merit in what he was advocating. I cannot say I agree that we need a new Convention, in general, nor do I advocate all that is stated in the book more specifically. Nonetheless, he did make me think.

This is especially true of the point he makes about small states having a disproportionate amount of representation as compared with bigger states. He list a multitude of statistics to back up his point but one jumped out to me more than the others,

"Although it is unrealistic to think that the fourteen senators from the seven smallest states would be united on any given controversial issue.... should that ever occur , they would offset a similarly hypothetical united group of senators from California, Florida, Illinois, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas, whose collective population in 2000 was approximately 124 million." p. 51

In his view this is allowed to happen because,

"To be sure, this illustrates an important feature of the Constitution that underscores many of its features: Those who framed the document, and those who VENERATE it today are fundamentally fearful of change...." p. 35 (caps mine)

As I read the latter quote I wrote a few notes in the margin of the book. I asked: 1) Why were they fearful of this at the time? 2) What did they fear would change? 3) Were these fears based on rational concerns about going back to the same type of system that they had just broken from? I am skeptical of change for many of these same reasons that our founders had at the time based on my questions above. However, as I began to think about the veneration of the Founders and the document they constructed he began to persuade this skeptic to listen to them merits of the former quote regarding the disproportionate power of small states in the Senate.

This was because I began to realize that this same argument was had at the Convention and was the subject of numerous arguments on the Federalist and Anti-Federalist side as each state voted for ratification. If they discussed it then why can't we now? If people at the time questioned the men we now venerate why can't we? As my assumptions began to crack apart when I admitted my veneration of the document and the men who wrote it, I soon realized that I was more open to the other problems that Mr. Levinson sees with our Constitution. In fact, I am starting to think his major premise, that it is undemocratic, is probably correct in that our current system does not seem that responsive to the voice of We the People anymore.

Do we need another convention? I am not sure. But I am listening. I have begun to read a similar book by Larry Sabato called, "A More Perfect Constitution." He makes some similar arguments. Both men are self proclaimed Liberals. Though I am no Conservative, this does make me take what they say with a grain of salt considering that most of what they advocate would seem to favor the Democratic Party. Nonetheless, I am intrigued and plan to post more on both books. The next post will be about the similarity of one of Sabato's arguments with those that were made in Centeniel One which was the first Anti-Federalist paper. Both arguments seem to back what Levinson was arguing about the Senate on p. 51 quoted above. Until next time....

Our American Founding

After taking the better part of a year to read the Federalist Papers in their entirety I was ready for a long break from the subject the of our American founding.  This was due to enormous amount of information and the fact that they were written the 18th Century English.  Well that break is over and like any open minded person who seeks the truth in the matter I decided to read the Anti-Federalist papers in order to hear the other side.  

This endeavor to understand the founding started about two years ago when I was out preaching in churches about the beauty of America and the need to get back to the roots of what made us great.  At the time I was being influenced by Christian books on the subject and thought that this entailed the Christianizing of America.  At the time, I was also in an organization that taught about the seven spheres of society that needed to be changed to transform the world around us and wanted to send young people out to pray for it and do it in the way they prescribed. 

Then one night before I was going to preach to a youth group about God and his mission for us on this earth I woke up in the middle of the night and saw a C-SPAN special on Constitution Day.  I had been preaching from Ezekiel 17 about great tree planted by abundant water that had branches that spread wide and far.  I was making the argument that this allegory applied to America and our influence in the world.  I also went into the whole "city on hill" argument as well.  Anyway, I began to ask myself, "If we are the tree what is the bark that protects us?"  That night I realized it was the Constitution while I watched the celebrations on C-SPAN.  

This completely confirmed the focal point of all I have learned traveling the world and visiting the poor and oppressed.  I have learned that the single greatest determinate of poverty and oppression is corrupt government.  If this is true then the bark of the Constitution that has  been the key to our freedom, prosperity, and influence in the world is exactly what others need.  This belief caused me to leave the mission organization I was in to seek some sort of career in politics or influencing politics.  

Soon I was sitting in Florida jobless living at my brother's house trying to pick up the pieces of a life that had taken a drastic change.  I realized soon that I had been so heavenly minded that I was no earthly good.  The words of the prayer in Matthew of heaven coming to earth had recently hit home.  I was going to seek bringing heaven to earth by influencing the Seven Spheres of society.  Then I watched a man named Ed Brayton on C-SPAN again and got so mad about what he had to say about Christians who wanted to influence government I began to post comments on his site at www.scienceblogs.com.  

As time went by, I moved back to D.C. and found a job delivering pizzas.  I used my time during the day to argue with Ed and his readers about evolution and religion.  As time went by I realized that a lot of what he was saying was correct.  When we debated about the whole Christian Nation thing I began to say less and listen more because he knew his stuff far better than I did.  Then one day he said, "You need to read the Federalist Papers."  Soon after I was given a copy randomly by a friend and started reading.  It opened my eyes to the one thing I had always loved in school:  History and Politics.  

Soon I as teaching History again at a school in D.C. and began to wonder about getting  a doctorate in something to do with the founding, the enlightenment, or something in that vain.  I sought many avenues but then got so busy I just dropped everything.  

Then I started to teach about common law in my History class.  While researching the topicI found an article about the Law and Development theory. It states that the nations that have established law and order prosper economically.  My good government=prosperity thoughts came back as research seemed to back up my experiences.  Then I decided that I need to go to law school and study property law. This was decided after I read a great article by a guy named Sandfeur who was a friend of another blogger name Jon Rowe at www.positiveliberty.com.  Sandfeur wrote about John Locke's political theory and its influence on American law.  It inspired me.

That was a few months ago and I have decided to read the Anti-Federalist papers now to add a balance to what I have already read.  I am going to get trained in the "We the People" program to hopefully teach the Constitution next year as well.  So I decided to make one of the subjects I post about the Anti-Federalist papers.  My hope is to go through them one by one even if it takes a while.  Putting my thoughts down in writing helps me clarify things in my mind if any else ever gets anything out of it then great.  

If nothing else is learned from this post take away this:  Much is to be learned from people you think you disagree with.  I have learned more from Ed Brayton and Jon Rowe than I did in 10 years of church sermons.  I still have my faith but I have rediscovered my reason thanks to them and others that were patient with me as I came out of a cultish Christian movement.  I look forward to learning from what some of the people who opposed our Constitution felt at the time and also take a look to see if any of their predictions came true.  

The Myth of Genesis One?

Last week I wrote about light and darkness and Genesis 1 and would like to continue on that theme in this post.  After watching "Mission Impossible II" and "Unbreakable" in the last few months, this theme has been on my mind.  In both movies, there is reference to ancient Greek and comic book myths that explore both tragedy and hope along with good and evil as represented in the contrast between light and darkness.  These movies seem to hint at the hypotheses that good cannot be understood without evil and that the oral and written traditions of the ancient world seem able to teach us about both.

The main difference I have seen between cultures that emphasize oral rather than written traditions is that oral history seems to exaggerate to prove a point.  This is essentially what the Samuel L. Jackson character says about comic books in "Unbreakable".  He states that the super-heros are an exaggerated form truth handed down to teach us something. More specifically, of truly gifted people that fate, karma, or god has put on earth for some noble reason.  His mission in life is to find the hero so he can learn about himself as the villain.  Somewhere along life he became convinced that the weakness that caused him to break bones at the drop of the hat was a sign that someone else was out there with superhuman strength;

the super-hero.  

He spent his life trying to create one disaster after another to find Mr. "Unbreakable"; thus finding purpose in his life.  He thought his purpose was to be the evil in the world that would make clear the good.  This is no different than the first few chapters of Genesis in my mind.  It seems to me that perhaps centuries of church scholars have been wrong about Genesis in that they miss the purpose of the book.  In my opinion, the purpose is either to provide a precise written history of creation, the origins of man, and the fall or it was to put into written form the oral traditions of the East about creation, the origins of man, and the fall.  If it is the former, then much of the commentary on this book misses the original intent:  To use exaggerated language to prove a point.  

Perhaps it is much like the Renaissance art forms of Idealism and Realism.  As the following quote seems to indicate, the more idealized(less literal) art gets the more the sublime is emphasized:  

"The closer artists came to the High Renaissance art the more classical, monumental, and ideal figures became.   Famous paintings in the High Renaissance had grandeur, idealism, and soft rendering of details.  Some artists too became interested in the immediacy of the moment or how things looked in an instant of time.  This led to an interest in the sublime, man fighting against man, good against evil to the death, and the action of the moment with all its expressions."

Sublime means the quality of greatness and would seem to point to perhaps the purpose of Genesis was not to record history but was a story much like a Greek myth designed to paint a snap shot of a moment to prove a point:  That God is great.  This line of my reasoning began in a post-modern type church meeting where one of the leaders of the meeting got up and stated: "Face it friends Genesis and Adam and Eve are myths."  Not myth in the modern sense of lies but myth in the sense of oral tradition with the purpose of making a point.  I rejected this at the time but a while later began reading the blog of a man named Henry Neufeld who is a friend of a man named Ed Brayton who blogs at Dispatches on The Culture Wars at www.scienceblogs.com.  He had studied the history of it and had come to the same conclusion.  I was more open but still rejected this idea.

Then, when I had thrown out all the assumptions embedded in the form of Christianity I had been taught and began to think for myself, I watched these two movies and it finally clicked:  

The whole point of the first few chapters of Genesis seeks to contrast the darkness from the light!  This line of inquiry has led me to go back and read Thomas Aquinas and I started with his writings on the existence of God.  

Guess what?  People asked the same primary question back then:  If God is everywhere and God is good how does evil exist?  Maybe it is just like the comic books.  Maybe evil has to exist to show the good.  Maybe the villain has to has to show himself for the hero to be seen?  I realize these presuppositions in this last paragraph that need to be explored but more on that next time....