Tuesday, January 12, 2016
Papias And The Gospels
On some recent webcasts, James White responded to a video produced by a couple of Muslim apologists, Adnan Rashid and Hamza Tzortzis. The video is largely about the historical reliability of the gospels, and much of their discussion of the subject focuses on Papias. Similar arguments about Papias are commonly used by atheists and other critics of Christianity, not just Muslims. I've written a response on Facebook.
Monday, January 11, 2016
Safety and Security Guidelines for Lone Wolf Mujahideen
"No doubt that today, at the era of the lone wolves, brothers in the West need to know some important things about safety in order to ensure success in their operations," it reads.
Among the booklet's advice was to stay clean-shaven and not carry Islamic religious items on them.
"If you can avoid having a beard, wearing qamis (long tunic), using miswak (a teeth-cleaning twig recommended by Prophet Muhammad) and having a booklet of dhikr (short devotional phrases and prayers) with you, it’s better."
The booklet then advised its followers to wear necklaces with a cross - but only those without Arabic names on their passports because "it may look strange."
"As you know, Christians - or even atheist Westerners with Christian background - wear crosses on their necklaces."
The terror handbook also gave permission for jihadis to wear perfumes and colognes containing alcohol, something usually avoided since Islam prohibits the use and consumption of alcohol.
"Don’t use the oily, non-alcoholic perfume that Muslims use, instead use generic alcoholic perfume as everyone does, and if you are a man, use perfume for men."
(Source)
Worshiping Tash
On the one hand:
This is the line of thinking that also appears in the famous scene near the end of C. S. Lewis’s book The Last Battle, where Emeth, the worshiper of Tash, is accepted by Aslan. Unknowingly he was actually serving Aslan because his worship was motivated by a love for truth and righteousness. The point is that Christ died for all persons, whether they know it or not, and the Holy Spirit is working to draw them to Christ, whether they know it or not, and they may be responding truly to the “light” they have and consequently be on the way to final salvation.
http://christianthought.hbu.edu/2016/01/11/wheaton-allah-and-the-trinity-do-muslims-really-worship-the-same-god-as-c-s-lewis/
On the other hand:
Third, and following on from these two points, some understandings of the Supreme Being are so wrong, so wicked, that they simply direct worship wildly off target. Such clearly would be the case of the worship of the Canaanite god Moloch, or any other wicked, bloodthirsty deity elsewhere in the world. Such an abominable view of God cannot possibly accommodate, let alone facilitate, worship of the One True God. In sum, if you like that kind of deity, you’re not going to like the One True God.
Sidenote for those who get their theology of such matters from The Chronicles of Narnia: This is why I think C. S. Lewis gets it wrong in The Last Battle. (I say this with trepidation as a great admirer of CSL.) The god Tash is so clearly devilish that it seems incongruous to me that the estimable Emeth could worship this version of God and then, as it were, rather effortlessly transfer his allegiance to Tash’s adversary, Aslan (the Christ figure). I think Lewis overreaches here.
There has to be some identity between the two understandings of God such that the former is a cloudy and partial and adulterated but genuine understanding of God that the gospel at once extends, fulfills, and corrects. If instead the gospel simply has to supplant the former understanding, as in the case of horrible views of the divine, I find it impossible to conceive of worshipers of that horrible god connecting in any important way with the One True God. Instead, people raised in such religious traditions would have to develop deep misgivings about that god such that they do not worship it and instead long for the Great Alternative, however vague their notion of That might be. And that longing is the prevenient grace of the Holy Spirit drawing people away from error and toward The Truth.
http://www.johnstackhouse.com/2015/12/17/allah-and-yhwh-and-tash-and-aslan/
Punitive "torture"
I've going to briefly discuss two related issues. One objection to coercive interrogation is that "torture" not only dehumanizes the informant, but dehumanizes the interrogator. "Torture" is morally corrupting. It makes the interrogator callous.
Likewise, some calumniators say eternal punishment makes God a cosmic torturer. That comparison is used by atheists, annihilationists, and universalists alike. For instance, Clark Pinnock says:
God is not a cruel and sadistic torturer as the traditional view of hell would suggest…It pictures God acting like a bloodthirsty monster who maintains an everlasting Auschwitz for his enemies whom he does not even allow to die. Four Views of Hell, W. Crockett, ed. (Zondervan 1997), 149.
i) For starters, "torture" ranges along a wide physical and psychological continuum. The term is frequently misused and trivialized.
ii) As I've often explained, I don't think hell is a torture chamber. I doubt that hell is a one-size-fits-all experience. I expect eschatological punishment is customized.
There are certainly people who richly deserved to be tortured. To be on the receiving end of what they inflicted on others. That's poetic justice.
iii) In Dante's Inferno (Cantos 21-23), the damned are tormented by demons (the Malebranche) with pitchforks. The scene is redolent with black comedy.
Of course, that's fictional. But in principle, that isn't corrupting or dehumanizing to the demonic tormenters, since they aren't human to begin with. Moreover, they are already thoroughly evil.
iv) It's true that as a rule, we should avoid activities that make us morally or emotionally jaded. However, there are exceptions. Agents sometimes have a duty to do things that may be psychologically harmful to the agent. Soldiers may be obliged to do things, to protect the innocent, that are psychologically damaging to the soldiers. Likewise, field medics may become fairly hardened to scenes of agony. Ironically, compassionate action requires them to become more emotionally detached.
To be the caregiver for a family member who is senile, has a degenerative condition, is dying of cancer, &c., is emotionally wrenching. The survivor is wounded by that searing experience. Yet it's morally incumbent to face that situation.
v) Lack of human empathy is a moral defect in psychopath or sociopath because humans are supposed to exemplify human social virtues. But an inhuman attitude is not necessarily a moral defect if the agent isn't human to begin with.
The acid-drooling extraterrestrials in the Alien franchise may seem malevolent from the standpoint of their human victims, but from their own standpoint, their actions have no more malice than a parasitoid wasp implanting a caterpillar. They don't relate to humans on a human level. They aren't the same species. There's no natural rapport.
vi) If an angel "tortured" Hitler in hell, would that be morally corrupting? To begin with, this is punitive "torture," not sadistic "torture".
In addition, since an angel isn't human, it may have no more natural sympathy for a human being than a lion has for a gazelle. Angels are so different from humans that they may have precious little frame of reference.
Not to mention that the damned aren't innocent victims.
vii) God isn't human. God is like us in some ways, but unlike us in other ways. In some respects, God is the template for humanity, but in other respects, God is a radically different kind of being.
Christian gunslingers
As I searched and searched, I couldn’t find any credible, non-pacifist Bible scholar who argued that Luke 22 is talking about self-defense. (I’ve since found that Wayne Grudem also assumes the self-defense view, but again, with little to no biblical argument and he doesn’t wrestle with the other contextual features that go against this view.)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theologyintheraw/2015/12/go-buy-a-sword-luke-22-and-christian-gunslingers/
I'm struck by Sprinkle's deceptive statement. Most Christian laymen don't have direct access to a raft of major commentaries on the Bible. If they rely on him for their information, they will be misled. He's not a trustworthy informant.
Consider the statements by three credible, nonpacifist Bible scholars:
[Lk 22:36] sword: although the term is usually regarded as a metaphor, the context indicates a literal meaning. Cf. 6:29; see on 9:3; 12:51; 22:49.
[Lk 22:49] sword: according to Cullmann (State, 31-34), Jesus approved of defensive sword-bearing but, unlike the Zealots, reject such means to establish the kingdom of God. E. E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke (Eerdmans 1996), 256, 258.
The sword is thought of as part of the equipment required for the self-sufficiency of any traveller in the Roman world. Nothing more than protection of one's person is in view. J. Nolland, Luke (Word 1993), 3:1076.
As Minear observes, the other prophecies in this discourse, those of betrayal, and denial, are of what is due for immediate fulfillment, and this could apply to "a sword," which makes an actual, and not symbolic, appearance in the narrative of the arrest…The "sword" here would not be symbolic of conflict, any more than the "purse" or "bag" are symbolic…
The reply of Jesus is equally terse - hikanon esti. Two renderings have been proposed for this. (i) "It is enough" in the sense of "enough of that", breaking off the conversation. No parallel can be produced for this, and it is unlikely that Luke would have brought the passage, and the whole discourse, to an end so inconclusively. (ii) "It is enough" in the sense that two words will be sufficient for the purpose at hand. This would correspond with the predominant use of hikanos in Luke-Acts (where it occurs twice as often as in the rest of the NT to denote sufficiency of numbers, and is the more likely meaning. C. F. Evans, St. Luke (Pillar 1990), 806, 807.
I'm not quoting these scholars to endorse the details of their overall interpretation (which I may or may not agree with), but to document Sprinkle's suppression of evidence that runs counter to his position. Did he just stop looking after he found what he wanted?
Live by the sword, die by the sword
51 And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” (Mt 26:51-54).
That's a stock pacifist prooftext. But is that what it means?
i) For staters, there's an insurmountable obstacle to the pacifist interpretation. If Jesus disapproved of his disciples bearing arms, then why did he permit them to bear arms? After all, for the course of three years, they'd been on the road together for weeks or months at a time. They did everything together.
Was Jesus so unobservant that he never noticed that some of his disciples had swords? Indeed, the very passage in question presumes that one or more of his disciples were in possession of a sword. And that wouldn't be unusual. Due to bandits, travelers were often armed.
If Jesus didn't approve, would we not expect him to forbid his disciples to bear arms? Why did he not command them to disarm?
Moreover, even assuming he was too inattentive to notice that some of his disciples were armed, on the night of his arrest, he knew that his disciples had swords. Why did he not order them to discard their swords?
The pacifist interpretation makes Jesus look like a bumbler or terribly ineffectual.
ii) V52 has a proverbial ring. Like proverbs generally, it isn't meant to be universally true. Not everyone who resorts to violence dies a violent death. In fact, that may not even be true in the majority of cases.
It is true that people who live by violence are at greater risk of suffering violence in return. However, that's not necessarily what the aphorism is meant to convey.
iii) Pacifists say this reflects the radical teaching of Jesus. However, the statement itself isn't especially novel. You have variations on that statement in prior Jewish literature. For instance, Jer 15:2 says "those who are for the sword, to the sword" (cf. 43:11). Likewise, a Targum of Is 50:11 says those grasp the sword will fall on the sword. And the OT uses different metaphors to make the same point:
He makes a pit, digging it out,
and falls into the hole that he has made.
and falls into the hole that he has made.
(Ps 7:15)
Whoever digs a pit will fall into it,
and a stone will come back on him who starts it rolling.
and a stone will come back on him who starts it rolling.
(Prov 26:27; cf. Eccl 10:8).
iv) However, the ultimate derivation of Jesus's aphorism may be Gen 9:6. His statement seems to be a paraphrase of that seminal verse:
For all who take the sword
will perish by the sword.
Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed.
by man shall his blood be shed.
Notice the formal and conceptual similarities: the balanced, contrasting parallelism; the theme of poetic justice.
Although Genesis uses the same "bloodshed" language in both clauses, these are not morally equivalent actions. In the first clause, bloodshed refers to forbidden killing (murder). In the second clause, bloodshed refers to obligatory killing (judicial execution).
It's quite possible Mt 26:52 has the same connotation. Peter's intervention to defend Christ is wrongful violence.
Parable of the Bad Samaritan
Once upon a time, a member of the NRA asked a pacifist, "Who is my neighbor?" And wishing to justify himself, the pacifist said: An unarmed traveler was walking from Jerusalem to Jericho when bandits ambushed him, mugged him, and robbed him.
Now by chance an unarmed Samaritan was going down that road, and when he saw the victim he went over to check on him, at which point the bandits jumped him, mugged him, and robbed him.
So likewise another unarmed Samaritan, when he came to the crossroad and saw them, went over to check on the victims, at which point the bandits jumped him, mugged him, and robbed him.
But a Christian gunslinger, as he journeyed, came to crossroad. When the bandits tried to mug him, he kneecapped the bandits. He then put the victims in the back of his wagon and brought them to the Hotel Jericho, where he paid the hotelier to nurse them back to health. Which of these men proved to be a good neighbor?
"The Christian gunslinger," said the member of the NRA.
Sunday, January 10, 2016
Saturday, January 09, 2016
Buy a sword
35 And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” 36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough” (Lk 22:35-38).
Some Christians appeal to this passage is opposition to pacifism. Most commentators think it's figurative. My own opposition to pacifism doesn't require this passage, so in that respect I have no stake in the interpretation, one way or the other. Although most commentators support the figurative interpretation, their reasons are surprisingly poor.
1. To command them to buy a sword would contradict what Jesus taught elsewhere.
i) That objection is circular. It would only be contradictory if Jesus taught pacifism. So that begs the question.
ii) Moreover, the objection is puzzling. I doubt all Synoptic scholars who construe this passage metaphorically think Jesus was a pacifist.
2. The sword is a metaphor to be spiritually forearmed for the coming opposition.
i) But if the sword is symbolic, don't the money, cloak, knapsack, and sandals need to be symbolic as well? If so, what do they stand for?
Perhaps we could salvage that interpretation by saying these are parts of a complete word-picture.
ii) But another problem is that these items are literal in v35. It would be a jarring transition if the sword is figurative.
iii) Moreover, as all scholars grant, v36 stands in sharp contrast to the status quo ante. Without Jesus to protect them and provide for them, the disciples are on their own. They face a much tougher situation ahead.
Although accompanying Jesus for the past three years was not without its hardships, it had fringe benefits. Jesus was the world's best bodyguard. An omnipotence bodyguard. They were safe with him.
Likewise, so long as they were in his company, they never went hungry. He could miraculously produce food. If they took ill, he could heal them. If it was too frigid to sleep outside, he could miraculously produce a toasty campfire.
But after he leaves them, they will have to fend for themselves. So procuring a defensive weapon makes sense in that context. They must made dramatic adjustments to life without Jesus by their side.
3. This isn't a Zealot-style call to arms against the Jewish or Roman establishment.
i) That's true, but a straw man. The nonpacifist interpretation doesn't require it to be an armed insurrection.
ii) This objection fails to distinguish between the defensive and offensive potential of a sword. Even if Jesus never intended for Christians to use it offensively, that hardly precludes a defensive use. It was standard equipment for travelers in the Roman Empire.
iii) Keep in mind that a sword had defensive value against dangerous animals as well as dangerous men (cf. 1 Cor 15:32).
4. Jesus reproves their misunderstanding in v38.
i) That interpretation is less than straightforward. To begin with, if they misunderstood him on such a significant issue, wouldn't we expect him to correct them? And not just for their benefit, but for the Christian reader. It is not misleading to leave that unresolved?
ii) As a matter of Greek usage, it not clear that "it's enough" means "drop it!" From the lexicons I consulted, that's an idiosyncratic definition of hikanos.
5. Two swords are hardly enough to protect them.
i) True, but irrelevant. At this juncture, two swords are more than enough because they don't need any swords at the moment. They will only need to protect themselves after Jesus ascends to the Father. There's no urgency in having swords at the ready in the hours ahead.
ii) Moreover, what's "enough" is probably not the swords, but the fact that they got the point. Showing him their swords confirms their understanding.
6. The literal interpretation would contradict Christ's reproof of Peter.
That's confused. Naturally it's inappropriate for Peter to interfere with the plan of redemption. Resisting arrest would frustrate the very reason Jesus came in the first place. But you can hardly extrapolate from that unique situation to a universal principle.
7. According to Acts and the NT epistles, the church was nonviolent
i) That's an argument from silence.
ii) When you are vastly outnumbered by potential enemies, then violent self-defense is futile. That doesn't mean you wouldn't or shouldn't protect yourself or others where that's a viable option.
I conclude that the literal interpretation is the most likely. So opponents of pacifism can rightly cite this passage.
Friday, January 08, 2016
The Book of Jashar
The ancient Book of Jasher was a source text for both Joshua and David’s stories (Josh. 10:13, 2 Sam. 1:18). The extant version we have of the Book of Jasher, though dubitable, tells of two different stories that contain hybrid creatures that may be similar to the lion-men of Moab or the satyrs of Banias.
http://godawa.com/theology/myth-bible-part-10-lion-men-moab/
I don't follow Brian's logic on this point. He begins by referencing the ancient book of Jasher, then switches to "the extant version" which, by his own admission, is "dubitable."
So why does he proceed to quote it? To my knowledge, the ancient book of Jashar (or Jasher) doesn't exist at all. We don't have any extant copies or versions. What we have, instead, are fabrications.
According to one standard reference work:
An ancient writing, no longer extant, mentioned twice in the OT (Josh 10:13; 2 Sam 1:18)…The uncertain and mysterious character of the missing Book of Jashar has led to attempts to reproduce, imitate, or falsify it. An example is a late writing also entitled Book of Jashar, one of the last compositions of the haggadic literature of Judaism…Much of the material is invention, interpolated between Biblical texts, in the author’s desire to reconstruct the original book of Jashar. Many legends are added to the Biblical narrative. The account of Abraham is given in elaborate detail, including stories of his two journeys to see his son Ishmael, and of an apparition of a star. It contains a detailed explanation of the murder of Abel by Cain.
It is believed by some scholars that this attempt to reconstruct the OT Book of Jashar originated in southern Italy. The author was familiar with Italian place names, and the Arabic names in the book are due to the strong influence of Islamic culture in that region. The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible (Zondervan, rev. ed., 2009), 3:469.
Brian references a self-published edition by some guy named Ken Johnson, whose credentials are elusive. This source has zero credibility.
Predictable, preventable crime
Reports like this raise issues about the compartmentalized morality of folks like James White. Immigration policy, like abortion and euthanasia, is an ethical issue, not just a political issue. It's incumbent on Christians to have an integrated position that takes all our social obligations seriously.
“Pope Francis” Channels “Adolph von Harnack”
They say that those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. In 1972, David Wells observed that Rome had a “divided mind”; that “present-day Catholicism, on its progressive side, is teaching many of the ideas which the liberal Protestants espoused in the last century.” This has now gone all the way to the top, as “Pope Francis” takes up the 19th century liberal battle cry, “the Fatherhood of God, and the Brotherhood of Man”:
Lutheran Bible scholarship
I'd like to do a little overview of Lutheran Bible scholarship. To begin with, I use the word "Lutheran" advisedly. In Europe, I think "Lutheran" is sometimes used as a generic synonym for Protestant or non-Catholic. The Lutheranism of Rudolf Bultmann, Albrecht Ritschl, Ernst Käsemann, Helmut Koester, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (to name a few) is highly attenuated.
German Bible scholarship is infamously liberal, but I'm going to focus on moderate to conservative Lutheran scholars. In the 19C, Carl Friedrich Keil was their great OT scholar. He published an introduction to the OT, as well as several commentaries on OT books (as well as some NT books). Due to their age, these are now in the public domain:
His NT counterpart was Theodor Zahn. Some NT scholars have a greater theological emphasis while others have a greater historical emphasis. Zahn was in the latter category. He was probably the most erudite NT scholar of his generation. His only rival in that regard was Bishop Lightfoot. Zahn conducted major research on the NT canon, edited the Apostolic fathers, published a monumental NT introduction, along with several massive commentaries on the NT. For those of you who can read period academic German, these are currently online:
In a sense, Adolf Schlatter, his younger contemporary, was his successor. Schlatter had a more theological emphasis. Some of his works have been translated into English: notably, his commentary on Romans, a devotional volume on Do We Know Jesus?, and his two-volume The History of the Christ and The Theology of the Apostles.
Martin Hengel is the next major figure. He's a throwback to Zahn. Very erudite. Defends the general historicity of the Gospels and Acts. Did important work on St. Paul. Hengel was a foil to Bultmann.
Back in the 50s you had the abortive Concordia Commentaries series. That produced what was, for their time, fine commentaries on Luke, by NT lexicographer William Arndt, and Nahum, by Walter Maier.
Walter Maier was, in turn, the father of Paul Maier, an ancient historian who's written a number of books defending NT history:
Craig Koester has published major commentaries on Hebrews and Revelation–although I doubt he would qualify as a confessional Lutheran.
Andrew Steinmann is probably the most substantial conservative Lutheran scholar writing today. He's published a monograph on Biblical chronology, a monograph on the OT canon, two OT introductions, commentaries on Proverbs, Daniel, and Ezra/Nehemiah, and two books on prayer.
His commentaries are contributions to a revived Concordia Commentary series. I doubt contemporary confessional Lutheranism has a deep enough talent pool to produce outstanding commentaries on every book of the Bible, but it has the depth to produce some outstanding or exceptional commentaries. In addition to Steinmann's contributions, you have Horace Hummel's monumental commentary on Ezekiel, Andrew Das on Galatians, and Curtis Giese on 2 Peter and Jude.
Finally, Mark Seifrid used to teach at SBTS, but reverted to Lutheranism. His recent, major commentary on 2 Corinthians has a Lutheran emphasis, and I wouldn't be surprised if he publishes one or more additional commentaries from a Lutheran viewpoint.
Thursday, January 07, 2016
Disarming women
Here's a new report on the Cologne attacks:
Two related observations:
i) People who criticize the American gun culture like to say "Why not just call the police?"
How well did that work out in Cologne? Apparently, the police were afraid to use force, so the assailants didn't take them seriously. Why should they? German police are paper tigers.
ii) From what I've read, Germany has very strict gun control laws. It's a model of what gun-control advocates in the US would like to see here.
Imagine how different the situation in Cologne might have been that night had the law allowed women to be armed. If the muggers and molesters knew that German women might be packing heat, that could have a significant deterrent value.
And not just a deterrent value. It can back that up with lethal force if need be.
It wouldn't be necessary for all or even most German women to be armed. The question a prospective assailant needs to ask himself is whether he wants to find out the hard way which women are armed. Even if it's random, do you want to take the risk?
But of course, German law disarmed their women, leaving them defenseless. That's the "ideal" situation that gun-control advocates in this country envision.
The Cologne attacks represent the perfect storm of liberal policies. Bad immigration policy, bad gun laws, and timid police.
The locus of authority
A presidential election cycle is a good time to discuss the nature of our political system. The more so on the heels to the Supreme Court decision imposing homosexual marriage on the nation.
Gov't ranges a long a continuum, from autocracy to anarchy. One issue in political theory is which is worse: anarchy or tyranny? For Hobbes, anarchy is worse than tyranny. Depending on which end of the spectrum you think is worse, that will affect your view of what polity is preferable. Although you will avoid the extremes, you will gravitate towards one side of the spectrum or another, based on which you consider to be the worst-case scenario.
If you think the administration of public justice is a basic function of gov't, then the Hobbesian position is a reductio ad absurdum. To be legitimate, the state must be minimally just. It can't be one big criminal enterprise and still demand our allegiance.
Why do we even need gov't in the first place? Because human beings are social creatures. Social life generates friction. Competing and conflicting actions. For social life to exist, some behavior must be out of bounds. Impose limits on what one person can do to another. That means someone or something needs to play referee.
Gov't poses a conundrum: one purpose of gov't is to function as a check on criminality. But what prevents crooks from becoming politicians? What prevents gov't from becoming a criminal enterprise? The same corruption that fuels crime can fuel gov't corruption. So the very same the problem that necessitates gov't makes gov't problematic.
At one end of the spectrum is absolute monarchy. The ruler's word is law.
By contrast, it's striking that the OT theocracy was a constitutional monarchy. The king was subject to the same law as private citizens.
This goes to the locus of authority. In the OT theocracy, ultimate authority was vested, not in kings or judges but the law. God's law.
Our system of gov't is based on the consent of the governed. On the face of it, that might seem to be oxymoronic. Governance is authority. But how can citizens be under authority if gov't can only operate with their consent? Doesn't that make each citizen his own governor?
The solution is delegated authority. Voters elect officials who are authorized to speak and act on their behalf. Some elected officials appoint bureaucrats, or nominate bureaucrats (subject to legislative confirmation).
You cede some liberty in exchange for security, but you reserve the right to take that back. You can vote your representatives out of office.
You cede some liberty in exchange for security, but you reserve the right to take that back. You can vote your representatives out of office.
On that system, the locus of authority is the electorate. Likewise, the locus of authority is law–laws enacted by their duly elected representatives. That's an extension of the public will.
This means the judiciary has no independent authority. The locus of authority is the law, not the judiciary. Judges are themselves subject to the law. Ultimate authority is vested in the electorate and the Constitution, which was ratified by the electorate. The Constitution is the expression of the public will regarding the terms of governance.
Some people counter that our judicial system is indebted to the British common law tradition. That's true, but that's subject to two essential caveats:
i) The foundation of our legal system is written law, not common law. That's why we have a written Constitution, including a Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights limits both gov't and majority rule.
ii) The English common law system developed under monarchy and aristocracy. Our system, by contrast, is a repudiation of monarchy and aristocracy. Our system is bottom-up rather than top-down.
In our system, the flow of authority is electorate>legislature>executive/judiciary
Lawmakers are subordinate to voters, while judges and executives are subordinate to the law. The job of judges and executives is to apply laws passed by legislators elected by voters.
Some pundits, especially Catholic pundits, or those who lean on that paradigm, defend Kim Davis by appeal to the right of conscience. That, however, plays into the hands of her critics. They say that's precisely the problem: it's an abuse of power for a public official to use her authority to further a personal agenda. And that objection is generally valid in principle. In this case, however:
i) Davis's personal agenda happens to dovetail with state law. The voters banned homosexual marriage. Her own motivations align with the will of the electorate, enacted into law.
ii) Ironically, it's the five Supreme Court Justices who are guilty of the very thing critics falsely accuse Davis of doing: they abused their power to further a personal agenda.
What makes Obergefall illegitimate is that it's the expression of naked judicial power. But under our system of gov't, judges aren't the locus of authority. They are not above the law. A judge is not an autocrat whose word is law. Authority doesn't reside in the judge, but the text. A judge is a subordinate authority. His authority is derivative and conditional.
That said, there are situations in which civil disobedience is justifiable. Our system isn't based on Hobbesian absolutism. Our allegiance is not unconditional.
Finally, we might compare this to Catholicism. The papacy is an absolute monarchy–although technically the pope can't change dogma. But since the pope defines dogma, he can redefine dogma. He's the final interpreter.
Catholic apologists say a magisterium is necessary to settle religious disputes. Someone must have the final word–otherwise, anarchy ensues. It's a Hobbesian view, transposed to a theological key.
Problem with that position is that theological issues are issues of right and wrong, truth and falsehood, rather than authority, per se. If you have the truth, you don't need authority, and authority without truth is worse than useless.
A Catholic apologist might counter that you need a magisterium to identify what's true. But the problem with that appeal is twofold:
i) Whether the Roman magisterium has that ability is, itself, an issue of truth or falsehood. So that preliminary question must be answered independent of the magisterium. To confirm or disconfirm the claims of the magisterium requires a vantage-point or starting-point outside the magisterium. And it renders a magisterium superfluous to the extent that you can answer questions like that apart from a magisterium.
ii) Whatever the abstract virtues of a magisterium on paper, in reality the Roman magisterium is a poor match for the job description. It acts just like you'd expect a sinful, fallible, shortsighted organization to act. Its behavior is indistinguishable from an organization that has no divine guidance, that's driven by the shifting winds of the zeitgeist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)