By What Authority and By What Standard?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Objection: Aren't you just imposing your religious belief on me?

Yes, I am, in a way, though I might say I am imposing reality upon you. Any time someone imposes government upon another there is also an imposition of religious belief. When I say all authority comes from God, that is a religious belief. When someone else says all authority does not come from God, but comes from within man, that is a religious belief, too. In either case, someone is imposing unprovable, fundamental, core beliefs on others. Margaret would impose "unalterable truths of conscience." I would impose the Scriptures. There is just no getting around the imposition of our own perceptions of truth when we impose human governments.

Objection: If you impose the Bible's standards, then we can't eat pork.
I just use this as a sample of many objections that could be raised about the substance of Biblical law. Let me identify some of the difficulties we come across as we interpret these things.

First, we often fail to distinguish between ceremonial law and civil law in Scripture. Ceremonial law applied only to the Jews. The Christian believes this body of law was fulfilled in Christ and is no longer applicable to believers. I assume practicing Jews believe that these laws still apply to them. But in either case, these laws were never applied to those who were not in the faith. Their purpose was religious instruction/revelation and God's setting aside a people for Himself to which Messiah would come. Civil law, on the other hand, was imposed on everyone within Israel's physical borders. It often takes a very careful reading of Scripture to determine the difference, but the difference is there.

Second, even if we eliminate the ceremonial law from consideration, people may object to the substance of some of the civil law. After all, are we really going to take people outside the city and stone them? Are we really going to require everyone to put a parapet (fence) around his or her roof? Here I think the difficulty is that while I would claim that the Scriptures reveal the bounds of God's  authority delegated to human governments, I am not suggesting that our national laws should be identical to those of ancient Israel. This is a different place and a different time. The principles remain the same, though.

So when I read that those properly convicted of capital crimes were to be stoned until they were dead, what principles are there? I learn that the state does have the power to execute, though that power is limited to certain cases and with certain standards of conviction (multiple witnesses, etc.). Also, stoning was really one of the least cruel methods of execution of the day. That may seem startling to modern sensibilities, but it is true. Compare it to the bloody crucifixion of the Romans that left people hanging for what was sometimes days. Those who were stoned in Israel were to be stoned until they were dead. They were not to be fatally injured and then left to suffer and finally die. Their dying was relatively quick. So from all that I would conclude that it is a principle that the dying process itself is not the punishment, and executions should be as swift and painless as possible.

What do we learn from the law of the parapet? Again, since we Americans don't sleep on our roofs, they are not a hazard and there is no need to have such a law in our land. Yet there is a useful principle here, in that it is proper for a civil government to impose reasonable standards of safety in regards to obvious hazards. A law, for example, that requires a fence around swimming pools or a construction site can be justified by this principle and is a reasonable imposition of government in our place and time.

Then again, let us look at a modern situation, such as the definitions of hate crimes. From where comes the authority to criminalize one's thoughts? God may judge them, but man is never authorized to do so. Where is the Biblical model that teaches us that we ought to distinguish between assaults, for example, that are motivated by hatred for a group of people as opposed by those that are motivated by hatred for that person or some other sinful thoughts, such as jealousy or revenge? I would assert that such laws exceed the bounds of the just use of authority, even though I agree that such prejudicial hate is sinful.

Objection: You would return to the days when people were forced to worship in the state church.
Let me start off by saying that it is a completely legitimate fear that people in power will use religion to oppress the people. It happens all the time, even in our time and place. Abusive spouses, parents, priests and pastors regularly use their supposed God-given authority to control and oppress.

History gives us many examples of those claiming religious authority (though the sincerity of their professions can often be questioned), imposing unjust control over people. The tyranny of King James drove the Pilgrims from England's shores. The tyranny of King George sparked the American War for Independence. The use of a supposed mandate from God to control and rule is as old to mankind as the Sumerian god-kings and the Egyptian Pharaohs.

So what makes my assertion different than these? I would hold all rulers accountable to the limits of government defined in the Scriptures rather than grant unlimited control. Where does Scripture give the authority for civil government to coerce people to worship? It isn't there. Where does it give them the authority to impose a profession of faith? It doesn't. And whenever governments enforced laws such as these in the name of Christ, I will not defend them simply because I, too, bear the name of Christ.

Even when a government is set up with clearly Biblical standards, the people must be vigilant about keeping their leaders accountable to those standards. This, I believe, is what the founders of this nation were attempting to empower us to do when they drafted our system of government with its many checks and balances.

Objection: I don't agree with the moral standards of the Bible.
Any system of civil government is going to impose standards that not everyone agrees with. Because I believe God is wise and good, I am willing to have the civil government impose those standards He has given them the authority to impose, and I am willing to limit the civil government and have people be free in other areas, even if I disagree with their decisions or standards.

Likewise, because I recognize the weak and sinful nature of man, I am not willing to submit to a system of government that allows men the ability to define right and wrong or exercise authority without regard to a transcendent written standard.

I understand that some people think they simply can't live under Biblical standards. Again, this is true of some people in any system. I can't say I'm too pleased to be living under a rule that says my teenage daughter (if I had one) could be taken without my knowledge out of state to abort my grandchild, or child molesters were allowed to live, be set free and molest again, or in which I must submit to the oversight of complete strangers with alleged authority over my children because I choose to educate them at home.

But that being said, the standards of government that the Bible sets out, if they were fully adhered to, would result in more liberty for people of all faiths than any other system. In history, to whatever degree a government has come close to these standards, the people have been free. (I am not talking about simply saying these standards are being adhered to, I mean when they actually do it with consistency.) To whatever extent these limits and standards have been rejected, the people are oppressed.

Objection: The Bible's sexual standards would intrude on my privacy.
The Bible lists all forms of sex outside of marriage as sin. This includes fornication, adultery, bestiality and sodomy. However, conviction of any of these as a crime requires the testimony of two or three witnesses. In practice such crimes were most often exposed because of pregnancy. The government is not given the authority to peek into bedrooms to find out if maybe someone is fornicating or engaging in sodomy there. The enforcement of sexual crimes would necessarily result in more discretion, but is that really such a horrible thing? Would it be so bad if the bubbly young thing no longer gushes out with statements such as, "We've been living together for three years and now we're thinking about getting married!" (Oh, goody, goody. That's a fine idea, girl!) Would it be so awful if people stopped having sex in public bathrooms and parks?

There is also the sense that homosexual sin would be more affected than heterosexual sin. I do not believe this is so. First, there are far more heterosexuals committing sexual sins. Second, heterosexual sin is at risk of being revealed (at least for the woman) if a pregnancy occurs. Third, it is considered proper for unmarried people of the same sex to share a home, but not so with unmarried people of the opposite sex, hence a homosexual couple that was discrete would invite less suspicion than a heterosexual couple that shares a home.

In summary, I believe that if we revert to a man-centered source of authority and a man-centered standard of law (by trusting a common conscience or using a standard of harm), the result will be less liberty, rather than more, especially for those who find themselves in the minority in terms of opinion or religious conviction. Such a system would give more opportunity for the tyrant to justify laws by declaring them to be an unalterable truth of conscience, or necessary to prevent harm, rather than requiring him to justify laws and limit authority according to a truly unchanging written standard.

Comments

[Diane R]

This is the old Ayn Rand philosophy of "I can do whatever I want to as long as it doesn't "hurt" anyone. The problenm that these people do not see is that when boundaries are taken down privatley, that mentality also shows up corporately as we are now seeing in our country. Look at all the child molestations for example. The boundaries have been taken down at home with pornography and now it is reflected in the general society as a whole.

[Jen]

Another truly EXCELLENT post, Dory.

Jen

[Ed Darrell]

Nice to see someone from the Ayn Rand school complaining about Ayn Rand's effects. But I digress.

Our government in the U.S. based on a compact between citizens to make just laws and obey them -- almost exactly the same compact the passengers aboard the Mayflower struck before they disembarked at Plymouth Rock. It has been shown over time that such a government tends to produce greater moral training and concern among citizens, and greater moral bearing in the government. Experience in the previous 1,500 years showed that each time we resorted to "Bible-based" law we got lazy churches and corrupt governments.

What do you know that is superior to what Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton and Jay knew? I'm missing the point.

[Dory]

The text of the Mayflower Compact:

In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620.

What is it about this document, or about the history of the Pilgrims leads you to believe that the people who signed this document and serve as one of your examples of a government that "tends to produce greater moral training and concern among citizens, and greater moral bearing in the government," considered a law just on any other basis than its conformity with the Law of God? If you read Bradford's history, you will read of a people endeavoring to apply a Biblical standard to their laws.

Of course, your comments beginning with, "It has been shown...", etc., are unsubstantiated, open to interpretation, and not useful to your argument.

You ask what I know better that Madison, et al. Nothing. That IS the point. Others claim they can rely upon their inner consciences or our collective consciences to learn what laws are just. I would not rely upon human conscience. I would desire that we rely upon the written, unchangeable law of God.

[kyle]

Well done!