Posted on 06/05/2009 5:52:10 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
The Question of Judicial Representation
In your paper, "Was the Killing of Dr. Gunn Just?" on page 4, you cite R. J. Rushdoony's 1971 book "The One and the Many." You cite his discussion of the Trinity, in which he discusses the Trinity as being equally one and equally many: the equal ultimacy of both unity and diversity. As a philosophical concept, this is a correct analysis of the meaning of the Trinity. But then you apply it in a unique way. You write: "All of reality reflects the nature of God and the equal ultimacy of the one and the many. When applying this principle to our civic life one may ask, which is more important, the leadership the individuals have elected (the one) or the individuals that constitute the society (the many)? The answer is that neither are more important, they are equally ultimate." And then, in bold face, you add this: "Therefore, both the individuals and their authorities have equal ultimacy as to their responsibility to defend life."
Here you make the classic mistake of the revolutionary. You move away from covenantal law to radical individualism. You go in the direction of pure anarchism. You are an anarchist. Your statement reveals anti-covenantal outlook.
The biblical position is that there must always be judicial representation. Adam represented all of mankind before God in the fall. Jesus Christ represented all of mankind as well as His people before God in His death, resurrection, and ascension. There must always be representation. Moses represented the civil magistrates of Israel. Aaron represented the people as the high priest of Israel.
There must always be judicial representation, and it is established biblically through ordination. There are but three covenantal institutions that God recognizes: Church, State, and Family. Each of them is established by a vow taken before God. A self maledictory oath and we say in our marriage vows, "'til death do us part." In the Church, we are baptized, which symbolizes going through the death and resurrection with Jesus Christ. Death is always a possibility for covenant-breaking. This death is announced through excommunication. In the State, we take a vow, or at lease implicitly we do, to uphold the law. We are brought under the sanctions of God if we unlawfully violate an oath of subordination. The point is: there must be, in every covenant, a representative. This representative is ordained to his office.
The father represents his wife and his children before God because he holds high covenantal office to which he has been ordained. The minister represents the congregation because he has been ordained. The civil magistrate represents the covenanted nation because he has been elected or lawfully appointed by those who have been elected. There is no lawful covenantal office without ordination.
What you are talking about in your essay is the equal ultimacy of both the individual and the ordained civil magistrate in fighting crime. This position is utter nonsense biblically. There cannot be equal ultimacy of those two, for one of them has been ordained, and one of them has not. The officer has a covenantal responsibility before God that is unique, but the individual does not. The officer is oath-bound to enforce the law, while the individual is oath-bound to obey it. One of them is at the top of the hierarchy and is invested by God with the power to exercise the sword, while the other is not.
Your theory of civil law does not reveal any trace of judicial subordination. Your system of interpretation of Rushdoony's passage is a violation of every principle of biblical covenantal law because there is no hierarchy in your system. Every covenant has to have a hierarchy. Every legal order has to have a judge. Every ecclesiastical order has to have a minister. But you obviously do not believe this. When you were excommunicated, you set up your own home church in which you were the self-ordained authority, by which you said you had the right to administer the sacraments to your wife and your children. But who ordained you? Who anointed you? No one. You were an excommunicate at the time you ordained yourself.
You are an anarchist and a rebel. The problem is, there are a lot of others just like you, with the same mind set, who are equally armed and dangerous.
The secular anarchist says that he speaks for himself -- a pure anarchist. He says, "There is no authority beyond me." This is the doctrine of the divine right of the individual. The divine right of the individual teaches that there is no lawful court of appeal beyond him. This is the pure anarchist.
Most anarchists are not pure anarchists. You are not a pure anarchist. You claim that you speak in the name of the community. And presumably, you have two communities in mind: the church of Jesus Christ, which excommunicated you, and the civil government, which has locked you up and now threatens to execute you. Yet you, as an unordained individual, claim that you possessed the right to act for the community in the name of the community. Either you spoke in the name of the church and the state or else you spoke in the name of the broad-based community as an whole. This is not clear in your essay.
Here is the judicial reality: no one ordained you to this ecclesiastical position as spokesman; no one anointed you to this civil position as spokesman. You ordained yourself, anointed yourself, to speak both as priest and civil magistrate in issuing your theological manifestos. Then you gunned down a man, gunned down his escort, and wounded the escort's wife. And you did this, you claim, not in the name of yourself simply as an individual, but in the name of Jesus Christ. You did this, you say, as a representative agent of Jesus Christ's kingdom, both ecclesiastical and civil. Because you were once ordained and issued a theological manifesto, you took up a shotgun and killed them. Who ordained you? Who anointed you? The answer is: you anointed you. You ordained you. You, in your supposed capacity as an equally ultimate judge under God, ordained and anointed yourself. Then you got your gun.
Not many people are trained to think judicially. Not many are trained to think biblically. Even fewer are trained to think covenantally. The problem is, you had a little theonomic training, a little theological understanding, and a whole lot of pride. You also had a shotgun. And so you combined what little you knew of biblical law and what little you knew of theology with your shotgun. The result is your incarceration.
Fortunately, your church had excommunicated you before you grabbed your shotgun. The press has not been able to tar and feather the Christian church, because the church exercised its good judgment and declared you outside the jurisdiction of Christ's ecclesiastical kingdom. It publicly announced that you are going to hell unless you repent. That cleared the church of any responsibility for you. This is an enormous blessing to the church of Jesus Christ. If more churches would do this, there would be less embarrassment for the church of Jesus Christ when those who are excommunicated go out and practice exactly what they preach. But churches do not excommunicate people very often, and so churches get tarred and feathered by the press when those under their jurisdiction do things much less violent than what you did
....Here is the judicial reality: no one ordained you to this ecclesiastical position as spokesman; no one anointed you to this civil position as spokesman....Who ordained you? Who anointed you? The answer is: you anointed you. You ordained you. You, in your supposed capacity as an equally ultimate judge under God, ordained and anointed yourself. Then you got your gun....
....Fortunately, your church had excommunicated you before you grabbed your shotgun. The press has not been able to tar and feather the Christian church, because the church exercised its good judgment and declared you outside the jurisdiction of Christ's ecclesiastical kingdom. It publicly announced that you are going to hell unless you repent. That cleared the church of any responsibility for you. This is an enormous blessing to the church of Jesus Christ. If more churches would do this, there would be less embarrassment for the church of Jesus Christ when those who are excommunicated go out and practice exactly what they preach. But churches do not excommunicate people very often, and so churches get tarred and feathered by the press when those under their jurisdiction do things much less violent than what you did.
Dr George Tiller, the infamous Kansas late-term abortionist was shot to death this past weekend. At some point, comparisons will be made to the shooting deaths of Dr. John Britton and abortion escort/bodyguard James Barrett in the summer of 1994.
This thread series features a letter written to Britton's murderer, Paul Hill while he was awaiting trial for the killings (Hill was convicted, sentenced to death, and executed for the double-murder). The author is "Christian Reconstructionist" writer Gary North. The letter (published in book form under the title Lone Gunners for Jesus: Letters to Paul Hill) articulates a Reformed response to the question of whether the killing of an abortionist can be considered morally justified in Scripture.
Pt 1: Introduction
Pt 2: Judicial Theology
Pt 3: Murder, Defined Biblically
Pt 4: The Fundamental Issue
Pt 5: The Guilt of the Community
Pt 6: The Question of Judicial Representation
Pt 7: Community Standards
Pt 8: The Technology of Low-Cost Murder
Pt 9: Voices of Virtue
Pt 10: Perfectionism and Unlimited Guilt
Pt 11: Non-Violent Resistance
Pt 12: Caught in a Crossfire
Pt 13: Conclusion
Should be interesting and timely.
I would add to these points that IMO the likelihood of these murderous events being engineered outside of the brains of these two men is highly probable. We need to be careful we are not being manipulated as these men may have been.
Hi, L-C! We miss you! Ping to Alex’ thread and posts 1-3.
Morning sister. I miss the opportunity to chat from time to time and Arminians to spank. At least I can be consoled with my horses. If they don’t listen, I just spank ‘em and move on. They may fuss and buck, but eventually see the wisdom of my way. ;)
"If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?" -- Hebrews 12:7
Stick around, Cowboy. 8~)
When the American troops arrived at Dachau, they summarily executed the Nazi guards that they found there. No trial. No due process. They just lined them up outside the walls and gunned them down... and their little dogs too.
There must always be judicial representation, and it is established biblically through ordination. There are but three covenantal institutions that God recognizes: Church, State, and Family. Each of them is established by a vow taken before God. A self maledictory oath and we say in our marriage vows, "'til death do us part." In the Church, we are baptized, which symbolizes going through the death and resurrection with Jesus Christ. Death is always a possibility for covenant-breaking. This death is announced through excommunication. In the State, we take a vow, or at lease implicitly we do, to uphold the law. We are brought under the sanctions of God if we unlawfully violate an oath of subordination. The point is: there must be, in every covenant, a representative. This representative is ordained to his office.In war, there is no trial. No due process. The soldiers who liberated Buchenwald were judicial representatives of the nations that sent them there, authorized to use deadly force as part of those nations' Declarations of War.
Dr George Tiller was a full member in good standing of Reformation Lutheran Church (ELCA). More pointedly, he was not excommunicated by his church, despite his day job being the moral equivalent to being a Camp Director at Dachau. Further, he was fully licensed in his work by the State of Kansas, and had legal permission to do so from the Supreme Court of the United States, and from the Attorney General of the United States. While his actions were morally wrong, George Tiller's country and George Tiller's church did indeed bless them and sanction them. And that's why Scott Roeder will be going on trial for his murder.
Consider the flip-side now. What church or state was Scott Roeder sanctioned by? Whose laws did Roeder represent in shooting an unarmed, untried man? Killing a bad man does not automatically render the killing as a righteous act.
Not exactly.
The performance of late term abortions is only legal in Kansas under very strict rules which prohibit such abortions except where there is a grave threat to the physical health of the mother.
Frankly since late term pregnancies which threaten the health of the mother can easily and safely be terminated by cesarean birth rather than partial birth abortion, there was no legal basis for Tiller's execution of children in his store-front concentration camp. He was not legally licensed to do what he was doing.
The problem was that the government was not enforcing its own laws for the protection of viable fetuses (a state right that even the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade said was a legitimate reason to ban late term abortions).
While his actions were morally wrong, George Tiller's country and George Tiller's church did indeed bless them and sanction them.
Wrong. The State of Kansas did not bless or sanction his crimes against humanity.... the officials in charge of enforcing the laws ignored them. And as far as his Church sanctioning and blessing them, well, frankly I think it was fitting that he was assassinated in the lobby of that church.
Tell me Alex, do you consider late term abortions to be "murder"?
If so, do you believe that if he had not been killed on Sunday, that Tiller was going to eat breakfast, read the paper and go to work and murder an innocent child or two on Monday morning?
I think the reason that we can all condemn Paul Hill's actions while we have trouble condeming Roeder's actions is that Paul Hill's actions included gunning down two people who were not directly involved in the abortions and I'm not all that sure that the abortionist that Paul Hill shot was violating any specific laws (like Tiller) or that he was a late term abortion provider.
Paul Hill was rightly condemned and executed because he not only killed an abortion provider, but one of his employees as well as well as attempting to murder a third.
Personally I pray that Roeder is acquitted.
If that action was refused by the church, they should have fled.
All men sin and as sinners we come to God in repentance. Tiller wasn't repentant of his sins; he paid his mortgage with them and put blood money in the church's coffers every Sunday.
We are to separate ourselves from known evil. But to personally take a gun and murder even a murderer is not taught anywhere in Scripture. "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord."
The state of Kansas most certainly sanctioned Hill's butchery or it would have arrested him. That's how representative government works.
If you have the time, read North's concise argument in Alex' post. It's very persuasive, from both a judicial and Scriptural pov.
LOL!
Let me show you how representative government works when you have a democrat abortion supporting governor...
And that's because the majority of Kansas voters were democrats and voted for this particular governor. What's the answer? To work to persuade voters to kick the scum out of office.
Or else we are left to choose between anarchy and Obama's socialism.
So what you are saying is that the Governor is above the law and Tiller is above the law because he bribed the governor, but that Roeder is beneath the law because he didn't have enough money to bribe Sebelius into enforcing the law like Tiller had to bribe her to ignore it?
These are the seeds of revolution, my FRiend.
May I quote from the constitution?
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Who has done more to secure the blessings of liberty to our posterity, Sibelius or Roeder?
What's the answer? To work to persuade voters to kick the scum out of office.
What if those in power are willing to lie and cheat and steal elections in order to remain in power? Are we then justified in taking up arms? Or do we have to resort to lying, cheating and stealing?
Or else we are left to choose between anarchy and Obama's socialism.
What makes you think we aren't under Anarchy now?
When those in charge of enforcing the law selectively ignore it or selectively enforce it, then you are under anarchy.
That is such an important issue, the integrity of elections. From the integrity of elections comes the authority of the leaders, and thence the laws, and thence the civil order. Anyone who short-changes this step is building an ediface with a faulty foundation.
While taking the law into one's own hands might APPEAR to be anarchy, the founders of this nation declare that USURPATION removes the authority of civil leaders.
We have this issue in many denominations. Liberaldom has been excellent in seizing leadership, but they have usurped the foundational doctrine one which those denominations have been built.
Appealing to the foundational doctrine, can an INDIVIDUAL church legimately, before God, when it is evident that the Spirit has left the room, declare its separation from that wayward leadership leading the denomination to hell?
Most will agree that, yes, that is biblical.
Likewise, usurp the truth that underlies the republic, and at some point INDIVIDUALS MUST rebel, or they will sacrifice their freedom and the lives of their loved ones to legalistically followed traditions.
The irony is that this isn't really true.
Kansas has two Republican senators (they haven't elected a 'Rat to the Senate in over 70 years), but they do seem to elect 'Rats as governor fairly often.
McCain won Kansas with almost 57% of the vote and Bush did even better.
Kansas is VERY RURAL, even their "big cities" aren't that big (Kansas City, Missouri is huge compared to Kansas City, Kansas) and most of the people are down to earth conservative types.
In short, there is no logical reason why they EVER went along with being the abortion capital of the world
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.