“(Beza) now made the traditional distinction between tyrants who usurped their office and legitimate authorities who became tyrannical. Usurpers were to be resisted fervently, ideally by the authorized lower magistrates. But if these magistrates failed, even private persons, following the example of the ancient McAtee’s (oops — make that Maccabees), could lead the resistance if God opened a way to them. Legitimate authorities who became tyrannical, however, could be resisted only by the lower magistrates, such as the electoral princes in the Holy Roman Empire or the Estates-General in the kingdom of France. Private persons could and should disobey unjust orders and laws, or flee the jurisdiction. But they could not fight or resist on their own. ‘[We] do not cease to beg our brothers to arm themselves only with patience, until God comes to their aid, either in another way, or by raising up a [new] prince.’
These early reflections were ‘an embryonic justification for democratic revolution’ writes Robert Kingdon. Bez’s argument in a nutshell was this: the political office was ‘ordained by God and represents God in the world.’ But the political officers who occupy that office depend for their authority upon ‘the public consent of the citizens.’ When the political officer no longer respect his office and no longer represents God in the world, ‘public consent’ can give way to ‘public dissent.’ When this dissent is expressed properly through the lower magistrates, the political officer loses his authority and must be resisted, and if necessary forcibly removed from office.
John Witte, Jr.
The Reformation Of Rights — pg. 104-105
Now the question that commands our attention is whether our current situation here in these United States is a situation where tyrants have usurped their office or whether it is a case of legitimate authorities who have become tyrannical. Actually, I think this could be argued both ways. The former argument would reason that we have tyrants who have usurped their office because they are in violation of their oath to the Constitution. This violation of their oath to the constitution would de-legitimize any claim they might have to being legitimate authorities. On the other hand one could argue that they are legitimate authorities who have become tyrannical if only because they were lawfully elected to their positions. My instinct is to go with the former argumentation thus allowing more freedom for the individual to resist the tyranny but for the sake of discretion and prudence, I will, at this point, side with the latter argument that our current usurpers are legitimate authorities who have become tyrannical and who can only be resisted in the context of lesser magistrates. I think when we are considering a topic such as ‘faithfulness by public dissent’ we should be err on the side of caution.
The implication of this is that, we as Christians, should be earnestly petitioning God that He would be gracious to raise up lesser magistrates in order to lead His people against the tyranny that we are currently under in these United States. The second implication of this is that if God should raise up lesser magistrates to oppose the current tyranny that we are under it would be disobedience to God to not support these lesser magistrates with oaths of fealty and deeds of valor. If God should be pleased to raise up what some would characterize as ‘lesser magistrates’ to lead against what some would characterize as ‘greater magistrates’ we would need to return to the motto that ‘obedience to tyrants is disobedience to God.’
Until such a time as God changes the equation here we must give Him no rest in making known our desire of magistrates who would rule consistent with His Word. Also, we must be willing to bear all that is levied against us by wicked rulers as God’s just judgment against us for being complicit in arriving at this point where the foundations of righteousness are being decimated.
In the end though we must note this…
Given the right conditions Reformed doctrine requires faithfulness by dissent or to put it another way, should God provide the right conditions a lack of civil disobedience would be disobedience to God.
What about the usurpation of our unelected new emperor who runs our version of the Security Service and who has suspended Texas law in order to build our new play pen, er, Berlin Wall?
Ah Gregg, there is so much evidence of Tyranny it is hard to know where to begin.
While I’m not sure exactly what you are referring to I am sure that it probably serves as one more instance of usurpation.
My most current beef is the national ID card that they are trying to force down our throats.
Bret
I didn’t mean to be cryptic. We’re talking about the same individual– Emporer Chertoff. He is unelected, and with the last 7 years of “security” legislation is without question the most powerful man in country. The national ID is indeed a travesty, but the wall that is advertised to keep the “bad guys” out is equally bad, as it will one day serve only to keep the “redefined bad guys” (i.e. dissenters against the state) in. The locals down here have been fighting tooth and nail to stop this dude, and they thought they found somewhat of a temporary trump card with some state environmental laws. However, they thought wrong, as his answer was simply to “suspend” the laws. What can they possibly appeal to now against this guy…more laws? That obviously won’t work, and our mockery of a “Christian” Governor Perry certainly doesn’t have enough piss in his system to be of any help. Once the law is made to be obscelete, then what?
Bret,
After reading this post I became a bit aggitated as to our government and more particullarly our current crop of perspective “President’s elect” which is a complete CROCK! The difference between the lot is negligible and disgusting. At least our current President knows how to talk the talk even if his walk is not reflective.
All of that to say this: I was reminded of our Declaration of Independence. I just went and read through it again as refresher. When is it time for good men to throw off such government for the good of all? Surely these good men, our founding fathers, were strong believers in The Lord of Hosts. Surely they struggled with the Sovereignty of God in placing the “king” at that time. But just as surely we are now living in a country that is no longer indentured to England… they threw off that government.
How far then shall we go before we must look at our current leadership and direction of our government before we must consider something along the same lines? Please understand I am in no way promoting taking up arms or any such thing as I don’t want to be labled a terrorist and have men in black suits show up at my door! But even that thought provokes anger and distrust in and toward our current government. It’s tenticles reach beyond reason! How can we be seen as anything but Socialists and how is that then a Republic??? What are we then to do???
Anyhow, I am attaching a copy of the Declaration up until the list of greivences against the king. It is interesting the similarities between then and now including the greivences.
********************************************
“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”
God Bless
Bob
Gregg,
That is an interesting take on the proposed Wall that I’ve never heard before though it makes perfect sense. I am struck that Eisenhower in the 1950’s in operation (I’m not making this up) ‘Wetback,’ was able to pursue and return illegal aliens in these United States and enforce the immigration laws without building a wall.
Still, I have to wonder about the idea that the Wall will be built to keep people in who hate the State. I think we have to realize that there is a huge border with Canada that people could avail themselves to if they wanted to leave. How does a Wall on Mexico keep people in w/o a wall on the huge Canadian border?
You know the minute that they created the ‘Department of the Homeland Security’ I went nuts thinking… “How convenient — We get large planes flying into tall buildings and the first consequence is to grow the Federal Government with a Cabinet Department that has a name right out of Joseph Goebbel’s Ministry of ‘Information’ euphemistic play book. Now when combining the reality that whenever a Government titles something you can expect just the opposite behavior what we get is a ‘Department against Homeland Security.’
When it comes to tyranny laws mean nothing as under tyrannical regimes men are ruled not by law but by men.
God grant us wisdom for the times,
Bret
Bob,
My reading is re-enforcing that this idea quoted below from the Declaration is an idea that has a long Reformed pedigree,
I finished the chapter on Beza today in Witte’s book and Witte makes the case that political arrangements are analogous to marital relationships in as much as just as in marriages there are legitimate grounds for divorce so in covenantal relationships between a people and their magistrates grievous and sustained usurpations are grounds for breaking what had been legitimate political bonds when pursued in the context of faithful lower magistrates. When our founders, who I believe understood themselves to be faithful lower magistrates, wrote that Declaration of Independence they were revealing, in an implicit fashion, their Calvinist heritage.
Something else I will mention here just for the sake of information, is the little known fact that the document ‘Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos’ written by a anonymous Calvinist (thought by many to be Philippe Du Plessis-Mornay) and the political works of the Calvinist John Ponnet were far more influential on American colonialists in their thoughts on Biblical Revolt (what I prefer to call Faithful dissent) in light of English parliamentary attempted despotism and Monarchical neglect then was the work of ‘Common Sense’ written by the Atheistic Thomas Paine. Yet, are American school children ever taught that colonial sensibilities on Faithful Dissent against King George ever taught anything about ‘Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos’ or John Ponnet? I didn’t hear about these writings until I was in my 40’s. Why does Thomas Paine get all the press? Could it be due to the fact that Paine was a Christ hater while ‘Vindication Against Tyrants’ and Ponnet’s work breathes the air of Biblical Christianity?
In responding to your overall note, I can’t help but wonder how the despotism and usurpations that we are currently living under are substantially or materially different then the despotism and usurpations that our colonialist fore fathers lived under. The difference I would say is that because we no longer are Reformed our collective backbone has been removed. Whereas they spent time and effort in proper petitioning and noble resistance we spend our time and effort either watching television or if we are of an intellectual stripe, rationalizing and justifying our slavery to our political overlords who no longer have anything in common with us except the hollowed out name of ‘American.’
God’s hand is against us and His judgments are all together just. Perhaps, in wrath he will remember mercy.
I just figure our wall will become walls and will ultimately function like the Berlin wall did for East Germans. It sure ain’t gonna’ keep Mexicans out, so I figure it’ll ultimately be used to keep Americans in. A speculative theory, but not without precedant (Berlin).
The Department of Homeland Security is no different than Nazi Germany’s Gestapo complete with a head who has been given legal carte blanche to do literally whatever he wants.