Ponet: Are rulers subject to the law?

Whoever observes how political rulers currently operate–how they ambitiously usurp the dominions of others, how they neglect the good governance of their own country–might assume that they function believing that there is no God (or at least that he doesn’t care a fig for the world), or that these rulers think that they are exempt from God’s laws and power. But the wonderful obstruction of their strategies that comes at the height of their hubris is so obvious that it is impossible to deny that there is a God and or that he exercises a careful watch over the world. God’s word is so plain that no ruler could deny that he or she ought to obey God and be subject to his laws and word.

Biblical precedents show that rulers are subject to God’s laws just like everyone else

The Ten Commandments and every other part of divine revelation is just as much written for rulers as it is for private persons. Being a king gives one no more license to sin than any ordinary person. It is against God’s moral law for a ruler to disobey his parents, or commit murder, or be a whoremonger, or steal, or lie, or covet just as it is for any other person. Indeed, one who rules is bound to obey God’s law even more because he is a private man with respect to his person and a public man with respect to his office. That kings and princes are subject to laws just like any ordinary person is made clear by a number of biblical passages.

In the first passage I quote in support of this thesis one may read what the Holy Spirit says through the mouth of a king who is also a prophet:
Now therefore, O kings, be wise;
be warned, O rulers of the earth.
Serve the Lord with fear,
and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son,
lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,
for his wrath is quickly kindled (Psalm 2:10-12).
In another place he says:
The Lord is at your right hand;
he will shatter kings on the day of his wrath
(Psalm 110:5).
Isaiah the prophet says:
The Lord will enter into judgment
with the elders and princes of his people
(Isaiah 3:14).

And then there is the prophet Micah who, in the following selection, addresses all princes and governors generally and the leaders of Israel specifically:
Hear, you heads of Jacob and rulers of the house of Israel!
Is it not for you to know justice?—you who hate the good and love the evil,
who tear the skin from off my people and their flesh from off their bones,
who eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them,
and break their bones in pieces and chop them up like meat in a pot,
like flesh in a cauldron.
Then they will cry to the Lord, but he will not answer them;
he will hide his face from them at that time, because they have made their deeds evil
(Micah 2:1-4).

Later in the same context Micah continues:
Hear this, you heads of the house of Jacob
and rulers of the house of Israel,
who detest justice
and make crooked all that is straight,
who build Zion with blood
and Jerusalem with iniquity.
Its heads give judgment for a bribe;
its priests teach for a price;
its prophets practice divination for money;
yet they lean on the Lord and say,
“Is not the Lord in the midst of us?
No disaster shall come upon us.”
Therefore because of you
Zion
(that is, your cities) shall be plowed as a field;
Jerusalem
(that is, your palaces) shall become a heap of ruins,
and the mountain of the house (
that is, your monasteries, friaries, and chantries) a wooded height (Micah 2:9-12).

The Holy Spirit also spoke about these same issues through the mouth of King Solomon:
Listen therefore, O kings, and understand;
learn, O judges of the ends of the earth.
Give ear, you that rule over multitudes,
and boast of many nations.
For your dominion was given you from the Lord,
and your sovereignty from the Most High,
who will search out your works and inquire into your plans.
Because as servants of his kingdom you did not rule rightly,
nor keep the law,
nor walk according to the purpose of God,
he will come upon you terribly and swiftly,
because severe judgment falls on those in high places.
For the lowliest man may be pardoned in mercy,
but mighty men will be mightily tested.
For the Lord of all will not stand in awe of any one,
nor show deference to greatness;
because he himself made both small and great,
and he takes thought for all alike.
But a strict inquiry is in store for the mighty.
To you then, O monarchs, my words are directed,
that you may learn wisdom and not transgress
(Wisdom of Solomon 6:1-9).

These biblical quotations don’t require any particular examples to confirm them, but if we look at all the earthy rulers mentioned in the Bible, or even in history, it soon becomes apparent that none of them ever escaped God’s judgment. Their sins always affected both themselves and their successors (if any).

A well-known biblical example that requires no rehashing is that of King Saul and the reason for and manner of his punishment that effectively eliminated his posterity. Less infamously perhaps, Rehoboam had ten of the twelve tribes of his kingdom taken from him because he ruled as a tyrant, refused to listen to sensible counsel, or be subject to the positive laws. Instead, Jeroboam became the king of those ten tribes, yet even he refused to obey God’s written word. As a result, he fell into idolatry and dragged down his subjects with him. God dealt so severely with Jeroboam that his progeny was entirely rooted out.

Everyone knows what happened to Ahab and Jezebel. But God also struck King Joram, son of Jehoshaphat, with an incurable intestinal disease for two years, and he died in tremendous agony after his bowels literally fell out of his body. Sorry for being so graphic, but do I even have to give specific details of rulers who refused to obey the laws of God or of nature and were struck with calamity seeing that the whole Bible and even all history is so full of examples?

The point is that no king or ruler is exempt from the laws, control, and power of God. This being so, one would think that rulers would take their accountability to God seriously. But there is another, related, question: Should these rulers also be subject to the positive laws of the countries they govern? To discuss this question properly it is important to understand where authority comes from, not just the way rulers handle the power they have acquired. For the sake of argument, suppose we never questioned the claim of the church of Rome that they are the sole universal church with the pope at the head of it as God’s only earthly representative, and thus we never wondered how such a claim could be justified. Would we not be comfortable with his doing whatever he wanted? Even seemingly wicked acts would have to be considered just. In the same way, if we merely accept that rulers possess authority and never question where their authority comes from or if their exercise of authority is just, we could never question any apparently cruel exercise of tyranny. But because we see that all political power and authority come from God, who established it to maintain justice, we ought to examine seriously this matter further in light of God’s word.

Authority is a power, not a person

The apostle Paul addressed the issue of who should be obeyed and who should render obedience when he said, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God (Romans 13:1).” Some take the word “person” to mean a temporal person as opposed to a “spiritual” one, that is an officer of the church. Using this odd interpretation as an exemption, the pope justifies taking the clergy in all their diverse forms as his own subjects. He has made laws that require their obedience to him rather than to political authority. On theological bases he argues that temporal rulers have no jurisdiction over the clergy, only the laity. But this interpretation is not borne out by the way “person” is normally treated in Scripture. It means rather every kind of man and woman, as it does, for example, in the account of the Flood, where it says all the persons in the ark with Noah were eight in number. Or, in another example, all the persons in Jacob’s family who came with him to Egypt were seventy. No one could deny that these numbers of people were every bit as holy or spiritual people as are any subjects of the bishop of Rome. Even the commentator Chrysostom, who was himself a priest, said of the Romans 13 passage that this word refers to every person without exception.

Now with reference to the word “authorities,” some say it refers to every kind of magistrate, whether emperor, king, mayor, sheriff, constable, borough president, or dogcatcher. Others say it refers only to the highest officers, such as kings or prime ministers. It should be taken to mean the authority (or power) that officers of justice execute as when Christ said, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many ((Mark 10:42-45).” Marriage offers an analogy to this idea of lording it over someone in which we have to separate the office from the person who may be holding that office. Say a man and woman who live together seem to be married, but what appears to be true may not be in reality. The man may have a wife who is alive, or the woman a surviving husband that is not the man she is living with. Or, they may indeed be married but did not come together because they loved God and wanted to avoid sin , but perhaps one or the other married to possess his partner sexually or for money. We see a marriage, which is a good thing and a gift from God, but the people who profess to be in its covenant relationship may be terrible marriage partners, or even shams. So political power and authority is ordained of God, and that is a good thing. It is a gift from above. However, the person who actually executes the office is quite a different matter. Whether we are talking about an emperor or a king, the ordinance is godly but the occupant of the office may be evil and not of God, nor did he or she come to gain that office by God. The prophet Hosea explains a similar situation: “They made kings, but not through me. They set up princes, but I knew it not (Hosea 8:4).”

Also, the power that rulers have is not the only authority that exists. Parents have authority over children and masters over their servants. But we can clearly see that the individual parents and masters cannot possibly be the power itself. They are stewards of that power, accountable to God. Paul shows this plainly when he writes Titus, telling him to warn the Cretans to be subject to the “principalities and powers” (Titus 3:1). Some interpret his use of principalities to be “princes” to highlight the distinction between the minister who serves in the ministry that is given by God. Included in the Titus 3 passage is the admonition “to be obedient” to these princes, so we can readily see the difference between the person and the office.

So then, returning to the “person” referred to in the Romans 13 passage, we may assume that Paul meant every clergyperson and layperson, every man and woman. Paul also said there is “no authority except from God.” If that authority is something that rulers execute rather than a person who has authority, this is a further demonstration that rulers are subject to the authorities just like everyone else. That is, kings and princes are only executors of God’s law and other just ordinances and not exempt from them. They are bound to obey them like everyone else. Good laws are God’s laws, and rulers are officers of the law and not the law themselves. If they were exempt from obedience to the laws so that they could do whatever they wanted, wouldn’t it make God the author of evil when they wantonly robbed and killed their subjects without any legal basis? The very idea is blasphemous!

The emperor Justinian made a wise observation that he had included in his code: “It is a worthy saying, for the majesty of him that is in authority to confess that the prince is subject to the laws, so much does the authority of the prince depend on the authority of the laws.” And certainly it is more noble than the honor of the empire to submit the princes to the laws. For indeed laws were made that the willful self-will of men should not rule, but that they should have a guideline to lead them so they might not veer from justice and that–in case any should claim that they did them wrong–they might appeal to the law for their warrant and authority. It is also a principle of all laws grounded on the law of nature that every person should obey that law that he or she would want others to be bound to. Otherwise one takes away the equality necessary for commonwealths to be maintained ( I say equality here because there is no difference between ruler and ruled when it comes to the use and benefit of the law) . I ask you, what kind of equality is it when the subject must do whatever the ruler tells him regardless of how evil it may be? How can the commonwealth function healthily if the ruler requires his subjects to do whatever he wants without legal limits?

Trajan’s Sword: Pagan rulers understood their accountability

The most respected pagan rulers of antiquity understood that a ruler was subject to the laws. The emperor Trajan was so just that the senate of Rome equated his person and actions with that of a god. When he ascended to the throne he wanted to demonstrate that he had no intention of being a tyrant, but wanted to further good government in that, though he was the minister of the laws yet, he was subject to the laws. So one day he took a sword and gave it to the captain of his mounted bodyguard and said, “Here, take this and use it against my enemies when my cause is just. But when I bid you to use it unjustly against others then turn it against me.” Zaleucus, the lawgiver of the Italian city-state of Epizephyrian Locri, made a law that said that an adulterer should be punished with the loss of both his eyes. When Zeleucus’s son violated this very law the people of the city tried compassionately to intercede for the son so that he might be pardoned from the harsh penalty of the law. Zaleucus would have none of it, but instead pulled out one of his son’s eyes, then had one of his own eyes put out.

An objector might say, “Who really cares what these pagans thought? Why should we be influenced by what pagan rulers did?” My answer is that when unbelievers do by nature what we are bound to do, being informed by nature and the laws of God and man, then they rise in universal judgment for the condemnation of those who think themselves above the law.

Let’s draw out an illustration of this from an unlikely quarter. The pope’s laws–despite the fact that he does not apply them to himself but to others–state that it is just that a prince obey his own laws. The reason he should obey them is that his subjects will respect these laws when they see he esteems them as well. Papal law says, “It is just that princes be bound to their own laws and they must not, by their actions, do anything that violates the very laws they insist others should obey. They show themselves to be dispassionate judges if they refuse to do what they prohibit others from doing.” The Lateran Council, which was called by Innocent III, employed this same principle when it decreed that when rulers acknowledged no superior and bickered with other rulers or abused their authority, then the matter should be addressed to, and corrected by, the bishop of Rome. All well and good, but who was the arbiter for kings and princes before the pope came along? That is a question that will be answered in time, but for now suffice it to say we have demonstrated that kings and princes ought to obey and to be subject to the laws like anyone else, and we have based this idea on God’s laws, the law of nature, man’s laws, and reason. Rulers may not break laws, nor be exempt from them, nor dispense with them unless the legitimate makers of the law give them express authority to do so.

Next we will consider the question of who shall stand in judgment of kings.

Political Resistance in the Sixteenth Century

For some time I have been working on the paraphrase of John Ponet’s 1556 work, A Short Treatise of Political Power. I have decided to release it in installments on my weblog for accountability and feedback. Nothing can replace Ponet’s original words which must either be obtained in facsimile, or in e-books that contain many errors in attempting to eliminate archaisms. In this paraphrase I am attempting to present his ideas in contemporary language, yet with a view to literary and historical context. Ponet, like many authors of his day, was fond of redundant words and phrases to amplify and emphasize his point. I maintain redundancy only when their appearance produce a hybrid thought. This manuscript is in draft form only and will certainly be subject to further revision. Even if you don’t normally like political literature, please read the following and let me know what you think.

John Ponet died in 1556 at the young age of 40. He graduated from Cambridge with a Master of Arts at 19, and was ordained a priest at 20. He was an outstanding mathematician and astronomer and is credited with having constructed the famous sundial which is still on display at Queens’ College, Cambridge (read about it at “Reading the dial at Old Court”) and created a copy of it that may still be seen at Hampton Court palace. An edgy Protestant who did research for Thomas Cranmer, he was not only an early advocate of clerical marriage, but got married even before priests were allowed to do so legally in England. Nevertheless, he found favor during the brief reign of Edward VI and was appointed a bishop twice. In 1551 he was consecrated Bishop of Winchester, replacing the formidable Catholic Stephen Gardiner. When Edward died and Mary Tudor ascended to the throne, he joined the throng of English Protestants who fled to the continent, and ended up in Strasbourg in 1553. He wrote the work that follows in 1556, and it was published just before his death. In A Short Treatise of Political Power he speaks about the legitimacy of Christian resistance to unjust rule. Catholic historians have vilified him, but John Adams credited his foresight as one who elucidated “all the essential principles of liberty.” Following is a paraphrase of his most important work, rendered in twenty-first-century English.



Preface

To the discerning reader:

You will be encouraged by what you are about to read. There is nothing heretical, criminal, or treasonous in this short book. Nevertheless, everything in it is thoughtfully presented for your benefit with needed advice and wise instruction. As publisher, I must tell you that I am not completely sure whether the author of the work is still alive as the book goes to print, but the subject is so timely, the work so vitally important, and the style so carefully crafted by this man who so fervently loves his country, that I am proud to be able to make it available to the public. All the author’s thoughtful work should be available during these difficult days. That is why I am publishing it, though how and whether the public receives its pointed words is beyond my control. I would hope that there are still many true Englishmen who care about the condition of their country and the welfare of future generations who will welcome its contribution.

My prayer for you, good reader, is that God will eventually allow you the discernment to examine your own heart, and the grace to trust Christ as an uncertain future unfolds. Amen.

Chapter One: The Origin, Intention, and Dispensation of Political Power

No one expects domesticated cattle or sheep to run the farm they live on. Farm animals cannot reason. They have to be managed by the farmer, who has the ability to reason because he is a human being. Now just because the farmer has the ability to reason does not undo the fact that he—like all members of humankind—has incredibly warped analytical powers due to the fall of the first man, Adam. The obvious enslavement to sinful passions that skews the discernment of the human being makes it easier to see what is abundantly true, fall or no fall: Man, the creature, himself needs someone less impaired to manage him. That is, people by themselves cannot rule for themselves in a reasonable way.

In days gone by some people deceived themselves into thinking that they were sovereign because they had the ability to reason. They thought they could do whatever they wanted, when they wanted, in the public sphere as well as in their private lives. Some went so far as to propose that the possession of Reason explained why human beings formed communities and commonwealths in the first place and why well-governed states of a past “golden age” lasted as long as they did. The problem was that their theories about Reason being some sort of key to good people management never panned out. Whenever they tried to imitate these classical models their idealism quickly crumbled like a dry biscuit.

The wisdom and ability of the ancient Greeks, Iberians, and Romans, formidable as it was, could not keep their institutions from disintegrating. The traces they left behind have abundantly testified to the fact that they existed. But all their artifacts are less a testimony to their glory than to the inescapable conclusion that all their indomitable reason failed to produce an ideal state. If someone wants a perfect governor, he or she must look beyond his or her own reason to discover that only God is that perfect ruler. As Augustine said, “In him we live, and move, and have our being.” He made us; we did not make ourselves. And as the psalmist explains, “we are his people and the sheep of his pasture (Psalm 100:3).” He made everything for humankind, and human beings he made for himself, so that they might serve and glorify him. God alone has taken upon himself the order and government of humankind, his highest creature, and set down rules of conduct for our behavior and what we may and may not do.

The law of nature is the bedrock of commonwealth

God put these rules we call the law of nature in the minds of people prior to the ruination that came with the fall. God wrote this rule in summary form in the Ten Commandments, which number Christ reduced to just two: love God and love others. Jesus explained what it meant to love others when he said, “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them (Matthew 7:12).”

The law of nature is all about justice. It tells us how to serve God and strikes the proper balance in dealing with different kinds of people. It is the bedrock of every commonwealth. It is the standard against which the deeds of every person, whether she be queen or beggar, good or evil, are measured. It is also the standard by which every human law will be judged to be just or unjust, godly or wicked. Allow me to give you an example of how pervasively the law of nature stands in judgment of human law: Suppose in their creativity certain legislators make a law that decrees only pins manufactured domestically may be used within the borders of their country—I know, I know, this seems trivial, but let’s say they did it because pinmaking is the dominant trade or industry of the country, and that domestic pinmakers are in pitched competition with their foreign pinmaking counterparts. If making this law helps prevent the people of a nation from becoming lazy loafers it is a good law and pleasing to God because refusing to work honestly is a violation of clear commands from God: You shall not steal; you shall not kill; you shall not solicit a prostitute, and so on—all these ugly vices grow out of avoiding honest work. Now, on the other hand, suppose that they made this law despite the fact that their own economy was diversified. Making pins only represented a small cadre of workers in the law-making country, while the workers of a neighboring country depended upon the importation of their pins into the former country for their own survival. The law of the former country was just a mean-spirited design to cut off the latter country as a trading partner, thus wrecking their economy. The same law in the second circumstance would be both wicked and unjust because stealing the means for a neighbor to make a living is a violation of the command to love your neighbor. Further, it violates Christ’s command to do to others as you would wish them to do to you. Any law designed to starve a neighbor is wrong from the get-go because we would not want to be subjected to starvation ourselves.

In the same way, a law that prohibits a man with a promiscuous past from marrying a woman would also be a bad law because one of the purposes of marriage is to present an opportunity for a person to avoid continued sinning (1 Corinthians 7:9, 36). What kind of law would encourage a struggling person to fornicate or commit adultery? That would be contrary to the moral will of God expressed in the commandment, “You shall not commit adultery”? It would be an entirely unjust law.

Here is another example that helps us identify an unjust law: Suppose a ruler forcibly “requests” his subjects to lend him something he needs, which they grudgingly agree to do because they are afraid of the worst he might do to them. Now suppose this same ruler creates a parliament made up of legislators who were not among those who made the loan, but who are equally afraid to cross the ruler. Just to mollify him the MPs create a law that says the ruler does not have to pay back the debt he owes to the lenders. This would be another wicked, ungodly, and unjust law! And why? Because the MPs did not act in such a way as they would like to have done to them. Instead, out of cowardice, they destroyed the living of numerous people, starving their children and forcing their employees to resort to theft, and perhaps even murder, in order to survive. Here again is the rule God has made: Love God and love others, and do to others as you would wish to be done to you. If this is kept in mind one will soon learn to distinguish between good and evil, godliness from ungodliness, and right from wrong.

But it is also clear that no one who violates the commandments and golden rule can claim ignorance or be excused. Further consideration will show that the law of nature is inherent.

Corporal punishment begat political power

It was not until after the world was destroyed by the Great Flood that physical punishment was prescribed for violations of the law. Even though Cain and Lamech had committed horrible murders they received no capital punishment, rather they actually received protection from God so that no one could lawfully harm them. But all that changed after the Flood, with the new policy coming about because God’s creatures could not be persuaded to do the right things by his gentleness and patience alone. Right up to the Flood sinful behavior was the norm and mayhem increased as murder and mischief increased. So God made severity the order and added corporal punishment to the penalty for those who refused to obey his commands. He made this law which he announced to Noah after the waters receded: ““Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image (Genesis 9:6).”

It was by this ordinance and law he established political power and he gave men authority to make more laws. He it was who gave humans authority over the body and life of a human being because he wanted them to live peaceably with one another. Peace was requisite to permit all to the possibility of living in holiness and righteousness during their time on earth. At the same time, he gave human governors authority over material possessions, the very things that tended to breed strife and distracted people from serving God as he required. But that is not all. The ordinance also required something of those who legislate new laws: do not allow subjective emotion to distract from making sure that the “punishment fits the crime.” For example, do not punish an innocent person or small offender you have a grudge against while you let the major felon escape because he is likeable. This same ordinance is the basis for the authority of the magistrate to enforce the law. A law that cannot be enforced is as worthless as a bell without a clapper. At the same time, it is not specified whether the legislative and executive functions are concentrated in one person or divided among many. Monarchy or multiarchy is a determination left up to the People, who are permitted to determine in a given circumstance how best to maintain the state. The Israelites were content with the laws Moses established, just as the Spartans were with those of Lycurgus, and the Athenians with the laws made by Solon. In Rome, the laws were made by ten men, while in others a crowd had to assent. In the same way, in some countries people were content to be governed where laws were enforced by a single ruler. In some, the laws were enforced by nobles while others by the common people. In still others kings, nobles, and commoners had to work together to see that the ordinances were enforced.
Different forms of government but one goal: maintenance of justice

There are different names for these kinds of states. A monarchy is a state where one person rules. An aristocracy is ruled by a number of the “best” citizens. The multitude of people rule in a democracy, and a state where monarch, nobles, and commoners share the load of governance is a mixed state, which has long been held to be the best form based on its track record. Commonwealths that have a mixed form of governance have proved to have the greatest longevity.

Now all these kinds of states have the same end in view: maintain justice to every citizen’s benefit and not just that of the ruling classes. Historically, every time rulers abused their authority for their own narrow advantage the form of governance changed. For example, the Israelites changed from the rule of judges to a king when the inappropriate behavior of the judge Samuel’s children was discovered. The Romans changed forms numerous times. First, Tarquin’s public oppressions and personal lewdness caused the Romans to turn from having a king forever. As first they switched to consuls, then from consuls to ten rulers and later from ten to three until eventually they arrived at an imperial government, though the people retained their ultimate authority. For even though these pagans had but the law of nature within and their own deficient reason they could plainly see that without political power (meaning here justice that benefits all) humankind could not survive. They feared that each special interest would seek its own benefit even if it meant the suffering of others: the rich person would oppress the poor man, and because of his envy the poor man would seek to wipe out the one who had wealth. The strong person would crush the weakling as Theodoretus said, “The big fish gobbles up the small fry.” The weak person would seethe with revenge toward the strong. In short, without political power everyone would be devoted to the cause of destroying one another, until all order was wiped out and chaos ensued.

Authority to uphold justice comes from God

The pagans recognized that the authority to write and to enforce laws was necessary to prevent anarchy. What they were not aware of was that this authority came from God, and the reason he called them “gods” in Psalm 82:6 with a small g was not that they were actually gods, or even transformed into gods (because after all they behaved like finite people and died like mortals). No, he was underlining the fact that the earthly authority they had been given to serve as governors came from God, and thus the governed should honor and obey them as his representative ministers of justice just as they were commanded.

And it should not escape our notice that wherever God’s Word has been embraced and as a result the people determined to follow God, this tyrannical abuse of power has not been tolerated. Each individual within the body did what God’s Word told them to do in loving their neighbor as themselves. They sought the prosperity of their neighbor because that is how they would want to be treated themselves. Taking the Word seriously has this sort of effect on people: they end up loving one another, having been blinded to their differences. And it is God who watched over them, proposing and disposing their rulers to prevent them from oppressing any members of the body. This was similar to the system of the Spartans in setting up watchdogs called Ephori whose purpose was to make sure neither of the two kings abused their power. Likewise the Romans had their tribunes who were sworn to defend and maintain the liberties of the people from the potential abuses of the nobility. Those who live in countries that have a Christian influence had this sort of check and balance spelled out in the Word of God that rulers would not be allowed to oppress the poor and bend the law to serve their selfish purposes. There are examples from several countries of Christendom. In Germany, the Diet is the buffer between the Emperor and the people. In France, as in England, royal power is checked by a parliament made up of people of various backgrounds who work in concert to make sure that nothing can be done without the knowledge and consent of all.

What happens to those who abuse power?

On the other hand, wherever people have turned their backs on God the devil’s minions have taken over and subverted equal justice. A prime example of this is Turkish-occupied Hungary where the people have not utterly given up on God’s Word, but are growing increasingly weary of the good fight. Hungary is a place that did not become a tyranny overnight, but allowed despotism to chip away at the commonwealth little by little until liberty disappeared completely. This sort of thing should be so self-evident that there should not be any need to persuade the reader by further examples. Every concerned Christian should beware lest in forsaking God they invite the devil and his tyrants, who adore injustice, to rule over them. The danger is real and there are serious consequences.

Even pursuing desirable ends through dishonest means is unacceptable. It sidesteps trust in God’s justice and promotes a dangerous independence. No wonder our ancestors considered those who adopted this approach to be crooked. They demanded that such underhanded people should make reparations and be exposed as unfit for the calling of honest people in the same way a common thief would be. This was no flippant opinion of theirs, but was arrived at through careful thought and the counsel of community. Look, no one can be an expert in every matter and this is by nature’s design. It works out well because it perpetuates our need for others—we cannot make it on our own and are glad to help others who ask of us—and joins us together as friends. This is what makes acting as if the ends justified the means so deplorable: it destroys the two most important virtues without which human society would come to a screeching halt. Those virtues are faith and friendship.

It violates faith. No one wants anything from someone who he or she believes is not friendly toward him or her. No one trusts a person they consider to be unfaithful. Our ancestors thought it was inhuman to deceive someone who trusted you. Now if that is considered inhuman, how much worse is it for someone to deceive not just one trusting soul, but thousands of people in the body politic? This is just what these expedient dodgers do who pretend to help others but are really craving power. They are trusting only in themselves by buying votes, using people to get what they want, piling up references, dropping names as they rub shoulders with celebrities and feting them with free food and drink. They don’t seek consensus and if they must they will even use force of arms to bend others to their will. Yes, if we harshly judge an unfaithful friend in a small matter, what should we do with these power-hungry folks who harm those who trusted them with their lives and goods, and those of their families? And if we harshly judge these despots for craving power and possessions, how much more harshly should we judge those who sell out to the devil for the mere privilege of powering over others for a short time while they live? And if the people cry out and punish these people, how much more do you think God will harshly judge them that abuse the authority he granted them and deceive God’s people who trusted them as servants of God?

Listen up while there is still time to repent. Listen to their sentence according to the prophet Isaiah (10:1-4a):
Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees,
and the writers who keep writing oppression,
to turn aside the needy from justice
and to rob the poor of my people of their right,
that widows may be their spoil,
and that they may make the fatherless their prey!
What will you do on the day of punishment,
in the ruin that will come from afar?
To whom will you flee for help,
and where will you leave your wealth?
Nothing remains but to crouch among the prisoners
or fall among the slain.
This woe is not only spoken to Jerusalem, but to Germany, Italy, France, Spain, England, Scotland, and every country where similar abuses may be committed. God is just and hates sin and will deal with it wherever it appears, but the more pervasive it becomes the greater the force he employs to quash it. He certainly dealt with Sodom and Gomorrah this way, but he dealt similarly with his beloved Jerusalem, the city of the King! Yes, he reserves special judgment for those who abuse political power, not only to humiliate them before those they have deceived, but to sear their negative example in the remembrance of future generations.

It may be that some of those whom God has put in a position to make and enforce laws would say, “We didn’t mean to insult God, or harm our country, or deceive those who trusted us. If disaster followed our efforts it was due to ignorance rather than malice.” Well, what do you think? What if you hired a trained shepherd to guard your sheep and due to his ignorance the wolf killed them all? Or, what if you pay good money for a competent horse whisperer to care for your horse and due to his negligence the horse dies? Do you think ignorance should be a reason to excuse these employees? Of course not. After all, we can agree that they accepted their contract and they were paid. At minimum, they should be forced to make retribution. Beyond that, it would not be unreasonable to prefer criminal charges against them so that other unwary stockmen might be protected from any further acts of deceit. How much more accountable then should those people be whom the people trust to make laws to the glory of God, and to the preservation of their liberties and way of life? How much more serious a matter is the conduct of those who are appointed to be keeper of God’s people—not hogs, horses, or mules—but those whom Christ delivered by his death? They are not merely “keepers.” They are physicians of the body politic who are prepared to redress, reform, and heal if anything is sick. If any medical student becomes a doctor for the money, but takes his oath and yet through lack of knowledge or an evil impulse decides to harm, or even kill, rather than to heal his patient would we hesitate to treat him as the murderer that he is?

Again, some one of these might say. “I listened to the advice of others, but they deceived us.” This is a lame excuse. Didn’t you expect to fall into a ditch if you, the blind, were led by the blind? God didn’t cut Eve any slack when she complained that the serpent deceived her. No, she not only got pain in childbirth (some say a fate worse than death!), but all her daughters to the present day experience the same curse.

Others might say, “I merely carried out orders from above, and if I had crossed my superiors they would not only have made my life hell, but would have ruined me financially and thus deprived my children.” Did you parents subject you to as much danger as you subject your children to by such cowardice? Father Adam said, “I couldn’t cross my wife!” Did this unacceptable objection serve Adam when he stood by and allowed Eve to eat the fruit, even though he himself knew God had forbidden it? Did he justify himself when he blamed “the woman who you (God) gave me”? No. Instead we continue to suffer from the consequences of his disobedience.

Like Aaron, who blamed the Israelites for forcing him to craft the golden calf, one might say, “Hey, don’t blame me. It is all the fault of those stupid people who forced me to act against my better judgment.” Fortunately, Aaron repented and took responsibility for his own idolatry. However, there doesn’t seem to be any repentance on the horizon for those hellions who have reestablished the Mass in England for fear of the brutes, and under pretense of obeying Queen Mary’s instructions.
So far we have seen where political power comes from and how it should be properly used. We have also considered what will come of those who are charged with making and enforcing laws, but who fail in their duty. The following sums up what God says to those who enforce the laws: “Consider what you do, for you judge not for man but for the LORD. (2 Chronicles 19:6),” and “For with the measure you use it shall be measured back to you (Luke 6:38).” Always consider your accountability to God and persevere in doing what is right. God does not tolerate sin; He does not prefer one person over another; He is not pleased with bribery.

We have spoken of God, but we have more to say about lawmakers and human governors.

[ Chapter Two is next: “Do rulers have absolute power over the ones ruled? [LA]]

Coombebury Heath: tilting with windmills

The following letter was apparently lost in the mails until just recently. Many friends who read this little blog from time to time have asked about the story of the windmill that Maxwell began in his first letter. I am happy to report that I am now able to post Maxwell’s follow-up.

The Oaks

Coombebury Heath

2 May 2010

Dear Liam,

Please forgive me for breaking off my last letter at a crucial moment. I had quite run out of the allotted time for writing and was running woefully late for dinner with my extended family. My aunt Dora prepared her customary May Day meal, this year with a decidedly Italian twist. I say twist because aside from the lamb lasagna and chianti, the food gave one more of the sense of a smörgåsbord than festività. There was some sort of cold potato dish that my uncle Jack said was straight out of Germany, custard with blackcurrant dressing, and pâté with cheese and crusty bread. The food and conversation made my stomach acid kick up, but I sat aloof as long as they might let me alone.

No one has less curiosity about the things that make us passionate than the members of our extended family. Uncle Jack asked me the same questions about what I did for a living that he has asked for the last twenty years. I realized that if my occupation was something conventional (and perhaps lucrative) like doctor, solicitor, or greengrocer he would understand, but being a Health Education Assessor is, to him, just another way of saying ‘unemployed bafoon.’ While I tried to explain my work for the one hundred and fiftieth time, I felt I was in a lecture theatre surrounded by the silent, disapproving faces of cousins, aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews as I confirmed their deepest suspicions of my being a layabout. Things went from bad to worse when the conversation turned to football. My opinion was asked for, and when the open secret that I am a City supporter was again aired, one of my nephews rained down a torrent of abuse, the like of which I have never been subjected to in my friendship circles, where I am generally respected.

Dorcas and I left my aunt’s home feeling a wreck, went to bed and slept late. This, however, only served to confirm that indeed I am a layabout after all. Having breakfasted, I thought of America, and I wanted to sit down straight away to write you.

Oh dear, I have not gotten to the point again, have I? Well, I must right that wrong.

When last I wrote I was telling you about the librarian, Mrs Mosswell. The issue has to do with a local landmark–a windmill. This particular windmill–and frankly I don’t know the difference between the various types of mills–was built in the seventeenth century. It hasn’t been used as a mill for at least a century and a half. I believe most of that time it was used a some kind of pigeon coop. Anyway, the family of greengrocers that owned it allowed it to fall into disrepair, and it has really been in a deplorable state. But for the fact that it is somewhat off the beaten path it would have been demolished long ago. The sails and machinery are completely missing and the crumbling sandstone shell houses all manner of rubbish generously mixed with pigeon poop.

Well now, along comes Virginia Mosswell. Widowed after six month of marriage, Virginia ably oversees the local archives insofar as she is a master organizer of books and space. She is especially capable in the space category. Our library pile is a ghastly Victorian structure of blond brick and plaster filigree. The leader of the local gentry at the time it was built conspired with the Vicar to hound some poor architect into blithering submission and the result was this monstrosity, replete with gargoyles (yes, gargoyles!) that one would swear are the inspiration for the flying monkeys in The Wizard of Oz. Still, I am thankful it is what it is. It sure beats a structure of Mussolini modernism with grey concrete walls and gun slits for windows (seems like you complained of such a building at your old university, Bluemont Hall or something you called it?). Ugly Gilded Age structure or no, the library building has deucedly small and strangely configured space and it takes a veritable wizard to figure out how to cram in zillions of books and still have adequate study space for local scholars. Enter Virginia, who was born to claim shelf space for dusty volumes. Much of her talent is due to being a formidable woman. Both tall and wide, she is the very model of efficiency. She is never seen in trousers at all, but typically wears broom skirts of varying patterns with dark floral blouses. Unlike the stereotypical librarian she neither wears glasses nor piles uncut hair on top of her head in a bun. Her short black hair is worn in spikes and the front strands are often colored in ochre hues that are typically favored by stern German women, although I once saw her briefly sporting a bluish lock that rather reminded me of Lois Lane’s hair in the Superman comic strips. Her voice is high, nasally, and confident. She orders people around so methodically that one gets the impression that she is merely fulfilling a herding instinct, like a human border collie. Unfortunately, ever since she ascended to the post of head librarian upon the death of Mrs Kinstroe, who was far more librarianesque, and had ruled the ziggurat of books for several generations, Virginia has assumed that she had somehow assimilated the sum total of the knowledge of all those books. No fool, she decided that the way to make a name for herself was to win the younger generations and through them to bend the entire community to her will. Junior Reading clubs were her method and she made the local windmill her issue. She announced that the clubs would begin reading books on a new theme last autumn. No more Madeline or Dr. Suess. No, the tykes would be reading “green” books on saving the earth and harnessing the vast stores of non fossil-fuel potential proffered by a fragile planet. Imagine the eyes of little munchkins agog with the possibilities of saving the earth and passive solar panels and such. And she sent children home with little packets of seeds and hemp fibre sacks loaded with propaganda about composting and all that rot (sorry). She would brook no opposition. Any adult who would not agree to this agenda was a blighter or, failing that, cold-hearted, and she piled out an argumetntum ad misericordium or two for good measure. After all, this was a children’s cause and what kind of monster would oppose children, especially those who had gathered this awareness from the local library where tolerance and good sense were dispensed on people of good will? Apparently, her real objective was the windmill.

Virginia began to show her cards when she made the book, Windmills are Our Friends, by S. R. Sinhumadhani the object of her singular praise. Supplementing this was a book some parents thought slightly above the club members’ level entitled, Blow Bravely, Blow Hard, by Ms. Bayez Cornflower who argued that all power plants were the product of greedy capitalists who withheld the knowledge of wind power, because it might solve our energy problems cleanly, but without profit to them. For a few adults the last straw was Mommy, Can’t We Do Potty Training With Wind? by Skark. I trust I do not need to elaborate on this last selection. When the children were discussing the Potty book, Virginia asked the question, “Have any of you seen a real windmill before?” The kids for some reason did not pick up on this being a rhetorical question. Ignoring the young hands flung up all over the place, our librarian continued, “Here is a picture of a windmill that happily worked in our community for many years, but as you can see the poor windmill is sick. Can you see what is wrong with it?…Yes! It is broken dear children, and it needs our help to fix it!” Tears, weeping and sadness gripped the tots for their poor, sick Friend that only wants to spin in the wind and save the earth. We must save our Friend! And mummy and daddy must help us!

And no one was more surprised at what happened next than mummy and daddy!

Virginia’s programme was premeditated to the smallest detail. At the end of the reading session, packed into each munchkin’s rucksack was a clever pop-up book that, when opened, revealed a handsome paper windmill. Virginia had apparently affixed a private label to this book, because the title read, “Please Save Our Windmill.” Also included each child’s horde were an ample supply of broadsides with the same title as the pop-up book screaming as a headline, and a letter from Virginia announcing a petition campaign designed to get the attention of the council. The latter informed mummy and daddy that on the Saturday next there would be a concerted petition campaign designed to coincide with the annual fête, which would afford the hobby issue the widest possible exposure to the folk of the surrounding countryside. Volunteers were required to work a Save the Windmill Table, and a muster of roving Windmill harassers was needed to hound signatures around the fringes of the fête. The letter noted that the latter would be outfitted with reflective vests, although no one has yet determined why this extreme measure should be necessary unless they are being asked to pursue their quarry into lorry traffic.

At any rate, I shall have to leave off the report of what happened at the fête and what was the town reaction in my next. I trust that you and Precious are well and that you are looking forward to Hope’s imminent wedding. Someday soon I hope that Dorcas and I might make the pilgrimage to the Great American Midwest for a visit. I am anxious to eat authentic takkos (sic) as long as they are not overly spicy (remember my stomach acid issues).

I remain, as always, your friend,

Maxwell Fleet

P.S. I am a little confused by your game of baseball as it is, but in your last you mention a team called the “Royals,” of which you are a supporter. Your explanation of the origin of the team’s name is very intriguing. You mention that it comes from a local agricultural and stock show called the American Royal. But surely this is one of these oxymorons of which you Americans are so fond. Did not our ancestors fight a war that that put asunder forever from Americans all further associations with royalty?