Ten Propositions on the Religious Attempt to Change the Law
1. “Civil law” is nothing more or less than somebody’s theology written into law. The laws of the state either reflect the views of the people or the views of the state. This is the great issue that faces America today.
2. Reformation theology teaches that the government should be “of the people and by the people.” Thus the laws of the state should conform to and reflect the will of the people. Government officials and judges should follow the wishes of the people. This means that the legal system should move “up” from the people to the state. For example, if the majority of the people believe that something is wrong, (e.g. abortion, same sex marriage, etc.), then the laws of the state should make it illegal. In the past, they were ruled as illegal.
3. Most Christians still function on the basis of the Reformation view that the people make the laws. Thus they spend their time and money on petitions, state referendums, and new constitutional amendments. They assume that if they can convince the majority of citizens to believe in something and then have them vote these beliefs into law, then the politicians and judges should automatically conform to the will of the people.
4. It is clear that all the attempts to return to constitutional law have not worked. Petitions are ignored, referendums are declared illegal by Federal District Courts, and laws voted in by the citizens are overturned by State courts and the Supreme Court. Why are the politicians and judges ignoring the will of the people?
5. Socialism teaches that the government is of and by state officials (politicians and judges). Thus the laws of the state should conform to and reflect the will of these officials. The people should submit to the wishes of the officials of the state. Thus the legal system moves “down” from the officials to the people. If the majority of the officials believe that something is not wrong (e.g. abortion, same sex marriages, etc), then the laws of the state should be changed to make them legal.
6. The legal situation changed with Olive Wendell Holmes who had a socialist view of the courts. The Supreme Court became an “oligarchy” that illegally seized the power to impose their beliefs on the states and the people. Thus the judges were now free to exercise “arbitrary jurisprudence” in which they could ignore the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, legal precedent, state laws, state courts, state constitutions, and the will of the people. The judges could now made laws as they saw fit.
7. The constitutional “balance of power” between the judiciary, legislative, and executive branches of the government has now been broken by socialistic judges who exercise raw judicial power to run roughshod over the other branches of government.
8. Congress has the constitutional right and power to stop the Supreme Courts by impeaching tyrannical judges but has not done so because they either secretly agree with the beliefs of the Oligarchy or they simply do not have the moral backbone to stand up to the Supreme Court.
9. The new Supreme Oligarchy have attempted to force people into accepting their arbitrary laws:
(1.) by ruling any state referendums, laws, and constitutions to the contrary void and of no effect;
(2.) by mandating that the public school system indoctrinate the youth of the nation in the beliefs of the Oligarchy.
(3.) by suppressing any contrary views (e.g. creationism, right to life, same sex marriage, etc.) by denying them any freedom of expression in educational institutions or political organizations.
(4.) by using the media to ridicule any view that is not in conformity to the belief system of the Oligarchy.
10. The new conservative strategy is to change the “top” layer of state officials and then to impose their will on the people. The way to do this is by stacking the Supreme Court, the Federal Courts, and state courts with conservative judges. If we cannot get the state to conform to the will of the people, then we have to vote in new state officials who will affect change from the top down. But, this means that we have to violate the Reformation view of law and adopt the Socialist view. How this contradiction can be solved is the unanswered question of the day.
7 Comments, Comment or Ping
Mario Herrera
This is a keen observation Dr. Bob. These days I find peace in understanding Psalm 2. How did it come to this? I would say it is modern evangelicalism with its bankrupt theology that dumbs down the people! Not only evangelicalism but the school system. People want the government to do for them, what they are not willing to do for themselves!
We must contend against this Socialist view! An answer to this is pushing ahead with the New Reformation. Maybe in God’s Providence America had its time of greatness, referring to the intent of the founding fathers who launched America by God’s grace, according to biblical principles.
Now what is left to do come hell or high water, is to contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints! It begins with the individual. Thanks for the continual exhortation Dr. Morey.
A prayer this Resurrection Morning takes me back to the men’s retreat last June where you exhorted us to “NO MORE HALF-ASS CHRISTIANITY.”
The fire is in the bones! Keep on keeping on dad! We follow you as you follow Christ! You motivate us to action and more important, as we’re taught Scripture, we are motivated to holiness! We press on because HE IS RISEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mar 23rd, 2008
agogley
I have meditated many days and nights on this issue. STacking the courts is not a solution. The people have become increasingly insensitve to Biblical values. While I applaud and support efforts to retain and appoint conservative judges, politicians, etc., it is a losing battle. We must convert the minds and hearts of the people, or rather we must hope that God changes the people through our faithful presentation of Scripture.
God may work through a New Reformation or He may choose to let America implode. In any case, I am but a stranger passing through. I’d love to make my stay a pleasurable one, but I will suffer if God requires it.
Mar 23rd, 2008
Josh in AK
Dr. Bob!,
I haven’t been able to come here near as much as I want to, and when I finally get to look at my e-mails, here is a subject near to my homeschooled heart!
It is late though, so I will sleep on what I want to pound out on this keyboard tonight , and try to give my thoughts on this.
Stephen, I hope all is well with you Brother, I haven’t forgot Faith Defenders by any means!!
Business is just a little overwhelming at the moment, I envy your prayers.
So, Dr. Bob, I hope we can discuss this more in depth, I am looking foward to it.
Mar 23rd, 2008
Mark Caro
Amen to that Mario,
We most certainly do NEED to contened for the faith.
We need to endrench people we are in contact with, with a pure biblical world and life view. Even if someone is not a “christain” they need to see that the “Reformed Theology view of government”, is the type of government that they want to be in, if they want to be so called “FREE”.
Thank you again Dr. Bob for educating me.
Mar 24th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Dr. Morey,
1. “Civil law” is nothing more or less than somebody’s theology written into law.
I’m not sure if this is correct. I think Gordon Clark would also disagree.
Since Civil Law deals with the “should” and the “should not”, the “right” and the wrong,” it deals with ethics (morality).
Morality is dependent on but not the same as epistemology while epistemology is dependent on the metaphysical (ontology, God in three persons).
There can’t be epistemology without ontology but there can be ontology without epistemology. Thus epistemology is dependent on ontology.
Thus Civil Law is not ones theology but dependent on a series of chains to ones theology. To not recognize this is a categorical fallacy.
but you probably agree with this also. If you broke it down like this it would have been a distraction from the intent of your essay.
Jean Cauvin
Apr 14th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Dr. Morey,
2. Reformation theology teaches that the government should be “of the people and by the people.” Thus the laws of the state should conform to and reflect the will of the people. Government officials and judges should follow the wishes of the people. This means that the legal system should move “up” from the people to the state.
Where do we find this in Reformed Theology? I could be wrong but Martin Luther I don’t believe thought this. Nor did John Gill (a puritian).
What is the offical source we go to for Reformed Thinking on this subject? The Reformed Confessions?
Just curious.
Jean Cauvin.
Apr 29th, 2008
Mark Fisher
I agree with Dr. Morey that change must come from below. The founding fathers of America presciently noted that the Constitution was written for a moral and religious people and is inadquate for the government of any other sort of people, particularly because we have representative government and our representatives reflect the values of the people who elect them.
I would like to know what Dr. Morey or his colleagues think about the Christian Reconstructionism/Dominionist movement, as espoused by Gary North and others. Some in this movement believe it is the biblical duty of the magistrate to enforce the first table of the 10 Commandments (using Psalm 2 as authority), and thus must punish citizens for heresy, idolatry, sabbath-breaking, et al.
It seems that this view is top-down, not from the people. What say you all about this movement and how it relates to the reformation view of government?
May 26th, 2008
Reply to “Ten Propositions on the Religious Attempt to Change the Law”