Category: Libertarianism

The key distinction

On April 9, 2018

Maybe you’ve noticed all the posts on authority lately.

As I’ve worked through these issues, I want to point out a key distiction. It is this distinction that is relevant to the question of resistance and to the question of nullification. The key distinction is Davidic Authority vs. magistral authority. Christ’s authority is Davidic and so it demands each and every man’s obeisance from birth. If Christ rightly punishes the rebellious one with death. Nobody has the right to nullify Christ’s authority.

In the Old Testament, however, one loses Davidic authority when the one who excercises such authority fails to obey God. Those who obey God may challenge it when those invested with it fail.

Magistral authority has a different weight. We can see this in Samuel’s warnings against the monopolizing authority of a king in 1 Samuel 8. This kingly authority, which will later become Davidic authority, gives the leader far more opportunity for abuse than the authority earlier judges had.

This distinction remains in-exact. However, I believe that it is key to working out how authority works in our contemporary situation.

Also note that this Davidic authority is private in the sense that Hans Herman Hoppe speaks of in “What must be done.”

Authority in the Old Testament; Authority in the New Testament

By James

On April 9, 2018

In Church, Libertarianism

You can find my former articles on this topic here and here.

Like my blog post on Davidic authority vs. magistral authority, I want to once again to make a distinction between two types of authority. However, I am not merely distinguishing between two types of authorities here, but rather, two different dispensations of authority. I want to argue that the Christians has a qualitatively greater degree of authority in the New Testament than the Jew of the Old Testament. There is a difference in the administration of authority after Christ has been seated at the right hand of God.

Unfortunately, I cannot explore all the practical manifestations of my case. However, I want to begin by stating that this is the case; I will argue further from that point.

Let’s begin with the administration of authority in the Old Testament. Adam and Eve take of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. By doing so they claim to the authority that God has. This authority is the ability to make a judgment between good and evil. We know that this is true because Solomon asks for the same gift in ruling over the people of Israel when he becomes king.

In the old dispensation or covenant this gift was taken or grasped by mankind and so mankind lost the ability to use it properly. Adam and Eve could have learned to exercise such authority by relying on God and his word. Instead, they took the gift before it was given. This distorted the gift.

So God took one man among the nations, Abraham, and began to train Israel so that they could learn to use the wisdom of God rather than seeking to grasp wisdom themselves. God taught Israel this through laws of holiness, through sacrifices, through a set calendar. Through the institutions of Israel God sought to reform or to restore Israel to the calling he had given to Adam and Eve.

God subjects Israel to this law. The civil leaders and the kings and the emperors that God raises up he also calls to enforce this whole law (though exclusively to the land of Israel). Israel has a limited wisdom in interpreting and applying the law to their lives. Therefore God provides Israel with priests, prophets, and kings, equipped with the Spirit in order to help Israel in applying the law.

Then God sends Israel her Saviour. The priests, prophets, and kings of the Old Testament were only shadows of this Saviour. This Saviour shared his Spirit of office with his entire congregation so that every Christian now exercises the office of prophet, priest, and king.

These Christians now have the freedom to apply the law to their own lives, they don’t need a calendar or sacrificial laws or laws of holiness. Christians exercise a greater freedom and wisdom than any of the kings of the Old Testament. The moral law still bears authority because God enfleshed that law in their Lord and Saviour. Christ replaces the rest with a different order or a different dispensation. Christians may now use the law of the Old Testament as a way to freely order their lives in him. All Christians bear a responsibility to judge between good and evil.

However, Christians still have civil leaders and they have spiritual leaders. Their power is restricted just as it was in the Old Testament. God restricts the civil leader’s power to defending life and property. God restricts the Spiritual leaders’ power. They may not exclude a Christian from the church of God on the basis of regulations that are extra to the word of God. However, they still exercise moral authority on the basis of the law of the Spirit and the law of Christ.

So what’s the real difference? even in the Old Testament, the leaders had a degree of freedom to apply the law and to obey the law. Is the only difference one of quantity?

No. Christ also brought the Christians a different degree of authority. We can see this in Galatians 4. In the Covenant at Mount Sinai, Israel functioned as a child. Israel was under a tutor. God was training his son to practice the authority he would eventually call her too. She is an ambassador (a prophet, priest and king) in training. In Christ, God’s son reached maturity. She is now an ambassador of Christ. The church is no longer under a tutor, but directly under Christ and the law of Christ.

Does all that applies to King David also apply to the Civil Magistrate of Romans 13?

By James

On March 27, 2018

In Applied Hermeneutics, Libertarianism

Is the authority of King David of the same as the authority of the magistrate? I argue that their authority is not exactly the same. There are similarities but there is a qualitative difference between the two. My argument in “The Genesis of Authority” was that all authority is derived from God. I wish to add to that; there are different degrees of the authority, which God grants. This helps us avoid a simple transfer of descriptions of Davidic authority to descriptions of magisterial authority.

Let us start by identifying one of the basic similarities. Both King David and the civil authorities of Romans 13 are servants of God. God gives both the sword to protect the righteous and punish the wicked. This is evident in Psalm 101 concerning King David and it is evident in Romans 13 concerning the civil magistrate.

What is the difference? Time and place are not the only difference. David ruled over Israel. This or that magistrate rules over Winnipeg. Rather, David has a special role as a Prince of God. David is a centralizing figure. He has a monopoly on the practice of justice in the land of Israel. We can gather this from 1 Samuel 8. There, Samuel warns against the dangers of centralizing power in a king. Similarly in the actions of David: There is an expectation that eventually all Israel will serve him because he is the Lord’s Anointed.

He is not like Barak or Ehud or Gideon, whom God raised up for a short time. God does not intend to centralize the land of Israel through these judges, merely to rid the land of oppressors and restore proper justice. God has established a dynasty through David. David has a monopoly over justice in Israel and Judah Israel and Judah owe him allegiance because God has personally selected him for the task of ruling over his people. It is only because God sanctions the breaking of the kingdom that the Davidic throne may no longer reign over Israel.

Jesus has fulfilled the role that David had. There are others who had a similar role ot David. Solomon is an example. Nebudchadnezzar is an example and so is Cyrus. Even Moses has a similar role. Christ, however has fulfilled that role or we might say, God has given Christ the role these emporers and kings once had. That much is clear from Daniel 2 and Daniel 7. Christ has replaced these Emporers and Kings as the King to whom all must give service.

In fact, the role of the civil authorities has a much closer relation to the role of the judges of the book of Judges or even the elders that are set up in Exodus 18. They are still “sacral,” in that God ordained their service, but they are not the “centralizing” figures of David or Moses. They do not have monopolies on justice.

David and your average civil magistrate, not only have a quantitative, but also a qualitative distinction in authority. Though both are servants of God, Jesus Christ fulfills David’s role. David’s line has a monopoly over justice in Israel; a monopoly, which Jeroboam is eventually allowed to question. Even then David’s line has a monopoly over the people of Judah and Benjamin. I don’t have an answer to the precise practical difference that makes, but generally, I would understand David’s power as monopolistic while the power of the civil magistrate is not so.

The Genesis of Authority

By James

On March 22, 2018

In Applied Hermeneutics, Libertarianism, Uncategorized

We ignore it but God’s gift of authority is the only reliable explanation for authority in society. The source of authority is not nature. Authority comes from God. Authority comes from above, not from below. People when they vote or when they acclaim, recognize authority rather than investing anybody with authority.

This doesn’t mean that there are no hierarchies in nature for men will naturally fall into an order. Man will instinctively recognize various powers or abilities that are evident in other men, but this is not what I mean by authority. Hierarchies that proceed from nature are real, but they are not the grounds for exercising authority. It is not evil to recognize these hierarchies either. We should seek expertise and leadership from men with great capabilities. But expertise and leadership are of a different nature than authority or rule.

The Meaning of Authority

I am using authority in a very technical sense. Authority is the right to give judgment. To give judgment is to discern between good and evil. By their invested authority men may also punish others. Authority is not expertise. Experts give advise, but they may not give judgment. Only those invested with authority may give a command or a decree.

If we use the word authority in this sense, we can see that all authority belongs to God. “Vengeance is mine:” God says this several times in the Bible. He says it both in the Old Testament and the New Testament. God is demonstrating that the taking of human life, the punishment of any crime, belongs to him. He shares that with mankind by grace.

The gift of Authority

Man does not by nature have the authority to discern between good and evil. God must invest man with this authority. This can already be demonstrated in Genesis 1 where Adam and Eve may not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The tree is a gift from God that is not theirs yet. Knowledge of good and evil is not found in the nature that they have been given. The knowledge of good and evil is the same thing that Solomon asks from God in the book of 1 Kings. When Adam and Eve ate from the tree they took authority for themselves that had not yet been given by God. They took upon themselves the discernment of good and evil. Whereas, God should have been the one to give that gift.

The Selection of Authorities

And God does give that gift. He gives that gift to Moses, who makes judgments among the people of Israel, and Moses gives that gift to men among the people of Israel.

Everything in scripture points to God investing authority in individuals, not in all individuals. God chooses Moses, various judges, such as Ehud and Gideon, Kings, such as Saul and David, and prophets, such as Isaiah and Ezekiel.

God’s does not limit his selection of civil servants to Israel. Through the prophet Elisha, he anoints King Hazael. We know this from the book of 2nd kings. God gives visions to King Nebuchadnezzar in the book of Daniel which demonstrate that God has given Nebudchadnezzar his place as king over the nations. In the book of Isaiah, God claims that he has delegated similar power to the Assyrians and to Cyrus, king of the Persians.

God’s gift of authority is not limited to the time of the Old Testament. In Romans 13, God claims that he has given the same authority to the civil magistrate. We can argue from the 5th commandment that God has given such an authority to parents as well, which is an authority that demands obedience from young children as we know from Ephesians 6. The civil magistrate’s authority does not come from the people and the parents’ authority does not come from a biological relation. Both the parent’s authority and the civil magistrate’s authority continues to exist in the New Testament, but now under the authority of Christ.

The authority of the Individual

Does this mean that there is no room for private, or vigilante, justice? Is every individual invested with authority? In the New Testament, there is an argument for this. Every Christian has the anointing of Christ. However, this does not give every Christian the right to decree punishments over their fellow man, except in their entrance into heaven, where they will reign with Christ. The Christian also exercises this judgment when he comes before God in prayer but he does not decree punishments in prayer. However, the individual Christian does not bear the sword. That belongs to the civil authorities. They have the right to decree life or death and that authority comes from God to specific individuals. We see that in Romans 13.

There is an institution in scripture, which, arguably, is a type of vigilanteism. In the scripture, we see an institution called “the avenger of blood,” which exists alongside the judges and elders that God has established. This seems to be a family institution. This is suggestive. The aggrieved family has authority to invest one of their own with the authority to chase after the man, but that is balanced by the fact that God has established places where the killer may seek justice from the civil magistrate. The authority of the civil magistrate and the “avenger of blood” are in balance with one another.

We need to begin by discerning the fact that this is not actually vigilante justice. God has declared at the time of Noah. That if man sheds the blood of man, by man his blood shall be shed. The “avenger of blood” is an institution that developed out of this gift. The “avenger of blood,” though a familial institution, was publicly recognized. More importantly, God recognized it.

The Limits of Authority

All authority comes from God. I would argue that this is the teaching of scripture. The simple fact that we hear the truth that Christ has all authority and power, that God is the one to whom vengeance belongs, proves where the authority of fathers, mothers, judges, and pastors comes from. But this does not necessitate blind obedience to such authority. Neither, does it protect authority from all criticism or from losing their authority. In the end, however, it will be God that takes away their authority. He gave authority and he has the right to take it away. It is possible that he will do that through other authorities here on earth.

1. How do we determine whom God gives authority? One way is to accept traditional rights and responsibilities in our society. We need to recognize God’s hand in history in setting up our historical institutions. Of course, that should not give these institutions any comfort, particularly in today’s world. These institutions are exercising God’s authority very poorly. Another way is the acclamation of the people. The acclamation of the people is not a source of a leader’s authority, but a proof of it.

2. How do we guard against the abuse of such authority? The author of their authority guards against abuse for their authority is bound up in God’s authority. Paul tells us that they are servants of God. This is because any authority, all authority, on earth is bound to obey Jesus Christ and to exercise authority in his name.

3. How do we resist an abusive authority? One way is through exercising our own authority in the sphere that God has given us. If civil authorities directly interfere with our sphere, we may resist. Nullification is a biblical principle. As one who is invested with authority, you may reject a law if it is not within the calling of those who are in authority over you.

God may raise up a leader as he raised up Jeroboam and Jehu. Those are not exemplary men, but God did raise them up against legitimate kings. Jehu, of course, had the direct word of God to kill the king. We have the full word of God today, therefore we do not look for direct visions from God in order to discern whether we may destroy a governing authority. Jeroboam set up an alternate legal system, which would have been legitimate if he hadn’t set up an alternate cult as well. God calls us to do this with wisdom always seeking for peace, rather than revolution.

Another way is through persuasion. We can convince the king to look to God rather than man for the way forward. We should seek to speak the truth to the king humbly and winsomely.

4. May we kill the king (understanding “the king” here as any tyrannical civil governor)? Only in extraordinary circumstances. Which extraordinary circumstances? I don’t know; because it’s a very difficult question. David did not kill Saul because he knew that it was in the hands of God to take away the office he had given the king.

Many questions remain but it is good to know that the one who has all authority and power is good, just and merciful. Therefore, as we figure out how best to exercise our authority, we can hope and trust in him.

Man as Actor; Man as Recipient

By James

On August 19, 2017

In Libertarianism

In order to create a full-orbed political theory, libertarians must broaden their understanding of man’s role. Politics is the practice of human cooperation. This definition strays from other definitions. These tend to emphasize politics’ role in granting certain groups rights to coercion in society. Libertarianism, if understood as the non-aggression principle based upon a theory property rights, is particularly seeking to understand the principles that define coercion in human society. Libertarianism seeks to improve man’s freedom from unnecessary coercion. This is certainly part of the study of politics, but not exclusively so. The study of the role of coercion in society is part of a larger body of political theory. Libertarians must recognize that truth.

The Free Actor

Libertarianism tends to view man as a free actor. This is legitimate, but he also has other roles. When libertarians recognize this, it gives their theory a greater breadth than it otherwise would have. Though still a theory of coercion, libertarianism is set within larger cultural, religious and political realities. Without suddenly limiting man to only two roles, I want to argue a full-orbed political theory will treat man as both actor and as recipient.

Without suddenly limiting man to only two roles, I want to argue that a full-orbed political theory will treat man as both actor and as recipient.

However, we must continue to emphasize the role of man as a free actor. Christians may believe that man is spiritually bound, but politically we should all want free human action in our society. When God creates the world, he gives man freedom to develop the garden and the wilderness however he wants. He has freedom to eat of any tree of the garden, except for the one that God puts off limits. Even after the fall, man is free to choose where to live, to farm, and to have children. This means that, as much as possible, mankind should be free from coercion by other men. All libertarians, whether thick or thin, paleo or left, Christian or atheist, agree on this, at least on the surface. After all, libertarianism is a theory of coercion, not a full-orbed political theory.

All libertarians, whether thick or thin, paleo or left, Christian or atheist, agree on this, at least on the surface. After all, libertarianism is a theory of coercion, not a full-orbed political theory.

The Recipient

But a full-orbed political theory will account for man’s being as well. Man’s being is something received. In a large part, this underlines the whole point of this blog. In my posts, I want to underline the importance of our response to our gifts. Man receives a being, a culture, and a history. His response to these gifts will determine his political life. Man has gratitude in the fabric of his nature (because that nature is a gift).

When we understand man as a recipient, as well as, as an actor, there is a role for thanksgiving. When we fail to show our gratitude, we do violence to the past. We have a society that lives in ingratitude.

This gratitude includes gratitude toward God our parents, and our leaders. God has given us our bodies, which contain his own image. Gratitude for that gift will result in using our bodies in a way which pleases God. Our parents, as secondary causes, have also given us our bodies, besides raising us (imperfect though that raising may be). Gratitude for that gift will result in honor. Our civil leaders (imperfectly) have given us a degree of peace and justice. Gratitude for that gift will result in a certain degree of honor as well. Of course, two of these (parents and civil leaders) three always give imperfect gifts. Sometimes it may be said that they gave no gift at all. Instead, they oppressed and consumed their charges. Yet some degree of gratitude is generally necessary. Toward God, gratitude is always necessary.

Without an understanding of gratitude, libertarianism will be unsuccessful. A libertarian’s implicit or explicit understanding of gratitude will not damage his status as a libertarian. However, his understanding of gratitude will destroy his chances of living peacefully when he is able to live in a libertarian society. He will commit violence: not the type that is immediately punishable by law, but the type that is ultimately destructive to whatever relationships he has.

Is the Non-Aggression Principle Biblical?

By James

On January 5, 2017

In Applied Hermeneutics, Libertarianism

In a recent blog post, I argued that the NAP was an expression of God’s justice. In that article, I assumed the biblical nature of the NAP and argued via the doctrine of the “image of God” that the NAP necessarily is an expression of both divine and human justice.

This, of course, begs the question, is the NAP biblical? Does the Bible teach the NAP? Literally, the Bible does not teach the NAP. The Bible never tells us that the most important principle of social co-operation is non-aggression. I would argue, however, that when we reflect on Biblical teaching, we can demonstrate that the NAP is a reasonable way to summarize biblical teaching on social ethics.

I don’t have time to give a full argument. Instead, let me give some impressions on biblical teaching

1. Creation and the NAP (Adam’s vocation and the image of God)

When Adam and Eve are created They are given the command to take dominion. He is to mix his labor with the land around him and so show ownership over the land. This work begins with a garden that God himself has planted. God reserves rights over the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam sins by transgressing on God’s property, rather than enjoying the other gifts that God has given him.

Adam and Eve are also given the image of God. God has imprinted them with righteousness and holiness. They reject that gift by attempting to attain the uniqueness of God on their own terms. In seeking to be like God (This is the temptation of the serpent), they challenge the uniqueness of God and attack his image. They now deserve the punishment of exile and death. God deals with them according to the NAP.

2. Israel and the NAP (Holy War and the Law)

Israel’s war on the Canaanites seems to violate the NAP. Except we are shown in Genesis 15: 16 that the Israelites will be the hand of God to punish the Amorites for their iniquity. The Canaanites are condemned justly for their destruction of God’s image in themselves and one another. We can see some of the cruelty of the Canaanites in Judges 1, where Adoni-Bezek is punished for his cruelty toward 70 kings, with the same indignity he meted out to them.

Further, the ten commandments given to Israel are all in accord with the NAP. The first four are all an attack and God and the image of God in man. The 5th commandment condemns ignoring the natural authority of parents; an authority which God has instituted. An attack on that natural authority also constitutes an attack on God’s authority. The 6th and 8th commandment are obvious; both condemn an attack on somebody’s person or property. The 7th commandment condemns an attack on the image of God in man through sexual sin. It also condemns the breaking of the only contract that is grounded in nature. (see 1 Corinthians 6:16) The 9th commandment condemns attacking a person’s life or property through lies in court. Finally, the tenth commandment condemns the heart that desires to do any of these things.

3. The Nations and the NAP (A lawsuit over violence)

God does not treat Israel, Judah, and the nations in the same way when it comes to his lawsuit against them. In Amos 2, Judah is condemned for disobeying the statutes of God. Israel, or the northern part of the kingdom of David and Solomon, no longer connected to the temple, is condemned for cruelty and for sexual immorality. The other nations, given in Amos 1, are almost unequivocally condemned for cruelty. We have a similar situation in Nahum, where the nation of Assyria is condemned for cruelty.

4. The Church and the NAP

The church inherits the law of God, as it has been transformed in Christ. Christ has covered our aggressions against God. From an earthly perspective, those who confess Christ continually remain in the church. Those who deny Christ, whether verbally or by demonstrating a love for sin by continuing in and celebrating their sin are removed from the communion of the church by the elders of the church.

5. The Civil Magistrate and the NAP

The role of the civil magistrate is outlined in Romans 13. The civil magistrate is called to protect the righteous and to bear the sword against the wicked. The most natural way to interpret this is that the civil magistrate should punish the wicked men who commit violence (coercion) against the righteous. This violence is exclusively directed at person and property.

I hope these short impressions will help in understanding how the NAP is Biblical.

God and the NAP

By James

On December 29, 2016

In Applied Hermeneutics, Libertarianism

I should probably begin this post by explaining what the NAP is. The NAP is an acronym for the non-aggression principle. To put it simply: One may not use coercive means against anyone’s person or property. One may use coercion in order to protect a person or his property; or one’s own property. In Libertarian political theory, the NAP is the central ethical principle for society.

How broadly should the NAP be applied? Libertarian theorists have been careful to limit the NAP to legal matters and legal relationships. Thin libertarians, as opposed to thick libertarians, teach this. In libertarian theory, scholars have primarily applied the NAP to the civil government (Those who protect the righteous and punish the offender (Romans 13)). This, of course, does not mean that the NAP does not apply to other social spheres. Rather, the way in which it applies to the political sphere is distinct. Libertarian theory began as a critique of the civil government. Therefore, the great majority of libertarian theory works to apply the NAP to the civil government.

God and the NAP

There is work to do. I would argue that the NAP should apply to every institution. This is because I believe that the NAP is an expression of God’s nature.

As Christians, who believe that God is intimately involved in the affairs of mankind, we readily ask, does the NAP have a part in the righteousness of God. Does God deal with mankind according to the NAP? Or does God merely view man as his own property? If he pleases, he may get rid of him? There is a false dichotomy here, but unfortunately, this is how we often frame the debate. I would argue that if the NAP applies to mankind, it also applies to God.

The image of God.

God created man in his own image. When we apply a little bit of deductive logic to Ephesians 4:24 we see that this means that man was created in true righteousness and holiness. Paul tells in Ephesians 4: 24, “Put on the new man, the one created according to God’s likeness, in righteousness and purity of the truth.” The new man is Christ, whom God commands us to put on in Galatians 3:27. God gave us Christ as the true image of God since the image of God in Adam is marred. I won’t argue what exactly this image is, but we can see that God gives it “in righteousness.”

God is righteous. God created man in righteousness. The duties that God asks of us are according to the dictates of God’s own nature. If the NAP is an expression of a righteous society, then God will also deal with his people according to the NAP. God will not demand a righteousness in man that is not expressed in himself. We, after all, carry the image of God. Before the fall and later in Christ, man freely shares in the righteousness of God. God limits himself by the NAP, so that it is natural for man to limit himself by the NAP. (Granted that the NAP is a righteous principle) (We should also not that we use the word “limit” as a human way of talking about the works of a spiritual, and impassible Lord)

Our God limits himself by the NAP according to his nature, his works, and his goals. God is Creator. God is our redeemer. God will glorify his creation. The Creator God has exclusive rights over his creation but he willingly limits himself to treat us according to the nature he has created us with. To understand how this works, we need to have a deeper understanding of how God defines himself in scripture. We need to understand his work, as he has revealed himself in our Lord Jesus Christ.

If the NAP applies to God, then…

We can go further. If the NAP defines God’s relation to his creation and our relation to one another under the civil government, that means that the NAP also applies to all our institutions. It has to apply to each institution according to the nature and the goals of that institution. government in the family, government in the church, government in a business, must reflect on how the NAP applies to their institutions.

(n.b. Why did I include this post under applied hermeneutics? To keep it simple, we can begin with John 1. John 1 reveals our Lord God Jesus Christ as the logos. The logos or the word is the thing that holds all things together. Jesus not only the primary hermeneutical principle of scripture but is the primary hermeneutical principle for understanding the world. See here.)