|
|
i need to get an adult education class at church class outline for a discussion of the doctrine of the right of rebellion under the lesser magistrates. I am posting here as the idea was a formulation key to the American Revolution.
my outline so far:
Outline of doctrine
I. relationship of Church and State
imho, the most profitable way to look at this theme is Kuyper's sphere sovereignity.
from: http://wrf.ca/comment/issue/04sp/essay1
As far back as the sixteenth century, the legal theorist Johannes Althusius was arguing that the government, through its powers, "creates a legal and policy framework in which private associations can actualize their rights and acknowledge their responsibilities." The emphasis here is on the associational nature of society. Government is limited, not only by the rights of the lonely individual, but by public and private associations with their own responsibilities and spheres of authority.
In the late nineteenth century, Althusius's idea that the institutions of society have distinct realms of influence and authority was picked up by Abraham Kuyper, the Dutch prime minister at the time. Kuyper was adamant that every social institution is "sovereign in its own sphere." To a large extent, his idea of sphere sovereignty was rooted in his theology. As a strong Calvinist, Kuyper could not attribute to any human institution an absolute authority -- not even an absolute temporal authority. To do so would be idolatrous. Thus, placing limitations on the power of government was a simple acknowledgement that only God has the right to absolute sovereign rule.
The timeless truth of God's rule was balanced by the organic, unfolding nature of human society. Kuyper thought that human social structures are latent in creation. As a culture develops, its people discover organizational principles and structures to meet developing needs. These structures are not artificial creations. They reflect something about what it means to be human and in society. Each also has a unique purpose, a mission distinct from that of every other social structure.
In a series of guest lectures he gave at Princeton in 1898, Kuyper argued what we are to understand by this idea of sphere sovereignty:
that the family, the business, science, art and so forth are all social spheres, which do not owe their existence to the State, and which do not derive the law of their life from the superiority of the State, but obey a high authority within their own bosom; an authority which rules, by the grace of God, just as the sovereignty of the State does.
The spheres of society are not subsidiaries of the state. Within the bounds of their purposes, they have no other authority than God above them. Kuyper has received criticism on this point. Later thinkers have accused him of advocating sphere autonomy. The criticism is not unwarranted, given such remarks as, "the State . . . has nothing to command in their domain."
However, here domain refers to the unique purposes of the institutions, not the broad scope of their influence. What we need to remember is that while the structures of society are diverse in their purposes they hold many things in common (for example, their members) and often operate in relation to one another. Thus, the state does have an interest in seeing that justice is maintained within and between the different institutions. Kuyper wanted to prevent a hierarchical model of society. His model was horizontal, where each institution assumed authority over its particular function.
Unfortunately, Kuyper's fear of a hierarchical society caused him to see a rift between his social thinking and Catholic social thought, which advocated the notion of subsidiarity. Kuyper's rejection of subsidiarity was based on an obsolete top-down understanding of subsidiarity. In his time, subsidiarity was being interpreted as a bottom-up, decentralized approach. The functions of society, in this new interpretation, are to be performed by the lowest or, rather, the most local community possible.
A. the subtopic is civil disobedience or what to do if the sovereign is wrong?
The rule is that if obedience to man means disobedience to God then we obey God.
.............1. the subtopic of this is how to go about obeying God in this matter
rebellion under the lesser magistrates
Lex Rex is at: http://www.constitution.org/sr/lexrex.htm for anyone really interested in the topic of justifying rebellion, in fact, to justify regicide this is a must read.
http://www.cuis.edu/ftp/WITTENBERG/L...EBELLION.-0110
http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/97/fedcov.html
from: http://highlands-reformed.com/militias.html
Militias and the Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate
Reformed theology has always maintained a distinction between the various spheres of government; self, church, state, etc. The power of the sword clearly belongs neither to the church nor to individuals; God has delegated that authority only to the State (cf. Rms 13:1ff). While the individual himself has the right to self-defense, he never had the right to take the law into his own hands and punish evil with the sword. In historic Reformed thought, this was seen as sedition and rebellion. Self-defense is one thing, revolution another.
According to the Reformers, if the State became oppressive and tyrannical, the individual could appeal to a "lesser magistrate" to resist unlawful government since only the magistrate has the right to "bear the sword" against evil. For example, in Germany, it was the responsibility of princes to protect the people against the Emperor. In Britain parliament was the lesser magistrate while in Scotland it was the nobility. In Switzerland, the lesser magistrate was often the city fathers.
In American history, Reformed thought regarding militias was a balance between the authority of the State and the responsibility of the individual. Individual men, living free and responsibly under God’s law, were often called up by the “lesser magistrate” as needed to defend property, life and freedom. In continental Europe, armies were often composed of the dregs of humanity, conscripted and used by the powers that be. However, in Scotland, England and the American colonies, the armies often raised were composed of local militias, raised by lairds, nobleman, local towns or colonial legislatures.
john howard yoder at: http://www.nd.edu/~theo/jhy/writings/justwar/justrevo.htm
milton's The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates at: http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/Tenure.HTM
In Praise of Constantine and the Reformed State at: http://www.eauk.org/commission/evide...%2520State.pdf
" One of the most important distinctives of Theonomy is its view on civil law and the civil magistrate." at: http://www.hisglory.us/articles/theonomy.htm
Calvin says that "Civil authority is a calling, not only holy and lawful before God, but also the most sacred and by far the most honorable of all callings in the life of moral men." Magistrates are "ordained ministers of divine justice." They are "vicars of God." In administering punishment the magistrate "does nothing by himself, but carries out the very judgments of God." And again, magistracy is a "jurisdiction bestowed by God and on that account to esteem and reverence them as ministers and representatives of God."
There is room here, and even an obligation (although the Institutes lays down rather stringent conditions) for people to rise up and replace magistrates who are not ruling according to the high standards Calvin sets. Even Catholic magistrates who rule justly are presumably in Calvin's view ministers of God. But we read that "Sometimes [God] raises up avengers from among his servants, and arms them with his command to punish the wicked government and deliver his people, oppressed in unjust ways, from miserable calamity." But, even then, Calvin admonishes us that such rebellion must be led by notable persons, and only after grave provocation.
from the book:David Hall's new book, Savior or Servant? Putting Government in Its Place
http://capo.org/premise/96/aug/p960812.html
on luther at: http://spindleworks.com/library/peet/german.htm
http://www.reformed.org/ethics/index...aws_Moses.html
The big point is that we, because of the pervasive effects of sin, do not as individuals rebel, but rather as well organized, disciplined subgroups assent to the fact that rulers rule in the place of God. Not to replace God but to do His will. This essentially is an authority replacement plan not an anarchistic individualism.
thanks for the help. i need to be sure i hit the high points, hence why i am asking for help, so i don't miss something significant.
|
|
TheologyWeb Campus
» Liberal Arts Dept.
» Civics 101
»
right of rebellion under the lesser magistrates
