The Higher Law

 

 

 

William H. Seward Monument

Auburn, NY

     William H. Seward was a prominent American politician in the 19^th Century, a founder of the Republican Party, and Secretary of State under President Lincoln during the Civil War. His home in Auburn, NY is in the background of the pictures to the left.
     The inscription on the monument is from a famous (and controversial) speech he delivered on the floor of the U.S. Senate on March 11, 1850, opposing what eventually became known as the Compromise of 1850 – a last ditch effort to save the nation from disunion. The quotation contains a reference to the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution, which reads: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." But Seward also referred to "a higher law than the Constitution, which regulates our authority over the domain . . ."
     The speech touched off a firestorm of criticism. Southerners called it "monstrous and diabolical." Henry Clay, who first proposed the Compromise, called Seward's speech "wild, reckless, and abominable." President Zachary Taylor commented "This is a nice mess Governor Seward has got us into . . ." (Seward had previously been governor of New York State).
     But was Seward right? What is "the higher law"?
    

Remembering Martin Luther King

    This coming Monday the U.S. will be commemorating the birth of Martin Luther King, Jr. (His actual birthday was January 15). It is thus appropriate that we should take a few moments to reflect on his life and legacy.

    Dr. King was, of course, the preeminent leader of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950's and '60's. What is sometimes forgotten or overlooked, however, is that he was also a Baptist preacher and that he called his organization "The Southern Christian Leadership Conference." For him there was no such thing as separating religion from politics. True religion, in fact, requires involvement in politics. A truly devout person cannot ignore injustice in society.
    The point was beautifully stated in his famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail." On Good Friday in April, 1963, Dr. King was arrested in Birmingham, Alabama for marching without a permit. It was a deliberate act of civil disobedience on his part, and one that he know would be controversial. A group of clergymen published a statement in a newspaper critical of his actions, and he wrote a response from his jail cell.
    Among other things the clergymen wanted to know how he could break the law while urging others to obey the 1954 Supreme Court decision outlawing segregation. His answer is that there is a difference between a just law and an unjust one. "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all.'"
    Dr. King then went on to explain what made the difference between the two: "A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law." Dr. King then explained that "segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful . . . Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness"? And so the need for direct, non-violent action to remedy the situation.
    Today there are many who argue that religion should be kept out of politics, and that legislative decisions should be made strictly on the basis of secular considerations. But that is to separate the law from morality and surrenders society to the law of the jungle. Why obey the law? Why seek to change the law? If laws are purely man-made and there is no higher standard of morality, there is no reason to do either. Even more to the point, what hope is for minorities? As Dr. King so plainly saw, if there is no transcendent standard of justice, there is no defense for the weak and helpless, the outcasts and the downtrodden. They are entirely at the mercy of the unsympathetic majority.
    Dr. King's personal faith gave him a passionate commitment to justice – an unwillingness to accept things simply as they are. He devoted his life to the struggle for justice because he was absolutely convinced, in his own mind, that there is a higher law, the law of God, and that eventually as human beings we must all give answer before the bar of divine justice.
    But he also saw that the ends do not justify the means. ". . . it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends." This is why he was also committed to non-violence. We are required to respect the rights even of our enemies. Why? Because God demands it.
    We can continue to be a nation "with liberty and justice for all" only if we remain "one nation under God."

Other posts you may enjoy (click on links):
Christianity and Politics 
William Jennings Bryan: a Lesson in Faith and Politics 

WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN: A Lesson in Faith and Politics

Since the Democratic National Convention is currently going on, I thought it would be appropriate to rerun a previous post about my all-time favorite Democrat.
 
Today we often think of Evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives as being aligned with the Republican Party. The Democrats are usually thought of as the party of the secular left - - staunch supporters of legalized abortion and advocates of "gay rights." It may come as a surprise, therefore, to learn that the leader of the Democratic Party one hundred years ago was a devout Evangelical Christian: William Jennings Bryan. Bryan was a renown orator, three-time candidate for President, and Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson. He closed his career as a prosecutor in the famous Scopes evolution trial of 1925.
Bryan was a loyal Democrat if there ever was one. He held to the traditional view of his party that the honest, hardworking laboring men and women of America were being systematically exploited by the wealthy financiers on Wall Street. Therefore Bryan saw it as his Christian duty to speak up on behalf of the oppressed and downtrodden. And so he began his political career by promoting the free coinage of silver as a way of expanding the money supply and thereby easing the burden on debt ridden farmers. He favored lower tariffs and was an early proponent of a federal income tax. He attacked trusts and monopolies and advocated the government ownership of railroads. Although reluctant at first, he eventually became a whole-hearted supporter of the prohibition movement (Democrats traditionally opposed prohibition.) After the Spanish-American War of 1898 he opposed the annexation of the Philippines. He was generally opposed to war, and resigned from Woodrow Wilson's cabinet over what he perceived as a bias in favor of the allied powers. Bryan was seen as a dangerous radical in his lifetime, but he was also a hero to millions of farmers and workers in rural America who admired his eloquence, moral fervor, and patent sincerity.
Bryan's last great battle was against the teaching of the theory of evolution in the public schools. Today we often see Creationism as a conservative cause, at odds with the liberal, progressive policies Bryan espoused throughout his career. But in Bryan's own mind the two were closely linked together. Evolution was about the ruthless struggle for existence - - the survival of the fittest. Progressive politics, however, rested on the moral foundation of Christian compassion. Social Darwinism is the very antithesis of the Social Gospel. And to use taxpayer money to tear down civilization was utterly beyond Bryan's comprehension. Accordingly he advocated outlawing the teaching of evolution in tax supported schools.
The major test case came in 1925 when John T. Scopes, a high school teacher in Dayton, TN, was arrested for teaching evolution in class. Bryan was invited to join the prosecution; the ACLU provided a defense team that included Clarence Darrow, one of the top trial lawyers in the nation, and, ironically, once a political supporter of Bryan. In an unusual move the defense called Bryan himself to the witness stand, and for two hours Darrow subjected Bryan to a withering cross examination in which he tried to make Bryan's faith in the Bible look naïve and ridiculous. As it turned out, Bryan did not get a chance to cross examine Darrow, and as a result Bryan's reputation was irreparably damaged. Bryan died shortly after the trial. It was a tragic end to a heroic life.
Bryan always couched his positions in moral terms. But there were some disturbing inconsistencies in his stance. He was reluctant to challenge his party's position against prohibition at first, and at times he cooperated with Tammany Hall, the corrupt political machine in New York City. But the most serious blot on Bryan's character was his attitude toward race relations. The Democratic Party in his day stood firmly for white supremacy and racial segregation, and Bryan throughout his career offered lame excuses for his party's stance. In perhaps the most deplorable episode in his career, Bryan was Secretary of State when President Wilson ordered the segregation of the federal government. Even though the matter was undoubtedly discussed in cabinet meetings, Bryan evidently said nothing in protest. He was too much of a party loyalist to challenge the racial attitudes of his southern white supporters.
This raises an important question for any Christian who takes his faith seriously and loves his country dearly: is it possible for a Christian to participate in the political process without compromising his faith? Bryan certainly thought he could. But Bryan was possessed of a certain naïve optimism about human nature, and at other points he was simply too much a part of his time and culture to see the faults and shortcomings of his own party. It was easy for him to denounce Wall Street plutocrats; it was harder to see fault with the Ku Klux Klan. The former, after all, were Republicans; the latter were loyal Democrats. It was hard for him to find fault with the "good guys" in the ongoing war against evil.
As Americans it is our privilege to choose our own leaders, and it is our duty to vote. But as Christians our first responsibility is toward God, and for this reason we must be careful about aligning ourselves too closely with a secular political party. Parties represent various competing interests in society; as Christians we must be concerned about the common good. Politics is the art of compromise; as Christians we must stand firmly for the truth.
Christians should participate in the political process, but not necessarily in partisan politics. We should be issue oriented, not party oriented. We can accomplish more for the cause of truth by protesting and letter writing than we can by campaigning for a flawed candidate. And sometimes it makes more sense to vote for a minor party candidate than it does to support one of the two major parties that are a part of the established system in Washington. Let every Christian search his own conscience, and act accordingly!    

Our Least Christian President

    In an editorial in today's USA Today, Stephen Prothero criticizes David Barton's characterization of Thomas Jefferson as a Christian, decries the vitriolic invective of much of today's political discourse, and then advocates, as a solution, what he calls "The American Bible," a canon of significant speeches, songs and stories that describe what we are as a nation ("Our least Christian president" – July 2, 2012). Mr. Prothero's suggested canon includes texts running from the Declaration of Independence to Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech, and would presumably be something upon which we could all agree.
    We have previously expressed our own reservations about the quality of David Barton's work ("Did the Founding Fathers Create a Christian Nation?" – Oct. 20, 2011), and would certainly agree that Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian, at least not in any orthodox, evangelical sense of the word. But is it true, as Mr. Prothero suggests, that "Americans have never agreed on a common creed of our public life"?
    It is certainly true that America, as an independent nation, never adopted a formal religious creed, and we treasure the right of each individual to follow the dictates of his own conscience in matters of religious belief and practice. But the Declaration of Independence is, arguably, a kind of "creed of our public life," in that it lays out the basic philosophical principles upon which our republic was founded. And that statement of principles says quite explicitly that "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." While it is true that Jefferson was no orthodox Christian, it is also true, as Mr. Prothero himself points out, that he was not an atheist either. He genuinely believed what he wrote in the Declaration. Our rights and liberties are not man-made, but are grounded in "the laws of nature and nature's God."
    Time and time again, in times of crisis and doubt, we have come back to these golden principles enshrined in our nation's founding document. Our wisest leaders, including both Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr., have appealed to its ringing cadences in pleading for justice and humanity in our public life.
    No, America is not a Christian nation, if by Christianity we mean belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of the world. But America has always acknowledged God as the Author of its liberties, and of its peace and prosperity. Without God, our system of government withers and dies.

 
Note: Our readers may be interested to know that someone actually has put together a collection of speeches, poems and stories that epitomize our values as a nation. The book to which we refer is George Grant's The American Patriot's Handbook (Cumberland House, 2009).

But Can an Atheist Be President?

    In an op-ed piece in today's USA Today ("No 'religious test' in politics" – April 23, 2012) Michael Medved notes, quite correctly, that Article VI, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution says explicitly "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Mr. Medved pointed out that the language "left so little doubt as to its meaning that not even the most imaginative jurists or politicians have attempted to interpret it away."
    Voters do, of course, have every right to evaluate a candidate for office on the basis of his personal character and integrity, and these are generally tied to a strong sense of morality, and morality, in turn, is often tied to religion. George Washington, in his Farewell Address, put it like this: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." He went on to add, "And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion."
    And yet in actual practice it does not always seem to work out that way. We sometimes encounter dedicated public servants with a strong sense of integrity and yet with an apparent lack of religious attachment. Mr. Medved cites two examples in particular, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln.
    How can this be? The case of Lincoln is especially intriguing. Lincoln saw the Civil War as a kind of moral crusade, and he often laced his speeches with biblical metaphors. Yet he was never baptized and never joined a church. His theology, as far as we can discern it, was hardly orthodox. While he respected and appreciated religion, for some reason he could not embrace it as his own. How then did he acquire such a strong moral sensitivity? He had a conscience, of course. He also had a religious upbringing and knew the Bible well. What he apparently lacked was "the new birth."
    Yet neither Jefferson nor Lincoln were atheists. They both believed in God. Jefferson could write: "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? . . . Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. . ." (Notes on Virginia). And Lincoln could say "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in . . ." (Second Inaugural). They firmly believed that a moral order exists in the universe, and that that order originated with a wise and beneficent Creator.
    Can our liberties be save in the hands of someone who does not believe in moral absolutes, divine providence, or eternal rewards and punishments?