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"?
    

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).

Why Obey?

 

    Obey! The very word makes us cringe. It represents the assertion of authority by one person over another. We object to it because it is a threat to our personal autonomy, a form of abject slavery.

    We would like to think that we are free to do as we please and that we are accountable to no one for our actions. We live in a free country. It is even a part of our national creed to believe that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." Presumably we obey the government only because we created it and elected its officials. They are no so much our masters as our servants.

    The statement in the Declaration of Independence, however, is patently false. Governments do not derive their just powers from the consent of the governed; they derive them from God.

    The sanctity of all legitimate human authority rests on the Fifth Commandment: "Honor your father and your mother." So serious was this social obligation that the death penalty was prescribed for those who broke it. The parents of an incorrigible son were to bring him before the elders of the city and denounce him in open court. The juvenile delinquent was then to be stoned to death. ". . . so will you put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear" (Dt. 21:18-21; NKJV).

    It is clear from the teachings of Scripture elsewhere that this principle of respect for one's parents extends to human authority in general, in particular to the civil magistrates. In Romans chapter 13 the apostle Paul enjoins Christians to "be subject to the governing authorities." In particular we are to obey the law, pay our taxes and give those in authority our personal respect. "Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor" (v. 7).

    What is remarkable about this passage is that it was written when the Roman Empire controlled the Mediterranean world, and most of its subject peoples were not Romans. The Jews in particular chafed under Roman rule. The Roman Empire was not a democracy and most of its officials could hardly be called "Christian." Yet Paul could say that the civil magistrate "is God's minister to you for good"(v.4).

    How could he say such a thing? The reason is given in verse 1: "For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God." In other words, civil government per se has been ordained by God in order to maintain order in society, and God rules over political developments through His providence. Therefore we are to obey the government, not just from a fear of punishment, "but also for conscience' sake" (v. 5). Submission to the government is our moral duty, and it should be discharged conscientiously.

    If we are always looking for ways to skirt the law, to cheat when we think no one is looking, then we make the government official's job that much more difficult. Moreover, this is not a duty we owe just to individual officials; we owe it to society as a whole. Anarchy adversely affects everyone, and it is in the interest of us all to maintain the rule of law. General lawlessness in society eventually leads to increasingly harsh and repressive measures by the government. Civil liberty cannot exist in the midst of a depraved population.

    This does not mean, however, that the power of the government is unlimited. If human authority is established by God it is also limited by God. Rulers are expected to rule justly. The government cannot usurp the place of God Himself – that is tantamount to idolatry. When the apostles were ordered to stop preaching, their answer was "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29; cf. 4:19,20). The will of God is always supreme; human government is always a subordinate authority.

    Regrettably those of us who grew up in the '60's scarcely have any concept of authority at all. We have sown the wind and reaped the whirlwind. First the children rebelled against their parents, and then the wives rebelled against their husbands. The divorce rate soared, the family structure collapsed, and now the specter of social chaos is staring us in the face. Even common courtesy and respect have largely gone by the wayside.

    "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come; For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God" (II Tim. 3:1-4)