The Narrow Path Ministries

The most popular view christians hold of government is, to use John Cobin's terms, that of the "revitalized divine right of kings". This view affirms that governments are a special sphere of authority like the family or the church. The view would affirm that certain actions are righteous only if done by a ruler. The same actions done by a citizen would be regarded as immoral . For example, if a ruler takes property from a man it is called taxation and considered a righteous action. if an ordinary citizen takes another's property it is considered theft and is regarded as immoral. As far as I can see, this view leads to some difficulties in its application, so I am writing to ask how these problems might be resolved by those who adhere to the divine right of kings view. These difficulties relate to how the bond between a ruler and a citizen is either formed or terminated.

Suppose that George is the ruler over a certain domain. George provides the services of judging disputes between men, enforcing his decisions, and imposes taxation. The ruler of a geographically adjacent domain is Felix, and he imposes taxes to provide the same services for citizens of his domain. Now suppose some men living in George's domain hold the opinion that Felix is a better ruler than George and also that they own land along the border. These men renounce George as their ruler, and pledge allegiance to Felix. George would like to behave righteously. Is it a righteous or wicked act for him to impose his rule, and, if those departing to felix resist enough, to shed blood so as to prevent loss of men, property or land from his jurisdiction?

Examples in varying degrees:
1. Arizona becomes overwhelmingly Hispanic and the citizens of that state wish to leave the union and join Mexico. Would it be righteous for the rulers of the federal government to shed blood to prevent loss of the land?
2. Suppose the same situation but the defectors load all their relocatable property onto trucks and drive into Mexico. Is it righteous for the rulers of the USA federal government to shed blood to prevent loss of property and men when no loss of land is at risk?
3. Suppose the same situation, but defecting men leave their property and land behind. Would the rulers of the USA be acting righteously or wickedly to shed blood to prevent the men alone from defecting. That is to say, can citizenship be unilaterally renounced?
4. Suppose the loss of land, property, or men is not the full state of Arizona but merely one county located along the border. Is it righteous for the rulers to shed blood to prevent one county from departing? What if it is only one city? One small town? What if it is only one family? What if it is one person?
5. Suppose the secession does not involve joining an existing nation, but rather the men commence the establishment of a new government. Does this change the answers you would give to the above questions? What if they wished to secede without forming a new government at all?
6. Suppose the kind of government differs and the two governments involved are any combination of dictatorship, monarchy, republic, etc. does this impact how you would judge the above examples?

If one affirms that it is a wicked action for a ruler to prevent an individual or a family from unilaterally seceding with their land or property, then it seems to greatly undermine the authority this view presumes that the ruler has. The divine right of kings view cannot allow this because any dissenting person may simply regard himself as having seceded to avoid being subject to the ruler. To avoid this there must be some point at which a ruler may righteously impose his rule against the wishes of a portion of his subjects. How is that limit established? If the line is drawn in the wrong place then we may err in regarding acts of a murder of men who resist one who is not their ruler as a righteous behavior of the ruler, or we may err in regarding acts of secession as righteous when in fact it is an act of rebellion.

Finally I would like to ask about the formation of the bond of civil government. Is there any other basis than "might makes right" by which we ultimately regard a man as having established himself as the ruler. For example, suppose the divine right of kings view affirms that timothy is a ruler over some domain. Mark organizes a rebellion and imprisons Timothy. Is Mark to be regarded as a criminal usurping the authority that rightfully belongs to Timothy, or vice versa? If both send you a letter in the mail demanding that you pay them a certain sum of money as a tax would you pay both tax bills? Is the ability of a ruler to enforce taxation decisive in assessing whether he has the god given authority to impose a tax? Does the passing of time change your opinion of which ruler is the one ordained by God to rule over you?

In the USA, we have a distinct difference from other countries. Essentially we are benefactors of a government which is not to be viewed as the sovereigns. Instead, our government is limited to certain powers as delegated via the constitutions (of America and the individual states). We essentially are supposed to be in control of all our rights -- whether such rights are listed in such constitutions.

In our present era, the government is operating beyond the scope of its powers. For example, the individual people have the right to freely give up their citizenship in America, without requesting permission from the government. Nonetheless, the US Government tries to demand that the sovereign people denounce their citizenship officially in order to satisfy the government's demands.

So, it is not proper for the US government or state governments to shed blood against people exercising their rights.

I'm not sure about all the details relating to the power of states to secede. There were certain states, such as Texas, which joined the union while retaining a declared right to secede. Also, the people, in forming the USof A constitution, retained the right to terminate the government of that constitution and create something new. Though, such termination would be difficult, unless a majority of states decided to go this route.

In light of your other question regarding the validity of a government following a 'rebellion' or such, I doubt we should think that Paul was addressing such detail. Romans 13 seemed to focus on the behavior of the Roman believers -- to say that they should not be identified with rebellions of that era. If a rebellion against proper governments (at least those governments having operated under a certain scheme for long while) was being planned by Christians, we might some error or concern with that.

In light of this analysis, Romans 13 has an imperfect fit to the situation in America. Maybe there is still some basic logic to apply, namely that if people behave badly, the government will likely take action.

okay. wow. My post wasn't timely here. I don't know how the OP showed up on one of the 'recent post' type links.

mikew wrote: So, it is not proper for the US government or state governments to shed blood against people exercising their rights.

Thanks for replying. Although I gave examples from the USA, the topic I am trying to address here is whether there is any theory of the State which that does not involve self contradiction for any government at any time in history.

Consider this case: Suppose that I declare tommorrow that I and my family are terminating our citizenship with the USA and we cease to pay property taxes on the real estate tha we own. Of course, what will happen is that the state government will eventually invade my property, evict me, and take the property for itself to collect those taxes. How does God view such an action by the powers that be: are they acting righteously in doing this, or is it wrongdoing on their part? (disclaimer: I am not and have no intentions of doing such a thing, this is a theoretical case to test an idea).

If the answer is "wrongdoing" then I think we will find that we have underminded government altogether. Anyone, even the citizens under Nero, were morally free, but perhaps not prudent, to ignore him if only they renounced Nero as their ruler. On the other hand, if we answer "righteous" then the problems of self contradiction arise. See the OP.

mikew wrote: I'm not sure about all the details relating to the power of states to secede. There were certain states, such as Texas, which joined the union while retaining a declared right to secede. Also, the people, in forming the USof A constitution, retained the right to terminate the government of that constitution and create something new. Though, such termination would be difficult, unless a majority of states decided to go this route.

I believe that all "compact theory of the union" is correct in regards to the relationship between the several states and the federal government. All states were free to depart the union at any time. It was Abraham Lincoln who upset the balance of power, at the point of a gun, in making the Federal government the master of the States instead of their servant.

mikew wrote: In light of your other question regarding the validity of a government following a 'rebellion' or such, I doubt we should think that Paul was addressing such detail. Romans 13 seemed to focus on the behavior of the Roman believers -- to say that they should not be identified with rebellions of that era. If a rebellion against proper governments (at least those governments having operated under a certain scheme for long while) was being planned by Christians, we might some error or concern with that.

I agree that Romans 13 is of limited usefulness because it is directed at believers not at rulers. However, since his time the situation has arisen where believers participate in some degree with the ruling power. On one extreme, by the very limited impact of voting, and on the other by assuming a position of becoming an absolute monarch. Given the possibility of participating in wrongdoing through the actions of the State, I think it is a question woth exploring as to whether or not Christians should support any State, and if so what aspects of it are worthy of support.