Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 1/3/2012 11:26:38 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Similitude) : 1/3/2012 5:46:44 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (One Love) : 1/5/2012 3:33:10 PM (GMT-6)

The author of the article refers to someone who was working for realistic change leading up to the fall of the Soviet domination in East Europe. But it was highly predictable that the Soviet Union had only two possible outcomes--destruction of much of the world in one final gasp of a nuclear power shew or economic collapse. Either way, it was gonna be bad for lots of people. The side effects of that fall are still occurring in Germany. It cost them to "pick up" East Germany. And I bet the IMF helped as well. But how does any of this prove that meaningful political change is realistic here? That's what I'm not seeing.

A lady I worked with at the time of the wall coming down in Berlin is from Germany. She went back to visit her sister after East Germany had been freed from Soviet rule. She found out that East Germany had been forced to resow land without fertilizer until it couldn't produce food of any value. Soviet greed literally destroyed them. Takes no rocket science to see that those enslaved to that system would flee back to their German mother country as soon as they could. That's just sheer self-interest.

Post Edited (Similitude) : 1/5/2012 4:04:53 PM (GMT-6)

OK...here is some more....and guess what.  He lost me (or at least he's starting to).  And you'll see where's it at in this convo.  Take a guess.  Seriously.  Take a guess where he loses me.  You'll know it when you read it cause we've only gone over this on these boards upteenth times.  Aggghhh...(facepalm).

Brandon Blake:  K…few questions for ya.

1. You say that monopoly sword-power itself is aggression and a violation of justice. What are your thoughts then about the Old Testament biblical kings who had a monopoly on power ahd whom at times used it for good. Would you say that specifically that monopoly of power itself is an injustice? That is, is having a monopoly itself aggression or can we separate monopoly of sword-power from tendencies toward aggression?
2. You stated: “Consider the fact that there isn't just one single family. There are many communities that are separate families. All humans are ultimate blood-relatives, but we have differentiated into distinguishable family groups (or simply, different families). The same is true of the ecclesial sphere. Even if all Christian churches were united in the same beliefs, there are still distinct congregations. In the market or business sphere, obviously there isn't simply a single 'business,' there are a variety of firms.

Now, normatively speaking, this shouldn't be any different with political community. There shouldn't be monopoly on sword-power, but rather there should be a number of different institutions in the 'political' sphere; numerous distinct 'dispute resolution,' 'legal,' and 'defense/security' -providing organizations. We don't need 'a' government. We need (and would have, if not prevented by the government) differentiated 'governance'.”

Could you be even more specific? What would a differentiated governance specifically look like and how would this get things accomplished? That is, what would a differentiated governance look like at different levels of government and where would it get the power to enforce a ordered society? For an example, again, I’ve read neo-calvinist’s who allow for there to be a private police force. How would that differ significantly from a public one such as whom would that private police force be responsible to and where would their funding come from?
3. As it seems we will always have tyrannical governments, (is it possible given what you are saying about differentiated governance that such is possible?) at what point would civil disobedience come into play?

Gregory Baus:  Brandon, 1. you bring up a really, really important point; namely, the question: what about the Old Testament?
Yes, in fact, under Moses (or the time of "the Law") until Christ, God authorized His people as a 'nation' to exercise sword-power *and* to use it aggressively. The holy war annihilation of certain peoples (women, babies, cattle, entire cities --buildings and all) was an "intrusion" of God's eschatological judgment into history.

There's obviously much more to say about the meaning of the "political" form of the Kingdom of God under the Old Covenant / Law. However, the bottom line is that since Christ the Old Covenant has been superseded (by the New Covenant), and God no longer authorizes aggression of any kind whatsoever. It's not only forbidden to the Church to wield the sword, it is also forbidden to any and all people to aggress against others (whether in God's name or not).

So, there is indeed a distinction between aggression (that is, *initiatory* coercion) and the legitimate use of sword-power (that is, *defensive* coercion). But, there is no sound argument to show that monopoly isn't itself aggression (and therefore, illegitimate). In fact, from a Reformed, Covenantal "Redemptive-Historical" hermeneutical perspective, one could say that sword-power monopoly is a "beastial" usurpation of God's prerogative; setting itself in the place of God.

But, a more elaborate Christian definition or account of political community does include this redemptive-historical understanding that under the Old Covenant, God did (typolgically; symbollically, temporarily) authorize His people in the form of a legitimate sword-wielding executioner of His Judgment. --However, under the Gospel, this is no longer the case, and aggression is now forbidden to all.

2. All the legitimate "functions of govt," such as 'courts' for arbitration/ dispute resolution, 'police' for enforcement of the such resolutions, defense/security, and 'legislation' or law-production... *all* this would be produced by voluntary agreement (rather than by aggression). It would all be "private".

However, it may seem a bit confusing only because the terms "public" and "private" are somewhat erroneous. (eg, are "private" schools not also "public"?) If public just means, "the state," then it is a redundant term. Anyway, I prefer the term "civil" to speak of the "public, political legal order" produced in this "private" voluntary way.

The funding comes from people who use the services. Rather than being paid for by the aggressive confiscation of property, it would more cheaply and efficiently be paid in a cooperative and voluntary manner. *Any* thing you can think of will suffice as an example: what about trash collection, fire fighting, snow removal, car insurance, etc... are these better provided for by centralized monopolized coercive mandates, or by voluntary means? Well, if *plenty* of communities have such "free market" trash collection, fire fighting, etc... and all of them are more efficient than coercive "municipal" alternatives.

What do you think about the "10 Objections" essay by Roderick Long (that I linked previously) ? : http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long11.html

3. It does not seem to me we will always have tyrannical governments everywhere, all the time. Injustice will generally exist until the Final Judgement, but there's no necessity of always having tyranny everywhere. That's like saying "we will always have a feudal system" or "always have an Emperor who claims Deity." I don't think there's any necessity in have this or that form of government, and we can certainly have an *anarchic* one (eg, the Icelandic Commonwealth).

There is no duty to obey tyrants. So, as far as establishing a just political order, civil disobedience is a matter of prudence and strategy. It's stupid to refuse the mugger your wallet, if he's going to shoot you in the face. For now, you give him your wallet. But if chances are you can successfully defend your property (or life), it would be insane to let the thug rob/kill you.

Finally, I really do thing UR helps us explain how State utilitarianism can work out in the way that avoids divine injustices. I doubt this guy holds to UR.

Wanted to basically finish this up as I didn't really pursue any further with Baus on this.

Brandon:  Essentially, what I hear you saying is that you believe that force/coercion/violence is OT. skips gospels and most of the NT and is to be found again within the eschaton. I don’t buy that. Haven’t for a LONG time.

Second, I was actually referring to kings and specifically I had in mind OT pagan kings who used their monarchical/monopolistic power for good not God’s judgments per se. Even God’s judgments don’t skip the gospels or the historical narrative of Acts or even Christian ethics in the rest of the NT.

Third, (and this will blend in with other parts of your response) where I could agree with you is regarding monopoly of power being idolatrous but may differ slightly. I think of it like this. Think of a symphony with a conductor. Even if you had mature musicians you would still need authority. And politics doesn’t necessarily have to be a monopoly of power by particular individuals ie., politicians or the state it could be “the majority.” But it seems that even if governing functions were private, they would need to be authorized whether by the majority or by an separate body of individuals called, politicians. But this is partially, I think, Koyzis point in that original post about libertarians being “good enough.” Even if we had MATURE musicians, (not simply lowering the bar, that is, someone good ENOUGH) we would still need authority or someone authorizing the particular musicians and there is a reason for this. This is why I ask about tyrannical governments. I was not trying to say, it is necessary that we will have tyrannical governments everywhere all the time, but rather, because there have been tyrannical governments in the past, there are presently and there will be in the future, what would a proper response be? If there is to be some authorizing of governing functions by some authority or another (even a minarchist government) it seems that the question points back at you. What happens when this minarchist government is tyrannical. I mean it seems that:

**If the state is suppose to be a check upon other spheres, then who/what is a check on the state?** Well, quite clearly --nobody. The only way to properly "check" sword-power is to have non-monopoly.

This would apply to a minarchist government as well, yes? And so we have to ask, “What would happen if the conductor doesn’t conduct well?” The answer would still be the same all around. At some point there would be civil disobedience (qualified of course). We will eventually want to approach authority in such a way that it is not undermined.

One last question. If omni-competence is only possible by the monopoly power of the state isn’t it also what can ensure the space possible for a healthy competence of the spheres?

P.S. I've read some of the Long article and would like to talk about some of that in a future email.

Gregory Baus: I appreciate your interaction. I have some questions for clarification.

Not "force/coercion/violence" per se (which is synonymous with sword-power per se), and is legitimately used in *defense*... but rather "aggression" (which is *initiatory* coercion)... aggression is what was once authorized by God, but isn't now. We have to distinguish these.

So, you think God authorizes people to assault, attack, and invade each other (since Christ/New Covenant)? You think God authorizes holy war under the Gospel? (I have to tell you that even people who disagree with me do not take such a view).

OT pagan kings might have used their sword for legitimate defense. But they were not authorized by God use it aggressively, as God's people were.

You wrote:
"God's judgments don't skip the Gospels..."
Agreed. Did you get the impression I said God stopped judging at some point?

Of course I believe in authority, and in authority within political community. But that doesn't require that any *one* institution (such as the state or "the government") be "in charge." Don't confuse rejection of monopoly with rejection of political authority or community.

Anyway, why would dispute resolution, or protection, or legal agreements need to be "authorized by a 'majority' or some 'separate body'"? If you and I have a legal dispute, why can't *we* voluntarily agree to authorize our own judges/arbiters ? Why would a system have to be imposed on us against our will or without our consent or by others?

What is the proper response to tyranny or tyrannical government, even when the government is 'minimal' but tyrannical? I think the proper response is to resist tyranny and to support legitimate political authority and community in whatever ways we can. Sometimes I suppose one might not be able to do very much.

Minarchist government is still monopoly (and therefore illegitimate), yes.

I do not think monopoly "ensures the space possible for healthy competence of the spheres," no. No view of sphere sovereignty affirms that, as far as I know.
As Dooyeweerd explains it, each sphere's "authority and competence [is] derived not from the authority of any other sphere but directly [delegated] from the sovereign authority of God." So, even in a non-monopolist view of political community, no sphere's 'space' is ensured by political community.

I look forward to more of your feedback.

Brandon: First, I was speaking, for example, of pagan kings and authorities using their monopoly of power for good ie., Joseph being authorized to put aside rations because of drought that will hit the land.

Second, let me ask it like this. Do you think that God himself is in no way a participant in violence in a coercive sense in the NT? From what I see, you believe that God made judgments in the OT and does so in the eschaton, but it seems to skip your reading of the gospels and the rest of the NT. But as far as I can see, Jesus cursed a fig tree and sent free agent beings (if we are to believe the gospel stories concerning demons) into a herd of pigs as well as striking down Ananias and Sapphira by the Holy Spirit. We also have Jesus commanding the winds and the waves on the Sea of Galilee to be still. So we have plants, animals and people having death called down upon them as well as coercing of the natural elements. Then there is the issue of disciplining our children as well as (if you are a part of some evangelical churches these days) the disciplining of members of a local body. Forget that, even if one abhors the idea of church discipline TODAY, Paul admonishes the Corinthian body to discipline one of its members. Now, in all cases, I suppose it could be argued that these a “defense” reasons (don’t know if I care for that term so much, it seems limited) but it seems that God did these for some greater purpose that we don’t have access to.

So, given that, I think it could be case that force/coercion/violence (ie., God’s judgments) are not restricted to the OT and the eschaton but are to found in the gospels as well as in other books/letters of the NT.

Now, there is a lot of force/coercion/violence that goes on that I don’t think we could call defensive. For example, I drive a city bus for a living. When people come on the bus, they are expected to pay and take a seat or act in an orderly fashion, etc. Now there is no consequence if they act in an unruly manner to some degree, while there may be for other instances. If someone doesn’t give a seat to an elderly person, they feel the pressure from the rest of the riders (or bus community) to do so. They feel a certain amount of coercion. While I drive on the road I am compelled to drive on one side of the yellow lines, not only by reality (getting into a care accident) but via some legal consequence. All of this is for a “greater good.” The coercion that occurs in a non-political community such as an orchestra is for a greater good--the making of beautiful music.

And that’s the thing. I don’t think the OT pagan kings used aggression or coercion simply for defense. Not only did they attack unsuspecting countries and peoples, but keeping Israelite slaves against their will seems to me to hardly constitute some defensive measure. This is why I think you think God stopped judging at some point and then starts back up again.

Now you said you believe in authority but not in one particular form of it, say, government or the state. I agree with you. But that is part of what I’m asking about. You say, “OK. Here are the rules. The rules in this territory are that we don’t have politicians and judges set up by the system who are going to make judgments that will settle our disputes.”

But that seems to me to move the question down one step. Who authorized you or the system to be set up this way? Who or what authority will ensure that it stays this way? Can we guarantee/ensure (too strong of a word)that the field is level or that justice will be done under such a system? It seems to me to be beside the point that I will feel satisfied with particular judgments made by OUR judges, but I will feel that way even if ones are set by the government.

This is why I said that a monopoly would "ensures the space possible for healthy competence of the spheres." Yes, I agree with Dooyeweerd’s statement on sphere sovereignty. But from my understanding of sphere sovereignty government acts judicially toward the spheres. That is, it ensures they have the “space” to exercise the “…inner nature of the sphere of life within which it is exercised.” And it has to have the power to do this.

Gregory Baus:  There seems to be a serious misunderstanding about what I've said, so I'll do my best to clarify.

Perhaps some definitions might help make things clearer. My use of the word 'coercion' means "the invasive use (including overt threating) of physical force/violence against someone else’s person or just property." My use of the word 'aggression' means "the initiation of coercion; use of coercion not in response to prior coercion."

My claim is that (apart from the Old Covenant theocracy), God does not authorize aggression for any purpose.

As I understand it, the surplus grain stored by Joseph was Pharaoh's property. I don't think Joseph would be authorized by God to steal other people's grain. So, this isn't even a use of coercion, let alone aggression.

Now, I never said anything about God not judging in the New Covenant era. Of course, God does judge, but He doesn't authorize use of aggression by people.

Does that help clear things up?
I'm not sure how you got some other impression, but I hope my position is clearer now.

There is also an important distinction between civil coercion (sword-power) and civil authority (civil justice) and the authority/discipline of other spheres. Properly speaking, no other sphere uses 'coercion' in the "sword-power" sense. There are other means of influence, of course, such as peer-pressure, boycott, etc... but these are all non-coercive. They don't use physical force backed by an ultimate power of execution.

These other forms of influence/power are crucial in non-civil / non-political spheres.

The 'authorization' for a non-monopoly civil order is from those who participate. For example, before govt controlled fiat currency, who 'authorized' the use of gold and silver as a means of exchange? Well, in a sense, no one (no single person or group) and everyone (all those who voluntarily used it as a means of exchange). The 'authorization' of non-monopoly or in a free society works similarly. It is genuinely cooperation by consent of participants.

Properly speaking (normatively), marriage, for example, should work the same way. What brings a man and woman together as husband and wife and keeps them together voluntarily? The consent of the persons involved. Yes, there are a great many 'societal' influences (some positive some negative) on marital commitment, but the marriage is actually constituted by the committing parties.
*Nothing* ensures (and nothing *can* ultimately ensure) that people won't cheat or get divorced, and nothing ensures that civil/political community will be just. Nothing ensures that *any* sphere will abide by its God-given norms.

But God is the one who has built this community-differentiation into reality. The 'space' is ensured by the fact that God made reality this way. The space is built-in to the fabric of creation. Nothing can change that, although aggression can obviously violate that space.

Brandon: Well, you first said this: “ 1. you bring up a really, really important point; namely, the question: what about the Old Testament? Yes, in fact, under Moses (or the time of "the Law") until Christ, God authorized His people as a 'nation' to exercise sword-power *and* to use it aggressively. The holy war annihilation of certain peoples (women, babies, cattle, entire cities --buildings and all) ***was an "intrusion" of God's eschatological judgment into history.***

And then you say this: There is also an important distinction between civil coercion (sword-power) and civil authority (civil justice) and the authority/discipline of other spheres. Properly speaking, no other sphere uses 'coercion' in the "sword-power" sense. There are other means of influence, of course, such as peer-pressure, boycott, etc... but these are all non-coercive. They don't use physical force backed by an ultimate power of execution.

This might be where the problem is. I took the first part to mean:
A. God authorized his people to use aggression against (meaning coercive action) against certain peoples. This is said to be a judgment by God.
B. This is no longer the case today since the time of Christ and since the beginning of the church.
C. This use of coercive action will resume in the eschaton.

If we are simply talking about coercion as pertaining to your definition above I would assume that you believe God acts coercively in the Gospels and in the rest of the NT And that in doing so, it would be a judgment call on God’s part. Basically a judgment.

But that SEEMS to me to be a part of the problem. You have two parts with two definitions while I have one. So in that sense, it really doesn’t clear much up. What I hear you saying is that you don’t think God would use coercive means in either the Gospels or the rest of the NT. I mean, what is the difference between the coercive judgment of God telling the Israelites to wipe out certain peoples and the coercive judgments we find scattered throughout the NT?

If by 'aggression' you mean mean "the initiation of coercion; use of coercion not in response to prior coercion." AND by THAT you mean, seeking revenge via using coercive force against someone because they used it against you I would agree with that. That’s cool. No problem there.

What I’m saying is that those commands in the OT about wiping out other peoples were coercive judgments and that just as there coercive measures God used then, there were some that occurred in the NT in the gospels as well as in the church. When you say:

“There is also an important distinction between civil coercion (sword-power) and civil authority (civil justice) and the authority/discipline of other spheres. Properly speaking, no other sphere uses 'coercion' in the "sword-power" sense. There are other means of influence, of course, such as peer-pressure, boycott, etc... but these are all non-coercive. They don't use physical force backed by an ultimate power of execution.”

I don’t see civil justice as any less coercive. It isn’t the same as sword power, but it doesn’t seem any less coercive. You could have coercion via THREAT of penalty. You may not even use physical force against someone or their property but that doesn’t seem to make it any less coercive (which is your definition of coercion).

about Pharaoh and Joseph all I’m talking about is monopoly of power. Pharaoh had a monopoly of power. He used that monopoly of power--centralized power for good. I’m not making any point about coercion or Joseph stealing or anything like that.

Anyhoo...here’s where I stand. I think I can agree with you as far as dividing up a monopoly of power. I think, along with you, we could have a neo-Calvinist understanding of governance in the sense of being a differentiated government. I really like where you place that. It’s still squarely neo-Calvinist. Its still sphere sovereignty. Its just taking that and applying it to government itself. That’s real cool.

I'm still not clear on Pharaoh’s monopoly of power. That doesn’t seem to me to be inherently wrong or unjust. Not saying you aren’t right though. Of course, this could simply be a case where a monopoly of power (a bad thing) does a good thing. That’s all. That same monopoly of power enslaved a people as well. Right?

So far I think your definition of coercion is somewhat reductionist. Do I think God, “authorizes people to assault, attack, and invade each other (since Christ/New Covenant)? You think God authorizes holy war under the Gospel?”

No. Not in the sense of revenge. But possibly under just war conditions (tradition), yes. I do think God uses coercive measures and that he has authorized others to do so.

Gregory Baus:  Yes, I think you mistook my use of the term aggression with coercion per se and/or defensive coercion.

What I was saying was that God authorized holy war (which was aggression) in the time of the OT, and does not now. The (typological, or symbolic) "intrusion" of *eschatological* judgment means that it was a picture of God's final judgment. That God doesn't authorize holy war or aggression now doesn't mean God doesn't judge now, nor does it mean that He doesn't authorize legitimate (defensive) use of sword-power now.

Civil justice does require coercion, but only *responsive* or defensive coercion. It does not require aggression or *initiatory* coercion.

God may use evil for His own good purposes, but He doesn't authorize evil. In the same way God used Pharaoh, but He doesn't authorize monopoly (which is aggression).

Just war is defensive war, not aggression.

Do you see the distinction between aggression and defensive coercion ?

Brandon: Hey Gregory,

Thanks again for the response. Yes, I see the difference you are speaking of and I agree with it.

I do have another question for you though. You say you believe in what you call a “political community” but not the state. What exactly do you have in mind when you say this. Does this mean that we would not have elected officials or politicians in the same sense that the government did not authorize or control gold and silver? I guess that is what I’m getting at with my question regarding authority.

You used the example of marriage. Yes, I agree that what keeps the marriage together are the vows (or the consent of the parties) as well as other societal influences, and yes nothing ensures that they two people won’t get a divorce, but the question it seems is who would authorize the marriage? After all, a couple can’t willy-nilly say that they are married as there is (the possibility of) a lot at stake. There would need to be some authority in place to make laws concerning marriage as well as people in authority (some political community?) to enact as well as enforce those laws. If not the State then who would this authority be? Political community? If so, how is that essentially any different than the State.

Gregory Baus: "Political community" is just the civil-legal societal sphere. It is parallel to "confessional community" / the ecclesial sphere, to "domestic community" / the familial sphere, to "economic community" / the business sphere, etc, etc.

I use the more general term "political community" because the sphere doesn't cease to exist when the form of the state (or any other particular form) is absent.

Specific institutions within political community would be formed, generally, in the same way that other institutions are formed within other spheres in a free society... not by aggression, but by voluntary cooperation/organization.
While Roderick Long offers some description of what I have in mind, Robert Murphy (in his tongue-in-cheek titled: "Chaos Theory") also outlines what "private" law and defense might look like:
http://mises.org/resources/3088
audio:
http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=215

Here is a good intro to it by Murphy:
http://mises.org/daily/1874

"Magistrates" need not be 'elected', any more than car repairmen, doctors, or I.T. professionals need to be 'elected'.

As to marriage, it existed long before any state (or church!), and it does not need to be "authorized" by any others than the participants (the man and woman voluntarily, mutually committing to be each others spouse). It's not willy-nilly, it's a covenantal agreement that has it's own sui generis character and sovereignty.

People may rashly enter into bad marriages, just as they may enter into bad employment, or bad church memberships, or into bad schools, etc, etc.
"Licencing" of marriage was largely an invention of Napoleonic secularist state-absolutism.

Of course, marriages are often recognized by other communities (families, churches, etc). The true "laws" of marriage are not civil laws any more than the laws of the church or of a family are civil laws. Although, marrying couples may in fact want to have a civil-legal contract, as they are free to do.

The state does not make society possible, rather it is a parasite/cancer on society (society which makes political community possible).

Let me know what you think of Long and Murphy, and that may focus your questions and my answers to more detail.

Brandon: Good stuff. I looked at Murphy’s article. And it gives a good understanding of what a differentiated governance would look like on the legal front. But then that brings up the question that I’m not fully clear on (you’ve responded before and I know this will seem redundant) but setting up “the system” (a legal system) that way seems to me to require some a priori authorization. Who would authorize it and how would this happen? Who would these judges be authorized by. Even in the case of car repair men, doctors, I.T. professionals, etc, these need licensing of some sort. For as there will always be disputes, (as Murphy says) those practitioners need to be responsible to SOMEONE. Sure, they will be held accountable if you take them to court, but if that court has to have authority and power to be able to back its judgments. For example in Canada here, there have been people seeking divorces through say, “religious courts” as it frees up the burden and stress on the State courts. But even these courts are recognized by State legitmate avenues on par with State courts and they the decisions will have the full backing of the law. But their decisions would mean very little if they were not authoritative.

Also, at one point, Murphy points to the advantages of a private legal system contra a state one in which you have: “a private legal system, there would be dozens of fair judges from which to choose; there would be no question on two honest disputants settling on one of them, and hence failure to do so would be interpreted as a sign of dishonesty.”

Later on he says: “Another common objection is that the rich could purchase rulings in a private court system. Again, this overlooks the rampant corruption in government courts. At least on the open market, future disputants could avoid judges accused of accepting bribes in the past. In contrast, under the State the only recourse against a corrupt judge is to hope that the voters remember (and care) and vote him or her out, or that the politicians appoint someone else.”

And I think this is in part why Koyzis may have problems with libertarianism. It seems that corruption can take place under any system. Even with regard to a free-market legal system (such as Murphy describes) the problem, it seems, is not necessarily with monopoly of power per se, but with an abuse of power per se.

With regard to marriage, while I agree that it existed long before any state, the point I’m trying to make with regard to the willy-nilly nature (or arbitrary nature) of it, is as you know, there are some who would say that marriage should be between a man and a woman and not between two people of the same sex. If as you say, “marrying couples may in fact want to have a civil-legal contract, as they are free to do.” would this include those of the same sex? And of course this is something that many neo-Calvinists would find problematic. Government would have to recognize what a marriage is in order to protect it. So my question has not so much to do with whether couples can enter into a marriage freely, but what couples may do so under a differentiated governance?

Gregory Baus: Ok. Let's make this more conversational.
In attempt to begin answering your question (in a different way), I'll ask you one: who authorizes the state? What gives it authority?

Brandon: I suppose the standard neo-Calvinist response is going to be that God authorizes the state. Unless of course you are asking about its formation much like a symphony conductor or the leaders of a church or a the head of a family, I would say they are authoritative by the intrinsic nature of what they are, but this is related to the responsibility that they have. For instance, a conductor of a symphony would not be just anyone off the street. He would be recognized by those wanting to form the symphony as an expert in his field and then authorized to lead said symphony.

Gregory Baus: And you have your answer! :)
[that was easy].

The state might want to or claim it has to license conductors, or parents, or anything else. But, this licensing is tyranny. It's beyond the competence of the political community to license other spheres.

So, if someone wants to "off-the-street" say s/he is a pastor, or a doctor, or two wo/men want to say they are married... in a free society, they can claim what they want. If others give recognition to it, then they might be right or they might be wrong... but political community shouldn't (and ultimately can't) "protect" the church by licensing pastors, nor protect anything else by licensing doctors, conductors, parents, or marriage.

The state is not in charge of society. It doesn't rightly authorize anything but rather it is to administer *civil* justice (not a universal societal justice).

Does that help?

--------------------------------------

Now that is where the convo ended between Baus and myself.  But then I went to ask Koyzis what he thought about Baus' stance.  And guess what, I have to get ready for work and so I will have to put up his response tonight when I get home or tmw.  Sorry to leave you hanging! 

I guess I'd have a question for Baus:

Is the Body of Christ ever to manifest "defensive coercion"?  Said another way, is "defensive coercion" compossible with the Great Commandments, John 17 (living grounded in the love of the triune God), and 1 Corinthians 13?

As I see it, any authentically Christian perspective cannot ignore any of those realities.

Post Edited (One Love) : 2/22/2012 4:05:59 PM (GMT-6)

I suspect all OT violence authorized by God was like the Caananite Conquest (i.e., EXPLICITLY delegated) or like modern and ancient government as recognized in Rom. 13.

Post Edited (Similitude) : 2/23/2012 8:02:39 PM (GMT-6)