Thank God for the Rule of Law
Image
Man-made laws are a mixed bag. Motivations range from desire to build a better society to desire to pander to a constituency, increase personal power, settle a score, or cover up wrongdoing. Even when well meant, laws often bring unintended consequences.
Rule of law, though, is better. As an alternative to the rule of mere men, it’s a rare and precious blessing. A portion of the Oxford English Dictionary definition captures what I mean by the term.
… the principle whereby all members of a society (including those in government) are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes.
Events of the past four years, especially the last four weeks, have exposed the fact that many who ought to be the most devoted and disciplined in support of the rule of law have lost sight of its value and importance.
Rule of law is God’s invention.
When God organized ancient Israel into a nation, He chose to do more than put Moses in charge and rule through him. He provided words etched in stone (Exodus 32:16). Eventually He provided the entire Torah (Pentateuch), and Moses and later rulers were expected to apply it to the needs of the nation—and also obey it themselves.
We might argue that Hammurabi introduced the rule of law first. Regardless, its invention was an act of God’s gracious providence in the world (James 1:17). By providing a written law to Israel, God made that clear.
Rule of law points to greater realities.
Decrees from autocrats and oligarchies inspire people to look no further than the arbitrary will of humans. They’re the ones in control and we do what they want.
Rule of law separates authority from personality, basing it outside the people in charge. But it does even more: it appeals to moral principles that are bigger than us—even all of us collectively.
In Israel’s case, those principles included “you shall be holy” (Exod. 22:32; Lev. 11:44, 19:2, 20:26) as well as principles such as the rightness of being kind to foreigners (Lev. 19:34, Deut. 10:19), respecting other people’s property (Exod. 20:15), and taking responsibility for unintended harm (Exod. 21:33, Deut. 22:4).
From a natural law perspective, the rule of law points to a transcendent order built into creation itself. From a biblical perspective, it points to the Transcendent Orderer who created. Either way, though secularists may try to deny it, law points beyond the merely human.
Of all people, Christians should treasure and zealously uphold the rule of law!
Rule of law seeks wisdom.
Legal proceedings privilege facts and reasoning over the passions of the moment, and it’s a blessing to all of us that they do. Scripture reveals that this elevation of careful though over emotion is characteristic of wisdom.
- Whoever is slow to anger has great understanding, but he who has a hasty temper exalts folly. (Prov. 14:29)
- Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered. (Prov. 28:26)
- An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge. (Prov. 18:15)
- If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame. (Prov. 18:13)
- The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him. (Prov. 18:17)
- The heart of the righteous ponders how to answer, but the mouth of the wicked pours out evil things. (Prov. 15:28)
- But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. (James 3:17)
- By me [wisdom] kings reign, and rulers decree what is just; (Prov. 8:15)
The conflict over the 2020 presidential election result boils down to one question: Will the political right honor the rule of law—in most cases, long-standing state laws—or will we be ruled by our passions? The latter is the path of folly but also the path of instability and oppression. The fact that the left demonstrated the same tendencies (though on a far smaller scale) in 2016 only underscores the point. If the right doesn’t champion the rule of law, who do we think we should leave that job to?
Many conservatives believe claims of large scale election fraud and efforts to keep Donald Trump in power are honoring the rule of law. But there’s a fundamental problem with that view: the rule of law includes due process and the burden of proof placed on accusers. Accusers are required to prove that their accusations are true using credible evidence (which is not the same as “someone saying what we want to hear;” see Prov. 19:28).
Any attempt to shift the burden of proof from “innocent until proven guilty” to “guilty until proven innocent” is a direct assault on the rule of law. It’s not how we do law in America—and that reality is a blessing to all of us every day we live here.
Rule of law resists idolatry.
It’s easy to idolize a Queen Elizabeth or a Dear Leader Kim Jong-il, or a President Donald… or Ronald, or Barack or Joe. We’re constantly tempted to “put our trust in princes” (Psalm 146:3, 118:8-9).
It’s harder to idolize laws. It can be done (Rom. 10:2-4), but we’re much more prone to idolize people.
Where law is king (see Rutherford and Paine), power is distributed in written codes across regimes and generations. In the U.S., the law embodied in the Constitution spreads power across the legislative, judicial, and executive branches, and also spreads it across states. Though candidates and voters often act as though the President gets all the credit for national accomplishments, that’s not really how it works. U.S. presidents have substantial policy power, strong influence over what happens in Congress, and enormous cultural influence. But the rule of law ensures that achievements are the result of many individuals and groups working together.
It also has a way of throwing a wet blanket on our hero worship. We need that. We should thank God for it.
Rule of law is defining.
Given our national cultural decay, I think this is not overstatement: If we don’t have the rule of law, we don’t—as a nation, have anything. It’s ultimately all that keeps us from becoming Venezuela, Somalia, Russia, or China.
It’s also what makes all our other policy pursuits worthwhile. There’s no point in electing officials who are against murder if those officials are against the rule of law. This remains true if the murder we’re talking about is the killing of human children still in the womb.
This is a major shift in where we are as a nation, and one that many conservatives don’t yet seem to recognize. The rule of law used to be assumed on both the left and the right, but we can no longer take that commitment for granted—on the left or the right. Our first question about any potential president or legislator or judge can no longer be “are they pro-life”? Our first question must now be, are they pro-rule-of-law? Do they contribute to the strength of our national commitment to the rule of law or do they—directly or indirectly, through policy or rhetoric—weaken it?
Other things might be equally important to our national life. Nothing is more important.
Photo: Bill Oxford.
Aaron Blumer 2016 Bio
Aaron Blumer is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service.
- 31 views
…but after watching Hilliary Clinton skate for her private server with hundreds of pieces of classified information, and after watching zero prosecutions for using FISA power to undermine a sitting President without as much as adequately vetting the “dossier” provided by that President’s 2016 opponent, I would dare suggest that the “rule of law” seems to apply more than ever to “the rest of us” and not the “accredited elites.”
(not the only examples I could come up with, but it shows a pattern….)
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
So the trick is to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Nominating and electing candidates that have a pattern of trying to exceed their authority or making public statements/advocating actions that undermine rule of law clearly makes the problem worse.
But I do think the leaders we chose are only half cause of the problem. They’re also half result of the problem. The attitude of the “elites” seems to be, increasingly, that whoever has power should use as much of it as they can get away with in pursuit of their goals. And this is also the way much of the electorate looks at it now. Everything is subordinate to “winning,” and everything is weaponized for that purpose… principles are just rhetorical bludgeons.
Rejecting leaders (and parties) that think this way may not solve the problem but at least that way we know we’re not making it worse.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I made a substantive change to a sentence.
Where it now says
If the right doesn’t champion the rule of law, who do we think we should leave that job to?
It formerly said “If…, who will?”
I wanted to change that because I know many of my friends/coworkers who are left or center left are very serious about rule of law. So while “who will?” might resonate with folks on the right who like to demonize everyone who is not one of them, that’s not how I want to be. The answer to “who will?” would have been “Lots of people. But conservatives should be more motivated than anyone to own that job!”
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I don’t remember Jim Comey, Lois Lerner, or Bob Mueller ever appearing on my ballot. Now we did indeed vote for, or against, those who did put the bureaucratic state in place, but I think at some level the bureaucracy has learned to take matters pretty much outside of the hands of elected officials.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Sure. I’m talking about where we have influence and how we should use it, not where we don’t have influence and can’t use it.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I don’t remember Jim Comey, Lois Lerner, or Bob Mueller ever appearing on my ballot. Now we did indeed vote for, or against, those who did put the bureaucratic state in place, but I think at some level the bureaucracy has learned to take matters pretty much outside of the hands of elected official
I find it interesting that the case that Texas and 18 others states are bringing concerning the election has to do with the rule of the law. Many elected and unelected officials decided to simply change the voting law even though they had no authority to do so. In other cases they chose to simply ignore the laws that were in place and no one stopped them. Laws are important and not following them has put an election in question. If we just allow people to ignore the law and we become a nation that selectively decides who has to follow the law and who does not, then we are in trouble. I hope that even those of you who despise Trump can see how dangerous this is. Even if you like the results of ignoring the law, what happens when the message is sent that laws are no longer important? Stalin had a description for those who were useful to his gaining power, but had not thought out the full implications of enabling him.
Many elected and unelected officials decided to simply change the voting law even though they had no authority to do so. In other cases they chose to simply ignore the laws that were in place and no one stopped them.
Specific examples and proof so that we know specifically what you’re talking about? Links?
It’s fair to say many people have no earthly idea how difficult it is to change State laws. Agencies routinely hire legislative liaisons specifically to lobby their interests to lawmakers so laws have a chance of being updated or amended. Even then, it can take years. Or, you can do it via rulemaking and change the interpretation of the laws.
Either way, it’s hard. It requires compromise. It’s much more complicated than the Looney Tunes version (“Great horny toads! I don’t like them there laws! Imma not a gonna listen to ‘em! Imma gonna change ‘em!!!”) regurgitated by Christians in thrall to partisan media.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Specific examples and proof so that we know specifically what you’re talking about? Links?
Joel, have you read the SCOTUS filing? That would be the best place to get the information you are looking for. It is available and you can see it for yourself. I have read part of it and skimmed through all of it. The Michigan parts were of particular interest. It is alleged that legislative requirements (the only constitutionally valid election law) was overridden by someone other than the legislature, thus violating the constitution and raising equal protection claims. Whether we think Biden won (as I do) or not (as others do), we should all be interested in this because this is not the last election. The law should matter.
As a side note, it is interesting to me the number of people who claim there is no proof and that claims are baseless yet have never looked for any proof or any evidence. The charges made (whether right or wrong) were significant and would take some time to determine their validity. Yet almost immediately we were told they were baseless. How did they know the claims were baseless before hearing them?
It’s fair to say many people have no earthly idea how difficult it is to change State laws.
It’s actually not that hard to do it informally, which is alleged. If the law requires a signature or an address, and the vote counter or supervisor or court says, “Do not require a signature or address,” then the law has been de facto changed by someone other than the legislature. It is at this point that the courts matter.
Of particular interest is the PA case where the legislature changed the law earlier this year to account for COVID and did not add particular provisions that were then later added by people who were not the legislature. That is said to be a violation of Art 2 that gives election law only to the legislature. No law can be changed (whether explicitly or implicitly) by anyone other than the legislature.
I find this all interesting not from a political viewpoint but from a legal one. Why do legislative laws matter if people can simply change the law by ignoring it? And if the courts won’t enforce the law, why write a law? There’s a lot more at stake than who is president for the next four years.
This election madness is the perfect capstone to the Trump era. Large segments of the American Church have gone stark raving mad. Election conspiracies abound, lapped up by people who want to believe “they” have done some unspeakable evil.
I just watched James White earlier this week suggest the various COVID vaccines are designed by “them” to control us and make us docile. It’s all part of the Great Reset, you see. Perhaps the ultimate irony with White’s descent into madness is that, despite his well-known aversion to eschatology, he is now just as alarmist as the most wild-eyed dispensationalist.
I am sick of the whole thing. It’s sad. Thank God indeed, for the rule of law.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
This election madness is the perfect capstone to the Trump era. Large segments of the American Church have gone stark raving mad. Election conspiracies abound, lapped up by people who want to believe “they” have done some unspeakable evil.
This is true. What is equally remarkable is the almost total lack of curiosity about the election by some who claim to love the truth. How can one love the truth but be so determined not to know it? How can one love the rule of law and be so determined to avoid knowing if the law was violated? I can see that coming from unbelievers but when it comes from the church, it is more disturbing to me.
Probable cause is why I’m not concerned! Predication …
I must also point out that these absurb allegations are often deemed “credible” because ordinary people have little idea of how things actually work in local and state government. No idea. It’s easier to refer to “government” as this monolithic menace, rather than understand it for what it is. It’s also quite convenient to impugn civil servants because of the political whoredom of the elected officials they serve.
Government is a collection of civil servants just like me who are not robots or droids. They’re Christians, black, white, Muslim, and everything in between. They have all sorts of personal feelings on a whole host of issues. Government exists at local, county, State and Federal level. It is well-nigh impossible for a coordinated effort to happen (like, say, stealing an election) without a conspiracy involving untold thousands of individuals.
It’s intriguing to me the same people who decry government as a collection of boobs who couldn’t pour pee out of a boot with instructions written on the heel have no issue believing in a vast, well-orchestrated and impeccably funded left-wing conspiracy that exists at local, county and State levels to deny President Trump his re-election.
When one waves a hand and says “the government” has done wrong, you are impugning the thoughts, integrity and intentions of thousands of civil servants. The casual ignorance of these kinds of statements also show the person leveling the charge has no idea how the a real government bureaucracy works. It’s no skin off his back, because he doesn’t have to prove them. He just makes idle accusations.
The WA Secretary of State (a Republican) has had to issue a statement because the GOP gubernatorial challenger (who lost badly) claims the WA election was stolen. She has repeatedly called for proof, not social media pontifications or other stupidity. None has been forthcoming. Yet, the GOP loser continues his irresponsible diatribe and his followers believe him. It is pathetic. It is sad. It is dangerous.
It should be no surprise that we’re in this situation when, just now, a pastor I follow on social media shared a ridiculous news story from a site called rebelnews.com. Does anyone with a functioning brain cell really think one can trust anything this site has to offer? Just the other day, another pastor I know shared a story from constitutionsoldier.com. These are men who have the care of souls for a congregation! When even shepherds are as gullible as children, anything is possible.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
What kind of research or investigation have you done to know whether there is probable cause or predication?
To me, one of the problems is dogmatic declarations that have no basis in investigation. Again, the lack of curiosity is interesting.
It seems to me there is not much doubt that elections laws were changed by people other than legislatures. The issue is whether or not that will be taken up and whether or not there is any remedy at this point. I think Biden won, though it seems there are some interesting irregularities. I am more interested in the bigger questions about election law.
I provided a link below to an article right after the election showing how the governor and the court changed election law in PA. They do not have the authority to do this. We have sworn testimony before state legislatures from multiple states showing that election laws were violated by local officials when they would not let observers in. Further signature verification laws were ignored. Much of the evidence was provided to hearings held by state legislatures. Some have called them “clown shows” in part because they were held in hotels instead of state capitals. Part of the reason for holding them in hotels is because the conference rooms in many capitals do not allow for social distancing as well as rented venues in other locations would.
Discussion