Lara-Murphy Show Episode 33: Carlos and Bob Read the Intel Report on Russian “Hacking”
We painstakingly go through the report. There’s not much there. If you just took the media’s word for it…”What did you learn?”
RC Sproul on Church and State
I am still working on my reaction to this Catholic essay some critics encouraged me to consider, a few weeks ago. It has to do with “salvation through faith” but it’s way more subtle than that. (I am relying on my study partner to help me write a detailed reaction.) In the meantime…
My Bible study partner told me to check out this fascinating 6-part lecture series (plus a seventh block of Q&A) from RC Sproul. It is wonderful. I started it at 11:30 at night, thinking I would just listen to a few of them, and ended up staying up till 2:30am because I couldn’t stop.
Besides solid Biblical interpretation, Sproul also talks about the relevant history for certain lectures. Even if you don’t end up agreeing with him on every detail, I think you won’t regret having listened to him.
Here are the notes I jotted down as I listened. If you skim them first, it will give you an idea of whether you want to listen to the lectures. If you spot a factual error, it’s possible that I just misunderstood what Sproul was saying, but of course please flag it for me to investigate.
7 part series at:
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/church_and_state/
- Lecture on Legal force
OT Israel a theocracy—church and state had distinctions were nevertheless so closely integrated that speaking of separation would be a misnomer. But in NT the church was missionary, moving out to all peoples ruled by secular governments, and Christians had to answer question of how do we relate to government?
Q: “What is government in its most elementary foundational form?”
A: Structure that is endowed legally with the right to use force to compel citizens to do certain things and not do other things.
Q: Where does government come from?
A: The original form of government and authority comes from God Himself.
Before there was any human government, there was already government from the moment of creation. God originally gave commands with sanctions if disobeyed.
First instance of earthly government (delegated authority) is angel with flaming sword to keep Adam and Eve out of the garden. However an earlier example of delegated authorities—over animals but not over people—was Adam and Eve having authority in garden.
St. Augustine observed that government is a necessary evil. In this world among fallen humans, we will never find a morally perfect government. It is necessary because of evil. It was not necessary prior to the fall. (Aquinas differed with him on this—he thought government could be useful to manage the division of labor even without fallen people.)
Purpose of earthly government is to protect human life from destructive actions of other humans, and also to protect property, and to ensure fair weights and measures, and contract enforcement, to protect people from fraud.
“Separation of church and state” is nowhere found in the founding documents of the US. It was a remark Thomas Jefferson made when speaking about the principles of the founding, and yet today it stands as one of the few (only?) absolute principles upheld in our day. Yet even here, its meaning today is not what TJ meant.
Sproul spoke at the inauguration of a governor in Florida, and told him that he only possessed authority as delegated by God. He challenged the governor to remember that he was accountable to God for how he handled his power. He said not to be confused by phrase “separation of church and state.”
The minute any government declares itself independent of God, it has become demonized at that point and becomes an Evil Empire.
But in our times it is assumed that the civil government is not answerable to God, and has a right to be Godless.
We boast as Americans that we live in a free country. But anywhere there is government, there is a restriction on freedom.
Sometimes we forget that every law restricts somebody’s freedom—perhaps rightly perhaps wrongly. Every law passed brings to bear legal force on the citizens. That’s why we have to be exceedingly careful every single time we pass a law, that we realize we’re taking freedom away from people. The less liberty we are left with, the more laws that the legislature passes.
- Civil Obedience
Reads from Romans 13…
It’s not just Paul; also Peter and Jesus said people should be as obedient as we possibly can—in good conscience—to the powers that be. Now notice Paul writes this to people under the Roman government, who would eventually execute him. (!) Later we will study the conditions necessary for when Christians should disobey the government.
Peter says we should submit to the earthly authorities for Christ’s sake. That means our disrespect to civil authorities carries through to the One who has installed the earthly authorities. God Himself is at the top of the hierarchy. There is no authority invested in any institution or person except through the delegation of that authority from God—no one else has any intrinsic authority.
Christ is the King of kings, the Lord of lords.
The task of the church is political in this sense: We are to be witnesses to the kingdom of God. Our first loyalty as Christians must be to our heavenly King. The minute we exalt the earthly authority over Christ, we have betrayed Him and committed treason.
Note that parents and dogcatcher also possess authority in certain spheres.
The lowest form of human corruption is seen in lawlessness. The first sin was an act of cosmic treason. Adam and Even disobeyed the supreme Governor, entering into a complex of lawlessness. That’s what sin is—refusing to subject oneself to God’s law. This is the sense in which sin is a political matter.
Every time I sin, I participate in the evil that holds this whole world in its power.
Note that Paul does not say that should be in submission to godly authorities. The Bible is full of examples of God raising up a corrupt ruler to rule over the Israelites to serve His purposes.
Hitler could not have ruled for 5 minutes without the providence of God. (!) Now that doesn’t mean Hitler was good, or that people shouldn’t have opposed him. (We can get into hidden providence of God.)
A president could be ungodly, even though God has put him in power for a reason—a reason that we may not know.
It was God who sent Israel into captivity. Habakkuk was mystified; how could God let the wicked Babylonians conquer the Israelites? God answered that He was using them to chasten His people. (Sproul: “That’s why it always scares me when Christians say, ‘God is on our side.’ He may not be. The question is are we on God’s side?”)
To see the subtleties of submitting to authorities: In OT God has called David to be the king, and Saul in his madness pursues David. David has him in his power, yet doesn’t kill Saul in his sleep. The reason is that David refused to lift his hand against God’s anointed.
(So is it ever lawful for people to rebel against the appointed government? A tough one, which we will cover later in this study.)
All people—not just Christians—bristle against obeying external authorities. We don’t want to be bossed around by the policeman, our employer, our teacher…
What’s difference between Christian and pagan worldview? Well here’s a great example: how do we respond to authority? Being a Christian makes all the difference in the world; we hesitate before disobeying authority. E.g. Sproul had teachers in theological seminar who didn’t believe in Trinity etc., and yet Sproul had to respect them.
- The Sword and the Keys
Martin Luther made distinction between the two kingdoms—of the State and the Church. But through Middle Ages and even through the Reformation, distinction between church and state often blurred.
When Paul wrote that people should pay taxes, etc., out of conscience not just fear of wrath, he wasn’t unaware of the corruption of government. But he was pointing out the appointed role of civil government.
God never gives the government the right to do wrong. That’s why government is held accountable to God.
Paul says civil magistrate does not bear the sword in vain—a critical passage. Paul makes it clear that the power is given to the civil magistrate, not to the church. Thus the church does not carry out her mission through coercion.
Symbolic depiction of church is the cross; but of Islam it is the scimitar.
God arms the first officer of the state—the angel at Eden with the flaming sword.
[Bob’s observation: Notice that the most corrupt organization is the state. Is God trying to tell us something?]
This discussion of the civil magistrate bearing the sword is the Biblical foundation for the classical Christian notion of just war theory. All wars are evil, but participation in war is not necessarily evil. There can be a just use of the sword to protect citizens from a hostile invasion.
The Church’s authority is spiritual. The pen is mightier than the sword is a cliché, but it is applicable here. Christ didn’t use the sword to spread His message.
A section from Westminster Confession: “Civil magistrates shall not assume to themselves” the administration of word and sacrament. Even in Israel, there was a distinction between the priest and the king. King Uziah (6th chapter of Isaiah) reigned for over 50 years, and there were only a handful of kings that were remotely godly. Uziah was a great king who brought about reforms etc., yet he died in shame and was removed from authority. Why? He went into the temple and assumed for himself the authority to administer the sacrifices, usurping the role of the priest. God struck him with leprosy and left him to die in disgrace.
The church has the “power of the keys to heaven”—Jesus says “whatsoever you held bound” etc. We have examples of church discipline, and people appealing to civil authorities. This is a clear usurpation of ecclesiastical authority. An example of a secular official throwing a minister out of his pulpit. (!)
The Westminster Confession acknowledged need to respect autonomy (no “favoritism”) of denomination, and was written in 17th century!
Churches have courts, and church matters must be left to the church.
As Christians, we learn about the church’s mission from the word of God, not from the culture.
The church is called to be a critic of the State when it fails to fulfill its role as appointed by God.
E.g. when church complains about abortion laws, people say church is trying to impose its views on the state. No, the church is not asking the State to be the church. Rather, it’s asking the State to be the State. The State is supposed to protect innocent life from aggressors.
- Established Religion
“Antidisestablishmentarianism” is reputed to be the longest English word. Disestablishmentarianism means there should be no established church, i.e. no “State church” funded with taxes and enjoying legal privileges over other churches.
When Henry VIII broke from Catholic Church, and declared England a Protestant nation, he gave himself title “Defender of the faith” (in Latin). Every English monarch since got that title.
Henry was succeeded by Edward VI and was self-consciously a reformed Protestant, and tried to bring England in that direction.
History of Bloody Mary, his sister who purged English Protestants and tried to go back to Roman Catholicism. Many fled to Germany (Frankfurt) and to Geneva.
Mary replaced by Elizabeth “Good Queen Beth,” the virgin Queen after whom Virginia was named, and who brought back exiles and went Protestant.
Rather than persecuting Catholics, Elizabeth persecuted nonconformist Protestants. These Protestants didn’t think the Anglican Church was reformed enough, and thought it retained too many aspects of the Catholic Church.
E.g. Elizabeth had some ministers executed because they wouldn’t wear white vestments that they thought were too similar to Catholics. These nonconformists were derisively referred to as Puritans. They fled, some landing in United States with a firsthand experience of religious persecution.
The principle of nonestablishmentarianism imbued the founding of American government. Its function was to tolerate different religious sects; they were to be protected from the government. This is what 1st Amendment does. Protestants could live in peace with Catholics, Jews, etc. since all would tolerate the others. All would be equally tolerated under the civil law.
Of course, problem is that people quickly went from equal treatment under law to “all religions are equally valid.” No of course not. Just saying those are ecclesiastical disputes that shall remain outside the sphere of civil government.
Christians should remember this when they seek favors from the State. Secular people say, “Wait a minute, you’re cheating!” Christians must take care before asking government to advance their agenda.
Mayflower Compact was Christian, while more debatable whether Declaration of Independence and Constitution were; however they were theistic.
Constant intrusion into the church by the State: Zoning laws regulate e.g. how big the cross can be, treating it as a business sign.
One of the darkest days in church history was when Constantine declared the empire Christian with a stroke of the pen—that’s not how we’re to spread the gospel.
- An Instrument of Evil
Paul in Ephesians 6:10: “Finally be strong…put on the whole armor of God…”
This is given to us so that we may stand against the wiles or craftiness of Satan. In this day and age little attention is given to the realm of the Satanic. People have dismissed these ideas except in the realm of the occult.
The battle is spiritual, not against flesh and blood. They are identified as powers and principalities and wickedness in the heavenlies. These elements have some type of authority in a hidden realm.
The State in the New Testament (a book) was a bombshell from leading academic released after World War II. It showed links between satanic forces and human governments. E.g. consider tyranny of Roman persecution of Christians. Today most Christians think 666 in Revelation is a future official, but some scholars think it was Nero. His nickname was the beast, and his Latin name adds up to 666. (!!!)
Hitler had written in his diary that he had made a personal covenant with the devil and that the twisted cross (swastika) would compete with traditional one. (!!!!)
Christians have a tendency to mingle their religious devotion with a brand of super-patriotism. They assume God is always on America’s side.
No, any government can so depart from mandate that it can be corrupted to this level of being in league with the devil.
[Cute story of border guards in Hungary (?) who said Sproul not American but citizen of kingdom of God—he was Christian too and he had spotted their Bible.]
King Ahab was chastised by Elijah for confiscating a vineyard. Illustrates that government should protect private property not steal it.
Tax laws favor the poor, but court system favors the rich.
Fascinating discussion of Russian flat tax and Tocqueville.
I don’t have the right to steal your property, either with my own gun or at ballot box. And it’s still wrong to limit it “to the rich.” Don’t you become part of the system.
- Civil Disobedience
When can Christian disobey the State? From time of Revolution Americans divided on this issue.
Christians are not to obey only righteous rulers. In fact we are to be model citizens; this was the early Christian defense when being oppressed. “We are obeying your laws, paying taxes, etc.”
Does this mean Christians unconditionally obey the secular government? Absolutely not.
He read from Acts about the rulers telling Peter and John not to speak of Christ anymore. (You would think the rulers would’ve responded differently to the obvious miracle they witnessed.)
Had Peter and John obeyed, we wouldn’t today be talking about separation of church and state. Since Jesus had ordered them to spread the gospel, it was clearcut case of obeying God or men.
Principle is simple: If anyone in authority—teacher, boss, military commander, parent, etc.—commands you to do something contrary to God’s commands, then you must disobey.
However, it’s often difficult to apply this principle. Our sinful nature leads us to justify disobedience as faux fidelity to God. It’s easy when government says you can’t distribute Bibles or your boss orders you to cook the books. But other cases not as obvious.
[Interesting discussion of conscientious objector status changing due to Vietnam draft.]
Martin Luther King’s strategy was to engage in civil disobedience of local laws to bring to Supreme Court challenge to test constitutionality.
- Q&A
Q: Why do people bristle at “legal force” definition of government?
A: Right, it’s not pejorative to call it that. Just acknowledging that government isn’t passing suggestions.
(Sproul in offhand remark says Acton wrong when he said absolute power corrupts absolutely—he presumably had God in mind.)
Bork told Sproul he no longer taught constitutional law because we no longer had a Constitution; it had been destroyed by activist courts.
Sproul doesn’t see any way to turn around growth of federal government.
Sproul sees same in church: Ministers would agree to abide by old creeds but would “reinterpret” what they meant.
Today’s “conservative” would be a wild liberal compared to historical meaning of Constitution.
The problem is with the church. We can’t expect the State to be the conscience of America.
Psalm 2 depicts government authorities defying God’s anointed. God laughs at them in derision. “Kiss the Son lest He be angry and you perish in the way.” Eventually all will bow to Christ, some willingly and some when their knees are broken with rod of iron.
Let’s remember that God is on His throne and has brought statism to increase in the US, for His own purposes. (!)
We’re the most blessed country in the history of Earth, and that terrifies Sproul because we have squandered it. His son chimed in to say that we are in judgment right now—it’s not some future punishment.
Romans 13 says only the wicked fear the State. But we know there are people who are persecuted for righteous actions.
Intel Report on Russian Hacking: We Are Officially in the Twilight Zone
I just sent out this masterful tweet:
(BTW I did a screen shot instead of embedding the tweet, because it was making my picture from the report appear first when I embedded.)
The public version of the intel report is here.
This whole thing is really amazing. You could replace “RT” with “Democratic thought leaders” in the report and it would work for a lot of the claims. And note that this isn’t mere hypocrisy. No, it’s much more delicious than that. The justification for the Democratic views is–as the excerpt above shows–often merely actions of Russian outlets that make the exact same claims that the Democrats are now making. My head is spinning.
Potpourri
==> I think we catch Krugman in a pretty big Kontradiction this episode, where Krugman warns of the trade war Trump will unleash–a worry Krugman mysteriously lacked back in 2010 when he called for 25% tariffs on China for its currency manipulation. Also, don’t miss the special treat at the end.
==> Speaking of wars, this article in Politico openly calls for a renewed Cold War with Russia. Hmmm.
==> My son and I watched this AWESOME documentary analyzing a hypothetical Ali vs. Tyson fight. This is really great if you are interested in the premise.
Potpourri
==> My latest IER post provides your Krugman fix while you wait for another podcast episode… An excerpt:
As the four figures indicate, according to various metrics air quality in the United States had been improving well before the creation of the EPA and passage of the Clean Air Act. We have no reason to attribute the gains in air quality since 1970 exclusively to federal intervention, and Krugman is wrong to claim that a rollback of federal regulations would return us to the air quality prevailing in 1970.
…
Notice that Krugman is trying to have it both ways. Although room didn’t permit me to quote it, Krugman brought up global climate change as an area where (of course) he thought a Trump/Pruitt policy would be disastrous. But then he pivoted to focus on local issues of air quality, arguing that Americans would directly experience how bad a laissez-faire world would be.
Yet as I’ve just shown, this makes no sense. If the people in LA or Pittsburgh are happy with the current level of government intervention when it comes to air quality, they can mimic current federal standards at the state and/or local level. This would solve most of the issue, except possibly for people in one state living next to factories located in another state with looser standards. Yet Krugman wasn’t making such a sophisticated, secondary argument; he was writing as if we either had the EPA or complete “anarchy” in air quality.
There is a huge benefit of leaving local conditions up to local jurisdictions: experimentation and choice. Perhaps some Americans would rather have slightly lower air standards in exchange for higher rates of wage growth. Under the current system, they don’t have this option; Washington imposes a one-size-fits-all standard.
==> Don’t make me angry. You wouldn’t like me when I’m angry.
==> I am “sampled” in this ditty.
==> This is a classic SlateStarCodex post from two years ago, explaining why special interest groups seem to inexplicably pick really weak illustrations of their principles. (E.g. feminists going to the barricades over a dubious rape allegation, rather than holding up obvious victims whom no one would doubt.) I’d seen people referring to it, but I only recently read it. Just give it a chance and see if it grabs you. But you need to have a good 10 minutes to read the thing.
==> Russ Roberts’ interview with Thomas Leonard was really eye-opening. I vaguely knew that the early Progressives were racists and even into eugenics, but I learned some things from this.
==> Nick Rowe has an interesting (though somewhat obscure) discussion on modeling money. The interesting thing for non-economists (I gather) is that many leading models don’t even have money IN them.
Economists: Spell Out Your Premises
I think this is probably a phenomenon that happens in all disciplines, but I know economics so that’s where I see it. Anyway, while helping some of the Texas Tech grad students study for their qualifiers, I noticed that it’s hard to answer economics questions, when you don’t know what assumptions the professor has in mind.
For example, take Bryan Caplan’s recent lament:
A recurring final exam question for my undergraduate Public Choice class:
“Suppose voters were rational [in the Rational Expectations sense] and the SIVH [Self-Interested Voter Hypothesis] were true.
T, F, and Explain: Democracies would spend a higher share of their budgets on genuine public goods.”
Almost no one gets it right – and we cover the most relevant material just one week before the final exam!
Now at the time I read that, I thought, “I could give any answer you want, and justify it by making the appropriate assumptions.” For what it’s worth, here’s Bryan’s suggested answer. And I’m sure if someone sat in his class, it would be “obvious” what Bryan wanted. But really, that means the metric is, “What does Bryan Caplan think the answer to this question is?”
Now what I worried about, when I first read the question, was the motivation to vote in the first place. After all, if people are rational in the game theoretic sense, and they’re self-interested, then they shouldn’t bother studying political platforms and casting votes if they think there’s a better chance of dying in traffic than their vote influencing the outcome of the election.
However, you can’t just say, “Nobody would vote!” because then, there would be an incentive for one guy to show up and write himself in as president.
I hope you see now what I mean, when I say I could justify either True or False, and craft the assumptions accordingly. Or more specifically, the things I chose to worry about in my analysis, would decide whether the answer turned out to be True or False. (Incidentally, this is how Krugman manages to almost-always justify the political conclusion his fans want, while always pulling mainstream economics off the shelf to do so.)
While I’m venting, here’s an anecdote from grad school that contributing to my disillusionment:
At the weekly Austrian colloquium, a guy presented a paper showing that there were two strands in the voting literature. On the one hand, you had “median voter theory” kind of stuff. But on the other hand, you couldn’t explain why anybody voted in the first place.
So I’m sitting there thinking, “Wait a minute… I bet I could build models with purely instrumental voting, where I get large numbers of people to vote in a Nash equilibrium.” And sure enough, I did that. (The intuition: Build a 3-person voting game involving a mixed strategy. Then add voters to each side, to either abstain or vote with certainty, so that they cancel each other out. You can build up families of equilibria.)
The NYU expert on this stuff at first told me my idea was impossible. So I sat in his office and after about 15 minutes I got him to realize he was wrong, and that my result *was* possible. Then he changed his tune to, “Nobody would be interested in this result.”
I thought, “Well since you had earlier said something false, surely my result is *moderately* interesting?” But I just submitted my result on my own to a journal. A month later the report came back: “We are rejecting your submission because So and So in 2001 published a more general result including yours as a special case.”
And now you have more insight into my personality…
The Lara-Murphy Show: 2016 in Review
On the latest episode of the Lara-Murphy Show, Carlos and I review 2016. Also:
IBC Seminar for the general public on February 11, 2017 in Birmingham, AL.
FOR 50% OFF, USE DISCOUNT CODE: LMSHOW
Recent Comments