Justice

The Future of Justice

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Law

Genre: Speech

Track: 05

Dictation Name: RR174C5

Location/Venue: ________

Year: 1960’s-1970’s.

[introductory speaker] And at this time I’d like to introduce for our final segment, Doctor Rushdoony.

[audience applauds]

[Rushdoony] Our concern in this final session is with the future of justice. One of the great myths which has plagued the modern age is the concept of neutrality. The human mind is never neutral, nor is the human mind autonomous. It is the creation of God and on all points and in all places man is totally dependant upon God. And because man is not God he can never for a moment claim to be neutral, to be objective, and to transcend his humanity in such a way that he can assess facts apart from the bias of his position. Man is a creature, he is God’s creature, and is totally dependant on him.

There is another companion myth which gives us one of the most persistent and evil views of reality. It is commonly asserted that an independent realm of values exist above and over God, man, and the universe. This idea comes from the ancient Greek who held that the good, the true, and the beautiful are concepts, moral values above and over man and the gods. Morality thus is not a religious fact. It is a super human and a supra religious fact.

The only time the Greeks departed from this concept of the supra creaturely nature of moral values was when they ascribed ethics to the state, and the state as the creator of evidence. Now how in the world did they get to this position? Beginning with the concept that moral values are above and beyond man, how then did the ascribe morality to the state and say that morality is the creature of the state. The state establishes morality, the origin of this was in the greek idea of platonic ideas or forms or patterns. Universals. These universals are rational universals.

And because the philosopher king embodies and virtually incarnates reason and becomes a man of reason. He therefore is the voice of these universals which are above and over God and man. As a result, in plato’s republic the philosopher king as a voice of reason could correct the morality of the gods. They could prescribe life or death for a man in terms of their say so, they could declare that these things are valid: abortion for the lower classes, their total control, their treatment as the animals of the state and much more. Similarly Aristotle could personally formulate his politics and then derive his ethics from his politics!

Because in the realm of politics the philosophers as the voice of reason express the universals of all creation. When we understand that concept we realize something of the problem we face, because one of the most persistent dreams of reality throughout history has been to incorporate the ancient greek ideal of the rational but philosophic man. Now the scientific elite as the voice of the universals of creation as the voice of reason, and therefore as the only people qualified to rule over God and man. As those who because they incarnate they embody the truth -the universals- must be given freedom to rule as they see fit.

It is their reason, their statist as the philosopher kings, the scientific social elite, or whatever other name they go by. Makes them the only fit rulers. They are the neutral powers, they are the voice of reason, they are therefore the only fit rulers. The doctrine of creationism militated against this. Because creationism tells us very clearly that there is nothing in heaven or earth that God the Lord did not make. By him were all things made and without him was not anything made that was made.

As a result there can be no universals apart from God. No neutral realm, no reason that cannot incarnate itself in man and become the new law (god?) of creation. The sad fact however is that although the church from it’s early years in some degree accepted the doctrine of creation it limited it to something that God did a few thousand years ago that is in the Bible, but combine that with the greek idea, the greek thought of philosopher kings, the greek concept of independent neutral universalists.

Consequently, throughout Christian history this virus of greek universalism colored the thinking of men and we have had as a result a tension, age after age, between those who see themselves as called to rule as the voice of reason... and the humble Christians who, putting their trust in the word of God, somehow believe that it is God who through his word read by the enlightenment of the holy spirit could speak alone the true word.

We can be very grateful for our Christian future to Charles Darwin, because when Darwin formulated in his final phase this greek concept of development, and when evolution became a doctrine which openly vied with scripture, it forced the antithesis. It made more difficult the confusion of this Greek concept of ideas, universals, the neutral values, and biblical faith. Either we now believe the bible and it’s every word, that God created heaven and earth in the space of six days, and that there is nothing in heaven or earth that God did not create and that there are no universals no ideas apart from God and that reason can only find itself as the servant of God thinking God’s thoughts after him that we are being compelled to separate ourselves from this vein, this virus of Greek philosophical thought.

The rise of Darwinism led to the rise of Creationism. It’s not an accident that we have seen developed the school of presuppositional philosophy that says that we begin not with some abstract philosophical concept, but with God and his word. Herman Duyevarick in the Netherlands but supremely Cornelius Van Til in this country have developed the implications of this creationist thinking. There is no neutrality. No neutral facts, no brute factuality in all creation. All factuality is God created and is understandable only in terms of God. The meaning of all facts comes from God.

As a result we cannot accept anything that militates against the triune God and his created power and his word. Now in this long tradition of confusion we have had varying strands of law. I’d like to deal with two because the question of natural law very often comes into such a discussion.

Going back to the Middle Ages were we had a great deal of thinking on natural law there were two strands. And all too often today people are confused when they look back and the confusion has run deep into our thoughts both Catholic and Protestant. Nicholas of (Cusa?) whose dates are either 1400 or 1401 to about 1464 said and I quote: “Every decree is rooted in natural law. And if a decree contradicts it it cannot be valid. Whence since natural law is naturally in the reason every law is known to man in it’s root.” Unquote.

Now in a sense there is a vein of truth here in that the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork. On the other hand, the world is fallen and man is fallen. And so man’s apprehension of these things is not a valid apprehension. Paul tells us in the first chapter of Roman’s that the natural man holds or literally holds back, suppresses the truth of God in unrighteousness. So how can man have any valid apprehension of a natural law?

Moreover, what Nicholas of Cusa did was to identify this natural law with reason; which was the greek presupposition. As a result under the Greek influence natural law concepts have been assimilated into the concept of neutral universals which are separated from God. However, there was a second trend in medieval thought going back much earlier (Gratian?) Circa eleven forty-eight or thereabouts so far as we know. We have no authentic dating but we do know that that is when he was teaching and in his prime. And Gratian said and I quote: “Mankind is ruled in two ways. Namely by natural law and by customs. The law of nature is that which is contained in the law and the gospels.” Unquote.

Now this of course was clearly in terms of biblical faith. God’s law is the natural law or the law of nature because it is the law of God over mand and over nature and in the nations and over the nations. Written in the tables of our hearts, in every atom of our being which however much we suppress with our sin is still there. As we face this fact of law we must recognize that it is the written word which gives us the clear and plain law of God, and therefore the law of nature the law of nations and of man.

Then we need to see this in the light of what our Lord said at the conclusion of the sermon on the mount. “Everyone therefore that heareth these words of mine and doeth them shall be likened unto a wise man who builds his house upon the Rock. I stressed ‘the’ there because in the Greek the article is there. Unfortunately, in the King James (my favorite translation) it is rendered “a rock”. It is THE Rock, Jesus Christ. “And the rain descended and the floods came and the winds blew and beat upon that house and it fell not for it was founded upon the Rock. And everyone that heareth these words of mine and doeth them not shall be likened unto a foolish man who built his house upon the sands, and the rains descended and the floods came and the winds blew and smote upon that house and it fell and great was the fall thereof.”

Paul said, other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid which is Jesus Christ. Christ in his person is the foundation, but his person cannot be isolated from his work. From God the father and from God the spirit and from the every law of God by which man must live. We are freed from the law of sin and death, by the spirit of life. Paul tells us in Romans 8:2. “But only”, he goes on to tell us in the fourth verse “that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled.” Put into force in us. We are a new creation in Christ, not to lawless, but to be law keepers... covenant keepers.

But humanism build upon man, upon sand, and cannot endure. Except the Lord build the house they labor in vain that build it. Sad fact is that there are many who want a compromise position. One very able and notable writer, Russell Kirk has written just recently, and I quote: “We cannot separate Christian morals and the rule of law.” Unquote.

However, then he goes on to say, and I quote: “My puritan ancestors of Massachusetts bay like their fathers the Geneva men of Elizabethan England hoped to make the laws of the ancients jews into a code of their own time, a foolish notion.” Unquote. Then he goes on to say a little later, after saying that we have to derive them in some broad way from Christian faith: “not from the literal word, from the plain word of scripture, because”, he said and I quote “such attempts, that is to ground them on the written word of God at legal archaism being absurd failed before they properly began for the particular laws of the people ineluctably mirror the circumstances of an age. Hebraic legal institutions can no more suit seventh century England then the English common law of the seventeenth century would have been possible for Jerusalem in the sixth century before Christ.

No, what Christianity or any other religion confers is not a code of positive laws, but instead some general understanding of justice.” Unquote. Now this sounds good but it is a very sorry position. To say that God is archaic or obsolete when he talks is to say that God is a God who changes, and what God said to Moses he is probably ashamed of today! Now, I know a lot of churchmen talk that way today and Russell Kirk is not alone in this position. Moreover to say that it must be some general understanding of justice is nonsense! What is a general understanding of justice? Is there anything like a general understanding of righteousness possible?

Or a general understanding of morality? When God says thou shalt not kill he goes on to specify very specifically in a number of case laws what this applies to. What constitutes murder. It includes kidnapping, it includes a number of offences. It includes abortion, it’s murder in the sight of God. It’s very specific; God does not leave it to our general understanding of justice because he knows what our general understanding of justice is, it is injustice. And so he’s very specific and says this is the way, walk ye in it.

He does not say when he declares thou shalt not commit adultery: I’ll leave it up to you to define adultery. He is very specific, very specific. Of course, even then men have tried to change that. The rabbi’s argued for a time that it was not adultery if it was not with you neighbors wife! Because, they said, the tenth commandment says thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife... which means that the seventh has to interpreted in terms of that. So if she lives a mile away, she’s not your neighbors wife and it’s all right.

And we have a great many people including several writers who are regularly featured in evangelical publications who will argue that homosexuality is never forbidden in the bible and it is only people who misread the bible who give us that interpretation. You see, if you leave it to the general understanding of the justice of man every kind of evil is justified. Just as today we have efforts to vindicate in terms of a concept of what is right. Child molestation and incest. And there are organizations whose purpose it is to defend the justice of both. This, in terms of the general understanding of justice.

Whose justice is to prevail? Whose general understanding? Mine or theirs? If it’s left on a human basics everybody can say “my word is as good as yours” and if it comes to a vote we’re in a sad predicament when 51% of the voters decide that their general understanding of justice can legislate and can prevail. Which is exactly what has happened with abortion and homosexuality. And the efforts now are to break down the laws against incest and child molestation.

Moreover, the great sin of all these people as they approach the law of God is to insist that we cannot be strict. We cannot apply it too literally. That they call legalism. I don’t know what is legalistic about taking God at his word! If I say when God says thou shalt not steal, commit adultery, bear false witness, and so on that this is to be taken in some general sense then I will have to take God’s word when he says that we are saved through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ in some general sense also; which doesn’t do much for me in my security in my salvation. In other words, what people are saying as they approach the bible and what some general understanding of what justice is that they want God’s word to be a rubber yardstick.

Now we cannot IRS and plead not guilty on the grounds that we did pay our taxes seven years out of ten. So on a general basis we’ve been a good taxpayer. The IRS will not buy that argument and I’m sure God does not buy any such argument either! In fact, we are told he who breaks the law at one point has broken it at all points. He’s a law breaker. Neither can we plead innocence after we have murdered a man by saying “but you must realize I passed up a hundred and one chances to murder other people so you’ve got to see me in terms of this general perspective. How innocent I am on the whole!

Isn’t it the same principle? If it’s a general understanding then you’ve destroyed all law... and you’ve destroyed salvation as well. You’ve taken away it’s meaning.

But of course neither the IRS nor any other state or federal agency buys such an argument. That demand for imprecision, for only a general understanding is used by men only where God’s law is concerned. I’ve had too many men plead with me when they’re confronted with what they have done that they really have been basically faithful to their wife! Well it was only one or maybe two or three women that they committed adultery with but I’ve really been faithful to her and I love her. And I’ve found only one answer to that: you were faithless and you hate her. Because love is the fulfilling, the keeping of the law, and if you didn’t keep the law in your relationship with your wife you’re not showing love you’re showing hatred for her.

Now that’s the word of God. It’s a plain word. It doesn’t set well with our fallen human nature and as long as we are not perfectly sanctified, which won’t happen this side of glory. The law of God is not going to set well with us at times because it’s going to hit us squarely between the eyes. It’s going to tell us how in word, thought, and deed we are sinners. That if we’re left to ourselves and we’re not under the discipline of God’s spirit and guided by his word we’re going to be lost sheep.

Sin is the transgression of the law and the wages of sin are always death. And the very fact of that means the triumph of God’s law. There is no peace, saith my God, for the wicked. And faithfulness to God is the only foundation for social security, true social security and reconstruction. It provides us with the building plans for God’s kingdom and it gives us the covenant word of peace and of grace. It gives us the foundations which Christ as the great cornerstone wants us to use.

Zechariah 14:20 says that in the kingdom of God even the utensils and the means of transportation will be holiness unto the Lord. Now this can come only with total obedience in every area of life and thought. We need a society where we can say with Amos: let judgement, justice, run down with waters and righteousness as a mighty stream. I believe this is beginning to take place, because as I said in the previous hour; if we make justice a monopoly of the state we have no justice. No righteousness in the land.

Justice has to be an aspect to the life of every man, every home, every church, every school. Every man and his vocation of society as a whole. And we must see righteousness, God’s justice, as our calling. We see it as we begin by tithing to the Lord’s work, to the church and to every Christian agency that is furthering his work. We see it when churches begin to say “We have a responsibility because we are members one of another. Are we showing God’s justice, his righteousness to those in our fellowship? What are we doing to care for the shut-ins? For those in need?

One church in Atlanta which has taken the name of Chalcedon for itself but has no connection with us apart from membership in Christ, has a hotline. They have prevented abortions, they’re seeing to the adoption of those children. They have set up, among other things, an interest free loan fund in terms of the word of God for their members. So far they have not had a single person fail to repay, although, they say in terms of scripture if through circumstances beyond your control if after six years you cannot repay, the debt is canceled.

It’s helped many a young couple in their trials and problems and many an elderly couple. Going across the country you can see increasingly more and more groups doing this sort of thing. Our current issue of the Journal of Christian Reconstruction edited by Doctor Kelly is dedicated to practical reconstruction and what is being done, and it will tell you about samplings of all kinds of activities in the country whereby people are ministering to those who are coming out of prison, to juvenile delinquents, and others.

I submit that long before we conquer Washington we will have taken over the country with this kind of thing, and this is something all of us can do! And we can begin right now! The future of justice is in our hands because we are to be God’s instruments of righteousness. Remember I called attention to Romans 8:2 and 8:4.... we are told that we have been saved that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us. God wants his righteousness, his justice to flow across the face of the earth! And there is only one instrument through which it can flow. It is the belief.

The believer in his personal life, his family life, school, church, vocation, society, and the state. This is how it will be done, it is exactly what is being done today.

Calvin said that every judge should be a walking law because the law is the walking magistrate. We need to say that every Christian must be a walking law, a walking magistrate. And when we say that, we are NOT saying what some people seem to think the law means; that it gives them the right to clobber everyone. Rather, the law is to make us better members one of another. To show us how we can minister to one another with the righteousness, with the justice of God. To bind Christians one to another so that they are together not because they sit in the pews of the same church... but because they have a common life in Christ and care for one another.

John Whitehead said we have a responsibility to pray for the christians in the iron curtain countries. We most certainly do, we need to remember the christian who are under persecution in africa and asia. I mentioned earlier the hill people of the chittagong hills in bangladesh where my son was, all of March. And Mark said that the most moving experience was to hear one of their young men, one of their young leaders, talk about their experiences. Being driven off their homes, put into concentration camps, picking wild leaves with little or no nutritional value to keep from starving.

And yet, as he prayed, it was without any bitterness. He expressed a hope earlier that they could find ways of earning a living and reestablishing themselves and he prayed that God might make use of those experiences to make of his people a new Israel of God. That out of their captivity would come a chosen people who would serve the Lord.

And I pray God that it would be not necessary for us to go through a captivity to feel that calling. Because by our conversion it IS our calling. Except the Lord build the house they labor in vain that build it. We have a work to do. We are called to be builders, let us go to it. Thank you. [audience applauds]

[audio ends]