Anabaptist Exceptionalism and Response to Government

[Josh]

Unless one authority supercedes the other, yes?

According to whom?

The state had no authority to suspend church for a year or to ban singing.

[Josh]

Do Christians have such a duty, however, or do we get the same loophole as unregenerate Citizen Joe by claiming that Caesar's requirements are only valid upon us if A. they don't require us to violate the Scriptures and B. they aren't in contradiction to any of his other laws...?

I think I have come to the conclusion that demands made by a government official or agency outside of the scope of his/her/its authority are no more binding upon us than demands made by any other random individual. I don't think I would characterize that as a loophole, but maybe you would.

Yes, but we actually have legal channels in which to challenge laws or orders that we believe to be outside the authority of the agency or official ordering them.

I know people who think speed limits are an unconstitutional infringement on freedom. They might be right about that. What do I know? But the proper way to challenge a law that you disagree with is not to drive at 95 mph past an elementary school, but to challenge the law in court.

Or one can simply ignore unelected bureaucrats who make up regulations they have no authority to do. (No laws existed in California to ban church or singing, so no laws were broken.)

There is no moral duty to obey an unjust law. Do you think I should’ve returned runaway slaves before the civil war just because that was the law?

[RZehr]

Some government officials may (or were) issuing regulations far in excess of their authority. Citizens do not have some duty to comply with random government officials demanding that things be done that they have no right to expect people to do.

Do Christians have such a duty, however, or do we get the same loophole as unregenerate Citizen Joe by claiming that Caesar's requirements are only valid upon us if A. they don't require us to violate the Scriptures and B. they aren't in contradiction to any of his other laws...?

I think I have come to the conclusion that demands made by a government official or agency outside of the scope of his/her/its authority are no more binding upon us than demands made by any other random individual. I don't think I would characterize that as a loophole, but maybe you would.

Sure that makes sense. The flip side would mean that in asking permission to ignore a law, we wouldn't accept a waiver by a government official or agency outside of the scope of his/her/its authority either, right? I wouldn't ask the local building inspector for a waiver on poaching deer, nor would I ask the game warden if he minds if I skipped a building inspection.

[PetrChelcicky]

I have read "Anabaptist Exceptionalism". I have no problem with the result, but with the way of reasoning.

The authors speak too much about "exemption", but under a rule of law there can be no "exemptions" for individuals and groups. That is why I emphasize that we all need a general rule about liberty of conscience.

Moreover the authors say that we have exemptions because we have been "exempted" by the state. This tends to a theory of "legal positivism" - the idea that rights are rights because they have granted by the state (and would not exist if the state didn't grant them). Legal positivism is popular with the left and the far right, but has never been accepted by conservatives or classical liberals - I admit that the concurring theory that "rights" exist as ideas in a Platonic heaven is not much better. (My own idea is that rights are rights because we grant them to each other.)

My general warning is that "revelation religions" tend to maintain that morals are revealed - which normally leaves no space for personal freedom at all (either you must do it or you must not do it (there can be no freedom) or it is unimportant (there need not be freedom).

I also think that resistance to masks etc. stems not so much from Anabaptism, but from the "yeoman tradition" (as a farmer, craftsman or shopkeeper I can care for myself and make my own agreements with equals, but do not need superiors). May I add that the Anglosphere and in particular the United States have been admired just for their strong yeoman tradition?

[ken_sylvania]

Do Christians have such a duty, however, or do we get the same loophole as unregenerate Citizen Joe by claiming that Caesar's requirements are only valid upon us if A. they don't require us to violate the Scriptures and B. they aren't in contradiction to any of his other laws...?

I think I have come to the conclusion that demands made by a government official or agency outside of the scope of his/her/its authority are no more binding upon us than demands made by any other random individual. I don't think I would characterize that as a loophole, but maybe you would.

Interesting. Not trying to pick here, just curious about your thought process. How do you personally decide what is outside of his/her/its authority, which would then free you from any obligation to submit to it? The latest list of laws, the general scope of their authority, the virtue of their position, etc, etc?

I'm not dogmatic about this really, and to be clear I'd rather err on the side of obeying too much rather than disobeying too much. I'd also like to make it clear that I don't revere the US Constitution as some kind of a Bible or in-errant truth, etc.

To start with an example from the business world:
A corporation or partnership often has an operating agreement of some kind that has been agreed to by the shareholders, managers, or members of the business. This operating agreement lays out the parameters of how the business is to be operated, and in the case where there are officers such as President, Secretary, and Treasurer the operating agreement or some other official document will generally spell out the responsibilities and authority of each position. Each of these officers only has authority to the extent that he has been granted that authority by the operating agreement or other official action of the board of managers.

In the case of a state or commonwealth, the constitution of that state or commonwealth generally sets out the responsibility and authority of the Governor, the courts, the congress, etc. This authority is often further delegated, but finally that delegated authority can be no greater than what is granted by the governing document.

The constitution of the USA grants congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce, but reserves to the individual states the right to regulate intrastate commerce. If congress passes a law purporting to regulate the sale of raw milk exclusively within a state with no connection to any other state, I would say that law has zero authority because congress doesn't have the authority to make a law like that.

Where things can get difficult (for me) is when a court makes a decision on whether a particular law is valid and I think they substituted emotion or necessity in place of the plain words of the constitution or other authorizing document. Where, for instance, the Constitution says that the government may not seize property without paying compensation, I think court decisions that have authorized civil forfeiture are just plain wrong - I think the court does not have the authority to make that decision because it's in violation of the governing document. But the governing document does authorize the court to make decisions - so perhaps I need to defer to that authority - it's not always clear cut.

[Joy]

Unless one authority supercedes the other, yes?

For a simpler example, if Daddy says no, can a child run to Mommy and get permission? (Not in my childhood. )

[Wade]

Unless one authority supercedes the other, yes?

According to whom?

The state had no authority to suspend church for a year or to ban singing.

Boy those rebaptizers nearly 500 years ago sure could have used online forums to get them straight on how to obey the government...

[Soloist]

In my impression the people I go to church with, the people I know both atheist and Christian have been making exceptions for themselves for all manner of laws. I would have publicly shared my conviction on not speeding and if you are using cruise control and you set it above the speed limit you are sinning.
I have found one person who agrees with the speeding stance but outside of that even the majority of people on Mennonet https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2411 seem to think driving the speed limit is a matter of conviction.

We can speak of building codes where Mennonites look the other way, we can speak of masking were rebellion seems common among Western fellowship... I have seen quite a lot of determining if a law applied to yourself or not based on some political figure argument that it was wrong or if local leadership applied it. Ernie, you spoke out at one point about not following unenforced laws viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3286 so it would seem like this exceptionalism is applied by yourself as well in deciding to not follow laws.

Can we follow all the laws that do not go against God? is there a point were it becomes impossible to pay your bills, work and feed your family while obeying the laws?
Can we allow exceptions for church standards? is not the very nature of how we practice church standards a very expression of how we look at the law?
How can Mennonites claim to obey the law and say masking is wrong and cannot be enforced while insisting on denying fellowship to someone who wears a mustache?

This brings us to a question, what actually is a law that God expects us to follow? Otherwise we will continue to make exceptions for ourselves while condemning others who are in our eyes worse then ourselves.

[Josh]

The law God expected people to follow is in the Old Testament, and indeed is basically still expected in simplified form of all men everywhere, unless they become Christians justified under the new covenant.

The Ten Commandments are a well understood starting place, with the exception of the third commandment, which is not binding in Gentiles. (Many Christians try to honour it anyway.) Man’s laws follow God’s plan the closer they are to the Ten Commandments.

We have no need to be arbitrarily rebellious to state laws. Some have varying degrees of importance. Nobody cares about speeding 5 miles over (in America). Going twice the speed limit is agreed on by society as a bad thing. Our attitude towards laws should follow that.

An abundance of new, poorly understood laws is indeed not “lawful”. Same goes for things that aren’t even laws like mask ordinances. There is no law in my state to wear a mask. Never was. There is no federal law to. No law is being broken when someone doesn’t wear a mask when they are walking by themselves outside.

[Ernie]

They asked a government official. He told them what he thought. Why should they obey the governor instead of a legislator?

When I had my wedding, I called the local county health department and they advised me to do things in defiance to the state. (The local county had also filed a grievance with the state.) Exactly who should I pick as the authority in that situation? Should we go and ask the federal government too? The U.N.? The queen?

Officials are responsible to carry out the law. If they make an exception, I have no problem with taking the exception.

A lawmaker is not an official. He needs to follow the same laws that everyone else does.