Why is Christmas celebrated on December 25th?
The date of Christmas was not determined by Church Fathers by copying the date of a pagan Roman winter solstice festival. Instead, the date was calculated from the Jewish calendar using the date of Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, September 22nd, 6 BC, when Gabriel appeared to Zecharias in the Temple according to Luke 1:5. The conception of John occurred “immediately after that” when Zecharias returned home to Elizabeth to the hill country of Judea, by calculation on September 24th, 6 BC.
The conception of Jesus was calculated to have occurred when Elizabeth was “in her sixth month” (Luke 1:26,36) on March 25th, 5 BC, which was also the first day of Passover in that year. John’s birth was June 24th, 5 BC, followed by Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem on December 25th, which was also the first day of Hanukkah, or the Festival of Lights, in that year. The Church Father, Hippolytus of Rome, in his work Chronicon, saw that each date had allegorical significance.
So why is Christmas celebrated on December 25th?
The usual answer to this question is that it was adjusted, like many Church feast days, to coincide with the pagan feast days, this one being the winter solstice. This is a convenient explanation, but the exact date of December 25th is for another reason entirely. It was proposed by several of the Church Fathers at least as early as the second century. Since the “celebration of Christmas” was a custom instituted later, the second century is far too early for the “pagan copycat” thesis to be valid. To explain how the Church Fathers arrived at this date, we need to examine first the date of John the Baptist’s conception as told in Luke.
There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zecharias, of the division of Abijah (Luke 1:5).
According to 1 Chronicles 24:7-19, King David had divided the priests into 24 divisions who took turns serving in the Temple. During their service they lived in the Temple and were separated from their wives and children. Each order served for a period of eight days twice a year. The priests of the course of Abijah served during the 10th and 24th weeks of the Jewish year. Luke goes on to recount how the angel Gabriel appeared to Zecharias while he was serving in the Temple.
So it was, that while he was serving as priest before God in the order of his division, according to the custom of the priesthood, his lot fell to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord. And the whole multitude of the people was praying outside at the hour of incense. Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing on the right side of the altar of incense. And when Zecharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.
But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zecharias, for your prayer is heard; and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. He will also go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Luke 1:8-15).
Note here that “the whole multitude of the people” (i.e., the whole nation of Israel) was present outside the Temple. Some have attempted to reconstruct the weeks of service according to Josephus’ account in Antiquities 7:14:7, which relates that the first division, the division of Jehoiarib, was on duty when Jerusalem was destroyed on August 5th, AD 70. Using this date as an anchor, the eighth division of Abijah would serve two times in the year, one of them being in late September. However, it is uncertain if these allotments began on exactly the same day of the year, since there would be four extra weeks to account for at the end of the year. But there were only two times in the year when the “whole multitude of the people” of Israel was required to be in Jerusalem worshiping at the Temple. These were the fall and spring feast days. Zecharias’ vision apparently occurred on one of the high feast days, several of the Church Fathers thought it was the Day of Atonement, and then Zecharias returned to his home immediately after that.
So it was, as soon as the days of his service were completed, that he departed to his own house. Now after those days his wife Elizabeth conceived (Luke 1:23,24).
Since “the hill country of Judea,” where Elizabeth lived according to Luke 1:39;65, is no more than a day’s journey from Jerusalem, the conception of John the Baptist must have occurred soon after that. Several of the Church Fathers noticed this correspondence and made the inference that John must have been conceived shortly after the Day of Atonement, which usually falls in September. In fact, the Church Father John Chrysostom thought that Zecharias was actually the Jewish High Priest because he was in the Holy Place on the Day of Atonement, which in 6 BC fell on September 22nd. So September 24th was calculated as the date of John’s conception. The birth of John occurred exactly nine months later on June 24th.
Since Jesus was conceived six months after John (Luke 1:26,36), various dates around this time, December 25th, January 2nd and 6th were given by various Church Fathers and each of these have been celebrated as the Nativity of Jesus. In fact, the Eastern Orthodox Church has always used January 6th as the date of Christmas.
If John was conceived during one of the spring feasts — Passover or Pentecost, which were the other two times in the year when the “whole multitude of the people” of Israel was required to be in Jerusalem — then we would have winter birth for John and a summer birth for Jesus.
Notwithstanding, the Day of Atonement fits well as an anchor date because it points to a winter birthday for Christ. Josephus notes that Herod died shortly before the Passover in 4 BC, which began on April 11th of that year. This gives several months for the events surrounding the Nativity and fits the narrative accounts of both Matthew and Luke.
We should not be dogmatic about the exact day. However, we can use December 25th as the anchor date. This date helps explain several events recorded in the Nativity accounts and is important for establishing a timeline that supports the historicity of the Gospels.
The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women - Part 3
In parts 1 and 2, I gave the historical background of the Scottish Reformation through the life of John Knox and a summary of his work, The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women. I briefly touched on some modern misperceptions and explained why The First Blast still reverberates for civil liberty even today.
Part 3: American Vision’s “John Knox’s blast of monstrous pagan chauvinism”
Here I will address the article recently published in American Vision written by Suzannah Rowntree. I want to make it clear that this is not an attack on the motives or personalities of the people promoting this article. I also don’t think of my rebuttal as the final word, but hopefully it will show some that there is another perspective and will spark more informed discussion.
I have great admiration for the accomplishments of American Vision. The first Christian Reconstructionist book that I ever read in the 1980s, was a paperback workbook series written by Gary DeMar called, God and Government. Not only do I have the utmost respect for Gary DeMar’s work with American Vision, but ironically the ideas presented in God and Government are the fruition of Knox’s First Blast. DeMar’s book series expounds on the explosive power of the biblical social theory that emerged from the Reformation’s full-orbed Gospel. However, I consider some of American Vision’s current work to be an unfortunate departure from this foundation. One such example is the article I will critique.
What is the current controversy?
A controversy over the American Vision article has erupted because in recent years, numerous people have pointed to the publication of The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women as one of the fountainheads of the “Lesser Magistrate Doctrine.” Yes, the theology of political resistance was maintained in Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion and the Lutheran Magdeburg Confession. However, Knox’s First Blast represented the first time there was a call to arms to overthrow a specific monarch – and one that shocked even the proponents of the Lesser Magistrate doctrine in Germany and Switzerland, not to mention England and Scotland.
Currently in America, we are faced with federal tyranny through judicial supremacy and a growing Leviathan statist power. Some have proposed that Christians reignite the spirit of the “Black Regiment” – the Presbyterian pastors who led the American Revolution and taught these principles. The First Blast is an often recommended work to introduce Christians to that spirit of resistance. Most never end up reading the tract, but are amused by the title when it is explained that the “Monstrous Regiment of Women” is the “unnatural government” of three Roman Catholic queens, Bloody Mary (Tudor), Mary of Guise, and Mary Queen of Scots (Stuart). Knox and the Scottish covenanters are portrayed as Scottish heroes cast in the role of Protestant “Bravehearts.”
However, to some who have been steeped in the postmodernist, feminist worldview of western culture, the language of Knox comes off as a politically incorrect affront to women. It is offensive not just to Mary Queen of Scots and her “shavelings and pestilent prelates,” as Knox termed his Roman Catholic persecutors, but to all women who (they falsely suppose) are represented as lower “creatures” no more valuable than farm animals to men. The tract has also been likened to the excesses we see in the so-called Christian patriarchy movement. From the outset, I concede that these are valid concerns if this is truly the stance of some modern Christians.
To counter excesses in patriarchy movement, a social media group has been founded, which is ironically named, “The Monstrous Regiment of Women.” They state that their intention is to point the finger at those within the Reformed tradition who adopt and support the John Knox pamphlet.
Brothers in Christ, when you approve and recommend John Knox’s FIRST BLAST OF THE TRUMPET AGAINST THE MONSTROUS REGIMENT OF WOMEN, you send a very clear message to the women around you.
“You are worth less then men.”
“You are little better than animals.”
“You will never accomplish anything for the kingdom of God.”
Why should we pay any attention to you if you say such things?
In other words, they say that if you don’t renounce John Knox’s teaching in The First Blast in its entirety, you will be shunned as a hateful misogynist.
Why is it important?
Why does it even matter that a musty 40-page pamphlet from the 1500s is being attacked by a group of millennials on podcasts and social media?
I like to tell people that the current Christian Reconstructionist movement is a small fraction of a subset of thinkers within Reformed theology. For about 250 years – from about the 1500s to the late 1700s – Calvinism was the dominant theology in Protestantism. Within the movement, some of the Presbyterians and Puritans birthed a well-articulated postmillennial eschatology, a Bible-based set of civil laws and numerous examples of church and civil covenants to justly administer those laws. They did so imperfectly, but modern Reconstructionists consider this time period to be a Model of Reformation we can learn much from.
To apply the Lesser Magistrate doctrine to today, we don’t need to overthrow our government, but states can simply declare their right to be self-governing and not subject to any power of the federal government that is not described or enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. Many Christian activist groups are now advocating for the Lesser Magistrate doctrine in our fight against abortion, unnatural marriage and a host of other abominations foisted upon us by a draconian state that is growing in size and ability to tyrannize us.
We are trying to awaken the larger evangelical population to the fact that Christianity is also carries a political philosophy of liberty that will enable the Church to preach the Gospel worldwide and impact our backslidden culture. This includes elevating the esteem of all people including women and minorities. It’s a great disadvantage to have our goals mischaracterized by those who supposedly are “Reformed” themselves.
This rebuttal is not meant as a rebuke as much as a critique of the gross misundertandings promoted by the “Pagan Chauvinism” article. I also don’t mean to belittle or delegitimize the outcry against real abuses toward women occurring in the name of Christianity. But frankly, anyone who understands the historical background of the Scottish Reformation knows that abuse toward women did not occur as a result of Knox’s little pamphlet. On the contrary, Knox’s life work resulted in the greatest civil liberty known in modern times. Reformed social theory elevated the standing of all people.
A Critique
“Pagan Chauvinism” is well-written, organized, focused and forcefully argued. However it falls apart when evidence is given and citations from Knox are elaborated upon. In fact, it becomes silly in places. There are many statements that are incorrect from the start. It is not the logic of the article that is deficient, but its numerous faulty premises.
Misunderstanding the genre – First, the pamphlet is a polemic. It was very common in John Knox’s day for theologians to use harshly worded and even crude language to describe their opponents. It was his use of forceful language, not against a theological opponent, but against the head of state, that scandalized many of his readers. Yet this is exactly the effect that a polemic is supposed to have. Its intent is to stoke controversy and debate. It was so effective that people are still having this debate today. Those who wonder, “How could Knox write such things!” are responding exactly according to the way that a polemic is intended to provoke controversy.
Misunderstanding the historical context – Paradoxically, medieval Christian society considered women ineligible for any public office except that of head of state. They accepted that to preserve familial lines of succession, ruling queens were necessary when there was no direct male heir.
Ironically, I discussed this point with a few of Rowntree’s defenders who said the opposite. They said they believed that women could occupy civil offices – “just not the executive office.” That is exactly my view too. Women ought to work as public servants and be involved in politics if they are able, while not neglecting their families, but Scripture speaks against women “bearing the sword” or sitting in punitive judgment over adult men in any capacity.
In Knox’s day, the view was completely the opposite. Even Queen Elizabeth was expected to bear arms and appeared at the Battle of the Spanish Armada as the commander of the English forces. Although she did not personally fight in the battle, she continually put herself in harms way as the reigning monarch. In December 1583, Elizabeth I wrote to the French Ambassador, “There are more than two hundred men of all ages who, at the instigation of the Jesuits, conspire to kill me.” Further, there were no less than half a dozen known assassination plots against her life. Elizabeth’s speech at Tilbury to her troops is considered to be genuine and gives a glimpse into how she thought of her role as a female commander-in-chief.
I am come amongst you, as you see, at this time, not for my recreation and disport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of the battle, to live and die amongst you all; to lay down for my God, and for my kingdom, and my people, my honour and my blood, even in the dust.
I know I have the body of a weak, feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm; to which rather than any dishonour shall grow by me, I myself will take up arms, I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field.
While we should greatly admire the faith and courage of this brave woman, we ought to admit that this was a subversion of nature and God’s revealed will for a woman to bear the sword against men in battle.
Misunderstanding the political context – The very title, The First Blast of the Trumpet, connotes a military uprising against tyranny. The language is taken from Old Testament prophecy and Revelation 8:13.
Then I looked, and I heard an eagle flying in midheaven, saying with a loud voice, “Woe, woe, woe to those who dwell on the earth, because of the remaining blasts of the trumpet of the three angels who are about to sound!”
In Knox’s view, the Church stood wearing the prophetic mantle and must speak in the spirit and power of Elijah against those who murdered God’s preachers of the true Gospel. It was because the three Marys persecuted God’s Church and were suppressing the Gospel, that Knox opposed them. The context is primarily political. To parse it as an attack on women in general is missing the forest for the trees.
After Knox was freed from his life as a galley slave, he became popular in Protestant England and was a preacher in the court of Edward VI, who was King Henry VIII’s immediate successor. When Edward died, for a very short period of time, Lady Jane Grey was made queen because Edward’s court felt she would preserve the Protestant legacy. This lasted only nine days until Mary Tudor was installed.
Knox was appalled that a Roman Catholic queen would inherit the throne. However, he at first continued to perform his duty as a royal chaplain. He even composed a prayer read in public worship that Mary Tudor and her court would be converted to the Reformed faith. He continued to pray for Mary until persecution broke out and he had to flee the British Isles ending up in Geneva in 1554. Shortly after Knox fled, “Bloody Mary” had Lady Jane executed along with hundreds of other Protestants.
It is easy to see that Knox’s opposition to Mary was political because she was a Catholic queen. He never wrote a word about the Lady Jane’s role and probably would have supported her as an alternative Protestant monarch if she had not been killed.
Misunderstanding the author’s purpose – According to Rowntree, Knox’s polemic was directed only against women because they were women.
His First Blast was intended as just the first of three pamphlets that would prove women to be incapable of bearing godly rule. – S.R.
On the contrary, The Second Blast, we are told, was to be more instructive on how the Church of Scotland and England could effectively organize to overthrow tyranny. Knox published a summary of it in the same year and it was later appended to The First Blast. We are not told what The Third Blast was to be about except that it would be published in Knox’s own name. He intended to take the weight of the blame on himself declaring that he was willing to die as a martyr for the cause of the Reformation.
Misunderstanding the author’s point of view – In reading various responses to the Rowntree article, the biggest problem is that people haven’t taken the time to read The First Blast or other background literature written by Knox. Again, he was not set against the three Marys merely because they were women. As I will show below, Knox was indeed hoping and praying for one of them to be converted and become a “Deborah,” who would help establish Protestantism in the British Isles.
Misunderstanding the appeal to “nature” – This is probably the biggest example of dishonesty in the article. As I explained in part 1, Knox makes use of historical examples to show that this crime against nature is obvious even to the pagans. Paul makes a similar argument in 1 Corinthians 5:1, that certain behavior is “not tolerated even among Gentiles.” So it is perfectly scriptural to make use of an argument from nature or to quote pagan philosophers. Paul himself makes two such appeals in his Sermon on Mars Hill (Acts 17:22-31).
John Knox’s pamphlet is totally unscriptural and comes straight out of pagan Greek and Roman philosophy, not the Bible. – S.R.
Well no, the exact opposite is true. Knox uses a scriptural argument for about 39 pages and takes the space of about one page to show how the Greeks and Romans agreed that a woman monarch is against nature. If we say that Knox errs because he begins with a pagan argument and bases his whole argument on that, this is also dishonest. Knox insists that natural arguments are not sufficient and therefore he must base his argument on the Word of God.
But to me it is sufficient (because this part of nature is not my most sure foundation) to have proved that men illuminated only by the light of nature have seen and have determined that it is a thing most repugnant to nature that women rule and govern over men…. But now to the second part of nature, in the which I include the revealed will and perfect ordinance of God.
So according to Knox, nature is not the most sure foundation, only the revealed will and perfect ordinance of God in Scripture is sufficient. I was baffled in hearing many people who have not read The First Blast complain that Reformed teachers are using a tract to demean women that has nothing of the Bible, but is based only on pagan philosophy.
Misunderstanding his use of the Church Fathers – Another outrageous distortion of Knox’s argument is that he considers women to not be made in the image of God (or lesser image bearers) and “literally” argues women are subhuman.
I would plead with my brothers in Christ, especially those who claim to be Reformed. Think twice before you throw your support behind this document, which literally argues that women are subhuman, somewhere between men and animals on the Platonist chain of being. – S.R.
While I won’t harp on the mangling of the word “literally,” this completely misunderstands Knox’s use of Augustine who very clearly states that woman is made in the image of God. The argument here is neither that women are not in the image of God nor that they are lower than men.
The argument is that women are not in God’s image in one aspect – in their natural ability to rule over men. That is, God ordains civil rulers to act as His ministers. Men are in His image. Therefore, men are suitable to rule over men. Women are not suitable to rule over men. They are suitable to be men’s helpers in dominion work. They are fully God’s image bearers in that they have dominion over all other parts of God’s creation. That is the argument that Knox is advocating by quoting Augustine, which I will show below.
(One could also argue that a man is not in God’s image in that men don’t have the natural ability to bear children in God’s image – as a woman was chosen from the beginning to give birth to Christ. But that is not the focus of Knox’s tract, although he touches on it as you will soon see.)
Misunderstanding 16th century English vocabulary – This is where Rowntree’s article made me smile. Even though the spelling of words has been modernized, Elizabethan-era English is difficult unless you have read and heard a lot of it. Knox died when Shakespeare was eight-years-old so the language is very similar.
One of the most common errors in reading literature from this time period is to not understand that the vast majority of words – as high as 90 to 95 percent of the vocabulary – are still in use today, but they have changed form or meaning. This makes a word archaic because it does not mean what you think it means.
Further, educated people of that day used a lot of word play, often employing colorful metaphors meant to evoke emotional responses, but also words loaded with double meanings. It is true that in Knox’s day the word Monstruous (or “monstrous” in its modern spelling) meant unnatural. But it also means a monster. (For example, Caliban in The Tempest is called a monster.) The same is true about Regimen (or “regiment”). It means government, but also had the connotation of a military force. Knox is sounding the alarm against a hostile army of persecutors. So even the title of the tract is ironic, even sarcastic, definitely meant to provoke a reaction.
That being said, there are other examples where modern meanings of words have changed.
“Creatures” for instance, isn’t necessarily a synonym for animals. The meaning of “creature” can be anything in God’s creation. I’ve seen comment after comment on the Rowntree article stating that Knox “literally” says women are “between men and animals.” In fact, nowhere in the pamphlet is this stated. Not only is the word “animals” never used, but the connotation of comparing women to other “creatures” is not negative at all. Here is Knox quoting Augustine.
“… woman (sayeth he), compared to other creatures, is the image of God, for she beareth dominion over them; but compared unto man, she may not be called the image of God, for she beareth not rule and lordship over man, but ought to obey him …”
To paraphrase, woman has dominion over all creation. But she does not have the image of God compared to man in one aspect. She must not bear authority over man. The problem here is that people are reading Rowntree article without first reading Knox and think he “literally argues that women are subhumans.”
A few other “loaded words” used by Knox to describe women are obnoxious to a politically correct mindset. In the short section in which Knox uses the argument from nature, he speaks of the natural inability of women to rule.
For their sight in civil regiment is but blindness; their strength, weakness; their counsel, foolishness; and judgment, frenzy, if it be rightly considered.
Note that contrary to the claim of the American Vision article, Knox is not saying here that all women are always blind, weak, foolish, frenzied. He is saying that when placed in civil power, women will exhibit these traits. He also notes that “for certain causes, known only to [God] himself” there are exceptions to this, which he discusses in his answers to objections.
Nature, I say, doth paint them further to be weak, frail, impatient, feeble, and foolish; and experience hath declared them to be inconstant, variable, cruel, and lacking the spirit of counsel and regiment.
Note that Knox is here only commenting on women’s nature as they are unfit to rule in the civil realm. He does not claim that women are unfit in other areas of authority and dominion, such as in bearing and nurturing children. In the section in which he cites John Chysostom, he notes “woman to be a tender creature, flexible, soft, and pitiful, which nature God hath given unto her, that she may be apt to nourish children.”
“Pitiful” here means full of pity. It is not a term of derision. So the argument Knox uses is not that women are to be despised or looked down upon in a misogynistic sense. Rather God has not equipped men and women to be equal in all things. In rearing children, women are usually more “tender,” but in ruling in matters of the civil order, they are more “cruel.” In fact, there was a widely publicized study in 2017 that showed that historically queens were more often warmongers than kings.
According to a working paper by political scientists Oeindrila Dube, of the University of Chicago, and S. P. Harish, of McGill University. They studied how often European rulers went to war between 1480 and 1913. Over 193 reigns, they found that states ruled by queens were 27% more likely to wage war than those ruled by kings (Who gets into more wars, kings or queens?).
So Knox’s argument from nature and his supposedly incendiary descriptive words are actually born out by modern studies as well as by God’s Word.
Mistaking John Calvin’s view – Calvin’s view was that the Church could overthrow tyrants under the authority of lesser magistrates. What Rowntree claims here is correct, but the reason she implies is false.
Even at the time, the pamphlet was controversial. John Calvin disapproved of The First Blast, saying that by publishing it Knox was likely “to unsettle governments which are ordained by the peculiar providence of God.” – S.R.
Yes, Calvin was disturbed that Knox was calling for the overthrow of the English and Scottish queens. But the reason why is a bit more complicated than the false claim that Calvin approved of women monarchs.
Knox’s premise that female rulers had subverted both the divine and natural order was not controversial. The problem came when he called for the overthrow of a female monarch based on the fact that they opposed the Gospel. The following points are completely missed by Rowntree in her article.
First, in 1554, four years prior to the publication of The First Blast, John Knox posed several questions to John Calvin and Heinrich Bullinger (while visiting the Swiss cities of Geneva and Zurich on his way to Frankfurt) concerning the political state of affairs in England and Scotland. To begin with, they all agreed together that rule by women opposed God’s will. No natural or historical circumstances justified a woman exercising civil authority. They agreed that in the examples of Deborah and Huldah, God Himself sovereignly suspended His own commandment, something that men were not authorized to do. Further, they each agreed that women rulers were not only prohibited in God’s natural order, but their existence in history was a result of the curse of the Fall. Calvin also agreed with Knox that God was judging England for not establishing the Reformed faith by giving them a wicked, oppressive queen like Jezebel.
Second, Knox’s question was over whether the Church ought to continue to pray for the conversion of these female rulers and that they would be raised up by God as “Deborahs” in order to succor the Church as “nursing mothers” – or whether they ought to be opposed by force as the people of God in Elijah’s day opposed Jezebel.
Calvin indeed answered that God ordained these governments by patrilineal succession. It would therefore “not be lawful to unsettle” the line of descent that God ordained. Where Calvin includes the phrase “peculiar providence of God,” he means that although having a woman in the line is unnatural, God uses it to establish hereditary rights.
Third, in An Answer Given to a Certain Scotsman, in Reply to Some Questions Concerning the Kingdom of Scotland and England, Heinrich Bullinger records the questions submitted by John Knox to the school at Geneva.
Whether the Son of a King, upon his father’s death, though unable by reason of his tender age to conduct the government of the kingdom, is nevertheless by right of inheritance to be regarded as a lawful magistrate, and as such to be obeyed as of divine right?
Whether a Female can preside over, and rule a kingdom by divine right, and so transfer the right of sovereignty to her Husband?
Whether obedience is to be rendered to a Magistrate who enforces idolatry and condemns true religion; and whether those authorities, who are still in military occupation of towns and fortresses, are permitted to repel this ungodly violence from themselves and their friends?
To which party must godly persons attach themselves, in the case of a religious Nobility resisting an idolatrous Sovereign?
You can read the answers given to Knox at the above link, but it should be obvious that the curious Scotsman was searching for a biblically lawful way to rid Scotland and England of two murderous monarchs and establish a Christian realm like Geneva where the Gospel could flourish without hindrance.
In short, both Calvin and Bullinger agreed that women were unnatural rulers. But when pressed with giving an answer as to how whether the Church could support English and Scottish nobles (lesser magistrates) if they rebelled against these idolatrous queens, they were more evasive, saying that this was the decision of “godly persons,” and warning him to attempt nothing contrary to the Law of God and to look to Him as the only deliverer.
Calvin himself was faced with a dangerous political situation in Geneva himself during that time, so it is possible that he wanted to avoid the appearance of stirring up armed conflict in this current case.
Mistaking Knox’s reversal of his position – Rowntree continues and claims that even Knox himself disavowed this work.
In other words, the Monstrous Regiment ultimately had to be abandoned by its own author, and anyone who supports it today is demonstrating less wisdom than Knox himself. – S.R.
This is demonstrably false. It completely ignores Knox’s letters to Queen Elizabeth in which he clearly maintains his position, yet nevertheless prays that Elizabeth might turn out to be a Deborah.
The article ignores his subsequent career in both opposing Mary Queen of Scots, while preaching the Gospel to her and praying for her conversion. Mary leveled the charge against Knox that he had written The First Blast to promote rebellion against her mother and herself. Knox acknowledged that he wrote the book and stood by it. He responded that as long as Queen Mary did not “defile your hands with the blood of the saints, that neither I nor that book shall either hurt you or our authority.” This is more evidence that Knox did not write the book merely to attack women or women rulers, but rather to defy tyrants.
Knox believed The First Blast to be an exercise of his divinely inspired gift of prophecy. He stood by it until his death.
In fact, the tract continued to be widely circulated with great interest long after that. The title page used by American Vision as a graphic is ironically from an edition published many years later in Philadelphia in 1766 with a modernized spelling of the title. This shows the continuing interest in Knox’s social and political theory at the time of the American Revolution.
Mistaking Queen Elizabeth’s view – I am amazed at the point of view, not from liberal humanist historians who don’t understand God’s providence, but from short-sighted Christians who don’t see the hand of God in the immediate effect of the publication of The First Blast.
Within months, the pamphlet backfired on Knox when Mary Tudor died, leaving the English throne to her Protestant sister Elizabeth I. Elizabeth supported the Reformation, but was highly offended by Knox’s pamphlet and never allowed him to return to England to work for the cause of the Reformation there. Knox admitted that “my First Blast hath blown from me all my friends in England” and gave up writing the second and third pamphlets. – S.R.
Did it backfire?
Knox’s initial purpose in writing The First Blast was to rid England and Scotland of two murderous monarchs. Within two years of its publication, both queens met untimely deaths while still in their early 40s. Knox was able to return to Scotland with the ability to prosecute the Church’s covenantal lawsuits more directly through preaching and direct interviews with Mary Queen of Scots. It is obvious from the first page of the tract that Knox himself viewed The First Blast as a prophetic imprecatory proclamation. Two Marys died as a result. Mary Queen of Scots was later arrested for plotting regicide (toward her cousin Elizabeth) and beheaded.
Knox hoped and prayed – as evidenced in his letters to her – that Elizabeth would become a “Deborah” – a woman placed in power by the sovereignty of God to succor the Church and bring about Reformation. While Knox was disappointed that Elizabeth did not take the Reformation far enough, he never publicly attacked her in the same manner as the three Marys. He considered her “neither a good Protestant, nor a resolute Papist.” Elizabeth did ally with the Protestant Scottish nobles in their military resistance against Mary Queen of Scots. She also brought further reform by approving the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, which established the doctrine and government of the Church of England.
The claim that she “never allowed him to return to England” is a bit of a red herring. The historical fact is that Elizabeth did not allow Knox to make the shorter trip through England to Scotland and he complained he had to take the voyage by sea instead. However, by the time Mary of Guise died, Knox was well into his mid-50s and had been frail and sickly since the time of his sentence as a galley thrall. He therefore made the rest of his life’s effort the Reformation in Scotland, and Elizabeth, though offended by the tract, was his ally until this was accomplished.
As for the Second and Third Blast pamphlets, which Knox claimed were supposed to cover the method of civil resistance, he instead got busy doing the work of Reformation. In 1559, a year after the publication of The First Blast, he began to write about how his theology became autobiography in The History of the Reformation in Scotland, which was finally completed just before his death.
Mistaking Knox’s personal views and conduct with women – The American Vision article has some sharp words as to how Knox personally viewed women.
John Knox, whatever his strengths in other areas, clearly had an unbiblically low view of women as a sex. – S.R.
Lady Jane Grey, Mary Tudor, Mary of Guise, Mary Queen of Scots and Elizabeth Tudor were five queens whose lives paralleled Knox. In each of their cases, Knox began with the attitude of a servant committed to praying for their safety and well-being and for the conversion of the Catholic queens who persecuted Protestants. His personal correspondence and personal interviews with Mary of Guise and Mary Queen of Scots show a firm man, yet compassionate and sincerely concerned about the state of their eternal souls. In all his personal conversations with Mary Queen of Scots, he never demeaned her as a woman. Mary acted alternately seductive, manipulative, feminine, and would sometimes cry and howl because Knox would not relent. Although he despised Mary’s behavior in his presence, he remained respectful of her as a person.
John Knox preaching to Mary Queen of Scots. Knox remained hopeful for the conversion of the Catholic queens who persecuted Protestants.
Further, his relationships with his first mother-in-law and two wives shows he relied on the women in his life greatly. His second wife, many years younger than him, took daily dictation while he was bed-ridden and attended to his sickness, so that he might finish his History of the Reformation in Scotland book.
Influence of 21st century literary criticism – Writers in the 16th century were not politically correct by today’s standards. It has become almost a cottage industry among academics to read the worst possible interpretation into a celebrated author, from William Shakespeare to Laura Ingalls Wilder, to discredit their ideology along the lines of 21st century literary criticism. Knox had obviously never encountered the thought police touting Marxist, Freudian, feminist and Jungian theories of criticism.
So while Rowntree takes some pains to distance herself from the errors of modern feminism, the words of Hamlet might be apt here, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” While decrying feminism, she also promotes a gross misunderstanding of the facts and swallows the feminist view of John Knox as a misogynist and a fool.
Let the word of God rebuke the foolish ravings of John Knox. – S.R.
The article makes Knox’s tract to be all about women’s roles in society and their value in God’s eyes rather than the narrowly pointed intent of Knox’s purpose toward defending England and Scotland against persecution and idolatry.
Influence of Marxist historical revisionism – “Historical revisionism” has become a blanket term used by conservatives to oppose all liberal interpretations of history. In fact, all interpretations of history are “revisionist.” What else would they be? But specifically, the Marxist view of history sets up a conflict between the economic classes called the political struggle. Then it attempts to create social tension between the two groups. They believe eventually that this will result in the triumph of the communist state over the capitalist state.
At this point, you might be thinking, “Wait a minute! Aren’t you going too far? Are you really calling these young women communists?”
No in fact, I am not.
Western Christians never cottoned much to political Marxist theory mainly because it preached atheistic materialism. Since Western Christians, and especially Americans, are driven by the Protestant work ethic and have seen good fruit result, it is difficult to convince a prosperous Christian that class warfare is impoverishing the nations. Such guilt manipulation over “the rich getting richer” just doesn’t work with us.
Instead Marxists since the 1960s have tried a new tack, that of cultural Marxism. Instead of decrying a supposed economic injustice inherent in the oppressive capitalist system, the cultural Marxist cites examples of injustice toward racial minorities, women, and now sexual preference. The tactic is to attack examples of imagined wrongs committed against the oppressed, in this case women, and castigate anyone who is associated with the person or institution that committed such offenses. Finally, the call for total equality in all areas of life is the common-sense conclusion for anyone who rejects the oppression of women.
It should go without saying that anyone who can rule a home wisely and well is equally capable of ruling herself wisely and well, or a business, or a school, or a church, or a state, for that matter. – S.R.
So the agenda from the outset is to call for men to repent of not thinking women are able to be church elders and heads of state. This is really the central argument, though it is buried in a middle paragraph, with Ecclesiastes 4:13 used as a doctrinal proof text. In other words, women are equal to men, therefore they should be able to rule in the church and the state. My response is that if the agenda is to call for women leaders and heads of state as biblically permissible, then the Bible ought to be used to argue that. To use the tactics of cultural Marxism to shame those who disagree on the basis long held biblical doctrine is not only dishonest, but ironic to the extreme. Seasoned Christian teachers are being called to repent of recommending a historic literary work that was written to oppose two oppressive, murderous regimes.
My hope is that Reformed thinkers will understand the monumental importance of John Knox’s social and political philosophy. My prayer is that readers of American Vision will not be cajoled or intimidated into accepting the thesis of this article. It should be viewed instead as a flimsily supported, transparent farce.
The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women - Part 2
The hero of the Scotch Reformation, though four years older than Calvin, sat humbly at his feet and became more Calvinistic than Calvin. John Knox spent the five years of his exile (1554-1559), during the reign of Bloody Mary, mostly at Geneva, and found there “the most perfect school of Christ that ever was since the days of the Apostles.” After that model he led the Scotch people, with dauntless courage and energy, from mediaeval semi-barbarism into the light of modern civilization, and acquired a name which, next to those of Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin, is the greatest in the history of the Protestant Reformation (Philip Schaff).
Part 2: What is The First Blast about?
Essentially, John Knox’s The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women is a polemic. It attacks female monarchs, arguing that civil rule by women is contrary to both nature and the Bible. A polemic is meant to stir controversy and get others to think through and argue an issue they would rather accommodate or sweep under the rug. There is a time for tactful wisdom and tender love when dealing with Christians who have erred. But there is also a time to attack aggressively, because it is the only course that is left when compassion and understanding have failed to curb abuse and error. Irenaeus, Tertullian and Martin Luther were just a few of the most notorious Christian polemicists in confronting heresy. This tactic is often misunderstood by today’s Christians.
Sections
The Preface – Knox begins in the very first sentence by calling Mary of Guise (pronounced “geese”) and Mary Tudor (known as “Bloody Mary” to Protestants) by the name of “Jezebel,” who had either murdered or driven the most Godly and zealous preachers from Scotland and England into exile, thus evoking Elijah’s plight (1 Kings 19). He then gives a litany of prophets and apostles of the Bible who did not shrink back from confronting both the sin of God’s people and the paganism of oppressor kings. He writes that God has ordained him as a watchman on the wall as he intends to speak out against a serious error even though he understood it to be “difficult and dangerous.”
Indeed, under the reigns of the Marys, hundreds of Knox’s Protestant friends, including women and children, had been burned at the stake as heretics. He ends the preface by saying he intends to write three times, twice anonymously, and the third time to take the blame and bring the wrath of the civil authorities on himself alone.
The First Blast: To Awake Women Degenerate – Knox then spends no more than one page arguing from “nature,” meaning that not only does God’s Word forbid women rulers, but nature itself speaks against it, as seen in the writings of the Greeks and Romans. He quotes a few short snippets from Aristotle and Roman law books. It is important to note (as I’ll explain in part 3) that Knox quotes a few short selections from pagan authors. He says that to argue from nature is “not the most sure foundation,” but “that men illuminated only by the light of nature have seen and have determined that it is a thing most repugnant to nature that women rule and govern over men.” Then for the rest of the tract, he argues exclusively from “revealed will and perfect ordinance of God,” that is, the Word of God.
In Knox’s biblical argument, he cites the commonly used scriptures that show women should not rule over men (1 Corinthians 11; Genesis 3; 1 Timothy 2; 1 Corinthians 14). About one-third of the way through this section, he begins to cite the arguments of the Church Fathers – Tertullian, Augustine, Ambrose, John Chrysostom – along a similar vein. The effect is to strengthen the interpretation of the same scriptures he has just used in his argument. He concludes this part by saying, “I depend not upon the determinations of men, so think I my cause no weaker, albeit their authority be denied unto me; provided that God by his will revealed, and manifest word, stand plain and evident on my side.” So here again, he emphasizes the authority of the Word of God as supreme, not the traditions of men.
About halfway through the pamphlet in the space of about three pages, Knox begins to turn his attention to the reason why this “subversion of God’s order” has occurred in his day. First, he notes that rather than continue the Reformation, England chose to install a queen who reinstated Roman Catholicism. To Knox, this was nothing less than the judgment of God on a nation who had rejected Christ as king. “And yet can they not consider, that where a woman reigneth and Papists bear authority, that, there must needs Satan the president of the council.” The result was the imprisonment and bloodshed of many faithful saints who died for the testimony of Jesus. He then cites Deuteronomy 17, which gives the qualifications for a Godly king. Knox notes that the description excludes foreigners and women.
Knox says that in his Second Blast of the Trumpet, which he never published, he will deal with the problem of “strangers” or “foreign kings.” For now, he proceeds with the qualifications for civil magistrates. Joshua 1 and Deuteronomy 17 command the king or the chief magistrate (the executive office) to know and meditate on the Law of God day and night. Like all Calvinists of his day, Knox believed that although the ceremonial law need not be observed, the king was bound to observe the moral law. He also points to the historical custom of Israel and Judah, that when the kingly line of strict succession failed, they never saw fit to appoint female rulers. He makes several references to “Jezabel” (Jezebel) here as a woman who not only usurped men, but God himself.
Four Objections Answered – Knox then concludes the last third of his tract, or about 12 pages, with a point-by-point answer to three common objections heard in his day about making exceptions for women rulers: first, the example of the woman judge, Deborah, and the counselor to David, Huldah; second, the law made by Moses for the daughters of Zelophehad; third, the kingdoms of continental Europe since about the 1300s had approved numerous women among their ruling monarchs; fourth, the long established custom had given examples of some “good” queens and the official approval of Roman Catholic canon law.
Knox begins by answering that the descriptive passages of the Bible, that is the historical accounts, do not imply prescriptive laws of God. He considers the prohibition of women monarchs to be no less binding than the law that kings may not take more than one wife. The practice of the Israelites doesn’t imply God’s approval. In the case of Deborah, he notes she was a judge sitting in the gates of the city, but not a military judge. That is, she did not assume the authority to bear the sword. Knox considers her ability to rule as a judge to be the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Deborah and Huldah spoke prophecy over Israel. It was not illegitimate, but he sees it as an act of God’s sovereignty to make this choice and not in the purview of men to set women in power as monarchs.
The answer concerning Deborah dispels the misperception that Knox was speaking of women other than the ungodly queens of his day who persecuted God’s Church and usurped the authority of Godly men. Knox challenges those who would defend “our mischievous Marys” to give an example of how they ever showed mercy to the people from God or delivered them from tyranny and idolatry. His concern was not so much women rulers who were like Deborah, but those who were then ruling England and Scotland who were just like Jezebel.
The daughters of Zelophehad brought a case before Moses concerning inheritance rights.
The daughters of Zelophehad is a reference to Numbers 27, in which five sisters – Mahlah, Noa, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah – as they prepared to enter the Promised Land, raised the case of a woman’s right and obligation to inherit property in the absence of a male heir in the family. Apparently, Knox’s opponents thought this was a law that supported allowing the reign of monarchs to pass through a female when direct male heirs were non-existent. Knox shows that the law actually commanded that the women marry within their own tribe. This would preclude the practice of Mary of Guise and Mary Stuart who married foreign Roman Catholic kings from France and Spain. Thus the law actually fights against the case for justifying these two queens as reigning monarchs.
Knox concludes his answer to objections by saying that any custom, good example or Roman Catholic law accepting of women rulers ought to be refuted by the Word of God itself. This is important because, although Knox begins with some short examples of how women rulers are “repugnant to nature,” he proceeds on the basis of Scripture and concludes by saying that nothing can prevail against God and His Word.
Call to Action – Knox lays the blame for the current persecution at the feet of England, whose Christians refused to complete the reformation of their national church. By refusing to put off the cause of the idolatry and persecution sweeping through both nations, they had brought God’s curse upon themselves. Here he uses his strongest condemnation for Queen Mary Tudor of England, whom he calls “cursed Jezabel of England” and “that horrible monster Jezabel of England.” Knox does not mince words and calls out cowardice in the cause of overthrowing tyranny. He ends the tract as he began – arrayed in a prophetic mantle predicting that the fire of God’s Word would soon consume these tyrants.
But the fire of God’s word is already laid to those rotten props (I include the Pope’s law with the rest) and presently they burn, albeit we espy not the flame. When they are consumed (as shortly they will be, for stubble and dry timber cannot long endure the fire) that rotten wall, the usurped and unjust empire of women, shall fall by itself in despite of all men, to the destruction of so many as shall labor to uphold it. And therefore let all men be advertised, for THE TRUMPET HATH ONCE BLOWN.
Why was it controversial?
Knox laid the foundation for Christians to resist wicked rulers. The controversy among the Reformed leaders of his day was not whether woman should not rule over men. The common position among the Reformed was that they should not, but some allowed for the various exceptions that Knox addresses. The position that troubled Calvin in Geneva, some Lutherans in Germany, and a short time later, Queen Elizabeth and her bishops in the Church of England, was that Knox was calling on the Christian population of England and Scotland to overthrow a monarch.
Although it looks like The First Blast was hastily written and published after Knox’s second flight from the British Isles, the idea had long been simmering in his mind. When Knox first came to Geneva in 1554, he had already been arrested and set to hard labor, which had almost killed him. He had witnessed hundreds of Protestants unjustly executed by the tyrant Jezebel queens of England and Scotland.
Knox arrived at Calvin’s school with numerous questions about Calvin’s “Lesser Magistrate Doctrine,” which had been developed in his Institutes of the Christian Religion and was prominent in the Lutheran Magdeburg Confession of 1550. These were bold, new proposals that spoke of the right and duty of the people to oppose a tyrant, but had never been carried out. Calvin had just finished with the Michael Servetus affair in 1553. Much of the city was controlled by Calvin’s supporters, but a political group labeled the “Libertines” responded with an attempted coup against the government. This was the last great political challenge Calvin had to face in Geneva. Further, Geneva was a “city-state.” It is easy to see why Calvin might have been remiss in satisfying Knox’s insistence that the Institute’s theory of civil resistance could apply to all of England and Scotland.
A few months later, Knox returned secretly to Scotland to preach and also married his first wife, Marjory Bowes. He was soon condemned for preaching heresy and had to return to Geneva the following year. At this time, Knox wrote The First Blast and published it anonymously by 1558. Although Calvin agreed with Knox that a female monarch was a punishment from God for the sins of mankind, he fell short of recommending civil resistance and rebellion. Knox intended to publish The Second Blast that would outline the conditions for resistance to civil tyranny more fully, but then Mary Tudor the Queen of England died. Knox was able to return to Scotland and continue his teaching more directly, but Queen Elizabeth I did not allow him to pass through England. She is said to have been infuriated by Knox’s tract, but it is arguable that the call to insurrection was far more troubling to her than his view on woman monarchs.
Common misperceptions
The greatest misperception of Knox was that he hated women. It is important to remember the historical context. This was the writing of a man facing persecution similar to that of the early Christians under the Romans. It cannot be overstated that while Knox hoped and prayed for the overthrow of tyrant queens, he was patient and gentle with women, including later Mary Queen of Scots herself, and worked for his enemies’ conversion. His married life and personal behavior with respect to women is also evidence that he was not writing to belittle or lower the status of women in relation to men in general or in the Christian family.
Two other misperceptions are that several of his Protestant friends, including Calvin himself, rebuked him for writing such an “anti-woman” screed, and that Knox actually retracted The First Blast soon after Elizabeth I came to the throne.
Why is The First Blast important?
Back then – In nations influenced by the Presbyterians and Puritans, the Reformation led to a robust Christian social theory and brought the greatest political freedom the world has ever known. It was the beginning of the death of the concept known as the “Divine Right of Kings.” Knox successfully proved that when a monarch became a tyrant and continually opposed God’s Law, the people were required to overthrow him. His reasoning was that both the monarch and the people were in covenant with God. When the king opposed the spread of the Gospel, it was the duty of the Christian population to restore the nation to covenant keeping.
Andrew Melville upbraiding one of the king’s bishops
The question also arose at that time as to whether the king was both the head of the church and the civil government. Andrew Melville, who was Knox’s contemporary, continued the work of establishing Presbyterianism as the mode of church government. James VI Stuart, King of Scotland and later England, insisted that the king be supreme in all matters of church and civil government. Melville insisted that Christ was the only head of the Church.
Melville himself set forth the principle in words that have become famous. Melville was chosen as a leader of a delegation to bring to the protest of the Synod of Fife against royal encroachments on the Church of Scotland’s autonomy. James was not impressed. After the king had expressed his displeasure, Melville opposed the king to his face.
Sirrah, ye are God’s silly vassal; there are two kings and two kingdoms in Scotland: there is king James, the head of the commonwealth; and there is Christ Jesus, the king of the Church, whose subject James VI is, and of whose kingdom he is not a king, not a lord, not a head, but a member.
In the early 1600s, Lex, Rex, a highly influential book written by the Scottish Presbyterian minister, Samuel Rutherford, advocated limited government, constitutionalism in politics, and distinct realms of church and civil governments, but opposed religious toleration. This idea led to the English Civil War in the time of Oliver Cromwell and finally to the Glorious Revolution in 1688 when a constitutional monarchy was finally established.
Lex, Rex is also profound play on words. Prior to Rutherford, the supporters of King Charles I had maintained that “the king is the law” or Rex, Lex. Rutherford maintained that “the Law is king” or Lex, Rex. The Law that Rutherford had in mind was God’s Law. Therefore Christ, not man, is king. We are to be ruled by a system of civil government under God’s Law, not man. This is a uniquely Christian concept derived from a covenantal interpretation of the Bible.
Today – Let’s be clear about one historical fact. The United States of America was not merely founded a “Christian nation,” but the American Revolution of 1775 was birthed out of the Knoxian and Cromwellian revolutions of the 1500s and 1600s in Scotland and England. The founding of America had more to do with the Presbyterian and Puritan movements than any other influence. John Knox and Oliver Cromwell were America’s founding fathers. It would do us good to examine both the character of the men who led these movements and the doctrines they preached and fought for.
In conclusion, it is important not to misinterpret Knox’s First Blast work as an attack on women in isolation of its political purpose. We cannot read it through the tinge of a 21st century feminist or postmodernist lens. We should not shy back from its sharp language for fear of being politically incorrect. On the contrary, understanding the background and character of John Knox, as well as the full historical context and impact of The First Blast, is vitally important to the course of Christian social and political reformation today.
The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women - Part 1
In this series, I will examine the ways that some people have misread Knox’s most well-known and controversial work by framing it in terms of postmodernist sentimentality and feminism. If you are already well up to speed on John Knox, the history of the Scottish Reformation and have read his First Blast, you might want to read on ahead to part 3, in which I critique the recent American Vision article.
Part 1: Background and Timeline
If you have read any one thing of John Knox, it is likely The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women. At about 40-pages, it is lively, readable and continues to be as controversial as it was when it was first published in 1558. This polemical pamphlet was not an attack on all women, but aimed specifically at the “monstrous” or “unnatural” regimes of Mary Tudor in England, with sideswipes at Mary of Guise in Scotland, and her young daughter, Mary Queen of Scots, who was being groomed in France to take the throne.
Knox was not a misogynist who believed that women were inferior to men. Rather he was dismayed at the unprecedented appearance of two Roman Catholic ruling queens in Scotland and England, both of whom were hostile to the Protestant movement. To Knox, this was evidence of the judgment of God on the two nations. Most Reformed theologians of his day agreed with him, although few were as strident as the fiery Scotsman. His purpose in using loaded words to vilify these “Jezebels” was political as well as theological. He not only wanted to depose the “three Marys,” but execute them as tyrants if they did not repent. His widely distributed prophetic tract was dangerous because it amounted to treason.
A recent biography of John Knox by University of Edinburgh professor Jane Dawson offers a much different portrayal of the Reformer acting in a tender and respectful way toward women. On one hand he’s defiant and incendiary toward his enemies, but on the other hand, hopeful for their salvation, as one reviewer described beautifully.
Scotland has a problem with John Knox. His is a contested legacy, with part of the country seeing in him an intransigent killjoy and bullying misogynist, whose ideas ground the dour into Scotland’s soul…. Very few people nowadays read Knox’s prose – and most will know only the notorious First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women – but his History of the Reformation ushered in a new kind of historical writing: personal, indignant, sometimes sarcastic, utterly committed…. [T]he major elements in Knox’s life – his conversion from Catholic priest and canon to Protestant reformer under the influence of George Wishart; his enslavement on a French galley; his dealings with Calvin in Geneva; his return to Scotland; and his clashes with Mary Tudor, Mary Guise and Mary Queen of Scots – enabled the Reformation.
Knox’s experience in Geneva led to a double focus in the Reformation. It has to do with one’s own spiritual struggles and beliefs, but it needed to be grounded in political actuality…. [O]ne of the paradoxes of Knox’s career is the establishment of a national church out of “resistance groups,” which thought of themselves as a beleaguered remnant…. Although the stereotype of Knox is of an inflexible individual whose self-confidence sheers into self-righteousness, new sources reveal a far more conflicted man, often uncertain of his calling and prone to depression. His reliance on his wives, his “Edinburgh sisters” and particularly the friendship of Christopher Goodman has perhaps been underplayed in previous biographies. That Knox evidently struggled makes him more heroic rather than less (Book Review of John Knox by Jane Dawson).
Who was John Knox?
There are numerous good resources that more fully describe the life and work of Knox in Scotland. Rather than compile a lengthy biography here, I have put together a few quick primers in articles and videos I have produced.
Models for Reformation: John Knox
Models for Reformation: Covenantal Lawsuits – Church of Scotland
The following video clip from Ron Avil explains Knox’s importance as a Scottish “Founding Father” of the United States of America.
The United States of America 2.0: The Great Reset is a short booklet that shows how civil resistance to tyranny has a long tradition in Reformed theology – from Calvin, Knox, Cromwell, the Puritans to the time of the American Revolution. Understanding this model is of vital importance today since our Founders designed our Constitution to be an instrument of frequent peaceful revolution and defiance to federal tyranny.
The United States of America 2.0: The Great Reset (Book)
High Quality Paperback — 40 pages of dynamite!
Revival, Resistance, Reformation, Revolution
An Introduction to the Doctrines of Interposition and Nullification
In 1776, a short time after the Declaration of Independence was adopted, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin were assigned to design an official seal for the United States of America. Their proposed motto was Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God. America owes its existence to centuries of Christian political philosophy. Our nation provided a model for liberty copied by nations the world over.
By the 21st century, we need a “Puritan Storm” to sweep away the Hegelian notion that the state is “God walking on earth.” We need revival and reformation in full force to vanquish the problems that plague us as a nation — from government controlled healthcare — to abortion on demand — to same sex “marriage.” This booklet gives a primer on our founders’ Christian idea of government and examines how the doctrine of nullification was woven into the Constitution as a safeguard against federal tyranny. It concludes with the history and theology of civil resistance. A Second American Revolution is coming with the Word of God growing mightily and prevailing! (Acts 19:20).
$7.95 — ORDER NOW!
(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)Click here for more information
I also recommend a video teaching series about John Knox by Bruce Gore.
Scotland’s Forgotten History is a more lengthy treatment of the results of the Scottish Reformation. This is an important documentary because it highlights the fact that the work accomplished by John Knox led to one of the greatest spiritual awakenings in history that paralleled the Puritan movement almost a century later.
Iain Murray’s book, The Puritan Hope, uses quotes from numerous source documents to show that hardly a family in Scotland was not affected by conversions to Christ during this later revival in the 1600s.
John Knox by Jane Dawson is a recent work of scholarship that has been called the definitive biography of John Knox. She makes use of unpublished manuscripts to paint a much different picture of the Reformer than the popular caricature.
As the Father of the Scottish Reformation, he is notorious for being the author of The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women. In this new biography, Jane Dawson sets out, not so much to overturn this impression of Knox, but to show that there was more to him than this. She tells us that new material has recently been uncovered amongst the papers of Christopher Goodman, a fellow Reformed preacher and long-term friend of Knox. This material, she suggests, throws a different light on his personality, while changing some of the facts known about his life (Amazon Book Review).
Thus the popular impression of Knox is colored by misperceptions, as are our own American Puritans and even the great Jonathan Edwards, who is more remembered for his “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” sermon, than for his writings on the Great Awakening, Freedom of the Will and his missionary work among Native Americans. But if you have a heart for revival and spiritual awakening in your nation, you will be greatly inspired by John Knox the more you learn about him.
The Scottish Reformation – Historical background
The best way to summarize the Scottish Reformation is to begin with a timeline of Knox’s life, which I have compiled from various sources, including Christian History Magazine and Dr. Marcus Serven.
John Knox Timeline
- EARLY YEARS
- c. 1505 – Date of birth in Haddington is uncertain; the traditional date is 1505; most modern historians have 1514
- 1536 – Knox graduates from University of St. Andrews and is ordained a priest; John Calvin publishes the first edition of Institutes of the Christian Religion
- 1540 – Knox becomes a notary (minor legal official) and a tutor
- 1542 – Mary Queen of Scots is born and becomes Queen of Scotland when James V of Scotland dies; she spends most of her life in France while Scotland is ruled by regents, including later her French Catholic mother, Mary of Guise
- 1543 – Knox is converted to Protestantism
- 1545 – Knox becomes associate and bodyguard to George Wishart
- 1546 – Wishart martyred; Cardinal Beaton murdered; Protestants at St. Andrew’s Castle put under siege
- 1547 – Knox flees to St. Andrew’s Castle; preaches his first Protestant sermon; the Castle falls; imprisoned as galley slave in France for 19 months
- INTERLUDE IN ENGLAND
- 1549 – Knox begins pastoring in Berwick, England; establishes his popular preaching reputation in Protestant England and as a royal chaplain during the reign of the child king, Edward VI; Protestantism becomes established in England
- 1550 – Knox meets Mrs. Elizabeth Bowes and her daughter Marjory
- 1552 – Knox moves to London; disputes practice of kneeling at Communion; refuses to become bishop of Rochester
- 1553 – Knox forced into hiding when Catholic Mary Tudor becomes Queen of England and begins her bloody persecution of Protestants
- EXILE IN EUROPE
- 1554 – Knox flees to France, and then Calvin’s Geneva; then to Zwingli and Bullinger in Zurich; pastors an English congregation in Frankfurt; the Catholic Mary of Guise becomes queen regent of Scotland
- 1555 – Dispute over the liturgy forces Knox to Geneva; pastors an English congregation there; returns to Scotland secretly; weds Marjory Bowes and does missionary work
- 1556 – Knox condemned for heresy in Scotland; returns to Geneva with wife and mother-in-law
- 1558 – Knox writes The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, advocating rebellion against ungodly rulers; Mary Tudor dies and Elizabeth I becomes English queen and solidifies Protestantism there; in Geneva, Knox begins to work out his theory of a “godly revolution” and the resistance of tyrants through Calvin’s doctrine of the Interposition of Lesser Magistrates; helps to translate the Geneva Bible
John Knox arrives in Geneva
- LATER YEARS IN SCOTLAND
- 1559 – Knox returns to Scotland; preaches sermon condemning “idolatry”; it leads to a rebellion
- 1560 – Mary of Guise dies; Reformation Parliament adopts Protestant “Scots Confession”; Knox’s wife Marjory dies
- 1561 – Catholic Mary Queen of Scots returns to Scotland; Knox helps write First Book of Discipline; Knox ministers at St. Giles’s in Edinburgh; first interview with Mary Queen of Scots
- 1564 – Marries Margaret Stewart
- 1565 – In July, Mary Queen of Scots weds Lord Darnley; confers on him the title of “King Henry”
- 1566 – James VI (the future king of England and Scotland) is born to Mary Queen of Scots and Lord Darnley
- 1567 – In February, the Earl of Bothwell murders Lord Darnley (King Henry); on May 15th, Mary Queen of Scots weds the Earl of Bothwell to public outrage; in August, Mary Queen of Scots is deposed by the Scots General Assembly
- 1568 – Mary, now the deposed Queen, escapes her captivity by fleeing to Elizabeth I in England expecting her cousin to help her regain her throne; a long series of intrigues ensues ending with Mary being convicted of treason against Elizabeth and executed in 1587
- 1570 – Civil War breaks out in Scotland; a bullet is fired through Knox’s dining room window
- THE END: ST. ANDREWS AND EDINBURGH
- 1571 – In July, Knox moves to St. Andrews due to the Civil War that has broken out; Knox finishes compiling material for his History of the Reformation in Scotland
- 1572 – In August, Knox returns to Edinburgh and resumes preaching at St. Giles; on November 24th after hearing his wife Margaret read aloud John 17, “Where I cast my first anchor,” John Knox dies in his bed at Edinburgh
Knox’s Role in History
Knox preaching at St. Andrews
John Knox’s role in the history of Scotland, let alone his influence on the English and American Puritan movements, was monumental. In fact, Knox ought to be considered one of America’s founding fathers. He was the fourth most important among the magisterial Reformers after Luther, Calvin and Zwingli. Though he was Calvin’s student, it has been argued the Knox himself was more consistently covenantal than his teacher. Though he was by no means perfect, he altered the course of history for the better.
The Personhood Doctrine of Nullification and Resistance to Federal Tyranny
This is a follow-up to the article I wrote last year, Personhood Florida and Abortion Abolition. In the article, I explained that Personhood seeks to ignore Roe v. Wade — not reverse it; Personhood stands for the doctrine of nullification; the very term “Personhood” represents the imago Dei; the biblical “right to life” is God-given; and (despite the best efforts to end abortion through political tactics) there is no such thing as a “magic bullet.”
That article is an application of a series of articles that are contained in the short book I wrote called, The United States of America 2.0 – The Great Reset. You can read the chapters at the Related Articles links.
The following article is by the director of Personhood Alliance’s Alaska affiliate, Christopher Kurka, who develops this idea more. I pray that it is the beginning of an awakening in the pro-life movement. Roe is not law and the states under the U.S. Constitution have both the right and the responsibility to defy federal tyranny.
THE MYTH OF JUDICIAL SUPREMACY AND THE NULLIFICATION OF FEDERAL TYRANNY
By Christopher Kurka, Executive Director, Alaska Right to Life
“And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32).
The Narnian Dwarfs, forever to think that they are stuck in a stable.
In C.S. Lewis’s The Last Battle (the final book in the Chronicles of Narnia series) there is a scene that perfectly illustrates the enslaving nature and power that a lie has over those who believe it. At the conclusion of Narnia’s last battle, Eustace, Jill, King Tirian, and the rest of the surviving Narnians are thrown into a stable by the invading Calormene army. Unbeknownst to all involved, the doorway into the stable is in fact a portal into Aslan’s great country. Almost immediately upon entering the stable, the weary and bedraggled soldiers know they are in an extraordinary place. Aslan’s country is magnificent in every way, from the breathtaking scenery to the smells and tastes of its bountiful food. It is a refreshing, exhilarating, and invigorating place. Yet, while some of the Narnians rejoice in their newfound home, the Dwarfs are held captive in a prison of their minds. They scoff at the Narnians’ excitement. They spit Aslan’s delicacies out of their mouths, believing that they are in a stable munching straw like the imaginary animals around them. When Aslan, in all his glorious presence, comes near, the Dwarfs refuse to recognize him for who he is. They explain that the trembling earth is but a machine used by “the gang at the other end of the stable.”
Amidst a feast of delicious food and fine wine, the Dwarfs continually scoff, held captive by the surroundings they believe they are in. The reality they could experience is more than they can comprehend, so they choose to remain in the prison of their own minds. “The Dwarfs are for the Dwarfs!” they stubbornly declare, as they despise the very truth that would set them free.
THE DECEIT THAT CHAINS US DOWN
In John 8:32, Jesus says, “and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” This begs the question: If the truth sets us free, then what happens when we believe a lie? Just like the self-absorbed Dwarfs, we are held captive. Satan holds us captive and enslaves us simply by convincing us to believe his lies. This is his primary means of keeping Christians ineffective at following the will of God and advancing His kingdom on Earth. This is a profound truth that applies to all aspects of our Christian walk, but this chapter focuses on a particularly insidious deceit that keeps the pro-life movement captive, misdirected, ineffective, and demoralized.
ROE V. WADE: THE LAW OF THE LAND?
The lie goes like this: In order to end legal abortion, we must elect a Republican president and a Republican majority in the US Senate. Then, over time, we can appoint “pro-life” justices to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), who will someday overturn Roe v. Wade — the infamous decision that legalized abortion in 1973.
Let us divide this lie into two beliefs that underlie it.
First is the premise that Republican judicial appointments will be pro-life and thus, will vote to overturn Roe. Yet, time and time again, the pro-life community pours out blood, sweat, and tears to get Republicans elected, only to be disappointed. While a Democrat regime is far less likely to appoint pro-life justices, there is no guarantee that a Republican regime will. The fact is: Six of nine justices on the court that decided Roe (7-2) were Republican appointees and since Roe, 10 of the 14 new justices on the court are Republican appointees.
Second is the premise that SCOTUS is the final arbiter of the Constitution and therefore, we must obey its will. This is one of the most pernicious lies about our republican form of government. If we take this belief to its logical conclusion, SCOTUS has total control and power. Congress and the President—indeed, all laws and decisions—must meet SCOTUS’s approval. There is nothing beyond its reach. We see this often in the reactions of pro-life organizations’ legal counsel. Even when faced with the most outrageous SCOTUS decisions, counsels say we must fall in line like good Americans, advocating for the rule of law. This is much like the Narnian Dwarfs, except it is “the Lawyers are for the Lawyers!”
In the initial phase of the modern pro-life movement, there were efforts to pass a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution. The movement has largely abandoned this strategy, due to ongoing disagreements over whether to include exceptions. It would be prudent to amend the Constitution to protect the preborn, but not because we need an amendment to overrule SCOTUS. A constitutional amendment would provide preborn children equal protection under the law in all states and would be extremely difficult to reverse. However, under our current jurisprudence, even a constitutional amendment would be under threat from a SCOTUS opinion. If SCOTUS is the sole and final interpreter of the Constitution, then what would stop the court from reinterpreting any amendment to fit its political agenda?
Here in Alaska this is not just theory. In 1998, Alaskans approved an amendment to the state constitution that recognized marriage between one man and one woman. However, in 2005, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the public employee benefits provided for married couples must be provided for same-sex couples because they were equal to married couples. This decision essentially thwarted the marriage amendment, and several subsequent decisions broadened the effect.
When discussing the problem of our over-powerful judiciary, I often hear that the framers of our Constitution greatly erred when they created the parameters for the judiciary. But what does this say about our view of the founding fathers and their “brilliant system of checks and balances” as so many call it? Certainly, the founders were sinful human beings and prone, like any, to make mistakes. But do we honestly believe that they gave a few unelected attorneys carte blanche power over our country? I think not. Where, then, did this dangerous idea of judicial supremacy emerge?
MARBURY V. MADISON: THE REACH FOR POWER
It started with the Marbury v. Madison decision in 1803, in which SCOTUS declared themselves the right to judicial review. This declaration meant that SCOTUS had power to review any action or inaction the President or Congress took, deem it in violation of the Constitution, and render it null and void. Let us pause for a moment to consider the incredible arrogance of such a declaration. This is akin to the banker in a Monopoly® game declaring, “Hey guys, new rule. Since I am running the bank, I get to use the bank’s cash to help me win.” We certainly do not tolerate such attempts at self-appointed power in Monopoly. Why do we tolerate it in the halls of government? Thomas Jefferson’s response to the Marbury decision was prophetic and instructive:
You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps… Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
This brings us to the heart of the matter. The reason the judiciary has usurped so much power is because the executive and legislative branches have acquiesced to the demands of a runaway court. It is often easier for politicians to patronize pro-life voters than to do what is necessary and risk the wrath of the abortion lobby. But how far will they take their blind obedience to court opinion?
Suppose SCOTUS ruled that women are non-persons and can be bought, sold, and treated as property? What would the remedy be for such an injustice? Congress could impeach the offending justices, but that would not undo the ruling. Impeachment, appointment of new justices, and Senate confirmation of those justices would take time. The ruling would stand while the process was underway. In the meantime, would state governors, sheriffs, and police officers enforce it? Of course not. Yet our modern American jurisprudence dictates that the executive branch is duty bound to enforce such a miscarriage of justice, simply because it is the opinion of SCOTUS. Such an outrageous decision is not mere theory. SCOTUS has a record of insidious opinions.
DRED SCOTT V. SANDFORD: THE POWER TO DENY RIGHTS
SCOTUS’ infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision in 1857 denied Americans of African descent their rights, creating a second class of human beings in the eyes of the law. The decision has never been overturned by the court. Dred Scott was just the beginning. Many other notorious SCOTUS decisions denied constitutionally protected rights to certain people.
Buck v. Bell (1927)
In the court’s eugenic Buck v. Bell decision, it sanctioned the forced sterilization of institutionalized people who were deemed “imbeciles,” in order to protect the social welfare of the State. Buck v. Bell tested Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924, a sterilization law built on a model developed by Harry Laughlin, a leader in the American Eugenics Movement.
Dr. Albert Sidney Priddy initiated the case when he petitioned to forcibly sterilize Carrie Buck, an 18-year-old patient at the Virginia State Colony of Epileptics and Feeble Minded. Dr. Priddy claimed Carrie had a mental age of nine and therefore, posed a genetic threat to society. According to him, Buck’s 52-year-old mother had a mental age of eight and a record of prostitution, having had three children without good knowledge of their parentage. Carrie, one of these children, had been adopted. Carrie was promiscuous, according to Dr. Priddy, evidenced by her giving birth to an illegitimate child. Carrie’s family committed her to Dr. Priddy’s institution because she was allegedly “epileptic, feeble-minded, and morally delinquent.” In reality, Carrie’s child had been conceived as a result of rape by her adopted mother’s nephew, and her family had sent her to the institution to cover up the crime.
Echoing with Justice Holmes’ declaration that “three generations of imbeciles are enough,” the court’s decision opened the flood gates for other states to enact their own eugenic laws. Many of these laws were used against the Black population, particularly in the South in the 1950s, where forced sterilizations were initiated to control the population of welfare recipients, who were predominantly Black. Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act also became the model for Adolf Hitler’s Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring. During the Nuremberg trials, Nazi doctors explicitly cited Justice Holmes’ opinion in Buck v. Bell as a defense for forced sterilizations.
It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.
It is important to note that, like Dred Scott, the Buck v. Bell decision was never overturned by the court.
Korematsu v. United States (1944)
The internment of Japanese Americans during World War II is another black mark on American history. In Korematsu v. United States, SCOTUS permitted the federal government to strip the rights of Fred Korematsu, a natural-born American citizen, simply because of his Japanese ancestry. This decision was in direct violation of due process in the 5th Amendment. The Korematsu decision was also never overturned. Like the Buck v. Bell and Dred Scott decisions, Korematsu is standing case law. But these cases are ignored and not enforced because they are some of the most embarrassing, malevolent decisions in the court’s repertoire of egregious injustices.
Of course, the most egregious SCOTUS decision in modern history by virtue of direct consequence is Roe v. Wade. This decision has ushered in the genocide of nearly 60 million preborn Americans. Yet the political class tells us that, “Roe v. Wade is the law of the land.” But history begs the question: Why should we treat Roe any differently than Dred Scott, Buck, or Korematsu? If other deplorable SCOTUS decisions can be ignored, why not something as horrific as Roe?
SEPARATION OF POWERS AND A CHECK ON JUDICIAL TYRANNY
Most of us are familiar with American system of checks and balances put in place to prevent any one branch of government from taking control. The President cannot seize complete power because Congress has the law-making authority and holds the purse strings. Congress cannot assume total authority because the President controls the administration and has enforcement power. But what of the judicial branch? What are the checks on the power of an out-of-control Supreme Court? Let us examine some of them.
First, let us look at court jurisdiction. The second clause in Article III, Section II of the Constitution reads:
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make [emphasis added].
In plain language, this means Congress can tell SCOTUS what kind of cases they can and cannot hear. If Republicans in Congress were serious, they could vote to remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the courts tomorrow, essentially nullifying Roe. Congress could pass a bill granting legal protection to the preborn with a clause that removes the bill from the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Of course, they would have to be serious about ending the killing of the preborn first. Congress has already exercised its power in this way. To prevent environmental lawsuits from blocking the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Project, Congress limited court jurisdiction in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act of 1973.
Let us look at what Alexander Hamilton penned in Federalist Paper 78 regarding the separation of powers:
Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments [emphasis added].
In Federalist Paper 81, Hamilton gives us guidance regarding actions the government can take when the courts overstep their limited authority:
It may in the last place be observed that the supposed danger of judiciary encroachments on the legislative authority, which has been upon many occasions reiterated, is in reality a phantom. Particular misconstructions and contraventions of the will of the legislature may now and then happen; but they can never be so extensive as to amount to an inconvenience, or in any sensible degree to affect the order of the political system. This may be inferred with certainty, from the general nature of the judicial power, from the objects to which it relates, from the manner in which it is exercised, from its comparative weakness, and from its total incapacity to support its usurpations by force. And the inference is greatly fortified by the consideration of the important constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments in one part of the legislative body, and of determining upon them in the other, would give to that body upon the members of the judicial department. This is alone a complete security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption, by degrading them from their stations. While this ought to remove all apprehensions on the subject, it affords, at the same time, a cogent argument for constituting the Senate a court for the trial of impeachments [emphasis added].
Hamilton twice references the most obvious check on a judiciary that usurps the law-making authority of Congress: The President can simply not enforce the court’s opinions. In fact, nothing in the Constitution requires a president, governor, or state or federal agency to enforce a SCOTUS opinion.
The President’s oath of office is to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” not “protect and defend the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.” If the President believes an action of SCOTUS or Congress violates the Constitution, he has a duty to not enforce it. Indeed, every officer or agent of federal, state, or local government—from the President all the way down to the local police officer — has a duty to defend the Constitution and protect the rights of the people in this way. When politicians refuse to stand in the way of evil and act in defense of the innocent within the power, scope, and duty of their office, they are, in fact (knowingly or not), colluding with the evil actions of the errant branch of government.
NULLIFICATION AND INTERPOSITION: A REMEDY TO TYRANNY
Here is where the principles of nullification and interposition become a remedy. The case for nullification of federal overreach by state governments is more thoroughly and scholarly laid out elsewhere, but here, I will simply give a brief description and a few prime examples.
In this context, nullification occurs when a state declares the edicts of the federal government (be they law or court opinion) to be null and void by virtue of their violation of the Constitution.
Interposition happens when an officer or agent of government places him or herself between an aggressor and their intended victim in order to stop an evil act from occurring. This can occur in the context of nullification, where state or local law enforcement would interpose between the people and federal agents attempting to enforce the unconstitutional edict in question. Interposition can also occur in the context of the Christian doctrine of the lesser magistrate or the related doctrine of subsidiarity (discussed later in this chapter). Let us look at some examples of nullification.
Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions
The most famous, often-cited examples of state nullification in our nation’s history are the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798. In 1798, President John Adams signed into law the Alien Act and the Sedition Act. The Sedition Act essentially made it a federal crime to criticize the President or federal government. In response, the Virginia and Kentucky legislatures passed resolutions declaring the acts “unconstitutional” and “altogether void, and of no force.” President Woodrow Wilson signed a second Sedition Act into law in 1918. , SCOTUS upheld the Sedition Act in Abrams v. United States, but Congress repealed the act in 1920.
Personal Liberty Laws
In response to the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850, numerous state legislatures in the North passed personal liberty laws. These laws served to thwart slave owners and federal agents in their attempts to recapture slaves that had escaped into northern states.
Firearms Freedom Act
With federal firearms regulations encroaching on the 2nd Amendment, particularly during the Obama administration, 11 states passed a Firearms Freedom Act, nullifying federal regulations. Between 2008 and 2014, more than three-quarters of U.S. states proposed nullification of federal firearms laws.
The State Sovereignty Movement
According to a National Conference of State Legislatures analysis, overreaching federal mandates are igniting a surge in state-level nullification efforts. For example, states have proposed and enacted measures to refuse to implement the Real ID Act and grant citizens opt-out rights for the Affordable Care Act. The uprising of this 10th Amendment-based movement is due largely to the Internet, which has given conservatives a voice to push back against the federal government and return important issues to the states. But nullification is not just a conservative strategy.
THE LEFT’S EMBRACE OF NULLIFICATION
The Left has demonstrated some of the most effective nullification efforts in their push for sanctuary cities, which, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, now number in the hundreds. Progressives have also nullified federal marijuana laws in 28 states through legislative measures or direct-ballot initiatives that directly violate the federal ban on medicinal and recreational marijuana use. And yet, no one seems to care. The discussion of proposed legislation always focuses on the efficacy of the proposed changes in state regulation, not on the violation of federal law.
RULE OF LAW
Some argue that we are a nation of laws, and as such, the rule of law must be preserved. In this argument, nullification equates to lawless anarchy, and the Civil War has already answered the question of states’ rights. I submit to you that any law that sanctions the execution of 60 million innocent Americans is no law at all! How can anarchy be a concern when the abortion holocaust that we preside over is the greatest genocide that humanity has ever perpetrated upon itself in the history of the world? Like the politicians and law enforcement of today, the Nazi war criminals at the Nuremburg trials claimed that they were “only following orders.” We did not tolerate this plea then, and we certainly should not tolerate it now.
THE DOCTRINES OF THE LESSER MAGISTRATE AND SUBSIDIARITY
The truth is that, even if Roe was “the law of the land” and nullification was not a legitimate option, our state and local civil governments still have a duty to interpose on behalf of the preborn. This is because we all answer to a higher authority. Scripture makes it clear that we are to obey the lawful authority placed over us, but when there is conflict with God’s commands, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” This declaration, as well as the duty to protect the innocent, are the foundation of the Christian doctrine of the lesser magistrate. Although this doctrine is thoroughly defined and assessed elsewhere, it can be simply defined as follows. When a higher government authority makes an unjust and/or immoral law or decree that violates God’s law, the lower ranking government authority has a right and duty to refuse to comply with the superior authority. The lesser authority even has the right and obligation to actively resist the superior authority and to interpose on behalf of the higher authorities’ intended victims. The doctrine often goes hand in hand with nullification and interposition. In many cases, this doctrine is easier to initiate at the local level, through a pro-life county sheriff or mayor.
One could also appeal to the doctrine of subsidiarity in defiance of a tyrant and in interposition for the oppressed. Pope Pius XI outlined subsidiarity in his encyclical, Quadragesimo Anno:
[I]t is an injustice and at the same time a grave civil evil and disturbance of right order, to transfer to the larger and higher collectivity functions which can be performed and provided for by lesser and subordinate bodies. Inasmuch as every social activity should, by its very nature, prove a help to members of the body social, it should never destroy or absorb them.
Subsidiarity is related to, but distinct from, the doctrine of the lesser magistrate, in that subsidiarity goes further. It holds that certain types of actions wrought by a higher political order upon a lower order may possibly be unjust (and thus, subject to disobedience by the lesser magistrate), but it also presumes that any interference with the internal life of a lower order must necessarily be unjust, unless certain exceptions are met (for example, support in the case of need or common good).
CONCLUSION
Scripture tells us we must be wary of the lies meant to hold us captive:
“See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ” (Colossians 2:18).
“Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them” (Ephesians 5:11).
It is in this spirit that I propose the following legal strategy to achieve equal protection for the preborn:
- Ignore the “lawyers that are for the lawyers.” Work with ethical attorneys that do not prostrate themselves in reverence before the Supreme Court.
- Enact meaningful Personhood legislation at the state level using the confrontational model provided in another chapter in this book: “Political Failure and the Path to Victory.”
- Get governors who, along with the backing of their legislatures, will enforce the Personhood legislation in defiance of the federal government.
- Work toward a federal constitutional amendment to protect the preborn in all states and prevent future pendulum swings that would likely decriminalize abortion.
Christopher Kurka has spent his life in Alaska, pouring his energies into political efforts in the state since a young teenager. He joined the board of Alaska Right to Life in 2006, serving as Vice President and Treasurer before becoming Executive Director in 2013. Christopher served on the board of the National Right to Life Committee for 4 years before leaving to pursue more principled means of ending abortion. He now sits on the board of National Personhood Alliance and is a member of the Foundation for Applied Conservative Leadership. Christopher’s passion is to establish justice for the preborn and see God’s people raised up to call the pro-life movement to a new standard. Christopher lives in Palmer, Alaska with his wife, Haylie, and their two sons, Justice and Samuel.
In the Days of These Kings (Book)
Perfect-bound Paperback — 740 pages
The Book of Daniel in Preterist Perspective
“And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever” (Daniel 2:44).
The overarching message of Daniel is that Jesus the Messiah is even now ruling over the nations. He is the King of kings. Daniel tells us that Messiah’s kingdom will advance in the whole world from “generation to generation” (Daniel 4:4,34). Christ’s dominion is “given to the people of the saints of the most High” (Daniel 7:22). Our purpose then is to see “all people, nations, and languages … serve and obey him” (Daniel 7:14,27).
This comprehensive work offers a fascinating look at the book of Daniel in preterist perspective. Great attention is paid to the writings of ancient and modern historians and scholars to connect the dots and demonstrate the continuity of Daniel’s prophecy with all of Scripture.
$19.95 — ORDER NOW!
(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)Click here for more information
Massacre of Innocence (DVD)
Exposing The Occult Roots of Abortion
This presentation looks at the spiritual roots of abortion and exposes the myths surrounding child killing. Little known historical facts about abortion and how they relate to modern feminism are presented logically and accurately. Has been effective in converting many to a pro-life position.
Massacre of Innocence goes where no pro-life presentation has gone before in “tearing the lid off abortion” to reveal the spiritual realities we must battle if we will bring an end to this crime. The presentation is absorbing, fast-paced, informative and incredibly devastating to any attempt to justify abortion.
“… an extraordinary statement … a powerfully articulate presentation about what abortion really means, and why a great and moral nation like the United States must not allow the slaughter to continue.”
— Congressman Robert K. Dornan
Running time: 85 minutes
$19.95 — ORDER NOW!
(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)Click here for more information
The Silent Scream (DVD) Eight Languages
“When the lives of the unborn are snuffed out, they often feel pain, pain that is long and agonizing.” – President Ronald Reagan to National Religious Broadcasters Convention, January 1981
Ronald Reagan became convinced of this as a result of watching The Silent Scream – a movie he considered so powerful and convicting that he screened it at the White House.
The modern technology of real-time ultrasound now reveals the actual responses of a 12-week old fetus to being aborted. As the unborn child attempts to escape the abortionist’s suction curette, her motions can be seen to become desperately agitated and her heart rate doubles. Her mouth opens – as if to scream – but no sound can come out. Her scream doesn’t have to remain silent, however … not if you will become her voice. This newly re-mastered version features eight language tracks and two bonus videos.
“… a high technology “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” arousing public opinion just as Harriet Beecher Stowe’s 1852 antislavery novel ignited the abolitionist movement.” – Sen. Gordon Humphrey, Time Magazine
Languages: English, Spanish, French, South Korean, Chinese, Russian, Portuguese, Japanese
Running Time: 28 minutes
$17.95 — ORDER NOW!
(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)Click here for more information
The Four Keys to the Millennium (Book)
Foundations in Biblical Eschatology
By Jay Rogers, Larry Waugh, Rodney Stortz, Joseph Meiring. High quality paperback, 167 pages.
All Christians believe that their great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, will one day return. Although we cannot know the exact time of His return, what exactly did Jesus mean when he spoke of the signs of His coming (Mat. 24)? How are we to interpret the prophecies in Isaiah regarding the time when “the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea” (Isa. 11:19)? Should we expect a time of great tribulation and apostasy or revival and reformation before the Lord returns? Is the devil bound now, and are the saints reigning with Christ? Did you know that there are four hermeneutical approaches to the book of Daniel and Revelation?
These and many more questions are dealt with by four authors as they present the four views on the millennium. Each view is then critiqued by the other three authors.
$12.95 — ORDER NOW!
(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)Click here for more information
Freedom: The Model of Christian Liberty (DVD)
“Give me liberty or give me death!”
Patrick Henry’s famous declaration not only helped launch the War for Independence, it also perfectly summarized the mindset that gave birth to, and sustained, the unprecedented experiment in Christian liberty that was America.
The freedom our Founders envisioned was not freedom from suffering, want, or hard work. Nor was it freedom to indulge every appetite or whim without restraint—that would merely be servitude to a different master. No, the Founders’ passion was to live free before God, unfettered by the chains of autocracy, shackles that slowly but inexorably bind men when the governments they fashion fail to recognize and uphold freedom’s singular, foundational truth: that all men are created in the image of God, and are thereby co-equally endowed with the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
This presentation is a similar call, not to one but many. By reintroducing the principles of freedom that gave birth to America, it is our prayer that Jesus, the true and only ruler over the nations, will once again be our acknowledged Sovereign, that we may again know and exult in the great truth that “where the Spirit of the LORD is, there is liberty” (2 Cor. 3:17).
Welcome to the Second American Revolution!
This DVD features “Liberty: The Model of Christian Liberty” along with “Dawn’s Early Light: A Brief History of America’s Christian Foundations.” Bonus features include a humorous but instructive collection of campaign ads and Eric Holmberg’s controversial YouTube challenge concerning Mitt Romney’s campaign for president.
$14.95 — ORDER NOW!
(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)
