In defence of Self-Determination & Mandates
At the heart of the current political squabble between Holyrood and Westminster is, as usual, an issue of rights. Rights are, of course, legally defined – in this case is it legally safe for Holyrood to issue some sort of referendum on Scotland’s future within the Union? I would suggest there is a more basic level than the 1998 Scotland Act at which this question will be resolved. There is certainly a right to self-determination, but is that right one you must be given (the Westminster option) or one you may autonomously exercise (the Holyrood option)?
Constitutional experts have already pointed to the examples of ex-Soviet and –Yugoslav states exercising self-determination for independence without the consent of their national government – indeed in the face of considerable opposition, both political and military. History, it seems, is on the side of exercising, as opposed to granting self-determination.
All that being said, self-determination is, on the face of it, a tricky one for a Christian. It raises questions about the origin of so-called fundamental human rights – arguably a product of Enlightenment. Would it be safer to see the Christian’s responsibility in doing God’s will as it is revealed in the Bible? The Christian can certainly live that way; and live as far as possible at peace with all people – Love God with all your heart, mind and strength, and love your neighbour as yourself. End of.
But I am sure we can go further – if we are good Calvinists. Abraham Kuyper, in his Stone Lectures, quotes American historian George Bancroft: “The fanatic for Calvinism was a fanatic for liberty.” It might not be to everyone’s taste, but Calvinism places God at the top, as the one who invests the civil authorities with power to be exercised for the good of the people. There is a contract between a people and her government a contract which, incidentally, finds expression in the Declaration of Arbroath and the US Declaration of Independence (to which Bancroft was referring)
“we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King” – Declaration of Arbroath
“Governments are instituted among {NB not “by” but “among”} Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” – Declaration of Independence
The state must have a mandate to govern. Bancroft and Kuyper shaw this in connection to the purposes of God in seeking to alleviate the effects of sin and the Fall.
The Calvinist’s love of liberty is not at odds with the right to self-determination. In fact, in any other sphere, we would abhor its denial. Suppose a citizen of North Korea desires to make profession of Christian faith – ought he to have the liberty? But we also ought to reject its unnecessary limitation. Suppose a citizen of China desire to make profession of Christian faith – ought he to have the liberty do so out-with the prescribed state-governed church? Self-determination is a liberty we must contend for – whether we decide it as a fundamental right or not.
As a Calvinist, I must assert that it is not for any government, other than one elected with such a mandate, to set out for the people of Scotland when, where, who and how they exercise their collective right to self-determination. That is not to deny Westminster’s legitimate governance – Cameron’s coalition was delivered by the will of the people. But they were not delivered with a mandate to set out the terms of this referendum. (In fact, to witness the shameful treatment of Nationalist MPs at Westmister shows the contempt in which the desire to exercise this self-determination has thus far been held.) For the Coalition to dictate any such terms now is an assault on liberty – they are acting beyond the will of the people who elected them. Scotland’s self-determination is, according to Westminster, a right we will be given.
But the people of Scotland have already begun to exercise their right to self-determination, in electing – for whatever reasons – a government who committed to run this referendum. Holyrood’s path is therefore legitmate, and Westminster’srole will be to react to the will of theScottish people post-referendum.
And the courts will agree.
7 Comments »
Leave a Reply
Jedi Rev
Why Jedirev:
I own a lightsaber and I’m a minister in the Free Church of Scotland, so yeah, I’m the Jedirev. This blog is about just about any of the goings on in my sphere of life: mostly from the sphere of Scottish Christianity, but sometimes to my less wholesome hobbies – science fiction movies and war-gaming (or “Toy soldiers”) – and maybe a bit of reflection on Scottish current affairs.
Statement of Faith & Beliefs (the important stuff for those who worry):
sola scriptura – the Bible alone is our rule of faith ‘n’ manners, when it comes to God and all things his, its best to start and finish with what he’s given us in special revelation.
sola gratia – I rejoice in a salvation that is entirely God’s doing, given to me freely in Christ, and secured not by my subsequent obedience, but the eternal satisfaction God the Father finds in God the Son.
sola fide – faith, not works, is all my God asks: that I trust my very life in his hands, as I am led by the God the Spirit, who enables faith. Of course, faith without works is dead, so lets us show our faith by our works.
solus Christus – Christ alone is the author of salvation, but he so much more, the creator and sustainer of the universe, the revelation of the divine glory of God, the reconciliation between God and man.
soli Deo gloria – God alone deserves the glory; my guide for life is the question, “Who gets the glory?” – often I fail here, but praise be, he still gets the glory in the end.
Oh, yeah… by the way, I’m a Calvinist.
Jedi Stuff
I’m deeply alarmed at the number of people who visit this blog and assume that I mix Christian Theology with the Jedi-mythos. To be clear, I don’t. Calling myself Jedirev was a bit of sillyness that started a few years ago. Star Wars is not real, Jedi mind tricks don’t work (although, these aren’t the droids you’re looking for), and as a worldview, it’s seriously deficient (not least because, with our level of technology, you can’t complete your Jedi training and build your own lightsaber).
But let’s get some things clear. Obi Wan says, “For over a thousand generations, the Jedi Knights were the guardians of peace and justice in the Old Republic. Before the dark times, before the Empire.” I’m not sure that goal is dishonourable.
And while today, Jediism is a bit of an odd “religion” it only came about because Admiral Motti is dismissive of Vader’s confidence in The Force, saying, “Your sad devotion to that ancient Jedi religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you enough clairvoyance to find the rebels’ hidden fortress…” If people want to build a religion on a sarcastic comment, go for it – but it’s a rubbish epistemology.
-
Archives
- February 2012 (1)
- January 2012 (3)
- December 2011 (1)
- November 2011 (5)
- May 2011 (2)
- January 2011 (1)
- December 2010 (2)
- March 2010 (1)
- June 2009 (1)
- May 2009 (7)
- April 2009 (1)
- October 2008 (2)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
It is of note that the nation of Israel sought independence from oppressive overlords at least twice in their history. In the case of the Egyptian captivity they sought freedom in order to worship God. The desire for self-determination was to His glory. This liberty was granted them in His providence. In the case of their dominion under Roman rule around the time of Christ they again sought independence. This time it was primarily political and not spiritual in its motive. God did not grant it. It strikes me that Scotland’s desire for independence today is humanistic in its spirit and is far more about what the people of Scotland can do for the people of Scotland rather than what we can do for God. There is scant concern for the sprititual dimension and the glory of God. For that reason I find it difficult to support the present case for independence. Particularly with the present emphasis on ‘progressive’ values which is usually cover for naked humanism and law that is antiothetical to biblical principe viz. the proposals to change the definition of marriage. Is the motive for indpendence God-glorifying and will an indpendent Scotland increase the prospect that the civil magistrate will promote godliness? These are the only questions that matter ultimately. And they are not being asked or answered.
Interesting points.
I would point out that the case for independence is quite separate from the point I was making in this blog. Here, all I am suggesting is that to actually hold a referendum – to ask the question – is quite within the powers of our elected government here in Scotland… and to say so is quite proper for a Calvinist like myself (and yourself!).
As for using Israel as a model for whether independence is something a Christian can support, my gut feeling is that it’s a shaky case. We’re nowhere told to use Israel’s theocracy as a model for all government. I just can’t follow the arguement that God didn’t grant Israel freedom from Roman Rule becuase their desire was secular – well, Roman rule was very beneficial to the spread of the Gospel, and that suited God’s purposes whatever Israel may have felt. If you follow your arguement through, we’d be as likely as not to end up with both Theonomy and Dispensationalism – which are a pretty horrible duo.
But does being part of the UKGBNI help the church today further the work of the Gospel? I don’t frnakly see how it makes one iota of a difference. The UK is headed for a secular future just as rapidly as Scotland might do if independent, along with the whole western world. Independence isn’t going to halt that, but then, neither is the Union. I would add that the Union was formed on the rather optimistic note of it being a Presbyterian union, and that point was pretty much the first item to disappear from the agenda post-union. Having been sold down the river on that point, is it all that bad for Scottish Presbyterians to now call time, and try afresh to put our own house in order?
As for “progressive” values being a cover for humanism, I fear that is just too broad-brush a stroke to be left unchallenged. The Bible calls for us to “do justice” – and yet when Scotland, one of the wealthiest nations in world, has the levels of poverty, ill health, and misery for many, whilst many others enjoy lavish luxury, surely it is doing justice to try to redress that in some way? I would suggest these progressive values you decry, are often humankind’s aspiration to do good, but which inevitably become tainted by the sin we are all capable of. All government is flawed, but in God’s grace not all goverment policy is as flawed as it could be. We are still commanded to pray for and honour that government, while trying to be salt and light in a decaying and dark world. We can surely do that whether independent or as part of the Union?
Hi,
Having rethought my approach to the question it strikes me that Romans 13:1-7 is maybe the test rather than God’s dealings with Israel. Though they do shed some light on the issue of motivating spirit. How does is an independence movement to be reconciled to the command to submission to governing authorities? They are God’s ministers. Assuming self-determination may be justified in oppression or tyranny or suppression of Gospel freedom, in their absence, is there ever warrant for man to take the initiative to assert a right to self-determination and overthrow an existing constitutional arrangement. Moreover, is it ever legitimate for a Christian to be engaged in such a move? And if so under precisely what circumstances? How ought we to be best expending our energies?
As far as the Gospel is concerned if independence is not going to make any positive difference to Scotland spiritually why are Christians actively campaigning for that independence. We have no warrant from Scripture to expend our energies on such a campaign if it is not to the glory of God. If it is not to the glory of God how can a Christian justify his or her involvement? I have not heard one argument for or a positive case being made for why independence will benefit Scottish presbyterianism. I see little sympathy from the SNP administration for Christian values. I am interested in how exactly is independence is going to help Scottish presbyterians put our own house in order? There seems to be at least as much interference from Edinburgh in the life and work of the church as their is from Westminster.
Progressive values are humanistic in their foundation and spirit. They are rooted in an optimistic view of human nature. They are in essence about the exaltation of man and man’s goodness to his fellow man. Not God’s goodness but man’s goodness. Now what is not of faith is sin. Humankind’s aspiration to do good without faith is sin. Progressive values are self-exalting, promote self-righteousness and make an idol of our humanity. What is not towards God is away from Him. Progressive values are actually regressive and I as a Christian cannot make common cause with those who are guided by them. I am interested in Bilblical values and BIblical actions towards God with an expressly Christian character. We cannot ‘Christianise’ a political philosophy. There is ultimately only one worldview to which the Christian must ally him or herself to. Progressive values necessitate compromise. God brooks no compromise. The Christian who professes them confuses the world as to what they believe. At least they certainly confuse me. There is too much that is anti-Christian allied to progressive values. Would Christ have called Himself progressive today? Would he have allied Himself to the Labour or Liberal Democratic parties or the Occupy movement? I do not believe he would. Zeal for the house of His Father consumed Him. As it should us.
How do you pray for and honour a Government whilst plotting its overthrow? I see little honouring of Westminster government in nationalist rhetoric at the moment. Quite the opposite. There is a despite and resentment implicit in much of the debate. Again, we are back to Romans 13. How is that particular circle to be squared?
I am striving for a Biblical position on the question as to whether or not I should support nationalism and self-determination. That is where I am coming from. The political, economic and the socio-cultural dimensions are completely subordinate to the spiritual issue. That is what will determine my vote. (And that’s if I can vote – a Saturday referendum as is being considered would not only disenfranchise Jewish people it would also disenfranchise Sabbatarian Christians as any count of votes would likely take place on Sabbath morning. This will be a test for just how much concern for the Biblical values and the mores of Christians there is on the part of those organising the plebiscite. It may betray just how spiritual in its spirit the movement for self-determination is. All Christians, whatever they believe politically and constitutionally, should be making this very point in the consultation)
Best.
C
Not sure I follow your basic premise – why is the Union the default position to be defended? Or are you saying Christians should just stay out of the Independence debate all together?
It is interesting that in a Palestine under Roman domination Christ did not say to the people you must shake of the shackles of Rome. Instead he said that the people should render unto Caeser what was Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s. Christ did not involve himself in the politics of his day. Indeed he went out of his way to avoid being crowned a mere political king over Israel. It is also interesting that in writing to a Christian church under intense persecution from Rome (whether it was Nero or Domitian is debated) John’s Revelation signally fails to encourage Christian’s to rise up and shake of the shackles of Rome. Paul tells us that our citizenship is in heaven. He tells the soldier in the Roman army to stay at his post. Our allegiance is to be to Christ and Christ in the ultimate sense. Not to political philosophies and independence movements that are secular in their spirit.
In the light of these facts and Romans 13 as discussed previously I do question whether a Christian ought to associate with support or engage with a nationalist independence movement. These movements are essentially humanistic in their spirit in so far as they are nationalist at all. And the Scottish independence movement is aggressively, overtly, unashamedly nationalist in its character. The spirit of the movement is secular. There is an unhealthy undercurrent (indeed overcurrent) of pride and humanism. It is our oil. It is our land. It is our revenue. There is no reference to God or the glory and Lordship of Christ at all. Should a follower of Christ be identified with such?
Another reason a Christian ought to give pause to supporting political movements is that what we associate with and support we are responsible for in its consequences and outworking. We have no way of knowing whether independence will prosper Scotland spiritually or not. What we can say is that if it does not those Christians who actively promoted and supported it will have to answer for any spirit that is unleashed by such an independence. Personally, I want no part in that. I have yet to be persuaded that there is a legitimate, spiritual, Biblical case for an independence movement in Scotland today that would warrant my participation.
As far as the union being the default position to be defended I would rather say that I do not believe a Christian should be attacking the default position, whatever it is, without a very clear, Biblical, spiritual rationale for doing so. Political neutrality would appear to be the position of Christ. It would also appear to be the position of Paul. The allegiance was, in the civic realm, to the governing authority as instituted by God. John’s revelation teaches us to trust God in the unfolding of history. Christ is in the midst of the candlesticks. Christ is the author and unfolder of history. He raises governmental systems and nations. That is his prerogative. Not ours. He is in control. Not us.
Should a Christian decide to associate themselves with such a nationalist movement surely it behooves them to use every opportunity they can in the debate to press for the rights of Christ’s crown and covenant. As far as they are not or cannot do that then really they oughtn’t to say much at all. It’s all has to be about Christ and His glory and conspicuously for His sake, doesn’t it?
I’ve been thinking about this over the last few days, and I think we’ll have to disagree.
Your arguement about Christians avoiding the politics of independence can equally apply to just about all politics. But unfortnately, following your way of thinking would lead to nothing but disengagement from just about every opportunity to make any difference, short of times of national revival and renewal… and even then, without experieced Christian politicians, it would be hard to bring about legislative change.
When Paul worte to and from the Church in Rome, he mentions Christians who were part of Caesar’s household, that means they were involved in the political landscape of the Roman empire. Whatever political agenda we pursue, you are right to say we should seek first the kingdom of God, but God also requires us to do justice. If a Christian can be satisfied that their political action is just, then it is worth pursuing. Of course along the way there might be injustices they they will have to face – and very often that can be one of the most difficult challenges for Christians pursuing a career in politics. But I can’t agree that the examples you list here amount to a ban on political involvment.
True, the Revelation doesn’t call on persecuted Christians to rise up, but equally, there are evident rewards for those who have done justice. Jesus’ teaching to his disciples about avoiding nationalist movments had as much to do with the Messianic secret as anything else – his mission could have been easily compromised by Jews who viewed the Messiah in only political terms – restoring the theocracy. But that should not limit Christians seeking to do good pursuing politics – whether on the left or the right wing of the political spectrum. And the point about being answerable for any ill that might proceed for any decision we take is as much true of supporting the cause of Unionism, as it is Nationalism. But if you choose to detached from all political decisions, surely your refusal to exercise the franchise can lead to as many evil outcomes – for example, the Saints in 1930s Germany who did not stand up to National Socialism… thier inactivity was driven by fear, but I suspect masked by the same arguements you put forth – but that proved to be to the shame of most, despite a few bright lights like Bonhoeffer.
Hi,
I am not looking for agreement or disagreement but biblical justification. It’s probably one of the most important questions a Christian faces in Scotland today. Should they support independence. Some Christians have decided they may and It’s important that the scriptural case for that position is clearly articulated. Neither am I focusing on the issue of political engagement. That is a separate issue. I am talking about alignment to and commitment to a particular political philosophy or ideology and the dangers inherent when Christians publicly yoke themselves to such a philosophy or ideology. I am particularly focusing on the specific issue of whether a Christian ought ever to be engaged in a movement to overthrow existing governmental arrangements within their country. Whether or not tyranny and oppression or state suppression of religious freedom in themselves would justify such engagement is worthy of discussion but neither of these are germane to this particular situation. If governing authorities are instituted by God just how does a Christian justify arrogating to him or herself the right to dis-institute them? And my contention is that the Christian must be able to articulate a solid, scriptural case for their support for such a dis-institution. We are on dangerous ground indeed if such decisions are made on the merely political/economic/pragmatic/cultural/historical. These are not unimportant but they must all yield to the spiritual and are emphatically subordinate to the spiritual. Again I ask, how is the glory of Christ to be defended and advanced in this assertion of Scottish nationalism? If Christians can’t answer this positively then ought they be involved?
ANd I never said detach from all political decisions. But the political sphere is not the primary sphere in which the Christian must do battle. I can’t speak for Christians in Germany in the 1930s but I can say that I have great difficulty casting my vote for any of the political parties today because I must always cast it without qualification,. My vote is used by that party as proof that I am in accordance with all of its manifesto. (See all those who voted SNP in 2011 but were actually opposed to independence. They are assumed and declared by the SNP today to have supported their whole manifesto) There is no caveat in the voting booth. More especially there is no caveat with Christ. Sure other Christian’s might want to support a party and the politics that promotes marriage outwith the God-ordained relationship but I can’t. If I could qualify my vote and make it clear what unscriptutal policies I do not support then that might be different. And I just don’t buy the ‘least worst’ option. I don’t believe God deals in the ‘least worst’ anything. If it isn’t all Biblical, indeed if bits are actually really, really unbiblical, then how can we cast our votes for it at all? Immoral, unbiblical policies actually disenfrachise a constituency of the Christian electorate. I am really not sure I can vote anymore. Not because I don’t want to or because I don’t believe Christians should ever be involved in politics or politicians themselves. Just because I just can’t vote for the unbiblical in good conscience.
In any case, regarding Bonhoeffer, did he stand inside or outside the political system in Nazi Germany? He stood unequivocally, unashamedly for Christ. Where do Nationalist politicians stand today? Are they putting everything on the line for Christ or for Scotland? It’s a good question.
I do not want to be distracted from the main issue which is whether a biblical case be made for a Christian to actively campaign for the overthrow of existing governmental authorities and constitutional arrangements. And more specifically how a Christian can scripturally defend their involvement in agitating for nationalism and independence? If there is a case for that then it’s important that it is made and made clearly.