In 1644, Samuel Rutherford, a Scottish Presbyterian minister, published anonymously the influential book entitled, Lex Rex (The Law and the Prince). Born in 1600, Rutherford was a child of the Protestant Reformation and a Calvinist. But as the Reformation played out socially and politically in England, Rutherford had also seen significan…
In 1644, Samuel Rutherford, a Scottish Presbyterian minister, published anonymously the influential book entitled, Lex Rex (The Law and the Prince). Born in 1600, Rutherford was a child of the Protestant Reformation and a Calvinist. But as the Reformation played out socially and politically in England, Rutherford had also seen significant political disruption and injustice. This experience, along with his religious convictions, led him to affirm the controversial view that “the law is king,” not earthly monarchs and authorities. How controversial was this view? Even a decade after Rutherford had published Lex Rex, Louis XIV of France affirmed his own absolute authority as monarch by saying, “L'État c’est moi” (The state, that’s me). Rutherford’s view stands in direct contrast to Louis XIV claim that monarchs possess the unqualified divine right to rule. Instead, Rutherford argued, tyranny is never from God; consequently, Christians have both the right and the duty to resist tyranny. In fact, resistance to tyranny is service to God, which echoes the response that Peter and the apostles in Acts gave to the Sanhedrin, which had commanded them not to teach in the name of Jesus: “We ought to obey God rather than men.”
Whether Rutherford’s political philosophy is entirely correct is something about which Christians may argue. But Scripture does contain a pertinent narrative that illuminates Rutherford’s claim that resistance to unrighteous tyranny is service to God. The Book of Daniel tells of Nebuchadnezzar setting up a golden idol on the plain of Dura. He called the officials and rulers of Babylon to the idol’s dedication, demanding that when the music sounded, all should bow down and worship the idol. Refusal to obey the command would mean instant death. This was certainly a religious event, but such events in ancient times were also quite political. Nebuchadnezzar’s order was intended to show Babylon’s power to tell even its notable citizens what deities to worship and when to worship them. Arguably, this command placed the Babylonian state above deity. When the state presumes authority over God, Rutherford tells us, the state forfeits its legitimate right to obedience and deserves resistance as service to God.
Hananiah (Shadrach), Mishael (Meshach), and Azariah (Abednego), who had been taken into captivity, along with Daniel, when Babylon took Jerusalem, had been given the best education Babylon could offer and then made government officials under the King. Nonetheless, the exiles from Jerusalem refused to bow down as commanded. This was a direct insult to the King and his authority. Despite the pagan names they had been given by Babylon, they were virtuous young men who worshipped faithfully the God of Moses and would bow to no other deity. But Babylon had renamed them with pagan names honoring pagan deities and had given them positions of authority; consequently, Nebuchadnezzar expected them to obey his command, not the commands of a deity whom he thought he had discredited by military conquest. Though infuriated, the King even gave the three men a second chance, but they still refused to obey. So Nebuchadnezzar exercised the state’s authority to have them condemned to a burning death in Babylon’s great furnace. In a divine rebuke, however, to the state’s attempt to impose its will over divine authority (as celebrated in the well-known song), God walked with these young men in the fire, preserved their lives, and humbled the King of Babylon.
For both Christians and Jews, the Hebrew meanings of the names of those who defied Nebuchadnezzar are of some interest. Hananiah means in Hebrew “God has favored.” Mishael means “Who is like God?” Azariah means “The LORD is my helper.” The pagan names Babylon gave to these three young men were designed to give them an identity in conformity to Babylonian culture and to subvert the young men’s original faith. For example, Abednego (the name given to Azariah) means “servant or slave of Nego,” who was the Babylonian deity of writing and vegetation. These imposed, replacement pagan names are similar to the Chaplaincy Service insignia replacing the identifying religious symbol on each chaplain’s scarf. There is a chilling message here. Instead of obeying their religious convictions, chaplains are now expected to obey government orders. Their new scarves brand them to do so, even if such orders demand that they refrain from praying in public, an order that echoes the command signed by Darius of the Medes and Persians. Daniel refused to obey that command, and his disobedience resulted in his being thrown into the lions’ den. Again, God stood with faithful obedience, prevented the lions from hurting Daniel, and humiliated the pretensions of government authority. My question is simply this: as recommended by Rutherford, will we see in the ranks of the Canadian Armed Forces Chaplaincy Service resistance to tyranny; that is, will we see in response to a tyrannical government usurping divine authority any Christian or Jewish resistance similar to the courageous resistance exemplified in Scripture by Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah? Or will we see the meek surrender of religious liberty by Christian and Jewish clergy to a Canadian state that presumes to place itself over both personal religious conscience and the authority of God?
In 1644, Samuel Rutherford, a Scottish Presbyterian minister, published anonymously the influential book entitled, Lex Rex (The Law and the Prince). Born in 1600, Rutherford was a child of the Protestant Reformation and a Calvinist. But as the Reformation played out socially and politically in England, Rutherford had also seen significant political disruption and injustice. This experience, along with his religious convictions, led him to affirm the controversial view that “the law is king,” not earthly monarchs and authorities. How controversial was this view? Even a decade after Rutherford had published Lex Rex, Louis XIV of France affirmed his own absolute authority as monarch by saying, “L'État c’est moi” (The state, that’s me). Rutherford’s view stands in direct contrast to Louis XIV claim that monarchs possess the unqualified divine right to rule. Instead, Rutherford argued, tyranny is never from God; consequently, Christians have both the right and the duty to resist tyranny. In fact, resistance to tyranny is service to God, which echoes the response that Peter and the apostles in Acts gave to the Sanhedrin, which had commanded them not to teach in the name of Jesus: “We ought to obey God rather than men.”
Whether Rutherford’s political philosophy is entirely correct is something about which Christians may argue. But Scripture does contain a pertinent narrative that illuminates Rutherford’s claim that resistance to unrighteous tyranny is service to God. The Book of Daniel tells of Nebuchadnezzar setting up a golden idol on the plain of Dura. He called the officials and rulers of Babylon to the idol’s dedication, demanding that when the music sounded, all should bow down and worship the idol. Refusal to obey the command would mean instant death. This was certainly a religious event, but such events in ancient times were also quite political. Nebuchadnezzar’s order was intended to show Babylon’s power to tell even its notable citizens what deities to worship and when to worship them. Arguably, this command placed the Babylonian state above deity. When the state presumes authority over God, Rutherford tells us, the state forfeits its legitimate right to obedience and deserves resistance as service to God.
Hananiah (Shadrach), Mishael (Meshach), and Azariah (Abednego), who had been taken into captivity, along with Daniel, when Babylon took Jerusalem, had been given the best education Babylon could offer and then made government officials under the King. Nonetheless, the exiles from Jerusalem refused to bow down as commanded. This was a direct insult to the King and his authority. Despite the pagan names they had been given by Babylon, they were virtuous young men who worshipped faithfully the God of Moses and would bow to no other deity. But Babylon had renamed them with pagan names honoring pagan deities and had given them positions of authority; consequently, Nebuchadnezzar expected them to obey his command, not the commands of a deity whom he thought he had discredited by military conquest. Though infuriated, the King even gave the three men a second chance, but they still refused to obey. So Nebuchadnezzar exercised the state’s authority to have them condemned to a burning death in Babylon’s great furnace. In a divine rebuke, however, to the state’s attempt to impose its will over divine authority (as celebrated in the well-known song), God walked with these young men in the fire, preserved their lives, and humbled the King of Babylon.
For both Christians and Jews, the Hebrew meanings of the names of those who defied Nebuchadnezzar are of some interest. Hananiah means in Hebrew “God has favored.” Mishael means “Who is like God?” Azariah means “The LORD is my helper.” The pagan names Babylon gave to these three young men were designed to give them an identity in conformity to Babylonian culture and to subvert the young men’s original faith. For example, Abednego (the name given to Azariah) means “servant or slave of Nego,” who was the Babylonian deity of writing and vegetation. These imposed, replacement pagan names are similar to the Chaplaincy Service insignia replacing the identifying religious symbol on each chaplain’s scarf. There is a chilling message here. Instead of obeying their religious convictions, chaplains are now expected to obey government orders. Their new scarves brand them to do so, even if such orders demand that they refrain from praying in public, an order that echoes the command signed by Darius of the Medes and Persians. Daniel refused to obey that command, and his disobedience resulted in his being thrown into the lions’ den. Again, God stood with faithful obedience, prevented the lions from hurting Daniel, and humiliated the pretensions of government authority. My question is simply this: as recommended by Rutherford, will we see in the ranks of the Canadian Armed Forces Chaplaincy Service resistance to tyranny; that is, will we see in response to a tyrannical government usurping divine authority any Christian or Jewish resistance similar to the courageous resistance exemplified in Scripture by Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah? Or will we see the meek surrender of religious liberty by Christian and Jewish clergy to a Canadian state that presumes to place itself over both personal religious conscience and the authority of God?