I think the question would rebound in the first place to the issue of property, and to what degree children are considered the "property" of parents. Regardless of the argument that such reasoning might take us back to the question of slavery, the fact is that if all proprietary interest of a parent in his child is eliminated, then so goes all of his authority. The ungoverned State ends up claiming huge proprietary rights over its population, btw. I say this is the first issue, because I deny that a parent is bound to meet ANY conceivable "state standard" of feeding and clothing, or face a penalty. If I send my kid to bed "without supper," does this constitute a "refusal to feed"? If I refuse to buy my kid a designer jacket, or "better" shoes, can I be prosecuted? Who "owns" the children? Because to that degree the authority can "dictate" the standard of care.

Neither the Parents, nor the State has unlimited proprietary rights, over things or people. Under Moses, a man who beat his slave to the death was a murderer (Ex. 21:20). The slave's right to live was not held under the master, but directly under God. So, to draw on the principle, present governments should punish the cruel negligence (not simply the poverty, for example) of a parent that has withheld food and clothing of their children to a dangerous degree, as this is would be a violation of the 6th commandment.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

I don't think the magistrate could mandate that unless they accepted the Confession, and that brings you right back around to Establishmentarianism, doesn't it? On what basis would a secular government require reading?

__________________
Ruben
Moderator

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Calvinistas Conversando - Reformed Discussion Board in Spanish.

Spanish Blog -Teologia en Mexico
English Blog -The Howling Wilderness

Thank you, Rev Buchannon. It was the witholding of food to a 'dangerous degree' that I had in mind. Is there a parallel that could be drawn in the area of education. Could it be considered 'dangerous' to neglect a child in not at least attempting to teach a child to read or some kind of skill that will allow them to provide for themselves when they get older?

Is there 'general equity' that parents must provide some kind of education for their children in 1 Tim 5:9? Is a parent who does not attempt to teach their child to read 'providing for his own'?

__________________

I think the basic premise behind cumpulsory education in America (right or wrong) was based on the principle that an 'educated' public would protect democracy from turning into tyranny.

Sure, it could be considered. And so we have all this prescriptive govt interference, "for the children," "for the good of society." But is it in the long-term interest of a free people to have a govt that continually micro-manages their lives? If they start by telling you what you have to teach your kids, soon they will take your schools away and teach the kids themselves what they want them to learn.

I doubt it can be successfully argued that it is "dangerous" to not teach to read, or other education, in anything approaching the level of not providing food/clothing/shelter. That's not to say that governments don't argue that very thing--clearly they do, and take it upon themselves to create, e.g., "outcome based education" etc., trying to ensure they have a continuing population of drones. Ironically, it seems that eventually the same policy-makers will argue that TOO MUCH education is equally dangerous!

The question for us is: should OUR government attempt to "produce" outcomes via mandates? Our govt was created to be "negative," maximizing individual liberty. It has become "directive," bossing us around. It took over schooling, when most Americans were already literate, and most parents sought at least a minimal education for their children. Today, with all their "mandates" and "directives" and centralized (and expensive) controls, kids don't learn in 13 years what our grandparents mastered in 8, and we have a greater % of functional illiterates.

Historians will look at our age and study how the freest society (maybe ever) abandoned God (that is, Protestant Christianity) and liberty, both in parallel.
Is this a moral question, or a civil or criminal one? What if the answers to these questions are "yes"? Are you assuming that the civil govt assumes a coercive duty, just because parental govt is derelict? I do not.

You know, I can see that, and it does make a certain degree of sense to me. But what education promotes freedom? And what if parents don't agree that education promotes freedom? I think parents who don't teach their children to read the Bible, who don't equip them to function positively within the world, are in grave dereliction of duty and should be admonished by the church. But I think the government criminalizing that sin necessarily involves them in tyranny (with the possible exception of a government that has established Christianity) --which counters that civil reason for education in any case.

What if... the church refused to do its duty, or there was no church presence to speak of?

I am not trying to be obtuse, but just thinking these things through myself...

I don't think the absence of the church authorizes the state to pretend that it's the church. Should the state take the role of a father in the situation of a young mother who's been widowed?

No worries, brother; it is very difficult for me to imagine you trying to be obtuse!

If the decalogue really does, as you say, have "all provision of... enforcement, and... penalty for violation" then, since the decalogue is pretty short, it should be pretty easy to show where all provision of enforcement and all penalty for violation is, as you said, contained in the law for those who are guilty of breaking it. Here's an example:


"You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain." (Ex 20:7)

Where's the provision for all enforcement and the specific penalties for violation contained within the decalogue for this law? And why would Moses and the Israelites be in error for thinking the decalogue didn't contain these things:

"the Israelite woman’s son blasphemed the Name, and cursed. Then they brought him to Moses. His mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan. And they put him in custody, till the will of the LORD should be clear to them. Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Bring out of the camp the one who cursed, and let all who heard him lay their hands on his head, and let all the congregation stone him. And speak to the people of Israel, saying, Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin. Whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death." (Lev 24:11-16)

So for them, enforcement was by those who heard the blasphemy, they were to take him out and ritually lay their hands in witness on his head, then the penalty was that the people were to stone him. These specific provisions are not found in the decalogue, so the decalogue must not contain all provisions/penalties within it. Yet they are still valid laws whether these provisions are revealed within a specific law or not.

I can understand why one might say a democratic law needs these things in order to become law, but why would, say, a monarch need to do so? Or a parent for that matter? I lay down laws like this all the time with my children. "You are not allowed to do [such and such]." When they ask "But why can't I do [such and such]?" I say, with the authority invested in me by God, "Because I said so." And when they break that law I decide what the penalty is and how it will be enforced, and it isn't always the same. I see no reason why a monarch could not do the same. Why would they need to make sure the law had all provisions of penalties or enforcement within it for those laws to be valid? Aren't the laws valid simply because they come from authority, and the only time we should question that authority is when they clash with the higher authority?

__________________
C. Gorsuch
Glencullen Baptist
Portland, Oregon

These are interesting questions concerning the Decalogue. In addition, I was wondering about the curses of Deut 27. If a curse is pronounced on a particular sin would that meet the requirement of warrant, enforcement and penalty? How would a prince of Egypt react if he found out that a man had had sexual relations with his sister for example?

Law: 3rd Commandment.
Enforcer: God.
Penalty: Hell.

Charitably, I don't think you are really thinking about what I'm saying, and you are conflating a number of things that are conceptually distinct. For example, if discretionary power of punishment is part-and-parcel of a law-system of penalty enforcement, and to what degree of latitude, if any? Do you, as parent, have the right to imprison your kid for 10 years, for stealing a cookie? Or do you HAVE TO give him on single lash on the bottom with a wet noodle? Or have you been granted a window of discretion in how to deal with the child? That's all part of your scope, and your children are trained to know that range. Or they are trained to know you as arbitrary and unpredictable.

The Mosaic Law was a very thorough legal code, at the top of which was the KING, Jehovah. I was never thinking of the Decalogue in splendid isolation, and I don't think you are correct to do so either. If there was a question about how to handle a specific case, and it needed to be taken up the line, there was gradation of courts, and God at the very top.

Your comments are pertinent, but the answers to them have all been implied by what has already been stated.

I don't think my children's knowledge of my character or a king's people's knowledge of his character is any basis for whether a law is valid or not (!?), I would say that a person in authority is free to use their authority without explaining their reasoning. They can state a law and their word is law (unless overruled by a higher authority). I don't believe that Laws are only valid if the law contains, as you said, all provision for enforcement and penalties. I gave the example of the third commandment which I believe is a valid law as it is written. It doesn't need all provision and penalties to be, as you said, "contained" in it (Perhaps I simply misunderstand what you mean by contained). So I gave the example of Moses who knew the specific law, but didn't know how to enforce it.
I am sorry if I was not good at explaining what I was trying to say, I should have realized this when you said you didn't understand what I was asking. My wife tells me I'm not always the clear in explaining what I am trying to say. Perhaps I should have asked a question instead:

Do you believe that the word of an authority is law even if that word did not contain "all provision of enforcement, and penalty for violation"?

Well, The problem could just as easily be on my end. So we each shoulder our own share of the blame.

Yes, the word of authority is law. But think about that for just a minute. WHY is it LAW? It's LAW for the very reasons stated: the "voice" is that of enforcement, I think you'd agree. What does Paul say? Rom 5:13, "For sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law." Do you hear what he's saying? Compare to Rom 4:15, "For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression." WRATH=enforcement. If no one is ever punished, then the law is not only toothless, it is no law at all.

Some old, funny laws stay on the books, as "quaint". Its humorous to see a law against "cow-tipping" or some such, and to see the fines or hours in the stocks assessed. But these are, for all intents and purposes, no laws at all.

As for the penalty, 1) to break the covenant was to be cast off, and to bring down the curses of the covenant. God was not obligated to stipulate for his subordinate enforcers of temporal punishments, case law that would run the gamut. He gave them a whole bunch of cases, and expected them to adjudicate untold cases and kinds based on those few examples.

In the example you gave, there was apparently some question as to whether blasphemy was ever a capital crime. The case was serious enough, that it went through the whole court system (Ex 18:13-26) all the way to Moses, who took it to God himself for a final statement. This case rather shows how justice was supposed to work in Israel, if there was insufficient data (for whatever reason) to make a determination.* Perhaps God deliberately left out a statement earlier on how severe a judgment against blasphemy could be meted out, so that the people would come to him, to see his own statement on the matter.

Bottom line, in the end what do we have? Law, enforcement (both ultimate and subordinate), and a maximum penalty. So, the "case" demonstrates the very point. In order to make the law truly effectual, the penalty window also needed to be stipulated.

Hope this has cleared my point up.


*Note how in regard to other laws (cases involving the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th) the maximum was so ordered in severe cases.

Presuming that the effect of the education is not clearly sinful and does not require sin, then I am of the opinion that an educated people are a blessing. John Adams felt the same way and thought it the duty of government to ensure that we as a people have a common base of knowledge (I believe you can see this in Massachusetts' constitution).

My duty as a parent is to make sure that, regardless of what others in this world teach, state or otherwise, that I give my kiddos the truth.

As always...

__________________
--
"For it is a doctrine not of the tongue but of life. It is not apprehended by the understanding and memory alone, as other disciplines are, but it is received only when it posseses the whole soul, and finds a seat and resting place in the inmost affection of the heart."

John Calvin, The Institutes, Book III, Chapter VI, Section 4.

Pompton Plains Reformed Bible Church
Butler, NJ

David,

The point is not that Deut 6 is talking about mathematics. The point is that if education is every given to anyone (and it is), it is given exclusively to the father and mother. The book of Proverbs deals with broader areas of instruction in wisdom and knowledge, of which the principal point is the fear of Jehovah. The state is never commanded to teach anyone anything. The National Socialist / Hegelian, or Marxist idea of the state is that it is man's family, and therefore supercedes the lawful authority of the family. This is the basis for collectivist or socialized education. That is the point of bringing up Deut 6.

I agree with your assessment of "private schools" however. If families want to cooperate, fine. But, to "drop off" the kids at school is, in my estimation, a problem.

Cheers,

__________________
Adam Brink, Grace Church of Pleasanton, PCA, Pleasanton, California
"Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth?" Romans 8:33

This question of the rights of the governed is handled by one of our most influential Confessional Framers, Samuel Rutherford in his book, Lex Rex. Tolle, Lege.

Cheers,

The divines say nothing about the magistrate teaching people to read anything. They say THE PEOPLE have a right to read the Scripture, and therefore they are to learn to read, and that the Scriptures are therefore to be translated. The system of education is not addressed.

Cheers,