Mr. Muehlenberg on the State: Its origin, powers, and form of government

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/06/15/christians-and-the-state/

Mr. Muehlenberg begins by asking several questions about the State, and then writes in his second paragraph that

But there are some basic biblical principles that can be drawn upon here as we seek to address these concerns. The first and most basic principle is that God in fact created the institution of the state. It was his idea of restraining sinful humans in a fallen world.

Mr. Muehlenberg is quite right to say that God created the institution of the State--which (creation) can be known not just from the relevant Scriptural passages but also from unaided reason--but he is wrong to say that God created the State in order to restrain sinful humans in the Fallen world, which would imply that, had the Fall not occured, there would have been no States. As St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, teaches, with accompanying proofs, in Chapter 7 of his magnificent De Laicis, or, The Treatise on Civil Government,

even if servile subjection began after the sin of Adam, nevertheless there would have been political government even while man was in the state of innocence.
[http://catholicism.org/de-laicis.html/7]

Mr. Muehlenberg invokes Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17 and says that "[t]hese passages tell us that the state is from God to maintain justice and punish evil", which is true, but the State is not only for the maintenance of justice and punishment of evil; indeed, those passages speak respectively of (the prince as) "God's minister to you, for good" (source) and of "governors as sent by [the king] for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of the good" (source). The State's purpose is the common good, not merely "a modicum of peace, order and justice, and the protection of basic human rights"/"a degree of order, justice and civility in a fallen world", as one might infer from Mr. Muehlenberg's post. To be fair, Mr. Muehlenberg notes in his conclusion that "[i]n this very brief and sketchy outline [he] ha[s] only scratched the surface of what is a rather complex discussion", but the common good is such an elementary thing to mention in any discussion of the basic theory of the State that I do not think that this is a good enough excuse.

And when Mr. Muehlenberg writes that

In a fallen world all we can hope for is a modicum of peace, order and justice, and the protection of basic human rights. We certainly should not expect secular utopian ideologies to be of any use.

he is proposing a false dilemma. It is not as though there is a binary choice between a nightwatchman State on the one hand and a Nazi/Communist-type state on the other; between the two extremes of the Social Reign of Pilate and the Social Reign of Barabbas there is the Social Reign of Christ.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
16.VI.2010

Mr. Muehlenberg on property rights

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2009/06/23/in-praise-of-discrimination/#comments

Given that, in my link to his blog on the right-hand side of this blog page, I say that Mr. Bill Muehlenberg “is usually spot on about social morality”, I ought to point out where he has gone wrong, and he has gone quite wrong in the combox in a post at his blog. In response to this example given by Mr. Michael Webb

… if a man takes a banana off of a tree of a rich landowner and eats it and cannot pay for it, it is not a sin against the 8th commandment if the man is starving and without a penny.

Mr. Muehlenberg made the following comment:

Thanks Michael

But now you are starting to drift into dangerous territory. Are they 10 Suggestions, or 10 Commandments? Stealing is stealing. Sure, we want to be sensitive to the needs of others, and if, say, a believer stole a banana to stay alive, in his defence he should not say, “Well this commandment is relative, and can be bent in certain circumstances”. What he should say (to the judge, or whoever), is “Yes, I did steal, and that was wrong, but I am also very needy, and I ask for your understanding and mercy” or some such thing.

So Mr. Muehlenberg seems to think that property rights are absolute, not relative. In fact, they are relative, by reason of the universal destination of goods (as Mr. Webb rightly mentioned in reply to Mr. Muehlenberg), and so in cases of extreme (i.e. the difference between life and death) necessity it is licit to take someone else’s property (but not if the necessity is merely grave; cf. the following error, condemned, among other moral errors (the list is quite interesting), by the Holy Office:

It is permitted to steal not only in extreme, but in grave necessity.
[Decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679, no. 36., Dz. 1186,
http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma12.php])

I wonder whether the problem for Mr. Muehlenberg arises from the Protestant understanding of how present-day Christians are bound by the Ten Commandments. Until Christ fulfilled the Old Testament, Jews were bound by the Ten Commandments (and the other commandments) because they were injunctions of Divine positive law (like how today, Catholics are bound by the precepts of the Church). But the Ten Commandments are binding on Christians because they provide an accurate synthesis of the (Divine) natural law, as the Roman Catechism explains:

GOD IS THE GIVER OF THE COMMANDMENTS

Now among all the motives which induce men to obey this law the strongest is that God is its author. True, it is said to have been delivered by angels,10 but no one can doubt that its author is God. This is most clear not only from the words of the Legislator Himself, which we shall shortly explain, but also from innumerable other passages of Scripture that will readily occur to pastors.

Who is not conscious that a law is inscribed on his heart by God, teaching him to distinguish good from evil, vice from virtue, justice from injustice? The force and import of this unwritten law do not conflict with that which is written. Who is there, then, who will dare to deny that God is the author of the written, as He is of the unwritten law?

But, lest the people, aware of the abrogation of the Mosaic Law, may imagine that the precepts of the Decalogue are no longer obligatory, it should be taught that when God gave the Law to Moses, He did not so much establish a new code, as render more luminous that divine light* which the depraved morals and long-continued perversity of man had at that time almost obscured. It is most certain that we are not bound to obey the Commandments because they were delivered by Moses, but because they are implanted in the hearts of all, and have been explained and confirmed by Christ our Lord.
[my emphasis,
http://www.catecheticsonline.com/Trent3.php]

But I wonder: even before the abrogation of the Mosaic Law, did the injunction against stealing cover even stealing in situations of extreme necessity? I wonder what Orthodox Judaism’s understanding of the question is?

And I wonder also: if (which is not certain, I know) Mr. Muehlenberg regards the Ten Commandments as binding not only as distillations of the natural law, but also binding as positive law, then to which, if any, of the other commandments of the Mosaic Law does he also submit?

Mr. Muehlenberg’s next paragraph in that comment is quite preposterous:

In your scenario you wipe our absolute morality and make everything conditional. That is situation ethics, a la Joseph Fletcher, and not biblical ethics. Of course the Marxists simply notched up your scenario a few levels: “The capitalists are robbers who are oppressing people, so if we simply ‘expropriate’ (read: steal) their assets, it is the just and right thing to do”

But the fact is, some moral judgments are contingent; to acknowledge this does not make everything contingent.

There is more that is fallacious in Mr. Muehlenberg’s reasoning:

… But it is a hidden assumption of [Mr. Webb’s] that is more problematic for me – namely that there is some bibilcal command or right to self-preservation.

Of course suicide is out, as is murder. We are not to take our own life, or unjustly and illicitly take the life of another. But we have no command to preserve our life at all costs. That is not a biblical summon bonum.

Just take your scenario and expand it a bit. It is right for me to pinch a banana to keep from starving to death? Probably. But is it right for me to commit adultery in order to stay alive? Or betray a brother in order to stay alive? Do I have a right to stay alive that trumps all other moral claims?
[my emphasis]

Mr. Muehlenberg is clearly knocking down a straw man here; no-one here is arguing that the right to stay alive trumps all moral claims or that it is to be preserved “at all costs”, just that it permits one to steal in a situation of extreme necessity by reason of the universal destination of goods. Adultery is always wrong, but taking someone else’s property without his consent is not always wrong.

Interestingly though, Mr. Muehlenberg seems to soften somewhat, at least in tone and emphasis if not in principle, in his opposition to stealing in extreme necessity in his last comment on the subject:

To wrap up our particular discussion, I would simply recognise that there has been a very rich and deep tradition of moral theology within the Catholic church over the centuries. They have thought long and hard about many of these moral issues. Sadly we Protestants - or at least we Evangelicals - have not always intellectually and theologically wrestled as much in these areas. But there are a number of excellent Protestant ethicists and moral theologians out there who are doing a good job nonetheless.

Not backpedaling, by any means, but a curious way to end the discussion nonetheless.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. William, Abbot, A.D. 2009

Mr. Muehlenberg on same-sex parenting

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2009/02/11/children-as-guinea-pigs/

Mr. Bill Muehlenberg has published at his blog a good post against same-sex adoption. (Remember that today is the last day for written submissions to the New South Wales Legislative Council inquiry into adoption by same-sex couples—see here.) Mr. Muehlenberg asks

How will a man raised by two men know how to relate to a woman? Or how will a man raised by two women know how to relate to men? Thus the Beatles were wrong: love is not all you need, at least when it comes to parenting. As two family experts point out: “The two most loving mothers in the world can’t be a father to a little boy. Love can’t equip mothers to teach a little boy how to be a man. Likewise, the two most loving men can’t be a mother to a child.”

They continue, “Love does little to help a man teach a little girl how to be a woman. Can you imagine two men guiding a young girl through her first menstrual cycle or helping her through the awkwardness of picking out her first bra? Such a situation might make for a funny television sitcom but not a very good real-life situation for a young girl.”

Mr. Muehlenberg also refers to empirical research into the effects of same-sex parenting on children although, frustratingly, he does not provide citations.

And if anyone’s wondering just how many children are already being raised by same-sex parents in Australia, I noticed the following interesting things in the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ recently released A Picture of the Nation: the Statistician's Report on the 2006 Census:

Children living with same-sex couples

In 2006, approximately 3,200 children were living with same-sex couples. Most of thesechildren were living with same-sex female couples (89%).

Over half the children living with same-sex couples were reported to be step children (57%), while 38% were reported to be the natural or adopted children of both parents.

Examination of same-sex data from the census may have some limitations. These include the reluctance of some people to report being in a same-sex de facto partnership and the lack of knowledge that same-sex relationships would be counted as such in the census.
(from the article Living arrangements: Children’s living arrangements, p. 77,
http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/LookupAttach/2070.0Publication29.01.0914/$File/20700_Children.pdf)

(As for the number of so-called same-sex de facto couples:

Number of same-sex de facto couples in Australia: about 27,000; as a proportion of all de facto couples: about 3.4 per cent
http://cardinalpole.blogspot.com/2008/12/ms-horin-on-unintended-consequences-of.html)

For my own arguments against this insanity see here.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
13.II.2009 A.D.

More from Mr. Muehlenberg on the Marsh/Williams controversy

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/12/04/so-just-shoot-the-messenger/

Mr. Bill Muehlenberg has posted another good piece at his CultureWatch blog in defence of Mr. Warwick Marsh and his pamphlet 21 Reasons Why Gender Matters. In it, he points out that in fact the pamphlet’s bibliography is dense with neutral or even pro-sodomite sources, and that the controversy over Mr. Marsh’s appointment as a men’s health ambassador (and his subsequent sacking) is really just an exercise in shooting the messenger.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
9.XII.2008 A.D.

Salvation by grace without faith?

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/09/09/on-burning-babies-alive

I was catching up with some of Mr. Muehlenberg’s latest posts when I read something surprising in his comments section. A non-Christian commenter asked Mr. Muehlenberg about the fate of unbaptised infants. This was Mr. Muehlenberg’s answer:

Thanks Chris

It is a good question. The general reply from Christians would be yes, they do go to heaven. Similar questions are raised about the death of infants, etc. The normal line is they are certainly covered by the grace and mercy of God, and they not have yet reached an age of accountability, wherein they would then have to get right with God.

So while their eternal destiny is secured, there is still the major ethical issue of killing innocent human beings, and depriving them of life in this world. We treat animals better. Or at least we seem to make more of a stink about whales or baby seals, than we do our own unborn.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Other commenters backed Mr. Muehlenberg up on this. I found this surprising because I thought Mr. Muehlenberg was a Baptist, and that Baptists thought (like Catholics) that the cleansing away of original sin was necessary for salvation. Now it could be that, just as some conservative Catholics might say (wrongly) that, in general, the unregenerate still go to Heaven, so might some conservative Baptists. But given that it was the Baptists who gave rise to the term ‘Fundamentalist’, one might have hoped for something better! Furthermore, Mr. Muehlenberg is himself a theology lecturer.

It was ironic, then, that it took a Catholic, Mr. Michael Webb, to set them straight. Ironic, since Protestants would tend to disagree with the the Catholic belief in salvation by faith joined with good works, yet these Protestants seem not even to belief in the necessity of faith with or without good works!

Reginaldvs Cantvar

Truth and lies about abortion

Mr. Muehlenberg has posted another typically excellent piece on his blog, looking at some of the myths surrounding abortion. I recommend strongly that you read it; it contains much useful apologetical information for anti-abortionists.

The Church has always taught that abortion is a grave sin; thanks to contemporary embryology we know now that it is not just any grave sin, but is truly murder. That the newly-conceived fœtus is a living human body is beyond doubt, and we know that a human being is a unity of body and soul, so the newly-conceived fœtus is indeed a human being. Abortion is murder. It is the secularist agnosticism and materialism towards what constitutes ‘personhood’ that prevents many from admitting this.

Reginaldvs Cantvar