 Yes, we're continuing our Sunday school series of theology of public life lessons for lot in the city of Sodom and we are 15th lesson now on historical in not a 15th lesson on historical development We're in our 15th lesson which deals with the historic development historical development of a theology of public life and Hopefully this is helpful to you. Oh, thank you brother for reminding me If you are here and you would like to pursue membership We have a membership class that's going on over in the corner here by the church office classroom one So let me encourage you to be a part of that class if you're pursuing membership And we want to encourage you to pursue membership. So they're gonna meet with the essentials over there. Okay so historical development and I had a Good friend of our church who has been listening online those kinds of things and I haven't had a chance to text them back yet but he texted me the other day and Was joking around calling me a history professor On Sunday mornings because of these lessons the last three lessons or so and in many respects That's the way it's gonna be for the next couple of lessons including this morning. We get a little bit of church history But one of the reasons that we do that is because we're building to a point, right? We're building a case so to speak and we're getting to the point where in particular after Luther and the reformers in the thought of we'll find soon John Locke and our founders the founding of our government as we go through and work through how they thought of civil government civil authority and how they Developed what we would call a political theology Their understanding of government their understanding of the Christians relationship to the government is developing and is maturing And we can see that we'll see that some today as we work through the history again From Augustine and Augustine's a city of God and how the Christian relates to civil authority Through the Middle Ages then into the Reformation period We're going to see the church as it were mature in its political theology mature in its public theology And so it helps us to see that Because we're gonna think through those things ourselves when we come to making practical application of this in our own church And so I do think it it Makes it should if you're if you're thinking if you're engaging if you're working through the issues You're thinking about the questions that they're thinking about and most of the time as we'll see today there's this tug-of-war that goes on between church and state and That relationship the lines between that relationship the boundaries around that relationship are slowly being clarified slowly being explained and It helps us to be able to think about those questions too in developing our own theology of public life So I pray that the history part of it though relatively short will have you know four or five total lessons on this will be helpful to you So we'll do today. We're gonna look through the medieval period Next week we're gonna look at the Reformation and then the week after we'll get to our founding and our form of government Before we begin then talking about a theology of Christian resistance Which will come so in a few weeks we'll get to that theology and we'll be able to Help you with that. Okay a theology of public life. We're in the 15th lesson historical development in a couple of weeks ago, we looked at the early church and those three great periods of persecution last week we looked at Constantine and Augustine and today we come to the medieval period and We're calling the recovery of Aristotelian politics or the writings of Aristotle were Recovered or we're given a new look during the medieval period and we'll talk about that this morning Okay, so here's our history lesson history lesson for Sunday school today Augustinian thought Regarded regarding civil government began with Augustine's Augustine's lengthy treatise entitled the city of God in 410 AD Following the sack of Rome by the Visigoths Would be Augustinian thought in one form or another that would then dominate political thought for the next Thousand years up through the period of the Reformation Government was instituted by God to restrain evil and so in that sense government was God's minister for good We learned that in Romans 13 But government was a mechanical necessity not a natural necessity in other words Governments were put in place because of the fall of man and because of the propensity of man to sin Governments instituted by God to restrain corruption to restrain evil but because civil government or civil authority although it was instituted by God Civil government is a part of Augustine's a city of man and Being a part of the city of man a civil government civil authority is susceptible to Sin original sin in particular in Augustine's thought and so government therefore naturally you could say as a consequence of the fall Naturally turns evil naturally turns corrupt governments inevitably become then organized oppression Maintaining power through coercion in Augustine's words coercion threats and violence and We see that in world history. It's not uncommon and governments tend to devolve Okay, and so Augustine you would say had this pessimistic understanding of government and it was that Augustinian Pessimism that would sort of flavor how people thought about civil authority for a thousand years It would be fifth and sixth century popes Beginning with Galatius the first That would then begin to exert ecclesiastical authority over governments over civil government and led to the two swords theory that we talked about briefly last week God has given two swords to the church Galatius would say the greater for its sacred Jurisdiction the lesser sword for its secular Jurisdiction and the church then lends the lesser sword to the state so to speak and maintains ultimate authority over both Putting the Pope not only over the entire church But also the entirety of the earth's civil authority civil government. I think that's what Galatius was after So after Galatius then the tug-of-war between the jurisdictions of church and state get heated up And there's this tug-of-war that takes place between mainly between popes and civil government with respect to jurisdiction and authority in particular the authority of the state so Church-state relations then During the Middle Ages during this period during this tug-of-war saw a not only a broad expansion if you will of civil authority into the affairs of the church But also saw a very broad Expansion expansion of papal authority into the affairs of state in other words the the jurisdictions the landmarks if you will are virtually gone in several of these cases and you see civil authority civil government Overstepping its bounds outside of its jurisdiction Exercising the authority where it should not but you also see the same kind of tyranny so to speak on the part of the church Doing the same thing Overflowing its boundaries into the jurisdiction of the state and exercising an authority where it ought not and so several circumstances then a contributed to that tug-of-war first Oddly enough one of the things that contributed to the tug-of-war was that emperors Began to appoint bishops to positions within civil government. This began slowly But then erupted into what is called the investiture controversy. We'll talk about that in a minute, but it began with popes if if church authorities church figures were under so to speak the Civil governance the civil protection of the state Then the state had the authority to appoint church leaders church officers many church officers church leaders were given positions in civil government and if they were under their leaders in civil government then those leaders have the right to dictate their affairs in Ecclesial government as well and so we saw this expansion of power on the part of the state begin that way a transitional figure in this development was a Benedictine monk named Gregory would later be called by the Catholic Church Gregory the great if you've heard that name before Gregory was appointed by the emperor Justin to be prefect or mayor of Rome numerous attacks on the city of Rome had led to a void of leadership and so emperor Justin appointed Gregory who was a monk over Rome as mayor of Rome in 573 AD Highest civil position in the city so Gregory a Benedictine monk found himself then in charge of things like grain stores and Taxes and helping the poor and building and water supply and things like that. He became a civil authority After stepping down from that post Pope Galatius made him a deacon in the church and he became an ambassador to the imperial court in Constantinople So still involved in politics and then immediately after he became a deacon the plague broke out if you remember the stories of the plague I heard one guy describe it one historian describe it as began with the tickle in the throat and then black eruptions followed by death and The plague just swept across Europe killing millions Pray plague broke out and that plague followed by Devastating attacks from the Lombards if you remember last week we talked about the sack of Rome by the Visigoths Well another Germanic tribe called the Lombards also began to attack Rome their their purpose was to Take over Italy essentially and so began to attack around Italy and made their way to Rome and The Roman Empire as a result of these attacks as a result of the plague as a result of the crumbling civil authority in the Roman Empire The Roman Empire was in chaos. It was in swift decline and Gregory is quoted to have said this I thought this was interesting. What is it that can be? What is it that can at this time delight us in this world? Everywhere we see tribulation everywhere. We see we hear lamentation You think about the circumstances that we find ourselves in today And I hear I I know I've said it I've heard others say it like how much worse can it get right? The Lord Jesus Christ is gonna be coming back quickly certainly, you know, it's like this things have deteriorated to such a point that it's It's so awful so terrible. Well, think about Gregory at this time period and what they must have thought, you know, think about what? Saints During the period of the Second World War first World War what they thought at that time seeing the world on fire, so to speak They're thinking the same way that we often think today Certainly the Lord will come back soon has always been this this doctrine of the imminent return the soon return of the Lord Jesus Christ was no exception in Gregory's day What is it Gregory said that can delight us in this world everywhere? We see tribulation everywhere we hear lamentation the cities are destroyed the castles torn down the fields laid waste the land made Desolate villages are empty few inhabitants remain in the cities and even these poor remnants of humanity are daily cut down The scourge of celestial justice does not cease because no repentance takes place under the scourge We see how some are carried into captivity others mutilated others slain What is it brethren that can make us contented with this life if we love such a world? We love not our joys, but our wounds the Gregory sort of lamenting the state of the Roman Empire at the time It's what prompted Gregory to be a very fastidious civil magistrate civil authority and so worked tire tirelessly To do his job well in that capacity the church at Rome was one of the very few institutions That seemed to survive the attacks of that day and at the death of Pope Galatius Gregory was then elevated to the papacy Virtually in the place then and this is where this this transition begins to take place this tug-of-war in the place of an established Decisive assertive strong civil authority the church began to take control and the church was seen as a strong decisive authority so Virtually in the place of civil government Pope Gregory now began to acquire land Pope Gregory Acquired a great deal of land and the church became Even at that time one of the largest if not the largest landowner in the Roman Empire Pope Gregory formed a militia a standing army if you will to defend Italy but also the interest of the church against attacks by the Lombards I Began to tax the population in order to support these efforts You see how the lines are incredibly blurred right all of a sudden now we've got this is the You know in the mind of the Catholic Church the head of the church exercising this kind of civil authority and Jurisdictions are being blended acquiring land developing a standing army and now taxing the population in order to support it Gregory then began to appoint governors began to appoint prefects negotiated peace with Lombard leaders So he's acting far less like a pope now and acting far more like an emperor or a governor After Gregory are during this period of tug of war following Gregory's example The Pope really was no longer strictly or merely an ecclesial or ecclesiastical office exercising an ecclesiastical authority the church became In many ways a civil authority Largest landowner in the Empire standing armor army Pope became as much a political figure as he was anything else and that all over Europe. He wasn't confined to a You know small area there around Rome all over Europe all over the West the Pope began to exercise Civil authority boundaries are broken down spheres of jurisdiction becoming confused okay Second then first period under Gregory the second That tug of war the rope was pulled in the opposite direction So to speak and power pulled back by the emperor the early part of the 8th century Earlier part of the 8th century we're gonna move toward the Reformation Emperor Leo the third on the heels of a significant military victories asserting power of the Roman army began to enforce his religious convictions So now you have an emperor who? Exerting a force over the Empire now begins to enforce his religious convictions as well and Pope Leo or a pope Leo. It's more probably accurate Emperor Leo Had strong religious convictions, so he began to enforce those he first commanded the forcible baptism of Jews and Mottness Mottness were a essentially a charismatic cult Sect that claimed to be a part of the Catholic Church that I think actually practice believers baptism and Jews of course needed to be baptized and so Emperor Leo Commanded the forced baptism of as many Jews and Mottness as they could round up The emperor decided that the church's use of icons or images venerated in worship was idolatrous Right for whatever reason he he came to that good theology. That's true And so in 730 AD Emperor Leo banned the use of icons and pictures in worship. Here's an emperor, but he's passing dictates For the church Dictating how the church was to worship this became known as the iconoclastic controversy controversy surrounding icons Happened under developed over a century, but really came to head with Emperor Leo here The iconoclastic controversy made iconoclasm the official position of the church rounded up images pictures statues icons and had them destroyed Ordered the removal of images from churches enforcing punishments if churches refused even burning churches to the ground that refused So then Bishop Germanus of Constantinople referred refused and so Leo then Emperor Leo Replaced him with a bishop of his own choosing So Emperor Leo began to choose his own bishops began to appoint his own church leaders So just as Gregory had begun to trend one direction. It became more and more and more and more Civil you could say in his authority. We see the opposite thing happen now in the 8th century with Leo becoming more and more and more Ecclesiastical in his authority begins appointing leaders in the church of his own choosing. He threatened Uncooperative ecclesial authorities with beatings torture and with imprisonment and carried those out Whereas popes used to look to the emperor for protection the church really couldn't go to Emperor Leo for protection. So the popes began to look at the Frankish kings. These Germanic tribes began to look to their kings for protection including The Franks who were a Germanic tribe at that time that had converted to Christianity and that under began with the work of Gregory converting these Germanic tribes to Christianity and so under Leo That sent church leaders Scrambling for other civil authority to protect the church against Emperor Leo and ended up Putting their trust in Germanic tribes. So then third first Gregory second We see the pendulum swing all the way back out to the other side with Emperor Leo Third and interesting the tug-of-war goes the other way with a later pope of the same name now It's not Emperor Leo the third. It's Pope Leo the third and that in 795 795 AD Pope Leo the third elected as Pope under the Frankish Carolingian King Charlemagne you guys have heard the name Charlemagne from history Pope was attacked on the streets of Rome Leading a parade after his victory over the in the election over the prior Pope and Forces of the prior that's the Ed forces forces of the prior Pope attacked Pope Leo on the streets of Rome and their Charlemagne had troops in Rome at the time and the troops of Charlemagne came in and rescued Pope Leo defended Pope Leo and so Charlemagne and Pope Leo became friendly Pope was then accused by his enemies and Charlemagne felt as though it was his responsibility to do something about it even though he wasn't sure that he had the right to Bring or drag a pope into court. That's exactly what he did So he brings Pope Leo into court and has Pope Leo acquitted of all the accusations against him establishing more a connection there between Pope Leo and Charlemagne But it also what that also did was it set a precedent And that was a carefully crafted precedent by Charlemagne set a precedent that the Frankish King had authority over the head of the church To sit in judgment of the Pope So it established the authority of the state as Supreme or superior over the authority of the church So that wouldn't stand and a couple of days later at Christmas Mass Pope Leo Comes down the aisle with a crown in his hand and crowns Charlemagne Holy Roman Emperor Emperor and so that sets the precedents very very craftily Schemed by Pope Leo sets the precedents that the Pope has authority to make emperors And so giving the church the highest or supreme authority over emperors this little tug-of-war tug-of-war back and forth What's the tug-of-war about it's about who has authority who has jurisdiction over the affairs of state over the affairs of church When clear and we've talked about this before in in previous lessons that there has been there is in Scripture and has been in church history a clear understanding of the distinction between church and state not that they operate an absolution from one another or Entirely without regard for one another, but there are clear boundaries around civil authority clear boundaries around ecclesiastical authority And there is that separation that we find in scripture that is to be honored and when we see those boundaries Those jurisdictions blurred there's always trouble and so there's this constant tug-of-war through the medieval period related to that issue and What's going to happen as we near the American colonies is that's going to become clear and clear Those lines are going to become clear and clear What followed this issue this tug-of-war between Pope Leo and Charlemagne what was called what was called the lay investiture Controversy should be referenced a minute ago. It's coming to a head now where political authorities were appointing church leaders Bishops have been taking roles in civil government, which biblically is okay to do if you read our confession of faith Under the chapter on the civil magistrate. It's good and acceptable for Christians to take office in civil government But bishops began taking roles in civil government coming under the higher authority of civil governing authorities above them And those authorities began to presume to appoint leaders in the churches and it began the lay investiture controversy That controversy ended with a concordant of worms of worms 1122 AD and that ended investiture and They came to an agreement Pope and emperor that church authorities church Officers would only be appointed by the church with the approval of the Pope These periods of tug-of-war one side to the next Served to expose tyrants on either side We've talked about Tyranny an example of tyranny or the definition of tearing tyranny being When civil authority steps beyond the boundaries of its own jurisdiction to exercise an authority that it does not have In the jurisdiction of another that civil authority becomes tyrannical That's an example of tyranny and it's right for the church to push back It's also right for the church to maintain her proper boundaries between church and state And we'll maybe we have an opportunity. I'm sure we will We'll take some time and talk particularly about pheonomy and reconstructionism. We'll talk about some of those things in the future So these there were tyrants then on either side usurpers and ecclesiastical office violating the boundaries of their jurisdiction Or usurpers in civil office violating the boundaries of their jurisdiction Resistance against tyranny took place outside the sphere of the church as well in his book a slaying with iathan Glenn sunshine brings up the example of the Magna Carta. So if you were at some point a high school History student you surely have heard the word of the name the Magna Carta for the longest time I couldn't remember anything about it. Just remember that name the Great Charter The Great Charter 1215 we're nearing we're getting we're getting closer to the Reformation now right 1215 AD Well the Magna Carta was essentially a document that asserted Barons rights feudal barons in England Asserted their rights what they described as natural rights would later be called inalienable rights Asserted the natural rights of feudal baron lords against then a very tyrannical King John And so the Magna Carta was drafted in order to set as it were it was barons resisting Against the King and they it would have been termed at that time They would have understood it to be Christian resistance. They had rights given them by God They were asserting their rights against King John the Magna Carta also included Assertions of church rights Against King John that King John was not the head of the church as he was acting to be and so asserting Personal individual rights Asserting territorial rights property rights attorney asserting liberty rights and Asserting church rights against a tyrannical King John. That was the Magna Carta This was the Magna Carta one an example of the governed pushing back against or resisting governmental overreach So you see an example of that in the Magna Carta Augustinian thought regarding checks on governmental power Influenced the charter so in Augustine pessimistic about civil authority being able to keep itself in check Augustin spoke of checks and balances the framers of the Magna Carta I picked up on Augustinian thought with respect to check checks and balances and Augustinian thought on checks and balances was inserted into that was them one of the foundations of the Magna Carta and in third The basis on which this resistance to tyranny took place was an assertion of natural What they would call natural rights what Aristotle called natural rights We would understand we'll talk about that in a minute. We would understand natural rights a little differently Our founders would call them inalienable or unalienable rights natural rights the argument for natural law and Natural rights was in part due to thinking of Aristotle That thinking was furthered in the 13th century by the medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas Right before we get into natural rights natural law. I've been rambling for a while any Questions about any of that I know we're getting a history lesson bear with me in a couple of weeks. We're gonna be through the history. We'll get Back to some good theology This is helping us. I think with our theology some right this It's good to know church history really good to know church history and good to know like What the church struggled with what people struggled with what they went through and thought through and and in large respect it Helps us to avoid the same kinds of error in our thinking and sometimes it causes us to say what were they thinking? How in the world did that ever happen? gives us a great appreciation for the reformation that period of a thousand years under a growing Approaching Roman Catholicism finally you get a just a breath of fresh air at the reformation finally After a thousand years of that darkness So that's also very encouraging about church history Any questions or thoughts? Yeah James? Yeah, very good question and yes. Yeah, so church authorities For the longest time there there there were many in the earlier part of the church Thousands of copies made but even those copies it wasn't common for a person to have a copy of the scriptures or copy of a Scroll of Isaiah so to speak in their possession In the same way that the Jewish scriptures were copied very very carefully and then each synagogue would have had a set of scrolls Often the copies were given to the church And so if you wanted to hear the scriptures you went to the church to hear them wherever the church met and whatever way that the scriptures were read and so your only access to the scriptures was The meeting place of the church and that's the way that this persisted for until the time of the reformation And I actually I'm gonna mention a little bit about that in the sermon this morning because we're gonna talk about the the great advantages the tremendous advantages that the Jewish people had Paul says, you know the Jewish objector asks what advantage has the Jew then right? What profit is there to circumcision and Paul says much in every way chiefly because to them were given the oracles of God So it's a tremendous blessing a tremendous advantage to have the scriptures in that way and for this period of time The church largely withholding The scriptures from the people as a responsibility of the church and that was Turned around at the reformation and you saw began to see copies made translations into English made William Tyndale Gave his life gave his life so that we could have a copy of the Bible in English So yeah, good question brother any other questions. Okay. Let's keep moving along then. Okay Let's talk about natural all natural rights thinking of Aristotle Thomas Aquinas 13th century theologian wrote a treatise called summa summa theologi a theologi about ten thousand No, it's far more than that I'm drawing a blank now ten thousand pages. I think he's accurate ten thousand pages to summa theologi Thomas Aquinas wrote much on the doctrine of God that we can rely on Today some of that helpful and he also wrote much on a theology of public life and wrote much on a political theory the relationship of the church the Christian to the state and so one of the things that Aquinas did in developing is is a political thought was to revive the writings of Aristotle and so Thomas Aquinas commissioned a Translation of Aristotle Aristotle's politics in the Latin. I think that was 1260 80 And it became the basis for much of Aquinas's thought writing on political theory That would would help us later our founders later on Aristotle Had based his theory of government or his theory of politics on what he called natural law natural law Aquinas then gave us a biblical understanding of what natural law is Natural law to Aristotle was something that Developed naturally so to speak Aristotle was a secularist, but developed naturally so to speak Through community Like many atheists would think today right we have our morality because morality over time just sort of develops as people get together And I don't like this done to me. You don't like that done to you. And so that's Immoral right it's immoral for me to do this to you It's immoral for you to in other words morality just sort of is nurtured in community as we live together in harmony Sort of Aristotle's view of natural law. It comes about naturally Thomas Aquinas understood natural law to be written on the heart of man by God made in God's image right that Natural I we've talked about when we went through the law and gospel study here, which is a really fruitful study really helpful study There was a distinction made between natural law and positive law right natural law is that law of God that law that Reflects God's perfect nature his perfect essence his perfect being of that law which represents the character of God Naturally woven into the fabric of our DNA so to speak written on the heart of man at creation such that Adam and his posterity would naturally naturally Desire to obey because obedience to the natural law to be obedience that law was the highest good Would naturally obey they had that law of God written on their heart that law if faced Dramatically corrupted at the fall not done away with all together. We still have as Paul says the work of the law written on our hearts But that law defaced corrupted by the fall. Nonetheless, that's natural law written on the heart of man as distinct from positive law which was a law given For example Natural law Represented by the Ten Commandments or summarized by the Ten Commandments You then have have positive laws like for example a positive part of the fourth commandment For example for the Jews was to worship on Saturday these six days you'll work this day You'll rest in the New Testament. We see that day By positive preset by positive commendation example in scripture move to the Lord's Day first day the week Sunday It's a positive part of that natural law that we rest one day and seven makes sense Distinction between natural law and positive law. Okay, so Aristotle based his theory of politics on Natural law these natural laws that rise up that governments don't have to put in place These things are naturally in place so to speak and what was fascinating about And you can find this in sunshine's book sunshine Read sunshine's book. It's like you you call your son or daughter sunshine sun. Good morning sunshine This is a book by Glenn sunshine. He's a good author read him Aristotle's Talk about government and that book is really helpful really fascinating Aristotle Basically saw three forms of government And these forms are seen in the formation of our own government, right? So think with me for a moment Three forms of government Conceived up by Aristotle one was a monarchy pretty clear right ruled by a single individual But that monarchy ruled by a single individual if that single individual rules for self interests or for self indulgence lusts Then rather than ruling for the common good of the people which is what government is to be for there as We would say ministers of God for good If that ruler monarch rules for self-interest then it devolves into tyranny, right monarchy Devolves into tyranny the second form of government was an aristocracy rule by a few not one individual but by a few an aristocracy and when that aristocracy No longer governs for the common good of the people but rather governs for self Good self-indulgence that aristocracy devolves into an oligarchy an oligarchy It's basically tyranny of the few a third form of government was a republic Which is ruled by representation ruled by representation, but when representative rule Represents a mob That is more controlled by passion and emotion than they are by reason Then that republic devolves into democracy Now that's interesting. We're used to thinking of democracy as something good but in Republic is the good form of the government, which is that's why we have a constitutional republic here in the United States area Amen, we have a constitutional republic Aristotle saw that and rightfully so saw that as when that representation breaks down and that representation becomes representative of mob rule a rule by passion ruled by self-indulgence rather than Rule for the common good of the people then that republic breaks down into democracy literally mob rule And so Aristotle feared saw the potential for in that case a demagogue Literally a mob boss a mob ruler mob leader Stirring up the passions of the mob To get the mob to act out of emotion act out of passion rather than acting out of reason We see that example all over the place too. Don't we the first example that comes to mind for me was the the Jews Crucifying the Lord Jesus Christ Who for envy the Jewish leaders stirring up the passion of the mob and the mob out acting out of passion and emotion rather than reason? falsely crucified the Christ right Aristotle saw the danger of mob psychology is what that is mob psychology and We see mob psychology today in spades don't we? college campuses, it's amazing how absolutely unable to reason and and What often happens is an inability to win an argument on the merits Leads to silencing your opposition shouting down your opposition mob rule so to speak ensues and you're pushing speakers off college platforms at Events on college campuses, right? We see that today in our day Aristotle's fear of mob rule and increasingly so you get mob rule right now in like cities like Portland It's incredulous to me that that's taking place in our country, but what? Those who saw for example Aristotle Aristotle wasn't the first but in looking at a monarchy looking at an aristocracy looking at Republic the devolution of those three forms of government was inevitable that a monarchy will Inevitably become tyranny and aristocracy will Inevitably become an oligarchy and a republic will inevitably become mob rule either mob rule chaos and anarchy or Mob rule that necessitates despotism and totalitarianism But one way or another it devolves and why? It's back to Augustinian pessimism. It's because of original sin the fall of man man is sinful governments require a populace to be and this is in the words of Thomas Aquinas Require a populace to be virtuous in order for the government to succeed if the populace isn't virtuous then the government will devolve And eventually lead to despotism lead to totalitarianism lead to anarchy to chaos and we see that throughout history and For all of its checks and balances we see that happening in our country today don't we we see that very thing happening in our country today and Because those checks and balances are not sufficient to restrain the sin of man It will devolve right. It's not a matter of if it's a matter of when right Each of those forms of government Aristotle would say had strengths and weaknesses right a monarch could act swiftly active Decisively but because he's acting alone. He often would act foolishly right An aristocracy could act a little swifter But weren't didn't always have the interests of all the people or the common good in mind as much as maybe they had their own interest in mind like a bunch of feudal barons pushing back against King John right had their own interests in mind Or your representative form of government really good a republic in the sense that it represented the interests of the common good but acted really slowly and really painfully sometimes to get through Administrations before a new representative government could be formed each had their strengths each had their weaknesses The ideal state in the ideal state in Aristotle's thinking Aquinas people are virtuous the next best state Best next next best civil authority would be a civil authority that represented all three forms of government think with me Okay, would be a blend if you will of all three with checks and balances put in place so a blend of monarchy aristocracy and republic And If you think about it our government is an attempt our founders reading Aristotle reading Aquinas An attempt to put all three in place monarchy represented by the president the aristocracy not a representative body, but one of Leadership by the few rulers rule by a few represented by the the Senate and then Representative government Republic represented by House of Congress right so yeah, so we what what our founders attempted to do Was to put all three? Forms in place at once to serve as a checks and balances against the other and out of the judicial branch Which needs a checks and balances of its own But they've got all three forms of government checks and balances between the three all three used in our form of government to try to to negate The effects of man's sin in civil authority That was essentially the the purpose I'll I'll have some quotes when we get to that point of discussing this in two weeks when we talk about our the founding fathers in Our own government, but I want to say that it was it was James Madison who said In writing the Constitution do everything that you can to reign in the madness of men And in other words our Constitution written to do everything Humanly that we can to reign in the wickedness of civil men fallen men in civil authority And so really our form of government Was conceived with that in mind, you know, what can we do to keep this thing from falling apart? We'll talk about that in a couple of weeks. Okay priorities of Aristotle then summarized Governments should work for the good of the people rather than out of self-interests Governments should be established by reason not by passion Governments should not trample upon the liberties of the people afforded them by natural law natural rights a Government should work for the good should be established by reason should not trample upon rights when government fails That government must be resisted as evil We're to resist evil When government fails and it fails to uphold those three concerns It must be resisted as evil incidentally Natural rights for Aristotle was grounded in purpose right natural rights Flow out of the purpose for which someone is created or something is created, right? and so people in Aristotle's mind were created for Well-being The Greek word is you you dumb you to Maya you to Maya you to Maya And that means well-being That people were created for or exist for their own well-being Later that word you to Maya would be translated happiness by Thomas Jefferson leading to one of our inalienable rights being the pursuit of You to Maya happiness well-being right that everybody has the the right the God given Establish that's what Aquinas would say God given the established right to pursue Virtue to pursue well-being to pursue excellence to pursue essentially their happiness their joy One of our inalienable rights our inalienable rights given to us by God Understood by Aristotle and Aquinas as natural rights That theme of natural rights picked up later in the 12th century by the Decretus. We'll talk about them 6-0 Courts, is that some of the times Aquinas or Aristotle considered or is that some of that wasn't Going on at that time. Yes, they had been there had been much written about the courts And I don't the the courts the way they operate today We're not conceived of I think the way like if our founding fathers I saw the way that the courts operated today they would be Shocked and appalled right shocked and appalled So we'll talk about that when we get to our founding, but the courts have existed In perpetuity like it's for millennia now Whatever law was in place you had courts that would come alongside and Adjudicate or apply the law And so even under Aristotle or Aquinas the courts were there not conceived of as a branch of government per se But upholding law. So whatever the government whatever was dictated whatever was put in place the courts were there to establish or to to To protect to see to it that the law was carried out or applied We see legislation going on in our court system today We'll talk about that some soon. So yeah, the courts were part of the thinking But not conceived of as a form of government. So there to help or assist the government Okay, 12th century There's a group That was formed or began to be called the Decretus a benefiting benefiting monk 1140 AD named Gratian wrote Something called the Decretum and The Decretum was essentially explaining Contradictions in canon law so with the laws of the church and where Gratian saw apparent contradictions Gratian would explain the law Theologically and so in the church in particular for centuries after There were those who were called Decretus Who would study the writings of great Gratian and would study these apparent contradictions and the way that the law applied to them and so Decretus wrote much about natural law or Begin to write about inalienable rights One of those being life Natural law is we don't murder you shall not murder that's the 10 Commandments the Decalogues summary of that natural law We know the law of God written on our hearts that we are not to murder that life is precious and That not only are we not to murder but the positive application of that laws that were to do all we can to preserve life right it's in other words the the Decalogue isn't merely a you shall not but in Joinders Encompasses all everything to do with that law positive and negative right One of the reasons that it is just and right to stand out in front of an abortion mill and preach against the murder of babies is Because we should labor to preserve life And preach the gospel and so part of keeping The sixth commandment is to preach at the abortion mill, right? There are all kinds of ways in which we thou shalt nots are Accompanied by and compel a thou shall then Both negative and positive aspects of the law so life for example was one of those inalienable rights that the Decretus wrote about You're not to murder life is a gift from God Because it is a gift directly from the hand of God it is inalienable It cannot be Renounced cannot be given up to give it up to squander it is sin Since life comes from God no one can deprive us of it arbitrarily including ourselves Therefore we must do everything we can to preserve life Life is a right that exists outside of ourselves. It is given to us. Therefore that right is objective versus subjective later laws Rights began to be discussed in those terms objective and subjective Objective that is that which is clear doesn't have to be written, right? It doesn't have to be written down now shalt not murder, right? It's a natural law natural laws Began to be thought of as objective laws positive law began to be thought of as subjective Life then becomes an inalienable right. Thank you brother We see that in our Bill of Rights, don't we the right to life Liberty Was one of those inalienable rights written about by the Decretus the right to liberty That was the concept that was employed in the Magna Carta the right to liberty Liberty is a gift given to us by God. There's debate over whether liberty may be renounced or not renounced that Liberty Maybe a mediated gift. We can talk about that later property was another inalienable rights. We have life Liberty property property becoming and is an inalienable right that Property cannot be taken from you that property is a gift from God and For all of human history. We've owned property Property though is something that is mediated. It can be bought sold traded And so it's something that you can renounce for good purpose if you deem fit as you steward your possession of property We see that happening all over the Bible the Bible gives us good background for that But the Bible also establishes property rights with respect to landmark laws and the Minotaur don't move your neighbor's landmark. That was always a Issue of property rights. So what do we have? We have Inalienable rights the right to life the right to liberty the right to property later that right to property was narrowed to a right to you to Maya well-being and The right of the people to in the words of Thomas Jefferson to pursue happiness, okay Laws then That restrict Those inalienable God-given rights or Civil authorities that restrict those God-given inalienable rights is illegitimate Laws that restrict them are illegitimate civil authorities that restrict them are illegitimate. They're unlawful and should be Resisted and that's going to lead us up to the Reformation in particular and then our founding Medieval even in the medieval period During this time medieval canon lawyers all the way back to Gregory right all the way back to the beginning of the medieval period Canon lawyers, you know the judicial system saw Inalienable rights as life liberty and property or a pursuit of well-being pursuit of virtue a pursuit of excellence Religious liberty obviously included in liberty and that anyone who stood in the way or restricted those rights Was authoritarian was tyrannical was illegitimate and should be resisted And it was not only lawful considered lawful to resist It was considered sinful not to resist It was considered a right to resist why? Because you're standing opposed to evil You're standing opposed to that which is unlawful You're opposing the spread of sin You're opposing harm right so in other words in even in the minds of medieval canon lawyers It was the right of the people the responsibility of Christians To stand opposed to evil spread in this world at the hands of illegitimate civil authority or illegitimate rule tyrannical rule Anything that would restrict the inalienable God-given rights of the people and why is that because we're steward of those rights given to us We don't freely give those up. We've thought about that in several cases now. We have Right to life so to speak so no one can take my life from me including myself that I have a stewardship from God my Responsibility for my life is between me and God. I have a stewardship of it. So no one can take that from me No one can restrict my Liberty given to me by God because I steward that liberty for on behalf of for the glory of God So that's not to be taken from me make sense So even during the medieval period this idea of Christian Resistance have been established in particular now on the basis of inalienable or natural rights any final questions Okay History lesson gradually coming to a close next week. We'll talk about the reformation and then the week after we'll get into our founding yes, you said the middle medieval times when this occurred with the Canon lawyers. Do you have any date around when that started? Really early? I don't know how I'm happy. It's 12. Oh, no, no way before so if you look back at Even fourth century Yeah, so Gregory the great This that kind of thought was sort of in germ form all along Aristotle was 300s, you know, so That it was in Seed form even at Aristotle's time and had just been slowly developed over a long period of time Yeah, remember it was Aristotle who was writing about natural rights and natural law Writing about those forms of government well before anything that happened in medieval Europe and so fascinating Yeah, and he was really the only one before that Like Plato others Weren't thinking about government in that way Aristotle was really the first Yeah, okay. Let's pray and get you out of here and we'll prepare for worship Father in heaven. Thank you so much Lord for just the blessed opportunity We have to talk about these things and given some time here to develop them think about how You know our brothers and sisters how the the church in in centuries past have thought about these things and to in our time In this period of history to cultivate our own Theology of public life help us to do that faithfully. We want to think Let this simmer and brew as it were so that we can not rush to judgments or be hasty in how we Think about how the Bible applies in these circumstances But that just given time to let these this subject Percolate in our brain so to speak we we have the opportunity here Lord by your provision to us to Cultivate what we hope will be a way to faithfully serve you in our generation With these things in mind. These are things that we can also pass along to our kids after us and Lord I pray that they'd be faithful in their generation as well. We love you This is for your Glory for the good of your body the church We pray that you would bless your people in and through it and please Lord continue to protect us I protect us from the overreach of a tyrannical civil authority. I protect us from being faithless and overstepping our boundaries in Sinfully standing opposed to civil authority help us to submit as we should And help us to honor you and all of it. We love you Lord be with us now as we worship you in the morning service May you be praised and Jesus then we pray amen