(The following text is a reordered and condensed version of the video and audio links)
William Blackstone, author of Commentaries on the Laws of England, often cited as authority by our U.S. Supreme Court, made the following observation about law in public remarks following his appointment to a chair at Oxford for teaching common law:
I think it is an undeniable position that a competent knowledge of the laws of a society in which we live is the proper accomplishment of every gentleman and scholar and highly useful. I had almost said an essential, part of a liberal and polite education.
Now, though, each of each of us votes for those who direct our laws. So all of us need a “competent knowledge” about our society’s laws. And the foundation of our law, common law, was expounded for our forebears in Blackstone’s Commentaries.
I Was a Law-Educated Fool
When I read Blackstone’s Commentaries thirty years ago (10 years after finishing law school), I realized I did not have the liberal education he spoke of, meaning a broad one that gave me some basic knowledge of multiple disciplines and their interrelatedness.
Specifically, my education, as good as I and many other thought it was, did not inform me of the nature of the conversations that had been taking place in Western Civilization across the centuries.
As a result, I clueless about what was happening to my thinking during law school. My professors were teaching me what for centuries would have been considered uninformed and illiterate (not well-read) nonsense!
That seems to be true of many lawyers I have known and dialogued with over the last thirty years in connection with public policy and legal advocacy. I understand; their education was too much like mine.
The Terrible Problem Bad Legal Education Presents to Society.
This lack of education is a perfect context for self-serving people to manipulate and mislead the populace. That is bad is an understatement.
But the problem is compounded when those with a learned incompetence in law are providing guidance to others on matters of policy and constitutional interpretation. The consequences are the mess we find ourselves in.
That is why I am beginning a four-part series on Liberty. I will explain difference between the many varied meanings of the word “liberty.” My reason? I didn't know the differences either until about 10 years ago.
An "Apologetic for Liberty” Demonstrates the Need for a “Liberty Series”
I begin with a reference to a monograph I have referred to previously, An Apologetic for Liberty. It was distributed to 1,000s in Tennessee during the 2022 election cycle by Tennessee Stands.
It opens with this quotation from John Winthrop, the first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, "The proper end and object of authority is liberty. This liberty you are to stand for with the hazard not only of your goods but of your lives.”
But what liberty is Winthrop speaking about? Natural liberty? Civil liberty? Political liberty? Christian liberty?
Before you answer, consider how the author begins his first chapter. It sets forth the “liberty” problem. He begins with this as a quotation from 1 Corinthians 7:21-23 (translation not cited) "If you can gain your freedom do so. You were bought at a price. Do not become slaves of men.” There is no indication that much of the referenced text is missing.
On the next page, he writes, “Therefore, it is not only fitting and proper for a Christian to defend the cause of liberty. It is essential. And unless one's liberty is rooted in a Christian worldview, it will be lost” (italics in the original).
From this, I would guess the entire subject is civil or political liberty (is there a difference?) and these Scriptures address that.
Do These Scriptures Really Address Civil or Political Liberty?
As I read the passage from 1 Corinthians, it is not addressed to civil or political liberty at all.
The context for the portions in 1 Corinthians 7 that were quoted is verse 20, which was left out, “Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them” (emphasis supplied).
Not only is that introduction missing, but critical sections within the passage are as well, as well as the conclusion. Perhaps it’s because those sections reveal that the Apostle is not speaking about the author’s preferred subject of civil liberty?
This is the entirety of the passage cited, along with its missing conclusion in verse 24 (the last sentence). To make the comparison easier, I put the missing text in bold font.
Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord's freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings. Brothers and sisters, each person, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation they were in when God called them. (Italics is my emphasis) (NIV)
More is missing than was quoted, but this is question we should ask: Why be content if one is a slave?
The answer is the Christian knows God is ordering all things according to His purposes. Romans 8:28; 2 Corinthians 4:15.
The Apostle Paul is teaching that if one is a slave and can be free, do it. But the theological (gospel) point is that slaves should not let that determine their understanding the liberty and calling they have in Christ. A slave’s calling may include his or present circumstances, and for a number of reasons such as his or her sanctification through trials, witness to the slaveholder and others, and the encouragement of others similarly situated.
And in event event, Paul says, the one with civil liberty is the same “slave” of Christ as his enslaved brother.
It was this theology and demonstrated ethic that undermined the ethics of slavery. Slavery was unlawful at common law in England until their political leaders misled them for the sake of profit. God used Wilberforce to restore the law.
Conclusion.
Civil liberty is important. John Winthrop believed that.
But I also believe he knew the difference between the Christian liberty testified to in Scriptures and a civil liberty drawn from the principles of Scripture.
In the next episode I will use William Blackstone’s Commentaries and an essay by Yale’s Reverend Professor George P. Fisher in 1864 to define civil and political liberty. I assure you their thinking runs against the tide of thinking today!
Share this post