The Rule of Law

Audio Player

The Rule of Law has been defined, in its most basic form, as the principle that no one is above the law. All persons and authorities should be bound by and entitled to the benefits of laws publicly made ... and publicly administered in the courts. The principle is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary governance, whether by a totalitarian leader or by mob rule. Thus, the rule of law is hostile both to dictatorship and to anarchy. It also refers to the influence and authority of law within society, particularly as a constraint upon behaviour, including behaviour of government officials.

So it's fitting that we look at what the Bible says about this as we celebrate the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, which established in 1215, at the time of King John, that a monarch couldn't rule as he pleased. And do pick up a copy of the Christian Institute's briefing paper on this from the back of church. Lord Denning, a leading English judge of the last century said this of Magna Carta.

Magna Carta is the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot".

The charter establishes the principle that no one, not even the monarch, is above the law. But what kind of law did Magna Carta advocate? Winston Churchill wrote that 'throughout Magna Carta it's implied there's a law above the monarch'. In 1215 Stephen Langton, the Archbishop of Canterbury, played a major role in putting Magna Carta together, especially in the charter's clauses on religious freedom, individual liberty and restraint of authority. Langton understood God to be the great lawgiver who had placed his moral law on the consciences of all people such that each would have to give account to him.

So Magna Carta assumes that the nation's laws and rulers should be subject to God's law. And the Bible teaches (Romans 2:15) that there's a law written on the heart– the conscience – which acts as a restraint on human conduct, though it can't save and is subject to the influence of sin. Christianity refers to this concept of 'natural law' (i.e. a set of rules inherent in human behaviour and human reasoning and established by God that governs human conduct) and argues that governments exist to uphold natural law. Apparently Steve McLaren, the new Newcastle United manager, is wanting to uphold natural law at the club this season as he's banned all foul language by players, staff and officials, which bodes well. The 16th century theologian Richard Hooker said that human laws are 'ill made' if they contradict Scripture. These arguments were crucial at the Nuremberg War Tribunal following the state-sanctioned Nazi atrocities in WW2. A defence of "I was just following orders" was no excuse. You can't not know that murder is wrong. There are moral principles higher than governments and kings.

And we thank God that his laws and the principles of Magna Carta have been the basis of the rule of law in England for hundreds of years and have made a difference to the life of this nation. Not that this difference hasn't had to be fought for sometimes, by appealing to the basis of the law. The Christian Institute's briefing mentions one such instance involving Granville Sharp, an evangelical Christian.

The prevailing legal and public opinion in 18th century England was that slavery was acceptable. But in 1772, Granville argued that English law stretching back to Magna Carta did not justify the practice. He remarked that "no power on earth" can make slavery right. In the famous Somerset case, Sharp applied for a writ of habeas corpus for the freedom of James Somerset, arguing that as he wasn't the property of his master he couldn't be forcibly shipped to Jamaica.

Habeas corpus stemmed from the idea that no one can be unjustifiably detained by the state – an idea etched onto our legal landscape by Magna Carta. Momentously, the court agreed with Sharp that slavery on English soil was contrary to centuries of English law and a writ of habeas corpus could be used to free any of the then 14,000 slaves in England. That decision effectively made slavery illegal in England. And the principle that the Somerset case established – that slavery is "odious" and not supported by English law – helped pave the way for the eventual abolition of the slave trade (1807) and of slavery itself throughout the British Empire (1833).

We need more Granville Sharp's today. You see the freedoms we enjoy in this nation, rooted in Magna Carta, have been hard-won over centuries of Christian influence. Yet at various points over the last 800 years, fundamental liberties have been undermined or ignored. Our own time is in danger of becoming one of those points.

Magna Carta's assumption that the nation's laws and authorities should be subject to God's laws is being changed by our current leaders. This is often in the guise of equality legislation or under anti-extremist legislation. Now sure the authorities must have the resources they need to do their anti-terror work effectively. But core Christian values and freedoms must not be sacrificed. Last week it was reported that as part of the government's PREVENT strategy against extremism those who believe homosexual sex is sinful could come under scrutiny. This sermon could come under scrutiny! Yet ironically the acceptance of and legalisation of immorality in the West is a factor in more Muslims becoming radicalised.

And the speedy moves to same-sex marriage becoming legal (which never featured in the government's manifesto) is a clear move away from God's Law in Scripture and is leading to a lack of freedom of religion especially in the workplace as secular equality legislation is imposed. Asher's Bakery have suffered as a result as have some Christian registrars and doctors. At the moment the Church of England is not allowed by law to perform same-sex marriages. But the pressure for change even within the church is gaining momentum - last week the Episcopal Church in the US dropped the words husband and wife from the marriage service - and I'm waiting for a challenge to the law safeguarding the C of E. It could come from a couple wanting a same-sex marriage here at JPC. Every time I get an enquiry about a wedding at JPC I wonder if this will be the challenge, a challenge which may take the issue to the European Court of Human Rights and then me to jail for refusing to comply! How long will it really be before that law banning same-sex weddings in CofE churches will be lifted? The rule of law is changing and freedoms are being eroded. Natural law is being replaced by unnatural law as Romans 1:26 implies. It's been happening over decades but is now speeding up - The Abortion Act in the 1960s, Sunday trading, the redefinition of marriage, what will be next - euthanasia? the prevention of preaching the whole of God's Word? the whole of the gospel? God is giving this nation over to judgment. We must pray and work for change to those laws. And continue preaching the gospel. These matters affect all of us. You see according to the Bible

State Law Should Be Grounded In God's Law

If Government is God's servant, then it should exercise its authority in accordance with God's will. Romans 13:3: For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad.

Rulers should be ruling according to what is right. How do we know what is right? God has given us his moral law in the Scriptures. The Ten Commandments are the fundamental principles underlying the Covenant Law of God's people. Now we can never earn eternal salvation by obedience to God's law. We fall short and only God can save us. We can do nothing. But that doesn't mean the law is useless and to be ignored. God's law has three main purposes.

One of them is to show us how deep the sinfulness runs within us, and how worthy we are of condemnation. That sight will cause us to despair of self-reliance and turn to the only Saviour, Jesus. But along with that purpose of God's law there are two others. For one thing, it sets before us the ideal and the goal of perfection and righteousness. In that way it inspires and directs the behaviour and attitudes of those who are wanting to be obedient, as a result of the work of God's Spirit within them. For another thing, God's law serves to order society for its welfare or, put another way, it restrains the evil that would otherwise be rampant among us. So what the state requires should be in line with what is 'right' according to the Word of God. Of course, where the Word of God is not known, that's not possible. But even then, there's ultimately no excuse, because as Paul says earlier in Romans 2:14-15,

when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires...they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness...

Now just while we're in these verses have you ever thought: 'What about those who've never heard of Jesus?' What'll happen to them? Well, Paul tells us. They will be judged on the basis of what they do know because they like all people have consciences. Consciences accuse us when we've contravened our own moral principles-making us feel guilty, and guilty we are. I have your consciences on my side says Paul, I don't have to do anything to judge you, your consciences do it for you. But to be frank my own main concern is not with those who've never even heard of Christianity - God will be painstakingly fair with them. Those I'm very bothered about are those who have heard or at least have the most amazing opportunities to hear - like people who live in Jesmond, such as the thousands of students and those who live in West Tyneside. The gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, however moral or immoral they've been. Morality is not enough. Indeed we can never be good enough for God.

But, to come back to our topic, state laws should be framed according to what is known to be right. In our own nation, there can certainly be no excuse. We've had the Bible for centuries. If we think we can throw out the Bible and rely instead on our innate sense of fair play, we're disastrously deluding ourselves. Our moral sense will become increasingly corrupt. If our laws are contrary to the Word of God, it is the result of disobedience and rejection of God's Law, not ignorance. And the consequence will be God's judgments even now as outlined in Romans 1:18-32, where Paul argues that the wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to dishonourable passions and to a debased mind. And note that Paul has a special mention for those who give approval to such unrighteousness.

So if state law goes against God's law what, then, is the condition of our obedience to the state authorities to be? It is this: if our obedience to secular authority would require us to disobey the Word of God, then we should obey the Word of God rather than the authorities. As Jonathan mentioned last week such disobedience is not rebellion. It is submission to the higher authority of God. So in Acts 5:29 Peter & John say: We must obey God rather than men when there's a clash. You see

God's Moral Law Still Stands

The ceremonial law of the OT has been fulfilled in Christ and is no longer binding on Christians. The civil law of the OT applied to Israel in OT times and isn't necessarily binding on nation states today. But the moral law of the Bible still stands. It is the rule of life for every believer and as Christians we are to delight in it in our inner being (Romans 7:22). And it remains binding on all people. The standards of the Ten Commandments remain relevant for all people because they encapsulate the moral law that is from creation. That law isn't arbitrary, it's a reflection of God himself. It arises from the character of God, and is to be reflected by mankind created in his image and likeness. Mankind has rebelled, but that in no way diminishes the relevance or force of the Maker's instructions.

So when people today, such as the strident secularists, say to us: "You're urging these standards on me, or on society as a whole, but I don't share your Christian commitment so they're not relevant to me," we're not to back pedal and give up. You see while the impulse to obey the moral law and the capacity for doing so has been transformed for the Christian, the standards of the moral law originated before the Fall. Its demands continue to address humanity in general, being based on our answerability to our Creator for our conduct. So it's not the case that we should keep silent about our Christian faith as being the basis of our advocacy of public policies that are in accordance with the standards of God's moral law. Sure others won't always share our presuppositions but that doesn't mean no progress can be made. Sure when what is opposed to God's moral law is enshrined in state law life becomes harder for the believer perhaps especially at work. But then we have to work to bring change, which often can take years and great perseverance as Wilberforce found with the abolition of slavery.

But the requirements of the moral law make sense. They are the Maker's instructions for his creation. An individual or a society ignores them at their peril. They are for the common good, the well being of individuals and the welfare of society. There is pressure at the moment to extend Sunday trading laws. But, as even one national journalist commented this week, 'If there's nothing special about Sundays, we'll all just feel like gerbils on a wheel.' Departure from the Creator's moral standards brings social and ethical confusion, decay and disintegration. In the realm of common grace, we're to appeal to the remnants of moral consciousness within mankind.

In a famous dictum, centuries ago, the lawyer, barrister and Judge, Sir Matthew Hale declared, "Christianity is part and parcel of the laws of England." Let's pray and act that it may it be so again, whilst not forgetting, as Romans 2 makes very clear, that we are all law breakers and are supremely in need of the gospel. Look at v1 of Romans 2. Paul sees them sitting there in the congregation - the upright moralists looking smug, full of moral indignation, comfortable in the best seats of course, and he pauses, and turns to them and says: v 1 ' You, yes I am talking to you, you have no excuse. Who me? Yes, you who pass judgement on someone else; for at whatever point you judge the other, you condemn yourself, because you who pass judgement do the same things.'

So why is our moral respectability of no use when it comes to eternity? Paul gives us three reasons in Romans 2. First, all claims to being morally upright are self-defeating (v1-3). The second reason why it is folly to think that our moral respectability will lead us to escape God's judgement is that it is self-condemning - revealing an impenitent attitude towards God -v4&5. If you cling to your own moral respectability as a means of pleasing God then that will provide as much protection for you on the day of judgment as Adam's fig leaf in a force nine gale. Self made moral respectability is self-defeating, self-judging and also -self-deluding v6-11. The plain fact is we've been running up a moral debt with God since the day we were born and if we were to live a thousand years and never sin again we could not pay it off. Whether you have a Bible or not is an irrelevance , says Paul, we're all in the same boat - v12- 15. So Paul continues in the next chapter - Romans 3:23-24: ...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified [only] by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Who today needs to repent, trusting in Christ, asking for forgiveness, a fresh start and power to live for him, to be salt and light.

Back to top