State's Rights

Here is my first attempt to apply 'theonomy' to a current event. Since I am not yet an expert on theonomy, and have no formal training and but a cursory knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, this post is simply a theonomic attitude pondering the current growing assertion of sovereignty by the states. It should be noted that this issue is one of authority. There are jurisdictions of authority being abused and challenged at the same time. This is also an example of defending those jurisdictions. Is this right? Are jurisdictions of authority worth defending? Is it worth our time? What would be the consequences for not defending boundaries of jurisdiction? Is the Christian responsible to take part in defending proper boundaries of jurisdiction?

Well I have at least 2 new words to transfer over to my definitions page; "Sovereignty", and "Jurisdiction". I think I'll go ahead and throw in "Authority" as well.

Remember, this post today is simply a theonomic attitude observation. This is not some scholarly analysis of this current situation, so I'm going to keep this short by simply pointing out a few of the questions that a theonomic attitude will raise. It is my understanding that most Christians would admit that all authority is given by God. So in this current debate in the states about who's in charge of what, how is the Christian to come at this? How will a Christian judge what is a "just" position to take? It should be obvious that we need a "standard" with which to judge by. Some reference point or rule book with which to cry "foul", or to exclaim, "score!"

Due to the nature of this particular debate, we are tempted to limit our standard to the U.S. Constitution. But is it merely the Constitution which has authorized who will have the final say in one situation and who will have it in another? As a society we have originally agreed to make that so. Does that really make it so? I thought Christians understood that all authority comes from God? It looks to me like the Christian position is ultimately to use God's word as the standard above and beyond the Constitution. If the Constitution is to be used, it must be done so in the light that God's word sheds on it.

How all this works out in practicalities and in the courts is another debate that I am not prepared to speculate on or to participate in, but I can't lose sight of my responsibility to God's standard, just because I am not educated thouroughly in the laws of men and their courts. I must continue to make an effort to hold up God's standard against any and all lessor standards or lessor magistrates.