"hoped for an e11ormous expansion of

their research" and they believed Hitler

"would realize and give due prominence
to their ideas.''
Regarding what he calls "the most
important question of all" -- that is,
what can we learn from all of thiS
carnage? -- Mr. Muller-Hill writes that
the problem was not with "defects in
the character of a few individuals, but
rather with defects in psychiatry and
anthropology as a whole" (emphasis
mine). He concludes:
"It seems . to me that the inexorable
encroachment of science, which began
in the 18th century during the Age of
the Enlightenment. ... has had unfore-
seen and devastating effects. In .science
. . alLtha.t.
estirtg, accurate results as quickly a8
possible; there is simply no time to
talk to patients. . . . . This attitude
reduces .the person to a subservient de-
personalized object Such a process
formed the bond which held the psy-
chiatrists, anthropologists and Hitler to-
gether."
Like I said, using the Nazi analogy
regarding today's fetal tissue experi-
menters, and their supporters, is right
on target. This book is chilling and as
current as today's headlines and nightly
TV news programs. But start it early in
the evening. Because you won't put it
down until you've f"mished it
with permissionl from The
W ashiilgton 1 imes, October 14, 98&]
Jesus and the -Tax Revolt
' .
. by R.J. Rushdoony
' ' '
Irt Matt. 2Z.:1S-22, we ,read of a cnal-
lenge to our Lord to give. grounds to
justify a taX revolt. In view of the fact
that this episode is sometimes cited by
contemporary tax revolt advocates, it is
important to e.xamine it closely to see
what meaning is.
We are told that its purpose was to
"entangle" Jesus, i.e., to place Him in
an intolerable predicament. Paying
taxes to Caesar, a foreign ruler, was
highly unpopular with many; to deny
ilie-villdii:Y. or a taX revolt waura-cosf
Jesus, the Pharisees reasoned, popular
support The populace in disgust would
regard Him as an appeaser, an ally of an
unpopular and hated regime.
t9 favor the tax revolt would invite re-
prisals against JeSl,ls by Roman authori-
ties, The question, then, was carefully
designed to be deadly in its conse-
quences to Jesus, and was with
flattering guile, asking Him to tell the
tJ:"uth without fear of consequences:
"Master, we know that thou art true,
and teachest the way of God in truth,
neither carest thou Jot any man; for
thou regardest not the person of men.
Tell us, therefore, what thinkest thou?
Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar,
or not?"' (Matt. 22:16-17) . .
Jesus, aftercond(mtning the Pharisees
as hypocrites, went directly to the heart
of the matter. To understand His an-
swer, we must appreciate the distinction
made then and now by tax revolt advo-
cates. They were not an'archists. They
were ready to pay taxes to a legitimate
civil government, but not an illegal
one,. i.e., one illegal in their eyes.
Similarly, contemporary tax revolt ad-
vocates are able to document at length
the unconstitutional aspects of the
federal government of the United States
and to give a lengthy analysis of legal
justification for denying taxes to an
unconstitutional regime.
The distinction made by the Judeans
then was one which we Still have with
us in Latin form, conurton to our dic-
tionaries now as good English: .. It is the
distinction between a defacto civil gov-
ernment and a de jure one. A de jure
Civil government is one which. rilles
rightfully and legally, by right of law;
modern Americans would say that It is
a truly constitutional civil government.
A de facto order is one, which
exists and is in comriland and is . not
necessarily or at all legal. Thus, to
an extreme case, the communist rule
over Polana iSa -ae-focto one,
jure. Rome was an outsider '. in
Palestine, a foreign invader and con-
queror; its rule was plainly de facto.
Although Rome was trying to give
good administration and to win over t11e
people to its rule, its rule was all the
saine de facto, not de jure, and there
were many among the Jews who &rgued
that taxes paid to a de facto ruler were
not legal and hence should not be paid.
Hence the framing of the question: 'in
terms of the tax revolt theory of the
day: "Is it lawful to give tribute unto
Caesar, or not?" The argument was that
it was art unlawful tax. The reasoning
was identical with what we encounter
today. The dE jure_ argument 'is used, by
the way, by radicals and
alike. It. is an easy argument History is
so rife with illegality and evil, that
there is little that cannot be nullified by'
an appeal_ to a dt; jure argurnept .One
man once argued with me that," because
white Americans had no legal title to
America butseized it from the indians,
the lpdians should be at
currertt value for it I pointed ffrst..
that the current value was a of
white settlers' work, and,
the Indians themselves had seized the
continent and killed off entirelya
viotis dweller, a pygmy people. Shou)d
we kick out both Indian and white, and
locate pygmies to or 'to
use to resettle America? Such a,rgu- _
(Continued on page 13}
Page38 -------------------------------------------------
The Counsel of Chalcedon, December, 1988 -
If Randall Terry and Operation Res-
cue simply cannot resist breaking man's
law in the name of Jesus -- something I
think they should not do except where
the Bible commands this (I know, they
say they're doing this; but they are
wrong) -- then he and his crew should
be sitting-in and shutting down those
churches where abortion has been ig-
nored. As I say, I would be against this,
too. But, if it were done, Mr. Terry &
Co. would, at least, be going after the
people who ought to be gone after,
first. In the meantime, he should quit
smearing other Christians simply be-
cause they disagree with his tactics.
(This article is reprinted, b_y permission,
from The Washington Times, September 28,
19881
Tax Revolt
Continued from page 38
ments end in absurdity, and they begin
by idolizing or defying a particular
model as the de jure factor. I believe .
that I regard the U.S. Constitution with
equal or more respect than the tax revolt
advocates, but its framing was a de
facto act The so-called Constitutional
Convention had no authority given it to
frame a constitution. Should we there-
fore call for its abolition until a de jure
status can be given it?
Our Lord's answer was unequivocally
grounded on the de facto aspect:
"Show me the tribute money. And
they brought him a penny. And he saith
unto them, Whose is this image and
superscription?
"They say unto him, Caesar's. Then
saith he unto them, Render therefore
unto Caesar the things which are
Caesar's; and unto God the things that
are God's." (Matt. 22:19-21)
Caesar was the de facto ruler; he pro-
vided the coinage, the military protec-
tion, the courts, the civil government,
and the basic civil authority. This de
facto status was a reality which could
not be ignored. They were duty bound,
not only by Caesar's demands, but by
Christ's, to render to Caesar the things
which by a de facto state belonged to
Caesar. A de jure argument can be used
to deny virtually all authority, civil,
parental, religious, vocational, etc., in a
fallen world. A fallen world is itself a
de facto world, not a de jure world; it is
the reaity, but it is not a lawful reality.
Does this mean that we content
ourselves with evil? Do we relax and
accept all things as inevitably de facto
in a fallen world, and there beyond
remedy? Far from it what our Lord
ruled out was the tax revolt revolution
as the way, rather than regeneration.
Sinful man cannot create a truly de jure
state; he is by nature doomed to go
from one de facto evil to another.
The key is to "render unto God the
things that are God's." We render our-
selves, our homes, our schools, church-
es, states, vocations, all things to God.
We make Biblical law our standard, and
we recognize in all things the primacy
of regeneration. Only as man, by the
atoning blood of Jesus Christ is made
de jure. made right in his relationship
to God by God's law of justice, can
man, guided by God's law. begin to
create society.
A tax revolt is exactly what Karl
Marx in 1848 hoped it would be: a
short-cut to anarchy and therefore revolu-
tion. In his articles of November 12,
1848, "We Refuse to Pay Taxes": on
November 17, 1848, "The Ministry Un-
der Indictment'; and on November 17,
1848, "No More Taxes," he called on
Germans to break the state by refusing
to pay taxes. While much earlier he had
argued against the legality of taxation
without proper representation, on
December 9, 1848, he said plainly,
"Our ground is not the ground of
legality; it is the ground of revolution."
Marx believed, as Gary North has
shown in Marx's Religion of Revolu-
tion, in the regenerating power of
chaos, anarchy, and revolution.
Those who render unto God the
things which are God's, believe rather
in regeneration through Jesus Christ
and the reconstruction of all things in
terms of God's law. In such a perspec-
tive, a tax revolt is a futile thing, a dead
end, and a departure from Biblical re-
quirements.
[From TheJ ournal ofChristianReconstruc-
tion, Vol. II, No. 2. The Chalccdon Founda-
tion. Used by permission.] 0
Civil Rebellion
Continued from page 35
pricks us with another goad: That we
have been redeemed by Christ at so
great a price as our redemption cost .
him, so that we should not enslave our-
selves to the wicked desires of men--
much less be subject to their impiety [I
Cor. 7:23].
GOD BE PRAISED
[Reprinted from Calvin: Institutes of the
Christtan Religion, edited by Johii T .
McNeill and translated by Ford I..:ewis Battles,
Vol XXI, Book IV, Chapter XX,,paragraJlh
22 - 32. Copyright MCMLA bY. WL.
Jenldns. Used of The
Westminster/John Knox Press, Philadelphia)
Half-price SALE!
Two for ONEl
Buy one - get one free!
DECEMBER ONLY
"Heritage of Hope"
lithographs
$20.00 each (2 for $40.00)
signed & numbered by
the artist, Carol Bomer
Litho size: 16" H 20"
Proceeds from the sale of
this lithograph will go to
a pro-life ministry in
December
* Make checks payable to:
Becky Morecraft
"Heritage of Hope"
P.O. Bo H 808022
Dunwoody, GR 30356
*Please odd $2.00 for
mailing costs. Thank you!
The of Chalcedon, December, 1988 Page 13
.I.