7. Law and Equality (Remastered)

Law and Equality

R.J. Rushdoony

Our Scripture is Deuteronomy 23:1-8.

“He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord. A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord. An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord for ever: Because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee. Nevertheless the Lord thy God would not hearken unto Balaam; but the Lord thy God turned the curse into a blessing unto thee, because the Lord thy God loved thee. Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever. Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land. The children that are begotten of them shall enter into the congregation of the Lordin their third generation.”

The passage which I have just read is one of those which is very offensive to many modern people. It lists certain laws with respect to membership in the ‘congregation,’ by which was meant Israel; both civil and ecclesiastical. That is, those who were listed could not become members, or could become members only under certain circumstances or a certain passage of time in the religious side of the nation or citizen in the political side of Israel. Those persons were first of all eunuchs, second bastards to the tenth generations, Ammonites and Moabites to the tenth generation, Edomites and Egyptians to the third generation. This did not mean they could not be believers, they were not forbidden to worship, indeed, there was every inducement to worship.

Now, as we pause for a moment before going into the implications of these laws, we need to recognize why these laws are so offensive to the modern mind. This is one of the passages held up as an example of how barbaric the Bible is. And the reason, of course, is that for us law has an entirely different function than it did for Israel. Biblical Law, being premised on God’s absolute authority and the priority of God in all things, has a different foundation from modern law.

Now, to analyze the differences so that we see them clearly and unmistakably I’m going to read a few passages from a standard work. James M. Gray, Limitations of the Taxing Power; Including Limitations upon Public Indebtedness, this is a standard law book which for years was authoritative. Now new editions have replaced it because there has been so much in the last ten years. But the basic premises of the more recent addition are the same as though laid down by Gray in 1906.

Now, let us analyze Gray, see what he has to say. First of all Gray declares:

“That order is usually regarded as the prime object of governments will not be denied. The means of enforcing order differ in different communities; and it is reasonably plain, other things being equal, that the best government for enforcing order is the government which is able, without check of any sort, to impose its restraints upon the individual—that is, a despotic government.

Why then, if order is the first object, and a despotic government is the best means of enforcing order, are not all governments despotic?

Because “all men are born equal,” because every man born on the earth has the same right to use the earth, as every other man. Thus it is perceived that this order, which is the object of government, is not the ultimate end of government, but is merely a means whereby the equality to which men are born may be enjoyed. If this be true the ultimate principle upon which governments depend is equality, and the law of unity which regulates the operation and the organization of governments is the law of equality.” i

Now, what Gray was saying was simply this, governments nowadays have two purposes, one is order, and the other is equality. If you want order, then you need a despotic form of government, you need a totalitarian regime. But the truepurpose of government is not order, that’s a secondary purpose at best. Its true purpose is equality, and therefore he says a democratic form of government will work towards equality.

Now, as he goes on, he admits that equality is a mathematical term, but this does not deter him. We would think that having recognized that the word ‘equality’ is a mathematical term, that is an abstraction, how can it be applied to people? Because an abstraction is an abstraction, it doesn’t conform to reality except when reality is cut-and-dry. As it were, so many two by fours, ten two by fours are equal to ten two by fours because all the two by fours because all the two by fours have been sawed up. Ten trees are not equal to ten trees, these are living things, but this doesn’t deter him. He recognizes it’s an abstraction, that it doesn’t conform to living reality, but all the same he is bent on affirming that equality must be the function of the law.

Moreover, Gray admits that this is a new concept, in fact, Gray goes on to say that the idea of equality being the purpose of government is very new in the United States. Moreover, he admits that it is only about fifty years old. Now, since this was published in 1906, this means it was something that came in with and since the Civil War. That before the idea of equality had nothing to do with the United States, its form of government and the laws of either the Federal government or the State governments. He admits it is new, but none the less he demands that it be applied, in fact he assumes that it shall be because, he says, this is now the new concept of the purpose of government in the United States, now mind you he is writing in 1906.

He continues:

“It is plain that equality does not necessarily consist in mere equality of contribution. For every man, rich or poor, to pay the same, would be the greatest inequality. Whether it consists in proportionate contribution according to property, is a question which has been much discussed. In the common forms of property taxation, this is the method in which the courts have usually found that sufficient equality inheres.

A great economist has said that equality in taxation consists of equality of sacrifice.

The courts have usually measured equality in taxation by reference to the amount of benefits received, rather than by considering the sacrifice of the taxpayer.

The economists of the present day seem to prefer the idea of equality of sacrifice. A glance at the two chief economic theories of taxation shows the distinction between the equality based on proportionate contribution and equality of sacrifice.” ii

And as he goes on to say this is increasingly the idea that is coming to the fore.

Now, here in 1906 in a standard law book of the United States you find in essence the Marxist thesis; “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Long before the Russian Revolution, more than a decade earlier. So, he says, equality means the equality of sacrifices; those who are rich must pay more, equality must rule.

One more passage to give you an idea of the nature of Gray’s thinking, quote:

“The power of the state, acting through its governmental agencies, to tax its citizens, is absolute and unlimited as to persons and property. Every person within the jurisdiction of the state, whether citizen or not, is subject to this power, every form of property, tangible or intangible, stationary or transitory, every privilege, right, or income which exists within the jurisdiction, may be reached and taken for the support of the state.

This doctrine is involved in the general theory of the state. The state exists for the purposes of law, order, and justice; the institution of property, the preservation and security of life, liberty, and property depend upon the existence of the state. Inasmuch as all private ownership of property is postulated on the existence of the state, the state may properly exhaust all the resources of private property in the support and preservation of that existence; inasmuch as all privileges and liberties derive their value from the protection of the state, the state may take any share of the value of those privileges and franchises for its support, even to the extent of the whole value.” iii

And then he proceeds to give a number of legal decisions which support this thesis. In other words, in 1906 on the basis of this idea of equality, which had arisen since the Civil War, the courts had held that the state has the right to take all your income, all your property, everything you have to defend you, supposedly, in your rights to life, liberty, and property. In other words totalitarianism was absolutely, fully, totally, affirmed. This, in a law book of 1906, which contained nothing revolutionary, which has just a summation of what the law thought at that time. Is it any wonder that we have since had the 16th amendment, the income tax amendment, a welfare economy and a progressive drift into socialism? The miracle is that it has not come faster. And for that I think we can thank the Russian Revolution. It at least jolted some Americans out of their daydreams and the drift which the law was taking.

Now this, since it was a part of our law by 1906, makes it possible for us to understand why the passage we read is so offensive to the modern mind. If after all not order, but equality, total equality was already by the beginning of this century seen by our courts as the purpose of government, how could anyone look at anything in the Scriptures that taught something other than equality without being shocked and without feeling, “Well this is barbaric, this is antiquated.” Or else saying, “Well, this was for that period and these laws are done away with so we don’t have to worry about this. This was a part of the old legislation for ancient times and it doesn’t apply because what the Bible was teaching all along was equality, but it had to deal with people and character of their times and so had at that time provisions that made for inequality.”

It is no wonder that we have, not only the things that I referred to; the income tax amendment, and growing socialism, but the Civil Rights revolution. Was not the Civil Rights revolution written into the law from these citations? Was it not written into the fabric of our society when the law books were teaching it at the beginning of the century ? But in Biblical Law, the idea of equality has no standing. Indeed, the idea of ‘equality’ is a modern idea, dating back two and a half centuries at the most in Europe, and as Gray admits only since the Civil War, a hundred years, in America.

In Biblical Law neither equalitarianism nor oligarchy or ‘despotism,’ to use Gray’s terms, had any standing. The purpose of the law is not equality. The purpose of the law is to establish God’s justice and God’s order. God is the source of law, and the covenant is the principle of citizenship. The covenant is restrictive in terms of God’s Law.

So what does the covenant specify? Well, the covenant did not permit criminals to be members of the covenant; either religious or civil. It did not permit men who were not free men to be members, that is to be persons with citizenship, or church membership, that is voting power. They could be believers, they could enjoy the blessings of living within the commonwealth, but they could not exercise authority. It did not permit men who were not men, eunuchs, to exercise the same power. It made it possible to restrict foreigners like Ammonites and Moabites, who lacked the cultural and racial background of character for a long period of time until such time as, with, say, ten generations of character, faith and character, they could qualify. In other words, there was no concept of equality here, the covenant was restrictive. This did not mean they were denied justice. This did not mean they could not be believers.

Now, when our country was established, the concept of church membership and citizenship was identical. Sometimes you read in occasional history books, not many bother to report the fact, that in Colonial America, it very often happened that while everybody in the community went to church, the church membership was very low. Sometimes only seven or eight would actually be full-fledged members of the church and indeed, Dr. J. Franklin Littell, who was quite a left-winger, has claimed that America was not Christian at that time because in 1800, for example, only about 15% of the people were church members. But what does that mean? Only 15% were members, but everybody went to church. Why? They were all believers, they went to church and worshipped, but the 15% who were members were those who were deemed to be of sufficiently good character, sufficiently strong and independent men to be entrusted with voting power in the congregation and in an earlier period only those who at earliest Colonial period, only those who had voting power in the church had voting power in the state; in other words, men of responsibility. Did this mean that the government was for their benefit? Not at all! It meant that only those who were responsible were entrusted with the authority, and the community as a whole was agreed to this. It did not feel that there was any injustice rendered to anyone, it did not feel that the courts were unjust to others. It felt that those who were responsible should exercise responsibility and the right to vote in church or in state is a responsibility.

Thus we see from this passage there is, first, no equalitarianism here, there is an obvious discrimination, an obvious distinction made between people. There is a restrictive membership. The very idea of restrictive covenants comes right out of the Bible. Restrictive covenants, of course, have been abolished by our courts in recent years.

This carried over into the New Testament. For example, the whole point of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 was simply this; they recognized that there was a moral distinction between the Jews and the Gentile believers. The Jews, after all, had a long background and tradition of moral character. The Gentile believers, well, until they were converted, fornication was not even a sin for them. And it was hard for many of these believers, as we know from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, to realize it was a sin. After all, they were used to taking it for granted as though it were nothing. And so, the Council of Jerusalem permitted separate congregations. It didn’t say they could not take in Gentiles, but it permitted and established separate congregations, and it laid down minimum requirements for these separate congregations. They had to conform to minimum standards or they were not a church.

Thus, there was segregation, there was discrimination, but we must say, secondly, there was an absolute requirement at the same time of one standard of justice for all in terms of Exodus 12:49. This was true in the Old Testament, this was true in the New. And in the New the standard was, of course, as it was in the Old for all believers; Jew or Gentile — one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Thus, what this passage tells us very clearly is that equalitarianism is a modern idea. It did not even exist until fairly recently, it cannot be forced back onto the Bible without violence and dishonesty. Even Gray, in this law book, admits that it is a fairly new idea. The purpose of the law is not to level man, to equalize them, but to establish God’s justice. In relationship to all men, I must maintain God’s one law, God’s offer of salvation, God’s justice. In relation to my family I can be partial, to my group and my society, restrictive, and I can do this in good conscience before God provided I do not deny justice to others.

This, then, is the Biblical stance. Equality, which is the modern purpose of government, has no place in Biblical Law, it is totally hostile to Biblical Law. It is no wonder then that John Dewey declared that there was no place in democracy for Biblical Christianity. Because, he said, Biblical Christianity is an aristocratic faith; it makes for division between the sheep and the goats, the saved and the lost, the good and the bad, between Heaven and Hell. And so, in effect, John Dewey made it clear that democracy, ultimately, would have to wage war against Biblical faith.

The line is drawn clearly; either the purpose of government is equality, and we continue in the direction we are to the destruction of all justice and order, or we re-establish Biblical Law, and deny that equality is a valid concept for man and society.

Let us pray.

* * *

Our Lord and our God, we give thanks unto thee for thy Word. We thank thee, our Father, that thy Word is truth, that thy Word is not only written in thy book, but across the pages of all creation so that men and nations who despise thy Word shall be destroyed by the very nature of things, for thy Word is truth. Make us bold and strong in thy Word, O Lord, and confident that thy Word shall prevail, that the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ. Give us faith and courage therefore, our Father, to so build for tomorrow in the confidence that thy Word shall not return unto thee void and thy truth shall prevail. Bless us to this purpose. In Jesus' name. Amen.

Are there any questions now?

Yes?

[Audience Member] When Ruth came to Israel, did she return as a Moabite, or an Israelite?  iv

[Rushdoony] Yes, a good question. The wife takes the standing of her husband so that, while she was a Moabite by origin, she was now an Israelite.

You see the condition of the husband governs as well as the religion. In other words, to marry a woman was to require her to adopt your faith, and if she married you, it was on the understanding that she surrendered her faith. That’s why what Ruth said was of course, “Thy God shall be my God, thy people my people.”

[Audience Member] You say that a woman has to take her husband’s faith, but what if the husband is not a believer?  v

[Rushdoony] Well, first of all she is forbidden to make such a marriage. If she becomes a Christian after such a marriage is made, she is required to remain within that estate unless, of course, the husband breaks it up. But mixed marriages are against the law.

Yes?

[Audience member] What is the definition of a bastard?

[Rushdoony] Well… someone who was born illegitimately.

[Audience member] What is a ‘legitimate’ union.

[Rushdoony] Well, in terms of the Biblical Law it would be any kind of legitimate union whether in terms of the church or of state, as long as it is legitimate in terms of the prevailing society. In other words, this would not be a catholic definition, that would be one imposed upon the circumstances here.

Yes?

[Audience member] What does the state have to do with marriage?  vi

[Rushdoony] Well, the answer to that is “everything.” The state was brought into marriage by the Puritans as much as by anyone, and with good reason. Because the stability of any society depends upon the family, and therefore the state should be concerned with the family; because if the family is destroyed then the state is destroyed.

Now the Soviet Union of course, because in old Russia marriages were entirely a religious ceremony, when it came into power, abolished all the old order, including marriage. All you had to do was to send in a card to register your marriage if you wanted to, and then another postcard could annul it. It was a very casual thing and you didn’t even have to bother to do that. What happened? Well, the consequence was very, very serious. It led to so much social disorientation that by the early thirties to mid-thirties Stalin and his associates were seriously concerned. The family was falling apart, the birthrate had plummeted to a fantastically low point, and there seemed to be no future for a Communist society. So they instituted some of the strictest regulations with regard to marriage and divorce that any European society had at that time, and they have continued them. Why? Simply to preserve the social order.

The state, therefore, has a concern. Now, the church has their jurisdiction over those who are its members, and there are those who state, as you do, quoting Lewis, “Why worry about those who are not believers? Why govern them?” Well, the answer of the state ultimately to that because when it is pushed to the implication we have to concern ourselves with everybody because if we permit a cancer to enter into society we disintegrate the whole society, therefore we cannot tolerate it. This has happened over and over again. Society after society in history has tried to permit license in this area and it has foundered as a result and it has had to become, to use the term, extremely ‘puritanical,’ often without religious motives, simply because its life is at stake.

Yes?

[Audience member] Is welfare a means on the part of the state to preserve the family? vii

[Rushdoony] Is welfare a means on the part of the state to preserve the family?

Technically this is so stated by some welfare apologists, but in actuality welfare began as a political instrument in the hands of the state. Welfare was entirely taken care of until fairly recent times by the church, and by charitable foundations. Until the Carnegie Foundation, which I believe dates back to 1907 or 8, approximately, every foundation in the country was basically Christian in its function and orientation. Foundations began in the Medieval period and they took care of all welfare, all hospitals, every kind of emergency need.

Now, there was a minor amount of County welfare in the United States in the form of poorhouses for a very small handful of people who needed such care. Not every County had a poorhouse, and those that did they were very, there was relatively few in the poorhouses, it was for without family who needed custodial care.

How did welfare originate? Well, in 1907 there was a depression in the United States, and it hit Kansas City about as hard as any area. As usual, the foundations stepped in and took care of it, they did everything to provide work for the people, they went so far as to buy a gravel pit and to put the men to work crushing gravel which they then accumulated to sell later for road construction, for contracting and the like so that it was worthwhile work and they took care, through jobs they created, of all the people.

Now there was a smart young politician in Kansas City who began to get ideas. After it was all over he went around and began to speak to various civic groups and he said, “It’s a wonderful thing that the churches and the foundations did in our community in our recent depression, but why not let these people concentrate on more spiritual causes? Let’s tax ourselves a little bit, just a few cents more, and accumulate a fund for future welfare needs.”

Now of course, what this young man had in mind was, “If I can control people who are in need, if I can build up a welfare role and control the funds, I am guaranteed political power.” This young man’s name was Tom Pendergast, and that was the beginning of his political power when he talked the people into this. Well, he no sooner did than he created a permanent welfare role in Kansas City, and he guaranteed his political power. And of course, then other politicians across the country got the idea. And so it spread like wildfire and of course, by 1930 it became so deeply embedded into the American life that now only a catastrophe can destroy it. But its purpose was never the family, nor the need of the individual, it was political power.

Yes?

[Audience member] The family now is no longer defined in terms of the father.  viii

[Rushdoony] Right. The family now is defined in terms, no longer of the father, it is defined by the state in terms of a mother, a man-less mother essentially. And this is an overturning of civilization, it is leading to promiscuity, to a matriarchal kind of society, it is leading in effect to the Africanization of society. Because the African pattern has been because of the low character of African civilization, the male goes his way and does as he pleases, and the women are left with the children to rear so that very often the father is a non-entity, scarcely known. Well, this pattern is becoming increasingly, by state subsidy of this type of family, the American family.

Welfarism is anti-familistic and anti-male. It works to the destruction of the man’s place in authority in a society.

Yes?

[Audience member] What effect has various anti-god cults and sects, illuminists groups (there were quite a number of them in the eighteenth century) had in our present crisis?  ix

[Rushdoony] Well that’s a complicated question. To go back to the eighteenth century the Enlightenment enthroned humanism and man’s reason and immediately a wide variety of illuminists groups began. Weishaupt’s ‘Illuminati,’ the Hellfire Club in England, and a dozen other groups in England and in France and Germany, Freemasonry, which is simply the whole Illuminists philosophy. Pike’s Morals and Dogma is the best textbook in this sort of thing. All these, of course, were simply exemplifying the eighteenth century philosophy.

They have been influential in many circles, but I would say the most conspicuous, single triumph of the whole of that movement, and the best channel through which its philosophy has been propagated was the public school movement because here, their entire philosophy was set forth to be taught to the children. So it is picked up there, and our educational systems are the best triumph of this whole business. This was their goal, they thought it would create something that would perpetuate itself, and they were right.

[Audience member] The recent ‘temple of understanding’ is a part of this whole movement.

[Rushdoony] That’s true, such ‘temples of understanding’ are a part of this movement, but they don’t need to establish these things, this is, as it were, the frosting on the cake. The real meat is there in the public schools, in the textbooks. And you see, there it isn’t recognized or known for what it is, and there it is at its deadliest.

Yes?

[Audience member] What does the Bible say about birth control?  x

[Rushdoony] The Bible doesn’t speak directly on the subject but it does have a number of passages and I have an appendix in a paperback book that will come out before the end of this year, The Myth of Overpopulation, in which I list the Biblical passages where God speaks of ‘blessed fertility’ of godly people and the cursed fertility of the ungodly. In other words God makes it clear the fertility of those who are not His people is no delight to Him. So it is a big subject, and when the paperback comes out that appendix will give a summation of the various Biblical passages.

We have time for one more question.

Yes?

[Audience member] Is criminality determined by heredity?  xi

[Rushdoony] Yes, the attempt periodically to say that criminal types are hereditary is not new. This has happened again and again and Lombroso and others went into this many years ago. It is clear that heredity has a very great deal to do. We have underrated heredity in recent years because, with our equalitarian ideas, we refuse to admit that there are differences between people, that there are very marked differences. There’s no denying, for example, that there are differences between say Italian and Germans, very real differences. These are testable differences; there are certain aptitudes in one direction on the part of one people, and aptitudes in another direction on the part of other peoples. Heredity is a very important factor.

Now, we do find in many families that there will be a disposition in a certain direction, there will be a bad hereditary, a hereditary theme. This does not mean that anyone in that family is necessarily and totally determined. By faith, by character, there can be some very real changes made.

One of the most happy experiences of the past year was speaking here in southern California and running across someone who came from as ugly a family situation I’ve ever known, who has made a very wonderful life, who represents real Christian faith. Now, there’s been a case whereby faith there has been a real overcoming. But we can’t go beyond our limitations, you see. We cannot, if we have a limited aptitude in one direction, overcome that limited aptitude, we can overcome sin in ourselves by the grace of God, but we cannot create an aptitude. I can’t be an opera singer no matter how much I would like to, I don’t have the voice.

If your questions are on this we’ll take about two minutes.

Yes?

[Audience member] Could you comment on racially mixed marriage?  xii

[Rushdoony] Mixed marriages as far as race, we’re going to come to the commandment with respect to marriage later, so we’ll leave it until then because there are certain things very definitely the Bible does teach with respect to marriage and what the conditions are. We’ll deal with it at that time.

Yes?

[Audience member] Question about some irresponsible Christian clergymen.  xiii

[Rushdoony] Yes, so what I would say, both should be eliminated from any power in the church. Both have a place there as believers, but responsible people alone should have responsibility. I think one of the problems nowadays in most churches is that most churches are governed too much by democracy,  and it becomes a popularity contest, and who becomes the elders or the trustees in the congregation, but a lot of people who are good glad-handers and public relations men, popular, and they don’t have the gumption to make decisions. Or else they are sometimes in some congregations meek, mousy people who’ve never offended anybody, who could never get angry about anything, righteously angry, and so they’re nincompoops.

I’ve seen a number of church boards that could have profited by one man who had a temper, who could have gotten righteously angry and done some house cleaning. The trouble is democracy has taken over and we feel, “Well, it has to be a democracy, everybody has to have a say so,” and you end up with a perpetual brawl in practically every kind of church today because of this worship of democracy, and I don’t see it. Everyone has the privilege of worship, but not everyone is qualified to exercise leadership, and there should be a distinction made between the two, a very real distinction.

Well, just briefly.

[Audience member] Right now do you think that we have the kind of people that are needed to govern in churches?  xiv

[Rushdoony] Well, not very many churches, because there aren’t very many people who have any real faith, but we will get it. Because with what’s coming in the years ahead most of these soft-headed people are going to be driven to their knees, and if they don’t have they’re not going to live very long. Because we are building up for judgment, we’re asking for it. And I think one of the most telling accounts of what we are going to face you can find in Alexander Hamilton’s Stephens two volume work, A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States. Stephens, in that work, as well as in his diary and in other works, saw what the implications of the Civil War led to; equality, the idea of equality replacing the Constitution. And he said it will lead to a civil war worse than anything we have ever seen. Because this, he said, will be a civil war that will take place on every street and in every building, and he said there is no future as long as the idea of equality prevails. And the idea of equality prevails today to a staggering degree. It’s going to go down in blood and men of faith will be the only ones to survive.

Well, with that we are adjourned.

i. James M. Gray, Limitations of the Taxing Power including Limitations Upon Public Indebtedness (San Francisco: Bancroft-Whitney, 1906), para. 2, p. 2.

ii. James M. Gray, Limitations of the Taxing Power including Limitations Upon Public Indebtedness (San Francisco: Bancroft-Whitney, 1906), p. 11 f.

iii. Jmes M. Gray, Limitations of the Taxing Power including Limitations Upon Public Indebtedness (San Francisco: Bancroft-Whitney, 1906), 44, p. 29 f.

iv.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

v.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

vi.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

vii.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

viii.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

ix.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

x.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

xi.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

xii.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

xiii.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

xiv.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.