Parens Patriae and Men Without Feet

Parens Patriae and Men Without Feet

Have your feet shod with the . . . Gospel of Peace.

Ephesians 6:15

In the Scriptures kings are called gods, and so their power after a certain relation compared to the divine power. Kings are also compared to fathers of families: for a king is truly Parens patriae, the politique father of his people.

King James I from The Divine Right of Kings,

Correctly defined, “patriarchy” does not refer to the rule of men in society, but rather the rule of fathers: a very important distinction in biblical nomenclature. “Patriarchs” are father rulers who rule as kings and magistrates of their families and estates. Procreation is not the deciding factor in fatherhood; rather, it is the power to bequeath an estate. Slaves can procreate but only freemen can have heirs.

The Institutes of Biblical Terranomics, James Stivers, publication pending

First, On Men Without Chests

C.S. Lewis of Cambridge University (and Oxford) was a famous 20th Century Christian thinker and apologist. He is popularly known as a friend of J.R.R. Tolkein and as the author of the “Chronicles of Narnia” (1956). Among theologians and Christian leaders, he is perhaps remembered most for his Screwtape Letters (1942), Mere Christianity (1952), and The Abolition of Man (1943).

In The Abolition of Man, he wrote a chapter called, “Men Without Chests” in which he tried to explain that the notion of civilization cannot exist in a purely cerebral society (one run by abstract philosophy or ideology) nor that of raw instinct (hedonism). Values and the distinctions within society must be created by “men with chests” – men who have developed “sentiment” as a balance between reason and desire.

Were he alive today, he might have added a chapter to The Abolition of Man: “Men Without Feet.”

Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matthew 5:9) and the Apostle admonished the followers of Christ to “Shod your feet with the gospel of peace.” But men without “feet” cannot be “shod” and thus, cannot administer peace nor become “peacemakers.” A “Peacemaker” must have “standing” – pun intended – and a legitimate stake in the outcome. He must have status and proximity to overcome spatial limitations to dominion: “boots on the ground.”

Contrary to the gush of the modern pietists, feet represent sovereignty in Scripture – “The heavens are my throne and the earth is my footstool” – consequently, peace can only be made among sovereigns. A peacemaker is not one who “turns the other cheek,” but rather one who enforces the Law of God. Peace can only be made by a mediator who has the power to enforce the peace. When Jesus called His followers “peacemakers,” He meant for them to have the power – causa sine qua non – to enforce “the king’s peace.” The Gospel of His “Kingdom” is the good news that Christ has become the universal sovereign who empowers all who represent Him as the administrators of His justice and of His peace. Only men with feet can do this.

On Relational Theology

Relational Theology is a form of theological investigation which analyzes how scriptural doctrine affects human relationships. Because Scripture is an expression of covenant obligations, naturally, relational theology will focus upon how human relations are governed. An example of relational theology would be Abraham Kuyper’s doctrine of sphere sovereignty in which he analyzes the various roles of institutions and their relation to one another through what he called “sphere law.” A famous Dutch theologian and statesman who reached his pinnacle of influence in the era just prior to World War 1, his legacy survives today in the social theories of Reformed Calvinists. (More below).

Another would be the moral government theology propounded by Hugo Grotius (the father of international law) and his intellectual heirs among the “covenant” theologians of the American Puritan sects, such as Jonathan Edwards (Princeton/Yale), N.W. Taylor (Yale) and Charles Finney (Oberlin).

During the late 20th Century, R. J. Rushdoony and his Institutes of Biblical Law (1978) became another example of relational theology, a tome which begins with this famous quote ascribed to John Wycliffe who provided England with its first translation of the Bible:

This Bible is for the government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Self-Government With Union

Rushdoony argued that biblical law extends to all human relations. In relational theology there is no zone in which God’s sovereignty cannot be manifested. There are no human zones of autonomy, as for example with marital sexual relations, in which the notions of romantic love or intimacy have primacy over God’s law and His creation mandate.

For example, “consensual sex” is not a free zone. Just because a man’s wife may consent to anal sex, or even desire it, it does not make it “moral” in terms of God’s creative intent for sex: which is procreation. The modern notion that sex is “intended for pleasure” does not reflect God’s revealed will in the Scriptures. The avoidance of pregnancy, whether through contraception or deviancy, is the thing which God condemns in the New Testament as “lasciviousness,” “incontinence,” and “uncleanness.”

[N.B. See Hierogamy & the Married Messiah (Stivers, 2004) for a detailed analysis of this topic. 2046AD/org]

Aberrant sex may not necessarily be a mortal sin which threatens eternal punishment, but it is a “crime” against one’s own body, which is the vessel of the unborn seed which the Creator has given to us for custodial care.

However, each institution in society is self-governing and has no supremacy over the others. The notion that the state can be used to reform all other institutions, including marital relations – as appears to be the case with Christian Nationalism – requires a surrender of the “sphere sovereignty” which was so important to Kuyper:

In neo-Calvinism, sphere sovereignty (Dutch: soevereiniteit in eigen kring), also known as differentiated responsibility, is the concept that each sphere (or sector) of life has its own distinct responsibilities and authority or competence, and stands equal to other spheres of life. Sphere sovereignty involves the idea of an all-encompassing created order, designed and governed by God. This created order includes societal communities (such as those for purposes of education, worship, civil justice, agriculture, economy and labor, marriage and family, artistic expression, etc.), their historical development, and their abiding norms. The principle of sphere sovereignty seeks to affirm and respect creational boundaries, and historical differentiation.
Sphere sovereignty was first formulated at the turn of the 20th century by the neo-Calvinist theologian and Dutch prime minister Abraham Kuyper.
Sphere sovereignty implies that no one area of life or societal community is sovereign over another. Each sphere has its own created integrity. Neo-Calvinists hold that since God created everything “after its own kind”, diversity must be acknowledged and appreciated. For instance, the different God-given norms for family life and economic life should be recognized, such that a family does not properly function like a business. Similarly, neither faith-institutions (e.g. churches) nor an institution of civil justice (i.e. the state) should seek totalitarian control, or any regulation of human activity outside their limited competence, respectively.

Wikipedia Source

The Landed Gentry

Land is the thing that is given in covenant.
Institutes of Biblical Terranomics, Stivers, op cit.

But what if society has no men with feet? No “boots” on the ground?

If patriarchs, or the landed gentry, represent the “feet” of society, then without them, there are no longer any custodians of the Gospel nor a ministry of mediation among men. The role of a magistrate is to enforce the law of God to regulate social relations. When a society no longer has a landed gentry, the magistrate becomes too far removed from the people and cannot rule with wisdom or beneficence. He must practice selective enforcement as a deterrent with increasingly severe sanctions. Selective enforcement alienates the people which he governs and results in the “good ole’ boys” club that finally ends in rebellion or complete tyranny.

In John Bouvier’s Institutes of American Law (circa. 1850) the “taking” of physical possession of a property is required to perfect title of ownership. This “taking” required the stepping-off of the property by its new owner.

The three indicia of title were these: 1) the right of property in one’s person, (proof of personal sovereignty) 2) the right of possession, (the quieting of title) and 3) possession.

Property in one’s person means that a man is not encumbered with a conventional disability: an impairment of his right to contract. “Contract law” presupposes free moral agency. This is a condition of status. If a man has made a contract, he is legally and morally bound to the performance of that contract before he can make another which might impair the rights of the antecedents. This is why Jesus commanded His disciples not to enter vows and oaths. The oath binds a man and in some sense compromises his freedom.

That is also why in biblical land law – the Mosaic Law – it was impossible for the land to be encumbered by contract for a period of more than 50 years. There was the Year of Jubilee: the year of release. This fact guaranteed that children could not be bound to a status encumbered by their fathers. It nullified the “corruption of blood.”

After title is quieted in one’s person, the right to possess a thing requires the relinquishment of title by other competing parties. A “warranty deed” to land simply means that the power of the civil government is pledged to defend the property rights of the one who holds title. Usually, a “title search” is required to determine that there are no potential adversaries to the claim of title. Finding none, then title is certified to the holder with a deed.

Possession is the physically taking of a thing. Rich men who fail to “possess” their land, fall prey to squatters and other parties which might lay claim to it by “adverse possession.”

The United States or the united States

The American experience has been one of mixed law traditions. It began with the distinctions of English law: 1) People’s law of self-government in the form of “Common Law” which descended from custom and biblical revelations, 2) the King’s law superimposed upon Common Law based upon the right of conquest (principally, a relic of the Norman Invasion, 3) Canon law: the rulings – often arbitrary – based upon the ecclesiastical rulings of clerics, such as archbishops and popes, and 4) Mercantile law: the rules of commerce between nations at ports of entry.

In general, the King’s law was an expression of state sovereignty and was replaced by the various legislative bodies of the American Colonies when they declared independence. The general belief at the time was that it was a sovereignty dependent upon the People. The respective federal and state governments were “bound” by their constitutions. Sometimes referred to as “chains,” these new embodiments of regal authority were limited by designated powers, mostly for the purposes of international relations. “The consent of the governed” became the foundation for political legitimacy.

While municipal law represented the community covenant and limited, yet also protected, a property owner’s use of his land, in the county – the unincorporated territory in the countryside – land law remained under the Common Law with the landholder as magistrate on his own estate. For greater questions of controversy, the principal officer of the County was the Sheriff who could call “Courts of Assize” to settle controversies between landholders. These courts were juries of one’s neighbors which could be held anywhere of the Sheriff’s choosing, and when a verdict was rendered, he would be the enforcer of the decision.

Later, state legislatures would institute judgeships for purposes of convenience and stability. But just as it was in England, so it became in America: a continual rivalry emerged between the “People’s Law” and “Ruler’s Law.”

The pretended abolition of slavery in the 13th Amendment really was a transference of sovereignty over persons from landholders to the state. No slavery “except as punishment for crime” became the exact mechanism to destroy property rights in the United States. Statutory criminal codes replaced the moral law of God as expressed in the Bible, which until that time, could be argued in a Court of Law. Today, to argue your case from the Scriptures will find you in contempt of court.

The deviousness of this amendment is proved by the fact that it failed to limit the prohibition of slavery based upon race or skin color. Instead, it violated the “obligations of contracts” clause of the Constitution by empowering Congress with the right to enforce its provisions: meaning, that it was now Congress which could enforce, control, or void the obligations of contracts.

“The eminent domain” clause of the Constitution was meant, originally, to extend government ownership over uninhabited lands, not lands in possession by the people according to the indicia outlined by Bouvier as cited above. The “without just compensation” clause cannot supplant the 5th Amendment for persons to be secure in their property. “Just compensation” is an impossible standard unless the subject is willing. It impairs the obligation of contracts for land tenure and turns the meaning of “fee simple” on its head. Depriving someone of their rights – without their consent – is a tort at Common Law and makes all government entities which practice it a criminal enterprise.

The Free Soil Party

Before Abraham Lincoln became a Republican, and before there was a Republican Party, there was the “Free Soil Party.”

In the early 19th Century, there was a vast and mostly empty continent to the West of the Appalachians. Of course, there were several colonial outposts of the French and Spanish explorers. There were the Indian Tribes. But as far as anyone could tell, these groups could claim the land; they could not possess the land.

The American people wanted to move West and posses the land. And even though the land had been ceded to the “united States” by the powers of Europe, Congress represented the People and it was only the People who could take possession.

They wanted rules for the fair distribution of the land but they did not want to pay for something they already owned. They already paid for it in blood, sweat, and tears. Congress was not a sovereign to cede land title; it was an agent for the sovereign People and could only issue “patents.”

While the Free Soil Party began as an abolitionist movement, yet it also included party aspirations for agrarianism, with numerous attempts to promote a society of free men standing on their own ground.

For more on agrarianism, go to the website: savebenewahcounty.com.

copyright, James W. Stivers, 6/15/25