Kevin DeYoung helps to clarify what different Christian communities mean by the phrase social justice by acknowledging an unconstrained and constrained vision. Here is a question that helps us differentiate between a constrained and unconstrained vision of social justice. Is it always, in every circumstance, just to give food to the hungry person? Before I answer this question, I must qualify my answer by answering another question, because I do not want anyone to misunderstand me. Do I believe that, as evangelical Christians, we should do far more to feed the hungry and spread our massive amounts of wealth to the needy around the world, in the name of Christ? Yes.
Now, is it always, in every circumstance, socially just to give food to a hungry person? From a purely biblical perspective, the answer to this question must be a resounding “no”. “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10). Mind you, this verse does not govern the circumstances of the vast majority of the world’s hungry, because most hungry people are willing to work for food. Yet, this scripture supports a constrained vision of social justice, at least to some extent.
As it relates to economic theory, verses like this show us that the primary vision of scripture is not to create a society in which everyone’s belly is satisfied with bread and resources are spread evenly abroad. To say it more directly, verses like this show us that socialism is not an entirely socially just system in the way the bible defines social justice, because socialism would demand that the person unwilling to work be fed. Yet, I end with a caution to the capitalist: the vast majority of verses in the bible concerning finances command the redistribution of wealth (both voluntary and involuntary, as in the Old Testament laws concerning mandated welfare for the poor).
If the bible was a handbook on what kind of economic system to create, it seems that it would be promoting a highly nuanced system that would neither satisfy the capitalist nor the socialist. Yet, I remain convinced that the bible is not a handbook of such, so we should “preach” our economic theory with far less conviction and take much less interest in it in contrast to other truths that the bible does seek to fervently promote… like radical voluntary giving to the poor, and justification by faith.
Hey Jeff,
I would simply view the socialist view of “justice” as grossly deformed at best. For the simple reason that it is an exercise in coercion, if you don’t submit to being plundered you will be on the undesired side of a prison wall shortly. I don’t know how we don’t call this what it is…theft by force. No one should be forced to do anything for “the greater good” (I know I used 2 universals in that sentence but I think they are warrented). I simply don’t understand the Jim Wallis’ of christianity who see socialism as a wonderful exercise of Christian charity…somehow it is Christian charity to give the state power and control over our earning through honest labor because they will put on programs that never really end poverty but really seem to perpetuate it by creating a dependent class.
Which is why the Biblical exhortation you brought up is so critical, we are called to love our neighbor, however, loving our neighbor goes beyond just making sure his belly is full or he is housed, we are to care about his character as a man. This is entirely skipped in handing out checks, free housing, free schooling, free food etc…as the state can never cultivate a moral people with character and integrity.
To sum up why socialist justice shoud be rejected:
1. It is immoral to coercively take from one person, pocket some of the money and give some to the indigent. If anybody but government did this we would call it what it is…theft.
2. The poverty programs simply do not work, as it creates a society of dependants. I would say they don’t work because the secular state is entirely unable to equip people with a moral character, only the Church armed with the gospel can do this by the grace of God.
Bob,
I simply disagree with you. I know you are a Libertarian and active in the political discussion, much more so than me, and my reply to your post will most likely leave you unsatisfied. But here it goes.
Philosophically, your argument has some merit. Biblically, it falls apart at the seems. You, being a covenant theologian who values the Old Testament law and recognizes that not every Israelite is (nor was) a member of the Church should be moved by the startling welfare system set out in the Pentateuch. First, there was a government mandated command for all land owners to leave a certain percentage of their crop for the poor (Leviticus 19:9-10, Leviticus 23:22, Leviticus 24:19-22 Deuteronomy 23:24-25). Second, there was a mandate to provide food and shelter for the person of no financial sustenance (Leviticus 25:35-37). Third, for those who had debts AND no financial sustenance there was a 7 year plan for them to be relieved of their debts so that they might not be taken advantage of by wealthy land owners (Leviticus 25:39-40, Deuteronomy 15:7-18). Most republicans and libertarians I know would not be in favor of this system, but it seems that God was. Here, we have a community, not all of whom are regenerate, being forced to provide for the poor. Is God mandating thievery as you suggest? Or, is mandated welfare something different than thievery? Now, obviously, the welfare system of the Old Testament looks much different the welfare system today. But, would we be closer to the Old Testament principle of law by scraping welfare altogether? I think not.
Mind you, I am not a social Calvinist but a theological one. I am not advocating that we use the Old Testament (or the New Testament) to model a government after. Yet, I think that Christians who use the bible to inform their politic and economic theory all too often conveniently choose the parts of the bible that best fit within the right wing agenda. They will use the Old Testament to inform their view of capital punishment, but not welfare. In my view, the bible defends monarchical socialism as much as it defends democratic capitalism. But in my view, the bible seeks to defend any economic or political theory, so it is unhelpful to ask these type of questions of the Scriptures.
If I am forced to say the socialism grossly deforms justice, I must also say that capitalism grossly deforms justice.
In addition, in regards to your comments, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and recognize that you intended to say “socialism should be rejected” rather than “social justice should be rejected.” Let me know if I’m right in thinking this and I will correct your comment for you.
with much affection,
Jeff
Interesting post Jeff. I liked the distinction that you/DeYoung made regarding the term social justice. The post did raise some questions however.
- Is 2 Thessalonians 3:10 relevant in this discussion? I don’t have a bible in front of me (and I haven’t read that in a long, long time), but isn’t that a text about brothers within the church? If so, I don’t see how it sheds light on how God would have a democratic political system operate. I may be confused about the text, but either way I would appreciate if you could show me the connection between this text and Christians as citizens making political decisions that aren’t confined by the walls of the church.
-My next question may be a big covenant vs. whatever-other-system-for-reading-the-bible theology can of worms but I’ll ask it anyways since you (Jeff) and Bob seem to be more up on that discussion than I. I didn’t look up any of the OT passages you quoted in your response to Bob and I assume that those were the OT passages you had in mind in your original post. The question is much like the first one. How do a few rules in the Mosaic law, given to the OT community of faith, regarding some sort of welfare system, shed any light on how God would have us New Covenant Christians align (or think, or vote, or whatever) politically, or fiscally, or what have you? This is mostly a question of ignorance as I have never been able to figure out the ways in which we as new covenant people are, or are not, bound by the mosaic law.
I have further questions but these 2 will do for now. Thanks in advance for the response (if you should choose to respond).
Bob feel free to chime in. I’d like to hear what you have to say (as long as the sovereign of this blog is okay with that).
Jeff, you bring up good points, are you into Jim Wallis or something?
As for a reply, actually I would have no problem with someone keeping the principle God’s call to love the poor and setting aside the fruit of their labor like Boaz did for Ruth. My issues with what you raise are threefold, 1. We are not Israel, if we want to go the path of the theonomists and apply OT civil law then have at it, lets start executing homosexuals while were at it. (you yourself raise and say we ought to obey the spirit of the law rather than set up a OT theocracy) So to answer your question is God mandating theivery? Of course not, Israel as a nation was like a big church, having elect and non-elect members, just as those within the church who turn a blind eye to those in need should be removed I think the same for Israel. Furthermore, this was mandated by God.
2. I also wonder how much “government” there actually was in Israel prior to Saul, seems pretty minimalist to me. Just some rag tag judges popping up now and then. Hardly a force to go around enforcing a welfare system as you suggest, it is the principles of the law that were applied, and the spirit is to care for the poor and to care for the alien. As we see with Boaz and Ruth no officious blighter from the government showed up to make sure Boaz was giving to the welfare system. It seems to me that Boaz did his giving out of generosity and obedience to God, not the state.
3. My issue comes when the State coercively comes in and tells farmers what they can and can not grow. They will often tell some to burn fields for money so that the price of wheat will stay high.
You stated:
“But, would we be closer to the Old Testament principle of law by scraping welfare altogether? I think not.
If we are so concerned about the poor then why do we look to an entity that specializes in destruction, wastefulness, and avarice to complete the task of caring for the poor? I operate under the market assumption that private ownership will always out perform government as private ownership has a profit and loss mechanism in place. If they lose too much they are out of business, gov’t on the other hand if they are prodigal just print more money or raises taxes.
That said, I think we can expect private charitable groups to by their very nature out perform gov’t attempts because the private sector has a profit and loss mechanism. Furthermore, if a charity is found to be run by crooks, people will stop giving to that charity and seek a more reputable one. Yet, if gov’t is full of plunderers and crooks people who stop giving money will be swat teamed and either imprisoned or killed.
I think what is “closer” to the OT position (given the rather minimalist form of gov’t Israel enjoyed under the judges) is simply caring for the poor like Boaz. The means of using Government is not necessarily connected with this. Additionaly, if we want better results the free market is the way to go.
I am truly befuddled by this statement of yours though:
“If I am forced to say the socialism grossly deforms justice, I must also say that capitalism grossly deforms justice.
How does the free market pervert justice? Where did the notion of an equal distribution of wealth being synonymous with justice come from (assuming you refer to that)? If that is the case than God Himself is unjust as each person has different talents born into them, different socio-economic backgrounds, and different level of potential all based upon the decrees of God…that said, I don’t think inequalty equates to injustice, that’s been the line of the Marxists for almost 200 years.
I am sure we can frame capitalism as a pursuit of greed etc…but that is simply loading the dice. I would see it as the consentual exchange of mutually beneficial goods and services, earned through honest labor. I don’t know how that definition of free market capitalism leads to injustice. Granted, there will be sinful agents engaging in the free market and commiting things like fraud, or selfishness, but these are not a necessary products of the free market, whereas coercion by bayonette point is a neccesary hand maid to socialism.
My point in this long, whimsical and somewhat dull screed, is that freedom is always the best policy.
God Bless you Jeff
oh and Bryce you asked:
“How do a few rules in the Mosaic law, given to the OT community of faith, regarding some sort of welfare system, shed any light on how God would have us New Covenant Christians align (or think, or vote, or whatever) politically, or fiscally, or what have you?
I somewhat addressed this in the above texts, I think the OT texts simply exhort us to a lifestyle of giving to those with less than us. Given that I see government as an exercise in coercion, theft, and a general magnet attracting the worst elements of society, I would not look to them to be the best means of fulfilling these verses and their call to care for the poor. I would look to the church, and private sector charities as the best avenue of obedience.
Furthermore, fiscally, I would again point to the realistic definition of government given above and say that people should be able to keep their own money as they will make better use of it than the state in giving and resource allocation. Just look at some of what the state considers “Charity” and what I am saying should be obvious (“free” condoms, “free” needles, “free” abortions etc)
I think the market can make better charity allocations than free condoms…
It’s clear that God commands His people to care for and defend the poor, the widow, and the orphan but in the Biblical examples we don’t have a third party (government) involved. It was not “government mandated” as you state. It was God-mandated and it was face to face and personal. The needy could come directly to field and glean. The lender could forgive a debtor. It was the nuts and bolts of how to love your neighbor. God laid out the rules for His covenant people in their covenant community. And the people agreed to it! Of course we should be giving and giving lavishly out of love for God and man and as a result of God’s grace in our life. But we can’t compel people to obey God. We can’t take someone else’s money and give it to the poor.
Bryce,
I think that 2 Thessalonians 3:10 is just as relevant to the political conversation as any other passage, considering I don’t think any of the passages are intended to persuade us of any certain social government. What the 2 Thessalonians passage does show us, is that it is sometimes just not to feed a hungry person.
Concerning your second question, you are right, the way one answers this questions reveals their view of the covenants. I am still in process concerning some of this, however, it is clear to me that most of the OT Israelites in the Pentateuch perished without no true faith (1 Corinthians 10:5). Yet, it wasn’t only the believing Israelites that were mandated under the law to lay aside a portion of their crops for the poor, it was all the Israelite landowners, regardless of their true faith. Now, there are those who see a difference between the unbeliever in Israel (or the church) and the unbelieving heathen, thereby creating a certain pseudo-member status. I on the other hand believe that there is no difference, theologically speaking, between the unbelieving church member and the unbelieving heathen… after-all, I am a baptist. It was just for God to mandate, through the Israelite government, that unbelieving Israelites commit a portion of their food to feed the poor. I also think it is just for other governments to mandate likewise, regardless of the faith of the individual.
Bob and Lisa,
The Israelites, believing and unbelieving were mandated under the Israeli government to let the poor take a portion of their food – food which the land owners had labored for and the poor had not. And, I must also say that the Israeli government was by God’s design to inherit a human king and a human government, as foretold through Moses (Deuteronomy 17:15).
I am not aiming to defend America’s particular welfare system in all its fullness, yet it is my position that our welfare system is not unjust simply because it mandates under rule of law that the rich give the poor to glean from their fields. To me it is of little consequence whether the poor come to gather their gleanings themselves, or whether a servant of the king comes to collect it for them. Perhaps if a king in Israel had ensured that the rich cared for the poor as God had originally instituted in their government, the prophets would not have so easily indicted Judah for their injustice and lack of care for the poor.
Concerning the question of injustice and capitalism, I have much to say, but am too weary to say it at this point. Perhaps tomorrow, or in another forum. I must admit that discussions concerning politics/economics do not hold my interest long enough, so I am unable to be adequately invested for the holding of fervent conviction. Yet, I am interested enough to make the ever-so occasional allusion to such investigations in my blog-posts… dangerous.
with a smirk,
Jeff
Right on Jeff, I would recommend you study the Austrian economists, economics is boring only when you are drinking from the polluted wells of the Keynesians and Marxists, so I feel for you. I must say tongue in cheek that me thinks you have spent too much time in the people’s republic of Oregon. (you can find great resources at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, if you care about social justice having a robust economic theory is vital).
“The Israelites, believing and unbelieving were mandated under the Israeli government to let the poor take a portion of their food”
What government are you refering to? I am serious here, I really am starting to think you are reading socialism into these texts. I am talking right then and there, God never mandated a form of government for Israel, they really were theocratic-anarchists, which I find to be glorious. Deuteronomy 17:5 simply has nothing to say on this matter and Samuel warned of the blessings of taxes, plunder and conscription of our children the King would bring, and God states that Israel rejected Him from being King. That tells me as far as earthly rule the government prior to Saul was again pretty minimalist, probably not consisting of beaurocrats runing around mandating the gleaning laws. The people were expected to do this charitable giving in obedience to their King and Law Giver, the LORD.
“I am not aiming to defend America’s particular welfare system in all its fullness, yet it is my position that our welfare system is not unjust simply because it mandates under rule of law that the rich give the poor to glean from their fields.”
Would to God that that was all our government did mandate!
Look here’s my final coup de grat on this matter, I really don’t think you believe what you are saying. Let me demonstrate:
Lets say that hypothetically you have $1000 given to your stewardship by an aunt to give to a charitable cause, she just has no idea whatsoever what constitutes a good cause so she has given the money to you because you are a Christian training to be a minister and she trusts you. You have the following options (lets hypothetically say these are the only charities that exist):
A) the Pentecostal snake handlers of Apalacia food pantry
B) Clean water for Africa (a non-religious group whose president was reported to be engaged in embezzlement)
C) Missonaries for Indonesia (an upright and orthodox group, spreading the gospel and building houses)
D) Edna (a woman up the road whose husband recently died and she now struggles with paying the bills)
E) Send the money to good ol USSA government
I put this up for the simple purpose of illustrating that nobody would ever choose option E), well maybe Rush Limbaugh but no sane person would ever do that. This is for the simple reason that when we vote with our dollars we know that we can allocate the money better than a bunch of chair moisteners in Washington could, so they don’t get the vote.
Which is why when people start spouting the socialist boilerplate they always (like you did) refer to those nasty “RICH” who need to have their money taken from them. There is always some other group of people who need to be forced to give to the state (it’s never us), even though we ourselves never would when faced with a hypothetical option like the one above.
I’ll believe all these marxist Christians are serious about the virtues of the state when they start spontaneously choosing option E) with their meager surplus capital rather than some other charity.
All right, well I enjoyed our talk,
God bless
I have observed that social welfare systems have a corrupting effect on:
Government/leaders: redistributing wealth never works as planned largely because government leaders tend to siphon off funds to friends and family; the temptation to do so must be overwhelming, because God told Israel this would happen when they wanted a king – and this pattern can be routinely observed here in the U.S. as well as in 3rd world countries.
Recipients of social welfare: Work ethic can be dampened (usually is, at least in degrees); we were born to work and find fulfillment and purpose in working hard; perhaps worst of all, a sense of entitlement sets in, which erodes our sense of accountability before both God and man. When I read the story of the man who did nothing with the talent God gave him, I ponder with great sadness the fate of so many people in our culture that were never expected to accomplish or work or be held accountable for their time on earth. Profoundly tragic.
Taxpayers: When people are taxed heavily and then see the money land in the wrong hands or spent unwisely or see how it actually harms the truly poor, it breeds cynicism, not generosity. I’ve seen first hand how small business owners are particularly harmed in this system as well. I should also mention here that an exhaustive study was conducted a few years ago, trying to determine who the most generous people were (looking at a wide range of demographics). The study demonstrated that religious conservatives and entrepreneurs tended to be the most generous, not only in terms of actual dollars, but also in terms of donated time and percentage of income. My point here is that if hard working people and business owners would be able to donate more to charity if they weren’t taxed as heavily as they are.
Business: In a socialist system, a businessperson or entrepreneur usually has to pay some form of bribe in order to secure marketplace advantages or even be able to keep their doors open. This erodes competetion, diminishes innovation and forms an unhealthy relationship between government and business. We see this particularly in China and Europe, where businesses answer to government rather than its customers. We also see it here in America, where big corporations have the power to secure advantages that are not available to the small business owner running a restaurant or dry cleaning business.
Also, Jeff – the “set aside” principle in the Mosaic Law ensured that the poor would work for their food and wisely excluded government from the task and temptation of redistributing the money. I don’t think these are insignificant details.
Lastly, the French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville visited the United States in the 19th century, curious to learn and write about America. He visited long before we had an income tax or redistributed income the way we do now. One of the things that amazed him most was the generosity of Americans (he wrote especially of the generosity of churchgoers and Christians): “When an American needs the assistance of his fellows, it is very rare for that to be refused. When some unexpected disaster strikes a family, a thousand strangers willingly open their purses.” He also noted the following: “Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” And I couldn’t agree more with the French philosopher.
Derek and Bob,
You bring up some good points and I appreciate your contributions to this post, as well as your contributions to my thought processes on this matter matter. I cannot say that you have convinced me that free-market capitalism (especially with the institution of corporate entities which take the liability off of individuals) is a just economic system, and I never contended that socialism is a just system, so I remain close to where I started – but your thoughts have been helpful.
I do have problems with Bob’s assessment of Israel as theocratic-anarchy. It seems clear to me that God instituted a government which was to be enforced by people. God’s government involved a rule of law which included the judging of cases and practical penalties that people were to carry out. The unbeliever and the believer in Israel were to be forced to obey this law, as well as the sojourner. This seems far from anarchy. Admittedly though, there is much in your overall assessment that I need to consider.
Derek, your quote from Alexis Tocqueville is also very helpful to consider. Thank you for your multifaceted assessment of the effects of socialism.
in His grip,
Jeff
Jeff you stated:
“I do have problems with Bob’s assessment of Israel as theocratic-anarchy. It seems clear to me that God instituted a government which was to be enforced by people. God’s government involved a rule of law which included the judging of cases and practical penalties that people were to carry out. The unbeliever and the believer in Israel were to be forced to obey this law, as well as the sojourner. This seems far from anarchy.”
You are begging the question, in the same manner as the Arminian who assumes that if God commands something we must have the complete ability to do it. Just because something is commanded of God that will have ramifications in the civil realm does not indicate a setting up of government, you must show where God has instituted the state to do the tasks you insist are part of the state’s function. Israel, given the Mosaic writings was left to figure it out on their own, as there was no clear institution of a form of government given to Israel. I think the Levites were the primary instructors in righteousness and thus were the standard bearers.
Simply put: If pre-monarchical Israel wasn’t a theocratic-anarchical system then what was it? Until this can be addressed scripturally you beg the question by insisting there was some sort of state exacting punishment on the disobedient to gleaning laws.
The onus is on you to give an instance of this alleged God created state engaging in “forced” obedience to the gleaning laws. That government simply wasn’t there prior to Saul. I mean you had avengers of blood running around and exacting justice for crying out loud.
Sorry to keep this going, but I am a stickler when folk are reading things into the text that just aren’t there.
God bless
Bob
Jeff,
I have long agreed with one wise man who said “capitalism is the least ‘worst’ economic system”. Implied here is that in an inperfect, sin sick world, no system will ever create the utopia we often have in our mind when we think of ways to construct a more just system. As de Tocqueville points out, democracy and capitalism imply freedom, which some or many people will abuse. But when you think about it, isn’t this the way God interacts with man? Does he coerce us to be good or obey him? If he did use coercive means, would we have the ability to worship Him?
What I’m getting at here is that abuses within a capitalist system do not automatically point to a flawed system. It is for this reason that I advocate that government should carry out the one mandate that is clearly spelled out in Scripture, that of “sword bearing” (Romans 13). Government is God’s agent of justice in a fallen world and should punish people who abuse the freedoms that are associated with both capitalism and democracy. I am not a libertarian for nearly the same reason that I oppose the practice of redistributing income on the basis of class or favoritism. One abrogates the Biblical mandate and the other exceeds Biblical mandate, to the harm of everyone.
Derek
Derek-
Great insights, I espescially appreciate your comments on gleaning being work, God set up a moral standard of charity and compassion not an entitlement state. The gleaners actually would have to work harder than regular workers as there would be less harvest in the field left. Further as I I keep pointing out there was no civil penalty attatched to the gleaning command thus this was clearly not a state function. My view of the state is that it is there merely to defend persons and property from injustice, I think that’s all that we see in scripture delegated to the state.
(On a side note that’s why I see “christian socialism” as an oxymoron given the 8th and 10th commandments, private property was clearly right in the eyes of the Lord)
Do bear in mind though given my last sentence that libertarianism is not anarchism. It is not an entire rejection of any role of government but limits government to defending persons and property. So I hardly see how it is harmful for government to stay within those bounds. Things like theft, fraud, violence, rape etc all have their place to be prosecuted under the law in a Libertarian or Jeffersonian state.
But maybe you think we should use the State punish vices (which involve no harm to other persons or property in themselves), like pot smoking, prostitution, or even eating trans fats, in that case I would say you are closer to the statist than you think just coming from a different angle.
God bless,
Bob
Bob,
You’ve brought up some things that I could write quite a lot about, though I fear I might take us a little off the main topic. I think the shortest way to answer your question is that I think that government should have a bigger sword than libertarians typically feel comfortable with. I am sympathetic and agree with the libertarian impulse to limit the scope and power of government, especially of centralized government structures.
Allow me to provide a few examples of where I think government should have a “bigger sword” than libertarians advocate:
- Libertarian views on privacy rights would severely hamper criminal justice, in my view.
- Most libertarians advocate abortion rights and do so based on the principle of right to privacy. I strongly disagree with this on the basis that the rights of the unborn are violated.
- I would go even further than this on issues such as child pornography, which I believe should be vigorously prosecuted. I also agree with those who think that government does have a role in encouraging virtue and prosecuting vice. That is, I would go as far as to say that gambling should be outlawed on the basis that it is toxic to the culture and individual.
I don’t think it is a coincidence that government performs most effectively when it is limited. All of this is consistent with what I see in the Old Testament and New. Government does not do charity well – never has and never will, because God delegated that role to the Church. All Christians should oppose the outsourcing of our God given mandate. Perhaps the worst thing that has happened since the New Deal is that Christians and churches have had a much more limited role in caring for the widow and orphan. This is a great tragedy that is rarely discussed or understood in evangelical circles. So in that respect, my views are libertarian, I think.
Derek,
I’m going to further hijack what appears to be an already hijacked thread.
2 things.
First, concerning abortion, there is no consensus on the issue among libertarians. It just depends on each individual libertarians view of when life starts. If a libertarian believes that life begins at conception then they believe that said life deserves full protection under the law. Libertarians are often pigeonholed as being pro-choice but that is just not true. The same holds for child pornography. Children, being people, deserve full protection under the law. Libertarians do not condone, nor allow, for children to be harmed.
Secondly, I am curious about this statement, “I would go even further than this on issues such as child pornography, which I believe should be vigorously prosecuted. I also agree with those who think that government does have a role in encouraging virtue and prosecuting vice. That is, I would go as far as to say that gambling should be outlawed on the basis that it is toxic to the culture and individual.” I have heard lots of people (Christians in particular) say this sort of thing but I have never heard a good rationale as to why? I understand the problem with abortion and child pornography as they clearly violate human rights but things like smoking, gambling etc are not the same. Also, how and who decides which activities are toxic to society? Lots of atheists think religion is toxic and even dangerous to society. You seem to have thought through these things more than most people I have heard speaking in these ways so if you could clarify and expound a little bit it would be appreciated.
Thanks
Guys,
Hijacking is usually welcomed here, so feel free to continue on as much as you think is helpful and therefore glorifying to God. Bob, Lisa, Derek & Bryce, thank you for your patience with me as I work through some of these issues.
Especially when it concerns issues of politics, this blog is not intended to be a pulpit as much as an exploration. Historically, I have distanced myself from all things political, holding to a more Anabaptist view of political involvement (or should I say non-involvement), so I am relatively new to this discussion. In other words, a man ought to know when he is “out of his league”.
-Jeff
Bryce,
I should probably amend or refine what I said to say that I believe that government has a limited role to play, as it relates to limiting vice.
I must admit, you make a strong point that politicians and even judges are often terrible at determining what is a vice and what isn’t.
Herein lies the foresightedness of the founding fathers, who advocated a weak central government (which the U.S. abandoned at least 100 years ago, sadly). Perhaps just as importantly, our laws are supposed to be derived from the “rule of law” – based largely on transcendant truths and rights that were largely enumerated in Scripture (e.g. the Ten Commandments). This concept is opposed by the “rule of man”, whereby an authoritarian, oligarchy or culture decides what is right and what is wrong. Sadly, we’ve been shifting in this direction as well for some time – Al Gore stated as much in the 2000 Presidential election.
My argument in regards to gambling and pornography and drugs is this – the widespread availability of each of these items invariably leads to widespread use. I realize that many will argue that point, but I think most reasonable persons would agree with me here. With regard to each of these, tremendous damage is done to society – and I don’t think it is unimportant to note that the young are especially targeted and/or victimized. Again, I think the empiracal data will back me up here. So I believe that government has some responsibility here – though again, I think there need to be limits that would be ideally be reinforced by proper checks and balances, as well as adherence to the rule of law.
Derek-
I hear you totally, I don’t want people to engage in the things you listed either. I don’t see how aborting babies is a privacy issue at all that is just ridiculous, thus I would see that as murder and punishable by the law as it is a crime against a person. Gambling, again I don’t think is a good habit, but if someone’s vice of gambling is confined to spending his honestly earned capital in a prodigal manner at some sleazey establishment, I don’t see that a crime has taken place. Morally, before God he is wasting his time and God given talents and God will hold him accountable. I just don’t see how this is the states job to interfere here as no persons nor property have been harmed.
With child pornagraphy, I don’t think the viewer, as perverse as he is, has commited any crime, other than being a degenerate pervert. The makers of the pornagraphy have, as they have violated the person of a child. Thus, I would see it as appropriate to outlaw child pornagraphy and shut down these filthy web pages, even confiscate the hard materials found, and certainly prosecute the distributors of such filth. However, what crime has the person viewing the filth commited? He’s just a pathetic individual, and perhaps broadcasting his perversion in the local newspaper would suffice to curb it.
My point in all of this isn’t that pot smoking, pornagraphy, prostitution, gambiling etc are perfectly fine behaviours to engage in. They are not. I see it as the task of the Church to announce this as the Church is the moral pillar of the world. Yet, a wise Man once said that we must wash the inside of the cup before the outside, applied here I see that as meaning the gospel is the only thing we have to make moral and upright people, not statist laws regulating vice.
As it is right now in this country we have positivist law, law just made up according the the fancies of the godless State thus granting them authority through bayonet point. If the regulation of vice is not a task belonging soley to parents and the Church, the State will constantly conjure up rationale in the name of the “public good” (we’ve never heard that before have we?) for making new laws and regulations almost always resulting in more revenue. Like: seatbelt tickets, speeding tickets, cigarrette taxes, banning hydrogenated oils, cat at large laws, laws against spanking your kids etc.
My point is this, that the State (read here: Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid and Janet Napolitano) simply wont agree with you as to what constitutes vice. You see gambling as a vice, they see giving your kid a swat after he mouthed off to mom as a vice.
Bear in mind, that the swat team is standing by.
To keep us safe from such tyranny, it is simply safer to leave the check upon vice in society to the Chruch and family. Granted, not all go to church nor have good parents, yet if they do not commit crimes against persons and/or property what is the societal harm in their pot smoking? Thus, why does the State have a role here?
Blessings,
Bob
Bob,
I certainly agree that we don’t want to assign roles defined for the church to the state. Particularly when the church abdicates her responsibilies. Having said that, all laws are derived from some kind of moral framework or worldview. The leaders in any government are going to either apply their own moral framework or they are going to use someone else’s. Even the narrow parameters that you advocate follow a certain set of beliefs about right and wrong. And I must point out, it is a moral grid that is closer to Wicca than Christianity. Perhaps the difference between our views is that I don’t believe the moral framework you established is superior to the Judeo Christian one we have followed for over 200 years (though sadly, it is being eroded – see my prior comments on the rule of law vs. the rule of man).
I’m a huge advocate of limiting the size, scope and authority of government. That said, I refer to my previous comments about the sword bearing role of government. I cannot harmonize an extremely limited or fearful view of government with Scriptures like this in I Peter: “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. ”
I happen to know a pastor in China. From time to time, he has been harrassed by government. One day, I expect that he will end up in jail because of his love for Christ. Despite all of this, he truly honors and obeys his government authorities to the extent that he can. He disobeys them when it violates his faith and his role as pastor. But he understands that even corrupt and authoritarian leaders are established by God and to dishonor them is to dishonor God and would destroy the credibility of his witness. I share that story because it challenges me to do the same, under far less extreme circumstances.
- Derek
Derek & Bob,
One thing that Derek said, and that you probably both agree upon, strikes me with a little unease:
Challenge me on this one.
If the church abdicates her responsibilities by not caring for the poor as they ought, and then suddenly a law is instituted that there is mandated feeding of the hungry, shouldn’t there be some part of us that rejoices that the hungry are fed? Yes, we should be grieved that the church has fallen far short of its responsibilities, and we should labor hard to eradicate the disease within the church so that she functions as she ought. We should perhaps even be discouraged about some of the possible long-term effects of such a law being passed, such as the church feeling less inclined to respond to the call of the needy because it is being taken care of by the state. However, shouldn’t we also be immediately relieved that the hungry are being fed? Or are we more concerned our ability to feed the hungry with our own two hands than we are actually concerned for the hungry themselves? It seems to me that while it is our primary aim is to beautify the gospel in the hearing of all people, we should also be delighted when a man in hunger pains is given food, no matter who it is that feeds them.
So, if the church continues to abdicate her responsibilities in a given culture, am I still to continually vote “no” to the redistribution of food to the poor, watching the hungry masses starve?
Please, do tell.
exploring with sincerity,
Jeff
“And I must point out, it is a moral grid that is closer to Wicca than Christianity
Up until this point the debate was reasonable and intelligent, now we leap into ad hominems/non-sequitors. I guess this is what occurs when someone simply can not furnish a logical rebuttal, better yet you should play the Hitler card and say something like “If we adopted libertarian foreign policy druing WW2 Hitler would have one!” both statements have the same merit.
Simply put limited government means just that, people have the ability to use their God given talents and potential as they see fit, seeing the consequences both in this life and at the Day. I would further recommend reading puritan Samuel Rutheford’s “Lex Rex” or Francis Schaeffer’s “A Christian Manifesto” to understand more acutely the role of the Christian in the state. If the state is violating God’s laws that state has abrogated it’s authority, it is the duty of the Christian to be disobedient (as lawfully as possible, unlawfully if that becomes impossible…like MLK jr.). Most Christians have this mentality that we are called to lick the boots of the opressor and say “Thank you sir may I have another!” when they oppress us.
I thank God for examples like Stonewall Jackson, Patrick Henry, Oliver Cromwell etc who all stood up for liberty in the face of tyranny and all were devout Christians. The problem I see today is most Christians really don’t have a robust political philosophy and just shill for the Statist establishment one way or another. Thus, truth has fallen in the streets.
Just think of how most Christians support torture now, and endless war, that said I would be more accepting of the policies Jeff outlines than these “right wing” guys who are merchants of death. I am far more afraid of tyranny “from the right” than guys forcing healthcare on us. Neither is desireable, but with the former it is literally Orwell’s image of the future: a boot stomping on a human face.
God Bless
Oh and Jeff, I think you have a point there with the church not doing it’s job. I would say we need to call the church to repentance, as the first and principle aim. In the mean time I still think private sector secular charities would out perform the government “charity”.
This has been a good discussion, has really gotten me to think.
I must also add that I of course agree that bearing the sword and punishing evildoers Biblically is the role of the state. I simply don’t see how that decreeextends beyond protecting persons adn their private property. You seem to think that “bearing the sword” means punish pot smoking video game players in their mom’s basement, and keeping people from using their capital as they see fit at a casino. These I would see as victimless vices and though undesireable behaviour do not fall under the rubric of “evil doers”. Anglo Saxon common law held to the paradigm I assert for the role of the state, as well as articles like men rea which would be impossible to establish in such circumstances. You see it is the libertarian that believes in the rule of law, positivist law makes crimes out of vices like drinking, swearing, spitting on the sidewalk etc.
Bob,
First of all – I hate ad hominem attacks and I can assure you it was not my intent to make one. I was not intending to offend. Again, every law can be traced to a systematic moral framework or philosophy. I still think that classical liberterianism is closer to a wiccan moral framework than a Christian one, as a simple matter of classification. I’ve understood the Anglo Saxon common law to be traced back to Patrick (of Ireland) and that this system is essentially Judeo Christian as well, at least in terms of origin.
I want to add that I do not believe that we have a Christian duty or obligation to enforce or demand that a government adopt a Judeo Christian framework, so in that context, I am not as hostile to the idea of a non-Christian framework as you might think. That said, I think the Judeo Christian framework is clearly superior and we can and should encourage our leaders to look to it as the best model.
Finally, I agree with you that we don’t need government to haul pot smoking video game players into jail. I think if you read what I’ve said in context you’ll see that I strongly believe in substantial checks and balances and the rule of law. I just think that the government does have a role in terms of limiting access to porn, drugs, casinos and the like.
Jeff, very good question. I want to answer, but have to run now. Hopefully I’ll have a little time this weekend to respond.
- Derek
A person well-aquainted with sin knows better than to refer to the imaginary thing you call “victimless vice”. Things are much more nuanced than you would like to represent them to be. I get uneasy when people preach with red-hot fervency the things that are not clearly outlined in the bible. For this reason I believe that at very least politics must remain in the realm of theory and be held with looser convictions than matters more clearly outlined in the scriptures. There are things to get excited about, but should it be this?
loving God with you,
Jeff
Jeff,
First, I want to offer an alternative hypothesis to what you said here:
“the Bible is not a handbook on what kind of economic system to create” and “we should “preach” our economic theory with far less conviction and take much less interest in it in contrast to other truths that the bible”
Perhaps that is true in one sense. I find a lot to agree with here, especially that the teaching of Scripture and proclamation of the Gospel is essential – and all too often, neglected. And I wholeheartedly agree that we need to live sacrificially. Evangelicals give an average of 2.5% to their church/missions/charities and this is a terrible indictment on the state of the church here in America.
Please allow me to frame things a little differently and more broadly, though. Scripture is a treasure trove of wisdom and practical counsel for a leader of any type, whether a businessman, pastor, mayor or even U.S. President. I’ve been thinking about this the last few months, since I did a detailed study of the book of Joshua. We can learn an enormous amount about governance or social justice from the richly narrated stories of Abraham, Joseph, Joshua, David, Nehemiah – and I’m just getting started in the OT. What about Proverbs? The Bible also gives us some helpful negative examples, e.g. Saul. With this in mind, it is more natural for me to approach this subject matter the way John Calvin or Abraham Kuyper do than the Anabaptists.
While I understand the impulse to divorce secular and sacred spheres – and I also understand the dangers of mixing them inappropriately (as I’ve explained in previous posts), I think we bear the responsibility of engaging with and applying the implications of our Scripture saturated worldview into the arena God placed us in. Make no mistake – this is challenging and it requires that we sharpen one another in a diligent and gracious way. We won’t all agree 100%, but I think we need to engage with Scripture and one another on these topics. I think the dialogue we have here is causing all of us to move closer to what Scripture thinks and is therefore beneficial.
[OK, next I'm going to post a new entry because now I want to pivot to the question you posed in post #19]
Jeff – in reference to #19,
Again, great question. I think it may be helpful to put things in proper categories first. The scenario you laid out is most likely going to be a temporary crisis and is on one end of the spectrum. Cradle to grave socialism and social engineering is on the opposite end of the spectrum, in my view.
As Solomon wrote in Ecc. 7:18, “the man who fears God will avoid all extremes”. I think that a wise leader/governor would prepare for a crisis such as the one you described – just as Joseph did in Egypt. A wise leader or informed Christian voter would not institutionalize these temporary measures. I also observe that Joseph’s solution was compassionate, but did require a form of payment; nor did he rob Peter to pay Paul.
But let us also address the role of the Church. I recently heard Rick Warren discussing the great need in Africa in light of the implications of Christ’s feeding of the 5,000. He correctly pointed out that we make a critical mistake when we say “it is impossible; the needs are too great”. The response of the Body of Christ and of genuine faith is to give sacrificially and leave the results in God’s hands. Seemingly impossible tasks often cause us to make short term compromises (i.e. “outsourcing” or abdicating our responsibilities) that have tremendous and devastating long term consequences.
Bob,
I’m wondering how we can harmonize what you’re saying – particularly in post #20 – with I Peter 2, especially the passage I referenced? I don’t see how both can be the correct posture for us to follow, though perhaps you can connect the dots for me.
- Derek
Let me give a logical/christian theory of government, to both refute this recurring “Wiccan” accusation as well as to show the proper spheres God has ordained in society (Church, State, Family) and why I think a libertarian or minimalist government is most conducive to these ends:
p1. All men are made in the image of God and as such have God given rights, particularly a right to life that only God has the right to annul. (this is found in the texts of Genesis ch 2 and Exodus 20 in the prohibition to murder)
p2. Being made in the image of God man is commanded by God to labor and the fruits of his labor are his property to do with as he sees fit. (seen in the texts of Exodus 20 in the prohibitions on theft and coveting)
p3. Given the above two premises we can arrive at the statement that all men have a right to life and property (simplification (p1. p2.))
p4. Given p3. each man subsequently has a right to defend himself or his property against those who seek to violate his God given rights to life and property.
p5. Men to defend their lives and property more effectively enter into mutual agreements to defend one another and we call these agreements governments, God has seen this to also be the best way of exacting this sort of justice. (the wiccan text of Romans ch 13 shows this, the state exists to carry out justice)
p.6 Given p.4 government being made up of men, government is not allowed to do more than what individual men themselves could do, as government is simply a corperation of men. When it goes beyond this it acts illegitimately and steps out of it’s Romans 13 role of being “God’s minister for justice” (granted God uses wicked governments, as we see with Babylon and Assyria, but He also holds these wicked governments guilty for their wickedness that He ordained)
:.\ Therefore, government that is large enough to protect the God ordained rights of man (p1. p2.) without going beyond what any individual man can himself do (p.6) is most consistent with the God given rights of man.
This to a large extent clears things up, if it would be wrong for me to kick in someone’s door and kill people because I think they may in the future threaten me, even though they have done no wrong to myself or any other person or property, it is equally wrong when the State sends men in government issued costumes to to this violent act (whether it is police or troops aggresively invading homes/countries).
The theologian Augustine, who I don’t think had an affinity to wiccan practices, points this out in his marvelous work “The City of God” as he gives a parable of pirates and emperors:
“Remove justice, and what are kingdoms but gangs of criminals on a vast scale? What are criminal gangs but petty kingdoms?
A gang is a group of men under the command of a leader, bound by a compact of association, in which the plunder is divided according to an agreed convention. If this villainy wins so many recruits from the ranks of the demoralized that it acquires territory, establishes a base, captures cities and subdues peoples, it then openly arrogates to itself the title of `kingdom,’ which is conferred on it in the eyes of the world, not by the renouncing of aggression but by the attainment of impunity.
For it was a witty and a truthful rejoinder which was given by a captured pirate to Alexander the Great. The king asked the fellow, `What is your idea, in infesting the sea?’ And the pirate answered, with uninhibited insolence, `The same as yours, in infesting the earth! But because I do it with a tiny craft, I’m called a pirate; because you have a mighty navy, you’re called an emperor.” (Book IV ch 4 City of God)
This ties in well with your question about my sentiments expressed in #20, namely that we are not as Christians called to lick the boots of government, unless they tell us we can’t worship according to our conscience. Well that’s all well and good, but does worshipping God extend merely to praying and Bible reading and sermon listening? Does not the worship of God extend further than the sanctuary and doing “religious things” (James 1:27)? I think so, as scripture seems to as well.
Take the Pharaoh’s decree that all male Hebrews were to be killed upon birth. Well, if we are called to obey “every ordinance” then Moses’ parents were in the wrong when they kept Moses from the sword. Given a strict construction of “submit to every ordinance” one would have to say yes, Moses’ parents were wrong to do this. I of course assume that you would see the Pharaonic decree as an unlawful one…ah but there is the rub, as it shows that obedience to God trumps that of the State, and that the obedience of God that trumps the obedience to state extends beyond religious worship as the worship of God extends beyond the sactuary and really covers all of life.
Modern Christians seem to have this mentality that obedience to the state should ALWAYS be given until they outlaw going to church, I think that’s a rather anemic view of the relationship of the Church and state, as it makes the church an inveterate lackey to the state. Moses’ parents engaged in civil disobedience to an unjust law and they were right to do so.
In Germany most of the church took the lackey position (Lutheran’s don’t have a very robust political philosophy) and were even commanded by the Reich to preach Romans 13 “Submit!” they did so. There were some who engaged in civil disobedience, I am particularly charmed by the efforts of Hans and Sophie Scholl in their opposition to what was taking place in Germany, they labored to speak out which cost the their lives as they were executed. They were Christians, standing on the word of God for what was right.
Furthermore, in the United states we had this thing called slavery, Christians in North and South formed an underground railroad to get runaway slaves into Canada, as if they were found in any state in the Union the magistrates were paid $10 a head for their return by order of Lincoln. This again is Christians acting in civil disobedience to unjust laws.
Now I can go on to site the work of others like Dr. King, who spoke out against racism and the unjust war in Vietnam, yet I think there is a point here that should be clear, disobedience to the state is the most just thing when the state is acting unjustly.
Furthermore, when the state itself becomes so onerous, that it no longer allows marches and redressing of grievances, (this is becoming the case in the US with “free speech zones” apparently the 1st amendment doesn’t apply everywhere anymore) and the state itself has shown to be the chief threat to person’s life and property taking up arms is the final check on tyranny.
Again, Francis Schaeffer, who to the best of my knowledge was not a wiccan argues just this in his work “A Christian Manifesto”. It was Schaeffer who gave me my first primer on a more libertarian view of government, Schaeffer was following in the footsteps of Kuyper in applying the word of God to all of life.
So to answer the question directly, on the two submission texts of Romans 13 and 1 Peter ch 2, both passages note what is the job of the emperor/government, “governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.”. That said, I would say given the God given rights of man, and what government is (a collection of sinful men), that when government steps out of these bounds of punishing evil and praising the good, and rather punishes the good, and is itself the evil doer, I don’t think we are called to obey. Rather, I think we are called to disobey as by disobeying man we are obeying God.
This is why every government that has degenerated into tyranny becomes an exercise in coercion. Granted they laud the coercion in the most sanctimonious speech, but it all comes down to the bayonet. There is no difference between a thief who holds you up at gun point and demands 30% of the check you just cashed after 2 weeks of honest labor, and the government that takes your money through the income tax telling you all the wonderful virtues of taxes. the only difference is the thief is more honest.
Oh and as for the “victimless vice” yes, I know man dwells in community and our sinful actions certainly ripple through that community. However, my issue is with the principle of giving the State the power to regulate vice, once you give them that gun THEY WILL (this is not a potentiality) fire it recklessly as the State itself is prone to vice. We see this today with the myriad of ridiculous laws we are plagued with aimed at curbing vice. Now business owners can no longer decide for themselves if they want their business to allow smoking, cookie manufacturers can’t use hydrogenated oils, you cant burn leaves on your own property without a permit, you can’t drive without a seatbelt, your cat must be confined at all times (Jeff this happened to Scott and Devin as they were charged with a “cat at large” violation and I think $250 fine and Scoot has 6 months probation as you may have heard).
This regulation of vice creates what the Brits call the “Nanny State”, while there are vices we agree we would no like to see practiced, like profanity, spitting on the side walk, wasting one’s money on gambling or drugs etc, the power to regulate vice inevitably leads to much of everyday life becoming a crime, like not wearing a helmet when riding a bicycle.
Oh, and as for the importance of political discussion, as a Kuyperian Calvinist I would say that the word of God should have something to say about everything, as there is no truth but God’s truth. Furthermore as the State threatens my life and property, as well as threatens to conscript my children to fight an die for some immoral adventure the government that rules us embarks upon, given those realities talking about politics is important.
I agree I wish it were not so, and we were living in a sort of Hobbiton in the Shire of a minimalist government isolated from the Mordor’s of earth, then we could engage in more fruitful discussions like whether or not Favre is coming back and whether infralapsarianism or supralaspsarianism are more true to scripture. But alas, we are plagued by a government that won’t leave us alone, they want our children in their schools, in their armies and in their flag drapped coffins.
Bob,
A lot of people, including Christ’s own disciples, hoped that Christ would overthrow the Roman government. Why do you think He chose not to take such a path?
I feel that you did not really respond to my question about how we can harmonize I Peter 2:13-25 with what you’re saying.
I’ve been studying I Peter lately and the entire book is very relevant to our discussion. Peter validates the need for justice in a deeply fallen world. Yet he also makes it very clear that God has established a hierarchy of authority in the home, in the church and in the world. As such, we are subject to the authorities that God has placed over us. Peter is addressing Christians shortly before Nero famously burned much of Rome and then blamed it on Christians. Let us also remember that it was Peter who struck the Roman soldier, cutting off his ear. So Peter knows all about the heavy fist of Roman authority. Peter wrote this book in large part to address how we are to respond when people (such as Nero) abuse their power or authority. Remarkably, it isn’t until the end of the book, in ch. 5, v. 9, that Peter actually says that there is an evil being that we under obligation to resist. And it isn’t Nero. Its Satan.
So what is Peter saying?
I think Peter is saying much the same thing that Paul did in Ephesians 6:
I believe Peter is warning us that when we are suffering or under varying degrees of persecution, God will honor us as we submit to Him and to the circumstances He has placed us in – even if those circumstances involve a wicked emporor. He is also telling us that if we think our physical or personal “enemies” captivate our focus and attention, Satan has won with his clever diversionary tactics.
Let us not fall for Satan’s schemes. If we are unjustly treated, God can defend and protect and vindicate us far better than we can ourselves. If He doesn’t have that capability, then we might as well abandon the Christian faith.
Derek-
Does not Satan work through means (governments)? Furthermore, does not God work through means (men standing up for justice)?
If you want to get an understaning of the passages you cited that doesn’t result in turning Jews in when Nazis ask you where they are, or that tells you that your money that has been taken will be used to abort babies then I would again recommend Schaeffer’s “A Christian Manifesto” it is simply indespensible, I reread a good bit of it today reflecting on our discussion here. What is key as I pointed out in both the Romans and Peter passage is that the role of government to be an exactor of justice is clear, when the government steps beyond this and is punishing the good and itself is the evil, it has become a law unto itself. That being the case it has usurped God and is properly satanic, that said we not only have a right but a duty to disobey such a government. It was the duty of German Christians to hide Jews and like the midwives in Egypt to not give the SS officers the truth. They had abrogated their authority and were not to be obeyed.
“Let us not fall for Satan’s schemes. If we are unjustly treated, God can defend and protect and vindicate us far better than we can ourselves. If He doesn’t have that capability, then we might as well abandon the Christian faith.”
So it’s not a question of God’s capability, but how does God act in the affairs of men. God works through means. If what you said is carried to its logical end we shouldn’t even preach the gospel because God can do the saving He sure doesn’t need us (that’s what the hyper calvinists say). But this overlooks the reality that God works in history through means to accomplish His plans. I had a similar discussion with a relative declaring that I lacked faith in God because I own firearms to protect my family. She kept stammering “Don’t you think God can protect you?!”
Well, of course, but He works through means. If we carry this talk to its end we shouldn’t work because God will provide, we shouldn’t have smoke detectors or wear seatbelts because God will protect us, and as you assert we should just cow to tyrants because God is on the throne.
Again, we have all sorts of examples where God has used men in time and space as His agents of bringing about change in the face of tyranny (Willam Wilburforce, Martin Luther for example) , and our own nations founding should suffice as the difference between the American and French revolutions is that the American saw law and man’s rights proceeding from God, and rulers who violate these are in rebellion against God and as such must be opposed.
I am with Derek on this one.
Bob,
Why do think that there isn’t a hint of political activism or “overthrow” talk in Peter, when he is undoubtedly writing under the reign of Nero ( see http://2mites.com/2008/11/05/fear-god-honor-the-king/ ), who would eventually crucify him upside down and behead Paul? Why do you think that the only direct advice the perfect Word of God gives us under such oppression (or in our case – woeful misuse of tax funds) is… honor the king? I think that at very least you are in danger of using Kuyperian Calvinism to major in the things the bible is silent on, and to pass over clear instruction. There is no doubt in my mind that if the great “heros” of the Revolutionary war were those who embraced the whole of NT instruction, there would be no ‘tea party’, no revolt because of “taxation without representation” or “British tyranny”. I am thankful that the winds of Sovereignty blew in the direction they did, and that I enjoy the freedoms that I now have, but I do not support the dangerous sin of revolutionaries who trust in horses and chariots. The stinging words of Jesus, “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s”. How does a Tea Party activist respond to those words? “But Jesus, in a matter of years they are going to use our tax money to pay soldiers to hunt me down and burn me at the stake for following you!” or in our case “But Jesus, they are being unconstitutional!” Do you really think his instruction will change? “O.K. then,” Jesus says, “fight em! Curse em!” doubtful… actually, I’m quite certain this is not what Jesus would say… or did say, for that matter. Bob, I can only imagine that you cringe when we bring up such verses, and no doubt you have found a way to navigate around the plain understanding and magnify unintelligible things written between the lines, showing us that in truth, Jesus is a Libertarian. I’m not well read enough to be an expert on Kuyperian hermeneutics, but I do know what the bible says. I want to know the point the author was trying to make by following his train of thought, and I don’t divorce the authorial intent of the divine and human agents. I agree with someone who called me out earlier in this thread saying, “I am a stickler when folk are reading things into the text that just aren’t there.”
Right on, so when the Nazi’s asked the Christians where the Jews were they should just turn em in…great political philosophy guys.
I don’t at all cringe when passages like give to Ceaser what is Ceaser’s because there is a second sentence GIVE TO GOD WHAT IS GOD’s. Modern Christians see that like this:
Ceaser and God
It should be seen like this:
God
———
Ceaser
Again, Jeff there are Nazis at the door and you know your neighbor has hidden some Jews in obedience to God, of course you wouldn’t do that because you interpret Rom 13 and Peter in the most absolutist sense, but you know he did it these guys are asking you yes or no do you know where there any Jews? what woud you do in that situation?
More directly WHEN WOULD you see civil disobience as not only right but our duty?
Hey is there a comment limit or a glitch or am I just getting censored now? I posted this:
I don’t at all cringe when passages like give to Ceaser what is Ceaser’s because there is a second sentence GIVE TO GOD WHAT IS GOD’s. Modern Christians see that like this:
Ceaser and God
It should be seen like this:
God
———
Ceaser
Again, Jeff there are Nazis at the door and you know your neighbor has hidden some Jews in obedience to God, of course you wouldn’t do that because you interpret Rom 13 and Peter in the most absolutist sense, but you know he did it these guys are asking you yes or no do you know where there any Jews? what woud you do in that situation?
More directly WHEN WOULD you see civil disobience as not only right but our duty?
Bob,
I think there are different principles that govern putting your neighbor in immediate, life threatening danger. We know that love is to lay down our lives for others, so we should perhaps refuse to answer the authorities even til death. The very command to die for someone implies that there is a certain place that we should be unwilling to comply with the authorities. For instance, when the government wants us to be active in direct disobedience to God, such as commanding us not to preach, or by insisting that we direct Nazis to Jews for their execution, we need to first obey God. But it seems that until things get to this point, we should pay our taxes without complaining, without a revolutionary ‘tea party’ spirit, preach the gospel, and trust God instead of horses and chariots.
Bob, for someone who hates fallacious arguments, you are certainly quick to equate the willful, uncomplaining tax payer, who refuses to endorse revolutionary movements because of very compelling passages, with those who would willingly hand over Jews to the Nazis.
Well given what you guys are saying I can’t see how that conclusion can’t be arrived at. The Nazis were an authority established by God you are called to submet…unless they tell you can’t go to church. That seems to encompass the philsophy of civil disobedience I see here. For the record I think the tea parties are a crummy movement. I really don’t see the SS officer analogy as fallacious considering you didn’t directly answer it….what would YOU do Jeff when faced with the scenario I outlined?
Now it’s when the government tells us not to preach or when they are trying to commit genocide we are ok to not obey, well that’s a start. How about when the state wants to give your children mandatory psychological evaluations like Hillary Clinton is always talking about? Or how about when the state wants to conscript your children to go kill the “terrorists” in Yemen? Then is it ok to disobey?
How can I not have a posture of civil disobedience in America Jeff when they have killed 50 million babies, killed countless foreigners in aggressive wars, and continue to dream up new laws to milk us? In what way are they upholding justice? I will be honest here, the philosophy you guys have towards Christian civil disobedience is what emboldens tyrants. There’s a reason why Hitler had the church preach Romans 13.
Bob,
I did answer your question. By God’s grace alone I would give the Nazis no reply and suffer the consequences for refusing to be the executioners right hand man. First off, while the mass killing of children is abominable, it is also not government mandated.
If the government told me that I had to go oversees to kill someone, I would say no and go to jail. If they told my hypothetical 18 year old son to do so? It would be his conscience and understanding of Scripture that must determine the outcome. If they told my 12 year old son to do so? I would say no, and go to jail.
Satisfied? I will again post what I previously posted:
When the government wants us to be active in direct disobedience to God, such as commanding us not to preach, or by insisting that we direct Nazis to Jews for their execution, we need to first obey God even though that means disobeying the government. But it seems that until things get to this point, we should pay our taxes without complaining, without a revolutionary ‘tea party’ spirit, pray for our governing authorities who were ordained by God, preach the gospel, and trust God instead of horses and chariots.
I fear that many people in America’s church are wasting time and energy building a kingdom that is not the kingdom of God.
and to answer your question:
“How can I not have a posture of civil disobedience in America Jeff when they have killed 50 million babies, killed countless foreigners in aggressive wars, and continue to dream up new laws to milk us?”
Because Jesus and the apostles did, and they command us to do likewise. Call me a simpleton ignoramus.
Bob,
I can’t imagine that if you were in Peter’s position, you would be telling anyone to honor the king. Or in Jesus’ position to uncomplainingly pay taxes. I especially can’t imagine you telling anyone that a socialist king was ordained by God. Would you rather that these passages not exist? Are you going to preach those passages to the flock God gives you? Are you a slave to your political theory in such a way that it cannot be submitted to the words and the examples of the apostles… or even the words and example of our Lord? Just take a breath and reconsider your position as I also think critically about my own.
I was just meditating on the following passage in I Peter 3 this morning and had to share it in verbatim. I don’t think it is possible for me to exceed the wisdom or power of Scripture in terms of how it suggests we are to respond to persecution and trials. Bob, you do bring up a good point that God uses means to accomplish His will. Sometimes the means he uses are counterintuitive. Peter knew about the intuitive, natural way to respond – in his case, demonstrating this by cutting off the Roman soldier’s ear. But notice here that Peter says two times that we will be blessed when we do not answer reviling with reviling; nor should our lives be marked by a troubled, fearful heart. My interpretation here is that even if we might be called to resist authority in some way, that resistance ought to be characterized by humility, courage, readiness in witness, carefulness in tongue/words, tenderheartedness and a purity of conscience.
I Peter 3:8-17
In regards to the topic of war, I suppose I disagree in degrees with both Jeff and Bob. I believe in the just war doctrine, which I believe is a Scripturally sound and just approach to this topic. I would gladly take up arms in a battle against Nazis or a slaveholding south – even against a dictator like Saddam Hussein because I believe all of the above meet the requirements and standards set forth in the just war doctrine.
Are there instances in which I would be a conscientious objector? Absolutely.
But if we are to have a holistic understanding and embrace of Romans 13 and I Peter 2 – and I would add Genesis 14 to the mix as well – then we understand that there are instances and parameters in which tyranny should be opposed with the sword.
By the way, I served for 6 years in the U.S. Marines so I have given this topic quite a bit of thought, both before and after I joined. I would never say that the U.S. has conducted itself with 100% justice in war. But many, many of my fellow marines really do care about justice and have given their lives for others to enjoy freedom from tyrants all around the globe, including in Afghanistan and Iraq. One part of social justice is feeding the hungry and another part is freeing those who cannot free themselves.
Jeff-
Just because your imagination isn’t what it should be doesn’t mean I don’t believe those things. I am a libertarian not an anachist. I do believe wicked governments are ordained by God, yet that does not make them anything but wicked, that is abundantly clear in the OT as God used Assyria and Babylon to judge Israel. Furthermore, Judah was justified to repel Assyria, even though God raised Assyria up. With Babylon God gave the command NOT to resist. More to the point though, if you don’t think there is a place for civil disobedience over an issues like abortion or torturing people for our safety…well God help you.
I will preach those passages with the proper hermeneutic that seems to be lacking in most of the church today, a positive comand has a negative prhibition and a negative prohibition has a positive one as well. So when the Bible says “You shall not steal” it also says positively we are to respect the property of others as they have a right to property. Likewise when it says “You sahll not kill” there is also the positive command to respect human life and treat every man with dignity and respect as he is made in the image of God.
Applied to the texts in question I would follow Francis Schaeffer as the hermeneutic leads us the logical consequence that a king that does not live up to the requirements of of the law of God and is not a dispenser of justice, punishing the wicked and praising the good, but rather is doing the opposite, that government is a usurper and is acting autonomous, and at these points must be resisted.
Simply put, there is no devine right of kings, the government is not above God’s law, and when it acts in such manner it need not be heeded. (Forget all the taxes stuff, as you are right we are called to pay our taxes) I am more concerned about abortion, government regulation of my children’s education, my parenting, conscripting me or my children to kill people in wars of aggression…these are just some of the areas where I think government usurps and should not be obeyed.
Civil disobedience does not=armed rebellion, I don’t really think agressived armed uprising is ever appropriate.
Derek-
I also hold to the just war theory, my beef is that those requirements haven’t been met in Iraq or Afghanistan. One of the lynchpins is that a just war must be defensive, how did Saddam Husseing act aggressively against the US? Also, do you believe that this “enhanced interrogation” or in non-orwellian terms, torture is ok?
That will be impossible to justify on from a Christian worldview, you have to argue like a utilitarian (end justifies the means) to ok such a heinous practice.
I put up a new post on my blog pertaining to christian civil disobedience if you guys are interested, in large part in reply to our talks here, but I have been having the same talks every time I talk with a fellow Christian…they are a statist of some sort endorsing torture or socialism.
http://puritanbob.blogspot.com/2010/01/christian-philosophy-of-civil.html
I also find it amazing that people still buy into the talk that we went into Iraq to “free” the Iraqi people, liberation through bombardment.
I find myself agreeing with all of you guys on some level. Overall though, I have to side with bob on this one. Let me explain briefly.
What you guys need to be discussing is how the biblical texts you are throwing back and forth at one another apply to the phenomenon of being a Christian in a country where one can participate in the government. In one sense, the people of America are the government of America. Because of this, I think a lot more nuance needs to go into these sorts of political discussions. Statements like, “Honor the king,” while biblical, may not shed much light on how Christians in America ought to go about doing that because, in one sense, we are the king. So the question then becomes, how are we to engage the political culture which we are a part of while still refraining from putting our hope in the local, state, and federal government? What is it to “Honor the king.” in an American political context?
I disagree with Bob and Jeff on just this point. I don’t think Bob is disobeying any biblical commands by disagreeing, even vehemently, with much of what is going on in the current American political machine. My reasons for believing thus are that in America disagreement is welcome and encouraged. The 2 party system was devised for just this purpose. Disagreement and dissent breeds a more fair system. Now, I need to qualify that statement by saying that disagreement and dissent only goes so far and a person needs to pick their battles. Because of my belief that one can both “honor the king” and adamantly and publicly disagree (and even openly oppose) what “he” (I should say “we”) is doing. Thus, we are free (and encouraged!) to complain about taxes, to vote against taxes, to tell our friends not to vote for new taxes etc. I just don’t see how it is dishonoring the “king” to complain about taxes (while still paying them) when our political system welcomes our vote and welcomes our opinions. The same goes for gun laws, seatbelt laws, etc.
I really do think that much of the confusion about “honoring the king” arises due to an incorrect application of just what that means for people in a somewhat democratic society.
So thats my two cents regarding the “honor the king” stuff that has been thrown at bob. I think you guys are wasting your breath arguing about whether or not the pentateuch does, or does not, justify social programs or welfare states. The bible doesn’t speak to those things directly at all. It is left up to human and biblical wisdom to figure out what to do in those situations.
Maybe you guys know something I don’t but all this talk of Judeo-Christian vs. Wiccan political systems seems a little funny as well. I would say that there is no such thing as either of those. Derek libertarianism is not wiccan or Christian it is what it is. Any attempt to attach it to one of those seems feigned at best.
Thats all for now. I’m enjoying this debate. I do think the gospel, as God becoming man to redeem man, needs to be kept the main thing for us Christians. Rules like “Honor the King” can get people into trouble if not properly qualified and so it is wise to keep our heads when arguing about rules that we know we can’t keep all the time.
The first line of the 3rd paragraph is supposed to read “I disagree with Derek and Jeff.”
After reading my first post, which I wrote in about 5 minutes, I realized what i was trying to say is somewhat obtuse. I first say that “honor the king” is not a very helpful term in shedding light on how american christians should behave within their political structure. Then I use the term, albeit somewhat facetiously, throughout the rest of my argument. The whole of my argument is that honoring the king in the American political system is far different from honoring nero or some monarch. I would even go so far as to say that we can completely honor the king, all the while openly denouncing their actions. So honoring the king is something different in our context and some sharpening of our terms needs to be done before we start using that term as a bludgeon.
Good point Bryce. It seems helpful at this point in the discussion to address and define “opposition.” Just to say, “honor the king” is insufficient, for varied government system make for much more nuances.
Say for example we wanted to do mission work in Sierra Leone, Africa, and the drug-lord, who is the ruling governor, required a “tax” for us to be there. We would likely pay it and “submit,” for our desire to “have no dealings with the world,” (at least at that point), our desire is (again at least initially) to evangelize an unreached people but at some point, the “new converts” would have to address the corruption that exists in their city and country
Opposition will look different in different contexts, like the drug-lord ruled system. If people don’t have a legitimate voice, like in the 1st century or in the drug-lord context, it would look a lot more different than in a modern democracy. But in America our opposition can be flat out unadulterated. Christian pastors in America often write prophetic type open letters to U.S. Presidents and political leaders, rebuking them for their activity. I am thinking of Piper’s words to Obama on abortion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdnQAB3cJec) and Roger Nicole’s word to the Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun (http://www.baylyblog.com/2010/01/tim-wthanks-to-ali-my-two-brothers-david-and-nathan-and-i-sat-under-roger-nicole-at-gordon-conwell-theological-seminary.html). These men are praised for their courage as upholders of righteousness. Certainly John Piper was not in sin for publically rebuking the President or for rebuking America’s policy towards abortion.
Guys,
Where did you guys get the idea that I think you have to support or agree with all the public policy of the president? Of course honoring the king looks different in our environment than it did in Rome. Namely in the fact that we can voice disagreement to policy. I’ll do it right now, all the while honoring Obama. Here it goes: “It is an abomination that our government allows the murder of pre-born children – it should be outlawed!”
I am simply advocating that we obey the laws and pay our taxes, joyfully, without complaining, unless the government demands our active participation in disobeying the direct command of God… certainly this is one transferable principle, is it not? The moment the government mandates abortion, demands conscription into the military, or commands me not to preach is the day I will advocate for civil disobedience… but not before that day. Vote how you will, disagree with policy all you want, but honor the president, obey the laws, and at the end of the day, pay those taxes that you disagree with – without complaining.
-Jeff
Bryce,
Complaining about is much different than advocating against. A “tea party” mentality is much more than dissenting voice.
-Jeff
Jeff,
I am a bit confused by your whole response. I am not trying to misrepresent your position here so feel free to clarify if I’m wrong. It seems to be that you are advocating that we can say things against the government as long as it is in a joyful manner, and without complaining. Is this correct? Furthermore, is “the king” identical to “Obama” in this current structure? What about the rest of the political machine as well as the people who voted them in? Can we say anything against the populace who foolishly votes in a reprehensible candidate? These sorts of questions could go on and on in response to your post. The point is “the king” in the 1 Peter context is not simply obama so we are in need of some sharpening of our definitions before we start laying God’s laws on people.
It seems like you are splitting hairs by saying, that this statement is okay, “It is an abomination that our government allows the murder of pre-born children – it should be outlawed!” While something like, “Man, I can’t believe Obama wants to raise taxes again (in a somewhat whiny voice),” is wrong or dishonoring to Obama. Am I getting at the crux of the issue for you? Like I said, I’m not trying to misrepresent but as it stands this is how I understand your position so please clarify me if I am mistaken.
Another clarification is in order. What do you mean when you use the phrase “tea party mentality?” Are you referring to the current tea party or the one prior to the Revolutionary War?
I know that I have not advocated any sort of civil disobedience regarding anything and to the best of my knowledge I don’t think Bob has promulgated any sort of civil disobedience over increasing taxes. So I’m not sure why that issue was brought up. I hope that in doing so you aren’t projecting things onto his or my position.
I will leave you tonight with this. There is a somewhat prominent 20th century philosopher, last name Carnap, who was very frustrated with the way philosophy had been done in the past. Through history philosophers would use slippery language and try to hide things in their arguments etc. This bothered him so he set out from that moment on to write all of his arguments in the most clear and easily understood manner. His motive was that he knew many of his views were wrong and it was only in their being exposed that he would advance in knowledge. We are all after the same thing, that is a clearer understanding of the facts. This philosopher should be a role model for all thinkers and all the more for students of the Bible. The principle of charity should be exercised toward everyone and their positions read in the best possible light. This thread is getting a little out of hand and tempers seem to be flaring a bit. We are after all just trying to help each other think through some difficult subjects.
I guess thats all. The more I think about it the more I realize I cannot get my head around your or Derek’s position. Please help clarify. Further, I don’t think I have promoted any notion that would fly in the face of the 1 Peter passage.
Thanks for your reply Bryce, Good words,
First, Bob has more than hinted that disobedience is appropriate when the government is unjust (vs. my view that the government should only be disobeyed when we are commanded to actively participate in direct disobedience to a command of God). I’ll give you a smattering of Bob’s view:
“If the state is violating God’s laws that state has abrogated it’s authority, it is the duty of the Christian to be disobedient” (post 20)
“when government steps out of these bounds of punishing evil and praising the good, and rather punishes the good, and is itself the evil doer, I don’t think we are called to obey” (post 27)
“when the government steps beyond this and is punishing the good and itself is the evil, it has become a law unto itself. That being the case it has usurped God and is properly satanic, that said we not only have a right but a duty to disobey such a government.” (post 31)
“How can I not have a posture of civil disobedience in America Jeff when they have killed 50 million babies, killed countless foreigners in aggressive wars, and continue to dream up new laws to milk us?” (Post 37)
Second, I interpret Peter’s use of “King” to mean “the government, and the people in it”. I use Obama to simplify. I don’t think that the application of Peter’s commands, the command in Romans, or the command concerning taxes in Matthew/Mark, change much simply because we elect our own officials, and live in a form of democracy.
Third, I don’t think it is splitting hairs to make a clear delineation between cursing and disagreeing with, dissenting or complaining/whinning. One is sin, one isn’t. I think it is an indictment on the church that Christians whine and complain about our situations in life, no matter what it is. God doesn’t command us to like our situation in life, but he does command us not to complain. If our situation in life can be changed (through democracy) than disagree, change things… but, don’t complain/whine. There is a difference in saying, “I think it is wrong for government to tax us as they do, and I think it is horrible the way they use their money,” and saying, “What a bunch of morons we have in office, always taking our money. I work all day long and only get take home half of what I make! We have some of the dumbest people running this country. It used to be when people take your money, that you could shoot em! Now, I am supposed to roll over and play dead while they ransack my wallet. I’ve barely got enough to pay groceries!”
God is honored by one of those comments, and dishonored by the other. That makes it more than, “just splitting hairs” to me. A large portion of the criticism of our government that I hear is at least seasoned with the second example. I hear a heart full of rebellion, clothed in… “what? We live in a democracy. Free speech man!”
On the tea party thing. I mean both the first tea party, and the tea party movement. They call the modern gatherings “tea parties” because they look back at the original tea party with a savory reminiscence. That tells me something.
I’m not trying to be vague, and I think it is good to be as clear and concise in our language as possible. I hope this helps you to understand my view.
-Jeff
Bob, please step in if I’ve misrepresented your view in any way.
Bryce,
you said: Derek libertarianism is not wiccan or Christian it is what it is. Any attempt to attach it to one of those seems feigned at best.
You asked this question in #14: Also, how and who decides which activities are toxic to society?
In answering your question (#18), I seek first to debunk the widespread notion that some laws are moral and others are not. In point of fact, all laws have a moral basis. Even the belief that we should have few or no laws is actually based in a worldview and moral framework (e.g. Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s idealized society and the “noble savage”). And Wiccans live by a pretty simple and very reasonable sounding creed, “an it harm none, do what ye will”.
Faults acknowledged, the founding fathers did understood this reality, that laws must have some basis or moral framework, especially as the laws and their basis are challenged by future generations. John Adams summed up what the consensus among them was “The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
For various reasons, liberterians desire a different formulation. I’m sure a huge part of it has to do with the reality that we live in a post-Christian culture and it is easier to sell something that is similar to “an it harm none, do what ye will”- not because it happens to be the wiccan creed, but because most people think that is what the religions agree on. Others probably think it will prevent lawmakers from imposing their own worldview – and here I’m actually very sympathetic to this perspective – I think it has some merit. I’m sure many others agree with Rousseau, that people are actually more moral when they can free themselves from these constraints.
My point is this: I’m a lot more comfortable and in much greater agreement with John Adams, that Christianity is the best reference point for “the rule of law” – that is, a moral framework that constrains politicians from arbitrarily using their own particular framework. That is the basis with which I answer your question Also, how and who decides which activities are toxic to society?.
Bryce said: The more I think about it the more I realize I cannot get my head around Jeff or Derek’s position. Please help clarify.
First, I agree with the idea that we should engage culture and one another with the clear teaching of Scripture. The clear proclamation of the Gospel must be first priority. We also demonstrate by example (e.g. acts of compassion, charity, honesty, integrity) and articulate – as best we can – the implications of a Gospel and Scripture saturated worldview. This may happen to be in a pulpit, or it may be in the classroom, scientific journal and definitely in the political arena as well, since decisions made here have great consequence.
Having said all of this, we must be very careful in our engagement. We can easily lose focus and forget that our true enemy is Satan and his forces. Here I refer to my comments in #30, where Peter reminds his readers that Nero should not be the focus of their resistance – Satan should. And yes, Bob – God uses means, including engagement with culture. But our primary means are to apply the full armor of God (Eph 6) and are not carnal.
I’m also concerned about tone and attitude. I completely agree with Jeff when he says “God doesn’t command us to like our situation in life, but he does command us not to complain.” I also refer back to my comment in #41, in reference to I Peter 3:8-17: if we might be called to resist authority in some way, that resistance ought to be characterized by humility, courage, readiness in witness, carefulness in tongue/words, tenderheartedness and a purity of conscience.
I don’t know you Bob, and certainly can’t judge your heart. I want to limit my critique to myself and where I know I cannot go if I am to keep my priorities and attitude in the right place. What I do know is that I can’t engage at the level nor with the dogmatism you are without getting my priorities out of whack; I couldn’t do so without losing my cool and harshly criticizing others who don’t agree with me; I would also lose persective of who my real enemy is. Finally, even if I was really successful at convincing others of my own convictions -and even if my views happen to be based in Scripture – how will I use them to win people to Christ? Will those achievements withstand the flames that expose true Kingdom work or will it be burned with the hay and stubble? I think the latter is most likely.
Bryce-
You have a very good point, we are applying the commands to submit to a constitutional republic, I somewhat blush that I haven’t brought this up myself. First, we must understand that America is not a democracy it is a constitutional republic, the founders hated democracy as it lets people vote themselves into tyranny, (the 51% can enslave the 49%)…we are not to have a rule of men but a rule of law, namely the constitution. This is the embodiment of Lex Rex or “Law is king” rather than the divine right of kings which would be “Rex Lex” the king is law.
With that said we have “presidents”, think about the word, he is basically a steward presiding over a responsibility intrusted to him by the good will of his employers (the people), sworn to uphold the law (constitution). This is to make the reality of delegated authority obvious to all, elected officials are not a law unto themselves.
On the matter of civil disobedience, I really have my breath taken away that basic concepts of justice fly out the window with the government and Christians argue that not only should we not resist these evils but further we should “joyfully” support such a state. Somehow, things that no sane person would say are good if done by private individuals are somehow sanctified when in the hands of government.
With that said, I think the call to honor those in office applied to a constitutional republic is a call to honor the office, not necessarily the criminal in the office.
Jeff- I do have to ask a question given this statement of yours:
“I am simply advocating that we obey the laws and pay our taxes, joyfully, without complaining, unless the government demands our active participation in disobeying the direct command of God… certainly this is one transferable principle, is it not?”
Let me put it like this are we not called to be good samaritans? If you came accross cops wildly beating someone up what would be your reaction?
My point is that yes, we must disobey the state when they call us to directly violate a command of God (that was pretty hard to get out of you guys as at first you wanted to confine disobedience to “religious things”) that would be a sin of COMISSION if we obeyed the state, but also we are called in scripture to stand up for justice, defend the defenseless etc…by not doing these in opposition to statist injustices we are then sinning by OMISSION, or as my 4 year old would say “Not being or doing what God requires”.
Every time you hear of someone being shaken down by cops like highwaymen and having their property stolen simply because they had a larg amount of cash on their person, and you don’t object I think you are sinning by ommision. Every time the feds raid a “compound” where women and children are living taking the children from their parents at gun point (as in the Warren Jeffs case) and you don’t object you are sinning by ommision as you have failed to call a spade a spade and oppose an injustice.
Or how about slavery, this was a government sanctioned practice, while you Jeff may abstain from purchasing slaves and thus not be sinning by commision, by not speaking out are you not sinning by ommision, in failing to call for justice?
Or even more obvious, every time civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are killed thouch we are not commiting the killing ourselves, yet, if we don’t object we are sinning by ommision by not standing up for justice.
The state is not God, it is an agent of God oradained for the purpose of executing justice. None of the things I listed are just in any way, the fact that they are done by the state does not sanctify them, to say otherwise is to say the state is above the law and is a law unto itself.
When the church fails to speak out sufficiently against injustice I really think this is sin, and the church must repent. The church camps out on 2 scriptures badly interpretted and ignores the whole council of God and the calls to stand up for the defenseless.
Derek-
The primary framers of the Declaration of independance (Jefferson) and the Constitution (Madison) were “classical liberals” or what is today called libertarian. Furthermore, the southerners who seceeded from the tyranical Lincolite state because of the punitive tariff were Jeffersonian classical liberals, men like R.L. Dabney and Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson all held to this classical liberal position and all were devout Christians. Dabney’s work is rich and really is a must read for the student of theology.
All that to say that I think this continual assertion that libertarianism is wiccanesque is nonsense on stilts, and at best is a genetic fallacy.
Thanks Jeff and Derek for the responses to my questions. I will respond to Derek in this post and Jeff in another.
Derek,
Show me if I’m wrong as I haven’t thought through it all that much but, on the face of it, the claim that all laws are moral laws seems a little far fetched. Is the law printed on every mattress in the USA that it is illegal to remove the tag on the mattress a moral law? In Alabama is it illegal to have an ice cream cone in your back pocket. Is this one moral? I’m not saying that all laws aren’t based on some sort of worldview it just seems a stretch to say that all laws are moral laws. Google “dumb laws” and you are confronted with a myriad of laws that don’t seem to be moral laws.
I assume here that you are espousing some sort of “America was founded as a Christian nation” position. If I am wrong in assuming this forgive me. That being said, Christianity was not the consensus among the founding fathers nor was America founded as a Christian nation or anything of this sort. I don’t wish to argue over it but I will point you to a good book on the topic by the top 3 evangelical historians in the land. The book is “The Search for Christian America” by Noll, Hatch, and Marsden. http://www.amazon.com/Search-Christian-America-Mark-Noll/dp/0939443155 It is a really easy and short read and, in my opinion, they settle the issue.
I still maintain that Libertarianism is not wiccan or Christian or anything. The fact that maybe the two share a similar guiding principle is irrelevant. Many religions share certain moral values (and we don’t connect them), in the same way that vastly different political systems share similar values. I’m no Bible genius but it seems like Paul advocates a type of “an it harm none, do what ye will” in those passages where he speaks of eating and drinking and not damaging the brothers faith. So, since there is affiliation between wicca and paul we could say that wicca was loosely based off of Christian morals, if we are going to classify. I know your position is not that “libertarianism is a wiccan political system,” so I don’t want to belabor the point. I simply suggest that we drop the connection, and assert that libertarianism is a-religious.
In regard to regulating vice. Assuming the Christian worldview, do we really want to decide for people which activities are toxic? Note that I do not think that we should just make it a free for all where everyone does what they want. That being said, do we really want to make gambling, pornography, smoking, drinking, etc. illegal? Is the Christian political ideal a society of morally upright non-believers? If you could clarify the motivation behind your wanting to regulate specific vices it would be beneficial to me.
My break is over so I have to go. I look forward to your response.
Bob,
Please try and understand my reasoning.
You said:
“Or how about slavery, this was a government sanctioned practice, while you Jeff may abstain from purchasing slaves and thus not be sinning by commission, by not speaking out are you not sinning by ommision, in failing to call for justice?”
When did I say that we should not speak out against things? Again (for the 34th time), public dissent to policy is wonderful. How we dissent is precisely what I’m getting at. Please, be careful not to accuse me of things that I do not advocate. I am trying to properly represent your position, please try and properly represent mine. Where did you get the idea that I think you cannot speak out against things like abortion or the like?
You said:
“Every time you hear of someone being shaken down by cops like highwaymen and having their property stolen simply because they had a larg amount of cash on their person, and you don’t object I think you are sinning by ommision.”
Agreed. Again, how you object is at issue. You tell Peter, Jesus, or Paul that they are supposed to stand up against the oppressive government in act of defense for all those that Rome was treating unfairly, and we’ll see what they say to you.
You said:
“Let me put it like this are we not called to be good samaritans? If you came accross cops wildly beating someone up what would be your reaction?”
If I saw cops that were clearly beating someone for their race, and there was no doubt in my mind what was taking place, by God’s grace I would put myself in harms way to defend the person being beaten. (and by the way, that isn’t illegal in our country… but even if it was). Yes, the good Samaritan principle deals with caring for people that are being oppressed and not cared for. Yet, the good Samaritan doesn’t demand that I get together a possy of thugs and search for the thieves/cops so that they will stop oppressing people.
If I read about the beating taking place in the news and was not there when it happened, then I still have a responsibility to care for the wounds and well-being of the injured man, if he is in my sphere of influence. I also have a responsibility to speak out against unjustice. However, I also still have a responsibility to honor the government, pay my taxes, and obey the laws.
Bob,
Not even once did I say that liberterianism’s roots are in Wicca. Why do you repeatedly insist on framing people’s perspective or statements in the worst possible light or in a way that was not intended? This is a very bad habit of yours, especially for someone in the ministry. Furthermore, you will be able to convince more people that your views are right if you extend a little charity and give people the benefit of the doubt.
What I’m saying is that the credo “an it harm none, do what ye will” seems like an accurate description of liberterianism’s framework for determining what constitutes moral behavior, at least in regards to the rule of law.
That may not be helpful or relevant to you, but since I do not believe that political philosophy can be divorced from fundamental beliefs about right and wrong, I am simply describing why I am not comfortable with what I believe to be a limited or flawed view of good and evil; nor do I feel comfortable with limiting the sword bearing nature of government to the extent that you do, even though as I stated in #13, I definitely have liberterian leanings, especially when it comes to the FF’s belief in limited government with weak central powers.
Derek, I had a comment that didn’t get posted till just now which engages some of your thoughts. Its number 57
Bryce,
Thanks for your thoughtful questions. I appreciate that you are being charitable in disagreement. Good example for each of us.
Keep in mind, I already established the fact that dictators have long created ridiculous or unjust laws and rules that were right or wrong based solely on the basis of their own whim or abuse of power (i.e. rule of man). Yet these laws are based in the autocrat’s twisted, whimsical or self interested sense of what is right or wrong. I actually think the laws you cite actually reinforce my larger point. Since these absurd laws cannot be traced to any coherent system of defining right and wrong, they will inevitably be ignored or challenged at some point. Again, liberterians recognize this and assert a guiding principle that it is wrong to harm others. To which it will inevitable be asked, upon whose authority? Allow me to illustrate: liberterians can’t even agree that abortion violates this very principle. Inevetibly, the proponents on either side of the equation are going to need to appeal to either a politician(s) determination (rule of man) or to some kind of transcendent truth or system of determing right from wrong (rule of law).
Also note that as I said in #11: “As de Tocqueville points out, democracy and capitalism imply freedom, which some or many people will abuse. But when you think about it, isn’t this the way God interacts with man? Does he coerce us to be good or obey him?” So I completely agree that government cannot force us to be good; it should be limited and the elected representatives of our democratic republic should have to meet a high threshold before laws are enacted; constitutionality must be established and be able to withstand court challenges.
All this brings us to our constitution, which is sadly being ripped to shreds by activist courts throughout our nation, including in the highest courts. I’m familiar with Noll and he is absolutely correct when we asserts that we are not a Christian nation. This should be manifestly obvious to a Jr. high history student. Yet I cite a statement from the U.S. Supreme Court in 1892:
Here’s another one from Patrick Henry, who Bob cited earlier:
What are they saying here? That the U.S. is a Christian nation? No. They were saying that it is important for a nation of laws to be guided by a set of principles; in the case of the “American Experiment”, as it was referred to, the Bible and Christianity played a major role and in fact provided guidance for our founders and for the Constitution.
Let me apologize for having been snarky to you guys, I admit I do get impatient. I do have to say that my jabs are in the most playful tone though, words on a screen fail to convey tone and I need to be more cognizant of this fact.
Derek-
Let me say that I find much in what you have to say in which I agree, I am a calvinistic Christian and I think the only basis for ethics and law is the Law Giver Himself. I also agree with you view of man as being fallen and depraved, here we depart as you wan to use the state to restrain his sinful tendencies, I because I hold to total depravity don’t want sinful men to run with power as sinful men in government can do more damage than any other institution known to man.
I hate to see an intelligent discussion degenerate into these kinds of things but you did say the following and further kept reiterating it’s veracity:
“The leaders in any government are going to either apply their own moral framework or they are going to use someone else’s. Even the narrow parameters that you advocate follow a certain set of beliefs about right and wrong. And I must point out, it is a moral grid that is closer to Wicca than Christianity.”
Simply put, you charged my view of the role of the state (defending persons and property) which is the libertarian view, with being closer to Wiccanism than Christianity…now you act like I am just saying these things out of nowhere once the charge should be seen as having no merit. A simple “I shouldn’t have said that” or just dropping the matter would go much further than continuing to contend for a dead horse.
You however haven’t answered my question to you about your position on torture, I would like to know.
Jeff-
I honestly don’t see where it is we disagree if you really believe in this statement of yours:
“If I read about the beating taking place in the news and was not there when it happened, then I still have a responsibility to care for the wounds and well-being of the injured man, if he is in my sphere of influence. I also have a responsibility to speak out against unjustice. However, I also still have a responsibility to honor the government, pay my taxes, and obey the laws.”
I posed the scenerios not because I had this view that you reject justice but to clarify WHEN it is appropriate to cancel subservience to the state, it should be clear as I said, that time is when the State orders us to transgress the law of God or when it itself is transgressing the law of God, in either case it must be opposed.
When I talk about disobedience to the state I am not talking about just insolent law flouting, I apply it to the areas the state has no legitimacy to makes laws in. So if the state passes laws saying I can’t read certain book to my children I will be disobient to said law and petition for it’s change if that window still exists, I wouldn’t suddely stop obeying every law, or even round up a posse and storm city hall, that’s answering lawlessness with more lawlessness.
You quoted my statements earlier as if they were highly inflamatory, perhaps because most people don’t talk like that, I just wonder what given what I said and what you said above which I quoted agreeingly, what is the problem? Really all you are saying (somewhat pried out of you reluctantly by me) is what I would say. I pressed you on these issues because the prior formula for disobedience you gave was as follows:
“First, Bob has more than hinted that disobedience is appropriate when the government is unjust (vs. my view that the government should only be disobeyed when we are commanded to actively participate in direct disobedience to a command of God).”
Well, given what you said in both of the quotes, I think you have amended the quote directly above in the more recent reply to my direct Q’s to say that BOTH when government calls us to sin by ommision AND commision disobedience is appropriate, which is all I am saying. That’s what I mean by civil disobedience being our duty in reply to a rogue state, there is no scofflaw attitude in my political philosophy.
I am not advocating a posse induced rampage in reply to the marxist healthcare plan. I am however advocating that we have a right to say no, particularly to such a legislation as it is unconstitutional, and given our system the constitution is the king of America not Barack Obama. It is to the constitution that we owe our allegience as law is king in America, at least it is supposed to be.
The thing is that I believe in the rule of law to such a point that I apply it to all men, people in government don’t get some sort of e-z-pass on the law.
Oh well, again I really do apologize for any snideness in my replies and where you feel I put words in your mouths, I really do respect you guys or else I wouldn’t even be typing right now…you don’t fire smart alek comments at people you think are buffoons…what would be the point…
Here’s a link to one of my favorite christian political thinkers on this very issue we are discussing, th eblog post is entitled “The limits of submission”:
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2010/01/killing-commissar-limits-of-submission.html
Bob,
I sincerely appreciate you going out of the way to express the demeanor behind the snark. I also appreciate your charitable and humble attitude expressed in the last comment. It makes me wish that we could all gather around a fire with a beer and a bible, prayerfully searching the scriptures together in community… not merely in an online forum. I also do appreciate your patience with me, especially as it concerns my learning curve on more political/economic matters.
I haven’t been able to spot the place in the comment thread where I modified my views on civil disobedience, as you keep alluding to. Perhaps it is because I have been less than thorough in my search. In any case, it would be helpful for me if you could find a place where I imply that disobedience is only acceptable if they ask me to stop preaching.
I hope we do agree on the civil disobedience issue, but I’m not quite sure that we do, though we are perhaps close. Your previous quotes makes me to believe we still differ: “How can I not have a posture of civil disobedience in America Jeff when they have killed 50 million babies, killed countless foreigners in aggressive wars, and continue to dream up new laws to milk us?” (Post 37)
Even though our government allows its citizens to kill their unborn children, and goes to war for unjust reasons, and continues to dream up new laws to milk us, I don’t think we are justified in having a “posture of civil disobedience”. In none of these things have they commanded my active participation in disobedience to God. I can still legally go to Iraq or Afghanistan and offer medical/food help to Iraqi and Afghan citizens, I have the choice to keep my children and raise them in the fear and admonition of the Lord, and there is never in my mind a reason to rebel with disobedience against taxation (no matter how severe).
-Jeff
When we protest abortion that is an act of civil disobedience, in America protest and assembly are supposed to be legal under the 1st amendment. This is getting harder as they are designating “free speech zones” off in some corner rather than in the city square where ideas should be exchanged. Furthermore, there are now the hate crimes/hate speech laws, you don’t have to stretch the imagination too far to invision some activist judge declaring anti-abotion protest as hate speech. But, even here there is still a window of possible change.
Schaeffer argues that we should be doing more than this and following practices like sit ins in court rooms to put pressure on the courts to rule justly. He further suggested that if we have knowledge that our state tax money is funding abortions to not pay that tax. I had to ponder it as this just sounds so radically different from what I had heard most of my Christian walk that really amounted to unqualified submission to the state until they tell us not to preach. I thought, well I wouldn’t give $100 bucks to a girl that asked me for it if she said she needed it for an abortion…so…why would I give it to the state that is doing just that?
I read these things years ago and it caused a major shift in my thinking in relation to church and state. I think Schaeffer is right. That is why every call to submit to the state has a qualification added to it, just like every other call to submission (apart from the LORD) has qualifiers attatched to it.
I think ultimately our relationship to the state as Christians is to call it to submit. Submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, as the kingdoms of the world have become the kingdoms of our God and his Christ. Our submission should correlate to the state submission to Christ and His laws.
Oh I forgot to add that you also more and more have to get a “permit” to protest…what a joke, last time I was at a gathering I pulled out my constitution and pointed the cop to the first amendment and said “Sir, here is my permit”. So, with this issueing of permits or lack thereof government censors assembly and free speech. The day will come when they just shut us all down…when it comes I wonder how many Christians will be bothered or notice, or will they be too busy worrying about who will win American Idol?
Jeff,
You should try to put this blogpost and thread back on the first page of your blog so that it is more easily accessible.
Bob,
First of all, I appreciate how you connected your Calvinism, especially the fallen state of humanity, to your views on limited government. I couldn’t agree with you more here. One of the fundamental problems we have today is that many Christians disconnect their view of our fundamentally fallen condition from our worldview. That is, many in the evangelical world are likely to sign on to many elements of “escalator myth”, whereby mankind is evolving and slowly advancing into a more enlightened and moral state. It is upon this basis that Christians join campaigns to completely eradicate poverty/create a utopia on earth (e.g. “The Great Society”) or with which they say that modern science has ushered us into a new dispensation on areas of sexuality (e.g. the Anglican and ELCA positions on homosexuality).
Now, I have some convictions about torture, but I don’t think we can go down this road on this blog entry. I know Jeff has invited hijacking, but perhaps you should post your position on your website and let people weigh in there. I’d have a few thoughts to share. I would however be interested to hear your perspective on #41 or #61.
- Derek
This looks like it was a good discussion, overall. It’s always good to get the quirky libertarian in there (yes, Bob, you do qualify as a quirky libertarian – referring to everyone who disagrees with you as close to a “statist,” and always jumping to arguments about the Nazis). But the discussion definitely seemed to bring all the important issues up, even if they weren’t resolved.
I would definitely consider myself with Bob on the issue of free-markets and the inappropriateness (immorality?) of governmentally-organized welfare. But I’m more with Robert George in saying that, “The strict libertarian position . . . goes much too far in depriving government of even its subsidiary role. It underestimates the importance of maintaining a reasonably healthy moral ecology, especially for the rearing of children, and it fails to appreciate the legitimate, albeit once again limited, role of law and government in maintaining such an ecology.”
Thanks for the read! Lots of good stuff to consider.
Hehe, I popped in here as my wife said “Hey, are you still in that debate at Jeffs blog?”
Robert, Glad you believe in free markets, not too many people do anymore. I do wonder though what you would call somebody who wants to use government to bring about some societal end they find desireable other than a “statist”? As far as I see it what you describe above as a function of government (namely to instill morality) I suppose you have to balk at the statist label as you anticipate its application to your political philosophy. I believe instilling morality is the role of the church and the family, government merely exists to protect persons and property, just like the 2nd amendment does for the individual, as government is merely a compact of individuals.
Furthermore, I detest the Hitler card, bringing up the nazi police state as a hypothetical for people work through should be useful as the same mindset that pervaded Germany is alive and well today…