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…

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.

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

You should try to put this blogpost and thread back on the first page of your blog so that it is more easily accessible.

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.

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

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2010/01/killing-commissar-limits-of-submission.html

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…

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:

Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.

Here’s another one from Patrick Henry, who Bob cited earlier:

It cannot be emphasized too strongly that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded assylum, prosperity and freedom of worship here.

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.