So that’s my proposition,
which is pretty much the understanding of thoughtful Christians over the last
2000 years: God’s created and maintained 3 institutions, and each of them has a
distinct set of responsibilities that he’s given them.
Here’s where this
understanding comes into my politics. Now, granted, I’m moving from what the Bible explicitly says to my own understanding and what I see in the world, but here goes: When one of the institutions tries to do the
job of one of the other institutions, it does a really poor job at best, does
it very inefficiently, and usually makes a complete hash of what it was trying
to do.
What do I mean by
this? Well, let’s take one that just about every Christian could agree on: It’s
the state’s job (according to the Bible) to keep the basic rule of law and
civil peace and seek to prevent gross injustice. If we’re invaded by a foreign
army, it’s the state’s job to provide for our safety and to defend us. The founders
of this country believed, and I happen to agree with them (although for other
reasons besides the Bible) that the government is also supposed to protect
certain rights which the Lord’s given us, such as life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness.
This is not the church’s job. The
church doesn’t have a police force, or jails, or judges to whom we have to
submit for judgment, etc., and none of us would want it to.
One of the church’s
primary jobs (according to the Bible) is to share the Good News of Jesus with
the lost and lead them to Christ, using the word, prayer, and persuasion. That’s
not the state’s job. I don’t want some government bureaucrat seeing it
as his job (in his official capacity) to present the message of Jesus to the lost. We might have a debate about the propriety of public official
prayers before city council meetings or in other settings, but hopefully we can
all agree that the state shouldn't be telling people to come to church on Sunday. When it comes to expanding Christ’s Kingdom, we advance
through the word, through prayer, and through persuasion. We don’t use bullets,
bombs, or ballots.
With me so far? Ok,
now I’m going to start stepping on some toes. It’s the parents’ job to raise up our
kids in the training and instruction of the Lord. The primary people my kids
should be learning about the Lord from is me and my wife, not a Sunday School
teacher or a VBS worker or a youth minister. I’m grateful for the supplemental and cooperative efforts they put into helping me and my wife perform
our duties, but I’ll be hanged if I’m going to pass off my God-given responsibilities
to anyone else.
OK, I’ve delved a
little into politics with the “church and state shouldn’t try to do each other’s
jobs” thing, but here’s where I’m going to part ways with the pacifists whom we
discussed
recently: If I join the police force or
military, my responsibilities under that aegis are different from my
obligations as a member of the church of Jesus Christ. I’m forbidden
from avenging myself or from retaliating if someone harms me. But if I’m a
soldier or a police officer, I might be obligated to take a life in the
performance of my duties, and that’s not
a sin. On the contrary, that’s performing a vital role under the auspices
of Romans
13:1-4. It’s always regrettable whenever any human life is taken, but
sometimes it’s necessary for the preservation of society. For more on why it’s
OK for a Christian to be a member of the police or the military, see my
arguments here.
And here’s a biggie,
probably the most controversial one: When someone’s in need, their first resort
should be their own family. If their
family’s unwilling or unable to help, then they can go to the church for help. There’s no biblical precedent for
a non-theocratic government to help people in need. You might say “But
they were ordered under the Old Covenant to help people in need! That was the
state helping them!” Yes it was, at least in some sense. But that was under the
Old Covenant in which the state was (theoretically) run by the Mosaic Law, in
which you had a theocratic government. I think we can take some principles
of how—as individuals and as the church--to help people by studying the Torah,
but I don’t think we can go to the Old Testament and find any mandate there for
a non-theocratic state to help people in need (for my arguments on this, see here).
And in the New Testament? It was written to Christians who had little to no
voice in their government, and Romans 13 really is the closest thing we have to
a systematic theological treatise on how a N.T. government is supposed to
function. You won’t find anything in there that specifically addresses how a
non-theocratic government is supposed to deal with its poor and needy.
But you do have plenty of instructions on how individuals and the church are
supposed to deal with those in need. And
one of the most neglected verses
on this subject? “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” If someone
isn’t willing to work, don’t feed them! It’s not being
obedient to the Scriptures, and it’s not
showing love to the person you’re supposedly helping. How is that
compatible with our current welfare system as administered by the government?
Now, am I opposed to all government assistance? Well, in
principle, yes, with a couple of exceptions. It might sound self-serving, but I’m
in favor of taking care of military vets. And if a city is hit with a flood or
an earthquake, I might be persuaded that it’s OK to render government emergency
assistance, although I have some serious constitutional qualms about it.
But in general, I’m opposed to government
handouts to the poor. After decades of welfare, the verdict is in: They tend
not to help in the long term. They disincentivize hard work and earning your
own living when you’re capable of doing so. They promote dependence and a
victim mentality.
To be sure, honesty forces
me to concede that I’m largely arguing from silence. Are there any Scriptures
which forbid the government from helping
people in need? No, I can’t find any there. The New Testament doesn’t really
address that question. But in the few passages which would address it, that’s
never mentioned as something which the Lord intended the state to do. When it
comes to taking care of the poor and those in need, he has plenty to say to individual believers and the church as a whole.
It seems pretty clear
to me, however, that if the biblical pattern were followed (family first
resort, church second and last resort), then the need for government charity
would be vastly reduced if not altogether eliminated. If someone’s unable to work, then of course they need
to be helped, and if it came down to it I’d rather see someone get a welfare
check than starve. But if someone is unwilling
to work—especially if they're not working because they can't get their ideal job right now—then Paul instructs to let them
go hungry until they change their mind on that score.
So what does this have to do with politics? Well, I think a lot of confusion arises when we advocate one of the institutions doing the job of one of the others. Leftists see passages of Scripture where God's people are commanded to take care of the poor (and there's a plethora of them) and translate that into voting for leftist policies in which the State takes on the responsibility of feeding the poor. It's somehow the State's job to lead people out of dysfunctional lives into being productive citizens. I don't think that's the State's responsibility. That's the family's job, and then the church's job. Or they see verses given to individual Christians about how we're supposed to not resist an evil person and turn the other cheek, and they translate that into pacifism (in which the State doesn't use any physical force).
I think that if we keep the responsibilities of these institutions straight and distinct, then that will lead naturally into political conservatism and away from Leftism.
So what does this have to do with politics? Well, I think a lot of confusion arises when we advocate one of the institutions doing the job of one of the others. Leftists see passages of Scripture where God's people are commanded to take care of the poor (and there's a plethora of them) and translate that into voting for leftist policies in which the State takes on the responsibility of feeding the poor. It's somehow the State's job to lead people out of dysfunctional lives into being productive citizens. I don't think that's the State's responsibility. That's the family's job, and then the church's job. Or they see verses given to individual Christians about how we're supposed to not resist an evil person and turn the other cheek, and they translate that into pacifism (in which the State doesn't use any physical force).
I think that if we keep the responsibilities of these institutions straight and distinct, then that will lead naturally into political conservatism and away from Leftism.
I used this aphorism
so much on the TAWG Blog I’m sure lots of people got sick of it, but it summarizes so much in so
little: No one in the history of mankind ever did things God’s way who ended up
regretting it. That goes for individual believers, for the local
church, for the church universal, and even for our larger society as we
influence it towards doing things God’s way. My friends, this really does work.
No comments:
Post a Comment