Over at St. Phransus, I've been debating Jonathan Norman and Postmodern Negro about how much churches should be involved in politics. My answer is as little as possible. As someone who, over the course of his life, has been all over the political map, I think that it's so easy to be wrong about politics that stating or implying something to the effect of "God supports legislation X" is simply engaging in ludicrous proof-texting from Scripture.
Jonathan and PMN rightly point out that there have been compelling political issues that churches have taken firm stands on, such as slavery and racial segregation, that I don't think that anyone of right mind can say was the wrong position. Granted. There is a fuzzy line between acceptable and unacceptable involvement in politics, and enormous room for disagreement on its location.
Still, there's something wrong with a church that makes conditions for Christian fellowship upon the opinions on political issues X, Y, and Z -- either explicitly or implicitly. And Jonah Goldberg, who isn't even a Christian, expressed it perfectly today:
In other words, while Christianity may be a complete philosophy of life, it is only at best a partial philosophy of government. When it attempts to be otherwise, it has leapt the rails into an enormous vat of category error. This is one reason why I did not like it when President Bush said his favorite political philosopher was Jesus Christ. I don't mind at all a president who has a personal relationship with Jesus. It's just that I don't think Jesus is going to have useful advice about how to fix Social Security.
Exactly! The fatal flaw in the pro-political argument is that the Bible simply doesn't have anything to say about issues like Social Security, health insurance, or monetary policy. Oh sure, you can say "Well, King Whatshisname of Judah faced a situation vaguely similar to ours, albeit in a radically different political and economic context, and he followed our plan, and God blessed him for it." That's about the extent that modern political policy can be educated by Biblical faith. All else is proof-texting (that goes for libertarians, too).
So how should a Christian educate his politics by his faith? Very carefully and completely respecting Christians who reach other conclusions in good faith.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Alright, alright enough of this hogwashery!!! Really I just wanted to say the word "hogwashery".
I do not think that the Church ought to be tied to the government, partnered with the government, in cahoots with the gov't, or in bed with the gov't. What I said is that the Church is political.
For me that doesn't mean that a preacher preaches his/her political agendas and invites the next congressman to come speak from the pulpit- just the opposite.
I'm talking about the church being prophetic- living out a Prophetic Politic. Biblically speaking- the prophets, many times were connected to the kings. It was dangerous being a prophet, because whenever a king's policies or actions (structure/morality) was displeasing to God- it was the prophet who's glutious maximus was on the line and had to be the mouthpiece.
The church (community of Jesus followers) who lives out prophetic politics are not tied to a political party, are not tied to any certain policy- although as a community it is up to them through discernment and prayer to decide how to act, vote, protest, speak out, or support.
cheers
"That's about the extent that modern political policy can be educated by Biblical faith."
The most fundamental question in modern politics can be educated by Biblical faith.
The fundamental question in any political debate today is between centralized government decision-making vs. decentralized government decision-making. Should Moscow determine what happens in Georgia? Should the legality of Homosexual marriage be determined in Washington or Boston? Should drivers licenses be issued under state regulations or federal? Should education policy be set in Washington or Memphis? Should the legality of Marijuana be determined in Washington or San Francisco?
This is the same issue debated by our founding fathers. Just read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers.
Interestingly, it is the same debate outlined in the Old Testament. Will we have judges of 10, judges of 100 and judges or 1000's (as suggested by God) or will we have what man asked for in 2 Samuel, a King (George or Bill). Centralized or decentralized? The Bible does answer that question clearly.
While you are right that the Bible can't specifically tell you how to structure a Social Security Program (a program designed to replace reliance on God and family with reliance on the government), it can tell you that the design ought to be hammered out by and for a small group. Maybe it should be a County program or a State program, but clearly it should not be designed by a ruler of 300 million people. Not if it is going to accommodate minority rights and beliefs.
The truth is the God recognized that people can never agree among themselves. The tribes of Israel couldn't do it and neither can the Republicans regarding Social Security. If you want to advocate Biblical decisions and policies, if you want to advocate for minority rights, advocate that policies be made at the lowest level possible.
The most fundamental question in modern politics can be educated by Biblical faith.
Please show where in the Bible this claim can be supported.
Thanks for commenting, Jonathan. Could you describe what you mean by 'Prophetic Politics'? In terms of hands-on ministry, what does this entail?
First, I have postulated that the most fundamental question in politics today is where political decisions are made. Should the mayor of San Francisco or the US congress decide whether or not homosexuals should be married? I think the Bible does have something to say about this if your goal is to protect minority rights and have a “happy” people.
In Exodus 18:21 – 23, the Bible lays out the first structure of government for the Jewish people.
Exo 18: 21 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:
Exo 18:22 And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee.
Exo 18:23 If thou shalt do this thing, and God command thee so, then thou shalt be able to endure, and all this people shall also go to their place in peace.
This is bottom-up government. Questions that can’t be resolved get kicked upstairs. The end result of this structure is that “this people shall also go to their place in peace”.
The next government we see is found in 1 Samuel 8:5 – 8:18.
1Sa 8:5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
1Sa 8:6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.
1Sa 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
The Jews asked for a King, a central figure, to rule over them “like all the nations”. What did God say the result of this government would be:
1Sa 8:11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
1Sa 8:12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
1Sa 8:13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
1Sa 8:14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
1Sa 8:15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
1Sa 8:16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
1Sa 8:17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
1Sa 8:18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
What is the result of this top down, centralized type of government, “And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king”. If Roe vs. Wade is overturned and Congress outlaws abortion, ye shall cry out in California. If Roe vs. Wade is not overturned ye shall cry out in Alabama. If abortion is legal in California and illegal in Alabama you can go to your place in peace. Take you pick California or Alabama.
The Bible has a lot to say about current issues. Why shouldn’t the church advocate these Biblical positions, particularly at the local level in alignment with the Exodus government model (Perhaps I should call it the constitutional model)? Most people’s complaint about church politics is that they don’t agree with the position the church is taking. Secularists just don’t like the idea of Christians in politics and many Christians don’t think the positions are Biblical. The Methodist Church is the worst as far as I’m concerned. The one thing you’ll never see the GBCS doing is quoting scripture to support one of their positions. Anyway, here are a few solutions:
Law Suit Reform?
Limit punitive awards to 20% of actual damages.
Num 5:7 Then they shall confess their sin which they have done: and he shall recompense his trespass with the principal thereof, and add unto it the fifth part thereof, and give it unto him against whom he hath trespassed.
Social Security Reform?
Make it a legal obligation for children to take care of their parents. Pass a law requiring churches to spend 90% on the old and poor in order to get tax-exempt status.
1Ti 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
1Ti 5:16 If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.
Death Penalty Reform?
Can’t impose the death penalty unless there are two or more eye-witnesses.
Deu 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
Tax Reform?
Change the tax code to reflect a 10% flat tax.
1Sa 8:15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. (Although this flat tax is clearly considered excessive.)
Anything else you’d like the Bible to solve let me know. I’d enjoy the challenge.
Anonymous in Dallas
Anonymous, there are two major problems with your approach to Biblical government.
1. You are being selective in what features of Old Testament law to import into modern times. If we follow your approach to its logical conclusion, then we would be stoning homosexuals and executing people who have sex with a woman during their menstrual period because that's what the Bible commands. Would you pass a law saying that non-Christians should be put to death? Because by your own reasoning, if you did not, you would violate God's law.
2. Furthermore, we wouldn't have our current form of government (republican democracy) but a tribal government of some variety. Which would would you like to choose? Led by a strong prophet, ruled by judges, or a king? All three governments were proscribed in the Bible for Israel. But democracy in any form was not. Which would you choose? Besides, these governments were decreed for Israel. Were they decreed for all mankind? God had plenty of opportunity to do so, but did not.
3. Once again, every single one of your Scripture citations applied to a radically different culture, economy, technology, and polity with no indication that God intended them for all mankind for all perpetuity.
For example: tax reform. By your reasoning, we should hand over a tenth of all of our grain and spices. I'll be glad to so, not that it amounts to much. But if you're arguing that we should hand over a tenth of our income, that is not supported by Scipture. Only grain and spices. Am I being unfair? Well, you're the one proposing that we draw specific political policies from the Bible. But we'd better be precise and follow the Law to the letter.
You might find vaguely similar situations in the Bible to political issues today. But you still haven't found specific verses on matters like Social Security, monetary policy, financial securities regulation, or biotechnology. And I think that you're find that it's hard because the Israelites didn't have any sort of national retirements savings organization, organized national bank, investment exchange, or biotechology at all. And the changes to society and technology do matter because we make political decisions based upon extant, present realities.
First let me start with point 2. As a libertarian, the government I would choose is the one outlined in Exodus. I don’t think the bible says how the rulers/judges were picked but there may be a hint in 1 Samuel 8:12. The problem with the King was that he would “appoint all the captains of thousand” etc. This was clearly wrong in Gods view although I’ll admit I don’t know if it was wrong because the captains were appointed by the king or because they carried out the orders of the king.. I wonder who picked the ruler/judges before that? If it was just one person, then that sounds like a King. Maybe it was the group of 10 who were being judged selected their leader. Perhaps you can clarify this for me. It really it doesn’t really matter but lets say the group of 10 picks a leader, the leaders of 10 pick a ruler for 100, etc. (if you want to pick them some other way I’m fine with that. Have the leaders of the different tribe pick them if you want). Now we have basically a common law system where the judges are there to resolve disputes. The judges resolve disputes in Neighborhoods (10’s), Towns (100’s), Cities/Counties (1000’s). If I don’t like the judges/rulers in my town, I can move to another. By the way, we don’t live in a purely Methodist or Baptist or secular country so some judges are going to adhere to biblical standard, some are not. The Jews in the Old Testament didn’t live alone either and I assume different tribes followed the torah to different degrees thus the need for God’s judgment periodically. The point is, this form of government allows for a difference in opinion among the judges/rulers and the tribes of Israel or the different factions in the US. If in fact the rulers of 10’s were picked by the group of 10 they judged, we have a government that looks very much like the government designed by Madison.
Madison designed the constitution to protect the rights of factions (Federalist 10 I think?). The federal government had very few powers (see 10th amendment). The States decided the laws regarding sodomy, drinking, marriage and taxes (tariffs being the exception). Within the states many issues were decided at the county level. (Here in Texas, alcohol legality is still decided on a county by county basis.) Most states at the time had a state religion. The Congregational Church was the state church in Connecticut, the Catholic Church in Maryland, etc. Our constitution was designed to tolerate differences in opinion and beliefs. There was no federal law regulating abortion.
What would happen in this country if we took most of our decisions back to the state or even county level? Not every state or county would be a libertarian dream or a Baptist dream. But finding some county somewhere that had the right mix of taxes, religion and freedom would be possible. When decisions are made in Washington that is absolutely impossible (Note the Vermont Secession movement and the Free State Project). The founding fathers debated this in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers and choose a decentralized Exodus type model over a centralized King. After 200 years most of us have forgotten what they knew either from the Bible, history or just because Madison was smart and went to Princeton. Within our existing constitutional structure we could come very close to the Exodus model if we wanted to. We just have to get away from this idea that Washington should regulate and legislate everything.
Back to your first point. I don’t think I advocated stoning homosexuals or women. But if we were going to stone them, I would hope that we would require two eye- witnesses and that most homosexuals and women would confine their activities to their bedrooms so that we didn’t have to stone too many of them. But I guess the question is, if that is my neighborhood’s belief (10 people, kind of like Branch Davidians) are you willing to send in federal troops, uninvited, to kill us. I can live with others religious beliefs. Can you?
Finally, to your third point that today we live in a different culture/time. I realize that today the idea that a community of people with common belief systems should be able to live as they want to is unpopular and probably in most peoples minds does belong in a different period. Republicans don’t want to think that a homosexual couples should marry and Democrats don’t think that any Christian community should be without a few strip bars and xxx rate movie theaters. Even the libertarians in the Free State Project are intolerant of the idea that some town in New Hampshire should outlaw sex with 13 year olds (I had this discussion with them once.) But very few people will be truly free in this country until we get away from the idea of centralized political power using force to enforce the majority’s opinions on the rest of us. I believe decentralized government was the idea Madison had when he wrote the constitution and I believe that that is the message of the Bible in 1 Samuel.
I look forward to you reply. From your Blog, I think you are a libertarian Christian. So please enlighten me.
Ok, I do see I general flaw in the direction of this conversation. The ENTIRE reason that you have laws and structure in the Torah was so that God could SHAPE a distinct people set apart from the culture around them. God was not trying to create a kingdom, governmental structure (the way modern America is structured).
To try and structure something today based on principles that were distinctly for a distinct culture at a distinct time- is questionable.
I think first we have to ask ourselves- what was going on with God giving Moses laws (not just 10 commandments but ALL the gazillion laws in Lev.-Deut.
God was helping to establish a community of people that lived together in a peculiar way, worshiped and knew God in a peculiar way, and treated the stranger in their midst in a peculiar way- different from other cultures around them. That was the purpose.
Second, we have to ask- is it appropriate to expect that Biblical Principles are universal? What I mean by this is- can we really expect someone outside the Judeo/Christian tradition to understand what it means to live by the traditions, stories, and principles of the Bible? If so, why?
Scripture recounts the narratives of Israel and the narratives of Jesus and his followers. So it really only makes sense that the principles that come out of scripture are for a "politic" of The Church. It's not for civil society.
Biblically speaking God's intention was to have a people that would embody God and God's kingdom on earth. God's people turned that vision into Empire.
that's all the ramble for now.
cheers
Anonymous,
Concluding that the Exodus government was libertarian is a grave misreading of Scripture -- at least, if one defines a libertarian government as one with very limited powers in which the soveriegnty rests primarily at the individual level. This was a tribal society with little respect for individual freedom -- nothing even remotely resembling a libertopia.
Furthermore, there was not federalism as you suggest. If you didn't like how your clan or tribe was governed, tough. You didn't get to choose your family. There is no Scripture to suggest that there was ready free movement between tribes and clans.
As for stoning homosexuals and whatnot -- you are supporting a Biblical government that derives its laws from Scripture. You provided examples with taxation and tort reform. If your basis for importing these laws is that Scripture provided for them in ancient Israel, why are you not including provisions for killing homosexuals and non-Christians, which are also clearly stated in the Mosaic law? By your own logic, you must support such a law.
Finally, like you, I completely support decentralized government where people make decisions and take responsiblility for their own lives. But I recognize that such a government does not derive from Scripture.
Jonathan, I think that we're on the same page. But Jim Walls is not. At the practical level, you won't be able to separate prophetic politics from civil government politics. It is true that the OT prophets could be very critical of their kings, including on social justice issues. We'd like to be able to separate these two activities, but when you actually stand up and speak 'prophesy' about some government activity, you will inevitably take a stand or a side on a political issue.
I say all of this assuming, perhaps wrongly, that we're defining prophetic ministry in the same way.
How would your congregations respond if a prophet stood in the pulpit and proclaimed:
"Hear the word of the Lord which has come upon me! Thus says the Lord, I made men and women to be free, and yet you have prevented women from making reproductive choices of their own. Let all such laws be removed so that women may live peacefully and prosper. Let government funding be used to underwrite such activity. Hear and obey the word of the Lord, lest I come to smite this nation!"
Or how about this:
"Hear the word of the Lord which has come upon me! Thus says the Lord, I have made each child in love, therefore let no child be murdered in his womb. The government of this wicked land has even used its own silver to pay for this wickedness! Let this slaughter stop, or I will smite this nation!"
Or how about this:
"Hear the word of the Lord which has come upon me! Hear the word of the Lord, the scourge of homosexuality has fallen upon this nation. Let the evil of sodomy be stamped out, as I proscribed in my law. Let these wicked men be stoned, according to my will, or I will strike down this nation into the hands of Canada!"
How would your congregations respond? How should they respond?
I am defining prophetic politics correctly?
John, you've read me enough to know that I simply talk for the most part in "ideal world" language. I'm sure I get written off for that. But hey, that's what the Kingdom of God is all about, I think.
In response to your questions I suppose I would ask- Why is the prophet asking these questions to his/her congregation and not the leaders who make those decisions.
I would envision the whole congregation as being the prophet- many people with many different gifts, theological perspectives, different ideologies, and yes even different political affiliations.
But it is through discernment- communal prayer asking "What is God calling us to do/Who is God calling us to be that the prophet communally discovers the stands that God calls God's people to take TOGETHER. If that stands means putting pressure on our leaders to change policies and legislation, then so be it.
“. . . including provisions for killing homosexuals and non-Christians, which are also clearly stated in the Mosaic law? By your own logic, you must support such a law.”
John:
You’re obsessed with stoning homosexuals. OK I’ll bite. You’re a Christian libertarian, I think. If I buy 100 acres in west Texas, move there with all my like minded bible thumping friends, incorporate as a town, pass a law requiring that we stone all the homosexuals that live in town after church on Sunday and post that law at the city limits, what’s your reaction? Are you going to use force to impose you views on a community of consenting adults? Are you doing that as a Christian or a libertarian?
Let me add a requirement. We also pass a law that says to live in our town you must sign a statement that you are not a homosexual and understand the consequences if you are caught in a homosexual act. We also post signs all over town that say “Homosexual acts are punishable by death by stoning.”
For the record (and I can't believe that it is necessary to say this) I am completely against any laws which criminalize homosexual conduct or status.
What I am saying is that your position that the Bible provides a guide for sound government policymaking is in error, because doing so would inevitably lead to the criminalization of homosexuality because the Bible mandated it for the Israelites.
If you are going to take the Bible as your starting point for government policymaking then logically you must criminalize homosexuality, idolatry, and a number of other activities that our government thankfully permits.
And that I why I agree with Jonah Goldberg that the Bible simply doesn't have much to add to the realm of political philosophy.
John:
First, I should have said “obsessed with accusing me of wanting to stone homosexuals.” Second, I didn’t think you would answer my question. Being tolerant of others religious beliefs is hard for many libertarians. If you are going to be a libertarian, you have to let all consenting adults live as they wish, even the religious ones. Note in my example, everybody agreed in writing to live by the rules and we did it on private property.
Good luck with the Blog. Although, I’m a little disappointed that you are not a little stronger libertarian, I do enjoy the Methodist roundup
“If you are going to take the Bible as your starting point for government policymaking then logically you must criminalize homosexuality, idolatry, and a number of other activities that our government thankfully permits.”
Let me agree that some Christians and non-Christians will reach this conclusion. My point is that not ALL Christians and atheists will reach this conclusion just as all the tribes of Israel did not agree on every interpretation of the Torah. If our government structure limits the ability of any group to impose their will on those who disagree, then we can all go to our “place in peace” and you wouldn’t have to be so afraid of Bible believing Christians. Read Federalist 10 for Madison’s view on democracy and what happens if you apply it across millions of people instead of tens. Then, think about what it would mean in this country to return to the idea that the ability to legislate just about everything belongs to the states and going further down the chain to the people in the form a county or town government.
Just because I believe the Bible is consistent with Madison’s ideas doesn’t make them wrong.
One last note, I never noticed this before but it looks like the Jews voted to accept the Lord’s covenant. Thanks for helping me see this.
Exo 19:3 And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel;
Exo 19:4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.
Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
Exo 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
Exo 19:7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him.
Exo 19:8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.
Anonymous, you are continuing to insert red herrings into this argument. I am a libertarian. I am a Christian.
I do not, however, accept the Bible, especially the Mosaic Law, as a basis for sound government policymaking in modern times. You have insisted that it is. I have pointed out that logically, if you follow this approach to government policymaking, then the result would be tyrannical, despotic acts such as executing the homosexual population. You have not addressed this flaw in your argument
Let me agree that some Christians and non-Christians will reach this conclusion. My point is that not ALL Christians and atheists will reach this conclusion just as all the tribes of Israel did not agree on every interpretation of the Torah.
Really? You're taking a literalist approach to applying Biblical law to modern policymaking with Social Security, taxation, and the death penalty. Why stop there? By your reasoning, we should import the entire OT law into modern policymaking.
Read Federalist 10 for Madison’s view on democracy and what happens if you apply it across millions of people instead of tens.
Federalist # 10 has nothing to do with this discussion. I completely advocate libertarian government. I am not in disagreement with you here. What I am saying is that you cannot reach the conclusion that the Bible supports libertarian governance. You have yet to provide Biblical citations to support your claim. Nevermind Madison. If the Bible actually supports your argument, then show me.
“You're taking a literalist approach to applying Biblical law to modern policymaking with Social Security, taxation, and the death penalty. Why stop there? By your reasoning, we should import the entire OT law into modern policymaking.”
I already admitted the point. The question back to you was, if I implement a literalist approach it in a county in West Texas with a group of consenting adults, what does it matter to you? You don’t have to live there. It only matters if you implement it on a national level. That’s why having rulers of 10’s is a libertarian approach. My ruler doesn’t have any say over you.
The Bible doesn’t address Social Security because it is unbiblical. The Amish have already litigated this in court and before congress and won. That’s why they don’t have to pay into it.
I think my first post addressed the death penalty as directly as it can be addressed. As for taxes, if you can’t make the intellectual leap between grain and dollars then that’s OK. I’ll look around for a parallel verse with shekels in it.
Doubt your still reading this, but you might check these articles out just to see that my ideas not without support:
http://www.townhall.com/phillysoc/reformat.htm
“Johannes Althusius, extolled: "I consider that no polity from the beginning of the world has been more wisely and perfectly constructed than the polity of the Jews. We err, I believe, whenever in similar circumstances we depart from it." Part of what he had in mind as unimproveable was an early form of republican-federal government.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy35.html
“American traditions of federalism and secession, and is related to the principles behind the Catholic doctrine of subsidiarity and the federalism of the great Protestant thinker Johannes Althusius.”
http://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles2/althus-fed.htm
“As Althusius himself was careful to acknowledge, the first grand federalist design was that of the Bible, most particularly the Hebrew Scriptures or Old Testament.6 For him, it also was the best -- the ideal polity based on right principles. Biblical thought is federal from first to last”
Anonymous, I see that you have a great interest in any Biblical foundation for federalism. That's nice. You can beat that drum as much as you like, but it still will not support your premises that (a) the Bible provides a reasonable source for modern policymaking and (b) that the government of ancient Israel was libertarian.
It's nice that various political philosophers harken back to Christian thinking. But show me Scripture which supports your premises. Nevermind Althusias and Madison. If you're going to argue that Scripture supports your argument, you actually have to show it with Scripture.
"(a) the Bible provides a reasonable source for modern policymaking"
I've given examples and sighted scripture, ie limiting punitive awards to 20% of actual damages, etc. I think that you just disagree that the examples I have given are reasonable solutions.
"(b) that the government of ancient Israel was libertarian.
I didn't say that the ancient government of Israel was libertarian per se, just that unless you have a government that is structured in a very similiar decentralized manner that you can't have a libertarian government.
Post a Comment