In our recent discussion on Christian commonalities with libertarianism, Brian of Growing Vertical left a comment so interesting that I've decided to quote it here in full:
I appreciated Bryan's comments on Romans 13 and 1 Samuel 8. I find verse 7 of 1 Samuel 8 very informative.
And the LORD said to Samuel, "Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them.
Israel wanted a king, a new form of government. In rejecting the former government, the Lord said they were rejecting Him. What was that previous form of government?
In Exodus 18, Jethro directed Moses to establish representatives, chosen by the people, who would judge between cases. It was an appellate court. From a human perspective, the entire "government" of Israel was a representative appellate court.
God established three spheres of authority: the family, the Church, and the state. A family is responsible for itself, for training the children, for providing for the elderly and infirm within it. The Church has the responsibilities of the Gospel, the Sacraments, discipline for restoration. The Church is also responsible for widows and orphans - those without families to protect them. The State is responsible for justice.
Statism is alway antichrist. That may sound like a strong statement, but consider the "preamble" to the Ten Commandments:
I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
The moral law is binding to us, because the Lord is our deliverer, our Savior. Christ has delivered us out of the kingdom of darkness, therefore we are bound to obey Him.When the state oversteps its responsibility and begins claiming the responsibilities of the other spheres, it operates outside God's established order.
When a state assumes the right to train the children, to care for the widows and orphans, it robs the family and the Church of their responsibilities.When a state steps in to provide welfare, to deliver you from disappointment and provide for your material comfort, the state has assumed the position of Savior. As a savior, the state can demand your obedience.
Consider again Romans 13:1
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
Ever soul should be subject to the governing authorities, not because the state is their Savior, but because the authorities that exist are appointed by God.I have the same problem when a pastor wants to take Ephesians 5 and make it a legalistic passage. Wives submit to husbands and husbands love their wives, not because the husband is Lord or because the wife is beautiful and perfect. There is mutual love and respect in marriage because Christ so loved the Church. Ephesians 5 should not be separated from Ephesians 1-3. You love your wife because Christ is your Savior. You submit to your husband because Christ is your Savior. And what you are really doing is loving Christ and submitting to Christ.
And so with the state. In America, we have a government which is of the people, by the people and for the people. It is our duty as Christians, in so far as we are able, to work together to bring the state back into its Biblical sphere of responsibility.
That is why I believe a Christian should be a libertarian, a minarchist, a Constitutionalist.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I'm not sure that I agree or disagree with his final conclusion. I would disagree with the conclusiveness of it. There are many possible ways to live within a state and I'm not sure that libertarianism is the only (or even necessarily, a good) solution.
One comment I do have is about this:
God established three spheres of authority: the family, the Church, and the state.
When people state things like this with this sort of air of authority ("GOD DID THIS...") - especially when it is not a direct quote from the Bible - it raises the hair on my arms.
I'd prefer he had said something along the lines of, "It seems to me that God established..."
No where in the Bible does it speak with such authority on what "spheres of authority" God did or did not establish.
Not that I'm disagreeing that those are three legitimate spheres of authority so much as I'm objecting to the "God established" part.
I mean, one could add the sphere of community in there as well. One could also add the sphere of a specifically believers' community, too. Which may or may not be equivalent to "church," depending upon who you ask and how you do church.
How about the sphere of authority of Nature?
Seeing as how God in no place in the Bible expressly said "Here are my legitimate spheres of authority" and "Here is the one way I think gov't ought to be done," I'd have preferred Brian taken a less dogmatic tone.
That would be my initial opinion.
Dan,
Let me begin by thanking you for your critique. Believe me, the last thing the Church needs is another person saying "Thus saith the Lord" when the Lord has not said it.
You were right to critique me on this. And I truly do appreciate it.
I have no interest in defending anything that I have said, simply because I said it. That is a terrible and worthless reason.
However, we are discussing a Biblical model of government. There is nothing more important than getting this right. What we must do is look at this very carefully from Scripture and determine what exactly the Biblical model of government is. But remember, the context for finding the Biblical model of anything is not this verse or that verse, but Genesis 1:1-Revelation 22:21.
So, in defense of what I said, let me offer these points.
First, is the example of the word covenant. In 2 Samuel 7, Nathan tells David of God's promises specifically to him and his descendants. What is interesting in this passage is that the word covenant does not appear. Not once.
Yet, in 2 Samuel 23, David's last words, the king said,
Although my house is not so with God, Yet He has made with me an everlasting covenant, Ordered in all things and secure. For this is all my salvation and all my desire; Will He not make it increase?
David did not need the Lord to specifically use the word covenant to know that the Lord had just made a covenant with him. If you ask my children, "What is a covenant?" They will promptly answer, "A relationship that God establishes with us and guarantees by his word." David knew this, too, so when God established a relationship with him and guaranteed it by His word, David recognized it as a covenant.
Second, by whose authority do we live? We have only two choices. Jesus prayed
Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.
We can follow God's authority or we can follow man's authority. That seems simple to differentiate in matters of religion or spirituality, but not so simple when discussing education, art, health, or government. Yet, God's word is truth. So God's word must guide us in all things.
The serpent tempted Eve in Genesis 3:5 by saying
For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.
He tempted her with absolute authority. He tempted her with the potential to be God herself. But absolute authority belongs only to God. All other authority must have a system of checks & balances to keep it limited.
And so, we see in Deuteronomy 6:7
You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.
the responsibility to educate the children is granted to the parents, not the state.
In Matthew 16:19, Jesus gives to Peter, representing the church, the responsibility of church discipline:
And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
He did not delegate church discipline to either the family or the state.
In Romans 13:4, Paul said of the state:
For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.
God delegated the authority to protect the citizenry to the point of executing criminals to the state. You may recall there was a time in Israel's history when this was given to the avenger, a blood relative. There are to be no more blood feuds, no more Hatfields and McCoys. The state is to administer justice.
Yet, there is a limit even in this. There is the matter of the individual defending himself and his family in the absence of the state.
If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. Exodus 22:2
Notice that there shall be no guilt. This does not mean that an individual has free rein to take the law into his own hands. Instead this is a legal immunity for the individual who defends himself or his family. In today's terms, we might say, "No court would find him guilty." Or, this means that we should be able to say, "No court would find him guilty."
So, all that to say that when God does delegate in His Word authority to the family over some responsibilities, and He delegates in His Word authority to the church over some responsibilities, and He delegates in His Word authority to the state over some responsibilities, it does indeed seem to me that He has established these three spheres of authority as a system of checks and balances to prevent any one of them from usurping absolute authority over the others.
I do apologize that I did not develop this further in my original comment. I had considered this to be rather secondary to my primary argument. But I am glad for the opportunity to develop it further. I hope that this helped.
Now I'll take a moment in the "terrible and worthless" pursuit of defending my conclusion:
As to concluding on the side of libertarianism, let me say this. I do believe that libertarianism or classical liberalism was influenced at its root by Christian principles. However, much of libertarianism has departed from those principles. Today, libertarianism seeks to limit the government for external reasons. Primary to libertarianism is the individual and his rights - life, liberty, the pursuit of iPods.
This is the opposite of my reason for limiting the state. I see an intrinsic limit on the state. And, yes, I believe that God placed that intrinsic limit there. God only allowed so much authority for the state and no more.
The libertarian wishes to limit the government for the sake of an individual's rights. I wish to limit the government for the sake of God's rights. But we both wish to limit the government.
Samuel Edward Konkin III coined the term minarchism to abbreviate the phrase limited government libertarian about thirty years ago. If the World's Smallest Political Quiz is correct in defining minarchism as the belief that "government's only purpose is to protect people from coercion and violence," and that matches Romans 13:4 admirably well, then I do conclude that minarchism is a Biblical perspective on government.
By definition, I am indeed a libertarian, a minarchist, and a Constitutionalist. Whether I agree with every underpinning or current expression of those philosophies is another matter entirely.
Let's keep this discussion going.
Brian, you bring to the table an interesting interpretation of Romans 13:4 that I had not contemplated before. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that this passage provides grounds for governmental authority to, in your definition of minarchism, "government's only purpose is to protect people from coercion and violence". This seems to be quite a stretch from Romans 13:4, which does not make an even oblique reference to the "no harm" principle. What it says is that the state exists to be "God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil." Paul does not then go onto say that evil is limited to coercion and violence.
John,
Thanks. This actually gives me a good opportunity to talk some more about these verses in Romans 13.
Paul wrote Romans from Greece in the mid-fifties - when Nero was emperor. But this was before he began the persecution of Christians for which he is so infamous.
There were zealots among the Jews who considered killing Romans a holy pastime. But there were also Jews who recognized all government authority came from God. After all, this was not a New Testament concept:
Thus says the LORD to His anointed, To Cyrus, whose right hand I have held-- To subdue nations before him And loose the armor of kings, To open before him the double doors, So that the gates will not be shut: Isaiah 45:1
behold, I will send and take all the families of the north,' says the LORD, "and Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, My servant, and will bring them against this land, against its inhabitants, and against these nations all around, and will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, a hissing, and perpetual desolations. Jeremiah 25:9
And they shall drive you from men, and your dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field. They shall make you eat grass like oxen; and seven times shall pass over you, until you know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomever He chooses. Daniel 4:32
They knew that God is truly sovereign over the rulers of this world:
The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes. Proverbs 21:1
Remember that chapter and verse divisions first appeared in the Geneva Bible (IIRC), and were not in the originals. This matter of subjection to government follows Romans 12, being a living sacrifice and how to behave as a Christian. Romans 13:1-6 does not tell rulers how to rule as much as Christians how to be ruled.
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. Romans 13:1a
It would be easy to separate mankind into two groups from this verse: the rulers and the ruled. Actually that is how this verse divides them. It does say every soul, which includes laity and clergy. Everyone is subject to government.
This also does not differentiate between good government and bad government. I've never advocated anarchy or treason. (Although, for the Gospel's sake, there is a place for civil disobedience [Acts 5:29]).
This "strange Jewish sect" was under much suspicion by the governing authorities of the first century. Remember in Acts 17:6, Christians were called "these who have turned the world upside down." Because they did not worship the Roman pantheon or the emperor as god, they were called atheists.
The church had begun in Jerusalem, and that city had a reputation. And you will find in the book of the records and know that this city is a rebellious city, harmful to kings and provinces, and that they have incited sedition within the city in former times, for which cause this city was destroyed. Ezra 4:15
There's enough offense already in telling men that they are sinners in need of a Savior without adding political rebellion. So, for the sake of the Gospel, let every soul be subject to the governing authorities.
This is similar to the case of slavery. Some have wrongly looked to Scripture to defend slavery. (There was a form of slavery condoned, but it was far different from the slave trade of the last millennium). Paul said it was clearly better to be free. But no slave rebellion had ever gone well and they were still centuries before the advent of William Wilberforce. So there was no point.
In both cases, the better solution was to spread the Gospel and let the Holy Spirit change men's hearts. And we have witnessed the great success (and, really, just the beginnings of that success) of those missionary journeys. For a large part of the world, the slave trade is gone and many nations are now democracies.
Times do change. God's Word does not. We must always live according to God's truth. But the times in which we live may present different opportunities for the application of God's truth than have been present for previous generations.
Yes, I'm a minarchist. As a citizen of the U.S.A., I can actually do something about that. I can vote. I can call my elected officials.
What if I lived in North Korea? Fat lot of good it would do me there.
There are places where you have a choice and there are places where you do not have a choice. I believe it is the responsibility of every Christian to study God's Word and know God's Word and apply God's Word to his or her life.
If you live in one of the many democracies in existence in our world, then you should certainly know which form of government is Biblical and what your responsibilities are to that government. I believe Paul is telling us to be good citizens. A good citizen should be informed, and a citizen of a democracy has the opportunity to do something about the issues that arise.
If I have studied my Bible and understand the Biblical role of government and I learn that my government is overstepping its bounds, then I have a responsibility to encourage my government to withdraw and come back within its God-ordained role.
As to Romans 13:4, For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. The ruler is God's minister. The Greek is diakonos, also translated servant and the word from which we get deacon. (Sorry, I just found that interesting).
The state is God's servant. He bears the sword. Beheading was the Roman practice of execution and the sword, previously the axe, was used for this. So it is a direct reference to capital punishment.
The state was to execute him who practices evil.
The definition of minarchism to which John refers was not my definition. As I said it is the definition from the WSPQ. I said that if that definition matched the limit of government in Romans 13:4, then... In Romans 13:1-6, Paul encourages us to be subject to the government. To that end he also provides in verse 4 a reminder to us of our benefit from government. The government executes the one who practices evil.
John references a "no harm" principle. I confess that I don't know what he is referring to. So I can't say anything about that.
However, he does end by saying, "Paul does not then go onto say that evil is limited to coercion and violence." Well, I agree. Paul doesn't limit evil to coercion and violence. That is irrelevant to what I was trying to communicate.
My point was not the extent of evil which the government could or would or should punish. My point was that Romans 13:4 defines the role of government as punishing evil. Not providing health care, farm subsidies, public education, or welfare.
My point was not the extent of evil which the government could or would or should punish. My point was that Romans 13:4 defines the role of government as punishing evil. Not providing health care, farm subsidies, public education, or welfare.
Okay, so can make an argument that Paul does not mention social welfare as a role for the state, and therefore perhaps Christians should not support it. The evidence for this, however, is weak, as Paul does not forbid social welfare.
But minarchism and libertarianism, as I understand them, do not end with economic freedoms, but include personal freedoms as well. If we take the Bible as our model for government, should not homosexual activity be illegal? And, for that matter, idolatry?
Brian -
In Exodus 18, Jethro directed Moses to establish representatives, chosen by the people, who would judge between cases.
First, the representatives were chosen by Moses, not by the people. Maybe that's just a nitpick.
It was an appellate court. From a human perspective, the entire "government" of Israel was a representative appellate court.
Well, yes. Since Israel at the time was essentially a nomadic extended family, it didn't really need much more.
God established three spheres of authority: the family, the Church, and the state.
I don't see how this follows from Exodus 18, or from anywhere in the Bible. Certainly we can find where each of these is referred to as an authority, but where do you find the concept of "spheres"? That seems to me to imply that there cannot be overlap.
However, shouldn't parents talk to their kids about the Gospel? Am I usurping the church's authority when I read my son Bible stories at bedtime? I don't think so.
And what about other authorities, say, in the workplace? The Bible has instructions about work relationships too, and how employers are to act toward their employees.
Furthermore, you say the state is responsible for justice. Does that include social justice? If so, we have overlap between the state and the church.
When a state steps in to provide welfare, to deliver you from disappointment and provide for your material comfort, the state has assumed the position of Savior.
Nonsense. It's a matter of justice. Children sent to school without breakfast, for example, tend to get lower grades than those who are well fed. If their parents are unable or unwilling to feed them, it's the state's responsibility to ensure that they have the opportunity the other children have. Or maybe you've got a very limited view of justice.
That is why I believe a Christian should be a libertarian, a minarchist, a Constitutionalist.
And this is just plain asinine. The Constitution is anti-libertarian. You can't be both.
The evidence for this, however, is weak, as Paul does not forbid social welfare.
Perhaps not in this one verse. However, look at the whole context of Scripture. I've already quoted from Deuteronomy 6 that God delegated the responsibility for education to parents. There is that instance in Daniel 1 where you see a state in charge of education, however it is the pagan nation of Babylon, hardly the model of Biblical government. Considering, however, that the state does bear the sword, there is certainly a place for state military academies.
A few years later, Paul wrote to Timothy:
Honor widows who are really widows. But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show piety at home and to repay their parents; for this is good and acceptable before God. Now she who is really a widow, and left alone, trusts in God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day. 1 Timothy 5:3-5
God delegated the first responsibility for widows to families. But those who are really widows are cared for by the church.
In that same passage, Paul went on to say:
But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. v. 8
Jesus had also said in Mark 7:9, 10
All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. For Moses said, "Honor your father and your mother"; and, "He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death."
Jesus acknowledged the responsibility of individuals to care for their own families to the extent of the death penalty for failure.
No, Paul did not specifically forbid social welfare in Romans 13:4. He didn't have to.
Back at the beginning of this discussion, we quoted 1 Samuel 8:7
And the LORD said to Samuel, "Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them."
That's really the bottom line in all of this. Do we want to be ruled by God or by man?
Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed. John 8:36
And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!" Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. Galatians 4:6, 7
Freedom in Christ or slave to a state?
John also asked:
If we take the Bible as our model for government, should not homosexual activity be illegal? And, for that matter, idolatry?
Let's back up a little. How is any of this supposed to happen? Are we supposed to assemble a million man march? Boycott the latest Disney movie?
No, we should remember Zechariah 4:6
Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit
and Psalm 127:1
Unless the LORD builds the house, They labor in vain who build it
Of our Lord, Isaiah 42:6 says
He will not fail nor be discouraged, Till He has established justice in the earth; And the coastlands shall wait for His law.
So, until then we must continue to go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that He has commanded us.
What I've been saying throughout this whole conversation, I see as just one part of that last clause. Our primary objective is making disciples. Our secondary objective is teaching those disciples the doctrines of Christ.
What I've been wanting to communicate is this: God intended for us to be self-governing individuals. He gave His Law, which was to be read every seven years. When there were disputes on the Law, He established an appellate court of elected representative judges. Families take care of themselves, and the Church takes care of those without families. This is God's way and those who follow it are blessed in it. But when the Church tries to run the state or the state tries to run the family, things do not go nearly so well. And it becomes a compounding error. The more the state controls, the more freedoms the individuals surrender to the state. Now the state is breaking God's Law, so they are cursed. The family is not taking care of the family, so they are cursed. The Church is not proclaiming the Word of God to draw all of these back into their proper roles, so they are cursed, too. So it's a situation that just keeps getting worse. Until someone acknowledges God's revealed will on these matters and does something about it.
If the whole counsel of God's Word were taught regularly throughout the Church, then as we make disciples and teach them, we will see more freedom throughout the world. We've seen many "third world" countries reached in one generation that in subsequent generations become "developed" countries. That's not the end goal, but that is one of the many benefits of Christianity.
Okay, now back to that question. All that was to say that none of this "perfect law of liberty" comes by imposition. That's about as fool-proof as Prohibition. No, it is embraced as the nations are discipled. That is what was promised in the New Covenant:
I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Jeremiah 31:33
It's what we pray for every day:
Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven.
Consider, isn't You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind His will? If people on earth are loving the Lord with all their hearts, souls, and minds, there's been a whole lot of regeneration going on. There has been a major revival.
Rather sounds like Psalm 37:
For yet a little while and the wicked shall be no more; Indeed, you will look carefully for his place, But it shall be no more. But the meek shall inherit the earth, And shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace. v. 10, 11
What we don't want to do is choose to obey one verse and ignore another. God has placed a wonderful protection in His Law:
One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established. Deuteronomy 19:15
There must be two or three witnesses to any act before it can be prosecuted. No one can be prosecuted because of their orientation alone. Its not about "hate crimes", its about eyewitness of concrete acts. This was the basis of the 9th Commandment. False witnesses got the punishment intended for the defendant.
The result of this would be that the things you mentioned would no longer be practiced publicly. If you're supposing there would be mass extermination of homosexuals, you've really missed this point. What you don't want to happen is for a humanist state to ever determine that homosexuality is wrong, because they will not have these Biblical safeguards in place and there would be a holocaust.
If the whole program of Biblical law were taken, you would have a very just society.
Have you considered that there were no prisons in the Law? I have a cousin who cannot stay out of prison. No, he's not a drug dealer. He just had the wrong girl divorce him. She had her daddy arrange with the other business owners he knew that no one would hire my cousin. So he couldn't get a job. But he still owed child support. So now he's in jail for getting behind. Only he's not allowed to work while he's in jail, so his debt is growing while he's not allowed to contribute to it. When he's given parole, there's not time to get a decent job (not that anyone wants to give a decent job to anyone with a criminal record) and certainly not time to pay off his child support. So he's arrested and goes right back in to not earning any money. That is about as unBiblical as a "justice" system can be.
Under the Law of God, my cousin should have gone to work for his ex-father-in-law to pay off his debt. And, his ex-father-in-law would have been required to provide him with "starter" to getting back on his feet after he payed off the debt.
How about poverty?
At the end of every third year you shall bring out the tithe of your produce of that year and store it up within your gates. And the Levite, because he has no portion nor inheritance with you, and the stranger and the fatherless and the widow who are within your gates, may come and eat and be satisfied, that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do. Deuteronomy 14:28, 29
Most of us know about the tithe we're supposed to bring every week (10% of gross - Proverbs 3:9). But how many of us are also contributing another tithe every third year to the poor? If 1/3 of the world really were Christian and were doing this, how long before poverty was ended? (okay, according to Adherents.com, 2.1 billion Christians... according to World Bank 2003, avg income $8,200... so that would be $1.7 trillion donated to poverty every three years.)
Post a Comment