Friday, August 01, 2003
Christianity Today, March 2, 1998
Should We Give Up on Government?
Christians are flirting with libertarianism, but it is not a biblical
option.
Ronald J. Sider & Fred Clark
Like many Americans these days, John Stagliano loves his country but hates
his government. The entrepreneur and self-made millionaire views government
as a necessary evil at best and, at worst, a restrictive and regulatory
nightmare intent on usurping his personal and economic liberties.
Stagliano's antipathy is directed not only at the current Congress or
administration, but at government itself. He is a major, outspoken
contributor to the Cato Institute, an influential libertarian think tank.
Groups like Cato have moved political debate away from discussions of good
government versus bad government. Their presumption is that government, by
definition, is bad. So the debate becomes big government versus small
government.
G. K. Chesterton said, "The poor object to being governed badly, while the
rich object to being governed at all." This is especially true of rich
people like Stagliano, who makes his fortune in an industry that is
particularly prone to government "interference": pornography. Stagliano
produces and directs hard-core sex videos. His company, Evil Angel Video, is
one of the leading players in America's $8-billion-a-year trade in sexually
explicit material.
Fatal attraction
Perhaps it is not surprising that libertarianism is an attractive philosophy
for a millionaire pornographer. What is surprising is the extent to which
libertarian ideas have begun to influence politically active Christians,
especially evangelicals.
We evangelicals are experiencing an adolescent growth spurt in our political
engagement and thinking. Still heady with the zeal of newfound political
activism, we haven't yet demonstrated the patience or discipline for
sustained political reflection, for engaging the centuries-long conversation
on Christianity and politics, on statecraft, and on the proper role and
responsibilities of the civil authorities instituted by God.
Nature abhors a vacuum. To the extent that we have failed to adopt a
biblical, Christian understanding, we have instead adapted to the prevailing
ideologies of our secular culture. This ideological vacuum has left
evangelicals particularly susceptible to ideologies shaped by our
individualist, modern culture and the logical conclusion of individualistic
liberalism: libertarianism.
Libertarianism permits only an extremely limited role for government in
maintaining civic order and providing national defense. It is attractive for
its simplicity and its "one-size-fits-all" principle of individual liberty.
This pro-choice-on-everything framework clashes with the Christian
insistence that what one chooses also matters, and that some choices must be
limited or prohibited for the common good. The trump card of unlimited
individual liberty leads libertarians to many conclusions traditionally
opposed by Christians and social conservatives, including support for
abortion on demand, same-sex marriage, and unregulated markets in
pornography and narcotics (hence its attraction for John Stagliano).
Can libertarianism be reconciled with the Christian understanding that
government is "instituted by God" as "God's servant for your good" (Rom.
13:1, 4)? To their credit, some Christian libertarians take great pains to
distinguish their views from those of secular libertarian thinkers. The
problem, of course, is that it is difficult to do so. Evangelical Doug
Bandow of the Cato Institute asserts, "Libertarianism is not synonymous with
libertinism," but he has a hard time explaining why. His libertarian
colleagues David Boaz and Charles Murray, or Massachusetts governor William
Weld, still seem unconvinced. Michael Uhlmann, a Catholic fellow at the
conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, finds the very idea of
Christian libertarianism puzzling, owing "more to John Stuart Mill than to
anything distinctly Christian."
The influence of libertarianism has led many evangelicals to adopt a starkly
antagonistic view of the responsibilities of government and the church, the
public and the private sectors. Operating from this either/or perspective,
some argue that since individual Christians are commanded to care for the
poor, it must not be any of the government's business. But such a conclusion
requires that we dismiss the large body of biblical teaching that says the
government has a responsibility to care for the poor. It also ignores
centuries of biblically based Christian thought and teaching on the distinct
but complementary roles of state, family, and church (exemplified in the
Catholic idea of "subsidiarity" and the Reformed concept of "sphere
sovereignty").
Critics of government programs, such as Marvin Olasky, are right to point
out the ways in which government has sometimes failed miserably to meet its
responsibilities, but it does not follow that the state therefore does not
have any such responsibilities. It is also true that some of the best work
empowering the poor is being done by faith-based nonprofit agencies, but
that does not absolve other actors—governments, neighbors, relatives—from
fulfilling their respective, God-given responsibilities as well.
What's a king to do?
We should be extremely cautious in giving up on government. Before we do so
we ought to examine the long history of Christian political thinking that we
would be rejecting. It should give us pause that Augustine, Thomas Aquinas,
Luther, Calvin, and Wesley all taught that the emperor, king, prince, civil
magistrate, or elected officials were the servants of God, ordained for the
common good.
The past century of Catholic social teaching and the Reformed tradition of
Abraham Kuyper offer rich, instructive perspectives. These Christian
movements were both unflinching in their opposition to state socialism and
deeply suspicious of state intrusion into other areas of civil society. Yet
they were equally adamant that government, under God, has a legitimate and
necessary role to play, including doing justice for the poor and the
disadvantaged. Kuyper, a theologian and a politician who was elected prime
minister of the Netherlands, said in a speech, "God the Lord unmistakably
instituted the basic rule for the duty of government. Government exists to
administer his justice on earth, and to uphold that justice."
"The poor object to being governed badly,
while the rich object ot being governed at all.
Our task as evangelicals—because we are evangelicals—is to study this rich
Christian tradition in the light of biblical revelation. Scripture is our
bottom line, and our understandings of the role of state (as well as church,
commerce, families, and individuals) must be shaped by biblical principles.
Throughout the Bible, God held leaders responsible to actively seek justice
for the poor. Psalm 72 is a prayer for the king: "Give the king your
justice, O God, and your righteousness to a king's son. May he judge your
people with righteousness, and your poor with justice" (vv. 1-2, NRSV). The
two key words here, justice and righteousness, pertain both to the legal
system and to the economic order. The prophets condemn those who deprive
people of the land that would enable them to earn their own way (see Isa.
5:8-9) and call on the king to correct such injustice. "May [the king]
defend the cause of the poor of the people…and crush the oppressor" (Ps.
72:4).
Nehemiah 5 offers a fascinating example of using government power to correct
economic injustice. The nobles were taking the lands of the poor and selling
their children into slavery. Nehemiah, the top government official,
denounces this abuse and compels the rich to return everything: "Restore
them, this very day, their fields, their vineyards, their olive orchards,
and their houses and the interest on money, grain, wine, and oil that you
have been exacting from them" (v. 11).
The king's responsibility for justice means more than merely maintaining
unbiased courts; the just king also strengthens the weak, heals the sick,
and binds up the crippled (Ezek. 34:4, 16, 23). The king must seek justice
as God does (Ps. 72:4)—and remember, it is the Lord "who executes justice
for the orphan and the widow, and who loves the strangers, providing them
food and clothing" (Deut. 10:18).
Interestingly, these norms apply not just to Israel's rulers, but to rulers
everywhere. Daniel 4:27 calls Nebuchadnezzar to bring justice and mercy to
the oppressed. Proverbs 31 directs King Lemuel (probably a northern Arabian
monarch) to "defend the rights of the poor and needy."
None of this means that the government is the only institution or agency
responsible to empower the poor. Individuals and congregations are commanded
to share sacrificially with the poor. We also need a vast array of
nongovernmental institutions in society that lift up the needy. Often, in
fact, these intermediate institutions will do the job better than
governmental agencies.
But it is simply unbiblical to claim that government has no responsibility
to seek justice for the poor. Government is God's servant for good. Part of
its God-given task is to make sure that the poorest have the resources to
earn their own living.
Ronald J. Sider is president of Evangelicals for Social Action. Fred Clark
is the managing editor of Prism magazine.
Should We Give Up on Government?
Christians are flirting with libertarianism, but it is not a biblical
option.
Ronald J. Sider & Fred Clark
Like many Americans these days, John Stagliano loves his country but hates
his government. The entrepreneur and self-made millionaire views government
as a necessary evil at best and, at worst, a restrictive and regulatory
nightmare intent on usurping his personal and economic liberties.
Stagliano's antipathy is directed not only at the current Congress or
administration, but at government itself. He is a major, outspoken
contributor to the Cato Institute, an influential libertarian think tank.
Groups like Cato have moved political debate away from discussions of good
government versus bad government. Their presumption is that government, by
definition, is bad. So the debate becomes big government versus small
government.
G. K. Chesterton said, "The poor object to being governed badly, while the
rich object to being governed at all." This is especially true of rich
people like Stagliano, who makes his fortune in an industry that is
particularly prone to government "interference": pornography. Stagliano
produces and directs hard-core sex videos. His company, Evil Angel Video, is
one of the leading players in America's $8-billion-a-year trade in sexually
explicit material.
Fatal attraction
Perhaps it is not surprising that libertarianism is an attractive philosophy
for a millionaire pornographer. What is surprising is the extent to which
libertarian ideas have begun to influence politically active Christians,
especially evangelicals.
We evangelicals are experiencing an adolescent growth spurt in our political
engagement and thinking. Still heady with the zeal of newfound political
activism, we haven't yet demonstrated the patience or discipline for
sustained political reflection, for engaging the centuries-long conversation
on Christianity and politics, on statecraft, and on the proper role and
responsibilities of the civil authorities instituted by God.
Nature abhors a vacuum. To the extent that we have failed to adopt a
biblical, Christian understanding, we have instead adapted to the prevailing
ideologies of our secular culture. This ideological vacuum has left
evangelicals particularly susceptible to ideologies shaped by our
individualist, modern culture and the logical conclusion of individualistic
liberalism: libertarianism.
Libertarianism permits only an extremely limited role for government in
maintaining civic order and providing national defense. It is attractive for
its simplicity and its "one-size-fits-all" principle of individual liberty.
This pro-choice-on-everything framework clashes with the Christian
insistence that what one chooses also matters, and that some choices must be
limited or prohibited for the common good. The trump card of unlimited
individual liberty leads libertarians to many conclusions traditionally
opposed by Christians and social conservatives, including support for
abortion on demand, same-sex marriage, and unregulated markets in
pornography and narcotics (hence its attraction for John Stagliano).
Can libertarianism be reconciled with the Christian understanding that
government is "instituted by God" as "God's servant for your good" (Rom.
13:1, 4)? To their credit, some Christian libertarians take great pains to
distinguish their views from those of secular libertarian thinkers. The
problem, of course, is that it is difficult to do so. Evangelical Doug
Bandow of the Cato Institute asserts, "Libertarianism is not synonymous with
libertinism," but he has a hard time explaining why. His libertarian
colleagues David Boaz and Charles Murray, or Massachusetts governor William
Weld, still seem unconvinced. Michael Uhlmann, a Catholic fellow at the
conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, finds the very idea of
Christian libertarianism puzzling, owing "more to John Stuart Mill than to
anything distinctly Christian."
The influence of libertarianism has led many evangelicals to adopt a starkly
antagonistic view of the responsibilities of government and the church, the
public and the private sectors. Operating from this either/or perspective,
some argue that since individual Christians are commanded to care for the
poor, it must not be any of the government's business. But such a conclusion
requires that we dismiss the large body of biblical teaching that says the
government has a responsibility to care for the poor. It also ignores
centuries of biblically based Christian thought and teaching on the distinct
but complementary roles of state, family, and church (exemplified in the
Catholic idea of "subsidiarity" and the Reformed concept of "sphere
sovereignty").
Critics of government programs, such as Marvin Olasky, are right to point
out the ways in which government has sometimes failed miserably to meet its
responsibilities, but it does not follow that the state therefore does not
have any such responsibilities. It is also true that some of the best work
empowering the poor is being done by faith-based nonprofit agencies, but
that does not absolve other actors—governments, neighbors, relatives—from
fulfilling their respective, God-given responsibilities as well.
What's a king to do?
We should be extremely cautious in giving up on government. Before we do so
we ought to examine the long history of Christian political thinking that we
would be rejecting. It should give us pause that Augustine, Thomas Aquinas,
Luther, Calvin, and Wesley all taught that the emperor, king, prince, civil
magistrate, or elected officials were the servants of God, ordained for the
common good.
The past century of Catholic social teaching and the Reformed tradition of
Abraham Kuyper offer rich, instructive perspectives. These Christian
movements were both unflinching in their opposition to state socialism and
deeply suspicious of state intrusion into other areas of civil society. Yet
they were equally adamant that government, under God, has a legitimate and
necessary role to play, including doing justice for the poor and the
disadvantaged. Kuyper, a theologian and a politician who was elected prime
minister of the Netherlands, said in a speech, "God the Lord unmistakably
instituted the basic rule for the duty of government. Government exists to
administer his justice on earth, and to uphold that justice."
"The poor object to being governed badly,
while the rich object ot being governed at all.
Our task as evangelicals—because we are evangelicals—is to study this rich
Christian tradition in the light of biblical revelation. Scripture is our
bottom line, and our understandings of the role of state (as well as church,
commerce, families, and individuals) must be shaped by biblical principles.
Throughout the Bible, God held leaders responsible to actively seek justice
for the poor. Psalm 72 is a prayer for the king: "Give the king your
justice, O God, and your righteousness to a king's son. May he judge your
people with righteousness, and your poor with justice" (vv. 1-2, NRSV). The
two key words here, justice and righteousness, pertain both to the legal
system and to the economic order. The prophets condemn those who deprive
people of the land that would enable them to earn their own way (see Isa.
5:8-9) and call on the king to correct such injustice. "May [the king]
defend the cause of the poor of the people…and crush the oppressor" (Ps.
72:4).
Nehemiah 5 offers a fascinating example of using government power to correct
economic injustice. The nobles were taking the lands of the poor and selling
their children into slavery. Nehemiah, the top government official,
denounces this abuse and compels the rich to return everything: "Restore
them, this very day, their fields, their vineyards, their olive orchards,
and their houses and the interest on money, grain, wine, and oil that you
have been exacting from them" (v. 11).
The king's responsibility for justice means more than merely maintaining
unbiased courts; the just king also strengthens the weak, heals the sick,
and binds up the crippled (Ezek. 34:4, 16, 23). The king must seek justice
as God does (Ps. 72:4)—and remember, it is the Lord "who executes justice
for the orphan and the widow, and who loves the strangers, providing them
food and clothing" (Deut. 10:18).
Interestingly, these norms apply not just to Israel's rulers, but to rulers
everywhere. Daniel 4:27 calls Nebuchadnezzar to bring justice and mercy to
the oppressed. Proverbs 31 directs King Lemuel (probably a northern Arabian
monarch) to "defend the rights of the poor and needy."
None of this means that the government is the only institution or agency
responsible to empower the poor. Individuals and congregations are commanded
to share sacrificially with the poor. We also need a vast array of
nongovernmental institutions in society that lift up the needy. Often, in
fact, these intermediate institutions will do the job better than
governmental agencies.
But it is simply unbiblical to claim that government has no responsibility
to seek justice for the poor. Government is God's servant for good. Part of
its God-given task is to make sure that the poorest have the resources to
earn their own living.
Ronald J. Sider is president of Evangelicals for Social Action. Fred Clark
is the managing editor of Prism magazine.
Comments:
Post a Comment
