If you oppose a government program, someone will suggest that you “hate” the people on the receiving end of the government largesse.
Surely, however, it is a simple minded error to assume that if the government does not help someone then nobody will do so? Isn’t it more dubious to claim that aid from the government has the same impact on a person as money from a private person or charity?
Government growth leads to a decline in personal liberty. Liberty is good and so helping others using government (which may or may not be good) will surely lead to a decline in another good.
Isn’t the question how much loss of liberty can be tolerated? Some government is necessary (and mandated by God), but that does not mean all goods should come through government. The left sees this truth in the area of sexual morality, but forgets it in the area of economics.
So here is my basic truth for today: Opposition to government programs does not equal a lack of support for the people who would receive them.
March 8th, 2010 | 2:04 pm | #1
“If you oppose a government program, someone will suggest that you “hate” the people on the receiving end of the government largesse.”
Who is more likely to use the language and vocabulary of the word “hate” – a liberal or a conservative?
March 8th, 2010 | 2:48 pm | #2
Here’s the money quote from JMR:
Let me suggest 3 things:
1. Liberty is not, in and of itself, a virtue. Demanding that any government be restricted to minimizing the “loss of liberty” is not a principled requirement — let alone a biblically-principled requirement.
2. It’s interesting what the Bible says about who runs a government and therefore how much lordship over goods they ought to have. I would be interested to see JMR work that out over any period of time he’d like to invest in it.
3. As a convinced member of the vast ring-wing conspiracy (and also the subversive cult inside that conspiracy comprised of right-minded Calvinists), I don’t invest much in what either the right or the left forget daily about politics, economics, and sociology. Since all of these ought to be informed in some way by theology — that is, the right place of God, and the right place of man when compared to God — I expect that the secular left and the secular right will find themselves in the same place quickly since they are excluding the same necessary premise for all things.
Thoughts?
March 8th, 2010 | 3:36 pm | #3
“This fiftieth year you shall make sacred by proclaiming liberty in the land for all its inhabitants.” Leviticus 25:10
March 8th, 2010 | 4:07 pm | #4
Frank,
I’m not surprise you think little of freedom. If you thought more of it, you wouldn’t be a Calvinist. God thinks more of it than you do, which is why Calvinism is false.
March 8th, 2010 | 4:19 pm | #5
Orthodoxdj,
Calvinists think people are free to do whatever they want to. What more could you ask for?
March 8th, 2010 | 4:38 pm | #6
Brad,
Saying that avoids the bigger reality of what Calvinist’s teach: some people can ONLY go to Hell; the rest can ONLY go to Heaven. That destiny is chosen prior to even existing. That’s an odd kind of freedom.
March 8th, 2010 | 4:56 pm | #7
Frank,
Is liberty a “good?”
John Mark
March 8th, 2010 | 5:48 pm | #8
JMR, Frank:
Indeed, political and economic liberties are good. But, like all good things, they can be, and have been, abused.
Government, too, is good, though it can be, and has been, abused.
Given human depravity, we need government. But given that those in government are depraved as well, we need limited government, probably severely limited government.
March 8th, 2010 | 7:32 pm | #9
JMR: ““If you oppose a government program, someone will suggest that you “hate” the people on the receiving end of the government largesse.”
Michael Bauman: “But given that those in government are depraved as well, we need limited government, probably severely limited government.”
Hater.
March 8th, 2010 | 7:59 pm | #10
Any State that undermines objective truth, the intrinsic value of human life from conception, and advocates one’s sexual desires ought to be fulfilled poses, a threat to true freedom to worship as Christians ought to. This means that the preaching of the Gospel will become an act of hate and require a loss in freedom.
Opposition to government programs does not equal a lack of support for the people who would receive them.
True, and for the Church to keep giving ground on this will lead to the State severely restricting what the Church can do. Does the Left’s creation of a systemic culture of dependency on the State really show true concern for those in need? Seems like they are creating a new system of slavery, in which the bureaucrat is the new priest that doles out “justice” to whom is deemed worthy.
March 8th, 2010 | 10:02 pm | #11
Orthodoxdj,
No, my statement is stating exactly what every Calvinist believes, surely you know that. Just because you cannot wrap your head around the fact that God knows the destination of every individual before they were made does not negate my statement one bit. There is no soul destined for hell or heaven that did not also freely choose to be there.
However, I think that this is a lousy place to talk about this since it doesn’t have a thing to do with the post.
March 8th, 2010 | 11:21 pm | #12
Well, this is true of the left. The only area which they believe that should not be control by the government is sexual behavior. This is why the left wanted Obama by government command to strengthen out things. And as observed most leftest these days are anti-religion. There is of course the left among believers but since statism can be a religion that why many leftest are not religious.
March 9th, 2010 | 7:37 am | #13
Of course an increase in govt reduces liberty – but you assume that is a bad thing.
March 9th, 2010 | 7:38 am | #14
“Frank,
Is liberty a “good?”
John Mark”
John Mark,
Do I have the liberty to expose the corruptness and vacuousness of Liberal Protestants and Secular Liberals?
Truth Unites… and Divides
March 9th, 2010 | 10:22 am | #15
I think that the nay-sayers need to think a moment about what I said before I asnwer any questions. What I said was:
The lone biblical citation of Lev 25:10 overlooks that what the 50th year jubilee declares is freedom from slavery, not release frrom Government authority. It is in fact the authority of the government (established by God) which (as we read the rest of the verse’s context) “it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.” That is: the government shall enforce a redistribution of property.
That’s a shocking thing for red-state Christians to swallow, but the declaration of “Liberty” there is really a release from oppressive economic debts.
That said, OrthoDJ said:
Actually, if I thought more of it, I wouldn’t be a Christian. God does not think more of the liberty of man than I do — because God knows that, among other things, the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked. God knows that doers of evil need to be threatened with justice through violence in order to turn them away from their plans.
What you cannot do is point to some place in Scripture where God says that “liberty” means “less government”. The amazing thing about Scripture is that it says that man is truly free when he is totally enslaved to God. The yoke of sinfulness is heavy; the yoke of God is light.
However, I’d be glad for you to point me to someplace in the Bible where man’s will is extolled as a source of virtue, and God’s objective is to make man self-governing. That would be a good way to correct me rather than simply assume I’m some kind of liberty-hater.
JMR reasonably asked:
If you are asking whether it is a commodity, I’d say maybe. If you are asking if it is inherently of positive moral value, I’d say no.
Listen: consider how and where the Bible uses the phrase “every man did what was right in his own eyes.” That’s “Liberty” — and every time that phrase comes up, it points to man doing something fairly ghastly.
It seems to me that this goes back to the discussion we had about Government and Justice. The right anthropology is that man is, ontologically, subject to God — and therefore has a responsibility to God to act a certain way. And God, in His wisdom and love, established ordinary means to ensure that man acts as he ought to — which is, through the proper activity of government in adjudicating justice and arbitrating disagreements.
Framed like that, political “liberty” is a consequence of the right action of man and the right action of government — and one is
“free” insofar as one is also “just” or “innocent”. There’s absolutely no sense in talking about freedom or liberty apart from the idea of justice as there is no one in his right mind who would say that the person who rapes, murders, steals, or lies is exercising “liberty”. They are in fact “libertines”.
I agree with your final statement in the post, JMR. I just think that how you get there assumes a civil virtue rather than a Biblical one.
March 9th, 2010 | 10:31 am | #16
Michael Bauman said:
Let me say something clearly: that’s a systematic interpretation and not a Biblical interpretation. Systematically, we can say that all depraved men, including those in government, ought to be restrained. But God gives authority to government and then holds those in government accountable to do justice — including the collection of taxes, strict enforcement of law, and the waging of war.
I’d be interested where you can draw the Biblical case otherwise.
March 9th, 2010 | 10:51 am | #17
Frank,
Yes, God grants authority to government. I don’t deny it in the least. But the authority thus granted is limited in its scope. That is, we give to Caesar what is Caesar and to God what is God’s. Caesar can, and has, sometimes overreached his authority. When it happens, that’s almost always the bad news.
We are obligated, therefore, to resist tyranny, both for ourselves and others, because tyranny takes for government an authority that does not properly belong to it. Just as God has granted a particular sphere of authority and obligation to government, He has granted it also for individuals. The lines between those spheres are sometimes clear, sometimes not. We must do the best we can. Given human depravity, doing the best we can seldom, if ever, means anything like letting go and letting government. Government, like all things human, is answerable, both to God and to his creation, of which we humans are the answerable (and therefore responsible) party.
You’re right, TUAD, that makes me a hater (wink).
Cheers
March 9th, 2010 | 11:33 am | #18
Michael –
List one Biblical example of ‘resisting tyranny’ which looks like what you’re talking about here. I’m interested because Paul did not resist Felix, and Jesus did not resist Pilate. Stephen did not resist the ruling counsel.
I’m interested in this idea because I hear about it a lot.
March 9th, 2010 | 11:37 am | #19
And by what definition can the government not enslave us?
Indeed, we are on a high road to it. Obama told Joe the Plumber that he just wanted to take money away from him to give to someone else — he took it for granted that he is entitled to use the fruits of Joe’s labor for his purposes, forcing him to labor against his will for the benefit of another, the Supreme Court’s very definition of slavery — and I have heard people call that a reasonable answer.
March 9th, 2010 | 11:38 am | #20
Furthermore, if liberty is not a virtue, why is freedom from slavery a good thing?
March 9th, 2010 | 12:54 pm | #21
Dear Class: Your assignment is to reread “City of God.”
March 9th, 2010 | 1:01 pm | #22
“You’re right, TUAD, that makes me a hater (wink).
Cheers”
Mike, glad you caught the teasing.
Peace.
March 9th, 2010 | 1:06 pm | #23
“City of God” is important to read in this context . . . and I get to teach it most years . . . what are you proposing we find in it Dale?
March 9th, 2010 | 1:36 pm | #24
Biblically, it’s not that complicated. The purpose and function of government can be discerned from three passages: Ro. 13:3-5; 1 Pet. 2:13,14 and 1 Tim. 2:1-4. If you want to sum up the purpose of govt. in one word, it would be “justice.” Vis-a-vis the guilty, they ought to be punished as they deserve; vis-a-vis the innocent, they ought to be protected, which includes the protection of property rights (start, e.g., with “Thou shalt not steal”, which assumes the right of property ownership). Govt. has as a God ordained goal that we should be free to live quiet and peaceful lives (1 Tim. 2:1-3), including the freedom to work and make a living (1 Thess. 4:11,12)
March 9th, 2010 | 1:42 pm | #25
quoting from another post … The Bible need not list every reason for civil government in order for that idea to be consistent with the Bible.
March 9th, 2010 | 3:19 pm | #26
I’ll go even further. Looking back at the destruction wrought in our inner cities because of Aid to Families with Dependent Children, if one did not know any better one would think that those that supported AFDC in fact hated those who were the recipients of it. For why would anyone want to put in place premises that lead to the destruction of the families they claim to want to help?
March 9th, 2010 | 3:26 pm | #27
“List one Biblical example of ‘resisting tyranny’ which looks like what you’re talking about here.”
It’s right next to that passage that approves of blogging and the printing press. :-)
Seriously, since the church was in its infancy when the NT was written, it is not surprising at all that politically powerless Christians are not in a position to resist in masse in a way we are capable of doing today.
Just as we don’t find “pulpits,” “choirs,” or “sacristies,” we don’t find examples of activities that only a more mature church would in the position to do engage in.
Having said that, there are principles that we certain can apply today. Consider the example of Paul (or as we like to say, “St. Paul”).
, the Book of Acts records an incident in which St. Paul, after being beaten and imprisoned with Silas for preaching the Gospel, appeals to his Roman citizenship in order to exercise his civil rights and to remedy a wrong:
////But when it was day, the magistrates sent the lictors [the Roman magistrates’ attendees] with the order, “Release those men.” The jailer reported the(se) words to Paul, “The magistrates have sent orders that you be released. Now, then, come out and go in peace.” But Paul said to them, “They have beaten us publicly, even though we are Roman citizens and have not been tried, and have thrown us into prison. And now, are they going to release us secretly? By no means. Let them come themselves and lead us out.” The lictors reported these words to the magistrates, and they became alarmed when they heard that they were Roman citizens. So they came and placated them, and led them out and asked that they leave the city. (Acts 16: 35-38 NASB)////
Several points stand out here. (1) The Apostle used political status—Roman citizenship—in order to ensure that the Gospel could be preached freely. (2) He was not afraid to exercise the rights that this political status accorded him as an act of community leadership, even if it struck fear in the hearts of the magistrates. (3) He directly cited a violation of his rights as a citizen—lack of due process (“we… have not been tried”)—against those in the government that committed the act. (4) St. Paul employed political leverage to correct an injustice done to him and a fellow Christian.
Today, citizenship, especially in liberal democracies, carries with it a greater array of rights and responsibilities than the Apostle ever had. Thus, if St. Paul thought nothing tawdry or un-Christian about employing his Roman citizenship and the rights and powers that accompany it in order to protect the Gospel and to remedy a wrong, then we ought to take our own citizenship just as seriously when the proper time and circumstance requires that we avail ourselves of its powers.
March 9th, 2010 | 10:33 pm | #28
Well, actually, the welfare state of the old testment is pretty mild. There was only a 10 percent tithe and the edge of the fields was left for the poor to gleam. As for the 50 year release of debt, why wasn’t debt release more often than that, certainly people got into debt trouble prior to 50 years. In fact, the old testment laws cancelled debt less often, than laws in ancient Athens and Republican Rome. Also, as for lending of interest, Jews couldn’t lend interest to each other but could lend to genitles and it didn’t set a limit on how much they could lend to Gentiles. By Jesus time, probably the Old Testment debt laws were not enforced as much since the Jews were under the Romans. James complains about rich employers not following the old testment law on paying wages to workers. The early church also tried to stopped the lending of interest, based upon old testment and new testment passages but this didn’t work. Both the Byzantine Christians and European Christians understood that a total ban on interest would not work.
March 10th, 2010 | 9:33 am | #29
Cynthia –
The point, contra Dr. JMR, is that the example of God-established government in the Bible did in fact require alms-giving and some redistribution of wealth. The idea that “Liberty” was the chief end of governemnt — or even among the top 5 ends of Governement — doesn’t hold up very well when we see what kind of Government God required of Israel, and then what kind of Government King Jesus is going to establish in the final account. The former is a type of the latter, and the question is whether anything along that spectrum is what we ought to strive for today.
March 10th, 2010 | 10:06 am | #30
When we see that the NT explains secular government’s protection of liberty interests found in, say, the 10th Commandment, things clear up fast. See comment #24.
March 10th, 2010 | 10:21 am | #31
JMR: Sincere apologies for not responding earlier. It is high school “march madness” here and it remains a personal weakness. (Our boys bowed out last night at 19 & 4. The girls continue tonight at 23 & 1.)
One could enter the above conversation with the thesis from Book IV chapter 4 – Justice being taken away, what are kingdoms but great robberies?
You stated in your original post “So here is my basic truth for today: Opposition to govenment programs does not equal a lack of support for the people who would receive them.”
Nice thesis. Your respondants rather quickly start throwing out terms like conservative, liberal, Calvinist and the like.
Augustin is more brutal in his portrayal of the Romans whose “desire for peace, and prosperity, and plenty” is prompted by their desire not to pursue virtue in “moderation, sobriety, temperence, and piety” but to “run riot in an endless variety of sottish pleasures.” The result? (And I wonder if this might be said of many of our government programs) You will “generate from your prosperity a moral pestilence which will prove…more disastrous than the fiercest enemies.” (BK I Ch 30)
Later he accuses the Romans of hearts burning with passions “more destructive than the flames which have consumed their house.” (BK 2 Ch 2)
Does Augustin thus “not support” (your words, original lesson) the Romans? Utter nonsense! He was a true Roman in the fullest sense of the term.
Much, much more could be added (as you who “get to teach it most years” would know).
One must wrestle with the truth that the Eternal God raises nations for his purposes and sets them aside for the same purposes.
And what of those of the Eternal City who must always bear in mind that “among our most declared enemies” are those who will one day be our brothers?
Readers can also ponder Bk 19 Ch 14 with its wrestling of the two precepts – love of God and neighbor.
Shalom
March 10th, 2010 | 12:04 pm | #32
Good stuff Dale . . . and I think so helpful!
March 10th, 2010 | 12:07 pm | #33
And the point, contra Frank is that the government of ancient Israel (in one period of its history) is not binding on you. We can learn a few things from it, but not in the details!
As the chosen people (a mixed blessing!) Israel had to do things . . . we do not in order to a sign to the nations.
I will point out that in fact, however, ancient Israelis were left with a great deal of liberty . . . and this liberty was secured for them by government. Liberty was easy in the ancient world . . .order hard and so order tended to be emphasized. In our modern world, centralizing is much, much easier . . . and liberty hard.
March 13th, 2010 | 1:02 am | #34
[...] I said to him back when this exchange started was: Let me suggest 3 [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact