Governments, a Kingdom Agenda, and Reading Scripture Badly

by Chuck Gutenson 12-03-2009

A popular argument amongst political conservatives goes like this: while they grant that Scripture requires concern and care for the poor and marginalized, that concern is one to be addressed by individuals and not by governments. This is a popular argument, but is it a sound one from a biblical perspective? Well, there are a host of reasons to conclude it is not.

First, there are numerous places within Scripture where we are told that governmental authorities are ordained by God. Let’s consider a couple. One common cited passage is the first several verses of Romans 13. Unfortunately, many readers seem to forget that 12 precedes 13, and as a consequence, they allow too large a space to open between the community life affirmed in Romans 12 and the “ordination of government” statement in Romans 13. The more interesting passages are in Colossians 1 and 2. In Colossians 1 we are told that all powers, principalities, ruling authorities were created “by him and for him.” The “him” is, of course, Christ in the immediate context, which is the same as affirming that they were created by and for God. In Colossians 2, we are told that Christ “laid bare” the powers on the cross. How did he do so? Just in this way: when the creator of these powers shows up, they show they have become demonic in that they turn against him and crucify him. In short, the cross shows that “the powers” can become demonic and fail to serve the agenda for which they were created.

If all ruling authorities have been created “by him, for him,” then the obvious implication is that ruling authorities are intended to serve God’s agenda. Now, it would be passing strange to think that God had created/ordained ruling authorities to serve his agenda, but then conclude that one of the most consistent themes of scripture (concern for those on the margins of our societies—the poor, the widow, the orphan, etc.) is excluded from the purview of those ruling authorities! Is it the case that God intends individuals to be engaged in care for the least of these? Of course! But, it is also the case that God intends societal structures to be structured in ways that serve the agenda of caring for the marginalized, and that means governments have a role to play.

I am really not clear why some think that caring for the least is to be only a “voluntary” aspect of our lives. If one looks at various sections of Deuteronomy and Leviticus, it is clear that God gives laws that are to be implemented in society that are aimed at tending to the poorest. One thinks of the Laws of Jubilee, the Laws of Release, and the interesting Collateral Laws. These were not “options” that one “volunteered” to follow. No, they were to be God’s expectations embodied in law.

Some try cleverly to resist the obvious implications by suggesting that all this is because early Israel was a “theocracy.” However, that cannot stand. Just consider Ezekiel 16, where we are told that the sin of Sodom was that it failed to hear the cry of the needy. This is particularly interesting, because the destruction of Sodom came prior to the giving of the law, and Sodom was not part of the “chosen people.” Yet, God saw the need for the city state to take responsibility for caring for the poor and marginalized so obvious that God took the most serious punitive action against it. Further, God did not punish the “individuals” who failed to take care of the needy, he destroyed the city state for its failure to see this obligation.

Selfishness, the need to be in control–these are all reasons why we resist the fact that God ordains governments to have a role in caring for the least. Not good ones, but they are reasons. What is much harder to find are good biblical reasons for why a faithful follower of Jesus would oppose government having a role in caring for the needy. Will they do it perfectly? Of course not. All the more reason faithful followers of Jesus must be vocal in pushing governments to serve the agenda for which they were created, and to serve it well!

Chuck Gutenson is the Chief Operating Officer for Sojourners.

Categories: Faith and Politics, Poverty, Theology

xfree9

Hitler was not "right-wing." That is a myth, debunked very heartily in Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism." Hitler was a man of the left.

Rick Nowlin

One other thing: The emphasis on "individual rights" is an American concept, not a European one, which is why, though Hitler was right-wing yet also "statist."

Rick Nowlin

Hitler was not necessarily talking about the New Deal or any form of "statism," however, and when you consider that he was a "moral" person (abstained from tobacco and alcohol and demanded that women dress modestly), it might not surprise you that he also received a lot of props from conservative Christians in that day. Philip Yancey reported in "What's So Amazing About Grace?" that in 1934 the Baptist World Congress met in Berlin and members were pleasantly surprised that they couldn't find Communist propaganda, burlesque shows or "salacious literature" in the city. On top of that, Hitler had banned abortion for German women in order to increase the birthrate. None of these are to insinuate that Hitler and FDR were syncophants, which is what you seem to want to do.

xfree9

Quotes and references here:

Nor was Hitler himself lacking in praise for his American counterpart. He "told American ambassador William Dodd that he was 'in accord with the President in the view that the virtue of duty, readiness for sacrifice, and discipline should dominate the entire people. These moral demands which the President places before every individual citizen of the United States are also the quintessence of the German state philosophy, which finds its expression in the slogan "The Public Weal Transcends the Interest of the Individual." (pp.19-20) A New Order in both countries had replaced an antiquated emphasis on rights.

xfree9

I'm sure you do find it hard to believe, but I've read the quotes. I can try to look them up for you, but they were in books, not websites.

BlueDeacon

I would find that VERY hard to believe, especially in the case of Hitler, who
fanned the flames of resentment all the way to the chancellorship of Germany
-- and he was, of course, as racist as they came while FDR (and even more so
Truman) had at least some commitment to racial equality. And BTW, the first
people Hitler tried to eliminate when he came to power? Not the Jews,
intellectuals or "deviant" types -- Communists.

xfree9

Yes, I would say it's more nuanced than I simply stated previously. But they were fond of FDR and his New Deal. I don't have them off hand, but each of them praised FDR. Maybe they weren't fond of him later (particularly Hitler), but he was praised by them.

BlueDeacon

Not exactly. Progressivism certainly wasn't, for example, fascist
(politically totalitarian but economically libertarian) by any means; in fact,
the types of political systems you mentioned only used the idea of the
"people" for the sake of power. That's not even close to what we have in this
country because, in our political culture and structure, the central
government is quite weak. And I seriously doubt that Hitler, Mussolini and
Stalin were particularly fond of FDR; as I mentioned, he was very
anti-communist but allied with the Soviets only because they had a common
enemy. Besides, in Europe Hitler was seen as a counterweight to the already
notorious Stalin, which is why those countries "appeased" him.

xfree9

You are right. Most of what we now call liberalism used to be progressivism, which included fascist, communist, and socialist ideals. In the US, they weren't as lethal as their counterparts in Europe, but that didn't stop Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin from praising the efforts and programs of the progressive presidents, especially FDR.

Original liberalism is what is now called "classical liberalism," or "libertarianism."

xfree9

Read James Madison's Federalist #44. He explains that the phrase "general welfare" was a generic phrase used at the beginning of the Constitution, and spelled out as to how that should work throughout the rest of the Constitution. It was not privy to the whims of whoever was in power. If that were the case, why write a Constitution longer than a few sentences?

The fact is that the Constitution was a list of prohibitions by a large central government to protect all people equally from overbearing power. Most of the framers of the Constitution knew that giving too much power to too few people (aka "central authority") was unjust. Hence "United States" (plural) and not "United State" (singular). The individual states operated effectively like little nations, which is in part why King George signed a treaty with each of the existing states, not a single entity.

xfree9

If God affirmed the notion of government, why did God warn Israel (by way of Samuel) to not abandon its current form of government (by your description, anarchy) in favor of an official government like other nations, and then give specific warnings about what would happen if they did have a gov't like other nations?

Further, the statement in Judges, "each did what was right in his own eyes" is not necessarily a statement of condemnation. It could have just been a statement of fact.

Consider this article, and a small quote from it:

To be able to do that which is right in one's own eyes is to be free, and freedom was the way of life among the Israelites before the coming of the kings. Yet, they were not without government; they were not lacking in those social controls that are the essence of government. The economy of the tribesmen demanded of the individual that he adjust himself to cooperative and regularized procedures; a man who indulged his caprice when the tribe was on the march in search of grazing land would be courting disaster; it was a case of hold together or die.

As for Christians "shaping government," where do we get the idea that Christians have a unique privileged stance because we have the Bible to tell the government what laws it should and should not have? Are we arrogant enough to believe that the laws we want are God's preferred laws, or that our religious ethics and morals should be imposed upon the rest of society?

NC77

Hey Morna,

I do no believe there are contradictions if you take scripture in context and correcly interpret it with the Holy Spirit.

Proverbs and Eccelsiastes are just a collection of wise sayings. They give us wisdom. Do you find it offensive if God may find the right "wise", and the left "foolish"? I am not saying it is so, I am just asking. So what would you do if God declared your political positions to be against his character? Would you change your position or would you reshape your God?

jeffgang

It seems to me that both the left and the right want something from the government. The right seems to want government to influence people's personal moral decisions---abortion, heterosexual marriage, prayer in schools, etc., while the left seems to want government to protect and care for the poor and marginalized, and individual rights.

I want government to help care for the poor and marginalized, protect individual rights and so on. But do Gutenson's arguments from the OT pick and choose? When I read Mosaic law seems to me the powers that be had a lot to say about people's personal moral decisions too. What do we do with that? Is there a better way to argue the case for the Government's responsibility? Didn't the Nazi's used Romans 13 to argue why the church should submit to them? Do we want it just one way---our way whatever our agenda may be?

I may be over simplifying things, but there appears to be a unavoidable tension here that requires constant struggle, discernment, and wisdom. Until the now and not yet of God's Kingdom becomes the total NOW of God's kingdom forever, we must struggle with this tension.

ckgmailOTscholar

Are you serious about using the Book of Ecclesiastes in this way? More quotes from Ecclesiastes from NRSV: "For the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. . . . All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again." (3:19-20). "'What happens to the fool will happen to me also. Why then have I been so very wise?' . . . How can the wise die just like fools? SoI hated life . . . ." (2:15-17) "the same fate comes to them all, to the righteous and the wicked, to the good and the evil. . . . a living dog is better than a dead lion." (9:2-4). The whole book is a tract of skeptical wisdom literature, and I certainly would not wish to pin a lot of theology, eschatology, or current political theory on it. It does provide us with a dose of reverent agnosticism, which could be appropriate for all religionists, be they Christian of whatever stripe--liberal, conservative, progressive evangelical, or whatever-- Muslim, atheist, you name it.

BlueDeacon

I think most honest historians without a political agenda would agree that the current liberal movement was born during the 1960s and grew to be today's liberal philosophy.

And I think you're wrong about that. In fact, what we now consider "liberalism" is much, much older than that, going back to the 1800s (The Nation magazine, for example, goes back to 1865), and Marxism has had adherents in this country since the 1920s -- one reason FDR instituted the New Deal was because he feared that the entire country might go that way. On the other hand, what we know as conservatism traces to the Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954 and was accusatory from the start.

There is a deep polarization in our society and government. I do not mean to be offensive by saying this, but one has to have eyes closed not to see it.

I began to see this during the 1980 general election, the first time conservatives really began to take aim at their opponents. I had become a Christian the year before but already felt uneasy because that kind of ideology buttressed by religion simply didn't sit well with me. What I realize now is that conservatives then simply used God for the sake of power but didn't, and still do not, really trust Him for the ushering of His Kingdom in His way and time. In fact, I would say (and I think I may have said this before) that the conservatives sold us Christians out.

NC77

I agree with you Blue on the issue of both sides treating sexual indiscretions made public differently. Not right.

Skeptimal

NC77 said: "The dearth of Christlikeness within the body of Christ in this day and age only reinforces my position that a secular, humanistic, and godless government, as is the U.S. federal government should not be in the business of charity or works of Christ."

Lest you feel at some point that I was a snake in the grass, I'll make clear now that I'm not a Christian. That may not have been clear from my recent comments, but I was not attempting subterfuge.

I agree that the government should not be doing the "work of Christ," but obviously for different reasons than you. I actually don't think the government is secular enough; the "faith-based initiatives" were a bribe for votes, and I'm disappointed that Obama has continued the process. That having been said, I think there's legitimate reason to be concerned about how much assistance the government gives.

Some things, the government does well, and some things it doesn't. As the son of a man soon to undergo his fifth surgery to remove cancer, I'm very glad the government offers Medicaid and Medicare. As a man somewhat familiar with the Canadian medical system, I am confident that we will not be able to sustain a universal system if all medical care is free. I'd like to see universal health care, but with the patient responsible for a percentage of the costs so that we feel responsible for the costs we are incurring.

When you say that our culture is sharply divided, have you had anyone disagree with you? If so, I agree: their eyes are closed.

NC77

Blue,

I could be wrong, but I think most honest hitorians without a political agenda would agree that the current liberal movement was born during the 1960s and grew to be today's liberal philosophy.

I was alive at the time and witnessed first hand the culture change that was driven in most part by the Vietnam war. The strange thing in the sixties was that it was the political liberals (Kennedy and Johnson) that pursued and prosecuted the war and it was the precursor to modern day liberalism that protested against it. What we saw from the conservatives was strange, square, not hip at all.

I was probably a liberal at the time. Drugs, free sex, don't take responsibility for our actions, drop out, chill out, and on and on. I was also godless at the time, believing there was no such thing as god. I was also drafted into the service shortly before Nixon ended the draft. I went into the service and it changed my life. Two years after I was out of the service I met Jesus face to face one winter day and received him into my heart at his request. I have no regrets for leaving behind what I once was and the deception of sin. BTW, I came to Christ through the witness of a Christian, and being pursued by God not by being in the service. Just wanted to clarify

There is a deep polarization in our society and government. I do not mean to be offensive by saying this, but one has to have eyes closed not to see it.

NC77

Skeptimal,

Yeah, God has a sense of humor. Should we make anything of it?

NC77

Skeptimal,

Yes, stated like that I would agree with you. As a Chistian, I have seen other Chrisitians take great efforts to justify their sin, or disobedience to Christ or misbehavior (whatever you want to call it) through rationalization, or twisting of Scripture, or worst of all in my opinion, indifference to the gift of righteousness that we have from Christ. It happens on both left and right and should serve as evidence that it is true that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

The sad thing is they take their salvation so lightly considering the fact that Jesus gave a warning to all future Chrisitians to make sure one is found to be truly in and of Christ when he returns.

The dearth of Christlikeness within the body of Christ in this day and age only reinforces my position that a secular, humanistic, and godless government, as is the U.S. federal government should not be in the business of charity or works of Christ.

I say stick to the constitution. But we have seen how that can be perverted (i.e., Roe vs Wade) to bring about and legalize evil and sin in the name of ones "rights". Why should I as a Christians be forced to support what my faith says is wrong. The inclusion of elective abortion benefits in the ongoing healthcare refrom debate is a good example of this.

Finally, I think the apostle John said it best when he said if you see your brother in need and you have the worldly means to help them and do not, then you do not have the love of Christ in you. This is for Christians to do and obey, not the federal government.