Tuesday, August 26, 2008

The REAL Question

I’ve been striving years to reconcile my understanding of the Bible and Christian faith with my understanding of democracy, policy, and the political process. While there are many pieces to be discussed, I believe that it is critically important to think about the question that comes before all the other questions, the one that usually occurs at the end of an argument about faith and politics, but that is generally ignored until one feels hemmed in by the opponent’s use of scripture or moral reasoning. Interestingly, it is a question asked, and then turned into a contention, by both Democrats and Republicans, and it tends to move the discussion away from questions of morality. Yet, it is a foundational principle and important to any discussion of public policy. The question I’m referring to is, “What is the proper role of government?” or when discussing a particular policy, “What is the role of government in solving x?

Conservatives ask the question when the topic moves to economic morality. When the issue being discussed is poverty, health care, or discrimination, conservative Christians typically agree that Biblical imperatives exist that obligate one to care for “the least of these,” but they argue that this is the responsibility of the church or the individual, and they stress the responsibility of the poor and disenfranchised to care for themselves.

Liberals, or progressives as they are becoming known, ask the question when it comes to individual and behavioral morality. Politically liberal Christians, when confronted with issues like pornography, homosexuality, and abortion, tend to stress the role of the church in addressing moral behavior, and they emphasize the responsibility of the individual to choose virtuous ways of living. Of course, conservatives assert the active role of government in behavioral morality, while progressives assert the active role of government in economic morality.

Only Libertarians and Communists are consistent in their answers to the question of the proper role of government. For Libertarians the answer is an unwavering “as little as possible” and for Communists it is always “as much as possible.” Yet, with the glaring failures of Communism and the untested notions of Libertarianism, few are willing to embrace the consistency they offer. And, in fact, the complexities of life give most people an ample supply of exceptions to the simplistic suggestions of the two extremes.

Therefore, the question remains, “What is the proper role of government?” As a Christian, I really wish that the writers of the Bible had been citizens of a democracy! As it is, the Bible gives very little direct instruction. Gleaning any help from scripture in answering that question requires a great deal of responsible scholarship. However, even with the most studious interpretations, the question requires that we look outside of scripture.

Charles Wesley taught that Christians could not look to scripture alone (sola scriptura) for an understanding of God’s will, but must also consider reason, tradition, and experience. These things must also enlighten the answer that we seek to the proper role of government.

I have some ideas about this myself, though not fully formed. However, I’m now called to focus on the responsible interpretation of Introduction to Quantitative Analysis, so my ideas will have to wait. In the meantime, I’d love to hear your thoughts. What is the proper role of government?

5 comments:

Unknown said...

Great thoughts Kay.

I love the perspective of how the conservative/liberal stress what the government does and does not do, and what the church should be doing.

What comes up for me as I read, is to lean towards the conservative end of things. Let the government illegalize what is immoral and harmful to the society, and let the church help the poor.

What hits me though is the reality that the church probably doesn't really know how to transform and help the poor. Probably neither does the governement for that matter. So coservatives who say, let the church deal with the poor, are probably being willfully blind. (Myself included I think).

When a liberal christian says let the church love the homosexuals, the aborters, and the pot smokers, and help transformation happen in those areas... again I think there's willful blindness. Are those Christians really actively seeking the hearts of those people, reaching out to them, and trying to make their lives better? Probably most do not.

So it would definitely seem there is hypocrisy on both sides. Not total hypocrisy for sure...

The economic morality and behavioral morality are two enormous problems. Should government deal with them? Does the church? Does both?

We have a dual party system... and the parties have different agendas of how to take care of problems. The church has even MORE parties. A dozen denomonations, and no centralized authority of the church whatsoever.

On all these issues the government isn't fully united on how to deal with things... and neither is the church.

I almost wish we could have another council of Nicea or something. Not to cannonize scripture... but to see how the catholics, and baptomatericolians (protestants) could work together to solve all of those problems.

(sigh) As far as which way is more scriptural. It seems they both are. Jesus came and did not condemn the prostitue. He ate with tax collectors. He fed the poor. He didn't do any of this through the government.

In the old testament, it was law to leave food behind in the fields for the poor. And when the nation of Isreal was doing well, the king (government) enforced the behavioral morality of the citizens as well. Sometimes in very brutal ways. And the nation was typically blessed when the behavioral morality was being enforced by the king.

Somehow they seem to BOTH be the answer. Maybe the church should help in all areas, AND the government too.

I don't know... I hold all these thoughts losely... yet I notice I still lean more towards the conservative end of things.

Kay Hart said...

Thanks for your comment! I agree that we see a wide variety of examples of government in action in scripture. Since scripture covers thousands of years and a variety of different situations, that isn't surprising. It still leaves us struggling to apply the underlying principles. I'm almost ready to conclude that an understanding of the practicalities is necessary to even make the attempt.

Anonymous said...

I have always believed in moderation, but that in itself is debatable: What is enough, too much, etc.

I have strong beliefs in many things like most people, and my religious beliefs in ways are similar to my political ones. I believe we follow the example set forth by Jesus. Tremendous faith and strong forgiveness and love of your brothers and sisters (in the biblical sense, not just Wyatt!)

On the other hand, politically, I trust in our Constitution, and the nature of our nation as a republic.

I cant say to know everything about either one of these things, but when do the people take responsibility and help the poor and struggling? Do I do enough? Is it wrong then that I don't buy an extra sandwich for the dude on the corner of 35 and rundburg I know will be there? When I've needed help I have gotten unemployment does that make me a hypocrite since in theory I believe in smaller government and less institutionalized welfare?

I like to think that I HAVE HELPED, yeah ive bought the dude on the corner a burger when I was at the jack in the box. Not every time I could have but when I think too. Yeah I have used unemployment when I needed financial help, but I was working the first opportunity i had.

I think that this kind of discussion needs to be debated more here, by the people, instead of rhetorically by politicians seeking a vote.

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government." Thomas Jefferson

Kay Hart said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kay Hart said...

Travis, I agree that this discussion needs to happen in forums like this. I hope more people will begin to thoughtfully evaluate their own points of view like you are.

As Brett likes to say (though, I think he got it from Brian McLaren), a point of view is simply a view from a point. To think about where our own view points come from and to examine the underlying, unspoken assumptions that we each bring to the discussion is a first step toward that thoughtful discussion, and I thank you and anyone else who enters the process for helping me do that. I hope I can do the same for you!