A MASTER, NOT A SERVANT:

A servant, not a god: Millions over the past century put their faith in civil governments to solve problems and close inequalities, but a look at the scriptural basis of the state should temper Christian expectations (Doug Bandow, 4/17/04, World)

The Bible is helpful but not determinative in assessing the role of the state. The dominant message of the gospel, as well as of the Hebrew Scriptures, is man's relationship to God and his neighbors. Although many of these principles have some application to political relationships, the Bible provides no detailed blueprint for the state: Scripture gives much more guidance on how we should treat people than when we should coerce them, which is the defining characteristic of government.

What the Bible does is set boundaries for political debate. The state's most fundamental role is to protect citizens from the sinful conduct of their neighbors. The Bible indicates that government is to act to preserve order—people's ability to live "peaceful and quiet lives," in Paul's words—in a sinful world. "The one in authority," wrote Paul, "is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer" (Romans 13:3-4).

One goal of the state is just retribution. Another objective is deterrence, encouraging even evil men to respect others' rights. A third concern is nonviolent deprivation through theft and fraud of the resources over which God has made individuals stewards —a that matter was covered with great specificity in Mosaic law.

Another scriptural theme suggests a duty for believers to promote justice and righteousness. Civil rulers are to be just and righteous. However, corporate duty differs from personal responsibility. Individuals must respond virtuously to the needs and rights of their neighbors; government must regulate, coercively yet fairly, relations between both righteous and unrighteous men. In short, the contrast is personal virtue versus public impartiality. (An attempt by the state to practice the former rather than the latter is typified by the past century's great totalitarian levelers, the communist revolutionaries.)

The theme of the state as neutral arbiter and protector occurs throughout Scripture. Government is not to become a tool to rob and oppress. Said Solomon of the godly ruler: "He will defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy; he will crush the oppressor" (Psalm 72:4).

Protection of the needy is of special concern to God: They are, after all, the least able to vindicate their own interests, especially in the face of a government that is easily suborned to favor the powerful. However, extra sensitivity to abuse of the poor does not warrant prejudice in their favor. God commanded: "Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly" (Leviticus 19:15).

Biblical justice, then, protects all men in their enjoyment of God's blessings. In this way godly justice and righteousness focus on process. That differs from the modern notion of "social justice," which demands equality of economic and cultural outcomes. However appealing may be some proposals advanced under the rubric of "social justice," they are not matters of biblical justice. [...]

Although there is no formal Christian political philosophy, believers have good reason to be skeptical about using government to solve economic and social problems. The temptation to seize power in an attempt to do good is strong; the prospect of making people moral and righteous is alluring. But can there be greater hubris than the belief that one should forcibly remake individuals and transform entire societies? Literally thousands of years of history suggest that such a project is fraught with peril and doomed to fail.

One concern is the primacy of God. In a broad sense, political and economic freedom, particularly independence from the paternal welfare state, have a spiritual dimension, since liberty forces people to rely on God. The wider the latitude of decisions left to individuals, the greater the variety of situations in which they must exercise moral judgment and seek to implement biblical principles.

Moreover, believers must never forget that the basis of the state is coercion, backed by prison and, should a citizen resist, death. In general, throwing someone in jail cannot be viewed as an act of love. Thus, Christians should exhibit humility before resorting to coercion, and should do so only reluctantly. In some cases the only way to demonstrate love for one's neighbors is to punish miscreants, but we should be careful before turning disagreements, however serious, into crimes.

America's Founders, irrespective of their individual faith commitments, established a limited national government of enumerated powers because their shared biblical worldview warned against the danger of mixing sinful human nature and concentrated political authority. They saw a Constitution that restricted and decentralized state power as the only way to protect people from the actions of rulers who would most decidedly not be angels.

We can see here the way in which Christianity is naturally, though not exclusively, supportive of democracy, requiring decentralized power and limited government as the medium in which to build a decent society. But if we look at the State today we can see that, as the great conservative critics predicted, democracy unfortunately tends towards centralization and obliterating limits, until it is thoroughly involved in the provinces that were to be reserved to society and men are corrupted in the process. People like Mr. Bandow then are being disingenuous when they urge a libertarian viewpoint on the religious at this point in our history. To adopt such would effectively leave Society defenseless against the continuing encroachments of the State.

Return to the original Republic of the Founders and it would be appropriate for the religious to stop trying to influence the state so much. But so long as the State exists and exercises its power in every aspect of our lives, what alternative is there but to try to ensure that the power is used for decent ends?

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 11, 2004 9:58 AM