Alrighty. Here’s something that I don’t hear AT all in the media. It’s been said on these boards before, I think by Terry Baxter (where is that guy by the way?) but basically, the under girding principle, when developing social policies, is that certain anthropological presuppositions come into play. These presuppositions are found in what Terry termed “classical liberalism.” In classical liberalism both the right and the left are to be found. In other words, what we really have going on when we hear those on the right (who are generally conservative) and left (who are generally liberal) squabble over this or that policy is some sort of political family feud between either political brothers and sisters and kissing cousins.

One of the central tenets (if not the central tenet) of classical liberalism is the elevation of the autonomous individual and this presupposition works itself out in either right or left policies with the right focusing on freedom and the left focusing on equality. For example, those on the right, they believe that people should be treated in ways that will HELP them (not necessarily some heartlessness going on which is a sometimes right analysis of the left about the right) become more accountable for their actions i.e. back in the 80’s Gov. Engler of Michigan tried to get people off the government dole by eventually taking away their social assistance cheques. This took some time and was not instaneous. Those who hold to the freedom idea believed that EVERYONE should be treated this way. It is the gap between responsibility and irresponsibility that offends these people who want others to act independently rather than dependently. If people are to be free, then they must accept the consequences of their actions.

Those on the left who focus on equality (or at least fairness), it is the gap between wealth and poverty that pains them. Unequal outcomes offend them. They want poor people to have greater access of goods and services and money so as they will not live so poorly.

The focus becomes clear when we see how each group views government supporting their particular view of either freedom or equality. On the left, they point to economic and social conditions that keep the poor from enjoying a better standard of living. On the right, they emphasize behavioural habits that free individuals ought to learn and exhibit. Either way, both groups believe in government action with those on the left supporting long term, public financial support not judging too closely the decisions those individuals make while those on the right support temporary policies to help people get off the government dole and working again.

Either way, the familiar liberal aim is what? Is to make people more free and equal--more autonomous as individuals and more equal, materially (both right and left capitalists and socialists are materialists to the core) in comparison to their fellow citizens.

Do you see why in part Christians shouldn’t fall for the right or the left as I have presented it here? I’ll have more to say later i.e. is there another way(?), but I have to hit the road.

Tommy grasshopperson...of course a politician could do as you say, though I'm not so sure it helps to speak of this THEORETICALLY as you have done.  I think we need to speak of this in REAL LIFE concreteness.  In other words housing the homeless is what we COULD CONSIDER "Kingdom-like" theoretically speaking but there is what we call the law of unintended consequences which will take it out of that and into real life.  For example, some scholars point out that over the past 40 or so years there are those (mostly on the left) who have been most concerned to defend the poor who have sought for implementation of social and economic policies that have actually made matters worse.  The intention was NOT to do this, but it was done.  The same goes for those on the right.  They have normally been the ones to champion privatization and deregulation, opening markets and so on.  They too have reaped some unintended consequences i.e. deregulating energy which ends up costing the consumer tons of money.  Then there is also the issue of culture and politics.  Culture will deal with say values, moral formation, etc.  Politics will deal with for example, policies and structure.  BOTH of these matter to the "success" of a society and so what this means is that it takes wisdom to sort these out. In the Christian understanding of economic matters, the question arises as to whether or not the Christian call to discipleship and obedience extends to taking responsibility for the likely consequences of our actions or whether our responsibilty extends to our intentions.  That is, are we called to SIMPLY GIVE to the poor, no questions asked or are we called to try to figure out how to help the poor help themselves?  Perhaps even helping by our refraining from giving under certain circumstances.  Now, some believe in a concept called, "absolute ends" in which we don't worry about results but are simply faithful to the ethical exhortations of scripture.  Then there are those who believe in the ethics of responsibility which says that what really matters is results based on love of neighbour.  Now, we can say that both of these are right because both of these are in scripture. We are called to both, to be faithful to Jesus regardless of outcome and to love our neighbour by being concerned with results.  Now, there are more things to be said about this such as the downside to these ethics, the temptations so to speak, but the point of my saying all of this is that we really can't speak of what is "King-dom like" without taking what I have said here seriously.  I mean, what does it mean to house the homeless (given what I've said) and ultimately be Kingdom like?

Secondly, ultimately the real question it seems, is not about whether this or that politician can espouse "conflicting biblical positions."  I sure that they do.  The real question is what is the proper role and limits of government?  Again, one thing government is not is that IT IS NOT OMNI-COMPETENT.  For example government's proper role is to recognize that people are more than citizens that they are mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters and bankers and preachers and teachers and bus drivers and cashiers and pilots and that there are organizations such as churches and schools and military and businesses and clubs and community organizations, etc.  Government does justice to its citizens when it recognizes that society exists differentially and it is this that classical liberalism just doesn't recognize adequately enough.  Because these are what they are, it also entails that they have certain responsibilities. Which is to say that THEY have that responsibility and not government.  I'll have to get into that tmw.

Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 6/6/2008 10:26:03 PM (GMT-5)

Brandon: Ultimately, I don't think we should say anything like, “Housing the homeless” is “Kingdom-like” given what I've said above. The ungirding reason for this is that basically what I said above—what we are called to do and what we actually do is problematic. I would agree with this on Greg's sermon from this week. As Christians we should never claim that our achievements or our aims in politics or ANY AREA of life for that matter, is representative of God's will. I think we should be a little more humble than that. I think that the BEST that we can say is this: That we are trying to faithfully and obediently follow God's call to love our neighbor and to do justice.

Tom: I see Greg’s (and your) point. But it seems a bit mistaken to say we can NEVER know that we have done God’s will. Even if you’re right that all we’re to do is say we’ve humbly tried to follow God’s call, we can then say that when we’ve humbly tried to do God’s will we’ve then ‘done God’s will’. But in that case we know we’ve done God’s will, and that’s something you’re saying we can never know we’ve done, and on and on.

So perhaps the point is that we shouldn’t identify our doing the will of God will what the combined result of our actions is in the world. In other words, all we’re to do is what God wants US to do, what choice God wants us to make. That’s the end of what we’re to consider when asking ourselves if we’ve done God’s will. And we can certainly know whether we’ve done THAT or not. But once our actions are let go they’re combined with other things going on in the world where they may or may not ‘accomplish’ what God wants them to accomplish, and that’s when I’d agree that we can never know whether how things turn out is exactly what God wanted. We can do God’s will and be misunderstood or misinterpreted, or our actions may or may not combine with the actions of others to accomplish exactly what God wanted. So in a sense I see Greg’s point. We can never say that what our actions end up meaning ‘out there’ is the Kingdom thing God wanted them to mean. But we CAN know that what we’ve offered—the immediate gift of our own self-determined action—is in fact God’s will, i.e., what God wanted US to do, and that’s the only realm of God’s Kingdom we’re responsible for.

On the other stuff, Brandon, I think you’re right. The distinction between what we immediately DO and what our actions END UP meaning/doing/accomplishing means that perhaps it’s a mistake to think we’re ‘accomplishing God’s will’ FOR the poor by voting for a particular candidate we think will enact a particular policy which will eventually have a particular effect, etc. Too many middle men. What we intended our vote to accomplish for the poor never gets done. So in that sense we can never know that what’s done in the end is what God (or we) wanted done with our vote. And I agree that it’s a mistake to look to government alone as the answer when there are many other groups and organizations that share responsibility. Perhaps the answer is to take greater responsibility the closer the effect of our actions is to us, i.e., the less dependent their accomplishing what we desire is upon other actions not directly under our control. So the best, most Kingdom-like thing we can do for the poor is what WE do for the PARTICULAR poor people we meet and serve directly without handing off our intentions to others (groups and/or politicians) to serve the poor for us and THAT is the doing God seeks from each of us—to find ways to close the gap between our actions and the poor who are the object of our actions, thus, eliminating politics altogether as a tool for accomplishing God’s will on earth. (No time to explain, but this is part of the reason why I'm a Republican.) That’s not to say we should never vote. It’s just to recognize the difference between ‘immediate’ and ‘mediate’ action.

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 6/7/2008 6:27:09 AM (GMT-5)

Brandon:  Tom I would put it like this. Is seeking justice (I have a pretty clear definition of what I think of as justice, of which I think we will eventually run into in this discussion) for my neighbour an attempt to do the will of God? Yes. That is, the will of God is to seek and TRY TO DO justice in the earth--not that that is actually done (though I think there are some nuances to this--that is we should not think of justice as something beyond our grasp--something that is future, such that one will set aside immediate issues of justice today as long as current means are serviceable to a better tomorrow. Future justice can then be seen to excuse for present injustice). That is, not that we DO DO JUSTICE, but that we TRY to do it. Which is my point about being humble about it. So in that sense, I think I can say that I’m doing the will of God. Because I’ve made a feeble attempt. But whether my particular course of action is actually the will of God or not is something I don’t think we can know given what I’ve said above and what we’ve talked about on these boards as far as having the “big picture” on things. I would say that because of THAT sort of ambiguity we really can’t say that this or that is God’s will such that even when you say, “…or our actions may or may not combine with the actions of others to accomplish exactly what God wanted.” I have to ask, “How you would know that that is exactly what God wanted?” One person takes this course of action and another takes the opposite. Even if things end up cool for the first one and not the second, I still don’t think I want to say, “This was the will of God.” So open markets create a better life for people, but there are some bad things that go along with that. Someone pushing for more liberal abortion laws, one may think is God’s will, while someone pushing for more conservative laws (usually meaning more restrictive) is something someone else might think is God’s will. And I think you answer that in your last paragraph in the last sentence above. Really, shouldn’t that be our default position regardless?

Brandon:  For one, the issue gets raised as to what our calling actually is. Not to sound repetitive, is it to simply give to the poor with no questions asked or to help them help themselves? For two? This seems to me to turn into a rather pietistic approach as some of these issues are deeply systemic in which to eliminate politics altogether would mean being less salt and light in the earth. And it is at this point that this begins to touch on the issue of the proper role and limits of government in justice (which is what I wanted to respond with) but like you I don’t have time because I have to hit the road again for work. I’ll be back on it tonight. As far as I can see Tom, I don’t think it has to do with Republican in the sense of being on the right side of the political spectrum.  I think when we start getting into this question some of our presuppositions about doing God's will and ethics as stated above start coming to light.  It seems that one is coming from a individualistic approach while another is more communitarian.  Back later...

To the degree that you say that you should not be involved in government is the same degree at which you advocate a pietism because it’s basically saying that Jesus can’t be Lord even over the political realm.

Sahid says, “Government has a job: punish evil, reward good, etc. Christians have a completely different job: it is neither participation in government nor withdrawal from society. There are other options that require only a mustard seed's worth of creativity to see.” But this seems to me to not be an adequate understanding of government’s role in our lives. As if that’s all government does. Punish evil, reward good. That’s it. Let me just throw this out there OK guys?

On one level I believe that there is justice as in the sense we have talked about above. Someone kills someone, “justice” should be sought and there should be punishment. Someone rapes someone, “justice” should be sought and there should be punishment. Someone bilks (another word we use to use was “steal”) a company out of millions which takes away from someone else’s retirement fund, “justice” should be sought and there should be punishment. But to think that justice in this sense is the only role that government has to play is wholly inadequate. Its not that I don’t agree with this. I do. It’s just that that is one level of justice and it is what I find difficult with Greg’s understanding of the matter. Greg should not assume that we all “know what justice looks like when we see it.” In that, I mean justice is not simply that which is spoken of in the sense above. Really, I wonder if such an understanding is not itself somewhat driven by classical liberalism.

Regardless, we experience life through a manifold of relatively independent organizations, institutions and relationships i.e. families, churches, businesses, scientific and artistic organizations, etc. These have “lives” of their own. That is, for example, a publishing company will be different than a farm which is different from a family which is different than a club and so on. So the question we will ask about government is what is its responsibility FOR THE PUBLIC WELL-BEING IN RELATION TO AND IN DISTINCTION FROM THE DIFFERIENTIATED RESPONSIBILITIES that belong to families, churches, business and many other institutions which together make up what we call society?

This is a different sort of “justice question” than the seemingly one sided justice question raised above because, as I said, government can either positively or negatively contribute to human flourishing (or these things being able to carry out their own GOD GIVEN RESPONSIBILITIES--doing what they do because of what they are by nature).

So, for example, say you have a father (a person who can also be many other things--an uncle, an employee, a coach--his personhood is not exhausted by these many different roles, etc) who does not allow his wife (who is also a mother, a teacher, a violinist, etc) to not function in any other role other than being a wife and mother is not strengthening his family, but is violating the woman’s full personhood. Right?

Well, a state that seeks to bind all of its citizens into a closer civic community by assuming upon itself the omni-competent authority to govern all institutions of faith, businesses, clubs, organizations, schools, etc is not creating a more integrated and equal society but is what? Is violating THE NON-GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES THAT BELONG TO THE PEOPLE. When it does this, it is said to be perpetuating injustice NOT strengthening the bonds of the POLITICAL COMMUNITY (which is after who we are talking about).

Do you see how this justice question is different than the justice question above? Do you see how government has both roles and limits as to the flourishing of not only individuals but society as a whole? A healthy and normative differentiation of society opens the way to a multiplicity of responsibilities that are mutually compatible with, not mutually exclusive of one another. In other words, it takes a full range of social responsibilities to express the richness of what it means to be human. Very, very important point. People hold to or exercise multiple responsibilities simultaneously precisely because none of the responsibilities is exhaustive of the human person. None may lay claim to an undifferentiated, omnicompetent authority. And what is the opposite of this? It is that any differentiated institution that tries to lay claim (government or otherwise) BEYOND its competence, it will inevitably collide and interfere with other differentiated institutions and persons responsibilities.

Now. You wanna talk about justice and coercion? If government’s responsibility is to “create the space” to allow for these differentiated institutions to exercise their responsibilities, it will be government’s responsibility to ensure that one does not take over the other--government included. In other words, one entity will be coerced to stay within it’s sphere. Which is to say that that entity which is made up of people will be forced to stay within their boundaries. Which is to say that people will be coerced to stay within their boundaries. You may ask yourself if these differentiated communities intentionally overstep their bounds, and I would sometimes say, yes, but I think more often than not they begin to simply but “innocently” assume the others responsibility. Either way, injustice has been perpetuated at that point.

But do you see what I’m saying? All these institutions, families, businesses, churches, clubs, schools, PTA’s, unions, etc, while arising out of human culture ultimately arise as created gifts and have God given responsibilities that they each must be able to fulfill. God has given them this. Isn’t this why one of the ultimate injustices that can occur is when people don’t take up their RIGHTFUL PLACE in life?

Post Edited (Sahid) : 6/8/2008 2:34:09 PM (GMT-5)

Brandon: To the degree that you say that you should not be involved in government is the same degree at which you advocate a pietism because it’s basically saying that Jesus can’t be Lord even over the political realm.

Tom: I’m not disagreeing necessarily, Brandon. I just wonder why you think it follows from our choice not to vote that we must think Jesus can’t be Lord over the political realm. Perhaps the political realm by definition is inherently fallen, a ‘way of relating’ destined 'to pass away', in which case Jesus is Lord of human politics in the sense that the political cannot defeat the Kingdom and will eventually vanish in the consummation, not in the sense that the political feels Christ’s Lordship by means of Christians improving it by voting. Perhaps our not voting can be an honest admission of this. That may be Pietistic. But that's not the same as believing Jesus isn’t Lord over that about which we refuse to cast a vote. In other words, I don't see how it's the case that Christ can only exercise his Lordship over the political realm through Christians voting for or against a position and not through their not voting at all. Christ can't direct a believer NOT to vote at all?

Tom

...from Henry Adams’ novel Democracy:

Politics, as a practice, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds.

Imagine what this means if one is speaking of “politics” in the Church. May God deliver us from all evil.

Z: This is 100% false. It is statists who remove Jesus from the political realm and replace him with a lord, king, prime minister, president, or majority. You, voter, have no legitimate claim over your neighbor. You are wrong to assign rulers over him and subject him to the laws you invent. He belongs to God, not to you or the rulers to whom you assign him.

OK…let me understand this. Greg (not necessarily you) says in his response to Jamie Smith that he is not advocating for a privatized faith--a pietistic faith. Why? Because Greg believes that Christians are to be involved in the culture and affect the culture? Right? He says:

“In reading these responses to my book, the question that repeatedly comes to my mind is: How has this serious misunderstanding of my view arisen? I don’t believe for a moment that anyone is intentionally misrepresenting my position. Yet, neither can I see how I could have been more emphatic or clear in my book about the importance and centrality of the social dimensions of the Gospel.”

and

Since I, like the “pietists,” make a strong separation between the Gospel, on the one hand, and political concerns, on the other, it is assumed that I must advocating for a socially disengaged “pietism” – despite my strong and repeated expressions of the need for the church to engage in social activism.

So Greg believes that one should be actively engaged in society affecting it for the Kingdom--that we should be salt and light. To the degree that we are involved in the culture, I think it could be safe to say that we are being Jesus in that culture. In other words, we are vice-regents WITH Christ to see HIS WILL done in the earth--right? The Lord‘s Prayer? So we assume that we can affect ALL of culture FOR Christ (being his hands and feet?) but when it comes to politics, this ONE AREA OF LIFE, we draw this line and say that we cannot be engaged in it because well, political power is a form of power Jesus denied. It is worldly power--or supposedly is. But I don’t believe that. Even if we can speak from without, the ends are still all the same. We will speak from without to influence government to eventually change laws which will ultimately coerce people in certain ways. I see this as what Greg is advocating, but I think it’s a contradiction. It’s just one step removed from actually being involved. As I’ve repeatedly said, I think government can contribute to human flourishing both positively and negatively and I think Greg intuitively understands this as for when he speaks about how if we were ruled by love, then there would be no need for politics. We only need politics to restrain sinful tendencies, which ultimately do what? Contribute to human flourishing.

Sahid, you say that you believe that government’s role is to punish evil and reward good. In that way, justice will hopefully prevail. But is it not justice when government doesn’t act in an omni-competent fashion such as to allow other areas of creation to carry out their God-given responsibilities? When government doesn’t allow one sphere to bear (or to assume) the responsibilities of another sphere? Who is being coercive here?  To do justice to ALL requires that it PROTECT THE DIVERSE NON-GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITIES of it citizens. A properly ordered society (which is after all what we are talking about) is one in which government’s basic function is to uphold the multiple accountability structures of society. This for example, is why I said what I said about schooling. The primary God-given responsibility for the schooling of one’s child is not the government’s, but the parent’s. Therefore, schooling should not be seen as “another extension” or “another arm” of the government in which we cram children into one system and teach one education “that fits all.” If it is seen as the God-given responsibility of the parent then government, in order to do justice, will see to it that it allows for parents to teach THEIR children the way THEY see fit i.e according to their morals, traditions, values, etc. In other words, in ALL their diversity. Thus, it will allow for the possibility of vouchers or tax breaks or whatever. The whole point is that justice will be served when someone is allowed to carry out their responsibility NOT be FORCED by someone else. So, for all the talk about coercion, I think I’m the one advocating for a more just form of equality where people are not “coerced.” If by coercion (if you can honestly call it that) means forcing government or some other entity to not assume someone else’s responsibility or to allow people to carry out their own responsibilities, then so be it.

Tom: I’m not disagreeing necessarily, Brandon. I just wonder why you think it follows from our choice not to vote that we must think Jesus can’t be Lord over the political realm. Perhaps the political realm by definition is inherently fallen, a ‘way of relating’ destined 'to pass away', in which case Jesus is Lord of human politics in the sense that the political cannot defeat the Kingdom and will eventually vanish in the consummation, not in the sense that the political feels Christ’s Lordship by means of Christians improving it by voting. Perhaps our not voting can be an honest admission of this. That may be Pietistic. But that's not the same as believing Jesus isn’t Lord over that about which we refuse to cast a vote. In other words, I don't see how it's the case that Christ can only exercise his Lordship over the political realm through Christians voting for or against a position and not through their not voting at all. Christ can't direct a believer NOT to vote at all?

Brandon: Because if we are truly concerned with justice (at least as I have described it) I don’t know how we will not at least attempt to “set things right.” Isn’t that a part of being vice-regents with Christ? It’s just ONE way, working within OUR CONTEXT, do this. Also, I’m not of the belief that the political realm is inherently fallen nor that government will necessarily pass away. We’ve talked about this before on The Myth of the Christian Nation thread.

 Let me put it this way.  If Christ is Lord of the political realm in the sense that I spoke of justice, then I see voting as a part of the whole packaging of the political process.  Yes, you can work towards, political justice and reform by means of NOT voting.  So it is not NECESSARY that one HAS to vote in order for Christ to be Lord of Politics.  They can work redemptively via think tanks, lobbying organizations, advocacy groups, etc.  However, there is so much of our responsibility that depends on such things as being able to vote--sheesh...not even to do that, but just to influence from the outside i.e. freedom of speech and association are NECESSARY civil rights since those are two of the main ways in which we influence either individually or corporately our society for justice--is dependent on this.  This and other things such as adequate representation for example should be in place to ensure justice, as I spoke about above.  In other words, we aren't simply Christians, we are also husbands, wives, children, doctors, nurses, waitresses, bus drivers, teachers, plumbers, etc, yes--but we are also earthly citizens--another area of life we are called to participate in.  Therefore, we are called to be what?  Responsible in that as well right?  So how are we responsible for this gift that God has given us?  We pay our taxes, we're law abiding, but we also help in the shaping of the political community to conform to the demands of justice.  And how do we do that?  Voting.  Yes, we can do all those other things, but why do we seem to downplay voting?  Because we have the right to voice opinions through organizations and the media, etc this should not be mistaken for the right to influence in and through elected officials.  In other words, REAL political influence requires a voice in government through those whom voters truly want as their representatives.  You want to see justice?  Vote.  You want to be a responsible citizen?  (Responsible to who?) Vote.

In my opinion, there is anti-institutionalism in the Church in part because of how politics has played out.  People have a sense powerlessness and meaninglessness because candidates are not held responsible or interest groups hold more influence over representatives than the people who elected those officials in the first place.  But the bottomline is that we need to not only see that we need a consistent Christian political philosophy but then we need to work it out in the concreteness of real life in general and political life in particular.

Post Edited (Sahid) : 6/10/2008 2:29:05 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Tom) : 6/11/2008 10:10:22 PM (GMT-5)