I believe in the legitimacy of government. From a biblical perspective. Because it has a God-given responsibility to carry out. That question is primary and of the utmost importance to me. So for me the question of Federal involvement is secondary (as opposed to the individual states or provinces. The reasons being are listed in “No. 6“ below. Different places have different needs. It was mentioned by Skillen that“perhaps even the Constitution” may need changing to involve the federal government). When Skillen and Co. speak of justice they speak of it in terms right relation and in terms of it being PUBLIC justice. How do we do justice to all the differentiated realities such as NGO’s? A large problem with politics today is the politicization of EVE-RY-THING (something I want to write about in the thread, “How [Not] to Change the World” This itself contributes to the problem of the citizenry being alienated from politics and government). So what I mean by doing justice in a public sense is not about doing justice to various interest groups with their various goals (from what I read of Asher’s stuff, I see this as problematic. There is no general consensus of the common good by which we hold society together. Not saying he fully “goes there.” But I do see that lack of consensus as a reason why we have such politicization). This means that justice is working for the commonwealth that all citizens share. And this is accomplished when standards of justice transcend interest-group competition. So the question is how do we do justice for ALL? For every citizen in the POLITICAL COMMUNITY? To NGO’s such as religious charitable organizations which are a part of the equation (or response to) of the welfare question?

When you ask, “So do the thought experiment for me. Suppose you were a Congressman. How would you determine the just thing to do or not do in terms of welfare. What criteria would be used?” the CPJ speaks about that as was said in that Welfare article written by Skillen. In their guidelines for Welfare they say (where the article is from):

Couple of things.

By the politicization of everything what I mean essentially, is “that politics has become so central in our time that institutions and groups and issues are now defined relative to the state, its laws and procedures.” All of these institutions, groups and issues ie., the family, “understand their identity and function according to what the state does and does not permit.” That is, “Groups (women, minorities, gays, Christians, etc) have validity not only but increasingly through the rights conferred by the state. Issues gain legitimacy only when recognized by law and public policy. It is logical, then, that problems affecting the society are seen increasingly, if not primarily through the prism of the state; that is, in terms of how law, policy, and politics can solve them. In short, the state ha increasingly become the incarnation of the public weal. Its laws, policies, and procedures have become the predominant framework by which we understand collective life, its members, its leading organizations, its problems and its issues…This is the heart of politicization and it has gone so far as to affect our language, imagination, and expectations. The language of politics (and political economy) comes to frame progressively more of our understanding of our common life, our public purposes, and ourselves individually and collectively.”--James Davison Hunter ("How Not to Change the World, HNTCTW).

The CPJ states it like this:

“Politics in the United States has become increasingly issue-oriented, short-term, and pragmatic. Citizens approach government primarily as a means to achieve the ends that various interest groups, regions, or sectors of society hold dear. Politics often amounts to little more than interest-group competition among diverse groups, each seeking its own goals. Too little attention is given to the soundness of public institutions, to the art of long-term constitutional statecraft, and to the common good of the republic as a whole.

The prevalence of interest-group politics fuels an electoral process in which candidates raise money from special interests and typically appeal to voters on a narrow range of issues. Think tanks do research, some of it quite detailed and in-depth, but most of it focuses narrowly on particular issues, with little concern for other, equally vital matters. The political parties, interest groups, think tanks, and most citizens tend to take for granted this system along with the dominant ideologies and American civil religion that fuel the action.”

Those “other equally vital matters” I would presume, are essentially, “the spheres of responsibility” that make up a “differentiated reality.” Do you understand the point? The question is not about “my rights” but about “my responsibility” from what the CPJ calls a “Christian-democratic” point of view. I’m essentially talking about the “very notion of rule” here. “Justice for all” doesn’t mean, “I get my share of the pie.” What it means is, every citizen and institution has an equal responsibility before and given by their Creator to carry out that responsibility. Huge difference between competing interest groups and what I’m saying here. HUGE. This gets to the very heart of “notion of rule and the consent of the governed” idea.

You say that this “virtually always leads to a Federal answer and that is part of the problem.”

Again, this is something that was responded to in the article. I’m simply making the case for governmental involvement PERIOD. Though I don’t doubt what you say is true, there are two responses to this (some of it in the article):

A. Sometimes there is the NEED for the federal government to step in as pertaining to the situations expressed. I’m simply saying there are situations where it is called for in which “government takes resources from him that were his to steward” (contra Asher, which, incidentally, CAN devolve into selfishness and greed). I mean, I really don’t think anyone here on these boards, in their right rational mind, will say that there are NEVER any contingencies in which, “neighbors are not generous or when economic conditions restrict private charity.” I mean if any of the Christianity Today articles/surveys or Barna Research surveys are saying anything, its that the best of Christians don’t give freely, and cheerfully and graciously out of the abundance of their resources. Nor can ANYONE of us predict any contingencies in which governmental resources will be not be needed. One has to see the big picture. Sure. Give out of your personal resources. Give personally with that which God has steward you with. But lets not forget “the reality of the situation” or “the emergency contingencies of the world.” Thus, a need for a “politically discerning compassion.”

B. The question of Federal or State governmental involvement. Hmm…Skillen says this:

“Government must establish its own general qualifications, conditions, and purposes for the service mandates or funds, but justice also requires that it not discriminate against any qualified non-government organization because it is religious or non-governmental.” (In Pursuit of Justice: Christian-Democratic Explorations). Again, this goes back to what is said in the article about NGO’s ie., faith based organizations. In other words, government must “protect their autonomy and diversity… In keeping with the First Amendment, government must grant faith-based organizations the same opportunities offered to all other service groups and protect their distinctive religious character if they become its partners." In other words no discrimination for funding based on the religious character or tenets of certain organizations.  The issue of partnering is of little importance to me.  The issue of Federal or State is of secondary importance relative to THAT question (partnering).

My whole point, Jeff, is simply to point out, that I believe in the legitimacy of government from a biblical perspective contra to saying that government “takes my resources” that I can give of freely. At best, that is a blind-spot that doesn’t take account of the “big picture” of contingencies and the reality of the habits of giving of one’s resources in North America today. At worst it is IGNORES these.

Hmmm…OK…well this has to do with electoral reform. Another “Justice for all” question. Without getting into a long spiel about the history of the American political process, I will say this: The issue is not simply that of career incumbency (what you are saying above) or even interest group pressures (as I noted). The whole American electoral process is in need of reform to represent the diversity of political views that exist in the United States. It’s kinda the same as having a “public” school system that shoves all these diverse views through their “funnel.” A “one size fits-all” school system. That isn’t truly “public.” Sorry. I want to quote Skillen here:

Skillen lays out six components as to why we are in the predicament that we are in today. In his summary of these six he says this:

Instead of citizens giving up at the start because they feel their votes will not count (since under the current system those votes often do not count), they will instead be motivated under PR to work together to organize parties that can try to win a percentage of the House seats at election time.

Jeff: Again, if most people were willing to be good losers, would we even have the government we currently have? Seems to me the answer is clearly "no." Way too many people don't even care about the rule of law at all. Just look at all the myriads of surveys and polls that bear upon that issue.

Brandon:  And so the vicious cycle continues.

Brandon: Right now, as things are with "a winner take all" system in place, injustice **is** taking place.

Jeff: In my mind there are two ways government can be injust. First, it can act in ways God never authorized. That would be a usurpation of power.

Brandon:  Right. This is what Skillen and Co. talk about with regard to sphere sovereignty as well as with government acting omni-competently which only God can do (one of the problems of Communism as an “ism.” Thus, it is a form of idolization. And this is why the issue is much more deeper and problematic than Asher’s mere “give us a King” idea. Skillen noticed this VERY early on. I put this up before but its worth repeating here:

Jeff:  Second, it can do less than what God authorized it to do. That would dereliction of duty. As I understand the purpose of government, all human governments are and have been injust in both ways. The fact that a government is "winner take all" might make injustice more likely and egregious, but it is not the problem, per se.

Brandon:  So when government doesn’t carry out its God given responsibility of ensuring that OTHER AUTHORITIES or spheres take over the responsibilities of the other differentiated sphere’s in God’s creation that is injustice. When GOVERNMENT takes over other sphere’s responsibility that is injustice. But we should never say that government is not legitimate from a biblical perspective or that it is merely something autonomous individuals agree to have through contract to keep civility. This is sooo opposite of what Greg or Asher’s views are. For guys like Skillen, generally speaking, the ambivalence toward government and governing as a whole, arises precisely from this omni-competency. For Skillen, “…respect for God’s true omnipotence..” a “government of a political community should not even try to exercise omnicompetent authority.” And that it ought to acknowledge that it would perpetrate injustice within its jurisdiction if it tried to compel the consciences of its citizens in all respects. And of course you see this played out in the extreme with communism.

BTW, when I say, “winner-take-all” I’m speaking about winning elections. I’m saying that to the degree that citizens are not represented in government there is injustice. I’m not saying that citizens can’t address their politicians or issues. I’m not saying that it’s the worst injustice going on. But it is unjust never-the-less.

Brandon: As Skillen says, “The real question is whether the present system is any longer stable.”

Jeff: I think the question is, "given what Skillen advocates, who should I have voted for in all the recent elections had I been a voter in those elections, and how would I have inferred thus?" Alternatively, "what organization ought I to support to render that goal attainment probable, and how do I know that?" Because if his goal is not something I can contribute to, in getting there, it makes no PRACTICAL difference (with respect to my political involvement, at least) whether our present system is stable or not.

Brandon:  Interesting. As I say, I’ve had a few email exchanges with Skillen and I brought this sort of question up within the context of Christians whose political activity amounts to voting for politicians on the basis of one issue (ie., abortion) every few years.

Couple of things here.

A. However, one votes it should reflect as much as possible this “principled pluralism" that I'm talking about.

And B. Here is what Skillen wrote me.

So its about looking wholistically at the process, politicians, character, fitness for office, and a range of other issues, etc.

OK. Obviously, either way, this is something that should not absolve us from making responsible decisions though right? I mean we all have to inform ourselves.

A lot of what you are saying, though spins back around to interest group brokering ie., politician makes a promise, but (in large part), because of interest group brokering said politician doesn’t keep campaign promise. And this is what CPJ and Skillen talk about a lot in their writings and the CPJ site. A couple of examples, Skillen says:

Now let’s remember something here. Skillen and CPJ are NOT advocating for a PERFECT government. They ARE advocating for a MORE JUST government. They realize that untrustworthy politicians enter office and they seek a way to make political officials ACCOUNTABLE to the citizenry. Well how do you do this? Their aim is to connect the citizenry more closely to the officials such that it makes THAT link stronger than the link between officials and interest-groups. And a part of that is connecting citizens strongly to teams or parties who can then discipline their members.