politics: chosen

I am pretty sure that this is the last in my current political series. Maybe I'll hit on a lighter topic shortly.

I have already quoted from this passage twice in the last few posts, but that is only because it is such a relevant, yet under-appreciated, piece of Scripture. I have bolded the relevant points for this post.

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."- Romans 13:1-7

A few years ago I saw an online poll that asked whether Jesus would have been a Republican or a Democrat. While the question itself seems ludicrous to me since Jesus went out of his way to avoid the politics of His day (Matt 17:24-27, Luke 20:20-26), it eventually got me thinking along a broader point that God does technically vote in elections, coups, rebellions, puppet governments, and every other process that brings people to power. Any time I stop to contemplate that I am astounded.

Depending on your politics, it may be difficult to imagine that God technically voted for George W. Bush or Barack Obama. I do not really have any ill will toward either of them, but if I did I would have to acknowledge that it was God who put both into their respective positions of power. This passage is far more challenging when I consider that is means that in the last century God also cast a vote for Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and innumerable other despots. Paul certainly knew that he was saying that God put objectively evil people in power, as it is likely that Paul wrote his letter to the Roman Christians in the early years of Nero's reign, and only about a decade-and-a-half after Caligula's reign. This was not Camelot.

This is not to say that the people God has chosen are blessed people because of it. In the Old Testament God used pagan rulers to punish Israel and Judah, then He punished those same rulers for their violence and sin. Even the people who God used who trusted Him were typically horribly flawed, and frequently paid for their sins (Samson, Jephthah, David, et al).

While I do not like the idea that people who I personally believe were bad rulers were put into position by God, I can accept that this is because God ultimately orchestrates things in the way that is most likely to draw people to Him. I do not say this lightly. Horrific things happen in many of these administrations implemented by God—things much worse than my Western mind can even imagine. I am sure if I were to witness some of those atrocities, I would strongly question God's wisdom or care. If I am to accept Scripture, though, I have to accept God's control of who is in power in the world as a hard truth.

So, what does this all mean? What is the respect and honor that we owe to government leaders with whom we disagree? How can we even know what is owed? Are dissenting opinions wrong? Does this mean that any form of protest is wrong? Should political satire be off-limits? I personally believe the answer to this is in the following passage from Titus.

"Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men. At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy."- Titus 3:1-5a

Apart from the fact that God established the authorities that exist, the main reason we are to act with respect toward the governing authorities is that disrespect is a symptom of the former life. It is more consistent with foolishness, disobedience, and slavery to passions than it is to consideration and humility. I therefore believe that the Biblical line for respecting authorities is the point at which we become disobedient, slanderous, divisive, inconsiderate, or prideful. That sounds like a low bar, but my observation is that it is a very difficult standard for anyone with strong political opinions or for anyone who wants to fit in with a group of people who have strong political opinions.

Can I hold a strong political opinion without being disobedient, slanderous, divisive, inconsiderate, or prideful? Probably, but I have to be on guard. Can I have a political debate with friends or acquaintances without being disobedient, slanderous, divisive, inconsiderate, or prideful? That is more difficult, but probably not impossible. Can I join a peaceful political protest without being disobedient, slanderous, divisive, inconsiderate, or prideful? This is pushing the envelope, but could conceivably be okay. Obviously, this is a subjective standard, but it does function as a Scriptural red flag.

I think the real danger here is to underestimate what counts as disobedient, slanderous, divisive, inconsiderate, or prideful. Political name-calling, while appearing to be merely immature, is inconsiderate and prideful. Assuming the worst about those we disagree with and allowing that to color our political conversations, while appearing to be merely strong-minded or informed, is slanderous and divisive. Violating laws in passive ways through civil disobedience, while appearing to be selflessly pushing forward a cause, is still disobedient.

This is not to say that I have achieved the level that Paul commanded. It is simply something that I must continually strive for.

politics: taxes and welfare

I struggled mightily with how to write this one. I think it is an extremely important topic for Christians to consider, but one of the reasons it is important is that it hits on some hot-button issues where a firm stance can alienate people pretty quickly. I have to look no further than my Facebook friends news feed where I have seen plenty of articles posted that either harp on the dangers of a large tax burden or on the unconscionability of allowing the down-and-out to go without basic needs to know the gravity of taking or stating an opinion.

I definitely do have some opinions about what a proper tax system should look like and what the government's role should be in assisting the poor. Those opinions are informed by Scripture as well. That I have opinions or what those opinions ultimately are is not the point, though. The point is that I believe that on this specific issue there is an extraordinary temptation to bend Scripture to an already held position, whatever it happens to be, and ignore the foundational Scriptural principles.

First, I should address why I chose taxation and welfare versus any other spending category. Generally speaking the question of taxation in the United States boils down to an argument over the rights of the rich to their money and the responsibility of the state to provide for the welfare of the poor. Occasionally, I'll see an argument regarding balancing taxation and the size of the military, but it's not as popular an argument now as it was during our last presidency. Republicans not named "Ron Paul" generally don't argue to reduce the size of the military and the Democrats who argue for greater taxation generally aren't the same people who would want to grow the military.

There are serious pitfalls on all sides of this issue for Scripture-following Christian. The mistake that I have observed people on all sides of the issue make is to forget that it is God who provides. This foundational flaw is exposed in almost all of the rationales I have heard for this issue.. The people who argue against higher taxes do so under the guise that the money was earned and is theirs rather than the government's. The people who argue for government support do so under the guise that God will not provide, so therefore only the government is left. Going even deeper than that, though, is that the question is never about what my responsibility is, but rather it is about whether someone else is exploiting me in my position. This is a tempting, but very anti-Scriptural position to take.

A defense that we do not have the luxury of espousing is that such-and-such tax or government assistance policy will be economically better for the country. God is not concerned with the economics of the decision, but rather with the devotion and trust of His followers. From the Bible's standpoint, it is better to trust God in an impoverished economy than to trust self in an environment of wealth.

It is probably the easiest to argue Scripturally against the anti-tax people because the relevant verses are more straightforward. God did not leave room for debate regarding whose money taxes are. That money belongs to the government authority.

"Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."- Romans 13:5-7

It doesn't matter if the tax is egregious or simply seems unfair. It was never our money to begin with. We only had the money because of opportunities, abilities, and drive that God provided to us, and He explicitly states that the percentage of this money—His money—the government claims should indeed be paid in taxes.

There is a further argument that is made that the government should only have a limited role in assisting those in need for a variety of reasons. This technicality is where Scripture gets a little foggy and the underlying principle is lost in the vagueness. A valid argument can be made for or against government being the proper proxy through which we support the poor, but a valid argument cannot be made that we should not sacrificially provide for the poor. If a Christian believes that the government is not the proper means to provide to the poor that is fine IF that same Christian in practice gives sacrificially to those in need. Sacrificial charity is serious business, too. It's enough to be the deciding factor in your salvation, as you should be able to tell from the verses referenced below.

• God made it clear that true fasting was providing for those without: Isa 58:5-11
• At least one of the sins that led to Sodom's destruction was neglecting the poor: Ezek 16:49-50
• We all know about the sheep and the goats: Matt 25:31-46
• Our love is shown in how we value our possessions versus providing for brothers in need: 1 John 3:17-18

Based on the points I just made I must agree that the poor should be able to expect to rely on the sheep or the government the sheep pay for to provide for them, right? Again, I believe that this approach is frequently anti-Scriptural.

First, while I personally believe that laziness accounts for a very small percentage of people who are down and out, there is no Biblical support for choosing not to work. Solomon was clear that sluggards deserved no handout (Prov 13:4). Paul was clear that sluggards deserved no handout (2 Thess 3:6-12). Paul also encouraged the Thessalonians to work and have a manageable standard of living so that they would not have to rely on others (1 Thess 4:11-12).

Probably the most important passage to argue against the idea that we should rely on government support, though, is one that illustrates on whom we should rely. In The Sermon on the Mount Jesus made the following famous statement.

"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."- Matt 6:24

This sounds like an indictment of the rich, but Jesus immediately follows this with a command not to worry about food or clothing because God will provide these things. If there is something the rich do not worry about, it is whether they are fed and clothed. He concludes with the following promise.

"But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well."- Matt 6:33

To serve God is to not worry about the necessities, and to refuse to trust Him regarding the necessities is to seek something before God. This theme of trusting God comes up a lot in Scripture, to the point where it really is foundational to God's ultimate message to us.

• God orders our paths and blesses us if we trust in Him: Prov 3:5-10
• Abraham trusted God and it was credited to him as righteousness, and Paul notes that this promise is for us as well: Romans 4:18-25
• We cannot expect anything from God if we doubt Him: James 1:6-8

There is one final perspective on this topic that I feel needs to be addressed. Plenty of people who make enough that they would not qualify to receive government assistance argue very strongly that the rich are responsible for caring for the poor. Indeed I am technically among them as I have already noted in this post that Christians with means have that responsibility. There is a serious danger in motivation here, though.

Ultimately, my responsibility is to trust God and care for those in need regardless what others do. If I goad others into caring for the needy simply because if I am sacrificing others ought to as well, my motives are less than pure. Likewise, if I do so out of a sense of self-righteousness rather than humility my pride is sin. If I take this position because I trust in government more than God, then I am not right with God. Finally, if my motivation is so that others bear their share of the burden rather than having an undue burden fall on me, I am simply passing off my selfishness as duty or as equity.

In summary, no matter our lot in life, our focus cannot be on griping about being exploited by the tax system or by society in general. Our focus has to be on trusting God enough to handle our finances and everything else in our lives.

I should be clear that I am not better than anyone else on any of these counts. I have somehow espoused both anti-Scriptural parts of the anti-tax philosophy and of the trust-in-the-government philosophy at one time or another. My position here is only to point to pitfalls of the attitudes behind these philosophies as described by Scripture.

In conclusion, thanks to those who put the effort in to read this treatise. Politics is an uncomfortable topic anyways, and to make something I have one more post that will be much shorter than this one to conclude this series. I have had fun with this, but I know I should limit these sorts of posts because political topics are difficult to converse about with tact.