The Kind of Government we Want
Tags: government
Romans 13:1-7
1 Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; 4for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil. 5Wherefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. 6For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.
During each political season talk surfaces about a "religious" or "cultural" war that is being waged in the United States today. The press and media sometimes have responded to such language with shock and indignation, as though this were an ill-suited and inflammatory description of current political realities. Actually, thinking people have been talking of "culture war” for several years. Articles have appeared in scholarly journals, and it has even received book-length treatment, as in the University of Virginia’s Professor of Religion James Davidson Hunter’s Culture Wars (Basic Books, 1992). Newsweek reported years ago: "As a whole library of scholarly books and essays attest, there is a genuine culture war going on in American society in education, the arts, religion, law, politics and the entertainment media are only its most visible battleground" (July 20, 1992, p. 55). The phrase itself goes back to the mid- to late-19th century kulturkampf in Germany. When unification of the various German kingdoms had been accomplished through Protestant Prussia(s military might, Bismark sought to require Protestant education in the state schools in the Catholic kingdoms. Stiff resistance resulted as German Protestants and Catholics battled to define the national identity.
Hunter and others see a similar cleavage today between two primary groups battling for the soul of the nation. He labels the first group as the "orthodox," whom he defines as those who are committed to "an external, definable, and transcendent authority." From that authority, whether identified as "God" by theists or "Nature" by agnostics, they derive absolute and unchanging concepts of "what is good, what is true, how we should live, and who we are." The second group he calls "progressive," which he defines as those who tend to reinterpret historic faiths "according to the prevailing assumptions of contemporary life." They reject all external authority (such as the Bible) and see truth as relative, evolving, unfolding, and to be discerned on the basis of reason and experience (pp. 44,45).
The result is what Thomas Sowell called in his book by the same title, A Conflict of Visions (New York: William Morrow & Company, Inc., 1987). Hunter says, "the contemporary culture war is ultimately a struggle over national identity over the meaning of America, who we have been in the past, who we are now, and perhaps most important, who we as a nation, will aspire to become in the new millennium" (p. 50).
Where are the battles being fought? The storm-centers touch each one of us. The first war-zone is the family. What is it, what is legitimate sexuality, what is the role of women, how are children to be raised, what are the rights of the unborn? The second war-zone is the schools. What will our children be taught about human origins, moral values, and the American civilization? The third war-zone is the popular media. What films are to be shown, what TV shows are to be aired, what art is to be exhibited? The fourth war-zone is law. How is law to be handled by the courts? Are judges to interpret or legislate? Who has what rights and on whose behalf is the state to intervene? Who is to be accorded the status of “victim” and become beneficiary of the spoils which result? The final war-zone is electoral politics. Who has the votes to enforce its vision of America throughout victory at the ballot box?
The last point is important because this is finally what the cultural war is all about. "Let us come right to the point," says Hunter, "cultural conflict is ultimately about the struggle for domination." Again he says, "Whatever else may be involved, cultural conflict is about power, a struggle to achieve or maintain the power to define reality . . . nothing less is at stake than a sense of justice and fair play, an assurance that life is as it should be, nothing less is at stake than a way of life" (p. 52).
Irving Kristol asked in a Wall Street Journal article, "What culture war?" His point was, the war has already been fought, and traditionalists lost! What are the major institutions by which the character of public culture is determined? The universities, the media, the press, and political institutions are the most important. Go back over them and search for conservatives, by which I mean primarily people who wish to "conserve" America(s traditional Christian way of viewing things. Is there one, even one major university in America that is predominantly conservative? It is startling to realize, but true. Every major university is dominated by liberal/progressive ideology. Even the old Soviet Union could hardly have claimed to be more uniform. How about the media? Is there a major network that is conservative? One could argue that Fox News is "fair and balanced" conservatism. But shouldn't one be able to turn on the evening news and have the option of watching a conservative network news-anchor? Why is there only a choice between three liberals? Even a writer for the liberal New Republic said several years ago that he was embarrassed by the bias of the liberal media that election season. What about the press? Is there a major daily newspaper in America serving one of our great cities which is conservative? Do any of them represent the viewpoints of the orthodox? How about the national news magazines? Do Time, Newsweek, or U. S. News and World Report do anything but advocate the agenda of the progressives, and toss an occasional crumb in the direction of the orthodox? What about our political institutions? We can say that the conservatives have had control of the executive branch of government for much of the last 35+ years. But the result has been mainly to slow the implementation of the liberal program, not reverse it, and not positively to implement the conservative program. The size of the federal budget continues to expand. Abortion on demand is still legal. Taxes are still oppressive. So-called "rights" continue to be asserted against the interests of families and communities. Why? Because government tends to follow the drift of the culture. Even when the government is in the hands of conservatives, spending continues to grow, taxes remain high, and the moral program of the progressives continues to be implemented. While balance has been restored to the judiciary, the judicial philosophy of the more traditionally inclined “constructionist” judges has resulted in passivity toward the rulings of the activist judges they replaced. The progressive program largely remains in place, and the nation remains divided according to sexual and racial lines. And we’ve not even mentioned local and state governments which have likewise been dominated by the progressive/liberal philosophy since the 1930's.
This is why elections are important, and this is why understanding a Christian theory of government is critical. The progressive trends are dangerous and must be reversed. I am not supporting one political party over another. To do so in this forum would be an abuse of my office and wrong. But to ignore today(s political realities would likewise be wrong. Christian truth has much to say about political things, and it is my duty, as issues arise, to address those issues from the pulpit. The question which every Christian should be asking is this, "Is my vote supporting the 'orthodox' or 'progressive' ideals for the civil government?" I trust you’re saying "the orthodox," or, in our circumstances, "the Christian" ideals and programs are the ones which you wish to support. "But what are they?" you ask. No one candidate or party fits them exactly. But we will attempt to outline them below.
Justice
First, Christian principles require that the state be committed to ensuring justice for all. But before we go any further, we will have to define what we mean by "justice." The so-called progressives have identified justice with material equality. Thus a "just" society is one in which the wealth of that society is equally distributed everyone has a "fair" share of goods and services. The orthodox view such a definition as misleading, utopian, oppressive: misleading because it confuses things that are different equality, however desirable it may be, is not the same thing as justice; utopian because it is impossible to achieve except in mathematics as Thomas Sowell has asked, in what sense are Willie Mays and Beethoven equal? No two human beings are, in capabilities, opportunities, or output; and oppressive because the attempt to equalize wealth requires injustice of the worst sort, in the seizure of the property and wealth of those who have, and the suppression of those who produce. Wealth cannot be equalized except through coercive tyranny.
What then is justice? Justice is the right of every person to their life, liberty, and property. To be robbed of one’s life, freedom, or belongings is an injustice. These are “natural” rights, rights of nature, upon which the Bible’s 6th-9th (of the Ten) Commandments are based. One may not deprive another human being of his or her life, liberty, or property through murder, theft (including man-stealing), or deception. The government(s primary responsibility is to ensure that this doesn’t happen. It must guarantee that one is only deprived of these things as a result of due process. More than anything else, if not indeed to the exclusion of everything else, this is the civil government’s God-given responsibility. The Apostle Paul writes of the state,
For it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil. Wherefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. (Romans 13:4-6)
What do we want then from our government?
First, we want sufficient military forces to protect us form loss of life, liberty, and property through foreign intervention, whether by invasion, blockade, terrorist attack, or blackmail.
Second, we want sufficient policing forces to protect us form the loss of life, liberty, or property through criminal activity within our borders.
Third, we want a fair legal system that ensures that the innocent are protected, including the innocent unborn, and that the guilty are punished.
How is your candidate doing in these areas? Is he for protecting life? The plight of the unborn painfully illustrates the extend to which injustice has overtaken our society. By what right are the unborn deprived of life? By what right are they deprived of due process? At one point in a previous election(s Vice Presidential debate, the question was asked, "Are you in favor of a woman(s right to choose?" The appearance of hesitation and uncertainty followed. Is there no one who will strip away the deceptiveness of that question and defend the innocent? Does anyone have the unlimited right to choose whatever they might want to do with their own body? Why are drug abuse, prostitution, self-mutilation, and suicide illegal in this nation, if we do? Moreover, are we to understand that a woman has the right to do whatever she wants to do with the fetus? May she abort it at six months? At eight months? At nine months? May she abort it because it(s a girl and she wants a boy? May a teenager get an abortion without parental knowledge? These questions get at the heart of the issue, and the reason why it is an issue. What are we aborting? It is only because we are dealing with human life, and we all know it, that these questions arise at all, and all but the extremists know we must have some restrictions.
Since we won’t protect life, we can’t protect liberty and property either. The compromising of the sanctity of human life in the case of abortion has contributed to the loss of respect for human life generally. Life is cheap in America today. Who walks outside at night anymore? You are denied that freedom today, aren’t you? Who sits on their porch and enjoys the evening breezes? Who enjoys evenings at home alone, and experiences security and peace of mind, even within the walls of his or her home, even with the doors locked? Who wouldn’t like bars on his windows? Who doesn’t feel like she needs an alarm system? Who is next? Who will next be deprived of his property, or worse yet, his life? When will the next riot break out? We are prisoners in this wicked society. We are being deprived unjustly of our freedom to walk our streets. We want our government to use whatever force is necessary to rid the public environment of criminals. We want leaders who have the nerve to "bear the sword" in defense of the innocent.
But it's not just a matter of force. Fear of "Willie Hortonizing" recent campaigns has deflected attention from what is not just a legitimate concern, but one which strikes at the heart of what the government is charged to do. We don’t just want the innocent protected, we want the guilty punished. It is wrong to let murderers and rapists go free. It is wrong to merely slap the hands of those who assault and batter and steal. We want thieves to "pay their debt" not just to society, but to the individuals they have wronged through restitution. When criminals have paid for all that they have stolen or destroyed, then they should be allowed to go free, and not before. We want murderers to pay the ultimate price, even as God requires of those who assault His image in man,
Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man. (Genesis 9:6)
What is the perspective of those whom you are about to elect? Do their sympathies lie with criminals or victims? Will they vigorously protect the innocent or are their hearts too busy bleeding for the guilty? The Christian ideal is a government that will clear the streets of hoodlums, and make them safe again for the innocent.
Limited
Second, the Christian ideal is a government that is limited in its functions. That governments are limited in their responsibilities and powers seems clear enough. Jesus said,
"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." (Matthew 22:21b)
By distinguishing Caesar's things from God's things, Jesus was saying both that civil governments are legitimate, there are Caesar's "things," and limited, God's things are not Caesar's things.
But what are those limits? We would wish to press the point that the maintenance of justice is the primary, and perhaps the exclusive, role of the civil government. It "bears the sword" not to do whatever it pleases, but to fulfill its policing, judicial, and military roles.
The case for a civil government limited to the task of maintaining justice might be built along the following lines, biblical and practical.
Biblical
1. The example of Israel--When God designed a civil government He made no provision for government-based social welfare. No mechanism was put in place in Israel for the civil government to collect taxes for the poor or to redistribute wealth. Israel was required to take care of the needy and failure to do so was the occasion of God's judgments upon Israel. But this was a matter of uncoerced individual and community compassion. Charity was not compulsory, was not enforced by the state, and was not obligatory.
2. Civil government in the New Testament--Passages which describe the role of the civil government do not contemplate a role in social welfare (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17). As we have seen, the state "bears the sword" to punish and protect, not redistribute wealth. Admittedly this is an "argument from silence," a weak category of argumentation. Yet it is noteworthy that social welfare is not a responsibility that the Bible mentions in connection with the responsibilities of civil governments in either the Old Testament or the New Testament.
3. The 8th Commandment--The civil government is bound by the 8th Commandment even as are private citizens. The Bible recognizes the rights of property owners to their property. It might be good if my rich neighbor were to share his wealth with my poor neighbor. I might urge him to do so. But I may not put a gun to his head and force him to transfer funds from his account to that of the needy. May the government do so? Some say yes. But on what basis? How does the government slip the strictures of the 8th Commandment? It may be good for people to have medical care, food, housing, education, retirement funds, and so on. But that does not mean that the state has the right or responsibility to provide them. Social contract theory may not be used to justify the confiscation of wealth. What "we," the majority, may "agree among ourselves to do," may be unjust. It is hard to see how a majority may justly vote for themselves, or their causes, public money at the expense of an unwilling minority, or even an unwilling individual. To argue otherwise is to open the door to tyrannical majority rule at the expense of important minority rights.
Wisdom
We might argue further that it is unwise for the government to assume responsibility for social welfare. Granted this is not as strong an argument as one which begins, "Thus saith the Lord," but it may be compelling nonetheless. Consider the following:
1. The expansive nature of civil power. It is in the nature of the state to extend its tentacles even further into the private sector. It is the tendency of civil government to accumulate for itself an ever expanding jurisdiction with ever expanding powers. The 20th century gives eloquent testimony to the growth of the wealth and power of the state, even as the ancient world demonstrates the propensity of kings and emperors to claim divine rights and absolute powers.
Once the social welfare jurisdiction is bridged there seems to be no logical stopping place. If the state must provide for any material need, it's hard to see how it cannot be held responsible to provide for every material need. The logic of the welfare state moves society toward socialism, if not Marxism. Womb to the tomb security means state control and allocation of a nation's wealth. This expansion of state power will eventually overwhelm personal property rights. At this moment the only hedge against a totalitarian expansion of government power (as we see it) is the recent memory of Fascist and Marxist tyrannies. Yet the logic of "why not one more benefit," and the difficulty of resisting that logic, can be seen in much of the political discourse of the last 100 years, as the state takes on more and more responsibility for social welfare, and with that, more and more wealth and power.
2. The corrupting nature of civil power. We would argue that Lord Acton's dictum, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolute," is a bit of worldly wisdom that should carefully considered. Each new job assigned to the civil government brings with it new powers and new wealth. An expanding jurisdiction means expanding authority. Is it wise to concentrate power in a central government? Are there not great dangers in creating a vast governmental bureaucracy with powers to confiscate and redistribute vast treasures of wealth according to the preferences of a majority? Because power corrupts, the power (that is, the tasks) of the central government ought to be sharply limited and carefully controlled. "A government that can give you all that you need will take from you all that you have," is another bit of wisdom that we ought to heed.
3. The incompetent nature of civil power. The power of the civil government is a blunt instrument. It may fulfill its calling to maintain justice well. But it is a poor parent, a poor family, a poor church, a poor school, or poor hospital, and a poor soup kitchen. It lacks the calling and the commensurate wisdom necessary to carry out these tasks that have been divinely assigned (we would argue) to mediating institutions. Repeatedly history has shown that there is a law of unintended consequences when governments get involved. Government programs to end poverty have tended to compound poverty. As control of local schools has moved from parents to government agents, education has suffered. When governments have taken responsibility for health care, that care has deteriorated and often been rationed. As someone once quipped regarding a national health care plan, "It would combine the efficiency of the Post Office with the compassion of the IRS." Civil governments display little competence to provide health, education, or social welfare. We are wise not to ask them to do so.
During a previous election's Presidential debate, a very revealing question was asked by one of the Joe Citizens in the crowd. He wanted to know what the candidates would do to "meet the needs" of the American citizens. He likened the President to a father, and citizens to children with needs, like housing needs, food needs, medical needs, that he as President/father needed to meet. We need a President who will repudiate the father metaphor. Why? Because it is not the function of government to meet people's needs. That kind of thinking is why we have built-up a multi-trillion dollar debt, and families are being crushed by the burden of taxation. Here as elsewhere we have a conflict of visions. Is the government the means of solving national problems, as progressives tend to think, or is government itself part of the problem?
Let's ask some basic questions. What money does the government have? None. The only money it has it what it takes from others. Does it have an unlimited right to take money form its citizens? No. As we have seen, the state has no more right to break the Eighth Commandment than the private citizen. It may tax in order to carry out its legitimate functions, but not in order to do whatever it wants, or what an interest group in society may want. "For because of this you pay taxes," says the Apostle Paul (Romans 13:6). Because of what? He's referring back to verses 3-5, which describe the responsibility of the state to bear the sword, punishing the guilty and protecting the innocent. The state may tax in order to carry out that specific duty. Just because a thing is good and it ought to be done does not give the state the right to use its coercive power (of which it has a legal monopoly) to see that it is done. Governments, and individuals, must not steal.
Each year the government takes on more responsibilities. As its tasks expand, the tax burden of ordinary citizens expands. Israel warned that if it had a king, he would tax them at what was thought to be crushing rates. "He will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards . . . of your flocks" (1 Samuel 8:15-17). Scripture assumes that 10% is exorbitant. Federal taxes alone are about 25% for an average family today. Then there are state taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and so on. "Tax Freedom Day," as some call it, the day on which the average family has earned enough that year to pay all its taxes, is now nearly May 1st! One-quarter to one-third of each working year is spent earning money just to pay one(s total tax bill. It seems ridiculous today, but America got started as a protest against taxation. Now we passively accept it, and elect folks who are sure to raise them higher still.
Who are the heavies? the minorities? the liberals? the unions? No, everyone who demands that the state take from others in order to meet their private need, however worthy it might be.
When you hear candidates speaking Messianically of how "I’m going to provide jobs," "I’m going to provide health care," "I’m going to provide housing," "I’m going to provide educational opportunity". When you hear all that, run for cover. When you hear talk of the government "investing," and "stimulating" the economy, look out. Not only is that kind of Keynesian optimism discredited, but the government is not competent to do any of these things. Here’s another motto to digest: "Markets are smart, governments are dumb." Could there be a "worse case scenario" than that of taking money out of the hands or private citizens who know how to invest wisely, and giving it instead to the government to pour down a bureaucratic rat hole? Don’t vote for a candidate because you think he might put you or your company on the government dole. The government should not be promoting anyone(s private interest. The state has a limited function, that of justice, which it is failing to provide in part because its energies are dissipated by involvement in countless other projects. We want a government with a limited job description. We want a president who will tell us all that he won’t do, in addition to what he will.
Let’s not forget either, that the greatest force of evil in the history of the world has not been religion, or business, or private individuals. It has been governments. More people were killed on a "good" day during Stalin’s purges than in the whole history of the Inquisition. Be careful what powers you give to the state. John Cotton, a founding father of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, writing on "The Limitation of Government," once warned,
"Let all the world learn to give mortal men no greater power than they are content they shall use, for use it they will . . . It is necessary therefore, that all power that is on earth be limited."
Fiscally Responsible
A third Christian ideal is that governments be fiscally responsible. That is to say, we want a government that will pay its debts and balance its budget. Let’s imagine Joe Citizen who has been given two weeks to live, grabbing his credit cards, running to Europe, Hawaii, the Caribbean, charging up huge debts which he can’t pay, knowing that he will die and leave those debts for his children. What do you think about that? It’s wrong, isn’t it? It is a fundamentally immoral thing to do. Yes, and it is exactly what our federal government is doing. The government today is piling up unimaginable debts and merely passing them on to the next generation. It is wrong to live beyond one’s means, for individuals and governments.
What do we want our government to do? Pay its debts and balance its budgets. If a given program can’t be paid for through modest taxation, it shouldn’t be done. The government can’t do everything. Just servicing the debt is consuming a greater and greater share of the national budget each year. National bankruptcy is inevitable at the current rate, and with it will come worldwide financial collapse.
Is your vote supporting fiscal responsibility, defined as debt reduction and balanced budgets? Is the support more than rhetoric? Does it have specific content and teeth? I hope that you can see that this is a moral issue, as are the rest. Fiscal responsibility can only be justly achieved through drastic spending cuts. Dramatic reductions in the size of the national government and its programs are the only way out of the crisis. We need people in government who are willing to make the tough decisions, cut programs and spending, and balance the budget.
"But what will happen to the poor?" it is objected. "How will they get the care they need?" This is an important question, and one which must be given careful consideration. But I’d like to respond first with a question or two. What happened to the poor before the welfare state was created by Lyndon’s "Great Society" program in 1965? Did they all die of exposure and malnutrition? Or did families and churches and charities take care of them? What happened to the elderly and unemployed before Roosevelt’s "New Deal?" Did they die of poverty and neglect? Or were most of our grandparents and great grandparents cared for by families and churches and charities?
The poor are now welfare dependent in many cases, and could only be deprived of their benefits through a careful weaning process. But it needs to be pointed out, as Charles Murray’s Losing Ground irrefutably demonstrated, that government entitlements have had a devastating impact on poor families, driving men from the home and promoting illegitimacy, single parent households, and unemployment. In other words, the symptoms of social pathology so visible today were less widespread before the government tried to solve the problem of poverty. Welfare programs have made nearly everything worse, far worse. Again, the civil government is not competent to solve these problems. It must be cut back and soon, for the sake of fiscal responsibility and for the sake of those who are its alleged beneficiaries.
Diffusion of Power
Calvinistic pessimism about human nature was at least in part responsible for the decision of the Founding Fathers to separate federal power into executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and to leave unspecified powers in the hands of the states and local governments. This is our fourth Christian ideal. No son of Adam can be trusted with total power, therefore liberty can only be preserved when power is shared.
Let’s start with the federal government. The branches of the federal government must be kept independent.
Christians must be leery of an "imperial Presidency," a fear of the late 1960's or early 1970's, an "imperial Congress," a concern of the 1990's, as well as an "imperial judiciary." The threat of the last is perhaps the greatest of all in our day. The activist judiciary of the 1960's and 70's went from interpreting law to creating new law, thus usurping the Constitutional function of the elected branches. Progressives have been happy about this, seeing judicial fiat as simpler than the tough business of consensus building. They are happy to see the judiciary as a "second legislative branch" or an "unelected super-Congress," as some commentators have called it.
But this is dangerous business. The Constitution allows only the Congress to make laws. With the courts doing more to determine public policy, as in the case of abortion, racial and gender quotas, the definition of marriage, etc., we have come to the verge of a judicial tyranny. Several hundred federal judges are appointed every four years. It makes all the difference in the world what kind of judges are appointed. Will they practice judicial restraint, or will they be policy makers? Will we have unelected, appointed, and, for all practical purposes, unaccountable judges directing society or merely interpreting laws? We want a government which will maintain the separation of powers and appoint judges who are strict constructionists, and will stick to interpreting laws, and leave policy making to the legislature. Another way of saying this is to affirm the principle of the rule of law. We are ruled by law, not men, as it is often said. Law defines and limits the tasks and powers of our elected officials. Law creates their job descriptions and limits their authority. If we are to remain a nation governed by law, law applied to all equally, law to which all are subject, law as opposed to the arbitrary whims of elites, law (and justice) that is impartial and blind, then judges who will interpret not legislate are crucial.
This single sphere may prove to be the most important of all. Presidents come and go. What they enact can be overturned by the next administration. But federal judges are for life. A new generation of judges who reinterpret current law to mean equal rights for homosexuals, no rights for preborn children, new rights for young children against their parents, special rights for favored minorities, would mean an enduring national disaster. Where are the sympathies of your candidates? Do your candidates want a strict separation of powers? Are they convinced that judicial activism is a bad thing? Are they willing to appoint only those who practice judicial restraint?
Similarly, does he have a top-down view of government, seeing most of the power residing in Washington, DC? Be fearful of such. The South has both a venerable and abused tradition of "states-rights." Since Lord Acton’s dictum, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," rings true, a federalism which diffuses power throughout the states and counties is wise. The Founding Fathers were wise in designing a form of government in which the powers "not delegated" to the federal government were understood to be "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" (this is the language of the 10th Amendment!). In other words, the United States Constitution was seen as a ball and chain, restricting the Federal government to its defined role and specifying that all unnamed or "unenumerated" powers belong to the states, counties, cities, families, and individuals. Federalism can be abused, and has been. But the dangers are far worse when larger political entities are corrupted than when smaller ones. A healthy respect for human depravity will lead us to support those who advocate the diffusion of power, rather than its concentration.
Finally, secondary governing institutions, such as families, businesses, schools, and churches must also be protected from state intervention and control. The independence of these mediating institutions act as a buffer between the state and the isolated individual. They also further diffuse power throughout society. This is why the progressive social engineers hate the family. They cannot control it. It perpetuates, in their view, sexism and oppression, as parents pass their prejudice on to their children. It limits their ability to shape the coming generation in the image of their utopian sexless and classless society. The same may be said for Christian schools. The independence of these institutions is vital. Does your candidate support the integrity of private organizations, families, businesses, churches, and schools, or does he plan further federal intervention and control?
Religion and Morals
Finally, the fifth Christian ideal is government encouragement of religion and morals. We want a government that understands that while church and state are separate, religion and state are not. Religion, religious based morality, and society, including the governing institutions of society, are mutually dependent. Their relationship ought to be one of mutual encouragement, not hostility.
The progressives have been saying for a generation or more that there is an impenetrable “wall of separation” between church and state. This phrase, by the way, is not found in our national documents. The orthodox respond by asking, "What is wrong with a manger scene at City Hall?" What is wrong with a Menorah on city property? What is wrong with a prayer at graduation, or at the beginning of a football game, or at the beginning of the day in our public schools? Common sense tells us that, of course, nothing is wrong with it. The Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution at a time when ten of thirteen colonies had state-supported churches. The same men who approved the 1st Amendment prohibiting the "establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," also authorized government paid chaplains for the military, opening the daily sessions of the Supreme Court and Senate with prayer, and the printing of the Bible at public expense. They never imagined the degree to which fanatics would go to remove religion from the public life. We now have a "Naked Public Square," as Richard John Neuhaus complained a number of years ago (The Naked Public Square, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman(s, 1984).
The same is true of religious-based morality, which all morality ultimately is. The ACLU in California greeted a bill passing through the state legislature with this notice:
The ACLU regrets to inform you of our opposition to SB2394 concerning sex education in public schools. It is our position that teaching monogamous, heterosexual intercourse within marriage as a traditional American value is an unconstitutional establishment of a religious doctrine in public schools (Culture Wars, p. 310).
We want a government that isn't going to be bullied by this kind of thinking, and will unequivocally declare that the public schools may teach abstinence as a moral virtue and promiscuity as a vice, the Ten Commandments may be posted in public places (they are chiseled into the walls of the Supreme Court building), the state may forbid pornography, strip-clubs, and obscenity on the television and radio.
We have a public life in this nation. We share public space. Who is it that will determine the moral quality of that space? Our TV and radio airwaves are public. I want to know why it is that I can’t watch a college football game on Saturday afternoon with my sons and not get through it without a preview of an upcoming show flashing scenes of bedroom passion? I want to know why we can’t drive down the highway without seeing billboards plastered with obscenity?
We need to rethink our current notion of state neutrality. The government cannot be neutral on these questions. We need also to understand that both sides are talking about imposing their standard of decency on another. You probably noticed that polygamy is illegal in this country. Why? If there are consenting adults who desire such a relationship, why not? Because in the 1800's the Supreme Court said that the U.S. was a Christian nation, and as such would not tolerate polygamy. A moral standard based on religion was imposed. This is always the case. All law is based on "values" and all values are ultimate religious affirmations. We mean by this that they cannot be proven and must be taken by faith. Civil Rights law assumes that all people are inherently equal and so should be treated equally by the law. The Social Security Act assumes that care for the elderly is a good thing. Traffic law assumes that order is better than disorder. Laws protecting life and property assume that such are natural rights. But none of this can be scientifically proven and must be taken by faith. We assert these values, we do not prove them. Richard John Neuhaus writes, "A public ethic cannot be reestablished unless it is informed by religiously grounded values" (The Naked Public Square, p. 21). Someone(s values will be imposed, it is just a matter of whose. Presumably everyone draws the line somewhere. Regarding laws governing sexual conduct, presumably everyone finds some forms of behavior perverse. Whose standard will it be? The traditionalists? Maybe that is too stuffy. But where then? Shall the line be drawn at extramarital heterosexual relations? Or maybe it should be drawn at homosexual relations? Or maybe it should be drawn at pedophilia? Or maybe it should be drawn at bestiality? Or maybe we should be open to absolutely everything? Or maybe we should go back to Judeo-Christian standards for our society, the same ones that have served us so well for 350 years. And maybe we can elect a government that isn(t afraid to identify with such values, and use its power and influences to promote them. Some standard will be promoted. Why not the Christian consensus which gave birth to this nation and gave to us our fundamental principle rights, and the rule of law? (see Samuel P. Huntington, Who Are We? [Free Press, 2004]).
How do Christian principles describe the role of civil government? They define a limited, modest role. We want a government that will protect its citizens, ensure justice, balance its budget, encourage Christian morality, and keep out of the rest. As you vote, listen to what is being said, and support those whose sympathies lie in this direction. No one fits these ideals exactly. But some are aiming in this direction, and deserve our support.