Unfortunately, within the last generation of evangelicalism and liberalism, each side has chosen to apply this strategy very selectively. So one group is eager to use government in support of its views concerning abortion and homosexual behavior but then abdicates its responsibility to use the same mechanisms for helping the poor or providing adequate health care. The other group excels at times with the latter but often fails with the former. Ron Sider’s long-standing vision of Christians seeking a “completely pro-life” platform inculcating biblical values on all of these (and other) issues seems more lacking today than ever.
Quite frankly, it's just not that simple. The logical conclusions of Blomberg's view is that a thoroughly Christian view of the state would have the state involved in all life issues, whether quality of life or the very existence of it. To Blomberg (and to Ron Sider and to Jim Wallis), the state would be bigger, and not smaller. It is this sadly simplistic view of voting and a Christian's view of the state that a Christian uses to rationalize voting for a statist platform.
In fairness to this view, it's heading in the right direction. It is attempting to uncover biblical values amidst an entire canon of just law- the Old and New Testaments. But it does us no good to say that the theocracy or monarchy of ancient Israel or the small church during the time of the powerful Roman empire have directly translatable principles to our own day. Allow me to tease this out a bit.
God cares about foreigners and immigrants and refugees. I agree with that. But unless we deal with a philosophy of the state that addresses questions of legality and fairness, we cannot apply this principle. It does us no good to say, "God cares about immigrants and tells Israel to, so undocumented immigrants should be granted amnesty." If we say that, we've missed a step in there. Or the popular Sider argument, "God cares about babies and grownups equally, so we need a completely pro-life ethic, and the government should be involved with providing health care on some level, or at least making sure it's provided for." These are weak arguments. How are we at any level placing an adult's health with the very existence and right to live for a baby in the womb? They are not at all on the same moral level. God always shows more concern for the disenfranchised, even if he loves all equally. It does us no good to deal with the simplicities of Blomberg's or Sider's arguments.
Christianity ought to reject statism in all it's forms. Statism is the worldview that claims the state as the answer to all human problems: social, civil, economic, and even religious. A quick glance at the Voice of the Martyrs prayer page will show you that much persecution of Christians happens at the hands of statist governments. The more the government has control anywhere in the world, the more religious liberty is compromised. Let us be wary of Christians who advocate more state control.
But that would be a simplistic argument too. We need a biblical ethic that allows that state it's proper role to arbitrate justice (Romans 13), but not dispense it. We need a state to ensure a just playing field, but we don't need an active state within the playing field. The state should be a referee, but not the quarterback. The state should play the role of keeping babies alive and thereby outlawing and working against abortion. But it should not play economic or healthcare quarterback. The state should arbitrate justice, not dispense it. I will, of course, outline my own view of government more in the future. Stay tuned.
Posts
1 comment:
I love the last paragraph - and agree with it as well! It's one of the things I think I found hard to verbalize and that paragraph basically sums it up properly.
Post a Comment