The Warm Embrace of the Department of Motor Vehicles

/1 Comment/in /by

Well, this is getting interesting!

My fellow contributor Paul Brink offered a fascinating response to my most recent piece on the role of government. While we agree on the idea of differentiated responsibilities for social institutions (church, family, government) Brink argues it’s a mistake to claim, as I do, that “bureaucracies can’t love.”  He writes, “Charity is not the only way we demonstrate love for our neighbors. We also owe our neighbors justice. To love our neighbor is not only to extend him or her charity; it is also to see that justice is done for our neighbor.”

To this I say, “amen!” The biblical charges regarding justice are clear. We are to both be just and seek justice for others. There is an individual, relational aspect and a broader, social component. Few verses better articulate the call to justice than the oft-tatted Micah 6:8: “He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?”

What does it mean to “do justice” on both a personal and social level? To answer this question, we must first understand that ultimately justice is about the application of power. In Romans 13, the Apostle Paul reminds us that governing authority “does not bear the sword in vain” (v4). In an act of justice, God allowed His son to be put to death at the hands of the state as a once and for all penance for human sin. Then, in an even bigger act, He demonstrated his power over death.

As individuals, we do justice when we apply our own power for good. We also do justice by striving to influence others to use their power for good. All of this can be done as an act of love, as Brink says, but not necessarily. The lawyer who prosecuted D.C. sniper John Allen Muhammad, the judge who sentenced him to death, and the official who injected the lethal medication in his arm acted justly. Would we call their actions love? 

Brink writes, “Bureaucracies do love those they serve – but they demonstrate that love in ways that are appropriate to state bureaucracies: that is, in the administration of public justice.” This simply doesn’t square with reality. Let’s take a few steps down from the death penalty. What about parking tickets? It’s clear that by distributing tickets to illegal parkers the state is administering justice. Anyone ever mistake the ticket on their windshield for a love letter?

How about poverty? Brink contends that the state has a responsibility to the poor by way of its task to administer justice, and in fulfilling this task the state loves the poor. What this construct assumes is that poverty is either a) the result of injustice, or b) is itself unjust. Let’s consider both.

First, poverty is the result of injustice. If true, then yes, the state has a responsibilty to use its’ coercive power to make right.  Victims of Bernie Maddoff’s finance scheme became poor because of his illegal action. The state prosecuted Mr. Madoff, took control of his assets, and distributed what was available back to the victims. Justice was done.

Sometimes the victims of injustice have a more difficult case to make. American history is marred by the stains of the slave trade and treatment of native people. Today, poverty rates in the African American and Native American communities tend to be higher than the national average. Public policies that aim to bring justice to these groups are well-intended, but have achieved mixed results. Here, justice is complicated, but well worth continuing to strive toward.

Second, poverty itself is unjust. This is a very popular misconception. I’ve encountered many Christians who believe their duty is to alleviate poverty everywhere they see it. This is a heartfelt impulse, one born of a desire to see each person live as God intends. Unfortunately, it’s naive, for poverty is often the result of sin. And, where sin is present, the negative ramifications are just.

Dr. Marvin Olasky found that 60 of 145 verses in the Old Testament that refer to “justice” also include the word “righteous.” Psalm 89 says, “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne” (v14). The two go hand-in-hand. The righteous will benefit from the administration of justice and the unrighteous can expect to be punished by it.

God is the source of justice and of love. In that sense, the two can be connected. Often, individuals are compelled to seek justice out of love for others. But that is not the motive of the state. The state seeks justice for justice sake, and no more. We may construe poverty programs like SNAP or scholarship opportunities for Native American students as the administration of public justice, as the death penalty and parking tickets are, but none of this is love. 

Loving Our Neighbors, Politically

/0 Comments/in /by

I find much to appreciate in the analysis that Eric brings to this discussion of the role of government.  In particular, I can strongly affirm his emphasis on the distinct roles of state and church.  The state cannot take upon itself the task of the church—it does not “speak to soul” in the way that the church does.  Similarly, when the church take upon itself the responsibilities of the state, all sorts of distortions and problems appear. 

But I part ways with Eric concerning what these institutions have to do with what we owe our neighbors who are in poverty.  Eric sees our responsibility to be primarily a matter of charity, which is a particular responsibility of the church.  That’s what leads him to warn against “subcontracting the work of the Church to government.” 

I too see charity to be a primary responsibility of the church.  Indeed the church that fails in the task of mercy fails in a task that Jesus himself saw as central to the gospel.  But charity is not the only way we demonstrate love for our neighbors.  We also owe our neighbors justice.  To love our neighbor is not only to extend him or her charity; it is also to see that justice is done for our neighbor.  And conversations about justice will necessarily lead to conversations about the state, as the state is precisely the institution charged with the task of doing public justice.

This means that we love our neighbors not only in church, but actually love them in the state as well.  Eric writes that “bureaucracies can never love”.  I think that’s actually a mistake.  Bureaucracies do love those they serve—but they demonstrate that love in ways that are appropriate to state bureaucracies: that is, in the administration of public justice.  How we love our neighbors is multi-faceted: in church we love through our charity, in the state we love through justice. (Similarly, we love our neighbors differently in families, in the classroom, at the office.)

This perspective doesn’t help us with the immediate task of determining whether the $78 billion we spend on SNAP (food stamps) is money well spent.  Evaluating particular programs is a matter requiring much study, much debate, and much prayer.  But this perspective does help us answer those who deny too quickly the possibility that by paying our taxes so that our neighbors receive food stamps, we may be actually showing love to neighbors in our community who otherwise could not participate with us in our common life.

 

Striking the Best Balance: The Strengths and Limits of Government

/1 Comment/in /by

As has been the case throughout our discussion in this forum, the opening essays have offered constructive food for thought. Much like the ongoing presidential race, the essays reflect divergent views on the proper role and size of government. In my response to the initial postings, I will first offer some thoughts on the role of government and then consider a few specific claims made by my conversation partners.

A Few Reflections on the Role of Government

After centuries of trial and error, we have come to something close to a consensus: a well-run government is vital for quality of life. Too little government leads to chaos and entrenched poverty; too much government control leads to fear and oppression. The key to good government is finding the right balance between too weak and too strong.

My view of government’s role begins with the belief that government is one of God’s gifts to his creation. Like all human institutions in our fallen world, government is far from perfect, but it has essential purposes and functions that help us to survive and thrive. Paul’s famous passage in Romans 13 reminds us that all authority is ultimately from God and therefore demands our honor and respect. As followers of Christ, we are first under the authority of God and then under the authority of our government. Of course our allegiance to God must always come first, but we are called to submit to those in authority and pay our taxes.

Properly-functioning governments rely on mutual accountability. Governments and their citizens are accountable to one another, and all (whether they admit it or not) are ultimately accountable to God. A good and effective government therefore creates a community of mutual accountability and responsibility where everyone gives and receives.

Government has several essential functions. It maintains the “rule of law” to create clear boundaries for how people can live and work together peacefully and provides “public goods”—those basic goods and services that are beneficial to many people, meet significant needs, and are available to everyone equally. All modern democracies recognize the need for upholding both free markets and a regulatory state; they differ over how to balance these competing interests. Finally, government helps sustain private institutions such as schools, churches, and families that are essential partners for building and maintaining a robust society.

Good government creates an environment in which most of its people will be able to thrive, but it also meets the basic needs of those who cannot care for themselves. Families, churches, and other community institutions have essential roles in caring for the needy. But these systems sometimes fail, and some problems and conditions are so deeply rooted in the structure of society that government is likely the last but best resource to address them.

Reflections on the Initial Posts

Eric Teetsel’s essay raises some important questions, but it also poses some problematic ones. I was troubled by Eric’s question: “If it’s true that government has resources we don’t have, isn’t that because government took them from us?” I would reframe the question, “Isn’t it true that everything we have comes from God?” I believe we can and should debate tax policy, but such debate should begin with two premises: (1) Christians can and should pay their taxes out of obedience to God (Rom. 13:6, Matt 22:21), and (2) all of “our” resources ultimately belong to God, so we should be generous stewards of what he has given us.

It is wise to test the efficacy of government programs and encourage public policies that steward federal dollars well; wasteful spending is bad policy. But those of us who have been blessed with much should be more willing to share from our abundance, both by contributing to the common good through taxation and by giving generously to churches and charitable organizations working on the ground to meet people’s needs.

I agreed with many of Steve Monsma’s critiques of libertarianism, but I was troubled by his initial statements: “this position adopted by the Romney-Ryan ticket is not traditional conservatism, but libertarianism” and “the key issue in this election is . . .liberalism versus libertarianism.” I grant that many in the Republican party have moved toward libertarianism in recent years; key factions like the Tea Party have created enormous internal pressures to veer in this direction. Romney’s message and positions clearly point away from tax increases and toward smaller government. But he is not a classic libertarian; indeed, he was one of the most moderate Republican contenders in the primary.

I am equally concerned by those of the president’s critics who decry him as a socialist. Obama is charting a path toward a larger role for government, but that does not make him a socialist. The November election offers two sharply contrasted views – one seeking a smaller role for government and one seeking a larger role, but both presidential tickets are within the mainstream of American political ideology.

Much of the discussion of the role of government is framed as if it were an all-or-nothing debate. I share Steve’s concern that we aren’t debating many of the core issues related to the size and scope of government that need to be discussed and heartily concur with his conclusion that “What is needed is a thoughtful discussion of where government is working well and where it is not, where government action is needed and where it is not.”

David Gushee rightly notes that our debates over the role of government have grown tired. He provides a helpful analysis of some of the failures of capitalism, demonstrating ways that government policy may help correct some of its flaws. I’d like to see a more robust discussion, however, of the dangers of unchecked government that he mentions in his final paragraph.

The reality of life in a fallen and broken world is that everything is tainted by sin. Individuals will fail. Institutions will fail. But we have to find a path forward and look for the best (albeit flawed) options. As followers of Christ we should weigh the policy alternatives offered in this election, looking for the right balance of individual and collective ways we can be agents of restoration and help secure the common good.

How Big Is Too Big?

/13 Comments/in /by

A crucial issue in this year’s presidential election is the size and scope of government.  Mitt Romney’s words from his website have resounded from many a Republican speech and campaign commercial: “The mission to restore America to health begins with reducing the size of the federal government . . .  As president, Mitt Romney will cut federal spending and regulation, . . . reducing the size and reach of the federal government, . . .”  His vice-presidential running mate is best known for his attempts to reduce government spending by cutting back on federal government entitlement programs. 

I am deeply troubled by this.  In this essay I seek to explain why.

At the outset it is important to note that this position adopted by the Romney-Ryan ticket is not traditional conservatism, but libertarianism.  Traditional conservatives recognize the limitations and frailties of human nature and human wisdom.  Thus they see government as having a proper role in society in restraining the darker forces in human nature.  They fear both an overly weak and an overly intrusive government.  And they believe societal and political change should come slowly and incrementally.  Libertarianism, on the other hand, has a never-say-die faith in human nature and in impersonal forces such as the free market to lead to a strong, equitable society if only left alone.

This means a key issue—in my thinking the key issue—in this election is not liberalism versus conservatism, but liberalism versus libertarianism. 

And I am convinced that libertarianism is far removed from a Christian understanding of government and public policy.  A Christian perspective on public policy, as all of us who are writing these essays agree, includes both human beings’ fallen, sinful nature and government as a God-established institution to promote justice and the common good in society.  There is an active, appropriate role for government in society.  The picture of prosperity and societal advancement emerging out of social and economic competition with minimal government intervention is closer to social Darwinism than a Christian view of society and government.

This is not to say that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are thorough-going libertarians or social Darwinists.  Far from it.  But what I find disturbing is a drum-beat of criticism of government-run programs.  And this is combined with a call to reduce today’s huge deficits, which, in turn, is also combined with pledges not to raise taxes and not to cut—or even to increase—defense spending.  This can only be accomplished by huge cuts in the remaining, domestic programs.   Thus Republican calls to reduce the size and scope of government—while falling short of a full-blown libertarianism—must be seen as moving us strongly in that direction.  And that concerns me deeply.

In a brief essay such as this it is of course impossible to fully explain my concern.  But I can give some insight into my concern by citing three government programs that I believe are promoting justice and the common good, but would likely suffer under a move towards libertarianism.

One is the Pell Grant program of financial assistance to college students from low and moderate income families.  (The House-passed budget that Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s running mate, was the major author would cut funding for Pell Grants by $170 billion over 10 years.)  The Pell Grant program is anything but a give-away program, encouraging dependency on government.  Instead it is a program that creates opportunities for persons working to obtain the education needed to develop their God-given abilities and to fulfill their God-given calling.  With even community college costs rising, it helps level the playing-field of opportunity and thereby is a justice-promoting program.  And it advances the common good by helping assure an educated citizenry, able to contribute meaningfully in an increasingly competitive world.

Government programs that lead to cleaner air and water and more efficient use of natural resources also promote justice and the common good.  Here individual actions such as recycling one’s waste materials, driving more fuel-efficient cars, and properly disposing of household toxic wastes are good and God-honoring.  But if I do so and even if half or more of the population would do so and others do not, the common good would still suffer and God’s good creation would still be despoiled and the resources he has put in his earth would still be wasted. Waste materials that could be recycled, but end up in landfills, waste resources and threaten future ground water pollution for all of us. Persons who drive fuel inefficient cars drive up the costs of gasoline for all. Toxic wastes improperly disposed of—whether by households or industry—can cause cancer or other diseases. Progress in creation care depends on us acting together, as a society, and that means government programs.

My third example of government action that promotes justice and the common good is the PEPFAR program begun under the leadership of President George W. Bush.  PEPFAR stands for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.  It is a foreign aid program that has sent billions of dollars to Africa and some other countries being ravaged by the HIV/AIDS virus.  It has literally saved hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, of lives.  Part of the reason for its success is that it is working through many nongovernmental, local, often faith-based organizations.  Yet the Romney website—true to its less-government-the-better mindset—does not mention the PEPFAR program (even though the website has a special tab on Africa) and promises to cut foreign aid.

Do not take what I have written here to suggest that I believe bigger, more active government is always better or that government programs always promote justice and the common good.  That is hardly the case.  And even the best of government programs could be made to work more efficiently and effectively.  Also, I believe that in weighing for whom to vote this fall, the Romney-Ryan ticket’s libertarian leanings must be weighed against the Obama-Biden’s ticket’s commitment to protecting abortion as a right and its weak approach to protecting the religious freedom rights of religiously-based organizations.

My basic point is that there is a robust role for government in society, a robust role that is in keeping with the God-given role of government to promote justice and the common good in a world where sin and brokenness are still very much with us.  What is needed is a thoughtful discussion of where government is working well and where it is not, where government action is needed and where it is not.  And that is what I am not hearing this year.

Government Has the Resources

/3 Comments/in /by

Last spring, I attended the annual Q gathering held here in D.C. If you’re unfamiliar with Q, it’s a Christian version of TED with a center-left evangelical twist. Multiple speakers present back-to-back-to-back, including high-profile leaders and intellectuals and lesser known entrepreneurs and ministry leaders. 

At this particular Q, Florida mega church pastor Joel Hunter spoke in a prime-time slot. Hunter is one of President Obama’s “spiritual advisors” and an advocate for government spending on poverty programs. The Christian Post did a nice write-up of Hunter’s speech, but here’s the nut quote:

Look at the math. It is ridiculous to even, just look at SNAP – Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – it has been estimated by I think the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities that the average church in America would literally have to double its budget and just take that extra budget and give to hungry people. And that is just one government program. So let’s not fool ourselves. Government can’t change lives, but they have resources we don’t have. We can change lives with those resources.

This quote provides a nice example of Hunter’s understanding of the proper role of government. He isn’t alone. The view of government as the primary means to solve social ills is a popular one. Let’s unpack it a bit… 

Feeding hungry people is a really good thing. It’s one of the essential elements of a Christian life. Jesus demonstrated a preference for the poor, therefore, we do too. It’s concern for the least of these that makes Mr. Hunter’s view unacceptable to me. I think it’s simplistic, lazy, and, ultimately, an ineffective way to help.

Perhaps you noticed the glaring question posed by the logic of his quote. If it’s true that government has resources we don’t have, isn’t that because government took them from us?

Look, it’s true that SNAP is just one of several government poverty programs, and that it’s an expensive one at $78 billion in 2011. It’s also true that our fellow citizens need help. The average SNAP beneficiary makes just $8,800/year. The critical question for those of us concerned with helping these people is how to lift them out of poverty. Decades of social science and boots on the ground work have proven the answer. There exist biblically sound roles for government, morality, the family, free enterprise, and civil society to work together. But, each must remain committed to its appropriate sphere.

So the key question isn’t, “How can churches supplant $78 billion worth of food programs?” Rather, Christians ought ask, “How can the Church do what only the Church is equipped to do?” We will no longer require federal food programs when families are kept intact, a culture of hard work is reaffirmed, the free enterprise system is properly regulated to protect the vital role of entrepreneurs, and the other institutions of civil society (schools, local communities) take up their respective roles in the process of building up and sending out virtuous citizens. The role of the Church is to speak these truths into society. It is to set a moral standard for individuals, hold us together in community, and keep our eyes fixed on Truth. It is to be the hands and feet of ministry to the poor, oppressed, and marginalized.

Ideally, the role of government is to protect the freedom of individuals, churches, and local communities to go about their tasks. No more. The government is ordained with the role of maintaining peace and justice, enabling us to live together in relative harmony. The U.S. Constitution is plain in setting up something like this form. But we live in the real world, where people have come to rely on government programs like Social Security and Medicare. A world in which U.S. foreign assistance has done a lot of good for many people. Conservatives must be realistic about this and find ways to manage these important programs with prudence and responsibility, with a keen eye towards a better way.

Subcontracting the work of the Church to government, as many Christians are wont to do, will always fail. Charity is an act of love, and bureaucracies can never love. Poverty is first and foremost a spiritual problem, and the government can’t speak to the soul.

 

Role of Government

/0 Comments/in /by

TOPIC 12: ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

Please consider the following potential leading questions for a conversation to be launched on September 19.

#1: If the role of government is to “promote a just order in society that benefits the common good” (a belief shared by our six regular commentators), what are the implications for the scope and role of government?

#2: If it is important to preserve the role of segments of civil society besides government (e. g, families, religious bodies, voluntary organizations) – another belief shared by our six regular commentators – what should be the relationships between the roles of government and the roles of these other non-governmental entities?

#3: Given the perennial debate about the balance between the roles of federal and state governments, what do you believe is the most appropriate balance?

#4: Is the Romney/Ryan/Republican vision of the purpose/role of government or the Obama/Democrat vision of the purpose/role of government more in keeping with a prudential, thoughtful application of biblical principles on the role and purpose of government?

#5: However “big” or “small” you believe government should be, what concrete steps can be taken to get beyond the current “gridlock” that works against the possibility of much needed legislation on many critical public policy issues facing our nation (like those addressed in this Alternative Political Conversation)?