As you know we’ve been having a simulblog debate with our good friend Byron over at The No Kool Aid Zone on a Christian worldview of politics. I’ve offered up my views on the subject. Bob Robinson is an area director with the Coalition for Christian Outreach, a leading campus ministry in the tradition of “worldview discipleship” that flows from the Dutch Calvinism of Abraham Kuyper. Bob had this to say as he weighed in on the discussion:
Kuyper offered the seminal articulation of the Christian Worldview. It was articulated as “Creation / Fall / Redemption.” Everything in a Christian Worldview should flow out of this – That God created the world a certain way (with order, justice, and Shalom peace) God gave the mandate (before the Fall) to take what God has given us and create our culture. Human beings have rebelled against God’s will and therefore we have disorder, injustice, and sin. Our selfishness twists the Cultural Mandate. God’s plan is to get humanity on the right track again trough the redemption that comes through Jesus Christ.
I am not my own. I am to honor God with my body. This is certainly true in sexual ethics. But is it true across the board? Law began with that first story of murder in Genesis. Cain was wrong to think that he was not his brother’s keeper. Our understanding of civil law must have at its starting point not individual rights but the common good.
Now we’re getting somewhere. This is a line of thinking that definitely needs further exploring. Here is Byron’s response:
I’d like to draw the distinction between a Christian worldview, which gives us as believers the lens through which to view the world, and the appropriate role of civil government, a government which serves all people in its citizenry. I again affirm the Lordship of Christ over all of life, but some of the things that are being offered sound more like a theocratic approach to government than anything else. And by the way, I’m not up on my John Locke, so forgive me.
I’m concerned by this whole “common good” idea, not because I believe it doesn’t exist, but because the slippery slope to where the civic enactment of it leads is a dead-end road, I fear. All sorts of atrocities can be committed, and have been, in the name of the “common good” (think “communism”). Of course, I’m not saying you’re a Communist, Bob, merely suggesting that this “common good” notion opens a Pandora’s Box, it seems to me. I believe that government has a lousy track record when it comes to putting into place laws promoting the “common good” (doesn’t every conservative believe that? Remember Reagan’s adage: “the scariest sentence in the English language is, ‘we’re from the government, and we’re here to help’”.), because all too often the “common good” ends up restricting freedom in the name of some government-sanctioned program that isn’t good at all; i.e., the “common good” isn’t often very good!
The problem for my conservative friends — and I consider myself one, by the way, a conservative with strong libertarian leanings — is that we currently have such a pick-and-choose approach to policy. We restrict some things (in the name of the “common good”) and allow other things that are more harmful to the “common good” than some of the things we restrict. We generally come down on the side of “freedom” (we love our Bill of Rights!), and yet at some points — points which often seem arbitrary when looked at from a detached point of view — we swoop in and argue vehemently for government to restrict freedom.
If “conservative” is shorthand for “what we’re doing now, plus restricting abortion”, say, then it’s just not very compelling to me, and while it might be preferred by many, can’t really be called, properly, the legislative enactment of a “Christian worldview”. And slice it how you will, that’s effectively what I hear my conservative friends saying. I’ve offered a consistent approach. It might be the wrong one — I’m reminded of the quote by Emerson that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds”, a quote I like for several reasons, not the least of which is that I think “hobgoblin” is a cool word — but at least it’s consistent. My contention is that if we were to start from scratch in articulating a Christian worldview vis a vis government, and got down to the question, “what things should be restricted in a government run on Christian principles”, we might not come up with my list, but I’m darn sure we’d not come up with “the status quo plus restricting abortion — oh, yeah, and the lottery”.
In my opinion, “I may be wrong but conservatives are more wrong,” isn’t much of an argument. When it comes to formulating a Christian worldview of politics maybe “starting from scratch” isn’t such a bad idea. As I recall everyone doing what is right in his own eyes (i.e. libertarianism) is a system that’s already been tried and I’m pretty sure it’s never really worked out all that well. Rather than trying to justify the wisdom of human reasoning wouldn’t it make better sense to begin with the wisdom of God and use that as the standard for our politics? If a Christian worldview is so “vitally important to living the Christian life” then shouldn’t we begin with principles found in God’s word?
I really think Bob is on the right track. Here are a few thoughts to consider:
If it weren’t for sin there would be no need for rule of law. It is sin that creates the need for law and order.
All authority of earthly governments originates from the sovereignty of God. Man would have no authority over his fellow man unless it were expressly given to him by God.
Therefore, because of sin it is God who has established the authority of government.
So with that mind, what civil laws do you think would be in keeping with God’s holy standard of law and order? Maybe if we were to begin by answering that question we might be a little closer to having the proper lens through which to view our politics.
For more about the Kuyperian Worldview, see Bob’s website, Friend of Kuyper.
Speaker of the House “Miss America” Nancy Pelosi has been quoting scripture lately in defense of her agenda on such things as the environment and the budget. She’s been citing a passage that she says comes from the book of Isaiah. However, the particular passage in question has left many Bible scholars scratching their heads. The problem is that the passage doesn’t actually exist in the Bible.
