A Nation of Pick-pockets

"The Bush administration used the 9/11 attacks as an excuse for the biggest increase in military spending and police power since WWII. Now it is using the market correction (caused largely by its own interventions in the credit industry) to expand state power in the financial area. Half of all Americans pay their mortgages, directly or indirectly, to the federal government. Most older Americans depend, in whole or in part, on money from the government to live. Now, Americans depend on the government to keep house prices up – by subsidizing demand for mortgage backed securities – and to keep up stock and bond prices too – by buying up Wall Street’s mistakes. Homeowners want protection from their own bad judgment. Investors want protection from Mr. Market. The old want free medicine. The young want free schooling. The unemployed want jobs and money. The rich want politicians in their pockets. The poor want the rich’s money. Investors, homeowners, pensioners – is there anyone left in America who isn’t trying to pick someone else’s pocket?" - Bill Bonner, The Daily Reckoning

Kuyper concurs

Interestingly, I just came across this from Kuyper one day after I wrote the previous post:

"In fact, the study of the Juridical faculty will always be governed by the principles professed with reference to authority. If authority is considered to have its rise from the State, and the State is looked on as the highest natural form of life in the organism of humanity, the tendency cannot fail to spring up to deepen the significance of the State continuously, and even to extend the lines of authoritative interference, which Plato pushed so far that even pedagogy and morals were almost entirely included in the sphere of the State. Indeed, more than one sociologist in the Juridical faculty is bent upon having his light shine more and more across the entire psychical life of man, in the religious, ethical, aesthetical, and hygienic sense. If sooner or later the chairs of this faculty are arranged and filled by a social-democratic government, this tendency will undoubtedly be developed. If, on the other hand, it is conceded that authority over man can rest nowhere originally but in God, and is only imposed by Him upon men with regard to a particular sphere, this impulse to continuous extension is curbed at once, and everything that does not belong to this particular sphere falls outside of the Juridical faculty." - Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology: Its Principles, p. 203

The things which are Caesar's

" . . . they brought Him a denarius.
And He said to them, 'Whose image and inscription is this?'
They said to Him, 'Caesar's.'
And He said to them, 'Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.'" (Mt. 22:19b-22)

In the circles I travel, the church is always reluctant to speak on political issues. There are some good reasons for this, some legal, some theological. One of my most admired professors in college once told me that the Bible is absolutely apolitical. I agree with this. No system of government can be derived from the Bible as superior to others. Why not? Because any system of government, no matter where it lies on the continuum between democracy and monarchy, can only be as good as the people and rulers that constitute the nation. So a godless republic is no better in Biblical terms than a godless, tryrannical dictator. Both are an abomination to God. This does not mean, however, that the Bible contains no principles relevant to politics. Unfortunately, the church has failed to speak on the Biblical principles of politics. This, I believe, has been a deadly mistake.

In talking to Christians, I have so far failed to find anyone who can answer my political question. It's not that I've asked people and they've all given me answers I disagree with. That would be a step in the right direction. That would be a basis for discussion. I have asked many people, and so far no one at all has given me any answer to what I consider most fundamental political question: What is Caesar's? Or, as I usually phrase it, what are the limits of the legitimate exercise of power by the state? It appears that not only do we not have a consensus here, we do not have any answer at all. And this is truly a disastrous state of affairs when we live in a world of ever-increasing encroachment by our civil magistrates against our civil and religious liberties. If we can't answer this question among ourselves as Christians, how will we take a stand against the idols of our culture?

I suggest, if we don't have an answer to my question, we can't possibly make any sense of the Scriptural passage quoted above. How can we understand what Jesus means if we don't even know what is Caesar's? The passage, of course, is well known. The standard interpretation is that Jesus here teaches submission to the civil magistrate. Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. Lawful submission to the political authorities is beyond dispute. But that is not all the passage says. Give to God the things that are God's. This means that not everything lawfully belongs to Caesar. In the ancient world, this was a perfectly revolutionary concept: Caesar is not God. Caesar's authority is derivative, not original, and therefore the legitimate extent of his power is not unlimited. If he were God, it would be unlimited, but he is not. He is also not the source of law. Caesar's laws are to be obeyed, but there is a higher law, the law from God, and Caesar's is subservient to God's law, and is only legitimate to the extent that it is compatible with God's law.

The fact that almost no one at all is asking this question, and as far as I know, no one is able to answer it, means that what we implicitly believe, not only in our culture at large, but in the church, is that there are no limits to the legitimate exercise of the State’s power. The State is god. Even for many Christians, I am firmly convinced that while they would never explicitly affirm that the State is god, yet implicitly and functionally in their political views, they believe that the State is god. Surely our culture at large believes that the State is god. Neither major political party in the U.S. recognizes any limits to the power it may legitimately exercise. And if we don’t know what those limits are, that means they don’t exist as far as we’re concerned. So the State becomes God. Its authority is absolute. It is the source of law, and it is above the law. The State gives, and the State takes away. The State is expected to protect us in every way, to provide for us, and to take care of us. In pursuing these ends, it believes it can legitimately seize, under threat of violence and imprisonment, any amount of money from anyone it sees fit. The State makes some rich, and others poor. It redistributes wealth as it sees fit. In the Bible this is called stealing. It doesn’t matter if I steal from you to put money in my own pocket (confiscation) or I steal from you to put money in someone else’s pocket (ideal socialism) or I steal from you to put most in my pocket and what’s left in someone else’s pocket (actual socialism). It also doesn’t matter if I hire (or elect) someone else because they promise to steal from you and give it to me. All is stealing under Biblical law. But in a State that conceives of itself as the source of law, it is not possible for the State to steal, because stealing only has meaning by definition of the State.

In the ancient world, the State was god, but this is not unique to the ancient world. The idolatry of fallen man is always setting up a created thing to take the place of the creator. In all pagan cultures the State is god, explicitly or implicitly. Even as late as World War II in Japan the emperor was officially considered a deity. This is because apart from a Biblical worldview, the State must possess absolute authority and be the ultimate source of law, attributes which in reality only belong to God. The United States had a lot going for it. In a short period of time, primarily due to the genius of our political system, we became the most prosperous and free society in recorded history. But in what consists the genius of the American political system? Most people probably think that the genius consists in democracy. George W. Bush does. That’s why, we’re told, we go to war with countries that have not aggressed against us, to give them democracy (whether they want it or not). But the Greeks had democracy 2500 years ago. The genius of the American political system is not democracy. The genius of the American political system was a firm conviction that the God of the Bible, not the State, is the only source of law and the only absolute authority. There were limits to the legitimate exercise of power by the State, and these were set down clearly in the law (the Constitution), and the State itself was under the law. It was not allowed to set aside or ignore the law when it seemed convenient. This is the genius of the American political system, and this is what made the American experiment an unprecedented success. But the idea is no longer compelling to our culture. After all, we have to have some kind of God.

We have now given up on the God of the Bible, and so we are slipping back into the darkness and superstition of all the rest of pagan history, and once again the State is god. And the true God will judge us for our idolatry. He will give us the government we want. We already have it now.