There's a pattern here ...
It's a blogger-tastic day in the Athens Banner-Herald as Flagpole writer and frequent blogger Chris Hassiotis discusses improving the quality of jobs, regular contributor Robert Mabry breaks through some of the myths perpetuated in an earlier letter while last, but certainly not least, yours truly offers a rebuttal to a recent letter by J. Paul Clark.
posted by Jmac at 6:54 AM
13 Comments:
I liked your letter, Johnathan, but I think you should be careful of making too much of a similarity with the representative form of a federal republic and the tribes. With all the folks out there who'd like to say the Ten Commandments are important for our government's operations today, they just might co-opt your claim.
An Old Testament discussion! Where's Xon?
Actually, I didn't get to expand on that in the sense I would have wished, and that's my fault. I had penned that portion, had the closing pop in my head so I went ahead and typed that line, and neglected to return to finish my original thought ... which was the circumstances of some of the early Israelites (outside of Egyptian bondage, naturally) were under a more communual, somewhat democratic government rather than the Roman dictatorship they lived under during Jesus's time on earth, the latter of which influenced several of the writings of Paul.
"With all the folks out there who'd like to say the Ten Commandments are important for our government's operations today, they just might co-opt your claim."
Yeah, can't have that. Heretic.
In my opinion, the Scriptures cannot be fairly read as mandating any one particular economic system. But I also think it's important to realize that societies based upon biblical principles make progress as they grow in wisdom about how to apply those principles to the ever-changing situations of the world. In other words, I don't think the "free market" approach is taught explicitly in Scripture, but I also don't find it surprising that such an approach developed in the modern world after several centuries of Christian civilization.
But there is a danger here, too, as anybody who tries to make free market economics absolute will clearly run afoul of several Scriptural examples. God himself "sets prices" in a number of OT laws. I also think a rigid "free market" philosophy can cause us to pretty seriously mess up the story of Joseph. (Genesis 38-50) As a messiah who saves not only his family (Israel) but the entire nation of Egypt, Joseph is clearly doing something good when he essentially takes control of the entire Egyptian grain supply and guides the nation successfully through a cycle of extreme abundance followed by severe famine. If Ludwig von Mises thinks that this was evil, then von Mises is standing against God's word at this point.
There are also some comments in the Psalms in which we are taught clearly that a good and just king makes sure the poor are taken care of. I think this teaching can only be properly understood againt the background of God's law, which requires responsible and faithful living from God's people. In other words, I don't think these OT passages about just kings (or Jesus' teaching that you referenced in your letter, JMac) can be used to teach some universal obligation to unthinkingly give money to every needy person you ever encounter. This would actually, in the long run, be a very unloving thing to do. But the basic idea that the government, at least in the Old Testament, has some sort of role in helping the poor seems unavoidable.
The only other observation I would make is this: typologocially, the Church is the fulfillment of the Old Testament nation of Israel. The church is the new nation standing in the middle of the old world that is called to live differently than the world and, in the process, to transform the world and make everything new. When we read God's directions or principles or stories about Israel's political government in the OT, we need to understand this first and foremost as containing a lesson for us today as the church. What use to be political lessons are now ecclesiastical lessons. So, for instance, the teaching in the OT that kings have a responsibility to help the poor is, most of all, a type of the future perfect king, King Jesus, who came and fulfilled this command by helping the poor. Furthermore, it is a lesson to those of us who would follow Christ (i.e., the Church) about what one of our primary responsibilities is. The Church must help the poor.
Secondarily, of course the Old Testament teaching still applies to modern governments as well. So, yes, I think there is biblical support for some sort of role for the government in alleviating poverty. But the primary way in which this should be done, if the Church was being faithful to what God has called her to be, is through the Church. The Church should give so much to the poor that government spending becomes almost unnecessary. But we ain't there anymore, obviously.
Oh, one more thing I forgot to mention. I would be careful, JMac, of using the jubilee laws of the Old Testament (that all land went back to the original owner after 50 years) as an example of how we should model our dealings with the poor today.
For one thing, the Jubilee wasn't about helping the poor. It was an "ethnic cleansing" regulation, intended to keep the promised land in the hands of Israelites, and more particularly in the hands of the particular tribes according to the original partition (in Joshua). If a poor dude made good and bought himself a bunch of land and got a good business going, when the Jubilee came around he would have to give all the land back to the people he had bought it from.
Second, building on the first point above, since the Jubilee was all about establishing Israel in the promised land, this law has no obvious application to a world in which God's covenant community is no longer bound to any particular tribe, tongue, or nation. There is no longer any geographical "center" of God's people in the world (claims of Rome, Canterbury, or Constantinople notwithstanding). Rather, the center is always everywhere that people are gathered to renew the covenant (i.e. worship) through the grace of God revealed in the Son. So OT laws concerned with keeping certain land in certain people's hands simply don't apply any more. These have been fulfilled by Christ, the ultimate Landowner who has bought everything with his blood and who now rules everything with equity from the right hand of the Father.
Anyway, just some thoughts...Sorry you (sort of) asked?
I don't think I was making the case that the Bible advocates a particular economic system over another (far from it, which was actually the intent of my letter), though I can see how the implication can be made. My point, which admittedly was somewhat jumbled, was to examine government systems - representative democracy vs. dictatorship - and the comparison to the present-day setup of American government.
I also, understandably, have some disagreements with some of your theological statements, but don't have enough time now ... give me a bit and I can get back to you.
"I don't think I was making the case that the Bible advocates a particular economic system over another (far from it, which was actually the intent of my letter), though I can see how the implication can be made. My point, which admittedly was somewhat jumbled, was to examine government systems - representative democracy vs. dictatorship - and the comparison to the present-day setup of American government."
No, I didn't think you were making that point, JMac. I was just prefacing my remarks with a comment that I assumed we could both agree on. I expected my comments to be a bit shocking, seeing as how I just acknowledged that an absolute free market isn't biblical. But I wasn't offering those thoughts as a challenge to you. You kinda sorta asked for my thoughts, so I gave them to you. That's all.
As to disagreeing with stuff I said, all I can say is dem's fightin' words, and I will have your scalp, sir.
Note that Chris is the music editor of Flagpole. Not a lowly writer.
Also, not really a blogger so much as a frequent commenter.
Note that I have not yet signed the contract or written your check, Hillary, so your PR work for me at this point remains pro bono.
Yeah, but you get me in free to shows sometimes...
I thought Johnathan was more referencing the practice of allowing the poor or the homeless or the stranger to glean from the fields after the harvest was done, and after the harvesting left some of the produce behind on purpose. That's not a Jubilee practice.
I'll say it. I don't think the table applies to the practice of a modern government. I think you provide a different argument for the same idea, but with a different emphasis, Xon. My thought is that the table is unenforceable as a political project precisely because Christ has rendered the church and the state, himself, into separate spheres. As such, our citizenship is in heaven, and God help the world his ministers of the sword.
Charles (polus...), er, yeah you're right. Don't know why I thought "Jubilee" when I read JMac's letter. He and I have discussed the Jubilee a bit before, maybe that's what it was.
I have no objection to his use of the gleaning laws.
----
As for the Ten Commandments (and why do you refer to it just as "the table"? Are you actively rebelling against its more common division into two tables, or something else that I am missing?), I disagree--strongly--that these laws are no longer binding. The Ten Words are essentially Life 101, and whatever other movements and variations get played on the theme throughout redemptive history, these cannot be placed to the side.
I don't want to hijack JMac's blog into a long discussion of this (probably already discussed it too long for the taste of many), but I agree that church and state are "separate spheres." They are separate in terms of the roles they play--the church should never execute, for instance--but together they are to play a melody aiming at one over-arching purpose, which is the glorification of God and submission to the lordship of Christ in all things.
I don't know what else it could mean to say that Jesus has "rendered them separate." Christ is Lord, right now, of both heaven and earth. To separate these two in some sort of fundamental way, and to give that separation the blessing of God even temporarily as though this is what He wants, borders on Gnosticism (in my opinion). Jesus came to redeem the entire world, not just the precious little hearts of individuals who happen to believe in him. And he is redeeming it, every day. Politics is a part of this redemption: a very small part compared to other things (like the joyous worship of the Church), but a part nonetheless.
No response from JMac makey me sad....
Due time ... I owe our anonymous poster a response on three-laning Prince Avenue and then you one for this. I cheated and responded to your email out of order.
Post a Comment
<< Home