Politics 101 from a Christian perspective part 5: Tying up some loose ends

Politics 101 from a Christian perspective part 5: Tying up some loose ends

Since this concludes my writings for “Politics 101,” I thought I would finish by tying up some loose ends. The purpose of these writings was just to convey the “big idea.” Politics has a creational cause and a design. It, like all things, depends upon a set of prior assumptions, a worldview which bestows upon it what human activities and ideas should be or what they mean.  As I continue to write more about the particulars of a Christian political system, the importance of this will become more and more apparent. Since the Christian rationale for politics is absolutely rooted in the creation event, as revealed to us by Scripture, it made sense to me to begin by expounding on that. The rest of my writings will explore different facets, honing in on various aspects of the design of the political sphere in greater detail, as I defend and expound upon them.

In my last writing, I left off with the formation of man’s inalienable rights—life, liberty, and property—and how those derive from God’s image and how they are expressed in the covenant God made with Noah.  I concluded with a quote by Claude Frederic Bastiat, an important, French political thinker, from his famous work in 1850, “The Law.”  In citing that source, I had used the word “right,” declaring that individual persons have “rights.” Since there are many in the Christian camp who would take issue with the use of this word, I thought to address that first.

The typical objection made in the use of that word, is that “People do not have “rights” before God.” That is true. God is able to take away life, liberty, and property as He pleases, since He is the one that bestows them in accordance to His will. If the word “rights” is distracting, due to objections of “enlightenment thinking,” then substitute the word, “duties.” While human beings have no “rights” before God, they do have “duties” before God to defend and protect His image, which is precisely why the Christian cannot withdraw from politics and still be ethical.

Nonetheless, truth does not stop being truth merely because it was discovered via “Enlightenment thinking.” I agree that there are a great many problems with such a system. They wanted to make “modern man” the center of their thought and worship, the light and hope emerging from a history of darkness (which is why it’s called “The Dark Ages,” by the way). But I hope my previous writings have made clear that I reject such a notion, since God’s glory is front and center in my view.

The reason these things do not belong to the state is not because they are “collective” or “individual,” but because you don’t belong to the state—you don't even belong to yourself—but to God. This is why we have “unalienable rights.” They cannot be given or taken away by the state. They are of God. We have a stewardship of these things, a duty over life, liberty, and property, which belong to God. Either they will belong to God or to some idol—no neutral territory here. This is what the puritans of the Enlightenment would have meant by “rights.” They did not put the modern man as the object of their theology, nor do I.

To God, we have duties; to man, those duties are “rights.” The Christian has a vertical relationship to his God and Creator, and a horizontal relationship to his fellow man, or image-bearer. This relationship can be seen in Scripture, when Jesus speaks of the Law:

“And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”” (Matthew 22:37–40, ESV)

First, this demonstrates that there are lesser laws and greater laws. This means that lesser laws cannot violate greater laws. Also, as Jesus teaches, no laws or interpretations of those laws (“the Prophets”) may violate these two laws. Second, Jesus links these two laws by analogy. He says that the second commandment is “like” the first one. The first one describes man’s appropriate relationship to God (the vertical), while the second describes man’s appropriate relationship to his fellow man, the image of that God (the horizontal). Third, the reason God binds us by obligation to “love our neighbors” is because they are, by their intrinsic nature, the image of God. It is what they are by nature and how they were created (Gen 1:26). Their life, liberty, and property belong to God—it is their duty and their right. They do not belong to their fellow man, the state. The life is the image itself. The liberty is the worship, the noticing of and the basking in God’s glory. And, the property is the material expression of that worship. It is man’s dominion over the earth as an image-bearer, and his stewardship toward others for God’s glory, as per “The Good Samaritan.” It is for this reason that the law forbids covetousness and theft of properties.

To conclude, I would like to return to the posts of my original question involving God and politics. For recollection, here’s what I had asked:

“Was Jesus a political figure? Did He, or the Bible, have anything to say about politics? If you have the guts to post them, what are your thoughts?” (September 20, 2012)

Here’s the responses I received and a little some more reply from myself:

Post 1: “I think at times they (the religious leaders) tried to draw him into the political realm. I cannot help believing that those who followed him had the mindset that he was setting up his kingdom there, and that he would lead them over the Roman Empire.”

I think this is true. But, more precisely, I think they were trying to get Christ to put His stamp of approval on their political misconceptions, their distortions of the political realm. As we have seen, God is the ultimate political figure; indeed, it was the Son who designed it. Jesus’ ministry was nothing but political, since it had everything to do with law, power relations, stewardship, and so forth. Christ did lead people over the Roman Empire, toward the very City which it erroneously tried to replicate. The sign that hung upon the cross in mockery of our Lord and Savior, even gave His “offense.” It read, “Jesus, King of the Jews.”

Post 2: “I think he was as he is God, as he desperately encouraged the worship of The Father who is above all and should properly run governmental or state affairs. The Old Testament describes a conversation with a prophet during which the people didn’t want God to run them, but they wanted a King. I believe Jesus wanted to see that reversed. Jesus frequently spoke of "social relations involving authority or power" which is what politics is in an attempt to make that a political reality.” (1 Sam 2.1-22 NLT)

Israel’s government went from the exegesis (the interpretation) of priests to the monarchy. From Deut 17 to 1 Samuel 8, the form of government changes from Priests/Judges to a Monarchy, or earthly king. This displeased God, but he also anticipated it back in Deut 17. In verse 8, we see the application of law expressed as “rights” and “assaults,” defending the divine image. Here, He gives the law in priests. However, whether the law is in priests, judges, or kings, the same law stands over them all.  So the law consists of individual rights and their defense. The priest or judge was an exegete (an interpreter) of the law. These officers, as a species of the citizenry, and not a third thing, were under the law, not the originators of it. In the Bible, they did not originate the law, but interpreted the law.
In 1 Sam 8, even though they went to a monarch, God anticipates this. The state, as an institution, and the law, as its information, originates in God’s expression to man, in His image, so that the civil sphere is a function of the divinely revealed covenant.

Post 3: “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and that which is God unto God.”

Yes! Some things belong to Caesar, and all things belong to God. We pay taxes unto Caesar because the money is God’s, and it should be given to support the statesman, who is given authority out of God’s authority (Roman 13). The authority is not given for the making of idols or the destruction of life, liberty, and property. It is given for the protection of those very things, and to administer justice when evil-doers break the law. Romans 13 expounds upon this teaching, showing what is appropriate and why it is so. If homage to Caesar causes us to violate the greatest commandments, then homage to Caesar no longer applies, since it would violate the very purpose of its existence. The Apostolic church had to deal with this very conflict. Here’s what happened and what Peter said about it:

“Then the captain with the officers went and brought them, but not by force, for they were afraid of being stoned by the people. And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.” When they heard this, they were enraged and wanted to kill them. But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in honor by all the people, stood up and gave orders to put the men outside for a little while. And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you are about to do with these men. For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered. So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!” So they took his advice, and when they had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name. And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus.” (Acts 5:26–42, ESV)

When a conflict occurs, we must obey God rather than the men who disobey God. Do not join with them in their disobedience.

Thank you for reading and blessings.