Should we be patriotic?

September 2, 2011 – 11:24 am

The Union FlagThis is the latest in a series of posts critiquing Wayne Grudem’s book Politics According to the Bible. Today we look at the issue of patriotism, where Grudem’s stance is that it is something that a nation should value. Before looking at what Grudem claims, though, I want to start with the presuppositions I bring to the issue.

Patriotism is, ironically, something that is very unBritish. For us Brits, public displays of patriotism are only acceptable in the context of major international sporting events (football, cricket, rugby, Wimbledon, and possibly the Olympics – and in most of these we play against each other), the Last Night of the Proms, and a few Royal events. And even then, a chunk of the nation is often uncomfortable with them. We will, however, sometimes argue patriotically when somebody from another nation attacks some aspect of ours (criticise the NHS at your peril), or when Americans pretend to be speaking English rather than American. In fact, we’re even embarrassed to sing our own national anthem (and almost none of us know it beyond verse one).

There are probably a wide range of reasons for this. It might be that we associate patriotism with the jingoism that facilitated World War I, or with our imperialist past. It could be our national cynicism and the “stiff upper lip”. It could be that we associate patriotism with the far right, or that we see American patriotism and think it to be tacky. And there are certainly some Brits who see the place they are born as an accident of birth, and nothing to be proud of (an individualistic viewpoint that I don’t share). Whatever the reason, I’ve absorbed some measure of our national distaste towards patriotism, which made me naturally cynical when I read this section of the book.

Grudem’s take on patriotism (which he doesn’t define) is that it is pride in one’s country, but not to the extent that you can’t be criticise your country, its government and its leaders. And, by that definition, yes I am patriotic. I’m proud of my nation’s disproportionate contributions to church history, science, technology, sports (we invented most of them), and the arts. I’m proud of great moments in our history, such as the way we took the lead in the fight against slavery, or stood alone against the Nazis. I’m proud of our creation of the BBC and the NHS. And I’m occasionally even proud of our national sports teams (as I write this, the England cricket team have just systematically demolished world number one team India in a 4 match test series, claiming that title for ourselves).

The question at hand, however, is not whether I am patriotic or not, but whether patriotism is a good thing. Grudem starts with some biblical arguments, and moves on to a list of benefits he sees when a nation is patriotic.

Biblical Arguments

Grudem begins with Acts 17:26, which says that God established nations, and also cites Job 12:23 to say that God is in charge of the destiny of nations. He then claims that the word nation means essentially the same as it did 2000 years ago – a group of people living under the same sovereign and independent government. This is a controversial claim for two reasons. Firstly, the rise of the nation state in the 18th and 19th centuries was a major change to our idea of what a nation is. Secondly, the term nation is frequently used to describe people groups who do not have their own state (e.g. the Kurds in Iraq/Iran/Turkey). However, in order to facilitate discussion, I’m going to give Grudem the benefit of the doubt on this one.

His argument here is that the existence of many independent nations on earth should be considered a blessing from God, and that a significant benefit is that they divide and disperse government power, ensuring that we have no chance of a single evil world government. He doesn’t, however, follow through the logic to suggest that large countries should split up into smaller ones. Grudem then says that 1 Peter 2:17 and Romans 13:1 say that Christians should honour the rulers of their nation (in these specific cases, the Roman Emperor).

Looking at Grudem’s arguments, I find the case that the Bible supports patriotism to be very much on the weak side. It certainly doesn’t rule it out, but neither does it directly teach it. Which leaves the case to be decided entirely on practical arguments.

Practical Arguments

Grudem lists seven things he views as practical benefits of a nation having a fairly patriotic nation. These are:

  • A sense of belonging to a larger community
  • Gratitude for the benefits that a nation provides
  • A shared sense of pride in the achievements of other citizens of your nation
  • A sense of pride for the good things that a nation has done
  • A sense of security, coming from the expectation that the nation’s citizens will work together to protect the nation
  • A sense of obligation to serve and protect the nation in various ways
  • A sense of obligation to live by and pass on to immigrants and children the nation’s shared values

He also says that a lack of patriotism means dislike, scorn, or hatred for your nation, accompanied by continual criticism of it, which will erode the nation’s ability to function effectively.

To be honest, I’m not sure that the effects of widespread patriotism are quite as positive as Grudem portrays (certainly some of these benefits can be felt by people who scorn the concept). I also think that widespread patriotism brings with it some definite negatives. For example, where there’s widespread patriotism, you will also see far more “blind patriotism” that uncritically accepts the failings of a nation and a government – and becomes idolatry. There are certainly some cases where American churches give the impression that they are putting patriotism above the gospel.

In some circumstances, this blind patriotism can be very harmful to a nation. For example, for a couple of years after 9/11 many American critics of the Bush regime reported that this kind of patriotism was silencing legitimate democratic debate about whether Bush’s response was the right one. The impression given was that the slogan “you’re either for us or against us” had been taken to be the measure of patriotism. If you weren’t 100% behind Bush’s response then you were unpatriotic and should shut up. Now, I wasn’t there, so I can’t say how accurate this portrayal was, but it’s certainly how many on the left saw the political atmosphere at that time. But, in any case, it’s a good illustration of how patriotism gone wrong can be very harmful to a nation.

Having said that I think patriotism can be harmful as well as good, Grudem has persuaded me to revisit my opinions on the subject. I’m now quite happy to see myself as patriotic. Although I’m still British enough to be hesitant about public displays of patriotism. After all, as a Brit, partaking in them simply wouldn’t be patriotic.

Posted in Politics According to the Bible | Permalink | Comments (0)

Does the Bible Teach Democracy?

August 31, 2011 – 11:16 am

This is the sixth in a series critiquing the arguments of Wayne Grudem’s book Politics According to the Bible. Today we’re looking at his claim in chapter 3 that the Bible offers some support to the idea that government should be chosen by the people. This is not a discussion about the practical arguments that Democracy is superior to the other forms of government humanity has tried, it’s about whether the Bible can be used to support that argument.

Given the times and places that the Bible was written, it’s hardly surprising that not one verse explicitly mentions the concept of democracy, a fact which Grudem acknowledges. Whilst the rulers of nations back then were almost exclusively kings (there are a few exceptions – Moses, Joshua, and the Judges being the most obvious examples), Grudem says that monarchy is not endorsed or commanded.

I’m not convinced that this argument is watertight for two reasons. Firstly, the book of Judges repeatedly bemoans the lack of a king in Israel at that point in its history. Whilst this verse appears to be taking aim at anarchy, rather than alternative forms of government, the alternative interpretation isn’t nonsensical. Secondly, God specifically instituted a monarchy within the nation of Israel for the centuries between 1 Samuel and 2 Chronicles. Whilst I agree with Grudem that this doesn’t establish a universal precedent, It puts a much higher burden of proof on any claim that the Bible tends to support some other form of government.

So lets look at the principles Grudem pulls out in favour of Representative Democracy:

Everybody is equal in the sight of God

Grudem begins in the beginning, by pointing out that Genesis 1:27, and other passages state that all humans are made in the image of God, and hence have equal status. He then argues that this means that the idea that a hereditary family could have the right to rule over others without their consent is unreasonable. He doesn’t say whether this argument would apply to other nondemocratic forms of government – such as individual dictatorship, rule by an aristocratic class, or rule by a particular profession.

And the argument has a couple of flaws that Grudem doesn’t address. Firstly, unless the ruler(s) over a particular nation use significant amounts of force to enforce their rule, it can be argued that – by not actively rebelling against the government – the people have given some degree of assent to the government in question. And secondly, equality of status doesn’t necessarily imply equality of role (an argument that Grudem uses himself in some areas of theology). If you do not consider that ruling a nation gives you greater status, then a belief that God has put certain people, families, or institutions on the Earth for the purpose of ruling a nation is consistent with the belief that all human beings have equal status.

Now, I’d agree that belief that human beings are all of equal value is foundational to the ideological basis of democracy – making this aspect of the Bible’s teaching consistent with democracy. But it falls far short of making other political systems less consistent with scripture.

Accountability of Rulers

Grudem cites his arguments in favour of separation of powers (which we covered on Friday) to argue that government needs to gain and maintain consent from those who are governed as the ultimate separation of powers. In writing up that argument, I pointed out that the Biblical case is for checks and balances, and that separation of powers is simply one method of doing so. Free and fair elections, of course, one other.

Again, I agree with the conclusion that the Biblical principle in question is entirely in harmony with the ideological basis of democracy. But it seems to be going too far to say that it implies that Christians should necessarily prefer it above other political systems.

Serving the Common Good

Grudem returns to the argument that government is there to serve the common good (Romans 13:4), and then claims that the people themselves are the best ones to decide what is actually in their communal best interest. The problem here, is that Grudem has used the wrong argument from the right principle. There are plenty of areas of policy where the general public are badly informed.

For example, when a report suggested that there may be a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, many parents panicked and stopped their child from being vaccinated. Even if the study in question hadn’t been falsified (as we later found out), few apparently had the scientific knowledge to know that the result had been blown out of all proportion (it suggested that there might be a link, rather than proved that there was). And fewer realised that having their child catch mumps, measles, and rubella because they hadn’t been vaccinated could be far worse (i.e. fatal) than having them more likely to become autistic, or that the scale of the panic was putting the whole nation at far greater risk of these diseases.

In such cases, it may be better to ensure that the people in charge listen to expert opinions and give them more weight than they give public opinion (which, in this case, had been stirred up by a sensationalist press). Which is why I prefer representative democracy to direct democracy – it gives a chance for experts on a subject to have their view count for more when it comes to policy making.

There is, however, an argument from this verse that actually works, although its implication is a lot weaker. If Government is to be “God’s servant for our good”, then it makes a lot more sense for the government to listen to what its citizens have to say about issues than it does for them to ignore it – you can’t serve somebody’s best interests without taking their views into account. And free and fair elections are a very good way of ensuring that those views are taken into account when it comes to government.

Government works best with consent

The book then points out that there are several occasions in the Old Testament where rulers sought the consent of their people, and adds in one example from the New Testament church (although this is not talking about government, the principle applies to all forms of leadership). He also cites Rehoboam in 1 Kings 12:15-16, who lost control of ten of the tribes of Israel by doing not seeking the peoples’ consent as well as several pagan rulers who are viewed negatively for oppressing those they ruled over.

This argument is, of course, almost a tautology. There are two ways to rule a nation. One is by obtaining at least the passive consent of the people you are governing. The other is by using overwhelming force to impose your will on an unwilling populace. The Bible clearly favours the former, but also shows examples of it happening in a non-democratic system.

I would agree with Grudem that this is a good argument in favour of democracy, as consent is built into the system, rather than being dependent on who holds the power at any given time. Having said that, it’s perfectly possible for a democratically elected government to be one that the population didn’t want (in some systems, the governing party or coalition can get absolute power on fewer votes than the opposition), rule harshly (the Nazis were democratically elected into power in 1933), or enact major policies that clearly do not have the consent of the population (e.g. the Poll Tax in the UK during the late 1980s/early 1990s).

The King of Kings

Grudem also points out that the Bible teaches that one day our current governments will be replaced by the direct rule of Jesus, who will rule as the perfect king over the entire Earth. He cites Revelation 19:16 and Daniel 7:14 and concludes that – until that time – democracy does seem to be the best form of government, based on the principles he has pulled out.

Whilst I think that there is plenty of space in what the Bible teaches for Christians to prefer other systems of government (there are plenty of great figures from church history who did), there is also plenty in the Bible that supports the principles behind democracy. Whilst I think Grudem clearly overstates the case, he does come to the right conclusion.

Posted in Politics According to the Bible | Permalink | Comments (0)

Give me Liberty?

August 29, 2011 – 11:20 am

This is the latest in my series critiquing the arguments in Wayne Grudem’s book Politics According to the Bible. Today, we’re looking at his assertion that one of the main purposes of government should be to safeguard human liberty and freedom. This topic is the largest one in his section on the purposes of government, and is treated as if it is the primary purpose of government in many of the later chapters. This makes it key to an understanding of his political views (which are textbook Religious Right).

What are freedom and liberty?

Grudem uses the terms freedom and liberty fairly interchangeably, but doesn’t define them. Which is unfortunate, because this is a concept that means radically different things to different people. Fidel Castro and George W Bush both see themselves as men who have fought for freedom, but both men would consider the other man’s government to be tyrannical. So what does Grudem mean by the concept, and is his view coherent?

The first thing to notice is that Grudem appears to view liberty and freedom as an absolute concept, rather than a situational one. Or, to put it more simply, he thinks of freedom as a thing in itself. It isn’t just a collection of things you can do (freedom of speech) and/or a collection of things that can’t be done to you (freedom from persecution). It is, instead, the ability to choose for yourself what you do with every second of your time, every cent of your money, and every possession that you own (and that he implies that the proceeds of taxation rightfully belong to the taxpayer, rather than to the government).

The main problem I have with this approach to the idea of freedom is that individual freedoms are, in practice, often incompatible with each other. If my next-door neighbour exercises his freedom to have a wild party, then I may not be able to exercise my freedom to have a quiet night in. These freedoms cannot both be exercised at the same time, and Grudem’s treatment of the subject shows no awareness of that.

The Biblical Case

Grudem’s Biblical case begins with pointing out some Bible passages that oppose the idea of slavery, and celebrate freedom from oppression. He also cites Leviticus 25:10, which contains a proclamation of liberty for the year of jubilee. However, he omits to mention that the following verse (Leviticus 25:11) bans the Israelites from agricultural work during that year. In context, the verse is not talking about absolute liberty to do anything you like.

And that’s a real problem with the whole argument. Grudem interprets any verse that talks about a specific freedom to be supporting liberty in general. But freedom from (or for) one thing does not necessarily imply freedom from (or for) something else. If I endorse the freedom to hold whatever religious beliefs you like, that doesn’t necessarily imply that I also endorse the freedom to put all of those beliefs into practice, let alone the freedom to do something that is unrelated to those beliefs. And yet that’s exactly the kind of implication that Grudem draws from these passages.

Grudem’s other Biblical argument is to cite a number of verses that encourage individual choice. However, all of the verses he cites are encouraging people to choose to follow God, and therefore of very limited relevance to the question of the purpose of government. And one of them (Joshua 24:15) goes on to talk about the choices made by a household, suggesting that it is about a corporate choice, rather than an individual one (and there’s a case to be made that Deuteronomy 30:19, which he also cites is also talking about corporate choices).

Furthermore, Grudem ignores the Biblical arguments for restricting choice. A dozen pages earlier, he was arguing (as we covered on Monday) that anarchy was bad because a lack of government meant that “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (i.e. choosing for themselves). He also doesn’t mention something else that we covered on Monday, that every human being being is a sinner. From a Christian/Biblical worldview, human nature is naturally inclined to make morally wrong choices. This doesn’t mean that every choice we make is morally wrong, merely that there is a human tendency towards doing the wrong thing.

In Grudem’s favour, yes, there are plenty Bible passages that speak positively of human beings having freedom to choose things for ourselves. But it certainly isn’t the big emphasis that he makes it out to be in this section and elsewhere in the book.

The Practical Case

Grudem does point out that there are a whole range of things that are good for a society that come from giving people freedom to make their own choices about a range of issues although, again, he doesn’t point out the other side of the coin. Whilst freedom allows some people to donate their time and resources to noble and charitable causes, it allows others to donate them to ignoble and destructive pursuits.

The other thing that Grudem ignores in his practical case is that – in a democratic society – the actions of government are (at least in theory) a result of the people exercising their freedom. Often a restriction on one particular freedom or liberty is done because the people value another more highly (for example, restrictions on car manufacturers may increase the freedom to breathe clean air). At other times, a democratic decision to restrict a freedom may not bring another freedom, but may instead be a collective decision to abstain from using the freedom in question.

Is regulation anti-liberty?

Grudem finishes this section by acknowledging that some restriction of human liberty is necessary, but claims that it should be restricted to the minimum amount necessary, and that it should not be used to restrict things that are morally neutral or morally good. He also argues that government regulation necessarily removes human liberty. Let’s look at that claim through using Grudem’s first example of this, a ban on shops providing customers with plastic bags:

it would force me to use paper bags. This deprives me of my liberty to choose which kind of bag I want. But I cannot carry nearly as many paper bags as plastic bags from the car to the house, because the paper bags break and tear more easily. Therefore, every trip to the grocery store will now require some additional trips between the car and the house, an incremental loss of human liberty for every citizen. The paper bags also take more storage room and don’t work as well for certain other tasks, so there is another small loss of liberty. Perhaps some people think this insignificant, and perhaps others think that there is an environmental benefit that comes from avoiding plastic bags, and that is worth the price of depriving the citizens a small amount of liberty in this way. I do not. But my point is simply to notice that my freedom to use my time as I wish has been eroded a bit, and no one seems to notice that this has happened.

The first thing to note is that this law would not, in fact, force you to use paper bags for your shopping. You would still be free to use bags made of plastic, cotton, hemp, or any other material, just as you were before. The specific example that Grudem refers to (the ban in San Francisco ) allows shops to offer recyclable paper bags, compostable plastic bags and reusable bags, and you would still have the option of using any other bags that you happen to own. The direct impact of this law would actually be to remove the freedom to let the shop (rather than you) make a particular decision about what bags you use.

The second thing to note is that such a law would gain you additional freedoms from its indirect effects. You would, for example, gain freedom from having plastic bags littering the local streets, If you lived near a wast incinerator, you would also gain freedom from breathing in the harmful particles that are emitted when plastic bags are burned. And that’s in addition to the environmental benefits that might come from reducing the number of disposable plastic bags being made.

Finally, it’s worth pointing out that Grudem seems unaware that some regulations can actually have the sole effect of increasing the amount of absolute freedom that individuals enjoy. For example, a regulation could increase the number of holiday/vacation days that employers have to give their employees. As an employee is under no obligation to use up all of their holiday, employees lose no freedoms, and would have an increased amount of time where they can make their own choices. Unless the increase in holiday days is very large, its impact on businesses would not cause a noticeable impact on the business’s customers, or a large one to its bottom line. In fact, an extra day’s rest might make employees work better, harder, and more productively, thus benefiting everybody.

—

So, to sum up, I’m not convinced of Grudem’s claim that protecting absolute freedom and liberty to choose everything we can for ourselves should be a main purpose of government (it certainly wasn’t a main purpose of the Roman Empire in which the New Testament was written). But that’s not to say that I don’t think government should promote individual freedoms and liberties wherever possible. One of the purposes of government that we’ve already covered is to promote the common good. And there’s plenty of reason to think that the vast majority of freedoms are good for society.

I also agree with Grudem that you need a good reason in order to justify restricting peoples’ liberties. The difference between us is that I don’t place such a high value on the freedom to do whatever I want, whenever I want, that a small personal inconvenience can override the common good.

Posted in Faith and Politics, Politics According to the Bible | Permalink | Comments (2)

What’s the Point of Government?

August 26, 2011 – 8:03 pm

I’m continuing the series critiquing Wayne Grudem’s book Politics According to the Bible. Today, we’re looking at the question of what government is actually for. It’s one that doesn’t get asked all that often in political debate (at least this side of the Atlantic), but it is well worth looking at. Grudem covers this in chapter three, which we’ll cover today. But I’m going to pull out four particular issues to look at in more depth in future posts. The first is the question of human liberty, the second is Grudem’s assertion that the Bible supports democracy, the third is the question of patriotism, and the fourth are some issues around the relationship between church and state.

Punishing evil and rewarding good

Grudem begins by saying that God instituted the concept of human society punishing criminals in Genesis 9:5-6, and that justice is not just about punishing crimes, but also about defending the weak and needy (he cites Psalm 82:2-4), and that punishment should be swift in order to be a deterrent (he cites Ecclesiastes 8:11), although he doesn’t mention the necessity of due process in order to ensure that the correct verdict is reached.

He then goes on into New Testament passages which talk about the same principles, bringing in two Bible passages he relies on repeatedly throughout the book (Romans 13:1-7) and 1 Peter 2:13-14). He points out that, whilst governments are there to punish evil and reward good, not everything that they do is good. He also argues that punishment by government is an instrument of God’s wrath as well being a method of preventing wrogndoing. He also says that the view some Christians (I don’t know who) apparently hold that Matthew 5:39 (turn the other cheek) means that government shouldn’t have a police, judicial, or penal system is wrong, because the passage applies only to personal behaviour.

Whilst the details of Grudem’s argument on Matthew 5:39 feel a little on the weak side (does the passage really rule out a corporate application?), I think he’s got it pretty much right on this issue, even though the way he talks about the state delivering justice makes me feel a little bit uneasy – my instinct is towards a more liberal judicial system which focuses on rehabilitation (an issue which we’ll cover when we get to Grudem’s views on the death penalty).

Anarchy is not an option

As a minor point in establishing the above point, Grudem addresses the question of whether we need government (which really should have been covered earlier). He cites a number of verses from Judges 18-25, which tell some of the most horrific stories in the Bible, and comment that it was because “in those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” Concluding, rightly, that anarchy is not something a Christian should welcome. He also says that, even if there was no sin in the world (and hence no need for a judicial system), there would still be a need for government in order to promote things that are for the common good.

Governments are there to serve the people, not the rulers

Grudem points out that rulers abusing their power to enrich themselves, their family, and friends is repeatedly condemned in the Old Testament, and suggests that preventing this requires that rulers have more checks and balances, and are held accountable to the people. Again, this is something that should be self-evident in a democratic society, although even there you don’t have to look too far to see plenty of examples where politicians have violated this principle.

Civil Disobedience

On this issue, Grudem goes back to Romans 13:1-2 and 1 Peter 2:13-14, saying that Christians should, as a matter of course, obey the law of the land. On the other hand, he says that there are clearly cases when we should disobey the law – citing an incident in Acts 4:18-5:20 where the Apostles refused to stop preaching the gospel when commanded not to by the Jewish authorities, and Shadrach Meshach and Abednego being thrown into a fiery furnace for refusing to worship an idol in Daniel 3:13-17. He also cites the Egyptian midwives refusing to murder newborn Hebrew boys in Exodus 1:17-21, and a couple of other Biblical examples. His principle is that it is right to disobey the government when obeying them would mean directly disobeying God. This definition is wide enough to allow for things like the Seeds of Hope Ploughshares action, but wouldn’t allow for disregarding laws that happen to be stupid, rather than morally wrong.

He then moves on to the question of whether it can ever be right to overthrow the government. The way this section is written is back-to-front, as Grudem argues that the American Revolution was justified, before looking at the reasons overthrowing a government might be justifiable. He portrays the revolution as an act to defend the people of the thirteen colonies against the tyranny of George III. His account of history comes across as a very one-sided view of that historical era (what I’ve read on the period suggests that George III wasn’t particularly tyrannical, particularly when compared to the standards of the time – and, in any case, Parliament made most of the decisions). I can’t help wondering whether Grudem takes the charges in the Declaration of Independence to be objective fact, rather than the propaganda they were clearly written as.

It’s only after this argument that Grudem points out that there are plenty of examples in the Bible of it being OK to change a government, but doesn’t really say much more on the subject. By the end of this section, I’m left wondering what criteria Grudem thinks sufficient to justify violent overthrow of a government, but judging by his defence of the American Revolution, I get the impression that the bar is set fairly low.

Separation of Powers

After this Grudem argues that, because all humans are sinful (which is a basic Christian belief), we should ensure that there is a strong and clear separation of powers at every level of government, to ensure that no one person or group has too much power to abuse. He points to a number of Bible passages that show abuses of power, the principle in the Old Testament that kings had no authority over priests and prophets, and that the New Testament Church ensured that decisions were made by groups of leaders, rather than a single leader.

Whilst I completely agree that separation of powers within government is a very good idea, the examples Grudem chooses are pretty weak – separation of powers is a way of checking abuse of power, but not the only one ever devised (elections – especially when there’s a recall option – are one alternative), the second example could be considered to be separation of church and state (even though Israel was theoretically a theocracy), and the third is an example from within the church, rather than the government. Which leave us with a fairly weak case for claiming separation of powers to be, in itself, a Biblical principle. At best, it’s one way of limiting the damage caused by human sin.

Rule of Law

Finally (excepting the bits I’ve saved for later), Grudem points out that the rule of law must apply to the rulers of a nation. He cites Deuteronomy 17:18-20 and 2 Samuel 12 as examples of the Bible insisting that even kings (who, in those days, had unchecked power over their kingdoms) had to obey the law and be subject to it in the same way that everybody else is.

—-

So there we have it, the majority of Grudem’s theology of what government is supposed to be there for. There’s not really much I can say as commentary on this, it’s all pretty sound from a theological point of view (mostly because I’ve taken out the controversial bits for a more in-depth look), although the bit on civil disobedience could do with a bit more depth.

Posted in Faith and Politics, Politics According to the Bible | Permalink | Comments (5)

What is a Christian view of politics?

August 24, 2011 – 11:21 am

We’re continuing the series critiquing Wayne Grudem’s book Politics According to the Bible. On Monday, we looked at five wrong views about the relationship between Christians and government/politics (at this stage in the book, the terms can be used pretty much interchangeably). Today, we critique what Grudem considers to be the right view. He calls this view “Significant Christian Influence on Government” and defines it as follows:

Christians should seek to influence civil government according to God’s moral standards and God’s purposes for government as revealed in the Bible (when rightly understood). But while Christians exercise this influence, they must simultaneously insist on protecting freedom of religion for all citizens. In addition, “significant influence” does not mean angry, belligerent, intolerant, judgemental, red-faced, and hate-filled influence, but rather winsome, kind, thoughtful, loving, persuasive influence that is suitable to each circumstance and that always protects the other person’s right to disagree, but that is also uncompromising about the truthfulness and moral goodness of the teachings of God’s Word.

Now, at this point there’s a possibility that some of my non-Christian readers might (mis)interpret that to imply that Grudem wants to set up a theocracy. That is, after all, how a lot of people view the agenda of the Religious Right in the USA – the political tradition which Grudem belongs. However, this definition works just as well for those of us who could be considered the Religious Left.

So, in order to clarify the intent for these readers, I’m going to retitle the viewpoint “Significant Christian Involvement in Politics” (after all, this approach doesn’t guarantee even the smallest amount of influence). And draft a more concise definition as follows:

Christians should be actively involved in political activity, drawing their political principles from their Christian faith – as defined by the teachings of the Bible – and doing so in an attitude of Christian love, rather than being angry, hateful, and judgemental. Christians should ensure that the way we do politics protects freedom of religion and the right to disagree, but does not compromise any aspect of our Christian beliefs.

In explaining what this means in practice, Grudem begins by defending the idea that there is a right interpretation of the Bible, as well as areas where Christians disagree on the issues. He then objects to theologically liberal interpretations of the Bible. However, his target in this section is really the secular commentator who insists that Christians who are consistent should follow the Law of Moses, without considering the way that the New Testament interprets those laws. Grudem then gives a number of Biblical and historical examples of the kind of influence he is talking about, from Daniel through to Martin Luther King.

Can we enforce moral standards?

And it’s at this point that Grudem goes into the first issue in the book where I think that he is completely and unambiguously wrong. He says that some people raise the issue of prohibition as an example of how you can’t legislate morality (true). His response to this is to say that it means that you can’t (successfully) enforce moral standards on a population where those standards are stricter than the standards of the Bible.

The problem with Grudem’s argument here is that the Bible itself shows that you can’t successfully enforce its moral standards on the population. This is proved time and time again in the Old Testament, when the nation of Israel fails to even come close to meeting the standards of the law of Moses. And then New Testament books like Romans and Galatians make it crystal clear that for somebody who is not a Christian to come close to keeping those moral standards is impossible. The correct lesson to draw from prohibition is surely that you cannot impose moral standards on a population where those standards are significantly higher/stricter than the population is willing to accept. It is certainly not that you can successfully impose moral standards as long as the standards are Biblical.

Should a candidate’s religion affect our vote?

Grudem then goes on to state that Christians should vote based on a candidate’s polices, rather than whether they are a Christian or not, citing God’s use of various pagan kings throughout the BIble, and citing his own support for Mormon candidates in the past. He’s completely right on this one, a Christian standing for office could easily be incapable of doing the job he or she is standing for, or have political views which are wrong, or even dangerous.

Personally speaking, I would only consider a candidate’s religious views to be a major issue if it directly affected their policies, if it directly affected their ability to do the job, or if the only other substantial differences between candidates were ones that I didn’t care about. Of course, in the first two cases it’s not the religious beliefs themselves that are the issue.

Where do we get our moral compass?

Grudem then goes on to make the contentious claim that, “without Christian influence, governments will have no clear moral compass.” Now, I see the point that he’s making – that governments and political parties need consistent moral principles, and that Christians should consider Christianity to be the best place to get those principles. But the way he states it feels rather misleading.

There are plenty of other religions and philosophies that can provide politicians with a clear moral compass, whether that be Islam, Marxism, or Humanism. As a Christian, I believe these moralities to have significant flaws. But in most cases it would be untrue to portray their moral principles as not being clear.

Furthermore, in practice, all Western democracies exist in a pluralist society. And, as such, if our democracies are acting as they are supposed to, elected politicians will have a wide variety of religious and philosophical beliefs. Which means that government should (again, if the system is genuinely democratic) reflect those philosophies to some degree.

Preaching on politics

He then says that church leaders have a responsibility to teach on political issues. This is something that should be a no-brainer. The Bible speaks to a massive range of issues, some of which are political – of course churches should preach on those issues. He does, however, sound a note of caution by pointing out that preachers should be cautious about issues where there is more room for disagreement about what the Bible teaches, and not preach on issues where the Bible is silent.

He also says that church leaders need to avoid placing too much emphasis on politics – after all, not everything the Bible says is directly political. He also says that preaching on political issues does not equate to endorsing a particular party or candidate. All of which is pretty much unarguable except, perhaps, for the details of where you draw the line.

Do we have democratic obligations?

Finally, Grudem says something about the obligations all Christians (as opposed to those with a particular calling to politics) living in a democracy should feel bound by. He starts by saying that we should all be informed and vote, citing the principle of stewardship (that God expects us to make responsible and fruitful use of everything He has given us – in this case democratic rights).

He also challenges Christians to consider whether each of us has a “higher obligation than merely voting”. He bases this on the question of whether it is “morally right to receive great benefits from a nation but to give nothing in return.” (emphasis his). Whether you’re a Christian or not, if you’ve never thought about that question, it’s definitely worth pondering.

Posted in Faith and Politics, Politics According to the Bible | Permalink | Comments (2)

What isn’t a Christian View of Politics?

August 22, 2011 – 11:21 am

Following on from my review of Wayne Grudem’s Politics According to the Bible, I’m going to be spending the next few months critiquing his arguments about what a Christian approach to politics should be. Today, I’m looking at the first chapter, which explores the question of how Christianity should relate to government. It should be noted that, in this chapter, the terms government and politics are used pretty much interchangeably.

In this chapter, Grudem critiques five wrong views about this question, he’ll go on to outline what he believes to be the correct view in chapter two (which we’ll look at on Wednesday). The five wrong views are:

* Government should compel religion
* Government should exclude religion
* All government is evil and demonic
* Do evangelism, not politics
* Do politics, not evangelism

Lets look at each of these views in turn:

Government should compel religion

Grudem starts by pointing out that this is a view that is not held by any significant Christian group today, and points out that it is clearly ruled out by Jesus in Matthew 22:20-21, alongside several other passages. He also draws out the principle that Christian faith cannot be forced upon somebody.

Grudem then draws out some implications from this – the biggest being that Christians should be staunchly in favour of freedom of religion. The other main implication is that there is no Biblical warrant for having an established church with formal and financial links to the state, and that he believes that it does more harm to the church in question than good, although he sees no problem with religious organisations having exemptions from taxes, as long as such things are open to all religions.

Government should exclude religion

This view is that religion should be completely excluded from government functions and property, and from all political or governmental decision-making processes. Grudem attributes this view to a number of secular organisations in the US (the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State). Whilst I don’t know whether this is an accurate representation of their views, I have certainly come across atheists who think along these lines.

Grudem’s arguments against such a view begin with those from general principles. He points out that such a system would not be democratic and would violate the principles of both freedom of religion and freedom of speech. He then brings in a number of Biblical examples that show Jews or Christians having an influence over a variety of pagan rulers, before concluding that such a viewpoint is clearly at odds with a genuinely Christian worldview.

All Government is evil and demonic

Grudem goes into some depth on this one, quoting Greg Boyd’s book The Myth of a Christian Nation, which, in Grudem’s analysis (I haven’t read the book, so can’t comment on whether this is an accurate representation), hinges on a misinterpretation of Luke 4:6 to say that all government is ultimately in the hands of the Devil. Grudem also points out that Boyd’s argument ignores numerous Bible passages that place God, rather than the Devil, as the one ultimately in charge of human history and the many Bible passages that speak positively of government. He also goes off on a tangent in critiquing Boyd’s particular version of pacifism – an argument which would have been better placed in the chapter dealing with national defence (and I’ll critique Grudem’s arguments on the issue when I get there).

Do evangelism, not politics

This view says that the only way Christians can change society for the better is to preach the gospel message and so change peoples’ hearts. Grudem’s response is to say that the gospel message, if preached fully, includes both transformation of society and doing good for others. He also points out that the Bible portrays both evangelism and politics as means to restrain evil (citing 2 Corinthians 5:17 and Romans 13:1-3), before pointing out a number of examples of Christianity having a positive influence on governments, from outlawing cruel practises in the Roman Empire through to the Civil Rights Movement.

Grudem then briefly deals with two arguments used in favour of this approach. The first is based on the idea that there’s no point given that some Bible passages predict persecution of Christianity in the end times. Grudem’s response is simple: if previous generations of Christians had taken that approach, the good things he’s listed wouldn’t have happened. The second is that politics is a distraction from the main task of preaching the gospel. Grudem, however, points out that Christians are called to different ministries (citing 1 Corinthians 12). And also that Christian involvement in politics will be done primarily by those Christians whom God has called to a political ministry, in the same way as some Christians might be called particularly to social action, childrens’ ministry, or working the church’s sound system.

Do politics, not evangelism

This was the view of the Social Gospel movement of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. Grudem claims that such a view is a straw man when applied to Christian groups today, although all the groups he cites are Evangelical ones. I expect that there are plenty in the liberal wing of Christianity (which, by and large, doesn’t do evangelism) who hold to this kind of view, at least in practice. Grudem then says that changing a society to one that is in harmony with a Christian worldview requires both evangelism and political action, as well as Christians teaching the whole Bible and thinking through the implications of Christianity.

Reading through that, there’s very little that I would consider controversial (the pacifism bit is the only one), but it all needs to be established before we can meaningfully discuss what a Christian/Biblical approach to politics looks like.

Posted in Faith and Politics, Politics According to the Bible | Permalink | Comments (7)

Review: Politics According to the Bible by Wayne Grudem

August 19, 2011 – 11:20 am

Cover of Politics According to the Bible
Wayne Grudem is an academic theologian best known for his bestselling book Systematic Theology, which is an extensive theological reference book used by students, church leaders, and ordinary Christians. He has been hugely influential within Evangelical Christianity. Not just in the US, where he comes from, but across the world. So when he writes a book on politics, it has the potential to shape a lot of peoples’ viewpoints.

The book is 600 pages long, and covers a wide range of issues, so I’m not going to attempt a comprehensive review in this post, which will be a very general overview of the book. I’ll be coming back to many of the arguments Grudem makes over the next few months, though.

To start with, I would recommend this book to two groups of people. The first is Christians who are already trying to work out a Christian approach to political issues, and who are already reading a variety of perspectives – this is one more to add to the mix. The second is those who want to understand the thinking of America’s Religious Right, as this book serves as an excellent introduction to their political philosophy.

Now, onto the good bits. Chapters 1 to 4 look at the question of whether Christians should engage with politics, and gives an overview of some Biblical principles and aspects of a Christian worldview that should frame our political approach. Grudem believes that the correct approach should be what he calls “significant Christian influence on government”, but would be more accurately described as “significant Christian involvement in politics”. He argues that, whilst politics should never become the primary focus of Christianity, neither should Christians feel that we should stay out of it. Whilst I disagree with some of the emphases in his survey of Biblical values and worldview, and believe that he has missed some significant points in those chapters, the overviews are very helpful to frame a Christian approach to the subject.

The closing chapter (18) is also very good. In this chapter, Grudem goes over the Biblical belief that God is sovereign (in charge) of the overall direction of history, points out that there are currently trends for both the better and the worse, and paints a picture of what it might look like should Christianity in the West experience what church history calls revival (dumbed-down definition: large numbers of people becoming Christians), and – as a result – Christianity begins to have a much bigger impact on our society. Whilst I disagree with several aspects of the picture Grudem paints about its impact on politics, this chapter is also very helpful in building a Christian understanding of how to view politics and political involvement.

Now, if you’ve been paying attention, you’ll notice that I’m not that keen on the content of chapters 5 to 17, which is most of the book. Without getting into too much detail, there are several issues I have which apply to most of these chapters: Read More »

Posted in Politics According to the Bible, Reviews | Permalink | Comments (5)

Pre-election roundup

May 3, 2011 – 10:05 pm

Well, we all go to the polls on Thursday, so here’s a quick roundup of related things I’ve spotted online.

Not much for the local elections (well, they are local – even if the cuts are one of the biggest local issues in a lot of places), or for the Welsh and Northern Ireland elections. The Scottish Parliament elections are looking interesting, though as, if the polls are right, it looks like the Greens will push the Lib Dems into fifth place.

And, speaking of Greens and elections, the Canadian Greens got their first MP yesterday.

And, of course, there’s that AV referendum. If you’ve still not made up your mind, then here are eleven reasons to vote yes.

Plus, there are some pretty good campaign videos out there (sadly they’re not by the official campaigns).

First, there’s AV Cat

Then there’s the Musical Argument

And, just to provide some balance, here’s David Cameron’s AV Rap, which completely sums up the No Campaign.

Posted in Uncategorised | Permalink | Comments (0)

It’s Resurrection Day

April 24, 2011 – 10:29 pm

In English, today is called Easter Sunday, a phrase which somewhat obscures its real meaning. In most other European languages, the name for this festival is a variant of the word Passover – showing the festival’s roots in the Jewish festival. On Friday, I explained how the picture of the Passover Lamb explains something of what Christians celebrate the festival. Today, I want to explore a few implications of Jesus’ resurrection, which is the event that we celebrate today.

In the book of Revelation, the picture of Jesus being a lamb is used several times, but in a very different context to that of the passover sacrifice. Whilst the description of “the lamb that was slain” conveys all the imagery of the passover lamb killed in our place, there is something much greater being described:

“Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honour and glory and blessing!” And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honour and glory and might forever and ever!” And the four living creatures said, “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshipped.” (Revelation 5:9-14, ESV)

This is not just a sacrificial victim, but a being so awesome that He is worthy of unending worship from the whole of creation, and who has every right to be the ultimate ruler of the universe. You see, the resurrection proves something more to than just somebody dying in our place . It proves that Jesus has defeated the ultimate enemy – death. Unlike people who are revived from death, only to die again later, Jesus has definitively conquered death for all time.

And Jesus didn’t just conquer death for himself, he conquered it for the rest of us as well. In 1 Corinthians, Paul writes this:

“But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15: 20-22, ESV)

Jesus’ resurrection means that, one day, Christians will be raised to the same kind of eternal life. Our destiny isn’t to float around on in a disembodied state, it is to have new, perfect, physical bodies, Whilst the Bible gives fairly few details of our ultimate destination (on a new Earth, rather than in a spiritual heaven), it seems clear that it will be more similar to all the genuinely good bits of our current existence than it is dissimilar.

So Jesus’ resurrection demonstrates that He is both the ultimate victor and the person who is worthy to sit on the throne of the universe. And it paves the way for a fantastic everlasting life for those who believe in Him. Whilst the secular world treats today as merely an excuse to eat chocolate, Christians have a very real reason to celebrate. There’s no better excuse for a party than the fact that JESUS IS ALIVE!!!!

Posted in Christianity | Permalink | Comments (0)

What’s good about Friday?

April 22, 2011 – 10:01 am

Today is Good Friday, the day Christians celebrate the death of Jesus. However, if you’re not a Christian, you may wonder how the commemoration of somebody’s death can be described as “good”. The reason why we call this day “Good” Friday is to do with what we believe Jesus’ death achieved. In order to explain it, I’m going to use one of several analogies that the Bible uses to explain part of what the cross accomplished.

In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul describes Jesus as “our passover lamb”. This is not a reference to the fact that Jesus’ death happened during the celebration of the Jewish passover, but a claim that Jesus was the ultimate fulfilment of the Passover festival.

If you’re not familiar with the story, Read More »

Posted in Christianity | Permalink | Comments (0)

Although this blog is my own personal opinion, during an election period it may be considered to be election material. Therefore, this blog is published and promoted by Stephen Gray on behalf of Green Party (56-64 Leonard Street, Development House, London, EC2A 4LT).