Should we own guns?

September 19, 2011 – 11:27 am

This is the next in our series critiquing Wayne Grudem’s book Politics According to the Bible. Today we’re looking at the final part of chapter 6 (which is about the protection of life), the question of gun laws.

What is your reaction when a madman walks into a school with a gun and starts shooting? When it happened in Dunblaine, Scotland, the nation universally demanded tougher gun laws so that it couldn’t happen again. When it happened in Colombine, Colorado there were some voices calling for weaker gun laws so that it couldn’t happen again. For those on either side of the debate, the reaction of the other side seems silly. For some, it’s blindingly obvious that tougher gun laws will reduce gun crime because criminals won’t be able to get guns. For others, it’s blindingly obvious that criminals will always be able to get access to guns, that weaker gun laws mean more armed civilians who can shoot back, and that this is a deterrent to crime.

The question of self-defence

Grudem starts by asking whether the Bible teaches the principle of self defence. He argues that Matthew 5:38-39 (turn the other cheek) is about not taking vengeance to “get even”, and does not apply when somebody is trying to do you bodily harm or even to kill you. He cites a number of passages (1 Samuel 19:10, 2 Corinthians 11:32-33, Luke 4:29-30, John 8:59; 10:39) where people escaped from attacks, and Grudem says that none of them turned the other cheek. One thing Grudem doesn’t point out is that in none of these examples does the person hit back. He also justifies his interpretation by saying that other commands of Jesus were not to be applied universally. He points to Matthew 5:42 – which says that we should give to anybody who begs from you or asks to borrow from you, and says that following it in all circumstances would quickly leave a church or a Christian bankrupt.

He also says that it is OK to use a weapon in self defence by citing Luke 22:36-38, where Jesus apparently tells his disciples to buy swords, although I understand that there is considerable dispute about what is going on in this passage. He brings in an argument that it self-defence is a necessary application of the command to care for the health of our bodies (1 Corinthians 6:19-20), and claims that not acting in self-defence will often result in greater harm and wrongdoing in the future, so that defending yourself is acting out of love for both yourself and your attacker. Grudem doesn’t address the question of whether there are circumstances where the opposite is the case (the civil rights movement’s non-violent protests in the 1960s would be a prime example). Finally, Grudem argues that several anti-sword comments Jesus made were either to stop the disciples from preventing the crucifixion (Luke 22:50-51) or to discourage a military rebellion against Rome (Matthew 26:52).

In summary, this argument falls far short of proving that the Bible actively teaches the principle of self defence, though he probably does prove that the Bible doesn’t rule self defence out.

When it comes to the specific question of guns, he says that the principle of using swords must surely allow for other kinds of weapons, and that guns allow even a frail person to defend themselves against an attacker. He then says that, in countries where there are already lots of guns, the laws should allow private citizens to own guns for self-defence.

Do gun laws actually reduce crime?

Grudem claims that there is substantial statistical evidence that widespread gun ownership decreases the crime rate. In support of this, he claims that violent crime is twice as high in the UK as in the US, ignoring the difficulties of comparing generic crime rates between countries (only the most specific statistics are directly comparable). His credibility on UK crime statistics is undermined by the claim that increased terrorism is causing a strain on the UK police, which suggests that he’s unaware of how low the incidence of terrorism is in the UK compared to the 70s and 80s, when the IRA were at their height.

He also claims that criminals substituting knives or “shoulder weapons” (and no, I don’t know what that means) for guns could prove more dangerous. He then lines up statistics that he says are evidence that widespread gun ownership deters crime. He notes some cases where murder rates went up following gun control laws, though he doesn’t compare murder rates between places with gun control laws and those without (which, I’m told, show the opposite). He extensively cites a book by John Lott called More Guns, Less Crime, which claims to have found extensive evidence that guns reduce the incidence of murder, rape, and severe assault. He says that gun ownership makes no difference to suicide rates or domestic violence. He dismisses statistics about the number of children killed by guns, because many of these are cases of gang violence.

Because this is an area of policy I’ve not really thought about before (as gun laws are on nobody’s agenda in the UK), Grudem’s statistics are new to me, and I’ve not really looked into the practical and statistical evidence for the other side. It does seem counter-intuitive that a weapon that makes murder far easier could reduce the murder rate, but if his stats are right, then there’s certainly a practical case to be made for giving people the chance to own guns.

What’s up with the second amendment?

Because he’s writing for an American audience, Grudem also makes use of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which says:

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

He argues that this refers not to military forces organised by the government, but to “armed male citizens”, and that the point of this amendment was to protect the people from the tyranny of a powerful federal government. However, he also claims that the amendment was originally intended to be about the right to self-defence, although his argument here is about the nebulous question of original intent, rather than being based on the actual words.

What gun laws does Grudem endorse?

Grudem believes that self-defence is a basic human right, and so argues that the law should guarantee citizens a right to some effective means of self-defence. He reiterates his belief that this will lead to a reduction in crime. He believes that guns are the most effective means of self-defence, especially in areas of high crime or frequent violence, saying that there is a lot of truth in the slogan “if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”.

On the other side of the coin, he is fine with governments placing “reasonable restrictions” on gun ownership. He thinks that it is appropriate to prevent convicted criminals and mentally ill people from having guns, or to prohibit guns in certain “sensitive places” like courtrooms or aeroplanes – an exception that he justifies by saying that these are highly controlled areas, with a low probability of violent attacks. He is also in favour of background checks, as long as they did not become an actual barrier to gun ownership. He is also in favour of restricting weapons that would not be needed for personal defence (e.g. machine guns, anti-tank guns, or anti-aircraft missile launchers). He does not, however, comment on how this squares with the second amendment being a protection against government tyranny. If there were a case of genuine government oppression of its people, then such weapons may well be necessary to protect against military attack.

For countries other than his own, Grudem recommends that private citizens should be able to own and carry firearms in all countries where there is a danger of violent attack, and claims that restrictions on gun ownership are a factor in high levels of violence in countries like Brazil and Jamaica. However, in countries where there are almost no guns in the hands of the general public or criminals, and where police control and “societal customs” mean that there is little risk of physical attack, then such laws may not be necessary.

Grudem finishes up this section by saying that the question of whether it is wise for a Christian to own a gun is an individual decision – that we should weigh up the benefits in terms of self-defence against the cost and the risk of accidents.

So is he right?

This is an issue about which I have very little knowledge, so I can’t comment on Grudem’s statistical/practical evidence. His assertions that self-defence is taught in the Bible and that it is a basic human right seem to me to be vastly overstating the case, but if his practical evidence holds up, then he may well be right on the issue. Of course, if it doesn’t hold up, then we probably should act to restrict guns. If you live somewhere where this issue is a real concern, then I’d urge you to read up on both sides of the issue in order to have an informed opinion.

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

Crime, Punishment, and the Death Penalty

September 16, 2011 – 11:19 am

This is the next in the series of articles critiquing Wayne Grudem’s book Politics According to the Bible. Today we look at the section on the death penalty. This is the only point where Grudem looks at the principles behind the criminal justice system (which is the wider context in which we have to look at this issue), so let’s start by looking at his arguments about that, before diving into the death penalty itself

Should we punish criminals?

There are a wide range of opinions about what our criminal justice system should aim to do. Should it be there to extract revenge on behalf of the victims, to punish criminals for what they’ve done, to deter them from doing it in the first place, to keep them locked up and away from the rest of society, or to reform and rehabilitate them? Most people consider it to be for most or all of those purposes at once, and the balance varies from country to country.

Grudem starts with some verses in Romans. Romans 12:19 says that Christians should not seek revenge – instead we should forgive those who wrong us. This carries on in Romans 12:20-21 by encouraging us to give good things to those who do us wrong, and to overcome evil with good. Then, a few verses later, Romans 13:4 says that government exists, in part, to avenge wrongs and carry out God’s wrath against wrongdoers. Grudem’s conclusion is that, as Christians, we should want government to carry out God’s vengeance against criminals.

He basically divides the two differing statements in this passage into, on one hand, showing personal kindness towards criminals (including praying for their salvation), and on the other wanting the legal process to pay the criminal back for what he (or she) has done. In arguing that Christians should want to see crimes avenged, he also cites Revelation 6:9-10 – where Christians in heaven (who are no longer sinful) express this desire.

Whilst these passages do seem to weight the criminal justice debate far more towards the punitive end of the spectrum than I would like, they do also offer considerable scope for Christians to push for more restorative forms of criminal justice. The theme of the verses that finish off chapter 12 is best summarised in Romans 12:14, “Bless those who persecute you, bless and do not curse”. And this appears to be the main thrust of verse 21′s command to “overcome evil with good”. This kind of approach is crucial to the rehabilitation side of criminal justice, and, in my view, we should try to ensure that there is enough of that in the system.

So, does the Bible endorse capital punishment?

Grudem starts with the Old Testament, going back to Genesis 9:5-6, where God – speaking to Noah – demands the death penalty for murder on the basis that we are made in the image of God. Because this was a command to Noah, Grudem believes that it applies to all of humanity. He also cites Romans 13:4, where government is described as “bearing the sword”. He says that this must mean the death penalty (rather than being symbolic of authority) because of various other Bible passages that refer to it as the instrument of death. He also cites Peter 2:13-14, which talks about government punishing the criminal, but does not say anything about the means.

Grudem also deals with a number of Biblical objections to his view. He points out that Exodus 20:13 (often translated “you shall not kill”) refers to murder, and not necessarily to all killing. He says that Matthew 5:38-39, where Jesus advocates going beyond “eye for an eye” (limiting the punishment to be proportional to the crime) to “turn the other cheek” refers to the actions of individuals, not to those of governments. He dismisses the idea that Matthew 22:39 (love your neighbour as yourself) is an argument against the death penalty, because it also appears in the Mosaic law, which endorses the death penalty. He dismisses arguments from Matthew 26:52, where Jesus tells Peter to put his sword away, because Jesus was ensuring his arrest (and hence the crucifixion), rather than making a general point.

He also dismisses the argument from John 8:2-11 about the woman caught in adultery on three grounds – firstly, that the woman was guilty of adultery, not murder. Secondly, that the question was a trap. If Jesus said “execute her”, he’d be inciting rebellion against Rome – who didn’t allow the Jewish authorities to execute criminals themselves. If he said “spare her”, he’d be telling Jews to break the law of Moses (which would have sentenced both the woman and her lover to death). And thirdly, that there is some doubt about whether the passage was in the original text.

Grudem also notes that the pardoning of some murderers (notably Cain in Genesis 4:8-16 and David in 2 Samuel 12:13) illustrates the freedom of God to pardon people. It is interesting here that Grudem does not suggest that civil government has the freedom to pardon people from its own authority. Finally, he argues (again) against the “whole life ethic” suggested by many others – notably Jim Wallis and Pope John Paul II. He says that a Christian approach should instead be a “whole Bible ethic” and be faithful to what the Bible says on any given issue.

There are, however, some Christian arguments against the death penalty that Grudem does not consider. Firstly, he does not consider the possibility of being for the death penalty in principle, but against it in practice (an approach that was most notably taken by Augustine – unquestionably one of the most important Christian theologians of all time). He also doesn’t question whether the cross should alter our view. In God’s eyes, the penalty for all sin is death (Romans 6:23), but Jesus’ death satisfies God’s wrath for our sins (1 Thessalonians 5:9-10). This isn’t definitive either way, but it does raise questions about the extent to which the death penalty is still appropriate.

Does the death penalty actually deter crime?

Grudem also argues that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to crime. His main argument is a graph that shows a decrease in the murder rate in the US at the same time as the number of executions went up, and some citations by a few researchers who say that there is some deterrence effect. Grudem’s graph, however, does not prove anything. In order to prove that the correlation is statistically significant (and, hence, the link is more than co-incidence), we need a lot more data. And even then, we need to prove whether the link is direct (executions prevent murders, or murders reduce the number of executions) or indirect (something else is causing both a rise in murder rate and a drop in the number of executions).

And, although Grudem appears unaware of it, there is plenty of other statistical evidence suggesting the contrary (here’s a decent summary). The most quoted evidence against deterrence are comparisons of the murder rates between US states with and without the death penalty (summarised here). States which execute consistently have a higher murder rate than those that don’t.

Even taking this extra information into account, it’s difficult to be sure which way the evidence points, as the low number of executions makes it difficult to determine their effect, and there are a lot of other factors which are almost certainly more significant. From what I’ve read, the chance of getting caught affects the decision to murder somebody far more than the penalty the murderer will pay if he or she is caught.

Can the death penalty be just and fair?

Grudem argues that there are no known examples of an innocent man being put to death since the death penalty was brought back to the US in 1976, although there have been cases of death-row prisoners being released due to DNA testing.This latter fact is worrying, because these people shouldn’t have been there in the first place. Cases like that of the Birmingham Six, where the police committed perjury (including forging forensic evidence) in order to ensure the conviction of suspected terrorists make me worry that the standard of evidence isn’t high enough to prevent this.

There is also an inconsistency in Grudem’s approach here – he appears to support a strong appeals structure (which, inevitably, will take a lot of time), but in arguing that the death penalty should be a deterrent, he argues that execution should be carried out swiftly to increase the impact (citing Ecclesiastes 8:11 – which supports sentencing in general being swift).

Grudem argues that “racial and economic disparities in the death penalty” (a euphemism for the fact that almost all of the inhabitants of death row in the US are black and/or poor – rich and white murderers almost always get a life sentence instead) does not constitute an argument against the death penalty, but an argument for reform of the sentencing system to ensure that it is fairly and equitably administered. He does not say how this can be achieved, but he’s right in saying that it’s not really an argument against the death penalty.

Finally, he argues that instances where the death penalty has been abused (such as historic executions for heresy) do not invalidate what he sees as the rightful use of execution.

Why is it important?

Grudem finishes by saying that this issue is important for four reasons. That God teaches that governments should carry out the death penalty at least for the crime of murder. That it “satisfies a deep human sense that just punishment is required” when somebody is murdered. That it satisfies God’s requirement for just punishment in such cases. That it acts as a deterrent to murder.

Is he right?

Whilst I can’t disagree with Grudem’s conculsion that the Bible teaches the death penalty, I have to say that the idea of it makes me uneasy. My instinct is the same as Augustine’s – to agree that the Bible supports it, but to oppose it in practice. The statistical evidence appears to point towards it not being a deterrent, and the chances of somebody being wrongly executed simply seem too high to take the risk. I can’t support the simplistic “it’s barbaric” argument of many anti-death-penalty campaigners, but I am persuaded by their more sophisticated evidence-based arguments.

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

Euthanasia

September 14, 2011 – 11:18 am

This is the next in the series critiquing Wayne Grudem’s book Politics According to the Bible. Today we’re looking at the second issue in the chapter on The Protection of Life, Euthanasia. On Friday, we’ll be looking at capital punishment and on Monday, we’ll finish up by looking at the issue of gun control.

Euthanasia, frequently often called “mercy killing” and sometimes “assisted suicide” is the killing of somebody who terminally ill, has an incurable condition that causes severe pain or loss of mental facility, or is just very old. It is usually carried out in order to spare the person, and those who know them, the pain of suffering through their condition. Grudem restricts his definition to the old and terminally ill, presumably in order to make a simple definition. From a UK perspective, this restriction seems somewhat odd, as the euthanasia debate is focused on the groups that Grudem doesn’t mention. The most prominent British advocate of euthanasia is Sir Terry Pratchett – who is neither elderly nor terminally ill, but instead has Alzheimer’s disease.

Grudem also doesn’t directly address the question of whether it is right (or should be legal) to give somebody considering euthanasia for themselves the tools to commit suicide easily and relatively painlessly. Many pro-euthanasia campaigners would be quite happy with that as an option, and it has been argued that such an approach might actually help these people to keep the will to live that much longer.

The Tone

Something I didn’t mention in Monday’s look at abortion (because that post was already quite long) is that Grudem’s takes a purely academic view of the subject. That’s not necessarily a problem – this is a book that’s trying to cover a vast number of political issues in a limited page count. But I can’t help wondering how somebody who might be considering euthanasia (or, for that matter, an abortion) would take the bluntness of Grudem’s tone on these issues.

The apparent lack of compassion by many on the pro-life side on these issues is something that makes it much more difficult not only to win people over, but has also helped made the debates (particularly on abortion) far more about attacking the other side than about making sure that we have the right laws in place.

What does the Bible say?

Grudem cites two Bible passages. One is the sixth commandment (Exodus 20:13), which he renders “you shall not murder” (other translations have “you shall not kill”). He points out that, in the Hebrew, the word covers pre-meditated murder and accidentally killing another human being (and, incidentally, never animals). The second is 2 Samuel 1:1-16, which tells the story of how a man boasted of killing the mortally wounded King Saul (at Saul’s request) to David (who would become the next king), but was executed for his crime, rather than let off for it.

Grudem deals with several arguments that Saul’s death doesn’t mean that euthanasia is murder. Firstly, he deals with the claim that the man’s story may have been made up – saying that even if it was, he was found guilty of the crime. Secondly, because David refers to Saul as “the LORD’s anointed”, some say that the fact that Saul was king makes a difference. Grudem rejects this idea on the basis that murder is wrong because it is the taking of another human life, and the rank of the victim is irrelevant. Thirdly, there’s the claim that the man’s crime was actually rebellion against the king. But this goes directly against what is said in the text.

Killing and letting die

Having said that, Grudem makes a distinction between actively killing somebody and passively allowing them to die, which might offer a loophole to anybody looking for one. He thinks that we should intervene when there is reasonable hope of recovery and we are able to help. But, when there is no reasonable human hope of recovery, and it is the person’s wish to die, and/or we are unable to help then it may be right to allow the person to die. In such cases, he recommends making use of modern painkillers to ease the pain.

Grudem doesn’t really have any Bible passages to back up the distinction he makes, other than the generic principle of love your neighbour (Matthew 22:39), and a few examples of several Bible characters accepting their death when it comes. So, whilst the case for this distinction looks fairly sound, it isn’t really Biblical.

The secular case

Grudem argues that the near-universal belief that murder is wrong must, necessarily, mean that murder is wrong even if the victim is suffering. He also cites the “slippery slope” argument that widespread euthanasia will mean that there will be pressure put on people to take that way out, moving from a social belief in “the right to die” to one in “the obligation to die”. When he says this, he seems to be talking more about generic peer pressure than about individuals putting pressure on other people. In support of this, he cites an article by an anti-Euthanasia campaigner which claims that, in the Netherlands – where euthanasia is legal – around 4% of deaths are caused by involuntary euthanasia. Finally, Grudem points out that some people recover from the kinds of conditions that may lead to euthanasia, citing one example of a man in a coma.

Grudem says that people who think that treating euthanasia as murder is a violation of human freedom, or that it is the best way to alleviate pain and frustration are simply wrong. For him, taking a life is still taking a life, and we should overcome pain and frustration in more conventional ways. He also brings up financial arguments for euthanasia – that the cost of keeping some of these people alive is too great, saying that this is simply immoral. (I really hope that this is a strawman argument). This argument is one that we’ll almost certainly come back to when we get to the issue of healthcare.

So what should be done?

As you’ve already gathered, Grudem thinks that euthanasia should be treated as murder. He also stresses that this is a very important issue. He worries that legal acceptance of euthanasia would mean that the elderly will be increasingly thought of as burdens to care for, rather than a valuable part of society, and notes that most of us will become those elderly who could become victims of euthanasia.

Overall, I can’t really find any grounds to disagree with Grudem that euthanasia is murder, but that there may be cases where we simply have to let people die. However, I can’t help wondering whether there are ways to reach an accommodation between the two sides over many cases. I’ve seen the proposal made that doctors could give those with degenerative conditions the means to kill themselves, and can’t help wondering whether this would be a solution that could be acceptable to most people on both sides (especially those on the pro-life side of this debate who are also pro-gun).

This idea is something that I’ve only just started thinking about as a possibility – I guess I’ve seen a possible grey area, and want to work out how it fits into the overall debate. Would such a policy still be effectively condoning murder? Would it satisfy most right-to-die campaigners? Would it be acceptable to any pro-life campaigners? Would it be practical to implement? Is there some other reason that it might be a good or a bad idea? Answers on a postcard in a comment, please.

Posted in Politics According to the Bible | Permalink | Comments (1)

Abortion

September 12, 2011 – 11:26 am

Abortion is almost certainly the most emotive and divisive political issue of our era. If you express a pro-life view, you are branded as anti-women, but if you express a pro-choice view, you may be branded a baby killer. Furthermore, it’s not even possible to talk about the issue without choosing a side – if you talk about aborting an unborn child, you’re implicitly saying that abortion is wrong. If, on the other hand, you talk about aborting a foetus, then you’re implying that it isn’t fully human, and hence that abortion is morally acceptable. All of which makes me slightly relieved that this post is the latest in the series critiquing Wayne Grudem’s book Politics According to the Bible, rather than me laying out my own opinion. When it comes to terminology, I’m basically going to use the same terms Grudem uses.

What does the Bible say about abortion?

The first thing Grudem says is that the Bible considers human beings to be people from the moment of conception. He cites three different types of Bible passage.

The first are those with a specific reference to a preborn child exhibiting some kind of personhood. The passages in question are Luke 1:41-44 (where Elizabeth was in the sixth month of pregnancy), and Genesis 25:22-23 (where we do not know how far into the pregnancy Rebekah was, except that she knew that her preborn twins were struggling within the womb).

The second are more generic references to preborn children. Psalm 51:5 shows David considering himself to be sinful from the moment of conception, whilst Psalm 139:13 is a more generic reference to God playing an active part in creating us whilst we were in the womb.

The final passage is Exodus 21:22-25. This is from the law of Moses, which functioned as the God-given civil law for the people of Israel. It outlines the penalty to be paid when somebody accidentally causes a miscarriage or a premature birth. Grudem notes that the penalty to be paid by law if the child is harmed is equal to that if the mother is harmed, whilst there is still a fine to be paid if no harm is done to the child. He also notes that the penalty for accidentally causing harm to a preborn child is higher than that for accidentally causing harm to anybody else in society.

These passages leave very little wriggle room for a Christian who wants to conclude that a preborn child is not (at least theologically speaking) a person in his or her own right At most, you could conclude that a preborn child that is younger than the Biblical examples might possibly not count. But it would be a pretty tenuous conclusion.

Other arguments that preborn children are people

Grudem cites a lengthy passage by a scientist that concludes that the process of fertilisation is the creation of a human being. He rejects the pro-choice argument that preborn children are unable to interact and survive on their own, likening this to a person in a coma or a newborn infant.

He rejects the argument that abortion is justified in the case of birth defects, rape, or incest on the grounds that we would never kill such a child after it had been born. He also points out that sometimes the diagnosis of a birth defect is incorrect, and that cases of abortion or incest are only a tiny minority of abortions.

Grudem does, however, accept abortion in the extremely rare case that the life of the mother is at stake because in those cases the death of the mother means the death of both her and the child.

He also makes some arguments that are not strictly scientific or theological. These include the deaths of millions of people via abortion, and he says that it has claimed the lives of 50 million Americans. He also argues that a pregnant woman has an instinctive sense that a pregnancy is actually a baby, rather than a piece of tissue or a part of her body.

What should the law say?

Grudem argues that this should translate into several distinct policy stances. Firstly, he thinks that abortion should be illegal except to save the life of the mother – although he would accept a compromise law that also allows it in the case of rape and incest. He is flexible about the penalties for breaking this law, wanting to ensure that they are not so severe that the law would not gain public support.

Secondly, he says that no government policies should promote or fund abortions. He singles out foreign aid that is used on “population control” – saying that it involves paying for abortions.

Thirdly, he believes that no government policy should compel people to participate in abortions or to dispense drugs that cause abortions.

Fourthly he says that no funding should be given to the creation of human embryos for the purposes of medical research.

Fifthly, he praises the US ban on partial-birth abortions.

Finally, he believes that the most important legal goal is to overturn Roe vs Wade – the Supreme Court ruling that said that a ban on abortion would be unconstitutional. Grudem thinks that, should the case be brought, four of the nine current members of the Supreme Court would probably overturn it, four would vote to keep it, whilst one is in the middle. This leads him to believe that it is essential that the Republicans gain both the Presidency and control of the US Senate

Skipping ahead for a minute, Grudem finishes the section on abortion by citing Jeremiah 7:30-34, where God gives a very severe warning to a nation that had begun sacrificing their own children to the god Molech. He worries that, because his nation elected a President who is a strong supporter of abortion “rights” (his punctuation) and a sizable majority of Democrats in the Senate who hold similar views, that God will evaluate the USA in a similar light.

Arguments for keeping abortion legal

In this section, Grudem actually goes into some detail dealing with objections to his view. He rejects the idea that banning abortion would be a wrongful restriction of freedom, saying that the freedom in question is freedom to take your child’s life. He rejects the view that abortion should be allowed because “all children should be wanted”, because it implies that it’s perfectly fine to kill a child that you don’t want. He rejects the idea that you can be personally against abortion but not support laws against it because it’s equivalent to saying that you are against murder, but not to the extent of having laws against it.

Grudem also rejects the idea that abortion should be legal because Christians “shouldn’t try to impose their moral standards on other people”, pointing out that there are plenty of laws that are based on moral standards. He then looks at the specific moral standards involved in this issue: firstly that people should not be allowed to murder (a view which is held almost universally), and secondly that a preborn child counts as a human being – which he points out is the real point of contention. Grudem rejects the argument because he aims not to impose his views on society, but to persuade others to adopt that standard.

The more interesting alternative takes he mentions, however, are two views proposed by Jim Wallis in the book God’s Politics. My copy of Wallis’ book is currently on loan, but I took the time to re-read the chapter on Life Issues in the follow-up Seven Ways to Change the World.

The first of these ideas is that our aim should be to reduce the causes of abortion, rather than ban it. Grudem objects to this on the basis that it’s just changing the subject, and that the relevant social programs will not stop the crimes. He refers back to his outline of a Christian worldview, which he believes shows that the ultimate cause of abortion is people making evil choices (an approach I suggested was somewhat lopsided when we covered that section). He advocates a “both and” approach, of undertaking these programmes at the same time as banning abortion.

However, I think that he has misunderstood what Wallis is trying to say. Grudem is writing from the viewpoint of an academic trying to pin down the answer to a question. Wallis, however, is a political activist – his focus is on making as much of a difference as possible. As far as Wallis is concerned, the Religious Right’s 30 year campaign to overturn Roe vs Wade has failed. It hasn’t reduced the number of abortions, and the goal appears to be as far away as ever. Therefore, Wallace is concentrating his efforts on the things that will make a difference. Furthermore, his approach appears to be paying some dividends in moving pro-choice people to a more moderate position. Instead of Grudem’s partisan approach, Wallis is building bridges to the other side, and playing a part in moving many pro-choicers towards a position where they see abortion as something regrettable.

Grudem also disagrees with Wallis’s call for a “consistent ethic of life”, which involves opposition to capital punishment, opposition to nuclear weapons, and increased government help for the poor. Grudem complains that this is moving the goalposts – minimising the importance of the issue of abortion, and confusing it with a range of more controversial issues. He reiterates his view that a vote for a Democratic candidate for President or Congress is a vote for 1 million abortions per year.

But, again, Grudem doesn’t seem to understand Wallis’s activist perspective. By framing the debate in those terms, Wallis is trying to defuse liberal criticisms of the pro-life lobby. Because pro-lifers are frequently strong advocates of capital punishment, nuclear weapons, and hawkish foreign policy, we are thought of as hypocrites. Because of the way the pro-life movement is associated with right-wing economics – and hence reluctant, at best, to give additional support to parents for whom the aborted child would have been a burden, it is frequently portrayed as not giving a damn about the children that it hopes to save. By trying to counteract these perceptions Wallis is trying to be the “winsome, kind, thoughtful, loving, persuasive influence” that Grudem thinks should characterise Christian involvement in politics. Meanwhile, those who take Grudem’s stance on the issue are, rightly or wrongly, seen as the “angry, belligerent, intolerant, judgmental, red-faced, and hate-filled influence” that he rejects as a model for Christian politics.

Conclusions

Grudem’s case that abortion is wrong is, for a Christian, pretty much rock-solid. However, his analysis of the political consequences of this leaves much to be desired. He doesn’t even mention the argument that banning abortion would mean women simply resort to back-street abortions or cross a border to get one (and in some countries, pro-choice organisations pay the costs of doing just that). As that’s the strongest argument the pro-choice camp has, ignoring it is poor form.

My biggest concern, however is that, in tackling Jim Wallis’ position, Grudem clearly misses the points Wallis is trying to make. He ends up attacking the approach that is most likely to bring people around to a pro-life perspective. Without a cultural shift towards a pro-life view, it seems exceedingly unlikely that any significant progress can be made on the issue. Which means that, from where I’m standing, Grudem appears to have shot himself in the foot.

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

Who should be in charge of a nation?

September 9, 2011 – 11:23 am

This is the latest in a series of posts critiquing Wayne Grudem’s book Politics According to the Bible. Today, we’re looking at chapter five, which deals with the question of who has ultimate power in a nation. It focuses in on the issue of the power of the Supreme Court in the US – which is something that he considers to be the number one political issue in his nation. Before going on to the substance, I’d like to briefly note that this chapter is illustrated with some simple but effective diagrams, which make Grudem’s points much easier to follow.

Who has ultimate power over a nation?

Grudem starts by outlining several different possibilities for where ultimate power in a nation lies. One is anarchy, where nobody has authority. Another is a system of either dictatorship or (absolute) monarchy, where an individual has ultimate power (and hence the temptation to abuse it). Grudem suggests that such a system will produce corrupt and oppressive government. A third is ultimate power being vested in some group or institution (ultimate power in the UK is probably vested in Parliament – although even then there are significant limitations on the exercise of that power). Grudem’s favourite option, however, is for it to lie in a written constitution. He praises the US Constitution for ensuring the separation of powers, accountability for the lawmakers, establishing the rule of law, protecting the nation from fundamental changes to its nature, and protecting the nation from what he calls a “hasty majority”.

What’s the role of the judiciary?

He then moves in to look at what the Bible says about the judicial aspect of government. He points out that judges are to judge according to a law external to themselves, rather than to make the law, citing Ezekiel 44:24, Acts 23:3, and Ezra 7:25-26. He then says that judges should not be partial or take bribes, taking the time to cite nine different Bible passages against such perversions to the course of justice. None of this seems particularly controversial, but it forms the basis of a major objection that Grudem has to the way the US system currently functions.

So what’s his problem?

Grudem’s problem is one that, in my view, is an inevitable consequence of giving ultimate power to a document. No constitution, no matter how well written, will be without ambiguity. Therefore, somebody has to have the ability to rule which interpretation is correct. And because the judiciary is the branch of government which makes the call when lesser laws are ambiguous, it’s obviously the US Supreme Court that decides whether something is constitutional or not. And, in such a case, the body that gets to interpret the constitution becomes the de facto ultimate authority.

Grudem then goes into a long list of cases where he believes that the Supreme Court has, instead of interpreting the constitution, essentially amended it to fit their own ideas of what is right for the nation. In most of these cases it seems pretty clear from his arguments that a new principle has been read into the constitution. However, at one point Grudem starts arguing that the term “cruel and unusual punishment” means “punishment that was considered cruel and unusual at the time of writing” rather than “punishment that a reasonable person would consider cruel and unusual”. This suggests that his preferred ultimate authority is actually the intentions of the people who drafted the constitution, rather than the text of the constitution itself. And this would suggest that he is also guilty of reading things into the constitution.

It’s also worth noting thatall of the examples Grudem cites are ones where the court ruled against Grudem’s preferred outcome. Given that I’ve heard accusations from those on the other side of US Politics argue that there have been examples of the Supreme Court legislating from the bench in the other direction (one example being a ruling that freedom of speech applies to the spending of money), it would have felt like a much stronger argument if he had included just one example where such legislation went the other way.

Grudem then outlines some Biblical principles which make such a situation unacceptable from a Christian point of view. These are firstly the principle that everybody should be subject to the governing authorities (Romans 13:1), which he interprets to mean the constitution. Secondly, the wisdom of having separation of powers. Thirdly, that people should be accountable for their actions – and he notes that there is no way to hold the Supreme Court to account. Fourthly, he says that the practical results of judicial activism are anti-Christian.

He also looks at how to respond to activist judges, who he portrays as inimical to democracy. He interprets the issue as a key partisan divide. In his estimation, Democrats are universally inclined to appoint activist judges, whilst most Republicans are inclined to appoint originalist ones. He suggests that every vote for every candidate at state and national levels of American government will strengthen that party’s preferred role for the judiciary (whether it’s liberal and activist, or conservative and originalist). This is the first of several times where I can’t help wondering why Grudem doesn’t advocate Christians working within the Democrat party to change it to something closer to (his perception of) a Biblical take on politics.

Is any of this relevant outside the USA?

For those of us living outside of Grudem’s political context, this issue seems largely irrelevant. Here in the UK there are, at most, echoes of the US situation in the way the House of Lords is unelected (although it is subordinate to the elected Commons) and that the European Court of Human Rights can overrule UK laws (but that’s a power that Parliament can take away whenever it wishes). The closest anybody comes to articulating an equivalent concern is the anti-EU rhetoric that comes from the likes of UKIP (which, for the benefit of non-UK readers, is a fringe party that exists for the sole purpose of trying to take the UK out of the European Union – ironically, it only does well in elections to the European Parliament), although even there, European law has to be passed by Parliament in order to take effect.

But there are similar issues worth considering. We should ask questions about who has what power in our political system. We should be asking whether decision makers are sufficiently accountable for their actions. We should be looking to see where in our system there is potential for the abuse of power, and working out how to reduce the potential for these abuses to take place.

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

Politics and the Christian Worldview

September 7, 2011 – 11:20 am

This is the next in a series of posts critiquing Wayne Grudem’s book Politics According to the Bible. Today we deal with chapter four, in which he paints a picture of a Biblical worldview – something that will be foundational as we move on to look at particular political issues. I’ll start by looking at the things he highlights, before moving on to some omissions that I think are very important in the context of a discussion of politics in a 21st Century Western culture.

God created everything

Pretty simple and obvious. God created the universe and everything in it (Genesis 1). Whilst Christians disagree about the details of how He did it, and how long it took, it’s one of the most basic foundations of a Christian worldview. It has the implication that Go deserves our obedience and worship (Revelation 4:11), and that creation reflects God (Psalm 19:1, Romans 1:20). Grudem deplores that this fact is concealed from children in the school system, but gives no clear indication of how and when he thinks it should be taught.

God reveals both Himself and His standards in the Bible

Another foundational one here. The Bible affirms that scripture is from God himself in passages like Matthew 4:4 and 2 Timothy 3:16. And says that God will ultimately judge all of humanity (1 Peter 4:4-5, Acts 17:30-31). The implication for politics is that a Christian understanding of the God’s moral standards will affect our view of those political issues that have a moral dimension.

Creation was very good

Another foundational belief, this is seen in Genesis 1:31. Creation started off very good, being pretty much perfect. But even in this state, God gave humanity work to do (Genesis 2:15), which means that productive work is something good, being part of the purpose for which God made us. Therefore, the “ideal” life for human beings is not perpetual inactivity and laziness, but includes meaningful, productive activity. Although Grudem doesn’t say so, it’s worth noting that this doesn’t mean that every instance of work is good. There are jobs that are immoral, jobs that are utterly pointless, and jobs that are just wrong for the person doing them.

Sin

The Christian view is that there is some measure of moral evil (sin) in every human being (except Jesus). The Bible says that this is, historically speaking, the result of the sin of our first parents – Adam and Eve (Romans 5:12, 18-19), and that none of us are innocent of sin (Romans 3:23). Grudem draws several points out of this:

Firstly, he points out that the moral standard by which we should judge is something external to humanity. A moral standard derived from the belief that humans are inherently good, from observing human conduct, and considering human opinions is not a Christian one.

Secondly, he points out that human nature is not “basically good”. Grudem says that there are parts of us that are good (conscience – see Romans 2:15) and parts that are evil (selfish desire – James 1:13-15). He draws from this that evil does not come merely from the external influence of society, but from a result of a person’s evil choices.

Thirdly, he says that people should be held accountable for their actions, and rejects secular views that this should be avoided because they blame wrongdoing on the influence of society.

Fourthly, he talks about the existence of violent and irrational evil. He draws on Romans 13:3-4, which talks about government using force to restrain evil, and dismisses the idea that these people in this category can be reasoned with and that the “causes” (his punctuation) of their behaviour can be dealt with.

A curse on the earth

One impact of Adam and Eve’s sin was that God cursed the planet (Genesis 3:17-18), and that a lot of the bad things that we see in nature are not creation as God originally intended. The result of the curse is that nature gives us a harder time.

Using the world’s resources

Here, Grudem cites God’s command to humanity to rule over the earth (Genesis 1:28). He takes this passage to mean that we are to use the planet’s resources for the benefit of humanity. He says that this does not mean that we should use the earth in a destructive or wasteful way (the principle of stewardship), or treat animals with cruelty (Proverbs 12:10). He says that the command to love your neighbour as yourself (Matthew 22:39) implies that we should think about future generations.

He then goes on to say that we should view the development and production of goods from the earth as something that is morally good, rather than an evil kind of “materialism” (his punctuation). He applies this to all sorts of consumer goods, and considers that wrong attitudes about them (such as pride, jealousy, and coveting) do not mean that the products in question are evil. He takes the view that they are morally good, and doesn’t mention the possibility of them being morally neutral.

Finally, he mentions that it is not God’s intention that humans should live in abject poverty, or live as subsistence farmers barely surviving from crop to crop. He says that God’s intention is that we should enjoy the abundance of the planet’s resources. As an aside, I don’t think he’s objecting to people growing most of their own food, but merely to the fact that most human beings who do so live pretty much on the absolute poverty line.

So what does Grudem miss out?

The notable things that are missing in this brief survey of a Christian worldview is anything that points out that the two defining features of the 21st Century Western worldview (consumerism and individualism) are not Biblical. Both viewpoints have very significant implications for our view of a wide variety of political issues. By omitting them, some of Grudem’s conclusions on the implications of a Christian worldview are incomplete (in particular, some of what he says under the heading of sin, and what he says about consumer goods when it comes to using the world’s resources). Let’s look at them in turn.

Consumerism

In Western society, you are defined, in large part, by the things that you own. You are judged primarily on factors like the brand of clothes that you wear, whether you own your home or or rent it, or which smartphone you own. Those without the latest and “greatest” consumer goods are looked down on.

This is a complete contrast to the Biblical view of possessions. Christians are not to judge people according to their wealth and possessions (James 2:2-4), we are to be content in our circumstances (Hebrews 13:5), we are not to worry about our basic material needs (Matthew 6:25-33), and are to give generously and sacrificially out of what we have (2 Corinthians 9:6-11, Mark 12:41-44). Whilst we are not necessarily called to give up all the comforts of the place and time in which we live (though the call to simple living is absolutely prophetic), we should stand out as examples of people who do not make idols of consumer goods.

And this should have a profound effect on Christian views of politics. It should make us exceedingly cautious about pursuing greater wealth for the already rich nations in which we live at the expense of policies that will benefit the poorest in the world. It should make us wary of policies that will entrench the interests of the wealthy at the expense of the poorest within our society. It should make us more enthusiastic towards policies that will prevent the rich from having a greater political voice than the poor. And, above all, it will ensure that we stand out by advocating policies that put people before possessions and profit.

Individualism

One of the striking things about Western societies over the last few decades is how much we have moved away from valuing community. In the UK, pretty much every institution that provides community has shrunk since the days when Margaret Thatcher famously proclaimed that there was “no such thing as society”. Social clubs, trade unions, political parties, churches, and even marriages have seen declining rates of participation. As I understand it, this is something that’s occurring across the Western world. We see ourselves as individuals first, and members of a wider community second, if at all.

And this is a profoundly unbiblical way of seeing the world. Whilst God holds us to account individually for our actions, He also holds us to account as a community. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of examples in the Old Testament of God holding cities and nations to account for their collective actions. Most of the New Testament letters are written to communities of believers, rather than to individuals – and 1 Corinthians 12:14-27 makes it crystal clear that Christianity is something that can only be properly worked out in community.

In terms of politics, this means that we cannot take a purely individualistic approach to issues. There are some cases where we much take collective, rather than individual, responsibility. Whilst individual sin is very real, there are also collective sins that a community can commit. This may be in the form of sinful social practises. It may be that the structures and institutions we build encourage particular sins, that they systematically discriminate (e.g. institutional racism), or that they remove any sense of individual responsibility for certain actions (e.g. de facto slavery in sweatshops).

Basically, Christians should be aware of the possibility of communal and institutional sin. Our politics should aim to minimise its effects and ensure that it does not prevent justice being done for the poor and marginalised within our societies. In an age where every man looks to his own interest above those of others, we should do the opposite (Philippians 2:4), and our politics should not mimic the world in this respect (Romans 12:2)

Posted in Christianity, Faith and Politics, Politics According to the Bible | Permalink | Comments (1)

Church and State

September 5, 2011 – 11:25 am

Continuing our series looking at Wayne Grudem’s Politics According to the Bible today we’re looking at some of the arguments he makes about the relationship between church and state. This is basically taking a few sections out of his chapter on the purpose of government in order to make the post on that chapter a bit shorter. It’s not me making an excuse to write a post on antidisestablishmentarianism.

We’ve already touched on this issue a couple of times in this series. In the post about what isn’t a Christian view of politics we established that the state should not compel a particular religion, nor should it seek to exclude religion from the political sphere. We also established that Christians should value freedom of religion. In the post on what is a Christian view of politics we looked at some of what that means in practice.

In this section, Grudem looks at three specific areas where these issues come into focus for a Christian. However, he does not directly deal with the issue of having an established church, like the Church of England is in England. Which is hardly surprising, given that he’s focused entirely on issues relevant to the USA.

What about the law of Moses?

This section is fairly brief look at whether Christians should, in our political engagement, seek to apply the 613 laws God gave to Moses in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Grudem deals with this by pointing out that these laws were given in a specific context (including that Israel was supposed to be a theocracy, an arrangement which we already ruled out). However, there are certainly some principles that can be drawn out of them. For example, observing the sabbath is an issue of conscience, but the principle of having a day of rest is exceedingly good for practical reasons.

What Government Can’t Do

Here, Grudem goes back to the foundations of Christianity. He points out that, for Christians, any society’s greatest need is to hear and respond to the gospel – the message of salvation through Jesus Christ. And then goes on to point out that this is clearly something that government pays no real part in. He goes on to say that, if we want to see a transformed society that better reflects a genuinely Christian view, then that requires people who have been inwardly transformed. A nation of genuine Christians living out their faith is the only way to to change the behaviour of a nation to genuinely reflect God’s morality.

However, Grudem then points out that government does have a role to play in moral convictions and behaviours of a nation. He says that the personal conduct of a nation’s leaders, and the laws that they pass set an example that the rest of the nation is more likely to follow. As one example of this, he suggests that the reason that British Christians have radically different views on the morality of gun ownership from Christians in the State of Arizona, where he lives, is because of the gun laws in their respective countries. He doesn’t bring up any examples where the general public has clearly ignored both examples, but they would only serve to show that government example isn’t the only factor.

Church and State

Finally, Grudem looks directly at the issue of the relationship between church and state. He begins by going back to the principle established in earlier chapters (from Matthew 22:21) that establishes that there are separate spheres of church and state.

The first clear implication is that the church (as an institution) should not have control of the actions of government, and Grudem cites an example of Jesus refusing to exercise a function of government in Luke 12:13-14.

The second is that the government should not interfere with the church. Firstly, it shouldn’t prevent anybody from exercising the freedom to choose their own religious beliefs. Secondly, it has no business interfering in the internal affairs of any given church. Here, Grudem cites various examples in New Testament of church leaders being chosen by the church with no interference from the state.

The third implication Grudem draws out is that government should support and encourage churches and bona-fide religious groups in general, although he doesn’t elaborate on what he measn by “bona-fide religious groups” (is he thinking of Scientology?) He justifies this in terms of the government’s responsibility to “promote the general welfare”, and cites as examples of this the tax-exempt status of religious organisations and support for chaplains in the military and prisons.

Finally, he acknowledges that we won’t always agree about what issues are in the sphere of the church and that of the state.

So what are the implications in Britain?

Because Grudem is writing in a very different context, and because he doesn’t say anything particularly controversial, I thought I’d look at how these principles apply to the issue of the established church here in the UK. Here in the UK, we have a church (the Church of England) that is closely linked with the state. So let’s look at what that entails, and how we should view the various aspects of the arrangement.

The Queen as the Head of the Church

Under the constitution, the Queen has two distinct roles – head of the state and head of the church. In both cases, however, she is pretty much a figurehead. The business of government is carried out by the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, Parliament, and the courts. And, although her Majesty theoretically has power of veto over any law, in practice her only influence is as potential advisor to the Prime Minister. The business of the Church of England is carried out by the bishops, the clergy, and the churches – with decisions also made by General Synod, and synods in the dioceses. The monarch has the purely theoretical power of veto over these decisions as well.

The most practical implications of the monarch’s dual status is the role the church plays in coronations and royal weddings. And there the links are entirely ceremonial, rather than something that would confuse the two spheres.

Bishops in the House of Lords

The House of Lords is part of the UK Parliament, and its members are not elected, although that’s not the issue we’re looking at today. Amongst its members are twenty six senior Bishops. The house is a revising chamber – it looks at legislation that has been passed by the elected House of Commons, and scrutinises it to improve the bits that are badly written. It can delay, but not veto, legislation that it feels it cannot pass.

The impact of having Bishops in the house is, in practice, incredibly small. The last time I checked, I couldn’t find any relatively recent piece of legislation where their votes were decisive in the passage of legislation. Most of the time, they are too busy being Bishops to attend the chamber. So their presence is something that is basically symbolic, and which appears to be there to balance out the other side of establishment. It violates the principle of separation of church and state in theory, but makes no practical difference.

Appointment of Bishops

The appointment process for Archbishops and Diocesan Bishops (but not Suffragan Bishops – who serve under a Diocesan Bishop) is that a commission from the church looks at possible candidates and picks two possible candidates. These names are forwarded to the Prime Minister, when then selects one of the names to recommend to the monarch, who then forwards the name back to a church body which formally elects the bishop. Whilst it is extremely rare for the PM to choose the commission’s second-choice candidate, it has been known to happen. Therefore, this process is a clear-cut case of government interfering in the internal affairs of the church, and not Biblical.

General Synod

General Synod is the body that makes Church of England policy. It consists of three houses – the house of Bishops, the house of Clergy, and the house of Laity, all of which are elected by local synods across the nation, and it meets annually. Before its decisions can be put into practice, they have to be debated and approved by Parliament (though Parliament can only veto, not amend). Again, this is a clear cut example of the two spheres not being properly separated.

Miscellaneous Issues

There are a couple of other issues that are affected by this link.

The first is that some local church decisions are restricted in a way that doesn’t affect other churches. For example, the division of the nation into parishes, each with its own distinct CofE Church is set by law. I don’t know what the process is to change the boundaries to merge two churches, or to let a new church plant have parish boundaries of its own. But I do know that it cannot be changed by decisions made within the church. Which is, again, the state interfering in the internal affairs of the church.

The second is the issue of worship in schools. Whilst this is not, strictly speaking, anything to do with establishment, it’s a related issue. The law requires that all state schools have a daily act of worship, which must be of a broadly Christian character. In practice, this law is widely flouted (particularly in secondary schools) – acts of worship either don’t happen, or are presented as something akin to a secularised thought for the day. However, the fact that the law does exist is a clear-cut case of government jumping into the realm of the church. Furthermore, because the vast majority of teachers do not have a genuine Christian faith, when the acts of worship do take place, they often have the effect of giving kids a wrong impression of Christianity. Seeing teachers who don’t believe in Christ leading a supposedly Christian act of worship teaches them that Christianity equals hypocrisy.

Conclusions

My conclusion is that the current established status of the Church of England gives government excessive power over the internal affairs of the church, whilst giving the church some fairly nominal power over government in return. This arrangement is not in tune with Biblical teaching on the issue, so I am in favour of disestablishment.

Posted in Faith and Politics, Freedom of Religion, Politics According to the Bible | Permalink | Comments (0)

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 (1)

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)

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).