What Should the Government Do pt. 2

Yesterday I asked a question - What should the government be doing [at all]? Today the question is different - What does the government do well?

I am asking this question again as I think about healthcare.*  I am generally opposed to expanding the government for any purpose, but I obviously see the need for reform in healthcare.  So although it is a cynical question, I wonder what is the government truly good at?

There are many things that the government does adequately.  And there are many things that I do not think can be done by a non-government entity, so whether they are good at it or not they are still tasked with it.

There are, however, so many things that our system of democracy seems perfectly made to ruin.  I don’t believe Social Security should have ever been created in the first place, but that is irrelevant.  The simple mathematical fact is that in 32 years, when I become eligible, there will be no Social Security money for me to draw.  I will have paid 40+ years and thousands of dollars for nothing.  Our democracy is set up in such a way that privatizing that money or even locking 50% it to my account will never happen.  Young people, who would benefit from that change, don’t vote, and older people, who are afraid to change things, do vote.  That is not ever going to change.

Democracy, at least our system is also set up so that lawmakers regardless of party need to be constantly spending money in order to give the appearance that they are working for their constituency.  That appearance is necessary because they need votes to keep their job.

Having hopefully established that there are many things the government is bad at, I return to the original question?   What does the U.S. government do well?

I believe that they are good at defense.  Only 2 attacks ever on American soil illustrates this.  People argue whether or not we should be involved in the global war on terror, but that does not change that fact that our military is excellent.

I also believe that the government has done a good job of keeping us healthy.  (This is not addressing Ben’s comments from yesterday) What I mean is that the FDA, USDA, & EPA keep our food and water clean and safe.  With few exceptions, there is not a place in America where it is unsafe to drink water from the tap, eat meat from the grocery, or take the drugs you buy in the store.

I think that is the list.  It seems to me that everything else that is in the domain of government responsibility is ruined by bureaucracy or too much involvement.  This is the case for education, much infrastructure and so much more.

So there’s my very cynical list.  Feel free to put your own list in the comments

Tomorrow, my thoughts on universal healthcare (for what that’s worth)

* Although I am a staff member of LaGrange Park Baptist Church, the views and opinions expressed in this blog are my own and not that of the church.  They may not be construed as an endorsement or attack on any candidate or party on behalf of the church.  They are my views as an individual.

A time for War? A time for peace (part 2)

Yesterday I answered the question, “Is war ever justified?” My conclusion; only the state can carry out war, and it can be the morally correct thing to do in certain circumstances. The corollary question to that one is, “Can a Christian be a combatant?” These questions are not mere abstractions. In case you haven’t noticed, the United States is in an ongoing war. And to have a war, you need people to fight. There’s probably a dozen us.army.mil addresses in my address book. So this question matters. For a Christian interested in doing the will of God, who also happens to be in the military this question is of paramount importance. So lets get to the answer.

Can a Christian fight in a war? The answer to this one lies in yesterday’s conclusion. The state can carry out a war. So how is a state to do so? What is a state? Is the US the land that we inhabit? If so do we expect the land to begin drifting and swallow up the land of our enemies. That is ludicrous, of course. The US is the people that make up the country. Remember that whole We the People thing? The citizens are the body of the United States. If the people decide to do battle through their duly chosen government, we are to support this decision.

Since the state needs to do things and has no anatomy of its own, it needs agents to carry out those duties. So what is an agent of the state? We have police officers, who patrol the domestic streets in order to keep order, we have engineers who design the infrastructure, to keep us moving. We have sanitation workers who keep our streets clean, and we have teachers to educate our populace. All functions that the state has decided are good and necessary.

Sometimes it is possible or even likely that one of these agents will be required to do something that under other circumstances would be immoral. Of course since we are talking here about war, the obvious example is the taking of a human life. A soldier may have to do so, a police officer may have to do so, an executioner fulfilling the penal system requirements may have to do so. In these cases killing is not equal to murder. Remember that yesterday we said that the state has the right, and possibly the duty, to do these actions. Someone acting as an agent of the state is not morally responsible for murder.

This can definitely be taken too far. The Nuremburg criminals all said they were just following orders. No Christian should be expected to become torturers or be involved in the slaughter of innocents. (I would argue that innocents are not necessarily the same as non-combatants.)

So what about Jesus’ turn the other cheek talk? I’ll take this paragraph directly from JP Moreland because I couldn’t possibly say it any clearer or better:

Jesus' teachings about forgiveness, loving your enemies and turning the other cheek were not meant as social ethics for the state but as private ethics for the individual. Moreover, they were guides to becoming a certain sort of person — kind and compassionate, ready to forgive; but they did not offset the need for justice and protecting the innocent with force as a last resort. After all, it is not "living by the sword" for genteel folk to kill an intruder who tries to murder their children. Jesus accepted the reality of hell and judgment, and He is depicted as a warrior when He returns again.

On a few occasions there were soldiers in the Bible, how are they treated? Let’s first look at when some soldiers came to John the Baptist, wondering what they should do. They seem willing to change their job. Here are his directions in Luke 3:

¹⁴Then some soldiers asked him, "And what should we do?" He replied, "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely—be content with your pay."

There was nothing in his answer to suggest the being a soldier is incompatible with the kingdom of God. In Acts 10 Peter goes to the Roman centurion, Cornelius, and leads his family to faith in Christ. He never suggests that he should cease being a soldier. Jesus in Luke 7 encounters a Roman soldier and says:

^9b"I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith."

Don’t forget Paul’s Words in Romans 13:

⁴he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.

Why all this scripture? To establish that the Bible is favorable to the soldier. There is no reason to believe that the Bible encourages the soldier to stop doing so. And certainly Jesus is pictured as a triumphant warrior upon his return.

At the end of this marathon 2-day post what is the conclusion?

1. The state has the authority to conduct war
2. The Christian may be a soldier

I hope that wasn’t overwhelming!

A Time For War? And A Time For Peace.

Recently I was asked a question by a friend, which really turns out to be two different questions. Those questions are; “Is war (or violence) ever justified?” and “Can a Christian be a soldier?”

I did my best to answer those two questions in conversation, but I was horribly deficient in the details. My answers contained no Scripture; they were merely based on principles from scripture. This post and tomorrow’s are essentially my attempt to answer those questions more thoroughly. Today I will begin with the answer to the first question, “Is war ever justified?” Before anyone begins to think me too erudite, you should know that there is nothing new to answer this question with. What I mean by that is that it has been answered thoroughly by many talented theologians. For the purpose of these two posts I have borrowed heavily from this article by JP Moreland. And I also had to break out my old ethics textbook. (I have another copy if anyone wants it.)

I’m going to answer this question first because there is so much on the subject already written. Also because it is the question the other stands on. If war is always wrong, then the Christian certainly cannot participate.

It seems like this question has been pondered since the beginning of Christian history. Augustine, Aquinas, Luther and Calvin all addressed the subject and all came to the same conclusion. After studying the scripture, I have also come to the same conclusion. Under certain circumstances war is justified.

In short, the argument is, that God is just, and expects his world to be just. This does not override His love, but goes alongside. As a part of the justice of God sometimes violence is demanded.

It is important to clarify at this point that the power to conduct war lies with the state only. The Church or family is not to be in the war business. (i.e. feuds, crusades = wrong)

The power for the state to carry out war is clearly granted in Romans 13.

^3b Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. ⁴For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer

This passage about he power of civil authorities makes it clear that war is the right of the state.

Of course the Old Testament has many, many commands regarding warfare. From Abraham’s [military] expedition to save his cousin Lot, to God’s directions for Saul to destroy the Amalekites.

Remember this cheer from the Israelites in 1 Samuel 18?

⁷ As they danced, they sang: "Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands."

David was viewed as a hero because of the way he executed God’s plans toward the peoples of Canaan, because he was successful in warfare.

The next question is; Are all these Old Testament passages binding on New Testament Christians? I believe Hebrews 11 speaks to this.

³²And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets, ³³who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, ³⁴quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies.

In this case these people are being celebrated, in the great faith chapter of the Bible, for their military victories, on behalf of the state.

I am making no statement about whether or not the state should declare war in a given situation, or even when it would be right for the state to participate in a war. (for more on that read about just war theory.) I am only saying the state has the right to do so. I will say though, that sometimes the state has not only the right to carry out a war, but the responsibility to do so. Particularly, it seems, when it comes to protecting its citizens or freeing the oppressed. (In this post I am making no statement about the current theaters of the war on terror, but if you want to know my position ask me in the comments.)

I hope at this point that I have established, that from a biblical perspective, the state has the right, and even duty, to carry out a war.

Tomorrow I will answer the corollary question, “Can a Christian be a combatant?”