Category: Civics

In the civil realm of American society, Martin Luther King Jr. is certainly an important person to remember. He had a positive influence upon our country and the mindset of its citizens. It’s good for us all to recognize this. If I have been irritated that some Lutherans know more about MLK Jr. (because of the emphasis at school) than they know about Martin Luther, his prototypical namesake, that irritation does not diminish my respect for the good that MLK Jr. accomplished for our country and this civil society, despite his theological weaknesses.

Rev. Paul McCain posted a nice little summary about the significance of MLK Jr. on his blog. I agree with what he says there, but I’d like to point out a niggling problem in the way some have described the Civil Rights Movement. It’s become somewhat common to describe its cause as “social justice.” I deny that emphatically, because that term is a lie. It’s an attempt to dress up what we would otherwise call “injustice” as its opposite, and pollute the ideal of civil society with unjust discrimination founded upon race- or behavior-based classifications of people.

MLK Jr. was not a crusader for social justice, but simply for justice. Is it not a plain injustice to segregate a society arbitrarily based upon the pigmentation of our skin, or any arbitrary physical characteristic? Does not the evil of racism manifest itself in straight-out injustice? Is it not the human sense of justice that is violated when perpetrators of violence and murder are allowed to go unpunished on the basis of their skin-color, social standing, wealth, religion, or any other difference between human beings? Attempting to narrow our concept of justice to describe the importance the Civil Rights Movement may sound articulate, but it subverts our understanding of justice itself, and therefore actually robs men like MLK Jr. of their true importance.

If we were to admit the concept of “social justice” as a valid virtue of civil society, we would eventually find ourselves accepting arbitrary preferences in both law enforcement and in the courtroom. “The defendant has certainly robbed, raped, and killed his fellow citizens, including killing a law enforcement officer, but on account of his underprivileged upbringing, and because of his skin color, and even because some of his ancestors were deprived of their human dignity as slaves, this court finds that the circumstances mitigate his guilt in these matters. He is hereby recommended for one year of vocational counseling, and the arresting officers for one year of sensitivity training.” That would be an extreme example of “social justice,” showing that it’s really injustice behind a mask.

The ideal of justice being blind should remain our society’s ideal. She knows nothing of rich or poor, male or female, black or white, Christian or Jew, Catholic or Protestant. She knows only the law, and judges on the basis of our actions under the law. She doesn’t care what we think or believe, because she is is not God. She doesn’t care what we say (with certain exceptions, like “fire” in a crowded theater), because we have freedom of speech. She only cares whether we break the law. Also for this reason, the concept of “hate crimes” is unjust, wrong-headed, and tyrannical. If the deed was a crime, then justice already demands that the doer must be judged guilty. When we add or subtract to plain justice, we foster injustice.

So much for that. The other thing I’ve heard about recently is this justification for eliminating the law-abiding citizens’ right to be armed: “If it only saves the life of one person, it would be worth the loss of freedom for the rest.” This argument is also deceptive, and not limited the subject of arms control. The same argument is often applied to justify the loss of many other kinds of freedom. Allow me to point out that eventual death is certain for us all, but freedom is not. Besides that, I can easily use that argument against the gun-control advocate who makes it by pointing out that weapons carried by law-abiding citizens save lives daily. Therefore, to deprive those citizens of their freedom is to turn the tables and cause a daily loss of life. Who would want that on his conscience? If we err in the civil realm, it should be on the side of freedom and the protection of human life (and of private property, but that’s another blog post).

In his book The Case for Civility, Os Guinness describes two ways the independence of our faith is strategically compromised when churches try to advance their interest politically. He also describes why this must fail to address the deterioration of our culture, and I think his argument is compelling. This is from p. 101.

Faith’s loss of independence through politicization is more damaging than it might appear, for the cultural captivity of the Christian Right represents a double loss of independence. Rather obviously, Christians lose their independence when they engage in politics in a way that allows their faith to become subservient to politics and its priorities and procedures. But less obviously and equally important, Christians have already lost their independence when they attempt to find political solutions for problems that are essentially cultural and prepolitical — in other words, when they ask politics to do what politics cannot do.

When there has been a profound sea change in culture, as the United States has experienced since the 1960s, it is both foolish and futile to think that it can be reversed and restored by politics alone. That approach will always fail, and can only fail. Politics is downstream from the deep and important changes in American culture, and what lies upstream is mostly beyond the reach of political action. Thus overreaching political activism is bound not only to fail, but to leave the cultural changes more deeply entrenched than ever and those fighting them weaker than ever.

So instead of using political methods, like mobilizing church members to support or oppose certain political candidates or ballot measures, churches should simply teach the Word as it applies to the moral, ethical, or social questions implicit in the political debate. Then the members can act individually, based upon their informed conciences. That action would certainly not be limited to voting. The more powerful actions would be things like speaking the truth in love to those with whom our lives intertwine, and reflecting the mercy of Christ in our deeds.

Sometimes individual Christians (even ministers) may have opportunity to speak out publicly, but we should distinguish between speaking as individuals and speaking as the Church. When conducting a service, teaching a Bible class or counseling, I speak for Christ at the behest of His Church. When writing a blog post or speaking in a hearing before the town council, I voluntarily speak only for myself, a member of a particular community. Every member of a church has a similar private voice, which can collectively have a powerful influence upon our culture. However, this voice is not a tool to be manipulated directly by churches, because that would turn a prepolitical influence into a political one, simultaneously weakening it and compromising the independence of our faith from the political winds.

I’m a bit tired of reading about the prohibitive cost of tax cuts. The “cost” of a tax cut is a backwards and wrong expression. A tax cut doesn’t have an assignable cost, unless you can count your chickens before they hatch.

Taxes are by nature a forced confiscation of private property, though they are necessary to pay public bills. The nature of taxes means that their very existence is a drain upon the economy. Hence, for a better economy, and an economical benefit that could be enjoyed by all, taxes should be minimized.

When a politician speaks about the “cost” of a tax cut, he assumes the revenue of a particular tax to be already at his disposal, even before the tax has been collected. He also assumes that any negative economic influence of imposing the tax will be unworthy of consideration as a “cost.” On the first assumption, he is plain wrong. On the second, he is irresponsible.

The idea that uncollected, future taxes are already at the disposal of our legislature is exactly the same as the idea that a private citizen’s credit card limits are an asset just like his savings account.

The United States is not unique among nations, insofar as it is a sovereign country on the earth. Everyone can agree about that, I think. Yet the United States is at least somewhat unique among nations, insofar as its government is based upon, as our President has described it, a “charter of negative rights.” Other nations have copied the US to various degrees in that regard, but this country was really the first to go all the way with this idea.

What does our President mean by “a charter of negative rights?” He means that our constitution limits the powers of the federal government, protecting the liberties of states and citizens. It forbids any notion that the government has the right to, for example, prohibit the free exercise of religion. While this frustrates our current President and his associates, it should be a comfort for other Americans. It’s what makes the United States a free country.

I’ve had a busy start to the school year, and the busy-ness will continue for a while. We’re starting a series of classes for anyone 10 and older, called “Getting Into God’s Word,” as well as several confirmation classes. Together with other things, I’m left pretty wiped out at the end of many days, without much impetus for addressing other things on my list. Blogging comes about last. But today is my weekend, and I think these observations are rather important for us all to keep in mind as election day draws closer.

Notice how concerned I am about freedom, or liberty. A hundred or more years ago, that might easily earn me the label “liberal,” but today it most likely earns me the label “conservative.” Isn’t that odd? To be “liberal” these days (or at least during this presidential administration) is to oppose the kind of protections our Constitution affords for individual liberty. To put it bluntly: a “liberal” today opposes liberty, while a “conservative” seeks to protect it. Amazingly ironic.

I realize that there are issues, and there are issues. Some “liberals” or “conservatives” may seek to protect certain liberties, while neglecting the protection of others. The free “speech” of sacrilegious art comes to mind. Examples of neglect abound. This presidential administration’s approach to implementing the newly-adopted national health care regime is one of them. The President’s secretary for health and human services responded to an announcement from certain health companies in which they explained to their customers that the new law would increase their costs. Here’s how Michael Barone summarizes this “liberal” neglect of free speech:

“Congress shall make no law,” reads the First Amendment, “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

Sebelius’ approach is different: “zero tolerance” for dissent.

I don’t mean this to be primarily a criticism of our current President’s administration. Instead, I want anyone reading this to realize that even though we may be exceedingly busy, it behooves us as citizens to pay attention to our government and its political process. Yes, it can be very boring, repetitious, and even depressing. Yes, the signal-to-noise ratio can be extremely low. But if nobody pays attention to these things, then whatever remains unique, special, or even comforting about the way the US is governed will surely disappear. Maybe we will enjoy some of those blessings, but we’ll have lost them for our children. The present administration only reminds us that this has always been true.

Labels like “conservative” and “liberal” don’t really matter. They are just labels, and their meanings change over time. Party loyalties only matter as far as your conscience permits you to affiliate with the whole platform of either party. That’s a personal political decision, though it should be based upon objective reality instead of hype or feelings. So if the labels and the parties don’t matter much, then what does matter?

The principles matter. The Christian worldview, based upon the Bible, matters, because it’s not only a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of faith, and a matter of fact. Truth matters. These things matter to Christians because we are Christians.

Don’t get so busy that you neglect the responsibility common to every American citizen: inform yourself, vote, and participate in the peaceful process of governing this republic. There is evil in the world. It’s in our neighbors, including those in public office, and it’s in us. Let’s not neglect to work against it. Especially in busy times.

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That’s according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.

The rest of the article is here.

Perhaps you’ve also seen this illustration of the way our progressive income tax works.

I believe that Christians should be interested in helping our neighbors. In fact, that should be our second consideration in everything we do. I suppose that many people view our progressive income tax system as a way that we all help our neighbor. The desire to do that is laudable, but I challenge anyone to explain how it’s truly an example of love for your neighbor. Did you voluntarily choose to pay your taxes, or did you have no choice in the matter? If you are a beneficiary of the system, which would include something like 90% of Americans, do you think that your reduced tax burden — or in some cases, your income from the system — comes to you from the love of your neighbors?

The entitlement systems run by our government are also funded from tax-like collection schemes. Whether or not you think that the Social Security program is a benefit to our society, and whether or not you think it has a hope of a continued existence, you should consider the fact that its funding theoretically comes from our neighbors, and is not provided voluntarily. So these government entitlement systems may be one way that our own labor ends up helping our neighbors, but that help is still not given voluntarily, let alone out of love.

If Christians want to help their neighbors, they should do so voluntarily. We can probably agree about that, but I might go a step further. If our neighbors want our help, they should not take it at gunpoint or threat of prison. Even though that very thing is legalized through our progressive tax system, I tend to think it’s contrary to the seventh commandment (You shall not steal).

I’m not advocating a rebellion against our government, or that anyone refuse to pay taxes. Caesar has always used the income of Christians to do many immoral things. What I am suggesting is that when Christians have some kind of influence over what Caesar does, we should do what we can to improve things, out of love for our neighbor.

You’ve perhaps heard the pejorative term “birthers,” used by defenders of President Obama’s qualification for his office as a native-born American to describe those who demanded proof of that qualification. Now there’s apparently a similar pejorative, “tenthers,” used for those who advocate adherence to the Tenth Amendment. If you search the archives here on the Plucked Chicken, you may find references to the Tenth Amendment. Since before the last presidential election, my appreciation for that amendment has been growing significantly, as well as my disappointment in the myriad ways it has been ignored since well before my lifetime.

The reason progressives don’t like the Tenth Amendment is because it stands in the way of statism on the part of the federal government. Put another way, it helps to keep the federal government, well, federal, which means strictly limited. The Tenth Amendment is in the Bill of Rights not because it reserves individual rights — which makes it unusual in that honored company — but because it requires the states to be involved in the protections of individual rights, each in its own semi-sovereign way.

So I guess I was a tenther when tenthers weren’t cool. In case anyone reading this has a problem with that, I have a suggestion for another pejorative you might use for me and others like me. It follows from the fact that the qualifications for the office of President as well as the Tenth Amendment are found in the same document: the Constitution of the United States. Why don’t you start calling people like me “constitutioners?” I suppose it doesn’t roll off the lips like a good pejorative should, but it’s really what you’re getting at with the other terms, isn’t it? You object to those who advocate that our government should be defined and limited by the Constitution, as originally written and amended.

I should offer the caveat that our Constitution and its amendments are not perfect. Yet the Constitution is about as good as we can expect in a fallen world, and it serves well the role of limiting the evils of statist tyranny that inevitably rise up in any centralized government. The Constitution is one successful attempt to establish a government compatible with the Christian conscience, and protecting the individual freedoms implied by Christian morality.

Would you agree that the point of view in this particular report represents a tiny slice of media reporting on this topic? As you watch, notice which claims or opinions are backed up with genuine facts, and which are not. In our postmodern day, there are some who think that facts and truth are human inventions, but I mean accurate descriptions of actual events. Which claims are supported?

It should also be said that carrying a weapon of any kind (and most of us use many things that could be construed as weapons in a certain context) requires a certain responsibility. On one hand, we must realize that “The World Is Very Evil,” as the hymn says. That means we may well be called upon by our circumstances to defend the life, property, or well-being of one another. On the other hand, we must realize that the act of such defense is likely to result in injury or even death of human beings. The purpose of defensive action is to prevent such injury or death, but “the world is very evil.” While the ideal is that nobody should ever be injured or killed, it is better for our neighbors if the ones who mean harm are the ones injured, rather than those who are willing to live peacefully. This is the reasoning reflected in the Second Amendment and encoded into the laws of many states.

From a spiritual perspective, God does not necessarily condone self defense, but He does require us to defend our neighbor. Our laws, on the other hand, generally recognize a right to self defense, as well as the defense of our neighbor.

In this way (and more) we can apply the principles we obtain from the Kingdom of the Right as we live in the Kingdom of the Left, but there is much more to say. Feel free to do so.

Does this describe the current state of American politics? (I don’t necessarily limit “current” to the present federal executive administration.)

Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent. Selected from the rest of mankind, their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.

From Common Sense

I was completely MIA during February on the Plucked Chicken. Please accept my apologies. Blogging must give way to other priorities. Five or maybe even ten other priorities, depending upon the way they’re counted.

Back in November, a comment was posted to which I have meant to respond ever since. Time passes quickly, but since I own the Plucked Chicken, I will bend space and time here and recall the original post to which Mary responded.

Let me begin by thanking Mary for the comment, and apologizing for my lateness (measured in the normal space-time continuum) of responding.

Firstly, perhaps I’ve heard the phrase before, but please define and give a little background for the phrase “the kingdom of the left.”

It’s defined more or less in the first paragraph as “the framework of secular and worldly laws and rulers that encompass life on earth.” “Our government” is a hopefully-acceptable shorthand for that, assuming we share the same government. There’s a fairly recent CPH book called The Anonymous God which contains a number of essays that touch on this topic. Veith’s God at Work defines the “two kingdom” doctrine. The gist is that God rules all things, both sacred (church) and secular (world). One He rules through the Gospel, and the other through the Law — particularly that law written upon the heart of man. They are the kingdoms of the “right” and of the “left,” respectively.

You also make some assumptions in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph that I’m not sure I agree with. And you then carry those assumptions into the rest of the paragraph to explain yourself. You say, “When we study the Ten Commandments, they teach us that the Kingdom of the Left — our government — exists as a gift from God, having certain responsibilities that represent His blessings upon us when they are fulfilled.” When I study the Ten Commandments, it is as a guide, rule and mirror for my own life. I think it’s in the worldly philosophers of perhaps the 17th and 18th centuries where we find the commandments used the way you are trying to use them.

I’m not very familiar with those philosophers. Do you mean people like Adam Smith? I’ve been meaning to read some of their work to see what I think about it.

Maybe I’m being too grammatically nit-picky here, but you say, firstly, that the commandments teach us that our government exists as a gift from God. Ok, I agree that government is a gift from God, but where do the commandments say this. I guess I can stretch my imagination to see that when the fourth commandment tells us that things will be well with us if we honor our fathers and mothers that maybe, perhaps, some could infer that therefor those parents (and therefor all authority) are a gift from God. I think Romans 13:1-4 says it better, especially the line, “for he is God’s minister to you for good.”

The implications I’m drawing from the Commandments — particularly the fourth — are fleshed out more in the Large Catechism than in the Small Catechism. Romans 13 contains a reflection of these implications, especially in the teaching that the government is “God’s minister.” In these observations, my intention is to applying the implications of the Commandments as a guide or a rule, more than as a mirror.

As the latter nine commandments are comprehended in the first commandment, the last six are similarly comprehended in the fourth. Since the fourth also shows God’s establishment of earthly authority (a.k.a. His kingdom of the Left), we can see how the last six commandments relate to the way He would have earthly government exercise that authority.

Further you also are saying, I think, that the commandments say that the government has certain responsibilities toward it’s citizenry and that God will work through the governments fulfillment of these responsibilities in order to bless people. Again, of course, everything works out best when God’s Law is followed, but can we say that the commandments are teaching us about governmental responsibilities? I think this is kind of turning them on edge or inside out or something.

It’s applying some of their implications as the divine intent for government, which is admittedly only a small aspect of their scope. In fact, I mainly mean the Second Table, because the First Table relates more to the Kingdom of the Right. For a broad application of what God commands, the Catechism (Large and Small) expresses the direct force.

I’m sorry, perhaps it is the late hour, but I really don’t understand your point about the Fifth Commandment. I get the first clause. I think I get the second, but again, I don’t think that commandment is primarily aimed at government.

You’re right. I don’t think its primary aim is government, either. Like the rest, it’s mainly about our individual responsibility toward God. Yet I think it has a secondary aim, and maybe more than that. It’s easy to grasp the words of these commandments, but God keeps teaching through them more and more as we consider their practice.

There are places in the Bible that more clearly give the responsibility to protect life to governments, are there not?

Probably. For some reason, though, I like to use the Catechism as a starting point for launching into these exercises.

And the final clause of that sentence totally looses me. Is the antecedent to the pronoun it and its, the government?

Yes.

And what is the greater responsibility in the fourth commandment of which you write?

Its greater responsibility is to preserve the order necessary for citizens to “enjoy long life.” That means if a particular citizen like Timothy McVeigh, decides to take the lives of his fellow citizens, the fourth commandment implies that the government can take his life in their defense.

Again, in the same paragraph, the Sixth Commandment is not addressed to government, but to individuals and tells us how we are to live our individual lives. Not how the government should make its laws. Yes, it would be nice if there were laws to support Biblical marital choices, but I really don’t think that the commandments address government. You’re phraseology on that one is somewhat more to my taste, however. I’d still rather it read, “The Sixth Commandment reveals that God wants lifelong marriage, obviously between one man and one woman.” And leave the government part out. Not that I disagree about the beneficence of Biblical civic laws,. I just don’t think the commandments address that.

I wouldn’t classify this as a civil law, because that would go too far. I think my point in this post was that God gives the government certain responsibilities for defending the order of civil society, and the cues for that ordering are built into the various commandments.

And so on with your discussion of the other commandments. Yes, I’ve had this discussion with you before, I think. I am perhaps ready to be convinced, but it just isn’t there for me yet. This really seems to me like dependence upon worldly philosophy to try to support a certain kind of government.

I wouldn’t make this argument with those who reject biblical authority in the public square, because to them it would be a weak argument. They need to become Christians, first. However, I think with other Christians we may confidently assert that God actually prefers not certain types of government, but that certain responsibilities be carried by government, in whatever for it may take. I prefer not to think of it as philosophy, but a rational application of what God has revealed, particularly as contained in the Small Catechism.

And don’t get me wrong. I in no wise mean to disparage the gifts God has given us through our system of government and constitution and property and capitalism and democracy and freedom and etc. But I’m not comfortable using the Ten Commandments this way. It’s a bit too much “implication” and “inference” and “seeming” for me.

You’re probably right that some other Bible passages would address these things more directly. I’d welcome further comments from you or anyone else suggesting which ones to use.

I have heard this same thing discussed slightly differently. Perhaps even at the Plucked Chicken? I think it is in the context of individual civic rights, which as you know is another of my “issues.” I think it goes like this. The commandments can show us God’s ideals with regard to human interaction and therefor, civil society. For instance, if we are not to kill, then, therefor, another must be able to assume a right to live. Again if we ought not steal, then those from whom we are not to steal must have a right to their property. Further,if we are not to commit adultery, this then, protects the right of married people to have a God pleasing marriage. And so on. I think I am finally comfortable with the use of the word “rights” in this sense. (But I’m still not convinced that this is how the founders used the term, however.)

Exactly. And good point about the Founders. They were not necessarily the sharpest of theologians, nor even Christians.

Sorry this got so long. You’ve been writing such “deep” things lately, my poor overly full “mom-brain” can’t keep up.

Thanks for trying. I write infrequently, so I try to make the most of it when I do.

And good grief, what’s with this crazy word verification thing. I had to keep going back to see which “captcha” I was on.

Have you noticed the new system using ReCaptcha? I think it’s neat.

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, …

So begins the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Having read about the formation of that amendment, as well as some of the Federalist Papers, I know that the militia was an important priority for the Founders and their generation. It was so important that Congress was given the authority to regulate the militias of the various states, and citizens were obligated by law to report for an annual muster. In the course of setting out these requirements, there was a debate about conscientious objectors. A frequently-used term was “the religiously scrupulous,” designating who were exempted from both the muster and a financial levy toward the common defense. After some discussion, the Founders wisely recognized that protecting the free exercise of religion preempts the need for a well-regulated militia.

Now it is reported that the Senate version of the nationalized health care bill requires everyone with public health insurance to pay monthly into a fund that will pay the cost of abortions. Apparently, the drafters and supporters of this bill consider the free exercise of religion to be less important than the “right” to health insurance coverage, even for abortions. (Though I don’t find that right in the Bill of Rights.) There seems to have been a shift. Whereas the Founders prioritized religious scruples before other important things, our current leadership has chosen new priorities that are not found in the Constitution, and promoted them above the First Amendment.

If you are a Christian in more than name, now is a good time to pray and to exercise your responsibility as a Christian in the kingdom of the Left. That is certainly easier than being prosecuted later under unjust laws for abiding by your religious scruples.