Is it possible for Caesar to overstep the divinely-ordained bounds of
his authority?
The Founders of the United States would have answered “yes” straight
away. Despite the classic Lutheran concern for keeping the fourth
commandment (to honor parents and superiors), we also recognize bounds for
the authority of earthly rulers. If your ruler forbids you to honor
God’s name or keep his word, or commands you to worship an idol, then
you must disobey your ruler. Daniel and his three friends provide good
examples of this.
What about other aspects of our lives? Can we separate faith from the
food we eat? From our health care? From our work ethic? From
interactions with our neighbors?
If a person breaks into your house with apparent intent to harm or kill
one of its occupants, but the ruler forbids you from using deadly force
(either because the person is authorized by the ruler, like the KGB, or
because the ruler simply wants a docile populace, like any number of
tyrannical regimes), is it wrong to defend your household against the
assailant? Early American society agreed that you ought to defend your
household, and that doing so was also a necessary defense of our society
at large. That was a primary reason that most of the states and finally
the nation protected the right of individuals to “keep” arms. In fact,
they extended this principle beyond our homes with the right to “bear”
arms.
The fifth commandment (You shall not murder) also enjoins Christians to
protect the lives of our neighbors, recognizing that there will be some
lawless people who murder anyway. If we fail to do what is in our power
to protect the lives of others, then we break this commandment. But
does this hold true when it would involve defending against those
authorized by Caesar? Does it hold true when Caesar simply wants a
docile populace?
Martin Luther wrote colorfully against the Roman requirement that
priests refrain from marriage. It continues to be recognized that this
requirement is contrary to nature, contrary to the way God has made us.
Unless there is an unusual gift from God, humans will always find it
impossible to remain celibate. Therefore, the priest’s vow is contrary
to God’s will, and he should be allowed to marry. (Marriage is the
only proper context God has provided for intimate relations.)
Does Caesar have the authority to change what God has established, when
the Pope did not? Can Caesar permit or even require intimate relations
outside of marriage? Can the ruler rightly forbid his citizens from
being joined in holy matrimony? It would seem that the God’s sixth
commandment (You shall not commit adultery) should rate higher than the
laws of any earthly ruler.
Consider God’s seventh commandment (You shall not steal). Whose
property has God forbidden us to steal? Some might try to tell us that
it’s the property of the state, perhaps the U.S.S.R. or the communist
Cuban state. The Caesars of those places owned everything, and the
people owned nothing. Promising to eliminate inequalities among the
people, the Caesar made all of them like medieval serfs, taking away
their property, their honor, and their ability to improve their own
lives.
Private property is also a gift from God. This notion was reinforced by
the peculiar property laws in ancient Israel, which protected a family’s
land for that family even after it had been sold to pay debts. When the
Jubilee arrived, all land reverted to its original owners. While this
doesn’t apply to other nations, it does show that God recognizes
privately-held property. So then, must Caesar also recognize
privately-held property? What may his people do when he does not?
The Founders of the United States would draw a sharp distinction between
the American people and those of other nations. We are not subjects,
but free citizens. Here, the government serves us. Yet government in
general — like all aspects of fallen human nature — tends to overstep
its bounds, regardless of the politics involved.
Still, the politics involved these days revolve around the question of
Caesar’s role in society. Are there prescribed limits to government
power? What may be done if government transgresses such limits? You
can answer the first question by reading the United States Constitution
and its amendments, but some disagree. Some would have us put the
Constitution in a museum as a relic of bygone days. What say you?
In light of this question concerning limits to the powers of Caesar,
consider this ongoing summary of the nationalized healthcare
bill currently being debated in Congress. Like most citizens, I don’t
have time to read the whole thing (though I would expect my
representatives in Congress to read it), so I appreciate this “Reader’s
Digest” version. Does it represent a transgression on the part of
Caesar? If you are an American, you get to decide.
Excerpt:
Continue reading “Render to Caesar” →