Thursday, March 23, 2006
"There are very many kinds of theft. One consists in violence, as when
a man’s goods are forcibly plundered and carried off; another in
malicious imposture, as when they are fraudulently intercepted; a third
in the more hidden craft which takes possession of them with a
semblance of justice; and a fourth in sycophancy, which wiles them away
under the pretence of donation" (Institutes of the Christian Religion,
Book II, Chapter 8, section 45).
Aside from the depth of formal intelligence ingrained in the great old
works on theology (I speak of the language structure), I really
appreciate the fact that here justified is a great understanding of the
eighth commandment. What is stealing? It is taking something from one
man, to whom it belongs, and giving it to another man, to whom it does
not belong (paraphrase of Walter Williams).
Herin, among other problems, is the problem for those Christians who
back a redistributionist attitude toward society, and in particular the
government. It is just as wrong for Robin Hood, no matter how endearing
the movie, to steal at arrow point in the road as it was for Prince
John to steal from the castle. Prince John wanted to hoard the taxed
riches to himself, but had the tables been turned, and Robin Hood had
by law taxed Prince John to give to the poor, he would have been just
as wrong.
The problem for free market Christians is that we want the government
to let the market be whatever it is. We then stand in danger of losing
a society wide impact on morality and the family structure. Outside of
government, can we affect social morality on issues such as poverty
without engaging in fraud, that "semblance of justice," or
"sycophancy"? This is further complicated by the market's inclination
to provide abhorrent services like prostitution, abortion, pornography,
deception (layers of fraud), divorce, mind-tripping drugs, grand
theiving and murderous gangs for hire, false teachers, bad science,
antitheism, etc, etc, etc. I recognize the fact that the government is
in the business of making moral decisions, and if so, it ought to use
biblical morality. However, since it consists of sinful men, it will
reflect that corruption. That show of social morality will then be the
great fraud of the country and farce to the world. Furthermore, we see time and again
reminders in the New Testament that Christ came to establish a kingdom
not of this world, and that the role of the church is to affect social
norms by winning converts not by passing laws. We are not in the
business of setting up a millenial kingdom age with the hope of
bringing about o regresso do Rei.
Jesus had plenty to say about the sins of the rich men of His and any
time. He never told us that it is our duty to steal from them to feed
the poor. They stand before God's judgment for their neglect,
manipulation of society, and misuse of God's blessing. Furthermore,
when I see men like Bill Gates giving a huge portion of his huge
fortune to serious needs in Africa, I cannot help but wander what our
government has done to discourage this by giving the false illusion of
being the greatest social cherity on earth and doing so coercively.
The Bible was written to teach about God, not the details of a
sociological theory. Clearly, people can find verses to back up some
variant views on society. At the founding of America, it was the
Christians forcing the separation of church and state and the free
market. In the years since then, Christians have emerged with multiple
views on this. I think that it is really not as clear from Scripture as
redemption, for example. Paul, when he had an audience with Felix the
governor did not direct apologetics for the purpose of getting
Christian morals in government. He had the same action with Festus and
Agrippa. His appeal was "I would pray to God, both in a little and in
much, that not only you, but also all hearing me today to become as I
also am [Christian], except for these bonds" (Acts 26:29 MKJV). He
wanted conversion and not assimilation.
I have wandered a little today. I started with a discussion of what
stealing is. I wanted to demostrate why I really do not agree with
government's endless desire to tax society. However, I moved from there
to what the role of government is and the role of Christian morality is
in government. Ultimately, we have discovered that apologetics exist
with the end of conversion and not assimilation. This is perhaps the
greatest discovery of all. The church laments its loss of relevancy and
scrambles to find the best way to regain it. However, it fails to
recognize that that relevancy is gained by earnestly contending for the faith. The focus is the
message. The church has lost its relevance because it has lost its
voice. Ask any Christian to defend family values, and they will have no
problem. Ask any Christian to defend their faith, and they will
probably not even be clear on what the gospel is. Furthermore, their
best defense will be a "this is how I got saved" story, and not a
contention from history and theology. Paul gave his testimony, but
ultimately he said in reference to the history of Christ's resurrection
that these were historical facts that "were not done in a corner" (Acts
26:26 MKJV). Indeed, they were not done in a corner, and that is why I
am confident in my faith.
a man’s goods are forcibly plundered and carried off; another in
malicious imposture, as when they are fraudulently intercepted; a third
in the more hidden craft which takes possession of them with a
semblance of justice; and a fourth in sycophancy, which wiles them away
under the pretence of donation" (Institutes of the Christian Religion,
Book II, Chapter 8, section 45).
Aside from the depth of formal intelligence ingrained in the great old
works on theology (I speak of the language structure), I really
appreciate the fact that here justified is a great understanding of the
eighth commandment. What is stealing? It is taking something from one
man, to whom it belongs, and giving it to another man, to whom it does
not belong (paraphrase of Walter Williams).
Herin, among other problems, is the problem for those Christians who
back a redistributionist attitude toward society, and in particular the
government. It is just as wrong for Robin Hood, no matter how endearing
the movie, to steal at arrow point in the road as it was for Prince
John to steal from the castle. Prince John wanted to hoard the taxed
riches to himself, but had the tables been turned, and Robin Hood had
by law taxed Prince John to give to the poor, he would have been just
as wrong.
The problem for free market Christians is that we want the government
to let the market be whatever it is. We then stand in danger of losing
a society wide impact on morality and the family structure. Outside of
government, can we affect social morality on issues such as poverty
without engaging in fraud, that "semblance of justice," or
"sycophancy"? This is further complicated by the market's inclination
to provide abhorrent services like prostitution, abortion, pornography,
deception (layers of fraud), divorce, mind-tripping drugs, grand
theiving and murderous gangs for hire, false teachers, bad science,
antitheism, etc, etc, etc. I recognize the fact that the government is
in the business of making moral decisions, and if so, it ought to use
biblical morality. However, since it consists of sinful men, it will
reflect that corruption. That show of social morality will then be the
great fraud of the country and farce to the world. Furthermore, we see time and again
reminders in the New Testament that Christ came to establish a kingdom
not of this world, and that the role of the church is to affect social
norms by winning converts not by passing laws. We are not in the
business of setting up a millenial kingdom age with the hope of
bringing about o regresso do Rei.
Jesus had plenty to say about the sins of the rich men of His and any
time. He never told us that it is our duty to steal from them to feed
the poor. They stand before God's judgment for their neglect,
manipulation of society, and misuse of God's blessing. Furthermore,
when I see men like Bill Gates giving a huge portion of his huge
fortune to serious needs in Africa, I cannot help but wander what our
government has done to discourage this by giving the false illusion of
being the greatest social cherity on earth and doing so coercively.
The Bible was written to teach about God, not the details of a
sociological theory. Clearly, people can find verses to back up some
variant views on society. At the founding of America, it was the
Christians forcing the separation of church and state and the free
market. In the years since then, Christians have emerged with multiple
views on this. I think that it is really not as clear from Scripture as
redemption, for example. Paul, when he had an audience with Felix the
governor did not direct apologetics for the purpose of getting
Christian morals in government. He had the same action with Festus and
Agrippa. His appeal was "I would pray to God, both in a little and in
much, that not only you, but also all hearing me today to become as I
also am [Christian], except for these bonds" (Acts 26:29 MKJV). He
wanted conversion and not assimilation.
I have wandered a little today. I started with a discussion of what
stealing is. I wanted to demostrate why I really do not agree with
government's endless desire to tax society. However, I moved from there
to what the role of government is and the role of Christian morality is
in government. Ultimately, we have discovered that apologetics exist
with the end of conversion and not assimilation. This is perhaps the
greatest discovery of all. The church laments its loss of relevancy and
scrambles to find the best way to regain it. However, it fails to
recognize that that relevancy is gained by earnestly contending for the faith. The focus is the
message. The church has lost its relevance because it has lost its
voice. Ask any Christian to defend family values, and they will have no
problem. Ask any Christian to defend their faith, and they will
probably not even be clear on what the gospel is. Furthermore, their
best defense will be a "this is how I got saved" story, and not a
contention from history and theology. Paul gave his testimony, but
ultimately he said in reference to the history of Christ's resurrection
that these were historical facts that "were not done in a corner" (Acts
26:26 MKJV). Indeed, they were not done in a corner, and that is why I
am confident in my faith.
