The Defense of Rationalism

Among the more continuous themes throughout Scripture is a passionate concern for the poor. The Old Testament is replete with ethical and legal mandates that benefit the poor and Jesus himself preaches justice for the poor in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, the vast majority of prophetic indictments against ancient Israelite society included indifference toward the poor or, often, gross perpetration of injustice. It seems patently obvious, from the unified whole of Scripture that the Church is to take up the cause of justice and care for the poor among it. Indeed, Scripture prescribes a definite responsibility for the people of God to be advocates for the poor and care for them, spiritually and materially.

Though this definite responsibility is clearly emphasized throughout Scripture, the western Church has been unwilling to make good on its obligations. Specifically, it has been increasingly willing to voluntarily abrogate its God-given responsibility and allow the modern state to fill its void and care for the poor, especially since the twentieth century. Social welfare measures – some good, most bad – have grown increasingly popular in western countries in tandem with a decreasing sense of the Church’s responsibility to the poor. Today’s American churches are spending truckloads of money on fancy sanctuaries, family life centers (which, significantly, are usually “members only” and require a fee to join), ostentatious praise and worship productions, and other needless tidbits all the while relegating one of its most fundamental responsibilities to an entity (the state) not designed to care holistically for its members. On their face, these things are certainly not bad in and of themselves. But, when they are furthered in place of the Church’s fundamental mission, they are downright sinful.

A common argument in favor of the status quo posits that the Church is not living up to its obligations so “someone’s got to do it.” While this argument certainly has much merit, its flippancy represents part of the problem. In fact, this argument is a telling summary of the basic problem: since the Church is failing to care for the poor, the state, an entity not designed or equipped to best handle the task, has become the poor’s “advocate of last resort.” By going with the flow and arguing for maintenance of the status quo, we are perpetuating the problem, continually ignoring our Scriptural obligations, and, I would argue, falling into sin. Instead of shirking our God-given responsibility, Christians ought to passionately argue for the church to stop wasting its resources and put them to use more pragmatically, to care for the poor, and further the kingdom of God.

Does this mean Christians should advocate the immediate dismantling of the welfare state? Probably not. But, it does mean that the Church should work tirelessly to make the welfare state a needless institution. While the precise role of the state will always be a source of debate and contention, Christians of all stripes must agree that primary care for the poor belongs to the Church and we must embrace that fundamental responsibility with all of our hearts. Perhaps when the Church begins doing what it ought to do, then we can rightfully talk about the state picking up its slack.

“O God, to those who have hunger give bread; and to those who have bread, [give] the hunger for justice.”

• Vleimufnek Ringtone
• Azryxastas Album
• Idougluh Mp3
• Hliveignafoi Music
• Vneijaugnu Music
• Rygeikvoip Album
• Flyqoivnoody Ringtone
• Epluvnoca Ringtone
• Fnohnuhyji Music
• Goicleiwouknu Mp3

Gas prices are setting new records on an almost daily basis; the price for a barrel of crude oil has trounced anything the world has ever seen as it continues to climb; and the world’s supply of accessible oil reserves is decreasing while demand continues to skyrocket. Nearly all Americans are feeling the “pinch at the pump,” a new cliché that seems to indicate that the central crisis associated with rising prices is a diminished capacity to go where we want when we want in our own cars. While this is certainly a looming crisis by itself (given the nature of the American transportation system) it is only the tip of the iceberg.

Rising oil and gas prices affect prices across the board: as diesel prices – which are hovering near $4.00 per gallon – rise faster than unleaded gasoline, all goods transported by truck are subject to rising prices as well. So, as diesel continues to climb, the price of milk, which is commonly transported by truck, will climb alongside it. This goes for anything else transported by truck: eggs, bread, and other staple grocery items. Not to be alarmist, but the potentially looming crisis is extensive and would leave only the wealthiest unscathed.

Seen in this light, the oil crisis is a matter of justice. The longer we sit on our hands and refuse to address the problem, the more likely a major crisis will develop. Currently, American energy policy is an inconsistent and poorly defined mass of regulations that are ill-suited to confront the looming crisis. While I generally have faith in the market, this seems a clear instance where the market has failed. As prices rise and oil companies’ profits grow higher than ever before, there is no market incentive to capitalize on alternative fuels, many of which are far along in their development processes. Immediate government intervention is necessary to facilitate a smooth and quick transition to a system of alternative fuels such as hydrogen fuel cells.

Christians should be concerned about the direction of American energy policy for a number of reasons. First, rising prices hurt those whom it is the church’s responsibility to protect: the poor, the weak, and the needy. While the House of Saud and the remnants of Standard Oil expand their coffers, the poor among us are put in an increasingly desperate situation. The biblical mandate for justice compels us to address an increasingly dire situation. Second, a healthy concern for God’s creation ought to spur us to alternative fuel sources. While “global warming” and “climate change” are heated topics that lack consensus, it remains true that carbon emissions from fossil fuels damage the immediate environment. Among the compelling reasons to adopt a broad alternative fuel source – like hydrogen fuel cells – are their potential to drastically reduce harmful emissions. For these reasons, among others, Christians ought to be concerned and voice their opinions about alternative fuel sources.

As the price of crude oil continues to rise, the alternative fuel debate becomes an increasingly black-and-white issue. Developing a broad system of alternative fuel use ought to become a top priority for our country and our government. Christians, out of a sense of compassion and stewardship, must become involved in the debate and spur on change.

Today’s western governments have been charged with an unprecedented array of responsibilities. As Christians in a western country, we’re charged with the task of understanding what responsibilities we attribute to our government in light of Scripture. This is not to say that we necessarily advocate the legislation of morality or the establishment of biblical law as civic law. Rather, we need to understand our government in light of what Scripture says regarding the institution of the state.

The state is a legitimate institution specifically ordained by God. Likewise, of course, the church – the body of Christ – is an institution specifically ordained by God. Each institution has been given specific responsibilities. We can take many of God’s instructions to the ancient Israelite state in the Old Testament as the responsibilities of the New Testament church. Caring for the poor, widows, and orphans are specific tasks attributed to the people of God who were embodied in the ancient Israelite state in the Old Testament but are embodied in the church in the New Testament.

As for the state, we are at a bit of an impasse. Matthew, Mark, and Luke recount Jesus stating “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” (NIV) which seems to indicate that the state has a biblical grounds to tax. Also, some, like Justice Antonin Scalia, argue on the basis of Romans 13 that the state has been given the “power of the sword” which gives it the right to enforce its laws, punish “evildoers,” and pursue justice (for more on this see Scalia’s May 2002 article in First Things). But what laws should the state have? What defines an “evildoer?” How should the state conceive of justice? These are compelling questions that Scripture does not directly address.

A number of Christian political theorists have tackled this issue. Some, such as James Skillen, suggest a limited role for government on the grounds that people ought to be free to pursue their various callings from God. Others, such as Abraham Kuyper, argue for a notion of “sphere sovereignty” wherein the world is divided into spheres: family, church, state, etc. Each sphere has its own unit of sovereignty and unique responsibilities. And, while there is necessarily a bit of overlap and redundancy (i.e. Christian politicians are members of the church) each sphere is separate and equal. In sum, these Christian thinkers advocate unique roles for the church and unique roles for the state.

Hence, my “libertarianism.” Folks often equate the term “libertarian” with the Libertarian Party: an organization that advocates a polity just shy of anarchy. In broad terms, however, “libertarian” refers to those who generally believe in human liberty and limited government. Libertarians of this ilk disagree to what extent people should be “free” and how a government ought to be limited.

Defined this way, Christians may rightfully consider themselves libertarians.
Fundamentally, I agree with the theorists above: the church and the state are separate institutions ordained by God with separate functions. Further, since the responsibilities for the church are spelled out so well, I believe that we can infer certain responsibilities to be outside of the state’s purview. For instance, the church is clearly charged with the task of caring for the poor. While this doesn’t necessarily negate certain social welfare programs, Christians ought to believe that the primary responsibility for the care of the poor belongs to the church – not the state. Likewise, since the “power of the sword” has been granted to the state, it would be improper for the church to take up arms. In short, the institutions of church and state have been ascribed specific responsibilities and many of the state’s responsibilities can be inferred by deduction.

In addition to the concept of sphere sovereignty, I believe James Skillen is right in advocating a constitutionally limited government on the basis that people ought to be free to pursue their callings unimpeded by government. Though far from a strict libertarian (i.e. not a member of the Libertarian Party), I believe that constitutionally limited government and human liberty are Scripturally defensible concepts.

What prompted the early church fathers to consider Christianity as a continuation of the events and promises of the Old Testament in the earliest decades after Christ’s ascension? To what extent did classical philosophy influence the development of Christian doctrine? Where did modern Christian doctrine come from and who decided what it was? Do you know the answers to these questions? The answers to these questions form some of the most concrete bases of the Christian faith; they represent the development of a tradition that has largely stayed in tact for over two thousand years and, forming the presuppositional basis of modern Christian thought, they infiltrate the minds of Christians on a daily basis. Being conscious of one’s tradition is crucial to a holistic understanding of one’s theological understanding of the world; tradition consciousness answers questions that ask “why are things the way they are?” At the same time, however, tradition can serve to stifle creative thought and stymie legitimate progress. What role should a self conscious conception of tradition play?

The intellectual concept of “tradition” has been a hot topic of discussion among academics. Foremost among the tradition scholars is Jaroslav Pelikan, chiefly a historian of the development of Christian doctrine. In his work, The Vindication of Tradition, Pelikan argues that tradition has played an important formative role in Western society; his main point is to evaluate not only the importance of tradition in society but its incredible prevalence (conscious or unconscious) throughout a wide variety of communities and ideologies. Tradition is both widely appealed to as a source of legitimacy or authority and attacked as a source of backwardness and unprogressive thought. Here lies the most significant contribution of Pelikan’s work: “Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. And…it is traditionalism that gives tradition such a bad name.” Pelikan’s key distinction between tradition and traditionalism clearly illustrates the importance of tradition as a source of heritage and knowledge and the dangerous potential uses of tradition as an oppressive maintainer of the status quo.

In this vein, the pursuit of tradition consciousness is vital to a holistic personal understanding of thought and doctrine for the useful ends of personal edification and knowledge of the unity of believers. At the same time, tradition consciousness is notorious for breeding pride, arrogance, and a resulting social dissonance. It is also true that knowledge of tradition can lead to an obsession with maintaining tradition rather than using that knowledge to unify and understand common origins. In this case, tradition can be used as a weapon to ostracize those who are different or hold different beliefs to be more crucial than others. With such potential for misuse, it is important that Christians approach tradition consciousness with a sense of humility and without an ideological agenda just as it is important to know tradition as a source of understanding.

In the end, tradition is not a weapon nor should it be a source of pride and arrogance. It is a living source of vital understanding. Tradition is a common heritage; a powerful unifying force among believers that is representative of our common inheritance in Christ. And, above all, tradition is a vital source of answers to the most pressing “whys” of our faith

I find it interesting that conservatives (in the American sense of the word) claim, in one breath, to be strict constructionists of the Constitution and at the same time tolerate, even mandate the federal legislation of morality. The Constitution clearly prohibits federal legislation of morality as it is a “power not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States” as the Tenth Amendment reads. At times, especially in the abortion debate, find myself in a position seeking to argue from a (federal)legal/constitutional standpoint that abortion is wrong (and in my heart of hearts I believe it is absolutely wrong) while it is simply impossible to do so. Indeed, the Constitution is (and ought to be) silent on the issue of abortion as it is an issue of morality.

However, although the Federal government is prohibited from legislating abortion, the States are not. Instead, the states are constitutionally encouraged to legislate moral issues as this is an element of their function in the Union. Therefore, with this in mind, what does it matter whether a candidate for a federal office is pro-choice — especially in the executive branch? Unless, of course, the candidate is a loose constructionist.

This is the problem with the loose constructionist (i.e. the Constitution is a “living document”) point of view — the order of the Union is put into jeopardy because if we ignore even the slightest detail in the constitution then what stops us from ignoring large portions of it or ignoring it altogether? If the Tenth Amendment is ignored in any part why can’t the First Amendment be ignored and the federal government mandate Islam or “President Worship” (like Roman emperor worship and Egyptian pharaoh worship) as an official state religion? In such a legal environment there would be nothing holding the government accountable to the people. With the strict constructionist view, however, the integrity of the letter of the law is maintained and no person — civilian, government official, soldier, man, woman, child… — is above the law. Thus, the government is held accountable to the people; the people are sovereign.

If a candidate for federal office (i.e. Hillary Clinton) is a loose constructionist AND a pro-choicer then, from a legal/constitutional standpoint, he or she is a fundamental danger to the Union and no one should vote for them regardless of religion, race, creed, or food preference. Conversely, however, if a candidate believes wholeheartedly in each citizen’s inherent right to choice in all regards and is therefore pro-choice by default but is of a strict constructionist persuasion then he poses no threat to the integrity of the union and is thus a votable candidate.

Therefore, I reason that “maybe” a Christian could possibly vote for a pro-choice candidate if the candidate is a strict constructionist especially for the office of President since it holds little policy-making responsibility. One such highly votable candidate would be Rudy Giuliani. Vote for him.