Not a Question of Ought

When it comes to the economic policies of the government, the way we tend to treat governmental policies are that the government can or cannot do certain things based on some sort of moral authority.

While the state is certainly bound to moral restrictions, it seems quite possible to me that many governmental economic policies need to be evaluated on the basis of effectiveness rather than the basis of morality.

Most governmental policies are ultimately amoral in nature. The government is morally allowed to redistribute money around. The entire function and legitimacy of government is involved with taking money from the citizenry and using it to perform its God-given functions.

Within those God-given functions, there is a good amount of amoral space where the government can look to determine how they should operate. It becomes difficult to say that many actions are simply wrong when viewed within these frameworks.

Thus, when evaluating economic policies, it is probably better to answer the question, what would the consequences of this action be, not what is the moral questions. Ultimately, there are few governmental actions that actually fall outside the realm of morals.

The Government is not your God

There are two opposite problems in Christian culture when it comes to government today (not to say that these are the only two problems, just two that I can see exist). First is the problem that I often discuss about those who don't seem to care enough about what goes on in the political system.

But the second is equally a problem, and that is simply putting too much stake in what goes on in the political system. Simply, it becomes quite easy to find security in the way current political structures are set up, rather than in the Lord. 

I want to make it clear up front - this is not a big government problem per se. It is just as easy for someone in favor of limited governments, like me, to find too much stake in the political process.

 If my security is founded in the fact that Rand Paul is going to do awesome things and win awesome elections, and then revolutionize this country, then I am placing my trust in the political process. 

This of course is a problem because our trust should be firmly in God and not in the devices that God uses to ensure blessings upon His people (I think it's fair to call good governance a blessing, right?). I should feel secure in the fact that I know who holds sovereign control over all the earth. And to put this in the perspective of our last politics post, I should feel secure in the God who ordained the government, not the God-ordained government. 

But God is under no obligation to work out His plans through the government itself. He can decide to make our government like the government in China, and work to give Himself glory. I mean, it's His sovereign control.

So yes, God is in control, and as much as I care about politics, and love Rand Paul, God > Rand Paul. Rand Paul and the entire political system can only do so much, and it would be foolish to stake your security in that. 

Instead, we Christians need to ensure our trust is in the One who controls not just ALL of the political system, but all other elements that are outside our control too!

The Actual Origin of Goverment

It's a very popular opinion, and one that I have held for a considerable point of time, that ultimately governments get their just powers from the consent of the governed. It is an idea called the social contract theory, and remarkably, it is actually wrong. 

Yes, it sounds nice when we say it. Men live in a state of nature, free men, but they find that their freedom is not protected from stronger, less moral men, who like to prey on the weak. Thus, these men come together and form a government, delegating some of their power, so that their rights can be protected from brute force. 

But I don't know about you, but I've never seen a government that has been formed in that manner. Indeed, all governments that we seem to see formed are simply transferring from one government to another. We have never actually examined a government being formed from a state of nature.

That isn't necessarily a problem for social contract theorists because simply because we wouldn't know how the first government started, doesn't mean that it didn't start out as a social contract. 

No, the problem instead begins with the fact that we actually kinda have seen the first government being created, and it wasn't made by man, but by God. 

The very first government was put in place by God before the fall! Adam and Eve were given dominion over all animals when they were placed in the Garden of Eden. the Lord gave them a sceptre and used them to rule over creation. Welcome to government. 

Then of course, we sinned, and government's purpose was slightly corrupted, but God still ordained it as a good force. Romans 13 explains, 

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

Indeed, the social contract theorists' favorite points about how government is a necessary evil or necessary because of evil are kinda both wrong from a biblical perspective. Now don't get me wrong, there are definitely things done by government that are not good, and this verse does not prevent those from being a thing, but government as an institution is a "minister unto us for good." 

The fact that government is not actually evil is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that there will be a government in heaven. The Kingdom of God is just maybe a bit of a thing that comes up in Scriptures here and there. Probably not a big deal though. 

My essential arguments about the principles of government remain unchanged, but now it's not because there's a contract that men have signed with government that limits what they are to do, but because God ordained the government for a specific purpose, and they probably ought to fulfill that purpose. 

Yes, I actually think I have a more compelling case now. Following God's ordinance is more important than following man's ordinance, after all.