Alcohol & Welfare Programs: Topics on today's show

[Paidion]

I understand Paul to affirm in Romans 13 to affirm the Roman gov't of the 1st century was authorized by God to rule. Would you agree that it is not mandated by the text, but merely an assumption, that God also authorized all subsequent government officials (including our own) to rule over others?

Good point, Peter!

Richard Wurmbrand spent 14 years in a Romanian communist prison, not for any crime as we understand "crime", but for the sake of Christ and the gospel.
Brother Wurmbrand believed it morally right to lie to the Communists (much to the chagrin of many Christians today). For the Communists tortured Brother Wurmbrand, demanding the names of other Christians so that they could be put into prison and be tortured also. Brother Wurmbrand determined not to do under any circumstances. Sometimes when the torture became too bad, he gave some names all right, but they were Christians who had either died or had left the country.

Brother Wurmbrand pointed out that Paul stated that the powers established by God were there to reward the righteous and punish the evildoer. "But," said Brother Wurmbrand, "the Communists do just the opposite. They reward the evildoer and punish the righteous. Therefore the Communists have not been established by God."

[thrombomodulin]

I would like to propose, for consideration and critique, the idea that one (or a group) only has authority to rule where God has positively granted it. The OT has many example of rulers being appointed by God as declared by a prophet. No modern day ruler I am aware of can make such a claim. Further, there is no biblical support that I am aware of where God authorizing the majority rule over all (democracy). As we are lacking any divine revelation about whom among us should rule, I would like to propose that the state affairs is Christian should consider ideal is that of the book of Judges where "There was no king, and each man did what was right in his own eyes".

[steve]

I would like to propose that the state affairs is Christian should consider ideal is that of the book of Judges where "There was no king, and each man did what was right in his own eyes".

I agree, but with the caveat that such an ideal is intended only to work where God is acknowledged as the King and His laws are regarded as binding.

[thrombomodulin]

Why is the caveat required?

[steve]

It seems obvious to me that people who will not govern themselves responsibly must needs be governed by others. If men will not respect their neighbors' rights on their own, then some enforcement of the rights of the innocent must intervene.

This is why children must be externally controlled by parents until they become mature enough to have internal controls.

If every person lived in obedience to God without the imposition of external governance, no such governance would be required. Even the minimally-intrusive form of government that is in place in this country grants enough freedom to be problematic without a morally upright majority.

[mkprr]

Steve,
Ok a lot of what you said is starting to make sense to me. From your understanding of scripture, what responsibilities does a secular government rightfully posses? What kinds of things would be appropriate to fund with taxes, what things wouldn’t be and which scriptures would you use to support these ideas?

[thrombomodulin]

It seems obvious to me that people who will not govern themselves responsibly must needs be governed by others.

The absence of the State is not the equivalent of the absence of external governance. A person whom acts in self defense of a violation of his own property rights is a form a external governance upon another. (We agree the extent to which Christians and non-Christians will choose to engage in self defense will differ). The characteristic feature of the State is a monopoly on external governance, where individuals are prohibited from excluding themselves from the monopoly of protection, and/or contracting with another for protection. A stateless environment does not preclude individuals from making contracts with one another for the service of self defense of one's personal property, hence it is not "ungoverned" society.

Would you agree that this relaxes the caveat from "only works for Christians" to more generally any culture which respects property rights, which even a number of atheists have recognized as ethical based on the law of nature?

[Candlepower]

mkprr, you seem to be a truth seeker. I'm thankful for that. Here are a couple of cents-worth of opinion from me...


You wrote

We live by rule of law, and the law says that taxation, and the spending of taxed income isn’t stealing if it is carried out legally.

As long as our elected officials tax and spend on things that the supreme court upholds as being “for the general welfare of the US”, our congressmen by definition cannot be considered thieves because they are acting within the laws of the land.

It seems axiomatic that the collective force (government) does not have the right to do “legally” what the law forbids an individual citizen to do.

For instance, if you give $20 to your friend because he is hungry and has no money, that is an act of charity by you. But if by force you take $20 from me and give it to your poor friend, that is an act of stealing by you. The theft is not mitigated, much less justified, by the fact that your friend is in need and that you pity him. But what if instead of robbing me to get money to help your friend, you get legislators to pass a law that allows them to extract $20 from my wallet (against my will) to give to your hungry friend? That act does not suddenly become right just because it was legally done by a government official. It is theft whether or not it’s well intentioned, and whether it’s done legally or illegally. Whether by gun or by government, it is wrong to steal. It is clear to me that forced charity via governmental taxation is theft because it involves the coerced and unjust transfer of wealth from one person to another.

It is true that our legislators can’t be held liable (by our courts) for “stealing” if their confiscations are “within the laws of the land.” But man cannot change reality. He can legalize something that is wrong, but he can’t make right something that is wrong. “Legal” does not always equal “right.”

There is a law higher than the laws of the land, and a Judge looking down on our Supreme Court. All legislators, constitutions, kings, and judges are under that higher law and they will be judged by that Supreme Judge. It is not the US Constitution that ultimately determines right and wrong, legal and illegal. God does.

Let us assume you are correct that, “our congressmen by definition cannot be considered thieves because they are acting within the laws of the land.” Would you say that principle holds true for killing humans? What if a nation’s laws allow the government to kill people for being Christians, or for being Jews, or for being property owners. Would those killings not be murders simply because they were done in accordance with the laws of the land? Was it wrong for Hitler to murder several million people, for Stalin to murder about 20 million people, or for Mao to murder 50-80 million people? What all three did was perfectly “legal” according to the laws of their lands. Saying those men were not murderers because their killings weren’t violating the laws of the land would rest on the same premise, it seems to me, as saying “congressmen by definition cannot be considered thieves because they are acting within the laws of the land.” If a rose by any other name is a rose, then I suppose theft and murder by any other names are theft and murder.

At the Nuremberg War Crimes trials following WWII, Hitler’s henchmen argued that they were innocent of wrongdoing because what they did was “legal.” “We just did what we were ordered to do,” they said in their defense.

In our country, thousands of unborn children are being murdered yearly. Those murders are perfectly legal by the government’s standard, but they are illegal by God’s standard. Indirectly, some of your taxes go to pay for those murders. I think that God, despite man's law, considers the abortionist a murderer. And I think God considers any judge and any legislator who supports the abortionist to be a murderer's accomplice. God counts man's laws as lawlessness if they violate His laws. I don't think God says, "Well, it was the law of their land, so it must not be murder." It is often true that what man calls legal, God condemns. Men’s laws do not protect men from the consequences of disobeying God’s law.

Providing government welfare assistance to the poor then is both legal in the US, and it seems to be just according to the Law of Moses.

The role of civil government, according to Scripture, is to exercise justice—to punish evildoers. Collecting from the citizens the money necessary to accomplish that purpose is Scripturally sanctioned, it seems to me. But Scripture does not describe government as an agency of welfare or charity, so that function is beyond civil government’s God-ordained role, and taxing for that purpose, while legal, is wrong. Charity (love) is a role God has reserved for private individuals and/or private organizations (Salvation Army, Goodwill, Mother Teresa, etc.). “Providing government welfare assistance to the poor” may be legal, but it is not just “according to the Law of Moses.” And it is not love.

[Paidion]

It is clear to me that forced charity via governmental taxation is theft because it involves the coerced and unjust transfer of wealth from one person to another.

So why is this any more a theft than taxation for any other purpose? A local government built a road near my remote cabin, and then raised my taxes because the cabin had "access" to the road (though in actuality there was no more access than previously). Furthermore I didn't want the road there. Was I robbed?

In Canada, provincial governments tax in order to provide health services. Is this theft?

It is also the case in Canada that the middle and upper classes are taxed heavily, and those with little income may not be taxed at all. Isn't this similar to your "forced charity" issue?

Government taxes create and maintain highways for the public benefit, even though some people never use them. Is this theft?

School taxes provide public education in spite of the fact that some people don't send their children to public schools. Are these people being robbed?

Governmental gifts are given to many organizations whose purpose is objectional to me. Am I being robbed?

In Christ's day, the Roman Government doubtless used taxes for many purposes to which Christians objected, yet Christ taught his disciples to pay their taxes, and to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. So He recognized that taxes belonged to Caesar and ought to be paid.

[thrombomodulin]

In Christ's day, the Roman Government doubtless used taxes for many purposes to which Christians objected, yet Christ taught his disciples to pay their taxes, and to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. So He recognized that taxes belonged to Caesar and ought to be paid.

Would not the same method of interpretation lead one to conclude that because Jesus said to turn the other cheek, he recognized that one person has a right to strike another on the cheek? What is wrong with the conclusion that taxation is theft, but allowing that Christians are not to resist it?

Edit to add a better example: "If anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.". Thus, would not the same method of interpretation lead one to conclude that ones cloak belongs to anyone whom files a lawsuit against him?

If you take the position that taxation is not theft, and if Caesar chooses to take 100% of your income and 100% of your assets, is it OK because "belongs to Casear"?