Mailvox: give to Caesar

God Doesn't Fret the IRS

In which I have a theological disagreement with VD and the ilk.

Friday, June 04, 2010

Mailvox: give to Caesar

JB wonders when it applies:

Not sure if you've run into this, but I've noticed a pattern when debating a liberal (Christian or not) about taxes and big government. When they get to the point where they have lost the argument, they throw a grenade with the statement, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's".

Now, I'm not one to take the words of Christ lightly. It is true, Jesus did not go out of His way to incite rebellion against Rome, and seemed to endorse the concept of taxation with that statement. However, something doesn't sit right with the liberal's logic when they resort to that statement.

I wonder if you or the Ilk have a solid response to the Render Unto Caesar argument.

I usually run into this with regards to taxes. My response is always the same as the response that preceded the advice. "Show me the coin used for paying the tax. Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" In other words, show me Caesar! So, while you can reasonably use this verse to justify writing a check to assorted dead men or the Federal Reserve, it is a poor argument in support of state or Federal taxation.

Now, it is important to note that it is not any wiser to refuse to pay the tax money demanded by the IRS than it is to refuse to pay the protection money demanded by the Mafia. But it does mean that the Biblical justification doesn't apply.

As for government, the liberal Christian's logic breaks down because what applies to a divine Emperor manifestly does not apply to a democracy, not even a constitutional republic in which the democracy is strictly limited. Whereas the imperial subject owes the Emperor nothing but obedience, the citizen of the republic has a duty to ensure that his duly elected government acts legitimately according to the bounds of the republic's constitution.

What gave Caesar legitimacy? The military supremacy of Rome. Many of the people who fell under Rome's sphere of influence did so without the consent of the people. So what is the logic of saying that it matters one wit what the people of this nation think about taxation? The Republic has mostly been dismantled and the people who hold to the idea of the Constitution are as occupied as certain Jews believed their nation to be. Power changes the status quo. If Paul was not advising people to concern themselves with their state in the world e.g. slavery, why would we think there was a significant concern about taxation for the Christian.

Christians spend a great deal of energy fretting about the world which obviously has been given over to Satan. The kingdoms of the world belong to Satan regardless of the form of government. 5%, 10% or 100% of what the principalities and powers of this world designate is irrelevant to the soul of a Christian.

Christians are citizens of the Kingdom... the fact we devote so much emotional energy to being Citizens of nations/states/ideologies robs us of spiritual peace.

Now obviously we exist in the world and within the confines of our systems we have as much right to attempt to influence and act as anyone, but this life is passing and our focus should not be there. Citizenship has its uses. Paul used his Roman citizenship. American citizenship might be useful in ministry... but ultimately it is a tool not an end.

Phil. 3:20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ;

Col. 3:1-3 If then you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God.

Ephesians 2:11/Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)— 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. 19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

Layman's Theology

I fully admit to not being a theologian. However, it is a subject of interest to me. Over on the Vox Popli blog a gentleman who goes by the name Bearded Spock posed the following question...

I asked this before, but didn't get an answer. If the Bible contains errors as almost all biblical scholars admit, then how do you know which parts are divine revelation and which parts are not? How can it be the word of the perfect God if it is not perfect?

My reply is this:

I think this is a really good question. I would say that it can be the word of a perfect God in the same way as this can be the creation of a perfect God. Psalms 19:1 states that effectively this imperfect earth declares his glory. It seems logical that if His glory can be made manifest through a corrupted earth then His will could be known through an imperfect scripture.

2 Tim 4:16 indicates that all scripture is inspired from God and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. It does not make a claim to inerrancy there. 2 Peter 1:21 discusses (though covering prophecy) how men spoke from God. The only thing specifically indicated as recorded from God's own hand was the 10 commandments (Exodus 32:16). It seems logical that in dealing through flawed men that degrees of error would be expected. In 2 Peter 3:16 Peter points out that distortions are occurring with Paul's epistles as they do with other scripture. I further point out that in Revelations 22:19 it is commented on regarding the penalty for adding or subtracting from the words of that book which indicates that while punishable, God would not himself intervene to prevent the action. And not everything in the Bible is directly the acts or express opinion of God. Some parts are simple recordings of what was done. In particular 1 Cor 7:6 where Paul speaks of marriage and in Matthew 19:8 Jesus talking of divorce.

The Bible is not the path to salvation. Jesus states that only he is the way. The Bible is certainly the best vehicle we have for this. This is akin in my mind to historical study; Thucydides is the best study of the Peloponnesian War but certainly has errors as being recorded by a man.

I think perhaps it would add something to have a scripture that contained no visible contradictions or issues. It would be evidence of a sort. I do not know why in this area as in others God did not choose to use it as such. My quick opinion on the subject.

As for how you know... I think the spirit in which you approach it and the desire to be led into greater knowledge is the important part. The parts of the scripture people seem to have the most trouble with involve portions that restrict behavior. If you are more interested in pursuing your own agenda, be it within a church, family or society then in maintaining fidelity with 1000s of years of tradition and Biblical commentary on the subject then you are likely on the wrong path. If your goal is to judge the scriptures through secular ideas than a spiritual heart I would say you risk the same error. Even those who walked with Jesus or who had direct relationships and contact with God never got it right. But if it ever becomes more about you then Him you are guaranteed to get it wrong.

Book Review #9

The Faiths of Our Fathers: What America's Founders Really Believed by Alf J. Mapp, Jr.

I found this book in the discount section at Barnes and Nobles. Paid roughly 7.00 for it. It is an engaging little book. I noted some errors in it... one of which was referencing an item in the appendix that is simply not there. However, for what I paid it provided a taste of the subject matter. I think it does reveal that the 'Founders' like many people today ranged in their beliefs. The Founders were certainly not uniformly evangelical as some church goers would have you believe and they most certainly were not all separated from faith and its role in society as some of the more secular among us would claim. They were humans with all that entails.

I think from this book I would branch out and engage in some of the other texts on the subject. I expect fully that it is a subject that will be highly effected by the personal beliefs of the author. If you only want a taste of the subject however, this would provide that in a very short form ( a mere 160ish pages). On that basis I would recommend it.

The Non Dilemma

Wherein Mr. Meyerson raises a problem of his own making...

But once you recognize homosexuality as a genetic reality, it does create a theological dilemma for the Mohlers among us, for it means that God is making people who, in the midst of what may otherwise be morally exemplary lives, have a special and inherent predisposition to sin. Mohler's response is that since Adam's fall, sin is the condition of all humankind. That sidesteps, however, the conundrum that a gay person may follow the same God-given instincts as a straight person -- let's assume fidelity and the desire for church sanctification in both cases -- and end up damned while the straight person ends up saved. Indeed, it means that a gay person's duty is to suppress his God-given instincts while a straight person's duty is to fulfill his.

Mr. Meyerson, (article entitled god and his gays)

I read with interest your piece on God and homosexuality. I cannot concur with your opinion though. Whether or not homosexuality is genetically based really has no bearing on whether or not it is a moral act in God’s eyes. Assuming, as I am sure many do, that heterosexuality is a genetic trait, does not change the fact that God laid down many specific rules on the proper expression of that act. Having a predisposition or desire to perform an act is not always excused even in our society. You would not take the position that a child molester who is attracted to children through a genetic trait should be able to act out. Nor would you likely accept genetic traits that attract one member of a family to another (neither of these examples is an attempt to make claims as to the relative societal impact these acts present, it simply serves to detail how genetic predisposition does not equal a moral act). A person who has a genetic flaw that leads to alcohol abuse would not be held less accountable for the death of someone in a drunken driving incident. God expects us to deny the flesh and temptations of this world, not succumb to every desire.

Your complaint would be that a homosexual cannot act out on their particular impulse while a heterosexual can find a moral, defined in the Christian sense as compliance with the rules laid out in the Bible, avenue for expression. This is a secular problem, not a Christian problem. As humans we all have natural desires and traits that are not in compliance with the rules laid down by God. What is hard for one person is easy for another. For a Christian there is really no ground for dispute or problems. There really is only acceptance or failure to accept the rules we have been given. Homosexuals are no more damned to your vision of hell than any other person who has not been saved as defined in the New Testament (which by the way does not involve Church sanctification) In making this claim you are projecting an improper understanding of scripture. A Christian can struggle with homosexuality as any other sinful impulse. Struggling against the flesh is to be expected in a Christian life. It is when someone makes the argument that what is defined as sin is not sin that one could begin to question whether that person is a true Christian.

With regards to whether it is fair or right for a Christian to try and have their belief system imposed on society, I would say that all segments of society try to impose their beliefs and values. A Christian does not lose that aspect of citizenship just because their belief system comes from a religion instead of ‘modern’ culture.

I would of course not expect your understanding of the Christian faith or that you would accept or believe in those rules that people of that faith understand to have come from God. I do think it proper to say that your failure to understand or believe in these items renders you in a poor position to detail any quandary that those in the faith may have. I appreciate your time.

Regards

A Source for Morality

Having given some thought to the issue of morality over the time I have read the Vox Popoli blog, I believe that a valid moral system can be constructed outside a religious system and without reliance on theistic grounds. This system could not possibly be a universal system of moral truth as it would be acceptable and perhaps desirable to change it over time. In effect this creates what I believe to be the truth: that there exists a universal system of moral truth that is based on absolute defined mandates of God and a series of complimentary, competing or supporting systems based on practical applications at a given point of time. To demonstrate how these systems look let us take an example of the universal moral truth of ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind’. A complimentary moral system would be one in which it is moral to show respect for that which is classified as the spiritual or divine. A competing moral system would be openly hostile (that of the general atheist commentator) or at best indifferent to this concept at all. A supporting system would be the beliefs, traditions and human created rules that dictate in what way you show obedience with this moral command.

This of course begs the question as to why certain morality systems arise. I believe the answer falls into one of several options: it was a series of choices made by people who chose or came to live in a similar vicinity with the goal of easing or defining social interactions; it reflected the preferences or desires of a dominant figure that galvanized the culture or mindset of a particular group; it is an amalgam of traits from successful human endeavors that survive to be duplicated.

The problem with both positions of the morality debate as commonly framed at Vox Popoli is the reliance on the concept of rationality. Morality and moral systems need not be rationally based because humans are not rational creatures. At best, rationality is one of several competing forces that humans use to approach the world and make choices. It is not even in all cases the best source for approaching the world and making decisions. It also seeks to limit morality to a static matter rather than a dynamic force.

Morality need not also be eternally true to be valid. It can be true in practical terms for a period of time. That is why what is true and acceptable in one era is not in another. The morality changes as the focus of a people or culture changes. In past ages obedience and respect for the king was right as it served the moral notion of loyalty to king and country and the establishment of the nation state. In present times, even respect for a president is considered a potentially unreasonable expectation as prior morality has given way to the morality of limited expression rights. Slavery and colonialism were considered either morally good or neutral as they supported the economic systems of the time. Currently, they are more generally considered morally bad as the newer passion for the masses is a form of self-determination.

Morality need not be established by a creator God to be proven valuable. Economic theories are not credited to God and yet they exist. Economics come forth in the same way as other cultural expressions. They arise through formal and informal decisions agreed upon by enough of a culture to give the power of preponderance to the system. I find it interesting that those who believe in the nearly inerrant invisible hand of the market cannot give credence to a similar construct for the system of morality. I posit a system whereby thousands to millions of individual choices shape a whole moral system that an individual works in without understanding how every point was arrived at. While someone may choose to operate outside of this system, if they deviate significantly from the norm then they risk social sanction. It is only when whole groups migrate to a different moral sphere that the moral system is observably changed.

Relativism is also not a downfall of a transitory practical moral system. Human interactions are based on relativism: she is better looking than her; that car is cooler; this milk is worth more to me that these Federal Reserve Notes… These transitory practical moral systems frequently are expressed through political manifestations. A libertarian may accept the death of an elderly person who cannot afford his medication because the compulsion of another to pay for that medicine violates a moral prohibition against theft. A liberal will take the nearly exact opposite approach to this issue. The liberal will feel that preventing that death is a greater moral good. As it currently stands, this particular society is giving more credence to the second line of moral thinking.

How do you measure a relative moral system? It is obvious that you do not measure a universal moral system. We are told that under that system (assuming that of a saved Christian) that we are at best laying up treasures in heaven and that we can expect to be ill treated in this world. However, a relativistic transitory practical morality system is an indirectly measurable thing. Granted, this measurement might possibly only be made through the study of history. One can evaluate a moral systems contribution to a sustainable culture, unifying forces in a defined community, economic outcomes and in other general categories. In effect, what serves the best interest of the most people for the longest period of time.

Relativistic transitory practical morality is a system quite similar to economics but with more extended social implications. Established or modified by humans, it serves functions unique to a specific period of time or culture. In that type of system, success is the only judge necessary. While an atheist cannot argue universal morality, a Christian or member of another faith should realize that most atheists will not accept their arguments of universal morality as the Christian faith will be viewed as simply a competing relativistic transitory practical morality. Further most Christians should realize that many things they hold to are not universal tenants, but supporting morality tenants developed over time. For your average Christian, morality is based in terms of a) the Bible b) their church and c) what they personally believe. When arguing from point’s b and c you are engaging other moral sets from a relativistic approach.

This piece in no way implies that a libertine existence is acceptable or idea. It also does not put forth the erroneous belief that all moral systems are equal. Some ideas and beliefs bear out to be superior over others, just as certain economic theories so demonstrate. What we are likely to see is a continuous cycle of moral systems that rise and fall (sometimes aiding the rise and fall of their cultures) until the Author of universal morality has His final say.