Christianity and Government

My recent posts on why I think that the health care reform issue is not a Christian issue have caused a bit of confusion and certainly some understandable questions. The basic concept is this: "If we shouldn't demand of the government what God demanded of us, then we shouldn't demand anything of the government, right?" In other words, "What's the difference between not telling the government to care for the poor and sick like we are supposed to do, and telling them to outlaw murder (or 'gay marriage' or whatever the hot topic of the day is)?"

I have two approaches to the question. One is to explain the principles behind the two concepts to show their difference. There is, if you examine it, a fundamental difference between asking the government to care for the poor and asking the government to outlaw that which is evil. I actually alluded to the fundamental difference in my previous posts. I'll give you a moment to think about it. Times up! We are commanded to care for the poor and sick and widows and orphans ... that "social gospel" stuff. We are commanded to engage in marriage a particular way, not to steal, not to murder, a host of positive and negative commands. We are commanded. The commands are to people. Enter the government. If I petition the government to encourage others in my community (by passing laws) to maintain the moral values that we are told to maintain, then the government is simply encouraging the individual accountability that God does. The government is not doing for us what we are supposed to do. It is encouraging us to do what we ought. On the other hand, if I petition the government to do what I am commanded to do rather than doing it myself, I have now stepped out from under the commands of Christ and passed them on to my government. If the government takes care of the poor and sick and widows and orphans when I am supposed to, I am not being obedient. If the government does the good works that I'm supposed to do, God doesn't get the glory. On the other hand, if the government requires its people not to commit murder (as an example) as God requires, then the government isn't doing for people what they are supposed to do. Instead, it is encouraging them to do what they are supposed to do. Do you see the difference?

The second approach is to question the questioner. I suspect that the bottom line for questions of this sort are often a smoke screen. "I think you're wrong, so I'm going to obfuscate the situation with questionable logic to suggest you're wrong." (I love that word, "obfuscate". Look it up if you need to.) The aim of the question is to say, "In the case of health care reform and in the name of 'Christianity', we should call on the government to do what God required of His people." But it's a double standard. We should do this in the name of Christianity, but we should not limit marriage to male and female partners (as an example) in the name of Christianity. Christianity has no part in that. As I pointed out before, for some reason this issue (health care reform) is a valid, Christian issue that should be addressed as such to the government, but we'd better keep our Christian values to ourselves when it comes to moral values like abortion, "same-sex marriage", and the like. In other words, the blade doesn't cut both ways in these questions. We should ask the government to involve itself in health care reform because of our Christian values, but we should not ask the government to involve itself in other moral issues because of our Christian values. Thus, I'm sensing "smoke screen".

Christians should encourage the government to hold us accountable to God's standards. Most laws are based on morality, and Christian morality is right. Eliminate "Christian morality" as a basis and all we're left with is the morality of personal preference or the morality of the majority. However, asking the government to replace our obedience to God's standards by doing it themselves is not the same thing. I hope you can see the difference.

(As a postscript, because I've heard this too many times and won't write an entire blog about it, I need to comment on an underlying belief of so many. "We can either fix this problem with Obama's reform now or we can do nothing and go on as it is." This is called a false dilemma. It is possible to address issues in health care without agreeing with the president's plan and without ignoring the problem. Why is it that no one is looking in that direction?)