The recent events in Colorado have given rise to the usual arguments about gun control, American violence, and the like. Jason Alexander (of all people) has written a wonderful piece which deftly demolishes the usual right-wing ideological, constitutional, and would-be practical arguments with a passion and clarity that almost causes one to forgive him for his part in "Shallow Hal." What I would like to do here is to take this occasion to discuss my view of the Christian understanding of government as it relates to this contemporary issue.
Part, if not the major part, of our current political stalemate is the fact that deeply-held opinions about the nature of government are so disparate. The right wing, whilst generally complaining about government itself, or at least government being too "big," seems to operate on the assumption that governments are a necessary evil meant only to be the referee, as it were, in the economic competition between individuals. It has no stake whatever in ensuring who, if anyone, "wins" in the competition, but only making sure that certain rules are followed. It might not be a fair contest, but that is because some people have certain advantages (like natural talent in a sport) which naturally mean they will succeed while others fail. For the government to intervene on behalf of the losers is akin to a referee calling specious fouls against an NBA superstar in an attempt to level the playing field.
The left wing, on the other hand, believes governments exist precisely to level the playing field. Whether it has succeeded can be known based on the outcomes. If a few people continually win and others fail, that is a legitimate cause for concern and action.
It is not always this simple, of course. Often, sometimes in the same breath, a conservative will insist that the government has no business ensuring outcomes, and then also insist that a laissez-faire posture on the part of governments vis-a-vis the economy (low taxes, little spending and minimal regulations) is, ironically perhaps, the best way to ensure the most prosperity for the largest number of people--a desirable outcome. This would be a genuine argument that could be made, if only we could agree once and for all that outcomes are relevant to government policy and that general facts can be trusted to give us the information we need here. Unfortunately, this conversation rarely, if ever, takes place, probably because of the differing philosophical commitments I have outlined. The conservatives always have recourse to the tactic of dismissing the relevance of the discussion when the facts are against them, and in my experience they do not fail to avail themselves of it. In truth, they cannot seriously engage in the debate on outcomes. They only wish to undermine the left-wing position from within.
But what does the Christian gospel tell us about our lives as political beings? I can no longer think, as I once did, that the pacifist position settles the matter. The Sermon on the Mount might be interpreted along these lines, but then again it might not. It is not at all clear that the theological meaning, if any, of government is in any way directly at issue in this text. The locus classicus of the 13th chapter of Romans, on the other hand, is clearly concerned with governmental authority, which it clearly assumes is inclusive of "bearing the sword." The pacifist position, in light of this passage, must insist that Christians, while living under governments and even giving them theological justification (however relative), are bound vocationally to resolute non-participation therein. But this strikes me as inherently illogical. If governments' work is God's work, Christians can hardly stand aloof from it.
The best solution to the problem that I can come up with begins with theological anthropology. If humans, in light of the Gospel, are bodily creatures called to covenant faithfulness to God, there is an inevitable duality to their existence, the differentiated relation between what is traditionally called "body" and "soul." Karl Barth's formula of the relation between creation and the covenant is instructive. Creation, he said, is the external basis of the covenant, and the covenant is the internal basis of creation. What he meant, I think, is that the covenant is the eternal purpose of our creaturely existence, whereas our creaturely existence is the necessary means of that covenant. These two realities are asymmetrically related, and because of this, necessarily differentiated. They cannot be dissociated; nor can they be collapsed into one another. Creation has no independent meaning, but as related to the covenant it has a certain relative legitimacy and relevance.
What this means about us as body and soul is that our bodies have the purpose of physical--temporal and spatial--actualization of our existence as God's covenant partners (our souls). The body is not the soul, but it's purpose is to sustain it. Therefore our bodily existence has a relative legitimacy, and we are bound as Christians to give it its due, while not treating it as an end in itself. Within our existence as bodies, clearly, economics and politics have theological import. Economics has to do with the material sustenance of our bodies in their inter-relation. Politics concerns the use of force, inevitably against bodies, for the sake of dealing with the violence that can be brought against bodies in our fallen world.
I am being somewhat intentionally vague when I say the government exists to "deal with" violence. It is arguable what this "dealing" necessarily entails, as we shall see. But that violence is at issue is a reasonable inference. The Apostle Paul in the aforementioned Romans 13 said that government is God's means to "execute wrath on the wrongdoer." That these "wrongdoers" are the violent is not directly specified in the text. That is my own theologically-informed interpretation. However, it is a legitimate one, I think, based on other texts. Despite its questionable textual provenance, the story of Jesus being confronted with the adulterer in John 8:1-11 is instructive on this point. Jesus here probably indicates disapproval of capital punishment for sexual offenses as such (i.e., ones that are not inherently violent). This does not lessen their severity as sins (cf. Matt. 5:27-32) but, I think, it puts them out of the realm of governmental interference. With a call to repentance, Jesus let the woman go. He did not suggest that she be fined instead of stoned. It is reasonable, therefore, to assume that the "wrongdoers" mentioned in Romans 13 are the violent only.
But what is the government's duty in dealing with violence? Paul says it "executes wrath" on its perpetrators. This could be taken to mean they are to punish them with reprisals, but not necessarily try to prevent the violence. But prevention is, I think, clearly implied. Possible punishment to be feared clearly indicates deterrence, which is a kind of prevention. Thus, I think it is reasonable to infer that prevention of violence is at least part of the government's raison d'etre as established by God.
There are many issues raised by these reflections. For instance, the fact that there is such a thing as economic violence--an example: refusing life-saving medical care to those who cannot afford it--would seem to indicate a legitimate place for governmental interference in such matters as part of its responsibility. I would like to focus here, however, on the issue of gun control. The usual argument against it seems to assume that the use of deadly force in the prevention of crime is a legitimate activity of all citizens and not just a government prerogative. The biggest problem with this assumption, as I see it, is that it blurs the distinction between government and its agents on the one hand and the rest of civil society on the other. Whilst purporting to limit government, therefore, it seems to succeed only in expanding it indefinitely to include everyone. If the very point of government is the bearing of the sword (i.e., weapons), this argument seems to assume that the government is everywhere and nowhere simultaneously. This will not do theologically. There is a legitimate place for the limitation of the use of deadly force to a singular entity within a jurisdiction. That is what government, essentially, is. And if the use of force to stop crime is essentially limited to governments, there are few legitimate reasons why private citizens need to be allowed to own weapons.
Hopefully with these thoughts we have established a basis on which to discuss various political issues. It should be clear how this perspective cuts across typical political dichotomies. I know that I am not likely to make many friends with these words, but it is, as I say, the best I can do right now. I am trying to deal with complex issues on their own terms, not make everyone happy (which isn't possible in any case). I know there is no easy and air-tight position, and many of the theological options have their merits. If you have challenges and questions, I welcome them. If all you have for me is abuse, however, I'd appreciate you keeping it to yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment