There's a lot about government in the Old Testament, since it is largely a record of the only legitimate theocracy ever established. However, what may be most striking about that government is that within a few hundred years of its establishment, there was a coup d'etat where the people rejected God as King and demanded a human king. What they got, of course, was Saul....impressive exterior, weak interior. And, it's downhill from there, despite the reigns of David and Solomon.
However, as Christians, we find the New Testament describes government as having one primary responsibility ... maintaining justice.
- Jesus talks about "rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" with regard to taxes
- Peter instructs Christians to be subject to the government, and states that God has given it the responsibility to punish those who do wrong, and reward those who do right.
- Paul says the same thing in the longest passage on the topic (Romans 13:1-7), which includes the statement that the government does not "bear the sword in vain". This seems to provide a basis for the death penalty and for the use of force in defending against evil.
The traditional answer in America has been "no." The traditional Biblical understanding was that the injunctions regarding care for the poor, sick, etc were directed to believers by their Lord.
Because the government doesn't acknowledge Jesus as Lord (and, frankly, cannot do so since the Government is not an individual), it can't obey this command. And, as previously noted, is not given the responsibility to Provide.
Traditionally, individuals (and volunteer groups of individuals, including churches) took on the responsibility of Providing for those in need. This has been criticized on several grounds, including:
- Uneven provision - some geographic areas were much poorer than others, and some people were not provided for because of their race, sex, etc (e.g., the lack of care for the Grecian widows is a NT example)
- Perceived lack of compassion - some people were not cared for because they were considered to have "made their own bed"; in other words there was a concern that protecting people from the consequences of bad decisions kept them from learning to resist evil
- Differences in wealth - the Bible is not unique its criticism of those who are wealthy and refuse to help others. Much of the social criticism of the past 150+ years in the West is focused on disparities in wealth. Although some of this reflects a "politics of envy", it is perhaps more understandable when you consider the exponential growth in worldwide GDP in recent history (here's another diagram), especially in the West. (and, here's another interesting chart...relative percentage of GDP).
However, I wonder if the primary reason for enthroning Government as Chief Provider was the emergence of a belief "God is dead." Beginning in the Enlightenment and established by the late 19th century, this belief eventually removed God as the chief source of a social morality that emphasized individual voluntary care of the needy.
"Survival of the fittest" became the new morality and with it came libertarian notions of capitalism (e.g., Ayn Rand) and a eugenics movement that remains strong, although its emphasis and language has changed (e.g., from forced sterilization of "undesirable" women to large abortion clinics in poor urban neighborhoods).
In the late 19th and early 20th century, Liberal Protestantism joined with secular humanists to move care for the needy from a voluntary private activity to an involuntary public activity. Throughout the 20th century, Government grew rapidly as the Provider-in-Chief, and local voluntary organizations shrank as a share of help provided.
Whether it is possible to have a secular society where Provision is local and voluntary is a question I'll leave unaddressed ... frankly, I'm skeptical of libertarian notions in this area. I think that if a society dethrones God, you'll get a god (in the form of government) that is hostile to both the local and the voluntary.
Regardless, there are cracks appearing in this century-long trend to enthrone Government as a Provider god.
The fundamental crack is monetary. As Margaret Thatcher said, " ... and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite characteristic of them."
Iceland, Ireland, Greece, the UK, Spain, Portugal, etc are in dire financial straits. Decades of excessive taxes and regulations have severely eroded their ability to create wealth, while Japan, the Asian tigers, and, more recently, China and India have become fierce global competitors. At the same time, these European countries have made promises of Provision they can't keep. These include public pensions, retirement (ala Social Security), health care, and education.
The U.S. is not quite as bankrupt, and is protected to some degree by the fact that the dollar is the world's reserve currency. However, the trends in spending and regulation, along with similar Provider promises that cannot be kept, mean that significant spending cuts (in projected spending required to keep promises made) are inevitable. I recently heard that ~170 million people in the U.S. are directly or indirectly dependent on government (welfare, Social Security, contractors, employees, etc).
As is clear with the riots in Europe, it's ugly when those dependent on a Provider government realize that their god can't keep his promises...I'm reminded of the self-mutilation by the prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel.
A second issue is related to centralization of Provision work. A key rationale for centralization is the efficiencies associated with economies of scale. For some activities, this makes sense. You and your neighbor are not going to set up a car or chip manufacturing operation in your garage. These activities require multi-billion dollar factories to be competitive.
However, when it comes of Providing for the needy, centralization has significant costs. These are primarily associated with
- determining what the needs are - each person is different, and each need is different. A centralized bureaucracy is going to put people in boxes that may or may not fit a specific situation.
- determining how best to address those needs - here is where the "moral hazard" of centralization becomes a real problem. The easiest way to address needs is to simply throw money at it. It's impossible to provide the kind of care that teaches someone "how to fish" unless there is a relationship. And, relationships require someone local and involved. Even local governments generally fail to achieve the relational involvement that a voluntary group can provide. And, frankly, from a Christian perspective, most of the moral problems that cause poverty can't be resolved unless the whole person (physical, spiritual, emotional, moral) is addressed. This is not something government can do.
- detecting fraud - because non-governmental organizations are volunteer and are usually local with small budgets, they are much more efficient in their use of time and money. Committing fraud on the scale of Medicare (e.g. a recent L.A. area case involve $160 million) is almost impossible when Provision is highly decentralized.
Christians currently face a "white field" when it comes to the gospel. The failure of modern and postmodern efforts to adequately address what it means to be human (spiritually, physically, socially, morally, etc) is becoming impossible to ignore, even for the most intellectually and emotionally schizophrenic.
The crises that result from the failures of a Government Provider god that is over 100 years old will only make the field whiter.
No comments:
Post a Comment