Especially when the Republican primaries were at their peak, I noticed that there was a large Libertarian streak among my Lutheran friends. Personally, I can sympathize with much of the sentiment they share about limiting government’s influence over life. But there is something that I feel needs to be said. We as Lutherans can never forget that the purpose of government in God’s divine design is quite simple. Government is to reward good and punish evil. And in that sense, it is necessarily to legislate morality, despite the claims of many that such is impossible to do.
Lutherans often speak about three ways that God uses his law. The first of these uses in often referred to as the curbing use of the law. The word-picture curb is to call to mind the curbs that line city streets warning cars to stay on the straight and narrow.
Imagine for a second though if one would could cross the curb with receiving the shocking jolt it is famous for delivering to trespassers. The curb would lose much of its power over those riding within its borders. I believe that when the governments seeks to get out of the morality business, the curb loses its concrete nature and becomes nothing but a ramp that vaults trespassers quickly out of the safe confines of the street. Government is the enforcer of the first use of the Law and this by God’s design. It must do this work and Lutheran citizens must demand that it does.
There are many who wish to call marriage nothing more than a civil matter and therefore are quite fine with the the government sanctioning marriage among those to whom it is not given by God. Here I am not referring to those who believe that homosexuality is not problematic at any level, but those who claim to hold that it is sinful and yet see no great value in the government maintaining laws that hold up the design for marriage God has crafted into nature and his law.
I believe those that hold to this position need to reconsider for these reasons:
- First, its does not take seriously the depravity of the unregenerate. Any time the roughness of the curb of God’s law is filed away, the unregenerate man and woman are going naturally to take that opportunity to live in unordered chaos. They need the commandment laid in their hearts also placed before them in the laws of the government. Only when the law is internal and external can the unregenerate man be kept from degenerating into selfish anarchy. And this is needful both for the unregenerate person but perhaps even more for the people around them that we call society.
- Secondly, this position does not take seriously how integral marriage is to every other first article good we have. It ignores the fact that to war against God’s design for marriage is to war against nature itself. When marriage is lost (to heterosexual or homosexual perversion), it is only the first casualty. Soon the room is filled with victims.
- Finally, it does not take seriously that those given authority by God are always answerable to him. We often say in the prayers of the church that we beg God to cause our leaders to rule according to his good and gracious will. But as soon as we leave our knees, we act as if the constitution of our country can free them from that responsibility. Lutherans should fear the idea of theocracy only because institutionalized theocracy always enshrines a chosen caricature of God rather than the true thing. Any Lutheran against God ways ruling in their country despises the good gifts of God. We should desire that our government rules as a stewards of God’s governance.
So while a Christian can certainly want to limit government’s role in parts of society, we should not seek to limit its role to do what God designed it for. It must punish evil and reward good. We must with zeal encourage it to do so. And we must be fervent in our prayers for the same.
My concern with your position is where it ends. Yes, the government exists to reward good and to punish evil, but to what extent? Should the government outlaw divorce, make cohabitation a criminal act, and restore persecution of heretics? All of these are just as dangerous to God’s intended order as a civil recognition of certain benefits to homosexual couples.
I do not see marriage as “merely” a civil matter, but the issue at hand is really one of who should be eligible to receive certain government benefits. Libertarians do not believe in a welfare state, and therefore many of these “benefits” are not part of a libertarian system. Further, those non-governmental benefits that come with a civil recognition of marriage (inheritance, etc.) should have nothing to do with marriage in the first place. I should be free to give power of attorney, inheritance, etc. to anyone I wish. The fact that homosexuals demand “marriage” is only that government has wrapped the institution of marriage up so much into the welfare state that the average citizen sees them as inextricable parts of each other. The libertarian does not.
I would suggest that the government must concern itself with enforcing the tenets of natural law as best expressed in the intentions laid out in the ten commandments. And so yes, it should do things beyond outlawing gay marriage. The government does not allow have to do its job through simply designations of legal and illegal but can use other punitive and affirming methods. For instance, divorce needs not be outlawed outright since it is not so according to God’s design. But punitive measures against those as fault in divorce once served marriage well. No fault divorce has been and is a bane on society.
The insistence of the terms marriage reveals to me that this movement is not ultimately about civil rights. Instead they seek balm for their troubled conscience. They need someone, anyone, everyone to affirm their choice because nature constantly suggests it is wrong. If it were just about handouts, civil unions would suffice. Government owes it to these people to affirm the warning signal sounded by their conscience.
I’m not completely certain that I agree with you on God’s purpose for government. What do you base that on?
Well said, I have a passion to uphold the word of God when commenting to what we read in newspapers and blogs. It seems it is so easy to be a bigot. We should have classes on how to set in order a rebuttal to folks who see no sin. However Scripture tells us standing-up for the word of God isn’t always going to be easy. Thank God for those who have the gift to connect words of confirmination of His spoken word, without being judgemental.
Jaime-
1 Peter 2:13-14 Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.
In comment # 2 above, you stated, “The government does not allow have to do its job through simply designations of legal and illegal but can use other punitive and affirming methods” and used punishment of at-fault divorce as an example, but I’m still struggling to see how far you’d take this. I’m assuming that you’re in favor of the establishment of an official religion as a method to encourage Christianity (or would you encourage an official denomination) to discourage the “evil” of Pelagianism, etc. I just want to understand where you’re actually coming from on this.
What I’m getting at is that as a Christian and as a libertarian, I see the role of government as the preservation of order and the ensuring of the safety of its citizens. Whatever does not fall under the jurisdiction of the church would therefore fall to the government. As such, bad theology–while evil–would not be the proper jurisdiction of the government. I see unrepentant homosexuality in the same way. While evil, it does not threaten public safety, but only one’s salvation. As such, it falls under the jurisdiction of the church to excommunicate unrepentant sinners, but not under the jurisdiction of the government to regulate personal morality that does not threaten public safety.
I tend toward the libertarian viewpoint, but you’re making me think. I was not with you until you used scripture in your comment above to support your post. But is that just the ideal or does God want us actively pushing our government toward that? I’m asking because I don’t recall any instance in the Bible where Jesus or the apostles are trying to influence government, but I could be wrong. In my opinion too many Christians waste time trying to make our government enforce morality. Our attempts to live a moral life do need lead to salvation, so what use is it for our neighbor to be forced to observe certain morals if they don’t know Christ?
I’m a bit conflicted on this issue.
Ideally I do not want the government to recognize same sex couples as married. Further, even if the government calls them married, there is still no marriage there as sin, rather than God has brought the two together.
However, the function of the government is not to eliminate sin but to limit and regulate it. And I think we are at a point where that is what is going to happen in the case of “same sex marriage.” We may have to adjust to a situation in which the government regulates a sin rather than outlawing it.
It is important to note, however, that we are now at this point because Christians failed to obey Christ’s call to proclaim Law and Gospel together. Organizations such as Focus on the Family, AFA and the Ruth institute attempted to engineer change by proclaiming only Law. Liberal churches attempted to proclaim the Gospel without the Law. But there is no Gospel without the Law and the Law without the Gospel can change no one and, therefore, can not change conglomerates of people such as communities or nations.
Perhaps the best way to impact our nation and its political landscape is simply by being Christian and proclaiming Law and Gospel in all of our vocations.
I think Pastor Karl Hess has an excellent blog entry on this topic at http://deprofundisclamaviadtedomine.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/imagine-no-religion. the second half of that article especially is excellent.
Phil – appreciate the verses.
Why don’t Christians lobby for Buddhists and Muslims to be jailed, or divorcees?
Josh: I do think keeping the teaching of the church pure is the domain of the church. Perhaps we could say that the government should allow belief (first commandment), the freedom of expression of that religion (second commandment) and freedom to assemble for religion (third commandment)at the least. I suppose it rests upon whether we understand the first table of the law as part of natural law. Those things given to natural knowledge should be reflected in civil governance. Those known only by revelation of the Word are given to Church for she has the Word.
You say: “I see the role of government as the preservation of order and the ensuring of the safety of its citizens.” There is no more central order to society than the family. I think you underestimate the harm done when the basic order of all society is lost. How many people have been harmed by the perversion of marriage in heterosexual circles? Think of all the children tossed around in the last few decades. Why add to the pain by further confusing the central order of society?
Andy, I think we should encourage our government to fulfill their vocation like we would encourage any other thing or person to do so. In our case we can encourage not only in words but through our vote as well. If we who know the Lord do not encourage them to this end, how will many of them even know they are accountable to God. We must be prophets to the kings of our day.
As far as the law not leading to salvation, you are of course right. However, God’s ordering is though good in general and is the revelation of God’s will for his creation. So even if they cannot be saved in this way, society can be ordered well according to it.
Matt: The church is to proclaim law and gospel. The government is solely a law institution. And we should encourage it in its role. I have no trouble with church organizations encouraging the government to be true to their calling. The problem is when the church itself thinks that that is the point of the church to simply order society.
True change of course only comes through law and gospel rightly proclaimed and that is the role of the church. But the basic order of society can be kept by the government punishing evil and rewarding good.
Jaime, see my response to Josh as it deals with these same questions.
Phil, what I am reacting to is partly the cause-du-jour in the LCMS that somehow we will be able to correct the government through the application of natural law.
While it is true that the government can only wield the sword in application of the law and it is not the place of the government to proclaim Gospel, it is an illogical conclusion, far too common in our synod, that the church, when encouraging the people who comprise the government, is limited to only law. Our task is to proclaim both law and Gospel at all times so that people will know salvation and, in turn, while exercising their vocations, will desire to so in a manner that is in accord with God’s will and calling.
You say, “I have no trouble with church organizations encouraging the government to be true to their calling. The problem is when the church itself thinks that that is the point of the church to simply order society.” Well, that is precisely the problem. Too many para-christian groups have seen that as being the only, or at least the main, point of the church.
Now, as we turn to a natural Law sans Gospel approach, we are merely duplicating the efforts such organizations have made in the last 40 years, efforts which have proved to be useless and, often, counter-productive. (remember the Law without the Gospel only increases sin – and this applies to the first use of the law as well as the second or Romans 1-5 would make little sense)
Especially in a democracy/republic the basic order of society can not be kept if there is no true change among the populace who form and elect the government.
So we can follow the example of such groups as the AFA and the Ruth Institute and the result will be that we hurry the decline of our government. Or we can start proclaiming Gospel along with the Law, even when addressing politics.
Forget the role of government, what is morally disgusting about Libertarianism is in practice it flies in the face of Christ’s basic commandment to love God above all things and love thy neighbor as thyself.
I think reconciling Libertarianism and capitalism–and the self-love, greed, and indifference to the suffering of others it promotes–with Lutheranism and CHristianity takes far more revisionist readings of Scripture and doublethink than reconciling homosexuality with Christianity.
Christ explicitly commands us to love the poor, feed the hungry, be kind, be compassionate, and so forth. He did not tell us to tell the poor they should just work harder or let the market decide.
And yet, American Christianity today is spending a disproportionate amount of time harping over an issue that affects a minority of the population. You say the Bible means I can’t be both a homosexual and a Christian? Fine. But, that same Bible says it’s pretty tricky for a rich man to get himself into heaven. SOmething about camels and needles.
I’m sick and tired of hearing about what a horrible sinner I am by people who support economic systems that are definitely not God-pleasing.
Matt makes an interesting distinction about Focus on the Family promoting law without Gospel and liberal churches promoting Gospel but no law. I disagree with the latter assertion in the sense I”d argue they promote Gospel and law–but they focus on different areas of the law.
But the problem with the approach to homosexuality is the matter of proportion. In any Christian debate about homosexuality, someone is bound to quote the “ALl have fallen short” in order to try to say “We love all sinners, but hate the sin.”
But when you just look at how much time and attention is paid to the “sin” of homosexuality instead of the sin of male heterosexual premarital sex, materialism and greed, corruption, pride, etc.–all of which are far more widespread than gay sex, it begs the question of why so much attention is paid to *certain* sins and not others.
It becomes very Orwellian: “All sins are equal but some are more equal than others.”
And I think it’s that tendency that makes the Church very hypocritical in the eyes of non-Christians.
Trey,
Certainly all are tempted and often fall into the trap of rebuking sins they do not struggle with. And when a person or the church does this, we must admit that. It is not that we must stop rebuking homosexual sin, but rebuke all that leads away from Christ.
I guarantee that inside our churches, you will hear much more often about heterosexual sexual temptations, greed, etc than homosexual sin. But in public the church must rebuke those who in public flaunt their sin and take pride in them. You rarely hear of a greed pride parade or a premarital sex pride parade. So while the church may at time focus on a sin because it wish to justify itself, it also focuses on this sin because no other sin in our society is so constant in its demand for approval. No other sin is flaunted with such pride by its adherents.
Trey indeed, the church must be concerned about the poor and about justice. And often you are right that Christians has way to easily tied itself with the economic assumptions of the party which supports its moral issues. However the same is true for those on the left. It is assumed by one side that God likes capitalism and by the other that he loves welfare programs based in socialistic ideas. What he loves in compassion, mercy, and justice. We must judge all systems in that way.
The reason Jesus said that the rich have trouble entering into heaven is because they are too proud in their sin. It is their identity. The same warning stands against homosexuality. It stands against any sin we love and take pride in.
Do you not agree that the law has an ordering effect on law, regardless of faith?
The Church must always preach law and gospel, and I agree that ultimately the hope for our nation should only rest in the hope that the people will turn, receive grace, and live.
But the government’s vocation is to maintain order through rewarding good and evil. And as citizens encouraging it to do its part, we must appeal to natural law.