It is a joy to see a former student—Laura Rector—thriving and doing doctoral work. She has taken the opportunity to respond to a former professor (me) in print (on 11/08/09, to my 10/25/09 Sun piece on health care). It is all the more interesting because her current mentor (Dr. Glen Stassen) was my professor in Christian Ethics twenty years ago at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. A small world.
(Note:  it appears that my original piece and Ms. Rector's has "timed out" and is no longer on the Jackson Sun web page).

I was not sure whether to write a response. But given the nature of Ms. Rector’s response, and how her response entails a bit of a caricature and misrepresentation of my piece, I thought I would post this response.

First, Ms. Rector gets off on the wrong foot by mischaracterizing my piece. She summarizes my piece by saying that I “essentially” say “I don’t know what Jesus would do.” I in fact did not write that (or “essentially” write that), but actually wrote the following: “Jesus would (and does) command people to repent of their sins, care for the poor, the sick, the lame and the downtrodden. And Christians are commanded to do the same.” I am unclear as to why she ignores this. While approaching public policy questions with “what would Jesus do?” can be provocative as well as helpful in stimulating thought, one must be careful. There are real (and insuperable!) distinctions between the Christian and Jesus: Jesus was (and is) the second person of the Trinity, I am not; Jesus is Lord of all political authorities, I am not; Jesus bore the sins of the world, I cannot. You get the picture.

Second, it is no “leap of logic,” as Rector writes, to suggest that (1) concern about human sin means that (2) some Christians “often [are] not inclined to want to grant large amounts of power to any governmental body.” Given the blood spilled by various totalitarian regimes past and present, wariness of centralized political power seems be a wise and prudent (and logical) position. But also, a key difference between (1) civil government and (2) private associations is obvious: the civil government possesses the power of force as well as the threat of force. To suggest, as Rector does, that “governmental options” are a helpful way of checking power is a tad optimistic. Rector then—for some reason—references Evangelicals for Human Rights, an organization founded by my former colleague David Gushee, who has collaborated at times with Rector’s mentor Glen Stassen. But who has trounced those human rights which Evangelicals for Human Rights seeks to guard?: various governments. Exactly. And that is the point, and it is of course Lord Acton’s point: “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” To reference an organization that is purportedly concerned about human rights abuses committed by various governments (Evangelicals for Human Rights) when criticizing the notion that Christians should be wary of granting increasing amounts of power to a centralized government is more than a little ironic. The question is still the same as that put to Socrates: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? “Who will guard the guardians?” (i.e., who will guard those in power?)

Third, my argument about the constitution would clearly not be affirmed by the majority of Republican Party leadership, at least by most Republicans at the federal level. My argument that the federal government does not have the authority to overhaul America’s health care industry is not generally affirmed by Republicans (at least at the federal level). In general, both Republicans and Democrats have a long history of ignoring the U.S. Constitution’s limitation on federal power. For many decades many Republicans and Democrats alike have been equal opportunity abusers of the U.S. Constitution.

Fourth, if Christians are serious about asking “what would Jesus do?” then some work must be done in understanding the nature of political power, authority, and structure, particularly in the U.S. context. Unlike many countries, the United States are states who have given very limited authority to the federal government. Thus, the U.S. is more like a federation of republics than a unitary “state.” The states have granted the federal government enumerated powers (concerning the U.S. Congress, see Article 1, Section 8), and these powers do not include the authority to enact any of the current proposed federal legislation being bandied about. Thus, it would be illegal and an abuse of power for the federal government to try and overhaul the health care industry (the commerce clause not withstanding).

And this of course leads to my rather cautious suggestion: “What Jesus would not do, it would seem, would be to encourage those in power to break the law without good reason.” Given that Romans 13 affirms the legitimacy of civil government (even if St. Augustine is correct that the need for civil government arises because of sin), then Christian should think twice about violating the law, and in encouraging their elected federal officials to do so. There are certainly times when following Jesus would mean disobeying the civil government: if the civil government is either (1) commanding citizens to sin, or (2) prohibiting Christians from obeying—it is time to “obey God rather than man.” One thing our elected federal officials should do is obey the limitations of power that we as citizens of various states have granted them.

My piece was meant to offer a brief response to the chiding of a local friend (Tom Bohs), whose shot at local churches—on my reading—misfired. Christians should indeed be on the forefront of caring for those most needy among us, and for calling our federal representatives to enact just, right and legal legislation (the redundancy is intended). We are indeed—as Rector suggests—called to be prophetic. Christians should prophetically warn those in power about injustice, and should wisely think through how to promote justice and to seek the good of the city. In our day, given the gross evil and injustice committed by various governments, the truly prophetic warning might just be to caution against the growth of federal power. Prophets often called people to remember, and it is probably necessary in the current day to call people to remember that utopian (u-topia = “no place”) dreams of absolute justice in the here and now ushered in through powerful federal guardians really do lead to nowhere (and often to a bloody nowhere). One of the most helpful things Christians might do in relation to calls for increased governmental power in our day is to point out the obvious: the call to care for the poor and needy need not translate into support for the expansion and growth of the leviathan state.

• Prev
• Next