Tag Archive for 'governments'

Christianity and Covenants: Christians And Employers

This is the third article in a multi-part series examining contracts and Christianity. Here is the full list of written and upcoming works in this series:

Christians And Employers
I want to preface by saying that some may find this article offensive. However, my goal here is not to judge the decisions that others have made or to condemn them, but to try and look at some biblical passages and consider what they mean with regard to the topic of employment. Let me also state that I am not coming at this from a position of compliance or adherence, my own employment history is full of disregard for biblical principles, and the course to right it is ongoing and has required many sacrifices. So please consider this as a word from one sinner saved by grace to another.

The most fundamental question to ask in working out the mess or the relationship between Christians and their employers is this: what kind of contract do Christians have with their employers?

The Greco-Roman cultural context of the new testament had several classes of labour relationships: slaves/masters, employees/employers, patrons/clients, heads of house/family and others. So when Peter writes “Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear…”(1 Peter 2:18-20) or Paul writes “Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters…” (Ephesians 6:5), we have to keep it in it’s proper historical and cultural context.

Modern employees most certainly are not in the same category as ancient slaves. This is because employees are freely contracted - and they have been able to do this because our culture views a contract as an agreement between two or more parties or equal status. In the ancient world, slaves (and to a lesser extent: debtors and clients) had an inferior status to their masters - and this includes bond-slaves. It’s a concept entirely radical in a modern society which holds equality as a fundamental part of humanity.

Slavery is a relationship also defined by force - that is the threatening or delivering of aggressive violence. People who are being forced to work against their will, without an explicit contract, are slaves. In this sense, the relation of most people to their governments then, is a slave/master relationship - but this will have to be dealt with elsewhere, as we are focussing on employment. However, employment is a voluntary contract - not a coercive or forced one. We choose to work for an employer.

But the point is this: that the biblical language about slaves/servants and masters in not applicable to most employment. You boss is not your master and your co-workers aren’t slaves. However, this doesn’t mean that the bible has nothing to say about employees.

Making Employment Contracts
Because contracts with employers are voluntary, that is, we make them by our own free choice and as people of equal status with our employers, then we are responsible for our decisions. These relationships fall under the same kind of categories as “vows” in the bible - verbal (or written) agreements, often involving mutual obligation. And the bible has plenty to say about these relationships. A few examples:

Proverbs 20:25 - It is a snare for a man to devote rashly something as holy, And afterward to reconsider his vows.

Ecclesiastes 5:4-5 - Pay what you have vowed— Better not to vow than to vow and not pay.

Luke 16:9-13 - And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by unrighteous mammon, that when you fail, they may receive you into an everlasting home. He who is faithful in what is least is faithful also in much; and he who is unjust in what is least is unjust also in much. Therefore if you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? And if you have not been faithful in what is another man’s, who will give you what is your own? No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”

If we agree to do something for our employer, then we should do it, and we should do it with quality and diligence. We need to leave no question that we have fulfilled our vows.

But implied here is a bigger principle - the place where the most care is needed is before we even make an employment contract. We should make vows that can exist in harmony with our Christian lifestyle and worship of God. Before even entering into an employment contract, we need to be asking basic questions:

Could this job interfere with my Christian obligations? As Christians, we are to be part of a local church, sharing the gospel and ministering to the body. It would not be wise to get a job which interferes with these things. Would my workplace be a gospel-free zone? Would my work schedule cause dramatic conflicts with fellowship and ministry in my local church? Does my job place undue burdens on my family, and my ability to lead/serve them? Are my children or spouse lacking in the reception of my biblical role/responsibilities because of this job?

Could this job require me to engage in immoral/unbiblical activities?  We might be surprised, if we thought about it, that there are a large number of culturally acceptable jobs which might go against biblical principles. I wonder how many soldiers ask themselves if what they are doing is defending against aggression or if they are actually engaging in a hostile initiation of violence against others. Could my my job be exploiting others? Might it promote, fund or contribute towards advocacy or endorsement of sinful or immoral lifestyle?

Could this job stifle my worship? We need to beware of taking on so much responsibility to our employer that it affects our mental and emotional capacity to engage meaningfully with God. Again the best solution is pro-active: could this job/promotion lead to me not having enough time to pray, to read my bible or consider who God is and what he has done for me?

It’s Never Too Late
We often don’t realise we’ve bit off more than we can chew with our employers until we’ve already made the contract. The bible takes this into account in other places - such as with divorces or marrying an unbeliever. We’re commanded not to do these things, but God has foreseen our inability - and yet he still sent his son to die on the cross for us. He knows that we are but dust. Just because we can’t share the gospel at work, have neglected the raising of our children or find ourselves “too busy” to commune with God does not mean we are hopeless or “outside” of God’s capacity to work with us. My family needs this word just as much as anyone - as we have both taken on plenty of contracts which have interfered with our Christian faith.

Many jobs and responsibilities can be drawn down, altered and amended to provide more time for more important things. However, this could mean that our material lifestyles must also be drawn down. My wife and I will likely never own a house or have a new car - but that is a small sacrifice. And Christians are not entitled to a middle or even lower-middle class lifestyle.

Ideally, a person who is working in an unethical profession would quit as soon as contractually possible. With some military jobs - this may not be possible, but even the military often allows for transfers/demotions to positions which are not directly contributing to the killing or harming of others.

Its easy for a person with a blog to say what should and shouldn’t be, and then throw out life-altering solutions. Trust me, it’s impacting me as well (just wait until I talk about debt!). But the point is that biblical principles aren’t measured relative to the contracts and vows we’ve made - rather, our life needs to conform to these principles.

Christianity And Covenants: The Logic of Christian Relationships

I would like to do a series on Christian relationships - specifically, the logical, theological and philosophical nuts and bolts of how and why Christians form relationships with God, Christians and non-Christians. As I have been thinking about this topic, the word which often popped into my mind was “contracts” rather than “covenants” or “relationships” but I am going to forego using that word because in modern vernacular “contract” has an economic connotation, and I don’t want to confuse this issue.

The covenants/relationships at which I plan to look are (though I may think of more as time goes on):

  • God and Christians - what kind of covenant exists between God and man? How do issues of free-will and choice come into play? What are the significant differences between God and man that affect this relationship?
  • Christians and Marriage - is Marriage a “give and take” relationship? Is there a designated “head” of a marriage? What is the fundamental definition of love in marriage?
  • Christians and the Local Church - what should Christians expect from pastors and ministers? How should Christians serve the church? How is the local church supported? What about fellowship?
  • Christians and Employers - Does the bible’s language about “slaves” and “masters” apply to business relationships? How can Christians balance obligations to God and obligations to employers? What about work practices and rules which are unethical or restrict Christians?
  • Christians and Finances/Debt - what kind of contractual obligations do Christians have with their debt? Should Christians go into debt? Is it legitimate for Christians to pay/charge interest? Is bankruptcy a legitimate option for Christians?
  • Christians and Governments - What role do politics have in the life of a Christian? How should Christians decide when and how to obey leaders? What kind of covenant (if any) exists between Christians and governments?
  • Christians and Animals and the Environment - what is the nature of a Christian’s interaction with animals and nature? What about pollution? What about property rights? Is animal abuse wrong, and if so, why?

Some Ground Work on Covenants
The most important thing to look at when it comes to these topics is the terms which are being used. A covenant is a (usually) formal agreement between two or more parties to do something or not do something: Colin and Jason agree to be best friends forever. It can also involve a condition: Colin will be Gabe’s best friend forever, if Gabe emails him at least once a year.

Some covenants are formed only for a specific purpose - such as to accomplish a goal or trade material goods: Colin will give a cookie to Phil, if Phil will give Colin a juice-box. Or, in bigger contexts: if a country declares war on England, the United State will declare war against that country.

In additional there are also unilateral covenants (or promises) which are made by one party to another: Colin will love Sadie as long as he lives. These are covenants where there is no condition (no “if”) and there is no agreement or consent from the other party. Again, these can be quite drastic. Japan declaring war on the United States, for example, doesn’t require that the US do or receive anything - it is a unilateral promise by Japan.

Covenants, contracts and relationships make up all of human interaction (including human interaction with God). This is the major premise of my entire discussion on this topic: that human beings have the capacity to act, the inherent right to form covenants and also are the beneficiaries of some unilateral covenants. Moreover, without these things, human relationships could not happen.

Also, if there is anything I’ve missed - feel free to ask about it, or, even better, address the issue yourself in the comments section or submit it for publication.

Links: French Protests

A million frenchmen protest

In particular, they called on him to raise low-end wages and unemployment benefits and to make it harder for business leaders to fire employees when profits sink.

I just thought I’d add a small commentary on this link. French protests have a reputation for being passionate (to put it nicely). The way that the French petition their governments is a model of activism.

However, the protests in France are distinctly different from those in the US. With some exceptions of course, US protests (such as this week’s Tea Party) are typically about protesting actions which the government has done that violate rights. French protests however have recently taken the position of petitioning the government to take rights away on their behalf.

U.N. panel says world should ditch dollar

Traffic cameras could help wipe out city’s projected deficit

Ron Paul’s insane cameo in the upcoming Bruno movie

The Pope Is Not Welcome in Jerusalem

The Inflection Is Near?

“When we look back, 2008 will be a momentous year in human history. Our children and grandchildren will ask us, ‘What was it like? What were you doing when it started to fall apart? What did you think? What did you do?’ Often in the middle of something momentous, we can’t see its significance. But for me there is no doubt: 2008 will be the marker — the year when ‘The Great Disruption’ began.”

Where Anarchists Respond Wrongly to Government

In my last article, I argued that in anarchist terminology,government is a corporation. I received a lot of comments that argued that the actions taken by government are immoral. These include theft of land (government claims ownership to all land in their borders using the anarchist definition of “own”), opt out contracts (taxes for rent/services) rather than opt in, and abuse of force against the human rights of individuals. What anarchists refuse to understand is that adopting anarchism won’t change this, because we already live in an anarchy.

Defining the Relationship Between Anarchy and Government
Anarchy as a modern philosophy doesn’t mean a complete lack of rules or structure. Instead, it is based on the assumption that a person cannot have their physical liberty, life or property restricted without that person’s agreement unless another person’s rights are being infringed upon against their will. In such cases, force can legitimately be used by any party, preferably using an arbitrator which both sides agree is neutral to resolve the dispute.

There is no “higher authority” of the majority to tell any individual what to do with their life, property, or personal efforts. The common argument AGAINST anarchism is that without government, corporations will abuse their capability of using force to abuse the individual. The common response to this is that just as corporations can be abusive, so can government. Where both sides drop the ball is in realizing that there is nothing “magical” about a government. A government IS a large corporation, and like any other corporation it can sometimes abuse its power.

Protection Rackets in Our Current Anarchy
Anarchists like to suggest that without government, people would contract with private companies to get their personal security. The “free market” would meet their needs. The problem with this is that the market (whether free or not) is ALREADY meeting the needs of individuals for freedom, in the form of huge corporations called governments. Individuals often choose to remain customers of these corporations despite regular abuses due to their desire for the services they offer.

I have suggested in the past (on our forums) that anarchist protection services would act like mafia “protection rackets”. I was told that this would be prevented in an anarchist society by “security insurance companies”. All of this is based though on the assumption that we don’t already live in an anarchist world. In fact, we do! Government ARE the protection rackets I suggested would result. Their use of force IS the consolidation of violence into the biggest and most powerful wielders. And nowhere to be seen are the “insurance companies” I was told the free market would demand.

Truly “Free” Markets Are A Myth
The fact is that there is no such thing as a “free” market. Force is ALWAYS a possibility, and unless both parties have agreed to a common wielder of force stronger than either of them they are subject to the other party deciding to implement their own force. This force then sets the rules for the market, but is the only alternative to both sides setting the rules based on what they have the physical power to implement. This might not be a moral result, but it is a human result.

The problem with anarchism as a modern theory is that like “true” communism it relies on fundamental changes in human nature. Man will no more voluntarily respect the rights of others than they will voluntarily seek to maximize their contribution to society. Individuals MUST band together for personal and corporate protection, and in doing so they ALWAYS end up in a group that commits immoral acts as well. The answer is not to dissolve such groups or demonize their existence, but to try to work with them to cease committing immoral acts and to compensate their past victims.

Anarchists cannot consistently call for the dissolution of governments while upholding the right of individuals to form corporations and use force for self protection. What they CAN do consistently is call for governments as corporate entities to abide by the same moral rules they would hold any other corporation to. They should not be “anti-government”, but rather “anti-immoral corporation”.

Why I Am Not An Anarchist

This essay responds to the idea that if small government is good, then no government is better.

Two Kinds of Libertarians
If a small government is good, no government at all must be better, right? Some libertarians agree, some don’t. That point of disagreement defines the two basic forms of libertarianism.

  • Anarchist libertarians believe true liberty can only be achieved if there is no government at all. Any form of government is oppressive.
  • Minarchist libertarians believe that a government is necessary for liberty. The ideal government is not oppressive.

Or to put it more succinctly:

  • Anarchy = no government
  • Minarchy = minimal government

Governments Abuse Power
The main problem with governments is that they can use their power to oppress the public and violate the rights of the people. At first glance that makes anarchism appealing. As one anarchist put it, how can minarchists trust “the minimal, libertarian state to restrain itself, and to refrain from using its own powers” to coerce and oppress the public? (The Minarchist’s Dilemma) There’s nothing to stop the government from using its power for evil. The only way to prevent that is to eliminate the government completely.

Ayn Rand offers a succinct explanation of why anarchy cannot and does not work.

[A] society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.

“The Nature of Government” (PDF document)

I’m a Minarchist
I’m a minarchist, not an anarchist. There are practical reasons for my belief. E.g., I don’t think anarchism is workable in a fallen world filled with sinful people. It devolves into might-makes-right. Even Ayn Rand, a hostile critic of religion, recognizes that fact. But for now I want to focus on biblical reasons to support a minarchy. According to Romans 13, God establishes earthly governments and expects Christians to submit to them in obedience to God. Submitting is not optional for Christians.

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God (Romans 13:1).

God’s Purpose for Government
OK then, submitting to the government is biblical. Does the Bible say that men must be governed, though? Is it acceptable to submit to the authorities that exist while also advocating their abolition? I believe not. The reason is related to the purpose of government. Let’s look at Romans again, to see the purpose of government.

For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience (Romans 13:3-5) [Emphasis added].

The Bible is Not About Political Philosophy
The God-ordained purpose of government is to “bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” God doesn’t tell us to obey the government on a whim; we must obey the government because it is God’s instrument of justice on Earth. The precise form of government isn’t detailed in the Scriptures, but the qualities of that government are listed: a government acceptable to God is one that punishes evildoers and holds no terror for those who do right. There is no biblical support for the idea that God’s purposes (i.e., punishing evildoers) can be achieved without a government.

The Bible isn’t a treatise on political philosophy. It doesn’t discuss the merits of republics or kingdoms or dictatorships; it doesn’t list the virtues of democracies. All the Bible tells us is that governments are established by God for the purpose of punishing wrongdoers. As a Christian, I can only support governments that achieve those biblical objectives. As a citizen and a rational, thinking human being, I believe a minarchy is the best kind of government to fully achieve God’s stated purposes for government.

To summarize:

  • I am not an anarchist. I believe God has established earthly governments for a purpose.
  • I am a minarchist because I believe a minarchy best fits the purposes of government laid out in Romans 13.

Are Anarchists Heretics?
This doesn’t mean that anarchy is heresy. I believe you can read the Bible and come away with an understanding that anarchy is compatible with God’s character and with biblical values. For example, you might look to the period of judges and see that God preferred Israel as a nation without a national government. God permitted Israel to have a king, but he warned them of the dire consequences. I don’t believe this implies that anarchy is God’s preferred system of government, but I can see how someone can come to that conclusion.

So no, anarchy is not heresy. I believe minarchy is a more reasonable understanding of the Bible, but good Bible-believing Christians can be anarchists too.

Governmental Ministers of God

Editor’s Note: This article is written by zealfortruth.org contributor Chris Austere.

In my previous two articles, Axis of Evil: Disembodied Rulers? Parts I and II, we discussed how governments are sometimes used as agents of Satan’s kingdom. This should not be interpreted to mean that any present-day government is purely evil, however. In fact, scripture teaches that governments and militaries are God-ordained institutions.

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing (Romans 13:1-6, KJV).

In order to understand the role of governments and militaries, we must answer this question: what function does Paul say governments are to fulfill? Simply put, the role of government is to “execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” We could paraphrase this by saying governments are agents of God’s judgment.

In part II of Axis of Evil we looked at Ezekiel 28. This chapter speaks about the prince of Tyre, who was lifted up in pride because of his own wisdom. He thought of himself as a God rather than a man. What was the penalty of this sin?

Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God; Behold, therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness. They shall bring thee down to the pit, and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain in the midst of the seas. Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, I am God? but thou shalt be a man, and no God, in the hand of him that slayeth thee. Thou shalt die the deaths of the uncircumcised by the hand of strangers: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD (Ezekiel 28:6-10).

The agent of God’s judgment was a foreign army. This should alert all American Christians to the fact that even God’s chosen people were not immune from such judgment. Although I do not necessarily agree to the Christian leaders who said the events of 9/11 were the result of God’s wrath, such a scenario is not outside the boundaries of biblical possibility.

How Should Christians Respond to Government?
First of all, Christians should obey the law as long as such obedience does not interfere with one’s faith. Since Paul makes it clear that resistance of governmental authority is akin to resisting God himself, failure to submit to such ordinances violates Christian conscience. Secondly, Christians should honor governing bodies by paying taxes. And thirdly, Christians should pray for those in authority.

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour (I Timothy 2:1-3)

This is where partisanship must be set aside. Yet in a society where people have a say in who is appointed to office, this is perhaps one of the hardest things to swallow. If we are not careful, we will neglect prayer for our leaders in favor of criticism. Heavenly citizenship is to be preferred over earthly citizenship, and those of the household of faith must realize that the exercise of the privilege of prayer is a much more effective tool in God’s hands than our vote. In the event that God is set to judge our nation, intercession could prevent it. If God would have suspended his judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah for the sake of ten righteous people, how much more would he extend mercy to those who can boldly access his throne through Jesus Christ?


Recent Forum Topics

Archives

You are currently browsing the Zeal For Truth weblog archives for 'governments' tag.

You are currently browsing the Zeal For Truth weblog archives for 'governments' tag.

March 2010
M T W T F S S
« Feb    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

You are currently browsing the Zeal For Truth weblog archives for 'governments' tag.