Worldview is expressed by one's actions. Wayne has argued that if one calls oneself a Muslim, but does not actively persecute infidels, then one is not adhering to the Koran. This is well and good; such a person should not be called a Muslim in a strict sense. However, this person's actions reveal a worldview that does not "conflict socially with the Biblical, correct one." In other words, a person who calls himself a Muslim but does not actively harm non-Muslims still exhibits a "socially compatible" worldview.

How, then, are we to determine which worldviews are "compatible" and which aren't? As I stated above, worldview is expressed by actions. If one displays a propensity to commit antisocial actions, this clearly illustrates a "socially incompatible" worldview. Antisocial actions would be things such as murder, rape, theft, and fraud. At this point, of course, the astute reader will notice that antisocial actions are the ones that violate the natural rights of another person. We already have laws against such actions, supported by both the Constitution and Natural Law.

My question is this: if one's worldview is expressed by one's actions, and an antisocial worldview can only be identified by antisocial actions, and if those actions are precisely those against which legitimate laws already exist, then where is the need for an explicit prohibition against antisocial worldviews?

What about the definition of marriage? Or economic philosophies? These are but two, contemporary examples. Incompatibilities here will necessarily result in a self-destructive society.

"Antisocial" is not so easily defined as merely violating the natural rights of another person. Many things are antisocial (not conducive to a viable, lasting society, or more simply, necessarily destructive to society) but with effects that are not readily individualized or immediate.

Alan, you've made some good points.

I'm not sure if it's even a valid question to ask if the Constitution is obedient to the Word of God. Mostly because I think Jesus largely considered government to be irrelevant. Not that He was an anarchist, but because He came to set up a completely different Kingdom.

There is a potential trap here. Just what is/was/will be this "different Kingdom"? Over-spiritualize it, and you deny the very real, very physical kingdom to come (soon, I expect). Under-spiritualize it, and you relegate the kingdom to something only physical, all but denying the heavenly realm. I'd rather not open this can of worms here and now--just for brevity's sake--so let's not dwell too much on this. Suffice it to say, for the purposes of this discussion, that His kingdom and ours are not an either-or deal for now. True, we must choose our Master--and we can serve only one--but we're also stuck in this fallen world for now. We're reborn in His kingdom (only spiritually for now), but we still reside (as "aliens") in this one.

Anarchist. Good point. In a way, He is indeed an anarchist. God Himself has established a government or two in His time. What government did He create in the beginning (before the Fall)? Seemingly patriarchal. Again, He chose a patriarchal system of government when He called Abraham and his descendants. He created a system of judges when He established the nation of Israel more formally under Moses. And, of course, He created an actual monarchy when Israel began whining about getting one. (I think it's reasonable to set the monarchy aside for the sake of argument, just because it was given rather reluctantly--not His best intentions for His people, had they been more Godly). Minus the monarchy, these systems of government were very libertarian. Even with "all the laws" (as many like to disparage) that came to Moses, the government itself was merely a hierarchy of judges and seemingly a small hierarchy at that. When the church was born and His Law was written on the people's hearts, the need for government waned. Again, very libertarian. No, perhaps not a pure anarchy, but His apparently preferred government is very minimal indeed.

Jesus rarely mentions government. When He did, He tended to say “They serve their place – honor them inasmuch as you can without disobeying the Father, but I’m about something entirely different.”

Part of Jesus' "mission" was to restore the people's relationship with the Lord. The Law had been badly perverted into a vacuous set of rules, implicitly denying the relationship to be had with the Creator. If our relationship with the Lord were put into order, there would be little need--very little--for government. I've come to the same inescapable conclusion: the key to good government, and really the only hope of getting it, is individual sanctification. Jesus was smart enough to get to that point right away. I don't think you can extrapolate from this and conclude that He was indifferent toward government.

There were government atrocities all around in those times. He spent exactly zero of His time trying to change the system of government to one more aligned with His Kingdom. Rather, He spent His time revealing the Father, teaching them the real and lasting Kingdom. What if the government was corrupt? What if the government limited religious freedom? These were true in His day; and yet it simply wasn’t something He fought against or got involved in trying to change it.

Yes, because He was striking at the root of the problems of the day. Battling government atrocities is like slapping bandages on severed limbs, even more so in the day when most of the people (the people of Israel) were not citizens of Rome and could not effect any change from within the system. Instead, He aimed to reform individuals in ways that would grow and last. And indeed, the effect was an eventual transformation of the Roman Empire to Christian. (We won't quibble over the unfortunate effects of this here.) Again, though, this does not mean He was unconcerned with government.

Similarly, there were poor people galore. Today’s Left often tries to put the “social gospel” on us, rewriting Scripture to say that all Jesus cared about were the poor. Not so. Did He feed the poor? If they were in the crowd the day He turned the 5 loaves and 2 fishes into a feast, then Yes. But largely, NO, He did not feed them. He could’ve, as His miracles demonstrated – but He spent very little of His time meeting those needs. He spent exactly zero of His time setting up soup kitchens and homeless shelters.

He ministered to His neighbors, those placed before Him. No grandiose empires of ministry. This is the best way to effect change wholesale, a lesson the church, on the whole, no longer knows.

I even see the established church similarly. Jesus went to the synagogues (at least occasionally, possibly consistently – it’s unclear). But He wasn’t the president of the youth group, nor did He sing in the choir, nor did He give us detailed instructions on how to operate a church and collect tithe and build sanctuaries. He walked every day with a group of believers. He lived a life completely consistent with His Kingdom. But He just didn’t talk about the building or the organization much. He didn’t establish it, nor did He condemn it. Yes, He threw out the money changers, and yes, He often condemned the Pharisees. But He didn’t condemn the establishment itself – nor did He focus on it.

The trend I see in your analysis is one apparently leading to a kind of dualism. I caution against this tendency, as it will lead to heresies eventually. His solution to the establishment's woes was the best one, the one largely unknown by the church today.

Speaking to Wayne’s comment, I disagree that taxes are theft. Taxes existed in Jesus’ day, and He said to pay them. I see nothing in Scripture that would indicate the taxing authority in our Constitution is unbiblical. I’m not saying that I love our tax system – I am a huge proponent of repealing the 16th amendment, and our upcoming move to even more socialist taxation drives me to the brink of insanity. However, Jesus said to render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s.

Murder existed in His day, too, and He mounted no campaigns to stop it. Nevertheless, it's clear He was against it. He also made no effort to condone taxation. When the Pharisees tried to trap Him with the matter of paying taxes, He could have easily said that there was nothing wrong with taxation, but He didn't. One wonders what He would have said had the coin not been of Roman origin. In fact, the money was Roman money and so by all rights was owned by Rome (personified in Caesar). Likewise for our dollars today. However, this does not mean that the underlying value belonged to Rome (or Washington), too. In other words, if money were not used, preferring pure barter instead, His response would not have applied.

Let's look at it from another perspective. When your shirt is stolen, you're asked to give your coat to the robber, too. Is this a codification of theft, reversing the morality of one of the Big Ten? Of course not! Jesus is famous for orthogonal answers to questions. Giving a robber more than he asks is not condoning robbery nor denying the morality of self-defense, but it's a way of witnessing to another potential child of God. His answer about taxes was similar.

Sin exists. Denying this fact is delusion. Accepting the reality of sin is not the same, however, as accepting the morality of sin (that is, condoning immorality). Jesus obviously accepted the reality of government theft in taxation, but He made no efforts to condone it.

I think He meant (and I think this is hermeneutically consistent) that government is an entity unto itself, separate from His Kingdom, necessary for the general guidance of society, but not even a minor focus of Jesus’ ministry. He left it alone in His ministry, even though there were human rights violations, slavery, biases against religion (and specifically against His teachings). He didn’t say government was bad. He didn’t say it was good. He didn’t tell us to build our own government consistent with His Kingdom. He said to abide in Him wherever we are, whatever nation we live in, whatever government type we live under, whatever financial state we are in.

Yes, Jesus did not directly address many of the effects of sin. Instead, He chose to address the source of sin, the human heart. In no way does this mean the effects of sin are to be ignored, though.

Don’t get me wrong – I am hugely interested in politics, and I give (way more than I should) to the poor, and I go to church religiously. And I pursue both politics and compassion and church at least partly from direction of the Holy Spirit. But at the end of the day, I don’t see the Father guiding us to establish a Christian theocracy. I don’t see Him guiding us to build new churches. I see Him asking us to abide in Him, to personally follow His direction moment to moment, to live in this other Kingdom on earth.

There are many eschatological implications here, especially between common heresies of premillennialism and postmillennialism. The heresy of postmil. is that we can Christianize the world effectively, establishing this theocracy to which you refer. The heresy of premil. is inaction or indifference that can result from an overly dualist point of view.

When He returns, He had better find us doing our jobs, so to speak. Part of our job is to battle evil--hate evil, even. Yes, we're to do good, but part of this is to recognize and decry evil, most especially within ourselves but also in the fellowship of believers. There many ways of battling evil. First and foremost, we do so in our selves (the beam in our eye, you could say). Outside of ourselves, such battles may be limited to identifying evil for what it is (discernment), because we cannot force change upon others' hearts. Failure to recognize evil, though, opens a door to its growth. Our vote, political commentary, and even discussion of Godly government, is all under the heading, Recognizing Evil.

On a related note, know how difficult it is to convict another of his sins by direct confrontation. We have an amazing ability to deceive ourselves. When our sins are shown to us directly, we deny, justify, and avoid. However, when we see our sins in others, we can more easily see the evil for what it is. It's a much shorter step, then, to recognize that sin in ourselves. In this way, identifying sin "out there" can help us see our own sins. Such is the first step to forgiveness. Without recognizing sin, we cannot receive conviction, repent, and be restored.

One of the primary complaints Jesus had with the Pharisees was that they placed burdens on men that God did not place on men. The conservative church does this today: “No drinking”. The liberal church does this today: “What would Jesus drive?”.

Indeed. I have argued that today's church is far more legalistic than even the Pharisees were.

Given that Jesus didn’t give us a governmental constitution (heck, not even a Bill of Rights),

Au contraire! "Thou shalt not kill." This necessarily implies a right to life. "Thou shalt not steal" clearly implies a right to property. The Law is packed with our individual rights. The Founders knew this. It's the basis of our Bill of Rights. (I wish this link had been codified overtly, though, so our Biblically political heritage would not have been so easily forgotten.)

I think trying to create a constitution that perfectly follows all Biblical principles is unnecessary, in that it isn’t something that Jesus was interested in. If Godly men are going to set up a government (which is mostly – not completely – what occurred in our heritage), they can do so with Biblical principles in mind. But the act of setting up the government is neither Godly nor ungodly. The document they create is neither Biblical nor heretical. Much like the computer program that I write is not Godly unto itself, but that I can be a Godly man (or not) while writing it. Yes, the results of the governmental principles may affect man’s ability to worship publicly, or to more easily follow natural law, or to more easily contribute positively to society; but my ability to follow the Kingdom of God is irrelevant to the government I live under.

Is it Godly to push a man such that he falls off a cliff to his death? If the push only knocks him off balance, are we then responsible for his subsequent fall and death? If a constitutional government permits murder, especially methodical mass murder, are the authors of that constitution liable? The character of government is indeed Godly or ungodly, even if it is a layer of abstraction or two away from the overt sins that result. (One can argue the magnitude of the authors' sins, were they to be measured thus, was less, but this course of thinking is also a bit of a trap.) Note, though, that it is always men (and women) who do evil, not the documented structure of government, per se. However, their actions are theoretically constrained or even defined by that document (a testament to rule of law, actually, for better or for worse). Does that document promote evil or condemn it, promote good or condemn it?

An intellectual exploration of a Godly government structure (that is, a government structure promoting good and condemning evil) is an exploration, by proxy you could say, of our own hearts. Were our hearts fully right with God, what government would result? Were a government's authors' hearts correctly focused, but the hearts of the governed were not necessarily so, what government would result or be necessary? The government structure may appear to be the end of such discussion, but it's really not. The more hidden end is really seeing our own, individual sins, so we may repent and be restored, although even we may not recognize this end until after we feel conviction.

Just because Jesus' methods, focused on the heart, largely ignored many other facets (or effects) of humanity, doesn't mean He was indifferent to these other facets. Government sprouts from the hearts of men, whether in its inception or in its continued realization. Jesus merely knew the solution is in reforming men's hearts.

Alan's reference to the conversation ישוע (Jesus) had with the Pharisees and Herodians regarding Roman taxes (Matthew 22:15-22, also reported in Mark 12:13-17) leads me to some thoughts of my own. The traditional interpretation of this passage is, of course, that believers should pay taxes. This interpretation assumes that ישוע (Jesus) was implying that taxes are "Caesar's" (i.e., He meant that "that which is Caesar's included taxes").

For a long time, I accepted that interpretation, but I have wondered lately whether it is correct. After all, as Wayne points out, ישוע (Jesus)'s comment would not have applied if the particular coins in use at the time had not had Caesar's image on them, or if some other medium of exchange had been in use. He may also have been referring (albeit obliquely) to the fact that such coins were prohibited for use when arranging for tithes in the Temple because they bore an idolatrous image. Regardless, it seems clear that He was drawing a line between the temporal and eternal worlds.

From this perspective, was He saying that taxes are a worldly, temporal institution, and that we should pay them simply because doing so provides us with a greater opportunity to be about His work? (In other words, did He mean that paying taxes is a means to an end, the end being advancing His kingdom?) Or, did He mean that for a given situation and a given tax, that believers were to inquire as to the legitimacy of the tax, or of the government that imposed it. (It would be as if He had said, "Render unto Caesar that which is legitimately Caesars.") For some reason, neither of those explanations satisfies me.

Another possibility is that He was debunking the notion that Caesar was in some way divine. At that time, the Roman ruler presented himself in divine terms and demanded a measure of worship. ישוע (Jesus)'s comments clearly separated Caesar and God. However, while I think this interpretation has some merit, I believe it may only be a secondary meaning. After all, the Pharisees He was addressing would most likely have rejected the divinity of Caesar, at least privately, though the Herodians may have been taken aback by this.

Yet another possibility stems from the fact that this question was posed jointly by the Pharisees and the Herodians. The Pharisees opposed the Roman tax, whereas the Herodians supported it. They were clearly trying to lure ישוע (Jesus) to take one side of the argument, which would have alienated Him from one group or the other. The aim of ישוע (Jesus)'s response may have been to avoid the trap they set for Him.

At the end of the day, while I do not accept the traditional interpretation of this passage, I confess that I do not grasp what ישוע (Jesus) meant with His statement. Can anyone help me here?

As I think about this a bit more, it occurs to me that, at least to His immediate audience, ישוע (Jesus) did not provide a clear answer to their question. We know with certainty that the question was intended as a trap (Mat 22:15), and that a clear answer either way would amount to falling into the trap. Specifically, ישוע (Jesus)'s support for the tax would have drawn the ire of the Pharisees, who opposed it, and they would have used ישוע (Jesus)'s words to erode His support among the Jews; the opposite answer would have provided an excuse to bring ישוע (Jesus) before the Romans. Because neither of these outcomes occurred, we can be certain that the Pharisees and Herodians did not subscribe to the traditional interpretation of the Lord's words.

His apparently preferred government is very minimal indeed.

I agree that the governments set up in the Old Testament were minimal. But was this not more indicative of where society was at that stage, as opposed to an indication of God's preferred government? I think it's possible that, were God to set up a government today, it would look very different than those Judges, just because society is so much larger, more advanced, more technologically attached. Since I'm a libertarian, I would hope God would agree that ideal government should be tiny; but I'm unsure of the Biblical basis for that. I'm a libertarian more because I am a capitalist than because I'm a Christian.

the key to good government, and really the only hope of getting it, is individual sanctification. Jesus was smart enough to get to that point right away.

I agree that individual sanctification is the best way to good (and nearly non-existent) government, but Biblically, we all know that isn't going to happen until the return of Christ. In fact, we know that man will continue to sin, that many (most) will continue to reject Christ, and that men will ultimately be blinded by the anti-Christ. Jesus knew these things and knew the time of His return was at least 2000 years off. He wasn't trying to get us to individual sanctification for the purpose of good government; He was trying to get us to individual sanctification for the purpose of intimacy with Him and for holiness. Which, yes, happens makes good candidates to be governed by limited government.

The trend I see in your analysis is one apparently leading to a kind of dualism. I caution against this tendency, as it will lead to heresies eventually.

Could you explain the trend? I'm open to your thoughts, as I do try to reject heresy when it tries to creep in (that is not sarcastic - I'm serious).

Part of our job is to battle evil--hate evil, even. Yes, we're to do good, but part of this is to recognize and decry evil, most especially within ourselves but also in the fellowship of believers. There many ways of battling evil. First and foremost, we do so in our selves (the beam in our eye, you could say). Outside of ourselves, such battles may be limited to identifying evil for what it is (discernment), because we cannot force change upon others' hearts. Failure to recognize evil, though, opens a door to its growth. Our vote, political commentary, and even discussion of Godly government, is all under the heading, Recognizing Evil.

Completely agree.

If a constitutional government permits murder, especially methodical mass murder, are the authors of that constitution liable? The character of government is indeed Godly or ungodly, even if it is a layer of abstraction or two away from the overt sins that result. (One can argue the magnitude of the authors' sins, were they to be measured thus, was less, but this course of thinking is also a bit of a trap.) Note, though, that it is always men (and women) who do evil, not the documented structure of government, per se. However, their actions are theoretically constrained or even defined by that document (a testament to rule of law, actually, for better or for worse). Does that document promote evil or condemn it, promote good or condemn it?

All good points.

It has been brought to my attention that my initial post above stated that I go to church religiously. That's not, in fact, what I typed. I put angle-brackets around the words "Used to", and the site removed those words, because it thought I was trying to use a non-existent HTML tag. So I was intentionally lying, but no, I no longer go to church religiously. Or, ... at all.

Alan

The lawful need no laws; the lawless heed no laws. In short, those who follow the ways of the Lord need no government at all. In contrast, for those who don't follow the Lord, there is no such thing as enough government to "contain" their evil. Anything in between is heading one direction or the other. We're currently heading in the wrong direction.

I agree that individual sanctification is the best way to good (and nearly non-existent) government, but Biblically, we all know that isn't going to happen until the return of Christ.

So let's just give up trying? This is the heretical trap of many premil. believers. What if America's Founding Fathers gave in to this apparent defeatism? What won't happen until Jesus' return is perfect government. However, we can surely do better than we have. I dare say, we can do better than our Founding Fathers did. (I'm not saying you're saying this--to give up--but that your line of reasoning leads there.) However, as even they knew, a libertarian society requires an essentially moral culture.

Could you explain the trend?

Gnosticism. The dualism I speak of is "heavenly kingdom versus earthly kingdom". I'm not saying these aren't separate things, mind you. (In eternity, they will be one and the same.) When this dualism is taken even a little bit too far, we are tempted to blow off the earthly kingdom in favor of the heavenly. To do so is a kind of denial of the physical world and its importance. Yes, it's a fallen world--a crappy kingdom--but we are not called to abandon it. This idea of focusing too much on the spiritual at the expense of the physical is the essence of the heresy called Gnosticism. It's not a new heresy, of course, since the first-century church dealt with it, too.

The red flag I saw in your comment was not so much the recognition of the heavenly kingdom versus the earthly kingdom, but the apparent tendency to refrain from improving the physical kingdom, as if a choice were required. If we're standing before a dam with leaks developing all over the place and no hope of preventing the inevitable flood, does this excuse us from plugging the holes with our fingers in the meantime? As there are many lives in the valley below, we have no excuse to leave the doomed dam. Yes, we'll become its victims eventually, Lord tarrying, and we'll probably buy very little time for the evacuations below, but there's a non-zero chance a life or two may be saved. Even while we're sticking our fingers into dam holes, we can still be preaching the Gospel to all who will listen. Some may be saved spiritual by the Gospel message. Others may be saved spiritually by our physical ministry (plugging holes). Still others may be saved physically only for now, but perhaps spiritually later upon reflection. There's no reason to choose one over the other. We can preach and vote at the same time--well, maybe not actually in the voting booth, but you get my point. We can envision a better government even while spreading the Good News. We can even fight a war--or a revolution--knowing Godly freedom is on the other side, even while we teach others how such freedom is found in God and granted by God.

There is no greater gift than to sacrifice one's life for a friend. Yes, telling that friend about Jesus is a great gift, too, but there is great value in physical life. Likewise, there is value in improving man's government, that physical lives may be improved and even saved (e.g., reducing theft and murder, increasing freedom). Our government is evil because the men and women who make it up are evil; that is, they serve evil by doing evil. We can do better. Historically, we have done better. There is no reason we need to accept the status quo of ever increasing evil, culturally and governmentally. I, for one, intend not to be found idle in the war against evil when my Lord returns, even if I already know the outcome of this current battle (evil wins) and of the entire war (God wins!).

As an aside, I wrote a blog a while ago (but still unpublished) about prescience, knowing the future. This present topic touches on this idea. Because we know that evil wins this battle (or that the Lord wins the war), we are tempted to sit it out or to battle only minimally. Knowledge of the future does not relieve us of our duty now, no matter how illusorily futile it may seem.

I dare say, we can do better than our Founding Fathers did.

I think we can do better than our Founding Fathers did, but only by a little. I think they did amazingly well, but should have made a few more of their intents (e.g., fedgov can ONLY do the things we've enumerated herein) explicit.

(I'm not saying you're saying this--to give up--but that your line of reasoning leads there.)

I hear your point, but I disagree that the reasoning necessarily leads there. As a Calvinist, I don't believe that I'm absolved of my responsibility to share the gospel. There is a duality in Scripture of God's sovreignty and man's responsibility. As limited men, we are always held to our responsibility, even in light of knowing that God is in control of it all - especially since we don't know the method of God playing out His sovreignty. It could be (and often is) us, playing out our responsibility.

We can do better. Historically, we have done better. There is no reason we need to accept the status quo of ever increasing evil, culturally and governmentally. I, for one, intend not to be found idle in the war against evil when my Lord returns, even if I already know the outcome of this current battle (evil wins) and of the entire war (God wins!).

If you read the Christmas letter I sent to almost 200 people, you would see that I don't advocate doing nothing - I definitely think we should strive for better government (even to the point of starting over with secession). I've been labeled with Gnosticism in my faith before, but it is not the reality I live in (not in doctrine nor in action).

Ok, I guess Dave's original point is, given that we have to have some form of government, what government would we, as Godly men, create. I guess my point is that if we ask the question "What would Jesus do?", and if we look honestly at what He did, the answer is to go after men's hearts, not their government. The government was evil in Jesus' day (more so than ours, imo, even though I think ours is horrific), yet His ministry was focused on the individual instead of the society. I think we can do both, and I DO do both. But Jesus largely just did one.

Alan

"What would Jesus do?" is one of the more damaging fads in modern Christendom. It's bad doctrine. The church is the Body of Christ, and Jesus is the head. Different parts. Different gifts. Different roles. Different purposes. Were we all to do as Jesus would do, or worse, did do, we'd be doing more wrong than right, being out of step with our unique calling.

Jesus was unconcerned with government, eh? Were we all to ask what Jesus would do, we would also be unconcerned in government. Who, then, would remain to be in government? Was Daniel wrong for being in government? David? Moses? Even Esther? Or Nathan, Samuel, and many others in their advisory roles? Jesus had His purpose and calling, but we have ours. We must not live another man's calling, even Jesus'.

"What would Jesus do?" sounds good, but it's not. Best case, we ask what He'd do in our roles, but He wasn't in our roles, so we'd be extrapolating and often very far removed from His recorded examples. Worst case, this flawed philosophy can rob us of the living Spirit who counsels us moment-by-moment, if we choose to imitate rather than listen and obey.

As this philosophy has been mentioned repeatedly, it seems to be a significant factor for you. I recommend caution in using this superficially benign question because it's not benign at all. I'm sure you don't take this philosophy as far as I've warned, but it seems you may still take it just a tad too far. Jesus' apparent indifference to government must not be taken as a model for the rest of us. This interpretaton is too shallow.