Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Rendering to Caesar

In the wake of Obama’s election, it’s predicable that some well-meaning bloggers are quoting the usual Pauline and Petrine prooftexts about a Christian’s duty to Caesar, and using that appeal to admonish Christian Americans to do the same in reference to Obama. A few caveats are in order:

1. I don’t deny that these passages are applicable to our own situation. But at the risk of stating the obvious, application involves recontextualization. This is not the Roman Empire. You can’t simply transfer statements about imperial Rome to a republican democracy without making the necessary adjustments. We have a system of popular sovereignty. Our elected leaders are public servants. They serve at the pleasure of the electorate.

Now, that’s not to deny that, having elected them, we have a duty to obey them (within the limits of their lawful authority).

2. It’s not at all clear to me that Obama won fair and square. He won in large part because he vastly outspent the McCain campaign on advertising, voter registration, and a get-out-the vote machine.

And it was possible for him to finance all that through record campaign contributions. Problem is: a high percentage of his war chest involved untraceable donations. Much of this may well have been illegal, whether involving foreign donations or contributions which exceeded the campaign finance limits:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/28/AR2008102803413_pf.html

And not only is there the problem of where he got his money, there’s the further problem of where it went. It went to fraudulent organizations like ACORN:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10092008/postopinion/editorials/vote_fraud_a_go_go_132852.htm

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hSQRQM34d7S1eOAiEdP7GAxlwf_QD93RUCH80

Finally, there’s the nagging question of whether he even meets the Constitutional requirements for citizenship:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=78111

Therefore, I have reason to question the legitimacy of his election.

3. Now, that’s not a hill I’m going to die on. Even if he’s not the de jure president, he’s going to be the de facto president. Even if there were good grounds to void the election results, I can’t imagine the political establishment would allow that to happen. So the fix is in.

And, as far as historical analogies are concerned, many Roman emperors were illegitimate. They assumed office through bribery, treachery, or assassination. And they ruled over masses of people whom they conquered by brute force. So you can be a de facto ruler even if you’re not the de jure ruler.

But when bloggers assure me that Obama is my president, and dictate the attitude I’m supposed to adopt, the legitimacy of his claim to be the duly elected president is germane to my attitude.

4. Which brings me to the next point. We need to distinguish between actions and attitudes.

Even if you think that Obama is illegitimate, it would be futile to form the equivalent of the French Resistance. We have to make peace with providence. The world is full of injustices we can do nothing to change. So we need to pick our battles. No point beating our brains out against a brick wall.

5. There’s a one-sided quality to the prooftexting. What about the Johannine verses? Peter and Paul aren’t the only NT writers who discuss the relationship between church and state. We also have the Book of Revelation.

And there we find a scathing indictment of imperial Rome. What is John’s attitude to the imperial authority? It doesn’t strike me as respectful. He doesn’t honor the imperial cult. Quite the contrary.

At the same time, John is not fomenting a Christian insurrection. So this illustrates the difference between actions and attitudes.

6. How should we pray for our leaders? For example, the imprecatory Psalms are prayers.

For me, the answer is pretty straightforward. We can pray conditional, open-ended prayers. On the one hand, we can pray that God give our rulers wisdom. On the other hand, we can also pray that God dethrone unjust rulers.

These are not incompatible prayers. A Christian can pray for both If one outcome doesn’t eventuate, then the other.

26 comments:

  1. Has Bush been a "just" ruler? I'm sure you believe that he was not only honest but accurate and sincere about the Iraq invasion, but there seems ample evidence from current and former members of his administration that he was not (including the words of Colin Powell).

    This always comes down to abortion for some reason. Why? Is it because babies are cute and cuddly? What about our family members who were sent to die unnecessarily or the civilians in Iraq (excuse me: "collateral pieces of damage") who have been forever maimed or have been killed as the direct result of our "intervention"?

    Does this even hit your moral radar? If not, why?

    ReplyDelete
  2. It doesn’t hit my moral radar because I’ve already been over the pros and cons of the Iraq war more times than I can count. Try to raise a new objection.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Moreover, you're changing the subject. I wasn't discussing the morality of Obama's election, but it's legality. Is he eligible? Did he win through illegal donations?

    ReplyDelete
  4. That's not fair, Steve! You're not letting James use his prefab script!!! You're a racist, bigoted, homophobic, sexist Republican.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Now that Obama is the President Elect and will be President, the god of Calvinism can finally be satiated with a never ending pile of dead babies to send to hell for no fault of their own.

    Soli gloria Deo. Non autem gloria deo Calvini. (Glory to God alone, but no glory to the god of Calvin.) The slogan of all who love the true God and His Son Jesus Christ in truth. Amen.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Peter, I said no such thing. I don't think he's racist or sexist necessarily, but it just seems that I've yet to run across a Republican who's met a war he didn't like.

    Beowulf, I've actually run across some Calvinists who think God will usher the babies through because of some obscure passage with King David (they're really just too squeamish about making God look THAT awful).
    On the other hand, I've known quite a few Catholics and Orthodox who believe (or used to believe) that God won't allow the babies in without a few magical incantations and a splash of water. Rules is rules!

    ReplyDelete
  7. James: I'm an anabaptist, with a lowercase a. I know that Catholics who followed the heretic Augustine into the Great Apostasy, before the Magisterial (i.e. murderous) Reformers did, also teach (or used to) that God damns infants.

    ReplyDelete
  8. beowulf2k8

    I don’t know if your ignorance exceeds your blasphemy, or vice versa.

    i) Calvinism has no official, uniform position on the fate of those who die in infancy. Historically, there have been at least five different positions. And today, many Calvinists subscribe to universal infant salvation.

    ii) Predestination is neutral on what class of individuals is heavenbound or hellbound. It doesn’t antecedently select for any particular class. In principle, everybody could be saved, nobody could be saved, only Chinese could be saved, &c. Belief in predestination doesn’t tell you anything whatsoever about the salvation or damnation of a single individual who dies in infancy.

    That question, to the extent that it’s answerable at all, turns on other factors.

    iii) According to the logic of Arminianism, a certain percentage of babies are damned. That’s because Arminianism subscribes to conditional election. Election is contingent on foreseen faith.

    Since there’s no reason to suppose that everyone who happens to die in infancy would have become a believer had he lived into adulthood, your own Arminian theology logically damns a certain percentage of babies to hell.

    Infant mortality is a fairly random phenomenon. It doesn’t discriminate between infants who will become believers and infants who will become unbelievers. So you’ve backed yourself into a dandy little dilemma. Have fun.

    ReplyDelete
  9. james said...

    “Peter, I said no such thing. I don't think he's racist or sexist necessarily, but it just seems that I've yet to run across a Republican who's met a war he didn't like.”

    I don’t like the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm not an Arminian. I deny inheritance of Adam's sin for the soul outright, per Ezekiel 18:20. I might be willing to allow that the body does inherit Adam's sin and consequently physical death if you'd like me to, although I can conceive of physical death accruing to all men from Adam without any inheritance of his sin even by the flesh itself. But Ezekiel 18:20 specifically denies any possibility of the death of the soul (i.e. the second death) coming from inheritance. And traducianism is just plain stupid. Each soul is clearly a new production of God not a combo of shards of the parents' souls. In short, infants haven't sinned so they can't go to hell. It's that simple.

    ReplyDelete
  11. BEOWULF2K8 SAID:

    "I'm not an Arminian. I deny inheritance of Adam's sin for the soul outright."

    I didn't say anything about Adam's sin. I spoke of conditional election.

    And your stated position sounds like pure Pelagianism.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "I didn't say anything about Adam's sin. I spoke of conditional election."

    Election doesn't even factor into the equation for those who have no sins. Infants have no sins of their own, so without Adam's sins, they've got none. They therefore, don't need salvation because they are already safe and have not become unsafe.

    ReplyDelete
  13. beowulf2k8 said...

    "Election doesn't even factor into the equation for those who have no sins. Infants have no sins of their own, so without Adam's sins, they've got none. They therefore, don't need salvation because they are already safe and have not become unsafe."

    I take it that you support universal abortion. Universal abortion entails universal salvation. That way, no one would burn in hell.

    ReplyDelete
  14. BTW, for an Anabaptist, you're very fond of high technology. And you're pretty worldly too as you surf the Web. Aren't Anabaptists supposed to come out from among us and be separate?

    ReplyDelete
  15. So at what point does the sinless baby *presto chango* into a sinner? And why does every baby turn into one of those? Could beowulf2k8 point me to a sinless person who hasn't inherited a fallen nature, beside Christ Himself? I didn't think so...

    ReplyDelete
  16. So let me make sure I understand this. People who die as infants have inherited a sinful "nature" at conception. That much we know. At the same time, to "sin" must require some form of intent and awareness, which fetuses do not have. Therefore, they cannot sin in the active sense.

    So God created the fetus just to have another physical entity that can perhaps mature (in Hell) and writhe around in Hell for eternity without actually having had the opportunity to commit any actual sins.

    What's the point of creating a soul who will never see a day of life and have the opportunity to sin just to condemn the soul to Hell? Does God need entertainment? Does Hell need warm bodies? Does adding another soul to Hell make God seem more impressive to you and His angels? Does it make Him seem "better" than if He had not created that soul at all?

    These seem like reasonable questions. I just don't see what He or anyone "gains" by creating a doomed soul for no other reason than to condemn it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The answer is that He is glorified.

    Your view of hell turns more on Dante than the Bible.

    God gains nothing. "Gain" implies God needs something added to Him. But that's not what we teach. Rather, the target audience is the elect. They glorify God.

    The Bible is simply agnostic on this issue. Steve has written on this before, as have I, and Steve has already alluded to this by referring to Warfield's summary of the five views. You really should consult the archives before you raise these objections, then you can get back to us, James.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Genembridges writes: "He is glorified".

    That really is in essence a non-answer, but you're so immersed in your own theological universe you can't even see it.

    What does it mean that He is "glorified"? His goodness is increased or highlighted by creating beings that have no capacity to choose the fact that are to be condemned? In whose estimate? His own? Yours? The angels? You just said He can gain nothing, yet you say He is "glorified" by doing something that must be irrelevant to the magnitude of His glory. This is nonsensical.

    Do you personally find Him more impressive because He "can" create "vessels of wrath"? What does that say about you other than that you're a sadist?

    I'm not trying to pick on you, I'm just trying to get you to define these things that everyone apparently takes for granted.

    ReplyDelete
  19. James asked:

    What does it mean that He is "glorified"?

    For starters, you might try digging into John 17:1-5 (as well as the rest of the chapter):

    "When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, 'Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed."

    Even in this short passage, we can see that Christ's prayer to the Father that he would be glorified entails nothing less than his emptying of himself in the incarnation and suffering and death on the cross, so that his people might have eternal life, which is to know God. So, among the many other excellent things that might be gleaned from this passage, we learn that Christ's glorification is for our benefit.

    ReplyDelete
  20. JAMES SAID:

    "These seem like reasonable questions. I just don't see what He or anyone 'gains' by creating a doomed soul for no other reason than to condemn it."

    They would be reasonable questions if you were raising a new objection. Since, however, I dealt with objections of this sort on other occasions, there's nothing reasonable about your questions.

    ReplyDelete
  21. James said:

    So let me make sure I understand this. People who die as infants have inherited a sinful "nature" at conception. That much we know.

    You agree that we are all sinners. And the wages of sin is death. So wouldn't the suprising thing rather be that God saves anyone at all?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Patrick writes: "You agree that we are all sinners. And the wages of sin is death. So wouldn't the suprising thing rather be that God saves anyone at all?"

    Not really. What's surprising to me is why we were given a system whereby fault is "inherited". I call it "corporate guilt".

    Funny though, I don't expect anyone here is going to apologize for American slavery. Why? Well, neither you nor your parents held and mistreated African slaves, right?

    Somewhere you must realize that assigning the penalties to one for the guilt of another is unjust, even if done by God because "He can".

    ReplyDelete
  23. steve,

    What is your take on those who see Obama's election as an outpouring of God's judgement on America?

    ReplyDelete
  24. That really is in essence a non-answer, but you're so immersed in your own theological universe you can't even see it.

    Your question was a non-question, but you're so immersed in your atheological universe you can't even see it.

    Not really. What's surprising to me is why we were given a system whereby fault is "inherited". I call it "corporate guilt".

    Actually it's federal "guilt." We share in the guilt, for we would do no better. When we sin, we agree with Adam. So, what's unjust in that?

    "Inherited" isn't the best name. It's actually imputed. The same is true of justification with respect to the righteousness of Christ.

    What does it mean that He is "glorified"? His goodness is increased or highlighted by creating beings that have no capacity to choose the fact that are to be condemned? In whose estimate? His own? Yours? The angels? You just said He can gain nothing, yet you say He is "glorified" by doing something that must be irrelevant to the magnitude of His glory. This is nonsensical.

    1. You've not demonstrated infants have no such capacity.

    2. God's goodness is but one aspect of His glory. God's wrath is an aspect too.

    3. God's goodness is not increased. God does not need to be glorified. You keep missing the point. The target of God's glorification of His name is not Himself, it's the elect.

    Do you personally find Him more impressive because He "can" create "vessels of wrath"? What does that say about you other than that you're a sadist?

    You've done nothing to establish a moral yardstick by which we are to judge God's actions.

    Somewhere you must realize that assigning the penalties to one for the guilt of another is unjust, even if done by God because "He can".

    So, somebody other than Adam would have done better or has done better?

    ReplyDelete
  25. DAVID SAID:

    "What is your take on those who see Obama's election as an outpouring of God's judgement on America?"

    While that's possible, we don't have any inspired interpretation of God's providential purpose in the election of Obama. We don't know the goal. It's a means to some greater good, but what we cannot tell from our historical vantagepoint.

    ReplyDelete
  26. JAMES SAID:

    "Funny though, I don't expect anyone here is going to apologize for American slavery. Why? Well, neither you nor your parents held and mistreated African slaves, right?"

    The doctrine of corporate responsibility was never an all-or-nothing affair. Not every man and his dog can be a federal head. One must be related to the Federal head in a suitable manner.

    ReplyDelete