Part-Time Pundit: St. Peter, the Government, and Social Justice

« Expose state corruption... get sued... | Main | Toward a Living Wage »

May 1, 2006

St. Peter, the Government, and Social Justice

At a recent conference that discussed economics, a question was posed to a speaker on reconciling a vehement disagreement with welfare policy with St. Peter's teaching (1 Peter 3:13-17) on obedience to the Government. The general idea in the conference was that "trickle down" economics was preferable in lifting people up.

The response was underwhelming, namely he hemmed and hawed about the difficulty in Biblical exegesis and left it at that. This is my attempt to answer the question (with the caveat that I don't think trickle down is the sole solution to the problem). (To be fair, he made parts of the point at varying points during his talk, but had a good opportunity to bring it together in response to one question and it didn't seem like he did.)

Disagreeing with the government is not an act of "insubmission" to the government. You can think the government's policies are wrong and not transgress here. This is especially true because there is no way really to manifest disobedience to welfare laws except perhaps by not paying taxes (which is obviously wrong on many levels). In this case, we aren't talking about disobedience but disagreement.

We have a right to disagree with our government, and particularly, to petition our government for a change in policy. This is a right external to our governmental system but it certainly helps that our government does explicitly recognize it in the First Amendment. In short, there is nothing wrong and much to be encouraged in petitioning the government for different policies. I don't think any politician would have a problem with participatory democracy, at least they wouldn't say they do if they want to keep their job.

Lastly, the obligation to "feed the hungry", "clothe the naked", etc. is mandatory. No Christian can be in good standing and not care about the poor. This obligation is personal and direct on all believers. How those believers go about it is a matter of personal discernment and individuals may focus on some aspects and not others because of their personal talents and opportunities. However, each person according to their state has a binding moral obligation to do something.

The answer to this question is that as Christians we are obligated to advocate for the poor where appropriate. In participating in democracy, we should use our voice to advocate those policies which we believe to best help the poor. The expression of ideas contrary to conventional welfare wisdom isn't disobedience to authority or contrary to Christian belief. They are mandatory acts in which we use our freedom to advance our fellow man according to what we truly and honestly believe is best (with all due research and investigation into the options and which is superior).

Posted by John Bambenek at May 1, 2006 7:30 PM