What is the "State"?

Dear Friends:

In making his case for government wealth-redistribution (socialism), Christian socialist Ronald J. Sider feels the need to define what he means by “State.” This is a great way to start. Unfortunately, he does not attempt to derive a definition from Scripture, but rather does what most liberal scholars do when they can find no support from Scripture: he turns to another liberal scholar, J. Philip Wogaman. Wogaman, like Tony Campolo, was one of Bill Clinton’s spiritual advisors immediately after the Lewinsky affair. Wogaman even got a book deal out of it, and defended the President, arguing that impeachment due to the affair would be a moral tragedy. Apparently, the spiritual advisor felt that breaking the most fundamental civil and sacred vow of one’s life should not tarnish the trust in one’s vow of public office. Impeachment would be a moral tragedy, but adultery? Eh, well. This is the moral expert Sider chooses for defining what a “State” is.

Not surprisingly, we get a humanistic definition. Wogaman argues that a State is “society acting as a whole, with the ultimate power to compel compliance within its own jurisdiction.”1 This is a humanistic view of the State more akin to Greek philosophy or the radical Enlightenment, not by Scripture. Nevertheless, Sider sees two important elements in this definition. “First, when the state acts, the whole society acts, not just one part of it.”2 “Second… the state alone has authority and power to use coercion to enforce its laws in every area of society.”3

Neither of these two points reflects much biblical teaching. First, the idea that “when the state acts, the whole society acts” neglects the biblical principle of the remnant. During the time of Elijah, the State had degenerated to the point of mass State-sanctioned idolatry, theft, and murder. King Ahab (with his wife Jezebel) exceeded all kings before him in doing evil. He sold himself to do evil in the sight of the LORD. [I Kings 21:25]. Yet the whole society did not act according to the mass wickedness of Ahab’s State: the State did not represent everyone in its evil, nor did God hold all of society accountable. Rather, God assured righteous Elijah that He has preserved a faithful remnant within society, and would establish a new faithful State:

The Lord said to him, “Go, return on your way to the wilderness of Damascus, and when you have arrived, you shall anoint Hazael king over Aram; and Jehu the son of Nimshi you shall anoint king over Israel; and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah you shall anoint as prophet in your place. It shall come about, the one who escapes from the sword of Hazael, Jehu shall put to death, and the one who escapes from the sword of Jehu, Elisha shall put to death. Yet I will leave 7,000 in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal and every mouth that has not kissed him.” [I Kings 19:15-18].

The second point faces similar problems. The State does have a monopoly on the official use of force. What concerns us here, however, is Sider’s phrase “its laws.” The State in this view is the source of law and thus enforces its laws. The Bible teaches otherwise. As Sider knows, the ruler is God’s minister (literally, deacon), and God’s agent of wrath [Romans 13:4]. The State is therefore not a source of law but an agency of law.4 It must use coercion to enforce God’s laws in every area of society. When it begins to legislate its own laws, it replaces God as lawgiver, and thus forces a false god and a tyranny upon mankind – the Moloch State.

Maintaining this distinction would preserve the State from causing problems when it comes to the last phrase in Sider’s point, “every area of society.” God also ordained the family and church for society. What would happen if the State created its laws to conflict with God’s law for family or church? What if, for example, the State outlawed, in the name of “equality,” reading sections of the Bible that condemn homosexuality? Would the State have the authority and power to use coercion to enforce such a law within churches or even families? Sider’s definition includes nothing to stop the State in such a situation, although in a later section he does see the principle as necessary: “The state should not pass laws that interfere with the unique responsibilities of other institutions, such as family and church.”5

Yet Sider does not apply this principle consistently. Elsewhere he argues that “the state may be able to provide some resources to encourage other institutions to play their proper role,”6 and, “When other individuals or institutions in the community do not or cannot provide basic necessities for the needy, government rightly helps.”7 According to Sider, the State rightly acts to provide “vital services” including “providing economic opportunity for all, or in providing care for those who cannot care for themselves.”8 The Bible says nothing of the State taking up the slack of other institutions. God did not ordain it with a monopoly of force and coercion in order to supplement the provisions or education of the church and family. Sider’s view makes the State the provider, care-taker, and instructor of final resort, the ultimate provider; in short, he makes the State messianic. As such, Sider finishes his section “What Should We Legislate?” continuing to speak about law as “the State’s law,” instead of God’s law.

In biblical thought, the State is a subordinate institution to God’s law. This means, among other things, that the State cannot legislate beyond what Scripture warrants, nor can it use its monopoly of force in any area of society that Scripture keeps free from it. Thus the State cannot interfere with the sanctions of the church (baptism, discipline, and excommunication), nor the family (education, finance). The State exists to punish evil by ministering God’s wrath. Going beyond this the State usurps the role of other divine institutions and even of God Himself.

More accurately, then, we should define the State purely within its God-given purpose: the executor of God’s wrath within society. R.J. Rushdoony summarizes well, “The state is thus God’s hangman,”9 though he qualifies the startling expression. For the purpose of punishing evil, “The State is a representative collective that can [be] and is judged by God in history.”10 Rulers ought to acknowledge their submission to God as the ultimate lawgiver, and indeed should publically acknowledge His ordination of their office through a Christian oath of office. This was the purpose of the first Pentecost [Numbers 11:16-17, 24-30], as well as the prophets’ anointing of Kings [I Samuel 10:1-7].11

Sider finds a third important point of his definition in the work of fellow socialist James Skillen, namely, the State as “public-legal integrator” of other institutions in a pluralistic society. He writes, “The central role of the State is to integrate – i.e., rightly relate – all these different institutions and persons through fair law so they all enjoy justice.”12 This role of the State nowhere appears in Scripture, let alone as the “central” role of government. God calls civil government to judge all persons impartially and fairly according to His law, not to “integrate” institutions through its own “fair law.” Sider gives no indication of exactly what this integration involves, but since Scripture does not define such a role for the State, the humanistic opinion cannot prove helpful.

What the “State as public-legal integrator” view does, however, is once again place the State as the ultimate orderer of society. However the State decides to make the relationships between institutions “fair,” the family and church will have to submit. This denies biblical teaching that says the State should submit to God’s law, and that it actually should come in behind the church as an ordering institution of society. The ruler’s public submission to God’s word and Spirit [Numbers 11:16-17, 24-30] and the prophetic office’s confirming the anointing of the king [I Samuel 10:1-7] show the former. The laws for sin sacrifices indicate the latter based on the greater degrees of sacrifice required [Leviticus 4].

Likewise, a public-legal integrator State would necessarily need to be an overwhelmingly large and powerful State. How else could it observe, manage, and regulate each and every other institution, between institutions, and between individuals and institutions? Since earthly rulers don’t have omniscience and omnipotence, what Sider envisions would require massive bureaucracy. Sider’s State would be the one institution essentially subsuming all others in society, for none would be free of its probing regulations and nosy inspectors and agents. In fact, Sider’s view of the State presupposes a Behemoth-sized government for nearly every positive measure of government he calls for, even though he argues otherwise at times.

We have seen how Sider thinks the “central” role of government is to act as a “public-legal integrator” dominating all other institutions in society. He exacerbates this role by denying any reciprocal oversight of the government by other institutions like the church. In his mind, the State makes enforceable laws but cannot legislate “internal thoughts and feelings.”13 Good so far. But then he argues the converse for the church: it can teach about thoughts and feelings, but should not deal with the “laws of the State.”14 This denies the biblical model for God sanctioning rulers and rulers publically submitting to His word. The church should have the loudest voice when it comes to determining what is right or wrong in society. If laws or proposed laws do not line up with biblical law, the church should condemn them clearly.

THE STATE AS SAVIOR

Why does Sider wish for a State in which civil government is the most powerful institution? Because liberals think that civil legislation will lead to salvation. Sider, too, sees a salvific role for legislation:

Laws have a teaching function. It is silly to think that whatever the law permits is morally right and whatever it condemns is morally wrong. But many people think that way – at least to a degree. Therefore sometimes public laws rightly forbid private behavior that would largely affect just the person (or a small circle of family members) who chooses the behavior. [Legalizing drugs, for example] would convey the message to many that using these drugs is morally acceptable.15

This should only be done, of course, when the government has enough power to do so. For example, we should not apply this principle to the prohibition of alcohol even though so many people abuse it. Why not? Because, Sider says, it didn’t work last time we tried it. So many people subverted the system that the law was “essentially unenforceable.”16 This means, of course, that if the government had enough power to stop it, the Sider House Rules17 would not allow the production of any hard cider.

So Sider sees a “teaching” and reforming role for civil law. It is a short step from here to salvation by law. Indeed, Sider goes so far as to say, “Over time, laws do frequently change the heart.” If he means God’s law, I wholeheartedly concur: “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple” [Psalm 19:7, KJV]. But unfortunately he means “the state’s laws” in this context. While such laws do have the effect of putting people into habits, conditioning their already fallen hearts to accept certain comfortable and submissive patterns of living, this yet falls short of a godly reform of society. Once again, what if the state’s laws teach something contrary to God’s law? It may condition hearts, alright, but Christians should hardly welcome this kind of “change.” Paul held this important distinction: “do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect” [Romans 12:2]. The important teaching function of the law, then, should derive from the voice of the church preaching the gospel until it echoes in the halls of government, and from civil government publically recognizing the law of God as supreme.

Nevertheless, humanists do not like the voice of God in the public square. They believe they can use man’s laws to create a perfect society through State coercion. Herbert Schlossberg reminds us that, “The social democrats who have molded Swedish society for the better part of two generations have taken it as an article of faith that they could create new people by manipulating the environment,”18 meaning its institutions and laws. P.T. Bauer describes the humanistic, socialistic model of Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal, who “envisages planning as a wholesale transformation of people’s attitudes, values and institutions, by compulsion if necessary.”19 This is the same old humanist serpent, salvation by politics, salvation by law.20 The State must be father, healer, savior, benefactor.…

Dr. Greg Bahnsen argued that when the State abandons God’s law, some form of tyranny will follow. He writes,

When the questions of ethics are answered without recourse to God, the following views of the state become inevitable:

The State incarnates the Divine Idea upon earth (Hegel).

The State is the supreme power, ultimate and beyond repeal, absolutely independent (Fitche).

Everything for the State; nothing outside the State; nothing against the State (Mussolini).

The State dominates the nation because it alone represents it (Hitler).

The State embraces everything, and nothing has value outside the State. The State creates right (Franklin Delano Roosevelt).21

To this list we could add,

The State is society acting as a whole (Wogaman).

When the State acts, the whole society acts (Sider).

The State is public-legal integrator of all socially differentiating reality (Skillen).

CONCLUSION

In biblical thought, the State simply judges cases of conflict or crime and punishes evil through some form of restitution, or in a few cases death. In the biblical view, while a few penalties may sound harsh to modern ears (death penalty for homosexual acts, for example), what often escapes unnoticed is that the number of laws enforceable by the State’s coercive force would require a drastic reduction in the size and scope of modern government. Some people fear “Biblical law” because they envision governments imprisoning people for “heart sins” like covetousness, however such an absurd action could be arrived at. The truth is, civil government should have the power to punish only those specific crimes that God has revealed punishments for. He did not allow civil rulers to divine people’s hearts, mandate educational curricula, invade bedrooms, or even to enforce certain laws of charity like gleaning. God gave the civil ruler no authority here. The biblical State is a very small institution with a very limited range of power. When it executes that power, it does so definitively and in the name of God; but the range of those powers pales in comparison to the modern Welfare State.

Humanists don’t like such a bound and limited State. They want a Moloch State, whether they call it that or not. Schlossberg has exposed in detail how the humanistic State (“society acting as a whole”) inevitably moves to replace God, family, church, business, etc. The State must be savior, father, idol, educator, shepherd, and more.22 Such images provide great marketing tools for big-government liberals: “The state that acts as a wise parent instead of a vindictive judge has been an attractive image to many people.… The father is a symbol not only of authority but also of provision.”23 “The paternal state not only feeds its children, but nurtures, educates, comforts, and disciplines them, providing all they need for their security.… It supplies us with all blessings, and we look to it for all our needs.”24 This is the State liberals envision. Sider’s vision partakes of it. Schlossberg rightly sees it an Idol for Destruction.

In any of these kinds of States, citizens prostrate themselves, courting government’s favor in order to receive sustenance for their services. This is not “society acting as a whole,” it is society acting as a whore.

SOURCES

1 Quoted in Ronald J. Sider, The Scandal of Evangelical Politics: Why are Christians Missing the Chance to Really Change the World? (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2008), 79.

2 Sider, Scandal, 79.

3 Ibid.

4 See R. J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Craig Press, 1973), 34.

5 Sider, Scandal, 92.

6 Ibid., 93.

7 Ronald J. Sider, Just Generosity: A New Vision for Overcoming Poverty in America, 2nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007), 88.

8 Ibid., 89.

9 Rushdoony, Institutes, 238.

10 Ray R. Sutton, That You May Prosper: Dominion by Covenant (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1987), 179.

11 See Rushdoony, Institutes, 242.

12 Sider, Scandal, 80.

13 Ibid., 94.

14 Ibid.

15 Ibid., 93-94.

16 Ibid., 94.

17 The phrase “Sider House Rules” generally denotes the replacing of God’s standard by one’s own individual rules.

18 Herbert Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction: Christian Faith and Its Confrontation with American Society (Washington, DC: Regency Gateway, 1990), 189.

[19] Quoted in Schlossberg, Idols, 189 note 30.

20 Sutton, Prosper, 191.

21 Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, 3rd Ed. (Nacogdoches, TX: Covenant Media Press, [1977] 2002), 12-13.

22 Schlossberg, Idols, 177-231.

23 Ibid., 183.

24 Ibid., 184.


Respectfully,
Mark