It isn't just Drollinger's political influence that draws one to review this article, what he says in this article is repeated by quite a few religiously conservative laypeople.
Now if we look at both the beginning and the end of his article, we see a glaring iconsistency. For as the beginning of his article states:
it is important to approach this discussion through the lens of the New Testament (NT) only because God has clearly separated the institution of civil government from any and all sacerdotal responsibilities in the time in which we live per the clear instruction of Jesus in Matthew 22:21. Such was not the case with Old Testament (OT) Israel. This is a critical distinction to make since many liberal theologians, who are pro government entitlement programs, use the OT as their proof text.
Now let's scoot ahead to the end of his article when he writes the following:
The Hierarchical Order of God’s Societal Safety Net
- Meeting one's own needs
- The institution of the family
- The institution of marriage
- The institution of the Church
Now if you will note, the government is not included in Drollinger's view of God's Societal Safety Net model. Why is that? It is because the New Testament passages Drollinger uses to determine the duties of the government is Romans 13:1-8; I Peter 2:13-14; and Matthew 22:21. Drollinger notes that there no mention of the state taking care of those in need in the passages he listed. Drollinger also concludes that the government's only duties are to punish those who do wrong and reward those who do what is right.
So, according to Drollinger, while God has prohibited the government from telling the Church what to do, Drollinger believes that he can use the New Testament to tell the government what its duties are.
Now his distinction between what the government could do in the Old Testament and what it can do now has other problems. One problem with Drollinger's approach is exegetical. He forgets the context of the passages he so easily cites. The audience was the Church, not society. There is a sharp distinction between the two. For while everyone in the Church is a part of the society where they live, no one in society is required to be a member of the Church, nor should they be. Furthermore, we are not commanded to rule over society. We should note this when Jesus and Paul talk about Church discipline. For when Paul is exercising Church discipline in I Cor 5, he states at the end that he is only concerned with the purity of the Church, not society.
In addition, how does Drollinger know that God's New Testament words are there to provide and exhaustive view of the government's duties in New Testament times? Drollinger seems to assume that God has provided a complete model of what the government is allowed to do.
In addition, Drollinger's misuse of the Romans 13, I Peter 2, and Matthew 22:21 passages shows a lack of awareness that the Roman Empire, including during the time of the Apostolic Church, already operated social safety net programs. One of the programs put some limitations on wealth by limiting how much land one could own (click here). So if the Roman government was already operating social safety nets during Jesus's ministry and Jesus taught that we are to give to Caesar what is his, how can we use the New Testament to prohibit our government from helping those in need?
Drollinger's use of the Bible to dictate what government can and cannot do assumes some degree of dominance by Christians over society. But not only is that not what the Apostolic Church started to accomplish, the teachings of Jesus completely contradict any such notion.
But Jesus told us to move on when people reject our preaching of the Gospel. And Jesus warned us against 'lording it over others.' So how is it that Drollinger can use the Scriptures to dictate to governments in New Testament times what they can and cannot do when doing so presupposes a dominant position of the Church over the state and society?
We might also ask at least one more question. If taking care of those in need is part of loving one's neighbor as oneself, how is it that only the Church is charged with helping those who slip through the cracks of the other institutions that Drollinger lists in his model of God's social safety nets? After all, are we not all charged to love one's neighbor as oneself? If that is the case, then everyone in the nation, both Christian and non-Christian, both as individuals and collectively are charged with helping those in need. So perhaps liberal theologians who quote the Old Testament to promote social safety net programs to be performed by our government are right in doing so.
In answer to one of Drollinger's concerns, we should note that most of the federal government's budget is not really spent on entitlement programs as Drollinger suggests. We should note that two of the biggest 'entitlement' programs, Social Security and part of Medicare, are self-funded. In fact, the Social Security fund is the largest holder of our national debt. What Drollinger avoids mentioning is that tax cuts for the wealthy and continual increases in defense spending in addition to supporting the prison industrial complex perhaps contributes more to the national debt than the nation's entitlement programs. And in figuring that out, we need to realize that defense spending is spread throughout budgets for quite a few federal departments. In addition, Drollinger does not address in his article s the plight of the working poor. For not all who are poor refuse to work as Drollinger seems to suggest at times.
The problem with Drollinger's approach is found in how he reads the Scriptures. For he does so having been heavily influenced by American conservative political and economic ideologies. And thus he might want to consider whether he is reading those ideologies into the Scriptures rather than reading them from the Scriptures. And considering how current American conservatism is following the thinking of Ayn Rand, such is a very important consideration.
No comments:
Post a Comment