Tag Archives: government

Establishing Libertarian Governance with Christian Trinitarianism

30 Thursday Oct 2014

Posted by in Christ and Culture, Government, Libertarianism, Trinity

≈ Comments Off on Establishing Libertarian Governance with Christian Trinitarianism

Tags

, ,

Given the formative role Christianity has had on Western civilization, we should ask the question of how much a Christian view of God played in the ideals that characterize Western governments. I intend to stay clear of philosophical libertarianism and theological austerity, instead focusing my attention on what the Trinity offers us as a theological foundation for government. I have developed a robust, complex, and what I consider to be a faithful view of the Trinity elsewhere: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00OGSAX2W if anyone wants more data. The Trinity is a difficult idea, but it is rationally intelligible: God is one nature, Three Persons. Simply, one divine nature (what) expressed in Three distinct Persons mutually related (how). I will not unpack this now, but feel free to ask in the comments. The key to what I want to say in this post is that God is truly distinct Persons who are in communal loving relationships. Where love is, so also is freedom. Because all Three Persons are one in nature, there is no inequality among them. Because all Three Persons, Father, Son, and Spirit, are equal in nature, so must their relationships be loving and free. This is not to say that there cannot be genuine obedience in such love and freedom, but it is to say that such obedience is not forced in the Trinity. Probably the best text for making this point is John 10:17 – 18, where Jesus says that “For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.” We see a clear order to the Persons of the Trinity, that is, the Father gives the “charge,” but clearly the Father doesn’t force the charge on the Son: ” . . . because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me.” This part of the verse doesn’t demand that we remove Jesus’ obedience or the Father’s commanding to protect freedom. Instead, we have to modify our understanding of obedience and commanding to match this heavenly reality; the Father’s commanding is not domineering, and the Son’s obedience is not fearfully or forcefully compelled. This is what we would expect love to do in situations where there is a commander and the commanded. The one who commands is no longer a tyrant, but lovingly, that is, non-coercisely, commands. The one commanded acts from love, affection, and trust, not from the instinct to survive or being forced. Love, then, is on both sides of this heavenly exchange because the Father commands without force or fear and the Son obeys without being compelled or intimidated into obeisance. What does this offer human governance? Can we set up libertarian policies in government that uphold the individual’s and community’s ability to say yes or no while similarly establishing policies that engender trust and lead to trustworthiness between government and the public? Such policies, informed from the points made about the Trinity above, could be structured to incentivize the public’s willing adoption and practice of them. These laws would offer some positive effects — fiscal, communal, moral, familial, et al. — but would leave it to individuals and communities to decide if they wanted to “trust” such policies. Such policies require certain embedded cultural values in order to entrust the public with responsible freedom and the public to entrust the government with certain powers to responsibly guide the nation. The current situation in the US, where little confidence in government competency is increasingly common, says that mutual trust is a distant cry. When there are two equal partners in a governing-governed relationship, it seems the test of leadership which reflects God the Trinity best is one that makes intentional room for freedom, not limitation to it. I have more to say on this, but this must suffice for now, drawing a summary principle in close: when both partners of a governing-governed relationship are sufficiently trustworthy or “mature,” there should be no force — other than that persuasiveness that is neither frightful or domineering — because such force is suggestive of distrust. A similar principle is that trust enables freedom; distrust is hostile to it.  I want to be clear in close, the Father isn’t “governing” the Son of God like the human government situation; indeed, it hardly seems accurate to use the word “government” at all among the Persons of the Trinity. I see Them as in covenantally relationships, lovingly related, intimately communal, and distinctly living in the tasks proper to them: the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.

Dr. Scalise

God the Trinity, Allah, Freedom, Godvernment, and Libertarianism: Part I

22 Wednesday Oct 2014

Posted by in Comparative Religion, Freedom, Government, Libertarianism, Trinity and Allah

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

My dissertation was on a comparison between God the Trinity and lonely Allah. P.S., I have my shorthand of my dissertation available, which I use for my classes: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00OGSAX2W/?tag=B00OGSAX2W . Allah is an Arabic word that means “the God” and is what Muslims call the Deity. When speaking about the traditional Judaeo-Christian view of God I will just use “God.” When speaking about the Muslim view, I will use “Allah.” During this study, it became increasing important to have a vision of God where He is related and in community for all eternity. Having something to compare such a Being (Trinity) draws this out decisively; Allah is utterly alone in “eternity past,” and rules alone presently. I don’t want to talk about this too much, but rather about the consequences these different visions of the Deity have on government (Godvernment), freedom, and libertarianism — a philosophy that states that humans truly have free choices, are not forced or made to pick one choice or another based on current circumstances or past  causes, should not be forced, and holds that any government should function to uphold and maintain a nation where free choices are possible. I will just handle the first of these (Government/Godvernment) in this blog. The pun in “Godvernment” is designed to draw out the frightful idea that a human — governor, president, congressman, et al. — can begin to function like a god and the more chilling thought that this should be so. By the way, I owe the pun to Aaron Gentles, a good friend. What I want to ask is what type of vision of the Deity more likely leads to such an idea? Is it a vision of God in community and related to equals — Father, Son, Spirit (Trinity) — or a vision of Allah utterly alone in His supremacy and rule? I hope that it is clear that it is a vision of Allah — and I am not attempting to attack Islam here, just thinking through consequences for differing views of the Deity. On the view of a lone Allah ruling, there is a model for hierarchal rule of a superior over inferior. I can’t make this point strong enough: in the Islamic view of Allah, there is no way to establish equality or community. Why? Forget about the world for a second and imagine Allah alone for all eternity. He is related to no one, distinct from no one, and has no community with anyone. When Allah creates, he creates a group or groups of inferiors. Thus, on this view, we establish in the very first relationship a model of inequality. Don’t miss that it is the very first relationship, and so acts as the pristine or primordial example of not just what is so, but what should be so. Someone might object here and say that the Christian view of God would have the same problem, but it would not. God the Trinity is a community of equals internally related and eternally existing one in the others. I know this is hard, but the Trinity is not illogical; indeed it can be rationally explained and has been many times — see chapter 4 of my dissertation when it is published for a contemporary example. The first relationship according to Christian Trinitarianism has always already existed among the Father, Son, and Spirit. This establishes equality among equals and community among equals as the very first relationship, and it should be this way.

If I am a human ruler and I view Allah as my example for life and rulership, then I place myself in the superior position over inferiors; equality is not the goal and relationships should function in terms of inequality. If I use God the Trinity as my example, then equality follows, and it should follow. If I want to establish an elitism as the ruler where others are viewed as less than me, I follow the example of Allah. If I want to establish seeing others as equal to me, then I would follow the example of the Trinity.

The command, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” is just an explanation of what is going on in the Trinity, but it makes little sense against the backdrop of Allah, the superior and supreme ruler.

If I want a Godvernment on earth run by a sole authority who is superior to me, follow Allah. If I want a government on earth run by those understanding themselves equal to me, then follow the Trinity.

Dr. Scalise

For more on the Islam, Christian comparison, see http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00OGSAX2W/?tag=B00OGSAX2W

Entitlement: Part 1

08 Friday Jun 2012

Posted by in Christ and the Politico-Economic

≈ Comments Off on Entitlement: Part 1

Tags

, , , ,

It is worth wondering why the majority of the law in the OT ascribes negative rights to people instead of positive ones. Dietrich Bonhoeffer thought about this same thing while his imprisonment during World War II which ending in his death at the command of Hitler.  When I say negative, I simply mean commands which have “not” in them: “You shall not murder, you shall not covet, you shall not commit adultery.”  The Entitlement mentality says, “I am entitled to something, I have a right to . . .”  But having an attitude of negative rights (“I am not entitled to, I do not have a right to”) changes how we receive.  The ramifications of allowing this “negative rights paradigm” to sink in through daily life, whether it be political, economic, or social, will create a brand new way of life, seen most clearly in our attitude about what we receive from others. But is entitlement really that bad a thing?  Are we not due something?  Do we have to define life by what we are not entitled to (e.g., not entitled to kill someone)? Granted, being self-interested is not always to be selfish.  Nevertheless, an entitlement attitude is defined by its concern for self preeminently and not with someone else.  In the negative paradigm, another person enters the conversation: “I am not entitled to murder someone.”  In the entitlement way, the same thought sounds like this with another not entering the thought: “I am entitled to live.”  This is only a small matter of phrasing but how we phrase it is foundational to how we understand our relationships with others.  Does our sense of entitlement damage another?  This is crucial: there can be some self-interested activities which benefit others and there are some which are detrimental to others.  Entitlement, as conceived in what follows, does harm to another and thus is rightly classified as selfish and not merely self-interested.  For instance, if we say that we deserve an education paid for by the government, what have we really said?  We deserve an education paid for by others who have labored through their jobs, risks, stocks, what have you, and then had their money taken through taxation and redistributed by government. And who gets the renown for this? Likely government and not the rightful men or women who earned the money.  Entitlement benefits received through government necessarily involves oppression of those from whom the money is taken in order for their money to be redistributed.  What degree of taxation? Or for what purposes will taxes be used?  How we answer these questions will determine whether taxation is oppressive taxation.  Taxation per se is not evil.  Will Christians, through entitlement and taxation, support enslaving many in this manner?  Bear in mind that I am not saying that Christians should not give; I am saying that Christians should give but taxation, required as it is, for the sake of government-discerned-entitlements is not “giving.”  For one, determining who receives your money is no longer up to the one who is giving the money (in many regards).  For two, giving based on Christ is to be freely done just as He freely gave.  For three, the one giving should receive credit for the gift rather than the one who is redistributing.  We even use different language to describe the difference between paying taxes and giving.  Intuitively we say, when we give the government money through taxation, “I paid my taxes,” rather than, “I gave my taxes”: different words for different actions.

B. T. Scalise