As part of an ongoing dialog with fellow Christians, when the discussion leads to politics, as it does many times, my position seems to perplex. Many times, it boils down to the question, "What is the legitimate role of government?"
And if you know me, the answer I give is none whatsoever.
I concede that if we are forced to have a government, then the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and private property. Or, to put it even more simply, the role of government is to protect individual rights. Anything more is an overstep of bounds.
But if we are forced to have a government, that force can go beyond the original role. Why? Because it was forced upon us in the first place.
Yet this is what people probably mean when they say they are in favor of small government. They're in favor of small force, hoping that it won't become big force. Of course, this also turns on the notion that any person in favor of government smaller than you
like is considered to be some kind of anarchist.
With Christians, the discussion leads to Romans 13 and other parts of scripture. Ok, so if that's you, then here's a question for you:
How can anyone defend small government using Romans 13? I don't think the original audience saw Rome as a small government.
Also if you can manage to demonstrate that small government is authorized by Romans 13, how small can it be before it becomes unbiblical?
Well, I have yet to get a good answer to those questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment