Limited Government, part 3: The Old Testament view

Up until now, I have been primarily dependent upon a particular interpretation of the New Testament and Christian theological resources. The reason for this is because I believe the strongest and most explicit religious case AGAINST any brand of socialism or form of strong interventionist federal government or executive branch rest in a majority of the Old Testament texts.
The Law
One of the most spiritually edifying and enjoyable courses I have taken at Brite Divinity School was The Jewish and Black Interpretation of Exodus. It was both a biblical studies and social ethics course co-taught by two of my favorite professors. For one of our assignments, we had to discuss the moral implications of the Exodus. My interpretation was actually pretty anti-imperial, if not in fact post-colonial in my comparison of Moses and Pharaoh. I contended that just as Pharaoh the oppressor, declared himself a god, so did Jesus himself warn us that not everyone who comes in the name of the LORD does not come from him (Matthew 24). I included with Pharaoh and the false prophets who claimed to be from God the European colonizers who arrived in Africa to redeem the pagans from the idolatry. The story of Moses (at one point an Egyptian prince) and the story of Pharaoh has political implications. The Exodus narrative can be seen as one where a man who fully relies on the power of the Almighty alone overcomes a false man-god who has the most complex scheme of tyranny to date.
Right before the judge Samuel dismissed the people from Saul’s ordination as king, he read them the regulations regarding (read: warnings against) the kingship. Deuteronomy 17:14-20 tells the Israelites not to go back to the ways of Egypt, the days where they were under the oppressive reign of Pharaoh. Constantly throughout the Law, they are warned against wanting to be like the other nations, who have monarchs who claim to be divine. The king of Israel is actually supposed to be submissive the authority of divine law; for a similar idea, the president of the United States of America are not above the U.S. Constitution. Long ago, God had approved of the rule of law, which had a judicial system, a select few representatives of the people (priests, in this case, for God) and a very limited executive. There are very close parallels in OT vision of public policy and the ideals of America’s founders, but not exact.
A short word on my interpretation of the book of Judges. The phrase, “and in those days, there was not a king" appears several times. I do not interpret that as a cry for a Davidic king, but rather, King YHWH Godself. It makes sense in light of the anti-kingship parable given in Judges 9 and the fall of Gideon’s son, Abimelech, whose name means, my father is king (a play on words). Gideon became arrogant, and his character was passed on to his son, who became even more boisterous and died and tragic death.
The Writings
On the surface, the days of King Solomon are filled with glory and joy and peace and prosperity. OT scholar Walter Brueggeman would offer a different suggestion. The question we should be asking is exactly, “who is doing the prospering?” and “at whose expense?” Maybe because we are so caught up in the glory of empire and the past histories of such royalty such as Queen Elizabeth and King Louis XVI that we both not try to understand the more ambivalent stance that the Bible’s historians take towards Solomon’s kingship. 1st Kings 4:20-28 describes how Solomon broke the law and had manual labor and gathered up war chariots for himself, and levied heavy taxes on the people, all contrary to the law! But yet, the text says, from East to West, each person lived safely under her/his own vine and fig tree. At this point, it is crucial to note Brueggeman’s contention about this passage, and later, how the prophets use the vine/fig tree blessing tradition: “[We] cannot know if 1st Kings 4:20-28 is a serious statement of state policy or if it is heavy handed propaganda, or if it is a subtle, critical irony. What is clear is that by such shrewd manipulation, the propaganda of the state promises the very thing it cannot give because it is in principle opposed to it. And the remainder of the Solomonic narrative makes the point: it cannot secure personal vines and fig trees for its citizenry because it is fundamentally devoted to rapacious use of those very products” (Brueggemann and Miller 1994) . In other words, the text given to us in 1st Kings 4 does not give us the whole story; we need knowledge of the Torah, specifically the warnings against Ancient Near Eastern Empire building in Deuteronomy and Judges, in order to comprehend the implication of Solomon’s actions as well as God’s rebuke of him in 1st Kings 11.
The Prophets
The formula of “every person under her/his own vine and under his/her own fig tree” appears also in Isaiah 36:16, Micah 4:4, and Zechariah 3:10. The first of these instances, in Isaiah, it is used as the rhetoric of Sennecharib, the emperor of Assyria. He tells the Israelites and Judeans to not listen to King Hezekiah, therefore, not the prophecies of Isaiah via YHWH. Sennecharib is promising a false peace where the God of Israel is placed at the margins of their life; this is a bogus promise that no true Torah-believing Judean or Israelite could take seriously. Zechariah 3:10 offers a messianic vision of the world where a priestly savior-figure takes away all of the guilt of Israel from the world and leads them into a land where each person not only has their own vine and fig tree, but that they also invite their neighbors to join them. It is a vision of justice and hospitality that excludes any notion of a monarch. Micah promises that no one will have any fear under their vine and fig tree. The messages of Zechariah, Micah, Isaiah, and the Chronicler (especially 1st Samuel 10:17-19), when read together, provide us with a vision of God’s dominion, which looks nothing like the statist policies of social democracies, communist or fascist regimes for that matter. The norms of God’s dominion are self-government, hospitality, justice, and peaceableness where expansion of the LORD’s empire results in an endless peace, with justice and righteousness at its very foundation (Isaiah 9:7)

Works Cited
Brueggemann, Walter and Patrick D. Miller. 1994. A social reading of the old testament : Prophetic approaches to israel's communal life. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Outed As a Libertarian…..

As I promised in my most recent post here on Black Trinitarian Theology, I would like to briefly explain my recent political conversion. In case you did not know, I am well read in Liberationist, Womanist, and Black theologies. It was less than two years ago that I was able with a professor at Brite to attend GoingGlobal: Interfaith Journeys on the Road to Liberation, An International Conference at Baylor University in Waco, Texas. During one particular session, one of the lecturers asked all the members of the audience to stand up if they were Marxist/and/or Socialist. There was only one person “maverick” enough to remain sitting, and that was me. In spite of all of the Marxist criticism of society I learned in high school and college, something inside of me just cannot see anything good about government coerced economic redistribution. During my undergrad days, it would seem like I would get into an argument with the small group of libertarians on campus from time to time. I had considered myself a third way, pro-life Democrat until recently, after seeing pro-life Democrat Senator Bob Casey Jr. throw his support behind then Senator Barack Obama last spring and then now hearing that supposedly moderate Bill Clinton supported the (un)Fairness Doctrine. My undergraduate days were filled with attempts to save the world, like participating in TCU Peace Action or Frogs for Fair trade. I do not regret these stances; I still believe in fair trade (free and fair) and I still oppose the concept of war. Yet, never had I given consideration to the non-interventionist case against warmongering, as the Founding Fathers preferred. I was able to listen to the audiobook of Congressman Dr. Ron Paul’s The Revolution. Although I disagree with Paul on a couple of other issues, my foundational stances (anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-war) were much like his views.
Most importantly, however, I kept coming back to the stories of the Judges of the Hebrew Bible. Judges 9 has become my favorite parable in the Bible because it refers to the futility of a human monarch rule over a free nation. After the death of Moses and prior to the reign of King Saul, Israel was governed by a kritocracy, or simply, the rule of judges. Time and again in the book of Judges, bad things happen to Israel because every person does what they want due to the fact that there is no king (17:6; 21:25). Now some scholars choose to interpret these passages as implying the necessity of monarchy. However, I disagree and would argue that the author is making a theological point where YHWH, King of the universe continues to be displaced by the Israelites who prefer to live in idolatry. That would mean that I no longer have to view the anointing of King Saul as a positive event (as I once did as a Bible thumping third-grader), but rather as something that Samuel, and therefore the LORD, regrets doing (1st Samuel 10:17-19). Samuel, although ordaining Saul as Israel’s first monarch, is making some rather serious charges against Israel, the crime of apostasy. The Babylonian exile, in my understanding, is a punishment that is incurred because Israel’s constant rejection of the one true Sovereign of creation (see Ezekiel 1-2).
The message of the divine drama found in the book of Judges is unambiguous: government is necessary (hence the role of the judges) but only God has the divine right to exist as king. Many people on both sides of the aisle compare the president to Caesar; even though we may not like whoever is president of the country now, passages in Romans 12 & 13, along with 1st Peter 2:17 require that faithful Christ followers passively submit to all government authorities. I plan in an upcoming post to refute that argument by making a clear distinction between ancient Rome and 18 century early North America (after the American Revolution. For now, all I can say is that I am more committed to less intervention by any of the three branches of the federal government in favor of the Old Testament vision of universal self-governance where EVERY person will sit under her/his own fig tree and no one will be afraid, for the LORD would have spoken (Micah 4:4).

Limited Government, part 2: Some further reflections on the Trinity

(From a submitted paper 2 years ago)

*start*

Generally, our view of authority is always interrelated with our view of a Higher Power. We experience the Triune God’s omnipotence when we encounter God’s grace; God’s almighty power revealed in the vulnerability that The Messiah felt at Golgotha. Through the use of godly notions of power, the Black church can undermine modern sinful realities of racism, classism, and sexism. The oppressive relationships reinforced by sinful social and political systems in America can be disrupted by imitating the liberating relationships Christians should have with God, each other, and the community. Ideal power relationships are best conceived by imitating the Trinity: the relationships between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Dr. Kelly Brown Douglas notes, “[The] Trinitarian doctrine avows a God who is internally and externally relational. God, in Godself, the Godhead, is in a relationship of mutuality and reciprocity as creator, redeemer, and sustainer.”(Kelly Brown Douglas. Sexuality and the Black Church: A Womanist Perspective. (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2003), 119) A Trinitarian vision of power relationships would be grounded in reciprocity, equality, and self-transcendence as well as undermine worldly and oppressive social structures dependent upon inequality and imposed unjust relationships.
Jesus The Messiah the titles of King of Kings, Lord of Lords, and Prince of Peace (Revelation 19:16, Isaiah 9:6). These political images demonstrate the Christian desire to recognize the sovereignty and graciousness of the Triune God. At the crucifixion, Jesus is crowned with thorns and labeled “The King of the Jews” by the Roman authorities because he was viewed as both a religious and political threat to the dominant cultural and political system of that time, the Roman Empire. Jesus’ declaration of the coming of the Kingdom of God served as a condemnation of the prevailing religious and political principalities of his day. He began his earthly ministry declaring, “The time has come. The Kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the Good News” (Mark 1:15). Jesus prophesied Good News to people who suffered from human wickedness and social oppression. His declaration was a reversal of the world order; he advocated God’s reign over and against the rule of sinful humanity. Jesus rebuked the pagan definition of honor, the means of greatness and power in the 2nd century when he answered who had the right to sit at his right and left in his kingdom:
“You know the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:25-28.)

The Messiah’s view of power is the power to serve, to freely give oneself for the sake of others. Throughout the Hebrew Bible, the prophets, judges, kings and priests recognized the Spirit of God as the source of their strength. The prophet Micah declared, “But as for me, I am filled with power, the Spirit of the Lord [.]” (Micah 3:8) True power, in godly terms, begins with the Triune God sharing Godself with humanity. Throughout Scripture, God is referred to as the Almighty because God has all power. God is omnipotent because God possesses all logically possible powers which it is logically possible for a being with the attributes of God to possess (John Bowden and Alan Richardson. The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983, 414). Therefore, God can never contradict God in se, including acting contrary to His goodness. In other words, unlike fallen human beings, God does not abuse power; God shares it.
The power of God is not an object that should be fought over, but a person to be shared, namely His Son, Jesus The Messiah. The apostle Paul confessed, “[We] preach The Messiah Crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, The Messiah the power and wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength” (1st Corinthians 1: 23-25). The Christian concept of power is when one allows Jesus’ power to be made perfect in one’s weakness as s/he depends upon God’s grace. Holy Ghost power means embodying both God’s power and presence as one is conformed to the image of the Crucified Immanuel, God with us. Divine omnipotence and human empowerment are inextricably linked because it is the Spirit of The Messiah, the Holy Spirit, who is responsible for changing us into the image of our Risen Lord (2nd Corinthians 12:9).

*end*

Although this piece was submitted for an essay competition a couple of years ago, and despite the many ideological changes that have taken place within myself, I still hold the Trinitarian doctrine of Divine omnipotence suggested by this work. However, I would like to reflect on the political implications for a Trinitarian doctrine of Divine omnipotence. I uphold God God in se (as defined in the Christian tradition) as the standard for all human relationships, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and communal. God’s freedom to rule the world as God chooses is a key tenet for those that believe in the sovereignty of God; for Christians in particular, God intervenes in human history to redeem the world (in traditional Christianity). The Christian God, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exists as three different persons, yet one divine essence. God the Father, according to the apostle Paul, delivers up the Son to die for our salvation, The Triune God does reveal Himself for his own glory; He shares himself in order to save humankind. In the same manner, human governments conformed in the image of the Imago Trinitas, should be limited in that no one single faction’s interests should not be held over other factions. This may call for shared power, which sounds INSANE in a country where corporations, the military industrial complex, and the prison industrial complex take priority when GOP holds the majority in the federal government, much like when unions and other special interest groups “win” when the Democrats are in power. Many would argue that America could not be changed constitutionally, say for instance, to a more participatory structure because of our long history as a 2 party system. I would contend, however, that maybe it is time to go back to the first days of the Republic. There was a tradition that the person (at that time, a white male who owned property), who lost the presidential election would become vice president. It was not until almost a half century later that political parties formally nominated a presidential and vice presidential candidate for the general election. We may need to consider returning to this tradition to liberate ourselves from the winner-take-all partisan politics that we continue to see in Washington, D.C. President Ronald Wilson Reagan, in his farewell address said , “But as long as we remember our first principles and believe in ourselves, the future will always be ours. And something else we learned: Once you begin a great movement, there's no telling where it will end. We meant to change a nation, and instead, we changed a world.” Reagan's farewell
Let us remember the traditions of the first days of the Republic and strive to be the most free, just, and peaceful nation that we can be.

Limited Government, Part 1: Some Initial Thoughts concerning the Incarnation

A recent SURVEY taken by the Faith in Public Life and Mercer University found that only 28 percent of American Christians relied on Christian doctrine to determine their views on torture. In general, it seems to be the case the North American Christians prefer to rely on their life experiences, logic and “common sense” in order to determine their positions on political issues. Lately, the campaign trail has heated up again with political rhetoric from the Cold War Era as well as the Civil Rights movement. Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin are insisting that Senator Barack Obama is a socialist (circa 1950s Joseph McCarthy) while Georgia Representative John Lewis uses the racist scarecrow of the now deceased George Wallace (of Alabama fame) in order to compare McCain and some of his angriest supporters.
This brand of fear mongering is ideological in nature and tries to make the accuser seems more “mainstream” than the accused; fear-mongering is more a pitch to independent, undecided voters who want to vote for the most credible candidate, i.e., the most objective-looking. The myth of unbiased politicians who work for the common good died long ago, and this year, Election of 2008 marked the death of a false myth in journalism that a reporter can be objective in the coverage of political candidates. Just ask Governor Mike Huckabee and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Lately, as I have been reflecting on how a Christian should approach politics and a republican-democratic system, it dawned on me that maybe Christians ought to prioritize Christian teaching as they participate in public affairs. For many Christians, Jesus Christ is the king of the universe, as the King of Kings and LORD of Lords. The Body of Christ has to look no further than the reign of God that was disclosed in God’s Son Jesus Christ. God did not reveal God’s sovereignty over the nations in Christ through over powering them with military force or by leading a revolution. As Jesus was being arrested, he asked his opponents, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you come against me with swords and clubs?” (Matt 26:55; Mark 14:48; Luke 22:52). Jesus was not leading a political revolution in the sense that he was fully participating in the Roman Empire’s way of life. His revolution was one where he declared the Empire of God over and against all human governments; it was a revolution based on prayer and knowledge of Israel’s story about the creator God.
If Jesus is God Incarnate (John 1), who dwells among his own people, and we know from the story of Israel that the same creator God of Genesis is the very same Warrior God of the Exodus, then Jesus Christ’s example is one where the LORD of the world freely chooses to limit himself (having mercy on sinners and being in solidarity with the outcast). In the same manner then, followers of Christ should advocate limited government intervention in ALL aspects of life. The single most important event in God’s disclosure of God’s reign here on earth in the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ according to the Christian narrative (Revelation 12). God does not rule with the powerful and the authorities of this world, but God choose to reign through with those who are powerless.
Therefore, Christ followers (I believe), should reject the bloodthirsty and imperialist foreign policy of someone like Senator McCain who uses atonement language (‘American blood sacrificed around the world saving western civilization”) to justify warmongering and empire building abroad. While defense spending is a necessity, the expansion of American territory overseas as well as the loss of human life is not necessary. Christ followers (in my opinion) should also avoid irresponsible domestic policies promoted by Barack Obama and the Christian Left who seem to think that Jesus and the church at Pentecost serve as models for a primitive form of Christian socialism. .Fiscal responsibility and balanced government need to be achieved. There was a day when frugality was looked upon as a virtue; however, it has been forgotten in this consumer society. Massive government intervention has never been the solution to our problems; to highlight the shining example of President FDR’s Good Deal policies only to forget that wars (for better or for worse), drive the economy or to ignore the fact that legal racial segregation still existed (and we have certain people still benefitting from it) is a pipe dream.
The problem I have with supporting either candidate in this election, if I give primacy to the doctrine of the Incarnation, is that both candidates promote activist government policies; for
Senator John McCain, the area of foreign policy; and for Senator Barack Obama, domestic policies. I look to King Jesus and His Government first, and then measure politicians accordingly. While I know that no politician or senator or prime minister can ever equal or serve as an imitation of Christ, rulers and representatives can share some of the same principles and virtues of God’s reign (such as self-discipline and truthfulness). Since the Incarnation for me, points to Christ’s Crucifixion, which then implies his resurrection, I must also say a word on two issues of life. God chose to first become incarnate in a vulnerable, Jewish baby during the time of Pax Romana (a very dangerous situation for infants at that time). God, therefore, identifies with the humiliated of the world, including the unborn; thus, I respectfully disagree with Senator Obama’s relative silence when it comes to confronting the pro-abortion movement.
The crucifixion and resurrection, as a doctrine taken literally, and if we believe the Gospel texts, we recognize that God is condemning the Roman form of political execution; that is why Christ is justified and glorified over Caesar in the Christian Testament (or NT), particularly in the Revelation of John. Perhaps the political implications are the creator God, God the Father of all of Creation, rebukes the use of political torture on any human being and maybe even the use of the death penalty. It is just something to think about.
Those are some initial ideas about the Incarnation and political preferences for the moment. Sometime, I may be able to go through all of the political implication of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ; then again, maybe not!


“Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the Seven-fold Spirit before his throne, and from Jesus the Messiah, who is the Faithful Witness, the Firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.
To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

Look, he is coming with the clouds,
and every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him;
and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." Revelation 1:4-8