The Grace of Wrong Answers, Marked with a Red Pen

Introduction

Let’s talk about socialism in the light of the last judgment. Some of the following was churned up in my mind through my discussion with Joe Rigney last week (see below). As I have remarked before, quoting Wodehouse, some minds are like the soup in a bad restaurant . . . better left unstirred.

Another thing that provided grist for the mill of my argument here or—as it may be—grist for my gist, here is a clip of Stephen Wolfe arguing that while he doesn’t want universal health care here in America, he doesn’t see any problem with it in principle if some Scandinavian country wants to do it. By way of contrast, I see a huge problem with it in principle, and by that, I mean biblical principle.

The Central Biblical Principle First

Let us begin by setting aside those issues where there would be universal agreement among faithful Christians, on issues like same sex mirage or the child sacrifices of the abortionists. To differ with what Scripture teaches on such subjects would be to identify yourself as being unfaithful. These would be issues where people simply want to disobey what the Bible expressly teaches, like when the Israelites in Egypt tell Jeremiah that they are not going to listen to him.

But what about something like universal health care?

The issue should not be whether or not there are circumstances when the government can perform this or that activity. Suppose we take the issue of “tax-supported health care” or a “tax-supported day school.” I can easily envision situations where such a thing, considered in itself, could be just fine.

Suppose a municipal authority scooped up a homeless bum in order to put him on a bus to Portland in the morning. While in custody, he has a medical incident, is taken to the ER, and the city picks up the tab. That would be tax-supported health care, would it not? I, for one, would be okay with that. That kind of thing could happen in a liberty-loving society. Sure.

The problem has to do with size and extent. The Bible requires limited government. That is the principle. Suppose that a country decided (by democratic means) to tax all the citizens at a rate of 40% in order to support universal health care. The problem is not with a certain measure of tax money going to somebody’s health care . . . the problem is the 40%. The sin is in the 40%.

When Samuel was warning the people of Israel about their desire to have a king of the sort that the other nations had, what was he warning them about specifically? He was warning them about the kind of size that necessitated overreach. The Mosaic law anticipated a king (Dt. 17), which meant that having a king was lawful in itself. What was not lawful would be the sorts of things that kings like to do—the kind of things prohibited to him in Deuteronomy, and warned about by Samuel. Here would be some of them:

So Samuel warns about a bunch of taking. And what does Deuteronomy put off limits for a king? Also a bunch of taking.

A king may not multiply horses, women, or gold. A king, in short, may not multiply glory, gold, or girls. And the warning that Samuel gives the people contemplates the end of that whole sad affair—if you go along with this, you shall lose your liberty, becoming slaves ( the word there is ebed, slave).

Now I don’t believe that anyone would object if the White House hired three cooks and a confectioner, even though Samuel mentioned those occupations by name. But if the president were to build something three times the size of Versailles, and all silver-plated, and there was a staff of three hundred cooks working away in there, and the dessert cooks had made a three-foot tall statue of the First Lady made out of ice cream, we are clearly starting to get into Samuel territory.

So where do we draw the line between okay and a disobedient ostentatious display? Samuel draws it for us. “He will take the tenth of your seed.” “He will take the tenth of your sheep.” A king who has swollen to undue proportions is a king who claims as much as God does. God taxes His people with a tithe, and a king who thinks he needs as much as God does is a king who has quite forgotten himself. It is worth pointing out that we are so far gone that to get back to a ten percent taxation rate strikes us a some kind of libertarian paradise.

Thus, the public school system is manifestly unbiblical because of it size. A universal health care system is manifestly unbiblical because it is trying to become part of an environment in which we live and move and have our being. Quite apart from the falsehoods promulgated in secular schools, such schools are out of line for no other reason than their necessary usurpation. Universal health care would be out of line for the same reason. Quite apart from the quality of the health care, the extent of the health care indicates that we are dealing with bureaucrats who are already thinking about ascending the sides of the north.

And once the river has overflowed the levee, there is no way for all of us to stay dry.

The Broader Theological Case

So Scripture requires limited civil government. God will not share His glory with another (Is 48:11).

Now someone is going to object that say that I don’t have a verse that prohibits the civil magistrate from taking over ten percent, and by this I mean a verse that explicitly prohibits it. I would reply that I do—I just quoted them.

But there is more. There is a theological foundation for all of this.

So what is the central problem with the smart johnnies, the social engineers, the grand idea guys, the schemers and ideologues, the aspiring Robespierres, the managerial elites, and the Ivy League graduates with fifty-pound heads? They do not know what is in man.

When Edmund Burke set himself against the French revolution, before the Terror, he was doing so as a quintessential Christian thinker. He knew what was in man. C.S. Lewis did the same when he argued that man was so fallen that no one was to be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows.

Unlimited government among fallen men is not just prohibited by Deuteronomy or 1 Samuel. It is also prohibited by the theology of the entire Bible. That theology teaches us that man is fallen, and susceptible to the blandishments of the devil. Power, like bad whiskey, goes straight to his head.

This is why a biblical theology requires us to acknowledge that the U.S. Constitution was a work of theological genius—in its system of federalism, checks and balances, and separation of powers, its underlying assumption was that we must never trust an American politician with too much power. This was nothing less than constitutional obedience. It was glorious. Too bad the heirs of those who drafted it have quite forgotten what it all means.

Yes. This is the great difficulty. But even many of the Christian heirs of the Founders have forgotten this, and our chains will be forged out of that forgetfulness.

Why Christian Prudence Needs to be . . . Actually Prudent

When men say that the Bible doesn’t address every detail of our modern political and cultural life, this is quite true in one sense. But too many people appeal to this obvious truth in a simplistic way, saying that some things must be “left to Christian prudence.” This is not wrong, but what many actually wind up doing with it is urging a form of Christian imprudence. Of course some things must be left to Christian prudence. But to claim that your imprudence is prudent is . . . imprudent.

The sinful heart hates definition, hates to be pinned down. The sinful heart always wants to leave room for rationalization and evasion. Scholars and other smart people especially want to leave room for nuanced discussion, underneath which they can hide their sin and folly. But there is a difference between the nuance of the wise man and the subtlety of the serpent. The wise man can tell white from off white (Heb. 5:14). The subtle man justifies his off white with appeals to white.

This is why it is important to emphasize the centrality of Christian worldview thinking—all of Christ for all of life. Now, of course, because we are sinners, there will be men who will grab hold of what they call “Christian worldview thinking” in order to sanctify whatever their particular hobby horse is—their temptation will be to over-specify. So we shouldn’t do that. But the big time temptation for most Christian political theorists is that of pretending that God has not spoken when He has spoken, and very plainly too.

Although I prefer the term natural revelation, I am certainly willing to refer to natural law. I am Van Tillian, but am not a fastidious purist about it. That said, my two central objections to what some do with natural law are objections that leave room for responsible approaches to natural law. But my objections are these. When people argue that natural law would be binding whether or not there is a God, I find this incoherent. And I also object when people want to appeal to natural law instead of Scripture—when the subject in hand is clearly addressed by Scripture. I suspect that this happens because natural law leaves more maneuvering room, and men like that kind of maneuvering room. The issue of universal health care would be an example of this. While gazing at the night sky, it is easier to imagine a well-run Department of Health than it is when gazing at Samuel rebuking to the Israelites.

So is there a natural law case against it? I don’t think so. Is there a scriptural case against it? Yes. Per hypothesis, universal health care requires the government to swell to a size prohibited to it. And as we reason within those constraints, we would urge people to remember that putting the DMV in charge of when your surgery gets scheduled is the very opposite of prudence.

The last judgment will be granular. It will get down into the details. The judgment will encompass every idle word (Matt. 12:36). Jehovah will bring up cups of cold water (Matt. 10:42). The Almighty will inquire into the details of one’s thought life (Heb. 4:12). There will be no maneuvering room then, including with our political opinions, which means that we need to be a lot more wary of our desire for maneuvering room now.

When we are open to everything God has to say to us—in our consciences, in the stars, and in the text—we are being given the grace of wrong answers. It becomes possible to miss the mark, and to see the red x by our answer, and to bow our heads in gratitude. It becomes possible to learn prudence.