Lee on Romans 13

Thursday, January 4, 2007
I’ve had this link sitting in my inbox for quite awhile and have finally gotten to it. It’s well worth the read. Brian J. Lee, writing in Modern Reformation, takes a look at the foundational passage in Romans where Paul discusses subjection to civil authorities. Lee argues that Paul’s sole concern is with Christian submission:
Properly understood, Paul’s command to submit should constrain our optimism about the civil government’s capacity to transform, save, or redeem. Civil government is not an aid to Christian sanctification, either on the individual or cultural scale. Rather, it is a dead-end, stop-gap barrier that makes space for the good in a fallen world. In our capacity as believers and as a church, our task is not to ask how to govern well, but to be governed.

Lee makes some important points, not the least of which is this: “God doesn’t need either Christian rulers or Christian systems of government to fulfill his purposes, precisely because his purposes for the civil government are not ultimate or religious or eternal. In contrast, a fallen world with its limited horizon will always tend to invest its secular authorities with ultimate significance.”

Lee traces out some of the implications for our contemporary situation, not least of which is that, “the Christian has no special expertise to rule.” Presumably, then, the converse is also true, that the non-Christian has no special handicap, which bears in on a number of current political discussions.

Read the whole thing.
Bookmark Lee on Romans 13  at del.icio.us Digg Lee on Romans 13 Bloglines Lee on Romans 13 Technorati Lee on Romans 13 Bookmark Lee on Romans 13  at YahooMyWeb Bookmark Lee on Romans 13  at Furl.net Bookmark Lee on Romans 13  at reddit.com Bookmark Lee on Romans 13  with wists Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

The Minimum Wage: A Denial of Freedom and Duty

Wednesday, August 16, 2006
In this week’s Acton Commentary, “The Minimum Wage: A Denial of Freedom and Duty,” I look at the concept of minimum wage legislation from the perspective of the employer/employee relationship.

In his second epistle to the Thessalonians, the apostle Paul sets down a moral principle: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” But Paul’s words seem also to imply the opposite positive principle, something like, “If you will work, you should eat.”

Even so, I argue, it does not follow that the government should be the guarantor of this reality. Drawing in part on the thought of Abraham Kuyper, I find that “the civil government has a role in justly and fairly enforcing the contractual relationship between employer and employee. It does not, however, have the absolute right to determine the specific nature of this relationship in any and all circumstances.”

Throughout the commentary, I address some of the concerns raised in an interview conducted by Faithful America, a weblog associated with the National Council of Churches. Faithful America talked with man named Dan, who gave his experiences of working for and living on the minimum wage. A transcript copy of the interview is pasted in below the jump (the audio is available here).

Continue reading "The Minimum Wage: A Denial of Freedom and Duty"
Bookmark The Minimum Wage: A Denial of Freedom and Duty  at del.icio.us Digg The Minimum Wage: A Denial of Freedom and Duty Bloglines The Minimum Wage: A Denial of Freedom and Duty Technorati The Minimum Wage: A Denial of Freedom and Duty Bookmark The Minimum Wage: A Denial of Freedom and Duty  at YahooMyWeb Bookmark The Minimum Wage: A Denial of Freedom and Duty  at Furl.net Bookmark The Minimum Wage: A Denial of Freedom and Duty  at reddit.com Bookmark The Minimum Wage: A Denial of Freedom and Duty  with wists Bookmark using any bookmark manager!