Christians and Civil Government

“It’s not fair!”

Surely this is one of the first phrases learned by any child, shortly after “No!” and “Mine!” All three exclamations have important implications for government. They are among the first expressions to be learned and given articulation, and are among the last expressions we relinquish before we die.

What we mean by this phrase, and in what contexts we use it, indicate to a large degree our expectations for life and for government. It reflects our ideas about justice.
“It’s not fair” when my company relocates to another province or country and I must choose between leaving the company or leaving everything else.
“It’s not fair” when crippling health care costs threaten to wipe out my accumulated wealth and bankrupt me.

“It’s not fair” when a thief steals my idea, my goods, or my identity.
“It’s not fair” when government takes half of every paycheck I get.
“It’s not fair” when I’ve paid an insurance company or merchant good money and gotten shoddy or no goods and services in return.
“It’s not fair” when the government has paid for my school lunch for the past five years but now, I am not getting a “free lunch.”

All of these may offend our sense of justice. Of them, which ones should be remedied by governmental action? Which of them ought to be remedied by someone or something else – an individual, family, business, church, or private organization? Which of them ought not to be remedied at all? How we answer these questions indicates our perspective on government and justice. We see that even if we perceive something as unfair or unjust, we may rely on different agents to remedy the injustice. Government is an agent of justice. But government is not the only agent of justice.

Note also that the questions so far have been “What ought government to do?” and “When ought government to act?” That is, they have been normative questions. We perceive an ideal of government to which we want our government to conform. We are not discussing what government does (a mere descriptive or indicative task) but the more difficult “ought” questions.

But take one step back and ask, “Regardless of whether government or some other societal agent ought to remedy this injustice, what makes it unjust?” What is our standard for deciding what is just?

As adults, we recognize that disciplining a child and training him or her in right behavior and attitudes is necessary and appropriate. The child, of course, has an entirely different perspective and thinks much of the correction imposed is “unfair” and “unjust.” Is there a good standard according to which the child should be trained, or is the correction imposed merely as a matter of superior brute force or highly artificial societal or family expectations? Professing Christians, of course, have a ready answer in such places as Deut. 6:4-9, Prov. 22:6, and Heb. 12:4-13. This latter passage reminds us that even discipline on adults is unpleasant, but useful and good nonetheless.

What of other perceived injustices? Don’t they occur when a “right” has been violated? That is, “I have a right not to be mugged and robbed, and when I am, my rights have been violated and I have been unjustly treated. The injustice should lead to a remedy such as punishment and restitution.” Is that correct? What if we rephrased it as “No one has the right to mug and rob me, and when I am my rights have been violated and I have been unjustly treated. The injustice should lead to a remedy such as punishment and restitution.” In both cases the injustice arises out of a right, but the right is different. In one the right is stated positively – “I have the right to be treated in a certain way” and in the other the right is stated negatively – No one has the right to treat me in a certain way.” Are both expressions of biblical ideas? Is one better than the other?

Consider one biblical example. Do we have the right to good health? Is it better to say, “I have the right to good health?” Or to say, “No one has the right to deprive me of good health.” Can we assert this right against God and his providence, or only against human agents? What did Job say in Job 1:20-22, 2:10?

We also need to remember that nearly everyone says they want justice. But no one wants to be judged. Even the scoffing secularist has memorized “Judge not, that you be not judged.” But how can there be any justice without judgment? No one wants to have a finger pointed at them and be subjected to a pronouncement of “Tekel” – “You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting,” (Daniel 5:27). But we do not mind so much if it happens to someone else and is richly deserved.

Finally, consider how “justice” has been used historically and among believers. Hunter Baker, a lawyer and political thinker, lists several possible approaches. Justice is giving everyone their proper role and place. Justice is treating equals equally and unequals unequally. Justice is removing artificial barriers to advancement or achievement. Criminal justice is observing due process protections for an accused. That is, justice is about procedures. Criminal justice is also about achieving fair outcomes. Justice is treating people the same. Justice is giving people what they deserve. Justice makes equal the conditions of life. Justice makes equal the outcomes of life (Baker, 69-71).

Two additional points to make about justice. First, we define justice differently according to the circumstances. All parents recognize that their children are different. Treating them justly does not mean treating them equally. They differ according to physical capability, mental ability, temperament, adaptability, strength, patience, verbal articulation, etc. Teachers recognize the same thing. Each exam is graded according to the same, equal criteria, but it would be unjust to give all students an equal grade.

Second, Christians often think of justice in terms of what people deserve because that is what the Bible teaches about sin and grace. All people earn or deserve death because of what they have done (Rom. 6:23). It is just for God to punish lawbreakers. The taunting, scornful, violent, materialistic, proud, and willfully autonomous who push back against God and his law (i.e., all of us) deserve punishment. The wonder of the gospel is that we do not earn our salvation, but it is given to us as a matter of grace. The only thing we earn, the only thing we deserve, the only thing that is just, is our condemnation. And this tends to be a perspective that focuses on the individual. For example, notwithstanding Paul’s teaching that we – a plural group of believers – are the temple of God in I Cor. 3:16, we more generally think of ourselves as individual members constituting the temple of God (I Cor. 6:19) or as individual members of the body of Christ (I Cor. 12:12). God’s grace is to me, not to others associated with me. With the exception of our inheritance from or relationship to the First Adam and the Second Adam, this gets us into the habit of thinking about justice as an individual matter. But is this the only Christian way to think about justice?