In a scathing but fair critique of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, currently running for the Republican presidential nomination, Joseph Farah of WorldNet Daily makes an important point about how a view of government as a force for making positive good in the world is an open-ended prescription for power grabs, infernal meddling, and arrogant coercion, and is just plain wrong:
Mike Huckabee has many of the ingredients for a fine president. But I fear he is another one of these so-called "compassionate conservatives" who believes government can be a force for good in the world, not merely a restraint on evil.
The problem is, as Farah notes, government is not good at "helping people," only at providing redress when people harm one another. In addition to that eminently sensible secular argument against Big Government Christianity, Farah notes that Huckabee’s vision of government is not justified by the Bible or any coherent understanding of Christian theology:
[H]e’s not only practicing bad politics—he’s practicing bad theology. . . .
As Christians, [Huckabee and his friend Rick Warren, author of The Purpose-Driven Life] are confusing the role we as individuals are assigned as followers of Jesus with the role of government.
Farah gets to the core of the matter as he explains the sleazy way that pro-government forces turn an individual responsibility into a license to rob one’s fellow citizens:
When Jesus tells us to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, He is not suggesting we transfer that personal responsibility to government. He is not suggesting we transfer that responsibility to our neighbors. He is not suggesting, as the old saying goes, we rob Peter to pay Paul.
This is a personal, individual responsibility of the believer. It doesn’t count if you get someone else to do the job for you.
Farah points out that the Bible most certainly does not make a case for big government; quite the contrary:
Nowhere in the Bible does it suggest government should supplant the church’s responsibility to the poor, the hungry, the widows and orphans. Government’s job is to restrain evil, not bestow compassion.
The interesting thing is that not only is big government—for allegedly Christian ends or any others—not Christian, it’s not sensible in secular terms, either. It’s a principle on which both believers and the unchurched should be able to agree wholeheartedly.
In fact, both these parties did agree on this point during the Reagan years. It is time we resurrected that agreement.
Abraham Kuyper did NOT throw his lot in with a more classical liberal, social conservative lot. As I said Abraham Kuyper used this emphasis on calvinism as a dynamic political weapon against the ruling classical liberal and conservative elite of his time. So yes, Abraham Kuyper was no communist or socialist, but he was neither a classical liberal or socially conservative. As I said, big or small government isn’t at the core of Kuyper’s political method.
True, yet the crux of the political situation Kuyper faced was socialism (BIG big government) versus something like classical liberalism (religiously informed, as was the original classical liberalism of Adam Burke and Adam Smith, etc.). Kuyper, for reasons both practical and philosophical, threw in his lot with a more classical liberal, socially conservative approach.
That is entirely laudable. Huckabee’s economic ideas, on the other hand, to the extent that they appear coherent at all, lead to big government with a Christian apologetic behind it. That is what Farah is criticizing, and which I also oppose.
It is important to note, moreover, that neither Joe Farah nor I mentioned Kuyper, and I think that commenter Nicholas’s brief mention of Kuyper as hypothetically supporting Joe Farah’s and my position is entirely plausible in that we both think American politics and society would indeed be greatly improved by a stronger presence of Christian thought. Our disagreement with Mike Huckabee is over what Christianity says about the proper role of government, not over whether it can bring salt and light to the political process.
Big or small government isn’t at the core of Kuyper’s political method. His method was not based on rich (compassionate conservatives) doing good for the poor (and teaching them morals on the way). His method wasn’t either to let government substitue for helping one’s neighbour. He formed a political movement around a calvinist identity which allready existed but which he gave a specific new meaning. He used this emphasis on calvinism as a dynamic political weapon against the ruling elite of his time. This same weapon was used by Schilder against national socialism in the 30’s and during the nazi occupation of the Netherlands.
I don’t see how Farah wishes to restrict the impact of faith on the life of the individual. Actually his writings clearly show the opposite point of view, a strong wish to have the institutions of American society be more opened to religious faith. Farah’s point in the present case is that an accurate understanding of the responsibility Jesus placed upon us must see government as a sorry substitute for true acceptance of that responsibility toward one’s neighbor. In that, Farah appears to me to be quite correct.
Like Kuyper, Farah would support a religiously inspired politics. Farah’s point here is that Huckabee has failed to get the religion right.
It´s really disturbing to see someone use Abraham Kuyper in relation to questions about big government. Kuyper was the antirevolutionary leader who came to power on a wave of support from people who previously didn´t have the right to vote. Abraham Kuyper and his successors like Klaas Schilder had a clear view of the difference between communism and their political method. And they showed their method worked. Just saying Big government is wrong doesn´t get us or anybody anywhere, you have to offer a viable alternative. And that´s what Joseph Farrah doesn´t have. His only alternative is to restrict the impact of faith on the life of the individual. That is 180 degrees opposite to Abraham Kuyper and I hope people stop distorting the facts.
Mr. Farah and you, Mr. Karnick, would make Abraham Kuyper most proud. Thank you! We have been in the very bad habit lately of handing over the sovereignty God has given to us as individuals, families, and churches. Individuals have given up the part of the mandate to bring order and peace into the world: nobody votes, nobody really gets active about injustice, nobody even seeks to bring order and peace to his neighbor’s life. What used to be family responsibilities for education and raising of children have been handed over to the church (Sunday school and youth group) and the state (need I say, government schools). When did it become the government’s job to tell our kids what healthy sex is and how to balance a checkbook? And then there is the church, as both of you have pointed out. Shame on them.
Sam,
I’ve been critical of Huckabee since I first heard him spouting populist slogans. It’s disturbing to see Christians fawn over the guy just because he’s a social conservative. That’s great, but it’s not the whole story. I believe that the great divide in conservatism and where the fight will take place in the coming years isn’t between “moderate” and “social” conservative, but between limited and big government conservatives.
You might be interested in my post from 12/6. I came across a great article about “The Problem with Limited Government” at The Evangelical Outpost (who I’m sorry to say has literally hitched his wagon to the Huckabee campaign–he’s working for him now). The article itself is simply spectacular, and he effectively lays out a road map of where we’ve been, where we are, and where we might want to go, in addition to suggestions about how to get there. Conservatism without the limited part is no conservatism at all.