Economic Fallacies: "Government Equals Society"

The "Government Equals Society" fallacy views government as the means by which society acts.

Frequently we hear that society has a responsibility to the poor. Most Christians of all stripes would agree. But listen to the sentence that often follows such a declaration. It goes something like this, "Therefore, 'society' should raise the minimum wage, grant universal healthcare, and redistribute wealth through taxation." Notice the common theme. They are all government-imposed solutions. Why not respond, "Therefore, 'society' should find ways to create stable families, get churches and volunteer organizations involved in the lives of the poor, and lend money to the poor through microenterprise funds." This isn't an "either/or" proposition. Instead, it highlights the default solution for too many Christians: Government. Non-governmental non-bureaucratic solutions are an afterthought, secondary in importance if they come to mind at all. This is the functional equivalent of saying "government" is "society."

In reality, government is only one institution of society. Society includes individuals. It includes other institutions like the family, churches, volunteer organizations, businesses, and various local governments. It includes countless informal networks. Society is much broader than government.

The family was at the core of the Old Testament notion of justice and care in society. The family was encompassed by a clan, then by a tribe, and then by the nation. Each succeeding level of distance from the family played ever more limited roles in the family's daily operations.

This was in contrast to Greco-Roman views of the family, where the family existed at the pleasure of the state to serve the state. Judeo-Christian ethics defined the family as an inviolable institution apart from the state. The institution of the family is the only institution established by God before humanity's rebellion. According to the biblical narrative:

“Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.” Genesis 2:24

There is a union of two different but complementary individuals. Physically they become one through sexual intercourse, but there is a process of becoming intimate at other levels. "Two becoming one" has both physical and non-physical expressions inextricably tied together. Marriage is a covenant that makes the establishment of this unity possible. One frequent consequence of this covenantal unity is the birth of children. The institution of the family, established by the covenant of marriage, creates boundaries for unity to develop, and it provides a stable nurturing environment for childrearing by those who know each child the best and are committed to the child's personal welfare.

Roman Catholicism has framed this family-centric understanding of societal institutions in terms of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity, first articulated by Pope Leo XIII in his 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum, teaches that problems should be addressed at the most localized level possible. The most local and immediate institution to an individual is the family. Intermediate institutions like the church, voluntary organizations, and local government have a subsidiary function serving individuals and families in ways families can't serve themselves. Beyond these intermediate institutions are marco-institutions like national governments and international bodies. These fulfill a subsidiary function to individuals, families, and intermediate institutions. Rather than families existing at the state's pleasure, the state exists in support of the families and the individuals within them.

Within Reformed circles, a similar conception called sphere sovereignty emerged, articulated by Dutch leader Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920). Kuyper talked in terms of societal spheres that were distinct but interconnected. Government, economics, education, and the family are a few examples of societal spheres. No sphere is sovereign over the others, and each must be respected. He thereby rejected the ideas of popular sovereignty (rights arise from individuals) and state sovereignty (rights are derived from the state.) Thus, when we look at societal problems, we must investigate what the problem means for each sphere of life and strategize accordingly.

Christian thinking in America has too often drifted toward the two types of sovereignty Kuyper found so dangerous. On the one hand, there is an attachment to a libertarian strain of thinking that emphasizes personal freedom to the point of disdaining all traditions and values. The family and subsidiary institutions at all levels are obstacles to personal freedom. On the other hand, there is state sovereignty, where the state is viewed as paramount, with all other institutions supporting the state. The state is the default option and the lead player in addressing problems. The Family and subsidiary institutions at the intermediate and macro levels are obstacles to state sovereignty.

The debate over same-sex marriage illustrates the outworking of these two Modernist views on sovereignty over the last century. Miroslav Volf notes in Exclusion and Embrace that a covenant is an indefeasible commitment that contemplates perseverance through open-ended and diverse circumstances. A contract is performance oriented with limited commitment related to performance. (148-150)

The family has been understood as an inviolable institution apart from the state, founded in a covenant between two complementary human beings (male and female.) But marriage and family have gone from being a covenantal social institution established by God to a contractual arrangement for personal fulfillment. Rather than being in a covenantal institution to which one conforms, marriage and family have become a contractual arrangement to conform to the performance wishes of the parties involved.

For the first time in human history, we are divorcing sexual intercourse and its procreation implications from the concept of marriage. Any form of mutual sexual stimulation replaces sexual intercourse by consenting adults or no sexual relationship at all. The marriage of a husband and wife, potentially procreating to form a family, is on the verge of no longer being an inviolable institution but a contractual option that exists at the state's pleasure to be defined by the state however it suits its purposes.

This is good news for many libertarians because we are less constrained by the restrictions marriage and family place on personal freedom. It is good news for the state sovereignty folks because it gives the state greater power to shape and direct the lives of individuals, especially children, without interference from the family. Ultimately the path leads to a condition where families, by whatever contractual arrangement is devised by the state, become nannies for the state's children.

Many Christians today recoil from excessive individualism and believe we must look at things from a societal perspective. But when we resist libertarian individualism with a mindset that functionally equates "government" with "society," we merely exchange one poison for another. Biblical reflection on social issues, including economic questions, requires us to think holistically and organically to address problems at the right level within the right sphere. "Government" is not a synonym for "society."

[Index]

Comments

[Darren]

Michael,

This is an excellent post. My advisor at school recently printed Rerum Novarum for me, as we were discussing where I would like my studies to focus. I plan on getting to it soon. This post reminds me of some of Hauerwas' work- particularly his revulsion to Protestant liberalism's tendency to outsource the function of the church to the government. Have you read much of his work?

[Darren]

I am only beginning to study him (and a host of other thinkers in "political theology" and related fields) and it is challenging me in unexpected ways.

[Michael W. Kruse]

I haven't read a lot of Hauerwas. I did read "Resident Aliens" years ago. I want to go back and read that again. I also heard him speak last Spring. I from what I've read and heard he seems more anabaptist than I would care to go with.

If you are reading RN, then you might also want to check out John Paul II's encyclical "Centesimus Annus" written on the 100th anniversary of "Rerum Novarum."

[Darren]

He does have some similarities to the Anabaptist tradition, but from what I've encountered (which is only a fraction) his thought and writing is much broader.
What about the Anabaptist tradition do you disagree with in particular?
My advisor also printed Centesimus Annus, so I'll eventually get to that too.

[Michael W. Kruse]

Darren, I know there is diversity within the Anabaptist world. (I grew up in Wesleyan version of it.) I think my central critique is that Anabaptist thinking draws to neat a line between kingdoms. Human existence in culture is more organically interrelated and can’t be as neatly delineated as Yoder and others would like. Yoder views government as evil but a necessary consequence of the fall. I disagree. I think the cultural mandate of filling the earth and having dominion over it presupposes humanity developing governmental institutions to manage their affairs. Rather than seeing the Kingdom of God as primarily cut off from society as an isolated counter-culture, I understand the Kingdom of God to infusing human culture and transforming it. Those are some general differences.

[RonMck]

Michael
Another good post in an excellent series. This one is a really dangerous fallacy. I have just a couple of comments.

Firstly, you see biblical justice as centered on the family. The family was set within the clan and the tribe. The problem, I am thinking about at the moment is that the clan and tribe are well gone, but biblical justice does not work without that context. I doubt that we can bring clan and tribe back, so what do we want to replace them with. Some just replace them with the state, but I do not believe that that is the answer. I am thinking that the church will have to fulfil the role of the tribe if we are going to achieve a more biblical form of justice.

Secondly, your characterization of libertarians sounds quite unfair. You seem to be describing a libertine, rather than libertarians, when you write about them as “disdaining tradition and values”. They are not keen on tradition, but they do have values.

Thirdly, it is one thing to say that the state does not equal society. The more challenging, and perhaps more important, task is to define the role of the state. I find that most Christians like to keep the state in their hip pocket and trot it out when they want to impose their values on other people. Interestingly, some of the clearest thinking about the role of the state has been done by libertarian political thinkers. They are mostly atheists, so they do not arrive at a Christian position, but they do delineate the issues in a way that sharpens thinking. I suspect that many Christians are unwilling to think seriously on these issues, because they remain closet statists, whose faith in the state to bring change is greater than their faith in the gospel and the Holy Spirit.

[Michael W. Kruse]

Thanks Ron!

You wrote:

"I am thinking that the church will have to fulfil the role of the tribe if we are going to achieve a more biblical form of justice."

Yes! I think that is exactly right. And maybe there are cells within congregations and congregations linked to other congregations.

As to libertarian, there are varieties. I tried to avoid a universal statement but maybe not well enough. Ayn Rand and many other influential theorists advocate an atheistic (at least agnostic) individual freedom. There are strong strains of this in American libertarianism and I think some Christians have unwittingly become captive to this thinking. It is this I'm reacting against. It is the difference between being free for the sake of self-actualization versus being freedom for the sake of choosing service to Christ.

I fully agree that libertarian critique has been very useful and we need more of it. I also agree that…

“…many Christians are unwilling to think seriously on these issues, because they remain closet statists, whose faith in the state to bring change is greater than their faith in the gospel and the Holy Spirit.”

[Mark Van Steenwyk]

Excellent, and challenging, series.

Your critique of Anabaptistm is that it draws a neat line between kingdoms (I think there is more diversity within Anabaptism than that). But at the same time I see you drawing too simple of a distinction between Government and Society, where government is one institution among many in society. There is certainly a way in which this is true...and I agree that they aren't the same thing. But the state is intertwined with civil society to such a degree that no true boundaries can be drawn between them. I'd encourage you (if you have the time) to read William Cavanaugh's Theopolitical Imagination.

[Michael W. Kruse]

Thanks Mark. You wrote:

"But at the same time I see you drawing too simple of a distinction between Government and Society, where government is one institution among many in society."

Interesting comparison, Mark. I think there area some differences. I see the "Kingdom of God" as more of a movement than an institution. It is a way being, a way of being oriented, that permeates all of life. I think the Church is an expression of the Kingdom at work in the world but the Church is not equivalent of the Kingdom.

In contrast, the various spheres of life have greater delineation. They tend to have their own specific institutions. Families are formed by marriage with clear lines of membership and responsibilities/obligations. Businesses have licenses or articles of incorporation. There are owners, employees, and limited responsibilities/obligations related to the specific economic pursuit. Governments have citizens that elect/appoint that form institutions like legislatures, executive offices, and courts. While they do all interrelate there are sufficient boundaries to see them as discreet entities.

I think some Anabaptists functionally have a view that the church is sphere that stands apart from and in opposition to the other spheres. I’m suggesting that the “Kingdom of God” is a movement that enters, transforms, and redeems the church, and every other institution in society, through self-giving love in Christ.

I don’t mean to be picking on Anabaptists here. I think the various streams of Anabaptist thought bring some important critique to the table. I’m just trying to show where I think the critique is weak.

Interesting that should mention Cavanaugh’s book. I had just ordered it this week at Amazon. Great minds think alike. :)