Having discussed the complexity of the issue and the basic desire to be Biblical in (the best version of) most approaches, I would now like to humbly present my view.
I believe in a limited government. I believe that the government should not legislate morality, beyond the simple context of defending others’ rights to life, liberty, and property. It seems, when looking at Romans 13 that Paul is mainly concerned with the government keeping people from harming each other, infringing on their rights, which I would take form the last half of the chapter where he explains that if we love each other we will not harm one another (he gives specific commandments from the Old Testament), and it may be possible to tie this back to the first half of the chapter and say that if we love each other we will not inflict the wrath of the God-appointed government. If this is what Paul meant (and it certainly may not be what he meant) then I would take that to meant hat the government’s role is to keep us from harming one another, nothing more and nothing less.
So that is my case for government protection of our rights. Now I will move on to discuss why I don’t think the government should do any more than that. In regard to morality it simply serves no purpose. People acting morally acceptable, but who do not trust Christ, and have dead hearts are white-washed tombs according to Jesus. He didn’t seem to look very favorably upon those simply followed the moral code of conduct, and I believe that imposing morality on unbelievers will give many people a false sense of pride, either in their role in changing others or in their own satisfaction for fulfilling the laws imposed.
Concerning economic freedom and the welfare system I will say that Christians are supposed to care for others to demonstrate Christ’s love. Putting this responsibility on the government does not give Christ the glory. In an article on the examiner I go into this a little deeper, but essentially it is The Church’s job, not the government’s, to care for those in need,and government involvement complicates the motives (being forced to help through taxation) and the response (can become demand as opposed to gratitude).
So, generally speaking I do voice my opinion in the political sphere in defense of the defenseless and in the call to limit the government’s control over individual moral and financial freedoms.
I wanted to share this to give some background on where my opinions come from in my Examiner articles. I know that some people may read certain things and think “man, this guy’s a liberal hippie!” and some other people may read something else I write and think “this dude’s a right-wing nut job!” With this series I hoped to not only clarify my position, but shed some light on all of these views to hopefully help cut out some of that rhetoric and misunderstanding.
I would be more than happy to post an explanation for any other views that I either did or did not cover in one of the previous posts. Let me know if that is something you would like to write and I will gladly post it. Thanks!