One interesting outworking of the discussion on positive liberty and negative liberty has to do with a person's liberty (right?) to retire. Is retirement a biblical notion?
A coworker of mine was recently highlighted in one of the University's publications and he was cited as saying "I don't see retirement in the Bible". I had never thought about it that way, but I think he may be onto something. What do you think? Do people have a right to retire? Is that a biblical notion?
I confess I fell out laughing when I saw the title. Why would it not be? Do they think it's a lack of faith? an example of hoarding? parents should let their children provide for them?
ReplyDeleteDid he give you any more reasons as to why?
I did not inquire as to his reasoning, and I am not sure if that's just something he says or if he has a well thought out system of beliefs to back that claim.
ReplyDeleteI think that if we take the doctrine of Creation and the Fall seriously then we cannot avoid these verses from Genesis 3 -
Genesis 3:17-19a
"To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground..."
So at least in some regard those of us subject to original sin are also subject to its consequences, one of which is that we should work for our food instead of expecting it from others. Of course, it would be great if others, say - children, decide to help us in our old age.
It would seem that scripture requires that help in old age. In the context of the church providing for older widows, "Whoever does not provide for relatives, and especially for family members, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever" (I Tim 5:8; cf. 5:3-16).
ReplyDeleteAnd what about Genesis 3? Is that passage invalidated by 1 Tim?
ReplyDeleteIt looks like the lines have to be drawn between state-sponsored retirement v. voluntary help to retirees, between laying claims on other people's property v. encouraging the younger to help the older. I can find no support whatsoever for the first form of retirement in 1 Tim or anywhere else in the Bible, but plenty of support for the second. Isn't this a distinction of utmost importance?
I hadn't thought to think about the state issue. I was mostly focusing on those who, like ourselves, save up for our own retirements. Is that a problem? I don't see that it's wrong to save up to help ease the burden on my children for my future care.
ReplyDeleteAs to a system of public support, I can't see that it has a biblical mandate or even a strong biblical prohibition. The passage you cite from Genesis is a condition of life not a command. We as fallen people are cursed to provide for ourselves by hard labor, but within families, it also seems that we must help ease that burden for the elderly and enfeebled.
The early church practiced a system of support for those in need from the earliest days. Paul in the pastoral epistle took it for granted that older widows past the age of remarriage who did not have family support were to be placed on the roll of the church for provision.
I think social security in this country is pretty much broke as a system. I have no desire to praise it, but since I'm not convinced as you are that taxation is robbery, I don't see that the public system is sinful. Stupid, yes.--like so much big government.
I am not convinced that all taxation is robbery. That is a mischaracterization of my view.
ReplyDeleteI do think that the public Social Security system is sinful because it is coercive and redistributive, and most of all because it does not belong in the domain of government in my understanding of government's biblical view.
I take your point about a command versus a condition of life. That's certainly the case that Genesis 3 does not give the curse as a command but a condition. And - I also agree that it is very biblical for kids to help parents, and for parents to plan ahead and lighten their children's burden.
I do apologize for mischaracterizing your position. Is it the redistribution element, according to your stance, that makes it inappropriate? For example, would public works be acceptable taxation since in theory the taxpayer gains some benefit from it?
ReplyDeleteNo worries. I'm afraid my view of the relationship between the individual and state is not as clearly worked as I would like for it to be. Perhaps this could be one of the questions we can address in our next discussion group - when is taxation warranted, what are the legitimate uses for political power, etc?
ReplyDeleteYes, the coercive redistribution element makes taxation inappropriate (and evil) in my view. Since the government's role in my view is to help protect the individual's own right to life (and property) then I would also have a problem with most public works programs (say, state taking tax money for everyone to build a railroad that spans a country). There are surely some programs (fire-houses, hospitals for the poor, maybe?) that I would support as legitimate causes for taxation, but I haven't identified as of yet a clear principle in my mind for drawing the distinction.