Semi-Random Musings (46)

From Doug Wilson’s Tuesday letters column, J asks what Doug’s “ideal Christendom” might look like for convicted criminals:

“In your ideal Christendom, where we have God-honoring laws, what would you do in cases of theft where the criminal cannot pay? How would they make restitution? And would that be considered a form of slavery?”

Hmm.

Doug responds:

“J, yes, and yes. The Constitution forbids slavery now, except for those duly convicted of a crime. Those hundreds of thousands of people incarcerated today are slaves, just not productive slaves. For those convicted of non-violent crimes, of the sort you describe, I would have them enslaved in prison camps, and their term would last until the victims of their crimes were paid off. A third of their pay would go toward their own upkeep, a third to family at home, and a third to the victim or victim families. When restitution plus twenty percent is paid, they are freed from their enslavement.”

We’re in postmill fantasyland here, but that doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t have opinions about whether such a scenario accurately reflects principles of biblical justice. I’d say the division of income into thirds at least seems reasonable. Still, I’m thinking any rejigging of the legal system that purports to be based on the Law of Moses needs to take into account all the principles baked into law, not just the ones that work for the system and the victims of crime.

For example, what about the principle of Jubilee? The Law of Moses not only permitted but required amnesty for debtors who couldn’t pay what they owed and regular release of Israelites reduced to economic servitude. I would add a seven-year limitation period to the non-violent crimes statute to cover cases in which the debt so incurred was impossibly large. After all, if we all had to work to pay the debt we owed the Lord, none of us would ever finish.

Furthermore, Israelite law didn’t incarcerate anyone, and debt slavery under the Law of Moses allowed slaves a family life. I see no biblical precedent for prison camps or any form of restriction on the slave’s normal family life, especially where no violence is involved. We all know the sorts of problems for which sexless incarceration is infamous. Why incentivize further crimes, let alone violent ones?

Furthermore, prison camps cost a fair bit to run. Who is going to pay for that? I doubt a third of prisoner income from menial labor would cover it, meaning Doug’s plan would saddle the taxpayer with the rest, as usual.

I would rather see convicts in the workforce where possible, generating the maximum possible income from employment, going home to their families at night, and their wages garnished with half going to the victim or victim family and half to the convict’s spouse (usage monitored, of course), out of which he or she would pay the convict’s expenses for them. I would reserve the prison camp scenario for those who cannot or will not find regular employment.

Hey, it’s not going to happen anyway, but if we are going to do hypotheticals, let’s at least do them semi-biblically.

*   *   *   *   *

Speaking of the “ideal Christendom”, it occurred to me the other day that the entire impetus for the Christian Nationalism movement within Reformed circles depends on the questionable interpretation of a single verse. Think about that for a second. One verse.

When we come across a passage in the New Testament like Matthew 28:19-20 that may be understood two or more different ways, we are not without options. The Lord did not simply leave us to our own devices to sort out which interpretation is correct, or at least closer to the mark. Instead, he provided us with the history of the early church in the book of Acts and sprinkled throughout the epistles, in order that we might be able to see not just what the early Christians taught, but how they lived out what they believed.

With that in mind, if I could find:

• one incontrovertible attempt in Acts or elsewhere by Peter, Paul or anyone else in the early church to challenge the institutional practices of their day;
• one passage they wrote that calls for an end to slavery, Roman oppression, unjust laws, hypocritical governance or bureaucratic corruption;
• one solitary instance in which any of the pillars of the early church engaged in anything remotely resembling “nation discipling” or cultural reform;
• one attempt to impose the values of believers on anyone but believers; or even
• one lonely NT description of the latter days of the age immediately prior to Christ’s return in which justice and righteousness appear to be winning at the national or international level,

then I might consider it the faintest of faint possibilities that Matthew 28:19-20 is a call for Christians to work away at getting the governments of our world to “bend the knee to King Jesus” prior to his glorious return.

I’m still looking.

I’m not saying Christians should have no engagement whatsoever with the culture, or that trying to effect changes in government policy is evil or wrong. I’m saying there are only so many hours in the day, and we ought to be devoting ourselves to the priorities embraced by the men who wrote the New Testament if we are going to pretend to follow it. Those priorities were all associated with the salvation or spiritual growth of individuals, families and local churches.