Someday, will I operate my business 'under the table' because
the laws have become impossible to comply with? I hope not but if it comes down
to eating, then I might. If it's a matter of having enough money for my
$100,000 house, my retirement account, or the ability to drive my SUV, then I
won't. And no fear, since I don't have any of these things, such questions are
moot and there's no temptation either.
With regard to housing prices I will say the faithful
Christian certainly faces a real dilemma in the modern urban environment. I
would rent if I could but there are few options around my rural area and I live
in such an economically depressed environment that it's cheaper to buy than to
rent. But in the city, the prices all but demand two-incomes and if you're
going to stick to the New Testament model, that's not a possibility and thus
you're reduced to real poverty... or it might be time to move and live in a
place where poverty is less burdensome, or in reality of a different kind.
Housing is cheap in the hinterland but now you have to contend with needing a
vehicle that you're going to put a lot of miles on.
There is also the very tangled question of illegal
immigration. On the one hand it seems clear that no Christian should break laws
for the sake of economic advantage. That said, I can also follow an argument
that states the US has corrupted and
dominates my government and has destroyed my local economy. We're struggling to survive so I'm going to
El Norte in order to feed my family. The so-called laws of a lawless state are
a mockery and I'm not going to obey them.
It would be one thing to cross the border illegally,
especially if it's a matter of personal safety. In that case you're more a
refugee than an illegal immigrant. But it seems much more problematic to me to
go on for years living and working underground, violating an endless series of
labour and tax laws in order to make money. But then again, I'm not in their
shoes. It doesn't seem like it's a good ethical choice, but at the same time I
understand why they come and I will happily break the law in giving them basic aid.
My loyalty to humanity and the call to gospel kindness supersedes any
allegiance I might have to the state in which I happen to live.
Should I hire them and pay them in cash knowing that they're
shirking various laws? That seems more problematic and yet once again, it's
hard to know how far our responsibility goes in terms of holding others to
account. An argument could be made that you pay them the negotiated price and
if they misuse and misappropriate the money, it's on them. And yet is that true
when you know they're going to do that? Additionally such transactions are made
on the basis of exploiting their status, capitalising on their inability (and
willingness) to work for less than the going rate and its legal requirements.
That's very problematic.
None of these are easy questions and I can respect those who
differ as long as they are wrestling with the New Testament and are not instead
rooting their thought and arguments in a quest for enrichment, power and
autonomy.
In terms of crossing borders there's also the issue of
missionary work. We are called to take the gospel to the world and make
disciples of the people of all nations. If a state forbids the distribution of
materials, the preaching of the gospel or even the crossing of frontiers... I
see no problem with ignoring such laws. That said, it becomes more complicated
when Americans do so because American conservative Christianity has a terrible
record in terms of political agitation and helping to foment social upheaval.
American Evangelicals have often collaborated with Washington and thus their
presence in a country is often viewed as subversive. It's a shame to admit it,
but in some cases the hostile states have a point. Evangelicals have blood on
their hands and have poisoned their own testimony in many parts of the world.
Returning to the question of illegal work, around here
there's the issue of 'Amish Taxis'. The Amish will hire non-Amish or 'English'
to drive them places, especially if you have a large van. Technically it's
illegal to run an unregistered taxi service and yet to others this is a state
over-asserting its regulatory powers. They would argue (and have a point) that
it's none of the state's business if some Amish give someone some money for a
ride. And if it only happened once or twice they might be right.
But here's where the financial system is intertwined with the
government. If said van is in a car accident, what then? What if there are
injuries? Amish don't have car seats for their kids. A large hospital bill
could lead the other driver's insurance company to come after you the driver
and your insurance. The kid might have been spared the injuries if you (the
driver) had made sure the child was in a proper car seat. Additionally your
insurance will probably be less than pleased to discover they were insuring a
van that was in reality a business venture and an unlicensed (and thus
unregulated) one at that.
Our system is complex, unjust and in many ways morally
twisted. But there's a logic to it, a fallen logic rooted in the realities of a
fallen world. We're not told to flourish in it, but to survive to bear witness
to Christ. Such a mindset does in fact provide a degree of liberty, not the
kind of liberty being looked for by the rifle toting ultra-capitalist, but Kingdom
liberty which in the end brings greater peace.
The laws and codes can be maddening and tough to navigate but
rather than New Testament-guided thought and a humble struggle all too often
what I see is defiance, disregard and an ethic that effectively delegitimises
the state... the power that the Bible
says was ordained by God, a power we're told not to resist.
This is all the more puzzling as many of these people are the
fiercest flag-wavers and claimed patriots. The America they love is not the
real America of history but one of their dreams... and it's only 'real' and
'valid' if it's on their terms it would seem. Some might say they're not
patriotic in the least but treacherous.
Once again I must say these questions are so much easier to
navigate from a divested, disenfranchised pilgrim-sojourner position. If riches,
security and respectability are not your concern, a whole new world is
presented, a world in which one's citizenship hardly seems to matter.
Finally in reference to the gospel I've already argued the
state has no interest in the affairs of the church. Modern banking and
financial transactions make this somewhat difficult. Churches want their tax
exemptions but also there are practical questions with regard to moving money
around.
My answer is this... it can be done. It was done in the past
but it also requires some trust. Many would wince at the thought of trusting
cash to individuals versus being in a bank vault. That's a sad commentary. If
you can't trust your elders who can you trust? Others would decry the lack of
interest which of course demonstrates their misunderstanding of New Testament
ethics. The Church doesn't need large sums of money on hand. It should be used
and distributed to help other Christians, the poor and to support missionaries.
Bills can be paid and money sent. Maybe sometimes it will
have to be done the old fashioned way... hand delivery. There are other ways...
Western Union, money orders and the like. Are these the most time and
financially efficient ways to operate?
Does the 'stewardship' argument for exploitative efficiency trump
simple obedience? I'm sorry to report that for many it clearly does.
Such a model presents problems for those who want a
designated building. I will admit the New Testament model I'm advocating
requires a serious re-thinking of both ideal and practical ecclesiology. The
Biblical model is so simple while the sacralist model just multiplies the
problems. Churches spend thousands on insurance, something that wouldn't be
needed if the congregation would meet in a home or some kind of garage-storage
building. Of course insurance companies will come into your facility and start
telling you what to do, where you need handrails, lighting and the like. I find
it all rather outrageous.
If the Church outgrows its neighbourhood locale then it's
time to start a new congregation in another part of town. This is difficult
when congregations get away from elder plurality and rely on the pastor model
so often rooted in the personality of the individual and his style.
The Church shouldn't account for its money or report it to
the state. Is this illegal? It only is illegal if it has a legal existence. If
the local congregation does not 'exist' in legal terms, there are 'technically
speaking' no 'transactions' taking place.
I realise this runs against the grain of many who decry the
'underground' approach to the Church. I've heard many insist that the Church
should not be viewed as a sect and thus it should have a public presence, a
building on the corner as it were. An interesting idea, but I don't find it in
the New Testament. It seems more rooted in sacralist assumptions and it was
this very assumption that got Wang Yi into trouble in China. He tried to
straddle these positions, that of the sacralist and separatist and found that
he got into legal trouble with the state. He wanted the state to respect him as
a separatist but didn't live by that ethic. He didn't mind his own business. He
agitated and collaborated and was punished as a result.
For centuries the Biblically-focused Church operated with no
bank accounts and no buildings, no codes and no insurance. It had nothing to do
with the state and in many contexts was underground. These practices will fly
in the face of many laws and at this point, this gospel point, we don't care.
Break the laws not because we have the right... but simply because we serve Christ. We're sorry about
their laws but we will not obey them. We hope they come to understand that
we're not harming anyone or involved in anything criminal or political.
Of course because of the unfortunate actions of the Christian
Right and figures like Wang Yi, Christians in America and China have a hard
time making that argument.
Are such non-compliant actions in fact breaking the law? By
some accounts 'yes', but it could be argued on both legal and Biblical terms
that it's not lawbreaking. What's being done that's in violation of the law?
Money is being given away, nothing more. No one is looking for a tax credit or
some kind of kick back. It's not illegal to give someone money. There's no
official entity or business or organisation meeting in a private building, thus
codes and insurance don't apply. If I have 20 people in my home do I have to
get a special status?
In some neighbourhoods these days... yes. They're getting
that restrictive. The answer is simple. Move. They're not the kind of
neighbourhoods Christians should be living in anyway. Treat them as places for
outreach.
The simple truth is at some level we will have to break the
law but these questions and issues are miles apart from common Evangelical
concerns.
Privacy laws and laws concerning compulsory education,
conscription, jury duty and the like are to me, gospel issues. In other words
they are issues that violate basic ethics rooted in my Kingdom life. And I have
no qualms about breaking such laws.
What about when the Amish refuse to hook up to a sewer
system? Is this a violation of the gospel? It doesn't seem like it. It seems
like a conflict between a larger social interest and a personal conviction.
Some would say the same argument can be made with regard to children, that the
state has a compelling interest. I understand the argument but I don't buy it.
As far as the septic-sewer debate, it's a tough issue given that much of the
science is bunk. That said it would become a problem if huge swathes of the
population went the Amish route and insisted on outhouses.
The truth is their convictions, even if perceived as somewhat
lame by others aren't bothering anyone because their numbers are few. In other
instances I can see why there's some irritation with regard to their buggies.
If they use the road I can see the argument that says they should have to pay
registration. Obviously they don't pay the gasoline tax that pays for the
upkeep. And while I'm not bothered by the 'road apples' those that have them
deposited at the foot of their driveway might have cause for their irritation.
Often their ethics are very inconsistent, contradictory and self serving. Again
with the so-called Amish Taxis, they flaunt the law and pay others to do so
even while they insist that their ethics won't let them drive a car. If the
buggy is the ethical way to travel, then stick with it. For them it's a deeply
isolated and personal ethic, which I can on one level respect. I often make the
argument for covenant (as opposed to universal) ethics. That said, they think
they don't have to obey the law and yet will happily benefit from others doing
so... for their benefit. That's problematic.
Years ago I was working on a house where a bunch of Amish
were present involved in other tasks. They would help themselves to my tools,
even my power tools and when I prepared to leave they wanted me to leave my
halogen work lights. They were finishing drywall and if you've ever done that
you know that you need lighting. But I needed my lights for where I was going
next and also I wasn't going to leave them and drive an hour just to come and
pick them up. "Why don't you buy your own lights?" I asked. Oh, that
was an absurd question. And yet, as many Amish have left farming and entered
construction and other fields they seem to struggle with owning the necessary
tools. If you can't finish drywall without lights and yet you refuse to own
any, then it would seem finishing drywall is not a viable job for you. But they
don't think that way. They would rather just use your tools and keep themselves
pure.
I think about this all the time because we all have to live
in society and as Christians we have to make stands. Once again, if we wish to
be integrated into society then it seems somehow wrong to benefit from it even
while decrying it. Again, the answer is to divorce one's self from it and also
its benefits. For example, I don't use the courts, the schools and I don't plug
myself into its larger structures. That said, it's a hard thing because it's
Caesar's coin and like it or not we have to use it to some degree. While the
inconsistency of the Amish is maddening at times we run the risk of doing the
same things on a different scale. I respect Amish separatism, but not how it's
being presently manifested. They're breaking with their past and their leaders are
really failing to think through how living on the cash economy affects the
ethical choices they must make. To many who live around them, they're 'takers'
on a grand scale. On that same job my pagan co-worker/collaborator was in awe
as the Amish guy wanted to use his mobile phone and then proceeded to tie it up
for about 90 minutes. He was ordering lumber for the next job, talking pigs
with his cousin, getting prices on feed and the like. It was absurd because he
refuses to own a phone but has no qualms about using someone else's.
I digress. These are not questions about law breaking but I
hope you can see these are all questions tied in with ethics... how we interact
with society... what we use and what we should and sometimes must reject. These
are hard questions but if we take stands without thinking them through we'll
not only look like fools (for invalid reasons) but we run the risk of violating
Biblical ethics in the name of selfishness, tradition or some other misguided
set of values and questions.
Break the law if need be, but you had better understand why
and be prepared for the consequences, possibly the loss of all, whether seized
or lost as a result of flight. Do these things to the glory of God and make
sure your suffering is for the gospel. Those that suffer as a result of
political activity are not being persecuted they're being punished and there
are many who disingenuously employ the Scriptures as a cover for what are
basically unethical actions and in theological terms represent a serious refusal
to submit to Providence and the agents and means it would employ.
I have argued for the bestial line, survival and basic gospel
issues. It can be framed other ways, but I find most people are either
motivated by self-interest or false ideology and I urge readers to revisit and
rethink these questions.
This world is a vale of tears. This is not Zion nor will it
ever be. It's an evil age and yet it's one much easier to endure if we face it
as pilgrims.