On Intelligence and Omniscience

A post by Dr John Quinn

Edward Snowden (Courtesy of Wikicommons)

As I write, former US intelligence analyst Edward Snowden is en route to Ecuador, passing through Moscow and Havana. Mr Snowden is wanted by US authorities for disclosing information regarding the extent of US surveillance of its citizens’ internet and telephone activities. The disclosures, which were first reported in “The Guardian”, have rocked the US Government to the core, and have met with praise and contempt in almost equal measure.  Those in the government and security establishment argue that Mr Snowden’s disclosures are treasonous, endangering the lives of innocents by compromising effective security programs and intelligence mechanisms.  At the same time his actions are hailed as heroic by civil libertarians and journalists for pushing back against the increasing intrusion of the state into personal affairs.  As thinking Christians what are we to make of this?

The New Testament is not silent on the role of government. In Chapter 13 of his letter to the Romans, Paul exhorts his readers to “submit [themselves] to the governing authorities.”  Paul’s reasoning is not pragmatic, but is tied up in God’s sovereignty over earthly affairs: he writes “for there is no authority except that which God has established.” As result, “he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves”. Moreover, “if you do wrong, be afraid, for he [the ruler] does not bear the sword for nothing”.  In short, the ruling authorities are to be treated with respect and a measure of fear, as they are instituted by God to administer justice.

Image courtesy of Google images 

I have to admit that these verses bring me some discomfort in light of Edward Snowden’s revelations. What if, God forbid, it became illegal to be a Christian?  What if checking an online bible, calling your local church or even reading www.case.edu.au could land you in prison? These are activities we do every day: should we just stop them in submission to a tyrannical state? While a cursory reading of Romans 13 might invite that conclusion, I don’t think the picture is quite that straightforward. In Verse 3 of chapter 13, Paul writes:

“For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.” 

So it is really wrongdoers that ought to fear the government, not those who do right.  Of course, we now have a problem of definition: who are “those who do right” and “those who do wrong”?  I don’t think there is anything too controversial in suggesting that for Christian people “those who do right” must ultimately be those who trust and obey the Lord Jesus.  If this is the case then any government acting against Christians has moved from being an administrator of God’s justice to a persecutor of God’s people. The Bible is clear on both the reality and certainty of persecution for Christians.  Moreover, while persecution brings suffering in the here and now, it ultimately points to the certainty of hope in Jesus.  Hence there is nothing to fear from a government that persecutes, for the Christian holds to certain hope of ultimate deliverance through Jesus.

So, do Christians have anything to fear from a government that monitors our every movement? At one level the answer is no, because God would ultimately deliver us from a persecuting government. That said, it does not seem adequate to say that since God gave the authorities the power to monitor all our activities, we should just accept it. The potential for misuse of surveillance is substantial, and it is not only Christians who might face injustice as a result of government intrusion. As people who put others before ourselves we should be attentive not only to our own vulnerability, but also of others who might face persecution from an intrusive tyrannical state.  The scale of government monitoring now evident, we need to think about how we work toward change, not through illegal means, but by advocating through legitimate channels.

Did Edward Snowden do the right thing? I have no idea. His actions have certainly upset the US government who are making all sorts of claims about the legality of what has occurred. Moreover, he has almost certainly violated those confidentiality clauses that were part of his work arrangements. Deliverance for Edward Snowden appears to be coming from somewhat unexpected quarters, via the Russian, Cuban and Ecuadorian governments. Leaving aside the morality or legality of Mr Snowden’s actions, and his now precarious situation, through his disclosures he has flagged a significant issue with which we need to grapple. We can thank him for that.   

Faith & Politics: Our rights and responsibilities

In an article titled 'The voluble and the Word: amen to that' (Sydney Morning Herald, 10-11 October, 2009) Damien Murphy wrings his hands at the increasing influence of Christians in politics. He frames his article with the question "Is politics becoming more entwined with Christianity while Australian society becomes more and more secular?" He points to the Prime Minister's public professions of faith (and that of others) as if this may be a troubling development:

"No politician has ever spoken so frankly or linked his [i.e. the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd] beliefs to political policy. His open and sincere religiosity even provided an ethical public persona that enabled him to battle John Howard for the hearts and minds of Christians and eventually lead the ALP out of the political wilderness. Rudd is now joined by political contemporaries like Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott in overtly embracing religiosity as a shorthand way of proving credentials and displaying the sort of principles to which they aspire."

What place does faith have in politics?

At various points in the article Murphy makes it clear that he is of the view that Rudd, Abbot and Hockey have made use of their faith for reasons of political popularity. I've heard comments of this type before about politicians who dare to mention their faith. I have no idea whether any of them (including the Prime Minister) have been open about their faith simply for political gain, but surely what is at issue here is whether one's faith is relevant to one's politics, which Murphy appears to question. Indeed, he questions whether faith, as a basis for one's values and as a shaper of actions and concerns, is as relevant as it once was. He continues to imply in his article that this rush of 'religiosity' (as he describes it) is somehow disconnected to the needs of our secular society:

...Australia is an increasingly secular society. Although 64 per cent say they are Christian, fewer than one in 10 attends weekly church. Compared with many countries, Australia has invested little energy in public debate about the place of religion in a secular society. In some, such as the US and France, protecting religious freedom means rigorously policing the boundary between church and state.

He continues with his thesis that religion is somehow less relevant than it once was for public debates about Australia's political policies.

Curiously perhaps, Australian politicians have 'got religion' while more and more people around the country are letting go......In the 1996 census, 71 per cent of Australians said they were Christians. By 2006 Christians were down to 64 per cent. The number of Australians who professed no religion soared to almost 19 per cent.

Interestingly, a recent piece of research by McCrindle research for the 'Jesus All About life' campaign (here) shows that a majority of Sydney people (51%) believe Jesus was a real figure, that he had miraculous powers, and that he was the son of God.

The views of Kevin Rudd

It might also surprise Damien Murphy to find that Prime Minister Rudd would agree with him that religiosity and moral arguments have little place in politics. In a lecture given at New College (the home of CASE) on the 26th October 2005, 'A consideration of the relationship between Church and State' the then member of the Opposition offered 5 models that can be used to link faith and politics. He rejected (almost disdainfully) the first three that encourage voters to offer support to the Christian politician simply because the politician has a faith position, supports a narrow set of values, or stands for the family. He rejected a fourth that he saw as deficient because this model had a limited application of faith on values and stops short of making stands on what he sees as critical policy areas like foreign affairs, Indigenous issues, industrial relations etc. Instead he argues that:

"....the Gospel is both a spiritual Gospel and a social Gospel. And if it is a social Gospel then it is in part a political Gospel because politics is a means by which society chooses to exercise its collective power. In other words the Gospel is as much about decisions I make about my life as it is about how I act in society and how in turn I should act, and react, in relation to the exercise of the coordinated power of society through the State. This view derives from the simple principle that the Gospel which tells human kind that they must be born-again, is the same Gospel that says that at the time of the Great Judgement that Christians will be asked not how pious they have been but instead if they helped feed the hungry, clothe the naked and visit the lonely. In this respect, the Gospel is an exhortation for social action."

Prime Minister Rudd concluded by making the point that Damien Murphy seems to miss, Christians have a right and in fact a social obligation as citizens to engage in political thought and action. He comments in the same address that while the number of Christians has declined in Australia that they nonetheless have an obligation to be politically involved:

"Whereas a Christian perspective on contemporary policy debates may not, therefore, prevail, it must nonetheless be argued. And if argued it must therefore be heard by those in authority. It should not be rejected contemptuously by secular politicians as if these views are an unwelcome intrusion into the political sphere."

The challenge to Christians to be better citizens

Just as it is relevant for Christians to enter politics, all citizens who call themselves Christians have a responsibility to contribute to better government and justice for all people.

In his book 'The Desire of the Nations: Rediscovering the Roots of Political Theology' Oliver O'Donovan reminds us that two New Testament phrases sum up the role of government. It is a “minister of God” and it is a “human institution”. That is, it exists to serve the will of God that there should be government and it exists to give order and shape to human society and its affairs.

As Andrew Errington also reminds us in an article in issue #13 of Magazine devoted to the 'Christian and Politics' (Case here) as citizens the right approach to political action is for us to help our representatives of government do their job well and ensure that we have a good government.

The Christian has a responsibility to challenge politicians to ensure they seek justice. This will mean reminding them of God's truth taught in his Word, that ultimately God governs this nation and indeed the entire universe. God's word gives us clear guidance about what is right and wrong, just and unjust, good or evil.

So the right approach for Christian political action is to seek to help our representatives govern well and to help our governments be good governments. This means setting before them the priorities of justice; it means calling them to the truth about the universe revealed in the word of God. We must also remind them that Jesus Christ is the only true King. It is before him that every voter, every citizen and indeed every politician and ruler will one day bow down. There will be a day of judgement, and on that day every one of us will be called "to give an account of every careless word" (Matthew 12:36). Rather than standing in judgement on our politicians' words, motives and actions, we must challenge them and remind them that they have a great responsibility to do good and that one day, like us, they will bow before God (Rom 14:12) and he will judge "the living and the dead" (1 Peter 4:5). We are all known to God who can judge words, motives and hearts. As the book of Hebrews reminds us we are all "naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account".

This responsibility is challenging for the person of any faith. Damien Murphy has it badly wrong when he questions the right of politicians to have faith and apply it to their politics. Every politician who has a faith has a right and responsibility to apply this to their actions, and hopefully this shapes their values. This does not mean that they can hope to enforce their faith on the people, nor to narrowly apply their faith to a limited range of social and moral agendas. If they do this then God himself will judge their actions.

Do Fair Trade and Foreign Aid work?

Like many people I've always been a strong supporter of foreign aid and argued for an increased commitment by the Federal government in a previous post on the 'Business of World Poverty'. But some question the notion that simply spending more money is necessarily a wise thing. The most vocal critics believe in a free market and want minimal government interference in market forces. Recently, Associate Professor Andrew Leigh from the Australian National University wrote an opinion piece in the Australian Financial Review (20th May, 2008) in which he was (constructively) critical of Fair Trade programs and foreign trade in general.

An economist's view

Andrew Leigh has an interesting site aimed at economists, students of economics plus, I guess, policy makers and interested people like me. It is one of a number of secular sites that I read that aren't in any way connected with my Christian networks and communities. While he says plenty of things that I don't agree with, he also applies his econometric skills to many topics that I'm interested in and he challenges some of my views. I see this as good! It helps me to sharpen my own arguments, learn new things and offers opportunities to participate in other virtual communities. There is great benefit in entering and participating in varied communities of interest and debate - that's what apologists should do! It is important to listen to other ideas shaped by different worldviews, to understand them, and to learn from them.



Andrew Leigh quotes the economist Tim Harford who suggests that fair trade coffee in some London stores costs an extra 25 pence per cup, but only about a tenth of the mark-up actually reaches the coffee farmer. Harford suggests that "A fair trade cappuccino might have given the drinker a warm inner glow, but it didn’t do much to reduce world poverty".

Leigh points out that the harshest of critics sometimes say the same about overseas aid.

"They point out that unlike the voters who judge domestic programs, the recipients of foreign aid cannot punish bad policy at the ballot box. Aid’s critics say that with a few exceptions – like disaster assistance – the world would be better off with less aid, not more. With this year’s budget promising a major increase, Australia’s overseas aid is set to rise from 0.3% to 0.5% of national income by 2015. So the billion-dollar question is: does aid work?"

Leigh's key arguments

Here's a summary of Leigh's response:

• It is difficult to identify the impact of foreign aid on a country’s level of development.
• In the 1990s, a series of studies reached ambiguous conclusions about the impact of aid.
• Burnside & Dollar (2000) found that aid did raise growth as long as the recipient country had good fiscal, monetary and trade policies.
• Easterly, Levine & Roodman (2003) suggested these results were fragile, and did not hold up when more years of data were added to the analysis.
• Paul Collier later conceded that even in badly governed Africa, poverty rates would today be much higher had the continent received no aid.
• Jeffrey Sachs has argued that much foreign aid in the post-war era was directed towards winning the Cold War rather than helping the poor.
• Sachs accepts though that we shouldn’t discriminate against countries with bad institutions; but instead we should be ruthless about not giving the wrong kind of aid.

Andrew Leigh suggests that ethically, it would be hard to justify withholding charity from some of the world’s neediest people. With this I strongly agree! Yet the research suggests that we need to understand that progress will be slow.

The second challenge Leigh highlights is the need “to distinguish between good and bad aid. This is a particularly thorny question at a time when the program is being expanded. This year, AusAID’s budget will rise from $3.2 to $3.7 billion.”



A Christian response

The Bible is clear that we are to be generous, to give to the poor, that the most disadvantaged must be amongst the recipients (Matt 25:31-46), and that we should give to aliens (Jer 22:2-4) as well as to those in the church. But how do I reconcile the work of economists like Andrew Leigh with the biblical imperative to be generous to the poor. Here are a few thoughts that I've had. First, three fundamental biblical foundations that give me hope:

• I need to remind myself that my concern for justice in the world is an outworking of my faith in Christ, my gratitude to God and my desire to "act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God" (Micah 6:8).
• I need to remember that my primary concern is first to see people of all nations hear the gospel of Christ - their souls saved not just their earthly needs met.
  
• While God is not responsible for the suffering and injustice that concern me, and while I know that it will be part of God's fallen world, I need to remember that God is in sovereign control (Prov 19:21; 21:1; Dan 4:35; Rom 8:31; 35-37).
  

With the above as foundational, how might I respond to the fact that even within attempts to fight against injustice (e.g. the giving or foreign aid etc), the sin of mankind is undermining well-intentioned responses to injustice?

• I need to continue at a personal level to try to give generously, indeed sacrificially to people I identify as needy. As I see need I must respond.
• I should be wise in how I use the limited amount that I can give and I should target it at those in greatest need (e.g. those in the most life threatening situations, or those who have received less support).
• I should make sure that agencies that I give to use the money wisely and that the funds generated from others and me reach the people in need (or as much of it as possible).
• I should actively encourage governments and major aid organizations to use support wisely to help communities to become more sustainable and self-sufficient economically, agriculturally and educationally.
• I need to be prepared to look more closely at foreign aid policy and participate in informed ways to seek better outcomes for the most disadvantaged. I need to understand the limitations of government-to-government aid (see this critique from the CATO Institute). I need to be prepared to speak out and lobby politicians when government aid policy appears to be shaped by a desire for strategic advantage (e.g. protection of our trade, access to foreign resources etc) rather than a response to the most acute need.
• Finally, I need to support agencies where possible that have a desire to share the gospel of Christ as well as providing material support.

You can read the post from Andrew Leigh that prompted this post here