In Defense of Lew Rockwell (Part 2)

In my first post, I responded to two major criticisms of Lew Rockwell that have surfaced in the libertarian movement, in part due to his alleged "racism" and his extreme radicalism.

And in my second post on Lew Rockwell, I intend to address several other criticisms regarding his libertarianism and his strategy. I intend to defend Lew again against certain attacks that have surfaced against his work in some libertarian circles, particularly in left-libertarian (or "cosmopolitan libertarian") circles.

1. Lew Rockwell's strategy is too hostile to libertarians that are not in perfect agreement with either Rothbard or Rockwell—in short, Lew Rockwell doesn't welcome disagreements very well. Many libertarians who disagree with Rockwell or Rothbard on certain issues often argue that Rockwell doesn't welcome them very well and harbors personal resentment against such libertarians. They see Rockwell as a bitter and cranky man that can't agree to disagree. So they often dismiss him and his work because they see him as not worth spending time with.

However, I think this is somewhat far-fetched. It is true that Lew Rockwell disagrees with several libertarians on many issues. For example, he is a culturally conservative Catholic himself while some of the folks at the Ludwig von Mises Institute (LvMI) (Roderick Long, for example) hold to different cultural and social values. However, he has respected them and welcomed them into his institute. Also, he disagrees with Ron Paul with regards to the State (Lew Rockwell is an anarcho-capitalist while Ron Paul is a minarchist-constitutionalist), but Lew has been known to be very good friends with Ron Paul and has often praised Ron's work. 

And even when he diverges from what some libertarian would believe, he doesn't deny that they are libertarians. Far from it, he acknowledges that they are libertarians. However, Rockwell is clear that his strategy would be different from those other libertarians who hold different cultural and social values from him. He himself says in a 2006 interview:

I've noticed a general tendency here. When the right is in control, the left looks better to libertarians. When the left is in control, the right looks better. We are all generally drawn to the merits of the people who are not in power! So it is hardly surprising to see a rise of "left libertarians" in a time when the chief threat to liberty comes from the right, that is, from the red-state fascists who celebrate militarism and see no downside to every form of human-rights violation. Right now, it seems as if most of the intelligent non-libertarians are on the left. I would only caution that the left is beset with as many problems as the right. They want freedom without markets, peace without free trade, civil liberties without property rights. This can't work.

So while he does welcome some disagreements well, he doesn't welcome compromise on essential libertarian principles. And while it can get counterproductive at times (mostly because left-libertarians can huff and puff at that), I think that is a respectable position to hold.

2. Lew Rockwell promotes dangerous conspiracy theories, anti-Semitism, and all that crazy stuff. Another major criticism of Rockwell is with regards to his alleged promotion of conspiracy theories, anti-Semitism/anti-Israel stuff, racism, and most politically incorrect ideologies that many of his detractors despise. They argue that since the general public dislikes such stuff, Lew Rockwell's work is then a hindrance to the liberty movement, not a boon. However, I don't think that such things are harmful to the liberty movement. Yes, such stuff can be counterproductive, but I don't believe it is half as bad as the detractors make it out to be. I believe the conspiracy theories don't go to the extremes of Infowars.com (though Lew himself admires Alex Jones), and most of the "anti-Semitic" stuff is mainly rational, logical thought that refuses to look at the Israel issue with emotionally-charged eyes. As a dispensational premillennialist who believes that God still has a plan for the Jewish people, I don't exactly support much of what the neocon and Israel lobby spouts—they often support war-mongering in the name of national security, economic sanctions on "rogue" nations, and the use of statism/force in furthering their goals. I also believe that it could be argued that the Palestinian people can have a better claim to the land on propertarian/property-rights grounds and that the Zionists' actions in 1948 can be called aggression and initiation of force against civilians. And at the end of the day, I would like to close with this statement of Rockwell's himself:

Lew strives to present a diverse daily selection of interesting articles from our writers and other sites, but he does not necessarily endorse every view expressed. He does, however, believe that each piece will repay your reading.

That means that Rockwell doesn't endorse everything he publishes on the site. So keep that in mind whenever you see some "wacky" article on LRC. And sometimes the "wacky" stuff may not be so bad after all—maybe the reaction to it might not be due to the wackiness of the content per se; it may be because of the over-sensitivity of the reactor. And even the revisionist history from LRC and Mises.org (two of my favorite sites) is very eye-opening and thoughtful. It invites deeper thought and smashes long-established myths that have been taught to us about history, regarding hot topics like Abraham Lincoln, the Civil War, WWI, the national-security state apparatus, WWII, the Vietnam War, and even certain aspects of the Founding. Such revisionism and history is necessary to understand the motivations of the "power elite."

Murray Rothbard argued long ago in an article on revisionism:

Revisionism is an historical discipline made necessary by the fact that all States are governed by a ruling class that is a minority of the population, and which subsists as a parasitic and exploitative burden upon the rest of society. Since its rule is exploitative and parasitic, the State must purchase the alliance of a group of "Court Intellectuals," whose task is to bamboozle the public into accepting and celebrating the rule of its particular State. The Court Intellectuals have their work cut out for them. In exchange for their continuing work of apologetics and bamboozlement, the Court Intellectuals win their place as junior partners in the power, prestige, and loot extracted by the State apparatus from the deluded public. 

The noble task of Revisionism is to de-bamboozle: to penetrate the fog of lies and deception of the State and its Court Intellectuals, and to present to the public the true history of the motivation, the nature, and the consequences of State activity. By working past the fog of State deception to penetrate to the truth, to the reality behind the false appearances, the Revisionist works to delegitimate, to desanctify, the State in the eyes of the previously deceived public. By doing so, the Revisionist, even if he is not a libertarian personally, performs a vitally important libertarian service.

Thus, revisionism is actually far more noble than its detractors, libertarian or otherwise, would like to believe. And Lew Rockwell's resources—Mises.org, LewRockwell.com, and the other stuff—do that brilliantly. They shine light and promote liberty, and they do a fine job at that.

A Christian's Perspective on Santa Claus

Santa Claus is a divisive issue among many Christians. Some Christians see Santa Claus as harmless fun for children. Some see him as a fabrication of Satan used to deceive little ones away from the truth. And still some say that while there is nothing wrong per se with having Santa Claus appear at a party and ask children about what they want for gifts, there should be clarification as to whether Santa Claus is real or not.

My view of this is that while children should recognize that Santa Claus is not a real character, there is nothing sinful about enjoying his depiction in cinema, literature, TV, or in any other area. There is also nothing sinful about dressing up as Santa Claus or inviting a fake Santa over to one's Christmas party or event.

But still, we must keep in mind that we ought to be telling the truth (Colossians 3:9), for if we lie, and if we don't clarify it, then kids might be deceived into thinking Santa Claus is real when he is not (though I will submit that there is room for debate among Christians as to whether letting kids believe in Santa is a deadly lie or not).

Having said that, however, we could do well by looking into how the Santa Claus stories came to be, that in fact they were ultimately based off a real person in a real setting.

Saint Nicholas: The "Original Santa Claus"

Many have noted that Santa Claus's possible origins might lie in the Greek bishop Saint Nicholas (270-343), who was the Bishop of Myra in Lycia. He was known for many things, including his famed miracles attributed to his intercessions, the most iconic trait of his was his secret gift-giving. Many have gone into further detail about his great acts and his childhood, so I will not do this here. But I will note his most famous act. A poor man had three daughters, and he lacked the proper dowry for a wedding. This would mean that due to their poverty, the daughters might resort to prostitution to receive money. So Nicholas saw this and wanted to help them. However, due to the fact that the poor man might be humiliated at the thought of receiving charity and that Nicholas didn't want to look like one drawing attention onto oneself (Matthew 6:1), he decided to give secretly (Matthew 6:3-4), and in the night he threw three purses of gold coins through the window of the house. There are many variations of this tale, but one thing remains clear: the secret charity of St. Nicholas was so memorable that later it influenced other depictions of Santa Claus either indirectly or directly.

How Did Santa Claus Come About?

But since we had the original St. Nicholas, why couldn't we have him? Why did we choose Santa Claus? The reason is a little bit complicated. Let us turn to Mark Driscoll and see how he explains this:

During the Reformation, however, Nicholas fell out of favor with Protestants, who did not approve of canonizing certain people as saints and venerating them with holidays. His holiday was not celebrated in any Protestant country except Holland, where his legend as Sinterklass lived on. In Germany, Martin Luther replaced him with the Christ child as the object of holiday celebration, or, in German, Christkindl. Over time, the celebration of the Christ child was simply pronounced Kris Kringle and oddly became just another name for Santa Claus.

And then again, the common tale of Santa Claus might have originated from folk tales from various cultures (some of which came from the legends of Saint Nicholas) that have been brought to America by Dutch immigrants. While there are commonly held legends, there is not one official interpretation of Santa Claus (though some could count L. Frank Baum's rendition of the Santa Claus story to be a definitive version of the American Santa Claus we all know and love). There are many varieties of this character, such as Father Christmas from England, Sinterklaas and other variations. However, these traditions all center around one jolly old man who brings joy throughout the Christmas season (or winter holidays).

What Should The Christian Think About All This?

I have given a historical perspective on St. Nicholas and Santa Claus, and now I will explore how Christians should react to it.

I said before that Christians should not be dishonest in dealing with this issue, especially when it comes to children. However, as long as Santa Claus does not replace Jesus Christ as the center of Christmas, there is nothing wrong with enjoying this tradition. And it would be helpful in telling the story of St. Nicholas and how it relates to Christianity and to Santa Claus.

In Defense of Lew Rockwell (Part 1)

Recently, Lew Rockwell announced that he was writing a new book — Against the State: An Anarcho-Capitalist Manifesto. However, Eglė Markevičiūtė, member of the International Executive Board for Students for Liberty (SFL), decided to attack Lew Rockwell. Robert Wenzel responded to her quite well. However, he also suggested that one can increase one's blog traffic by speaking in favor of Lew Rockwell and libertarian purity. I will embark upon this attempt to defend Lew Rockwell and his libertarian work against certain criticisms that he has received from some libertarians, not just to increase the blog traffic but also because I want to clear up some misinformation that has been spread about this man.

My personal views on Rockwell are this: while he is not a flawless man and while he is human, I think Rockwell is a boon to the liberty movement, a tireless and fearless defender of liberty, not afraid to ruffle a few feathers (even among libertarians), and he is always willing and able to stand fast to the liberty message.

However, some libertarians don't share as fond a view of Rockwell that I do (his work has been instrumental in my becoming a libertarian). Many see him as a bitter egomaniac and a right-wing racist who is bad for the liberty movement, often because of Rockwell's controversial views on certain things (federalism, Lincoln, etc.). I intend to respond to a few criticisms of Rockwell that I have encountered among some libertarians and clear up certain misconceptions that I have found.

1. Lew Rockwell is a racist who was responsible for the Ron Paul newsletters and isn't man enough to admit it. This is one of the most interesting criticisms of Lew Rockwell that I have encountered, as it recollects to the controversial Ron Paul newsletters that the mainstream media dug up in light of the Ron Paul revolution of 2008 and 2012. Some libertarians have suggested that Lew Rockwell, a friend of Ron Paul and the late Murray Rothbard, was responsible for writing the newsletters and that he should come clean about it. Particularly notable is the libertarian magazine Reason's coverage of the issue, which pinned the whole thing on Lew Rockwell and the "paleo-libertarian" strategy that Rockwell and Rothbard advocated in the 1990s.

However, Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com addresses this issue very ably in his column for Taki's Magazine on the issue. He points out that the so-called "racist" statements are actually far from racism and that those statements are actually not anti-libertarian or a stumbling block to libertarianism. He said this of Ron Paul that can be safely applied to Lew Rockwell:

It’s no mystery, really: Ron Paul is, in many ways, the exact opposite of the Beltway fake-“libertarians.” He’s a populist: they suck up to power, he challenges the powers-that-be; they go along to get along – he has never gone along with the conventional wisdom as defined by the arbiters of political correctness, Left and Right. And most of all, he’s an avowed enemy of the neoconservatives, whom he constantly names as the main danger to peace and liberty – while the Beltway’s tame “libertarians” are in bed with them, often literally as well as figuratively.

2. Lew Rockwell's political incorrectness, radicalism and right-wing extremism are dangerous for libertarianism. Another corollary criticism of Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute is that regarding Lew Rockwell's politically incorrect ideas, radical interpretation of libertarianism and culturally conservative views, as well as Rockwell's own rejection of leftist values and political correctness. Left-libertarians and culturally liberal libertarians often protest that Lew Rockwell's "backwards" values will hinder the liberty movement from growing and will ultimately hinder libertarianism.

One author argues:

Mentioned in Weigel and Sanchez’s piece was another libertarian giant, Murray Rothbard, who was mostly an advocate of what is known as “anarcho-capitalism.” This is what libertarians are typically branded with by those on the right and left, that we want to create a world where there is no government, where everything is handled by private companies (including courts, fire departments, police, highways, you name it, it’s private.) While I feel that anarcho-capitalism does get a bum rap, most libertarians do not espouse this position. Most of us instead believe a minimal government is ideal, even some of us (myself included) may be “philosophical anarchists,” that it would be nice to have anarchy, that it would be a great ideal, but it’s just that—an ideal, something that will not work in the real world.

Ah, just more "anarcho-capitalism is great in theory but bad in practice." However, even if most libertarians are not anarchists, I believe that the non-anarchist is being somewhat naive in believing that there is such a thing as limited government, for the State doesn't limit itself but in fact will use what is intended as a limit to expand its own power. For example, certain phrases in the Constitution that could be interpreted as limited government platitudes by one group can then be interpreted as statist platitudes in one instance. Murray Rothbard himself said in "Anatomy of the State":

Certainly the most ambitious attempt to impose limits on the State has been the Bill of Rights and other restrictive parts of the American Constitution, in which written limits on government became the fundamental law to be interpreted by a judiciary supposedly independent of the other branches of government. All Americans are familiar with the process by which the construction of limits in the Constitution has been inexorably broadened over the last century. But few have been as keen as Professor Charles Black to see that the State has, in the process, largely transformed judicial review itself from a limiting device to yet another instrument for furnishing ideological legitimacy to the government's actions. For if a judicial decree of "unconstitutional" is a mighty check to government power, an implicit or explicit verdict of "constitutional" is a mighty weapon for fostering public acceptance of ever-greater government power.

So basically, the "great in theory but bad in practice" can truly be applied to the belief in "limited government" rather than anarcho-capitalism.

And as to Rockwell's political incorrectness and right-wing leanings, I would like to give extended comment. In many of Rockwell's writings, I haven't noticed any attempt to claim that his "right-wing values" are libertarianism, whereas in many of his left-wing detractors' writings, I have noticed attempts to merge libertarianism and culturally leftist values into one holistic philosophy. Yes, Lew Rockwell probably believes his views fit more nicely with libertarianism, but that does not mean he wants to incorporate it into a "holistic" libertarianism; in fact, he is a "thin" libertarian who believes that libertarianism is only a political philosophy dealing with the non-aggression principle/axiom and the use of force in society. In his recent article "What Libertarianism Is, And Isn't," Rockwell rightly says:

Libertarianism is concerned with the use of violence in society. That is all. It is not anything else. It is not feminism. It is not egalitarianism (except in a functional sense: everyone equally lacks the authority to aggress against anyone else). It has nothing to say about aesthetics. It has nothing to say about religion or race or nationality or sexual orientation. It has nothing to do with left-wing campaigns against “white privilege,” unless that privilege is state-supplied. 

Let me repeat: the only “privilege” that matters to a libertarian qua libertarian is the kind that comes from the barrel of the state’s gun. Disagree with this statement if you like, but in that case you will have to substitute some word other than libertarian to describe your philosophy.

Libertarians are of course free to concern themselves with issues like feminism and egalitarianism. But their interest in those issues has nothing to do with, and is not required by or a necessary feature of, their libertarianism. Accordingly, they may not impose these preferences on other libertarians, or portray themselves as fuller, more consistent, or more complete libertarians. We have seen enough of our words twisted and appropriated by others. We do not mean to let them have libertarian.

So this should put to rest some concerns that Rockwell is trying to make libertarianism right-wing. And if by right-wing it is meant consistency and purity in libertarianism, then I am all for it, as it is not an attempt to insert cultural values into libertarianism.

Logan Albright also notes:

The trouble is that by attempting to redefine a narrow political philosophy to encompass all things that we like and think are nice – like non-discrimination, like treating people as ends rather than means – we dilute its power and simplicity. We destroy what makes it great. Once we proceed down the road of declaring everything we think is good to be “libertarian,” we will quickly find that libertarianism suddenly has no meaning at all.

So I have noticed that many of Rockwell's detractors have often criticized him for not being "thick" enough, for being too strict and all that.

However, this strictness is what keeps libertarianism from being convoluted, and I am all for that.

Next up: Part 2, where I deal with more criticisms of Lew Rockwell and his strategies for liberty.

What Should Christians Think About Taxes?: Part 2 - "Thou Shalt Not Steal"

In my first post on the subject of Christians and taxes, I argued that the "render unto Caesar" and "pay your taxes" passages in the New Testament does not make taxes themselves moral. In this post, I will argue that taxes are a form of theft, and that they violate the Ten Commandments, especially the command to not steal and the command to have no other gods before God.

"Thou Shalt Not Steal" - Exodus 20:15

The Ten Commandments i the great moral bedrock of moral and ethical law by which Jews and Christians abide by. They have endured in the hearts and souls of many throughout all of history, and they have enriched the hearts of all who abide by them (and they receive their fullest recognition in Christ Jesus).

However, even so, there is one passage that most people don't seem to grasp as fully as I believe they should and that is the sixth commandment. "You shall not steal." (Exodus 20:15).

Most people recognize that this commandment is a condemnation of theft, and many also believe that it protects the sanctity of private property rights, as the majority of property titles are obtained and earned justly (through "homesteading" and/or through voluntary exchange). However, when one condemns taxation as a violation of this commandment, most Christians will recoil and argue that since taxes are commanded in the Scripture elsewhere, then taxes cannot be theft.

However, such a dismissal not only misunderstands the nature of taxes but also the nature of theft and how it doesn't suddenly become something else when it is made legal or labeled by another name.

First, let us look at what taxes are. Essentially, they are the forcible taking of earnings and fruits of one's labor by the State for the use of the State. They are done without the consent of the taxed person, and often the person who refuses to pay taxes is sent a paper, and if he resists further, he is dragged to court (or immediately jailed, depending on the society one lives in) and if he resists even more, he will probably be killed in the process. These are not mere dues that one pays for living in society; they are forcible takings of one's goods and services for the benefit of the State.

Murray Rothbard says of the state and taxes in For A New Liberty:

At first, of course, it is startling for someone to consider taxation as robbery, and therefore government as a band of robbers. But anyone who persists in thinking of taxation as in some sense a "voluntary" payment can see what happens if he chooses not to pay. The great economist Joseph Schumpeter, himself by no means a libertarian, wrote that "the state has been living on a revenue which was being produced in the private sphere for private purposes and had to be deflected from these purposes by political force. The theory which construes taxes on the analogy of club dues or of the purchase of the services of, say, a doctor only proves how far removed this part of the social sciences is from scientific habits of mind."⁴ The eminent Viennese "legal positivist" Hans Kelsen attempted...to establish a political theory and justification of the State, on a strictly "scientific" and value-free basis. What happened is that early in the book, he came to the crucial sticking-point, the pons asinorum of political philosophy: What distinguishes the edicts of the State from the commands of a bandit gang? Kelsen's answer was simply to say that the decrees of the State are "valid," and to proceed happily from there, without bothering to define or explain this concept of "validity." Indeed, it would be a useful exercise for nonlibertarians to ponder this question: How can you define taxation in a way which makes it different from robbery?

And the very existence of the State creates two classes, the taxpayers and the tax consumers. The late philosopher John C. Calhoun said in his Disquisition on Government:

The necessary result, then, of the unequal fiscal action of the government is to divide the community into two great classes: one consisting of those who, in reality, pay the taxes and, of course, bear exclusively the burden of supporting the government; and the other, of those who are the recipients of their proceeds through disbursements, and who are, in fact, supported by the government; or, in fewer words, to divide it into tax-payers and tax-consumers. 

But the effect of this is to place them in antagonistic relations in reference to the fiscal action of the government — and the entire course of policy therewith connected. For the greater the taxes and disbursements, the greater the gain of the one and the loss of the other, and vice versa . . . . The effect, then, of every increase is to enrich and strengthen the one, and impoverish and weaken the other.

Another reason that makes taxation a worse form of theft is that it is legitimized by its defenders as being a necessity for society, without which none of us can survive and without which we would all become selfish pricks without concern for morality or justice. However, this is definitely not the case at all, and I believe the tax defenders are misunderstood. Fees may be asked of by private (non-state) communities in the anarcho-capitalist society, but even then they won't be forced on the non-consenting parties, like taxation is. Just because one doesn't actively kill a tax collector to prevent being taxed doesn't mean that consensual transferring of wealth has occurred. Theft is theft.

"Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me" - Exodus 20:3

Another important consideration when dealing with taxes is the issue of who is God. Often taxes are collected by the State in an attempt to make itself godlike and powerful. Many times, as others noted elsewhere, the State charges even more than God Himself commanded His people to pay (State tax rates are often higher than the 10% tithe God commands His people to pay).

C. Jay Engel, a Reformed Baptist anarcho-capitalist, says of this:

Beyond the realm of goods and services, the State has stolen the messianic mindset.  For in its massive taxation of the people, what has the State really claimed, but that it is the ultimate owner of whatever revenue the individual makes for himself?  This soon becomes a knowledge issue.  By its decrees and by its own calculation, the State assumes the ability to determine exactly how much money an individual “needs” and how much is good for him.  And when by licensing and certifying business to provide services for each other, the State has set up itself as Society’s sovereign institution, making it plain that, by only the grace of itself can the economy operate.

This is indeed true. By taxing the people, the State asserts that it has the right to take part of the capital of its own subjects/people. It asserts that its own well-being is more valuable to the people than if the people merely kept their earnings and capital and allocated them elsewhere in more productive suits. It takes resources and money that would arguably be allocated more justly in the private sector and wastes it in the public sector, often on things that have no worth and meaning. With the exception of inflation and money-creation that occurs in the fractional-reserve/central-bank system that now exists in America, taxation is one of the most powerful and deadly uses of state power. As the famous statement opines: "The power to tax is the power to destroy." Indeed. Without taxation, not only would the State be unable to do major damage, but the very structure of the State would disappear, as it should (in my view, but more on that later).

And how does this all relate to idolatry? In many ways it does. While taxation is indeed forced upon the people, oftentimes some people see their taxes as offerings to the state. Why is the State's taxation idolatrous? Because it takes money that rightly belongs to God and to man (to man because man often earns his wealth justly) and expropriates it for itself. It assumes that since it is the chief unifying force of society without which society would collapse, it assumes the right to forcibly take money from its citizens and use it for its own purposes (and also other services that are done in the name of the people, when in fact, those services can be provided better in the free market by individuals).

The Fundamental Question: What Right Has The State To Tax Us?

It all comes down to this: what right has the State to tax us? Some may say that Romans 13 approves the State as an institution and thus taxes are a legitimate and godly thing, provided they are not excessive. However, I would argue that Romans 13's ideas don't endorse the exploitative institution known as the State and that the command to pay taxes was not a legitimizing of the tax system but rather a command of Christians to pay in order to avoid persecution (as at the time the corrupt Roman bureaucracy would severely persecute tax resistors).

Another factor to consider is how the State originates itself. I argue that it is rooted in exploitation and aggressive force; it is not voluntary governance that everyone agrees to, but rather it is an institution that lives off of force and taxes. This is what is called the Rothbardian theory, the anarcho-capitalist theory, or the conquest theory of the state. C. Jay Engel says:

The origination of the State is in conquest.  Whereas many Statists will attempt to show that the State is a grassroots or “bottom-up” phenomenon (an interesting claim, as those who today write the political narrative generally despise “bottom-up” approaches), the so-called “Austro-libertarian” theory is that the State forces itself onto the people it claims to “represent.”  There is interests of wealth, money, and economics on one hand, and also a general disposition to be in charge and to rule over others.  The State, therefore, is alien to the people, its victims.

What should the Christian think of this though? Is the conquest theory really incompatible with the Bible? Or is there something more? Engel says:

They believe that the origination of the State is to be found in God’s ordination.  God ordains the existence of the State.  Therefore, it is a reality because He seeks to accomplish some aim by means of this State.   Try to stay with me here.  Many Christians will then say: “Therefore, the State is good.”  But that is absurd.  Doesn’t God ordain evil?  Why would we ever take the position of: “God ordained the existence of Satan, therefore Satan’s existence is good”?  That is not a Biblical logic.  More importantly, consider Acts 2:23: “this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.” The gravity of understanding that the death of Jesus Christ was planned, ordained, from eternity past should be emphasized.  Is not the murder of the God-man Christ Jesus the most horrific crime in all of history?  Is there any better way of demonstrating the depravity of mankind?  And yet, it was ordained by God Himself.  Yes, God ordains evil.  God ordains all things.  So the assumption that the State is good because it was ordained by God is a poor assumption if that is the only reason given. 

(This is, of course, setting aside the discussion of the goodness of some agency, perhaps on the free market, which plays the role of “punisher,” or “government.”  And I assume that by now the reader is familiar with the distinction that I find useful of separating the State as a monopoly institution and the government as a role in civil society.  One can be provided on the free market and the other requires the initiation of force.  Whether or not the State should be accepted as a civil good is a different conversation, but I do want to point out the coercive nature that is core to its character.)

It is clearer now that the conquest theory of the State—that the State lives off of conquest and is born in such—is not exactly contrary to the view that God "ordains" the State, since God can "ordain" bad things and He can permit them to happen. And often, history testifies to the fact that States are formed in conquest and aggression, ranging from the conquests against other nations that occur against other nations or even the (gasp) somewhat secretive nature in which our constitutional system was formed. And not even "democracy" can legitimize the State, for as the late Albert J. Nock noted in The American Mercury:

...the idea that the procedure of the "democratic" State is any less criminal than that of the State under any other fancy name, is rubbish. The country is now being surfeited with journalistic garbage about our great sister democracy, England, its fine democratic government, its vast beneficent gift for ruling subject peoples, and so on; but does anyone ever look up the criminal record of the British State? The bombardment of Copenhagen; the Boer War; the Sepoy Rebellion; the starvation of Germans by the post-Armistice blockade; the massacre of natives in India, Afghanistan, Jamaica; the employment of Hessians to kill off American colonists. What is the difference, moral or actual, between Kitchener's democratic concentration camps and the totalitarian concentration camps maintained by Herr Hitler? The totalitarian general Badoglio is a pretty hard-boiled brother, if you like, but how about the democratic general O'Dwyer and Governor Eyre? Any of the three stands up pretty well beside our own democratic virtuoso, Hell Roaring Jake Smith, in his treatment of the Filipinos; and you can't say fairer than that.

The conclusion that I take here is that not only are taxes a form of stealing and that they are somewhat of an idolatrous thing, but they have no legitimacy, not even when it is democratic or plastered with Christian symbols. Even while taxes should be paid by the Christian, that does not mean that taxes are pre se legitimate. One can fully support Christians paying their taxes while at the same time supporting any call for the abolition or (at the very least) reduction of any taxes, and one can even support the abolition of taxes and the state itself with a clear conscience.

Film Review: THE SEARCHERS (1956)

The Searchers (1956)

Director: John Ford

Producer: Cornelius Vanderbilt Whitney

Story/Screenplay: Frank S. Nugent; based on The Searchers by Alan Le May

Music: Max Steiner; Stan Jones (title song, "The Searchers")

Cinematography: Winton C. Hoch

Editing; Jack Murray

Starring: John Wayne, Jeffrey Hunter, Vera Miles, Ward Bond, Natalie Wood, Hank Worden

MPAA Rating: NR

Studio: Warner Bros. Pictures

***** (5/5)

"That'll be the day." — Ethan Edwards, The Searchers

The Searchers is a truly popular film, even as it is 58 years old to date (in 2016 it will be its 60th anniversary). The American Film Institute named it the greatest Western of all time in 2008, one of the top 100 greatest American movies ever made in 2007 and 1998, and held by critics, fans of Western movies, cinephiles and almost everyone as not only one of the greatest Westerns of all time (and maybe THE greatest Western) but also one of the all-time great movies. Despite it not receiving major Oscar nominations upon its release, it was a commercial success and ultimately a popular and critical success, not only then but also now. This is especially important, as Westerns are often written off by most serious folks as being mindless exercises in violence and racism and nationalistic jingoism. Often that is true, especially among some of the older B-westerns and even in some acclaimed Westerns. However, even many who normally don't think very highly of Westerns per se are very fond of The Searchers, mainly in part due to the cinematic qualities that Ford and all involved placed in the film, and also how it manages to not succumb to the typical problems that plagued most Western films before this film came out. 

For example, whereas racism was often viewed lightly and even condoned in previous Western films, The Searchers departed from this route, even as it was still a classical American Western movie. Yes, it did not take a politically correct view of the Native Americans or the Comanche, but neither did it subscribe to the gung-ho Manifest Destiny doctrine that many a Western would subscribe to before.

And I was very impressed by the film, considering that this was the first Western I have watched. I was impressed not only by the depth and filmmaking quality of this movie but also its many other merits. But I will get to that later on.

The Searchers centers around the story of former Confederate war hero Ethan Edwards (John Wayne), who returns back to Texas three years after the Civil War ended. He returns to his brother Aaron Edwards's (Walter Coy) home, as well as to his wife Martha (Dorothy Jordan) (whom many consider to have had a previous relation with John Wayne's character). And his character is established as a racist who doesn't like Indians—this is established when he mocks his young relative Martin Pawley (Jeffrey Hunter)—and who is a wanderer that has no stable place to settle. Later on, it turns out that the Comanche Indians raided the cattle of Lars Jorgensen (John Qualen), and eventually it is found that the whole thing was a decoy for the parties involved to leave their homes undefended and prone to Indian attacks.

And it turns out that Indians do attack the homes (led by war chief Scar (Henry Brandon)), and especially Aaron's house. His wife Martha is dead (even raped, which is definitely not depicted on-screen but surely implied). However, Debbie (Lana Wood) and Lucy (Pippa Scott), Ethan's two nieces, come with him, as well as Mose Harper (Hank Worden), Captain Samuel Clayton (Ward Bond), Martin, and Lars's son Brad Jorgensen (Harry Carey, Jr.) (who had some romantic relations with Lucy). But due to certain events, the rest of them leave the journey, with Ethan, Martin and Brad alone to continue the journey. However, it turns out that Lucy, one of the girls, was raped and killed by the Comanche kidnappers and left out there. Brad, grieved by this, runs out and is killed as a result by the Indians.

This leaves Ethan and Martin now to find Debbie; however, through the span of five years, many interesting events happen, including one with Laurie Jorgensen (Vera Miles), who desperately wants to fall in love and has her eye set on Martin. However, Martin's adventures hinder him from responding to Laurie's claims, which anger her even more (a very strong running point in the film).

Another subplot comes in with regard to Ethan's racism toward Indians, particularly Comanche (who killed his mother a long time ago). It is revealed that his racism is so strong that it spills over into cultural bias; he even harbors a hatred for former white victims of Comanche raids that were brainwashed—he even wants to consider murdering Debbie (Natalie Wood) due to her having assimilated into the Indian ways and Indian culture. This leaves for another layer of development that set The Searchers apart from not only previous Westerns but also previous John Wayne performances. 

While this film definitely is celebrated and a hallowed piece of Americana in American cinema, it still does have a fair share of detractors, who argue that the film takes a hypocritical stance on racism; they argue that while The Searchers does have anti-racist themes, it does wallow in racism throughout the film, as Indian-related stuff is often related to either evil things or awkward John Ford humor. I would respond that the treatment toward Indians is not flawless and it does have tinges of racism; even so, the anti-racist theme remains powerful, especially in the second half.

Normally in an old Western, the white man would be depicted as the undisputed hero and the Indian as the undisputed villain. Yes, The Searchers retains some of that classical trapping in its structure, with the Indian characters being the villains and the white people being depicted as the protagonists/heroes. However, added to this film is a thought-provoking and excellent layer of moral ambiguity and unsettling power that distinguishes this movie. Ethan Edwards is at once depicted both as a courageous war hero looking out for his only living niece and a culturalist/racist who hates Comanches and whites brainwashed by Comanches. The film skillfully juxtaposes this and uses the other protagonist, Martin Pawley, as a foil to Ethan's virulent racism, which offends even his closest friends.

What made The Searchers a towering masterpiece is not just all the great technical achievements (directing, acting, mise-en-scene, cinematography, writing, creative uses of flashbacks, beautiful shots and memorable sequences, etc.), all of which deserve the honors they receive, but the moral ambiguity that is prevalent in the film. 

Roger Ebert's interesting essay on this film sums up quite nicely:

Ethan Edwards, fierce, alone, a defeated soldier with no role in peacetime, is one of the most compelling characters Ford and Wayne ever created (they worked together on 14 films). Did they know how vile Ethan's attitudes were? I would argue that they did, because Wayne was in his personal life notably free of racial prejudice, and because Ford made films with more sympathetic views of Indians. This is not the instinctive, oblivious racism of Griffith's “Birth of a Nation.” Countless Westerns have had racism as the unspoken premise; this one consciously focuses on it. I think it took a certain amount of courage to cast Wayne as a character whose heroism was tainted. Ethan's redemption is intended to be shown in that dramatic shot of reunion with Debbie, where he takes her in his broad hands, lifts her up to the sky, drops her down into his arms, and says, “Let's go home, Debbie.” The shot is famous and beloved, but small counterbalance to his views throughout the film--and indeed, there is no indication be thinks any differently about Indians.

Steven D. Greydanus also rightly notes: "The film’s complexity and ambiguity extends even to the famous climax, in which two central characters make choices that could be viewed as changes of heart, but could also be viewed as differing responses to changing circumstances. Do the characters change and develop, or is the truth about them simply more clearly revealed? The Searchers offers no clear-cut answers, not even to the question in the theme song."

While such a film can easily become preachy and heavy-handed, The Searchers brilliantly avoided this trap and gave us not only a great masterpiece of cinema but a film that can be appreciated by almost anybody, even one who likes Westerns as a shoot-em-up genre. Everything has a purpose and is used skillfully by Ford, even the often awkward comic humor and romantic subplots, which show the contrast between humanity and Ethan's wandering nature.

John Wayne gives one of his greatest performances, which also happens to be one of the greatest roles in film. His Ethan Edwards is one of the greatest anti-heroic protagnoists in film, contrasting his most admirable bravery with his despicable and twisted racism and hatred of the Commanches which is infused by a statist and quasi-totalitarian desire to not only kill Commanches but also those who were integrated into this culture. Jeffrey Hunter is also brilliant as Ethan's foil, Martin Pawley, and Hunter's performance infuses humanity into the darkness of this film. And the rest of the performances are also superb, including that of Hank Worden's Mose Harper, Ford's comic-relief character that actually helps the film a lot in many ways more than one. For example, Jason Fraley's in-depth essay notes: "Thus there’s almost a humorous significance to Mose’s constant cries of, “My rocking chair! I want my rocking chair!” The rocking chair is a symbol of domestic moral stability, swaying back and forth, but in the end, holding its ground. It’s a visual idea that was perhaps growing in Ford since Henry Fonda memorably rocked in that chair in My Darling Clementine (1946). How fitting that Mose sit in such a chair at the end of The Searchers donning a top hat, yet another symbol of the civilized world." The rest of the cast is great, including Natalie Wood as the grown-up Debbie (however brief her role is) and Vera Miles as Laurie, who is madly in love with Martin. Even though Miles's performance does annoy me in many ways, I don't deny that it is a good character portrayal and very understandable considering the circumstances of the film. After all, Martin goes off with Ethan on this long quest and often ignores Laurie, leading her to go with another guy (which serves as another point of comic humor near the climatic moments of the movie). 

The visual shots themselves are magnificent and truly cinematic, and they really shine on the Blu-ray Disc for this film. Ford really had an eye for the West and his skill shows in how masterfully and meaningfully he crafts the shots, from the opening mise-en-scene sequences with Ethan and Marth to the wide VistaVision shots of the setting to the other various iconic shots that many films after paid homage to. Also, Ford manages to capture brutality without showing us in-your-face gore and violence, another great skill courtesy of the best classics of olden times (though graphic violence isn't necessarily a bad thing, from my personal point of view; just don't use it in excess and where it is not needed). This thing impressed me throughout the film, and not only that, Max Steiner's epic music score is perfect for the film, ranging from the thoughtful opening song to the wonderful melody to the haunting tunes and finally to the famous "Searchers" song that plays at the iconic ending scene.

Many others have delved further into the brilliance of this movie, so the best I can conclude with is: The Searchers deserves and rewards repeat viewings, and I probably will want to delve into this film again. 5/5

The Meaning of Good Friday

This day, the day of Good Friday, I have decided to take upon the meaning of "Good Friday," the day that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was crucified on the cross and died to save us from our sins and restore fellowship with God.

However, on this day, many seem to underestimate the power of this very event and very day, and how it not only impacted the human race but also our very own lives.

How "Good Friday" Impacted The Human Race's Relation with God

The most important thing in considering "Good Friday" is the consideration of how it impacted the relationship between God and humanity. When Christ died on the cross, He took upon Himself the sin that we committed and by which we were healed (Isaiah 53:5-6). For we should have been punished for our sinful nature, for as the Scriptures said, all sin and fall short of God's glory (Romans 3:23) and the "wages of sin" is death (Romans 6:23). But even so, as Romans 6:23, God's gift is life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Without Christ's death on the cross, none of us would be where we were, for without Christ's intercession, the death that comes upon all who sin would rightly come upon us, and we would not receive God's mercy without having violated the justice of God. However, when Christ interceded for us and died on the cross, both the love of God and the justice/wrath of God were satisfied on the cross as the result of sin (death) was upon Christ and the love of God was shown upon us (the human race).

How Good Friday Impacted Our Lives

The next important thing in considering Good Friday is how it impacted our very own lives. Individual lives were saved through faith by grace alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), and people had freedom from their sin due to God's unfettered grace and Christ's love for them.

Before this very day, people in Israel often made atonement for their sins by bringing certain animals to the priest, who would then sacrifice the animals to God to make atonement for the sins, for as Hebrews 9:26 said, without the shedding of blood there is no remission for sin.

However, when God sent Jesus Christ, His death on the cross fulfilled that requirement for redemption, and not only that, the decision was final and complete, bridging the further gap between God and man.

Hebrews 10:11-18 said of this:

11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

15 But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before,

16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” 17 then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin. (NKJV)

The significance of this is that no effort of ours could bring salvation; only Christ Jesus could do that, and when He was crucified on the cross, He not only fulfilled the requirement of shedding blood for atonement but also kept us from facing God's wrath and instead revealing His love and justice.

It is for this that we who celebrate Good Friday are grateful; that was the day that God fulfilled His justice and love equally, laying down all our sins on Christ (who took on them of His own will) and giving us new life in Him. That day bridged the gap between God and man, and for it we are so ever grateful.

What Should Christians Think About Taxes?: Part 1 - "Render Unto Caesar" & Romans 13

Yesterday was Tax Day, the day where everyone pays their taxes to the fed.

Most Christians argue that taxes are a necessity to humanity and society, and therefore Christians, in obedience to the government, must pay their taxes (Romans 13:6). I don't dispute that Christians should pay taxes, for doing so not only keeps unnecessary harm from ourselves but also keeps the Gospel message from being discredited by anti-Christians. However, what i do dispute is the necessity and morality of taxes. On this issue I and many others depart from the conventional Christian understanding of taxation and society. My view is that while Christians should pay taxes for pragmatic reasons, taxes are not by themselves good things but rather they are unnecessary for human flourishing and are very immoral in their nature. For taxation is essentially the forceful taking of the fruits of the labor of every man for the purpose of the flourishing of the State. While paying taxes is not a sin, the act of taxing is certainly so, and a very dangeorus one at that.

Romans 13:6

The first reason why I argue that taxation is immoral is from the moral-ethical perspective: taxation can be called theft, for it is the initiation of force to take the fruits of one's labor or one's wealth for the use of the State, and it is not consensual in any way.

But the Christian may ask, "Why then does Romans 13:6 ask us to pay taxes if taxes were so immoral?" I would answer that the passage in Romans 13:6 does not make a statement on the morality of taxation but rather how a Christian should react to them.

Norman Horn, in his essay "The New Testament Theology of the State," says this:

Verses 5-7 expand upon the reasons for submitting and include practical ways the Roman Christians were to respond to Paul’s message. Cobin says, “The reason we must submit to government is to avoid wrath or worrying about being harmed by the state authority. God does not want us to be entangled with the affairs of this world to the point where such involvement detracts from our primary mission” (Christian Theology of Public Policy, 125). The word “conscience” in verse 5 should be interpreted in a similar manner as 1 Corinthians 10 (regarding food sacrificed to idols). The believers were concerned that the Roman state would find a legal reason to persecute them. One cannot use this verse in an absolutist sense to say that Christians can never participate in removing any authority, such as in the American Revolution. Paul also encourages Christians to “overcome evil with good” as understood in Romans 12:21 (this includes evil authority), and to work to be free if at all possible (1 Corinthians 7:20-23). 

Paul also says to submit to paying taxes for the same reason: avoiding state wrath in order to live for God. One despises paying taxes, but in order to abate the state’s wrath one pays them. Likewise, “pay to all what is due them” is commanded for the same purpose, especially considering the political tumult of the time. But does this mean that a man sins if he makes a mistake on his Federal tax return? Paul would very likely answer no. Modern taxes are very different from Roman taxes. In fact, the Greek word for “taxes” in verse 7 is more accurately rendered “tribute,” which is specifically the capitation tax (or “head tax”) in a Roman township census. The Romans would send soldiers from house to house, count the residents there, calculate the tax, and then demand full payment immediately. If a Christian did not comply at once, then he, his family, and possibly even his fellow believers could be in imminent, serious trouble. Paul says to not resist these men when they do this, just pay the tax. Refusal to pay would identify them as part of the tax rebels and political rogues of the day, and would give the Romans a reason to persecute Christians in Rome and perhaps throughout the empire. Paul wanted the Roman Christians to avoid becoming public spectacles and government targets. 

Likewise, since the Christian would definitey want to avoid needless wrath, he should pay taxes, not because the tax itself is legitimate and moral but because paying the tax keeps the hand of the State away from needless persecution. In our present society, if one saw Christians not paying taxes, not only would the State crack down on them but also the media and society will unleash and declare open season on Christians, much like the media has done when scandals have broken out in the Christian community.

"Render Unto Caesar": Pro-State?

Now, having dealt with that, how does the Bible deal with the ethics of taxes? Does it approve and condone of the whole thing? Or is there something deeper 

in the Scriptures that most pro-tax people don't recognise fully?

First, let us deal with the famous saying of Jesus: "Render unto Caesar that   which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's." Many interpret the passage as meaning that jesus recognized the necessity and morality of taxation because, after all, he didn't say "Taxes are evil!" and thus, he probably approved of the process of taxation (though not necessarily the means with which the Roman Empire exercised taxation). This is the view of the conventional conservative interpretation, as well as the conventional classical-liberal interpretation.

A great article by Jeffrey F. Barr, however, disputes the conventional pro-tax interpretation of the message of Jesus.

The historical context is important in understanding Jesus' situation, where tax revolts occured and the Roman Empire brutally crushed them.

In 6 A.D., Roman occupiers of Palestine imposed a census tax on the Jewish people. The tribute was not well-received, and by 17 A.D., Tacitus reports in Book II.42 of the Annals, "The provinces, too, of Syria and Judaea, exhausted by their burdens, implored a reduction of tribute." A tax-revolt, led by Judas the Galilean, soon ensued. Judas the Galilean taught that "taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery," and he and his followers had "an inviolable attachment to liberty," recognizing God, alone, as king and ruler of Israel. The Romans brutally combated the uprising for decades. Two of Judas' sons were crucified in 46 A.D., and a third was an early leader of the 66 A.D. Jewish revolt. Thus, payment of the tribute conveniently encapsulated the deeper philosophical, political, and theological issue: Either God and His divine laws were supreme, or the Roman emperor and his pagan laws were supreme.

Understanding the background of the Jewish homeland at the time will then give further understanding of how Jesus would have dealt with the situation laid out to him in Matthew 22:15-22. 

First, the Scripture points out that the whole question was not asked in sincerity but in an attempt to trap Jesus and hand Him over to the Roman authorities. 

Barr states:

By appealing to Jesus' authority to interpret God's law, the questioners accomplish two goals: (1) they force Jesus to answer the question; if Jesus refuses, He will lose credibility as a Rabbi with the very people who just proclaimed Him a King; and (2) they force Jesus to base this answer in Scripture. Thus, they are testing His scriptural knowledge and hoping to discredit Him if He cannot escape a prima facie intractable interrogatory. As Owen-Ball states, "The gospel writers thus describe a scene in which Jesus' questioners have boxed him in. He is tempted to assume, illegitimately, the authority of a Rabbi, while at the same time he is constrained to answer according to the dictates of the Torah."

This would mean that the Pharisees put Jesus between a rock and a hard place, putting him at risk of hatred if he said yes to the question and being branded a political rebel if he said no.

So later on, according to the Scriptures, Jesus finds a coin and asks, "Whose face is on it?" They answer, "Caesar's." Here is where another interesting nuance comes in. Barr points out that the denarii (the coin that was mentioned) was used by the emperor as a sign of his power, and while he made only three, two of which were rare, the third one was common, and Tiberius preferred it as such. Barr points out: 

"The only people to transact routinely with the denarius in Judaea would have been soldiers, Roman officials, and Jewish leaders in collaboration with Rome. Thus, it is noteworthy that Jesus, Himself, does not possess the coin. The questioners' quickness to produce the coin at Jesus' request implies that they routinely used it, taking advantage of Roman financial largess, whereas Jesus did not. Moreover, the Tribute Episode takes place in the Temple, and by producing the coin, the questioners reveal their religious hypocrisy – they bring a potentially profane item, the coin of a pagan, into the sacred space of the Temple."

This is very important as Jesus uses His question to counter the trap set by the questioners, as the denarii mentioned were often declarations of the emperor's divinity, and they brought something potentially idolatrous into the temple. As Barr points out, "Jesus' use of the word, "image," in the counter-question reminds His questioners of the First (Second) Commandment's requirement to venerate God first and its concomitant prohibition against creating images of false gods." 

Also, the "inscription" question harkens back to the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4-9. The coin had the inscription of the emperor, but the commands of God are to worship Him and to inscribe the words, and more specifically to carry them on their hands and foreheads (in the form of teffilins). In fact, Jesus quoted this passage when being tempted by Satan in Matthew 4:10. 

Having answered that, let us go on to how that question was answered and how Jesus dealt with it. The answer to the question is only this: "Caesar's."

Barr points out that the response was significant because the coin would have this inscription on it: "Tiberius Caesar, Worshipful Son of the God, Augustus." Also, this would appear on the coin—the image of Pax, goddess of peace, and this inscription: "Pontifex Maximus." The term means "High Priest."

Barr says:

The coin of the Tribute Episode is a fine specimen of Roman propaganda. It imposes the cult of emperor worship and asserts Caesar's sovereignty upon all who transact with it. 

In the most richly ironic passage in the entire Bible, all three synoptic Gospels depict the Son of God and the High Priest of Peace, newly-proclaimed by His people to be a King, holding the tiny silver coin of a king who claims to be the son of a god and the high priest of Roman peace. 

The second reason the answer is significant is that in following the pattern of rabbinic rhetoric, the answer exposes the hostile questioners' position to attack. It is again noteworthy that the interrogators' answer to Jesus' counter-question about the coin's image and inscription bears little relevance to their original question as to whether it is licit to pay the tribute. Jesus could certainly answer their original question without their answer to His counter-question. But the rhetorical function of the answer to the counter-question is to demonstrate the vulnerability of the opponent's position and use that answer to refute the opponent's original, hostile question.

Now we get to the famous "Render unto Caesar" passage, which may not be the pro-state passage that many have interpeted it to be. Jesus, in His answer, subtly showed that God and the empire were in competition over who ruled His people: the State or God. Barr states:

With one straightforward counter-question, Jesus skillfully points out that the claims of God and Caesar are mutually exclusive. If one's faith is in God, then God is owed everything; Caesar's claims are necessarily illegitimate, and he is therefore owed nothing. If, on the other hand, one's faith is in Caesar, God's claims are illegitimate, and Caesar is owed, at the very least, the coin which bears his image.

What Is The Lesson For Us?

The lesson here is: Jesus didn't endorse the morality of taxation in his "Render unto Caesar" moment but rather affirmed the sovereignty of God in his subtle rhetorical wording while not directly answering the tricky question. Also, the fact that Christians ought to pay taxes doesn't by nature endorse the morality of taxing itself. In fact, in the Gospels, tax collection is often depicted as a sin, and two who were touched by Jesus were in fact motivated to leave the profession of tax collecting: those two were Matthew/Levi and Zacchaeus. 

Thus, while Christians should pay taxes for pragmatic and practical reasons, they should not endorse or celebrate the institution that often competes with God for sovereignty and ruler-ship.

The next section will be dealing with how taxation is a form of stealing and thus violates the Scriptures, especially the commandment to not steal.