A few months ago I had some quite positive things to say about Wayne Grudem’s book Politics According to the Bible
this is by no means a book I could recommend.
I would now like to reaffirm that in stronger terms, in the light of Mako Nagasawa’s post Wayne Grudem’s Misuse of Scripture in “Politics According to the Bible”. Nagasawa claims, and provides good evidence to demonstrate, that
Grudem’s biblical foundations are deeply faulty, and … many Christians who read him are being led to very wrong conclusions and opinions.
The main criticism is of Grudem’s conclusion that the Bible affirms
the right of the individual to acquire as much wealth and private property as possible by all lawful and moral means.
Nagasawa argues that Grudem has misused the Old Testament passages on which he bases this conclusion. Indeed he writes that
Leviticus 25 demonstrates that God’s vision for biblical Israel was virtually the opposite that Wayne Grudem has for America. …
For people to have the unlimited ability to accumulate wealth and pass it on to their children is precisely the opposite of what Leviticus 25 says.
Nagasawa clearly demonstrates this point, and shows that this material from the Law of Moses cannot be used to support Grudem’s conclusions. Ancient Israel was nothing like the conservative vision for 21st century America.
Now, as Nagasawa recognises, there are serious issues with using these instructions for a theocratic state to support any kind of political vision for today, whether more like Grudem’s or Nagasawa’s. The more appropriate Old Testament material for us to consider today is about how individuals among God’s people were politically active in states which did not worship Yahweh. But when we look at the most prominent such individual, Joseph, and at how his government nationalised the livestock and the land in Egypt (Genesis 47:13-26), we find more support for Nagasawa’s position than for Grudem’s.
Pingback: Torah: The Wide Lense « Kingdom Impressions
fascinating.
I often find it interesting how people will twist or skew scripture to support their views (whether good or bad). I have heard arguments in support of abortion and pornography using scripture….so, why not politics too…
Often times however, I believe it is well intended.
There are so many books and articles out there actually supporting one “side” or the other in the realm of politics that push and cite scripture as their source and support. While, often times they are right – they are equally as wrong….
Jesus didn’t take sides. He would simply, and directly, embrace the wrong doer, speaking to the heart of the issue (the need)….while to the hypocrites (the religious “right & left”), He would condemn quite harshly saying “woe to you”….for, essentially, you are driving My sheep away from Me.
Thank you, Chris. Yes, sadly too many people find ways to abuse Scripture to make it support their presuppositions.
Grudem’s argument may well be as egregious as your source claims. I haven’t read the book, and I don’t intend to read it at any point. But I think it’s equally fallacious to take those biblical passages as an argument against the position Grudem holds. I haven’t reviewed the chapter, but I believe Leviticus 25 deals with keeping land within the tribe and so on. It has covenant provisions within the old covenant. Even if it doesn’t show what Grudem thinks it shows, the reason is because it’s dealing with the old covenant situation and the tribal structure, and therefore it doesn’t show anything either way about what good government consists of apart from such a covenant structure.
Jeremy, I agree with you that these passages refer to the Old Testament covenant people and so are not directly applicable to nation states today. But, I would argue, even if we accept Grudem’s premise, which is arguable, that the principles behind these passages are applicable, I would agree with Nagasawa that they don’t teach what Grudem claims they teach. While they uphold the general principle of private ownership of land, they qualify this in such a way that people can never permanently acquire large holdings or become landless. The resultant society is completely different from the one Grudem envisages.
I think its really dumb that a person would write a review on a book THEY NEVER EVEN READ. How can you criticize a book you didn’t even read? How can you pull out quotes from the book proving it is wrong. Why would anyone read a review of a book that the author admits he did not read.. Why then write a review criticizing it? I have read the book, I am much more qualified to critique it than the author of this article. How silly for people who read it without even questioning it. Its like someone criticizing the Bible and never having read it…
David, thank you for your comment. I did not offer a review of Grudem’s book, and I would not attempt to do so as I have still not read it. Instead I offered some comments on what I have read: Nagasawa’s review of the book and criticism of Grudem’s arguments.
Have you read Nagasawa’s review? Do you have any comments on his conclusion that “Grudem’s biblical foundations are deeply faulty”?