Yesterday, I saw a colleague sharing a post from a former chief justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines that served from 2012 until 2018. Usually, I ignore political posts on Facebook because I don't want to add fuel to controversial social issues.
Initial Engagement on Facebook
The Philippine society is highly politicized, and even friends, gospel ministers, and family members quarrel and defend politicians that they support.
The above post reminds me of a lecture I delivered some time in 2022 during the Reformation Day celebration. The specific instance I had in mind was the conversation between two reformed thinkers, Francis Schaeffer and R. C. Sproul, and that is why I made the comment below:
Ang mga Austrian economists ay may tinatawag silang "etatism" o "statism" bilang ugat ng kahirapan at digmaan. Bago pumanaw si Francis Schaeffer at R. C. Sproul, minsan nagtanong si Sproul kay Schaeffer kung ano ang kaniyang “biggest concern" para sa future ng church sa US. Walang hesitation ang tugon ni Dr. Schaeffer, "statism." Sa kasaysayan, iba't ibang mga pangalan ang ginamit upang isalarawan ang ideolohiyang ito, subalit ang kanilang katangian ay magkatulad: "mercantilism," "statism," "totalitarianism," at "interventionism." Laos na at itinuturing na mapanganib ang 3 naunang mga pangalan, subalit lingid sa kaalaman ng karamihan, ang huling pangalan ang pinakapopular na niyayakap ng mga bansa sa kasalukuyan.
English Translation:
Austrian economists have a term called "etatism" or "statism" as the root of poverty and war. Before Francis Schaeffer and R. C. Sproul passed away, Sproul once asked Schaeffer what his “biggest concern" was for the future of the church in the US. Without hesitation, Dr. Schaeffer responded, "statism." Throughout history, various names have been used to describe this ideology, but their characteristics are the same: "mercantilism," "statism," "totalitarianism," and "interventionism." The first three names are now obsolete and considered dangerous, but unbeknownst to most, the last name is the most popular one embraced by nations today.
My cousin responded:
Pastor, I really agree that statism is a major root of poverty and war, because I see how the government keeps expanding its control over people’s lives. For me, the concern of Francis Schaeffer and R. C. Sproul is valid because it seems like we are slowly accepting this system without realizing its long-term effects. Even though different names like interventionism are used, the core idea is still the same, and that makes it even more concerning for me.
And then a colleague added a comment:
Those terms are still too vague and abstract, Pastor Ruel. Here in the Philippines, it is a form of idolatry focused on the specific personality or the dynasty itself, which are very obvious; it's even rampant within the PCP.
I responded:
People can be replaced, but ideas are much harder to change. They may seem vague or abstract to many, but their effects are concrete in politics, economics, society, and even psychology—manifesting as contempt for the law, ballooning government spending, and graduates and youth who have become champions of statist ideals.
And even political dynasty itself derives its strength from those "vague" and "abstract" ideas. Since the time of the older Marcos until the current administration, I don't see any substantial change. People in power have changed for almost five decades, but the ideas behind that support political dynasties and political personalities have been increasing in strength.
I think the same thing applies to American politics. If you go for a Republican candidate, you have a "warfare state" and the marriage of politicians and big businesses. If you prefer a Democrat, you support a "welfare state." Those sitting in power change, but the underlying philosophy of state and politics remains intact. This has made the bureaucratic machinery keep on expanding in power. As a result, economic and personal freedom has been consistently coerced in the name of public service.
Breakdown of the 2022 Public Lecture
The above engagement reminds me of the importance of keeping a digital copy of my important files that I could easily access when needed. I had this unfortunate experience of losing several years of files when I asked a student to transfer them from my hard drive to the Google drive. I am not sure if I can still find a way to recover those files. Anyhow, I don't want to fall to a similar mistake.
In publishing the entire content of that specific lecture in this long article, I want to prevent the idea that I am reposting old content that I already published a few years ago. Nevertheless, many parts in this lecture have been published as short articles on this blog.
Clarifying the potential misinterpretation, I want now to proceed to the main body of the lecture itself.
The Glory of God and the Expanding Power of the State
I would like to start this lecture on The Glory of God and the Expanding Power of the State by presenting a very unpopular book. This book was written by an unknown author identified by John Frame as a financial planner who completed his Ph.D. in 1965 from the University of Minnesota; a professor of history at Waterloo University in Ontario, Canada; the academic dean at Shepherd College in West Virginia; and an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
The book is described by Frame as the successor of Os Guinness’ 1973 book, The Dust of Death. However, Guinness’ book is considered dated, for the issues he touched on were confined to what happened in the late 1960s.
And then here comes this unpopular author who in the eyes of John Frame picked up where Guinness left off. The major difference between the two is that Guinness is more sympathetic to the left, whereas Schlossberg is critical of it.
For Frame, Herbert Schlossberg’s Idols for Destruction is superior to Guinness’ book for at least two counts. One, the period that Schlossberg covered is broader. And two, in terms of applying the economic and political implications of the Bible.
The book contains eight chapters, and there we find how Schlossberg surveys all the many “idols” of modern thinking. In his mind, the primary sin of our time is the deification of the diverse aspects of creation such as “history, nature, humanity, economics, and political power.”
I consider Chapter 5, which talks about Idols of Power, relevant to our current discussion.
Overall, Frame recommends Schlossberg’s book as “the textbook of choice for college and seminary courses in the Christian evaluation of modern culture, a ‘must’ reading for thinking Christians.”
Definition of Terms
In introducing our topic this afternoon, let me begin first by defining our terms.
What do we mean by Soli Deo Gloria?
David M. VanDrunen, the Robert B. Strimple Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics at Westminster Seminary California, presented an article at The Southern Seminary Theology Conference on 24-25 September 2015 at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky, with the title “Glory to God Alone: Another Look at a Reformation Sola.”
According to him, to correctly interpret Soli Deo Gloria, one must avoid a current popular distortion of it, which he describes as giving emphasis more on Christian activity rather than on God’s glory in itself. Though he does not reject Christian activity as such, for him considering it as the “heart and essence” of Soli Deo Gloria is a distortion of this very important Reformation doctrine. Yes, we are expected to do all things for God’s glory, such as our public and personal worship, our family life, our vocation, and even our political and economic activities, but they should not be our focus.
And then he explains what he believes to be the Reformation meaning of Soli Deo Gloria. For Van Drunen, “God’s glory is ultimately his own internal attribute, known only to himself," and at the same time “he delights to make his glory manifest in his works of creation and in works of providence,” such as the manifestation of His presence in the Old Testament through the pillar of cloud and fire, through the incarnation of His Son, through the worship and obedience of His people, and through the glorification of His people in the age to come.
This primary sense of understanding Soli Deo Gloria cannot be taken away by any human attempts to rob God of the glory that rightfully belongs to him, either by directly challenging him or by our attempts to replace his glory with human glory. Only by establishing this biblical priority and focus can we then proceed to view our vocation as a way to glorify God.
So, this afternoon, I want to explore the meaning of Soli Deo Gloria not in the primary sense that David M. VanDrunen talked about in his 2015 article but in the secondary sense. Mindful of the possible “distortion” that I might commit, I still want to pursue this discussion on the relationship of Soli Deo Gloria and the Expanding Power of the State.
Statism
Another important term to understand in today’s lecture is the meaning of statism.
Ludwig von Mises, an Austrian economist, prefers to use "etatism," derived from the French état, meaning state. For him, the term “clearly expresses the fact that etatism did not originate in the Anglo-Saxon countries and has only lately got hold of the Anglo-Saxon mind.”
Anyhow, whether etatism or statism, the important thing to bear in mind is how this term is understood in our time.
I remember one story between R. C. Sproul and Francis Schaeffer. R. C. Sproul shared this story in his 01 September 2008 article using this term as his title.
He happened to ask Francis Schaeffer about the latter’s “biggest concern for the future of the church in America.” Dr. Schaeffer responded without hesitation and spoke the word "statism."
This is the second time I have mentioned the situation in the West. First, both with Guinness’ and Schlossberg’s books and now in relation to Francis Schaeffer’s concern about the future of the church in America. There is this popular saying in geopolitics that “when the US sneezes, the world catches a cold.” I think whatever happens to the US, whether it is politics, economics, or even in matters of theology, we cannot escape the fact that the rest of the world is affected by it. And so, if Francis Schaeffer is correct in his concern about statism as a serious threat to the American church, I think such a threat will also affect the body of Christ elsewhere.
Here is how R. C. Sproul reflects further on his conversation with Francis Schaeffer about statism. He interprets the Reformed philosopher’s word that America in the future “would become one that would be dominated by a philosophy of the supremacy of the state.” Statism for R. C. Sproul is the idea that civil “government is perceived as or claims to be the ultimate reality. This reality then replaces God as the supreme entity upon which human existence depends.” Sproul confirms that statism is advancing in America, where the civil government “virtually embraces all of life," and gives us examples to prove this:
Where education once was under the direction of local authorities, it now is controlled and directed by federal legislation. The economy that once was driven by the natural forces of the market has now come under the strict control of the federal government, which not only regulates the economy but also considers itself responsible for controlling it. Where we have seen the largest measure of the loss of liberty is with respect to the function of the church.
For Sproul, statism is the ideology behind the banishment of the church from the public square. And then he gives us this alarming warning:
Throughout the history of the Christian church, Christianity has always stood over against all forms of statism. Statism is the natural and ultimate enemy of Christianity because it involves a usurpation of the reign of God. If Francis Schaeffer was right—and each year that passes makes his prognosis seem all the more accurate—it means that the church and the nation face a serious crisis in our day. In the final analysis, if statism prevails in America, it will mean not only the death of our religious freedom but also the death of the state itself. We face perilous times where Christians and all people need to be vigilant about the rapidly encroaching elevation of the state to supremacy.
Though from a different perspective, Ludwig von Mises arrived at the same conclusion in his book The Omnipotent Government.
In his introduction to the book, he describes our age as etatist, “in which every nation is eager to insulate itself and to strive toward autarky," which is evident in “trade walls and migration barriers, foreign exchange control, and expropriation of foreign capital...” (p. 5).
Yes, the book was published in 1944, but his analysis from the latter part of the 19th century to the early 20th century provides us with a background of Schlossberg, Schaeffer, and Sproul’s interpretation. He describes the European nations during this period as “eager to assign more power to their governments, to expand the sphere of government compulsion and coercion, and to subdue to the state all human activities and efforts.” He even finds fault in fascists' interpretation that though they praised the blessings of peace, they failed to attack the ultimate cause of hostility among nations, which is “etatism—the trend toward government control of business” (p. 6).
For Mises, supernational authority with an international parliament can never solve the crisis caused by etatism. No international authority can preserve peace as long as economic wars are allowed to continue. “Free trade is impossible in a world of etatism” (ibid.). For him, statism, the worship of the state, is “a new type of superstition that has got hold of people’s minds” (p. 11).
People demand the exercise of the methods of coercion and compulsion, violence and threat. Woe to anybody who does not bend his knee to the fashionable idols! (ibid.).
On the basis of the foregoing, I hope I already established as far as the identified theologians and one economist are concerned that statism is an ideology that ascribes both power and glory to the state that rightfully belongs to God alone. Based on this perspective, I now want to ask the following questions: How do we understand and interpret the meaning and relevance of Soli Deo Gloria in the context of the expanding power of the state? Can we truly give due glory to God when divinity and salvation are ascribed to the modern state?
In this series of articles, I want to share with you three things about the expanding power of the state. First, I want to share with you the arguments that indeed the power of the government is experiencing exponential growth in our time. Two, I also want to identify the destructive consequences of such growth in state power. And finally, I would like to conclude with thoughts to consider as a way out of the current crisis brought about by statism.
Grace and peace!
Note: Earlier, I attempted to publish this article, but it failed because of of its huge size. I have to divide this into four separate articles. I hope it will work.