Chapter 17: Family Covenant
Christian Economics: Student's Edition
Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you (Exodus 20:12).
Unlike the individual and the church, the family does not persevere into eternity. It is bounded by history. There is no marriage in the world beyond the grave (Matthew 22:30).
The family is the primary welfare institution in every society. It is bound by law, and is bound by love. Any attempt by the state or the church to replace the family's welfare functions should be regarded as an assault on the family until proved otherwise by Scripture. Because people are sinners, they are always looking for ways to compel other people to pay for the expenses of their families. This is true in the church, and it is also true in the state. But in modern times, the state is by far a greater threat to the family than the church. This is because membership in a church is voluntary. People can transfer this membership if they do not like what a church is doing. The members have a veto. In contrast, membership under the jurisdiction of one or another state is inescapable. Also, the state has the power to force a redistribution of wealth. It therefore has the economic capacity to replace the family in many areas of life. This is why there is a fundamental conflict going on in the modern world between the state and the family.
1. Sanctions
Economic theory applies only to marketable property. It rests on the existence of a system of economic sanctions that is governed by this accounting principle: monetary profit and loss. The pricing of goods in the market place is based on this principle: high bid wins. Ultimately, economic theory rests on this fundamental legal foundation: the right to use whatever you own or sell whatever you own without interference from others. This principle of ownership/disownership does not apply in three covenantal institutions: family, church, and state.
You do not have the right to sell your wife. She does not belong to you. You also do not have the right to sell your children. Therefore, the complex, logical, and highly sophisticated intellectual discipline known as economics does not work either predictably or plausibly when it is applied to the family. This failure has to do with the absence of a self-policed system of sanctions that lies outside a specific family's jurisdiction. A business faces independent sanctions: customers' decisions either to buy or not buy the output of the business. It faces competition from other businesses. Every law needs a system of sanctions to enforce it. In a free market, the sanctions are monetary profit and loss. These are imposed by the market itself. Economists say that market sanctions are endogenous: generated from within the institutional arrangement. They are accounting-based sanctions, which in turn are based on a money economy.
So, with respect to the family, the economist must look beyond the family in search of sanctions. What sanctions are absent from a family that must be supplied by either church or state? The answer is usually this: state sanctions. These involve the state's right to inflict physical punishment or even death.
This raises the crucial moral and practical question: who decides which agency is in authority in any given case: family (endogenous) or state (exogenous)?
2. Welfare
We come now to a practical matter: welfare. Biblically speaking, the family is responsible for the welfare of its members. Parents are responsible for the welfare of minor children. Adult children are responsible for the care of their parents.
The modern welfare state, beginning in the late nineteenth century in authoritarian Prussia, began with the first tax-funded national pension plan. This idea has spread across the West. To this has been added universal medical care for the aged. In the United States, half of the federal government's budget expenditures goes to support the aged: Social Security's old age pension program (25%) and Medicare (25%). These percentages are expected to increase as tens of millions of people reach the ages of eligibility: 62 for Social Security, 65 for Medicare.
These programs' future expenses have not been funded by purchasing investment assets, as every private pension must. Instead, they are pay as you go. Professor Laurence Kotlikoff of Boston University has estimated that, using the government's figures, the present value of the future unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid total $210 trillion. Other nations have comparable unfunded liabilities. To meet these obligations, governments must raise taxes significantly (impossible politically), reduce benefits significantly (impossible politically), or both. Politicians in the West refuse to face this publicly. This phrase used to describe what they do: kick the can down the road. So, Western governments will eventually default. They will have no other option. The controversial political questions as to which voting blocs will get hurt most, and by how much, and in what sequence, have not been decided. At some point, politicians will have to decide.
Also beginning in Prussia in the late eighteenth century was compulsory, tax-funded education for children. This also has spread across the West. The state controls the content of the curriculum materials. This means that public school materials are in conformity with the theories of tax-funded welfare. The welfare state uses the public schools as propaganda tools. The state has numerous agendas. These agendas are taught in the schools as if they were morally legitimate. Opposition views are not.
The state is attempting to replace the family. Politicians have used the voters' desire for subsidies to strengthen the state's control over the family.
The state's bureaucrats serve as substitute parents. These bureaucrats must be supported financially. The state imposes taxation to fund them. The state needs continual funding. Families do not. Parents need support in their old age, which usually does not last for long. Parents expect their children to be independent as adults. They train their children for two decades to gain enough maturity to leave home. Parents do not expect their children to begin funding them as soon as they leave home. In contrast, the state wants children to leave home, get jobs, and pay taxes . . . immediately.
The West finds itself in a statistically inescapable crisis because voters decided generations ago that they preferred taxpayers to pay for welfare expenses that historically have been funded by individual families. They voted to impose their expected financial obligations on others. They adopted this poem as their family's financial plan: Don't tax you. Don't tax me. Tax the guy behind the tree.
Point one of the biblical covenant is God's transcendence, but also His presence. It asks: "Who's in charge here?" How does this apply to the family?
God is a Trinity. Two persons of the Trinity are described in the same language as the persons of the family: Father and Son. Mankind is made in God's image. In terms of defining the family biologically, this is clear: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them (v. 27). This judicial definition can be altered by covenant-breaking men, but not without negative sanctions.
The male-female family was the origin of the division of labor. God gave Eve to Adam as a helper (Genesis 2:18). There was gender hierarchy from the beginning. It was a hierarchy of legal responsibility before God. This is definitional. It is judicial. It is covenantal. Any attempt to undermine this judicial hierarchy is covenant breaking. This is grounded in God as the Creator and God as the providential Sustainer. It has to do with the absolute sovereignty of God. The authority of the family (point two) rests on the sovereignty of God (point one).
Any attempt by the state to define a family as anything except a union physically between a male and a female is a judicial assault on the family. The church must support the family's legitimate claim to renounce the legitimacy of all definitions of a family that are not male/female. Churches must excommunicate all members who establish such a union in the name of marriage.
Point two of the biblical covenant is hierarchical authority. It asks: "To whom do I report?" How does this apply to the family?
Parents must provide for minor children. This was built into the creation. Infants and young children are not able to care for themselves. So, the family before the fall was a welfare agency. It required a budget that placed the needs of children before the wants of parents. Parents had to abide by this budget. This means that budgeting is a major responsibility. It is one that most families are forced to honor.
Who does the budgeting in your family? Is this a joint venture? How successful are you in adhering to this budget?
A budget lets you establish greater control. Budgeting helps people to increase their authority over many areas of their lives. They do not have the feeling that events are overwhelming them. They feel that they have greater control over their lives when they budget months in advance. They become future-oriented. They pay attention to expected costs and unexpected costs. This form of discipline helps families stay out of trouble.
Do you go into debt in order to avoid staying within a monthly budget? You cannot do this indefinitely. You will exhaust your lines of credit. The longer that you defer the task of budgeting, the more difficult it will be for you to escape this habit. Remember this: The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender (Proverbs 22:7). The dominion covenant mandates a hierarchy. So does God's law. Debt is a threat. The sojourner who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower. He shall lend to you, and you shall not lend to him. He shall be the head, and you shall be the tail (Deuteronomy 28:43--44). You must not allow creditors to gain control over you. You must stay out of consumer debt. Even business debt is risky. Be very careful about taking on debt.
Budgeting involves forecasting. You must make guesses about which unexpected expenses might come up in the near future. Are you systematically setting aside money, so that you will not be caught short of money when the unexpected bills arrive?
Point three of the biblical covenant is ethics. It asks: "What are the rules?" How does this apply to education?
Education is ultimately covenantal. Therefore, it is ethical. It is related to law. It raises the issues of truth and falsehood, good and bad, right and wrong. It can never be neutral on matters of ethics. But politicians want the public to accept the state's role as the source of funding for education, and therefore also for the source of basic presuppositions regarding ethics. So, politicians and educational bureaucrats go before the voters and tell them that state education is neutral. It doesn't matter what you believe about God, man, law, sanctions, and time. You will get a subsidized education, but it renounces the biblical doctrines of God, man, law, sanctions, and time.
Most people in the United States believe that it is wrong for the government to tax people in order to fund specific religious denominations. That idea went out of fashion in the early 19th century. The last state to abolish tax-supported churches was Massachusetts. That was in 1833. Yet within four years, the state of Massachusetts set up a tax-funded educational system. This was a replacement church, but without an official theology. Voters around the world have accepted an idea that they would not accept if the politicians used the word church, but they do accept when the politicians use the word school.
Education should reflect the worldview of the parents. The parents are responsible for their children's education. Parents should be careful to make certain that whatever is being taught to their children by any school and by any teacher is consistent with what they believe is true about God, man, law, sanctions, and time. When I say time, I also mean eternity.
Every Christian should vote no on every bond issue devoted to funding education.
Every Christian should pull his child out of the public schools and provide an educational alternative, either a Christian classroom program or a Christian homeschool program. If the parent uses any other kind of materials to teach the students, such as in physics or chemistry, the parent should intervene in order to explain to the children why they need to consider the doctrine of creation and the doctrine of the providence of God in order to understand whatever it is that the child is studying. This means that the parent has to have specific insights into the ways in which the ideas of Darwinian evolution influences the content of academic disciplines. Most parents do not know how to explain this. You had better understand how to explain it.
Obviously, with respect to church, you should take your children to church every week. They need to understand the basic doctrines of the faith. They need to learn how to sit still. They need to learn how to pay attention. This should begin in church, not in school.
Point four of the biblical covenant is sanctions. It asks: "What do I get if I obey? Disobey?" How does this apply to the family?
Every philosophy of life has a theory of causation. This is certainly true of Christianity. Your children should understand the enormous differences between a Christian worldview and rival worldviews. There are radically different concepts of God, man, law, sanctions, and time.
You must tell your children from an early age that the world is governed by ethical cause and effect. They must understand that what they think and do will have consequences in their lives. You must teach them not to believe in a system of causality that is consistent with Darwinian evolution. You must teach them why causality is covenantal. You must teach them why there is predictability in the world. That is because of the original creation and God's providence in history.
I keep saying: you must. That is because you must. Nobody else is going to do it. Nobody else is equally responsible for doing it.
It is important that you discipline your children in a consistent fashion. You should let them know early that if they do not learn how to budget their time and money, they will suffer negative consequences for the rest of their lives. You must help teach them how to do basic budgeting. You must also teach them about dealing with other children in an honest way. You must teach them the importance of gaining a reputation for fairness and wisdom. They should see both of these character attributes as tremendous benefits.
You must teach them systematically that the welfare state is built on anti-biblical, anti-Christian presuppositions. They must understand that the welfare state rests on theft. They must understand also that the crises that are inevitably going to come onto welfare states around the world are well-deserved. They must understand these terrible events as the judgment of God in history against a philosophy that says theft is all right if voters vote for it.
Point five of the biblical covenant is succession. It asks: "Does this outfit have a future?" How does this apply to the family?
You must teach your children that they are the heirs of a family tradition. They are also the heirs of a cultural tradition. They must understand something about the history of these traditions. They must understand about causation, which is based on covenants. They must understand that they are intermediaries in a long chain of inheritance stretching back to Adam and Eve. They must see themselves as responsible agents in the transmission of a Christian inheritance to their children.
Inheritance is mainly covenantal. Parents are responsible for training their children in the five points of the covenant. The children must learn to exercise judgment in applying the Christian worldview to their lives. If they do this correctly, they will leave an inheritance. They will build up a capital base. You must teach them to understand the importance of building up a capital base. This involves money, education, and everything associated with exercising dominion in history.
The family does not stretch into eternity. Like the civil government, it will end at the final judgment. Since there will be no sin in heaven or after the resurrection, there will be no need for civil government. Since there will be no marriage in heaven or after the resurrection, there will be no need for a family. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven (Matthew 22:30). But until the end of time, the family will remain the primary agency of inheritance.
We know that people will sacrifice for their families when they will not sacrifice for anyone else or any other institution. We should therefore harness that widely shared emotional commitment to the family in order to extend the kingdom of God in history. We should tell our children how important it is for them to be disciplined about family budgets, so that they can leave an inheritance to their children. But, to persuade them that we are serious, we will have to leave inheritances to them.
It is a mistake to leave an inheritance to a covenant breaker. In doing this, you subsidize the kingdom of man. Do not subsidize the kingdom of man. The inheritance is covenantal. It is based on ethics. If one of your children is clearly unethical, you should cut him off. You should disinherit him. This is what God did with Adam, and it is what we must do with covenant-breaking children. We must not place the family above the kingdom of God.
The child who is willing to bear the responsibility of caring for parents in their old age is the child who should be the primary beneficiary of the inheritance. This goes back to the rule of the Mosaic law governing the firstborn child of the first wife.
If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him children, and if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved, then on the day when he assigns his possessions as an inheritance to his sons, he may not treat the son of the loved as the firstborn in preference to the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn, but he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the firstfruits of his strength. The right of the firstborn is his (Deuteronomy 21:15--17).
With all blessings comes responsibility. With the blessing of a large inheritance comes the responsibility of caring for aged parents. The child who is committed to the primary care of the parents should receive the double portion. If any of the other children think this is unfair, ask those children what they are going to do to provide their share of support for the parents.
Inheritance is mostly covenantal, mostly about worldview, and mostly about ethics. Do not neglect these in preparing your children to be recipients of whatever they will receive from you.
The family is under assault by the state in the modern world. It is a moral obligation of the head of the family to resist this invasion of his authority in his household. Christians should be alert to any attempt by church or state to substitute its funding for the funding that the head of the household is responsible for in the eyes of God. With the transfer of responsibility for funding comes an inevitable and inescapable transfer of authority to the agency that is providing the funding. There is no escape from the strings attached to what is popularly regarded as free money. There is no such thing as free money.
The rise of the welfare state in the twentieth century represented the greatest single threat to the integrity of the family in the history of man. No other societies in the history of man have been more systematic in transferring family responsibility to the state, and the lure in almost all cases has been the promise of free money. It is obvious in the area of education. It is also obvious in the area of old age security, meaning pensions from the state and medical care from the state. Christians have submitted to this transfer. They have not understood the fundamental rule of all taxation: the power to tax is the power to destroy. They have assented to a vast expansion of taxation by various levels of civil government, always in the name of providing benefits for the people. But the benefits have come mainly at the expense of the family, because the family is the primary institution of social welfare in every society.
The refusal of Christians to challenge the expansion of the state in the area of education and old age security is evidence of the fact that Christians no longer believe the Bible offers the theological, moral, and judicial foundations of social theory. They have surrendered to the state in almost every area of life, because they do not believe that they are responsible, as Christians, to preach and then implement a system of institutional governments: family, church, and state. These are oath-bound institutions, and the stipulations of the respective oaths are presented in the Bible. Because Christians do not believe this, they have continually surrendered to rival systems of government with rival oaths and rival stipulations.
The legalization of abortion represents the most important assault against the Christian concept of the family in the modern world. God-hating pagans who refuse to accept responsibility for the children that their sexual activity produces are ready to kill their children. They want the benefits of sexual activity, but they do not want any of the liabilities. They have gone to the state and demanded that the state legalize their murder of their own children. Christians have generally accepted this development. There has been some resistance, but it has not been systematic. Christians have verbally identified abortion as murder, but they do not really believe this. On the one hand, they insist that the death penalty is mandated by the Bible for murder. On the other hand, they have refused to call for the execution of abortionists as murderers. They are schizophrenic: judicially, covenantally and intellectually. This surrender to the mass murderers of the modern world is representative of the widespread defection of political responsibility by Christians. They have accepted the doctrine of neutral civil government, despite the fact that neutral civil government authorizes the murder of the innocents. Until Christians steadfastly oppose the murder of the innocents, there is little hope that the city of man will face a serious threat from Christianity.
___________________________________________
For the rest of this book, go here: https://www.garynorth.com/public/department188.cfm