The Law of God and Public Policy

Local government is responsible to the Law of God.

“You shall appoint judges and officers in all your towns that the LORDyour God is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment.” Deuteronomy 16.18

In ancient Israel, according to the Law of God, local officials were selected (Hebrew, nathan – to set, appoint, or put in place) by the people they would serve, presumably, on the basis of character and of their understanding of the Law of God and the traditions and promises of God’s people. These elders or judges were expected to meet in the gates of the city, where, symbolically, their deliberations and actions could be seen to be protecting the city against injustice, and where, as well, people could learn to live according to God’s Law by observing their work.

The Law of God thus provides for “sunshine” government at the local level, with an informed “electorate” serving to fulfill, monitor, and preserve the integrity of local self-government.

As we see in Ruth 4, officials could be assembled at the wish of a member of a community, in order to render a judgment in some matter or dispute. Undoubtedly, however, they also met with some regularity, perhaps to review the overall state of the divine economy in their community, and also to discuss matters related to understanding the Law of God.

The local rulers of Israel were to regard themselves as “shepherds” of the people, who were the flocks of God (cf. Ezek. 34.1-10). As such, their duty was to care for the wellbeing of each member of the community, to do whatever the Law of God directed to ensure that the benefits of justice and neighbor-love flowed to all.

It should not surprise us that, in the economics of material wealth that dominates our society, rulers are more likely to be regarded as wolves in sheep’s clothing than shepherds of their constituents, although certainly much of that Biblical idea of government is still in evidence.

There are many benefits to granting the burden of governance to officers elected at the community level. Here, for example, we might more reasonably expect officials to regard themselves as the servants and shepherds of people they recognize as neighbors and friends, rather than merely constituents in some far-flung district or state.

Local officials should also be able better to understand the needs of their constituents than representatives in a far-off national capital. In the early days of the American experience, city and county government were much more important than at present. For example, school boards existed in every political precinct to serve the interests and needs of parents in that district for the education of their children, and every school was allowed to select curricula and teachers to fit its peculiar needs and concerns. In colonial America, for example, a school teacher in New York City was expected to know the Scripture and to be able to lead children in daily devotions. Similar requirements were adopted by other colonial jurisdictions.

Checking corruption in government should also be more easily achieved at the local level. It is certainly much easier at the local level to raise a concern with a local official, or to recall one, when necessary. Further, we might expect to see “citizens’ review boards” operating to watch over the policies of local rulers and their interpretations of community norms of justice.

T. M. Moore

Visit our website, www.ailbe.org, and sign up to receive our thrice-weekly devotional, Crosfigell, featuring writers from the period of the Celtic Revival and T. M.’s reflections on Scripture and the Celtic Christian tradition. Does the Law of God still apply today? Order a copy of T. M.’s book, The Ground for Christian Ethics, and study the question for yourself.