This question pertains to the government. Ah, the government. Everyone always seems to be freaking out about the government. Oftentimes, what the government thinks is right, we think is wrong. And what we think is wrong, the government thinks is right.
But God is not scared of politics. In fact, he invented politics. And he has a lot to say about it in his Word.
Biblical Basis
Here are a few verses that provide a basis for talking about the government Biblically:
- “A king who judges the poor with fairness — his throne will be established forever (Pro. 29:14 CSB).” This verse tells us that God blesses rulers who judge everyone—even the poor—fairly.
- “A wise king separates out the wicked and drives the threshing wheel over them (Pro. 20:26 CSB).” Wise governments punish evil.
- “[Authority] is God’s servant for your good (Rom. 13:4 CSB).” A true government should serve its citizens’ good. A false government does the opposite.
With this Biblical basis, we now know that governments should do things fairly, punish evil, and do things for their citizens’ good. Those are God’s instructions for government, and anything beyond that is evil.
I love what Joel Salatin has to say about the role of the government:
“Plenty has been written about the role of government, but none as succinct and profound as holy writ: I Peter 2:14 says that ‘governors’ are ‘appointed by God to punish the evildoers and to praise those who do good.’
“It’s quite simple, really….
“When you link all these Biblical instructions together, you arrive at clarity and precision about what governance is all about. It’s to extend God’s hand into the culture to both discipline and reward within the confines of divine desire.
“For any of you who think this is all a simplistic and elementary view toward something as complex as governance, I would merely suggest that the human temptation is to make things complex that are actually quite simple.”
Limits of the Government’s Authority
Now, should the government monitor citizens online? The US government claims that it monitors us because of “national security.” Supposedly, they’re looking for terrorists. So they’re doing it for our good, right? Isn’t that biblical?
Not so fast! God has not given the government the authority to do anything beyond its job of punishing the wicking and maintaining order in society. That’s why the US founding fathers included the Fourth Amendment in the Constitution, which prohibits any unreasonable searches. When the government spies on us, they are doing something outside of their job description, which is evil and can be used for great harm.
National security does not require, as we have been taught, the invasion of personal privacy. If it is wrong for a teenage hacker to use your webcam without your knowledge, then it is also wrong for the NSA to spy on you through your webcam.
The extent of the problem
But how much does this really happen? I mean, if the government only spies on a handful of people occasionally, does it even matter?
Here’s the thing: the extent of government surveillance is far more disturbing than many people realize. For example, police departments have a device called a cell site simulator. “They act like real cell phone towers,” Lipton & Quintin say, “‘tricking’ mobile devices into connecting to them, designed to intercept the information that phones send and receive, like the location of the user and metadata for phone calls, text messages, and other app traffic. CSS are highly invasive and used discreetly.” One of the main problems with cell-site simulators is that they capture the private information of hundreds of innocent users in addition to the information of the target criminals.
Not only do the police spy on American citizens, but the FBI has its own massive privacy violation program. A recent report revealed that they had conducted “3.4 million warrantless searches of Americans’ communications in 2021 alone.”
The Fourth Amendment
Notice the word, “warrantless.” These searches are more than cringe-worthy, but there’s good reason to believe they are unconstitutional. The Fourth Amendment says, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Our phones and devices are included in the “effects” section of the clause, making digital privacy especially relevant here.
In the legal system described by this amendment, when a court needs additional information, it must issue a warrant. And that warrant can’t say, “Look everywhere for everything.” It has to be a particular place for a particular thing.1
So, even though almost no one seems to care, these searches by the FBI are unconstitutional because the government is searching “everywhere.” A true warrant can only be for something specific like, “The data on Mary’s iPhone,” or “The servers of Food Corp.”
What about reasonable searches?
If you read through the amendment again, you’ll find that it only protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. This begs the question of what a reasonable search is. Perhaps there are no reasonable searches or seizures…
While the question of what is reasonable and unreasonable according to the clause is a little vague, looking at the history of this amendment gives some context. The origin of the amendment stems from the idea that “a man’s house is his castle.” Thus, just as a foreign nation entering a king’s castle without the king’s permission is an act of war, a foreign entity entering someone’s house is an act of aggression against that person.
Property Rights
Tracing this idea back to its origin, the “man’s house is his castle” idea was inspired by property rights. Kings enjoy exclusive control over their castles. But some people recognized that every person’s home should be treated like a castle. That is, with respect.
And where do property rights find their basis? From God’s command to not steal (Ex. 20:15). Thus, the right to privacy in the Constitution has roots in property rights as described in the Bible.
A Biblical Right to Privacy
Really, there’s no such thing as the right to privacy. It’s just another way of thinking about the right to property. Privacy rights are closely interrelated to property rights.
The connection between the two can be clearly seen when looking at the distinction between private and public property. Public property is places like roads, parks, or the wilderness. When you are in public, you have no privacy. That’s why on public property people can take pictures of you. It’s also why some celebrities will completely avoid public places. In public, they have no privacy.
On the other hand, on private property, you can go be in private. You have the right to be alone on your own property.
Similarly, your phone is private property. Whatever is on your phone is private to you. So, by definition, private property should be private. Simple, right?
Should the Government ever violate privacy?
If the government shouldn’t mess with people’s property, and by extension, their privacy, should they ever break this boundary? In other words, should search warrants even be a thing?
The founders of America recognized the responsibility of the government to punish evil (Rom. 13). Because fair judgments require knowing the facts, sometimes the government needs the authority to see things they wouldn’t normally be able to see. However, people’s God-given right to property does not allow the government, or anyone, to mess with their stuff whenever someone else wants to.
Searches should only be allowed when authorities have “probable cause” that someone is involved in a crime. Probable cause is the idea that authorities must have a sufficient justification for searches and seizures. Unlike in totalitarian or stratocratic regimes where government officials can barge in whenever they want, a just government must have probable cause before entering your home.
Courts will even throw out evidence that is obtained without a warrant. For example, if an officer walks into your home without a warrant and tries to incriminate you with something he found, that evidence can be tossed out. Sometimes, the case against someone will even be dismissed.
Finishing Thoughts
Should governments monitor Internet users? No. Governments should not monitor citizens’ internet traffic. God has not given that authority to the government. And when the government takes that authority for themselves, it can be used for great evil.
Additionally, the government shouldn’t be messing with our stuff, including our private communications. God has placed certain things into our hands, and we are responsible for stewarding them. Other people have no businesses interfering with what we own.
Notes
- “Particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” – Fourth Amendment ↩︎
