Last week we talked about
family.
Today,
we will look at government.
Bear
in mind: neither earthly families nor government will exist in heaven. So what
we are discussing concerns bringing heaven’s values into a fallen creation.
Whenever creation is ultimately redeemed, government and family will not ascend
into heaven.
Regarding
government, there are tensions here on earth:
None
of us like it when government imposes something on us. That is one reason that
churches often thrive when Christians are truly aliens—government intrusion
unites people against the government.
I
am all for prayer in schools; I'm just not for organized prayer in schools. The
issue is who does the organizing.
I've been there when it has been people with whom I have disagreed.
Nevertheless,
a free society requires a moral, virtuous, and I would argue, spiritual people.
As John Adams wrote in 1798, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and
religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”
Without the discipline of spirituality, democracy downgrades into anarchy.
I
certainly do not have the answer on this. Where does allowing someone to starve
end and allowing someone to sink into despair… in order to find God… begin? I
am not sure.
Having
said this, I wrestle with government bureaucracy. A compassionate society as
expressed by a people through its government can be good… unless the good will
gets bogged by bureaucracy. It is hard to have a relationship with a
bureaucracy. You cannot offer compassion without relationship.
Disclaimer:
I’ve adopted a son and daughter through the good work of CPS. Clearly, I am not
anti-government.
3. The tension between the world we
live in versus the world to come.
The
struggle here is I want to create as much of a utopia as I can while on earth,
but this does not always correspond with the purposes of God.
Sir
Thomas More… describing
a fictional island
in the Atlantic Ocean, called it “Utopia.” The idea we take from that is a place of
perfection. Some have pointed out the irony of Moore’s title: “u” or “no” +
“topos” or “place” = “no place.” I have not verified this, but I like the idea.
We will not find the redemption of the world to come here in this one.
4. The tension
between Jesus’ choices for his Kingdom and the reality of government.
Jesus
had the power to overthrow Rome, but he chose not to. Most of Christian history
sees the Christian population dealing with governments that are not Christian.
The
time in history when Jesus came means that we have a template for the way we
view government—if societal opportunities are beyond our control.
On
the other hand, the roots of the United States cannot be found in a people who
said, “We are going to take over this country.” Rather, it was with a group of
pilgrims who were escaping religious persecution, and were allowed the chance
to go to an area that was basically remote. They did not try to destroy the
Indians. Fundamentally,
they attempted to form their little community and to live in a way that was
godly. And as much as anything else, these were the roots of our national
government. They happened to have laid the foundation… the ground floor. What
happens when you have godly Christian people creating a system of self-rule
under the leadership of Jesus as King? You have the roots of democracy.
5. The tension
between Jesus God of peace and “do unto others as you would have them do unto
you.” If
I am kidnapped oversees, I want somebody to come save me. That means a police-like
action from the military.
So
to say I want to eliminate the military and let America go and trust God and live
under the rule of terrorism or of some other oppression… is the equivalent of
saying I want to live without a local police force.
8 final thoughts of government from Deuteronomy:
1. God would transcend all.
I
do not see any way a nation can survive without an understanding of God
transcending the country. No man is above the law, and the law comes from God.
Ideally,
citizens and government officials would understand that one of the basic and
the fundamental reasons we have government is to restrain evil (see Genesis
chapter nine and Romans chapter thirteen.)
As
I have mentioned, I do not believe in the church being connected to the state.
However, I believe the famous letter that is cited from Thomas Jefferson is, in
its context, reflecting Jefferson’s concern that the state would impede itself
upon the church rather than the church having unnecessarily influenced on the
state.
However,
it does not do the Kingdom of God good to be too closely aligned to the state.
It waters down the message of the Gospel and the call to discipleship.
If
the Church marries the nation today, tomorrow she will be a widow. The same
holds true for marriage to a political party. The Church transcends the state
and the political party, not vice versa. The Church is the reflection of
Christ—not culture.
The
state was instituted by God to restrain sin and promote a just social order.
A
theologian I have grown appreciate is actually a French one–Jacques Elluel, and
he wrote this (to paraphrase): the Christian who is involved in the material
history of this world is involved in it is representing another order, another
master (than the “prince of this world”), another claim (than that of the
natural heart of man)… Thus he must plunge into social and political problems in
order to have an influence on the world, not in the hope of making it a
paradise, but simply in order to make it tolerable–not in order to diminish the
opposition between this world and the kingdom of God, but simply in order to
modify the opposition between the disorder this world and the order
preservation that God wills for it–not in order to “bring in” the kingdom of
God, but in order that the gospel may be proclaimed, that all men may really
hear the good news of salvation to the death and resurrection of Christ.
Charles
Colson said that while human politics is based on the premise that society must
be changed or to change people, it is the people who must be changed in order
to change society. On the other hand, William Wilberforce changed history in
England through setting in motion a series of legislation the stopped slavery.
2. Justice
would be a major concern.
Look
at Deuteronomy 16:19, “Do not pervert justice or show partiality. Do not accept a
bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the
righteous.”
Everyone's
property would be secure, every person would be treated as one made in the
image of God, all wrongdoing would be punished but in a way that is consistent
with humanity, not dehumanizing the one who is guilty, no false accusations
would be allowed, a fair trial would be assured. Equally important, no one
shall be above the law, not even the nations top leader.
3. Everyone
is treated with the dignity God has given him or her (Deuteronomy 15:12–18,
Deuteronomy 24:7, 27:18.) This means that women are to be treated as human
beings. This means people will not be exploited. This includes the disabled and
the alien (see Deuteronomy 23:19; 24:6, 12–15, 17; 27:18.)
4. Creation
would be honored (Deuteronomy 22:4, 6–7, 25:4.)
5. Rest
would be assured for each citizen (Deuteronomy 5:12–15.) Each citizen would have at
least one day off. I think about the poor people and industrial England and the
hours they worked. Seven days a week, sometimes, and twelve + hours a day. It
was insane.
6.
Government would be concerned for the poor and disenfranchised. Deuteronomy 14,
Deuteronomy 15, and others emphasize God’s concern for the poor.
7.
Government would hold people accountable. People will be held accountable for the
sake of society, and people will be held accountable for their own sake. To not
do so would be self-destructive.
8.
Government would reinforce God-honoring sexuality. This would be not only
for the sake of society, but for the individual as well. Nothing demoralizes society
like immorality. There is no structure, people are hurt, and God is not honored
by one's physical body. All of this sickens the soul.
I
am typing this quickly. I reserve the right to be wrong. Thanks for reading.
2 comments:
The time in history when Jesus came means that we have a template for the way we view government—if societal opportunities are beyond our control.
Why should that be conditional? Were societal opportunities beyond Jesus' control? Could he not have successfully challenged the government? Had he wanted to leave us the template, he was perfectly capable of doing so.
I'd suggest leaving the statement as a statement: we have a template as to how we are to view government.
I also disagree with your illustration of the international kidnap. If we're going to apply the "do unto others" principle, then will we give all nations the freedom to come and rescue their citizens who are held captive here in the U.S.? Or do we expect other nations to respect our local laws?
The U.S. military is not and should not be a global police force. Might doesn't make right. The fact that militaries have been used as police does not mean they SHOULD be.
If God were King, wouldn't we follow the template he set out? No stockpiled weapons nor standing army, for example. No military alliances. (Read: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/11/13/old-testament-militarism-and-idolatry/) Fighting limited to obtaining and securing the Promised Land. No global police action — God never sent his people out against the Assyrians or the Babylonians; in fact.
Anyway, I really like this series. Just disagree on a few points.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Thanks, Tim, as always, for taking the time to comment. I certainly appreciate your observations on the problems with my thinking.
I think your military points are particularly relevant in an age when we in the U.S. seemingly cannot afford to spend so much on defense. Moreover, something is to be said for the unifying factor an attack like Pearl Habor brings to a nation. We avoided war until war found us. Most of the time since, it seems we have looked for war. Hazards of serving as the "world's policeman." Probably so.
Thanks, again!
ME
Post a Comment