Some of you may know that whatever literature I choose to read tends to fall within the realm of utopian discourse. Novels like 1984 and Farenheit 451 are a few of my favorites. The reason I like them: They take situations that many would consider ideal and switch the perspective around to fit someone who finds the world in which they live utterly terrible.
Such is the argument for a theocracy. I've heard numerous times that the founding fathers of the United States had God in mind when designing our Constitution and that people originally came to this country to worship free from the tyranny of the Anglican church. I don't feel these two aspects of American history are entirely accurate, but that's not my argument. My argument is this: THANK GOODNESS this country isn't a theocracy. And may it never until God takes us home and rebuilds this place.
Some may feel it beneficial to all to make the Bible our Constitution. That's actually what sparked this in my mind. There are people running around these days claiming to fly the flag of Christ that are showing up to funerals of soldiers that were killed in action in Iraq. There may seem to be no harm in this. However, when you're hanging out in the back waving a sign around that says "God Hates Fags," we've got issues. Granted, the Bible that I know exhorts us to love others like Christ loves us and has nothing to do with what these folks are claiming. However, should a theocracy be our chosen form of government here on earth, the government could get behind something like that if they felt it were justified enough.
I'm just saying. It could happen.
But the main issue I take with this is on the issue of corruption. If, theoretically speaking, everyone in the United States was evangelical Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Bahai, what have you. Someone has to be at the top of the ladder leading the country. You may even have a council of some kind. This is beside the point. As long as there is sin in this world, people will make stupid decisions. People let power get to their head, no matter how holy they seem to be, or how holy they try to be. That is human nature.
I had a professor tell me we are all fundamentally good the other day. My mind said an emphatic no. This world seems to have so much to offer, so much that we can see and touch and feel. And that is precisely why God's heaven and New Earth are the only way this could ever work. When all corruption is gone and it's destruction is entirely evident. When God's sent Satan packing and all of his wily ways to the bottom of the freakin' lake of fire.
Under these circumstances, and these circumstances only will a God-honoring theocracy actually work, and only then will everyone actually be ok with it. Imagine that...
Utopia without a dissenting view.
I'm expecting comments on this one, so gimme whatever you've got, I'll do my best to explain my perspective.
About Me
- Brandon
- I work at a software company in Bellingham, love reading, writing, being outside, and studying the different cultures God has created to worship him. Ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name.
4 comments:
OK, so the link to the "Fag" website - sheesh. No wonder some people think that Christians are a bunch of jerks. I think it is absolutely HORRIBLE to attach the name of Jesus to such grace-less, condemning words and actions!
I just read Philip Yancy's book, "So What's So Amazing About Grace?" Written about 10 years ago, he calls into question the demands of Christians that morality be legislated. Moral Majority, that sort of thing. Yancy said Christ was not running around condemning the obvious sinners of the day, and neither should we. We should be loving people! The people who really got nailed by Jesus were those who were the religious leaders, the "Moral Majority!" Jesus was giving grace to those he came in contact with, unlike the Pharisees. OK so maybe this doesn't have anything to do with your comments, but I ended up here. Does this make any sense or am I way in left field?
As for a theocracy, I agree that our nation would not work as such. I do believe the reason our constitution and laws have worked as well as they have is because much of the philosophy behind them line up with biblical principles, but God gives freedom to man to choose His way or not. To organize a government as a theocracy means someone is in the position of speaking for God, demanding God's ways, and that presents a problem in that free will is no longer free will, never mind a serious power trip for those in charge!
Am I tracking with you?!?
I have two more arguments against theocracy. The first is something like 'core business': the core business of government is coercion: coercion is the service that governments are created to provide. I of course would pay my taxes without being forced, so long as I know that everyone - or most people - are paying theirs. They feel the same way about me. I obey laws, not just because I had some remote say in making them, but also because I know that I am not the only one. Social contracts need the possibility of enforcement to work, and we make governments to underpin our social contracts. But coercion is precisely *not* what is required in either religion or ethics. A religious or ethical choice only has value if it is free. So government and religion have incompatible core businesses - and they need one another. A government can only function if 99% of the people, most of the time, obey the laws and use the procedures. They need a degree of altruism in the population. They can try to elicit altruism with a state ideology (such as communist internationalism or the civil religion of America) but these are always blasphemous and based essentially on fictions, the state that needs them has to intrude into the sphere of conscience to sustain them. So the state needs non-state communities and families that provide it with the virtuous citizens it needs to function without a policeman at every mailbox. Religious communities, on the other hand, because they must function without coercion, need some other agency that ensures they can operate in a peaceful, secure and free society.
The second argument follows from that complementarity: church and state have to be separate so that they can love one another. Difference is the basis of our need for one another, our respect for one another, and our love for one another, and it is the same with institutions. A monist state, whether it is ideological or religious or is dominated by the market, is a loveless state. Its processes will be based on power, rather than on the need for one another.
I've discussed this further in _church and state: a postmodern political theology_, available on Amazon and probably also in a university library.
I also have half a dozen other reasons why theocracy is a bad bad option
Regards
Sen McGlinn
Well, I don't entirely disagree with you, but...
God and the Bible were on the minds of our founding fathers when they wrote the US Constitution. Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to rewrite history. The writings of the founding fathers themselves tell us that.
People who came here to escape religious persecution had a tendency to persecute others once they were here...
The kind of theocracy you speak of reminds me of the Catholic church, especially after the Pope was just in country this past week. It seems to me that when you put people in a place between man and God, such as the Catholic church does with their priests, bishops and pope, you're heading down the wrong path.
Our country following the Bible is not a bad thing. I believe it was George Washington who said something to the effect that our country would flourish only as long as it was a moral people. He wasn't speaking as the head of a theocracy, but he was wisely pointing out that the fabric of our society would go down the toilet as soon as we had people creating their own morality, as we have today.
Here's a little something... Look at the gay marriage amendment that was batted around not too long ago. Many people felt that a marriage amendment wasn't what the amendment process was meant for, and believed that the founding fathers didn't intend for the amendment process to be used for such a thing. I disagree! What the founding fathers wouldn't have imagined was their new nation one day facing a society that questions what a marriage is and would need an amendment to tell them!
I'm sliding off your topic a little, but my point is that though I agree that man ruling over people in the name of religion is more than a bit troublesome. Our other extreme is that we're afraid to hold people accountable to any sort of moral standard and have gotten to the point where people believe they are just descendents of pond scum and apes, there is no absolute truth, and that everything is relative. A result of our “enlightenment” are stupid court decisions like suddenly deciding that an amendment stating that "congress shall make no law" establishing religion somehow now means that school children can't hear about God in the classroom and the Ten Commandments should be stripped from the courtroom.
Anyway, I will leave it at that for now... I miss having a good political discussion with you though! That's always a good time!
Post a Comment