Let's boil it all down to its essence: Government is control. It's based on the word "govern" -- the act of exercising control. In common usage we refer to "the government" as the system of control, the specific agencies and organizations that control, and often the collective body of humans who actually do the controlling. Given that mankind is in a fallen state, there's nothing inherently wrong with having somebody in control. The assumption is that we tend to yield that control to those who appear to have some ability to make things come out better under their control than they do without that control. At its lowest level, "things going better" may mean that the controller is less likely to harm you. However, over the history of humanity, such a situation seldom lasts long without some other factors involved. It is human nature that governing by brutality alone breeds revolt.
Brutality may be long tolerated if there is also some obvious benefit. Essentially, people with the power to govern gained it by offering protection from something worse than themselves. Utter chaos and mass destruction tends to reduce people to a childlike state, and sends them scurrying for a mother/father figure. Fear of something outside binds allegiances to any power less threatening. Thus, children cower in fear from their supposed deliverers, clinging to the legs of an abusive parent. Wives reduced to a dependent state will also cling to their abusive husbands. You get the picture. We humans do have some instincts, and when faced with a danger greater than ourselves, we seek help to face it. The theology for this is quite simple: Having once fallen from the purity of innocence, we can no longer come face to face with God. The One by Whom we were designed, and designed to fellowship with, is no longer accessible. We seek substitutes, the next best thing. In varying degrees, we find that in relations with other humans. The net result is what passes for a herd instinct in humans.
Humans are incapable of remaining equal. Egalitarianism is a Utopian fantasy, for fallen man has not the power to resist the temptation to use others. Aside from the obvious dominance assumed by some sinners, there is that backward dominance of choosing the victim role. Consider: Most humans, despite a fallen nature, cannot resist taking some measure of responsibility for those they dominate. True sociopaths are exceedingly rare. Victims are thus allowed to use guilt as their weapon, by gaining the right to accuse the dominator of failing. There are other roles and relationships, and I don't intend to catalog them here. The point is that we will tolerate almost anything to avoid being alone with our sinful consciences, yet we are incapable of having truly healthy relationships. Worse, folks are seldom conscious of any of this. Still, even in our fallen state we can occasionally taste a bit of redemption here and there because the Father is determined to reveal Himself, if only in Nature alone (Romans 1:18-21). Humans are very much a part of Nature.
One of those glimpses of breaking through the isolation of the soul is in human sexuality. People are drawn to it like nothing else. In its natural state, sex invariably produces children. There is much propaganda declaring that men naturally want to abandon their offspring, but that actually appears most often in highly corrupt civilizations. The Word of God indicates that even a fallen man will feel some sense of responsibility for his children (Matthew 7:11). The real instinct here is that men naturally want to pass on their habits to another generation as a way of affirming, "I'm okay!" So the most natural starting place to discern the nature of government is in the family unit, the most fundamental building block of human society. Humans in their natural state have one obvious advantage over all else in nature, and that's reasoning, with its expansion into skills. While there are plenty of creatures we dominate easily, there are plenty who can eat us quickly. The father who survives by his wits and skill demonstrates to the rest of the family a natural right to dominate, not to mention he's usually bigger than everyone else. When there's an emergency, you can't have everyone doing their own thing, or the family will be dead. Somebody has to take charge, give orders, and everyone else has to comply.
When the family expands into several generations, there comes a time when old papa no longer demonstrates that skill, though maybe some strong wits yet. The question of how to rule, and how to delegate authority, is the most primitive form of government. Different cultures arrived at different answers as to "where the buck stops," but it invariably stops with a single person. In case of emergency, somebody has to have the last say. An extended family may be particularly successful, and it's no surprise another family will ask to join them. Negotiation of status and distribution of labor ensues, presumably to the benefit of all. We could easily become entangled in the discussion of how the position of ultimate authority is passed around, or not, but that's another study. Once again, the buck stops somewhere with one person. Given enough generations we have clans and tribes, etc. The primary reason for such persistent grouping is more than just habit or lack of known alternatives. The beasts that prey on man are still out there, and so is hunger and bad weather. The herd is safer and more comfortable. All the more so if another herd of humans decides to take what your herd has. Sooner or later it occurs to a leader that life would be better if they had someone else's stuff, or maybe even more bodies to dominate. We call it "war," the one human activity that is most reflexive, and cannot be ended while mankind remains fallen.
The role of king is rooted in war. If there's no threat, there's no sense giving anyone that much power. There will always be a threat. Primitive kings are just warlords, somebody to lead in war. The role may be gained in many ways, but will certainly by based on the conduct of warfare. Whatever skill is most valuable in a particular style of warfare becomes the means to promotion. If your army attacks in single file, then the king is the fellow who leads the line, and stays king by surviving repeated battles. Thus, the best fighter rules, regardless of any other qualities or lack thereof. For most of human history, though, it was a matter of psychology. That is, battles were not a matter of mass slaughter but emotional momentum. The winning side was the one that didn't run. A fellow who not only survives battle, but somehow keeps his troops fired up and confident, got to rule. Eventually the will to battle could be instilled other ways, but the principle remained the same. You followed the one who made you want to follow them, and made you feel good with the results. Such strong character was often found with a collection of other traits that, in the West at least, came to be called "noble."
We naturally expect our government to have certain noble qualities.
Scripture has plenty to say about government. Much of what we read in the Old Testament comes in the context of the Covenant Nation, with a distinct command from God to obey His anointed king. It is only natural to assume not all of that ethos transfers over to modern secular government. However, the debate remains open on how much applies, and we each must "rightly divide" the application of the Old Testament to current conditions. I take the tack that the whole Law of Moses was given to that people, at that time, in that place, under those conditions. Further, I believe generally we are not bound by anything in the Law of Moses, because of the Cross. Jesus made it clear the Torah was a poor shadow of the much higher Law of God (Matthew 19:1-12, divorce as the example). We are bound instead to the Law of God through His Spirit. By our God-given desire to obey, we are holy and righteous, regardless of our performance. Still, human governments cannot read your heart and mind, though they do at times claim to deduce motives from actions. The point that comes up in courts of law is what you did. More than possible, but probable is the case we will eventually obey and please God and not our earthly government.
That's not to say we intentionally choose the path of rebellion. While government can choose to see it that way, our path is following God. It's the government that errs in crossing His path with evil barriers. The issue is seldom absolute, which is why in any given period of history, you'll find believers defying the law of the land, and others condemning that. There are plenty of assertions in the New Testament that encourage us to obey human laws, but you clearly must put God above that. The difficulty is in deciding how to go about that. There doesn't seem to be any hard and fast rules about the method. Do we allow ourselves to be driven underground, as with the early Christians in Rome? Do we gather arms and literally revolt, as did Colonial Americans? Jesus told His disciples to get some swords, but for what purpose? He rebuked Peter for using his in the Garden. Narrow, simplistic views are fine for application to yourself, but you sin when you demand others follow Christ in your shoes. One could also choose passive resistance, and all manner of other ways in responding to Christ's calling in a hostile environment.
Reading between the lines in John's Revelation, whatever else he was trying to say, he was warning his flock that governments follow an unmistakable trend toward oppression of the people and defiance of God. Some get there faster than others. The question then arises whether a particular government is "legitimate." The foundation of that word itself implies a reliance on some law system or another. If you ask your own government, they will always claim to be legitimate, regardless how they came to power. Building on Part 1, we note that the earliest form of succession was by birth or marriage. Even in our modern times, we have an instinct to go that way -- we had two junior Bush governors on the coattails of a senior Bush presidency. We've also had several Congressmen who took up where their dead Congressman spouses left off. And how about that Kennedy Clan? Yet here it is expressly forbidden in our Constitution. If you take your case to a higher authority, as it were -- international governing agencies -- who's to say they are more legitimate? If anything, they appear often to be more lawless (Kofi Annan and Food for Oil profits). For believers, the Law of God trumps all human agency. There has to be a standard above mankind as a whole, or the concept of "good versus bad" has no meaning.
I've already covered the ethics of defying government elsewhere. The issue of legitimacy, and how and when to revolt, comes right back to where it always rests on every issue. You and I as followers of Jesus must each choose the path that we see. No two of us can see the same path. Don't tell a Nigerian Christian it's ungodly to neglect deodorant and squeeze into the pew next to you. Don't tell an Israeli Messianic Jew he can't drink fermented wine, nor an American Baptist he must. Even so you cannot link holiness to your particular brand of politics, nor your choice to revolt or acquiesce when government acts against your liberty in Christ. When someone stands up in a criminal court and declares because of the Bible they do not recognize the legitimacy of that court, calling them "wacko" is pointless. They may well be more honorable than you, because they are noble enough to face the consequences. In absolute terms -- that is, in God's presence -- the "wacko" may be quite right. The relationship we have with Our Father is living and active, just like His Word, and it won't repeat today precisely what it demanded yesterday, because you aren't in precisely the same situation. If nothing else, I should hope you and I have changed, at least a little. Stasis is death; we are not machines. Peter walked on the water with Christ in the middle of a storm, and that's where you and I often find Him. The agony of uncertainty in decision is your primary proof God isn't through with you yet.
When your government is ignoble, only you and God can decide what you ought to do.
There are already whole bookshelves covering the History of Western Civilization, and somewhat less material looking at various Eastern civilizations. While the former is rife with governments notoriously lying in their official records, the latter generally failed to leave many records of any kind at all. Due to a difference in concepts such as "truth" and "facts" we, from our Western point of view, have trouble making much of some Eastern records. For example, our current outline of Ancient Egyptian History stands or falls on some very thin supports indicating chronology. Somewhat late in that story we have the rise of various Greek city states just across the Mediterranean Sea, and the two groups exchanged goods and ideas. Ancient Greece is regarded as the foundation of Western Civilization, with a clear departure from Eastern mystic orientation, in favor of a much more objectivist view. The mixed bag of pagan religion and various expressions of philosophy and logic gave rise to several concepts of government, the most famous of which was a primitive democracy. There's no room here to do anything but generalize broadly, so keep that in mind.
While still divided among distinct social classes, Greek democracy sought to give political power a much broader base. More people got a piece of the buck when it stopped. When Greek dominance faded, and was replaced by Rome, much of that thinking was adopted into the Roman Republic. Roman culture was less creative and artistic than Greek, but more pragmatic and organized. Indeed, there's good reason to think the ancient tribal Latins had learned democratic concepts from Greek colonists to ancient Italy, then rose to displace their old teachers. Picking over the ashes of Alexander's empire, Rome simply adopted elements of the culture and language already in place for their empire. This served to make Rome even more powerful in her rule. Into this was born Christ and His message. While early on considered a threat to Rome, Christianity was eventually adopted by Emperor Constantine as a unifying force. When he moved his capital from Italy to eastern Greece (Constantinople/Byzantium), the orphaned mother city of Rome became much weaker. Roman habits, by then set in stone, were unable adapt and face the new threats. The old capital fell to invading hordes of Germanic tribes. In the ensuing chaos, the Bishop of Rome became the government to which everyone looked in crisis. The Germans at first trashed everything they touched. Eventually, they ran out of new places to raid and settled down. In so doing, they began adopting a selection of broken shards from the civilization they had destroyed, aspiring to its former glory. Meanwhile, Byzantium managed to turn the German tribes away, and survived quite awhile longer. They clung to a changed Greek culture and language, preserving many good things, but also becoming locked into their own stale and corrupt system of government.
It's no secret the institutional church based in Rome had become corrupt, much as any government does after a time. The focus on the spiritual from the early New Testament churches turned to a focus on the institution. The Roman Church had developed a parallel governing structure via its numerous bishops -- "sacred noblemen" -- and the various monasteries, which were also schools. The Roman pontiff clung to Latin, and built his Canon Law with its own jurisdiction. The primary civilizing influence on the German warlords was this surviving system of quasi-government. The Pope and his subordinates had often managed to negotiate keeping their property from German sacking. For a time, democracy and republic were forgotten, as the devastated West sank into the feudalism, a form of government long established before Abraham left Ur. Indeed, almost every ancient civilization we know of was largely feudal. Those with property, in fear, offer the title of the property in exchange for protection. They remain on the property and render its produce back to the protector. Feudalism takes government back to the primitive task of protecting the citizens from external threat, especially in war. As the population being governed grows, it becomes necessary to farm out some of the task of governing. If the warlord/king is seen as titular owner of all, it's a simple matter to pass chunks of his holdings over to others, who would then hold that property in fiefdom from the king. The level of attention from the king might vary between negligence and micro-management, but was mostly somewhere between. As the scale of size increases, there are ever-smaller increments of fiefdom below that level.
The Germanic conquest of the Roman Empire cut off great long lines of communication, destroyed libraries, and generally contributed to severe decline in culture and learning. Had not Ireland and her monasteries been safely isolated from this, the Latin language would have perished from human memory. For a time on the Continent, literacy of any level was rare even among Rome's priests. Classical learning was entombed and forgotten, as Rome struggled to get Germans to live in actual houses. At some point, one German petty king embraced Christianity of a sort, and the Pope threw his weight behind recognizing him as the legitimate king. Lacking any real taste for intellectual pursuits, the resulting dynasty just barely managed to subjugate surrounding tribes into a large kingdom before rotting into impotence. At some point, a drunken king sat on a throne while his educated and civilized chamberlain actually ran things. The resulting new dynasty managed to beat off the newest threat to Western Civilization, Islam, cementing their credibility as rulers. Meanwhile, their feudal form of government became highly organized, and some of the nobility actually began to aspire to noble traits.
Having defeated Islam at home, it was decided to carry the battle back to the Muslims. Of particular interest was reclaiming the Holy Land. Aside from all else we might say of them, the Crusades were incredibly expensive. Even as nobility became most noble in concept, greed became the earmark of the ruling class. The facade of pure devotion in the Crusaders masked a willingness to do almost anything to pay for their glorious ventures. Academically, we count a dozen individual crusades over a couple of centuries, each increasingly pointless. One of the crusades saw the old imperial capital of Byzantium attacked and sacked, instead of some Muslim stronghold. It was the feudal system that carried the seeds of its own destruction. Kings became ever more dependent on cash in place of taxation-in-kind, and the best source of cash was the growing merchant class. At first, the merchants bought their political freedom via royal charters for their cities. These cities were not like ancient cities, built and planned by the effort and genius of a monarch, but grew up with a somewhat different purpose, as the means to concentrate services and wealth, gateways of trade. The powerful middle class was born -- burgers, bourgeoisie, burgesses -- and never looked back. First taking root in old Italy, they offered loans to crusading kings. The Venetian merchant bankers found the power to demand that one crusade be diverted to take down Byzantium, Venice's chief trade competitor, among other things.
While still narrowly controlled, this relative democratization of wealth and power saw patronage of the arts and learning removed from the narrow interests of nobility, and spread it among the now numerous merchants. In a more open market, there's greater specialization, and the general level of wealth increases, with more time for leisure, primarily the arts and learning. With more people digging, the Classics were rediscovered. Thus, we call this rebirth by its Italian name, Renaissance. With the loss of fear and respect for nobility came a matching loss of power for the Roman Church. This revolt manifested itself in various ways for quite some time, in the Reformation, along with various other revolutions throughout Europe. The legitimacy of just about everything was questioned. The Enlightenment was yet another chapter in this revolution, coming primarily in the 1600s.
The philosophy of the Enlightenment is that mankind should know no limits. With the rebirth of Classical studies was a rediscovery of what Greece had done. The arts in Ancient Greece sought the ideal, rather than the real. Shot through with Platonism, there was a broad assumption that what we see around us is varying degrees of failure to reach perfection. Because this bears some resemblance to the Christian concept of having fallen from grace, we see today a heretical thread in Christianity that assumes Platonic thought forms. Since New Testament times, this remains one of Satan's favorite angles of attack. During the 1600s, it was decided that Reformation hadn't gone far enough in rejecting the corruption of the institutional Church. Christianity itself was exchanged for a religion of man. If the Greeks could seek the ideal man in their stone carvings, the Humanists could seek an ideal man in their philosophy. It was assumed man could be elevated to a place where he could discern the natural principles of ultimate truth from within. Thus, the birth of so-called Modern Man.
The philosophical underpinnings of government sustained a tectonic shift, and revolutions flourished.
The silver lining to the Enlightenment was the unprecedented levels of scholarship. One just was not educated without an acquaintance with Latin, Greek and Hebrew, with at least one modern foreign language. It was this period that saw the birth of what is now called a Liberal Arts education. Such was the atmosphere that brought forth the incredible depth of scholarship translating the King James Version of the Bible. It can be argued few match their caliber today, and none exceed it. Even among Christians who did not buy into Humanist philosophy, those born in that era simply saw no limit to the capacity to learn, and assumed any reasonable adult would absorb all they could. So an ordinary merchant might be found reading Cicero in Latin on his lunch break.
The English were certainly not left behind in this. However, their path up to this point was wholly different, as was their government. Back during the Crusades, King Richard "Lionheart" was as greedy as any other Crusader. His many years on the throne were actually spent mostly gone from England. He managed to bankrupt the royal treasury, then had to be ransomed, and took off yet again. In death he left his brother and heir, John, with nothing even to conduct government business. Scrambling to keep things going, he raised taxes on a noble class already crushed under Richard. At the same time, they had been looking for an excuse to demand a stronger say in policy. Thus, we have the Magna Carta -- a negotiated settlement where King John permanently surrendered royal prerogatives for much-needed cash. Ancient feudalism saw the pendulum of power swing between the royalty and nobility, but this was the first time it was enshrined in the latter's favor. This decentralization of power predated anything similar in Europe. It paved the way for a very powerful nobility. Feudalism in England didn't fall directly under the rise of the merchant class, unless we refer to the noble businessmen as merchants. They were quick to grasp the Industrial Revolution, being at least a century ahead of the rest of the world. Among other things, this led to such a grand economic advantage no one should be surprise England ruled the Seven Seas.
While the rest of the West saw noble, royal and church lands confiscated, England held tightly to her modified feudalism. Futher, when the Reformation stormed across the Continent in great upheaval, England legally and orderly departed Pope's fold under Henry VIII. England took all the blessings of the Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment with far less upheaval. This was the national church powerful enough to persecute religious dissenters, and gave us our Colonial Pilgrims. You and I might not care for their theology today, yet we recognize a sense of kinship with them. Theirs was the first organized Western government in America that included elements of democracy, for they were mostly middle class. It was also very God-centered. During their period of growth in the Northern Colonies, the Southern Colonies had a wholly different flavor. While there were still many merchants, a few were noble sons disenfranchised by primogeniture. In all, there was at least a pretense to nobility by many of the leading lights, and better relations with the Crown.
The Pilgrims were not given to revolt, in spite of the oppression they faced. Theirs was a trust in God to handle such things, but the underpinnings of their theology made room for a stronger response. Theirs was the Congregational faith of the revolt that killed more than one English king. Parliament brought in a Dutch king for awhile. A counter-revolt turned things around again. When the original English Crown was reasserted, the old order came back with a vengeance. The Congregationalists had determined that God in Heaven had given them the world, and that it was very good. Anyone who strove to return to the simple biblical principles of faith should expect God's blessing. Part of that biblical faith meant working hard and not looking for any handouts. There was some subtle resentment of vast estates locked up under inheritance. When their hard work failed to pay off as promised by God, surely the Devil was at fault for denying their heavenly birthright. That there was something wrong with the old manorial system in England was obvious. That it allowed greedy men to rob hard working Christians was all the proof they needed that God was calling them to leave. The Church of England had long backed the status quo, so the Congregationalists rejected it and became dissenters. They found welcome in the Netherlands based on the lingering warmth over Congregationalist forces adopting the Dutch prince. But the harsh secularist Dutch government left no place for them, and they packed to move on again.
The Crown was so eager to assert its ownership over the American colonies, it agreed to let the Pilgrims settle there. The contract called for transportation to the American continent, safe landing with appropriate tools and supplies, and an expectation the Pilgrims would grow grain and harvest lumber and such to send back. The Pilgrims found themselves in the company of many they called unbelievers, along for the trip. They sailed a bit late, and the ships' owner was chafing at the lower pay from this human cargo. He hurriedly dumped the Pilgrims and others ashore far north of their destination, and with a bad winter on the way. There was money to be made in Caribbean cargo. We know that many colonists died, and things were only worse when they tried to follow the contract by living communally. They didn't even manage to grow enough grain to feed themselves. No one, especially the unbelievers, had the impetus to work when he ate the same regardless of the size of his harvest. Scrapping that the next year, they renewed the covenant of faith by which they had agreed to be governed, and made it every man for himself. The unbelievers quickly picked up the slack, and the colony began to make a return on the investment that brought them there. Land was cleared far faster than before. Their population grew instead of shrinking, and the few homes became towns, then cities. Cities meant lots of middle class merchants. For the most part, the Congregationalists ran the show, keeping their faith as the foundation of government.
It was the rise of a powerful English Parliament that set the stage for confrontation. On an objective level, one might realize that our colonists became quite spoiled by early neglect. When Parliament began flexing its muscle later, it felt like oppression, though honestly not as bad as things back home in England. Arguably, the real root of the American Revolution was merchants unwilling to take a hit in profits. Still, one cannot ignore the very substantive claim that Parliament did not afford the Colonists genuine representation for their peculiar interests. Revolutions still wracked Europe and the old order passed quickly away, but not in England. They had had a different revolt earlier and Parliament held all the real power. The idea that the people being ruled are the ones who decide legitimacy had already made the rounds before the Colonials embraced it.
The American Revolution was led by a determined and highly educated minority. Without the help of the French, inveterate enemies of the English, the Revolution would have been crushed. Oddly, the French crown went broke helping us out, and precipitated their final French Revolution. The American Colonists wasted no time building a new government. First attempts remained faithful to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Contrary to what might be expected, an odd mixture of events saw Humanists, Deists and Universalists invade and take over the Northern Colonies just a short time before. Taking advantage of the industrial middle-class merchant culture, they adopted the proto-socialist theories behind the French Revolution. All of it was dressed in the popular religious language of the average citizen, but hid a determination to shove God aside. One might question the quality of Southern Colonial Christianity with appearances of hypocrisy, but at least the leadership didn't reject it outright. With their emphasis on agricultural pursuits, they held greater wealth as a whole at that time, but lacked the population for lasting political advantage.
The decentralized government under the Articles of Confederation made for a bumpy start against troublemakers. Rather than let things mature, and also remove the unnecessary provocations, the Northern Liberals seized at the excuse to demand a new Constitutional Convention to revise the Articles of Confederation. They were the ones who then led the Convention far from its mandate and wrote a Constitution with a far stronger central government. While the heavy emphasis of keeping the default power with the states was not what they really wanted, their chief victory was in changing the fundamental nature of the new government's legitimacy. There was no reference at all the God, not even by euphemism. The whole thing was built merely on the will of the people.
Which is wiser? Shall we have a government that calls on God at the risk of religious oppression, or shall we cut out all reference to deity and open the door to secularist oppression? Given that man is fallen, there is no right answer. Over the centuries it seems plain that Christians in power are not long better than sinners in the same place. The principles of truly benign government are not distinctly Christian. You would think a believer would be more likely to take the moral high ground, but power seems to strike such resolve like acid, eventually wearing it away. The wisest ruler in human history, Solomon, died lacking the will to avoid pagan worship with his many wives and concubines (1 Kings 11). Under Christ, spiritual rebirth gives the potential of holy living, not the certainty of it. How many famous Christian leaders are besmirched with ugly divorces and entanglements that hinder the Gospel?
When the mass of such people are fully informed, things work rather well, regardless of the type of government. When an elite group builds a wall secrecy around the counsels of government, oppression is the only reason for it. They may sincerely believe it's in your best interests, but they are sincerely wrong. It took a mere half-century for such an elite to rise in the U.S. Since before Lincoln, the business of our federal government has become ever more secret. During the great westward expansion, the business of keeping an eye on government declined due to the sense of freedom, remote from the old power center. It didn't matter what happened in Washington DC, adventure lay ahead. Those left in the East were absorbed with industry and agriculture. As time went on, our nation paid less and less attention, and the rulers took more liberties. During the past century, they were able to publish their plans openly, because the voters never bothered to read anything that wasn't entertaining. "Government of the people, by the people, and for the people" was long dead by the time that phrase was coined.
Where do we go from here?
Step back for a moment to the lowest level of government, the family unit. Most people know instinctively that one of the root functions of child-rearing is preparation for adulthood. The concept of adulthood includes the notion that one is independent, competent, ready to carry the responsibilities denied children. We protect children because, for example, they don't know that touching a burning coal of wood will harm them. Once we have taught them, we remove the restrictions. That is, unless we are on a power trip and can't resist dominating. This sort of sickness is actually worse than the other extreme of taking no concern whatsoever, letting the kids run wild. Both are wrong, but history teaches us that people who grow up unrestricted tend to learn for themselves because of the instinct for self-preservation, though surely coming to adulthood scarred. However, such people are often difficult for society to bear. On the other hand, those never set free from parental controls are often easy for the world to bear.
In 2 Corinthians 3:17 we find the famous phrase, "Where the Spirit of Lord is, there is liberty." In it's context of discussing the symbol of the veil under Moses, the implication is that we all have free access to God, face to face, as it were. You are welcome in the Holy of Holies, and need no one play priest for you, since Jesus Himself is both High Priest and God. Do you doubt He certainly knows you intimately? He invites you to know Him the same way. In several languages, the term for sex is more or less "to make free." It implies complete and free access, a removal of barriers. This is the ideal. We rightly say that sex is a celebration in the flesh of a deep and lasting commitment of the soul. Anything less is just a senseless, defiling act of abuse, against the self and the other. True love builds up, sets free, and shelters all at once. My spouse is more free within our marriage than outside it. I bind my wife to me not by setting limits, but by breaking them for her. I hold myself open to the most devastating abuse and sorrow because that's the only way I can receive her love and devotion. So it is with godly parenting. Wise parents restrain as little as possible, knowing full well the kid will come back with bumps and bruises, failures and defeats, but seek also to make them bearable. Then, as early as possible, the child is permitted to make their own choices, even when contrary to what the parent wishes for them. Parents absorb the inevitable rejection -- small or great -- for only in that can the child assert their unique selfhood. That's the calling from God, and it leaves the results in His hands.
The U.S. Army Special Forces ("Green Berets") wear an emblem on their uniform with this Latin motto: de libre oppresso -- to liberate the oppressed. Admittedly, politics may guarantee their mission doesn't liberate anyone, but such was the nature of their founding. There was a need for troops who were trained, organized and equipped to go into unstable areas and build up the military strength of the indigenous folks, so as to defend themselves. The SF troopers generally avoid actual fighting; they train others to fight. If there is any way possible to apply the ethics of evangelism to war, this is it. You and I are not called by Christ to ride in as white knights to rescue the sinners from Satan. We show them they can be free, then offer them the revelation of how they can declare their own freedom from the Enemy. Even secular psychology recognizes that building a client's dependency is wholly unethical. The idea is to show them the way out of their own self-made mental prison. SF troops know the best way to make someone an ally is to make them free to form alliances. Psychologists half-jokingly say when a client willingly pays they are already partly recovered. A true discipler is not creating cookie-cutter copies of themselves -- that's cultic, not Christian. We show them Christ and let them follow Him as best they can see. We plan for hand-holding to be a brief introduction.
For anyone with political power to claim Christ, it is not good enough that they mean well. Smothering parents mean well, too. Good parenting and good government both will produce the net effect of liberty. Methods are judged for results. Protection is truly not the primary mission, but a part of the much bigger mission of creating a place where boundaries are limited to the absolute necessity. Godly government knows that men are fallen, and some will certainly destroy themselves, a few spectacularly. That in so doing a few others will be harmed is taken for granted. Suffering cannot be ended; it can only be limited. A people that will not protect themselves ultimately cannot be protected any other way. Surely, those willing to manage their affairs responsibly deserve a stronger voice than the whiners. Patience, guidance, and kindness are all good, but an entrenched bureaucracy will ensure their clients never escape their neediness. This, too, fails utterly to reflect Christ. He made it a point to abandon a whining crowd ready to serve Him if only He would feed them so they need not work. He warned them that the only bread that mattered was the bread of serving and suffering in the service of God (John 6).
All over the world today, most governments not already socialist are quickly stumbling that direction. A few simply hold out as brutal monarchies. Rare indeed is the government that truly serves its citizens as respectable adults, who can take care of themselves for the most part. They instead see their citizens as retarded children, perpetually in need of the firm hand of care. Oh, and don't forget confiscation of their property to pay for all this. Naturally large portions of that confiscated feeds the luxurious lifestyle of those governing. Their hubris leads them to treat other nations the same. The whole sweep of history reveals one thing most clearly: no nation reaches prosperity without maximum liberty, including the liberty to fail, and even to die in astonishing numbers from circumstances no one can really control from inside the halls of power. Further, one wealthy, no nation long remains prosperous without that level of freedom. Clearly, no government figure can claim Christ while adding controls in the name of safety. There is no excuse for believing that such a program is good and righteous.
Saddest of all is that governments the world over have convinced their citizens that freedom is their greatest threat. The Enlightenment pursuit of great knowledge and understanding has been squelched by those who uncomfortable with the freedom of those who might think differently. Indeed, the only real threat in liberty is to the comfort of those in government. People raised up in liberty will not tolerate oppression, but would rather die fighting it. People who yield willingly to the whip hand of government are not adults. Your calling in Christ is to teach the difference. If you acquiesce in oppression, you have the same blood on your hands as the oppressor. Worst of all is to set your personal comfort above sharing the Gospel Message of freedom in Christ. Those who do not work to set free are forging chain to bind. There is no middle ground.
None of this demands you take arms and threaten anyone. While such action may indeed by the Lord's calling for you, more important is the willingness, like Peter and John, to do what's right regardless of government action (Acts 4:19-20). It may well be pointless to resist actively, but obedience to God never is. Paul made clear that chains could not bind his heart nor his message. John in his Revelation taught us to expect government oppression precisely because our message is freedom. Show the oppressors there are yet a few they cannot own completely.
Ed Hurst
18 October 2004
COPYRIGHT NOTICE: People of honor need no copyright laws; they are only too happy to give credit where credit is due. Others will ignore copyright laws whenever they please. If you are of the latter, please note what Moses said about dishonorable behavior -- "be sure your sin will find you out" (Numbers 32:23)