Some thoughts on government
Dr. Leithart had an interesting exhortation and sermon last week, both were dealing with the issue of empire. He specifically said that empire is not essentially evil-- after all Christ will have a world-wide empire, and he will reign forever. As different people discuss their strongly (could I say religiously?) held beliefs about government and the way "it ought to be" I think the way they discuss is often at least as interesting than what they say. Here are three things I've noticed in various places.
1. The discussion of the fundamental value system is assumed. This means that if you come late to the discussion you either pick up the ethic between the lines or you are left with a big question mark when you learn the very significant fact that Jefferson was a Southern agrarian. Notice how the reader is immediately supposed to understand that the contrast between Lincoln and Jefferson over agrarianism is particularly significant. In a different author with other fundamental values Jefferson is, in a similar way, referred to as a Deist, this showing something clearly (usually that he's a bad guy).
2. For those on the outside of these internal discussions and assumptions the vigor with which the enemy is refuted definitely makes an impression. These matters seem to be a primary importance to those who write about them.
3. Finally, I find the almost universal fascination with government and economics significant. This preoccupation with form of government isn't just evident in the civil realm, but in the church and family as well. Consider the protracted debates between presbyterians, independents, and episcopals, or the extended teachings on the roles of men and women in the home. The sense of the discussion is that if we could just get our form of government and our economy straightened out, utopia would result.
So what am I trying to say? Merely this: that government is important and that we should strive to attain biblical and God-honoring governmental structures wherever we are, but that it seems to me that the people who care the most about these structures are particularly inclined to trust in their governmental solution for salvation. Salvation is not of agrarian society, or of small government, or of a biblical constitution, or of presbyterian accountability, or of male and female role relationships-- salvation is of the Lord. I am firmly convinced that the best discussions about government are those that start with obedience and then look at how that might lead to prosperity and peace-- not those which look at a system to see how it might lead to prosperity and peace and then attempt to show that it's what God wants anyway. I guess I'm a governmental agrarian. I think it works like this--we plant the seed of obedience, but God gives the increase of peace and prosperity.
1. The discussion of the fundamental value system is assumed. This means that if you come late to the discussion you either pick up the ethic between the lines or you are left with a big question mark when you learn the very significant fact that Jefferson was a Southern agrarian. Notice how the reader is immediately supposed to understand that the contrast between Lincoln and Jefferson over agrarianism is particularly significant. In a different author with other fundamental values Jefferson is, in a similar way, referred to as a Deist, this showing something clearly (usually that he's a bad guy).
2. For those on the outside of these internal discussions and assumptions the vigor with which the enemy is refuted definitely makes an impression. These matters seem to be a primary importance to those who write about them.
3. Finally, I find the almost universal fascination with government and economics significant. This preoccupation with form of government isn't just evident in the civil realm, but in the church and family as well. Consider the protracted debates between presbyterians, independents, and episcopals, or the extended teachings on the roles of men and women in the home. The sense of the discussion is that if we could just get our form of government and our economy straightened out, utopia would result.
So what am I trying to say? Merely this: that government is important and that we should strive to attain biblical and God-honoring governmental structures wherever we are, but that it seems to me that the people who care the most about these structures are particularly inclined to trust in their governmental solution for salvation. Salvation is not of agrarian society, or of small government, or of a biblical constitution, or of presbyterian accountability, or of male and female role relationships-- salvation is of the Lord. I am firmly convinced that the best discussions about government are those that start with obedience and then look at how that might lead to prosperity and peace-- not those which look at a system to see how it might lead to prosperity and peace and then attempt to show that it's what God wants anyway. I guess I'm a governmental agrarian. I think it works like this--we plant the seed of obedience, but God gives the increase of peace and prosperity.
posted by Unknown | 9:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home