A Godly Democracy?
I’ve never really had an affinity with the concept of democracy. Maybe its some kind of strict religious view in favour of Divine appointment, or the natural self-centredness of the principle of democracy – by the people, for the people, of the people, i.e. by ME, for ME, of ME (in the collective, of course).
Of course, democracy in its best model was the answer to authoritarianism and dictatorship, but still, it had this tendency to praise the human spirit a bit too much. It has the uncanny ability to make us think that we control the destiny of the country.
Of course, only God does that. He directs the minds of voters. He calls leaders to account and He (probably) allows rigged elections, which is perhaps a picture of why His ways are higher than ours. Regardless of what He does, I stand affirmed that He is sovereign in spite of what we want or think. It is God, not man, who will chart the course of this country or any country for that matter.
This morning, at a prayer meeting in church where we prayed in relation to the elections, it dawned on me that effective prayer for the nation starts from understanding the nature of God. We don’t just pray for justice and righteousness. Rather, we call on the name of the Lord who, by His very nature, upholds justice, lifts the needy and poor and vindicates the righteous. I mean, we can plead all we want. But effective prayer starts only when we challenge God to manifest His very nature to us. Would God deny such a request?
Prayer plus a God-inspired vote.. hmmm..
BK said,
February 25, 2008 at 12:53 AM
hey,
this is a thoughtful post. I thought you might like to know that historically, you’re not alone. So don’t need to feel like a pariah for questioning democracy.
As you’d probably know, historically, there are a variety of viewpoints by Christians on political engagement, and I think you’re leaning towards one of these. I won’t pretend to have any sort of indepth knowledge about these viewpoints, so feel free to double-check everything I say for its accuracy.
One of these viewpoints is principled pluralism, which is a fairly mainstream position of many Christians, especially those that lean in favour of democracy. I believe (might be wrong) they argue that the basis for this is natural law, so God has revealed to everyone a general standard of righteousness – murder is bad, human equality should be pursued etc., and so society/legislation can be founded on such grounds. This has been criticised along the same lines as you have, I think, sin – putting me first – gets in the way of natural law, and the standards laid out are arbitrary. For instance, Rowan Williams in his recent lecture proposed “human dignity”, and someone might ask, but how do you define that?
There is another version of principled pluralism, I think, which does not use natural law as its foundation, but argues for “Christian principles” to be established and therefore able to influence society. This I think, is the “neo-Calvinist” version. It firmly affirms God as ruling over all things, but feels that the Fall means that a “Christian” governent can easily lead to some sort of religious tyranny. Consensus-building is favoured.
There’s the Anabaptist take, which argues for a radical separation, and to be indifferent, not to social justice, but to influencing legislation. It’s about being a “witnessing community”.
And then there’s the Reconstructionist/theonomist view, which I think you’re slightly leaning to. (I think there’re differences between the two, but I don’t know what they are). They criticise those who are “principled pluralists” for not recognising that the state can never be neutral, and that laws are better explicitly grounded in the Bible, not just a “vague” notion of “natural revelation”. They would argue that “if Jesus is Lord” then surely this includes legislation as well. Those who are really radical might promote even the enforcement of OT laws (though I imagine the application of this is much more sophisticated than “don’t eat shellfish!”). Democracy and “rights language” is an idol that needs to be rebuked. This is more of a minority viewpoint though. As you can imagine, the idea of a “Christian nation” is too much for many to stomach, similar to how a lot of us react when we hear “Islamic state”…
I think the Catholics also put forth some different ideas, but I haven’t the faintest clue what they are (or maybe they’re the natural law guys?). Lutherans might also see things differently, not sure about that…
These are all simplistic versions, and they probably overlap at various junctures. Basically, how you view the relationship between law and gospel, what you think of the end times (will things get better? worse?), and the related question of how Christians should approach culture all seem to have bearing on how you think Christians should engage politically.