We live in a time where there is a great lack of respect for authority. Or so the somewhat tired cliché goes. I was reminded of this recently while reading a letter from a former major league baseball player to prospective players and parents in a youth sports league he is affiliated with. Kids have a lack of respect for coaches. Parents have a lack of respect for umpires. He has experienced this for years. Well, on his sports teams, he will not tolerate such things, and will teach the players - and expect from parents - respect for authority. He also identified his Christian faith as a basis for his views on youth sports.
I have no problem with his desire to teach these things to the kids on his team. A baseball manager should teach these things. And, yes, there is a lack of respect for authority in many other areas of life as well: politics, religion, law enforcement, family. But as I thought this over, I realized that the lack of respect for authority we so often see around us could actually be due to a lack of respectable authority to give respect to.
The greatest lack of respect for authority comes from those in authority who abuse that authority. They do not respect the limits of their authority. They do not respect what is right, and will therefore use their authority to dominate others.
With the growing effect of the internet and social media in our culture, it may be becoming more difficult to be an abuser of authority. People are learning that they can tell their stories to many people that they never could before, and they are taking advantage of the technology to set things right. This should be viewed as a positive thing.
I'm wondering if the result of all this will be a cleaning of house of sorts, with bad holders of authority eventually being replaced by people who are actually trustworthy with authority. Only time will tell.
Because theology is everybody's task
Showing posts with label Authority. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Authority. Show all posts
Monday, August 04, 2014
Thursday, December 27, 2012
A Question of Authority
Recently it was suggested to me rhetorically that I don't think we should submit to church leadership, based on a point I was trying to make about the church. This raises a question. What is the extent to which a church leader can exercise authority and I be expected to "submit"?
It comes down to a question of authority. Really it does. What authority do church leaders have? Do they have the authority to tell me what I can eat and drink? Do they have authority to dictate to me what movies I can and cannot watch, or even if I am allowed to watch movies at all? Do they have the authority to dictate to me which translation(s) of the bible I may read? Do they have the authority to tell me just how much I need to give, and how much I need to give to the church - their church? And do they have the authority to demand to see my paycheck to make sure I'm giving the correct amount? Do they have the authority to demand that I believe every jot and tittle of their church constitution, confessions, creeds and by-laws before I am allowed to attend? Do they have the right to have control over the who, what, when, where, why and how of using my spiritual gifts in the edification of others? Do they have the authority to tell me I cannot blog about theology? Do they have the authority to determine whether blogging about theology is biblical in the first place? Do they have the authority to tell me what kinds of cars I'm allowed to drive? And, do they have the right to not be questioned about such things?
If they demand certain of these things, and their demands are beyond the authority given to them by scripture, may I act contrary to them? Is there a higher authority over my life in these areas than church leaders?
No matter how absurd any one of these questions may seem - or all of them together - they are real questions that a great many people have to deal with on a daily basis. Sometimes discernment on these issues may take a great deal of time. Sometimes people notice over time that "submitting" to these things as put forth by church leadership results in bruises, aches and pains in life. Then they start to question. They may actually search matters out for themselves and come to the conclusion that they have been led astray all along. Did Jesus or the disciples submit to all the teachings of the religious leaders of their day? No? Then why expect it from the rest of us?
It comes down to a question of authority. Really it does. What authority do church leaders have? Do they have the authority to tell me what I can eat and drink? Do they have authority to dictate to me what movies I can and cannot watch, or even if I am allowed to watch movies at all? Do they have the authority to dictate to me which translation(s) of the bible I may read? Do they have the authority to tell me just how much I need to give, and how much I need to give to the church - their church? And do they have the authority to demand to see my paycheck to make sure I'm giving the correct amount? Do they have the authority to demand that I believe every jot and tittle of their church constitution, confessions, creeds and by-laws before I am allowed to attend? Do they have the right to have control over the who, what, when, where, why and how of using my spiritual gifts in the edification of others? Do they have the authority to tell me I cannot blog about theology? Do they have the authority to determine whether blogging about theology is biblical in the first place? Do they have the authority to tell me what kinds of cars I'm allowed to drive? And, do they have the right to not be questioned about such things?
If they demand certain of these things, and their demands are beyond the authority given to them by scripture, may I act contrary to them? Is there a higher authority over my life in these areas than church leaders?
No matter how absurd any one of these questions may seem - or all of them together - they are real questions that a great many people have to deal with on a daily basis. Sometimes discernment on these issues may take a great deal of time. Sometimes people notice over time that "submitting" to these things as put forth by church leadership results in bruises, aches and pains in life. Then they start to question. They may actually search matters out for themselves and come to the conclusion that they have been led astray all along. Did Jesus or the disciples submit to all the teachings of the religious leaders of their day? No? Then why expect it from the rest of us?
Monday, February 13, 2012
On Authoritarian Church Leadership
Recently the disturbing story about "church discipline" at Mars Hill church broke. Mark Driscoll was in the spotlight again, and a new conversation about authoritarian church leadership started. (I will provide links in another post) Numerous other people commented and responded with blog posts of their own. All of this came on the heels of the less popular topic of problems with CJ Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries not long before.
One of the more interesting things to me as I read the story of "Andrew" and how he was treated by his church is that there are many more very similar stories out there about Mars Hill, SGM, and other like-minded churches. I am no exception to this myself as I have attended my share of what I would call authoritarian churches. The attitudes and treatment that others have received are similar to what I have experienced, both by myself and others I have known.
In upcoming posts I hope to comment on authoritarian churches, deal with some of the theological issues behind their ideas, and maybe relate my own stories. I hope also to look at Andrew's story and the reaction to it that comes from all sides. Authoritarian leadership has been a problem for God's people for ages. Understanding it is a first step for Christians in dealing with it head on.
One of the more interesting things to me as I read the story of "Andrew" and how he was treated by his church is that there are many more very similar stories out there about Mars Hill, SGM, and other like-minded churches. I am no exception to this myself as I have attended my share of what I would call authoritarian churches. The attitudes and treatment that others have received are similar to what I have experienced, both by myself and others I have known.
In upcoming posts I hope to comment on authoritarian churches, deal with some of the theological issues behind their ideas, and maybe relate my own stories. I hope also to look at Andrew's story and the reaction to it that comes from all sides. Authoritarian leadership has been a problem for God's people for ages. Understanding it is a first step for Christians in dealing with it head on.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Overlording: Usurping God Himself
In reply to the mother of the sons of Zebedee, who wanted her precious two to have political power in Jesus' kingdom, Jesus gives a lesson for all his followers:
You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not so among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many. Matthew 20:25-28
Sin is often described as rebellion against God, or to think that one's self is God in place of God. The self gets to determine what's right and wrong. One major problem with sin is that in order to be God, one necessarily must lord it over God's creatures. God is sovereign over his creation, and man asserts his sovereignty over God's creation in sin. A logical result of this is to lord it over other people. This is why Jesus points out how the Gentiles' systems of government include overlording.
In the ancient world, kings asserted themselves as deity and were worshipped as deity. Today it's the same, with variations on forms of government. But lording it over others is not part of Jesus' plan. His solution, as he exemplified it himself here on earth as a man, is to serve instead of to rule over. This applies to both politics and religion.
Israel's cry to God for a king like the other nations meant they wanted to worship man and to have man in control. They wanted to usurp God. Saul was the sad result. Today, we want the rule of man over man with our systems of government, both in church and state. And it isn't Christian. Jesus said so.
*28 - originally posted 01-28-10
You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not so among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many. Matthew 20:25-28
Sin is often described as rebellion against God, or to think that one's self is God in place of God. The self gets to determine what's right and wrong. One major problem with sin is that in order to be God, one necessarily must lord it over God's creatures. God is sovereign over his creation, and man asserts his sovereignty over God's creation in sin. A logical result of this is to lord it over other people. This is why Jesus points out how the Gentiles' systems of government include overlording.
In the ancient world, kings asserted themselves as deity and were worshipped as deity. Today it's the same, with variations on forms of government. But lording it over others is not part of Jesus' plan. His solution, as he exemplified it himself here on earth as a man, is to serve instead of to rule over. This applies to both politics and religion.
Israel's cry to God for a king like the other nations meant they wanted to worship man and to have man in control. They wanted to usurp God. Saul was the sad result. Today, we want the rule of man over man with our systems of government, both in church and state. And it isn't Christian. Jesus said so.
*28 - originally posted 01-28-10
Friday, September 24, 2010
Matthew 18 and Confronting Abusive Church Leaders
Kevin Johnson at Communio Sanctorum writes an interesting piece, titled Principles Not Procedures, about dealing with spiritual abuse coming from church leaders. One of his points is that the Matthew 18 passage we are all so familiar with isn't necessarily the one we need to follow in addressing church leaders.
Johnson also points out that many abusive methods of leadership are simply learned from others, so appeal to higher authorities within church structures may make no difference. If you have ever been subject to abuse from church leadership, know somebody who has, or are simply interested in the topic, I urge you to read Johnson's post.
No one doubts that Matthew 18 is a relevant passage in dealing with resolving offenses between brothers, but the procedure outlined in Matthew 18:15-17 is set in a very specific context that is often overlooked. In churches where spiritual abuse is occurring particularly at the hands of ministers and pastors who rule by fear, intimidation, and the inordinate and inappropriate use of Scripture–passages like this can become a very powerful weapon to accomplish and maintain abuse instead of legitimate repentance and reconciliation...
...The tragedy is that if you don’t follow a procedure like this in many abusive church environments, you will be called on the carpet for disobeying our Lord’s words, acting against his ministers wrongly, and encouraging division in the covenant community.
Johnson also points out that many abusive methods of leadership are simply learned from others, so appeal to higher authorities within church structures may make no difference. If you have ever been subject to abuse from church leadership, know somebody who has, or are simply interested in the topic, I urge you to read Johnson's post.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Belated Easter Week: Palm Sunday
Jesus came into Jerusalem with fanfare and recognition as the king. But I read a historical commentary a few years ago that added a dimension to Jesus' motives, and I found a small clip from Googling the triumphal entry that echoes it. Apparently, Jesus not only entered Jerusalem to show His kingship, according to these authors He did so in a calculated way to make an enormous political statement. He entered at the same time that Herod did, in full mockery of Herod's kingship. Herod, as king of Judea and knowledgeable in the Jewish religion, would have entered the city for the great feast. Kings did such things with fanfare, pomp and circumstance.
Jesus spent much of His time in the stories of the four gospels "in the face" of authority. He rebuked the religious leaders of His day quite often to their faces, mocked them in His actions, and openly defied their traditions in front of them. He rebuked Pontius Pilate to his face. It doesn't surprise me to read of His triumphal entry in the same way. (Read blog post here).
Jesus spent much of His time in the stories of the four gospels "in the face" of authority. He rebuked the religious leaders of His day quite often to their faces, mocked them in His actions, and openly defied their traditions in front of them. He rebuked Pontius Pilate to his face. It doesn't surprise me to read of His triumphal entry in the same way. (Read blog post here).
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Authority In The Kingdom
Ron McKenzie at Blessed Economist is currently writing a series of posts (starting with his July 9 post) about how authority is dealt with in the kingdom of God. Since Ron usually strings a bunch of posts along on the same topic, I'll link to his whole month of July here. His point is that authority is diffused and not concentrated in one individual or group. When a Christian holds authority, he will teach others how to use that authority and give it to them. Kind of a "hot potato" authority.
For a while now I've held to the ideas of decentralized authority in the church, in the civil realm and in other realms. But I hadn't thought of it in the way Ron puts it. Authority is transferred, and frequently. Jesus received authority from His Father, and immediately transferred it to His disciples and sent them out. He also gives us authority to build the kingdom, and when we're done, He'll return to claim His kingdom. He'll turn it over to the Father, Who will in return give it back to the Son.
For a while now I've held to the ideas of decentralized authority in the church, in the civil realm and in other realms. But I hadn't thought of it in the way Ron puts it. Authority is transferred, and frequently. Jesus received authority from His Father, and immediately transferred it to His disciples and sent them out. He also gives us authority to build the kingdom, and when we're done, He'll return to claim His kingdom. He'll turn it over to the Father, Who will in return give it back to the Son.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
The Lure Of Democracy
In my last post, I gave a definition of politics: "Politics is the art and science of acquiring power in order to control other people and their property."
Because God is the creator and we are the creation, God has legitimate rule over us. All rebellion against God by man says, "God will not govern over man." Because authority doesn't happen in a vacuum, somebody has to replace God as authority over his human creatures. The only possibility is that man himself is now to rule over man. Man sees himself as God to rule the lessers. All throughout history, the few, the elite, have acquired power to rule other men. Whether monarchies, aristocracies, patriarchies, matriarchies, ecclesiocracies, military dictatorships, what have you, the very few have always been in control, while the masses are oppressed.
Democracy has sought to change all this. Democracy promises to wrench the ruling power from the elite and give it to the common man, but there is a catch. Democracy says, "Now, you, the common man, have the power of God to control other people and their property - provided you can persuade 51% of the people to agree with you." Marx had it partly correct when he said that religion was the opiate of the masses. In the West, Democracy is that religion.
Because God is the creator and we are the creation, God has legitimate rule over us. All rebellion against God by man says, "God will not govern over man." Because authority doesn't happen in a vacuum, somebody has to replace God as authority over his human creatures. The only possibility is that man himself is now to rule over man. Man sees himself as God to rule the lessers. All throughout history, the few, the elite, have acquired power to rule other men. Whether monarchies, aristocracies, patriarchies, matriarchies, ecclesiocracies, military dictatorships, what have you, the very few have always been in control, while the masses are oppressed.
Democracy has sought to change all this. Democracy promises to wrench the ruling power from the elite and give it to the common man, but there is a catch. Democracy says, "Now, you, the common man, have the power of God to control other people and their property - provided you can persuade 51% of the people to agree with you." Marx had it partly correct when he said that religion was the opiate of the masses. In the West, Democracy is that religion.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
The Elite, The Humble, and Two Types of Government
Two recent posts I made (here and here) regarding authoritarian elites and the governing of others looked at some points Vache Folle made about evil and stupid people. Now, he wrangles with a way to disqualify evil and stupid people from serving in high office (here). People can be combinations of good or evil, and clever or stupid, resulting in four possible combinations. By eliminating those who are both evil and stupid, a quarter of the pool is cut off, so the results will be greatly enhanced.
James Leroy Wilson adds his ideas (here) of why he thinks authoritarian elites still believe in big government, despite the obvious. It's a matter of having the "right people" in control, even if it means risking losing control to your opponents, because they know they'll regain control at some point in the future.
Now the ruling elites believe they are above everybody else because of their ideas. They are arrogant. But humble people who might serve in some type of government have other people believe in them because of the observable deeds and character they have shown over a long period of time. These two types of leaders are quite opposites of each other.
It is interesting that Christian leadership in the bible is defined in terms of qualitative character traits of any prospective leader. Morally corrupt and even morally ordinary people are disqualified. How their lives have been viewed by others, and how they match up against God's standards, are the criteria for leadership. Gene Redlin at Northern Gleaner recently did a series of in-depth posts (here, here, here and here) on leadership qualifications and how to avoid the wrong people. The Biblical form of leadership is very non-authoritarian, as Jesus makes plain in Matthew 20:25-28. But, as Wilson points out, this doesn't stop Christian conservatives from wanting to control others through the civil government.
This brings me to two types of government. One type of government is the type that most of human history is familiar with. This is the type that Jesus rebukes in the above passage, the government of overlording of other people. The other type, which I have written about extensively on this blog, is one which is limited in its scope to the punishment of evildoers for only a limited number of crimes, and in terms of punishments that God has already laid down. The Gentile form of government, which we have adopted in this country, is one where the elites dictate what can go in our toothpaste, whether one can smoke on another's property even with his permission, how parents can discipline their children, and every other aspect of life imaginable. One is a government of freedom, the other of slavery. In communist countries, the only way out from the poverty caused by government overlording is to become a member of the party, and to lord it over others. It is similar in our country.
James Leroy Wilson adds his ideas (here) of why he thinks authoritarian elites still believe in big government, despite the obvious. It's a matter of having the "right people" in control, even if it means risking losing control to your opponents, because they know they'll regain control at some point in the future.
Now the ruling elites believe they are above everybody else because of their ideas. They are arrogant. But humble people who might serve in some type of government have other people believe in them because of the observable deeds and character they have shown over a long period of time. These two types of leaders are quite opposites of each other.
It is interesting that Christian leadership in the bible is defined in terms of qualitative character traits of any prospective leader. Morally corrupt and even morally ordinary people are disqualified. How their lives have been viewed by others, and how they match up against God's standards, are the criteria for leadership. Gene Redlin at Northern Gleaner recently did a series of in-depth posts (here, here, here and here) on leadership qualifications and how to avoid the wrong people. The Biblical form of leadership is very non-authoritarian, as Jesus makes plain in Matthew 20:25-28. But, as Wilson points out, this doesn't stop Christian conservatives from wanting to control others through the civil government.
This brings me to two types of government. One type of government is the type that most of human history is familiar with. This is the type that Jesus rebukes in the above passage, the government of overlording of other people. The other type, which I have written about extensively on this blog, is one which is limited in its scope to the punishment of evildoers for only a limited number of crimes, and in terms of punishments that God has already laid down. The Gentile form of government, which we have adopted in this country, is one where the elites dictate what can go in our toothpaste, whether one can smoke on another's property even with his permission, how parents can discipline their children, and every other aspect of life imaginable. One is a government of freedom, the other of slavery. In communist countries, the only way out from the poverty caused by government overlording is to become a member of the party, and to lord it over others. It is similar in our country.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
The Absolute Necessity of Centralized Government
Two posts ago I quoted Vache Folle's take on authoritarian elitism as proposed by George F. Will. To quote VF again:
First, I agree with the authoritarians that people are evil and stupid; this is self-evident. My life is a testimony, as is the life of everybody around me. If people weren't evil and stupid, they wouldn't need anybody to govern them. Anybody, then, who would think that people are evil and stupid, and in need of governing by others who are not evil and stupid, are evil and stupid for thinking of such a thing, if in fact people aren't evil and stupid. Their evil stupidity proves that people are evil and stupid.
But, like my previous quote of VF, any human governors of evil and stupid people will be evil and stupid themselves. To think themselves as better than evil and stupid people, that is, without being evil and stupid, will only lend themselves to doing things that are far more evil and stupid than the evil and stupid people that they govern, because they would refuse to believe their own actions as evil and stupid. If evil and stupid people are left to govern themselves, they can mostly only affect themselves and those around them. If I back over my neighbor's garbage can on my way to work, then cuss him out because I am wrong and don't want to admit it, nobody in Jackass, South Dakota will be affected. But when people in government are evil and stupid, their actions affect everybody. They are far more damaging to society than common evil and stupid people. If a president signs into law something that allows the government to search everybody at an airport, millions of people's lives are screwed, businesses are destroyed, well, you get the idea.
But allowing evil and stupid people to govern themselves isn't a bed of roses either. Six billion people are bound to have conflicts. Every day. So, if you're honest, you'll admit that they really do need to be governed by somebody else. These governors, then, would have to be in control of everybody else without anybody slipping through the cracks. This government would have to be totalist. And these governors would have to act in tandem so as to not set up different rules in different places, and to make sure rules wouldn't conflict with each other. This government would also have to be centralized for this to occur. But how can the complexity of interaction of all our lives be governed by mere men? These governors would need to know each one of us to know how we best and least interact with others. They would need to know how any law they pass would affect everybody both now and in the entirety of the future before they even passed those laws, and they would have to know how all their laws would interact with each other all through time. They would also have to know everything about every problem before it occurs in order to know how and when to pass all these laws.
In short, governors would have to be all-knowing, all-powerful and everywhere at the same time to make sure laws would work, and also to make sure that their laws would be followed. But, you know something? Only God fits this description. He knew all about the entire future of the world when He wrote His laws, and only He can carry all this out.
In conclusion, evil and stupid people must be governed and that government must be centralized. But the only way this can happen is if God is the governor and His laws are the ones used. A government of men by men's laws is impossible. The bible lays out self-government according to God's law as the way we should live. This is why I'm a Christian Libertarian.
I read Will’s “Statecraft as Soulcraft”, and I resent that I will never get back the hours I spent doing so. The basic premise is that most folks are evil and stupid and must be ruled over strictly by the small minority of worthy elites. These elites should, as part of statecraft, cultivate in their subjects desirable ways of thinking and moral values, the “soulcraft” part. This requires a pretty substantial apparatus for propagandizing and surveillance of the riff raff.
First, I agree with the authoritarians that people are evil and stupid; this is self-evident. My life is a testimony, as is the life of everybody around me. If people weren't evil and stupid, they wouldn't need anybody to govern them. Anybody, then, who would think that people are evil and stupid, and in need of governing by others who are not evil and stupid, are evil and stupid for thinking of such a thing, if in fact people aren't evil and stupid. Their evil stupidity proves that people are evil and stupid.
But, like my previous quote of VF, any human governors of evil and stupid people will be evil and stupid themselves. To think themselves as better than evil and stupid people, that is, without being evil and stupid, will only lend themselves to doing things that are far more evil and stupid than the evil and stupid people that they govern, because they would refuse to believe their own actions as evil and stupid. If evil and stupid people are left to govern themselves, they can mostly only affect themselves and those around them. If I back over my neighbor's garbage can on my way to work, then cuss him out because I am wrong and don't want to admit it, nobody in Jackass, South Dakota will be affected. But when people in government are evil and stupid, their actions affect everybody. They are far more damaging to society than common evil and stupid people. If a president signs into law something that allows the government to search everybody at an airport, millions of people's lives are screwed, businesses are destroyed, well, you get the idea.
But allowing evil and stupid people to govern themselves isn't a bed of roses either. Six billion people are bound to have conflicts. Every day. So, if you're honest, you'll admit that they really do need to be governed by somebody else. These governors, then, would have to be in control of everybody else without anybody slipping through the cracks. This government would have to be totalist. And these governors would have to act in tandem so as to not set up different rules in different places, and to make sure rules wouldn't conflict with each other. This government would also have to be centralized for this to occur. But how can the complexity of interaction of all our lives be governed by mere men? These governors would need to know each one of us to know how we best and least interact with others. They would need to know how any law they pass would affect everybody both now and in the entirety of the future before they even passed those laws, and they would have to know how all their laws would interact with each other all through time. They would also have to know everything about every problem before it occurs in order to know how and when to pass all these laws.
In short, governors would have to be all-knowing, all-powerful and everywhere at the same time to make sure laws would work, and also to make sure that their laws would be followed. But, you know something? Only God fits this description. He knew all about the entire future of the world when He wrote His laws, and only He can carry all this out.
In conclusion, evil and stupid people must be governed and that government must be centralized. But the only way this can happen is if God is the governor and His laws are the ones used. A government of men by men's laws is impossible. The bible lays out self-government according to God's law as the way we should live. This is why I'm a Christian Libertarian.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Authoritarian Wankers
Nevermind hitting the nail on the head, Vache Folle uses a pneumatic hammer in nailing this one. His latest post is about George F. Will, but this quote covers the bases:
I like George F. Will's writing... when he writes about baseball.
The authoritarian elitist position has at its core a paradox. If humans are naturally evil and stupid, then their human rulers will probably be evil and stupid as well. Accordingly, any government constructed by humans will inevitably be the fruit of evildoing and stupidity and not a check thereon.How true this is. Too bad this mindset is alive and well in the church as well.
I like George F. Will's writing... when he writes about baseball.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Anarchy, Monarchy and Democracy (Part 2)
In Part 1, I made the statement that in terms of human government, I am an anarchist. But Jesus said in Matthew 28 that all authority in heaven and earth had been given to Him. So all authority in the earth among men is derivative from and delegated by Christ. So, overall, I'm not an anarchist, just relative to man. Overall, I'm a monarchist, but this term is used in a relative way, too. Christ is the Monarch. No man or men have claim, in part or in whole, to God's monarchy.
So with respect to man, I believe in anarchy, with respect to God, I believe in monarchy.
So with respect to man, I believe in anarchy, with respect to God, I believe in monarchy.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Anarchy, Monarchy and Democracy (Part 1)
These are terms for sure to evoke strong emotions in debating the subject of politics. We all have views of these forms of "government", whether indoctrinated by our culture or reached by our own self-education. Dictionary definitions carry baggage not present in the basic meanings of each word.
The basic meanings of each word are as follows:
anarchy: an = no, arhcy = ruler - no ruler
monarchy: mon = one, archy = ruler - one ruler
democracy: dem = man, ocracy = rule - man rule
Typically, these terms are used politically,with respect to human government. So, anarchy would be the lack of civil government, monarchy would be rule by one individual, such as a king, and democracy is taken most to mean government by a majority of the people.
But democracy is simply tyranny of the majority. If 51% of the people believe a thing, no matter how corrupt or immoral, it goes. This is life in America today. Monarchy is tyranny of an individual. If the ruling individual believes a thing, no matter how corrupt or immoral, it goes. Anarchy, although it can have its own problems, is free from these two forms of tyranny, and I'll talk later about these.
In terms of human civil government, I'm an anarchist.
The basic meanings of each word are as follows:
anarchy: an = no, arhcy = ruler - no ruler
monarchy: mon = one, archy = ruler - one ruler
democracy: dem = man, ocracy = rule - man rule
Typically, these terms are used politically,with respect to human government. So, anarchy would be the lack of civil government, monarchy would be rule by one individual, such as a king, and democracy is taken most to mean government by a majority of the people.
But democracy is simply tyranny of the majority. If 51% of the people believe a thing, no matter how corrupt or immoral, it goes. This is life in America today. Monarchy is tyranny of an individual. If the ruling individual believes a thing, no matter how corrupt or immoral, it goes. Anarchy, although it can have its own problems, is free from these two forms of tyranny, and I'll talk later about these.
In terms of human civil government, I'm an anarchist.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Power and Corruption
It is often said that power corrupts. But is this really true? Does power corrupt, or, conversely, does corruption seek power? Maybe we've all looked at this from the wrong angle. Maybe power simply reveals a hidden and already existent corruption.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Power to the People
In response to my last post on the kindgom vs. the church, Vache Folle comments that the idea of the kingdom is revolutionary:
The idea of the kingdom gives maximum freedom to individuals. It was for freedom, after all, that Christ set us free. We have the freedom to use our own gifts to the benefit of others, without permission from any clergy or self appointed overlord. We have the freedom of association, freedom to marry or make ourselves eunuchs, to have children, to read God's word, to interpret it for ourselves, to put it into action. We have a relationship to God that on one level is nobody else's business. Our marching orders come from Christ and are not mediated through human agents. If we acted on the authority already delegated us in Christ and didn't abdicate that authority to ecclesiocrats, they would disappear from the landscape.
Many, oh so many, Christians talk much about Christian liberty. If they only knew.
It seems to me that pastors, theologians and seminaries have vested interests in the church from which they derive sustenance and authority, whereas the idea of the kingdom undermines authority and is revolutionary.
The idea of the kingdom gives maximum freedom to individuals. It was for freedom, after all, that Christ set us free. We have the freedom to use our own gifts to the benefit of others, without permission from any clergy or self appointed overlord. We have the freedom of association, freedom to marry or make ourselves eunuchs, to have children, to read God's word, to interpret it for ourselves, to put it into action. We have a relationship to God that on one level is nobody else's business. Our marching orders come from Christ and are not mediated through human agents. If we acted on the authority already delegated us in Christ and didn't abdicate that authority to ecclesiocrats, they would disappear from the landscape.
Many, oh so many, Christians talk much about Christian liberty. If they only knew.
Sunday, June 05, 2005
Use Your Gifts!
"Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise them accordingly..." Romans 12:6 (NASB)
Let this be an encouragement to exercise your gifts. And since this exhortation is directly from the Scriptures to the believers, no human mediator is necessary to give you permission; whether from pastors, missions boards or church committees.
Amen!
Let this be an encouragement to exercise your gifts. And since this exhortation is directly from the Scriptures to the believers, no human mediator is necessary to give you permission; whether from pastors, missions boards or church committees.
Amen!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)