I enjoyed Brian's takedown of Wolfe's shallow nationalism. It bothers me that we are a shallow people and that we are prone to put our trust in princes, like all the other nations.
But I have a conundrum. As grateful as I am for our nation's hybrid system of republicanism and democracy, and as wholeheartedly as a recognize and applaud its seeming relative superiority to many alternatives, and as fervently as I thank God I don't live in a totalitarian state, I simply don't see a biblical warrant for this system as "the end of history".
Our wonderfully designed system has also perpetrated military imperialism, mercantilism, abortion on demand, anti-immigrationism, and a host of other ills which we the people have voted for and clamored for.
The founder's solution was wise and prudent, and it's impossible to imagine how a better compromise could have been made at the time. But, it was a technocratic solution. Like all engineering barriers, it is easily defeated by maloperation. They knew it at the time, and knew if the people didn't retain Christian morality en masse, the nation would be doomed.
Therefore, I don't think it's enough for defenders of liberal democracy to say "it's good enough". Because that's not what the founders said. Not at all.
If you defenders aren't ardently insisting on national Christian revival... and everything that entails WITHIN THE HALLS OF POWER... you're not really fending off the much-feared imposition of a strongman. You're just ensuring that the eventual strongman we get, without a revival, will be as bad as you predict.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I am on record (over and over and over again) saying that it is "good enough" as a SYSTEM. The cultural "inputs" to the system require, as Adams put it, "a moral and religious people--it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." And that happens by way of civil society, not "ordering" by the State. If we are losing culture, the solution is not, as the Christian Nationalists openly claim and desire, "more State." Thank you!
Brian, I appreciate your response. (And the clarity of your writing, I'll add).
Here’s probably where we agree:
The state should be much smaller and its aims should be much narrower in scope than what we have today.
Conservatism, to its shame, tends to forget this and ape the left (mimetic rivalry). Our populist movements lack disciplined principles.
Church, family, and the little platoons of mutual affection in civil society should be where we long to see the beating heart of a godly and peaceful nation; we shouldn’t look for it primarily in state houses or court houses. Because a well ordered nation is a nation of individuals who govern themselves.
Here’s where we disagree:
The civil authority described in Romans 13 has no role in shaping culture, and/or it should not assert itself against the will of the people, unless the people have first reformed themselves.
Why do I disagree? While the bible categorically hates statism, I don’t believe it hates powerful rulers at all. It hates *idolatrous* powerful rulers—the kinds of rulers who fall in love with state power, and who create big states.
I sincerely doubt that Josiah, when he purified his kingdom of Canaanite practices, first took a poll of the citizens. (Anyone who doubts this, consider: there were 39 kings in Judah and Israel after Solomon. Only 8 of those are commended for fearing God and instituting reforms; the rest were wicked and led the people astray. A 20% rate of success is pretty humbling pattern and tells me that this ruler likely was not riding on groundswell of popular support. He did not wait for a grassroots movement to build up the spiritual health of his country before being a shepherd to his people.)
The bible commends the wise and godly exercise of power. “When a sentence against an evildoer is not speedily carried out, the people’s hearts are set to do evil.” We should never, ever forget the legitimate role of the magistrate in shaping civil culture. It is by no means a one way street.
None of what I’ve said means that the Christian Nationalism being popularly discussed these days understands this, or is worthy of it, or could produce such a leader, in its current state. In fact I am sometimes seriously morose about the prospect of a genuine libertarian conservatism. But I think we stray from the biblical plot if we insist that the only sphere of society which can lead, teach, and shepherd are families and churches, and the magistrate is powerless to do anything for the spiritual health and genuine prospering of his nation, without grassroots support.
But, we’re Americans and there is a funny tension at the bottom of how we think. We approved an armed revolt, then upon winning, immediately began re-arranging the furniture to somehow indicate that our system is inherently peaceful. We still have some issues to work through methinks.
I enjoyed Brian's takedown of Wolfe's shallow nationalism. It bothers me that we are a shallow people and that we are prone to put our trust in princes, like all the other nations.
But I have a conundrum. As grateful as I am for our nation's hybrid system of republicanism and democracy, and as wholeheartedly as a recognize and applaud its seeming relative superiority to many alternatives, and as fervently as I thank God I don't live in a totalitarian state, I simply don't see a biblical warrant for this system as "the end of history".
Our wonderfully designed system has also perpetrated military imperialism, mercantilism, abortion on demand, anti-immigrationism, and a host of other ills which we the people have voted for and clamored for.
The founder's solution was wise and prudent, and it's impossible to imagine how a better compromise could have been made at the time. But, it was a technocratic solution. Like all engineering barriers, it is easily defeated by maloperation. They knew it at the time, and knew if the people didn't retain Christian morality en masse, the nation would be doomed.
Therefore, I don't think it's enough for defenders of liberal democracy to say "it's good enough". Because that's not what the founders said. Not at all.
If you defenders aren't ardently insisting on national Christian revival... and everything that entails WITHIN THE HALLS OF POWER... you're not really fending off the much-feared imposition of a strongman. You're just ensuring that the eventual strongman we get, without a revival, will be as bad as you predict.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I am on record (over and over and over again) saying that it is "good enough" as a SYSTEM. The cultural "inputs" to the system require, as Adams put it, "a moral and religious people--it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." And that happens by way of civil society, not "ordering" by the State. If we are losing culture, the solution is not, as the Christian Nationalists openly claim and desire, "more State." Thank you!
Brian, I appreciate your response. (And the clarity of your writing, I'll add).
Here’s probably where we agree:
The state should be much smaller and its aims should be much narrower in scope than what we have today.
Conservatism, to its shame, tends to forget this and ape the left (mimetic rivalry). Our populist movements lack disciplined principles.
Church, family, and the little platoons of mutual affection in civil society should be where we long to see the beating heart of a godly and peaceful nation; we shouldn’t look for it primarily in state houses or court houses. Because a well ordered nation is a nation of individuals who govern themselves.
Here’s where we disagree:
The civil authority described in Romans 13 has no role in shaping culture, and/or it should not assert itself against the will of the people, unless the people have first reformed themselves.
Why do I disagree? While the bible categorically hates statism, I don’t believe it hates powerful rulers at all. It hates *idolatrous* powerful rulers—the kinds of rulers who fall in love with state power, and who create big states.
I sincerely doubt that Josiah, when he purified his kingdom of Canaanite practices, first took a poll of the citizens. (Anyone who doubts this, consider: there were 39 kings in Judah and Israel after Solomon. Only 8 of those are commended for fearing God and instituting reforms; the rest were wicked and led the people astray. A 20% rate of success is pretty humbling pattern and tells me that this ruler likely was not riding on groundswell of popular support. He did not wait for a grassroots movement to build up the spiritual health of his country before being a shepherd to his people.)
The bible commends the wise and godly exercise of power. “When a sentence against an evildoer is not speedily carried out, the people’s hearts are set to do evil.” We should never, ever forget the legitimate role of the magistrate in shaping civil culture. It is by no means a one way street.
None of what I’ve said means that the Christian Nationalism being popularly discussed these days understands this, or is worthy of it, or could produce such a leader, in its current state. In fact I am sometimes seriously morose about the prospect of a genuine libertarian conservatism. But I think we stray from the biblical plot if we insist that the only sphere of society which can lead, teach, and shepherd are families and churches, and the magistrate is powerless to do anything for the spiritual health and genuine prospering of his nation, without grassroots support.
But, we’re Americans and there is a funny tension at the bottom of how we think. We approved an armed revolt, then upon winning, immediately began re-arranging the furniture to somehow indicate that our system is inherently peaceful. We still have some issues to work through methinks.