“If men were angels, no government would be necessary,” wrote James Madison in 1788. It would be disingenuous to assert that all the founding fathers agreed on the extent of the federal government, but they all agreed that government was necessary. Madison understood the newly drafted Constitution would guarantee the form of government that the founding fathers knew was necessary to secure liberty and freedom. The Declaration of Independence states,”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men.”
The Founding Fathers understood government was necessary, but they also understood not all forms of government would secure life, liberty and the pursuit of jappiness. So, they created a new kind of republic, a republic with checks and balances to secure the aforementioned rights. They knew that every political system was not equal.
Government was established by God. In Romans 13, 1-4 we are told that government serves a two-fold purpose: (a) to restrain evil through laws, and (b) to punish the lawbreaker. Government is to provide order in society by protecting individual rights, allowing people the freedom to reach their God-given potential. All forms of government from a lesser to a greater degree fulfill the mandate. The question is, “Which form of government protects individual rights and allows the greatest freedom for people to reach their God-given potential?”
Two reasons make it fair to say that the American form of government actualizes freedom. First, from the beginning the American republic guaranteed citizens “certain unalienable rights,” rights written into the Constitution that would prevent the political power from shifting away from individual freedom to oppressive central government, thereby destroying liberty. Alexis de Tocqueville saw the contrast when he commented, “Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom socialism restricts it…democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” It appears that the Founding Fathers, drawing from Christianity and classical philosophy, created a political system that respected the individual person and allowed people to develop their own individual gifts and bents.
Second, the American republic fulfills the role of government by providing liberty and freedom for the individual guaranteed by the rule of law. While some political systems function through arbitrary laws enacted by the whim of a dictator, the American system is codified and fixed in the U.S. Constitution. Therein were the boundaries delineated within which an individual can plan his affairs, and to stand on equal footing with all other citizens. The rule of law guarantees that the government cannot stifle individual efforts by ad hoc action. When the government adheres to the rule of law, it allows the individual to pursue individual ends and desires without worrying that the government will deliberately frustrate his efforts.
The Founding Fathers were well read in the areas of economics, political separation of powers, and the rule of law with an in-depth knowledge of history.
If I read you right, you’re saying form of government in the US actualizes Romans 13:1-4. It’s interesting that the founding fathers modeled our representative form of government on the Roman Republic, which doesn’t figure very positively in Biblical literature. Furthermore, the Romans loosely modeled their republic on Athens. With both Rome and Athens, worship of the pagan gods was a big part of their democracy. Athens also incorporated homosexuality as a rite of passage into adulthood.
I have a high appreciation for our form of government, I just don’t think it has much to do with Christianity positively or negatively. Are you sure you want to claim the US democracy as fulfilling a Biblical mandate?
Bruce: I do believe the American system of governance fulfills the biblical responsibility of government as Romans 13:1-4 describes, but so did the Roman government of Paul’s day. That is why Paul and Peter taught to be in submission to governing authorities, because government is established by God to restrain evil (Rom 13; 1 Peter 2:13-17). The Roman government in Paul’s day was far from perfect and had many abuses and hypocrisies, but it was still the government that Paul and Peter told believers to be in subjection to.
The question I’m trying to address is, “Is there a form of government that understands human nature well, promotes personal responsibility, restrains evil, promotes individual liberty, and allows each human being to reach their God-given potential best?” No human government is perfect. All are flawed to one extent or another, because humans are involved in the governance. But, are there some governments that are better than others?
I guess I don’t see that the instruction to be submissive to the governing authorities had anything to do with the legitimacy of those forms of governments. I see it more as form of godliness on the order of that taught by Fenelon and Guyon to be submissive to every form of established government, good or bad.
But I do agree with you that the form of government we enjoy in this country is one of the best the world has ever seen.
I would think you would be more supportive of a theocracy such as in the book of Judges?
Bruce: It doesn’t. Believers are instructed to obey the governing authorities, in whatever form they take, unless they violate God’s laws or commands. Then, believers must refuse to obey and be prepared to suffer the consequences. In the 1st century, believers refused to offer incense and bow down to the emperor. For this refusal they paid with their lives.
There is only one righteous King, who will reign in perfection, Jesus. When Jesus returns and establishes His kingdom on earth in Jerusalem, that will be the perfection of government. Until then, we have human governments, which are all flawed.
I think that our form of government is the best at taking into account humans’ tendency toward sin, lust for power and unfair advantage over others. This seems to me most prevelant in government itself. The longer our own republic is in existence the more evil men and women learn how to “game” the system and we slide closer again to tyranny of the many by the few. Our founding fathers understood this through their knowledge of the Scriptures. They instituted checks and balances, but admitted that these were wholly insufficient to govern evil men. Only good and righteous people will maintain a fair and free government, and there ain’t enough of those around these days.
While it is true that our Representative Republic did resemble the Greek and Roman empires’ governments, our is still distinctively unique in the fact that our President (vs. their Emperor) is limited by the powers given to him or her by the U.S. Constitution whereas the Roman Emperor was limited only by his physical and mental abilities. Also, I would argue that the theocracy as outlined in the book of Judges was established for the Israelites only to firmly establish the Nation of God as they were set aside by God in a world of tribal Pagans. Israel, a predominant Orthodox Jewish state today resembles our current form of government is a large way today.
I also have to respectfully disagree with the premise that “The longer our own republic is in existence the more evil men and women learn how to “game” the system and we slide closer again to tyranny of the many by the few.” While I would agree that there is definite room for corruption, and there are certainly many examples,I would argue that the Roman Senate then was equally corrupt. Fast forward to the modern era, the People’s Republic of China and the Union of Soviet Socialists Republic (USSR before the breakup), both started out with Socialism and best intentions, but both became the epitome of “tyranny of the many by the few”.
At its basic level, I strongly agree with Mark Hudson’s premise.
Oops, I should apologize that I my name appeared as “airhsme74” …My name is Stu, and any future comments will have my actual name attached to them (to attach responsibility and ownership for my comments).
“Government was established by God.” Really?
Paul writing to the Romans in Romans 13:1-4 couldn’t have just been his parroting what rulers have said for ever – that they are in power and have authority because God somehow gave them sovereignty?
The principle of government is of God. Oppression, abuse and misuse of people is not of God, but of man. Just because man does not always govern to the best interests of the citizen, does not invalidate the principle of government.
Stu,
Having disagreed with my statement, would you imply then that our system is becoming more pure and free as time goes on? I certainly don’t see how that could possibly be true. I don’t want to put any words in your mouth, but I can’t hardly stand to watch any political show, even c-span, listening to the spin-masters twist and torture words to deceive people into believing many things that aren’t really true. I’m not comparing how corrupt our system is to how corrupt some other one was, but merely making an observation that we have slipped further and further away from our original character as a country into a more and more corrupt society. You might try listening to some heavy metal lyrics that many of our young people are listening to these days, such as “as deep as the knife will go” and judge for yourself.