freedom’s aporia
My stomach is full and my feet are warm and I just remembered something whilst dining with my compadres.
I strummed for all three services yesterday, and after each of the 3 1st sets I stood still and listened to the pre-announcement prayer and then marched off the stage with a feeling of bothered consternation.
The prayer was for the freedom and safety of voters in Iraq, and the idea was that we have a God who desires freedom for all people. Of course, the verbal connection between these two themes was not explicit in its equivocation of democracy = God’s intended freedom, but the implication was plain–and quite disturbing.
The idea that any specific sort of political system can be labeled as Godly and “right” seems patently ludicrous; no such “…cracy” was named in the N.T., and the Western assumption of political moral superiority is a straw idol built out of amoral capitolistic greed and epic hubris.
Of course God desires for all people to have freedom, but this has very little (if anything) to do with a existential placement under a certain type of government. I was surprised that the prayer wasn’t censored or deemed inappropiate in light of the questionable theology (read: blatantly false theology).
So, let freedom ring, and by all means I hope God does protect people in Iraq; but even if democracy proves to be a catastrophic failure, the freedom that can be found in Christ is still accessible to anyone–even the unenlightened autocratic despots and their beleaguered subjects.
Jan 31st 2005
i liked that. (:
Feb 1st 2005
thank you colleen, I’m glad
Feb 1st 2005
While I agree that Christendom can survive, and even thrive despite government opression I don’t believe that the Almighty is simply ambivalent to the different forms of government.
Our God is a God of free will and I have to believe that governments that promote that concept (at the very least at some root level), would have His blessings shine upon them more than say a Marxist state.
Yes God is primarily in the business of building his Kingdom, but I can’t believe he has no vested interest in the affairs of man and the governments of the nations. Indeed we see quite the opposite in the Old Testament.
“Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.”
Proverbs 14:34 KJV
Feb 1st 2005
Congratulations on being perhaps the first to use the word “exalteth” on this blog…
Claiming “free will” as a Godly virtue and then arguing that existential existence of that virtue in a particular political system acts a “better” conduit of God’s blessing is a flawed argument because it fails to understand the intrinsic idea of what “free will” actually is.
The will of a person completely transcends almost all existential variables. Louis XIV was perhaps one of the greatest Oppressors of European history, yet he noted that despite his oppressive laws and safeguards, he could still never control the minds and the will of the people.
It is quite possible to control and manipulate the external actions of a people, yet their will remains almost impossible to change.
In regard to God’s “vested interests” in the affairs of man and governments of nations, I do believe God is interested, but the Divine Stamp of approval is something that has never been placed on any form of government aside from the long defunct Theocracy (which Israel jettisoned in favor of a Monarchy so as to be like their neighbors).
Another thing to take into consideration is the how the concept of a Nation State has evolved since O.T. times. Nations, and particularly Israel, were small, tightly-knit communities that shared blood, economic, and religious ties. Communal homogeneity was remarkably strong, to such a degree that any comparisons to today’s Nation State must recognize that there is almost no parallelism. While the definition of a Nation has not fundamentally changed, the actual construct and appearance of a such a nation has distinctively evolved.
More can be said, but I’ll cease for now.
Feb 1st 2005
Let me clarify…
God’s blessings can be poured out at any time, anywhere on any individual He so chooses. I don’t argue that, and I agree that this is independent of any governmental circumstance.
Where I disagree with you is in the area of God’s blessings on whole nations. Nations that follow God’s ways and at least to some degree seek out His righteousness invariably are blessed beyond measure—see that Proverb I quoted, as it’s a promise from God.
I refuse to believe that God would bless say, a totalitarian genocidal regime (Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s USSR) equally to or over a government that doesn’t opress it’s people economically, religiously, intellectually, etc. Individuals within wicked oppressive systems may certainly be blessed, but not nation’s entire.
I don’t think God places “Stamps of Approval” on governments. However, I do believe that those nations which acknowledge His name and historically have tried to be in line with the will of the Almighty are blessed by Him—and no nation in recent history has called upon God’s name more than our own.
Feb 2nd 2005
Anonymous, are you next going to contend that the United States is one of those nations “seeking God’s righteousness”? You’ve got a tough sell there…
Whether or not you are pursuing an argument of “manifest destiny,” i have to suggest that maybe you close the doors to quickly when you refuse to accept that God could bless a particular regime type. Simply because most of the autocratic systems we have seen in the past have produced leaders who have not sought the Lord does not preclude such a case from ever arising.
What is more, the democratic ideals to which you so rapidly hitch your “freedom” star, is (might i suggest) much more illusory than those standing behind it would lead us to believe.
i have no problems accepting the fact that God can (and even sometimes does) bless particular nations. Assuming however that a “democratic” setting is a prerequisite for such blessing is 1950’s American ethnocentrism at its (sic) finest…
Feb 2nd 2005
Anonymous, there are several shortcomings in your logic; actually your argument doesn’t hold much water at all.
Perhaps one of the chief flaws is your argument’s incomplete understanding of blessings. It seems as if you have arbitrarily settled on a definition of blessing built exclusively on a materialistic and beaurocratic scale. In this sense, the US, as a free rich country full of bloated decadence, is indeed “blessed.” Yet a materialistic conception of “blessing” leaves much to be desired.
Consider that a country such as China with an oppressive regime and a somewhat archaic economy is far more blessed than the US; the underground Christian revolution ongoing in China is a much greater blessing than the American Dream (”a car and a house in the suburbs” for the majority of families).
I also agree with jimi that the idea that our nation has “called upon God’s name” is illusory; a rhetorical facade if you will.
And finally, a quick note on the Proverb that you so fondly quote. The Proverbs are a collection of wisdom literature chiefly ascribed to Solomon. While Proverbs is “inspired by God” (that issue alone is an entirely different conversation), the Proverb that you quote did not proceed out of God’s mouth. Your Proverb is not a promise of God, it is a wise observation of Solomon’s…
Feb 2nd 2005
I posted a comment about 20 minutes ago and it still hasn’t appeared; so here I go again…(if there ends up being a duplicate I’m quite sorry)
Anonymous, there are some distinctive logical shortcomings in your argument; it really doesn’t hold water at all.
Perhaps the most significant of your argument’s failures is its narrow and arbitrarily defined concept of blessings. You argument implies that “blessings” are chiefly defined by materialistic and beaurcratic stature. This view is incomplete (and possibly completely wrong).
If blessing is defined by materialism and beaurocratic utopia, the US, as a king of rich materialistic decandence, is indeed “blessed.” But such a concept of blessing is absurd.
Consider in contrast China. China is in the hands of an oppressive regime and has a somewhat archaic economy that works in perfect conjunction with their horrendous overpopulation to exacerbate an oft-times dreadful existential reality. Yet droves of people are coming to know Christ and the Chinese underground Church is perhaps the most vibrant in recent world history. This is surely a much greater “blessing” that the American Dream.
Of course, I also agree with jimi in regard to this nation’s “calling on God” being predominantly illusory; a rhetorical facade if you will.
Finally, the Proverb which you so fondly wield is no doubt “inspired by God,” yet it wasn’t spake by God. It is a selection from a piece of wisdom literature generally ascribed to Solomon. In this context it is a wise observation, not the “end-all” on God’s national policy.
Feb 2nd 2005
The matter of whether or not this nation currently is “actively seeking God’s will” is for another argument. One could find a correaltion the eroding of our culture and national identity and our collective denial of God.
What can’t be denied is how much the founders of this country relied upon the Bible and the “will of God” to form our government. It literally permeates every historical document and writing from Plymouth rock and beyond.
To call that understanding “ethnocentrism” is short-sighted and missing the point entirely. We are talking about nations and governments-not individuals or ethnicities.
The Taliban and our way of life are not equal. All men are created equal, but not all governments. It’s pretty clear Biblically and historically that God blesses nations that actively seek his will.
I will proudly say that the American form of government is the most brilliant governmental system devised in the history of mankind. Perfect? Far from it. But God clearly has blessed us in unimaginable and unprecedented ways thanks largely to the reliance upon on God of our nations forefathers.
Feb 2nd 2005
Hi - I’m a friend of Dan’s and got to your blog through his. I have to agree with you here. Kind of ironic that I came across this post while the State of the Union address is playing in the background - reading this post was very refreshing.
Feb 2nd 2005
And again my point continues to be missed…
The tales of underground Christendom in China and powerful presence of the gospel within that nation are truly inspiring, I agree. But there again we are dealing with individual groups and movements seeking the will of God and being blessed for it.
The original question and argument was the Almightys preference of one system of government over another.
I happen to think he prefers a system where people are allowed to live freely. Can the Kingdom grow apart from that? Absolutely. Even still, we know the Lord will bless those governments that make righteous decisions.
And no “blessings” don’t necessarily constitute “money.” I never suggested that, and it’s childish to put those words in my mouth.
Feb 3rd 2005
Three things then i think i might bow out of this one (especially considering i am having a discussion with someone who for all i know could be a figment of my imagination - Tim are you secretly posting as Anonymous just for kicks?).
1 - It was in no way “childish” to put those words in your mouth…if you are pointing to the United States as an example of a country experiencing the “blessings” of God presently, there are few other alternatives to what you could consider those blessings to be. Name calling, and label slinging is useless in a discussion such as this one, and quite frankly, a bit ignorant in this case. What Tim was suggesting there flowed pretty much directly from what you were saying. Maybe feeling painted into a corner a bit by your own words here?
2 - “The original question and argument was the Almightys preference of one system of government over another. I happen to think he prefers a system where people are allowed to live freel”
And therein is the problem. People can live freely in any number of systems…and even “democracy” can be severed from that freedom. Simply assuming that this system is the one He ordained is ludicrous. The vast majority of human history has been lived without democracy…and there have been numerous options more God honoring than ours. “Freedom” does not result in a nation being God-honoring. That is his desire, not freedom.
3 - “And again my point continues to be missed…” This is the line that always amuses me in these sorts of discussions. For some reason, Anonymous, you seem to think that if only we would understand what it is that you are saying, we would suddenly agree. What you fail to allow the possibility for is that potentially we understand exactly what you are saying, and just think that you are wrong.
Feb 3rd 2005
and oh wait, i can’t let this one go…
ethnocentricism - go look it up.
Are you serioiusly trying to tell me that a system like a benevolant monarchy couldn’t afford the same God seeking-ability that a democracy could? It seems like what most W-ites want anyways these days…ok, that was just for my own amusement, not really to make a point.
Yes, if you want to compare our society to the Taliban, there is more freedom here than there. But from that to then deduce that ours is the “best” possibility is a leap that Joe McCarthy would applaud heartily. Time to open your eyes and recognize that the us vs. them mentality in international relations is a foolish approach. Things aren’t as black-white, good-evil (politically speaking) in the world as political rhetoric would make them out to be.
Feb 3rd 2005
First: Welcome, Melissa! Glad you found the site and I hope you continue to enjoy/stop by it.
jimi, your brilliant eloquence is not in vain, I am not posing as Anonymous; and my super computer tells me that our antagonist hails from a northern icy lair, i.e., Minneapolis.
I think that the arguments so far articulate for themselves the truth of the matter. I was going to speak to some of the same things jimi did, but I won’t (as someone else once said) “reinvent the wheel.”
I’m pretty sure these are my last words on the matter. Of course, others are welcome to chime in as they please…
Feb 3rd 2005
I think I’m done arguing about this as well…
As we peel back the layers, I’m beginning to see what is truly at the heart of this argument. Clearly we are dealing with issues of culture/moral relativism vs. absolute morality. This is an argument very difficult to have face to face, much less on a blog. It’s also especially interesting given the fact that I thought we were all arguing within a Christian framework and context. Good luck trying to blend your relativism with Christianity—you’re going to need it. I also notice you’re a C.S. Lewis fan, try actually reading one of his books sometime.
Yes I do hail from Minneapolis. Your powers of deduction astound me.
Feb 3rd 2005
and i get sucked back in…
This has absolutely nothing to do with relativism at all. It has everything to do with recognizing that your (and my) reality is limited. Don’t close the door on things you don’t understand simply because you don’t understand them. You’ll be amazed to see what is.
And the “read his books” comment may be the funniest thing i have read recently…Tim might be the person most well versed in Lewis that i have ever read. and i am not unfamiliar with his work either. that was great! thanks for the laugh.
Feb 3rd 2005
It’s possible to be “well versed” in something but not really know what it means.
Feb 4th 2005
>>Of course God desires for all people to have freedom, but this has very little (if anything) to do with a existential placement under a certain type of government.< <
Hmm… I find myself wondering if very many Iraqis would see your point. When under the threat of sudden death, “freedom,” in any tangible form, probably carries more weight than “existential placement.” I don’t see anything disingenuous in praying for a type of government that will lead to greater freedom. And doing so needn’t imply that the good prayed for - freedom is equated with the means of moving there - democratic capitalism.
Feb 7th 2005
The God ordained type of government would be theocratic communism. Yeah, I said it. Try and prove me wrong.
Also I think everyone is getting really offended and prideful in this discussion (Tim, Jimi, and Anonymous). Basically letting their frustration get the better of them.
If I’m off base, I apologize, but that’s how it seems.
SEAN
Feb 7th 2005
Every practical form of communism ever devised denies the existence of God and replaces the very concept of God with the almighty power of the state. So, no I don’t think God would condone that which denies his own existence. You might have a case with some form of theocratic socialism, but even that is tenuous at best. The only example of any shared wealth in the Bible was in the days of the early church when believers shared possessions. However, this was a relatively small band of individuals which chose this way of life (not an entire government).
I don’t believe God directly promotes any modern system of government. Paul does write that we should pray for governments and leaders who will allow the Gospel to be spread as peacefully possible. If you can find a better system for promoting religious freedom and peace than a constitutional democratic-republic based on the rule of natural and divine law like our own I’ll take it, but until then I’ll stick with what we’ve got and know works.