In order for civil freedom to flourish there has to be a widespread social consensus amongst the governed that the authority of governors is necessarily limited. Democracy provides no such limitation. In its brute form, democracy introduced the tyranny of the 51 percent. The earliest democracies in Ancient Greece--in Athens--practised just such a democratic tyranny. If more than 50 percent so voted, the victim could be exiled or executed at whim. Justice had nothing to do with it.
The doctrine of political and government power being necessarily limited can only arise in human society when it is known and believed that God is the Judge of all men and human societies. But this in itself, whilst necessary, is not sufficient. It must also be known and believed that God has appointed a wide range of authorities within the kingdoms of this world to serve Him and represent Him. State power is always, thereby limited, because it "shares" power with a plurality of powers; the State is one such power, but only one. There are many other divinely appointed powers.
In developing this truth, it was the Calvinistic Dutch theologians of the early twentieth century who introduced the concept of "sphere sovereignty". God had established spheres of sovereignty in human society, each answerable to Him. The Church, the civil state, the family, the individual soul, the market place, the school, the charitable/voluntary sector--each represented a God-ordained and protected sovereign sphere of social authority. The state and the church may not intrude upon family life and family sovereignty--and so on.
Where God commands the family to live and act in a certain way, the State cannot prevent or outlaw the family thus acting. To the extent that it does, the State is rebelling against God Himself.
In an organic society, the spheres of social action are always brushing up against each other, and interacting. There is always tension between the respective rights of each sovereign sphere. Each free society will work out its own particular dynamic tension between the spheres. One free nation will differ from another at the margins. But a free society cannot remain free without constitutionally enshrining the sovereignty of each respective sphere. There is a separation of church and state; of state and family; of church and family--and so forth, while together they all make up the organic whole of society.
Without such truths and doctrines, power tends to aggregate towards the State. Absolutism is the eventual consequence.
Modern Myanmar provides an interesting and colourful illustration of how the fallen, evil heart of man is always lusting for absolute power, leading to gross inhumanity towards man and arrogant rebellion against God. The recent history of Myanmar stands as the diametrically opposed opposite of the Christian view of liberty and freedom and sphere sovereignty.
Tales of fearsome warrior kings are the stuff of popular legend in Burma. Books, poetry, and theatrical performances tell of the patriotism and martial achievements of the noble men who ruled the country until the late nineteenth century. Though the kings are often lauded for their valor and wisdom, they exercised absolute control over their subjects. They were considered to be the rightful owners of everything contained within the kingdom, from the fish swimming in the waters to all their human beings and other animals walking on the land. Known as Lords of Life and Death, it was forbidden for commoners even to look upon these deified rulers. [Emma Larkin, No Bad News for the King (New York: Penguin, 2010), p. 107.]But, surely such absolutist pretensions could not survive into our modern world. Indeed they have. The shadowy Burmese general Than Shwe who continues like the puppet master jerking the strings of Myanmar. He considers himself to be a reincarnation of an ancient king--and why not, since Buddhism is built, in part, upon a doctrine of perpetual reincarnation under which we all suffer.
It is said that visitors to Than Shwe's home must crawl on the floor, kneeling before him like humble subjects, and that his family members speak to one another in the royal dialect once reserved exclusively for the king and his court. [Ibid.]This absolutism is the end, the eventual result in societies that deny the omnipotent sovereignty of God. It is no accident that the secular atheistic societies of recent history have also been absolutist and tyrannical: Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Kim dynasty, Castro, and so forth. It is no accident, then, that the increasingly secularist and atheistic West is experiencing more and more state control and interventions into the lives of citizens. It is no accident that the family is under threat from increasing state interventions and intrusions.
When cultures deny God, freedom hangs in the balance. The very concept of freedom can become perverted into "license for me, government control for everyone else". Secularist citizens reflexively look to the State to "make things right". They are willing to trade liberty and self-responsibility for State care and provision. Until one day we wake up inside prison walls, wondering, "How did it come to this?"
If we do not entrust ourselves to God, we will end up in chains. Evil in the heart of man will make it so.
No comments:
Post a Comment