In The End of History and the Last Man, (New York: Avon Books, 1992) Francis Fukuyama argues that modern Athenian liberal democracies represent the highest and last stage of history, in the sense that no further progress (at least in terms of the way society is organised and governed) can be achieved. A modern liberal democracy, he opines, is the acme and pinnacle of human existence.
This is an extraordinarily bold claim, attractive for its optimistic outlook, if nothing else.
One of Fukuyama's arguments for modern Athenian liberal democracies being the highest and therefore the last stage of human social development is that they do not appear to have the seeds of their own dissolution and destruction growing within. There is no antithesis developing within liberal democracies that will result in them being torn apart and breaking down.
On this point, Fukuyama is just plain wrong. It turns out that Athenian liberal democracy inevitably contains the seeds of its own destruction and breakdown, insofar as liberal democracies shows themselves to be pathologically anti-family: modern liberal democracies do only weaken the institution of the family, they work actively to tear it apart. In weakening and tearing apart the family, liberal democracies will eventually break down from inside and experience a severe and irreversible decline and fall. Society cannot be built on a stable foundation without strong family life. We believe in the end that liberal Athenian democracies will be “judged by history” to be unsustainable, containing within them the seeds of their own decline and destruction.
The attenuation of the family as a social institution within modern Athens is everywhere apparent. The evisceration of the family has come from two main directions, both religious: the first is the persistent assertion that the rights of individuals are paramount and more fundamentally important than the institution of the family; the second is the progressive removal of family duties and social responsibilities and clustering those duties and responsibilities in society-at-large—which is to say, in the government. These socially negative tendencies are apparent in every modern Athenian liberal democracy. Their universality proves their inevitability. Individual rights are enthroned over marriage vows. Children's rights are raised above parental authority. The State claims prior rights over the children of all families. It increasingly intrudes into family life, ordering how children are to educated, what they are to be taught, how they are to be raised, and what they are to eat. The result is the institution of the family is becoming increasingly redundant in liberal democracies.
These social pathologies are present in every liberal democracy and their destructive influence has grown enormously in the last one hundred years. The social antithesis of family breakdown is an inevitable outcome to the thesis of modern, liberal, rights-based democracies. The outcome will be the collapse of liberal democratic societies in upon themselves. Liberal democratic societies are unsustainable.
Jerusalem, however, truly does represent the highest stage of human social and political development. It is the City of God; its animus is spiritual—which is to say, of and from the Holy Spirit of God Himself—and its existence is entirely dependant upon God's gracious work of pouring forth His Spirit, drawing people to Himself, conquering their sin, transforming them from the inside out, and building them into true human communities. Because the City of God actually deals with the moral and spiritual corruption of the human heart, the City has no internal antitheses to tear it apart. Jerusalem truly does represent the End of History and the Last Man. Its Lord and Life-Giver is the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last Man.
Jerusalem restores the Family to its central and rightful place—a position which is grounded upon the command, the designation and the appointment of the Lord Himself. The Family is able to take up its lawful role and responsibility again within the Covenant community. Intrinsic to the Family's responsibilities is to be at the forefront of extending welfare to its members and to the wider community.
The key scriptural passage is found in I Timothy 5:8. “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he had denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever.” The Bible emphatically declares that it is the duty of everyone to provide for “their own.” Their “own” in this context means those for whom one has a particular responsibility. The first circle of responsibility is one's own household—one must provide for one's own children and those living under one's roof. The second circle is the extended family: we must have concern for those within our covenant blood lines. The third circle is the community of faith—the community of Christians. We must have regard for any one need within the Church family. The fourth circle is the wider community, including those who do not believe.
These duties are made clear when Paul discusses the case of widows. He is addressing the responsibilities of the Church to towards "widows indeed". It turns out that not all widows should be regarded as requiring the help and support of the Church. It should preferably be only those women who had lost their husbands, and were older, and had no means of support from their families.
Widows are particularly singled out throughout the Scripture as people to be especially cherished and looked after. But the first line of provision must come from her own children and grandchildren. The children are to “make a return” to their parents. This is acceptable with God—that is, this is what God looks for and approves amongst His people. We read: “Honor widows who are widows indeed; but if any widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to practice piety in regard to their own family, and to make some return to their parents; for this is acceptable in the sight of God.” (I Timothy 5: 3,4) So, the wider Church community has a duty to provide for widows (and, by extension, orphans, indigents, the sick), but only if their immediate family are not able to take care of all the needs themselves.
If anyone becomes a widow, and is younger, the divine instruction is to seek to be remarried, so that she may be taken care of by her husband and she not become a burden on the wider Church community. (I Timothy 5:14). If a woman has dependant widows, it is her duty to take care of them and support them, so that the Church may not be burdened.
The Church, then, is left to focus on those who are widows indeed. (I Timothy 5:16) This expression is very interesting. The Church community will always have to take care of those who are indeed widows—that is, who have no family support, either because their extended family are unbelievers and have deserted their mothers, or because tragedy has struck the wider household, and it has been decimated. But, once again, the primary responsibility for welfare belongs with the Family. It is to be the first line of defence against poverty.
A further key principle with respect to welfare is that those who do not strive to provide for themselves are to be left to starve. This “tough love” is utterly foreign to modern Athens—an evidence of that city's stupidity and reckless folly. Because of residual sin within Jerusalem from time to time there are likely to be those people who busy themselves in the public affairs or the affairs of others and will not take care of themselves. The constitutional documents of the City leave us in no doubt as to how they are to be dealt with:
Now we command you, brethren, in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof (avoid) from every brother who leads an undisciplined life and not according to the tradition you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example; because we did not live in an undisciplined manner among you, nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with labour and hardship we kept working night and day so that we might not be a burden to any of you; not because we do not have a right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as an example a model for you, that you might follow our example. For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order; If anyone will not work, neither let him eat.In these simple, direct words the entire edifice of the modern Athenian welfare state is torn down. Paul, as a full-time apostle of the Lord was entitled to be supported by those to whom he was ministering. This is clearly taught elsewhere in Scripture. However, in order to teach a more fundamental point, Paul relinquished this right, and insisted upon working with his hands, plying his trade, and supporting himself. He did so in order to be an example to the believers. He commands us all, in the Name of the Lord to follow his example and act likewise.
For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in a quiet fashion and eat their own bread. But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary of doing good. And if anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that man and do not associate with him that he may be put to shame. And yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.
II Thessalonians 3: 6—15
The basic rule of equity is that if a person chooses not to work, he, by that decision, ought to be allowed to starve. Hunger, in the end, will provide the motivation to productive work.
We have watched the lunacy of Athens as it has sought deliberately to ignore this command, setting itself up as wiser than God. Not only has it undermined and dismissed the family in a thousand different ways, it has also sought to replace it, making the government the Uber-family—the source of provision and welfare. The upshot is that now more than one in two mouths in this country depend upon the government for bread. Many of these dependants are living lives of busybodies. In Jerusalem they would be left to starve.
Thus, the concept of the poor indeed, or the deserving poor is central to Jerusalem's constitution. Secondly, the prime responsibility to provide for the poor falls upon their family members, both immediate children and also relatives. The Church stands as a back up, to act when these first lines of provision are inadequate or have failed.
One of the key reasons why modern Athenian liberal democracies will collapse in upon themselves, rotting from the inside out, is found right here. Because modern man has mocked the Living God, because he has turned a deaf ear to the warnings about, and dangers of, the undeserving poor, because he has substituted his own wisdom, attempting to create a vain utopia through the welfare state, modern Athenian society is doomed.
Jerusalem, for its part, has listened carefully to the commands of her Lord. In her streets, state “welfare” is progressively spurned and rejected. It is replaced by familial welfare. In God's City, the Family is the first and essential institution of welfare. God alone is our Provider, and we seek for His provision in His way, on His terms, with His blessing. Jerusalem rejects the statist idolatry of Athens built upon its edifice of pseudo-rights and humanist pretensions.
No comments:
Post a Comment