The Problem with Every Government: Sin By Dr. Lewis Akpogena I believe in political equality. But there are two opposite reason for being a democrat. You may think all men so good that they deserve a share in the government of the commonwealth, and so wise that the commonwealth needs their advice On the other hand, you may believe fallen men to be so wicked that not one of them can be trusted with any irresponsible power over his fellow. That I believe to be the true ground of democracy. C.S. Lewis. Something in us will not let any of us govern very well. The problem lies not in our methods or systems, but in our hearts. The problem is the very first issue addressed in scripture after creation. According to the Bible, our problem with governing stems from our resistance to being governed. We have always liked the idea that we could, by some special knowledge or some better device, have a better system than the one presently in place. Adam and Eve, our parents and prototypes are pictured trying to extend their power. The thought that new knowledge would automatically make things better has always been enticing. Our first parents believed that new knowledge would add a capacity of power. So, thinking with their desires, they reached beyond Gods first plan for their lives (Gen. 3:11). Going beyond their specific limits, however, they lost more than they gained. They lost the direct fellowship with God that came with doing His work His way, and the work itself became much more difficult to accomplish (Gen. 3:17-19). That ambition and rebellion had a irreversible effect on our nature. Our tendency is still to reach for power. Since all life is power, the reasonable assumption is that the Christian community should have their share. It is an illusion, though, to believe that governmental power is better because a believer holds it. History shows no such correlation. The record is both sad and humorous. The Hebrews thought that if Gods man would just rule them, certainly they would be governed perfectly. But the record of their kings is atrocious. Their priests and prophets were Gods gifts to balance sinful leadership. Centuries later, when Emperor Constantine was converted, many believed that there would not be relief from persecution but righteousness in office. Yet the records show injustice toward nonbelievers and questionable actions in spite of Constantines conversion. His successors in Christian political leadership could be seen as a comedy of heirs. Actually, no signs of perfection appeared for the first five hundred years after Constantine; then things got worse. Few medieval kings were any more inspiring because they governed as Christians in supposedly Christian nations. A few saintly ones, like French Crusader King Louis IX (1214-1270) were renowned for heading righteous governments, but men like Louis were exceptional. Even after the great theologian Thomas Aquinas had put forward the concept that God had delegated spiritual power to kings, Christian kings like Philip IV (1268-1314) of France used the theory to exalt secular power over ecclesiastical power. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you! Since those years, much serious thought has been devoted to explaining the nature of Gods involvement in governing the state. The political theorists began with definitions of the state that range from it is a direct creation of God to it is a simple social contract postulated by man as social animal. Yet no theory about the nature of the state or what Gods involvement in government should be has changed the worlds record of flawed government. No Christian leader, however dedicated to the faith, has been the solution to flawed government. Both theory and leader are devices, mechanical answers to deeper problem of avoiding Gods direct government. It is tempting to swallow the notion that we are becoming unflawed as a governed people with time and learning. Two American reformers earlier this century did much to popularize this belief. They were more optimistic about mans ability to progressively approach perfection with government. Both a Christian and a humanist voiced very attractive hopes. After World War 1, Pastor Walter Rauschenbusch became a most eloquent spokesman for the Social Gospel. He identified the phrase Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven as a command of God for this present age. He believed he saw a growing perfection, and his followers were even more optimistic than he about Christianizing the entire social order. The democratic ideal was being provided a religious sanction; the perennial civil religion was blooming again. (It is interesting that many religious conservatives today echo some of the ideals of these liberals gone by). The mistake was, of course, that the social gospelers underestimated the enormity of sin. They believed love covers a multitude of sins. It does. But sin infests the entire multitude of lovers. The Social Gospel movement could only see the difference between good and evil, not fix it. Education John Dewey believed mans problem was not sin, but ignorance. Man simply did not know his potential, said Dewey. As soon as he could investigate by experiment, whether in education or science or government, he would learn his way out of his problems. If people were repeatedly offered the way of love and justice and equality, of course, they would happily take it. Selfishness and greed would fade away. Man would find his way up, head first. Yet it should be evident by now that thinking better cannot be equated with being better. The return to reality began with theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, who understood the true nature of man. Niebuhr stated plainly that shallow sentimental optimism was worse than useless. To recognize the essential goodness of men without realizing how evil good men can be was a monumental mistake, he said. His book Moral Man and Immoral Society, though it tends to equate morality with religion, still stands as an important rejection of politics that assume love and reason transcend sin. He recognized that we use evil to hold evil in check and that political answer could only approximate Gods will in this life. He knew that power was a necessity for political action, but that there was no ethical force strong enough to place inner checks upon the use of power if its quantity is inordinate. Therefore we dare not trust in a mans goodness, but we must react to his specific political plans. He noted Americas tendency to choose a messiah rather than a political leader committed to a specific political program. Finally, he was most valuable in pointing out that, while there are absolutes in faith, the mistake of political religion is to absolutism what is relative in politics. He claimed that religion can be a great source of confusion in politics because of its tendency to take a stand as leader where it should be playing the role of prophet. Prophets were not political leaders. They questioned and corrected and influenced political leaders. Niebuhr understood not only human sin but the need for prophecy in all ages. To govern well and be governed well, those who govern and the governed should acquaint themselves with the Governor of the universe (Job 22:21, Ps.22: 28). You are blessed for life. Have question, you may call: 08033399821 or write: akpogena@yahoo. Stay blessed. . Dr. Lewis Akpogena, a Christian Devotional Writer/Minister, Education Management and Media Consultant write from Port Harcourt
Posted on: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 16:25:03 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015