The first five Theses set forth the basic theological foundation for the rest of the 95 Theses.
From now on we'll be going through the Bible -- its history and its commandments -- in more or less chronological order.
Our overall purpose is to discern the Biblical pattern for human social organization. This is bigger than figuring out the "Biblical form of Government." That question is usually answered with such terms as "monarchy" or "democracy" or "republic." We're asking whether human beings are required to have a "form of government" at all.
We frequently use the term "patriarchy" to describe a Biblical society. The emphasis is on the family, which is how God created human beings. The emphasis is not on some domineering abuse of women by men. "Patriarchy" is simply is the best word we've been able to come up with to describe a society where the Family is the central unit of society, and there exists nothing we would call "the State" or "the Church."
Patriarchy Defined
Rehabilitating the Word "Patriarchy"
Patriarchy and Anarcho-Theocracy
The Fifth Archetype: Family
The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy - Vision Forum Ministries
The other phrase we use to describe such a state of "anarchy" is just "Vine & Fig Tree."
When people hear the idea of a society with no government, they are as scandalized as people were in 1776 when they heard the idea of abolishing the rule of the British monarch in the colonies and setting up a new system of social order with no king at all. Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, upon hearing of Locke's rejection of the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings, said:
Never before had I heard the authority of kings called in question. I had been taught to consider them nearly as essential to political order as the sun is to the order of our solar system.
America's Founding Fathers would never have dreamed of creating a society with no order, but they didn't believe social order required a king. They believed in "self-government" -- but they were also the product of their times, and believed that some form of representative civil government was necessary, even if it didn't require a king.
Their system failed.
The United States today is by every measure an atheistic dictatorship. Taxes are 20-30 times greater than those that sent tea into the Boston Harbor. And George III would never violate the liberties of the people as George W. has, and would never think of using tax revenue to fund abortions, pornography, offensive ("preemptive" as opposed to "defensive") foreign wars, or the removal of copies of the Ten Commandments from public places.
This means the Constitution of 1787 has failed its most fundamental task. America's Founders, separated by 200 years, would see this instantly, even though we have grown accustomed to it, and we think we are free.
If they were here today, America's Founding Fathers would be utterly outraged and indignant over what has happened to their "novus ordo seclorum" (new order for the ages). Our government is not in any meaningful sense adhering to their Constitution. The Founders would unquestionably take immediate steps to abolish the government they created, with more resolve and urgency than they abolished the British monarchy in the colonies.
What would they put in its place? In creating the Constitution, they deliberated for months, based on the study and reflection of a lifetime, to create a system of government which would protect ordered liberty, and preserve a nation of "Liberty Under God." But their best efforts to bind the state down by the chains of a well-deliberated Constitution were unsuccessful. It's impossible to imagine the dreary "statesmen" of our day writing a better Constitution.
It's time we admitted what they would admit.
Our claim is that America's Founding Fathers would now see the need to go beyond eliminating a king, to eliminate altogether the institutionalization of violence and plunder; that is, to organize society without any "civil government" at all. Rather, to let society organize itself spontaneously under the "Invisible Hand" of a Free Market, which is to say, with "Liberty Under God."
In the Garden of Eden there was no State, nor was there an ecclesiocracy (institutional church). Biblical Society consisted of the Family. Every sociological function necessary for the smooth (shalom) and Godly (“righteous,” “just”) operation of a society (e.g., health, education, welfare, etc.) can be provided by Godly Families.
But if there was no State in the Garden of Eden, when did it arise? Did God command its creation, or is the creation of the State an act of Humanistic rebellion?
As we go through the Bible, we will be asking, "Is this where God commanded human beings to set up a monarch, or a parliament, or an Internal Revenue Service?" At the end of each chapter, we will see the answer is No.
The next few theses will cover the period of human history from Creation to the Fall.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
In order for a society to be free from governing authorities such as "the state" isn't it necessary that people are able to govern themselves by God's standards? But what if, let's say the United States federal, state, and local governments were abolished tomorrow and all we had were families. The majority of families have no clue how to govern themselves rightly, so I don't think the abolishment of civil and social governments is something in our near future. It will take time, at least hundreds of years. The context will possibly have to be something similar to when it was in 1776, children and grandchildren of puritans who had a biblical worldview. But this time around, swords will be plowshares. *just some thoughts*
Tony
Great comments, Tony. Let's look at them in a little more detail.
In order for a society to be free from governing authorities such as "the state" isn't it necessary that people are able to govern themselves by God's standards?
The word "govern" is tricky. To speak of politicians as "governing authorities" gives them more credit than they deserve, as though they are the source of social order. But they are actually the source of disorder, as followers of Ludwig von Mises often point out. Writers like Franz Oppenheimer and Albert J. Nock have observed that the origin of the "governing authorities" is conquest of a society that is already orderly and productive. The parasite does not bring order to the host.
In order to preserve their conquering power, "governing authorities" often resort to a form of systematic bribery. People of influence and/or power are rewarded by the "governing authorities" for perpetuating the conquest. "Welfare" for the least powerful voters, corporate subsidies for the more powerful.
So to rephrase your first comment, In order for a society to be free from governing authorities such as "the state" it is necessary that people are able to resist the temptation to use "governing authorities" to redistribute the wealth of others to themselves, which means governing themselves by God's standards, "Thou shalt not steal."
But what if, let's say the United States federal, state, and local governments were abolished tomorrow and all we had were families.
Under what circumstances would this ever occur? Only when families are willing to forego state plunder. Or perhaps when a majority of families are willing to do so. Maybe, perhaps, when a powerfully influential minority of families are willing to do so, and willing to face the ire of the rest of society when the rest are deprived of their subsidies.
The State will not be abolished by external forces. The State -- all those who participate in the moral charade of violently redistributed wealth -- must abolish itself.
The majority of families have no clue how to govern themselves rightly,
What does it mean for a family to "govern itself rightly?" One thing for sure: not stealing from others.
so I don't think the abolishment of civil and social governments is something in our near future.
It seems to me that this sentence presupposes that the "governing authorities" are providing a valuable social service: "Government." "Order." In fact, however, it is the "governing authorities" who encourage families to demand and benefit from wealth stolen from others.
It will take time, at least hundreds of years.
I'm not sure about this. If the state loses its ability to redistribute wealth, thieves will not support it. If the U.S. can no longer print up subsidies, many people will no longer support it. If U.S. creditors, like China, get greedy and won't play along, the U.S. financial system might crumble.
Thieves will then demand a new state, new politicians (maybe Chinese?) who convince voters that they will do a better job of wealth "creation" (redistribution).
If there are no thieves in society, then nobody will want a new state. If there is a great moral awakening, the already-precarious U.S. State (the revolving door between Wall St. and Washington) could fall very quickly.
[continued]
Tony: The context will possibly have to be something similar to when it was in 1776, children and grandchildren of puritans who had a biblical worldview. But this time around, swords will be plowshares. *just some thoughts*
KC: I'm not sure I agree that a complete Biblical worldview is needed to abolish a tottering State. You may be right, but I'm not sure. It could be simply the recognition that compulsory wealth redistribution is either wrong or just doesn't work. The willingness to take one step in the right direction might eliminate a major source of temptation that prevents the taking of further steps, and the one simple step in the right direction could become a crowded marathon.
It's thieves who demand a State, but the State reinforces that immorality. It's a vicious circle. But repentance breaks the vicious circle, and replaces it with a spiral of increasing obedience.
Thanks for the reply. I see what you are saying. I guess I was thinking of the state as being the entity that restrained evil in a society. At the moment I think the only legitimate authority God has given the state is for that purpose--to punish evil doers according to the principle of biblical law. I will continue on reading...Thanks again!
Tony
This is probably the central issue in these "95 Theses": Did God affirmatively command mankind to create an institution which would "restrain evil" (which in practice means "take vengeance on evil after it has been committed")?
Everyone who answers "yes" also agrees that this institution is not the church.
James Benjamin Green, in his A Harmony of the Westminster Presbyterian Standards, agrees with this idea, but has rightly noted that:
It is not meant that God directly ordained the state by saying to man, Thou shalt set up a government or organize a commonwealth.
Indeed, such an event never happened.
What we call "the State" was designed by man to institutionalize evil, not to restrain it. Only competing evil-doers are restrained.
"The State" is the worst idea mankind has ever come up with.
Post a Comment