I’ve alluded to this before
and even explained it to some degree in bits and pieces, but after having read
and reviewed
Dr. Sprinkle’s Fight: A Christian Case
for Non-Violence, I figured it was time to lay this out a bit more systematically.
What I’m calling it, well, that’s a bit of a quandary, for reasons we’ll go
into momentarily. And as the title of the posting suggests, this really forms a
big reason for why I’m politically conservative.
What shall we call this.
. . a paradigm? I guess that’s as good as I can come up with for now. Instead
of trying to more precisely label it, let’s describe it.
This paradigm
understands that God has created three institutions (also called “hierarchies”
by some theologians). They’re the family, the church, and the state. They’re a trichotomy
of institutions, each of them linked to the other, each of them aiding the
other, but each distinct with a discrete set of “jobs” which the Lord’s given
them.
First, there’s the
family. This was the first one he created, and I think it’s no coincidence that societies have
never outlasted the dissolution of this, at least not for long. He created it in Genesis
2:18-24. The Lord said that it wasn’t good for the man to be alone (the
first time he’s recorded in Genesis 1-2 as saying something was not good), and he created a “helper”
suitable for him. Before we get any ultra-feminists getting the vapors over the
word “helper,” let clarify that it doesn’t mean “servant,” and it certainly
doesn’t establish any hierarchy of innate value. Multiple writers in the Old Testament used the same Hebrew word in
describing the Lord as their helper
(e.g. here).
God’s plan
was one
man united with one woman for life. The husband and wife would
find sexual expression only with each other, and in time they’d produce
children. This is really important: One of the most—if not the most—primary responsibilities of parents is to raise
up their children in the training and instruction of the Lord, to teach
them his word, to pray over them and
with them, and to generally provide a good example of people doing things God’s
way instead of the world’s way. The spiritual condition of one’s children must
be a
primary concern.
Another main purpose
for the family, one which isn’t nearly emphasized enough, is that of taking
care of one’s family members who are in need. This goes back to Old Testament
times, in which if a person fell on desperate times, their closest family
relative (called a “Kinsman-Redeemer”)
was supposed to step in and help them. Let’s clarify and amplify this: The
Apostle Paul was clear
that if someone is in need, their first resort should be their own
family members. If someone in one’s family is in need and you don’t help them,
Paul says that you’ve denied the faith and have become worse than unbeliever.
The second institution
is the church, which I’m using in reference to both the worldwide body of believers and the local body of believers in a certain area. What is the church here
for? Well, we’re here
to worship together, encourage each other, and challenge each other. If someone
is in dire need and their own family won’t help them, then the church is to be
there to help them as a last resort
(as we noted in the 1 Timothy passage above). We’re also under a mandate
to do good to unbelievers as well. And of course we’re under the Great
Commission: “[Go] and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to
obey everything I have commanded you.” That includes sharing the Good News of
Jesus with the lost and then fully integrating them into the Body of Christ
through baptism and discipleship.
Then finally we have
the state/government. As I noted back in the review, theologians tend to date
its official institution by God back to Genesis
9:6:
Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood
be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made mankind.
The reason this is
noted as the formal institution is that God is placing upon all of Noah’s descendants
(which would be all of us) the responsibility as a society of carrying this out. If someone violates the image of
God by murdering someone, then the Lord has placed upon human society the duty of shedding the murderer’s blood, i.e.
capital punishment. He didn’t give this to the family, and although the
state/church distinction was a bit murkier under the Old Covenant, he certainly
didn’t give this mandate to the modern church of Jesus Christ.
The other foundational
passage on God’s mandate to the government, as you might’ve guessed, is Romans
13:1-7. Let me quote
myself:
·
Christians must submit themselves to the
authority of the state. This means obeying its laws (unless said laws are
contra our Lord’s instructions) and paying the taxes and fines and fees we’re
supposed to render.
·
But why?
Just because we’re afraid of punishment? Well, that’s a good enough reason. But
every pagan knows to obey the law in order to escape punishment. No, for
believers, we have a much more important reason: Because God created it for our
good. He created it and put a “sword” in its hand. This is symbolic of physical
(including lethal) force: A sword is there to either kill someone or threaten
to kill someone. Among many other fine explanations, I found this one from a
Baptist Church to be more than adequate: “Government exists to protect the
helpless from the powerful, the innocent from the guilty, and the upright from
the criminal, and to punish all evil-doers.” It’s there to keep basic civil
order, basic justice, and to maintain rule of law. The rule of law is so
important; without the State, we quickly descend from the rule of law to the
rule of the jungle, in which the strong prey on the weak with impunity, and
every argument is settled by who has the biggest gun.
Now, what do we call
this paradigm, this understanding of the three institutions? Well, I call it a
trichotomy of institutions, and I haven’t heard anyone else lay claim to the term.
But where did this concept come from? Well, I’ve traced it all the way back to Luther,
who seemed to believe something very similar to what I’ve described. However, if this was original to him, I for
one would be very surprised. It probably goes back a lot further than that, but
so far I haven’t found any sources for it.
But whoever came up
with this formulation, it seems to be completely biblical, right? I don’t think
I’ve said anything that most Evangelicals would deny.
But what does this
have to do with being a political conservative? Well, that’s the subject of the
next posting.
No comments:
Post a Comment