Faith in Government

- Tweet
- Share
- Buffer
As the political year drones on, I have noticed an interesting trend among Christians that has ultimately been the spark of many debates. How should faith in God influence political leanings? The crux of this argument is how do you rely on a human institution such as government when you should be relying on God? Now this argument seems reasonable does it not? How can a good Christian rely on a humanistic system that is clearly flawed when he should be relying on the master of reality? Well the truth is even this seemingly flawless logic, has a huge hole in it when applied (at least as it currently is) to political situations. I will get to that in a minute, but first I want to take some time analyzing the manifestations of this argument to help build my point.

First, let’s start with the Republican camp. I’ll be honest, I hate politics with a fervent hatred, so I’m not the most up to date on every trend on the Republican camp. So instead I’m going to use the knowledge I do have about those that I have come in contact with and/or the information I have casually gleaned from various media. I will try to also deconvulute the various spins out of it, but I have no promises. The trends among this camp can be summarized into two categories: extreme conservatives and moderates. The first trend that I have noticed among those in the extreme conservative camp is the desire to saturate the laws and policies with Christian influence. I personally have no problem with this conceptually, at least to a given point. Religion influences policy whether we like it ot not, regardless of whether that religion is Christianity, Islam, Atheism, Buddhism, etc. Religion is a part of personal philosophy and as a result a part of law-making, consciously or not. Obviously, I’m focusing on Christian Republicans, so I’ll limit it to my point. The general theme among Christians of this party is to use the government as a tool to enforce their Christian standards. Now I am fine with Christian-based laws. I have a problem when people try to force me into their concept of Christianity. From this, their side in the argument I proposed is why not use the humanistic system to promote God.

In the moderate camp lies people that exist somewhere between extreme conservative and libertarian ideologies. People in this group call themselves many different things. Some people in this group identify with libertarians and some identify with republicans. Frankly, I find it irrelevent where they identify themselves in this argument as the point is their ideology. This group of people acknowledge that government is dangerous and needs to be limited in size and power. As such this group wants less government intervention, but still retains the desire to keep Christian laws in effect, if not add a few more. Their stance in the original argument is largely God will protect us from the consequences of freedom, but the humanistic system is still useful and important.

Libertarians are my next stop in this discussion. I must say I have learned more about libertarian ideology in the past year than I sometimes know what to do with. The basic summary of libertarian Christians is they are everyone that dislikes the current system and wants to absolutely change it. That is the only real linking point I can say with any real certainty about them because their individual ideologies are often absolutely different. Regardlss, the most common stance of the libertarian Christian is that freedom is the right of man and what God intended for Christians. As such the government should be severely limited and/or removed and God will take care of us. In my original argument, these are the people that take the stance that we should trust God wholly and that the humanistic institution should be mostly eliminated.

Democratic Christians are my final group. Democrats I have found are one of the most varied in their ideology surpassed only by libertarians. I will limit my scope to those that want to use the government to fix all problems. There are in fact some Christians that believe that science and proper regulation will lead to the perfect society. I presume that they also believe that God will be wholly involved in this, but the driving force for change is the government. So these stand, ironically, to the opposite extreme of this continuum to libertarians in my original argument. They advocate, God will help, but a humanistic institution is the solution to everything.

Now that I have attempted to illustrate the basis of my observations, allow me to return to my original argument. The argument of where faith in God should fit in government is essentially a continuum from using the humanistic institution of government to solve life’s problems to believing that the institution of government should be eliminated and we should trust God to fix everything. The crux of this argument is the question, shouldn’t Christians have faith in God and not depend on the government? Well as I have worded it, the answer is yes. But as far as what is meant when used in political debates it has a huge error. What is meant largely depends on political affiliation and philosophy. But for the most part it is only used by moderates and libertarians as I’ve defined them. The reason is the other groups are largely using the government to spread their agenda. Moderates and libertarians are mostly about limiting the government. Among these two groups the meaning is typically along the line of any attempts to restrict freedoms they disagree with restricting displays a disbelief in God. The flaw is obvious when you word it that way, but that wouldn’t win arguments.

To illustrate how this is so, allow me to construct an argument similar to those I have actually had. Let’s say I am debating the usefulness of the FDA. The FDA has been under strutiny by various people because (gasp) it has corruption. Being a scientist and knowing firsthand what kind of messed up crap would be on the market if there were not some barrier, I am very much for the FDA. But Bill is vehemently opposed to the FDA because it bars drugs that would save peoples lives. I point out the fact that without it all kinds of drugs that could potentially kill more people than they save could very easily get on the market and his rebuttal is that it requires more faith in God. That of itself is fair enough until I point out that, while that may be true, God did give us reason as well as faith and I’m fairly certain he is not offended if we use it. Consequently, it is logical to provide a legal barrier using the tool of government. His response is simply we should trust God more and that is why his position is better. Note I have had this type of discussion several times about different things. What he is saying with his words is shouldn’t Christians have faith in God and not depend on the government. What he is really saying however, is that because I disagree with him, I don’t believe in God as much as he does. This is a class A example of what I mean.

In addition, to what I have already pointed out, this position carries much larger logical flaws than what I have already shown. First, the premise is Christians should have faith in God and not depend on the government. This is very true. But what is Bill wanting to do? Change the government. This is depending on the humanistic system to change the humanistic system that we aren’t supposed to be depending on. This is relying on men to use reason to change the innately secular system through secular means. This means that Bill is depending on the government to help build the system he envisions is best. So the argument is immediately void. Secondly, if the level in which you trust God solely dictates how the government should be modeled, then we should be seeking anarchy. You cannot have a system of government in which you trust God more than anarchy. But in order to enact anarchy, you must directly convert the system of government to anarchy, which again relies on humans, not God. Finally, this logic implies we don’t already have to trust God to run our country. Frankly, as far as trusting God goes, it really doesn’t matter who is office or what system we have from despotism to absolute anarchy. If God’s not in it we are screwed. So it doesn’t matter if I use reason or not to come to decisions on policy, I still have to trust God that everything will work out. But is it not best to trust God and use the reason He also gave us? I would argue so.

So , when it comes to government, sure it needs limited, but it is most logical to use logic when deciding what and how much. The government is a tool. It is an instrument of God, something many of us forget. It is supposed to be used to punish the evil and reward the good. It is there to limit evil, but it is supposed to also preserve freedom. I will admit maintaining balance between the two is difficult and that of itself is another debate, but at least it’s a legitimate one.
November 17th, 2011 | Brandon Landers | No Comments