Government

There is evidence that Scripture accepts a variety of government formulations, and acknowledges whatever government is in power.  The affirmative reason for this appears to be that some government is better than no government; that human peace is better than warfare/pillage; that change can be organized without massive violence and ugliness; that any government is liked and disliked by groupings in the general society; and, both the rulers and the ruled have self-interests that can distort, weaken, even destroy governments.  Many of these factors are found in the experience of the biblical patriarchs and Israel.  Illustrations are numerous, but some were periods dominated by oppressive nations like Egypt before Moses’ accomplishments; tribalism with family domination in Moses leadership; confederacy under the Judges; and, a kingdom beginning with Saul.  Following were other combinations, depending upon the circumstances – as when Israel was given some autonomy if offering fealty to the larger nations as to Babylon or to Rome.  God appears to accept whatever government that can keep the peace of nations or cultures.  Acceptance is not approval.  One serves purposes as well or as poorly as the others but with some exchanges of emphases.  God’s blessing is affirmed in those most seeking the good of the populace and least guided by arrogance and force.  Common failure occurs in nations for decline from the good.

Christians need to be clear and convinced that changes in society, sometimes necessary, are not really worked through for long life.  Christian values are applicable in any situation, but the attitudes of governments, and education (supported by governments) move away from the corporation of values for the general society that are found in Christian contexts.  We argued that divine faith and practical humanism can be friends.  Modern society often assumes that religion is not to be a friend, but an extraneous element in society – sometimes acknowledged.  Friendship does not deny the meaning and context of either naturalism or supernaturalism.  God wants the two contexts to overlap and be friends (as illustrated in the experience of Moses and Aaron, or Solomon at the Temple) to create meaningful life for individuals and society.  God deals with us as one (person) and many (society).  We can accomplish the same unifying context if it is created, not out of an inherited animosity, but in the relationship meant for all who sense general brotherhood in creation, and the good will of God for all.  There was a long period in history where this was believed, but something was lost when the standards of righteousness were lost to the machinations of humanity. During ensuing centuries, man became enamored of power, celebrity, wealth (to the strongest members), and an arrogance that picks and chooses preferences over the patterns of peace, love for others, and a true belief that in God we trust.  At this writing this last is but a slogan, and even that may be lost.  Slogans often sound good – for a while. They wear out.  Until the truths of life and methodology in God’s value system are adopted, the world’s nations will struggle, terrorize or fumble, and fall away to weakness and some other ideology – manufactured and sometimes bizarre.  Unaided mankind will not improve.

Presidents of the United States (Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush) proposed to work with and through faith based entities like the church.  They were resisted and achieved only some success because of those who interpreted cooperation as violation of the separation of church and state. The public took something of a ho-hum attitude toward the controversy so that it never achieved that it could achieve.  I have observed in Canada, a nation quite firm about separation of church and state, a tendency to enter into friendly agreements with churches, and holding oversight for an appropriate period of years in cooperative contexts so that both the government and the church are advanced for the good of both the ministry of the church and the purposes of government.  The conclusion was that both the government and the church were serving the people.  The government recognizing, that the institution is serving the needs of the community in some program, like retirement centers, then ultimately turns the assets over to those serving the public in compassionate, economical, and approved ways even in perpetuity.  Having observed the care given to persons in such a cooperative facility raises my admiration for both government and church ministries.  Church and state are friends called to serve all persons.  It can be done in cooperating spirit.