Keep the Republic

A blog dedicated to expressing faith in God, hope in America, and a conviction to preserve the principles on which the nation was founded. Benjamin Franklin, after the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, was asked by a concerned citizen of Philadelphia what type of government had been created after four months of closed-door meetings by the delegates; he responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

Name:
Location: London, Kentucky, United States

Sunday, June 12, 2005

The source of authority

Joel Belz recently wrote a column in World magazine commenting on how God has gradually gone from being explicitly acknowledged as the Creator in our founding document, to the implicit rejection of God that manifests itself through bans on prayers in public schools and recognition of God in the public square, to an explicit rejection of God in governmental affairs. His example of this last development was this column by Michael Kinsley discussing the politics of embryonic stem cell research, which includes the following paragraph:

"First, do the embryos used for stem cell research and therapy have rights? They are clumps of a few dozen cells, biologically more primitive than a mosquito. They have no consciousness, are not aware that they exist, and never have been. Nature itself creates and destroys millions of these every year. No one objects. No one mourns. In most cases no one even knows. If my life is worth no more than the survival of one of these clumps, then it is terribly unfair that I can plead my case on the op-ed page, and they can't. But I have no trouble feeling that the government should value my life more than the lives of these clumps. God may disagree. But the government reports to me and to other adult Americans, not to God."

Setting aside the political and moral issue of embryonic stem cell research, I am fascinated by Kinsley's suggestion that government reports only to its citizens, not to God. It is true that ours is a government of laws and not of men, but that simply means that our social compact requires that we all submit ourselves to laws enacted by our duly elected representatives, and are not thereafter subject to the whims of various leaders. Recall, however, the very nature of our government as stated in the
Constitution: "We the People of the United States . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." John Marshall stated that, "The people made this Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature only of their will, and lives only by their will." And as Abraham Lincoln so eloquently reminded us, ours is a "government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people." The "government," as Kinsley refers to it, is a monolithic creature that has no loyalties or obligations beyond itself and the citizens to whom it reports. But in fact, the government is those citizens. Do "the people" answer to anyone other than themselves? Do citizens, then, have a higher obligation?

In both the Christian and Jewish tradition, the answer is emphatically "yes."
Romans 13:1 teaches that all authority comes from God. We are commanded by God in Ecclesiates 12:13-14 to govern ourselves, and that we will answer for the decisions we make: "Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil." Proverbs 16:12 instructs us that, "It is an abomination for kings to commit wicked acts, For a throne is established on righteousness." Further, in I Samuel 12:24-25, God told Israel (to use Kinsley's verbiage) that "the people" were directly responsible for the decisions of the "government": "But be sure to fear the LORD and serve him faithfully with all your heart; consider what great things he has done for you. Yet if you persist in doing evil, both you and your king will be swept away."

The first highlighted portion of Kinlsey's article is also telling for its rampant secular underpinnings: "If my life is worth no more than the survival of one of these clumps, then it is terribly unfair that I can plead my case on the op-ed page, and they can't." Believers, though, are obligated to speak out for those who can't speak for themselves. Perhaps the most appropriate passage for this particular topic is in
Proverbs 31:

"The sayings of King Lemuel—an oracle his mother taught him: . . . 'Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.'"

In terms of the Judeo-Christian tradition, then, it is not just a question of the decisions of a faceless bureaucracy; the decisions of the leaders are reflections of the people's desires. If all authority comes from God, and we the people, in exercising that authority, have established a government for ourselves, we are responsible for the decisions that government makes, and we are to be vigilant at all times to guard against denying those same God-given liberties to the voiceless, the defenseless. Attempts to excise God from public life and morality from public decisions are temporal affairs; the consequences, however, are eternal.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home