Skip to main content

Theological Politics: Why do We Have Governments?

Political theology is one of my primary areas of focus. I studied government as an undergrad, and when I went to seminary I became very interested in how theology and politics overlap--and they do quite often, more perhaps than we would like. Today I'm going to show you one of the ways they overlap, and how theology--that is, the logic of the Christian faith--impacts the way we view our government. My focus this time is on an area of political philosophy called "social contract," which tries to answer the question, why do we have governments?



The Social Contract


The term "social contract" refers to a kind of thought experiment used by political philosophers. Basically, the idea is this: imagine a time before the first government was founded. What would life be like then? What about life without governments made us want to form the first government? And when we formed that first government, what exactly were we agreeing to?  Te answer to these questions will tell you what the purpose of government is, what our obligation to our government is, and when we are justified in rebelling against our government.

Let me give you some examples. The first major social contract theorist was Thomas Hobbes, who believed in monarchy. Hobbes argued that in the state of nature (life before government) everyone was at war with each other, they were constantly fighting over food, water, and shelter, and life was "nasty, British and short." Because life was so bad, everyone got together and agreed and agreed to form a government; in order to be safe from the constant murdering and such, they agreed to give up every single right and power they had to the government so that it could keep us safe. Therefore, the purpose of government is to protect us from our own nature, and because we ave the government all of our rights, we can never rebel against the government because nothing it could ever do would be worse than the state of nature.

There was another theorist named John Locke (no, not the guy from Lost), who came up with a different theory, one which should sound very familiar. Locke argued that people are basically good, but they do screw up every once in a while. In the states nature, then, people got along just fine for the most part. Every once in a while, though, someone would do something to threaten another person's basic rights. The only way to ensure justice was to form a government that could punish people. Telford we formed governments to protect our basic rights--life, liberty, and property--and a government is only good if it does not take away those rights. If this sounds familiar, it's because Thomas Jefferson plagerised  John Locke in the Declaration of Independence.


The Theology


So the question is, what does the Bible have to say on the subject? Why do we have governments, and where did they come from? For that answer, we're going to turn to Genesis 4.  Here's a Bible quiz for you: who founded the first city in the Bible? The answer is in Genesis 4:17:

Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch. (Genesis 4:17 ESV)

The first city in the Bible was built by the first murderer in the Bible. And why did Cain build this city? Because of the punishment God inflicted on him after he killed his brother Abel:

And the Lord said, "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength. You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth." (Genesis 4:10-12 ESV)

Cain was exiled from his family, from the main body of humanity, from the people who were worshipping God properly. In effect, he was exiled from God. And it was because of this exile, because he was cut off from God and from the people of God, that a city became necessary.

So, what can we conclude from this, politically speaking? According to the Bible, the city was invented as a kind of substitute, a replacement from God and his people. In turning away from God, Cain turned inward toward himself and his own people. After all, Cain's main concern when God cursed him was not that God was angry with him, but that other human beings would hurt him. Without contact with God and his people, Cain became focused on human power. Therefore he built a city as a way to consolidate human power as a substitute for God. That is the purpose of government: to taker the place of God and his People.

Biblical history bears this out. The Tower of Babel was another instance in which a city, drink on human power, convinced itself that it could build a tower to reach God. And what was God's solution? He scattered the city. And when God choose Abraham and his descendants, it was so that he would have one nation that would be his, as opposed to all the other nations that opposed him. God s unwilling to grant Israel a king because he knew that a government would end up trying to take his place--which is exactly what happened. and when God wanted to purify the people of Israel, he did so by removing their government.


Conclusion


If the purpose of government is to replace God, and if governments have been the main obstacle in the path of God's people over the years, then we have to reevaluate how we relate to our own government. For instance, there's a lot of talk about whether or not America is a Christian nation. Now, whether the majority of Americans are Christians is a debatable point. But as Christians, we should be very clear that America is not, nor can it ever be, a Christian nation, for two reasons: first, governments by their very nature stand in the way of God and compromise his truth; second, there already is a Christian nation, the only Christian nation: the Church, with Jesus Christ as its head. W should never forget that Christ is our king, that governments are never Christian, and that our first loyalty is to God through Christ, not to  those institutions that try to take his place.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Massacre of the Innocents [By W.H. Auden]

[From For the Time Being,  by W.H. Auden] HEROD One needn’t be much of a psychologist to realize that if this rumor is not stamped out now, in a few years it is capable of diseasing the whole Empire, and one doesn’t have to be a prophet to predict the consequences if it should. Reason will be replaced by Revelation. Instead of Rational Law, objective truths perceptible to any who will undergo the necessary intellectual discipline, and the same for all, Knowledge will degenerate into a riot of subjective visions—feelings in the solar plexus induced by undernourishment, angelic images generated by fevers or drugs, dream warnings inspired by the sound of falling water. Whole cosmologies will be created out of some forgotten personal resentment, complete epics written in private languages, the daubs of school children ranked above the great masterpieces. Idealism will be replaced by Materialism. Priapus will only have to move to a good address and call himself Eros

Works of Love XVIII: “Love for the Dead”

[From Part II, Chapter IX: “ The Work of Love in Remembering One Dead ”] “Weep less bitterly for the dead, for he is at rest.” Sirach 22:11 (NRSV) [1] With chapter 9 of part 2, Works of Love is beginning to come to a close. With entry 17, this blog series is also nearing its end. As Kierkegaard has given us a detailed view of what Christian love is supposed to look like, now he gives us a way to test the purity of our own love: look at the way you love those who have died. [2] We are to love everyone, and loving means remembering, and so we are to love the dead. But loving those who have died is a special circumstance, and it shows us what kind of love we are showing. If we reflect on the way we love the dead, we can see whether we are showing truly Christian love. Kierkegaard identifies three ways that love for the dead is unique. First, he says that showing love for the dead is “a work of the most unselfish love.” He writes, “If one wants to make sure that love is

Choruses from the Rock (VI), By T.S. Eliot

[I know that I promised blog entries that I haven't delivered yet. I've got plenty of ideas in my head, it's just a matter of finding the time and the motivation at the same time. Anyway, I expect that I'll be ready to write relatively soon, but until then I thought I would tide you over with a section from T.S. Eliot's excellent poem, Choruses from "The Rock". Enjoy!] It is hard for those who have never known persecution, And who have never known a Christian, To believe these tales of Christian persecution. It is hard for those who live near a Bank To doubt the security of their money. It is hard for those who live near a Police Station To believe in the triumph of violence. Do you think that the Faith has conquered the World And that lions no longer need keepers? Do you need to be told that whatever has been, can still be? Do you need to be told that even such modest attainments As you boast of in the way of polite society Will hardly surv