The time to tell a person that dogs can make great pets, are man’s best friend, and need not always be hated merely because the Bible regards them on the level of rats, is not while his face is being chewed off by a [insert name of hated breed here, I don’t want to contribute to prejudice against Pit Bulls or Dobermans, etc].
So I’m really really unimpressed by Christian commentors who feel the need to assure us that anti-government sentiment is unwise and that we must learn the Bible provides a “role” for the civil government.
I think the Bible provide for rule by sheiks, ad hoc tribal leadership, kings, and emperors. I think that the Mediterranean can provide for much more prosperity if it is under the power of a single pirate army (Alexander the Great) rather than being infested with a dozen independent pirate crews.
But I don’t think that Christian missionaries were under any obligation to tell the Medieval Icelanders that they had to repent and establish a “state”–a tax-supported office with a monopoly on whatever one tends to stuff into the duties of a civil magistrate. The certainly prospered better under that system, than they have done recently under parliamentary democracy and it’s inevitable end, financially corrupt oligarchy.
Paul tells Christians to submit to the authorities. I know a missionary for whom this means he, within the bounds of conscience, must stay on good terms with the local crime lord. I’m sure there is more than one pastor in Chicago who must follow a similar strategy.
But he doesn’t say that Christians must find rationalizations for political systems that are nothing more than slow methods of mass suicide (just to revisit parliamentary democracy). As far as I’m concerned, a Christian man or woman is even free to run for office in such systems (insert shout out to Ron Paul here). Christians are free to judge their situations and decide, rightly or wrongly based on the accuracy of their knowledge of their situation, that a society might be better off if every Federal, State, and Local political office holder were suddenly Raptured.
I think I get you, at least partly. But Paul doesn’t just say to submit to the authorities; he also says that God Himself established them to do us good, punishing evildoers and vindicating the righteous. This would seem to compel us to acknowledge the inherent legitimacy of government in the abstract, though particular manifestations of government may be good or bad. It seems to suggest that there is such a thing as good government (one that isn’t just a bunch of thuggery).
Hmmm… I thought I did acknowledge it in the abstract. Dogs really are man’s best friend! At least, mine is.
But like I said about Icleand, there are other ways to provide this government, sometimes from “the private sector.”
Ok. Sorry if I misunderstood. While I agree about the appropriateness of timing (i.e., the dog analogy), it still seems like Paul is talking to subjects of a largely corrupt Roman government, and in that context still feels compelled to tell people about the legitimate role of civil authorities (“established by God for our good,” etc.). Not sure how this relates to your dog analogy.
You make a good point. What right do I have to be more pessimistic than Paul was?
Not sure I do. Throws this whole post into question.
One point I’m trying to get at is that societies do have spontaneous order and several have done so with relative justice and peace without having a “public sector.”
But the rest needs to be re-thought. I still think there is a difference between telling people to submit and not rebel as opposed to rebuking laissez-faire sentiments…. maybe.