Aaron M. Fugate's Rebuttal to "God and Government" by Benjamin Adam Fugate
Is monarchy a perfect or preferable form of government? What about Theocracy? Or the republic, 'Murica's chosen pattern of government? Which is better or even best? How can we select a fitting form of government through logic and Biblical principles? Well, let's take a look. Strap on your thinking caps!
Editor Ben Fugate seems to believe that a monarchy of godly men is the best form of government and attempts to use the Ten Commandments as proof for this rather untenable conclusion. But in order to truly examine the most Biblically perfect form of government, let's go all the way back to the beginning - literally.
In the very beginning, God set up the perfect form of government and expected man to hold to it for the rest of time. This government was called self-government. In self-government, man governs himself by voluntary obeying God's laws according to his free will. This was the government of God's choosing from the beginning!
Now you ask, "Well, what difference is there between that and a Theocracy? or between that and a monarchy where the ruler fears God?" Well, there's quite a lot of difference, actually. In a Theocracy, man obeys God because he fears the discipline that he will receive if he does not obey God. However, in self-government, man obeys God because he wants to. Self-government is based on man's free will and his ability to govern and take responsibility for his own actions.
From the very beginning God gave man a free will and expected him to use it to govern himself. God made only one law, and gave man the option of obeying out of love or rebelling because of the punishment. The reason God attached a penalty to the law was set parameters to it -- sure, Adam and Eve could have obeyed God out of fear of dying, but even then they would have avoided sinning out of love for God's fellowship and a desire for it to continue. So as soon as God set up that rule, Satan came and established a "reward" for their disobedience. Adam and Eve disobeyed God, not because they wanted to disobey God, but because they didn't believe God anymore and wanted to obey Satan and receive their reward. God wanted man to obey out of love, and Satan wanted man to obey him out of fear -- fear that they were missing out on being like God.
That's how Satan works and that's how all forms of human-created government work because they are all fundamentally flawed. Human government, whether it is a republic or monarchy, always operates on a basis of fear. Citizens avoid rebelling and disobeying if they are afraid of the penalties for doing so. When's the last time you were speeding down the highway and suddenly ran across a speed trap? Did you slow down? If so, you probably did so because you were afraid of the steep financial penalties that you would merit for your offense if you got caught. This is not at all like the system of self-government; this is fear-based government.
So man was completely incapable of governing himself. God isn't worried; he has a plan for restoring man to self-government later (we'll get back to that). God allowed man to choose his own type of government, each with its own flaws and strengths. God never wanted man to be ruled by Theocracy, but it was an option and Israel did choose it. God never wanted man to be ruled by monarchy, but it was an option and Israel chose it also. God never wanted man to be ruled by a republic, but it is an option and the United States chose it.
Now we've established that all human government is flawed (by the way, in case you missed it, Theocracy is human government as well in type because it is fear-based), we can debate for hours about which government of all the human kinds is better. I would suggest that no one type of (human) government is better than another. That said, there are governments that are better fits for different nations. Some nations may change throughout the courses of their histories and go through several different types of governments.
I would contend that there are no better types of government, just better people who make up the government. Get this and get it well: government is always a representation of the people, even in a non-representative government. Now you say, "How can a monarchy be a representation of its people? It has only one leader and he wasn't elected!" Well, the way I see it, there are only two major types of monarchy - benevolent monarchies and oppressive monarchies. In a benevolent monarchy, the king listens to the people and the people listen to the king and they work in harmony as a peaceful society. They're on the same wavelength, if you'll pardon the cliche, and the king's wishes represent those of the people. In an oppressive monarchy, often called tyranny, the king rules out of fear of the people. He fears uprising, so he sets up a strict penalty against it. He fears rebellion, so he squashes every one. But the people are uprising and rebelling only because they also fear the king. His fear is a representation of theirs.
So Ben, because every government is a representative government, changing the government of the United States in a fundamental fashion will do absolutely no good. The government that you propose would punish sin because evidently you fear the effects that sin will have on a nation (?). Well, Ben, sin will cause a nation to be destroyed. Eventually, it will cause all nations to be destroyed. You can rearrange deck chairs on your Titanic if you wish, but it won't prevent its sinking. Would your government fail? Yes, because either you take a lax, permissive approach to sin and allow it to overrun your land, or you control it oppressively and force your citizens to rebel and overthrow your reign. The only people who would prosper under your government would be perfect people, and let me know when you find any of those on this earth,
Thus, if no government is inherently better than another, how can we ensure the longevity of the one that we have in the U.S.? By bettering the people whom it represents. How do we do that, though? It's a simple, two-fold process and your local church is probably already involved in it -- evangelism and discipleship. When people are saved, they are able to get out from under the tyrannical rule of sin into the blessings of voluntary obedience to Jesus Christ (Remember that whole restoration to self-government thing? That's what Christianity is.). Christianity is not rigid adherence to the law, because that is based on the penalty that disobedience to the law incurred, and that didn't work out well for Israel anyway (also, no one was ever saved by obeying the law but always by faith in the promise of the Messiah). Christianity is loving and knowing Jesus Christ in a personal relationship and obeying him as an outworking of that love. Now self-government has come full-circle and God has restored it as the preferred means of government.
So what can we do to make our Stateside government better? Vote for godly men and help the people around us to find Jesus Christ. That's all we can do and all that's expected of us, anyway.
Contributing Editor, Aaron M. Fugate
Editor Ben Fugate seems to believe that a monarchy of godly men is the best form of government and attempts to use the Ten Commandments as proof for this rather untenable conclusion. But in order to truly examine the most Biblically perfect form of government, let's go all the way back to the beginning - literally.
In the very beginning, God set up the perfect form of government and expected man to hold to it for the rest of time. This government was called self-government. In self-government, man governs himself by voluntary obeying God's laws according to his free will. This was the government of God's choosing from the beginning!
Now you ask, "Well, what difference is there between that and a Theocracy? or between that and a monarchy where the ruler fears God?" Well, there's quite a lot of difference, actually. In a Theocracy, man obeys God because he fears the discipline that he will receive if he does not obey God. However, in self-government, man obeys God because he wants to. Self-government is based on man's free will and his ability to govern and take responsibility for his own actions.
From the very beginning God gave man a free will and expected him to use it to govern himself. God made only one law, and gave man the option of obeying out of love or rebelling because of the punishment. The reason God attached a penalty to the law was set parameters to it -- sure, Adam and Eve could have obeyed God out of fear of dying, but even then they would have avoided sinning out of love for God's fellowship and a desire for it to continue. So as soon as God set up that rule, Satan came and established a "reward" for their disobedience. Adam and Eve disobeyed God, not because they wanted to disobey God, but because they didn't believe God anymore and wanted to obey Satan and receive their reward. God wanted man to obey out of love, and Satan wanted man to obey him out of fear -- fear that they were missing out on being like God.
That's how Satan works and that's how all forms of human-created government work because they are all fundamentally flawed. Human government, whether it is a republic or monarchy, always operates on a basis of fear. Citizens avoid rebelling and disobeying if they are afraid of the penalties for doing so. When's the last time you were speeding down the highway and suddenly ran across a speed trap? Did you slow down? If so, you probably did so because you were afraid of the steep financial penalties that you would merit for your offense if you got caught. This is not at all like the system of self-government; this is fear-based government.
So man was completely incapable of governing himself. God isn't worried; he has a plan for restoring man to self-government later (we'll get back to that). God allowed man to choose his own type of government, each with its own flaws and strengths. God never wanted man to be ruled by Theocracy, but it was an option and Israel did choose it. God never wanted man to be ruled by monarchy, but it was an option and Israel chose it also. God never wanted man to be ruled by a republic, but it is an option and the United States chose it.
Now we've established that all human government is flawed (by the way, in case you missed it, Theocracy is human government as well in type because it is fear-based), we can debate for hours about which government of all the human kinds is better. I would suggest that no one type of (human) government is better than another. That said, there are governments that are better fits for different nations. Some nations may change throughout the courses of their histories and go through several different types of governments.
I would contend that there are no better types of government, just better people who make up the government. Get this and get it well: government is always a representation of the people, even in a non-representative government. Now you say, "How can a monarchy be a representation of its people? It has only one leader and he wasn't elected!" Well, the way I see it, there are only two major types of monarchy - benevolent monarchies and oppressive monarchies. In a benevolent monarchy, the king listens to the people and the people listen to the king and they work in harmony as a peaceful society. They're on the same wavelength, if you'll pardon the cliche, and the king's wishes represent those of the people. In an oppressive monarchy, often called tyranny, the king rules out of fear of the people. He fears uprising, so he sets up a strict penalty against it. He fears rebellion, so he squashes every one. But the people are uprising and rebelling only because they also fear the king. His fear is a representation of theirs.
So Ben, because every government is a representative government, changing the government of the United States in a fundamental fashion will do absolutely no good. The government that you propose would punish sin because evidently you fear the effects that sin will have on a nation (?). Well, Ben, sin will cause a nation to be destroyed. Eventually, it will cause all nations to be destroyed. You can rearrange deck chairs on your Titanic if you wish, but it won't prevent its sinking. Would your government fail? Yes, because either you take a lax, permissive approach to sin and allow it to overrun your land, or you control it oppressively and force your citizens to rebel and overthrow your reign. The only people who would prosper under your government would be perfect people, and let me know when you find any of those on this earth,
Thus, if no government is inherently better than another, how can we ensure the longevity of the one that we have in the U.S.? By bettering the people whom it represents. How do we do that, though? It's a simple, two-fold process and your local church is probably already involved in it -- evangelism and discipleship. When people are saved, they are able to get out from under the tyrannical rule of sin into the blessings of voluntary obedience to Jesus Christ (Remember that whole restoration to self-government thing? That's what Christianity is.). Christianity is not rigid adherence to the law, because that is based on the penalty that disobedience to the law incurred, and that didn't work out well for Israel anyway (also, no one was ever saved by obeying the law but always by faith in the promise of the Messiah). Christianity is loving and knowing Jesus Christ in a personal relationship and obeying him as an outworking of that love. Now self-government has come full-circle and God has restored it as the preferred means of government.
So what can we do to make our Stateside government better? Vote for godly men and help the people around us to find Jesus Christ. That's all we can do and all that's expected of us, anyway.
Contributing Editor, Aaron M. Fugate
Comments