— ORIGIN Latin, ‘it does not follow’
When someone makes an argument employing logic (defined by the Oxford Dictionary as ‘reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity’), there is usually a train of thought, as it were, from the beginning to the end. The argument must show consistent flow in its points, not leaping to unsupported conclusions. The points must follow consistently to arrive at its destination, following the path of logic supported by facts. Moreover, observers should be able to assess to validity of the argument and see if it does follow a logical process. As an exercise in logic, let’s examine a perception in our culture and test the logic of the conclusion:
If one has been monitoring American political news since the 2002 election, one would have observed many proclaiming there is a trend towards ‘conservatism’ in America. Many analysts argue the reelection of Bush was largely the result of tapping into this swinging pendulum that appears to be heading towards the so-called right wing. We have seemingly entered a period in US history in which the late President Ronald Reagan would be proud: conservatism. The starting point in the exercise in logic, then, is that America has entered a new era of conservative thought and social values that, in large part, reflect a growing influence of evangelical Christians in society.
To expand on this argument, certain facts must be established. When one thinks of conservatism, the usual ideas are centered on moral behavior in society or of political views. The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines the word conservatism as “tending not to like or trust change, especially sudden change: a conservative society/outlook.” Its secondary definition describes ones appearance, where conservatism in fashion is to avoid trendy, modern looks and instead to dress within the boundaries of historically acceptable codes. Merriam-Webster adds that it is “a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change.”
Let us now add anecdotal evidence to further the argument. Enter Bill Frist and his little war on the judiciary. Whatever one perceives as injustice of the judicial system, which I grant certainly do exist, Frist has used this perception to establish a line of battle against the Senate demanding swift and radical change to the rules on filibuster vis-à-vis presidential appointments of judges.
I submit that this skirmish is merely a smokescreen to a much larger engagement: the establishment of a modern, man-made theocracy in America within the cloak of conservatism. We now have radical, almost predatory elements masquerading in conservatives’ wool. This is not your typical conservative agenda, and this doesn’t seem to follow logically.
To understand just how radical is the idea of a man-made theocracy is paramount to understanding the failure in the argument that America is now trending towards conservatism in relation agendas such as Bill Frist’s. Here are a few data points:
1) Frist’s agenda has captured the attention of the NY Times among other media sources. As most people know, the media has long been a bastion of progressive (aka liberal) forces within our nation. In an editorial from April 16, 2005, the NY Times took issue with Frist’s activities and concluded that “Senator Frist is determined to get judges on the federal bench who are loyal to the Republican fringe and, he hopes, would accept a theocratic test on decisions.” These are strong words that almost reshape the definition of what is conservative and liberal: in this editorial the Times appears conservative and Frist the radical/progressive.
2) The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) provides a useful backdrop: a theocracy is seen historically as the fulfillment of God’s will within society within the structure of law and order. Moreover, in ancient times there was virtually no separation between the secular and sacred; “in that sense all governments in antiquity were theocracies.” Yet as Israel failed to follow God’s precepts, and the provisions for monarchy also did not prevent the moral depravity of the nation, God brought judgment on Israel and sent them into exile. In the post-exilic period up through Jesus’ day the modified, man-made theocracy was “run by priests and official interpreters of the law” (ISBE Vol. 3, p. 826). Recalling the attitudes of the Pharisees, one can see the danger of employing a man-made theocracy administered by clerics or those of a particular and zealous religious faith. Moreover, there was little stability during the first century, and by A.D. 70 Jerusalem was destroyed. Hardly a conservative environment—that period was marked by insurrection, anarchy, and injustice.
3) After the nation of Israel became insolvent, the idea of theocracy was slowly replaced with other forms within other nations. Today we see democratic ideals growing, communistic ideals in decline, and monarchies all but extinct. In the world up to World War II, some nations deified their leaders and may have seen their government as somehow sacred. There are, however, few remaining examples of theocracies in existence today (e.g. Iran). Modern, man-made theocracies exhibit extreme legalism within their society along with requisite penalties. It demonstrates that a man-made theocracy is generally tyrannical and does not impart God’s will within a society. Thus, man-made theocracy does not emerge from conservative values, but rather is akin to revolution, tyranny, and false gods.
4) The Bible alludes to an establishment of Messianic, theocratic rule sometime in the future that is established by God himself. Those of the Christian faith recognize this fact and take comfort that all the nations will ultimately answer to YHWH. This will establish perfect justice in the world. It will inaugurate social stability. It will bring healing to the nations. This is arguably the ideal conservatism for which many God-fearing people seek. It is a divine theocracy of perfect origin: “for his judgments are true and just; for he has judged the great prostitute who corrupted the earth with her immorality, and has avenged on her the blood of his servants” (Rev 19:2).
Thus, there are essentially two forms of theocracy: man-made and divine-made. One is in direct conflict with the other. Man’s attempt seems to yield less stability, less true piety, and more legalism. It seems to produce tyrants and embolden bureaucrats, all seeking to portray conservative values yet betraying the heart of those values. God’s theocratic rule is from heaven. It is perfect and does not shackle humanity, but rather frees them from bondage to sin.
Now, I am not arguing that we have not entered a period of increasing conservative values in America. There is some evidence to support that claim. However, when fringe elements within conservative people are pushing for radical change within our government resulting in a man-made theocracy, it does not represent traditional, conservative values. It represents radicalism. Mr. Reagan would be appalled!
Bill Frist has garnered support from many evangelicals in his camp, perhaps thinking he represents their views and ideals. Logic suggests, however, that this is not proper conservatism: if Frist (and others) are ultimately seeking to establish a man-made theocracy, then the agenda represents a radical view and that is non sequitur—it does not follow conservative values. Man-made theocracy is not conservative—it is oppressive, prone to abuse, and well outside the bounds of traditional values.
I do not deny our hard-fought rights in a free society to participate within the democratic system. However, the so-called conservative, evangelical “Republicans” must take great care in how they conduct themselves, and with whom they pin their hopes. We must always regard Almighty God as the ultimate judge and ruler, and he will bring justice in his own time and methods. As citizens of heaven we are commanded to “conduct ourselves honorably among Gentiles…to submit to every human institution because of the Lord…For it is God’s will that you, by doing good, silence the ignorance of foolish people” (1 Peter 2:12a, 13a, 15).
Posts
