Humm-Bees

Posted on June 24, 2008
Filed Under Personal, Worldview | 9 Comments

Every few days I put a pan of water (4 cups) on the stove, bring it to a boil, and stir in 1 cup of sugar. After it dissolves well, I set it aside to cool. This concoction is not for human consumption, but for the humming birds outside our deck door (the door that chipmunks and squirrels and other forest creatures use to access our house).

While it is cooling, I dutifully clean the feeder, then pour in the new nectar trying unsuccessfully to keep the sugary liquid from getting all over myself and the sink and the floor and whatever else has a magnetic attraction for sticky stuff.

Well, the other day I discovered that what I thought was exclusively for humming birds was not. This first picture shows that one of my humming birds invited a bumble bee over for dinner (the bee is on the left). I was sitting on the deck when the bee arrived and after he stuck his head into the hole and took his first sip, he popped up and did a little dance as if he had just discovered the “Mother Lode”. I think I heard him singing.

When he returned to what I’m sure he thought was nectar heaven, he continued to stick his head further and further down the hole. His rear end actually popped up in the air. I suspect he quickly recognized the danger associated with getting stuck inside the “cookie jar” and so he backed out a little. This second shot is my “humming bee” gorging himself on 1 part sugar to 4 parts water.
Isn’t he amazing? His color, his “fur”, his precisely formed legs with their “barbs”?
It’s hard not to smile when I see these things.
…“but ask the animals and they will teach you…which of these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this?” Job 12:7-9

The “Theocracy” Argument, Part III

Posted on June 18, 2008
Filed Under Worldview | 23 Comments

Sorry to have delayed on this topic. I have been out of town and maxed on my schedule—just as you are, no doubt.

The question before us is whether or not the Biblical Christian worldview drives us to pursue a “theocracy”. Obviously, much of the answer lies in how one defines exactly what “theocracy” means, and that is why it is important to get all who are involved in the discussion to come to some agreement on the definition. Otherwise, everyone ends up shooting at different targets. I may think I’m hitting a bulls-eye with my argument while you think I’m way off the mark. Each of us ends up frustrated because no one seems to be getting our point. Dumbfounded, we look at each other and think “What is wrong with you people?!”

This situation is often the result of a definition problem and I think that is what is troubling us here. I started out defining “theocracy” for us so that we could all be shooting at the same target. I even fired the first few arrows. I was thankful that so many of you responded and launched a few of your own. I enjoy that. However, some of you set up a different target and then declared that all of our arrows had horribly missed.

Oh, oh…foul play!

By the way, we need to watch for this because it will often happen in a discussion. It will lead you toward pulling your hair out or rolling your eyes or sighing deeply…all of which can be perceived as less than attractively winsome to your opponent friend. (Changing the target isn’t fair for us to do either…if we don’t agree with the definition, then go back and hammer that out first. If you can’t agree on the definition, then agree to argue from their definition first and then from your definition second. If that doesn’t work, throw out the word and try to deal with the underlying issue. If none of those work, go get an ice cream cone and play a game of marbles.)

So let’s start again. From the pure definition, “theocracy” means “ruled by god”. If one is “ruled” by god then that means the “ruler” is god. I would contend that God has not established that kind of authority structure within the sphere of the state. Romans 13 makes it clear that He has delegated ruling authority to a human agent—an agent who is to punish evil and condone what is good. This is consistent with other spheres of authority that God has created. In the sphere of labor, God has delegated “ownership” authority to a human steward who is held accountable for whether or not he prospers those goods. This appointment of human leaders and authority is also found in the church sphere and in the sphere of the family. God did not institute a bunch of “theocracies” within those social systems.

This notion of God granting authority is not some capricious thing, but it is bound up in the triune nature of God. In John 17:2, Jesus says the Father “granted authority” to Jesus. It is, therefore, consistent with His character to do the same within the institutions he has created…and He has.

So, we are to seek and pray for rulers that are consistent with God’s design—human agents whose actions are guided by the ethical standard of God. This is not a “theocracy”. A husband who loves his wife as the Scripture guides him does not mean that the family is a theocracy. A business owner who treats his workers with righteousness and attempts to run his company according to Biblical guidelines has not implemented a theocracy. So too, the civil magistrate, if he governs with justice and mercy and punishes evil and condones what is good based upon a Biblical standard of ethics, does not establish a “theocracy”. We do not seek someone who “speaks” for God, we seek someone who will act in accordance with His ethical laws.

There have been a number of instances in human history where men began to view their civil leaders as “gods” or as one who spoke for “god”. It would be entirely proper to label these as “theocracies”. If you believe that the king is divine, then your god actually “rules”—and for all practical purposes, that is a “theocracy”, even though he is a false god.

However, here is where it can start to get fuzzy. What if we don’t “say” that the king is “god”, but we act as if he is? Or what if the king “acts” as if he is “god” but doesn’t say he is? Does the king have to be declared divine in order for it to be called a “theocracy” even though everything else operates practically as if it is? To some extent, this is what Samuel Rutherford was arguing against in his classic “Lex Rex”. The prevailing thought was that the king was law. Whatever the king declared to be right was right and whatever the king declared to be wrong was wrong. The ethical standard (upon which all law is based) proceeded from the king’s mouth or scepter or pen. Rutherford argued, however, that the king was not law, but the law was king. He argued that there was a transcendent ethical norm to which the king was subject, not the other way around. And because Rutherford was speaking from a biblical perspective, that transcendent standard came from God’s general and special revelation. This was the consistent view of Coke, Lock, and Blackstone, (which I referred to last time) and was the fundamental teaching in law at the time of America’s founding. They were supposed to judge whether or not a proposed law was “good” based upon its conformance to God’s revelation. The human agency that was placed in the position of power was responsible for crafting, adjudicating and executing good laws and policies based upon that transcendent norm.

So, to answer our question, biblical Christianity does not pursue a “theocracy”, but a governmental form in which we recognize that God has delegated ruling authority to a human agency—an agency that is to righteously punish evil and condone good—ruling based upon the transcendent ethical standards of God and not his own. Here is how Noah Webster put it in his 1834 “Value of the Bible”:

“It is alleged by men of loose principles, or defective views of the subject, that religion and morality are not necessary or important qualifications for political stations. But the Scriptures teach a different doctrine. They direct that rulers should be men who rule in the fear of God, able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness…”

God has also reinforced the authority of this human agency by charging us, as citizens, to pay them respect, honor and submission, and to pray for them as we read in 2 Timothy 2:1-2:

I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.

All of this should lead us to ponder, therefore, what we should seek in terms of the qualifications of the civil magistrate. What should we use as our primary basis for electing public officials? Should it be based upon their charisma or the amount of “goodies” they will bestow upon the electorate or their party affiliation? I don’t think so. It appears that the Scripture would call us to seek those who best fulfill these fundamental criteria: which will best “punish evil” and “condone what is good”? Which best understands, biblically, what is “evil” and what is “good”? Which will wield their power in such a way that they honor the purpose of the state and serve to best conform it to God’s design?

And that design calls us to seek “godly” rulers, not rulers who are “gods”…or rulers who will act like gods.

The “Theocracy” Argument, Part II

Posted on June 8, 2008
Filed Under Worldview | 31 Comments

When dealing with any accusation, the very first rule is to get clarity on the terms. This is true whether the accusation involves the problem of evil or relativism or “theocracy” as is the case before us.

Now, our problem is that we don’t have Rick on the line, so we can’t really interact with him. So, let me simulate what the first part of that conversation might look like, based upon my dialogues with other like-minded Ricks. And, to avoid the appearance of putting words in Rick’s mouth, since he is a real person, we will use a fictitious name to represent those who often raise this accusation.

Here we go…

“Quigley, your statement is interesting. Could you please define what you mean by theocracy?”

Quigley: “Of course, it means ‘rule by God’ and that is exactly what these religious right fanatics are trying to impose upon this country.”

“So, when you say ‘rule by God’ does that mean you think that Christians want to actually elect Jesus as President…maybe through a write-in campaign? Is that what you mean by ‘theocracy’…Jesus or God physically sitting in the Oval Office”?

Quigley: “Well, believe me, they would want that. But, since God doesn’t really exist and Jesus is dead, they have to settle for a more practical theocracy where Christians are running the government.”

“So, are you saying that when a Christian is in public office, that constitutes some form of ‘theocracy’?”

Quigley: “No, not entirely…that’s just the first half. What they want is for Christians to run the government and then impose the Bible on everyone.”

“When you say ‘impose the Bible on everyone’, what do you mean by that…force everyone to read a chapter a night or memorize twelve verses each day?”

Quigley: “No, although they would want that as well. No, I mean that they want to impose their Bible morality on everyone. That’s exactly what is happening when they try to force everyone to abide by their view of abortion and marriage. They trash the rights of women and homosexuals by trying to impose their religious laws on the nation.”

…

Okay, let’s talk about this, because I think we have gotten to the heart of the “theocracy” accusation. It is essentially used as a pejorative term to paint Christians with a broad brush and in a negative light to make one’s argument stronger. It’s a faulty approach to argumentation that we should not be found guilty of using either.

“Theocracy” does mean “rule by God”. But it isn’t easy to define what that means in practice. Does it mean that God rules directly? Does it mean He rules, but indirectly through a religious leader who confers with him for every decision…or most decisions…or some decisions? Do we have a theocracy when a leader expresses belief in God and attempts to craft laws that reflect God’s ethical standards? This latter case is exactly what we had in the beginning of the American Experiment, when the definition of what made a “good” law was based upon hundreds of years of Christian teaching, from Sir Edward Coke to John Lock to William Blackstone. A “good” law was that which was in conformance to God’s general revelation (nature) and special revelation (Scripture). This wasn’t establishing a “theocracy”. The founders of America were careful to affirm the jurisdictional separation of church and state. Now, this is not the “separation of church and state” as it is pressed upon us today, but a recognition that God had established a church sphere of authority and a civil sphere of authority and it was appropriate to keep those authorities jurisdictionally separate. One was not to take authority over the other. However, they clearly understood that the civil laws they crafted, if they were to be “good” laws rather than “bad” laws, needed to conform to God’s revelation. Few would label the American Experiment as an experiment in “theocracy”, yet any attempt by Christians to participate in the process of crafting good laws in accordance with that old definition is often labeled as a theocratic conspiracy.

The biblical view of the state understands that God has not only established this sphere but He has granted authority to man to act as the human agent to punish evil and condone what is good (Romans 13). This “granting of authority” means that we believe God has delegated the responsibility for state leadership to human leaders who are held accountable for how they wield that power. They have also been given the ethical standards by which they can know what is evil and what is good.

Now, the important thing to understand in the midst of the “theocracy” accusation and the ensuing dialogue is to help the “accuser” recognize that BOTH sides have an ethical notion that they believe should be the basis for law. Rick, for example, would have us believe that it is only the Christian fundamentalists who are trying to impose their moral standards on others. That is just not the case. He has his moral standard that he wants to impose as well. He wants to impose the ethical standard that it is right for a mother to end the life of her baby if she wants. That is a moral position. He wants to impose the ethical standard that marriage should be open to people of the same sex. That too, is a moral position. So, the argument is not that one side (Christian fundamentalists) wants to force their moral standard on everyone else…the argument is that both sides have different views about what the imposing ethical standard should be. Rick would like to frame the argument in such a way as to invalidate the Christian’s voice in this process so that he can impose his moral standards unopposed. We should at least clarify this reality so that we can discuss the real issues, not a red herring or “boogey-man” argumentation that is meant to keep Christian thought out of the debate.

Well…I’ve maxed the “blog reading word limit”. More thoughts on this to come, as well as responses to some of your excellent posts…