Quicksilver Commentary

Democracy: Government by a Majority of Sinners Can't Go Wrong!

It seems that in my recent travels online, an increasing number of people are asking the question "What do we do with Iraq?"  Opinions vary from "pull out," to "stay the course," to "NUKE 'EM ALL," but I find that there is little dialogue on exactly what the Christian view on the war would be.  How should a Christian view the spread of Democracy, and just how good should we consider it to be?  I cannot give a definitive answer, but I can provide you with the conclusion I have come to at this point, regarding the Christian view of the War in Iraq and the building of democracy.

We are currently in a war against a certain ideology which is opposed to the concept of liberty as we know it in the West. Islamic Fundamentalism seeks peace through forced submission, and such a totalitarian goal is quite opposed to personal liberty. You see, the religion's purpose is to enforce adherence to a particular moral code which man by nature cannot adhere to, and because of this inability of man, Islam needs the help of the government to achieve its goals. If man can't be good on his own, then the government must force him to be good.

Now, this belief lies at the heart of Islam, and in the hearts of even the least educated of Iraqi Muslims. People must be forced to be good, they believe, and a government which forces goodness is the best kind of government. Now, here we come with our tanks and guns, proclaiming that we wish to bring freedom to all Iraqis, and we receive a strange welcome.

Some Iraqis threw flowers at us. Many had lived in fear of Saddam (who was hardly a devout Muslim, and more of a psychopath), and we had freed them. Yay for us, yay for them.

But then, some Iraqis threw bombs at us. We were puzzled... We freed them, so why on earth would they attack us? Rather than figuring out why they were fighting the freedom we brought, we took the typical American strategy of labeling anyone opposed to our cause as an "enemy of freedom," and fighting back. These terrorists are obviously beyond hope anyway, so it's fine to be killing them, right?

I dunno. But it is clear that our emphasis on bringing Democracy is what caused them to attack us in Iraq (because as I have stated, Islam is diametrically opposed to the Western and Judeo-Christian concepts of Liberty).

Now, let me say a little bit about Democracy. Democracy is the self-government of a population, usually through the election of representatives who will vote to make laws which are agreeable to all or most of their constituents. Democracy is a hard sort of government to have, though; you see, a totalitarian government is quite simple for the people living under it, for they need not worry about making laws, much less laws that are just. All they need to do is obey. But a Democracy is difficult to run, because it requires that all of its citizens have an understanding not only of how the Democracy runs, but also of the concept of Liberty; that is, the autonomy that a Democracy allows for, and the proper use of it.

Now, true Liberty is in fact a Christian concept. Perhaps you would cry out and say "Oh, but most of our Founding Fathers were Deists," and I would say you are absolutely correct. However, there can never be any true and lasting Liberty in any culture other than a Christian one, for only Christianity can provide true freedom in a Democracy when followed out to its logical end. This is because every other religious belief system emphasizes adherence to Rules, and while governmental enforcement of these rules is not a requirement in every religion, every religion's rules regarding interaction with other people would necessitate that those people be brought to adherence of that religion for their own good, and what better environment to do that in than a Democracy?

So any democracy will tend to reflect and enforce the religious beliefs of its people; it should not, for an ideal democracy would be secular, but it will. Given this fact, it is worth noting how well the American government stays out of religious affairs. It isn't perfect, but it's better than most, and believe it or not, this is a direct result of Christianity.

You see, I've already said that a compassionate person from any other religion would seek to enforce their religion by means of the government for the good of the people. However, true Christianity is not like that. Christianity is not obsessed with what people do, despite what American Evangelicals might have led you to believe; rather Christianity cares about the heart of man, which no government can touch. Thus Christianity has no real stake in government; it can do no good there, for the government only controls man's actions, and man's actions do not affect his heart.

This is why only a Christian culture can yield a long-standing and free democracy; only a Christian culture will keep the government secular. Even atheistic/agnostic secularists must find and enforce rules, and while they most certainly tend to believe in individual autonomy, more than that is needed to direct a government, and more than that cannot be agreed on because of the very nature of atheism/agnosticism. Therefore, with no universal set of standards for where individual liberty begins or ends, the government will eventually begin to enforce some philosophy's moral code (which is the thing that a secular government will refuse to enforce, regardless of the philosophy's stance on the existence or nature of a Supreme Being). 

So it can be said that Democracy requires and understanding of Liberty, and that Liberty cannot be sown without Christianity. Now, let me go back to what I said earlier... We (myself included) thought it was a great idea to roll our tanks into Iraq and build a Democracy in the midst of the Islamic World, which understands neither liberty nor Christianity. Does it sound like such a great idea now?

I ask you, what is the best that can happen in Iraq? That they finally get a nice democracy to reflect the will of the people? Perhaps you have forgotten that the will of the people is to be ruled, to be protected from themselves. They will have at best, a democratically-elected totalitarian government, and will still be as devoid of liberty (and as unsaved) as they were under Saddam.

And that is the best case scenario; I will say nothing of the impending of civil war which is even now brewing as different groups fight to have their particular view of Islam and morality enforced upon the masses.  In the end, this conflict will result in an illiberal totalitarian government as well. No matter what happens, we will have fought for nothing.

You see, we went about this whole fiasco in the wrong order (though six months ago I would have never imagined that). We tried to build a Democracy without letting Christ teach Liberty to the land. Instead, in typical American fashion, we took something we think of as good and created a whole ideology and a war because of it, only trying to fit Christ into our little house of cards as an after-thought.

I have heard it said that we must have a democracy and Christian-friendly government in Iraq in order to send missionaries and see conversions. Don't you see that can't be right?  Besides the obvious impossibility of a Christian-friendly government in a non-Christian illiberal democracy, The church has never thrived more than when under persecution. You wanna know why the simple testimony of the death of any one of the martyrs has yielded more souls for the Kingdom than you have in your entire life? It's because the martyrs were more concerned with bringing others to the knowledge that there is a God worth worshiping, and not with creating a government that is "Jesus-friendly." For the government has no hold over the hearts of the people, and whether it is friendly or not is completely irrelevant as to whether or not we should be preaching the Gospel.

If you do not read or understand any other part of this post, read this, for I shall summarize it: Christ can be the only foundation for true Liberty, and Liberty can be the only foundation for Democracy. In Iraq, we are seeking to sow Democracy before Liberty, and Liberty before Christianity, when it is painfully obvious that neither Democracy nor Liberty can grow in an Islamic culture. The only thing that can take root in such a culture is Christ, and Christ is the only thing that can make Liberty grow and Democracy work. Now we are in a war that cannot be won, so a careful but swift pullout (to minimize bloodshed) is the only option we have if we ever wish to see Christianity, Liberty and Democracy take root in the Middle East.

The Slim, Laughable Possibility That Jesus Might Be Right

In my latest debates over my developing beliefs in the area of politics, I've run into an unprecedented amount of opposition from those who I thought trusted my reasoning ability.  Indeed, I am continually amazed at just how quickly people's opinions can turn when I stop saying what they want me to say.  But no matter, I still love those people, and very much hope they will not reject me for straying from the Republican party.  It would be nice if they would consider what I have to say, like they did when I wrote under the name "NeoFascist?," but my greatest concern is that they would not turn me away based on my political beliefs.  It has always been my policy that personal politics mean nothing compared to friendship, for I have met a great many people that I do not like from every political party, and some that I do like from every party as well.  I would hope that no one who reads this would judge me based on the fact that I am not a member of any political party; indeed, I can see no shame in standing alone, if one has the stomach for it.

I have spent a while trying to convince people that God might be best glorified apart from the Republican party, but it seems that I was operating under the assumption that my point of view would be respected thanks to my past writings, and my committment to follow wherever my search for truth has led me.  This assumption appears to be wrong, so I think it might be time to back up, repeat myself, and defend the thought process that has led me to believe that perhaps politics is not the answer to all of society's problems. 

My questioning of Republican ideals began when I, as a Christian, decided that it might be a good idea to do all I can to lead people to Christ.  Being the rather contemplative person that I am when confronted with a task, I began thinking about how best a person might be brought to Christ; I remained stuck there for quite some time, having been a Christian all my life, and not knowing what it is like to come into the faith from the outside.  However, it seemed quite logical that if any Christian wants to spread the Gospel, he would start by ensuring that what he says would be heard. 

A clever first step, and one I was quite proud of.  Assuming a person is a Christian and understands the Gospel, the first step in spreading his message is to figure out a way to get people to hear it.  Now, many Christians at many different times have used many different methods for getting their message to the world.  Some of them might put their message in music that sounds suspiciously like some popular band.  Others might decide to broadcast their message on television.  Still others might write books, or blog (as I do).  It seemed to me that there was no shortage of ways to get people to hear what one has to say; ways that ranged from interesting to attempted sneakiness, which simply makes one look desperate (yay, Relevance).  Indeed, when it comes to shouting loud enough to be heard, it seems that Christians have all their bases covered.

So where are all the converts?  It seems to me that there are quite a lot of people who are not Christians... people who may or may not believe in God, but seem to take an unbelievable amount of joy from the fact that they are not Christians and do not like Christians in the least.  My first reaction, back when I bought the Republican party platform hook, line and sinker, was to view such people as the problem, and debate them until they were nothing but a quivering pulp.  A good intellectual pummelling was what was needed to quiet those sinners down so that other sinners could hear our message, I thought. 

Slowly, the sheer absurdity of such a belief sunk in on me.  I was so focused on getting my way, and making the other side sit down and shut up that I had forgotten that they were the very people I was trying to reach.  The people I was arguing with were as much in need of the Gospel as anyone else, and they had been hearing my message, and the messages of other Christians for a very long time.  But they weren't converted. 

So it seemed that making oneself heard is not all that is required for reaching someone for Christ.  I puzzled over this for some time, until I realized that the problem wasn't that these non-Christians couldn't hear me... it was that they weren't listening.  So I thought I'd (yet again) argue them into listening.

That didn't work.  No matter how hard I tried, and no matter how many debates I won, I was amazed to find that non-Christians would not listen.  So it was back to the drawing board for me, as I thought intently about what it would take to get them to listen to me.  Now obviously, I am not them, so it was rather hard to figure out what I could do to get them to listen.  So my first step was to see what other Christians were doing to get the World to listen to their message.  It seemed that the tactic of choice among the majority of Evangelical Christians was to hide references to the Gospel in talk about Harry Potter, The Matrix or Survivor/Big Brother/Fear Factor/Elimidate/Extreme Makeover, and hope that this presentation of the Gospel was sneaky enough to get somebody saved. 

This clearly wasn't working.  Somehow, I found myself unsurprised by the fact that non-Christians don't want to listen to us when we insult their intelligence by trying to lure them into a church building to "get saved."  So I determined that Relevance wasn't the way to get non-Christians to listen to my message.

As I struggled to think of a way to present the Christian message in a way that sinners would listen to and appreciate, I was struck by something quite obvious:  I was every bit as insulted as the non-Christians were by so-called "Relevance," and I tended to listen more to preachers who did not restrict their sermons to sports analogies and Disney movies, so perhaps it could be said that non-Christians would be more likely to listen to a message that I would listen to.  That is to say, perhaps they'd listen to someone they respect, presenting a message that doesn't try to be sneaky.

This belief was backed up by a passage from First Thessalonians 4, a chapter which partially details the Christian life.  Verses 11 and 12 say this:

Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.

So maybe it is a good idea to win the respect of those who do not understand our beliefs, I thought.  From there, the question is what on earth will they respect? 

I'm not entirely sure of the answer yet, but I can tell you part of it.  Many of them don't respect most Evangelical Christians.  Many more don't respect the Republican Party.  What they DO respect is a person who cares about the pain they're experiencing.  As unbelievable as it may seem to the Republican Party, those who oppose Republicans are entirely capable of respecting and considering an alternate point of view, if the person presenting that alternate point of view first proves that they are capable of caring about someone who isn't exactly like them.

Consider Christ's actions.  Everywhere He went, He drew followers, but He did so by first caring for their physical needs.  Once He had done that, the person He was helping would begin to trust Him to care for their spiritual needs as well.  This is only natural; a person who is in sin is only a physical being, knowing nothing of the spiritual.  Their physical and emotional world is all they know, and that world is full of pain.  Now we come to them preaching about a spiritual world, in which things we know to be joy and peace are seen by those outside our faith as pain and suffering, and we expect them to listen to our message as though we have proven ourselves trustworthy.  Indeed, we have no right to expect anything other than the scorn of the World until we have proven ourselves trustworthy to them, by caring for their physical and emotional pain as Christ did.  Once we have done that, then they will begin to trust us with other aspects of their being; when we have proven trustworthy with what is physical and emotional, then the World will trust us in the things which are spiritual, things they cannot yet see or feel.

This is where I began to consider leaving the Republican party.  I am a Christian, called to exhibit active compassion and gain the respect of outsiders, and I began to realize that I could not do either as a Republican, at least not as well as I could from outside the party.  You see, I can find very little real compassion in the Republican party platform; it is all about telling people how wrong they are, how they shouldn't be doing what they're doing, and how they should really be doing things our way.  I find little compassion with the way the party handles issues like abortion, gay marriage and illegal immigration.  Instead, I find a lack of forgiveness and concern for people who are in sin.  It is as though the Republican party has taken it upon themselves to punish sinners, because God can't be trusted to do that Himself.  Maybe it isn't our place to pass judgment on women who have abortions; maybe it's just our job to help heal the part of her that caused her to need an abortion.  Maybe it's not our job to keep homosexuals from having relationships, or getting equal rights from a secular state; maybe it's just our job to love them, and perhaps eventually show them that they are not living as God would have them.  Maybe it's not our job to deport people who immigrate here illegally because they can't get in legally; maybe it's just our job to keep out as many illegals as we can, and turn the rest into productive citizens. 

All these things are more compassionate than standing around on street corners shouting about how abortion is murder, homosexual activity is wrong, and illegal immigrants are stupid and should be deported.  Maybe abortion is murder, and maybe homosexuality is wrong; heck, maybe illegal immigrants deserve to be deported.  But we as Christians are not commanded to punish those who do wrong; we are commanded to gain their respect, and let Christ change them from the inside out. 
It is no use saying that democracy excuses us from our obligation to gain the respect of outsiders.  In a representative democracy, the deportation of an illegal immigrant by your elected representatives is the same as if you had done the deporting yourself, because you used your vote to influence the government to punish someone you couldn't bring yourself to punish.  The same goes for abortion; many wish to end abortion, but can't bring themselves to do anything about it, so they just vote to make it illegal.  If that's compassion, then I imagine football coaches will all be sitting on Jesus' lap in heaven.  To exhibit true, active compassion would be to help the woman considering an abortion to find an alternative that is good for the child AND the woman herself.  This would require legislation as well as active involvement in the lives of such women.

And again I say, I see very little of this active compassion coming from the Republican party.  There are a few beacons of hope, most of whom work in abortion clinics or are just open-minded enough to realize that homosexuals are in fact still human, but the majority of Republicans seem to be blissfully unconcerned with being truly compassionate.  They do not vote with compassion, and they do not show active compassion in their everyday lives (unless, of course, the occasional "aww, that's sad" counts as compassion).  This isn't to say there is no truth within the Republican party... I do respect their efforts to live righteous lives, but their expectations of sinners do nothing to help them come to Christ.

Meanwhile, I've noticed that there is a more active sort of compassion coming from the Democratic party.  It's a sort of compassion that gives of itself (or others, if we're talking about government welfare), and does genuinely care for the physical wellbeing of others.  However, this sort of compassion is no truer than the Republican sort.  While Republicans exhibit a sadly passive kind of compassion, doing little of consequence to solve society's problems, Democrats exhibit an active compassion with no direction but emotion, and no concern or understanding of that which is spiritual.  The Republicans' compassion is the compassion of a Christian who has forgotten what it was like to be lost (and thus is of no use to the Lost), while the Democrats' compassion is the compassion of one lost person to another, which is active but offers no real help (thus it too is of no use to the Lost).  Thus I do not wish to claim either party.  Both hold a kernel of truth, but both are incapable of helping those in need of a Savior.

Now, there is an alarming number of people out there who would say that since I'm not a Republican, that means I must be a Liberal and a Democrat, thus I am not worth listening to.  I've been over this before, but let me reassure you one last time, I am neither a Liberal nor a Democrat. I accept the Bible in its entirety, as it is literally and contextually read, and I do not believe that morality is in any way subjective.  So there, I'm not a Democrat.  But I'm also not a Republican.  I'm a Christian, plain and simple, and that alone is enough.

So I began looking for the best way to bring people to Christ, and I reached a conclusion that placed me outside Republican party lines.  Am I wrong for not sticking with a party?  No.  I'm not here to please men.  My purpose is to glorify God; that is why we are all here, and it is the noblest cause conceivable.  I maintain that God is most glorified when a person comes to be by saved Christ's blood, as it is a testimony to the infinite goodness and grace of our omnipotent God, and I believe that if we are to concern ourselves with bringing others to Christ for the sole purpose of God's glory, then we must sever ourselves from any school of thought that emphasizes something other than glorifying God.  If that means leaving a political party, then so be it.  That's what I did, though that may or may not be God's call for other Christians. 

But whether you find yourself on the right side of the aisle or the left, if you are a fellow Christian, do not condemn me for standing in the middle.  I am firm in my convictions, and my beliefs do not change with the wind; I do not stand on the fence, except to proclaim the silliness of having a fence at all.  For though we are flesh and blood, our fight is not against flesh and blood, so it is quite unnecessary to separate ourselves from other flesh and blood that we might shout at them from the safety of our own side about how wrong and sinful they are.  That isn't Christlike, and it isn't right.  Christ didn't cut anyone off from himself; He got his hands dirty helping all those who would accept his help, whether they were gentiles, Roman soldiers, or adulterers.  He did not condemn those who sinned... He cared for their needs and helped them stop sinning, not by force or legislation, but by inner transformation. 

Maybe we should try that sometime.  Who knows, Jesus might have actually known what He was doing.

Imagine that.

Oh No... Libertarianism! Run!

In light of my most recent post, I feel that I should open up a broader topic for discussion.  In that post, I spoke of homosexual marriage, civil unions, and the like, and wondered just what the Christian reaction should be to such things.  Do we have a duty to make sure everyone conforms to the Christian view of marriage, or do we not have that authority? 

But I'd like to ask a broader question:  To what extent should Christians legislate Christian morality?  I ask this because I'm quite confused by the question of just how much we can expect non-Christians to act like Christians.  If we try to ban any type of sin, will it do anyone any good?  How would it affect the non-Christians' views of Christianity and the Church? 

I ask this because it seems to me that we as Christians should be most concerned with the spiritual state of those around us, and since the actions of any given sinner will not change his spiritual state, it's hard to say that laws restricting sin actually further "the Good" (if we view good as being the salvation of non-believers).  On the flip side, most actions that are illegal are sins of some sort, and I don't really think I'd appreciate the legalization of murder, theft, rape, and other such crimes.  So where does the truth lie?

Perhaps the government and its laws exist to protect the right to life of all citizens.  Undoubtedly, it exists to ensure that we do not harm one another.  But can this be all?  Perhaps the government also exists to protect our property from theft and vandalism.  Perhaps it also exists to ensure that we all may worship as we see fit.  So then, would it be fair to say that the government exists (or should exist) as a referee, protecting the individual's autonomy, or his right to do as he pleases, provided that he does not infringe on the rights of another individual? 

I dunno.  But if this is the case, then we would lose the right to impress Christian morality upon non-Christians, in the same way that Muslims may not force our women to wear yards of cloth.  Would this rather libertarian view of government be proper?  It's too soon for me to say, but it seems at present that it would be, since as I've said before, Christians should be less concerned with what non-believers do, and more concerned with their spiritual state.

So to clarify what I am asking:  Would a more libertarian view of government be more conducive to bringing non-Christians to salvation than a view of government in which we attempt to legislate morality beyond the simple protection of an individuals autonomy?

Please, by all means, let me know what you think.  I'm certain I haven't thought through every aspect of this issue, so I need input to let me know what I'm missing. 

Marriage? Sin? Non-Christians? Legislation? What a Jumbled Mess...

As many of my beloved readers probably know, I used to blog about politics and current events.  Doing so was great fun for me, and for the two-and-a-quarter years that I wrote about such things, I placed myself solidly in the Conservative/Republican camp.  Good times, eh?

Well, upon beating that particular dead horse to a pulp, I started to grow a bit disgusted with politics and current events (and perhaps my inability to affect them), and began to get outraged by other subjects.  Thus theology and apologetics became my poison, and while I didn't write much about them, I did think about them a great deal.  In fact, I still do, though I'm afraid that I haven't yet figured out a great deal about them.  But I digress...

As I began to spend less time typing out Republican sound bites and more time thinking about Christianity, I started to wonder exactly how it fits into our culture and politics.  Of course, my views on the subject are only just beginning to form, so I thought I'd pose a couple of questions to get some input from others whose opinions I value.  Hence my (thus far question-less) post.

Earlier today, I read a Yahoo! News article about research that claims there are more unmarried households in America than traditionally married households.  Rather surprising, I thought; but only briefly.  Why, really, would any Christian be surprised when non-Christians neglect to take part in certain ceremonies that are often associated with Christianity?  Don't answer that one, it's a rhetorical question.

The fact that Biblically, marriage was the act of consummating a relationship rather than having a clergyman say "I pronounce you man and wife" notwithstanding, what right have we to impose the Christian (and I use that term loosely) ceremony of marriage on non-Christians?  That's the question I need you to answer.  Can we really expect those who don't recognize our God to accept ceremonies (correctly or incorrectly) associated with Him?  I'm not sure I believe so. 

So then, what should the Christian attitude toward gay marriage be?  If the ceremony of marriage is at best a requirement in Christianity, and at worst completely unnecessary in God's eyes, then what should become of two men who want to be recognized as a couple by the state?  At this point, I'm inclined to agree with C. S. Lewis, who wrote in Mere Christianity that there should be two types of marriages;  one for Christians, administered and recognized by the church, and one for non-Christians, administered and recognized by the State.  Of course, it is also my opinion that marriage in God's eyes has nothing to do with ceremonies performed by man. 

By now, anyone who has read my blogs for any length of time has begun to worry that I have been kidnapped, or that my blog has been hacked by some resentful Leftist who is fed up with my old rants.  The "Neo" that they know and love or love to hate would never advocate the concept of civil unions in addition to traditional marriage.  Indeed, if reading this seems foreign to you, imagine how it feels for me... I myself don't know if that's really where I should stand on the issue, but it currently seems rather logical to stand there, so my mind is left to wage war with the force of habit (which would compel me to take a more "Conservative" stance), to the ends that I have no earthly idea where I stand.  So that's why I ask you now:  In light of the nature of marriage, the irrelevance of ceremonies, and the silliness of expecting a non-Christian to observe Christian ceremonies, is it right to refuse non-Christians the ability to "marry" however they may choose, given that their marriage will not be valid in God's eyes?  For if it is not valid in God's eyes, then it is not valid at all, and if it is not valid at all, then what are we so worried about?