Timon Cline (a short bio can be found at the end of the article being reviewed) wrote an article about government and its title is somewhat ambiguous. That article is titled The End Of Government (click here for the article). Some might conclude from that title that he is writing about a future time when government no longer exists. Such a conclusion would be wrong. What Cline is referring to is the ultimate purpose of government. In particular, he is referring to the end of government in America.
Contrary the views of many liberals, Cline does not see the purpose of government as ensuring and protecting or goods or liberties of the individual, Rather, Cline takes the position that, according to earlyAmerican tradition, the end of government is to protect the public and work for the common good. To provide evidence for his claim, Cline relies not on the formation of the national government as it was defined by The Constitution. The reason for bypassing federal government as defined by The Constitution is that, according to Cline, it was ignorant of a very favorite conservative sacred cow: subsidiarity. And so for the most part, Cline documents his case by citing sources especially colonial and state documents and sermons. In the beginning of his article, Cline also cites Aquinas and Aristotle and he references Anti-Federalist works.
Cline starts his article by countering arguments made by Jeffrey Bristol regarding what government is all about. Here, the argument isn't about whether government is there to work for the common good, but whether individual liberty is the common good. Cline rejects Bristol's contention and cites sources that say the following about what the common good is. First, Cline defines what the common good revolves around. It revolves around man as a social animal and his need to live and be with others as well as to reproduce (focus there is on the family) and help each other. And so, the common good is what is good for the public, not the individual nor the ruler.
Time and time again, the common good is referred to generally rather than being well-defined as if the audience too should recognize right away what the common good is. But when some specifics of what the common good is are mentioned, they include: goodness and wholesomeness, what is good for the plantations, what promotes peace and the welfare of the public, is a law of God, is assistance for people as they emigrate, it advances Christ's Kingdom, promotes 'public happiness,' 'safety and security' (which is both a means toward public happiness and a good), unity, prosperity, and protecting the natural rights of citizens just to name some of what is associated with the common good.
The above is achieved by passing laws that honor God and promote the public good and well as are according to natural law and God's Word. These laws focus on what is good for the public or whole community rather than what is good for just the individual.
In addition, it is the citizens of the people as a whole whether they be the nation or a community who determine whether a government has fulfilled its duties of providing for the common good.
In his conclusion, Cline cites one more reference that says:
A Common-wealth properly so-called is… the Government of a Society of God’s Subjects by a Sovereign subordinate to God, for the common good, and the Glory, and pleasing of God.
So what should we say to all of the above? We should note that when Cline mentions the government created by The Constitution, he neglects to mention the context in which that document was written. It was written during a period of and in response to wide spread dissent and Shays Rebellion of the economic conditions people had to endure. That is evident when one reviews all that The Constitution says about the militia. The purpose of the militia was to put down insurrections and repel invasions. The militia was chosen as the protector of the government because it could also serve as a check on the power of government since the militia, in contrast to a standing army, employed the common people rather than professional soldiers.
Something else we should note here especially in addressing Cline's encouragement to Christians who view government the same way he does and is trying to make government pass laws to promote the common good as they see it. We are not longer living in the same social context as were the people whom Cline cited. Christendom was the status quo back in the times of the people Cline cited whether they be those who wrote the government documents Cline cited or gave the sermons he referenced.
To some, we have become a post-Christian, secular nation. And so should we still use the Christian notion of natural law and God's Word to define what is the common good? If we do, can laws based on those two entities produce security and happiness for the public when the public is diverse? Will the part of the community that rejects the Christian view of natural law and God's Word call for the abolishment of a government that bases it laws on those entities? And if so, should such a government dissolve even though it will have the support of many Christians?
And what should we say about the social injustices that reigned during the times of the people whom Cline cites? Does the existence of those social injustices take away from what those people said back then? If we follow the words and sentiments of the people whom Cline cites, will we become more vulnerable to supporting or being silently complicit with the social injustices practiced in the past?
And if we only let these past sources be our guides in terms of determining what we expect from our government, are we subjecting ourselves to the tyranny of tradition. It should be easy to see that Cline is a traditionalist. And here we should note that traditionalism is the other side of the coin from narcissism. For both traditionalism and narcissism put their favorite set of time periods on very high pedestals to the extent that they view their heroes from those time periods as having everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them--to borrow the phraseology of Martin Luther King Jr. when he was speaking against the Vietnam War.
We should note that Cline's position here begs the question of the superiority, or even validity, of those voices from the past who lived and spoke in a different context than we do.
Finally, from a Scriptural perspective that lies outside of the traditional Christian views of the people Cline is citing, we Christians need to approach Cline's approach to government and the ramifications that come if government functions as he thinks it should . After all, is that which is implied with Cline's description of the end of government calling on us to violate what Jesus said about not forcing our evangelism on others or not lording it over others? Is it causing us to reject Paul's example in I Corinthians 5:12-13 in terms of how he reacted to sexual impurity in society?
There are two things to consider here. The first is rather minor. That is whether Cline is right in what he claims about how government was viewed back in colonial times. The second item is a major concern. If Cline is right, should we Christians follow the examples of how those from the past viewed government? Or should we decide, for multiple reasons, that we need to use the Scriptures to blaze our own trail in how we view government today?
No comments:
Post a Comment