This End Of Government Is Not The End Of Government

 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?

To Only Regain Control

A fringe benefit of Timon Cline's (click here for a brief bio) article, Is Cultural Christianity Enough?  (click  here for the article) is that it helps us see the different levels in which some Christians are seeking control over society and the state. This is important so that we look at such believers, fellow believers for me, as forming a monolithic group.

Cline starts the article with a positive attribution to the Trump Presidency. According to Cline, one of the fringe benefits of the Trump Presidency was that it reintroduced the issue of the role of religion in American society. From here, while briefly mentioning establishmentarianism, which in this case would be state church  of 17th century, Cline talks about how the Great Awakening of the 1740s with its voluntary Cultural Christianity became the model that is more-less followed today. The Great Awakening of the 1730s and 1740s saw an enthusiastic renewal of interest in the Protestant Christian religion. 

Though Cline later on expresses fondness for a certain kind of Cultural Christianity, he attributes intolerance and oppression to the Cultural Christianity that accompanied the then revival in Christianity. Cultural Christianity is where culture values, some of which are codified into law, are used to encourage or enforce conformity to Christian standards. That means that Cline seems to have ignored the intolerance and oppression that came with the establishmentarianism of the Puritans. 

But  the problem with Cline's logic here is one of facts. The Puritans required strict adherence to their understanding of the Christian faith. That was demonstrated with their expulsion of Roger Williams and their treatment of the Quakers, which included that of martyring 4 of them. And that doesn't include the taking of land from Native Americans and participating in slave trading using captured Native Americans as their merchandise.

And while Cline has good and bad things to say about Cultural Christianity, he makes another important distinction between a Cultural Christianity that relies on some laws for enforcement and a 'mere' Cultural Christianity that insists on not using laws to promote Christian values. 

Of course the goal of each of these approaches is to build a 'Christian civilization.' With that civilization comes rules for what can be tolerated. In considering what should be tolerated outside of Christianity are two questions according to Cline. First, can Christians prosper and bear fruit in a society where there is an absence of an adequate standard of morality? Second, can a society itself survive without an adequate standard for morality? For Cline questions whether an adequate standard for morality can be established without a significant Christian influence.

What can we say about Cline's article? The contribution he makes is that he provides some distinctions in the levels of control some Christians want to have over the state and society. There is establishmentarianism where we have a state church. Then there are two different approaches to Cultural Christianity with each having multiple levels of Christian control over culture. The goal of each level of Christian control is to built a Christian Civilization.

But one really has to wonder about the need for a Christian Civilization. Certainly such a civilization would make life here easier and more comfortable for many of us Christians. On the other hand, the New Testament tells us not to build our treasure here on earth and that we have no home here on earth. Rather, we are to live as exiles, as perhaps those Hebrews who wandered in the desert or those Israelites who were taken captive and sent to Babylon.

The first few centuries of the Church's existence challenge Cline's question of Christians needing society to have basic Christian moral standards for the Church to not just survive, but to thrive as well.

As for society's need for a Christian influence, here we need to review Church history and correct, again, Cline's claim that oppression from the Church only occurred during the time of Cultural Christianity. Then again, Cline does not consider certain kinds of intolerance exercised by the Church over society to be oppression. He does not offer specifics here, but he states that we need Christian standards to determine what society should tolerate. 

Also, we need to ask what we saw in this nation regarding the time when Christianity had a dominant voice. From the beginning of this nation we have seen centuries of white supremacy exercised against Native Americans in the form of ethnic cleansing and against Blacks in the form of regarding them as property and inferiors. We've seen  the oppression of women for centuries. We have seen violent labor struggles. For centuries we have seen the oppression of the LGBT community. We have also seen American imperialism and hubris abroad. And that doesn't count how the American way of life is threatening future generations by size of its carbon footprint. 

When we look at Church history and the history of our nation, is it any wonder why we have seen the emergence of Marxism, Critical Theory, Post Modernism, and Critical Race Theory. The basis for these criticisms of Western Civilization offered by each of these schools of thought are based on observation. And what has been observed are gross failures of what the West's Christian Civilization has wrought. Here we should note that America is not the only Western nation with gross moral failures.

Finally, the place that Cline wants Christianity to obtain in society flies in the face of what Democracy provides and demands. What democracy demands is equality for certain groups that many Christians who favor either a Christian state or culture oppose. And here we should note that when we Christians pursue a Christian civilization, state, or even culture we align Christianity with being an enemy of democracy.

So in the end, what Cline fails to see is that the kind of influence he wants Christianity to have over the state and society has damaged the reputation of the Gospel in the eyes of many people, especially those who are not social and political conservatives. 

What Are Our Nation's Religious Roots?

Timon Cline (click here for a brief personal introduction) has recently written an article that I believe shows the beliefs and intent of many of my fellow religiously conservative American Christians. The article is about the Protestant roots of America and Cline attempts to show how America's founding was, for the most part, based on Protestantism (click here for the article).

To cut to the chase, why Cline wrote the article is explained, with some confusing logic, in the last paragraph of his article. There he writes:

The sects and factions that dominated the socio-political life of the early republic were predominantly of Reformation heritage. Their theological commitments, for better or worse, conditioned the early character and trajectory of the nation. Any who deny this are simply not paying attention to the historical data. Secularist pluralism has no place in the historic, American errand into the wilderness. And until we recognize this, we might toil in the wilderness forever.

So it is rather obvious that  Cline believes that for America to successfully continue what it started, it must return to its Protestant roots. And since he believes that religious pluralism and neutrality were basically unknown to Americans way back, then the way forward for America is to return to its Protestant roots rather than continue with Secularism and pluralism.

Cline's case is solely based on the early religious history of the states.  And it is necessary for Cline to do that if he wanted to prove his claims because there is no evidence that America was founded as a Christian nation based on The Constitution, the Constitutional debates, the Treaty of Tripoli and other tidbits of American history. One of the only shreds of evidence that America, as a nation, was founded as a Christian nation at the federal level can be found in an 1892 Supreme Court Case of the Church Of The Holy Trinity v. United States in which justice David Brewer proclaimed that America is a Christian nation. However, in another case, Brewer ruled against the Methodist Church in its attempt to outlaw prostitution in all of New Orleans. In addition, Brewer qualified his comment in a 1905 book. He stated that America is a Christian Nation not in the sense that Christianity is the official religion of the US, nor in the sense that the profession of Christianity is necessary to hold office. That was because he stated that the government itself is 'independent of all religions.'

So Cline focuses on the states and what is written in their documents and what they practiced. Cline provides documentation for claiming that these states were heavily influenced by, if their founding was not based on, Protestantism. Also, even before we had 13 states, Cline refers to the Mayflower Compact, the Charter of New England, and William Penn's Frame of Government.

He then points out that God is referenced by several names in the founding documents or Constitutions of states like South Carolina, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, Vermont, and New York. Then Cline goes on to claim that for 9 of the 13 states, religious tests were prescribed in the states' constitutions. These states allowed for religious tolerance but reserved public offices for Christians in general and Protestants in particular. Cline did note that it wasn't until 1961 when a Supreme Court decision rendered religious tests for  holding public office as unconstitutional.

He continues his case by citing a Connecticut law that stated that no town in Connecticut could be incorporated without the presence of a Congregational church. And he goes on to mention Connecticut's enforcement of the state Sabbath law. He also adds a part of the Connecticut state constitution that it is the duty of all people to worship God. But he also noted a shift in Connecticut's state politics because of the growth of the Unitarian Church and decline of more conservative churches.

He then goes on to list a few court cases in which Christianity was privileged and goes on to mention other documents showing the Christian influence on some states. 

Toward the beginning of his conclusion, he cites Justice Brewer, mentioned earlier, as saying that the main cause for the beginning of many colonies was Christianity.

So what should we think in the face of Cline's claims and evidence? There are several problems with Cline's claims and point of view here, but I will focus on only two. The first problem is that Cline fails to mention the context of the religious involvement of colonial America and the. beginning of the nation. That context was that many of the people who came here, already had a religious commitment and they passed that on to their children. Of course we are going to see Christian religion play a significant role in the founding of America. But it wasn't because people decided to change from being secular to religious, they were already religious and were looking for a change in scenery. 

But the Christian religion also played a large role in why many from England came to settle America. And that leads us to the second problem with Cline's perspective here. The Christian religion played a significant role in the founding of America because Christians were persecuting Christians in England. And when those Christians who were fleeing persecution came here, they too persecuted fellow Christians. For example, in Virginia, those from the Anglican Church persecuted Baptists and Presbyterians. Up in New England, the Puritans were persecuting and even martyred four Quakers.

But it's not all, when Christians here weren't persecuting each other, they were promoting white supremacy and slavery. And when they were not exploiting and oppressing Blacks, they were taking more and more land away from Native Americans. And there were many churches that supported or worked to advance those practices and beliefs.

So the question that goes to Cline here when he makes claims about the role that Protestantism played such a large role in the founding and functioning of early America is one I use to hear on a tv show whose name I can't remember. The question that goes to Cline when he makes the claim that he does about Protestantism in America is: Are you bragging or complaining?

So many injustices have been practiced in America under the Protestant banner that perhaps instead of comparing today's secularism with yesteryear's Protestant domination of the land, he should  wonder why we still have Protestantism in America.

We could add that there was much more religious pluralism back in the day than he seems to have admitted here. But we need to really address the reason for Cline's article. If you remember the beginning of the article, the reason why Cline wrote this article was because he wanted to use the Protestant history in America to be the reason why our nation should return to Protestantism. But many of the fruits of that Protestantism had produced include exploitation, atrocities, and oppression. And what we have now is a vast majority of white evangelicals supporting conservative agendas. Those agendas include deliberately neglecting climate change, supporting an economic system that continues to increase the wealth and income disparity between the races here, trying to prevent those from the LGBT community from enjoying full equality in society, supporting unjust wars in the name of patriotism, to name a few agenda items. Don't these Protestants see what they are doing to the reputation of the Gospel by what they do and who they support?

There is a reason why we have changed from being a more religious society to being that of a more secular and pluralistic society; it is because the old ways promoted injustice and thus severely damaged the reputation of the Gospel.

Should we return back to the glory days when Protestantism ruled the day in America? If we are interested in keeping what democracy we have left, the answer should be a resounding 'NO!' Perhaps the best reason for saying no to a return to Protestantism is given by Jeff Helper as he distinguishes between democracy and ethnocracies. Read what he wrote on pg 74 of his book: An Israeli In Palestine:

'An ethnocracy is the opposite of a democracy, although it might incorporate some elements of democracy such as universal citizenship and elections. It arises when one particular group—the Jews in Israel, the Russians in Russia, the Protestants in pre-1972 Northern Ireland,  the whites in apartheid South Africa,  the Shi’ite Muslims of Iran, the Malay of Malaysia and, if they had their way, the white Christian fundamentalist in the US—seizes control of the government and the armed forces in order to enforce a regime of exclusive privilege over other groups in what is in fact a multi-ethic or multi-religious society. Ethnocracy, or ethno-nationalism, privileges ethnos over demos. whereby one’s ethnic affiliation, be it defined by race, descent, religion, language or national origin, takes precedence over citizenship in determining to whom a country actually “belongs.” Israel is referred to explicitly by its political leaders as a “Jewish Democracy.”'

In other words, what Cline is calling for is not a democracy, but an ethnocracy. He calling for the return of the dominance by and privileged status for Protestantism in America. And if that should occur, then Halper's point is most poignant. Halper's point is that the nation would belong to Protestants, and by understanding Cline's theological viewpoints I would hasten to say that he is referring to conservative Protestants, more than they belong to any other group. And considering Protestantism's history in the US, that return should be resisted rather than welcomed.

1. https://americanreformer.org/2022/04/our-distinctly-protestant-states/
2.