Cain, Murderer Established Government to
Control Sinful People to Perpetuate Government
The inherent problem in discussing which government is better is ignoring both: the condition of people and the fundamental purpose of government. Before Man and Woman sinned there was no need for government. These two people spontaneously lived God’s morality, without government. However, sin, rebellion to God’s morality, destroyed this harmony. This quickly culminated into violence when Cain, the designated Messiah (by his mother), murdered his weaker brother rather than protecting him. Journeying to the land of Wanderers {Nod} Cain built the first cities; thus, he established the first government to control channel sinful impulses to perpetuate government and society.
People, at heart, are sinners (Ro 3:23). The behavior of all people reveal their sin in word and deed (Ro 3:10-18). The practice of all societies reveal that they are developed by sinful people (Ro 1:18-32). Violence; the ultimate means to obtaining what cannot otherwise be obtained (Ja 4:1-3). We observed this behavior in Cain when God accepted Abel’s offering, because of his humble heart, while rejecting Cain’s offering, because of his prideful heart (1Pe 5:8-10). When Cain joined others who rejected the worship of God he became their leader, organized them, established a society and built cities for habitation; and control. Cain understood that rules {control} were needed defining penalties for behaviors destructive to government such as stealing, murder and so forth or society would quickly self-destruct. Thus, governments inherently seek control of its citizens to perpetuate themselves and then expand their control over others until everyone is controlled. This is the simple truth of all governments since they are implemented by sinful people. To ignore these two clear simple truths is to obfuscate the truth in order to increase the expansion of control of government power.
Democracy is Touted As the Best Government;
However, Wise People Have Feared Democracy
Spreading Democracy has been America’s righteous goal since the beginning of the Progressive Era under Theodore Roosevelt. Yet, from Plato onward democracy was seen as uncontrollable mob rule that would devolve into tyranny: the rule of one by brute force. What is democracy? At its heart it is the rule of the majority. If enough people say it is right then it must be right. Right? Wrong. Sinners by definition rebel against God’s morality and revel in their fleshly sinful appetites. God’s morality is labeled as restrictive of freedom while unrestrained fleshly appetites are proof of one’s personal freedom. The former requires self-control which is a fruit of the indwelling Holy Spirit and thus restricted to Christians, those saved by grace (Ga 5:22-24). The latter, while claiming to be expressions of freedom are actually expressions of self-destructive behaviors that ultimately result in the destruction of society and its inherent government. Thus, one demonstrates one’s slavery to sin despite believing one is free from God’s restraint (Ro 6:6, 12). Yet, the issue of democracy is moot since America’s government is socialism masquerading as democracy; neither a wise choice of governments.
America May Preach Democracy;
However, She Practices Socialism
America accomplished what Communism could not; implementation of socialism with the consent of the people. By definition socialism is the expansion of government control over its citizens, at the expense of its citizens. Though claiming to spread equality and freedom, government actually reduces the decision-making options of the individual. Communism sought to implement socialism by murdering millions of its citizens {Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Communist China}; ultimately failing {USSR} or morphing into a different form of socialism {ChiCom}. America took a different path to socialism. America used religious belief to first expand its own national borders {Manifest Destiny} and then the facade of democracy to expand its influence internationally. World War I gave President Wilson the perfect opportunity to pursue both national and international socialistic goals though America had no reason to become involved in the conflict. On the national front government power intruded into both the boardroom and the work room in the name of emergency war powers. This was accepted by the people though it limited their choices. Internationally, America tried to force nations into joining the League of Nations, an overarching international socialist government that would limit national sovereignty. This first attempt struggled to succeed but it did not die either. World War II reimplemented many government controls nationally and after the war the League of Nations was replaced by the United Nations, again supported by America. America’s internal political battle is not between democracy and socialism, that is a red herring; rather, it is between national and international socialism. The common denominator is: socialism. Republicans support national socialism while the Democrats primarily support international socialism. However, there is a third option.
Libertarianism Defines Itself Naively
As the Party of Personal Freedom
Libertarianism identifies and rejects the socialism of both major parties; as indeed it should. However, it errs in identifying itself as the party of personal freedom. It would remove government control over sexuality, drug usage, and other appetites of the flesh. It also claims to be the true party of laissez faire Austrian market economics as opposed to government controlled Keynesian economics practiced by the other parties. This sounds enticing if one ignores our two basic premises: people are inherently sinful and sinful people will ultimately self-destruct society unless controlled by government. Removing government restriction from self-destructive fleshly appetites will certainly empty the prisons but it will only create other problems via unintended consequences. Society will be wracked by increasing issues but will have decreasing resources to meet rising demands. So, which form of government is better? None of them because they all define their own morality apart from God’s moral code enforcing an arbitrary and artificial morality on its citizens.
While the Bible says Christians are to live under governments, the Bible does not say Christians are to see governments as godly (Ro 13:1-7). No government exists except as God allows. Christians are to obey the government in so far as it supports God’s moral code (Ac 4:18-20). We are to live peacefully under government; that is, we are not to rebel since our kingdom is not of this earth (1Sa 15:23; Jo 18:36-37). God did not allow the Hebrews to rebel and leave Egypt. He waited until Pharaoh gave permission for them to leave; then they left. Habakkuk was agog that God would use the Babylonians to disciple the Judah; yet, he recognized that he needed to wait and be taught of God rather than impose his own erroneous beliefs onto God (Hab 2:1). Thus, as Christians we are to be witnesses to God’s truth in the world and not be caught up in the controversies of the world, including which government is better. Once we become entangled in these endless, empty wranglings we are in danger of becoming friends with the world, making ourselves enemies of God (Ja 4:4; Tit 3:9). We must avoid becoming entangle in the affairs of this world less we lose our way and like Pilate ask, “What is truth (Jo 18:38)?” We have the truth. It is the gospel of Christ about a coming kingdom; this should be our guiding concern.