Quick Thought of the Day: Government – A Coercive Force to Restrain Coercion
by drfuture2013
As friends and many followers over the years of my radio show Future Quake and my exploits since then (and this blog) have observed, I have been reassessing over this time some fundamental understandings of society, its institutions and the Kingdom of Heaven, beyond the simple, unchallenged maxims of my blessed American Christian upbringing. Never in the journey have I been led to doubt the veracity of the claims of Jesus, the teachings of Him and His Apostles, or the realities and promises they back up with real evidence of a resurrected man, seen by hundreds and testified by them in virtual real-time in widely-circulated written affidavits and oral testimonies for which they paid their lives as guarantees. What I have discovered is that in my enviable and truly wholesome upbringing I and others find ourselves carrying additional concepts in our “buckets” to defend, be they political ideologies, national agendas, or religious constructs and the high-profile leaders and institutions that subsist on them. It is an effort (a life-long one, in fact) to de-couple those additives from the purity of the person of Christ and the teaching of the Kingdom, and I know missteps will be made along the way. I still adhere to my adage that “whatever we do not critique, we worship”, and thus if I am to worship Jesus and what He represents exclusively (thus Him being “beyond critique”, but rather being the standard of critique), then whatever ideas or concepts I entertain in my life, however “good” or “Christian”, must be intentionally and consistently critiqued against what He represents, not for purposes of “judgment” of others, “sitting in the seat of scoffers”, or elevating oneself, but merely as a tangible act of worship of Him, by restricting access to who or what has access to my heart’s and mind’s “throne”.
I concede that most “normal” people do not spend too much of their useful and precious time thinking about the right role of civil government in this era of “grace”, before Christ imposes His dominion over earthly government one day soon. The hijinx we see in politics today (of which this campaign cycle has taken to new depths) makes peoples’ heads hurt, and they throw their hands up in disgust and helplessness, and change the discussion to more constructive subjects. However, in a participatory democracy as ours (which we have argued for generations we would fight for to preserve over other forms), I still feel like we have a duty to assist in improving and help preserving a necessary institution that God intented to restrain evil on the earth until His Son directs it without protest; it also is another (but certainly not only) venue for us to gently be “salt and light”, and to “be our brother’s keeper” and “love our neighbor”. I now see in scripture how God intended human societies and governments, while not coincident with the present “Kingdom of God”, to “hold the fort” until His return while reflecting more universal earth-bound values than Christ’s specific “marching orders” for waging spiritual war in the heavenlies through the Church, such as reflecting the “sum of the Law” – the “Golden Rule” that all peoples know is right.
I have been blessed in many ways by the thoughts and friendship of Robert Heid, as well as many listeners have in his appearances on Future Quake, and the concepts he has presented for which I had been ignorant. One prominent example is the field of libertarian thinking. It has opened my eyes as a Christian to principles that now seem self-evident to me, such as the primacy in society of defending the rights of “free association” (or disassociation), “self-determination” and maybe most importantly, “non-coercion”. In my deliberations in thought and study of God’s Word, I find that these principles are consistent with God’s guidance for secular governments for this age before His return. It is ironic to note that, since I am a premillennialist who perceives that Christ still intends to rule over a physical earth one day for a thousand years prior to the creation of a New Heavens and New Earth, even with Christ’s on-site rule with a “rod of iron”, reigning over the “Seven Mountains” of dominion some Christians seek to control today, those who do not vountarily submit to Him and His ways then will quickly rejoin Satan’s rebellion once he is again made available to them, even after experiencing the blessings of Christ’s earthly rule. It reinforces the notion that the Kingdom of Heaven, which will rule over a New Heavens and New Earth cosmos, must be filled with voluntary, non-coerced willing subjects that take on the non-self-serving aspects of the Kingdom so that it may remain intact eternally. This also explains why in world history when “God’s People” try to enforce the Kingdom of Heaven by coercive force, it has only resulted in bloodshed and corruption, with their dissenting Christian neighbors paying the heaviest price. However, I have also observed the “dark side” of the libertarian community (or those who corrupt it for their purposes), which is typified in the teaching and followers of Ayn Rand. It proposes what is no more than Social Darwinism, a “survival of the fittest” – ironically, much of what is today’s Conservative Movement, with Darwinistic emphases on unbridled, banker-led economics and gunboat diplomacy. Such a community based on “King of the Hill” ethics of selfishness would consume itself eventually. It flirts with anarchism (using government only for the purposes of the elite) and sees no constraining role of government except to keep the “barbarians from the gate”.
In this line of thinking, I have come to the realization that the unique (and necessary) role of government is coercive force. In other words, a society gathers and decides it is in its collective interest to embue those they select (by various means) with the authority and power to force certain arrangements to be made. Many other associations and groups can be formed to pursue other beneficial aims, but governments are uniquely tasked with those that require cocercion. We have all seen in history that those given coercive force, and the means to enforce it, will likely use it for their own ends, against the people, or for one segment of the population against the rest. Therefore, wisdom dictates that it should be given for the bare minimum of essential purposes. It is generally agreed that these essential missions are for the legislators (to codify and legitimize laws for the peaceful and fair operation of society), the courts (to be the final word of when one has broken these laws and harmed others, and the proper course of action and remedy), the corrections community to mete out their findings and restrain (and hopefully rehabilitate) threatening people for extended periods, police to restore peace and provide instant remedy when one’s personal well-being or property is under immediate threat by others (being truly “peace officers” and NOT “law enforcement” – the latter role to be determined by the more knowledgable courts), and soldiers (preferably non-standing armies of citizens) to provide collective defense against other sovereign nations that impinge upon it. One could argue that any other roles in society are not essential to be performed by government, and should be farmed out to others. The other principle our Founding Fathers and others before them wisely observed and then deployed was a “separation of powers”, to make sure one small group did not collect and thus abuse all the power vested in government. When we see the gridlock in Washington and elsewhere in government, we should not be completed incensed; it is fact may be an essential protective “nuisance”, and beware when all the holders of power are on the same page, and in collusion! This competition is often seen as a sign of societal disfunction, but in fact we should promote a healthy opposition amongst all sectors of influence in our society. Not only should our branches of government be resistant and suspicious of each other (with the ability to investigate and hold other branches accountable), but the police, military, Wall Street, press and other institutions should all be highly skeptical of each other, and “hold each other’s feet to the fire” in all cases, and not get too cozy with each other at all. The Press in particular should be combative with all these other institutions, and not fawning over them. When people do need to get together, to help in disasters or real common threats, constructive collusion will withstand these protective measures and attitudes. This is why whistleblowers are heroes and not traitors or villians, and we need lawful yet accountable venues for them to expose institutional evils without he ability to submerge them, or create unintended harm. This also why all the different dissenting Christian denominations and other groups are a type of “blessing”, for they disperse centralized power and influence, which damages Christian communities as much or more than their secular counterparts.
All of this discussion is a preamble to the new question I am now asking: are these roles the limits of “coercive force” that government should be granted? With a full acknowledgement that coercive force is a very dangerous weapon that should be meted out with great caution, in essence its use of coercion, properly used, is to arrest the use of coercion by one citizen or group over others. As the picture at the top of this post suggests, and may be merely a policemen stopping a “bully” from coercing others or causing harm. They restrain those who force their will on others by stealing or threatening them. However, as this world gets more and more complex, are there new forms of coercion becoming available to exploit others that government must arise to arrest, and is Christian thinking keeping up with it? Even back in the Middle Ages, the two existing power centers, the Church and the State, realized that a new power center emerged – the financial sector – through the new banking institutions established by the Knights Templar, and thus took strong coervice action (right or wrong) together as an admission that it must be contrained (while other emerging banking empires arose outside the reach of the Church that often colluded with the other power centers for its own preservation). After the age of the “robber barons” and “Gilded Age”, when America and the West produced all-powerful aristocrats and oligarchs who fought ruthlessly to obtain monopolies on utlities and products Americans considered essential, government stepped in with anti-trust laws to slow down a runaway force that would have exploited the bulk of humanity enslaved in the Industrial Age. Since that time, these powers (having access to the funds that fuel them and provide them political influence) have not accepted their leash, and find new novel ways of entrapping humanity just like an enemy’s bayonet, often in “guilded cages” that the victim does not even recognize – courtesy of the advanced sciences of advertising and public relations, a “psy op” that fashions the minds, values and self-perceptions of the public. Gandhi chose one of the purest ways by refusing to buy the salt they controlled, and rather walked to the sea with his fellow citizens to get it – this approach should be employed more via boycotts, but can it solve all the threats imposed on a vulnerable public? We have not even mentioned coercive acts of others that many see as indirect, such as dumping polluted water across our property or public drinking supplies, or in the collective air we breathe. Remedies to this problem have just started in the last generation, and many Christians still see this problem as non-existent, planning rather to hitch a ride on the Rapture Express and let others sort out the mess. Do Christian need to “grow up” to the world around them and see the real threats to themsevles and their neighbors they are ignoring?
We should not naively expect that government bureaucrats or regulators will be more virtuous than average citizens – we know they can be corrupted, or even just go off on their own “power trip”. However, what types of newer practical “coercion” is society now being exposed to, from being debt slaves in a environment of low wages and predatory interest, collapsing and unhealthy inner cities, a media almost owned entirely by six money-making conglomerates, genetically-modified foods (sometimes without our knowledge) and tainted groundwater, still unrestained air pollution, a government that jails and makes hardened criminals of those who privately use a substance they ban, and a host of other new “controllers”? If the Church will not use its wealth, network of local and national voices and resources, and moral authority to address these “bullies” and coercive guilty parties, then what resource of contraint do we have other than our government?
What are your thoughts on these matters?
I wish your emails came in audio book format. LOL Great content.
LikeLike
Always great to hear from you, Von. Thank you for commenting, and please elaborate on what is on your mind when you get a chance.
LikeLike
I have come to believe through your insight and others that the choice… Although simplified can be boiled down to fascism vs socialism. Would I prefer the liberatatian approach…. Oh yes… But for this election cycle that option is nonexistent . I may be wrong but my vote is to slow the impending NWO .( if at all possible) . I truly appreciate your post because it brings me back to my true citizenship , and I begin to look to others around the world and what is best for them and not myself. I am torn but truly appreciate the viewpoint you presented. What type of coersion Should we as Christians allow. Killing of others abroad and continued funding of multinational corporations or redistribution of wealth which I both have content for the government participating In
LikeLike
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Bro. Micah. It does seem to center around how we figure out how to ask the right questions. Simple, universal answers and circumspect understanding sometimes seems hard to find, but simple, universal Christ-like virtues never go out of vogue.
LikeLike
Working in the civil engineering field, what has been made plain to me is that when it comes to “big stuff” — large projects, research or development that impact large numbers of people–public/private partnership is a must. I’m referring mainly to roads and bridges, but also schools, industrial parks, big factories and research into new technologies.
There are things that the free market cannot efficiently provide, or that the free market would omit and make all of us much less safe and secure. When government funds research and development, the market is helped. When schools and roads are built, the market gets tangible benefits. When the government enacts policies that encourage economic development, or that provide incentives to keep jobs in the U.S., local economies and workers benefit from the factories built and maintained.
You also have to explore the regulation of all of this building/developing. Local regulation and oversight of construction projects, the enforcement of codes and standards of weight and measure and standards of safety–all of these things could be omitted in a free market environment because the profit motive often influences you to ignore safety in favor of what’s cheapest. Those are external costs that the market could ignore. The state often provides them in the public interest, and we all benefit.
Overall I think regulation is too dense and too heavy these days. We could use less of it. We’ve careened to an extreme. More free market reform would be helpful. Any many private institutes and groups publish great building codes and standards that guide engineers and builders. Some regulation is necessary but ineffective. Adopting a principled opposition to all regulation and government intervention in the market is unwise. Like it or not, it’s here to stay.
I no longer think the government’s power should be purely negative–restrain unjust coercion. In other words, I’m not a libertarian. I do believe there is a role for government being proactive to help citizens and the market, but I do think it’s best for that role to be as limited as possible.
LikeLike
Thanks for your insights and experience – I think they generally agree with my evolving perspective. I guess ideally, the libertarians would say that the courts and civil lawsuits would keep companies honest to not make dangerous or deceptive products (big or small), and that voluntary standards organizations such as Underwriter’s Labs and Consumer Reports could also be public watchdogs and advocates. However, I think this ideal approach is also too idealistic in practice, judging by historical precedents. Beyond the till that lawyers take from all parties in litigation, I have been involved in product liability lawsuits where the laws are stacked against the plaintiffs unreasonably, while in other cases (the coffee burns at McDonalds) some judges or juries swing too far the other way (my experience has still shown me the useful roles of civil and human rights lawyers as a last defense). Also, I have been involved in industry regulatory groups like the National Fire Protection Association, and it appears to me that their main goal is to form policies unapproved by the public to shield them from litigation collectively (just like police unions and other groups), and to keep out outsider rivals. Sadly, I have also been invovled with regulatory groups like the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that I personally saw eating out of the hands of the automakers (the FAA a similar situation).
I wonder if a way to address the regulatory overload you observe is to form an independent regulatory auditing agency to continuously review all of them, throw out those that are obsolete or politically-motivated and refine and simplify others so that it still serves the interests of the taxpayers and does not hamper industry unnecessarily. Of course, my suggestion adds yet another layer of bureacracy!
Regarding your last point, I think I agree with it – I just define being “proactive to help citizens and the market” as being an approach to constrain coercive situations imposed upon the public that limit their ability to fully avail themselves of better options (clean air, environmental technology) because of the (even indirect) financial and media powers of big business to serve their own interests.
Thanks for your constructive and thought-provoking insights.
LikeLike
I very much look forward to when I have your books in my hands.
The incomparable Will Grigg is a God send concerning this
Subject. Inquiring of him and allowing his God given exercise of his free speech would net an exponential yield.
I believe in letting the market place decide. If there is a need (big enough demand)the market fills at a profit.
I wonder what Will Grigg invisions to replace the coercive institution we are inflicted with?
It turns out we have a bifurcated government which takes into account those who self determine;kings without subjects, and it rules those who label themselves “citizens” with force.
(You cannot serve to masters.)
The secrets to this riddle are not easy answers.
(Who can make war with the beast?)
Rule 1all human government is “by the consent of the governed.”
Such is the nature of coercion.
Someone holding a gun to your head and demanding you knife your child is not,and cannot overide your freewill.(you won’t knife your child, will you?) You may be coerced into doing things you regret,but it is always you who had to decide to act or not. (The lessons of the martyrs.)
From this we find that people are free. The founders of this country understood this truth.
Rule 2, You volunteer to be a citizen.
(slave,servant,subject,tattooed with the mark of the government.)
2b Those who take(voluntarily?) the mark shall have no part of me? ~Jesus the Christ. No man can take your salvation from the hand of the Father or the Son. But you,yourselfe
May volunteer out of the Kingdom of God and joinder the beast kingdom.
3 process? It is most rewarding when studying to find confirmation of uncovered truths that ,it seems ,a majority of Christian’s are blind to. Perhaps a remnant make the cut.
LikeLike
I, too, “am of Will Grigg”. He was always one of my favorite guests on Future Quake, and I learned more from him than just about anybody (and I think anybody else could, too). He is one of the only people I could ever trust to be President. His blog address, I think, is at the bottom of my front blog page.
Thank you so much for commenting and your insightful thoughts, Cecilia.
LikeLike
What I find wonderful about your writing is that you are so close to my own Christian archetype in regards to prophetic interpretation. Being a ‘pre-millenialist’ evangelical myself, I had an interesting argument with a few Catholics in a chat room not long ago, and was surprised to experience what can only be described as complete doctrinal ignorance, from a pack of wolves (based on their mode of argument) who literally accused me of ‘heresy’ … one even said I should be burnt at the stake for goodness sakes (ISIS-lite?). I never swear or attack-the-man in an argument, but only address the logic in an argument, but these Catholics were my argumentative antithesis.
And what was my heresy? That I dared to claim that the Olivet prophecy and the Book of Revelation had not been totally fulfilled yet and that Christ would come again! All of these Catholics seem to have been taught (because it was evident that they don’t read the book – ie, don’t ‘eat’ the ACTUAL communion; the word), that all of Jesus’ prophetic statements, and those of St John the Revelator, were completed at the Roman destruction of Jerusalem; and that we are now in the PHYSICAL Kingdom, which is kept in order by the Pope! I look around, and I see no temporal Kingdom of peace, but maybe that is just my lying eyes.
They were denying a second coming, and it seems to be a pretty hardwired part of the beliefs of modern Catholics, that the status quo (also the problem with the Pharisees I might add), is a good state of affairs as long as they continue to make their donations to the local Diocese, and to visit confessional every now and then. So, I think I stumped them when I quoted the Nicene Creed of the 4th century, which is the foundational document for ALL Catholic doctrine, and the literal document which defines – for the Roman and later Orthodox streams of the Church, that is – what is, or is not, heresy.
In the original Nicene Creed it clearly states:
“He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the living and the dead.”
Common Book of Prayer version of Anglicanism and Episcopal:
“For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.”
The later Anglican version highlights a temporal Kingdom united with the Spiritual, and seems to be enhanced by the correct prophetic chronological interpretation of Revelation (ie, a 1000 year Kingdom AFTER the second coming), but the original clearly states a judgement of the living, and the dead, and a second coming. Quite clearly, even Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and the Anglican communions, were founded on the belief of a second coming where the LIVING are judged with the dead (first resurrection), and they believed this in the 4th century. It was a strange experience to be called a heretic by a bunch of Catholics who don’t even follow their own constitutional designed to weed out heretical doctrine.
In your above write-up, you noted: “What I have discovered is that in my enviable and truly wholesome upbringing I and others find ourselves carrying additional concepts in our “buckets” to defend, be they political ideologies, national agendas, or religious constructs and the high-profile leaders and institutions that subsist on them. It is an effort (a life-long one, in fact) to de-couple those additives from the purity of the person of Christ and the teaching of the Kingdom, and I know missteps will be made along the way.”
So, I was wondering what you think about the Nicene Creed, and whether it was merely a ‘religious construct’ to begin the usurpation of the Christian Faith by a political entity which required a new State Religion to replace the pagan one which had failed to provide a moral foundation in Rome and Constantinople?
My own opinion, is that, whilst not strenuously disagreeing with the Creed (except it only mentions ‘one baptism’ for the ‘forgiveness of sin’, and not infant baptism, which I have always had a problem with doctrinally, and also omits the second baptism of fire; the anointing), it seems to have been motivated purely for political purposes, to create institutions such as the organized Catholic Church, who have produced an indoctrinated sect of followers, even in today’s world, that have put 100% doctrinal interpretative responsibility into the hands of a Priesthood, who obviously have failed to even teach the Creed itself!
I would value your opinion. Thanks.
LikeLike
Thank you so much for taking the time to write and post such lucid thoughts.
What I first need to say is that I am a layperson (albeit an enthusiastic one, for many decades) and certainly not an expert on the topic of creeds, and only have a surface familiarity with them. However, I did briefly consider them (their origins and purpose, moreso than details of their contents) when writing Volume 4 of my book series the last year and a half, as a Christian history of “Christians and their Holy Wars” as part of the “Holy War Chronicles” book series (BTW for readers, I have recently started the seventh and final manuscript in the series, so the end is somewhere in sight). In doing the survey as a layman on my own without guidance, the overall impression I was left in was that the “Age of Creeds” was indeed an era of political struggle within the church between the power centers of the bishops, and regional “spheres of influence” geographically within the church, centered on the five “patriarchal” churches, along with an occasional diversional movement now and then. I marveled as the fought over mere grammer articles or adverbs in explaining the mysteries of the Trinity, to the point that they would not just disagree, or agree to practice by their own beliefs while in fellowship, but rather anathematize each other beyond the reaches of grace and to damnation over complex ideas that not even Scripture makes clear.
My friend Robert says he is content with the far-older Apostles Creed, which is also far simpler, and I am okay with that. I would even go back to the confession of Peter to Jesus that “thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God”, to which Jesus said it would be the “rock” on which He would build His Church; why should I want to add to what Jesus said was the “rock” under the church? Ephesians 2 (I believe) says that the household of God is built upon the apostles and prophets, with Christ the chief cornerstone (which, as I understand the latter, that all the teachings of the prophets and apostles should be interpreted (for doctrine’s sake) in accordance with the direct teachings of Christ). Why would this not also suffice (it is also curious what is left out of that “foundation”, doctrinally speaking). You could even go back to the testimony of the publican, who confesed nothing but asking God, “Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner”, to which Jesus said the man went home “justified”. Of course, there is much more to the “gospel” preached by the church (crucifixion, atonement and resurrection of Christ, empowerment and indwelling by the Spirit, His return, etc.), but now I am more careful in what I use for “litmus tests” for other believers – these other things are also critically important, but the theologian/lawyers can begin to parse words and get us all confused in our simple faith and needlessly divide us, bind the freedom of free-spirited but sincere Christian “seekers” of deeper truths, and get our eyes off of Christ. For example, the only confessions in the Lord’s prayer is “hallowed be thy name, thy Kingdom come thy will be done, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (which almost sounds like a believer giving over man’s God-given dominion of the earth from Genesis willingly back to God in subjection), and “For thine is the Kingdom, the power and the glory forever”; the other “confession” is what we REALLY need more of – confession of sins (“Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us”). When we begin to defend and fight for creeds or denominations, we put other things in our “bucket” to carry water for than simply Jesus. I vote for let’s keep sharing the word with each other and keep trying to grasp it together and privately, and just carry Jesus in our “bucket” and focus on getting about His work in the fields!
Thanks, friend.
LikeLike
A very well rounded answer, and I agree totally.
>>>When we begin to defend and fight for creeds or denominations, we put other things in our “bucket” to carry water for than simply Jesus.
That is exactly my own position, but it gets a little hard to attend churches where people feel the need to pick a flavor on the shelf. Personally, attending any evangelical church is good enough for me as long as they practice the ‘two great commandments’; love of God, and love of the neighbor just as thyself; but I find that Catholics have a distinct problem with this … to the point where the Pont.Max.Francis says that even Buddhists (who are non-theistic and don’t believe in a personal God) can ‘get to God in a different way’ (without Christ!), and so can Animists (et al), but that Evangelical’s can’t be in Communion with the trinity outside of a large denominational Church! He has said that Evangelicals pose a problem for Christian ‘unity’ (which I believe in Pope speak is merely sour grapes for losing ones monopoly; theological, and monetary).
IMO, the Nicene Creed may have had some use in defining for people why the Gnostic heresies were totally un-biblical – which was a big problem back then – but it was the beginning of the end for open discussion about true theological doctrines contained in the Holy Bible. What would have been better: Open public discussion about doctrine with even the Gnostics, or a political dominion claiming total authority over the spiritual thoughts of the populace? Bring on the Gnostics, I say. It always amazed me that it took over 1000 years for any larger group to question the legitimacy of infant baptism; but this wouldn’t stop me worshiping with someone who believed in it, though if I were a Catholic it would damn me for heresy.
What a confusing place Christendom has become because of body politic authoritarianism towards the plain words of Christ, the Prophets, and Apostles.
Thanks again for the prompt and cogent reply Dr. Future.
LikeLike