SUSPICIOUS READER (still worried about subversive tendencies): You've been insisting that no political system can receive our absolute and unqualified allegiance. Maybe the Bible does imply this. But doesn't this mean that there is no real difference between political systems -- between, say, democracy and Communism?
Not at all. There are profound differences. The Christian has to make a choice between such political systems. He has to ask himself, "Which political system has the greater possibilities for approximating the will of God in human life?" And when he has answered the question, he must then pitch in and try to make the political system he chooses a better one.
Why must the Christian reject a totalitarian system such as Communism? Precisely because the totalitarian system repudiates the fundamental principle of Biblical thinking, "You shall have no other gods before me." The totalitarian state says: "I am your god. You must worship me and me only shall you serve. If anything comes along and demands higher loyalty, be it morality, religion, human decency, or anything at all, you must repudiate it and reject it thoroughly, because I demand your total allegiance." To such a claim, no Biblically minded person can submit. For this is an utter repudiation of the living God.
In what way, then, is democracy closer to "Biblical thinking"? The answer is in terms of the Biblical view of man, with its recognition of both our possibilities and limitations. Reinhold Niebuhr distills a lot of wisdom into two lines when he says:
Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.
The wisdom lies in the fact that belief in democracy is based both on man's potentiality and on his corruption of his potentialities. While it is realized that we can create just forms of government, it is also realized that we can destroy the instruments of justice which we create, or, even worse, twist them to our own purposes. Particularly as men gain power this temptation grows upon them. No man or group of men is "good" enough to have unlimited power over other men. And to see that no individual or group of individuals gets unlimited power, a democratic society provides for periodic elections, so that all of the people have a "say" rather than just a few. If "man's inclination to injustice" seems to be gaining the upper hand, members of a democratic society can protest against such totalitarian impulses by means of the ballot.
Another example of this kind of provision is contained in the American Constitution, which provides that no one branch of government shall have unlimited power, but that there shall be "checks" and "balances" by other branches of government. The founding fathers realized that democracy was not only "possible" (because of man's capacity for justice), but also "necessary" (because of man's inclination to injustice). Democracy thus makes it possible to guard against idolatry.
SUSPICIOUS READER: Where's the catch?
The catch is right here. It is always possible to become idolatrous about some particular version of democracy, such as the British version, or the American version, or the French version. No existing system ever embodies all the qualities that it should, and the Christian will always have to be on guard to protest and root out those elements in the political life of his own country which perpetuate economic injustice, or exalt one race above another, or give extravagant powers to small groups. The struggle is never over.
That is one reason why it is so exciting.
No comments:
Post a Comment