Yes, being created by God, means that we belong to God, and if others mistreat us, they are answerable to God. However, the Bible makes clear that this goes far beyond the right not to be murdered.
First, it means that no human being has an inherent right to rule over others. God makes clear to the Israelites (Deuteronomy 17 and I Samuel 8) that only God is supposed to be their king. Their insistence on having a king, just like the other nations, is an affront to God, showing that they don't really want God to be their king. Samuel tries to warn them that if they have a king, they will be subjecting themselves to a condition of slavery that God never meant them to be in.
So then, we have a right not to be murdered. We have a right not to be subject to an absolute ruler. We can expand that: We have a right not to be subject to an aristocracy. We have a right not to be subject to a plutocracy (rule by the wealthy). We have a right not to subject to what we can call "corporatocracy" (or what Mussolini called "fascism").
What did God intend for us? Probably, God intended that we be in a loving, personal relationship with God, submitted to God, and therefore in a loving relationship with all other human beings. However, since we are not in such a relationship with God, we are obviously not in such a relationship with others.
Since we are not perfect, it is unlikely that any government by us will be perfect. But it seems that the government that will be the least bad, would be some sort of democracy, where each of us will have some say in how we are ruled. Then whatever image of God we carry within us, that originally meant that we shared in ruling this planet, we will be able to exercise in that government.
There are basic, essential things that God required of all governments. We will get to that next time.
3 comments:
Hi Bilbo,
I hate to have to disagree with this one too, in case you think I've got it in for you! ;-)
You make a wrong deduction:
Data: "God makes clear to the Israelites (Deuteronomy 17 and I Samuel 8) that only God is supposed to be their king". I agree with this.
Conclusion: "it means that no human being has an inherent right to rule over others."
The inference is wrong. Israel was a theocracy, and God was their king. Their request for a human king was wrong, because it was a rejection of God as their king. However, God's covenant was only with Israel, and he abolished his covenant with Israel 2000 years ago. It is not possible to argue from "X was God's arrangement with Israel" to "X reflects a fundamental reality of human existence for all people everywhere" as you do.
I agree that there is no "inherent" right, but there still is such a right, as explained in Romans 13:1-8. I just don't think that this is proved by appeals to the Old Covenant.
You make the leap from this absence of an "inherent" right to then dropping the word "inherent" and making the statement "We have a right not to be subject to an absolute ruler." This is a different proposition from the one you began arguing. I'd agree that no man is fit to be an absolute ruler, but this is a different proposition to the one you started with!
Hi David,
I prefer disagreement to being ignored. In fact, I prefer it to agreement, since agreement is a non-starter for conversation.
First, Israel's covenant has not been abolished. God does not go back on His word, regardless of our actions.
Second, Israel was to be an example for all nations. So if human kings is not what God originally wanted for Israel, it is not what He wanted for any other nation.
I agree that there is still a right for an existing government to have authority, even if it is a monarchy. But it is not an inherent right.
Right Reason has a post that is somewhat related.
Post a Comment