#Democracy – Thinking Accurately Education

“A Republic, if you care to keep it.”

The Bible, Christianity & American Government, Chapter 9

Make us a king to judge us like all the (other) nations.”
1 Samuel 8:5

There’s a famous quote making it’s way around the Internet, about Benjamin Franklin being asked what kind of government the United States was founded to be. It is said that he replied:

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Our founding fathers knew that the history of republics was not good, and that they often tended to end in tyranny.

For example, the once very successful Dutch Republic, formed in 1588, had declined and decayed until it had all but disintegrated by the time of the American founding. And in their own history, their ancestors had formed a republic named the English Commonwealth, in 1649, but it had only lasted for 11 years, until 1660.

But the primary example that the founding fathers looked to – which had been the model for all later republics – was the Roman Republic, which lasted 482 years, but it ended tragically in 60 years of civil wars and the rise of the dictator, Julius Caesar.

Why do republics fail?

In pondering this question, I was drawn back once again to a study of the world’s very first tyrant, Nimrod (first referenced in Genesis 10:8).

“Cush begot Nimrod; he began to be a mighty one on the earth.” (the Hebrew word used here is “gibôr“).
Genesis 10:8

Gibor = "strong, mighty, impetuous" (Genesius' Hebrew Lexicon)

Impetuous = "acting or done quickly and without thought or care," (Bing) marked by impulsive vehemence or passion (or) by force and violence.." (Merriam-Webster)

God had commanded mankind to spread out and take dominion over the earth, but instead the people congregated together in a city and started dominating each other, and Nimrod was the worst of them.

So, why do people follow tyrants?

An article in Psychology Today claims that people hunger for “strong parental figures,” and that they are afraid to take responsibility for their own lives, preferring instead to stay on the sidelines, and “let someone else run the show,” even though the people they follow are often “narcissistic,” “calculating,” and “cruel.”

Do you think that is true? That people are afraid to take responsibility for their own lives, and that they would rather follow the directions of someone else, even if they have demonstrated themselves to be narcissistic and cruel?

That’s exactly what the Bible says that the ancient people of Israel did, although they were warned against it.

“‘This is how a king will reign over you,’ Samuel said… ‘He will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage… He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves…'”
1 Samuel 8:11-18

When told that George Washington had turned down an offer to become America’s first king, King George III of England said: “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.”

But the people who rule our country today have little resemblance to George Washington.

The Psychology Today article goes on to say this about tyrants:

“They tend to have a blend of narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder traits such as a lack of empathy, grandiosity, thirst for power and control, lying and deceit, indifference to conventional laws or rules or morality, and more.”
Psychology Today, February 2, 2017

It remind us of a warning by one of the Founding Fathers, James Wilson of Pennsylvania:

“Sir, there are two passions which have a powerful influence on the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice; the love of power, and the love of money. Separately each of these has great force in prompting men to action; but when united in view of the same object, they have in many minds the most violent effects. Place before the eyes of such men, a post of honour that shall be at the same time a place of profit, and they will move heaven and earth to obtain it… And of what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable pre- eminence, through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of characters? It will not be the wise and moderate; the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. These will thrust themselves into your Government and be your rulers.”
James Wilson, Constitutional Convention of 1787

In Chapter 3 of our book, we talked about God’s plan for self-government, and the wise advice for doing so from Thomas Jefferson, Alexis de Tocqueville, and William Penn.

Back in the 1970’s and 80’s there was an old album cover that was pretty popular.

The artwork on the cover of the album depicts the scene where Haman, the Prime Minister of the Persian Empire is passing by, and everyone is bowing down to him – everyone but one man named Mordecai, and Haman tried to have him killed.

Some years earlier, another man named Daniel, had to disobey the king of his day, and his political enemies tried to have him killed.

And when that same king went to throw them into a fiery furnace, Daniel’s three friends replied:

“If that is the case, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us from your hand, O king. But if not, let it be known to you, O king, that we do not serve your gods, nor will we worship the gold image which you have set up.”
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, Daniel 3:17-18

William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania, once said:

“Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.”

And in our third chapter, we quoted from Thomas Jefferson’s 1787 Notes on the State of Virginia, where he wrote:

“Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.”

What is venality?

venality = "openness to bribery or corruption" (dictionary.com)

One thing that Mordecai, Daniel, and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego definitely had in common is that they were not open to corruption. They were incorruptible, in the same way that George Washington was incorruptible. If we want to be able to stand against tyranny, and against manipulation – even when your government is telling you otherwise, we have to take responsibility for our own lives.

Second Chronicles 7:14 says:

“If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”

God is ready to heal our land. Are we ready to do our part?

History is the Life-Blood of a Free People

The Bible, Christianity & American Government, Chapter 7

The book of Exodus opens this way:

“The children of Israel were fruitful and increased abundantly, multiplied and grew exceedingly mighty; and the land was filled with them.”
Exodus 1:7

400 years earlier, Joseph had saved Egypt from destruction during the seven years of famine.

But, during those 400 years:

“There arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph.”
Exodus 1:8

It is never a good idea to forget your history.

England had experienced a religious reformation and had grown to be a world power under King Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I.

But everything changed in 1603, when the King of Scotland also became – for the first time – the King of Great Britain (and thus the King of England). He didn’t know much about English history (such as King John and Magna Charta). He didn’t know much about the Rights of Englishmen, nor did he care.

When people (like the group we know as the “Pilgrims”) chose to separate from the Church of England, King James had some unkind words for them.

“I shall make them conform or I will harry them out of the land or else do worse”
King James I (1603-1625)

And that is exactly what he did.

“For some were clapped into prison, others had their houses beset and watched, night and day, and hardly escaped their hands. And most were feign to flee and leave their houses and habitations and their means of livelihood.”
William Bradford, Of Plimouth Plantation, 1630

You see, King James believed in something called “the Divine Right of Kings,” and that his power as the King over England was absolute (meaning that it could not be questioned).

One website says:

“James’s great failure as an English king stemmed from his inability at first to perceive wherein the English assembly differed from the Scottish Parliament, and from his unwillingness to accept the differences when at last he became aware of them.”

In fact though, the problems didn’t end with James I. They went on for many years, with struggles between various kings and Parliament, until the English Bill of Rights was signed into law in 1689. But that only came after the King at that time (James II) fled the country, which became known as The Bloodless Revolution!

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he wasn’t writing it from within the bubble of the current events of his time. He was writing it from within the context of the hundreds of years of history since King James and the Pilgrims. And not only that, he was writing it from within the context of the ancient rights of his ancestors going all the way back through history to Magna Charta.

That is the our heritage as American citizens, and we would do well to remember it.

The 2020 Presidential Election (part II)

(From a Biblical, Philosophical and Historical point of view)

Democracy = "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives." (Bing)

Democracy was not invented by the Americans (after the Revolutionary War), nor by the French (after the French Revolution). According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, it was developed by the ancient Greeks about 2500 years ago.

National Geographic adds that democracy gives people a methodology for replacing their government “through peaceful transfers of power rather than violent uprising or revolution.”

So why is it associated with the Americans and the French? They both replaced monarchies (rule by a king or queen) with democracies.

So then, what is the purpose of “violent uprising or revolution” in a democratic governmental system?

The Huffington Post weighs in with this:

“Popular uprisings against state authorities that are largely democratic in nature…can be viewed and, rightly so, as a disproportionate, if not misguided, response to the ills of the democratic system or democratically elected leaders.”
HuffPost, “Popular Uprising against Democratically Elected Leaders. What Makes it Legitimate?” 3/31/2016

Democracy is close to godliness, isn’t it?

The Ox-Bow Incident, 1943

In “The Ox-Bow Incident,” made in 1943, we get a very clear portrayal of democracy in action.

democracy = "comes from two Greek words that mean people (demos) and rule (kratos)." (National Geographic)

democracy = "government by the people, especially : rule of the majority." (Mirriam-Webster)

Genesis 12 begins the story of how God, in much the same way that He had previously chosen the individual man–Noah–to save the human race, selected a particular family of people–a tribe, if you will, to become his chosen people, to be His representatives to the rest of humanity.

We learn later, in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, that God’s chosen form of government is actually theocracy.

theocracy = "The Jews were under the direct government of God himself. The nation was in all things subject to the will of their invisible King." (Easton's Bible Dictionary)

Is the implication, then, that God wants the whole human race to enter into that type of system of government?

Well, yes, as a matter of fact, except that Jesus (the “Son of God”) will temporarily reign until He turns rule of all things to His Father.

“And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: ‘All power is given to Me in heaven and in earth.'”
Matthew 28:18

“For He must reign, until he hath put all his enemies under his feet.”
1 Corinthians 15:25

However, until Christ returns to do that, God has left it to men to rule themselves.

Interestingly, when the American colonists set up their brand-new experiments in self-rule, they did not choose a democracy. The question to carefully consider is why not?

“The founders feared that passions could arouse the public, and national policy could become hostage to these passions. Therefore, they wanted men mediating between public opinion and national policy. They also expected these men to be of substance and property, with much to lose from error and also more difficult to corrupt.”
Huffington Post, 11/17/2016

“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths
James Madison, Federalist Papers No. 10

No discussion of governmental systems would be complete, I think, without a glance at King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, interpreted by Daniel in Daniel 2.

The statue above indicates a series of “world” governments, beginning with the Neo-Babylonian Empire (represented here by the gold head) and including the Persian Empire (silver chest & arms), Macedonian Empire (brass abdomen), and Roman Empire–and all its reiterations (iron legs). The interesting thing about the statue, though, are its feet–a combination of the iron left over from the Roman Empire (think of it’s tyrannical strength) and clay.

What does that make you think of?

The Western Roman Empire fell in about the fifth century. Yet its legacy carried on, most immediately through Emperor Constantine and his cooperation with the Catholic Church, which became the most powerful organization in Europe. Out of that came association eventually came Charlemagne and the “Holy Roman Empire,” which lasted for about 1000 years. This empire was known as “the First Reich.” The “Second Reich” was the German empire that was ruled by Otto von Bismark, William I and II, that led to the First World War. You may remember that William II was known as “the Kaiser.”

kaiser = "Kaiser is the German title meaning "Emperor". Like the Russian Tsar it is directly derived from the Roman Emperors' title of Caesar..." (Definitions.net)

The “Third Reich” as you probably know, was “the official official Nazi designation for the regime in Germany from January 1933 to May 1945…“

There are still ways that the legacy of the Roman Empire lives on in Europe, England and even in the United States of America.

But what about the “iron mixed with clay?”

The main difference today between the governmental systems of most of the statue in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream is that all of the empires mentioned above were ruled by a dictator, while most of the modern countries are considered democracies.

democracy = 'control of an organization or group by the majority of its members;the practice or principles of social equality." (Bing)

That seems to make sense to me, that people would want to rule themselves by democracy, rather than submit to a dictatorship.

dictatorship = "autocracy (a system of government by one person with absolute power), absolute authority in any sphere." (Bing)

Then, let me ask you a question: Why doesn’t the malleable clay REPLACE the iron in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream?

malleable = "easily influenced; pliable" (Bing)

“And whereas thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay… but they shall not stick fast one to another, as iron cannot be mixed with clay.”
Daniel 2:43

Rather than replace the iron, the clay attempts to mix with it, but it is not possible. Eventually, under enough pressure the weaker, brittle clay will fall off. And only iron will remain.

In the book, How Should We Then Live?, Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer wrote (in 1976):

“Overwhelming pressures are being brought to bear on people who have no absolutes… The pressures are progressively preparing modern people to accept a manipulative, authoritarian government.. If these pressures do continue to mount, which seems probable, do you think people, young or old, will at great cost to themselves, at the cost of their present personal peace and affluence, stand up for liberty or for the individual? …When these outward forms are imposed on (their) wordview (which) would never have produced freedom without chaos in the first place, people will not stand when the pressures increase… As the memory of the Christian base grows ever dimmer, freedom will disintegrate…”
Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer, “How Should We Then Live,” 1976

Is that the future you want?