Skip to main content

Mother, Should I Trust the Government?

Mother, should I trust the government?

This immortal question was asked by Pink Floyd in an era defined by anti-establishment sentiment and general distrust of government; it's a question no less applicable in 2020 than when it was penned by Roger Waters in 1979.  Our nation was founded because our forefathers asked this same question in the 18th century.  Practically speaking, every nation throughout the history of the world has had a reason to ask this question at some point.       

Anyone who trusts the government simply hasn't read much history.

History tells the story of governments consistently failing to justify the trust placed in them.  Nearly every government throughout the history of the world has suffered from some level of corruption or incompetence, or, more often, a combination of the two.  When the government gets involved, bad things usually happen, and the government is usually the worst possible entity to accomplish any given task.  Even when their motives and methods are sound, their efforts are often overzealous and counterproductive.

The reason for this consistent failure should be no mystery.  After all, every government is comprised of imperfect, fallen human beings, so perfection could hardly be expected.  Government bureaucracies create a unique opportunity to view the corruption of human nature.  Bureaucrats are tasked with creating rules for their fellow men and spending money that is not their own, so inefficiency and corruption are likely to occur.  Few things intoxicate like power, so it should be no surprise when a person (or group of people) endowed with a small amount of power seeks to extend that power further and further.  

My refusal to trust government should not be construed as an endorsement of anarchy.  I believe that government is a necessary evil in our fallen, broken world.  As a Christian, I recognize that God is behind the rise and fall of empires, great and small, and that He has called His people to respect and obey their magistrates.  

God did not, however, call us to trust the government.  We should do everything in our power to be submissive to the powers over us, but we should also be shrewd, recognizing the limitations and pitfalls of fallen human beings governing other fallen human beings.  One way we can avoid the dangers of government abuse is by limiting the size of our government.  The likelihood for abuse is directly proportional to the size of the government, a principle our forefathers recognized when they designed a limited Federal government.  Not only did they limit the purview of the federal government, but, always wary of man's thirst for power, they reinforced their government with internal checks and balances.

Ultimately, we should remember that no human being will ever live up to our expectations fully.  No spouse or parent, employee or boss, pastor or president, will always be and do what we need them to be and do.  Everyone will fail us at some point, which is why the Bible constantly calls us to patience and forgiveness.  Furthermore, we need to place our hope and faith in something, Someone, transcendent.  Instead of resting our confidence in the finite creature, we need to seek repose in our Creator.  Instead of trusting unsuccessfully in the ingenuity and character of our fellow men, we should flee to the only One who is perfectly Faithful and Immutable. 

So, the quick answer is, no, you shouldn't trust your government.  We should do everything we can to live in peace and harmony with our fellow men, including our public officials, but we must be realistic about mankind's potential for evil.  As the old saying goes, "Trust in God and keep your powder dry."  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...