The Church Should Never be Democratic

The American Dream – A Strife for the Ideal

The American Declaration of Independence second paragraphs starts,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, [and] that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . ."

That's fine at first glance, but only at first glance. People are certainly not created equal. Some people are Nobel Laureate astrophysicists and others can barely read. Some people struggle to walk but others can ski downhill backwards. Some people are autistic, some are athletic, some are witty, some are wasted by disease. At the risk of being politically incorrect, I dare say that the supposition of equality is burying our heads in the sand. Inequality is coded in the genes of humanity and the DNA of the cosmos. Even within the human species- races, tribes, genders - nobody can deny diversity, and if so, we must then be prepared to accept this diversity in its every scope.

What am I trying to say? Anti-Semitism for instance has existed since the birth of Ishmael and Isaac, and between Israel (Jacob) and his brother Esau; it was there at the time of Goliath just as it was during the Nazi holocaust and like it is now with ISIS and other extremist groups; People have sought to wipe out Jews from the face of the earth. Reason, The Jews have a trait that easily attracts hatred – they will easily succeed and dominate even in foreign land. Is it so hard to believe that prosperity can be ingrained in the genes of a nation? All our rational thinking would rather have us think not, but history proofs different; the black American will tend to be more athletic, the Indian will excel in math, the Kikuyu (Kenyan tribe) will be more thrifty and entrepreneurial, the Luo (Kenyan tribe) intellectual, spendthrift and flashy.

Allow me to digress a little so that I may illustrate this to its extreme; races too will be different – is it any wonder that 15 years ago Zimbabwe produced enough to feed itself and all the southern African states and that now without the white farmers the country is now a net importer of food. How about African inventions, arts and science and their practicalities? What's there to say about Chinese civil or Japanese motor technologies?

Rather than equality, we should seek inclusion. Inclusion realizes our differences, but yet recognizes that inspite of them we all have a role to play. Exclusion is really the failure to admit and hence celebrate diversity; our present calls for equality are really nothing but discrimination clothed differently;

How is that we would expect of the handicapped as we would the able bodied.

I think that 'equality' should start with the marginalized accepting that they are indeed 'unequal' and pursue inclusion as opposed to equality. We are getting it right with 'Affirmative Action' but completely missing the point with misplaced 'Equality' quests. Take the call for 'gender equality' for instance, are women really equal to men? Shouldn't the push be for greater inclusion? Should the focus be 'equality' or should it be 'affirmative action' for women.

Back to the American Declaration of independence; this document, drafted by Thomas Jefferson in 1776 and presented to the congress on July 4^th further states;

'to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government….."

There are two sides to a coin; that a democratic government is condescending is irrefutable, but it is also a limited government. It is limited in the claims it makes and in the power it seeks to exercise. Democratic government understands itself to be accountable to values and to truths which transcend any regime or party. The fact is that the United States of America constitution declares it to be a nation "under God" which means, first of all, a nation under judgment. In addition, limited government also means that a clear distinction is made between the state and the society. The state is not the whole of the society, but is one important actor in the society. Other institutions - notably the family, Religion, educational, cultural, media and economic enterprises -are equally important actors in the society. They do not exist or act by sufferance of the state. Rather, these spheres have their own peculiar sovereignty which must be respected by the state. This makes democratic governance pluralistic and thus the opposite of political monism. By protecting the roles of many institutional and individual actors within the social order, democracy keeps society open to the future. Because it cherishes criticism and change, democracy is a progressive movement invoking the promise of the future.

It might not be the magic pill, but what really are the alternatives? Where democracy is proud and arrogant totalitarianism is out rightly insolent; it freezes and consolidates power and is essentially reactive and fearful. Where democracy exacerbates diversities to perverse proportions, totalitarianism represses diversity and dissent in a fearful denial of the human capacity for growth. It smashes the human need for criticism. Sometimes life has no ideals, it can boil down to the lesser evil; is that what America's patriots settled for? I said already that a democratic society holds a promise for the future mainly because it is not a terminal enterprise.

"The intention is not that at some point in the near or distant future all questions will be answered and all conflicts resolved. The chief goal of democratic governance is to sustain the process of democratic governance. Toward that end, constitutional provisions do not provide all the answers to society's problems but protect the process by which various answers are debated and adopted, always subject to change; in which aspect totalitarianism totally fails."

It's important that we examine the historical relationship between democracy and some of the six other institutions mentioned above; specifically Religion and Economic enterprises. Later on, in a separate section, I will delve into issues touching on the family unit (homosexuality). Most importantly, to the religious and also to the not so religious, democratic government does not seek to control or restrict the sphere of religion in which people affirm, exercise, and share their ultimate beliefs about the world and their place in it. Historically, democracies have exhibited an exceptional track record on the people's freedom of worship.

With respect to the economic life, there is much debate about the relationship between democracy and capitalism. Capitalism has had considerable economic achievements as testified by the world's largest economy. Whatever the economic achievements of capitalism may be its evident that personal and institutional ownership and control of property contributes greatly to freedom. As a matter of historical fact democratic governance exists only where the free market plays a large part in a society's economy. Like political democracy, a market economy is a process open to the future. The focus is on the production of wealth rather than on the consolidation and redistribution of existing goods. Experiences in America and the world suggest that when a market economy is open to the participation of all, it works to the benefit of all, and especially of the poor. Conversely, we note that the economic systems advanced by totalitarian regimes have been consistently disastrous for all but the new class of the political elite.

An interesting loop exists between capitalism and democracy; a market economy may be a necessary condition for democracy, and a democratic government will inturn naturally turn toward capitalism. It is a classic example of the egg and the hen, which one comes first; each one seems to require the other. For all pragmatic considerations there is a bias in favor of a market economy that is informed by the commitment to democracy. By the same implication therefore capitalism is a necessary restraint upon the monistic drives of society.

The American Patriarchs had a vision; how close is the America of today in actualizing that ideal in its own life? Certain facts about America stand out: they are the primary bearer of the democratic ideal; they are large and influential economically, militarily, and demographically; America is home of most of the heirs of Israel of old (The Children of the promise); and in America the Church is vibrantly free to live and proclaim the Gospel to the world. I do believe that America has a peculiar place in God's promises and purposes, I just do not agree with the current liberal stances on certain 'democratic freedoms'. This is definitely a step in the wrong direction.

And this now brings me to the human 'freedoms' as espoused in the democratic principle;

Human Rights and Freedoms as Prior Rights? As the primary bearer of the democratic possibility America's Constitution and declaration of independence declare it as 'One nation under God' and 'of equal men endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights'. But that was in1776, the sorry state of affairs today is that Democracy introduces a relativism in which truth is determined by the majority, or is subject to variation by various democratic institutions like the courts and legislatures.  There is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political action, ideas and convictions; they are all subject to interpretation by the established democratic structures ……. Read more