I've written before about the total depravity of mankind, and so the question naturally arises: if humans are inherently and thoroughly depraved, why is there good in the world? That's a good question, and the answer is the existence of what is called "common grace".
"Grace", in a theological sense, refers to a favor or blessing that God bestows on us and that we do not deserve and have not earned. Most often, Christians talk about "saving grace" -- that is, the grace that God shows us through Jesus Christ that allows us to be forgiven for our evil acts. We do not earn forgiveness by doing good things to "balance" out our evil; rather, God forgives us freely by his grace. Saving grace is available to all mankind, but some people do not accept it, and thus do not reap the benefits of God's benevolence.
However, there is another type of grace that God gives to all humanity called "common grace", and this grace is the root cause of the goodness that we can see in ourselves and in the world around us. Common grace is manifested in many ways; some are very simple and direct, while others are more subtle. The most obvious example of common grace is creation itself; if you acknowledge the existence of God, then no matter how you believe he brought the universe into being, the fact that he did so at all is a result of his common grace. Likewise, the physical laws of nature that govern our universe are both an effect of common grace (because of creation), and the proximate cause of many forms of common grace that we experience. The earth provides us all, believer and unbeliever alike, with food, clothing, shelter, and everything else that makes life possible. As with saving grace, some people may choose to reject common grace (e.g., by taking their own life). Most people, however, accept God's common grace without a conscious thought of its origin or an acknowledgement of its existence.
God created the church (and local churches individually) as his instrument for spreading saving grace to humanity. God uses churches to reach people with his saving grace. In a similar manner, God instituted governments to administer much of his common grace. Some governments are corrupt and ineffectual (as are some churches), but those that function properly bring the benefits of God's common grace to their people: peace, safety, prosperity, productivity, liberty.
Romans 13:1-7A ruler or government fulfills God's purpose when it punishes those who do evil and commends those who do good. Although every government I can think of extends itself beyond this simple mandate, these dual responsibilities should form the foundation for a just and proper nation. Consider also that the first few verses give governments considerable discretion in administrative matters; Paul was writing to Christians living under a rather oppressive Roman empire, and we should step very carefully when we consider overthrowing an authority that God has set up. (Nevertheless, taken in context I believe it's clear that when a government ceases to implement God's common grace it loses its legitimacy, but that's a discussion for another day.)
1. Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
On the 4th of July, the day we celebrate the founding of these United States of America, it's important to be thankful for the grace that God has shown us by allowing us to live in the freest and most prosperous nation that has ever existed on the face of the earth. Not one of us has earned this privilege, and most of us inherited it through the circumstances of our birth. It is by God's grace that we live freely, speak freely, worship (or not) freely, assemble together freely, hold property securely, and pursue happiness with fewer restaints and more opportunity than any people ever have before us.
In Luke 12:48 Jesus says, "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." We in America have been given a great deal; we have not earned it, but it was given to us freely by God because of his grace. God expects us to use our freedom and power wisely, justly, and generously as an instrument of his common grace.
Great post. I was just linked over by my good friend Cypren, and was very impressed. Keep up the good work!
Thanks much.
Hi Mike (I assume it's okay to call you Mike)....
Very well put. I appreciate your willingness to publicly express your beliefs. Great to see!
I would definitely like to hear your thoughts on when, if it is ever, okay to rebel against government. Given that Paul was talking of submitting oneself to a very oppressive and in some respects a very unjust government I have often wondered if the colonists were right to rebel against England during the revolutionary war.
Even if we could rightly rebel against governments at some point, it is difficult to see where one could justifiably draw the line between needing to submit and rising up in righteous rebellion. Would one oppressive regulation be too much? Or maybe one percentage increase in tax? Or one more unjust court decision? Where would you draw the line between a government that has a mandate to govern based on God's simple guidelines and one that does not?
In one sense your statement that all present governments exceed their mandate makes me wonder if rebelling against any government today is justifiable.
As for the U.S. government being the best in the sense of being able to exercise freedom and such the most under it I generally agree with you. But I wonder how free Americans really are these days. When you really stop to think about it they are not as free as those in revolutionary times became through the revolution. No where near it.
Many founding fathers of the U.S. would be appalled at the so-called "freedom" that we live under. Where one is restrictred by deed restrictred mortgages, where one really does not own their land in the sense that if they don't pay their property tax it can be taken away, where the justice system is corrupt and very unfair, where we must abide by many regulations that are overly oppressive - unneccessary and costly, where we cannot even now say anything negative about political candidates within 30 days of an election, where one cannot pray in school or even give out littlel "God loves you" cards to other students. Etc..
I believe that America as being the greatest bastion of freedom may be getting severally eroded and that in some respects a belief in America as being such may be based on what it was once and not on what it has become.
Carlos
PS. I wish there was some way to tell when a response in a "thread" of comments was posted so I wouldn't have to try and remember which "threads" I posted to :).
Carlos: I don't like "Mike", I prefer "Michael".
As for when it's ok to rebel, that's a tough question. It's hard to second-guess the founders of America, but you're right in saying that we're less free now than they were before the Revolution. But then, we can vote to change our circumstances, and they could not, and I think that's an essential difference.
If you want to see the most recent comments, just go to the most recent comments page; it's linked near the top of the left sidebar.
Hi Michael :).
Don't mean to stray too far off the topic of this discussion but in regard to your statement about us having the chance to vote....
That's a common belief regarding our freedom but can we really vote the way we think we can?
I mean can you and I reasonably vote to keep or repel anti-speeding laws? How about homosexual marriage okayed by the courts? What about the cost of a business licence? Or regarding what is required to start a business? How about voting in regard to camping regulations or regarding how much property tax to pay?
There are a multitude of issues over which you and I and every American has very little of any say so. Either because candidates don't make election issues of something or else because beuracracies make rules over which we cannot vote or judges who are appointed for life make decisions again over which we have no vote.
I think if you really look at it the freedom implied by the right to vote is more illusory than a reality.
What can we vote for? A Democrat or Republican (any other party really has no chance in national elections). And what of that? Will voting for either one really change many of the things that affect our freedoms in the practical? Here and now?
Whoever we vote for in national elections has so little immediate effect on those regulations and otherwise that affect our freedoms locally that there is no immediate correlation between who we vote for today and what effect that has on us tommorrow or next week or even next year. In the long run yes but not in the immediate future.
Which makes voting nationally a very, very poor way to promote local freedom.
How about local elections? Well that's certainly better but in the long run national and regional type elections will overide the good effect on our freedom as a result of local elections.
So are we really free to vote in the sense that it is commonly believed?
Now I am not against voting. Far from it. It's certainly better than not. But I do believe that the whole idea of being able to vote as being indicative of a great deal of freedom is a bit of an illusion. When you really look at it, being able to vote does not in and of itself say much with regard to how free a people are or are not. I mean there are many countries where people are able to vote but which enjoy less freedoms than even we do.
Even if it did Michael I cannot fail to notice that most American's don't like many of the regulations that they are burdened by. Or local ordinances or the like. Yet despite the opportunity to vote those things remain.
Something is wrong with that. So few people vote in the U.S. that I wonder if voting has become innefective in expressing the will of the people as a whole.
That is the only way I can explain why so many many be against certain things (government excesses, lack of religious freedom in public life, overburdening IRS, etc..) which remain.
So voting may not give us, the people, enough of a real say so and/or not enough of us vote. Either way the ability to vote in the U.S. does not ensure our freedom.
I believe the biggest hindrance to freedom today is the lack of opportunity, within the framework of our present governent stucture, for the people to effectively exhert their collective will. Our present system does not give people enough say so over many issues, beauracracies, and judges and this in turn leads more people to throw their hands up in the air and give up trying to change things.
There is a real rotteness in America slowly but surely taking away real freedoms. While all along keeping up a semblance of giving the people freedom.
If it has not happened already we will all find ourselves to have "freedom" in name and in institutionalized structures that seem to promote freedom (like voting) while not being free in practice. And being unable to do anything about it.
Carlos
Elections give us the power, if we're only willing to use them. Government institutions and politicians arne't our worst enemies... our worst enemy is apathy. Without the will to change our government, nothing will help us any more than voting does.
True enough what you say about apathy being a bad thing Michael. But few things seem to inspire apathy in the populace more than the feeling that voting does very little if anything to increase our freedom where it counts. On the local level. Where we must deal with everything from increases in property taxes to increased fines for traffic offenses. And everything in between. Many of which we have little of any say so over. Voting wise.
Why vote when it seems that our votes do so little to address the everyday issues that bother us day in and day out.
Mind you I am not discouraging the act of voting. I vote whenever I can and try to stay informed on who and what to vote on.
But I can sure understand the apathy that seems so prevalent. I think it stems from realizing, subsconciously perhaps if not overtly, how little difference voting really makes.
Carlos