 |
 |
| Christianity and Republicanism |
| Not long ago, in my efforts to be as impartial and unbiased as is humanly possible, I sat down to write a paper that would point out how one can have a Christian republic, and that monarchy was not the only possible political option for a devoted Christian person. I considered such nations as the Republic of Ecuador, the United States of America, even past nations like the Republic of Texas and micro-nations such as the Serene Republic of San Marino. After getting into my subject and exploring different methods of approach, I came to a conclusion, that I at least, found somewhat shocking: there really can be no such thing as a truly Christian republic. Anyone who knows me, or who has read through this website, may doubt my ability to have an unemotional opinion of republics, however, believe it or not, I honestly tried to find anyway I could justify supporting a republic as a model of Christian government. The principles of Christianity and republicanism seem opposite. |
| In the Old Testament, Israel was a monarchy long before the coronation of King Saul. They had always had a King, albeit one who resided in Heaven. Moreover, from the earliest books of the Bible we see that each tribe of Israel was ruled by a hereditary prince. It is also noteworthy that these princes at times were forced to suppress their people in order to keep their word to God when the people wished to disobey. Even if you take the rule of the patriarchs or judges, this was clearly not a republic but more of theocracy, at least in the cases of Abraham or Moses. In the case of Ecuador, the President who established the country as a Christian republic was at heart a monarchist who viewed the republic as being only a temporary step towards the eventual goal of establishing a Spanish prince as their king. The United States was probably the most difficult case, due to my unalterable emotional attachment to the country. However, the facts cannot be denied. The United States was founded out of a revolution against a king, which the Bible clearly condemns in every instance save that a king commands you to commit a sin; most of the Founding Fathers were Deists, Freemasons or Protestants who rejected moral absolutes, who I would regard as heretics. If you look at the way |
 |
| the United States has developed, our very republicanism forced us to lose what religious, Christian culture we have had. America is now the world's leading producer of pornographic material, abortion has seen the massacre of about 33 million children, violence, perversion, homosexuality are all on the rise and becoming more acceptable each and every day. These ugly facts reveal the basic truth about any monarchy vs. republic political debate for Christians. That is, that the inherent principle of republican government is based entirely in humanism, in the hedonistic ideas of pagan Greece which said, 'the ultimate good, the ultimate measure of justice, of legitimate authority, of right and wrong is whatever most of the people want'. This clearly contradicts what God has handed down to us. The republic means "people rule", however we are supposed to allow God to rule. Early modern republicans, the Puritans who brought down King Charles I and provided the roots of America's New England foundation, held that the voice of the people was the same as the voice of God. Yet, the Bible says, the majority is usually wrong. God warned against following the popular point of view, saying that most people will choose the easy path to destruction rather than the hard or narrow path to Heaven. Even when God's own people, who had seen great miracles, were left to make their own decisions, they |
| ended up worshipping a golden calf. To say that the majority is always right is the height of arrogance. One cannot reconcile these two points: the basis of republicanism is that government authority, sovereignty etc. rises up from "we the people" while God insists that it is rather from Him that all true authority descends from, and we are obliged to obey Him, and His appointed ruler, be it Moses or King Saul, whether they are popular or not, whether we agree with them or not. It should be easy to see from Biblical evidence, to say nothing of Church tradition, that while clearly with monarchies there will be good kings and bad kings, and we are warned against putting our faith in any human rather than Heavenly leader, there is absolutely nothing in the Bible which supports, encourages or in any way endorses republicanism. There is, however, a great deal of Scriptural support for obedience to monarchs. Some have argued that the people who wrote the Bible simply had no knowledge of republics, but this cannot be true and is easily |
 |
|
 |
| disproven. Putting aside the ancient Greeks, the Jews were obviously familiar with the Roman Republic, and still loyalty to the Emperor of Rome was commanded, even when that Emperor was cruel and oppressive. Bishop Jacques Bossuet wrote what is, in my mind, the best explanation of what a Christian government should be; that is, a monarchy in which the authority of the King is sacred, but checked by tradition, Christian principles and the teaching of the Church, where the king rules on behalf of God, and is answerable to Him and His Vicar on earth, where the people are humble, obedient and loyal to the king absolutely as far as their obedience to God will allow. That is the point: Christian government must be based, as in a monarchy, on the authority of God, not, as in a republic, on the authority of popular opinion. |