Click here to get an A+ paper at a Discount
the religious leader. This “bending the knee” in both directions is made clear in the film Agora. Philosophically, “bending the knee” is no more than humility.
However, if a secular system becomes corrupt, it is likely that those in power will not choose to be humble and recognize any authority other than their own.
The
ancient Greeks under this quality of humility, but the ancient Romans would dismiss it as weakness: preferring to rule with an iron fist, not the presentation of the
olive branch. Christianity would revive the quality of humility, and would strongly encourage everyone to bend the knee to God, no matter if you were religious or not.
In the Declaration of Independence we see the dual nature of governance: laws of nature and nature’s God. In the U.S. Constitution we do not see God mentioned. Since
the U.S. Constitution did not abolish the Declaration of Independence, it is thought that for some, the thought of “nature’s God” was still a factor in the lives of
those who governed. The absence of the name “God” in the U.S. Constitution does not mean that God was irrelevant,
but rather that secular government had to be set up
apart from purely Christian principles. This does not suggest that the framers of the constitution were anti-God. This was not the case. However, like what we saw at
the beginning of the “approved” time of Christianity under Constantine, Christianity could compete equally. And this equal competition is present in the U.S.
Constitution. By not giving Christianity carte blanche priority, our early legislators provided the means for all peoples to embrace the Americanstyle Republic. It was
not a “Christians only” club.
It was a constitution that applied to all persons. Third, Christianity opened the door to egalitarianism and the freedom of the poor and
enslaved. The Apostle Paul said that if you found yourself to be a slave, you should do a good job as a slave, but you should prefer to be free if you could be free.
He also stated that under God all persons were alike. At the time Paul said this, all persons were not considered to be the same. There were class distinctions,
cultural distinctions, having slaves was an acceptable practice, and oppressing the poor was an acceptable consequence of life. Not
even God reversed the fate of the poor. Jesus said, “The poor would always be with us.”
However, Christianity would elevate the person of low regard; they would free
the slave, after having enslaved those they could dominate. Christianity, unlike Judaism, would show us that human behavior could be changed by God’s intervention, if
God were invited to intervene. But God would not intervene in the age of grace, unlike how God intervened in the Old Testament. God would allow persons to grow into
being charitable, and kind, and good by forsaking self and embracing God-mindedness.
So I challenge you as the reader to think about two types of government, based on
two competing principles. Would you trust a government of persons that ignored human frailties of greed and corruption, and instead embraced doing whatever it wished
at whatever cost to those governed? Would you accept government’s wickedness and ill -treatment of those governed? Would you accept a government that declared itself
to be a Christian government, if human misbehavior was acceptable because it must be God’s will?
Is the declared will of God always God’s will? Can there be just and
right -minded secular leaders, just as there could be lawless and wicked religious leaders? Fourth and finally, Christianity helped us to see two types of law as both
being useful and necessary. One type is called positivist and the alternative perspective is called moralist. Positive law is law without the need for further
explanation. The law is the law,
no matter what. If you forget to put your automobile license in your wallet or purse or pocket— and after being pulled over by law
enforcement for a routine traffic stop you fail to produce your license when asked—should you be issued a ticket for violating the law? And if you were, would you
complain? Is the law unjust, because you simply forgot? Mustn’t you accept your punishment, because you clearly violated the law? A positivist judge would enforce the
law and you’d be punished accordingly. That is that, as some would say. No questions asked. No remedy is available for an alternative judgment.
The second and
alternative view of law is moralist. Moralist law takes into consideration circumstances surrounding the violation and patterns of lawfulness in the one who has
violated the law. If there is a reasonable explanation for the infraction, then the moralist judge might consider your past, good behavior as an indicator of routine
behavior:
