Volume 5, Issue 32
How could this apply to governance today?
Christian values dictate citizen responsibility. Citizen responsibility honored, facilitates efficient government. What are these dictates? They are the Christian definition of character. For children, it is respect your elders and your parents, get an education, plan to work, contribute to the overall well-being of society, and obey the law. For adults, it encompasses a commitment to family and others first rather than yourself, raise your children in line with the discipline of the Word, work to support yourself and your family, and obey the law. Further, Christians are to pray for elected officials and ask for wisdom and righteousness in government leadership. All mainline Christian denominations, from Catholics to Baptists to Methodists to Presbyterians to non-affiliated evangelicals, exhort these principles of citizen character. None advocate turning to government first for primary critical physical needs. What is wrong with referencing such elements of character even if you are non-Christian? Strengths of other faiths and cultures are often referenced in isolation when they are deemed to point to societal true north.
Are there critical requisites that certain members of the population need from government for security and quality of life? Yes, absolutely. Christians believe that the poor and needy will always be with us. The point is that no one should ever be satisfied or limited in their vision to be poor and needy. As a society, we should declare standards for citizen hope.
It is curious that in the national debate today, on any issue from health care to the debt ceiling, these principles of citizen responsibility are never mentioned by the national news media. Sixty-six percent of the U.S. population claims to be Christian. Ninety-two percent believe in the power of prayer. Thirty-three percent of the population self-identifies as born again. There are many levels of Christian belief and commitment. Regardless of whether you attend church every week or only at Easter, very few would argue with the above definition of citizen character.
Judeo-Christian character standards are part of our cultural and historical identity. Whether or not one believes in Christianity, why not embrace those elements of citizen responsibility that effectuate sound government in relationship to society? Challenging citizens to become part of the solution would resonate with a large majority of society that inherently attaches to such values.
The Founding Fathers were not staurophobic.
We argue today about whether the founding principles of the United States are Christian-based. Much evidence indicates that this is true. However, what cannot be debated is that, in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, faith in God was not only to be protected, but also respected as an eternal guiding principle. Self-reliance, family values, and disciplining our children to become responsible adults were the paramount purposes of citizen responsibility. The government was not to provide any of these services, but to facilitate the individual families in their own defined Pursuit of Happiness.
Separation of church and state was a concept to keep the government out of the individual’s effort, through his or her faith, to seek a better life. The concept was not to excommunicate all faith, and therein faith principles of citizen character, from the public square. Individuals were to be first and government second. Putting government first is the exact situation from which the Patriots declared independence.
It goes hand-in-hand that, in this independence, sovereign citizenship has responsibilities. For government to work efficiently, citizens must be accountable to principles of citizen character.
Expanding this commentary to current events would mean that in health care, a citizen has some responsibility to commit to beneficial health habits. As to education, society should never rest or be satisfied without 100% high school graduation of all our children. And whether we live in a rural area or an urban area requiring special infrastructure needs, we should be willing to pay extra in taxes or fees for such special projects that directly and narrowly benefit us specifically rather than the population at large. These commitments are also extensions of Christian values for citizen character.
The Haves and the Have Nots
The Haves and the Have Nots are referenced by secularists simply as the rich and the poor. Progressives believe that there are those who have too much and should be mandated to give more to the government to distribute to the poor as they, the government, see fit. Christian theology states that one should have an attitude of giving regardless of one’s economic status in life. One can be poor and be a Have in that they are willing to share what they have with others. One can be poor and be a Have Not if they feel entitled to more. One can be rich and be a Have by generously giving back pursuant to a formula of personal spiritual equilibrium. Or, one can be rich, greedy and therefore a Have Not in that there is no motivation to share the wealth, but only to covet more.
Christian consciousness is formalized in finding happiness in pursuing one’s purpose and reaching one’s natural potential. And in so doing, sharing, caring, nurturing, and respecting others and their needs. There is nothing wrong with honestly making money as long as it is a result of pursuing one’s God-given purpose, and not the result of the worship of money for money’s sake.
If government leaders would actually pursue policies that are meant to meet the needs of the citizens without dictating the social and economic structure of society, the cooperation of government supporting individuals’ rights to the pursuit of happiness would be functionally realized.
Trial of Principles
It was never the Founding Fathers’ intention that biblical principle should be put on trial as judged by government. It was the intention of our Declaration of Independence that government policy would be put on trial as judged by the people. In the revolutionary concept established in 1776 that God is sovereign over man and man is sovereign over government, Staurophobia was not a component of the government or public psyche.
In today’s public debate about the role of government in its historical and cultural context, what may be on trial is the essence of the binding fibers of democracy, the three-strand cords of Christian values and strength that hold us together generationally. Christian or non-Christian, we should not be afraid to embrace proven eternal principles of citizen character.
What we should only fear in this time is our lack of commitment to pass on the promise of the Great American Experiment to the next generation. Each generation is presented with a trial that tests the will to be true to the unalienable right of self-government. We only have to look to the Greatest Generation to know the example of the full measure of commitment to pass the test presented.
May our resolve in this generation, and in this time, be no less.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?