How Democracies Die

I’m a little behind on my reading, and just got around to an issue of Modern Reformation from July of 2019.

In it is a review of a book called How Democracies Die by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, published in 2018.

The reviewer summarizes what the authors describe as a subversive overthrow of democracy, contrasted with radical overthrows such as the coup d’etats in Argentina, Brazil, and other states.

This subversive overthrow occurs in a series of steps:

  • “the leaders of established parties fail to serve as effective gatekeepers”
  • the subversive candidate “succeeds in rejecting many of the unwritten rules” and transgresses those rules “without consequence”
  • the subversive candidate “denies the legitimacy of their [sic] opponents”
  • the candidate takes over party apparatus and state apparatus
  • “violence is tolerated or encouraged against opponents in order to harden views of opponents as enemies”
  • “civil liberties are curtailed in terms of movement and freedom of the press”
  • “courts are packed with justices who are partisan loyalists”
  • “constitutional restrictions” are used to tilt the field in favor of the candidate”

What occurred to me, and probably to you, as well, is that when you read these descriptions you see these things occurring in the other party’s actions.

Governments Demand Total Allegiance (& Faith Incurs Their Wrath)

King Nebuchadnezzar built a golden statue at which officials of various religions and faiths were to genuflect (worship) at prescribed times (Daniel 3:1-7). It was the king’s attempt, as it were, to bring a modicum of unity to the pluralistic realm over which he reigned.

But like most such attempts, there was something else going on, and the faith of a few insignificant citizens exposed it.

You might be familiar with the story: Nebuchadnezzar erected a gold statue ninety feet tall, and ordered that at the prescribed musical signal, all the government officials were to “fall down and worship” the image. Nonconformity was punishable by death in a fiery furnace.

It apparently escaped the king’s immediate attention, given the spectacle of the multitudinous music-fest, that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego — Daniel’s friends — did not comply.

But, not to worry. Some of their coworkers ratted them out. “Certain Chaldeans” (Daniel 3:8) dutifully complied with the king’s oppressive edict, and turned in others who did not. They reported that “certain Jews” were being particularly offensive: they “pay no attention to you, O king.”

“Full compliance is necessary,” we might imagine them saying, for the “good of the people.”

Nebuchadnezzar, as they say, was not pleased. In a “furious rage” he ordered the boys to appear before him and explain themselves, questioning whether there was any “god who will deliver” them. If he had not been pleased before, he was particularly un-pleased with their answer: God can deliver us, but even if he doesn’t, we won’t worship your gold statute.

Now “filled with fury,” Nebuchadnezzar ordered the furnace heated seven times hotter than normal because, for these insouciant miscreants, any old burning just wouldn’t do.

What prompted the Chaldeans to rat out their fellow cosmopolitan coworkers? What prompted Nebuchadnezzar to wax so completely apoplectic?

The desire for complete comformity among the people, and the desire for absolute allegiance to the government.

The result? The super-hot furnace burned the guards alive, but Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego emerged not ashen, not harmed, and not even smelling of smoke.

“Follow the science!” except to follow something else

The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) recently decided a case regarding indoor worship services in California. As with many SCOTUS decisions, the justices were divided largely along partisan lines, with the majority ruling generally that California had not given proper deference to the First Amendment when limiting church services.

California argued that the COVID-19 pandemic justified a restriction of church’s activities, and apparently disparate treatment of church life and other activities. The majority disagreed, and the concerns of the dissenting justices are revealing.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing in dissent, complained that the majority had “displaced the judgment of experts” regarding safety-based church restrictions, and wondered if “the Court does not believe the science, or does it think even the best science must give way?”

One is prompted to wonder what Justice Kagan thinks is the “best science” in this regard.

The “science” regarding COVID-19 has been all over the proverbial laboratory since the virus first appeared: science has advocated “two weeks to flatten the curve”; science has said masks were good, then they weren’t, then one was good, then two was better; science has said that the virus survived long periods on surfaces, until it didn’t; science has said that only a narrow segment of the population is at particular risk, but everyone should be quarantined, tested, masked, and inoculated; science has said everyone should be vaccinated, but vaccinations won’t eliminate masks, distancing, and shutdowns; science has all but ignored the consequences — scientifically deduced — from the now year-long scientific approach, which includes higher rates of domestic violence, drug use, suicide, and economic woes.

Which, “science,” then, is “best”?

That a Supreme Court justice would suggest that the Court’s understanding of constitutional law would defer to science, much less the “best science,” is alarming.

“Science” is all but settled on many significant questions of the day, and further has the potential to negate all reasonable judgment in favor of “experts” who could very well be wrong.

After all, it is modern “science” that contends that lithium mines are “greener” than pipelines, that burning corn in cars is better than people eating it, that unborn babies are “blobs of tissue” or parasites to be excised from the mother’s body at will, and it is “science” that has determined that biological sex is a social construct and that boys competing in girls’ sports are really girls, after all, and you shouldn’t argue with “science,” because, well, “trust the experts.”

As someone once said, “An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less.”

Take it Seriously

What do you tend to take seriously?

Do you take seriously the total number of COVID-19 deaths? Do you take seriously the danger of unrestrained “executive orders,” whether signed by a Republican or a Democrat? Do you take seriously the gargantuan administrative state? Do you take climate change seriously? Do you take seriously that status of your retirement account, fantasy football standings, or the report of your bathroom scales every morning?

If you claim Jesus Christ, there is something you should take seriously before any of these things. You might even take it more seriously than any of these things.

The Apostle Paul says that believers should “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12-13).

Fear and trembling does not have much cultural cachet these days, because the last thing self-respecting and intentionally-authentic awakened humans desire is to be so regressively un-bold. We are — as the world would have us believe — bold, confident, independent. Fear and trembling is so, well, weak.

But Paul wants us to remember that is not our relative strength or weakness that is important, but the strength of God. In fact, the reason we work (labor, power) is because “God is at work in you, to will and to work for his good pleasure.”

Take seriously your salvation, because it is God who has called you to it, and has begun the work (Philippians 1:6). Take it seriously, because God will complete it (Philippians 1:6). Take your sanctification (growth in holiness) by “working it out” because God is at work.

Take seriously your salvation and sanctification, then take a new look at those other “important” things.

Love with(out) Discernment

In Philippians 1:9-11, the apostle Paul describes the type of love that should abound among the disciples of Jesus Christ.

It is not what current culture and politics suggests.

Paul describes a love that is defined by something. Love among disciples — and what they manifest to other disciples and to the unbelieving world — is, first, abounding. It is not static, but always growing — in scope, in depth, and zeal.

Second, this Jesus-love is defined by knowledge and discernment. But knowledge of what? Culture and politics would say that love is defined by the knowledge of what the recipient desires, such as to be affirmed in their sexual preference, or gender identity, or political stance, generally. Discernment, then, according to the world’s approach, is the ability to perceive what the recipient wants from your love, and provide it without reservation or hesitation. According to the world, you love properly when you love according to the recipient’s preference.

But the Bible has a different idea.

The third parameter of biblical love is that it is for the purpose of approving what is excellent. “Fine” — the world says — “what is excellent is a person’s sexual preference and gender identity, so, approve that in order to be loving.”

But, again, the Bible has a different idea.

The fourth parameter of biblical love is that it is for the end of being presented before Jesus, at his return, as pure and blameless. This, too, is the fruit of righteousness that comes from Jesus, and is for the glory of God.

Being pure and blameless, as the fruit of righteousness, for the glory of God, is defined by the Bible, by God, himself, not by sinful humans.

To love, then, in a way that pleases God, is to love people away from lies and falsehood and wickedness, toward truth and righteousness and grace.

What Christians Should Expect from Government

Christians can evaluate candidates for public office by examining the platform of the party to which they belong, by researching their history of public service and voting records, or by assessing their personal character, among other things.

Sometimes those standard criteria don’t provide much help in choosing between equally good (or equally unattractive) candidates. One thing that helps is for the Christian to consider what the Bible says we should expect from government, as God’s agent.

Government Should Know Its Place

Government is not God. But the tendency of government is to take more and more god-like power for itself, and the tendency of people who do not know the true God, or who have forgotten who he is, is to give more and more god-like power to it.

A Fishy Freedom

People aren’t as free as we think, nor should we be as free as we would like.

This is not a welcome idea in today’s world, or in any world, for that matter. Autonomy and freedom in all areas, the right to choose among many options or to create an option that doesn’t yet exist is taken as the hallmark of human progress and evolution.

But for such an ideal to truly work would require a fundamental transformation of our nature.

Consider a fish.