Editor’s Note: The views represented in this piece in no way reflect those of The Review, and are those solely of Mr. Larkin.
I earnestly hope to see my fellow man more consistently adhere to the Law of God, to live a life full of Grace and free of sin. Because I hope for this, I hope for the total abandonment of government and law. Actions and attitudes that government and law constitute or require for their continued existences are far too often obvious sins, incompatible with the standards of conduct and spirit God holds us to.
I will first offer a definition of “government,” which is synonymous with “state” for my purposes. From then on, I will use the terms “government” and “state” in place of their definition.
The definition is “a group of people whose initiations of violence and threats thereof are most widely deemed more legitimate than those of a hypothetical anonymous individual among the people against whom these initiations of violence and threats thereof are made.” In the case of openly tyrannical governments, the initiations of violence and threats thereof simply need to be more commonplace within a community than those from any other group within the community.
To help you reach agreement with the application of that definition to “government,” try to think of any other quality that is both true of every “government” throughout place, people, and time, from the Mongol Empire to modern-day Switzerland, and not true of any other groups of people. Provision of a service or good? Well, what about companies and families? Defense from and dissuasion of invaders? Well, what about volunteer militias and international trade or friend networks? Keeping of peace? Well, what about communities and friendships? Now try to think of any “government” throughout place, people, and time that does not have the qualities I described.
The term “the Great Commandment” refers to a teaching of Jesus described in the Gospels of Matthew (22:35-40), Mark (12:28-31), and Luke (10:25-28). The description offered in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark provide us with the term itself:
and one of them [a scholar of the law] tested Him by asking, “Teacher, which commandment in the Law is the greatest?” He said to him, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole Law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:35-40)
The Great Commandment is, put succinctly, to love God and your neighbor. It is more important than any other commandment, all of which are extensions and specifications of this commandment.
If this is the case, then one may expect following the Great Commandment to be sufficient according to God’s Law, equivalent to following God’s Law in its entirety. This expectation is confirmed by the description offered in the Gospel of Luke:
And behold, a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this and you will live.” (Luke 10:25-28)
Here, the lawyer’s question is “what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”, the answer to which Jesus confirms is the Great Commandment (“You have answered correctly”). Jesus reinforces His message with “do this and you will live”; following the Great Commandment is indeed sufficient for inheriting eternal life. It would not be too much of a leap to suggest that it is also necessary.
Loving one’s neighbor is almost always incompatible with violently attacking that person or threatening to do so. While this may be obvious to the average individual, it is worth expanding upon. For one, damage to the relationship between the attacker or threatener and the attacked or threatened is inevitable. The attacker views the attacked as less than himself, not fully deserving of practiced forgiveness, mercy, cooperation, or even negotiation, not to be trusted or otherwise allowed to exercise their inferior will: not as a neighbor to be loved, but as a tool to be used, a lesser to be dominated, or someone whose suffering is intrinsically not as bad as his own and not worth avoiding. The attacked views the attacker not as a neighbor to be loved, but as a physical hazard, an adversary, a predator, a source of pain and doom, a taskmaster, or a detriment to his body. All instincts and psychologies can of course be overcome by will, but these are the dynamics that are reliably communicated by attacks and threats. Furthermore, threatening someone’s life—including by potential escalation—is threatening to cut short someone’s preparation of his soul for Judgement. No loving interaction would ever put such a thing at stake.
Assuming it is settled that physically attacking someone or threatening to do so is unloving and wrong, it is obvious that a government—a group of people distinguished by their attacks and threats—is in the business of doing what is unloving and wrong. But to say that a government or any other group “does” something is misleading. In reality, the only agents are individual people: politicians, police, and other “agents of the state.”
If it is wrong to break down your neighbor’s door, demand his surrender at gunpoint, shoot him if he does not, and lock him in an unpleasant cage regardless, then it is still wrong to do that while wearing a shiny piece of metal and carrying a piece of paper. Badges and warrants have zero effect on the morality of actions.
If it is wrong to threaten to send people to do these things to your neighbor if he writes the wrong numbers on a piece of paper or fails to give you enough different, green pieces of paper, then it is still wrong to do so while wearing a black suit and calling yourself “agent.”
If it is wrong to write or endorse a piece of paper that, according to the above police sergeant and IRS agent, makes it acceptable or obligatory to do any of these things, then it is still wrong to do so while sitting in a special room and having the ostensible support of a majority of the people within some locality.
Agents of the government are subject to the same divine Law that everyone else is subject to. God’s commandments—or if you are not a theist, any egalitarian moral standard—do not change from person to person. If “until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the Law” (Matthew 5:18), why would it buckle under the weight of a police badge?
Even setting aside the moral quandaries of interactions with individual government agents, many concepts associated with government are idolatrous. The statist idols I will discuss are, in order: the self as a legislator and the justice of men; the traditions of men; the law of men; men themselves; the self as a divine legislator; the symbols of the state.
To understand the first idol, consider the intentions behind a substantial number of laws: to play God. Lawmakers assume capital authority over the wills and conducts of others, when such an authority is reserved for the respective individuals and God Himself. A paternalistic attitude often accompanies such usurpations, and in it yet more folly is found. To sincerely believe that the only or best way to dissuade others from sin is to threaten or hurt them is to seriously disrespect them and their explicitly God-given free wills.
Suppose some government “made illegal” the commission of any sin. This would mean that, should someone be found to have sinned by fellow sinners, people (police, prison guards, executioners, et cetera) are encouraged to physically assault them, usually under the pretext of issuing “punishment” and/or to control them by conditioning and fear. Is this truly the Kingdom of Heaven? The authority to judge and to dictate punishment associated with judgement is God’s alone: “There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save or to destroy. Who then are you to judge your neighbor?” (James 4:12); “Nor does the Father judge anyone, but He has given all judgment to His Son” (John 5:22). Attempts to claim this authority are thus gravely prideful and self-idolatrous. This dynamic also flies in the face of the most basic understanding of the forgiveness God calls us to practice: “forgive anyone against whom you have a grievance, so that your heavenly Father may in turn forgive you your transgressions” (Mark 11:25); “Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven” (Luke 6:37).
Furthermore, the idea that the Kingdom of God could or should be brought about by harming and intimidating one’s neighbors is ridiculous and obscene. Jesus calls us to forgive, to love, to mourn, to pray, to live by example, and to communicate. For example:
But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for He makes His sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same? So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:44-48)
He does not call us to retaliate against, threaten, bribe, or train our neighbors, much less our enemies and sinners. In fact, He often warns against doing many of these things. For example:
You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on [your] right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well. (Matthew 5:38-40)
Sit down with the sinner and speak with him, rather than threaten or hurt him.
The second idol is the traditions of men. Consider the following passage:
Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They do not wash [their] hands when they eat a meal.” He said to them in reply, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall die.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to father or mother, “Any support you might have had from me is dedicated to God,” need not honor his father.’ You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition.” (Matthew 15:1-14)
Appeals to tradition in defense of what would otherwise be sin—including conduct associated with legal systems and political systems—are explicitly rebuked by Christ Himself, so such appeals should be immediately and fully abandoned. Sinful behavior is no less sinful when it is culturally accepted or even demanded. Question my criticism of government all you like, but appeals to normalcy and dependencies upon the familiar will fall on deaf ears.
“How could we maintain common decency without law enforcement?”
“How could we maintain common decency without a birthright caste system?”
“How could we maintain common decency without worshipping Moloch?”
“How could we maintain common decency without washing our hands before we eat?”
Furthermore, defending the use of laws and governments to preserve or advance tradition, culture, nation, et cetera is similarly inexcusable. If for the sake of following the Word of God we must not govern, and you believe that without the government, your tradition, culture, or nation would crumble, then for the sake of following the Word of God your tradition, culture, or nation will crumble.
The third idol is the law of men. Again in Matthew 15, Jesus said of the Pharisees who chose mortal tradition over the Word of God, quoting Isaiah, “This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts” (Matthew 15:8-9). Surely the most obvious member of “human precepts”—“ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων” (“the precepts/written orders/court warrants of men”) in the original Greek—is human law. The Law demands exclusive respect, since God demands exclusive servitude: “No servant can serve two masters. He will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon” (Luke 16:13). This would still be the case if the law of men and the Law of God hypothetically perfectly coincided; if the law of men is identical to the Law of God, then why bother following the law of men as the law of men?
Of course, the law of men has never perfectly coincided with the Law of God—I contend that this was not even the case under Saul, David, Solomon, or any of the judges, with the reasonable assumption that none of these figures abstained from enforcement—nor could it. Even if all sins were illegal, and all conduct, thoughts, and emotions associated with a perfect life according to God’s Law were mandatory, the fact that the law of men always prescribes enforcement of the law of men means the law of men always encourages sin. Even if again every person were to precisely adhere to this “perfect” law of men, and no acts of enforcement were ever fully carried out, the very issuance of the threat to carry out such acts is itself still a sin. Thus it can be seen how the law of men not only in spirit but also in mechanism represents an idol whose worship excludes that of the Law of God. Jesus’s assertion that “Every plant that My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted” (Matthew 15:13) surely applies to usurpers of the Father’s Law, like the law of men, first and foremost.
The fourth idol is men themselves. Reverence for and faith in politicians and political leaders often resembles reverence for and faith in idols and false messiahs. Consider the golden statue of former president Donald Trump showcased at the 2021 Conservative Political Action Conference. Golden or golden-bronze statues have also been recently erected—and not sarcastically or in protest of the depicted figures or their idolization—in the images of:
- former president of the United States Barack Obama in Jakarta, Indonesia
- former American general William Tecumseh Sherman in New York City and Paris
- former king of Hawaii Kamehameha I in Washington, D.C.
- former president of Turkmenistan Saparmurat Niyazov throughout Turkmenistan
- former prime minister of Ghana Kwame Nkrumah in Accra, Ghana
- Burmese political revolutionary Bogyoke Aung San in Yangon, Myanmar
- Munda Indian rebellion leader Birsa Munda in Jharkhand, India
- former president of the People’s Republic of China Mao Zedong in Tongxu County, China (almost)
The list goes on. Call golden calf-worship what you like, but I call it golden calf-worship.
…be strictly on your guard not to act corruptly by fashioning an idol for yourselves to represent any figure, whether it be the form of a man or of a woman (Deuteronomy 4:15-16) Political fervor often takes on the spirit of religious fervor. The feeling of being “on a crusade” for “justice,” the rousing sense of righteousness and pride associated with championing a mortal cause, usurps the rightful place of religious conviction in many political activists’ psychologies. Rallying behind a person other than Jesus as an earthly savior, as the embodiment of dear ideals and correct causes, is the blind guiding the blind:
“Leave [the Pharisees] alone; they are blind guides (of the blind). If a blind person leads a blind person, both will fall into a pit” (Matthew 15:14).
Related to the worship of men is the fifth idol: the self as a divine legislator. The idea that God’s commandments apply differently to police and other agents of the state suggests that mortal men have power over God’s commandments. Of course, no man has any power over the Law. But when this idea of exception from the Law is accepted by everyone you know, when you are implicitly taught it from a young age by teachers, parents, and preachers, that is all too often enough to convince you otherwise. I recognize the potential irony of seeming to personally assert that my interpretation of the Law is the correct interpretation, but the kind of pride needed to believe that sometimes people are above the Law, versus have the capacity to understand the Law, is surely worse.
The sixth idol is the symbols of the state. The flag is a graven image of worship, the national anthem is a hymn of worship, and the Pledge of Allegiance is an oath of worship. The religious treatment of the flag as a symbol of worship is exemplified by the United States Flag Code. According to 4 U.S. Code § 7: “When displayed from a staff in a church or public auditorium, the flag of the United States of America should hold the position of superior prominence, in advance of the audience, and in the position of honor at the clergyman’s or speaker’s right as he faces the audience.” Pay attention to your surroundings this Sunday and see if you can find any symbols of the state among the other symbols of worship. Maybe your church even flies the American flag above the flag of the Holy See or a flag meant to represent Christendom. According to 4 U.S. Code § 8, “The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.” Note the language that parallels what was used to describe the Holy Eucharist: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world” (John 6:51).
Do not make idols for yourselves. You shall not erect a carved image or a sacred stone for yourselves, nor shall you set up a carved stone for worship in your land; for I, the Lord, am your God. (Leviticus 26:1)
Christians say Grace or another prayer of gratitude before eating dinner with family. Americans sing the national anthem before community events and recite the Pledge of Allegiance before the school day. Christians silently look upward to a crucifix or the Eucharist while kneeling and clasping their hands as gestures of humility and conviction, sometimes while listening to religious hymns. If they are Catholic, they will make the sign of the cross with their right hands. Americans silently look upward to an American flag while saluting with their right hands or placing their right hands over their hearts as gestures of humility and conviction, sometimes while listening to the national anthem. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Lutherans, Anglicans, and other Christians often recite the Nicene Creed as an affirmation of belief and devotion. Americans recite the Pledge of Allegiance as an affirmation of belief and devotion. Pocket Constitutions and pocket Declarations of Independence often accompany pocket Bibles.
Be careful, therefore, lest you forget the covenant which the Lord, your God, has made with you, and fashion for yourselves against his command an idol in any form whatsoever. (Deuteronomy 4:23)
In conclusion, government always means sin at some point down the line, and so does law. I caution against reverence for human symbols and institutions as well as participation in socially accepted sin, and I recommend humility before God’s Law and love of your neighbor.
Be the first to comment on "Anarchy, State, and the Kingdom of God"