Losing Side

Democracy gives the majority of people in a nation the power to impose their will on minority groups. That is what they have always done. A democratic government enforcing regulations and laws that a minority do not like is not tyranny; it is just democracy doing what it does.

For most of New Zealand’s history, the government and the church have been on the same side. During the two world wars, conscientious objectors were hounded terribly by the government. They would have felt that they were being persecuted by a tyrannical government, but the church supported the government. When land was being confiscated following the land wars, the Māori people felt they were being persecuted, but the church was silent because Christian farmers wanted the land. Many minority groups have been treated badly in New Zealand. They believed the government was tyrannical, but the church usually said nothing, because it supported the government’s position. These minorities were often vilified, but the church was silent.

Now that the church has become a small minority in Aotearoa NZ, the boot is on the other foot, so it is a bit rich for pastors to call the government tyrannical and autocratic because they do not like its policies. That’s just what happens to minorities in a democracy.

In a democracy, freedom is never absolute, despite what people are saying. The elected government has authority to enforce laws and regulations that limit people’s freedom to do what they like. So, when people participate in a democratic election, they are effectively giving the people elected authority to limit their freedom by telling them what they must do.

Aotearoa NZ has a well-developed decision-making process where groups of public servants employed by various government departments prepare peer-reviewed advice and recommendations for the Cabinet to discuss and decide. The process is controlled by the Cabinet Manual. Government decisions can be challenged before the courts if they are unlawful, so claims that the current government is autocratic and tyrannical are dishonest.

Because we have failed to preach the good news of Jesus effectively, Christians no longer have the numbers to shape the decisions of the NZ Parliament. This means that laws that Christians don't like are inevitable, as Parliament responds to the different views that now shape our culture. If Christians dont like that outcome, instead of complaining about tyranny, they should get on with doing what Jesus called them to do and take the gospel to the nation.

Political Freedom

The pastors talking about tyranny seem to have forgotten that “telling people what to do” is what governments do. Preachers can only give advice and make suggestions. In contrast, the civil government is the one organisation in society that has the authority to use force against people who do not follow its instructions. People who smoke inside a public building can be punished. People who break the speed limit can be fined. The government can tell people when and where they are allowed to fish. It can put limits on the duck shooting season. People who don’t send their children to school can be punished. The government can force people to fight in a war that they don’t support. It can make people pay taxes. It can put limits on the materials and methods that people use to build a house, etc. etc. The nature of a government is that it has a monopoly over the power of coercion.

And this is not new. Governments have always told people what to do. Maori children were told they could not speak their natural language. In 1917, the government told my grandfather that he had do leave his young wife and two infant children behind on an isolated farm and go to fight in France. He had no choice. In 1942, the government told my uncle he must go to Italy to fight int a war. He had no choice about a decision that cost him his life. When I was growing up, young men whose birthday fell on the wrong date were sent to compulsory military training. They had no choice. People are told that they must sell their land to the government so that highways can be built.

Most pastors in New Zealand support democracy (I don’t. See Government of God), but they seem to have forgotten that an election chooses the people who will have the power of government; who will have authority to make people do things. Christians have traditionally been quite happy with that situation because they assume that the people who are forced to do things against their will would mostly be doing things that Christians don’t like.

I note that the churches which are most strident in declaring the government is tyrannical and autocratic are the ones who supported so-called Christian parties that failed to get noticed during the last election. The current Labour government won the election with the greatest majority of any party in the last twenty years (most have been minority governments), so it has the right and the responsibility to govern, including telling people what to do. It has that power of coercion until the next election.

When a crisis occurs, people who have elected a government expect it to solve problems as they arise. Human governments do not have perfect knowledge, so they don’t have perfect solutions for all problems, but the people expect it to do something. Governments that do nothing during a crisis will be punished at the next election, so they usually have a bias towards action.

Some people will not agree with the government’s solutions. Some will not like what the government does to alleviate the crisis. But saying that a government is tyrannical and autocratic because your party was not elected, and you don’t like the policies of the government that was elected is a bit foolish. It is saying that you don’t want the government to do what you elected it to do.

Chao is worse than Tyranny???

A well-known theologian recently gave this justification for the power of the state.

God wants the world to be ordered not chaotic. There is a role for civil authorities, and sooner or later, faced with wicked angry, violent bullying people, they have to do restrain them, and restraint involves violence.

Chaos is worse than tyranny.

Anarchy does not solve anything.

This is a common view, but there are two problems with his statement.

• Throughout history, most of the violence and bullying has been done by civil authorities. If they are given authority to use violence, who will restrain them. This model does not protect people from wicked and bullying governments. Tyranny is often terrible.

• More importantly, this statement cannot be justified from the scriptures. God did not establish governments and kings to establish order in the world. Kings were an ideal stolen from the surrounding nations.

God gave his law to provide order amongst his people. His law applied by local judges is the best protection against violence, bullying and wickedness.

Law is good if it is used in the right way. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful (1 Tim 1:8-9).

Law is good when used for the right purpose. God gave his law to restrain law-breakers and rebels. Yet his people ignore his law, and choose to live under civil authorities, who claim a monopoly on violence and yet fail to protect their people.

My book Government of God explains how God's law applied by local judges in a community of love brings the order to society that people want.

Tyranny

Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.

Timothy Snyder in On Tyranny (p 17).