Autocrat vs Institutionalist

[Josh]

So... if pointing out the depravity of Donald Trump simply convinces people to support Biden instead, then in a spiritual sense what really has been gained? However, if the pastor's message brings conservative Christians to their senses regarding the false hope and misplaced allegiance they have placed in strongmen and government coercion, drawing their loyalty back to Jesus where it belongs, then more power to him. If this discussion is a theological one, then conscientious abstention is the answer

That pastor isn’t promoting nonresistance Anabaptism at all, though. I would dare say his actions won’t lead anyone to the conclusion you listed above, and he’s not even trying to get them there.

Overall, institutions are probably more evil than authoritarians - an authoritarian you can get rid of, but dismantling corrupt institutions is really, really hard. An authoritarian has a hard time making a case for why he should be the big cheese. Yet institutions pretty much take for granted they are an automatic authority on almost anything.

The present day state in the west is unaccountable, undemocratic institutions running almost everything: giant, private businesses like Google deciding what we can and can’t say (Google doesn’t allow our tracts office to run AdWords over Easter because mentioning Jesus’ resurrection is not a “fact”); quasi-private boards like the Federal Reserve deciding to print money and empty out Americans’ savings accounts; universities promoting all kinds of outright filth who then gatekeep who can get an education; “medical boards” deciding on a whim we need to shut down church for a year and not let you visit your elderly parents.

The public has largely lost faith in these institutions. They are intellectually and morally bankrupt. They sold themselves out to political ends (much as you correctly see the evangelical right sold itself out to a political faction). And quite a few people simply don’t care what storied institutions have to say anymore.

There is, of course, a third way out of this.

[Dan Z]

So... if pointing out the depravity of Donald Trump simply convinces people to support Biden instead, then in a spiritual sense what really has been gained? However, if the pastor's message brings conservative Christians to their senses regarding the false hope and misplaced allegiance they have placed in strongmen and government coercion, drawing their loyalty back to Jesus where it belongs, then more power to him. If this discussion is a theological one, then conscientious abstention is the answer

That pastor isn’t promoting nonresistance Anabaptism at all, though. I would dare say his actions won’t lead anyone to the conclusion you listed above, and he’s not even trying to get them there.

Agreed - and that's the problem with a pastoral warning against a particular candidate or ideology - whether it is Jim Wallace warning about conservative injustice, or Franklin Graham warning about liberal immorality - unless the spiritual message is "come ye out from among them," in the end it's just partisanship dressed in clerical vestments.

[Dan Z]

Overall, institutions are probably more evil than authoritarians - an authoritarian you can get rid of, but dismantling corrupt institutions is really, really hard. An authoritarian has a hard time making a case for why he should be the big cheese. Yet institutions pretty much take for granted they are an automatic authority on almost anything.

The present day state in the west is unaccountable, undemocratic institutions running almost everything: giant, private businesses like Google deciding what we can and can’t say (Google doesn’t allow our tracts office to run AdWords over Easter because mentioning Jesus’ resurrection is not a “fact”); quasi-private boards like the Federal Reserve deciding to print money and empty out Americans’ savings accounts; universities promoting all kinds of outright filth who then gatekeep who can get an education; “medical boards” deciding on a whim we need to shut down church for a year and not let you visit your elderly parents.

The public has largely lost faith in these institutions. They are intellectually and morally bankrupt. They sold themselves out to political ends (much as you correctly see the evangelical right sold itself out to a political faction). And quite a few people simply don’t care what storied institutions have to say anymore.

Choose your poison I suppose.

Institutional corruption is real for sure, but by and large, I think your institutional assessment is overly cynical (although commonly held on the far right and far left of the political spectrum). That being said, it seems to me that an all-powerful autocrat poses a greater risk to a society than an all-powerful institution - mainly because of the lack of checks and balances and social control in place to limit the whims of a potentially unhinged individual. For example, I take no comfort from the weak institutions overseeing the nuclear arsenals of Russia or North Korea - unimaginable carnage can be unleashed if Putin or Kim has a bad day. Furthermore, even if in the case of extreme corruption, you are forced to choose an Autocrat to set right the vices of a corrupt institution - wouldn't the rational choice be to select a person of proven moral character and altruistic virtue? I struggle with the idea that it takes an immoral man to fight an immoral institution.

[Josh]

So far, the only nuclear weapons deployed in war or against civilians was the United States during the height of institutionalism. That’s an argument against, not for, institutionalism.

Autocratic regimes, on the other hand, have mysteriously never actually made good on any nuclear threats.

I struggle with the ide that it takes an immoral man to fight an immoral institution.

A moral, Jesus-following person can’t take the reigns of state institutions, and if they took the reigns of private institutions, imagine the vast changes that would be made such as at, for example, Chase Bank:

- Loans would need to be forgiven.
- Debtors would no longer be taken to court.
- Wealthy people using their money for evil purposes couldn’t be customers anymore.
- They could no longer do business with the government for military purposes.

Just to name a few.

[Ken]

So far, the only nuclear weapons deployed in war or against civilians was the United States during the height of institutionalism. That’s an argument against, not for, institutionalism.

Autocratic regimes, on the other hand, have mysteriously never actually made good on any nuclear threats.

That is how you measure autocratic versus institutional regimes? On the use of nuclear weapons? No country has used nuclear weapons in nearly 80 years, not democracies nor autocracies. To make the nuclear weapons argument you would have to argue with a straight face that none of the other combatant powers during WW2 would have used nuclear weapons had they possessed them. You have to argue that neither Nazi Germany nor Imperial Japan nor the Stalinist USSR would have used nuclear weapons in the war had they possessed them first. That argument doesn't pass the laugh test. All of those countries were far less restrained and immoral in their war-making than the US. And those three countries were responsible for the bulk of the death that happened during the war, not the US.

How about some more relevant measures to the daily lives of ordinary citizens:

• Religious freedom. How well do autocracies protect religious freedom? (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, North Korea, etc.)
• Economic freedom (the choices of where to live and how to make one's living?)
• Political freedom (the opportunity to have a say in one's own government and effect peaceful change)

Are any of those important to you? And worthy of consideration?

[Dan Z]

So far, the only nuclear weapons deployed in war or against civilians was the United States during the height of institutionalism. That’s an argument against, not for, institutionalism.

Autocratic regimes, on the other hand, have mysteriously never actually made good on any nuclear threats.

I struggle with the idea that it takes an immoral man to fight an immoral institution.

A moral, Jesus-following person can’t take the reigns of state institutions, and if they took the reigns of private institutions, imagine the vast changes that would be made such as at, for example, Chase Bank:

- Loans would need to be forgiven.
- Debtors would no longer be taken to court.
- Wealthy people using their money for evil purposes couldn’t be customers anymore.
- They could no longer do business with the government for military purposes.

Just to name a few.

You sound like my Calvinist friends.

Total Depravity aside, let's keep this discussion where it belongs as a conversation about general leadership, or start a thread up in the "theology" section if you'd like. Anyway, there are ethical and non-ethical moral and immoral people of all stripes and I am of the opinion that relatively moral and ethical people make better leaders at all levels.

[Josh]

Are any of those important to you? And worthy of consideration?

Dan Z cited concern about nuclear weapons; the simple fact is that America gets an F there, since they used them unnecessarily in a war simply to cause mass terror and win. No one else has ever used one.

Hypotheticals don’t count. We can look at what actually happens in the real world.

[Josh]

You sound like my Calvinist friends.

Total Depravity aside, let's keep this discussion where it belongs as a conversation about general leadership, or start a thread up in the "theology" section if you'd like. Anyway, there are ethical and non-ethical moral and immoral people of all stripes and I am of the opinion that relatively moral and ethical people make better leaders at all levels.

I tend to believe there is only one standard of right and wrong, and that standard is found in the New Testament.

Nonetheless, if you want to talk about what worldly figures that don’t accept Christ’s good news of peace should use as a standard of right and wrong… we have the Old Testament including the OT law which explains how to properly structure a society, and yes, set up institutions.

[GaryK]

You sound like my Calvinist friends.

Total Depravity aside, let's keep this discussion where it belongs as a conversation about general leadership, or start a thread up in the "theology" section if you'd like. Anyway, there are ethical and non-ethical moral and immoral people of all stripes and I am of the opinion that relatively moral and ethical people make better leaders at all levels.

I tend to believe there is only one standard of right and wrong, and that standard is found in the New Testament.

Nonetheless, if you want to talk about what worldly figures that don’t accept Christ’s good news of peace should use as a standard of right and wrong… we have the Old Testament including the OT law which explains how to properly structure a society, and yes, set up institutions.

I would posit that the OT law was not given in order to properly structure a secular society, but rather a religious one. Namely, the children of Israel.

[Josh]

You sound like my Calvinist friends.

Total Depravity aside, let's keep this discussion where it belongs as a conversation about general leadership, or start a thread up in the "theology" section if you'd like. Anyway, there are ethical and non-ethical moral and immoral people of all stripes and I am of the opinion that relatively moral and ethical people make better leaders at all levels.

I tend to believe there is only one standard of right and wrong, and that standard is found in the New Testament.

Nonetheless, if you want to talk about what worldly figures that don’t accept Christ’s good news of peace should use as a standard of right and wrong… we have the Old Testament including the OT law which explains how to properly structure a society, and yes, set up institutions.

I would posit that the OT law was not given in order to properly structure a secular society, but rather a religious one. Namely, the children of Israel.

That begs the question if there is any such thing as a “moral” or “ethical” secular society.