Government is Worldview Part 5: Biblical Theism v Marxism-Leninism

What are the legitimate responsibilities of good government? More importantly, which worldview is legitimate so we know what the responsibilities of good government are?

The last Perception examined scientific naturalism and postmodernism; let’s now take a look at Marxism-Leninism.

Marxism-Leninism (ML) says, “Whatever helps communism is good; whatever hinders communism is evil;” that’s the way we ought to govern ourselves. But why would we want to follow a system that can justify the slaughter of over 100 million of its own people in the 20^th century? Marxism-Leninism doesn’t care if it doesn’t have an answer; it’ll just shoot you and move on. Ouch.

Good, Decent, and Satisfying

But let me play Marxist-Leninist’s advocate for a minute (since the ML doesn’t believe in a Devil) and state, “Marxism-Leninism does have a reason for its existence, and that’s to provide a great life for everyone, not just for the rich and powerful. In fact, the reason for ML is the elimination of classes within society. Everyone deserves to have a good and decent life: being gainfully employed, having good health care, good food, reliable transportation, affordable and comfortable housing – all the things that make for a satisfying life. So if it takes the deaths of hundreds or thousands or millions to achieve that goal for the innumerable masses of mankind, then it’s a regrettable, but necessary price to pay.”

So if ML’s reason for being is to provide a good, decent and satisfying (GDS) life to all mankind, that’s great, but who defines what GDS is? The ML leadership! (Shock). But wait—isn’t ML’s purpose to eliminate classes (so everyone can have the GDS life)? Why then is there ML leadership if everyone is supposed to be the leader?

That, my friend, is the perplexing conundrum Marxism-Leninism has to deal with: before you can get to a dictatorship of the masses, you’ve got to have ML leaders dictating. But it’s impossible to get to the Promised Land of a classless society (where everyone rules) because it’s those very ML leaders who are murdering their followers in the Wilderness of Totalitarianism. Besides, the ML leaders know what’s best for the masses, anyway. Thus, the fatal flaw lives on.

Biblical theism has a different approach to leadership. Although the concept of equality of people is the same, unlike ML, biblical theism isn’t seeking to equalize people’s way of life, but to demonstrate mankind’s equal need for a Rescuer to rescue them from their own self-destructive behavior and motivations. Biblical theism sees God as the rightful, just, and benevolent dictator of our lives. Thus, His dictates, when rightly understood, will only benefit us and others. That is the essence of what a good, decent, and satisfying life is all about.

As C.S. Lewis’ demon, Screwtape, advises his apprentice, Wormwood,

One must face the fact that all the talk about [God’s] love for men, and His service being perfect freedom is not (as one would gladly believe) mere propaganda, but an appalling truth. He really does want to fill the universe with a lot of loathsome little replicas of Himself—creatures whose life, on its minature scale will be qualitatively like His own, not because He has absorbed them but because their wills freely conform to His. We want cattle who can finally become food, He wants servants who can finally become sons.
                                        The Screwtape Letters, Letter VIII, p 37-38

But what if I don’t want God’s definition of a good, decent and satisfying life? Then, quite honestly, you don’t want a GDS life. Now before you turn me off completely and think I’m some kind of rabid Bible-thumper, may I suggest looking at it this way: if there really is a God as described in the Bible – omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and omniperfect (can’t forget that one) – then wouldn’t His definition of good, decent, and satisfying be the perfect definition?

But Wait, There’s More

“What if I don’t agree with the ML’s definition of a good, decent, and satisfying life? What then?”

You’re shot. Or sent the gulag and then shot. Or sent to the gulag, beaten and starved, and then shot. The fact is, Marxism-Leninism as well falls victim to the same weakness as scientific naturalism and postmodernism: the infection of relativism. More specifically: proletariat morality. A Lexicon of Marxist-Leninist Semantics says,

From the point of view of communist morality the struggle against everything which hinders the cause of communist construction is moral and humane and for this reason we consider the struggle against the enemies of communism to be of a moral nature.
(Raymond S. Sleeper, A Lexicon of Marxist-Leninist Semantics, p. 175,  emphasis added)

This is the idea that whatever is good for communism is moral/good and whatever is bad for communism is immoral/evil. Marxism-Leninism’s makes itself the standard by which all beliefs and actions are measured. If you’re for communism, then you’re good; if you’re against communism, then you’re dead.

Some might argue, “Doesn’t biblical theism make the same claim? If you’re for God, then you’re good, but if you’re against him, you’re dead.”

The comparison isn’t the same and here’s why: you don’t have to be a biblical theist (a follower of God) to live under a government with a biblically theistic foundation. One point that’s rarely brought up, but is incredibly important in understanding biblical political philosophy is the difference between religious law and political law. Indulge me for a minute for a brief Bible history lesson…

Israelites, Foreigners, and Miss Yersinia

When the Israelites left the bondage of Egypt on their way to the Promised Land, it wasn’t just Israelites who left. Exodus 12:37-38 tells us:

The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Succoth. There were about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children. Many other people went up with them, as well as large droves of livestock, both flocks and herds. (emphasis added)

So although I wouldn’t say Israel was an ethnic melting pot at the time, it certainly had some ethnic seasoning to it. It’s this seasoning which precipitates the need to understand the difference between religious and political law.

It was clearly understood by the Israelites that as far as the Passover (a religious ordinance) was concerned, “No foreigner is to eat of it” (Exodus 12:43). However, if a Gentile wanted to participate in the Passover, he would be required to become a Jew. This wasn’t uncommon in ancient Israelite society: most religious regulations didn’t apply to non-Israelites. I say most because even though you didn’t have to practice Judaism, you were forbidden to practice any other religion.

“And that’s the problem with biblical theism,” the critic argues. “It’s intolerant.”

Absolutely! I agree. And I believe you’ll agree, too (or at least reexamine your position), after this little analogy.

Miss Yersinia Pestis, a tiny little (I know it’s redundant, but I wanted it to sound cute) bacterium, decides she wants to hang out with you. You say, “Sure, why not? We’re tolerant of all kinds of bacteria! Welcome!” So you shut down your immune system. After a few days, however, you develop a fever, body aches, headaches, nausea, vomiting, and nasty tumor-looking buboes (swollen lymph nodes filled with pus and blood). It won’t be long before you’re dead. Why? Because you refused to be intolerant and attack little Miss Yersinia Pestis – otherwise known as the Plague.

In the same way, the introduction of foreign worldviews, whether Baalism or postmodernism, into a biblically theistic government is going to result in the deterioration and eventual destruction of that government and its people. Thus, God’s command to the Israelites to remain religiously pure didn’t mean that all people living in Israel had to be Jews – but they did need to: 1) Respect the religious foundation of society and government and; 2) Not introduce or practice worldviews contrary to that religious foundation.

Yes, from our perspective, this is a hard pill to swallow, but I ask that you think of whether you’d want your immune system to open its borders to Miss Yersinia. The fact is, every government and every worldview is intolerant of someone or something. The question isn’t whether a nation and its people are intolerant, but what the object of their intolerance is.

Marxist-Leninist Hypersensitivity

And this brings me back to Marxism-Leninism. ML’s immune system is hypersensitive so that it not only kills foreign viruses and bacteria, but even its own cells and tissues. Historically, if there was the slightest divergence from the party line in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Cuba, etc., that divergence (i.e., its own people) was eliminated.

Role Credits…

So biblical theism sees government as founded on the mandates of a God who is the rightful, just, and benevolent dictator of our lives, whose dictates benefit everyone. Biblical theism also readily admits to intolerance; but not the intolerance based on superfluous standards like ethnicity, gender, intelligence, wealth, etc. Instead, it is intolerant of anything that would threaten the existence of a society goverened by biblically theistic principles (without eating its own).

So, my friends, the evidence is clear that scientific naturalism, postmodernism, and Marxist-Leninism don’t offer any kind of confidence that their philosophy of government is reasonable. Ultimately, what’s offered to you in these worldviews is survival of the fittest, and ladies and gentlemen, that’s not government, that’s red in tooth and claw anarchy. Biblical theism, on the other hand, seeks to rescue man out of his predicament of selfishness and brutality by providing:

• The moral foundation of absolute truth
• The principles of reason, compassion, empathy, and justice that come from the God who embodies these principles

Still, we need to remember, it’s not the government that makes a better society, but the people that make a better society. So if you want to make a better society, we can tinker here and there with government, but if we’re going to have quantum improvement in society, we have to improve the people.

Scientific naturalism, postmodernism, and Marxist-Leninism cannot improve people. And guess what? Neither can biblical theism. It’s not what people do or don’t do that makes them better; it’s Who they’re committed to.

As John Dickinson, signer of the Constitution, governor of both the states of Pennsylvania and Delaware, and a general in the American Revolution, said:

Kings or parliaments could not give the rights essential to happiness… We claim them from a higher source — from the King of kings, and Lord of all the earth.

Yep. It’s all about Who we’re committed to.

But that’s another story

Thanks for reading.