Know the question to understand the answer.

Just after the Constitutional Convention, the legend says a woman approached Benjamin Franklin to ask him what sort of government had been created. His answer, now oft-quoted was, “A Republic, madame,…if you can keep it.” Modern conservative and libertarian activists like to tell this story as a way to remind people that we do not live in a democracy, a misconception they believe explains why our country is ruining itself just as Franklin warned. This predilection sometimes manifests as a scoffing derision for anyone who would blunder into describing the United States as a democracy rather than a republic.

The key differences for them are that we elect representatives rather than voting directly on policies and that the power of the federal government is limited heavily by the Constitution (including things like original state sovereignty and enumerated powers). Thus, when they look at our current government, they are aghast at all the practical ways in which it resembles precisely the democracy Ben Franklin and friends refused to create.

Even though I agree with such criticisms of democratic rather than republican government, this is not good history. See, the big question in the Constitutional Convention wasn’t whether we would have a republic or a democracy. It was whether we would have a republic or a monarchy (which many Americans wanted). That was the real question he answered.

Moreover, when he said “if you can keep it,” it isn’t likely he had in mind the dangers of democracy. Instead, he would have been thinking of the recent experiments with non-monarchy both in America and in England which had failed so fabulously: the brief republic in England between the execution of Charles I in 1649 and the restoration of his son Charles II in 1660 and the reversions to monarchial control of the imploded political experiments of Carolina in 1719 and Georgia in 1755.

So, although it makes for nice rally propaganda to say he meant to stand vigilantly against people who believe in democracy, the better interpretation is he knew how difficult it had been for any government other than a monarchy to survive. Thus, instead of using this quote to blast modern liberals or Democrats, it should really be used properly to dismiss American monarchists, if you can ever happen to find one.

Comfort the afflicted...

I love motherhood. In fact, I love motherhood so much that if there’s any one thing in the whole wide world that I most regret being unable ever to do, it’s to have the experience of personally giving life to another human being. When God gave gifts, He absolutely gave the best one to women. But it’s precisely because motherhood is so precious that Mother’s Day can be so painful for many people.

A good friend of mine who wants nothing more dearly than to be a mom recently announced her first pregnancy to me, only to tell me a week later that she had suffered a miscarriage. I can’t even imagine the hell this Sunday might be for her.

My own mother died of breast cancer 10 years ago, and if anything pained her in that process, it was losing the chance to know and be a grandmother to my children. Every year for Mother’s Day, I feel the emptiness of her not being here, grief made all the worse by her birthday sometimes actually coinciding with it.

Last night, a woman called my show to say she dreamed of a dozen children growing up but has had none with her two marriages and divorces. Then she paid me the ultimate compliment when she said this is why she hates Mother’s Day and stays home every year. I realized that perhaps for the very first time in her life, she felt safe enough in a Christian community to express this honest pain and receive consolation for it rather than condemnation. How long has she suffered silently, knowing that other Christians don’t want to hear such things?

Women who have no children.

Women who have lost children.

Women whose husbands refuse to let them have children or men whose wives do the same.

Women who are so frustrated with their families that they may even wish they weren’t mothers at all.

Children who have lost mothers.

And children whose mothers were not wonderful.

On this day of great celebration and honor, there is a terrible danger and a wonderful opportunity to remember these suffering souls and to remind them how much we and Jesus love them, a love that might just redeem an otherwise awful day.

Dreadful art.

The rule of law is a simple principle which says that all people in a society are equally subject to the same laws. But this idea, so simple in the abstract, requires a number of additional features to function in reality. One of those is that the law be clear enough and simple enough that any individual can reliably know at any given moment whether he is or is not in violation of it.

But when the law becomes too complex, even those trying to be law-abiding citizens find themselves uncertain. Their presumption that anything they do is allowed unless it violates some clear prohibition switches to the fear that anything they do might be found unacceptable by a persnickety cop or judge. Some enforcers will of course use wise judgment, but others will find a way to make jail people because they want to do so. But for the rule of law to function, it needs precisely to not depend on the whim of individual personality.

Eventually, the people learn to avoid doing anything new or innovative because they are afraid of being prosecuted for inadvertently violating some aspect of the law they didn’t even know about. They become inclined to self-censor out of fear rather than to experiment out of hope. Thus, a too-complex system of laws undermines the creativity the rule of law is supposed to ensure and the prosperity which comes from that creativity.

I wonder whether anyone has ever advocated a “rule of theology.”

A seed is not a tree

Any four-year-old could tell you just by looking at them that a seed is not a tree. And yet, any botanist will respond that everything that tree is was once contained in a seed to such a degree that the tree is far more like the seed than their initial appearance would imply. Still, his commitment to the ideology of genetics may be inclining him to overlook certain other factors that shape a tree.

Although it’s true that the blueprint is in the seed, it’s not at all clear that the blueprint fully controls the end result. Oh, sure, this shape of leaf and that sort of bark or branch pattern. But the end result produced by that seed will vary based on a variety of external factors. How rich is the soil? How much water is in the region? What sort of temperature variation occurs here? Certainly, such natural factors affect the outcome.

Also, there could be pestilence. There could be a forest fire. And it is certainly possible that there could be humans who carve in the tree, prune its branches, or cut it down entirely. In other words, although it’s partially right to say the tree was made by the seed, it’s equally right to say the tree was made by its environment. Both are necessary. The tree, you might say, needs them both.

Not for sale.

Just because I think there’s a problem with my wife, that doesn’t necessarily mean there actually is a problem with my wife.

Just because there really is a problem with my wife, that doesn’t necessarily mean that I am the one who should try to fix it.

Just because I am the one who should help fix a problem with my wife, that doesn’t necessarily mean I am actually right in what I think is the best solution for the problem.

Just because I know the right way to fix a problem with my wife, that doesn’t necessarily mean that she will accept the assistance.

Just because she accepts my help, that doesn’t necessarily mean it will work to solve the problem.

I love her regardless.

I must.

Because if I ever start loving her for who she can become rather than for who she already is, I will have declared to her that she is not yet good enough for me and thereby made it impossible for her to actually become what she should as a gift instead of as a purchase.