I don’t believe in traffic rules. Don’t get me wrong, I believe that they exists. I believe in traffic rules in the same way I believe in lap dogs and the music of Abba — it’s there but I’m not particularly fond of it and I would never take it especially seriously. It’s not that traffic rules don’t do serious things.

But I don’t believe that traffic rules can bring the kind of change we need. When (and if) I stop at a stop sign, I do so holding my nose.

But I am a Quasi-Anarchist.

I do not support the violent overthrow of the traffic rules. This stems from my beliefs as a Qualified Pacifist, also known as “the pacifist without balls.” What this means is I am a pacifist, but I have been known to tailgate, cut people off and once I sort of gave someone the finger. I am terrified of what kind of violence I am capable of if push must come to shove (if it must ever come to shove). Road rage is real, especially in Boston.

But traffic rules, of course, only work if there is the threat of violence. In fine print on every stop sign are the words, “Stop, or we’ll really nail you.” We obey the law, pay the fines, because we know that if we do not they will forcefully seize us. Behind every law is a threat of violence. Being a Qualified Pacifist, I obey the law. I would not resist arrest. And I would not seek to overthrow the law or government by any violent means. I respect the role that government plays in the grand scheme of the universe. But I obey it with a smirk.

Sadly, the cops who pull me over do not tend to appreciate the subtle irony and political commentary in my smirk.

Thus the speeding tickets.

I think the Bible demonstrates and teaches that authority flows from God into other hierarchies (I said that word, yes) which is evidence of his common grace for people. People do mess it up, but government is a good thing, a gift. Rebellion is like witchcraft. Going outside the authority of God (which we are usually faced with most clearly by our earthly superiors/authorities) is similar to divination. This is true in the home, the nation, the church, everywhere. The world God created is hierarchical, and that is good.

I think we in the America are usually more guilty of being stubborn and rebellious and tend that way (”I’ve got rights,” “nobody’s gonna tell me what to do”) and we think that we are only accountable to God. And we are accountable to God, but if you’re a kid, then God says obey your parents. If you are a wife, God says obey your husband. If you are a person in a church, obey the elders. Etc. If you’re a subject, then obey your king (this is not our arrangement in the US…we are the kings [via representation], and that bears particular responsibility in my view…like being active that stewardship for the defense of the most vulnerable, to serve our fellow citizens, love your neighbor, all that). All the while, not seeing government as THE solution is important, I agree. That may mean trying to obtain representation that limits the power of the inevitably corrupt bureaucracy to have power over us, which I am in favor of, but is certainly not very popular at present.

But being involved is a treacherous journey. It can be distracting and corrupting, etc. etc. Being entrusted with authority is hard, but that’s how God made the world. In America…that’s us. So we have to figure something out, and I don’t think abdication is the best answer. Not that you are saying that. The government here is us, though. All of us. For better, or for worse (usually worse).

Sorry, I meant to just say like one thing. Dang.

And Jesus.

What I suppose I disagree with is some presuppositions that you make, like that government and violence are bedfellows, necessarily. I don’t see that at all. I also think one ought to be proud to be an American. Or a Brit. Or a Frenchman. Or an Italian. Or a Canadian.

But no matter.

You see, at the heart of your argument is the assertion that governments ought not to be depended upon because they will necessarily lead us astray. I disagree with that idea 100%, thats where i disagree with your argument.

Its not that I believe that our government is perfect, or that any government is perfect or can be perfect. On the contrary, of course. But rather, government in its purest sense CAN lead us to a promised land. Government in its essential, base sense does lead us there. Human nature demands it, human order demands it. Indeed, government in its purest sense CAN lead human towards good, can aid in changing the human heart.

Again, I see your point. But, I struggle with this statement you made:

“Until we human beings lay aside our weapons, both literal and metaphorical, and embrace the kind of change that occurs within, we will be placing our faith in human institutions and human leaders. And they will ultimately lead us astray”

I don’t see how your argument follows. So when we lay down our weapons (of which rhetoric is one, btw) we stop placing our faith in human institutions? Thats a bit of an oversimplification, don’t you think? And also, so when we embrace the change that occurs within we stop embracing human institutions? Even if we are embracing a spiritual change that doesn’t mean we ought to abandon our hope in humanity and it’s ability to foster change organically, internally.

I don’t know. I totally get your point. I do. I just feel like your simplifying things to much. I’m probably overthinking it though.

PS - to which teacher do you refer?

Government in its purist, base sense may be valid, but it is impotent to bring the change I am discussing because it is incapable of changing the human heart.

I learned from a great teacher once that it’s good to say things that people don’t understand so that they seek the answers themselves. I understand you’ve met him personally, so I am sure you will understand what this is all really about.

When we talk about the “seriousness” of government what do we mean? First, you suggest that you don’t take it seriously because there is a higher power, a greater government if you will, but then you seem to suggest that you just think its less serious than Politicians think it. Are we discussing quantities? Or do you simply think, that aside from what politicians make it, government itself isn’t serious.

Let’s leave our own - or other specific political entities - government out of the equation. Let’s talk about government in its purest, more base (not in the negative sense) sense. What of that? Does government in that sense have the potential to be the agent of the change you call for?

Don’t worry brother, I have the same affliction. You have my vote.