RIGHTEOUSNESS IN CIVIL GOVERNMENT: Righteousness and Social Engineering

The Bible says that righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people (Proverbs 13:34). It is my view that social engineering as a philosophy of government may foster unrighteousness and could lead to degradation, depending on the underlying principles on which this social engineering is done. The effects of certain approaches supersede the good intentions or lack thereof on the part of those who espouse them. There is an approach to social engineering that is attractive to the carnal nature of humanity and leads to degradation and yet there are other approaches to governance that might not be as attractive, but lead to prosperity. The former approach is dangerous and, as a society, we should always be on the lookout to resist and reject. The latter approach is beneficial and should be sought diligently to effect and apply. Both principles will now be considered.

Social engineering may be inherently unrighteous if it undermines the individual’s right to self-determination under God. The exercise of one’s right to self-determination is the basis of human creativity which leads to discovery, productivity and happiness. Of course, if one’s self-determination leads one to behave in anti-social ways that threaten and hurt others, then the community has a right to limit one’s self-determination. Hence, there are prisons and other remedial systems.

Engineering reflecting mind and creativity of the engineer

If social engineering limits human potential and leads to either exclusion or oppression it should be rejected. The product of an engineering work reflects the mind and creativity of the engineer. While this works well when dealing with inanimate things it does not work when dealing with human beings, each of whom has a mind with its own wealth of creative potential. Social engineering could serve to confine the creative capacity of the entire society within a framework that is contrived by the creative will of one person or a few persons. Those who cannot function within that contrived framework may be excluded. The “one-talent” person (to borrow from the parable of Jesus – Matt. 25:14-30), may find that the one area in which he/she functions best or most comfortably is the one area from which the system excludes his/her participation. True, he/she might not be the best in that area, but he/she may be good enough in that area to make him/her happy and satisfy the requirements of others who appreciate what he/she has to offer.

Thus, social engineering can impose unnatural boundaries on human potential and sometimes force people into unnatural ways of seeking survival and happiness. This leads to discontent, unproductiveness and crime. If some people had their way, governmental power would be used, for example, to force people to do military service. Others would force them to abstain from certain forms of work on a particular day that government might choose. All such actions are contrary to the fundamental right of the individual to chart his/her own destiny within the bounds of normal respect for others.

An approach to governance that is focused on redistribution of resources could foster covetousness, laziness and dependency in the masses while it encourages the dictatorial instincts of those who are weak to resist it. Sometimes a thrust for redistribution of resources appeals to a need to lessen the gap between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ and laments the lack of a spirit of voluntarism in order to garner support. But it is unjust to seek to re-distribute resources without regard to the effort or lack of effort that has contributed to the states of ‘have’ or ‘have-not’. While it is a laudable desire to see the poor uplifted, it cannot be done on the basis of the Robin Hood approach which takes from those who have to give to those who don’t have. Re-distribution is just if it is voluntary, based on love rather than governmental imposition