|
Hollie Atkinson's column appears in the
Marshall |
|
Hollie Atkinson's column appears in the
Marshall |
|
June 30, 2001 Next Wednesday is Independence Day. It is the day, in 1776, when our forefathers drafted the Declaration of Independence. In declaring their independence from England, they declared that rulers such as King George III received their mandate to rule, not from God but from the people whom he governed. They declared that governments were established by the people to insure the rights that were given them by the creator. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prior to 1776, governments were changed by capture from the outside or revolution from the inside, but in each case, one monarch was replaced by another. There was no challenging the premise that God’s way of governing was through a monarch (one ruler). When this bold document with its brash assertions burst on the scene, it challenge the idea that had practically universal acceptance - the way to govern a people so as to create a state of peace and prosperity is through a ruler who was ordained of God to rule. This ordination was generally passed down through generations by inheritance. Now, some 225 years later, most of the world’s major governments have some kind of structure that is responsive to the people from whom their power to govern is derived. And while these sweeping changes have come to the halls of government, there have been changes in the home that have come almost unnoticed. Prior to 1776, home government mirrored civic government. There was one ruler in the home, the husband/father. Dad was the Heirarch (Holy Ruler) and his word was the law. The shape of the family was a miniature version of the state. And since everyone acquiesced to the idea that a monarch was the way to create order all went well - uh, perhaps not always. The individual Heirarch might be challenged, but not the system. After 1776, the system of the husband/father being the ruler of the family came under challenge. Was this really the intent of God in His creation? The result is that now after 225 years, most of us have some form of democratic structure in our families. There is no longer one word that is law, there are at least two voices that carry the family power. Theoretically, when there was only one word that was law, conflict was eliminated. But when families have words from two or more sources that become law, a lot of conflict will result. Over the next several weeks, I will be asking you to think with me about dealing with conflict that is inevitable in families - yes, even in hierarchical families there is conflict. And we will explore what God intended families to look like in their governing structure.
|
||
|
