Love not Control

Maybe a true prophet would say something like this. Our country is divided. Both sides think they won the elections. We don't want to be led by your guy, but we understand that you hate the thought of being led by our bloke even more.

We are more committed to living the way of love than winning at all costs. We have the presence of the Spirit with us, and trials are good for us, so for the sake of peace, we will let your guy have the presidency. We would sooner live under a president that we do not like, than further tear the country apart with continued political and legal disputes.

Jesus example is relevant in a situation like this. He had justice on his side, but he surrendered to the religious and political leaders, and accepted their suffering they imposed, and demonstrated an amazing and beautiful love.

We trust that God will bless our gracious response by working our situation for good.  It might allow people to see Jesus in us, and open the way for him to bless our nation. 

Jesus is Lord

Christians love to declare that Jesus is Lord, but we need to be much clearer about what we mean when we say it. In particular we need to be clear about what he is lord over, now. I can say that Jesus is my Lord. But I cannot say that he is another person’s lord, because I do not know their heart.

We need a clearer understanding of what Jesus is Lord means at this point in history. As I explain in Kingdom Authority, at the moment Jesus ascended into heaven, he had all authority in heaven and on earth. He was Lord of everything. However, the situation did not remain that way. Jesus could have sent out millions of angels and forced everyone on earth to do his will, by threatening to punish them if they chose to disobey, but he chose not to do that. He gave humans back their freedom that he had won back from the spiritual powers of evil.

Humans responded in two ways. Some surrendered to him and chose to continue following him. They made him their Lord by submitting to him.

Others decided to do their own thing, and unwittingly gave up the freedom that Jesus had won for them. By submitting to the spiritual powers of evil, they allowed them to get control of their lives again. That is still the situation now. Jesus is currently Lord of the spiritual realms (but not of the evil powers). He is not Lord of everyone on earth. He is only Lord of those on earth who freely submit to him and serve him by following the leading of the Holy Spirit.

God will eventually work out his purposes on earth. The day will come as Jesus promised when everyone will bow and acknowledge that he is Lord. God will accomplish his purposes, but not by force. He will do it by the cleverness and the power of the Holy Spirit. He is at work to accomplish God’s long-term purposes and he will be successful in the end. However, that does not mean he will achieve everything that he would like to achieve along the way. People who refuse to acknowledge that he is Lord will often frustrate his purposes, but that will not stop him from achieving his ultimate goal.

Therefore, we should not say Jesus is Lord, as a way of expressing that God will achieve all his purposes for America, or any other nation. He is not Lord of everyone in America, so there is no guarantee that he will always achieve his purposes there. It depends on whether people choose to obey him or reject him. America may have started quite well, but that does not guarantee it will finish well. Carthage had a strong beginning as a Christian centre when Augustine was bishop of Hippo, but the gospel was eventually wiped out there. Carthage is now a spiritual and physical desert. There is no reason why the same outcome could not happen in the United States. If America goes down the tubes that will not stop God from accomplishing his ultimate purposes.

In the modern situation, it might be more helpful to say what Jesus is not Lord of. The truth is that Jesus is not the Lord of the United States. It has chosen a system of government which gives authority to humans, and that is now working out to its logical conclusion and shutting God out. It would be more honest to say that Jesus is Lord of most of the church, but he is not the Lord of the president or the congress. There are many aspects of modern life over which he is not Lord. Pretending he is Lord of everything in America is a dangerous idea that leads to delusion.

Prophesying Politics

Prophesying that a person or party will win an election is a pointless activity. People will respond in two different ways.

• The supporters of the person or party prophesied about will hear what they want to hear. Prophesying what people want to hear is dangerous. If the prophet thinks that God wants a person or party to win, they would be better to urge people to pray, than to declare a winner.

• The person or party’s opponents will not believe the prophecy until it happens. Even if it does happen, they will assume that the prophet got lucky. They will lose confidence in the role of prophecy.

No one really benefits from such a prophecy, except perhaps the person prophesying. They get an ego boost if they manage to pick the winner, but that might not be good for them either.

Geoff Holsclaw has a good article on this theme called Calling the Election a Fraud Because Your Favorite Prophets Do Is Dangerous.

Election Prophecies

Several big-name prophetic leaders in the United States (they openly call themselves prophets) have prophesied that Donald Trump would easily win the presidential election. Like prophesying the sex of an unborn baby, prophesying the outcome of election is risky (because there is a 50 percent chance of being right, even if God has not spoken). Prophetic people should be careful about both because we can easily be overcome by a desire to help and encourage, but the consequences can be quite serious if we are wrong.

Now that Trump seems to have lost the election, I will be interested to see how these people deal with their mistake. I suspect that they will respond in four different ways.

• Some prophets will stand by their prophecy, but claim that it was not fulfilled because Christians did not pray seriously enough and consequently the spiritual powers of evil were able to obstruct it (this is blaming their listeners). However, there is a big difference between saying we should pray for a person that God wants to win and prophesying that he will win. People who are prophetic should understand the difference. In this case, they did prophesy that Trump would win, so they cannot wiggle out now by saying that there was not enough prayer.

• Some will reinterpret their prophecies and claim that people misunderstood what they were saying. They will claim they were actually giving a much more nuanced message than was thought at the time and that their listeners should have understood this (another form of blame the listener).

• Some will claim that they were not actually prophesying, but were speaking in their role as a social media commentator. They will blame the listeners who misunderstood what they were doing. This is not really an excuse, because prophetic people should state clearly when they are prophesying. Being vague about what they are doing as an escape if their prophecy fails is not an option.

• Some prophets will respond to the failure of their prophecy with real grief, and ask forgiveness of the people who have trusted them (blaming themselves). I am not sure that this will be a common response.

• Some will respond to the failure of their prophecy with a quick confession, saying something like this. Whoops. It is impossible for prophecies to be right one hundred percent of the time. All prophets make mistakes. I made a mistake on this one. Sorry! Let’s move on. This is a way of blaming the Holy Spirit for not speaking clearly.

A trite acknowledgement of a prophetic mistake is not good enough. These prophetic people claimed to speak for God. They declared that they had received a revelation from God about the election. They were wrong about this, so they need to do some real soul searching. They need to discover why they could be so easily misled about something so important, and explain what they will do to resolve the problem and preventing it from happening again.

God does not operate on the principle of “one strike and you are out” so these people are not finished. However, they might need to go through a restoration process for trust to be recovered. Their prophetic failure has done serious harm to the church’s witness to the world, so there needs to be some serious accountability.

The prophetic leaders who were wrong about the presidential election will need to engage in some serious personal examination. There are two big reasons why they may have got their prophecies wrong.

• Some may have opened themselves up to a spirit of deception, which has been able to mislead them (like the court prophets who misled Jehoshaphat and Ahab (1 Kings 22)).

• Some have previously accepted a lie that is commonly believed in their culture and this has opened the way for them to accept another lie without their realising it was a lie.

The second reason will often lead to the first: believing a lie opens people up to deception by a lying spirit.

Both these reasons represent a serious problem that would need to be dealt with before the prophetic person should be trusted again. If prophetic people admit they were wrong in their prophecies about the election, I suspect they will respond in different ways.

• Some will admit that they were caught up in the general euphoria of the election and got carried away by what some pundits were saying. This is not very creditable. People should not be prophesying on the basis of media noise. They should ensure that they have heard from God before they speak, as this is what gives them a voice to the world.

• Some will say that they were just repeating what other prophetic people were saying. This is not very creditable either. The scriptures are clear that prophets need to hear from God. Christians should not be prophesying what they hear other prophetic people are saying, if they have not heard from God.

• A few will admit they were trapped by political biases that they inherited from their family or church, but I double that will be common, although it could be true.

• Very few will admit that they have believed a lie or been deceived by a lying spirit. That is dangerous, because if it has happened once then it can happen again. No real harm has come from their mistake about the Trump presidency (except for creating massive disappointment) but the next time a mistake is made for these reasons, the impact might be far worse. The spiritual powers of evil like to try a tactic out and see if it is successful before trying it again in a different context to do far greater evil. Having people access to people who believe they are prophets, but are vulnerable to believing “lies” or deceiving spirits is a very dangerous situation for a church or a nation.

• Most of the prophetic people who were mistaken about the presidential election will say that are sorry but carry on as if nothing has happened. This would also be dangerous, because what has happened is serious. People have believed a lie and spread another, and some who claim to be able to hear the Holy Spirit have been deceived by a lying spirit without being aware of what has happened (even after they have been proven wrong).

Conflict with China (6) Autocratic or Democratic

The Chinese people have a much greater tolerance for autocratic power than people in the West. President Xi is seen as an evil person by many western commentators but is well respected in China. This difference in views is the result of a different historical experience.

Chinese look back to the long period when they were ruled by the Qing and Ming dynasties as the greatest time in their history. When the Ming dynasty finally collapsed at the beginning of the twentieth century and democracy was introduced following invasion by the West, the outcome was fifty years of violent and destructive civil war that continued through the Japanese invasion. This bad experience has caused the people to fear democracy.

Fifty years of civil war and economic disruption only came to an end in 1949 after the triumph of the communist party, but actually continued for another 15 years during the Cultural Revolution when revolutionary powers were released again. Consequentially, the Chinese have an intense fear of civil insurrection, and want a government that will keep order and allow economic development. Confucian thought is still influential and supportive of centralised power to keep disorder under control.

Ironically, the United States people are beginning to tear themselves apart with political and social disruption, despite the belief that they have a superior form of government. Consequently, the Chinese have no aspirations to adopt the American style of government, especially one that is controlled by powerful billionaires to protect their interests. They see American efforts to support democratic movements in their nation as another attempt to invade their country and weaken Chinese society and its economy by encouraging internal struggles.

China has many serious faults and deep problems, as does the United States. None of them will be resolved by war, particularly a war betweem these two superpowers.

Conflict with China (5) Economic Power

The United States became a major economic power before it became a global military power. The nation did not need military dominance to become the strongest economy in the world. Its businesspeople achieved that through trade, investment and hard work. This economic strength made military dominance possible. Now, the massive military spending that the US wastes in futile attempts to maintain its position as a global hegemon has become a drag on the economy that it cannot afford. I presume the Chinese are smart enough not to make that mistake.

The Chinese have already become a major economic power without the need for military dominance. It is already close to being the largest economy in the world. Given that it has achieved that position without needing to become a military hegemon, I presume, that it will not need to seek that role to maintain its economic strength.

Chinese economic influence in the world will continue to grow significantly.

• China is becoming the largest economic market in the world, which will provide local support for developing industries.

• China is already the world leader in several high-tech industries. Chinese companies are highly-skilled in the production of IT-related products.

• China has a well-educated work force. It produces more graduates in maths, science and technology than any nation in the world.

• China is spending more on research and development than the United States. R&D in the United States is skewed towards military activities, which puts it at a disadvantage in general economic production.

• China is building transport infrastructure that links it with South Asia and Central Asia, which will expand its economic influence in the nations in the region. The United States has limited influence in these nations. It can park its aircraft carrier on either side of Asia, but it cannot prevent a growing flow of oil and trade across Asia.

Americans like to claim that globalisation has allowed the Chinese to steal their wealth. That is not true. Expanding economic trade makes most people better off because specialisation allows good and services to be produced more cheaply. The Americans who worked in the rust belt industries that could not compete have suffered, but most Americans are better off, because they have access to a huge range of cheap goods at Walmart.

That’s the way that international trade works. The people employed in industries that cannot compete effectively usually lose out, but everyone else is made better off because they gain access to cheaper goods and services.

Donald Trump is talking about decoupling from China and turning the United States into a manufacturing powerhouse. That is naïve. The United States simply does not have the people to be able to become self-sufficient and produce everything that people need. If the US does try to produce everything it consumes, the price of everything will go up, and most Americans will be made worse off.

The Chinese economy will most likely continue to be a powerful force in the world. Rather than hoping it will not happen, or trying to prevent it from happening, the United States needs to get used to the idea that the Chinese economy might become large than its own economy. That is not a bad thing. Free trade in which each country specialises in what it is good at will make people in both nations better off.

If American politicians continue to push for conflict with China, the smaller nations of the world will suffer. Because they are both nuclear powesr, China and United States are unlikely to go to war with each other. It is more likely that other nations will get caught in the crossfire of an unnecessary struggle.

There is plenty of room in the world for both the United States and China. They are on opposite sides of the earth, so there is no need for them to be treading on each others’ toes. There are plenty of less developed countries for them to invest in and trade with. The world does not need these two nations in conflict with each other.

Conflict with China (4) Trade or War

The Chinese have always been a trading nation. They seem to realise that trade is the best way to gain influence in the world and they are doing that effectively. The Chinese have taken a different approach to their neighbours. They have expanded their influence through trade and investment in infrastructure.

For New Zealand, China has become a far larger trading partner than the United States, at a time when the United States always seems to be trying to drag New Zealand into its stupid wars. The Chinese already have access to our production of milk, meat, and wool, so they don’t have a need to invade us, or threaten us with wars. Many other nations have discovered the same thing.

Nations tend to project their neuroses onto their enemies. The United States seems to be obsessed with military power and wants to use military force to impose economic dominance over the rest of the world. Not surprisingly they assume that Russia and the Chinese want to do the same to them.

American politicians to be worried that China will become the global military hegemon, pushing the United States from its place. However, history suggests the opposite. They don’t understand that the Chinese have always been more skilled at doing business than making war. They realise that they can gain more influence in the world by economic means than military means.

The United States has invested so much in military power over the last half century, and has such a massive lead in the size of its military power, that neither China nor Russia could ever catch up, even if they began devoting a much greater share of the economy into defence. The military dominance of the United State is unlikely to be superseded, even if the relative strength of its economy continues to decline.

The United States has an impregnable defence against China; the Pacific Ocean. Even for a superpower, it is virtually impossible to launch an invasion of one continent from another. It has never been done, so China is not a military threat to the United States. The fact that both nations have nuclear weapons means that neither nation could invade the other.

The British thought that they needed to establish a colonial empire to obtain the resources that they needed. The US has often tried to do the same, not by conquering directly, but organising coups to put friendly regimes in power. Since the Chinese economy is growing in strength, they assume that the Chinese will do the same as they did. However, assuming that others will behave the same way as you do is a serious mistake.

The Chinese government wants to protect its territory (including what is has lost) but it understands that it does not need to invade other countries to obtain access to their resources. They realise that seeking to invade another nations with military force is pointless, because it depletes wealth on both sides.

They know that it is better to develop trade and buy assets in the country that has resources they need. This provides better access to all the production of the other nation, without any military expenditure at all.

Conflict with China (3) Problem Repeated

Now the process of stirring up xenophobic fear seems to be happening all over again between the US and China. Again, we need a bit of history to get perspective.

China has never invaded the United States, but the United States has invaded China. During the gunboat crisis in the 19th century, the United States, the United Kingdom and France all invaded China to force them to open up their markets to Western exports. British merchants gained a monopoly of imports of opium into China, ie the British became the official drug dealer for China, which did terrible harm to Chinese society.

The invading armies from the West wrecked Chinese cities and looted wealth. They imposed trade regulations that hugely benefited the West and impoverished the Chinese. The British seized control of several Chinese cities, with US support.

The British and American people have forgotten these events, but the Chinese have not. They are determined not to let it happen again. That is why they are hostile to the US naval patrols in the South China Sea. Their strategy is “area denial”, which means keeping American aircraft carriers at arm’s length. They don’t want the United States being in a place where they could do it again.

The moral balance tilts one way, when we remember all the good stuff that we have done but forget everything bad that we have done, while focusing only on the bad that our enemies have done.

The Chinese have stolen some US technology, but they are just doing what they US did to them, and to others. Following the industrial revolution, British industrialists were upset because American businesses were stealing their technology. Ironically, American businesses are now complaining about the Chinese doing what they did to the British.

The Chinese have invaded Tibet, but they were just doing what the United states did when it advanced into the West and took control of the native people living there, or when America gained Texas and part of California from Mexico by force.

The Chinese government has many faults, but it has lifted a billion people out of poverty in a half a century. That has never been done before in human history, so we should be glad about that.

Conflict with China (2) Japan

Japan is another example of a “great fear” that got out of hand. In the First World War, Japan was allied with Britain and the United States. In the treaty imposed at the end of the war, the other allies were able to keep their colonies, but Japan was left with no reward for their efforts. Naturally, the Japanese were aggrieved and began to look for their own colonies. The other rich nations had colonies, so why shouldn’t they. (If the other nations had given up their colonies, the Japanese would not have had a grievance).

The outcome was an invasion of Manchuria, which had previously been controlled by China. Franklin Roosevelt had a strong interest in China, so he because increasingly hostile to Japanese colonial expansion, although it was no different from what the USA had done in the Philippines and other places.

Roosevelt imposed an oil embargo on Japan to enforce his will. The Japanese saw no alternative but to invade other nations further south in attempt to gain oil supplies. The confrontation eventually led to Pearl Harbour and an ugly war. The American history of Japan begins at Pearl Harbour, but the history of bullying and hypocrisy leading up to that event is ignored.

In a very short time, the Japanese went from being key allies to become the most evil people on earth. Soon everyone hated the Japanese intently. They were hated so much that it was easy to justify dropping two nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing thousands of civilians and many children.

Now the Japanese are allied to the West again. We have decided they are nice people, so we drive the cars they have made and watch television on screens they have produced.

This switch from ally to hated enemy and back again was unnecessary. It was the result of xenophobic fear stirred up in both nations for political reasons. With a bit of common sense, and much less stirring up of hatred, millions of deaths and a huge amount of suffering could have been avoided.

If the politicians who talked up this division had realised how much evil the conflict would produce and how many people would suffer and die, perhaps they would have been less belligerent and have sought for more pragmatic solutions.

Conflict with China (1) Great Game

I worry about the growing tension between the United States and China. Some politicians seem to be stirring up antagonism towards China for political benefits. Unfortunately, these hostile speeches often become self-fulfilling prophecies.

A little historical will help us keep things in perspective. The struggle between Britain and Russia was an interesting example.

From 1830 to 1895, the British and Russian empires schemed and plotted over control of Central and South Asia. At the heart of the “Great Game” was England’s certainty that the Russians had designs on India. So wars were fought, borders drawn, and generations of young people met death in desolate passes and lonely outposts.

In the end, it was all illusion. Russia never planned to challenge British rule in India and the bloody wars settled nothing, although the arbitrary borders and ethnic tensions stoked by colonialism’s strategy of divide and conquer live on today.

A large number of people were killed trying to assuage British fears of the Russians. Many modern problems arose out of bad British decisions during this time. The British created a buffer against Russia by splitting the Pashtun people between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and leaving some Central Asian peoples with them, which made Afghanistan an artificial country with the Hindu Kush dividing it through the middle. Pushing different peoples together into one country so the British could divide and rule is the reason why the nation is still unstable.

Nations seem to assume that other nations will do what they have done to them. The British invaded Russia twice, in 1854, and again in 1917, whereas the Russians have never invaded the UK. The Russians actually rescued the British from defeat on two different occasions, first from Napoleon in 1813, and from Germany in 1945. Yet the British still have an obsession with Russia and assume that the Russians want to invade them.

Church and Government

Many Christians do not under the nature of government, so they incorrectly assume that the church and the government are similar types of organisation.

The church is a voluntary organisation. It cannot make people do things that they do not want to do. A pastor can put the guilts on people, and social pressure can pressure people into conforming, but if they don’t like it, they can ignore it. If the pressure becomes to great, they can simply leave.

In the Middle Ages, the church uses the power of excommunication to force people to do things. The people believed that if they were shut out of the church, they would lose their salvation, so they had to obey the commands of the church out of fear of damnation. That does not work anymore. If a church makes threats, a person can leave and go to another, or they can continue to be a Christian outside of the church. The church is a voluntary organisation that can exert moral pressure, but it cannot force people to do things against their will.

In contrast, the government an organisation with the power of coercion. It is not a voluntary organisation in which people join together for the good.

The government in any society has a monopoly on the use of force. This means that it can do things against their will. A government decide how much tax different people owe and the force them to pay it. If people refuse to pay, they can be fined or imprisoned. A government can punish people refusing to obey its laws and regulation. A government can make a citizen go and fight and die in a war, even if they do not support it.

Many Christians try to persuade their government to force other people to do things that they think they should do., but this a two-edged sword. It is a dangerous game to play because sometimes the government will use its power to force Christians to do thing they do not want to do.

In a free society, a church and the gospel is a much safer instrument for bringing social change, because it does not have the power of coercion. It can only bring about social change by persuading free people to change, but that is the best kind of change.

Prayer and Voting

Christians all over America are praying for the outcome of their presidential election. They seem to want God to determine who will be the next president, but I don’t think that makes sense.

The United States has adopted democracy. This is a system designed to enable the people to choose the president, not God. If most of the people were following Jesus and walking in the wisdom of the Holy Spirit that might produce God’s choice for president. But in a country where large numbers of people are no longer following Jesus, it becomes a system that shuts God out of the process of choosing a president.

So when people pray about the election, what are they expecting him to do. He will not cause ballots to be lost. He will not miraculously intervene and change ballots once votes have been made. The most that God could do is speak to people and prompt them to vote in a particular way. However, he has given us freedom, so he will not force people to change their vote to align with his will. This means that most of the people who are not following Jesus, and some who are, will ignore any prompting of the Holy Spirit about how to vote.

In a nation that has adopted a system that allows the people to elect the president, and many have chosen not to follow God, asking God to determine the outcome of the presidential election is naïve. The people will choose the person they want.

I realise that some Christians believe in a doctrine of meticulous providence in which God determines every event that occurs on earth, but that belief is not consistent with the scriptures. I explain this in God's Sovereignty.

If a nation has deliberately chosen a system of government in which the people choose their president, I don’t understand why they would expect God to override the people’s decision.

Riveting

When I was a high school in the 1960s, we did one hour of metal-work every week. One of our first projects was to make a lunchbox out of sheet metal. Part of the lunchbox had to be riveted together using a hammer and a rivet punch to flatten the head of the rivets. This was a tricky task, as if the punch was hit at a slightly incorrect angle, the rivet would bend over, rather than forming a nice round head. The struggle to get it right put me off riveting for life.

Last week, more than fifty years after my bad experience with rivets, I assembled a garden shed from a flatpack imported from China. The instructions were easy to follow, but parts of the door had to be riveted together. I bought a riveting tool for a few dollars (also imported from China). I was amazed at how easy it was to use. What a clever tool. And what a clever man who invented it.

When I did some research, I was surprised at how long blind rivets had been used. In 1916, a navy engineer in the UK called Hamilton Wylie filed a patent for an "improved means of closing tubular rivets" (granted May 1917). In 1922 he joined the British aircraft manufacturer Armstrong-Whitworth Ltd to advise on metal construction techniques. He continued to develop his rivet design with a further 1927 patent that incorporated the pull-through mandrel, which allowed the rivet to be used blind.

By 1928, the George Tucker Eyelet company of Birmingham England produced a "cup" rivet based on the design. It required a separate mandrel and the rivet body to be hand assembled prior to use. The company later modified the rivet design to produce a one-piece unit incorporating mandrel and rivet. This product was later developed in aluminium and trademarked as the "POP" rivet.

Christian Political Theory (14) Conclusion

In the previous thirteen posts, I have outlined the important insights into political theory that I received as I studied the scriptures and pondered the problems faced by modern political systems.

I realise that most people do not understand their significance. That is because they still have strong faith in political power. They believe that the situation in society or the economy will improve, if the right person (or the right political party) is elected to power. Unfortunately, the history of politics shows that this is a false hope.

I am patient. The time is getting closer when human trust in political power will be severely shaken. When that happens, they will begin searching for a form of government that does not rely on human wisdom and power. They will then be ready for the insights that I have shared.

This full series can be read at Christian Political Theory.

Christian Political Theory (13) Voluntary Justice

My last big discovery was that the system of justice established by God in the Torah is voluntary. The judges raised up to apply the law do not have a police force to enforce their decisions. All the judges can do was hear the cased brought before them. They cannot force people to appear before the court. All they can do was hear the testimonies of the people who came before them and announce their verdict. They will specify the amount of restitution that should be made if a crime had occurred, but they have no power to enforce their decisions (more at voluntary justice).

In a voluntary community, the only constraint on behaviour will be peer pressure from within the community. When a judge declares a person guilty, the elders of the community should help the person make restitution (they might even lend them the money). They should do what they can to help the person change their behaviour and live at peace with their neighbours.

If the guilty person rejects the judge's verdict, they are also resisting the wisdom of the people who are trusted by the rest of the people living in the community. They are undermining people who have loved and served them. Their relationship with the community that had sustained them would be dead.

The person rejecting a judge's verdict would be left out of all community activities (Deut 17:12). They will lose all the benefits that come from participating in its activities, including financial support and spiritual protection. Protection from evil (physical and spiritual) comes from belonging to a community. The price of this protection is submission to the justice imposed by the community.

The person who rejects the verdict of the judge respected in their community is rejecting the authority of its elders. This withdrawal of respect eliminates the elder's authority to provide spiritual protection for them. Spiritual protection comes through submission to elders who stand together against enemy attacks. When a person rejects the authority of their elders, their protection evaporates (1 Cor 5:5,13).

People who refuse to comply with the justice imposed by judges recognised within their will lose physical and spiritual protection. This might have more serious long-term consequences than the penalty they are attempting to escape, as those who refuse to submit to judges makes themselves vulnerable to evil.

If a person persists in doing evil, they become a threat to the peace and security of the community. The leaders might need to exclude them from the community to prevent further harm.

Christian Political Theory (12) Powers that Be

After many years pondering the meaning Romans 13:1, I discovered that Paul was actually affirming the system of excellent judges interpreting the law of God established up in the Torah.

Every person should submit to the more excellent judges, because the ones that exist have been established by God (Rom 13:1).

When explaining which authorities are from God, Paul constructs a strange sentence that uses the verb "to be" twice. Translated literally, the verse means "the authorities that are, are from God." This is odd. Paul was saying that "the authorities that are" or "the authorities that be" are from God. This strange expression, "the authorities that be" refers back to where the book of Deuteronomy says that refers to "the judges that are".

You shall come unto the judge that shall be in those days: and you shalt inquire; and they shall show thee the sentence of judgment (Deut 17:9).

A literal translation is "the judges that shall be in those days" or "the judges that are in those days". Paul would have been familiar with these texts. When he started thinking about justice, the Holy Spirit brought this expression to his mind.

The Torah introduced a unique system of justice: God's law applied by godly judges. Paul is simply referring back to that and confirming that God's will has not changed. He confirmed that the judges that have emerged in a free society are arranged by God.

More at Understanding Romans.

Christian Political Theory (11) Judges Emerge

In a free society, people will be free to choose a judge to decide their case. They will choose judges whose wisdom and skill is recognised by other people that they know. If people have the freedom to choose their judges, they will always go to people that they trust. In a community of trust, people can talk to someone who knows about the record of the judge. Wise judges will be trusted because they have a good reputation in their community.

Judges will not need to be appointed. They will emerge as wise people in their local communities. They will become judges when people start going to them for guidance in dealing with difficult situations. The title judge will be recognition of what they are already doing. Judges that make good decisions will get more cases to decide. Those that make bad decisions will get fewer cases. Those who make good decisions would become widely known in society.

As a person's reputation for wise judging spreads, people will start referring to them as a judge. The title does not change a wise person into a judge. It is just a recognition of what they are already doing. The reality is that a judge will only be as successful as their last few cases. If they start making bad decisions, people will stop bringing them cases, and they will cease being a judge.

A judge has no permanent authority. Their authority is limited and temporary, because it is gained through voluntary submission. When people take a dispute to a judge, they delegate authority to judge. This authority of a judge is limited to the situation that is submitted to them. The judge has no authority over any other aspect of their litigant's lives. The judge's authority is temporary. It ends when the case has been decided and any required restitution paid. When the case that has been submitted to the judge is complete, the authority that has been delegated is gone.

The people in a community will influence the choice of judge, by supporting the implementation of a judge's decision. If they undermine the decisions of a particular judge, by supporting a person who refuses to make restitution, people with disputes will avoid that judge.

Christian Political Theory (10) Two Standards

I discovered that a Kingdom Community will have two different standards.

1. Citizens of the Kingdom will be expected to live by the gospel standards, because they have received the Spirit. Their law is Jesus’ new commandment.

   Love one another, as I have loved you.
   Turn the other cheek
   Give to those who ask for help.

   This type of behaviour should be normal for Christians, but it will not be expected from those who have not chosen to follow Jesus.

2. Residents within a Kingdom Community who have not chosen to follow Jesus will be expected to live according to God’s Laws for Society.

   No stealing or theft.
   No assault or murder.

   If they want the benefits of living among a Kingdom Community, they will have to accept God’s law. (The same law will apply to citizens who have fallen away from their faith.) They will often benefit from Christian love, but they will not be expected to live by Christian standards.

The leaders of the community will say to the people living among them something like this. We do not expect you to live according to the standards of Jesus, but you will recognise the need for good law. We are offering you the best set of laws possible. We will apply them, if you are willing to accept them. That is all that you need to do to have a part in this community.

That is an offer that would be hard to refuse, as this standard will not be too hard for most people.

The Laws for Society in the Torah were designed to be rolled out to the world (but Israel failed to demonstrate their efficacious. These laws were God’s perfect standard for the people of the world, and for the children of Israel before they received the fullness of the Spirit at Pentecost.

The Sermon of the Mount is God’s perfect standard for people who have chosen to follow Jesus and receive the fulness of the Holy Spirit. This standard is only for the church, not for the world.

• The Torah is God’s standard for justice.

• The Sermon on the Mount is God’s standard for love. It does not replace the laws for society, but enables them to be fully fulfilled.

Christian Political Theory (9) Universal Laws

A problem with studying the Torah is that it is full of a lot of different stuff mixed up together: history, laws, sacrifices, tabernacle design, covenants, infection control, genealogies, priesthood rules. We need a principle to identify the laws that judges are required to enforce in every society.

After looking for a long time without success, I found the key I have been looking for. That key is a phrase in the book of Exodus. Whereas most laws in Exodus are addressed to Israel, I noticed that a section of laws in the middle of the book seem to be addressed to a universal man. They all begin with the expression, "If a man" (kiy ish). These laws are not addressed to Israel, but to all people. This set of universal laws begins at Exodus 21:12 and ends at Exodus 22:17.

Exodus 21:12-22:7 has two other distinguishing features that confirm my understanding that it is different from other parts of the law.

• This section of law also stands out as being different, because it is expressed in the third person. Most of the other laws in Exodus are expressed in the second person, ie you shall not steal, you shall not murder. Moses used "you" because he was addressing Israel and announcing laws for his listeners and their descendants. The Ten Commandments are all written in the second person, as they were spoken to Israel. The laws beginning at Exodus 21:12 are written in the third person, ie if he does something, he shall receive this penalty.

  The third person is used when referring to someone who is not part of the conversation. It points to a third person, who is not the speaker (I) and not the listener (you). Moses used the third person here, because this section of laws are for all people and not just for those who participate in the covenant made on Mount Sinai.

• Another feature that distinguishes the section of laws between Exodus 21:12 and Exodus 22:17 is that the subject of the verb is always "a man" or "men". There is no definite article, so the reference is not to a particular man, but to any man. These seem to be laws for all men or "everyman".

The use of the third person and "man" or "men" as the subject of the command marks off a set of laws that apply to all people in all societies everywhere. These laws are not just for Israel. The penalties for failure to comply with these laws are specified in a timeless way. I refer to them as the Laws for Society, as God intends them to be applied by judges in every society and culture.

The Laws for Society cover two areas of life.

• personal injury
• protection of property.

Biblical justice is limited to:

• Theft or damage to property
• Physical injury to a human person.

These two types of offence are the only ones specified in the Judicial Laws of Moses. There is nothing else. This makes God's Judicial Law very simple and easy for everyone to understand. It means that we do not need a Congress or Parliament turn out hundreds of new laws every year. We do not need laws books with hundreds of pages of detailed legislation. All we need is wise judges, who can decide in any situation, whether a victim was harmed by assault, or if their property was harmed or stolen.

Christian Political Theory (8) Purpose of Law

Going into the land, the people need to know how live together in close proximity with each other. They did not need guidance for living while they were slaves in Egypt, because Pharaoh’s taskmasters controlled every aspect of life. The situation would be different once they had a land of their own, with no emperor to control them. Several things should be noted about the guidance that God gave them.

• An executive branch was not established in the Law. This means that there was no one to enforce the laws. Obedience to the law was fully voluntary.

• No legislative assembly was established in the Torah. God provided the laws that his people needed. His laws are better than human laws. He has given us his laws, so we do not need a legislative assembly to create human laws.

• Judges emerged from amongst the people. They were not appointed. They emerged as the people took their cases to the wise people in their midst. Those who did well were eventually recognised as judges.

• Crime - the main problems would be theft and violence. The law provided restitution and exclusion as tools for dealing with these crimes.

• Economic/social issues – God gave guidance for economic life. These guidelines were voluntary. No one had authority to enforce them. They would be fulfilled as an outcome of love.

• Defence – military leaders were temporary and participation in defence was voluntary.