The “Theocracy” Argument, Part III
Posted on June 18, 2008
Filed Under Worldview |
Sorry to have delayed on this topic. I have been out of town and maxed on my schedule—just as you are, no doubt.
The question before us is whether or not the Biblical Christian worldview drives us to pursue a “theocracy”. Obviously, much of the answer lies in how one defines exactly what “theocracy” means, and that is why it is important to get all who are involved in the discussion to come to some agreement on the definition. Otherwise, everyone ends up shooting at different targets. I may think I’m hitting a bulls-eye with my argument while you think I’m way off the mark. Each of us ends up frustrated because no one seems to be getting our point. Dumbfounded, we look at each other and think “What is wrong with you people?!”
This situation is often the result of a definition problem and I think that is what is troubling us here. I started out defining “theocracy” for us so that we could all be shooting at the same target. I even fired the first few arrows. I was thankful that so many of you responded and launched a few of your own. I enjoy that. However, some of you set up a different target and then declared that all of our arrows had horribly missed.
Oh, oh…foul play!
By the way, we need to watch for this because it will often happen in a discussion. It will lead you toward pulling your hair out or rolling your eyes or sighing deeply…all of which can be perceived as less than attractively winsome to your opponent friend. (Changing the target isn’t fair for us to do either…if we don’t agree with the definition, then go back and hammer that out first. If you can’t agree on the definition, then agree to argue from their definition first and then from your definition second. If that doesn’t work, throw out the word and try to deal with the underlying issue. If none of those work, go get an ice cream cone and play a game of marbles.)
So let’s start again. From the pure definition, “theocracy” means “ruled by god”. If one is “ruled” by god then that means the “ruler” is god. I would contend that God has not established that kind of authority structure within the sphere of the state. Romans 13 makes it clear that He has delegated ruling authority to a human agent—an agent who is to punish evil and condone what is good. This is consistent with other spheres of authority that God has created. In the sphere of labor, God has delegated “ownership” authority to a human steward who is held accountable for whether or not he prospers those goods. This appointment of human leaders and authority is also found in the church sphere and in the sphere of the family. God did not institute a bunch of “theocracies” within those social systems.
This notion of God granting authority is not some capricious thing, but it is bound up in the triune nature of God. In John 17:2, Jesus says the Father “granted authority” to Jesus. It is, therefore, consistent with His character to do the same within the institutions he has created…and He has.
So, we are to seek and pray for rulers that are consistent with God’s design—human agents whose actions are guided by the ethical standard of God. This is not a “theocracy”. A husband who loves his wife as the Scripture guides him does not mean that the family is a theocracy. A business owner who treats his workers with righteousness and attempts to run his company according to Biblical guidelines has not implemented a theocracy. So too, the civil magistrate, if he governs with justice and mercy and punishes evil and condones what is good based upon a Biblical standard of ethics, does not establish a “theocracy”. We do not seek someone who “speaks” for God, we seek someone who will act in accordance with His ethical laws.
There have been a number of instances in human history where men began to view their civil leaders as “gods” or as one who spoke for “god”. It would be entirely proper to label these as “theocracies”. If you believe that the king is divine, then your god actually “rules”—and for all practical purposes, that is a “theocracy”, even though he is a false god.
However, here is where it can start to get fuzzy. What if we don’t “say” that the king is “god”, but we act as if he is? Or what if the king “acts” as if he is “god” but doesn’t say he is? Does the king have to be declared divine in order for it to be called a “theocracy” even though everything else operates practically as if it is? To some extent, this is what Samuel Rutherford was arguing against in his classic “Lex Rex”. The prevailing thought was that the king was law. Whatever the king declared to be right was right and whatever the king declared to be wrong was wrong. The ethical standard (upon which all law is based) proceeded from the king’s mouth or scepter or pen. Rutherford argued, however, that the king was not law, but the law was king. He argued that there was a transcendent ethical norm to which the king was subject, not the other way around. And because Rutherford was speaking from a biblical perspective, that transcendent standard came from God’s general and special revelation. This was the consistent view of Coke, Lock, and Blackstone, (which I referred to last time) and was the fundamental teaching in law at the time of America’s founding. They were supposed to judge whether or not a proposed law was “good” based upon its conformance to God’s revelation. The human agency that was placed in the position of power was responsible for crafting, adjudicating and executing good laws and policies based upon that transcendent norm.
So, to answer our question, biblical Christianity does not pursue a “theocracy”, but a governmental form in which we recognize that God has delegated ruling authority to a human agency—an agency that is to righteously punish evil and condone good—ruling based upon the transcendent ethical standards of God and not his own. Here is how Noah Webster put it in his 1834 “Value of the Bible”:
“It is alleged by men of loose principles, or defective views of the subject, that religion and morality are not necessary or important qualifications for political stations. But the Scriptures teach a different doctrine. They direct that rulers should be men who rule in the fear of God, able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness…”
God has also reinforced the authority of this human agency by charging us, as citizens, to pay them respect, honor and submission, and to pray for them as we read in 2 Timothy 2:1-2:
I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.
All of this should lead us to ponder, therefore, what we should seek in terms of the qualifications of the civil magistrate. What should we use as our primary basis for electing public officials? Should it be based upon their charisma or the amount of “goodies” they will bestow upon the electorate or their party affiliation? I don’t think so. It appears that the Scripture would call us to seek those who best fulfill these fundamental criteria: which will best “punish evil” and “condone what is good”? Which best understands, biblically, what is “evil” and what is “good”? Which will wield their power in such a way that they honor the purpose of the state and serve to best conform it to God’s design?
And that design calls us to seek “godly” rulers, not rulers who are “gods”…or rulers who will act like gods.
Comments
29 Responses to “The “Theocracy” Argument, Part III”
Leave a Reply
Comments are moderated and will not appear on deltackett.com until they've been approved. While we are eager to facilitate conversation by publishing most comments, we may withhold one from time to time if we deem it offensive, vulgar, overly personal, cynical, disrespectful, irrelevant, redundant or unnecessarily contentious. While we encourage you not to make others' misspellings and grammatical mistakes an issue of debate, please do your best to double-check your spelling, use correct capitalization, and use proper grammar.
Dr. Del Tackett is president of the Focus on the Family Institute and Senior Vice President to Focus on the Family. He is also the architect and chief spokesperson for Focus on the Family's The Truth Project--a nationwide initiative designed to bring the Christian worldview to the body of Christ.
Subscribe in a reader
© 2008 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved.
Excellent argument Del. Thank you.
I agree heartily with your views based on your definition of theocracy. However…:) My view of biblical theocracy is slightly different, but probably would look the same as yours in application. What do we mean when we sing “…Come and reign over us Ancient Of Days.”? I think that God “rules” here on earth when people do exactly what you just expressed. It’s just like our God to rule indirectly by delegating authority through people who conform to His design. It is the opposite of Godliness for anyone to presume that they are speaking for God.There is one Mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ.
But hey, we’re on the same page in terms of application so keep on driving back the darkness in your corner and by God’s grace I’ll do the same in my smaller corner! And may God bless the Truth Project Simulcast!
Mike W.
“Theocracy”: How DID God Rule OUR People?
When the Rev. Thomas Hooker preached his famous sermon on Deuteronomy 1:13-17 (1636), that message so moved the people who heard it, they proceeded to write the colonial government of Connecticut, embedding those principles from Scripture.
Historians note the fact that their constitution, the Fundamental Order of Connecticut, became one of the major documents influencing the text of both the Declaration of Independence and the later Constitution of the United States.
Thus, he set in motion at least 10 major principles of good governance.
1) In that passage he cited the fact that the individuals chosen as civil magistrates (rulers in positions of civil authority) were to be elected by the free citizens of the nation:
“Take for yourselves wise men…”, meaning, “Elect for yourselves wise men…” and Moses would go on to install them in the new offices, setting in motion their new governing bodies.
2) He called for individuals who were upright in character. They must be lovers of justice (equitable, impartial and discerning applications of the laws of the realm). Such character implies a seasoned individual whose maturity in virtue enables him to apply the rule of law well throughout the jurisdiction.
3) But, to be upright and just God established the fact that the individuals chosen should be those “known” and “wise” - tried and tested in their discernments over time. Two important keys to good governance built into this system are these:
a) Virtue is a skill of the soul. It matures through trial and the discernments necessary for life. Wisdom is needed to rightfully apply those skills we call virtue. The men chosen for office must be individuals who compel respect of character, needed so the office which he occupies also commands the honor needed to rule a people “righteously” (justice) -verse 16.
b)Virtue, biblically, is NOT first and foremost designed “to make a better you.” It will certainly do that. But, it is designed to serve others (the true essence of “Love thy neighbor”)- the Lord and your neighbor.
Witness the “Patience” of Job, designed for us to learn to wait upon the Lord through trial. Witness the Love of our Lord, designed for His ministry toward His people. Wintess the sufferings of Paul and the “grace sufficient for thee” so that he could better serve Christ’s Church.
“Grace teaches the heart to love. Love asks “How then shall I serve?” Only then will the Lord hand such an individual God’s statutes and laws to apply to others.
Note: These individuals of character must be able to THEN “decide” between competing claims of citizens (vs. 16). The virtues exercised are skills of application/discernment utilized for others.
4) There would be a “vertical division of power”. It is specified as officers of “thousands”, “hundreds”, “fifties” and “tens.” Such a vertical division of power corresponds to our federal, state, and local governments but with this provision: Like our original Constitutional framework, the federal, state and local governments each had their own jurisdictions. The federal had specifically delegated authority and was not to override the state.
Such a vertical division of authority institutes the principle of “Interposition of the Lesser Magistrate”, an historic “doctrine” (called by many names) which was used by our forebears.
When King George III and Parliament usurped their authority, the colonies looked to “the lesser magistrates” their colonial representation and local rule to “interpose” between the tyrant and the comparatively helpless individual, business or home. Ultimately, those “lesser governments” united as one in Philadelphia and penned the Declaration of Independence.
This is the intent of Deuteronomy 1 as well. There was to be no usurpation allowed. Each level of governance operated within its area of concern. If usurpation of authority took place at any level, the other levels of government were poised to intercept such malevolence and could interpose for relief.
5) There were courts of appeal. IF a matter was too difficult it could move up through the court system (vs.17), just ours does, thus allowing for citizen protection through appellate review of decisions. Thus legislative, judicial and executive tyranny could be checked.
6) This system was created as a solution to the fact that Moses could not bear the burden of oversight by himself. Hence, the system was put in place to decentralize authority.
Indeed, as the later Monarchy of Israel grew in size, the lesser courts begin to lose their power. Isaiah comments to the fact that, when God chastises His people, one of the blessings “taken away” was the “officer of fifty” - the local governing jurisdiction (Isa. 3:3). In other words, the functions of localized authority were lost (presumably to upper tiers of ever-centralizing authorities}. With this loss, comes a loss of freedom.
7) There will be equal access to the courts, which can only happen IF there is a Constitutionally guaranteed body of written law and the rights encoded within them. It is stated thus:
“You shall not respect persons in judgment, but you shall hear the small (matters/claims) as well as the great. You shall not be afraid of the face of man…”
They needed the hope of a land in which there was the hope for the fruitful union of freedom, truth and justice.
Therefore, they traveled here and for three centuries we have enjoyed a heritage with the reputation for attracting the genius, hard work, investment, and influx of wealth which they brought with them.
9) That said, the passage has, as its intent, the protection of the rights and substance of “the small and the great”. No helpless classes of people to be coerced. No poor to misuse. No “wealthy” to be plundered. No rights trampled. All people enjoy a free society, where “legal plunder” is NOT a government initiative or the basis for improper civil suits.
Note also, the command to rulers and judges to “Hear…” (an imperative to immediately “get to the issue” and “try the case” justly) the causes of the small and great.”
The legal framing of Habeas Corpus has this principle at its very foundation. This was, in fact, one of the principles adduced to resurrect Habeas Corpus by the Puritans of the English Reformation.
The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 stated,
“An act for the better securing the liberty of the subject, and for prevention of imprisonments beyond the seas.
“WHEREAS great delays have been used by sheriffs, gaolers and other officers, to whose custody, any of the King’s subjects have been committed for criminal or supposed criminal matters, in making returns of writs of habeas corpus to them directed, by standing out an alias and pluries habeas corpus, and sometimes more, and by other shifts to avoid their yielding obedience to such writs, contrary to their duty and the known laws of the land, whereby many of the King’s subjects have been and hereafter may be long detained in prison, in such cases where by law they are bailable, to their great charges and vexation.
“…For the prevention whereof, and the more speedy relief of all persons imprisoned for any such criminal or supposed criminal matters…”
10) “You shall not be afraid of the face of man… for the judgment is Gods.” That is the essence of the rule of the Lord. The God of Scripture calls for “principled governance”, involving justice, equality of access to the courts, appeal, protection and redress of grievance. Such governance “Represents” God properly.
There is a consistent call - and expectation - for upright character to govern virtuously in these passages, which is the reason Hooker preached upon the subject. That, of course, in place of a rapacious lust for power or wealth, which characterizes most governments throughout history.
Sounds a lot like the America we once enjoyed as a nation and the principles taught to our young and espoused throughout our history by President, Legislator, and Supreme Court Justice alike, until the mid-20th century.
“Theocracy?” Call it what you will. It still provides witness to “our American heritage” and frame of law… though we’ve not always been worthy stewards of same.
With the trials we see as a people in such areas as immigration, judicial decree, abortion, inflation, deficit spending, redistribution of incomes through legal plunder, and corrupt individuals sitting in the Constitutionally ordained seats of authority…
“…We are as a generation, in wonderment and awe beholding the ruins of a once mighty civilization, not comprehending the principles that made it great.”
- submitted Wayne C. Sedlak,
ICHR (Institute for Christian Heritage Research) www.EarlyChristianAmerica.com
Excellent disection of the commonly misunderstood roles that are currently being played and the leadership that we need to have installed in our whole governmental authority.
Dr. Dell,
Thanks! I believe this is well thought out and accurate with what the Bible teaches us to do as Christians. Thanks for your ministry!
- Shawn
Del, I love the divine revelation into the heart of God, that God HIMSELF has given to you. We are all blessed who hear you.
It is my position, and belief, that those I vote for should only be those who share my values and moral convictions. Men and women who hold as precious and invaluable, The Word of God, and that HIS Word would be the governing force that drives their position and decisions, as I believe you have so eloquently, and convincingly stated.
Furthermore,
I would also like to address Mr. Weaver’s comments;
“I think that God “rules” here on earth when people do exactly what you just expressed.”
The scriptures are explicit, saying that satan is the god of this world, and therefore the ruler of this world, in darkness;
2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
Joh 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.
Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
God desires to rule and reign in our hearts, in Revelation it speaks of the kingdoms of this world becoming the kingdoms of Christ, but not at present. This is yet to come.
—
“It is the opposite of Godliness for anyone to presume that they are speaking for God.”
God, in HIS infinite wisdom, has chosen to use men, men like my pastor Rob Glickman, and men like Del Tackett, to “speak for God” as HE has throughout the ages. Moses, Elijah, Elisha, and Ezra, etc. all of the prophets “spoke for God.” This is also explicitly stated in the scriptures, even to the point that those who claimed to speak for God, and were found to be false, were to be stoned to death, they were to be put to death for claiming to speak for God, when they did not. There is a huge difference in speaking for God and putting yourself in the position of God. Whether a man is claiming to be God or merely accepting the adulations of men as a god, either way, this should not be confused with speaking for God. Hebrews opens up with the declaration that God has chosen to speak, in times past, through men, angels, etc., and therefore these men or angels did in fact, speak for God.
—
Lastly,
Using this scripture, “There is one Mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ,” to conclude your argument that “It is the opposite of Godliness for anyone to presume that they are speaking for God,” is taking this scripture completely out of context. Those who have been given the charge to speak for God are not acting in the capacity of “mediators,” by any stretch of the imagination. A mediator, a go-between, stands in the gap, on behalf of the person who is on the opposite side, to plead on their behalf. ‘One who intervenes between two persons who are at variance, with a view to reconcile them.’ This does not describe a person who “speaks for God,”
Dr. Tackett’s argument is simply that we should seek to place into governing positions, those who are governed by God. (Not to diminish Dr. Tackett’s argument)
I’m not sure why a believer, a disciple of Christ, would want to or what they would have to, argue about that.
I am amazed (and perhaps a bit naïve) at the number of “Christians” who have no problem voting into office men and women who clearly, and proudly live their lives in opposition to God’s Word, and are clearly not governed by God, and HIS Word. I truly am amazed. All over the world, we hear of Christians who are persecuted for their faith in Christ. We have the power to elect men and women that will allow us to “… lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty,” as the scriptures below teach us. This power that we have in prayer, should have actions that accompany them, the actions of voting for “likeminded” men and women.
ITim. 1-8
“1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
8 I will therefore that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.”
In HIM,
audrey
With the presidential nomination looming, the question forefront in the minds of my Christian friends is, “How in the world are we to vote when we have only 2 choices before us, neither one of which embodies any or very few of the fundamental criteria - of punishing evil and condoning what is good, or even knows the difference between good and evil? Is it down to choosing the “lesser of 2 evils?????” The republican party standard has been so lowered in our nation that the only offering we have is a man who certainly leans to the left, although not as far left as the democrat nominee. What do you say to the christian who is just not going to vote this year????? What do you say to the believer who says we can’t do anything to change things, we are living in the end times and Jesus is coming soon????????????? I’ve heard these comments and a part of me understands, but a part of me cries out, “We can’t just do nothing!” I am urging prayer and fasting…what else can I say?
Del, I appreciate your discussion of this topic, but it makes me wonder what in the world they’re teaching in law school and poly sci. Don’t they talk about these kinds of issues there? How did we get to the point of electing public officials based on signs posted in the drive ways?
Yes the founding fathers were influenced by their faith, but they also knew that government was to be free of any one faith even Christian.
This country was set up so that all would have the right to believe and participate in this country, its government and its political process.
The commands for the church are for the church and when someone tries and overlay the laws of Israel over what this nation is doing, trouble begins.
Christians are called to be a moral people, but they are not called to force others into their belief system. The idea that America is a Christian nation is not found in any biblical mandate since Jesus himself said “His Kingdom is not of this world” and God alone establishes all nations and all borders. That would mean God had his and in forming America as well as Iran and Iraq.
If we say this country should be run according to scriptures who decides how to apply them? The evangelicals, Pentecostals, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, or any one of a thousand sects all calling themselves Christian. Is a moral leader only defined by the issue of abortion and homosexual marriage or should war, corporate greed, out of control spending, trade agreements that favor the few and hurt the many, and a president that has no problem lying to the American people. Shouldn’t those at least have equal billing with abortion and homosexuality?
The evangelical voice has been reduced to a few easily manipulated issues and is silence when this country goes to war over oil, and allows out of control spending that will result in thousands of lives being destroyed by inflation and greed.
Maybe if righteous indignation was applied equally to both parties people would consider what the evangelical leadership has to say.
Matthew 22:21
‘Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s’
Jesus didn’t seem to think it was a Christian’s duty to meddle with temporal authorities any more than was necessary.
Del,
I appreciate your thoughtful comments and have benefitted personally from my involvement with the Truth Project commencing with attendance at the Orlando Conference in December 2006. My Pastor is planning on getting our Church family involved in the September simulcast. We have been slow starters but I believe we will soon get going.
Harvey Hall (Bartow, FL)
Moses was given guidelines for selecting leaders as well from his father-in-law Jethro. In Exodus 18 starting in vs. 21
“But select capable men from all the people - men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain - and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.”
Later in life when Moses tells the people all that has happened he remembers and speaks about this time. In Deuteronomy 1 starting in vs 12.
“But how can I bear your problems and your burdens and your disputes all by myself? Choose some wise, understanding and respected men from each of your tribes, and I will set them over you.”
This gives us some good guidance on who we should be looking for as our leaders of 1,000’s, 100’s, 50’s and 10’s. We should be looking for:
Capable men from among us.
Men who fear God.
Trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain.
Wise men.
Men of understanding.
Men who are respected.
A pretty good list!
Yes the founding fathers and mothers of our country were influenced by their faith, but they chose to create a government that was secular. Our country protects the rights of all to believe and practice their faith not just Christianity.
The danger of running this country “according to scriptures” is which scriptures do you use and who decides how to apply it? There are literally thousands of Christian sects and groups all claiming biblical authority and each would apply scriptures differently. Would an evangelical accept the interpretation of a Mormon, or Jehovah Witness? And they would be resistant to an evangelical as well.
Our Constitution is based on the idea that all men including non Christians have been granted certain unchanging rights by God and no man, group or government including a majority of the citizens can infringe on those rights, because they are not granted by man, but by God.
It has been said America is a Christian nation, but that idea cannot be found in scriptures. There is no such thing as a Christian nation. True many Christians have influenced this country, but Jesus said himself “My Kingdom is not of this world.” Furthermore scriptures teach that all nations and boundaries are dictated by God which would mean all nations including Iraq and Iran are divinely created for His purpose as well.
The people said God give us a king and God gave them one. It is God that decides who the rulers are in all places. Man can recieve nothing that is not from heaven. The voting process is a way to distract people from the Truth of God, a way to get people to do battle with the flesh of the world - vote against vote. It is a waste of time, but if you feel strongly about the voting process then I suggest you vote for Ron Paul as he is the least of the evils. Or do a write in vote for Del Tackett. Regardless, your battle is supposed to be with the Spiritual powers of evil, not the flesh and blood ones.
Our canidates, at least on a national level, are so corrupt that they’re incapable of recognizing evil.
Good, according to God’s Will, is so far from their minds, as sin is separate from righteousness.
We must teach that we all have a responsibility to cast off wicked government and uphold the Truth God gave us.
I think it is very important to remember our place as Christians today, and we do not need to stamp out doubt of our beliefs through the power of the state. Paul speaks very clearly about the rift that is formed between those that believe and those that do not.
“Romans 14:1-13 Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things.
For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables.
Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who does eat; for God has received him.
Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.
One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.
He who believes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.
For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself.
For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s.
For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living.
But why do you judge you brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
For it is written: “As I live, says the Lord, Every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall confess to God.”
So then each of us shall give account of himself to God.
Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way.”
With this message Paul conveys, we should not go out of our way to “impose” our belief upon others. (Which I’m sure is clear to everyone by now, hopefully.)
However, we should remember that the law is not our template to live by, which Paul also talks about here.
Romans 6:8-14 “For he who has died has been freed from sin.
Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,
Knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him.
For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that he lives, He lives to God.
Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts.
And do not present your members as instruments for unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.
For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law, but under grace.”
Knowing this, we should view life’s decisions not as “Is it legal?” but as “Is it the Christian thing to do?”
With all this said, be respectful to the views of those who don’t believe, and go through your life not justifying your belief under law, but under the grace of our Lord.
Drew
If one doesn’t have a clue who God really is or doesn’t even believe there IS a GOD, how can they say they HAVE any inalienable rights granted by Him? GOD has made Himself known to men who would truly know Him and His thoughts through scripture. It doesn’t take a special intellect, it just takes a humble heart- one that seeks wholy after the TRUTH. It seems to make no sense to those who are searching that we can actually be privy to the mind of GOD, but WE CAN, not by our own efforts, but only by falling on our knees before HIM. To a man or woman who has done this, scripture is a light in the darkness, it lives and breathes and transforms. There are those who are merely influenced in life by their faith, but then there are those for whom faith IS life, and to not live wholly by it, to not look with faith to GOD for every decision is not to live at all. I’m sure both kinds of men wrote the constitution, which (though they and it both have flaws) still puts GOD in HIS rightful place as the decider of man’s inalienable rights.
God gave us the LIVING WORD to give us GODLY understanding of good and evil , not just to have a working head knowledge of it, but to exercise it in everyday living; not just to govern our own lives and actions but to persuade others to a Godly course. He says that a believer who is neither hot nor cold will be spit out. In Luke 10 you’ll find two “heavenly-minded” men who walked right past the man laying beaten in the road, both wrapped up in their own “godliness”, but it was the Samaritan who did God’s will by taking action on the beaten man’s part. In the old testament, God admonished the Isrealites to choose for themselves a good and God-committed king. Those who live by faith must be compelled not to grow complacent, basking in their own holiness, but put hands, feet, tongue and heart to their faith as Christ did. God can not be seperated out of any part of our lives- HE will NOT be put in a box to suit our own sensibilities- will not be confined only to heaven or religated to the pages of a “good book”, or be subjugated to any man’s own particular definition of “Christianity”, instead God will reveal HIS TRUE NATURE and conform us to WHO HE IS if we get our own egos out of the way and submit to HIS instruction & admonition in humility. And while Christ has already won the victory over darkness, we are still called to storm the gates of Hell on a daily basis, through prayer, supplication, worship, evangelism, and yes, by speaking out wherever evil would gain a toehold– Moses spoke out to Pharoah proclaiming God’s will for His people, Solomon spoke out to the nation in God’s wise and holy judgement, Christ spoke out to the moneychangers and the Pharasees and to Pilate; Peter, Paul, and countless others throughout history have spoken God’s Word and their godly convictions to lost people, nations and the world. GOD assures us that the gates of Hell will not prevail, not in heavenly realms, not in earthly realms, for GOD will be exalted in both!
Del,
Such an appropriate subject for these times! Thank you. Here are a few thoughts to go along with the subject: When God instructed Samuel to go ahead and anoint for Israel a king, it was understood, because God said it, that Israel had rejected God as their king. Jesus’ own statement, “My kingdom is not of the world,” connects back to that roughly thousand year old conversation. He taught us to pray “Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” God’s reign takes place. The king’s authority is in place.
In terms of this earth’s experience we are now a kingdom of “volunteers” so to speak, it appears to me. Our right (and responsibility) of dominion is in place. We can bow and pay homage to the Great King or not. The rise and/or fall of the United States of America will not save or destroy the Kingdom of God over which God already rules. The theocracy is in place.
Our ability to persuade America or any other world-based nation to function in godly ways will not be determined by what laws we help get passed. God Himself didn’t reign in the hearts of men because he legislated some perfect laws. It didn’t (and doesn’t work). He reigns in the hearts of those who receive His Son.
Because I have a measure of God-given dominion, you can’t tell me what to do nor I you for the same reason. We must willingly acknowledge the Great King and allow our sovereignty to be subordinated to His. That results in our discipleship under the Master and that results in our ‘really real’ freedom as a delightful by-product.
I am still wrestling with the worldview issues raised by Dr. Tackett in TTP regarding government. Due to the disaster that President Carter was (before I could vote), I accepted the lie that a person of proven skill was better than a person of upstanding character. I am re-evaluating candidates in light of what I’ve learned from TTP and wrestling with the pragmatic issues of “throwing my vote away” by voting for a candidate from a (heretofore) minor party.
Whatever the decision, I will vote my conscience - I will NEVER stay at home. If I fail to vote, I forefeit my say in what this country will become.
The founders believed that government that is closest to the people governs best. With all the hoopla over the presidential race, don’t forget about local, state, congress, and senate races. These are MORE key than the president as they determine the laws under which we live.
Greetings everyone,
As a non-Christian I find the debate most interesting. As a non-Christian I do live in fear of most Christians and what they intend to do to me. I would not want to be a ’second-class’ citizen because of my faith.
I find it disturbing when Christians call me ‘ignornant’, ‘depraved’, ‘evil’ and the like simply because I am not one of them.
With such people in abolute power it take little imagination to see what they would do to non-Christians
I have not read all the articles in the “theocracy argument” but see very clearly the situation that this topic brings to the top. As in The Truth Project, clearly the definition of every term and topic takes on the foundation from which we all stand. As a Christian, I choose to seek out GOD’s definition on each to determine my foundation. Much of our culture has determined it’s foundation on things other than GOD’s definition and the proof is in the pudding. Thanks for your teaching, Dr. Tackett, may GOD continue to bless your efforts in teaching and challenging us to be GOD’s people and follow through on our part as described in 2 Chron. 7:14…
As one who recently completed the Truth Project tour and considering what now, the importance of a Biblical World View really struck home. In discussing this nation and theocracy Dr. Tackett declared: “We do not seek someone who “speaks” for God, we seek someone who will act in accordance with His ethical laws”.
If I interpret correctly nin Romans 13 verse one Paul declares that “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.”
From my understanding of scripture in the time of Paul there were no democratic institutions in place, only autocracies. I assume these are the authorities that Paul is referring to in Romans 13? If so, my question is did Christ fore-ordain todays democratic institutions?
If so, in this time of political correctness, followers of Jesus cannot sit idly by whiles Christ instructions in Matthew 28 cannot fall on deaf ears. Furthermore, as followers of Christ we must elect leaders as Moses was instructed in Exodus 18 verse 21 to “select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain—and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.”
In these confusing times a Biblical World View is becoming more and more important, leaders that will act according to God’s laws and people who are willing to hold those leaders accountable. Much courage and bold action is needed.
We may not be a theocracy, but a Biblical Word View must take center stage if we are to survive.
This has been so uplifting and enlightening amidst all the campaigning and unsettling of the times we live in. I now, thankfully, find myself feeling stronger and assured in spirit. Press on dear brother Del and you all. Let us rejoice and trust in the One who is before us. Thank you for your honesty, time and care. May you be blessed for these efforts!
Ray,
I find your comments thought-provoking, but I have one question: what is our goal as Christians? You state that “a Biblical Word View must take center stage if we are to survive.” Is our goal to survive? It certainly wasn’t the goal of the early church. Our goal is to be individually transformed by our personal relationships with our Savior. I agree with your assessment about Exodus, but the problem is that there are no presidential candidates that meet those qualifications. What do we do? In this pluralistic republic that we inhabit, we make compromises when electing leaders. We cannot simply withdraw, and we cannot simply be single-issue voters.
The biblical worldview does not drive us to create a theocracy; a biblical worldview drives us to love the Lord with every ounce of our beings and to surrender all to Him. We are to share His love and sacrifice with others without coercion. We cannot foist God upon others in any form, to include government. That doesn’t mean that we don’t pursue laws based on our biblical worldview & morals or fail to present a voice in the public square; obviously we must. But there will always be unbelievers in our midst and we must woo and persuade them. We cannot legislate them or coerce them. We must be active participants in the process, but we must strive to make others understand their inherent fallenness and need for a Savior. Pascal stated that we must make them want to know what we know. Our goal, aside from loving God with all of our being, is to share that love with others…and we don’t need a theocracy to do that. In fact, the church seems to thrive in areas of persecution.
Respectfully,
kj
Ray,
I find your comments thought-provoking, but I have one question: what is our goal as Christians? You state that “a Biblical Word View must take center stage if we are to survive.” Is our goal to survive? It certainly wasn’t the goal of the early church. Our goal is to be individually transformed by our personal relationships with our Savior. I agree with your assessment about Exodus, but the problem is that there are no presidential candidates that meet those qualifications. What do we do? In this pluralistic republic that we inhabit, we make compromises when electing leaders. We cannot simply withdraw, and we cannot simply be single-issue voters.
The biblical worldview does not drive us to create a theocracy; a biblical worldview drives us to love the Lord with every ounce of our beings and to surrender all to Him. We are to share His love and sacrifice with others without coercion. We cannot foist God upon others in any form, to include government. That doesn’t mean that we don’t pursue laws based on our biblical worldview & morals or fail to present a voice in the public square; obviously we must. But there will always be unbelievers in our midst and we must woo and persuade them. We cannot legislate them or coerce them. We must be active participants in the process, but we must strive to make others understand their inherent fallenness and need for a Savior. Pascal stated that we must make them want to know what we know. Our goal, aside from loving God with all of our being, is to share that love with others…and we don’t need a theocracy to do that. In fact, the church seems to thrive in areas of persecution.
Respectfully,
kj
Dr. Tackett and everybody,
The issue of “need for clarification of definition” (theocracy) is very good, at perhaps at the root of much of the problem, and many others when presenting the Biblical World View.
“Assumptive terminology” leads to much confusion
in discussion, as does the leaning towards abbreviation in the pursuit of efficiency. Past excesses (inquisition, crusades) coupled with many forms of current political correctness lead to shifting sands for the foundations of “updated” definitions.
As a public school, high school science teacher I am encouraged though by our current generation. As a by-product of attempting to remove inequalities (racial, sexual, etc.) there is an open-mindedness and a presented void of understanding towards deeper ethics. The question is: can we help fill the void with truth? Removing the many barriers of understanding the truth (fear of theocracy, fear of God) may till the garden of faith for many minds.
Dear Ouyang Shuang,
“As a non-Christian I find the debate most interesting. As a non-Christian I do live in fear of most Christians and what they intend to do to me. I would not want to be a ’second-class’ citizen because of my faith.”
Your perspective as a non-believer is valuable. Do you live in the United States? If not, where do you live?
As a Christian, I do not understand why you would live in fear of most Christians. What is it that you fear and why? Try to be specific. You state that you would not want to be a second-class citizen because of your faith. The notion of equality before the law in this nation flows from the notion that we all, as men, will be judged equally before God. Some of the legal protections that make us secure in the U.S. have their origins in Judeo-Christian beliefs.
The Christian belief also is that we will stand before God and give account for all our deeds. We are called to treat all men fairly and to deal with them honestly. Should that make you fearful?
Jesus clearly stated that one of the greatest commands was to love our neighbor as ourselves. We are to treat others as we would desire to be treated. This should not breed fear or distrust.
Please help me to understand your concerns.
“I find it disturbing when Christians call me ‘ignornant’, ‘depraved’, ‘evil’ and the like simply because I am not one of them.”
I find it hard to believe they’d call you that (but know that it could be possible for a small minority to act in such a manner). But we describe ourselves before we became Christians in those same terms. We walked in ignorance, our thinking was corrupt and depraved, and we were comfortable in doing and thinking evil. That is not to say that we were totally evil and depraved before becoming Christians, nor do we look at non-Christians in that way. Nor does the use of those terms in any way imply that Christians desire to punish others for their different beliefs. Rather it is for us to live lives that reflect the work and presence of God in us by showing respect and great compassion to others.
“With such people in abolute power it take little imagination to see what they would do to non-Christians.”
The checks and balances we have in our government in the United States were put in place out of due recognition of the flaws and weaknesses of men - even of great men. They are designed to protect the citizenry from tyrannical actions by those in power. No government is perfect because men are imperfect, but government can be structured in such a way to make the abuse of men difficult to achieve.
But tell me, please, what is it that you imagine Christians would do you if they were in positions of power? I sincerely desire to understand your fears.
Sincerely,
David Gilmore
To M. Todd Bolin,
“Yes the founding fathers were influenced by their faith, but they also knew that government was to be free of any one faith even Christian”
The government was set up in a way to be neutral in respect to religious belief. Yet it was hoped and expected that the morals and faith of the people would serve to support and buttress the government.
The Declaration of Independence, which laid out before a watching world the cause for our separation from Great Britain, referred to God without embarrassment or shame. We appealed to His standards as justification for our actions. The new government we established was to be one that respected the rights we possess because they were granted to men by God (“endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights”). It was Him to Whom we appealed for the rightness of our actions (“appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions”). While our Constitution does not speak to or of God, foundationally it was birthed out of an appeal made to God before all mankind, as we declared our need and right to break off the yoke of tyranny and establish a new form of government to secure our God-given rights.
“The commands for the church are for the church and when someone tries and overlay the laws of Israel over what this nation is doing, trouble begins.”
Many of God’s commands are not specific to the church nor to Israel, but lay down God’s judgments against certain acts by individuals (all men and women). To the extent that our laws do not encourage what God prohibits and do encourage what He encourages, there is blessing to the society. Having laws that are in consonance with God’s commands is neither theocratical nor tyrannical. Some people are sure to disagree. (I am not suggesting that we encode all of God’s commands in the law of man – we would not coerce anyone to believe in God for example.)
“If we say this country should be run according to scriptures who decides how to apply them? The evangelicals, Pentecostals, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, or any one of a thousand sects all calling themselves Christian. Is a moral leader only defined by the issue of abortion and homosexual marriage or should war, corporate greed, out of control spending, trade agreements that favor the few and hurt the many, and a president that has no problem lying to the American people. Shouldn’t those at least have equal billing with abortion and homosexuality?”
No one I know is advocating running the government according to the scriptures. Among the varying sects that you mention, there is great agreement on large issues. No one is trying to advocate establishing one sect’s beliefs above all others (directly against the original intent of the (non)establishment clause of the First Amendment). It is a straw man to suggest that there is not consensus on larger issues despite there being many sects in the Christian faith.
Abortion and homosexual marriage are foundational issues. In my opinion, for what it’s worth, they are of higher importance than the other issues you brought up. One of government’s primary reasons for existence is the protection of its people. The innocent unborn should not be subject to the death penalty by the sheer exercise of will of another. The family is the foundational unit of society. To redefine it to include homosexual pairings and other permutations (don’t think that polygamists aren’t waiting in the wings to expand the definition of marriage to include groups of individuals) is to wreak havoc legally and socially.
So, no, they shouldn’t have equal billing. Personally, I believe that the other issues are often brought into the debate (especially as the presidential election looms near) to deflect attention from foundational issues.
“The evangelical voice has been reduced to a few easily manipulated issues and is silence when this country goes to war over oil, and allows out of control spending that will result in thousands of lives being destroyed by inflation and greed.”
Abortion and homosexual marriage aren’t “easily manipulated issues” in the sight of most evangelicals. They are issues essential to the well being of the nation and which will invite God’s wrath if we don’t stand. Frankly, we’re overdue for judgment save for God’s grace. There are other issues that should be addressed, but not at the same level of priority.
“Maybe if righteous indignation was applied equally to both parties people would consider what the evangelical leadership has to say.”
Perhaps you haven’t heard evangelical leaders such as Dr. Dobson when he has criticized President Bush or other Republican Senators and Representatives for bad calls on other issues. I’ve heard the criticisms directed at both sides of the aisle – as they should be when warranted.
We’re a nation awash in sin, and God says that sin is a disgrace to any people. We sit, arguably, as the strongest nation in the world. But do not be deceived. God will not long endure any nation to kill the unborn, whom He creates in His image and likeness, to remain unpunished. God will not apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah because we embrace homosexuality and homosexual “marriage.” (And yes, a nation embracing even these sins has many, many more sins being tolerated and/or championed.) He is more than capable of humbling even a nation such as ours before a watching world. When the weight of our sin and the exportation of immorality to the other nations causes unbelieving lands and peoples to doubt that the God of the Jews and Christians exists because He does not judge us for our iniquity, it is time to tremble and cower. If God does not change (and He doesn’t), and He did not shrink from judging Israel for her iniquity, is it logical or reasonable to believe that He will not arise and judge us? He is the Judge of all nations and is no respecter of persons. We can either humble ourselves in abject brokenness and in repentance for our many and great sins, or we can be broken under the fierce and terrible wrath of a holy God. I pray we choose wisely – and with all deliberate speed.
I take no comfort in that we or others may call America a Christian nation; rather, I tremble because it means we will be held all the more accountable for our actions. It is not what we call ourselves or how we perceive ourselves that matters. Obedience to God does. Justice. Righteousness. Mercy. Respect for life. Respect for marriage. Hatred of iniquity. These things matter to God. Therefore, they must matter to us. When we are known as a Christian nation and embrace things antithetical to the commands of the God we profess to serve, we are in a situation most perilous.
Let us be driven to our knees.
David Gilmore
I am intrigued by this discussion. As an outsider (I am a Canadian) I often find myself watching the interaction between US politics and religion with equal parts interest, and confusion. Perhaps an outsider’s view can be helpful to this discussion.
I find a fundamental assumption at work within the beliefs of many US Evangelicals that is simply not found amongst most Evangelicals from other countries, which is that the USA is somehow a special divine project in the world. This can be a very dangerous mindset, for it sets into motion a self-justification mechanism. For example, the US often sees itself as justified in acting globally without accountability to other nations. Why is that? My guess is because the US sees itself as specially ordained by God for His purposes, and therefore can act how it wishes. This is particularly personified in the apparent worldview of GW Bush.
James Dobson also seems to echo this sentiment, which often quickly leads to a syncretisitic view of the Gospel and US-style liberal democracy.
My belief is that we are to be salt and light in this world - a world that will predictably be hostile to the Gospel. Just as the early church understod that true power does not come in trying to change the laws of the land, but in living counter-culturally (if necessary) so that the light might shine brightest, so too are we to vote with our conscience, and pray for our elected officials. BUT, we must remember all the while that we are not of this world. We already belong to the kingdom of God that has begun to take hold in this world.
Jesus’ disciples continually looked to Jesus to establish a physical kingdom on earth, as the prophets had foretold. Each time he resisted and pointed them to foot-washing (servanthood) and prayer. Clearly, the kingdom that Jesus brought to this earth is a spiritual kingdom, not a physical kingdom (at least not yet). When he returns one day he will holistically fulfill the kingdom promise by establishing the physical alongside the spiritual so that his reign on earth is complete. Until then, let us not become too enamoured, like the disciples, with seeing God’s physical kingdom come to fruition; and let us not become too closely aligned with any particular political group that seeks power for its own sake. The kingdom Jesus brought simply does not operate that way.
May God truly bless America (and Canada!), but not because it is some specially ordained instrument of God’s judgement in the world - but because its citizens choose to humble themselves before the Lord, repent of their idolatrous ways, and be a light to the nations of the world who have yet to submit to Christ’s lordship. That is what it means to be God’s people; that is what it means to be ISRAEL.