Campo, Spain (photo from trekearth.com)
My comments on recent political hype in the media led to someone suggesting I favoured a theocracy.
From:
http://mikemesserli.blogspot.com/2008/08/mondays-cartoon_25.html
Politically the hype is predictable, yet so many are influenced in major ways, time and time again.
What needs to happen in both Canada and the USA is an overhaul of political systems, but society is not ready for a purge for truth, as society does not yet see the failure of overly secularized government.
End
My second comment:
No, you are reading too much into what I stated. I never stated such...please be careful. But the Western world at this point is liberal and secular at an extreme. The United States is more conservative than most.
I am not suggesting theocracy, but the need for more rational common sense ways of looking at humanity and therefore how government should be run.
Government debts are too high, spending is too high, and there is too much reliance on government to do this and that for the people. Also, there is a liberal morality which fuels abortion on demand, same-sex marriage, and a weak legal system (here in Canada).
I would not desire for one religion to be favoured as those citizens outside of the religion could face persecution, and in the extreme case of a state church be considered to be committing treason.
There needs to be a conservative movement which pushes for overall human liberty, but also realizes that certain things are bad for society and should be prohibited.
Cheers.
The End
Theocracy defined:
N.H.G Robinson states that just as democracy signifies a type of government ruled by the people by elected representatives, theocracy represents government rule by God and his representatives. Ancient Israel is a primary example. Robinson (1999: 564).
M.J. Wyngaarden explains that word is derived from the Greek words for God, theos, and from kratein to rule. This represents the rule of God. and is traced back to the Old Testament concept and may have been coined by Josephus. Wyngaarden (1996: 1083).
All human beings are presently sinful.
I do not support any primarily human attempt at establishing theocracy.
A primarily human attempt at theocracy does not guarantee Biblically based rule through the guidance of the true God.
Serious religious error can develop within a theocracy as political power can influence theology.
Persons with views differing from the theocratic rule can be unfairly persecuted and even killed, as ones committing treason.
In the present age, I favour democracy over theocracy.
God and Christ are stated in Revelation, Chapters 21-22 to eventually establish the supernaturally culminated Kingdom of God. Human beings that are at all involved in ruling will be resurrected and sinless.
http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2008/08/secular-christianity.html
ROBINSON, N.H.G (1999) 'Theocracy' in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.
WYNGAARDEN, M.J. (1996) ‘Theocracy’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
Anyone who knows me and/or reads my material should realize that I would be a fool to support theocracy on a person level. As Chucky states, although I am orthodox, I am subversive. I do not use that word, but I certainly am a non-conformist. I would probably be blacklisted by any theocratic government as their theology would likely become corrupted politically in sin.
No, thanks, I have no interest in supporting a political system that could lead me to martyrdom! Life is hard enough already.
Bugs Bunny: Eh, he don't know me very well, do he?
As Chucky states, although I am orthodox, I am subversive.
ReplyDeleteI see. As in 'coup d'état' or 'covert operation.' I know a weapons expert if you need one. Now if you need to hire an army, I also know this guy...
I'm kidding, I'm kidding. No need to call the FBI or CIA.
Seriously, though, some have said that the USA is (was?) not a democracy, but a republic. They may have been referring to the way it was founded: "And to the republic, for which it stands..."
Also, someone once told me that Israel was not a theocracy. Of course, if you're talking about when King Saul or King David were ruling, then yes, I would say it was a monarchy. However, when Israel was roaming the desert for 40 years as nomads (as well as when they were entering the Promised Land), I would say that it was a theocracy then (although Moses was their intercessor).
The Vatican City State is theocratic in a limited sense.
Thanks, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteThe Davidic Kingdom would be considered a theocracy.
I still favour democracy in this fallen world.
Russ:)
The consummated Kingdom when Christ returns is the only legitimate and reliable "theocracy". As the kingdom under David and Solomon prove, even the most "godly" of leaders are still "sinful" human beings and will inevitably allow the "flesh" to raise its ugly head.
ReplyDeleteThis is why there is such a disparity between what Jesus calls the (even now present) Kingdom of God (or heaven) and the kingdom of the world. The Kingdom of God (a truly "theocratic government, if you will) is not of this world--and it can't be. That's because it is a radically "different" kind of kingdom--a kingdom that "this world" has never and will never know.
As children of God, we belong to the Kingdom of God now--and we're persecuted in the "kingdom of the world" because of it. In the consummation of God's Kingdom, peace will finally reign over all of creation. But a truly "theocratic government" is a fantasy; not only for all the reasons that Russ said, but because sin is still prevelant in this world and it wouldn't take long for things to change--look at David and Solomon.
Until sin is finally and forever removed, a theocracy is a pipe dream. But thankfully, our hope doesn't rest in the kingdoms of this world.
Sorry so long--I'm wide awake for some reason this morning! :-)
p.s. I should say that in Postmillenial Theology there is some strong "theocratic" language. But since I'm an "amillenialist", I'll stick with a democracy until the Lord returns, thank you very much :-)
ReplyDeleteWhen I said, "The Vatican City State is theocratic in a limited sense," I really meant, 'in a very, very, LOOSE, limited sense.' But even qualifying it like that, I'm not certain that 'theocratic' can really be applied, other than from a completely secular viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteWhen the Israelites were depending on God (and Moses) in the desert, they were a theocracy, though, because of their continual rebellion and grumbling, they were very often not obedient. Still, when a King and/or Queen rules a nation in a monarchy, does the fact that the nation has rebellions or protests mean that it is no longer a monarchy? There were factions that spoke against the Medieval Catholic Church and the Pope, but did that then mean that the Church/Pope were no longer in charge, just because there were some attempts to speak against them? The Church/Pope attempted to squelch those rebels, and in the desert, God eliminated those Israelites who rebelled.
Thanks, GGM.
ReplyDeleteI agree, and as I noted all human beings are presently sinful.
Sin will therefore be part of any theocracy unless God is directly in control and he purges sin from all human beings involved in rule.
If Christ does rule in a literal thousand year millennium, those who rule with him will be resurrected sinless saints. But this will be the precursor of the culminated Kingdom of God.
When I said, "The Vatican City State is theocratic in a limited sense," I really meant, 'in a very, very, LOOSE, limited sense.'
ReplyDeleteUnderstood.
I suppose some Roman Catholics may compare it to the Davidic Kingdom, and some perhaps not. The Pope is not a King, but a religious leader of course. Most Protestants will not see the Vatican as comparable as they will doubt the legitimacy of Papal authority as being God sanctioned in obedience to the gospel, but will not question the legitimacy of the Davidic Kingdom being directly sanctioned and ruled by God.
I agree with you, Jeff, that Israel could be considered a "theocracy". Really, any established "religious government" could be considered a "theocracy". But I'm talking a "true" theocracy; where the rule of God truly is BY God through His annointed King or Monarch.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Moses led God's people in His Name, and although David was truly a "man after God's own heart", as the Scripture testifies, and even though God didn't tear the kingdom apart until after Solomon's reign (for the sake of David), I believe that a "true" theocracy cannot be established until Christ reigns over His consummated Kingdom, where sin no longer resides and His people no longer resist His will.
Israel was a "theocracy" in name only, it was only "typological"--and I don't believe that it could be any other way since the promised King, the Seed of Abraham had not yet ascendeed to His thrown.
I hope this clarifies my initial comment.
Have a great day!
Thanks, GGM.
ReplyDeleteCertainly the culminated Kingdom of God will be a full-fledged theocracy and not one where God behind the scenes rules through Kings, such as David and Solomon.
Christ will rule as God, man, and King.
Russ:)
Great Googly Moogly,
ReplyDeleteIsrael was a "theocracy" in name only, it was only "typological"--and I don't believe that it could be any other way since the promised King, the Seed of Abraham had not yet ascendeed to His thrown.
Yet for a time (while in the desert), the Israelites did not move until God told them to move. Also, God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, who presented them to the people. And God called meetings to order, involving Moses, the priests and/or Levites, and all of the Israelites. So, for a portion of their history, the Israelites were led by God.
I notice that you like to use the word "true" a lot (i.e., 'true' theocracy, 'true' Israel, 'true' man).
Also, I realize I am doing the same thing with Israel that I did with Adam in our discussion on my site: that is, taking just a piece of their history and focusing on that, instead of looking at their entire history. Israel was only a theocracy for a certain number of years, just as Adam was only sinless and without curse before the Fall.
Scott/$250,000
ReplyDeleteAbove is an entertaining article with the You Tube video now available once again, as Jeff found a different copy.
Russ
Great Googly Moogly,
ReplyDeleteI believe that a "true" theocracy cannot be established until Christ reigns over His consummated Kingdom, where sin no longer resides and His people no longer resist His will.
Earlier I was trying to make the point that, in my view, I would think that a theocracy depends on the leader, and not on the followers. If the leader is God, then I don't think it necessarily matters whether his subjects obey Him perfectly or not. He is still the leader. As I said before, a monarchy is still a monarchy, whether or not there are some disobedient subjects.
I would agree with you, however, that the only perfect and ideal theocracy is when Christ reigns over the earth (by military/forced rule for a thousand years, as I understand Revelation), or when God reigns in His Kingdom in Heaven.
I can see that all the things you're talking about when you use the word "true" point to everything being in Christ, so I understand the main point you are focusing on. I'm just being nit-picky and detailed about your use of semantics. Often, people use different words but mean the same basic thing.
Russ,
ReplyDeleteWatching the late Gene Scott cracks me up.
I'm just being nit-picky and detailed about your use of semantics. Often, people use different words but mean the same basic thing.
ReplyDeleteNot just you, Jeff, but academics will pick at that kind of stuff.
I would personally not use the word 'true', although I agree with GGM basically. I would instead differentiate the culminated Kingdom of God from the Davidic Kingdom, as I did.
It is a constant process to write more and more effectively. I learned from my MPhil to PhD, and am learning with the black and red and black and blue blogs.
Russ,
ReplyDeleteWatching the late Gene Scott cracks me up.
The video is hilarious.
Thanks, Jeff.
Russ,
ReplyDeleteIt is a constant process to write more and more effectively. I learned from my MPhil to PhD, and am learning with the black and red and black and blue blogs.
Yes, lack of communication and understanding has caused many problems (i.e., in marriages, in friendships, etc.) that would likely have been averted if there was correct understanding between the parties. And since writing contains no vocal variations, eye contact, body language, hand gestures, facial expressions, tonal inflections, etc., it can cause even more misunderstanding than face-to-face communication. Smileys and acronyms help, but only a little.
BTW, from reading your blogs and your comments so much, I'm noticing that I am beginning to write more like you do, style-wise, in the sense of being a little more succinct, etc. Of course, we all pick up some degree of habits, quirks, mannerisms, language, etc. from those we are around.
Thanks very much, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteI like to write as clearly and concisely as possible. With theses I can write something over and over again over months. With blogging there are revisions, and I have no moral problem with that, if someone catches a revision that is fine I will admit it. I will correct when needed as my work should be as good as possible. The blogging revisions, however, do not change the fact that I have less time to research and prepare individual blog articles and comments than I do with two major theses.
Therefore theses are superior work, but I hope not by much.
I would be in favour of a Christocracy, in the same vein as the vision that John Knox had of it.
ReplyDeleteChristocracy+John Knox
ReplyDeleteI did this search and your blog came up first. Please, Deejay, what is your view?
Thanks.
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteYes, I tend to use "true" a lot. Context determines meaning, of course, but for the most part I use "true" to signify "fulfilled" or "authentic". I'm usually not using it as a logical function, i.e. I'm not distinguishing "true" from "false".
As you know from previous discussions, when I speak of Jesus as the "true" Israel, by this I'm not meaning that the nation of Israel or Jacob were then to be considered "false Israel". I simply mean that I believe Jesus was the "true" Israel in that He "fulfilled" Israel; that Jesus was the "Israel" that God had in mind when He purposed Israel (Jacob and the ethnic nation) in the Abrahamic Covenant. Just because God uses "types" doesn't mean that the "types" didn't have real meaning, in and of themselves, but only that their full meaning is only to be found in the anti-type. In this way, in my opinion, Jesus was the "true" Israel in that He fulfilled the Abrahamic Covenant in which Jacob and the nation of Israel were but "types".
Similarly is my understanding of Jesus as the "true" Man. Adam was certainly a human-being; and though we have a disagreement about certain things concerning Adam and his role, I believe that Adam was not "fully" or "authentically" human apart from his union with Christ by the Spirit. And because of this, I understand Jesus to be the only "true" or "authtentic" human being (though also God the Son) because He was the preeminent "Man of the Spirit". And when we are "born again" by the Spirit (who now indwells us) and joined to Christ, we now become "true" or "authentic" human beings IN Christ. We havn't been "perfected" yet (the Spirit is doing His work of sanctification), but we are reckoned as "authentic" human beings because we are joined to and united with Christ, the "true" Man.
I was going to try to explain this part a little further, but this really isn't appropriate here. So I'll post something about this on my own blog.
Anyway, as I say, I'm usually not using "true" as opposed to "false". But I will try to make sure that I'm clear when using terms that I tend to favor :-)
As for my use of "true" when considering a "theocracy"...I mean "authentic", where not only the "leader" (monarch, president, council, etc), but the people themselves willingly submit to the King of Glory, the Lord God Himself.
And since that simply won't happen this side of the consummation, I would rather have a faulty "democracy" than a faulty "theocracy".
Sorry for the "book", but I've been feeling rather chipper in the mornings this week. I don't know why...me and Mrs. Moogly are getting up at the ridiculous hour of 4:45 to go to the gym to work out everyday. By all accounts, I should be tired and sore...and grumpy!!
Anyway, I appreciate these discussions. I hope I don't seem like I'm trying to "brow-beat" anyone into believing exactly like me. I'm just trying to clarify my positions so that people can understand what I mean.
And I also don't know how I can use italics or bold font when I comment, so I always end up using either CAPS in places or an overuse of "quotation marks". Oh well...communication isn't an exact science! :-)
I don't think there is an easy answer in today's climate for this question. As we have such ungodly governments, and also historically, any time we have had Christian in power they have absolutely made a mess of it, and have a terrible record. (Cromwell would be one such example, so would George Dubya with his pluralism)
ReplyDeleteI know what I would like to see, but I don't know how we would go about getting it in the days we live in because of the above.
For instance, the welfare state, (which as you know Britain is one and Canada I believe?) there would be no need for it, in the final outcome, in a Christocracy. The govt would save billions a year, and stop keeping many people in idleness because they are work shy, not because they cannot work, (in a high per centage of cases)
The only thing I know how to do on this question in our current climates is to pray for national revival, as without that, I don't see it ever being possible. But the way things are, we don't have liberty, that we should have, as we are ruled affectively by tranny, and there are many instances of that. Not outright oppressing the people but still forms of tyranny. The unborn who are aborted is one such example.
Thanks for the clarification, GGM.
ReplyDeleteRuss:)
But the way things are, we don't have liberty, that we should have, as we are ruled affectively by tranny, and there are many instances of that.
ReplyDeleteThat is scary. Things are worse than I realized.;)
I have a friend that is a direct descendent of Cromwell.
Thanks, Deejay.
Russ:)
Hey Russ,
ReplyDeleteThere is a real problem in The United States. Quite honestly, it is due to freedom. To defend "certain unalianable rights".
It is amazing. But, aligns nicely with the idea that people do not seek the Lord. So, we, Christians, end up being a "counter culture" revolution. Attempting to bring about change.
I'm not certain as to what this should be attributed to.
Lack of zeal and tanacity on behalf of previous generations. God did instruct the Jews to teach and display the precepts of the Law. Virtues of our fait is encouraged in the New Testament.
So, what happened? Did our generations fail or did society become increasingly wicked?
Thanks, Jim.
ReplyDeleteAs far as counter-culture is concerned, the United States still has a significant Christian counter-culture, that has important political clout.
In Canada, the Christian Church and Christian churches are politically and socially less publicly important, sadly.
Russ:)
"But the way things are, we don't have liberty, that we should have, as we are ruled affectively by tranny, and there are many instances of that.
ReplyDeleteThat is scary. Things are worse than I realized.;)"
Ha di ha! ;-) But its a fact that Presbyterianism and Tyranny cannot co-exist. If you don't have Presbyterian values in place, then tryanny will always exist.
Well, the leadership at my Presbyterian Church in America (North America) church has been good to me so far, and has not tried to force me to believe this or that doctrine.
ReplyDeleteIt would be an exercise in futility anyway.;)
YOu may find this small book of some use on this subject, ignore the title if it puts you off, (lol) as it has some very good insight. A useless piece of info is that it was the best-selling book, on the eve of the war of independance:
ReplyDeleteA Defense of Liberty against Tyrants
Deejay, thank you for the reference.
ReplyDeleteI am now going to blog break.
Russ:)
Great Googly Moogly,
ReplyDeleteYour comment helped tremendously in understanding what you mean. I think I understand you much better now. Thank you for that helpful explanation.
Sorry for the "book", but I've been feeling rather chipper in the mornings this week.
LOL, I laughed when I read that.
I don't know why...me and Mrs. Moogly are getting up at the ridiculous hour of 4:45 to go to the gym to work out everyday.
Wow. Once, long ago, I got up at 4 AM to lift weights. Now, I get up in time to be at work at 1:00 in the afternoon.
And I also don't know how I can use italics or bold font when I comment, so I always end up using either CAPS in places or an overuse of "quotation marks".
You can do it with HTML. But, if you don't know HTML, then I guess caps is about the only alternative.
Somehow all my great comments were erased when I tried to post. I want to try again.
ReplyDeleteI love the freedom we have to speak our minds that we have celebrated for several generations. We have truly forgotten the oppression that many people over the course of history has suffered to keep silent.
I also would like others to have the correct sense of morality and economics. I pray that the Lord leads our country towards Himself. I know that prayer changes things. Many of us are called to action. I am called to vote and to speak my quiet opinion.
Blessings to you, Russ.
Thanks, Vicki.
ReplyDeleteI posted your comments on the $250, 000 article linked in comments and found in archives, as well.
In BC, and in Canada, I too feel called to vote, but I reason that my vote is becoming more and more meaningless as our society becomes increasingly secular.
Russ:)
Related to the concept of "human theocracies" are governments like China or Iran that actively seek to control religious faith. It shocked me to hear recently that Bulgaria considers all evangelical groups to be cults and will attempt to break up any known organized meetings, even home groups. This is a country that is a member of the EU!
ReplyDeleteThe European Union should be ashamed, as should any leader of the Bulgarian government, and religious leaders, if Dean is correct that Orthodox Church leaders are working with the Bulgarian government in restricting the religious freedoms of other Christians.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Chuck.
Your views and critique of politics makes sense.
ReplyDeleteYou should run for election after PhD.
-Vital Voter-
Thanks very much.
ReplyDeleteThere is no way I am ever running for politics. I like to tell the truth far too much.
Hi Russ.
ReplyDeleteYou are right to state that "in the present age, I favour democracy over theocracy."
In Australia we have our democratic system but it has become more of a "survival of the strongest" type of government.
It would be nice if there was more negotiation rather than confrontation. Our system has a strong Christian foundation but prayer and waiting on God is a thing of the past.
Catch you again soon Russ.
Keep on blogging mate.
Russell.
Thanks very much for the encouragement, Russell.
ReplyDeleteIt would be nice if there was more negotiation rather than confrontation.
Agreed. It would also be nice if there was more brutal truth presented in politics, rather than appealing to what voters would like to hear and read.
Russ:)
I received this via email:
ReplyDeleteA Jewish Rabbi and a Catholic Priest met at the town's annual 4th of July picnic. Old friends, they began their usual banter.
'This baked ham is really delicious,' the priest teased the rabbi. 'You really ought to try it. I know it's against your religion, but I can't understand why such a wonderful food should be forbidden! You don't know what you're missing. You just haven't lived until you've tried Mrs. Hall's prized Virginia Baked Ham. Tell me, Rabbi, when are you going to break down and try it?'
The rabbi looked at the priest with a big grin, and said, 'At your wedding.'
A Friday night funny.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jeff.
Check this blog out, if you are a dolphin lover. This is cool:
ReplyDeleteDolphin Bubbles video
This is hilarious:
ReplyDeleteDonkey Basketball
This is just crazy:
ReplyDeleteMiley Cyrus Pregnant
Russ, you said to Vicki, "I too feel called to vote, but I reason that my vote is becoming more and more meaningless as our society becomes increasingly secular."
ReplyDeleteForget about that--your vote (and anyone's vote) is essentially meaningless in Canada because the electoral system doesn't work right. You might have heard about the referendum in Ontario last election to change the system to MMP which unfortunately did not get enough votes. That's what we need. Regardless of our political (or religious) views, our votes don't carry a whole lot of weight. The same is the case in the US (though the scenario is different). There the two-party system has people voting essentially for "the lesser of two evils."
While I agree with you that the Christian voice is being heard far less than it used to, our political systems need some major overhauls as well. It's a big issue.
Jeff, thanks for the links and for promoting satire and theology.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jake.
ReplyDeleteI stated:
What needs to happen in both Canada and the USA is an overhaul of political systems, but society is not ready for a purge for truth, as society does not yet see the failure of overly secularized government.
I agree their needs to be electoral reform, and I favour more issues being voted on in a referendum, Same-sex marriage should have been voted on in a referendum here in Canada, instead of being pushed through by three quite liberal federal parties.
But, the parties, the judges, and the bureaucrats are generally too liberal. The people of Canada accept a liberal socialism which keeps our country economically and morally from what it could be.
Common sense would have dictated that same-sex marriage instead should have been civil union in a compromise. Same-sex marriage is not traditional marriage.
Common sense would protect the rights of the unborn from abortion on demand.
Common sense would punish harshly with long prison sentences those who produce and sell dangerous illegal drugs.
Common sense would mean that governments do not routinely run deficits and debt.
Common sense would dictate that taxes are too high and that the government is too important in our society. For the amount we are taxed our services should be better.
I would not want to be critically shot and wounded at a 711 here in Maple Ridge as our local hospital and the one in Mission would be passed over and instead I would have to be taken out to Port Moody (25 minutes away) or New Westminster (35 minutes away). For what we pay in income and sales taxes every hospital should be world class.
Russ:)
"A primarily human attempt at theocracy does not guarantee Biblically based rule through the guidance of the true God."
ReplyDeleteHear, hear!
Thanks, O.F.
ReplyDeleteRuss