Politics

[steve]

Steve,
Did I understand you correctly to one time mention that in Judges where it speaks of every one doing what was right in their own eyes, you saw this as, not so much an indictment against what was going on, so much as every man's conscience was sufficient to judge rightly? (If I'm misrepresenting what you said, please clarify.) Do you think that idea has relevance in the context of this discussion?

Under the judges, every man was expected to observe the law of God given by Moses. There was no centralized government. Every man was left to follow his own conscience—which is what "every man did what was right in his own eyes" means. The reason they followed their own conscience was because "there was no king in Israel." To say that people did whatever they thought right does not mean that people behaved well or poorly. It only means they were free to follow their own consciences. The Torah made provision for the regular reading of the laws of God to the whole nation, so that "what was right" in their eyes would be informed by God's laws. Those who violated God's laws in a manner that endangered others or the community were stoned to death by their neighbors. Otherwise, they were left alone.

When the whole nation became disobedient, God Himself took it in hand to bring discipline, by sending in the Syrians, the Midianites, the Philistines, etc., to chastise them and restore them to repentance. It was a community under the direct rule of God.

Preachers usually point to the bad things that happened in the Book of Judges to show that, when people are left to do "what is right" in their own eyes, they do evil things. However, not everyone did evil things. The heartwarming virtues exhibited in Ruth, Boaz, Hannah and Samuel were also features of the society in the time of the Judges. When people are free to do what is right in their own eyes, then those who are righteous will do righteously and those who are unrighteous will do unrighteously. They will show their true colors, and be known in the community for what they really are.

Did people behave better after there was a king established in Israel? I find no biblical evidence of it. The main change was that, when an evil king reigned, he could restrict the freedom of the righteous to follow their righteous conscience (as in the case of Ahab and Jezebel, who killed God's prophets and persecuted Elijah).

While every society is subject to the sovereign interventions of God, yet no modern society, other than the Church, is a theocratic society under God's direct governance. Secular rulers are necessary to control secular society. The Church, however, does not generally need authoritarian rulers in her society. Although the institutional churches usually follow the monarchy model of later Israelite history, I believe that the pre-monarchial model found in Judges more reflects God's intentions for the Church.

[Haole]

Perry, I don't think any political official can thwart God's plan. It may appear that it can and we can despair, but praying and following Jesus will get us through. The law of the land comes and goes. Once it was legal to own slaves. Did that make it "moral"? No. So a corrupt system okaying something doesn't make it moral. Laws made by degenerate people come and go with the majority. What is immoral in God's eyes never changes. God never changes.

[mattrose]

I would add some nuance to your suggestion that a political official cannot thwart God's plan.

In one sense, the decisions of someone in power may very well go against God's plan. In other words, I really don't think it was God's plan for Hitler to come to power and kill a bunch of people.

What I meant earlier is that God is not surprised by whoever comes to power and what they do AND He continues to work His purposes in the midst of whatever human situation arises out of free will. He will continue to be present to the suffering, and He will ultimately bring about justice. Sin has a way of collapsing on itself as well.

[Haole]

True that. I apologize, for earlier, if I called you MATT presumptiously, mattrose.

[jeremiah]

i thought it might be helpful to add a bit of wisdom from a dear man of God i have come to cherish. his statement wasn't in the context of politics, but i think there is an undeniable overlap nonetheless. what he said is nothing new but was immensely helpful to me in realigning my focus as to my interaction with the body of Christ aswell as those outside the church. he said: " ...be careful about going around labeling people into groups and all of that, everybody's an individual and has to be seen that way. secondly, remember that our duty toward other people is not to judge them, but to assist them in the ways of Christ (it's by example first of all and by teaching secondly). and third, let's be sure with ourselves that our emphasis and efforts are spent (and not expended), in exalting Jesus Christ as Savior, and following him as Lord, and doing good to all people in his name..."

grace and peace...

[Haole]

That's awesome!

When you analyze groups, you initially make two: this or that, then you say to yourself, "Oh, but then there's this over here and that over there" and by the end of the day, you realize that there are as many "groups" as people. That's funny. Your right, everyone is an individual.

[mattrose]

True that. I apologize, for earlier, if I called you MATT presumptiously, mattrose.

You can call me Matt, it doesn't really matter to me. In person I prefer 'matthew' but I have only violently attacked a few people for shortening it

[wwalkeriv]

i thought it might be helpful to add a bit of wisdom from a dear man of God i have come to cherish. his statement wasn't in the context of politics, but i think there is an undeniable overlap nonetheless. what he said is nothing new but was immensely helpful to me in realigning my focus as to my interaction with the body of Christ aswell as those outside the church. he said: " ...be careful about going around labeling people into groups and all of that, everybody's an individual and has to be seen that way. secondly, remember that our duty toward other people is not to judge them, but to assist them in the ways of Christ (it's by example first of all and by teaching secondly). and third, let's be sure with ourselves that our emphasis and efforts are spent (and not expended), in exalting Jesus Christ as Savior, and following him as Lord, and doing good to all people in his name..."

grace and peace...

Thanks for sharing that. I could stand to follow that advice.

[Haole]

When Jesus ate with sinners, and someone may have said, "Wow, that John the Baptist was laying it on pretty thick against Herodias. What's his story? Who does he think he is?" Would Jesus have just nodded, or would he have rebuked them and supported John the Baptist?

Did those with whom he ate, know where he stood?

If those with whom we eat mock God or God's laws, are we to nod so as to not appear judging?

In my family and my wife's, if you even said, "I'm sorry, I don't agree" and excused yourself, they would use that as a way to push their view that the "Christian" was judging them.

[Perry]

Steve,
Thanks for taking the time to clarify that. In many ways, I suppose I consider that the “everyone doing what is right in his own eyes” is how I view the ideal model of the church too, and, to some extent, even how the church is currently operating. Obviously there are lots of different beliefs about non-critical doctrines, (and, in some cases, even which doctrines are critical), and there are Christians of all stripes who adhere to any number of them. In the rough and tumble of allowing these ideas to occasionally clash, I feel that we are, like stones in a tumbler, all becoming a bit more well rounded. (i.e. the corners get knocked off.)

I really appreciated a comment near the beginning of your book:

..humility and wisdom urge us to avoid claiming that we know more than we do, and they keep us willing to learn, even from others with whom we may disagree.