>Douglas Wilson’s Letter From America

>The Constitution As Frankenidol

Douglas Wilson January 16, 2010

The other day I was listening to one of those military commentators that Fox News brings on from time to time, and he was talking about the Ft. Hood massacre. Now, before going any further, I need to say that of course that shooting was terrorism, of course the military dropped the ball on preventing it because of all this crazy political correctness, and of course the media has been complicit in covering for crazed Muslims, the kind that should give everyone the creeps and willies. I don’t believe you need full body scanners in every airport to find out that somebody’s name is Abdul Muhammad, and that he is flying without a passport.

So, are my bona fides in order? Can I say something cautionary to those Christians who are going to be helping a whole lot with the right wing blowback that appears to be already under way?

The military commentator was talking about the warning signs that were actionable before the shooting, and the way he put it was pretty chilling. He said that Hasan could have been brought up on charges early on because he had said (out loud) that the Koran outranked the Constitution. To say that anything outranked the Constitution was, to this gentlemen, clear and obvious treason.

Now of course, Hasan was mistaken, but this was a question of fact, not of principle. The Word of God outranks Madison, et al. and if the Koran were the Word of God, then the Constitution should just sit down and listen for a minute. The reason it doesn’t have to is not because the Constitution is the Last Word. It isn’t. It doesn’t have to listen because the Constitution was the work of wise men and the Koran was the work of an unwise one. They are in the same league, both being from man, but if there is a Word from God, the Constitution and that Word are not in the same league.

So according to the principle laid down by this commentator, I am guilty of treason because I believe (and will say) there is a law above the law, completely out of Congress’s reach. I believe that Jesus is Lord, and not just in some invisible spiritual sense. Jesus is Lord, and the Constitution may be followed just so long, and only so long, as it does not require disobedience to Him. Treason? If it is treason, then the Constitution is now a Frankenidol, trying to destroy the men who wrote it. They all believed that there was a law above the law.

The problem is that this commentator guy was lambasting the leftists, who have become a parody of themselves, and are soon to go poof. After they do, Christians should not then discover that they have helped give this pernicious doctrine of arrogant secularism a second lease on life.

The Scriptures and the Constitution sometimes speak to the same issues. When the Constitution doesn’t contradict Scripture, then we can go right on ahead. It is perfectly okay to have two senators from every state. More than four congressmen might be pushing it, but in the main, all such procedural questions are fine. But when the Constitution is being wielded by men who demand for it an ultimate loyalty, and they will brook no other gods before it, then Christians should laugh contentedly, and turn away. That doctrine, and all the books it is printed in, need to be pitched into Hell, where they should all burn quite nicely.

>"Little By Little I will Drive them Out"

>Understanding The Needs of the Hour

[Cross-posted at MandM]

The Kingdom of God is gradualist in nature. By this we mean that it comes bit by bit. Whilst in principle and in essence it is utterly revolutionary, in practice and human service it is not. The completely revolutionary nature of the Kingdom is of course alluded to in expressions such as, “if anyone is in Christ he is a new creation. The old has passed away. Behold all things have become new.” (II Corinthians 5:17). However, the gradual nature of the Kingdom is illustrated in God’s appointment of a lifetime process of incremental growth for Christian believers.

This “radical, yet gradual” nature of the Kingdom needs to be understood in two ways. Firstly, when a person is converted out of darkness into the light of Christ, profound and totally radical change occurs, both in heaven and upon earth. His name is indelibly written in the Book of Life. He is born again by the Spirit of God. He is united into Christ. These realities mean that in time he will be transformed totally and made perfectly conformed to the Son of Man. He will end up being like Jesus (I John 3:2).

Yet, existential reality is somewhat different. The believer continues to sin; he lives in weakness; he is subject to many temptations; his life is full of ups and downs. He is afflicted with sicknesses. Eventually he dies. Through this process of weakness, struggle and suffering he becomes sanctified. He grows in grace. He is changed from one degree of glory to another until he becomes like Christ. In other words the actualisation of Christlikeness is gradual. This is what theologians call the grace of sanctification. It is a gradual, slow, bit-by-bit transforming into greater holiness.

The Westminster Shorter Catechism defines sanctification as follows:

Sanctification is the work of God’s free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness.
Shorter Catechism, Question 35

A good analogy is that of a child growing to maturity. Upon birth, all the potential of the adult is present, nascent within the child. As the grows and matures, more and more of the potential is realised. But the process is gradual.

The Kingdom of God, similarly, comes upon the earth gradually. It has to be this way, because the Kingdom is not divorced from the elect—their number, degree of understanding and obedience to the Word of God, levels of sanctification and obedience, and influence throughout the culture. Even as the Kingdom comes within and upon them gradually, so the Kingdom comes in nations and cultures slowly and gradually, even as the Church and as the elect come to greater and greater maturity.

This also implies that sanctification should be to an extent intergenerational. A person brought up in a godly Christian home, instructed and trained by sanctified parents, ordinarily starts off on the process of sanctification well ahead of someone who has just been converted out of the extremes of a dissolute, violent, and drug-enslaved family. (This, of course, does not imply that the one is less intrinsically sinful than the other, for the Scriptures declare that whoever observes the whole Law but slips in one point, is guilty in every respect. However, it does mean that to whom much has been given, much is expected.)

As we seek to extend the Kingdom of God in this life, we are concerned to apply God’s Word not only to our own individual lives and responsibilities, but also to corporate and institutional life. We wish to develop sound, biblical Christian schools. We want to see hospitals, voluntary institutions, and businesses acting consistently with biblical precepts and directions. We want to see the rules and constitutions of these structures conformed to Christ’s law and commands. Part of service in His Kingdom is working to bring these things about in an appropriate fashion. It will only occur as those ruling and working in each respective institution covenant together to serve the Lord in holiness.

We also want to see the government conformed to Christ, limited to His mandate, and acting appropriately as His minister. This means that we work to see that progressively the law of the land conforms to the commands and directions of the risen Lord.

It is at this point that many Christians become confused. Imbued with a deep conviction of the absolute nature of God’s commands, they find themselves unable to accept anything less than complete conformity to God’s commands in the public sphere. They think that to accept anything less than the absolute would be to compromise the faith and disobey the Lord.

Take abortion for example. So convicted are many Christians that any and all positive efforts to kill an unborn child is murder, they cannot bring themselves to support measures which would only make abortion more difficult or more restricted. A mere step forward is not just insufficient, it is seen as permissively supporting something that is wicked. The only thing they would support is a total proscription of all abortion, at all times, in all conditions and places. Anything less they would regard as an ungodly compromise.

But this denies the gradualist nature of the Kingdom. It also denies how God deals with them in their own process of sanctification.

John Quincy Adams, a staunch Christian, was for many seventeen years a US Congressman, after having served as President. For all that time he, year after year, sought leave to introduce a Bill into the House to restrict slavery. He was refused year after year. But he kept at it. His Bill was a gradualist measure. It called firstly for the outlawing of all slavery in Washington DC. Secondly, it called for all the children of slaves born in the United States to be freemen. Adams argued that in time (since slave ships were already illegal) these measures would mean that slavery would die out in all the States of the Union.

His biggest opponents were the Abolitionists who were so committed to opposing slavery as an absolute evil that they could not support any measure that did not immediately and totally end the practice. Adams was a gradualist. The Abolitionists were radicals and revolutionaries. Adams understood the gradualist nature of the Kingdom of God; the Abolitionists did not. Their intransigence indirectly led to the death of 620,000 soldiers, and untold civilians a few years later as a result of the Civil War.

Amongst the strongest opponents to gradualist measures introducing partial restrictions upon abortion in our day are Christians. They have not understood the gradualist nature of the Kingdom. They have not understood that supporting of gradual measures is not ungodly compromise. It is rather a programme that is not only entirely consistent with the gradualist nature of the Kingdom of God, but in fact a service demanded by the King Himself.

When Israel went into the land of Palestine, the destruction of the pagan tribes in the land was to be complete. There was to be no compromise. There was to be no mingling of paganism and idolatry with the true and pure worship of God. But, at the same time, the process was to be gradual.

I will not drive them out before you in a single year, that the land may not become desolate and the beasts of the field become too numerous for you. I will drive them out before you little by little, until you become fruitful and take possession of the land.
Exodus 24:29,30

This meant that Israel was to put up with a lot of rubbish in the “hood” until the pagan cultures were finally overcome. “Little by little” is the rubric. Christians are to be radicals in principle, but gradualists in practice. That is the way God deals with every one of His children. It is the way, we, as God’s called servants, are to deal with the culture and community around us.

(Cross-posted at MandM

>ChnMind 2.24 The Essential Principles of Justice

>When the Foundations are Destroyed

“Justice!” is a universal cry throughout the world. It has, however, become little more than a slogan, the content of which is a wax nose and reflects no more than the prevailing prejudices of the day. For example, in the post-Christian West, for one, justice is having a house provided by the State. For another, justice is the State providing an abortion of an unwanted child. We could go on. Justice is whatever people desire and to which they attach the rubric “human right”. And new human rights are being “discovered” and promulgated by the hour.

In more authoritarian nations, justice tends to be viewed as requiring compliance of all citizens to the rules of the State. If one does not comply, one is stealing from or defrauding the “people.” In such nations, not to obey the State is itself an act of injustice.

But what is common—whatever the particular meaning and content given to the concept of justice—is the axiomatic belief that it is the duty of the State to provide and administer justice for its citizens.

For Jerusalem this is also true. The State is the ministry of justice. In fact, it is about the only recognised competence of the State within the Scriptures. State involvement in any other activity almost inevitably ensures that the State ends up perpetrating injustice and acting unjustly, at least insofar as the Bible, our constitutional documents, define what justice is and is to be.

The responsibility of the State to administer justice justly is clearly set down in Psalm 82, where God is revealed to be the Judge of all judges:

God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers. How long will you judge unjustly, and show partiality to the wicked? Vindicate the weak and fatherless; do justice to the afflicted and destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.
Psalm 82: 1—4

Rulers, politicians, all the organs and branches of the State have a duty before the Living God to judge, rule, administrate, and legislate justly. The opposite of justice, according to the Christian faith, is to show partiality—to favour one person or group at the expense of another. Particularly, to show favour to those who are wicked and would do wickedness.

Then the text goes on to address specifically the plight of the poor, the weak, the orphan, the afflicted, the needy, and the destitute. Now this passage has been seized upon, quite wrongly, by socialists and those who advocate that justice requires redistributing wealth in favour of the poor, the indigent, etc. But, as we shall see elsewhere our constitutional documents explicitly forbid showing any favour to the poor at all. Rather, what is being utterly condemned here is the rich and powerful conspiring against the poor, using their wealth to buy judgments in their favour. This is absolutely inimical to justice, and kindles the wrath of the Living God.

The second key constitutional provision for justice is found in Leviticus 19:15:

You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor not defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbour fairly.
Leviticus 19:15

This is the source of the concept within the older Western legal tradition that “justice is blind.” Under a just State the judges and courts care not (they do not regard) whether the plaintiffs or defendants are rich, famous, powerful, or notorious—or whether they are poor, uneducated, deprived, orphaned, or destitute. Justice, in order to be just, has to be completely disinterested and neutral towards all. One law, one rule for everyone—for kings and princes, and for subjects and paupers. This is the essence of the rule of law. The Scriptures explicitly forbid showing partiality—but particularly partiality on socio-economic grounds. When the State does so, the State has devolved into a ministry of injustice.

The third key constitutional definition of justice is equal access to the courts of justice. If the rich can get to be heard in court, but the poor cannot afford to get access to a judge, the State has become a ministry, not of justice, but injustice. Moses, the great Lawgiver, the steward of the House of the Lord, laid down this constitutional principle as follows:

Then I charged our judges at that time, saying “Hear the cases between your fellow countrymen, and judge righteously between a man and his fellow countryman, or the alien who is with him. You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not fear man, for the judgment is God’s.
Deuteronomy 1: 16—17

Modern Athenian city and nation states have shut up the law courts to the poor and, therefore, the societally and politically weak. Access to justice has become more and more the preserve of the wealthy which means that entire societies in the West are becoming systemically unjust.

The final key constitutional principle which defines justice is constantly repeated prohibition against taking bribes. Moses, again:

You shall appoint judges and officers in all your towns which the Lord you God is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial, and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous. Justice, and justice only, you shall pursue, that you may live and possess the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
Deuteronomy 16: 18—20

When we see how the constitution of the City of Jerusalem defines justice, we rapidly conclude that modern Western post-Christian democracies have become systemically and constitutionally unjust. Athens and injustice are now inextricably interwoven.

Firstly, Athens is a City built on bribery and the corruption that inevitably follows. The essence of the modern Athenian democratic process is for state legislators and lawmakers to seek favour with a majority of the community by promising to pass (or maintain) laws that favour them and their factional interests.

“Vote for me. I support unions, or employers, or the unemployed, or students, or the aged, or families by passing laws which favour you, reward you, give money to you, or advance your case against others.” This is what an Athenian election is predominantly about. Lawmakers get elected by promising to pervert the essence of justice by enacting laws that favour one group or other. Or, to put it another way, Athenian lawmakers achieve office through bribing voters; if they bribe sufficiently cleverly and lavishly, they get to be elected. Then they get to write the law in such a way that it pays the bribes they have offered to the people in exchange for their support. It is called “distributive justice” which is a monstrous oxymoron. The whole fabric of Athenian society is thus tawdry and unjust.

The populace in Athens enters into this systemic injustice with relish. It wants to be bribed, and allows its vote to be bought. It sells it to the highest bidder. We should not be surprised at this, since the practice was rife in ancient Athens as well. In a Western democracy, in the end the people are the Judges: everywhere, throughout modern Athens, the Judges (the people) are up for sale and open to bribes. This is why the West has become systemically and irremediably unjust. This is why the corpus of law in Western countries has institutionalised injustice in a way that can never now be changed or addressed, until Athenian idolatry is no more. This is why government has become so pervasively corrupt. Government is all about getting and dispensing favours towards one group or other, not administering justice.

The West has been remarkably self-blinded to this development. It operates in a crazy “hear no evil, see no evil” mode. If an individual or a company were to walk into the office of a judge or legislator and lay money on the table in order to get a favourable outcome, the briber, if exposed and convicted will be punished. But if a politician (seeking to become a legislator) appeals to the electorate by offering to lay “money on the table” in order to get a favourable outcome it is called fair and just. It is regarded as the working of a healthy democracy. But in fact the ethics and morality of the two situations are exactly the same. The only difference is the quantum of money involved. In the latter case, however, the quantum of the bribe and the extent of the injustice involved is much much greater. It is so much more evil that it is called systemic, and recategorized as “just”. Athens is compelled to this hypocrisy. To reverse it would be to tear down the fabric of modern Unbelieving society itself. The whole Athenian polity is built upon a foundation and superstructure of injustice and could not now continue or exist without it.

A further great perversion of justice in Athens is that the government or the State insists on regarding the socio-economic status and condition of people in its administration of justice. Despite the prohibition of the Living God that the law courts have regard to whether the person or case at issue involves the rich or the poor, modern legal systems insist upon it. Tax law, welfare law, health administration and law, educational law—it is all built upon an edifice of redistribution in favour of the less wealthy or so-called disadvantaged groups.

In other words, virtually the entire legal corpus in modern Athens is built upon the premise that you have to take into account and have regard for the socio-economic status of citizens. If you do not, you are condemned as unjust. Yet, this, according to the law of the Living God, is inimical to justice itself. Justice is no longer blind, but it has its eyes wide open, and is deliberately and overtly partial. The law has been perverted to become an instrument of evil and injustice.

Thus, on three basic counts, Athens is a systemically and perpetually unjust City. It has removed access to the courts, except for the rich. It has made bribery an intrinsic component in its political and legislative—and therefore its judicial—processes. Thirdly, it has removed the impartiality of true justice and substituted it with an entire edifice of law built upon the principle of favouring some at the expense of others. Corruption, oppression, deceit, lies, self-interest—these are simply the order of our day.

Athens, built on unjust foundations, has become an edifice of systemic corruption. Its dissolution and destruction is inevitable, not just because it will rot from the inside, but because all kings, rulers, and judges must answer to the Living God. Because they have turned to idols and made their laws and their law courts places of systemic, rampant, and irremediable injustice, He will turn upon them.

The West long ago lost any grounds to plead for the care and protection of the Almighty.

>ChnMind 2.23 The Accessibility of Justice

>Jerusalem and The Accessibility of Justice

Justice delayed is justice denied. This adage is self-evidently true in the Christian world-view where justice involves restitution to victims, the damaged, and the hurt. The longer justice is delayed, the longer the damage borne. Therefore, to delay justice is to deny it for those to whom it is due.

In modern Athens access to the courts has become increasingly difficult, with many impediments—amongst which the greatest is cost. Justice has become the preserve of the rich or at least those wealthy enough to fund a prosecution or court hearing. A second significant impediment is the work load on the court system: overloaded dockets, with too few magistrates, coupled with an overly prescriptive and bureaucratic procedure mean that court operations are unduly complicated and delayed.

The ideals of justice are portrayed vividly in the account of Solomon’s court. Solomon, being the king, was the Chief Justice and the highest court of the nation of Israel. This vignette represents the working of justice within Jerusalem at its best. We read in I Kings 3:

Then two women who were harlots came to the king and stood before him. And the one woman said, “Oh, my lord, this woman and I live in the same house, and I gave birth to a child while she was in the house. And it happened on the third day after I gave birth, that this woman also gave birth to a child, and we were together. There was no stranger with us in the house, only the two of us in the house. And this woman’s son died in the night, because she lay on it.

“So she arose in the middle of the night and took my son from beside me while your maidservant slept, and laid him in her bosom, and laid her dead son in my bosom. And when I rose in the morning to nurse my son, behold, he was dead; but when I looked at him carefully in the morning, behold, he was not my son, whom I had borne.” The the other woman said, “”No! For the living one is my son, and the dead one is your son.” But the first woman said, “No! For the dead one is your son, and the living one is my son.” Thus they spoke before the king.

Then the king said, “The one says, ‘This is my son who is living, and your son is the dead one’; and the other says, ‘No! For your son is the dead one, and my son is the living one.'” The king said, “Get me a sword.” So they brought a sword before the king. The king said, “Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one and half to the other.”

Then the woman whose child was the living one spoke to the king, for she was deeply stirred over her son and said, “Oh, my lord, give her the living child, and by no means kill him.” But the other said, “He shall be neither mine nor yours; divide him!” Then the king said, “Give the first woman the living child, and by no means kill him. She is his mother.”

When all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had handed down, they feared the king, for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him to administer justice.

Firstly, note that this is a civil case, where two citizens are in dispute—in this case, over a child. Yet the case also has criminal overtones since the one woman was endeavouring to steal a child: kidnapping is a criminal offence. The vast majority of cases that ought to be heard by judges or magistrates are civil cases—arising from a conflict or disagreement between citizens. The more emphasis, focus, and provision paid to civil cases and hearing disputes between people, the more biblical the system of justice becomes. A high priority placed upon civil cases helps preserve the accessibility of justice for all people—which, as we have argued, is fundamental to justice itself.

Athens has reversed this priority. In modern Unbelieving Athens the state is the most important entity of all. Its prerogatives and rights are virtually without check, since politicians occupy the highest court of the land. Within the Athenian model of justice criminal matters are far more important than civil matters. Justice is preoccupied with the prerogatives of the State. Offences against the State are to be prosecuted with vigour and the apparatus of justice focuses upon and centres around criminal justice. Civil actions have limited place—and in modern Athens are generally preserved for property disputes between larger businesses, or between corporations and government (either central or local).

Jerusalem pays far more attention to civil matters since this not only means that justice is accessible to all, but comprehensive civil justice helps nip matters in the bud before they escalate into full-blown criminal acts. The matter before Solomon is a case in point.

Secondly, the accessibility to the courts of justice for everyone—particularly the poor, the vulnerable and the disadvantaged—is underscored by the fact that these two women were prostitutes. Within Israel their social standing would have been parlous, to say the least. They were shunned and outcast from society. Yet the king, the highest judicial official, is open to hear their case. Within Jerusalem even the lowest, the most despised, and the outcast is to have access to justice. Everyone has a right to be heard and judged fairly. Solomon in all his glory did not consider it beneath his contempt to hear a case such as this. Rather, his glory is manifested in his insistence upon hearing and judging just such a case. It is glorious indeed that prostitutes and the child of a prostitute are dealt with so gravely and so carefully in the court.

Thirdly, the case shows that intrinsic to justice is discernment—of the facts, and between good and evil. This is what Solomon prayed for, when he said: “And Thy servant is in the midst of Thy people which Thou has chosen, a great people who cannot be numbered or counted for multitude. So give Thy servant an understanding heart to judge Thy people to discern between good and evil. For who is able to judge this great people of Thine.” (I Kings 3:8—9)

Get the facts and discern hearts. That is an essential prerequisite of justice. Solomon’s command to kill the child, dividing him between the two women was employed to discern the hearts. True motherhood showed itself, as did malicious envy, by means of this test.

If justice is to be accessible to all, the doors of its courts must be nearby for everyone. This necessitates an extensive system of lower and higher courts. Thus we should understand that the case of the two prostitutes and the disputed baby came before Solomon because it was a difficult case, that could not be resolved by the lower courts. When Moses, the lawgiver of God’s people, established Israel’s judicial system, it replaced Moses as the sole judge.

The account in Exodus reads as follows:

It came about the next day that Moses sat to judge the people, and the people stood about Moses from the morning until the evening. Now when Moses’ father-in-law saw all that he was doing for the people, he said, “What is this thing that you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge and all the people stand about you from morning until evening?” Moses said to his father-in-law, “Because the people come to me to inquire of God. When they have a (T)dispute, it comes to me, and I judge between a man and his neighbor and make known the statutes of God and His laws.”

Moses’ father-in-law said to him, “The thing that you are doing is not good. You will surely wear out, both yourself and these people who are with you, for the task is too heavy for you; you cannot do it alone. Now listen to me: I will give you counsel, and God be with you. You be the people’s representative before God, and you bring the disputes to God, then teach them the statutes and the laws, and make known to them the way in which they are to walk and the work they are to do.

“Furthermore, you shall select out of all the people able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain; and you shall place these over them as leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens. Let them judge the people at all times; and let it be that every major dispute they will bring to you, but every minor dispute they themselves will judge. So it will be easier for you, and they will bear the burden with you. If you do this thing and God so commands you, then you will be able to endure, and all these people also will go to their place in peace.”

So Moses listened to his father-in-law and did all that he had said. Moses chose able men out of all Israel and made them heads over the people, leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens. They judged the people at all times; the difficult dispute they would bring to Moses, but every minor dispute they themselves would judge.
Exodus 18: 13—24

The civil courts in Israel went as low as a judge appointed for every ten families. That means that justice was extensive and accessible. The next highest court was a judge who presided over fifty families. Contrast this with the judicial system in Athens where courts are now distant, expensive, delayed, and practically inaccessible. Moreover, in Athens because the State has become so intrusive, and has broken its boundaries and moved way beyond its sphere of competence or delegated authority, the law has become inordinately complex and the domain of specialists, accessible only to the monied.

Therefore Athens is an intrinsically unjust society and implicitly bent towards a tyranny of systematically denied justice—an indictment which will grow more pointed and urgent as time passes. Justice in Athens is removed, expensive, bureaucratic, and complex. Justice in Jerusalem, the City of God, is close, inexpensive, direct, straightforward and accessible. Therefore, Jerusalem is rightly called the City of Peace. Athens, however, is a ceaseless tumult of the bitter and the angry.

>ChnMind 2.21 The Myth of the Secular State

>The State is Inescapably a Religious Institution

The entire human race up to the modern period had it right; the modern world has it wrong. Until materialism (that is, the belief that matter is the only reality) gained a predominant hold in Athenian minds, all races, nations, and peoples understood that the State was a religious institution and that the civil government established the tenets and beliefs of a particular religion.

The twentieth centuries adoption of the philosophy of materialism, whether of the militantly aggressive kind (communism) or of the effete liberal kind (western democracy) has resulted in the peculiar notion of the State being non-religious, or secular in nature. The movement from the implicit atheism of the Enlightenment to the explicit atheism of the West is well documented and easily understood. What is not so widely understood is that the modern penchant to insist that the State be secular—that is, that the State not be allowed to have any connection with any particular religion, but be neutral towards all—is itself a distinctly and deeply religious position and a consistent attempt to establish the religion of materialism.

Firstly, let us rehearse the major dogmas and doctrines of materialism. This belief system asserts that there is no reality or existence beyond physical matter. The gods, therefore, by definition do not exist, for they are not material; they cannot be scrutinised in a scientific laboratory (which to the materialist constitutes more than adequate proof that the gods are imaginary). The belief that many people have in a deity is an outcome of the peculiar functioning of their physical bodies, such as the conditioning of their neurons. However, the belief itself is superstitious only. What they believe no more exists than Santa Claus.

The all-determiner of existence is the material (natural) order. Man, insofar as he can use his reason to investigate and manipulate the processes of the material world, to that extent he is master over matter. To all intents and practical purposes, then, the only ultimate power in the universe is man himself–unless and until a superior alien species turns up. Meanwhile, man is cock of the hill.

Men become truly free and self-actualised when they shed all the superstitious beliefs in deities, Santa Claus, and existence after death. As they do this and interact with the universe as it truly is—that is, a cluster of atoms and resultant matter—then they know the truth and are, thereby, set free.

All human culture and institutions, including schools, governments, law-courts, judgments, parliaments, families become truly enlightened when they are able to discard religious superstitions and live and act in the real world, which is the world of matter only. The enlightened world, therefore, is the secular world.

The philosophy of materialism and the religious dogma that flows out of it has become the dominant religion of Athenian governments, schools, universities, media, and of western culture in general. This reality alone makes the modern world acutely peculiar when judged against the backdrop of the history of mankind upon the earth to date. Naturally, modern man sees this peculiarity as a superior and enlightened position. Historical humanity, however, would view it as idiotic, naive and stupid in the extreme. We suspect subsequent generations will look back and likewise shake their heads in disbelief at the naiveté and stupidity of twentieth century western civilisation.

Materialism relentlessly drives society into increasingly secular activity and beliefs. Materialism insists that the State must be secular and it must be the ultimate authority in all human society. Since there is only matter, and since Man can rule over matter, Man is to all intents and purposes the functioning deity. There is no higher law than Man. Corporate Man, the State is the highest expression of human power and authority and law. Therefore, the State is the functioning deity.

But, as a true deity, the secular State will have no other gods in its presence. Therefore, the secular state must not mention or name any other god or any other religion. There must be an absolute wall of separation between the State and religion—which is to say, any other religion.

Consider the following constitutional precepts:

1. The Church is separate from the State.

2. It is prohibited to enact on the territory of the Republic local laws or regulations which would put any restraint upon, or limit freedom of conscience or establish any advantges or privileges on the grounds of the religion of citizens.

3. Each citizen may confess any religion or no religion at all. Loss of any rights as the result of the confession of a religion or the absence of a religion shall be revoked. The mention in official papers of the religion of a citizen is not allowed.

4. The actions of the government of other organizations of public law may not be accompanied by religious rites or ceremonies.

5. The free performance of religious rites shall be granted so long as it does not disturb the public order and infringe upon the the rights of the citizens of the . . . Republic. In such cases, the local agencies are entitled to take the necessary measures to secure public order and safety.

6. No person may evade citizen’s duties on the grounds of his religion.

7. Religious oaths shall be abolished. In cases where it is necessary only a solemn vow may be given.

8. The acts of civil status shall be kept solely by civil agencies.

9. The school shall be separate from the Church. The teaching of religion is prohibited in all state, municipal or private educational institutions where a general education is given. Citizens may give and receive religious instruction privately.

10. All ecclesiastical and religious associations are subject to regulations pertaining to private societies and unions, and shall not enjoy any advantages or receive any subsidies either from the State or from local self-governing institutions.

We have here a classic expression of the secular state which in turn is a consistent reflection of the belief of materialism. The question is, What constitution is being quoted? Is it a sort of model constitution found in the Humanist Manifesto? Is it taken from the US Bill of Rights? Is it the working brief of the American Civil Liberties Union? Or, is it from the NZ Human Right Commission?

The thinking and the concepts are familiar to us all. This is indeed the world of modern Unbelief as we have come to know it. So, what is the provenance of this stirring and very modern declaration of the separation of Church and State?

It is dated 23rd January, 1918 and is a decree promulgated by Vladimir Illyich Lenin on behalf of the new Soviet regime.

At this point, we expect you, the reader, will have one of two reactions. Some of you will react with surprise that the Soviet Union was so enlightened and advanced and that maybe it was not as bad a society or government as you have been lead to believe. Others will react with sadness and maybe anger that the Soviet Union did not live up to, nor keep, the declarations contained in this decree. The blood of Jerusalem’s martyrs in that place still cry out to the Lord for vengeance.

To the first reaction, we say that the Soviet Union was neither enlightened nor advanced, but brutish and stupid—as all materialism is. The fact that we, however, find the statements so familiar tells us volumes about the brutishness of our own Athenian societies and nations and how implicitly sovietesque they have become, rather than the relative enlightenment of the Soviets.

To the second reaction, we reply that the Soviet establishment of the State as secular secular and that the Church must be separated off from civil society, inevitably led to the active and aggressive persecution of the Christian Church and of Christians. As it will in the West! Soviet tyranny was not an aberration, but an necessary extension of this establishment of the secular faith. If the state bans religious faith from the public sphere and restricts it to a private sphere only (one’s conscience or heart) the state will end up persecuting any who evangelise others, or who teach their religion, or instruct their own children in their faith. They will do so while they subscribe the the statements made above. This is precisely what happened in the Soviet Union, particularly under Stalin under the Five Year Plan, than later under Krushchev, who presided over a period of intense and bitter persecution of Christians and Churches.

Materialism’s doctrine of the secular state is a religious dogma. It draws upon a peculiar view of origins, of reality, of man and his place in the cosmos, of power, of truth, of ultimate loyalties and devotion, of ethics, of right and wrong, and of justice, judgment and righteousness. The secular state of modern materialism is an intensely religious institution, with religious loyalties and religious dogmas. It seeks to impose its religion upon people by force and compulsion. It is, in a word, an establishment of religion.

People of earlier ages were smarter than the current crop. They knew that the State was inevitably religious: they were smart enough to elevate the debate to one over which religion it was to be.

Jerusalem has, likewise, always known that the State is an institution and establishment of religion. The only question is whether it will be acknowledged to be a servant of the one true Living God, or of an idol. Jerusalem has always known that the modern secular state is just one more front for human self-worship.

>ChnMind 2.20 The State an Intrinsic Part of God’s Kingdom

>Sub-Christian Views of the State

History has thrown up four different views on the place and role of the State within Christendom or God’s Kingdom. Three of these views are sub-biblical and not of Christ. Only one is true. The three sub-Christian views all draw upon pagan themes or elements and seek to incorporate them into the Christian faith. They represent an attempt to syncretise Athens and Jerusalem.

The first pagan influence is represented by popism. The medieval Roman Catholic church postulated that the pope—the head of the church at Rome—was the vicar of Christ upon earth. As Christ’s representative, it was argued that the pope carried the authority of Christ upon earth, ruling over all things. Papal ideology therefore asserted that the pope had higher authority than the State: the pope ruled over kings. An historic avatar of this claim was the papal crowning of Charlemagne on Christmas night, AD800 by the pope as emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.

Popism represents a syncretised sub-Christian version of the ancient idea of the king or emperor being the vicar of the gods and himself semi-divinised.

The second pagan influence is represented by divine right theories. Here the king is seen as God’s representative on the earth. In this pagan variant, the king rules over all things, including the Church. The king is an implicit absolute monarch, the vicar of Christ upon earth. An historical manifestation of this pagan variant is the claim by Henry VIII to be the head of the Anglican church—a claim continued to be maintained by the British monarchy to this day.

A particular historic avatar of this sub-Christian view is the coronation of Napoleon on December 2nd, 1804. The pope blessed the crown (Charlemagne’s crown remade) then Napoleon walked forward, took the crown up, and placed it upon his own head. The symbolism was deliberate and carefully planned. This variant also is a manifestation of the older pagan view of the emperor being the vicar of the gods.

The third, and final sub-Christian view of the State is represented by the Anabaptists at the time of the Reformation. The Anabaptists asserted that while the New Testament clearly taught that the State or the civil magistrate was an office appointed by God Himself, it belonged to the realms of this world, and not the Kingdom of God. So sharp was the disjunction that Anabaptist teachers forbade Christians to hold government office. Christians, it was argued, shared the perfection of Christ and the civil magistracy was a worldly institution, belonging to the realms of this world, not of Christ.

This sub-Christian view represents the syncretism of pagan platonic and neo-platonic views and the Christian faith. The non-material, non-earthly, other worldly perspective of the Anabaptists was in fact an “anaplatonism”, an insinuation of Socrates, without his mortal coils, into the Kingdom of God.

Against all these defalcations and compromises with Athens, reformed Christianity captured and faithfully presented the Scriptural teaching concerning the State and its place and role in God’s Kingdom. We can summarise the revelation of God concerning these matters in the following propositions:

1. Universal totalitarian authority belongs to Christ alone.
2. There is no head of the Church, but Christ.
3. There is no head of the State, but Christ.
4. His Kingdom embraces all created reality.
5. Spirituality is a matter of being of the Holy Spirit, or led by the Spirit.
6. The State is an intrinsic and essential institution of the Kingdom of God
7. Christ has endless vicars upon the earth; every servant of God is a vicar of Christ.
8. Every vicar of Christ has a duty to follow his or her particular divine callings.
9. No servant of Christ can judge or reject another servant of Christ: to his own Master he stands or falls.
10. Every vicar of Christ is subject to His law and command as given in Holy Scripture.

These ten propositions mean that Jerusalem is unique in all the earth. Every other political ideology, every other version of the role of the Kingdom of God or of the State is a doffing of the cap to speculations and lofty things raised up against the knowledge of God, and are not part of the obedience of Christ.

>ChnMind 2:17 Wealth and Stewardship

>The Dangers and Temptations of Wealth

In this series of posts on the Constitution of the Kingdom of God we have been concerned with how the Kingdom of God on earth is actually constituted. This subject has been long neglected by the Church generally, but must be addressed. We have been taught by our Lord to pray, “Thy Kingdom come” but we have given little thought to what it is we are praying for. The parallelism, “Thy will be done on earth, even as it is in heaven,” tells us that God’s Kingdom on earth consists of a comprehensive and universal obedience to the will and commands of God. But what does that actually mean? How can we tell whether a community is more under the aegis of the Kingdom of God. What would the community “look like”? How would it be organised and structured? How would it function? What instruction and pattern is laid down in the Scriptures, which are the constitutional documents of God’s Kingdom upon earth? What is the will of God upon earth?

Historically, when Jerusalem has thought in these terms—and has sought to operate within a paradigm of Christendom—it has fallen into the trap of making simplistic assumptions. A traditional, but spurious, version is that the coming of the Kingdom of God upon earth will be characterised by a state where the Church has dominion and control over all of life. A second spurious version is that the coming of the Kingdom will be reflected in a withering away of the Church and the State. Heaven on earth will be characterised by unstructured, decentralised communal living. A third spurious alternative is that the Kingdom will be constituted around a supreme Christian monarch, or governor who will ultimately direct affairs in Church, Family, and Individual.

All of these variants suffer from the same error—that of taking a component or aspect of the Kingdom and elevating it into a central organising principle over the Kingdom as a whole. So, we have had proposed historically that the Kingdom will be marked by caesaro-papism (state controlling the church), or papo-caesarism (church controlling the state), or anabaptist communalism (state and institutional church ceasing to exist). All of these are equally wrong and contrary to the teaching and directives of the constitutional documents. All of these reflect pagan themes, not Christian concepts.

In fact, the Kingdom is unlike anything seen or found upon earth. There have been glimpses of it to be sure. There have been aspects manifested. But human history has not yet seen a state or culture where all of life, all culture, all institutions, all schooling and so forth has been organised and structured around the constitutional documents of the Kingdom. We can put this another way: imagine a society where over eighty percent of the population of a particular society are genuinely professing Christians. Now, how would such a society be organised? How would it work? What institutions would it have? How would it operate?

Human history has not yet seen such a society. But as the Kingdom of God comes, we believe it will be progressively manifested within human history. All enemies are to be placed under His feet, before the last enemy (death) is abolished.

One of the outstanding characteristics of the Kingdom when it dominates a culture is that no one person, no one institution can represent or hold the Kingdom. Christ alone is King. He will not share His glory with another. His rule is universal. Therefore, the Kingdom of God upon earth as far as we creatures are concerned is a radically decentralised Kingdom. No one institution is dominant. Christ rules over individuals, families, church, and state in a totalitarian fashion, such that neither individuals, families, churches or civil government can usurp control nor laud it over the other. The constitution of the Kingdom forbids it.

Each institution, each aspect of the Kingdom has its own legitimacy because each has its calling to obey and serve the King as He commands. And Christ commands submission and service of each institution to the others. So the state must serve church and families; the church must serve state and families, and so forth. Christ Himself establishes true unity, and at the same time, establishes, protects and preserves diversity. In the Kingdom, the one and the many are equally ultimate—even as it is within the Trinity.

Fallen man, as exemplified in the Tower of Babel, is always seeking to unify everything under one central controlling principle or institution. It is an inevitable outcome or result of desiring to be god in place of the Living God. In recent modern history, the false central unifying principle has been the State. Increasingly, all of life revolves around the government and its powers.

As the Kingdom comes it breaks down statism—the belief and practice of the state being the ultimate reality upon earth. This breaking down occurs as other, equally legitimate institutions within God’s Kingdom re-establish their assigned place, position, function, and authority.

In this regard we have been focusing upon the reformation of families and households, and emphasised the need for households to re-establish their front line responsibility for care, nurture, and welfare, first of all to family members, then extended family, and then to those who are genuinely in need. In order to do this, households and families must progressively recapture and reform our stewardship over property and wealth. Households can only take care of others if they have the means with which to do it; otherwise they themselves will need to be taken care of.

But the Bible has sober warnings about wealth. A love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. Those who aspire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which lead to destruction. The longing for money can lead men to fall away from the faith. The man of God is to flee such things, and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, and so on. (I Timothy 6: 6—11) We are admonished to be content with what we have, and that if we have food, clothing, and shelter it is enough.

How, then, can these two apparently contradictory teachings be reconciled? Very simply. It is the Bible’s teaching that with respect to wealth and capital, in God’s Kingdom, we are never owners. We are only, ever stewards. The Greek word “steward” (oikonomias) means a manager or a trustee. A manager and a trustee deal with the property of another; they must deal with it in a trustworthy manner; it does not really belong to them at all, and they must never act or think as if it did. As soon as they do, they become unfaithful stewards.

God alone is the original and final owner of all things. To Him belongs the cattle on a thousand hills (Psalm 24:1; Psalm 89:11; Psalm 50: 10). We instinctively understand this concept. Take our children. Do parents own their children? To whom do they belong? Clearly we all understand that we do not own our children; they belong to God. He gives them to us. He entrusts their care and nurture to us. He will require an accounting from us for our service to our children in His behalf. The ownership of wealth and capital is exactly the same. It is not really ours at all. It belongs to Him. He gives it to us for a time. He will require an accounting from us for how we have acted as trustees of His wealth.

Thus, a faithful Christian lives as possessing all things, yet as though he had nothing. Such a man can control a fortune, but riches will have no control over him. The more Christians adopt this basic Christian duty, with all its accompanying necessary attitudes, the more capital and wealth the Lord will entrust. Such a servant does not love money; He loves the Lord, and uses the Lord’s wealth as the Lord requires.

John Wesley had it right. He captured this essence of stewardship in a nutshell. He said a Christian steward (that is, every Christian) has three responsibilities:

Earn all you can.
Save all you can
Give all you can.

This threefold injunction captures the heart and essence of what it means to be a steward in God’s Kingdom.

>ChnMind 2:16 Institutionalised Theft

>Household Property and the Ten Commandments

Through most of the previous century up until our day we have witnessed the ignoble spectacle of professing Christians and of various churches choosing to ignore the Ten Commandments. The most common breach occurs with the two commandments which establish and protect the property rights of households and families. These two commandments are: thou shalt not steal (the eighth commandment) and thou shalt not covet what belongs to your neighbour (the tenth commandment).

It is both sad and shameful that many Christians have tried to marry up the commands in Scripture to extend love and welfare to one’s neighbours when they are truthfully and genuinely in need, with the socialist policies of governmental redistribution welfare programmes. It is unconscionable that Christians and churches have become caught up in modern humanist political processes they have been found almost universally to endorse the statist welfare system, and called for more of it. It is to our abiding shame that they have done so out of a professed desire to obey the divine commands to take care of the genuinely poor.

This has been a travesty of true discipleship and obedience. It is one of Jerusalem’s greatest sins of this generation. All state welfare programmes and policies proceed in violation of the eighth and tenth commandments. It is entirely and completely wrong for Christians and churches to advocate the breaking of these commandments in an attempt to obey God. It is completely wrong to do evil that good may come. The end does not justify the means. God is holy and His law commands both ends and means. Those who seek to do God’s work the Devil’s way end up dishonouring God. The Living God is not well served by our lies.

The eighth commandment says, Thou shalt not steal. Theft is the forcible seizure, exaction, or destruction of another’s property against the will of the owner. Any public policy, political programme, or law which involves taking property from one class or group of citizens via the taxation system, and giving it to another class is a direct violation of the eighth commandment. It is institutionalised theft, but theft nonetheless. It is all the more horrific because it is institutionalised.

Most of the debates within modern Athenian polities are debates over the relative extent of redistribution and welfare. Virtually all modern Athenians agree with this form of theft—they argue only over the extent of the lawbreaking. Some want more, some want less. All agree, however, that to some extent, this form of theft is justified. In principle advocates of such malformed policies could not object to a poor private citizen walking into a wealthy neighbour’s house and demanding money at the point of a gun. There is an old saw where a woman is asked whether she would be willing to have sexual relations with a complete stranger for a hundred million dollars, and when the the woman says she would, the conclusion is drawn that the woman is a prostitute in attitude and spirit, and the only variable is the price. In the same way, the advocates of social welfare redistribution are thieves in attitude and spirit—the only debates are over method, extent and administration—that is, over the right “way” to steal, and how much.

Modern western democracies are communities built upon widespread institutionalised theft. The fact that such institutions of theft are now imbedded into national life and the fact that the vast majority of people want it that way, does not in any way make it less a violation of the eighth commandment.

The tenth commandment forbids the coveting of a neighbour’s property. Coveting is the attitude (and subsequent actions) of wanting and desiring your neighbour’s goods. The covetous appetite can be temporarily satiated in one of two ways: either the neighbour loses his property to someone else, or I outstrip my neighbour in wealth, making him of less concern. Either way, the covetous spirit is satisfied for a time because covetousness believes that the advantage of my neighbour is a threat and a disadvantage to me.

This is why most people feel really good about redistributive taxation. It is not only institutionalised theft, it is also institutionalised covetousness. The “wealthy” are getting their comeuppance, as it were. They are an implicit threat, and need to be taken down a peg or two. Serves them right. It is only “just” that they be made to pay. This explains why people who receive welfare often feel vindicated and justified. They believe they are contributing to the good of society and by taking welfare represent a social good. Serves “them” right; good on me!

The covetous spirit explains that while the vast majority of people would be better off with no redistributive taxation whatsoever they would rather keep the system and participate and support it because it makes them feel better.

This institutionalised theft and covetousness of western societies is a relatively recent phenomenon. It is something which has come into vogue only in the past one hundred and fifty years. Now, it is so entrenched that most people could not conceive of life and society without it. It will only get worse, for covetousness is never ultimately satiated and if you can steal “legally” and get away with it, why would you not. Rational decision making leads one to prefer a system where one can be paid for doing nothing over one which requires work and effort. This is why the West will ultimately fade away into economic decline and lassitude.

This bars of the prison of institutionalised theft and covetousness intrinsic to all policies of state welfare redistribution will not be broken until society returns again to the Ten Commandments as the ground of all law and social policy. And that will not happen until society itself returns to the God who created the heavens and the earth, and whose Law the Ten Commandments are.

But in the meantime, Jerusalem has an urgent duty to call all its citizens to obey faithfully all of the commandments—especially the eighth and the tenth. For if we, the Lord’s people, do not fear God and put away theft and covetousness in all our dealings, how will the nations repent. We must decry all attempts to do God’s work using the Devil’s means. God is not served by our stealing and our coveting.

>ChnMind 2:14 Christian Socialism is a Second Order Idolatry

>Using the Devil’s Means Is Always Wrong

We have been considering the duty of families to gather and increase capital, and to pass that capital down through their generations. To the extent families fail to do this, or deny their responsibilities to do it, they fail to perform their duties to be oases of light and generosity to their extended families and those in need in the church community and in the civil community.

In recent centuries, however, we have seen a terrible perversion of this duty—one which causes Jerusalem to hang its head in shame. In our counsels has arisen the notion that there is a limit to which wealth and property belongs to families. That limit is set by the “greater good” which is defined and determined by the State. In this frame, the State has a prior right over all wealth and property; in principal Athens asserts that the State has final and eminent domain over the entire creation. The State has a right and duty to ensure that the poor are taken care of, and that families are taxed appropriately so that wealth is redistributed to others.

Now, at this point many in Jerusalem have bowed down to Athens, and worshipped at its feet.
They have formally nodded towards the passages in our biblical Constitution which command that love, care, and welfare be extended to the poor. Then, they have entirely disregarded the means and directions and institutions by which we are commanded to fulfil this duty. Instead, they have welcomed to their bosom pagan means in an attempt to fulfil biblical ends.

This syncretism with Unbelief is blighted by God, and to be despised by Jerusalem. It is the same principle which led our fathers in Israel to set up false altars at Dan and Bethel ostensibly to worship the Lord. These were in express disregard of the commands of God: but many were fooled into thinking that as long as the objective and the intent was “good”, the how or the means was relatively unimportant.

In our history, the Lord sent prophets repeatedly to warn against such tactics. Elijah, Elisha, and Amos were sent to warn God’s people against this false blending of belief and unbelief. They did not listen. We in our day should let the cries and groans of the disembowelled ring somberly in our ears, as happened when the Assyrians utterly devastated Samaria in a divine judgment in 722BC . That is the end of all such pernicious compromises with idolatry.

In our day, then, “Christian” socialists have joined up with, and supported, the civil state’s intrusion into the realms of love, welfare, and charity. They have sought to “christianise” socialism. They have argued that the socialists professed concern for the poor is really a Christian belief and responsibility—therefore, it is a duty of Christians to aid and abet the socialist programme. Sure, we don’t agree with socialist secularism, but by making common cause with Unbelief in using the power of the State to take care of the poor we will win their respect, and they will listen to our Gospel witness. Fools. Disembowelling portends.

Jerusalem’s testimony is clear and unequivocal: if you are not doing God’s work, God’s way then you are doing the Devil’s work, period. No amount of compassion or emotional commitment to the poor and the suffering in our community will plaster over that ugly fact. It is better not to start at all—for the damage that will be done in the longer term is far, far greater, and the poor will have their faces ground all the more. If you truly care for the poor—as you must—for the sake of our Lord, and in fear of Him, do not make common cause with Unbelief. Do not worship at the feet of the State as if the government were to replace God.

Do not take short cuts. Do not let the tyranny of the urgent, or the exigencies of the moment deflect you from serving the Lord in truth. Actually, the way of the Lord and the way of Unbelief is strongly contrasted right at this very point. To take care of the poor and the needy as the Lord requires one must work hard oneself. It is slow, painstaking, difficult, heart-wrenching and exhausting as we strive to take care of our families and our extended families. It requires a life time of effort. It is never over. And that is the way it is deliberately meant to be. That is what the Lord intends. Through such suffering and faithful labour the Kingdom of God is truly built. Through such disciplines we learn how to be faithful stewards.

According to Athenian Unbelief taking care of the poor is easy. It is someone else’s duty. “They” will arrange it through their vast impersonal bureaucratic machine. “They” will fund it through their relentless exorbitant exactions of tax. There. Problem solved. We feel good. Everyone’s happy. We have done our “Christian” duty by voting in support of the Athenian solution. Now, we can go on to indulge ourselves.

Fools. If you don’t employ God’s ways to do God’s work, you are doing the Devil’s bidding. He is the most subtle of all creatures. He is always masquerading as an angel of light, subverting the holy desires of God’s people into means and methods of evil. Satan, for example, would always endorse strongly the whole duty and glory of having children, but will ever suggest that going into a prostitute is the most efficient and effective way to achieve the outcome. The long term damage and devastation is incalculable.

But if citizens of Jerusalem can see so clearly the folly of using prostitutes as the most efficient and effective way to be fruitful and multiply, why cannot they see that using the State to take care of the poor is equally Satanic and equally wrong?

“Christian” socialists have been misled over many years by a superficial distortion of some biblical texts. They have read them with socialist glasses firmly in place. Unable to cast off the vestiges of Athenian welfarism, they have carried them over into the holy canons of Scripture. This deception has given “legs” to their folly.

There are three pivotal passages that have been repeatedly distorted. The first is the apostolic church in Jerusalem. The text says that the Church had all things in common. This, the “Christian” socialists tell us is the first Christian commune. It provides a model way for how the Church ought to be and live. Well no, actually it does and does not. The text says:

And everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles. And all those who had believed were together, and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions, and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. And day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart.
Acts: 2: 42—46

The situation in Jerusalem was an emergency and, therefore, highly irregular. But, once the irregularity of the actual historical situation is acknowledged, the actions of the Pentecostal church do indeed become normative—for those situations when the people of God find themselves in similar kinds of extraordinary circumstances, as they do from time to time.

The congregation consisted of large numbers of pilgrims (along with locals) who had come from all over the Mediterranean, African, and Eastern world (Acts 2: 9,10) as pilgrims to Jerusalem for Pentecost. Being pilgrims they carried sufficient for the journey, for celebrating Pentecost, feeding their families during the feast weeks, and returning home. That is all. There were thousands of these people who joined the apostolic church at Jerusalem (Acts 2: 41, 47; Acts 4:4).

Many of these converts stayed on in Jerusalem after Pentecost so that they could be further instructed and taught by the apostles. These people had nothing, once their provisions for pilgrimage were exhausted. For example, months afterwards, food was still being required for Hellenistic widows—that is, non-Palestinian Jewish widows who did not live permanently in Jerusalem or Palestine, but had stayed on in Jerusalem. (Acts 6: 1)

Faced with this enormous need, and convinced that it was important that these “strangers” spend as long as possible under the teaching of the apostles, the Jerusalem church did whatever it could to provide help and sustenance for the needy amongst them. They worked harder, they sold off as much as they could, and they brought it to the apostles for distribution to the needy and dependant in the congregation.

But, and here is the point, it was an emergency; it was like a huge influx of Christian refugees into a congregation. Such things happen from time to time—and when they do, churches usually respond in exactly the same way that the Jerusalem congregation did. They open their hearts and wallets and do all they can to help and sustain the needy which have come amongst them. So the churches did in Geneva at the time of the Reformation as hundred fled their to escape persecution in their homelands. So they have done repeatedly through history.

So Acts 2 is not teaching the norm of communal living. But it is teaching what God’s people ought to do when large numbers of refugees, needy, and dependant are suddenly thrust upon them.

The second passage which has been repeatedly distorted by “Christian” socialists is the Rich Young Ruler. (Luke 18: 18—31). Here a young wealthy aristocrat seeks Jesus’ instruction as to how to enter the Kingdom of God. He claimed to have followed all the commandments all his life. This, of course, was a self-deception on his part. Our Lord pricked his balloon: He commanded him to go away and sell all that he had, give it to the poor, then come and follow Jesus. The man of course, went away, saddened—for he was fabulously wealthy.

“Christian” socialists try to argue from this passage that no-one can truly follow Christ unless he makes himself penniless, and that fundamentally Marx was right: all property is theft. Once again, the “Christian” socialists strip this passage out of its historical context through their fixation with reading the Scriptures through socialist glasses.

The first thing to recall is that Messiah clearly intended to show this man that his real god was his money. All his self-righteousness was collapsed in a moment. Secondly, it is the prerogative of Lord to call and command some of His servants to give up all that they have and live in a manner dependant upon other people while they carry out their particular duties for the Lord. He continues to do this to this very day. Ministers of the Word of God, for example, are entirely dependant upon the care and provision of the people of God as they go about their tasks and duties. But this call and command is to isolated people—for not all are called to unreserved comprehensive careers of teaching and preaching God’s Word.

Thirdly, there are many instances where Messiah did not give a similar command to wealthy people: Zaccheus, Joseph of Arimathea, and Joanna being but three. But, and here is the point, all three showed that they regarded themselves as mere stewards, and that all which they had custody of was at the Lord’s disposition and command. Though possessing many things, they lived before the Lord as a servant, possessing nothing. That indeed is the true Christian ethic with respect to wealth: we are to care for it, husband it, and increase it, not as owners but as faithful stewards. We are to use it and apply it as He has commanded.

Finally, the folly of the “Christian” socialist gloss on the story of the Rich Young Ruler is easily demonstrated if we but make it a universal command of God for all who would enter the Kingdom of God. That would require that all Christians give away everything they own and live a life of total poverty and make themselves dependant upon . . . Unbelievers for their sustenance and support. Absurd—everywhere condemned in Scripture.

The third passage often used by “Christian” socialists is found in I Timothy 6: 8—10:

And if we have food and covering, with these we shall be content. But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith, and pierced themselves with many a pang.

Yet this passage says in a nutshell what the true heart and ethic of a steward of God is to be. A faithful steward of God is one who is content with the very simple and the meanest of lifestyles: food and clothing and something to keep the rain out. The truly faithful steward is one who can oversee millions of dollars, yet in heart and mind, believes that none of it really belongs to him personally. He must answer to the Lord for every cent: but it is kept in trust for present and future generations, for the works of charity and mercy, and for the building up of God’s Kingdom. A true steward loves the Lord, not money.

The key requisite of a steward is that he be found faithful. As God’s people, in their families, set themselves to do all they can to save and multiply capital, it is the Lord’s capital they are amassing. They are involved in the work of redeeming creation so that good works might abound. Amassing money for the purposes of a self-indulgent lifestyle of waste and luxury is utterly abhorrent. Where, then, is the glory of God in that?

It is true that faithful stewards are made, not born. It is true that faithful stewards have to learn how to abound and yet maintain faithfulness to the Lord. Yet this is precisely how the Lord works: until one has proved himself faithful in a little, the Lord will not appoint him as steward over a lot. (This, we believe, is one reason why the Lord’s people should never bestow large inheritances directly on their children, for their use and consumption—at least not until they have proved that they are faithful stewards before God, in their own right.)

“Christian” socialism, in all its forms, is diabolical. Anyone claiming that he is doing God’s work while employing the Devil’s means is abhorrent, and an utter disgrace to Jerusalem.

>ChnMind 2.13 The Kingdom and Property

>Pagan Principles Have Infected the Church Through the Portal of Property

We have argued that the constitutional documents of Jerusalem place the primary responsibility for welfare for both family and extended family firmly upon the shoulders of the Family itself. We have also argued that the State has no place at all to play in welfare, except indirectly, through restricting what it takes in taxation and through protecting the property rights of the Family. In fact, as we shall see in future essays, the State is explicitly forbidden by the constitution of the Kingdom of God to have any regard at all for the socio-economic situation of its people at all.

To the extent that modern Athens everywhere, not only disregards this divine prohibition, but is deliberately and relentlessly built upon the diametrically opposite principle—that is, that the State is the primary organ of welfare and that it must make the socio-economic condition of citizens its primary regard and concern—only serves to highlight just how far modern Athens has progressed in its rebellion against the Living God.

Since the Family is primarily responsible for social welfare, it follows that the heads of households must give themselves to ensure that all family members work diligently and effectively to achieve financial and material independence, so that they are not dependant upon welfare and charity from others. This is repeatedly insisted upon in the Scriptures. Hard work, diligence, thrift, and self-reliance are required. This is so fundamental that if anyone shows himself or herself unwilling to exert effort in these ways, they are to be allowed to starve—that is, no-one has a responsibility to take care of or extend welfare to them. This underscores more powerfully than anything else the importance of needing to strive to take care of oneself, and one’s dependants, to the very best of one’s ability.

But there is a very important constitutional corollary to this injunction to become self-supporting and independent: one of the most important reasons why we need to work hard to ensure self-support and self-reliance is that we then might have the resources and be able to help others who are less blessed and who, at least for a time, cannot make their way without help. These responsibilities and duties are repeatedly placed firmly upon the head of every household in the Scriptures.

We have also seen that these duties extend not just to the current generation, but thought and provision is also to be made for our children and grandchildren. In order to carry out these duties, it is necessary for the Family to amass and transmit capital down through generations. The modern Athenian State has set itself up as the greatest enemy and obstacle to this duty. It has put in place a phalanx of measures to strip capital away from the Family into its own coffers in order to carry out its own designs to be the primary dispenser of welfare. These measures include progressive taxation rates, high levels of taxation over all, capital gains taxes, and various estate tax measures to prevent wealth being left in trust to children and grandchildren. Once more we see the modern Athenian State being built upon principles of Unbelief and pagan values—forcing Christian citizens to comply with its ungodly, unjust, and rebellious actions.

Now this does not unduly alarm the citizens of Jerusalem. The Scriptures are very clear that this is to be expected. But He Who is with us is greater than he who is in the world. The Kingdom of God is coming despite the best exertions and endeavours of Unbelief. Every nation is going to be discipled and made obedient to the King of all kings. As the number of citizens in Jerusalem increase, and as they take up their God-given, constitutional responsibilities for family based welfare, the Athenian State, with its unjust dictats and institutions will eventually decay and wither away.

In the meantime, it is vitally important that Believers clearly understand their duties and responsibilities. Every Christian family must conform as much as possible to the stipulations and requirements of the Family as laid out in Jerusalem’s constitutional documents. In order to do this, it is essential that we “clear the decks” so to speak of those pagan and idolatrous ideas which have historically insinuated themselves into Jerusalem, and done so much damage.

We would argue that the most debilitating influence has come from the syncretising of the Christian faith with pagan values and ideas. This attempt to blend two absolutely contradictory positions has poisoned and enervated the City of Belief for centuries. With great sadness we must acknowledge that much of Christendom to this point has reflected an attempt to build a superstructure of Christian faith upon a pagan foundation. It has failed—as it always will. If the foundation is not correct, the building will eventually collapse.

One central pagan idea which has been allowed to influence Jerusalem as a poison clutched to the heart is belief that the world of matter (the physical world) is intrinsically evil or unreal or devalued and that the immaterial world (spirit, ideas, invisible beings) is intrinsically good or real or better. You can still find this pagan view expressed everywhere within Jerusalem today, often unwittingly. This is decidedly and emphatically not the world-view of the Scriptures. This is vitally important, and if we do not get this right, we will get most other things wrong.

So, in a few brief paragraphs, let us attempt to present the biblical and truthful world-view once and for all.

Firstly, the absolute and fundamental disjunction and separation in reality is not between matter and spirit. It is between God and the creation. God dwells in unapproachable light. Everything else that exists has both come into existence and utterly depends for its continuing existence upon God. He alone is eternal, infinite, and unchangeable. All else is temporal, finite, and changeable.

Secondly, while the created order has both material and immaterial aspects and realms, these are not set against each other as if one realm were intrinsically superior or better than the other. Rather, the Scriptures make abundantly clear over and over that within the realms of the material and immaterial there are both good and evil influences. Thus in the heavenly spirit realm, there are both demons and angels—good and evil beings. In the world of matter, in our world, there are both the Righteous and the Unrighteous. There are evil men and there are justified men made perfect in Christ.

Thus, matter is not intrinsically evil. The temporal world, the world of the body, is not inferior or unspiritual or of lesser importance. It cannot be, because everything originally created by God was declared good, very good. Rather, the temporal world has been degraded because of sin; it has been subjected to slavery to evil because of rebellion against God. However, the Christ has entered into our temporal world, taken it upon Himself, and has cleansed it upon the Cross, rising again to commence a divine work of purification. In this purification, the last enemy that will abolished and vanquished will be death. The Devil and his demons and his human devotees and followers will be cast into the Lake of Fire.

But in the meantime, God’s people are to strive and work as obedient servants to redeem all of God’s creation, both the material and immaterial aspects. Thus, we are to redeem and purify the body as well as the mind; the family as well as the individual soul; the wider creation as well as our spirits. We are to do this in an utterly spiritual manner—that is, with all our work in all the realms of our God-given responsibility being subject to and empowered by the Holy Spirit of the Creator God.

In this scriptural frame of redemption of the entire realm of creation under Christ Jesus we must insist that wealth and capital, amassed by the Family, subject to the Spirit of God and the injunctions and laws of Jerusalem’s constitution—such wealth is holy, just and good. It is a holy thing!

Now, those citizens of Jerusalem who remain infected with pagan thinking might find this a bit shocking. It is true there has been a long and ignoble tradition in Christendom to see wealth as worldly, intrinsically evil, and to be avoided at all costs. Spirituality has been seen as a call to live in poverty or degradation, at worst, or at best to see wealth as a necessary but intrinsic evil—a sort of compromise with evil as long as we live in the material world. But, says this ignoble tradition, one day, we will escape out of it. These views are infused with a pagan essence—they are more satanic than Christian.

But there are some very important issues here. If we do not get the doctrine of the spirituality of matter right; if we do not get the Bible’s teaching on the importance of Family wealth and capital clear, we will consign Christian families and Jerusalem as a whole to a truncated and under resourced existence. But because “nature abhors a vacuum”, the Devil will ensure that someone or something else will take over those realms and duties which families neglect—and so his great tool, the modern Athenian secular, Unbelieving State has arisen as a perpetual enemy to the biblical Family. In part this is our own fault, for we—the citizens of Jerusalem—have nursed pagan and unbiblical concepts in our bosom for centuries. We have insisted and persisted in reading the Scriptures with the coloured glassed of paganism, interpreting them in a pagan manner.

Our next post on the Christian Mind will deal with those passages of Jerusalem’s constitution which historically have been interpreted in a pagan manner, and which have been misused to claim that the Scriptures forbid the diligent husbanding of wealth and capital, or at least, if not forbid, imply that it is a second-grade, and worldly, unspiritual concern. This we believe is one of the great battlefields between the Unbelief and the Spirit of God in our day.

>ChnMind 2.12 Family Wealth

>The Family Has a Duty to Amass Capital

We have argued that within the Kingdom of God, the Lord has stipulated three fundamental institutions: the Family, the Church, and the State. Each has its specific duties and responsibilities laid out by the Lord Jesus Christ. Each must answer to Him. Each must respect and honour the others as they respectively seek to carry out their Christ-commanded duties. Each must fear to intrude or interfere in the other institutions, or seek to break out of the God-set bounds. Within the Kingdom, the constitutional documents prohibit such destructive behaviour on the part of the Family, the Church, and the State.

As the Spirit of God builds up the City of Belief; as more and more communities come under its sway, these basic institutions and the protections and prohibitions surrounding each will come to be reflected in a particular society’s laws, conventions, covenants, contracts, and creeds.

We have argued that the primary role of the family is to bear and transmit the faith of the Covenant down through the generations. It is the duty of parents to raise their children to walk after the Lord, even as they have done. The duty to teach, admonish, train, discipline, instruct, and raise children to maturity is absolutely fundamental to the Family’s duties before God. Neither State nor Church can interfere, suborn, or intrude. State and Church have a duty to help and encourage and respect the Family as it goes about this task—but not second guess, or undermine, or replace.

If the State were to say, “We will educate your children. We will run a universal state education system to ensure that all your children can read and write, and learn about civics and other interesting things” it would be acting unconstitutionally, and would be violating its God-given place. In short, it would be acting in a treasonous manner.

We have also argued that a second fundamental role of the Family is to be the primary institution of welfare. The Family must care for its own; it must feed, clothe, and shelter. It turns out that there are four concentric rings of Family welfare responsibility.

In this regard its first sphere of welfare responsibility is to wife and children. But it also has to consider the wider family—particularly those family members who are destitute or afflicted—such as any widowed or orphaned or who have fallen upon hard times. This is the second ring of welfare responsibility.

The third sphere is fellow Christian brethren. We are commanded especially to do good to those who are of the household of faith. So, as we encounter fellow-believers who are in need, the Family has a duty to reach out and provide assistance.

The fourth sphere is any person we encounter who needs our help. This is the point of the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Thus in Galatians 6:9,10 we are commanded to do good especially to those of the household of faith, but not exclusively. Paul commands that we also do good to all men. The person we encounter in need is the fourth sphere of Family welfare responsibility.

The Church also has a role and responsibility in welfare. We have seen that it is to play a back-up role, helping out when all other Family resources have been expended. The Church’s role is to ensure that no-one falls through the cracks. The State, however, as we shall see later, is explicitly forbidden by God from engaging in the duties and responsibilities of welfare. Its only responsibility towards the poor and indigent is to make sure its judgments and its laws do not discriminate towards the poor—either positively or negatively. Justice must be blind and show no favoritism.

Now there are some wise and beneficial consequences—intended consequences—that flow from Jerusalem’s insistence upon the Family as the primary welfare institution. Firstly, the Scriptures are completely realistic about the sinful tendency of human being towards laziness and bludging and theft. The Proverbs are full or scathing criticism and warnings about the sluggard. Family based welfare is always personal welfare: it knows the individuals, the persons, their lifestyles, their attitudes. It knows whether family members are deserving of help, or whether they are just lazy and bludging. Families know whether any family members are unwilling to work and help themselves. The Family is by far and above the best institution to insist upon accountability on the part of those who are needy.

Secondly, a Family based welfare institution strengthens the family as an institution. As the covenant community expects and requires families to take care of their own, the Family as an institution is respected, honoured, and built up. If one is needy, to be related to a particular family is vital; family ties become far more important. Family connections become valued.

Thirdly, Family based welfare is far more likely to occur within the bounds of natural love and affection—which is to say, it will be up-building and encouraging and not impersonal and degrading. Moreover, it will obligate welfare recipients far more effectively and powerfully to be thankful, and show thankfulness by getting off welfare as quickly as possible, so that, in turn, the former welfare recipients can extend care to others.

Finally, levels of welfare support are automatically self-regulating. There is no artificial bureaucratic “standard” of poverty. There is no artificial poverty line which determines that one should receive welfare or not. The standard is relative to the living standards of each individual family.

But this begs a significant question: How will families get the resources they need in order to extend loving welfare to wider family members? An obvious answer is that within Jerusalem the State is not the rapacious monster that it is within Athens. In that City the government has become a remorseless tyrant, demanding more and more of the wealth and income of the Family, extracting it by the force of unjust laws. In Jerusalem, whilst government itself is deep and pervasive, the role of the State is much reduced. Families are left with much more income and capital to deploy in family welfare.

But this is only a partial answer to the question. The fact is that every family must see itself (and be told, if it fails to see) as deeply obligated to work hard, and amass capital so that it might help the weak. Paul’s final address to the Ephesian Church sets it out:

I have coveted no-one’s silver or gold or clothes. You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my own needs and to the men who were with me. In everything I showed you that by working hard in this manner you must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”
Acts 20:33—35

The reason each person is to work hard is that they have so many other people to take care of. And if anyone thinks that this is not true in their particular case, they are simply ignorant of Scripture. But more than that, the Scriptures make it very clear that we have a duty to lay up an inheritance, not only for our children, but also for our grandchildren.

In Proverbs 13:22 we read: “A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children.” The context makes it clear that it is capital that is being spoken of, not the inheritance of a godly tradition, or an example, or a testimony of faith—vital though such things are. The parallelism to the statement above says, “And the wealth of the sinner is stored up for the righteous.” Clearly the text is speaking of an actual monetary inheritance, or an inheritance of riches, wealth, and capital.

In modern Athens, the State has become the uber-parent. The State has acted in rebellion against God, and has sought to take over Family duties and responsibilities, such as education and welfare. The State has become both Teacher and Provider. In order to fund this it must rip families to pieces—and the key tool to do this is steep, progressive, insatiable taxation.

The Family in Athens has been disenthroned and now lies disembowelled. Stripped of its wealth, its members look to the State as their real family. They give little or no thought to their responsibilities to wider family members: if they fall on hard times, they are pointed to the nearest Department of Social Welfare office. They give little or no thought to laying up an inheritance for their children. Still less they could not even imagine their responsibilities to their grandchildren. In Athens the Family has turned upon itself to aide and abet its own destruction. The basic ethic of Family in Athens has become: “Get all you can! Can all you get! Poison the rest.” The children are on their own. And the children grow up to disown their parents.

In Athens, the Family has become little more than a transient boarding house.

In Jerusalem the Family once again is honoured and feared. It is expected and required to be the primary institution of welfare for all men. To that end, and so that the Family will have the resources to do its job, the heads of households are to work exceedingly hard, save diligently, and provide for dependants. But, more, each household must strive to lay up an inheritance for the next generations—both children and grandchildren.

In receiving that inheritance, generations in their turn are to regard such gifts as a sacred trust. Money passed down is money to be passed on. It can be used for a time to generate income to support those in need. But each generation must strive to add to the capital received, and pass still more on to the servants and stewards who will come after.

>ChnMind 2:11 Welfare is a Dividing Issue

>Welfare is One of the Great Divides

New Zealand is a nation which officially represents the Great Lie—that Man is the measure and master of all things. In its national life it is a working example of Athens, the City of Unbelief.

As such it provides an excellent case study with which to compare and contrast with the City of God. As we draw the contrasts and comparisons, certain issues emerge which become deep rift valleys between the City of Man and the City of God. These are the defining, Rubicon-like issues which betray whether we are in the broad, tree lined boulevards of Jerusalem, or the dusty dessicated ditches of Athens.

Welfare is such a defining issue. Welfare is one of the issues that tell us that Jerusalem is Jerusalem, and Athens is Athens and ne’er the twain shall meet. For Athens, welfare is a human right, and is therefore a matter of justice. The government, as the minister of justice, must therefore be involved in ensuring that all its citizens are treated with justice—which means that all its citizens are provided with welfare. In Athens, welfare is an involuntary matter. Wealth and capital must be redistributed to the poor as a matter of justice.

For Jerusalem, however, welfare is a matter of charity—that is, it is a matter of grace, not justice. Grace is always free; it cannot be compelled. In Jerusalem no-one therefore has a title, or a right in law, to welfare. In fact, as we shall see in future posts, Jerusalem’s constitution prohibits the state from any involvement in welfare whatsoever. Therefore, welfare in Jerusalem is always the duty and responsibility of the voluntary, non-state sector.

The phrase “duty and responsibility” is deliberately chosen. Jerusalem abhors the “devil take the hindmost” ideology of those humanists who argue that the amassing of wealth does not bring responsibilities to others. The constitutional documents of the City make it very clear that the Lord Himself is the defender of the poor, the defenceless, the orphan and the widow. (Psalm 146:9; Proverbs 15:25; Malachi 3:5) Anyone, therefore, who does not take up his duties and responsibilities to the needy will face the Lord Himself: He provides the sanctions and executes the judgements upon those who harden their heart against the poor.

As we have noted before, the City of Jerusalem is a voluntary City, insofar as its citizens enter its gates freely, out of a free-will love of God. No-one can compel such love; no-one can order the will of another to believe and obey. God alone is the compeller of men’s hearts. It is He Who draws men to the love of Himself. He does so by the power of His Spirit, as He opens eyes and grants the gift of faith to His elect. Thus the most important form of government in the City is self-government: the government which arises from men and women obeying God from the heart, having His Law inscribed within by a miraculous work of His Spirit.

In this light, welfare is truly a matter of charity, of voluntary actions which citizens of the City undertake as part of their duty and responsibility to God Himself. The blessings and the benefits of this estate are considerable.

Firstly, welfare is personal. It is heart to heart, person to person. Therefore it is a true expression and outworking of love from one or more people to others.Consequently , charity and welfare is uplifting both to the giver (for the one who gives is more blessed than the one who receives) and the recipient. To the giver, the blessedness of generosity leads to even greater giving. The Scripture says that the Lord loves a cheerful giver. The generous soul, experiencing the love of God, becomes even more generous as the years pass. Generosity multiplies.

To the recipient, experiencing the love and kindness of another human being is immensely encouraging and uplifting (unless the heart has been taken captive by a spirit of pride). It affirms the dignity and worth of the needy. Within Jerusalem, when gifts are given to the poor, it is universally true that the poor represent the Lord Himself. To give to the needy is to give to Christ Himself. Such doctrines mean that the recipient is honoured indeed.

The personalistic nature of welfare in the City means that it is almost always a helping hand upwards. It is restorative and redemptive. It is not demeaning and demoralising. By contrast, welfare in Athens is always impersonal. It is not an expression of love at all. It carries with it the cold, impersonal demeanour of a judge. There used to be an expression “cold as charity,” which captured the demoralising and destructive effect of impersonal charity being dispensed by Unbelievers. Colder still is state welfare. Much colder. It rewards neither the “giver” who has had his property taken under compulsion through taxation and distributed to others, nor the recipient—for there is no love or compassion towards the needy from the giver in state welfare. There is only the impersonal “system.”

State welfare grinds the faces of those who live off it. It destroys them from the inside out. That is why in Athens you find intergenerational welfare slaves—up to four generations of people who have known nothing but living all their lives dependant upon state welfare. They are entrapped. They are the permanent underclass. They are the walking dead. This is the inevitable fruit of impersonal state welfare: it is neither loving nor just. It is one of the great evils of the modern world—despite the fact that it is one of Athens’s proudest boasts. In the different estates of welfare, we see displayed the glory of the City of our Lord Jesus, on the one hand, and the shame and degradation of the City of Unbelief, on the other. Welfare truly is one of the great divides.

Secondly, in Jerusalem the estate of welfare emphasizes the duty and responsibility of both giver and recipient. We have spoken of the duty upon everyone to extend love and gifts to others in need. But duty does not stop there. The Scriptures also speak of the duties that are upon those who receive welfare. In Jerusalem, when one receives, one accepts the attendant obligations. The first obligation is thankfulness to God—and only then thankfulness to His servants. We are all commanded to give thanks, in all circumstances, because this is God’s directive to us. (I Thessalonians 5:18)

When Paul was raising money amongst the Gentile churches for the poor in the churches of Judea, due to famine in that region, he says, “For the ministry of this service is not only fully supplying the needs of the saints, but is also overflowing through many thanksgivings to God. Because of the proof given by this ministry they will glorify God for your obedience to the confession of the gospel of Christ, and for the liberality of your contribution tot hem and to all, while they also, by prayer on your behalf, yearn for you because of the surpassing grace of God in you. Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!” (II Corinthians 9: 12—15) Both the givers and the recipients are overtaken with thankfulness.

Another responsibility upon the welfare recipients in Jerusalem is to do what they can to strive to cease being needful of support and better themselves so that they can in turn support others. This continues a basic ethic of the City: those who have received must stand ready to give to others. The Apostle lays down the law of the City as follows: “We urge you, brethren, . . . to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life and attend to your own business and work with your own hands, just as we commanded you; so that you may behave properly toward outsiders and not be in any need.” (I Thessalonians 4: 11) Every citizen has a duty to work so that they may not be in any need—so that they may not rely upon nor require welfare assistance from others. This is the duty of every welfare recipient—to do what they can to get themselves in a position where they are in need no longer.

As we have seen previously, if any welfare recipient disregards this duty, and will not strive and labour to place themselves in a position where they no longer need any help, let them starve. In other words, if any refuse to take up their responsibilities to move off welfare, the constitutional documents of the City require that we cease supporting them. They have become thieves, not truly needy.

The fundamental obligation of all such is that they steal no longer, but that they are to labour, performing with his own hands what is good, in order that he may have something to share with him who has need. (Ephesians 4: 28). Thus, the duty of all recipients of welfare is to get themselves (that is, by their own hand) to the point where they no longer need support, but are able, instead, to support others.

This means that in Jerusalem, when one gives to the needy, the gift will just keep on giving, as that person eventually re-establishes himself and in turn commences giving to others. Once again, charity in Jerusalem is redemptive, uplifting, restorative, and multiplying.

The contrast with how welfare works in Athens could not be more stark. Under “welfare as human right” administered by the state’s compulsion there is no obligation or moral imperative whatsoever for the recipient to be thankful. In Athens, the recipient of welfare is owed the money. It is what is due him. That is what is means for welfare to be considered a human right. Moreover, there is no obligation to get off welfare and to get oneself in a position of supporting others.

From time to time, Athens tries to introduce “work for the dole” schemes, or variants thereof. The idea is that a duty or obligation of some sort be placed upon the welfare recipient so that they get themselves off welfare dependance. Such ideas always fail: they are dashed upon the impregnable rocky cliffs of “welfare as a right” ideology. They are a fundamental contradiction in terms with state or governmental welfare, based on purported human rights. For this reason, Athens cannot sustain a doctrine or concept of the undeserving poor, who are really thieves, and from whom all welfare should be withheld. The end result is that a growing swathe of the community in Athens are lifelong thieves, who have stolen all their lives without risk of arrest or prosecution. In fact the rulers of the City has told them incessantly that they are right to be this way.

From time to time the ludicrous folly and intrinsic evil of this ideology frustrates even die-hard Athenians. They turn upon their rulers and find themselves asking a rather trenchant question: “Is it right”, they ask, “for an able bodied person to live his whole life supported by the public welfare system while he has chosen never to work a single day?” The rulers of the City shuffle their feet, stare into the middle distance, and mumble, “Yes.” They always answer, yes. The alternative is that the whole house of cards—which is Athens—will fall.

The estate of welfare and how to take care of the needy is a defining issue. It one of the issues which brings the irreconcilable difference between the Cities of Jerusalem and Athens into sharp focus.

>ChnMind 2.10 To the Family Belongs Social Welfare

>The Deserving Poor and the Family

In The End of History and the Last Man, (New York: Avon Books, 1992) Francis Fukuyama argues that modern Athenian liberal democracies represent the highest and last stage of history, in the sense that no further progress (at least in terms of the way society is organised and governed) can be achieved. A modern liberal democracy, he opines, is the acme and pinnacle of human existence.

This is an extraordinarily bold claim, attractive for its optimistic outlook, if nothing else.

One of Fukuyama’s arguments for modern Athenian liberal democracies being the highest and therefore the last stage of human social development is that they do not appear to have the seeds of their own dissolution and destruction growing within. There is no antithesis developing within liberal democracies that will result in them being torn apart and breaking down.

On this point, Fukuyama is just plain wrong. It turns out that Athenian liberal democracy inevitably contains the seeds of its own destruction and breakdown, insofar as liberal democracies shows themselves to be pathologically anti-family: modern liberal democracies do only weaken the institution of the family, they work actively to tear it apart. In weakening and tearing apart the family, liberal democracies will eventually break down from inside and experience a severe and irreversible decline and fall. Society cannot be built on a stable foundation without strong family life. We believe in the end that liberal Athenian democracies will be “judged by history” to be unsustainable, containing within them the seeds of their own decline and destruction.

The attenuation of the family as a social institution within modern Athens is everywhere apparent. The evisceration of the family has come from two main directions, both religious: the first is the persistent assertion that the rights of individuals are paramount and more fundamentally important than the institution of the family; the second is the progressive removal of family duties and social responsibilities and clustering those duties and responsibilities in society-at-large—which is to say, in the government. These socially negative tendencies are apparent in every modern Athenian liberal democracy. Their universality proves their inevitability. Individual rights are enthroned over marriage vows. Children’s rights are raised above parental authority. The State claims prior rights over the children of all families. It increasingly intrudes into family life, ordering how children are to educated, what they are to be taught, how they are to be raised, and what they are to eat. The result is the institution of the family is becoming increasingly redundant in liberal democracies.

These social pathologies are present in every liberal democracy and their destructive influence has grown enormously in the last one hundred years. The social antithesis of family breakdown is an inevitable outcome to the thesis of modern, liberal, rights-based democracies. The outcome will be the collapse of liberal democratic societies in upon themselves. Liberal democratic societies are unsustainable.

Jerusalem, however, truly does represent the highest stage of human social and political development. It is the City of God; its animus is spiritual—which is to say, of and from the Holy Spirit of God Himself—and its existence is entirely dependant upon God’s gracious work of pouring forth His Spirit, drawing people to Himself, conquering their sin, transforming them from the inside out, and building them into true human communities. Because the City of God actually deals with the moral and spiritual corruption of the human heart, the City has no internal antitheses to tear it apart. Jerusalem truly does represent the End of History and the Last Man. Its Lord and Life-Giver is the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last Man.

Jerusalem restores the Family to its central and rightful place—a position which is grounded upon the command, the designation and the appointment of the Lord Himself. The Family is able to take up its lawful role and responsibility again within the Covenant community. Intrinsic to the Family’s responsibilities is to be at the forefront of extending welfare to its members and to the wider community.

The key scriptural passage is found in I Timothy 5:8. “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he had denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever.” The Bible emphatically declares that it is the duty of everyone to provide for “their own.” Their “own” in this context means those for whom one has a particular responsibility. The first circle of responsibility is one’s own household—one must provide for one’s own children and those living under one’s roof. The second circle is the extended family: we must have concern for those within our covenant blood lines. The third circle is the community of faith—the community of Christians. We must have regard for any one need within the Church family. The fourth circle is the wider community, including those who do not believe.

These duties are made clear when Paul discusses the case of widows. He is addressing the responsibilities of the Church to towards “widows indeed”. It turns out that not all widows should be regarded as requiring the help and support of the Church. It should preferably be only those women who had lost their husbands, and were older, and had no means of support from their families.

Widows are particularly singled out throughout the Scripture as people to be especially cherished and looked after. But the first line of provision must come from her own children and grandchildren. The children are to “make a return” to their parents. This is acceptable with God—that is, this is what God looks for and approves amongst His people. We read: “Honor widows who are widows indeed; but if any widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to practice piety in regard to their own family, and to make some return to their parents; for this is acceptable in the sight of God.” (I Timothy 5: 3,4) So, the wider Church community has a duty to provide for widows (and, by extension, orphans, indigents, the sick), but only if their immediate family are not able to take care of all the needs themselves.

If anyone becomes a widow, and is younger, the divine instruction is to seek to be remarried, so that she may be taken care of by her husband and she not become a burden on the wider Church community. (I Timothy 5:14). If a woman has dependant widows, it is her duty to take care of them and support them, so that the Church may not be burdened.

The Church, then, is left to focus on those who are widows indeed. (I Timothy 5:16) This expression is very interesting. The Church community will always have to take care of those who are indeed widows—that is, who have no family support, either because their extended family are unbelievers and have deserted their mothers, or because tragedy has struck the wider household, and it has been decimated. But, once again, the primary responsibility for welfare belongs with the Family. It is to be the first line of defence against poverty.

A further key principle with respect to welfare is that those who do not strive to provide for themselves are to be left to starve. This “tough love” is utterly foreign to modern Athens—an evidence of that city’s stupidity and reckless folly. Because of residual sin within Jerusalem from time to time there are likely to be those people who busy themselves in the public affairs or the affairs of others and will not take care of themselves. The constitutional documents of the City leave us in no doubt as to how they are to be dealt with:

Now we command you, brethren, in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof (avoid) from every brother who leads an undisciplined life and not according to the tradition you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example; because we did not live in an undisciplined manner among you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with labour and hardship we kept working night and day so that we might not be a burden to any of you; not because we do not have a right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as an example a model for you, that you might follow our example. For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order; If anyone will not work, neither let him eat.
For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in a quiet fashion and eat their own bread. But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary of doing good. And if anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that man and do not associate with him that he may be put to shame. And yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

II Thessalonians 3: 6—15

In these simple, direct words the entire edifice of the modern Athenian welfare state is torn down. Paul, as a full-time apostle of the Lord was entitled to be supported by those to whom he was ministering. This is clearly taught elsewhere in Scripture. However, in order to teach a more fundamental point, Paul relinquished this right, and insisted upon working with his hands, plying his trade, and supporting himself. He did so in order to be an example to the believers. He commands us all, in the Name of the Lord to follow his example and act likewise.

The basic rule of equity is that if a person chooses not to work, he, by that decision, ought to be allowed to starve. Hunger, in the end, will provide the motivation to productive work.

We have watched the lunacy of Athens as it has sought deliberately to ignore this command, setting itself up as wiser than God. Not only has it undermined and dismissed the family in a thousand different ways, it has also sought to replace it, making the government the Uber-family—the source of provision and welfare. The upshot is that now more than one in two mouths in this country depend upon the government for bread. Many of these dependants are living lives of busybodies. In Jerusalem they would be left to starve.

Thus, the concept of the poor indeed, or the deserving poor is central to Jerusalem’s constitution. Secondly, the prime responsibility to provide for the poor falls upon their family members, both immediate children and also relatives. The Church stands as a back up, to act when these first lines of provision are inadequate or have failed.

One of the key reasons why modern Athenian liberal democracies will collapse in upon themselves, rotting from the inside out, is found right here. Because modern man has mocked the Living God, because he has turned a deaf ear to the warnings about, and dangers of, the undeserving poor, because he has substituted his own wisdom, attempting to create a vain utopia through the welfare state, modern Athenian society is doomed.

Jerusalem, for its part, has listened carefully to the commands of her Lord. In her streets, state “welfare” is progressively spurned and rejected. It is replaced by familial welfare. In God’s City, the Family is the first and essential institution of welfare. God alone is our Provider, and we seek for His provision in His way, on His terms, with His blessing. Jerusalem rejects the statist idolatry of Athens built upon its edifice of pseudo-rights and humanist pretensions.

>ChnMind 2.9 To the Family Belongs the Children

>The Family is Responsible for The Nuture and Instruction of Children

As God’s Kingdom, the City of Jerusalem, comes upon earth, the core institutions of the Kingdom (the Family, the Church, and the State) will function increasingly as they should. They respectively will perform more faithfully the roles and responsibilities given to them by the Lord. The outcome will be growth in righteousness and peace: social harmony and prosperity will be magnified.

Our concern, here, is to trace out the roles and responsibilities given by God to the Family. This institution has come under sustained attack over the past forty years. Athens has sought overtly and deliberately to undermine the roles and duties of the Family. As it has done so, and to the degree it has been successful, Athens has experienced social dislocation and disintegration. Society will not be “healed” until the Christian Family once again becomes the norm.

The central responsibilities of the Family can be summarised thus:

1.It is the key institution to bear, instruct, train, and mould children into the Christian faith.
2.It is the institution which is primarily responsible for the education of children.
3.It is the central and primary institution for welfare and charity in society.
4.It is the core institution for the accumulation and transmission of capital (wealth)

A glance at these four key responsibilities confirms just how weakened and emasculated the Family has become in modern Athens. That city has rebelled against the biblical order, and has insisted upon the omni-competent State taking over education and welfare. It has strenuously worked against the role and responsibilities of the Family in these areas. The power of the State has also been used to restrict a family’s ability to accumulate and transmit capital through its progressive taxation laws, and the forced re-distribution of wealth. Finally, the State in Athens has also increasingly called into question the ability and responsibility of the Family as the bearer and nurturer of children. The modern pagan state speaks increasingly of children belonging to society, to the government. It uses language like “our children”; it sets up public ministries to oversee the raising of children. Consequently, within the mind and religion of Athens, the Family has become withered at best, broken and dismembered at worst.

But the Church is not without fault either. Firstly, the Church has failed to teach a consistent biblical position with respect to the Family. It has supplanted the Family with itself in that it has oftentimes viewed itself as the primary institution to instruct, train, and mould children in the faith. It has not taught adequately and sufficiently clearly the duties of families to take responsibility for the education of their children; nor has it insisted upon the Family being the primary institution responsible for welfare and charity. Moreover, through a fuzzy and unbiblical platonism, the Church has also failed to teach the duty of the Family to accumulate and pass on capital.

We will look at these four key duties of the Family in greater detail and depth. Most important is the first duty: that of bearing, nurturing, and training children in the Christian faith. The fundamental biblical foundation of this duty lies in the Covenant of Grace. God’s mercy and salvation works across, in, and through family lines. God has decreed and ordained that it would be so. But this is not just a blood relationship: it turns out that God deals with households, which may be broader and more extensive than blood ties. Nor is it something which is isolated or restricted to Jewish religion. This way of divine redemption is clearly carried on over into the New Covenant.

We see this in Acts 10:2, where the Scripture says of Cornelius, the centurion, that he was a devout man, and one who feared God with all his household. Cornelius would have had slaves and servants in his household. He may or may not have had children. But in his household, his fear of God had been extended to all those who lived under his roof.

But more than that, the Bible records that when Peter was coming to visit him to proclaim the Gospel to him, and open up the grace of God to the Gentiles, Cornelius had called together his relatives, and his close friends. (Acts 10: 24) They all believed as one, when the Holy Spirit fell upon them. (Acts 10:44). God’s grace works in families and households. The same pattern is repeated in the case of Lydia (Acts 16: 15) and the Philippian jailor (Acts 16: 31—34). Lydia had no husband and probably no children, but she was a wealthy merchant and had servants and employees attached to her household. God’s grace came to them all. The jailor probably had a wife and children, but would certainly have had slaves. Once again, God’s grace came to his entire household.

These things reach right back in time to when the Lord first made His covenant with Abraham. The Lord explicitly said that His covenant was not going to be just with Abraham, but also with all the descendants of Abraham that would come forth from him. (Genesis 17: 1—14) Then later, the Lord specified further what this would mean: He said (of Abraham), “for I have chosen him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice.” (Genesis 18: 19). The covenant gave a critical role and responsibility to Abraham—to command his household and his children so that they would all keep the way of the Lord.

To the believing Family, then, was given the duty to bear and train children—and the entire household—in the ways of the Lord. It is significant that these duties extend over at least two generations. So, parents have responsibilities not only to their own children, but also to their grandchildren. This is clearly spelled out in Deuteronomy: “only give heed to yourself and keep your soul diligently, lest you forget the things which your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart, all the days of your life; but make them known to your sons and your grandsons.” (Deuteronomy 4: 9). Similarly, in the sixth chapter: “Now, this is the commandment, the statutes and the judgements which the Lord your God has commanded me to teach you, . . . so that you and your son and your grandson might fear the Lord your God, to keep His statutes and His commandments . . .” (Deuteronomy 6: 1—2)

In Jerusalem, what is to be taught to children, and who is to teach it are equally important. The duty to see that children are properly instructed falls upon the Family in general and fathers in particular: “For He established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, that He commanded our fathers, that they should teach them to their children; that the generation to come might know, even the children yet to be born, that they may arise and tell them to their children . . .” (Psalm 78: 5—6)

Upon the Family, then, falls this great duty to raise up children to adult Christian maturity, so that the forthcoming generation might arise to serve God faithfully in its generation. While the Family may receive help and assistance from others in this task, the “buck” stops with parents. It cannot be handed over to the Church or the State.

It is at this point that we are confronted with one of the great dividing lines between Jerusalem and Athens. If the question is asked, to whom belongs the children, Athens insists that they belong to society at large in the first place. And within society at large, the State is the primary power. Therefore, Athens has come to believe that the children belong to the people, to the community, and finally, therefore, to the State, as the overlord. The authority and competence of parents must always give way and stand aside to the higher and prior claims of the community. The community, through the organs of the State, will tell parents how they are to raise their children, how they are to be cared for, how and when they are to be educated, and in what they are to be educated.

But the Lord of heaven and earth says that the children belong to Him. He has ordained that the parents of children will be held accountable to Him for the birth, nurture, and education of the children. In asserting a false prior claim, the community and the State are rebelling against the Lord Himself. The consequences of such arrogance will be terrible.

As the Kingdom comes, as the Holy Spirit draws near, more and more Christian families will come to take up their biblical duties and responsibilities to educate and train their children. More families will see households as a whole as the key recipient of grace, and will therefore rule and train their children to believe and obey the Lord. They will understand that this is how God has determined that it is to be, and so they will arise, obey and act—even as their father, Abraham did before them. They will deny and resist the ungodly assertions of the community and the State over their own children. They will insist on raising God’s children, God’s way.

This righteous insistence by parents within Jerusalem provokes a fierce and hateful reaction on the part of many of the powerful within Athens. They sneer one moment, then fulminate the next. They know that he who has control over the children has control over the future. Therefore they are going to do all within their power to wrest children away from their parents as soon as possible, to commence a programme of humanist indoctrination.

So central is this reality to the wellbeing of Jerusalem, it comes as no surprise that the enemies of the Belief would conspire mightily against such things. But they will not prevail. They cannot, for the Lord Himself will stretch forth His hand to ensure that they fail.

>ChnMind 2.8 Self-Government in Jerusalem

>The Universality of Divine Self-Government

The government of Jerusalem cannot be compared to any form of government found in Athens. In the end, government within Athens becomes progressively and literally diabolical.

The history of political philosophy has largely been a record of discussion and debate over the role and responsibility of the civil government. “Government” in this context almost universally means civil government, with the possible exception of medieval and pre-modern Byzantium and Western Europe where the concept of government was extended for a time to the Church.

In post-Enlightenment times, particularly in the Anglo and American traditions, political philosophy has turned around the issue of the respective responsibilities of the state versus the freedoms of the individual. The debate has turned around more or less civil government.

Jerusalem has a very clear and definitive view on such issues derived from its constitutional documents. The Scriptures declare distinct, but limited, roles for the State, the Church and the Family—the core institutions of the Kingdom. We will trace these through in forthcoming essays. But, while the governing role of each and any institution in Jerusalem is holy, but nevertheless limited, government itself is not. Within Jerusalem, government is maximal.

The government of which we speak is divine government: after all, Jerusalem manifests the Kingdom of God. Jerusalem represents the City of redemption where, progressively, all things are restructured and reformed around the reign and dominion of the Lord Jesus Christ. Within Jerusalem all enemies are progressively placed under His feet. Government, divine government, in the City is therefore universal in scope and intent. Consequently, within that great City we are not led to speak of minimal government and maximum individual freedom. We have been taught to speak, rather, of universal, comprehensive, complete Divine government of the City—and therefore limited, delegated government for every human institution.

This is palpably evident throughout the constitutional documents, but a few citations will suffice. In the Lord’s prayer, our Lord commands us to pray, “Thy Kingdom come; Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.” (Matthew 6:10). The coming of the Kingdom of God is sure, certain, and infallibly the pre-determined and declared will of the infinite, infallible, eternal God. Therefore, we are commanded to pray for it, with absolute faith, completely certain that it will come to pass. Moreover, the Kingdom of God is not some ethereal, other worldly, non material kingdom: our Lord makes clear that it is coming upon earth, as the growing crescendo within human history, as all enemies are progressively placed under His feet. This is the great goal that all human history is orientated towards, and is working towards—whether men are aware of it or not.

But notice how the Kingdom is characterised in the parallelism: the coming of the Kingdom is equivalent to God’s will being done upon earth, as it is in heaven. In heaven, the government of God is universal, expressed through and reflected in all the myriads of beings, both angelic and human, through all its institutions and structures; through all its ordinances and services. As the Kingdom of God comes upon the earth, the same universal nature of God’s government that exists in heaven becomes progressively evident within Jerusalem.

Secondly, the Lord’s apostle, Paul tells us that all reality within Jerusalem is being made subject to the Lord Jesus Christ. Within that city, every thought is being taken captive (II Corinthians 10:5) to the obedience of Christ. The government of the Kingdom is so pervasive and universal that, by the Spirit of God, it does what Athenian human powers have never been able to do—which is to govern, direct, control and subdue even the thoughts and intentions of the human heart.

It is a characteristic of God’s Word, when animated by the Spirit, that it captures, controls and transforms each human being from the inside out. “For the Word of God is living and active and sharper than any two edged sword, and piercing as far as the divisions of the soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” (Hebrews 4:12). Each Believer is charged with working to bring forth and manifest this divine government in his life. “So, then,” says Paul, “whether we eat or drink, or whatever we do, do all to the glory of God.” (I Corinthians 10:31)

Thirdly, the will of God is manifest in His commandments. The summary of those commandments is given to us by our Lord: “you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength and with all your mind.” (Luke 10: 27) Heart, soul, strength, and mind represent the totality of our beings: but to leave us with no doubt, the Law of God commands that respectively all of our heart, soul, strength and mind are to express a comprehensive and total love for God. The subjugation of all His enemies includes subduing the enmity which resides in the hearts, souls, and minds of His people. Every part of a person is to be devoted to the Lord.

It is an irrefutable maxim that he who is able to win total control over the human heart, over every thought and intent of the heart, will thereby have won total control over human society.

The Kingdom of God on earth manifests an ever increasing realm of divine government. Within Jerusalem, government is universal. But the most basic and fundamental form of government is within the human heart—and even and especially there the Kingdom has totalitarian claims and its realm is universal. This means that the most fundamental and pervasive realm of government within the Jerusalem is self-government. The most fundamental realm of divine rule in the Kingdom is the human soul willingly, deliberately, and increasingly successfully subjecting itself to the will and commands of God in all things—so that the goals, the motives and the standards of the individual are increasingly conformed to God’s commands and God’s Word.

Thus, within Jerusalem’s walls, divine government is universal and maximal. But the most fundamental and important manifestation of God’s rule is in the human heart, that seat of sin, which means that the most fundamental and important manifestation of God’s government in Jerusalem is the rule of self-discipline, and of willing self-conformity to the Word of God.

The most important realm of government is government of self. Any society which cannot manifest righteous self-government out of the hearts of its citizens is doomed to ultimate failure and collapse. But Athens, that “alternative” city, the city of Unbelief, to this day has utterly failed to command the thoughts and intentions of the heart. It has tried valiantly. It has spent untold money on universal programmes of education and re-conditioning. It has tried universal propaganda. It has tried totalitarian regimes. It has tried religion. It has tried bribery, intimidation, and threats. All have failed.

Unable to change the human heart, it has failed miserably to produce a realm of willing self-government amongst the governed. Consequently, Athens is doomed to failure and eclipse. He Who sits in the heavens laughs. For He alone can create a new heart. His atonement makes it possible. His Spirit alone can transform His people from the inside out.

Jerusalem is a holy City where the Lord rules. But His realm of government is first and foremost over the thoughts and intentions of each individual heart—for from the human heart are the springs of life itself. That means that the most important governmental realm within Jerusalem’s walls is a willing self-government of the soul.

>ChnMind 2.7 The Freedom of the Individual

>True Freedom and Its Counterfeits

In the anglo-saxon world much ado has been made about freedom. Probably the United States has been the most prominent in this regard, celebrating the cause in its anthem as being “the land of the free.” We are all familiar with the historical provenance of that nation. It came into existence in opposition to the perceived tyranny of the state—in this case the Crown of Great Britain.

The assertion of freedom from the tyranny of an unjust government is enshrined, of course, in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .” We notice that life and liberty are declared to be co-fundamental. If one is to be truly alive, one must be truly free. But life and liberty are also declared to be co-fundamental with the pursuit of happiness. One is only truly alive and free, if one is allowed to pursue one’s own happiness.

The hagiography of the Founders and the idolising of their Declaration has now become bizarre, to say the least. A massive transformation of meaning of the Declaration has taken place in little over two hundred years. It is now understood to mean the precise opposite of what the revered Founders meant. Yet the same formulaic words are applied. For the Founders, freedom meant at least two things: it meant freedom from the government, in order to be and do as one saw fit in the pursuit of happiness. Now the very same formula is glossed to mean the reverse. Now it is understood to mean freedom from having to pursue happiness; to which end it is the duty of the government to be and do all it can to provide happiness for its citizens. Of course, it can only pursue this course and deliver freedom from want and need for its citizens if it has already arrogated to itself powers and tyrannies unimagined by the King of England or the American revolutionaries at the time.

Today, the sentiments of the Declaration of Independence stand as one of the greatest cynical historical jokes of all time. It has produced an all regulating, all controlling government with pre-emptive powers claiming omni-competence over every aspect of its citizens’ lives and property. But it also stands, like Ozymandius, as a sober warning to all who will heed. The Founders appealed to the Laws of Nature and to Reason as the ground and authority of their Declaration. Really, they were appealing and testifying to themselves and their own autonomy. They were seeking to revolt and establish a new nation on the grounds of beliefs and principles and the world as they saw and understood it to be, not as it truly was.

They were rationalists, closet rationalists to be sure, but rationalists none the less. When fallen men seek to build kingdoms on the shifting sands of man and his reason, their kingdoms will not stand. When reason is autonomous, one generation’s lie becomes another generation’s truth. One man’s view or belief is as good as another’s. Autonomous reason is a prostitute: it will go with whomever has the money at the time. And so it has proved to be.

Jerusalem, that great City of God upon earth, also believes in freedom, but not as in Athens. In Jerusalem, freedom is a function of truth, and truth is a function of God and not the creature. It is the truth which sets free. But God’s Word, which represents the constitutional documents of the City, is the truth. Anything contrary to His Word is a lie. As each individual man submits to God’s Word and embraces it in his heart, he is set free. The freedom of Jerusalem also has two aspects. It also is a freedom from, and a freedom to be and to do.

Firstly, freedom in Jerusalem means freedom from sin and its guilt, which enslaves every human heart in Athens. But it also means freedom to be and to pursue something. It means freedom to be a steward or servant of the King. It means freedom to pursue the duties and responsibilities of servanthood. This is why within Jerusalem every citizen is respected and honoured. They are respected because they are cleansed of sin and forgiven by the Lord Himself. None dare question the prerogatives of the King in this regard. Secondly, every citizen (man, woman and child) is respected as being the servant or steward of the King, who has both responsibilities and duties to perform at each and every stage of their lives. None must interfere with the Lord’s servants, doing the Lord’s business, carrying out the tasks He has assigned.

The prohibition against interfering with the lives of the servants of the Lord fundamentally establishes the principles of civil liberty within Jerusalem. Whilst every individual must respect the due roles of Family, Church and State, by exactly the same token those institutions are bound to respect each family member, each church member, and each citizen respectively as the servant and steward of God, Himself.

This basic principle of liberty is highlighted most sharply and clearly in the encounter between Peter and John and the Lord after the Resurrection. The Lord had been restoring and recommissioning His servant, Peter after the latter’s denial of the Christ. Peter turned around and saw John standing near, and asked, “Lord, and what about this man?”Jesus said, in effect, mind your own business! “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me.” (John 21: 21,22)

This stinging rebuke is the charter of liberty for every steward and servant of God in the Kingdom. People are to be left to fulfill the roles and responsibilities of a steward of God as it falls to them. Paul echoes the words of the Lord when he is reasoning through the liberty that is to apply within the Church of the Lord.

Now, accept the one who is weak in faith, but for for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. One man has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. Let not him who eats regard with contempt him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master stands or falls; and stand he will, for the Lord is able to make him stand.” (Romans 14: 1—4)

Notice that the Scripture does not say that everything which a particular servant of the King does it thereby right or as good as it could be. Some people are weak; their opinions are immature. All our lives are mixtures of truth and error but the Lord will make us stand at the end of the day. For our part, it is not given to us to be the judge the servants of the Lord. He will deal with His servants in His way, in His time, as it seems good to Him. He is the Lord.

Our fathers, when writing the Westminster Confession put it this way: “God alone is the Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in anything contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith and worship.” (Westminster Confession 20:2)

The Kingdom of God reflects the totalitarian government of the Lord Jesus Christ. He alone is Lord of the conscience of each individual soul. Therefore, no other entity or institution of the Kingdom can enslave or lord it over an individual’s heart and mind. Always the higher lordship of the King must be respected and feared. Every human soul is to be respected and honoured as a servant of the Lord.

But this does not mean that each individual is without law. Far from it. For everyone is commanded to love the Lord His God with all his heart, soul, strength, and mind; and to love his neighbour as himself. This is the true law of liberty that sets the redeemed and forgiven sinner free. This is the true freedom of God’s Kingdom, and it comes about and is protected by the Spirit of God Himself at work within the City.

>ChnMind 2.6 The Core Institutions of the Kingdom

>Decentralised, Limited, Fair, and Balanced

Jerusalem is the city set upon a great hill. God has ordained that all the families of the earth will stream to it, and dwell within it. The City will grow in population and size until it fills the whole earth. These things are inscribed and certain. They are inevitable because God has declared that it will be so. None can stay His hand. This is the true universal history that stretches before our world. The present Athens and all it represents is temporary and will pass away.

The duty of the believing citizens of Jerusalem is to work faithfully to build, grow, and develop the City. Like Nehemiah of old, we will always face opposition in this task. When pressed and threatened by the Kingdom, Athens will bend might and main to run interference and undermine the effort. It will resort to bloodshed and murder of Believers if it deems it necessary for its own survival. For thus they did to the Christ, and, therefore, thus they will do to His servants.

But, to paraphrase Luther, in this war between Belief and Unbelief, the doom of Athens is sure. One little word will fell it. And the Word has been uttered: He rose from the dead as King of all kings, and all His enemies are being, and are to be, placed under His feet. Their doom is sure indeed.

Meanwhile, the citizens of Jerusalem continue to build, grow, and extend the Kingdom as faithful stewards and servants of the King. But how to build, grow, and extend? The Lord has ordained three essential institutions to carry, manifest, and extend His reign in the world. These three are: the Family, the Church, and the State. These three are equally ultimate, and equally important in His Kingdom. Each has its own divine appointment—and therefore, its own authority and legitimacy, which the other two institutions may neither traduce nor undermine.

In Athens, when Unbelievers speak of institutions, power, and governance the fundamental question always becomes, Where does ultimate power reside? Who or what has the final say? Whence does power ultimately originate or derive? Is ultimate power (the source of all law, truth, justice, authority, knowledge, life itself etc) invested in the individual human being, or in some abstract ideal, or in a collective—in the State? Athenians are conditioned in their Unbelief necessarily to attribute ultimate power to something in the created world.

This means that within Athens something or other in the creation is regarded at any one time as overlord, as dominating everything else. This matrix of thought is inescapable to the mind of Unbelief. It is why Athens, as a city, can never maintain freedom over the time. Something always rises up to claim ascendency: for example, male over female, female over unborn child, child over parents, poor over the rich, black over white, community over the individual, priests over devotees—or vice versa. A universal history of Athenian societies could be written according to the matrix of the struggle for ultimacy of man’s assertion on the part of one aspect of the created order over another.

If the issue of ultimacy is inevitable, Jerusalem’s position is emphatic. Ultimacy rests in God alone, Who created the heavens and the earth, out of nothing. The ultimate power of the Kingdom has been committed by God to the raised and ascended Lord Jesus Christ—and He does not share power. Any power given to institutions within the City of God by its King is not ultimate in any sense whatsoever. Christ alone is King of the City. All human powers and authorities are thereby limited, constrained, and derived; all are answerable and accountable to Him.

But because He alone is King, no appointed human institution can lord it over other appointed institutions, without thereby rebelling against the King Himself. By the same token, each institution of the Kingdom has due authority within its own appointment and is entitled to say to the others “you shall not pass” when they mistakenly seek to override or undermine or intrude.

Another way of putting this is to say that within Jerusalem, power and authority is decentralised, shared, limited, and, thereby, checked and balanced. If we turn to the Church and ask, “Where does ultimate authority reside in the City of God?” the rejoinder is “Not in me.” The Family and the State likewise deny that final authority upon earth resides in their institutions. Christ alone has final authority—and He administers that authority through His Word, the Scriptures (which represent the constitutional documents of the City) and through His Spirit (Who witnesses and testifies to the Scriptures as unto Christ.)

But decentralised powers does not mean limited government. Government, and the various institutions of government, within Jerusalem are pervasive, all embracing, and all inclusive. The Family, the Church and the State each have governance functions. The individual citizen of the City is governed by at least these three core institutions, as well as by a multitude of subordinate governing institutions. Therefore, whilst civil government in Jerusalem is curtailed and carefully limited, government itself is not. It is maximised. Therefore, we may say the City is exceedingly governed: its existence is the exact opposite of lawlessness.

Each of the Family, the Church, and the State—as the core institutions of the Kingdom—receives its divine appointment in the Scriptures—which are the constitutional documents given us by the King Himself. Each has its specific roles and responsibilities. When we say “core institutions” we mean that all other entities and institutions derive from these three and depend upon one or more of the core institutions for their existence and functioning.

The appointment of the Family as a core institution is as ancient and venerable as the Garden of Eden before the Fall. It’s authority was formally constituted before the formal investiture of either the Church or the State. Moreover, when God announced the great Covenant of Grace to Abraham, His covenant was not with Abraham as an individual but Abraham as the head of his family. The covenant was made between the Lord and the household of Abraham. Salvation was to be accomplished in an through families.

The Church was formally constituted as distinct from the Family when our fathers came up out of the land of Egypt and the Lord established the roles and responsibilities of public worship to be instituted within the tribe of Levi. With the dismantling of the sacrificial system, the original and central importance of the Church was restated in the Newer Covenant documents. (See, for example, Ephesians 1:20—23, which establishes the Church as a central institution within the redeemed world.)

The authority of the State to exercise judgment and to punish evil was inaugurated in the civil magistracy in Israel under Moses. However, the central importance of the State is reconfirmed in the Newer Covenant, where we are commanded to pray constantly for our civil rulers, and where the Prince is explicitly called a minister of God Himself. (Romans 13: 4)

Each of these core institutions has its authority and investiture from the Lord Himself. Just as in a body, the “eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you’; or again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you,'” (I Corinthians 15: 21) so in the Kingdom neither the Family, nor the Church, nor the State can reject or deny or dismiss the roles and responsibilities of the others, nor the divine institution and appointment thereof.

In future posts, we will address the specific roles, responsibilities, duties and authority of the Family, the Church and the State, tracing out the particular contribution each makes to the City, and why each requires the other two if they are to be successful in carrying out their respective duties.

>ChnMind 2.5 Gradualism and the Kingdom

>The Kingdom Comes Gradually, and Therefore Peacefully

The Kingdom of God is both radical and revolutionary.

It is radical insofar as it affects, controls, and commands all reality, all culture, all human acts and endeavour—the entire created order. It is revolutionary insofar as it turns the world of sin and every sinful culture upside down. The first shall be last, and the last shall be first. Consequently, whilst the Kingdom has power structures, it does not deal with, nor replicate, the power structures of this sinful world. It is far too radical and revolutionary to accommodate the governing structures of Athens.

This does not make the Kingdom “other worldly” in the sense of being beyond this world or belonging to some kind of platonic upper storey, irrelevant to the realpolitik of the material, tangible world. On the contrary, the Kingdom reflects a restoration of the world as it was created both to be and become in the first place. The Kingdom is not tangential to this world, as if its subjects are transients, passing through to another realm. The only transient element in the world is sin and its effects. Sin is the true transient. Athens, representing and reflecting sin and unbelief, is itself transient; it will eventually pass away from human history as the Kingdom of God comes and replaces it.

This is the prophetic declaration made when Daniel interpreted Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. “In the days of those kings,” says Daniel, that is, the days of ancient Greece and Rome, “the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever.” (Daniel 2: 44) This Kingdom would become a great mountain that would fill the whole earth. (Daniel 2: 35). The prophetic declaration was reified and confirmed when the Lord pronounced the Great Commission: go and “make disciples of all the nations, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28: 18—20).

Between Athens and Jerusalem there are irreconcilable differences so radical and so revolutionary that any appearance of similarity is just that—an appearance only. But one of the the glories of the Kingdom is that, despite its radical and revolutionary nature, it comes to pass gradually, by degrees. Just as the individual believer, whilst radically born again from above, and whilst (as far as Athens is concerned) being truly revolutionary in his goals, motives and standards, nevertheless is transformed gradually throughout his life from infancy to maturity in Christ, so also the Kingdom of God itself comes gradually upon the earth.

The constitutional documents of the Kingdom talk about individuals “with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.” (II Corinthians 3: 18). So also, the broader institutions of the Kingdom. One of the realities which makes this so is the promise of God to work across and through generations of Believers. It is generally the case that children of godly parents learn habits and practices from their parents, such that they stand on their shoulders and are able to achieve, in the Kingdom, far more than their parents. They start their Kingdom service from a higher level, as it were. This does not happen randomly, but by the Spirit and power of the Lord Himself.

Over time, as more and more people in a community become Christians, as they walk more faithfully and consistently in Christian truth, their wider cultural influence and power grows, because they are acting with the created order, not against it. The Lord blesses them and they prosper by His hand. The institutions of law and government, justice and judgment, education and knowledge, commerce and charity, become increasingly conformed to the constitutional documents of the Kingdom, reflecting the beliefs and world view of its citizens.

As a cosequence, perverse practices and institutions fade away. They end up having neither protagonists nor customers. Homosexuality, casinos, abortion, and brothels all fall into this category. The notion that homosexuality is an inherited, genetic alternative—when disbelieved and rejected by the vast majority of the populace, and when that rejection is Spiritual, grounded upon the authority of God’s Holy Word—fewer and fewer people end up adopting the lifestyle. All the institutions in Athens which currently support and promulgate the sin—school curricula, newsmedia, television and film, the law (to name a few)—eventually cease and desist, and propagate the opposite. Homosexuality, as a result, attenuates and falls away. Even Unbelievers become conformed at least outwardly to standards and mores of Belief.

The same dynamic applies to many “social” evils—they die off, having grown in the first instance less common or influential, in the face of the growing influence of Jerusalem. There are many public and social evils in Athens which it behoves the citizens of Jerusalem not to get too wound up about in the meantime—without ever laying aside the biblical condemnation of such evils. They will die away in due time. They will be dealt to, and with, gradually. Polygamy and slavery are two excellent historical examples of evil institutions which had died out under the influence of the Gospel. (As Athens has regained a temporary ascendancy in our culture, incidentally, both polygamy and slavery have started returning and are becoming institutionalised once again. Now that civil unions have been recognized, polygamy necessarily will come to be protected. More women and children are being trafficked and sold as sexual slaves now than at any time in the last century. This is not to be marveled at. It is to be expected. These perversions are inseparable from the very essence of Athens.) But as the Kingdom comes, these and many more evils will simply die away.

The gradualism of the Kingdom’s coming betrays its radical and revolutionary nature. It is so radical and so revolutionary that it can only come gradually. Otherwise it would tear up the very fabric of the creation itself. Time is not master but servant. A thousand years to the Lord is but one day. The wheels of God’s truth and justice grind slowly, but exceedingly fine.

>ChnMind 2.4 The King of the Kingdom

>King of all Kings; Lord of all Lords

Post Enlightenment Athenian political practice and theory has demonstrated a recurring tendency to swing between two extremes. For Athens, either ultimate power resides in individual human beings (classic liberalism, libertarianism, Lockian Social Contract) or it resides in the collective (fascism, communism, absolute monarchism, Rousseau’s republic).

Either ultimate power resides in the Many or the One. Either ultimate power resides in individuals, and the powers of the State derive from the people, or the ultimate power resides in the State, and the individual (his property, his family, his life) derive from the collective. But both extremes alike agree on this one fundamental principle: ultimate power and authority derives from, and belongs to, Man. Man is the only king of Athens.

(There is a further strand of Post Enlightenment Athenian political theory which we may characterise as Burkean or classic conservatism, which has argued that ultimate power resides in the conventions and rules which have been transmitted to us historically, and which represent the collective cumulated practical wisdom of our forbears. However, it is fair to say that classic conservatism has never enjoyed widespread appeal or traction. It has been “swamped” in Athens by the yawing either towards the One or the Many.)

Most political systems represent a ceaseless warring between the One and the Many; however, it has to be acknowledged that over the last one hundred and fifty years the “balance of power” within Athens has moved markedly towards the One, the Government, or the State. Governments have become more powerful, larger, more intrusive—which is to say they have arrogated more and more power to themselves, which has entailed less and less individual liberty and responsibility. In Athens, in recent centuries, the One has been getting the nod. But all in that city are relatively content, for this is not a blasphemy.

The constitution of the Kingdom of God is entirely different. It considers all Athenian political theories and arrangements as idolatries, which end up absolutising and semi-divinising one or more parts of the creation. All debates between competing political philosophies in Athens are intra-mural in nature: they are arguments over my god versus your god, my idol versus your idol. But, as we have consistently pointed out, all Athenians idols really represent the worship of man. Athenian political philosophies demonstrate this most clearly: man is ultimate authority whether as an atomised individual, or as a collective, or as an historical tradition, or as abstracted and absolutised human reason. All Athenian political philosophies are really one: the disputes are merely over which representation of man is to be worshipped and served.

As we have argued previously, in sharp antithesis to all that Athens represents, the Kingdom of God is an absolutist, totalitarian Kingdom. It is ruled over by a totalitarian Sovereign, an all governing Governor, an all conditioning Conditioner, an all dictating Dictator—the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, absolute authority does not reside anywhere in the creation. It resides in Him alone. All authority in heaven and upon earth has been ceded to Him; every knee is to bow, and every tongue is to confess Him. It either bows willingly or unwillingly—but bow it most certainly does.

The constitutional documents of the Kingdom, or of the City of Jerusalem, leave us in no doubt about this. We are told that all men have their being, they live, they think, they act only in Him—by His will and power and command (Act 17:28); from Him and to Him and through Him are all things that exist (Romans 11: 33-36).

Athens itself, in all its wretchedness and idolatry exists only by the will and command of the King. He permits it to continue in its unbelief for the ultimate manifestation of His glory. Usually, unbelieving Athenians rapidly conclude that because they and their ilk continue in the earth for a time (that is, the destruction of their city is not immediate), their power and authority is genuine and original. However, it is derived. It is granted. It is permitted for a time. It is temporary. And it will be taken away.

Once again the Scriptures make this very clear:

What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?
And He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
Romans 9: 22-24

Athens continues to exist for the sake of those who are being called. History must continue until the full number of the called are gathered into Jerusalem, resulting in the full manifestation of His glory, of His mercy. The full number are to be from every tribe and tongue, people and nation. The continued existence of Athens is not an evidence that the King is not absolute: quite the reverse. The particular command of the King which ensures the continued existence of Athens for a time is for the greater manifestation of His glory and power.

The Lord has made this quite clear in the following parable of the Kingdom.

The Kingdom of Heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares also among the wheat, and went away. But when the wheat sprang up and bore grain, then the tares became evident also.

And the slaves of the landowner came and said to him, “Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?” And He said to them, “An enemy has done this!” And the slaves said to him, “Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?” But he said, “No; lest while you are gathering up the tares, you may root up the wheat with them. Allow them both to grow until harvest; and in the time of harvest, I will say to the reapers, ‘First gather up the tares; and bind them in bundles to burn them; but gather the wheat into my barn.’” . . . .

The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the Kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are the angels. Therefore, just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age.

Matthew 13:31—40

The tares (Athenian Unbelievers) are allowed to continue for a time for the sake of the sons of the Kingdom.

But the all conditioning Conditioner, the omnipotent King of the Kingdom is also subduing all enemies under His feet. Gradually, throughout history, the Kingdom of Heaven grows larger, stronger, more powerful. More wheat seed is planted and flourishes. Meanwhile, the city of Athens gradually withers, weakens and attenuates into the shadows. The two kingdoms occupy the same space and time. Only the citizens of Jerusalem are aware of the existence of both cities. Athenians see only their own City of Unbelief; they can only see all of life, all existence in terms of their own unbelieving frame.

When the citizen of Athens meets a Believer, the servant of the King, the Unbeliever cannot comprehend or acknowledge the King whom the Believer serves. Consequently, he cannot understand the Believer. He sees him only as one like him, but as one who serves a different idol. He has no conception that the Kingdom of God manifested before him in the person of the Believer is so totalitarian in its nature that all that the Believer has and is, has been submitted to a willing obedience of the King—even to the point of death itself. Every thought, every motive, every action; every penny, every relationship, every deed; every goal, every motive, every standard. All dedicated to the service, obedience, and disposition of the King.

The Unbeliever consequently cannot “see” the Believer in truth. The Believer is beyond his knowledge or comprehension. He is blinded, and can only see in terms of his own unbelieving frame. He sees the Believer through his Unbelieving glasses. He sees the Believer as a particularly stupid and especially mistaken or ignorant idolater—but an idolater just like him, nonetheless. To the blind Athenian, the “King” of the Believer is simply one more abstraction conjured up out of the heart of man.

The Kingdom of Jerusalem is unlike any found in the realms and satellite cities of Athens. Its Sovereign Lord is acknowledged as such by all in Jerusalem. Its citizens know and profess that the very hairs on the head are numbered and known by their King; that not only sparrow can fall apart from His command; that even things regarded by man as utterly random (such as the casting of a lot) are totally commanded by the King.

The Kingdom of God is not an ideal. It is not a formal or fictional warranting concept. It is real. It is here. It is now. It is historical. The heartbeat of the City of Jerusalem is to live for, and to serve, the King—with great joy and gladness. The highest dignity of its citizens is that they have been made, and therefore found, worthy to be His servants.

>ChnMind 2.3 The Constitutionalist Nature of the Kingdom

>The Kingdom That Maximises Liberty

In these series of “Constitutionalist Essays” we are concerned to trace out what the Kingdom of God looks like as it comes to pass upon the earth. All kingdoms or societies or cultures have conventions, institutions, legal systems, and governmental systems. The Kingdom of God is no exception. What is unique about the Kingdom of God, however, is that its constitutional documents are the Holy Scriptures.

In the first place, we should state the obvious. The Kingdom of God is not a democracy (although it has democratic elements); it is not a republic (although it has features often found in republican forms of government); neither is it a dictatorship (although its Leader has totalitarian authority over everyone and everything.

The Kingdom of God is a monarchy—it has a King. The King is a heavenly Man: His authority and power are so limitless and vast that His realm touches and rules even the thoughts and intents of every other human heart. But—and here is a vital point—His Kingdom exists in and through the created world. His rule and government is through the means of His creatures. He delegates His authority to servants, to stewards who by His Spirit think, act, work and rule according to their responsibilities, each according to His command.

The citizens of the Kingdom, of Jerusalem, think every thought after Him, bring every thought captive to Him, and learn to obey every teaching and every command which He has given. The extent of His reign is so comprehensive, His commands and realm reaches even to the way we eat and drink (“Whether then you eat and drink, or whatsoever you do, do all to the glory of God.” I Corinthians 10:31). It also reaches to the greatest of earthly lords—who are likewise, mere servants and subordinate magistrates, to the King of all kings. It includes the natural order. It embraces the legions of angels. All these, from the least to the greatest, are His servants, His ministering angels, to do His bidding and command. His Kingdom has both come, and is therefore coming.

Over all this entire realm stands His law and directives. These directives function as the Constitution of the Kingdom, since all facets of the Kingdom are subordinate to Him and are His accountable servants. These directives are found in the Holy Scriptures. Consequently, the Holy Scriptures are the Constitutional Documents of the Kingdom of God. They are the higher law, to which all human activity, all human government, all culture must subject itself—lest it be found in rebellion and opposition to the King, Himself.

It is essential, if we are to understand and participate in the Kingdom as truly profitable servants, that we have a clear understanding of the nature of these Constitutional Documents.

Firstly, these Constitutional Documents are unique. They alone, out of all writings, are definitively His Word. They bear, carry, and represent all His power, authority, majesty and dominion. Consequently, by them mankind must live. (“Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.” Matthew 4:4). He has bound Himself in His dealings with us to these Constitutional Documents: He commands and requires that we do the same.

Secondly, these Constitutional Documents are common, near, accessible, and open to all in the Kingdom, since everyone in the Kingdom is His servant and steward. It is part of the great wonder of the Kingdom that His words and commands are not difficult to get, nor are they far off. Instead they are here, amongst us, accessible to us, in terms, concepts, and cultural constructs that we can understand. The Scriptures represent the incarnation of God’s Word into humanity in such a way that it is accessible to everyone. As He says in the wonderful words of Deuteronomy:

For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. It is not in heaven that you should say, “Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?”
Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, “Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it that we may observe it?” But this word is very near you, in your mouth, and in your heart, that you may observe it. (Deuteronomy 30: 11—14)

Thirdly, the universal accessibility of the Word of God means that in the Kingdom of God, no entity or institution can claim prior rights to that Word, nor be regarded as its infallible interpreter or keeper. The least individual who stands upon the authority and teaching of Scripture with respect to himself has as much or higher authority that the highest judges, for no-one “owns” or “keeps” the Constitutional Documents. Out of this reality comes the notion of true Liberty of Conscience in the Kingdom.

The Westminster Confession briefly touches on this most important concept:

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, with are in any thing contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith and worship. So that, to believe such doctrines or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also. (Westminster Confession of Faith 20:4)

Fourthly, the Constitutional Documents are final and complete, and do not require constant addition, correction, emendation or amendment. The Constitutional Documents are not “dynamically evolving—which would be to say they were failures and inadequate to serve as a true Constitution—but they are complete and infallibly adequate. To the Unbelieving Mind—this (along with everything else in the Kingdom) is an impossibility. But for the Kingdom itself, and all its citizens, it is necessarily true.

Only the omniscient God could give the Kingdom a Constitution that was so final, so complete, so infallible, so sufficient that it has addressed all circumstances of all cultures in all times in the past, the present, and in the long years ahead in such a way that the Holy Scriptures are sufficient and adequate that His people know what to do, what He commands, and what will please Him in whatever circumstances come to pass.

Only the Almighty God could so superintend and govern all human history that every manifestation and circumstance of human existence would not be “new” or beyond Scripture, but would remain adequately addressed and comprehended by it, despite the fact the Scriptures were completed nearly two thousand years ago.

The Scripture itself testifies to its own completeness and finality. They now contain the full, complete, and exact representation of God (Hebrews 1:3) whereas prior to the manifestation of the Son of God, they contained partial and incomplete information. They are now sufficient to bring every thought captive to Christ (II Corinthians 10:5). They are now adequate to instruct in every good work (II Timothy 3: 17). “Every good work” is so extensive, that, as we have seen, it includes even the most mundane activities, such as eating and drinking, right through to whatever we do. (I Corinthians 10:31)

The glory of the Holy Scriptures is that they are comprehensive, full, final, adequate, and complete. Thus, they alone, can serve as the Constitutional Documents of the Kingdom—for every individual, and for all its institutions.

A necessary corollary of this is that within Jerusalem the authority of all human institutions and entities is therefore limited and proscribed. This, in human terms, means that the Kingdom of God is the city where freedom (both individual and corporate) is maximised in a way that Athens cannot replicate or ever hope to achieve. There are many passages of the Constitution which could be cited to demonstrate this, but one will suffice: when the Lord met with Peter at Galilee after his denial, and both restored and instructed him, Peter, feeling under pressure, saw the disciple, John close by. We read: “Peter therefore seeing him [John] said to Jesus, ‘Lord, and what about this man?’ Jesus said to him, ‘If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!’” (John 21: 21,22)

By that one sentence, our Lord prohibits all tyranny in His Kingdom. All must respect His higher direction, will and appointment. All must accede to the rights of the King. It means that Athens and its power structures have no place in Jerusalem. In that Holy City, because Christ commands everyone in His Word, we (both individually and collectively) are left free from the tyranny of man lording it over us.