The way it works

The socio-political model of biblical Israel, passed through two main phases. There was a time when judges intervened, although they didn’t rule per se, and another time when kings ruled.

Undoubtedly, the latter was worse. Even at their best, the kings were imperfect and they ultimately led the nation to ruin and exile. God warned it would be so.

The upshot of the king model was that it rejected God.

To my mind, the era of judges, a short period of about 200 years, involved a true theocratic state. I personally feel it was wholly underrated.

On the surface the nation made little real progress during that dispensation as they just loped from one crisis to another, calling on God and their judges to intervene when things got out of hand.

However, there was a lot more going on, for God made the point that in rejecting that model, the people rejected God.

One of the more obvious virtues of that era was the self-determination of each tribe. They developed their own characters and norms, and progressed independently. The US federal model informs us on how viable that kind of model can be.

Federalism can have its problems, with a state like California achieving a world-class economy, while others are left behind, as happened to say Kansas, Indiana or Missouri.

The other advantage was a more organic culture. Clearly they did not lose touch with their national identity, so when the Benjamites committed an atrocity, the nation opposed them and almost wiped out the tribe in its retribution.

By organic, I mean that society was simpler, pastoral, not heavily organised by a central power, self-sustaining even for poorer souls, and generally at peace with itself. God watched over them and the nation progressed by degrees.

It only seems like they didn’t because there were no obvious symbols of progress like big cities or palaces. I hardly think such a veneer is proof of progress, especially as the big cities and the palaces were the hotbeds of intrigue, corruption and deviations into paganism.

History confirmed that kings were maybe a necessary evil for a season, but otherwise just a general nuisance. After the fall of kings, a modern twist on the old organic model started to emerge in the form of democracy and government for the people, by the people.

The problem was that the center clung to power with as much fervor as kings once did. Indeed, shortly after the fall of Charles I with his presumption of divine rights, Oliver Cromwell, arguably the father of democracy, rose to a level of prominence and control not dissimilar to the late king.

So, although we achieved some degree of power redistribution with the empowerment of the common man and the rights of self-determination, so implied, governments at all levels have tended to behave like kings and to rule with rods of iron.

The irony is that the church has battled with a similar ebb and flow.

The rise of Catholicism centralised power under a “king” or pope, who ruled across nations until Napoleon reminded the pope who the real emperor of Europe was. Out of that period rose Protestantism, which was initially more organic and less organised.

However, it didn’t last. Soon every denomination had its own central power base, its own Cromwell.

For a while into the 20^th century, leadership by a presbytery or eldership, was popular, but not much anymore. Now most churches are ultimately led by a king, be it a senior pastor or a bishop or even the new titles that some are assuming, like apostle or prophet.

What certainly did characterise the model of early Israel, was a clear separation of powers. So the ecclesia had their own enclave and it was sacred, completely set apart. In Roman times, trespassing was punishable by death and after Paul took a young convert there, both lost their heads.

The prophets were as independent, living in caves and relying on locusts in their respective hermitages. They were fearless challengers of kings or other problem children and they provoked the conscience of the nation – just the way an independent press still does today.

The constitutional monarchy of Britain was organised along similar lines, with three primary pillars, namely the Lords noble, the Lords clergy (the church) and the commoners, but the press was an implied 4^th column. The idea of the 4^th estate or column, came from the French model.

The US took a subtly different root with its pillars made up of the executive, the legislature and the judiciary, but again with the independence of the press guaranteed by the laws of state.

The church was also designed around separate powers, with elders assuming the role of governance, believers assuming the priestly function and ministries operating generally like prophets.

That brings me to a conclusion. Maybe its idealistic to ever hope for the Edenic world of the organic model once used in the formative Jewish theocracy, but we can ensure a stable and sustainable society and church, by applying some of the features described above.

By that I allude to a constitutional foundation, the separation of power, the rights of expression of individuals as stakeholders and believer priests in church or as individuals in society, and more.

The governance role of church or state, must stick to its charter. They must be touchstones, managing boundaries and ensuring a platform for all other activities, but without conflict of interest. They should not be the other roles, but enable those roles through minimal government.

Priests in turn must priest within their limited mandate, as citizens must do what they do without trying to control or dominate the rest. The same applies to “prophets” or, in society, the press.

The ultimate role of elders and leaders is all about stewardship of the constitution, be that the biblical models of God or the principles of a moral framework within society.

If those ideas are not replicated in the family, then it won’t really matter what we do, because the basic building block of any good society is the family. It has hallowed roles, ordained by God, but when those fail, everything else will be on the road to eventual ruin.

Do I think that such a righteous state (using the Jewish classification of ‘righteous’ to imply essentially sound, well governed, equitable and just), can endure? Yes I do.  

(c) Peter Missing: bethelstone@gmail.com