Why only post once, when you can post twice? I just had to write in on this while it was on my mind.
Matt Elliott (you can view his blog here) keeps me abreast of all things political, and he e-mailed me a wonderful link to Travis Stanley's blog. The page I have hyperlinked discusses Bush's recent acceptance of the Republican nomination. It's a magnificent refutation of Bush's asinine implication that democracy is the only God-ordained form of government; Travis says this much better than I can:
Before you criticize me, let me say, "I'm not saying Sadaam was a good leader. I am not saying Iraq is worse off without him there. I'm not saying democracy is not an improvement from dictatorship." So, don't criticize me with any of these statements. There are plenty of other things to criticize me for, so be creative. What I am saying, however, is that regardless of the benefits we experience with democracy that does not mean democracy is a divine right or the only acceptable form of government under God. If you would, think back with me to the book of 1 Samuel. When God decided to directly intervene in the politics of a particular nation called Israel, what kind of government did He establish? Hmm...Democracy? WRONG! I believe God established a monarchy, complete with a king who was either put on the throne because God directed a prophet to anoint him as king or he simply inherited the throne by blood. There were no elections. There was neither a House of Representatives nor a Senate. There was a king and a nation that followed his leadership. I'm not saying this was good. I'm not saying that monarchy is the answer to the world. But I find it problematic to say that democracy is the only "God-ordained" form of government when the only biblical account of a "God-ordained government" was a monarchy.
(from http://travisstanley.blogspot.com/2004/09/problematic-bush.html; Travis Stanley, owner/operator, accessed by me 8/04/2004 at 10:15 PM)
My only question here would be, hey, did God really ordain the monarchy? Didn't God establish the monarchy only at the behest of the people of Israel, who wanted a king just like all of the other countries that surrounded them? I thought that God really ordained the concept of the ruling judges, hence the O.T. book named, appropriately enough, Judges. (This is about as deep as I get -- I hope you weren't looking for an in-depth exegesis or something.)
In thinking about this, I became really excited by the idea.
If God wanted us to have judges, doesn't that mean that He tacitly agrees that laws cannot be static?
Think about it: if the law were simply the law, then why would judges be needed? Doesn't this imply that each case must be handled on an individual basis? If you steal because you starve, and not out of a wish to harm someone else at your expense, do you get the same punishment as the one who stole to harm? If there were no judges, then the punishment would just be the punishment . . . no questions asked.
Plus, the idea of a wise, trained council, chosen by God -- it's really the concept of eldership or shepherds that churches still use today, isn't it?
Wisdom-based leadership. That's what the concept of judges boils down to, doesn't it?
Of course, I'm going right now to the old KJV and make sure that I got this right. If I didn't, well, it's something to think about anyway. Make sure you completely read Travis' post -- it's excellent, and it's much more thought-provoking than this one.
