The Voters have Spoken

A lot of controversy covered the events following Thursday’s vote, but none so interesting as the requirement Nick Clegg felt to take the result personally. It was as if the question on the ballot read: “Do you like Nick Clegg?” Of which the 3 options were:
1. Yes
2. No
3. Hell No!

I only have a few short comments to make on the matter. The first being it isn’t personal, Mr. Clegg, we just don’t want what you want. The turnout for the vote was higher than usual, and the majority was self explanatory. I’ve already stated my opinion of democracy, but the numbers show what can be done with the power of a vote.

The higher than average turn out shows that people wanted to be heard on the matter. And the margin by which the resounding “NO” was said only further shows that this country will listen when it matters. It actually points to the involvement of the country on policy change as being more effective than voting for a party.

Whatever the motive behind each vote it wasn’t another back stabbing action to the deputy prime minister; he didn’t have enough votes the first time round for that to be the case!

 

Thought for the weekend

You know my opinion on AV.

What is yours?

 

Kingdoms: I like them

I never took much interest in political debates. I found them boring, strangely depressing, and I didn’t know enough about the subject to offer anything serious to a discussion. I knew my vote was important, and gave what little attention I could to make my vote marginally worthwhile. I’m not really a party supporter, through and through, but if there are key things I disagree with I move away from supporting them each time a vote comes round. In the last election, as the Lib Dems gave the impression they were gaining ground, I couldn’t help but feel cheated that they prioritised lower taxes (more money for everyone) over abortion rates (increasing the period a child can be killed while in the womb) – I didn’t vote for them. Who in their right mind would think money is more important than life? Well, we have seen that the Lib Dem banner is as confused as a flamingo in a board meeting; distinctive colour and following whoever will let them into number 10.

Anyhow, a kingdom is vastly different. It isn’t about voting but about choosing. Those who are recognised are chosen to have more responsibility. The “King” (I would say monarch but I’m not talking about a monarchy) has close council; friends and advisors who help him do the best job he can do. I’m currently reading through Exodus and Moses was asked to stop taking all the responsibility on himself and to share it with those who he thought could lead, and that they in turn would choose who could lead thousands, hundred, and tens. The whole idea of this kind of organisation is responsibility. Taking responsibility for people and actions, and seeking help when you’re not sure what to do. It’s about a humble, servant heart, to get the best out of all people. This is how a kingdom can truly operate.

Although it isn’t perfect, the example of English monarchs, who had knights, barons, and other people watching over areas of the country shows a veering towards a kingdom that reflects what is truly best for the people. The blame culture we live in today creates a massive gap between truth and responsibility. With enough information, the blame for any bad news can be shifted from person to place to event to object to city to thought to book etc… until the actual point being made is lost. Responsibility can be taken by those unafraid of losing their position because they have been chosen, incredibly privileged because they’ve been given responsibility, and incredibly humble to see that they cannot do what they are asked without the help of others.

This is the form a true church government should take, and a kingdom on a larger scale would make this be something entirely different.

I am an idealist, and kingdoms are a long way off, if at all possible. But they are what I see as the way to see this country (and any other with a mind to put things right) take governmental structure in the right direction.

 

Democracy: A Critique

As Calvin (of Calvin & Hobbes the creation of Bill Watterson) says, “A good compromise leaves everybody mad”.

I have held this opinion for a while, but it’s time I came out and said it in public. No matter how many people vote “For” something, there will still be a group who voted “against”. And with all the various options we get these days, the winner is usually still not a majority. Even if 60% of the votes are positive, there are still 40% of the voters (which is a large chunk of any populous) that wanted something else. As this gives rise to the majorities choice, we soon find out that even if our choice is the winner, it doesn’t quite shape up how we had planned, and ultimately leaves everybody unhappy.

Democracy gives everyone a voice, it’s true. It’s probably the best option we have for any serious societal government until we can begin to take responsibility for our own actions throughout all of England. The largest part of the societal mix up has been blame. As a general rule, blame is brought on those in authority, with little humility to take responsibility for their own actions. I know that with all my actions, I look for the reasons for why things happened the way they did if they didn’t go according to plan. That way responsibility is moved away from me. I push the blame to things outside my control so I cannot be held to account for the results that happened.

Governmental control feeds this eagerness to blame everyone else. The police are blamed for high crime rates, rather than criminals, the banks are blamed for our debt, rather than those who borrowed, and the government are blamed for poor management of the country, when we have voted them into power. (Of course if you didn’t vote at all, you have no right to complain either. Not voting and then complaining about the state of the government is like having a train ticket left at home, then wondering why you’ve got to pay a penalty fare on the journey. It’s not clever to keep silent when you can make a decision to ensure you are heard.)

The votes given to the people of this country are an attempt to share the power with people. But, in no uncertain terms, I disagree with democracy as an effective form of government. The parties are made up of groups of people all fighting for their own way. Even though we have a Prime Minister, he doesn’t carry the kind of power a leader of a country would expect to, as the members of parliament take what was a good idea, water it down, bring compromise at every hurdle, and ultimately ruin any effective change by vote after vote after vote, creating an inactive, oversubscribed, liberal, messy club. I don’t think America have got it right either, even though the president has more power than any other country’s leader, currently. Though I’ll leave other countries there, for now.

I’m a kingdoms man myself. I like the idea of kingdoms. Not republics, democracies, dictatorships, anarchic states, or any other. No. Kingdoms are my thing. Though they are incredibly difficult to maintain, they are the best for all involved.

I’ll keep you in suspense and open up what a kingdom is in my next post.

 

Thought for the Weekend

God said this to Pharaoh; would he say it to you?

But for this purpose I have raised you up, to show you my power, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.

Exodus 9:16

 

Power in Voting

On Tuesday I began to unfold what it is to believe in the sovereignty of God in government.

Today, in the midst of continued strife, and an upcoming vote on the reform of elections, I will address our country.

Alternative voting, or AV for short, is a novel way of ranking our favourite candidates so we give our preference over others, without actually ruling anyone out. You give a ranking and the statisticians do the rest. The summary I’ve heard of it, and I haven’t heard much, is that you vote 1,2,3 etc… for the candidates in order of preference. The candidate with 50% of “1″s will win, otherwise it will move down the ranks until a majority of some kind is found.

Does that make sense? No. It’s confusing. Ultimately, this new proposed voting system makes the results equally as unsatisfying as any other kind of voting. As Jubilee Centre have said “We could spend days and years discussing how to structure government differently and how to determine who should represent us in government, but it will still come down to people with different ideas and values needing to cooperate and negotiate in the interests of the common good.”

Today’s government is designed to give power to the people through their votes. However, true empowering requires facilitating those who have no idea where to begin, to get up and actually do something.

The Jubilee Centre article on “The AV Debate” includes a well thought out discussion, with examples where AV is currently being used (Canada and Australia) but is not giving a fair representation as promised.

Again, the final article Jubilee-Center.org gives to this debate gives these two thoughts:

“The bible repeatedly teaches us that the centralisation of power in any individual or institution increases the temptation for corruption and exploitation. The Old Testament in particular therefore envisages power being balanced across various sources of authority: the individual, family, community, religious bodies (Levites), region (tribe), and nation. Between them they formed a network of concurrent authorities each instituted by God and protected, limited and empowered by the national constitution.”

“Ultimately, whatever electoral system we have, we will still be disillusioned and disappointed with the results, for no leader or team of leaders, however gifted, is able to solve all society’s problems.”

I don’t agree with democracy as a governmental system. But it’s what we have and to not vote is to decide to not use the power you’ve been given. The Apostle Paul lived in an organised empire with all kinds of different out workings from region to region. Tyrants, despots, dictators; along with rulers that would surprise him with kindness and helpfulness. This formed a view of government that God in His supremacy has put in place. To judge that some are from God and some from Satan is to miss the fact that Satan is limited by our Sovereign King.

To conclude I would encourage you to vote “NO” on May 5th when the referendum is opened up to us, the voters. Changing the voting system is irrelevant to the needs of this country. As many have seen, the coalition has been a failure in it’s initial promises, and every attempt to continue is drawing the union of opposing forces to a predictable early demise. What we need is a government showing real change in real places, rather than theoretical change that will not solve any actual problems.

Next week I will go into more detail of my opinion on democracy.

 

Government from God

A lovely alliteration to start a discussion:

As I posted on Saturday, I began, and have wondered for a while, what we can say when the verses from Romans say God has placed all government where it is, when so many countries are being led by men who should be in psychiatric facilities. Hitler, one of the greatest leaders and speakers of the 20th century, misled thousands, if not millions, of people into a dictatorship costing millions of lives. According to Paul in Romans 13, God put him there.

The current world status of Libya, Egypt, and other Arab nations begs the same question: did God really put these people in power? Surely the devil has more to do with this (I write as a Christian, not a philosopher).

We must remember, however, Paul was not living in a world with a perfect government seen as a gift from God. In 2 Corinthians he informs us of his beatings, floggings, stonings, humiliations; all done by local authorities. He wasn’t a man separated from dealings with these forces. Yet he still writes “For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval…”

There are a few points to bring from this:
1. Government is more important than anarchy; i.e. Authority is a good thing.
2. Local government should benefit us; i.e. There should be amenities provided by those you pay tax to.
3. Tyrants should be appropriately challenged or confronted, just as Paul called for an audience with Caesar. i.e. The government will be wrong.
4. The kingdom of God overlaps and invades all of life, including governmental powers. i.e. Separating faith from state denies the biblical principle that God placed the rulers where they are.

What else do you think could be said in the current events?

 

Thought for the Weekend

Romans 13:1-2 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

How do we reconcile this against the tyranny of so many governments over the centuries?

 

Explosive Preaching

Ron Boyd-MacMillan shares an imaginary correspondence with a preacher just starting out, in his book ‘Explosive Preaching’. I was recommended this book about 2 years before I read it. That was mostly down to it’s out-dated, and unappealing front cover. (Even though I was proven not to judge a book by it’s cover, I still do.)

The content is a one-sided set of letters, which are written well enough for you to know what was written back without needing to see it. He covers the progression of preaching techniques over the ages; from moralistic lectures, to narrative preaching. He shares his passion for good preaching, without limiting you to a style, or method. By the end of the book there is a feeling of freedom to find your voice, while also having some very instructive guidelines on how to move from average to good.

The highlight for me is Ron Boyd-MacMillan’s description of the Chinese preaching school. The curriculum is lovingly referred to as “the 66, the 33, and the 1″. The requirement is writing 100 preaches ready to preach whenever necessary. It shows both how China is so passionate about hearing the word of God and illuminates the British tendency to make our training over academic.

The breakdown of this Chinese preaching school is as follows:
66 one hour sermons covering each book of the bible. This needs to be memorised. At the point of assessment they pick a random card and ask you to preach on whichever book is on the card.
33 half hour sermons covering the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. You are allowed a page of notes per sermon.
1 sermon on the text, or topic of your choice; for as long as you want. This is the sermon you prepare for heaven.

The whole book is full of wisdom regarding style, technique, preparation, the use of technology, and more. If you think you might preach one day, read this book to kindle the passion. If you preach and haven’t read it, you simply must.

 

Bell’s Hell

Rob Bell has caused a stir. I haven’t read the book.

“Love Wins” has become the latest topic of debate among Christians on Twitter, Facebook, the Christian blogosphere, and anything else that allows freedom of speech and those that believe in Jesus (primarily on the internet). I could wait for the book to find it’s way into my library, but after reading preliminary reviews I don’t think I want to own my own copy. Giving money to the cause won’t help it disappear, will it?

Of course, I shouldn’t have anything to say until I’ve read it, but my reaction has caught me off guard as I read prominent evangelicals discuss the impact this book could have. This isn’t another “The Shack” moment, where, regardless of the wobbly theology, the heart seems to be in the right place, and it is about helping people understand and improve their relationship with God, even though we have seen the trinity explained better using an egg. This is an individual with a MASSIVE following, asking questions (and providing his own answers) about a doctrine that is fundamental the Christian message.

Rob Bell is single-handedly, in the western Christian church, causing a shake up that is not dissimilar to what is happening in Japan right now.

This isn’t restoring the true message of Jesus and the Kingdom of God, this is removing the foundations and watching what happens.

As much as I’ve tried to stay out of it, it brings me close to tears as I watch this gifted individual, who has upset people, but remained faithful to Jesus, to suddenly rubbish the work of the Cross, take the God of Justice we know and love and cripple Him. The heaven and hell he is talking about is not the same as that of the bible. The future of every individual he describes is his own construction.

Rob Bell has got a lot to do to show me how it is possible the teaching of this book is not heresy.

Kevin De Young puts it well in his comprehensive review: If he’s right, most of church history has been wrong. If he’s wrong, a staggering number of people are hearing “peace, peace” where there is no peace.