Governments of Men

Recently we have been through the primary election season, and now we have the general election to look forward to. In the past few weeks, what mudslinging we have seen in the races for governor and lietenant governor! When you consider how Mark Taylor and Cathy Cox treated each other (in the Democratic primary for governor) and Ralph Reed and Casey Cagle beat each other up (in the Republican primary for lietenant governor), it makes you shudder to think that in each case the candidates fighting each other were essentially on the same side! Thoughts about the governments of men have been running through my mind...

The Soviet Union, in my mind, truly was an “evil empire,” as it was referred to by President Ronald Reagan. While we could cite it ruthlessness, its false promises, its atheism, and on and on, there is one very simple way to know what a country or an empire is like: just look to its borders. Does a country have to guard its borders to keep its citizens in—or does it struggle to keep illegal immigrants out?

We in the United States are proud of our experiment with a democratically elected republic (most people refer to it as a democracy but I think they know that it is technically a republic). We treasure the freedoms we have—freedom of worship, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, etc.—and we think that everyone should have these freedoms. We think everyone should have some form of democratic-based government.

But is every nation ready for such a government? Does everyone have the capacity to make such a system work?

When I look at the world today, it gives me pause to wonder. Please understand, I don’t know the answers at this point. What I am saying is, as I look at all the nations around the world and what has happened in our world in the past couple of decades, it makes me wonder. I am just thinking out loud.

Must there be an evolution—if I can use that word—of thought, an evolution of worldview, an evolution of understanding before democratic processes can take root successfully in a nation? I know that may sound condescending to other nations to say it that way. And I certainly don't want mean it that way—after all, to keep me humble about our own government, I only need to recall that Cynthia McKinney is "my" congresswoman as I write! Remember, I am thinking as I am writing. Perhaps a better way to say it is that certain worldviews are compatible with some types of government and some are compatible with others.

In fact, we could conceivably move to another form of government that is even better for us at some time in the future. After all, we constantly change leadership practices in business and in other organizations all the time; it can certainly happen in a country. We should all be reminded from time to time of the words of Winston Churchill in a speech to the House of Commons in Britain on November 11, 1947: “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

How right he is, and how needful for us to hear it! That leads us back to the question: Are all nations ready for some form of democracy? The question certainly must be asked about Iraq, for instance. Our president, whom I admire, is adamant about instituting some form of democracy. I hope it is successful. In fact, I pray that it is successful. But the question returns: are the people of Iraq, with their worldview/religion, really able to have it work without constant civil conflict or civil war?

Let’s go even further back. At the beginning, I stated that I truly believe the Soviet Union was an evil empire. Taking the words quoted above by Winston Churchill should help us ask the question, “Are we able to replace the bad with something better—or something worse?”

Hindsight makes me ask that question. As evil as I believe the Soviet Union was, stop to consider what replaced it—not so much in Russia, which I think is an improvement, but in its wider "sphere of influence” ("Sphere of influence" is a rather kind way of putting it, don’t you think?) For instance, was Yugoslavia better off as a united country, albeit under communism, than what transpired after the breakup (remember names like Milosovic and peoples like Serbs and Croats and all the violence there). And what about all the _____stans (fill in the blank) and some other now sovereign nations that were once part of the Soviet empire that are in conflict. Was it better that they were controlled as opposed to all the violence we see today? Again, no question that the Soviet Union was evil. Just the question: is what replaced it even more evil?

See, no answers. Just questions about whether we can export democratic ideals until it is demonstrable that enough people understand it—and long for it!

Back when I was in college, I attended an International Student Conference sponsored by the Baptist Student Union in Georgia. This was sometime in the late 1970’s—likely 1977 but I could be off a year either way, I guess. My eyes were opened to issues I knew nothing about until that weekend. Dean Rusk, Secretary of Defense under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, was guest lecturer. When he opened it up for questions, it was as if a floodgate opened! All kinds of students were yelling and screaming questions and opinions to him. These students, I soon discovered, were from Iran, and they were decrying the United States’ support of the Shah of Iran—that was probably the first time I had ever heard of him. I didn’t know the underlying current of emotion and thought until 1979 when the Iranians seized the U.S. Embassy, taking 52 hostages. These students were demanding the overthrow of the Shah. I don’t remember a lot—just the emotional force of their questions, as I have said—but I do remember clearly what Dean Rusk calmly said to them in response to their call for the removal of the Shah. Perhaps he knew the Shah wasn’t the greatest government possibility for Iran. I infer that only from his answer, which makes so much sense to me today in view of all that is going on in the world. He simply asked them a question in return: “Who are you going to replace him with?”

After seeing what the Ayatollah Khomeini and his successors have done in Iran, that questions looks better and better. It is apparent that Dr. Rusk knew that however bad the Shah might have been, he was better than any lurking alternative. We need to ask that question, too, when we see terrible governments. Will the next wave be better—or worse? (Can anyone say “Castro”?)

Let’s be humble about government systems in the world. What works here may not work elsewhere—at least not yet. Is a democratic republic always best? Israel did pretty well under at least one king—King David. Unfortunately, you know what we have normally observed about absolute power! That corruption appeared in the lives of most other Israelite kings in the Bible (both kingdoms)—and most kings in history, for that matter.

There will be one great exception: one day the Lord Jesus will reign—and His kingdom will be a righteous kingdom, and His kingdom will never end. How I look forward to His reign! Until then, let’s think hard, work hard, and pray hard about how we govern ourselves—and how we intervene in the nations of the world.

What Describes a Healthy Church?

Not long ago I was asked (as part of an email group) to submit a definition of a healthy church. After all, everybody is talking about having healthy churches. But what does it mean? Much has been written on the subject in the last few years. I’d like to give my perspective.

Rather than a definition, as was asked, I would like to offer a description.

The apostle Paul started me thinking about it. He described the church as “the body of Christ.” (See Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12 for examples.) With some pertinent Scripture (all from the NIV) and without a lot of amplification, here is my description of a healthy body of Christ.

A healthy church has…

1. Godly vision
   A healthy church must have a vision of what is to be done; that vision can only be imparted by the Lord of church, Jesus Himself.
   And [Jesus] is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy (Colossians 1.18).
2. A loving heart
   A healthy church must follow the Great Commandments, having a supreme love for God that leads to worship in the every sense of that word and a similar love for others that is demonstrated in care and concern for them.
   “The most important [commandment],” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these” (Mark 12.29-31).
3. Serving hands
   A healthy church is characterized by love, not merely in word, but in action. We are the hands of Jesus. He sees what needs to be done in the world. He is counting on us to be his body and obey!
   If you love me, you will obey what I command (John 14.15).
   Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms. If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God. If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen (1 Peter 4.10-11).
4. Proper nutrition
   A healthy church will only stay healthy when it practices proper nutrition—taking regular meals of the “milk” and “meat” of God’s word. By the way, do you only eat once a week?
   Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, now that you have tasted that the Lord is good (1 Peter 2.2-3).
   But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil (Hebrews 5.14).
5. Calloused knees
   James, the half-brother of Jesus, was called “Camel Knees” because of his devotion to prayer. A healthy church is a praying church. Should we quit having meetings for prayer simply because not “enough” people attend? Or should we realize we can’t be a truly healthy church without it?
   They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer (Acts 2.42).
6. Healthy children
   The church is not only called the “body of Christ,” it is called “the bride of Christ.” There is no question that Jesus is healthy. So, if the bride is healthy in every sense of that word, what will be the result of their unity? Right—children! And what is the child of a church? Christians? Well, think about it this way: what does a mother gorilla give birth to? Right—a gorilla. What does a human mother give birth to? Right—another human. So what does a mother church give birth to? A healthy church will help plant other churches!
   (See passages such as Acts 13.1-4 and Philippians 4.15-16.)
7. Vital relationships
   “No man is an island.” As God said it, “It is not good for the man to be alone.” A healthy church has vital relationship both within and without. By within, we mean that the “members” (you and me as hands or feet or whatever) work together in harmony to achieve the goal of the head. If I am uncoordinated, my hands may not work together. So a healthy church has coordinated members within the body—there is unity within the fellowship even though we are different members and all do not have the same function. By without, we mean that just as we are made to have friendships outside ourselves, healthy churches should cooperate with other “bodies,” i.e., we should have partnerships with others so that we can do together what we cannot do alone.
   (See passages such as Romans 12.4-8 for “within” and 2 Corinthians 8 for “without.”)
   
8. Beautiful feet
   A healthy church takes the good news of Jesus to others—across the street and around the world. The term “beautiful feet” comes from the Bible itself and describes our mandate to be witnesses to Jesus Christ to all people everywhere.
   And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!” (Romans 10.15).
   And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved (Acts 2.47).

So—is our church healthy? Just as we get a physical for our own bodies regularly to evaluate our health, we can use this as a checklist for conducting a physical (or is that a spiritual?) for our church.

One last note. I used this as a simple, easy to remember message in training a couple of hundred lay pastors in Uganda. The message was translated into another language. At the end, Pastor Moses gave a summary of the message in his language, and his remarks were translated back into English. God gave me fresh insight when the translation that came back as the topic was not a healthy church—instead, it came back as the description of a living church. I will leave you to meditate on the significance of that for yourself!

God bless!

Pastor Fred