FUNDAY

Jesus & the Bible on Peace

Review © 2005 Lloyd Kinder

REVIEW OF "KING SAUL AND PRESIDENT BUSH," by L.K.

In his January 2005 article, King Saul and President Bush, at www.lewrockwell.com, Stephen Carson referred to a recently published book by his fellow conservative evangelical, Laurence M. Vance, called CHRISTIANITY AND WAR. He said, "Vance addresses a verse that has been used repeatedly to silence dissent among Christians: Romans 13:1. To justify their consent or silence , and to keep their congregations in line, Christian leaders repeat to their parishioners the mantra of 'obey the powers that be,' a loose paraphrase of Rom. 13:1, as if that somehow means that they should blindly follow whatever the president or the government says, and even worse, that it overturns the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' (Ex. 20:13; Deu. 5:17), which is repeated in the New Testament (Mat. 19:18; Rom. 13:9)."

Carson noted that some conservatives have assumed that the Lord has chosen Bush to be president to lead our nation in these times of increased "terrorism." But he showed that, even when God chooses a leader, this doesn't mean the leader can do no wrong and that the people must do whatever this leader commands or requests. King Saul is given as a clear example of this.

1 Sam. 8:4-9 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, [5] And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. ... [7] And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. ... [9] Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.

Samuel then described the hardships that kings would put on the people, saying they would be virtual slaves to the kings. But, when the people persisted in requesting a king, God told Samuel to choose Saul. And before Samuel anointed Saul, God told Samuel to remind the people that they were thus rejecting God's leadership.

1 Sam. 9:17 And when Samuel saw Saul, the Lord said unto him, Behold the man whom I spake to thee of! this same shall reign over my people.

1 Sam. 10:17-19 And Samuel called the people together unto the Lord to Mizpeh; [18] And said unto the children of Israel, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I brought up Israel out of Egypt, and delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of all kingdoms, and of them that oppressed you: [19] And ye have this day rejected your God, who himself saved you out of all your adversities and your tribulations; and ye have said unto him, Nay, but set a king over us.

As Carson observed, "A monopoly government (a State) was definitely not what the Lord wanted for Israel, .... but once the Israelites stubbornly demanded one, despite the Lord's strong warnings through Samuel that they would regret it, the Lord then chose who would be the leader of the new state. ... Clearly, as with Saul, the Lord can establish particular rulers without endorsing the system of government as the ideal system." It is then pointed out that, despite the fact that God chose Saul to be king, Saul ultimately failed as king by disobeying God.

1 Sam. 13:12-13 Therefore said I, The Philistines will come down now upon me to Gilgal, and I have not made supplication unto the Lord: I forced myself therefore, and offered a burnt offering. [13] And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the Lord have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever. [14] But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the Lord hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the Lord hath commanded him to be captain over his people, thou hast not kept that which the Lord commanded thee.

Had Saul not been disobedient, his heirs would have ruled Israel forever, which means Jesus would have been his heir, instead of David's. As it is, Saul's entire family was destroyed. Carson remarked that, "In a sense there is nothing really special in the fact that leaders fail. The story of humanity that the Bible tells is one of people failing, starting with the very first humans, to be what the Lord called them to be. If someone tells you that a human leader cannot fail, that he cannot lose the Lord's blessing, then they are a fool. All of scripture and secular history testifies against them."

Carson concluded by saying, "My own assessment, for what it is worth, is that President Bush has shown himself to clearly not be doing the Lord's will. Is it the Lord's will that people should be lied into war, that thousands and tens of thousands of innocents should die? President Bush has borne false witness against Saddam Hussein to dreadful effect. He has ordered the continual bombing of a people who have done our country no harm. Does our Holy Father in Heaven who will allow no sin before him bless this?! George Bush may well have been called to be President, but like King Saul before him, he has failed."

Rom. 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

This is the passage Vance said many ministers use to keep their flocks in submission. I've pointed out before that higher powers do not mean worldly rulers, but only the powers of God and his faithful ministers. Even if worldly rulers were included as higher powers, the passage is addressed to them as well as others. Rulers are to obey the higher powers as much as anyone else. Romans 13:1 commentators in the Geneva Bible stated this as well. This means rulers too must obey God. If they are disobedient to God, then it's our duty to disobey them, when they order us to do anything that goes against God's Word. When we have a choice to obey a higher authority or a lower authority on a matter, we must always obey the higher, and that means we must always obey God, because he is always the higher authority.

Americans generally regard the president as the highest authority in the U.S. But this is very incorrect. In earlier times a larger percentage of the people probably realized that the people are the highest authority and the Constitution, which they endorsed, was and is the next highest. The U.S. Supreme Court has long acknowledged that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land," meaning in the U.S. When a public official, even the president, orders us to do anything that violates the Constitution, we must obey the Constitution and not the president, unless the Constitution violates God's Law on the matter at hand.

Our presidents don't have Constitutional authority to order troops into battle or conflict without approval from each house of Congress. I think a two-thirds vote of each house is required to declare war. So the Iraq War, like all of our wars in the past 50 years have been illegal. Congress has not approved any of those wars. There are also provisions in the so-called Patriot Act that are unconstitutional and therefore unlawful or illegal. So, if ministers want to advise people to submit to higher powers, let them advocate obedience to the Constitution and especially to the Word of God, if they wish not to be hypocrites.

By the way, Vance and other writers at www.lewrockwell.com have observed that Christians in Iraq are much worse off now than before the war. Iraq was one of the few Muslim nations in which Christians were free to practice their religion without interference. The new government of Iraq has made Islam the official religion and has outlawed all others. Christians there will now be required to worship in great secrecy, like under communism previously.

~~~~

WHO'S OMNISCIENT ENOUGH TO KILL? by L.K.

Thanks to another conservative Evangelical for these biblical references in The Christian and a Biblical Approach to War, at www.lewrockwell.com, by Bill Barnwell.

Christians are supposed to be "peacemakers" (Mat. 5:9).
They worship the "Prince of Peace," not the god of war (Isa. 9:6).
God apparently ordered war in the O.T., but only under his leading (Gen. 14:17-20; Num. 1:1-4; 13:26-33; Deu. 7:2,25-26; Jos. 1:2; Jdg. 1:1-2; 20:3-18).
He uses warlike terms or ideas even in the New Testament, but these terms were only meant spiritually (Mat. 5:39; 8:5-13, John 2:15; Acts 10:2; Eph. 6:10-20; Heb. 11:32-34; 13:8; Rev. 19:11-21).
The Israelites were to be special and different from the wickedness around them (Deu. 7:6).
Doesn't "different" mean peaceful instead of warlike like all other nations?
God continues to insist that we, his people, separate from the wicked (1 John 2:15-17).
God never gave his blessing to people who went to war without His leading.
Just as only God is wise enough to make our laws, also only God is wise enough to punish anyone for vengeance (Rom. 12:19).
Romans 12:19-21 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. [20] Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. [21] Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
This shows that only God can properly punish to do proper vengeance, while we can only punish by doing good to our enemies, not evil.
We are not to kill people intentionally (Ex. 20:13).
The lion will lay down with the lamb and stop killing it (Isa. 65:25).
We should trust God instead of trusting our weapons of mass destruction (Isa. 31:3).
The Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt was the best way to do battle (Ex. 14:13-14).
Jesus warned against hatred and bitterness (Mat. 5:21-24).
We're not to seek revenge against anyone (Mat. 5:38-42).
As Jesus himself demonstrated in his persecution, we're not to raise a hand against persecutors, but pray for them (Luke 23:34).
He told Peter, "All who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Mat. 26:52b).
Die by the sword means to die spiritually.
Jesus said he was our example (John 13:14-15).
We are to "Obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).

~~~~

SEEING DECEPTION
Review by L.K.

The following is from What Allows People To Be Easily Deceived? Hindrances To Seeing Deception, by Greg DesVoignes - Thanks to Greg's article at www.crmspokane.org/easilydeceived.htm for highlighting the following biblical passages.

Jer. 17:5 Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm , and whose heart departeth from the Lord.

2 Cor. 11:13-15 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. [14] And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. [15] Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Don't follow the crowd; don't be deceived that there is safety in numbers.

Mat. 7:13-14 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: [14] Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Don't be deceived that saying you believe is enough; believing means doing, not just saying.

Mat. 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

It is deception to think that comfortable things make us happy or whole.

Isa. 30:10 to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits:

Jer. 8:9 The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the Lord; and what wisdom is in them?

Jer. 9:8 Their tongue is as an arrow shot out; it speaketh deceit: one speaketh peaceably to his neighbour with his mouth, but in heart he layeth his wait.

Pride and habit prevent us from seeing our own sins; this is the greatest deception. And it leads us to ruin.

Jer. 8:6 I hearkened and heard, but they spake not aright: no man repented him of his wickedness, saying, What have I done? every one turned to his course, as the horse rusheth into the battle.

John 8:31-32 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; [32] And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

~~~~



JOIN THE KINGDOM, NOT THE ARMY
© 2005 Lloyd Kinder

Jesus' kingdom has been available for anyone to join, since he came to establish it 2,000 years ago. He said the temple would be destroyed and he would build it up again in three days. He was referring to his body as the temple. His body was killed, but he raised it up again on the third day.

The Bible says his kingdom will ultimately smash and replace all other kingdoms, but without using physical force. The warfare described in Revelation is spiritual warfare, symbolic of how man's evil ways and plans will be destroyed. Humanity has had 6,000 years to experiment with worldly ways based on force, dominion, hatred and cruelty. 6 is the number of man, but 7 is the number of God. In the next [seventh] thousand years, we have the possibility to end our evil worldly ways forever, starting soon.

Sociocracy is the name of a method of unanimous rule, instead of majority rule. Sociocracy means "society rule," but it's really Godly rule of society. And it works. It's basically the method of decision making used by the Israelites after Moses and the Nazarenes after Jesus and the Quakers after the Protestant Reformation. It's been practiced and honed for hundreds of years at a time and is ready to change the world for good.

These peacemakers have found how to work together to do great good for the world, loving neighbors and enemies as themselves. Instead of using brute force of majority rule, they use loving agreement among themselves, though imperfectly of course. Their methods promise to end abuses of the poor and the down-trodden in all societies. When governing bodies deign to use unanimous rule, or consensus, no cruel or inconsiderate decisions can be easily made. Jesus promoted this method implicitly in Matthew 20:25-28 and elsewhere. Whoever adopts this method is practically assured of great successes, as explained in the following article. So I urge fellow conservatives and Christians to adopt sociocracy. See after this article for how we can work together on this.

~~~~

SOCIOCRACY by Gerard Endenburg and John Buck

Review © 2005 Lloyd Kinder

Advantages of Sociocracy


creativity and problem solving throughout the organization
Win-win-win for investors, management, staff
Faster adaptation
High quality products and services
Higher staff commitment to and identification with the organization
Fewer and better meetings
Lower sick leave
Better safety record
More awareness of costs
Improved client orientation
burnout
program self-discipline
Support leadership among peers
Support organizational continuity when many volunteers are present
Support fund raising

Disadvantages

Requir careful implementation planning
Necessitat training in new concepts
complex emotions during implementation (skepticism, elation, anxiety)
uncomfortable to those not accustomed to the burden of difficult decisions ...

Sociocracy has developed most in the Netherlands and has attracted interest elsewhere in Eurasia, in Latin America ... and recently in the United States.

The sociocratic circle-organization method relies on four ground rules derived from recent discoveries in the science of systems theory etc. The four rules are simple and easy to follow. Any organization can implement them without changing existing command structure. Once in place they provide a flexible means to develop that structure.

The Basic Rules

Consent - The principle of consent governs decision-making. Consent means a policy decision can only be made if nobody has a reasoned and paramount objection to it. Day-to-day decisions don't require consent, but there must be consent about the use of other forms of decision-making.

Elections - Election of persons for functions and tasks takes place in accordance with the principle of consent and after open discussion.

Circle - The organization maintains a structure for decision making, consisting of semi-autonomous circles (i.e., groups of individuals). Each circle has its own aim and organizes the three functions of leading, doing, and evaluating results. A circle makes its own policy decisions by consent, maintains its own memory system, and develops itself through integral research, teaching, and learning re its members. A circle makes consent decisions only in special circle meetings.

Double-Linking - A circle is connected to the next higher circle with a double link. This means that at least two persons, one being the functional leader of the circle and at least one delegate from the circle, are full members of the next higher circle.

The Order of a Sociocratic Meeting

A. Opening round:
Give each person a copy of the proposed agenda;
Ask each person in turn to say briefly how they are doing;
And ask them to make any comments on the agenda, if they wish.

B. Administrative concerns:
Ask if everyone received a copy of decisions made in the previous meeting;
Ask for consent to:
the minutes of the last meeting;
the agenda;
announcements;
And mention the time available for the meeting,
and the date of next meeting.

C. Content
(list agenda items in order)
E.g. Elect a new circle chair;
Discuss concerns about a new competitor;
Decide on work assignments for certain days.

D. Closing round - evaluate the meeting process:
How was use of time?
Did the facilitator maintain equivalence, i.e. equal time and power to all?
How could the decision-making have been more efficient?
Did everyone arrive prepared?
What agenda items should be on the next meeting agenda?

Elections Process

1-Give job description and period of time elected person will perform job.
2-Give out ballots & everyone fill out ballot and hand to election leader.
3-Each person say why you made your nomination.
4-Ask if anyone wants to change votes based on arguments heard.
5-Election leader propose a candidate after step 4, or ask for discussion if the arguments are unclear.
6-Election leader ask each person if he or she consents to the proposed person, asking the person proposed last.
7-If anyone does not consent, go back to step 5 and propose another candidate in the same way.

Sample Ballot: I, ..........NOMINATE: ...............
(Your Name) (Name of Candidate)

Decision-Making Process

1. State issue(s) to be decided.
2. Any member propose a suggested decision. Often a person or persons may be asked to prepare a proposal and bring it to the next meeting.
3. Restate the proposal to clarify it.
4. Ask for quick feedback on the proposal.
5. Ask proposer to amend the proposal, if needed, based on the feedback.
6. Record any objections on a flip chart, without discussion.
7. Ask everyone to improve the proposal to deal with all objections.
8. Ask for consent - go back to step 6 if there are more objections and repeat the last steps.

Implementation

Top management should lead the implementation of sociocracy to ensure that it proceeds holistically. Attempts by factions to implement it from the bottom or middle of their organizations can lead to considerable friction. Some people mistakenly perceive sociocracy as a revolutionary tool to use against management, to get rid of the boss. It's not. The boss stays put. The logic of sociocracy sets aside the "either/" logic of old conflicts such as workers versus management. Sociocratic logic is often expressed in "both/and" statements. For example, a sociocratic business places control of a company in the hands of both management and workers; it typically uses both authoritarian and egalitarian decision-making; it provides both a security assurance and a creative stimulus; it is concerned with both profit and human values. By combining seemingly incompatible concepts, both-and thinking stimulates creative thinking and causes that seemingly chaotic thinking to self-organize into very practical solutions.

Because the implementation process is both emancipating and motivating, conflicting feelings of skepticism, elation, frustration, fear, and well-being may arise during implementation. Careful planning can minimize the discomfort and avoid disruption of the ongoing work process.

Implementation begins in the imagination of those in currently in charge, the owners or the board. They have to see the sociocratic circle-organization method as a possible strategy for achieving their values and vision for the business or organization. Gaining this insight is the first step in implementation. Those in control might not express their vision in grand terms. They are likely to say they are looking for better communications, more creativity to stay ahead of competition, a more stable labor force, or simply more profit. These are all valid reasons for starting experimentation with the sociocratic method, but it helps if those in control can articulate their dream for the company. Having a clear idea of their vision helps them integrate the sociocratic method with their other strategies for realizing their vision. It is important for top management to make a clear commitment to support experimentation with the sociocratic. Because management retains the power to stop any sociocratic procedures during the implementation process, the organization will sense any violation of the consent principle by management and see it, correctly, as the latest authoritarian manipulative trick.

The second step is usually to form a special Implementation Circle consisting of the CEO, other selected top managers, and persons from other levels of the organization. The Implementation Circle receives training in sociocracy and deepens its learning by conducting its own operations sociocratically. The Implementation Circle's job is to plan, guide, and evaluate a series of implementation steps. For example, the Circle might decide to try implementing sociocracy in one specific department of the organization and gauge the results. If successful, the Circle would probably expand the sociocratic method to more departments. The second step ends once the whole organization has a double-linked circle structure and in-house trainers able to train newly elected roundtable meeting facilitators and new staff in the sociocratic method.

The third step, that can partially overlap the second step, is to install "sociocratic engineering" methods. These methods organize all work processes on a dynamic basis and create a structure to guide the organization's own evolution. Once these methods are in place, the organization will be virtually ready for ISO 9000 quality certification. The quality methods will feel integral to the normal work processes and not imposed from outside, as is so often the case when companies and organizations seek certification.

The fourth step focuses on the Board Circle. The sociocratic method includes simple formulas that let everyone feel the "profit measurement" - both profits and losses. The formulas ensure that each staff member or investor, each circle, and the company as a whole all have explicit financial feedback about their performance. The formulas include a regular minimum payment for investors, management, and staff as well as short-term and long-term incentive payments. The formulas divide income for each group in proportion to their contribution to the company so that all participants in the organization receive a fair share - as would any group of partners. In addition to financial system adjustments, the Board Circle may wish to revise its incorporation and by-law structure in accordance with the sociocratic corporate model. This ingenious approach to incorporation makes consent the legal basis of decision-making. But the corporation retains an ability to raise money through sale of stock. Because the basis of decision-making is consent, not ownership, a hostile takeover becomes impossible.

One attraction of the sociocratic circle-organization method is the freedom it offers to use it in whole or in part. The implementation process can be paused at any of the steps just discussed. It is also possible to make limited functional areas of a large organization operate sociocratically. Doing so offers a practical way to gain experience with the model. For example, an organization could organize all of its safety officers sociocratically, or everyone who deals with computers, or everyone participating on a special project, etc.

Thus, if a large, geographically dispersed organization with several regional offices planned to launch a big automation project using sociocratic principles, its first step would be to establish management support for the idea of using the sociocratic engineering model. Then, it would create sociocratic circles in the targeted regional offices, consisting of users and automation systems support staff, at least one circle to each region. It would establish a national level circle and double link the regional circles.

On the other hand, on a small scale, a church committee or a group of volunteer parents supporting a children's soccer team might select a meeting facilitator and assign tasks to each other using the sociocratic election process.

~~~~

HIGHER POWERS OF ROMANS 13
by Lloyd Kinder

If it's okay to obey the powers that be, even if they're not divine powers, then, what if 2 different powers in the chain of command say to do 2 different things? For example, the Constitution is said to be the supreme law of the U.S. No one is a higher authority than the Constitution, except for the bible. So, if the president or Congress or the Supreme Court command anyone to do anything contrary to the Constitution, which one do you obey, the public officials or the Constitution? If the president or Congress tell you to support a war, but they don't follow the procedures outlined in the Constitution, do you obey the public officials or the Constitution? Since the Constitution is the higher authority and it says there can be war only if the Congress declares war by majority vote of both houses, but they don't vote to declare war, then, if you obey them, you're breaking the law, just as the officials are breaking the law. Does God excuse law-breaking, if officials or a large majority of the people break the law?

__"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Corinthians 10:31).
__"And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him" (Colossians 3:17).
__"And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men" (Colossians 3:23).
__Does this mean to make war to the glory of God?

~~~~