I don't think he has.
The OT is shown to be inferior to the NT kingdom of God - as per Gospel and Kingdom.
The OT is "inferior" only in the sense that God never intended for it to bring eternal life, or final Salvation to Israel. It is certainly not inferior as a national system, as compared to other political systems. God established the Theocracy for Israel, and that indicates His wish for all the world, in my judgment.
And this is my argument, that what God gave to Israel was *not* an inferior political system, but rather, the model political system for the world, a theocracy based on faith in the one true God, and a single moral system with the necessary theological basics guaranteeing that morality.
Christianity was designed to encourage Christian theocracies in many nations, as promised to Abraham. And it certainly happened in Christian history. Christianity was also designed by God to enable Christians to survive and continue in the Gospel ministry through any kind of government, flawed Christian government or pagan government.
The fact Christianity was set up to begin in a time of Israel's failure and without any other nations being Christian is not establishing a model of separation between Church and State. It was merely a model intended to lead to the eternal Theocracy, while in the meantime pursuing the establishment of many Christian States.
Christian individualism lacks the Social Gospel, which involves Social Justice and Christian involvement in the whole spectrum of national concerns. A Christian minority may certainly survive on its own, but its message has always been to restore the whole world to God, and not just a few people. The Gospel is an outreach, and a message of renewal for the entire world.
Was the Roman Empire the correct system? Their taxation system sponsored temples to pagan deities.
As I said Christianity was designed to support State governments, pagan or flawed Christian governments. But the message is ideal, and pursues God's conquest of the entire planet. It is a message that the world belongs to God, and eventually will be given to those worthy of it.
AND almost every time we Christians get control, within a few generations we become oppressive.
That is true to *every kind of government,* Christian or not. That is not reason to replace Christian government with pagan government!
I'm not sure how much the New Testament even thinks in terms of nations?
In our day and age of Christian apostasy the whole idea of Christian nationhood is ignored and rejected in favor of liberal democracies or purely pagan systems. Christianity is viewed as Voltaire saw it, an "accursed thing."
But the Abrahamic Covenant clearly suggests many nations would be adopted in the same way Israel was adopted, as theocracies. We've seen this in history as "Christian States," which in our day of religious apostasy is viewed as "the Inquisition" and "the Crusades.*
Christian rule is viewed in its worst light, and only in the sense Christian theocracies ultimately fail, just as all political systems eventually fail. But what is to replace them? The fix for the failure of Christian politics is secularistic politics with its supposed checks and balances.
Here in the US those checks and balances are already beginning to fail. Yesterday I read how some high up in the Democrat Party are recommending President Biden ignore our Supreme Court! Wealthy heads of corporations and media powers are without consequence interfering in our elections. And a political class has emerged that cares more about wealth and personal ambition than serving the country.
But when Jewish ideas like the Sabbath rest for God's people (like Joshua entering the land for security) end up being transformed into heaven, I think the emphasis is on the gospel kingdom, not any earthly kingdom. When John writes in Revelation a basic 'compare and contrast' between Babylon and the New Jerusalem, we see that this time will be a time of woe and our hope is in the gospel kingdom (in the now and not yet). When we are told to 'make every effort to enter that rest' and the rest is heaven, again the emphasis is not on earthly government systems.
There is no real dichotomy between heaven and earth since heaven includes the earth and rules the earth, albeit for now in a limited way. The focus on heaven is to emphasize the ideal Kingdom of God, which is what our Gospel should be proclaiming now.
But it is not to diminish the fact that God's heavenly rule is what is judging the earth today, even though the ultimate sentencing will take place in the future. Our message should be unabashed declaration of what should be and what will be so that mankind can properly prepare for it today, and avoid judgment by means of that message.
Not that we don't care about government systems or policies - but I don't think we see any real endorsement of any systems or national identities etc. It's more a matter of righteousness and corporate justice in the church, and then trying to do the right thing by our non-Christian neighbours.
The Gospel of the Kingdom is, by default, a declaration of a preferred political system, although God's patience has prepared the Church to survive in less desirable conditions, just as Jesus lived through the time of the pagan Roman Empire. The Gospel of the Kingdom is a declaration of what should be now, and what will be later.
Declaring what should be does not mean that God wants to immediately impose it as a political system, since His wish is for people across the world to make their own choices, as you indicated--it is an opportunity for conscientious expression of choices for or against God.
Indeed - the same Paul that wrote to honour the Romans because they wield the sword as God's system of justice also wrote:
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”
It's almost like Paul is saying get your own house in order first, and let God do the rest with the government of the day. BUT - in a democracy - our voice is important, and that's where Kevin Rudd's essay above comes into play.
In our Democracy, and in many other democracies across the world, our participation is often without effect. I used to say the Communists offered a democracy of one candidate up for election by only one party--the Communist Party. Here in my country, the US, we were given only two viable candidates, through only two parties that had a realistic chance. What if both parties are bought off?
If our democratic system is largely pagan, we will never fix the problems for long. The thing that changed the pagan Roman Empire was when the Church witnessed to it--not by casting votes for political candidates or giving their two cents worth on legislation. Even after seeing the Roman Empire convert, the system itself remains vulnerable to destruction, and Rome did eventually fall.
Indeed, as a climate activist myself, I care about our Australian government's inaction on climate change. If someone is skeptical that we can ever replace coal, see my signature. Renewables + nuclear can definitely do the job. But we get so much money from cheap coal exports that we're addicted to it and our governments cannot stop. It's horrendous, and why I'm listening to an ABC podcast by a journalist who used to go to my church - all about the inaction of politicians on climate change in Australia.
If You’re Listening
I personally believe climate change is an elitist scam, to forge new political alliances, and to get the world to depend on them and on their particular constituencies. On the other hand, it is an effort to get free of dependence upon corrupt governments that use energy to control national policies. And I would completely agree with that.
It's not like I hate the environment. I live in the Pacific NW Washington State US, and it's all about the environment, pristine lakes, bays, and streams, and hiking through the mountains. I want clean foods, and preservation of trees, soils, and clean water.
I don't believe that fossil fuels are destroying the world! That's like saying dropping a bottle of poison in the ocean will pollute the ocean. Volcanoes are going to pollute the atmosphere, and I'm not sure it can be proven that whatever impact man-made pollutants make on the atmosphere is sufficient to do great harm to our quality of life.
But thanks for the conversation. I respect your views nonetheless. And I do believe it is important to govern and to regulate how we use our energy sources.
Nuclear power is clean, but it is also dangerous, and subject to terrorist attacks, with great consequence! Personally, I'm hoping we find a means to use hydrogen as a cheap and unlimited source of energy.
But that would never make the energy companies, the politicians, or superpowers happy who benefit from control of energy resources. Too bad!
But the biggest problems are spiritual, and not material, which is what this problem exposes.
