“Will Martin Luther King be in the Kingdom?”, asked the 13-year-old boy at the youth gathering. “Do you mean Martin Luther King?”, asked a slightly older boy when asked what he knew about Martin Luther. The black American Baptist minister, slain by an assassin’s bullet in 1968, has become one of the great heroes of our time because of his battle to achieve equal rights for negroes in America. The remarks quoted above, made by intelligent young people of Christadelphian parentage, illustrate how young people today are being taught in schools to regard Martin Luther King as a very important figure, and the civil rights movement as one of the significant movements of our time. It is not known where the boys concerned gained their knowledge about Martin Luther King and his work, but one would hazard a guess that it was in religious instruction classes at school, where the imparting of knowledge about the Bible has largely been replaced by instruction in the humanist ideology which it is the purpose of this series to combat.
The Change in Thinking of Christianity
There is significance also in the apparent lack of knowledge about Martin Luther. Although Luther himself was much astray from Biblical truth, and would almost certainly have encouraged the persecution of any who did hold to Biblical truth, there can be no doubt that he played a very significant role in releasing men from the bondage of Roman Catholicism and in bringing about a climate in which men could freely read the Scriptures in their own tongue. However, the Reformation of the sixteenth century has become largely irrelevant in these days when the distinctions between the major churches of Christendom have largely broken down, and Roman Catholics, Anglicans and Non-Conformists alike pursue the goal of human rights for all.
It is not the purpose of this article to deal with humanism and religion, but it is relevant to the present theme to show how the ideals of humanism have permeated the teaching of the churches over this question of human rights. We began by referring to the American civil rights movement, and Reginald Stackhouse, in “The Christian and Politics”, has this very interesting observation to make about this movement: “Where his religion once seemed a palliative encouraging the Negro to accept his misery on earth because he would eventually be rewarded in heaven, the Negro church is now a dynamic centre of leadership in the civil rights movement”. This illustrates the great swing in emphasis in church teaching very well. No longer is the emphasis on a better life in the hereafter (albeit a totally false idea of reward being received by an immortal soul in heaven), but on conditions here and now, on changing society from one where some oppress others to a democracy where all have equal rights.
Elsewhere Stackhouse writes of the evils of police states and discrimination. He then states: “For Christians to think of witnessing to Jesus Christ without helping to resist this evil is to present a Christianity which is not important enough for people to take seriously”. In other words, he says that it is the duty of a Christian to fight for a democratic and just society. In fact, he goes on to say that all true Christians should resist evil things, and actively promote democratic ideals by entering politics.
Another writer, Stanley Evans, in “The Social Hope of the Christian Church”, quotes with approval the following words from a pamphlet by W.G. Cough-land: “The important thing is that people, both in and out of the churches, who care about the future of democratic society, should realise the true and basic role of Christianity and of the churches in politics, namely, to breathe into systems and institutions life, purpose, significance and value”.
Bible Teaching distorted
The arguments based by these “Christian” humanists to support their idea that the Christian should pursue democracy and human rights for all involve the most terrible distortion of Scriptural truth. Here are some examples which have been selected from several books:
- The Bible has, of course, much to say about the Kingdom of God. The “Christian” humanist interprets this to mean a state of affairs where man has achieved a just society, where all enjoy their rights of a vote, freedom of speech, etc. The teaching of the Bible that the Kingdom of God is to be set up by Jesus Christ at his return, and will in fact be a dictatorship (in the best sense of the term, of course) and not a democracy, is ignored, or brushed aside with phrases of theological jargon like “Jewish eschatological expectations”.
- It is argued that God loved the world, and Jesus loved the world, and so Christians must love the world too; and loving the world is then interpreted as trying to improve its institutions, making things more democratic etc. This ignores the fact that the Bible says, “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world” (1 Jn.2:15). Nowhere does the Bible command believers to love the world; the command to love is generally one to love one’s fellow-believers, and the more general commands to show love refer to our attitude towards those individuals with whom we come into contact in our own lives, not to the world at large, and still less to its institutions, which are to be wept away at the coming of Christ.
- It is alleged that the Old Testament prophets, in passages such as Micah 2 and 3, attacked the injustices of society in their days. This, it is said, is an example to us. The fact that Israel was a nation ruled by a king as God’s representative, with a law given by God, and with a divinely-appointed section of the people (the Levites) to teach and enforce the law (no democracy here!), and that the prophets were inspired by God to show the nation where they were astray and to urge them to return to Him, is ignored. Instead it is assumed that we are living in just the same kind of society today, whereas the Bible speaks of no such society existing in the interval between the ascension of Jesus and his return, and speaks of his followers as individuals seeking eternal life in the Kingdom to come by trying to do God’s will now.
- Another “Christian” humanist argument is that since according to Romans 13 the governments of this world are ordained by God, the duty of the Christian is to get involved and seek to ensure that they are conducted in the right way. However, the powers ordained by God referred to in Romans 13 were those of the Roman Empire, and were hardly conducted on the sort of principles that the modern humanist would think admirable, and were certainly not susceptible to change by Christians getting involved in them. Furthermore, the purpose of Paul’s words in Romans 13 is to exhort the followers of Christ not to resist the powers that be; whereas the modern-day “Christian” humanist wants to see tyrannies resisted and overthrown.
- “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”, said Jesus. According to Stanley Evans in “The Social Hope of the Christian Church”, “the poor in spirit are those who are with the poor, those that are prepared to throw themselves in with the lot of the poor and struggle with them for the kingdom”. The distorted idea of what the Kingdom is has been dealt with above. What we are quoting these words here for is to show how badly one particular verse of Scripture has been distorted. Jesus is undoubtedly referring here to the words of Isaiah 66:2: “…to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word”. The phrase “poor in spirit” indicates the right way for sinful man to approach God – that is, in full recognition of God’s holiness and his own sinfulness. Such an attitude of mind must be shown by any individual who wishes to receive forgiveness of sins and eternal life in the Kingdom. Stanley Evans, in his gross distortion of the clear teaching of the Scriptures, is showing just the opposite state of mind; far from being contrite over man’s sinfulness, he exalts man’s desire to better himself in this life; far from trembling at God’s Word, he distorts it to fit his own notions of what is right.
The above examples show the way in which humanistic ideas of democracy, freedom, equality and justice and so forth have permeated the churches. In fact, these ideas have permeated all society, and it is taken for granted that democracy is a good thing.
The Origin and History of Democracy
As is well-known to all, democracy began in Greece. Why it began in Greece is another matter. Some argue that it was because of the broken-up nature of the country; its mountains, its long, jagged coastline and its islands led to many small communities coming into existence, communities small enough for the voice of the individual to count.
However, many such communities no doubt existed in other parts of the world. What makes the Greeks stand out as the originators of democracy is the extraordinary outburst of genius which flowered in Greece, especially in Athens, in approximately the period during which the Persian Empire ruled the Middle East. The teachings of the great men who lived then have passed down to the present age so that we today know what they thought and taught 2,500 years ago.
Although the Greeks had their gods, they did not as a rule believe in any revelation from on high. The emphasis was on reason, on what man thought was best. In contrast, the oriental idea was that of a dictatorial head, a king or emperor, who was believed to rule as a representative of the gods. In Israel the one true God appointed a leader for His people, and gave them laws to follow, and great emphasis was placed upon the family as the divinely-ordained unit in society.
To the Greeks the city-state, the polis, from which we get our word “politics”, was all-important, and the right of the individual to have his say was vital. Family life was played down, women having a very insignificant role, and homosexual relations being exalted over natural relations between husband and wife. Furthermore, the citizens of the city-state only had the time to debate at length affairs of state because of the vast numbers of slaves available to do their work for them. Thus the much-vaunted Greek system of things was based on principles completely opposed to those on which God’s own kingdom of Israel was based, was riddled with vice, and was kept in being through the oppression of the majority (the slaves) by a minority.
The Greek and Roman Empires were based on the old dictatorial principles of the orient; indeed, they would not otherwise have been empires. When corrupt Christianity came to political power under Constantine, the same principle continued; the Roman Emperor regarded himself as divinely-appointed after the manner of Israel’s kings of old. Throughout the Middle Ages, when apostate Christianity held Europe in a firm grip, the same principle continued. Only in the sixteenth century, when the authority of the Roman Church was crumbling, and Greek ideas were spreading once more, did democratic ideals come into existence again. Two hundred years later the masses triumphed over their masters in the French Revolution; and from then on ideas of democracy and human rights flooded through the world. Today they are universally acknowledged as being valid; even dictatorships pay them lip-service by calling themselves “people’s democracies”, or whatever.
A classic work which sets out the principles of democracy and human rights is “The Rights of Man” by Thomas Paine, written at the time of the French Revolution. At the time of writing this article a television programme eulogising him had recently appeared, and “The Daily Telegraph” commented in a critical leader column: “He made human liberties a supreme value”. This is apparent from the following quotes from his book:
“Men are born, and always continue, free and equal, in respect of their rights”
“The law is the expression of the will of the community. All citizens have a right to concur… in its formation”
“The end of all political associations is the preservation of the natural and inalienable rights of man”
It is significant that Paine was an atheist, who sought to denigrate the Scriptures by showing that they were full of contradictions and errors.
The chief point to be gained from all this is that the current preoccupation with democracy and the preeminence of man’s rights is based entirely on the thinking of man, and does not originate from God. It is humanist teaching, not Christian teaching, and we have seen already how badly so-called Christians have to distort the teachings of Scripture in order to accommodate their humanistic ideas.
The Danger to the Brotherhood
What dangers are there to the Brotherhood in this modern-day emphasis on democracy, and on human rights in general? Several years ago a young brother remarked casually to the writer that he was not sure who to vote for in the forthcoming election, and seemed surprised to learn that Christadelphians do not vote as a matter of principle. This suggests a certain laxity on this point these days, at least in some parts of the Brotherhood. We are perhaps in danger of losing a distinctive feature of our beliefs – that until the Kingdom comes we are to be content with whatever form of government exists in our country, acknowledging that it exists at God’s pleasure and that we are to obey it in everything which does not clash with God’s will. There should be no question of trying to change it, even by peaceful means, for we could be fighting against the will of God.
Democracy in Ecclesial Life
Very few Christadelphians are likely to think that voting is justified, however. What of other areas where the ideals of democracy may be creeping in? What effect are they having on the way in which we run our ecclesias, for example?
Nearly all will agree that the present democratic method of running ecclesias is, in the absence of the gifts of the Spirit, the only practical one in our present society. (This may not be the case in other types of society, however; for example, in a more primitive third-world community, where few can read or write, a more dictatorial arrangement may be needed, although inevitably there will be dangers.) What should this democratic system mean, however? It certainly means that, in the absence of any divine selection of leaders through the Holy Spirit, it is the duty of an ecclesia to select brethren to arrange its affairs who are best suited for the job. Furthermore, we must surely recognise that it is wisdom gained from God’s Word that is the qualification for arranging the affairs of an ecclesia, and that, although knowledge of the Word is necessary before wisdom can be acquired, knowledge of itself does not automatically produce wisdom.
One suspects, however, that democratic ideals are so much part of the civilisation in which we live that many take it for granted that every brother and sister has an equal right for his or her voice to be heard in the ecclesia. If the 18-year-old can vote and stand for election in local government or parliament, why should he not have an equal say in the running of the ecclesia? If women have equal status with men in the world, then why not in the ecclesia? Yet the Scriptures clearly teach that maturity is necessary before a brother can expect to take a leading role in the ecclesia (1 Tim.3:6; 1 Pet.5:5), and that the role of the sister is subordinate to that of the brother (1 Cor.11:3; 1 Tim. 2:11,12).
This should not mean that the needs of the young, and of sisters, are neglected in the ecclesia, for all arranging brethren should take care to find out the needs of all members of the ecclesia, and ensure that they are cared and provided for. Once the right brethren have been chosen therefore, is it not reasonable that they should be allowed to arrange the affairs of the ecclesia without the necessity for further voting on such things as filling of other ecclesial offices, or the carrying-on of routine ecclesial business? There remains, after all, a continuing power on the part of the ecclesia to overrule the decisions of its arranging brethren at any time. Wise leadership by a few is much more Scriptural than a system in which the voice of the many invariably holds sway.
More dangerous to the Brotherhood, however, is the practice of allowing youth groups, whether ecclesial or inter-ecclesial, to be run by young people themselves. At the very minimum, no such activities should take place without approval by arranging brethren, and it is far better that sound and mature brethren should actually be involved in organizing such activities. The modern-day spirit of democracy demands that the young be allowed to “do their own thing”; but this is not in accordance with Scripture. There is no reason at all why the young should not be catered for in a way interesting and enjoyable for them, and yet for their activities to be under the control of those of maturity in the Truth who are not afraid to join enthusiastically with young people in study and recreation, but who will ensure that the emphasis is on that which is spiritually up building.
Human Rights
To discern the greatest danger to the Brotherhood from democratic ideas it is necessary to think a little more about the modern emphasis on human rights. We are all familiar today with the demonstration proclaiming “the right to work”, and this is just one area in life in which rights are proclaimed. Women demand rights of equality with men, homosexuals demand the right to be regarded as normal, others demand the right to speak, write or behave free of virtually all constraints.
It does not take much discernment to see how misguided such people are, and the disastrous effects their wrong ideas have when put into practice. Those who are vociferous in demanding the right to work are likely to be those who are disruptive and lacking in diligence when in employment, in disobedience to the clear commands of Scripture. The Scriptures are clear that women are placed in sub-ordinance to men in this age, and have their own role to play in life; and the effect of the women’s liberation movement has been to produce discontent, divorce, disruption of family life, juvenile delinquency and indeed a whole chain of social evils. Homosexuality is emphatically condemned by Scripture, and the more freedom such are given to practice their vile deeds the more others are corrupted to follow their evil ways. The freedom to publish virtually anything means that people are being inflamed to lust and violence by what they see, hear and read.
Democracy leads naturally to the demand for these false freedoms, which in fact lead only to greater bondage under the yoke of sin. Democracy means the lowest common denominator of behaviour is the norm. What men and women want to do is what they must be allowed to do.
In fact we have no rights at all, except the right to death, and that not when we choose. That right we all have through sin. All else is the merciful provision of God. It is easy for us to recognise the evils involved in the human rights movement referred to above; it is less easy to recognise the more basic truth that we in fact have no rights at all, not even to food, clothing and a roof over our heads. It is because of this that we daily thank God for all that we receive – yet how sincere are our thanks? – for if we think something is our right anyway, we are not likely to be truly thankful for it.
There is a danger in the modern emphasis on human rights that we shall be indignant at being deprived of things we want, or think we need, instead of thankful for what we have. We may be indignant at the way we are treated instead of recognising the Scriptural principle that the patient endurance of evil and hardship is pleasing to God and beneficial to the development of our characters. In short, hundreds of years of humanist philosophy, leading to an emphasis on democracy and human rights, has led to a society in which, if we are not very careful to apply ourselves to Scriptural teaching, we shall be in danger of concerning ourselves more with gaining satisfaction out of this life than in preparing ourselves for an eternal reward in God’s Kingdom to come, when democratic ideals will pass away for ever.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One