23rd of September, 2013
Why is there no country in the World for which the Constitution starts a lot like beginning of The Westminster Confession?
With Islam, there are many such states. All of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, and so on. They begin by declaring “The Qur’an [and the Sunnah] is the supreme source of Law in the land [given the rulings of the scholars and fiqh …]”, while all the majority-Christian states that matter begin by declaring “The State shall have no religion.” This tendency, with its origins in the heresy of the Enlightenment, has been responsible for the fact that no state today can be contacted by a genuine Christian pilgrim to ask for shelter.
This was probably the first true political sin of every Christian president who ever ruled. A sin that their opponents, the Muslims, did not as uniformly commit against their Allah. Ours always and everywhere succeeded in changing their Constitutions to encourage their legacy or benefits, but never for the sake of the Jesus Christ they falsely called “Lord.”
But if they had not committed it, what would we end up with? It’s probably too late now, but if there had been Christian states in this Age of Republics that is now passing away, it would have been like a World with Switzerland a hundredfold. There would have been a Geneva to discuss peace on every set of national borders. There would have been a peace-maker in every alliance. There would, of course, also have been ten times as many countries making money off being a destination for the money of sinners, so that the righteous may inherit the mammon of the World. There would have been lots of unadorned crosses flying at the UN, and there would be many Red Cross-like things around the World. Think about it, there would probably be no UN, since most Christians would fear it as the anti-Christ or something.
There are Islamic states running on Sharia Law. There are no Repentant states running on the Gospel (“New Testament”).
Jews have Israel, Shiites have Iran and Iraq, Sunnis have everywhere in the World, but the persecuted Christian has nowhere to rest his head. Even the Christian countries have turned their backs on their fellow Christians from other countries, precisely because they do not recognise that the seriousness of the bond of faith literally makes a nation(-state). Peter says as much, when he says that the ecclesia (“church”) has been called out to be a nation of kings and priests.
If, for instance, Uganda were a Repentant state, it would have a “Right of Return” for Christians—people who would be willing to be baptised after affirming the beginnings of some general form of a Constitution for such a state, i.e., something like the Presbyterian Church’s Book of Confessions.
Of course this is not the perfect state. Since it has humans in it, and Romans 7 still holds, it would be very flawed. But that’s the first brilliance in the name of the state. Let’s say it is a republic, and therefore has a president. So instead of, say, Islamic Republic of whatever, you have the Repentant Republic of Uganda. (And Uganda is fit for this role-play, because it was born in the blood of martyrs.) Its Constitution would, for instance, define the ultimate leader, the president, as “the main manservant.” As per the New Testament, the leader would be a modest—even monogamous—man. I think washing of feet would be worked somewhere into the pretentious ceremony of the state as it descends int decadence. —Because of course apes being apes, the presidents would sin against God and multiply for themselves cars and women, while they wash feet every morning in Parliament. But the state is a repentant state; as in, the continual duty of the citizen—especially the president—is to watch out and correct such behaviour, in others and in oneself, being guided by the Holy Spirit. The president, being Citizen 1, would only execute his powers in favour of freedom. Arresting an arrester, or even executing a murderer. Much like Switzerland, this state would be almost 100% armed at all times, and would therefore always retain its ability to frustrate invasion and execute a president (be this a good thing or a bad thing, be this for a good reason or for a bad reason). The Ayatollah would be the domestic pastor/mystic/prophet of the president.
Even better, it may be that the state doesn’t want to be a republic, but a kingdom. Or, even best, it may prefer something more like what His Holy Church recommends. This kind of thing would be preferable, since the Right of Return would bring together a lot of diversity which can only survive peacefully in highly-fragmented, equally-armed polities, as Switzerland and Israel have shown. (Even though, unfortunately, they only ever seem to come together so that John Calvin can misrepresent Jesus to Maimonides once again, in the presence of all the nations.) At present, the heretical Christian states are taking in and feeding Muslims by the hundreds of thousands, spilling their wealth in the wrong direction, while the little brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ have no ground to call their own!
To the Jew first, then to the Gentile. The last century saw Jews having to run away from the lands of Ashkenaz, and they had no city to call their own. But now they thank God that they found a mound of springs, and at length the foundations of peace. To the Jew first, then to the Gentile. This century will see Gentiles having to run away from the mountains of Seir. But before I believe in a state created by God, as it was for the Jewish state, so would it have to be for the Repentant state: God Himself, in power and signs and wonders, would have to establish it by His own hand, or I would not accept its claims. It has to be born a miracle, sustained a miracle, and displayed a miracle. It would then bring forth the fruits of the Spirit, even more than Switzerland has. Christians everywhere would see this banner lifted up on the mountains, would hear this trumpet blown, and when all other options are exhausted, operations to smuggle Christians out of danger and to a country where he/she would belong. Since it is no longer a secret (thanks to books with titles like The Islamic Antichrist), we can discuss the fact that, every five minutes, a Christian in a majority-non-Christian country is killed.
The second brilliance in the name of the state, the Repentant state, is that the Right of Return is a heavy pun.
The name of the state would announce to the World that they are living in a situation that ancient Hebrews at least twice recognised as indicating an “end of the age.” In our times, economically, that is the end of the age of oil, due to peak oil. In such times, there is accompanying spiritual anguish, as this state of affairs is, to the mystic, due to the fact that, even in the spiritual—in the real—sense, the ultimate end of the age is here.
And men show up who shout “Repent! The kingdom of God is nigh!” Like Elijah, the Tishbite. Like John the Baptist—i.e., John the Repent-ist.
Now, these countries are shouting the same thing. They are the Tishbe from whence Elijah came. Tishbe is Teshuva to modern Hebrews, which means “to return” (as in “Right of Return”) and also to “to repent” (as in change of mind).
But is our chance blown? Could there still be written a Velayat-e-faqih, but this time for the sake of the New Testament? Politics is dirty indeed, and no hand touches the matters of this World and comes away without blood. Even dirtier is religion, because where politics ignores God, religion lies about Him and insults Him. I am convinced that there is nothing clean in politics, except the destruction of it. But if I could get over that, could such a state be set up now? How will all the Philistines abandon their arms for us in one day? How will God break so iron-wrought a bondage in one day? Well, that’s how we will know where God is indeed permitting the creation of a Repentant state, when He works such a miracle. For Isaiah is clear:
Who has heard such a thing?Who has seen such things?Shall the earth be made to give birth in one day?Or shall a nation be born at once?
Until then, this is just theory.
Now there occur problems, necessarily, about the question of freedom of worship. I think a kind definition of who is a true believer has to be adopted, and kept/defended. It has to be something simple like being able to say Amen to the Apostle’s Creed, for instance. “I believe in God the Father!” is a fitting response from the trenches of the righteous to the “Alawakbar!” that may be coming from the front lines of the invaders. To name the Father as the Father is more-important in the Repentant state, than it is blasphemous in the Islamic state, [and] so it has to be preserved by the main oath of citizenship. This is intentionally a much easier thing than what may be required for an official baptism/gaining of citizenship. (No; there would be no pædobaptism, since one is born into the covenant of the parents.) This would make for a perfectly-suitable environment to be free to practice whatever “Christianity” you want, but it has to be a “Christianity”, where “Christianity” is defined rightly as explained. This is something to be desired and prayed for by every Christian.
But what of those who are not Christians by that definition? How shall they be treated? Shall the Christians now crucify? No; lest we make the name of Jesus Christ have to answer for the blood of another conscience. Never; lest we be wiped out in one day for disgracing the name by which we are called. This is a problem in an Islamic state (with non-Muslims getting the short end), a Jewish state (with Christians getting the short end), and in a Repentant state (with non-Christians getting the short end). Suddenly the same questions, say, Meir Kahane had to ask have to be answered. And suddenly another type of state is dealing with sectarian issues, à la Iraq/Syria/Egypt, or dealing with two-state solutions of all sorts. Of course such countries would care very much how such questions are solved. Is faith the new determinant of brotherhood? I think so, and if you have not been convinced by the sheer vibrancy of the sectarianism in Islamic states, even when you know that they do not have the Light, you are not being fair. The future clearly belongs to a people wrapped around a faith, as a hard rebound from the atheism and misguided laïcité that has already owned (and lost) many polities in the last century as a sacrosanct guiding principle. Because remember, you want to live in a country where you know that nobody is going to be allowed to put stumbling blocks in your way, regarding faith, which is going to be of ultimate importance. Isolated, (semi-)autonomous enclaves do not help the situation, since that has clearly not worked in the Jewish state.
These are the things that the highest manservant, the president, would be dealing with. How to do what we think is right without doing what we think is wrong. Anybody who ever comes to you pretending to have easy answers to such hard problems is lying. In particular, if it involves setting up a utopia, you are being fooled into losing your very soul. I think that, of necessity, there is necessarily some unfairness in a society that has any organisation at all, any politics at all. The most-fruitful political work, therefore, is the removal of such organisation. Until it is removed, some unfairness remains. Only Jesus will bring perfect fairness; until then, we have to just clearly and consistently define who, how, and why we segregate or oppress, and then, having do it faithfully and with a clear conscience, hiding nothing from countries that may want to witness.
We will not get rid of politics; we will not get rid of oppression; we will always have the poor. We can, however, be always cognisant of the eternal accompaniment of bad situations and bad decisions, just hoping that they do not overwhelm us before the fulfilment of the officially-sanctioned apocalypse.
(Speaking of apocalypse, all the apocalyptic states of the last century failed miserably, as do most apocalyptic movements. There was no Marxist utopia anywhere. Until you see the heavens open, and the Son of Man coming down, do not be fooled into aiming for a utopia on Earth; no, work just towards enough comfort to follow your faith.)
For this reason I do not vote, because I have not heard of a leader who promises to opt for the life of a miserable and worthless servant after he has done his best. What does a servant of the nation look like? Joseph, for instance. Lowest slave of the house, and therefore being owned by the overlord. Joseph could have no secret between him and Potiphar, because Potiphar owned Joseph body and soul. If I find an election where the resulting leader would be owned body and soul by the voters, I may consider taking part. A president of a Repentant state would have no secrets from the people. His e-mail, his office, his car, his life—everything, in this age that has said “Yes” to nude reality TV—would be constantly and freely accessible to any member of the public, as payment for his having the full and unanswerable power of a president. For such a president I would vote. The citizens thereof would be on Twitter today starting a Cushite Spring in response to the Arab Spring.
So there would remain problems to solve, and the main prayer of the country would be that God keep the problems of the World from overwhelming them before Jesus comes back or something like that.
If there were many such Repentant states, there would be one for everyone. There would be one whose attitude—the small-c constitution—is perhaps so tolerant, perhaps because the state is almost heterodox itself in the affirmations found in its capital-c Constitution. There would be a place somewhere, maybe a semi-autonomous city in a federal state on some sub-continent somewhere far away, where even I can generally fit in with my faith, my weed, and my guns. Foxes have holes, birds have nests. It is important to note that the home is going to be about faith first of all, whether we like it or not. Already, a lot of humanitarian emergencies are being created because of persecution for faith, and 75% of them are against Christians.