Arguably, God may not care how governments are chosen, whether by democracy, royalty, autocracy, or some other method. His concern is that whatever human form, the function is to assure justice and design for peace and well-being for the people. Likely, the reason for neutrality on the origin of government is that any government is rather transitory in the larger pull of history. God set up a type of democracy based on law in the period of the Judges when Israel was established in Palestine. The last of the Judges was the greatest – Samuel. But long before Samuel, it was predicted that the people would turn to a king. (Deuteronomy 17:14) If one follows the larger story it appears that if the government does not have support of the people, under God, the government is flawed. Until King Saul, Israel was a confederation – tribes functioned separately in a free standing society. When the people defected to Absalom, for a short period, David, a flawed person, but highly rated king, chose to flee the city. The implication of Scripture is that a nation following the pattern of ethical law will succeed, and one that does not, even an advanced democracy, will not succeed. Israel chose to leave the confederation democracy of the Judges and follow royal succession. They were largely motivated by the patterns of the nations around them. Those nations had kings, why not Israel’s tribes? The off and on theocratic context and dependence changed back and forth, and continued no matter how the government was formed. Centuries later the Apostle Paul seems to have thought well of his Roman citizenship, with its limited freedom (for qualifying Romans), but maintaining repression of peoples outside the Roman tent – which tent was only democratic in Rome and its environs. In summary, as Arnold Toynbee discovered in his study of known world governments, all came to a dead end. That conclusion affords one a sense of forlorn society. God accommodates good government.
Perhaps some nations have an edge in the world, in that they do not tend to deny or openly evade God who supports freedom. Even though recognition of God may be generic, it at least acknowledges that there is something higher than the state and by implication means that the state has some duty to function responsibly to a power beyond its own. It is interesting that so many of the presidents of the United States have acknowledged their resort to prayer, and to change even in themselves that is perceived to be spiritual in nature. This is easily traced in the remarks and impressive writings and speeches of Abraham Lincoln. A comparison of these before he won the White House and the period after is persuasive of the awareness of spiritual meaning for a nation and its people. God offers mankind, in the forces and machinery of nature, enough to get on well in what may be called a secular order. If the order follows the rules, even if not acknowledging God, it will likely do well within earth’s boundaries of nature’s context. That creates a level field for all. Christianity speaks first to the individual. The individual is crucial for understanding related to immortality. To relate it to a Christian nation would misrepresent much of the population and common grace. One’s choice for immortality is above anything that nature or institutions, like government, may provide. Faith relates to factors identified with the individual self, in contrition and belief; and, in Jesus Christ for forgiveness and acceptance. In the paradox of life’s simplicity/complexity, we may miss the meaning of it all. There must be left no doubt that persons functioning with a faith in Christ will live, think, respond differently than those who do not believe in God. That will lead to numerous differences with secularists often leading to conflict between family members, friends, colleagues – and nations. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020