Ancient Israel and other peoples as well may have missed the point of God’s choosing Israel to reveal himself. Israel ultimately adopted exclusiveness that began to characterize the nation. Israel’s citizens were reminded in the context of the Leviticus passage that they had been outcasts in Egypt, and they should not visit similar injustice on the immigrants among them. They were also informed that God as God of all peoples, ordered equity for all. Israel turned ministry partly to introversion. Even so they were no more provincial than other nations. They made provision for Gentiles, while they marginalized them – an inevitable human trait, marginalizing. There was a Gentile court in the Temple. Jesus noted that Israelites were ardent missionaries, but missed the real meaning for proselytizing (evangelizing). (Matthew 23:15)
Similar exclusiveness can be followed with many cultures, and, indeed, is one of the most troublesome of all problems in international diplomacy. Many Moslem nations are rather stern about keeping the exclusiveness of the Moslem faith in the countries they dominate. It is an ancient and common attitude growing out of several motivations. Most objectionable is the arrogant spirit in which some beliefs are held. There is no biblical or logical support for believing that persons of faith are more effective leaders/managers than non-faith people. It is better to have an effective head of State who is without faith but committed to the rights of all people, than to have a devout religious leader who knows little of free state craft. We do not understand the Christian meaning of faith if we assume that persons of faith are automatically better (or presumed they ought to be) at anything in the world they try to do than pagan professionals can become.
Christian faith argues for a minimum of two achievements in an individual: 1) acceptance of Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior; and, 2) growth of the Christian life measured by biblical righteousness. The person may be a simpleton, but is not regarded by God as less than the most gifted in the population. In guiding a nation, building a great corporation, becoming a scholar, or whatever the human objective, persons may or may not be devout. Their devotion does not empower them in all things available, but the choices of the individual and service to God and society are related. Spiritual life relates to immortality and God’s ways. One is human and transient: the other is spiritual and eternal. There is overlap. Separation of church and state, seen in the duties of Moses and Aaron, is a biblical concept. The duties of both are clear, but together.
Who can predict the life performance of any person? The truth of God’s message must not be measured ultimately by visible human conducts. What happens if he or she is a hypocrite, or apostate, lacks integrity or prudence, fails as a servant of others? The Apostle Paul wrote that Christians should be faithful to their vested leaders. (Romans 13) He knew some were corrupt and oppressive. Even wholly secular government is better than no government at all, a condition leading to anarchy. Anarchy has been tried and failed every time. Humanity survives with existing and available leaders. Governments will cease and dissolve. God’s kingdom does not rely on the performances of human leaders and governments, devout or profane – or in-between. The Lord, he is God, quite in control of his purpose. He loves all persons to right conduct in common grace, to immortality in divine grace. He apparently is competent to accept our rejection or avoidance, but those persons should not expect much of him at the close, especially when the books are toted up, and his purposes are fairly concluded – all final. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020