Thursday, April 05, 2007

Ron McKinzie on Church Leadership

Ron McKinzie says what I know to be true sometimes better than I ever can. Blessed Economist is on the links to the left. I am convinced that the idea you can VOTE in church is the seed of all kinds of rebellion. Even a forum for idea input sends the wrong message. If the Man of God with strong Apostolic Gifting casts the vision and implements it with the assurance of the Prophetic voice behind him there is nothing that will stop that train from moving down the track. It's only when the idea of votes and consensus is considered that it falls off the tracks. Been there Done That. Doesn't work. Read Ron's take:


Most people assume that democracy is a superior form of government, but democracy is rule by the people (demos kratos = people rule). The problem is that sin and the fall means that people can make terrible mistakes so democracy is dangerous. Many of the worst political dictators were voted into power by large majorities. Democracy generally results in the majority group in a society ruling over minority group that loses their freedom.

Winston Churchill’s statement is often quoted, as if it were true. He said,

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.
This statement is incorrect, because the best form of government has never been tried. The best method of government is theocracy. Theocracy is the rule of God (theos kratos = god rule). Theocracy is the same as the Kingdom of God. Kings rule over kingdoms.

God is king of the Kingdom of God, so he rules in the Kingdom of God. This means that the Kingdom of God is the same as the rule of God. Christians believe in the Kingdom of God, so we should be supporters of theocracy and not democracy. The rule of God is the best, because it is the only way to blessing.

Greg said...

Sadly, the American Church must bear much responsibility for exporting a flawed governmental system to the world it has sought to evangelize.

When the infant church in America began to experience the blessing of God, leaders sought a new form of government out of which they hoped this new church would flourish. Looking to secular society, these men saw the "Bold Experiment" of a Republican / Democratic form being developed. Without consulting God - much as Israel did when demanding a king (Saul), the church adopted a secular form to contain spiritual life. The result is more than 200 years of painful "limping."

In thirty-five years of working with the "institution" of the church, I've found that most church problems are government problems. If we would trust God, as Ron has urged, many church problems would dissolve for lack of fuel.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sure, theocracy has been tried many times. The Kings of Ancient Egypt that had the pyramids build had a theocracy. The Mayans on this continent had a theocracy. Some of the Muslim countries you so hate had a theocracy. Those who beleived they WERE gods or that they were leading by direct order from God and via direct communication with God were just as certain of their rightiousness as you are of yours. Just as certain. Whenever 'God' leads a nation, disaster follows and people are oppressed and freedoms evaporate.

Gene said...

K, Actually I don't agreee.

I read of a pastor who is going to preach a sermon against theocracy on Easter Sunday. I hope that he does not say the Lord's prayer, because the third line of that prayer sounds a bit like theocracy to me. The problem is that theocracy is misunderstood.

It has a bad name in the modern world, because it confused with ecclesiocracy, the rule of the church (ecclesia kratos = church rule). The rule of the Islamic clergy in Iran is often incorrectly described as a theocracy, because the clergy have control over the government.

Theocracy is not God ruling through the church or the clergy. Ecclesiocracy is not the same as theocracy. The church must never rule the state. It becomes dangerous when it rules in the political sphere.

Theocracy is God's will being done on earth as it is in heaven. I'm for that if he is.

Aaron said...

The context of the discussion is a bit unclear, but I'm inclined to agree with Anonymous if we're talking about civil matters. (See my comment on Ron's blog.)

Nowhere in the NT do we find precedent for having a "Man of God with strong Apostolic Gifting" directly leading a church; (at least not in a long-term sense, considering temporary exceptions like Timothy). Churches are governed by a plurality of elders who lead by service and example.

And what does all that have to do with Theocracies anyway?