A biblical basis for power-sharing mode of government
“And hearing this, the ten became indignant with the two brothers. But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (Matt 20.24-28, NASB)
The occasion here is John and James sending their mother so ask Jesus for special positions in the Kingdom of God as it manifested. Now, we need to remember that the disciples understanding of the Kingdom was still lacking at this point. They still had the idea of an earthly based Kingdom, where Jesus would cast out the oppressive Romans, so when Jesus talked about kingdom authority and judgement, and the role the apostles would have in this, they were in. When Jesus talked about faithful servants that he would set over 5 and 10 cities, the disciples pictured that as being very soon, and John and James wanted to bargain for a better position in this imminent revolution. Jesus, knowing that the apostles would not experience the kind of fullfilment they figured in their minds, used the incident to teach them some basic Kingdom principles concerning leadership and authority. Clearly, the apostles must have felt quite important. Jesus clearly gave the apostles authority to cast out daemons, to heal the sick and raise the dead. Now, that's something in itself. Also, he clearly states that they had the power to declare people forgiven of their sins (John 20.23). If we were to be honestly, that is a hugh amount of authority, isn't it? So clearly, Jesus wasn't against that we exercise any kind of authority. But in the NT, we see that it was the kind of authority that was solely given to set people free from bondage. And Jesus clearly states: You have received it for nothing; so give it for nothing (Matt 10.8). Freedom from serious illness was a prerequisite for making a living, and it still is today. So, he does not put us in the position to put conditions in place for us to use that authority that he has given us. That authority that brings opportunities for people to experience freedom, wholeness and wealth, is not there for us to manipulate others into serving us. We cannot require anything from anybody. The whole point with the authority given is to set people free from bondage, and equip, empower and release them into their divine purpose. They could choose to minister together with us and deep friendship could emerge from this. They could choose, out of a deep sense of thankfulness to bless us. But nothing of this can be required, it can only be given freely.
Are we then to refuse any gifts from anybody, like the servant of Elisha? Not at all! For Jesus says that we are to eat whatever people will offer us to eat (Luk 10), and “the worker is worthy of his support.” (Matt 10:10, NASB). What people will want to give us from the position of thankfulness and hospitality is just fine. In another warning of Jesus we read:
“A dispute also arose among them, as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.” (Luke 22.24-27, ESV)
Again, the disciples were very aware of their importance. Maybe they compared the miracles they had seen, and tried to make a “best friend of Jesus”-paradigm out of it. When miracles happen through our ministry, people receiving the miracle are generally very happy and thankful. And so are we. The position of awe and wonder is a good place to stay. When breakthroughs become more permanent, we need to guard our hearts. It has nothing to do with us, and all to do with our Anointed King Jesus.
Jesus admonishes us as his disciples to be aware when it comes to the use of titles that would make any of us more of worth than anybody else. He is not fond of labels of power and positions that is far beyond our relational influence and importance. Now, we will find people who are willing to relate to us as such - a kind of “Pope” or benefactor, as Jesus puts it, and that is why it is even more dangerous. Because this easily would nourish some desires of our flesh that has been there ever since that calamity in the garden of Eden took place. God's sad observation of this sinful “want for power” to subdue and manipulate others was this:
“You will greatly desire [the word implies a desire to control; 4:7] your husband, but he will rule over you” Genesis 3.16 (Expanded Bible)
So what came out of the fall - or rather, what came into the relationship between Adam and Eve after they sinned? Two different sides of the coin of the same mistake. She would greatly desire to control her husband, and he would rule over her. That is, out of servanthood and freedom and into suspicion, rebellion and lack of honouring at the one side and misuse of authority at the other, which is in fact also a lack of honouring (1.Pet 3.7), just in another fashion. To summarize, there is this weakness in our current human race, and God is well aware of it, so he chooses to put some boundaries in place to help us, so we can be that upside-down Kingdom that he has called us to be. Some of those boundaries is the possibility of us being percecuted, where God seems to limit his willingness to give us all power already in this age. When John and James wanted to call down fire from heaven to consume people who were not friendly with them, Jesus rebuked them (Luke 9.54-55) saying that our ministry is to be saving in it's very nature; so any violent condemnation is in God's hands and in His timing. These current power boundaries that Jesus himself demontrated in his own life and ministry, are weaknesses that according to Paul will help us be strong in God and not in any human based power-structure. It is not wrong for anybody in a country where there is freedom of speech to point out that democratic rights for Christians may be challenged as the secular society runs towards its fairy tale of being good and at the same time independant of God. But we should be aware that if it is so important to us to defend our rights, that we are willing to challenge the foundations of democracy, we are very well sawing off the very branch on which we sit and claim those rights. When Christianity has become too much about influencing society through political power structures, we've seen through church history that Christianity has been deeply afflicted by shameful abuse of power and alliances with those that do the same. Accumulation of power has a tendency of connecting those who exercise unhealthy amount of power in alliances with each other. Why is it so? Firstly, history has shown that there seems to be no limit of man's want for power. To connecting to others in the same kind of positions can increase and defend your own position. In this world, dictators seem to connect and protect each other's interests. So who would block any UN resolution against North Korea? Well, China and Russia, of course. And who are not willing to correct the villain dictator of Russia in his claims on Ukraine which he in these very days tries to implement through a wicked and cruel war? Countries like China and North Korea.
 |
| Source: www.norges-bank.no |
“They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.” (Matt 23:6-12, NASB)
Why is this title thing bothering Jesus so much? Because the real issues of man can never be solved by outward pressure and abuse. It has to come from within. And that inward change was the very thing Jesus came to purchase for us with his own precious blood. It requires us to give him our sin, for us to receive His righteousness. It takes us giving Him our miserable life, for us to receive His life of inner peace, joy and abundance. It is all Him. He moves in and takes over. Gratitude will then become the most important motivation for doing things differently, not political or organisational power structures. We have come to love Him, and we want to protect that deep and intimate relationship with Him, and the relationship with other Christians that love Him like we do. With the Pharisees and scribes, on the other hand, for most of them it was all about “church politics”, positions, entitlements and power. The Pharisees wanted everyone to acknowledge them and greet them with honour. Obviously, Jesus wasn't very fond of it, because he fiercly critized them for it. Nay, he actually harshly condemned them for it.
But we got these entitled people everywhere, Jesus. So why so frustrated? Clearly, Jesus was more angry with those who tried to pose their influence through their titles and the wordly power structures that followed and were at the same time the very ones that were there to represent His Kingdom. So Jesus describes the way things work in the world, and then he goes on to say: “But not so with you!” He's doesn't spend more time on the world. That is not where his plan to change everything starts, and Jesus' problem with the Pharicees and rulers of Israel of his time was that they had completely failed their mission and purpose as agents of God's divine change. Changed hearts can change how society works, but in Jesus' mind it starts with changed hearts not with change of wordly positions. The influence the Pharisees had tried to pose on the people was not earned through personal relationships and grown through investments of their time, attention and love. That is then power structures of this world and per definition not of His Kingdom. That does not mean that relational structures of influence are not appreciated as Kingdom like. If we know somebody well, we could introduce them to some of our other friends and give them our recommendation and give them the opportunity relate and bless each other. But that would still be influencing through relationships. In institutional churches, people are given titles that gives them influence and authority far beyond that of anything of their relational sphere. There is no “Pope” in the Kingdom of Jesus, so to speak. And that is not to say that wordly power structures is only a problem in the catholic church, because even though we might use that world “Pope” in Protestantism, “Pope”-like roles are clearly present in many Protestant churches and denomenations, as well. We might just call them by other names, like “Bishops” and even “Pastors”.
Jesus states that he does not want us to be called Father. And yet, interestingly we see that Paul calls himself “father” in his relating the church in Corinth (1. Cor 4.15). So how to we understand this? Well, Paul doesn't present himself as father in any other of his letters, and his point is that the Church of Corinth was by God's grace a result of his own time and effort. Paul didn't write an application for a position in the Church in Corinth. Rather he gave birth to the Church through his preaching the good news and training new disciples. Paul doesn't call himself a father to the church in Colossae, even though the ones who brought the gospel to Colossae was people that Paul won for Jesus and trained for the mission. Rather, he presents himself as an apostle, which was his gifting and calling. Obviously, the church in Colossae new who Paul was, since the one who planted the church there was one that was trained by Paul while in Ephesus (Acts 19.9-10). The churches in the first century did relate to each other through the foundational ministries that planted new churches and raised new ministries. Interestingly, there is a major difference between Pauls letters to the church in Colossae in the sense that he is much more general in his exhortations than when he deals with his “own” children in Corinth. To the latter there is a sense of more direct disciplin and directions in his letters, which deal practically and in details with everything from finances and fundraising to church gatherings and church disciplin related to unrepentant sexual immorality among them. We need to understand that God's kingdom is all about family and relationships. If we organize this in a completely different way than what is family, that is not an expression of kingdom life through His Church.
The mode of the gospel - powerful through weakness - and power to empower
Some of the challenges of the charismatic church today is not sign and wonders, but the lack of it. Consequently, anybody that has a breakthrough in this could easily gather quite a number of people on the basis of it. That is, it would be the case in countries where there is freedom of speech and freedom to gather. In some parts of the world, anything really kingdom-like has to happen secretly and underground and not in big public meetings. If signs and wonders give you fame, only, and not a whole lot of trouble, as Jesus promised, there is a lack of power-balance. Paul himself, complained about the harsh percecution he faced, referring to it as “an angel of Satan” (2. Cor 12). But the only answer he got from God was: “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” (2 Cor 12.9, ESV). So powerful, and yet so weak. I can understand his frustration. Here God give him the power to raise the dead and to give people to partake in eternal life, even, but he couldn't dictate his circumstances which he describes as “insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities.” (2 Cor 12:10, ESV). One major step to avoid signs and wonders becoming a people-gathering power base for the few, is to put all effort into God's restoration and building program: Everything you got from God, you are to empower and train other believers into. It's hard work, for some believers would rather gather around their heros than to take the pains to be equipped and minister themselves the aboundant grace of God. With ordinary Christians trained in the miraculous, Christians as such will become famous, and the amount of miracles will raise to a level where we'll get into real trouble. An increasingly atheistic and secular world have not invited us to challenge their position and thinking. God's existence is treath to some, so the power-balance through percecution and trouble will come in place, rather quickly.
Church and democracy - the familiy design
The Church is not about politics with a partisan mind, and we don't take decisions amongst ourselves by running campaigns to get votes to support our opinions and favourite preachers. We don't do that in families. Families are run by fathers and mothers, who do take into account different points of views and needs and tries to make decision that will be good and healthy for everybody in the family. If fathers and mothers do well, the relationship with their children will last, even though it takes a different way of dealing and sharing as they grow up - more like friends of equals as they move out from our home to establish themselves. Wise parents will increasingly address the need for the teenagers and young adults to take their own decisions and also face the consequences of choices made. Parents can speak out their opinion when asked by their grown up children, but still make it clear: “The decision, though, is yours.” Authoritarian parents might end up destroying the relationship, because their grown up children won't live like their parents' Pinocchios. This goes for the church as well.
“Care for the flock that God has entrusted to you. Watch over it willingly, not grudgingly— not for what you will get out of it, but because you are eager to serve God. Don’t lord it over the people assigned to your care, but lead them by your own good example.” (1 Peter 5:2-3, NLT)
“But I call God as witness to my soul, that to spare you I did not come again to Corinth. Not that we lord it over your faith, but are workers with you for your joy; for in your faith you are standing firm.” (2 Cor 1:23-24)
It's mandatory that we understand that the mode of leadership in God's Kingdom is that of supporting, protecting and serving. We don't own anybody. The only owner is God. We are members of His body, and as such we are each others members. But the hand don't own the foot. They both serve the purposes of the head and the head will make them cooperate and as such they are related to each other. The foot can say to the head: “Hey, make the hand scratch my itches”, but the foot cannot make the hand do so. It's up to the head, and also, it up to the hand to obey the head, which often brings us into humiliating circumstances where our character and hearts are revealed when we might be disappointed. That is why both Jesus and the apostles is so honest and clear on our need to forgive each other.
Paul addresses the issue of partisanship and divisions in the Church of Corinth. Some were Peteritarians, others were Paulinians. Others again were Apollonians. And then, of course, you have the ones that get fed of with all the mess we are likely to make out of Church, the “Me-And-Jesus-Only” fellows who didn't want to fellowship with anybody. Now, you can't have true democracy without having parties, can you? So, obviously, that is not the way to do things in church, because we are not a business, neither an administration, nor a mere organizational thing. We are the body of the Anointed One, the Messiah, a family of the redeemed, brothers and sisters in Him. Leadership if leading people among brethren, which includes both male and female. The most important thing in our relationship is that we belong to the same spiritual family, our gifting and role is secondary. And our realm of influence can only go as far as people would give us that influence. When new elders and ministries are recognized in the church, they can only function if people will receive them and trust them as their overseers. The bible says that the apostles appointed elders in the churches, but they would never appoint people that the church themselves would not recognize and receive. Obviously, there was a need to communicate with both those who were to lead and those who were to be lead. Paul instructs Timothy that new elders should be tested before they are approved (1. Tim 3.10). That testing includes the opportunity for the church members to voice their trust or distrust. In an apostolic church planting movement, the church wouldn't just vote for and as such elect their own elders. The apostles that planted that church or some member of their team would be involded in the choise. On the other hand, the apostles couldn't just pick and choose without the consent of the church. Decisions are made through testing together, and more profoundly, seeking God and hearing from Him together. The nature of the church is so different from the world in this respects. There is this “we and the Holy Spirit have decided” which gives a completely different dimension. And yet, the most successful businesses and societies would follow the same pattern and mode of leadership, where leadership is about trust, where leaders will have to invest into people to be able to exercise their influence and leadership in a growth model where their example will breed new leaders of the same kind. God's design for mandkind works everywhere.
Finances and financial power in the light of the bible
Cleary, both the Old and the New testaments supports the idea of private ownership. In the early church we do see a lot of people who sold properties to support a new apostolic movement. Many people had come to Jerusalem and they needed to stay to receive proper training through the apostles. The strategy of the first apostles in Jerusalem was to stay there and train and send people.The support from people who had premises to sell, made that initial strategy possible. It's always fun to stay around apostles, though, and it took a fervent presecution to actually spread the people (Act 8). Peter makes it clear when dealing with Ananias that lied about the value of a sold property:
“While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” (Acts 5.4, NASB)
The problem with what Ananias and his wife did, was not that the gave less to the apostolic work than what was the value of the property. They had the freedom to keep and to give whatever they wanted. The problem was that they wanted people to believe that the gave the very sum they sold their property for, and that wasn't true. They were hypocrites. The church in Jerusalem was in a very special fundational phase for the ministry of bringing the gospel to the ends of the earth, and even though the apsotles at this time didn't really see the scope of what they were involved in, there was a massive sense of calling and destiny that opened up an immense level of generousity. People had to share to survive, and the financial burden of a whole new wordwhile ministry, was more than the people involved were able to carry. That is some of the background for Paul organizing a fundraiser among the churches he had a relationship to. It was to help the many poor in the church of Jerusalem. Pauls argument in 2. Cor 8 where he talks about the fundraising, is that it ought to be equality, and uses the Law as Scriptural support for his view: When they picked Manna, it was always enough, but not more than enough. This idea of having enough for your own needs, is supported other places in Scriptures as well:
“Keep deception and lies far from me,
Give me neither poverty nor riches;
Feed me with the food that is my portion” (Proverbs 30.8, NASB)
So, at the one hand the New Testament supports a divine level generousity, not communism - where private ownership is neglected and cancelled. On the other hand, it is very clear that equality is an ideal that we as a church is committed to achieve and demonstrate. As such, producing wealth can be a blessing, if we could only handle financial abundance right. In reality, there is a lot to be done and hugh failures through church history, like when the church has become a part of oppressive regimes that keep people in poverty and need, rather than speaking up against corruption and oppression and supporting the poor.
As far as the society is concerned, there are different political views on whether help to the poor is to be regulated by law, and as such, become part of the constitution and the “state government”. From a biblical perspective it should always pay to work, and Paul states that those “not willing to work” are “not to eat, either.” (2. Thess 3.9). On the other hand, those employing should be willing to pay generously, and James condemns rich people indulging themselves in riches while holding back a righteous pay for their workers (James 5.4-6). The bible teaches a “fair share” message; the kingdom of God is waging an aggressive, yet peaceful war on evil; sin, sickness, poverty and abuse. The kingdom will require of us both generousity and justice. It's a part of being obedient to the gospel, which Paul makes clear in 2. Cor 8. The question remains: If the society would want to put God's principles of equality on one side and it “should pay to work” on the other; how would that look like. The example we do have, is the community that the Israelites had in the OT times, where the Law was part of the consitution so to speak. There are several interesting principles and laws that put direct limits on how much wealth one person could accumulate. One of this was the Year of Jubilee.
“During this year, the Israelites experienced freedom and liberty: Slaves were freed; debts were canceled; the land was left fallow; family property was redeemed (Lev 25:10–17). The fact that Jesus quoted Is. 48:8, 9 seems to indicate that Jesus equated His earthly ministry with the principles of the Year of Jubilee (Luke 4:18, 19).” (Notes from NKJV Study Bible)
There was no such thing as a family property being lost for ever among the Israelites. The family property was land to provide food and shelter and was regarded as a minimum level of social standard that was not to be taken permanently away for the redeemed and free people; the people of God. It could be sold, but just until the next Year of Jubilee, and the price of the property was linked to the number of years until the next Year of Jubilee. So, a family could have to work on their property, as mere employees, where profit was considered a repayment, but for no more than a generation. What would be left of their debt, would also be canceled at the Year of Jubilee. The message of redemption is as such woven into this Israelite financial constitution. The one obliged to buy the land to pay the debts of a family, was the nearest relative, and he was named a redeemer. On the other hand, this was not something that they could choose to do if they felt like it. From God's perspective it was an obligation. The people of Israel were punished for their unwillingness to fulfill God's covenant, and releasing back to the poor their properties was a part of that picture (Ez 18.12).
When the people of Israel asked for a king “like all the other nations” (1. Sam 8.5), God warned them that this would threaten their freedom and financial equality that was an integral part of their coventant with God (1.Sam 8.10-17). One man on the throne would put the same burden on them as the prophet-led kingdom of priesthood, and that was only the start. In the end they would end up as slaves rather than free men and they would cry to God. Now, we can see the same warning here, as in the warning from Jesus. There is this accumulation of power and wealth in few and ultimately in one hand. So king can have you prosper, and the king can have you dead. From God's perspective, the Israelites were still to be prophet-led, and throughout history of Israel, God used his prophets to warn them and their kings. The kings that understood that the nation of Israel had it's very root and fullfilment as a nation prophet-led “kingdom of priest” were successful. King David even brought the relevation about worship from the heart as the ultimate offering to God, and the priestly ministry was transformed from being a mere “butchery”. Unfortunately, though God did predict the end of the apostate want for a king to symbolize their strength, courage and wealth, like those kings in the nations around them, it ended in calamity and captivity in Babylon. Many of the OT prophets warned about this consequence of Israel's apostacy, but God also had the possibility of repentance and restoration in mind for them. When Ezekiel prophecies about the restoration and reformation of Israel, the restoration is put in an context of an OT order of worship and rightous civil and social laws. In this, God is specificly adding boundaries to the leadership in terms of wealth.
“This is what the Sovereign LORD says: You have gone far enough, princes of Israel! Give up your violence and oppression and do what is just and right. Stop dispossessing my people, declares the Sovereign LORD.” (Ezekiel 45.9, NIV)
God repeat this, sayint that the King, which is now described as a prince, should never take from the land and inheritance that did not originaly belong to him (Ez 46.18), not even for his sons. Repetition might mean that this is of special importance, or that it has been a bigger issue in the past. But most likely, both. God is fervent about social justice, and it is not only suggestions from His side. Lack of social justice is a recurring theme in messages of the prophets, like in this prophecy in the book of the prophet Amos:
“4 This is what the LORD says:and I will not let them go unpunished!
They have rejected the instruction of the LORD,
refusing to obey his decrees.
They have been led astray by the same lies
that deceived their ancestors.
5 So I will send down fire on Judah,
and all the fortresses of Jerusalem will be destroyed.’
6 This is what the LORD says:
‘The people of Israel have sinned again and again,
and I will not let them go unpunished!
They sell honorable people for silver
and poor people for a pair of sandals.
7 They trample helpless people in the dust
and shove the oppressed out of the way.
Both father and son sleep with the same woman,
corrupting my holy name.
8 At their religious festivals,
they lounge in clothing their debtors put up as security.
In the house of their gods,
they drink wine bought with unjust fines.’ (Amos 2:4-8, NLT)
What seems to be upsetting God, is the willingness to take advantage of other peoples trouble, for one's own benefit. When people are in a difficult financial situation, there is the possibility of taking advantage of that vulnerability in order to enrich oneself. The motivation is not to help people back on track, but to take from the the dignity and their chance to restore a functional and stable way of living where they can take care of themselves.
With wealth comes power, because you get in a place where you can bless others. That is not inherently evil; you are supposed to share. But this can easily degenerate to a “blessed club” - those that support the blesser, in the sense that they become “yes men”, lest they could risk to be thrown out of the club. It could be family members that would be loyal to you for this reason, or loyalty that comes by joining the club. Nothing is easier than giving away something that doesn't really belong to you. The OT story of the ungodly King Ahab is well known. He tried first to buy, then to steal Naboth's vineyard, enteased by Jezebel who told him: “Are you the king of Israel or not?... I'll get you Naboth's vineyard.” Here you have the attitude that comes with the king “like all the other nations” - one that does not have to be accountable to anybody. Such kings wouldn't need to follow the rules that other people in his kingdom would need to follow. And with the authority, especially if it is exercised rudely, there is the possibility of hiding iniquities by manipulating others into doing the dirty job. Ahab and Jezebel did learn, though, that there was a prophet in Israel. God's judgement on their unrepented hearts were both stern and final. Naboth's reason for not wanting to sell his family property was the principle that God has put in place:
“But Naboth replied, ‘The LORD forbid that I should give you the inheritance that was passed down by my ancestors.’ ” (1 Kings 21.3, NLT)
For Naboth to sell the family inheritance was no option at all. How could he? That would be rebellion and disobedience against God. His obedience to the finanical order of God cost him his very life. God's ideal is that there is a minimum of social security that will give everyone the opportunity to make a living that can never be long-term lost.
Power-sharing and social justice in our modern time
If we were to take the principles from the bible and apply them to our modern societies, there is a lot of things to consider. Our countries might not have a system where land is divided and given to tribes and families. Also, our western societies are much more individualised and organized around elementary families than the typical multigenerational model of the middle east. In that model there were more people to produce what was needed and there was more people to be fed. The social security system was made around the bigger family that were not that vulnerable to individual challenges that might arise, like sickness or accidents. The whole multigenerational family worked towards a common goal of getting food, building shelters for themselves and their animals, and raising kids. Out modern model gives more individual freedom, but it comes with a price, and if we are to make sure everyone has a minimum of social welfare, we need to find a way to do it. We could say that social security is totally a personal choice of family members or strangers that is in the position to help. But in Israel, a certain level of social security was an integral part of God's law and as such the law of the society itself. The system also made sure that a family or a tribe couldn't get enormously rich by putting the others out of business. The system gave everyone opportunities to make it, and more than make it. But there was boundaries. They couldn't take ownership of means of productivity that belonged to other families and tribes. My personal understanding of this is that the bible shows us a middle ground between puritan, raw capitalism in the one end and socalist communism in the other. How this middle ground is to be realized, though, is not given in Scriptures, and several models might work with their inherent strengths and weaknesses. What is clear, though, is that accumulation of power in very few hands is not viewed as an ideal from a God's kingdom perspective. As such that is not something Christians should promote, be it in church life or in the society as a whole.
Media - an important mitigating correction to people of power
Most people would add media as a fourth branch of influence and power. Without independant media, it is unlikely that corruption and fraud would be revealed and made known to the public. For the media to fulfill their role, it is important that they are given both freedom and rules to follow. Some of these rules are there to make sure that certain views are not repressed, and different views and perspectives is to be presented. This is important to actually implement freedom of speech. If persons, groups or organizations are mentioned, they have to right to have they voices heard about the matter that has been referred to. Privacy is to be respected, and pictures of private character cannot be published without consent. A problem arises if media becomes a mouthpiece of propaganda and gets extremely biased, and specially if that is on behalf of people who already have more power than ordinary people. Different media houses might have different ideological basis, but even then they should still be obligated to publish posts from people with different views within the frame of freedom of speech. I know some would would call most media houses in Norway for MSM, but in the area of revealing corruption and fraud in government, media houses in my own home country, have shown no mercy, whether bad stuff happens when the left side is in office or when it happens when the right side is in office. Currently the left is in position in Norway, and two ministers have had to resign in around 6 months, and in both cases the media have played an active role. Modern democracy is built upon a certain level of trust, and that trust also relates to media. To introduce chaos and anarchy in this area are a known method of non-democratic powers and intentions. Just look at how Russia under Putin is denying and withstanding obvious facts to the degree of “comical Ali”. That facts cannot be established is the case in every country where there is corruption and misuse of power. And when facts cannot be established, nobody knows what to believe any more, and they stop caring. A living and sound democracy is based on a high level of trust. If trust is pulverized, so is democracy and you easily get a high level of conflict and war is soon around the corner.
The power of media also has to be governed in a sound way. If media can publish stories they know not to be true, they should not escape unpunished. To make a mistake is kind of human, in those cases media should be obligated to correct their errors appropriately as soon as possible. Different media houses would look after and challenge each other in respect to their compliance with the laws and rules that regulate their role and business, but there should be access to have complaints assessed in an independant body. In really serious cases a more ordinary trial might be necessary, but the entrance gate to have complaint seriously considered should be low and not dependant upon financial resources. A challenge arises if truth as in mere facts are made altogether relative.
Sharing of finances - why it does matter
That leads us to what I think should be consideres the 5th branch of power: access to finances. With enough money, virtually anything can be bougth. If we look at how Putin has taken Russia further and further into totalitarian dictatorship, media is a major factor. He has used his very rich friend to get control over media, and when there is little left that is actually indepedant, the process goes on to supress what is left. If the judicial branch gets politicized and less independant, a politically controlled judicial becomes a tool for illegitimate accusations and trials that can effectively take any independant media out of business. Ironically, the ones that should be put trial is the very government that these media houses are trying to expose. Anyway, few people listen to their stuff, because they are already peripheral compared to government controlled media, so likely there is not much fuzz about it among the majority of people. There is a danger to democracy if what it takes to have a fair trial, or to have their voice heard in media, is a lot of money. It might be that there should be a limit to how rich a person, a family, or an organization could get. Most modern democracies have rules against monopolies and misuse of monopolistical power. In my home country to make a search on the web is to google something. That gives some companies some benefits that no other company will have. To challenge a company like Google in the area of web search could get next to impossible. Again, if any of these technological platforms should become very biased and policitized, that would become a threat to democracy. It might sound contradictory, but there is a need for politicians to set some limiting rules on themselves and different branches of societies where a single person or organization might have the potential to accumulate to much power. History proves that if too much power is gathered in too few hands, it is going to be misused. There is little evidence that our human race is going to handle such a challenge well before Jesus comes back. Thus, there is only one possible way to do this, and that is have check and balances in place.
Another point to make concerning finances as a fifth branch of power, can also be taken from history. For democracy to work properly, there have to be a minimum of sharing of wealth. If people do not have their basic needs met, it will not take long before nobody cares about who they are going to vote for. Whether those they vote for will continue to honour the principles that put them in power, or whether they are going to wipe that out and exchange it with a dictatorship, is irrelevant in such a situation. Give us food! Now, then people do get food and their fundamental needs as food, clean water and somewhere to sleep safely, that is when things like freedom to make a business and freedom of speech would matter. If the choice is between die from hunger or die from hunger, who cares if that happens under a legitimately elected government or not. This is where the western world have failed numours times. Bombs don't promote democracy, even though they might help to get rid of a dictator. Democracy is fragile and not the most effective instrument to handle a crises. The period between the two World Wars is an interesting study in that respect. When those who would normally vote find themselves really striving to survive, we will find them willing to vote for virtually anybody, and most likely a big mouthed, nationalistic and populist person that think of themselves that they are the saviour of the nation, if not the world. And why should such a person respect democracy? The survival of the nation is dependant upon them being the Chancellor or the President or whatever they might call the position. What is important to understand, is that everything what such person actually will do, is not all evil. Not even Hitler did only bad stuff in the beginning, and that is why people trusted him to raise Germany from the devastation of the WW I. He talked and he acted in a way that people could understand and follow, specially under the given circumstances. There is a God-given need to do contribute with something and that your efforts will pay. In the long run, we'll need to activate people into contributing positively and give them credit for it. So when the German Chancellor gave people the chance to work for benefit and a hope, they were initially thankful. If we as a modern democratic country think that we are morally superior to those who believed that even Hitler would be the solution to their problems in the beginning, we are actually even more vulnerable to those mechanisms that led him to power and eventually into dictatorship. That is being naive. To protect democractic principles that has historically proved to fail in it's mission of bringing necessary relief and a framework for life support, isn't going to be easy, even though we think that we “know more” todat. There can be a “perfect storm” that might overturn values that would otherwise be important to us. As we enter the 2020's, we see a lot of tendencies that tell us that people's belief in democracy is not on the move. In the country that consider themself to be the very protector and promoter of democracy and the “free world”, a huge number of people don't even think that their nation is able to conduct a free and fair election, so “rigged” and “stolen” is words that are regularly used about the Precidential election. I still believe that democracy, with all it's inherent weaknesses, is by far the best form of government until Jesus returns, even from a biblical perspective. But one of it's greatest weakness is that politics and politicians might become more about who good they are and how bad the other parties are, more than searching to find political solutions across the dividing lines that will serve the country and the people well. Some times a party's political views are almost defined by what other parties think, just that it is the opposite. It becomes us and them, and as humans, we are sadly very susceptible to such rhetoric. It's like when we first fell in love. All was beautiful and there was no faults. We can find excuse for any faults and limitations. To be with that one person, becomes a part of our identity and happiness. Politics, though, are mostly about finding practical solutions to practical problems. It is when politics do not fascilitate a framework where most people are able to make it, that we are prone to ask for the “strong man” and be willing to give him more power than is healthy. Or we make one particular political issue so important that it that it overrides everything else, while politics is really more about finding a balance between different competing values and considerations. We build modern and complex societies where technology make changes happen faster, and we see and different common challenges give the administrations and governments in the world a really hard time responding adequately and quickly enough. We can just add the words like pandemic, environmantal challenges and war into this, and we can see some of the picture. Politicians cannot magically provide food if there is none. We might think we are doing the right thing, and then “boom” something happens that changes the picture dramatically. The thing is that our governments desperately need our prayers, support and not the least: us hearing from God.
Godliness and good leadership
In the bible we see how the prophets play an important role to give divine advice. That is the difference between Zion coming down from heaven, from God, and we trying to build our Babylon to reach up to heaven. Nothing can replace the favour, blessing and guidance of God. And God has made this world such that without him we are just not going to make it. You can add man made religion into that picture - religion is just something that adds division and is a dangerous tool in the hands of governmental and military bodies. It adds fuel to conflicts between people groups and becomes a tool for discrimination, wars and calamities. True faith in God, in the other hand, brings peace and change people from within, as leaven in the dough. It is not very visible, but it is very effective. It is puzzling that Spirit filled, living Christianity works best where it has do go underground because of pressure from the outside. As soon as it becomes easy going, we seem to be quick to replace a true need for God with good theology (or at least we think it is) and self serving activities. We start going to church instead of being and living it where we do our daily lives. We need to understand that Jesus is extremely different from religion. Actually, religious people where the very ones Jesus got most angry with. And it us not enough to point our fingers at everything traditional. The question everyone has to ask is this: Are we a true representation of the Messiah, God's Anointed Servant and King? His understanding was that His Kingdom was not of this world. And yet he didn't say that His Kingdom was not in the world. His plan is not escape plan, but an invasion plan. His weapons is not bombs or division between genders, race, cultures or social classes. His weapons are love, peace, forgiveness and reconciliation. Your opinions matter, but your life and actions matter more.
Summary and conclusion
We've seen to far that the bible does not promote accumulation of power and wealth in few hands as long as this corruptable world exists. Democracy built on power sharing principles with check and balances has proven to be the best governance, bringing security and wealth. Yet, it has it's flaws. It can decide to end itself if it does not succeed giving most people preconditions to achieve safe and happy lives. Also, our modern democracies could choose moral corruption that in the long run would be a threat to wealth, safety and happiness. No society who has prevalently rebelled against God, have ever survived. It takes the blessing and protection of our Lord to keep our countries safe and sound, and to protected against countries whose people and leadership does not honour the principles of God's kingdom. When Israel rebelled against God, they ended up serving leaders that were ungodly, harsh and without compassion. It is true that good leadership will help a nation. But it is also true that widespread corruption among ordinary people will lead to downfall of a safe and sound governance. That is why our mission to make disciples of the nations is important. Now, Jesus has a down-up approach to this. We don't baptize nations. We baptize individuals. Spirit-filled and upright people may influence even ungodly leadership, as we see in the book of Daniel. He and his friends were people with integrity. But Daniel also had a prophetic gift that made a wicked king listen to him and Daniel eventually won him over. Reformation and true protection for our countries can only come through radical and revivalist Christianity, not dead religion. Within that framework, different flavours of democratic administration and government can work pretty well. But in the end, wealth and success without godliness and a God-driven purpose and vision to lead will always lead to a downfall.
