NORTHERN STYLE NEWSWATCH No. 31 CREDO (3 of 3)
` Is not my house right with God?'

So say the words of verse 5 of the twenty-third chapter of the Second Book of Samuel in the New International Version of the Bible. They are contained within `the last words of David' and reveal the total trust David had in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in outworking His Covenanted promises given so many years earlier.

It could be said that there is also a certain self-satisfaction lying within those words, as recorded in the New International Version, for the House of David was anything but right with God, and it is only when we turn to other versions that we can begin to see a slight but steady change of understanding. And as this Credo concerns the real changes that have occurred in the nations of the West over the centuries - which are still changing very rapidly today - this verse of Scripture seems very pertinent. (As an aside, we are not advocating a return to reading only the King James Version of the Bible, but we are suggesting that when undertaking serious Bible study the comparison of several versions is sensible in order to arrive at the clear meaning of what is being studied.) The 1611 version of the Bible reveals these words as: `Although my House be not so with God yet . . '. At once this removes any suggestion of self-satisfaction in David's words, for he was not looking at what was clearly evident in Israel but was entirely trusting in GOD who spoke through Nathan the prophet: (1 Chronicles 17:10b-11)

" I declare to you that the LORD will build a house for you. When your days are over and you go to be with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for Me, and I will establish his throne for ever. "

There we shall leave this Scripture (but will return to it later) wishing to pick up on that change we first noticed when reading it and moving it into our present-day secular world. We have noted on several occasions that the `world' we now live in does not exist - in the sense that what we now live in is a world created by an earlier generation. The hopes and fears of a particular generation bring about real changes which often take decades to materialize. Seen in its basic form is the desire of parents to do better for their children, for the decades of the 1960's through to the end of the 1990's can be said to have been `good years' - as far as material wealth and physical health go - with hitherto unknown opportunities for personal advancement and travel among the nations of the West, to the point where it could be said, with reasonable confidence, if not with a little self-righteousness, `is not my house right with God'?

Yet those who watch will have seen a slow and steady change, which in time will become a complete reversal of what is being `said' at this time. We see it in political words being spoken about of `completing the radical reform of the State system'; we see it in the continual `reforming' of the education curriculum; the caving in of political parties to aggressive lobby groups; the encouragement for people to continue to work past the `retirement age'; `Foundational Hospitals' is now the political watchword, and there is talk of people having to provide additional personal retirement pensions for themselves, while on a national level whispers abound concerning the disestablishment of the State Church! Taking this through to an international level, the recent war in Iraq without UN approval signalled a significant shift in the internationally accepted legality of a `just war'. The increasingly dominant globalization of trade leaves a government unable to protect the welfare and prosperity of its people in a way that was unknown only a few short years earlier.

Many Christian ministries, alarmed at the moral decay in their countries, and sensing the changes which are occurring, look back to what they consider to have been a `golden age' and advocate a return to `family values' as a panacea for the moral decay that rightly concerns them. Other ministries think more in national terms, and in Great Britain they talk of the ignoring of the Coronation oath by the present Queen to uphold the Protestant faith as the prime reason for the deteriorating state of affairs in this country. Still other ministries seek to raise again the `spirit' of earlier Christian movements which clearly changed the climate of the country in their day. Unfortunately there was no golden age, and change is the natural order of the nations and peoples of the world. At the present time we are in the throes of a change that will, once completed, totally alter the governing of the nation in which we live as well as the surrounding nations. It therefore seems sensible to spend a while in looking briefly at the changes that have occurred over the centuries, which have brought us as a nation to where we are now, in order to prepare our thinking for what lies ahead! This is far more than an intellectual exercise, for there is a pattern to these changes through which God works, and His servants would do well to consider them in order to be more effective in the proclamation of the Gospel of the Kingdom into which we have been called. Politicians and revolutionaries do indeed pay heed to these matters and are therefore often more effective in bringing about changes in society.

We wrote earlier of one Emmanuel Kant, a philosopher of the Enlightenment period, who, dreaming of what he called `Perpetual Peace', believed that by changing or introducing political institutions or systems this `Peace' could be achieved. Another philosopher of that period, an Englishman by name of Thomas Hobbs, was responsible for what is now accepted as a basic political theory, which is: That mankind living in an anarchic world needed strong government against the excessive power of the elite, whilst at the same time allowing the elite to exercise their talents to provide the wealth that provided for the people's welfare - with the proviso that if the ruling government did not perform these two functions it could be replaced by a democratic vote. A further now discredited political thought came through a man called Hegal. He saw the State as the supreme organ of power embodied in a single all-powerful leader who was an expression of the total will of the people. That led to the rise of National Socialism and the horror of the last World War!

The real and terrible battle fought between advocates of these theories eventually led to the prolonged period of `peace' - through which most of those who read this will have lived - and caused a modern historian, Francis Fukuyama, to write in 1989 that `we have seen the end of history'. Many people scorned that expression without reading what Fukuyama was saying - that he saw one political theory had gained dominance over all the others and that which is called `western liberal democracy' had prevailed and would thereafter be the dominant form of State system which would spread over the world - a kind of Kantian `Perpetual Peace' and `the end of (the) `history' (of war)'. There is here, perhaps without realising it, a self-satisfaction that can be seen in the nations in the West which states that `with the end of history, is not my house right with God'? With these thoughts in mind we would step back to that which historians accept as the beginnings of the Nation State - as we understand that expression.

This brief overview concerns political events in Europe, for it was in that Cauldron that the concept was conceived of what is now the accepted State system in most countries of the world in some form or other. Within the confines of a Newswatch this overview must of necessity be brief and general. Nevertheless it will give a broad understanding of the legal constitutional nature of government, and we need not travel too far back to fix a point in time where we can begin to see this appearing. It emerged out of a feudal system which held sway over western Europe together with the other dominating system of the Roman Catholic Church, for these two systems of power outworked their authority within the same territorial areas - one religious, yet spawning offshoots in the educational and bureaucratic fields; the other exercising power through war and aggression! And so there was continuous conflict, both needing each other's strengths yet exploiting each others weaknesses.

There were no fixed territorial boundaries in early medieval times such as we know today. Europe was the hunting ground of feudal princes, who by marriages and alliances often found their fiefdoms scattered over large areas of Europe. Cementing these together was the `universal authority' of the Church, always seeking overall authority in what would become known as Christendom - the universal Kingdom of Christ, whose Vicarious Presence was the Pope ruling in the Catholic Church. Authority, as always, needs a legal basis to fall back on in case of a challenge to that authority. Such was the universal power of the Church in that feudal society that princes and ruling barons in their disputes (which inevitably led to war to settle them, together with treaties to enforce the rights of the victors) sought to enshrine their legality through the pronouncements of the Church, whose Head, the Pope, exercised enormous power over the political authorities of those days.

However, by the mid-fifteenth century this system was being challenged by the changing dynamics of making war. Princes could no longer stay secure within their high towers, neither could ruling dynastic houses be secure within the high walls of their city states. Both faced the onslaught of the power of explosives for the age of the bombardier and cannon ended the long siege campaigns of earlier years. Princes in their high towering castles together with dynastic rulers in the cities faced the same possible demise through the mighty cannon, and slowly medieval society was forced into the beginning of a recognizable localized state system - a ruling prince protecting a bureaucratic city state, who accepted this protection and provided the legal, educational and administrative conditions to pacify the population, all under the benevolence of the Church! And so a pattern which lasted until today began to emerge: Power exercised by the elite, who sought legality for their rulership but then found that authority challenged, and so through wars and violence established a ruling system which brought about `peace' enshrined in a Constitution.

The constitutional system of princely states, fought over and forged by many long years, was finally settled and enshrined in the Treaty of Augsburg, which came out of the Peace of Augsburg in 1555. The battle over a universal Christendom under one ruler, the Pope, as opposed to individual state structures under the rulership of their choice was determined by this Peace, which received its legitimacy in an acceptance by the victors. Remembering an earlier comment regarding the understanding of Thomas Hobbs that mankind lives in an anarchic world, the Peace of Augsburg then produced the next challenge to this authority which would lead, through wars, to a Peace . . a Constitution . . a Treaty . . thereby legitimizing the next recognizable form of State power. Once again the challenge was seen in the rule of a universal power against autonomous states under the rulership of a King or Sovereign Prince.

Those remembering the history lessons of an earlier age will recall that these wars were labelled as `the Reformation' and `the wars of the Habsburgs', who had taken on the mantle of the authority of the Holy Roman Empire. Some Christians see it as a struggle to establish the `Protestant Faith' and often limit their understanding of this to a constant attack against `Popery'. Others, usually through `political spindoctoring', seize upon the glory of the `Tudor Reign', but these are narrow views of what was occurring through many decades of horrifying civil wars which so ravaged Europe. These wars eventually led to the Peace of Westphilia in 1648, and its Constitution, being accepted by the victors, legally established the sovereign rights of kings ruling over identifiable national boundaries. But these wars broke the dreams and power of a universal Christendom under the authority of an Emperor legitimized by the Catholic Church! The kingly States were now to form the solid understanding of the constitutional legitimacy of Statehood - a recognition of the sovereignty of each other's States and their internal system of government - although it would not stop the wars and bitter in-fighting which is the nature of mankind in a Hobbsian anarchic world. These kingly States were in constant conflict, but always within the concept of adding to or defending the sovereignty of a king's autonomy. As always, this constitutional State system faced an immediate challenge, which would lead once again to the usual pattern unfolding and the foundation of another identifiable State system!

Through the horrors of the wars, which finally ended, came the emergence of `Kingly States', whose identity was encapsulated in the person of a King . . an increasing concern over the territory over which he ruled . . national boundaries becoming of paramount importance, the protection of which became a national concern . . a military force to protect its integrity . . a bureaucratic system to tax and control its citizens, and the reaching out in trade and commerce to other such States in order to enhance the prestige of the State. Change was once again occurring, and such were the driving forces that finally brought in a State focussed on the prestige of the State rather than on the magnificance of the king. It would lead to the French and American Revolutions. It was a time of tremendous upheaval as kings went to war, but in destroying each other they hastened the end of the kingly State and brought in a State system enshrined in the dominance of the State and its territorial integrity - the legitimacy of the new State system being established once again by the victors in the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. Large and powerful State systems would now emerge, leading eventually to those we can more easily recognise in our present-day world: The great State powers of Russia, the Austrio/Hungarian Empire, Great Britain, and the emerging power of Prussia - which would soon become the driving force culminating in the unified State power of Germany! Today we are familiar with the notion of a Nation State, now more than ever with the news media coverage of events unfolding in Europe with its dire threats of the disintegration of the `Nation States'. But before we can arrive at that point we need to bring into focus the State system which forms the basis of much of the British notion of honour and valour which came to dominance in the time of the British Empire.

The challenge to the territorial State system would soon come and would lead through the usual terrible war to the principle of the constitutional State Nation being established through the Congress of Vienna in 1815. This naming of a political system is no pendantic use of words! The State Nation is one that emphasized above all else the sanctity of the State - indeed at its height it all but deified the State, calling upon all the people to expend all their energies and talents to its glorification. Such slogans as `My country, right or wrong' expressed the ethos of the times! Old posters depicting a finger-pointing mustachioed military man with the caption `Your country needs you' can still be remembered, and the music of the times caught the imagination of the people with its military emphasis. It would lead to the terrible Great War when its legitimacy as a State system was challenged, softened now by the sentimentality of the war poems of Wilfred Owen, Siegfried Sassoon and Rupert Brook. But it is in such personalized events, as were caught by those words and music, that we can look back and see what were the political results of such tragedies!

First, however, wars led to the Congress of Vienna - which was the legitimizing of the State Nation political system - and accepted by the victors as the legitimate form of government in Europe and neighboring countries dominated by Europe. History records them as the war of `the French Revolution' and the `Napoleonic Wars'. Emanating from France, they challenged the authority of territorial States as once again the dream of a universal Europe was the vision of its leaders. Power in the State Nation was of course in the hands of a powerful elite, for universal suffrage, in the form of an elected Parliament by the people, was for a time yet to come. Here was the strength but also the weakness of the State Nation - its strength in that a powerful elite dominated the State system so that decisions could be made quickly without recourse to a popular elected assembly; its weakness in the need to harness the popular support of the masses in order to avoid a civil war or revolution that had torn through the heart of Europe. Spindoctoring is not a modern invention! We all need to be aware of the manipulation that comes through the media, even more so when it is in the hands of an elitist group! But the dreams of a universal Europe, at that time, died with Napoleon, and through the Treaty of Vienna the legality of the State Nation as a political system was established which would be the dominant State system of government. However, having to call upon the participation of the mass of people and harness them to its success was the next challenge to the State Nation.

A subtle but real change was now under way, and it was unstoppable! The State Nation in the hands of an elite was clearly not responsible TO the people it sought to harness to its establishment; it was only responsible FOR the nation. This subtle change would lead to a broadening of political suffrage where the people would not only demand to be heard but they would become the dominant power seen now in the form of a Parliamentary democracy such as has dominated contemporary times. Through the necessity of allowing a popular Parliamentary democracy to be established the State system ethos once again changed from being responsible for the nation to being responsible for the people of the nation, and the wars which tore through Europe, beginning in 1914, were battles to determine which system would prevail! It was to be a conflict lasting many decades between the competing ideologies of Fascism, Communism and Parliamentarianism, once again revealing the dominant forces always at work in Thomas Hobbs' anarchic world - for both Fascism and Communism contained a universal ethos within them . . a 1000 year Reich . . the universal socialist power of the people.

Set against these two forces was Parliamentary Democracy - the right of the people to determine their own destiny with the State taking full responsibility for the protection, care and provision for its people. The wars to determine which system would be victorious spread over many long decades! Fascism was defeated in the war against Nazi Germany, but it was not until the total collapse of the former Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War that it was clearly established that Parliamentary Democracy, in its many forms and enshrined in the Nation State, was now the prevailing State system. It was established through the Peace of Paris in 1990, which led to the words of the historian Francis Fukuyama; `This is the end of history'. Earlier attempts to establish this Peace were seen in the setting up of the League of Nations - later the United Nations - but it was not until the dominance of one system over the others was complete could it be said that the Nation State, as we know it today, was finally established and legally confirmed by the victors accepting (and forcing all others to accept) the principles of the United Nations - now the only legitimizing power of aspiring Statehood accepted by the international community.

Unfortunately Francis Fukuyama has turned out to be a false prophet (if indeed he ever claimed to be one within the context of the meaning of his words) for a challenge to the authority of the Nation State was quick to follow the Peace of Paris in 1990 through the wars that broke out in the former Yugoslavia - where we swiftly saw the legitimizing authority of the assembly of Nation States, the United Nations, confirming statehood upon several of the regions that had made up the former Republic. It was not that these wars in themselves were a challenge to the Nation State, for in a fallen world this is the way in which political systems are forged and countries established. What signalled the beginning of the challenge to the supremacy of the Nation State was the act of war by one legally established State (Serbia) against another legally accepted State (Bosnia) without any action being taken by the United Nations to defend one of its own members. The United Nations has no authority to intervene in civil wars, but it was a clear breach of its authority in ignoring the actions of Serbia and this signalled the beginning of its demise as a legitimizing power! The recent war in Iraq even more clearly signalled the ineffectiveness of the United Nations as one State violated the sovereignty of another through invasion, with no action being taken to enforce the authority of the international community centered in the United Nations.

Neither events should be unexpected for, as we have set out, State systems are not an evolving form of government leading to a Kantian `Perpetual Peace'. State systems change through wars over ideologies being fought over long periods, culminating in a Peace Conference out of which comes a Constitution which is regarded by the victorious nation as binding upon its peer nations. However, because we live in a fallen world (or, as Thomas Hobbs called it, an anarchic world) the dominant State system immediately becomes challenged . . . . That is where the nations of the world find themselves today, and that conflict will continue to be between two dominant ideologies - one, a universal empire against the integrity of the individual autonomous State.

What, then, is the purpose of this Credo? We would suggest that it is in order to trace a movement through an established historical period, which when `sieved' through Scripture will give us a solid foundation from which to know and understand the times in which we live so that we can prepare for what lies ahead in order to be effective for God in the proclamation of the Gospel of the Kingdom. Without wishing to condemn others we would however suggest that without a thorough understanding of historical events much of our speaking will be merely religious rhetoric and our prayer life, based on the messages and rhetoric emmanating from some Christian Ministries, will become ineffective and have little Scriptural or historical basis upon which to stand. Unfortunately, within the English culture there is an endearing but false habit of institutionalizing its past symbols of State power, whether they be religious or monarchical, into other quasi-state organizations, such as English Heritage, which give a semblance of power rather than the actual for they belong to a past State Age. (Indeed, invisible `brown plaques' could well be seen over many of our religious and State institutions, if we had spiritual eyes to see them.) State power in the United Kingdom is, for the present, invested solely in Parliament, through the ruling government of the day - which even now is seeing its authority being eroded by the emerging dominance of the European Union. There is no `golden age' to which this country can return! As we have set out, State systems wax and wane and the social and patriotic ethos of particular times are set within those times. A change of a State system of government will always be brought about through violent wars leading to a `Peace' through the victory of a particular ideology, legitimized by the victors into a Constitution, to be accepted as the new State system by the prevailing `International Community' - as it is now called!

At this point we would return to the verse from which the title of this Credo comes, for the modern version in which it is written could well indicate the attitude of much of our religious life - `Is not my `church' right with God' could well be a latter-day statement from many pulpits! However on this occasion we shall turn back to the `Received Text', as it is known, to hear the true `last words of David'. We see in the first three verses that although the words were spoken by David the origin was not, for:

"The Spirit of the LORD spoke by me,
and His Word was in my tongue.
The God of Israel said,
the Rock of Israel spoke to me. "
If they were His Words then they are of extreme importance! The expression itself `the (last) words springs from two Hebrew words `Millah' and `Dabar' which have a meaning of `royal or divine decree' in the form of a discourse which is a revelation. We should pay heed to `the last words of the LORD spoken by me' for it is the LORD, the Covenant keeping God of Israel who is in discourse with His people! Speaking through David the LORD calls David `the anointed of the God of Jacob' - reminding those who listen that those who came from the loins of Jacob were, as he himself was, worthy of nothing through their own efforts. When Jacob met with God he had nothing and was worthy of nothing but God's wrath. But by God's grace alone he was promised everything that he could possibly desire, and was reminded of this by referring to David as `the anointed . . . the Sweet Psalmist of Israel' - that which is higher than the carnal flesh of Jacob. Now would come the Words spoken by the Spirit of the LORD, and they are for all who would follow on from David `the anointed Sweet Psalmist of Israel'.

Those who are now called to such a high position in order to reveal the righteous judgements of God in this `corrupt world', those `ruling in the fear of God':

"Shall be as the light of the morning,
a morning without clouds,
tender grass springing from the earth. "
God then reveals His royal decree through His anointed David:

"Although my house be not so with God,
yet He has made with me an everlasting Covenant
ordered in all things and sure
for this is all my salvation and all my desire. "

There is no self-righteousness in David's words for he knows the desperate state of his House, but he totally trusts in the God of Israel to outwork what He has promised - and that outworking will be through a sovereign act of God for:

"The sons of Belial shall be all of them thrust away
because they cannot be taken by hand. "

Clearly in verse 6 there is the assurance for all who now follow on as disciples of David's Greater Son that they have no need to be any more anxious than had David, for `although (our) house be not right with God, yet He has made an everlasting Covenant, ordered in all things and secure'. As we draw this Credo to a close we can do no more than be assured of the fact that the Covenant entered into is through the Lord Jesus, as Paul writes to the Church in Ephesus: (Ephesians 3:14 and 20-21)

" For this cause I bow my knee unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and on earth is named . . . . Now unto Him who is able to do exceedingly and abundantly above all that we ask or think according to the power that works in us. Unto Him be glory in the Church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages world without end! Amen. "

With these Scriptural facts fixed firmly in our hearts and minds we can look without anxiety to what lies ahead as all that this generation has taken for granted as being unchangeable slowly crumbles and falls away. The Nation State system, as we have known it over the past few decades, is now entering its last stages of existence, for enormous powers are working against it to bring about its demise. That the struggle will be world-wide is certain, for the present world state system (which brought forth the words of Francis Fukuyama, `this is the end of history') is in some form or other based upon the Nation State in a democratic Parliamentary system of government. Try as they may no political commentator or historian can predict the outcome, although many have tried. One thing is certain: The pattern of past events will outwork themselves again, for it is through such events the God of His history works to bring in His Kingdom of Peace and Righteousness. What lies ahead will be wars and all that springs from such terrible events. They will be wars seeking, as in the past, to bring in a universal system of government legitimized by a religious system which seeks, as always, authority . . . (This will be the final expression of the Imperial Power of the Fourth Beast of Daniel which so terrfied him, which will fight against the individual rights of automomous nations, seeking to bring them into submission.) The final war will be against the `individual' rights of the Kingdom of God under the Kingship of Jesus which will lead to a Peace by the Victor and legitimized by God Himself through His Covenant written in Heaven by the Victor.

If we do indeed live by the Word of God and believe that these are the days leading to that conclusion, we need to have firmly fixed in our minds what lies ahead and not be concerned about the emerging European Union and its draft Constitution. These events are but the opening shots of a series of wars that will intensify, as shown in Scripture and spoken of by the prophets of God. That they will culminate in the Great Triubulation is certain ! But just as certain are the last words of David, a royal decree, a discourse with His people, reminding us all of how we will be in the dark days that lie ahead:

"Ruling in the fear of God,
as light of the morning,
a morning without clouds,
tender grass springing from the earth
shining after rain. "

May it be so in our lives as we watch, wait, work and pray for the coming Kingdom of Peace and Righteousness!

* * * * * * * *

For comment or for future Newswatch letters our e-mail address is:info@northernstyletrust.com

Our telephone No. is:(01493) 441891

Return