Who Is Qualified to Rule?
By Paul Zastoupil
It has been almost 7 years since my first post on
politics. My views have not changed much. It is still generally the
same shape, maybe a slightly different shade. Time does that. I have heard my father on more than one occasion lament that he had never voted for anyone, only against someone else. There is always disappointment in his voice when he says it.
I have not written it in a post here before, but I believe that a requirement for someone to hold high office is that they do not want to do it. If they want the office, it is an indication they are unqualified to rule. Two of the United States’ greatest presidents were that way. Both Washington and Lincoln did not want the office but rather accepted it as something they must do, knowing that it would be better for them personally to seek other activities.
Why is that important? For any man to rule over another, rights must be surrendered from one to the other. This is an exchange that should be entered into reluctantly. A good man will not seek to rule another. And the other ought not to seek to be under the yoke of a man. It is a requirement for the functioning of society, but it should be seen as a necessary evil, a civic duty not to be celebrated. A true leader should humbly and reluctantly accept his duty, just as those who are led should reluctantly follow.
It is not human nature to consider what is best for society, but only what is best for oneself. There are many exceptions to that rule, but I still hold that it is a rule. That means from time to time someone will arise that truly is a good leader. However, there will never be a mob of self disinterested people pushing forward that good leader. In fact, more and more often, the good leaders are marginalized because of those same factors. There is not enough selfish interest to amass behind a good leader, there is nothing to please the masses. Whenever we see people overly excited about a politician, we should be worried. There are many historical analogies to draw from to illustrate this point, choose your favorite.
I think my father has it just right. We should never vote for anyone, we should always except to vote for the lesser of evils and vote against the greater. But where does that leave us? If I follow this logic to its conclusion, I will always be on the losing side. Who is going to be excited about someone who does not want the job? It is the losing side, but it is merely temporary.
Ancient Athens had something close to a direct democracy. They called it δημοκρατία – demokratia – democracy. The franchised people, those who could vote, directly voted on issues relating to their government. The Romans further developed the idea of a republic. They used the ideas from Greek philosophers like Plato and his πολιτεία – politeia – republic (loosely). People were elected to represent others in the government.
Neither of those words appear in the bible. We do find another ancient Greek word when it comes to government, it is βασιλεία - Basileia – Kingdom, or βασιλεύς - Basileus – King.
I have not written it in a post here before, but I believe that a requirement for someone to hold high office is that they do not want to do it. If they want the office, it is an indication they are unqualified to rule. Two of the United States’ greatest presidents were that way. Both Washington and Lincoln did not want the office but rather accepted it as something they must do, knowing that it would be better for them personally to seek other activities.
Why is that important? For any man to rule over another, rights must be surrendered from one to the other. This is an exchange that should be entered into reluctantly. A good man will not seek to rule another. And the other ought not to seek to be under the yoke of a man. It is a requirement for the functioning of society, but it should be seen as a necessary evil, a civic duty not to be celebrated. A true leader should humbly and reluctantly accept his duty, just as those who are led should reluctantly follow.
It is not human nature to consider what is best for society, but only what is best for oneself. There are many exceptions to that rule, but I still hold that it is a rule. That means from time to time someone will arise that truly is a good leader. However, there will never be a mob of self disinterested people pushing forward that good leader. In fact, more and more often, the good leaders are marginalized because of those same factors. There is not enough selfish interest to amass behind a good leader, there is nothing to please the masses. Whenever we see people overly excited about a politician, we should be worried. There are many historical analogies to draw from to illustrate this point, choose your favorite.
I think my father has it just right. We should never vote for anyone, we should always except to vote for the lesser of evils and vote against the greater. But where does that leave us? If I follow this logic to its conclusion, I will always be on the losing side. Who is going to be excited about someone who does not want the job? It is the losing side, but it is merely temporary.
Ancient Athens had something close to a direct democracy. They called it δημοκρατία – demokratia – democracy. The franchised people, those who could vote, directly voted on issues relating to their government. The Romans further developed the idea of a republic. They used the ideas from Greek philosophers like Plato and his πολιτεία – politeia – republic (loosely). People were elected to represent others in the government.
Neither of those words appear in the bible. We do find another ancient Greek word when it comes to government, it is βασιλεία - Basileia – Kingdom, or βασιλεύς - Basileus – King.
"From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, “Repent, for the kingdom (βασιλεία) of heaven is at hand.” Matthew 4:17 NKJVThere will be no question about Christ’s fitness to rule, nor will there be a vote taken. Heaven is not a democracy, nor will we be forced to submit ourselves to the will of men. But we must wait for the right time.
"Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war.His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: KING (βασιλεύς) OF KINGS (βασιλεύς) AND LORD OF LORDS." Revelation 19:11-16 NKJV.
"Therefore when Jesus perceived that they were about to come and take Him by force to make Him king (βασιλεύς), He departed again to the mountain by Himself alone." John 6:15 NKJVIt was not the right time then, it is not the right time now. For now we suffer, something I have written a lot about. (See the Heart Know series, and Romans 8:18-25).
No comments:
Post a Comment
To uphold the integrity of this site, no comments with links for advertising will be posted. No ads here! :)