Is God A Democrat - Essays From A Christian Perspective

RELIGION AND SPIRITUALITY
IS GOD A DEMOCRAT?
ESSAYS FROM A CHRISTIAN
PERSPECTIVE
No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or
by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no
expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No
liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information
contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in
rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.
Additional books in this series can be found on Nova’s website

under the Series tab.
Additional E-books in this series can be found on Nova’s website

under the E-book tab.
IS GOD A DEMOCRAT?
ESSAYS FROM A CHRISTIAN
PERSPECTIVE
JAMES S. LARSON
New York
Copyright © 2014 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape,
mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the
Publisher.
For permission to use material from this book please contact us:
Telephone 631-231-7269; Fax 631-231-8175
Web Site: http://www novapublishers.com
NOTICE TO THE READER

The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no
expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or
omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection
with or arising out of information contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable
for any special, consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from
the readers’ use of, or reliance upon, this material. Any parts of this book based on
government reports are so indicated and copyright is claimed for those parts to the extent
applicable to compilations of such works.
Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations

contained in this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any
injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from any methods, products,
instructions, ideas or otherwise contained in this publication.
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard
to the subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the
Publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any
other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought.
FROM A DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A
COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF
PUBLISHERS.
Additional color graphics may be available in the e-book version of this book.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

ISBN: (eBook)
Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. † New York

Dedicated to Jason, Madden and Jasper
CONTENTS
Preface xi
About the Author xiii
Chapter 1 Democratic Values 1
Chapter 2 Reigning with Christ 9
Chapter 3 Political Parties 17
Chapter 4 The Evolution of Politics 27
Chapter 5 Heavenly Government 37
Chapter 6 Preparing for Heaven 45
Chapter 7 Conclusion 53
References 61
Index 63
Sometimes we discover what we are thinking by writing.
That being the case, writing about God is most important.
PREFACE
It all started with the 2008 Presidential election. I normally voted
Republican, at least in Presidential races, but I decided to vote for Obama for a
variety of reasons. I was perturbed by the way my Christian friends spoke
about our newly elected president, and wrote my first book on the subject, Is
God a Republican? Essays from a Christian Viewpoint (Nova Science Press,
2011).
Then things began to change. I liked some of Obama’s initiatives and
supported his major achievement, the Affordable Care Act of 2010
(Obamacare). But, something that he said hit a nerve. Shortly before the 2012
election Obama came out in favor of gay marriage. I had no objection to
giving basic financial protections to gay couples through civil unions, but to
acknowledge that gay marriage was something that government should place
on an equal footing with marriage between a man and a woman was too much.
It went against my religious beliefs, which are based on what the Bible says
about homosexuality. The Bible condemns it, in no uncertain terms.
So I voted against Obama in 2012, and for his Republican opponent, Mitt
Romney. It is not that I am suddenly in favor of all the Republican ideas about
Obama- I still support many of his policies- but when fundamental religious
beliefs are violated one cannot sit idly by. This book is not a diatribe against
Obama, or against his policy position on gay marriage. I do address the issue
in the book, but it is primarily about the basic value differences between
Democrats and Republicans, and how it will take great effort to resolve some
of those differences that divide our country. Sometimes we just need to agree
to disagree, but other times we need to genuinely try to see the other person’s
point of view and reach some kind of compromise. Extreme positions on the
right and left need to be abandoned if the nation is to move forward and create
new and better policies. Perhaps we need to look to other nations more often to
xii James S. Larson
see how they succeed in crafting good policies. However we do it, Democrats
and Republicans need to agree more often on public policies.
The other part of this book is about God and the future. I believe that the
more we think about God, as Christians, the more we try to please him. How
can we not help loving him in light of all that he has done for us? The Bible
provides hints about our future life in heaven that are extremely encouraging
and will help us, I think, to lead better lives on earth in anticipation of those
days. One day we will reign with Christ, and our time with him will never end.
The problems of this life will seem a distant memory, as we live in the
heavenly kingdom. When we reflect on and remember these things, our lives
on earth will be more productive and more peaceful.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
James S. Larson is a Professor in the Ph.D. program in Public Policy at
Southern University in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He received his A.B. degree
in English from Colgate University, his M.A. in Political Science from SMU,
and his Ph.D. in Political Science from Southern Illinois University. He has
published numerous articles in public policy and is the author of Is God a
Republican? Essays from a Christian Viewpoint (Nova Science Publishers,
2011).
Chapter 1
DEMOCRATIC VALUES
1.
My friend surprised me a little. I mentioned that my new book, Is God a
Republican? (2011) argued that God is not a Republican. He replied, “Of
course not, God is a Democrat!”
Is God a Democrat? Or does He at least sympathize with the goals and
policies of the Democratic Party in the United States? Many people would say
so, if not openly, then at least they are thinking along those lines. Democrats
are known for their concern for the poor.
Jesus was very concerned for the poor also. His ministry on earth was
devoted to preaching the gospel, and helping those who were sick, poor and
oppressed. At the beginning of his ministry, he quoted from Isaiah, saying,
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, for he has appointed me to bring Good
News to the poor” (Luke 4:18). Throughout his ministry, Christ cared for the
poor.
After Jesus died, his followers believed that caring for the poor was one of
the major requirements of the faith. The Apostle Paul wrote in Galatians 2:10
that he was encouraging Peter, James and John, whom he described as
“pillars” of the church, to not only continue preaching to the Gentiles but to
“keeping on helping the poor, which I have always been eager to do.” Paul’s
two major priorities appeared to be preaching the gospel and helping the poor.
Today, we have a different approach. In the United States prior to the
1930s, the poor were helped primarily through charitable organizations,
providing for basic needs like food, clothing and shelter. But the Great
Depression brought significant change, as the unemployment rate reached
25%. Too many people needed help and charities were overwhelmed with the
2 James S. Larson
task, so government had to step in to provide for basic needs. Under FDR,
Social Security and unemployment compensation were established, along with
a host of temporary assistance programs like the Works Progress
Administration (WPA). The Great Depression made people realize that
capitalism, for all its virtues, could be a cruel taskmaster when it came to
caring for the poor. It also made Americans realize that unemployment could
happen to anyone, and was not just reserved for those who did not try hard
enough to find work.
Presidents like FDR and LBJ greatly expanded government programs to
aid the needy: programs like Social Security, Medicaid, AFDC, government
employment programs, etc. One would be hard pressed to find a Republican
president with a similar resume. Republicans simply believe that such
programs may be necessary, but they are a necessary evil, something that is
not their first choice. They grudgingly accept the fact that some government is
necessary, but the free market is the best means for providing economic goods
for most people.
Under LBJ’s administration, aid to the poor was expanded to include a
major underclass in society- African Americans. Medicaid, AFDC and other
social programs were created or greatly expanded to provide for healthcare,
employment, education and other social needs to promote upward mobility for
all Americans, but especially for disadvantaged minorities. These programs
were greatly influenced by the Civil Rights Movement, which prohibited
discrimination in employment, education and other areas. Political rights and
equality were expanded to include more human and social rights and
opportunities.
Democrats were at the forefront of these changes. So if God is not a
Democrat, he at least is approving of many of these changes to help the poor
and oppressed in society. That is a reasonable inference from the Scriptures,
which counsel us to help the poor by all means available to us.
2.
The only problem with helping the poor is that sometimes it can be
counterproductive. There is a side of human nature that enjoys taking it easy
and not having to work. Jesus illustrates this in his parable about the talents.
The servant who is given one talent (a bag of silver) by his master does not use
it to make more money while his master is gone, because he distrusts him. He
calls his master “harsh” and dishonest, to justify his own laziness. The master
Democratic Values 3
says, “You wicked and lazy servant! If you knew I harvested crops I didn’t
plant and gathered crops I didn’t cultivate, why didn’t you deposit my money
in the bank? At least I could have gotten some interest on it” (Matthew
25:26).1
Sometimes people who receive government checks without having to
work become lazy. This is not true of all people, in fact, I suspect a majority of
welfare recipients want to find work, but cannot. They feel depressed and
regret the stigma of “being on welfare.” But those few who are lazy and avoid
work seem to get the most attention, at least from Republicans and those who
detest welfare. There is an old saying: public policy made from “exceptions” is
poor public policy. Public policy should be made to accommodate major
trends in society, and not the exceptions to those trends. It should be made to
accommodate what is best for society overall, and not to avoid the abuses that
develop from a few people who don’t want to work.
During the Clinton administration, welfare reform changed the AFDC
program into the TANF program, which provided temporary relief to those in
need. A Democratic administration, with some prodding from the Republicans
in Congress, acknowledged that welfare abuses had become excessive and
government expansion of programs needed to be curbed. There is a natural
tendency for government programs to expand all by themselves, as people
become dependent on government services and demand their continuation.
Also, bureaucracy tends to expand over time, as power bases develop and
administrators try to protect their own jobs. But, the relative success of
Clinton’s welfare reform proves two things. Government can be reduced in
size and it isn’t only Republicans who are willing to do it.
Still, I think it is fair to say that in the last 50-100 years government and
its role in American society has significantly expanded, whether for good or
evil. In other words, the Democrats have won the long-term battle, and the
Republicans have been fighting a rear-guard action. As government continues
to grow, we know that certain dysfunctions result. One has only to look at
Europe following World War II and Europe today. After WWII, many
European nations opted for socialism and transformed their societies and
economies accordingly. Then, in the 1980s, a trend toward free market
economics and privatization of government services developed as the Reagan
and Thatcher governments led the way. So, the gradual liberalization of
society that I mentioned appears to be modified by a cyclical trend alternating
1
All biblical references in this work come from the NIV Study Bible.
4 James S. Larson
between liberal and conservative values. Too much of one or the other triggers
a countertrend that seeks a new balance in society.
As I argued in my earlier book- Is God a Republican?- it appears that God
influences societies by allowing liberal and conservative leaders to alternate
over time. For a while, the pendulum swings in one direction, then when
things go a little too far, the pendulum swings back. So, if God does not
sustain Republican values for very long, neither does he sustain Democratic
values for any length of time. He seems to dislike the extremes of either party.
This is all assuming, of course, that God intervenes in human history and in
the setting of public policies. In my earlier book, I affirmed this premise, and
in this book I make this argument again.
3.
Democrats have no problem with big government, whereas Republicans
believe that big government is anathema. But what does the Bible say? The
Bible seems to say that government is a necessary evil, and is to be respected
and obeyed.
Jesus says that we are to render taxes to Caesar, even though Caesar is a
despot and Rome is an oppressive government. He says this so that Christians
may have peace with government and the freedom to worship God and live for
Him. The Apostle Paul says that governments should be respected and obeyed,
because they are “God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the
wrongdoer” (Roman 13:4). Government enforces the law, which provides
order in society.
However, the Bible is silent on the issue of government’s proper size.
Monarchy was the dominant form of government when the Bible was written,
and rule by kings and princes implies big government. Monarchy is big in the
sense that its power is absolute. It is not limited government, like democracies
today, which reserve substantial rights to citizens.
Today we consider monarchy an undesirable form of government, because
its history is tainted with corruption and the arbitrary use of authority. In
Biblical times, this included a long list of evil kings. But, monarchy in and of
itself, is not necessarily evil. When Jesus returns to earth with God the Father,
they will rule the earth in a monarchy. Jesus has the title: Kings of Kings and
Lord of Lords. One can only assume that nations will be ruled by kings and
lords, and that they will follow and obey the King of Kings.
Democratic Values 5
In the future rule by Christ, kings of nations will be godly men and
women who rule according to God’s will. But today, kingly rule and rule by
any government is subject to corruption. Government needs to be large enough
to protect the rights of its citizens, but small enough not to interfere with their
freedoms. We all want the protections of government against injustice to
ourselves and others, but we don’t want a government that is intrusive and
interferes with our freedom to make choices- how we spend our time, what
jobs we choose, how we worship God, etc.
In the United States, we tend to favor small government. The Founding
Fathers believed human nature could not be trusted to do the right thing when
it comes to positions of great power. That is why the U.S. government has a
balance and separation of powers between the executive, legislative and
judicial branches. No one can be trusted with all of the powers, because as
James Madison wrote “men are not angels.” Because men are not angels,
government needs to be small, but it also needs to protect the rights of
minorities. Government cannot be small in its protections of human rights and
civil rights, but it must be small in its restrictions on individual freedom. This
is a balance which must be achieved within the context of limited government.
4.
Democrats and Republicans often differ on the meaning of individual
freedoms and rights, most notably on gay rights, abortion and other
controversial issues. What does God think about these issues? For most
Christians, the Bible is considered to be God’s Word and the source for
making these judgments.
Liberals and conservatives, however, disagree on the interpretation of the
Bible. Liberals believe that the Bible should be interpreted through modern
eyes, much like the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Liberal Democrats
believe in an organic view of the Constitution, in which the Constitution’s
meaning and application should change and grow as society changes and
grows. The values of the Founding Fathers in the 18th century do not
necessarily apply to society in the 21st century, but their basic principles can be
adapted to fit current societal norms.
In much the same way, liberals believe that the Bible should be interpreted
in light of current societal values. Methodists, for example, believe that the
Bible should be interpreted in light of church traditions and the use of common
sense and reason. As an illustration, passages dealing with the relationships
6 James S. Larson
between slaves and masters should not be taken as the condoning of slavery by
God. In a similar way, reason needs to be used to interpret the words of Jesus
when he talks about overcoming the sin of lust by putting out one’s eye.
The only problem with this type of reasoning is that it can lead to a
dismissal of the Bible when the truths that it speaks are inconvenient, or
inconsistent with current societal values. It can lead to a moral “freedom” that
condones relativism. It tends to deny any form of absolute truth which comes
from God.
For example, the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong and is a sin that
can keep one out of heaven. The same is true of fornication- sexual relations
outside of marriage. These sins do not automatically exclude one from heaven,
but if they are the persistent habits of a lifetime they will, according to the
Bible. The same is true of stealing, slandering, lying, drunkenness and other
sins. The book of First Corinthians is instructive on this issue (1 Cor. 6: 9-11).
Unless one turns from these sins and adopts a different and righteous way of
life, one is bound for hell, according to the Bible.
Hell is an unpopular concept in society today. It is rarely spoken of, even
in churches. But the mere fact that we do not like to think about it, or speak
about it, does not make it cease to exist. I think it is fair to say that Liberal
Democrats think about hell less often than Conservative Republicans.
Democrats, on the whole, are more likely to dismiss passages in the Bible that
refer to hell, or even punishments that exclude people from heaven. Democrats
are more likely to accept universalism as a concept- the idea that all people
will be saved by God and go to heaven in the end.
It would take much reinterpretation of the Bible to justify the idea of
universalism. Many passages would have to be ignored or read as non-literal
language, and a few verses would have to be interpreted literally and given a
great deal of weight. Unitarianism propounds the doctrine of universalism, and
it also denies the deity of Jesus Christ. That is unacceptable to most Christians.
5.
Democratic values are more inclusive and more encompassing than
Republican values. Tolerance is considered to be a high virtue. Democrats
have a point: it is easier to love someone if we tolerate them and their
sometimes strange and different ways.
Love and forgiveness are the essence of the Christian faith. Sometimes
these virtues seem weak and foolish. For example, Friedrich Nietzche wrote
Democratic Values 7
that Christians are “slave types” who serve others and are passive individuals,
who are destined to be dominated by the “master types.” The master types are
shrewd and assertive and, through their intelligence and power, dominate
organizations and societies. Nietzche sets up a rather simple dichotomy.
But, Jesus says that Christians should be both shrewd and harmless.
Intelligence and hard work are Christian virtues, except that Christians are to
do no harm and serve others in the process. Does this lead to success? Yes, if
the research on successful organizations is taken seriously. A key to success in
business or government is providing a useful service to clients that will keep
them satisfied and coming back. People and organizations that serve in society
tend to be the most successful.
Liberal Christians have a long history of service in society. Traditionally,
they have promoted a “social gospel” approach to Christianity, which seeks to
serve others and improve conditions for the average person and particularly
the poor in society. Christians are to serve others and also avoid self-seeking
behavior in living their own individual lives.
One of the things that the Bible teaches is that pride can lead a person to
downfall and disaster more rapidly than anything else. When we think we have
all of the answers, we become prideful, so Christians of every stripe must
guard against thinking they are always right. In a sense, tolerance helps one to
avoid the pitfalls of pride and arrogance, because it assumes that one does not
always have the correct answers, especially from God’s perspective. Tolerance
allows one to be more humble in judging the positions of others, and of course,
humility is also a Christian virtue.
This chapter has presented the basic differences between Republicans and
Democrats on political and religious values. In sum, it raises significant
questions about Democratic values being consistent with what the Bible
teaches as being God’s values.
In the next chapter, we leave the subject of Democrats versus Republicans
and talk about things that unite us. Chapter 2 discusses our future reign
together as Christians in heaven. Much of the discussion centers around the
book of Revelation.
Chapter 2
REIGNING WITH CHRIST

1.
As we get older, we think more about the next life. But, it also is good to
think about it as a basis for organizing society and making decisions in this
life, especially if we believe that our actions in this life affect our positions and
roles in the life to come. Christians agree that there is an afterlife, but there is
substantial disagreement over how to interpret the Bible’s descriptions of the
next life, and how we reach that point.
My own view is that it is dangerous to minimize what the Bible says and
interpret it in an allegorical fashion. The danger is that God may have actually
inspired the writers to speak literally about his expectations for man and his
promises for the future. To discount or minimize the importance of what God
said is far more dangerous than the opposite- to literally interpret what is said,
only to discover that God was speaking allegorically. It is a little like over-
preparing for an exam, only to discover that the exam was relatively easy- as
opposed to under-preparing and flunking the exam. The exam in this case
involves the high-stakes result of eternal life in heaven.
The book of Revelation in the Bible speaks most about the transition from
the earthly kingdom to the establishment of God’s heavenly kingdom on earth.
Revelation is such a complex book, filled with such seemingly contradictory
symbols and imagery, that it lends itself to allegorical interpretation. Some
believe that the Antichrist in Revelation refers to the Roman Emperor Nero.
Others believe that the 1000 year reign of Christ described at the end of
Revelation is not a literal reign (amillenialism), but speaks of his figurative
reign on earth. In fact, a majority of Christians are amillenialists.
10 James S. Larson
In this chapter, I will present a minority view point. I will argue that the
1000 year reign of Christ on earth will be literal and that part of our rewards as
Christians will involve reigning with Christ during this 1000 years and
thereafter. I also will speculate on the nature of our reign both then and in
eternity. This involves speculation, because the Bible is silent on this subject,
and speculation is all we have.
But, let us begin with the time immediately after Christ’s return to earth.
2.
Finis Dake’s book, Revelation Expounded, provides an interesting
speculation on the events following the return of Christ to earth. Dake’s book
is an interesting speculation as to the future reign of Christ on earth, based on
Scriptural references. Dake is not an amillenialist, but is rather a
premillenialist. Premillenialists believe that Christ will return to earth before
his reign for 1000 years, which is the view of many conservative Christians.
They believe in a literal interpretation of Revelation, which says that Christ
will return to earth and rule the nations for a millennium. After the millennium
is over, Satan will return to earth briefly to foment rebellion and then will be
defeated and cast down to hell.
The events of Revelation after the return of Christ can be summarized in
the following timeline:
1. Christ returns to earth from heaven, along with the resurrected saints
(Christian believers), who defeat the armies of the Antichrist.
2. The Antichrist and his false prophet are cast into the lake of fire.
3. The saints are judged by Christ and given positions of authority to
reign with him on earth. This also includes martyrs who are killed by
the Antichrist during his reign.
4. The millennial reign begins with David as King over Jerusalem, and
Christ as King of Kings. Christ will rule with a “rod of iron” because
the subjects of rule will not be redeemed Christians. They will be
people on earth at the time of Christ’s return.
5. Satan returns briefly after 1000 years and foments rebellion among
those who are “ruled over” by Christians. He and his followers are
defeated and cast into the lake of fire.
6. After Satan’s defeat, the “wicked” dead are raised to life in the second
resurrection, called the White Throne Judgment. They are judged by
Reigning with Christ 11
Christ and condemned to hell forever, along with Satan and his
followers.
7. The earth and heavens are “renovated” or purified with fire, but
destruction is limited in scope.
8. The New Jerusalem comes down to earth, and becomes the home of
Jesus and God the Father. The old Jerusalem continues to exist, and
Christ has thrones in both places.
9. Natural men and saints continue to live on earth, but the New
Jerusalem is limited to the saints, God the Father and Jesus Christ.
3.
Most Christians base their belief in the afterlife on what the Bible says
about it. However, there are some puzzling aspects to this life after death,
about which the Bible is unclear. For example, if Christians will “reign” with
Christ in the life to come, who will they reign over? Other Christians? Or will
there be non-Christians in heaven?
Dake cites 2 Timothy 2:11-12, in which the Apostle Paul writes of Christ:
“If we died with him, we will also live with him; if we endure, we will also
reign with him.” During the 1000 year reign, Christ will rule with a “rod of
iron.” As Psalm 2 says, God the Father tells his Son, “the ends of the earth are
your possession. You will rule then with an iron scepter, you will dash them to
pieces like pottery” (verses 8-9).
Dake believes, natural people (non-Christians) will remain on earth after
Christ returns (with the saints to defeat the Antichrist). The subjects of the
millennial kingdom will not be the wicked dead but the natural living nations
who will be on earth when Christ returns. These natural people will become
the subjects of the kingdoms over which the saints rule, with Christ being the
King of Kings. David will rule over all Israel and the Apostles will rule over
each tribe (Jeremiah 30:9, Ezek 34:24, Mat 19:28). Jerusalem will be the
world capital.
During the 1000 years, there will be no wars and no armies- there will be
universal peace. As Isaiah 2:4 says, the nations “will beat their swords into
plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword
against nation nor will they train for war anymore.” There also will be
universal prosperity and businesses will flourish. And, there will be no class
prejudices or political corruption, as Christ and the saints will reign. Animals
will change in nature, and will not be fierce or poisonous. “The wolf will live
12 James S. Larson
with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, and calf and lion and
yearling together; and a little child will lead them” (Is 11:6). Human life will
be prolonged for 1000 years, and those natural persons who do not rebel will
live forever.
All nations in existence when Christ returns will remain so forever.
Representatives from the nations will visit Jerusalem yearly and worship the
Lord, keeping the Feast of Tabernacles. There will be laws to govern the
Kingdom, but there also will be rebels and sinners. They will join Satan when
he comes back briefly. Some will even be executed for breaking the law,
during the Millenium. At the end of the 1000 years, the nations will be purged
of rebels and sinners, because they will join Satan in his brief rebellion. They
will be cast into hell, along with him forever.
After the Millenium, the earth and elements will be renovated. God’s
throne will come down to the new earth, as well as the New Jerusalem. Fire
will renovate the earth, but not destroy it, and new things will be created.
People and conditions on earth will be as natural as today, but new in character
and holiness. Dake believes that animals will continue to die.
There will be no oceans, but lakes and rivers will continue to exist. Dake
speculates that if the earth remains the same size, the lack of oceans will give 1
acre to about 119 billion people- which will provide plenty of room. The
earthly Jerusalem will be different from the New Jerusalem. The description of
the New Jerusalem in Revelation makes it sound like a cube, but actually it
will be shaped like a mountain. Micah 4:1 says, “In the last days the mountain
of the Lord’s temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will
be raised above the hills, and the peoples will stream to it.” It will have
abundant rivers and twelve trees of life. In the rest of the earth there will be
day and night, but there will be no night in the New Jerusalem. Dake believes
that “time” will continue to exist on earth.
4.
Dake’s view of heaven is interesting, to say the least. He is one of the few
authors who discusses the reign of Christians on earth when Christ returns, but
he does not discuss who will reign in what capacity, that is, how God will
determine the nature of a Christian’s position. However, the Bible provides
some clues to this interesting question.
First, the Bible says that Jesus Christ will be King of kings and Lords of
lords. So, that means the Christians who reign with Christ will have the titles
“King” and “Lord,” since he is King over all Kings. In our modern parlance,
that means that someone will be the King of England, or the Lord over a
particular country or territory. In Biblical times, the term King also was
applied to Kings over particular cities, like the King of Jericho or the King of
Jerusalem, in the time of Joshua. So, a king could be today’s equivalent of the
King of England or the Mayor of Casterbridge. He or she could be great or
small in terms of the territory ruled. The same is true of the title “Lord.”
Second, the Bible gives a clue about the qualities of rulers in the age to
come. God says that David will be ruler over Israel, and Jesus’ apostles will be
rulers over the 12 tribes of Israel. The personal qualities of David are clearly
spelled out in the Scriptures. He was a man after God’s own heart, and he
loved God and worshipped him with abundant praise. He called upon God
constantly for help and was totally dependent on him. When he sinned, he
genuinely repented and humbled himself before God. He had extraordinary
courage and trusted God to deliver him in all circumstances.
I think that those who rule with Christ will be like that, because of their
passion for him. God will choose them, like he did David, because of their
commitment to him, and not necessarily for their knowledge or ability to rule.
One evidence of that passion might be a righteous anger in defense of the
Lord’s name and his principles. Certainly, David had those qualities and
expressed them passionately in the Psalms.
The leadership of the 12 apostles illustrates other qualities that God is
looking for in future rulers. The apostles were extremely loyal to Christ
throughout his ministry, giving up family, friends, occupations and other
things to join and follow him. They may not have had the extreme courage of
David, but they responded to the truth of Christ and risked their lives for him.
Peter resembled David in his passionate defense of Christ after the
resurrection. The passion of Peter probably led Jesus to extol his future
leadership.
Third, the Scriptures indicate that future leaders may be “meek” compared
to current leaders. Jesus said, “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the
earth” (Mat 5:5). What does it mean to inherit the land, if not to own it, or at
least rule over it?
Meekness is generally considered to be one’s attitude toward God, but it
might include an attitude toward one’s fellow man. In describing Christ
himself, the Apostle Paul wrote, “By the meekness and gentleness of Christ, I
appeal to you” (2 Cor 10:1). It sounds like Christ himself was meek and gentle
toward all people.
14 James S. Larson
Jesus described the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven in the following

way: “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their
high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever
wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to
be first must be your slave- just as the Son of Man did not come to be served,
but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mat 20:25-28).
The Old Testament hints at this in the Psalms, which say “the meek will
inherit the land and enjoy great peace” ((Ps 37:11). The prophet Zephaniah
writes that after God’s ultimate judgment, the proud will never again be in
Jerusalem on God’s holy hill, but only “the meek and the humble, who trust in
the name of the Lord” (Zep 3:12).
The meek are the natural leaders that God wants because they trust in him.
They have confidence in Him and depend on Him for the future. They have an
expectation of His protection, and believe that he is a solid comfort when
things are not going well. They hope in Him because they earnestly believe
that He will help them in all circumstances. They are not enamored with their
own natural abilities.
Finally, the poor of this world likely will be future leaders in Heaven to a
disproportionate degree. The Apostle James writes, “Has not God chosen those
who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the
kingdom he promised to those who love him?” (James 2:5). Not all the poor
are rich in faith, but many are. I am reminded of a short story by Tolstoy that
recounts the thoughts of a rich man and his servant who are trapped in a
snowstorm in Russia. As they approach death, the rich man thinks about the
loss of so many things, but the servant looks forward to his life in Heaven. The
poor have a natural focus on heaven, because their lives in this world are so
disappointing.
Everyone is familiar with Jesus’ words on this subject from the Sermon on
the Mount. In Matthew, he says “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the
kingdom of heaven,” and in Luke he says, “Blessed are you who are poor for
yours is the kingdom of God” (Mat 5:3, Luke 6:20). Most scholars believe that
Jesus in both verses was not referring to those who were physically poor, but
those who were poor in “spirit.” Those who are poor in spirit are “those who
are aware of their need of God’s grace and provisions” (NIV Study Bible, p.
2103). But this interpretation minimizes the earlier quote from James, which
says that physical poverty is what is meant by the Lord. This is reinforced by
Jesus, when he says that a primary goal of his ministry is “to preach good
news to the poor” (Luke 4:18), in keeping with the prophecy of Isaiah 61:1.
Therefore, there is good evidence that future leaders in heaven will be either/or
“poor” and “poor in spirit.”
These are thoughts about the future rule on earth. But, what about the
present? How will we reach these final events on earth? Our government today
must deal with the practical issues that demand important value judgments.
The moral values we choose will decide the future course of our nation. The
next chapter is concerned with political parties, and how God uses them to
achieve his ends on earth.
Chapter 3
POLITICAL PARTIES
1.
Political parties are a ruling force in government today. But, political
parties in the United States are weak and decentralized. They have little
influence on the day-to-day voting in Congress or the reelection of legislators.
Great Britain provides a strong contrast. In Britain, a Conservative Party
candidate must receive the support of the Conservative Party in order to be
elected to Parliament. Once in Parliament, he or she must vote the “party line”
on every issue in order to have the continued support of the Conservative
Party. Thus, the Prime Minister has automatic majorities when new legislation
is put before Parliament each year.
Compare that to the United States, where Republicans and Democrats do
not need the support of the national party in order to be reelected. Neither are
they required to vote the party line on every issue. In the U.S., “individual
politicians not only run their own campaigns for office but also promote their
own ideas. Many feel little obligation to support the official party position on
policy issues, especially when electoral forces in their constituencies differ
from those influencing the national party” (Kraft and Furlong, 2004, 16).
Conservative Democrats from Louisiana do not feel bound to vote for liberal
expansions of entitlement programs that are supported by their party
colleagues in New York. Thus, party labels are sometimes poor indicators of
policy positions.
In our fragmented political system, where legislative majorities are almost
never there, “strong political leadership, either in the White House or in
Congress, is needed to overcome policy gridlock” (Kraft and Furlong, 2004,
62). Political scientists have emphasized presidential leadership as the force
18 James S. Larson
needed to overcome gridlock, but strong leadership in Congress also can

achieve that end, e.g. the leadership of Newt Gingrich in the House of
Representatives in 1995, during the Clinton presidency. Gingrich and his
Republican colleagues managed to pass major legislation through their
“Contract with America.” In fact, one of Clinton’s major accomplishments
while in office, the passage of the Welfare Reform Act, was strongly
influenced by Republicans.
And yet today Republicans and Democrats seem more contentious than
ever. President Obama’s second term seems destined to be one of little
accomplishment, at least in terms of domestic policy. In Obama’s first term,
the landmark Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, was the
result of Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate. Even then,
the Democrats had to use a clever strategy to get the bill signed into law,
attaching the bill to a larger budget proposal. Now, with the House controlled
by the Republicans, major legislation seems like a very remote possibility.
What is God’s position on all of this? Does He have a position? The
Founding Fathers implied that He did have a position in their writing of the
Federalist Papers. James Madison mentions “angels” because he is speaking of
the contrast between God’s government, without the need for controls against
corruption, versus the government of man, which is urgently in need of such
controls.
Madison wrote, “If angels were to govern men, then neither external nor
internal controls on government would be necessary” (Hamilton et al., 1937,
337). Madison continues, a “dependence on the people” is the “primary
control on government”, but it is necessary also to have “auxiliary
precautions” (337). These precautions include a balance of powers and a
separation of powers. The federal government was to separate the powers of
the executive, legislative and judicial branches, and within the legislative
branch there was a further separation between the House and Senate. In
addition, the states were to have powers to balance the influence of the federal
government. All of these mechanisms worked to control the extent of the
federal government’s power.
The Founding Fathers believed that God would have approved our form of
government, even though it is slow, fragmented, contentious and frustrating.
God would have approved because the alternative was to risk the rule of
corrupt and fallible men.
Political Parties 19
2.
The stability of the American political system is due in part to our political
parties. Throughout our history, there has been a tension between public sector
goals and the private economy. Public sector goals have aligned themselves
with the desire for more equality among citizens and more equal access to
opportunities. Private sector goals have represented the desire for more
freedom for the individual to pursue his or her dreams, and acquire wealth
through hard work and individual initiative. Private sector goals also protect
the inherited property of individuals and allow the preservation of family
traditions, as well as wealth.
In our time, Democrats are clearly allied with the public sector goals and
Republicans with the private sector. Yet, this has not always been so. When
Abraham Lincoln was President, the Republicans favored the abolition of
slavery, and the Democrats, represented by Lincoln’s opponent, Stephen
Douglas, favored the continuation of slavery. The Republicans favored
equality for all races, and the Democrats favored the preservation of the
property rights of slave owners. The Republicans favored government
intervention, restricting the rights of slave owners, while the Democrats sought
to preserve the freedom of individuals in their pursuit of private economic
gain.
I am not an historian, so I don’t know exactly when the Democrats and
Republicans switched positions, but it is obvious today that Democrats favor
public sector solutions and more equality among U.S. citizens, or at least
equality of opportunity. Equality is a higher normative value for Democrats
than individual freedom, and the opposite appears true for most Republicans.
What is God’s position on this issue?
The Apostle Paul wrote to the church in Corinth that they should be
willing to give to other churches that are in need- other churches that did not
have the wealth of the Corinthian church. He wrote, “Our desire is not that
others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be
equality” (2 Cor 8:13). A commentary on this verse notes that “Paul’s desire is
that believers throughout the whole Christian community share what they have
with believers who are in need so that a measure of equality is maintained
within the church” (NIV Study Bible, 2002, 2406). If equality is a Christian
virtue within the church, it should be within society as a whole, if we as
Christians treat others as we ourselves wish to be treated.
What about God’s view of individual freedom? The Apostle Paul believed
that Christ set us free from the requirements of the Jewish laws, and allowed
20 James S. Larson
us to live under God’s grace. He writes, “It is for freedom that Christ has set us
free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke
of slavery” (Gal 5:1). The yoke of slavery refers to the law and its formal
requirements. So, freedom is a high virtue in God’s economy, and something
that should be preserved among Christians.
But, the idea of freedom that political parties often talk about is political
and economic freedom. Both Democrats and Republicans agree on the
importance of political freedom in our system of government and its role in a
democratic society. However, they differ on the importance of economic
freedom. Republicans think that economic freedom is a high virtue in a free
society, and it needs to be preserved by limiting the role of government. The
redistribution of wealth through taxation and other means works against this
economic freedom.
In the Bible, it appears that God also believes that economic freedom is
important, as well as hard work. Jesus explains the value of hard work in the
parable of the talents. In the parable, three servants are given money (talents)
to invest while their master is gone. The first 2 servants invest their talents
wisely and make money for their master, while the third servant simply buries
the talent in the ground and waits for his master to return, because he thinks
the master is lacking in goodness. The third servant is harshly criticized by his
master for being lazy and wicked, and is cast outside “into the darkness, where
there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Mat 25:30). The reference that
Jesus makes is to the afterlife, and the punishment that wicked people will
face. Yet, Christ is also critical of those who are lazy and those who do not use
their God-given talents.
The implication of this parable is that Christians should work hard in this
life, not only for God’s kingdom but also in the work in which God has placed
them. This principle is stated more explicitly in Colossians 3:23: “Whatever
you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men,
since you know you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is
the Lord Christ you are serving.”
It is clear that God does not want a society where people do not work and
live off the efforts of others. Paul even goes so far as to say, “If a man will not
work, he shall not eat” (2Thes 3:10). So, any form of economic equality
among individuals in society should not be at the expense of discouraging
work and rewarding those who try to avoid work. On the whole, the
Republicans seem to be right. They are more aligned with the principles of the
Scriptures than the Democrats on this issue of economic freedom in society.
This is not to say that vast differences in income and wealth in society are
justified- only that the principle of reward for individual work effort is a good
principle in general for a society to follow.
3.
This begs the question: What about vast inequalities of income and wealth
in the United States? What about those who inherit wealth, but do not actually
work hard themselves? Does the Bible condemn such behavior?
In our society today, more than 60% of the assets-including all personal
and real property- are owned by the most wealthy people- the top 20% of the
population. This is true today, and also was true when the country was
founded in 1776. Is this just? Probably not. Is it Biblical? That is a debatable
point.
The Bible does not explicitly condemn vast differences in personal wealth.
But it does say that those who are wealthy are more spiritually blind, and that
those who pursue wealth in this life are heading for trouble in the next life.
James 2:5 says, “Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the
world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised to those who
love him?” Jesus said, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” (Mk 10:25). And the
St. Paul wrote, “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil” (1 Tim
6:10).
Does this mean that wealthy people are spiritually impoverished, or even
condemned to hell because they enjoyed wealth in this life? I think the Bible
says that one thing can lead to the other, but that the two are not always
associated. The Bible says that God bestows wealth on certain people as a sign
of favor. King David, Abraham, Job and many others received wealth because
God was pleased with their lives and their individual decisions to serve him.
Proverbs 22:4 says that “Humility and fear of the Lord bring wealth and honor
and life.”
God approves of differing rewards for differing levels of work and effort,
as illustrated by the parables of Jesus. In fact, in heaven people are rewarded
differently by God for the lives that they lead on earth. Jesus speaks of
“treasure in heaven” and encourages everyone to pursue that kind of wealth
rather than earthly wealth. So in God’s economy, differences in wealth are
assumed to be a natural thing. If a free market allows people to inherit wealth,
then that also is a natural thing.
22 James S. Larson
I believe God has mixed feelings about the differences in wealth in our
society. On the one hand, he agrees with the Democrats that differences in
wealth are unfair, especially when they lead to more suffering for those who
are left out- the poor. But on other hand, I think that he agrees with the
Republicans in their idea that individual work effort should be rewarded. If
someone works longer hours and saves money for a brighter future, that
person should be rewarded with more personal wealth. The idea of a society
that is regulated by government to ensure more economic equality should be
balanced with the freedom to pursue individual dreams. Republicans and
Democrats will always fight over where that balance point should be placed.
4.
Democrats and Republicans have major differences on social issues. In
recent years, the issue of gay or same sex marriage has been a bone of
contention. Every year, American society has grown more tolerant of same sex
marriage and the tipping point, in terms of national policy, came in 2012 when
President Obama came out in support of it during the Presidential campaign.
Prior to that time, both parties were opposed to same sex marriage, and some
Democrats supported civil unions, which guaranteed certain legal rights to
same sex couples living together. By and large, Republicans have only
supported marriage between a man and a woman, citing the religious and
historical importance of the institution.
President Obama was re-elected in 2012, thereby demonstrating that
support for same sex marriage in the U.S. was a popular position. Actually
polls at the time indicated his support neither helped nor hurt him with the
American electorate, as equal numbers were for or against it. Polling shows
that Americans are becoming more and more supportive of same sex marriage,
because it is widely accepted by younger people and the older generation is
gradually dying off.
Why are younger Americans in support of same sex marriage? I think it is
almost exclusively the influence of the media- specifically television and
movies- that has brought about this change. The internet also has been an
influence. A gay person that I know who is several years younger than I am
cites the influence of a TV program popular with his generation called “Will
and Grace” as an important influence on his life. Will and Grace presented gay
people and their problems in a sympathetic light, making their rejection by
society seem to be a great injustice. Today the list of television programs of a
similar nature is long, including: Modern Family, Glee, Queer Eye, etc.
Movies paint the problems of gay and lesbian characters in a similar light as an
oppressed minority, on a par with the problems in the past with equality for
racial and ethnic minorities. Movies like “Philadelphia,” which won an
academy award for Tom Hanks, and “Milk,” starring Sean Penn, are obvious
examples. There are numerous examples of movies which point to the
oppression of homosexuals, but I cannot think of a single example of one that
is critical. If there are any such movies, then they are vastly outnumbered by
the ones that favor full rights for gay people.
Our society appears committed to full rights for gay people, and
Democrats are leading the charge. But, what does God think about all this?
Unlike the economic issues, I think that God has a clear position on this social
issue. Much depends on one’s view of the Bible- whether or not it accurately
represents God’s viewpoint.
What does the Bible say about gay issues? The Bible has several passages
in the New and Old Testaments relating to God’s view of homosexuality. The
Old Testament says:” Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is
detestable” (Lev 18:22). In the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says:
“Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes
nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor
slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” In Romans 1:26-27,
there is a similar condemnation of homosexual relations for both men and
women.
In the Old Testament, the penalty for homosexual practices was death.
However, critics of the passage point out that the death penalty was applied to
many practices which are not even considered sinful today. The New
Testament passages are the most compelling, from the Christian point of view.
The two passages that are cited show that the Bible condemns both
homosexual practices and gay marriage. If one believes that the Bible
accurately represents God’s view on the subject, then he is clearly against gay
marriage.
5.
Some would say that the Bible cannot be taken literally on all subjects.
The manuscripts contain errors that any ancient manuscript might contain.
Christian scholars have studied this question in great detail, and have
developed a body of literature called “apologetics” to give answers to
24 James S. Larson
questions about the faith. With regard to the accuracy of the Bible, one such
popular work is Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.
McDowell cites the work of various Christian scholars and their views on the
Bible.
For example, he notes “John Warwick Montgomery says that ‘to be
skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all
classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient
period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament” (p. 40).
And “Bruce Metzger observes: ‘Of all the literary compositions by the Greek
people, the Homeric poems are best suited for comparison with the Bible.’ He
adds: ‘In the entire range of Greek and Latin literature the Iliad ranks next to
the New Testament in possessing the greatest amount of manuscript
testimony” (p. 43).
The manuscripts for Homer’s Iliad and the New Testament are compared
in the following table.
WORK WHEN EARLIEST TIME SPAN NO. OF

WRITTEN COPY COPIES
Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs. 643
New Testament 40‐100 A.D. 125 A.D. 25 yrs. Over 24,000
Source: Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, p. 43.
So, Homer’s Iliad is more easily challenged for accuracy than the New
Testament. Other ancient texts also have only very limited numbers of
manuscripts: Plato’s Tetralogies (7 copies, with 1200 yrs. time span),
Thucydides’ History (7 copies, 1300 yrs. time span), and a single work of
Aristotle (49 copies, 1400 yrs. time span) (p. 42). Thus, it is apparent that all
of ancient literature would have to be challenged for accuracy or dismissed
before the writings of the New Testament could be challenged for accuracy.
This means that the writing that deals with “homosexual offenders” cannot
be dismissed as errors in transmission. McDowell notes that “Gleason Archer
in answering the question about the objective evidence, shows the variants or
errors in transmission of the text [of the Bible] do not affect God’s revelation:
‘A careful study of the variants (different readings) of the various earliest
manuscripts reveals that none of them affects a single doctrine of Scripture”
(p. 45).
6.
The other major social issue that has divided Democrats and Republicans
over the years has been abortion. Abortion became legal in the United States
with the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973. Those who support a
woman’s right to choose whether or not to have an abortion are called “pro-
choice” and those against abortion are called “pro-life,” because they believe
that abortion is the taking of a life in the womb. Generally, Democrats are pro-
choice and Republicans are pro-life. But, the law of the land is pro-choice, as
the essential principles of Roe v. Wade are still in force.
Since 2010, there has been an increase in state laws which restrict
abortions, while still being consistent with Roe v. Wade. For example, 39
states now require that an abortion be performed by a licensed physician. And
41 states prohibit abortions beyond a certain point (usually when the fetus is
viable), except to protect the mother’s life or health. But, these restrictions are
not major ones, and abortion still continues as a common practice in the U.S.
What is the Biblical perspective on this issue? In other words, what is
God’s view of life before birth? The New Testament provides an example that
involves Jesus and John the Baptist, while they are infants still in the womb!
Mary, the mother of Jesus, is pregnant and goes to visit her cousin Elizabeth,
who is pregnant with John the Baptist. The Bible says:
When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her

womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she
exclaimed: ‘Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you
will bear! (Luke 1:41-42).
Mary’s “fetus” is called a baby, and there is no question that she will
carry the “baby” to term.
In the Old Testament, David writes of his existence in the womb in Psalm
139:13. In addressing God, he says “For you created by inmost being; you knit
me together in my mother’s womb.” The prophet Isaiah also uses that
language to describe his creation by God: “This is what the Lord says- he who
made you, who formed you in the womb” (Is: 44:2).
The Old Testament law also in explicit in referring to a fetus as a human
life. Exodus 21:22-23 says:
If men are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth
prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined
26 James S. Larson
whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if
there is serious injury, you are to take life for life…
Thus, the law protects the fetus and considers it a human life.
Republicans and Democrats will continue to argue over whether the fetus
is a human life, but Republicans have strong Biblical support for their position.
God, most clearly, is not a Democrat on this issue.
My own views of the subject are in agreement with the pro-life viewpoint.
Two things happened that persuaded me to oppose abortion, before I became
aware of the Biblical evidence. First, I saw a TV program on the series
“Nova,” which showed film on the development and movement of the fetus in
the womb. At the time, in the early 1980s, it was a new technology but it made
me realize that a fetus developed distinct human features while in the womb,
and at a very early age.
That program made me feel- if it were up to me-I would try to preserve a
human life in the womb. But, I also felt that others should be free to make
different choices based upon their judgments. Then, a second thing happened.
I read about a statement of Stephen Douglas- of the famous Lincoln-Douglas
debates- concerning his views on slavery. Douglas said that he personally was
opposed to slavery, but that he respected the rights of those who took a
different viewpoint. Douglas was mistaken in tolerating slavery. I realized that
I also was mistaken in tolerating abortion.
Chapter 4
THE EVOLUTION OF POLITICS

1.
We live in a world that is more interconnected each year. The economics
of world trade are such that nations must interact with each other more every
year in order to compete and succeed on the world stage. Even within the
economies of individual nations, competition requires more and more
awareness of what competitors are doing in Asia and Europe.
The global influence also is being felt in politics. The European Union is
bringing together divergent political systems under the umbrella of
international courts, legislative bodies and executive leaders. Political power
in Europe is beginning to resemble a “confederal” system of government,
where the nation states have supreme power, yet are linked by common
currencies, trade practices and systems of government.
The same thing is happening with social networking as iPhones, Twitter,
and other means of communicating pictures and words on a global scale are
advancing with dizzying speed. The educational system of the United States is
becoming a common foundation for people of other nations who travel to the
U.S. in preparation for their careers, or in order to stay in the U.S. and prosper
in a wealthy society. We are in the midst of a technological revolution, with a
current special emphasis on computers, which are unifying the world and
making people aware of their common interests and passions.
But, at the same time, this hyper-communication is not leading to more
harmony in the world. There is a stubborn persistence of nationalism, war, and
the use of violence and power to achieve personal ends. The Arab Spring of
several years ago has become the Summer of their Discontent. In Egypt, the
removal of the Muslim Brotherhood from power by a military coop has led to
28 James S. Larson
demands for a return to civilian rule, but civilian rule has not improved
economic development in that nation, which suffers from a want of basic
goods and services.
There are definite countervailing trends to globalization and resistance to
homogenization in the world- an emphasis on the uniqueness of
religious/cultural perspectives and opposition to secular hegemony. In Egypt,
the energy of Islam is a force that does not easily tolerate the existence of
other religions competing in a pluralistic society. Some believe that while the
Arab Spring has brought more democracy, it has also led to less tolerance of
Christianity and other competing religions. Islam resembles Puritanism in the
U.S. in the 17th century, with its zeal for changing society and forcing
conformity among all citizens in keeping with a strict interpretation of the
Scriptures. Islam is by no means homogenous, but its conservative adherents
have strict rules regarding culture and social customs, whether they are forms
of dress or male-female relations.
Resistance to secular hegemony also works against globalization.
Hegemony is a term that is used by political scientists who specialize in
foreign relations, and it means influence over others, specifically the social,
cultural, ideological or economic influence exerted by a dominant group. For
example, the U.S. may be said to exert a cultural hegemony around the world
because of its influence in education and entertainment. American movies,
books, music and other forms of communication and entertainment have a
tremendous influence on world values. American culture is pluralistic, that is,
it tolerates a wide variety of beliefs and morals. It is assumed that pluralism is
a good thing, because it gives individuals the freedom to live as they wish,
whether it is in the choice of religion, lifestyle, or the way people raise their
families. It is assumed that in the long run, the best ideas and the best ways of
doing things will prevail over alternatives that are not so productive.
American freedom to worship has evolved over time to a preference for
secular values as a common denominator. We don’t want to offend anyone, so
we do not speak of our religious values and confine our conversations to
secular topics and non-religious solutions to problems. Europe also has
become very secularized. But in the Arab world, secularism is not equated
with freedom and respecting the rights of others. It is equated with godlessness
and immorality, especially when American movies and music go against
traditional mores. Secular hegemony is resisted in developing nations
throughout the world when it runs up against the way that the community
functions and the beliefs that a society holds dear. Then, American ways are
resisted, because they are seen as evil. Secularism is not an acceptable
The Evolution of Politics 29
common value when it attacks or ignores traditional values upon which

societies have been built.
2.
The title of this chapter is the “Evolution of Politics,” and it is likely that
political systems throughout the world will evolve slowly during the 21st
century. The reason for this is that politics is wedded to culture, and culture is
amazingly resistant to change. The process of cultural change may be
accelerated by the huge economic and technological changes that have
occurred in the past few decades, but those changes do not automatically bring
political/cultural change.
There is a tension between the economic and political realms. Nations
desire a higher standard of living, especially when they see others around the
world who are prospering while they are still poor. In the Middle East, for
example, nations are under great pressure from citizens who see the prosperity
of the U.S., Europe and parts of Asia (China) and are envious. Egyptians are
tired of a sluggish economy, Syrians who oppose the political dictatorship of
Assad, and others who are discontented with their nation’s economic or
political system are putting tremendous pressure on their nations to change.
Economic progress and technological advances seem to be irresistible forces,
and yet they are being resisted.
They are being resisted for several reasons. First, they are resisted by
those with power and influence in the existing order. The reason for this is
obvious: those who rule tend to jealously guard their power. President Assad
of Syria will be not popularly elected if some form of democracy is instituted
in that nation. The leaders of China will not retain power if the communist
party is defeated in a truly open and democratic election. Those who have
power will almost never relinquish it voluntarily.
The second reason is less obvious. People in developing nations look at
the U.S. and see certain undesirable byproducts of our prosperity. Developed
nations like the U.S. are becoming increasingly secular, and that is not good if
one has strong religious convictions. This is particularly true of Islam, but it is
true of other faiths as well. Buddhism is practiced widely throughout Asia, and
its core values are opposed to secularism and materialism. A secular society
promotes materialistic values, and Buddhism says that material things in life
are ultimately unimportant and even an “illusion.” Spiritual things are the key
to life, according to Buddhism and virtually every other religion in the world.
30 James S. Larson
The third reason also relates to religion- the changing and decline of moral
values. As societies become more prosperous, the idea of God disapproving of
certain practices becomes more irrelevant. In the monotheistic religions-
Christianity, Judaism and Islam- God’s laws are the basis of morality. The
Holy Scriptures of each faith are the basis for the moral values of man,
because it is believed that God has spoken to man through these Scriptures.
But as societies prosper, these traditional values are called into question. In the
U.S., for example, the separation of church and state has led to an increasingly
secular society, in which the moral values of any particular faith are
increasingly irrelevant. Tolerance of other non-religious beliefs is more
important than adherence to religious values. So, gay marriage is something
that is prohibited by the Bible, but it is defended as promoting the civil rights
of an oppressed group. Gay people say that they are an oppressed minority,
just as women and minorities were throughout American history. It is just
another battle in the area of civil rights.
3.
No one knows what the future will hold in world history, but we can
imagine the best and worst possible developments. So, it might be useful to
explore two alternatives: the optimistic scenario and the pessimistic scenario.
In the optimistic scenario, democracy will increase worldwide, and there
will be an increased intolerance for dictatorships, wars, non-majoritarian forms
of rule, and the unfair treatment of minorities. Democracy is likely to take
different forms, but in essence it will involve majoritarian rule with the
protection of minority rights.
In developing nations, there is a preference for strong leaders, so the
executive branch will be stronger than the legislative or judicial branches. It
may resemble a presidential system, like the U.S., but with a stronger
executive, sort of like the model proposed by Alexander Hamilton in the
Federalist papers. Hamilton was the defender of a strong executive, while
Madison was more careful to balance the powers of the executive, legislative
and judicial branches.
Developing nations also might prefer a parliamentary system of
government, rather than a presidential system. Under the parliamentary
system, the executive and legislative branches are joined together through the
office of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is both the chief executive
and a member of the legislature- the dominant member of the legislature. He is
leader of the majority party, so he has automatic majorities for all the
legislation that he wishes to pass. In Britain, this is the case because of the
strong political parties, which require adherence of members of parliament to
the party line and voting on legislation with the rest of your party. In other
parliamentary democracies, this is less true, as there is less party discipline and
legislative majorities require more compromise and coalitions of competing
parties.
If a developing country wishes to have a strong executive, with strong
legislative powers, then the British system makes a great deal of sense. Its
executive is more powerful than the U.S. president in relation to the
legislature, so there is more ability to change policy over a short period of
time. This seems desirable in a developing nation, where accelerated
development over a short period of time is a priority.
The danger is that the strong executive may degenerate into a dictator, so
protections must be built into the system to prevent this. The executive might
be limited to one six-year term, or other ways of keeping the executive in
check might be instituted. Special attention also needs to be given to ensuring
the rights of minorities and all citizens, so that basic civil rights are not
suspended by an overly zealous executive. There are various ways of
achieving this, but ultimately each nation must choose what works best for
them. Solutions may include strong judicial controls, legislative vetoes over
executive actions (in extraordinary circumstances), citizen votes on important
issues (referendums and initiatives), and other protections against executive
abuses.
If this optimistic scenario develops over time, political systems will
become more pluralistic, and tolerance of opposing viewpoints will become an
important virtue.
The number of new nations and governments around the world may
continue to increase to reflect cultural diversity. Just as Yugoslavia split into
several nations in the 1990s, the process of ethnic identification in new nations
will continue. World federalism or confederalism may become an option, with
guaranteed national rights, something on the model of the European Union.
Economic competition will not decrease, and may increase, as nations divide
into smaller units, then unify to gain power in trade through regional
organizations. In the optimistic scenario, those who trade together will be less
likely to make war together.
32 James S. Larson
4.
The pessimistic scenario is quite different. Both the Christian and Hebrew
Bibles tell the story of the Tower of Babel and mankind’s attempt to unite all
people in pre-history. God took a dim view of the prospect of mankind uniting
and building a “temple-tower reaching to the skies- a proud, eternal monument
to themselves” (Genesis 11:3, “The Way” translation, 1977). So, he intervened
and gave them different languages, so they could not understand each other.
Languages continue to divide mankind today, and make unity problematic.
Language is not the only divisive force. Culture and religion also divide
mankind and make unity in common political and economic schemes more
difficult. We live in a time when worldwide communication through the
internet and satellite links makes us more aware of how different we truly are.
Sometimes these differences are delightful and interesting, and at other times
they are frustrating and annoying.
Cultural differences will not, in and of themselves, prevent people from
uniting into nations or international units, but they will prevent union if they
are combined with differences in religion.
Currently, there is a trend toward increasingly secular societies, as nations
develop and modernize. Along with this, there is an increased tolerance for
differences in religion. In American culture, for example, Christians, Jews,
Muslims and others tolerate differences in faith for the sake of national unity
and social harmony. But, at the same time, those of strict faith and belief in
their holy books- the Christian and Hebrew Bibles, the Koran, etc.- will not
tolerate a watering down of religious doctrine. Claims of exclusivity of
salvation and knowledge of the truth will always be found to differ among
opposing faiths. God cannot honor the claims of all the holy books without
contradicting one versus the other- either Jesus Christ is part of the trinity or
not; either God is one or not; either Mohammed is God’s prophet or not.
At the present time, the differences in culture and religion seem to
preclude the unity, and sometimes even the peaceful co-existence of nations.
In particular, Judaism and Islam desire a separation from other societies, both
in Israel and the nations of the Middle East.
5.
Democrats and Republicans have differing views on the likelihood of
future developments in politics. Most Democrats have a liberal view of the
evolution of politics, which means that political systems around the world will
gradually become more inclusive and more democratic. Equality is a major
feature of Democratic thought, so a future with more equality will mean more
equality of income, more equality of differing moral values, more equality of
the value of different social behaviors, etc. The Democratic ideal is not
necessarily the Utopia of Thomas More’s book, because equality in that work
of fiction meant uniformity in housing, dress and social customs. That kind of
uniformity is boring, and not the vision of most Democrats. The ideal of
equality is not socialism or communism either, because those systems restrict
individual freedom, which is an important part of the Democratic ideal of
equality. Most Democrats prize individuality along with equality, and
individual freedom to choose different social customs and mores.
So, the political system that is most likely to evolve over time, if the
Democrats have their way, is a democracy that is adjusted to individual
freedom and social values that are compatible with that freedom. I think it is
fair to say that if a democratic system restricts individual freedom of
expression, such as a Muslim nation that is democratic but forces religious
conformity among its citizens, American Democrats will be critical of that.
Their worldview is one of democracy, equality and individuality in terms of
free expression. That free expression is inclusive of different religious and
moral values, so long as those values do not impinge on the rights of others.
The perfect political system will maximize individual freedom of choice, in a
socially responsible way.
Republicans have a slightly different political ideal. They also favor
democracy and individual freedom, but that freedom is framed along a
different matrix. Freedom for Republicans means freedom to compete with
others for limited economic goods and resources. Republicans view the
economic realm as one separate and distinct from the political realm, and
equality in one is good, while forced equality in another is not good. Economic
wealth should not be something that government redistributes, but something
that individuals acquire through their own efforts. Equality is good in the
political realm, where all citizens should have the same rights, but forced
equality is bad in the economic realm, because it discourages individual
initiative and hard work.
34 James S. Larson
Therefore, the perfect political system for Republicans is one in which

political democracy is accompanied by a free market, and government
regulation is limited to only that which is absolutely necessary. Republicans
agree with Democrats that regulation is necessary to prevent abuses in the free
market system, but they differ on the amount of regulation that is necessary.
Republicans favor political systems around the world that emphasize these
values, and are critical of systems that restrict political democracy and
individual economic freedom. They are favorably disposed to the global trade,
because in essence it is world capitalism, where competition between nations
is based on the law of supply and demand. But, they tend to be opposed to
political organizations on a global scale that restrict the operations of free
markets.
6.
What is God’s view on the evolution of the political systems of man
around the world? Does he tend to favor the preferences of either Democrats
or Republicans, or does he have altogether different views? In my earlier book,
Is God a Republican?: Essays from a Christian Viewpoint (Nova Science
Press, 2011), I made the point that God influences the outcome of American
elections. When he guides world leaders, as the Scriptures say, he certainly
must guide also the political direction of nations. In the U.S., the history of the
American presidency is one of frequent change from one political party to
another; it is rare that one party holds the presidency for more than a decade.
So, it can be inferred that God prefers the Democratic view of policy for one
period of time, but the pendulum swings back the other way when things go
too far in the liberal direction.
God’s hand in world history is evident in the cyclical nature of events.
Religious fervor for a period of time is followed by a preference for more
tolerance of differing points of view. For example, in Saudi Arabia in the
1960s and 70s there was a tolerance for opposing religious views, until in 1979
Islamic fundamentalists took over a holy site in Mecca. They were punished
with death for their law-breaking religious zeal, but they influenced a change
in Saudi Arabia. The nation was moved by their plight and returned to a more
conservative and less tolerant interpretation of the Koran.
This cyclical pattern in history goes against the idea that mankind is
gradually progressing toward a higher state in society. There is a natural
human tendency to think that things will get better in society, just as
technology, education and standards of living are getting better. Most people
hope for best, some pray for it, and many work toward making things better in
society. The ambitious want to “make a difference,” which is a curious phrase
because Hitler wanted to make a difference too. But that phrase, of course, is
used to mean that personal ambition can be used to help others and make
society better. As we work harder in our jobs, in theory, things will improve in
society.
Optimism also goes against what we are told in Scriptures about the nature
of man and the events that will occur before the Messiah returns to earth. Jesus
said that men could not be trusted to do the right thing, in an incident when a
number of people wanted to make him their king. At Passover in Jerusalem
“many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his
name. But Jesus would not entrust himself to them” for “he knew what was in
a man” (John 2:24-25).
The events of Revelation leading up to the return of Christ on the clouds
of heaven bespeak a horrible turn of events in human history- the reign of the
Anti-Christ, the persecution and death of many Christians, natural disasters on
a massive scale, and a world gone mad. Where is the optimism there?
And yet, God does not wish us to live in fear of the events that will come
at the end of the Age. He wishes us to continue to spread the Gospel and live
with faith that all will be made right in the end. But, we should not be
optimistic about man’s ability to politically and socially engineer a perfect
world. Human nature and the presence of evil in spiritual realms will prevent
that.
Chapter 5
HEAVENLY GOVERNMENT
1.
Heavenly government sounds like a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron.
The image that comes to mind when we think of the Presidency, Congress and
the Courts is anything but peaceful, cooperative and heavenly. We think of
conflict and rancorous debate, of questionable tactics by the opposing party
(wherever we stand), and of confused and twisted reasoning by them. It is us
against them.
Government in heaven will not be that way. Some think that government
will not be necessary in heaven. James Madison wrote in the Federalist
Papers that if men were angels, government would not be necessary. But this
is not entirely true, as government is described in the Scriptures as an integral
part of heaven, where Christ and the saints will reign. We will even rule over
angels. But, Madison was correct in the sense that government now requires
checks and balances over those with power, whereas government in heaven
may require no such protections.
Of course, the nature of government in heaven is monarchical. God will
rule as King over all the world and the universe, and his saints will be kings
and lords in other nations. No checks and balances will be necessary over God,
because his rule will be perfectly just and fair. It may not seem so to those who
reject God, but to those of us who love and revere him, it will be perfectly so.
The noted theologian, Dallas Willard, wrote that God will by no means
exclude those from heaven who wish to be there. Similarly, those who wish to
be ruled by God, and gladly accept his judgments, will be those who live and
thrive under heavenly government. They will be happy forever.
38 James S. Larson
The nature of that government will be different, depending on one’s view

of Christ’s return. There is the period of the millennial rule, when Christ will
rule with a “rod of iron,” and the inhabitants of earth will include those who
will eventually rebel against God. After the 1000 year reign is over, Satan will
return briefly to earth to foment rebellion, and those who choose to rebel
against God will be defeated and cast into hell with Satan.
Following this period, God the Father will come to earth and rule in the
New Jerusalem. During that rule, which will continue forever, the Father will
not rule with a rod or iron, but will rule over those who love him and
unquestioningly follow him. There will be total harmony among those on
earth, and heaven will be truly heaven as we imagine it. Both of these forms of
heavenly government need to be discussed.
2.
The millennial reign of Christ is described in Dake’s book on Revelation,
which is referred to in an earlier chapter. During the millennium, mankind will
beat its “swords into plowshares” (Is 2:4), so there will be no taxations to keep
up large armies. In Isaiah, it says, “The law will go out from Zion, the word of
the Lord from Jerusalem. He will judge between nations and will settle
disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and
their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation,
nor will they train for war anymore” (Is 2:3-4). Dake says, “Class prejudices
and national ills will be forgotten because of the great turning to God of all
nations after hearing the gospel” (Dake, 284). There will be universal
prosperity, no unemployment, and no poverty. The billions spent on sickness,
crime and many other things related to sin will no longer be needed (285).
Economics will no longer be called the “dismal science,” because things
under Christ’s reign will be different. There will be no financial crashes, all
legitimate businesses will flourish, and God will help all succeed in business.
“There will be no corrupt politics or graft, as Christ and the glorified saints
will reign in righteousness and holiness” (285). There will be no salaries,
because all things will be theirs. There will be missionaries to evangelize the
world, according to Dake, and there will be very little crime, with the Lord and
the saints judging the few cases that there are.
Human life will be prolonged to 1000 years, then those who do not rebel
will live forever. The “test of man in this dispensation will be to obey the laws
of divine government, obey Christ and the glorified saints, and to mould one’s
Heavenly Government 39
character in harmony with God by the Holy Spirit and the power of the
gospel” (286).
Obviously Dake’s description is fragmentary, but it is based on Scripture
largely found in the book of Isaiah, and is a reasonable inference from those
prophetic passages. Life on earth during the millennial reign will not be
perfect, but it will be perfectly done by the Lord Jesus, and it will be a
preparation for the heavenly reign which follows.
3.
The book of Revelation describes what will happen when God the Father
begins his rule. God promises that he will dwell with men and be their God on
earth. It is difficult to imagine seeing and hearing God, but we will. John
writes, “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be
no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there by any more
pain: for the former things are passed away” (Rev 21:4).
John writes, “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first
heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I
John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven,
prepared as a bride adorned for her husband” (Rev 21: 1-2). The new earth
will have no oceans, so the continents will shift in some way, or new land will
appear where the seas used to exist. The passage says nothing about rivers and
lakes disappearing, so in all likelihood they will continue to exist. The New
Jerusalem will be of enormous size, equal in length and width to the area of
the U.S. from the Atlantic Ocean to the Mississippi River. It will be in the
shape of a mountain, and will have rivers and streams flowing throughout.
The Scriptures say the dimensions of the New Jerusalem will be 12,000
stadia (1400 miles) in length, width and height. It will be surrounded by a wall
with 12 gates, and the wall will be 216 feet thick. The city itself will be made
of gold in the form of a transparent glass and the surrounding wall will be
made of jasper, a multi-colored stone (Rev 21:16-18). The city will not need
light from the sun or moon because “the glory of God gives it light, and the
Lamb is its lamp. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth
will bring their splendor into it” (Rev 21:23-24).
There is an interesting passage that follows, which reads, “Nothing impure
will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but
only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life” (Rev 21:27).
This is curious because it implies that impure and sinful men and women will
40 James S. Larson
still exist on earth, but that they will not be allowed into the New Jerusalem.
This seems to contradict the idea that death no longer exists, because we know
that only those who believe in Christ will have eternal life. I think that the
passage simply refers to the fact that the New Jerusalem will be unique among
cities as compared with other cities in human history, in that nothing sinful
will be allowed to enter. It does not say that sinful people will continue to exist
on earth, rather that all who enter will have no sin, unlike cities in the past.
4.
The Scriptures do not talk about the nature of heaven on earth in any great
detail once the New Jerusalem comes to earth, and God the Father begins his
rule. They say that Jesus will turn his rule over the father when his millennial
rule has ended and Satan has been defeated for the final time. The Scriptures
say, “Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the
Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must
reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be
destroyed is death” (1Co 15:24-26). “When he has done this, then the Son
himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that
God may be all in all” (1Co 15:28).
This sounds like something that Jesus would do, because he always defers
to the Father’s authority, and he wants God the Father to be all in all- clearly
in charge of the heavenly kingdom. Jesus wants no ambiguity to exist about
who is the final authority. This reminds me of his instructions about prayer to
the disciples. He did not instruct them to pray to him, when he was gone from
earth, but the Lord’s Prayer begins, “Our Father, who art in heaven…” He tells
us to pray to God the Father, even though we sometimes pray to Jesus or the
Holy Spirit. Jesus wanted no confusion about addressing God in prayer, and he
wants no confusion about addressing God in the next life.
Jesus says that in heaven we will all have mansions, or rooms in our
Father’s house. Some have interpreted this in a modest way, and settled for the
“rooms” interpretation of our future dwellings. But once I heard a pastor say,
“Don’t mess with my mansion!” The human side of us wants a mansion in
heaven, and I think it is very likely that we all will have mansions… and
rooms in our Father’s house. Why not both? The rich on earth today have
multiple dwellings. They may have a mansion in the country, and a condo in
the city. So, we might have mansions in the nations where we live, and condos
in the New Jerusalem, where we can go from time to time and see God. I think
we will all be rich in heaven.
5.
St. Augustine is known as one of the greatest theologians in the history of
the Christian faith. He wrote about our ways of thinking and acting in the
kingdom of heaven. First, he wrote that man will relieved of the burden of sin,
and the temptation to sin while he is in heaven, because he will not be able to
sin. In the words of Augustine, God created man to receive “a free will by
which he was able to not sin, and at last a free will by which he was not able to
sin” (Zaleski & Zaleski, 2000, 401). Free will in heaven will no longer contain
the danger of making a mistake and sinning; we will be like God and not be
able to sin. Augustine says that “God cannot by nature sin,” and so “the
partaker of God [each of us] receives this inability from God” (401). We will
be like God, in that we will neither be tempted nor able to sin. What a relief!
Many of the burdens of this life will be removed in heaven.
Also, in heaven our memory will be affected in a fundamental way. St.
Augustine writes that “the saints shall forget their past ills, for they shall have
so thoroughly escaped them all, that they shall be quite blotted out of their
experience” (Zaleski & Zaleski, 2000, 402). The saints will no longer feel the
pain of the events and trials in their previous lives. But, at the same time, they
will have an intellectual knowledge and memory of their past, and see it more
objectively from God’s point of view. Knowing about this past misery will
serve a useful purpose, as it will allow them to sing for joy in heaven. God will
help us to no longer feel the pain we experienced in life, but we will be able to
remember the events of our lives, and thank God for his wonderful mercies
and grace.
Augustine concludes that in heaven will shall be “filled and replenished
with God’s blessing and sanctification” (Zaleski & Zaleski, 2000, 403). We, as
creatures of earth, tend to think about the material blessings of heaven, but the
sanctification we receive from God may be the greatest blessing of all, because
it means we will be more like him. When God the Father comes down to earth
to reign in the New Jerusalem, the Scriptures say that Jesus will give him all
authority, so that he will be “all in all.” Augustine writes that we “shall be full
of Him when He is all in all” (403). In other words, when the New Jerusalem
comes down to earth and earth’s physical characteristics are fundamentally
changed, we will also be fundamentally changed so that we are “full” of God.
42 James S. Larson
We will no longer be overwhelmed by God’s greatness and fundamental

difference from us, because we will be just like him, although on a small scale.
6.
Jesus, the greatest theologian of all, talks about the kingdom of heaven in
his parables. Most of them are found in the book of Matthew. Jesus describes
the kingdom of heaven as being like a mustard seed, which is among the
smallest of seeds, yet grows into one of the largest plants. Also, it is like yeast
in a loaf of bread that works unseen; in other words it is inherent in the hearts
of men. Its power is invisible, but with time and the right conditions it can
produce astonishing changes and transformations in men. It can make the
weak powerful and the useless useful. The kingdom of heaven is a process of
growth, allowing the one who possesses it within himself or herself to grow
and attain all that is best in them. Heaven is a process of growth and change to
the best you can possibly be.
The kingdom of heaven also is likened to a man who discovers a treasure
in a field and sells all that he has to purchase the field. Similarly, it is like a
man who finds a pearl of great value and, rejoicing, sells all that he has to buy
it. The discovery of heaven within one’s grasp is a shock, a very pleasant
realization that causes one to give up everything previously considered
important in order to have it. Suddenly, the cost of the pearl is immaterial and
it will be obtained at any price. The kingdom is more important than material
goods, and to pay all that one has is not too much. One does so with great joy.
This metaphor does not mean that entrance into the kingdom of heaven can be
bought, rather it means the treasure is considered more valuable than all of
one’s material goods. The life of the spirit has infinite value and discovery of
it allows one to willingly put material goods in a secondary position of
importance.
Christ also says that the kingdom is like a king who called one of his
subjects into court and demanded payment of an enormous debt which the
subject owed. When the subject begged for mercy, the king forgave the entire
debt, but later the subject threatened to imprison someone under his own
dominion for failure to pay a small sum. The king, upon hearing of this, was
furious and severely punished his subject, demanding that he pay the entire
sum. The point of this parable is obvious: one cannot be forgiven one’s sins by
God unless one first forgives the sins of others against oneself. No one can
enter the kingdom of heaven unless a life of forgiveness is led.
Jesus tells a number of other parables relating to the kingdom of heaven,

and they may be summarized in the following way. The kingdom can be
entered only by those who have prepared themselves for Christ by a life of
faith on earth; while on earth each of us must use our gifts and work for the
glory of God; few will be chosen to enter the kingdom compared to the
number who know of Christ; and those who are deprived on earth will receive
the greatest glory in heaven. These parables about the kingdom of heaven
remind us of the importance of life here on earth- it is a means of preparing us
for heaven.
Chapter 6
PREPARING FOR HEAVEN

1.
The preparation for heaven can take a lifetime, or it may be a relatively
short period of time. The thief on the cross next to Jesus had no time to
prepare for heaven, but his heart was right with the Lord, and his preparation
as good as it could be. But, most of us have a number of years to prepare for
heaven by doing good works, living in faith, loving God and others, and
leading useful lives from God’s point of view.
The literature on “Christian living” is enormous in breadth, so I will only
touch on a few ideas from a few sources with which I am familiar. A.W. Tozer
is an American theologian of the 20th century who is respected by many
conservative Christians. In his book, The Pursuit of God, Tozer writes about
“meekness,” and says that Jesus calls us to his rest, and meekness is his
method. (I will quote Tozer extensively, because his words are so eloquent).
The meek man “cares not at all who is greater than he, for he has long ago
decided that the esteem of the world is not worth the effort. He develops
toward himself a kindly sense of humor and learns to say, ‘Oh, so you have
been overlooked? They have placed someone else before you? They have
whispered that you are pretty small stuff after all? And now you feel hurt
because the world is saying about you the very thing you have been saying
about yourself? Only yesterday you were telling God that you were nothing, a
mere worm of the dust. Where is your consistency? Come on, humble
yourself, and cease to care what men think” (Tozer, 270-271).
Tozer goes on to say, “The meek man is not a human mouse afflicted with
a sense of his own inferiority. Rather he may be in his moral life as bold as a
lion and as strong as Sampson; but he has stopped being fooled about himself.
46 James S. Larson
He has accepted God’s estimate of his own life. He knows he is as weak and
helpless as God has declared him to be, but paradoxically, he knows at the
same time that he is in the sight of God of more importance than angels. In
himself, nothing; in God, everything. That is his motto. He knows well that the
world will never see him as God sees him and he has stopped caring. He rests
perfectly content to allow God to place his own values. He will be patient to
wait for the day when everything will get its own price tag and real worth will
come into its own. Then the righteous shall shine forth in the Kingdom of their
Father. He is willing to wait for that day” (Tozer, 271-272).
Tozer concludes about the meek man: “in the meantime, he will have
attained a place of soul rest. As he walks on in meekness he will be happy to
let God defend him. The old struggle to defend himself is over. He has found
the peace which meekness brings” (Tozer, 272-273).
2.
A few years ago I received a bad prognosis from my cardiologist. He said
that I had a heart problem called aortic insufficiency, which involved a valve
that was not working properly. As blood was being pumped from my heart, the
valve which normally closes was not closing completely, so blood was leaking
back into my heart. I left his office feeling that my life may be ending soon.
A few weeks later when I saw him again, I learned that the condition was
not as serious as I thought. I was told that I would need an operation 5-10
years in the future, with a high probability of success in replacing the valve. I
was relieved. But, for a few weeks before hearing that good news I seriously
contemplated my mortality, and I came to several conclusions. Number one:
many of the things we spend our time doing in life are vain and ultimately not
important. The book of Ecclesiastes talks about that is some detail, noting that
many of the things we value in life are vain and foolish, like chasing after the
wind.
The second thing I concluded was that I wanted to spend the remaining
time in my life focusing more on God and on helping others. Helping others
was easy, because I had a family and friends that needed me on a daily basis,
so I simply set about trying to “serve” them without complaint and with more
diligence. My wife had health problems, so the Lord provided me with ample
opportunity to serve her by helping around the house and running errands. I
think I succeeded because she frequently complimented me on how helpful I
was. She was helpful to me also because she gave me a devotional by Sarah
Preparing for Heaven 47
Young, entitled Jesus Calling: Experiencing Peace in his Presence. This book
helped me to fulfill the other desire I had, which was to focus more on God
and my relationship with him. Over the next year, I faithfully read the
devotional and followed its advice, and I also noted some of the more valuable
pieces of advice that she offered in her book.
For example, Young wrote that it is through problems, failure, weakness
and neediness that we learn to rely on the Lord. It is easier to draw near to the
Lord when things are not going well, and the Lord will be happy to help us,
not only with our problems but also with our prayers. We should ask the Lord
for guidance when we pray, and not set our own goals (Young, 2004, 6).
I had known about this before reading Young’s devotional, and had asked
the Lord to let me know what I should pray for, on a regular basis. The Lord
gave me 4-5 things to pray about, sometimes for a few months and sometimes
for a few years. My latest set of prayer items has lasted for 2 years. They are:
to pray for health and happiness for my family, loved ones and myself; to pray
that I would serve the Father and Son in a way that is pleasing to both of them;
and that the Lord would bless the U.S. and the world with revival, economic
recovery/prosperity, and political freedom.
In asking for those things, the Lord impressed on me several things. First,
that I have been blessed with good health and happiness almost every day of
my life. I thanked him for the realization and that condition almost every day.
Second, the Lord gave me the impression that he was pleased with my service
to him in the form of serving my wife, my family, my coworkers and students
(I am a professor), those in my church and people in my community. I was
very grateful for this knowledge and continually thanked the Lord for this
revelation. And third, I was impressed with how the Lord has facilitated
revival around the world, how he has helped economic recovery and
prosperity, and how he has advanced political freedom in our time.
I am always ready for new instructions about what to pray for, but the
Lord has kept me content with these items. I am sure the list will change in the
future, but for now these items seem to be the Lord’s will for me.
3.
Sarah Young has other advice about how we can focus more on God and
grow closer to him. I will list a few things, and comment on them:
48 James S. Larson
• Say aloud, “I trust you Jesus” when things are not going so well (5).
• Don’t be constantly on the go, but just do what is necessary that day,
and take time to spend with God (43).
• Find joy in today and make a conscious effort not to complain. Live
within the boundaries of today (106).
• “If pleasing people is your goal, you will be enslaved to them. People
can be harsh taskmasters when you give them this power over you.”
Instead, make the Lord your first love, and feel joy in his presence
(130).
• Don’t be tense in God’s presence, and remember that he is also your
friend. He knows the worst and best about you, so do not use pretense.
Be real with him (201).
Sometimes it helps to pray aloud to Jesus, and saying that we trust him
will help us to feel more at peace with everything in life. Being at peace helps
us to slow down and appreciate the blessings that God has given us- health,
faith, work, family and friends, and simple pleasures like food and enjoyment
of the beauty around us. As we feel more at peace, we feel more grateful to
God for small things, and as we feel grateful we feel more at peace. We also
find more joy in life each day when we have a positive, optimistic view, and it
is easier to avoid the temptation to complain. We live happily within the
boundaries of each day. When you think about it, it is amazing how
interrelated these concepts are… trust in God, peace, gratitude and joy.
And the opposite is also true. If we spend our time focusing on pleasing
others, instead of God, we are at the mercy of their feelings and moods. Our
peace is gone, and we feel ungrateful for our fate and without joy in the
activities of our lives. Ultimately, such an attitude will lead to distrust of God,
or at least underestimating his ability to make us happy and fulfilled. But if the
Lord is your first love, the optimistic values and thoughts prevail. So, it is
important to be ourselves with God and feel comfortable with him as a friend.
We must always remember that he LOVES us, despite our shortcomings, so
we can be frank with him and avoid pretense- we can be real with him. How
do we keep this positive frame of mind? We do so by spending time with God
in pray and reading the Bible. It needs to be a daily habit.
4.
Some final pieces of advice from Young’s devotional include:
− Remember that you have a “privileged position in the kingdom of

heaven.” Wear the Lord’s “robe of righteousness” and throw off
unrighteous behavior (232).
− Come to God when you are weak and weary. He does not despise
your weakness, rather it stirs up compassion in him. “I have gifted
you with fragility,” says the Lord, so allow him to richly bless you
through it (235).
− Learn to enjoy life more. Christians should not have sour faces, but
should savor every blessing with delight, as a child (236).
− Entrust your loved ones to the Lord, and release them from you own
hands. He can take much better care of them, and you will be free
from worry (246).
− When you have a continuing problem that plagues you- like finances-
thank the Lord for the problem. Ask him what he wants you to
accomplish through this difficulty. Thankfulness releases you from its
power over you (369).
We are children of the most high God, and sometimes we forget that we
need to behave that way while we are still on earth. In heaven we will wear
royal robes symbolic of our righteousness, so now we should be careful to
avoid ungodly behavior.
The Apostle Paul wrote about his weakness and how the Lord used that to
bring glory to his name. Similarly, our weakness is something that God can
use for his glory, so when we feel weak and weary we need to turn to God,
rather than becoming discouraged. We need to see our weakness as a strength,
which allows the Lord to work more fully through us. Our weakness should
not make us pessimistic and turn us away from the proper values, rather it
should lead us to God and more enjoyment of the life he has given us. We
need to savor our blessings from the Lord and take time to delight in God’s
creation around us. Sometimes we feel weak and discouraged when others
mistreat us, and we are tempted to sin because we feel that the Lord has
abandoned us, but that feeling of weakness should be used as an incentive to
grow nearer to God, and rely on him to right the wrongs that we suffer. When
we feel weary and beaten down by the world, we need to retreat from it and
50 James S. Larson
find God anew- our strength and our fortress. He will right the wrongs for us,
and punish the evildoer.
Young also advises us to entrust our loved ones to the Lord. This does two
things: it allows us to be free from worry, and it gives God the freedom to take
care of them in the right way- without interference from us. Sometimes our
need to help someone can actually hurt them. For example, an alcohol or drug
abuser may need to hit bottom before they can fully realize their problem, and
seek help.
Finally, Young writes that we need to thank the Lord for persistent
problems as being a message from God about our need to trust in him. We
need to see why this problem bothers us and how we can release it to him.
This may involve thinking of the worst case scenario and how we would deal
with that, with God’s help. Even if we found ourselves totally broke and
utterly humiliated, God could and would lift us up. The book of Psalms
promises that over and over again.
In sum, Young’s devotional is an inspiring journey toward a closer
relationship with God. The keys to that are love, trust and thankfulness. As
long as those are maintained, on a daily basis, God will take care of the rest.
5.
Another popular Christian writer is Max Lucado. He has written a
devotional entitled Life Lived: Experiencing God’s Presence in Everyday Life
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2011). Lucado notes that Jesus Christ gives 125
commandments in the New Testament, and the largest number relate to the
idea that we should “not fear’ and “have courage.” There are a total of 21
verses related to those sentiments, which far outnumbers the second most
common commandment. The commandment to “love God and others,” which
would seem to be the most common one, is only given in 9 verses. So, why is
the lack of fear so important to Christ?
Lucado notes that fear sucks the life out of the soul and makes us worship
“safety” as our goal in life. Fear makes us desire a risk-free life and it makes
us reluctant to pursue and act upon bold dreams for ourselves or for God’s
glory. We need to have more courage, says the Lord, and not fear bad
circumstances if we are to fulfill God’s will for our lives. We need to be
optimists in order to love God and others adequately, and to advance God’s
kingdom while we are on earth.
6.
J. I. Packer is another theologian that helps us to prepare for our life with
God in heaven. In his book, Knowing God, Packer writes that those who know
the Lord “have great energy for God” and “have great thoughts of God”
(Packer, 1973, 23-24). Those who know him also will show “great boldness
for God” and “have great contentment in God” (25-26). In other words, their
love for God will be made manifest in every aspect of their lives, and they will
be markedly different from the average person, with an unusual zeal for God.
God will transform his people to make them more like himself. God
“blesses those on whom He sets His love in a way that humbles them, so that
all the glory may be His alone” (Packer, 1973, 71). He will transform them so
that sin is increasingly intolerable in their lives. God “hates the sins of his
people, and uses all kinds of inward and outward pains and griefs to wean their
hearts from compromise and disobedience” (71).
Packer notes that the book of Ecclesiastes is informative, because it paints
a picture of the world as a chaotic place. We need to find order in our lives by
obeying God, and giving him our trust and reverence. We gain wisdom by
doing these things, was well as working hard and enjoying life (Packer 1973,
96-97). We do not make friends with God, rather “God makes friends with us,
bringing us to know Him by making His love known to us” (36). The right
response to his love for us is love for him, and similarly “our right response to
His jealousy over us is zeal for Him” (156). Zeal is “a burning desire to please
God, to do His will, and to advance His glory in the world in every possible
way” (156).
Packer concludes that ultimately we are justified by faith in Christ. Christ
frees us from our sins and allows us to commune with God. But being declared
“not guilty” of our sins is not as high a privilege as being declared sons of God
through Christ (156). We are now in God’s family, and God’s faithfulness
ensures that we will always be so.
7.
But, this does not imply that we should have no fear of God himself. On
the contrary, God should be viewed as “awesome and dreadful” and there
should be a feeling of “personal insufficiency in his presence” (Tozer, 1961,
71). Tozer in his famous book, The Knowledge of the Holy, writes that, “The
52 James S. Larson
greatness of God rouses fear within us, but his goodness encourages us not to
be afraid of him. To fear and not be afraid- that is the paradox of faith” (Tozer,
1961, 90). Many have translated this fear into “respect” for God, but Tozer
seems to imply that it is more than that. One needs to fear violating God’s
moral law and arousing his displeasure.
Tozer writes that, “Since God’s first concern for His universe is its moral
health, that is, its holiness, whatever is contrary to this is necessarily under His
eternal displeasure. To preserve His creation God must destroy whatever
would destroy it” (1961, 113). Tozer concludes that “the holiness of God, the
wrath of God, and the health of the creation are inseparably united” (1961,
113). In other words, don’t mess with God’s creation and especially with his
moral laws. We should not reinterpret the Bible to edit out the characteristics
of God that we do not like. One should not interpret his love in a way that
denies his justice, or his goodness in a way that denies his holiness. We have
to believe everything that God has said about himself.
Chapter 7
CONCLUSION
1.
Is God a Democrat? That was the original question that I posed in the
beginning of this book. It is apparent that God seems to favor neither
Democrats nor Republicans when it comes to economic issues. The Bible says
as many things in favor of the Republican view of a free market as it does in
favor of a regulated economy that the Democrats tend to like. Perhaps that is
why he allows the party in power to change with regular frequency.
Democrats seem well aligned with God’s point of view when it comes to
helping the poor. Both Jesus and the Apostle Paul speak and write about how
we are to help the poor, and how the poor have a clearer vision of the spiritual
values of importance. But Democrats do not appeared aligned with God on
certain social issues about which the Bible speaks explicitly. God is clearly
against gay marriage and against abortion as it currently is practiced. One can
argue that the Bible needs to be interpreted differently today, in light of
different social mores, but it is dangerous to assume that God will go along
with these reinterpretations.
As we debate these issues in our society, it is good to remember that
democracy is not always right. Nor is it always as good as it is made out to be.
In a democracy, there are many voices, and often long debates over issues that
are frustrating to try to resolve. It can be a tiresome process, especially when
big egos are involved and no one seems to want to compromise. Democracy is
imperfect, and can sometimes give the wrong result.
In contrast, a monarchy that involves God as the leader is perfect. In such
a monarchy, there is one major voice, benevolent rule, united action and wise
decisions. It is not frustrating and it does not delay in acting rightly. Citizens
54 James S. Larson
trust the leader and know that he always has their best interests at heart.
Furthermore, many citizens in heaven with be co-rulers with God.
Clay Jones, a Professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School writes
about our reign with God in heaven, first quoting the noted theologian Dallas
Wright:
“As Dallas Willard wrote, ‘The intention of God is that we should

each become the kind of person whom he can set free in his universe,
empowered to do what we want to do.’ After all, on Earth, isn’t it every
parent’s goal to discipline their children and even force them to endure
hardship (like homework and vegetables) so that one day they will be on
their own to live a full life doing what they want to do?” (Jones, 2011,
13). The Bible reminds us that “if we endure, we will also reign with
him”. To endure “means to stay put in hardship, to stand one’s ground or
hold out in trouble, affliction and persecution” (Jones, 2011, 1-2).
Jones quotes Dallas Willard again: “Perhaps it would be a good exercise

for each of us to ask ourselves: Really, how many cities could I now govern
under God? If, for example, Baltimore or Liverpool were turned over to me,
with power to do what I want with it, how would things turn out? An honest
answer to this question might do much to prepare us for our eternal future in
this universe” (Jones, 2011, 13).
2.
Part of this book was devoted to reigning with Christ and the nature of
government in heaven in the future. Clay Jones notes that God began training
man for rule in heaven when he gave him dominion over all created things on
earth. But man must endure hardship and be like Christ in order to reign in the
life to come. Christ overcame the power of sin over mankind, and we also
must conquer by enduring suffering, and resisting sin. How do we imitate
Christ and become conquerors?
Jones gives several examples. When a man tells his friends a movie is
immoral and is called a prude, he conquers. When a couple faithfully serves
the church, year after year, they conquer. When a woman refuses to listen to
friends who gossip, she conquers. When a couple gives money to the poor,
instead of buying a new car, they conquer. When parents do not allow teens to
watch certain movies that “everyone” is watching, they conquer. When a
Conclusion 55
woman refuses to marry a non-Christian, despite her age, she conquers. When
a man cares for his invalid wife, he conquers. When you are insulted and bite
your tongue, you conquer (Jones, 2011, 9).
When life is over we will reign with Christ. But some Christians
mistakenly believe that to talk or even think about reigning with Christ is not
humble, as we are supposed to be in this life. They think that to speak of
reigning is too arrogant. But C.S. Lewis wrote, in response to that, “To shrink
back from the plan is not humility; it is laziness and cowardice. To submit to it
is not conceit or megalomania; it is obedience” (C. S. Lewis, 1960, 173). We
should look forward to reigning with Christ because it is both a reward and
obedience to God’s plan.
Some might say that conquering sin is impossible, given our sin nature
while we are in the flesh. But the Apostle John writes “everyone born of God
overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even
our faith” (1 John 5:4). Our faith allows us to be conquerors, because sin only
has a temporary hold over us. When we sin, we repent; when our bodies want
to do something that our spirit objects to, we have evidence that the essential
“we” (ourselves) do not love the things of this world. Even if the body
overcomes the spirit temporarily, and we sin, we repent and turn away from
that sin. Our faith has allowed us to overcome the world and be conquerors.
We are now part of God’s family, and that family also helps us to turn away
from sin.
Jones concludes that God “is giving us the Kingdom; not just any
kingdom, but The Kingdom; and once He comes, there will be no other. We
get it all. This isn’t the Disneyland all-day pass or even the all-year passport.
This is the deed to the property.” That “is God’s plan for our lives and that has
always been the plan” (Jones, 2011, 14).
3.
In 2003, an interesting book was published, entitled The Faith of Our
Fathers: What America’s Founders Really Believed. The book was written by
Dr. Alf Mapp, an historian at Old Dominion University. Short biographies of
the Founding Fathers are presented in the book and the conclusion is that only
a few of the Founders were really Christians. The list of those who were Deists
and did not believe in either the Trinity or the deity of Christ is: George
Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and James
Madison. In other words, the major historical figures of the time were not
56 James S. Larson
Christians. The list of Founding Fathers who believed in the Trinity and the
deity of Christ was relatively short: Patrick Henry, Alexander Hamilton and
George Mason.
But, the most remarkable part of Mapp’s book is his final chapter on the
influence of the Great Awakening of the mid 1700’s. Most Americans did not
share the Founding Fathers’ interest in Deism and the philosophy of the
Enlightenment that inspired it. Rather, the “lives of many of these people [at
this time] were being transformed by the Great Awakening” (Mapp, 2003,
154). This applied to people of different denominations and creeds. “Great
outdoor mass meetings were held for worshippers claiming any number of
factional allegiances. Some were addressed by orators such as George
Whitefield, whose abilities [even] won Benjamin Franklin’s admiration”
(Mapp, 2003, 154).
The Great Awakening attracted people from diverse social backgrounds,
and the “advocacy of change and the talk of an approaching millennium in
fulfillment of the biblical prophesy of a kingdom of justice- these were
extremely attractive to those not satisfied with the status quo.” Plain men
“directly influenced both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in those
Founding Fathers’ successful labors for religious freedom” (Mapp, 2003, 154-
155). In other words, the Founding Fathers were influenced by the common
people to incorporate Christian principles into our government. It was
Christianity that motivated so many to throw off the yoke of oppression, in the
form of British injustice and tyranny.
4.
The famous theologian, St. Augustine, wrote a book called The City of
God, in which he contrasts the city of man or the earthly city, with the city of
God or the heavenly city. Each one is based on different values. The city of
man is based on selfish love, and the city of God is based on love of him. The
“city of man seeks the praise of men, whereas the height of glory for the other
is to hear God in the witness of conscience.” In the city of man, both rulers and
citizens are “dominated by the lust for domination”, but in the city of God “all
citizens serve one another in charity” (Augustine, 1958, 321). In other words,
life in the city of man is based on selfishness and domination, whereas life in
the city of God is based on love of God and serving one another.
In the city of God, the supreme good is “everlasting and perfect peace,”
where there is no trouble and no adversity. Happiness is the norm in the city of
Conclusion 57
God, whereas in the city of man, any happiness that we find is temporary, and
troubled by fears and doubts. In the words of Augustine, this life “however
blessed spiritually, physically or economically, is, by comparison, most
miserable” (Augustine, 1958, 468).
Augustine writes that in heaven there “will be no need for reason to
govern non-existent evil inclinations,” and “the happiness in eternal life and
law will make obedience sweet and easy.” This condition will be “everlasting,
and we shall know it to be so.” That is why “the peace of such blessedness or
the blessedness of such peace is to be our supreme good.” The “final peace
which is the end and purpose of all virtue here on earth, our nature, made
whole by immortality and incorruption, will have no vices and experience no
rebellion from within or without” (Augustine, 1958, 481).
Augustine paints a beautiful picture of our heavenly psyche, in which
nothing interferes with our relationship with God and with other people in
heaven. It is hard to imagine, since all we know is our experience on earth
with other people, and the frustrations that come with sin in ourselves and in
them. It is also hard to imagine a complete, unfettered relationship with God,
when we are not viewing him with faith that is partially blind. Augustine is
known for the phrase, “forever restless until I rest in thee.” He is speaking of
God, and truly knowing him. God will then be even more awesome and
amazing.
5.
St. Augustine was consecrated Bishop of Hippo, in North Africa, in the
year 395 A.D. In his remaining 35 years, he wrote 118 treatises, or books, of
sizable length. He prized The City of God most of all his works, and he
concludes this work with a discussion of eternal bliss in the city of God. But
before he does that, he writes about the final judgment of God, and those who
disbelieve or distort the Scriptures. Those who do not believe either “deny
outright the divine inspiration of Scriptural texts” or “they try to twist the texts
to a different meaning.” Augustine is very harsh in describing those who deny
the truth of the Scriptures and says that some “are too ashamed or afraid to
make open profession,” while others “are so psychotic in their bullheadedness
that they will strain and strive to defend, at all costs, what they know or
believe to be false even when reason or faith tells them it is true” (Augustine,
1958, 483). Apparently, the good Bishop had had his fill of hostile
unbelievers.
58 James S. Larson
Augustine believed that the credibility of Christianity is demonstrated, in

part, by the fact that the disciples of Christ were common, uneducated men,
and yet they managed to convince the world of resurrection of Christ, and the
truth of Christianity. He writes, “it is incredible that the world should have
believed a thing so incredible; it is incredible that men so rude and lowly, so
few and unaccomplished, should have convinced the world, including men of
learning, of something so incredible and have convinced men so conclusively”
(Augustine, 1958, 510).
Augustine concludes with a discussion of what it will be like in heaven.
He begins by frankly saying, “To tell the truth, I have no real notion of what
eternal life will be like,” but he quickly adds “for the simple reason that I
know of no sensible experience to which it can be related” (Augustine, 1958,
533). The Scriptures imply that the saints will be able to see God “at all times
in their spirit” (536). Although we are not physically with God all of the time,
we are with him spiritually. We will be able to see God as “everywhere
present, and as regulating the whole universe” (537). In heaven, the
movements of our bodies will be beautiful and graceful. Augustine writes,
“Wherever the spirit wills, there, in a flash, will the body be” (Augustine,
1958, 541). The saints will be given rewards according to their lives on earth,
yet “there will be no envy of the lower for the higher” (541). We will be
remade by God and given more grace, and we will experience an “eternal
stillness” that will enable us to truly see God. Only then “shall we be filled
with Him when He will be all in all” (544). On that day, “we shall rest and see,
see and love, love and praise- for this is to be the end without end of all our
living, that Kingdom without end” (544-545).
6.
This is the end of the book. All good things, on earth, must come to an
end. I hope that I have represented the truths of God accurately, and that the
reader has enjoyed the effort. In this book, I have attempted to present the
thoughts of other scholars more than I did in my previous work, Is God a
Republican?: Essays from a Christian Viewpoint. Perhaps I quoted other
authors a little too much, but it is hard to do justice to the complex thoughts of
writers like Augustine without quoting them extensively.
I conclude that God is not a Democrat. Although he may sympathize with
some or even many of the principles of the Democratic Party, he disagrees
with enough of them to make a difference. Democrats should remember this,
Conclusion 59
and try not to be self-righteous when Republicans remind them of their flaws.
Politics and political discussion require that both sides be willing to talk with
an open mind, and a willingness to change. Pride or fear should not separate us
from those with whom we temporarily disagree. We need to continue the
dialogue, not with the view of having to win or show the superiority of our
principles, but with a more humble attitude. Humility in Washington, D.C.- a
hopeless dream? A hopeful dream?
I am reminded of Martin Luther King Jr., who said “I have a dream.” The
Scriptures say “where there is no vision, the people perish” (Proverbs 29:18).
In the future, we need to all dream together- Democrats and Republicans.
REFERENCES
Augustine, Saint. (1958). The City of God. (Garden City, NY: Image Books).
Dake, Finis. (1926). Revelation Expounded: Eternal Mysteries Simplified.
(Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Publishing).
Hamilton, A., Jay, J. and Madison, J. (1937). The Federalist. (New York:
Modern Library).
Jones, Clay. (2011). “Our Occupation: Reigning with Christ,” http://
www.clayjones.net.
Kraft, M. and Furlong, S. (2004). Public Policy: Politics, Analysis and
Alternatives. (Washington, DC: CQ Press).
Lewis, C.S. (1960). Mere Christianity. (New York: Macmillan).
Lucado, Max. (2011). Life Lived: Experiencing God’s Presence in Everyday
Life. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson).
McDowell, Josh (1979). Evidence That Demands a Verdict. (San Bernadino,
CA: HERE’S LIFE PUBLISHERS).
NIV Study Bible. (2011). (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Packer, J.I. (1973). Knowing God. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press).
The Way: The Living Bible, Complete Catholic Edition. (1977). (Wheaton, IL:
Tyndale House Publishers).
Tozer, A.W. (1961). The Knowledge of the Holy. (New York: Harper & Row).
Tozer, A.W. (2008). The Pursuit of God. (Project Gutenberg Ebook version).
Young, Sarah. (2004). Jesus Calling: Experiencing Peace in his Presence.
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson).
Zaleski, Carol and Zaleski, Phillip (Eds.) (2000). The Book of Heaven: An
Anthology of Writings from Ancient to Modern Times (New York: Oxford
University Press).
INDEX
Aristotle, 24
# Asia, 27, 29
assets, 21
20th century, 45
Augustine, 41, 56, 57, 58, 61
21st century, 5, 29
authority, 4, 10, 14, 40, 41
awareness, 27
A
B
abolition, 19
abortion, 5, 25, 26, 53
base, 11
Abraham, 19, 21
basic needs, 1
access, 19
Bible, xi, xii, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
administrators, 3
14, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 30, 48, 52, 53,
advocacy, 56
54, 61
AFDC, 2, 3
big government, 4
Affordable Care Act, xi, 18
blood, 46
African Americans, 2
bone, 22
age, 13, 26, 55
Britain, 17, 31
aid to the poor, 2
Buddhism, 29
Alexander Hamilton, 30, 56
bureaucracy, 3
allegorical, 9
businesses, 11, 38
American, 3, 19, 22, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34, 45
American culture, 28, 32
amillenialist, 10 C
angels, 5, 18, 37, 46
anger, 13 Caesar, 4
Antichrist, 9, 10, 11 campaigns, 17
aortic insufficiency, 46 capitalism, 2, 34
apologetics, 23 cardiologist, 46
Arab Spring, 27, 28 charitable organizations, 1
Arab world, 28 charities, 1
64 Index
checks and balances, 37

children, 49, 54
D
China, 29
Dake, 10, 11, 12, 38, 39, 61
Christ, vii, xii, 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19,
danger, 9, 31, 41
20, 32, 35, 37, 38, 40, 42, 43, 50, 51, 54,
David, 10, 11, 13, 21, 25
55, 58, 61
death penalty, 23
Christian(s), i, iii, xi, xiii, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10,
degenerate, 31
11, 12, 19, 20, 23, 32, 34, 35, 41, 45, 49,
democracy, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 53
50, 55, 56, 58
Democrat, i, iii, 1, 2, 26, 53, 58
Christianity, 7, 28, 30, 56, 58, 61
Democratic Party, 1, 58
church traditions, 5
destruction, 11
city(s), 13, 40, 54, 56, 57, 61
developing nations, 28, 29, 30
citizens, 19, 28, 29, 33, 54, 56
dichotomy, 7
City of God, 56, 57, 61
disaster, 7
civil rights, 5, 30, 31
discrimination, 2
Civil Rights Movement, 2
diversity, 31
clients, 7
domestic policy, 18
Clinton, 3, 18
Douglas, 19, 26
clothing, 1
dream, 59
Colossians, 20
drug abuse, 50
common sense, 5
communication, 27, 28, 32
communism, 33 E
community, 19, 28, 47
compassion, 49 Ecclesiastes, 46, 51
compensation, 2 economic development, 28
competition, 27, 31, 34 economic goods, 2, 33
competitors, 27 economics, 27
confederalism, 31 education, 2, 28, 35
conflict, 37 educational system, 27
conformity, 28, 33 Egypt, 27, 28
Congress, 3, 17, 37 election, xi, 29
conservatives, 5 employment, 2
Constitution, 5 employment programs, 2
contradiction, 37 enemies, 40
controversial, 5 energy, 28, 51
conversations, 28 England, 13
Corinthians, 6, 23 equality, 2, 19, 20, 22, 23, 33
corruption, 4, 5, 11, 18 Europe, 3, 27, 28, 29
cost, 42 European Union, 27, 31
counsel, 2 evidence, 13, 15, 24, 26, 55
crops, 3 evil, 2, 3, 4, 21, 28, 35, 57
culture, 28, 29, 32 evolution, 33, 34
executive branch, 30
exercise, 14, 54
Index 65
government employment programs, 2

F government intervention, 19
government services, 3
faith, 1, 6, 14, 21, 24, 30, 32, 35, 41, 43, 45,
Great Awakening, 56
48, 51, 52, 55, 57
Great Britain, 17
families, 28
Great Depression, 1
FDR, 2
growth, 42
fear(s), 21, 35, 50, 51, 57, 59
guidance, 47
Feast, 12
guilty, 51
federal government, 18
federalism, 31
Federalist Papers, 18, 37 H
feelings, 22, 48
fetus, 25, 26 happiness, 47, 57
financial, xi, 38 harmony, 27, 32, 38, 39
flaws, 59 health, 25, 46, 47, 48, 52
food, 1, 48 health problems, 46
force, 17, 25, 28, 32, 54 Heaven, vii, 14, 42, 45, 61
Founding Fathers, 5, 18, 55, 56 heavenly government, 37, 38
fragility, 49 Hebrew Bible, 32
free market, 2, 3, 21, 34, 53 hegemony, 28
free will, 41 height, 39, 56
freedom, 4, 5, 6, 19, 20, 22, 28, 33, 34, 47, hell, 6, 10, 11, 12, 21, 38
50, 56 history, 4, 7, 19, 30, 32, 34, 35, 40, 41
freedom of choice, 33 homework, 54
homosexuality, xi, 6, 23
homosexuals, 23
G host, 2
House, 18, 61
Galatians, 1
House of Representatives, 18
gay, xi, 5, 22, 23, 30, 53
housing, 33
gay marriage, xi, 23, 30, 53
human, 2, 4, 5, 25, 26, 34, 35, 40, 45
gifted, 49
human nature, 2, 5
global scale, 27, 34
human right(s), 5
global trade, 34
husband, 26, 39
globalization, 28
God, i, iii, ix, xi, xii, xiii, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, I
24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40,
41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, ideal, 33
53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 61 identification, 31
God the Father, 4, 11, 38, 39, 40, 41 illusion, 29
goods and services, 28 image, 37
government(s), xi, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, 18, imagery, 9
19, 20, 22, 27, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 38, 54, immortality, 57
56 income, 20, 21, 33
66 Index
individuality, 33 legislation, 17, 18, 31

individuals, 7, 19, 20, 28, 33 liberalization, 3
infants, 25 liberals, 5
inferiority, 45 LIFE, 61
inheritance, 20 lifetime, 6, 45
injury, 25 light, xii, 5, 22, 39, 53
intelligence, 7 Lincoln, 19, 26
interference, 50 Lord, 1, 4, 12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 25, 38, 39, 40,
internal controls, 18 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51
iron, 10, 11, 38 Louisiana, xiii, 17
Isaiah, 1, 11, 14, 25, 38, 39 love, 6, 14, 21, 37, 38, 48, 50, 51, 52, 55,
Islam, 28, 29, 30, 32 56, 58
Israel, 11, 13, 32 Lucado, 50, 61
issues, 5, 15, 22, 23, 31, 53 Luke, 1, 14, 25
lying, 6
J
M
James, iii, xiii, 1, 5, 14, 18, 21, 37, 55, 56
Jerusalem, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 35, 38, 39, 40, Madison, 5, 18, 30, 37, 55, 56, 61
41 majority, 3, 9, 31
Jesus, 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 25, man, xi, 9, 13, 14, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 30, 34,
32, 35, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50, 35, 38, 41, 42, 45, 46, 54, 56, 57
53, 61 Mapp, 55, 56
Jews, 32 market economics, 3
John, 1, 24, 25, 35, 39, 55 marriage, xi, 6, 22, 23
Jones, 54, 55, 61 Martin Luther King Jr., 59
judicial, 5, 18, 30, 31 mass, 56
judicial branch, 5, 18, 30 materialism, 29
matrix, 33
Matthew, 3, 14, 42
K media, 22
Medicaid, 2
king, 13, 35, 42
meek, 13, 14, 45, 46
King of kings, 12
meekness, 13, 45, 46
Kingdom of Heaven, 14
megalomania, 55
memory, xii, 41
L metaphor, 42
Methodists, 5
lakes, 12, 39 Middle East, 29, 32
languages, 32 military, 27
laws, 12, 19, 30, 38, 52 Millenium, 12
LBJ, 2 minorities, 2, 5, 23, 30, 31
lead, xii, 6, 7, 12, 21, 22, 48, 49 Mississippi River, 39
leadership, 13, 17 monarchy, 4, 53
learning, 58 morality, 30
Index 67
mortality, 46 Paul, 1, 4, 11, 13, 19, 20, 21, 49, 53

music, 28 peace, 4, 11, 14, 46, 48, 56, 57
Muslim(s), 27, 33 personal qualities, 13
Philadelphia, 23
physical characteristics, 41
N plants, 42
Plato, 24
nation states, 27
pluralism, 28
national policy, 22
policy, xi, 3, 17, 31, 34
nationalism, 27
policy issues, 17
natural disaster(s), 35
political democracy, 34
necessary evil, 2, 4
political leaders, 17
needy, 2
political party(s), 15, 17, 19, 20, 31, 34
Nero, 9
political system, 17, 19, 27, 29, 31, 33, 34
nerve, xi
politics, 27, 29, 33, 38
New Jerusalem, 11, 12, 38, 39, 40, 41
poor, 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, 17, 21, 22, 29, 53, 54
New Testament, 23, 24, 25, 50
population, 21
Nietzche, 6
poverty, 14, 38
North Africa, 57
prayer, 40, 47
preparation, 27, 39, 45
O preservation, 19
presidency, 18, 34
Obama, xi, 18, 22 president, xi, 2, 18, 19, 22, 29, 31
Obamacare, xi, 18 President Obama, 18, 22
obedience, 55, 57 pride, 7
oceans, 12, 39 principles, 5, 13, 20, 25, 56, 58
offenders, 23, 24 private sector, 19
officials, 14 privatization, 3
Old Testament, 14, 23, 25 probability, 46
operations, 34 pro-choice, 25
opportunities, 2, 19 prognosis, 46
oppression, 23, 56 property rights, 19
oppressive government, 4 prosperity, 11, 29, 38, 47
optimism, 35 protection, 14, 30
optimists, 50 pruning, 11, 38
Psalm(s), 11, 13, 14, 25, 50
public policy, xiii, 3
P public sector, 19
punishment, 4, 20
Packer, 51, 61
pain, 39, 41
paints, 51, 57 R
parable, 2, 20, 42
parents, 54 reading, 47, 48
Parliament, 17 Reagan, 3
parliamentary, 30 real property, 21
68 Index
reasoning, 6, 37 shelter, 1
recovery, 47 shock, 42
redistribution, 20 signs, 35
reelection, 17 silver, 2
reform, 3, 18 slavery, 6, 19, 20, 26
regulated economy, 53 slaves, 6
rejection, 22 small government, 5
relief, 3, 41 social behavior, 33
religion, 28, 29, 30, 32 social network, 27
religious beliefs, xi, 30 social programs, 2
Republican, xi, xiii, 1, 2, 4, 6, 18, 34, 53, 58 Social Security, 2
requirements, 1, 19 socialism, 3, 33
resistance, 28 society, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,
resources, 33 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 53
response, 51, 55 Son, 11, 14, 40, 47
restrictions, 5, 25 speculation, 10
Revelation, 7, 9, 10, 12, 35, 38, 39, 61 spending, 48
Revelation Expounded, 10, 61 spirit, 14, 42, 55, 58
rewards, 10, 21, 58 Spring, 27, 28
rich, 14, 21, 40 stability, 19
rights, 2, 4, 5, 19, 22, 23, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33 standard of living, 29
risk, 18, 50 state(s), 18, 25, 30, 34
rod of iron, 10, 11, 38 state laws, 25
Romans, 23 stigma, 3
Romney, xi Supreme Court, 25
root, 21 Syria, 29
rules, 28
Russia, 14
T
S tactics, 37
talent, 2, 20
safety, 50 TANF, 3
saints, 10, 11, 37, 38, 41, 58 TANF program, 3
Saudi Arabia, 34 taxation, 20
science, 38 taxes, 4
scope, 11 technological advances, 29
Scriptures, 2, 13, 20, 28, 30, 34, 35, 37, 39, technological change, 29
40, 41, 57, 58, 59 technological revolution, 27
secularism, 28, 29 technology, 26, 35
seed, 42 teens, 54
Senate, 18 teeth, 20
Sermon on the Mount, 14 tension, 19, 29
services, 3 territory, 13
sex, 22 Thatcher, 3
shape, 39 thoughts, 14, 15, 48, 51, 58
Index 69
Timothy, 11 voting, 17, 31

Tolstoy, 14
Tozer, 45, 46, 51, 52, 61
trade, 27, 31 W
traditions, 5, 19
war, 11, 27, 31, 38
training, 54
Washington, 55, 59, 61
transformations, 42
weakness, 47, 49
translation, 32
wealth, 19, 20, 21, 22, 33
transmission, 24
wear, 49
treatment, 30
weeping, 20
triggers, 4
welfare, 3
trust, 14, 48, 50, 51, 54
welfare reform, 3
twist, 57
White House, 17
World War I, 3
U worldview, 33
worldwide, 30, 32
unemployment rate, 1 worry, 49, 50
unions, xi, 22 Wright, 54
Unitarianism, 6
United, 1, 5, 17, 21, 25, 27
United States, 1, 5, 17, 21, 25, 27 Y
universe, 37, 52, 54, 58
yeast, 42
upward mobility, 2
Young, 47, 49, 50, 61
Yugoslavia, 31
V
valve, 46 Z
vegetables, 54
Zephaniah, 14
violence, 27
vision, 33, 53, 59
vote, xi, 17

Is God A Democrat - Essays From A Christian Perspective

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Is God A Democrat - Essays From A Christian Perspective

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RELIGION AND SPIRITUALITY

Additional books in this series can be found on Nova’s website

Additional E-books in this series can be found on Nova’s website

NOTICE TO THE READER

Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. † New York

REIGNING WITH CHRIST

Jesus described the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven in the following

needed to overcome gridlock, but strong leadership in Congress also can

WORK WHEN EARLIEST TIME SPAN NO. OF

When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her

THE EVOLUTION OF POLITICS

common value when it attacks or ignores traditional values upon which

Therefore, the perfect political system for Republicans is one in which

The nature of that government will be different, depending on one’s view

We will no longer be overwhelmed by God’s greatness and fundamental

Jesus tells a number of other parables relating to the kingdom of heaven,

PREPARING FOR HEAVEN

− Remember that you have a “privileged position in the kingdom of

“As Dallas Willard wrote, ‘The intention of God is that we should

Jones quotes Dallas Willard again: “Perhaps it would be a good exercise

Augustine believed that the credibility of Christianity is demonstrated, in

checks and balances, 37

government employment programs, 2

individuality, 33 legislation, 17, 18, 31

mortality, 46 Paul, 1, 4, 11, 13, 19, 20, 21, 49, 53

Timothy, 11 voting, 17, 31

You might also like