Welcome to General Chat - GAW Community Area

Isn't it! 🤗

Hi Fren.

Sure. But beware. This is a bit of a long read. however, if you care to come along, I hope you'll notice that it has (again I hope) a direction that might explain my comment.

There was a recent post about whether or not Brits should petition the King of the UK to dissolve the Parliament. Some of the comments in the thread displayed a high level of ignorance of how the UK government actually works.

Which in itself isn't a bad thing, of course, but then making statements and comments based on real ignorance.... sigh.

Let's put aside the question of corruption. Corruption is and always has been the problem, from the Angel in the Garden to 2025 AD.

Over time, depending on what lens you look at history through, you can see that steadily God has been raising humanity, step by step, towards an objective. If you don't see that objective, then perhaps human development it looks haphazard, but with that objective as the lens, things look remarkably principled and ordered.

Let's say that the objective is, to restore true human sovereignty. God created humanity to be his representatives and "arms and legs" in the created world. We have intellect, emotion, will, and at our core is heart, the ability to give and receive love. Adam (and his descendants) were to be rulers over the universe, in God's name and as the external body (temple) of God.

That sovereignty was lost when the Angel tempted the first ancestors, and they fell. In uniting with the fallen Angel, Adam handed over his sovereignty to the fallen angel, and as such, God could no longer exercise his own sovereignty directly in the created world. The world became Satan's world, and Satan became 'the god of this world'.

There are two core aspects to our human nature. We have an internal nature, or spirit, and an external form, or body. God has worked to restore God-centered human sovereignty internally and externally. Internally, through building a foundation of religious re-connection to God. The central point here is Christ, he comes to restore the failure of Adam and restore God's sovereignty as God's son. The key turning point was the victory of spiritual salvation through the cross, but in winning that victory, Christ had to offer up his body. As such, although believers are freed from Satanic sovereignty spiritually, in our bodies we are still under satanic dominion. Paul was very clear about this point.

As humanity grows spiritually to the point where we can recover our capacity to live as God's representatives in his creation (as co-heirs with Christ), God also needs to restore, through humanity, an external system of governance that aligns with his heavenly purpose. This is in fact, self-governance. So, if you look at the development of political history, humanity has gone through various forms of governance: tribal, feudal, monarchy, republic. etc.

The issue of self-governance is the core one, because, as long as human beings are subject, in their bodies, to satanic influence (causing sin), corruption will inevitably occur. The spiritual path is one of a constant fight against personal corruption, to keep evil at bay.

Externally, God has worked primarily in the Judeo-Christian culture sphere to advance this internal and external progress. What I mean is, God foreshadowed the path in how he lead the Israelites (descendants of Jacob) until the coming of Christ. Israel, under Moses, practiced self-governance, but it was a feudal form of governance, where the judges 'ruled' or guided the people.

Sadly, Israel demanded a king before their time. I think that God's desire was for Israel to have no King until Jesus could arrive. But, the people were disobedient and obstinate, so God permitted them to establish a monarchy even though no truly qualified person was there to be king. (Only Christ is truly qualified to be the King over humanity.)

In any case, the point I'm headed towards is the foundation of the Christian culture sphere in developing a world where humanity restores their sovereignty under God. The center of this providential push moved first from Israel and the middle east (the early church) to Rome, from there it moved through Europe (Holy Roman Empire in France, Germany, etc) to Britain.

The Magna Carta was a watershed event for humanity. Under a Christian ethos, it was first recognized that a monarch is NOT above the law, but rather, should be (must be) an instrument of the law. What law? God's law, transcendent. This is the foundation of the Christian ethos: that God's laws and principles transcend the created world, and that human rights come from God, and are innate. They are NOT created or granted by men or government, including kings.

Prior to the Magna Carta, the concept of king even in the Christian world was that the King makes the law, and is a power unto himself. He can do what he wants, make any law he wants. If he decrees it, it is law. The Magna Carta essentially said that the king can only make such laws that are consistent with God's law. The monarch should be the conduit of God's law and grace to the land. He rules as God's representative to his people. But, he is subject to the law, and God's law, himself.

You can see that this idea set England on a course of conflict with the Vatican, who proclaimed that the Pope is supreme.

So, despite the manner in which it came about, the reformation in England and the break from the Catholic Church was another key point.

Over time, the idea of the law of the land developed in England, under the ethos of the Magna Carta. Eventually, the three-branch system of government evolved, where Parliament became the representative of the governed, aka the People. At first, it was the lords, then landowners, but this moved forward to all people, men and woman.

Conflict with the monarchy developed into the English Revolution, an important outcome at the end of this was the 1689 Bill of Rights.

All of this became the foundation for the establishment of the United States of America. The founding fathers understood all of this, understood the history of the development of political structures, the premise of the inalienable rights from God, etc, on the foundation of the British system.

Corruption aside, the United Kingdom has a constitution. It is a constitutional monarchy. The King does NOT own the land. instead, the King is the representative of .the Crown'. The Crown is the system of constitutional monarchy, which lawfully guarantees the God-given rights of the People of the nation.

The United States is a step up from this, the next level of development. Why 'no king'? Because, at their core, the Founding Fathers held Christ to be king, and therefore, no person was qualified to be a king over the free people of the United States. One nation under God. Self-governance, based on Christian principles of putting God first, above all. Then, God working through each individual and each individual exercising self-governance.

Of course, as John Adam's stated, the US system is wholly unsuited to any but a deeply religious people. In other words, corruption MUST be kept at bay if self-governance is to succeed. In short, without God at the center (and not religion, but God), no nation, the US or any other, can secure true freedom for its people.

The UK is the same. The UK system would by large large work OK, if there was no corruption. If the monarch was truly not corrupt, and the parliament, the judiciary, etc, etc, were not corrupt.

The UK system is a lot more than "the King owns everything". It's a complex system that developed governance by the People, even though, at the end of the day, only Christ is qualified to be King.

Alas, some Americans think that the UK system, or the Canadian system, or Australian systems of government are just horrible slave camps where the King owns everything. Not at all. The Australian Constitution is founded on the principle that the People are sovereign. But this too, has been undermined and ignored and corruption rules the day.

The above is the reason why I find comments that ignore or are based on ignorance of how the US actually came about, the nature of the governance systems in the UK sphere, etc, to be disappointing. I also think that people today need to develop a much clearer understanding of the foundations of the modern world, including the US, the UK, etc. if in fact the experiment of 'government of the people by the people for the people' is to survive.

hey, you asked!!!

disclaimer: yes, the above framework is the primary one thru which I approach the topic. I understand not everyone will like or accept that framework. Fortunately, we have freedom to choose how we think, and difference of perspective, or opinion, is not necessarily a bad thing!