“You shall appoint judges and officers in all your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. You shall not pervert justice. You shall not show partiality, and you shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous. Justice, and only justice, you shall follow, that you may live and inherit the land that the LORD your God is giving you.” [1]
Civic leaders reflect the moral and ethical climate of a city, of a province, and of a nation. Many people imagine civic leaders dictate morals and ethics; but the reality is that the prevailing social climate first elevates and then tolerates those who lead. Society avidly and openly embraces the moral and ethical standard of the leaders since leaders reflect society itself. Underscore in your mind this essential truth—civic leaders reflect the moral and ethical climate of the society they serve.
Because this is true, God teaches us that His people are to consider the character of those who are appointed to lead. Character counts in leadership. When Moses commanded the Israelites to appoint God-fearing leaders, he wasn't just talking to a handful of citizens who felt like getting involved. You will note that the command given in our text was directed to all Israelites. And modern Christians are under the same obligation to choose leaders who love justice. Ironically, the Scriptures warn that if we value prosperity over justice, we'll end up losing both. Moses told the Israelites, “Justice, and only justice, you shall follow.” This command is followed by a promise that the people will “live and inherit the land that the LORD your God is giving you.” In other words, if people want prosperity, they must choose leaders committed to justice.
In the Old Testament, God often sent people to find particular individuals to lead. Today, in our modern democracy, free citizens act as God's agents for choosing leaders, and we do this by voting. The term “judges and officers” in the text before us covered all government leaders. Besides hearing cases and rendering decisions, they set public policy and could even call out the military in a crisis. Given these heavy responsibilities, the criteria for selecting judges were strict. Civic leaders were to be men who feared God, men committed to the truth, men who hated dishonest gain. And while the charge the LORD delivered was applicable to the whole of society, the leadership was warned: “You shall not pervert justice. You shall not show partiality, and you shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe … subverts the cause of the righteous.”
The political doctrine of my childhood was summed up in two statements: “Anyone can become president,” and “Every American should vote.” I’m sure that similar sentiments were heard throughout the Dominion of Canada, though I acknowledge I didn’t live here during my formative years. Candidly, I’m not certain that I was ever convinced of the veracity of the first statement, and early in my adult life I began to harbour serious doubts about the second statement. The reasons Americans vote at this stage of national development have become less idealistic.
In 1867, 73.1% of eligible voters voted in Canadian elections. From 1958 through 1963, the percentage of eligible voters exercising their right to choose who would govern the nation had risen to more than 79% of eligible voters. By 2008, the percentage of eligible voters exercising the right to elect their Member of Parliament had fallen to 58.8%. I don’t know if the trend of participation in voting by eligible voters will continue downward, but if surveys of those of voting age are any indication, the lack of understanding surrounding the issues facing Canadians would suggest that it would not be a bad thing to see reduced voter participation.
Despite whatever misgivings I may harbour concerning the Canadian electorate, we who follow the Son of God, we who are conversant with the Word of God, can be assured that we are do have responsibility to exercise our voting rights as Canadian citizens.
To be sure, voting is a privilege of citizenship; and participating in the act of selecting those who represent us in Parliament and in the provincial legislature, places responsibility on us as followers of the Christ to treat this responsibility with the seriousness it deserves. If we will fulfil the responsibility of which I am speaking, it behooves us to acquaint ourselves with the instruction delivered to Israel as they moved resolutely toward moving into the land God promised they would possess.
LEADERSHIP WAS TO BE REPRESENTATIVE — “You shall appoint judges and officers in all your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, according to your tribes” [DEUTERONOMY 16:18a]. Racial diversity is a non-negotiable demand of many in our world. And when racial diversity is not being demanded, it is “gender diversity,” a concept freighted with confusion, if not absolute craziness. No one knows what this is!
What is not often admitted when modern leftists clamour for racial diversity or the so-called “gender diversity” is the tacit admission that diversities such as demanded ignore viewpoint diversity—and that is a far more serious deficit. Viewpoint diversity would ensure that those of a conservative view would have opportunity to express their concerns arising from the cultural and social position which contemporary political and/or social views attempt to relegate those holding conservative points of view. Don’t lose sight of the fact that conservative points of view represent the vast majority view of Canadians, despite the frenzied efforts of progressive influencers.
The text for today informs us that those who were to serve as civic leaders under the Law of Moses were to be appointed “according to their tribes.” In other words, while all who would serve were Israelites, and thus responsible to make decisions that benefitted the nation, they would be expected to represent the nuanced views of their own tribe in all cases. Those who led were always to keep in view the necessity of maintaining a balance between the immediate need of the tribe without ignoring the good of the nation. What was being set up would qualify in modern parlance as a confederation, working outward from the first concern of caring for the tribe and radiating outward from there to address the broader concerns of the nation.
Contrast that with a situation we witness in contemporary western societies. Today, civic leaders often appear so focused on racial and gender diversities that they lose sight of the greater needs of society. Many civic leaders are prepared to sacrifice national security for an immediate gain in power for themselves. It is difficult to think otherwise, especially when political leaders speak in such obvious tones!
When a former President of the United States was choosing a running mate, his sole criterion was racial and gender diversity—the Vice-Presidential candidate had to be a “black woman.” That woman failed to successfully complete a single assignment she received during her tenure as the second in command over the nation. A presidential appointment to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court got the nation a “black woman” who admitted she was unqualified to define what a woman is. Rulings from this individual since then reveal that she is as confused about the law as she is about biology. This is the tragic impact of imposing a DEI hire rather than seeking a meritorious appointment to positions of responsibility. Superficially, the efforts of that prior administration were a case of diversity in action. In practise, by ignoring the abilities of the hires, the actions of that administration ensured a national disaster that continues to this day.
I recognise that the illustrations just cited are for our neighbour to the south, but such attitudes have gained ascendency here in the Great White North. Our own governments and various institutions are just as intent on substituting racial/gender diversity for meritocracy. When the place your parents happened to be born is more important that whether you are qualified to perform the job for which you are hired, or when the melanin content of your skin is elevated above the character of your life, or when the washroom chosen for use is of greater value than your level of competence for the job you are seeking, we are facing a serious problem. And that appears to be the situation confronting our nation in this day.
And what is done in the political realm, in the educational arena, and in society in general, is mirrored among the churches of our Lord. I understand that I am painting with a broad brush, but with increasing frequency we witness elders and deacons appointed as a concession to the racial and gender identifies of a congregation rather than seeking out those who are appointed by the Spirit of Christ as qualified to serve in these critical roles. It is bad enough when these actions are witnessed among churches that deserted the Faith decades ago but with increasing frequency we see these actions imposed on churches that still present themselves as being Evangelical! We should familiarise ourselves with the standards set by the Master Himself before we attempt to substitute our own flawed ideas for His perfect plan.
Elders must meet a standard that has been set by God Himself. Those criteria are given in several places in Scripture. For instance, the Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy, “An overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil” [1 TIMOTHY 3:2-7].
These instructions are iterated and expanded when Paul wrote Titus, saying, “[Overseers must be] above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children … believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. …An overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined” [TITUS 1:6-8].
Peter emphasises the role of an elder when he admonishes elders, “Shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock” [1 PETER 5:2-3].
No doubt, you are aware that similar standards have been set for those who would serve as deacons of the congregation. To Timothy, Paul wrote, “Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households” [1 TIMOTHY 3:8-12 NASB95].
The selection of the first servants of the New Beginnings Baptist Church of Jerusalem demanded that those appointed by the congregation meet the stringent requirements that those chosen must be “of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom” [ACTS 6:3].
I need to consider a point that may be overlooked when receiving those whom God sends as elders. Elders, additionally, must be capable of teaching, endued by God to communicate the principles of the Word of God. In the passage cited earlier in his first letter to Timothy, Paul wrote, “An overseer must be … able to teach” [1 TIMOTHY 3:2]. This is a criterion that he iterated in his second missive to this younger pastor when he wrote, “What you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also” [2 TIMOTHY 2:2].
The Apostle again emphasised the importance of this divinely given aspect when he instructed Titus, “[The Elder] must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” [TITUS 1:9].
There is one final qualification for elders. Though the servants of the congregation may be either males or females, only men may serve as elders of the assembly. Earlier, in his first letter to Timothy, Paul had written, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” [1 TIMOTHY 2:12-14].
Okay, that excursus was informational, without question. We do have the criteria for qualifications for service as deacons (servants) and elders, but there is one criterion that is germane to the subject of leadership. Whether thinking of civic leaders or thinking of ecclesiastical leaders, those who serve as leaders are to come from among those they lead. Only Canadians should serve in the Canadian parliament. Only British Columbians should serve in the British Columbia legislature. Only those living in Dawson Creek should serve as counsellors for the municipality of Dawson Creek.
It should be evident that only those who are part of a congregation should receive appointment to serve within that congregation. And that is what we see in Scripture. When deacons were chosen to serve the first congregation, the charge was given, “The twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, ‘It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men’” [ACTS 6:2-3a]. Deacons were to be from among the people.
Likewise, elders were to be appointed from the congregations they would serve. This becomes evident when Paul instructs Titus, “This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you” [TITUS 1:5].
It was this same principle that was applied from the first foray into pagan lands. At the conclusion of the first missionary journey, Doctor Luke informs readers of the account, “When [Paul and Barnabus] had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God. And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed” [ACTS 14:21-23].
Paul instructed Timothy, “What you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also” [2 TIMOTHY 2:2]. The Spirit of Christ will be at work in every congregation that seeks the reign of the Risen Lord of Glory, raising up faithful men who are being equipped to serve as elders. It is from among the faithful that God is working to ensure the continuation of His work.
LEADERSHIP WAS TO BE RIGHTEOUS — “You shall appoint judges and officers in all your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment” [DEUTERONOMY 16:18]. Those who governed were not to operate with a personal agenda—they were to be righteous. And righteousness implied that they would be adjudged concerning their righteousness by the standard established by the Lord Jesus Christ! Those who governed were to be guided by righteous principles. They weren’t to endeavour to serve for personal wealth, or for personal aggrandisement, or for personal power. Their status as leaders among the people was to be identified by righteousness, and that meant setting aside any personal ambition. Christ, and His glory, was to be the evident motivation for their service.
I am going to slip back into my heritage to look at civic leaders during the early days of the American Republic. I do this in great measure because I have greater familiarity with American history. However, the principles demonstrated in the founding of that Republic are universal—they apply equally to Canada.
The American Republic was founded on a firm religious foundation. Tragically, that foundation has been deeply eroded in this day so far removed from the founding of the republic. Consider just a few quotes from some of the founders and leading lights who wrote in the days immediately preceding the founding of the republic or shortly thereafter. John Quincy Adams, the sixth President of the United States, wrote, “[T]hree points of doctrine … form the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of a God; the second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments.… [Let] a man … disbelieve either of these articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark; the laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy.”
Samuel Adams, known as the “father of the American revolution,” held that, “[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.”
Abraham Baldwin, a signer of the Constitution, wrote, “When the minds of the people in general are viciously disposed and unprincipled, and their conduct disorderly, a free government will be attended with greater confusions and evils more horrid than the wild, uncultivated state of nature. It can only be happy when the public principles and opinions are properly directed and their manners regulated.… by religion and education.”
Other noteworthy apologists for the American experiment were vocal in advocating for religion as necessary for preservation of the republic. Daniel Webster penned the following assessment: “[T]he cultivation of the religious sentiment represses licentiousness, … inspires respect for and order, and gives strength to the whole social fabric.”
And Noah Webster, responsible for some of the articles of the Constitution, wrote, “[T]he education of youth should be watched with the most scrupulous attention.… for it is much easier to introduce and establish an effectual system for preserving morals than to correct by penal statutes the ill effects of a bad system.” Those sentiments would be beneficial to take to heart for those who are concerned for the state of public education in this day.
John Witherspoon, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, held the view, “[To] promote true religion is the best and most effectual way of making a virtuous and regular people. Love to God and love to man is the substance of religion; when these prevail, civil laws will have little to do.”
We gain insight into the thinking of those first patriots who were willing to stand alone against the most powerful armies in their world. And it is obvious that these framers of the republic held the opinion that high morals shaped by the religion of Christ Jesus was a necessity if the republic was to survive. Allow me to cite one further individual from that early era. Robert Winthrop, Speaker of the U.S. House, 1847–1849, has left us his assessment in the following words: “Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.
“It is little wonder, then, that basic religious teachings were long promoted throughout society and specifically incorporated into public education. As Daniel Webster noted: “We regard it [public education] as a wise and liberal system of police by which property, and life, and the peace of society are secured. We seek to prevent in some measure the extension of the penal code by inspiring a salutary and conservative principle of virtue and of knowledge in an early age.… [W]e seek … to turn the strong current of feeling and opinion, as well as the censures of the law and the denunciations of religion, against immorality and crime.” [2]
I need to make a couple of observations to clarify based on the statements I have assembled. In the early days of the American Republic, you will have noted that the sources quoted frequently spoke of “religion.” It is incontrovertible that this reference was to the Christian Faith. While the founding fathers were gracious toward and tolerant of people who held to other religions, they would never have agreed to promote a Muslim, or a Hindu, or a Buddhist to a position of authority. And they assuredly would never have agreed to permit an atheist or an agnostic to exercise authority. They understood that only people grounded in biblical morality would honour the Constitution.
You will also have no doubt noted that the sources cited, less frequently made references to education. The founding fathers thought of education as preparation of young minds to function as productive citizens. It would have been utterly foreign to imagine that training in a school or training as an apprentice would be for the purpose of indoctrination, and especially if the indoctrination was meant to create an inability to think rationally or to create hatred for the aims of the Republic. The goal of education included preparing young people to become citizens who shared the desire for peace and prosperity for all people residing in the nation.
Again, I am fully aware that I have focused my attention on the American Republic. As stated earlier, I have done so because I am most familiar with the history of the United States. However, I understand that those who governed the Dominion of Canada in the earliest days of our confederation were not significantly at odds with the views of their counterparts in the United States. Moreover, the principles that guided these men who founded that great Republic are timeless principles that apply universally to all nations. We would benefit if we had such visionaries in Canada in this day!
Modern politics is cynical. Voting blocs are not necessarily righteous in the decisions guiding them. They choose candidates on whether they believe they can immediately enrich themselves in some manner. Free bus passes sure sound attractive, though those promising such amenities have no suggestion for how to pay for that promise. Free housing sounds exciting, until the voters realise that it means they can never own their own home. Free food sounds like paradise, until those rushing to avail themselves of this bounty learn that there is no food available, and if there should be food, it seldom is palatable or plentiful. Righteous leaders do not promise the sun, the moon, and the stars just to accumulate power. Righteous leaders seek what is right and good for the people they serve. Righteous leaders understand that their goal is to honour God by doing what is just and practising what is godly.
When the American Republic was founded, only property owners were permitted to elect representatives. The rationale was that these people had skin in the game. Those with nothing invested in the republic were not permitted to vote since that would mean that they could direct the collection of duties and dictate the expenditures of the government for their own benefit. The system as established had merit; we ignore these ideals to our detriment in this day.
Not everyone should vote! I know that sounds shocking to some ears. Hear me out. Voters should see beyond their self-interests. Voters who are controlled with promises of personal prosperity are unfit to provide governance of the nation. Members of Parliament who vote to redistribute wealth solely to hold onto power are not fit to govern. Those MPs who refuse to do what is best for the nation, choosing instead to establish a party in power though they know that doing so threatens the long-term stability of the nation are unfit to hold office.
Voters should be able to distinguish between worldviews. Our elections present choices between how government will resolve the great issues facing the nation. We must inform ourselves with how those wishing to lead propose to government. It is sheer laziness for people to say, “It doesn’t matter; they’re all the same,” or “It’s all just politics.” Voters should know the underlying worldview of those who wish to lead. Whether the leader who wishes to serve believes the nation should cede sovereignty to the United Nations or hold national sovereignty as sacrosanct is a critical issue.
Voters should not spend their franchise on empty gestures. I’m cautioning against the temptation to vote for a third-party candidate that has no possibility of winning or of influencing the government. The Canadian Future Party, the Centrist Party of Canada, the Christian Heritage Party, the Libertarian Party of Canada, the People’s Party of Canada, or the United Party of Canada all represent aspects that may be appealing to Followers of Christ. Though Evangelical Christians have been susceptible to these campaigns in the past, we know that no successful politician is as strong on every issue as we would like. Our own pastor and our parents can’t pass this test in their much smaller contexts. Rather than striking a blow for purity, we risk giving up our influence altogether when we follow a man with only one or two “perfect” ideas.
Voters should value their vote, but not sell it. Thinking we can invite those seeking office through bargaining for our support is foolish beyond measure. The one seeking office should not be willing to exchange influence for your vote; and if that one will “sell his or her vote for your support,” know that they will sell it again to anyone who has more influence than you. The one seeking office should know and should show what will guide decisions before he or she seeks your support.
I understand that all I’ve said to this point in the message relates strongly to civic politics. Know that what I’ve said relates just as strongly to church matters. In appointing elders, we have the qualifications given before we ever begin to seek out those whom God has appointed. The same truth holds true for those we will seek to serve as deacons. Those who do the choosing must be members of the congregation. We are gracious to attendees, hearing their concerns and showing them courtesy, but they can have no voice in the selection of those who lead. That privilege is reserved for those who have openly identified themselves with the congregation, accepting the discipline that can be administered only by the congregation.
LEADERSHIP WAS TO BE RESPONSIBLE — Though it is tempting to continue stressing that some people, especially people who have no “skin in the game,” should not be permitted to have a voice in selecting leadership, it is necessary to refocus on our text. “You shall appoint judges and officers in all your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. You shall not pervert justice. You shall not show partiality, and you shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous. Justice, and only justice, you shall follow” [DEUTERONOMY 16:18-20a].
We have arrived at a day when many are challenged, if asked, to define “justice.” Neglecting righteousness, modern jurisprudence has created a two-tiered justice system. Those at the top, elites within the nation, are permitted to violate with impunity the laws they draft for the nation. Everyone else, however, must be held accountable to those laws at which that the elite scoff.
One need but think of the uncomfortable ties of the Liberal Party with wealthy Chinese Canadians having uncomfortable ties to the Chinese Communist Party. There was the Aga Khan affair when our Prime Minister vacationed at the Bahamian private island owned by the late leader of the Isma’ili Muslims and the infamous state visit to India in 2018. There was the influx of illegal migrants via the uncontrolled Quebec border crossing into Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle beginning in 2017 and continuing until 2023. There was also the accusation the PM had groped a reporter in 2000.
I would be remiss if I failed to mention the SNC Lavalin Affair that resulted in the PM booting his former Attorney General, Jody Wilson-Raybould, from caucus because she would not defer prosecution to the Quebec-based construction firm. And few of us can forget the injustice meted out to leaders of the Freedom Convoy in 2022. These injustices saw leadership engineer monitoring and freezing bank accounts even of those merely suspected of supporting the protests.
God made a promise to David that looked far into the future. Among the Psalms of Ascent is one which records the divine promise God made to David. The Psalmist testifies,
“The LORD swore to David a sure oath
from which he will not turn back:
‘One of the sons of your body
I will set on your throne.
If your sons keep my covenant
and my testimonies that I shall teach them,
their sons also forever
shall sit on your throne.”
[PSALM 132:11-12]
The Psalmist is reciting the promise God made through Nathan, the Prophet whom God used to rebuke the King, when He said, “I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover, the LORD declares to you that the LORD will make you a house. When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever” [2 SAMUEL 7:11b-16].
Solomon recited this promise in a prayer to the LORD, pleading with the LORD, “O LORD, God of Israel, there is no God like you, in heaven or on earth, keeping covenant and showing steadfast love to your servants who walk before you with all their heart, who have kept with your servant David my father what you declared to him. You spoke with your mouth, and with your hand have fulfilled it this day. Now therefore, O LORD, God of Israel, keep for your servant David my father what you have promised him, saying, ‘You shall not lack a man to sit before me on the throne of Israel, if only your sons pay close attention to their way, to walk in my law as you have walked before me.’ Now therefore, O LORD, God of Israel, let your word be confirmed, which you have spoken to your servant David” [2 CHRONICLES 6:14-17].
The Solomonic dynasty would rule forever if the king acted righteously. If Solomon and his sons honoured the Lord as they led the nation, God would bless them and maintain their rule. If they disobeyed and followed their own desires, God would destroy the nation as an act of judgement. If the king was righteous, the nation would prosper. If the king was faithless, the nation would suffer; we know how that turned out.
There is a promise given in the Book of the Psalms that every Follower of Christ should memorise. It reads like this:
“Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD,
the people whom he has chosen as his heritage!
“The LORD looks down from heaven;
he sees all the children of man;
from where he sits enthroned he looks out
on all the inhabitants of the earth,
he who fashions the hearts of them all
and observes all their deeds.
The king is not saved by his great army;
a warrior is not delivered by his great strength.
The war horse is a false hope for salvation,
and by its great might it cannot rescue.
“Behold, the eye of the LORD is on those who fear him,
on those who hope in his steadfast love,
that he may deliver their soul from death
and keep them alive in famine.”
[PSALM 33:12-19]
I’m aware that the promise was written for Israel; but I’m so naïve that I’m prepared to seize the promises of God, applying God’s promises to us living in this day if there is no clear prohibition to doing so. I hold the conviction that if a nation honours the True and Living God, He will honour that nation. Watching the “accidents” of history as my natal country was delivered repeatedly from certain disaster, I cannot help but see the unseen hand of God bless and deliver the armies from defeat and deliver the nation from ruin. As I acquaint myself with the history of Canada, I witness the same unseen hand delivering and guiding the nation.
When governments act righteously, God in Heaven knows and blesses that nation. When governments advance immorality, promote violence, imposes unjust laws on the people, God also sees those unrighteous acts. The nation that begins the drift into unrighteousness is sliding into ruin from which there is no turning back. Though judgement may be delayed for a brief while, it must assuredly come. I cannot help but fear for the western world, Canada, and the United States in particular. I fear we have already set in motion the events that must eventuate in God’s withdrawal of blessing.
OUR CIVIC DUTY — No one should conclude that I am advocating withdrawal into sacred enclaves where we can hide ourselves from what is coming. We who follow the Risen Saviour are reminded, “Do all things without grumbling or disputing, that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast to the word of life” [PHILIPPIANS 2:14-16]. Though we are living in the world, we do not conduct our lives as the world conducts its life—we seek to honour Christ Jesus our Sovereign.
In our text, God instructed Moses to inform the people, “You shall appoint judges and officers in all your towns… Justice, and only justice, you shall follow, you shall follow, that you may live and inherit the land that the LORD your God is giving you” [DEUTERONOMY 16:18, 20]. Those appointed to lead would be responsible to maintain justice. They were not to enrich themselves, promote an agenda that did not promote justice, or accrue personal power over others. In short, leaders were to be godly—they were to honour righteousness by holding to what was just and good. And the good in view was not whatever happened to be made up out of the fertile imagination of wicked people; good was that which honoured God and fulfilled righteousness.
The principle enunciated in the text sets the standard for those appointed to leadership. It is of little moment whether we are speaking of leadership in the ecclesiastical realm or whether we are focused on leadership in the civic realm. I have already pointed out the standards for appointment of leaders in the church, but I do want to focus our attention ever so briefly on our choices for leadership in the civic realm.
Under our system of government, we elect those who will represent us in the civic realm. Thus, we who follow Christ are obligated to choose leaders who will promote justice and seek what is good and honourable in guiding the nation, or the province, or the city. As the nation becomes increasingly secular, forgetting our Christian heritage, we experience growing hostility toward righteousness. Those dear souls holding to Christian values are accused of trying to foist their beliefs on others. Godless souls seek to promote their agenda which too often flies in the face of God’s righteousness, including freedom to kill the unborn or encourage the elderly to end their lives, including the claim of compassion by excusing lawlessness and advocating against defending oneself or one’s family, including agitating for loss of freedoms through ever greater intrusion of governmental regulations into the daily affairs of citizens.
A truth that Christians must not forget in this day is that every side imposes morality. Every law, every policy, every social norm is someone’s version of moral order. When critics sneer that we who follow Christ are “forcing our beliefs” on others, what they really mean is that they want to impose their beliefs instead. Someone’s moral version will prevail! We who follow Christ are responsible to obey Him and to reflect His holiness in every facet of life. This responsibility will be seen in the conduct of our daily lives, and it will be seen through our choices as we participate in the process of choosing those who lead our nation, who lead our provinces, and who will lead our municipalities. The impact of our choices will be evident in the laws and regulations that are imposed on us. And yet again, whether we will oppose unjust laws or whether we will acquiesce to unrighteousness will reveal where our loyalties lie.
The world will not always appreciate our stand for righteousness, because our stand will expose the world for who it is. Those identified with this dying world will accuse us of various evils. Our job isn’t to run from their accusation; it is to expose it. These attempts are but the latest chapter in a long campaign to exile Christian conviction from the public square. Our world has tried “separation of church and state;” it has tried “don’t impose your beliefs;” now it is pushing “Christian nationalism.”
Don’t flinch! Meet the challenge head-on. We do believe in laws that reflect godly righteousness. We do believe the Bible is a better foundation for national blessing than moral relativism. And we are quite certain we would rather live under the blessing of God than under the judgement of ideologies that mock Him and His righteousness.
Every nation bows to something. Know that if our nation does not bow to God, it will demand that all bow to government. The Left has made their choice. We who name the Name of Christ the Lord must make our choice now. Amen.
[1] Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2016. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
[2] David Barton, The Second Amendment: Preserving the Inalienable Right of Individual Self-Protection (WallBuilder Press, Aledo, TX 2000), 55–57
