How to Live the Millennial Kingdom Today
True Christians long for the return of Yeshua and the establishment of His Kingdom on Earth as it is in Heaven. We tell ourselves that justice will be served and there will be peace on earth when He rules. We imagine that all disputes will disappear and that if there was a dispute, He will be the one to resolve it. No one would dare break his Law because the all-seeing eye of Yeshua will catch them and His judgment would be swift and no one could resist it.
I think this idealistic view of His coming Kingdom ignores the reality that Earth will still be inhabited by fleshly, sinful, people. It is as misguided as what the Jews expected from Yeshua when He came the first time. People will be spared the influence of Satan for a time, but their flesh remains. Therefore sin and disputes will remain and things will be less than perfect.
he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for 1000 years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released (to deceive/test the nations) for a little while. — Revelation 20:2
For the nations to be deceived suggests that they are still subject to the flesh and sin. Things will be much easier without Satan and his minions deceiving us, but we cannot blame everything on Satan because if we could then we would not be guilty.
In the last days the mountain (nation) of the house of YHWH will be established as head over the mountains (nations); it will be raised up above the hills (cities) and all the nations will flow to it. And many peoples will come and say:
“Come, let us go up to the mountain (nation) of YHWH, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us His ways so that we may walk in His paths.”
For the torah will go forth from Zion, and the word of YHWH from Jerusalem. Then He (through his people) will judge between the nations and arbitrate for many peoples.”Isaiah 2
When the Millennial Kingdom arrives Torah will be proclaimed and he will teach everyone to walk in His way. Part of walking in his way is resolving disputes among all the peoples of the earth according to his Law, the Torah.
The Millennial Kingdom is not some “heavenly” kingdom where there are no longer disputes among the people. Many imagine that Yeshua, being our High Priest, will directly resolve all disputes; however, I believe scripture teaches something very different.
And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; his kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.’ — Daniel 7:27
The dominion (authority, jurisdiction) will be given to the saints as described in Daniel 12, though most translations butcher it.
And I heard the man clothed in linen (Yeshua?), who was above the waters (peoples) of the stream (living water, life, spirit?); he raised his right hand and his left hand toward heaven and swore by him who lives forever (YHWH) that it would be for a time, times, and half a time, and when complete the shattering (H5310, dispersing, dividing, distributing) power [to] the holy people all these things would be finished. — Daniel 12:7
Most translations render this verse as the power of the saints will be destroyed/shattered after time, times, and half a time; however that is the result of a poor interpretation of the Hebrew word “naw-fats’” which means to divide into small pieces, disperse or spread.
The choice of the word “shatter” produces an image of destruction of the power, where as dividing or distributing the power sounds like a King delegating authority to his Priests to rule over the nations. Daniel 7:27 already established that the Power would be given to the peoples.
the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given (distributed, divided among, delegated to) to the people of the saints of the Most High — Daniel 7:27
Consider for a moment that Moses was a type and shadow for Yeshua. Yeshua will teach the Law and only the most difficult of cases will be brought directly to Him to resolve.
The next day Moses sat to judge the people, and the people stood around Moses from morning till evening. 14When Moses’ father-in-law saw all that he was doing for the people, he said, “What is this that you are doing for the people? Why do you sit alone, and all the people stand around you from morning till evening?” 15And Moses said to his father-in-law, “Because the people come to me to inquire of God; 16when they have a dispute, they come to me and I decide between one person and another, and I make them know the statutes of God and his laws.” 17Moses’ father-in-law said to him, “What my you are doing is not good. 18You and the people with you will certainly wear yourselves out, for the thing is too heavy for you. You are not able to do it alone. 19Now obey my voice; I will give you advice, and God be with you! You shall represent the people before God and bring their cases to God, 20and you shall warn them about the statutes and the laws, and make them know the way in which they must walk and what they must do. 21Moreover, look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens. 22And let them judge the people at all times. Every great matter they shall bring to you, but any small matter they shall decide themselves. So it will be easier for you, and they will bear the burden with you. 23If you do this, God will direct you, you will be able to endure, and all this people also will go to their place in peace.”
24So Moses listened to the voice of his father-in-law and did all that he had said. 25Moses chose able men out of all Israel and made them heads over the people, chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens. 26And they judged the people at all times. Any hard case they brought to Moses, but any small matter they decided themselves. 27Then Moses let his father-in-law depart, and he went away to his own country. — Exodus 18:13–27
Many will think, “This is great, I cannot wait for the His Kingdom to come”, but then think there is nothing we are to do now. Scripture is very clear that even today the Body of Messiah is to be appointing judges to resolve all disputes among members of the Body.
When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life!
So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint judges who are of no account(ability) in the church? I say this to your shame. Is it so that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, but brother goes to [secular] law with brother, and that before unbelievers? Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?
- 1 Corinthians 6
We are expected to resolve disputes among ourselves, but in practice this is the exception rather than the rule. When a dispute among believers arises we often find that the root is unrepentant sin among one or both of them. We discover that they do not want to be judged by Biblical standards, but by the standards of godless judges. After all, people usually know when they are in the wrong and therefore search for venues that will enable them to win without respect for the truth.
When two Christians are committed to YHWH then they will gladly bring their dispute before Christian Mediation, and if necessary binding Arbitration. Thankfully, there are organizations like The Institute for Christian Conciliation which train people in how to make peace with their brother and offer mediators and arbitration services.
Thankfully, the secular courts world wide will enforce the rulings of Christian Arbitration on most matters (excluding children's issues, violent criminal cases, or determining the doctrine of a religious organization). This is because secular courts lack the jurisdiction to order doctrine due to separation of church and state. That said, orders by Christian arbitration regarding property rights are fully respected and enforced by secular courts.
The problem Christians face is that we enter into contracts with people based in part on their reputation or claim of following YHWH, then when conflict arises we discover that they are not walking the walk. One side will ask for Christian Arbitration, but the other will reject. Without consent of both sides the dispute remains in the jurisdiction of the godless.
Instead, everyone who claims to follow YHWH should make a binding agreement up front that they will submit to the jurisdiction of a Christian Judge in the event they end up in a dispute with another Christian. Even non-Christians can submit to Christian arbitration.
Keep in mind that as Christians our word is supposed to be as good as our signature on a contract. Let your Yes be Yes and your No be No.
“Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil. — Jesus, Matthew 5:33
By default your word is subject to secular jurisdiction, but there are ways to change the default. Christians can join a legal structure known as a Private Membership Association (PMA), the membership contract could include an arbitration clause similar to the following:
The parties to this agreement are Christians and believe that the Bible commands them to make every effort to live at peace and to resolve disputes with each other in private or within the Christian church (see Matthew 18:15–20; 1 Corinthians 6:1–8). Therefore, the parties agree that any claim or dispute arising from or related to this agreement shall be settled by biblically based mediation and, if necessary, legally binding arbitration in accordance with the Rules of Procedure for Christian Conciliation of the Institute for Christian Conciliation (complete text of the Rules is available at www.aorhope.org/rules or by contacting ICC at icc@aorhope.org). Judgment upon an arbitration decision may be entered in any court otherwise having jurisdiction. The parties understand that these methods shall be the sole remedy for any controversy or claim arising out of this agreement and expressly waive their right to jury and their right to file a lawsuit in any civil court against one another for such disputes, except to enforce an arbitration decision.
The parties agree to include this clause above in all contracts among two or more Members of the PMA and to the fullest extent of the law it shall be presumed to be included if absent or in the event of verbal or implicit contracts among and between members of the PMA. Members agree not contract with one another in a manner that would introduce an alternative jurisdiction or arbitration process.
A lawyer may need to tweak this and there can be alternatives to the Rules of Procedure for Christian Conciliation. I use them as an example of a system that has been established and proven.
What has not been widely adopted and promoted is the Private Membership Association that encourages all christians to submit to the jurisdiction of Christian Arbitrators in advance.
Why don’t most Christians submit to Christian governance?
In most instances, a dispute between two Christ-following individuals can be resolved without having to involve a third party or the church (PMA).
If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church (aka PMA). And if he refuses to listen (obey) even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector (kicked out of PMA, and judgment entered as secular court order).
- Jesus, Matthew 18:15–20
The problem is that almost all churches fail to follow this process and when people do take it to the church the members have not actually placed themselves under the authority of the church. Therefore, the leverage the church can bring against their members to enforce their ruling on disputes is minimal. In effect, the church has allowed the ruler of the kingdoms of the earth to come between its members and a house divided cannot stand.
Furthermore, many people confuse “taking it to the Church” with “make it Public”. They claim they are following Yeshua’s process by gathering some of their friends (who are biased) and approaching someone with whom they have issue. They make demands on threat of creating a public scene at the next assembly. Rather than recognize that there is a dispute, they have appointed themselves judge, jury, and executioner by public shaming and bring shame on the entire church in the process.
In reality, bringing the dispute to the church means bringing the dispute before someone whom the church has placed in authority to render a binding opinion upon both parties. This process need not be a public trial, but could easily be private arbitration. The conclusion of the process would be a decision that the parties must abide by or be put out of the church.
How often has a person been publicly accused by a posse with allegations (true or false) in front of the entire church body! This shameful behavior should be avoided and all accusations should be investigated and defended against in private because a false accusation carries the same penalty as the action the other person is accused of.
A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, 19then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. — Deuteronomy 19:15–21
The two witnesses are necessary to bring a charge to a private judge, not to convict someone of a crime nor subject them to the court of public opinion.
Do not go about spreading slander among your people
— Leviticus 19:16
For I fear that perhaps when I come I may find you not as I wish, and that you may find me not as you wish — that perhaps there may be quarreling, jealousy, anger, hostility, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder. — 2 Corinthians 12:20
Two or more witnesses bringing a charge public is slander until it has been vetted by due process and found to be true. It damages someones reputation without opportunity to defend oneself before a neutral arbitrator. Even if an arbitrator clears their name, they are unable to change the impression left in the minds of everyone who heard the accusation.
I have had people contact me and warn me about other people in the YouTube community. They then direct me to YouTube videos where people are being publicly accused in front of the entire church body. Then they ask me to take sides. I choose to remain neutral and not engage in this gossip nor entertain slander and judgment of others without due process before a neutral arbitrator. Are the allegations “true” or “false”? I don’t know and I don’t have authority to judge it. I just happen to know from experience that people are more than willing to make wild assumptions, misunderstand what happened, engage it crazy logic, and then relay what they conclude as if it was the truth. Others will then build upon that and repeat the process.
There are many reasons that Christians fear joining organizations that would have power and authority to enforce Biblical justice processes. By Biblical justice I don’t mean stoning people! He who is without sin shall cast the first stone, and no one qualifies for that. I am referring to simple arbitration agreements and parallel government.
- Stuck in the Past
- Fear of Theocracy
- Identifying Honest Judges
- Fear of Good-Ol Boy Mentality
- Fear of Cults
- Postpone Decision until Conflict
- Lack of Options
Stuck in the Past
Alexis de Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America, said that “Americans combine Christianity and liberty in their minds, and that they cannot conceive one without the other”. He also believed that a strong religious life is necessary to maintain the morals and habits that are crucial to democratic freedom. He said “Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.” — Tocqueville 1831.
One could say that the United States was once a country of people who feared YHWH because it was filled with those fleeing from persecution in Europe. Because of this most people in government positions and most judges held Judeo-Christian values even if the government was secular on paper. Now our once God fearing nation has fallen and, as Jonathan Cahn states, “the foreign gods of the Bible have returned”. Those who desire to follow and obey Yeshua are canceled and discriminated against by our civil institutions, our tech monopolies, and even primary political parties. Our government schools teach our children evil doctrines and each generation moves further from Judeo-Christian values. As a result our judges are less and less likely to judge issues the same way as the church.
While this transformation has occurred, our justice system has become perverted and is no longer carried out with biblical principles by mostly God-fearing men. Judges now rule based upon secular principles and God-denying men. Many people have not realized this reality and are therefore “stuck in the past”.
Unaware of the corruption of the courts, people are not motivated to seek alternative solutions. One reason most people forgo seeking justice is because the courts are so corrupt and expensive that those seeking justice have no place to go. People would rather accept injustice than hold someone accountable and this is contrary to God’s instructions and leads to further corruption. Seeking justice in our corrupt system might add insult to injury.
Learn to do right; seek justice and correct the oppressor. Defend the fatherless and plead the case of the widow. — Isaiah 1:17
Do not deny justice to your poor people in their lawsuits. — Exodus 23:6
A lawsuit process that is too costly in both time and money denies justice to poor people. When it comes to the cost of a lawsuit, anyone who cannot afford to gamble $100,000 in legal expenses is considered among the poor people who are denied justice. I say it is gambling because the outcome of lawsuits is largely unpredictable (especially before godless judges under secular law) and even if you win you may not be able to collect. By this standard 99% of people are considered too poor to seek justice.
The solution is not to raise more money and donations from fellow Christians to subsidize the poor in their excessively expensive pursuit of justice in corrupt courts, but to establish a Biblical dispute resolution system that true believers voluntarily submit to. Then, those who are poor will have a venue to resolve disputes among believers.
Fear of Theocracy
Our culture has ingrained in us the principle of “separation of church and state” and the oppression many see in theocratic Islamic societies is held up as a case study in what can go wrong. The history of the protestant reformation comes as an escape from the abuse of hundreds of years of Catholic theocratic governance. It is therefore very logical to be wary of returning to a tyranny of “religious extremists”; however, the reactionary response of running from “Theocracy” to “Atheorcracy”, aka “atheistic extremists” and removing Biblical principles and the church from governance is just as fraught, if not more so. After all, atheists are no more just and no less corruptible than any other person. Modern anti-God, aka anti-Christ, extremist governments have their own false religion and claim the right to rule over everyone without limit. Without God, “might makes right”. In my opinion, it takes more “faith” to deny the existence of God than to believe in God. This is why I call it Atheocracy. Separation of Church and State has gone from state “neutrality” to a state against God’s church, aka his people.
The problem isn’t with theocracy, that is, God-ruled, governance. The problem is with corrupt individuals abusing power. The solution to both Theocracy and Atheocracy is in the governance structure and not its belief (or not) in God and God’s law.
You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of YHWH your God that I command you. — Deuteronomy 4:2
The Bible makes it very clear that men are not to be granted power to enforce doctrines of men as if they were God’s law. Likewise, men with authority should not be granted power to disregard God’s law either. Those in the body of Messiah should have no issues submitting to the authority which will be delegated and distributed among his (potentially fallible) people in the years ahead. This means that His people should be practicing proper use of authority while we wait.
Identifying True Christians
One of the most difficult challenges is identifying people that truly fear God and are skilled and trust worthy to resolve complicated disputes. How often have the worst kinds of abuse been found in the house of church leaders? These modern day Pharisees are white-washed tombs that look pure on the outside but are nothing but rot and decay inside. These are wolves among the sheep and the sheep are wise to be wary of them; however, just because some wolves might masquerade as sheep doesn’t mean we should fear everything that looks like a lamb and put pigs (the ungodly) in charge of the Animal Farm.
With the proper governance structure there are natural protections against wolves acquiring the power to hurt sheep. For example, if you know that there is only 1 wolf per 100 sheep, then simply taking measures to randomly sample multiple people per judgment completely nullifies the power of the wolf. Corruption will only set in when there are more wolves than sheep. Thankfully, the solution to prevent systematic corruption is for the sheep to retain the power to leave and regroup and do a better job of vetting sheep on the way into the new pen.
Fear of Good-Ol-Boy Mentality
Most churches are run by one or two influential families. The heads of these families cannot be trusted to resolve disputes between church members and these head family members. This creates a conflict of interest in the same way as asking a government court to resolve a dispute with the government. If your church has a top-down, centralized, governance structure and this same structure is the final authority for resolving disputes then there is fertile ground for abuse. To be a fair arbiter in a dispute requires a degree of independence from the parties to the dispute and this is challenging to achieve at a small scale. For this reason, smaller churches should align with the broader Body of Messiah and seek help from other gatherings of believers to resolve internal disputes. This is where an inter-denominational PMA comes in.
All of that said, even a church with only a couple dozen families can adopt a better governance structure that can largely mitigate the risk of the Good-Ol-Boy mentality corrupting justice in dispute resolution. I will present strategies on how to do this later.
Fear of Joining a Cult
Any top-down governance structure and top-down dispute resolution process can easily turn into a cult. The leader and his friends can “do no wrong” and everyone else follows these men rather than the law of God and our Messiah. Rather than risk joining a “Christian” Cult, almost everyone joins (or is afraid to leave) the godless cult-of-culture. They join a political party and believe their country and/or their party can do no wrong. They will worship the constitution and deny its corruption. They will tolerate leaders who break the laws and attack those who point it out.
There are many definitions of cults, but the most feared are the ones led by charismatic leaders that manipulate others for personal gain. Wait, isn’t that exactly what politicians and government controlled media does? Cults also isolate members from “society” and “family”… but wait, isn’t that also what secular governments do? Don’t governments actively discourage people from forming competing “societies” with competing “currencies” while also implementing “anti-family” policies that encourage divorce? Don’t governments divide husband and wife, parents and children? Don’t schools teach children to distrust their parents? Aren’t governments hostile toward other countries and even their own citizens who are not part of the government?
Modern governments exhibit all of the behaviors of a cult. The government is usually at odds with the majority of the population and the population is largely powerless to fix it, yet will defend it to death. Propaganda is utilized to deceive the population to support the leaders and their agenda and the leaders can do no wrong. Anyone who disagrees with the government is labeled an “extremist” despite the government being in the minority. Governments utilize “classified” secrets to hide their abuse of power and deny the people meaningful financial disclosure.
While it is true that there have been many charismatic christian leaders who develop a cult following and “brainwash” people into giving them money in the name of God. These leaders set up authoritarian organizational structures and hide how donations are distributed. The existence of these corrupt organizations is not a reason to avoid all efforts at governing a body of believers according to biblical principles.
People don’t submit themselves to Christian Governance structures because their friends and family warn them away by labeling it a cult. This warning away is a side effect of the cult-of-culture attempting to isolate believers from the Body of Messiah, the Assembly of His people, the Church in the broadest sense.
A house divided against itself cannot stand, and that is exactly what a body of believers afraid to submit to one another in resolving their own disputes has become.
Principles of Church Governance
There are a number of principles that can be used to design a governance structure that resists being captured by an abusive authority. The problem is that most people are not familiar with them and instead employ techniques that mimic authoritarian corporate structures and failed democratic structures. I have written an entire book, titled “More Equal Animals, the Subtle Art of True Democracy” that dives into the principles of governance in great depth. In this book I demonstrate why it doesn’t matter how honest our vote counts are, the very structure of voting can adversely select for negative personality traits and corruption.
The major problem in traditional voting is the unavoidable formation of political parties which divide people into two camps. This applies at almost every scale beyond the size of a family unit. Instead, any leader that can get a reasonable number of endorsements (or petition signatures) should be eligible and then a council of leaders should be randomly selected from the eligible members.
This process avoids the adverse selection that biases outcomes toward those who have a large audience, such as a popular pastor. It also mitigates efforts to cheat the system or exclude people. Finally, it puts God in charge of the final selection by use of randomness that puts control beyond any individual. This is just a simplified version utilized by many Amish communities, but more sophisticated concepts are covered in my book.
Potential Pastor Picking Problems
“But do not be called Rabbi (Pastor); for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9“Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10“Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. 11“But the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12“Whoever exalts himself (to leader) shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.
— Matthew 23:8
If your church governance follows the model of a Pastor/Teacher/Leader then it is operating contrary to the principles of Biblical governance. It doesn’t matter how you appoint your leader, pastor, teacher their position of “authority” is illegitimate. We are all to be brothers and serving, encouraging, and making disciples of Yeshua not disciples of our leader/pastor.
Because of this passage, The Amish do not allow anyone to “run for office” or to nominate themselves. They would view seeking leadership and authority as pride. Instead, others have to nominate them and multiple parties are nominated randomness has to select you. In a twist, the Amish do not allow leaders selected in such a manner to turn down the position. It is a lot of work and a burden to be a leader in the Amish community and therefore it is an act of service and humbling. All of that said, I would be wary of appointing anyone to a position of leader by any means.
But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” — Matthew 20:25
If someone is given the gift of understanding and explaining the scriptures then he can share his understanding with all the brothers and sisters via YouTube or other video sharing services. This is similar to Paul writing letters that are shared with all. He can attend small group bible studies and share there. There is no logical reason for everyone in a congregation to sit through a live performance each week. That structure lifts up one man above the others in the congregation.
Instead I propose that when we gather each week it is to break into small randomly selected groups of 5 to 7 men or 5 to 7 women. In each group we can discuss scriptures, pray for one another, encourage one another. In this way everyone in the assembly gets to know everyone else and encourage one another. Accountability can be achieved and disciples made without appointing anyone to position of leader or authority.
If you have a group of close friends then you are probably meeting with them at other times.
As people gather each week a 1 minute process at the end of each meeting can have each person can secretly rank-sort their group members in priority of whom they would prefer to arbitrate in the event of a future dispute. Over time each member of the congregation will acquire a “trust” rating and all members assigned a ranking.
When a dispute arises a panel of arbitrators from the top half of community rankings can be randomly appointed to render the binding opinion on the dispute (assuming the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator on their own).
Limiting Judicial Power for Accountability
The best way to minimize Judicial power is to eliminate the need for a Judge all together. Imagine two children attempting to split a cookie 50/50, they could ask their father to split it, but the children might still be jealous or feel shafted if they perceive the father did not cut it exactly in half. A better solution is to allow one child to split the cookie such that they would be happy with either half. Then give the other child authority to pick the half they like. Utilizing this process no one can legitimately complain because it would be their own fault if they cut or chose poorly.
Many disputes over property can be expressed in terms of cookie division. For example, two business partners trying to value a business can resolve the dispute by one person naming the price and the other having the option to either pay the price or sell at that price.
An alternative way to divide a mixture of assets by any arbitrary percentage is to allocate each person an appropriate percentage of monopoly money. Then auction off all of the items for the monopoly money. Assuming two parties can agree on the percentage, this method ensures a fair distribution. There may be a learning curve on using such a process, so each person can be given the option to “reset” the process one time when they run out of monopoly money. The option to reset and the number of “trial runs” can be agreed upon in advance.
Free Reign Judge
If the parties cannot agree on a fair process amongst themselves, they may be able to agree on the judge. This is the preferred way to appoint a judge. If this can be achieved, then there is no need to utilize a random selection process. Through direct consent both parties are unable to have a legitimate complaint about the process by which the judge is selected. If they cannot agree a random judge or panel of judges can be selected.
Once a judge is agreed upon, the parties can choose one of two methods of resolving the dispute. The first (and traditional) method gives the Judge “unlimited power” over the issues of the dispute and the judge can get quite creative in what he orders each party to do to resolve the dispute. The judge will often want to interact with the parties and ask questions to discover potential solutions.
The outcome of this process is similar to a child asking the parent to divide the cookie. The parent may lack a full appreciation of the relative value each child puts on the various parts of the cookie. Does one kid like chocolate chips more than the other? Dividing equally by volume might not be divided equally by value scale of the judge and the parties.
Multiple Choice Judge
The second method is less well known, but provides greater protection and objectivity for everyone involved. In this second process both parties to the dispute present their proposed resolution along with an argument for why their proposed resolution is more just than the proposal of their opponent. If either party finds the other parties proposal acceptable, then the dispute has been resolved. If not, then the judge is restricted to picking one of the two proposals.
The judge is asked to pick the “most fair” outcome of the two. The party with the most extreme proposal may lose even if they are in the right. This forces both parties to present a compromise that is closer to what they think the judge would choose. If your proposed resolution is excessively unjust, the judge may side with your opponent even if he was leaning in your direction. For example if you claim you were 100% right and your adversary was 100% wrong and the judge things you were 75% right on the issue but wrong on the resolution then he might side with your opponent who claims the dispute was 60/40.
The benefit of Multiple Choice Judge is that you get 3 independent judgments and at least one party has no room to complain about the outcome. The Free Reign Judge only has one judgment and both parties have room to complain.
This can be taken a step further with multiple judges offering their independent opinion on the issue. The end result is that the community gains a measure of whether a judge aligns with consensus or is consistently biased. A consistently biased judge (one constantly in the minority of Multiple Choice Judge) can be removed from the pool of judges. The end result of multiple-choice judge panels is that the parties to the dispute have less room to complain about judicial bias. Furthermore, the judges can be anonymous to each other and to the parties to prevent bribes or collusion.
Church (PMA) Money Management
Traditional churches will have everyone donate into one pot of money, then the “biblically illegitimate” leaders (call no man leader) will decide how to spend the money. This process is often opaque and biased due to the natural distribution of power. Many people have experienced churches where someone would give for decades, then, when they are in need, the church wasn’t there for them.
And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts.
— Acts 2:44
This verse is perplexing at first because it almost looks communist and many people will assume that everyone donated to a central authority who then distributed out everyone. However, it says people sold and gave “to all” not “to the church leaders”. In other words, everyone gave directly to other members of the church as they had need. In order for this to function, the members of the church would have get to know one another.
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ — Matthew 25:31
“For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.” — Mark 3:35
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” — Matthew 25:31
It seems clear to me that no one who is seeking to do the will of Yah should be without food, shelter, and clothing so long as even one member of the church has extra food, shelter, or clothing. The question becomes how does a body of believers judge who is and who is not doing the will of YHWH?
This is a matter of interpreting scripture and there is no one who can say that they have the one true interpretation. The Bible states that no one understands, no not one! In my opinion, the we must judge between the most objective of commands (you shall keep a Sabbath) and the most ambiguous (when exactly is the sabbath?).
The diagram above is an example of how the body is divided on the single issue of the Sabbath. There are many additional dimensions in opinions on how Sabbath Keeping is to be done. This particular issue has a major impact on when people are available for fellowship with believers. As the circles get smaller the effectiveness of a PMA (Private Membership Association) decrees.
I would suggest that when it comes to dispute resolution, they should be resolved by judges in narrowest possible circle, but that you should fall back to broader and broader circles before turning to secular courts all together.
When it comes to charity and taking care of the body I would suggest that you error on the side of inclusiveness, because with the measure you use it will be measured to you. So if you exclude people who interpreted ambiguous things differently than you did, then you may just get excluded if you got one thing wrong. For me, I would say anyone who keeps any Sabbath and renounced all obvious sins would qualify for help. Those who will not renounce their sins and continue to grieve the spirit of grace should be excluded from community help.
The dispute resolution process is a good way of determining who is in and who is out. If you think someone is willfully and unrepentantly grieving the spirit of grace then you can start a dispute where one potential outcome is removal from the PMA.
When it comes to dispute resolution, those who will not abide by an arbitration ruling within their community should be cast out.
Disputes over Doctrine
Within a PMA if there is someone teaching a doctrine that goes against the PMA’s consensus, then members can follow the dispute process. The request of the plaintiff could vary from asking them to stop teaching to asking them to repent and start teaching differently. If the parties cannot agree, then they arbitrate and a random selection of judges will determine the outcome.
Case Study
Suppose these two people are in a PMA founded on the principle that all members shall agree “Jesus is the Son of God and we should make Jesus Lord because He died for our sins.” Suppose there are no other guidance. This would be a fairly broad PMA at its founding.
Lets create a hypothetical situation where Peggy is found eating ham and Suzzie interprets scripture to say that Yeshua didn’t eat Ham and members are supposed to follow Yeshua because He is Lord.
First Suzzie will ask Peggy to stop eating ham. Peggy claims that she interprets the Bible as saying all foods have been made clean. Suzzie cannot convince Peggy herself, so she finds a few others to help persuade Peggy. Peggy is still not convinced. Suzzie decides this issue is so important to her that she wants Peggy kicked out of the PMA for violation of YHWH’s word.
Peggy files a request for arbitration. Because Suzzie and Peggy cannot agree on a judge (both only want judges that think like they do), a number of community judges are randomly appointed to review the case.
Suzzie presents the best case she can that Ham is against the word of God, likewise Peggy puts forth her defense. Suzzie suggests the arbiters compel Peggy to stop eating ham or face expulsion from the PMA. Peggy suggests that Suzzie compensate her $100 for her time dealing with the “frivolous” dispute. Suzzie claims that $100 is unreasonable and excessive. Peggy claims expulsion is dividing the body over disputable matters that are outside the requirements of the PMA.
The judges would review each parties proposed resolution and cast their votes. In this case, I would side with Peggy even though I agree with Suzzie’s interpretation of scripture. Suzzie was attempting to enforce an more restrictive interpretation of the PMA’s guidelines. Suzzie, having caused harm in lost time, energy, and stress would end up paying for the dispute. If Suzzie refused to pay, the decision would be submitted to secular courts for enforcement and Suzzie would be removed from the PMA.
If the PMA was founded on the Principle that those who Follow Yeshua are to keep Torah to the best of their ability, then I would have sided with Suzzie.
The ultimate result is that the “law” of the “PMA” will be established largely at its founding constitution and not by writing “laws” that change over time by committee. Interpretation of the constitution may evolve with “case law”. If you think the community is aligned with you then you can start bringing cases against those who are acting against your interpretation. If you are wrong you will end up paying the cost of the disputes. If you persist you may end up being asked to leave. After enough people lose cases on that issue everyone will be on notice that it is risky to continue to engage in that kind of behavior if you want to remain within the group.
The community would therefore throughly discuss matters and take polls on issues to test the general opinion of the membership. Only after building consensus would someone want to test an issue before the judges. In practice, you can observe the behavior of most people and you are unlikely to get a ruling that runs counter to widespread behaviors.
Inviting New Members
In order to join the PMA you must be invited by an existing PMA member who attests that you meet the requirements for membership. Some PMAs may require two witnesses to attest to the new individuals qualification. The exact procedures for vetting new members may vary from PMA to PMA; however, careful vetting at the border is critical to maintaining the culture that everyone originally signed up for. Unrestricted membership can quickly cause community values to shift in such a way that the founders are kicked out and forced to start over.
In the event someone invites a person who fails to meet the criteria, then community members can go to the new member and ask them to leave. If they will not leave, they can go to the person who invited them and ask them to rescind the invitation. If they will not take back the invitation, then a dispute could be started with the inviter. The judges will then decide whether the proposed member meets the criteria and deal with the inviter or the complainer accordingly.
After a probation period, the invitation can no longer be rescinded by the inviter and the new member stands on their own merits and is not subject to being expelled by his inviter.
Church Buildings
One of the main expenses of a church is their building and control over this building produces a natural monopoly and center of power. Other expenses are around the stage, cameras, and sound system.
The Amish ensure no one gains too much power by taking turns meeting at the homes of different members. This works better when many members have land and they can do their services outside; however, it is much easier to host a home church when people are divided into small groups and each group can meet in a different room. A large church in a city with 10,000 members can function by dividing themselves into groups of 5 to 7 and then meeting at one of their homes. Each week groups and homes can shuffle. It is no longer necessary to have space for 50+ people in a single room looking toward a stage.
If a group of believers does desire to own a building, then I believe the members should become shareholders in the building and avoid debt. Then in the event of a dispute, the building can be liquidated and funding returned to the members. Alternatively, they could buy out a member who no longer aligned with the doctrine of the church. In this way, funds are never “donated” to be controlled by a mostly unaccountable leadership group.
Don’t Utilize Debt
In the spirit of calling no man leader (master, ruler) those in the Body of Messiah should avoid debt.
The rich rule over the poor, and the borrow is slave to the lender. — Proverbs 22:7
“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.” — Jesus, Matthew 6:24
When God blesses you, you should lend to many nations but not borrow from them. — Deuteronomy 15
You should give to those who ask and not turn away from those who want to borrow. — Matthew 5:42
You should not charge interest on loans to your brother, interest on money, or interest on anything that is lent for interest. — Deuteronomy 23:19
In my opinion, no Church or PMA should utilize debt to finance the needs of the body or real estate purchases. As far as I can tell, the body should only lend to the nations and only charge the nations interest. The reason for this is simple, if you are in debt then you are slave to another master. You cannot serve God and your debt. The nations, being slave to sin become slave to the body when the church lends to them. This is a step up from being just a slave to sin.
Within the body no interest is to be charged and debts are to be forgiven.
Geographic Locality
In general the body should seek to assemble in person, locally. These local assemblies are often small enough that everyone knows everyone, and this is a double-edged sword. It helps people make connections and meet needs, but also facilitates gossip and conflict of interest which undermines resolution of disputes.
I recommend that disputes over local community policies and membership be resolved within the local community, but larger issues should be brought to a larger more distributed community where they can be judged by people a bit more objective.
Conclusion
This post is a merely a high level overview that leaves many details left to be worked out. Over the course of the next year I intend to explore these concepts further and work with fellow brothers who are interested in practicing for our role arbitrating for the nations over the next 1000 years. Please leave comments.
If you are interested in joining a Christian PMA, please email blowshofar at gmail.com with the subject “PMA” and I will add you to a mailing list to be notified as more information becomes available.
