Hey Joe, you should check out the Mark Barclay book “The Remnant Church” that we talked about a while ago. I think it would really compliment some of the things you've stated here. Great post!

Your hypothesis provides some interesting aspects for me to ponder. (“The earthly system that promotes the most non-earthly human potential is the one that maximizes the most human choice.”) So often when I read about some horrible evil perpetrated by one human being upon another (e.g., a child locked away for years; ghastly abuse), I look up and wonder why the Creator made man entirely autonomous in the area of free will. We are free to choose goodness and Truth, and just as free to choose evil. Of course, as any loving Father, He wants us to be His children and to come to Him of our own free will, nothing of coercion. But wouldn't Love eventually tire of so much evil and suffering, and opt for something easier? When we look at the Cross, we can see that the answer to that question is a resounding “No”. And so the recurring questionings take another round. I am intrigued by the layers beneath the words, “earthly system” and “non-earthly human potential”. The God-nature is the “non-earthly potential” that is hidden within every earth-born child of God, created in the image of the Eternal. Are you saying that earthly systems have an ability to promote the realization of that God-created “non-earthly” potential? What about the statement that Jesus made, “My kingdom is not of this world”? Is it possible that He was defining His “systems” and earthly “systems” as mutually exclusive? If so, how are we to “occupy until He returns”? Questions that open the conversation for more musings. Thoughts, anyone?

Justin — You have a great point when you say: “The man who does not let his potential be governed by his environment or circumstances can achieve anything.” I think you're right from an individual perspective, and we see individuals rising up in governments across the world that are brutally oppressive. Individuals often rise above their circumstances — poverty, war, corruption — and succeed, which is the way we should all look at life. I definitely don't think living in a prohibitive Communist dictatorship is an excuse to NOT live your potential, whether earthly or non-earthly. The question is that human control of other individuals (as in a Communist dictatorship) can indeed impact it, whether it's by killing off those who disagree or simply stifling their economic output (as best they can, at least).

This sort of ties in to A.C. Sunde's question about whether His kingdom and our kingdoms are mutually exclusive. A big part of me thinks they are, which is why I think it is PRIMARILY the individual we need to focus on (more specifically, the eternal component within the individual). However, even though, as Justin says, we as individuals SHOULDN'T be confined by our circumstances, it seems to me that societies have been much more productive (both in earthly and non-earthly contexts) when individuals have more control over their own circumstances. When the government, for example, has control over our lives in either direct ways (e.g. determining our occupation) or indirect ways (e.g. providing our health care), we are somewhat forced into a decrease of potential. Potential becomes more and more defined by what the State permits. This isn't to say that we cannot, or should not, rise above that definition.

For example, in a Christian context, the church has thrived in America (I think) because of freedom of religion, a stable political environment, and a prosperous economy (to feed the poor, provide jobs, support missions, etc.). The church has not been so successful in welfare-laden Europe. But is this really either earthly system's FAULT? Or is it STILL the individual's? I would say in the end, if the Church isn't doing it's job, no matter what the circumstances, it is still accountable. But how do we see that accountability in earthly terms? Certainly God knows how to judge the Church and its circumstances better than us. This is where it gets REALLY tricky.

In the end, my hypothesis is that human systems CAN promote a non-earthly kingdom because human systems CAN (although many don't) promote the individual choice to promote a non-earthly kingdom. This doesn't mean freedom of choice automatically builds a Christian society though. Japan, for instance, maximizes human choice in many areas but is a virtual spiritual wasteland. This is why it requires more than human choice, just like a good economy requires more than a “free market” (e.g., a stable political environment, a just judicial system, etc.).

This is where the “culture” comes before the system. The system, therefore, is simply a more efficient means for the Remnant Culture to compete with opposing cultures — whether they choose to or not is ultimately up to the individuals.

When it comes to the relationship between the government and individuals I take an extremely Libertarian point of view. I would agree with you in that context.
As an atheist I cant say I really care about the church thriving here or there, but I would say that I tend to think it is the individual's fault. In the end the individual with the most lucrative idea becomes the system because someone will always jump on board, and two's a party (or so they tell me). This is why, in my opinion, many Americans only see our country as a 2 party system, why America is predominantly christian, and why the middle east/northern Africa is predominantly Muslim etc. etc.