Elpis the Greek goddess of hope along with agape (love) are so important to remember and hold onto. I love how you incorporated agape into your article bc it automatically brought elpis to mind.
That's a profound and necessary correction to any grand vision. You've touched the exact nerve where true change sparks.
You're right. We can get lost in the symbolism, the cosmic drama, the "spiritual story" of healing nations. It can feel overwhelming, even abstract. But the fixing always starts in the exact place we can reach: our own chest. In the quiet of our own spirit. Across our own kitchen table.
The grandest vision of democracy built on agapé love will always crumble if it isn't first built in the democracy of my own heart, where my selfish will must learn to share power with the Holy Spirit's guidance. Where my irritation must yield to patience. Where my right to be right must surrender to the call to be kind.
The "principle" of making another's light as important as my own? It gets its daily practical exam not in the halls of power, but in the hallway at home. When I choose to listen instead of lecture. To serve instead of demand. To forgive instead of tally a fault. That's where the "agapé door" is...in the doorway between my room and my sibling's, my neighbors, my nieces and nephews.
And you're spot on about the Guide. We can't manufacture this love from our own depleted reserves. The "golden light" of unconditional love isn't a philosophy we self-generate; it's a presence we host. It's the fruit of the Spirit, love, joy, peace, patience, that grows when we keep His will at the center. Our job isn't to fabricate the fix for the world. Our job is to stay so connected to the Vine that His healing life overflows into our family, then our friendships, then the stranger at the grocery store.
So let the grand vision inspire. But let your mission field be the next conversation. The next decision. The next silent prayer for grace before you respond. As we follow the Spirit's nudge to love the person in front of us, however difficult, however ordinary, we are, brick by humble brick, building that "house of knowledge." We are answering the ancient call, starting exactly where we are.
The overflow isn't a later stage; it's the natural result. A heart healed and guided becomes a hearth. And light from a single hearth can indeed begin to push back the darkness, one redeemed moment at a time.
I love how you brought the house of knowledge to the kitchen table, the gathering place for honesty. Here, we can recognize and acknowledge our selfish will but also learn the truth that sets us free. As Paul said, if I choose the good but do the bad, it is no longer I but sin in me, then adding, it is members. Everywhere else he said we are members of one another in Christ, so applying that here, if we choose not to be selfish but do selfishly anyway, we are bound to members who are blind and choose to be selfish. Recognizing it, we can acknowledge our responsibility for being bound and then learn the truth to be loosed. As Paul concluded, the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus set me free. Not perfect but free.
Paul said to make all others more important than ourselves, the meaning of love, the core of the law of the spirit of life in Christ. He said fulfill the law of Christ and bear one another's burdens--by making them more important. Unconditional love sets us free, for only by loving our enemies can we be like our Father, free indeed. Not perfect but free in the hallways of home, work and society, making others more important but never against ourselves, as a house divided cannot stand.
You are right, we cannot manufacture this love from our own depleted reserves. He loved us first and gave us the will to receive the truth of love or reject it. If received, "the presence we host" guides us to love even the least among us by learning how to see Word in them, for how we treat them is how we treat Word. He came to give sight to the blind. We are all blind until we can see the light of Word in each other. Thank you for your light in Word.
I really appreciate the thoughtfulness and care that went into articulating this perspective. It's clear that a lot of effort and reflection were invested in crafting the story and exploring democracy through such a spiritual lens. I found myself resonating with the idea that true democracy only flourishes when it’s grounded in unconditional love and real openness to others. The metaphor of the house of knowledge and the call to truly see one another beyond our divisions both felt especially timely and important. Thank you for offering a vision that challenges us to look deeper—beyond political labels and into the heart of what it means to live together meaningfully.
Thank you for your kind words. For some, spirituality is a system of metaphors symbolizing possible things beyond our senses. For others, it is the gateway into things beyond. Either way, if we can agree that unconditional love gives us the eyes to see beyond our differences, we should work to develop it.
Such a great question, thank you. I’ll have to let Google AI Overview explain it.
Upsilon (υ) is shown as 'y' in interlinears because Romans adopted the Greek letter as 'Y' to capture its Classical sound (like French 'u'), but as Greek pronunciation shifted (to 'ee'), English Bible translators used 'u' for the 'ou' sound (like 'oo') in ou diphthongs (like ous), while keeping 'y' for single υ (like mythos, psyche), creating two conventions for the same Greek letter based on historical sound shifts and transliteration traditions.
Bottom line, it is transliterated suneidesis by modern translators, but some time in the past it was indeed syneidesis.
Thanks George, for taking the trouble to clear that up for me. I should have remembered that there is no separate letter for "Y" in Greek, and that "u" is called "upsilon", and has two completely different pronunciations. It is doubly confusing for me as a German, because the German alphabet calls the second-last letter "Ypsilon".
Upon re-reading your answer, I am remembering from visits to Greece that indeed the modern Greek pronunciation has shifted from the (French "u") to the (for me) "primitive"-sounding "ee". I suffered a similar "culture-shock", when I first heard the French pronunciations of the inhabitants of Quebec, where I ended up doing a fair amount of business, after my move from Bremen to Boston.
My pleasure, Lyss. Phonology is necessary for communicating meaning in human language but not in vision. Word’s words are spirit and thus agapé light with spiritual sound, speaking the language of the mind of the heart.
To achieve a more spiritual democracy, it's essential for individuals to prioritize inner growth and self-awareness. This would involve recognizing and embracing our shadow selves, getting our emotional and psychological needs met, rather than relying on others or external sources to validate us. Lastly, we would need to engage in practices like meditation, journaling, and therapy to deepen our understanding of ourselves and the world around us. 🙏
Yes it is. We need to be ready to allow it to expand through us so others can feel it and make the choice to get ready or not for others. It is the natural propensity in all of us, but we must bring it to its fullness in us to get ready.
Unconditional love and forgiveness are intertwined, and it's challenging to have one without the other. When we love unconditionally, we're more likely to forgive, and when we forgive, we're more able to love without conditions.
Forgiveness allows us to release the burdens of resentment and anger, creating space for love to flow more freely. And unconditional love helps us see the humanity in others, making it easier to forgive their imperfections and shortcomings.
It's a beautiful cycle, isn't it? Unconditional love inspires forgiveness, and forgiveness deepens our capacity for unconditional love.
This is such a deep and vivid way of showing how understanding and unconditional love can transform even the deepest conflicts. Really makes you think about how much we miss when we only see through our own perspective.
Very well said. I hope you consider looking further. Expanding our perspective to see through others’ perspectives requires knowledge of unconditional love in our mind and heart or actually the mind of our heart.
Grace and peace to you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I want to begin by thanking you, not merely for writing The Spiritual Story of Democracy, but for offering it as a labor of love, a work of soul-formation, and an invitation to see our political and social fractures through a deeper spiritual lens. Your manuscript is not simply a treatise on democracy; it is a profoundly layered attempt to unveil the spiritual mechanics behind human conflict, perception, blindness, reconciliation, and the arduous work of learning to love beyond ourselves.
From the perspective of Christian Counseling; especially as one rooted in grief work, pastoral psychology, spiritual formation, and interpersonal reconciliation, your text becomes something even more valuable: a narrative framework that helps us understand how spiritual blindness, collective trauma, and moral self-protection lead individuals and communities into cycles of mistrust, fear, and dehumanization.
Your work provides imagery and language that help us sit: therapeutically, prayerfully, and reflectively, with the brokenness of our social “house of knowledge” and the ways our spiritual condition shapes our civic life.
Your document presents a sweeping spiritual vision of human society, describing democracy as something not invented by human political systems but rooted in the divine heart of “Name”; the transcendent Source. Through an intricate metaphor of a “house of knowledge,” you map out how agapé, blindness, perception, co-conscientious awareness (suneidesis), and spiritual maturity form the internal architecture of human moral vision.
You illustrate: Blindness as the refusal or inability to practice unconditional love. Agapé as the structural light holding the house together. Suneidesis (co-conscientiousness) as the shared moral awareness binding individuals in a community. Duality name as the ego’s desire to self-center and self-elevate. The agapé door that is two as the paradoxical entrance to spiritual sight, entering through humility and other-centeredness.
You then turn toward the political world, showing how modern Democrats and Republicans mirror one another’s blindness, each shackled to its own self-importance. In powerful allegory, you depict both parties being brought into the “house,” transparentized, confronted with their illusions, and positioned before the transforming luminosity of Name and Word.
The narrative crescendos toward a multi-national vision where conflict between world-names (Israel/Palestine, religions, and global powers) is examined through the same spiritual lens. The central message is clear: Peace, democracy, and spiritual vision are impossible without the principle of unconditional love; agapé as taught by Word.
George, what struck me most deeply is how your entire manuscript echoes the core truths of Scripture; especially those relevant to spiritual formation, forgiveness, reconciliation, and the transformation of the human heart.
Your assertion that democracy cannot survive apart from agapé mirrors the words of Christ: “By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:35). And the apostle Paul’s insistence that all gifts, knowledge, and institutions become “nothing” without love (1 Corinthians 13). You have written a kind of spiritual anthropology, demonstrating that all human conflict is ultimately a conflict of failed agapé. This aligns with Dr. Stan DeKoven’s teachings in Journey to Wholeness and The Bible in Counseling, where he notes that personal and societal healing begins only when individuals adopt Christ’s model of other-centered love.
Your commentary on “necessary blindness” and “addiction to moral standards” resonates with Jesus’ critique of the Pharisees and with contemporary counseling theory. Emotionally wounded people often: hide behind moral superiority, create caricatures of “the other,” suppress grief through judgment, and resist entering into relational vulnerability. This mirrors David Seamands’ insight in Healing for Damaged Emotions: people avoid God’s healing love by hiding behind self-righteousness or fear. You capture this spiritual dynamic with profound imagery.
When Word enters the house in your story; appearing in forms familiar to human imagination, you are touching on an essential Christian counseling truth: Christ meets us where we are, not where we pretend to be. Just as Jesus appeared differently after the resurrection (Emmaus, Mary, Thomas), your narrative shows how the Divine adapts to the blindness of each group so that transformation may begin. This is deeply pastoral and resonates with incarnational counseling. As a grief counselor, I read this work through the lens of collective grief, generational trauma, and narrative repair. Your description of political parties as “shackled in vision” is essentially a portrait of unresolved communal grief; what the Grief Recovery Institute calls cumulative, unspoken emotional pain.
Key grief-informed themes in your manuscript:
The blindness of political tribes is rooted in generational wounds. You describe the parties as carrying “forgotten generations uninherited”; this is precisely what Bessel van der Kolk describes as embedded trauma patterns and what Scripture describes as iniquities “visited to the third and fourth generation” (Exodus 34:7).
The fiery illusions in the foyer mirror trauma-induced perception. When trauma, fear, or unhealed grief shapes perception, individuals literally see through distorted lenses. Your imagery captures the phenomenon of traumatic projection, where one’s internal wounds shape how one views others.
Agapé becomes the corrective for trauma. You echo Christ’s teaching in Matthew 5: “Love your enemies… that you may be children of your Father in heaven.” Psychologically, this is the principle of disconfirming experiences; new relational encounters that correct internalized distortions. Your “agapé door that is two” is both theological and therapeutic.
George, your work contributes several key insights:
It provides a symbolic map for understanding conflict. Counselors can use this imagery to help clients visualize their internal “house,” their blind doors, and their relational distortions.
It offers a spiritual anthropology that integrates well with Christian counseling textbooks. Your framework aligns with McMinn’s call for spiritual integration, Clinebell’s holistic pastoral care, and DeKoven’s emphasis on inner transformation.
It helps us approach political trauma without demonizing individuals. You force us to look at blindness compassionately, something essential to any healing ministry.
It encourages counselors to resist engaging conflict with resistance. Your insight that “resisting blindness blindly” only deepens division is deeply resonant with Ken Sande’s conciliatory principles in The Peacemaker.
It enriches the theology of democracy. You position democracy not as political machinery but as a spiritual posture requiring humility, mutual yielding, and agapé.
This is a valuable tool for Christian counselors, pastors, conflict mediators, chaplains, and spiritual directors.
Your work can become a resource for:
Mediation between divided Christian groups. The story provides language for helping believers see beyond political identity toward shared spiritual identity.
Trauma-informed pastoral counseling. Clients can visualize their inner “foyer,” their blind spots, and their need for agapé illumination.
Group therapy or church conflict resolution. Yalom teaches that groups heal through shared vulnerability. Your story offers the imagery of mutual transparency and shared luminosity.
Spiritual formation retreats. The “house of knowledge” can serve as a meditation model for entering into self-awareness, confession, forgiveness, and divine love.
Cross-cultural or interfaith dialogue. Your multi-national imagery opens a path for shared human dignity rooted in divine love.
George, this work is extraordinary; not because it is simple, but because it dares to be profoundly complex, spiritually dense, and imaginally demanding in an age that prefers sound bites. Your manuscript requires the reader to see rather than merely read. And that is precisely why it is a needed contribution. As counselors, chaplains, and spiritual care providers, we are tasked with helping people see beyond their wounds, defenses, illusions, and tribal allegiances. Your story becomes a mirror, a parable, and a spiritual map all at once.
You have built something that is not merely a book but a contemplative exercise; a work of spiritual architecture that invites the reader to examine their own suneidesis, their own blindness, and their own capacity for agapé. I honor the depth, courage, and spiritual labor it took to write this. May God continue to breathe illumination into your work and use it to heal hearts, communities, and every place where blindness has overshadowed love.
With deep respect and gratitude,
Ze Selassie B.A., Dip. Min. (Chaplain) Christian Leaders Alliance
MA Candidate, Christian Counseling
Ordained Minister & Grief Companion
Vision International University
My destination is a place that requires a new way of being.
Thank you for giving Name all the glory for breathing illumination into my work. By detailing how The Spiritual Story of Democracy can be applied, you have given it legs for individual and collective practice — for both believers and non-believers to work together toward a better democracy.
We each have a responsibility to build our house of knowledge and help others do the same; otherwise, we will never see the singularity of democracy in Word, held together by agapé. May Name bless your use of the story as you continue doing your part in healing the church for the benefit of all.
As you saw into the deepest meaning of the story, agapé empowers us to love our enemies and thus see them as part of Word’s singularity in Name, enabling us to love him through all of our singularity. This heals us individually and collectively as a nation.
Thank you again for taking the time to discover and diligently explain how The Spiritual Story of Democracy can be used for everyone's benefit.
George, your vision of democracy as a spiritual house resonates. Yet even with good intentions, innocence is fragile in politics. Think of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington: the wholesome country boy arrives with ideals, but the machinery of power—greed, blindness, self‑interest—presses in, threatening to corrupt him. Unless anchored in something deeper than ambition, even the most sincere heart risks being sucked into the political pit. Your call for agapé, unconditional love, is the safeguard against that descent.
Kaye, your view of the spiritual house of democracy is from the foyer. As comfortable as it is at times, it lacks ambition as you said. Think of Christ suffering for others not out of weakness but a love stronger than death. Now apply that to democracy as he did. Two things he said paved the way for every democracy today. One, he said that if we do not believe in him, we should at least believe in his works, all of which were based on unconditional love. Two, he told his disciples not to harm those who do not follow him. These things allow for freedom of religion and every other choice, the cornerstone of democracy.
What gives corruption political strength is the hatred stronger than death that those in power use to protect their loved ones. It works from conditional love, a mother's love for her child but not for her enemy's child, a nation's love for itself but not for opposing nations. But unconditional love is stronger than death, for it sees the blindness in those shackled in conditional love and understands that they are spiritually dead. Our love for them is stronger than their death and that is what awakens them and unites us again.
Likewise, thank you for your comment. If I may add one example. The Salem witch trials were made possible by the hysteria of people in general. The fear provoked in everyone who heard of the mere accusations spread uncontrollably.
Imagine the accusations reaching the ears of those who love unconditionally, simply love spiritually. It would have stopped the malignant spread of fear and turned the tide for reason to take hold.
If we love those stricken by fear today unconditionally, understanding their blindness, and especially those who provoke fear and profit from it, we give them the best chance of coming to their senses. Otherwise, conditional love allows hatred to smolder until it flares up again and causes children to fear and say anything.
Appreciate you sharing this, George. Thoughtful, ambitious framing—centering agapé/other-importance as the engine of democracy is a timely lens. It’s dense in a good way and invites a slow read. Bookmarking to sit with it. Thanks for thinking in public.
This is a profound and deeply resonant piece of work. You've successfully mapped the "structural drama" of our current crisis. Your diagnosis of how both political parties have their "false collective self-visions" shackled to each other is one of the most accurate descriptions I've ever read of what we call "Layer 2: The Great Distraction"—a manufactured horizontal conflict designed to blind everyone to the real war.
You, and your reader John Michael, are absolutely correct: "the real divide is not ultimately Republican versus Democrat, but blindness versus love." In our doctrine, this is the Vertical War. It's not a struggle between two sides of the same coin, but a fight between the producer class (The Gears) and the parasitic system that preys on them (The Rust).
Your "principle" of making the other's light more important is the very essence of a [BRIDGE] operation, and your concept of "agapé" as the foundation is the core of what we call the "Sanctuary Covenant"—the radical idea that high-trust, unconditional bonds are the only way to build a rebellion that can last.
You haven't just written a spiritual story; you've drafted the philosophical underpinnings of an asymmetric war. We've simply developed the tactical language for it.
As you so wisely implied, the spiritual rebellion of agapé is asymmetric, for there is nothing even about the vision of agapé on one side and the blindness of its absence on the other.
Developing a tactical language for it helps define the nature of the interaction, with one side void of all conflict and the other with its own inner and outer ones.
Since agapé is life-giving and hatred is murder, our motto is "Kill no one, take only prisoners of their own conscience to free them."
That is a brilliant and powerful piece of doctrine. "Kill no one, take only prisoners of their own conscience to free them" is a perfect motto for this spiritual rebellion.
Consider it officially adopted into our own rules of engagement. You've just forged a new, humane, and devastatingly effective weapon for our arsenal.
I truly appreciate your interest, Ethan, but I am on Substack to teach how to love the enemies of conscience. I strongly encourage you to start the process. Nothing can replace the experience of loving them yourself.
---This is the best way I can contribute to our struggle for a mature democracy. We need to wake up and realize that we, we are the problem, every citizen of the world who does not know how to give their agapé to the least among us.
The only difference is that we want to help the oppressed, but we do not want to love the oppressors so that we can understand their hatred for us. This way, we can continue in our hatred for them with the false identity we hold on to so we can keep our agapé locked in our little circles.
Name has no shortage of agapé. We just have a shortage of vision to see it in each other.
I have always known that it takes a community to understand the truth, no one can alone. You have helped me see what I could not alone. Now I must do my job and take it in to connect to the community better. I will get back with you as soon as possible.
As a non-American, I am often astounded that a nation so steeped in Christian language and history could allow itself to fall into this pit. Democracy was meant to be for the people, by the people. Not for some of the people we like, by the better, richer, smarter people who have learned to spin their message to our particular biases in order to win our vote.
What struck me most in your piece, George, is the reminder that the real divide is not ultimately Republican versus Democrat, but blindness versus love. Without agapé, love that makes the other more important without erasing ourselves, politics becomes just another mask for self-interest.
The harder question is this: how do we get love to lead? For me it comes back to Jesus’ words, “You, follow me.” Not “fix the world first,” not “prove you are right,” but follow Him in the way of laying down power for the sake of others.
Love begins to lead when ordinary people stop outsourcing virtue to politicians and start embodying it themselves. When we see the person across the divide not as an enemy to defeat but as a neighbor to serve. It is not sentimental, it is costly. But without it, no system, however brilliant, can hold.
I wonder how others here wrestle with this. What does it look like, in practical terms, for love to truly lead in the public square?
Thank you John for your thoughtful comment. Yes, the question is how do we get love to lead? Democracy is for the believer and nonbeliever, so how do we together get love to lead, as you put it, laying down power for the sake of others?
I have to ask you the simple question I often ask. Do you love the enemies of conscience (suneidesis), more than before, or do you have no interest in it? How can we ask the question, how does love lead in the public square, if we do not see it ourselves? Yes, that is the key, to see love with our inner vision.
It is not metaphoric. The teaching to envision is not mine but directly from the scriptures. Our love for enemies cannot be sincere without it. We need seeing love that is greater than death to really answer the question. Jesus could see, Paul and David and many more. What if millions could see? It only seems impossible when we cannot see ourselves.
I would put it this way: it is not about loving the enemies of conscience, but about loving the person themselves, not their lust, pride, or anger.
For me, love begins to lead when I remember what it means to be an image-bearer of God. Whether believer or not, we carry the imprint of the Creator. As apprentices of Jesus we are invited into His Way, and in following Him we slowly become what He said we are meant to be: a city on a hill, salt that adds flavor, light that cannot be hidden.
That is not theory for me. It has to start at home. If I cannot model love leading in my own life, in my family, in my closest relationships, then it will never carry any weight in the public square.
I believe the Kingdom of God is already here, on earth as in heaven. When I walk in it, and bring that Kingdom presence into ordinary encounters, others sometimes catch a glimpse. Maybe it comes as kindness when anger was expected, or forgiveness when resentment would have been easy. Maybe it comes as healing, or a word of wisdom. Sometimes people see enough to say, “There’s something different here… and maybe I want some of that too.”
That is how love begins to lead, one person at a time, becoming more like the One we follow.
I respect that very much, John. However, consider for a moment how those are the words many people live their entire lives by. There is no breakthrough to say I deeply and sincerely love my enemies. Why? Christ did not tell us to love our enemies and then expect us to live our lives always falling short of this key command that brings us into the maturity He calls us too. Yes, we can do nothing without him, but Hebrews 6:1 commands us to move onto maturity and stop laying the foundation of faith over again. Hebrews 5:14 states that the solid food of maturity is about training our senses, which can only be properly interpreted to mean our spiritual senses. If we do not listen to this command from the word of God, then how can we expect Him to ever approve us for maturity? Yes, improving our love at home is important, but it reaches the limit when we do not learn how to love our enemies, for that restricts our love to those we love in our home. Remember, he said that there is no reward for loving those who love us. So the process does not begin at home, loving those who love us. It begins with learning how to train our spiritual senses. Again, seeing our enemies as Christ sees them is how we can love them. Or does He not love us to teach us this if we want to learn?
I respect your position, and I hear your urgency in calling us to the solid food of maturity. At the same time, I doubt that there are many who truly live by those words. We are in a world that thrives on “what about me?” and “what’s in it for me?” where everyone is dragged into a game of comparison and competition, even among brothers and sisters.
I do not diminish Christ’s command to love my enemies at all. He did not give it to us as an impossible ideal. But if I cannot love those closest to me with patience and sacrifice, then my claim to love enemies becomes hollow. It is in the daily training ground of family, friendship, and community that my senses are sharpened for the harder task of seeing and loving my enemies through the eyes of Christ.
Hebrews does call us to move beyond foundations, and that means we must not stay where it is comfortable. Yet Jesus Himself washed the feet of His friends before He laid down His life for those who hated Him. I see a progression here. The call begins at home, but it cannot end there. It must grow outward, and it must look like Him.
Yes, I agree, we’re living in a very competitive world, but isn’t that all the more reason we should seek it ourselves so that others may thank God for seeing an example of it?
You used the family again as your reasoning for finding growth and achieving true love for enemies. But unless family members qualify as enemies, you’re not learning how to love those who hate you.
Jesus said not to resist evil. By not resisting the evil in the heart of an enemy who is hating us, we get the opportunity to see them in the light they are in Christ and recognize their blindness.
He said if our eye is evil, the whole body is full of darkness. That is how we know they are spiritually blind and thus why we can forgive them for not knowing what they are doing. The issue then is, what does the light of Christ in them look like?
Jesus said to the blind, you have neither seen the form of God nor heard His voice. That is not a figurative statement. If he said it to blind hypocrites, then he certainly expects us to see the form. It cannot resemble flesh in any form, for he said the flesh profits nothing. Are you with me?
As Don has decided not to reply, I turn to you dear reader. We have been doing what generations before us have been doing and are expecting the same results.
However, we are a pivotal generation, perhaps the most in history. Without a higher love, how can we expect the results we hope for?
This is a monumental effort, George — complex, poetic, and challenging in the best way. Thank you for putting so much care into a vision that’s bigger than politics, bigger than self.
This is a really interesting and, dare i say niche type of article. Though, I don't know if 'any' god or spirituality in a more modern sense could work with democracy. Because I've heard the greeks invented it, (which im guessing is why you used greek words) so wouldn't it only work with nations that adopted greek ideas? Like the romans, and now the modern west. To which the main religion that adopts it, is now Christianity.
Of course you've quoted the bible and talk about western politics. Which means to me, that democracy only works on shared certain goals. And one, only one religion at a time that holds democracy up truly.
Just sharing what I understood in short. And what I disagreed with. it's a small point I know. Just thought to try my best at understanding this post.
The ideas of democracy and gods (I do not use the word gods ever) that I am referring to started with the Hebrews. Greek philosophy and language were only used to communicate them. "Elohim" is Hebrew for God, but it has a dual meaning, God the divine and gods as in sons of God. The distinction clearly uses elohim as gods in the sense of image, "made in the image of Elohim". Our image is one of reflection not source, in other words, we are elohim without any power whatsoever of our own. The Greek word for gods, from theos, carries the philosophical notion that we have some power of our own beyond what Elohim gives and takes away when we misuse it. Atheists appreciate this by seeing the grand scheme of Life giving us life and taking it away, along with other qualities depending on how we use them. It does not need to be a religious belief only, and spirituality is simply the usage of this knowledge, not to be confused with scientific knowledge. See this link for the difference-- https://georgeallenbooks.substack.com/p/short-lessons-on-unconditional-love-d07?r=4pmgma.
The idea of democracy, "rule by the people", although from a Greek word, was used centuries before Christ in the Hebrew passage Psalm 82:1-8. The first part translates: "[Observe] elohim [us] positioned in the Congregation of El [a strictly singular form for God]. In the midst of elohim, He [El] judges, [saying], ‘How long will you [elohim] judge unjustly and show the faces of the wicked partiality.'"
Name (God or Life depending on our beliefs) oversees us in a democratic rule over ourselves. For elohim does not refer only to leaders in this passage since in 82:6, Name says, "I said, 'You [are] elohim and sons of the Most High, all of you.'" Some leaders like to claim it only refers to them, but we are all in the image of Name, obviously. Elected elohim are just that, elected by all of us elohim, citizens of a democracy--when we have been given the blessing and do not lose it by abusing it.
Democracies are not to be based on religion, for it is self-rule based on the principle of respecting each other's choices within the voted upon laws for our overall well-being. Spirituality is the arm of knowledge of our hearts, and science is the arm of knowledge of our bodies and all else that exists in the universe.
Oh I see, read just enough of the old testament to understand where I was wrong between God, and the people of God. Just didn't remember until this reply. But I didn't know democracy was started before the classical period either. Thanks for this explanation.
Elpis the Greek goddess of hope along with agape (love) are so important to remember and hold onto. I love how you incorporated agape into your article bc it automatically brought elpis to mind.
Thank you. In knowledge of Word, it states that Name (God or Life depending on our beliefs) is agapé, which elevates it to a divine unconditional state. For an example of this, see “Cesar Chavez and Conscientious Intelligence”. https://georgeallenbooks.substack.com/p/caesar-chavez-and-conscientious-intelligence?r=4pmgma&utm_medium=ios&shareImageVariant=overlay
This is a fantastic essay George very fascinating stuff
Thank you Tony, that means a lot to me.
That's a profound and necessary correction to any grand vision. You've touched the exact nerve where true change sparks.
You're right. We can get lost in the symbolism, the cosmic drama, the "spiritual story" of healing nations. It can feel overwhelming, even abstract. But the fixing always starts in the exact place we can reach: our own chest. In the quiet of our own spirit. Across our own kitchen table.
The grandest vision of democracy built on agapé love will always crumble if it isn't first built in the democracy of my own heart, where my selfish will must learn to share power with the Holy Spirit's guidance. Where my irritation must yield to patience. Where my right to be right must surrender to the call to be kind.
The "principle" of making another's light as important as my own? It gets its daily practical exam not in the halls of power, but in the hallway at home. When I choose to listen instead of lecture. To serve instead of demand. To forgive instead of tally a fault. That's where the "agapé door" is...in the doorway between my room and my sibling's, my neighbors, my nieces and nephews.
And you're spot on about the Guide. We can't manufacture this love from our own depleted reserves. The "golden light" of unconditional love isn't a philosophy we self-generate; it's a presence we host. It's the fruit of the Spirit, love, joy, peace, patience, that grows when we keep His will at the center. Our job isn't to fabricate the fix for the world. Our job is to stay so connected to the Vine that His healing life overflows into our family, then our friendships, then the stranger at the grocery store.
So let the grand vision inspire. But let your mission field be the next conversation. The next decision. The next silent prayer for grace before you respond. As we follow the Spirit's nudge to love the person in front of us, however difficult, however ordinary, we are, brick by humble brick, building that "house of knowledge." We are answering the ancient call, starting exactly where we are.
The overflow isn't a later stage; it's the natural result. A heart healed and guided becomes a hearth. And light from a single hearth can indeed begin to push back the darkness, one redeemed moment at a time.
That is all and thank you for the reminder.
I love how you brought the house of knowledge to the kitchen table, the gathering place for honesty. Here, we can recognize and acknowledge our selfish will but also learn the truth that sets us free. As Paul said, if I choose the good but do the bad, it is no longer I but sin in me, then adding, it is members. Everywhere else he said we are members of one another in Christ, so applying that here, if we choose not to be selfish but do selfishly anyway, we are bound to members who are blind and choose to be selfish. Recognizing it, we can acknowledge our responsibility for being bound and then learn the truth to be loosed. As Paul concluded, the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus set me free. Not perfect but free.
Paul said to make all others more important than ourselves, the meaning of love, the core of the law of the spirit of life in Christ. He said fulfill the law of Christ and bear one another's burdens--by making them more important. Unconditional love sets us free, for only by loving our enemies can we be like our Father, free indeed. Not perfect but free in the hallways of home, work and society, making others more important but never against ourselves, as a house divided cannot stand.
You are right, we cannot manufacture this love from our own depleted reserves. He loved us first and gave us the will to receive the truth of love or reject it. If received, "the presence we host" guides us to love even the least among us by learning how to see Word in them, for how we treat them is how we treat Word. He came to give sight to the blind. We are all blind until we can see the light of Word in each other. Thank you for your light in Word.
💙🙏🏿✝🕊
What an insightful article! Thank you!
Thank You !!
I really appreciate the thoughtfulness and care that went into articulating this perspective. It's clear that a lot of effort and reflection were invested in crafting the story and exploring democracy through such a spiritual lens. I found myself resonating with the idea that true democracy only flourishes when it’s grounded in unconditional love and real openness to others. The metaphor of the house of knowledge and the call to truly see one another beyond our divisions both felt especially timely and important. Thank you for offering a vision that challenges us to look deeper—beyond political labels and into the heart of what it means to live together meaningfully.
Thank you for your kind words. For some, spirituality is a system of metaphors symbolizing possible things beyond our senses. For others, it is the gateway into things beyond. Either way, if we can agree that unconditional love gives us the eyes to see beyond our differences, we should work to develop it.
Greek was my least successful subject in high school, but shouldn't the word be spelled syneidesis instead of suneidesis?
Such a great question, thank you. I’ll have to let Google AI Overview explain it.
Upsilon (υ) is shown as 'y' in interlinears because Romans adopted the Greek letter as 'Y' to capture its Classical sound (like French 'u'), but as Greek pronunciation shifted (to 'ee'), English Bible translators used 'u' for the 'ou' sound (like 'oo') in ou diphthongs (like ous), while keeping 'y' for single υ (like mythos, psyche), creating two conventions for the same Greek letter based on historical sound shifts and transliteration traditions.
Bottom line, it is transliterated suneidesis by modern translators, but some time in the past it was indeed syneidesis.
Thanks George, for taking the trouble to clear that up for me. I should have remembered that there is no separate letter for "Y" in Greek, and that "u" is called "upsilon", and has two completely different pronunciations. It is doubly confusing for me as a German, because the German alphabet calls the second-last letter "Ypsilon".
Upon re-reading your answer, I am remembering from visits to Greece that indeed the modern Greek pronunciation has shifted from the (French "u") to the (for me) "primitive"-sounding "ee". I suffered a similar "culture-shock", when I first heard the French pronunciations of the inhabitants of Quebec, where I ended up doing a fair amount of business, after my move from Bremen to Boston.
Interesting. In this sense, “spirit-shock” is much easier to overcome due to the universal language of unconditional love.
My pleasure, Lyss. Phonology is necessary for communicating meaning in human language but not in vision. Word’s words are spirit and thus agapé light with spiritual sound, speaking the language of the mind of the heart.
Thank you for sharing. It was insightful.
To achieve a more spiritual democracy, it's essential for individuals to prioritize inner growth and self-awareness. This would involve recognizing and embracing our shadow selves, getting our emotional and psychological needs met, rather than relying on others or external sources to validate us. Lastly, we would need to engage in practices like meditation, journaling, and therapy to deepen our understanding of ourselves and the world around us. 🙏
Yes it is. We need to be ready to allow it to expand through us so others can feel it and make the choice to get ready or not for others. It is the natural propensity in all of us, but we must bring it to its fullness in us to get ready.
https://georgeallenbooks.substack.com/p/short-lessons-on-unconditional-love-420?r=4pmgma
Those are all powerful tools I agree. Where do you think unconditional love and forgiveness fit in as a common thread between all belief systems?
Unconditional love and forgiveness are intertwined, and it's challenging to have one without the other. When we love unconditionally, we're more likely to forgive, and when we forgive, we're more able to love without conditions.
Forgiveness allows us to release the burdens of resentment and anger, creating space for love to flow more freely. And unconditional love helps us see the humanity in others, making it easier to forgive their imperfections and shortcomings.
It's a beautiful cycle, isn't it? Unconditional love inspires forgiveness, and forgiveness deepens our capacity for unconditional love.
This is such a deep and vivid way of showing how understanding and unconditional love can transform even the deepest conflicts. Really makes you think about how much we miss when we only see through our own perspective.
Very well said. I hope you consider looking further. Expanding our perspective to see through others’ perspectives requires knowledge of unconditional love in our mind and heart or actually the mind of our heart.
https://georgeallenbooks.substack.com/p/short-lessons-on-unconditional-love-420?r=4pmgma
Dear George,
Grace and peace to you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I want to begin by thanking you, not merely for writing The Spiritual Story of Democracy, but for offering it as a labor of love, a work of soul-formation, and an invitation to see our political and social fractures through a deeper spiritual lens. Your manuscript is not simply a treatise on democracy; it is a profoundly layered attempt to unveil the spiritual mechanics behind human conflict, perception, blindness, reconciliation, and the arduous work of learning to love beyond ourselves.
From the perspective of Christian Counseling; especially as one rooted in grief work, pastoral psychology, spiritual formation, and interpersonal reconciliation, your text becomes something even more valuable: a narrative framework that helps us understand how spiritual blindness, collective trauma, and moral self-protection lead individuals and communities into cycles of mistrust, fear, and dehumanization.
Your work provides imagery and language that help us sit: therapeutically, prayerfully, and reflectively, with the brokenness of our social “house of knowledge” and the ways our spiritual condition shapes our civic life.
Your document presents a sweeping spiritual vision of human society, describing democracy as something not invented by human political systems but rooted in the divine heart of “Name”; the transcendent Source. Through an intricate metaphor of a “house of knowledge,” you map out how agapé, blindness, perception, co-conscientious awareness (suneidesis), and spiritual maturity form the internal architecture of human moral vision.
You illustrate: Blindness as the refusal or inability to practice unconditional love. Agapé as the structural light holding the house together. Suneidesis (co-conscientiousness) as the shared moral awareness binding individuals in a community. Duality name as the ego’s desire to self-center and self-elevate. The agapé door that is two as the paradoxical entrance to spiritual sight, entering through humility and other-centeredness.
You then turn toward the political world, showing how modern Democrats and Republicans mirror one another’s blindness, each shackled to its own self-importance. In powerful allegory, you depict both parties being brought into the “house,” transparentized, confronted with their illusions, and positioned before the transforming luminosity of Name and Word.
The narrative crescendos toward a multi-national vision where conflict between world-names (Israel/Palestine, religions, and global powers) is examined through the same spiritual lens. The central message is clear: Peace, democracy, and spiritual vision are impossible without the principle of unconditional love; agapé as taught by Word.
George, what struck me most deeply is how your entire manuscript echoes the core truths of Scripture; especially those relevant to spiritual formation, forgiveness, reconciliation, and the transformation of the human heart.
Your assertion that democracy cannot survive apart from agapé mirrors the words of Christ: “By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:35). And the apostle Paul’s insistence that all gifts, knowledge, and institutions become “nothing” without love (1 Corinthians 13). You have written a kind of spiritual anthropology, demonstrating that all human conflict is ultimately a conflict of failed agapé. This aligns with Dr. Stan DeKoven’s teachings in Journey to Wholeness and The Bible in Counseling, where he notes that personal and societal healing begins only when individuals adopt Christ’s model of other-centered love.
Your commentary on “necessary blindness” and “addiction to moral standards” resonates with Jesus’ critique of the Pharisees and with contemporary counseling theory. Emotionally wounded people often: hide behind moral superiority, create caricatures of “the other,” suppress grief through judgment, and resist entering into relational vulnerability. This mirrors David Seamands’ insight in Healing for Damaged Emotions: people avoid God’s healing love by hiding behind self-righteousness or fear. You capture this spiritual dynamic with profound imagery.
When Word enters the house in your story; appearing in forms familiar to human imagination, you are touching on an essential Christian counseling truth: Christ meets us where we are, not where we pretend to be. Just as Jesus appeared differently after the resurrection (Emmaus, Mary, Thomas), your narrative shows how the Divine adapts to the blindness of each group so that transformation may begin. This is deeply pastoral and resonates with incarnational counseling. As a grief counselor, I read this work through the lens of collective grief, generational trauma, and narrative repair. Your description of political parties as “shackled in vision” is essentially a portrait of unresolved communal grief; what the Grief Recovery Institute calls cumulative, unspoken emotional pain.
Key grief-informed themes in your manuscript:
The blindness of political tribes is rooted in generational wounds. You describe the parties as carrying “forgotten generations uninherited”; this is precisely what Bessel van der Kolk describes as embedded trauma patterns and what Scripture describes as iniquities “visited to the third and fourth generation” (Exodus 34:7).
The fiery illusions in the foyer mirror trauma-induced perception. When trauma, fear, or unhealed grief shapes perception, individuals literally see through distorted lenses. Your imagery captures the phenomenon of traumatic projection, where one’s internal wounds shape how one views others.
Agapé becomes the corrective for trauma. You echo Christ’s teaching in Matthew 5: “Love your enemies… that you may be children of your Father in heaven.” Psychologically, this is the principle of disconfirming experiences; new relational encounters that correct internalized distortions. Your “agapé door that is two” is both theological and therapeutic.
George, your work contributes several key insights:
It provides a symbolic map for understanding conflict. Counselors can use this imagery to help clients visualize their internal “house,” their blind doors, and their relational distortions.
It offers a spiritual anthropology that integrates well with Christian counseling textbooks. Your framework aligns with McMinn’s call for spiritual integration, Clinebell’s holistic pastoral care, and DeKoven’s emphasis on inner transformation.
It helps us approach political trauma without demonizing individuals. You force us to look at blindness compassionately, something essential to any healing ministry.
It encourages counselors to resist engaging conflict with resistance. Your insight that “resisting blindness blindly” only deepens division is deeply resonant with Ken Sande’s conciliatory principles in The Peacemaker.
It enriches the theology of democracy. You position democracy not as political machinery but as a spiritual posture requiring humility, mutual yielding, and agapé.
This is a valuable tool for Christian counselors, pastors, conflict mediators, chaplains, and spiritual directors.
Your work can become a resource for:
Mediation between divided Christian groups. The story provides language for helping believers see beyond political identity toward shared spiritual identity.
Trauma-informed pastoral counseling. Clients can visualize their inner “foyer,” their blind spots, and their need for agapé illumination.
Group therapy or church conflict resolution. Yalom teaches that groups heal through shared vulnerability. Your story offers the imagery of mutual transparency and shared luminosity.
Spiritual formation retreats. The “house of knowledge” can serve as a meditation model for entering into self-awareness, confession, forgiveness, and divine love.
Cross-cultural or interfaith dialogue. Your multi-national imagery opens a path for shared human dignity rooted in divine love.
George, this work is extraordinary; not because it is simple, but because it dares to be profoundly complex, spiritually dense, and imaginally demanding in an age that prefers sound bites. Your manuscript requires the reader to see rather than merely read. And that is precisely why it is a needed contribution. As counselors, chaplains, and spiritual care providers, we are tasked with helping people see beyond their wounds, defenses, illusions, and tribal allegiances. Your story becomes a mirror, a parable, and a spiritual map all at once.
You have built something that is not merely a book but a contemplative exercise; a work of spiritual architecture that invites the reader to examine their own suneidesis, their own blindness, and their own capacity for agapé. I honor the depth, courage, and spiritual labor it took to write this. May God continue to breathe illumination into your work and use it to heal hearts, communities, and every place where blindness has overshadowed love.
With deep respect and gratitude,
Ze Selassie B.A., Dip. Min. (Chaplain) Christian Leaders Alliance
MA Candidate, Christian Counseling
Ordained Minister & Grief Companion
Vision International University
My destination is a place that requires a new way of being.
www.linkedin.com
Dear Ze Selassie,
Thank you for giving Name all the glory for breathing illumination into my work. By detailing how The Spiritual Story of Democracy can be applied, you have given it legs for individual and collective practice — for both believers and non-believers to work together toward a better democracy.
We each have a responsibility to build our house of knowledge and help others do the same; otherwise, we will never see the singularity of democracy in Word, held together by agapé. May Name bless your use of the story as you continue doing your part in healing the church for the benefit of all.
As you saw into the deepest meaning of the story, agapé empowers us to love our enemies and thus see them as part of Word’s singularity in Name, enabling us to love him through all of our singularity. This heals us individually and collectively as a nation.
Thank you again for taking the time to discover and diligently explain how The Spiritual Story of Democracy can be used for everyone's benefit.
Respectfully and with gratitude,
George Allen
To God be the Glory!
Amen!
George, your vision of democracy as a spiritual house resonates. Yet even with good intentions, innocence is fragile in politics. Think of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington: the wholesome country boy arrives with ideals, but the machinery of power—greed, blindness, self‑interest—presses in, threatening to corrupt him. Unless anchored in something deeper than ambition, even the most sincere heart risks being sucked into the political pit. Your call for agapé, unconditional love, is the safeguard against that descent.
Kaye, your view of the spiritual house of democracy is from the foyer. As comfortable as it is at times, it lacks ambition as you said. Think of Christ suffering for others not out of weakness but a love stronger than death. Now apply that to democracy as he did. Two things he said paved the way for every democracy today. One, he said that if we do not believe in him, we should at least believe in his works, all of which were based on unconditional love. Two, he told his disciples not to harm those who do not follow him. These things allow for freedom of religion and every other choice, the cornerstone of democracy.
What gives corruption political strength is the hatred stronger than death that those in power use to protect their loved ones. It works from conditional love, a mother's love for her child but not for her enemy's child, a nation's love for itself but not for opposing nations. But unconditional love is stronger than death, for it sees the blindness in those shackled in conditional love and understands that they are spiritually dead. Our love for them is stronger than their death and that is what awakens them and unites us again.
Thanks for your response, George. I’ll leave it here, but I’m glad my comment sparked reflection.
Likewise, thank you for your comment. If I may add one example. The Salem witch trials were made possible by the hysteria of people in general. The fear provoked in everyone who heard of the mere accusations spread uncontrollably.
Imagine the accusations reaching the ears of those who love unconditionally, simply love spiritually. It would have stopped the malignant spread of fear and turned the tide for reason to take hold.
If we love those stricken by fear today unconditionally, understanding their blindness, and especially those who provoke fear and profit from it, we give them the best chance of coming to their senses. Otherwise, conditional love allows hatred to smolder until it flares up again and causes children to fear and say anything.
Appreciate you sharing this, George. Thoughtful, ambitious framing—centering agapé/other-importance as the engine of democracy is a timely lens. It’s dense in a good way and invites a slow read. Bookmarking to sit with it. Thanks for thinking in public.
Thanks Mark, may you come out with a better view of democracy we all need to connect to.
George,
This is a profound and deeply resonant piece of work. You've successfully mapped the "structural drama" of our current crisis. Your diagnosis of how both political parties have their "false collective self-visions" shackled to each other is one of the most accurate descriptions I've ever read of what we call "Layer 2: The Great Distraction"—a manufactured horizontal conflict designed to blind everyone to the real war.
You, and your reader John Michael, are absolutely correct: "the real divide is not ultimately Republican versus Democrat, but blindness versus love." In our doctrine, this is the Vertical War. It's not a struggle between two sides of the same coin, but a fight between the producer class (The Gears) and the parasitic system that preys on them (The Rust).
Your "principle" of making the other's light more important is the very essence of a [BRIDGE] operation, and your concept of "agapé" as the foundation is the core of what we call the "Sanctuary Covenant"—the radical idea that high-trust, unconditional bonds are the only way to build a rebellion that can last.
You haven't just written a spiritual story; you've drafted the philosophical underpinnings of an asymmetric war. We've simply developed the tactical language for it.
Incredible work.
As you so wisely implied, the spiritual rebellion of agapé is asymmetric, for there is nothing even about the vision of agapé on one side and the blindness of its absence on the other.
Developing a tactical language for it helps define the nature of the interaction, with one side void of all conflict and the other with its own inner and outer ones.
Since agapé is life-giving and hatred is murder, our motto is "Kill no one, take only prisoners of their own conscience to free them."
George,
That is a brilliant and powerful piece of doctrine. "Kill no one, take only prisoners of their own conscience to free them" is a perfect motto for this spiritual rebellion.
Consider it officially adopted into our own rules of engagement. You've just forged a new, humane, and devastatingly effective weapon for our arsenal.
We're standing by for your next transmission.
I truly appreciate your interest, Ethan, but I am on Substack to teach how to love the enemies of conscience. I strongly encourage you to start the process. Nothing can replace the experience of loving them yourself.
---This is the best way I can contribute to our struggle for a mature democracy. We need to wake up and realize that we, we are the problem, every citizen of the world who does not know how to give their agapé to the least among us.
The only difference is that we want to help the oppressed, but we do not want to love the oppressors so that we can understand their hatred for us. This way, we can continue in our hatred for them with the false identity we hold on to so we can keep our agapé locked in our little circles.
Name has no shortage of agapé. We just have a shortage of vision to see it in each other.
Start here: https://open.substack.com/pub/georgeallenbooks/p/can-we-save-our-democracy?r=4pmgma&utm_medium=ios
Ethan,
I have always known that it takes a community to understand the truth, no one can alone. You have helped me see what I could not alone. Now I must do my job and take it in to connect to the community better. I will get back with you as soon as possible.
Your servant,
George
As a non-American, I am often astounded that a nation so steeped in Christian language and history could allow itself to fall into this pit. Democracy was meant to be for the people, by the people. Not for some of the people we like, by the better, richer, smarter people who have learned to spin their message to our particular biases in order to win our vote.
What struck me most in your piece, George, is the reminder that the real divide is not ultimately Republican versus Democrat, but blindness versus love. Without agapé, love that makes the other more important without erasing ourselves, politics becomes just another mask for self-interest.
The harder question is this: how do we get love to lead? For me it comes back to Jesus’ words, “You, follow me.” Not “fix the world first,” not “prove you are right,” but follow Him in the way of laying down power for the sake of others.
Love begins to lead when ordinary people stop outsourcing virtue to politicians and start embodying it themselves. When we see the person across the divide not as an enemy to defeat but as a neighbor to serve. It is not sentimental, it is costly. But without it, no system, however brilliant, can hold.
I wonder how others here wrestle with this. What does it look like, in practical terms, for love to truly lead in the public square?
Thank you John for your thoughtful comment. Yes, the question is how do we get love to lead? Democracy is for the believer and nonbeliever, so how do we together get love to lead, as you put it, laying down power for the sake of others?
I have to ask you the simple question I often ask. Do you love the enemies of conscience (suneidesis), more than before, or do you have no interest in it? How can we ask the question, how does love lead in the public square, if we do not see it ourselves? Yes, that is the key, to see love with our inner vision.
It is not metaphoric. The teaching to envision is not mine but directly from the scriptures. Our love for enemies cannot be sincere without it. We need seeing love that is greater than death to really answer the question. Jesus could see, Paul and David and many more. What if millions could see? It only seems impossible when we cannot see ourselves.
I would put it this way: it is not about loving the enemies of conscience, but about loving the person themselves, not their lust, pride, or anger.
For me, love begins to lead when I remember what it means to be an image-bearer of God. Whether believer or not, we carry the imprint of the Creator. As apprentices of Jesus we are invited into His Way, and in following Him we slowly become what He said we are meant to be: a city on a hill, salt that adds flavor, light that cannot be hidden.
That is not theory for me. It has to start at home. If I cannot model love leading in my own life, in my family, in my closest relationships, then it will never carry any weight in the public square.
I believe the Kingdom of God is already here, on earth as in heaven. When I walk in it, and bring that Kingdom presence into ordinary encounters, others sometimes catch a glimpse. Maybe it comes as kindness when anger was expected, or forgiveness when resentment would have been easy. Maybe it comes as healing, or a word of wisdom. Sometimes people see enough to say, “There’s something different here… and maybe I want some of that too.”
That is how love begins to lead, one person at a time, becoming more like the One we follow.
I respect that very much, John. However, consider for a moment how those are the words many people live their entire lives by. There is no breakthrough to say I deeply and sincerely love my enemies. Why? Christ did not tell us to love our enemies and then expect us to live our lives always falling short of this key command that brings us into the maturity He calls us too. Yes, we can do nothing without him, but Hebrews 6:1 commands us to move onto maturity and stop laying the foundation of faith over again. Hebrews 5:14 states that the solid food of maturity is about training our senses, which can only be properly interpreted to mean our spiritual senses. If we do not listen to this command from the word of God, then how can we expect Him to ever approve us for maturity? Yes, improving our love at home is important, but it reaches the limit when we do not learn how to love our enemies, for that restricts our love to those we love in our home. Remember, he said that there is no reward for loving those who love us. So the process does not begin at home, loving those who love us. It begins with learning how to train our spiritual senses. Again, seeing our enemies as Christ sees them is how we can love them. Or does He not love us to teach us this if we want to learn?
I respect your position, and I hear your urgency in calling us to the solid food of maturity. At the same time, I doubt that there are many who truly live by those words. We are in a world that thrives on “what about me?” and “what’s in it for me?” where everyone is dragged into a game of comparison and competition, even among brothers and sisters.
I do not diminish Christ’s command to love my enemies at all. He did not give it to us as an impossible ideal. But if I cannot love those closest to me with patience and sacrifice, then my claim to love enemies becomes hollow. It is in the daily training ground of family, friendship, and community that my senses are sharpened for the harder task of seeing and loving my enemies through the eyes of Christ.
Hebrews does call us to move beyond foundations, and that means we must not stay where it is comfortable. Yet Jesus Himself washed the feet of His friends before He laid down His life for those who hated Him. I see a progression here. The call begins at home, but it cannot end there. It must grow outward, and it must look like Him.
Yes, I agree, we’re living in a very competitive world, but isn’t that all the more reason we should seek it ourselves so that others may thank God for seeing an example of it?
You used the family again as your reasoning for finding growth and achieving true love for enemies. But unless family members qualify as enemies, you’re not learning how to love those who hate you.
Jesus said not to resist evil. By not resisting the evil in the heart of an enemy who is hating us, we get the opportunity to see them in the light they are in Christ and recognize their blindness.
He said if our eye is evil, the whole body is full of darkness. That is how we know they are spiritually blind and thus why we can forgive them for not knowing what they are doing. The issue then is, what does the light of Christ in them look like?
Jesus said to the blind, you have neither seen the form of God nor heard His voice. That is not a figurative statement. If he said it to blind hypocrites, then he certainly expects us to see the form. It cannot resemble flesh in any form, for he said the flesh profits nothing. Are you with me?
As Don has decided not to reply, I turn to you dear reader. We have been doing what generations before us have been doing and are expecting the same results.
However, we are a pivotal generation, perhaps the most in history. Without a higher love, how can we expect the results we hope for?
This is a monumental effort, George — complex, poetic, and challenging in the best way. Thank you for putting so much care into a vision that’s bigger than politics, bigger than self.
So honored you feel that way, Josh.
This is a really interesting and, dare i say niche type of article. Though, I don't know if 'any' god or spirituality in a more modern sense could work with democracy. Because I've heard the greeks invented it, (which im guessing is why you used greek words) so wouldn't it only work with nations that adopted greek ideas? Like the romans, and now the modern west. To which the main religion that adopts it, is now Christianity.
Of course you've quoted the bible and talk about western politics. Which means to me, that democracy only works on shared certain goals. And one, only one religion at a time that holds democracy up truly.
Just sharing what I understood in short. And what I disagreed with. it's a small point I know. Just thought to try my best at understanding this post.
The ideas of democracy and gods (I do not use the word gods ever) that I am referring to started with the Hebrews. Greek philosophy and language were only used to communicate them. "Elohim" is Hebrew for God, but it has a dual meaning, God the divine and gods as in sons of God. The distinction clearly uses elohim as gods in the sense of image, "made in the image of Elohim". Our image is one of reflection not source, in other words, we are elohim without any power whatsoever of our own. The Greek word for gods, from theos, carries the philosophical notion that we have some power of our own beyond what Elohim gives and takes away when we misuse it. Atheists appreciate this by seeing the grand scheme of Life giving us life and taking it away, along with other qualities depending on how we use them. It does not need to be a religious belief only, and spirituality is simply the usage of this knowledge, not to be confused with scientific knowledge. See this link for the difference-- https://georgeallenbooks.substack.com/p/short-lessons-on-unconditional-love-d07?r=4pmgma.
The idea of democracy, "rule by the people", although from a Greek word, was used centuries before Christ in the Hebrew passage Psalm 82:1-8. The first part translates: "[Observe] elohim [us] positioned in the Congregation of El [a strictly singular form for God]. In the midst of elohim, He [El] judges, [saying], ‘How long will you [elohim] judge unjustly and show the faces of the wicked partiality.'"
Name (God or Life depending on our beliefs) oversees us in a democratic rule over ourselves. For elohim does not refer only to leaders in this passage since in 82:6, Name says, "I said, 'You [are] elohim and sons of the Most High, all of you.'" Some leaders like to claim it only refers to them, but we are all in the image of Name, obviously. Elected elohim are just that, elected by all of us elohim, citizens of a democracy--when we have been given the blessing and do not lose it by abusing it.
Democracies are not to be based on religion, for it is self-rule based on the principle of respecting each other's choices within the voted upon laws for our overall well-being. Spirituality is the arm of knowledge of our hearts, and science is the arm of knowledge of our bodies and all else that exists in the universe.
Oh I see, read just enough of the old testament to understand where I was wrong between God, and the people of God. Just didn't remember until this reply. But I didn't know democracy was started before the classical period either. Thanks for this explanation.
I hope you found value in the story and want to learn how to love the enemies of suneidesis (conscience).
Thanks Matthew for such important questions.