"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:" Romans 13:3. Actually the power of the state to "reward" the righteous is the benefit of its absence. The question, "Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority?" (NIV translation of Romans 13:3b), means the state doesn't bother you. It is a benefit of absence.
The reward is also indirect - security. The state keeps the thief and murderer away from you, your family, and your property. If the state is taking your property or restricting your liberty, even though you are not a criminal, the state has left the bounds of its appropriate function given to it by God. It has become perverted and seeks to accomplish something else, which it was not intended for and cannot accomplish. See post on "Snake Oil Salesmen."
If the state is transferring wealth to someone productive, like a successful business or doctors, it is improper. However, it is much less damaging to the society than transferring wealth to the wicked, like the indolent, the immoral, or even fraudsters. The American welfare system does this by transferring wealth to those who do not work, to those who have learned how to game the system like having children out of wedlock, and to those who simply know how to steal and defraud the federal government. It is wicked and even stupid to take from the productive to give to the evil and unproductive. If pursued over time, it will destroy those whom it was intended to help and the society itself. We see this in progress today with children and families (typically fatherless families) remaining in poverty and dependent upon government assistance generationally. The grandchildren and great grandchildren and on and on continue in the path of their foremothers, learning how to live off the productivity of others by taxation instead of developing their own productivity or marrying productive husbands. No matter how you define poverty, they are dependent upon the state performing transfers of wealth from the righteous to the wicked. (The state should punish wicked fathers who are unfaithful to their wives and children, putting their welfare in jeopardy. Instead, their wicked ways are rewarded because the welfare system acts as a surrogate father, allowing them to use whatever capital they have to support themselves or start new families. These same wicked fathers then vote - self-servingly - for liberal politicians who accuse conservative politicians of being heartless toward single women, the same women whom the wicked fathers either made single or never married after getting them pregnant.)
If the state subsidizes some aspect of the economy for what it thinks is a good purpose, doctors for example, then it is acting beyond its bounds. It is violating the market's rules for who should be rewarded, and it is acting as a rewarder beyond the intent of God for the state. If doctors were suffering in our economy for some reason beyond their control and the people's health was suffering as a result, then perhaps it could be justified as a temporary measure only. Such a temporary measure would not justify an entire overhaul of the nation's medical and health insurance system, thereby restricting individuals' and businesses' liberty to develop, build, choose, etc.
The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) of 1646 expands upon the state's security purpose of Romans 13 with respect to the Church when it states:
"III. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; yet he has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he has power to call synods, to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God."* Original 1646 version, not the edited American version of 1788.
Therefore, as a co-government with the state (Matt. 18:17-20), as the representative of Christ on earth (Matt. 16:13-20), as "the pillar and ground of the truth" (I Tim. 3:15), the Church receives from the state protection from evildoers, except when the state itself is acting as an evildoer and usurping the power of the Church. The Church holds God's healing and salvation function in society, not the state.
Once the state begins to go outside the boundaries set by God for its justice function, it begins to take from the righteous, implicitly punishing the righteous. Its perversion can only increase from that point on until it limits itself to its God ordained Romans 13 purpose. Do not seek monetary reward from the state, except for actual work/service as an employee, and do not seek salvific or health effects from the state. Your hope is not in the state, it is in God. Worship Him alone, and He shall be your salvation and your prosperity. Deuteronomy 8.
*The WCF clause above on Civil Government is based in part on the following scriptures:
"And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the Lord: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me." Isa. 49:23. "Because of the house of the Lord our God I [King David] will seek thy good." Psalm 122:9. "Whatsoever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it be diligently done for the house of the God of heaven: for why should there be wrath against the realm of the king and his sons? 25 And thou, Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God, that is in thine hand, set magistrates and judges, which may judge all the people that are beyond the river, all such as know the laws of thy God; and teach ye them that know them not. 26 And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment. 27 Blessed be the Lord God of our fathers, which hath put such a thing as this in the king's heart, to beautify the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem: 28 And hath extended mercy unto me before the king, and his counsellers, and before all the king's mighty princes. And I was strengthened as the hand of the Lord my God was upon me, and I gathered together out of Israel chief men to go up with me." Ezra 7:23-28. "And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death." Lev. 24:16. "And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee. 6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers. 12 If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the Lord thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, etc. 2KI 18:4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan." Deut. 13:5-12. (1CH 13:1-8; 2KI 24:1-25) "And Josiah took away all the abominations out of all the countries that pertained to the children of Israel, and made all that were present in Israel to serve, even to serve the Lord their God. And all his days they departed not from following the Lord, the God of their fathers." II Chron. 34:33. And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul; 13 That whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman." II Chron. 15:12. (Copied from www.blueletterbible.org)
Monday, January 20, 2014
Snake Oil Salesmen and Salvation by Law
Back in earlier days of America, the 1800's and into the early 20th century, men would travel around the country proclaiming the healing properties of snake oil. Yes, the oil of snakes was touted as some sort of cure-all for just about any disease. They had scientific sounding names for the chemicals from the snakes, and they could spin a yarn about the unique powers of the snake. "The preparation was promoted in North America by travelling salesmen who often used accomplices in the audience to proclaim the benefits of the preparation." Wikipedia, 20 January 2014, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_oil. The theory is that the idea came either from an ancient Chinese remedy or the western American Indians. The salesmen made their buck from one town, then before the users could figure out they'd been tricked, they moved on to another town or blamed the user for not following the instructions properly.
Realize two things about politics and avoid much deception. The state, as in the civil governing body given the power of the sword to punish wrongdoers, can only act by law, that is, commands punishable by the state's physical coercion. If it acts by anything else - man's whim, emotion, polling numbers, etc., it is arbitrary and tyrannical.
Second, the bible teaches that salvation cannot be gained by law. Only Christ can save, only the Church has healing power, and attempting to gain salvation by law results in the exact opposite - damnation. Most Christians who believe that principle only apply it to individual salvation. But can the state, as in civil government, apply the law to save the society?
But the same God who created the individual also created the universe and the bases for societies. He governs both. He showed us that in His dealings with Israel. He acted upon individuals and the society. He governed both. The nation was delivered from Egypt and brought into the promised land by grace, just as an individual is saved by grace, not because of their righteousness. Deuteronomy 9:4-6.
To think that the state's civil governing apparatus can somehow bring prosperity or health to a society is like believing the hangman's noose can heal cancer. Can theft from one group by taxation bring prosperity? How will the money be used by the recipients? Who profits? Does God have a say in who and how the money is spent? See post titled "Socialism and Private Property." Can putting wealthy, productive people in prison for not paying their taxes bring wealth to society? Can fines and imprisonment for wealthy corporations and their executives create wealth for society? Can laws that demand insurance companies and doctors operate a certain way bring health to the people of a society? Can the state produce wealth, health, and salvation for society?
Most people think that the Nazi salute to Hitler, "Heil Hitler," meant "Hail, Hitler." It didn't. It means "salvation, good, well-being." Under National Socialism, which is what the term Nazi was short for, the German people looked to the state for salvation. To whom do you look for your provision, your health, your salvation in this life? Law cannot save, it cannot heal, it cannot make you prosperous; it can only punish and destroy, which is its intended purpose, a purpose of justice, not salvation. People/voters pervert the state and its law in order to gain something it cannot give. Politicians pervert the state and its law in order to get acclaim, a position, money, but they end up taking away liberty and property from the very people God has blessed and whose work and capital could build up the society. Salvation by law always ends in tyranny. Salvation by the state always ends in tyranny.
Remember the purpose of the state and its power of the sword from Romans 13 - the punishment of evildoers. Therefore, the politician who promises prosperity by statist means - programs funded by taxes to create jobs, prison and other punishment for those who are already prosperous, and other statist promises of salvation by law - are promising what they cannot give. Like those snake oil salesmen of old, they rely upon the gullibility, no, the faith, of people to believe their promises. They'll even throw in testimonials from the audience to substantiate their claims. And like those salesmen, they either move on after their terms expire, or they blame the user, for not giving the state even more power, for the failure.
And like Israel of old, who served other gods until those gods couldn't save them, we still follow a similar path - believing the promises of the statists until those promises take us to a less bright future, not the promised one. Judges 10:10-14.
Realize two things about politics and avoid much deception. The state, as in the civil governing body given the power of the sword to punish wrongdoers, can only act by law, that is, commands punishable by the state's physical coercion. If it acts by anything else - man's whim, emotion, polling numbers, etc., it is arbitrary and tyrannical.
Second, the bible teaches that salvation cannot be gained by law. Only Christ can save, only the Church has healing power, and attempting to gain salvation by law results in the exact opposite - damnation. Most Christians who believe that principle only apply it to individual salvation. But can the state, as in civil government, apply the law to save the society?
But the same God who created the individual also created the universe and the bases for societies. He governs both. He showed us that in His dealings with Israel. He acted upon individuals and the society. He governed both. The nation was delivered from Egypt and brought into the promised land by grace, just as an individual is saved by grace, not because of their righteousness. Deuteronomy 9:4-6.
To think that the state's civil governing apparatus can somehow bring prosperity or health to a society is like believing the hangman's noose can heal cancer. Can theft from one group by taxation bring prosperity? How will the money be used by the recipients? Who profits? Does God have a say in who and how the money is spent? See post titled "Socialism and Private Property." Can putting wealthy, productive people in prison for not paying their taxes bring wealth to society? Can fines and imprisonment for wealthy corporations and their executives create wealth for society? Can laws that demand insurance companies and doctors operate a certain way bring health to the people of a society? Can the state produce wealth, health, and salvation for society?
Most people think that the Nazi salute to Hitler, "Heil Hitler," meant "Hail, Hitler." It didn't. It means "salvation, good, well-being." Under National Socialism, which is what the term Nazi was short for, the German people looked to the state for salvation. To whom do you look for your provision, your health, your salvation in this life? Law cannot save, it cannot heal, it cannot make you prosperous; it can only punish and destroy, which is its intended purpose, a purpose of justice, not salvation. People/voters pervert the state and its law in order to gain something it cannot give. Politicians pervert the state and its law in order to get acclaim, a position, money, but they end up taking away liberty and property from the very people God has blessed and whose work and capital could build up the society. Salvation by law always ends in tyranny. Salvation by the state always ends in tyranny.
Remember the purpose of the state and its power of the sword from Romans 13 - the punishment of evildoers. Therefore, the politician who promises prosperity by statist means - programs funded by taxes to create jobs, prison and other punishment for those who are already prosperous, and other statist promises of salvation by law - are promising what they cannot give. Like those snake oil salesmen of old, they rely upon the gullibility, no, the faith, of people to believe their promises. They'll even throw in testimonials from the audience to substantiate their claims. And like those salesmen, they either move on after their terms expire, or they blame the user, for not giving the state even more power, for the failure.
And like Israel of old, who served other gods until those gods couldn't save them, we still follow a similar path - believing the promises of the statists until those promises take us to a less bright future, not the promised one. Judges 10:10-14.
Socialism vs Private Property 2
Gary North has written about sovereignty and economics:
"Not the State, but familial, church, and private charity are enjoined. Personal responsibility is the focus of Old Testament welfare requirements.
"The key issue, therefore, is the question of sovereignty. All property belongs to God. God delegates to individuals, as members of His covenantal institutions, the responsibility of acting as stewards of this property. God, as Creator, can alone claim total sovereignty over property. No single earthly individual or institution can ever legitimately assert the right of absolute ownership. All ownership is covenantal, and therefore bounded by the appropriate Mosaic laws: civil, familial, personal, and ecclesiastical."
"An Introduction to Christian Economics," by Gary North, pp. 213-14, The Craig Press, 1973, 1 January 2014, footnotes omitted, http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/pdf/intro_to_christian_economics.pdf.
Marx based differences in wealth on what he saw as different classes in society, as if classes are permanent statements of a person's membership in a particular group, like the caste system in India.
Where does wealth and class distinction come from? "But thou shalt remember the Lord thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth . . . ." Deut. 8:18a. "The Lord maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up." I Sam. 2: 7. Therefore, status in life is based, again, on God's determination. Marx, an atheistic Humanist, contended that capital accumulation creates artificial classes which cannot be breached by someone from another class.
Does class create capital, or does capital create class? What is high class? Low class? If class is a perspective on life, then high class manifests in a long-term perspective, whether the issue in question is capital - accumulation versus consumption, or time - long term versus short term, or politics - freedom over security and dependence, or religion - God instead of man. One's perspective on the above issues does not depend on how much capital one owns at the time, but it could determine how much one owns in the future. "The blessing of God, it maketh rich, . . ." Proverbs 10:22.
A poor person with a long term (high class) perspective determines to build something; therefore, he saves for the future. He builds capital. That poor person has a high class perspective, whereas the spendthrift who inherited his wealth, or the hoarder, has a low class perspective. God will bless the one with more capital, while the other will lose what capital he has. The one who builds and invests will see benefits in the future. Jesus said that he who has to him more shall be given. Luke 19:11-28.
The irony of Marxism is that the very method with which the person who has a long term perspective can escape one level of "class" and move to another is denied by Marxism, which demands total sovereignty. The liberty of the individual and of groups of individuals to accumulate capital and take risks for productivity's sake is the key. But as sovereignty moves from the individual to the state, then that key is removed.
Private property cannot be separated from liberty without completely undoing liberty. And the state's taking of liberty is an advance toward the sovereignty of the state over God Himself. Therefore, Marxism and atheism are forever connected, and more power and sovereignty to the state and denial of God are forever connected, and more restriction on private property is forever theft from God and His agents. And statist socialism can never be Christian or Biblical.
"Not the State, but familial, church, and private charity are enjoined. Personal responsibility is the focus of Old Testament welfare requirements.
"The key issue, therefore, is the question of sovereignty. All property belongs to God. God delegates to individuals, as members of His covenantal institutions, the responsibility of acting as stewards of this property. God, as Creator, can alone claim total sovereignty over property. No single earthly individual or institution can ever legitimately assert the right of absolute ownership. All ownership is covenantal, and therefore bounded by the appropriate Mosaic laws: civil, familial, personal, and ecclesiastical."
"An Introduction to Christian Economics," by Gary North, pp. 213-14, The Craig Press, 1973, 1 January 2014, footnotes omitted, http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/pdf/intro_to_christian_economics.pdf.
Marx based differences in wealth on what he saw as different classes in society, as if classes are permanent statements of a person's membership in a particular group, like the caste system in India.
Where does wealth and class distinction come from? "But thou shalt remember the Lord thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth . . . ." Deut. 8:18a. "The Lord maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up." I Sam. 2: 7. Therefore, status in life is based, again, on God's determination. Marx, an atheistic Humanist, contended that capital accumulation creates artificial classes which cannot be breached by someone from another class.
Does class create capital, or does capital create class? What is high class? Low class? If class is a perspective on life, then high class manifests in a long-term perspective, whether the issue in question is capital - accumulation versus consumption, or time - long term versus short term, or politics - freedom over security and dependence, or religion - God instead of man. One's perspective on the above issues does not depend on how much capital one owns at the time, but it could determine how much one owns in the future. "The blessing of God, it maketh rich, . . ." Proverbs 10:22.
A poor person with a long term (high class) perspective determines to build something; therefore, he saves for the future. He builds capital. That poor person has a high class perspective, whereas the spendthrift who inherited his wealth, or the hoarder, has a low class perspective. God will bless the one with more capital, while the other will lose what capital he has. The one who builds and invests will see benefits in the future. Jesus said that he who has to him more shall be given. Luke 19:11-28.
The irony of Marxism is that the very method with which the person who has a long term perspective can escape one level of "class" and move to another is denied by Marxism, which demands total sovereignty. The liberty of the individual and of groups of individuals to accumulate capital and take risks for productivity's sake is the key. But as sovereignty moves from the individual to the state, then that key is removed.
Private property cannot be separated from liberty without completely undoing liberty. And the state's taking of liberty is an advance toward the sovereignty of the state over God Himself. Therefore, Marxism and atheism are forever connected, and more power and sovereignty to the state and denial of God are forever connected, and more restriction on private property is forever theft from God and His agents. And statist socialism can never be Christian or Biblical.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Swearing to Uphold and Defend the Constitution 2
In my last post on this subject, I mentioned my education background to show the process I went through to arrive at my opinion. Upon realizing I must base my life on the scriptures of the Christian and Hebrew bibles (testaments), I began to question much of my secular education. For example, I was unsure that I had been taught the whole story about the founding fathers of America. So I went about studying the original writings, along with some modern commentary, which I also didn't fully trust, to get their perspective.
Today, it seems there are only two competing views about interpreting the nature of the U.S. Constitution - Christian versus secular. I don't think it's that simple. Even a cursory read of the U.S. Constitution should create doubt about the Christian nature of the Constitution. Being a Christian, I originally wanted to uncover a Christian-based origination for the Constitution. However, first of all, it was hard to take a secular document like the U.S. Constitution, which makes no mention of the bible, Christianity, or even God and turn it into a Christian document.
Second, what is a Christian founding document? What would it look like? That is, what elements would it have, even if it didn't explicitly reference the bible? Even though I had read the bible through several times, I wasn't sure of the answers to the questions. I just knew that the U.S. Constitution didn't really fit the bill as far as this amateur was concerned. I also could not find any explanations of what a Christian or biblical founding document should look like. There seemed to be many Christians criticizing the governments and culture of our day, but mere criticism of isolated political policies wasn't enough to explain how to found a Christian government.
Third, part of my research involved reading the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, and other writings by the founders. I expected to find an abundance of Christian references, and I did. But I also found a mix of a wealth of philosophical, historical, and common sense thinking in the writings of even the most outspoken Christians of the time.
You have to understand how disappointing this was to me. I had converted, believing not that the bible contained answers to life, but that it was the only answer to life. There's a big difference. If the founders did not believe that, then they had changed in their viewpoint of the bible in the two and a half centuries since the Protestant Reformation. They certainly had changed since the Apostles nearly 1,800 years earlier. They had apparently imbibed of the elixir of the Enlightenment more than I had hoped. They were a mix of bible and human thought more than what the promoters of the Christian Constitution believed. They were more Christian in their thinking than what I had been taught in school.
The reason I'm saying all this is because I don't believe I came to the question with a pre-conceived notion. I didn't accept what I'd been taught in secular American history, but if I did have a preconception, I assumed that there would be a more explicit biblical motivation. That assumption was based upon hope, not self-deception.
But then you have to decide what is a biblical republic. I'm not sure the Christian community has ever settled on that. It could depend greatly on one's view of biblical law and whether it applies in whole or in part to civil government today. Personally, I assume that any part of the Old Testament applies today unless explicitly revoked somehow in scripture. Gary North and Ray Sutton, from whom I've gleaned much of my insight into this question, have established five (5) elements of a covenant (some would say contract, but that's too weak a description for an agreement requiring an oath). The U.S. Constitution is a covenant amongst the people. The U.S. Constitution requires an oath for someone to serve as an official in state, local, or federal government.
Why would the U.S. Constitution require an oath, which historically has applied a severe sanction by God upon the person who violates the oath? Marriages begin with oaths. Ministers are installed by an oath. The state, the family, and the church are the three key institutions of society. All three require an oath. What elements make up a covenant institution like civil government helps immensely in analyzing what type of institution it is, that is, secular or Christian, Buddhist or Muslim, atheist or deist, etc.
As explained by North and Sutton, the five elements for a covenant are:
1. Historical Prologue/Statement of Origin of Authority
2. Statement of Hierarchy
3. Law
4. Sanctions
5. Continuity/Inheritance
Therefore, to determine whether the United States Constitution were a Christian governing document or not, one must analyze it as to each of those five levels.
See the Blog Posts, "The Importance of Swearing" in this Blog and "Oaths" in Biblical Judicial System Blog.
Today, it seems there are only two competing views about interpreting the nature of the U.S. Constitution - Christian versus secular. I don't think it's that simple. Even a cursory read of the U.S. Constitution should create doubt about the Christian nature of the Constitution. Being a Christian, I originally wanted to uncover a Christian-based origination for the Constitution. However, first of all, it was hard to take a secular document like the U.S. Constitution, which makes no mention of the bible, Christianity, or even God and turn it into a Christian document.
Second, what is a Christian founding document? What would it look like? That is, what elements would it have, even if it didn't explicitly reference the bible? Even though I had read the bible through several times, I wasn't sure of the answers to the questions. I just knew that the U.S. Constitution didn't really fit the bill as far as this amateur was concerned. I also could not find any explanations of what a Christian or biblical founding document should look like. There seemed to be many Christians criticizing the governments and culture of our day, but mere criticism of isolated political policies wasn't enough to explain how to found a Christian government.
Third, part of my research involved reading the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, and other writings by the founders. I expected to find an abundance of Christian references, and I did. But I also found a mix of a wealth of philosophical, historical, and common sense thinking in the writings of even the most outspoken Christians of the time.
You have to understand how disappointing this was to me. I had converted, believing not that the bible contained answers to life, but that it was the only answer to life. There's a big difference. If the founders did not believe that, then they had changed in their viewpoint of the bible in the two and a half centuries since the Protestant Reformation. They certainly had changed since the Apostles nearly 1,800 years earlier. They had apparently imbibed of the elixir of the Enlightenment more than I had hoped. They were a mix of bible and human thought more than what the promoters of the Christian Constitution believed. They were more Christian in their thinking than what I had been taught in school.
The reason I'm saying all this is because I don't believe I came to the question with a pre-conceived notion. I didn't accept what I'd been taught in secular American history, but if I did have a preconception, I assumed that there would be a more explicit biblical motivation. That assumption was based upon hope, not self-deception.
But then you have to decide what is a biblical republic. I'm not sure the Christian community has ever settled on that. It could depend greatly on one's view of biblical law and whether it applies in whole or in part to civil government today. Personally, I assume that any part of the Old Testament applies today unless explicitly revoked somehow in scripture. Gary North and Ray Sutton, from whom I've gleaned much of my insight into this question, have established five (5) elements of a covenant (some would say contract, but that's too weak a description for an agreement requiring an oath). The U.S. Constitution is a covenant amongst the people. The U.S. Constitution requires an oath for someone to serve as an official in state, local, or federal government.
Why would the U.S. Constitution require an oath, which historically has applied a severe sanction by God upon the person who violates the oath? Marriages begin with oaths. Ministers are installed by an oath. The state, the family, and the church are the three key institutions of society. All three require an oath. What elements make up a covenant institution like civil government helps immensely in analyzing what type of institution it is, that is, secular or Christian, Buddhist or Muslim, atheist or deist, etc.
As explained by North and Sutton, the five elements for a covenant are:
1. Historical Prologue/Statement of Origin of Authority
2. Statement of Hierarchy
3. Law
4. Sanctions
5. Continuity/Inheritance
Therefore, to determine whether the United States Constitution were a Christian governing document or not, one must analyze it as to each of those five levels.
See the Blog Posts, "The Importance of Swearing" in this Blog and "Oaths" in Biblical Judicial System Blog.
Saturday, January 4, 2014
Swearing to Uphold & Defend the Constitution 1
It's not talked about much, probably because the modern world has little respect for oaths. They're merely ceremonial to most people. It's a ritual they perform because they have to, and it's a nice way to get your supporters to attend the start-up of your new position. But according to scripture, your attitude to an oath is irrelevant to whether God holds you to it. He does, whether you think it important or not; to treat it with nonchalantly is not an approach that will prepare you for the office into which you're about to embark. Therefore, the oath is extremely important.
I grew up in nothing but secular schooling - nine years public school in Montgomery, Alabama, three years private high school in Montgomery, and a state university where I received two degrees. I grew up in what I call the first wave of contemporary southern Christian schools, when they were often perceived, correctly or incorrectly, as mere escapes from desegregation for southern white children. The second wave seemed to begin in the late seventies and early eighties and was partly a response to the cultural and legal machinations of the Carter administration. Until Jimmy Carter, a governor of Georgia before being elected president, the culture war was fueled mostly by court rulings, like those dealing with prayer and bible reading and, of course, Roe v Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court case that decriminalized state laws against abortion. The case, though civil, was brought by a Texas woman challenging the Texas laws criminalizing abortion as unconstitutional. Jane Roe (her real name was Norma McCorvey) was later to become a Christian and oppose abortion.
But with Jimmy Carter as President of the United States, the culture war seemed to move from the courts to the federal government acting to affect the entire culture, including education. "In the 1970s, however, the challenge appeared to emanate from a national government that seemingly had loosened restraints in hundreds of ways. The actions of secular authority not only offended traditional moral values, but also seemed to threaten the ability of conservative Protestants to protect themselves and their families from corrupting influences." See Brian F. Le Beau's "The Political Mobilization of the New Christian Right," Part II, no date for website, accessed 4 Jan 2014, http://are.as.wvu.edu/lebeau2.htm.
"President Carter was the first President to advance the homosexual agenda, to defend Roe v Wade, and to initiate the creation of a new cabinet position, that of education. "In 1976, the National Education Association endorsed Jimmy Carter for president, partly because of Carter's promise to create a Department of Education.17 It was the first time the NEA had endorsed a presidential candidate in the more than a century of its existence, but the NEA had long supported the creation of a federal department. Indeed, NEA's website says that in 1867 it "won its first major legislative victory when it successfully lobbied Congress to establish a federal Department of Education."18 In 1979, after a lobbying push by the NEA, the American Federation of Teachers, and other groups, Congress narrowly passed legislation to split a new Department of Education off from the existing Department Health, Education, and Welfare.
"In 1980 Ronald Reagan was elected president promising to abolish the new Department of Education, calling it Jimmy Carter's boondoggle."
Go to: Neal McCluskey's "Downsizing the Federal Government, May 2009, accessed 4 Jan 2014, http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/education/k-12-education-subsidies#sthash.nvvgv1sB.dpuf. At the end of his administration, there was discussion that private Christian schools, if not shut down, should be regulated by those in power, who would "have more expertise in training children." Even on the state level, parents were being jailed for violating state laws and home schooling their children. It seems that good education to liberal progressives is much more than reading and writing; it involves training in atheistic evolution, acceptance of alternative lifestyles, and, of course, the accompanying birth control required to permit consequence-free, promiscuous sex without population increase, which for liberals includes abortion. And, of course, "good" education for the progressive is automatically statist.
Therefore, the second wave of Christian school creation was more explicitly Christian or Biblical in its foundation, curriculum, and administration and even less likely to submit to government intrusion. The home school movement was also a large part of this wave. This was the group that overwhelmed the phone system of the U.S. Congress when a bill almost passed Congress that included a surreptitious attempt to regulate home schools by sneaking some regulating legislation into "a reappropriations bill for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act." Go to HSLDA website, updated 19 Mar 2007, http://www.hslda.org/about/history/battle_hr6.asp. The 1994 legislation "would have required all teachers in the U.S., potentially including home educators, to have teacher certification." Go to Wikipedia, "Home School Legal Defense Association," no date, accessed 4 Jan 2014. The HSLDA was founded by Michael Farris in 2000 as an advocacy organization for home schools and played a key role in alerting home schoolers to the threat and that they should alert their congressmen. It worked, and the legislation didn't pass.
Obviously, the culture war cannot be toned down and moderated when the Left seeks to change the religion and morals of the children of the average American citizen. Also, the war was started by the Left, not Christian conservatives, who simply sought to preserve what they understood as their core values and beliefs. This war will never end as long as the antagonist who began the war and despises the beliefs of average Americans insults those Americans by demanding that they cease creating controversy and simply reach across the aisle. The Left's version of compromise is very simple: "Accept our beliefs, drop your ancient superstitions, and make peace, or we'll take you to court, war upon you legally and by regulation, and malign you in public in every way we can conceive." Yes, the Left are such peaceniks, aren't they, when it comes to enemies of that part of the U.S. with which they disagree and the rest of the world hates also.
The key lever the Left uses is the U.S. Constitution, or, I should say their version of the U.S. Constitution. So, what is the Christian's attitude to the U.S. Constitution to be? It is the foundational law of the land. All public officials, state and federal, are required to swear allegiance to it. It wasn't always the case, but today even lawyers (sometimes their state's constitution only) and military recruits must swear to the oath.
The U.S. Constitution, Article VI, states: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
The oath for the President of U.S. reads: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." The other oaths for officials in civil government and the military also contain verbiage like the President's.
Christians are to take oaths seriously, both in the taking of them and in the refusal to take them. Your baptism is an oath to believe, love, and follow Christ as your King and Savior over all other allegiances because He is God Almighty. No other allegiance can compete with that allegiance. Your wedding vows were an oath. These oath-created relationships are not mere contracts; they are more. They are covenant relationships. The wicked don't keep covenant. In fact, it is considered in scripture as one of the most wicked and reprobate of sins a person can commit, a defining characteristic of those who are utterly given over by God to judgment.
"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:28-32.
So, as a Christian politician, you had better know whether you can honestly take the oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. And you'd better be able to keep it. So how do we as Christians look at the U.S. Constitution?
I grew up in nothing but secular schooling - nine years public school in Montgomery, Alabama, three years private high school in Montgomery, and a state university where I received two degrees. I grew up in what I call the first wave of contemporary southern Christian schools, when they were often perceived, correctly or incorrectly, as mere escapes from desegregation for southern white children. The second wave seemed to begin in the late seventies and early eighties and was partly a response to the cultural and legal machinations of the Carter administration. Until Jimmy Carter, a governor of Georgia before being elected president, the culture war was fueled mostly by court rulings, like those dealing with prayer and bible reading and, of course, Roe v Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court case that decriminalized state laws against abortion. The case, though civil, was brought by a Texas woman challenging the Texas laws criminalizing abortion as unconstitutional. Jane Roe (her real name was Norma McCorvey) was later to become a Christian and oppose abortion.
But with Jimmy Carter as President of the United States, the culture war seemed to move from the courts to the federal government acting to affect the entire culture, including education. "In the 1970s, however, the challenge appeared to emanate from a national government that seemingly had loosened restraints in hundreds of ways. The actions of secular authority not only offended traditional moral values, but also seemed to threaten the ability of conservative Protestants to protect themselves and their families from corrupting influences." See Brian F. Le Beau's "The Political Mobilization of the New Christian Right," Part II, no date for website, accessed 4 Jan 2014, http://are.as.wvu.edu/lebeau2.htm.
"President Carter was the first President to advance the homosexual agenda, to defend Roe v Wade, and to initiate the creation of a new cabinet position, that of education. "In 1976, the National Education Association endorsed Jimmy Carter for president, partly because of Carter's promise to create a Department of Education.17 It was the first time the NEA had endorsed a presidential candidate in the more than a century of its existence, but the NEA had long supported the creation of a federal department. Indeed, NEA's website says that in 1867 it "won its first major legislative victory when it successfully lobbied Congress to establish a federal Department of Education."18 In 1979, after a lobbying push by the NEA, the American Federation of Teachers, and other groups, Congress narrowly passed legislation to split a new Department of Education off from the existing Department Health, Education, and Welfare.
"In 1980 Ronald Reagan was elected president promising to abolish the new Department of Education, calling it Jimmy Carter's boondoggle."
Go to: Neal McCluskey's "Downsizing the Federal Government, May 2009, accessed 4 Jan 2014, http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/education/k-12-education-subsidies#sthash.nvvgv1sB.dpuf. At the end of his administration, there was discussion that private Christian schools, if not shut down, should be regulated by those in power, who would "have more expertise in training children." Even on the state level, parents were being jailed for violating state laws and home schooling their children. It seems that good education to liberal progressives is much more than reading and writing; it involves training in atheistic evolution, acceptance of alternative lifestyles, and, of course, the accompanying birth control required to permit consequence-free, promiscuous sex without population increase, which for liberals includes abortion. And, of course, "good" education for the progressive is automatically statist.
Therefore, the second wave of Christian school creation was more explicitly Christian or Biblical in its foundation, curriculum, and administration and even less likely to submit to government intrusion. The home school movement was also a large part of this wave. This was the group that overwhelmed the phone system of the U.S. Congress when a bill almost passed Congress that included a surreptitious attempt to regulate home schools by sneaking some regulating legislation into "a reappropriations bill for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act." Go to HSLDA website, updated 19 Mar 2007, http://www.hslda.org/about/history/battle_hr6.asp. The 1994 legislation "would have required all teachers in the U.S., potentially including home educators, to have teacher certification." Go to Wikipedia, "Home School Legal Defense Association," no date, accessed 4 Jan 2014. The HSLDA was founded by Michael Farris in 2000 as an advocacy organization for home schools and played a key role in alerting home schoolers to the threat and that they should alert their congressmen. It worked, and the legislation didn't pass.
Obviously, the culture war cannot be toned down and moderated when the Left seeks to change the religion and morals of the children of the average American citizen. Also, the war was started by the Left, not Christian conservatives, who simply sought to preserve what they understood as their core values and beliefs. This war will never end as long as the antagonist who began the war and despises the beliefs of average Americans insults those Americans by demanding that they cease creating controversy and simply reach across the aisle. The Left's version of compromise is very simple: "Accept our beliefs, drop your ancient superstitions, and make peace, or we'll take you to court, war upon you legally and by regulation, and malign you in public in every way we can conceive." Yes, the Left are such peaceniks, aren't they, when it comes to enemies of that part of the U.S. with which they disagree and the rest of the world hates also.
The key lever the Left uses is the U.S. Constitution, or, I should say their version of the U.S. Constitution. So, what is the Christian's attitude to the U.S. Constitution to be? It is the foundational law of the land. All public officials, state and federal, are required to swear allegiance to it. It wasn't always the case, but today even lawyers (sometimes their state's constitution only) and military recruits must swear to the oath.
The U.S. Constitution, Article VI, states: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
The oath for the President of U.S. reads: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." The other oaths for officials in civil government and the military also contain verbiage like the President's.
Christians are to take oaths seriously, both in the taking of them and in the refusal to take them. Your baptism is an oath to believe, love, and follow Christ as your King and Savior over all other allegiances because He is God Almighty. No other allegiance can compete with that allegiance. Your wedding vows were an oath. These oath-created relationships are not mere contracts; they are more. They are covenant relationships. The wicked don't keep covenant. In fact, it is considered in scripture as one of the most wicked and reprobate of sins a person can commit, a defining characteristic of those who are utterly given over by God to judgment.
"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:28-32.
So, as a Christian politician, you had better know whether you can honestly take the oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. And you'd better be able to keep it. So how do we as Christians look at the U.S. Constitution?
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Socialism vs Private Property 1
So much has been said about socialism by economists, philosophers, and political scientists, but let me add two cents.
Abraham was very rich, and what he had was given to him by God. Genesis 13:2. "And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, That I will not take from a thread even to a shoe latchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:" Genesis 14:22-3. Abram was addressing Chedorlaomer after retrieving the property and people of Sodom from the raiders who had attacked Sodom. Chedorlaomer was the king of Sodom and represented what civil government could give to Abram.
If the sovereign God is the one who gives to men what they have, then how can the civil government take their property from them or give it to someone else without defying the God who determines who receives what? God rewards His own, so how can the organized society of those whom God has not blessed force God's blessed to give to those not blessed? This is the philosophy of the pagan - all must share and share alike.
When the son of the king of a city in Canaan wanted to marry the daughter of Jacob, who was as rich or richer than his grandfather Abraham, he went to the people of their city with this message: "And Hamor and Shechem his son came unto the gate of their city, and communed with the men of their city, saying, 'These men are peaceable with us; therefore let them dwell in the land, and trade therein; for the land, behold, it is large enough for them; let us take their daughters to us for wives, and let us give them our daughters. Only herein will the men consent unto us for to dwell with us, to be one people, if every male among us be circumcised, as they are circumcised. Shall not their cattle and their substance and every beast of theirs be ours? only let us consent unto them, and they will dwell with us.'" Genesis 34:20-23.
In other words, socialism is not new.
Abraham was very rich, and what he had was given to him by God. Genesis 13:2. "And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, That I will not take from a thread even to a shoe latchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:" Genesis 14:22-3. Abram was addressing Chedorlaomer after retrieving the property and people of Sodom from the raiders who had attacked Sodom. Chedorlaomer was the king of Sodom and represented what civil government could give to Abram.
If the sovereign God is the one who gives to men what they have, then how can the civil government take their property from them or give it to someone else without defying the God who determines who receives what? God rewards His own, so how can the organized society of those whom God has not blessed force God's blessed to give to those not blessed? This is the philosophy of the pagan - all must share and share alike.
When the son of the king of a city in Canaan wanted to marry the daughter of Jacob, who was as rich or richer than his grandfather Abraham, he went to the people of their city with this message: "And Hamor and Shechem his son came unto the gate of their city, and communed with the men of their city, saying, 'These men are peaceable with us; therefore let them dwell in the land, and trade therein; for the land, behold, it is large enough for them; let us take their daughters to us for wives, and let us give them our daughters. Only herein will the men consent unto us for to dwell with us, to be one people, if every male among us be circumcised, as they are circumcised. Shall not their cattle and their substance and every beast of theirs be ours? only let us consent unto them, and they will dwell with us.'" Genesis 34:20-23.
In other words, socialism is not new.
The battleground of politics for the believer
But what about the behavior of the public official/public servant? If he stands for biblical standards, what battles will he face? Many, vicious battles. The ungodly hate God's law. "But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death." Proverbs 8:36. It reminds them of what their conscience already is trying to tell them - there is a God, and you are not Him. What about the mere fact that the biblical public official's stand may demonstrate the total invalidity of the very positions that placed the wicked where they are, maybe what sustains them financially.
Think about abortion, and how its supporters fight for it tooth and nail, denying or contradicting the moral arguments about it. Think of the psychological toll of admitting they were supporting the murder of innocent babes. It would be unthinkable. There's no forgiveness in their worlds, so they would simply be left with their sinful selves, supporting murder. What psychological manipulations have they accomplished to keep their stand valid in their own mind? What actions would they take to invalidate the Christian position on abortion?
The godly must lean upon God's promises. "O ye sons of men, how long will ye turn my glory into shame? how long will ye love vanity, and seek after leasing? Selah. But know that the LORD hath set apart him that is godly for himself: the LORD will hear when I call unto him." Psalm 4:2-3. "Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men. For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain. Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies." Psalm 139:19-22.
If you teach them the error of their ways, they will not listen. "Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee." Proverbs 9:8.
The biblical public official will not be an evangelist, even if he teaches some to avoid error. No, his gifting is not in evangelism, it is in leadership. "Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching; Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness." I Corinthians 12:6-8.
But what do the smart wicked do? What do the devious wicked, who know the promises of God toward His people, seek to do? Beware of Balaams, those who seek to seduce. "Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD." Numbers 31:16. See also II Peter 2:15; Jude 11; Revelation 2:14. If they seduce the believer into their wickedness, they win. They know God doesn't support the wicked, so they seek to make the godly like themselves.
I have heard from someone involved in background checks of political officials (congressmen, e.g., deal with national security issues, and their backgrounds must be checked to determine if there is something that could compromise them) that the imbalance between republicans and democrats is amazing. The overwhelming majority of democrats have something immoral in their background, while republicans have the opposite ratio. This should not be surprising because the democrats have adopted the immoral doctrine of socialistic total equality, they have adopted the immoral political strategy of coercion and manipulation by demonization, and while rejecting laissez faire in business have adopted it regarding personal morality. Their personal lives simply reflect their immoral political careers, or vice versa. They are socialist in their economics, Marxist in their political campaigns, and amoral in their personal lives. All they care about is winning.
If they can subvert the morality of the godly, they have a lever for keeping them in check. "If you oppose our policies, we'll expose what you did last summer at that party we invited you to." They do not work by persuasion but by coercion and manipulation. They control their own party "faithful" by threatening to deny them advancement and benefits or by threatening to oust them from office even. They can always find someone else interested in "goodies," so they can control someone to vote the way they want.
The Christian cannot find common ground with such political manipulaters, who are not seeking the good of the country. Common ground, or "reaching across the aisle," is where compromise on principle occurs. There was a time when such compromises were less harmful to the body politic. When two congressmen sought benefits, and one had the upper hand, for the two to work together and split the benefits for their districts is not an attack on the law of God. I'm thinking of a much earlier time in our country's history. But when the life of the unborn are involved, how can there be a compromise. One side says that the life in the womb is of no consequence, and all that matters is the autonomous choice of the individual woman. Where is the compromise possible when a human life is involved? When marriage is the God-ordained and sanctioned uniting of man and woman, but some want to change its definition, where can there be compromise. When the issues that God tells us to consider holy are attacked, compromise is "the language of the devil."
Think about abortion, and how its supporters fight for it tooth and nail, denying or contradicting the moral arguments about it. Think of the psychological toll of admitting they were supporting the murder of innocent babes. It would be unthinkable. There's no forgiveness in their worlds, so they would simply be left with their sinful selves, supporting murder. What psychological manipulations have they accomplished to keep their stand valid in their own mind? What actions would they take to invalidate the Christian position on abortion?
The godly must lean upon God's promises. "O ye sons of men, how long will ye turn my glory into shame? how long will ye love vanity, and seek after leasing? Selah. But know that the LORD hath set apart him that is godly for himself: the LORD will hear when I call unto him." Psalm 4:2-3. "Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men. For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain. Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies." Psalm 139:19-22.
If you teach them the error of their ways, they will not listen. "Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee." Proverbs 9:8.
The biblical public official will not be an evangelist, even if he teaches some to avoid error. No, his gifting is not in evangelism, it is in leadership. "Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching; Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness." I Corinthians 12:6-8.
But what do the smart wicked do? What do the devious wicked, who know the promises of God toward His people, seek to do? Beware of Balaams, those who seek to seduce. "Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD." Numbers 31:16. See also II Peter 2:15; Jude 11; Revelation 2:14. If they seduce the believer into their wickedness, they win. They know God doesn't support the wicked, so they seek to make the godly like themselves.
I have heard from someone involved in background checks of political officials (congressmen, e.g., deal with national security issues, and their backgrounds must be checked to determine if there is something that could compromise them) that the imbalance between republicans and democrats is amazing. The overwhelming majority of democrats have something immoral in their background, while republicans have the opposite ratio. This should not be surprising because the democrats have adopted the immoral doctrine of socialistic total equality, they have adopted the immoral political strategy of coercion and manipulation by demonization, and while rejecting laissez faire in business have adopted it regarding personal morality. Their personal lives simply reflect their immoral political careers, or vice versa. They are socialist in their economics, Marxist in their political campaigns, and amoral in their personal lives. All they care about is winning.
If they can subvert the morality of the godly, they have a lever for keeping them in check. "If you oppose our policies, we'll expose what you did last summer at that party we invited you to." They do not work by persuasion but by coercion and manipulation. They control their own party "faithful" by threatening to deny them advancement and benefits or by threatening to oust them from office even. They can always find someone else interested in "goodies," so they can control someone to vote the way they want.
The Christian cannot find common ground with such political manipulaters, who are not seeking the good of the country. Common ground, or "reaching across the aisle," is where compromise on principle occurs. There was a time when such compromises were less harmful to the body politic. When two congressmen sought benefits, and one had the upper hand, for the two to work together and split the benefits for their districts is not an attack on the law of God. I'm thinking of a much earlier time in our country's history. But when the life of the unborn are involved, how can there be a compromise. One side says that the life in the womb is of no consequence, and all that matters is the autonomous choice of the individual woman. Where is the compromise possible when a human life is involved? When marriage is the God-ordained and sanctioned uniting of man and woman, but some want to change its definition, where can there be compromise. When the issues that God tells us to consider holy are attacked, compromise is "the language of the devil."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)