It seems like every news program and radio station is talking about this ground zero mosque non-stop. I have heard a number of arguments on all fronts and I think it’s worthy of expressing some of my thoughts on it. First of all is this an issue of property rights and the right of association? Is this a 1st amendment issue of religious freedom, sensitivity, Islamaphobia? Regardless of how you come down on the issue, it seems as if people are very emotional in the arguments for and against the building of this mosque. First of all we look to the constitution and through the 1st and 10th amendments we can plainly see the federal government has no say whatsoever in whether a church, synagogue, or mosque gets built in any city. The 1st amendment bans the federal government from being involved in any way and this is an issue for State and local governments, in this case NY City.
What about the supremacy clause and the incorporation doctrine? This to me is the bigger issue here more than anything else. For years now we have people from the political right and left rely on this concept that federal law is supreme over local laws (in violation of the 10th amendment) In an attempt to create national policy on everything from marriage to gun control. As an example; people on the left say the 4th amendment guarantees a “right to privacy” which is the primary justification for abortion and they have already succeeded to enshrine this into our laws. Conservatives on the other hand shouted and rejoiced over the recent Chicago gun ban overturned by the Supreme Court, which was done with the justification that the 2nd amendment is “incorporated” and “supreme” to any local law or ordinance that placed restrictions on gun ownership. Both conservatives and liberals are wrong on these issues, because these decisions are not consistent with a republican form of government guaranteed by the constitution. In plain words, we don’t get to run to the federal government every time our State and local governments pass a law we don’t like. The little “r” republican solution is that we petition our local governments to change the law, vote for different people, and in a worst case scenario we move to a different city or state. If we continue to turn over the power to make those decisions to the federal government we have to live with whatever they enshrine into law. If they make really bad policy there is no escape unless you leave the country completely.
Common sense tells us that a State or City government has a right to prohibit guns in some places (like a court house) and can place restrictions on who may own guns (mentally disabled and violent criminals). Common sense would also tell us that not everything that happens in”private” is free from prosecution. In the case of this mosque, it would be perfectly acceptable for any city government to create zoning ordinances and allow or disallow the construction of any religious building in places they deem appropriate. I can’t walk into Fenton city hall and demand that I have a 1st amendment right to build a mega church any place within the city limits that I want. This mosque issue is not a 1st amendment issue and the people asking that the developers reconsider the site are not necessarily islamaphobes. NY City has made their decision and the 9/11 families and other New Yorkers are making their opinions heard. As long as the issue stays within this realm, it sounds perfectly acceptable and constitutional to me. I’m afraid at some point this type of case will end up before the Supreme Court to consider 1st amendment issues and in that day, I fear, a little more of our liberty will be taken from us. Living within a republican form of government is not always easy because we don’t get to scapegoat some “higher authority” like the federal government, but we have to actually go out and talk to our neighbors that work as city councilmen and State representatives. Having the form of government envisioned by our founders does not guarantee perfection, it only protects against an out of control central authority.
fides quaerens intellectum
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
libido Dominandi
The term power corrupts is so overused that I think the term has lost any real significance it might have once had. I believe people have literally become numb to the notion that once a person gains a position of authority that they immediately use that power to domineer over others. It is most significant in civics where an endless parade of politicians shower us with platitudes and slogans about giving power back to the people, fighting special interests, and my personal favorite “I’m going to fight for you”. I’m more likely to witness an alien abduction than a politician fight to limit their own authority. Just in case you think this is a new phenomenon, it’s not because throughout human history every society eventually ends up with government that rules with dominance over its citizens. This was even true among our nations very own founding fathers. Many of the same men that vociferously argued during the ratification debates that federal authority was to be limited to the enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8 and who codified the bill of rights, began to seize authority not granted by our constitution. How on earth could the alien and sedition acts signed by John Adams square with the 1st amendment right to free speech?
1,600 years ago, around the time of the collapse of the old Roman Empire, many of those still practicing polytheism and worshipping the “old gods” blamed the fall of the empire on Christianity. The problem in their view was that Christians did not adhere to the superiority of the state. Saint Augustine wrote a brilliant defense of Christianity in a series of books called the City of God where he contrasts the City of Heaven and the City of The World. Augustine pointed out to the Romans that even Plato taught that mankind does not owe his allegiance to the societies of this world. He challenged the Romans that mankind had to choose which society they wanted to be a part of. In Augustine's view being a citizen of the kingdom of heaven is where ones true allegiance should lie, because only then can man live peaceably together under God’s authority. He explains that living in the city of man, would subject humankind to live under man’s rules and domination or as he put it “it is itself ruled by the lust of rule”. In the Latin this concept is translated as Libido Dominandi or the lust to dominate. Starting in the book of Genesis we see that sin entered the world through Adam and Eve’s disobedience and when that occurred, the natural order of the world was thrown into chaos. God’s plan was for man to have dominion (where we get the root word dominate)over all of the earth and that mankind himself was different in that we were made in the image of God and that people were not to be ruled by other people. We could even make the argument that in today’s society we are encouraged to give up our right to dominion over the earth and at the same time we are to submit our own authority to other people in the form of human government (backwards from God’s design). The lust to dominate is no different than any other kind of lust. You ask “how could that guy I voted for go back on his promises and force something like that on us?” Politicians are no different than a man that means his vows of marriage when he makes them but ends up cheating with another woman. He was overtaken by lust.
fides quaerens intellectum
fides quaerens intellectum
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Black Helicopters and Tin Foil Hats
My reason for discussing the paradox of value in my last entry was to set up a discussion of the bigger picture; “the system”. Whenever you start talking about a big grand conspiracy occurring right under our noses, you immediately get folks wary of tin foil hats and looking out windows for unmarked black helicopters. We’ve all probably heard enough crazy conspiracy theories to keep us entertained for days, but the reality is we are living in perilous times and many of us are suffering under the weight of our “benevolent” government masters. Gone are the days of hard work and rugged individualism, as government dependency and mediocrity rule the day. Bit by bit, the liberties that allowed our ancestors the ability to choose their own paths has been eaten away and we are all herded like sheep into the lives chosen for us by government as opposed to the life we are called to by our creator. If you happen to survive 13 years in the government controlled school system you will likely graduate with a completely distorted view of history, and although the distortions might vary a little it will no doubt reinforce what the government wants us all to believe, that government is good and liberty is bad. From the time we are born our names are immediately entered into the government database and we are assigned an (I get to pay taxes) number. Kids these days are told they must go to college and get a degree no matter how much debt they accumulate to do it. While they are racking up this monstrous burden they are told “don’t worry your degree is golden, you will be entitled to a high paying job”. If these twentysomethings happen to land a job, they are then told “you need to buy a house because it’s a great investment and they never go down in value”. From the minute you enter the work force, you are conscripted to pay into the bankrupt government controlled retirement and medical plans in an attempt to get you vested in the concept of an expansive federal government. The central banks control the monetary system, manipulating the ability to accumulate real wealth while they pump up bubble after bubble. While you soldier on like a good little drone, the government colludes with certain elements of big business and big banking to enrich themselves at your expense. “But it’s okay, the government will protect us”. Let me remind you of the ominous words of Vladimir Lennon: "The best way to destroy the Capitalist System is to debauch the currency and the way to crush the Bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation".
I am not fatalistic when it comes to our current state of affairs, after all Jesus told us that his kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36). As Christians we are told to live in God’s kingdom and not the world system. Paul went on to tell us not to be conformed to this world but to be transformed by renewing our minds (Romans 12:2). I believe it is high time for Christians to shake off the bonds of government imposed slavery and begin to live the life that God has called them to. Perhaps the system will move forward unabated, and we as believers will have to live under God’s authority. Maybe we can take back some of the power and change it through political activism (I really don’t know). I would like to think a wave of independence will rush over the citizens of our great nation and we would begin to humble ourselves and look to God as the one who gives us everything we have and reject this government idolatry. This will entail tough choices, choices that I am frankly not sure people will make. However we get there it will only start one way, and that is with you.
fides quaerens intellectum
Diamonds And Water
Value is a difficult concept to gauge. We regularly find ourselves at ballgames, theme parks, and movie theaters and we say openly “I would never pay those kinds of prices” and yet we still end up purchasing the $7 popcorn, $6 hotdog, and the $4 bottled water. The truth is that value is a completely subjective term, depending on the individual desires of people with differing value systems. Adam Smith who is known to many as the father of capitalism wrote in his famous work the Wealth of Nations about the paradox of diamonds and water. Water is very useful, in fact necessary for life or as economists explain, it has a high degree of utility. Although water is incredibly necessary it has a very low cost. Diamonds on the other hand are only used for adornment, are not necessary for life at all and yet they have a very high price. Why would this be? In the nineteenth century, Austrian economist such as, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk developed the theories regarding the law of diminishing marginal utility to explain this paradox or rather clarified that it is a natural law, based on human action. He explains the law this way. A frontiersman has 5 sacks of grain and with the first sack he will make bread to survive. With the 2nd sack he will make bread to get strong so he can work. With the 3rd sack he will feed his livestock, with the 4th he will make whisky, and with the 5th sack he will feed the pigeons. If somebody steals one of the sacks of grain, the farmer does not reduce all his activities by one fifth to adjust, but rather he stops worrying about feeding the pigeons. If he loses two sacks, he’ll stop distilling whisky. It actually has nothing to do with the utility of the item, but rather the relative value of a unit of water vs a unit of diamonds. This explanation relies on the basic concepts of supply and demand. If you have something that is rare or in very limited supply it costs much more than something that is in abundant supply, regardless of its usefulness or importance. Everybody makes value judgments about what is most important and these decisions are always made on the margins. The 1st sack of grain is the most valuable to the farmer, because it is literally equal to the value of his life.
So you may be asking yourself, why the economics lesson? Most people don’t tend to think about the decisions they make in terms of value as these determinations are merely a gut feeling. Nobody likes to think of themselves like a commodity along the lines of a bushel of green beans or a barrel of oil. Anything we as humans produce is also subject to the laws of supply and demand including our labor. In a market economy nobody is really “given” a job but instead a trade takes place, just like anything that is purchased. An employer is trading money for labor and both parties value what they receive from each other greater than what they give up. If an employer is making the dollars for labor trade, he is going to pay for that labor according to its market value which is determined just like diamonds and water according to its abundance or scarcity. Two important lessons should be derived from this: First of all your usefulness and importance cannot be measured by the market value of your labor. Sure the major league pitcher is paid incredible sums of money to play a game. The question is; how many people are capable of throwing strikes at 95 miles per hour? Not many, which is why his labor comes at such a high price. That same major league pitcher may be cheating on his wife, abusing his children, and refusing to tip his waitress. His worth as a person cannot be judged by his salary. Conversely, just because a person does not earn a high salary does not mean they are of low value, but rather the skills of his labor are in great abundance (society needs people willing to do low paying tasks). If you want to earn more, offer something that is not commonly available or use your time of low pay to develop the skills that make your labor less common and thus more valuable. If you earn a wage that is not to your liking, understand this is a condition of market forces not a statement of your worth as a person. A better way to think of your employment is to envision yourself as an independent contractor with one full time client. An entrepreneur will endure many successes and failures on his way but he doesn't give up if he loses one client, he goes out and finds the next one.
fides quaerens intellectum
So you may be asking yourself, why the economics lesson? Most people don’t tend to think about the decisions they make in terms of value as these determinations are merely a gut feeling. Nobody likes to think of themselves like a commodity along the lines of a bushel of green beans or a barrel of oil. Anything we as humans produce is also subject to the laws of supply and demand including our labor. In a market economy nobody is really “given” a job but instead a trade takes place, just like anything that is purchased. An employer is trading money for labor and both parties value what they receive from each other greater than what they give up. If an employer is making the dollars for labor trade, he is going to pay for that labor according to its market value which is determined just like diamonds and water according to its abundance or scarcity. Two important lessons should be derived from this: First of all your usefulness and importance cannot be measured by the market value of your labor. Sure the major league pitcher is paid incredible sums of money to play a game. The question is; how many people are capable of throwing strikes at 95 miles per hour? Not many, which is why his labor comes at such a high price. That same major league pitcher may be cheating on his wife, abusing his children, and refusing to tip his waitress. His worth as a person cannot be judged by his salary. Conversely, just because a person does not earn a high salary does not mean they are of low value, but rather the skills of his labor are in great abundance (society needs people willing to do low paying tasks). If you want to earn more, offer something that is not commonly available or use your time of low pay to develop the skills that make your labor less common and thus more valuable. If you earn a wage that is not to your liking, understand this is a condition of market forces not a statement of your worth as a person. A better way to think of your employment is to envision yourself as an independent contractor with one full time client. An entrepreneur will endure many successes and failures on his way but he doesn't give up if he loses one client, he goes out and finds the next one.
fides quaerens intellectum
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Not My Brother's Keeper
As we speak, many corners of the American Christian church, particularly the main line denominational churches are enduring huge convulsions among their ranks. Apparently the leadership of a great many of these churches have decided that Karl Marx (the atheist) was closer to biblical truth regarding economics and society than plain and obvious principles found in both the old and new testaments regarding every issue that can be applied to economics. There is so much to discuss, in fact, regarding the overwhelming evidence that God's plan was for something we would recognize as a free market economic system that I could not even give this subject justice in one post let alone twenty of them. Free market economics is one of my great passions and I’m going to try to scratch the surface with a discussion regarding the Ten Commandments, the covenant and what that means in regard to economics. Just this past year President Obama invoked the Ten Commandments in his defense of the Marxist “health care reform bill” (you know the one legislators don’t bother to read because you would need three lawyers just to understand it). The president went so far as to say the bible teaches that we are to “be our brother’s keeper”. I’m guessing he is referring to Cain’s response to God after murdering his brother, but I still don’t understand what that has to do with my PPO, but I digress.
To understand the significance of the Ten Commandments, you first must take a look at the principles of covenant. God first cut a covenant with Abraham when he made the promise that he would give him a piece of land, he would subdue it and his descendents would become a great nation. After numerous generations God’s people became enslaved by Egypt primarily due their disobedience to his original covenant with Abraham. God intended to deliver his people from the bondage they found themselves in but he first needed to establish some prerequisites. The first principle God established for the slaves at first, and later the free nation was that they are a chosen people, called apart to be different than the other nations in general and from Egypt in particular. Just as a point of reference, Egypt was a totalitarian society where people were not allowed to own private property as everything that was produced belonged to the gods and privileges reserved for a few of the connected were granted at the discretion of the pharaoh. Not only was Pharaoh the political leader but he was exalted as a god. Jehovah God made clear that he was the only God they were to have and that his laws were the final authority on all matters. God made clear that what made his people great was adherence to his ways and not the idolatrous form of nationalism practiced by the Egyptians. The first and most fundamental principle of capitalism (capital accumulation) is that of private property. God promised the Israelites that he would return to them the Promised Land and they were to subdue it. When the people would ultimately return a generation later, the people occupied the land and staked out claims; stewardship was the overriding principle that guided them. Stewardship in short, is maximizing the effectiveness and efficiency of what you have been blessed with.
“Thou Shalt Not Covet” (I had to use King James English for effect). This might seem like an obvious statement but indulge me for a moment and think about covetousness. God said do not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor. This has many really obvious implications; primarily that God intended private ownership. What does this have to do with modern progressivism? I would say making young people pay for health insurance for the sole purpose of subsidizing health care for other people qualifies as covetousness, let alone theft. Oh yeah that’s another one of the Ten Commandments too isn’t it?
fides quaerens intellectum
To understand the significance of the Ten Commandments, you first must take a look at the principles of covenant. God first cut a covenant with Abraham when he made the promise that he would give him a piece of land, he would subdue it and his descendents would become a great nation. After numerous generations God’s people became enslaved by Egypt primarily due their disobedience to his original covenant with Abraham. God intended to deliver his people from the bondage they found themselves in but he first needed to establish some prerequisites. The first principle God established for the slaves at first, and later the free nation was that they are a chosen people, called apart to be different than the other nations in general and from Egypt in particular. Just as a point of reference, Egypt was a totalitarian society where people were not allowed to own private property as everything that was produced belonged to the gods and privileges reserved for a few of the connected were granted at the discretion of the pharaoh. Not only was Pharaoh the political leader but he was exalted as a god. Jehovah God made clear that he was the only God they were to have and that his laws were the final authority on all matters. God made clear that what made his people great was adherence to his ways and not the idolatrous form of nationalism practiced by the Egyptians. The first and most fundamental principle of capitalism (capital accumulation) is that of private property. God promised the Israelites that he would return to them the Promised Land and they were to subdue it. When the people would ultimately return a generation later, the people occupied the land and staked out claims; stewardship was the overriding principle that guided them. Stewardship in short, is maximizing the effectiveness and efficiency of what you have been blessed with.
“Thou Shalt Not Covet” (I had to use King James English for effect). This might seem like an obvious statement but indulge me for a moment and think about covetousness. God said do not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor. This has many really obvious implications; primarily that God intended private ownership. What does this have to do with modern progressivism? I would say making young people pay for health insurance for the sole purpose of subsidizing health care for other people qualifies as covetousness, let alone theft. Oh yeah that’s another one of the Ten Commandments too isn’t it?
fides quaerens intellectum
Saturday, July 24, 2010
The Gospel of Liberty
“Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!” (Patrick Henry) With these famous words the citizens of the 13 American colonies galvanized behind the idea of seceding from the British Empire and launched the American Revolution to be free from the tyranny of a far off distant authority. What many people fail to realize is that Patrick Henry (a delegate to the constitutional convention) voted against ratification. For Henry, the constitution as written was a threat to countrymen’s natural rights (rights from God not from man). Henry, like his fellow Virginian, Thomas Jefferson believed the key to liberty was decentralized power and knew all too well the risks associated with the creation of this new federal government. He believed instead that people could live peacefully under the principles of self-government and when life, liberty, and property were threatened local government was adequate to defend the rights of citizens. Local governments were even capable of putting down revolts, as evidenced by the Shay's rebellion in Springfield, MA. For many years the federalists and the anti-federalists which later became the Democratic Republican Party, led by Jefferson, waged a fierce ideological battle over the form of government we would have. Even though Jefferson had a profound effect on our government for many years, his ideas ultimately died out with the final nails being driven in the proverbial coffin in 1913 during the Woodrow Wilson administration. Income taxes, the fed, popular election of senators, and entrance into WW1 all occured over a period of a few years and remain today the permanent strongholds of power for the leviathan state.
For many years during the first half of the 20th century Many Christians were absolutely opposed to the recent intrusions of the federal government into American’s lives and the permanent strengthening of the federal government as the final arbiter of every major issue the country faced. During this time period, many famous publications such as “Faith and Freedom” echoed the thoughts of Christian pastors and laity that were growing very concerned with the growing welfare and warfare state. So what happened in the latter half of the 20th century? New political alliances and movements began to form during the onset of the cold war. The famous conservative icon William F. Buckley who founded the publication National Review famously opined in 1952 “we have to accept Big Government for the duration – for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged … except through the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores." The thought process and political philosophy changed and for the first time in our history both major political parties endorsed a big and powerful federal government in unison. To this day we often have Republicans arguing for big government to fight terrorism, rogue states, and even drugs. Many of them also want to impose the outcomes they want on social issues such as gun rights, gay marriage, and abortion from the federal level. The Democrats argue for the same totalitarian form of government except they want some of the federal mandates to produce different results than Republicans. Ultimately we have two big government parties fighting for the outcomes they want on every issue and neither even remotely interested in returning to the constitutionally prescribed system of federalism. When I was growing up I thought Christians had to vote for Republicans because they had the right stances on "moral issues". The problem with this philosophy is that good government allows freedom to make our own decisions on any issue, so long as it does not violate the life, liberty, or property of others. I would like everybody to make good choices but those are a matter of conscience not of the state.
Even though it might be counter-intuitive for some, the heart of the gospel message is liberty, pure and simple. All through the new-testament we have examples that God’s plan was for people to freely choose him and to “Live by the spirit and you won’t fulfill the lusts of the flesh” Gal. 5:16. If the New Testament could be defined by one central idea it would be lack of coercion. Everybody tried to make salvation an issue of following certain rules and regulations and Jesus blew that up by pointing out the condition of a person's heart. By advocating for self-government does this mean I endorse morally impure behavior? Not at all, I just think totalitarian authority made up of corrupt politicians is a far greater evil.
fides quaerens intellectum
For many years during the first half of the 20th century Many Christians were absolutely opposed to the recent intrusions of the federal government into American’s lives and the permanent strengthening of the federal government as the final arbiter of every major issue the country faced. During this time period, many famous publications such as “Faith and Freedom” echoed the thoughts of Christian pastors and laity that were growing very concerned with the growing welfare and warfare state. So what happened in the latter half of the 20th century? New political alliances and movements began to form during the onset of the cold war. The famous conservative icon William F. Buckley who founded the publication National Review famously opined in 1952 “we have to accept Big Government for the duration – for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged … except through the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores." The thought process and political philosophy changed and for the first time in our history both major political parties endorsed a big and powerful federal government in unison. To this day we often have Republicans arguing for big government to fight terrorism, rogue states, and even drugs. Many of them also want to impose the outcomes they want on social issues such as gun rights, gay marriage, and abortion from the federal level. The Democrats argue for the same totalitarian form of government except they want some of the federal mandates to produce different results than Republicans. Ultimately we have two big government parties fighting for the outcomes they want on every issue and neither even remotely interested in returning to the constitutionally prescribed system of federalism. When I was growing up I thought Christians had to vote for Republicans because they had the right stances on "moral issues". The problem with this philosophy is that good government allows freedom to make our own decisions on any issue, so long as it does not violate the life, liberty, or property of others. I would like everybody to make good choices but those are a matter of conscience not of the state.
Even though it might be counter-intuitive for some, the heart of the gospel message is liberty, pure and simple. All through the new-testament we have examples that God’s plan was for people to freely choose him and to “Live by the spirit and you won’t fulfill the lusts of the flesh” Gal. 5:16. If the New Testament could be defined by one central idea it would be lack of coercion. Everybody tried to make salvation an issue of following certain rules and regulations and Jesus blew that up by pointing out the condition of a person's heart. By advocating for self-government does this mean I endorse morally impure behavior? Not at all, I just think totalitarian authority made up of corrupt politicians is a far greater evil.
fides quaerens intellectum
Friday, July 23, 2010
God is our authority not government
Change is a good thing, in fact one of the best of things. Over the last few years, I have set out to clarify my political belief system because deep inside my spirit I was not at peace with some of the ideas and philosophies I had been supporting. In 2002 I was a vocal cheerleader of the Iraq invasion and virtually any kind of military or homeland security initiative that came down the pike. During the ensuing years we experienced the birth of The Department of Homeland Security, Patriot Act, nation building, and endless military interventions under the guise of a “war on terror”. Also during these years, our nation embarked on the largest domestic expansion of entitlement programs in a generation leading to a tripling of the national debt. I have always been compelled to believe in the idea of “limited government” but was naïve in believing the only way to enact limited government was through some type of tax cuts. As it turns out, tax cuts are a favorite method of politicians from all parties to make you feel they are cutting government, while at the same time expanding it by borrowing and printing new money so the massive expansion of the state goes unchecked with the approval of a governing majority. As it turns out all politicians will claim to make government: smaller, more efficient, less wasteful, compassionate, and more responsive. In the end all these politicians really move us in one unstoppable direction at odds with our founding fathers vision; centralized authority.
God warned us about the dangers of centralized power. After being set free from the bondage of Egypt, Israel went through various times of stable living followed by times of chaos and even civil war. According to Judges “In those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes” (21:25). The problem, the people surmised, was they were too “different” from the other nations and needed a strong and powerful central authority that could provide order and security. Under Samuel’s leadership as Judge and priest, Israel lived under God’s justice and times were generally good. When Samuel’s sons rebelled against God another crisis arose and this time the people were absolutely convinced they wanted a king. Samuel, a man in touch with God knew what would happen if the people followed through and gave the following warning: “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots.…He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his courtiers. He will take one-tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and courtiers. He will take…the best of your cattle and donkeys, and put them to his work. You shall be his slaves. In that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the Lord will not answer you in that day” (1 Sam 8:11-18).
Samuel made it clear that accepting a king would be no different than returning to the slavery of Egypt. God’s best is that we accept him as our king and not look to the government. Walk through Washington DC, and you see white stone buildings in the mode of Greek temples, glorifying one aspect of government or another. Is it possible this is an act of idolatry?
fides quaerens intellectum (faith seeking understanding)
God warned us about the dangers of centralized power. After being set free from the bondage of Egypt, Israel went through various times of stable living followed by times of chaos and even civil war. According to Judges “In those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes” (21:25). The problem, the people surmised, was they were too “different” from the other nations and needed a strong and powerful central authority that could provide order and security. Under Samuel’s leadership as Judge and priest, Israel lived under God’s justice and times were generally good. When Samuel’s sons rebelled against God another crisis arose and this time the people were absolutely convinced they wanted a king. Samuel, a man in touch with God knew what would happen if the people followed through and gave the following warning: “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots.…He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his courtiers. He will take one-tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and courtiers. He will take…the best of your cattle and donkeys, and put them to his work. You shall be his slaves. In that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the Lord will not answer you in that day” (1 Sam 8:11-18).
Samuel made it clear that accepting a king would be no different than returning to the slavery of Egypt. God’s best is that we accept him as our king and not look to the government. Walk through Washington DC, and you see white stone buildings in the mode of Greek temples, glorifying one aspect of government or another. Is it possible this is an act of idolatry?
fides quaerens intellectum (faith seeking understanding)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)