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

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

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)