MENU

Government
Tag Archive

On October 30, 2020 By In Culture, Politics, Wisdom

Our Founding Father

 For he [Abraham] was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God.

Hebrews 11:10 ESV

Much has already been said about this upcoming presidential election, probably too much. All sides of the political carousel assert the importance, urgency, and historic consequences of choosing the right man for such a time as this. There will undoubtedly be more to say in the coming week as the results come in and we know, or think we know, the direction of our nation for the next four years. Even in a society inundated with words, public discourse is still a crucial element for growth and health as a people. I am thankful for the free exchange of ideas. But the ideas themselves are not free. They are always rooted to something that gives those ideas veracity and potency. As we consider the next president of the United States, we must maintain a clear vision of the nature of the presidency itself and the true foundation of a just and good society if we are to speak and respond appropriately to this election. 

The founders, at least as much as I understand them, never intended the presidency to ascend to such great heights of power and influence. They were very aware of the dangers, as well as the blessings, of monarchical rule. A good king can do much more good for his people than a good president. But that same principle applies to bad kings as well. Therefore, these men set in place certain restraints and protections. There were really two dangers through which they had to navigate. They had the danger of overt tyranny on the one hand and mob rule on the other. The tyrant says that the king is law. The mob says that the majority is king. The Christian must say that there is a King of all kings and a Law of all laws; and They cannot be disregarded or reinterpreted without consequences. Or as the Scottish presbyterian, Samuel Rutherford, argued so beautifully in his great work, Lex Rex, “the Law is King.” Once you separate justice or lawfulness from a Divine Lawgiver, you will always be drifting toward tyranny- either a tyranny of the few or the many. 

One of the reasons, though certainly not the only one, that we have a 200 year history of a transfer of power through free elections without violent revolution or the shedding of blood is because of the relatively limited power which transfers hands every two or four years. Things tend to go badly in the end for royal lines and dictators. Elections should not generally be the catalyst for broad change. The right and privilege to vote should rarely become the urgency to vote. Rather, elections ought to be smooth transitions without the need for much anxiety from either side because most of the power would rest at the local levels. Most of the reform would have to happen from the bottom up not the top down.

We have experienced something much different in recent history. The power at the top is great. The President is considered by many as “the most powerful man in the world.” The Supreme Court just may be even more powerful behind the scenes. Recent headlines provide examples of both. First, listen to the questions and concerns directed at Amy Coney Barrett during her confirmation hearing to the Supreme Court. The underlying expectation driving all of the objections is judicial legislation. They fully expect her to use her authority as judge to legislate from the bench. They almost seem not to have a category for a judge who would do otherwise- despite Judge Barrett’s words or record to the contrary. In their minds it is not a question of if but how.

Second, listen to the criticisms leveled at the president concerning his handling of Covid-19. Implied within their comments is the expectation that the president should exercise a tremendous amount of authority. It’s not the overuse of power that they lament but its restraint. One would be tempted to think that there are no such things as duly elected governors to make decisions for their own states or duly elected mayors to make decisions for their own cities. To permit such diversity of rule concerning the pandemic is inexcusable in their eyes. One ring to rule them all. 

There is no doubt that this election is a crucial point in our country’s history. One of the things I hope will continue to change after the dust settles is a move back to the center of what a good federal government should look like. It is the rule of law subservient to its Foundations that makes a just society. Untethered from this authority, government inevitably becomes a rule of the few, a rule of the majority, or a rule of the oppressed and marginalized. America indeed has a King and no amount of campaigning or voting or court rulings can change that.  As He himself definitively proclaimed, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me…” a

All this leads me back to the issue of public discourse. The Church must lead the way if there is any hope of true liberty and justice for all. During such times, Christians would do well to take an internal poll of their own motives and desires. How do our opinions and concerns line up against the clear and indisputable authority of Scripture to govern all of life? Do our visions of justice, mercy, authority, and submission have their roots in the deep, rich soil of Truth or the shallow, hard dirt of modernity? One vision will sprout up quickly and look impressive for the Instagram post; the other will bear fruit for generations to come. A sense of urgency will always invite compromise.

This election is important. There are real implications in the choice we make for our next president. But the president is not our savior; he is not our sovereign. We must venture clear-minded and patient-hearted into the public square. Whatever the outcome of this election, we know that “when the tempest passes, the wicked is no more, but the righteous is established forever.” b

There lies within us a divine longing to see goodness flourish and love abound in society, but we must advocate for these things as Christians. The good of society cannot grow apart from the Supreme Good of the universe. A common weal c is built most surely upon the summum bonum. d Whether that means preserving certain founding principles or progressing beyond others, our Founding Father must be the beginning and end of it all. His supreme Good rightly orders our common good, starting with self-government and working outward. Christians who desire social justice must first seek to rightly order their own lives. e Again Augustine is helpful here. He argued that a true love for someone is the desire for their greatest good and fullest happiness. Since God alone is the source and object of this goodness and joy, then to truly love your neighbor is to speak and act in a way that seeks to bring them closer in conformity and communion with God. Anything less is not love. Period. Only with this truth firmly in view should a brother or sister venture into the realm of politics. Social media would never be the same. And neither would we the people.  

  1. Matthew 28:18  (back)
  2. Proverbs 10:25 ESV  (back)
  3. Lit. “the common good that binds a multitude of people by a mutual recognition of rights. Famously put forth by Cicero and later taken up with great insight by Augustine, the question becomes, “What is the common good that builds a society from a crowd or mob into a just society of men?”  (back)
  4. Lit. “the supreme good.” Augustine argued that Rome was never a just society because the “will”of the people is never a sufficient foundation for the “weal” of the people.  (back)
  5. “If a man who takes away a farm from its purchaser and delivers it to another man who has no claim upon it is unjust, how can a man who removes himself from the overlordship of the God who made him and goes into the service of wicked spirits be just?” – Augustine, City of God, XIX. 21  (back)

Read more

On October 9, 2013 By In Scribblings

Joffre Swait: The Greatest Evil Is Done By Quiet Men With Smooth-Shaven Cheeks

“I live in the Managerial Age, in a world of “Admin.” The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid “dens of crime” that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern.”

― C.S. Lewis, from the preface of The Screwtape Letters

Evil creep. It’s a thing. Ancient evils slither into our lives through bureaucracies and policies. The pencil pushers who just want to do their jobs are of the devil.

And sometimes that’s hilarious.

You should watch Codefellas, a short animated series about two NSA agents, one old-school, one new. The mundane creep of great evil can be pretty funny in these writers’ hands. And do watch it until the end. The entire series should take you twenty minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHz7iYMqSZQ&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PLibNZv5Zd0dwAkwoZtRHfn3tPsdOy-VuF<>бесплатная реклама в гуглепроверка тиц pr

Read more

On October 7, 2013 By In Politics

Government Shutdown “Unbiblical”

By Joffre Swait

So this is a few days late, but I’ve just gotten around to it. The day after the so-called “government shutdown” began, Jim Wallis of Sojourners fame put out the video above explaining to us all that “what we call ‘correct theology'” meant that the government shutdown was a violation of God’s holy law. Well, he didn’t say that, of course. But he did say it was unbiblical.

“As a Christian, I want to say, shutting down government in unbiblical. Read the thirteenth chapter of the book of Romans. The government’s role is to protect us from evil, to promote the good. We call that ‘the Common Good.’ And Scriptures make clear throughout Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, the book of Kings, that rulers, kings, governments, are responsible for how they treat the poorest and most vulnerable. They’re judged for that by God. Those political extremists…who want to shut down the government are against the poor. They get hostile to the poor because they’re hostile to government.”

There are so many things I want to say in response to this dumbness. Must. Pull self. Together.

Okay. We’ll keep it short.

Let us put to the side any responsibility the government might have to glorify God and submit to King Jesus. Let our eyes slide past any responsibility Christians and the holy Church might have to remind rulers that Jesus is King. Let us focus simply on the commands of the thirteenth chapter of Romans. Be subject. Do not resist. Do good, not evil. Pay taxes. Revenue to whom it is due, respect also, and also honor.

Let us now imagine a political scene in which Christians followed those commands (which, by the way, they do in these here United States). Let us further imagine a scene in which the Church does not insist that our rulers remember God (which, except for the occasional threatened excommunication of Nancy Pelosi, is what it does in these here United States).

In a world like that governments still go bankrupt. Governments still default. Governments can still shut down.

Too many American Christians take Romans 13 to mean “help the government as much as is possible”. There is no such command.

Even without Biblical categories for resistance to government, which exist, why on earth do we suppose we should be helping our governments and rulers in their insanities? If the government votes to shut itself down, let it. What has Washington to do with Jerusalem?

If the government shuts down, you say, maybe evils like abortion and government schools will be defunded. I can get behind that. But what, Joffre, of the poor and oppressed?! Remember what Jim Wallis said about hating the poor! Dear God, what of the poor?!

Exactly. Time for the church to do its job.<>копирайтинг примеры текстовконтекстная реклама в интернете стоимость

Read more

On July 30, 2013 By In Politics

Would You Let the State Take 61% From You?

Two weeks ago Phil Mickelson won the British Open. He received 1.43 million dollars in prize money. He was allowed to keep around $570,000.  Who got the rest? England and the State of California where Phil Mickelson lives.

Phil Mickelson1

Let’s work this out for all those, who like me, are not great with math. Imagine you make $50,000 per year and the state takes 61%. What would that look like? You would bring home $19,500. Imagine you make $75,000 per year and the state took 61%. You would bring home $29,250. I think you get the picture. No average person would stand for the state taking 61% of their income. Some may complain that England is the one levying the taxes, not the U.S. But if you earned $50,000 on English soil would you be happy if the English took $22,500 (45%)? Would you be happy if your home state took 13.3% of your earnings every year before Medicare, Social Security, etc.? That would be $6,500 out of your $50,000 going to the state.  In the U.S. the average federal tax on the top 1%, those households averaging 1.4 million, is 35.5%.  So if you live in California and made $50,000 and were taxed at the same rate as Phil Mickelson, you would pay 13.3% in state taxes and 35.5% in federal taxes.  You would be handing over $24,400 to the government and that does not include Social Security, Medicaid, or self-employment taxes. Would you stand for this? S0 why are we happy to let them to do it to others? Why do we think it is okay to take excessive amounts of money from men, who have lawfully earned it, just because they have more than others?

Before asking a few questions about excessive taxation, here is a quick primer on the poor and rich in Scripture.

As Christians, we know that those to whom much is given, much is required. Paul says in I Timothy 6:17-19 that the wealthy are to be rich in good works and not trust in their riches. The rich are to give more.  We also understand that all Christians have an obligation to care for the poor. So wealthy Christians should give often and a lot, but they should give secretly (Matthew 6:1-4) and wisely.

In Exodus 30:15 the rich and the poor both give 1/2 a shekel. In Leviticus 14:21 the poor could give less than the rich, but this was not a percentage less. In other words, it wasn’t the rich offering 35% and the poor offering 3%. It was poor bringing less numerically because the poor had less numerically.  The poor brought one male lamb (vs. 21) instead of the two male lambs and the one ewe lamb of the rich (vs. 10).  Oppressing the poor was always forbidden. This is clear in the year of Jubilee instructions (Leviticus 25; see also Deuteronomy 15). The rich were supposed to provide ways for the poor to get food, such as not gleaning to the edges of the field or gathering fallen grapes (Leviticus 19:10 and 23:22).  There does not appear to any civil penalty for not doing these things, but the Lord does hear the cry of the poor and will avenge them.

Throughout the OT the poor and the rich are to be treated with equity by the law.   For example in Exodus 23:2-3 it is clear that poor and rich are both entitled to justice. Notice especially verse 3, which says we are not to show partiality to the poor. Leviticus 19:15 says something similar. The poor do not get special treatment in court. There is more about the poor in the prophets. In these texts there is no indication that the state should take more, percentage wise, from the rich simply because they have more and give it to the poor.  So let me be clear. I am not saying the poor should be ignored. Nor am I a saying the rich have no obligation to do good deeds. What I am saying is the state does not have a Scriptural right to steal from the rich to give to the poor. Theft perpetuated by the government against the rich is still theft.

Christian pastors should encourage the wealthy among them to give with cheerful hearts to those who need it. But Christian pastors should also call excessive taxation what it is: codified theft. And they should say it from the pulpit. Finally, Christian pastors should encourage their congregation to ask, “Would you want someone doing that to you? Then why do you vote for men who do it to other people?”

Here are few more questions  about excessive taxation.

Do we really believe that the state will be wiser with Phil’s $830, 000 than Phil would be?  All around us is economic disaster fueled by the policies of the state (see Detroit) and yet the state wants us to trust them with more and more of our money. What would Phil have done with money? He would have invested it somewhere, which normally leads to jobs and economic prosperity for many.  Does anyone actually believe that Phil’s money won’t be lost in endless cesspool of government programs that bear no fruit?

Do we believe it is okay to steal from someone simply because they have more? Envy is explicitly forbidden by Scripture (Mark 7:22, Romans 1:29, I Corinthians 13:4). And yet Christians often buy into the rhetoric that because the guy is driving a Porsche instead of a Ford Escort we can steal from him. Envy is what drives 99% of the efforts to increase taxes. They have more than they deserve and we are going to take it back. Christians must reject this way of thinking.

Do those who push higher taxes suffer from the higher taxes themselves? Often the answer to this is no. Both the poor and politicians often vote or push for higher taxes when they are not subject to.  Just like Congress avoids the consequences of their own legislative decisions.

Do we really believe that the poor and weak among us are helped by receiving stolen funds? Has any government program for the poor actually produced less poor people? Why can we not look at the last 20 years of fiscal policy and see that it has not worked? Do we really believe the government, state or federal, actually cares about the poor?

Can we not see that these policies will eventually lead to more and more money being taken from everyone? Why stop with Phil Mickelson? Why not take Phil Smith’s money as well? Maybe we should tax the upper 25% at this rate instead of just the upper 1%.

Finally, those who get money back from the government during tax season, would you be willing to pay your share? There are numerous Americans who pay no Federal taxes at all. Often Christians rejoice when they get a refund, such as Earned Income Credit, etc.  As Christians, we should be willing to pay taxes. We should not rejoice in the government taking more from the rich so I have to pay less.

In the end, excessive taxation of the rich is theft that creates less jobs, hurts the economy, destroys the desire to earn more, cultivates envy and class strife, oppresses the poor, and opposes the freedom that comes from God.<>как узнать pr страницы

Read more