January 25, 2007
What does it mean to be safe? Some good friends of ours call me “Safety First” from time to time. What
prompts the use of this moniker you might ask? I demand that my child (nearly three years old) always be
in a car seat, I do not allow her to play with harmful objects (knives for example), I do not allow my wife
and child to go to the county park if it is deserted, etc., etc. I think that these are sensible measures
and are not overbearing.
I desire, as much as it relies on me, to protect my family and me from the dangers lurking to get us. I
know our ultimate safety relies on God’s providence, but I do not believe that this precludes us from being
prepared. In other words, I try to take as many precautions as is reasonably possible; then, I leave the
rest in God’s hands.
This "Safety First" attitude is not unique. Our society as a whole desires safety. Air
bags, seat belts, gun free zones (I will not comment on the effectiveness of this particular measure but use
it to illustrate my point), Material Safety Data Sheets, and on the list goes. In our “enlightened”
era, we do all that is possible to keep our lives and our health intact.
This general attitude, however, can undermine itself. The fact is that our world is not a safe place
to be. In our lives, we must take risks if we desire to accomplish tasks with great reward. One
of these tasks is the defense of our freedom, sovereignty, and way of life.
While discussing the merits of the current war in Iraq, a coworker stated that she just want our troops to
be safe first and foremost. With the most grievous of efforts, I was able to keep my head from exploding and replied with
a well-mannered rebuttal. What I desired to say was that freedom has and will never be “safe.” The
revolutionary war was not “safe.” The signers of our Declaration of Independence knew that should the
colonies lose the war that they would have been tried and hanged for treason—not what I call safe. During
the Civil War, both sides spilt their blood to defend what they believed in, not caring whether their actions
were “safe.” As US soldiers stormed the beaches of Normandy, I can assure you the last thought that they
had in their mind was “Is this safe?” In fact, they and their commanders knew that this attack was most
certainly unsafe. They carried on because freedom, peace, and many other American ideals are more valuable
than being safe.
Obviously, I (and others) hold human life very dear. I am saddened with each report of another American
who died in the war. Furthermore, I do not look lightly on the sacrifice made by the men
and women of today and yesterday, who laid down their lives for freedom's sake. On the contrary, I hold their
sacrifices as very dear, and I will forever be grateful. They have purchased my freedom with their life
because they had an unquenchable thirst for freedom and all that comes with it.
Somehow, we have lost this deep and burning desire to be free, to live how we choose, and to have peace.
We would rather cower under the threat of terror (and be “safe”) than stand for our way of life. While
I will not say that our strategies and tactics have been perfect in the Iraqi war, I will say that this war
is a war worth fighting and winning. It is but a small piece of a global war for our way of life. If
waged properly and absolutely, it most certainly will not be a safe war; but wars are lost when fought
under the guise of “safety.”
|
November 27, 2006
Before we delve into the meat of this blog, let’s first review some definitions (my wording) that you
may have forgotten since civics class:
Theocracy: literally a “God Rules” government; this is a government where a religion sets the rules.
Democracy: literally a “People Rules” government; while there are different levels of democracy (direct and
representative are two), this is a government where the people set the rules.
A brief look at American history will no doubt (even with the liberal attempts to re-write history) show
that our country’s laws, principles, and structure were (for the most part) based on the Christian religion. That said, America is a democracy and not a theocracy. That being said let us look at what Christianity is
and how it should affect our government. I'll do
this by expanding on the following ideas:
- Christianity is the one true faith.
- God judges wicked nations.
- A nation’s righteousness cannot be determined by its government but by the people themselves.
1. Christianity is a “religion” that revolves around Jesus Christ (literally “Savor King“). Jesus
was/is the human form that God the Son took on when He came to Earth. He came, lived a perfect life (no sin),
willingly died on a Roman cross under Jewish pressure to pay the sin debt owed by the human race, and rose
from the dead by His own power on the third day. Jesus as God the Son is the Sovereign Creator who is
infinite in power, wisdom, and righteousness. He wasn’t “just another good man.” A careful study
of His life will reveal Him to be one of the following: a liar, a lunatic, or Lord God Almighty. There is
really no in-between ground. That being said, you can see that I do not take my faith as "just
another religion that helps me be a good person and if I do my best at it God will let me into Heaven."
For:
Acts 4:10-12
10. [L]et it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ
the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead--by this name this man stands here
before you in good health.
11. "He is the STONE WHICH WAS REJECTED by you, THE BUILDERS, but WHICH BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER
stone.
12. "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given
among men by which we must be saved."
I think that it is clearly evident that I am not passive in my faith. I also do not believe that all
religions will take you to Heaven, if one is only good enough. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the
life. No one comes to the Father but by me.” In fact, a person that is without Jesus’ forgiveness of sins
is doomed to an eternity in Hell. This is required by God’s infinite righteousness previously mentioned. Either wrongs are made right or they are not. Sins must be paid for. If a person rejects Jesus’ payment,
then that person must bear that payment his/herself.
2. Throughout history, God has been faithful to judge wicked nations. Numerous examples from the
Old Testament can found: Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, Egypt, and Babylon to name a few. God says and demonstrates that He will judge wicked nations. I argue that America has been so richly blessed
with affluence, peace, military might, freedom, natural resources, technology, etc., etc, precisely due to
our Christian faith. As more and more of Americans turn from God, I can only imagine what the consequence
will be.
3. From points 1. and 2. you might be surprised to
learn that I do not believe that it is the government’s role to ensure that everyone has a personal,
saving relationship with Jesus, God the Son. I do not believe that
it is the role of the government to decide which religion is
the correct one or to outlaw religious activity. (I
would certainly be against an Islamic government making it
difficult for me to worship how I see fit. Why would I
want to impose religious hardships on others?) Furthermore, I do not believe that it is the government’s role to
outlaw evil acts that
are committed against oneself or against another with mutual consent even though these very acts could
eventually bring judgment from God against America.
I do believe that the Church is responsible (under the guidance and through the working of the God the Holy
Spirit) for spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ. Once a person’s sins have been forgiven, they are
sealed with the Holy Spirit, who works in them to produce a new creature with God’s moral law written on
his/her heart. This, in my opinion, is the only correct way of turning a nation’s actions around to be God
honoring and thus to continue in His gracious blessings.
|
November 11, 2006
With the election outcome and my recent purchase of some handguns, I've been pondering government in
general and government from a Christian's view point. I
have boiled my thoughts on government down to one
main principle and two supporting principles:
- Government should protect its citizen's
individual freedom foremost.
- Government should accomplish this by:
- a. Protecting citizens from outside entities (other countries' armies, terrorist, etc.)
- b. Protecting citizens from each other
All laws, taxes, fees, statues, governmental bodies, etc. should support principle #1, #2a, or #2b.
Laws should only restrict or limit principle #1 for a #2a or #2b principle, and this should only happen
in circumstances where all other avenues have been explored and proven ineffective.
For example, I have recently taken up exercising my
right explained by the 2nd Constitution Amendment, the right to keep and
bear arms. Many would have you believe that guns are evil tools used by evil people and that a #2b type
law should be enacted to remove guns from all citizens at the expense of principle #1. Not only do I
disagree with this trespass of principle #1, it has been shown time and time again to not work. I would
propose in its stead a total arming of the American people. Places in Georgia and Arizona have tried
this resulting in a dramatic drop in violent crimes. We should also look to history to see that Germany,
Russia, and Cambodia enforced citizen gun bans prior to and enabling the genocides of Hitler, Stalin,
and Pol Pot.
A second place that my principles of government take me is slightly uncomfortable for me as a Christian. People are evil. Most laws are there to hedge in our evil natures. There is no question that any act of
evil that harms a fellow citizen should be outlawed by government. (Murder, for example would be evil,
while self defense would not be evil.) That leaves two categories of evil acts still not addressed: mutual acts of evil by consent of all parties (gambling, committing sexual sins of both homo and hetero
type, etc.) and acts of evil against oneself (using drugs, overeating, committing suicide, viewing
pornography, etc.). My principles of government certainly suggest that laws against gambling, adultery,
and drug use should be done away with to uphold principle #1. Part of me says that this is okay and
that it is the Church's (not the government's) job through the power of Jesus Christ to write God's
moral law on the hearts of a country's citizens. Besides, a law against overeating is ridiculous and
would put restaurants like Ryan's out of business. On the other hand, an argument can and often is
made that the latter two forms of evil acts do not affect only those involved but also the offenders'
family, friends, and acquaintances. It is certainly true that America's ability to protect itself would
be severely weakened if all of the citizens were "strung up" on heroine.
In spite of difficulties that might arise, I do not retreat from my overarching principles of government. I do believe that careful choices must be made in the fleshing out of laws of #2a and #2b type and laws
that protect a citizen from him or herself. I am still working with these ideas to make them absolutely
correct and consistent; I will post more as more becomes clear to me.
|
|
