The Role of Government

I have previously written at some length on the biblical view of government HERE. With the current climate, discussions and counter-discussions, I decided to make some more comments (probably much the same).

As Christians, first and foremost we must find our view of what government is and ought to be within the lids of the Holy Bible. As Americans, we expect our government to operate within the framework of our founding document, the Constitution. As Christians who are also Americans, we may express our right to address areas in our government’s laws and actions that we believe fall short of the biblical ideal.[i]

Primarily we look to the principles taught in the New Testament to develop a biblical worldview of government. We also look into the Old Testament for universal moral principles. However, since Israel was a theocracy under specific covenant and laws given by God, we do not look to its situation as parallel to the relationship of church and state among non-covenant nations in either the Old or New Testaments or in the time in which we now live. Also instructive are the messages of Old Testament prophets to pagan rulers and non-covenant nations about their obligations. These rulers and nations should function under God’s principles function. The New Testament does not detail a specific form of government, but following its guidelines, we can develop a form of government that “punishes the evil and rewards the good.” This “ideal” government’s role is “negative” more than “positive.”[ii] The most relevant passages in the New Testament, though not the only ones, are Matthew 22:17-21, Romans 13:1-7, 1 Timothy 2:1-2, and 1 Peter 2:13-14.

Romans 13:1-7

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 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: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.”

Government punishes the evildoer. It is a “minister of God to thee for good…a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Before Romans 13, Paul admonishes, “avenge not yourselves,” (as much as possible) “live peaceably with all men,” and ^“give place unto wrath.” This is possible under a stable government system. Ultimately, God will right all wrongs, but in the now, government is one of his tools for accomplishing this. Restraining wrong and punishing bad behavior is primarily a “negative” role for government. The passage, though some might wish otherwise, does not constrain the government to give goods to its citizens, but to praise good by creating an environment in which good rather than evil is cherished and can flourish. Commenting on “praise” in verse 3, John Murray writes:

The praise given by the magistrate is not a reward in the proper sense of the term…The praise could be expressed by saying that good behaviour secures good standing in the state, a status to be cherished and cultivated.[iii]

Government fills a “negative role” by punishing evil, and a “positive role” by promoting good.

1 Timothy 2:1-2

“I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.”

Prayers for secular authorities recognize their legitimacy before God. Governmental authority provides the framework for people to live together peaceably. Prayers for secular authorities recognize the role of law in promoting safety and security. Safety and security – leading a quiet and peaceable life – promotes godliness and honesty by allowing us to better pursue them.

1 Peter 2:13-14

“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.”

Peter here echoes and agrees with the principles in Romans 13. Government fills a “negative role” by punishing evil, and a “positive role” by promoting good. Submission to the proper role of government equals submission to God, for the “are sent by him.” Government “gives praise” to those who do well, by securing their good standing in the state. Government should primarily protect God-given rights so that citizens may “do” rather than creating “rights” by doing for its citizens.

Matthew 22:17-21

“Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cæsar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Cæsar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”

Jesus identifies the role of government as legitimate, yet limited. Government has a God-given role. Its citizens, including Christians, should support its role. Its role is limited to “the things which are” the government’s.[iv] Ultimate allegiance belongs to God and not government.

Christians subject themselves to authority, recognizing it as an intrinsic good. God establishes the principle of government. Authority is better than anarchy. The state provides order and stability by protecting rights and punishing wrongs. God is the highest authority, and allegiance to him supersedes allegiance to worldly powers (Acts 5:29).

“We ought to obey God rather than men.”

---

[i] As well as the Constitutional ideal.

[ii] Negative rights and positive rights in political parlance are rights that oblige either no action (negative rights) or action (positive rights). In laymen’s terms, negative rights are rights to be left alone by government (i.e., to think, say, and do, what we wish as long as our behavior does not harm others. Positive rights are rights to get things from the government, such as education, health care, etc.

[iii] The Epistle to the Romans, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997, p. 151.

[iv] As Christians, we base the theory of what government should be on the teachings of the Bible. As Americans, we further base what government should be on the framework of the Constitution.

Church, Covid, and State

The church in word and by nature is an assembly. While a church may voluntary choose to temporarily comply with certain advice due to health concerns, governmental restrictions against assembly attacks the very nature of the church.

Chick-Fil-A “set free”

Chick-Fil-A. I could eat there seven times a day
Where the people laugh and children play;
Oh, I’m in love with Chick-Fil-A.

Suddenly, I need waffle fries in front of me
With some nuggets and a large sweet tea;
Oh, Chick-Fil-A. You set me free.

The Chick-Fil-A Song by Tim Hawkins

According to a news report earlier this month, a Christian Dean at Rider University Resigned in Protest of Campus Chick-Fil-A Ban. Rider claimed “the company’s record widely perceived to be in opposition to the LGBTQ+ community” and their “corporate values have not sufficiently progressed enough to align with those of Rider.”[i]

Cynthia Newman, dean of the College of Business, announced that she resign, stating, “I am a committed follower of Jesus Christ. As such, I endeavor every day to do exactly what Chick-fil-A puts forward as its overarching corporate value: to glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to me and to have a positive influence on all who come into contact with me.”

On the heels of that, the San Antonio City Council voted 6-4 last Thursday (March 21) to keep Chick-Fil-A out of the San Antonio International Airport. (See, e.g., San Antonio City Council votes to stop Chick-fil-a from opening at airport.) District 1 Councilman Roberto C. Treviño made the motion to exclude Chick-Fil-A. He said, “San Antonio is a city full of compassion, and we do not have room in our public facilities for a business with a legacy of anti-LGBTQ behavior.”

The purported “anti-LGBT behavior” apparently is Chick-Fil-A’s positive support for traditional marriage, and donations to entities such as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (gasp!) which also support traditional marriage. Though Councilperson Treviño said, “Everyone has a place here, and everyone should feel welcome” he and five others made it clear that Chick-Fil-A and those who support it do not have “a place here” and “should [not] feel welcome.” So much for welcoming and affirming. Just like the rest of us, intolerant people “welcome and affirm” who and what they believe in, and “exclude and deny” who and what they don’t believe in!

The case of Rider University is a private institution making a decision they believe matches their values. I disagree with their decision and values in this case. Nevertheless, it varies somewhat from the San Antonio case, which is a government entity excluding a business based on its religious values and (private donation) practices. Chick-Fil-A’s DOES NOT practice excluding anyone from buying a chicken sandwich! There is no discrimination of that sort with which they are charged. Six members of a governmental entity called the San Antonio City Council excludes Chick-Fil-A on the religious beliefs they hold regarding marriage and the charities they choose to support. Isn’t this exactly what our Bill of Rights intends to bind governments from doing? I think so; however, I believe we will continue to see an increase in governmental entities excluding businesses that support traditional Christian causes.

---

[i] Fascinatingly, despite the views of the high mucks at Rider, when the university polled students to ask which restaurants they would like to have on campus, Chick-Fil-A was the “overwhelming favorite”!

Trying to cure leukemia with leeches

No theory of government was ever given a fairer test or a more prolonged experiment in a democratic country than democratic socialism received in Britain. Yet it was a miserable failure in every respect...To cure the British disease with socialism was like trying to cure leukemia with leeches.

Margaret Thatcher, The Downing Street Years (HarperCollins, 1993)

Church and State: Government, Established and Limited

It is intriguing that some of those who are first to say the United States of America is not a Christian nation are also some of the first to expect it to act like one! There are wide disagreements, even among Christians, on what people should expect their governments to do. Numerous individuals appeal to the Bible in certain situations to “command” their government to act in a Christian manner. For example, in the case of immigration law appeal may be made to verses about welcoming the stranger for supporting open borders, or in the case of abortion law appeal may be made to verses about not committing murder in opposing killing babies.

Government is established. It does not derive its authority to exist from philosophy or human reasoning, but from God. Ruling authority, or government, exists as a principle established by God, and in actual existence as ordained by God (Romans 13:1-2).[i] Government is limited. Human government is temporal, not eternal. It is restraining, but not redemptive. God is sovereign over kings, rulers, governments. He installs and deposes (Psalm 75:7; Daniel 2:21). Human government, therefore, has authority derived from God, and limited by God (John 19:10-11).

The New Testament does not provide an exhaustive treatment of the subject of government. It lays down principles.[ii] However, the principles laid down all too often are not the primary points of discussion for the addressing the concept or specifics of governing. God established government; God limited government. Working from the broad principles, we may further examine the Bible for details on its expected and intended operation. Let us consider the following New Testament passages.

1. Church and state are unique, separate, and operate in different spheres (though the different spheres will bring them in contact, concord, and conflict with one another).

Matthew 22:21 They say unto him, Cæsar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s. (See also Mark 12:17 and Luke 20:25.)

Answering the Pharisees’ treacherous question, Jesus laid down the principle of government operating within its sphere of authority, under God. Those operating in “Cæsar’s” realm owe certain allegiance to “Cæsar.” This “image and superscription” on Cæsar’s coin was a visual way of demonstrating the practical reality of Cæsar’s rule. “But the words that followed raised the discussion into a higher region, and asserted implicitly that that admission did not interfere with the true spiritual freedom of the people, or with their religious duties.”[iii] Followers of God should act as law-abiding citizens of the Roman Empire. Pay your tax to Caesar; the image and superscription demonstrate it is his and within his realm of authority. Give God your life, your allegiance, your love. These do not belong to government.

2. The sphere of the state protects rights and punishes wrongs.

Romans 13:3-5 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: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

1 Peter 2:13-14 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

Human government is ordained to protect the rights of the governed and punish those who violate the rights of the governed. In civics these are often described as “negative rights” – that is, “The negative role of government involves protecting a citizen in his or her own pursuit of something legitimate.”[iv] These biblical texts establish a “negative role” as government’s primary sphere. The focus is on punishing or executing wrath upon the evildoers, while providing an atmosphere for and praising of good behavior.[v] Those who are evil may be encouraged to respect the rights of others because they fear the “sword” or “wrath” of the governing authority. Government should be a neutral judge and guardian of its governed, providing equal access to all to these “negative” benefits. The rulers should be God’s ministers – that is, servants – of justice for all.

3. The function of the state provides order and stability.

1 Timothy 2:1-2 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

Government should serve the common good – not just the good of the governors, but also the good of the governed. The governed pray and intercede for the governors. Good government provides law, order, and stability in place of anarchy.[vi] Christians pray for leaders to succeed in providing these. When the government is functioning properly, the governed are able to live “a quiet and peaceable life” without fear and looking over their shoulders. In the order and peace provided, there is a place where judgment is accorded[vii] and good is encouraged and rewarded. At its best good government appreciates human dignity (that man is created in God’s image, Genesis 1:27) and acknowledges human depravity (that all men are sinners, Romans 3:23).

4. The response of the church/Christian is submitting to good citizenship.

Romans 13:5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

Titus 3:1 Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,

1 Peter 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake:

“Submit” and “be subject” are acts of volition. The Christian, in obedience to God, submits to his established authority, human government. The Christian “seeks the peace of the city” where he dwells (cf. Jeremiah 29:7) and the good of his neighbor (Romans 15:2). The submission to authority is “for conscience sake.” The submission is voluntary but not absolute. It is submission to the governing authorities in their sphere and function. Absolute submission belongs only to God. The use of “submit” and “be subject” in these verses implies that the governed may have reason to disobey the government.[viii] See Acts 5:29, where Peter admonished the Jewish authorities whose command circumvented God’s command – “Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.” Paul wrote, “but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God” (Romans 2:29). Government should deal with matters of conduct, not matters of the heart. We must render to God the things that are God’s. Government cannot command the allegiance of the heart.

---

[i] Cf. also Genesis 9:5-6.

[ii] On the other hand, the Old Testament is clear about the establishment of one particular theocracy – Israel – in which God is the giver of law and head of government. This establishment, however, is only for the covenant people of Israel and not applicable to principles to government for all times and places. Nevertheless, there are principles and lessons to glean from the Old Testament concerning government. For example, the prophet Amos condemns the transgressions of the nations of Damascus, Gaza, Tyrus, Edom, Ammon, and Moab before turning his sights on Judah and Israel (Amos chapters 1 and 2). These nations and their rulers – though pagan – were responsible before God for not fulfilling as well as abusing their ruling authority.

[iii] Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers

[iv] Art Lindsley

[v] In contrast, the idea of the “positive role” of government focuses on providing goods and services to the governed – such as healthcare or welfare.

[vi] The opposite of governance is anarchy – confusion and disorder; a state of society without government or law; political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control.

[vii] settled; reconciled.

[viii] Sometimes the Christians supports his government; sometimes he endures it. Unfortunately, at times he must disobey it. At all times the Christian should pray for his government.

A Christian Nation?

It is interesting to me that some of those who are first to say the United States of America is not a Christian nation are also some of the first to expect it to act like one! Andrew Daugherty provides one example in No, Pastor Jeffress (and others), America is not a Christian nation. And here’s why it matters.

Daugherty points out that “The message that ‘America is a Christian nation’ is flat-out false factually, legally and practically” and that “It is the latest sideshow in the endless culture war built on the fiction that the Framers in Philadelphia in 1787 intended to constitute a Christian nation.”[i] He quotes Baptist forefather John Leland: “The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever.”[ii] He might also have quoted National forefather John Adams: “The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

But then, to make his case, he exhibits a clear bias toward believing in some instances the United States ought to operate in a manner that fits his view of Christian policy (and condemns when it does not). “Contrary to Jeffress’ claim, we can’t put kids in cages and call ourselves a Christian nation. We can’t deny healthcare to people who can’t afford it and call ourselves a Christian nation.” Now, I ask, Mr. Daugherty, if you argue that the United States is not (and never has been) a Christian nation, why are you expecting the nation to operate according to your own view of Christian principles? Consistency, thou art a jewel.

Speaking in principle, ethical behavior is right for everyone, but the ethical behavior of each one will be based on his or her standards of right and wrong. Acting in ways consistent with one’s view of right and wrong will (or should) for the Jew be based on the understanding of the Old Testament, on the Bible (OT & NT) for the Christian, the Qur’an for the Muslim, the Bhagavad Gita for the Hindu, and so on. Since the United States of America is neither Jewish, Christian, Muslim, nor Hindu, the ethics of the U. S. as a nation must be based on its Constitution and laws, proceeding in ways consistent with those.

People have hearts. Nations have laws. The laws of all the other nations of the world are not the laws of the United States. If we as a nation are not following our own laws, we should hope to correct those. If we as a nation have laws that are not good, we should try to change those. If we as a nation have laws that are good, we should try to follow those. We who are Christians have a right to propose and promote laws in keeping with our Christian worldview, without expecting the United States of America to be a Christian nation.

---

[i] While on the one hand it is clear that the framers did not intend to constitute a Christian nation constitutionally and politically, on the other hand it is obvious historically that the primary heritage of our nation is from a Judeo-Christian worldview.

[ii] Leland also wrote, in A Chronicle of His Time in Virginia: “Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse another. The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence, whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians.”

Divorce for benefits?

Q. A pastor found out that if he and his wife get divorced, the wife would get full Social Security benefits. This would allow for much-needed extra income into the family. Estate planning specialists have advised them that getting divorced is a smart move. Should this pastor and wife divorce, yet remain married “in the eyes of God”? Is this being deceitful in order to get money from the government? Is this a legitimate way to get what is rightfully theirs?

A. First, a few related comments. Most governments set and acknowledge legal requirements regarding marriage. A marriage in the sight of God does not require government approval (Cf. Genesis 2:21-24, Genesis 24:63-67, for examples). A man and a woman who make a marital covenant to each other are married morally and in God’s eyes (Malachi 2:14, Proverbs 2:16-17).[i] As regards Social Security, I am ambivalent toward whether this is “bilking the government” and/or what might or might not be “rightfully theirs.” The U.S. Social Security system is messed up. Those who are getting money now are probably getting money that someone else is putting in right now (not “their” money that was saved for them with interest, as they may think). Some paid in a little and got back a lot; some paid in a lot and got back a little. It is unfortunate that politicians and bureaucrats have often encouraged bad behavior (e.g., better benefits for not being married) in the ways they design our nation’s aid programs such as Social Security and Welfare.

Second, regarding the action of divorce for better Social Security benefits, my answer is “No, I don’t think they should.” While a couple does not need a government certificate to be married, in this case they have chosen the government’s recognition of their marriage. When it became a negative in their eyes and the eyes of their advisers, they seek to dissolve the marriage in the eyes of the government, yet maintain the marriage in fact. They were married not only in the eyes of God, but also in the eyes of government, and now this solution of “legal” divorce engages in playing not married on the one hand, and playing married on the other hand. It is deceitful. It is telling one group of people you are not married, and telling another group you are. It is “double-minded.”

Jesus said, “let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay...” What the divorce/married Christian says doesn’t fit either the letter or spirit of Jesus’s exhortation.

Government: “Are you married?”
Christian: “Nay, Nay!”

Church: “Are you married?”
Christian: “Yea, yea!”

“Therewith [the tongues] they profess one thing and do another. Out of the same mouth proceedeth marriage and divorce. My brethren, these things ought not so to be!” (Cf. James 3:9-10.)

In a “post-Christian” society, perhaps Christians should rethink the whole concept of “government marriage.”[ii] In the meantime, it is a bad testimony for Christians to accept it when it is beneficial to us, but then reject it when it is not. Such actions are double-minded deception, which violate biblical precepts coming and going.

---

[i] Marriage is a covenant that a man and a woman make between themselves and before God. Men and women have been doing that since the beginning of time, without the benefit of the government’s stamp of approval.

[ii] That is, covenant and commit to marriage before God and one another, without any need to involve the government.

Immigration: Christian Individuals and Civil Authorities

Previous posts: 

• DACA, Trump, Obama, Congress and Children
• Beyond DACA: the Story of Jose
• Jesus, the Illegal Immigrant?
• Five Guiding Categories: Biblical Considerations
• Five Guiding Categories: Biblical Considerations Expounded

Christians are manifestly enjoined to treat the stranger with straightforward honesty, hospitality, good will, love and kindness. If the Christian individual’s treatment of immigrants and refugees can be guided unequivocally from God’s commands, precepts and examples found in the Bible, why are Christians in the U.S. so divided by the subject of immigration? Part of it can be explained as just approaching the Bible differently. I believe in large part we arrive at differences because of different understandings of the purpose of government and different applications of the Christian’s relationship to government.[i] In other words, much of what we debate is not how the individual should treat strangers, but how the government should treat them.

From whence cometh government, and what is its purpose? Michael Oh puts it succinctly: “Government...has been instituted by God not only for the good of humanity but also for the glory of his own name.” Here are some biblical principles.

Civil authority is instituted by God, both generally and specifically.

• Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
• Daniel 2:21 and he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings

Civil authority is an agent of justice, rewarding good and punishing evil.

• 1 Peter 2:13-14 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
• Romans 13:4 for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Civil authority deserves prayerful consideration and lawful obedience.

• 1 Timothy 2:1-3 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
• Mark 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him. (Cf. also Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-17)

Civil authority is not absolute (only God’s authority is).

• Acts 4:18-19 And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.
• Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Broadly we can say that our government both generally and specifically exists by the decree of God and at the delight of God. In engaging its purpose, it should defend what is good and those who abide by it, while punishing what is evil and those who practice it. Christian citizens should be good citizens who obey the law, pray for & promote peace and seek justice. Only as a last resort should they disobey the law, choosing obedience to God over obedience to government.

Some people, once they have gone through this many scriptures and this much thinking, will have all the right answers (or at least think they do). As for me, I confess to not knowing how to put together every piece of this puzzle. There is no direct command from God to governments how they should or should not regulate immigration. I find nothing to indicate that government regulating immigration is either inherently moral or immoral.[ii] I believe any such laws should ideally correspond with the purpose of government. As much as is possible, Christians should use their influence to promote good. In conclusion, with hope for more light in the future, I say this. When unsure of which direction to turn, follow the course that does less harm. “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.”

Finally, I leave you all with this thought that Chris Johnson wrote in a comment at SBCVoices, “Whatever the plight of the ‘Dreamer’ ends up with respect to whether they remain in limbo (Obama’s directive), become legalized (neo-amnesty with perks through Congress), or are systematically removed in order to follow the law of the nation (existing laws on the books), the churches can be there to help, love, and share the gospel. The great commission is something the church can do in all three of those scenarios...that will never change.”

---

[i] In addition, we derive much of our view on immigration and immigration law from the application of principles we find (or think we find). I am unfamiliar with the history of border controls and entry requirements (such as visas, passports). I am not aware of anything like that in either the Old or the New Testaments. The concept of territory and borders can be found in Scripture (e.g. Numbers 21:22), but not like we have refined it in modern “first-world” countries.

[ii] Curiously, there are a number of people who emphatically deny that the United States is a Christian nation, and furiously clamor for complete separation of church and state – and yet when it comes to immigration they argue for the government to found the immigration laws in what they believe are Christian principles. This study has revealed another odd inconsistency. A good number of Americans who support complete amnesty for illegal immigrants also support same-sex marriage. When supporting the former position (amnesty), they do so citing the Old Testament Law of Moses (i.e, what it says about foreigners/strangers). When supporting the latter position (same-sex marriage) they deny any weight to the Old Testament Law of Moses passages against homosexuality (often comparing it to laws against sowing different kinds of seeds). Consistency, thou art a jewel!

Doctors got it wrong...

...aren't God; shouldn't try to play God.

Amish girl who fled United States to escape forced chemotherapy is now cancer-free -- "Some might call it a “miracle,” but alternative and holistic medicine healers aren’t really surprised to learn that a 12-year old Amish girl is now cancer-free — after her doctors testified in court just six months ago that she would be dead by now if her family were permitted to refuse her chemotherapy."

God and rulers

We had a political cartoon in our paper awhile back that called this election "the evil of two lessers." In times like these it is good to know that God is in control.

Daniel 2:21 And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings...

Psalm 75:7 But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another.

Exodus 9:16 And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.

Here He exalts neglected worms
To scepters and a crown;
Anon the following page he turns,
And treads the monarch down.

Not Gabriel asks the reason why,
Nor God the reason gives;
Nor dares the favorite angel pry
Between the folded leaves.
(Isaac Watts)

Knowing that God does all things and that He does them well teaches me that wringing my hands and worrying will neither add one cubit to my stature nor change the course God has set for this nation. I am no prophet nor the son of a prophet, but I indeed wonder if we are seeing an example of what John Calvin wrote, "that they who rule unjustly and incompetently have been raised up by [God] to punish the wickedness of the people."

In Peter's first epistle the apostle reminds us who we are. In chapter one he addressed his audience as strangers, and in chapter two he beseeched them as strangers and pilgrims. We would no doubt do well to readdress and embrace the "strangers and pilgrims" motif of the New Testament. We American Christians as a whole are quite comfortable as American citizens and often forget our true citizenship is in heaven. Like our forefathers in the faith of old, may we be persuaded of the promises of God, look for a city whose builder and maker is God, and confess that we are strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

Choosing a Supreme Court Justice

In a recent Miami Herald op-ed piece, Leonard Pitts, Jr. wrote that Sen. McConnell is a liar — and not a very good one, at that. His reference is to Senator Mitch McConnell's suggestion to "give [the American people] a voice" in deciding the replacement for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. He intends to not hold hearings for President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court."Let’s let the American people decide," says McConnell. That is, let's wait until after the presidential election and let the winner nominate the next justice. 

Pitts claims, "There are four lies here, each more threadbare and cynical than the last." The four lies he references are "The Biden rule," President Obama "politicizing this," "not about a person," and "voice of the people." 

1. I believe that Pitts is right when he says here is no such thing as the Biden rule. U.S. Senator Joe Biden made remarks in 1992 about not considering Supreme Court nominees made in the final year of a presidency. There is no "Biden Rule" under which the Senate must operate in this regard. On the other hand, Biden did make these remarks, and other Democrats have made similar ones. Both Republican and Democrat Senators display situation ethics in regard to matters than come before them, according to who is in power in Congress and in the White House.

2. McConnell and other Republicans say President Obama is politicizing this. President Obama and other Democrats say the Republicans are politicizing this. In fact, it's an election year -- most all of them politicizing, though some may be operating on principle (some might even be politicizing and operating on principle). 

3. Is it about a principle or a person? More probably it is about a person, principles and even power. All run in order to promote their principles, power and people -- though not always ethically so -- so we should not be surprised when they act in accord with their reasons for be elected to public office. 

4. Pitts and those on the Democratic side say the voice of the people has been spoken in the election of President Obama. That is true. He also references a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll. It claims that 63% of those polled want the Senate to hold hearings and vote. But these kinds of polls don't matter (and didn't matter to Obama and the Democrats when most people polled did not want their Affordable Health Care Act). Elections, on the other hand, do matter. But not only was the voice of the people spoken when Barack Obama was elected, but also when every Senator who has to advise and consent on the judicial nominee was elected (two elections in a row, mostly against President Obama). 

We have spoken with different voices, so it is no surprise that different voices speak on Capitol Hill. Ultimately, when they agree we will have a new Supreme Court Justice. (And isn't that kinda how the system was intended to work??)

Lesser Magistrates

“Primary Duty of Lesser Magistrates is Threefold: First, they are to oppose and resist any laws or edicts from the higher authority that contravene the law or Word of God. Second, they are to protect the person, liberty, and property of those who reside within their jurisdiction from any unjust or immoral actions by the higher authority. Third, they are not to implement any laws or decrees made by the higher authority that violate the Constitution, and if necessary, resist them.” -- Matthew J. Trewhella, The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates: A Proper Resistance to Tyranny and a Repudiation of Unlimited Obedience to Civil Government

“Duty is that which a person owes to another, or by which a person is bound to another, by any natural, moral, or lawful obligation to perform. Duty is any action required by one’s position or by moral or lawful considerations.” -- Matthew J. Trewhella

Haney's help

"Biblically speaking, there are two times, and only two times when it is necessary for the children of God to disregard, disobey, and defy the laws of the land and simply refuse to obey their government:  1.) When the government by law forbids someone from obeying God – Daniel’s praying against the law that forbade it; 2.) When the government by law forces someone to disobey God – Hananiah, Azariah, and Meshael, (Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego) being forced to bow to a false god.  Only when the circumstances fit within the framework of those scriptural principles can a child of God rightly and flatly refuse to obey the laws of the government ruling over them." -- Jeff Haney

More said about government, times 9

"The government shouldn't tell us what to think, what to say and what to believe. In their misguided attempts to offend no one, they end up offending many." -- Stacy Adams

“The King of Kings is not up for reelection.” -- Janet Parshall

“I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” -- Thomas Jefferson

“We have the best government that money can buy.” -- Mark Twain

“That government is best which governs least.” -- Henry David Thoreau

“Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.” -- P. J. O'Rourke

“If 'pro' is the opposite of 'con' what is the opposite of 'progress'?” -- Paul Harvey

“Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” -- Otto von Bismarck

“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.” -- Gerald R. Ford

Halloween scare -- "Obamacare" in the news (and opinion)

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.

* Democrats beginning to support Obamacare delays -- "The pressure is acute in the Senate where Democrats in conservative or competitive states are lining up behind proposals to delay Obamacare"
* Have you seen the viral Obamacare girl? -- "The search is on to identify the anonymous model whose image has been scrubbed from the Healthcare.gov website after she became the face of frustration regarding the site's well-publicized glitches."
* HealthCare.gov suffers outage as Sebelius testifies that it's never crashed -- "Poor timing was redefined in Washington on Wednesday."
* How Obamacare was fooled by high-tech glamour -- "The health care law, the White House argues, "isn't just a website." True enough. But the software problems are representative of a larger rhetorical choice."
* Is Obamacare’s legality still in doubt? -- "My jaw dropped when I first saw this. This has the potential to sink Obamacare. It could make the current website problems seem minor by comparison."
* ‘I was all for Obamacare’ until I got the bill -- "California residents are rebelling a bit against Obamacare, with thousands shocked by the sticker price and rethinking their support, saying that what seemed wonderful in principle is not translating so well into reality."
* More than 2 million people getting booted from existing health insurance plans -- "CBS News has learned more than two million Americans have been told they cannot renew their current insurance policies..."
* Obama administration knew millions wouldn't be able to keep insurance -- "While campaigning for health care reform in 2009, Obama went out of his way to make one thing perfectly clear: if you like your current health care plan, you will be able to keep it."
* Obamacare 'Absolutely' A Step Toward A Single-Payer System -- "...Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) was asked whether his goal was to move Obamacare to a single-payer system. His answer? “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”"
* Obamacare Fiasco Isn't a Single-Payer Conspiracy -- "There’s a pretty popular conspiracy theory running around to the effect that this was the Barack Obama administration’s intent all along: Design this big Rube Goldberg apparatus that couldn’t possibly work, and when it fails, sweep in and “fix” things by enacting the single-payer scheme you wanted all along."
* White House OKs limited waiver on health penalty  "...the Obama administration Monday granted a six-week extension until March 31 for Americans to sign up for coverage next year and avoid new tax penalties under the president's health care overhaul law."

"If Americans really wanted Obamacare, you wouldn't need a law to make them buy it." -- (credited to) Ted Cruz

"Whatever." -- Kathleen Sebelius

Government Rests Upon Religion

President Calvin Coolidge:

Our government rests upon religion. It is from that source that we derive our reverence for truth and justice, for equality and liberty, and for the rights of mankind. Unless the people believe in these principles, they cannot believe in our government. There are only two main theories of government in the world. One rests on righteousness, and the other rests on force. One appeals to reason, the other appeals to the sword. One is exemplified in a republic, the other is represented by despotism. The government of a country never gets ahead of the religion of a country. There is no way by which we can substitute the authority of law for the virtue of man. Of course we can help to restrain the vicious and furnish a fair degree of security and protection by legislation and police control, but the real reforms which society in these days is seeking will come as a result of our religious convictions, or they will not come at all. Peace, justice, humanity, charity - these cannot be legislated into being. They are the result of Divine Grace.

Calvin Coolidge, speech at the unveiling of the equestrian statue of Bishop Francis Asbury, 15 October 1924

The price for a free, safe society

Is “Big Brother” the price of a free, safe society?

No, I am not comfortable with getting "Big Brother" as the price for a free, safe society. A "free" and "safe" society may soon become mutually exclusive. When you listen to a radio program with conservative Craig Parshall (General Counsel for National Religious Broadcasters) and liberal Barry Lynn (Executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church & State) discussing the Boston bombing, for example, and agreeing that we've got a problem with too many cameras and too little privacy we should have a light go on in our heads. Adding video surveillance to every square inch of the earth IS NOT the answer. It may be what we get, nevertheless.

"Person of Interest" is a current TV show on CBS that presents omnipresent surveillance in a positive light. The surveillance is used to predict future crimes and terrorist attacks. Anybody ever see or hear of "Minority Report," a movie where criminals are apprehended before they commit a crime, based on foreknowledge that they're going to commit it? Some things I hear discussed seem similar, even though we don't have any precogs to see into the future. Pity the honest citizens when the system turns on them. 

May we return to an old-fashioned republic that wants less government and more freedom. May we not trade our birthright for a mess of governmental pottage.

Wrong, just wrong

From August 2011 to January 2012, Governor Rick Perry (TX) went on the campaign trail for Republican Presidential nominee. We have recently learned that this failed attempt has cost the taxpayers of the state of Texas over 3.7 million dollars.

That is wrong, just plain wrong. The taxpayers of Texas ought not have to foot the bill for the governor's choice to run for president. His campaign fund should reimburse the state. If it is not in his campaign fund, he ought to reimburse the state. If he doesn't have $3.7 million, put him on a payment plan!

Not only this, if truth be told, the state may finance much of the expenses of the campaign of all incumbents who run for office. Have you ever noticed how incumbents start sending out informational material in a big way when its campaign time. Whatever might be spent from taxpayer funds to help run for re-election is also wrong. Just wrong.

Is this all true?

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary.
No longer voluntary

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program.
Now 7.65%

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year.
No longer tax deductible

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program.
Under Johnson the money was moved to the General Fund and spent

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Under Clinton & Gore up to 85% of your Social Security can be taxed

This e-mail is going around. I know some of it is true. Anyone notice anything that isn't?

Government ponzi scheme

"Yesterday Neal Boortz was comparing the social security system to Bernie Madoff’s ponzi scheme. The comparisons were amazing. The only difference between Madoff and our intrepid leaders is that he couldn’t force more people to 'invest' in his scheme and it ultimately collapsed under its own weight, but the government can hold a gun to our head and make us keep funding a system which is doomed to fail for the same reason his did. The other difference is that Madoff went to jail and our 'leaders' go to whatever resorts they want to at the taxpayers expense." -- March 30, 2010 on the Predestinarian forum