Author Archives: Bruce Gust

by

A Biblical Approach to Politics | Part VI

I) Intro

Thus far we have:

  • seen how God does care about Politics and He expects us to be engaged.
  • we looked at how the best candidates are going to be those whose platforms take the same approach as the one our Founders took when they defeated the most powerful empire on earth and built a political system founded on Biblical Absolutes.
  • we examined the difference between being smart and being wise in the way we process the headlines and the media that we consume.

We now continue our discussion on being discerning when it comes to the way in which current events are presented by looking at a series of tactics that are sometimes used when you’re listening to someone who doesn’t have something to say as much as they have something to hide.

II) Meet Saul Alinski

“Rules for Radicals” is a book authored by Saul Alinski, a “Community Organizer” that made a name for himself by developing a series of tactics designed to agitate and coerce decision makers to the point where they would be willing to make concessions that they wouldn’t consider otherwise.

It’s not wrong to be persistent or even shrewd in the way you obtain justice from an authority who is neither compassionate nor just (Matt 10:16; Lk 18:1-8).

But anything done in the absence of wisdom (Prov 9:10) translates to something evil.

  • Unity becomes Corruption (1 Cor 1:10)
  • Love becomes Neglect (Prov 19:18; Heb 12:7)
  • Compassion becomes a Subsidy (Prov 23:9; 26:4-8)
  • Peace becomes Indifference (Jud 1:19-26; Prov 6:10-11)
  • …and Change becomes Destruction (Ex 32:1; Jud 2:10-11; 1 Kings 12:28-30)

Saul Alinski aligned himself with noble causes, but his methods and his rhetoric betrayed an unhealthy commitment to the acquisition of power more so than the realization of principle.

You see that reflected in the dedication he wrote at the beginning of his book:

Alinski’s Rules…

Saul Alinski may have been spiritually bankrupt, but there’s no denying that his tactics proved to be very effective and continue to be effective to this day. If you’re going to defeat your enemy, you have to know how he works so you can know how to respond. But ideally, you want to have a platform in place that anticipates his strategies to the point where they’re rendered useless because of the way in which your content is structured and presented.

Rules for Radicals

• “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”
• “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
• “Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
• “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

read more…

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and how is to know where mythology leaves off and history beings – or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer

In his book, Reveille for Radicals, Alinski said that all radicals like himself “want to advance from the jungle of laissez-faire capitalism…They hope for a future where the means of production will be owned by all of the people.”1

This was the goal. It wasn’t the elimination of Racism or Poverty as much as it was acquiring the needed power to facilitate a Socialist approach to government.

There are many informed commentaries on the fallacies of Socialism that rightfully underscore everything from the lethal consequences of a Socialist doctrine to the economic chaos of artificial pricing.

But there’s one aspect of Socialism that often gets missed which reveals it as something that is diametrically opposed to Scripture.

A) Why Socialism Doesn’t Work

Socialists generally categorize a population under two headings:

  • the rich, who are corrupt and
  • the poor who are oppressed

Those who are not where they want to be financially are, in some cases, drawn to this paradigm because in the mind of the Socialist, among the poor you have only noble and hardworking individuals who have been unfairly victimized by a flawed system.

This is an attractive option for the person who has made some bad choices because if there are no fools and there no fiends among the “downtrodden,” then they cannot be held accountable for their actions and they bear no responsibility for their choices.

But Scripture is heavily populated with verses that contrast the success of those who are diligent and the difficulties faced by those who insist on being foolish.

Proverbs 24: 30-34 says:

I went past the field of a sluggard, past the vineyard of someone who has no sense; 31 thorns had come up everywhere, the ground was covered with weeds, and the stone wall was in ruins. 32 I applied my heart to what I observed and learned a lesson from what I saw: 33 A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest—34 and poverty will come on you like a thief and scarcity like an armed man. (Prov 24:30-34)

On the other hand, it says in Proverbs 10:4:

Lazy hands make for poverty, but diligent hands bring wealth. (Prov 10:4)

While there are situations that can be categorized as tragic and overwhelming, you also have scenarios that are intentionally exaggerated in order to make an irresponsible disposition appear reasonable:

A sluggard says, “There’s a lion in the road, a fierce lion roaming the streets!” 14 As a door turns on its hinges, so a sluggard turns on his bed. 15 A sluggard buries his hand in the dish; he is too lazy to bring it back to his mouth. (Prov 26:13-15)

Whoever watches the wind will not plant; whoever looks at the clouds will not reap. (Ecc 11:4)

In the context of Socialism, there’s no acknowledgement of how poor decision making can contribute to any one of a number of difficult situations.

Victor Davis Hanson is a professor emeritus of Classics at California State University, Fresno, the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow in classics and military history at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, and visiting professor at Hillsdale College. He had this to say about the way in which more and more young Americans are gravitating to Socialism:

Many young people claim to be socialists but are instead simply angry that they were unable to afford a home, a new car, or other nice things, or start a family in their “woke” urban neighborhoods during a decade of muted economic growth (2008–17) and high unemployment. In college, they were not warned about the dangers of statism and collectivism, nor given the skills to look at the world empirically. The combination of nonmarketable degrees and skills with burdensome debt helped alter an entire generation’s customs, habits, and thinking.2

Compare the way in which the perspective of someone who has a very limited resume, yet feels entitled to those things that have to be earned and not simply obtained – how does that line up with God’s View as expressed in Proverbs 24:27?

 Put your outdoor work in order and get your fields ready; after that, build your house. (Prov 24:27)

Typically, a person’s situation is going to be characterized by things that constitute both personal flaws as well as challenging circumstances (Jn 16:33; Rom 3:23). To assert the idea that every difficulty you contend with is due to a systemic restriction and you bear no responsibility whatsoever for those choices that contributed to the problem – not only is that a nonsensical philosophy, but it also violates what God says in Galatians 6:7:

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. (Gal 6:7)

In short, Socialism cannot be discussed let alone deployed without minimizing the way in which God expects individuals to take responsibility for their actions (Rom 14:12). However convenient or challenging your environment may be, Scripture makes it clear that you have available to you every Resource that you need to rise above those things that would otherwise limit you or tear you down (2 Cor 9:8; Jas 1:13).

Whatever the evil may be that stands between you and your ambition – be it the most desperate desire to survive or a noble passion to succeed – because you are not alone (Matt 28:20) and He promises that all things work together for the good (Rom 8:28) – you cannot blame anything or anyone for having yielded to the temptation to stop striving (Jn 16:33) without accusing God of having stopped caring (Rom 8:32).

Socialism’s True Result
Josef Stalin liquidated twenty million people to create the collective basis for the Soviet Union. Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward cost China forty-five million dead. Pol Pot’s back-to-the-land experiment murdered well over one million in Cambodia. Various disasters in Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe turned once-prosperous states into murderous, impoverished socialist dictatorships.3

It is God Who is in control and it is His Purpose and Power in and through a person that makes the difference both individually (Rom 12:1-2) and collectively (Ps 33:12; 84:11).

Still, the temptation to take the wheel from your Heavenly Father and insist that it’s your turn to drive is alluring despite the fact that it is toxic (Prov 14:12). This is why Socialism appeals despite the Truth it ignores and the lives it has taken.

And this is why you want to be aware of what’s going on and what’s being said. This is why you want to Pop the Hood, Keep Your Balance and Kick the Tires. It’s also why you want to be aware of the some of the more frequently used tactics deployed by those who have something to hide more than they have something to say.

This is where Saul Alinski comes in. His book, Rules for Radicals details 13 tactics that can be used to get your way by virtue of the manner in which they extort, embarrass and manipulate your opponent.

In this next part of our discussion, we’re going to build on some of Alinski’s rules, not for the sake of glorifying them but for the sake of exposing them. And then we’re going to get more detailed in how Alinski’s approach is manifested in the media according to five easy to remember and recognize tactics we’re going to call the Progressive Pentagon.

Stay tuned!

by

A Biblical Approach to Politics | Part VI

Today we pick up where we left off in our “Biblical Approach to Politics” series. To read Part V, click here. Otherwise…

Buckle up!

Oftentimes the only thing needed is to make your audience question your opponent’s character. If you’re successful, there’s nothing that can come from their mouth or their pen that won’t be immediately processed as something bogus.

They did it with Paul:

For some say, “His letters are weighty and forceful, but in person he is unimpressive and his speaking amounts to nothing.” (2 Cor 10:10)

… they did it with Christ:

The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.” (Matt 11:19)

…and they do it today.

IV) Conclusion

There’s any one of a number of topics that are being constantly presented using this approach where more time is spent assaulting a person’s character than they do engaging their content.

This is but one tactic and we’ll look at some more next week, but however misleading things can potentially be, the question remains: How do you overcome it?

You keep your balance.

In the passage we looked at a moment ago, the last piece says, “It is good to grasp the one and not let got of the other. Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes.“

When you’re confronted with a question or an issue, the resources you allow into your inbox that you default to in order to understand what’s going on may represent a comprehensive analysis, they may not. The key is to ensure that you’re looking at all the facts according to their academic merit and not the way in which they’re made to be associated with certain personalities that have been characterized as either fools or fiends.

Balance.

Grasp the one and do not let go of the other.

Give thought to your steps and be diligent in ensuring that you’re processing yourself and the world around you according to a wise assessment as opposed to a quick impression.

For example, did you know we won the Vietnam War?

I’m not kidding.

I didn’t.

I served for nine years in the USMC with several who were combat vets. I remember as a kid the bumper stickers and the bracelets that were circulated during the seventies to remind people that we had POWs still over there…

It was always viewed as a bit of a tragic debacle.

If you try to find any information on what it is I’m getting ready to elaborate on, you’re going to run into some difficulties.

Try doing a search for “vietnam war victory day” and you’ll get articles about the fall of Saigon and “Reunification Day.”

But if you do a search for January 23, 1973, you’ll get the information you need in order to better understand why Vietnam was a war that we did indeed win.

You can watch a video about it by clicking here. The gist of it was that Nixon launched an aggressive bombing campaign against industrial and military targets in Hanoi with the condition that the bombing would stop if the North Vietnamese would agree to talk peace at the Paris Peace Accords.

North Vietnam finally agreed to Nixon’s offer and on January 23, 1973, an announcement was made that an agreement had been initialed by the North Vietnamese, the Viet Cong, South Vietnam and the United States.

It was proclaimed as “Victory in Vietnam Day!”

We had won!

The nature of the peace agreement was that the hostilities would end and that South Vietnam would be recognized as a sovereign nation by the North Vietnamese. Should the North Vietnamese initiate any kind of military action, the United States promised to match South Vietnam’s response bullet for bullet, man for man.

But then Watergate happened.

Nixon resigned in disgrace and the Democrats smelled blood. They ran on a platform that denounced the war as a waste of resources. Gerald Ford appeared before Congress and pleaded with them to remain faithful to the promise made to South Vietnam, but the opportunity to win the Oval Office was too great, and Congress refused. Not long after, Saigon fell and the victory that was both true and legitimate was erased from the history books and Jimmy Carter was elected as our new President.

However shameful it may be to see the honor and the sacrifice of the American military so casually removed from the public conscience just so a particular party can regain a superior political position, what’s even more despicable is the way in which those in charge of crafting the headlines and creating our school’s curriculum made a point of ignoring the practical reality of VV Day (Victory in Vietnam Day).

This is part of what makes informed conversation so challenging. You have in place a media staffed by some who are determined to minimize certain facts that make a difference in the way, not only America appears, but also how Truth is defined. Over a period of time, the abundance of “chanted information” (questionable conclusions repeated over and over again by the media until they become a collection of accepted facts) makes locating a more holistic perspective not only more challenging, but also more controversial.

This is why we need to be on top of our spiritual game. Our country needs the same kind of godly men who recognized that it’s the combination and not the separation of church and state that translates to, not only a prosperous nation, but a happy (1 Thess 5:16-18), healthy (Prov 10:27) and holy (Ps 33:12) population.
by - 1 Comment

American Concrete

We’re going to take a break from our series on “A Biblical Approach to Politics” and take a look at something called, “American Concrete.”

There’s a platform out there that says our nation’s spiritual heritage is either fundamentally flawed or a cursory acknowledgement of an “all mighty” benefactor that is more of a token courtesy than it is a relevant fixture.

That platform is wrong.

Here’s an excerpt from a post entitled, “American Concrete.” It starts with a “Pop Quiz” that actually happens at the end of the original post, but it accomplishes what the article was designed to do by demonstrating that what we have on our coinage, as far as, “One Nation Under God,” is precisely what our Founders intended.

Happy July 4th!

In Conclusion

Pop Quiz…

Question #1: How often from June 12, 1775 till August 3rd, 1784 did Congress proclaim a National Day of either Fasting or Thanksgiving?

Answer: 18 times. Twice a year – once in March and once in October.16woodrow_wilson_msg

Question #2: The following statement is inscribed on the Liberty Bell: “Proclaim Liberty thro’ all the Land to all the Inhabitants thereof.” What text is that taken from?

Answer: Leviticus 25:10

Question #3: What President attended church services every Sunday during his administration, approved the use of the War Office as well as the Office of the Treasury for religious services and also approved the use of the Marine Band to provide instrumental accompaniment for the religious services going on within those government facilities?

Answer: Thomas Jefferson17

Question #4: Who, more than any other single person, is pictured in various locations throughout Capitol Hill?

Answer: Moses18

Question #5: Above the figure that represents Science in the Library of Congress, there is an inscription. What is that inscription?

Answer: Psalm 19:1 (The Heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament sheweth his handiwork [Psalm 19:1])

Question #6: Who stated the following: “… it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.” a) Billy Graham b) George Washington c) George W. Bush d) Charles Spurgeon

Answer: George Washington (proclamation October 3, 1789)

fdrQuestion #7: It was on April 22, 1864 that Congress resolved to institute the phrase, “In God We Trust” as our national motto. Where did they get that phrase from?

Answer: The third verse of our national anthem19:

Praise the Pow’r that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust”

The “separation of church and state” phrase can not be accurately utilized as a legal foundation upon which to build legislative mandates to remove Christian symbols from the marketplace. When one pauses long enough to objectively evaluate the whole of Jefferson’s political regard for Christianity, the collective disposition towards religion that belonged to his peer group and the esteem for Christ that characterized the people he governed, to arrive at such a conclusion is nothing less than an irresponsible interpretation of the facts.

"The Light of Truth" painting depicting truth slaying the dragon of ignorance. Four sets of cherubs are featured featuring the four elements of sound law: the square, the plumb, the level and the Bible.
“The Light of Truth” painting depicting truth slaying the dragon of ignorance. Four sets of cherubs are featured featuring the four elements of sound law: the square, the plumb, the level and the Bible.

Yet, regardless of substantive the argument may be – that the 1947 interpretation of Jefferson’s phrase was altogether wrong – there are other forces at play that make this debate more than just an intellectual joust.

The fact that no one balked when Washington so vigorously asserted a Christian dynamic in his farewell address or no one objected to Theodore Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson crafting the preface to the Bibles that were distributed to soldiers being deployed to Europe during WWI is because the religious tenor of nation as a whole was far more healthy.

The Light of Truth is a painting that’s featured on the ceiling of the Members of Congress Reading Room in the Jefferson building which was opened in 1897. The artist, Carl Gutherz, pictures four sets of cherubs to represent four tools that are needed to fashion law that is accurate and sound: the plumb, the square, the level and the Bible. The governmental patrons that commissioned the work of Gutherz were no more concerned about his art constituting a violation of the Establishment Cause then were the members of congress who took the time to read the words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt as they were reprinted on the inside cover of those Bibles that were distributed to servicemen during World War II. Again, America in the 1940’s is revealed as being a nation that was collectively embracing the Truth of God, rather than dismissing it as antiquated and limiting.

The fundamental essence of our corporate perspective on the First Amendment is defined by our national regard for Christ. It’s not a legal discussion only as much as it’s a reflection of who we are spiritually.

If we are to thrive and not just endure as a nation, it’s not a debate that needs to be won as much as it’s a revival that needs to occur. Traditionally, it’s only in times of crisis when our collective knees bow in worship and the indignation of those who want to remove Christian symbols from the marketplace is processed as an obstacle to the common good rather than a catalyst. If we are to enjoy the advantages that go along with being reverent without having to be alerted to our spiritual lethargy by something dramatic, then it’s only common sense to focus on what’s True and labor to influence those on the peripheral in that direction.

Again, it’s not our history that needs to be revisited, it’s our God that needs to be lifted up (Jn 12:32). Only then do our backgrounds and varying convictions blend together in a way that is Truly strong and enduring. Only then does our spiritual heritage come into focus in a way that is not tainted by a worldly desire to distance ourselves from the Author of our freedoms. Only then is our foundation set in the concrete that is truly American as opposed to the shifting sands of cultural whims and academic trends.

by

A Biblical Approach to Politics | Part V

Up to now, we’ve looked on how God does care about Politics and the best option, when it comes to choosing a particular candidate, is the one whose platform is most consistent with Biblical standards and has the resolve / ability to champion those ideals in a way that translates to some real results.

It’s not always easy to separate fact from fiction, however, when you’re trying to discern the capacity and the capabilities of a particular candidate when you’ve got a non-stop parade of commentators insisting that they have the most relevant information and to ignore it is to miss something crucial.

It’s here where it’s not enough to be smart, you’ve got to be wise and the Bible shows you how…

III) Keep Your Balance

John says that you tell who’s who and what’s what by looking to see which “spirits” are willing to acknowledge Jesus as Lord:

This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.    (1 Jn 4:2-3)

When attempting to discern the bottom line where a particular headline is concerned, while some commentators will make public their religious convictions, not everyone does. So, how do you navigate Politics? How do you establish some bottom lines where COVID-19 is concerned or “Black Lives Matter?”

Ecclesiastes 7:16-18 says this:

Do not be overrighteous, neither be overwise—why destroy yourself? 17 Do not be overwicked, and do not be a fool—why die before your time? 18 It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other. Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes. (Ecc 7:16-18)

This is where we get into the dynamic of what you allow into your inbox.

Consider the following:

Experts Doubt the Resurrection of Christ

 All of Israel is caught up in the rumors pertaining to the supposed resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, a religious and political criminal that was recently put to death. While some are insistent that he is, in fact, alive, there are many others who dismiss it as yet another attempt being made on the part of his followers to validate his claims that he was the Son of God. We sat down with several high ranking officials, both from the Jewish and the Roman institutions that championed what was a very difficult, yet just, decision to get their thoughts.

From the very beginning, the Nazarene who referred to himself as the Son of God, was a problem in the way he incited many Jews to question the Law and their own heritage. His exploits weren’t curious as much as they were damaging, though many of those who heard him speak were unaware of just how toxic his perspective was. Thankfully there were steady and committed hands ready to prevent his corrosive effect from spreading by publicly questioning him and revealing his true colors.

“We challenged him,” said Simon, one of our more prominent Pharisees. “We demanded that he validate his testimony concerning himself and he wasn’t able to do it. (John 6)”

“His illegitimacy is no secret,” says Reuben, an associate of Simon and with him while they were questioning Jesus. “His mother was a disgrace and to see him now trying to assert himself as being equal to Jehovah is not only ludicrous, it’s almost sad to see someone so desperate to cover up the scandalous and unlawful aspects of his birth. (Mk 6:3)”

Clavius, a familiar tribune who serves Rome and has been an advocate for our Jewish traditions on many occasions, has no trouble being critical of Jesus.

“I remember a servant who lived in the household of one of my centurions who was deathly ill,” said Clavius. “He asked the Christ to come and heal his servant and this Jesus, who is supposedly compassionate, never even came to his home. I remember hearing that and from that moment forward, I was convinced that he was a problem and a fraud. (Matt 8:5-13)”

Atticus is yet another distinguished Roman, having served in the Roman army for two decades and a veteran of many conflicts. He was one of the guards who were stationed at the site of the Christ’s tomb (Matt 27:62-65).

“It’s insane!” he said. “I’ve been around death more than once.  Jesus died. He’s dead. It might make you sad, but that doesn’t change the fact He’s gone. And I know what it is to grieve, but to see this rabble refuse to accept the death of their cause and their champion by inventing this ridiculous story that he ‘rose from the grave’ is nothing more than a crazy effort to not accept the fact that your Christ is no more, and you need to move on.”

When asked about the way in which the Pharisees were accusing the disciples of having stolen Christ’s body in order to give the appearance of Jesus having risen, Atticus said, “Your readers need to know that the disciples are lying! There is no resurrection. They broke the seal, they violated the sovereignty of Rome, they’re a stench among their own people…they’re insane! (Matt 28:11-15)”

Among those who insist that he rose is a former small business owner named Peter. As a fisherman, your fortunes are limited by default. Perhaps that’s why the prospect of becoming one of the Christ’s followers appealed to him to the point where he abandoned his craft and his family (Matt 8:14-18; 1 Cor 9:5). Maybe in the context of aligning yourself with someone who challenges the governing authorities could lead to a more prominent and financially sound position. Whatever his motivation was, his resolve to promote the fantasy of a risen “Messiah” is still very much intact.

“I’ve seen him!” said Peter. “I’m ashamed to admit that during his arraignment and trial, I denied even knowing him – I was that determined to put as much distance between myself and my former teacher as possible (Matt 26:73-75).”

“But that all changed when I saw him,” Peter said. “He’s alive and I’ll stake my life on it (Acts 4:18-19).”

Peter’s passion is admirable, but does that passion negate the testimony of hundreds of eye witnesses let alone the sworn statements coming from established and reputable Roman officials and Jewish authorities?

“There is something both healthy and beneficial in retreating from emotionally charged declarations and instead cling to the certainty of one’s spiritual heritage,” said Simon. “We obey the political authorities that God has instituted, and we revere the Law He gave to Moses. This is my stance and I hope it is one that our people will adopt as well.”

You can be honest without telling the truth. You can be ethical and still be sinister.

By emphasizing certain aspects of the story and casting a shadow of doubt on specific personalities, you can manipulate your readers’ perspective so they’re not only embracing the conclusion you would have them arrive at, but they’re also perceiving anyone who thinks differently as being either hateful or frightened.

In many cases, the dissemination of information is more about tactics than it is topics.

In the movie, “The Social Network,” there’s a scene where an attorney shows Mark Zuckerberg just how easy it can be to sway a jury without having to produce any evidence or even have a reason to doubt the answer to a particular question. But just by asking the question, you can distract from what’s relevant and initiate a thought process that’s willing to believe something despite the necessary evidence needed to validate it as being true being completely absent.

(Marilyn Deply [attorney]) I’ve been licensed to practice law for all of twenty months and I can get a jury to believe that you planted the story about Eduardo and the chicken. Watch what else: Why weren’t you at Sean’s sorority party that night?

(Mark Zuckerberg) You think I called the police?

(Marilyn Deply [attorney]) Doesn’t matter. I asked the question, now everybody’s thinking about it. You’ve lost your jury in the first 10 minutes.

What this scene demonstrates is the way in which your mind can be influenced to ignore what amounts to a comprehensive collection of the facts and instead focus on what is made to stand out as being the only logical bottom line.

And it’s not hard to do…

by

A Biblical Approach to Politics | Part IV

I) Intro

In “A Biblical Approach to Politics | Part I,” we looked how God cares about Politics and He expects us to be engaged. To not be informed makes knowing what to pray for virtually impossible and to ignore the character of those who govern is to invite the kind of corruption that makes the “people groan. (Prov 29:2, 4)”

In Part II we’re looking at the challenge we face when attempting to discern the character of those who aspire to leadership positions as well as the seemingly illusive bottom lines when it comes to current events. Bottom line: The Bible says to “test the spirits” and we need to apply that to what it is we allow into our inbox by popping the hood, keeping your balance and kicking the tires.

II) Pop the Hood

A) Wisdom vs Intelligence

Proverbs 9:13-18 says:

Folly is an unruly woman; she is simple and knows nothing. 14 She sits at the door of her house, on a seat at the highest point of the city, 15 calling out to those who pass by, who go straight on their way, 16 “Let all who are simple come to my house!” To those who have no sense she says, 17 “Stolen water is sweet; food eaten in secret is delicious!” 18 But little do they know that the dead are there, that her guests are deep in the realm of the dead. (Prov 9:13-18)

Compare that to Proverbs 1:20-23, 3:13-18:

Out in the open wisdom calls aloud, she raises her voice in the public square; 21 on top of the wall[a] she cries out, at the city gate she makes her speech: 22 “How long will you who are simple love your simple ways? How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge? 23 Repent at my rebuke! Then I will pour out my thoughts to you, I will make known to you my teachings… Blessed are those who find wisdom, those who gain understanding, 14 for she is more profitable than silver and yields better returns than gold. 15 She is more precious than rubies; nothing you desire can compare with her. 16 Long life is in her right hand; in her left hand are riches and honor. 17 Her ways are pleasant ways, and all her paths are peace. 18 She is a tree of life to those who take hold of her; those who hold her fast will be blessed. (Proverbs 1:20-23, 3:13-18)

What’s the difference between being wise and being smart?

What Do You Mean, “I Prosper…?”
The dollar amount on your paycheck is but one indicator of “prosperity.” Few people believe that they’re making “enough” money (Ecc 5:10), so from that standpoint, that’s a glass that is never completely full.
But when you’re being obedient and you’re walking in lock step with your King, your sense of purpose and fulfillment is now based on a scale that isn’t defined by dollar signs alone (Job 23:12; Prov 27:11; Matt 4:4; Jn 4:32:6:27; Phil 4:13) and the lasting peace and enduring happiness that can’t be achieved through any financial transaction or significant achievement is now yours in ever increasing measure (Matt 6:19-20; 2 Cor 3:18)

The dictionary defines wisdom as “…knowledge, and the capacity to make due use of it.”1 The Bible takes it a step further by saying that, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.” (Prov 9:10)

How does that work? How does an appropriate reverence for God translate to wisdom?

B) Give Thought to Your Ways

Apart from the way a fool will ultimately deny the Reality of God (Ps 14:1) and the need for God’s grace (Rev 20:15), you also have the practical side of wisdom to consider in that you’re like the tree referenced by David in Psalm 1 as far as how everything they do prospers (see sidebar).

And part of why they prosper is because they’re prudent and they give careful thought to their ways.

Proverbs 14:15 says:

The simple believe anything, but the prudent give thought to their steps. (Prov 14:15 [see also Prov 6:6-11; Matt 25:16])

Fact is, in light of our struggle always being defined in the context of a spiritual contest (Eph 6:12), “testing the spirits” like what Paul says in First Thessalonians is going to apply not only to points of doctrine, but to everything that we encounter as human beings (2 Cor 9:8):

20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21 but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22 reject every kind of evil. (1 Thess 5:21-22)

Finally, in 1 John 4:1 we hear John saying the same thing we just heard Paul mention:

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 Jn 4:1)

C) Every Bit of It

While listening to a cable news broadcast may seem like it falls under a different category than what John is referring to as far as “false prophets,” remember that however innocent or nondescript something may appear to be, consider what it says in Proverbs 24:

I went past the field of a sluggard, past the vineyard of someone who has no sense; 31 thorns had come up everywhere, the ground was covered with weeds, and the stone wall was in ruins. 32 I applied my heart to what I observed and learned a lesson from what I saw: 33 A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest—34 and poverty will come on you like a thief and scarcity like an armed man. (Prov 24:30-34)

You wouldn’t think Solomon, as wise and as powerful as he was, would’ve ever even considered betraying the One Who was the Source of his grandeur, but incremental compromises ultimately culminated in what you read in 1 Kings 11:5, as far as how his wives convinced him to worship Ashtoreth (ASH-toh-rith)  and Molech (MOH-lek) – Molech being the god who demanded that you burn your children alive in order to appease him.

It’s not something obsess over, but it is a healthy reminder to be diligent – not just in personal matters but even in the way you process the things that are going on around you.

Little compromises, incomplete information, a biased perspective – you want to pop the hood on every bit of it in order to ensure your convictions are sound and your steps are appropriately “ordered.” (Ps 37:23)

So, how does one “test the spirits?”

We’ll figure that one out tomorrow…!

by

A Biblical Approach to Politics | Part III

Welcome to Part III of a “Biblical Approach to Politics!”

This is the last part of the first section of our discussion. In Parts 1-3, we’re talking about whether or not God cares about Politics and how our success and tenure as a nation is possible because of the Scriptural foundation upon which our approach to government is built.

Still, some would like to suggest that our Founders were not especially godly men – that they were only token Christians. And then others want to say that because many were slave owners, that their perspective is therefore suspect and the system they created should therefore be discarded.

Today we address the issue of Slavery and to what extent that should influence our view of the things they accomplished.

Here we go!

E) Slave Owners

While it is not difficult to believe that the Founders based their approach to government on Christian principles, given their verbiage both public and private, it is nevertheless challenging to reconcile their perspective with the fact that many owned slaves.

While Slavery is by no means an American institution, the fact that it’s contrary to Scripture (Ex 21:16) and an inhumane practice in general, makes it easy to question the mindset of those delegates from the South that comprised the Second Continental Congress.

How do you process a document written and agreed upon by men, many of whom maintained a mindset that allowed for the enslavement of human beings? 

First of all, from a purely practical standpoint, we don’t evaluate the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence according to the character flaws of the men who wrote them. Rather, we evaluate them according to the substance of the documents themselves.

Secondly, many of those that owned slaves were the same ones who sacrificed their homes, their fortunes and, in some cases, their lives, to ensure a system of government that possessed the necessary tenants that would ultimately translate to the end of the slave trade.

Third, to align yourself with the Revolution, whether as a statesman or a soldier, you were committing treason against the crown. The punishment for that included:

  • That the offender be drawn to the gallows, and not be carried or walk: though usually (by connivance length ripened by humanity into law) a sledge or hurdle is allowed, to preserve the offender from the extreme torment of being dragged on the ground or pavement
  • That he be hanged by the neck and then cut down alive
  • That his entrails be taken out and burned, while he is yet alive
  • That his head be cut off
  • That his body be divided in four parts
  • That his head and quarters be at the king’s disposal7

This was the fate that loomed over the progress of the Revolution. Those that fought and served to win America’s independence did so risking everything. However flawed they were in the way they processed the sin of slavery doesn’t change the substance of their work. It’s that work that we honor, not just because of the sacrifices that were made which made it possible, but also because of how the biblically based freedoms those efforts established would go on to secure the liberties that timeframe denied to others.

The Signers of the Declaration:
What Did They Lose?

There’s a popular essay that is sometimes published during the fourth of July timeframe that details the sacrifices made by those who signed the Declaration of Independence. It’s inspiring to see what they risked and sobering to see what some actually lost. What’s both frustrating and disconcerting is the way some “fact checkers” seize upon some details of the essay and advance the impression that it’s more of a romantic exaggeration than it is anything else.

Anytime you exaggerate, you risk sacrificing the credibility of whatever point you’re trying to make. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were all remarkable men and displayed incredible courage by fixing their signatures to a document they knew could bring about their deaths. You don’t need to embellish the truth.

Click here to read more…

Historian Stephen E. Ambrose sums it beautifully in an article featured in “Smithsonian Magazine:”

Slavery and discrimination cloud our minds in the most extraordinary ways, including a blanket judgment today against American slave owners in the 18th and 19th centuries. That the masters should be judged as lacking in the scope of their minds and hearts is fair, indeed must be insisted upon, but that doesn’t mean we should judge the whole of them only by this part.8

F) Sin

Some of the most accomplished characters in Scripture were guilty of some truly despicable sins: David and his affair with Bathsheba and his subsequent murder of Uriah (1 Sam 11) and Paul, one of the more prolific writers of the New Testament, condoned the murder of Stephen and was an accessory to the persecution and imprisonment of perhaps hundreds of Christians (Acts 22:17-20).

While it’s tempting to place yourself in a category distinct from that kind of wrongdoing and be able to feel as though you appear more righteous in the sight of your Heavenly Father, you have to remember that all sin requires an attitude that is as heinous as it is universal.

In order to sin in any capacity, you have to walk up to God as He’s sitting on His Throne and tell Him to get out of your chair. Granted, some sins are unintentional (Num 15:27-31), but the vast majority of them are deliberate and all of it requires grace including everything from speeding (Rom 13:1-7) to overeating (Prov 23:20-21; 1 Cor 6:19-20).

The fact of the matter is anytime you’re looking at a believer, you’re looking at two worlds that are operating side by side simultaneously. While the power of sin has been destroyed (Rom 6:6), our capacity to sin remains (Rom 7:14-25). And the thing is, in the words of Paul, “…there is nothing good in me.” (Rom 7:18) Whatever good I’m able to do, it’s more because of God working in and through me (Ezr 1:5; 1 Cor 12:6; Phil 2:13) than it is me functioning according to a morally pure mindset.

This is why we can embrace the accomplishments of certain individuals despite them having significant sin in their lives. We can applaud the Activity of God in and through an individual without endorsing the depravity of that same person.

You don’t overlook wrongdoing (1 Cor 5:13), but you never want to become so preoccupied with the sin in others that you forget the way in which God uses both brand new gloves and filthy mitts to catch fly balls. We give God the credit because it’s Him doing the work and the fact that He uses sinners like you and me is a testament to His Grace and not our goodness.

And the same thing applies to unbelievers as well. However distant that person may be from God doesn’t change the fact that God can, and often does, use people who don’t honor Him to do His Work.

King Cyrus didn’t know or acknowledge God. For an orthodox Jew, that must’ve been a hard pill to swallow given the fact that Cyrus was not only a Gentile, but he was an idolater. Yet, God referred to him as “my shepherd” and it was through Cyrus’ administration that the Hebrews were able to rebuild their capital city (Ezr 1:2-4; Is 44:28; 45:5).

The example of Cyrus demonstrates that a leader can be a heathen and still be worthy of your support because of the way their platform promotes and protects the work of God. So the question isn’t, “How can I support someone who doesn’t acknowledge God?” The question is, “Whose platform is most aligned with that which promotes and protects our nation’s spiritual wellbeing?” Or, another question which better accommodates the whole of Scripture as opposed to those passages that restrict God’s usage of individuals to those that honor Him would be, “Would you have voted for King Cyrus?”

III) Conclusion (Part I)

God cares about Politics.

He facilitates governments and He uses our involvement and prayers to accomplish His Purposes.

Our nation is founded on Christian Principles that come from the Word of God. Our Founders were not masquerading as pious human beings when they cited Divine Absolutes as the basis for their declaration to King George. Anything less than the Substance of Scripture would’ve reduced our cause to nothing more than a complaint and it’s those same Truths that guarantee our continued success and serve as the basis for the way in which we choose our elected officials.

The thing is, God does care about Politics because it’s not just “politics.” It’s either His Purposes or man’s rebellion being played out in the context of legislation and foreign policy.

God cares about Politics.

To read “A Biblical Approach to Politics | Part II,” click here…

1. “John Adams to Thomas Jefferson 28 June 1813”, “Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-06-02-0208#:~:text=The%20general%20Principles%2C%20on%20which,by%20me%20in%20my%20Answer, accessed February 2, 2022
2. “The Writings of Samuel Adams”, Harry Alonzo Cushing, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, London, 1908, p189
3. “From John Adams to Massachusetts Militia, 11 October 1798”, “Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3102, accessed February 2, 2022
4. “Transcript of President George Washington’s Farewell Address (1796)”, ourdocuments.gov, https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=15&page=transcript, accessed January 31, 2022
5. Alice M. Baldwin, The New England Clergy and the American Revolution (New York: Frederick Ungar, 1958), p. 170
6. Douglass Adair and John A. Schutz, eds., Peter Oliver’s Origin and Progress of the American Rebellion (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1961), p. 41; Paul Johnson, A History of the American People (New York: HarperCollins, 1997), p. 173; John Leach, “A Journal Kept by John Leach, During His Confinement by the British, In Boston Gaol, in 1775,” The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, Vol.19 (1865), p. 256
7. Blackstone, Wm., Knight. Chase, George, ed. Chase’s Blackstone Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Books. New York: Baker, Voorhis & Co., 1936, p891
8. “Founding Fathers and Slaveholders”, Stephen E. Ambrose, “Smithsonian Magazine”, November 2002, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/founding-fathers-and-slaveholders-72262393/, accessed February 2, 2022

Excellent Reading: “Did America Have a Christian Founding” Mark David Hall

by - 2 Comments

A Biblical Approach to Politics | Part II

Yesterday in Part I we concluded by saying that there’s only two religions in the world: Either God is God or man is.

Every religion, with the exception of Christianity, empowers the individual with the ability to facilitate his own salvation. Christianity is the only religion that says the only thing you contribute to your salvation is the sin that made it necessary.

When you pull back the curtain on this one central idea, you see the subtle supernatural dynamic being bestowed upon the individual. The fact that you can do something or abstain from something to merit heaven qualifies you, to a certain extent, as being divine…

Sound familiar?

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Gen 3:4-5)

 Kind of makes sense now, doesn’t it.

When you pull back the curtain and see how Christianity is the only authentic religion in that it’s based solely on the grace of God rather than a human being attempting to be a god, you can understand why it resonates as a stronger option in the mind of the person who recognizes the frailty of his human condition and the veiled attempt on the part of other creeds to position man as his own deity.

Moving on to Part II…!

C) The General Principles of Christianity

You can also see why from a purely logical point of view that only the Absolute Power and Perspective represented by the Word of God would suffice in providing the philosophical strength the Founders needed in order to refute a monarchy and create a republic.

John Adams said it best:

The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which, that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities Sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.1

This is why the best option, when reviewing different candidates for office, is going to be the one whose policies are most consistent with Scripture.

However you may personally disagree with that premise, the verbiage of the Declaration as well as the documented comments of the early patriots demonstrates conclusively that the novel political ideas they dared to assert were not based on human preferences as much as they were Divine Guidance (see “Divine Guidance” on sidebar). And while they celebrated the Goodness of God’s Providence in the context of our nation’s initial declaration and the creation of the new Constitution, they were just as vocal in declaring that our future welfare was a certainty only if it was based on the same Resource.

Samuel Adams had this to say:

May every citizen in the army and in the country have a proper sense of the Deity upon his mind and an impression of that declaration recorded in the Bible: “Him that honoreth Me I will honor, but he that despiseth Me shall be lightly esteemed” [1 Samuel 2:30]. 2

John Adams mirrors his cousin, Samuel Adams:

…We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (John Adams)3

George Washington leaves no doubt as to his perspective on religious piety and political prosperity:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.4

Christianity or Deism?

Regardless of the volumes of correspondence and documentation that demonstrates the Founders had  a decidedly Christian approach to themselves and the world around them, there is a determined effort on the part of some historians to either eliminate a Biblical influence on the minds of those who crafted our country’s governments entirely, or dilute it with the claim that many of our forefathers were Deists.

Deism rejects the Resurrection of Christ. So, from that standpoint, Deism is nothing more than a human philosophy because if Christ is not revered as God Incarnate, then you’re not accepting God’s Word as Absolute Truth and you’re positioning human reason over Divine Revelation.

By reducing the Founders’ regard for the Son of God to a noble teacher, the resulting perspective on the Founders’ view of Christ…

Click here to read more…

“In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.” Washington’s words capture the spiritual and political direction that needs to be central to the platform of anyone who aspires to public office because it’s that foundation alone that guarantees a successful administration.

D) They Weren’t Really Christians…

Some will want to insist that a Christian worldview is a needless and ignorant basis for the selection of our national leaders. They will assert the 18th popularity of Deism as a means to minimize the way in which Scripture served both as a Resource and as a Guide in the formulation of our government (see “Christianity or Deism” on sidebar).  In other instances, they’ll take statements made by those like John Adams out of context and attempt to turn them into comments that prove he didn’t perceive Christianity as the fundamental foundation for our country’s government that it is (see “The God Delusion vs The God Conclusion | Part One – FIT“).

The fact is, when you consider the spiritual fabric of our nation’s initial colonization and the way in which Christianity was such a prominent cultural fixture during the time of the Revolution, any effort to try and dismiss or qualify the fact that our country is based on Christian principles borders on the absurd.

Perhaps one of the more compelling proofs of our country’s collective regard for the application of Scripture to the cause of liberty comes from the battlefield (read the story of Major General Peter Muhlenberg by clicking here).

The “Black Robe Regiment” was the name the British troops gave the clergy who supported the Revolution from behind their pulpits with their Bibles and in combat with their rifles.

Historians have commented that:

There is not a right asserted in the Declaration of Independence which had not been discussed by the New England clergy before 1763.5

British soldiers went as far as saying blaming Christianity for the Revolution:

The influence of the Reformed political tradition in the Founding era is manifested in a variety of ways, but particularly noteworthy is the almost unanimous support Calvinist clergy offered to American patriots. This was noticed by the other side, as suggested by the Loyalist Peter Oliver, who railed against the “black Regiment, the dissenting Clergy, who took so active a part in the Rebellion.” King George himself reportedly referred to the War for Independence as “a Presbyterian Rebellion.” From the English perspective, British Major Harry Rooke was largely correct when he confiscated a presumably Calvinist book from an American prisoner and remarked that “[i]t is your G-d Damned Religion of this Country that ruins the Country; Damn your religion.”6

Tomorrow we hit Part III!

by

A Biblical Approach to Politics | Part I

Being a guest on daveolsson.com is always a treat and I’m always flattered when Dave asks! Having a chance to converse with like-minded people and hopefully provide some biblically based food for thought is always a motivating prospect so, thank you, Dave!

For the next several days we’re going to be looking at a “Biblical Approach to Politics.” There’s a convention out there that says you risk compromising the needed rapport with a person to talk about spiritual matters when you introduce the topic of Politics.

But to say that “God doesn’t care about Politics” is a short-sighted perspective when you consider some of the verses we’re about to explore. Granted, God cares far more about your relationship with Him than the way you vote. But He’s the One Who facilitates governments (Dan 2:21) and He expects us to be aware and to be engaged ((1 Chron 12:32; 1 Tim 2:2). So in light of those Truths, we can base our approach to Politics and Current Events on more than a casual / hesitant demeanor and instead meet it head on with confidence and the boldness that comes from knowing that there is a Truth that can be relied on and therefore a bottom line that justifies a bold contribution to the dialogue that can and will make a difference.

Are you ready?

Buckle up!

Despite the fact that Donald Trump was defeated in the 2020 Election, his opponents continue to attack his character, minimize his accomplishments and question the sanity / morality of anyone who would support him. To some extent, you can’t help but wonder why? If he’s no longer in office, than there’s no reason to be concerned that his policies will make their way into the public sphere given the fact that he’s no longer in a position of authority.

But there’s more to Trump than just him being a political figure. He represents a different approach to politics that makes some very uneasy because of the way it reveals the lack of ethics and efficiency typical of big government and the Liberal perspective in general.

Ultimately, Trump’s platform translates to a result that’s very difficult to argue with, given the way it serves our country’s best interests. But that doesn’t change the fact that those who dislike him are especially passionate in their disdain and an intelligent conversation can be a real challenge because of the way they’re conditioned to perceive Trump as evil along with anyone who would come to his defense.

And it’s not just Liberals.

You’ve got Conservative Christians who either refuse to vote or assert a different name on the ballot because they’re so convinced Trump represents the kind of immorality that they simply can’t support.

So, why Trump?

Why would anyone support Donald J. Trump?

 Executive Summary

We’re going to break this down into several sections because there’s more to this than just an affinity for a particular political party.

 I) God & Politics

To say that God doesn’t care about Politics is to ignore the fact that He’s the One Who facilitates all governments to begin with. And while that’s obviously a nonsensical disposition, you also have the false premise that says that God doesn’t care about the laws of a nation and how they either promote what strengthens an individual or tears them down (Prov 28:2-3, 28; 29:2, 4). He does care and He expects His people to be engaged (1 Chron 12:32; 1 Tim 2:2).

 II) Your Best Option

The candidate that represents the most qualified to lead is the one who champions the approach that is most consistent with the foundation laid by the ones who defeated the most powerful empire in the world and established a system of government that, up to that point, was completely unheard of in the way it established the individual as the one who had the right to choose how they wanted to be governed and the extent to which they wanted to succeed (Ps 33:12).

 III) Who is Your Source?

Over the course of the last several decades, Journalism has become more of thermostat than a thermometer and you need to be wise in the way you process information coming from those who are vying for a position in your inbox.

 IV) Trees and Policies

Christ said you’ll know a tree by it’s fruit (Lk 6:44). However Trump is made to appear in the headlines, it is his policies that need to be evaluated in order to determine the substance of his platform and not just the commentary crafted by those who have a problem with his personality or his past.

I) God and Politics

A) God Cares

Some will insist that God doesn’t care about Politics. Because it doesn’t directly impact a person’s soul and the fact that it can be a very divisive issue to the point where a conversation about Christ becomes difficult due to the way in which political topics can poison a dialogue, the tendency is to avoid it altogether and believe that God is basically indifferent to who gets elected and what goes on in the halls of government. That’s absurd. First of all, it’s God Who establishes kings and those who are in positions of authority (Dan 2:21; Rom 13:1-2; 1 Pet 2:13). So, to say that He’s not concerned is to ignore the fact that He’s the One Who facilitates governments to begin with.

B) God’s Side

Some Christian communicators cite the answer given to Joshua by an imposing figure standing near Jericho just prior to the Israelites marching around the city as evidence that God does not take sides…

13 Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, “Are you for us or for our enemies?”

14 “Neither,” he replied, “but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come.” Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, “What message does my Lord[a] have for his servant?”

15 The commander of the Lord’s army replied, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so. (Josh 5:13-15)

God’s Sovereignty & Man’s Responsibility

If God is Sovereign, what’s the point of voting? If He’s the One Who, “…removes kings and establishes kings” (Dan 2:21), what part, if any, does the Electoral College play in legitimately “selecting” a President if God’s already made His Choice? The world is not a runaway train travelling out of control with nothing other than the forces of chance acting upon it. God is in control and you see that it in Isaiah:

I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.’ (Is 46:10)

You, yourself, are designed with a Purpose and a Plan that was put in place before you were born…

Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. (Ps 139:16)

Click here to read more…

The fact that the man replied by saying that he was neither on the side of the Israelites nor the Canaanites was not indicative of God being neutral and detached from the situation. The fact that it was God working through the Israelites that resulted in the successful siege of Jericho demonstrates that God was obviously invested in seeing the city destroyed. The point that was being made is that we don’t need to be asking whether or not God is on our side as much as we need to ensure that we are on God’s side and operating according to His Instructions and overall Purpose.

C) Why Bother?

But even if you’re on God’s side, do we need to be concerned about voting or even paying attention to the news if God’s Purpose is going to be accomplished regardless of our involvement? You could ask the same question about salvation, given the fact that those who are born again were predestined to be saved (Rom 8:29), yet we are to witness and Paul makes the Divinely inspired observation that you can’t expect someone to hear and understand the gospel unless someone preaches to them (Rom 10:14-15). The fact is, God has set things up in such a way where His Sovereignty exists alongside our responsibility – both are true simultaneously (see “God’s Sovereignty & Man’s Responsibility” on sidebar). Emphasizing one over the other invariably leads to disobedience and we are commanded to pray for those who are in positions of authority (1 Tim 2:1-3). The fact that our prayers are referenced as an act that makes a difference reinforces the idea that our involvement is both mandated and effective.

II) Your Best Option

A) The Template That Works

The key to political success is to model our approach according to the template used by our Founding Fathers who were able to defeat the world’s most powerful empire and to establish a system of government that, at the time, was completely unheard of. It’s that template that has allowed our country to flourish and it’s more than just political theory as much as it’s an ideological paradigm that serves as our legislative foundation. Those ideals go beyond human preferences or sensible philosophical options and it’s because they’re rooted in a transcendent Absolute that they can be asserted as functional bottom lines. The best qualified candidates for political office are those that possess the talent and the mindset that best facilitate those bottom lines – not just because they’re consistent with a successful history, but because of the way they’re based on Something that transcends human opinion and therefore avoids all of the corruption that characterizes the human condition. You can see that transcendent Absolute clearly defined in the Declaration of Independence. When we submitted that document to King George, we were saying that it’s because that God has created all men to be equal (Gal 3:28) that the individual has the right to choose how they want to be governed and the extent to which they want to succeed. It’s because it was a Divine Truth that we could logically point to as that which substantiated our claim, we weren’t just filing a complaint, we were making a point. Yes, there were other brilliant political philosophers, such as John Locke, that had contributed to the collective mindset represented by the Second Continental Congress, but ultimately it was a collection of references to God that was cited as the basis for our reasoning and not the names of several respected thinkers. This is why a candidate’s platform is so important. However noble or approachable they may appear, if their goal is to implement a worldview that runs contrary to our spiritual foundation, they invoke a doctrine that inevitably positions man as his own moral authority and the state as its own religion.

B) There’s Only Two Religions

While that may sound overly simplistic, the fact is there are only two religions in the world: Either God is God or man is God. Every religion save Christianity provides a way in which you can merit the favor of your preferred deity. With Islam you’ve got Jihad, as a Buddhist you’ve got Nirvana. Jehovah’s Witnesses strive to be among the 144,000 referenced in Revelation 7:4, Hindus pursue Moksha (MOKE-shah) in order to be liberated from the cycle of death and rebirth. Mormons believe that they themselves can attain the status of gods in the afterlife through their works here on earth (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345–354). In each scenario, while you have a supernatural element, you have the ability as a human being to tip the scales in your favor through some kind of action or mindset. Christianity, on the other hand, says that you are a spiritual corpse (Eph 2:1). You are dead in your sin and you have no option available to you that can offset your default status as a sinner that is permanently and irretrievably separated from God (Ps 14:3; Is 64:6). That’s what makes Christianity distinct from every other religious school of thought – you are utterly destitute apart from some kind of miracle that can somehow transform you in the eyes of God from being sinful to sinless. And that miracle is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

See you tomorrow for Part II!

by

Don’t Judge!

“Don’t judge!” is a statement that’s heard fairly often when the issue being discussed is a person’s moral behavior. If the individual in question is acting in a manner that violates a Biblical Absolute, however obvious the discrepancy may be, it is trumped with the “Don’t judge” card and the conversation is supposedly concluded.

If the response is challenged, the person saying that they shouldn’t be judged will say that it says in the Bible you’re not supposed to judge and, whether they know it or not, they’re referring to Matthew 7:

1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:1-5 [see also Rom 2:1-29])

But here’s the thing: There’s far more content in this passage than what is reflected by the supposed synopsis represented by the statement, “Don’t judge!” If you stop there, then the end result is a situation where there is no distinguishing between right and wrong, justice goes out the window because there is no crime and there is no difference between that which is honorable and that which is criminal.

But what happens when you take a look at Matthew 7:1-5 the way a reporter might look at it?

  • Who is Jesus talking to?
  • What is He telling them?
  • How does it apply to you and me?

Chances are there’s more to what Christ was saying when you consider those dynamics, yes?

Let’s take a look…

Who Is Jesus Talking To?

Matthew 7 is part of the Sermon on the Mount which begins in chapter 5. In Matthew 5:1, it says that by this point Jesus was well known and crowds would often gather to hear Him teach (see Matt 4:25). He was a dynamic teacher and that coupled with the fact that He was capable of healing people with incurable diseases made Him a phenomenon that drew large groups of people wherever He went.

The makeup of the crowd was primarily Jewish which can be inferred from the geography of the situation. After Christ was tempted, you see Him frequenting the area around the Sea of Galilee where He selected some of His disciples. In Matthew 4:23, it says that He preached and taught throughout Galilee, although His fame spread as far north as Syria and the Decapolis (a group of 10 cities area south of Galilee and east of the Jordan River).

The composition of the crowd is significant because in Matthew 9:36, it says that Jesus was filled with compassion when He looked over the crowds because, in addition to the obvious physical needs, He saw a group of people that were spiritually haggard. Matthew Henry in his commentary elaborates on this:

They wanted help for their souls, and had none at hand that was good for any thing. The scribes and Pharisees filled them with vain notions, burthened them with the traditions of the elders, deluded them into many mistakes, while they were not instructed in their duty, nor acquainted with the extent and spiritual nature of the divine law; therefore they fainted; for what spiritual health, and life, and vigour can there be in those souls, that are fed with husks and ashes, instead of the bread of life? (Matthew Henry Commentary [Matt 9:36])

The Jews that gathered to hear Jesus speak were living in a culture that was constantly reminding them of not being able to live up to the standard of God’s Law. The Pharisees were especially adamant and relentless when it came to telling the people that they were way south of the standard that God expected them to live up to. And what made that so heinous was the fact that the Pharisees themselves were hypocrites in that they were unable to live up to the standard that they were using as a basis to condemn others.

What Is Jesus telling them?

When Christ taught, while He taught on a great many things, the centerpiece of His Message was the idea of a new approach to God that was infinitely easier than what man had access to at that time (see Matt 11:30). The Hebrews that Jesus spoke to were aware of a Promise that had been articulated by the prophets centuries earlier, but were unaware of what that Promise would look like. While they were conscious of some specifics, by the time Jesus arrived on the scene, the presence of the Romans coupled with the previous centuries of foreign oppression had most Hebrews looking for a military figure that would overthrow the current government.

But God had something much bigger in mind.

The Promise of the Messiah provided deliverance from the power of sin and the way in which it governed the lives and destinies of men.

“This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 34No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.” (Jer 31:33-34)

When Jesus taught, He used Old Testament verbiage in order to communicate to the Jews the substance of what He was saying. When He said that His yoke was easy and that you would find rest for your souls in Matthew 11:28-30, the Jews heard Jeremiah 6:16. In that moment, they were processing Christ’s platform, not as a poetic collection of words, they heard Jesus stating His being the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy!

This “new covenant” was referenced by Jesus at the Last Supper when He presided over the Passover Ceremony and referred to the cup as the “new covenant in my blood (see Luke 22:20).” What He was saying was that His death and subsequent resurrection would atone for the sins of all mankind and thereby forever eliminate the barrier that would otherwise remain in place – a barrier that was only temporarily removed through the old sacrificial system.

It was in the context of this old system that the Pharisees were forever pointing fingers and accusing their communities of wrongdoing while they were guilty of the very same things. And it was this kind hypocrisy that Jesus was addressing in Matthew 7.

But while the Pharisees were guilty of hypocrisy in the way they indicted others for moral infractions that they were guilty of themselves, it wasn’t only the Pharisees that needed to hear Christ’s counsel. We all need to remember that while we are admonished to graciously confront those who are doing wrong, we need to ensure that our corrections are credible by not having to veil the fact that we’re doing the very thing we’re trying to tell someone they shouldn’t be doing.

That’s the first qualifier: Don’t be a hypocrite.

The second thing that He is saying is more easily recognizable when you look at way “The Message” renders the same passage:

Don’t pick on people, jump on their failures, criticize their faults— unless, of course, you want the same treatment. That critical spirit has a way of boomeranging. It’s easy to see a smudge on your neighbor’s face and be oblivious to the ugly sneer on your own. Do you have the nerve to say, ‘Let me wash your face for you,’ when your own face is distorted by contempt? It’s this whole traveling road- show mentality all over again, playing a holier-than-thou part instead of just living your part. Wipe that ugly sneer off your own face, and you might be fit to offer a washcloth to your neighbor. (Matthew 7:1-5 [The Message])

In addition to the issue of hypocrisy is the issue of your tone. Eugene Peterson refers to it as a “critical spirit.”

You see the same thing being addressed in Romans 14:10-12:

So where does that leave you when you criticize a brother? And where does that leave you when you condescend to a sister? I’d say it leaves you looking pretty silly—or worse. Eventually, we’re all going to end up kneeling side by side in the place of judgment, facing God. Your critical and condescending ways aren’t going to improve your position there one bit. Read it for yourself in Scripture:  “As I live and breathe,” God says, “every knee will bow before me; Every tongue will tell the honest truth that I and only I am God.” So tend to your knitting. You’ve got your hands full just taking care of your own life before God. (Romans 14:10-12 [The Message])

The bottom line is that we’re all going to be evaluated by God Himself and at that point, no one will be revealed as blameless. So for anyone to have an attitude that says, “I’ve got it all together and the rest of y’all are just trying to catch up!” is neither appropriate let alone accurate.

How Does This Apply to You and Me?

As has already been alluded to, what Jesus was telling His audience applies to you and me as well. Don’t be hypocritical and don’t be a condescending jerk. Both of those dynamics create tension that distracts from the resolution that needs to be pursued. In addition, they also reflect poorly on the God you supposedly represent (see Matt 5:16; Jn 13:34-35).

But here’s the thing: While Jesus is saying to avoid hypocrisy and a foul attitude, He is not saying to refrain from being discerning when it comes to distinguishing the difference between right and wrong.

For example, take Luke 17:3 where it says:

“If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.” (Luke 17:3)

In order for your brother’s conduct to register as sin, you have to define it as such. Jesus elaborates on the importance of confronting your brother where his sin is concerned in Matthew 18:15. What’s significant about that text is the fact that it follows the parable of the lost sheep. What’s being communicated here and throughout the Bible is that when you confront someone about something they’ve done wrong, the goal is to encourage them in a way that gets them back on track. Merely condemning their behavior, while that may be necessary, is short of what God wants and expects. Being critical is not necessarily helpful and that’s what Christ is targeting with His comments in Matthew 7. Rebuking someone is ultimately part of a process that is to culminate in that person repenting, avoiding all of the fallout from what their behavior would otherwise have precipitated, and getting on with a morally solid lifestyle.

In other words, the idea is to help and not harm.

That’s why it’s important to follow the steps the Jesus enumerates in Matthew 18 as far as going to your brother privately first, and then with a couple of witnesses and then finally you bring him before the church. At each step, the intervention that is occurring is done in a way that fosters a positive response.

Some won’t listen and will be antagonistic no matter how gracious you may be. It’s then when you have to determine whether or not your brother is open to the Truth and if not, Matthew 7:6 instructs you to not throw your pearls to swine who can’t appreciate it. But that doesn’t mean you give up, you just switch tactics.

You see that illustrated in First Corinthians 5 where the Corinthian church is instructed by Paul to expel a particular believer from the church because of his immoral conduct. It’s not unreasonable to imagine this individual accused the church of being “judgmental,” but this scenario demonstrates the very thing we’re discussing as far as Christ’s instructions in Matthew 7 were never intended to be interpreted as a command to not judge.

You have to judge as part of the process that corrects wrong behavior. In First Corinthians 5, the person is being kicked out of the church because of their apparent refusal to cease their immoral conduct. In Second Corinthians 2:5-11, you see Paul counseling the same church to reaffirm their love for a person who’s been recently disciplined. It may very well be the same person that was documented in First Corinthians 5. But regardless, it shows that wrongful behavior is to be identified and the guilty party is to be disciplined, but always with the goal of restoring that person to a place where they’re honoring God and by so doing, avoiding all of the hurt and damage that goes along with bad behavior.

The Bottom Line – Reprove and Improve

Judging a person is both necessary and helpful when done in a truly Biblical way. The difference between the kind of judging that Jesus refers to in Matthew 7 and the judging that culminated in the happy ending in 2 Corinthians 2 is accomplished by avoiding hypocrisy and maintaining a Christ like attitude.

There’s a word that captures the kind of judging that brings about a good result. That result is “reprove.” You see in 2 Timothy 4:2:

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. 2 Tim 4:2 [KJV])

Merriam-Webster defines “reprove” as “to scold or correct usually gently or with kindly intent.” So the motivation behind a reproof is to improve the condition of the person you’re talking to.

The definition of, “reprove” is “to scold or correct usually gently or with kindly intent.” It’s significant that you find the word “reprove” throughout Scripture and the liberality with which it is used further reinforces the need to correct and the and the necessary approach in order to ensure that the correction lands in a good place.

Consider another place where the word “reprove” is used in Ephesians 5:11:

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (Eph 5:11)

Look at Matthew Henry’s Commentary on this verse:

There are many ways of our being accessary to the sins of others, by commendation, counsel, consent, or concealment. And, if we share with others in their sin, we must expect to share with them in their plagues. Nay, if we thus have fellowship with them, we shall be in the utmost danger of acting as they do ere long. But, rather than have fellowship with them, we must reprove them, implying that if we do not reprove the sins of others we have fellowship with them. We must prudently and in our places witness against the sins of others, and endeavour to convince them of their sinfulness, when we can do it seasonably and pertinently, in our words; but especially by the holiness of our lives, and a religious conversation. Reprove their sins by abounding in the contrary duties.(Matthew Henry Commentary on Ephesians 5:11)

The first highlighted sentence shows how you actually add to the problem by condemning them, as in the kind of judging we’ve been looking at in Matthew 7. Counseling, consent and concealment can all conceivably fit beneath the heading of “fellowship,” so you don’t want to go there either. You don’t want to have any part of those things that brings somebody down, rather you want to “reprove” them effectively by first off ensuring that our own behavior is devoid of the discrepancy we’re pointing out and then address our audience in a way that makes it clear that our priority is their welfare.

Look at Galatians 6:1:

Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. (Gal 6:1 [ESV])

11 Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. 12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you— who are you to judge your neighbor? (Jas 4:11-12)

In order to restore somebody, you first need to establish that they need to be restored which inevitably is going to involve telling them that they’re wrong in what they’re doing. It’s not being judgmental, like what Christ elaborated on in Matthew 7, provided you’re not guilty of hypocrisy or an inappropriately critical attitude.

It’s much like seeing a friend yours driving down the road doing 90 in a 35. You call them on their cell phone and you tell them, “Be careful! You’re speeding and somebody might get hurt.” That works! What doesn’t work is when you call them on their cell as you’re speeding past them telling them they shouldn’t speed and you’re going to give them a ticket.

First off, you’re not the one to give them a ticket, which is the dynamic being referred to in James 4:11- 12. The fact that you’re actually faster than they are, as you’re telling them they should slow down, is the hypocrisy piece referred to by Jesus in Matthew 7:4-5. Should your tone of voice be condescending and overly critical, that’s the nonsense Paul talks about in Romans 14:10-11.

So don’t judge in the context of being hypocritical or posing as the Magistrate that issues the actual ticket. But do embrace those opportunities that God gives you to come alongside someone and help them recognize the error of their ways.

Look at James 5:20:

20 remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins. (Jas 5:20)

That’s what we’re going for: The wellbeing of the person we’re correcting, both in a temporary and an eternal sense.

So do judge (Jn 7:24), as far as exercising your God given responsibility to look out for the welfare of others, but don’t judge in a way that comes across as hypocritical and condescending. And remember that your goal is to draw them closer to Christ, not to merely point out the error of their ways. By making that your starting point and your goal, you are then offering a reproof rather than what is perceived as a condemnation and that reflects well both on you and the One you serve.

by

American Concrete

However sound your reasoning may be when it comes to conversations pertaining to politics and culture, inevitably it goes back to a comment that John Adams made when he said, “Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

He was right.

The Rule of Law and Moral Absolutes have no substance if your philosophical paradigm is based on the notion that you are your own bottom line. In that light, however effective we may labor to be, as far as being knowledgeable and articulate when it comes to championing the Conservative Christian mindset in the context of current events, our primary duty and our most effective strategy is to pray according to 2 Chronicles 7:14.

Maintaining the idea that sin is “private,” is a misnomer. You can think of it as the flow of traffic.

When Adam and Eve chose to take a bite of that apple, they tapped their brakes and everyone behind them was compelled to slow down (Rom 5:12). If a couple chooses to live together rather than getting married, they affect the perspective of those who observe what they see on the surface and adopt a potentially unhealthy regard for the problems represented by “playing house” rather than building one (Matt 7:24; 1 Cor 6:18). And when you get into behaviors such as adultery and homosexuality, at that point, you’re not just tapping the brakes, you’re holding them down, traffic gets seriously backed up and the collective result is a breakdown of the family and ultimately society in general.

We are all the sum total of our education and life experiences. Every bit of that occurred within an environment that either provided a rock solid foundation upon which we were allowed to grow and flourish, or an unstable base that fostered uncertainty and failure.

Sexual infractions are not merely rebellious targets of pleasure. They devour the strength and the integrity of what a family is and how it’s supposed to function according to God’s Design.

The more deterioration the institution of the family is subjected to, the more damage is being done to people who may look fine on the surface, but are dealing with some gaping holes in their psychological and spiritual makeup.

And the ramifications are dramatic.

But it’s not just, “sex.” It’s sin in general. Even lying can have a mammoth impact. The Watergate Scandal started off as a single lie that had to be covered up with more and more deceit until it finally erupted into a national scandal that resulted in many doubting the integrity of institutions that, up to that point, were considered trustworthy.

Watergate changed our culture and it introduced a level of cynicism that continues to this day.

Sin is not a private matter. It affects those around you just like the way you affect the flow of traffic on a busy road with the way you drive.

And the results can be disastrous.

I see on various websites rhetorical questions coming from Liberals asking how anyone could support President Trump or why someone would question the validity of the Socialist approach to government?

I’ve seen on social media websites a myriad of threads commenting on Homosexuality and other behaviors that are specifically labeled by God as utterly toxic, saying that these lifestyles are justified by a person’s right to be happy and regardless of how you feel, if their behavior is not directly affecting you, than what business is it of yours?

These topics are not merely “moral” or “political” in a general sense. If your perspective on a particular issue runs contrary to what God has expressly documented in His Word, than you’re contesting God Himself and not just the School Board or the Supreme Court. In other words, many of the personalities you encounter who proudly fly the flag of liberal convictions are philosophically invested in a platform that maintains mankind as his own absolute which makes this a spiritual battle and not a mere debate.

That doesn’t mean every Republican is always right and every Democrat is always wrong. Nor does it mean that Trump is a saint and Biden is a reprobate. What it does mean is that you have to kick the tires and determine whether or not God has a particular take on the issue at hand and support those whose platform is consistent with Biblical Absolutes and be ready to explain, not just the theological merits of the direction you’re advocating, but the practical benefits as well (1 Pet 3:15).

And you don’t want to be fixated on just “winning” the argument as much as you want to be promoting what’s True.

The biggest problem with our country right now is not how we’re “divided” or “domestic terrorism.” Our biggest obstacle is our failure to take sin seriously.

But here’s the kicker…

You can’t expect to significantly influence those who approach themselves and the world around them who maintain an indifferent attitude towards the empty tomb (2 Cor 4:4). If the issue bleeds into a spiritual sphere (which it inevitably does [Eph 6:12]), than while you do have the responsibility of being aware and accurate (1 Chron 12:32), in order to be effective, you’re going to need some Holy Ghost Rocket Sauce if you’re going to make a difference and not just an appearance (Prov 25:11; Is 55:10-11; Matt 10:20).

And while the Bible may or may not resonate as an objective Authority in the mind of your audience, you can point to our nation’s heritage as it’s documented in our national archives and imprinted in our capitol’s architecture.

Here is a portion of “American Concrete…“

When it comes to the topic of our nation’s Christian heritage, you have two main schools of thought:

  • The liberal mindset that insists our forefathers viewed religion as something to be negotiated as an administrative duty
  • The Conservative Christian platform that maintains an aggressive acknowledgement and pursuit of God’s Assistance characterized the collective perspective of the founding fathers

Much of the controversy stems from a ruling given by the Supreme Court in 1947 and the way they interpreted a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut in 1802. They declared that Jefferson’s usage of the term “the separation of church and state” constituted “the authoritative declaration of the scope and effect” of the First Amendment.1 Since then, that ruling has become the standard by which all public expressions of religious convictions have been measured, leading to an ever increasing limitation being put on the acknowledgement of God in governmental agencies as well as an ever lengthening shadow of doubt being cast on our nation’s religious heritage.

The debate is, at times, passionate and you’ve got buffoons on both sides of the aisle. The venom and the inaccuracies can culminate in a spectacle that can make it difficult to know which argument is correct.  But there is a bottom line that transcends the way in which a solitary statement can be potentially dissected to the point where its meaning becomes illusive. That bottom line is to consider, not only the comment that was made, but also:

  • the context of that comment
  • the character of the person speaking
  • the cultural backdrop that made what that person said both relevant and influential

In other words, rather than just scrutinizing what was said, look at also why it was said, to whom was the person speaking and who was it that made the comment. At that point, you’ve got a full color, three dimensional rendering of what was stated as opposed to an intentionally cropped, black and white snapshot.

Using that kind of approach, let’s take a look at Thomas Jefferson and his exchange with the Danbury Baptists.

Jefferson’s Resume

Jefferson’s mental capacity and creativity went beyond mere academics. At the front door of his home, there’s a seven day clock that he designed. It’s counterweights hang on either side of the front entrance and extend through the floor. The height at which the counterweights hang indicate the days of the week that are written on the wall and beneath the floor. Monticello as a whole – the layout of the grounds and the structural design – all served as a testament to the creative intelligence and the intellectual ingenuity of their architect.

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy was speaking at a dinner in the White House honoring all of the living recipients of the Nobel Prize. He said, “I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has every been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”2

Thomas Jefferson was extraordinary. Prior to earning his license as a lawyer, he had earned his college degree from the College of William and Mary, having studied Mathematics, Philosophy, Metaphysics as well as French and Greek. It was there that he would also be introduced to the writings of John Locke, Isaac Newton and Francis Bacon – great thinkers that would shape his approach to politics and America’s quest for liberty.

After writing the Declaration of Independence, he returned to Virginia where he served in the Virginia State Legislature, eventually ascending to the position of Governor. His role in crafting the new state government was significant. For nearly three years he assisted in the construction of the state constitution. His most notable contribution was the “Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom” – an accomplishment he had immortalized on his tombstone.

Jefferson was also very familiar with the Bible and the teachings of Christ. During his presidential years, he wrote a 46 page work entitled “The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted from the Account of His Life and Doctrines as Given by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.”3 Moreover, he understood the necessary role the Christian doctrine played in the formulation of a government based on the Absolutes of Scripture as opposed to the machinations of men, be they manifested in the context of royalty or enlightened reason. While he was convinced that the established clergy of the day were corrupt and the imposition of any one creed by a legislature was fundamentally flawed, it was the transcendent dynamic of the Christian doctrine upon which he founded his philosophical approach to freedom and sound government.

Jefferson’s Starting Point

It’s here where the liberal and conservative perspectives diverge. The liberal platform maintains that Jefferson’s usage of the phrase “separation of church and state” in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was intended to purge any mention of God in an official context, be it the Pledge of Allegiance, the display of any Christian symbols during the Holidays , prayer in schools and the list goes on and on. His previously stated comments pertaining to the Christian component of our nation’s government , the culture of the time and the audience he was addressing are all either diluted or dismissed in order to craft a liberal platform that presents America as a purely secular enterprise. Furthermore, there’s a philosophical starting point that Jefferson uses in the two documents he requested be immortalized on his tombstone that gets glossed over as though it has no real bearing on the issue. But if this is the cornerstone of his thought processes pertaining to religious freedom and liberty in general, this is a crucial piece of evidence that needs to be admitted as part of the conversation. Take a look…

In both documents, he bases one’s right to liberty on the fact that God created man to be free.

The Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States…(emphasis added)

The opening statement of Virginia’s Statute for Religious Freedom:

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;Jefferson’s sense of reason, in terms of a man’s ability to worship and live as a free entity, was founded on the manner in which God had designed him. In other words, it was the doctrine of the church that gave shape and substance
to the state.

Jefferson’s sense of reason, in terms of a man’s ability to worship and live as a free entity, was founded on the manner in which God had designed him. In other words, it was the doctrine of the church that gave shape and substance to the state. Remove the philosophical foundation of Scripture from Jefferson’s approach to liberty and you reduce the essence of our nation to a complaint rather than an Absolute. Furthermore, by insisting that there be no acknowledgement of the biblical paradigm that supports the ideological structure of our government, we invite the decay and corruption that inevitably accompanies the fallibility of a purely human enterprise.

Jefferson’s faith was unorthodox and his determination to avoid any appearance of officially sanctioning a particular denomination was nothing short of aggressive, but to twist his usage of the phrase “separation of church and state” into a quasi-legislative impetus to remove prayer from schools and strike the “one nation under God” phrase from the pledge of Allegiance, is to ignore the obvious cornerstone of Jefferson’s thought process. In addition, should the liberal perspective be embraced, you make Jefferson himself the “chief of sinners” in that he violates his own supposed conviction by invoking a overtly Christian dynamic in the very documents that define his perspective on the freedoms we enjoy.

To read, “American Concrete” in its entirety, click here…