And the Parents Shall Lead Them

Rockwood School District is increasing security at the Eureka High School. To be clear, there is no credible threat. Rightly, out of an abundance of caution, Rockwood is increasing security. Rockwood should be applauded for their concern for the children they have been given stewardship over. And for the moment, this is likely the right thing to do. But ultimately, it is just as likely that this will fail just as the other heightened security measures at schools have failed around the country over the past decade. And the long-term impact will be devastating.

To understand the impact on our children from this change, we go back to the underlying purpose of education and the overriding impact of education. I have repeatedly shown here that education is not primarily about teaching knowledge and skill, although that is an ultimate consequence of a true understanding of education. Education is about transmitting culture from one generation to the next. It is less about head and hand and more about heart.

Unfortunately, increased security inculcates an attitude of a prison. Education should be a liberating experience. Instead, we are making it incarceration. Impounded schools inculcate in our children an attitude of despair, hopelessness, and fear. This attitude can only enhance the attitude of hopelessness and violence already inculcated in our society.

When we responded to the terrorist attacks on 9-11, the overwhelming message was let’s take back our streets. We were admonished to not be fearful of the terrorist, not let them win and force us to remain in our homes. We were to go forth. I am not proposing that we directly encourage this attitude on the young and helpless children. Although, if they see this attitude in their parents, they will learn.

What I am proposing is that we encourage this attitude on our parents and the school administrations. Ultimately, parents are responsible for the safety of their children. They must provide for the safety of the school when the government fails. School administrations must engage the parents to take the first line of defense for their children. Rather than hunkering down, school administrators must call parents back into the schools to engage the children and liberate them to learn. Open the doors and have the parents lead the children out to learn.

Yes, Mrs. Robinson, You Can Legislate Morality, And You Must.

Yes Mrs. Robinson, You Can Legislate Morality

About the only thing that you can legislate is morality. Thou shalt not murder. Thou shalt not steal. These are moral codes that are obviously subjects of legislation. The question is whose morality will be legislated.

Chris Wright in his excellent work, Old Testament Ethics and the People of God, makes the point that law should criminalize only such things as are moral minimum standard of conduct for a moral and righteous culture. Those things which are morally superior should be left to conscience, the family and church. We do not want to live in a culture where it is permissible to kill and steal. God has given each man and woman the right to life, liberty and property. These things must be protected and the law must criminalize the violation of those rights.

But we must distinguish between basic morality and a desire for particular conduct. A problem arises when we seek to legislate our desires. When we legislate “equal pay for equal work,” how do we do that? Who defines equal pay? Shouldn’t it be the employer and the employee? Only those to parties are competent to determine what is equal pay for equal work. If one of the parties to the transaction is not satisfied there is equal pay, that party is prompted to not engage in the transaction. How can government place a value on every component of the market place? It cannot. It has no ability to judge value within a commercial context.

There is a further problem when government begins to legislate desires. When a desire requires financial support, that financial support must be taken from somewhere. Obamacare is a disastrous attempt to provide affordable health care to all. The problem is that that disaster comes at an awful price in taxes and penalties. These taxes and penalties become a violation of the very right government exists to protect, the right to property.

Morality must be legislated, but it must be legislated in a way that guards the rights of men without doing violation to the rights of men. Only by criminalizing only violations of basic God given rights can we be sure of not violating those God given rights. Everything else must be left to the family and the church.

The Imago Dei.

¹⁵ He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. ¹⁶ For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. ¹⁷ And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. ¹⁸ And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. ¹⁹ For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, ²⁰ and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

What is the imago dei? The intellectual inquiry of what constitutes the image of God in man goes all the way back to Genesis 1. What is it to be created in God’s image? Is it man’s intellectual capacity? Is it his creative ingenuity? Is it his ability to appreciate beauty? While this inquiry is useful, there is a better way of looking at the imago dei, and this passage presents that better way.

Rather than look at the constituent parts of man that make up the imago dei, it is better to look at the man as a created whole. In so doing, the reality is that the man was created as a glorious vessel to embody the second person of the godhead, the Son. In man, the Son of God found a suitable being to live out the rest of eternity. We can glory in this realization.

This passage tells us that Jesus was the firstborn of all creation. Being firstborn is not a characteristic of time but of glory and preeminence. All things are from him and for him. He reconciles all things to himself. He brings all things to himself.

All created history expresses this uniting of God with man and all creation. This is not a pantheistic union but one of divine will guiding his creation. Starting with the incarnation in the womb of the virgin, God the Son took on humanity. Even Christ’s self-designation, Son of Man, is a title of divinity. Daniel 7. But his divine will doesn’t stop there. He lives in mankind through His word. God deigned to make Scripture both His words and man’s words at the same time. Therefore, the Bible we read is a union of God and man.

His design in human relations embodies his desire to be united to his creation through his imago dei. The man is to be united to his bride in one flesh. Genesis 1. And we know this to be Christ and his church. Ephesians 5. He commands his people to make disciples of all nations. Matt. 28. And what is it to be a disciple other than the taking on the characteristics of the leader? A student’s goal is to become like his teacher.

In this Advent season, all Christians should look for how God is uniting himself to and taking loving care of this world. The first place to look is in weekly worship. We receive the Word and Sacrament. Both unite God and man and then impart that blessing to us. Look to the imago dei in your loved ones as they partake in the divine worship, and pray for them the blessings of Christ.

We should also pray for our leaders. This creation is immutably stamped with the principle of covenant. It is undeniable that families, churches, companies, and nations take on the characteristics of those who lead them. Children respect and act like their parents. Churches act like their pastors. Companies take on the characteristics of their CEO. And nations act like their national leaders. Ever wonder why America has become such a violent nation? We must pray not only that our leaders make right decisions, but that they cultivate the right character in their administrations. We must pray for our pastors that God will lead and guide them. And we must pray that we lead our families well.

Merry Christmas.

Trump, a Hand of God?

So who should a Christian support in the upcoming election? Samson or Jezebel. On October 12, Ameri-Dan penned a piece on why Christians support Donald Trump in Samson v. Jezebel. Ameri-Dan does a good job in describing and contrasting the two candidates. But his final conclusion is essentially that Christians support Donald Trump because she is the lesser of two evils. This has never been a good rationale for supporting a candidate. As I have been saying for decades, when you support the lesser of two evils, that is exactly what you get–evil. I would rather build a positive case for why I can in good conscience support a candidate, and I will do so now.

As many other bloggers have, I must give my disclaimers. I am not a fan of Donald Trump. I did not support him in the primary, and after his nomination I was in the NeverTrump camp. Again, he was the lesser of two evils to me. My analogy was how can you distinguish between Henry VIII and Adolph Hitler? Trump is not a refined or polished man. He uses position and power to his own advantage. I still view him in that light. He is flawed. (News flash: so are you and I).

But Hillary is an unmitigated evil person. She uses government power to her own gain. And she is not above putting America at risk for her own gain. Bengasi, the Clinton foundation, and her email abuses are just the tip of the iceberg of her corruptions that put the nation at risk. Add to her corruption her leadership in a leftist movement that would subject the consciences of all Christians to the desires of the leftist moral code, or more correctly a lack thereof, and it is clear that Hillary would follow after the pattern of Hitler. Trump is indeed the lesser of two evils; but this is where Ameri-Dan and I part ways. In essence, this as a description of my journey to endorse Trump.

There are positive reasons to vote for Donald Trump, and they are reasons that did not support the election of McCain or Romney. To start this discussion, it is best to return to an understanding of the proper roles of church and state. I like to refer to a Trinitarian view of social governance, with the family, church and state each exercising their proper authority. Each has its proper symbol: the church has the keys to the kingdom, the state has the sword, and the family has the rod. Martin Luther looked at it as the two hands of God, the church and state. The church’s role, among other things, is to proclaim the gospel Jesus Christ and to care for the poor and needy. The state’s role is to guard the rights of individuals and establish liberty for citizens so that the church can fulfill its role.

Men bred for battle tend to be of rougher character than men bred for etiquette and protocol. This is in the very nature of creation. God made man to take dominion over creation. God made woman to complete the man, to refine him and finish his efforts with grace. As cultures become more in tune with God’s law, cultures can take on a more refined and feminine quality. As cultures become more barbaric and tyrannical, men must take on a less refined character.

The question becomes what kind of governance our culture demands. Our culture is becoming more barbaric and tyrannical than it was under Ronald Reagan. Every indication is that the left will promote and accelerate that progression to a base character in a move away from Scripture and Christian principles. Remember, our founders knew that our government was designed for a moral and religious people. As we move from there, our government will become less well suited for our governance. The establishment in Washington D.C. shows this inability. Both parties are complicit in this progression. To the extent there is an effort to confront this progression, it is entirely too feminine. Our culture calls for a rougher leadership than it did in the days of Reagan. Perhaps we have lost the privilege to live in a refined culture due to our departure from Scripture and Christian principles.

As I perceive Donald Trump, I perceive a man that has a tendency to be crude. Will he make mistakes? Yes. But it is clear he loves this country. His primary message is one of liberty, making America free again. Neither McCain nor Romney had that core conviction. They both showed repeatedly the willingness to capitulate to the forces of tyranny. Our Congressional leadership of both parties lack that core conviction. Trump does not show the tendency to capitulate. And so Trump is likely better suited to the task of leading this nation than anyone to lead this nation from tyranny to liberty. He will be exercising the hand of state and not of church. But he will free the hand of church to do its work.

So I return to the analogy of Samson and Jezebel. In the book of Judges, Samson asks his parents to get him a woman. His parent object to his desire until they realize that it is of the Lord to cause a confrontation with the Philistines. God called Samson, a deeply flawed man, to fulfill a task, to liberate His people from the Philistines. Henry VIII was a deeply flawed man, but God used him to single handedly bring the reformation to England. Without Henry, America would likely not have had the blessings of religious liberty it had in its founding. Let’s not now be so puritanical that we fail to see what God might be doing here in our time. God makes straight what is crooked. A Samson may be the very prophet we need for a time such as this.

Trump is a risk. He will need good people around him to protect him from himself. He has shown the ability to select good people.  In a Trump administration, it is likely that the church will need to take a stronger hand in developing the conscience of the nation. This is something quite frankly the church should have taken a stronger hand in in the past 50 or so years. If the church takes on this challenge, it is a good thing. We need a national leader that will not capitulate to the forces of tyranny and will stand and fight those forces. Such a battle requires a hard man. We also need a church that will take on the role of the conscience in this culture and take back the role of education, declaring virtue, and providing compassion in a fallen world. It must take these roles back from the state. A Trump presidency, while not pretty, could provide this opportunity. I will be voting for Donald Trump.

 

The God of Climate Change

The rainbow is the sign that the world will not be damaged by man-made climate change. Those who see no inconsistency between climate change faith and the faith of the Holy Scriptures often make the argument that God promised in His covenant with Noah that he would not destroy the earth. That does not preclude us from screwing it up. This argument is based on a misreading of Scripture. Genesis 8:22 states: “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.”

This passage needs very little explanation to reach the objective conclusion that God was promising that the established cycles of seasons would not change as long as God permitted the world to continue. The sovereign God was declaring an immutable principle of His recreation after the flood, not His desire that could be thwarted by his sinful creatures.

At the risk of being accused of not being able to leave well enough alone, there are at least four arguments that God was declaring an immutable principle of HIS climate change, unchangeable by His sinful creatures. The first is logical, the second literary, the third, one of syntax, and the fourth a legal argument.

The first argument I already alluded to above. God is omnipotent. He is all powerful. He can do all things. He oversees and administers all things. He is sovereign. In the flood narrative, he superintends the winds and the rains. If an omnipotent God declares that certain cycles will not cease, the only logical conclusion is that the promise will be fulfilled.

The second argument is founded in the flow of the story itself. God himself declares the cause of the flood judgement: that man had become wicked, “every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” It was man, through his wickedness, that caused the destruction of the earth. He had become an affront to an all holy God. It was only Noah’s righteousness that redeemed the entire human race. In light of this narrative, the promise would have been worthless. If man could once again destroy the world despite God’s promise, God would not have advanced His story in any way by making the promise. The entire story would have been of no effect.

The third is based on Hebrew syntax. Hebrew narrative utilizes a pattern which relies heavily on one particular verbal connector, the waw. Verses in a sequence of narrative start with this “and” connector. Verse 21 starts with the waw connector: “And when the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done.” Verse 21 is part of the narrative. Verse 22 breaks this narrative chain, declaring the conclusion of the story. The NIV is right to format this passage as a poem. Verse 22 is a liturgical expression of what God would do for his sinful creatures. He would protect them from their own wickedness in the future. This is the quintessential expression of God’s common grace to man.

Finally, there is the legal argument. The legal argument is that every expression of a law giver must be given effect. In verse 21, God declared His new covenant law that He would not strike down every living creature as he had done. Verse 22 must then be given effect. As a summary of the story, its effect is that God will do more than simply protect man from Himself. Its effect is that He will protect man from himself.

God made provision to protect man from himself in giving his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. God has made this world to be conducive to that message, and He will protect that creation to fulfill his purposes. Man cannot thwart God. He said so in Genesis 8 and I believe it. His promise has stood the test of at least 7 thousand years, and that is despite massive carbon dioxide emission of many different varieties. The climate will continue to accomplish God’s purposes until the end of time.

 

Voting for Mr. Good Benefits

In a recent blog post, Justice Thomas: Mr. Republican, Ken Masugi shows why Justice Clarence Thomas “has given originalist jurisprudence its most robust defense through his revival of an obscure part of the U.S. Constitution.” The blog reviews Justice Thomas’ concurrence in Evenwel v. Abbot (2016). The case involves basic principles of governance, representation, and elections. The question before the Court was whether the Court’s gloss on the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause requiring “one person, one vote” required legislative districts be designed with equal numbers of registered voters rather than equal populations. The majority opinion concluded that the Equal Protection Clause did not require legislative districts be apportioned in proportion to registered voters.

Justice Thomas, in his concurrence, shows the flaw in the “one person, one vote” principle of the Court from history and logic, preferring instead to base his decision on Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, which guarantees every state in the union a republican form of government. Since there is no one definitive criteria for apportioning representation for a republic in the Constitution, Thomas concludes the states are free to apportion their districts based on population.

While Mr. Masugi is helpful in highlighting Justice Thomas’ new approach to voting rights, there are deeper issues than simply the “one person, one vote” rule. The case itself raises intriguing questions regarding governance and the right of citizens to vote in a free republic. It also shows confusion caused by our overriding commitments to “democracy.” What rights to vote does our “democracy” grant? What obligations does our “democracy” impose on our elected officials? Who does the elected official represent?

These confusions arise because we have superimposed a “democratic” mindset on what was designed as a constitutional republic. As Justice Thomas points out in his concurrence, not every governing official of the united States was originally intended to be popularly elected. Senators were originally selected by the state legislatures. And the President is still selected by an electoral college. Even today, we impose minimum age requirements on voting rights. Yet, even though a four year old cannot vote, he is still “represented” by his Congressman. He is therefore represented by an individual he had no voice in selecting. In this “one person, one vote” will never fit.

The most disturbing aspect of the majorities’ approach and the “one person, one vote” principle is that the justices have completely misconstrued the purpose and goal of the united States.

As the Framers of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment comprehended, representatives serve all residents, not just those eligible or registered to vote. See supra, at 8– 12. Nonvoters have an important stake in many policy debates—children, their parents, even their grandparents, for example, have a stake in a strong public-education Opinion of the Court system—and in receiving constituent services, such as help navigating public-benefits bureaucracies. By ensuring that each representative is subject to requests and suggestions from the same number of constituents, total population apportionment promotes equitable and effective representation. See McCormick v. United States, 500 U. S. 257, 272 (1991) (“Serving constituents and supporting legislation that will benefit the district and individuals and groups therein is the everyday business of a legislator.”).

In this the majority is completely wrong. The justices view government much as our popular media culture does, as a vending machine with each elected representative as a local candy man to bring their districts and constituents goodies. This view of government is contrary to the principles set forth by the Founding Fathers. Our Founding Fathers declared that government existed to preserve the God given rights of its citizens. The Declaration of Independence makes this absolutely clear.

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.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Justice Thomas rightly cited William Blackstone on this very point. “[T]he principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights [of life, liberty, and property], which are vested in them by the immutable laws of nature.” Government, our government, exists to protect our stuff, not give our stuff away. Governmental benefits violate the original design of our Constitution in that it redistributes wealth. That our highest court now thinks our government exists for such purposes highlights the flaw in their deliberations.

This then is the flaw. In the Court’s mind, government exists to provide benefits. Access to government benefits is now the inalienable right granted by our federal government and the Court. This colors how we view voting rights. The vote is the voice we need to gain access to those government benefits. We want popular government, popular in that it provides us benefits. And we need the vote to make sure our voice is heard in Washington so it will give us what we want.

If, however, the goal of government is seen as protecting God given rights as originally intended, each individual’s voice in the fray of pandering for representation is less important. It does not matter to me if I have a vote on the election of my representative as long as that representative will devote his efforts to protecting the God given rights of all citizens. If I have nothing to gain over my fellow citizen by the election of my representative, I don’t care.

Justice Thomas’ opinion would set the philosophy of government on a new and correct course. Each state must have a republican form of government. As Thomas describes it, that government should designed so that the people’s representatives guard against the usurpation of the rights of its citizens. There is no set process in the Constitution for electing representatives within each state. States should be free to pursue the election of officials that guard the rights granted by God not pander for benefits granted by government.

 

Thought for Today

When a legislator or group of legislators negotiate in such a way as to get votes for himself or their party, they are no longer fulfilling their calling to rule in justice, but are self-seeking, an anathema to a free society. In such event, it is time to seek a change in that government.

Issued by President George Washington, at the request of Congress, on October 3, 1789

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas 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; and—Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:” 
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favor, able interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us. 
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other trangressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best. 
Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.
Go. Washington

Time To Take a Stand

There is an interesting debate going on as Christendom engages the U.S. Supreme Court’s edict on same sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges. David Corbin and Matthew Parks critique a recent Christianity Today article, How Christians Can Flourish in a Same-Sex-Marriage World, in which Michael Gerson and Peter Wehner attempt to place the Obergefell decision in context. According to Corbin and Parks,

As its title indicates, the immediate context of their essay is the Obergefell decision mandating the legality of same-sex marriage in all fifty states. Responding to evangelical concern over the ruling, Gerson and Wehner seek to diminish its significance in two ways. First, they describe it as simply the next step in the sexual revolution’s fifty-year assault on Biblical sexual ethics. Second, citing one New Testament scholar and C.S. Lewis, they argue that sexual ethics are themselves a relatively unimportant part of Biblical morality.

America Evanghelica reacts, “We reject the idea that, because public sexual values have changed, Christians no longer exert public influence. America is not slouching toward Gomorrah. And the duties inherent in democracy remain. Cultural retreat would betray our faith, because it would betray the call and responsibility to seek the common good.” Corbin and Parks also make a helpful corrective in their response:

By generalizing from the specific (marriage) context of the decision in this way, Gerson and Wehner, however, miss its critical importance. Marriage is not on the periphery of Biblical morality, but rather the original and most important human relationship and the chosen metaphor for the relationship between God and His people. Obergefell is not one more link in a long chain, as Gerson and Wehner suggest, nor, as they have it, merely “the advance of a progressive conception of individual rights.”

They conclude:

It will be good for no one if the response to such aggression is a muted defense of “traditional” morality, a metaphysical surrender complicit in the relativism it purports to combat. Rather, if Tocqueville is correct, Christians and their allies must continue to assert and to show that liberty needs religion to realize a truly human freedom—which makes that somewhat awkward Thanksgiving dinner worth fighting for.

I am not yet convinced that the Christian concept of marriage has become the minority view in this nation. We must remember that the five justices that flouted God’s law in violation of this nation’s founding documents were not representative of the American culture. As the dissenting opinions pointed out, in this politically driven decision, the justices themselves do not resemble the make-up of the American people.

However, that being said, perhaps it is time to assume a minority posture in this cultural debate. Why? Because it is not only possible for Christians to flourish as a minority, it is the way God works. After all, all of Christ’s victories have come out of weakness. When Yahweh led His people out of bondage in Egypt, his people were weak. Jesus himself was viewed as a failure by his disciples after his death. After His resurrection and ascension, his disciples were, by human standards, weak and a clear minority. The early church was a minority in Rome prior to Constantine’s conversion. After the sack of Rome, Christians were once again a minority throughout the world. In each case, God used that minority status to change the world and bring us to a point in history in which the founders of this new nation would declare their liberty based on the gifts of Almighty God. To put it another way, God always brings life out of death.

This is not a retreat. But it is a cause to reassess our weapons. Must we remain engaged in the political process? Yes, but we also must reengage the use of weapons that we have ignored. For one, our pulpits must return to speaking into the political culture. We have for too long been cowed by section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. If Yahweh owns the cattle on a thousand hills, is there any doubt that He can sustain our churches if  5 hooded justices deny God’s people a certain tax status?

The Church must take on its rightful role of speaking truth and making disciples of nations, as the Savior directed us, not just individuals. I own a book with many sermons preached during the revolutionary era, calling for liberty. As has been often observed, our pulpits were ablaze with righteousness in that era.

The Church must also take on its god given responsibility for educating children. The Church has abdicated this function to the state for too long. Is it any wonder we are raising an army of statist and not godly people when our children live in a statist environment 5 days out of a week? The Church must return to a classical model of education, as was the only mode of education prior to the American statist system.

The Church must recover its role of taking care of the sick. Again, it has abdicated that responsibility to corporate America and Obamacare.

Finally, the Church must return to a vision of worship as a recommitment of our lives every week to our covenant Lord, Jesus. This blog has repeatedly explained how worship is God’s core battle plan in the Church’s living out the great commission in the world. Worship must once again be installed as the central focus of the week.

In this, the only ally the Church needs is its Lord, Jesus Christ. One weak man in a minority position was once called to give an account of his writings. Martin Luther’s response changed a nation.

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason-for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves-I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one’s conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen.

 

 

 

When Fathers Terrorize Their Children

 

I have previously blogged about getting our thoughts straight on indiscriminate immigration policy. In that post, I observed that church and state have two separate roles. The role of the state is to execute justice. The role of the church is to provide charity and compassion.   Only when these two functions work in tandem can we provide true compassion.

Certainly it is appropriate to have compassion and seek to aid those in danger. This reaction is a credit to this nation. It is a Christian reaction. We have always been a compassionate nation, providing our resources, our physical effort, even our lives for those less fortunate and under threat of tyranny.   However, we must provide compassion wisely. Irresponsible compassion typically creates a bigger problem than the problem it intends to resolve.

What are the principles that should guide a principled compassion? First, we must understand our abilities and the proper functioning of a just and compassionate society. In this, we must understand we are finite as individuals and as a society. Jesus observed that we will always have the poor and needy with us. Even he accepted certain limitations on the fallen order to respond to and remedy all misery. We, as individuals and as a nation, are unable to alleviate all ills.

Then we must also recognize that there is a serious threat in the way the Federal task master is executing this proposal. We have seen the threat played out in Paris. There is a danger in bringing even a few violent terrorists into this nation.

God has made each of us unique. Each of us has different gifts and abilities. Some of us are strong and some of us are weak. God has called me to minister in a certain way. I have a right and an obligation to minister to society as God has called me to minister.   However, I do not have a right to dictate how anyone else ministers to society. I can put myself in harm’s way in the service of God. I cannot put anyone else in harm’s way in God’s service. Compassion works here as well. Be compassionate to those who are unable to bear the threat. If someone is unable to bear a threat, they should be protected from that threat.

This is government’s role. Government exists to defend the weak and innocent citizen. Romans 13. It does not exist to correct all ills beyond its boarder. Government has a legitimate God given duty, a national interest, in protecting its citizens first and foremost. It must punish the evildoer and protect the innocent.

And here is the solution. If government executes justice, the individual and the church can extend compassion. The evildoer must be neutralized. Only then can true compassion be provided. Compassion, in its best designs, can only be provided on a foundation of justice. Compassion provide to an unjust government goes to the corrupt leaders. Before we can provide compassion, the government must first execute justice.

The Syrian concern, as it presently stands, is not founded on justice. No one is attempting to ferret out the wicked from the innocent. When that happens we can seek to extend compassion in an effective way.

A father’s key role is to protect and defend his children. Providing compassion beyond the home is also within his responsibility. However, he violates his first calling when he provides compassion to others in such a way as to terrorize his children. That is what our President is doing now. He is terrorizing the children for the sake of his own agenda. When he executes justice, we can provide compassion, but not until.