What Would Jesus Take?

Dear Friends:

The following article was written by Joel McDurmon, M.Div., Reformed Episcopal Theological Seminary, who is the Director of Research for American Vision. I thought it was important enough to share with you.

As things normally go in the world of professional talk, an off-hand comment by a conservative commentator has provided another occasion for a liberal pundit to make an idiot out of himself (please excuse the redundancy).

In a now well-known clip (thanks to leftist commentator Lawrence O’Donnell, as we shall see), Rush Limbaugh confronts the question some liberals are asking about the federal budget: “What would Jesus cut?” Leftist activists like Jim Wallis of Sojourners respond that Jesus would cut military spending and tax “subsidies” for the rich, but would not cut any “funding focused on reducing poverty” including creating “decent jobs at decent wages.”

(Wallis’ organization is even trying to cash in – capitalist-style – on the slogan, selling “What Would Jesus Cut?” armbands on its website.)

In other words, these leftists think Jesus is a leftist – that He would support the modern leftist Welfare State, take from the rich, cut from the rich, and give to the poor using government coercion.

Mr. Limbaugh (of whom I have no particular interest in defending) exposed their charade: “The question is not, ‘What would Jesus cut?’ The question is, ‘What would Jesus take?’”

A Brief Primer on “Taking”

Indeed, this is a great question for leftists and rightists everywhere! This places the politics of Jesus (or anyone else) in proper perspective. When speaking of a government budget, why does the discussion always begin with spending? This is to start already half-way through the process. Why speak of spending versus cutting before we talk about how the government gets its money to begin with?

The government does not earn money like hardworking people. It is not a business, it does not produce anything. It has nothing to sell in the marketplace, and indeed refuses to compete in the free market. Government is regulatory, penal, and decretive – not productive or profitable. As such, it can only obtain money by one of two ways: borrowing it or taking it by force from someone else. In the modern world of Welfare/Warfare States, governments do both regularly.

Some might add that governments also obtain money a third way: printing it. But of course, this is normally done by a pseudo-governmental central bank and then lent to the government, so it’s really just more borrowing. And of course, the inflation of the money supply is really a hidden tax on all holders of currency because it dilutes the value of the currency while transferring large sums of it to the government or other central banks. So, inflation is really just another form of taking in addition to borrowing as well. Thus, central bank manipulation of money is really a combined form for borrowing and taking from someone else.

So we are left with two basic ways of funding government: borrowing and taking. These two are summed up by the biblical, moral, and common descriptions: debt and theft.

And yet this can be reduced further, because anything the government borrows it must either pay back later or default on the loan. But anything government pays back later can only be paid back with money obtained via the same two methods – either borrowing or taking.

Government can, of course, borrow more to service its existing debt, thereby compounding the problem while buying time; but this is now well-known as “kicking the can” down the road. The problem here is that as more is borrowed, the can keeps getting bigger; and the road is infinitely long. At some point, kicking the can results in a broken foot. This is the point of de-foot, more commonly known as default. At this point, someone, somewhere starts getting stiffed on the deal.

Since borrowing only leads to compounding the problem, the only way for government to fund the payback of its debts and its promises is through taking wealth from someone else who is productive. It calls this by a variety of names – contributions, withholding, millage, appropriations, even sometimes plainly “taxes,” or more recently by Obama, “spending reductions in the tax code” – but in the end we all know that taking what belongs to someone else is called “stealing” – at least this is what the Bible calls it. Therefore, government “taking” is a form of theft.

So Limbaugh is correct: the more appropriate question is “What would Jesus Take?” It is a question that hits directly at the core of the morality of federal government budgets – much more so than the later question of how the money shall be spent.

And Limbaugh answers this question appropriately as well, “Of course the answer is ‘Nothing!’” We all know Jesus’ view of theft inasmuch as He would not have broken a single commandment, nor condoned anyone else to do so (Matthew 5:17-19). If it’s stolen money to begin with, then the spending or cutting question is moot. If the spending is based on theft, then it is a no brainer: cut it all. This is to say, don’t take anything to begin with.

And, by the way, what was Jesus’ view of defaulting on one’s debts? Not favorable: “Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison. Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny” (Matthew 5:25-26). This, mind you, is from the allegedly “meek and mild” Sermon on the Mount.

This is why liberals and leftists (and many Christians and conservatives as well) start the budget question at spending instead of revenue – they prefer not to think about the immorality inherent in the system of collection to begin with. But a Christian ethic demands that we assess the root of the problem: taxation and the Welfare State. Taxation is theft, Jesus will have none of it, and we should completely defund every Welfare program at every level of civil government in this country.

Liberals are too committed to their system of central planning and theft in the name of benevolence that they prefer not to think morally. But the moral issue is loud and clear. And when guys like Limbaugh make it clear in public, liberals have to scramble to put a moral façade on State coercion.

The Gospels in the Hands of a Angry Liberal

In this episode, the job of building that façade has been taken up enthusiastically by MSNBC pundit Lawrence O’Donnell. He calls Limbaugh’s comment, “a wild display of biblical ignorance.” He then attempts to remedy this ignorance. We are then treated to the spectacle of the attempt to cure a delusion by means of a deeper delusion.

O’Donnell states: “The New Testament does have an answer to Rush’s question, ‘What would Jesus take?’…. The answer is, ‘Everything …. 100%’”

He then heads to the Gospels for proof of this assertion. He confidently pronounces his findings. He refers to the episode in Mark 10:17-22 in which a rich man inquires of Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life. Jesus responds,

You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

O’Donnell briefly considers whether this phrase “give to the poor” refers to all the proceeds from the sale of everything, or just a portion of it, but he concludes that it’s inconclusive.

It could mean that we should all sell everything and then give everything we have to the poor. But this interpretation would be ridiculous as a general rule – as it would require everyone to give everything all the time, which would mean no one would have anything – and even O’Donnell tip-toes all around it in order to avoid connecting it to civil policy. He says: “I lean toward the ‘give all of your proceeds to the poor’ interpretation, but I don’t do so with absolute certainty, nor would I use that line as a Christ-based argument for a particular tax bracket.”

Then why bring it up at all? If the argument is over what Jesus would indeed take, why talk about what does not apply to this?

Simple. Because it allows liberals like O’Donnell to prevaricate – to say it doesn’t apply to the situation of government taking but that it does support liberals’ view of government taking. Got that? O’Donnell does: “But, it seems very clear that Jesus would be cool with a 39.6 percent tax bracket for people making over $250,000.” In other words, O’Donnell thinks Jesus’ statement is not an argument for a specific tax bracket, but that it is an argument for a specific tax bracket.

If you can make sense of that logic, then you have grasped the heart and soul of modern liberalism (note that I am speaking figuratively here: I do not think modern liberalism actually has either a heart or a soul).

O’Donnell continues by adding that the rich man’s reaction of sadness to Jesus’ statement is applicable to rich men like Rush Limbaugh:

And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:23-25).

O’Donnell spikes this punch by adding Luke 14:33: “So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.” Then, forgetting his previous prevarication on “everything,” he adds, “That means you Rush, and that means everything. Give up everything.”

Let us make a couple of remarks here. In regard to Mark 10:17-25, O’Donnell has committed two fundamental (and elementary) errors of biblical interpretation. First, he has simply ended the story too soon – that is, he has ignored (or suppressed) vital information. Second, he has ignored the basic context of the passage.

First, the rest of the story is in Mark 10:28-30, and it is very revealing:

Peter began to say to him, “See, we have left everything and followed you.” Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”

Unlike the rich man who was unwilling, Peter notes how he and the disciples had in fact left everything to follow him (Peter says nothing of giving to the poor, which indicates that the main issue was not Welfare, but rather the general willingness to sacrifice in order to follow Jesus. This is the case as we shall see in a moment). And what does Jesus say in return? Does he speak of a life of selfless giving (or taking by government)? No, He promises that these sacrificial followers would “receive a hundredfold” in wealth and treasures, not just in some heavenly age to come, but “in this time.” In short, for a temporary sacrifice of everything, Jesus promised tremendous increase later in their lives by following His word, although for the apostles this would come amidst persecutions.

Why did O’Donnell not continue the story to this point (if he even noticed the rest of it)? Had he done so, he would be forced to elucidate a doctrine of how when the rich give away everything they should expect to become a hundred times richer by doing so. But this would not make sense in general, let alone as a matter of government policy (although, the wealthy often do use government coercion to enrich themselves many times over).

In order to make full sense of Jesus’ teaching here, we must also consider the basic context of the passage. When He spoke of sacrifice and wealth in “this time” and in the “age to come,” He was not referring to earthly life versus life in heaven. He was speaking of the old covenant age versus the new covenant age (as I have discussed more thoroughly elsewhere). This means that Jesus’ comments to the rich man and subsequently to Peter have primarily (if not exclusively) a first-century context.

And this makes sense in light of the fact that Jerusalem was about to be leveled to the ground according to Jesus (Mark 13, Matthew 24). While most people disbelieved Jesus in general, especially on this point, His disciples – if they truly believed what He said – had to be willing to prepare for this destruction. The sensible thing to do would be to sell their property before the great calamity destroyed real estate values and likely the person, too. And we know that this is exactly what the faithful did (Acts 4:34-35). But this was a great sacrifice in faith – selling one’s property based solely upon the words of the teacher – this was some great faith in the radical words of that teacher. But what an amazing testimony to Jesus! And how relieved and empowered were these disciples after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 – within their own generation just as Jesus had predicted?

Both of these ideas come together again in the Luke 14:33 passage. In fact, they show up continually throughout the Gospels. Jesus was continually warning that the time was short for Jerusalem – that a great calamitous judgment was coming upon it with that generation. His message was that following him would mean selling all wealth and property, but heeding His advice was the only way to survive into the coming age – the age of the New Testament when the old covenant temple and city would be destroyed. Only by sacrificing now would His followers be able to have any viable life after that time. And Christ would richly bless them on that other side. This would require a cold, hard calculation of the costs of following Jesus, which is the theme of the overall context here (Luke 14:25-35), and trusting that Jesus’ Word would indeed come to pass.

And this pertained not to all Christians at all times, but only to those first-century Jewish disciples who would be facing the destruction of that city in their lifetimes. This is why Luke 14:33 is not stated as some general spiritual principle for all people, but specifically as a message to a Jewish multitude following Him as He was travelling (see Luke 14:25). In Luke 14:33, Jesus does not say broadly “anyone,” but rather “anyone of you.” He was speaking this particular message of giving everything to that particular people. Those Jews who were truly faithful to His message indeed sold their local houses and lands, enabled the poor believers with them (not all poor in general) and got ready to get out of town.

So when you combine the whole story and the context of the story, claims like O’Donnell’s not only fall flat but seem utterly ridiculous. A “wild display of biblical ignorance” indeed! But not by Limbaugh; not here.

Jesus and the Progressive Income Tax

But the lunacy has only begun. O’Donnell goes on to make the argument that “While Jesus may not have specified specific tax brackets, He was the first recorded advocate of a progressive income tax.”

In addition to its loopy English – “specified specific” – this statement makes a ridiculous stretch in regard to Scripture. O’Donnell quotes Mark 12:43-44, where a poor widow gives a tiny offering in comparison to the large gifts of many rich men:

“Truly, I say to you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the offering box. For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on.”

From this O’Donnell derives a Marxist theory of taxation:

What would Jesus take? Obviously He would take from each according to his ability to pay. That is the clear, Christian, philosophical basis for a progressive income tax. Ten percent on low incomes, 35 percent on high incomes is the current structure, and if it were up to me, much, much higher percentages on even higher incomes.

O’Donnell is wrong on all three counts: this alleged basis for a progressive income tax is not clear, nor Christian, nor philosophical. Let’s examine:

It is not clear in that it does not derive clearly – or even after much straining – from the text considered. Jesus’ is not promoting taxation at all, nor is he prescribing a tax of a progressive nature (in which rich people are taxed not only proportionately more, but at great percentages).

This story is not about taxation, because the contributions involved are not mandatory. The “treasury” mentioned in the passage was the Temple treasury, and it contained thirteen separate boxes for various causes. Only one of them was for the mandatory tithe on increase, all others were for free-will offerings for different causes. Since the old widow most likely had no employment and was not a farmer or shepherd, she probably had no income which would fall under the Old Testament’s mandatory tithe laws. Thus, it is by far most likely that she was casting her coins into one of the free-will offering boxes. Indeed, in Luke’s version of this story (21:1-4), all of the donations are referred to in Greek as dona, “gifts.”

Also, note that this was the Temple treasury. It was not a civil government tithe, nor did civil rulers get it or manage it. In fact, in Old Testament law, there was no government-enforceable civil tax. So if government was involved at all in enforcing the tithes associated with the Temple treasury, it only did so in behalf of the Temple, i.e., the priests and the Levites, and to support religious services and causes. Now, if O’Donnell supports a mandatory tax that would go only to ecclesiastical treasuries, that’s a slightly different question. But he does not say this, and I doubt he would.

Jesus does, here, recognize the disparity in percentages involved, and this is what He calls to His disciples’ attention. This is not a prescription, but an observation. His point was for them not to be impressed by the huge sums given by the rich, for it represented little sacrifice on their part; but rather, the widow’s offering was total for her, and thus was a far greater sacrifice.

Yet, in light of this, Jesus did not say, “Therefore, we should use the force of government to take even greater sums from the rich men and less from the widow.” He neither said nor implied anything of the sort. If anything, if Jesus’ acknowledgment of these disparate percentages was to be taken as a normative prescription for taxation today, the poor would have to pay everything and the rich give only out of their abundance. Thus, not only would there be no progressive income tax, there would actually be a regressive income tax. Of course, this is absurd.

Likewise, Old Testament taxation itself was technically regressive. The main tax was, of course, the tithe, and this was a flat tax for all which was paid to the central ecclesiastical authority (in general). Aside from this flat tax, the only other tax was a Temple tax which was a fixed amount of a half-shekel of silver for every male at age twenty, and thus was actually regressive on males in general, and poor males especially. In other words, the rich could easily pay the set fee for it was a tiny percentage to them; but the really poor may have to struggle to pay because a set fee represented a larger percentage to them.

O’Donnell’s application of this passage rests on a bad misinterpretation. It is clear that Jesus taught no such thing as a progressive income tax here. Thus, it is devious as well to call it “Christian.” There is nothing Christian about it. Christ did not condone stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, nor did he condone stealing from people at one level and stealing from others to a greater degree in order for politicians to divvy up the loot according to how it would best get them re-elected. Christ never approved of a Welfare State or coercive wealth redistribution.

Jesus versus the Welfare State

Indeed, Jesus had little respect for civil rulers of this Welfare stripe. In fact, most of the rich men He confronted were rich because they had used positions of power and government to get that way. In fact, the very “rich man” O’Donnell uses as his example from Mark 10:17, is himself a government official: Luke’s version of the story (Luke 18:18) tells us plainly that this guy was a “ruler” (Greek, archon, “ruler, official, authority, judge”).

Wee little Zacchaeus is also a great example: a tax collector. Not only was he a tax collector, but the chief tax collector (Luke 19:1). These guys notoriously used government contracts in order to enrich themselves with the very tax money they collected – which is the thrust of any government contract. After encountering Jesus, Zacchaeus said nothing about needing higher taxes, and neither did Jesus. Rather, the issue became restitution for theft. Zacchaeus saw all of his riches gained through government contracts for tax-collecting as extortion. According to Mosaic law, he promised to pay the fullest penalty to everyone he extorted (Luke 19:8). He also gave half of his goods to the poor freely with no reference to any taxation.

Jesus did not say “half is not enough, you must give all,” nor did Jesus take anything from him nor demand anything be taken from him by the government. Yet, when Zacchaeus freely gave half his goods and freely offered to pay restitution (with no government agency involved), Jesus responded by saying, “Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham” (Luke 19:9).

The sect of the Pharisees made up the ruling class among the people – they were civil rulers and lay leaders of the people. These are the people Jesus consistently denounced – not because they were rich, but because they had so often gotten that way through extortion and oppression in collusion with the arms of civil government.

When told by such Pharisees that Herod did not want Him in Judea and would kill Him if He went there, Jesus replied by denouncing the politician as “that fox” and defying the threat even of death (Luke 14:31-33). And when it came time that those civil leaders and rulers intended to make good on that threat (out of pure envy, Matthew 27:18), they colluded with civil government rulers – Pilate and Herod – in order to make it happen.

The Herod family was just the type of powerful Welfare State O’Donnell would love. During the era of the early church, soon after Jesus’ ascension, Herod Agrippa I began persecuting Christians in order to please his constituency of Jews. He murdered James the brother of John, and then captured and imprisoned Peter (Acts 12:1-4).

This same Herod ran a Welfare State that kept many of his subjects dependent upon him for handouts. It made them easier to control: “Now Herod was angry with the people of Tyre and Sidon, and they came to him with one accord, and having persuaded Blastus, the king’s chamberlain, they asked for peace, because their country depended on the king’s country for food” (Acts 12:20).

Herod responded like any elitist liberal politician: he took credit, gave a speech, and acted as a demigod: “On an appointed day Herod put on his royal robes, took his seat upon the throne, and delivered an oration to them. And the people were shouting, “The voice of a god, and not of a man!” (Acts 12:21-22).

And what did Jesus think of this Welfare Statist, elite central planner and his little press conference?

Jesus had him divinely removed on the spot: “Immediately an angel of the Lord struck him down, because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and breathed his last” (Acts 12:23).

“But the word of God increased and multiplied.” (Acts 12:24).

In fact, Jesus’ entire Messianic mission in coming to earth had as its broader goal the annihilation and replacement of the vastest Welfare State the earth had ever seen: ancient Rome. This mission is stated in Daniel 2:44-45, where the prophet refers to the time of “those kings” (meaning the last kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar’s vision, which is a clear reference to Rome):

And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever, just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold.

Jesus Christ is that Stone cut out without hands. The establishment of His Kingdom (Luke 11:20) marked the beginning of the end for Rome. And while it took a few hundred years finally to disappear, it was indeed shattered.

Conclusion

The lessons here are clear. Jesus does not condone a Welfare State, does not condone taxation period, let alone a progressive income tax. Jesus did not teach that governments should take anything from some people and give it to other people. Jesus upheld the laws against theft, and expected everyone to be equal before that law.

And when governments get out of the way, the Word of God can spread more easily, affect more people’s lives, and more people will give freely than ever did under a tyrannical, oppressive system of State coercion.

Jesus not only opposed such political systems, He disdained and defied corrupt politicians in general. His kingdom is not about progressive taxation, but progressive freedom. It is not the epitome of Welfare States, but aims at ending the need for all civil coercion period. Taxation should not increase, but vanish.

Recall that the original question here was about taking. What would Jesus take? In all of these verses and twisted applications, O’Donnell has not provided a single verse that says anything to justify any taking. This is especially true in reference to Jesus. Even if Jesus clearly did demand that we give everything, He nowhere even hinted that it should be forcibly taken from us by anyone, let alone by armed agents of the civil government. Never.

On the contrary, every single one of these verses is about what Jesus expected and observed people doing voluntarily of their own free will. These verses are not about taking, but about giving; not about being taxed or being taken from in any way.

This is the basic leftist delusion: “taking” is the same as “giving.” “Taxing” is the same as “offering.”

But the Bible remains very simple, very clear: thou shalt not steal. This applies to people, corporations, and even to that most monopolistic, violence-based corporation we call the government. Caesar has no inherent right to take what is not his. “Thou shalt not steal” applies to everyone, rich or poor. It does not discriminate based on class, creed, race, sex, gender, party, income, or anything else. That is the Word of God, the standard of Jesus.

And I say, “let God be true yet every man a liar” (Romans 3:4).

Respectfully,
Mark

Our Creator Prefers a Decentralized Civil Government

Dear Friends:

A little over 1,000 years before Christ was born, a rebellion was brewing in Israel. The people had become dissatisfied with the form of civil government that had existed for almost 400 years – a decentralized form of civil government which was set up by Moses while the Israelites were wandering in the wilderness after the exodus from Egypt. Moses’ government was a system of judges with Moses as the first High Judge.

But select capable men from all the people – men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain – and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. Have them serve as judges for the people at all times, but have them bring every difficult case to you; the simple cases they can decide themselves [Exodus 18:21-22; see also Deuteronomy 1:15-17; 16:18-20].

Moses’ system of civil government was very much like our judicial branch today with the United States Supreme Court as the High Court. However, unlike our nation today, the Israelites also recognized both the church’s role and the family’s role in government. Aaron (Moses’ half brother) was the first High Priest and the church had just as much authority and responsibility over its members as the civil government over its members, but in different areas of life. Similarly, the husband/father was the head of the family and also had just as much authority and responsibility over its members as the civil government over its members, but, again, in different areas of life.

As you can see from the above verses, the four requirements for a judge in Moses’ government were (i) that the individual be a citizen (implied); (ii) that the individual fear God; (iii) that the individual be trustworthy; and (iv) that the individual hate dishonest gain. That was all that was required to be a judge. As long as Israel remained obedient to God, the judges stayed true to these requirements and provided justice in the fairest sense of the word which resulted in an abundance of freedom and liberty for the Israelites and the aliens who lived among them. But, just as soon as Israel turned their back on God in rebellion, He set corrupt judges over them. As a consequence, the people lost much of their freedom and liberty because of the perverted justice which prevaled because of corrupt judges.

Nevertheless, the nation of Israel operated rather successfully with this sytem of judges for a little over 400 years until, during a rather rebellious period in Israel’s history, the people became tired of corrupt judges and requested that the High Judge – who was Samuel at the time – set a king over them like all the other nations. [See I Samuel 8:4-5]. Essentially, the people of Israel in their rebellion desired to move from a decentralized form of government to a highly centralized form of government with almost all authority and power vested in one person – the king.

Samuel was nonethless displeased with the people’s request. When Samuel addressed this issue with our Creator, He explained that the people of Israel were not rejecting Samuel as their High Judge, “but they have rejected Me as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking Me and serving other gods, …” [I Samuel 8:6-8].

Our Creator then warned the people of Israel what this king would do.

He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attnedants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day. [I Samuel 8:11-18].

Basically, our Creator warned the people that the king would forcibly confiscate much of their own property for his own use. Property for which the people had worked long and hard would be taken by the highly centralized government until the people became slaves to the government.

But the Israelites did not care. They had forgotten the misery of slavery which their forefathers had experienced in Egypt some 400 years previous. They wanted a king over them so that they would be like all the other nations, with a king to lead them and to go out before them and fight their battles. [See I Samuel 8:19-20]. Instead of a nation set apart, the Israelites wanted to be like the other pagan nations. So, our Creator gave them what they wanted – a king. [See I Samuel 8:22].

The first king was Saul, followed by David. The last king over the whole nation of Israel was Solomon who was supposed to possess great wisdom. Yet, Solomon was not so wise as to recognize the dangers of oppressive taxation. He taxed the people of Israel at oppressive rates they had never before experienced. In fact, it was this oppresive taxation that caused a civil war resulting in the division of Isarael into the two nations of Judah and Isarael.

After all, how else was Solomon to build the elaborate gold laden temple if he did not forcibly confiscate the materials from the people? But, did you know that Solomon’s palace, which was built at about the same time that the temple was being built, was even more elaborate, bigger, and even more gold laden than the temple? [See I Kings 7:1-12]. And just where do you think those materials came from?

During Solomon’s reign over the whole nation of Israel, Jereboam, an Ephraimite, was one of Solomon’s officials. [See I Kings 11:26]. “Jereboam was a man of standing, and when Solomon saw how well the young man did his work, he put him in charge of the whole labor force of the house of Joseph” [I Kings 11:28]. Jereboam’s supervision of the conscripted laborers from the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh (the house of Joseph) made him aware of the smoldering discontent among the people over Solomon’s policies, particularly his tax policies. In a secret meeting with Ahijah, the prophet of Shiloh, Jereboam was told that he would become king over all of the nation of Israel except one tribe. [See I Kings 11: 29-39].

After Solomon died, his son, Rehoboam, became king. Jereboam and “the whole asssembly of Israel” went to Rehoboam and pleaded, “Your father put a heavy yoke on us, but now lighten the harsh labor and the heavy yoke he put on us, and we will serve you” [I Kings 12:3-4; cf. II Chronicles 10:4].

After considering their request and consulting with others for three days, Rehoboam did not listen to the people and replied, “My father made your yoke heavy; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions” [I Kings 12:14; cf. II Chronicles 10:11]. Thereafter began the civil war among the people of Israel in which the nation of Israel was divided into the nation of Judah (over which Rehoboam reigned) and the nation of Israel (over which Jereboam reigned), thus fullfilling the prophecy given by our Creator to the prophet Ahijah.

The three kings over the whole nation of Israel – Saul, David, and Solomon – each reigned for 40 years. So, appoximately 120 years after Isreal rejected our Creator as their king, the nation of Isarael ceased to exist. In other words, it took only 120 years for a highly centralized civil government to destroy what it took a decentralized civil government 400 years to build.

The United States of America has existed as a political entity since 1776. Actually, though, the American ideal of freedom and liberty has existed much longer, even before the United States came into existence, even back before the birth of Christ. However, this way of life has been seriously eroded, primarily since the War Between the States. This event transformed the American regime from a federalist system based on freedom to a centralized state that circumscribed liberty in the name of public order. A generation of young men was massacred, the Southern states were burned and looted, a precedent was set for executive dictatorship, and the American military was transformed from a citizen-based defense corps into a global military power that can’t resist intervention. The direct effects of the war were the first Federal income tax, the creation of a fiat currency allowing uncontrolled spending, and the destruction of a decentralized republic symbolized in the grammatical shift from “these United States” to “the United States,” now a singular noun.

The next major transforming event in American history was Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal which fastened the U.S. economy in the chains of government control. Free markets were phased out. The New Deal was and is a work in progress consummating the revolution in centralism launched by Abraham Lincoln in 1861-65 and extended by Woodrow Wilson, 1913-21. New ideas and political changes such as progressivism consciously forged the chains of government power for the half-century preceding the New Deal, as did the enlarged government role in World War I. In the decades following the New Deal, the federal government enlarged and secured the manacles institutionally. No realm of American life was left untouched – legally, economically, politically, educationally, socially, and religiously. Liberty and free markets became empty ideals next to the reality of the unique American fascism. The throttling of the American ideal of liberty was a bi-partisan work of mainstream Democrats and Republicans alike, with token resistance put up by their less powerful and influential splinter groups, wings, and movements. The two parties monopolistically collaborated to build the structure of centralized government control that we live under today – from the cradle to the grave.

It never fails that when one individual (or a small group of indviduals) is given a great amount of authority over other individuals, that authority is abused. Such abuse results in lost freedom and liberty, as well as perverted justice. These bad things happen because of man’s inherent selfish nature. Our Creator understands this and has recommended ways to minimize this problem. Our Creator knows us better than we know ourselves. After all, He created us. He is the creator and we are the creature. Doesn’t the creator know the creature better than the creature knows itself? So, isn’t it to our advantage to heed our Creator’s advice? And doesn’t that mean we should work towards a decentralized civil government, just as our founding fathers envisioned – a federal government with limited jurisdiction and limited powers? And should we stop there? Shouldn’t we examine our state and local civil governments and implement policies which will prohibit the formation of a highly centralized regime at these lower levels?

Unless we do, we could very well end up like the nation of Israel – divided and conquered.

Respectfully,
Mark

A Biblical View of Private Property

Dear Friends:

God’s sovereignty includes ownership of all His creation. Melchizedek, in blessing Abram, said, “Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth (Genesis 14:19; cf. v. 22). The Bible continues the relationship between sovereignty and ownership by declaring to Israel that all the earth is His (Exodus 19:5). God demands obedience from His people because they live in the midst of His creation. They are responsible as stewards of God’s order. They cannot claim independent sovereignty or independent ownership. The Psalmist records God’s words: “Hear, O My people, and I will speak; O Israel, I will testify against you; I am your God… For every beast of the forest is Mine, the cattle on a thousand hills… For the world is Mine, and all it contains” (Psalm 50:7, 10, 12). The New Testament continues the relationship between sovereignty and ownership: “For the earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains” (I Corinthians 10:26). No aspect of the created order lies outside God’s claim of absolute ownership.

Because God is absolutely sovereign, no earthly institution can claim independent and absolute ownership of property. Only God can claim such a right. Man’s claim to absolute sovereignty is foolish in light of the fact that “God is the Creator, and therefore the Proprietor, Owner, and Lord of all things; apart from him there is neither existence nor ownership; he alone has absolute authority; his will is decisive everywhere and always. Again and again Scripture makes mention of God’s sovereign will.” (Herman Bavinck, The Doctrine of God, trans. William Hendriksen (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, [1951] 1977), 223.) This does not mean, however, that individuals, families, and corporations cannot own property. Rather, it means that the ownership of property is regarded as a stewardship to be governed by the Word of God. The accumulation of property through theft (Exodus 20:15), confiscation of property by governmental decree (I Kings 21), and the willful destruction of property by the envious (Genesis 26:12, 17) are lawless acts, destructive to an orderly society. The possession of property is a way for the godly to fulfill their dominion assignment under God. God gives His creatures possession of the earth to extend the boundaries of the kingdom as they fulfill their calling in obedience to His Word; therefore, the confiscation of property is an attack upon the kingdom and its advance.

Since the family is the primary institution whereby the Dominion Covenant is to be extended, laws were given to protect the property of families. The Jubilee laws of Leviticus 25 insured a family that it would always have land so that dominion could be exercised. Property could not be taxed. Even the father could not dispossess his family from the land because of carelessness, poor stewardship, or debt. Fathers were instructed to lay up an inheritance for their children so that the work of dominion under God could continue.

When a man is secure in the possession of his property, he has an area of liberty and dominion that is beyond the reach of other men. If no man or no State can reach in to tax and confiscate property, man can enjoy true liberty and great security, whether he’s prosperous or poor. Every attack on private property is, therefore, an attack on man’s liberty. Man’s freedom and security in the possession of his property is not only basic to man’s independence, but it is also basic to his power. A man has power if he can act independently of other men and the state, if he can make his stand in the confidence of liberty. Every attack on private property therefore is also an attack on the powers of free men as well as their liberty. ((R. J. Rushdoony, Law and Liberty, 83.))

Is it any wonder, therefore, that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels declared in their 1848 Communist Manifesto, originally titled Manifesto of the Communist Party, that the right to hold individual private property was a crime against the State? Their first “commandment” called for the “abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.” Their third “commandment” abolished “all right of inheritance.”1 Both of these edicts sought to overrule the biblical order where laws against theft operate and inheritance laws are the norm. Marx understood that “property is power.” The Bible secures private property for many individuals and many families. Communism consolidates power under the umbrella of the one State. From this position of consolidated power the State controls the individual, the family, church, school, and every other institution God ordained for the proper ordering of society. The State therefore becomes both sovereign and owner, displacing God as the absolute sovereign and owner over all creation. The direction of the people comes from the State’s central planning committee. This committee determines what is “best” for the people.

Those who wish to deny private property, and thus, the biblical mandate of stewardship, fail to recognize God’s order for society. A person’s property is tied to the past and has meaning for the future because it is seen in the context of the family as God’s means of insuring future dominion. This is why Naboth was unwilling to sell his vineyard: “The Lord forbid that I should give you [Ahab] the inheritance of my fathers” (I Kings 21:3). Property must be seen in the context of a man and his family’s calling under God. The commandments “You shall not steal” and “You shall not covet” (Exodus 20:15, 17) are meaningless unless there are prior owners responsible to God as faithful stewards of His property.

Since the creature’s relationship is one of steward under His heavenly Master, we can expect God to require an accounting of property He places in our possession. A steward manages the household and resources of his owner. The parable of the unfaithful steward shows how serious God is about the resources He places in our care. He expects a return on His investment. The Christian is told to “do business” until Jesus returns: “A certain nobleman went to a distant country to receive a kingdom for himself, and then return. And he called ten of his slaves, and gave them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Do business with this until I come back’” (Luke 19:12-13). The slave who refused to develop and extend the stewardship that was given to him lost even the original possession: “Take the mina away from [the poor steward], and give it to the one who has the ten minas” (v. 24). When the bystanders protested, Jesus silenced them with these words: “I tell you, that to everyone who has shall more be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away” (v. 26).

Those who fail to recognize their ownership as a stewardship seldom understand that without the hand of God they would have nothing. Even the ability to use the property God gives us comes from Him. It is God who gives gifts to men (Ephesians 4:8) and supplies resources for productivity:

It is God who gives rain upon the earth, and sends water upon the fields. He makes His sun to rise upon the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust. He clothes the grass of the field, causing the grass to grow for cattle and herb for the service of man. He feeds the birds of heaven. Not a sparrow falls to the ground without His knowledge and will. He gives us our daily bread… He crowns the year with goodness and the paths drop fatness. He even gives that which is abused and used in the service of another god. He gave grain and new wine and the oil and multiplied silver and gold which they used for Baal. He makes the wind His messengers and flames of fire His ministers. The whole earth is filled with His glory. So that the pious contemplation of His working brings forth the exclamation of adoration, “O Lord, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches” [Job 5:10; Matt. 5:45; Ps. 104:4; 104:24; 65:11; Hos. 2:8].2

The unrighteous steward claims to be the absolute sovereign. He claims absolute ownership because he fails to recognize that all good things come from God’s gracious hand. God will have His day of accounting where He will determine the faithfulness of our stewardship under Him (Matthew 25:21). The unrighteous steward considers himself the source and distributor of wealth. He is accountable to no one for how he uses “his” property.

SOURCES:

1 Marx and Engels, Communist Manifesto, 33.

2 John Murray, The Sovereignty of God (Philadelphia, PA: Great Commission Publications [1943] 1977), 9-10.

Respectfully,
Mark

Post Election Reflection

Dear Friends:

There’s been a lot of post-election reflection. One of the more interesting trends that has surfaced is that evangelicals got back into the political battle. From about 1925 to 1975, evangelicals were not viewed as a definitive voting-block. Evangelicals were generally dismissive of politics for a variety of reasons. The 1973 pro-abortion Roe v. Wade decision and the earlier 1962 prayer1 and 1963 Bible reading2 cases added to the political angst among evangelicals. Even so, there was Jimmy Carter’s “outsider” status as the first acknowledged “born again” candidate in 1976 that gave hope to Evangelicals that a number of these culture-changing decisions might find an advocate of opposition. But it wasn’t too long that Christians were disappointed at Carter’s pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, and pro-big-government policies. In fact, Evangelicals were so enraged that the previously anti-political Jerry Falwell entered politics with the founding of the Moral Majority in 1979. This was quite a change considering the sermon he delivered in 1965, entitled “Ministers and Marchers”:

[A]s far as the relationship of the church to the world, [it] can be expressed as simply as the three words which Paul gave to Timothy – “Preach the Word.” This message is designed to go right to the heart of man and there meet his deep spiritual need. Nowhere are we commissioned to reform externals. We are not told to wage war against bootleggers, liquor stores, gamblers, murderers, prostitutes, racketeers, prejudiced persons or institutions or any other existing evil as such. Our ministry is not reformation, but transformation. The gospel does not clean up the outside but rather regenerates the inside.

While we are told to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” in the true interpretation we have very few ties on this earth. We pay our taxes, cast our votes as a responsibility of citizenship, obey the laws of the land, and other things demanded of us by the society in which we live. But at the same time, we are cognizant that our only purpose on this earth is to know Christ and to make him known. Believing the Bible as I do, I would find it impossible to stop preaching the pure saving gospel of Jesus Christ, and begin doing anything else – including fighting Communism, or participating in civil rights reforms.3

Fifteen years later, Dr. Falwell repudiated his earlier remarks calling them “false prophecy.” In Listen, America!, he outlined his new political agenda: “I am speaking to rally together the people of this country who still believe in decency, the home, the family, morality, the free enterprise system, and all the great ideals that are the cornerstone of this nation. Against the growing tide of permissiveness and moral decay that is crushing our society, we must make a sacred commitment to God Almighty to turn this nation around immediately.”4

What Falwell did not understand was that his 1965 remarks were biblical. There was nothing to apologize for. The first step in turning a culture around is to “Preach the Word.” The heart of man must be changed before there will be any external change, either individually or societally. There still exists in some parts of fundamentalism a dualistic worldview where one must give up reformation for individual transformation. There is no biblical reason to give up anything. The Christian’s ministry is first individual transformation (preaching the gospel and a changed heart) and only then reformation (discipleship and changed nations). It’s conversion then discipleship; justification then sanctification. You can’t have the second without the first, and the second is the natural outgrowth of the first.

The changing of the broader culture is based on two essential elements: (1) the preaching of the gospel and (2) the implementation of God’s Word to every area of life. Let’s look at an example of how this might work. For years, there has been a great concern over the content of music lyrics. One proposed solution was to put warnings on the outside of the albums informing parents that the contents contain explicit sexual language. Some even wanted a listing of the lyrics so parents would know to what their children were listening. In the digital age, with emails, texting, free internet access, YouTube, and downloadable music, self-control and parental direction are required. It is nearly impossible to enforce an ethic when a society constantly rebels against it.

Christians seeking to influence law and public policy must be sensitive not only to basic biblical and theological principles, but to practical considerations as well. Would the proposed law be enforceable? If not, the actual effect of legislation might be to undercut respect for the rule of law and the credibility of Christian political action. The unsuccessful attempt to outlaw the production and sale of alcoholic beverages during Prohibition is an example. The enforceability of a given law presupposes a significant degree of community consensus regarding its justice and wisdom. At times, however, a prophetic minority may be called to create a consensus where none exists….5

The biblical approach is to change the heart and mind through the preaching of the gospel through which the sovereign work of the Spirit does His work and the application of God’s law to the issue. The result is that there is no longer a market for such material. Let’s look at a biblical example. When the Gospel was preached in Ephesus, the black arts were exposed and dealt with at a personal level:

And many of those who practiced magic brought their books together and began burning them in the sight of all; and they counted up the price of them and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. So the word of the Lord was growing mightily and prevailing (Acts 19:19-20).

A change in heart and mind (transformation) resulted in a change in lifestyle (reformation). The market for these books dried up. Obviously, the consensus had changed.

Rousas J. Rushdoony has written that humanists believe in history but not in God, and Christians believe in God but not in history. The “other side,” as James Dobson describes the political left, “finds a way to get its people involved, to raise money. Our side is thinking about something else.” Why? The typical secularist has only this world, so he puts all his efforts in the things of this world. There is no “next world” this side of heaven to consider. For the humanist, this world is both heaven and hell. What a person does with his life and his environment determines his earthly future and the future of this terrestrial ball he calls Mother Earth. Man, the humanist believes, is the master of his destiny, the captain of his soul, the determiner of his fate.

Many Christians err on the other side by asserting that this life and the world in which we live count for very little. Christians have a stake in the world to come through the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, and this redemptive work has made us and this world to count for very little. But this world does count. “The earth is the LORD’s, and all that it contains” (Psalm 24:1). As “fellow heirs with Christ” (Romans 8:17), we possess, as a stewardship, this world. God’s good creation gift requires a righteous stewardship. History is not something to be despised. History is the domain of God’s redemptive work. Until God decides to do something with us personally (through death) and the world in which we live (by creating a new heaven and a new earth), this world is the only place where we can work out our salvation with fear and trembling.

On a Focus on the Family broadcast, James Dobson lamented how inactive pastors were on a particular issue. The reason many pastors gave for not getting involved was that such activity is “too political.” Dobson said that “it’s not political. It’s everything we care about and hope for. It’s everything that Christ taught us, and we are losing it.” Dobson went on to say that the church was “asleep,” and that he was “weary” of coming to the microphone and saying that.6 What was missing?

There is still very little in the way of a comprehensive alternative agenda being offered by Evangelicals. Focus on the Family has done well with family concerns. Dobson’s listeners held him in high regard during his tenure at Focus because he espoused definitive answers to specific personal and family problems. When it comes to the family, James Dobson has done more than curse the darkness. But in other matters, the Evangelical mind‑set has not worked out societal alternatives to counter the humanistic worldview in other areas. The claim is that politics is not a relevant area of Christian work. I don’t know of a Christian who would argue that it would be OK for a neighbor to steal his property. I suspect that he would call the police to stop the theft. But if his neighbors voted for government officials who planned to confiscate his property through taxation, the disengaged Christian would say, “That’s politics, and as a Christian, I shouldn’t be involved in politics. Politics is dirty. Jesus didn’t get mixed up in politics. We’re to ‘render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.’”

Family issues, unlike political issues, are experienced firsthand at close quarters; they occur on a daily basis, and they are ongoing. Political issues do not seem to affect us immediately. We don’t see the effects of political decisions until it’s too late. Politics becomes an issue only every two years during national elections. Even then Christian political activity is minimal. In addition, politicians have made the tyranny of political power seem painless. Consider what your reaction would be if you had to write an actual check each month to pay for Social Security and federal and state income taxes. But since we never see the money (it is deducted from our paychecks), we’re not as affected by the tax tyranny of the national government. In fact, we are so pleased when we get money back from the IRS at tax time (money we overpaid; money the government used without paying interest on it) that we view the return as a gift from the government. Christians of all types want solutions to problems that only later come home to roost.

Civil government is God’s government. He instituted it. The civil magistrate is God’s “minister” (Romans 13:4). We should work and expect magistrates to acknowledge God and rule accordingly, not only in word (oaths to do so) but in action. This won’t happen if we sit on the sidelines or sit at home as the game is played. We don’t live under Caesar; we live under the Constitution. The Constitution makes it clear that we can petition the government for a redress of grievances. And even if it didn’t, we can change it. Civil government needs to be put back into its proper place.

SOURCES:

1 Engel v. Vitale (1962).

2 Abington School District v. Schempp & Murray v. Curlett (1963).

3 Quoted in James A. Speer, New Christian Politics (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1984), 19-20.

4 Jerry Falwell, Listen, America! (New York: Doubleday, 1980), 244.

5 John Jefferson Davis, Evangelical Ethics: Issues facing the Church Today (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1985), 19-20.

6 This material was taken from National and International Religion Report, 3:24 (November 20, 1989), 4.

Respectfully,

Mark

2010-11-09 Is There a Distinctly Biblical Economics?

Dear Friends:

Can economics be studied from a Christian perspective? Is there a distinctly biblical economics, or is the biblical approach to economic issues only one approach among many? Some might maintain that economics is a “neutral” enterprise where religion in general and Christianity in particular are irrelevant. This, however, is not the Christian view. Economics deals with relationships, the exchange of goods, just weights and measures, just business dealings, contracts, investments, future planning, and charity. How is the individual, family, church, business establishment or civil government able to determine how each will govern its financial affairs? There must be a standard. Will that standard be according to man and his word, or according to God and His word? There is no third way. To say, therefore, that economic matters should be evaluated from a neutral premise is to say that God is not concerned about the economic ordering of society.

While the humanist has reservations about Christian involvement in economics, too often even Christians have reservations about Christians bringing the Bible to bear on economic issues. Of course, their reasons are quite different. The humanist does not want to be confronted with moral absolutes. His economic system is designed to serve himself. An example of a humanistic economic decision to serve the purposes of man is the abolition of the gold standard. Man, through the agency of the State, can now create money at will to fund any governmental program proposed by the State. This humanistic economic policy has been disastrous for our country, with inflation and worthless money as the result.

For the Christian, the subject of economics often is looked upon as solely “secular” or “material” and, therefore, outside the realm of spiritual, and thus, biblical considerations. A dichotomy between spiritual (religious) and material (secular) aspects of reality results, as if the Bible does not speak to both. Such thinking effectually cuts Christians off from important earthly endeavors. The Bible, however, makes no such distinction. Material things are not evil in themselves. When God finished His creative work, He looked upon what He had made and evaluated it: ‘‘And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good” (Genesis 1:31). Gary North, commenting on the goodness of the created order in his economic commentary on Genesis, writes:

The first chapter of Genesis repeats this phrase, “and God saw that it was good,” five times (vv. 10, 12, 18, 21, 25), in addition to the final summation in verse 31. God’s creative acts were evaluated by God and found to be good. They reflected His own goodness and the absolute correspondence among His plan, His standards of judgment, His fiat word, and the results of His word, the creation. The creation was good precisely because it was solely the product of God’s sovereign word. God therefore imputed positive value to His creation, for He created it perfect.

The Apostle Paul reiterates God’s evaluation of the created order with the following value judgment: “For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer” (I Timothy 4:4-5). To declare that matter (the make-up of physical things) is somehow evil, is to call God’s creation less than good. God and His creation are dishonored by those who say Christians should not concern themselves with such material (secular) questions as economics.

There were those in the church at Colossae who were persuaded that by avoiding material things they would avoid sin. Paul’s words bring the subject into proper perspective: “If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, ‘Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!’ (which all refer to things destined to perish with the using) – in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence” (Colossians 2:20-23). Material things are not evil. Rather, sinful man’s use of what is created can be sinful. For example, money is not evil, but the love of money is (I Timothy 6:10). Therefore, to take a vow of poverty will in no way eradicate the love for material possessions because sin is not in the things of this world but in the attitudes man holds toward them and their usage (cf. Mark 7:15, 20-23).

The Christian is called to a dominion task, bringing every area of life in submission to Jesus Christ and His commandments (cf. Genesis 1:26-28; Matthew 28:18-20; II Corinthians 10:5-6). This dominion task cannot be accomplished without involvement in our world, including its economic affairs. How can goods be exchanged when there is no concept of value?: “Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep!” (Matthew 12:12).

How can an individual claim ownership and stewardship for his assets without laws to protect property?: “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:15). How can civil governments be prevented from inflating the money supply without laws to protect against debasement of currency?: “You shall have just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin” (Leviticus 19:36). How can lawful trade take place if there are no laws to protect the poor, the consumer, and the businessman if, at will, “the bushel [can be made] smaller and the shekel bigger” (Amos 8:5)? How can present-day civil governments, in the name of “social justice,” be prohibited from stealing from the rich in order to supply the needs of the poor?: “You shall not do injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly” (Leviticus 19:15).

How can citizens be assured that their currency is backed up by a commodity (gold or silver) and not a promise (paper money)? Our nation’s money system had gold and silver as the standard of value. It was written into our Constitution. Paper “money” only “represented” owner-held gold or silver. Noah Webster, in his American Dictionary of the English Language (1828), gives us some of the practical reasons: “Gold and silver, containing great value in a small compass, and being therefore of easy conveyance, and being also durable and little liable to diminution by use, are the most convenient metals for coin or money, which is the representative of commodities of all kinds of lands, and of everything that is capable of being transferred in commerce.” The Bible informs us that “gold…is good” (Genesis 2:12a).

An economic system of some kind will prevail in a society. Economic dominion will be instituted and followed according to some standard. When an economic system is formulated, based on certain religious presuppositions, the next step is implementation of that system. If the system is rooted in the unchanging law of God, the process of implementation must also be biblically based. Conformity to the biblical system comes from within, based upon the regeneration of the heart (self-government under God). Conformity to a humanistic economic system comes from without, usually in terms of violent revolution and eventual governmental tyranny. David Chilton writes:

Men have always had to choose between two methods of social change: regeneration and revolution. The Christian first seeks to discipline himself to God’s standard. He then publishes the gospel and attempts to peacefully implement the laws of God into the life of his culture, trusting in the Spirit of God for the success of his efforts. He knows that there is not, and never will be, a perfect society in this life. He knows that the Kingdom of God spreads like leaven in bread not by massive, disruptive explosions, but by gradual permeation. He knows that justice, righteousness and peace result from the outpouring of the Spirit in the hearts of men (Isaiah 33:15, 18); a nation’s legal structure, is therefore, an indicator, not a cause, of national character. Law does not save.

Economic principles derive their authority from religious principles. Socialistic economic systems see the State as messianic, and therefore, given authority to disrupt any “unequal” social order by whatever means deemed necessary. This usually occurs through State ownership of the means of production. When this process is viewed as too slow, violent revolution usually follows. Contrary to Socialism, a biblical economic system puts the power of economic decision making in the hands of individuals who transact millions of economic decisions every day. The exchange of goods happens freely. If a man wishes to purchase an automobile, he may do so. The automobile dealer freely exchanges his product for the consumer’s money. Each believes he got the better deal. There is no coercion to buy or sell. Economic power remains with the many. If the consumer does not like the deal, he can take his business elsewhere. A free economy allows for competition between automobile manufacturers. In a socialistic system there is little if any competition.

Christians, however, must be aware of those who want to create a “free” market without the unchanging economic laws of God that really govern our freedom. Any economic system that omits God, not only as a factor in production and economic prosperity, but also as the key to economics and economic prosperity, is a false system no matter how anti-statist it may be. The espousal of freedom carries with it certain responsibilities. For example, our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but it does not guarantee freedom to bear false witness or to yell “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater. There is no such thing as unrestricted, autonomous freedom, every man doing what is right in his own eyes, as long as an action does not hurt others (cf. Judges 17:6). While the Christian should be opposed to all forms of Socialism and Marxism because of their collectivistic policies (making the State sovereign), the Christian also should steer clear of unbridled freedom where individual relativism reigns (making the individual sovereign). The Bible is the Christian’s standard, not the independent voice of the individual or the collective voice of the majority.

Respectfully,
Mark

Austerity in America: 22 Signs That It Is Already Here and That It Is Going To Be Very Painful

Dear Friends:

In economics, austerity is a policy of deficit-cutting, lower spending, and a reduction in the amount of benefits and public services provided. Austerity policies are often used by governments to reduce their deficit spending while sometimes coupled with increases in taxes to pay back creditors to reduce debt.

Over the past couple of years, most Americans have shown little concern as austerity measures were imposed on financially troubled nations across Europe. Even as austerity riots erupted in nations such as Greece and Spain, most Americans were still convinced that nothing like that could ever happen here. Well, guess what? Austerity has arrived in America. At this point, it is not a formal, mandated austerity like we have seen in Europe, but the results are just the same. Taxes are going up, services are being slashed dramatically, thousands of state and city employees are being laid off, and politicians seem to be endlessly talking about ways to make even deeper budget cuts. Unfortunately, even with the incredibly severe budget cuts that we have seen already, many state and local governments across the United States are still facing a sea of red ink as far as the eye can see.

Most Americans tend to think of “government debt” as only a problem of the federal government. But that is simply not accurate. The truth is that there are thousands of “government debt problems” from coast to coast. Today, state and local government debt has reached at an all-time high of 22 percent of U.S. GDP. It is a crisis of catastrophic proportions that is not going away any time soon.

A recent article in the New York Times did a good job of summarizing the financial pain that many state governments are feeling right now. Unfortunately, as bad as the budget shortfalls are for this year, they are projected to be even worse in 2012….

While state revenues – shrunken as a result of the recession – are finally starting to improve somewhat, federal stimulus money that had propped up state budgets is vanishing and costs are rising, all of which has left state leaders bracing for what is next. For now, states have budget gaps of $26 billion, by some estimates, and foresee shortfalls of at least $82 billion as they look to next year’s budgets.

So what is the solution? Well, for state and local politicians from coast to coast, the answer to these financial problems is to impose austerity measures. Of course they never, ever use the term “austerity measures”, but that is exactly what they are.

The following are 22 signs that austerity has already arrived in America and that it is going to be very, very painful….

#1 The financial manager of the Detroit Public Schools, Robert Bobb, has submitted a proposal to close half of all the schools in the city. His plan envisions class sizes of up to 62 students in the remaining schools.

#2 Detroit Mayor Dave Bing wants to cut off 20 percent of the entire city from police and trash services in order to save money.

#3 Things are so tight in California that Governor Jerry Brown is requiring approximately 48,000 state workers to turn in their government-paid cell phones by June 1st.

#4 New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is proposing to completely eliminate 20 percent of state agencies.

#5 New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has closed 20 fire departments at night and is proposing layoffs in every single city agency.

#6 In the state of Illinois, lawmakers recently pushed through a 66 percent increase in the personal income tax rate.

#7 The town of Prichard, Alabama came up with a unique way to battle their budget woes recently. They simply stopped sending out pension checks to retired workers. Of course this is a violation of state law, but town officials insist that they just do not have the money.

#8 New Jersey Governor Chris Christie recently purposely skipped a scheduled 3.1 billion dollar payment to that state’s pension system.

#9 The state of New Jersey is in such bad shape that they still are facing a $10 billion budget deficit for this year even after cutting a billion dollars from the education budget and laying off thousands of teachers.

#10 Due to a very serious budget shortfall, the city of Newark, New Jersey recently made very significant cuts to the police force. Subsequently, there has been a very substantial spike in the crime rate.

#11 The city of Camden, New Jersey is “the second most dangerous city in America”, but because of a huge budget shortfall they recently felt forced to lay off half of the city police force.

#12 Philadelphia, Baltimore and Sacramento have all instituted “rolling brownouts” during which various city fire stations are shut down on a rotating basis.

#13 In Georgia, the county of Clayton recently eliminated its entire public bus system in order to save 8 million dollars.

#14 Oakland, California Police Chief Anthony Batts has announced that due to severe budget cuts there are a number of crimes that his department will simply not be able to respond to any longer. The crimes that the Oakland police will no longer be responding to include grand theft, burglary, car wrecks, identity theft and vandalism.

#15 In Connecticut, the governor is asking state legislators to approve the biggest tax increase that the state has seen in two decades.

#16 All across the United States, conditions at many state parks, recreation areas and historic sites are deplorable at best. Some states have backlogs of repair projects that are now over a billion dollars long. The following is a quote from a recent MSNBC article about these project backlogs….

More than a dozen states estimate that their backlogs are at least $100 million. Massachusetts and New York’s are at least $1 billion. Hawaii officials called park conditions “deplorable” in a December report asking for $50 million per year for five years to tackle a $240 million backlog that covers parks, trails and harbors.

#17 The state of Arizona recently announced that it has decided to stop paying for many types of organ transplants for people enrolled in its Medicaid program.

#18 Not only that, but Arizona is so desperate for money that they have even sold off the state capitol building, the state supreme court building and the legislative chambers.

#19 All over the nation, asphalt roads are actually being ground up and are being replaced with gravel because it is cheaper to maintain. The state of South Dakota has transformed over 100 miles of asphalt road into gravel over the past year, and 38 out of the 83 counties in the state of Michigan have transformed at least some of their asphalt roads into gravel roads.

#20 The state of Illinois is such a financial disaster zone that it is hard to even describe. According to 60 Minutes, the state of Illinois is six months behind on their bill payments. 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Croft asked Illinois state Comptroller Dan Hynes how many people and organizations are waiting to be paid by the state, and this is how Hynes responded….

“It’s fair to say that there are tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people waiting to be paid by the state.”

#21 The city of Chicago is in such dire straits financially that officials there are actually toying with the idea of setting up a city-owned casino as a way to raise cash.

#22 Michigan Governor Rick Snyder is desperately looking for ways to cut the budget and he says that “hundreds of jurisdictions” in his state could go bankrupt over the next few years.

But everything that you have just read is only the beginning. Budget shortfalls for our state and local governments are projected to be much worse in the years ahead.

So what is the answer? Well, our state and local governments are going to have to spend less money. That means that we are likely to see even more savage budget cutting.

In addition, our state and local politicians are going to feel intense pressure to find ways to “raise revenue”. In fact, we are already starting to see this happen.

According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, over the past couple of years a total of 36 out of the 50 U.S. states have raised taxes or fees of some sort.

So hold on to your wallets, because the politicians are going to be coming after them.

We are entering a time of extreme financial stress in America. The federal government is broke. Most of our state and local governments are broke. Record numbers of Americans are going bankrupt. Record numbers of Americans are being kicked out of their homes. Record numbers of Americans are now living in poverty.

The debt-fueled prosperity of the last several decades came at a cost. We literally mortgaged the future. Now nothing will ever be the same again.

Respectfully,
Mark

Why Liberals Can’t Deal with Bullying

Dear Friends:

Bullying has been going on for a long time. The strong often prey on the weak for any number of reasons. Bullies are cowards. They are middle management. Those at the top of the social pecking order hardly ever bully. They don’t need to. Those in the middle bully to claim what’s left of the territory held by those at the top. They can’t succeed by hard work, intelligence, or social status, so they bully to artificially raise their standing. By pushing the weak down, they falsely elevate themselves. Bullies rarely stop. They go through life denigrating everybody they meet. It’s the only way they can feel important and superior. The Bible describes this as “lording it over” (Matthew 20:25) rather than acting as servants (vv. 26-28).

The demands of a Christian worldview require that bullying be rejected. Christians should be protectors and guardians no matter who is being bullied. For some young people, bullying is a way of life. Used to, there was always someone who would not tolerate weaker kids being pushed around. Someone who was bigger and badder than the bullies, but for some reason sympathized with the underdog.

The moral climate today is different from the way it used to be. Bullying could not be justified then since the remnants of a Christian worldview were still operating. Given what we know about what public school children are being taught today, bullying is natural. The strong can and should bully the weak. The survival of the fittest is a biological and scientific fact justified by the major tenets of evolution. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the Columbine shooters, justified their actions based on Natural Selection. In fact, Harris was wearing “a white T-shirt with the inscription ‘Natural Selection’ on its front.” It was based on a video game of the same name. “The game’s World Wide Web site says it encompasses a ‘realm where anything can happen,’ a place for the ‘bravest of the brave and the fiercest of the fierce…. It’s a place where survival of the fittest takes a very literal meaning…. It’s the natural way, it’s Natural Selection.”1

The Columbine incident was not the only case where bullying was carried out to its logical extreme by those who have imbibed at the sacred waters of evolution. “At least seven people were killed when a teenaged gunman opened fire at a school in southern Finland on November 7, 2007, hours after a video was posted on YouTube predicting a massacre there. The gunman was a pupil at Jokela High School, a teacher who witnessed the attack told Reuters, and had walked through the school firing into classroom after classroom…. The YouTube video, entitled ‘Jokela High School Massacre – 11/7/2007,’ was posted by a user called ‘Sturmgeist89.’ ‘I am prepared to fight and die for my cause,’ read a posting by a user of the same name. ‘I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection.’ Sturmgeist means storm spirit in German.”2 The shooter described himself as “a social Darwinist.”3

The homosexual anti-bullying crowd has appealed to the animal world to justify their sexual behavior. For example, And Tango Makes Three4 is an illustrated children’s book about two male penguins that raise a baby penguin. Supposedly this penguin pair is spot-on evidence that homosexuality is “natural.” But animals are notorious bullies. The weak most often do not survive. They are attacked and eaten by predators and even their own species act cruelly to the weakest members. In the end, there is no justification for anti-bullying in the world of evolutionary dominance. Kids are doing what they are being taught is natural. Anti-bullying campaigns are schizophrenic. They are generally anti-Christian, and yet they need Christian values to justify anti-bullying.

There seems to be a link between teaching evolution and bullying. An article appeared in USA TODAY in 1993 that makes a similar case. It was written by Barbara Reynolds and is titled “If Your Kids Go Ape in School, You’ll Know Why.”5

Don’t be surprised if our little darlings go ape or get up to monkeyshines when they return to class.

Misbehavior tops the list of what parents and teachers worry about.

And that’s exactly where such concerns belong, considering what kids are not being taught in school.

In most schools, Johnetta and Johnny are being taught evolution, that humankind evolved from apes.6

The issue came to the forefront recently because a school district near San Diego had the good sense to adopt a policy of teaching creationism, much to the dismay of critics, including USA TODAY’s editorial page.

It is amazing that media institutions that virtually worship the First Amendment are the first to toss it when it comes to religious free speech. When both creationism and evolution are taught side by side, you don’t have the establishment of a religion, which the Constitution prohibits, but an opportunity to be protected from one-sided, narrow thinking, which the Constitution encourages.

Prohibiting the teaching of creationism in favor of evolution creates an atheistic, belligerent tone that might explain why our kids sometimes perform like Godzilla instead of children made in the image of God.

While evolution teaches that we are accidents or freaks of nature, creationism shows humankind as the offspring of a divine Creator. There are rules to follow which govern not only our time on Earth, but also our afterlife.

One philosophy preaches happenstance with mayhem as a conclusion; the other, divine order. One suggests the survival of the fittest; the other, a commitment to serve the weakest and sickest among us. To me, there is no contest. Teaching evolution makes about as much sense as teaching our kids that humankind was grown in a cabbage patch or raised by wolves. Even in the dullest mind, a light bulb should go off: Who created the cabbage, and who made the wolves?

Under the rules of evolution, teachers are forced to answer to King Kong rather than to the King of Kings.

We are not human animals. We have written speech and higher intellect, but more important, we have souls fueled by a spirit of right or wrong.

Human action is determined by core beliefs. Creationism teaches that humans are wonderfully made with the promise of high expectations.

If evolution is forced on our kids, we shouldn’t be perplexed when they beat on their chests or, worse yet, beat on each other and their teachers.

SOURCES:

1 Kevin Vaughan, “Judge Unseals Autopsy Report on Eric Harris,” Denver Rocky Mountain News (June 25, 1999).

2 “Seven killed at Finland school after YouTube post,” Reuters (November 7, 2007): An almost identical article by “Sky News” does not include the “natural selector” and “natural selection” comments.

3 David Williams, “Eight shot dead including principal in school massacre predicted in YouTube video,” Daily Mail online (November 7, 2007).

4 Cristina Cardoze, “They’re in love. They’re gay. They’re penguins…. And they’re not alone” (June 6, 2006).

5 This article originally appeared in USA TODAY (August 27, 1993), 11A.

6 Actually, evolutionists teach that humans and apes evolved from a distant common ancestor.

Respectfully,
Mark