Biblical Dialogue for Thinking Christians

We are living in a post-Constitutional reality in the United States of America. The Marxist-Jihadist political alliance wants nothing short of the destruction of America and every last vestige of true Constitutional liberty and responsibility. The other side, ostensibly our representatives, profess to love America and might be so bold as to claim to be willing to pay any price to restore the moral, spiritual, and truly Constitutional vigour of a bygone day. But do they? Their actions speak far louder than their empty political assertions of friendship and faithfulness to those they pretend to represent.

I am, of course, speaking of today’s Republican Party. With only a handful of exceptions, these so-called representatives seem to be in bondage to a craven self-interest and ambition which can only yield the syrupy kiss of betrayal to their fellow Americans. In the midst of this terrible reality a question gnaws at my heart and mind. Where is the Spirit of ’76? Where are those who will identify and adopt a truly Christian ethos regarding human government generally and the American System of governance specifically. Who of us will insist upon a reawakening of this system with a faithfulness and zeal which will again pledge “our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

But what exactly is the Spirit of ’76? How shall we define it? The following is my definition of the Spirit of ’76. A specific view of the rights of man, under God, with special reference to the reciprocal rights, duties, privileges, and responsibilities existing between a properly constituted governing authority and a sovereign body politic. This is the mindset which served as the foundation of and justification for the American Revolution and the subsequent development of the Constitution of the United States of America.

What are some of the principles we find undergirding this Spirit of ’76? Here are a few. 

1) A firm belief in the God of the Bible who is universally sovereign over men and nations. 2) A firm belief in the supreme and transcendent moral law of God and its reflection in human nature, that is, in “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. (the Declaration of Independence) 

3) That there is a universal moral obligation to obey His moral law and to worship Him only. 

4) That there is a universal societal need for the existence and operation of human governments, and that God has thus ordained their existence under His ultimate, absolute, and universal sovereignty. 

5) A firm belief in the universal moral corruption of mankind and its reflection in all human institutions, especially human government. 

6) That human government must therefore be restrained by wise and prudent measures. 

7) That self-government, practiced by a “virtuous citizenry”, flowing from the individual citizen to the corporate governmental structure, is the highest legal and governmental ideal which can be achieved on earth, and that it can be best achieved by that nation “whose God is the LORD.” (Psalm 33:12) and 8) That there is a definitive limitation, under God, to all human authority, especially all governmental authority.

How were these principles applied by our forefathers to the circumstances they found themselves in before, during, and after the American Revolution? 

1) That “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” (the Declaration of Independence) 

2) That any human law which defies and violates God’s moral law is illegitimate. 

3) That it is the right of  the governed, in yielding their consent, to amend any law or governmental practice in order to redress any malfeasance whose logical outcome would be tyranny or full blown totalitarianism. 

4) That when all efforts at redress are ineffectual, and their current “Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends,” these ends being the preservation of life, liberty, and property, “it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government.” (Declaration of Independence)

Regarding a Christian philosophy of human government with particular reference to the American System of government, we need to answer this question. Under our system of government, who and/or what is Caesar? I have been in many churches where the preacher or teacher had occasion to mention the exchange between Jesus, the Pharisees, and the Herodians regarding the paying of taxes to Caesar. I have heard them address this issue in various and sundry ways, but I have never heard one of them address this crucial question. Who is the American Caesar?

In order to rightly “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” we must know who Caesar is and what he expects of us. Under the American system of federated republican self-government, where the people exercise their sovereignty through elected representatives at the local, state, and federal levels, Caesar is, in the first instance, the people themselves, and then by extension their respective State Constitutions and especially the Federal Constitution to which their consent must be continually given. Hence the importance of Benjamin Franklin’s answer to the question, “What kind of government have you given us?” which was, “ A republic if YOU can keep it.”

Based on his challenge of preserving our system of republican self-government the American Caesar must be continually rising up to ensure a faithful governmental adherence to the guantaree written in Article 4 Section 4 of our Federal Constitution, namely: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.” Our forefathers made it abundantly clear that they only expected a virtuous and vigilant citizenry to be able to successfully accomplish this task.

Again, the American Caesar are those Americans, and only those Americans who desire the faithful continuance of our Federal Constitution as originally written and delineated. Those of the Marxist/Jihadist persuasion, who desire the destruction of this system have no right to the name American Caesar. They are a domestic enemy which must be destroyed. Likewise, likeminded or derelict representatives, judges, and bureaucrats who have insinuated themselves into our governmental systems, and do not possess either the desire or courage to meet this challenge are not worthy of the name American Caesar.

In considering this battle for the survival of the United States of America as founded, we must readily acknowledge the full measure of lies, deceit, and fraudulent schemes which the Marxists and now the Marxist/Jihadist alliance are using to destroy our system of government and erect a totalitarian system in its place. But we also must confess that we have been dangerously remiss in the area of virtuous and vigilant citizenship by failing to adequately define and destroy this diabolical enemy. Thankfully, millions of Americans are now awakened to this war and to the savage nature of our enemy. 

Many are laboring  diligently and even heroically to win this fight, and many have already paid a significant price to save America. However, we need to honestly assess our prospects for an eventual and unconditional victory. This question must be asked and answered. Are we merely “snipping at the branches,” or are we “striking at the root to destroy the whole?” What do I mean by this question? In the days of the Scottish Reformation, after the Reformer John Knox had begun his preaching ministry, the comment was made, “Others have snipped at the branches of popery, but Knox strikes at the root to destroy the whole.” A few days ago, I heard a co-host on a Real America’s Voice show I watch say the following in addressing a current issue with a guest, ”It seems like it’s an endless game of Whack-a Mole.” This is what “snipping at the branches” is all about. It is endlessly doing many things, and things which ought to be done, but which always leave something else yet to be done. It is a tactic which America’s enemies can use to their advantage in order to wait us out and eventually succeed.

We need a tactic by which we can effectively “strike at the root to destroy the whole” of the forces which are arrayed against us. What we need is a massive tax rebellion. Why? 

1) Because the problem is far too massive and far too thoroughly ingrained into the governmental apparatus at the federal and state levels for any President, even a Donald J. Trump, to fix it. 

2) Because it is time for the American Caesar to arise, take the lead, and demand a thorough accounting and full redress of all legitimate grievances. 

3) Because every issue we are dealing with is one in which the American taxpayer has been defrauded, insulted, and trampled under foot by a multiplicity of forces endlessly feeding at the American money trough. 

4) Because even our Marxist/Jihadist enemies are using our tax structures to wage war against us. 

5) Because it is not, in the final analysis, about money merely. It is a question of governmental legitimacy and the unwillingness of the American Caesar to any longer be a party to a suicide pact written out in his name. 

6) Because the logistics of executing this kind of tactic is simplicity itself and could easily involve millions from every strata of society. 

7) Because it will succeed, finally, in getting the rapt attention of the many headed governmental leviathan, and opening its shut up ears. 

8) Because this action would be in full conformity with the moral and legal principle that what one does by the hand of another one is primarily responsible for. Our elected representatives act in our name and we are responsible for their legislative actions. If nefarious laws and policies are put in place which act against the very spirit of our founding; if nefarious actions are ignored whose continuance would strike a blow against the continued well-being of our nation as founded; and we have not the virtue or vigilance to make all necessary amends then we are unworthy of the name American. In such a case, a sovereign God in His benevolence and providence will see to it that we fall under another more suitable system of governance. 

9) Because a massive tax rebellion would be in full conformity with the Spirit of ’76.

Who would argue that we are not in a fight for the very survival of the United States of America as founded? The Marxist/Jihadist alliance, and all who side with them in any way, shape, or form, have no legitimate voice in this matter. They are the enemy. They will certainly yammer endlessly on about democracy, autocracy, tyranny, Hitler, discrimination, “rights,” violence, and perhaps even their own perverse hijacking of Christianity. But take no bait. Give them no voice. Answer no charge. Would two or three of their champions be willing to meet two or three of our champions in an honest and forthright debate where only facts and evidence are put on display under the light of civil dialogue?

No indeed. Therefore, we must take the offensive and push it unrelentingly forward to the end. If the use of a massive tax rebellion should be rejected, some kind of action must be adopted which could at once address the many issues we are battling in an equally efficient way. However, it is my opinion that there is no other option. It is my opinion that it is a kind of national insanity to complain, write books, host news shows, start political and social organizations, and mobilize all manner of action, while at the same time continuing to finance the very things you propose to destroy. Finally, it is my opinion that if this course is not adopted the day will come, in the not so distant future, when American patriots, the American Caesar, will be forced to take up arms against overwhelming odds to endeavour to save life, liberty, property, and the American way of life.

No discrimination! That cry is heard from every corner of our nation these days. It is a very fashionable cry, but is it one which is realistic? Is it in any way based on truth and reality? As with any issue, to truly and reasonably discuss this one we must approach it from an acknowledged baseline; an acknowledged point of reference which is objective, authoritative and definitive. In this essay, the Bible will be that baseline.

The Scriptures plainly tell us that God is sovereign regarding the moral affairs of men and nations. His glory He will not give to another. We are told that God works all things according to the counsel of His own will. Regardless of momentary appearances, all things will ultimately serve His purpose. In His judgments and corresponding actions, He will always discriminate in favor of Himself, and it is perfectly just that He does so.

The Scriptures also plainly tell us, both by direct proclamation and by historical illustration, that human government is ordained by God to enforce law and order among men. He rules over and guides the nations. In this regard, all truly legitimate human government, though never strictly perfect, will willingly serve His purpose. All others will ultimately do so whether they want to or not, and whether they know it or not. These are broad statements, and further discussion on this point is beyond the scope of this essay, but a consideration of the history of nations, Jewish, Christian, and pagan, will show them to be true. 

All human government is founded on some kind of philosophical/religious system upon which its legitimacy, authority, and its mechanical and moral structures depend. Accordingly, any human government will ultimately discriminate in favor of itself in its dealings with those who live under that government. Therefore, we must again ask the question – Is it possible for there to be a truly discrimination free society which is derived from some kind of human government? No, and today, in America, the notion that there can be is a subtle and speciously contrived and propagated myth designed to subjugate those who oppose the philosophical/religious underpinnings of that myth. 

Again, all human government will discriminate in favor of the philosophical/religious principles which are prevailing within it. This does not mean that all such discrimination is right and just, but that all discrimination which carries with it a positive governmental sanction will be seen as right and just by those who support that sanction, and will be defended as such.

There are two specific aspects of discrimination which we must consider. The first is the mental act of judging or making distinctions between differing moral positions. The second is publicly acting upon those various distinctions in society and culture. This second aspect is the one most commonly associated with the term “discrimination,” as it is used today in the public square. Both of these pertain equally to an individual or an association of individuals, although the considerations of an association are more easily known.

It is from the personal aspect of moral discrimination that we derive what we know as the “right of conscience.” Today in America, in theory at least, it is still generally maintained that the right of conscience cannot be abridged. The individual cannot be coerced into an action which requires him to violate his conscience. By extension, what applies to the individual must also apply to an association of individuals. Because of the duplicity of the human mind, and hence of the motives by which a man acts, even this right of conscience is not absolute, or beyond a discriminating assessment. That is a subject for another essay.

Acting publicly upon moral distinctions, or the act of public discrimination, is what will inevitably bring an individual, or association of individuals, into harmony with, or conflict with, the prevailing moral principles upon which current governmental authority is predicated, and upon which it acts, especially with regard to the liberties its citizens have to freely engage in the various kinds of public discourse. This must inevitably produce both positive and negative discrimination in terms of law, the administration of justice, and the establishing of a general social ethos by way of general governmental policy. In the arena of governmental policy, law, and the administration of justice, there is no such thing as pure impartiality. In other words, there is no such thing as a discrimination free society. 

The foregoing statements and principles can shed much light on the governmental, societal, and cultural upheaval which has been taking place in our nation for the last seventy years, the seeds of which go back much further. To consider this upheaval is beyond the scope of this essay. For an in depth analysis of this upheaval, the book “The Long March,” by Roger Kimball is recommended.

Needless to say, a legal, governmental, social, and cultural upheaval has taken place, the realities of which are easily seen all around us, not in the fact that discrimination is somehow coming to an end, but rather in the kinds of discrimination which now prevail. Let us consider a few specifics.

Upon the moral principle of “choice,” “reproductive rights,” and a woman’s inviolably autonomous right to her body, pregnancy is considered a possible violation of those rights, subject only to the unilateral determination or “choice” of the woman, and that pregnancy is subject to termination at any time based solely upon that decision. The rights of the unborn child are thus absolutely and fatally discriminated against in favor of autonomous woman. 

Upon the moral principle of universal, autonomous sexual legitimacy, an individual, or association of individuals, owning and operating a bakery or a flower shop, or by extension any pertinent business, can be compelled to violate their conscience and morally validate homosexual “marriage” by means of the services that business performs. And, this is done despite the fact that there are many businesses offering the same services who would readily accommodate the clients in question. Thus the right of conscience of these businesses is militantly discriminated against in favor of the right of universal, autonomous sexual legitimacy.

Upon the speciously contrived principle of the separation of Church and State, along with the equally specious principle of universal and absolute inclusiveness, the plainly stated constitutional principle of free religious expression is abrogated. Thus, a high school or college football coach is not at liberty to publicly pray, alone or with his players, before, during, or after a game. Thus, someone recommended for governmental service is subjected to a religious test, again contrary to the explicit dictates of the Constitution, and is implicitly disqualified from that service based solely upon sincerely held religious beliefs, and the consistent practice of same. Thus, constitutionally approved religious freedom is discriminated against in favor of supposed neutrality in religious matters, and upon the principle of absolute and universal inclusiveness. 

While those who adhere to these aforementioned principles, and others like them, profess to truthfully and honestly practice them, in reality they are used prejudicially by exerting both a positive and negative discrimination. In this way they seek to sustain their authority by means of governmental policy, law, and the administration of justice. They also seek to establish and sustain a general social and cultural ethos. The sheer arbitrariness of their arguments and actions betrays the fact that in truth there is nothing objectively absolute about them. They have no truly objective, authoritative, and definitive standard which guides them. They make it up as they go along, according to the needs of the immediate moment. The end which they must have in view, though not overtly stated, is to establish themselves as a law unto themselves and subject only to themselves.

It might be easy to conclude from all this that the art of debate and persuasion is pointless, or nearly so, but this we must not do. No doubt there will be many of our fellow Americans who are subject to persuasion and change. Those of us who believe in a God who is Truth and Light and Love; those of us who believe in the power of the gospel to change hearts and minds and lives; those of us who believe in a God who hears and answers prayer, must pray and act accordingly. As it becomes possible, we must implement changes in law, government, the administration of justice, and social and cultural morality, according to our objective, authoritative, and definitive principles. This we must do confidently and without fear or apology 

The words freedom and liberty are commonly used synonymously or interchangeably. That is, they are used as if there are no real distinctions to be made between them. However, with some consideration important distinctions can be made as we approach each word from a biblical or Christian point of reference. 

Human freedom is a reality which is distinctly and uniquely individual in nature. This involves what I would call the state of created order rather than the state of nature. The term state of nature has been used prominently in moral and political philosophy, but this idea, in my mind anyway, falls short for one primary reason: It is acknowledged that such a consideration is purely hypothetical. We can find no instance in history, biblical or otherwise, where mankind actually lived and operated under conditions which could be described as an actual state of nature; a condition whereby men are completely free of all restraint and consideration but that of purely individual desires, and are under no governing reality other than unrestrained self-will.

On the other hand, the term state of created order assumes a Creator, and this assumes a created order involving both physical and moral law. The Bible, in chapters one and two of the book of Romans, plainly declares that mankind, in his created state, has an inherent knowledge and understanding of both physical and moral law, and the testimony each bears toward the Creator and Ruler of the universe. Being created in the image of God, mankind is above all created free. This freedom we have retained notwithstanding Adam’s fall from his created state of innocence. 

From the Lord’s treatment of Cain in Genesis chapter four, and throughout the Scriptures, God treats all humanity as responsibly free and individually accountable for the use of that freedom, notwithstanding instances where the Bible also reveals God’s sovereignty in superintending human history according to His purpose. One of the greatest elements of God’s glory resides in the fact that He is able to bring His purpose to pass without the least violation of any man’s freedom to do as he will. 

Thus, every human soul who inhabits this earth is equally free under God, and is equally accountable before God for the way in which that freedom is used. But, it is important to stress that the soul is free under God; that is, human life and human freedom is a stewardship given to man by God with its requisite limitations and ultimate accountability. The Bible states in Hebrews 9:27 that “it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment.” Every one of us is free while we live our earthly lives, but none of us are truly, absolutely, or ultimately autonomous, that is, independent of God in any way, shape, or form. As the apostle Paul told the Athenians so long ago, “In Him we live and move and exist, even as some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His offspring.’” (Acts 17:28) 

All human souls are born into this world equally free. But all are not equally at liberty to exercise that freedom as they otherwise might absent outside factors which restrain that liberty, or constrain it into undesired action or inaction. Herein lies the important distinction between that freedom in which all participate equally, and the varying degrees of liberty we commonly find throughout the communities and nations of this world. In this regard we find that whereas freedom is uniquely an individual concept, liberty is uniquely corporate in nature; something which is dependent on the many different levels and degrees of human governance which are in operation all around us. While this is true of families, businesses, schools, churches, the military, and so on, we usually, and most specifically relate this idea to national governments, especially as they exert a tremendous authoritative influence over the aforementioned entities. Let us consider a couple of specific examples which illustrate this distinction between freedom and liberty.

A Christian in North Korea or Saudi Arabia is as free under God as an American Christian to stand on a street corner in Pyongyang or Mecca and preach the gospel. Corporately, Christians in those countries are equally free under God to organize a local church in order to teach the saints and preach the gospel to the lost. But Christians in North Korea or Saudi Arabia are not equally at liberty to exercise that freedom. The costs of liberty are far greater in those countries than in America, and wisdom and prudence dictate that those costs should be considered in determining appropriate action. 

A woman under the governance of a strict Muslim family in a strict Islamic nation like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan is equally as free under God as an American woman to dress as she pleases, to marry whom she pleases, to go where she pleases, to drive if she pleases, and to worship God as she pleases, according the dictates of her conscience, if she is willing to pay the price required for the liberty of exercising that freedom. The cost of liberty for an Arabian or Afghanistani woman is far higher than for an American woman. 

Examples such as those mentioned above could be multiplied many times over if we were to continue comparing life in America to life in many other nations of the world. But we should not therefore conclude that there is not a cost involved in maintaining the liberties we so often take for granted here in the USA. This is strongly implied in the statement of Benjamin Franklin, who, when asked what kind of government the Constitutional Convention had created answered, “… a Republic, if you can keep it.” 

Knowing that there are many who will question this statement I will make it anyway: The power and influence of Christianity established the liberties which we Americans have enjoyed since our founding, and the truths which undergird that power and influence have also established and defined the cost of maintaining these liberties. In the first instance, these costs are moral and spiritual in nature. Among them are faith in God, adherence to the Truth as it is in Jesus, submission to the rule and will of God, a commitment to righteous living under God, and a resolute vigilance in maintaining a system of law which reflects both the goodness and holiness of God. Comprehended in this are all the traits we think of as describing a virtuous citizenry. Prudence, self-control, fortitude, honesty, integrity, and loyalty are some of the those traits.

From the days of the First Great Awakening, and throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the Church in America, though by no means perfect, was nonetheless a faithful custodian of these things. This is an uncontested fact of history, historical revisionists notwithstanding. Tragically, during the twentieth century the Church became increasingly superficial and worldly in its approach to the proclamation, inculcation, and public upholding of the gospel, and consequently of those things which are necessary to the maintenance of the American Republic. 

As the power and influence of the Church in America has declined (and let no one doubt that it has, in fact, declined) ideas relative to liberty and what that concept means and requires have been, and continue to be corrupted. While the skeleton of a constitutional republic may remain, these corrupt ideas relative to the possession and exercise of true liberty are bringing about a decisive foundational shift; a shift which portends the end of liberty as defined by biblical truth and as exemplified by the Spirit of ‘76 and the American nation it gave birth to.

Though it is beyond the scope of this essay to go into great detail, these “new” ideas, as expounded in government, education, the media, and the arts, amount to a false liberty derived from arbitrary, totalitarian human authority. These “new” ideas are nothing but the same “old” ideas which are grounded in a defiant rebellion against God. The Psalmist described these “new” ideas many generations ago: Why are the nations in an uproar, and the peoples devising a vain thing? The kings of the earth take their stand, and the rulers take counsel together against the LORD and against His Anointed: “Let us tear their fetters apart, and cast away their cords from us!” He who sits in the heavens laughs, the Lord scoffs at them. Then He will speak to them in His anger and terrify them in His fury: “But as for Me, I have installed My King upon Zion, My holy mountain.” (Psalm 2:1-6)

A foundation based upon rebellion against God, and a liberty which is derived from that foundation cannot be sustained. It is no accident that as those who ply these waters begin to prevail, chaos, corruption, confusion, a spirit of mutual enmity, and an increasing attempt to restrict the liberty of those who support a God ordained governmental order, follows in their wake. And if, in fact, their influence and power continues to increase, we can only expect more and more restrictions to our liberties; restrictions which will require a quiet compliance or an overt and godly defiance, trusting that a holy and sovereign God will act on His behalf, and ours, to reestablish a right and true foundation.

Many in the Church will give lip service to the need for a genuine awakening; a genuine spirit of repentance and reformation in the life and functioning of our churches. Sadly, the reality on the ground is that the Church continues to do nothing, lulled to sleep by the dreamy illusion of peace and prosperity, of blessing and well-being, of a false sense of the grace of God, and of a false hope that somehow we shall escape the righteous judgment of God. Apart from a true, Holy Spirit induced and empowered awakening in the Church and in society at large, our Sovereign Lord will act, but not as many vainly imagine. He will act, first of all, to remove the illusions under which the Church currently lives and operates, some of which were mentioned above. He will act to restrain the liberty which we Americans have vainly and defiantly abused as free men and women under God. And He will act to prove again what He has proven so many times throughout human history, namely, that we should not allow ourselves to be deceived. God will not allow Himself to be mocked forever. At the right time, and in the right way, He will act and show once again that under His divine government whatever men and nations sow, they shall reap.