The Actual Origin of Goverment

It's a very popular opinion, and one that I have held for a considerable point of time, that ultimately governments get their just powers from the consent of the governed. It is an idea called the social contract theory, and remarkably, it is actually wrong. 

Yes, it sounds nice when we say it. Men live in a state of nature, free men, but they find that their freedom is not protected from stronger, less moral men, who like to prey on the weak. Thus, these men come together and form a government, delegating some of their power, so that their rights can be protected from brute force. 

But I don't know about you, but I've never seen a government that has been formed in that manner. Indeed, all governments that we seem to see formed are simply transferring from one government to another. We have never actually examined a government being formed from a state of nature.

That isn't necessarily a problem for social contract theorists because simply because we wouldn't know how the first government started, doesn't mean that it didn't start out as a social contract. 

No, the problem instead begins with the fact that we actually kinda have seen the first government being created, and it wasn't made by man, but by God. 

The very first government was put in place by God before the fall! Adam and Eve were given dominion over all animals when they were placed in the Garden of Eden. the Lord gave them a sceptre and used them to rule over creation. Welcome to government. 

Then of course, we sinned, and government's purpose was slightly corrupted, but God still ordained it as a good force. Romans 13 explains, 

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

Indeed, the social contract theorists' favorite points about how government is a necessary evil or necessary because of evil are kinda both wrong from a biblical perspective. Now don't get me wrong, there are definitely things done by government that are not good, and this verse does not prevent those from being a thing, but government as an institution is a "minister unto us for good." 

The fact that government is not actually evil is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that there will be a government in heaven. The Kingdom of God is just maybe a bit of a thing that comes up in Scriptures here and there. Probably not a big deal though. 

My essential arguments about the principles of government remain unchanged, but now it's not because there's a contract that men have signed with government that limits what they are to do, but because God ordained the government for a specific purpose, and they probably ought to fulfill that purpose. 

Yes, I actually think I have a more compelling case now. Following God's ordinance is more important than following man's ordinance, after all. 

Legitimacy of Iraqi Bombing

Last political post, I used the situation in Ukraine to demonstrate that the United States should intervene in foreign conflicts only to protect national security. Had I not already laid this groundwork then, I would not likely be bold enough to write this post today. It's time to use those principles as it pertains to President Obama's decision to bomb Iraq.

The situation in Iraq is depressing. A full out civil war is in place as radical muslims begin to persecute Christians and other non-muslim minorities in Iraq. This situation changed President Obama's typical hands-off approach to a more interventionist mentality as he ordered bombing on these radical rebels in Iraq.

Naturally, all Christians need to have compassion for the plight of these Christians that are being persecuted there in Iraq. Compassion is a great motivation for individual action in the world, such as the action taken by the Catholic Near East Welfare Association. However, compassion should not impact foreign policy decisions.

I know, I sound like a heartless jerk. But governments are amoral entities which need to follow the contracts that they are created for, and charity is not one of those purposes. Last political post, you all probably agreed with my rationale as it pertained to the situation in Russia and Ukraine, but now because Christians are being persecuted, things begin to change.

I get it. I hate what is happening in Iraq as much as you do. But if there is one thing I've learned, it's this - it does no good to have principles if you don't follow them universally. Otherwise, you follow them only when you deem it convenient, and you mise well not have principles at all.

So we can't change the way we view politics just because we have more compassion for the situation that is brought in before it. Indeed if you remember back to Davy Crockett's "Not Yours to Give" speech, you will find that that is the very argument he uses to say that all charity is outside the bounds of the Constitution. It would be far too easy to declare that some crony cause is necessary for humanitarian purposes. It becomes far too easy to manipulate the system to serve your own interests.

That's why despite my sympathy for this situation, I have to stand by and say that United States actions in Iraq are not legitimate.

Please join me in praying for the Christians in Iraq, and the continued United States involvement that I'm sure will come despite my feelings of illegitimacy.

Filling your Soul with Good

I have been branching out a bit over the last few devotional posts. Although I have technically done devotional posts in the past that simply expounded on certain scripture, I feel most at home and comfortable when telling a narrative and bringing out the truths God revealed to me from it. But I have always said it's good to be out of your comfort zone every now and then, so here goes.

Today, we are going to discuss a little batch of poetry in the book of Ecclesiastes. Ecclesiastes as a book stands to reason out where one can find satisfaction in life, declaring time and time again that all is vanity. We ultimately discover that the whole duty of man is to fear God and obey His commandments. 

While that is the main lesson of Ecclesiastes, Ecclesiastes also has a secondary theme that is developed throughout the book, especially the early portions of the book - everyone should enjoy the work that they are called to do and be content in the station that the Lord has placed them in. Just to list one example, this theme is referenced in Ecclesiastes 3:11-13, 

"He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. I know that there is no good in them, but for a man to rejoice, and to do good in his life. And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God."

Like I said, this theme of enjoying the labor that is placed before us is seeded throughout a large part of the book; however, I would not like to bite off more than I could chew. Thus, today we will focus in on the theme only as it develops in Ecclesiastes 6:3-12,

 "If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he. For he cometh in with vanity, and departeth in darkness, and his name shall be covered with darkness. Moreover he hath not seen the sun, nor known any thing: this hath more rest than the other. Yea, though he live a thousand years twice told, yet hath he seen no good: do not all go to one place? All the labour of man is for his mouth, and yet the appetite is not filled. For what hath the wise more than the fool? what hath the poor, that knoweth to walk before the living? Better is the sight of the eyes than the wandering of the desire: this is also vanity and vexation of spirit. That which hath been is named already, and it is known that it is man: neither may he contend with him that is mightier than he. Seeing there be many things that increase vanity, what is man the better? For who knoweth what is good for man in this life, all the days of his vain life which he spendeth as a shadow? for who can tell a man what shall be after him under the sun?"

 Solomon starts his discussion here with a nice parable. A man lives two thousand years, and has a hundred children. He is the pinnacle of what man would desire in his life. Yet Solomon argues, that if "his soul be not filled with good," that he would be better off to have been still-born. That is quite harsh, there, King Solomon.

But how could this wonderful life not be filled with good? We've just discussed that he has everything that man desires in his life, so that nothing is lacking! But notice that this is not what Solomon has said.

Solomon never denies that this man's life is filled with good. On the contrary, his entire parable is centered on that fact. Solomon wonders whether his soul is actually quite filled with good. The consensus on what Solomon means on this (examining the context, I would have to agree) is that Solomon was discussing whether this man was enjoying his good, whether he was truly joyful about his circumstances.

Solomon is very gently reminding us that our joy is independent of our circumstances. If our circumstances are great, we may not be any more joyful than if our circumstances are depressing. The thing about circumstances in life is that they just don't satisfy our joy the way that God can.

It is of course much easier for us all to say that we believe this than to actually live our life that way. There can be a disconnect between what we profess to believe and how we actually live. As Orson Scott Card writes in his science fiction novel, Shadow of the Hegemon, 

"I don't know a soul who doesn't maintain two separate doctrines - the ones that they believe that they believe; and the ones that they actually try to live by. I'm simply one of the rare ones who knows the difference."

Of course, there is no easy way to bridge this gap, and going too far into that topic would branch me away from the thesis I am developing, so just acknowledge that knowing this is not the same thing as living it. (Also note that my use of this quotation does not endorse all of the psychology included within that particular chapter.)

So back to our main point, Solomon shows us the meaning of his parable by reminding us that many parts of life increase vanity. Thus, finding a way to better our own circumstances should not be our focus.

After all, with so much that just doesn't satisfy, how are we to know what is best for us? Now don't get me wrong. As a Libertarian, I still strongly believe that I know what's best for me more than anyone else on earth, and that you know what's best for you more than anyone else on earth. But as a Christian, I know that the one person who truly knows what's best for me is God.

Indeed God is the answer to Solomon's rhetorical question, "For who knoweth what is good for man in this life, all the days of his vain life which he spendeth as a shadow?" You better believe the Lord does. Thus, we all should be glad that God hath "named already" that which is to happen unto all men. Why would we "contend with Him that is mightier" than us?

That is why our goal should be focused on being content with where God puts us. As Ecclesiastes 6:9 states,

"Better is the sight of the eyes than the wandering of the desire: this is also vanity and vexation of spirit."

Ukraine, Moral Agents, and the Justification of United States Intervention

About 5 months ago, I wrote a post about how speculation about where the situation in Ukraine is going might be a bit premature. That is very quickly changing at the moment. As more and more developments occur, and more blood is shed, a serious discussion of what the United States should do is in order.

I think we should make one thing clear. Despite how the President misspoke last Thursday, a tragedy has occurred and is occurring in Ukraine. Forget geopolitics - there is not anything that could be said that could write off the loss of human life that has been experienced in Ukraine.

Still a tragedy is not the only necessary ingredient to justify United States involvement in an international conflict. Sure, if we were talking about people, a tragedy would instill an obligation for anyone with the capacity to help to assist in every way they can.

But government is not a person. Further, government is not accountable as a moral agent, the same way that we as human beings are. So we cannot necessarily use the same logic and moral rationale that we would for people when we are discussing government decisionmaking.

Government instead is an entity created by people of a nation for a specific purpose. Generally considered the social contract theory, the people of a nation come together to form an entity designed to protect them from natural disasters (not to help clean up the damage from a natural disaster though), external threats to national security, and internal threats to the rights of the citizens (i.e. criminals). Any action taken outside this purpose is a violation of a contract.

Consider this analogy, quoted here from my prior post "Not Yours to Give: Unconstitutionality and Injustice of Redistribution," 

"When we hire a business to put in a home security system, we would be much annoyed to say the least if we heard the company had decided instead to use our money to redecorate our house, as they considered that a wiser use of our money."

I daresay it wouldn't matter to us nary a bit if we still got our home security system if they took more money from our bank accounts to buy us new furniture or generally use for purposes other than that which we have contracted them. With that in mind, we ought to consider whether the situation in Ukraine is actually considered a part of  our contract.

I think it is not too much of a stretch to say that the situation in Ukraine is not likely to affect our national security. If the situation proves that it will escalate from a simple border conflict and actually harm United States situation, then obviously we must act.

That is actually what I believe President Obama was trying to say when he said that a "tragedy may have occurred." And I must give him credit that he understands that not every geopolitical conflict requires his involvement (I obviously don't have to give him credit for his skills in communication).

But that might raise a question in your minds. Why should it matter that the security of our nation isn't at stake? Why can't our government act in charity to assist other nations in their struggles? Is not Ukrainian life worth as much as American life?

The answer to the latter question is obviously yes. But we must once again realize that governments are not moral agents, and should never participate in charity, especially on an international level. Let me remind you of the words of Horatio Bunce summarized by Davy Crockett in his speech "Not Yours To Give," Note that while this specifically pertains to money, the same principle would refer to any type of military involvement.

"The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted [sic] to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be... So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity."

So yes, a tragedy has happened, but no, the United States government, since it is not a moral agent is under no obligation to act. Indeed, it is under a strict obligation to remain neutral in this particular affair.

The Purpose of the Christian Life

When asked about the purpose of the Christian life, practically every elementary child growing up in the Christian church will shout, "The glory of God!"

Now that's all well and good. We definitely are called to glorify God in our walk with the Lord. Indeed, we get this very admonition in I Corinthians 10:31,

"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."

Now of course, we have just divorced this verse out its context a bit (its context is actually about extra-morality in case you were wondering).  However, there is certainly truth to the statement found here in this verse that we are to glorify God. Indeed I Peter 4:11 explains further,

"If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen."

So there we have it, the purpose of the Christian life is to glorify God, that post was short and simple, I'll see you Friday!

Not so fast. It is one thing to say that we must glorify God, it is another thing entirely to have any sort of clue as to what that means.

A former Sunday School teacher of mine made it a point to not allow Sunday School answers in his class. What he meant by this were answers that we had been trained since youth were right, but that we just didn't understand. As regrettable as this is, I believe many Christians today are in this particular batch of understanding when they proclaim that their only purpose in life is to glorify God.

The common perception on how the glory of God is supposed to work, is we do things by the abilities God has blessed us with, and then voila! When we are starting to reap the benefits, we shout to the world, "Don't give me the credit! To God be the glory!"

But is that really all that is required to glorify the Lord in everything that we do? A few simple words after our accomplishments are made? Certainly there is absolutely nothing wrong with these words themselves (they could even come from a noble heart), but are they the only prerequisites necessary to bring God glory?

It seems to me that if this were the case, the Christian has life pretty easy. He can do whatever he wants and just be sure to give the necessary words of God's glory and then on the final day, hear, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant."

But we have so many other commandments given to us in Scriptures about loving our neighbour, about sharing the word of God with those around us, about not being judgmental towards other believers. We know that our purpose in life is not that easy to accomplish.

We could say that we have to obey God's commandments in addition to glorifying God. This is possible, but then we have to admit that we have two purposes in our life. That's not a problem at all, but I don't think the purposes are truly separate.

In the second chapter of the book of Malachi, the priests are being rebuked for not giving glory unto the name of the Lord. Verse 2 declares,

"If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the Lord of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart."

However, as the rest of the chapter tells the priests their specific abuses, we don't hear that they didn't tell the people, "to God be the glory" when people tried to congratulate them on their service to the Lord. Rather, we hear about how they broke the covenant, led people astray, and called evil good.

The reasons why they have failed to glorify God are truly actions of disobedience to the Lord. Could it really be that the glory of God is all about the works that we do?

This should come as no surprise to those familiar with Matthew 5:16,

"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."

Even in the aforementioned I Peter 4:11, where we hear a direct command to glorify the Lord,  that glorification is tied to our actions and service of the Lord.

"If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen."

Glorifying God is not about the words we say when people start to credit us. Ultimately, bringing glory to God is an attitude of submission, service, and sacrifice. That then is the true duty of man - to respect and obey God at every turn.

As Ecclesiastes 12:13 says,

"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man."

Only the Carpet! An Introduction to the Social Contract Theory

When people enter into contracts, there is an expectation that the contract will be fulfilled. Yes, that's the beginning of our deep thoughts for today. But on a rather serious note, when someone says that they will clean your carpeting, you expect them to clean your carpeting. Additionally, you don't expect them to decide that what you really need is new furniture and have them take liberties with your money in order to get you that new furniture.

Contracts are truly something that give the power to a company.Contracts are written agreements or designation of power from one person to another.  No power outside the contract is within the company's control. What is obvious about this system is that people can not give away power that they themselves don't have. I cannot give you the power to use my sister's desk because I do not have power over that desk in the first place.

All of this is commonplace, of course. And you probably are waiting for me to start explaining how this relates to the social contract theory and the basis of governance. I guess I'm really predictable.

All governments as well are based on contracts. These contracts happen when entities (usually people) come together to form a government. They form these governments for specific purposes and delegate their power to the government to further specific causes. The government then has the responsibility to pursue efforts with the monies of the populace as directed in the contract.

What perhaps is the most over-looked part of these contracts is that just as I cannot sell rights to my sister's desk, people in society cannot ascribe to the government rights they themselves don't have. If you can't force your neighbour to eat his vegetables, then you can't possibly delegate power to the government to force your neighbour to eat his vegetables.

Of course, the government's contract acts like other contracts in one other area as well. It is a delegation of the powers that they can have from the people, but this contract also limits the responsibilities to just that one area of industry. Just as you would not be happy if your carpet cleaners bought you new furniture without your consent and approval, the government has no right to present or try to solve any other problems than what its contract says to do.

In the United States specifically, there are several different governmental contracts. There are state constitutions and county charters formed by the people within a given society. What makes America truly unique however is its federal contract, the United States Constitution. Agreed upon by the states within the country, the Constitution provides the basis for all federal action.

Of course, I did not sign the Constitution. No one in government alive today signed the Constitution. Indeed not one person alive today signed the Constitution! We never agreed to this contract, so doesn't that make it void for us?

This is the most common argument voiced against the social contract theory. However, a close look at other contracts shows that it is not relevant. In business, an employee is responsible to a degree to the contracts the CEO makes. Regardless of whether he himself had anything to do with the actions of ensuring a client, he has the responsibility to provide whatever services the CEO provided.

More relevantly, when a new CEO is hired, he is responsible for all of the contracts the prior CEO left him. It doesn't matter that he didn't specifically make the contract, he is still legally compelled to follow them.

Just because we never saw the specific contract and had no place in its initiation doesn't void our contract. We are in a contract with the government and have enumerated certain of our powers unto the respective governments of our nation.

But let's ensure that our carpet cleaners only clean the carpet and that our government only fulfills its purposes.

Trials and Persecution 3: The Purpose of Suffering

When anyone goes through times of suffering, the thing they really want to know is why. This is the question they might shout out to God, ask their Pastor, or beg to know from all their friends. There really is no direct answer to why suffering is in this world.

Of course, we know that all suffering came as a result of Adam's sin in the garden. But this does not follow then that all suffering happens from a direct cause and effect relationship between sin and its consequences. However, it is definitely true that some suffering is a direct result of sin in our lives.

So where does that leave us? Truthfully, it leaves us with little ability to ascertain which reasons our individual trials are in place to pursue. But we do have from Scripture some clear indication of a few purposes behind suffering in specific circumstances. That is what we will look at today.

To Avoid Stronger Suffering

It may seem to be an interesting thought to you, but sometimes the struggle that you are in is actually the lesser of two evils when it comes to your life. There are times when the Lord clearly puts His people through a lesser trial to avoid a stronger one or to end one that could not be finished otherwise. 

Take for instance, the Exodus and the Red Sea. In the geography of the day, there were much easier ways to travel than that which the Lord presented them to go on. They could have travelled completely without having to cross the Red Sea at all. 

But the Lord didn't lead them those other ways, and they experienced some inconvenience along this road. And then the Egyptians cornered them at the Red Sea, and they felt discouraged as there was nowhere possibly for them to go! The Lord of course delivered them from this trial, and they were able to see His power greater. But why did he allow them to go through this process in the first place? Well, Exodus 13:17 declares, 

"And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt."

The Israelites' faith was not strong enough for them to persist when they found themselves at war with the Philistines. So the Lord directed them the long way around, to show himself mighty, increase their faith, and to avoid the suffering that would have been the end of their journey to the Promised Land.

But this is not the only example I have seen. In the days of Nehemiah, there was great suffering in Jerusalem. The walls had broken down, and the people were not protected from any assault by their enemies. Nehemiah became burdened with this situation, and he took and cast that burden upon the Lord.

Ultimately, the Lord allowed Nehemiah to gain permission from King Artaxerxes to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the wall. But rebuilding the wall is not the only thing that Nehemiah did when he returned to Jerusalem. Indeed in chapter 5, Nehemiah learns that the children of Israel's affliction goes beyond the lack of protection from the wall.

There was a famine in the land, and in order to pay their tribute and be able to eat, the Israelites have been forced to mortgage their lands, houses, and the rest of their property. In many families, their children were being sold into slavery just to survive. To make matters worse, the rulers of the city had neglected their brethren the Jews and seemed much more insistent on keeping their own luxuries.

Nehemiah would have none of that! Nehemiah 5:6-12 tells the rest of the story,

"And I was very angry when I heard their cry and these words. Then I consulted with myself, and I rebuked the nobles, and the rulers, and said unto them, Ye exact usury, every one of his brother. And I set a great assembly against them. And I said unto them, We after our ability have redeemed our brethren the Jews, which were sold unto the heathen; and will ye even sell your brethren? or shall they be sold unto us? Then held they their peace, and found nothing to answer. Also I said, It is not good that ye do: ought ye not to walk in the fear of our God because of the reproach of the heathen our enemies? I likewise, and my brethren, and my servants, might exact of them money and corn: I pray you, let us leave off this usury. Restore, I pray you, to them, even this day, their lands, their vineyards, their oliveyards, and their houses, also the hundredth part of the money, and of the corn, the wine, and the oil, that ye exact of them. Then said they, We will restore them, and will require nothing of them; so will we do as thou sayest. Then I called the priests, and took an oath of them, that they should do according to this promise."

This had been a time of great suffering in the Israelites. It ended here because Nehemiah wouldn't stand for this type of behaviour. But had the wall not been broken down and that suffering not have occurred, it is very unlikely that Nehemiah would have ever made it to Jerusalem to see this travail of the people.

Time does not allow me to speak of Joseph and how his suffering allowed him to save his brothers from famine, nor Jesus and how his suffering freed those who would believe from eternal suffering.

Correction of Sin

Yes as I mentioned in the first place there are obvious times when the Lord used suffering as punishment for the sin that they have committed. The book of Judges for instance is entirely dedicated to the Lord putting the Israelites into captivity and thus suffering because of sin that they have committed. 

But I think that the direct cause to effect relationship between sin and some suffering goes beyond just a simple punishment to a correction of error. We do learn simply in Hebrews 12:5-11, 

"And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby."

The best example of this chastening purpose of suffering is the life of Jonah. Jonah went through much hardship (swallowed by a whale, I mean...) because he disobeyed the Lord's command to go to Nineveh to preach and tried instead to travel the opposite direction.  The Lord put him in this travail so that by the end of the book, Jonah was again obeying the Lord to rebuke the people of Nineveh for their sins.

Temptation

Occasionally, the affliction that we find ourselves in is simply Satan looking for an opportunity to cause you to err. Indeed it's not always the sin that causes the suffering. Sometimes it's the other way around. 

Such a situation is the life of Job. Job is a very rich man and a servant of the Lord. The Devil wonders about whether Job would have such a strong commitment to the Lord should he undergo a trial in his life. He assumes that if he just had his family and his possessions taken away, he would certainly curse God. In fact in Job 1:9-12, we read, 

"Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord."

But Satan is mistaken. Despite the loss of his family and the loss of his goods, he does not curse God. Even when Satan is later given the opportunity to hurt Job's health, and cause all of Job's friends to turn against him -  not even then did Job turn from following his Lord.

Now that is an example that we should all be willing to follow. Perhaps too often in our prayers, we ask that we or someone we know be saved from having any trials or difficulties in our lives when we really just need to pray that the Lord will give us the strength to persevere through this suffering without any error and sin, and that the Lord will use it to teach us and cause our faith to be increased. But that latter option is the next - and final -  reason for suffering.

The Testing of our Faith

We are told throughout the Scriptures that the affliction we face can have a purpose of teaching us (I Peter 1:7 , Romans 5:3-4 for instance). Nowhere is this fact clearer than in James 1:2-4, 

"My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing."

To illustrate the fact that our trials can lead us to have an increased faith by allowing us to be patient in waiting for the hand of God in our life, we need only look to the lives of the disciples. The disciples went through much persecution in their latter days on earth. As we examined in the first post, the disciples found themselves beheaded, tortured, and afflicted on all sides. But what prepared them to be able to withstand such trials? What gave them that faith?

I suggest to you that it had something to do with another struggle in their lives. If you think about the greatest suffering that the disciples went through, it wouldn't be what happened in the book of Acts. There were lots of trials in the book of Acts yes, but the greatest persecution in their lives would have had to have been when they all thought that Jesus was dead.

They were without hope because the one they knew as Lord was simply no longer living. A dead saviour has never been able to help, serve, or save anyone.

They at this point lacked the faith on God's sovereign power over all things, including life and death, and had effectively hit rock bottom. Peter denied Christ's existence, Thomas wouldn't believe any reports of his resurrection until he could put his finger through Jesus' wounded hand, and all the disciples started going back to the positions in their life that they had before Jesus came into his life.

It was a trial beyond which anyone would ever experience (except of course, Jesus), but when it was over, when Jesus did rise again, the disciples were renewed with faith, and suddenly they were able to preach the word with all boldness.

Now of course I have been assuming throughout this whole post and especially in this last section that we as Christians have a desire to serve the Lord. Unfortunately that's not always true, but it should be. But let's not get ahead of ourselves; that's next week's post!

Continue to Trials and Persecution 4: Proper Focus

Footnotes in History

Have you ever heard of Tola? How about Jair? These people are known by little. Indeed if I did not have my Bible open I would not remember the names at all, yet they served an important part in the Lord's plan.

We all know of the cycle of the Judges. The Israelites sinned, The Israelites are captured, The Israelites repent, the Lord gives a Judge, the Judge dies, and the Israelites sin again. Thus the cycle continues.

However, this cycle is a bit too simplistic. After the short reign of power-hungry Abimelech the son of Gideon, the Israelites are brought under what can only be a period of righteousness by the works of two consecutive judges, who you guessed it are named Tola and Jair. Only five verses are given to them: Judges 10:1-5, scarcely more than a footnote.

Then when they are both dead, the Israelites err again and the cycle of Judges continues. But under the lead of these two men, they served the Lord. Yet we hardly know they exist.

We can more easily name Gideon, whose later years of life were very much unfaithful to the Lord than we can name these judges, whose entire lives as best as we can tell were faithful!

But sometimes, that's the way things will be. Serving the Lord is not a business where fame is promised. People may not recognize you for your service. You might be no less than a footnote. Is that worthy for you? Are you willing to be a footnote in the service of the Lord, or do you seek your own fame and fortune?

We can't all have the renown of the apostle Paul. We must not want to be forever immortalized for our actions. Because if that is our motivation, we are doing the right thing for the wrong reason, and that is not pleasing to the Lord.

I urge you to be willing to be like Tola and Jair, to be forgotten. I urge you to have the purpose in your actions, not to be in recognition, but for just serving the Lord in general.

Extra-Morality 5: Proper Focus

Throughout this series, we have been learning about extramoral concerns. Because I really feel like this issue is controversial, I have made it a point to explain myself in almost every single post in the series so that hopefully one of my explanations will click with my readers.

Today is no different. I once again want to use another way of teaching to describe what I mean by extra-moral standards. These standards are placed by Christians as tools to fight against their possible corruption. We place them in our lives because we fear that violating these standards could dampen our relationship with the Lord or with others.

But just as there are no set textbooks that always have to be used to teach math, science or other subject, there are no set tools or standards to dictate how we decide to avoid sin. As such, we should expect differing standards from Christian to Christian.

Last week, we simply saw that we should respect other Christians regardless of their choice of extra-moral concerns. We learned that it would be wrong for us to tempt our brothers to err by their stricter standards. Because although having lenient standards is not sin, it is sinful to err by the standard you have prayerfully put in your life. As such, general consideration would allow for us not to put a stumblingblock in the path of our fellow Christians.

I would like to argue further today that instead of focusing on the standards on TV, music, books and dancing we use as tools in our Christian lives, when we interact with other Christians we should focus on righteousness, peace, and joy. We should become like-minded in our goal to spread the Gospel. That should be our focus, not anything else.

This answer is of course found in Romans 14. More specifically, verses 17-19, where it says,

"For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another."

The kingdom of God is not meat and drink. It is not shall we say it, dancing, entertainment choices and so on. There is a higher focus that all Christians aspire to, that is obedience to the Lord, righteousness, peace, and joy. When we are together, we should just focus on these areas wherewith we may edify one another.

Perhaps, Romans 15:5-7 explain it better,

"Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus: That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God."

You see, we Christians have bigger fish to fry than arguing over whether it is acceptable to dance. We are called to glorify God, but we may have difficulty fulfilling that purpose if we don't stand like-minded, if we divide ourselves by arguing over virtually nothing. Let us then follow after the things which make for peace and glorify God together.

Continue to Extra-Morality 6: Faith

Get Off! The Purpose of the Federal Government

On a few occasions, I have discussed that redistribution of wealth is not a proper use of federal funds because it does not fit within the parameters of the federal government's purpose. This raises the question, what is the purpose of the federal government?

To answer this question, let's first remember the words of Ronald Reagan in his Inaugural Address in 1981,

"All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government."

Indeed, the states do not exist for the whims of the federal government; the federal government exists for the whims of the states.

This fact is seen in the Constitution first and foremost by the amount of powers enumerated to the states. The tenth amendment guarantees that all power not enumerated within the Constitution are reserved for the states or we the people.

Outside of taxes and interstate commerce, the Constitutional powers given to the federal government are entirely limited to areas of national defense. The federal government exists because a unified force of the thirteen states was stronger in foreign policy than thirteen individual states. The federal government is more like a league between thirteen (now 50) individual nations, rather than a country itself.

Yes, I really am implying that the federal government should step entirely out of domestic policy, except the laws against treason and the like necessary to protect national security. The fact is, state and county governments are better suited to address the issues within a small state than is the federal government.

The federal government is very disconnected from the US citizen and how we live. Living in D.C., they don't face the same struggles that each state economy individually struggles with, or each local economy for that matter. They are all different, and the more decentralized the government, the better suited it is to tackle the unique challenges each community brings.

This is not just true not the economy, but also of education, health care, and every other part of our lives. Of course, the people who truly understand these things are we citizens ourselves; thus, we must be just as cautious of a authoritarian state or local government as one on a federal level. But we have greater opportunity to take powers away from the state government than we do the federal government as grassroots campaigns are easier to run in one small community, rather than a conglomeration of several communities.

If we are to restore this separation of powers in the United States, we will need to put in a significant amount of effort. Some may question whether it's even worth it. After all, this seems radically conservative. Some may even call it anarchist (it's not).

Call it what you may, it is what the majority of the founders intended and for good reason. For instance, James Madison, one of those sneaky Federalists wanting a STRONGER federal government, wrote in Federalist 45,

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

Purposed in His Heart

In Daniel, we hear that Daniel would not eat of the sinful meat because he had purposed in his heart not to sin. Many great sermons have been presented on this subject. What I would like to look at is something the Lord showed me just a few minutes ago about the practical application of this principle.

If we are to avoid temptation, we need to be aware and be prepared to stand against it. What I found today is that it is beneficial to add extra barriers of separation between us and the temptation we keep falling to.

To make myself more clear, when you keep succumbing to the same temptation, specifically working to add another step to get to that sin, and another opportunity for the Holy Spirit to convict you that it is wrong to do so is an excellent way to intentionally set out to avoid sin.

To illustrate with a rather personal example, I have struggled for years with the temptation of taking candy and other sugary goods that do not belong to me. My sister currently has all the goods left out in her room. Recently, I have started to apply this principle I am discussing here by closing her bedroom door after she leaves for work, thus, adding another step to reach that which is tempting me. I'll keep you posted on how well this works in the comment section below.

(I do certainly hope that now is not the time my sister decides to start reading my blog; that would be shabby.)

If you really want to purpose in your heart to do the right thing, wouldn't that mean putting precautions in place that would aid in so doing? Adding extra steps to a recurring temptation is a great way of practically putting in action the purpose within our hearts not to sin.