Last Week
I spent the past six days in Colorado (Colorado Springs), visiting to watch my sister graduate from the US Air Force Academy. The graduation, I have to admit, was the best I'd ever seen. Robert Gates gave the commencement. It was humerous, self-depracating, and very good. He had a unique appreciation for what the graduating cadets had accomlished, and spoke to that accomplishment. He also laid out their duties as junior officers and explained the current geopolitical struggle with the 'barbaric' people we are fighting now. I have to say, Gates has to be one of the best appointees Bush ever made. Of course, he is a Texan, but for once, Bush's cronyism seems to have paid off.
After the last graduate was given his diploma and shook Gates' hand, the Superintendent made a couple of remarks and the graduates tossed their covers into the air. The Thunderbirds flew over at that exact moment and gave a performance I'll remember for a long, long time. I couldn't help but love my country after the whole thing. It was very moving.
I was also struck by the fact that in Colorado, there were Americans everywhere doing the jobs "Americans won't do." All the jobs that illegal immigrants do in California were done by Americans in Colorado, from landscaping, to construction, to garbage removal, to road work...everything. There were Mexicans there, of course, but the majority of the jobs belonged to the Americans.
It saddens me that our government refuses to protect and cherish America and American workers the way that they ought. God has truly blessed this country, and I'd say that the majority of Americans know it and are grateful. I saw American flags flying all over the place in Colorado. The invaders from the southern border don't seem to have any appreciation or sense of gratitude for being in America. They demand things they're not entitled to and use services paid for by somebody else. They also drive down wages for those here now. They still make mention of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, where Mexico lost the southwest to the United States.
Our ruling elites seem to have no appreciation of the fact that they are servants of the American people, who work, pay taxes, and put their butts on the line to defend this country. They used to. Like the illegals, they have a sense of entitlement, and think that we should obey their arbitrary will. Francis Schaeffer prophesied that this would happen. The current congress, senate and White House are composed of aging Baby Boomers that grew up under the peace and prosperity their parents created. They know almost nothing of the sacrifice it took to pay for that freedom, nor do they seem to care. The Pax Americana was bought with the blood of the Greatest Generation. Unfortunately, that generation didn't reproduce itself.
The current class warfare being propagated by these elites in the form of the current illegal immigrant amnesty bill before the senate is disgusting in all its forms. It deprives workers their wages in the form of driving down those wages and making legal taxpayers give up their salaries to thieves. In his epistle, James warned the rich what would happen if they did this,
"James 5:1-6 Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned; you have murdered the righteous person. He does not resist you. '"I can't think of a more fitting charge against our current government than the one James gave above. I feel that this bill is a dagger pointed at the heart of the country. The government needs to start enforcing the borders, and now.
PRCalDude
in amnesty, border, illegal immigration
|
56 Comments
Reader Comments (56)
Good post. Thank you. And thank you to your sister for her service to this country!
Congratulations to your sister.
I've spent time in Colorado Springs. Realy nice vacation spot. Lots of stuff you can do with the family.
It might be a little incongruous to compare Colorado's economy with California's. Especially the agricultural sphere.
Are you ready to call our governemnt apostate yet? I have been for 10 years.
Henry writes,
"Are you ready to call our government apostate yet? I have been for 10 years."
The answer is no. The term "apostate" refers to those institutions, belief systems, or people that have departed from the Christian faith.
The office and function of the government is located in a different sphere than that of the church. That is why the role of government (examples: border enforcement, security, protecting the good, destroying evil, 1 Peter 5, Romans 13) is different ***in kind*** from that of the church. The government has never left the Christian faith, precisely because it was never located in the same sphere of the church.
One of the chief (one of many) objections to Roman Catholicism is its un-biblical marriage of Church-State, culminating in the Vatican, with "ambassadors" to most countries.
The government, in principle, can never be labelled as "apostate." It was never in the same sphere.
I meant to add:
Concerning the subject of different spheres:
That is why it is such a huge theological travesty and sin when Christian leaders publicly encourage the government to stop doing its God-ordained function, "in order to be more like the Church or Christ." Similarly, or when the government wants the church to be more like the government.
I know you will already agree with me that the church should never be like the government, and the government should never be like the church. Maybe Huckabee and Sam Brownback will read this and stop using flawed theological reasons for pushing the government to stop enforcing border security.
They are in radically different spheres, as ordained by God.
Exactly. Besides the terminology the government operates on a secular basis. It is not Christian, it can not accomplish much except the desires of the flesh. Our calling is of a different kingdom.
Unless you are a reconstuctionist, the world and its governments are heading for destruction.
I am not a reconstructionist, nor am I a theonomist. I am not even a restorationist, in the likes of D. James Kennedy.
The heart of our disagreement centers on your claim, "the government operates on a secular basis. It is not Christian, it can not accomplish much except the desires of the flesh. Our calling is of a different kingdom."
I disagree that the government has a secular basis. I believe government has a God-ordained function that involves duties that go far and beyond accomplishing the desires of the flesh.
The principle of government itself is ordained of God to give some structure and law to humans. But is serves no spiritual purpose.
Let me ask you this: Is it Scriptural for Christians to murder the government officials if we don't approve of the taxes levied upon us? Well, that is exactly what the colonials did in the Revolutionary War and yet many Christians believe that America was ordained in the direct sense by God as a Christian nation.
Democracy allows freedom of worship, but the largest growth of the Christian church in any country this side of WW II is in China. So which government was God more able to perpetuate the gospel in?
Let us not fall in love with democracy just because it is convenient, let us pledge allegience to Christ and Christ alone and pray for the leaders, not be them.America doesn't need a revival because as you correctly point out it is not a church, the church that lives in the country called America needs a revival. Pray!!
I disagree with paragraph one. Government indeed does have a spiritual purpose: not one of conversion of souls, but the restraining of evil.
Regarding paragraph 2, I am not a restorationist.
Regarding paragraph 3, my position is not one of "pro-democracy." We both agree that democracy often resembles something more similar to mob-ocracy.
Regarding paragraph 4, my position is that a.) the government can never be accused of "apostasy"; b.) government is in a separate sphere than the church, hence separate roles and duties; c.) Christians, while maintaining the biblical distinction between primary/secondary callings, must still be involved in the political process.
My position is not one of defending democracy.
How did first century Christians get "involved" with the political process? There was no process except to get the king saved and even that had its consequences (Constantine).
Henry writes,
"How did first century Christians get "involved" with the political process? There was no process except to get the king saved and even that had its consequences (Constantine)."
My position:
c.) Christians, while maintaining the biblical distinction between primary/secondary callings, must still be involved in the political process.
They got involved in the political process as a secondary calling. Back then and now, there are individual Christians working in government and serving faithfully as a secondary calling. They never withdrew from that separate sphere. They never had the attitude of, "the Titanic is sinking, so why clean and scrumb the deck." Rather, they saw all of life from God's perspective, and they worked for change in small steps as a secondary calling.
All you say is conjecture, no where in Scripture are we commanded to do anything but pray for our leaders. And you never answered my question, in a monarchy how did they "get involved" politically? They didn't, they were too busy doing CHrist's work.
You may get involved in politics today, but you cannot say with Scriptural authority that it is God's calling. American politics is a dirty, greedy, bellecose, and religiously pluralistic business. Which of those is God's Spirit involved in?
Henry,
I think Calvin has the most definitive treatment of the Christian perspective on civil government:
http://www.reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/books/institutes/
They certainly prayed for their leaders. They obeyed the lawful orders of those appointed over them. They paid their taxes. One needs to be careful in demanding that everything the church does these days needs to be what the first century church does. We don't have apostles nowadays, and we're not laying the foundations of the church anymore. We're being built into the temple. I think our Reformed confessions and the Institutes have the best treatment of civil government, and I will never adopt the anabaptist position until I see a credible, biblical defense of it that does better than Calvin's critique.
I do not care what Calvin or Arminious believed about the depth of civil involvement. What you described is civil obedience, that is taught in the New Testament. Involvement in a carnal system to bring about moral change is never taught in Scripture. One thing is for sure, the church's involvement in politics has changed the church, not the government.
And every other November people walk right into a church building and vote for abortion, gay rights, amnesty for illegals, etc., all in the building that was supposed to be set aside for worship.
And the government won't let us use their buildings for worship. So who compromised?
Henry,
I guess we'll agree at the Day of Judgment.
Henry writes,
"How did first century Christians get "involved" with the political process? There was no process except to get the king saved and even that had its consequences (Constantine)."
Maybe there is some confusion over "political process" here. I hope this sheds some light. The 1st century Christians got involved by fulfilling their secondary calling as Christian followers. They did not abandon the sinking ship. They did not retreat to a monastery and pray. They stood their ground, maintained their position, and fulfilled their secondary calling as individual Christians. They worked to change hearts and minds, one individual at a time. As an analogy, they functioned in the same way as Christian janitors, Christian teachers, Christian superintendents, Christian substitute teachers, Christian athletic coaches, Christian counselors, etc, do in today's secular environment of the public school system.
I am not making a comment on the public school system here. That is a different topic. I am only suggesting that a clear understanding of the distinction between primary/secondary callings does shed some light here.
Henry writes, "Involvement in a carnal system to bring about moral change is never taught in Scripture."
Here is my response:
My primary duty is ***not*** to be involved in a carnal system in order to bring about moral change.
My primary duty is to honor and reflect Christ everywhere, at all times, and all places.
My secondary duty, depending on where God places me in life, may indeed consist of active involvement in a system or institution that some or many may deem "carnal." (examples: college, government, military institution, navy destroyer, town council, PTO meeting, boy scouts, garage sale, movie theater,music industry, hymn book manufacturer, car industry, clothing industry----I guess anywhere one finds sinners, I guess, the very real possibility exists that the sinners themselves may pollute the system eventually and turn it "carnal.")
Henry's never explained how a government can be apostate, when it was never part of the church in the first place. God never came down and established a theocracy with the founding fathers. He's certainly never sent any prophets to bring a covenant lawsuit against us. The only thing you might argue is that in terms of laws, even the ancient Near Eastern civilizations like the Assyrians had anti-abortion laws on the books. In Assyria, if you aborted a baby, you were to be impaled on a stake for all to see.
First. Good point about who’s compromising with whom in context of voting. My church (congregation and synod) do not condone the use of church facilities for political campaigning or voting. Nor do we officially endorse a political party or candidate. However, we are encouraged to participate in the process according to God’s guidance.
Second. God’s Spirit is involved in everything. This is pretty much a Biblical maxim defining Christianity.
Third. Under the context of vocation, we are all given gifts that lead us to success at any number of jobs and/or careers. Having a job as an elected public servant is no different than working as a private contractor given our respective talents. God gives us our governments, and God gives certain people the skills to be good politicians.
}}}
Things go wrong when we use our skills to work against God, especially when we place or faith in politics instead of God. But this doesn’t make politics or governments wrong, just as it doesn’t make any other vocation wrong. When governments and politicians do wrong it simply reflects their sinful human nature. This applies to any vocation, including those called to the Office of the Holy Ministry.
As far as Scriptural authority, there are numerous examples of God calling/placing people in positions (jobs/vocations) of political and governmental authority:
- Joseph administering the government of Egypt.
- Moses leading and administering the Exodus.
- King David (along with a number of other kings) and their administrative support staffs in charge of Israel.
- … to name just a few examples.
In the end, as long as Christians refrain from participating in government according to their God given talents, we guarantee American politics will remain a dirty, greedy, bellicose, and religiously pluralistic business.
First I retracted the apostate title because it is true, it only applies to the church. I just wonder how many reformed believers would remain a part of an openly currupt and compromising church. Most would not. How much more a secular institution?
And if Christian's involvement helps sanctify (i.e. make it not currupt, bellecose, etc.), then we should all join and participate in the emergent church in order to sanctify it. But then you would have to redefine the "come out from among them" issue.
And I could ask what has political involvement accomplished concerning abortion, gay rights, immigration, pornography, ect., and etc.. You might answer that the little change is due to Christians not participating, I would contend that the system is doomed to fail so that no one gets the glory but God through His church.
Oh well, its been a good discussion though, I was once where you guys are until I realized that America was founded by killing others over taxes. If that is Scriptural, I'll get my gun and you get yours and away we go again! (extreme satire)
Henry: Thanks for your comments.
Concerning paragraph 1: We, along with you, continue to spread the message that the corrupt ("gospel of tithing") and compromised church ("emergant") has departed from the historic, Orthodox faith, and has been hijacked by heretics. But I cannot leave secular institutions because God ordains Christians to be actively involved in them. The "sinking Titanic ship" illustration, I believe, is unbiblical.
Your paragraph 2: The definition of "involvement" is key here, just like in the first paragraph. As Christians we need to defend the truth, and I believe, this does mean some helpful dialogue with sincere believers who, I believe, may be making serious errors in doctrine in the future. I believe Mark Driscoll and Acts 29 are examples of doctrinally sound "emerging" folks, who are active in dialogue and who are vocal about staying away from the "emergant church" heresy.
Concerning your third paragraph: "involvement" (after being carefully and biblically defined so as to EXCLUDE restorationists, exclude theonomists, exclude reconstructionists) is a divine command. My "involvement" is not necessarily due to pragmatic considerations ("what if Christians don't participate?"). Rather, my involvement is due to theological reasons only.