God and Caesar

If you are a Bible-believing Christian, you are aware of the state’s and secular culture increasing hostility toward Bible-believing Christians.

For example, Governor Newsome of California recently quoted the Bible to justify abortion on, demand-essentially making the killing of babies not only a right but a moral right. Pastor John MacArthur of Grace Community Church in California responded by writing the Governor, calling for repentance.

President Biden also declared gender-changing surgery a “moral right.”

Both of these examples illustrate the left’s attempts to usurp the church regarding who has the moral authority to speak to those issues and more.

Governor Newsome speaking for the State of California, and President Biden speaking for the Federal Government, have both assumed the position of the highest moral authority. Both would like to see laws that reflect their positions on who has moral authority and who does not.

Both realize that Bible-believing Christians derive their sense of moral authority from Scripture as they believe the Word of God is the Word of God and thus God’s opinion on those matters.

When Pastor MacArthur confronted Governor Newsome, it was not the first time. The first time, as far as I know, was when it became evident that the state was hostile toward the church during the mandatory shutdowns during Covid 2020.

Churches were told they could not hold in-person worship services because the risk of transmitting Covid was too high in crowds. Most churches went along with the prohibition at first. Churches went along with the ban out of respect for the state and because no one knew at the time how serious of a threat Covid was.

After a reasonable time, it became clear that the state was selective in determining what establishments could stay open and which had to close. The food restaurant industry was especially hard hit while liquor stores and other businesses were free because they were considered “essential.”

Churches fell into the non-essential category and reflected the state’s view of religious faith (that the state did not approve of.)

After assessing the state’s hypocrisy and the biblical mandate for worship, MacArthur’s church and others (including my own) opened their churches for in-person worship, leaving it up to the individuals if they wanted to attend in person or continue online.

This created no minor controversy among evangelicals (and others) as some believed that they had to obey the state (Rom. 13:1-7) while the ones that opened believed (and believe) that the state crossed a line they had no right to cross.

Pastor Jesse Johnson is dean of the Master’s Seminary in Washington, D.C. He wrote a book titled City of Man, Kingdom of God-Why Christians Respect, Obey, and Resist the Government. In it, Johnson works through the tension the Bible-believing Christian faces as they seek to respect and obey the government but resist the government when it goes too far.

In the book’s last chapter, Johnson shows how Jesus handled a trap laid by the Pharisees. Their goal was to get Jesus in trouble with Rome or the people. Jesus gave them an answer to which they could not reply.

¹⁵ Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his words. ¹⁶ And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone’s opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances. ¹⁷ Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” ¹⁸ But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? ¹⁹ Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. ²⁰ And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” ²¹ They said, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” ²² When they heard it, they marveled. And they left him and went away. ^[1]

First, Jesus recognizes that it is not an honest inquiry, and Jesus calls them out on it.

To us living in the 21^st Century culture, we can miss just how big a deal this all was.

If Jesus had told them not to pay Caesar’s tax, he would have been a revolutionary. Rome tolerated various religious worship within the empire, but not paying the tax was a sure way to bring down the Legions on the non-paying rebellious subjects.

Another reason this is more significant than we might realize is that Caesar’s tax was to be paid with a coin that bore Caeser’s image. It was called a denarius. The problem with the denarius bearing Caeser’s image is that the Romans deified the Caesers.

The Jews, aware of the commandments, found the coin to be an abomination. To pay the tax with such a coin would be blasphemy. The Pharisees laid their trap well. They figured they could get Jesus in trouble with the people or Rome and thus discredit him.

¹⁸ But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? ¹⁹ Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. ²⁰ And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” ²¹ They said, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” ²² When they heard it, they marveled. And they left him and went away. ^[2]

Jesus’ answer makes the clear distinction between the City of Man (Rome in this case) and the Kingdom of God.

Caser’s coin bears his image so pay the tax for it is owed. At the same time. Render to God what is owed to God, and that is worship.

MacArthur’s Grace Community Church (and mine) reopened during Covid  realizing that the state in its hypocrisy, had crossed a line revealing its hostility to those who sincerely seek to glorify God and live via biblical principles.

I recommend Johnson’s book to anyone interested in navigating what can be thorny church\state issues with sound biblical exegesis.

---

^[1] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Mt 22:15–22.

^[2] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Mt 22:15–22.

Maturity and Values

I turned 18 in 1971. The Vietnam War was winding down; yet there was a lottery draft and lots of guys were still going to Nam. I did not. An argument at the time was lowering the age to 18 (it was 21) in order to have an alcoholic beverage. The argument was based on the fact that if you were old enough to carry a M16 (AR-15 is the semi-auto civilian version) in Nam, then you were old enough to have a legal beer. It made perfect sense to every guy I knew and eventually the age was lowered only to go back up to 21 sometime later.

It’s interesting and maybe instructive to note that an 18-year-old is still old enough and presumably mature enough to know how to use the successors to the old M16 I was trained on. Presumably, they can get a beer, even if it’s the old 3.2.

You see, maturity is not necessarily linked to age. Raising the age limit to 21 in order to buy a gun is no guarntee of being mature. It’s not magic.Maturity is mostly learned and connected with values as well as practicing those values. Those that do gun violence portray a lack of values and usually conscience. In most cases there is little family structure to teach values let alone maturity.

As a culture we continue to dance around the edges of a problem thinking we can someone legislate values\maturity. It’s a one-dimension approach to solving a human nature problem.

By all means, harden the schools and anything else we need to harden. Have background checks and enforce the gun laws we already have. Fact-the gun laws are not enforced now and few who possess an illegal firearm are rarely prosecuted to the extent they should be.

And stop calling gun violence mental illness. By calling evil mental illness you make it sound like a physical disease and most cases it clearly is not. There is such a thing as evil.

The gun debate has been going on for as long I can remember. One side really does not want to solve it and has made it known that the goal is gun confiscation thus gutting the Constitution, punishing the mature for the acts of a violent, evil minority. After all gun violence is not limited to the horrific mass shootings that become the issue; rather gun violence is a common occurence in most of the major American cities governed by Democrats and they certianly don’t seem to care about that. The only difference is body count.

What Did the USS Omaha Witness?

Let me tell you a story.

This is a book review of The Hynek UFO Report: The Authoritative Account of the Project Blue Book Cover-Up (MUFON).

Why put it on my blog that deals mostly with my ministry or occasional political post? Well, here is the story.

I was born in 1953 or the earliest days of UFO flaps. My dad, who worked on space program projects in the 1960s and early 70s, had an interest in Astronomy and UFOs. He was hardly a nutter or a fanatic, but rather someone just plain curious, as I’m sure many were back in the 1960s when I grew up.

I distinctly remember the great Michigan UFO Flap of 1966 when I was thirteen. My dad followed the story intensely and we discussed it-me, with a certain amount of fear. After all, aliens in that time were never all that friendly and a far cry from Speilberg’s cute little E.T.

It was during the Michigan Flap that I first learned of J. Allen Hynek. Hynek was the Air Force’s consultant on Project Blue Book. Hynek’s “job” was not so much getting to the truth about UFO sightings, but rather to find a simple explanation for them. 

In the book I’m now reviewing Hynek explains his job and his change of heart that he had in the course of being involved in Project Bluebook.

In 1966 however, Hynek was still doing what the “company” wanted, that is, finding something that could explain away sightings without alarming the public..

The Michigan case of 1966 is still a case that is surrounded by mystery even though there were many professional type observers to the events. The media of the time took their testimony seriously and as I said, I recall it being a huge deal on the nightly news and the newpapers.

Hynek spent what I’d call a minimal amount of time on the case. His verdict was “swamp gas.” My dad didn’t buy it then and to this day people that study UFO phenomena do not either.

I heard many years later (Hynek died in 1986) that Hynek documented his time in Blue Book with a couple of books including the one I’m reviewing. His change of heart is apparent in the book, although he only alludes to the well-known Michigan case of my childhood.

Hynek’s purpose in writing the book was to expose the Air Force’s rather insincere efforts to investigate UFOs. Hynek cites many encounters of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd kinds to show that often times the official explanation didn’t line up with the available evidence. At times, the Air Force allowed “unidentified” as the explanation in the closest they ever came in saying, we just don’t know. 

So, what prompted me to read Hynek’s book that was published over 30 years ago?

The short version was watching Senator Marco Rubio of Florida discuss the most recent UFO flaps involving our own US Navy. The videos have been out there for months now and apparently the government is finally admitting to being perplexed. The events surrounding the USS Omaha are particularly unsettling as options to explain the UFOS are rather limited.

It’s been enough that the military is required to issue a report this summer on what is going on.

That’s what made me curious about what J. Allen Hynek said about government reports back in the days of Blue Book. 

The question today is, will the military tell the truth? What will have changed since Blue Book? 

It appears that the military and government’s options are limited to 1) we really don’t know, 2) the UFOS are of a foreign power with far more technology than we have, 3) the UFOs are ours and experimental or 4) they are extraterrestrial.

In other words, the same possibilities that Blue Book dealt with so long ago.

There is one more possibility that was not thought of, that I know of, back in the days of Blue Book. That possibility is the one of inter-dimension craft and beings. That possibility raises a lot of issues; including theological ones which I why posted this review to this blog. 

For that angle I recommend Dr. Hugh Ross (scientist) and Kenneth Sample’s, Lights in the Sky & Little Green Men: A Rational Christian Look at UFOs and Extraterrestrials 

Religious Liberty and Tyranny

As I write this blog I see religious liberty being threatened right here in the good old United States of America. This can be seen in a number of ways that include closing down houses of worship for Covid reasons but at the same time permitting left wing rioters ignore Covid restrictions. The hypocrisy is stunning.

Another way religious liberty is being squashed is via the cancel culture and the ominous hate speech rhetoric if someone opposes the LGBQXYZ agenda. These are clear symptoms of an ideology opposed to God and our 1st Amendment to the Constitution. I could go on.

It’s a far cry from that which goes on around the world. Totalitarianism fears people who take their religious faith seriously. The reason for that is people who take their religious faith seriously answer to a power higher than the state and that cannot be permitted. From a Christian point of view this boils down Christ is Lord and Caesar is not. That upsets totalitarian caesars.

People who are nominal in their faith are not threats to the state because they will in the final analysis conform to the state’s wishes and demands so as not to rock the boat.

Whatever else we might say about “Orange Man Bad” otherwise known as Donald Trump, he took a keen interest in religious liberty and the defense of basic human rights. That interest translated into then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo traveling to Rome to meet with top Vatican officials while requesting an audience with Pope Francis.

It was an unorthodox approach to be sure but the issue he wished to discuss would have been one of importance to Roman Catholics since the Communist Party of China closed down more than 100 Catholic Churches in the country. (For a more in depth view read the UK’s Guardian, China Jailing Pastors…)

Pompeo gave a key note speech in a symposium attended by Vatican officials as well as American and British officials that highlighted China’s threats to a number of diverse groups that included Catholics, Protestants, Uighur Moslems and Tibetan Buddhists. The basic idea being that people of religious faith are a threat to a tyrannical regimes for the reasons I stated above.

Pompeo’s request to meet with Pope Francis was turned down and the Vatican instead renewed their cozier agreement with Communist China for two years which seems weird given the fact China shut down 100 Catholic Churches.

The action by the Vatican seems to stand in stark contrast to Pope John Paul II (the Polish Pope) who took action against Communism and helped crack the communist stranglehold on the East Block countries.

I highly doubt that the newly elected Joe Biden will take a serious look at religious liberty. He may give the matter lip service sine he claims to be Roman Catholic) but it’s hard to believe he will criticize Communist China given his connections no one wants to discuss. Furthermore, free speech does not favor the new administration which is why you see Big Tech serving as the enforcers of a radical left-wing agenda. That left-wing agenda has no tolerance for those who refuse to compromise their faith.

We tend to talk around details rather than central ideas or ideology. We get stuck on “Orange Man Bad” and a harpy double standard media and so we miss the big picture.

A totalitarian states fears people of strong faith because it represents a type of freedom they cannot control. Watch carefully-if you take your faith seriously you are the enemy of tyranny and tyranny will seek to first silence you, then squash you until you submit.

Details for this blog were taken from the World article titled First Freedom Agendas in the 01.16.21 issue.

Three Civil Wars and A Secession of the Heart.

In 1776 the North American Thirteen Colonies of Great Britain issued the Declaration of Independence. From that point on any hope of reconciliation with Great Britain was fantasy. Either Britain would win the war and the colonies remain part of the empire or the colonies would win and go on to form a “more prefect union.”

Historians have often referred to the the War for American independence as a civil war. The colonists after all, as a whole, came from England and were citizens (second class citizens in my opinion) of that country. The fact the colonies did not have representation in the British Parliament is where Patrick Henry’s famous line of, ‘taxation without representation is tyranny’ came from.

King George III was the ruler of not only Great Britain itself but also the far flung colonies of the British Empire. At the time, the British monarchy was still powerful; and could over ride any parliamentarian decision or recommendation. Our Declaration of Independence actually serves as a declaration of secession from the British Empire that had KGIII as ruler.

The War for American Independence was fought between largely between Englishmen. It’s been said that 1\3 of the colonists supported independence. They were called patriots. Another 1\3 supported the crown and they were called tories. Still another 1\3 did not seem to care one way or the other or just wanted to be left alone. Battles between patriots and tories were especially bitter and had the marks of a bitter civil war between peoples who had irreconcilable differences. After the war many tories lost their homes to unforgiving patriots and had to flee to Canada where their descendants live to this day.

The War of American Independence was our first Civil War. What emerged was our Constitution and Bill of Rights. These documents were intended to balance power among factions and to hold the emerging country together by creating mechanisms where diverse interests could function with a high degree of unity. The Supreme Court was established to sort out the most important differences.

Fast forward to 1860 when Abraham Lincoln was elected to be president. At the time there were 33 states in the union; fifteen of which were slave states. The issue of slavery dated back to the earliest days of the republic. The northern colonies favored the end of slavery while the southern colonies would have none of it.

It should be pointed out that France took steps to abolish slavery in 1794 and Great Britain didn’t get around to it until 1834. People argue about those details, but whatever your view on the particulars, it was clear that at least two those countries were moving to get rid of slavery and the slave trade. The emerging United States was hardly alone in the west in fighting through the issues. In fact, the framers of the Constitution and later Bill of Rights were fully aware that the southern states would never join a union that did not permit slavery. This is why slavery was permitted in the fifteen slave states.

By 1819 there were 22 states in the union. eleven were free states and the other eleven were slave states. The idea for the balance was once again to hold the country together while trying to work on a solution to the problem that would never go away. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 brought Maine into the union as a free state and Missouri into the union as a slave state to preserve the balance. The compromise was flawed on many levels but it was a compromise. As part of the compromise slavery was banned from any states that might emerge from the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. As the nation expanded westward this became a critical issue since it upset the balance. The southern slave states feared economic ruin should the free states outnumber the slave states and congress move to abolish slavery altogether.

Things came to a head in 1854 with the Kansas-Nebraska Act that determined that states north of particular boundary could decide for themselves if they wanted to be free or slave. One immediate result of the Kansas-Nebraska Act is that the territory of Kansas erupted into a civil war over the issue of whether or not it would be safe or free.

“Bloody Kansas” gave the rest of the US a foretaste of the Civil War to come as free staters battled pro-slavery factions for control. John Brown and his supporters were free state abolitionists from Kansas. They hoped to incite a slave rebellion in the southern states when they seized the Federal arsenal at Harper’s Ferry in Virginia in 1859. Brown and his supporters were confronted by the US Marines that included future Confederate General, Robert E. Lee. John Brown was hung for treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Since the Missouri Compromise of 1820 the country had been moving toward irreconcible differences and by 1859 talk among the southern states about secession was common. Their argument revolved around the issue of a state right to secede from the union. To the southern states the nature “of the issue” did not interfere with their right to secede. Frankly, they had a constitutional point to make, but slavery was the catalyst for a constitutional crisis. That should sound familiar as we go down the path we are going.

When Abraham Lincoln, an abolitionist, was elected in 1860 eight southern states did secede and would be followed formerly by three more when Lincoln mobilized 75,000 militia to put down what was called the War of Rebellion in the north and the War for Southern Independence in the south. It is estimated that 620,000 soldiers lost their lives in the war. At the time that was about 2% of the population. The Union was preserved at a very high cost. What we call “the” Civil War was our second.

The point of this brief history lesson thus far is too illustrate the notion of irreconcilable differences between peoples. In both cases a significant minority of people decided that they could no longer be part of Great Britain in the first instance and the Federal Union in the second instance.

It is my belief we are at a tipping point in our country where our differences have split us wide open. Those differences appear irreconcilable given the values on both sides.

On one side you have “Blue States” that seem determined to radically change America with a Neo-Marxist agenda that has affected every area of our lives. On the other side are the “Red States” that seek to preserve the rule of law and go by our Constitution with its provision for a balance of power. The election of Joe Biden and the radicals does not bode well for a country so divided. The division certainly did not start with his election; it’s simply the result of what has become two very different visions of what the US was and what it will be.

Pat Buchanan put it this way in a recent column titled, Is Our Second Civil War–Also a Forever War:

Some see secession. But though secession is unlikely, a secession of the heart has already taken place in America. We are two nations, two peoples seemingly separated indefinitely. Can a nation so divided as ours, racially, ideologically, religiously, still do great things together, as did the America of days gone by, to the amazement of the world?

The geography between the Red and Blue States do not seem to favor secession but given the fact we do seem to be two peoples divided racially, ideologically and religiously I personally would not rule a third civil war with secession a possbility. A secession of the heart has already occurred..

Barbarians at the Gates

While ghouls prowled the streets feasting on the dead, an army of Goths waited for their kinsmen to open the gates. The 410 Sack of Rome soon began .https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2017/01/20/barbarians-at-the-gate-the-410-sack-of-rome/

The Goths sacked Rome in 410 BC a date that precedes the official fall of the Western Roman Empire by 66 years-yet in hind sight very predictable.

Historians debate the reasons for the fall of the Western Roman Empire (the Eastern half would endure for another 1000 years) but in the end it was the will of God that made it so.

Why? It’s hard to say other than to note that throughout biblical history God raises up one empire and takes another down. That even included his chosen people who fell into widespread idolatry.

The nations that were raised up the Assyrians and Babylonians respectively. God eventually punished both of those empires with yet another nation he raised up-the kingdom of the Medes and Persians.

Why should we Americans think we are any different or immune to be taken down?

Although the Founders were heavily influenced by Christianity we never were a Christian nation per se. The influence that Christianity has had over Western Europe waned long ago and it’s waned here as well. The signs are every where if a person chooses to look.

I’m not a prophet but I see things getting worse. God will put on the throne whom he chooses for his reasons. Stay tuned and involved but share the gospel in the hopes of changing the world one soul at a time.

In the meantime the barbarians are clearly at the gates.

Interpreting the Constitution

I’ve often compared what the SCOTUS does and how they interpret the Constitution and what a good pastor does in his sermon preparation to interpret the passage he is preaching on.

A good exegete (a pastor that draws out the meaning of a text rather than read meaning into it) has a great deal in common with a judge who is considered to be an originalist.

An originalist seeks to determine in it’s historical context the Framer’s intent when they wrote the Constitution and Amendments.

That is exactly what a good exegete does when preparing his sermon. He asks himself what did the author mean when he wrote what he did in the context in which he lived. The process to do this is laborious and it should be since the pastor is dealing with the Word of God and he wants to be sure he is thinking God’s thoughts after him. The method is called the Historical\Grammatical Method of Interpretation. It’s fits into the discipline of Hermeutics. The strength of the system is that it is objective and that is in contrast to other methods that are often subjective.

This does not guarantee total agreement among exegetes but it does given them a standard of debate that they can appreciate since everyone plays by the same rules.

For more basic information on what I mean by the Historical\Grammatical method go to to this YouTube link to see the subject discussed in a recent service my church. https://youtu.be/3B725REh5lI

Whenever the SCOTUS has to debate a law’s constitutionality they do so from one of two positions (in general). The first position is the one I’ve already mentioned, the position of being an originalist. What did the Framers mean when they wrote the Constitution? What was the intent of the words and phrases they used in the context in which they used them.

A jurist who is not an originalist believes that the Constitution and it’s Amendments are fluid; that they evolve according to the whims of the current culture. In that, the method is far more subjective than the more objective methodology of an originalist.

Like the exegete who uses the historical\grammatical method of interpretation the originalist needs some “rules” or guidelines to determine the Framer’s intent. Here’s list of the considerations they are supposed to take into account:

 •​The evident meaning of the words. •​The meaning according to the lexicon of the times. •​The meaning in context with other sections of the Constitution. •​The meaning according to the Framer who suggested the language. •​The elucidation of the meaning by debate within the Constitutional Convention. •​The historical provenance of the words, particularly their legal history. •​The words in the context of the contemporaneous social, economic, and political events.•​The words in the context of the Revolutionary struggle. •​The words in the context of the political philosophy shared by the Founding generation or by the particular interlocutors at the Convention. •​Historical, religious, and philosophical authority put forward by the Framers. •​The commentary in the ratification debates. •​The commentary by contemporaneous interpreters, such as Publius in The Federalist Papers. •​The subsequent historical practice by the Founding generation to exemplify the understood meaning (e.g., the actions of President Washington, the First Congress, and Chief Justice Marshall). •​Early judicial interpretations. •​Evidence of long-standing traditions that demonstrate the people’s understanding of the words.
The Heritage Guide to the Constitution: Fully Revised Second Edition (pp. 25-26). Regnery Publishing. Kindle Edition. 

As you can it can be a laborious process and it does not mean that all originalists will necessarily arrive at the same conclusion.

This stands in contrast to jurists who never seem to consider original intent. Instead, they think in terms of desired outcomes and that’s why conservatives call them activist judges rather than an originalist or constitutionalist. It’s also why since the Reagan Administration (at least) the Senate hearings for the confirmation of a Supreme Court judge are so contentious. The left wants activists to do their bidding and the right wants originalists to stick to the original intent of the Founders..

The Kavanaugh hearings are example “A” to the degree in which the left will go to ruin a man by convicting him of a crime in the court of public opinion without any supporting evidence.

Like the Bible the Constitution should not be twisted to get it to say whatever you want it to say.

A More Perfect Union

The Battle of Gettysburg ended on July 3rd, 1863. On July 4th, 1863 the river city fortress of Vicksburg fell to Union General US Grant. The loss of both battles meant the beginning of the end for the Confederacy. Had Lee won at Gettysburg and Vicksburg held out longer it’s entirely possible that one of two things or both could have happened. The first is that France and England would have recognized the Confederacy as an independent nation. Among other things that could have meant the breaking of the Union blockade of Southern ports by the all powerful British Navy. (In 1863 the UK was the most powerful nation in the world and not necessary our pals.)

The second thing that is probable Lincoln would have lost the 1864 election in favor of Northern Democrats and Copperheads (a Copperhead opposed the war). If Lincoln was defeated it would have resulted in an independent Confederacy. The net result of an independent CSA would have meant a continuation of slavery-pure and simple. When news of the Union victories reached the North most realized it was the beginning of the end for the CSA although thousands more would die before the Confederates would surrender in the Spring of 1865. 

Confederate High Tide at Gettysburg

Note this quote from the preamble of Constitution of the USA:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Former President Barack OBama used the line, ” a more perfect Union” in a famous speech that spoke of race relations. The central idea of the preamble and presumably Obama’s speech was that the US keep striving for that more perfect Union. 

US History is full of warts and injustice but we have always striven to be that more perfect Union and fix what we can. There was a time when people of good will on both sides of the aisle recognized the common goal of striving for that more perfect Union. I truly fear that time has passed and that our country is in more trouble than it was in April of 1861. When one party refuses to condemn mob justice and violence and openly seeks socialistic Marxism we no longer have any kind of unity worthy of the name. It is not out of the question that a second Civil War is brewing and that would be tragic.

So what is the Christian to do? First we are mandated to pray for those in power no matter how distasteful that may be. After all, Paul’s instructions to do so involved the despot Nero. The question is how to pray for them. The most common answer to that question is that we are supposed to pray for wisdom. IMO, the wisdom to be prayed for is biblical wisdom that leads to practical application derived from the inalienable rights derived from our Creator.

The framers, for all their faults recognized this when formulating the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Therefore, it seems to me praying that those in power uphold the Constitution rather than treating it like silly putty would be the pathway to striving for that more perfect Union. That is my prayer.

Red Pill Spirituality

I have to admit that I’m late to the Matrix party despite being a Sci-Fi fan. It’s only recently that I watched all three movies in the series. Perhaps when number one came out I didn’t quite get the attraction. Nevertheless, a couple of months ago I caught all three movies and enjoyed them all.

So, when Elon Musk encouraged folks to “take the red pill” I realized he said it in relation to opening his Telsa factory despite what the State of California thought about it.

According to Wikipedia taking the red pill means:

In The Matrix, the main character Neo is offered the choice between a red pill and a blue pill by rebel leader Morpheus. The red pill represents an uncertain future—it would free him from the enslaving control of the machine-generated dream world and allow him to escape into the real world, but living the “truth of reality” is harsher and more difficult. On the other hand, the blue pill represents a beautiful prison—it would lead him back to ignorance, living in confined comfort without want or fear within the simulated reality of the Matrix. As described by Morpheus: “You take the blue pill…the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill…you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.” Neo chooses the red pill and joins the rebellion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill

If Musk meant take the red pill like Wiki explains I would whole heartily agree. The bad guys in my opinion are those who have functioned as “controller matrix” during the CoVid19 crisis. They peddled fear and hysteria and to this day have not stopped despite evidence to the contrary. This includes most of the media and politicians. Sadly, the controllers have been successful and many prefer the “blue pill dream world” than the risky, uncertain real red pill world.

I think Christians who think about things theologically can see the spiritual dimension that relates to the red pill, blue pill comparison.

Red pill takers understand sound theology and within that sound theology understand the reality of an unseen world. Red pill takers know that it exists and know that it exerts influences on the world’s systems and governments. Paul and others in the Bible recognize the unseen world as the realm of spiritual warfare.

A blue pill taker, even if a professing Christian has poor theology if at all. They assume that all is well and are quite content to live in a kind of dream world where all is in order not understanding they have a weak understanding of the gospel or they really do not know it all.

A person is not saved by being a good person, by chipping in some good works, by being baptized as a baby or assuming that all roads lead to same dream world place. You are saved by placing all your trust in Christ and his finished work on the cross. Jesus becomes your Lord and Savior and that changes your life. Your eyes are opened to the truth; to the narrow way of salvation (John 14:6). All of a sudden the Bible makes sense as it serves as a type of red pill that reveals spiritual realities.

It happened to me about 35years ago.

Jesus was clear; you must be born again to enter the kingdom of heaven. Read John 3:1-21 and take the red pill opening your eyes to spiritual reality.

For a great read on the unseen realm I recommend the books by Dr. Michael Heiser.

I recommend Unseen Realm and for an easier read Supernatural.

Something for Nothing

My apologies to Dire Straits for stealing the name of their catchy tune, Something for Nothing. It was an 80’s song where blue collar appliance delivery men wished they could play the guitar on MTV instead of their own work drudgery. They saw the benefits of being in a rock band as getting something for nothing.

My wife and I recently received the $1200.00 stimulus check issued by the IRS. The reason for the check was the CoVid19 shutdown. The money was issued to stimulate the crumbing economy (spend it!) and in other cases to simply pay bills until unemployment insurance could kick in. We didn’t have to do anything for it except be taxpayers which is a little like something for nothing hence the song that popped into my mind.

I just read the other day that certain Democrat Senators are now proposing a $2000.00 check per month, per American with incomes less than $130,000.00 per year. The stimulus would last months until the crisis passes. That strikes me as more something for nothing and I think it’s a bad idea.

At first glance this looks compassionate since it’s apparent that many people are being denied the right to work and are hurting financially. It should also be pointed out that the Democrat led states are the most radical when it comes to re-opening. Other Democrats are even suggesting it’s the first step in establishing a universal basic income for every American. That appears to be the real agenda as the power of the nanny state and big government increase.

The motivation under the compassion is to pander for votes and make fiscal conservatives look bad and uncaring. It’s politics that motivates and not compassion. It behooves the political left to keep the country shut down as long as possible. The longer people cannot work then the better it is for the left and their socialist agenda. Whether you like Trump or not the end game is get him out of office and get as many people as possible dependent on government.

The net result of these type of proposals is to pay people not to work. When you pay people not to work it taps into aspects of human nature that are contrary to what the Bible says about work.

Allow me to use myself as an illustration when the incentive to collect unemployment was stronger than a need to find work.

Many years ago I worked in a manufacturing environment. I belonged to a union and the type business was seasonal. The slow part of the season was late spring, early summer and it was typical that many people, including me, would be laid off. The duration of the lay off could be anywhere from one month to about three months depending on various factors including seniority and supply and demand for the product..

During the time of layoff a person would draw unemployment insurance. At the time you did not have to look for a job. The insurance would last for 26 weeks and it was possible to file for an extension. You simply gambled you could wait out the layoff and eventually get your job back. Since the layoffs occurred in late spring many people did not mind at all if the layoff continued well into the summer.

Obviously, it depended on one’s individual circumstances in how one viewed the layoff. In some cases, the unemployment insurance was inadequate so the longer the layoff went the harder it would be to make ends meet. These folks would be anxious for the layoff to end.

In other circumstances, say a single person with few expenses or someone who had access to a second income, the layoff served as a nice paid vacation. Because my wife worked outside of the home we didn’t mind the lay off much at all and took the gamble I’d get my job back. I always did.

Here I wish to make the obvious observation that I made above. If you pay people not to work, many will not. By removing incentive you appeal to the desire to get something for nothing. In a desire to create a reasonable safety net the result is to encourage dependency on the state and make laziness a virtue. It also should be painted out that some people are actually making more money on the enhanced unemployment than they did when working!

I personally do not believe the Democrat initiatives are all that well meaning but even if they are, providing incentive to not work is not something the Bible would endorse. This New Testament passage is a pretty good indication of what God thinks of honorable work. Note that the passage is written as a command that should result from believing the gospel and being “in Christ.”:

¹⁰ For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. ¹¹ For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. ¹² Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.  The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (2 Th 3:10–12). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

But that’s not all. Old Testament wisdom literature places a high value on work.

In all toil there is profit, but mere talk tends only to poverty. (Proverbs 14:23)

Whoever works his land will have plenty of bread, but he who follows worthless pursuits will have plenty of poverty. (Proverbs 28:19)

Too often we see work as a burden because work is often hard and laziness is easy; especially when you get paid to do nothing!

These notions fly in the face of what God has revealed to us in Scripture regarding the value of work. Wayne Grudem in his book, Christian Ethics-An Introduction to Biblical Moral Reasoning, begins his chapter of Work, Rest, Vacations and Retirement like this:

Although many people seek to avoid work or to work as little as possible, the Bible presents, in general, a positive view of work. It views work in itself as a good hing and as pleasing to God.

We see this first because, before there was any sin in the world, God gave Adam and Eve work to do: “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion…” (Gen. 1:28). Furthermore, before there was sin in the world, “the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work and keep it” (2:15). Work is not simply a painful part of the fallen human condition, but it part of what God intended for us in his “very good” creation,”

Christian Ethics-An Introduction to Biblical Moral Reasoning, by Wayne Grudem (pg 921)

Many people have been scared half to death by the CoVid19 crisis. Given the initial models that predicted millions would die it makes some sense to help those financially crushed by being forced not to work. But is that any reason to keep millions out of work even as the predictions have turned out to be flat out wrong?

The fact is the issue is so politicized I have little hope that all of a sudden our government as a whole would realize the biblical value of honest work and seek to do the right thing by creating reasonable mechanisms to get people back to work.

Christians should be counter-cultural when it comes to work. Working to please and honor the Lord is a good thing (Col. 3:21, 23). Therefore, we should seek to return to work as soon as we can and at the same time be as safe as we reasonably can. We can do both.