Could Christians Have Participated in the American Revolution?

As many are concerned about the participation of Christians in the political process today, I am going to discuss in this essay a more radical question: Could Christians Have Participated in the American Revolution?

To begin, there are some scriptures to consider:

1) Submit to the Authorities

2) Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's

3) Turn the other cheek

4) My kingdom is not of this world

5) Serve God rather than man

6) Whatever state you find yourself in

In addition, there are also questions to be answered:

1) Can Christians defend themselves and their families?

2) Can Christians serve as soldiers?

3) Can Christians oppose tyranny?

4) Can Christians change their circumstances? If so in what way?

5) Can Christians oppose unjust laws? If so, how?

Destiny-- The Destiny of Jane Tallant

Destiny! Destiny is "the events that will necessarily happen to a particular person or thing in the future".  There is a curiosity in everyone about what will happen to them.  Will they be rich or poor? Will they be popular or unwanted? Will they be healthy or sick? Will good things happen to them or will bad things happen to them? Will they be successful or a failure? Will they be powerful or weak? Will they enjoy life or despise life? Will they be happen or sad? Will they have friends and family they love them or not?   


With life, however, comes a certainty.  With Life comes Death.  That certainty is rarely in the forefront of our thoughts until tragedy occurs--in particular a death of someone close to us.  Then the specter of Death is very real and near.  Why do we not think of Death more often?  We are so busy "living our lives" pursuing what we believe is our "destiny" or at least trying to make certain things our "destiny".  Do we fear Death?  Is that the reason we ignore its certainty so very often?


But, there is certain way of living, a certain way of reasoning, a certain way of believing that transforms the specter of Death into a different dimension.  Jane Tallant, who experienced Death last Friday, experienced that life changing transformation.  She believed that Jesus Christ was "the Way, the Truth, and the Life."  She lived the Way, believed the Truth, and now experiences Life over Death.  Her family with her can say "Oh Death! Where is thy victory. Oh Death! Where is thy sting."  Because with her "perfect love casts out fear."  This does not mean that there is not a natural fear of that which one has not experienced.  But, it does mean she and we have faith, hope, and the  love of a merciful God to sustain us when we must face the specter of death.

Review of "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky

After hearing much about the progressives (liberal left) use of Saul Alinsky's use of "Rules for Radicals", I decided to learn for myself what was being advocated. Saul Alinsky, according to Chris Matthews on one of his programs, is one of the "heros" of the 60's. Below is my summary and comments as I go throught the book:

Prologue: The essense of this section is captured by the following--

1. Start from where the world is, not as you would like it to be.

2. Work within the system to affect revolutionary change.

"Any revolutionary change must be preceeded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change amon the mass of the people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. This reformation is essental to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work within the system".

My Comments on Prologue:

1. The advice to "start from where the world is, not as you would like it to be" is good advice if one is going to hope to change anyone's world-view. An examination of both Peter's sermon to the Jews on the day of Pentecost ( Acts 2) or Paul's sermon to the Athenians (Acts 17) illustrates a different approach is necessary if worldviews are different. Peter approached the Jews with their Jewish background and history. Paul approached the Athenians with their history and background. If you wish to "change" a congregation to have a "missional" world-view instead of the inwardly focused world-view, you must start from reality, not what you wish. If an eldership in a congregation is inwardly focused, you must not "kick against" the pricks if you wish to affect change, but recognize reality. This does not, however, prompt one to "give up" . A "Christian" revolutionary -- and a Christian is a revolutionary as far as world-view is concerned--still will determine ways to affect change.

2. Working within the system to effect change is also a valid principle. Some examples in theology: 1) Christ came to the earth in order to effect "change" for those that would freely imbrace it. 2) The "incarnational" principle seems to be the most effective and Christ-like --within the limits of Christian behavior. For example, you can't change prostitues and drunkards if you never associate with them, but that doesn't mean you adopt their behavior. On the other hand, it is clear Paul had his companion adopt the Jewish behavior to reach them as he did others.

Now, I wish to change the focus on current political events. If you believe in the founding principles of our Constitution and free-market system, one must be very wary of progressives using this valid principle for change. The reason is obvious: progressives will infiltrate the system with sole purpose of changing it to their world-view. It will NOT be an assult from with-out that is obvious, but an assault from within.

Of Means and Ends: The essence of this section is captured by:

1. "To me ethics is doing what is best for the most"

2. "Ethical standards must be elastic to stretch with the times."

3. The ends justify the ends depending on: a) the means available vs the ends and b) who is in power. I.E "Does this particular end justify this particular means?"

The following rules are promulgated:

1. "Ones concerns with the ethics of means varies inversely with one's personal interest in the issue."

2. "The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent up the political position of those sitting in power."

3. "In war the end justifies almost any means."

4. "Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occured and not from any other chronological vantage point."

5. "Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa."

6. "The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of the means."

7. "Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics."

8. The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of immanent defeat or immanent victory.>

9. "Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as benign unethical. "

10. "You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments."

11. "Goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity"; " Of the Common Welfare"; "Pursuit of Happiness"; or "Bread and Peace".

My Comments on "Of Means and Ends"

There are several pragmatic statements here that on the surface appear to be true. For example, statements 1-9 would seem to "hold" in practice for many. The presupposition behind all of these statements is: 1) There is NO absolute right or wrong and 2) If the revolutionary ( community organizer), aggrieved group, or person in power believes their cause is "just" then any means necessary can be used to achieve those ends. There are several problems with these presuppositions. Clearly, God has given us distinct propositional truths that state what is "right" and what is "wrong" . Can we always discern this in difficult moral dilemmas? No. But, we are to "have our senses exercised by reason of us to discern both good and evil".

Second, who is to determine their "cause" deserves any means to carry out any means to achieve it. "Nietzsche calls for exceptional people to no longer be ashamed of their uniqueness in the face of a supposed morality-for-all, which Nietzsche deems to be harmful to the flourishing of exceptional people. However, Nietzsche cautions that morality, per se, is not bad; it is good for the masses, and should be left to them. Exceptional people, on the other hand, should follow their own "inner law."" Ultimately, this lead to the idea that "
God is dead" and that moral code would be man "created" by the "superman" ( "Thus Spake Zarathustra") . In this the "superman" creates his own values since God can no longer provide these values. He further believed that man's "Will to Power" explained man's motivation for his actions. If there is no absolute truth, then why not the above?

Postmodernism thought can lead to almost the same conclusions. For example in postmodernism, there is also no absolute truth. Here, the "community" determines "truth" and values. And, similar to the "will to power" of Nietzche, the group in "power" imposes these values on the those that might be outside or inside the community.

Statements 10 and 11 then are practical tactics for implementing any ends a person or group believes has a higher value that the means being used. Here direct frontal assault is abandoned as initially the "community organizer" or person who wishes to affect change does NOT yet have the power to impose his/their values. So...... one is encouraged to adopt the language that is acceptable in such broad terms that the group/country being infiltrated cannot object. Recent political applications would be slogans like Hope and Change. You also clothe your intent in high moral terms: e.g. "everyone has a 'right' to health insurance". Then you are free to use whatever means you wish to affect your end. In addition, once you have the power, you do not hesitant to use it ( though before you do you disguise it as much as possible so that it will be acceptable). Nietzsche would applaud the "creator" who creates these "higher" values. Allan Bloom in "The Closing of the American Mind" as early as 1987 chronicled the origins of some this thinking. As Alinsky is a product of the 60's, it is no surprise that these ideas are his.

Since our current politcal leadership both taught Alinksky's philosophy at the University of Chicago and was a community organizer, it should be no surprise that: a) broad language is used that appeals to the masses b) everything is clothed in high moral tones and c) any means possible is used to impose his values upon the country.

A WORD ABOUT WORDS: The essence of this section is captured by: Be careful of the words you use as all have "baggage" attached. But, know what you mean.

The word Power-- Use and achieve power. Know that the correct expression is "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The corruption occurs within ourselves.
The Word Self-Interest--Know that it is "self-interest' that motivates not any professed moral principles.
The Word Compromise--"It is making the deal,...If you start with nothing demand 100%, then compromise to 30%, you're 30% ahead. "
The Word Ego-"The ego of the organizer is stronger and more monumental that the leader.... the organizer is motivated by the desire to create.... to be a great Creator, to play God."
The Word Conflict-"Conflict is the essential core of a free and open society."

My Comments on "A Word About Words::

The definitions of power and self-interest appear to be correct. It is the ends to which power and self-interest are used that may become corrupting. Man has sought power since the creation. In large part this is what the seduction that Man could become like God was all about. Does this mean "power" is wrong? IF power is used in the service of others, no it is not. The apostles who wish to be on the right and left hand of Jesus when they thought He was going to establish an earthly kingdom were seeking "power". Jesus demonstrated true power in the Kingdom is "servant" power.

Self-interest can become "selfishness". We are told to love our neighbor as ourself. This of necessity means there must be some "self interest" envolved. In Hayek's book on "The Road to Serfdom" he makes the distinction between these two concepts. And, in fact, our long term "self-interest" always associated with how we serve others.

The "compromise" here has everything to do about acheiving your ends --at the expense of the other party. In no sense is it used here in a "win-win" manner. This coupled with the Ego as defined here is a very selfish motivation appealing to one of the fundamental sins of man --to play GOD.

Conflict on the other hand is defined in a realistic way. Conflict per se is not wrong. Rather it is how it is handled that is either right or wrong. One of the Five Disfunctions of Teams (http://www.amazon.com/Five-Dysfunctions-Team-Leadership-Lencioni/dp/0787960756 ) defined by Lencioni is "consensus". This usually comes about through compromising of principles and leads to the lowest common demoninator of decision making.

The Education of an Organizer: The following is the essence of this chapter:

"The area of experience and communication is fundamental to an organizer. An organizer can communicate only within the areas of experience of this audience; otherwise, there is no communication. The organizer, in his constant search for patterns, universalities, and meaning, is always building up a body of experience." Organizers must have these ideal qualities: "Curiosity", "Irreverence", "Imagination", "A sense of humor", "An organized personality" "A well integrated political schizoid" , "Ego", " A free and open mind and political relativity" . The organizer uses everything he can that ( any means) to create the ends he desires. He does this by organizing others.

My comments on The Education of an Organizer

The statement that an "organizer can communicate only within the areas of experience of this audience, otherwise there is no communication." This is a true statement for all teaching, training, and communication. One must start from the experience and understanding of his audience. The disconnect comes with the statement that the organizer uses any means he can to create the ends he desires.

The Government and Bread

Tom Smith and His Incredible Bread MachineBy: R.W. GrantThis is a legend of success and plunderAnd a man, Tom Smith, who squelched world hunger.Now, Smith, an inventor, had specialized In toys. So, people were surprisedWhen they found that he instead Of making toys, was BAKING BREAD!The way to make bread he’d conceived Cost less than people could believe.And not just make it! This deviceCould, in addition, wrap and slice!The price per loaf, one loaf or many:The miniscule sum of under a penny.Can you imagine what this meant?Can you comprehend the consequent?The first time yet the world well fed!And all because of Tom Smith’s bread.A citation from the PresidentFor Smith’s amazing bread.This and other honors tooWere heaped upon his head.But isn’t t a wondrous thingHow quickly fame if flown?Smith, the hero of today-Tomorrow, scarcely known.Yes, the fickle years passed by;Smith was a millionaire,But Smith himself was now forgot-Though bread was everywhere.People, asked from where it came,Would very seldom know.They would simply eat and ask,“Was not it always so?”However, Smith cared not a bit,For millions ate his bread,And “Everything is fine,” thought he,“I am rich and they are fed!”Everything was fine, he thought?He reckoned not with fate.Note the sequence of eventsStarting on the dateOn which the business tax went up.Then, to a slight extent,The price on every loaf rose too:Up to one full cent!“What’s going on?” the public cried,“He’s guilty of pure plunder.He has no right to get so richOn other people’s hunger!”(A prize cartoon depicted SmithWith fat and drooping jowlsSnatching bread from hungry babesIndifferent to their howls!)Well, since the Public does come first,It could not be deniedThat in matter such as this,The Public must decide.So, antitrust now took a hand.Of course, it was appalledAt what if found was going on.The “bread trust,” it was called.Now this was getting serious.So Smith felt that he mustHave a friendly interviewWith the men in antitrust.So, hat in hand, he went to them.They’d surely been misled;No rule of aw had he defied, But then their lawyer said:“The rule of law, in complex times,Has proved itself deficient.We much prefer the rule of men!It’s vastly more efficient.Now, let me state the present rules,’The lawyer then went on,“These very simple guidelinesYou can rely upon:You’re gouging on your prices if You charge more than the rest.But it’s unfair competitionIf you think you can charge less.“A second point that we would makeTo help avoid confusion:Don’t try to charge the same amount:That would be collusion!You must compete. But not too much,For if you do, you see,Then the market would be yours – And that’s monopoly!”Price too high? Or price too low?Now, which charge did they make?Well, they weren’t loath to charging bothWith Public Good at stake!In fact, they went one better –They charged “monopoly!”No muss, no fuss, oh woe is us,Egad, they charged all three!“Five years in jail,” the judge then said,“You’re lucky it’s not worse,Robber Barons must be taughtSociety Comes first!”Now, bread is baked by government.And as might be expected,Everything is well controlled;The public well protected.True, loaves cost a dollar each.But out leaders do their best.The selling price is half a cent.(Taxes pay the rest!)

American Deceived by Martha Nored

AMERICA DECEIVED


Thomas Paine had it right—
We have no representation!
Again, today we suffer.
We’ve destroyed our good reputation!

Loud clamor was for CHANGE.
Did you know just what you would get?
CHANGE everything we built on—
Steal from the workers, I fret!

Now to level the playing field—
Eliminate the private sector.
The workers are severely punished.
Our government’s NO protector!

Our capital’s full of criminals—
Oboma brought them in.
Tax evaders hold office.
What an insult and a sin!!!

Government’s in control of all—
Housing, banks and cars.
Be sure to include our energy—
Detest those incompetent czars!

Extend goodies to the populace—
Encourage all those lazys.
Give money for those “clunkers”.
I tell you folks, that’s crazy!!!

Health care’s now the issue.
Yes, there’s some discussion.
Wonder if reading the bill
Would result in repercussions?

Some just love to poke fun—
“Should you actually read the bill?
It’s over one thousand pages—
Who has that much time to kill??

Let’s quickly pass this baby
Before folks know they’ve been had.
A cow pattie dipped in gold--
Still rotten and internally BAD!


There’s NO concern for health—
The health of our nation.
Destroy it all in the name of CHANGE.
What an indignation!!!

America’s on her death bed—
The prognosis is terminal and glum.
All of this could be avoided
If capitalism were allowed a free run!

Soon we’ll be called socialist—
Many await with baited breath.
Still, the silent majority
Will mourn for America’s death.

Truly, my heart’s broken—
It bleeds for the generations to come.
WAKE UP my fellow American!
Rise up and throw out the Bums!

Let’s take to the streets in protest!
Of course, we’ll follow the law,
But Americans MUST be vigilant—
Give answer to Freedom’s call.

Our forefathers gave life and blood
To safeguard our freedom’s rights.
They would be totally aghast
To find that we have this plight.

America, we hear you gasping.
God’s our hope. Don’t despair!
Humbly bow and bend your knees
Ask for God’s help in prayer.

A nation that honors God
Will never be abandoned.
He never changes the rules
Or governs the folks at random.

Martha Nored
7-30-09

Freedom's questions

Contemplating concerns about freedom: a) freedom vs perception of sin b) freedom vs responsibility to society c) freedom vs the conscience and right and wrong d) freedom vs how our nation should constrain/compel its citizens. Do any of the questions bother you? Which ones are of concern to you.. Lee Iocacca has a book out "Whe1re have all the leaders gone?" http://www.amazon.com/Where-Have-All-Leaders-Gone/dp/141653247 where he expresses outrage at the lack of leadership moral and political in our country. Which questions should Christians in a democratic society be concerned about??

Where Are We Headed?

 I read a lot of things and watch the news channels.  One thing that I cherish is "freedom".   The Declaration of Independence says:  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, ..."  I would suggest that inherent in these words is the concept of "freedom".    Nowhere in this concept is the idea that this "pursuit" will result in equal results.    I would also stipulate that "freedom of choice" was an attribute bestowed by God on his creation of Man in the Garden.  Man was free to chose to do was God stipulated on not.  He was not forced or coerced.  Does Man always make the right choices?  No. 

In our country, liberty and freedom have been the engine of growth and prosperity.    Can this freedom be abused? Yes, it can.  BUT, that doesn't mean that control instead of freedom is  better.   Gal 5:^{13 "}You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature ^a; rather, serve one another in love. ^14 The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” ^15 If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other."  We are called to be free, but we can of course, misuse that freedom. 

 ^{There is something about freedom that uplifts Man when Christ liberates us if  proper choicesare made.} 

The question then becomes whether in a democratic tradition of liberty that we are under if "loss of freedoms" is something we should be concerned about at all.   In Cor. Paul addresses a secular situation when addressing slavery: I Cor. &: ^22 For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord’s freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ’s slave. ^23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men."   Though specifically in context talking about slavery, the principle that we are "not to become slaves of men" if given a choice is, I believe, a universal principle.  

So, in our democratic republican form of government, are we headed towards becoming "slaves of men?"   Note that this is not asking the question whether we can be Christians while being slaves.   As noted in Cor.  in the verses following 22, we certainly can.  The question is whether, given a choice we should choose to do so.   

Perhaps the following account will shed some light on the current trend:

29th May 2009, 12:27 pm

WASHINGTON —President Obama announced on Friday the creation of a “Czar czar” to oversee the officials he has appointed as czars since taking office. “There are so many people running around the White House who have not gone through any vetting whatsoever that I think it’s important for me to appoint a czar just to keep track of them.”

If only. The president did appoint yet another czar today – a “Cyber Czar” that would somehow protect America’s computer networks. According to David J. Rothkopf of Foreign Policy, this would make the 19th czar position.

In addition to (Border Czar Alan) Bersin, we have energy czar Carol Browner, urban czar Adolfo Carrion, Jr., infotech czar Vivek Kundra, faith-based czar Joshua DuBois, health reform czar Nancy-Ann DeParle, newTARP czar Herb Allison, stimulus accountability czar Earl Devaney, non-proliferation czar Gary Samore, terrorism czar John Brennan, regulatory czar Cass Sunstein, drug czar Gil Kerlikowske, and Guantanamo closure czar Daniel Fried. We also have a host of special envoys that fall into the czar category including AfPak special envoy Richard Holbrooke, Mideast peace envoy George Mitchell, special advisor for the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia Dennis Ross, Sudan special envoy J. Scott Gration and climate special envoy Todd Stern.29th May 2009, 12:27 pm

WASHINGTON —President Obama announced on Friday the creation of a “Czar czar” to oversee the officials he has appointed as czars since taking office. “There are so many people running around the White House who have not gone through any vetting whatsoever that I think it’s important for me to appoint a czar just to keep track of them.”

According to the online dictionary a Czar is:a) A person having great power; an autocrat: b) An appointed official having special powers to regulate or supervise an activity

Couple the above with the following:  1) The takeover of the banking industry with associated control 2) The nationalization of GM and dictation of Chairman and  board of directors 3) The appointment of Pay Czar to control pay  {

By JIM KUHNHENN
Associated Press
June 10, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Nearly three months after American International Group bonuses provoked an angry reaction in Congress, the Obama administration is ready to issue new regulations limiting the compensation of top executives at financial institutions that have received government rescue funds.}  4) The mandating of health insurance and control by a board to determine acceptable care options 5) The mandating of the kind and type of energy one can use and is available and, we could go on.  

Some would say: 1) the financial crisis demanded intervention in the financial institutions 2) GM and Chrysler were "too big to fail" 3) Executive pay is too large anyway 4) Something must be done about Health Care and 5) We must "save the planet".  In every case there is an equal compelling argument against the actions or proposed actions taken.  For example: 1) Though some actions to free up the credit markets may have been advisable, TARP funds were NOT used in the manner proposed to free up these markets.  Instead, they were used to control the institutions, not buy up toxic assets as proposed.  And, economists predict the "stimulus" bill will do more harm than good.  2) Bankrupcy has occured with GM anyway, but with contract law shredded and the government seizing control 3) Control of pay of leaders of institutions beholden to the govenment is a populist notion, but practically this will lead to a) proposals to control ALL business pay andb) will not attract the talent to properly lead complex industries like the auto industry. 4) There are many options for "reforming health care" without govenment dictating the health of individuals-- removing state barriers, forming cooperatives, etc. 5) There are equal arguments against carbon emissions being "the problem".  And, even if it were, our reductions will have little effect.  For example:http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html, 

The total effect is shown below:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html 

"The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later.

Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%."

What does all the above mean for a Christian deciding how to react in a democratic society?? All of the proposals cited above lead to a loss of individual liberty and freedom of each individual.  Ultimately,  control of the freedom and liberty lost will recide in unelected officials in agencies of the federal government.   When you combine health, finances, job pay and control, and energy control of major aspects of your life, you are enslaved to those unelected men.  That is a massive granting of your individual freedom to others.  

Ultimately, trade-offs like the above amount to tradeoffs between freedom and liberty vs security and control.  Presumably: 1) granting of financial controls to government makes your financial situtation more secure and "fair" 2) control of he automoble  industry will lead to cars "better- ie. "greener" for everyone and preserves jobs for a small portion ( 1,000,000 total in extended industries is still small for the total job market)  hence ensures a more secure future 3) Control of pay will redistribute wealth and be fairer to workers, as of course this will benefit everyone 4) nationalized heath care provides security for your heath and 5) reducing cardon emissions will make the planet more secure. 

But, should Christians freely give up their freedom of choice to have these areas dictated by men???  Many will disagree as this answer.  However, I believe the principle of freedom tromps security if a Christian is given a choice.   I Believe that the direction we are headed is destructive of freedom and liberty.  I also believe it is only a matter of time before this trend moves to limit what Christians can say about moral issues, how we employ staff, what we can or cannot do in our buildings, and what we can say or not say.  I believe "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, " We have a choice --at least at the ballot box.