Asking the Wrong Things of Government

We all know human organizations work better by being smaller and more efficient. But we also know that in partisans' mouths "smaller" and "more efficient" are primarily code-words for "less expensive." The real criteria of "small government" partisans, to the exclusion of almost every other consideration, is money.

It's one monomania of "conservatives" today. We easily assent to the plausibility of their madness because everyone knows government could be better if it were smaller, more efficient, and less costly. The problem is that the cost of government (or its size, or its efficiency) is the wrong criteria.

Any discussion of what is good, or "better," or "best" is a moral question, presented in moral terms. The problem is that moral questions speak to right and wrong; and the size, efficiency and cost of government are, in themselves, neither.

Made in the likeness of God...Who Alone IS Good, Jesus says...man has moral capability. Things created by man: whether ideas like efficiency, or objects like money: take on a moral dimension only in man's use of them. Governmental efficiency can be a moral evil, as in the crematoria of the Nazis. Government spending can be a moral good, as in our aid to the starving after that war.

The governmental systems and concepts men have devised can likewise only be considered in moral terms ("better," for example) according to how man uses them. Communism, for example, is morally judged not according to its paradisical concept, but on its hellish practice.

The great mistake in morally evaluating government is to draw the line the wrong place. Christian ideas and attitudes about moral government are rooted, first and only, in the Kingdom of God: perfect governance, owing nothing to man. Human governments may manifest some relative moral difference, between the "better" and the "worse." But all Christian consideration of government begins and ends in our King, Who Alone IS absolute Good.

The only line of distinction Christians should recognize, or take as their own, is between His rule and man's.

The danger of anti-communism

The human ideas on which communism operates are false and evil. Our scriptural faith is that evil will NOT triumph. Where then is the "danger" of communism ?

The real danger is that Christians would be misled from scriptural faith to operate on false and evil human ideas. And a Christian who puts his/her faith in communism is not operating in the Spirit and the mind of Christ.

A Christian who puts his/her faith in capitalism, democracy, "conservatism," militarism, political partisanship, anti-communism, patriotism, or any other false and evil human idea from the secular realm has likewise ceased to operate in the Spirit and the mind of Christ.

Vastly more Christians are misled by those deceptions than by communism. Which false and evil human ideas, then, are a greater danger: those we reject, or those we take into our hearts and minds ?

Illegal Aliens

I've been part of a spirited discussion on a Christian site about illegal aliens.

People mostly repeated Fox News anecdotes, and mouthed all the usual evil spin on the "issue" by unscrupulous politicians such as Kris Kobach.

After citing all the scriptures I found pertinent, I disengaged from the red-herring "policy" debate and Obama-bashing that continued: something I'm not always wise enough to do.

I think God also gave me the wisdom to sum up the matter well, quoted here:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "policy" aspect here is a complete red herring: it goes off in all directions, to no real purpose.

Folks, government policy can change tomorrow, and it WILL change dozens of times in the coming few years. During that time, the "issue" will be used by unscrupulous politicians and lying "news" organizations to create fear and advance their evil purposes. That's the way the world works, always has worked, and always will work.

I've witnessed to what I understand scripture says about righteous treatment of illegal aliens. If we operate on that reality, we will be righteous people, pleasing to God. The world's way will only produce fearful, deluded people who are manipulated by evil-doers.

The central question about illegal aliens is what kind of people WE will choose to be.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The discussion seemed to exemplify the current psuedo-Christianity: centered on "issues," and demonizing other people (illegal aliens, liberals, etc.) for every national ill.

God forgive the American Church !!

Class Warfare

Last year Oregon citizens voted in a state-wide referendum to raise state taxes for those making over $250,000 a year.

Kevin Looper, one of the organizers of the referendum, responded to criticism he was promoting class-war:

"You know, it's class war when we're cutting Medicare. It's class war when we're cutting teachers out of our public schools."


http://www.npr.org/2011/10/03/141013128/what-motivated-oregon-voters-to-raise-taxes

Idol

A good definition of "idol" is any thing that takes the place of God in our thinking. We talk about people whose idols are their cars, or success, or house...things.

We all need money. We need it to buy food, or have a place to live. When does money become an idol ? When we cease to think of it as a thing: when we invest it with a spiritual quality against God's place in our spirit: love, for example, or trust. If we ascribe the qualities of a living relation to what is only a thing, we create an idol in our life.

Libertarians: Definition

Libertarians: anarchists lacking the courage of their convictions.

Ayn Rand Again

Ayn Rand is in the news again. Rep. Paul Ryan, author of the 2012 Republican budget, has credited the ideas of that budget to his idol, Ayn Rand. Anyone who has looked at that budget's treatment of the poor can agree.

Chuck Colson, bless his heart, was on top of this several years ago. In a review on a VERY conservative website in 2007, Colson was already warning that in their espousal of Ayn Rand's ideas, "conservatives" were buying into a radically anti-Christian agenda. Colson's warning is worth quoting again.

http://townhall.com/columnists/chuckcolson/2007/10/16/the_legacy_of_ayn_rand/page/full/

"In his new memoir, former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan reminds us that author Ayn Rand is still influencing the world. He credits her with turning him into something more than a 'math junkie.'

"Greenspan is not alone. A 1991 Book-of-the-Month Club and Library of Congress survey asked members which book had most influenced their lives. As expected, the Bible finished first. Unexpectedly, Rand’s most famous book, the novel Atlas Shrugged, finished second.

"Fifty years after its publication and 25 years after Rand’s death, Atlas Shrugged is still read everywhere from college campuses to Wall Street. Given its popularity and its impact, Christians ought to be acquainted with Rand’s work and, especially, her worldview.

"As theologian John Piper puts it, Rand’s work manifests a 'complete rejection of a divine or supernatural dimension to reality.' The absence of God causes Rand to get human nature wrong as well.

"In Atlas Shrugged and her other writings, Rand articulated a philosophy she called 'objectivism.' Among other things, objectivism teaches that man’s 'highest value' and 'moral purpose' is his own happiness.

"By 'happiness' Rand meant 'rational self-interest.' For her, 'virtue' consisted of doing what 'secured' your life and well-being.

"Where did that leave altruism and self-sacrifice? As vices. For Rand, altruism and self-sacrifice represented a betrayal of what should be a person’s 'highest values,' that is, his life and well-being. Similarly, justice would be possible only where you never sought for nor granted unearned or undeserved results, 'neither in matter nor in spirit . . .'

"But without altruism and self-sacrifice, how do people relate to one another? Ayn Rand says through exchanges that promote mutual advantage, what she called a 'trade.' In other words, as if each of the parties were businesses, not people.

"Rand’s inversion of biblical norms had predictable results: Scott Ryan, who wrote a book on Rand’s philosophy, called objectivism a 'psychologically totalitarian personality cult that allowed Rand . . . to exercise personal power over [her] unwitting victims.' He cites, for example, the way she manipulated 'her own unemployed and dependent husband' to get him to agree for her to have 'an adulterous sexual affair.'

"We’re not talking here about personal flaws or merely human weaknesses. As Ryan puts it, these abuses are 'demonstrably connected to Rand’s own "philosophical" premises'—that is, her worldview.

"Rand and her followers, you see, lived in a way consistent with her worldview. But you can hardly regard a philosophy that exalts selfishness and condemns altruism as the basis for a good society.

"That’s why it is so important for us as Christians to understand our Christian worldview and to be able to contend for it, because it gets God right, and it gets human nature right, as well. You can find that worldview in the one book that out-ranked Atlas Shrugged."

Disposable Jesus

Stephen Prothero published a thoughtful blog on our culture's "disposable Jesus."

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/11/my-take-poll-on-bin-ladens-death-reveals-a-disposable-jesus/?hpt=C2

One of his examples is the "Golden Rule:" most Americans say they believe we should treat others as we would want to be treated ourselves (though that's not just a Christian teaching). Even when specifically applied, a small majority agreed that we should not do anything to enemies that we would not want done to American soldiers.

But less than half of white evangelicals agreed to that belief. "In other words," observes Prothero, for a majority of white evangelicals, "when Jesus said, 'So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets' (Matthew 7:12), He didn’t really mean 'everything.' He thought there should be an exception in the case of waterboarding your enemies."

This is what Prothero calls our "disposable Jesus:" the operative attitude that Jesus is not so much the sovereign Head of the Church as a useful pawn for OUR opinions...and can be ignored when He contradicts them. I'd add that this attitude also manifests itself in the treatment of truth (who Jesus said He IS), particularly among followers of the politicized Church.

I have limited interest in heresy-hunting, and the conspiracy-mindedness that goes with it. Heresies and conspiracies are both "out there." But time spent searching them out seems to me a complete waste, and conspiracy-mindedness is forbidden to us (Isaiah 8). I doubt heresies and conspiracies, even those which are real (most aren't), mislead and destroy anywhere near as many Christians as does "disposable Jesus" thinking.

It's again a question of thinking in Kingdom terms. In the Kingdom, the King's word is law.

Amen !!

Wisdom, well-stated

"All Things Considered" today read a letter from a listener who enjoyed a recent news-story.

The writer said he was a gun-owning Libertarian, but praised N.P.R. for its thorough and intelligent coverage of news. He admitted he often disagreed with what he called N.P.R.'s "editorial policies:" but, he ended, "nobody learns anything in an echo-chamber."

Ayn Rand again

I've talked before about the demonic "philosophy" of Ayn Rand, and her pervasive influence on the "conservative" movement.

It seems a movie of one of her books was released...during Holy Week !!...and someone sent me a review. The reviewer considers the movie pretty awful. He attributes that to the fact that it (like the book it's based on) is little more than a screed for Rand's "philosophy:" which makes it fair game for his comments.

Keep in mind, these are excerpts from a secular movie-review, in what some like to call "the liberal media." Kudos to Michael Gerson, of the Washington Post.

"None of the characters expresses a hint of sympathetic human emotion -- which is precisely the point. Rand's novels are vehicles for a system of thought known as Objectivism. Rand developed this philosophy at the length of Tolstoy, with the intellectual pretensions of Hegel, but it can be summarized on a napkin.

Reason is everything. Religion is a fraud. Selfishness is a virtue. Altruism is a crime against human excellence. Self-sacrifice is weakness. Weakness is contemptible.

'The Objectivist ethics, in essence,' said Rand, 'hold that man exists for his own sake, that the pursuit of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose, that he must not sacrifice himself to others, nor sacrifice others to himself.'...

Rand cherished a particular disdain for Christianity. The cross, she said, is 'the symbol of the sacrifice of the ideal to the nonideal. ... It is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used. That is torture.'...

Reaction to Rand draws a line in political theory. Some believe with Rand that all government is coercion and theft — the tearing down of the strong for the benefit of the undeserving. Others believe that government has a limited but noble role in helping the most vulnerable in society — not motivated by egalitarianism, which is destructive, but by compassion, which is human. And some root this duty in God’s particular concern for the vulnerable and undeserving, which eventually includes us all. This is the message of Easter, and it is inconsistent with the gospel of Rand."

I'm convinced again that reality (in a sense, God's Maker's-mark on creation) doesn't conform to our prejudices. A secular movie-review, in the so-called "liberal media," propounds the gospel. And Christians continue to ally themselves with those who follow "doctrines of demons."

Jesus warned us to "...be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves." (Matthew 10:16) Maybe He was hinting that reality seldom operates in accordance with our caricature worldviews.