Create In His Image

Continuing with the same examples in the previous blog: chattel slavery and homosexual marriage, let’s try to answer the question about what forms the legal basis of defining ‘core values’ in the United States today.

Chattel slavery was legal before the civil war in South
Carolina. It was always illegal in New York. This is a
case of the states having that absolute power over the
Federal government at the time. The Federal government did
not have jurisdiction and thus the states had more power
than the Federal government in this core value. The civil
war amendments to the United States Constitution (USC)
changed this law. It gave absolute power in this core value
question to the Federal government.

Likewise recent SCOTUS decisions have given the Federal
government absolute power in defining homosexual’s core
values. No state is permitted to prohibit homosexual
marriage. Everyone who issues marriage licenses are
prohibited from discriminating against homosexuals and must
issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples who request
them. As Kim Davis knows the government can and may legally
punish those who refuse.

Our Federal Government is a constitutional republic. The
United States Constitution (USC) is the civil authority over
our nation. As examples above show, law derived from this
authority has changed over time because of amendments. The
USC has very little moral law written within. Just as the
question of chattel slavery, 99% of moral law was governed
by the states. But because of amendments, particularly the
14th civil war amendment, many “Supreme Court of the United
States (SCOTUS)” judgments define core values now.

What does the USC place as the authority to define civil
(legal) justice of moral core values? This is where things
get very interesting. Arguments have continued for a long
time about this. On one side we hear “original intent”.
Often cited are the references to the Christian God as
creator, lawgiver, and Supreme Judge as stated in our
Declaration of Independence. This is often referred to as
natural law under God but with a vacuum of civil law
specifics about core values. On the other side we hear
religion is excluded by the first amendment: “freedom of
religion” and the USC Article 6 paragraph 3: “no religious
oath test”.

Nine of the thirteen states had religious oaths of their own
when the USC was adopted. The natural-law-under-god group
was so loose an alliance it fell apart early in a legal
justice sense within the United States. These 9 states
removed their religious oaths rather quickly.

Can we conclude the USC is a secular contract distancing
itself from Christianity having any judicial authority over
core values? Actually, I don’t know. Many historians have
studied and written about this. Perhaps the most cited
book, other than the original documents themselves, is _The
Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of
the United States_ written by Benjamin F. Morris where we
find this:

This Constitution, … contains no recognition of the
Christian religion, nor even an acknowledgment of the
providence of God in national affairs. This omission
was greatly regretted by the Christian public …

But, less than a page later says

Notwithstanding this omission, the record of facts now
to pass before the reader will demonstrate that the
Constitution was formed under Christian influences and
is, in its purposes and spirit, a Christian instrument.

All that can be said for certain is that many of the recent
SCOTUS 5-4 decisions may be simplified as ‘original intent’ vs
14th-amendment progressive interpretation. The reason this
split in USC decisions exists and has become more acute, I
believe, is because the USC is vague on what it, itself,
says is the foundation of the rule of law beyond what the
USC specifically says.

What about the Christian or Biblical roots of civil justice?
Even Christian constitutional lawyers drift from ‘original
intent’ siding with some 14th-amendment progressive thought.
In Gitlow v. New York in 1925, the majority opinion of
SCOTUS said the 14th amendment restricted states rights to
limit free speech. The Bill of Rights was beginning to be
applied to the states. Recently John W. Whitehead of the
Rutherford Institute wrote that SCOTUS

has expanded the definition of religion under the First
Amendment to include various religions and philosophical
systems. Therefore, the First Amendment protects all
religions and religious expression in guaranteeing
freedom for all (and rightly so).

The conclusion is that our justice system is pluralistic
when it comes to religion. Our justice system today is a
secular conscience. Natural law without its Christian
Scriptural founding is the Supreme authority over core
values in the United States today. This was never the
“original intent” when the USC was written. Recall that at
the time the USC was adopted, 9 of the 13 colonies had their
own versions of Christian (state) oaths.

More to come.

Civil law is put in place to force some moral code upon
everyone within this civil jurisdiction. I think both those
who believe in an unchanging, fixed, moral code as well as
those who believe in an evolving moral code use the term
‘core value(s)’ to describe this. I’ll be using this term
from now on.

Consider these two examples: chattel slavery and homosexual
marriage. Chattel slavery was permissible in some southern
states leading up to the civil war. After the civil war,
the 14th amendment made chattel slavery illegal. The core
value that all men (no matter their skin color) had the
right to liberty and pursuit of happiness had changed across
the United States.

Sodomy was illegal in Georgia up until 2003. In 1986, in
Bowers v. Hardwick, the Supreme Court of the United States
(SCOTUS) upheld Georgia state law which criminalized sodomy.
Then in 2003, in Lawrence v. Texas, SCOTUS ruled that law
against sodomy infringed on personal rights and choice. On
Oct. 5, 2020, SCOTUS justices Thomas and Alito scolded
SCOTUS for not taking up Kim Davis’ appeal of the 2015
Obergefell decision where homosexual marriage rights were
affirmed infringing upon her 1st amendment
freedom-of-religion rights. Thus, core values of homosexual
behavior and their rights made an about face somewhere
between the 1980’s and 2020.

Where do core values come from? Those who believe these are
fixed will point to some external absolute standard. This
means they have explaining to do with regard to previous
core values they have accepted in the past but now believe
should be changed. This explanation must pick one of two
choices. Either the external absolute standard changed due
to some circumstance or they were wrong about the previous
core value ever being correct.

Let’s return to the two examples: chattel slavery and
homosexual marriage.

The ‘fixed’ morality camp would either say the core value of
allowing states to permit chattel slavery up to our civil
war was wrong from the beginning or that the absolute
standard was modified – some how. If one in this
fixed-morality camp were truly rational, he would have some
answer.

Others would include the evolving-morality camp as well as
those who claim to believe in fixed morality but don’t
bother to rationally think through why their mind had
changed. These others may just say this core value which
permitted chattel slavery evolved to civil law prohibiting
it. Reasons may be given. Factory work in the North was
much less conducive to slave labor than the agricultural
south and economic advantages of slavery were decreasing.
Maybe this core value evolved just because the North won?

Let’s consider homosexual marriage now.

The ‘fixed’ morality camp would either say the core value of
homosexual behavior and rights was wrong from the beginning
or that the absolute standard was modified – some how. What
was this absolute standard in 1776 vs 2020? Many people
identified with a Christian church have changed their minds
on what used to be the fixed standard calling homosexuality
not just evil but illegal. What has changed? Did the
fixed-standard change or has belief in a fixed-standard
waned? Has the majority of conservative Christian America
been dumbed down? They don’t understand the rational decision
to allow homosexual rights goes against a fixed standard they
claim to believe? Let that sink in.

Of course it’s impossible to have multiple “Absolute”
standards. Not everyone believes in the same absolute
standard. The fact that some believe in a fixed unchanging
standard vs some who believe in an evolving standard itself
tells us this. Consider Worldview. It dictates our actions
based on those things we take for granted, i.e., believe in,
i.e., are impossible to disprove. Even if people don’t
self-examine or rationalize this ‘belief’, everyone has one.
Worldviews are visible by the way we act.

More to come.

I am responding to Jim Stovall’s article in Tulsa Beacon
September 17, 2020, “You have to admit to your own bias”.
The article title is true. World views are not optional.
Everyone has one. For instance, answer these questions: Is
there more to me than flesh and blood? If yes, then what
happens to me when I die? Everyone acts in accord with
their belief in their answers to these questions.

In closing Jim says “If you’re going to combat your own
bias, you have to admit you have one and deal with it on
every front. … develop your thinking by keeping an open
mind.” What does this mean? If it means changing one’s
world view such as Antony Flew did in 2004 then I’m in
agreement.

Everyone should test their world view, i.e.,
presuppositions: those ideas we believe cannot be proven but
simply accept as truth.

Probably most of the readers of Tulsa Beacon would say they
hold a Christian world view. The historical truth of Jesus
Christ is most accurately recorded in the Bible. What parts
are replaced by something else in your world view? Why?
What reasons or logic have you used to choose to believe
something else rather than the Biblical record?

The New York Times morning news and opinion email advances an “Idea of
the Day” called “Cancel Culture” with both pro and con snippets. This
got me to thinking about how culture does influence a person’s
reputation and thus the ability of employment. I would express this
more with a simple ‘ABC’: ‘Always Bias in Culture’.

Consider racism. In the past, because of laws involving blacks unable
to be employed or buy homes in better parts of towns and suburbs, they
have been, and are in many places, “pushed” by culture to live in
cities, usually in subsidized housing where schools are poorer. This
resulted in many blacks with much lower education levels than other
races. Those blacks who were able to escape this situation, being
well educated and able to think, know this. Education is the most
significant variable related to incarceration. The US culture has
changed quickly recently in this area mostly as a result of the
ubiquitous George Floyd video snippet.

Consider the LGBT movement. US culture was biased against LGBT a
generation ago. Over time US culture has condoned it and recently
even legalized those within this camp. I would not be surprised if
some on the political right who continue to call LGBT activity ‘sin’
would find it harder to buy a home or land a job in some places. Bias
in US culture has made an about face within one generation.

Free speech has provided shovels to dig the trenches and bullets to
load guns in this ‘ABC’ warfare. The reason the New York Times and
media outlets like it are winning this war against those forces of
conservatism, e.g., Heritage Foundation and Hillsdale College’s
Imprimis, is because neither side refuses to surrender to the Supreme
Authority. Borrowing a recent popular book title, “A Higher Call” is
being ignored. Both sides have accepted and pushed (religious)
pluralism. The US culture has abandoned absolute Truth accepting an
evolution of morality itself instead.

In conclusion, I choose to take God’s cultural bias as Paul preached
to the philosophers in his day at Athens.

 "The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all
 people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which
 he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has
 appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising
 him from the dead." [Acts 17:30&31]

Many ultra conservatives knew for years that Republican presidents
don’t always appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court of the
United States (SCOTUS). Their recent decision, where 2 justices
appointed by a republican president joined the majority, in favor of
redefining ‘sex’ in the 1964 Civil Rights Act; should be a wake-up
call to all conservatives. When I first heard of this I nearly cried,
but fell to my knees in prayer for my sons, daughters-in-laws, and 7
grand children. My wife and I have been reading through the Bible and
we are currently in 1st Chronicles. The history of Israel and
neighboring nations recorded there, definitely factors into my mood.

Just this morning we read I Chronicles 19. King David of Israel sent
a delegation to express his sympathy to Hanun, King of the Ammonites,
concerning his father, Nahash, who had just died. Nahash had been a
friend of David. Instead of treating David’s delegation with respect,
“Hanun seized David’s men, shaved them, cut off their garments in the
middle at the buttocks, and sent them away” [vs. 4]. The Ammonites
realized “they had become a stench in David’s nostrils, [and] Hanun
and the Ammonites sent a thousand talents of silver to hire
[protection]” [vs, 6,7]. A battle ensued. But, before the battle
Joab said “The Lord will do what is good in his sight” [vs. 13].
Needless to say, the Arameans who were hired to help the Ammonites
were routed and many thousand were killed, as well as the Ammonites
becoming slaves of Israel.

The key phrase in this story is Joab’s quote as recorded in Scripture:
“The Lord will do what is good in his sight”. What was Hanun thinking
when he humiliated David’s delegation in the first place? He
obviously didn’t know “the Lord” nor did he even exercise common
wisdom about how to treat a neighbor. Where did Hanun err and how
does it relate to US (both us and United States)? Hanun forgot or
discarded his own father’s example on how to interact with David.
Hanun also never counted the cost of his course of action.

Here in the United States we enjoyed a successful position in the
world of nations. Yes, we were prosperous also. Our governments
worked from the top down Federalist to the bottom most self-government
due to several reasons but I would venture to say the main reason was
because we made efforts to govern ourselves as subjects of the Lord
Himself. 9 of the 13 colonies had identified Scripture or [the
Christian] God as the authority above the political government the
charter had set up. Were their problems? Yes, of course. Taxation
bias based on a person’s religious (actually denominational)
affiliation was a bad idea. Chattel slavery was another bad idea.
But, just as some Ammonites in Nahash’s reign probably were victims of
racial prejudice, most Ammonites were ok with their neighbor, Israel.
Like Hanun, the US in 2020 has forgotten or simply discarded our
previous working political government(s).

Also, like Hanun, what was SCOTUS thinking when they redefined ‘sex’?
Does SCOTUS believe there is no cost of going against God, our
founding constitutions, and even the simple plain text of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964? Are they more afraid of being on the wrong side
of political correctness or popular opinion? Does history give
evidence of even one nation which has survived more than two
generations after legalizing deviant sexual behavior? Psalm 2 is
repeated quite often in the New Testament, meaning, yes it still has
relevance today. This entire Psalm is worth reading and mourning or
crying over but here are the last three verses [10-12].

Now therefore, O kings [SCOTUS, POTUS, and COTUS] be wise, be
warned, O rulers of the earth.  Serve the Lord with fear, and
rejoice with trembling.  Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you
perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled.  Blessed are
all who take refuge in him.

You filled it out didn’t you? The third purpose given in the instructions says the census is used to “Determine the number of seats each state has in the U.S. House of Representatives …”. Then why was there no question asking how many people at this location are U.S. citizens? This topic is covered well here https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/stop-hyperventilating-census-citizenship-question-makes-good-sense. Also discussed are those strange questions about “pan-ethnicities”.  Those questions should not be in a census.  But questions about citizenship, legal non-citizen, and illegal persons should have been asked.

I’m doing all that is asked of me at my job. I’m rarely late or sick
and often go beyond what is expected of me. My performance reviews
are always “very good”, and my supervisor says I’m doing great. OK.
So why shouldn’t I be upset when a person with less experience is
promoted above me?

I experienced the above too. But in my case I was “laid off” with
about a third of the workforce. It didn’t catch me by surprise, but
it was a shock none the less. I had been praying about my corporate
situation, as well as for my bosses. My Father, in Heaven, had given
me these instructions in his law-book the Bible. I knew I didn’t need
to obey Him out of fear for my eternal life, His son, Jesus Christ,
would have carried my sin in vain if that were true. I simply knew
that without obedience I was weak. If I had to go through
unemployment with three young sons and a wife who depended on me I
wouldn’t make it — without my Father’s direction and support. I
asked “What do you want me to do?”.

His first response was “Continue doing the right things. Don’t worry
about money, and remember, I am a Father to the Fatherless.” I
needed, and eventually did, forgive those at work I had bitter
feelings toward. I found good reasons why the company could no longer
continue doing what it was doing and still make a profit. My attitude
and responses in interviews which came later went easier as time went
on. I also spent more time with my Father on my knees. During one of
those times I had a memory of when I was a young teen, hearing about
missionaries sent to the African continent. They told stories of
eating meals of bugs and monkey heads. These delicacies prepared by
locals would have been offended if they (yes, both) were turned down.
I recall thinking at that time, “I’ll do whatever you ask of me Lord,
except being a missionary to the African continent”. I had to admit I
was wrong. More than that, my Father expected me to be willing to
accept mission work itself. I applied and was accepted for an
interview with the International Mission Board in my denomination. My
job-prospects log book had just gone over 200 and it was 4 months
since I was laid off. I knew by this time I certainly can have any
job nixed by my Heavenly Father so I asked him for that too. I prayed
for closed doors. I prayed “Just open the one job you, Father, want
me to have.” Money too was about to run out. Also, about that same
time I felt a need to add fasting to my daily prayers. After a 2-day
fast I received an offer from the company I have been working at for
the past 32 years. I thanked, and continue to thank, my Father for
His faithfulness.

I heard a sermon yesterday which supports my view that Southern
Baptists have no biblical political philosophy.

In the introduction our pastor mentioned the “culture war”, his
words not mine, by mentioning the attack on Karen Pence for
teaching at a Christian school that openly believes in the
biblical definition of marriage.  Southern Baptists, in general,
and specifically my pastor, take Scripture seriously.  I was
immediately interested in what he had to say next.

He made a mistake by saying Karen’s attackers are not our enemy.
They certainly are.  This is an important point.  In spite of
this error, our response, and my pastor would agree, would be to
obey Christ and “love our enemies”.  We must recognize there is
no neutrality in most of what politics forces upon their
citizens.  If we believe the Bible we certainly believe the
Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is ultimate sovereign
over everything.  This includes politics.  Whoever, or whatever,
is ultimate sovereign over a nation’s laws is either the Triune
God or illegitimate (anti-Christ).  Politics is not secular.  In
fact, it is worship.  We must bow our knee to this ultimate
sovereign, or we must accept the civil penalty for breaking the
law.

Our pastor then went on about apologetics, i.e., giving a defense
of what (and perhaps why) we believe the gospel.  Perhaps he
knows of the biblical instruction?  Maybe not, because it was not
part of his sermon yesterday.  There is a confusing, almost
contradictory, passage in Proverbs concerning “apologetics”.
Proverbs 26:4&5 says “Answer not a fool according to his folly,
lest you be like him yourself.  Answer a fool according to his
folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.”  How can both these
statements be logically correct?  I think the best answer is to
see how Jesus obeyed this section of the Word of God in his
answer to those fools, and his enemy, the pharisees.

“‘What do you think about the Christ?  Whose son is he?’
They said to him, ‘The son of David.’  He said to them, ‘How
is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying,
The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put
your enemies under your feet?  If then David calls him Lord,
how is he his son?'”

I have thought about apologetics for years.  I believe the best
summary is: respond to questions with another question.  Quote
Scripture as applicable.  The purpose being to expose the
worldview of our apologetic opponent.  A secondary purpose is to
have a conversation.  Let them talk about what they truly
believe.  A third purpose is to let Scripture bring about faith
to win our opponent.

What I have found, when I’ve asked Southern Baptists about their
biblical political philosophy and are willing to talk about it,
is they believe the conscience, as described in the first few
chapters of Romans, is “separate” from Biblical authority.  Those
who attempt to apply this to civil law often call it “the law of
nature and of nature’s God”.  The words “religious liberty” are
also used, but in many ways.  The biblical meaning is a liberty
to no longer sin but live righteously, i.e., not political.  When
applied to politics this expression makes no sense whatsoever.
Whose religious opinion should civil law give the green light
(liberty) to anyway?

The biblical political philosophy, i.e. worldview, of Southern
Baptists is to use your conscience and the Bible, if you believe
it; to form your own opinion. Be sure to vote, but don’t ever
claim someone else’s opinion is wrong.