Category: worldview

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.

Quick, what do you think is the true story of the missing Boeing 777 jet?  There is a theory you expect to be – the right one – don’t you?  Some questions require an answer, at least temporarily, with a belief, an opinion.  Most people will allow their opinion of the missing Boeing 777 to be replaced if and when enough facts surface (yes I know it’s a pun) to cause belief in another scenario.  This is still belief, albeit a much stronger one, unless you actually are there on a boat and see with your own eyes a panel with the plane’s registration number recovered or found somewhere .  But, some will forever cling to their belief saying news sources are in collusion with da di da, or some other such reason.  No matter how strong the evidence is there will always be conspiracy theories, well, at least on the web.

What about metaphysical questions?  Where did I come from?  Where did the universe come from?  Is man innately evil or good?  Did Jesus really rise from the dead?  We all have our opinions.  How can we not?  How many have examined the evidence?  Hmmm.

U.S. District Court Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange said she
was persuaded that a constitutional amendment known as
State Question (SQ) 755 seemed to have a legally improper
religious purpose and posed a threat to violate the rights
of Muslims. It doesn’t matter that the ballot measure
passed last week by a vote of 70 percent to 30 percent.
So why did this federal judge rule against the
overwhelming majority of Oklahoma voters? She said "While
the public has an interest in the will of the voters being
carried out, the Court finds that the public has a more
profound and long-term interest in upholding an
individual's constitutional rights." The Constitution
Vicki is referring to is our U.S. Constitution (USC). Ok,
so let’s see if a judge can define the difference between
secular and religious? “[P]laintiff has made a
preliminary showing that State Question 755’s amendment
does not have a secular purpose”. She says it has a
religious purpose. In court argument it was noted that SQ
755 was proposed to make sure that Oklahoma courts were
not used to undermine the "Judeo-Christian" founding
principles of the country. But, wait a minute. If this
purpose is true then civil law *really* has a religious
foundation? Is civil law facially religious? Vicki
affirms a ‘yes’ herself when she affirms that the state is
involved in all kinds of contracts of a religious nature.
In fact, she accepted the plantiff's argument that an
Islamic will would not be fully probated by a state court
in Oklahoma. But what do we do about all those nasty
things like corporal punishment of wife, etc. where Sharia
law conflicts with "Judeo-Christian" law. So, I’m
confused. Is civil law secular? Is it even religiously
neutral? How can Vicki *judge* that SQ 755 "is not
facially neutral”. I suppose this means a judge is at
liberty to “religiously” define “neutral” as well as
uphold whatever law they want.

Will Vicki be impeached? Probably not. I do believe our
beloved USC is broken.

Quotes are from www.constitutioncampaign.org/blog.

Peter, I would like to share my thoughts about leading a
_Restoring America_ class in our church, Arrow Heights
Baptist. You had been here in person at least twice that I
remember and I did get to meet with you personally. Your
research on early American History is top notch. I was happy
to teach your class and look forward to teaching another. I
was educated in New York public schools during the late 50’s
and 60’s and remember when all of a sudden prayer was no
longer a part of my school day. For the most part Christians
compromised in their world view with the secularists and
progressives of that day.

It could have been your ministries, but it was Dr. Gary North,
with his Institute for Christian Economics, and later Gary
DeMar at AmericanVision.org where I learned, for the first
time, our Christian historical heritage. I felt I had been
let down by my parents, clergy, and those Christian
historians, educators, lawyers, (there were no self-confessing
Christian politicians at that time) etc. professionals. As
Nancy Pearcey put it in _Total Truth_, Christians had
swallowed the lie: that there is a division of the secular vs
the sacred.

Growing up I had felt it quite odd that politics or even
Christian history was so rarely mentioned from pastors or
Christians in general. I was raised a Republican and was
taught that government should have as little power, authority,
as possible but this was *not* tied at all to Scripture. It
was only my parents opinion. In 1967, I went off to college
at Oral Roberts University, a fine Christian school, or was
it? Oral was a life-long democrat. He invited chapel
speakers like the Rev. Jesse Jackson several times to speak to
students. My thought was how can Christians be so divided
and/or confused about a biblical approach to politics?

Almost 20 years ago, when homosexual “marriage” became a legal
issue in the state of Hawaii I became interested in the
application of the Christian (or better yet biblical) world
view as it pertains to legal (moral) issues. Obviously this
lands right at the foot of ‘politics’ too. I finally read
Dr. Greg Bahnsen’s _Theonomy in Christian Ethics_ and saw a
thorough biblical exegesis applied to this area. Bahnsen
concluded that Christ condoned the so-called Old Testament
“Judicial” law for nations to obey. This was a totally new
teaching to me. It seemed so unusual and rare (Only the
Christian Reconstructionists teach this.) that I felt
compelled to dismiss it. I couldn’t.

OK I thought, All I need to do is get an exegesis from my
pastor, who’s a Southern Baptist, or discuss this with a
Christian Constitutional law professor at a, more decidedly
politically aware college. I contacted literally dozens of
Christian politically active organizations asking for this.
Most have ignored my plea. All I asked for was an exegesis
which would straighten those Reconstructionists out. After 15
years I have to conclude: there isn’t any!

In the _Restoring America Leader’s Guide_ your tiny
recognition of this group of biblical scholars is hardly
complimentary. “There is a small group of people that
advocate this mistaken idea of restricting public office to
Christians. They are called Reconstructionists, and advocate
the taking over of the reins of government by Christians.”
Yet, everything you taught about the founding Fathers cried
out this same sentiment. John Quincy Adams said we ought to
elect only Christians to political office. The major law book
of Hooker’s Connecticut was the Bible, specifically
Deuteronomy. Who else is more equipped to judge the
difference between good and evil [Hebrews 5:15] than a
Christian? We all understand this “taking over” is to be from
a bottom up, Constitutionally legal voting mechanism. No one
is talking about anything contrary to legal means. At least
your tone is better than Dr. Richard Land’s tone in his book
_The Divided States of America_ where he says:

“Christian reconstructionism, … fringe movement,
explicitly opposed to democratic means of government, has
been largely responsible for the fantasy that if the
Religious Right prevails, then the USA is headed into
theocratic Fundamentalism. That idea is “nuts” — a
bogeyman scenario cooked up by secularists who paint the
opposition with one big brushstroke.”

The Southern Baptists, you, in fact, most fundamentalists are
well-known for the phrase “Sola Scriptura”. The secularists,
as well as I, know what that means. There is another motive
of the secularists, but we both want an exegesis that sets the
large camp of fundamentalists apart from the
Reconstructionists. Since there is none the secularists must
assume the “Sola Scriptura” of you, Peter Marshall, as well as
Dr. Richard Land, the national voice of the Southern Baptist
Ethics and Religious Liberty, have the same exegesis as these
Reconstructionists. What else are we to conclude? So, right
at the front of the secularism’s web sites, for example,
theocracywatch.org, we see these Reconstructionists mentioned
and then the site mentions all those other ‘religious’ groups
trying to influence politics.

With this as my introduction you may not want to hear about
how my teaching of this class went. But, please, if you do
have a friend who is a U.S. Constitutional lawyer, or
professor at a seminary, or a book title where a political
exegesis of politics is presented and Bahnsen’s _Theonomy_ is
taken head-on I would like to see it. Perhaps a book that
presents an exegesis of Old Testament judicial law as no
longer being applicable (such as ceremonial law) in the New
Testament would be another way of looking at these major
differences in the biblical political world view.

Integrity. What is it? What does it mean to say someone is a person of integrity? One definition from wikipedia is consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations and outcome. If a criminal talked the walk, was entirely predictable in his actions based on stated belief, i.e., was fully consistent, would that mean the criminal had integrity? A simple 2-word definition is “moral soundness”, but whose morals are we talking about? Maybe, as C.S. Lewis has said “integrity” has been stolen much like being called a “gentleman” had been stolen.

Websters 1928 dictionary expands on “moral soundness”: “The entire, unimpaired state of any thing, particularly of the mind; moral soundness or purity; incorruptness; uprightness; honesty. Integrity comprehends the whole moral character, but has a special reference to uprightness in mutual dealings, transfers of property,and agencies for others.”

If I were to define a person of integrity I would say it is a property of someone who always behaves or acts good, being true and consistent to their stated [good] confession. In other words, their true belief, or worldview is in agreement with their actions. For example, a couple that takes a pledge to remain faithful to each other “till death do us part”. The couples that remain married in spite of difficulty display integrity. Those who split up, well at least for non-life threatening reasons, display a lack of integrity.

I am not a man of integrity when it comes to political corporate welfare. Years ago a major company desired and won huge amounts of taxpayer monies to locate in Tulsa. At the time I spoke out against this taxpayer theft. Today I am silent about another company playing the same hand in my own town. This is because I work for that company and if I spoke up I could lose my job.

I always find “Imprimis” published by Hillsdale College
intellectually stimulating. The most recent issue _The
Constitution and American Sovereignty_ by Jeremy Rabkin may
be found here: http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp.

As the title suggests it dwells on political rightful
authority. Jeremy opens with sovereignty defined loosely as
“a political community without a political superior”. From
there he mentions the first scholarly study, _Six Books of
the Republic_ written in the late 16th century by Jean
Bodin. The King of France took on political sovereignty
apart from the papal Roman church. It wasn’t a true
separation of church and state because Bodin “insisted on
the monarch’s general obligation to respect the law of
nature and the law of God”. Jeremy goes on to give Bodin’s
thoughts. “His main practical point was that the government
must be strong enough to protect the people’s rights, yet
restrained enough not to do more than that.” It’s
interesting that this is the only function of civil
government mentioned by the apostle Paul in Romans chapter
13. The civil servant, as God’s servant, is to distinguish
between good and evil and punish those who practice evil
deeds. Paul didn’t address what deeds should be punished by
the State and which should not. This was because he knew
the Old Testament had already covered that ground.

This same concept of “separation of church and State” was
reiterated in our own Declaration of Independence. The
point both Bodin and Our Declaration recognized was that the
King, Congress, State, etc. really didn’t have full
political sovereignty. There were limits they must not
cross, which were defined by God Himself. In other words,
only God is the True political sovereign. Jeremy doesn’t
quite get to this conclusion. I’m not sure if he didn’t
like it or what his reason was for not following this simple
logic.

Jeremy then discusses our Federal Constitution. The United
States is a Federal republic where the rule of law
originates in a written document. Our Constitution is no
exception. As Jeremy reminds us “it describes itself
unambiguously as ‘the supreme Law of the Land'”. Every one
of the 50 state Constitutions mentions God in some way or
another as the political sovereign but our Federal
Constitution does not. In fact, in Article VI paragraph 3
it is strictly forbidden to require a religious oath of any
federal official. I think this weakness in being definitive
about the Sovereign God caused our Federal Constitution to
loose clout as being the “supreme Law of the Land”. Our
Declaration of Independence still rings clear and True about
the just cause of the founders of our country. The
Constitution however is becoming a — yawn.

Jeremy goes on to mention economic treaties, and national
conglomerates as detracting authority (sovereignty) from our
Constitution. He concludes with Constitutional sovereignty
giving way to “the notion of some hazy international
standard of conduct that everyone in the world can somehow
agree upon and then enforce on strangers”. I agree with
Jeremy. Unfortunately this is true but he doesn’t address
this built-in weakness of our Constitution, nor does he
mention the most blatant attack on the Constitution’s
sovereignty — the lack of a full-form birth certificate of
our president.

Jeremy concludes his article by mentioning that Bodin “the
first theorist to write about sovereignty understood
witchcraft as a fundamental threat to lawful authority and
so finally to liberty and property and all the other rights
of individuals”. Jeremy simply reminded the reader once
again, without saying so, it’s a question of submission to
God’s sovereignty in all areas of life.