Category: worldview

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.

What do lawyers mean?

I listened to Herb Titus present two talks today at the
SuperWorldview Conference sponsored by AmericanVision and
other Christian organizations. His talks about how state
governments may successfully circumvent Federal law which is
outside of the Federal constitution’s 10th amendment were
presented well. Unfortunately the whole idea of separation of
Church (religion) and State (civil law) is still a confused
mess.

This was evident in the question and answer session tonight.
Two questions were asked about the influence of rival
“religions” on our Christian civil laws in a hope that Herb
would offer how Christians may cope or prevent further erosion
of Christian Constitutional law. Herb Titus attempted to
answer that our government was founded on “The Laws of Nature
and of Nature’s God” or was it — Christianity? He was forced
to define “religion” and simply stated a political (civil)
definition is that it is those “things” that we owed our
Creator which the civil authority had no jurisdiction. But
then what “law” prevents the State from (re)defining religion
any way it wants? What would prevent what some justices are
saying — that our constitution is a living and changing
document interpreted at the whim of judges? I don’t think
either of the two questions were really ever answered.

Is our U.S. Constitution a Christian document, as one of
Herb’s booklet titles suggests, or is it not? We only should
use a constitutional amendment process to change what
is in error. Article VI paragraph 3 is in error. A religious
oath must be required of our Federal officials. We must
hold them accountable to the Bible.

 I attended http://www.lifechurch.tv on the Internet this
morning with my wife and daughter-in-law. It seemed different
than those Billy-Graham televised sermons of years ago or was
it? The message was the same: the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The thought came to me that maybe, just maybe, the United
States doesn’t have to go through a complete meltdown in order
for our culture to once again embrace Spiritual Truth. The
message of Christ, the milk [Hebrews 5:12], is still being
preached whether at lifechurch.tv or by Billy’s son Franklin
Graham. However, growth does appear to be missing.
Christians in the United States are babies who “need milk not
solid food”.

“Solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers
of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish
good from evil.” [Hebrews 5:14] So, is Nationalizing health
care good or evil? What about that macro-economic sticky
question: since the government literally creates currency can
it be guilty of theft? Or other political (State) economic
questions need answers. When is a robin-hood (take from the
rich to give to the poor) policy evil? When is it good? For
what policies?

In just a few days I’ll be in the middle of a conference
hearing about “How Christians Will Change the Future”. I hope
it won’t be just another conference where people attend get
oooohed and aaaaahed during the event but basically remain the
same afterward. I hope it does have a lasting effect. We
sure do need mature Christians to reshape and redirect our
future (culture).

In years past, I would have used a concordance and a paper
Bible to refresh my memory of these quoted Bible verses.
Tonight I just used my Olive Tree Bible and software on my
cell phone. Technology doesn’t really change the core values
or issues within a culture it only provides us better tools.

Our church holds weekly Men’s Bible studies. We usually have
a layman-led _Man in the Mirror_ video-taped lesson taught by
their founder, Patrick Morley. Patrick has been successful
teaching men for over 30 years. As with many similar
organizations, economic lessons have been popular recently.
When applied to individuals and groups the Bible offers much
wisdom: avoid debt, don’t cheat, live within less than 80% of
income (don’t covet) giving at least 10% back to God and
saving at least 10%. Dave Ramsey has made a fortune teaching
these straight-forward Biblical principles. But, _Man in the
Mirror_ follows the politically-correct secularist view when
it comes to macro-economics. I have heard it time and again.
“We don’t live in a Theocracy anymore.” “Old Testament
Judicial (national civil) law is invalid.”

My Oklahoma house representative has proposed a bill to allow a privately funded 10-Commandments granite monument be placed on the state capitol grounds. Even in a red state like Oklahoma it has drawn vocal opposition crying “separation of church and state”. The press has been fair in its reporting. No taxpayer money is involved. Representative Dr. Mike Ritze said he wants Oklahomans to be reminded of our historical roots but is their more of a motive? Several have asked that in their letters to our local papers. I wondered too. Here is my letter to our local paper, The Broken Arrow Ledger.

What is it that directs our actions?

If you remember _Braveheart_ and Mel Gibson’s character, William Wallace, shouting “FREEDOM” with his last breath as he was tortured to death you get my meaning. What is this inner part, conscience, heart, or sole, of a person which dictates nearly every action he takes? Actions of one rise up in opposition to what is strongly believed evil or at least wrong action in others. As the napkin fell out of Mel’s hand, we understood William Wallace’s action in opposition to the English because of their rape and murder of not just any innocent victim but his own wife. To William this wasn’t just a crime of English people, but a crime of civil English law which said such action was legal. Mel, as director, got his point across. Righteous indignation leading to action opposing civil evil was worth fighting, and yes even dying, for.

Why does House Congressman Dr. Ritze want to place a 10-Commandments monument outside the State Capitol building? I think his intent is fairly presented by our media. But why would he want this reminder of the Christian history of our state and nation so close to civil courtrooms? He freely admits there is no *legal* civil relevance today. Is he out to get a reaction from those who disagree? Is he simply wanting some kind of public debate on this?

I say, let’s go. Righteous indignation against this proposed law is deserved. The state (capitol building) needs to remain separated from the church (God’s 10 Commandments). History was then. Today is now and now people behave civilly one toward another not because of God’s 10 Commandments but because of — something else.

All is not lost if Ritze’s bill becomes law and passes judicial muster. The path will have been cleared. One may propose other granite monuments at no taxpayer expense of one’s own version of the 10 Commandments, or whatever else one believes defines (or should define) the civil conscience of a people.

In the process, one may come to believe True Christianity has no reasonable rivals. Perhaps this is Dr. Ritze’s real intent?

My wife and I attended the Radio City Rockettes Christmas
Spectacular here in Tulsa December 23rd. It was a good show.
It’s been a while since I took advantage of a top-notch
production such as this. It was rather sad that the BOK Center
was less than half full. It was definitely a ‘Christmas’
production and not merely a ‘holiday’ thing. Any doubt that
Christ was the center of Christmas was removed when the Santa
story gave way to Scripture reading, nativity scenes, and the
tunes and lyrics of familiar Christmas Carols such as the last
verse of ‘Joy to the World’:

He rules the world with truth and grace,
And makes the nations prove
The glories of His righteousness,
And wonders of His love,
And wonders of His love,
And wonders, wonders, of His love.

My wife and I have been studying the Bible book of Daniel. The
author of the study series, Beth Moore, relayed the historical
event Daniel foretold about Greece conquering the world. The
most important book to ever be assembled, was done during the
Greek empire: the Septuigent. This was the most common form of
the Old Testament during Christ’s lifetime on earth. The
ubiquitous Greek language was important in the spread of the
Gospel since all of the New Testament writers used Greek as the
language for, what were to become, the books of the New
Testament.

Much of the Greek empire ignored the “Most High God”. Even
Alexander the Great was cut down in his prime for his sin of
pride. Whether or not the high-kicking Rockettes appealed to
prurient interests the Christmas spectacular was successful in
Truth-telling that night; just as God used the Greek language to
spread His gospel.

This blog has been inactive for some time. I have had, at times, a lively discussion with others at the Ethics and Religious Liberty web site of the Southern Baptists (http://erlc.com/article/how-do-you-separate-church-and-state) where I’ve been discussing the idea of putting our Federal government back on the same foundation as our Declaration of Independence as well as most of the 13 State Constitutionss. This foundation, the God of the Bible, is not the same governmental foundation that Southern Baptists are proud of, i.e., American leaders such as Roger Williams and John LeLand. From their own writings these two believed political government was to be secular, not under the authority of the God of the Bible. This discussion had several posters come and go in the over-200 posts. Most simply gave their opinions politely rejecting mine. Truthfully, I don’t know what to say anymore. I have shared my opinion and tied it to exegesis of Scripture using citations and materials by Dr. Greg Bahnsen, and Dr. Gary North. I have asked for the Southern Baptist exegesis to justify a secular civil government and all that has been offered was “Harry’s vision of this stuff ignores large swathes of the New Testament and completely misrepresents the Gospel” by the ERLC moderator, Matt.

I keep asking for God’s mind in the matter as I pray for Matt and other posters in this situation. The answer seems to be that the lack of love within the body of Christ, which includes submitting to one another as Scripture reveals error, is simply missing. God’s Word says the world, non-believer, will be convinced Christians literally are who they say they are from their love one for each other. Maybe the sad state of Christianity in the Western world, including here in the USA, is for this very reason?

Are Southern Baptist political positions as voiced at erlc.com just another special intrest group pushing their opinions? Is it just another type of humanism because the authority of Jesus Christ over politics is denied in spite of the obvious Biblical source for these positions?

I attended the Republican District Convention yesterday. The convention began with a prayer offered in Jesus’ name. The enemy hasn’t taken all things – yet. Many candidates for delegate to the national republican convention were given time (1-3 minutes) to speak. I remember several stating they were a Christian. This was well and good but really didn’t offer much help in itself as to how they would behave as a national delegate. I actually respected the candidates who mentioned they would behave as a delegate according to the “rule of law” better. I don’t think I’ll soon forget the one candidate who started his speech by holding his Bible up high and saying in a loud voice “I believe in this”. I can’t say this is not relevant, but what is to prevent ‘red flags’ from going up in listener’s ears? “Does he believe the Bible as *I* do” one might ask? “Would he squash state’s rights in an effort to cram his view of biblical ethics down our throats at the federal level” another may ask?

Most Christian clergy don’t have a biblical political philosophy. How can we expect their members to have anything better? Yet, there is no avoiding it. Our opponents have a political philosophy and are carrying it out. A Christian must have an exegesis of political philosophy otherwise when Sally Kern says things like she did, who among us Christians have enough biblical understanding to either confirm or deny what she has said?

A fat person may still be healthy and may live to an age where obesity is not a cause of death. Maybe they know it is inherently wrong to be obese and thus set limits over themselves? Maybe the diets they call failures have actually been successes to keep them from becoming an unhealthy obese person? I have seen at least one obese person literally eat themselves to an early grave because they tossed aside doctor’s and other’s warnings. As a society we would silence ones evil enough to call obesity good, who desire to teach its benefit of ‘all the candy a child would want’. The evidence is in the much higher medical costs and mortality rates of the obesity proponents. So it is with sexual fornication and homosexuality in particular.

God goes even further. His law/history book is full of instruction as well as example of what happens to societies who condone this evil behavior.

But, does our society’s “rule of law” even permit sodomy, etc. to be enforcible any more?