Enjoying this song right now:

Today I took a huge blow to my contentment, and I struggled a lot all day in order to be happy and interested in my work. However, some good things happened today as well, which, when combined, really contributed to me not losing my mind, and eventually to me sort-of recovering. I still don't feel completely myself, but almost.

For starters, Dan and Chowon both called me right after the thing happened, which was the first event of the morning after I'd showered and such. Both of them encouraged me a lot, though I was still very much reeling when I was on the phone with Dan, so it was awkward when I ran out of things to say about it.

Then my composer friend HDJR2 (shout out) responded to my questions about art, and his response was really thoughtful and insightful. (He didn't say this directly, but his comments lead me to conclude that) the "human element" I was looking for isn't found in methods or structures of art that are so esoteric that they become subjective, but rather it is found in the inspiration, which is from God. All humans have a need to be in community with God, and every good thing is from God, so a good piece of art is inspired by God, and that's how it bridges the gap between people. So, he said that if I want to experiment with styles that's fine, but that I shouldn't burden myself with trying to add structure if it isn't what I feel inspired to do. Overall, it was really encouraging. I seriously consider it an honor to be friends with him; it's a privilege I don't deserve.

Then I had a great conversation with God on my way to work. I pulled off to a place in the desert where there wasn't much traffic, and I realized that it's the first time in several years that I have really felt alone and not in danger of being interrupted by anyone. It's a special feeling that I took for granted when I used to live near large patches of nature where I could go and hide. God's responses to my prayers really helped me to process the situation today.

Then at work I got another phone call from Chowon, wherein she let me know about the good things happening with her these days, and I was so blessed to hear the happiness in her voice. What a treasure she is! I've found a jewel worth more than all of my material wealth.

And finally, despite my sudden and sharp disinterest with this place, my work tonight was engaging. I had breaks at times which were incidentally appropriate, and my attention was captured right when I needed to be distracted again.

God definitely heard my prayers tonight, and he has orchestrated the day in a way that comforts me supremely.

Even so, there's fog in the road ahead of me. I have no idea what the next two months will look like, but I know what my immediate next steps have to be. Just a few hours ago I was terrified of it. Now, glory to the Most High King, I am reconciled with my fear.

This will be an adventure.

This is a long one! I've been working on it for a few days. Since I've been on the Christian Nationalism kick for a little while now, and it's what's on my mind a lot, I've been thinking about the implications of Christians thinking that America is a "Christian Nation", how it affects Christians and how it affects atheists (in particular).

Quickly before I dive into that, I want to note something else I've been thinking about. (one paragraph, I promise). I've been thinking about what it means to be an unbalanced Christian, and whether or not that's necessarily synonymous with breaking the status quo. It seems to me that some of the most effective modern teachers, who really got a following, were thematically predictable. That doesn't necessarily mean they were unbalanced, (speaking especially with regard to Christian speakers), but just that they had a specific message that they wanted to make sure everyone heard. For example, there was that guy who made Salvation Mountain in California; his mountain has been declared a national treasure, and what a great work of art it is! I think that the Gospel absolutely must be a part of my message, but I wonder if thematically committing to a certain aspect of the gospel (like "repentance", or "salvation by faith", or "God is love", or "God is King") is something that would be beneficial as a choice that I could make in hopes of delivering a culturally impactful message.

Anyway! (see, it was just one paragraph....sort of) Here's the thought experiment I wanted to do. Just to be clear, I don't represent anyone but myself, but I'm going to do my best to put myself into other's shoes for the sake of argument.

I. How are Christians affected by themselves holding the belief that America is a Christian nation? I submit that, if America is presently a "Christian nation", then one of four things must be true about it:

1a. Its laws and leadership are currently Biblical.
2a. Its laws and leadership are currently in the process of being successfully and intentionally conformed to Biblical standards by the Christian majority in the country.
3a. Compromise is a Biblical act; there are so many gray areas in the Biblical definition of justice that we can't know what is right; or the Bible is impossible to interpret with clarity on issues relating to the American government.
4a. Reforming laws to make them more Biblical is impossible because the whole world is on the road to utter desolation. America is just as good as it gets.

About #4: my experience tells me that this is actually a very common perspective. It's ironic, though, because of America's history wherein it went from being totally without God to being the most legally presbyterian nation in the world around the years 1600-1900 after Christ. So, if 1600-1900 years after Christ, then why not 2000-2300 years after Christ? When did the world stop becoming more Christian, and how does that late change in direction fit in with any mainstream eschatological system? Anyway, America's history alone, I think, disproves a pessimistic premillenial view of history, and a more recent look at things demonstrates the unfortunate self-fulfilling nature of such views. If we think that America is doomed, then why would we put any effort into righting it?

So none of the above four things is true, but I submit that in order for a person to think that the United States is a "Christian nation", the person must believe at least one of them to be true. I think the behavioral manifestation of such a belief would be the following in order:

1b. The person who believes this will attempt to maintain the status quo no matter what.
2b. The person who believes this must really trust the people making the laws, but isn't making active comparisons between new laws and scripture. I just don't see it. Even when we elect a nominally Christian president, as soon as he's in office he seems to stop caring about stopping abominable things like the shedding of innocent blood (abortion) or the desecration of holy matrimony.
3b. This person is a jellyfish. As far as I can tell, there's no warrant for this kind of thinking in scripture.
4b. The person who believes this will be preparing for the end of freedom in America, and may make attempts to stop it. But from what I've seen, solutions offered as part of those attempts often take the form of not-directly-Biblical "moral" solutions or temporary bandages intended to postpone the inevitable destruction of their way of life. I hear a lot of these people saying, "Let's return to the constitution", and the constitution is a very fine document, but it isn't exactly the Bible, so the more I think about this, I increasingly view it as a kind of pandering to the idea that we need to establish a religiously neutral country.

OK, so conclusion for set "I" (this is by far the longest section): If the majority of Christian lawmakers fall into categories 1-4, then even if they are all in the same party (let's say republican because that seems to be the stereo-case), they will not be able to make any legal changes toward a more Biblical system, because none of the above groups is actually looking at scripture to decide what the laws should be. At best, group 4 is reflecting on scripture to decide how the laws should be.

II. On the other hand, how does it affect Christians if they do not believe that America is a Christian nation. I can think of three behavioral outcomes:

1a. Change America to make it a Christian nation.
2a. Leave
3a. Ignore it; we live in Rome, so let's pay taxes to Caesar.
4a. Hole up because we're doomed (analogous to I.4)

The above said, it's important to note that all groups of God-fearing Christians will spread the gospel, and so they all do their part to make America more Christian in the ultimately most effective way, by spreading the ideology. More on that later, maybe, but what I'm focusing on in this train of thought relates to my personal conviction that we should take our beliefs to their logical ends and then try to live consistently with those ends. If the ends are logically or physically impossible, then our beliefs probably are not aligned with reality. So, when I say "Change America to make it a Christian nation", I mean conform the laws to God's law.

Implications:
1b. This is what I'm proposing.
2b. Really not helpful for America, and I don't suppose anywhere else is necessarily better or worse than here in terms of the ability of the populace to recreate its government according to Scripture.
3b. Here's the jellyfish option.
4b. Basically the same comments as on I.4b

III. How does it affect atheists if Christians think that America is a Christian nation?

I couldn't think of good bullet points for this one, so just a paragraph: As long as Christians fall into categories I.1-4, we can bet that they won't get anything done, so basically an atheist in this position will just have to wait until the next antichrist gets elected and pick up where they left off.

Furthermore, a large concentration of politically unproductive Christians actually helps atheists to refine their views and strengthen their atheism by having solid disputes with Christians, but without fear that the Christian will succeed in making any actual changes to laws if they win the argument.

IV. How does it affect atheists if Christians don't think that America is a Christian nation?

1. If Americans fall into categories II.2-4, then atheists have nothing to worry about outside of the simple spread of the gospel.
2. Every American who falls into category II.1 is now a threat to every unBiblical argument, and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God. These Christians will make actual attempts at producing laws which are directly in line with scripture (a revolutionary goal, as the entire government will have to be reshaped eventually).

V. Now, just for fun, what about atheists who think that America is a Christian nation? (these are more-or-less the same for atheists who don't think so). I see two options:

1. Be happy about it. So far, the "Christian country U.S.A." has functioned rather equitably.
2. Be unhappy about it. Many atheists (and I say "many" in order to be careful, but I've never met an atheist who didn't) suppose that we should make it our goal to be unbiased in every consideration. The V2 group therefore seems to think that if we pretend to have unbiased views when we consider things like morality, justice and law, we will somehow end up with a majority advocating the best possible solution for any problem, in the Darwinian sense. (That is, the best thing for the species. might makes right, and the populace is god, etc). These atheists say that we should have a national government free from individuals with any tendency toward religious consideration when making laws at all, so they will actively try to limit the people holding office to being either atheists or jellyfish.

Alright, that's it. What was the point?

Honestly, the way I see it, atheists would help their cause by doing their best to maintain the illusion that America is a Christian nation. No tricks or lies here -- I'm a Christian, and so help me God I'm writing what I really think is the truth.

And Christians, stop lying to yourselves! America will be a Christian nation when its Law is the scripture. As an illustration of the differences, how many pages of federal tax code alone are there? Imagine if someone had to do a public reading of it with explanations. How long would it take? People spend 8 years in school getting degrees on tiny facets of the law because no common man could ever read through the entire thing. But Biblical leaders like Josiah (2 Kings 23) and Ezra (Nehemiah 8) read the law to the people and they understood. Who in the world could read American law to Americans, much less have them understand it? I only say this as a broad-brushing way to contrast Biblical law with American law. Americans, the U.S.A is not a "Christian nation", but it is not beyond hope. Let's advocate Biblical standards of justice in our land!

"Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain?...He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision. Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying, 'As for me, I have set my king on Zion, my holy hill.'"

Christmas time is just around the corner! I love Christmas. Everywhere I go I hear music about Jesus Christ. It's unavoidable! Let's revel in it, and do our best to perpetuate it. Let's take pleasure in the voices and decorations put out even by unbelievers, hostile to the very thing they celebrate when they sing "Joy to the world" What do they sing right after that? Why should the world be joyful? Because "The Lord has come! Let earth receive her King!" I hear people of all stripes singing "O Holy Night" and following it up with an explanation of the proper response: "Fall on your knees! O hear the angel voices!" Why? "O night when Christ was born!" Hallelujah! Sing it with me America. Consider the king that you now welcome into authority over this world! Praise God all creatures here below! I just wanna shout every time I hear one of those songs on a nonChristian radio station or in a store somewhere.

"God rest ye merry gentlemen, let nothing you dismay."

Why?

"Remember Christ our savior was born on Christmas day, to save us all from Satan's power when we were gone astray. Oh tidings of comfort and joy!"

Let's think about that, though. Joy to the world, the Lord has come. Let earth receive her king. The Bible describes the Lord as being our owner, having bought covenant Israel out of slavery to Egypt we are now slaves of Christ (Ephesians 6:6,Colossians 3:24,1 Peter 2:16, Romans 6:15-23). Why should we be joyful about the establishment of a monarchy, when this is the same Jesus who spoke face to face with Moses inside the tent of meeting (Exodus 33:11, and it could only have been Jesus because Jesus says that nobody has ever seen the Father except the Son, John 1:18, 6:46). It's the same Jesus who John tells us was seen by Isaiah when Isaiah famously said “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!” (Isaiah 6, John 12:40-41).

This Jesus who we are joyful about is the same Lord who gave the law of the OT and called it His standard of righteousness. It's the same Jesus to whom the Father said, "Ask me and I will give you all nations as your inheritance", and who then later told us, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me, therefore go and make disciples of all nations, teaching them and baptising them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.". Why are we joyful about that?

It's because Jesus absorbs the penalty for our sins, fulfilling the law and purchasing us from slavery to sin and death, so that we are now slaves of Christ. And Jesus, being in authority, will now begin to exercise His perfect kingship, which we know and trust will be better than any earthly government, because God will grow his righteous government and peace, as it says in Isaiah 9:6-7

"For to us a child is born,
    to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon[d] his shoulder,
    and his name shall be called[e]
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
    Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of his government and of peace
    there will be no end,
on the throne of David and over his kingdom,
    to establish it and to uphold it
with justice and with righteousness
    from this time forth and forevermore.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this."

We know that the law of the government about which Isaiah speaks is the very same law that Jesus is talking about when he says, "And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40)

That Law and Prophets (which is the OT), we know is also described in the following passage, pulled right out of the OT, prior to any change in the priesthood by Jesus Christ:

"The law of the Lord is perfect,
    refreshing the soul.
The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy,
    making wise the simple.
The precepts of the Lord are right,
    giving joy to the heart.
The commands of the Lord are radiant,
    giving light to the eyes.
The fear of the Lord is pure,
    enduring forever.
The decrees of the Lord are firm,
    and all of them are righteous." (Psalm 19:7-11)

I hear the chorus, "But Jesus died so that we aren't held to that standard". Right! We are not saved by adherence to the law of Moses. Thank you. But are we slaves of Christ or not? Are we slaves of righteousness or not? OK, well what is righteousness, and how do we know what it is? What does our master command us to do? Make disciples of all nations, teaching them what? Baptize them symbolizing their cleansing and repentance from what?  Teaching them God's righteous ways, which we know by reading the excellent outline he gave us in the entire scripture! Teaching them repentance from sin! And how do they know how to repent of their sin if we do not teach them the law? How can they know what it is to covet, if they never read the law saying "thou shalt not covet"?

When I write here, "guys, let's soak this in and make it real in our lives", I'm talking to myself as well. I need to change so much! I'm so far from the way that I want to be! Where are the people who will do this with me? Am I the only one who is both interested in establishing Biblical law and also not sold out on the idea that American law is somehow reparable via the "due process" of making new legislation, which itself is not Biblical because all legislation that we need is already in print?

How can we add to scripture and make it better? What laws can man produce that improve upon God's standards of righteousness and justice?

I wish someone would come and get brave with me by either telling me that I'm wrong and showing me why, or by joining me me in being passionate about this. I'm so useless on my own to produce this kind of change. What good is a law upheld by just one person and enforced by himself on himself? Where is Zion, so I can go take root there and drink the sweet living water of God's love and righteousness without fear of unjust laws?

"Empires of dirt and grace"

God, why do I have to tell people they're wrong, when they seem so at peace with their wrong views? Is it so bad when someone doesn't know you? If their false beliefs lead them to do kindness to one another, but the only fault in their actions is that they don't do it for your glory, but they do it only because they love their neighbor, then is it so wrong? Is it so bad to be wrong? If to know God is to love God, then is not knowing God the same as hating God?

I hear the pharisees telling Jesus, "not for your good works do we stone you, but because you, being a man, make yourself God". If Jesus was really just a man, then they would have been right. But Jesus was going around healing people. How could they be right to stone someone who does so much temporal good, even if his theology is blasphemous?

God, when a stranger is kind to me with unsolicited generosity, but then I ask them about their faith and they tell me about some bizarre contortion of your created spiritual order... how do I tell them with love, "you're wrong, and you need to repent and believe the Gospel"? And worse, how can I give them the gospel when they preempt me with stories about how the Catholic church hurt them, and then they lump all nominally Christian groups together. How can I tell them, "we're not all like that" without sounding like a cliche? It would take so long to explain the history and the reasons why the Catholic church is not the true church, because of the nuances in their beliefs and the impact that has on their greater theology, and all that seems totally irrelevant to this individual who needs the gospel in plain and doesn't even believe in Catholicism anyway! I don't like to do it, God! I have never brought myself to be so bold in common interactions!

Is it laziness? Sometimes a person's view of the spiritual world is so twisted that I have no idea how to express the truth to them in a short time with words that would even make sense to them. They would certainly interpret anything I say in light of their own worldview and find themselves back where they started as soon as I leave. I don't like long conversations, especially with people I don't know well.

What does it mean to share the Gospel in a loving way? Is there a "right" tone of voice for this? Is there a certain phrasing that should be used? Do I need to adjust my body language to seem more kind? Am I supposed to weasel the Gospel into a conversation indirectly, as if I don't fully believe it myself?

God, help me and teach me to do what is good in your sight!

The Gospel is offensive when presented in its full integrity. It tells people, "you are wrong, and every intention of your heart apart from God's good grace is evil, but God nonetheless loves you. He humbled Himself by coming down as a man to take the penalty for your sins. All you have to do is believe this, and God's gift of forgiveness is yours". Why, oh God, do you command me to declare the Gospel to all men, and at once command me to be at peace with all men as much as it depends on me? How much does it depend on me? How do I obey you, God?

Lord God Almighty, your servant has no idea what he's doing. Give me some direction in those moments when I'm near people who don't know you. I'm so bold in writing, but so soft spoken in person.

Maybe the problem is that I don't see unbelief as such an egregious sin, especially when it is paired with sweetness of character. It's an underestimation of the seriousness of failing to acknowledge our creator, and a lack of faith in the Most High God to work out these situations if I would just act in faith by telling the truth. But God, how do I do it in a way that communicates your love? It's not a lack of faith alone; it's also a lack of wisdom, and really a lack of social skills. God, I'm not able to do what you've called me to do. Please enable me and embolden me to do it, or else I will never do it on my own. Forgive me, Lord, for my weakness in this; I want to do what is good, but I don't have it right. I trust you, Lord, that you will sanctify me in this. Please do it.

...

I want to start doing the things that God has made me love to do. I haven't done art with my hands in such a long time. I'm going to join a pottery class.

"That sounds apocryphal."

In that last poem I put a lot of effort into the structure, and bound up a lot of the meaning with it. I'm happy about what I did with the structure, but the words alone don't move me deeply. In fact, I'm more pleased with the paragraph afterwards than with the poem itself. I think a poem where too much of the meaning is bound up in the structure can't be expected to be interpreted correctly by a careful reader, or in full by a casual reader. Part of me can't help but compare this kind of poetry, including my last poem, with something like a Gnostic hymnal; elitist, and I don't like it.

So when I bind up the meaning in the structure, the meaning becomes hidden to some extent. Usually, I think I want to deliver my meaning clearly, but sometimes I have things that I need to let out which I can't articulate to anyone, even myself, and so i have to hide those things in imagery or structure in order to express them... So, I might rhyme sometimes, but I'm not going to limit myself to a certain style, and I might more often not rhyme in my poems.

But on the other hand, I've heard songs with no lyrics at all, which moved me deeply or helped me to process difficult memories. The lack of words in those songs certainly did not imply a lack of meaning, but the meaning was inarticulable with words (at least, it seemed so to me), and I suspect that other people derive totally different meaning from the same songs. I want to ask the composer of one of those songs what meaning they tried to write into the music they composed, to find out if it was articulable with words by the original composer or if he had somehow tapped into an aspect of himself enabling him to compose works of art which communicate ideas which can't be articulated with words, and then wrote his songs to communicate those ideas directly. That deeper meaning would have to be a common element in all interpretations. This is the human element in art. It's something which I experience all the time, which affects me regularly, and which I love, (I even married her), but I don't fully understand it.

I need to think more about it. I'm going to email my composer friend, and brother in Christ, HDJRII. Shout out to his great YouTube channel, by the way:
 https://www.youtube.com/user/heyhdjr2

 "It doesn't have to be every time. Even if it's one in a hundred times, I want you to remember."

Really diggin the propaganda right now.

Also, I wrote a poem today during one of my breaks at work. As I said in my last post about poetry, I'm going to try to rhyme more. Here it is; I call it "individuality".

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

I was original
Focused on physical
Things inconsequential
Caring only for self
Born a slave to my wealth
Feared death more than all else

Now I'm an imitator
Of God the mediator
Father, Spirit, Son the King
Sharing peace with my neighbor
With the weapons of our strife
Words of God that breath new life
Soul from spirit severing

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

Spoilers: my intention for this poem was to touch on the idea that God and God's goodness was in existence infinitely prior to our rebellion. There are endless ways to deny God, but there is only one  ("straight and narrow") truth. The most novel thing in existence is evil, futilely challenging God The Unchallengeable. Pride arrogated, honestly unimaginable but behold it exists everywhere. We, sheep of God, follow our master "blindly" because we see the unseen, and recognize that nothing we do is done by our own power, but is the gift of God to sanctify us for His glory. To do God's well-established good is not less than to be unique, but rather it is to encroach on an infinite boundary of eternal creativity. To find our truest self expression as God's works of art, each unique, is to recognize ourselves as such and limit ourselves to the endless depths of God's goodness, finding God's glory in our art. There is only one truth and there are so many lies, but the truth itself contains an infinite amount of information -- an infinite universe which can be continually divided into smaller parts until we are incapable of detecting or quantifying their substance -- and that's just the physical world; there is also an endless adventure comprised of metaphysical realities all around us: of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, and self control I'm an imitator; a poser. I'm a sheeple; completely obsessed with just one thing. I'm a entirely described by the word "follower", but the thing that I follow is so big, so much better, so much more intricate and awesome than all other things, that it encompasses all of us whether we acknowledge it or not, and brings about our self-realization, sustaining our individuality in a way more full than our novel lies. I'm a follower of God, the Truth Almighty.

So, towards explaining my post on November 27th, I want to briefly discuss a certain contingency which I ignored.

Imagine a world where nations are defined entirely without concern for the land they occupy, but only by their ideology or religion. So, the "atheist state" takes up random splotches of land around the world based on wherever the atheists live, as does the "Islamic state", the "Christian state", the "Buddhist state", etc..Due to the violent nature of certain ideologies, it's natural that said groups may eventually band into neighboring regions for safety, etc..

Justice in this system is executed by each community, which puts the world in a very difficult position. What if a member of Isis steals from a member of the Christian theocracy? Do we chop of the thief's hand as they do in Isis, or make him repay 7 times as the Bible prescribes?

Furthermore, certain groups may employ a consequence for apostasy, such as the LDS tradition that an apostate cannot rejoin, or the ISIS tradition that an apostate gets do die, or the atheist tradition that an apostate gets mocked; joining such a group, therefore, comes with the understanding that said contingency exists. There is no civil penalty for leaving Christianity except loss of citizenship. However, there is the death penalty for leaving a Christian Theocracy and then attempting to proselytize other Christians to follow after false gods (Deut 13 -- I guess if you think about it in terms where all life is created to please God, God is king, and Christianity leads to eternal heaven then counter-proselytism is treason, attempted eternal murder, and a crime against humanity).

Lastly, suppose a person claims to be a part of an ideology containing no penalties for anything. By what standard is he punished for any crime against anyone?

These questions are all interesting to think about, but the answer is really not complicated. In my suggestions, I did not advocate a plurality of justice systems. I advocated Christianity.

The above really seems like a cop-out, enabling me to avoid answering the more difficult question about the reality of our current global economy: "how can we all get along when we have differing views about justice?". The answer is, "the only way to do this is to compromise".

Someone might say, "but Zac, we've had peace and freedom of religion for years in the U.S., with a Christian majority. Why change?" Right. Let's think about this. The states were established with laws that are based on the OT system. We can all thank Presbyterians for things like separation of powers, a judicial articulation of God given rights, and trial by a jury of our peers. However, for some reason these Christian law makers only modeled their system on scripture, and didn't use the scripture directly as their law book. Nonetheless, if you check old court records, you can see judges deferring to the scripture when they made their rulings. This is something I don't understand. If they were willing to establish a state which is not strictly scriptural, then how did they know which circumstances merited deferring to scripture? I can only imagine that they simply did it whenever it was convenient. Isn't that a compromise of values? I wish someone would explain this to me.

Before I proceed, I'd like to state an optimistic premise that all laws are conceived to protect people from immoral practices, whether directly or indirectly. In America, we have laws to protect people from theft, murder, rape, etc., and we have laws designed to maintain the system which carries out those laws. So, all laws are eventually built on moral considerations. So, a legal compromise is a moral compromise. This is Biblical, as Paul says, "I would not have known what it was to covet if the law did not say 'you shall not covet.'"

Christians, I ask you, where in the Bible does it give even the slightest bit of room for us to compromise morally (or legally, if my premise was rejected)?

Now, let's bring it full circle. How would we penalize someone who commits a crime against a Christian? We penalize him according to Christian law, and offer him protection from injustice perpetrated by an external legal system. He may choose to return for his home penalty or not. How would we penalize a Christian who commits a crime against a nonChristian? In the same way: according to Christian law. (Lev 19:33-34, 24:22)

So how can we all get along when we have differing views of justice? Christians, I don't think we can.

What is the implication of this? Do we go to war with the whole world at once? No! We preach the gospel. And, in any place where we have a high enough concentration of God fearing people to make this actually happen, let's establish righteous Biblical law there.

OK, so what about the law of the land? Well, if we can actually establish a Christian legal system somewhere, then let Christians not file a lawsuit by means of the unjust laws of the world. If we do that, we're hiring foreigners to do injustice to our brothers.

Finally, I think I need to fully qualify a statement I made in my 11/27 post. I said, "The execution of unjust law on an unwilling people is tyranny." In the context, it may seem that I was referring to laws which were perceived unjust by those people, and as an appeal to nonChristians it may as well have been so. However, I am convinced that the opinions held by men about justice or injustice hold no truth or value except as much as they coincide with scripture. In whatever part they do not coincide with scripture, they serve only as witness against the purveyors of those opinions, which is why we must all be washed by Christ's blood so that our sins will not be held against us. So, as to my statement, I meant "unjust law" in the actual sense, not the arbitrary sense.

"I want you to sign off on these."

This post feels rather sooncoming after my previous, long post, but I'd actually been working on that post for a few days. Looking it over and comparing it with my other posts, I think maybe it isn't so long, it just feels long to me because of all the times I wrote and rewrote different parts of it. Rereading it, I realized that some parts of it probably require some more explanation. Maybe I'll make some more posts and call it a series..

On careful consideration of my political views, I have concluded that it isn't beneficial for me to post political commentary except inasmuch as my commentary advocates the Gospel of God's Righteous Love and Justice directly. But doing that will be really stressful because of the unfortunate corruption and frankly ungodly behavior in (as far as I can tell) every national government in the world. Politics is sinking sand, and I don't want my blog to become all about polemics (although I do some of that from time to time). So, with reference to my past blogs where I mentioned that I might start commenting on the news regularly, I have reached a tentative decision on the matter, and you can bet that I probably won't be doing very much direct news commentary.

However, I do intend to take a stronger focus on Christian Nationalism. How can we describe Christ as our King unless we ourselves are subjects in an actual monarchy?

Please don't make the mistake of thinking that I will call America the Christian nation, and treat Christian Nationalism as if it were identical to American Nationalism. I think that it is unproductive for us to say "America is a Christian Nation and so let's advocate for America", because I see the statement as merging "American" into our Christian identity, and ultimately isolating us from the rest of the Christian world. I think it's better for us to say "I am a part of the Christian Nation", where the Christian nation isn't even similar to America and occupies no land other than the land owned by its citizens.

Having said that, I don't think that Citizens of the Kingdom of God in America own any land at all. What happens if you don't pay your property tax? The Government takes it from you. They own your land, not you, and the system is unBiblical directly (see 1 Kings 21 - Naboth's Vineyard was allotted to his fathers by God through Moses, and the King could not acquire it legally). So Christianity is by no means connected to American soil, though we enjoy and protect the judicial system which was here conceived by Christians for God's glory. Just as Paul did when he was treated unjustly by Romans, we can use and cooperate with our physical nationality to protect ourselves from the world, but I think that true progress towards changing the world will require Christians to identify themselves as Christians in the most real sense. I mean, like, if you're the kind of person who trails an American flag behind his car, and you're a Christian, then why not trail a Christian flag?

Why is it that I feel difficulty talking about God in public? Why do I feel ashamed to sing a hymn while I walk in Walmart? Why can't I tell my coworkers, "Jesus died to receive the penalty due to you for your sins"? Aren't they Americans? Isn't America a Christian country? (The point I'm making is that it isn't).

My coworkers and friends in America are mostly Americans. America just isn't the Kingdom of God. Christians are the Kingdom of God, and we Christians are citizens of the Monarchy first and above citizenship to America. We aren't "dual citizens" with America. We're Christian citizens in the absolute highest order, and American Christians call themselves American citizens only because it's temporally convenient.

And while I'm on the topic of political angst, here's a song I like:

"Your heroes are worthless...but only God gives purpose"