I realized recently that I seem to have a revolving set of viewers. I seem to typically generate between 3 and 12 views per post. Google tells me the country of origin of my viewers, the browser they use, and their operating system. Views on consecutive posts seem to have, predictably, the same viewer statistics, as long as they are on the same topic (in my mind, topics I generally cover include philosophical arguments, scientific arguments, poetry, politics, and personal life). The topic I discuss generally depends on my mood and environment.

Well, anyway, since I'm able to identify that my viewership changes regularly, I've been thinking that there's no harm in repeating myself from time to time.

But before I get into repeating myself, allow me to repeat myself. I've made this point before, but in light of my previous blog, I'd like to make it again in brief. In my previous blog, I talked about secession from the American government; at best, on the terms that they haven't provided sufficient structural freedom to local governing authorities; at worst, on the terms that they are godless.

I anticipate that some will object by citing Romans 13, which states that we should submit to governing authorities inasmuch as they are instituted by God and derive their authority from God. The short form of the rebuttal to this argument is that Romans 13 defines "authority" in terms which are incompatible with the current form of authority in the U.S. when it says, "For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong". Now, we know that the Bible defines right from wrong. So, that is to say, when we want to apply Romans 13 to some human who claims authority, we should ask ourselves, "Does this person/group hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong?". If the answer is "no" to that question, then the person or group is not a ruler.

As a caveat to that, I do not deny that God utilizes wicked governments to penalize the world. I'll be the first to cite Isaiah 10, "Assyria is the rod of my anger". God used Assyria to punish Israel, and then God punished Assyria for their wickedness. So, Assyria was temporarily granted authority by God. However, God preserved a remnant, which did not bow the knee to Assyria's gods. The remnant outlives the tyranny of Assyria and re-establishes righteous government in the wake of its destruction.

The paradox in my mind is, how does the Bible at once say, "love...against such things there is no law", and then say, "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself, on these two commandments the whole law is built." If God's standard of perfection is love, and if the law is God's standard for perfection, and if then the Law of God which tells me to "rescue those who are going to slaughter" is an extrapolation from love, then why does the law in the U.S. forbid me from blocking the way to an abortion clinic (for example)? It would appear that there is a law against loving my neighbor.

Here is where we find another precedent in the Bible. "I looked for a man to repair the wall and stand in the breach..." (Ezekiel 22). Unjust laws are a breach in the walls which otherwise defend us from the wrath of God. I'd like to suggest that the dividing line between coexisting with tyranny and standing in the breach is drawn on the near side of laws which punish good and promote evil. At that point, the remnant of God openly disobeys the government in the land (Daniel 3, Acts 5:29), and if that land is so blessed as to have sufficient concentration of Christians that they can locally execute just law, then they are able to create for themselves a walled city, with just laws protecting them from God's wrath. So if we believe that we are really Christian, then we've got no recourse except to suppose that we are the remnant of God. Christians, why should we pull the wall back to protect only our families, rather than establishing the city of God and placing that wall around our entire neighborhood?

Lastly, I want to respond to the all-too-common objection, "the world is in bad shape. It will never happen". That's a ridiculous prophesy, an example of the kind of thinking which has inhibited the greater good since the birth of the modern government. It's self-fulfilling. If everybody refuses to do something on the grounds that "it will never be done", then in fact it will never be done. But great change requires individual decisions to be different; to act in spite of the odds. Brothers and sisters, do we really believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and that God told us what his perfect standards of justice are, and that God then declared to us that His law is good and carries with it his blessings for prosperity and general equity? If we really believe that, then it doesn't make sense for us to advocate anything else. And if we believe that it is sin to act differently from God's expressed commands, then it doesn't make sense for us to submit to anything less than God's Law. By refusing to even attempt good on the grounds that it is likely to be temporally unsuccessful, we deprive ourselves and our children of a better world.

I hoped to comment on a debate I recently watched between a Christian and some atheists, but I'll save that for my next blog because this one is long enough.

"Choir inside and it sings to the king; to the king; to the king."