I want to be as sure as possible that nobody gets the wrong idea about what I advocate, and what being a Christian Nationalist means to me in practice.... but I really wish I had someone like-minded to talk me through some of this and help me flesh out these ideas... Some of this gets really complicated, and I have to walk my mind through from scratch to my conclusions over and over in order that I don't forget why I believe these things.
In this post, I'm going to walk through one such train-of-thought. This is, real-time, me confusing myself and then reminding myself about why I believe what I believe.
When I talk about Biblical civil laws and their penalties, I recognize that in large part, for any person or group in America to enforce those penalties would be to violate U.S. Law.
The question is not whether we ought to have a Christian government with laws that directly conform with scripture. By any imminent definition of "ought", we ought to. In fact, we are in an awkward position because there is no such Christian government on earth. There is no civil authority to execute justice justly.
As I've written before, we do have the church government, which is structurally similar (if not identical in some churches) to the Biblical civil government, and in many ways the church government is functionally identical to the system of judges in the OT. However, consider this: as I've established in prior posts, we are not to file lawsuits against our brothers and sisters in Christ according to the normal civil means. However, no such injunction exists for the "foreigner" (with respect to covenant Israel, the foreigner is the nonbeliever), and the law says multiple times, "you shall have the same law for the foreigner as for the native born" (Exodus 12:49; Leviticus 19:34, 24:22; Numbers 15:29; Deuteronomy 10:19).
We have so carefully impressed in our minds a difference between the role of church and the role of state. This difference is indeed Biblical inasmuch as the judicial government in Scripture was distinguished from the priesthood. But what does it mean, then, that the priesthood is fulfilled in Christ? Biblically speaking, what is the church if not the full body of believing people, physically indistinguishable from the people themselves? And if that is the case, can a government be anything if not composed of people? Doesn't it mean that the NT "church" is not the "priesthood" in that sense, and so the distinction is moot in the New Covenant?
Suppose we decide that the church government is suddenly the in-force civil government for Christians. Wouldn't the consequence be that we thereafter go to the church for civil issues regarding the foreigners living among us? After all, if Jesus is King over earth right now, (and he is, Matthew 28:18), then it is not us who live as foreigners among them, in their land, but they who live among us, in Christ's land. And then what? Penalize ignorant strangers for crimes against God's law according to God's civil penalties, and thereby start a war with the secular government of the land we're living in? No way! We would make ourselves seem no better than radical Muslims!
No, the NT church in the days of the apostles was surrounded by Roman lawlessness, and they conducted no such violent action in the name of justice -- neither should we. Thus, there is something seriously and dangerously wrong with the above chain of reasoning.
Why didn't the apostles immediately establish a community executing just laws? It's because they had a higher priority task, as do we. They were sent to make disciples of all nations, teaching and baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Given the injunction to not file civil suit against your brother in Christ, how could they even practice such a government among Christians alone?
So we suppose that working to establish an independent or sovereign state with its own civil system in the midst of a secular nation is not high enough on the Christian priority list to fight for it. However, given the option to establish either a just law or an unjust law, we are compelled to choose the just in accordance with God's statutes. And, given the option to formulate our own system of government, we may only choose the best, which is God's government.
What then do we make of the commandment to rescue those going to slaughter? And when do zealous, active forms of civil disobedience become justified?
Guys, I have no idea. For lack of an independent and sovereign Christian Nation, I don't see true justice succeeding in the law of the land. Only, I'm talking to an empty room! There's nobody else like me as far as I can tell! Even apologia now seeks rather to "restore america to the Constitution" somehow as if that is similar to restoring America to the Bible directly. And even if I had a following, there's no available land in the world! Where can we establish ourselves? Antarctica? I'm certain God would bless his faithful with abundance even there... but the means by which such a Christian nation would be established are so overwhelmingly wild in my mind, and my heart so discouraged by the apparent lack of people interested in God's standards of justice, that I struggle to see how any such place could come into existence.
Wait wait wait... let's examine that commandment given to the apostles again: "Go and make disciples of all nations." What if the progress of the Christian church is not just to make disciples of groups of people, but to take secular nations and establish such a large group of believers there that they conform to God's law because of the people's desire to submit to God? After all, any true believer will acknowledge that God is just, and so isn't it natural that Christians will love God's law and seek to conform our civil laws to its statutes?
The conclusion is, in fact, that we are already at war with the rulers and authorities -- the government -- of the land we live in, but it isn't a war with flesh and blood, and we fight not with weapons of this world. On the contrary, our weapons have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once our obedience is complete. (Ephesians 6:10-16; 2 Corinthians 10:4-6)
That path to achieving civil justice feels much further out of my reach, because my life is surely too short to see so many people converted and a nation become established in that way... it's much more easy to imagine the Christian Nation coming into existence slowly.
Then again, in scripture we regularly see God accomplishing the impossible by means of the unexpected:
God promises to make Abraham a great nation, and fulfills it by giving him a single son in his old age; God saves many nations by making an imprisoned slave into a king overnight; God rescues a trapped Israel by putting a tornado of fire behind them and parting the sea in front of them; God brings down the high court of the philistines by strengthening a slave whose eyes had been gouged out; God saves exiled Israel from genocide by revealing that the queen of Persia herself came from Israel; God brings the Messiah into a cursed royal bloodline by means of a virgin birth;
God infuriates all Israel by healing their sick; God wins the battle by dying; God proves his ultimate supremacy by simply being alive.
Perhaps God will establish justice in our land during my lifetime.... How I hope and long for it.
"Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth, as it is in heaven."
Wednesday, April 17, 2019
Friday, April 12, 2019
Alright! Time to talk about blasphemy and free speech. In my previous blog we looked at the nature of Treason, and what little activity can instigate accusations of treason in the United States. Today, I first want to briefly tack on to my previous post some information about freedom of speech in the U.S., then I will say a little about the Christian worldview background for this post, and then I'll dig into some passages from scripture.
Lots of people like to complain that we're losing our right to free speech in the U.S.. While it's true that police enforcement sometimes either ignores or is ignorant of the nature of our rights (link), the fact is, the Supreme court still recognizes that the speech which needs protecting most is the speech we hate (another link). Unfortunately, that's not how universities in the U.S. seem to see things (another link). I can only imagine that the establishment of "free speech zones" and "safe spaces" are a result of popular opinions about hate speech.
Last thing before I get into the verses, let me give some Biblical worldview-background for the topic:
Christians believe that there is a fate much worse than anything that can happen while we are alive in the flesh, and much worse than any death we may experience thereof. The worst possible thing that can ever happen to anyone is that they be sent to hell. Hell being real, and the Kingdom of God being the nation to which believers first owe allegiance, we find ourselves in a literal war against all false gods. If someone leads a man away from Christianity, then that man is a casualty of the worst kind. It is better for a man to die a martyr than for him to leave Christianity, because those who die apart from Christ get hell. (Point of order: Christians can't martyr other Christians.)
That shouldn't be shocking to anyone. It's no secret that this is what Christians believe, and Christians still make up more than 1/3 of the population of the U.S. (indeed, nearly 1/3 of the population of the whole world is Christian). Side note: Bernie Sanders made a hilarious fool of himself when he pretended that Christianity was un-American (the video).
So, on to the Biblical laws themselves. There are four kinds of speech against which God imposes civil law; all others are ignored by the law (and, by extension, all others are protected from civil sanction). As we get into this, ask yourself, "Do I really believe what the Bible says about hell and our war with the devil?" and "Is God just?"
The first civil law is about bearing false witness in court; I mention it here only to complete the list of laws about speech. If someone is falsely accused in court, then the false witness receives the penalty that the defendant would have received if he was found guilty (Deut 19:16-19). We try to do something similar with our laws about lying under oath; only the penalty isn't anywhere near as scary.
The other three laws are about blasphemy, proselytizing for false gods, and false prophesy, which I argue are the spiritual equivalents to our laws about treason. Treason is to aid the enemies of America; blasphemy and proselytizing for false gods aids the enemies of humanity and of the Kingdom of God. Christians, remember that you are first citizens of the Kingdom of God.
Blasphemy is discussed in Matthew 12:31, Mark 3:28-29, Luke 12:10, and Leviticus 24. Leviticus is the only one of these verses which talks about the civil implications of the law, and the penalty is death. The rule is straight-forward; anyone who blasphemes the Name (YHWH) is put to death. It makes sense, given that Christians are defined by their love for God; this is almost identical to proselytizing for false gods.
Proselytizing is discussed in Deuteronomy 13:6-18, and again, the penalty is death. Note, though, that there are two specific cases given here. The first is where an Israelite calls people to go after other gods, and the second is where an entire town rejects God.
In the first case, if an Israelite calls people after other gods, then it can only mean that he was an Israelite at the time when he called them after other gods. That is to say, since we know that Israel is composed of the children of the promise (Romans 9:6-9), this is a citizen of God's kingdom who performs the proselytizing for other gods. There is no law restricting foreigners (non-believers) from proselytizing, unless they are very successful. In the same way, America doesn't execute emissaries from their enemies as soon as they set-foot on American soil.
However, in the second case, it only says "if you hear that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led people of their town astray, saying 'let us go and worship other gods' (gods you have not known)". The troublemakers are not identified as either Israelite or non-Israelite. Thus, this law applies if foreigners are the troublemakers, but it only applies if the town follows after them. The town is viewed as an invasive force or a cessation from the Union. America rolled tanks over Waco when they tried to declare independence, and that's pretty much exactly what the Bible is calling for. Once a town identifies as Christian, it is a part of the Kingdom, and the law enforces that it should remain Christian. That said, I don't see any injunction in here to hunt down people who flee the city prior to this siege; I imagine that a good Israelite would flee the town as soon as they saw it begin to turn away from God in a big way.
The last law pertains to false prophets. Relevant passages can be found in Deut 12, Jer 23, Jer 29, and Ezek 13. Again, this is a straight-forward law. The prophet comes, claiming to be an Israelite, but calling Israel after false gods. The civil penalty is death.
Laws against treason protect the lives of American citizens, and they protect the American nation from falling apart due to internal division and disunity. The laws against blasphemy and proselytizing after false gods protect the eternal souls of Christians, and they protect the Christian nation from falling apart due to internal division (on non-adiaphoral issues mind you) and disunity.
That's it!
"That book doesn't describe anything."
Lots of people like to complain that we're losing our right to free speech in the U.S.. While it's true that police enforcement sometimes either ignores or is ignorant of the nature of our rights (link), the fact is, the Supreme court still recognizes that the speech which needs protecting most is the speech we hate (another link). Unfortunately, that's not how universities in the U.S. seem to see things (another link). I can only imagine that the establishment of "free speech zones" and "safe spaces" are a result of popular opinions about hate speech.
Last thing before I get into the verses, let me give some Biblical worldview-background for the topic:
Christians believe that there is a fate much worse than anything that can happen while we are alive in the flesh, and much worse than any death we may experience thereof. The worst possible thing that can ever happen to anyone is that they be sent to hell. Hell being real, and the Kingdom of God being the nation to which believers first owe allegiance, we find ourselves in a literal war against all false gods. If someone leads a man away from Christianity, then that man is a casualty of the worst kind. It is better for a man to die a martyr than for him to leave Christianity, because those who die apart from Christ get hell. (Point of order: Christians can't martyr other Christians.)
That shouldn't be shocking to anyone. It's no secret that this is what Christians believe, and Christians still make up more than 1/3 of the population of the U.S. (indeed, nearly 1/3 of the population of the whole world is Christian). Side note: Bernie Sanders made a hilarious fool of himself when he pretended that Christianity was un-American (the video).
So, on to the Biblical laws themselves. There are four kinds of speech against which God imposes civil law; all others are ignored by the law (and, by extension, all others are protected from civil sanction). As we get into this, ask yourself, "Do I really believe what the Bible says about hell and our war with the devil?" and "Is God just?"
The first civil law is about bearing false witness in court; I mention it here only to complete the list of laws about speech. If someone is falsely accused in court, then the false witness receives the penalty that the defendant would have received if he was found guilty (Deut 19:16-19). We try to do something similar with our laws about lying under oath; only the penalty isn't anywhere near as scary.
The other three laws are about blasphemy, proselytizing for false gods, and false prophesy, which I argue are the spiritual equivalents to our laws about treason. Treason is to aid the enemies of America; blasphemy and proselytizing for false gods aids the enemies of humanity and of the Kingdom of God. Christians, remember that you are first citizens of the Kingdom of God.
Blasphemy is discussed in Matthew 12:31, Mark 3:28-29, Luke 12:10, and Leviticus 24. Leviticus is the only one of these verses which talks about the civil implications of the law, and the penalty is death. The rule is straight-forward; anyone who blasphemes the Name (YHWH) is put to death. It makes sense, given that Christians are defined by their love for God; this is almost identical to proselytizing for false gods.
Proselytizing is discussed in Deuteronomy 13:6-18, and again, the penalty is death. Note, though, that there are two specific cases given here. The first is where an Israelite calls people to go after other gods, and the second is where an entire town rejects God.
In the first case, if an Israelite calls people after other gods, then it can only mean that he was an Israelite at the time when he called them after other gods. That is to say, since we know that Israel is composed of the children of the promise (Romans 9:6-9), this is a citizen of God's kingdom who performs the proselytizing for other gods. There is no law restricting foreigners (non-believers) from proselytizing, unless they are very successful. In the same way, America doesn't execute emissaries from their enemies as soon as they set-foot on American soil.
However, in the second case, it only says "if you hear that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led people of their town astray, saying 'let us go and worship other gods' (gods you have not known)". The troublemakers are not identified as either Israelite or non-Israelite. Thus, this law applies if foreigners are the troublemakers, but it only applies if the town follows after them. The town is viewed as an invasive force or a cessation from the Union. America rolled tanks over Waco when they tried to declare independence, and that's pretty much exactly what the Bible is calling for. Once a town identifies as Christian, it is a part of the Kingdom, and the law enforces that it should remain Christian. That said, I don't see any injunction in here to hunt down people who flee the city prior to this siege; I imagine that a good Israelite would flee the town as soon as they saw it begin to turn away from God in a big way.
The last law pertains to false prophets. Relevant passages can be found in Deut 12, Jer 23, Jer 29, and Ezek 13. Again, this is a straight-forward law. The prophet comes, claiming to be an Israelite, but calling Israel after false gods. The civil penalty is death.
Laws against treason protect the lives of American citizens, and they protect the American nation from falling apart due to internal division and disunity. The laws against blasphemy and proselytizing after false gods protect the eternal souls of Christians, and they protect the Christian nation from falling apart due to internal division (on non-adiaphoral issues mind you) and disunity.
That's it!
"That book doesn't describe anything."
Thursday, March 28, 2019
I wrote this blog a few weeks ago, and I've been sitting on it, because I didn't want to commit myself to doing the comparison I promise at the end here. But then the Mueller report came out, and I figure I should go ahead and post this before it loses its relevance.
Today I want to talk about treason.
According to Title 18, U.S. Code Section 2381, the maximum penalty for treason in the United States is death, and the minimum penalty is either five years in a cage or $10,000, depending on how much you value your time. Treason is defined in the law as being when someone "owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere".
So there are three key actions qualifying as treason: "levies war against [the U.S.]", "adheres to their enemies", and "giving [enemies] aid and comfort". Having done some looking around, I concluded that "adhere" and "aid" don't have a explicit legal definitions outside of their commonly understood meaning. So, a more complete understanding of treason requires a definition of the term "War". According to Title 18, USC Section 2331(4),
If you do a Google image search for the word, "treason", on the day that I post this, you'll see several caricatures of Donald Trump. The accusation against him is that he colluded with Russia, by means of verbal communication, to undermine the democratic election process here in the U.S.. Whether or not that qualifies as "adhering to the U.S.'s enemies" is not a matter I'm prepared to determine, but given that Russia does not appear to be an enemy of Trump, and in spite of his failures Trump seems to have benefited the economy here, and he is the de facto figurehead of the United States, I lean toward supposing that Russia isn't an enemy, per se. Now, again, whether or not Russia "should" be our enemy is something that I don't quite know how to answer, for lack of Russian troops actively killing Americans on American soil. If Russian meddling by means of a mostly-unverified mix of true and false internet words is an attempt to undermine our democracy, and if anyone attempting to undermine democracy by means of their words is an enemy of the U.S., then I think we would find that many Americans fit the description "enemy". But we protect the free speech of those individuals on the grounds that they are American, and I've never heard anyone propose that we impeach an American president based on the fact that some or most of his followers spread lies on the internet. I'll do what the rest of the media does and avoid talking about whether or not those "lies" are actually "truths" and the opposition's ideas are actually mistaken.
For the record, I, here, with my words, oppose the notion that an American should have more right to share words online, whether the words are knowingly true or false, than any other group of humans, simply on the grounds that those humans are from another part of the world. Suppose the group of people disingenuously spreading true or false information about Hillary or Trump in order to affect the elections were all from Ohio [arbitrarily]. Wouldn't we just call them an activist group? What if they were all SJWs?
For the sake of time, I'm going to close out this post... But I wrote this blog intending to devote a future blog to a closely related topic: blasphemy. I want to eventually compare U.S. feelings and legislation regarding treason, hate-speech, and falsehood to Biblical Law regarding blasphemy, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech.
"...created an opportunity for scammers, given a voice to those who spread hatred, and made all kinds of crime easier to commit."
Today I want to talk about treason.
According to Title 18, U.S. Code Section 2381, the maximum penalty for treason in the United States is death, and the minimum penalty is either five years in a cage or $10,000, depending on how much you value your time. Treason is defined in the law as being when someone "owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere".
So there are three key actions qualifying as treason: "levies war against [the U.S.]", "adheres to their enemies", and "giving [enemies] aid and comfort". Having done some looking around, I concluded that "adhere" and "aid" don't have a explicit legal definitions outside of their commonly understood meaning. So, a more complete understanding of treason requires a definition of the term "War". According to Title 18, USC Section 2331(4),
The term "act of war" means any act occurring in the course of -- (A)declared war; (B)armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or (C)armed conflict between military forces of any origin.In order to understand that, it would be nice to have a clear definition of "military force". I couldn't find a positive definition, but Title 18 happened to have a negative definition in USC Section 2331(6).
The term "military force" does not include any person that -- (A)has been designated as a -- (i)foreign terrorist organization by the Secretary of State under section 210 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C 1189); or (ii)specially designated global terrorist (as such term is defined in section 594.310 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations) by the Secretary of State or the Secretary of the Treasury; or (B)has been determined by the court to not be a “military force”.Honestly, not that helpful, but based on the definitions I found in a few dictionaries, I'd say it's safe to summarily qualify a military force as "an organized group of armed persons, serving as part of a larger military group", where a "military group" would be any group existing for the purpose of carrying out military (violent, either defensive or aggressive) action.
If you do a Google image search for the word, "treason", on the day that I post this, you'll see several caricatures of Donald Trump. The accusation against him is that he colluded with Russia, by means of verbal communication, to undermine the democratic election process here in the U.S.. Whether or not that qualifies as "adhering to the U.S.'s enemies" is not a matter I'm prepared to determine, but given that Russia does not appear to be an enemy of Trump, and in spite of his failures Trump seems to have benefited the economy here, and he is the de facto figurehead of the United States, I lean toward supposing that Russia isn't an enemy, per se. Now, again, whether or not Russia "should" be our enemy is something that I don't quite know how to answer, for lack of Russian troops actively killing Americans on American soil. If Russian meddling by means of a mostly-unverified mix of true and false internet words is an attempt to undermine our democracy, and if anyone attempting to undermine democracy by means of their words is an enemy of the U.S., then I think we would find that many Americans fit the description "enemy". But we protect the free speech of those individuals on the grounds that they are American, and I've never heard anyone propose that we impeach an American president based on the fact that some or most of his followers spread lies on the internet. I'll do what the rest of the media does and avoid talking about whether or not those "lies" are actually "truths" and the opposition's ideas are actually mistaken.
For the record, I, here, with my words, oppose the notion that an American should have more right to share words online, whether the words are knowingly true or false, than any other group of humans, simply on the grounds that those humans are from another part of the world. Suppose the group of people disingenuously spreading true or false information about Hillary or Trump in order to affect the elections were all from Ohio [arbitrarily]. Wouldn't we just call them an activist group? What if they were all SJWs?
For the sake of time, I'm going to close out this post... But I wrote this blog intending to devote a future blog to a closely related topic: blasphemy. I want to eventually compare U.S. feelings and legislation regarding treason, hate-speech, and falsehood to Biblical Law regarding blasphemy, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech.
"...created an opportunity for scammers, given a voice to those who spread hatred, and made all kinds of crime easier to commit."
Friday, March 8, 2019
Baby is still cute. Not much to report there. Chowon still working hard. Good mom; good wife. We're tired.
Today I want to talk about Platonic Forms. The reason I originally decided to read the Republic was to learn about Forms and find out for myself whether the refutation of them that I've heard is accurate.
First, I want to encourage my nonexistent readers to do as I have done. Why read me (or anyone else) telling you about Platonic Forms when you can go read Plato himself? The fact that people are writing about Plato's works means that Plato's works are available to read and criticize. It's the same with any other person. The realization that these works are not out of my reach, and that they are written in common English, struck me like lightning after I graduated college. I've been consuming ancient authors ever since. I recommend it to everyone. It's easy! Don't be intimidated by it!
Alright, now the main point of this post. The problem Plato was trying to solve is the distinction between external objects and our internal understanding of them. He frames it in terms of the One and the Many, which is to ask how we can identify many different types of a thing by means of the same descriptor. For example, there are many different kinds of tables, but we know them all to be of the type "table". Only, we experience much difficulty attempting to describe the perfect representation of a table, in order to apply that to any object and identify it as such (using tables as an example). This is closely related to the issue about how we can identify and accurately classify any true information about the world external to us.
Plato argues that the way we are able to classify an external thing is by referencing our sensory data against a set of perfect forms which exist in our minds. These forms were created by the gods and placed in nature so that we have them in our minds. Furthermore, he says that the gods created just one of each of these forms because they wanted to be able to claim responsibility for having generated the first and most perfect object of every type. For example, we see some platformed object and identify it as a table by comparing it against the perfect form of a table, which some god invented and placed in our minds.
The problem with Plato's theory is that the gods themselves are only identifiable inasmuch as they, themselves, conform to the natural form of a god. So the form "god" had to exist before the first god. But the forms are not self-existent; they are created. Therefore, the gods cannot be ultimate, because they are members of the type described by the Platonic Form 'god'; but the forms cannot be ultimate, because they are created by the gods. It is impossible that a god created the perfect form of a god, because the god's own existence is prerequisite to the form's existence. But then, since forms are created, who created the perfect form of a god? As far as I know, Plato offers no answer for this. So, while there may be some merit to the theory as a tool, it is not a complete epistemological framework. This kind of paradox is symptomatic of a failing system, perhaps due to a faulty premise.
This problem is solved in Christianity (get ready for the super-abridged summary) by abandoning the idea that a "perfect form" exists on its own as an abstract object. Instead, I think we would say that types of things are differentiated according to their compliance with abstract and imperfect forms which we ourselves create, and that the means by which we create those abstract forms is by partitioning and arranging a universal set of "building blocks" (that's not a formal term. I just now came up with calling them 'blocks' in order to illustrate my point). The building blocks are applied logical rules, and we are aware of these rules because they are imbued to us by God. God did not create the rules, and the rules don't exist on their own apart from God; they simply describe God's nature. God has always continually embodied all logical laws perfectly. They are expressions of his unchanging character. We apply them incompletely because of our nature, and we know them incompletely because of our nature; our nature is that we are created in the image of God, containing in our minds an incomplete embodiment of those rules. So, we generate abstractions by applying self-references to our sensory data, and our self-references are references to an expression of God's own qualities, his image in us. In this way, inasmuch as we are correctly applying the logical laws which we contain in ourselves, our self-references are effectively references to an external standard: God's character.
Today I want to talk about Platonic Forms. The reason I originally decided to read the Republic was to learn about Forms and find out for myself whether the refutation of them that I've heard is accurate.
First, I want to encourage my nonexistent readers to do as I have done. Why read me (or anyone else) telling you about Platonic Forms when you can go read Plato himself? The fact that people are writing about Plato's works means that Plato's works are available to read and criticize. It's the same with any other person. The realization that these works are not out of my reach, and that they are written in common English, struck me like lightning after I graduated college. I've been consuming ancient authors ever since. I recommend it to everyone. It's easy! Don't be intimidated by it!
Alright, now the main point of this post. The problem Plato was trying to solve is the distinction between external objects and our internal understanding of them. He frames it in terms of the One and the Many, which is to ask how we can identify many different types of a thing by means of the same descriptor. For example, there are many different kinds of tables, but we know them all to be of the type "table". Only, we experience much difficulty attempting to describe the perfect representation of a table, in order to apply that to any object and identify it as such (using tables as an example). This is closely related to the issue about how we can identify and accurately classify any true information about the world external to us.
Plato argues that the way we are able to classify an external thing is by referencing our sensory data against a set of perfect forms which exist in our minds. These forms were created by the gods and placed in nature so that we have them in our minds. Furthermore, he says that the gods created just one of each of these forms because they wanted to be able to claim responsibility for having generated the first and most perfect object of every type. For example, we see some platformed object and identify it as a table by comparing it against the perfect form of a table, which some god invented and placed in our minds.
The problem with Plato's theory is that the gods themselves are only identifiable inasmuch as they, themselves, conform to the natural form of a god. So the form "god" had to exist before the first god. But the forms are not self-existent; they are created. Therefore, the gods cannot be ultimate, because they are members of the type described by the Platonic Form 'god'; but the forms cannot be ultimate, because they are created by the gods. It is impossible that a god created the perfect form of a god, because the god's own existence is prerequisite to the form's existence. But then, since forms are created, who created the perfect form of a god? As far as I know, Plato offers no answer for this. So, while there may be some merit to the theory as a tool, it is not a complete epistemological framework. This kind of paradox is symptomatic of a failing system, perhaps due to a faulty premise.
This problem is solved in Christianity (get ready for the super-abridged summary) by abandoning the idea that a "perfect form" exists on its own as an abstract object. Instead, I think we would say that types of things are differentiated according to their compliance with abstract and imperfect forms which we ourselves create, and that the means by which we create those abstract forms is by partitioning and arranging a universal set of "building blocks" (that's not a formal term. I just now came up with calling them 'blocks' in order to illustrate my point). The building blocks are applied logical rules, and we are aware of these rules because they are imbued to us by God. God did not create the rules, and the rules don't exist on their own apart from God; they simply describe God's nature. God has always continually embodied all logical laws perfectly. They are expressions of his unchanging character. We apply them incompletely because of our nature, and we know them incompletely because of our nature; our nature is that we are created in the image of God, containing in our minds an incomplete embodiment of those rules. So, we generate abstractions by applying self-references to our sensory data, and our self-references are references to an expression of God's own qualities, his image in us. In this way, inasmuch as we are correctly applying the logical laws which we contain in ourselves, our self-references are effectively references to an external standard: God's character.
OK, last thing, I am digging into political activism groups around Arizona to learn how activism is done in the U.S.. I've begun to explore Represent-Us, and look into my options for vocalizing opinions to the local legislature. I'm exploring the options, but I have not clarified in my mind what level of involvement is conscionable to me. I'll ramble about it here when I've dug deeper into it.
ETA almost forgot to quote something.
"Like a gentleman stranded on an island populated by a race of indiginous butlers."
ETA almost forgot to quote something.
"Like a gentleman stranded on an island populated by a race of indiginous butlers."
Tuesday, March 5, 2019
Baby is growing! He's in the 99th percentile for length, and he's right in the healthy middle for weight gain. Chowon is an excellent mom, and her condition is improving, but she still has some serious joint pain.
I just finished book 8 of The Republic. I had to listen to it a few times, because I listen at work and it was dense. Eventually I had a less taxing task to accomplish, and I was able to focus better on it. It was a little bit upsetting to listen to Plato's observations about the demise of his contemporary democracies. America, being a sort of democratic republic, appears to be constantly in the state of being probed for weaknesses leading to the same sort of destruction that Plato describes.
A sweeping summary: the lowest financial class, fearing that members of the highest financial class seek to become oligarchs, (though he notes that the highest class does not necessarily seek to change the system through which they have become wealthy), enlist the middle and most politically active class to "squeeze" the upper class for resources. The upper class therefore does the only sensible thing: they use what influence and wealth they have to take steps to protect their own property. Who wouldn't? These steps, however, make them seem even more like aspiring oligarchs, and serve only to inflame the people against them. The lower and middle class incite fear in one another against the upper class, pressing them harder, forcing them to protect themselves with more serious measures, until the upper class has become oligarchs in reality. At that time, the lower and middle class, remembering freedom, naturally congregate around a political figure, who they imagine will protect them against the oligarchy. That figure, in doing so, becomes accustomed to forcibly destroying what are essentially his fellow men. Every oligarch he overthrows finds him more powerful than before, and his unbridled support is contingent on him maintaining a continuous war against wealth, and eventually against the middle class, becoming the enemy of anyone he can identify as the most wealthy and the most happy. Over time, his actions become recognizably deplorable, and the only way for him to maintain power is by delegating influence to whatever group of people were previously the most impoverished and uneducated. By means of this group of people, he is able to subjugate the rest of the nation. Tyranny.
I hardly did justice to Plato with that paragraph. Read it yourself.
If I am to agree with Plato, (and on many points in his Republic I have disagreed so far), then the various movements concerned with redistributing the wealth owned by "the 1%-ers" (remember "Occupy Wall Street") attempt to be the catalyst for this kind of change, and we may see this change in a matter of just a few generations if America continues to be shaped by those movements. It's true that, not being a pure democracy, we have several safeguards in place to prevent that, but it seems to me that laws are changed in America as soon as they are perceived to be "out-of-date", with the same carelessness that the Bible is rejected on the grounds that it was written by "bronze age goat herders". If people disagree with a law on principle, then they overthrow the law rather than reevaluate their principles. Naturally, if that is the case, then Plato's other points follow, and the only way to prevent this is by widespread education about the philosophical grounds for a republic over any other form of government.
But I've been through the public school system. I never even heard of Plato's Republic until just less than a year ago -- not that Plato's Republic, specifically, is the thing that people must learn, but why rewrite a book that's already been written? Why did I have to read "The Kite Runner", but not Josephus? Why did I have to recite the pledge of allegiance, but never read "Civil Disobedience"? Why did I learn about Confucius, but never his thoughts? Why did I learn about Karl Marx, but never take a critical eye to his Manifesto? Why did I learn about Rome, but not Tertulian? Why did I learn about Babylon, but not Israel? Why did I learn about Hitler's attempts at eugenics, but never Margaret Sanger's? Why did I learn about Europe, but never learn about the reformation? Why did I have to learn about postmodernism, but never hear any credibility given to the concept of absolute truth? Why did I have to study 3-point "persuasive speaking", but never learn to recognize logical fallacies? Why did I have to study Hammurabi, but never Moses? Which one established a more successful government?
I don't think we're equipping people to protect their freedom. Our education system, though apparently so heavily influenced by platonic thought, fails its goal of protecting the republic. Plato's republic is sustained by education, and Plato's education is supported by the republic. Without one, the other dies.
God help me. How can I protect my child from these schools?
[Sometime later, finishing this blog on my phone now]
Speaking of Parenthood, SPOILERS!!! Chowon and I have been watching that series on Netflix these days. It was really good up until season 4, when Drew's girlfriend hired an assassin to kill their baby. But we gave it a chance, hoping it wouldn't get worse, and we just completed season 5. Everybody is having sex all the time now. Drew is in college and is heart-warmingly encouraged by the men in his life to have sex with as many girls as possible. Haddie is lesbian. Joel and Julia are separated but not divorced, and Julia is sleeping with some guy who the audience doesn't even know really, and all the other ladies are telling her that it's a good thing, expressly because she hadn't slept with enough different men in her life. Sarah is all over the place. Amber is pregnant by a guy who just moved away and broke off their engagement (#consequences). The doctors, after spitting on Hippocrates' grave, offered to kill Amber's baby for her, since she's not married. They sold the family house.... and did I forget anything... oh! If the show is all I have to go on, than apparently Christians believe that you can't be saved unless you were baptized as a baby. Not sure if I want to to see how the one "Christian" character in this show handles Haddie. It's gonna be like watching a surgery! Do they paint us as intolerable bigots who can't even be nice to someone who has a gender identity issue, or do they paint us as jellyfish with no convictions? Because so far, pop media has made it seem like you're only either one or the other of those. Maybe they'll surprise me! I'd stop watching it, but Chowon likes shows about relationship drama, and that's what this feels like now.
Dang it Bill Cosby! Why did you have to go and ruin the one good show about family values!?!?
Oh well. That's it for tonight.
"Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion. But I will keep pure and holy both my life and my art."
I just finished book 8 of The Republic. I had to listen to it a few times, because I listen at work and it was dense. Eventually I had a less taxing task to accomplish, and I was able to focus better on it. It was a little bit upsetting to listen to Plato's observations about the demise of his contemporary democracies. America, being a sort of democratic republic, appears to be constantly in the state of being probed for weaknesses leading to the same sort of destruction that Plato describes.
A sweeping summary: the lowest financial class, fearing that members of the highest financial class seek to become oligarchs, (though he notes that the highest class does not necessarily seek to change the system through which they have become wealthy), enlist the middle and most politically active class to "squeeze" the upper class for resources. The upper class therefore does the only sensible thing: they use what influence and wealth they have to take steps to protect their own property. Who wouldn't? These steps, however, make them seem even more like aspiring oligarchs, and serve only to inflame the people against them. The lower and middle class incite fear in one another against the upper class, pressing them harder, forcing them to protect themselves with more serious measures, until the upper class has become oligarchs in reality. At that time, the lower and middle class, remembering freedom, naturally congregate around a political figure, who they imagine will protect them against the oligarchy. That figure, in doing so, becomes accustomed to forcibly destroying what are essentially his fellow men. Every oligarch he overthrows finds him more powerful than before, and his unbridled support is contingent on him maintaining a continuous war against wealth, and eventually against the middle class, becoming the enemy of anyone he can identify as the most wealthy and the most happy. Over time, his actions become recognizably deplorable, and the only way for him to maintain power is by delegating influence to whatever group of people were previously the most impoverished and uneducated. By means of this group of people, he is able to subjugate the rest of the nation. Tyranny.
I hardly did justice to Plato with that paragraph. Read it yourself.
If I am to agree with Plato, (and on many points in his Republic I have disagreed so far), then the various movements concerned with redistributing the wealth owned by "the 1%-ers" (remember "Occupy Wall Street") attempt to be the catalyst for this kind of change, and we may see this change in a matter of just a few generations if America continues to be shaped by those movements. It's true that, not being a pure democracy, we have several safeguards in place to prevent that, but it seems to me that laws are changed in America as soon as they are perceived to be "out-of-date", with the same carelessness that the Bible is rejected on the grounds that it was written by "bronze age goat herders". If people disagree with a law on principle, then they overthrow the law rather than reevaluate their principles. Naturally, if that is the case, then Plato's other points follow, and the only way to prevent this is by widespread education about the philosophical grounds for a republic over any other form of government.
But I've been through the public school system. I never even heard of Plato's Republic until just less than a year ago -- not that Plato's Republic, specifically, is the thing that people must learn, but why rewrite a book that's already been written? Why did I have to read "The Kite Runner", but not Josephus? Why did I have to recite the pledge of allegiance, but never read "Civil Disobedience"? Why did I learn about Confucius, but never his thoughts? Why did I learn about Karl Marx, but never take a critical eye to his Manifesto? Why did I learn about Rome, but not Tertulian? Why did I learn about Babylon, but not Israel? Why did I learn about Hitler's attempts at eugenics, but never Margaret Sanger's? Why did I learn about Europe, but never learn about the reformation? Why did I have to learn about postmodernism, but never hear any credibility given to the concept of absolute truth? Why did I have to study 3-point "persuasive speaking", but never learn to recognize logical fallacies? Why did I have to study Hammurabi, but never Moses? Which one established a more successful government?
I don't think we're equipping people to protect their freedom. Our education system, though apparently so heavily influenced by platonic thought, fails its goal of protecting the republic. Plato's republic is sustained by education, and Plato's education is supported by the republic. Without one, the other dies.
God help me. How can I protect my child from these schools?
[Sometime later, finishing this blog on my phone now]
Speaking of Parenthood, SPOILERS!!! Chowon and I have been watching that series on Netflix these days. It was really good up until season 4, when Drew's girlfriend hired an assassin to kill their baby. But we gave it a chance, hoping it wouldn't get worse, and we just completed season 5. Everybody is having sex all the time now. Drew is in college and is heart-warmingly encouraged by the men in his life to have sex with as many girls as possible. Haddie is lesbian. Joel and Julia are separated but not divorced, and Julia is sleeping with some guy who the audience doesn't even know really, and all the other ladies are telling her that it's a good thing, expressly because she hadn't slept with enough different men in her life. Sarah is all over the place. Amber is pregnant by a guy who just moved away and broke off their engagement (#consequences). The doctors, after spitting on Hippocrates' grave, offered to kill Amber's baby for her, since she's not married. They sold the family house.... and did I forget anything... oh! If the show is all I have to go on, than apparently Christians believe that you can't be saved unless you were baptized as a baby. Not sure if I want to to see how the one "Christian" character in this show handles Haddie. It's gonna be like watching a surgery! Do they paint us as intolerable bigots who can't even be nice to someone who has a gender identity issue, or do they paint us as jellyfish with no convictions? Because so far, pop media has made it seem like you're only either one or the other of those. Maybe they'll surprise me! I'd stop watching it, but Chowon likes shows about relationship drama, and that's what this feels like now.
Dang it Bill Cosby! Why did you have to go and ruin the one good show about family values!?!?
Oh well. That's it for tonight.
"Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion. But I will keep pure and holy both my life and my art."
Monday, February 25, 2019
Baby is healthy. Parents are tired. All kinds of good and tired and fun and crazy. Not much cool stuff to report yet. He basically just eats, sleeps, poops.
Today I wanted to talk about church politics. This is going to be a long blog, and hard for me to post, because we always want something which is more grand by our own standards. I have to conform myself to scripture and reason as I see it, though, and so this post represents a small shift in my immediate kingdom/empire-related goals.
Sometimes, when I think about the government and its departure from God's laws, I really want to do something about it! And, what better way to effect change in the government than by getting involved, and eventually running for some kind of office? My views could potentially be called "conservative". Given the ease with which a person can market themselves on the internet with a small budget, I think it's not a far stretch of the imagination to suppose that I could run a successful race for some small government office, and then slowly work my way up the ladder to more influence as I gain experience. I don't see this as a statement to the effect of my own qualifications or anything -- I think anyone can run for office these days, if they play their cards right and have relatable ideas (and let's be clear, I know exactly zero people who totally relate to my ideas). I mean, look how far some other politicians have made it. Sometimes the idea seems really desirable to me, because government office seems like an ideal place from which a person can make changes for good. Certainly I want to do good.
Here's the thing... even though part of me really likes the idea, I don't think I could ever actually do it. I've talked at length in previous blogs about how the Bible doesn't contain any command to compromise with an unjust government. God's commands represent an absolute standard of justice and morality, so any concession is unjust and/or immoral. In order for me to take office, even though my goal might be to change the system, I would have to abide by and uphold the system to some degree. I don't think I could do that. For example, just by voting against a change to law, I'm participating in the legislative process, which I think shouldn't exist. There are two common passages that I've heard, which people often bring up in favor of submission to human government systems. I've written a lot about the first one, (Romans 13) so I'll quickly respond to it in the next short paragraph. The meat of this blog is going to be [Part 1] about Mark 12:17, and, if I get to it in this post, [Part 2] about my ideas about what Christians should do in response to a secular government (a little development from last time I articulated this topic).
Alright, so first off, Romans 13. It says that we should submit to governing authorities. Then it defines "governing authorities" as authorities which use their God-given influence to punish evil and promote good. So, if an entity claims to be a governing authority, but does not punish evil and promote good, then it is not what Romans 13 is talking about; the command to submit does not apply.
--Part 1--
But Mark 12:17 gives an important balance to the above statements about authority. Take Rome, for example, since it's what they were talking about in that immediate context. Rome was a pagan kingdom, operating in direct and unrepentant violation of several of God's commands for government. Rome levied taxes in Roman currency on people who lived in Roman territories. Should Israel pay taxes to Rome? Jesus answers by pointing out that Caesar's face is on the Roman coin, and saying "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's". Let's dig into that response a bit.
First of all, in order for Jesus to have said that without contradicting all the laws of God simultaneously, he must NOT have meant, "obey Caesar even when Caesar commands you to disobey God". The behavior of the apostles in Acts 5:29 supports my interpretation here.
Also, the statement is definitely more complicated than "obey the law of the land wherever it doesn't disagree with God's law". Jesus is issuing an imperative here, relating to taxes, where compulsory/forceful taxation is not an activity which God's law delegates to human governments -- the taxation itself was sinful inasmuch as it was being [reason 1]forced by an [reason 2]illegitimate governing authority (see above comments on Romans 13). Again, the Bible includes no civil penalty for failure to pay taxes -- the tithe is a moral/ceremonial law, enforced only by God.
So then what does the statement by Jesus mean? What's the application? Well, let's try taking it at "face" value and see where that gets us (hehe). We know that God owns literally everything. But more specifically, in the context of the Israel economy, God claims Israel's first-fruits. So, giving to God what is Gods can be read as a reminder to give our first-fruits to God. Lots of ink has been spilled by other people in effort to explain "first-fruits", so I'm going to focus on the other part of the statement here: Jesus indicates that Roman Currency is the property of Caesar, and so whatever part of it is recalled to Caesar (taxes) should be given back to Caesar. Caesar has the right to require that we give to him what is his.
Let's apply it. This affects how we view money and property in general. The U.S. Dollar has George Washington's face on it. It belongs to him (and let's not be obtuse -- this clearly means that the dollar belongs to the U.S. Government, which itself is represented by the president).
That means that every dollar in my possession is actually owned by the U.S. Government. What do we call it when we posses something which belongs to another person? It's either theft or a loan. Every dollar is a loan, borrowed from the government, for the amount of its own value. And good old Generous George tells us, "if you work hard, I'll give you more dollars, and let you go into even more debt to me!".
But people go crazy for that debt. They will give up literally anything they have for it - their time, their land, their clothes, etc.. It's so deeply ingrained in our society that you can't get anything without it! The only way to get food in the U.S. is to trade for it in debt-notes. And, if you want to own something big, like a plot of land, then you have to go into debt for debt and then work for more debt to pay off your debt debt.
OK, what am I advocating here? What's the point? Should we switch to a barter economy? No, actually. If you work it out, all economies eventually come to rely on currency. For example, suppose a cow farmer wants to buy his neighbor's land to put more cows on it. without currency, the cow farmer can only pay with what he has: cows. His neighbor exchanges the land for 100 cows. Now the neighbor has less land and more need for land, to support his new cows -- it won't work for him. Instead, he trades for a promissory note, guaranteeing that he can have the meat from 100 cows, cared for by the cow farmer. Now the holder of the note wants to hire someone to build him a nicer house on his remaining land; he finds someone willing to do it, but he doesn't have anything worth the whole upgrade that he wants to perform... except that note worth 100 cows. The construction worker says that the value of the work is equivalent to the value of the meat from 50 cows. The owner of the 100 cow promissory note divides his note into two 50 cow promissory notes, and a currency is born, bound initially to the value of a cow, but eventually as the trade network becomes more complex, the original binding evaluation of the cow-note can be forgotten. Eventually, the people in this hypothetical place are just trading in arbitrarily-named "bucks". Even if it remains ultimately bound to the cow-standard, the buck, in its use, seems to have very little to do with cows anymore, and anyway it's hard for that farmer to keep track of who has legitimate cow-notes. So the people step in with a government. They put some jerk's face on every buck, and say, 'everyone trading in bucks must trade in our standardized bucks. And in order to keep the press running, everyone has to contribute 1 buck for every 100 bucks gained.'
I know it's much more complicated than that. My point is: currency is inevitable.
So then, do Christians in the U.S. establish their own currency and stop trading in Dollars? Impossible. The American people have all given their land over to the American government by agreeing to pay property taxes. If you don't pay your taxes, the government comes and takes the land from you, and there is no "army of free Americans" to rescue you and your land from from Generous George. As long as you live in America, you have to use the dollar. It's not much different in other places. The world seems to have been basically divided into various lands, owned by governments, and afaik all of them have unjust tax laws inhibiting deviation from their established economies.
So, give to George Washington that which belongs to George Washington. That means, if your government says they get a tax on everything sold with their currency, in their territory, and if you intend to buy and sell with their currency, in their territory, then you should pay that tax. And, in general, give to other people what belongs to them.
--Part 2--
But there's a silver lining here. I want to preface it by saying that I'm trying to reach these conclusions by meditation on God's law, and I want to avoid fitting it into a mold advocated by modern political philosophers, (for example, I personally know some people who say about God's law, "this seems like socialism", and then they go study socialism to understand God's law, rather than studying God's law to understand God's law).
OK, so let's take God's government in its purest form, prior to the human monarchy. Granted, the Israelites made a huge mess of things in Judges. I think it's because, as it says in the prophets, God had written his commandments on tablets of stone, but he had not yet written them on the hearts of the Israelites (writing the law on their hearts is something he would do in the new covenant). We know that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit serves to inscribe the law of God on our hearts (sanctification). I propose that the Holy Spirit and the ready accessibility of God's Word empowers us to make better use of God's Law in establishing an actual government.
What do we see in God's government? How is it composed?
God raised up Moses to be Judge over Israel, and promised to later raise up others to be judges, prophets, nazirites, etc.. The priest of Midian advised Moses to choose judges from among the people: a judge over 10, a judge over 100, another over 1000, 10000, and so on, in orders of 10. This system worked when the judges made their rulings according to God's law, and it was blessed by God. Strictly speaking, these judges only existed to help solve issues among the people according to the Law of God, about which the people were supposed to be well instructed anyway. The judges were not given authority to levy taxes, establish any standing army, or enact any compulsory social welfare programs. For all intents and purposes, this was not a government at all in the modern sense.
That's the silver lining. The Christian government can exist in certain forms anywhere. This is where this post is a little different from prior posts, where I talked about Christians separating from the U.S. government entirely and establishing a Biblical state somewhere. I still advocate that as an eventual goal -- a Christian state -- but since it has to be achieved peacefully, I suspect that it will come about very slowly, and that it will be the Zeal of the Lord of Hosts who accomplishes it; not my zeal. So, there's room for discussion about how we should act in the interim. How can Christians act as functionaries in a secular government prior to completely separating themselves from it?
I here propose that Christians adopt a type of judicial isolation from the U.S. government. In the absence of a "Moses", every 10 Christians identifies from among themselves a respected elder, knowledgeable in Scripture. The precedent for this is readily available in the OT law, where it often talks about "bringing [the accused] to the elders", etc, in a way that appears interchangeable with bringing someone "to the judge". The elders in a town were respected members of the community who were entrusted by the people to make discernments about matters pertaining to God's law and their community. Their power was derived from God's system, and really only existed inasmuch as it was acknowledged by their constituents (see Lex Rex again).
Before we get too carried away with thinking that this seems to be approaching the American judicial structure, remember that these elected judges are the entire government, and they are effective toward groups of only 10 people per judge. So every 10 people in the Church should identify among themselves one who they respect, and utilize that person as judge to resolve disputes. The higher judges do not establish precedent with their rulings (the way American higher judges do) -- judgments should be made only by considering scripture and the circumstances at hand. Higher judges cannot take initiative to overrule lower judges. Higher judges only work when they are called upon by lower judges or their constituents, when the matter is too hard for the lower judge to resolve, or when the people find that the lower judge is not acting Biblically. Since the authority of the lower judge is rooted only in the scripture, if the people find that a judge's ruling is incompatible with scripture, they may overrule it, like a jury of the person's peers. The judge is not the ultimate authority in any case; the scripture is. There are no career judges, because there are no taxes to pay them. That's why it's important to have so many judges with such a small constituency, so that their small workload enables them to continue with their other practical responsibilities. And lastly, there's no legislative process affecting any change on the way that these judges should measure a case -- only scripture.
Without diving deep into the scriptural basis for the above, since most of it is not based on any individual scripture but on an analysis of the typical "way things seem to have happened" in Biblical society when things were described as pleasing to God, I think that the above is basically in-line with scripture. I'll admit that it's difficult for me to identify whether any part of this is too heavily influenced by my cultural biases; I would love it if someone would use scripture to explain to me where I'm wrong.
The NT instruction to believers under a pagan government was that Christians should never file lawsuits against one another in court (1 Cor 1:6-8). Instead of that, the Biblical steps for resolving conflict are: 1. Confront in private; 2. Bring it to the elders; 3. Bring it before the church body; and 4. Church discipline. (Mat 18:15-21). Notice that step 2 is "the elders"! I want to suggest that this is the interim government, in place over Christians only, while we wait for opportunity to peacefully establish our own government (at which time, the elders become the judicial government, and execution of civil law takes a different form). Remember that Paul clearly tells us in 2 Cor 10, the weapons of our warfare to conquer for God's kingdom are arguments and scripture. God promised land to Abraham in the OT and told them to conquer it with the sword, but the land which he promised to Christians in the new covenant is the whole world, and it is said to be conquered via the "weapons of our warfare", which again he says are arguments and scripture. Basically, we gain this land by converting everyone to Christianity.
So let me close this out with a description of Church discipline, just to paint a more complete picture. As far as I can tell, from the descriptions of Church discipline in the NT, it is a unique form of justice, different from civil execution of OT penal sanctions. Remember, this post is not about establishing the Christian State - this is about separating the Christian judicial system while still living inside a secular state. Church discipline is described in the NT in two ways (off the top of my head). First, "treat them as you would a pagan or tax collector" (Mat 18:17), which basically means that an unrepentant sinner is no longer to be considered part of the body, and the victim (and everyone else) should limit association with that person in order to avoid further harm. The person is thereafter a target for ministry, rather than a trusted family member. Second, "turn them over to the devil for the destruction of the flesh" (1 Cor 5:5), which I understand to mean basically the same thing as Matthew 18:17 says. The person who knowingly continues in sin without repentance, even after having been confronted, is not a child of God, and is therefore given back to his true master until he repents. This doesn't mean that any member of the church actually causes physical harm to the perpetrator, but rather that they spiritually give him over -- he's not a member of the church anymore. He can continue attending church; it doesn't say that we shun or banish the person. The penalty is entirely spiritual with respect to the rest of the church, but we know that the devil can affect the physical world when given permission (Job). Church discipline in the case of a person who evidences himself to be unrepentant is this: we just call it what it is, and let God and the devil sort out the rest.
Conclusion: basically, there are a lot of churches in the States which, in practice, have the right idea already. I guess that for the meantime, the church as a whole just needs to get more organized.
"Now from his pocket quick he flashes the crayon, on the wall he slashes, deep upon the advertising, a single worded poem comprised of four letters."
Today I wanted to talk about church politics. This is going to be a long blog, and hard for me to post, because we always want something which is more grand by our own standards. I have to conform myself to scripture and reason as I see it, though, and so this post represents a small shift in my immediate kingdom/empire-related goals.
Sometimes, when I think about the government and its departure from God's laws, I really want to do something about it! And, what better way to effect change in the government than by getting involved, and eventually running for some kind of office? My views could potentially be called "conservative". Given the ease with which a person can market themselves on the internet with a small budget, I think it's not a far stretch of the imagination to suppose that I could run a successful race for some small government office, and then slowly work my way up the ladder to more influence as I gain experience. I don't see this as a statement to the effect of my own qualifications or anything -- I think anyone can run for office these days, if they play their cards right and have relatable ideas (and let's be clear, I know exactly zero people who totally relate to my ideas). I mean, look how far some other politicians have made it. Sometimes the idea seems really desirable to me, because government office seems like an ideal place from which a person can make changes for good. Certainly I want to do good.
Here's the thing... even though part of me really likes the idea, I don't think I could ever actually do it. I've talked at length in previous blogs about how the Bible doesn't contain any command to compromise with an unjust government. God's commands represent an absolute standard of justice and morality, so any concession is unjust and/or immoral. In order for me to take office, even though my goal might be to change the system, I would have to abide by and uphold the system to some degree. I don't think I could do that. For example, just by voting against a change to law, I'm participating in the legislative process, which I think shouldn't exist. There are two common passages that I've heard, which people often bring up in favor of submission to human government systems. I've written a lot about the first one, (Romans 13) so I'll quickly respond to it in the next short paragraph. The meat of this blog is going to be [Part 1] about Mark 12:17, and, if I get to it in this post, [Part 2] about my ideas about what Christians should do in response to a secular government (a little development from last time I articulated this topic).
Alright, so first off, Romans 13. It says that we should submit to governing authorities. Then it defines "governing authorities" as authorities which use their God-given influence to punish evil and promote good. So, if an entity claims to be a governing authority, but does not punish evil and promote good, then it is not what Romans 13 is talking about; the command to submit does not apply.
--Part 1--
But Mark 12:17 gives an important balance to the above statements about authority. Take Rome, for example, since it's what they were talking about in that immediate context. Rome was a pagan kingdom, operating in direct and unrepentant violation of several of God's commands for government. Rome levied taxes in Roman currency on people who lived in Roman territories. Should Israel pay taxes to Rome? Jesus answers by pointing out that Caesar's face is on the Roman coin, and saying "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's". Let's dig into that response a bit.
First of all, in order for Jesus to have said that without contradicting all the laws of God simultaneously, he must NOT have meant, "obey Caesar even when Caesar commands you to disobey God". The behavior of the apostles in Acts 5:29 supports my interpretation here.
Also, the statement is definitely more complicated than "obey the law of the land wherever it doesn't disagree with God's law". Jesus is issuing an imperative here, relating to taxes, where compulsory/forceful taxation is not an activity which God's law delegates to human governments -- the taxation itself was sinful inasmuch as it was being [reason 1]forced by an [reason 2]illegitimate governing authority (see above comments on Romans 13). Again, the Bible includes no civil penalty for failure to pay taxes -- the tithe is a moral/ceremonial law, enforced only by God.
So then what does the statement by Jesus mean? What's the application? Well, let's try taking it at "face" value and see where that gets us (hehe). We know that God owns literally everything. But more specifically, in the context of the Israel economy, God claims Israel's first-fruits. So, giving to God what is Gods can be read as a reminder to give our first-fruits to God. Lots of ink has been spilled by other people in effort to explain "first-fruits", so I'm going to focus on the other part of the statement here: Jesus indicates that Roman Currency is the property of Caesar, and so whatever part of it is recalled to Caesar (taxes) should be given back to Caesar. Caesar has the right to require that we give to him what is his.
Let's apply it. This affects how we view money and property in general. The U.S. Dollar has George Washington's face on it. It belongs to him (and let's not be obtuse -- this clearly means that the dollar belongs to the U.S. Government, which itself is represented by the president).
That means that every dollar in my possession is actually owned by the U.S. Government. What do we call it when we posses something which belongs to another person? It's either theft or a loan. Every dollar is a loan, borrowed from the government, for the amount of its own value. And good old Generous George tells us, "if you work hard, I'll give you more dollars, and let you go into even more debt to me!".
But people go crazy for that debt. They will give up literally anything they have for it - their time, their land, their clothes, etc.. It's so deeply ingrained in our society that you can't get anything without it! The only way to get food in the U.S. is to trade for it in debt-notes. And, if you want to own something big, like a plot of land, then you have to go into debt for debt and then work for more debt to pay off your debt debt.
OK, what am I advocating here? What's the point? Should we switch to a barter economy? No, actually. If you work it out, all economies eventually come to rely on currency. For example, suppose a cow farmer wants to buy his neighbor's land to put more cows on it. without currency, the cow farmer can only pay with what he has: cows. His neighbor exchanges the land for 100 cows. Now the neighbor has less land and more need for land, to support his new cows -- it won't work for him. Instead, he trades for a promissory note, guaranteeing that he can have the meat from 100 cows, cared for by the cow farmer. Now the holder of the note wants to hire someone to build him a nicer house on his remaining land; he finds someone willing to do it, but he doesn't have anything worth the whole upgrade that he wants to perform... except that note worth 100 cows. The construction worker says that the value of the work is equivalent to the value of the meat from 50 cows. The owner of the 100 cow promissory note divides his note into two 50 cow promissory notes, and a currency is born, bound initially to the value of a cow, but eventually as the trade network becomes more complex, the original binding evaluation of the cow-note can be forgotten. Eventually, the people in this hypothetical place are just trading in arbitrarily-named "bucks". Even if it remains ultimately bound to the cow-standard, the buck, in its use, seems to have very little to do with cows anymore, and anyway it's hard for that farmer to keep track of who has legitimate cow-notes. So the people step in with a government. They put some jerk's face on every buck, and say, 'everyone trading in bucks must trade in our standardized bucks. And in order to keep the press running, everyone has to contribute 1 buck for every 100 bucks gained.'
I know it's much more complicated than that. My point is: currency is inevitable.
So then, do Christians in the U.S. establish their own currency and stop trading in Dollars? Impossible. The American people have all given their land over to the American government by agreeing to pay property taxes. If you don't pay your taxes, the government comes and takes the land from you, and there is no "army of free Americans" to rescue you and your land from from Generous George. As long as you live in America, you have to use the dollar. It's not much different in other places. The world seems to have been basically divided into various lands, owned by governments, and afaik all of them have unjust tax laws inhibiting deviation from their established economies.
So, give to George Washington that which belongs to George Washington. That means, if your government says they get a tax on everything sold with their currency, in their territory, and if you intend to buy and sell with their currency, in their territory, then you should pay that tax. And, in general, give to other people what belongs to them.
--Part 2--
But there's a silver lining here. I want to preface it by saying that I'm trying to reach these conclusions by meditation on God's law, and I want to avoid fitting it into a mold advocated by modern political philosophers, (for example, I personally know some people who say about God's law, "this seems like socialism", and then they go study socialism to understand God's law, rather than studying God's law to understand God's law).
OK, so let's take God's government in its purest form, prior to the human monarchy. Granted, the Israelites made a huge mess of things in Judges. I think it's because, as it says in the prophets, God had written his commandments on tablets of stone, but he had not yet written them on the hearts of the Israelites (writing the law on their hearts is something he would do in the new covenant). We know that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit serves to inscribe the law of God on our hearts (sanctification). I propose that the Holy Spirit and the ready accessibility of God's Word empowers us to make better use of God's Law in establishing an actual government.
What do we see in God's government? How is it composed?
God raised up Moses to be Judge over Israel, and promised to later raise up others to be judges, prophets, nazirites, etc.. The priest of Midian advised Moses to choose judges from among the people: a judge over 10, a judge over 100, another over 1000, 10000, and so on, in orders of 10. This system worked when the judges made their rulings according to God's law, and it was blessed by God. Strictly speaking, these judges only existed to help solve issues among the people according to the Law of God, about which the people were supposed to be well instructed anyway. The judges were not given authority to levy taxes, establish any standing army, or enact any compulsory social welfare programs. For all intents and purposes, this was not a government at all in the modern sense.
That's the silver lining. The Christian government can exist in certain forms anywhere. This is where this post is a little different from prior posts, where I talked about Christians separating from the U.S. government entirely and establishing a Biblical state somewhere. I still advocate that as an eventual goal -- a Christian state -- but since it has to be achieved peacefully, I suspect that it will come about very slowly, and that it will be the Zeal of the Lord of Hosts who accomplishes it; not my zeal. So, there's room for discussion about how we should act in the interim. How can Christians act as functionaries in a secular government prior to completely separating themselves from it?
I here propose that Christians adopt a type of judicial isolation from the U.S. government. In the absence of a "Moses", every 10 Christians identifies from among themselves a respected elder, knowledgeable in Scripture. The precedent for this is readily available in the OT law, where it often talks about "bringing [the accused] to the elders", etc, in a way that appears interchangeable with bringing someone "to the judge". The elders in a town were respected members of the community who were entrusted by the people to make discernments about matters pertaining to God's law and their community. Their power was derived from God's system, and really only existed inasmuch as it was acknowledged by their constituents (see Lex Rex again).
Before we get too carried away with thinking that this seems to be approaching the American judicial structure, remember that these elected judges are the entire government, and they are effective toward groups of only 10 people per judge. So every 10 people in the Church should identify among themselves one who they respect, and utilize that person as judge to resolve disputes. The higher judges do not establish precedent with their rulings (the way American higher judges do) -- judgments should be made only by considering scripture and the circumstances at hand. Higher judges cannot take initiative to overrule lower judges. Higher judges only work when they are called upon by lower judges or their constituents, when the matter is too hard for the lower judge to resolve, or when the people find that the lower judge is not acting Biblically. Since the authority of the lower judge is rooted only in the scripture, if the people find that a judge's ruling is incompatible with scripture, they may overrule it, like a jury of the person's peers. The judge is not the ultimate authority in any case; the scripture is. There are no career judges, because there are no taxes to pay them. That's why it's important to have so many judges with such a small constituency, so that their small workload enables them to continue with their other practical responsibilities. And lastly, there's no legislative process affecting any change on the way that these judges should measure a case -- only scripture.
Without diving deep into the scriptural basis for the above, since most of it is not based on any individual scripture but on an analysis of the typical "way things seem to have happened" in Biblical society when things were described as pleasing to God, I think that the above is basically in-line with scripture. I'll admit that it's difficult for me to identify whether any part of this is too heavily influenced by my cultural biases; I would love it if someone would use scripture to explain to me where I'm wrong.
The NT instruction to believers under a pagan government was that Christians should never file lawsuits against one another in court (1 Cor 1:6-8). Instead of that, the Biblical steps for resolving conflict are: 1. Confront in private; 2. Bring it to the elders; 3. Bring it before the church body; and 4. Church discipline. (Mat 18:15-21). Notice that step 2 is "the elders"! I want to suggest that this is the interim government, in place over Christians only, while we wait for opportunity to peacefully establish our own government (at which time, the elders become the judicial government, and execution of civil law takes a different form). Remember that Paul clearly tells us in 2 Cor 10, the weapons of our warfare to conquer for God's kingdom are arguments and scripture. God promised land to Abraham in the OT and told them to conquer it with the sword, but the land which he promised to Christians in the new covenant is the whole world, and it is said to be conquered via the "weapons of our warfare", which again he says are arguments and scripture. Basically, we gain this land by converting everyone to Christianity.
So let me close this out with a description of Church discipline, just to paint a more complete picture. As far as I can tell, from the descriptions of Church discipline in the NT, it is a unique form of justice, different from civil execution of OT penal sanctions. Remember, this post is not about establishing the Christian State - this is about separating the Christian judicial system while still living inside a secular state. Church discipline is described in the NT in two ways (off the top of my head). First, "treat them as you would a pagan or tax collector" (Mat 18:17), which basically means that an unrepentant sinner is no longer to be considered part of the body, and the victim (and everyone else) should limit association with that person in order to avoid further harm. The person is thereafter a target for ministry, rather than a trusted family member. Second, "turn them over to the devil for the destruction of the flesh" (1 Cor 5:5), which I understand to mean basically the same thing as Matthew 18:17 says. The person who knowingly continues in sin without repentance, even after having been confronted, is not a child of God, and is therefore given back to his true master until he repents. This doesn't mean that any member of the church actually causes physical harm to the perpetrator, but rather that they spiritually give him over -- he's not a member of the church anymore. He can continue attending church; it doesn't say that we shun or banish the person. The penalty is entirely spiritual with respect to the rest of the church, but we know that the devil can affect the physical world when given permission (Job). Church discipline in the case of a person who evidences himself to be unrepentant is this: we just call it what it is, and let God and the devil sort out the rest.
Conclusion: basically, there are a lot of churches in the States which, in practice, have the right idea already. I guess that for the meantime, the church as a whole just needs to get more organized.
"Now from his pocket quick he flashes the crayon, on the wall he slashes, deep upon the advertising, a single worded poem comprised of four letters."
Friday, February 8, 2019
On this past Sunday, February 3rd, my wife gave birth to our first child, a 9lb boy, and we named him Isaac Asaph. I typically blog when I'm stressed, and I do feel stressed, but I actually am not in the mood for blogging (which mood typically prompts a post). I just figured I should write my initial thoughts down for posterity, and I hope all will forgive me if I say something stupid, because I'm tired.
First of all, I'm really excited about this child. I quickly experienced a strong emotional bond to the baby, and in spite of much time spent scouring his features, I fail to find anything visually disagreeable about him. That said, at this point in his maturing, he's measurably selfish, and he's rarely awake except to complain loudly about hunger.
I wanted to issue some kind of dramatic introduction to him when he first came out -- something like "welcome to God's Empire!". But it felt weird to do that with all the doctors and Chowon's family there. I imagine I will have plenty of opportunity to talk with him about the war he's been thrust into after Chowon's family leaves.
Chowon's labor was intense, and the recovery has been hard. The first few days of childcare were supplemented by my wife's family, whose actions enabled my wife and I to get much needed sleep during that time, and I am obliged to be grateful to them for the work they've done.
In my wife's face, I can see a deep mix of nervousness, apprehension, joy, fear, insecurity, love, concern, and anticipation. She is so beautiful, and I can already see how excellent she is as a mother. Isaac is such a lucky and blessed young man to have such a wonderful mother. I wish I could untangle those emotions and prove to her that she's already the best mother in the world for our little Isaac. But I know that the question, "am I doing it right?", is one which we might not be able to escape, from now until the day we die.
In the months leading up to this, I've thought quite a bit about what it will mean to be a father -- the changes to my self-perceived identity which accompanied marriage will no doubt be compounded by fatherhood. What parts of my interests or personality I shed are easy payment for the rewards which I anticipate receiving by interaction with this, my very own child. If he is a mirror to show me my shortcomings, I know that God will sanctify us both and good fruit will come from it for the glory of God's kingdom; it will be my honor and pride to wrestle with myself, continually praying for wisdom to bring my family completely washed into the gates of God's kingdom. If he is an arrow well aimed, with a double-edged tip sharpened by God's spirit, piercing the hearts of lost sheep in God's fold, then I pray that my God will bless me with duration of life to see him achieve his mark. In either case, I'm proud and it is an honor to be entrusted with so much as the formative years of this eternal soul. I'm thoroughly excited to see little Isaac grow up and reach his potential. No matter what, I'm proud to have been given the opportunity to father him here on earth.
The above are my thoughts about the people and events around me, but when I try to examine my own immediate emotions more directly with questions like "how do I feel?", I can't think of a good answer. I try to make the question more useful, but I can't think of a better question. It bums me out a little bit that I can't seem to self-evaluate with clarity. Maybe that's the reason I write these blogs in the first place, to help me self-evaluate.
I expected to have readily accessible wellsprings of joy and wonder, and I do, but those wellsprings don't feel so much like they are a part of me as that they are somewhere external to me, and it almost feels laborious to draw from them, but I do it anyway, and I do certainly experience that joy and wonder. When I think hard about how those feelings seem so non-intrinsic to me, it leaves me feeling like I have no positive emotions of my own, in spite of the way I'm continually experiencing them. It's like I'm a puppet, and the puppet master is expressing emotions vicariously through my personal experience. Are these really my feelings? If not, whose are they?
All that said, as I write this post, I feel like I'm trying to describe a picture which isn't complete yet in reality. I would have waited a little longer for it to complete before I wrote about it, but I wonder if it will ever seem to be complete, or if it will rather just change. I didn't want to let this moment pass without giving an honest account of my immediate state of mind -- if only for my own future reference.
"
"Then," I said, "our guardians must lay the foundations of their fortress in music?"
"Yes," he said; "the lawlessness of which you speak too easily steals in."
"Yes," I replied, "in the form of amusement; and at first sight it appears harmless."
"Why, yes," he said, "and there is no harm; were it not that little by little this spirit of licence, finding a home, imperceptibly penetrates into manners and customs; whence, issuing with greater force, it invades contracts between man and man, and from contracts goes on to laws and constitutions, in utter recklessness, ending at last, Socrates, by an overthrow of all rights, private as well as public. "
"
First of all, I'm really excited about this child. I quickly experienced a strong emotional bond to the baby, and in spite of much time spent scouring his features, I fail to find anything visually disagreeable about him. That said, at this point in his maturing, he's measurably selfish, and he's rarely awake except to complain loudly about hunger.
I wanted to issue some kind of dramatic introduction to him when he first came out -- something like "welcome to God's Empire!". But it felt weird to do that with all the doctors and Chowon's family there. I imagine I will have plenty of opportunity to talk with him about the war he's been thrust into after Chowon's family leaves.
Chowon's labor was intense, and the recovery has been hard. The first few days of childcare were supplemented by my wife's family, whose actions enabled my wife and I to get much needed sleep during that time, and I am obliged to be grateful to them for the work they've done.
In my wife's face, I can see a deep mix of nervousness, apprehension, joy, fear, insecurity, love, concern, and anticipation. She is so beautiful, and I can already see how excellent she is as a mother. Isaac is such a lucky and blessed young man to have such a wonderful mother. I wish I could untangle those emotions and prove to her that she's already the best mother in the world for our little Isaac. But I know that the question, "am I doing it right?", is one which we might not be able to escape, from now until the day we die.
In the months leading up to this, I've thought quite a bit about what it will mean to be a father -- the changes to my self-perceived identity which accompanied marriage will no doubt be compounded by fatherhood. What parts of my interests or personality I shed are easy payment for the rewards which I anticipate receiving by interaction with this, my very own child. If he is a mirror to show me my shortcomings, I know that God will sanctify us both and good fruit will come from it for the glory of God's kingdom; it will be my honor and pride to wrestle with myself, continually praying for wisdom to bring my family completely washed into the gates of God's kingdom. If he is an arrow well aimed, with a double-edged tip sharpened by God's spirit, piercing the hearts of lost sheep in God's fold, then I pray that my God will bless me with duration of life to see him achieve his mark. In either case, I'm proud and it is an honor to be entrusted with so much as the formative years of this eternal soul. I'm thoroughly excited to see little Isaac grow up and reach his potential. No matter what, I'm proud to have been given the opportunity to father him here on earth.
The above are my thoughts about the people and events around me, but when I try to examine my own immediate emotions more directly with questions like "how do I feel?", I can't think of a good answer. I try to make the question more useful, but I can't think of a better question. It bums me out a little bit that I can't seem to self-evaluate with clarity. Maybe that's the reason I write these blogs in the first place, to help me self-evaluate.
I expected to have readily accessible wellsprings of joy and wonder, and I do, but those wellsprings don't feel so much like they are a part of me as that they are somewhere external to me, and it almost feels laborious to draw from them, but I do it anyway, and I do certainly experience that joy and wonder. When I think hard about how those feelings seem so non-intrinsic to me, it leaves me feeling like I have no positive emotions of my own, in spite of the way I'm continually experiencing them. It's like I'm a puppet, and the puppet master is expressing emotions vicariously through my personal experience. Are these really my feelings? If not, whose are they?
All that said, as I write this post, I feel like I'm trying to describe a picture which isn't complete yet in reality. I would have waited a little longer for it to complete before I wrote about it, but I wonder if it will ever seem to be complete, or if it will rather just change. I didn't want to let this moment pass without giving an honest account of my immediate state of mind -- if only for my own future reference.
"
"Then," I said, "our guardians must lay the foundations of their fortress in music?"
"Yes," he said; "the lawlessness of which you speak too easily steals in."
"Yes," I replied, "in the form of amusement; and at first sight it appears harmless."
"Why, yes," he said, "and there is no harm; were it not that little by little this spirit of licence, finding a home, imperceptibly penetrates into manners and customs; whence, issuing with greater force, it invades contracts between man and man, and from contracts goes on to laws and constitutions, in utter recklessness, ending at last, Socrates, by an overthrow of all rights, private as well as public. "
"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
