June 11, 2010
-
your sin will find you out
Some 'reaction' on recent news:
- On the wikileaks video of US soldiers 'accidentally' shooting civilians (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/apr/07/wikileaks-collateral-murder-iraq-video) , it strikes me that as the Bible says in Numbers 32:23, "be sure your sin will find you out." In other words, if the crew in the attack helicopter had known that their casual words would later be listened to by millions of people (and would jeopardize the lives of many of their fellow soldiers by making people think that they were all alike), they would have spoken (and maybe acted) differently. As Jesus said in Matthew 12:34, "the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart." It is the daily, hidden actions, thoughts, and words which few people or no people know about, which gradually shape our characters and consciences... and it is our character / heart which is revealed suddenly, without warning, when circumstances suddenly put us to the test.... and it is our character / heart by which we will ultimately be judged. As Jesus continues in Matthew 12:37, "by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." Because they show our heart.
How then to live? Try to guard our words and hidden actions extremely closely? Not quite... I'd say focus on the heart - learn specifics of how God wants you to live, repent and confess your sin to God when you see yourself breaking the specifics, rejoice that Jesus has paid for all of your sins, ask God for help in "by the Spirit... putting to death the deeds of the body" (Rom. 8:13), try to stop sinning and start obeying in that specific (with the motive of being an "obedient child" (1 Peter 1:14), and repeat the cycle in other specific areas!- On sending people away to seminary (from my previous post's question) - one thing that occurred to me is that there are some items in some situations which a local church might not have the ability to teach certain helpful things to people who are involved in certain ministries. For example, if an elder wanted to learn Greek or Hebrew to better guard his church people from doctrinal error and help them to deeper understanding of God's word, in some parts of the world (without access to local teachers or correspondance courses) the only way to acquire such learning is to travel to a seminary. But I still think that such training is overvalued in America compared to study of God's word, life experience, proven character, training/mentorship by mature older Christians, etc.
- On D.C.Innes' editorial "Our Present Civil Cold War" (http://online.worldmag.com/2010/06/09/our-present-civil-cold-war/)... it is a short and excellent commentary on the 'choice' facing Americans today between limited government and unlimited government (socialism). While I think he puts the issues well, I am surprised at his optimism and the optimism of many other conservatives ("taking back our country" rhetoric). I think a better summary might be this succinct paragraph: "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
That quote is attributed to Alexander Tytler, probably falsely, but regardless of whoever first wrote it I think it seems rather insightful. Have not many historical nations foundered due to 'loose fiscal policy', been thrust into a time of societal turmoil, and then experienced a dictatorship?
The question then, for me, is how to live if we are in such a situation in our country right now. My current thought is to (1) pray for revival, (2) reach out to help as many individual people as possible, firstly spiritually in coming to know Christ, secondly economically in getting out of debt and growing in education and maturity, (3) spend a small/moderate amount of effort in political causes to try to help enact good laws and elect good leaders, and (4) prepare in whatever little ways are possible for the tough times ahead.
What are your thoughts? Do you think D.C.Innes is right? Does it affect your life at all?Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ; and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.
1 Peter 1:3-9
Comments (5)
I disagree with Innes' formulation.
One way that Innes frames the issue is that "Individual liberty stands opposite federally guaranteed personal security." If we take this formulation, then consider: is individual liberty the absolute goal? And, while no one can "guarantee" security, isn't security related to justice? And isn't justice a very proper domain of government?
Two points, then:
One- liberals are FOR "individual liberties" in some regards (abortion, less stringent immigration restrictions, etc), while the conservatives are FOR "federally guaranteed security" in some regards (abortion, strong military, stricter immigration enforcement, etc).
Two- Even if each movement is truly more widely associated with with one of these opposing philosophical goals, is it clear that one should always trump the other? Or even most frequently should trump the other?
I think the "Civil Cold War" is not most clearly about "moral and political principles." I had a discussion with a staunch conservative friend once trying to figure out what his core principle was by playing the devil's advocate about health care, etc. Why, I asked, if the government built roads, should it not build a health care system? To which he quickly responded, "The government should do the things it's good at doing."
To which I heartily agreed -- but what is government good at doing, and how does one find that out? The Civil Cold War, to me, seems to be primarily about different opinions about the sort of things government is good at doing, and the sort of things business and individuals are good at doing.
To apply this principle to Innes' frame, is government or individuals better at building roads? Clearly, government. What about choosing a church to attend? Clearly, the individual. But is either method an absolute good? I say, clearly not!
I will agree that the language of invented rights is dangerous, not because I don't think people should have adequate housing, but because if a "should" becomes a guaranteed "right," it does create an irresponsible blank check. At the same time, whatever the reason for the size of the budget, tax cuts that unbalance the budget in the name of fiscal "individual liberty" are also irresponsible.
I think the quote you selected, Tim, gets right to the heart of our current problems. Once people start voting themselves the treasury, it's all over. This goes for conservatives keeping military hardware in production for economic impact, and liberals promoting welfare programs that only make them popular. We have to ask the question: what can government do well? And as part of that, what can government AFFORD to do?
Underlying this, however, is the question of "what is good?" and as there are many different perspectives on that issue, we, as Christians should work w/in our democracy to persuade and lobby for what we think to be good, just as others are doing the same. Not because truth is relative, but because that's our system of government. And I think we're supposed to give it our best shot to make it work for liberty AND justice.
@mulletrooster - Great thoughts... thanks! I agree with you about "invented rights", or "positive rights" (vs "negative rights"). For example, I think the negative rights to not be killed or assaulted or have my stuff stolen from me are legitimate rights that the government should enforce. But "positive rights", such as the right to food to eat, or the right to health care, or the right to a college education, or the right to have a nice car to drive, etc, are not things that the government should be enforcing, because these so-called rights are really not rights at all.
I'll have to ponder what you're saying about whether the public/private division is as simple as "what they're good at". My initial reaction is that it's not that simple; that there are some principles underlying what types of things governments should get involved in (as above, enforcing negative rights, cf. Romans 13). But I'll keep thinking about it.
I don't think that "what they're good at" is simple, but it seems to me that it's a clearer starting point than just roads + military = good, hospitals + banks = bad.
As far as negative vs positive rights, the Constitution lists life, liberty, pursuit of happiness as inalienable rights... seem pretty "positive." I would argue that by listing these rights the Constitution is not guaranteeing that they'll never be violated, since that is impractical, but setting out ideals that government should strive to achieve by its function.
To look at a few examples: roads are a good domain of government because it concrete (pardon the pun)... a large project, but limited & well-defined. I become more skeptical about health care, however, because it's so complicated and far-reaching. Where does it end? The bank bailout, although not perfectly defined in its effects, does fall in the domain of government because no one else could carry it out, and ultimately the cost will be fairly small since most of the money will be repaid.
Incidentally, when it comes to college, every politician from every party, it seems, believes in this "right"... Bush & Obama have both been advocates of "4 more years"... both for themselves and students. I think direct Federal loans are a better idea than subsidized bank loans (since the government guaranteed the loans anyway; why not just originate them in the first place?), but the endless blank check and unqualified encouragement for everyone everywhere to go to college seems lacking in good sense. Is government really that good at determining how every individual ought to train for and begin their vocational life? Why would they be any better at this than at encouraging everyone to have a certain kind of subsidized religious life?
to clarify, the bank bailout issue is a matter of credit: what was needed was a large but limited extension of credit, which the government has excellent access to.
@mulletrooster - Interesting thoughts... thanks again...
Comments are closed.