I. Speech

 

OPINIONS I

SPEECH

 

 

Freedom of speech has been one of the hallmarks of American Democracy from its inception.  What does it mean?  Does it mean whoever shouts the loudest is the only one to be listened to?  Does it mean those who manage to silence their enemies are the only ones who have a right to speech?  Does it mean we should be willing to engage in endless verbal jousts, blindly holding to one side of a question or another, assuming the truth will somehow win out? 

 

The idea of truth emerging from a contest goes way back.  In fact the word “trial” is associated with ancient ordeals suspects had to endure, and if they miraculously survived, they were declared innocent. 

 

But truth is independent of customs and practices.  Customs and practices are useful only to the extent that they reflect a genuine love of and quest for truth.  Dishonest practices, lying and even casualness about facts and information make societies less vital.  The result is ignorance and we can look at any number of failed or failing civilizations to see the consequences. 

 

Of course we’re familiar with Christ’s axiom: “And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.”  (John 8:32)

 

Why did the Founders go out of their way to protect freedom of speech?  One obvious answer is that people should be able to say something that might be offensive to a ruler without fear of governmental retaliation or retribution.  That certainly is something the less-powerful of all societies can appreciate and support.  But there’s more.  There’s the question of truth itself.

 

More fundamentally for me, Freedom of Speech allows and encourages the acquisition and dissemination of truth, and this comes to us from our Bible tradition.  It was the advent of the printing press, and more particularly the ability to print multiple copies of the Bible that was so liberating for Europeans.  It was empowering to have access to the same Bible the clergy had controlled for centuries both in terms of limiting copies and restricting interpretation.

 

In light of this background and tradition, how is speech considered to be free today?  It seems that it often has more to do with the exercise of power or force, than any love for the truth.  Do we want to know the truth, or do we just want powerful communications?

 

Following the Roman tradition of “acclamatio,” speech (which includes writing and other forms of communication) has actually become more and more inhibited when it comes to the discovery and dissemination of reliable and useful information.  This seems odd in light of the “liberating” decisions the courts have made since the 60’s relative to speech.  Expression in the forms of bra burning, flag burning, hate America and traditional values speech, pornography, etc. have all been found permissible under the First Amendment.  Logically this should have lead to anybody saying anything or expressing anything without inhibition.  However the spirit of liberality has moved toward the libertine, and what used to be considered wise and temperate and therefore, spoken of and praised openly, is now considered dangerously old-fashioned, overly restrictive, and therefore either not acceptable or not allowed.

 

Self-assured Libertines are so convinced that freedom means doing and saying anything they please, and that any restraint on their self-indulgences violates their rights, that they boldly shout down or smear advocates of any alternate view, written or spoken.  Thus in the name of freedom, freedom gets curtailed!

 

If just and reasonable people are not willing to speak, they inevitably will be eclipsed by those who are.  However, if just and reasonable people are willing to speak and they are being intimidated and silenced by political elites, biased media, or by noisy, rude, disruptive and even violent elements in our streets and public forums, then we are not witnessing free expression, we are witnessing repression of expression; and a desire to know the truth has nothing to do with it.

 

As a nation, and even a Western Civilization, we are faced with many complex problems and challenges.  We need to be able to discuss issues openly and honestly without fear of punishment, reprisal or even social pressure.  Policies and practices may be allowed or prohibited by a clear majority, but complete liberty should be accorded expression and those who express.   The most effective way of controlling offensive, ugly and untrue expression is by not patronizing it.  We don’t support it with our time, our money, or any other means.  That’s how to stop it without curtailing freedom.  Of course this implies a public that’s knowledgeable, thoughtful and grounded in sound moral principles.

 

We aren’t going to be able to solve anything if we can’t get at the truth.  This not only affects our public meetings, but also our courts.  People should be able to testify in court with no fear whatsoever about reprisals from contesting parties.  Any form of force used to influence or coerce court witnesses, processes or decisions should be met with legitimate counterforce and firmly put down.  “Impartiality” implies a devotion to truth without regard to the status of individuals.

 

Journalism is another major area of concern.  News outlets should be able to publish any opinion and report anything that isn’t libelous or slanderous.  A person should be able to submit an opinion to a newspaper, or express it over the air, and the only negative effect should be that of opposing opinions.  No death threats, no harassing phone calls, no fearsome demonstrations, no character assassinations, no ruined careers or any other form of coercion.  Why?  Because we are supposedly just looking for the truth and therefore are open to all sincere opinions without going to war over them.

 

For big media, I fear, devotion to truth has taken a backseat to many other considerations, significantly money and power.  Advertising dollars have always tempted Journalists.  Both print and electronic news organizations are businesses after all, and subscription dollars don’t begin to cover their costs.  It’s advertising dollars that make Journalists go soft on stories about their advertisers, or even positions on issues their advertisers might not appreciate.

 

Secondly, powerful people, particularly in government are affecting media objectivity more and more.  In light of the First Amendment, our government officials should be the last people on earth to try and censure media expression.  Government leaders and politicians certainly should be able to express their views, and the media certainly should report what they say accurately, but for our government to threaten media outlets and personalities with prosecutions (including harassments such as unwarranted IRS audits) or gagging for what has been expressed is completely inconsistent with the Constitution.

 

On the other hand, Journalists have lusted for power beyond that which is reasonably given the Press.  Instead of just being the “watch dog,” some media people are bent on being “big dogs.”  They not only want to report the news, they want to be the news.  They not only want to report public policy, they want to make public policy; thus journalistic objectivity gets compromised by political ambition and personal bias.

 

This has become no less a problem in Academia.  Too many college professors today, especially in the “soft sciences” use their classrooms as political forums rather than places devoted to facts and the truths such facts reveal.  The same could be said of churches that focus more on popular influence or their financial “bottom line” than that of right and wrong.  And everybody could be more humble about what and how much we really know! 

 

So what began as my brief commentary on freedom of speech really touches on the broader issue of decadence in society.  A society becomes decadent that no longer cares about the truth.  Such a society becomes dishonest because too many of its members have become dishonest. 

 

Dishonesty makes life more complicated.  Take, for example, the game of telling someone to arrive five minutes before they really need to for an appointment, and then he/she starts coming ten minutes later, so you tell him/her to come 15 minutes earlier.  The game continues until both parties are so far from reality they lose track of the original time, or even the reason for the appointment.

 

There are dozens of other and more serious examples.  Read, for example, Lying, Moral Choice in Public and Private Life, by Sissela Bok (New York; Vintage Books/Random House;1979), or Lynne V. Cheney’s book, Telling The Truth (New York; Simon & Schuster; 1995).

 

We have to be in touch with reality in order to deal effectively with it.  This, of course, bates the question: “what is reality,” reminding us of the question Pilot put to Christ: “What is truth?”  (John 18:38)

 

In the following essays I hope to shed true light on a variety of topics, striving to support my opinions with common sense arguments and useful citations.  I ask you, my readers, to help fill in the many thin spots.  But even with our best efforts, I believe ultimate truth is beyond the capacity of man left to himself.   I ask you to join me in this assumption as I anchor many of my ideas in the scriptures.

 

Why scriptures?  With the explosion of knowledge and information today, surely we are “outgrowing” the wisdom of the ages, distilled in what we call scripture, right?  Wrong.  The explosion of knowledge and information has brought many advantages and benefits, but has also brought a blurring of the lines defining good and evil.  More and more we travel in a bewildering fog of information with its conflicting and contradicting ideas and pronouncements.  In my opinion, there aren’t enough people on the planet with enough combined time and brainpower to sort through it all and come up with reliable answers. 

 

The societal problems we face are not new, but they are on a scale never before seen.   They don’t allow us the luxury of exploring every intellectual and fanciful labyrinth before world events coalesce, and leave us living with the results.  I feel we are faced with an urgent dilemma.  When it comes to truth we must hold to the principles found in the Bible and other supporting works, or we go it alone.  Either way, the consequences are just around the corner. 

 

–Doug Taylor

       

II. Iraq Again

Opinions II

Iraq Again

 

How quickly we forget!   Or more to the point, how quickly we selectively remember!

 

As we witnessed the relentless barrage of criticism against the George Bush Administration and the ”War on Terror,” I wonder if critics would be so brave if they were living under and criticizing the Saddam Hussein “Administration,” or maybe the Ahmadinejad “Administration” of Iran, how about the Assad “Administration” of Syria, or the al-Bachir “Administration” of Sudan?

 

Lets start with Bush’s ‘unpardonable lack of planning’ for the period following our invasion, and the ‘lack of accurate information before’ provided by the CIA. 

 

Reality on the Ground

How would you have liked being a CIA agent in Iraq during Saddam’s rule?  Check a few websites (maybe Amnesty International) for reports of conditions in Iraq during that period.  Anyone even remotely suspected of opposing or questioning the regime was arrested and imprisoned without judicial process, and often tortured and killed.  Oh sure the CIA should have had agents on the ground letting us know exactly what was going on.  Would you want to be one of those agents?  Or was it more expedient to get what information we could second-hand, and through satellite and electronic surveillance methods?

 

The Bush Administration had substantial information.  One thing was clear, the Saddam regime had been toying with UN inspectors since the end of the Gulf war in 1991 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm).  That’s more than 10 years of contempt for US and international concerns over Iraq’s suspected WMDs; not to mention an assassination attempt on Bush, Sr’s life which had Iraq connections.  We now know that part of the reason Iraq refused to come clean on the issue was to keep Iran and other Middle East countries fearful of Iraqi military might.  But also there is evidence Iraq’s WMDs were secretly transported to Syria just prior to our invasion.

 

Of course the mainstream media went out of its way to broadcast WMD concerns before we went in, but almost immediately after we got there, began broadcasting everything that was, or construed to be, wrong with the operation. 

 

Then there were those who say that if Bush was so tough ‘why didn’t he take-on Iran or North Korea?’  In my mind Iraq was the logical choice for getting a foothold of freedom in the Middle East.  Iraq’s military was relatively weak, and it didn’t have powerful allies that might join the fight, such as could be the case with North Korea and Mainland China, or Iran and Russia.  Also, as bad as the Hussein government was, it was at least secular.  Therefore it was reasonable to assume the Iraqi population would be less inclined to Islamic extremism.  If we could establish a stable democratic and secular government in Iraq, a trend toward democracy and peace might spread throughout the region.

 

The Bush administration recognized, as any rational person would, that nobody enjoys life in a police state (except maybe the police), with its constant threat of arrest, torture and death (and we’re talking brutal, deadly, atrocious torture, not the Abu Ghraib-type the popular media wants to label torture); living in a society where you don’t know if you can trust family members, let alone friends, neighbors or strangers.  The Bush Administration gambled logically and humanely, based on available information, that if Saddam and his political machine were overthrown the people would rejoice, rise-up and establish representative government right away with minimal additional US assistance.

 

Many people did rejoice openly, and I believe many more did privately, but the Bush Administration and most of us, underestimated the impact decades of severe repression and religious indoctrination can have on a people. 

 

Moderate-thinking Iraqi people were lectured, intimidated and beaten into a state of what many would expect to be incurable fear, insecurity and submission.  Yet they showed amazing courage in voting and participating in representative processes even with terror staring them in the face.  This is particularly impressive with our record of pulling the plug on South Viet Nam in 1975!  (see http:www.foreignaffairs.org/2005ll01essay84604-p0/melvin-r-laird/iraq-learning-the-lessons-of-vietnam.html)

 

Also not anticipated was the massive insurgencies coming from Iran and Syria, not only aimed at countering U.S. military efforts but also intimidating, torturing and killing the Iraqi people themselves, thus keeping them from realizing the blessings of democracy and freedom.

 

If we pull out of Iraq prematurely (as we did in Viet Nam) and leave the people at the mercy of whatever tyrannical regime ends up in charge, we clearly would have been better off not going in there in the first place, and we can forget about going into another country regardless of the nobility of our intentions or rhetoric.  Our credibility as ‘good neighbors,’ as defenders and proponents of human rights and freedom will likely never recover.

 

Are the critics of the war actually suggesting life was better under Saddam than it could have been thanks to our intervention?  Can they actually believe that people enjoy living in doubt for their economic and cultural futures, uncertain about the very survival of their persons, homes, neighborhoods and communities?  Or are they taking the conservative position that what goes on in other countries is none of our business?

 

What makes them think we have a moral obligation to respect the “sovereign” rights of a nation who’s government was high jacked by the ruthless and the lawless?  It’s like watching your neighbor’s home being invaded by criminals and gangsters, and then turning a blind eye, saying what goes on in the other house is nobody else’s business!

 

The critics who are so concerned about “human rights” in the United States or any other truly free country, don’t seem to care at all about the brutal abuse of those rights under corrupt and totalitarian regimes.  The same ones who can’t abide the ‘meddling, overbearing’ tenets of our Judeo-Christian traditionalists, seem limitlessly tolerant of an Islamic fundamentalism that imposes itself on every aspect of people’s lives, utterly kicking choice for women and other elements of society to the curb.

 

Brave New World, or Same Old Bully Boys?

Setting ideologies aside, could all this be as simple as the sociology of the bully?  Common criminals and bullies like to package their misdeeds in “political cause” terminology, thus giving them the appearance of respectability and legitimacy.  Unfortunately, our media tend to ape these terms, thus exacerbating the problem. 

 

The bully intimidates individuals in various predictable ways.  He’s bigger, he’s tougher, he’s louder and more aggressive.  Whatever he is, he’s most effective when he’s selective.  And for some reason we’re taught to deal with bullies one-on-one.  It’s supposed to be some kind of a characteristic of American rugged individualism that if we can’t deal with a bully one-on-one we deserve what we get.  That’s perfect for the bully.  He can pick off his victims one at a time, and it never seems to occur to the victims to get together and neutralize their common enemy because somehow that wouldn’t be ‘brave’ or ‘playing by the rules.’

 

It is this very sociology that gives dictators and tyrants their rise to power!  It may have something to do with the “code” of rugged individualism, but more fundamentally, it grows from the fact that most people are not naturally aggressive or violent.  Most people want to live and let live, want to enjoy peace, privacy, and opportunities to pursue interests other than combat, and endlessly playing ‘king of the hill’ games.

 

The violent, aggressive, and reckless see peaceful and cooperative people as weak, and therefore opportune for exploitation.  In reality, bullies may be as hard hearted, but they aren’t as tough as they appear to be; but the situation tends to snowball and get out of control.  Rather than people getting together and putting a stop to the bully, they avoid him and hope he’ll either go away or pick on someone else.  This only encourages him to become more dangerous.  He surrounds himself with unthinking people who see him as a ‘winner,’ and so ‘hitch their wagon’ to his star.  He starts to extort his victims and shares his spoils with his friends.

 

This becomes a comfortable and advantageous way of life for the bully and his friends, and, of course, an uncomfortable and disadvantageous way of life for their victims.  The victims are still in a clear majority, but they become less and less potent, because the bully and his friends isolate individuals and make examples of them, they take away weapons or any other means of resistance, they don’t allow their ‘subjects’ to speak out or assemble and get organized.  The victims eventually become enslaved.

 

As it is with neighborhood or school bullies so it is with national dictators and tyrants.  Once a regime is established with functionaries and cronies in place, once a police state is organized and working, the people are almost helpless to put a stop to it.  They may somehow instigate a bloody revolution, but history has shown the masses tending to tolerate a despotic state’s “status quo” for hundreds of years!

 

The only other hope for oppressed peoples is for a good neighbor, or good neighbors to intervene, overthrow the tyrannical regime and give the people a chance to regain power and control of their lives and government.  What’s wrong with that?  If you were enslaved by a Stalin or a Hitler or a Hussein, would you not appreciate concerned neighbors coming to your rescue, and giving you a chance to reclaim a decent life?

 

And this becomes a win-win situation, because the people who once participated in forced marches, demonstrations and military conscription against us, now, enjoying safety and peace with economic stability and opportunity, become congenial neighbors, friends and trading partners.

 

Let us not kid ourselves.  We want to believe the United States is a place where tyranny cannot take hold.  Any first-year Psychology student can tell us of megalomaniac personalities waiting in the wings of any society, waiting for an opportunity to arrogate power to themselves, waiting to build their machines of intimidation and domination.  And the problem is complicated by existential philosophies, growing in popularity today, which conveniently rationalize and justify self-indulgent and antisocial attitudes.  Any Psychology student can tell us of cold, cruel, psychopathic personalities in every society who would gladly serve as cronies and functionaries for the megalomaniacs, would happily man their rape, torture and killing chambers.

 

The critics want to make this all about ‘Big Oil’ and ‘non-existent’ Weapons of Mass Destruction.’  What about saving people from oppression and repression?  The critics want to divert the public’s attention from the degradations, criminalities and atrocities of Saddam’s regime and focus instead on any weakness or misjudgment of the Bush Administration and our military.

 

War, and Its Reflections

Admittedly the Bush Administration made a miscalculation in terms of ‘rescuing’ a centuries-old culture that has seemed less than willing to be rescued.  That, coupled with a fermenting resentment for the West that’s been building in a more focused way since World War II, means we truly underestimated what we were getting ourselves into in 2003.  However, the undertaking is probably one of the most non-destructive and humane military operations the world has ever known.

 

Look at the trench warfare of World War I, the bombing campaigns of World War II.  Recently I watched a documentary about weapons of war stating that in one day in France during WWI, the British sustained 57,000 casualties charging German machine gun positions.  In WWII, whole cities were incinerated in Japan and Germany.  It wasn’t until they were facing total obliteration that surrender was finally secured.

 

In contrast we went into Iraq using advanced tactics and smart weaponry, thus minimizing collateral damage.  Infrastructure in Iraq continued to function, and began to improve with our help even as the war continued.  We put our servicemen in harms way, almost making them sitting targets, and we went after bad guys one-by-one as we were able to identify them, giving others the benefit of the doubt and getting our soldiers killed in the process.

 

In WWII it was the overwhelming use of force (more accurately, counterforce), coupled with the “moral force” of democratic ideals, and the relatively humane treatment of our vanquished foes, that turned the world away from an abyss of on-going terror and dictatorship: another, perhaps longer, “dark age.”  Not only was there a need to put our enemies on the defensive, but we had to wipe out enough of their military and political machines (which included the people who ran them), and be sufficiently resolute in our occupations to convince conquered populations that we represented the safe and sane wave of the future.

 

Log onto any of several ‘war fatality’ sites on the web and get a grasp of the death tolls of the last world wars.  Here’s what I got from a couple of sites:  World War I (1914-1918):  Russia: 1,700,000; France: 1,357,800; British Empire: 908,000; USA: 126,000; Germany: 1,722,700; Austria-Hungary: 1,200,000 (civilians generally weren’t targeted, or at least their fatalities were less acknowledged, in WWI). 

 

Now look at World War II (@1937-1945), military/civilian: Germany: 3,500,000/2,000,000; Japan: 1,750,000/350,000; Romania: 500,000/400,000; China: 1,300,000/9,000,000; Poland: 200,000/2,500,000; United Kingdom: 400,000/60,000; France: 250,000/270,000; USSR: 9,000,000/19,000,000; Yugoslavia: 320,000/1,300,000; USA: 300,000/none.

 

What a price was paid!  The fatality rates we’ve experienced in the Middle East, so far pale in comparison, though I don’t take them lightly.  There’s a ‘ticking bomb’ in the Middle East that could produce more war deaths than the world has ever known!

 

This, of course, motivates us to find means other than war for resolving international conflicts.  How right liberals are in thinking love, understanding, mutual respect and toleration are well worth trying; but how wrong many of them are in assuming there’s no such thing as wickedness or evil in the world, and if there is, it’s only because those who are “better off” haven’t showed enough love, tolerance, etc!  They seem to think if we can just be super-tolerant and stop judging others by our standards, all wrong naturally will disappear.

 

I’m persuaded somewhat by those who argue World War II, at least, could have been avoided (see Patrick J. Buchanan, Chirchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War,” New York, Crown Publishers, 2008), but once the Axis powers became an iminent threat, who can seriously dispute that the world is better off as a result of who won and who lost the war? 

 

Would anyone seriously defend an outcome that would have left the Axis powers in charge?  Some in the Middle East would.  Ironically, Iraqi leaders during World War II admired the Nazi party, sought to be its ally, and the Bath party patterned itself after the Nazis.  But what would have happened to us (the West) if things hadn’t turned out the way they did?  What would have happened to the world?  We need only look at conditions under Saddam, or any number of other dictators, for examples.

 

And consider the Western media’s posture during the world war periods: relatively little was critical of our military and government leaders.  We were consistently portrayed as the ‘good guys,’ and those who opposed the Allies, the ‘bad.’ What has changed?  Was the government then as bad as the mainstream media wants to insist the Bush Administration was, and our press then was duped?  Was the government better and the press unbiased?  Or is the decency of our elected leaders about what it was then, and today’s media has become seditious?  You decide, but consider the point that we quickly developed a powerful military machine that projected winning power, and our national unity, as reflected in the media, had much to do with it.

 

Since World War II (all my life) Western media have lamented the terrible fate of the Jews and other minorities in Germany, also the many victims of Japanese aggression, showing us over and over in print and film assorted concentration camp and atrocity documentaries.  They and we ask how it could have happened.  We insist if anything like that happened again, we wouldn’t sit around pretending it wasn’t going on as the democratic nations of that time apparently did.

 

Well, Saddam Hussein’s regime was treating minorities, or those outside of Bath power, in the same way the Nazis were treating the Jews, and the Japanese were treating the Chinese.  The Bush Administration decided to do something about it.  Why are those who lamented the treatment of WWII victims not praising Bush’s intervention in Iraq?  Why has it become fashionable in American and other liberal circles around the world to side with terrorists and dictators and oppose an American foreign policy that seeks to liberate truly oppressed peoples?

 

I never thought I’d see the day, but now we are actually hearing, seeing and reading people of position and influence who suggest the “holocaust” either never really happened, or it needs to be ‘put in perspective.’  The perspective referred to is the suggestion that the Jews deserved in some way what they got, or the holocaust needs to be appreciated in light of “atrocities” committed by the Allies.

 

I’m sure Jews weren’t perfect, and the Allies didn’t do everything right all the time, but on the whole, there’s little comparison when it comes to the good and evil that characterized the contending parties of World War II, or at least the United States and Britian vs the Axis (my opinion).

 

Would our liberal critics want to live in Iraq, in Iran, in Cuba, in North Korea, in Venezuela, in China, in Somalia, in Syria, in the slums of underdeveloped cities, the starving and destitute villages of failed states in Africa or any other country around the world dominated by autocratic rule, secret police, terror, or simply ineptitude, ignorance and dysfunction?  ‘That’s beside the point,’ they say, ‘These examples don’t make the actions of “Imperial America” any less detestable.’

 

Really?  Why don’t these people move to, live with and rail against the leaders of these autocratic or failed states and see how much tolerance they enjoy?  To be sure, we have problems in this country that need fixing, but they aren’t as simple as the critics of the Bush Administration try to make them appear.

 

Big Oil

Incidentally, why shouldn’t the Iraq war be about ‘Big Oil?’  Modern nations run on oil.  I well remember sitting in gas lines during the modest energy crisis we experienced in the early 70s.  We’ve had well over 30 years to deal with the problem.  It’s truly unfortunate that we’ve put off oil independence, and/or development of alternatives.  Foreign oil is now being used by our enemies as a tool of extortion: surprise, surprise; but until we come up with energy alternatives, we have no choice but to concern ourselves with oil if we want to maintain a strong position in the world, not to mention our way of life.

 

How could we have believed our money would buy the friendship of nations who’s political and religious leaders have been denouncing us for decades?  How could we have believed these nations were so naive as to not recognize the political and social power they had at their fingertips in the form of oil and the money it generated?

 

Not only is the West pouring ‘a billion oil dollars a day’ into the treasuries of Middle Eastern and other countries that are hostile to us, but also we have arrogantly and recklessly sold weapons to and shared technology with them—some of the very weapons and technologies that are being used against our soldiers today!

 

It’s more than reasonable to look upon our intervention in Iraq as liberation from a cruel and ruthless dictatorship, and we should be entitled to use some of Iraq’s oil revenues to defray the expenses we’ve incurred.  Instead we have left Iraq’s oil alone and used our own money and spent our own lives helping the beleaguered nation get on its feet.  And, though we still insist we are the world’s “richest nation” the money we’ve spent is money we don’t have.  We are deeply in debt.

 

We sent a small, well-trained army (because we can no longer afford a large one) overseas to act as policemen in the midst of our sworn enemies.  Traditionally, armies exist to ‘kill people and break things,’ in other words use sufficient force to neutralize and subdue an enemy.  Today, we seem to think we ‘do the dog a favor by chopping off its tail an inch at a time!’  As it is, for every terrorist we neutralize, the cultures of hate produce ten more.  Of course we should avoid collateral death and damage whenever possible, but military action needs to be on a large enough scale, and potent enough, to have a decisive impact, followed by a resolute, but humane occupation that will help establish peace and stability.

 

As a teen I worked with an interesting and somewhat eccentric locksmith who had moved to America from Holland after World War II.  He had been conscripted into the German Army, but he told me as the Allies advanced upon his city, he took off his German uniform and “disappeared.”  He said the sounds of the Allied bombs and artillery were music to his ears.  Though he might have been killed by Allied weapons, he knew he was witnessing better days for Holland.

 

And Then There’s the Home Front

Look at the cost of ‘homeland security,’ an institution that wasn’t even imagined a few years ago!  We’ve created a financial hemorrhage that can bleed us dry; whole new bureaucracies with thousands of new “guards.”  We play cat-and-mouse, we build new walls and fences with sophisticated surveillance equipment, all of which costs boatloads of money.  If aliens simply knew they would either be punished or effectively deprived of the privileges and advantages they seek, they would stop trespassing.

 

But I raise a question that no one seems to be asking: Is it too much to expect people to solve problems in their own country?  Do they not have intelligence?  Do they not have natural resources?  Can they not eliminate corruption and inefficiency in their own governments and businesses?  Why is their only solution, coming to the West or the USA?  More incredibly, why are all their problems now America’s fault?  We’ve cared more for the welfare of other countries and given more than any nation in the history of the world, and yet, instead of recipients appreciating and seeing it as an opportunity for them to help themselves, they resent us all the more and blame us for whatever ails them.

 

I know this may sound like a contradiction of my defense of our intervention in Iraq, but it isn’t.  The idea of going into Iraq was to eliminate the bad guys and let the decent, right-thinking majority get on their feet, and then start taking care of themselves.  This is what’s in everyone’s best interest. The same principle should hold true for these waves of people wanting to immigrate.

 

It’s not that we don’t care, it’s that we must care in the right way.  It’s not that we want to be harsh or cruel, it’s that we can’t afford to go on forever permitting those who want to kill us, or who want to overrun us and transform our culture, to play games until we are economically bankrupt, politically impotent and culturally neutralized. 

 

Unfortunately, there is evidence that many of those flooding across our borders are here only for jobs (while we’re busy exporting jobs), or benefits, without an understanding of or support for the underlying principles that made these good things possible.  Indeed, the same problem exists with many born and raised here!  This ignorance will destroy us.

 

If the United States comes to be just like the countries the “illegals” are fleeing from, there would be no point in their coming.  It’s not as though we don’t need friends.  If those immigrating to the United States are true friends of the Constitution, I welcome them.  But the better solution would be for other countries to adopt our Constitutional way of life so they can enjoy peace and prosperity where they are! 

 

Even ten years ago who would have thought we’d be facing so many challenges to our way of life, but these apparitions are staring us in the face and we have important life-or-death decisions to make.  Again, how is it that so many in this country fail to appreciate the danger we are in, only criticizing and apparently hoping to overthrow the very institutions that protect their right to criticize and complain?  I can only conclude we are spoiled and we’re media mesmerized.  We are too out of touch with the reality that there is evil and it must be resisted with more than video games.

 

Fun At All Costs

Although the wolf is knocking at our door, and has been for some time, too many are having too much of a party to be sobered by the broader situation.  We want our comforts and benefits, our stores full of groceries and expensive clothes and toys, without thought for where they came from or how they got here.  We want our glamorous careers, our titles and successes, our oversized homes and overpriced cars, our plastic surgeries, our sex, our perversions, our drugs, our thrills and entertainments, our sensational stories and scandals, our high-stakes competitions and hardball politics. 

 

We think we can sit in our spectator seats, like the ancient Romans in their theaters and watch the blood and horror of the arena, assuming it can’t touch us.  Though we are mostly spectators, we like to play games among ourselves that are risky enough to be exciting and scary, but just safe enough to avoid injury.  This appetite for excitement, this toying with violence and death, especially with the graphic media depictions, has desensitized us to real danger.  We say soldiers are paid to fight, so let them deal with the bad guys while we watch it on TV, and Monday-quarterback.

 

Too many of us think we’re too smart, sophisticated or even morally superior, to involve ourselves in such dirty work.  And from this position, it’s a handy rationalization to deplore all war, and insist all parties to war are equally guilty; that those who are foolish or immoral enough to participate in it deserve what they get.  But once we recognize evil exists and must be opposed, we have to concede the “party” indeed is over.

 

Our national behavior is much like that of an alcoholic or drug addict.  Look at studies of rats or monkeys who will push a button or pull a lever until they drop from exhaustion, losing all interest in food or water or sex or life, living only for the pleasure the drug or implanted electrode stimulates.  Are we monkeys or rats, or do we have the human intelligence to see that pleasure and excitement are relative?  They are experienced in a healthy way only with appropriate restraint.

 

We can condition ourselves to get as much of a “buzz” from watching a sunset as from skydiving, or bungee jumping, ultimate fighting or inordinate drug and alcohol use.  And keeping ourselves at the “sunset level” allows us the time, energy and serenity to focus on deeper things; addressing real challenges and discovering genuine opportunities for making life richer, and more abundant.

 

I can remember how the first James Bond movies were so seductive in their depictions of a life filled with extreme danger, pleasure and excitement.  Today those films seem tame.  Our addiction to physical and mental stimulation has distracted us from the sober and serious issues of life, has blinded us to enemies within and without who are intent on our utter destruction.  We have lost our seriousness.  We are no longer deliberate.  We are too much men and women of action and not enough men and women of thought.

 

We tend to see life as a game.  The only point is to win today, regardless of what tomorrow brings.  Take for another example our current prisoner of war situation.  Bush opponents insisted the administration was not giving prisoners due process despite their deferential treatment, and the fact that they were sworn to kill us, were ever more belligerent and abusive of their guards, and all things Western.

 

It would seem many lawyers can’t wait for the ‘mother load of civil actions,’ namely turning these prisoners over to our civilian courts.  We the people just don’t  realize this would create a political platform for endless terrorist propagandizing, and the multi-million-dollar cost would come out of our pockets.  And for what: to legitimize and protect those who would happily slit our throats! 

 

The Bush Administration undoubtedly understood this, but couldn’t seem to articulate an effective justification for the confinement of the “detainees.”  Even if it did, the mainstream media would have distorted the Administration’s position, making the terrorists the innocent victims and Bush the terrible one.  Our military is thus tempted by the expedience of simply killing our enemies in the field rather than taking them prisoner–certainly not the best alternative.

 

What’s different today from World War days is that we were then united in a moral conviction of the rightness of our cause, which justified many actions and policies that would be questioned on every side today.  Paradoxically, being ‘men of action,’ has created a culture of inaction when it comes to things that really matter!  Because we tend to be intellectually “rushed,” (shallow) and brittle in our opinions, we are less capable of understanding at a depth that leads to common understanding, less capable of getting at facts which would empower us. We are less capable of humility, which subordinates ego to truth, and so we fixate on ‘who’s right,’ rather than ‘what’s right.’

 

The more we are ruled by special interests (usually selfish interests), the more paralyzed our body politic becomes, and the less we are able to come up with effective and beneficial laws, policies and programs.

 

Who Says the Party’s Over?

In my experience, the “party” started in the 60’s.  The 50’s had been a time of peace and prosperity for most Americans (African Americans probably see it differently, but some aspects were better for them as well).  We had been victorious in World War II, which opened vast markets for a United States that was at the peak of its industrial, manufacturing, agricultural, and business powers.  We had new-found leisure time and disposable income.  The middle class was well-off and huge.  We remained predominantly traditional and conservative through the 50’s, but with all that time on our hands (not to mention distance from tyranny), we began to ask existential questions:  ‘What was the meaning of life?’  ‘Why should we care about things like liberty, democracy, autocracy, civic duty, patriotism, war and peace, etc?’  More to the point: ‘With all this time and disposable income, why don’t we have a party?’

 

Of course there was still a mainstream of tradition running through our national psyche.  Communism and Fascism were still deplored and seen as world threats, and we still wanted to make the world “safe for democracy.”  We fought the Korean War, with little dissent, but one could see and feel a different spirit in its coverage in the news, and on the “silver screen.”  The Bridge on the River Kwai, with William Holden , would be a good example.

 

It was in the 60’s that credit was loosened and credit cards were widely distributed.  People stopped conserving, stopped saving money and started spending like there was no tomorrow.  So did the government.  A lot of other things loosened up as well.

 

The cute, innocent and sometimes truly beautiful songs and ballads of the 50’s gave way to Elvis Presley and those who imitated him.  I well remember the shock and disgust with which traditional America responded.  Then there were the “Beat-Nicks” who spawned a generation of value-questioning literature, folk art and music, and then came the Hippies.  Actually these were manifestations of a significant shift in popular sentiment which would lead to institutional change.  A false assumption was that all change was good.

 

The ugly side of this new culture became much more evident with the development of the Viet Nam conflict.  Young people across the nation openly and violently protested the war and many refused to go.  This they saw as brave and courageous, and many, perhaps most of them still see it that way.  In spite of the fact that the threat of Communism was real, in spite of the fact that we were trying to save oppressed peoples, the protesters saw the US Government and Big Business (“The Establishment”) as the enemy.

 

The mainstream media became more cynical as well.  Though journalists had always been personally aggressive, their political or social position historically was seen as necessarily passive or neutral.   They saw themselves as observers only, doing a professional job of accurately covering all relevant angles of a story.  Now they proclaimed themselves, “Investigative Journalists,” which placed them a step beyond even the “Muckrakers” of bygone years. 

 

The Muckrakers sought to expose evil as they saw it, with admitted bias.  Investigative Journalists of the 60’s saw life as a power game.  Journalist were now less concerned about getting the facts out and letting the masses find in them the truth, and more concerned with being themselves the proponents of truth.  Paradoxically, many were operating from the revolutionary perspective that there is not truth, all things being relative.  They became more concerned with proving they were as sophisticated, powerful and “professional” as government or big business.  They were out to show they could turn elections, make or unmake Presidents, and win or lose wars. 

 

There was a dollar side to this as well.  The shocking, the sensational and the dangerous got readers and viewers; and readers and viewers meant advertising revenues.  It certainly was shocking to see Dan Rather talk back to President Nixon in a news conference, shocking and sensational to see Hippies smoking pot and exposing breasts in public as an expression of their liberated lifestyle; and violence on our streets and around the world kept our eyes glued to our print publications and TV sets.

 

Going to war now became cowardly, and staying home became brave!  My how brave it was for people to defy the most liberal, indulgent and tolerant government or “establishment” this planet has ever known.  Our protesters and anti-establishment journalists could globe-trot around the world without fear, being seen as avant-garde in the democratic world and ‘almost comrades’ in the Communist world.

 

Our Communist adversaries took every advantage this public relations bonanza afforded. In spite of their ruthless and brutal tactics around the world, they had always justified themselves as resistors of United States and European “Imperialism.”  Now they had the US press in their corner amplifying and emotionalizing their message!

 

Then too, there was a constant drum-beat of the labor unions throughout this period.  Strikes upon strikes were in the news.  This isn’t to suggest labor shouldn’t have its say, or fair compensation, but rather to cite yet another example of the excessive, rebellious and anti-establishment mood that prevailed, and reminding us of a significant reason millions of American jobs have left our borders.

 

The relatively quaint and introspective Hippy culture which dramatized the plight of the ‘meek and downtrodden,’ shared the national stage with hard rock music, which became a more radical and strident expression of protest, further widening the “generation gap.”  Each in their own way accused “the establishment” of exploiting and mistreating the masses.  Of course Rock and Roll was further glamorized with the advent of the Beatles which became something of a bridge between folk music and rock. They produced many genuinely original and musical pieces, yet reinforced the rebel mindset.  They also tended to popularize and normalize the use of illegal drugs.

 

Many traditional music and screen stars like Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Fred Astaire,  Bob Hope, Rosemary Clooney, Red Skelton, Tony Bennett, Pat Boone, Judy Garland, Jack Benny, Perry Como, Bette Davis, Connie Francis, Steve Allen, along with groups like Peter, Paul and Mary, The Kingston Trio and the Lettermen, went into semi-retirement.  Even Elvis and Marylin Monroe lost their luster in the glare of a new generation of sexier, harder-hitting, more shocking and risk-taking performers.

 

From Party to Orgy

Hot on the heels of this “cultural revolution” came the “sexual revolution,” and so the party became an orgy.  Now there was almost complete abandonment of tradition in many social circles, with the proliferation of “progressive” organizations representing numberless “special interests,” all of them having been oppressed by “the man” in one way or another.  Of course the sexual repression that had supposedly gone on for decades or centuries was a major point of protest.

 

The sexual revolution certainly had its attractions.  Braless women everywhere in miniskirts, and men gleefully insisting that sharing bed partners had no more significance or consequence than sharing books or cups of sugar.  Playboy magazine, moved from the backwaters to the mainstream, quickly followed by ‘less discrete’ publications that soon made Playboy look tame.  Many movie houses became “X-Rated” and they got picketed by protesters and defended by clever ‘First Amendment attorneys.’  All was made the more seductive with the advent of birth control pills, and the confidence people had in the power of antibiotics to cure any sexually transmitted disease.

 

STDs were seen as an inconvenience or a discomfort, but certainly not life-threatening or lifestyle altering.  In fact sexual indulgence and experimentation was seen as life-enhancing.  This confidence, of course, wasn’t entirely well-founded.  Antibiotics weren’t the panacea we thought they were; but far more insidious, a truly lethal virus was busily infecting millions throughout the world during the 70s, and would not begin to manifest itself as a disease until 1981.  I refer, of course, to HIV/AIDS.

 

So the party was over, or should have been.  In fact the party’s been over for years in many more ways than the “sexual revolution.”  The post-world-war-II economic boom we enjoyed began to erode at just the time we started our slide away from the traditional values that made this country great (or was it just a coincidence).  At first the world admired us, then envied us, then resented us, and now hates us.  Our wealth has poured out like a flood, and we are now insanely in debt, yet we go right on with our dissipating binge, buying and selling, and groping toward some realization of “The American Dream” (translation: get rich and get away).  But where are we going?

 

Real Prosperity

I like making a distinction between “prosperity” and “getting rich.”  This occurred to me one day when watching a documentary about a country in South or Central America.  In this country, most of the land was owned and/or controlled by an elite class that had held power for generations.  The documentary focused on an extremely wealthy and powerful ranch owner and his family.  Strikingly, one scene showed a teenage son of the ranch owner going for a horse ride.  He was literally surrounded by five or six guards riding along, the guard’s horses literally contacting the boy’s horse in their anxiety to protect him from being kidnapped.

 

To me this illustrates a condition where people are rich but not actually prosperous.  If you can’t enjoy your riches, what’s the point in having them?  To oversimplify, prosperity is an ideal condition where society is built voluntarily on equity, fairness, and a reasonable sharing of the wealth so that everyone is content with their situations.  Those who work harder have more, those who work less hard have less, but both see their situation as reasonable and just.  There are fewer extremes.  The gap between rich and poor is narrow and not clearly defined.  There is mutual respect, understanding and trust.  People don’t fear for their lives or their property.  In fact they don’t care that much about property because they are more into giving than getting.  Yet, paradoxically, it is this very orientation that produces more wealth.

 

Mutual respect also bears upon freedom.  If everyone is out to rob, steal and destroy each other’s property, invade each other’s space and ignore each other’s rights, how will anyone be “free” to enjoy anything?  All the laws in the world can’t protect neighbors who won’t respect each other.

 

The General Idea

I hope to dwell at greater length on these and other issues in future articles.  I want it understood that my writings do not represent an effort at true scholarship with all the footnotes and bibliographies.  I am a generalist expressing opinions, which I hope will stir, not controversy, but serious consideration from various perspectives.  I especially invite experts in fields touched upon to offer their depth of understanding.  But I will entertain only contributions made in a spirit of problem solving and making our lives truly better.

  

The “power of one” may be great, but we can’t afford to put blind faith in some Superman, or Batman, or James Bond; some brilliant crime fighter or statesman or leader who can do little more than scratch the surface of problems that involve diverse multitudes.  If we the people don’t get educated and motivated to understand and then act responsibly in our own interest and that of the whole, the super hero, the ‘brilliant,’ the ‘beautiful,’ the ‘mover and shaker’ will become more and more a fiction, or an elite.  The masses will get more and more left out, exploited, and finally, oppressed and enslaved.

 

A leader is truly great only to the extent he or she is able to envision, articulate, inspire, motivate and unite the masses in a worthy cause.  In the end, regardless of leaders, it takes sufficient numbers of dedicated people to move a society in any direction, negative or positive.

 

I do believe there is a great and super leader: God, and His Christ—a Savior who indeed has the power to save us, but I also believe He expects us to solve many problems ourselves using the principles He’s given us.  He wants us to grow through our own mental, physical and spiritual effort. Then if we are doing all we can, He will step in and do the rest.

 

I also believe in a latter-day gathering of Israel.  This I am not limiting to the State of Israel, as we know it today.  The gathering I have in mind has more to do with the honest in heart getting in touch and coming together; a gathering which calls from all cultures and nations those who have the ability to recognize light when they see it; in other words, a gathering of common people with common sense.

 

I believe the United States began in the spirit of Israel coming out of Egypt, but I fear we have been so comfortable for so long that we’ve lost the original sense of it.  I hope it can be revived, but if not, I feel there are millions outside the US who have suffered and known first-hand what it means to be denied personal dignity, social stability and economic opportunity.  They are the ones who may need to rise up, not in a spirit of violence and rebellion, but rather enlightened solidarity, to rescue or reestablish an American dream that could be every nation’s dream.

 

I hope to attract and welcome the support of those in high places, those with power and influence, and especially the knowledgeable with supportive facts and information, but I fear many are too comfortable or too fearful of losing their positions to risk “rocking the boat.”  Therefore I see common men and women as the most critical target audience for my essays.  They have always been in the majority, but seldom have realized their power.

 

If I had three lifetimes without having to make a living I might be able to amass all the proofs needed to support my opinions; but if I did, there would still be “proofs” for the opposite side.  Some things come down to common sense and faith.  It is with a grain of that faith that I undertake this work; and I do so because I feel world conditions are becoming critical and the time is short.

 

Primarily I seek to strengthen and gather those who believe in the fundamental principles found in the Bible and complimentary works.  Others could do this better than me.  One doesn’t need to be brilliant to come to the conclusions I’ve reached, just reasonably honest.

 

The common man

Must be uncommonly brave,

Or the common man

Will become a slave!

 

 

Doug Taylor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

III. Focus

 

OPINIONS III

FOCUS

 

 

What we focus on is often like the proverbial straightening of the deck chairs on the Titanic before its encounter with the iceberg.  Putting it another way: What’s the point of redecorating our 80th-floor penthouse, when the building’s foundation is crumbling?

 

We focus allot on institutions and events as we try to put national and international problems into perspective.  We don’t focus as much on human nature, but that’s more fundamental.  Human nature is the spring from which institutions and events flow.

 

Branches or Roots?

To site yet another cliché: for every thousand people hacking away at the branches, only one is hacking at the roots.  Human nature is at the root of societal problems.  It seems obvious enough, but we tend to avoid the subject because when we approach it we find an uncomfortable tension between the spiritual and the secular, between religion and science, between idealism and realism; yes between “good people” and “bad people.”  This can be a real sore point for those who believe there are no good or bad people in the world (other than those who say such exist).  Again, the problem of good and evil who has the right or authority to define such things, come into play.

 

In Western Civilization, for centuries, the church, in concert with the state, defined right and wrong, and, as imperfect as the system was, the result was a relatively stable government legitimized by traditions, legal precedents, established authority and the faith of the general public.  The roots of this establishment weren’t only Christian either.  In my recent reading of ancient Greek plays, I’ve been amazed to see how unapologetically the tragedians and comedians held to what would be termed today, “traditional values.”  Of course, much of what was Greek became Roman, and Roman, European, and European, American.

 

Examples from Britannica, Great Books, Vol 5:

 

    “proud thoughts are not for the worm called man”  p.24 (Aeschylus; The Persians)

 

   “Lady, thou surely hast a woman’s heart But a man’s sense withal”  p. 55 (Aeschylus; Agamemnon)

 

   “Sweetest of all days in a woman’s life, When for her husband she flings wide the gates, And he comes back from service, saved by God”   p. 58 (Aeschylus; Agamemnon)

 

   “For by the law the adulterer shall die”   p. 79 (Aeschylus; Choephoroe)

 

   “To be called mother is no wise to be Parent, but rather nurse of seed new-sown.  The male begets; she’s host to her small guest; Preserves the plant, except it please God blight it”  p.88  Aeschyllus; Eumenides)

 

   “It is not right to adjudge bad men good at random, or good men bad.”  P. 104 (Sophocles; Oedipus the King)

 

   “O marriage rites, ye gave me birth, and when ye had brought me forth, again ye bore children to your child, ye created an incestuous kinship of fathers, brothers, sons—brides, wives, mothers—yea, all the foulest shame that is wrought among men!  –haste ye, for the gods’ love, hide me somewhere beyond the land, or slay me, or cast me into the sea, where ye shall never behold me more!”    p. 112 (Sophocles, Oedipus the King)

 

   “What good man is not his own friend”?  p.116 (Sophocles, Oedipus at Colonus)

 

   “Thou hast come unto a city that observes justice,  and sanctions nothing without law—yet thou hast put her lawful powers aside, thou hast made this rude inrode, thou art taking captives at they pleasure, and snatching prizes by violence,”     p. 122 (Sophocles, Oedipus at Colonus)

 

   “For the gods are slow, though they are sure, in visitation, when men scorn godliness and turn to frenzy.”    p.128 (Sophocles, Oedipus at Colonus)

 

   “Nay, we must remember, first, that we were born women, as who should not strive with men; next, that we are ruled of the stronger, so that we must obey in these things, and in things yet sorer.     p. 131 (Sophocles, Oedipus at Colonus)

 

   “Or dost thou behold the gods honouring the wicked?  It cannot be.”   p.133 (Sophocles, Antigone)

 

   “But verily this, too, is hateful—when one who hath been caught in wickedness then seeks to make the crime a glory.”   p.135 (Sophocles, Antigone)

 

   “While I live, no woman shall rule me.”    p.135 (Sophocles, Antigone)

 

   “Yea, this, my son, should be thy heart’s fixed law—to obey thy father’s will.  ‘Tis for this that men pray to see duitiful children grow up around them in their homes—that such may requite their father’s foe with evil, and honour, as their father doth, his friend.    But he who begets unprofitable children—what shall we say that he hath sown, but troubles for himself, and much triumph for his foes?”    p.136 (Sophocles, Antigone)

 

   “But disobedience is the worst of evils.  This it is that ruins cities; this makes homes desolate; by this, the ranks of allies are broken into headlong rout; but, if the lives whose course is fair, the greater part owes safety to obedience.  Therefore we must support the cause of order, and in no wise suffer a woman to worst us.”     P.137 (Sophocles, Antigone)

 

   “Father, the gods implant reason in men, the highest of all things that we call our own.”  (Ibid)

  

   “…the wisest fall with a shameful fall, when they clothe shameful thoughts in fair words, for lucre’s sake.”      (ibid, p.140)

 

   “…he was clothed with sole dominion in the land; he reigned, the glorious sire of princely children.  And now all hath been lost.  For when a man hath forfeited his pleasures, I count him not as living—I hold him but a breathing corpse.  Heap up riches in thy house, if thou wilt; live in kingly state; yet, if there be no gladness therewith, I would not give the shadow of a vapour for all the rest, compared with joy.”   (Ibid, p.141)

 

   “For I see that we are but phantoms, all we who live, or fleeting shadows….  For a day can humble all human things, and a day can lift them up; but the wise of heart are loved of the gods, and the evil are abhorred.”     p.144 (Sophocles, Ajax)

 

   “Tis on the powerful that envy creeps.  Yet the small without the great can ill be trusted to guard the walls; lowly leagued with great will prosper best, great served by less.  But foolish men cannot be led to learn these truths.”     (ibid)

  

   “As the god gives, so every man laughs or mourns.”     (Ibid, p.146)

 

   “Yet ‘tis the sign of an unworthy nature when a subject deigns not to obey those who are set over him.  Never can the laws have prosperous course in a city where dread hath no place; nor can a camp be ruled discreetly any more, if it lack the guarding force of fear and reverence.  Nay, though a man’s frame have waxed mighty, he should look to fall, perchance, by a light blow.  Whoso hath fear, and shame therewith, be sure that he is safe; but where there is license to insult and act at will, doubt not that such a State, though favouring gales have sped her, some day, at last, sinks into the depths.”       (Ibid, p.152)

 

 

I quote at too great length, yet I only scratch the surface of a 650-page volume.   Please don’t assume I’m endorsing every syllable of such “codes for living,” I’m only recognizing a reality, that values we may think outdated and outmoded today have been seriously adhered to in past great civilizations, and those systems worked rather well.  The classic Greeks were not only focused on the rule of law, but perhaps more importantly, on the ultimate justice of man’s accountability to their gods; hence the utility of faith.

 

Modern day Christians, Jews, and Muslims would take the Greek and other ancients’ pantheistic perspective as not only mythological, but superstitious, and therefore outdated and irrelevant to us “advanced peoples.”  However, we should not underestimate the unifying power of faith in some ultimate purpose or meaning in life, with its implied accountability. 

 

It makes a huge difference when members of a society believe they will have to answer to some higher power for their actions.  The concept can be powerful for good or evil.  If ambitious and deceitful men play upon the fears and superstitions of the ignorant, faith may be a tool of oppression.  But if faith is placed in a true, just and merciful God, much popular good can result.

 

Heterogeniety vs. Homogeniety

There is also the issue of homogeneity vs heterogeneity.  The “progressives” among us sing the praises of diversity, and there can be no doubt that an inclusive society (democracy), by opening the doors of opportunity to all, avoids many social tensions that can otherwise lead from non-productivity at best, to outright rebellion, civil strife, and war or anarchy at worst.  However, too much inclusion can lead to disorientation and disarray when it comes to maintaining a stable cultural or social identity.  We lose national focus when we no longer know ‘who we are’ or ‘why we are,’ trying to be everything to everyone.

 

Consider this evidence that at their cultural heights, the Greeks were openly xenophobic:

 

   “Oh may that be a daughter of Athens! That from her I may inherit freedom of speech.  For if a stranger settle in a city free from aliens, e’en though in name he be a citizen, yet doth he find himself tongue-tied and debarred from open utterance.”    p.288 (Euripides, Ion)

 

   “Never to my city come this boy!  Let him die and leave his young life as it dawns!  For should our city fall on evil days, this bringing in of strangers would supply it with a reason.”   –ibid

 

   “Never may alien, from alien stock, lord it o’er my city, no!  none save noble Erechtheus’ sons!”  –ibid, p. 292

 

If it’s wrong for a nation to be separate and unique, why did God establish the concept of a chosen people?

 

“Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation….”   –Exodus 19:5-6

 

“And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldst keep all his commandments; And to make thee high above all nations which he hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto the Lord thy God, as he hath spoken.”   –Deuteronomy 26:18-19

 

“But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness unto his marvelous light.”  –1 Peter 2:9

 

The Body Politic

When we consider homogeneity vs heterogeneity, I think nature can teach us a lesson.  The Apostle Paul, in I Corinthians 12, uses the analogy of the body as a standard for the early Christian church, a probable precursor to our phrase, “the body politic.”

 

Paul makes the point that the body, in spite of the fact that we think of it as one, is in fact the sum of many specialized parts.  His point is that allowance must be made in the ‘body of Christ’ for individual differences, and he launches into a marvelous exposition of various spiritual gifts as exhibited by individual members, emphasizing how each serve some valuable purpose.  The analogy is apt also for the body politic.

 

However, while we appreciate the uniqueness of individual members, it would be well for us to remember the body’s demand of strict “homeostasis” in order to survive and thrive.  A certain operating temperature must be maintained, there must be sterility, or the absence of invasive and destructive organisms.  There must be exquisite order even at the cellular level, and there must be pervasive coordination between the various parts and systems.  There is also an acute “commitment” to the welfare of the whole.  For example, white blood cells freely sacrifice themselves in attacking invasive organisms.  Ant colonies and beehives provide other interesting examples in Nature of selfless behavior. 

 

If you think about the functions of your body, you will notice a high degree of sympathy between the various specialized entities.  The apostle alludes to this with respect to certain members being more comely than others, yet each important.  So it is with how we look at ourselves.  We may think the head, for example, with its marvelous brain and intellect is the most important part, but what would the head be without the heart and the blood it supplies?   Indeed what would the head be without the arm or the hand or the foot, or the rectum?!  Even when we stub our big toe, the whole body responds to the pain and seeks relief.

 

In spite of astounding specialization among the various body tissues and systems, there is such “cooperation and sacrifice” in behalf of the whole, that we naturally think of the body as a single entity.  Each member of the body functions according to a specific order, each seeks the good of all.  There is no eye wanting to be a hand, no foot resenting what the ear does.  There are no cells going off and doing their own thing.  Or, when there is, we call it disease which obviously may lead to the body’s demise.

 

Something (amazingly) has stuck with me from my high school Biology class: it was that the definition of life was essentially organization.  According to The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, life is characterized by “organization, metabolism, growth, irritability, adaptation, and reproduction.”  When you think about it, though, organization is an essential part of all of these characteristics.  When organization breaks down, life breaks down.

 

Lets look at “irritability” for a moment.  The essence of this aspect of life, is responsiveness to stimuli.  A rock is responsive, but it isn’t alive in the biological sense.  So, one definition of life has to do with the level of responsiveness a thing is capable of.  Because of the way it’s “organized” a rock will respond in specific ways to being placed in a fire, or in a bath of liquid nitrogen; a rock will respond to the pull of gravity, or the push of crushing pressure.  A rock has the “advantage” of not feeling pain, of surviving conditions that would easily kill a plant or animal.  On the other hand, a rock does not enjoy the “advantages” of feeling pleasure, sensing in an intelligent way the sights, sounds, touches, tastes and smells we enjoy.  A rock is oblivious to intangibles such as love and hate, knowledge, memory, hope and purpose.

 

We may wonder if it’s worth it to live as human beings in such a state of physical vulnerability.  Would we want to trade places with a rock?  How about a beautiful rock, an emerald, a ruby or an “indestructible” diamond?  No, I think most of us, in the end, would rather take the risks that come with living and enjoying the experience higher intelligence affords.

 

Intelligence

What is intelligence anyway?  Actually we think of intelligence in more than one way.  There’s the ever-present “IQ,” and then there is “knowledge vs wisdom.”  Most of us know from experience a person who may be “smart,” but not wise.  We can be clever and cunning in the immediate context, but oblivious to long-term issues and/or consequences.  Let’s categorize this phenomenon in three ways: those who live only for the present (fools), those who consider long-term consequences for this life (worldly-wise), and those who live for eternity (the godly).  Yes, here I reveal my bias, as there are adherents of each category who think those of the other categories are fools.  My contention is that those who live for eternity actually have it better in the short, medium and long-run: 

 

“…I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.”            (John 10:10)

 

One important definition of intelligence, then, is awareness.  The more intelligent we are, the more we are aware.

 

The rock responds to outside influences, but has no sense of concepts like past and future.  Plants and animals, though more responsive to their environments, seem to live in the present with limited awareness beyond “today.”  It is man’s broader awareness and ability to imagine how things could be (dream), in context of how things have been (remember), that facilitates “progress.”

 

For example: a group of people that have been living in filth and squalor learn that such conditions breed disease and death.  They imagine an environment that’s clean and healthy and so they get busy and create it.  Actually, this capacity to dream is naturally coupled with faith.  In Ecclesiastes ll:4 we read that one who observes the winds and clouds neither sows or reaps.  To be productive, a farmer must believe in a conception, based on experience.  He sows seed; having faith the seeds will germinate and become plants bearing fruit.  He sows with confidence there will be rain in due season, there will be sufficient sunshine and warmth, sufficient air movement and stillness, soil nutrition, etc.

 

And, as the apostle Paul reminds his readers, we may sow the seeds, but it’s God who gives the increase (1 Cor. 3:6-7).  In other words, we plant, but the real miracle is the germination, the DNA, the cells and all that goes with the organization we call life.  This would include the effects of the spirit, or ‘spark’ of life.  Thus we have a measure of Paul’s intelligence, his awareness of the eternal.   We may ask, then, what is our intelligence, what is our level of awareness and focus?

 

Cancer

These allusions to homogeneity vs heterogeneity have to do with where our priorities are today as a nation.  For a long time, especially since the 1960’s our focus has increasingly been on personal freedom.  This has its merits, but when we focus on individual rights at the expense of the rights of others, or the good of the whole, we become like cancer cells in the body, wildly doing their own thing and destroying the overall “order.”  Eventually the constitution of the body is broken and death ensues.

 

As individuals within the body politic become more selfish (thus less aware) the body’s ability to function is impaired.  As individuals get more competitive internally, the whole becomes less competitive externally.  In other words, for the body to function effectively with the outside, there must be sufficient unity (homeostasis) on the inside.  This principle can easily be observed devolving among us in recent decades.  The more we have gotten away from the traditional values of godliness, selflessness, honesty, humility, faith, hope, charity, etc, the more we’ve become divided, and politically paralyzed!

 

The paradox of unbridled diversity, is that it ultimately leads to non-identity.  Let me illustrate:

 

The cells of the body decide they want to do their own thing without regard for the whole.  They want to be free of the strict rules that keep each specialty in its place (differentiation).  So they begin dividing wildly without regard for the consequences.  We call this process, cancer.  Lets take this process to an extreme.  Of course death occurs long before this, but lets say the body becomes nothing but undifferentiated cells.  Rather than hold true to their assigned specialty, each cell decided to be unique, bazaar, special, free.  Normal cells around them are insulted, try to fight for the old order, but in the end are overwhelmed.  In the end all decide to follow the trend rather than resist.  In the end you have a mass of useless (dead) protoplasm.  The cells who thought they were so “progressive” were in fact digressive, bringing about their own ruin. Those who wanted to be everything, became nothing.

 

Freedom?

It would be salient, here, to consider the related concept of freedom at greater length.  There is more than one definition of freedom, and our political health would be better served if we were more discriminating in this regard.  Freedom is not simply “free of care,” hence “careless,” hence “irresponsible.”  The freedom answer should be to the question, “freedom from what?”

 

Let’s take an example of the criminal.  Fundamental to the criminal mind, in many cases, is the desire to be free from having to work and free from being bossed.  These ends are sought in a variety of ways, of course: lying, cheating, stealing, even killing, etc.  Let’s look at a situation from the liar’s and the honest person’s point of view:

 

The liar gets out of work by pretending to have a physical disability (which is cheating and stealing too).  He does gain a certain freedom from work and being bossed; but what does he lose?  He is no longer free to walk and run for fear someone might see him.  He can’t participate in sports, he can’t go hiking.  He can’t stay in shape, thus increasing the chances of acquiring real illness or disability.  He has the stress of keeping his secret and making sure his stories are consistent.  He has the stress of a guilty conscience.  He suffers from low self-esteem and a lack of respect from associates close enough to suspect his motives.  In fact he has no close friends or family for fear they will find him out, so he suffers from loneliness and alienation.  He may resort to other crimes, including violence, to maintain his “privileged” position.  If he thinks he’s about to be found-out, he may even commit suicide rather than face his accusers.

 

How free, really, is this liar?  Similar scenarios could be developed for any criminal lifestyle.  We see, then, that freedom isn’t just one thing.  Freedom is actually a function of the choices we make, which in-turn are a function of our values or the laws we live by.  Law carries with it, a sense of restriction, but the intelligent observer will also appreciate law’s liberating qualities.

 

”Thy liberty in law.”  (America the Beautiful, 3^rd stanza) 

 

Let’s say we obey the law of God in being honest and we find ourselves in a situation where we are tempted to lie about our health for some real or imagined advantage.  Although we see some attraction in the lie, we go ahead and admit we are healthy, thus bearing the burdens of work and the discomfort of being bossed.  But, we have nothing to hide.  We are free to walk and run, to play outside with our friends and family.  We can stay in shape, thus improving our vitality.  We are free of the stress of remembering to keep our false stories consistent; we are free of guilt.  We are free to enjoy close associations with others.  Because we are trusted, we are free to get a loan for a car or a house, free to enjoy greater responsibilities, and thereofre greater rewards….  We are not careless, but we are carefree!

 

The more aware we are of possibilities, the more choices we have, and choices lead to various levels or qualities of freedom.  A plant or animal can’t decide between wearing a solid colored or print shirt, between buying a Buick or a Volvo.  A cow might decide to go to the barn, but she can’t decide to build a barn.  Conversely, a plant or animal can’t decide to be a sinner or a criminal, and in that sense, we might say they have an advantage.  And in fairness, we have to admit all “lower” creatures have gifts and abilities we don’t have, though we still wouldn’t trade places with them.

 

So, rather than simply saying we are “free,” it would be more discerning to specify the type of freedom, relative to the choices we make or the law we live by.  It is also noteworthy that we can be very un-free as a result of our choices, and sometimes there aren’t enough choices left to “make it better!”

 

Now let’s return to our perspective on homogeneity (collective freedom) vs heterogeneity (personal freedom).

 

Melting Pot or Chamber Pot?

I don’t agree entirely with Michael Savage’s, ‘The American Melting Pot has become the American Chamber Pot,’ but his pungent couplet merits some consideration.  If we carry diversity to the point we stand for nothing, we are no longer able to act in concert.  We become weak and ineffective as a people, as a nation; and therefore vulnerable to our enemies, to the enemies of freedom and all that we have enjoyed now for generations.  Our life begins to stink!

 

All the advantages of freedom which include the inventiveness, productivity and wealth of free enterprise, as well as the personal potential for self actualization, are canceled-out by a “diversity” that yields the fruits of rebellion, division, and strife.  Even though totalitarian states like China fail to offer their people true prosperity (as already discussed) and personal fulfillment, the unity forced upon them by their dictators, finally begins to outperform a democratic society that has lost its self-discipline, lost its guiding principles, and has become anarchic.  In the end, the most united society (even un-free) is the most powerful. 

 

The whole idea of an independent America, was based on the desire our founders felt to be free to live in a certain way, guided by a specific set of principles.  These principles were under-girded by a faith that the Creator endowed all men with certain inalienable rights.  While we were established as a secular nation, our right to be secular was seen as guaranteed by God.  We were to be secular, not in the worldly sense, but of liberation from religious sectarianism.  Thus to be independent, didn’t mean to be self-indulgent, but rather self-disciplined.  To be independent was to be uniquely and distinctly good, apart from what was seen as the evil monarchies of Europe. (see http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/joshua/manifest.html)  With this was carried a belief that the common man was capable of governing himself, in contrast to the traditional Divine Right of Kings, where the common man was seen as intellectually and morally inferior, needing to have uprightness imposed on him.

 

Of course when it comes to “righteousness,” we needn’t define it in solely Christian terms, but rather the simple meaning of the word—a sincere and honest concern for what’s right.  If people had broad agreement on just that point, I think we would have a basis for greater unity.  The Judeo-Christian approach to righteousness, to me, would be even better because it’s proven to be most helpful in establishing a unity that fosters the truly “good life.”  This I hope to show in various ‘wordy treatments’ (to borrow a phrase from the Greeks).

 

For many today, independence means to be independent of parents, all authority figures, all laws and restrictions, all traditional beliefs and institutions.  They see no value in maintaining what has been uniquely American.  They see the exclusiveness associated with righteousness as self-righteous even when it means the exclusion of evil.  In fact, their definition of equality compels them to include evil with open arms!  They see our uniqueness as snobbery, a snobbery which must be discredited and dismantled.  But hypocritically, they don’t hesitate to take full advantage of the bounties and blessings our uniquely traditional system has produced!       

 

Horns-a-Plenty and Dilemma Meringue

But you say, ‘the United States is rich and powerful.  Why shouldn’t I be “free” to enjoy the bounties that are at hand?’  Problem is, because of our choices, the “Horn” with its plenty is beginning to rot.  What’s the point of clamoring and groveling for a slice of a shrinking pie?  It’s only a matter of time before there will be no pie.  But, you say, ‘at least I can get a slice before the pie is gone.’  That puts our finger on the pulse of the dilemma:

 

It’s a dilemma growing out of godless philosophies that have taken their toll on our collective psyche.  Theories like relativism and existentialism which boil down to saying one value or lifestyle is no better or worse than another, life itself being meaningless.  These supposedly represent a more honest approach to life, but in fact become handy rationales for not caring about the quality or future of our own life, let alone the lives of others.  They also kill any personal or social restraints that come from a belief that there is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent Judge to whom we will someday have to account.

 

At this juncture we must ask ourselves a couple of simple questions:  1, Do we want to live, and 2, Do we want to live as a nation?  I’m really saying ‘do we want to be happy,’ with all that entails.  I’m suggesting happiness is a unique thing.  It’s a state of being that meets specific criteria; and for a people or nation to be happy certain conditions must be met.  Certain laws must be obeyed.  In light of current negative philosophies and predictions, it’s significant that our Founders saw “the pursuit of happiness” as a key inalienable right! 

 

The United States is young.  Other great civilizations have lasted thousands of years.  There is absolutely no valid reason for us to think we are approaching the end of our days.  But the body without the spirit is dead.  We must revisit and grasp the spark of life that brought this country into being, and then we must re-internalize it, believe in it, speak up for it, and defend it “against all enemies foreign and domestic.”  I believe righteousness is what gives life to this body.

 

Western Roots

The Greek comedic play write, Aristophanes, in Clouds, pits “Right Logic” against “Wrong Logic.” May I quote “Right Logic” showing us another ancient author’s appreciation of “traditional values:”

 

“To hear then prepare of the Discipline rare

 Which flourished in Athens of yore

 When Honour and Truth were in fashion with youth

 And Sobriety bloomed on our shore;

 First of all the old rule was preserved in our school

 That ‘boys should be seen and not heard’:

 And then to the home of the Harpist would come

 Decorous in action and word

 All the lads of one town, though the snow peppered down,

 In spite of all wind and all weather

 And they sang an old song as they paced it along,

 Not shambling with thighs glued together:

 ‘O the dread shout of War how it peals from afar,’

 Or ‘Pallas the Stormer adore,’

 To some manly old air all simple and bare

 Which their fathers had chanted before.

 And should anyone dare the tune to impair

 And with intricate twistings to fill,

 Such as Phrynis is fain, and his long-winded train,

 Perversely to quaver and trill,

 Many stripes would he feel in return for his zeal

 As to genuine Music a foe.

 And every one’s thigh was forward and high

 As they sat to be drilled in a row,

 So that nothing the while indecent or vile

 The eye of a stranger might meet;

 And then with their hand they would smooth down the sand

 Whenever they rose from their seat,

 To leave not a trace of themselves in the place

 For vigilant lover to view,

 They never would soil their persons with oil

 But were inartificial and true,

 Nor tempered their throat to a soft mincing note

 And sighs to their lovers addressed:

 Nor laid themselves out, as they strutted about,

 To the wanton desires of the rest:

 Nor would anyone dare such stimulant fare

 As the head of the radish to wish:

 Nor to make over bold with the food of the old

 The anise and parsley, and fish:

 Nor dainties to quaff, nor giggle and laugh,

 Nor foot within foot to enfold.

 

 “Yet these are the precepts which taught

 The heroes of old to be hardy and bold,

 And the Men who at Marathon fought!

 But now must the lad from his boyhood be clad

 In a Man’s all-enveloping cloak:

 So that, oft as the Panathenaea returns,

 I feel myself ready to choke

 When the dancers go by with their shields to their thigh,

 Not caring for Pallas a jot.

 

 “You therefore, young man, choose me while you can;

 Cast in with my Method your lot;

 And then you shall learn the forum to spurn

 And from dissolute baths to abstain,

 And fashions impure and shameful abjure,

 And scorners repel with disdain:

 And rise from your chair if an elder be there,

 And respectfully give him your place,

 And with love and with fear your parents revere,

 And shrink from the brand of Disgrace,

 And deep in your breast be the Image impressed

 Of Modesty, simple and true,

 Nor resort any more to a dancing girl’s door,

 Nor glance at the harlotry crew,

 Lest at length by the blow of the Apple they throw

 From the hopes of your Manhood you fall.

 Nor dare to reply when your Father is nigh,

 Nor ‘musty old Japhet’ to call

 In your malice and rage that Sacred Old Age

 Which lovingly cherished your youth.

 

“But then you’ll excel in the games you love well,

 All blooming, athletic and fair:

 Nor learning to prate as your idlers debate

 With marvelous prickly dispute,

 Nor dragged into Court day by day to make sport

 In some small disagreeable suit:

 But you will below to the Academe go,

 And under the olives contend

 With your chaplet of reed, in a contest of speed

 With some excellent rival and friend:

 All fragrant with woodbine and peaceful content,

 And the leaf which the lime blossoms fling,

 When the plane whispers love to the elm in the grove

 In the beautiful season of Spring.

 If then you’ll obey and do what I say,

 And follow with me the more excellent way,

 Your chest shall be white, your skin shall be bright,

 Your arms shall be tight, your tongue shall be slight,

 And everything else shall be proper and right.

 

 “But if you pursue what men nowadays do,

 You will have, to begin, a cold pallid skin,

 Arms small and chest weak, tongue practiced to speak,

 Special laws very long, and the symptoms all strong

 Which show that your life is licentious and wrong.

 And your mind he’ll prepare so that foul to be fair

 And fair to be foul you shall always declare;

 And you’ll find yourself soon, if you listen to him,

 With the filth of Antimachus filled to the brim!

 

(Britannica, Great Books, Vol 5, pp. 500-501)

 

 

It’s ironic that the idea of liberalism, which grew out of Greek democratic and Roman republican philosophy, but in recent centuries has been shored-up more substantially by our Judeo-Christian traditions, is now aligned with anti-traditional and anti-religious politics!  Faith in God has been displaced significantly, and in some cases replaced utterly, by faith in science, or just faith in self.  Modern science often parts company with philosophy, not to mention religion.  Need we expound upon the limitations of self?  Where, then, is found a foundation for meaning in life, for the spiritual?  If this life is all there is, what’s the point of redecorating our penthouse?

 

Far too many of us who have been utterly spoiled and bored by the peace, freedoms and bounties of the Western World, especially in Europe and the United States are increasingly attracted to the idea of not only helping “third-worlders” but also becoming “third-worlders.”  There is guilt over the inequalities we see in the world.   With some of us, there is even a fascination with death and destruction, growing out of the ‘meaninglessness of it all.’  I can guarantee, there will be a prompt change of attitude for the vast majority of us once we actually are plunged into some ‘idyllically’ deplorable condition.  The problem is, once we are impoverished, displaced, degraded, enslaved, or destroyed, there will be no turning back.  We won’t be able to help ourselves, let alone anyone else!

 

The “Independent” Part of Freedom

Independence was the watch-word of our Founders.  How important is independence to us today?  Independence can be more expensive in the short-run, but dependence is always more expensive in the long-run.

 

Independence is tied to the idea of uniqueness, and uniqueness implies exclusivity.  We must be independent of those people and nations who not only don’t support our way of life, but also hate and despise our way of life, people and nations who actively seek to destroy our way of life!  What else does this mean?

 

It means we must not be dependent economically on hostile people and nations.  It means we have to produce our own goods and services as much as possible, or deal economically only with entities that support our interests and that of true freedom.  It means we cannot allow people to immigrate into this country who are indifferent or hostile to our way of life.  They should be screened to show they understand and are committed to supporting and defending the Constitution.

 

It means we must not allow people who are already residents or citizens of this country and hostile to our way of life and Constitution, to subvert and overthrow us by force or coercion.  It means special interests may not trump national interests, either economically or politically.  It means we cannot allow our personal ambition and fortunes to get in the way of what’s good for the whole country.

 

These are principles that can apply to all races, religions and ethnicities.  Like the human body, there is provision for diversity, but this diversity must flourish under a broader homeostasis, under overriding and governing principles which apply to all.

 

Tolerance and Discrimination

I sometimes wish the Declaration of Independence had not included the oversimplified: “all men are created equal.”  It’s a phrase that too often appeals to folks who cannot or will not appreciate its deeper significance.  It has become a handy wedge for cracking and then splitting our nation into antagonistic camps.  It has become a more than handy tool for those antisocial and irresponsible members of our national family who use less than honorable means to impose on, upset and harass its more sociable and responsible members.  If you resist or expose or oppose these spoilers, they accuse you of not living up to the “equal” clause of the Declaration of Independence, or to your Christian ideals of mercy and compassion.  They turn you into the villain, the cause of the “problem.”

 

All men (and women) are created with equal opportunity to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, etc, but there are individual circumstances and choices with corresponding consequences.  The idler should not be equal to the honest laborer in terms of rewards.  The shallow and populist thinker should not be honored equally with the deep delver in truth.  –Same holds for the criminal vs the law abiding citizen, for the terrorist vs the freedom-loving patriot.  There must be mercy, but also justice; tolerance, but also intolerance of that which is intolerable.  A society may be compassionate, “free and open,” but if it is unjust, it invites unrest, strife and ultimate chaos.

 

There must be discrimination between good and evil, or to return to the analogy of the body, adherence to the law or order that sustains what is strictly defined as life.  Hence every cell, organ and system must discriminate between that which leads to health/life and that which leads to sickness/death, accepting the one and rejecting the other.

 

It has become “unfashionable” to talk about what’s uniquely American.  In fact, we can hardly agree on what America is anymore—and yes, we’ve been inaccurate and insensitive to refer to the United States as America, since in doing so we ignore South and Central America and Canada.  Whether we call it America or the United States the more critical point, is that what is good or desirable demands appreciation and distinction from that which is undesirable.  All people and all nations are not the same.  To appreciate the distinctions we must discriminate.  That’s what the word means.

 

All of this, of course, bates the question, who has the right to discriminate; who can “judge” in ways that protect us from evil without frustrating or neutralizing the good?  And so we have a subject for another day!

 

The common man

Must be uncommonly wise,

Or the common man

Will be captured by lies!

 

–Doug Taylor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

IV. Hierarchy

 

OPINIONS IV

HIERARCHY

 

 

“I must study Politics and War that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematics and Philosophy.  My sons ought to study Mathematicks and Philosophy, Geography, Natural History, Naval Architecture, Navigation, Commerce and Agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study Painting, Poetry, Music, Architecture, Statuary, Tapestry and Porcelaine.”  –John Adams, letter to Abigail, Paris, 1780.

 

I like this quote because it illustrates levels of “civilization” humanity may attain, and how the latter may build upon the former.  Like “types of freedom,” the level of civilization we experience, is a product of the choices we make, which correlates with our intelligence.

 

How do we want to live?  “Culture” can mean anything from what grows in a Petri Dish to the Celestial Kingdom.  It’s remarkable that even one-celled animals know how to fight and have sex!  Is that the level of culture we want, or would we prefer something of a higher nature?

 

The Civilization Menu

Should we live a hand-to-mouth existence, hunting and gathering, without language, without technology, without clothing, shelter, sanitation, or medicine?  Do we want to live a purely survival-of-the fittest existence, where we either prey or are preyed upon, where every comfort, every advantage has to be fought for?  Or do we want to live like John and Abigail Adams, with our sights set on improvement, with the wish and intent that succeeding generations will improve on preceding ones, each better, each more safe and peaceful, yet powerful, each more pleasant and beautiful, clean, healthful, enlightened, prosperous and abundant?

 

Yes, on occasion we may have to fight for (defend) the “good life,” but if we are clear in our understanding of what the good life is and united in our resolve to preserve it, we would seldom be challenged, and if we were we’d be in a position to deal effectively with any threat.  

 

History has plenty of examples of low or high civilization.  War would be an obvious example of the low, though the antagonistic parties are not necessarily equally depraved.  Life in various crime-ridden slums, or life among certain primitive tribes could be cited (of course urban and rural life aren’t by definition uncivilized).  Life in France during the revolution (1789-1799), is most instructive from several angles.  There were elements of high life in Israel under Moses, Joshua, David and Solomon; then there were Israel’s apostate days.  There was Athens at its cultural height, and otherwise; and, of course, Rome in the early days of its republic, contrasted with the later days of empire.  We can look at low conditions in Europe during the Middle Ages, then high points of the renaissance and reformation; yes the United States too has had its worse and better days.

 

None of these examples provide us with a perfect picture of degradation or exaltation, but they suggest what may be with us.  It seems most nations have had their glory days, and their other days…. And, the more we know and understand about them, the more empowered we are to choose a better way for ourselves.  Actually there are levels of civilization within any given society at any given time, so we really can’t say “this is America” or “this is China.”  It’s more a question of what cultural climate prevails at any given time.

 

Maslow

Abraham Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs” can be a useful tool for assessing past and current human conditions.  There may be a few extraordinary individuals who’s “self-actualization” is of such a spiritual nature that no adversity can tear them from their pinnacle (see Romans 8:35-39).  But for the vast majority of us, Maslow simply distills what we already know from experience by saying we have to have our physiological needs met before we can attend to safety and security needs.  We must feel safe before we can worry about socializing and belonging.  We have to feel we belong and are socially accepted before we can experience self-esteem and worth; and all of these more fundamental needs have to be met before we can be self-actualized.

 

Lets look at terrorism in light of Maslow’s hierarchy.  Terror strikes at the very foundation of his pyramid (and therefore civilization).  Nutrition, health and safety trump everything when it comes to our ability to function.  If we’re sick, we can’t get enough food and water, and/or we feel physically threatened, we’ll never contemplate, let alone experience the finer things of life.  In the United States we’ve come to see these “needs” as God-given rights, but whatever our philosophical perspective, when we see the meeting of these needs being jeopardized we must appreciate the danger of social deterioration and take prompt corrective action.

 

Our action in these days of perplexity, has been anything but prompt.

 

The movie Mars Attacks humorously but very effectively dramatizes the reality of the situation America and Western Civilization is in today.  The “Martians” are fully capable (if we allow it) of and dedicated to our destruction, and still we are preoccupied with how we can make the next buck, get ahead and enjoy the “finer things of life.”  This pillow of oblivion we’re sleeping on will turn into a boulder that rolls over us if we don’t wake up!

 

Terror

After 9-11, Pres. Bush advised us to conduct business as usual.  We’ve tried, and done pretty well, but terror has taken its toll.  Look at the money we’ve poured into Homeland Security that could have been spent in “higher” ways.  Look at the cost of oil.   Look at curtailments and bankruptcies in travel and tourism, and other previously thriving industries.  Look at increases in stress, depression, and anxiety.  Look how terror inhibits creativity and free expression.  Of course, what we are experiencing is nothing compared to elsewhere.  But that’s just the point.  We need to nip terror in the bud before it reaches levels other countries

are experiencing.  I’ve already discussed the dynamic of bullying.  Let’s consider other aspects of this problem.

 

Terror leverages the power of fear.  It isn’t new.  It’s as old as the family of man, but it still works.  It is cyanide to the body politic.  It’s the ultimate cheap shot at the good life made by those who lack the wisdom or the will to get their needs met any better way.  People who resort to terror are oblivious to the truth that one can never find happiness in making others unhappy.  Cruelty and violence provides them with a cheap thrill, a degraded sense of strength, and a false sense of superiority. 

 

Though it’s impossible for humans to be happy in isolation, terrorists are convinced the only path to a good time is through abusing others or eliminating them altogether.  Thus they are alienated, feared and hated, yet they demand the trappings of popular adulation, deluding themselves as to their true worth.  They float on a sea of suffering, overstimulated and undersatisfied.  In exercising fearful power over others, the power to be loved and appreciated ever eludes them.

 

The Power Menu

What is it about the narcotic we call power?  In our past we have tended to deny we want it.  Many of our Founders, for example, professedly preferred home and hearth to the imbroglios of politics.  They didn’t even believe in political parties, hoping for tranquility and prosperity based simply on the goodness and decency of the people.  They were more sincere than modern cynicism will allow.   Their idealism demands our appreciation, yet even they understood the dynamics of power and the necessity of keeping it in check.

 

We, we tend not to admit we want it, but just consider some examples of our power cravings:  The brisk market for epoch and superhero stories, for example.  We love fictional heroes such as brave and daring detectives, secret service agents, explorers, police officers, cowboys and soldiers.  Fantasy, including science fiction and cartoons explore various imaginings of extraordinary power (there are real-life heroes we justly admire as well).

 

What about social and corporate ladder climbing, the clamoring for titles, prestige and authority? What about politics?  There’s our incessant quest for knowledge and its most powerful applications.  Also consider the power of personal attractiveness: body-building, fashion, cosmetics, perfumes, diets, plastic surgery; our obsession with outward appearance creating professions in auto and interior design, landscaping, architecture, public relations, advertising, packaging, etc.  What about power through karate and the fighting arts; weapons, guns, hot cars and motorcycles, Pit Bull or Rottweiller posturing, tough looks, gang clothes, extensive tattoos and piercing, radical or violent clubs, secret combinations and organized crime? 

 

Rebellion against so-called oppressors has often been used as a justification for the illegitimate assumption of power.   Traditional authority, on the other hand, may be misused as a means of maintaining power.

 

There are subtle projections of power, like imposing one’s loud music on neighbors, invading other people’s personal space in subtle ways such as pestering, and just rudeness in general.  Satire, mockery and other put-down arts actually have to do with power.  Graffiti and gang tagging really is like animals marking their territories.  It’s an indirect way of challenging property ownership, and hence a presumption of power.

 

Magic, mysticism, priestcraft, occultism and spiritualism all represent human ambitions for power.  So do “mind-expanding” drugs, pleasure enhancers, wonder cures, steroids and health supplements.  Religious zeal that resorts to various forms of force in the name of God, has to do with the arrogance of power.  Governments claim legitimate use of power in such capacities as law enforcement, military, and espionage agencies (we’ll look at the whole idea of legitimacy in government at some point).  Of course I believe God has ultimate power, and if He has, we would be wise in exercising faith as a means of tapping into the “true vine” (John 15:1-5).

 

We hear the pronouncement, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” suggesting that all power is evil, or that no man or woman can handle it properly.  This is a cynical, and in fact, false assumption, of course.  Truly great leaders throughout history provide inspiring examples of power being put to proper use.  Those of us who believe in the God of Abraham, see Him as all-powerful and absolutely incorruptible.  So, it may be true that power corrupts many, if not most, but it doesn’t have to, and power can be most useful.

 

Power with Wisdom

There’s nothing wrong with a reasonable desire for and acquisition of power—power to function in everyday life, the powers of our senses, the power of reason, power to justly resist and subdue our enemies, power over disease, power over our last enemies—death and hell.  Let’s admit it.  As mortals, we’re pretty weak, and if this is all there is, it’s pretty bleak.  Here’s an interesting New Testament prophecy about the last days that relates to power:

 

“Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.  Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.  Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?  Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.  Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.  But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; And shall begin to smite his fellow servants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”  –Matthew 24:42

 

I’m sure there are more than one interpretation of this passage, here’s mine:  In speaking of servants made rulers over His household, Jesus refers to His disciples, His church, particularly the leaders who are responsible for giving the members spiritual and temporal sustenance (meat in due season).  But the salient point is that these leaders will be given a little power, and if they use it properly, they will be given much more when He returns.  On the other hand, if they abuse their power, they will be rendered powerless (cut asunder) in hell (weeping and gnashing of teeth).

 

The passage suggests an essential lesson God wants us to learn in life has to do with the proper handling of power. If we learn our lesson well, we will enjoy greater power in the next life, if not, power will be taken away.  But what if we don’t believe in a “next life?”  Here again, such a concept illustrates the importance of faith.  There isn’t a person in the world who doesn’t want to be happy (which includes sufficient empowerment) but it’s what we believe will make us happy that motivates us.  Same holds true for lifestyles.  It’s our belief about what constitutes “civilization” that leads us to a given way of life.  What, then, do we believe about empowerment, personally and culturally?

 

Temporally there’s personal power, and then social or collective power.  Spiritually, there is the power of God, the power of the devil and our response to those influences.

 

Let’s start with personal power.  We enjoy physical strength and endurance, dexterity, agility, our senses.  There is reproductive power.  There is mental power or intelligence.  When we are in a position of power, we can be shepherds or hirelings or wolves:

 

“I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.  But he that is an hireling and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.  The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep”   –John 10:11-13

 

How do we behave when we find we have power over others?  Either we’re bigger and stronger than the other, or we are in a position of authority.  Perhaps we have more knowledge so we can either share what we know, or keep others in the dark.  Maybe we have a gift or talent they don’t have.  Do we use it to provide entertainment and enjoyment, or do we make them feel inferior because they are lacking in that particular area?  How do men treat women?  How do women treat men?  Each is stronger than the other in certain ways.  How do we treat the elderly, children, animals, plants, uncles, aunts and ants?  How do we treat the earth?

 

We cannot be happy without power, but it might be worse to have power and exercise it badly:

 

“And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.”  –Mark 9:42

 

Power with Restaint

When it comes to “civilization,” we begin to see the significance of the Biblical perspective.  It’s obvious to most of us what selfishness and unselfishness does to society.  We know the effects of authority exercised unfairly.  Does it make a difference to know we’ll have to answer to God for such behavior? 

 

“And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink and be merry.  But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou has provided?”   –Luke 12:19-20

 

“I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.”   –Acts 20:35

 

“But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.  But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.”  –Mark 10:42-44

 

We enjoy certain powers in isolation from other people, such as the power of personal thought and action, power over our immediate physical surroundings, to include plants and animals.  However, much of our power is developed only in the social setting.  Popularity, or political power, would be obvious examples.  This gets closer to the true meaning of “civilization,” since we can’t be civil if there’s no one around to be civil with.

 

I see two major pathways to social power:  One is gaining authority over others using flattery and/or intimidation.  The other is building a network of support from others through benevolent leadership and genuine service.  A person may become very powerful either way, but the results of these strategies, when it comes to happy, healthy society, are clearly dissimilar. 

 

Examples of the first pathway are all around us.  The world is dotted not only with political and religious dictatorships, but also many more subtle forms of overbearance.  What happens when we stop believing in the God of the Bible?  With what do we fill the void?  If there is no meaning to life, especially no eternal consequences for our actions, we naturally go for all the excitement, pleasure and comfort we can in the present, not worrying about anyone or anything else.  The typical pathway to excitement, pleasure and comfort is money.  But when we talk of money, we’re really talking about power, which is more fundamental.  If we are powerful, we can exercise it to acquire wealth, then with our wealth we buy what we want.  Or we can simply use our power to extort what we want from our physical and social environments.

 

The paradox, however, if Jesus is to be believed, is that the most “selfish” life is, after all, the most selfless:

 

“He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.”  –Matt. 10:39.

 

Competition

It’s not that there wasn’t “survival of the fittest” before Darwin, it’s that with Darwinian thinking, and other philosophical approaches that leave God out of the equation, the competition becomes more abandoned, less susceptible to moderation and reconciliation, therefore leading to greater conflict and more rapid personal and social decline.

 

We hear that “competition is what made America great.”  Was it competition, or was it the freedom that allowed for competition, coupled with the personal and societal restraints that kept it within productive bounds?  Conflict, which grows out of competition, really follows a continuum running from schoolyard tussles to hydrogen holocausts.  It’s all a matter of intensity or degree, and there is a qualitative aspect as well.  How do we define it?

 

In the business sense, competition really has reference to the free market.  I say “free,” not “free-for-all.”  If we examine Western free enterprise, we see that a significant reason for its success is that certain restraints are built-in. When a ballgame has no referee and things get out of hand, players and fans lose enthusiasm and stop participating.  Similarly a “free-for-all” economy gets to be “no-fun” and begins to loose more and more patrons.   I know economists like Milton Friedman advocate laissez-faire capitalism, and I’m in favor of minimizing government regulation, but even in “Hong Kong,” there have to be a few rules.  There has to be basic honesty and integrity when it comes to contracts and negotiations, for example.  There must be trust, which implies being trustworthy.

 

Of course the best form of trust is that which comes from within each person.  I glanced through an old book in a used book store one day (yes it was gone when I went back later to buy it) which compared Adolph Hitler to Winston Churchill.  It characterized Hitler as a loner who trusted no one, but Churchill as basking under a sun of friends.  This was tied to another interesting point: that WW II Germany labored under a mountain of paperwork.  Since there was almost no trust everything had to be documented and cleared through higher headquarters.  America and Brittain, on the other hand, were able to function more efficiently because there was less bureaucratic overhead and more allowance for decision making at lower levels.

 

Contrary to popular evolutionist beliefs man excelled above the animals, not by competing on their terms, but rather through his ability to cooperate with his own race.  Consider Alfie Kohn’s article in the Sept ’86 issue of Psychology Today, p.22…. (“How to Succeed Without Even Vying”).  He sites case after case where businesses excel much more through cooperation than competition.  He published a book the same year: The Case Against Competition (Houghton Mifflin), which, tellingly, is out of print….  I know it sounds contradictory: how can we excel if we don’t compete?

 

It’s more a question of what level we compete at, than the competition itself.  Just like the ball team: the better the team members learn to work together, the more effectively they can compete with other teams.  Nations are just teams on a larger scale.  As stated earlier, the nation that is most united, regardless of how unity is achieved, is the nation that wins! 

 

Black Hats vs. White Hats

What about organized crime, or evil empires?  They seem to be more united than democracies that are forever arguing and squabbling.  This may be the case on the surface, but not so at more fundamental levels.  Let’s look, again, at human nature.

 

When we think about it, wickedness, or crime, is fundamentally selfish and short sighted.  When people are motivated to act only in the moment and in their selfish interest they pull the fabric of society apart, rather than knit it together.  When we look at it this way, we see that criminal or governmental cabals may be united in some evil plot or program, but inevitably their organizations fall apart because the individuals involved are primarily thinking of themselves.  For proof we need only traverse the sands of time with their ruins of fallen kingdoms and empires.

 

This is small comfort, however, since evil regimes, though unstable, often hold sway for hundreds of years, and are typically not replaced peacefully.

 

It’s righteousness that provides a solid basis for cooperation, and therefore, collective (national) power.  Characteristics like honesty, integrity, sincerity, humility, thoughtfulness, kindness, selfless service and maintaining a God-fearing outlook, all contribute to societal unity.  We can still be competitive and effective as a people, but only if we work, and play within certain agreed-upon limits.  Otherwise, it’s like driving a car without brakes!

 

So if righteous societies work better, why have there been so few?  Again, we have to look at human nature.  While personal righteousness makes a society powerful and successful, being unselfish seems hard personally.  It seems easier for some reason to be selfish.  I guess this grows out of a very fundamental drive we all feel for personal survival, comfort and ease.  The paradox, of course, is that when people surrender to this admittedly powerful urge, good society doesn’t survive, and that means you and I don’t survive.

 

So, good government may be measured by the degree to which governors and the governed are upright.  Problem is, righteousness isn’t easy to maintain, especially from one generation to the next.  But should we give up on the ideal of how good life could be when most of the people are at least decent?  We’ve had a taste of this in America….  Frank Capra films like It’s a Wonderful Life capture the feeling.

 

Frankly, the arguing and squabbling we see in democracies represent an effective way of dealing with the people’s ubiquitous will to survive.  It allows individuals to request or demand satisfaction without resorting to violence.  The democratic process, in-tern, is responsive to those petitions, maintaining a reasonable level of satisfaction in the body politic.  Violence, on the other hand, erupts when the people either are not getting their reasonable needs and wants met, or they have become unreasonable in their expectations.

 

As already suggested, we can observe these principles in business as well.  The popular TQM (Total Quality Management) movement, based on the philosophy and programs of Deming, Juran, Crosby and Ishikawa, et al, which gained great popularity during the 80’s and 90’s, is a perfect example.  It was found that organizations were much more productive and effective when time and effort was devoted to polling all the employees, getting them involved in the decision-making process, and sharing in the rewards.  Incidentally and significantly, “empowerment” became a catch-word of this movement.

 

Grass Roots Essentials

Are our “little people” as thinking, principled and responsible as our “big people?”  Democratic processes are simply unworkable if the masses are ignorant, disinterested and unprincipled—an assumption the elites have always wanted to make, and one that too often has been too true!  This is why the republican form of government tends to work better than the purely democratic.

 

In a republic, we elect our “best and brightest” to represent us, but also lead us, devoting fulltime to studying the issues and using their own good judgment in establishing public policy.  Thus as long as our leaders act truly in our best interest, we the people are free to have a personal life without having to devote excessive amounts of time and energy to lawmaking.

 

Righteous personal power enhances societal power, and good society (including good government) in-turn empowers individuals.  I would also assert that righteousness on the part of individuals and societies warrant God’s blessing, or in other words the aid of His power.  For believers, of course, that makes a profound difference, and is central to how we define ourselves and our culture.  What I’m suggesting is that here we have a model for enjoying maximum personal and collective power at the expense of neither. 

 

“Right-ness”

I’m not equating “righteousness” with “perfection.”  For the purposes of this essay, “righteousness” simply means believing there is such a thing as right and wrong, embracing the one and avoiding the other.   We’re certainly moving in the right direction just being concerned about such issues; but in pursuing this course, we eventually find the necessity for some fixed point of reference, some ultimate and reliable truth we can use as our “North Star.”  Without it, all things become relative to other things equally unsubstantial.  Faith in God, then, becomes the energizing and galvanizing ingredient of our powerful societal model.

 

Change What?

This leads us to a sobering question for Westerners in-general, and Americans in-particular.  Are we going to be a Judeo-Christian people or not?  I know many cringe at such a proposition, supposing that liberal democracy never was built upon such principles, and if it ever was, modern man has out-grown the idea.  I think we need to appreciate where we’re at in the context of history.  I think we need to understand that much of current popular sentiment and public policy is leading us away from the “rights” and “wrongs” spelled out in the Bible and, if I may say, The Book of Mormon as well.

 

Are we ready to take that plunge?  Do we really want to move into the future without God as our guide?  Can we actually say that the strength, bounties and blessings enjoyed by previous generations of Westerners and Americans were merely a matter of chance, having had nothing to do with the God they reverenced and who’s laws theirs were patterned after?   The Book of Mormon warns us plainly:

 

“For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God.  And it is not until the fullness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off.  And this cometh unto you, O ye Gentiles, that ye may know the decrees of God—that ye may repent and not continue in your iniquities until the fullness come, that ye may not bring down the fullness of the wrath of God upon you as the inhabitants of the land have hitherto done.  Behold, this is a choice land and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, which is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written.” (Ether 2:10-12)

 

Now, do we all have to become “Mormons” to be blessed as a nation?  No.  Neither do we have to become Baptists or Catholics, Jews or any other denomination.  But I think we do need to maintain some minimal policies and levels of conduct based on scriptural principles.  This is the pattern that was established from the Mayflower-on, and I believe it has had much more to do with our success as a nation than our “moderns” will admit.  Frankly, our earliest (Mayflower) traditions were blatantly Christian; but in light of today’s global community, I think the broader Judeo-Christian orientation is unique enough for this discussion.

 

There are far too many people in today’s society who seem absolutely determined to overthrow the traditions and institutions which have made this country great.  However rational and compelling their rhetoric may appear, we should understand it’s often based more on their faith than on facts.  It’s a faith, a religion with them, that any way but the old way is better.  It’s gotten far beyond Republican vs Democrat, or even Conservative vs. Liberal.  It’s really traditional vs progressive and the divergent positions have become so hardened that compromise and accommodation are becoming less and less imaginable.

 

Many, if not most “progressives” are implacably resolved on an agenda of imposing their irreligious religion on the rest of us, especially using the judicial process.  Of course, to be fair, the traditionalists have insisted on their agenda in the past, so it’s more a question of how, when and by whom such an imposition is appropriate.  We know a society built on Judeo-Christian principles has worked well, and I assert that when man’s law is consistent with God’s law true progress is facilitated, not held back.  We know nothing of the sort for programs that actually rebel against and overthrow what’s worked so well for us in the past.  Can we afford to turn our backs on God and have Him turn His back on us?

 

What about the acts of oppression and repression that have been and perhaps still are being carried out in the name of God?  In my opinion, they weren’t or aren’t carried out in the true spirit of Judeo-Christianity.  I agree that Jewish and Christian interpretations of God’s word have at times lead to social and governmental excesses, but with many wise and reasonable adjustments, the Judeo-Christian perspective has inspired the best Constitutionally governed society the world has ever known.  And there’s a difference between oppression/repression and righteous judgment.  It’s imperative, I think, that we understand and appreciate these differences if we are to enjoy the true benefits of “civilization.”

 

Inasmuch as religious institutions are human, they have been and are imperfect, but God is perfect and He’s the same yesterday, today and forever.  Certain principles never change.  It’s up to us to remember where the real and ultimate power lies if we are to avoid calamities such as those the Children of Israel experienced.

 

The same warning found in the Book of Mormon is implicit in the Old Testament.  The whole epoch of God’s dealings with the Children of Israel (who also had a promised land) has to do with them being blessed and prospered when they were faithful to Him, and cursed and destroyed when they weren’t.  American history suggests that we don’t have to be a theocracy to be blessed, but at least we can keep the ten commandments personally and pattern our laws after them generally; at least we can abstain from flying in the face of God, coming out and openly flaunting His precepts.  If we can at least do that, I believe we may ameliorate His wrath.  If we can do more, we will be blessed more.

 

Elites in our governing bodies, in our colleges and universities, in our corporations, in our bastions of journalism and citadels of film, video and music predominantly create an illusion of freedom and prosperity without the ‘inhibiting shackles of outmoded and superstitious beliefs and practices.’  They say in so many pictures and notes, if not so many words, that science, technology and “original thinking” have finally put us in a position where we no longer need to cling to old institutions.  Interestingly, and predictably, they also paint a picture of life that’s dark, foreboding, meaningless, hopeless, harsh, ugly and violent, albeit often candy-coated with pleasure and excitement. 

 

 

Bible Viability?

Let’s assess our own faith.  When popular sentiment and public policy advocate a course that’s clearly contrary to and condemned by the Bible, do we have sufficient faith to affirm rightness or wrongness because God says it’s right or wrong?   Will we hold-off until we get scientific proof, or will we immediately cave to popular expedience?  If we wait it may be too late by the time the “proof” comes in.  If we cave, are we prepared to accept the consequences?

 

If the Bible says the homosexual should be cut-off from the camp of Israel (Lev. 18:22; 19:29), can America say, the homosexual will not be put on a pedestal as a paragon of virtue?  If the Bible says the adulterer shall be punished (Deut. 22:22-30), can America at least say that adultery will not be glamorized in the media?  If the Bible says God cursed ancient Israel for violence and exploitation of the weak and vulnerable, can America not cease portraying such in movies and on TV as an acceptable, desirable means of coping and getting ahead, as an inevitable part of everyday survival-of-the-fittest life with no serious consequences?  Or have the Progressives found a better way?

 

“The earth was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.  And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.  And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold I will destroy them with the earth.”  (Gen. 6:11-13)

 

“By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee…”  (Ezek. 28:16)

 

“For they know not to do right, saith the Lord, who store up violence and robbery in their palaces.”  (Amos 3:10)

 

“Woe to them that devise iniquity, and work evil upon their beds!  When the morning is light, they practice it, because it is in the power of their hand.  And they covet fields, and take them by violence; and houses, and take them away: so they oppress a man and his house, even a man and his heritage.” 

(Micah 2:1-2)

 

“Shall I count them pure with the wicked balances, and with the bag of deceitful weights?  For the rich men thereof are full of violence, and the inhabitants thereof have spoken lies, and their tongue is deceitful in their mouth.”  (Micah 6:11-12)

 

Woe to the bloody city!  It is all full of lies and robbery; the prey departeth not; The noise of a whip, and the noise of the rattling of the wheels, and of the pransing horses, and of the jumping chariots.  The horseman lifteth up both the bright sword and the glittering spear: and there is a multitude of slain, and a great number of carcases; and there is none end of their corpses; they stumble upon their corpses:”  (Nahum 3:1-3)

 

“Because thou hast spoiled many nations, all the remnant of the people shall spoil thee; because of men’s blood, and for the violence of the land, of the city and of all that dwell therein….  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and stablisheth a city by iniquity!”  (Habakkuk 2:8,12)

 

“In the same day also will I punish all those that leap on the threshold, which fill their masters’ houses with violence and deceit.”  (Zephaniah 1:9)

 

Violence vs. Motivation

When we study the phenomenon of violence, we need to think of it in the broader sense of the word “violate.”  In this sense, violence involves a whole array of inappropriate invasions.  Violating the rights of others involves more than just physical aggression, and in some cases, physical aggression that serves a righteous purpose, should not be considered violent:

 

“Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just” (Star Spangled Banner, fourth stanza).

 

This leads us to the broader question of human motivation.  How do we get people to do or not do things?  When is it appropriate and inappropriate to motivate, or manipulate, or force?  What constitutes force and how should it be applied?  What does all this have to do with culture?

 

When you think about it, motivation really boils down to pleasure and pain.  If we want to get people (or any living thing) to do or not do something we reinforce desirable behavior with pleasure or reward and we discourage undesirable behavior with pain or punishment.  The pain, more often than not, is more psychological than physical.  We withhold reward, we express disapproval, we criticize, we alienate, restrict or confine.  These methods cause mental discomfort and are often “pain” enough to curtail or eliminate the undesired behavior.  Pestering or harassment is actually a form of ungentle persuasion or force.  For example, I read an article about an organization that would call defectors on their phone incessantly day and night urging their return.  Debt collection often fits into this category as well.

 

There are illegal forms of “non-pain” motivation, such as blackmail and public scandal.  Just the threat of embarrassment, destroyed reputation or financial disclosure becomes a powerful motivator, and in reality, a form of force.  And let’s remember, we’re still discussing power.  A person that’s mocked, severely criticized, alienated, had their reputation sullied or their employability threatened has had significant power taken away from him/her, or from another angle, had significant power exercised against him/her.

 

—Then there’s the actual infliction of pain.

 

The infliction of physical pain gets immediate and lasting results of course.  Nobody likes it, and they’ll do almost anything to avoid it.  Just look at a mighty man’s response to the presence of a tiny creature known as a bee!  Reaction to pain or the treat of it is usually dramatic, causing either ardent submission or fervent resistance.  A few great ones, starting with Jesus Christ, willingly endure pain in achieving some greater good.

 

Corporal punishment has become a hotbed of contention in recent decades.  Some big guns like the American Academy of Pediatrics and the United Nations have come out against it.  I’m against cruelty and maliciousness in any form, however I believe correction and chastening, if carried out in the right way and in society’s and the recipient’s best interest can be beneficial, perhaps even  essential. 

“For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.  If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?  But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.  Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?  For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.  Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous; nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.”   (Hebrews 12:6-11)

 

“Chaste” comes from the Latin, “Castus” meaning “pure.”  Hence to chastise means to make pure, or remove impurity.  The spirit behind the word, then, is that of improvement.  It’s positive.

 

In this broader sense of the word, we see that chastening is not simply punishing, bur rather motivating for the good.  If so, it certainly involves not only the provision of disincentives for bad attitudes and behaviors, but also incentives for good attitudes and behaviors.   It’s important to understand that for some children, just a disapproving look is sufficient chastisement, for others it might take an occasional and controlled swat on their behind to help them appreciate the unpleasant consequences which follow unacceptable behavior.

 

Corporal punishment in past generations was often too harsh, and yet when we look back we see that there was less divorce, less mental illness, less civil unrest, crime and violence.  There was more personal ruggedness and willingness to sacrifice.  Corporal punishment was a way to get insolated and insolent people to realize their personal appetites, interests and preferences weren’t the only important ones in the world! 

 

Apparently people were happier about making it to adulthood and sharing in the world of responsibility than we seem to be today.  Not too long after America’s all-night party started (described in Iraq Again) one author wrote about a modern syndrome, especially among American males, characterized by their determination not to ever grow up (David Hellerstein: The Peter Pan Principle, Esquire, Oct. 1983, pp. 64-74).  Benjamin R. Barber is even more emphatic on this subject in his book: Consumed (New York; London: W.W. Norton & Company, 2007).

 

I think the maturity and self-discipline we’ve seen in previous generations was modeled somewhat on the impositions of parents and other authority figures.  In other words, parents and greater society imposed strict discipline, but then backed away from it as children matured and demonstrated self-discipline.  In this context, self-discipline meant liberation.  It felt good and was seen as one of the more rewarding aspects of becoming an adult.  Thus the chastening of children, to include corporal punishment was not seen as abuse, but rather a rite of passage.

 

The “elders” had something very precious that was not to be squandered on the immature, irresponsible, unproductive, irreverent or unappreciative.  Corporal punishment was one of several ways the older generation let the rising generation know in unmistakable terms what was expected of it, that the privileges and enjoyments of free society came at the price of unselfish, orderly, upright and contributory personal conduct.  This was reinforced with much teaching and preaching from the Judeo-Christian perspective, which included the concepts of eternal reward and punishment.  These were considered essentials of becoming an adult. 

 

Today, being an adult means adult books, adult beverages, adult entertainment and adultery (or am I wrong). 

 

Standards Confusion

Part of the reason corporal punishment is seen today as outmoded ineffective and abusive, is that the older generation has been so divided on what’s appropriate and inappropriate.  Thus one will try to discipline then another will exclaim how cruel and barbaric it is.  This we find is even institutionalized in the form of lawyers and civil servants who make their livings second guessing, harassing and prosecuting parents and other authority figures (I’m not condoning domestic abuse).

 

So, while we recognize the value of discipline in a society, we seem to outlaw any methods that engender it!  The inevitable result is permissiveness, which, paradoxically, produces a rising generation with a spoiled brat attitude exhibiting (you guessed it) greater violence!

 

Of course truly grown-up behavior must be rewarded, or the punishment side loses its effect.

 

This bates the broader question of what behaviors and lifestyles are encouraged and discouraged in our society?  It’s vital that we carefully balance societal rewards and punishments.  This is the wellspring of culture, the master gland of the body politic.  It would seem more and more we find self-indulgent, immoral, corrupt, obnoxious, wild and even criminal behaviors and lifestyles are being glamorized in the media, protected by the law and even rewarded with lucrative careers and prestigious positions.  You won’t have to look far for examples.  Our kids take all this in and it becomes their reality!

 

I feel there is a point at which wickedness reaches “critical mass,” almost a “point of no return.”  As more and more people are attracted to lifestyles of the lawless, corruption creeps into our institutions and economy.  The perception becomes: you have to be selfish, dishonest and even ruthless to get ahead, maybe even survive.  Instead of the land being filled with people who are “givers” it fills with “takers.”  The natural result is unbridled competition, then wide-spread violence, then dysfunction and destruction.  From a spiritual perspective, society gets to the point where the rising generation can no longer choose good.  Essentially wickedness becomes the only option.  At this point a nation is “ripe for destruction” (Revelations 14:15-16,18), and God either allows it to be destroyed by other nations, or He will destroy it Himself, as with Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

The true spirit of discipline, chastening, and punishment should be to correct human and social ills before they become a runaway train headed for the cliff of annihilation!  People with normal, healthy personalities don’t enjoy chastening, either receiving or administering it; but they understand it serves a wise, useful, and even vital purpose.

 

“Let the righteous smite me; it shall be a kindness: and let him reprove me; it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break my head….”       (Psalms 141:5)

 

“Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.”  (Proverbs 27:6)

 

“Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.”  (Prov. 9:8)

 

Death Penalty

Continuing along our controversial ‘track’ we mustn’t overlook the death penalty which has meant putting a permanent end to undesirable behavior, historically with some pain.  In our culture “pain of death,” of course has had more to do with being denied all the pleasures and privileges of being alive than any pain associated with the execution itself.  There is a raging, on-going debate as to the deterrent value of this penalty.  Of course the punishment aspect has no corrective value for the recipient that we can measure, since he/she is no longer with us.  From an eternal or spiritual perspective, the punishment may be seen as providing the recipient a way to pay, at least to some extent, for his/her crimes.  But the compelling question really must weigh the individual against society.  Is the elimination of the individual reasonable in light of the harm/cost to society that’s being avoided?

 

The Old Testament perspective is that evil needs to be “put away” (Deut. 19:13; 22:22-24).  In other words, good society must not tolerate, let alone foster, a criminal class.  There is merit in this, beyond just the idea of punishment.  At some point, even rich societies can’t afford to pay maintenance on incorrigible, and especially violent criminals (popular definition).  The cost becomes prohibitive not only in dollars, but also in its degrading effect on public morals.  The “revolving door” law enforcement that has become the policy of the United States really means that criminals just go to prison and learn how to be more effective at their trade.  Meanwhile billions of dollars pour into our penal system and the pockets of its administrators and officers.  Lawyer’s fees have become particularly vexing.

 

What happens when there is an emergency on a national scale like the one we had in New Orleans with hurricane Katrina, where prisoners had to be let loose?  In reality, far too many violent criminals are being let loose anyway.  Their on-going presence in society casts a pall over our communities, causing law-abiding citizens to grow ever-more cautious and fearful, while the criminals grow ever-more bold and fearsome.  Undoubtedly Old Testament practices are too severe for our day, but their essential wisdom should not be dismissed.  The criminal element needs to be functionally eliminated for the sake of preserving good society.

 

Incidentally, the Book of Mormon makes it clear that while “Thou Shalt Not Kill” stands as a general principle (Mosiah 13:21; 3 Nephi 12:21-22), murder is a separate category that warrants the death penalty (2 Nephi 9:35, Mosiah 29:14, Alma 1:18; 30:10; 34:11-12; 42:19-20).

 

Orderly Society Asides

Part of the problem of criminality has to do with the job market itself.  If we had enough legitimate, meaningful, well-paying jobs there wouldn’t be so much pressure to create and sustain “artificial” professions, including lives of crime!

 

A related problem is the mentally ill who have been turned out on our streets, along with homelessness in general.  For now, may I briefly address the former?   E. Fuller Torrey, in his recently published book, The Insanity Offense, (New York; WW Norton & Co., Inc.; 2008) calls attention to case after case of tragedy and crime resulting from insufficient controls and protections for those mentally ill and criminally insane who pose serious threats to themselves and others.

 

I have been acquainted with a few young men who suffered from schizophrenia and lived on their own in the community.  Each had the same perspective: they felt they were fine, and didn’t need their medications.  The reality was, in their unmedicated state, they were a menace to society and were wearing out and sometimes imperiling their relatives and acquaintances.  They were in a constant state of confusion and agitation.  To me it became clear that the humane thing for them and all concerned would be committing them to a therapeutic, more controlled environment.  The idea that these people are only harmless is a fiction.  Some may be, but others are clearly a threat to public order and safety.  I think the Psychology/Psychiatric profession, like others, has let the popularity of being compassionate and non-judgmental color its policy.  Let us not forget that, as permissiveness leads to chaos and then anarchy, dictators with their promises of order and security become more and more attractive.

 

Torture, a Topic?

What about torture?  Won’t that keep society in order?  I can’t believe this has actually become a topic of serious discussion in this country.  When I was growing up, torture was considered an apparition of the Middle Ages, or at most something that occurred in German and Japanese concentration camps during World War II.  The Constitution clearly states ‘no cruel or unusual punishment.’  This principle put into practice in the United States and other modern countries has shown that law and order can be achieved without the use of excessive and extreme disciplinary or coercive measures.   

 

There’s no question that torture strikes fear into people’s hearts, except of course the hearts of the sadists who inflict the pain.  Torture is probably the main element that makes terror terrible.  It indeed has immediate effects on behavior.  But what are the more profound effects on a society that institutionalizes such a practice?  A government that resorts to excessive humiliation, brutality and cruelty de-legitimizes itself.  It’s a government that is supposed to represent the people, or at least their interests, and yet demonstrating such a gross disregard for humanity leads only to fear without respect.  It also invites the same treatment from adversaries and enemies, thus perpetuating a downward spiral into the abyss of horror and un-civilization.

 

I’m not for torture, but I am for punishment all the way up to taking life when it’s just, necessary, and the result of due process.  There are criminals, and there are combatants who are so violent, so brutal and so bent on destruction, that they just have to be eliminated.  If left to their devices, they will pull the whole world down with them.  They will turn the land of the living into a living hell.  It’s truly them or us, and we have to have the righteous judgment and the guts to deal with them effectively.

 

The problem is we’ve grown so liberal, so morally weak and impotent in the enforcement of existing law, that criminals and terrorists have been emboldened to an extent that some of our commentators and leaders have either been silenced or begun to recommend extreme counter-measures.  If we had ruled and conducted ourselves with a consistent, reasonably firm and just hand, these criminal and terrorist elements wouldn’t have grown to present proportions.  With appropriate policy adjustments and public support, the situation can be brought back under control.

 

War; Can there Be a Good Side?

Where does war fit into all of this?  As indicated earlier, the Western World has been divided on this issue, I think largely because of interpretations of Old Testament vs New Testament.  In Academia there are comparable divisions between conservative and liberal philosophies (assuming there are any conservatives left in Academia).  As a result we have hawks and we have pacifists, and everything in-between.  Again, may I be so outrageous and inappropriate as to appeal to the Book of Mormon for clarification?

 

Very briefly, the Book of Mormon is most importantly another testament of Christ, but written in a historical context that is instructive.  The history begins with two families, the children of which become divided, eventually growing into two disparate nations which battle many times.  Several chapters deal with wars and related moral issues.  The nation that kept the record we now know as the Book of Mormon was a Christian nation.  Over its thousand-year history it was not provocative of war or bloodshed until its last generation, which change in policy led to its ultimate destruction.  Significantly, up until that generation, though they worshipped and followed Christ, to include the almost identical “sermon on the mount” we have in Matthew, they were instructed by revelation to fight for their rights and way of life.

 

When they found themselves compelled to go to war, they fought courageously and with the aid of God’s power; yet they came up with many strategies for minimizing injury and loss of life not only for themselves but also for their enemies.  Many times, when they had it in their power to exterminate their enemies, they instead extracted promises from them not to come to battle anymore and let them return in peace to their homes.  Here’s a sample of the principles they observed:

 

“Nevertheless, the Nephites were inspired by a better cause, for they were not fighting for monarchy or power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church.  And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God; for the Lord had said unto them, and also unto their fathers, that: Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies.  And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed.  Therefore for this cause were the Nephites contending with the Lamanites to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country and their rights, and their religion.”  (BofM, Alma 43:45-47)

 

Then we have this about one of their greatest military leaders:

 

And thus he was preparing to support their liberty, their lands, their wives, and their children, and their peace, and that they might live unto the Lord their God, and that they might maintain that which was called by their enemies the cause of Christians.  And Moroni was a strong and a mighty man; he was a man of a perfect understanding; yea, a man that did not delight in bloodshed; a man whose soul did joy in the liberty and the freedom of his country, and his brethren from bondage and slavery; Yea, a man whose heart did swell with thanksgiving to his God, for the many privileges and blessings which he bestowed upon his people; a man who did labor exceedingly for the welfare and safety of his people.  Yea, and he was a man who was firm in the faith of Christ, and he had sworn with an oath to defend his people, his rights, and his country, and his religion, even to the loss of his blood.  Now the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary; yea, and they were also taught never to give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives….. and this was the faith of Moroni, and his heart did glory in it; not in the shedding of blood but in doing good, in the preserving his people, yea, in keeping the commandments of God, yea, and resisting iniquity.  Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.”   (Alma 48:10-17)

 

Another important lesson from these records is that in many instances, if these “Christians” had been more faithful to God, He would have softened the hearts of their enemies so that war might have been avoided in the first place.  Related admonitions included the avoidance of pride, materialism, corruption and so forth.

 

The same principles are at least implied in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, but many today feel that the Old Testament was effectively replaced by the New, with its emphasis on grace, forgiveness, turning the other cheek, not resisting evil and so on.  This new emphasis certainly had its place, the precepts of which were too much overlooked by pre- and non-Christians of that era.  However, I think much of New Testament teaching along these lines had relevance to the need for first century Christians to survive and have hope in an overwhelmingly Roman society; whereas, for Book of Mormon peoples as well as ancient Israel, establishing a god-fearing civil society was clearly achievable, so they had a divine mandate to defend it.  Today, we in the “Free World” are essentially in that same position.

 

Yes I know God had the power to overthrow the Roman Empire at any time, but I believe he works with his children according to their circumstances to bring about his ultimate purposes.

 

A lengthy chapter could be written in these regards, but I only touch on it to suggest there is other scripture which not only substantiates the basic moral position of the Bible, but also helps clarify Biblical issues that have caused so much controversy over the centuries.  I refer to it because we in the West seem to be paralyzed by controversy.  The hawks want to utterly wipe-out our enemies while the peaceniks want to let our enemies overrun us.  We must find the better way; then we must have faith in that better way.

 

Force and Counterforce

Pres. Bush, after 9-11, said those (countries or societies) who support the terrorists are as much the enemy as the terrorists themselves.  But rather than going after the greater engines of ignorance, hate and fanaticism, we’ve paid a high price in picking-off individual terrorists one-by-one.  Consequently, we are simply hacking at the branches and doing little about the roots. I think we’ve been unable to muster sufficient ‘righteous indignation’ to act decisively, because there probably isn’t enough righteousness among us in the first place!  If we were living more according to standards the Bible is clear on, we would be in a position to demand or receive more respect abroad, and maybe not even be faced with these tough military decisions.

 

But doesn’t violence beget violence?  No, I’m saying violence must be opposed.  There’s force, and then there’s counterforce.  Force is violent because it violates rights, properties and persons.  Counterforce is defensive.  It does not seek to violate, it seeks to stop or eliminate those who violate.  Counterforce may resort to physical aggression, but that isn’t its object or motivation.

 

Violence begets violence among the wicked because for them it’s a way of life.  For societies governed by the righteous, violence begets justice.  In the broader perspective, then, we return to the question of power, assuming good can overpower evil. 

 

I know this idea of aggression and defense is somewhat semantic.  For example most of us agree the Soviet Union and other Communist countries during the cold war were the aggressors and demonstrated an obvious disregard for human rights, yet their propaganda and public position was always “defensive.”  They insisted they were resisting the “Imperialist” West.  We were the ones who were trying to take over the world.  Interestingly, the “progressives” in this country have taken the same position with regard to the Bush Administration and the traditionalists!  I’ll spend some space on “victimology” later; but suffice to say, we commoners need to be able to move beyond the propaganda and keep our eye on the ball of truth.

 

Just as individuals have the right of self-defense, legitimate government uses force from a defensive posture, which I call “counterforce.”  With counterforce, we employ similar methods as with force, though not as extreme.  Sufficient pain and/or discomfort is applied to our enemies in order to thwart their evil designs and protect our economy, rights and freedoms.  Government officers and enlistees represent the will of the people by defending against crime domestically and evil aggressors internationally.  We the people want to live a life, in fact build a world, that’s free of violence, and so we finance police, military and diplomatic “counterforces” to protect and promote these interests. 

 

What happens when police, military and political forces become corrupt and start exercising their power illegitimately?  There is no easy fix.  The people have to be strong (united and motivated) enough to rise up and replace corruption with incorruption.  If they won’t they lose their freedom.

 

Thankfully, when it comes to rising up, all we have to do at this point is get out and vote for the right people, and propositions, and be willing to do our part when duty calls.  May we do so, and avoid all situations more dire!

 

But who’s to say the incorrigibles won’t be as strong, or stronger, than the “civilized?”  Aren’t we just inviting them to redouble their efforts when we subscribe to the idea of strength?  That takes us back to the question of righteousness.  As explained earlier, righteousness is the key to unity and divine assistance, which become keys to power.  The unrighteous, though fierce, are by definition more divided, less entitled to God’s support and therefore relatively weak.  This is a reliable principle, and a solemn reminder that if we want to have power over our enemies, we must attend to the issues of right and wrong.  The prettiest thing is that, even though good people may be powerful, they are not to be feared.  Righteousness yields the fruits of charity (I Cor. 13) which is essentially constructive and helpful rather than destructive and hurtful!

 

So then, to generalize, force may be for good or evil.  To put it differently, force is evil but counterforce is good.  Say’s who?  Here it would be handy to appeal to the Bible for authority, but as already suggested, various interpreters of the Bible disagree on this point, thus dividing not only Christians from Jews, but also Christians from Christians.

 

I think a reasonable understanding of the whole Bible would lead us to appropriate action, as was the case with the majority of Americans in World War II.  However, today, even though we have more Bibles than ever, we care about them and read them less.  Many of those who do read them seem to make a hobby or profession out of advocating one narrow self-serving point of view.  Thus you will hopefully pardon my insolence, impertinence and audacity in referencing Mormon scripture again to clarify the question of force.

 

Agency, the First and Last Social Issue

In the Bible we read there was “war in heaven” and that old dragon, the devil along with a third of the hosts of heaven, were cast out onto the earth (Rev 12:3-4, 7-9).  What was the war about?  The Bible isn’t clear on this point.

 

The LDS standard works include The Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants which provide us with a couple of vital insights bearing on “agency” or our right to chose (being the opposite of force).  Accordingly, before and perhaps during the creation of the world, the Father of spirits in Heaven (God) counseled with his spirit children (us), proposing a plan whereby we might have a mortal experience which would help us become more like Him.  As a part of this experience, it was understood that mortals would be subject to temptation and inevitably sin.  Since we could never return to Father’s presence as sinners, a means had to be employed to bridge the gap between sinful man and sinless God.  The Father asked who should be sent on the singular mission of bridging that gap.

 

At this point, the Only Begotten of the Father offered to atone for the sins of the world.  However another offer was made by Lucifer, then known as a “son of the morning.”  He proposed a plan whereby mortals would not be allowed to have their agency, or right to choose between good and evil.  In so doing, he promised to save every one of us, provided he was given the glory. 

 

This plan was rejected by the Father, and by two-thirds of the hosts of heaven; but Lucifer’s plan had great appeal and caused enough serious contention as to be characterized a war.  Ultimately he won a third of the hosts of heaven and brought them with him to earth, thus to assist him in his work of rebellion, temptation, deception and destruction (Moses 4:1-4; Abraham 3:25-28; D&C 76:25-27) (see also Bible, Isaiah 14:12-15).

 

Thus, if we give credence to these scriptures (as I do), we see that the issues of force and counterforce are fundamental to good and evil not only in this world, but also in the cosmos!  Throughout history, we see that force and counterforce have been the crux of conflict, truly a further playing-out of the pre-mortal war in heaven.  We see also the pull of irresponsibility being played out.  We see that before we came to earth a third of us were sold on the idea of letting someone else take care of us and make our decisions for us.

 

Communism

This is the same attraction we find in Socialism, Communism, Unionism and the Welfare State.  For awhile after the collapse of the Soviet Union, people were declaring Communism dead.  The philosophy may assume a name other than “Communism” but it will never die as long as there are short-sighted people on the earth.  There will always be the draw of the ‘free lunch’ out there bamboozling people into trusting and empowering charismatic leaders, either secular or religious, who offer impossible dreams. 

 

Short-sightedness finds its way into conservative circles as well: businesses and industries that only consider this quarter’s profits without regard for long-term consequences for society or the environment, would be easy examples.

 

I hasten to modify: there is a free lunch.  I believe the atonement wrought by the Savior represents a free gift to man promising resurrection for all mortals, and salvation based on our faithfulness.  There are many other heavenly gifts.  This earth was freely lent to us, and we are told, eventually will be given to the meek (Matthew 5:5).  In my opinion, it is this wonderful idea of giving, beginning with God and Christ, that has inspired and sustained liberal philosophies and governments especially in the West.  My only fear is that the liberal pendulum has swung too far and needs to come back to a more reasonable position.

 

Why was Lucifer’s plan an impossible dream?  First, because God acted in our behalf by not allowing it.  In theory it probably was possible to implement a program of “forced goodness,” just as we have seen various dictators enforcing “programs” throughout history.  However, while behavior may be forced, real goodness of necessity includes the element of moral choice.  A person is considered good or bad because of the choices he or she freely makes;  otherwise their behavior has no moral value. If we hope to be more than a pimpled pile of protoplasm we have to exercise our intelligence in deciding between right and wrong.  This of course implies being personally responsible for our decisions.  Individual identity and personal responsibility, therefore, are fraternal twins.

 

Lucifer’s plan would have negated the opportunity for growth for which mortality was intended.  Will your child grow if you do everything for him or her?  Why would it be any different for us as God’s children?  Without agency, our walk on earth would have been nothing more than a manifestation of Lucifer’s power and glory.  The mortal experience would have had no genuine personal significance for the rest of us.

 

But aren’t many if not most of the difficulties and problems we face in life a result of man’s flawed decisions?  Yes indeed, but in the mix of all those decisions and resultant conditions, individual identities are established, individual characters are built.  This meets the cosmic imperative of mortality: that it be a probationary state, a testing situation.  Hand-in-hand with personal choice goes individual accountability, the bases for the exercise of mercy and justice, both in this world and in the world to come.  Although exercised imperfectly by men, perfectly by God, it is better for men to at least approximate justice and mercy, than to have none at all.   More on this later.

 

Real Good and Evil

To make this “mortal test” valid, there must be the real possibility of or potential for good and evil.  This being true, if we find a society that seeks to sterilize its populace, so that there is absolutely no wrong-doing, we know that a fundamental purpose of life is being frustrated.  Of course achieving a “sterile” society has never really happened, but the ideal of purity becomes a handy tool of oppression.

 

It isn’t a question of everybody being good or bad.  It’s a question of which cultural climate prevails.  If good people rule and good laws dominate, the resultant healthy society can tolerate a certain amount of evil.  It should be decried, it should be shunned, it should be prosecuted when necessary and pushed back onto the sidelines of unpopularity, into the dark out-of-the-way people places; but trying to stamp it out utterly and completely is just a handy excuse for totalitarianism.  The only way for wickedness to be truly eliminated is where everyone willingly chooses to be good.  Conversely as long as evil isn’t enthroned, as long as it isn’t allowed to dominate, people should be able to be damned if they are determined to be, and can’t be persuaded otherwise.

 

Good government, then, must walk the middle road between liberal and conservative extremes.   As God’s government involves both justice and mercy, so should the governments of men, but in the right proportions. 

 

Fascism

If we say that Communism is the liberal extreme, then Fascism would be the conservative extreme. The Fascists seek to force a ‘higher life’ on the masses without the Communist lie of boundless compassion and absolute equality.  The Fascists openly and blatantly see themselves (or the State they represent) as superior, if not supernatural, and therefore endowed with authority to make all people and things conform to their high standards.  There’s no need to entice them with ‘free lunch’ promises or idyllic liberalities. The main attraction of Fascism is order and nationalistic or ethnic pride (of course we find a parallel in overly strict religious practice).  Here again our concern should be, as democracies and republics degenerate into disorder and chaos, that Fascism and other forms of dictatorship become more and more enticing.

 

Whatever the rationale and rhetoric, these various philosophies and polities simply represent overly ambitious and arrogant men and women resenting and resisting legitimate authority and lusting for illegitimate personal power.  They invariably exploit popular inclinations for ignorance, excitement, pleasure, leisure, and security (these may be desirable in healthy proportions). Inordinate power is just inordinate power, whatever banner it marches under.  The rhetoric and specific strategies may differ, but once in power we see dictators employing much the same control mechanisms and devices. 

 

Freedom for All

There is one other significant insight to be gleaned from our scriptural passages.  It is the idea that “agency” was ordained of God from the beginning.  If so, agency is a universal God-given human right or value, not just some bright idea our Founding Fathers stumbled upon.  We have people today saying that there are certain ethnicities on this planet that simply are not “cut-out” for freedom.  They don’t come right out and say it, but it is implied that the people of Iraq, or the Middle East are incapable of appreciating or sustaining a democratic way of life, thus making it presumptuous of the United States to intervene and try to “impose” our ways on them.

 

Those who make this implication are the same people who stridently insist that every single person in this country, right down to the most sociopathic and violent criminal, is entitled to every possible human right!  This, perhaps as well as anything imaginable, shows the duplicity of their position.  They, in fact, are not interested in human rights.  They are interested in their own right to overthrow traditional America and empower themselves instead!  By protecting and encouraging the most rebellious and least rational elements of our society, not to mention sympathizing with our international enemies, they not only empower themselves with intimidating demonstrations and the buying of unpatriotic votes, but also use false accusation, fear-mongering, real peril and violence to move the masses toward change that accepts anything over current conditions.

 

Just as there were in South Viet Nam, there are millions in the Middle East longing for civil liberties and human rights, but they dare not express themselves for fear of terror, and frankly in anticipation of the United States pulling out, just as we did in 1975!

 

Divided We Stand?

We may be approaching a time when the Traditionalists and the Progressives will separate.  The Traditionalists will say, “Go ahead and put your progressive agenda into practice and see where it takes you.  As for us, we will, to the best of our ability, continue to serve and trust in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, worship the Lord Jesus Christ, and trust in the results.  We also will defend this way of life as necessary.”  And this may end up being not just a national, but a world-wide movement.

 

The Challenge

In reality true freedom isn’t easy for any nation to maintain.  The Greeks couldn’t maintain it, the Romans certainly couldn’t.  The Children of Israel gave up their system of judges and went for monarchy.  In our somewhat-justified pride, we’ve been busy trying to foster freedom in the world, and yet the seeds of authoritarianism are being sown, and have been for decades, right here at home.  Democracy requires wisdom, integrity and decency at the grass-roots level.  If we can’t maintain that, we’ll be like all the other countries that ‘just aren’t cut-out for freedom!’

 

Conclusion

The idea that force should not be met with counterforce is unrealistic and dangerous.  Of course we should try persuasion and kindness first and always, but when we take the position that all force is evil, including “counterforce,” saying we can’t “lower ourselves” to the exercise of power in defending what’s right and opposing what’s wrong, we just contemplate national suicide.  “Peace through strength” is a sound principle; for, unfortunately, strength is the only thing the incorrigibles of the world have ever understood.  

 

This essay isn’t specifically about saving the United States, though that’s a highly desirable implication. It’s about understanding the principles which underlie good society and civilization anywhere.  We see that enjoying the finer things of life is possible only when we really want them and are empowered to have them.  Empowerment implies the ability to choose and do, which also means the inability of others to keep us from choosing and doing.  We see that force and terror pull the rug out from under all higher human aspirations, and that those who want the good life must unite in faith around correct principles and exercise the power such unity and faith generates as a counterforce that will control and minimize evil.  We also understand that this power begins with self control and reverence for God which leads to greater knowledge, understanding, respect, respectability, the establishment of legitimate laws and order, the promotion of public safety, personal security, creativity, peace and real prosperity.  We also see how true principles can be twisted into lies by the devil and the cunning designs of men, and how we must inform and fortify ourselves against deception.

 

Again, I’m not righteous except in the sense of believing in and being concerned about the reality of right and wrong.  I don’t write to condemn, but to warn.  I write to awaken us to the fact that God will eventually condemn us and forsake us if we ignore and forsake Him, and at the rate we’re going it could be sooner than later.

 

The common man

Must ever aspire

Or the common man

Will, as ever, expire!

 

-Doug Taylor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

V. Judging

 

OPINIONS V

JUDGING

 

 

“Judge not that ye be not judged.”  (Matthew 7:1)

 

This has become a favorite catch-phrase for many liberals, which is ironic, since so many of them exhibit contempt for Christian maxims generally.  I assert again, the whole idea of liberality (which is a good thing), for our day largely grows out of the Jodeo-Christian tradition.  No, it’s not just from the New Testament.  Contrary to popular belief, a lot of liberal precepts and practices are found in the Old Testament as well.  To illustrate: many conservatives who uphold traditional values founded in the Bible, would shrink and flee from the idea of “Jubilee” and “release” commanded by the “harsh God” of the Old Testament.

 

According to the law of Moses, every so-many years, the wealthy and powerful were required by God to relinquish property, let their slaves go with gifts and let the earth rest.  In other words, the Lord was willing to let “the economic game” go on for a time, but then the gameboard was to be cleared so everybody could start over (Lev. 25; Deut. 15:1-18).  Usury was also sharply restricted (Ex. 22:25; Lev. 25:36; Deut. 23:19-20; Ps. 15:5; Prov. 28:8), a thing unimagined today.  

 

Of course we dare not mention the fact that the earliest Christians had “all things in common” (Acts 2:44).

 

There are other ironies:  Conservatives are supposed to be interested in preserving things: saving money, saving our traditions, and yet for some reason they are not supposed to be interested in saving the environment.  In other words, Conservatives are not Conservationists.  How did that happen?

 

But returning to our subject: “Judge not” is often used as a weapon, as a ray-gun, for zapping those (usually Conservatives) who attempt criticizing someone for “wrongdoing.”  Of course the whole idea of “wrong,” these days, is out of vogue, unless you’re found to be one of those who insist such a thing as right and wrong actually exists, then you are in the wrong, because the Bible you believe in tells you not to judge….

 

Bible Judging

Let’s take a closer look at the Bible.  In John 7:24 we find: “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.”   So, do we follow Matt 7:1 or Jn 7:24? 

 

There are several New Testament passages that admonish the saints not to fellowship with the wicked.  How were they able to do that and still follow Matt 7:1?

 

“Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.”  (Romans 14:1)

 

“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned: and avoid them.”  (Romans 16:17)

 

“But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.  For what have I to do to judge them also that are without?  Do not ye judge them that are within?  But them that are without God judgeth.  Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.”  (I Corinthians 5:11-13)

 

“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.  For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.”  (Ephesians 5:11-12)

 

“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.”  (II Thessalonians 3:6)

 

“If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil sermisings,  Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.”  (I Timothy 6:3-5)

 

“A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.”  (Titus 3:10-11)

 

“I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil; and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:  Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.”   (Revelation 2:2, 20)

 

It’s significant that the Apostle Paul, in the above, and in the last quote, the Lord Himself to John the Revelator, didn’t advise or direct the saints to make war on evildoers, they didn’t command to hunt down the wicked and cut off their heads.  They only commanded to identify them and not company with them.

 

Religion and the Law

This implies that religion is largely a personal thing (as apposed to a political movement or government mandate), a thing between the person and his/her God.  Religion is a matter of belief about life in context of what’s before and after, about immortal, eternal things.  Yes, it does affect how we approach the here and now, but it should not be an incitation for force.  When we start forcing our metaphysical views on others, we step beyond the bounds of religion and into the realm of political activism.  This has happened in the Christian world (not just in Middle Age Europe either); and it has happened and is happening in other cultures around the world.

 

Our views certainly can and should affect public policy.  People say ‘you can’t legislate morality,’ but what would legislation be based on if not morality?  We make laws against that which a majority of us feel is wrong, or immoral.  We even make laws which mandate what we consider to be right; like taxes (I know, bad example).  Here we should be cautious, asserting as we have that “force” ought to be defensive in nature.  Laws really should focus on defending us against offenses (evil), rather than mandating good.  Religion rightly stands against moral offenses, but should do so only within the scope of moral influence and fellowship, not stepping out-of-bounds into mental or physical coercion.     

 

The real question relating to legislation is what morality should we base it on?  Should we use the morals of our Judeo-Christian tradition, some other religious tradition, a philosophy of secular humanism or some other non-religious system (ethics)?  As written earlier, I feel the Judeo-Christian is our best bet, so here my concern is with the idea of judging from that perspective.

 

In doing so I ask a simple question: If the early Christian saints were to identify evildoers and avoid them, how were they able to do it without judging?  The obvious answer is that they had to exercise some form of judgment.  In fact, a major reason for the Romans turning against the Christians was their unflinching belief in ‘one true way,’ which of course implies one true God, which implies the adherents of pantheism were doctrinally incorrect.  Generally the Romans were tolerant when it came to religion.  They worshiped many gods themselves and recognized or tolerated most of the deities other societies revered.  What they couldn’t tolerate was a religion that honored only one God and one way.

 

If religion stays within its bounds, it should be perfectly fine for one doctrine to declare all other doctrines false, since it would have no bearing whatsoever on how we treat each other as neighbors in a civilized world.  We can gather in our groups (churches), have our personal beliefs, but still enjoy friendly day-to-day intercourse with those of other faiths. 

 

Frankly, it’s healthier for churches to insist they are right and the others are wrong, doctrinally, than to insist everyone is equally right or wrong.  Why?  Because the implication of the former is that a right way actually exists.  The later position suggests there is nothing morally substantial that we can use as a point of reference for keep our bearings through life’s travel and travail.  I also find confirmation of these concepts in Book of Mormon passages:

 

 

“Now there was no law against a man’s belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds.  For thus saith the scripture:  Choose ye this day, whom ye will serve.  Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him.  But if he murdered he was punished unto death; and if he robbed he was also punished; and if he stole he was also punished; and if he committed adultery he was also punished; yea, for all this wickedness they were punished.  For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes.  Nevertheless, there was no law against a man’s belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds.”   (Alma 30:7-11)

 

 

We can be firm in our doctrines without forcing attitudes or behaviors on our neighbors.  This is part of the genius of the United States system.  It boils down to the common phrase “live and let live,” which means we can believe whatever we want, and we can express those beliefs without fear of physical injury or deprivation.  However (and here is where we need to strike the right harmonic chord) values at a certain point are allowed to assume the force of law, based on the will of the majority.  The assumption is that common men with common sense will be in the majority and will establish the best policies and practices, which become binding on the whole.

 

This boils down to a “judgment call,” and as comforting as it would be to know that man-made law and its practitioners can be relied upon for correctness, they and we must do the best we can realizing our fallibilities.  This is why it’s so helpful and vital to have God’s law as a reference to guide us in our deliberations.  Again from the Book of Mormon relative to the role of the “majority” in society:

 

 

“Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.  And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he hath hitherto visited this land.”  (Mosiah 29:26-27)

 

 

The Constitution doesn’t specify whether or not our founding values and beliefs are to be based on a specific religious orientation.  But, significantly, they did see human rights as a divine endowment, not to be alienated from men by other men.  It is significant that the vast majority of our Founders were deeply religious men, predominantly Christian, and they saw the self-discipline and enlightenment this perspective instilled in people as essential to a smoothly functioning democratic or republican society.

 

Here are a few quotes from www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm which powerfully illustrate this point:

 

John Adams:
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” –October 11, 1798

 

John Quincy Adams:
“Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?” “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?”
–1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts.

“The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code.”
John Quincy Adams. Letters to his son. p. 61

 

Benjamin Franklin:
“God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech

“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?” [Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]

 

Alexander Hamilton:
• Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great:
(1) Christianity
(2) a Constitution formed under Christianity.
“The Christian Constitutional Society, its object is first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.”

On July 12, 1804 at his death, Hamilton said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.”

“For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.” [1787 after the Constitutional Convention]

 

John Hancock:
“In circumstances as dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments, …at the same time all confidence must be withheld from the means we use; and reposed only on that God rules in the armies of Heaven, and without His whole blessing, the best human counsels are but foolishness… Resolved; …Thursday the 11th of May…to humble themselves before God under the heavy judgments felt and feared, to confess the sins that have deserved them, to implore the Forgiveness of all our transgressions, and a spirit of repentance and reformation …and a Blessing on the … Union of the American Colonies in Defense of their Rights [for which hitherto we desire to thank Almighty God]…That the people of Great Britain and their rulers may have their eyes opened to discern the things that shall make for the peace of the nation…for the redress of America’s many grievances, the restoration of all her invaded liberties, and their security to the latest generations.”
“A Day of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, with a total abstinence from labor and recreation. Proclamation on April 15, 1775″

 

Patrick Henry:
“Orator of the Revolution.”
• This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.”
—The Last Will and Testament of Patrick Henry

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]

“The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed.”

 

John Jay:
“ Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” Source: October 12, 1816. The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed., (New York: Burt Franklin, 1970), Vol. IV, p. 393.

“Whether our religion permits Christians to vote for infidel rulers is a question which merits more consideration than it seems yet to have generally received either from the clergy or the laity. It appears to me that what the prophet said to Jehoshaphat about his attachment to Ahab ["Shouldest thou help the ungodly and love them that hate the Lord?" 2 Chronicles 19:2] affords a salutary lesson.” [The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, 1794-1826, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1893), Vol. IV, p.365]

 

Thomas Jefferson:
“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

“I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.”

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

 

Samuel Johnston:
“It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans (Muslims), pagans, etc., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President or other high office, [unless] first the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves.”
[Elliot’s Debates, Vol. IV, pp 198-199, Governor Samuel Johnston, July 30, 1788 at the North Carolina Ratifying Convention]

 

James Madison
“ We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.”

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

”I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare the unsatisfactoriness [of temportal enjoyments] by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.”
Letter by Madison to William Bradford (September 25, 1773)

 

 

The relative peace and prosperity we’ve enjoyed provide compelling evidence that our forbearers were right in producing our founding documents and establishing our institutions.  It was understood that ideas can be ‘dangerous things’ because people tend to ignore the boundaries that should exist between thought and action.  However, ideas can spur us on to greatness if we stay in harmony with the Founders’ original intent.

 

When to Judge

During his mortal ministry, Jesus was highly critical of the policies and beliefs of the Jewish religious establishment.  Did He resort to force?  He did try to get the leadership to change (repent) using chastening words, rebukes, admonitions and warnings; but He never resorted to force.

 

What about when He took a whip and drove the money changers out of the temple?  That was a defensive act.  The temple, in fact, was His house.  He had every right to evict from His (Father’s) house the irreverent materialists who had trespassed.  Of course the time will come, and is not far off, when Christ will judge the world, and that’s because he is the Eternal Judge.  He is God.  But in His mortal ministry, He was setting us an example of ‘not judging.’

 

“And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.  He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.”  

(John 12:47-48)

 

Comparing Matt 7:1 and Jn 7:24, we find that the passages either contradict each other, or they simply show more than one side of the same principle.  Could it be that there are times when it’s appropriate to judge and times when it isn’t?  Of course!

 

It’s self-evident that we make judgments every day.  We judge whether food is good or bad, whether cars, houses, boats, vacations, social events, churches, sports teams, politicians, cities, countries, friends, neighbors etc. are good or bad for us (or something in-between).  If we are driving along the road and see hitchhikers, we look them over and determine whether or not it would be safe to pick them up.  If we don’t we’re crazy, or at least way too gullible.

 

We make generalizations, too.  A huge thing has been made of this since the 60’s with the onus of “prejudice” attached.  But generalizing is a natural, even essential, part of our walk through everyday life.  We try different brands of toothpaste until we settle on one.  Settling on one means we have made a generalization.  We say that’s the best toothpaste (for us).  Really?  Will it be the best toothpaste next year, or in ten years?  Have we made a scientific study of all the ingredients and compared them with all the other ingredients of all the other toothpastes?  Have we read all that’s been written on the subject, and if so, will we continue to read all that’s written on the subject?  No it’s not worth the extra time and effort, so we make a generalization and move on.  Advertisers and marketers are well aware of this “product loyalty,” which becomes more evident and entrenched in consumers as they grow older.

 

So judgment and generalization are natural and reasonable parts of daily life.  It’s how we discriminate between what’s best, less-than-best, and downright bad for us.  And it’s how we save time and energy to be spent in other more useful and meaningful ways.  True, we can be narrow and mean with our judging and generalizing.  We can make assumptions about people and things that are hasty, shallow, unfair, unreasonable and inaccurate.  Obviously, this creates serious problems for us, our neighbors, our community, and society as a whole.

 

Well then, what was the Savior referring to when he said “judge not?”    A closer examination of the scriptures leads us to believe He has reference to certain criteria.  First all, He meant for us not to condemn in the eternal sense.  To damn a person eternally is to assume a role only God has.  He is the one who understands every aspect of our lives.  He also is the one who came to earth and experienced all the trials and temptations we experience, and yet lived a sinless life.  These two elements put Him in a supreme position to judge perfectly and finally when it comes to our ultimate and eternal destinations.

 

“For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:….  For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;  And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.”  (John 5:22, 26-27)

 

In light of our own weaknesses, sins and limited understanding, we see how foolish and presumptuous it is for us to “damn” a person or tell them to “go to hell.”  So when the Lord tells us to judge not, He first means “condemn not” in the eternal sense.  I think He also would have reference to not judging in the magistrative sense unless we are duly appointed to office.  This is rather obvious, but there has always been a problem of “the unauthorized” taking law into their own hands, thus showing contempt for due process and leading to various excesses and abuses. 

 

It’s ironic that man, throughout history, has had courts and judges busily making judgments, but today we keep insisting that judging is wrong.  Judgment in society goes way back.  I guess the first judging had to do with Adam and Eve’s “miss-judgment” and transgression, whereupon God judged and cast them out of the garden of Eden.  We also have God not respecting (judging) Cain’s offering, and then Cain’s unrighteous judgment in becoming angry and killing Able, and God’s judgment in cursing Cain, and so on (Genesis 3 & 4).

 

We get some insight into judging from the Law of Moses.  As far as neighbor-to-neighbor relations go, we have an excellent passage in Leveticus:

 

“Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.  Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbor: I am the Lord.  Thou shalt not hate thy neighbour in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.  Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.”  (Lev. 19:15-18)

 

We find similar perspectives in James 2:1-13 where he admonishes the saints not to judge by outward appearances.

 

We also have precedent for a system of earthly courts and judges in Biblical Moses (Pentateuch). Interestingly, in the early period after the Children of Israel departed from Egypt, Moses was getting worn out from trying to instruct and judge the people by himself from morning ‘til night.  His father-in-law, Jethro, intervened, advising Moses to appoint captains of thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens to judge the people, so that he would only have to deal with matters the others couldn’t handle.   (Exodus 18:13-26)

 

Later, when Moses was overwhelmed by the complaints and petitions of so many people, God told him to appoint seventy elders to assist him with the burdens of judgment.  Importantly, these elders were to be divinely inspired in their decisions (Deut 17:8-13).

 

Of course the ultimate judge in this system was Moses, the prophet.  Because he spoke with God and for Him as His special mouthpiece, his decisions were considered binding and final.  His successor, Joshua, held the exact same position and became the first in a line of judges who’s chronology constitutes the Book of Judges.  Some of these judges, such as Samson, were less righteous than others.  The last judge was righteous and a prophet indeed: Samuel.  However, the people unwisely demanded a king to replace their judges.  This was eventually permitted by God, and so we have Kings Saul, David, Solomon and so on.  David, especially, and Solomon were inspired and might be considered prophets as well as kings and judges, and they were assisted in their judgments by a system of Priests and Levites.  Unfortunately, as the line of kings continued, their general level of spirituality, along with that of the people, declined, and the true prophets became outsiders.  This trend led finally to the destruction of the Northern Kingdom (Israel) by the Assyrians and then the Southern Kingdom (Judah) by the Babylonians.

 

My point, simply, is that there is clear precedent in the scriptures for an established system of earthly judges, and for the idea that they should be inspired by God in their decisions.

 

Judgment, then, really needs to be divided into three broad categories.  There is divine and final judgment, which God alone executes, then there is official earthly judgment which rests with legitimate ecclesiastical and civil authorities, and finally there is common judgment which all of us exercise as we navigate through every-day life.

 

Incidentally, when it comes to discrimination, we see that all discrimination cannot be bad, since God discriminates!  The fact that we are judged and sent to heaven or hell, is discriminatory!  “But,” you say, “God is God, and we are us.  Maybe He can discriminate as the ultimate Judge, but as lowly man, we have no such right.”  True, in the ultimate sense, but as indicated above, every-day defensive kinds of judgments are expected of us, as well as institutional judging; and the more inspired by heaven we are in these personal and official determinations the better for all concerned.

 

But if we take the position that nobody can judge, this not only affects our ability to defend against interpersonal evils and dangers, but also our ability as a nation to deal with domestic and international threats.  This is precisely what we’ve seen happening as more and more Americans have either advocated or caved-in to an ultra-liberal approach to the question of justice.  Mercy is a wonderful thing, but a society without justice is like a body without a backbone!  While the idea of “softness” is appealing, especially to the ‘downtrodden,’ this lack of backbone actually leads to the poorer classes of society being overlooked or exploited, and ending up the worse for it.

 

Equity and Justice

The inclination to help those in need comes naturally to most of us; but what happens when we are obligatees of “the needy,” who are without a sense of justice themselves; when they not only ask for help, but demand our help, set the terms and threaten us when we don’t meet them?  This is not the kind of giving people are inclined to enjoy!  This is not charity, this is extortion; and the result is that those who normally would help instinctively distance themselves, not wanting to contribute to, or be victimized by, what amounts to anti-social, if not criminal behavior.  Of course, in the process, the truly needy end up being neglected all the more!

 

Judging rightly implies fairness, a recognition of the fact that many of the poor and needy are such because they have been exploited by the greedy, the overly ambitious and the predators of the world.  Some people are poor and in need because they are lazy and lack ambition, but many, perhaps even most, are not, and it’s judging and judgment based on correct principles that has been and will be their salvation!

 

It’s significant that the Bible often uses “judgment” in a very positive way, not always implying the finding of fault.  In order to recognize your neighbor’s need and help him or her, you must exercise a certain amount of judgment:

 

 

 

“Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments:”   –Ex. 6:6

 

“Then hear thou in heaven, and do, and judge they servants, condemning the wicked, to bring his way upon his head; and justifying the righteous, to give him according to his righteousness.

–1 Kings 8:32

 

“When the ear heard me, then it blessed me; and when the eye saw me, it gave witness to me:  Because I delivered the poor that cried, and the fatherless, and him that had none to help him.  The blessing of him that was ready to perish came upon me: and I caused the widow’s heart to sing for joy.  I put on righteousness, and it clothed me: my judgment was as a robe and a diadem.  I was eyes to the blind, and feet was I to the lame.  I was a father to the poor, and the cause which I knew not I searched out.  And I brake the jaws of the wicked, and plucked the spoil out of his teeth.”    –Job 29:11-17

 

“LORD, thou hast heard the desire of the humble: thou wilt prepare their heart, thou wilt cause thine ear to hear:  To judge the fatherless and the oppressed, that the man of the earth may no more oppress.”   –Psalms 10:17-18

 

“The meek will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way.”   –Ps. 25:9

 

“Sing unto him a new song; play skillfully with a loud noise.  For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.  He loveth righteousness and judgment: the earth is full of the goodness of the LORD.”   –Ps. 33:3-5

 

“Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him.  A father of the fatherless, and a judge of the widows, is God in his holy habitation.  God setteth the solitary in families: he bringeth out those which are bound with chains: but the rebellious dwell in a dry land.”  –Ps. 68:4-6

 

“He shall judge thy people with righteousness, and thy poor with judgment.  The mountains shall bring peace to the people, and the little hills, by righteousness.  He shall judge the poor of the people, he shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the oppressor.”

–Ps. 72:2-4

 

“Thou didst cause judgment to be heard from heaven; the earth feared, and was still, when God arose to judgment, to save all the meek of the earth.  Selah.”   –Ps. 76:8-9

 

“To know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding; To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity; To give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.  A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:”   –Proverbs 1:2-5

 

“For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.  He  layeth up sound wisdom for the righteous: he is a buckler to them that walk uprightly.  He keepeth the paths of judgment, and preserveth the way of his saints.  Then shalt thou understand righteousness, and judgment, and equity; yea, every good path.”  –Prov. 2:6-9

 

“Much food is in the tillage of the poor: but there is that is destroyed for want of judgment.”

–Prov. 13:23

 

“Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge.  An ungodly witness scorneth judgment: and the mouth of the wicked devoureth iniquity.”

–Prov. 19:27-28

 

“The robbery of the wicked shall destroy them; because they refuse to do judgment.” 

–Prov. 21:7

 

“It is joy to the just to do judgment: but destruction shall be to the workers of iniquity.”

–Prov.21:15

 

“Evil men understand not judgment: but they that seek the LORD understand all things.”

–Prov. 28:5

 

“It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink: Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted.”  –Prov. 31:4-5

 

“If thou seest the oppression of the poor, and violent perverting of judgment and justice in a province, marvel not at the matter: for he that is higher than the highest regardeth; and there be higher than they.”  –Ecclesiastes. 5:8

 

“Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.”  –Isaiah 1:16-17

 

“Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them.”

–Isa. 1:23

 

“Zion shall be redeemed with judgment, and her converts with righteousness.”  –Isa. 1:27

 

“For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looketh for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry.”

–Isa. 5:7

 

“Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed; To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless.”  –Isa. 10:1-2

 

“The way of peace they know not; and there is no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace.  Therefore is judgment far from us, neither doth justice overtake us: we wait for light but behold obscurity; for brightness, but we walk in darkness.  We grope for the wall like the blind, and we grope as if we had no eyes: we stumble at noonday as in the night; we are in desolate places as dead men.  We roar all like bears, and mourn sore like doves: we look for judgment, but there is none; for salvation, but it is far off from us.  For our transgressions are multiplied before thee, and our sins testify against us: for our transgressions are with us; and as for our iniquities, we know them; In transgressing and lying against the LORD, and departing away from our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood.  And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter.  Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the LORD saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment.”  –Isa. 59:8-15

 

“As a cage is full of birds, so are their houses full of deceit: therefore they are become great, and waxen rich.  They are waxen fat, they shine: yea, they overpass the deeds of the wicked: they judge not the cause, the cause of the fatherless, yet they prosper; and the right of the needy do they not judge.  Shall I not visit for these things? Saith the LORD: shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?”  –Jeremiah 5:27-29

 

“But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right,… And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment; He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man, Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord God.”  –Ezekiel 18:5-9

 

“Ye who turn judgment to wormwood, and leave off righteousness in the earth,…  Seek good, and not evil, that ye may live: and so the LORD, the God of hosts, shall be with you, as ye have spoken.  Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish judgment in the gate: it may be that the LORD God of hosts will be gracious unto the remnant of Joseph.”  –Amos 5:7, 14-15

 

“I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies….  Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols.  But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.”  –Amos 5:21-24

 

“Hear this, I pray you, ye heads of the house of Jacob, and princes of the house of Israel, that abhor judgment, and pervert all equity.  The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money: yet will they lean upon the LORD, and say, Is not the LORD among us? None evil can come upon us.  Therefore shall Zion for your sake be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of the forest.”  –Micah 3:9-12

 

“O LORD, how long shall I cry, and thou wilt not hear! Even cry out unto thee of violence, and thou wilt not save!  Why dost thou shew me iniquity, and cause me to behold grievance? For spoiling and violence are before me: and there are that raise up strife and contention.  Therefore the law is slacked, and judgment doth never go forth: for the wicked doth compass about the righteous; therefore wrong judgment proceedeth.”   –Habakkuk 1:2-4

 

“Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.”  –Matthew 1:19

 

“And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”  –Luke 1:17

 

“And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.”

–Luke 2:25

 

“And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.”  –Luke 14:14

 

“Now I beseech you, brethren by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.”  –I Corinthians 1:10

 

“Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.” 

–Philippians 4:8

 

“For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate….”  –Titus 1:78

 

 

My point is that for charity to work and be a positive factor in society there must also be an element of justice.  The givers need to be in a position to set humane but reasonable standards so that giving leads to the dignity and personal progress of receivers rather than a slide into chronic welfare conditions where recipients become not only more dependent, but also more unhappy, bitter and hostile.  It’s the old adage of giving the man a fish vs teaching him how to fish.  Of course the assumption must be that there is real opportunity.  There has to be a body of water and the body of water has to have fish in it….

 

Unconditional Love

A point also to consider is that nowhere in the Bible do we find the term “unconditional love.”   We do find that “God is love” (1 John 4:8, in fact most of chapter 4 on love), and we have Paul’s wonderful discourse on charity found in I Corinthians 13.  There are multiple references to God’s love and Christian love.  So there’s no question that God loves, but the point of unconditionality is somewhat a matter of semantics.

 

To compare extremes, one could argue that God loves Satin and his angels, in the very broadest sense.  Even though Satin hates God and all who believe in Him, and seeks to thwart and destroy all that God stands for and does; yet God allows Satin to exist and reign with his angels in hell, and in a sense has been allowed to reign on earth as well.   So one might say that God finds appropriate places and gives as many gifts as recipients will receive.  In that sense He loves even His enemies.  But the salient point is that God’s personal associations are conditional, for he dwelleth not in unholy temples (1 Cor. 3:16-17, and following verses 10-15 illustrating how our works will be tried by fire, the outcome of which will determine degrees of our salvation).

 

Similarly, we find that the love we feel and show for God is to be demonstrated conditionally, specifically by keeping His commandments (John 15:10-15; 1 John 3:24; 5:2-3).  Yes, the main commandment John references is that of loving God and brother; yet there are many more commandments, the keeping of which are all tied to love in one way or another.

 

So God’s love for us in spite of our wickedness misses the point that whether or not we are or will be happy, or whether or not we will be able to enjoy His presence (“know” Him) in the eternities, which is the essence of eternal life (John 17:3), hinges on certain conditions.  Clearly John 17:1-20 makes a distinction between true believers and the worldly, when it comes to realizing heavenly unity and bliss. 

 

 

“Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fullness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.”  (Psalms 16:11)

 

 

The Book of Mormon makes the point clearly that mercy cannot rob justice, but I suspect you’ve had quotes enough for now.

 

 We may rhapsodize about God’s love, mercy and forgiveness; true as far as it goes; but in the end justice will create a great gulf (Luke 16:…26….) between us and God, unless through our faith and diligence we have become reconciled to Him.   Thus our focus in this life ought to be on repentance and improvement, rather than floating on the narcotic of “unconditional love.”

 

Love and Respect

I find that love itself is a concept that’s subject to much manipulation.  It may be better and safer to start with the more concrete concept of respect.

 

The greatest despots who have terrorized and abused their subjects, often, if not in most cases, have insisted on loving motives.  Hitler insisted on his love for the German people, so did Stalin for Russia, the Ukraine, etc.  But did they respect their people?  The question is just as valid on a lesser scale with local politics or even interpersonal relationships.  The meddling politician, or busybody neighbor who knows better than you how to run your life, insists they only love you and seek your welfare.  Do they respect you?  Their actions speak louder than their words.  Let them show their respect first, and the love will take care of itself!

 

The idea of justice, as advocated in the scriptures, relates to the principle of respect.  ‘Thou shalt not dishonor parents, kill, commit adultery, steal, lie, covet, take advantage of the widow and the fatherless, dig a pit for your neighbor,’ all have to do with showing respect for the rights of others.   These lesser commandments are embodied in the greater: “…whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them….” (Matthew 7:12).  

 

Of course love takes us a step further, from not taking advantage of or hurting our neighbor, to actually serving and helping our neighbor.  But again, “giving” must be reciprocal to be cohesive (justice acting to moderate mercy).  There are great givers such as the prophets and saints who are not daunted by a cold cruel world, but in an everyday pedestrian sense, if there are just as many takers as there are givers, the givers eventually give up and join the ranks of the takers, and society falls apart.

 

Respect is demonstrated in the little details of daily life, where there is common courtesy and politeness.  These are “niceties” that we seem to be too busy for today.  In fact many now believe being nice actually jeopardizes their chances for success.   Genuine courtesy is the oil that makes the social engine run smoothly; and the more we descend into rudeness, hardness and ugliness, the less effective we become as a society.   As a corollary, Love is the elixir of life, but the word or concept may be used to mask evils, which destroy a nation’s soul.

 

Equal Rights

The implications here are fairly obvious when it comes to crime and violence; But I feel this would be a good place for discussing some broader issues of social equality.

 

It’s pretty much common knowledge that the Founding Fathers advocated the idea of all of us being created equal, yet chose not to face squarely the issue of slavery in their generation.  It is also common knowledge that this issue smoldered for decades, and then burst into flame during the War Between the States.  Even then, segregation persisted into the 1950’s, then gave way to the Civil Rights Movement and legislation of the 1960’s.  Even today, many blacks insist grievous inequalities persist, and it seems some will not be satisfied until they are the masters and whites are the slaves!

 

What does all this mean?  I can’t treat such a question in essay form.  Books and volumes are devoted to the subject of race relations, the last chapters of which have yet to be written; but I would like to make a few general observations:

 

We took a turn for the better and a turn for the worse in the 1960’s.  There can be no question that many social injustices were addressed as a result of the Civil Rights Movement.  However, these issues should have been addressed through the institutions that were in place.  I know much of the frustration felt by blacks was that the institutions were not responding to them adequately, and had not for decades, so taking to the streets was considered by many the only option.  Maybe it was.  Let’s consider that issue first. 

 

Taking to the streets goes way back.  Obviously the phenomenon of popular or general uprisings can be traced throughout history.  As already stated, Israel had a priesthood-based administrative and judicial system; but there also was a custom of the ‘elders in the gates,’ having reference to urban open spaces where business was transacted and common justice meted-out (Deuteronomy 16:18).  The importance of “elders” in the community cannot be overstated, and I hope to treat that subject shortly…. 

 

We might say “taking to the streets” turned a more “democratic” corner with the ancient Greeks.  Athens had its “Agora,” or marketplace which also served as a meeting place for Assemblies, Councils, Courts, elections, and business transactions.  Similarly Rome had its “Forum,” but over time the Romans developed the concept of “acclamatio,” or affirming by acclamation.  This boiled down to giving support to and making political decisions in behalf of whichever party could stage the largest and most impressive open demonstration, which, as one would expect, easily degenerate into mobocracy (Deseret Book: Hugh Nibley, 1991, The Ancient State, pp. 259-260; also 2005: The Office of Bishop in the Early Christian Church, pp. 79 & 101).  Public policy in Rome, more and more, came to be based on who shouted the loudest or could be the most beguiling or intimidating–not who was the wisest or what was actually prudent and just.  Rhetoric, rather than truth became dominant.

 

This same idea was picked up in the French Revolution, the populist French of that time being much enamored with the Roman Republic.  Stanley Loomis’ Paris in the Terror (1964: Lippincott, Co, Philadelphia, New York) masterfully depicts the injustices, mischiefs and horrors of a revolution that was too dominated by the rabble of the streets.   Anarchy may march under the banner of freedom, but it isn’t the type of freedom most of us would wish for.

 

In the Greek play The Suppliants, by Euripides, we have an interesting exchange between a herald from Thebes and Theseus, a king of Athens.  The herald extols the virtues of tyranny, seeing democracy as a disorganized mob-dominated system.  Then Theseus gives us a fine little speech in defense of democracy:

 

Herald: “Thou givest me here an advantage, as it might be in a game of droughts; for the city, whence I come, is ruled by one man only, not by the mob; none there puffs up the citizens with specious words, and for his own advantage twists them this way or that, one moment dear to them and lavish of his favours, the next a bane to all; and yet by fresh calumnies of others he hides his former failures and escapes punishment.  Besides, how shall the people, if it cannot form true judgments, be able rightly to direct the state?  Nay, ’tis time, not haste, that affords a better understanding.  A poor hind, granted he be not all unschooled, would still be unable from his toil to give his mind to politics.  Verily the better sort count it no healthy sign when the worthless man obtains a reputation by beguiling with words the populace, though aforetime he was naught.

 

Theseus:  “This herald is a clever fellow, a dabbler in the art of talk.  But since thou hast thus entered the lists with me, listen awhile, for ’twas thou didst challenge a discussion.  Naught is more hostile to a city than a despot; where he is, there are in the first place no laws common to all, but one man is tyrant, in whose keeping and in his alone the law resides, and in that case equality is at an end.  But when the laws are written down, rich and poor alike have equal justice, and it is open to the weaker to use the same language to the prosperous when he is reviled by him, and the weaker prevails over the stronger if he have justice on his side.  Freedom’s mark is also seen in this: “Who hath wholesome counsel to declare unto the state?”  And he who chooses to do so gains renown, while he, who hath no wish, remains silent.  What greater equality can there be in a city?  Again, where the people are absolute rulers of the land, they rejoice in having a reserve of youthful citizens, while a king counts this a hostile element, and strives to slay the leading men, all such as he deems discreet, for he feareth for his power.  How then can a city remain stable, where one cuts short all enterprise and mows down the young like meadow-flowers in spring-time?  What boots it to acquire wealth and livelihood for children, merely to add to the tyrant’s whim, whenso he will, and cause tears to those who rear them?  May my life end if ever my children are to be wedded by violence!  This bolt I launch in answer to thy words.  Now say, why art thou come?  What needest thou of this land?  Had not thy city sent thee, to thy cost hadst thou come with thy outrageous utterances; for it is the herald’s duty to tell the message he is bidden and hie him back in haste.  Henceforth let Creon send to my city some other messenger less talkative than thee.”    -Britannica, Great Books, Vol 5, pp. 261-262

 

Concerning justice vs mob rule, we have a valuable passage in Exodus 23:1-2:  

 

“Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thy hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.  Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment:”

 

Today, we almost expect people, more often than not African Americans, to take to the streets, and not only demonstrate, but riot, if they perceive some injustice has occurred.  Obviously, this sends a message to the broader community of how seriously and passionately the protesters or rioters feel about an incident or issue.  It also amounts to extortion on a grand scale!  Whether or not it’s based on a sincere desire to correct wrongs, the effect is still that of intimidation and bullying.  Yes I know whites have done the same to blacks, KKK outrages for example.  It’s wrong either way.  But “the race card” or “minority card” or “victim card” has brought a new dimension to social activism that we need to understand.

 

Ethnic Pride and the Race Card

My sense is that humankind emerged from past ages to modern times with many nationalistic and racial biases.  In fact extreme patriotism, which came to be known as “Nationalism,” along with a love and fascination for all things military (“Militarism”), had much to do with countless national and international conflicts, including our Civil War and World Wars I and II.

 

A relatively recent and significant contributor to Nationalism and Militarism was Eugenics which was considered a science until after World War II.  This “science” was based on a popular hypothesis that the physical features of men and women of various races, particularly the features of their skulls and faces correlated with intelligence and a predisposition for good or bad behavior.  This was found to be a pseudoscience and is totally discredited today.  However, we should understand the broader implications of this perspective in relation to cultural and national power.

 

Just as the Greek’s xenophobia and faith in their pagan gods engendered confidence and unity, and therefore power, the racism that was blatant in the West during the 18^th, 19^th, and 20^th centuries, which we rightfully deplore today, still had that same confidence-building and unifying effect.  There was also the belief that Christianity was more correct, and in fact superior to other religions.  This, of course, inspired a movement to Christianize as much of the world as possible, which admittedly produced mixed results.

 

Suppose Christianity is more correct, and to that extent superior to other beliefs?  Forcing Christianity on others isn’t justified by its very doctrine, and so any proselytizing that involved force was uncalled for.  On the other hand, I think it’s fair to say that countries all over the globe have benefited in various ways from Christian influence.

 

Today, the popular thing is to hang our heads in shame and deplore the expansionist conquests of the Christian West, and call Nationalism and Militarism evils that must be erased from our collective psyche.  So while we’re busy feeling guilty and deploring past pride, disarming and insisting all people and countries are equally good, other countries are insisting on their moral, political or religious superiority, insisting on our inferiority and culpability, building up their military and gearing up for our destruction!

 

They are beefing up their economies as well in ways we have not because they are more united, self-confident and self-interested.  This can be a rather artificial unity, as with China still being under autocratic rule; but even there the nationalistic engine that’s mounted on a culture going back thousands of years may out-perform a capitalistic engine that lacks the fuel of national or cultural solidarity.

 

It was in this context of Western shame that African-Americans recognized an opportunity in the 1960’s to stem the tide of racism that had held them back for generations.  Of course blacks were a minority in the US, so the success of the Civil Rights Movement was facilitated by significant numbers of whites (including Republican lawmakers).  The movement was historic and beneficial as far as it went, but I suggest White America did itself and Black America a disservice by not correcting those inequalities through legitimate channels.

 

Instead of using cheap and cruel tactics to keep blacks at status quo, those in power should have opened the gates of opportunity to them, but still insisted on the same standards and respect for the law and our founding principles that were expected of all citizens up to that time.  Instead, we have what happened, which lead many to conclude that one get things done by going around the law, through “civil disobedience,” and that politics is just a game to be played against rules that lack veracity.

 

Since politics was just a game, playing the “race card” became an effective game strategy.  If a person in authority (any white person) accused a black person of doing something wrong, the accusation could be neutralized by accusing the accuser of being prejudiced or racist.  And prejudice or racism, after years of indoctrination in our colleges, and dramatization in our media, had become the great sin of the Western world, so that people would almost rather die than be accused of being a racist.  The race card became a most effective anti-establishment weapon, and it was soon followed by the gender card, then the minority card, then the victim-for-whatever-reason card.  This is all fine as far as games go, and since the majority of whites preached “competition is what made America great” (Darwinism), the idea of game-playing couldn’t be questioned.

 

But what happens when true principles of good society are replaced by games?  What happens in the area of crime, when you don’t dare prosecute for fear of being accused of being racist?  What happens to goods and services when those who want to insist on efficiency and standards get accused of being prejudiced?  What happens to neighborhoods when neighbors want to maintain clean, safe and beautiful surroundings but when they insist on it, they are accused of discrimination?  What happens to professional standards when those who can’t meet them demand acceptance under a false banner of equality.  What happens when lending institutions, out of fear of being accused of discrimination, are forced or intimidated into approving loans to those who are not in a solid position to pay back those loans? 

 

It’s not that all minorities are criminals, or don’t want to maintain high standards, it’s that minority members who are criminals and destroyers of standards find immunity to criticism or correction by deploying their “race or minority card deflector shields!”  And if that doesn’t work, there are always “judge-not deflector shields.”

 

Thus, while integration has brought some superficial benefits, the cynical game playing that’s come with it has actually driven blacks and whites further apart in many ways.  Subsequently countless other “special interests” or “minorities” have jumped on the discrimination bandwagon, until it’s apparent that many not only seek redress of grievances, but also the complete overthrow of what they consider to be white hegemony.

 

Today we have whole nations playing the victim card.  The “evil of colonialism” is being cited by various governments (not to mention terrorist organizations) and their representatives as justification for their hatred, hostility and aggression toward us; and we never had a colony!  But countries who did, though there were certainly wrongs and even atrocities that occurred, did much that was courageous, progressive, enlightening and civilizing for much of the world.

 

This becomes the killing of the goose that laid the golden egg.  If the U.S Constitution and government is overthrown, just because it happened to be established by white males, what will take its place?  Look around the world and through history and come up with something better if you can.  It’s past time for all races, ethnicities and special interests to come to the standard of the Constitution, understand it and support it.  I don’t believe the intent of the Constitution was a free-for-all in which everybody madly (and now ruthlessly) pursues selfish interests with a “win-at-all-costs” dictum.

 

Local and Personal Responsibility

We have to accept responsibility for our own problems and actions without “blaming the man” for everything (which is ironic because on the one hand minorities insist the majority can’t judge, and yet they vehemently judge that same majority).  A democracy or republic cannot survive if the common people won’t assume personal responsibility and bear allegiance to just principles.

 

Lets briefly look at the O.J. Simpson trial of 1995.  Here we have a prominent example of a mostly black jury deciding a case in favor of a black defendant in spite of substantial, perhaps overwhelming incriminating evidence.  Have there been mostly white juries acquitting a white defendant in spite of incriminating evidence?  Yes.  Is either right?  No.  But the point to be made is that all special interests must be set aside when it comes to a common concern like law and order.  Everyone must uphold and offer fidelity to the same fundamental standards of right and wrong.

 

On more than one occasion, I’ve heard comments on talk radio from African Americans saying that even if OJ killed his ex-wife, Nicole, and Ronald Goldman, he isn’t guilty in the broad sense, since he is a victim of white racism which caused him to have anger and rage that couldn’t be controlled.  We hear the same kinds of arguments made in defense of the looting and marauding that accompany various race riots, power outages, and natural disasters such as hurricane Katrina.

 

It truly boggles the mind to see citizens of a predominantly black community such as New Orleans, and the leaders they have elected, somehow blaming George Bush for the calamities that accompanied and followed the storm.  In the first place, it was a natural disaster.  It wasn’t George Bush’s storm.  In the second place, the citizens and leaders of New Orleans knew very well the weakness of their flood abatement system long before the disaster struck.  They chose to ignore the warnings and gambled that a storm of that magnitude wouldn’t hit.  Apparently they thought someone else, like the state or federal government should have funded the upgrades.

 

I’m not saying they deserved what they got.  None of us are as prepared as we ought to be for eventualities, but it’s completely irrational to push all the responsibility off on Pres. Bush and the federal government.  What?  Are there no intelligent people below the federal level?  Do you mean to say that in a state of millions of people there aren’t 500 leaders who can come up with an effective disaster plan?  Were there no resources and funds at the local level to be set aside for a rainy day?  And what are the implications when it comes to the freedom and dignity of the common man? 

 

Were the monarchs of Europe and tyrants of Rome correct?  Is it true that the common man indeed lacks the wisdom and the will to act effectively and responsibly?  If so, then I guess all power and responsibility needs to fall back into the hands of the few, the elites, the dictators.

 

With situations like these the question arises as to whether or not diversity will ultimately allow for just, equitable and prosperous society.  Will diverse groups subscribe to one standard of morals, behaviors and policies that provides sufficient trust, unity, and tranquility?  Can a white person go on trial before an all black or all Hispanic jury with confidence he or she will receive justice?  Can an African American or Hispanic go before an all-white jury with the same confidence?  If not, we can’t live together, and segregation was the best policy after all! 

 

Obviously diverse groups can live together, but they have to have enough in common, approximating the same basic values, for them to enjoy the mutual trust and respect that are essential in a community.  I feel we have gone astray in how we define and celebrate freedom and diversity.  It’s a mistake to say freedom means pursuing one’s selfish interests at the exclusion of the interests of others.  It’s a mistake to celebrate a diversity that clearly includes lawless and anti-social behavior.  There’s undoubtedly justification for some of the antagonism and complaining, but I suggest much of it is self-serving, opportunistic and unbecoming of U.S. citizenship. 

 

Here again, we need something like the Bible to pull us together.  We need to believe in and look to a higher source of truth and wisdom for guidance, with a willingness to give up some of our personal preferences and private indulgences.

 

 

“For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”   (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 26:33)

 

 

My fear is that Hispanics will see the advantages the “victim card” offers and jump on the same bandwagon, and so the games will go on until the horses that pull the wagon are exhausted.  Then we will be going nowhere as a nation.  I call upon all of us to stop playing games, and make an earnest effort to honor and conform to the standards and principles that are required of any great and free nation.  This can be done without giving up cultural uniqueness, but cultural uniqueness must take second place to the uniqueness that characterizes responsible citizenship.  It must also take second place to the spiritual principles which under-gird the Constitution.

 

The Law Mystique

Now, kindly permit a comment on the idea of law itself as it relates to justice and judging.  I think, with the power of the legal profession looming over us, we forget, and legalists forget, that the law is really nothing more than the formalized will of the people.  Somehow, the law becomes a mystical thing as its doctors make it evermore complex and incomprehensible.  They also make provisions which exclude non-professionals from access to and exercise of the law.  We come to accept and believe the idea that the law is beyond us, something only the professionals can enact, interpret and enforce.  We give up our freedom when we to along with this assumption.

 

Legitimacy

On the other hand, realizing that earthly laws are only what we say they are, we are faced with the question of who gets the say?  This touches on the whole idea of legitimacy.

 

Legitimacy can be illustrated with money.  What makes a printed piece of paper worth more than the ink and the paper it’s printed on?  It’s the common faith people have in it.   This principle applies to anything from dollar amounts to public policy.  However, the legitimacy that grows out of this faith isn’t equally represented in the population.  Some people’s judgment naturally carries more weight than others, and in a god-fearing community, God’s judgments and commands carry the most weight.  So, legitimacy is a combination of common faith, the judgment of “elders,” and God’s will, all of which build an inertia of TRADITION, which in-turn defines and bestows VALUE.

 

These elements must be kept in balance.  The “elders” should not be arbitrary or capricious in their pronouncements.  The masses can’t afford to plow ahead disregarding the elders.  And neither can afford to forsake God in their policy-making.  But however we look at it, we cannot escape the essential role legitimacy plays in a society’s stability and ability to function.

 

Of course history has demonstrated numerous “illegitimacies” on the parts of “elders” and “people.”  As already mentioned, we find an interesting example of misjudgment made by the Children of Israel in First Samuel.  The result was a “less legitimate” government.  They had operated, since Moses, under a system of judges, but now they wanted a king.  Samuel, speaking for God, warned them about the consequences, but they wouldn’t hear of it:

 

 

“And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.   And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.   And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.   And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.   And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.   And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.   He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.   And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.   Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.   And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD.   And the LORD said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.”   –1 Samuel 8:11-22

 

So Samuel eventually anointed King Saul, who turned out to be inadequate as a leader; then Samuel anointed the great King David who was followed by his son Solomon, under whose leadership Israel experienced the zenith of its ancient power and glory.  It was generally a downhill slide from there with more or less flawed and wicked kings, leading the people to eventual destruction and dispersion.

The Book of Mormon has some very useful examples of both wicked and righteous kings and judges.  There is one pivotal moment in the history where a righteous king, named Mosiah, realizing the hazards that come with unrighteous monarchs, convinced his people to switch to an equitable system of judges.  If you’ll forgive my impertinence in quoting again from these scriptures, I share because they illustrate key elements in their law that gave it legitimacy:

 

“Now it is better that a man should be judged of God than of man, for the judgments of God are always just, but the judgments of man are not always just.  Therefore, if it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God, and judge this people according to his commandments, yea, if ye could have men for your kings who would do even as my father Benjamin did for this people–I say unto you, if this could always be the case then it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you…..  And whosoever has committed iniquity, him have I punished according to the law which has been given to us by our fathers.”     –Mosiah 29:12-15

 

“And I command you to do these things in the fear of the Lord; and I command you to do these things, and that ye have no king; that if these people commit sins and iniquities they shall be answered upon their own heads.  For behold I say unto you, the sins of many people have been caused by the iniquities of their kings; therefore their iniquities are answered upon the heads of their kings.  And now I desire that this inequality should be no more in this land, especially among this my people; but I desire that this land be a land of liberty, and every man may enjoy his rights and privileges alike….  And many more things did king Mosiah write unto them, unfolding unto them all the trials and troubles of a righteous king, yea, all the travails of soul for their people, and also all the murmurings of the people to their king; and he explained it all unto them.  And he told them that these things ought not to be; but that the burden should come upon all the people, that every man might bear his part.”     –Mosiah 29:30-34

 

“Therefore, it came to pass that they assembled themselves together in bodies throughout the land, to cast in their voices concerning who should be their judges, to judge them according to the law which had been given them; and they were exceedingly rejoiced because of the liberty which had been granted unto them.  And they did wax strong in love towards Mosiah; yea, they did esteem him more than any other man; for they did not look upon him as a tyrant who was seeking for gain, yea, for that lucre which doth corrupt the soul; for he had not exacted riches of them, neither had he delighted in the shedding of blood; but he had established peace in the land, and he had granted unto his people that they should be delivered from all manner of bondage; therefore they did esteem him, yea, exceedingly, beyond measure.”      –Mosiah 29:39-4

 

“And thou hast shed the blood of a righteous man, yea, a man who has done much good among this people; and were we to spare thee his blood would come upon us for vengeance.  Therefore thou are condemned to die, according to the law which has been given us by Mosiah, our last king; and it has been acknowledged by this people; therefore this people must abide by the law.”   –Alma 1:13-14

 

“Yea, they began to remember the prophecies of Alma, and also the words of Mosiah; and they saw that they had been a stiffnecked people, and that they had set at naught the commandments of God.  And that they had altered and trampled under their feet the laws of Mosiah, or that which the Lord commanded him to give unto the people; and they saw that their laws had become corrupted, and that they had become a wicked people….”    –Helaman 4:21-22

 

 

These passages show us that law among Book of Mormon peoples was based on a tradition that came down to Mosiah from their fathers; and these fathers weren’t everyday people, especially in the cases of Lehi and Nephi, the founders of their nation.  They were righteous men, prophets in their own right.  So we find a weighty tradition of elders, both familial and prophetic.  Then we have the authority of a righteous and highly respected king; and we know that kings, in the Israelite tradition were ordained by high priests and prophets—again a connection with God.  And finally, we have the voice of the people, which as already mentioned is valid in proportion to their righteousness (Mosiah 29:26-27 cited above).

As these elements came together in the right combination, they produced the strong and true foundation of legitimacy needed for an enduring social and governmental establishment.  Can it work for us?  Absolutely!

Conclusion

Actually with a willing and informed spirit of fairness (justice) at the grass roots level, many social problems are solved before they grow out of control.  When parents have the wisdom and authority to effectively teach, chasten and protect their children and not have it underminded by ill-intentioned meddlers; when officers of the law are able to prosecute or exonerate without being thwarted by gamers of the legal system; when local business, civic, school and church leaders can reward or discipline those they supervise or preside over and it has a lasting effect because the community supports them, and all concerned are devoted to true principles, then problems are solved before they are allowed to grow into the violence and criminality we are seeing more of today with acts ever more atrocious.

 

And so we can be free and still have youth being kept from mischief they will regret later in life, or promiscuity leading to complications and heartaches, have the wayward corrected before they launch lives of crime, have girls and women protected from seducers, have children protected from predators, have the gullible and less-bright protected from deplorable environments and self-destructive behaviors; and you find yourself in a society where, if you are honest, decent and hard-working, you are rewarded, but if you are lazy, dishonest, indecent or violent, you not only are not rewarded, you may very well be punished. The overall result would be safe, sane, pleasant homes and neighborhoods, in a smoothly running, happy and productive community and nation.   We see, then, that justice, properly administered, can in fact be merciful!

 

There is a popular misconception that free societies are necessarily dangerous societies.  Dangerous communities are communities the vast majority of us don’t want to live in.  The truth is free societies can be as safe or as dangerous as its citizens want them to be.  Control (law making, judgment, and enforcement) is essential for safety and prosperity in any community, but the key for a democracy or republic is self-control in the citizenry, and righteous judgment.  Where the law is good and just, and where we all choose to obey it, we get peace and security without loss of freedom.  In fact, understanding and intelligently obeying legitimate and wholesome law leads to ever more freedom!

 

The common man

Must be uncommonly just

Or the common man

Will inherit the dust!

 

–Doug Taylor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VI. Rebellion

 

 

OPINIONS VI

REBELLION

 

 

There’s a very significant incident in the history of the kings of Israel relating to the importance of  “elders” in society.  It has to do with king Solomon’s son, Rehoboam, and his rival and adversary Jeroboam.

 

Prior to the death of Solomon, Israel had been a single kingdom which included all twelve tribes.  Jeroboam was born during Solomon’s reign, apparently illegitimately, which would have caused some social barriers for him, but he grew to be an able adult and ‘man of valor.’  Solomon recognized his talents and appointed him to be an administrator over the tribe of Ephraim.  However, when Solomon heard that a prophet had predicted royal reign for Jeroboam, he sought to kill him.  Jeroboam fled to Egypt, apparently maintaining his “power network” in exile, because after Solomon’s death he returned to represent the interests of the northern tribes.

 

Rehoboam was installed as king of all Israel, but apparently Solomon, in spite of his glorious reign, had been a rather tough taskmaster; and so Jeroboam lead a delegation from the North to ask Rehoboam to lighten their burdens.  There was evident envy and resentment from the North relating to the whole idea of Judah and the descendents of David claiming perennial rights to the throne; so, though we don’t find those details in the record, the petition of Jeroboam’s party was undoubtedly received with considerable suspicion by Judah.

 

Anyway, Rehoboam asked for three days to consider the petition.  He first consulted the older men, who had been Solomon’s counselors, and they advised him to lighten the people’s burdens.  Then he consulted the young men, the princes and elites he had grown up with.  They advised him to threaten a significant increase in the people’s burdens with more severe oversight. 

 

Rehoboam chose to take the younger men’s advice and delivered a stinging response to the people, whereupon the northern tribes angrily withdrew from the southern kingdom and Rehoboam found himself having to flee for his life back to Jerusalem.  Jeroboam became “King of Israel” which encompassed the ten northern tribes.  He quickly established a priesthood and form of worship which was idolatrous, which lead to great wickedness, which lead to warnings from true prophets, and finally the curse of God.  They were vexed, then destroyed by Assyria, the people being carried away and scattered through various north countries (I Kings 11:23-43; 12 and following chapters; II Chronicles 10 & 11 and following chapters).

 

Here we have a powerful example of what can happen when the wisdom of the elders goes unheeded.  I came across another interesting example in the writings of Flavius Josephus, the renowned Jewish general and historian, showing how the rashness of youth contributed to the war between Judah and Rome which ended with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70:

 

“There was also another disturbance at Cesarea: those Jews who were mixed with the Syrians that lived there, raising a tumult against them.  The Jews pretended that the city was theirs, and said that he who built it was a Jew; meaning King Herod.  The Syrians confessed also that its builder was a Jew; but they still said, however, that the city was a Greecian city; for that he who set up statues and temples in it could not design it for Jews.  On which account both parties had a contest with one another; and this contest increased so much, that it came at last to arms, and the bolder sort of them marched out to fight; for the elders of the Jews were not able to put a stop to their own people that were disposed to be tumultuous, and the Greeks thought it a shame for them to be overcome by the Jews.”  (Grand Rapids, MI, 1973, Kregel Publications, Complete Works of Josephus, p. 483)

 

“Now the occasion of this war was by no means proportionable to those heavy calamities which it brought upon us; for the Jews that dwelt at Ceserea had a synagogue near the place, whose owner was a certain Cesarean Greek: the Jews had endeavoured to have purchased…the owner overlooked their offers…in way of affront to them…and left them but a narrow passage…and such was very troublesome for them to go along to the synagogue; whereupon the warmer part of the Jewish youth went hastily to the workmen and forbid them to build there; but Florus would not permit them to use force….”   (ibid p. 484)

 

“…when the Jews were crowding apace to their synagogue, a certain man of Cesarea, of a sedicious temper, got an earthen vessel, and set it, with the bottom upward, at the entrance of the synagogue, and sacrificed birds.  This thing provoked the Jews to an incurable degree, because their laws were affronted, and the place was polluted; whereupon the sober and moderate part of the Jews thought it proper to have recourse to their governers again, while the sedicious part, and such as were in the fervour of their youth, were vehemently inflamed to fight.  The sedicious also among the Gentiles of Cesarea stood ready for the same purpose; for they had, by agreement, sent the man to sacrifice beforehand as ready to support him; so that it soon came to blows.”  (ibid. p. 484)

 

In both incidents cited above the “elders” were wise and it was the rashness of youth that led to trouble.  From the Biblical perspective, it is not only considered a calamity when youth show disrespect or contempt for their elders; but also when the elders fail in their role of providing the wisdom and leadership that’s crucial for stability in society.  Here are some examples:

 

“For, behold, the Lord, the LORD of hosts, doth take away from Jerusalem and from Judah the stay and the staff, the whole stay of bread, and the whole stay of water. The mighty man, and the man of war, the judge, and the prophet, and the prudent, and the ancient, The captain of fifty, and the honourable man, and the counsellor, and the cunning artificer, and the eloquent orator. And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them. And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable. When a man shall take hold of his brother of the house of his father, saying, Thou hast clothing, be thou our ruler, and let this ruin be under thy hand: In that day shall he swear, saying, I will not be an healer; for in my house is neither bread nor clothing: make me not a ruler of the people. For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen: because their tongue and their doings are against the LORD, to provoke the eyes of his glory. The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves. Say ye to the righteous, that it shall be well with him: for they shall eat the fruit of their doings. Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him: for the reward of his hands shall be given him. As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. The LORD standeth up to plead, and standeth to judge the people. The LORD will enter into judgment with the ancients of his people, and the princes thereof: for ye have eaten up the vineyard; the spoil of the poor is in your houses. What mean ye that ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor? saith the Lord GOD of hosts.”  –Isaiah 3:1-15

 

This is a long quote, but particularly impressive because it captures the desperate situation Judea was in before its destruction at the hands of the Babylonians.  The “elders” had abused their positions and abandoned their responsibilities.  As a result they had lost the confidence of the people, women and children having to govern in their place without necessary experience or authority.  Things were falling apart and God’s judgments were upon them….  Here’s another powerful quote from Ezekiel which takes to task the “shepherds” (leaders) who had failed to feed their flocks (the people):

 

 

“And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto the shepherds; Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks? Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed: but ye feed not the flock. The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost; but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them. And they were scattered, because there is no shepherd: and they became meat to all the beasts of the field, when they were scattered. My sheep wandered through all the mountains, and upon every high hill: yea, my flock was scattered upon all the face of the earth, and none did search or seek after them. Therefore, ye shepherds, hear the word of the LORD; As I live, saith the Lord GOD, surely because my flock became a prey, and my flock became meat to every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, neither did my shepherds search for my flock, but the shepherds fed themselves, and fed not my flock; Therefore, O ye shepherds, hear the word of the LORD; Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them.”  –Ezek. 34:1-10

 

The above is certainly an interesting cross reference to John 10 where Jesus characterizes himself as the “Good Shepherd,” or Matt. 9:36, recording an occasion when He taught and healed the people out of compassion, for He saw them as ‘sheep without a shepherd.’  Ezekiel 34 not only chastens the leaders but also the commoners (cattle), for helping themselves to the ‘good stuff’ then spoiling it so others can’t even enjoy the leftovers.  This is a typical pattern, really, where corruption in leadership is just a reflection of moral decline in the general population:

 

“And as for you, O my flock, thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I judge between cattle and cattle, between the rams and the he goats. Seemeth it a small thing unto you to have eaten up the good pasture, but ye must tread down with your feet the residue of your pastures? and to have drunk of the deep waters, but ye must foul the residue with your feet? And as for my flock, they eat that which ye have trodden with your feet; and they drink that which ye have fouled with your feet. Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD unto them; Behold, I, even I, will judge between the fat cattle and between the lean cattle. Because ye have thrust with side and with shoulder, and pushed all the diseased with your horns, till ye have scattered them abroad;”   –Ezek. 34:17-21

 

So we have two important problems to discuss: first, the refusal of youth (and adults who won’t grow up) to honor parents and other authorities(rebellion), and second the refusal of elders to fulfill their God-ordained role as competent, benevolent and just leaders(another form of rebellion).

 

Rebellion is an interesting concept, particularly for citizens of the United States.  One might say we are built on rebellion since we had a ”Revolutionary War,” but to what extent should there be rebellion, and of what sort?

 

True, the thirteen colonies “rebelled” against the rule of England, but the monarchies of England and other European states were corrupt and unjust.  The Declaration of Independence explains at length how people who are unjustly governed have a god-ordained right to revolt against that government and establish a just system in its place.  So the Revolutionary War was not simply rebellion for rebellion’s sake, but rather a revolt against evil, which made it a good thing.

 

The Bible gives us some examples of “good rebellions.”  The most obvious, perhaps, would be Israel’s exodus from Egypt.  Another good one is found in II Chronicles 22 and 23.  This was a case of wicked Athaliah who had royal connections with the idolatrous northern kingdom of Israel. After making herself queen in Jerusalem, she killed off her rivals and sought to establish idolatrous practices in the south.  Jehovah’s high priest, Jehoiada, secretly organized the priests and Levites into a militia strong enough to overthrow the queen and install the rightful heir in David’s line on the throne.

 

Another significant example, not found in the Bible but in Josephus, would be the revolt led by the illustrious Macabee family against an oppressive Greco-Syrian regime.  This revolt led to a free and independent Palestine until Herod the Great and the Romans took over (see Antiquities of the Jews, Book XII, Ch. VI, continuing into Book XIII).

 

Finally, the Book of Mormon, while it condemns rebellion against God and righteous, legitimate authority, provides one particularly graphic example of just rebellion against powers that have become evil.

 

Captain Moroni (referred to earlier in relation to the subjects of force and war) lead military forces in defense of his country and the freedoms it stood for, but his country’s central government had become subverted by significant numbers of “king-men.”  As a result, support for the war effort had continually dwindled until Moroni finally sent a letter to the Chief Judge (equivalent to our US President), threatening to overthrow the government.  It’s a long angry letter, much of which is applicable to conditions in our day, but I only quote a small portion:

 

 

“And except ye grant mine epistle, and come out and show unto me a true spirit of freedom, and strive to strengthen and fortify our armies, and grant unto them food for their support, behold I will leave a part of my freemen to maintain this part of our land, and I will leave the strength and the blessings of God upon them, that none other power can operate against them—  And this because of their exceeding faith, and their patience in their tribulations— And I will come unto you, and if there be any among you that has a desire for freedom, yea, if there be even a spark of freedom remaining, behold I will stir up insurrections among you, even until those who have desires to usurp power and authority shall become extinct.  Yea, behold I do not fear your power nor your authority, but it is my God whom I fear; and it is according to his commandments that I do take my sword to defend the cause of my country, and it is because of your iniquity that we have suffered so much loss.  Behold it is time, yea, the time is now at hand, that except ye do bestir yourselves in the defence of your country and your little ones, the sword of justice doth hang over you; yea, and it shall fall upon you and visit you even to your utter destruction.  Behold, I wait for assistance from you; and, except ye do administer unto our relief, behold, I come unto you, even in the land of Zarahemla, and smite you with the sword, insomuch that ye can have no more power to impede the progress of this people in the cause of our freedom….  Behold I am Moroni, your chief captain.  I seek not for power, but to pull it down.  I seek not for honor of the world, but for the glory of my God, and the freedom and welfare of my country….”  –Alma 60:25-30,36 (emphasis added)

 

 

I feel the American Revolution followed in the spirit of these “good revolts.” So, just as we made a distinction earlier between types of freedom, we must now distinguish between rebellion against evil, and rebellion only for rebellion’s sake.  It’s the all-too-human factors of pride and self-indulgence that make rebellion in the name of freedom an unhealthy addiction.

 

There is a “buzz” that comes from being “naughty.”  It’s a “rush” of liberation.  To do something forbidden gives us a feeling of breaking the bonds, the shackles, the restraints.  There is a thrill and an ego-boost that comes from trying to outsmart, outmaneuver authorities or circumvent conventions and laws.  Just as the anarchist tells himself he’s free, the rebel for rebellion’s sake rationalizes and stays oblivious to the ultimate effects of his/her lawlessness.   Excitement itself can be addicting, and so the occasional criminal will become an habitual criminal simply because he can no longer tolerate the “dullness” of ordinary life (see Matt. 12:43-45).

 

 I think we get a grasp of the reality of these principles as we compare the American and French revolutions.  This is a huge subject about which much has been written.  On the web there is a lengthy essay written by Gavin M. Findley, MD, which makes repeated points about the spiritual aspects of these revolutions which led to very different outcomes.  He makes the interesting point that the French revolutionaries not only rebelled against the monarchy, but also against the Church, and not just the Church, but Christianity itself.  He argues that the revolution set the stage for philosophies like existentialism which helped justify future godless revolts, Communist, Fascist and otherwise (see http://endtimepilgrim.org/puritins12.htm).

 

I’ve already alluded to Stanley Loomis’ excellent history, Paris In the Terror (J.B. Lippincott, Co., Philadelphia, New York; 1964) and I hope to put my notes together for your consideration, but for now, Here are a few excerpts found on the book’s jacket which give us a taste of the nightmare:

 

“An atmosphere of madness induced by the reek of blood and a sense of horror hung over Paris like a blanket in the stifling summer nights that preceeded 9 Thermidor.  Brandy, therefore, was not the only stimulant that prompted men to self-destruction.  Those who most fear heights will often leap from them.  So many a deranged soul, fascinated by the ghastly scenes that were daily enacted about him, would plunge to his death in the very courtroom of the Tribunal by rising from his seat among the spectators and crying out Vive le roi!”

 

“Understandably the theatre, like every other expression of the free human spirit, withered away and died in this unpropitious climate.  Someone suggested to the dramatist Ducis that he write a tragedy.  ‘Why talk to me of writing tragedies?’ he replied.  “If I stir out of my house I’m up to my ankles in blood….Farewell to tragedy, then.  It is a rude drama when the People become the tyrant and it can only end in Hell.’”

 

“In many ways it was better to be in prison than ‘free’ in a city paralyzed by terror and suspicion.  In prison, at least, the worst was over.  One could fairly well count on death.  ‘Out of prison you could not venture to meet, speak to or scarcely look at your friends, so terrified were you of compromising one another.’  So writes Pasquier, Napoleon’s future Chancellor.  ‘If you heard a knock on the door you immediately imagined that Revolutionary commissaries had come to take you away.  But behind bars you re-entered society, as it were.  You were surrounded by your relatives and friends and could converse freely with them.’”

 

“It is ironic that of all countries in Europe, France was the only one that could have had a revolution—not because she groaned under the lash of tyranny, but, on the contrary, because she tolerated and even invited every conceivable dissension and heresy.  Restlessness, a passion for novelty, the pursuit of excitement were everywhere in the air.  They were the fruits of idleness and leisure, not of poverty.”

 

I site this book in relation to the subject of rebellion because it so graphically illustrates what can happen when people fail to make the distinction between rebelling against evil, and rebelling against all order and authority.  The later is like a narcotic which produces a “high” coming from excitement, danger, and a false sense of personal freedom and power.

 

Pertinent too is pp.60-66 where Loomis describes the return to Paris of an “elder,” Abbe Raynal, from exile.  Raynal was the last living member of the philosophes and Encyclopedists which included such luminaries as Voltaire.  Their teachings and writings had figured greatly into the “Enlightenment,” influencing public opinion the later half of the 18^th century.  This, of course, greatly affected not only the French, but also the American Revolution.

 

It’s ironic that Raynal, at the age of 81, discouraged rather than encouraged the developing Revolution, with its excesses.  Being too infirm to attend the national Assembly personally, he sent a very eloquent letter condemning the mobocracy that had come to dominate the movement and admonished the Assembly to turn back and reinstitute a strong, legitimate central government, even to the point of monarchy.  His point was that even monarchy was better than anarchy.  This letter created a stir, not only in the Assembly, but throughout France and Europe; yet in the end, his admonitions were attributed to the delusions of old age and went unheeded.

 

 

“They hate him that rebuketh in the gate, and they abhor him that speaketh uprightly. Forasmuch therefore as your treading is upon the poor, and ye take from him burdens of wheat: ye have built houses of hewn stone, but ye shall not dwell in them; ye have planted pleasant vineyards, but ye shall not drink wine of them. For I know your manifold transgressions and your mighty sins: they afflict the just, they take a bribe, and they turn aside the poor in the gate from their right. Therefore the prudent shall keep silence in that time; for it is an evil time.”    –Amos 5:10-13

 As one might expect, the Bible has a good deal to say about rebellion (emphasis added):

 

 “If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.”   –Deut. 21:18-24

“Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee. For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the LORD; and how much more after my death?”  –Deut. 31:26-27

“For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.”                  –1 Samuel 15:23

 “That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD: Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits: Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us. Wherefore thus saith the Holy One of Israel, Because ye despise this word, and trust in oppression and perverseness, and stay thereon: Therefore this iniquity shall be to you as a breach ready to fall, swelling out in a high wall, whose breaking cometh suddenly at an instant. And he shall break it as the breaking of the potters’ vessel that is broken in pieces; he shall not spare: so that there shall not be found in the bursting of it a sherd to take fire from the hearth, or to take water withal out of the pit. For thus saith the Lord GOD, the Holy One of Israel; In returning and rest shall ye be saved; in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength: and ye would not. But ye said, No; for we will flee upon horses; therefore shall ye flee: and, We will ride upon the swift; therefore shall they that pursue you be swift. One thousand shall flee at the rebuke of one; at the rebuke of five shall ye flee: till ye be left as a beacon upon the top of a mountain, and as an ensign on an hill. And therefore will the LORD wait, that he may be gracious unto you, and therefore will he be exalted, that he may have mercy upon you: for the LORD is a God of judgment: blessed are all they that wait for him.”  –Isa. 30:9-18

I especially like this quote from Isaiah because of the references to fleeing upon horses and upon the swift.  It relates to what I’ve already written about our modern addiction to excitement.  The Lord’s assertion that rest, quietness and confidence (faith) lead to salvation and strength, is highly instructive.  Here are a few more quotes relating to rebellion:

“Declare this in the house of Jacob, and publish it in Judah, saying, Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not: Fear ye not me? saith the LORD: will ye not tremble at my presence, which have placed the sand for the bound of the sea by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass it: and though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it? But this people hath a revolting and a rebellious heart; they are revolted and gone. Neither say they in their heart, Let us now fear the LORD our God, that giveth rain, both the former and the latter, in his season: he reserveth unto us the appointed weeks of the harvest. Your iniquities have turned away these things, and your sins have withholden good things from you. For among my people are found wicked men: they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they set a trap, they catch men. As a cage is full of birds, so are their houses full of deceit: therefore they are become great, and waxen rich. They are waxen fat, they shine: yea, they overpass the deeds of the wicked: they judge not the cause, the cause of the fatherless, yet they prosper; and the right of the needy do they not judge. Shall I not visit for these things? saith the LORD: shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this? A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land; The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?”     –Jer. 5:20-31

“And thou, son of man, be not afraid of them, neither be afraid of their words, though briers and thorns be with thee, and thou dost dwell among scorpions: be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, though they be a rebellious house. And thou shalt speak my words unto them, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear: for they are most rebellious. But thou, son of man, hear what I say unto thee; Be not thou rebellious like that rebellious house: open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee.”                    –Ezek. 2:6-8

“But the house of Israel will not hearken unto thee; for they will not hearken unto me: for all the house of Israel are impudent and hardhearted. Behold, I have made thy face strong against their faces, and thy forehead strong against their foreheads. As an adamant harder than flint have I made thy forehead: fear them not, neither be dismayed at their looks, though they be a rebellious house.”  –Ezek. 3:7-9

“The word of the LORD also came unto me, saying, Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they are a rebellious house.”  –Ezek. 12:1-2

“And I will purge out from among you the rebels, and them that transgress against me: I will bring them forth out of the country where they sojourn, and they shall not enter into the land of Israel: and ye shall know that I am the LORD.”  –Ezek. 20:38

So, rebellion can be a good thing, but is more often a bad thing due to our human tendency for short-sightedness, and putting emotion and self indulgence ahead of reason and restraint.  Rebellion is a serious problem with youth especially in light of their relatively large numbers, high energy, oblivion to danger, and susceptibility to peer pressure, fads and fashions. 

Rebellion is perhaps a more serious problem, however, with “elders” who are driven by vain ambition. Their numbers may be few, but because of their greater knowledge and experience, they assume positions of power, and pride and covetousness can make them an oppressive elite rather than the bastion they should be of wise counsel and prudent leadership.  The elders are the Bible’s ‘leaven in the lump’ (the yeast in the dough), which though small in quantity, makes a crucial difference in the quality of larger society (the loaf).

 

“Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.”  (Ex. 20:12)

 

In my opinion, this passage has broader application than to the parents in our immediate families.  Biology has mandated parents for all, and so the implication is that previous generations have something significant and vital to offer new generations; so significant that heeding or not heeding our elders affects the length of our lives!  Rebellion against this order, as a broad principle, leads to shortened life, not only for individuals but for nations.

It’s interesting that the Ten Commandments don’t include qualifications on this point.  There’s no expedient suggesting the possibility that rising generations “know better” than older generations.  True there have been unwise parents with wiser children, but this is exceptional.  The essential point seems to be that if the older generation goes unheeded, or the older generation becomes corrupt and fails in its role, the rising generation has little hope of saving itself!

In my next essay, I’d like expand on the idea of “elders,” including the problem of “failed elders.”  The elders in society are our leaders, our professionals: doctors, lawyers, businessmen and women, media moguls, commentators and celebrities, church, civic and school leaders, teachers, professors, military commanders and politicians.  Also, they are our parents, grandparents, older siblings, aunts, uncles, even the ‘neighborhood sage.’  In general, an elder who fails is anyone who has the wisdom and power to be a good influence, and isn’t.  Of course, the “ultimate elder” is the collective, ‘common people with common sense.’  We are the ones with the power, if we only realized it.  It is our failure (apathy) that tolerates and sometimes even encourages corruption and dysfunction in high places.

 

The common man

Must not be a rebel,

Or the common man

Will rebuild Babel!                                                               

–Doug Taylor

 

 

 

 

VII. Elders

 

OPINIONS VII

ELDERS

 

 

“…I am weary with holding in: I will pour it out upon the children abroad, and upon the assembly of young men together: for even the husband with the wife shall be taken, the aged with him that is full of days.  And their houses shall be turned unto others, with their fields and wives together: for I will stretch out my hand upon the inhabitants of the land, saith the Lord.   For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely.  They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.”    –Jeremiah 6:11-14

 

 

 

The concept of “leaven” mentioned at the end of my last essay needs further consideration in relation to the role “elders” play in society.

 

Apparently the oldest definitions of “leaven” come from the Latin meaning “alleviation” or “mitigation.”  Later usage has had more to do with “lifting” or “causing to rise.”  Of course for centuries we have used “leaven” in relation to bread-making.  Thus bread dough may be caused to rise through mechanical processes, such as the injection of steam or air, through chemical processes such as introducing baking powder or soda, and through biological processes such as the adding of yeast.  The effect is to fill the dough with tiny spaces, which in the end, makes the baked bread lighter, more pleasant to the eye and taste.  This desired effect is spoiled if the dough is not allowed to rise, is allowed to rise too high, or the leavening agent is tainted in some way.

 

Since the Exodus, Israel has used unleavened bread in conjunction with the Passover feast, commemorating the fact that the Children of Israel had to leave Egypt in haste (no time to let dough rise).  To my knowledge, it is in this context that “leaven” is used throughout the Old Testament, with the exception of Hosea 7 where it is given different spiritual connotations.

 

In the New Testament, Jesus uses “leaven” as a metaphor showing how small things can have large effects, for good or evil (A modern analogy would be the effect hormones or drugs have on the body).  Jesus also uses the images of salt, a city on a hill, lit candles and mustard seeds in ways that illustrate the importance of good influence:

 

 

“Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”   –Matt. 5: 13-16

“Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.  Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.”   –Matt. 13:31-33

 

This of course has specific reference to God’s chosen people, who’s numbers, though relatively few, are meant to have a powerful effect in the world for good if they live so that God can do mighty works through them.  On the other hand, if they don’t live up to their privileges, they become that much less valuable, even contemptible, despised and rejected by the world.

The whole idea of being “chosen” has come in question these days, due to the hyper-equal political correctors.  In fairness a distinction needs to be made between “chosen” and “elite.”  As stated earlier, being chosen by God means being called to extra duty and responsibility.  God chooses a prophet and a people to be an ensign to the world, so people have a light and a standard to emulate and use as a guide and point of reference.

But “leaven” can also have negative or sinister connotations.  A potent modicum of evil can have powerful, broad and long-term damaging effects:

“And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread. Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them…. How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.”  –Matt. 16:5-12

Mark 16:13-21 says essentially the same thing, but refers to the “leaven” of Harod as well.  In another place Jesus gives fair warning that though we’re convinced our ‘secret sins’ are of no consequence, they will be of huge consequence to us when they are shouted on the housetops on judgment day: hence the “leaven” of hypocrisy:

“…he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops. And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.”   -Luke 12:1-5

The “leaven” of doctrine is crucial.  Ideas are powerful things.  Wars are fought over ideas and beliefs, whether true or false.  It is therefore a fit metaphor the Apostle Paul uses suggesting that little things like glorying and malice vs sincerity and truthfulness represent “leavens” that make one’s devotions valid or not valid before God.  In another place he warns, if leaven is left to raise too much (glorying, or pride, causing us to become “puffed up,”) the loaf is disfigured and not as suitable for human consumption:

 

“Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”    -1 Cor. 5:6-8

“Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.”       –1 Cor. 8:1

“Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,”     –1 Cor 13:4

 

Another significant aspect of the metaphor of bread is that we internalize it.  So if the bread we eat (doctrine we believe) is wholesome, it does us good, if it’s tainted it does us ill, and once internalized (as with poison) our condition may become very difficult to remedy. 

What does all this have to do with “elders?”  The elders are always few relative to whole populations.  The leaders, the movers and shakers, though few, have a profound effect on the whole for good or evil.

In answer to the question raised in an earlier essay, ‘who can judge?’ generally it should be “the elders.”  With them should be the wisdom, should be the experience.  And not only judge, they should also teach, guide, and mentor, lighting the way for the rest of us.  Obviously, to the extent that they fail in these roles, society falters and falls:

 

“Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind.  And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.”    –Matt. 15:14

 

Leadership is an illusive concept.  Certainly leaders are independent thinkers.  They have a dream, a well-defined conception of what they want for themselves and others.  Leaders need to be able to communicate that dream to others in a way that motivates them to buy into and work for the dream’s realization.  Beyond these basic characteristics we begin to make distinctions between what we consider to be “good” and “bad” leaders. 

 

Specialists research, write and teach about the secrets of leading effectively in sales, business, politics, the ministry, the military and just about every other facet of modern life.  Interestingly, scholars have not agreed on just what constitutes a true leader, especially when particular circumstances are considered (Leonard R. Sayles, Leadership—What Effective Managers Really Do…And How They Do It, San Francisco: McGraw-Hill, 1979, p.211)

There is much talk about “leadership styles,” which are supposed to vary according to conditions.  An important distinction is often made between “managers” and “leaders,” though the terms are often interchangeable.  Managers are said to push people around.  Their motto is “Do it or else….”  Leaders are characterized as more inclined to persuasion.  They set the example, show the way, encourage, inspire.  The latter, of course, is more in line with the “Good Shepherd” approach we’ve already discussed.

In my lifetime, I believe there has been a shift in leader/manager emphasis corresponding with a shift in popular values.  In my youth, businesses were considered private property, and how owners ran them was their business and no one else’s.  They could hire and fire at will, and without reason.  If you were lucky enough to work for a kind and benevolent boss, great, if not, well, ‘that was life.’   Private enterprise was private.  Business owners could deny service to customers without fear of reprisal or repercussion (other than losing a customer’s patronage).  The majority of businesses were privately owned, whereas today many more are incorporated.

The labor unions had grown large and powerful when I was young, and they were probably right in blunting much of the hard-nosed business practices that had prevailed.  But the unions also had a lot to do with many companies shutting down and relocating beyond US borders.  This, of course has meant the loss of hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs in the States.

 

“…Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.”                -Luke 3:14

 

Then too, I watched the rise of litigious-ness.  Lawyers started suing businesses more and more for less and less cause, and winning previously unheard-of settlements.  This paralleled the rise of “professionalism,” which had a lot to do with companies growing ever more cautious and “proper,” documenting everything in order to be “covered” in case of legal action.  This trend has gone on to our current “litigious society,” with its “political correctness,” and concurrent threats to freedom, including our Bill of Rights.

These developments occurred in context of the wealth and affluence that followed the post-World-War-II economic boom.  We had become “puffed up.”  We still had the work ethic left over from our Pilgrim and Puritan heritage, but now we took pride in being “workaholics.”  The pace of life quickened, as reflected in media like the James Bond movies.  Mothers left home to work and keep up with their neighbors.  Focus turned away from home and community toward careers.  Everybody needed to have a “profession,” and everyone had to be “professional.”  Jobs had to have professional titles.   Janitors became Maintenance Engineers….

 

“Professionalism” became an appealing label for ever-more intense and hostile game-playing.  Home-grown trust, loyalty, courtesy and kindness declined.  Everybody got more ambitions, slick and clever.  This even affected international relations. 

Foreign Aid, which was a wonderful thing after WW II, got sloppy.  We weren’t as careful about which regimes we sent aid too.   As long as a country’s leaders were friendly to our leaders, they got the “dough,” which in many cases never actually reached the “hungry.”  Espionage was the new and better approach to promoting many of our interests abroad.  We thought we were so advanced and brilliant, that we could manipulate our “backward friends” covertly.  Instead of being the most blessed, we were now ‘the richest and most powerful nation in the world.’  Of course the US President became the ‘most powerful man in the world.’

The office of US President was no longer seen as representing something sacred and holy, namely a nation of free and responsible citizens under God; instead it became a coveted prize given to ultimate winners of “the game.”  The President not only had to be a supreme political strategist, but also good-looking, and even sexy.  John Kennedy embodied all of this, and his contrast to Eisenhower represented a significant turning point in what a majority of Americans expected of their “Elders.”

As game-playing became more and more dominant, leaders who could “dodge bullets” and “neutralize enemies” came to be in high demand.  Former leaders who were plain and sober, but wise, benevolent, apt to teach, and grounded at home were less sought-after.  The modern world wanted attractive, dynamic leaders who were charismatic, long on resume’ and promises, if short on wisdom and genuine humanity.  More books were written and seminars given on leadership.  Journalism, Public Relations, Advertising and Marketing, not to mention Politics became huge industries.

The artifice of telling people what they wanted to hear, replaced the higher call of telling the people the truth.  Buying votes and exchanging favors replaced winning the minds and hearts of citizens with honest arguments in establishing policies, practices and laws that were sound and beneficial.

Actually how well a society functions is one measure of its leaders.  Is the economy fiscally sound?  Are the people secure in their persons and property?  What is the proportion of rich to poor; how large is the gap between them?  How well-educated are the people?  How much crime is there, and how is it dealt-with?  Is the justice system fair, equitable and accessible?  Are there sufficient jobs of appropriate quality?  Is the infrastructure adequate and well maintained?  Is national defense at an appropriate level of readiness?  Is the environment respected and protected?  Are natural resources conserved and wisely utilized?  Is disaster preparedness sufficient and disaster response effective?  Are the people rational, responsible, humane, involved, honorable, loyal and patriotic?

Much of this comes back to the issue of what gets rewarded and what gets penalized in a society, which in-turn touches on the agenda and direction that society’s “Elders” establish.

As suggested earlier, attending to the poor and needy involves more than just giving them money and commodities.  They need to have real opportunity and they need to be taught the skills and behaviors that make it possible and probable for them to cope with life.  This includes elements of motivation and discipline that today’s permissive society won’t countenance.  So we throw money and commodities at people and nothing gets better; But things not getting better doesn’t mean they can’t get better.  Here are some quotes about the poor and needy, with most of the “blame” veering toward those who are better-off (the Elders):

 

“Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in their cause.”   –Ex. 23:6

 

“If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother:….  Thou shalt surely give him, and thine heart shall not be grieved when thou givest unto him: because that for this thing the Lord thy God shall bless thee in all thy works, and in all that thou puttest thine hand unto.  for the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.”  –Deut. 15:7-11

 

“Why, seeing times are not hidden from the Almighty, do they that know him not see his days?  Some remove the landmarks; they violently take away flocks, and feed thereof.  They drive away the ass of the fatherless, they take the widow’s ox for a pledge.  They turn the needy out of the way: the poor of the earth hide themselves together….  They cause the naked to lodge without clothing, that they have no covering in the cold….  They pluck the fatherless from the breast, and take a pledge of the poor.  they cause him to go naked without clothing, and they take away the sheaf from the hungry….  They are of those that rebel against the light; they know not the ways thereof, nor abide in the paths thereof.  The murderer rising with the light killeth the poor and needy, and in the night is as a theif.  The eye also of the adulterer waiteth for the twilight, saying, No eye shall see me; and disguiseth his face.  In the dark they dig through houses, which they had marked for themselves in the daytime: they know not the light.  For the morning is to them even as the shadow of death: if one know them, they are in the terrors of the shadow of death….  The womb shall forget him; the worm shall feed sweetly on him; he shall be no more remembered; and wickedness shall be broken as a tree….  He draweth also the mighty with his power: he riseth up, and no man is sure of life….  They are exalted for a little while, but are gone and brought low; they are taken out of the way as all other, and cut off as the tops of the ears of corn.”   –Job. 20

 

“Why standest thou afar off, O Lord? why hidest thou thyself in times of trouble?  The wicked in his pride doth persecute the poor: let them be taken in the devices that they have imagined.  For the wicked boasteth of his heart’s desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the Lord abhorreth.  The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts.  His ways are always grievous; thy judgments are far above out of his sight: as for all his enemies, he puffeth at them.  He hath said in his heart, I shall not be moved: for I shall never be in adversity.  His mouth is full of cursing and deceit and fraud: under his tongue is mischief and vanity.  He sitteth in the lurking places of the villages: in the secret places doth he murder the innocent: his eyes are privily set against the poor.  He lieth in wait secretly as a lion in his den: he lieth in wait to catch the poor: he doth catch the poor, when he draweth him into his net.  He croucheth, and humbleth himself, that the poor may fall by his strong ones.  he hath said in his heart God hath fogotten: he hideth his face; he will never see it.”    –Psalms 10:1-11

 

“The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:  Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?  For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.”  –Ps 12:3-5

 

 

Now we see “puff” in a related, but different light.  This is like our modern “huff and puff.”  Here the Lord is against the loud-mouthed breather of hot-air, who flatters or intimidates the weak and meek with inflated words.  Of course, a puff is just that, hot-air with no more substance than the bully himself has.  But with words alone, he gets his way more often than not!

 

Continuing:

 

 

“Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate.  For the lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them.”  –Prov. 22:22-23

 

“As a roaring lion, and a ranging bear; so is a wicked ruler over the poor people.  The prince that wanteth understanding is also a great oppressor: but he that hateth covetousness shall prolong his days.”   –Prov. 28:15-16

 

“The Lord will enter into judgment with the ancients of his people, and the princes thereof: for ye have eaten up the vineyard; the spoil of the poor is in your houses.  What mean ye that ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor? Saith the Lord God of Hosts.”  –Isa.3:14-15

 

“Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed; to turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless.”  –Isa. 10:2

 

“Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity.”  –Daniel 4:27

“Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of Israel, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because they sold the righteous for silver, and the poor for a pair of shoes; That pant after the dust of the earth on the head of the poor, and turn aside the way of the meek:….”   –Amos 2:6-7

“Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Execute true judgment, and shew mercy and compassions every man to his brother: And oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart. But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear. Yea, they made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law, and the words which the LORD of hosts hath sent in his spirit by the former prophets: therefore came a great wrath from the LORD of hosts. Therefore it is come to pass, that as he cried, and they would not hear; so they cried, and I would not hear, saith the LORD of hosts.”  –Zech. 7:9-13

 

The strong taking advantage of the weak is not just a “Biblical problem.”  Here’s something from the Book of Mormon, addressed to us Westerners in these latter days:  

 

“Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not.  But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing.  And I know that ye do walk in the pride of your hearts; and there are none save a few only who do not lift themselves up in the pride of their hearts, unto the wearing of very fine apparel, unto envying, and strife, and malice, and persecutions, and all manner of iniquities; and your churches, yea, even every one, have become polluted because of the pride of your hearts.  For behold, ye do love money, and your substance, and your fine apparel, and the adorning of your churches, more than ye love the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted….  Why do ye adorn yourselves with that which hath no life, and yet suffer the hungry, and the needy, and the naked, and the sick and the afflicted to pass by you, and notice them not?  Yea, why do ye build up your secret abominations to get gain, and cause that widows should mourn before the Lord, and also orphans to mourn before the Lord, and also the blood of their fathers and their husbands to cry unto the Lord from the ground, for vengeance upon your heads?  Behold the sword of vengeance hangeth over you; and the time soon cometh that he avengeth the blood of the saints upon you, for he will not suffer their cries any longer.”                       –Mormon 8:35-41.

 

 

Could it be that God is allowing us in the West to be vexed by our enemies because we, as represented by our leaders, have turned our backs on our Judeo-Christian heritage?  Sexual permissiveness and violent crime are more visible examples, but what about rampant pride and acquisitiveness?  According to many studies, our materialism has risen exponentially over the past 20 years (see Julian Edney’s lengthy, but very eye-opening and disquieting, Greed III, at: http://www.g-r-e-e-d.com/GREED.htm).       

 

Many current leadership seminars and courses offer good information, encouraging honesty, integrity and mutual respect in dealing with subordinates. However, large numbers today, especially of men, see this as superfluous.  Reality to them says leadership is just another hard-ball game, and personal toughness with strategic acuity are what really count.  In the popular media, leaders are almost always shown to be bombastic, pushy, aggressive and insensitive, or perhaps stupid and inept, thus appealing to the arrogant on one hand, the rebellious on the other.  Even Disney, our much-appreciated “family entertainment hold-out,” often puts authority figures in a negative light.  Funny as these portrayals may be, if the rising generation sees nothing but this, it certainly will affect their view of real world human relations, and the role “Elders” should play. 

If we go back far enough, say to the movies of the 40’s and 50’s we see respectful children and respectable adults: parents, teachers, ministers, policemen, judges, government officials, etc, who are humble, uncomplicated, yet dignified, wise, grave, kind, caring and giving.  We see adults and youth working together, caring about each other, loyal to one another.  Also we see portrayed a love of and reverence for knowledge, as with professors and teachers like ‘Mr. Chips.’

The element of knowledge gets underrated or ignored altogether in our modern definitions of leadership.  To illustrate the knowledge factor, may I suggest a situation in which three men find themselves stranded in a desert.

One man is a bank president, another is a state governor, the third is a desert survival expert.  The bank president is bright and widely recognized as a powerful, effective leader, but banking is pretty much all he knows.  The governor is a super political strategist, but politics have pretty much been his thing for as far back as he can remember.  The survival expert is a shy, meek man, so quiet that people can hardly get a word out of him unless they can get him talking about the desert.  No one has ever thought of him as a leader.  I ask: in this stranded-in-the-desert situation, which of these men is likely to emerge as the one with the power?

The president and the governor might insist on their abilities to move people and make things happen, they might fuss and fume; but the real power would rest with the one who has the critical knowledge. 

We see then that a leader who’s effective where assertiveness is called for, may not be where specific knowledge is essential.  We see that assertiveness and knowledge interact dynamically when it comes to power and influence.  The meek survivalist would have to assert himself to some minimal degree to assume the necessary authority, but his knowledge is what really matters.  This scenario is almost perfectly played out in the 1965 film, Flight of the Phoenix, with Jimmy Stewart and Heinrich Dorfmann, et al.             

So, leadership can be a pointless game, when the needed knowledge or wisdom is missing.  The problem with game-playing leaders is that they’re all about status, not about getting the right things done.  They tend to ignore real problems and put-off real solutions.  The only problem a game-playing society sees is that of finding enough “good leaders!”  To the gamers, the masses are inherently unenlightened and unmotivated.  The challenge is not to enlighten, but rather motivate, in fact goad; hence the emphasis on ‘leadership techniques.’  The idea of a self-enlightened and motivated public that needs minimal petty oversight, but is inspired by great leaders doesn’t occur.

But you say, technical knowledge still gets its due, as with doctors, attorneys, computer programmers, physicists and engineers; but what about knowledge of things historical, or things spiritual?  What about the “wisdom of the ages?”  The knowledge that seems to miss so many “modern dynamos” has to do with what it takes to build an organization or society whose members are actually happy, successful, and therefore loyal and committed.

Further, our colleges used to be about getting a “liberal education,” emphasizing non-technical subjects like history, civics, philosophy, music, art and literature.  Today the emphasis is on technical know-how and ‘getting-somewhere savvy,’ which lead to jobs (professions), which equate with money, power and prestige.  The question of “why?” no longer intrigues or excites.  But we have to know “why” before we can meaningfully and effectively do “what!”

What about the pay and benefit gap between leaders and followers, or workers?  I think there should be reasonable consideration for the additional responsibility leaders bear.  How much consideration should that be?  Do leaders work harder than followers?  Perhaps, if you consider extra responsibility and extra work.  Does that mean they work 200, 300, 400, 500, 5000 times harder than those at lower levels?  Absolutely not.  These huge obscene gaps in wages are not morally justified at all.  They are the result of who holds the power, not who works the hardest or makes the most valuable contribution:

 

“And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the Lord of hosts.”   –Malachi 3:5

 

Of course, as I’ve already said, the common people collectively hold the most power, but they usually don’t realize it, and when they do they may exercise it badly.  This only gives the elites that much more justification for maintaining their position.  From the gamesman point of view, a great leader is the one who can get the common workers to accept these inequities and somehow still see themselves as fortunate.  For gamesmen, any leader who can pull such a rabbit out of such a hat deserves unlimited compensation!

These games are not only being played by business leaders, but by leaders in every other walk of life.  Whole governments, such as the Soviet Union, and kingdoms such as the Roman Empire have played these games.  ‘There is nothing new under the sun’ (Ecc. 1:9).

So, one again begins to appreciate the value of the spiritual, yes the Judeo-Christian.  Are we focused on service, or being served?  Suppose we are bigger, stronger, brighter, more energetic, more privileged by our circumstances: will we use our advantages to take advantage of others, or help them enjoy some advantages themselves?  From the Judeo-Christian perspective, service to God and fellowman is the true and lasting coin of happiness.

 

“Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”  –Matt. 6:19-21

 

These sayings have had and still have great appeal to the downtrodden of this world, but there are, and have always been, those who are not phased in the least, who despise and abhor such ideas.  Many of these people have risen to high places, and the world supports them simply because they are “successful.”  In spite of evidence that democratic and generous administrative policies are more productive, they can’t accept it because to do so would mean giving up their pride!  I’ve noticed other characteristics:

 

ELITE POWER PEOPLE PROFILE:

 

1.  Talented, often above-average IQ; larger-than-average stature, better than average looks.

 

2.  Trendy, energetic, gregarious, confident, aggressive, restless, impatient, risk-takers, scoffers.   On a scale, they go from bold-to-brazen, strategic-to-cunning, fearless-to-reckless.  Grown-up in the sense of being fearless and bold; immature in the sense of being self-indulgent and short-sighted.

 

3.  Fashionable, even faddish; cool and cocky attractiveness, “dangerous,” ostentatious.

 

4.  Decorate with expensive art and collectibles for investment or impression purposes, but little appreciation for its intellectual or spiritual meaning (same approach to all beautiful things).

 

5.  Tirelessly ambitious but not idealistic; “practical; accept life for what it is.”  Cynical.

 

6.  Ultra-competitive, addicted to excitement.  See life as a win-lose game with long-term but not eternal consequences.

 

7.  Wildly hard-working, as long as there’s enough in it for them personally.  Work in the “get- ahead sense, rather than the “service” sense.

 

8. See themselves as far more efficient and productive than average, but apt to take shortcuts and leave the rest to others.  Actually their ability to survive and thrive is based on the usually unspoken assumption that there are enough suckers (conscientious and accommodating people) out there who are willing to do the work.

 

9.  More likely to use intimidation, but may use humor and comedy as a method of gaining notoriety or popularity which in-turn is used to enhance personal influence/power.  Their good humor can turn instantly into irritation and rage if they feel their dominant position is being threatened.  The only thing they find truly funny or laughable is the weaknesses, failures and follies of others.  Mockers.

 

10. Ambition knows no bounds.  Will go all the way to tyranny/dictatorship; use any possible means, if not restrained by outside forces.  Cooperation and community are unappealing.  Conquest, victory and being number-one have the only attraction.  Other people exist ultimately as a backdrop for accentuating their personal superiority, glory.

 

11. See non-game-players as useless or useful losers, simple-minded, weak and impractical, existing only to be exploited.  Paradoxically though they depend on the productivity of “useful losers” they characterize them in unguarded moments as expendable.

 

12.  Form cliques, but have no true friendships.  See others only as allies or adversaries in a competitive world.  Constantly socializing but not friendly in the sincere, loyal sense.

 

13.  Superficial, if any, appreciation for and understanding of scriptures or “wisdom literature.”  Repulsed by concepts of unselfish love, sincerity, service, sacrifice, humility, reverence, etc.  While they reject religious ideals like those just mentioned, they presume to assume roles of gods, as in the tradition of Roman Emperors and Egyptian Pharaohs.

 

(It’s paradoxical that in light of history’s megalomaniacs styling themselves gods, the one Person visiting the earth who in fact was God, took upon Himself the role of man.)

 

14. Avoid direct involvement with the ugly, the unattractive, the poor and needy (losers), except for publicity purposes; indirect support through charities.  Willing to share money, commodities in limited amounts, but never power and control.

 

15. See the idea of even approximate material or financial parity as un-American, unworkable and dangerous.  Self-interest and self-promotion seen as an inalienable exercise of freedom under the Constitution.

 

16. Assertion of superiority and privilege based more on self-confidence than self-examination.

 

17. Compulsion to dominate and demand, more often than not means getting their way over the more modest and less materialistic majority.  This produces a trend toward an ever-widening “have” to “have-not” gap, and the development of a philosophy and societal order which justifies and codifies hugely unequal conditions.

 

18. Desperately cling to status, material things.  Ugliness, illness, old age and death seen as disastrous, and yet just another battle to be fought to the bitter end.  Funerals and memorials tend to be the most expensive, elaborate and prestigious, the futility of which often escapes them.

 

Sorry.  I know profiling is politically incorrect.  Please note it’s about elitists, not people who are simply wealthy and/or powerful.  There are many wealthy and powerful people who have managed to stay grounded in sound spiritual principles, in fact more than the poor and powerless in some cases.   Please note that some of the above profile traits are desirable in appropriate circumstances.  I’m simply attempting to show a pattern of attitudes and attributes which explain the inappropriate, ineffective, and even dangerous policies and practices of some leaders.

 

 

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”                            –Ephesians 6:12

 

 

The alternate translation in my Bible for “spiritual wickedness” is “wicked spirits,” thus implying the “Christian war” is not with fellow-mortals, but with the evil spirits who temp mortals to do wrong.  Thus leaders, just like the rest of us, are susceptible to abusing power.   The Apostle continues with a list of weapons and armament the Christian warrior employs, none of which have to do with mortal combat (Eph. 6:13-18).

 

 

“Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.  And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.  If we live in the Spriit, let us also walk in the Spirit.  Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.”  –Galatians 5:19-26

 

 

Would you like to work for or with someone who is loving, joyful, peaceful, longsuffering, gentle, good, meek, temperate, not vain or provocative or envious?  If you’re a leader or manager, would you like to have a follower or employee with these qualities?  We see again how Judeo-Christian virtues have practical applications which enhance cooperation, and therefore productivity in the workplace, along with happy and satisfying interpersonal relations.  Leadership, then, is not some mystical endowment, but simply another or greater opportunity for service based on a given person’s talents and desires.  Here are a couple of interesting quotes from the much maligned, misunderstood and unappreciated leader, Brigham Young:

 

 

“I look around among the world of mankind and see them grabbing, scrambling, contending, and every one seeking to aggrandize himself, and to accomplish his own individual purposes, passing the community by, walking upon the heads of his neighbors—all are seeking, planning, contriving in their wakeful hours, and when asleep dreaming, ‘How can I get the advantage of my neighbor?  How can I spoil him, that I may ascend the ladder of fame?’  This is entirely a mistaken idea.  You see that nobleman seeking the benefit of all around him, trying to bring, we will say, his servants, if you please, his tenants, to his knowledge, to like blessings, that he enjoys, to dispense his wisdom and talent among them and to make them equal with himself.  As they ascend and increase, so does he, and he is in the advance.  All eyes are upon that king or that nobleman, and the feelings of those around him are, ‘God bless him!  How I love him!  How I delight in him!  He seeks to bless and to fill me with joy, to crown my labors with success, to give me comfort, that I may enjoy the world as well as himself.’  But the man who seeks honor and glory at the expense of his fellow-men is not worthy of the society of the intelligent.”

 

“Shall I give you my ideas in brief with regard to business and business transactions?  Here for instance, a merchant comes to our neighborhood with a stock of goods; he sells them at from two to ten hundred percent above what they cost.  As a matter of course he soon becomes wealthy, and after a time he will be called a millionaire, when perhaps he was not worth a dollar when he commenced to trade.  You will hear many say of such a person, what a nice man he is, and what a great financier he is!  My feeling of such a man is, he is a great cheat, a deceiver, a liar!  He imposes on the people, he takes that which does not belong to him, and is a living monument of falsehood.  Such a man is not a financier!  The financier is he that brings the lumber from the canyons and shapes it for the use of his fellow man, employing mechanics and laborers to produce from the elements and the crude material everything necessary for the sustenance and comfort of man; one who builds tanneries to work up the hides instead of letting them rot and waste or be sent out of the country to be made into leather and then brought back in the shape of boots and shoes; and that can take the wool, the furs and straw and convert the same into cloth, into hats and bonnets, and that will plant out mulberry trees and raise the silk, and thus give employment to men, women and children, as you have commenced to do here…; such a man I would call a financier, a benefactor of his fellow man.  But the great majority of men who have amassed great wealth have done it at the expense of their fellows.”    (Widtsoe, John A.,  Discourses of Brigham Young, Salt Lake City, Deseret News Press, 1954, pp. 307, 311-312.)

 

As you may have sensed, by now, though I’ve been critical of certain liberals, I’m also criticizing certain conservatives.  The bottom line is: we need to be sufficiently critical of ourselves and our human condition to make necessary adjustments.  We need to “leaven the lump” with truth regardless of which political camp it affects.

 

Some people simply like games, others do not.  This fact alone, leads many to wealth and others to poverty, having little to do with real work or contribution to society.  Some people are fascinated with math and accounting, some love to handle and count money and keep ledgers and balances.  This alone leads many to wealth, while those who are more interested in relationships, say, or music, art, science, history, philosophy, or humanitarian service often find themselves with inadequate income.  It isn’t unusual to see people with little actual talent, rise to the top just with unbounded drive and ambition. Unfortunately, when they get there, they have little to offer. 

 

Which vocation or profession is more valuable and useful?  Income and value are often unrelated, yet popular culture keeps saying they are.  Even the rich and powerful admit to these absurdities, and yet the realities of everyday life continue….

 

Part of the “turning up of the professional steam” I started to describe involved the tremendous trend in big business toward acquisition and consolidation, leading to conglomeration.  In the name of “efficiency” companies spent most of the 80’s and 90’s gobbling each other up.  The net result has not been greater efficiency, except in the sense of some companies’ leaders and share-holders more efficiently putting money in their own pockets.  And the unspoken, but obvious, result is power being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.  Again, a dictator may make the trains run on time, but what are the down-sides?

 

And then whole governments got into the competition.  Countries like China, adopting a pseudo free-market economy, employed the equivalent of slave labor to pull 1^st World consumer dollars, pounds, euros and yens in their direction.  Unfortunately, and predictably, American corporations employed labor there and in India, and Mexico and other places to enhance their bottom line and avoid conflicts with “free world” labor unions and restrictive governmental regulations and taxes.  The US government even joined other Western governments in supporting less and less restrictive trade agreements, blindly assuming competition alone will make everything right. 

 

The problem is, American workers don’t want to live the standard of living the “slave laborers” of other countries are forced to live; and as these other countries get wealthier, using much of that wealth to build their militaries, we become weaker and our economy declines.  Public morale also declines as does faith in democratic and free-market principles. 

 

Again we are faced with the question, “is America a nation that has something uniquely good, that is worth preserving?”  If it is, then we need to protect ourselves economically as well as militarily and there needs to be an adequate spiritual base.  If you want to call it protectionism, go ahead.  We want to be protected from being slaves ourselves!

 

Benjamin Barber wrote an interesting article called “Jihad vs McWorld,” published in The Atlantic Monthly in March of 1992.  His well-documented thesis is that two great forces, “tribalism” on the one hand, and “globalism” on the other, are pulling in opposite directions and neither are good for democracy.  Globalism is materialistic, being fed by the forces of capitalism and consumerism.  Tribalism is anti-materialistic, and driven by zealous faith in very strict and ancient religious and/or ethnic traditions.   Ironically, the zeal of tribalism is being financed by the moneys of capitalism (oil, to name, perhaps, the most significant factor).  To oversimplify, these again are manifestations of power falling into fewer and fewer hands, which can and probably will lead to disaster if we can’t turn things around. 

 

I believe the Judeo-Christian tradition, if properly understood and practiced, strikes a healthy balance between the material and the spiritual.  In the West, we are mostly threatened with run-away commercialism and materialism, and it is the “Elders” of our society who have been leading the charge.

 

Dr. Barber has also published a book, Consumed (2007: W.W. Norton & Company, New York/London), which, again lavishly documented, explains how getting children to consume as adults, and adults to consume as children, essentially undermines our democratic institutions and corrupts the people who run them.  This is paradoxical, since the “free market” is supposed to be the very engine of democracy; yet again, what we are really seeing is not a free market, but rather a free-for-all that ultimately squelches opportunity.

 

Another book illustrates the same point from another angle, examining US medicine (Jeanne Kassler, MD: Bitter Medicine, 1994, New York, Birch Lane Press/ Carol Publishing Group).  I hope to include large excerpts at this site, if I can get permission.

 

The professions have enjoyed special powers based on a public trust in the higher levels of integrity and humanity that should accompany those who are brighter and better educated.  The danger of such a trust is that the professionals themselves will give in to the temptation for economic advantage and gain such a monopolistic position affords.  I suggest this has, in fact, occurred and is occurring on a scale that was previously unimagined in this country.

 

Years ago, one of my college classes was visited by a doctor who was asked about the rising cost of medical care.  He answered the question with another question: “What is your health worth to you?”  The obvious answer is, “everything.”  Good health is almost as valuable as life itself.  People will do almost anything, pay anything in exchange for it.

 

However, to say “your money or your health,’ is about the same as saying “your money or your life.”  The latter we would call highway robbery.  But, as Dr. Kassler points out, it isn’t the doctors so much as the businessmen, insurance companies, lawyers and government officials who have expanded and exploited the medical monopoly, that are more the abusers.

 

The modern medical phenomenon should be appreciated in a broader light.  First of all, in light of the body’s innate ability to heal itself.  All medicine does (however artfully or skillfully) is facilitate the body’s own healing capacities.  Secondly, we should remember that God is the giver, not only of life, but of health, and all the abilities we enjoy.  He is the giver of medicinal herbs and substances, He is the giver of the intelligence men enjoy to discover and manage these resources.  All of these He gives us freely, at no charge!  Yes, the scientists and professionals make a valuable contribution, but there is still reason for humility.

 

The question needs to be asked of medical and all other professionals: “what does it really cost to provide your service, including your enjoyment of a decent, reasonable living?  That should have more to do with the cost to consumers, than whether or not consumers can survive without it.

 

So the question of faith in our Judeo-Christian heritage, again, finds relevance in the practical and critical matters of leadership in everyday life.

 

Finally, there is something to be said for the important role followers can play in supporting good leaders.  Over the past several years, we have seen many good and capable leaders shrink and withdraw from public service because of naysayers and slanderers who scandalize the slightest character flaws or past misjudgments for the sake of neutralizing political opponents.  We commoners, too often, have sat idly by and watched these character assassinations take place.

 

Good leaders, even the most courageous leaders, need the faith, prayers and open support of significant numbers of common people in order to survive and succeed in the public arena.  This must go beyond just the secret ballot.  We have to get together and make our presence felt in an organized, sustained way.  It’s far past time for us to stop being dupped by media and other elites who seek to mold public policy at our expense and to our detriment.

 

 

 

The common man

Must lead aright,

Or the common man

Will be put to flight.

 

 

-Doug Taylor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VIII. Chosen

 

OPINIONS VIII

CHOSEN

 

 

Lets  consider the idea of being “chosen,” or the idea that God would choose a person or a people and set them apart.

 

This is a principle that’s inescapably tied to the Bible:

 

 

“And Moses went up unto God, and the Lord called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself.  Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.  These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel….

“And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the Lord commanded him.  And all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do.  And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord.”

–Exodus 19:3-8

 

Genesis 17  (conditions of the Abrahamic covenant)

Gen. 21:9-21  (Ishmael blessed, but covenant/birthright belonged to Isaac)

Exodus 2:24-25  (God remembered His covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob)

Ex. 6:4  (a specific land of promise)

Ex. 6:7  (God’s people; His people’s God)

Ex. 8:23  (distinction: ‘my people/thy people)

Ex. 24:2,9-11  (Moses alone permitted to come near, 70 elders allowed to see at a distance)

Ex. 34:2-3  (no person or thing to be on the mount but Moses when the Lord visited)

Leviticus 20:22-26  (be separate from the world, be God’s people or be spewed out)

Numbers 1:47-51; 3:1-10  (Levites & priests set apart for tabernacle service, stranger who comes near to be put to death)

Num. 3:12-13, 41, 45  (Levites chosen instead of firstborn for priesthood, firstborn still hallowed)

Num. 9:14  (stranger may observe Passover, but must be according to original pattern)

Num. 16  (only those separated by God allowed to come near, no stranger)

Num. 18:1-8  (priesthood only for Levite males, priests: sons of Aaron only, all by anointing and ordinance; stranger not to come near and die)

Num. 18:11-14, 31-32  (be clean to partake; if you pollute you die)

Num. 33:50-56  (un-ordained to be dispossessed of promised land; if not obedient even the ordained will be dispossessed)

Deuteronomy 4:5-9…20…23…31…37…40  (their fathers, a people privileged to have God nigh [6:15], actually heard His voice, a people of inheritance, covenant, chosen)

Deut. 7:1-8  (make no covenant with wicked, no intermarriage, destroy them and their idols for ye are a holy, special people)

Deut. 9:3-5  (Children of Israel allowed to possess promised land, not for their righteousness but because of the wickedness of current inhabitants, and in keeping with promises made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob)

Deut. 9:13-14…29  (God apparently literally was intent on wiping out the Children of Israel and starting over with Moses’ children; righteousness more important than lineage)  (Ex. 32:9-10)

Deuteronomy 11:8-32  (obedience tied to blessings, obtaining the promised land)

Deut. 13:…17-18  (avoid being cursed by destroying false prophet and community)

Deut. 14:1-2  (children of the Lord, holy people, chosen, peculiar)

Deut. 17:14-20  (future king must be Hebrew, no stranger; fear the Lord)

Deut. 20:13-18  (utterly destroy near-by wicked nations so not infected with evil practices)

Deut. 26:16-19  (avouched to make thee high above all nations)

Deut. 29:1…9…12-13…21…25  (covenant; oath; swear; “a people unto himself”)

Deut. 30:1-10  (latter days—when Israel turns to God with all her heart, He will remember covenant, turn curse into blessing)

Deut. 32:26-28  (God concerned about how the world sees His chosen people)

1 Kings 8:51-53  (thou didst separate them from among all the people of the earth)

1 Chronicles 16:…41…  (Levites chosen for specific offices)

Matthew 3:9  (children of the promise)

Luke 3:8; John 8:33-59  (ancestry alone no guarantee of salvation)

Luke 19:8-9; 20:9-18  (being chosen is tied to worthiness)

Acts 28:17-29  (salvation to Gentiles—Jews first)

Romans 9:…4…8…11  (‘gentile’ sons of God by adoption)

Rom. 15:8-9, 15, 28  (special responsibility relative to chosen status)

Galatians 3:7-8, 13-14, 16, 25-29  (worthy gentiles adopted, but still only one baptism)

Ephesians 1:4-5  (gentile adoption into the household of faith)

Philippians 2:12-15  (sons of God, no longer of the world)

Colossians 13:…12…  (elect of God—righteousness, not lineage)

II Thessalonians 2:14  (Called to share Christ’s glory)

Titus 2:13-14  (a peculiar people)

Titus 3:4-7  (heirs of hope of eternal life)

Hebrews 3:1-6  (share Christ’s mansion, if worthy)

Heb. 6:9-17; 10:35-36  (must endure to obtain inheritance)

Heb. 12:5-8  (must endure chastening if true sons of God)

I Peter 2:3-10  (peculiar people, royal priesthood)

I Pet. 4:1-5  (different from Gentiles)

II Pet. 1:2-11   (calling and election made sure, based on good works)

I John 4:3-6  (not of the world)

Jude 1:1  (the called)

Revelation 1:6  (kings and priests)

Rev. 21:7  (he that overcometh chosen)

Rev. 17:14  (they that are with the Lamb)

 

 

I suspect the principle of being chosen, along with the idea of right and wrong (justice and judgment) are the main reason the Bible has lost some of its popularity in the current atmosphere of “political correctness.”  Political correctness means not judging.  It means accepting every person and every lifestyle without any moral standard of reference for determining value.

 

Why would God be so politically incorrect as to choose a prophet and/or a people?

 

To answer such a question we need to make a distinction between being chosen and being elite.  Being chosen is exclusive of evil, but not of people.  Being elite is exclusive of people for evil purposes.  Elitists are ego-driven to distinguish themselves from others thus accentuating and validating their presumed superiority.  The chosen are called to serve God and represent Him to the world.  The essence of being chosen is that of bearing extra responsibility to God and fellowman.  Prophets are chosen to teach and warn the people in the name of God.  A chosen people is established to be an example, showing the world what a happy and fulfilling lifestyle consists of, effectively inviting the world to a community based on God’s standard.  Historically that’s caused irritations for the worldly.  Too many people, in fact the vast majority, haven’t wanted God’s standard.  They’ve wanted to dream up their own standards.

 

The same issues relate to the world’s reception of prophets called by God.  Prophets are “chosen” to be God’s mouthpiece.  Why doesn’t God speak for himself?  Because we are here to live by faith, not sight (2 Corinthians 5:7).  In other words, God reveals Himself openly to very few, because the vast majority of mankind need the opportunity to build faith and establish “who they are” without God’s obvious or overpowering presence.  So He speaks to the world through his prophets and raises an “ensign” to the world through his people.  This has been the pattern from the beginning.

 

 “Hear this word that the LORD hath spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying,  You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.   Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.”      –Amos 3:1-2,7

 

 

This isn’t exclusivity, because people of all races and ethnicities are welcome to be “chosen,” provided they live up to the standards of the choice calling.  Allowances were made in the Law of Moses for “strangers.”  They were to be included and treated with kindness, especially if they expressed a desire to become part of Israelite society; but they had to abide by the same law  (Lev. 19:33-34; 20:20; 22:17-25; Deut. 23:7-8; Joshua 8:33-35; 1 Kings 8:41-43; 2 Chron. 2:1-2).  True, you get the impression from the Old Testament, that God’s people were to insulate themselves from other nations (gentiles), based on physical bloodlines.  And there can be no doubt that the Israelites, and especially the Jews as shown in the New Testament, had largely taken the idea of “chosen” to mean “elite.”  This elitism was contradicted and condemned by Jesus Christ, for which, among other things, He was judged by the world and crucified.  This is not to be taken as a proof of strictly Jewish culpability, but rather of what elites tend to do in all cultures and all times.

 

Paul, perhaps more than any of the apostles that we know of, carried the gospel to the gentiles, a thing thought by the Jewish establishment of the time to be pure heresy.  He and others taught the principle of “adoption,” whereby any person, regardless of genealogy could become a “son” or “daughter” of God through obedience to the laws and ordinances Christ established (Romans 8:15,23; 9:4; Galatians 4:5-6, Ephesians 1:5; 1 John 3:1-3).  Being called a son or daughter of God, of course implies salvation, in the same sense that a mortal son or daughter inherits his/her parent’s house and is therefore sheltered, or saved from the cold, cruel world outside.  To be a member of God’s family means living with Him in His kingdom and sharing in His powers, glories and dominions.  This also implies sharing in His exalted concerns and responsibilities.

 

Let’s explore another aspect of being “chosen,” which is the idea of covenant:

 

 “I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant,”  –Psalms 89:3

 

The Book of Mormon teaches the same principle using the term, “Covenant People” (1 Nephi 4:13-17; 15:14,18; 2 Nephi 6:13,17; 29:4-5; 30:2).  According to the Book of Mormon record, Christ visited the Americas following his resurrection.  From what was recorded of His teachings we have this passage about His covenant people in relation to the Gentiles (us) in these the latter days.  Significantly, He leaves the question of our ultimate survival as a nation up to us:

 

 

“And then will I gather them in from the four quarters of the earth; and then will I fulfill the covenant which the Father hath made unto all the people of the house if Israel.  And blessed are the Gentiles, because of their belief in me, in and of the Holy Ghost, which witnesses unto them of me and of the Father.  Behold, because of their belief in me, saith the Father, and because of the unbelief of you, O house of Israel, in the latter day shall the truth come unto the Gentiles, that the fullness of these things shall be made known unto them.  But wo, saith the Father, unto the unbelieving of the Gentiles—for notwithstanding they have come forth upon the face of this land, and have scattered my people who are of the house of Israel; and my people who are of the house of Israel have been cast out from among them, and have been trodden under feet by them; And because of the mercies of the Father unto the Gentiles, and also the judgments of the Father upon my people who are of the house of Israel, verily, verily, I say unto you, that after all this, and I have caused my people who are of the house of Israel to be smitten, and to be afflicted, and to be slain, and to be cast out from among them, and to become hated by them, and to become a hiss and a byword among them—And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fullness of my gospel, behold saith the Father, I will bring the fullness of my gospel from among them.  And then will I remember my covenant which I have made unto my people, O house of Israel, and I will bring my gospel unto them.  And I will show unto thee, O house of Israel, that the Gentiles shall not have power over you; but I will remember my covenant unto you, O house of Israel, and ye shall come unto the knowledge of the fullness of my gospel.  But if the Gentiles will repent and return unto me, saith the Father, behold they shall be numbered among my people, O house of Israel.  And I will not suffer my people, who are of the house of Israel, to go through among them and tread them down, saith the Father.  But if they will not turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, I will suffer them, yea, I will suffer my people, O house of Israel, that they shall go through among them, and shall tread them down, and they shall be as salt that hath lost its savor, which is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of my people, O house of Israel.  Verily, verily, I say unto you, thus hath the Father commanded me—that I should give unto this people this land for their inheritance.”                        –3 Nephi 16:5-16)

 

 

This is a very significant passage speaking to us here and now.  We learn from other passages that the Gentiles referred to in the above are primarily the people of the United States and Western Europe.  The house of Israel referred to would be primarily descendents of those who escaped from Jerusalem in 600 BC and crossed the ocean to inhabit the Americas, who’s record we now have as the Book of Mormon.  Those descendents, would appear to be the American Indians, and likely many of the Latin Americans who are pouring into the United States in large numbers.  It most likely also includes some people of other ethnic groups who are moving into Western Europe and the US tending to displace previous inhabitants.

 

There can be little doubt that the wickedness among the Gentiles predicted above by Christ is being fully realized today, and that the “Gentiles” are rejecting more and more the fullness of His gospel.  We Gentiles, therefore, are in serious peril of being brought down by those members of the House of Israel who are rising up, and if we do not repent, they will inherit the land in our stead!

 

The Book of Mormon, emphasizes over and over the importance of righteousness as an essential ingredient of prosperity and the condition of being chosen:

 

 

“For behold, I say unto you that as many of the Gentiles as will repent are the covenant people of the Lord; and as many of the Jews as will not repent shall be cast off; for the Lord covenanteth with none save it be with them that repent and believe in his Son, who is the Holy One of Israel.”  –2 Nephi 30:2

 

 

A covenant is a contract, an agreement, between two parties with specified conditions.  In my view, covenant with God is important in at least two ways.  First it is the basis for the rule of law, and second it reveals God’s condescension, love and consideration for man.

 

Who do you trust?  The Apostle Paul said that in the latter-days men would be trucebreakers, among other undesirable things (2 Timothy 3:1-7).  His prophecy certainly is being fulfilled today.  As integrity and trustworthiness breaks down, trust evaporates and bureaucracy burgeons.  Laws and lawsuits increase to compensate for the increase in dishonesty and game-playing, but there aren’t enough laws, lawyers and law enforcement officers to control millions of people who won’t control themselves and live trustworthy lives.

 

The criminal, the bully or slick operator may verbally agree to terms with you, or even sign a contract with you, but what is it worth?  Laws mean nothing to the lawless:

 

 

“When the state is most corrupt, then laws are most multiplied.”   –Tacitus (Elbert Hubbard’s Scrap Book, p.128)

 

“Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.”    –1 Timothy 1:9-10

 

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.  –Galatians 5:22-23

 

 

In sharp contrast to a human wasteland of lawlessness, we find a welcome oasis of law and order in the principle of covenant.  God’s relationship with man has always been covenant-based, so here we find a crucial link between Bible principles and our freedom.  Hedonists and libertines see freedom as personal only.  They refuse to be bound by rules and regulations, not to mention commandments of God; and this is where it begins to affect you and me.  They don’t feel bound by any commitments or obligations to us either!  Their rights are the only ones that matter, yours and mine are of no consequence.  How free will you and I be if their “freedom” gets left unrestrained?

 

This gets to the crux of the endless arguments we hear over freedom.  The liberal insists on “freedom in the bedroom” and freedom from the restraints of religion.  But conservatives fall into the lack-of-respect-for-others trap in a different way.  They want “freedom in the boardroom” to control every aspect of a country’s and it’s citizen’s economic lives.

 

What about freedom in the bedroom?  Free sexual expression between consenting adults may be one thing, but bringing children into the world under less than ideal conditions affects all of us adversely, especially the children!   And denying children the opportunity to live in the first place (abortion) represents another unique and ugly infringement on the rights of the unborn.

 

What about the boardroom?  Some corporations and people in them have become so rich and  powerful, they begin to think they are above the law.  ENRON has been one example, of many.  They fly the flag out front but forget it’s supposed to be “liberty and justice for all.”  Julian Edney in his treatise, Greed, gives spirited attention to the dark side of this subject (2005, iUniverse Inc, Lincoln, NE, pp.46-55).  And, lest we forget, big government can be even more dangerous.

 

Both liberals and conservatives accuse the other of trying to legislate where they have no business legislating.  A common problem emerges at both extremes in attempting to impose the whims of the few on the whole of society.  We need a more infallible standard that can help us know where to draw the lines.  God has provided us with such a standard in covenant-making, for those who fear to break faith with God, also fear to offend their fellowmen.  Instead of true religion being a shackle and burden on society, as so often is alleged, it really is meant to act as a hedge against elitism.  The “chosen” are called to lead out in this vital social function.

 

Covenants and contracts are equalizing factors in society.  The terms may differ, but each party is equally held responsible for keeping his or her end of the bargain—hence the importance of honesty and integrity, and really, humility as well—hence also, the importance of lending the force of law to covenants and contracts.

 

While the value of the “social contract” is just common sense to most of us, it is made all the more weighty when we have faith that covenant relationships begin with God.  Since He is all-powerful and governs according to covenant, we understand our ultimate accountability and sociability will be in accord with whether or not we enter into prudent and just contracts and whether or not we keep our commitments.  The Mayflower Compact set the precedent for this country, and when you think about it, the Pledge of Allegiance is really a covenant we make with one another to uphold the rule of law as embodied in the Constitution.

 

This leads us to the other aspect of the principle of “covenant,” having to do with God’s condescension.  Just as covenants and contracts equalize members of mortal society, covenants with God have a tendency to lift us in His direction:

 

“And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them.”  –Ex. 2:25

 

The alternate reading of “respect” here is “knew,” the implication being that God was willing to be known by or familiar with the Children of Israel.  This is the essence of covenant, namely mutual respect based on a willingness of both parties to honestly disclose their true intentions, and then live up to those intentions.  In the process they make themselves known to each other, at least to some meaningful degree.  A covenant or contract has no value unless both parties honor it, and in honoring it, they honor each other.   

 

God is all powerful, all knowing and all seeing.  He doesn’t need to enter into contracts with us.  He chooses to make such agreements because he loves us and is willing that we should grow, progress, prosper and even associate with Him under prescribed conditions.  The conditions of His covenants are generous.  All things are His and He has power over all things, so He has nothing materially to gain by these arrangements.  We, on the other hand, with nothing by comparison, have everything to gain both temporally and spiritually.

 

Do we not see, that mutual respect is a cornerstone of the mansion of freedom?  If we define freedom in terms of “every man for himself,” we remove all restraints on those who would dominate, exploit, intimidate and terrorize.  It is through covenant and contract that equality as established by the rule of law institutionalizing the worth and respectability of every citizen.  This principle requires the strong (or those who think they are strong) to be considerate of the rights and privileges of the weak, and God sets before us the supreme example.

 

Think about it.  While the Children of Israel, and mankind generally, forget their covenants and turn their backs on God, God as represented by His Son, has kept His side of the agreement, even bleeding at every pore and laying down His life in demonstration of His faithfulness to us, His willingness to be our true “friend!”

 

 

“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.  Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.  Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.  Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.”  –John 15:13-16

 

 

Notice the implication of familiarity here.  But you say, ‘if Christ is willing to be friends, why are we bound on conditions of obedience?’  It’s because all of His commandments are given in our best interest.  He, in fact, doesn’t command in all things, but in crucial things, which keeps us from error and destruction.  We must accept the fact that, although He is willing to associate with us as friends, He is infinitely more intelligent and powerful than we, and therefore we gladly defer to His influence, guidance and direction.

 

For centuries, “America” has meant something special.  America was a place blessed by heaven, a “promised land” where believers in and worshipers of God and Jesus Christ could live their religion, and establish laws that were consistent with teachings found in the Bible.  I believe this establishment, though imperfect, was close enough to warrant God’s blessing.  By keeping His commandments, Americans in days past, demonstrated their “chosen-ness.”

 

There is one other aspect of being chosen, which touches on issues of rebellion already discussed.  The fact that we are chosen, means we are chosen for something.  It means that God, Who knows us better than we know ourselves, assigns roles in certain necessary ways.  Christ chose the Twelve to be apostles, which meant they were to step up and testify for the rest of their lives of His divinity and messianic reality.  Other seventy were called, others were called as evangelists, pastors, teachers, elders, and so on:

 

 

“Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain; that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.”      –John 15:16

 

“And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:…”   (Ephesians 4:11-12)

 

 

The point being, that much of the unrest we experience in the world and in ourselves, comes from

insisting on doing things our way, rather than God’s way.  We think it’s restrictive to have roles imposed upon us by God, not to mention our Elders.  And yet, so often people presume to know, or be able to do things they are far from knowing or capable to doing.   With everyone following their own whim and fancy, there is private disturbance and public disorder.  This may give some a brief sense of liberation, but in the end it often, if not inevitably leads to disappointment and despair for themselves and those around them.

 

We see in the Old and New Testaments that some were chosen to hold the priesthood; others were not.  Some were called to be prophets; others were not.  Men, women and children had general roles to play.  Those who were “chosen” often were called to fill very difficult roles, sometimes roles that cost them their lives.  So not being chosen can have it’s attractions.  My point is that there is rest to ourselves and to society when we have faith in the roles we’ve been given, so we’re not ever rebelling and longing for the grass that looks greener.

 

Yes there is danger in the presumption of religious, family, or civic authority, but there is just as much if not more risk in everyone assuming rights they do not and should not have.

 

If we turn our backs on these traditions (which are based on revealed truth and not just tradition), it would mean much more than just “change,” which so many believe automatically implies progress.  It would mean change for the worse.  We would be truce-breakers, and therefore no longer entitled to divine contractual benefits.

 

 

“Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted?  It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.  Ye are the light of the world.  A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.  Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.  Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”      –Matthew 5:13-16

 

 

America is not just another selection on the buffet of nations.  As long as Americans remember and apply the teachings of the Bible, they will establish a land and a nation that is unique and deserving of defense, both earthly and heavenly, against all enemies foreign and domestic. 

 

 

 

Refuse to be

God’s holy child,

And find yourself

By enemies beguiled.                                

 

 

–Doug Taylor

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IX. Equality

Opinions IX

Equality

 

 

“The heart also of the rash shall understand knowledge, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be ready to speak plainly.  The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful.  For the vile person will speak villainy, and his heart will work iniquity, to practice hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.  The instruments also of the churl are evil; he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right.  But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.”   -Isaiah 32:4-8

 

This rather mysterious passage intrigues me.  It appears to be part of a prophecy about conditions on the earth shortly after Christ’s second coming.  It seems to imply that in that day people will speak the truth and no longer lie and deceive; contrary to times immediately previous when men will have lied and deceived under the guise of liberality.  In other words, men who were in fact churls (ill-tempered, selfish, crude), vile, villainous, practitioners of hypocrisy and error, and devisors of wicked devices to destroy the poor, will have used the artifice of liberality to cover their motives and justify their actions.

 

The prophecy also suggests that those who falsely devise liberal things, in the end, will have to stand by liberal things; but since firmness and solidity are inconsistent with the concept, at least of unconditional liberality, it seems they will find themselves with nothing reliable to stand on.

 

This is not to say that genuine liberality and those qualities that accompany it, such as love, respect and concern for the welfare of others are not founded on a rock of truth.  But liberality, to be beneficial, must be tempered by justice; or to put it another way: ‘mercy cannot rob justice’    –Book of Mormon, Alma 42:25.

 

Equality vs. Inequality

So, let us consider for a moment the liberal idea of equality.  This is a concept which appeals to all of us.  Oh, some of us might find an ever so slight attraction to the idea of being superior to others, but all of us are repelled by the idea of being inferior!  Our founders were so repelled by the idea that that they instituted the phrase “all men are created equal.”  But they also created a Constitution that safeguarded individuality, making allowance for things like free expression and the security of one’s person and property.  Thus “equality” implies something other than individuals being identical and co-dependent in every way.   The very idea of independence, implies not only freedom from oppressive governments, but also freedom from oppressive neighbors!  Freedom from neither is possible if we sacrifice individuality for a lifestyle that’s obliged to embrace the lowest common denominator.

 

To be realistic, Constitutional freedom which forms an umbrella over US democracy actually permits and even encourages a kind of inequality.  This is a simple fact that liberals seemingly prefer to avoid.  Healthy democracy produces inequality in the sense that people are allowed to enjoy the fruits of their labors, or the absence of fruits due to their absence of labor.

 

In other words, inequality can be a good thing, as long as it is just.  And there must not only be justice, but for democracy to thrive the inequalities must be perceived as just.  A majority of the people must openly and freely support the idea that differences in socioeconomic circumstances are reasonable and fair.  This is where the influence of opinion leaders, “elders,” becomes crucial.   Their role should be that of teachers and persuaders, helping current and rising generations understand and appreciate true principles which make true democracy and/or republicanism possible.

 

Much of the inequality we’ve seen in America is justifiable, but liberal influencers (elders), especially in the media and higher education, have relentlessly underminded traditional values and institutions to the point that unrest, confusion and disintegration are rife.   Michael Medved’s book, The 10 Big Lies About America (2008: New York, Crown Forum) confronts some major areas of misinformation, and in doing so, illustrates my point.

 

No doubt, if inequality becomes too great, it suggests, either there are only a few energetic, productive workers and way too many lazy, unproductive workers, or there is cheating, mischief, and corruption going on in high places.  How else can one explain the stupendous inequalities that have characterized circumstances of most populations of most societies and nations throughout history?  

 

Can one say that today’s CEO works a thousand times harder than those he or she employs?  Not really, except in some fantastic conception of how his or her genius and extra responsibilities make him or her the spiritual and physical cause of all possible good effects, and the actual work done at the worker level is of no value or consequence whatsoever.  Let the workers quit and see how much gets produced….

 

Of course workers have been known to distort reality as well.  They’ve been known to demand more and more wages for less and less work.  In such cases, they would do well to remember that without the risks their company owners take, and extra efforts to make the enterprise possible, there would be no jobs or wages at all.

 

The “Bible Effect”

CEOs, union bosses, powerful people, rulers of nations and other “greats” who can afford so much, could well afford to remember that the Greatest One, the One who actually made all good things possible on this earth, took upon Him the role of Son and servant.  He sought no huge salary, no special benefits, no political or earthly power, no title or high station.  He sought to serve, first His Father in Heaven, and then His fellowmen.  This he accomplished in the grandest and most sublime way yet was neither recognized nor appreciated by the vast majority of those who were acquainted with Him in mortality.  (Philippians 2:5-9)

 

Jesus Christ created this world, and so the world is His and all things in it (Psalms 24:1-2; John 1:1-5).  Yes we may be smart, we may be strong, we may accomplish much, but where did the smarts, the strength and the ability to accomplish come from? 

 

The Owner Of The Earth, is willing to share, and even let us think we own something.  He’s willing to let us have a little power and thus enjoy a taste of dignity and self-respect (Psalms 8:3-6).  Are we willing to share?  Can we stop lusting for that which belongs to others, or for things we haven’t earned?  These are sobering questions for those who have the faith to accept the implications of Christ’s example (John 13:14-15).  Thus Biblical principles have relevance for democratic life.

 

Ownership and Property

Private ownership is another aspect of “healthy inequality.”  In a just society, people are rewarded for legitimate and useful effort with special recognitions, status, money, property, etc, and everyone recognizes these things as theirs and theirs alone.   The Bible supports this concept with the simple commands: “Thou shalt not steal,” and “Thou shalt not covet” (Ex. 20:15,17).  There are many other passages that imply respect for the rights and property of others, which I address in other essays.

 

I understand some of Jefferson’s drafts of the Declaration of Independence used the word “property” instead of “happiness.”  That is to say: ‘all men are entitled to life, liberty, and property,’ or ‘the pursuit of property’ rather than ‘the pursuit of happiness.’  The ”happiness” phrase is more lofty and broad, but I think the Founders were on to something in seeing that there is a connection between happiness and property.   We are more motivated to achieve, to make a personal investment in that which we can own.  It becomes a reflection of who we are, which isn’t a bad thing as long as we aren’t greedy egomaniacs.  That which we own, we can give away.  Indeed giving would not be possible without ownership!

 

 

“Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.  No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself.  I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again….”    -John 10:17-18

 

 

Opportunity

Then what about equality?  If scriptural and democratic principles incorporate certain types of inequality, where does equality find a place?  It is best found in the arena of opportunity, where individual identity and accountability bear less sway.   People should have equal opportunity in the first place to pursue happiness, but since those pursuits are individual, the results or consequences will be diverse or “unequal.”  True, in Christianity, liberality (mercy) makes room for second, and perhaps even seventy times seven opportunities (Matt 18:21-22….); but in the end, uniqueness, with its requisite justice, must have its due.

 

Diversity or Perversity

So “diversity,” which becomes a manifestation of inequality, is a good thing if it’s based on reasonable and just principles; but it’s a false principle if it simply means people behaving in non-conformist, bizarre, self-serving and anti-social ways with no relevance to what’s truly original, helpful and valuable.

 

 

“Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” 

–Galatians 5:19-21

 

 

We know the meaning of most of the words Paul uses here, but a few are worth looking up in relation to this discussion:

 

Variance:  ‘activity that varies from a norm or standard; discord that divides a group.’

 

Emulation:  ‘to imitate in an attempt to do as well or better than another person.’

 

Sedition:  ‘inciting resistance to lawful authority, tending to cause disruption or overthrow.’

 

Heresy:  ‘rejection of orthodoxy; opinions or doctrines at variance with official position.’

 

Reveling:  ‘unrestrained, noisy, intoxicated, uproarious festivity or celebration.’

 

Many liberals today, want unlimited individual choice without any individual responsibility, all under a banner of “equality.”  For them, people are to be responded to and treated in an identical way regardless of the fact that they live and behave in non-identical ways.

 

Healthy vs. Unhealthy Inequality

This overwrought kind of equality really represents the Communist ideal, but history has shown that such an appealing ideal can be no more than a front for ruthless regimes, regimes that speak loudly and endlessly of the people and equality, but in fact mask elites that hold a vice grip on both wealth and power, pushing opportunity further and further from the reach of commoners who make up the vast unrepresented and exploited majority.

 

Totalitarian states are built on many rationales for their ruling classes.  There are communists and fascists, emperors and monarchs of every style.  They typically have at least the tacit support of the people who become convinced their voice has neither merit nor significance, or they are simply terrorized into silence.  Anyway, liberalism, socialism and communism perhaps offer the most beguiling of rationales, the most appealing to the ignorant: that of equality.

 

So one difference between Communism and Democracy can be over-simply defined as systems of human inequality, the former maintaining a huge gap between “haves” and “have-nots” based on tyranny and injustice, the latter having a much narrower gap based on equity and justice.

 

 

 

“That all men are born to equal rights is true.  Every being has a right to his own, as clear, as moral, as sacred, as any other being has.  This is as indubitable as a moral government in the universe.  But to teach that all men are born with equal powers and faculties, to equal influence in society, to equal property and advantages through life, is as gross a fraud, as glaring an imposition on the credulity of the people, as ever was practiced by monks, by Druids, by Brahmins, by priests of the immortal Lama, or by the self-styled philosophers of the French revolution.”  –John Adams to John Taylor, 19 April 1814  (The Wisdom of John and Abigail Adams, edited by R.B. Bernstein; 2002: New York, Fall River Press), p.59.

 

 

 

World on Fire

Amy Chua, in her book, World on Fire (2003: New York, Random House/Doubleday) makes some powerful points along these lines.  She shows how the popularity and spread of democracy throughout the world since World War II, has led to economic opportunity, yes, but also more widespread inequality.  This in-turn has fostered more widespread resentment not only between economic classes, but also, somewhat surprisingly, between racial and ethnic groups.

 

Ironically, totalitarian regimes, ancient and modern, creating and maintaining huge gaps between the powerful and powerless, between rich and poor, effectively “level” the masses who end up accepting the elites as simply a fact of life.   This makes such societies relatively stable, in spite of the fact that the majority live short and miserable lives.  You and your neighbors are destitute and powerless, but at least you are equally destitute and powerless!

 

With democracy, it is your neighbor you are in a race with, and if you consistently lose for whatever reason, you are tempted to become resentful and wish for a better (easier) way; you begin to see liberalism or socialism or communism as attractive.  This problem has become especially virulent with the advent of modern media marketing, which has not only encouraged rampant materialism on a global scale, but also accentuated resultant inequalities.  The person living in poverty and squalor still manages to watch TV, and see how the “other half” is living.

 

This effect has been compounded by the hyper-aggressive forms of capitalism Western European, American, Asian and other world minorities have employed, which often appear to be, exploitative, short-sighted and inhumane.  If capitalists had been more wise, and to be honest, less greedy, they could be today’s heroes rather than today’s rogues in the eyes of much of the world.  Can we not see that, while competition may offer greater opportunity, unbridled competition ultimately limits opportunity for it seeks to eliminate competitors!

 

“America today has become the world’s leading market-dominant minority, enjoying wealth and economic power wildly disproportionate to our numbers.  This, perhaps more than anything else accounts for the visceral hatred of Americans that we have seen expressed in recent acts of terrorism.”  –World on Fire, back cover

 

An Imperfect System with Unrealized Potential

While democratic and economic freedom lead to inequalities that are just, there are the ever-present inequalities that are unjust.  These become grist for the liberals’ mill in proving their point that capitalism is fundamentally evil and dangerous. 

 

Certainly there could be more appreciation for and accommodation of the wide spectrum of human ability.  We are too narrow in saying which human traits and gifts are valuable, and don’t bother to appreciate what others may have to offer.  Do we appreciate the contribution common laborers make?  Are they rewarded at least within the ballpark of more skilled workers?  Are opportunities for education and job training within everyone’s reach, and do educators and trainers develop and encourage human potential?  If so they represent an important equalizing influence in society. 

 

Common men and women, themselves, fail to appreciate their unique potentials and the contributions they can make.  We’re too much moved by what we see on TV and in the movies, where the spectacular, and bizarre get the play.  We think if we can’t emulate the superstars, there’s no point in bothering with local achievement.  But local communities need stars; every neighborhood, every family should have stars.  Each can shine in their own way within reasonable limits.  These are “equal opportunities” past generations developed, but present generations tend to ignore.

 

It’s highly instructive, that the most significant career the world has ever known was played out over three short years in the tiny regions of Galilee and Judea!

 

Broadmindedness about the meaning of success, however, shouldn’t cause us to dismiss the challenging, invigorating, and rewarding influences of capitalism for everyday mortals like you and me.  Where there is no reward for individual effort, individuals typically and historically put forth less effort.  If you earn the same as your neighbor regardless of how hard you work, what’s the point of working hard?  This principle became obvious in light of the USSR’s economic collapse under Gorbachev.   There are many other examples.

 

Equality to the Max

Let’s carry “equality” to ridiculous lengths to gain perspective:  When we look at two human beings, we say they both have eyes, noses, mouths, ears, a brain, a head, arms, legs, hands, feet, internal organs, etc.  Since they have these same attributes, they must be treated in exactly the same way.  It doesn’t matter what they do with those attributes, the choices they make or the usefulness of their lives can have no bearing on how we treat them or respond to them.

 

Let’s carry our rediculousness further.  Dogs and cats have eyes, noses, mouths, ears, brains, heads, arms, legs, hands, feet (paws), internal organs, etc.  They must also be treated in exactly the same way as humans.  In fact to make any distinction between dogs and cats, and humans would be to reveal our narrow-mindedness and prejudice.

 

Let’s go a little further and recognize that all living things are made of DNA.  Since we’re all made of the same stuff, no discrimination is to be permitted between the most intelligent and benevolent human being and a one-celled animal or plant.  We could even go to the atomic level and insist that since all things are made of atoms, it would be immoral and cruel to make any distinctions between human beings, or living things, and inanimate objects. 

 

Thus, unwise men, using a particle of appealing logic, would move us from individual identity to non-identity, from life with meaning to life without meaning.  But the Lord {the Creator} affirms there are significant differences between individuals:

 

“Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them.  Are ye not much better than they?”  –Matthew 7:26

 

“Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? And one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.  But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.  Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.”   –Matthew 10:29-31

 

The Common Denominator of Happiness

Thus we may gloat over the thought of being worth more than many sparrows, but questions of higher and lower intelligence reveal to us another aspect of equality.  I borrow a thought from Dr. Hugh Nibley (citation pending):

 

Anyone who has owned a dog understands the pleasure of taking “man’s best friend” for a walk.  The owner and his dog have a wonderful time, a shared experience.  But are they not different creatures living, as it were, in different worlds?  Though they are different they share the same world, only experiencing it in different, but mutually satisfying ways.  The man experiences things more visually, the dog, more olfactorally.  The man, with his larger brain, understands things the dog cannot comprehend, and yet the man only begins to understand what the dog is capable of experiencing.  We know dogs, and all animals, enjoy powers and abilities men do not enjoy.  And in this we find a universal equality, not only among men of differing capacities, but also among all living things, and perhaps even all existing things.

 

Each thing has capacities the others lack.  Living things differ in natural intelligence and ability, but we sense equality in their potential for happiness, each in their own way!  Who would say dogs don’t exhibit the emotion of happiness?  And they aren’t the only ones.

 

The complexities of what it takes for humans to be truly happy, in spite of much reasoning, analysis and controversy, still defies complete understanding.  But happiness has been experienced.  Millions through the centuries, for example, have come to know and testify that living in accord with Bible teachings leads to true fulfillment and happiness.

 

Capitalism, Socialism, Regulation and Freedom

People are born with unique inclinations and abilities, which of course can be developed in good or evil ways; but the salient point is, that for a society to work well, its members must be mutually satisfied with their several contributions and situations, without malice, envy or covetousness.   This implies a proper balance between equality and inequality, or sameness and uniqueness.

 

Some people drive Rolls Royces, others drive Fords; some live in mansions, others in modest homes.  The assumption in a free society, is that the differences have to do with individual efforts and taste in a context of fairness.  A rich man may, for his own reasons, prefer to drive Fords, while a poor man may sacrifice in other aspects of his life in order to purchase a Rolls.  We find similar variety in our dwellings.  This kind of diversity is an interesting and glorious manifestation of free society where all may choose, and experience the consequences.

 

The same principle of diversity applies to societies within society.  Like-minded people should be allowed to gather into groups, clubs, societies, to “peaceably assemble.”  This includes people of intelligence, decency and prudence.  Such are sometimes ridiculed, harassed or even invaded by ill-willed “outsiders” who insist in the name of equality, that such “snobbish and exclusive” organizations have no right to refuse association, or even to exist.

 

But I believe the whole intent of being able to “peaceably assemble” was for good men and woman to be able to gather strength and be a powerful influence for good in the world.  Such should be our legislatures, political parties, churches, benevolent organizations, professions, and so on.

 

What individuals or groups get encouraged or discouraged in society?  There are those who, in the name of freedom, wish to reward narrowly and punish broadly, others would have the reverse.  Who can fairly make such judgments?  The “elders,” yes, but also the free market naturally establishes value for goods and services.  The same should be true for the “marketplace of ideas.”  These elements of “elders” and “market,” fairly mixed, give us the most rational and workable approach for imperfect people having to live with imperfect people.

 

The Fluxuating Constant

Capitalism that’s adequately regulated keeps money and opportunity flowing.  It’s like driving on a freeway.  As long as traffic is moving, there is opportunity for you to change or improve your position.  Within the framework of traffic laws that are enforced, and of self-restraint, which we call “courtesy on the highway,” each commuter maneuvers to achieve his or her desired position and speed.   Each asserts his preference; each accommodates the other.  But if everyone is required to drive in an excessively uniform way, or stop altogether, choices and options become severely limited. 

 

Socialism and other elite forms of government which over-regulate act as impediments that jam up the traffic of everyday life.  On the other hand, you may be moving satisfactorily along a three- or four-lane highway while others start to speed or go too slow, change lanes without looking, cut in front of you, or tailgate; some may even create their own lane or road that excludes you.  This is like competition that eliminates its competition: monopolies, and other unfair and unethical capitalistic practices.  The extremes not only take the joy out of driving (living), they miss the whole point of the journey.

 

Uniqueness and the Law of Opposites

As always, we citizens must appreciate that individual identity not only implies freedom in the sense of personal choice, but also accountability for choices made.  Obviously the consequence of choosing well is happiness, and of choosing poorly, the opposite.  These concepts correspond with natural law, and if men are wise, such will be reflected in terrestrial law.

 

Lehi, the first prophet of record in the Book of Mormon, treats the concept of individuality, reward, and punishment in an interesting and pertinent manner:

 

 

“For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things.  If not so… righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad.  Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.  Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation.  Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.  And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin.  If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness.  And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness.  And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery.  And if these things are not there is no God.  And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.”   –2 Nephi 2:11-13

 

 

A lot of people identify with this idea of “opposition in all things.”  In the first place, those who love competition and believe it’s what ‘made America great’ find in this passage an affirmation of their view.  Others take comfort in the passage, seeing it as proof that adversity is something we all go through.  But neither of these views fully explain Lehi’s meaning.  He is talking about something that is very fundamental to existence: unique and distinct identity.

 

How do we identify something and give it a name?  It is by first acknowledging opposites, and then placing the thing we wish to identify and name on a scale or continuum somewhere between those opposites.

 

Lets say we want to identify a shade of gray.   We must first establish absolute white and absolute black.  Once we have done that, we can have any number of grays and off-whites relative to the extremes.   We can establish a scale of whiteness or blackness and assign each variation a specific name or number.

 

Spiritually speaking, we may place Christ, or God, at the top of our scale, and perhaps the devil at the bottom, and this in terms of intelligence, personal attributes as well as usefulness to others, or perhaps levels of obedience to eternal law.  We then, can place ourselves according to our own characters in relation to the high and low.   And it follows that there would be rewards or punishments in consequence of or proportion to where we are on that scale.

 

This may seem harsh to some, but not as harsh as the alternative, where there are no opposites we can relate to, for the latter would become “a compound in one,” or in other words, nothing!

 

Lets use another analogy.  We know of gold as a specific element with specific properties, and we also know gold to be very precious in terms of its usefulness and also its rarity. 

 

Suppose all the metal in your car was gold?  This would be a remarkable thing, a great curiosity and attraction.  You could melt your car down and make the gold into coins and be rich.  But suppose all the cars in the world were made of gold.  Suddenly your car would be less valuable because it would be less unique.

 

Suppose all our cities were made of gold; suppose the earth and everything on it and in it was pure gold?  Suppose the atmosphere was gold, space, the universe and on to infinity?  The gold would then have no value at all because it could not be distinguished from anything else.  It could neither act, nor be acted upon because nothing else would exist that it could interact with or be compared to.  It would be a compound in one, and therefore vanish away, or not exist at all.

 

So Lehi is teaching us that rewards and punishments are a natural consequence of individual identity, which implies existence.  The Lord showed Abraham that if anything exists, at least two things exist with unique characteristics which make them distinguishable (LDS scripture, Pearl of Great Price: Abr. 3:16,19).

 

A rock is dislodged from its lose position on a hill, and it rolls down and crushes a car that happens to be driving along the road below.  There are specifically identifiable properties involved in this occurrence.  The weather conditions, the soil conditions, the speed and direction of the car, the course of the road, the pavement, the time of day, and so on.  These are a collection of unique elements, both physical, and circumstantial, which make the event real!

 

A fly coming up and landing on your nose, validates the fact that you exist!  All the physical conditions of our lives, and our ability to sense them, or be aware of them, prove and refine the quality of our lives, and give us a basis for assigning value.  There are non-physical realities as well.  Ideas, for example, cannot be physically weighed and measured, but we must agree they exist, and they can be represented physically in such forms as words or mathematic equations.  The same would be true for “spiritual things,” which are often expressed by physical means.

 

Lehi affirms that there are spiritual realities and that “cause and effect” apply.  He asserts that happiness is a consequence of acting and being acted upon based on certain invisible, yet immutable laws, and these laws interact with and help establish identity.  This is very logical, but there is a part that faith alone makes real for most of us in everyday life.  There’s subtle evidence all around, and for our additional benefit, a few, the holy prophets, are given by the heavens to actually see and know.

 

 

“And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.” 

–2 Nephi 2:14

 

 

To be honest, most of us instinctively think of our personal identity as eternal.  Once we accept the idea that there is life after death, we very naturally assume we will exist as individuals in much the same way we exist in mortality (look at popular moves, plays and books that treat this subject).  A literal reading of the Bible certainly supports this view.  Just consider the physical resurrection and ascension into heaven of Christ, for a great beginning!

 

Identity and Final Judgment

It follows that personal accountability comes as a natural consequence of our continuing existence.  The Book of Mormon applies this principle to the final judgment, taking it a level deeper than the classical imposition of God’s will upon men at the end of time.  It teaches us how the laws of individual identity make men their own judges; thus laying to rest the controversy between James’s statement that ‘faith without works is dead’ (James 2:17…20) and Paul’s assertion that ‘salvation comes by grace alone, not of works lest any man should boast’ (Ephesians 2:8-9):

 

 

“Prepare your souls for that glorious day when justice shall be administered unto the righteous, even the day of judgment, that ye may not shrink with awful fear; that ye may not remember your awful guilt in perfectness, and be constrained to exclaim: Holy, holy are thy judgments, O Lord God Almighty—but I know my guilt; I transgressed thy law, and my transgressions are mine; and the devil hath obtained me, that I am a prey to his awful misery.”   –2 Nephi 9:46

 

“Do ye exercise faith in the redemption of him who created you?   Do you look forward with an eye of faith, and view this mortal body raised in immortality, and this corruption raised in incorruption to stand before God to be judged according to the deeds which have been done in the mortal body?  I say unto you, can you imagine to yourselves that ye hear the voice of the Lord, saying unto you, in that day: Come unto me ye blessed, for behold, your works have been the works of righteousness upon the face of the earth?  Or do ye imagine to yourselves that ye can lie unto the Lord in that day, and say—-Lord, our works have been righteous works upon the face of the earth—-and that he will save you?  Or otherwise, can ye imagine yourselves brought before the tribunal of God with your souls filled with guilt and remorse, having a remembrance of all your guilt, yea, a perfect remembrance of all your wickedness, yea, a remembrance that ye have set at defiance the commandments of God?  I say unto you, can ye look up to God at that day with a pure heart and clean hands?  I say unto you, can you look up having the image of God engraven upon your countenances?  I say unto you, can ye think of being saved when you have yielded yourselves to become subjects to the devil?  I say unto you, ye will know at that day that ye cannot be saved; for there can no man be saved except his garments are washed white; yea, his garments must be purified until they are cleansed from all stain, through the blood of him of whom it has been spoken by our fathers, who should come to redeem his people from their sins.  And now I ask of you, my brethren, how will any of you feel, if ye shall stand before the bar of God, having your garments stained with blood and all manner of filthiness?  Behold what will these things testify against you?  Behold will they not testify that ye are murderers, yea, and also that ye are guilty of all manner of wickedness?  Behold my brethren, do ye suppose that such an one can have a place to sit down in the kingdom of God, with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob, and also all the holy prophets, whose garments are cleansed and are spotless, pure and white?  I say unto you Nay; except ye make our Creator a liar from the beginning, or suppose that he is a liar from the beginning, ye cannot suppose that such can have place in the kingdom of heaven; but they shall be cast out for they are the children of the kingdom of the devil.  And now behold, I say unto you, my brethren, if ye have experienced a change of heart, and if ye have felt to sing the song of redeeming love, I would ask, can ye feel so now?”  –Alma 5:15-26

 

“And now, I speak also concerning those who do not believe in Christ.  Behold, will ye believe in the day of your visitation—-behold, when the Lord shall come, yea, even that great day when the earth shall be rolled together as a scroll, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, yea, in that great day when ye shall be brought to stand before the Lamb of God—-then will ye say that there is not a God?  Then will ye longer deny the Christ, or can ye behold the Lamb of God?  Do ye suppose that ye shall dwell with him under a consciousness of your guilt?  Do ye suppose that ye could be happy to dwell with that holy Being, when your souls are racked with a consciousness of guilt that ye have ever abused his laws?  Behold, I say unto you that ye would be more miserable to dwell with a holy and just God, under a consciousness of your filthiness before him, than ye would to dwell with the damned souls in hell.  For behold, when ye shall be brought to see your nakedness before God, and also the glory of God, and the holiness of Jesus Christ, it will kindle a flame of unquenchable fire upon you.”    –Mormon 9:1-5

 

 

Memory, Identity, Accountability

With the increasing numbers of Alzheimer’s sufferers today, we are made much more aware of the role memory plays in our identity.  Who we are is a collection of characteristics, both material and immaterial.  The immaterial consists of the sum of all our thoughts and acts, and have much more to do with who we are than our height, weight, complexion and facial features.  Of course if the memory or consciousness of these is erased at death, along with our bodies, we become non-existent, and therefore unaccountable—an attractive notion for those of us who are not proud of the way we’ve lived.

 

The Book of Mormon affirms what the Bible asserts, that our existence will continue beyond the grave, including a keen memory of who we were and are.  The natural consequence of this will be largely what we term “heaven” or “hell.”  While, for the present, we may think we can distance ourselves from God’s judgment, since for mortals He often postpones or randomizes reward and punishment for probationary purposes, to realize that we cannot escape ourselves, and that we will ultimately be our own judges (Alma 41:….7) is sobering indeed.

 

Book of Mormon teachings acknowledge the fact that the grace of God is essential for salvation (2 Nephi 25:23, to cite one of many passages).  Still we are given clear and ample warning of the role justice plays, the emphasis of which makes sense.  After all, Christ has already taken care of the grace part, but our works represent the part we can do something about.  An honest reading of the Bible bears the same witness.  Even the Apostle Paul, with all his emphasis on grace, recognizes the consequences of works:

 

“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.  Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.  If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.  If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.”    –I Corinthians 3:11-15

 

Accordingly, even though all believers may be saved, they will receive degrees of salvation based on their works, being tried by fire, perhaps the fire of the Holy Spirit.  Obviously if we have built with gold, the fire will burn, but nothing will be consumed.    On the other hand, if we have built with wood, hay or stubble, the fire will leave us only with cinders and ashes.

 

Of course the Old Testament is full of teachings and examples of rewards and punishments relative to the keeping or not keeping of God’s commandments.  Problem is, much of today’s Christian world takes little stock in the O.T., assuming the New replaced it.  Regardless, the scriptures provide a solid foundation for the idea of personal identity, and therefore responsibility and accountability, which in-turn provides ample motivation for good society and government. 

 

All of this hinges on the interrelationships of equality and inequality.  Striking a proper balance between the two becomes key, and all this leads us to the related concepts of change and unchangeableness—a subject for yet another day.

 

 

 

 

The common man

Must be kind, but fair,

Or the common man

Will know despair.

 

 

-Doug Taylor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X. Change

OPINIONS X

CHANGE

 

 

 

“And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most high, and think to change times and laws:….”  

–Daniel 7:25

 

 

Change is all the rage, especially since the 2008 Obama campaign.  One can’t blame people for wanting a change from certain aspects of previous Bush years, but whether or not the Obama years will be a change for the better remains to be seen.

 

For decades now, probably at least since the 60s, “Change” has become synonymous with “progress,” but change can be for the worse.

 

Let’s imagine not being sure the seasons will occur on schedule (as in 1816, “the year there was no summer”) better yet, not being sure if the sun will come up on any given day.  But isn’t it boring to have the sun coming up on schedule every day?  Not hardly; we kind of like to be able to depend on things like that.

 

Most of what’s frightening about horror movies, is that nothing is certain.  The little old lady across the street, who should be gentle, sweet and harmless, turns out to be a homicidal maniac.  The birds we normally expect to chirp and sing in the trees, suddenly decide to become part of a huge menacing flock that wants to hunt us down and peck us to death.   People who are supposed to be dead won’t stay dead, and so on.  On the other hand, endless social or physical tranquility, invariability and monotony can get to be a different kind of horror.

 

Almost everything changes, but at what rate?  Take for example the growth rate of hair or fingernails or plants.  What if your hair grew at the rate of ten inches a day, or your fingernails, or your lawn?  What about decay—again a change process–but one we rely upon not to change!  What if sewage, carcasses and other bio-waste could no longer biodegrade?  Constancy may seem boring, but any lifestyle that’s considered pleasant includes elements of predictability.

 

What about people?  Is it important that the people you know behave in a mostly predictable manner?  Do others expect us to behave predictably?  Absolutely.  It’s not only irritating, but frightening to be around people who will be calm and in control one minute then wild and out of control the next.

 

At the societal level, we appreciate endlessly varied “lifestyles” and idle ways of passing our time, yet there is the assumption that someone out there is attending to the more serious issues like emergency services, public safety, governmental justice, legislation and administration, infrastructure, the economy, job creation and preservation, environmental protection, the food supply and national defense.  We depend on that part not changing, but who insures such dependence?

 

Even criminals, who seem to be so anti-establishment, in reality operate on the assumption that the establishment can be depended on to produce the wealth they prey upon!

 

In our party mode (described in “Iraq Again”) we’ve been out for fun for a long time, but the assumption has always been that there are serious people somewhere out there paying the bills and keeping us safe so the party could continue.   Problem is, more and more of the serious people have wanted to join the party, and fewer and fewer have been manning the watchtower (Ezekiel 33:1-6).    Bill O’Reilly’s book, Who’s Looking Out For You? (2003: New York; Broadway Books/Random House), suggests almost nobody looks out for us anymore.

 

This hinges on another principle I addressed in “Chosen” with regard to keeping covenants such as unwritten, but real, promises made between generations.  What about the promise older generations make to provide a stable society and economic opportunity for rising generations, and the promise rising generations make to provide for the elderly in their years of decline? 

 

Millions of my generation grew up assuming the American economy with its rich and powerful corporations, or at least the federal government, would see to it that we would have some kind of retirement when we reached retirement age.  But in just the last four decades we have seen most corporate pension plans evaporate, and now even the Social Security system’s viability is in question.   Is this an example of change that equates with progress?

 

My readers by now have become numb to my shockingly frequent resort to the Book of Mormon, and so without further apology, I find the audacity to cite a dream (really a vision) that father Lehi had, contrasting monotony and diversity in ways that are enlightening:

 

 

“…methought I saw in my dream, a dark and dreary wilderness.  And it came to pass that I saw a man, and he was dressed in a white robe; and he came and stood before me.  And it came to pass that he spake unto me, and bade me follow him.  And it came to pass that as I followed him I beheld myself that I was in a dark and dreary waste.  And after I had traveled for the space of many hours in darkness, I began to pray unto the Lord that he would have mercy on me, according to the multitude of his tender mercies.  And it came to pass after I had prayed unto the Lord I beheld a large and spacious field.  And it came to pass that I beheld a tree, whose fruit was desirable to make one happy.  And it came to pass that I did go forth and partake of the fruit thereof; and I beheld that it was most sweet, above all that I ever before tasted.  Yea, and I beheld that the fruit thereof was white, to exceed all the whiteness that I had ever seen.  And as I partook of the fruit thereof it filled my soul with exceeding great joy; wherefore, I began to be desirous that my family should partake of it also; for I knew that it was desirable above all other fruit.  And as I cast my eyes round about, that perhaps I might discover my family also, I beheld a river of water; and it ran along, and it was near the tree of which I was partaking the fruit….  And I beheld a rod of iron and it extended along the bank of the river, and led to the tree by which I stood.  And I also beheld a straight and narrow path, which came along by the rod of iron, even to the tree by which I stood; and it also led by the head of the fountain, unto a large and spacious field, as if it had been a world.  And I saw numberless concourses of people, many of whom were pressing forward, that they might obtain the path which led unto the tree by which I stood….  And it came to pass that there arose a mist of darkness; yea, even an exceeding great mist of darkness, insomuch that they who had commenced in the path did lose their way, that they wandered off and were lost.  And it came to pass that I beheld others pressing forward, and they came forth and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press forward through the mist of darkness, clinging to the rod of iron, even until they did come forth and partake of the fruit of the tree.  And after they had partaken of the fruit of the tree they did cast their eyes about as if they were ashamed.  And I also cast my eyes round about, and beheld, on the other side of the river of water, a great and spacious building; and it stood as it were in the air high above the earth.  And it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female; and their manner of dress was exceeding fine; and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those who had come at and were partaking of the fruit.  And after they had tasted of the fruit they were ashamed, because of those that were scoffing at them; and they fell away into forbidden paths and were lost.”          –1 Nephi 8:4-28

 

 

Lehi’s son, Nephi, was given by the Spirit of the Lord the same dream affording us additional details, including the fact that the “great and spacious building,” which represented the pride of the world, eventually, with it’s occupants, fell (obviously for some a change for the worse, for others a change for the better).

 

But an often-missed point is that Lehi was first and powerfully shown the difference between sameness and variety, which insight undoubtedly contributed to his understanding that there “must needs be opposition in all things” (2 Nephi 2:11…treated in my last essay).  He learned that monotony may be “safe,” but it can become a hell from which one prays fervently for release. 

 

In answer to his prayer, his dream opens up into a dynamic world filled with people and things acting and being acted upon.  Admittedly this was a much more dangerous world, but better than the dark and dreary waste he had been traveling through.   Yes, there were dangers and uncertainties, but also constants anxious travelers could rely upon for safety and refreshment—the iron rod, the straight and narrow path that, if held to, lead to the tree with its life-giving fruit.  Importantly too, the marvelous tree and fruit could be appreciated in contrast to many dark and dangerous alternatives.

 

Here also we find a paradox between that which only stimulates (a pleasant change that satisfies for a moment) and that which truly gratifies (a pleasant change that satisfies completely forever).  The lowly tree seems somewhat unimpressive compared to the overly impressive building and the overly impressive clothes its overly impressive inhabitants are wearing.  Yet there can be no nourishment found in bricks and cloth, nor real shelter or safety in buildings without a foundations.  And when we get out our microscopes, we find there is far less dynamism in bricks and cloth than in a beautiful, living tree.

 

 

“…Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.”  –Matt.6:28-29

 

 

So as we look at nature, we see a lovely balance between almost endless variety, and laws or constants that keep the variety away from freakishness and chaos.  Interesting too, though we mortals take credit for our inventions, more often than not we just follow nature’s queue.   Car bodies, for example, mimic human or animal bodies with their matching halfs.  More to the point, the varieties of automobile makes, models, styles, colors and sizes, not to mention options, are fantastic, and yet they all have bodies engines, transmissions, differentials, headlights, tail lights, wheels, brakes, axles, steering mechanisms, floors, seats, windows and so on.

 

The Bible and other scriptures teach us that this natural balance begins with God.  We have already cited Biblical passages that inform us of God’s awesome creative role in the universe; and simple observation of those creations reveal unfathomable variety.   Yet we find God is described as an unchangeable being:

 

 

“God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man that he should repent [change]: hath he said, and shall he not do it? Or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?”  –Num. 23:19

 

“Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting, and to everlasting.” –Psalms 41:13 (see also 90:2; 93:2; 103:17)

 

“I said, O my god, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years are throughout all generations.  Of old hast thou laid the foundations of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.  They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: But thou are the same, and thy years shall have no end.”  –Psalms 102:24-27

 

“But thou Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.”    –Micah 5:2

 

“For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.”  –Malachi 3:6

 

“Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.”  Be not [therefore] carried about with divers and strange doctrines.  For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace;….“   –Hebrews 13:8-9

 

“Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.”  –James 1:17

 

 

In the LDS scriptures, God’s unchangeableness is reaffirmed, with some useful additional insights:

 

 

“For he is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever; and the way is prepared for all men from the foundation of the world, if it so be that they repent and come unto him.  For he that diligently seeketh shall find; and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them, by the power of the Holy Ghost, as well in these times as in times of old, and as well in times of old as in times to come; wherefore, the course of the Lord is one eternal round.”   –Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 10:18-19

 

“I perceive that it has been made known unto you, by the testimony of his word, that he cannot walk in crooked paths; neither doth he vary from that which he hath said; neither hath he a shadow of turning from the right to the left, or from that which is right to that which is wrong; therefore, his course is one eternal round.”   –Book or Mormon, Alma 7:20

 

“The works, and the designs, and the purposes of God cannot be frustrated, neither can they come to naught.  For God doth not walk in crooked paths, neither doth he turn to the right hand nor to the left, neither doth he vary from that which he hath said, therefore his paths are straight, and his course is one eternal round.  Remember, remember that it is not the work of God that is frustrated, but the work of men;”    –Doctrine and Covenants 3:1-3

 

 

The central point of God’s unchanging nature (hence for our apprehension, the unchanging nature of right and wrong) is given a second and third witness by these additional passages and is therefore more binding upon us (1 Corinthians 13:1; Matthew 18:16); but also we find insights into the paradoxical principle of variety without change.

 

These curious concepts that God’s course is both a straight, undeviating line, and at the same time an eternal round would seem, at first, contradictory.  We’re given a hint about the “eternal round” part in the sense that God is the same in any circuit of time, past, present or future (eternity).

 

But this idea would also apply to the line.  In geometry we are told that a line is the shortest distance between two points, and the shortest distance would have to be undeviating, since any deviation would make the distance longer.  God’s “line,” however is extraordinary since it stretches eternally in both directions, He being “without beginning of days or end of life” (LDS scripture, Doctrine and Covenants 78:16).

 

But, you say, two points suggest a beginning and an end (which Christ also is, being “Alpha and Omega” –Revelations 1:11).   Going back to geometry: points are defined as locations, infinitely small; hence if the points themselves reach to infinity, the line between them must also be infinite.   So in using this image, the Lord illustrates His adherence to principles that are true from eternity to eternity, without deviating in the least—a critical characteristic if we mortals are meant to put all our trust in Him for surety, stability, and predictability.

 

Now, this principle is reflected also in the circle, which has no beginning or end, but at any point is a constant distance from a central point.  So a circle never deviates from its point of reference, just as the line never deviates from its two points of reference.

 

Variety in the line is implied in the sense that it stretches from eternity to eternity, and therefore to ever-new horizons.  Variety in the circle is implied in its having no beginning or end, but also in that circles can be an infinite number of distances from their central point.  If we extend our concept to the sphere, we find the same in terms of distance from the center, yet with an infinity of other possibilities in terms of surface textures, colors, and so on.

 

So in these images we find, again, a balance between stability/consistency, and ever-new possibility.   For newness and variety to be useful and substantial, it must exist in reference to certain unalterable principles.  If our geometric points don’t conform to specific locations, lines, circles and all identifiable figures are blurred or erased altogether.

 

A related question often asked by skeptics is, “how can their be no beginning and no end, when everything we know in our physical world seems to prove the opposite?”  The idea may seem fantastic, and some even use this line of thought to “disprove” God’s existence.  However, it’s just as fantastic, if not more, to believe our physical universe could have sprung from nothing–a serious question when it comes to explaining the “big bang,” etc.  Einstein has shown us that matter, space and even time are relative.  What then is there to be relied upon?  Something or Someone must be in a position to transcend all of these things.  God fulfills that fundamental, crucial and universal role.

 

The obvious “point” of all this is, though change may be attractive and exciting in light of a natural weariness that accompanies sameness; we must not pursue change for its own sake in reckless disregard for that which cannot change.  Change needs to be for the better, and options ought to be weighed carefully and thoughtfully without making hasty moves.  We should seek first to learn truth (which never changes) out of the best books, and look to the wisest of our elders who have come to know something, for perspective and guidance.  We mustn’t forget God.

 

Can we appreciate that the best and brightest of the “new” is founded on unchanging principles?  We need to memorialize the things that have worked in the past and not be so eager to throw them away.   What has worked, and what works, are better bets than what only may work.

 

 

“(For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)”  –Acts 17:21

 

“My son, fear thou the LORD and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change:  For their calamity shall rise suddenly; and who knoweth the ruin of them both?”         –Proverbs 24:21-22

 

“The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.”  –Isaiah 24:5

 

 

Moroni, the last prophet to write in the Book of Mormon, hid up the record to come forth in our day.  The book, mostly compiled by Moroni’s father, Mormon, was intended for our edification and warning.  Moroni saw our day, and warns us of the dangers of assuming, because times have changed, that the laws of God no longer apply:

 

  

“And again I speak unto you who deny the revelations of God, and say that they are done away, that there are no revelations, nor prophecies, nor gifts, nor healing, nor speaking with tongues, and the interpretation of tongues;  Behold I say unto you, he that denieth these things knoweth not the gospel of Christ; yea, he has not read the scriptures; if so, he does not understand them.  For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?  And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then have ye imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles.  But behold, I will show unto you a God of miracles, even the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and it is that same God who created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are.”

–Mormon 9:7-11

 

“Behold, I speak unto you as though I spake from the dead; for I know that ye shall have my words.”   –Mormon 9:30

 

“And I would exhort you my beloved brethren, that ye remember that every good gift cometh of Christ.  And I would exhort you, my beloved brethren, that ye remember that he is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and that all these gifts of which I have spoken, which are spiritual, never will be done away, even as long as the world shall stand, only according to the unbelief of the children of men.  Wherefore, there must be faith; and if there must be faith there must also be hope; and if there must be hope there must also be charity.  And except ye have charity ye can in nowise be saved in the kingdom of God; neither can ye be saved in the kingdom of God if ye have not faith; neither can ye if ye have no hope.  And if ye have no hope ye must needs be in despair; and despair cometh because of iniquity.  And Christ truly said unto our fathers: If ye have faith ye can do all things which are expedient unto me.  And now I speak unto all the ends of the earth—that if the day cometh that the power and gifts of God shall be done away among you, it shall be because of unbelief.  And wo be unto the children of men if this be the case; for there shall be none that doeth good among you, no not one.  For if there be one among you that doeth good, he shall work by the power and gifts of God….  And I exhort you to remember these things; for the time speedily cometh that ye shall know that I lie not, for ye shall see me at the bar of God; and the Lord God will say unto you: Did I not declare my words unto you, which were written by this man, like as one crying from the dead, yea, even as one speaking out of the dust?  I declare these things unto the fulfilling of the prophecies.  And behold, they shall proceed forth out of the mouth of the everlasting God; and his word shall hiss forth from generation to generation.  And God shall show unto you that that which I have written is true.”  

–Moroni 10:18-29

 

 

Moroni saw in vision a waning of faith in Christ that we recognize as a “modern” reality, especially in Europe and the Americas.   And with that waning of faith has come a new, rather sickly faith in ourselves, and therefore in omni-directional change.  But change that is not founded on the only true, living and unchanging God, can lead to nothing but ‘the blind leading the blind, and all of us falling in the ditch’ (Matthew 15:13-14).

 

I quote the Book of Mormon because of a growing lack of faith in the Bible.  The Book of Mormon stands as a modern witness that God is an unchangeable Being, and that Biblical truth still represents a standard that makes us accountable to each other and to Him.

 

If enough of us return and hold to this faith, there will be established a basis for harmonious, and productive societal effort and the resolving of our perplexities and problems.  This would be the result, not only of our common faith, but also of meriting God’s influence and support. 

 

We don’t need change that leads us into the unknown.   The change we need is repentance, and a returning to God and His commandments: so simple, so unsophisticated, yet still true!

 

 

 

 

The common man

Must be the same

As law

In its eternal frame.

 

 

-Doug Taylor