The New America

[steve]

The following post is that which I read at my meeting in Temecula last Saturday night. I wrote it four days earlier, after hearing the results of the elections. There is nothing very original in my observations, but a number of people urged me to post it somewhere—so I have opted to do so here. Since I am not an expert in the area of political theory, my analysis is strictly biblical. If I have misrepresented any factual or statistical data (there is not much included, apart from the biblical analysis), I welcome those who have better command of the information to correct any errors I have made here.


The New America


The blinding of the eyes prior to destruction

The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule by their own power; and my people love to have it so…(Jer.5:31)

For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them. (Matt.13:15)

Just as it is written: "God has given them a spirit of stupor, Eyes that they should not see And ears that they should not hear, To this very day." (Rom.11:8)

That a majority of Americans can vote for a leader such as our current President is the clearest evidence that America is under judicial blinding, as was Israel in Jesus’ day, due to our apostasy. That our President’s first term was not enough to demonstrate to all observers that his policies are both immoral and harmful can only be due to the loss of rationality or the loss of objectivity on the part of the majority. This means that the America that was one of the last bastions of our unique liberties is fast passing away. The citizens no longer desire such unique freedoms, and have chosen carnal and vain systems of security instead.

Our President’s America

In defiance (or ignorance) of the Constitution, our President has declared that the Supreme Court ought not to interfere with the decisions of the President and Congress. However, he will need the Supreme Court to strike down the many legal challenges that freedom-minded groups will bring against his new policies. This needn’t worry him, since he will, most likely, have the opportunity to appoint two new justices to the Court in the next four years. It is certain that these lifetime appointees will be chosen from among those who share his concepts about the role of government—one directly opposite to that view put forward in the Constitution, which guaranteed the freedoms enjoyed by previous generations. Unlike the America defined in the Constitution, our President’s America will be characterized by a denial of the essential rights affirmed in that document:

1. No basic right to life (contra “You shall not murder”)

Abortion—abortion is the killing of an innocent human being. If a fetus is not living, why is it growing and possessing a heartbeat? If it is not human, then perhaps someone can inform us what species they think it may be (fortunately, for the sake of the abysmally ignorant, we now have DNA testing to demonstrate the truth of what earlier generations never thought of questioning). When a person kills an innocent human being simply in the interest of the killer's convenience, and the State does not forbid the act nor avenge the death, that State can no longer be counted on to protect any life from criminal assault or premeditated murder.

Death to the healthy, live-birth babies of botched abortions—Since Our President, when a Senator, voted four times to deny medical assistance and life support to healthy babies born alive after an abortion failed to kill them, we can assume that he will nominate judges who share his view of a baby’s “right to death.”

What possible moral standard could justify such infanticide? What other unwanted humans might be killed under the same justifications? Was Hitler worse than this?

2. No basic freedom of religion (contra “You shall have no other gods…”)

The State now replaces the conscience before God as arbiter of righteous behavior. Our President’s interference with rights of Roman Catholics to abide by their religious scruples indicates that, to him, governmental protection of irresponsible sexual behavior preempts the constitutional right to follow one’s religious convictions. If this can be done to the Roman Catholics, such interference can as easily be extended to the infringement of the rights of any religious group—with the apparent exception of Muslims.

3. No basic right to private property (contra “You shall not steal”)

Redistribution—The belief that the government can forcibly take the lawfully-earned wealth from those who earned it, and redistribute it to persons who have not earned it, is tantamount to a declaration that the State ultimately owns all things, and that there is no such thing as private property. If the legitimacy of private property is affirmed, then the government reserves the exclusive right to steal it at will. I write this as a man 59 years old, whose income has never been high enough to be taxable. In other words, I am not one of those whose income would be taxed and redistributed. I already redistribute my income at a higher percentage than anyone I know is (currently) taxed.

Stealing from generations to come by piling up non-repayable debt—Future generations are not even being allowed to vote on whether they wish to be strapped with trillions of dollars of debt, incurred by their parents and grandparents, because the latter merely wish to maintain for themselves an unsustainable life style. It is one thing for people to spend and redistribute one’s own money foolishly, but to send the bill for our wastefulness to our children and grandchildren is stealing from generations as yet unborn.

Increasing the dependent classes—The election showed that the majority of Americans wish to have an America where people needn’t take responsibility for themselves, and needn’t work to eat. Others (though an increasingly smaller number) will do the work, and an increasingly larger group will eat what the laborers have produced. It is obvious that this arrangement will appeal to the people who prefer not to work, and who have no scruples about living on money extorted from others. Their tribe will certainly increase—giving politicians who promise more of the same an even greater advantage in future elections. (Those who think that no one would voluntarily remain poor in order to perpetually receive government assistance have apparently missed the recent news stories featuring people on unemployment and on welfare who state that they are very content to remain as comfortable as they are now, on the dole, and never work again).

Reduction of available jobs through regulatory interference with small business—The regulatory demands upon businesses (especially smaller ones) are presently greater than to allow them to hire as many employees as they formerly did. Increased governmental regulations on small businesses increase these burdens upon the primary employers of this country. This means that business owners are forced to accomplish with one employee what they used to employ two to do. Many owners will do tasks themselves that they previously would have hired others to do. The net result will be fewer private sector jobs, and greater difficulty for those few who still wish to find employment.

4. No right to steward one’s own body (contra “present your body a living sacrifice”)

Ironically, the party that emphasizes the woman’s right to do whatever she wishes to her own body (even to the point of killing someone else’s body—that of her unborn child), has adopted policies that interfere with every citizen’s right to control his or her own body—every citizen, that is, except the politicians, of course, who have exempted themselves from the plan (a strange thing to do, if they think it a good plan!).

Mandatory health insurance—Those of us who have previously preferred to manage our own health issues, and to pay our own health expenses will now be forced to buy insurance or be penalized.

The government will decide what health procedures people will be allowed to have—No one has demonstrated that socialized health care for all will work out any better here than it has in other socialist countries. If the experiments of these other countries serve as a model, then we can expect changes in the quality and the quantity of available health options. Certain medical procedures which are now available will be less immediately available. They will be rationed by unelected government officials. There will be fewer doctors, since the pay and incentives that draw people into the field will be diminished—which means those who presently can afford to get elective health procedures at their own expense will often not be able to get them at all.

A government that controls health care can make any demands it wishes upon citizens, most of whom are terrified of death and of sickness. Like slaves, they will do whatever they are told to do by the all-powerful State, because, as Satan said to God, “all that a man has he will give for his life.”

An additional irony here is that the government, whom most people wish to trust for their health and survival, actually has no power to guarantee such things. This week I attended a small meeting of Christian men discussing scripture. In the course of the discussion, two men—one in his sixties and the other in his eighties—testified to having simply trusted in God, without medical intervention, when they struggled with terminal prostate cancer. Both recovered without medical intervention, and have been cancer-free for years. Another man present was celebrating the anniversary of his son’s promotion to heaven. His healthy son, at age 16, contracted a rare form of cancer. In spite of being treated with state-of-the-art cancer treatments at the City of Hope, the young man succumbed and went to heaven rejoicing, only eight months later. Though individual outcomes certainly vary, this small sample of cases testified eloquently of the value of trusting God, not medical science, for one’s life and health.

5. No distinction between marriage and fornication (contra “Marriage is honorable…but fornicators God will judge”)

Of course, this is no new innovation with our President. America gave up its godly concept of marriage decades ago, with the adoption of easy divorce laws (which the church, for the most part, has wickedly accepted without protest). However, our President has done (and will do) all that is in his power to abolish the biblical definition of marriage in favor of same-sex unions. Now that he does not need to be concerned about re-election, he will not be constrained by the moral outrage of the majority of citizens who still possess vestigial morals.

The deification of elusive sexual fulfillment has replaced God as the definer of morality and family. Anything that was once called sexually immoral can soon be solemnized as “marriage,” so long as some deviant special interest group asserts their special “right” to further redefine the most important institution of any society. Generations to come will not have any idea what marriage, which has been the foundation of all civilized societies, even means.

Such a change in American policy is due to the following changes in the mentality of the masses:

1. Not being content—It is the nature of those who have forsaken God, the Fountain of living waters, to find that the cisterns which they have hewn for themselves are broken, and can hold no water. Given sufficient leisure and prosperity, they will embark on the eternally-unfulfilled quest for “enough” of the worthless things with which they hope to fill the void. Instead of being content with what would have been more than enough for any normal person of earlier, less spoiled, generations, they seek more and more gadgets, entertainment and self-medication. Most now do so by spending themselves beyond their incomes into irresponsible and sinful degrees of debt. By contrast, Christians are commanded to be content with such things as they have, even if it is nothing more than food and clothing.

2. Coveting what others have—A growing number of Americans think it appropriate to envy those who have more than they have. They even believe that this envy translates into an obligation, on the part of those who have more, to give them a share for themselves. Envy is mistaken for entitlement. Since street theft is a crime, the only way they can take from others what they want for themselves is by electing government officials who will steal it on their behalf. Those who have contentment do not covet what others have. People devoid of moral and spiritual values cannot be content, and will always covet.

3. Placing one’s own interests above those of others—The most shocking example of this would be the justifying of abortion as a woman’s right to spare herself considerable inconvenience at the expense of an innocent child’s very life. Another manifestation would be the common seeking of a groundless divorce, involving the destruction of a home, a spouse and children, in pursuit of personal fulfillment. Yet another is the idea that one’s sexual craving, however perverted, should be indulged, normalized, and applauded by others, rather than controlled. Hoarding what one has instead of sharing with the less fortunate is another instance. As long as the highest value of the individual is to indulge one’s own desires and pursue one’s own happiness, society must necessarily spiral downward into the morass we are now witnessing before our eyes.

4. Fearing death and personal disaster more than sin—The fear of death is the primary motivation for unsaved humans. Aversion to sinning, out of love for God, would be the correlate drive of the saved, for whom the fear of God replaces the fear of man and the fear of death. To encourage the State’s stealing of goods from fellow citizens in the vain pursuit of personal immunity from disaster, is the institutionalization of this fear.

Fear is slavery. People can seek from their government either freedom or security—or a little of both. The government can actually provide the first, but not the second. No State can guarantee anyone’s physical survival. People die in many ways, most of which are out of the control of human ingenuity. All die eventually. Those who know God and do not fear death, are pleased to leave their security in the hands of God (generally, they will not die any sooner or later, under this arrangement). Because they do not fear death, they desire only liberty to act out their convictions and dreams.

In bargaining with the government for the provision of a false security, fearful and insecure people will trade away, if necessary, all their freedoms (consider, as a case in point, the present airport security routines, where people are herded like cattle through intrusive and undignifying searches of their personal belongings and private parts—all in the vain hope of avoiding a terrorist attack on their plane—which has as much chance of crashing due to mechanical or human failure as through being bombed). The government cannot even pretend to provide security, except at the cost of personal liberties.

On the other hand, if the government provides freedom of movement and of the pursuit of one’s own calling, it cannot, at the same time, promise safety. There is always the same trade-off. Increasing freedom reduces intrusive security systems; increasing security systems limits liberty. In general, the political liberal chooses personal security over personal freedom, and the political conservative chooses the opposite. (Jer.17:5)

5. Refusing to take personal responsibility—Someone has said, "There is a simple test to tell if someone is a conservative or a liberal. Simply ask the person, 'Does poverty cause crime?' The liberal answers 'Yes,' and the conservative answers, 'No'."

Poverty is a condition. Crime is a choice. It is not always possible for one to change his condition, which may be caused by factors beyond his control. However, behavior is a choice, and is in the control of the individual—meaning he is responsible for it. Every person who chooses a life of crime could have chosen otherwise, and should be held responsible. Otherwise, we esteem human adults as if they were children or animals.

My daughters once heard a preacher talking about marriage. He said to the husbands, "A woman is a flower and her husband is the gardener. If it is watered and cared for, the flower thrives. If it wilts, it is because of the gardener's neglect."

My daughters, then in their teens, were astute enough to take offense to this. "So women have no free will?" they said. "Our good or bad behavior is determined by the quality of a man's behavior toward us?"

They were right to take issue. The preacher was denying to women the universal human dignity of choosing one's own virtues or vices—and the grown-up privilege of taking responsibility, whether it be credit or blame, for her own choices. A woman needn't (can't?) behave honorably, so the theory goes, if her husband fails to "meet her needs." The preacher apparently didn't know about wives who serve God virtuously despite their boorish husbands' neglect (e.g., Abigail), or those who wickedly choose to rebel against very caring and attentive husbands (e.g., Gomer against Hosea; Israel against God). The preacher had bought into the spirit of the age, which minimizes personal responsibility for one's own behavior. He was reducing women's moral competence, free-will and personal responsibility to that of a potted plant!

Everyone is, in truth, a victim. I mean, everyone has, at one time or another, been victimized by the sins of other people. However, most of us have also become victims of our own stupidity or wrongdoing. Choices have consequences, and the consequences of our own mistakes can be even more devastating than those of brought upon us by the sins of others.

Many who suffer at the hands of others choose to turn their lemons into lemonade, and to learn from and grow through their trials. Others in similar circumstances translate the sins of others into excuses for their own giving up on their commitment to doing what is wise and right. The latter choose to fail in the tests of life and to blame others for their own poor response to difficulties.

A person bears no responsibility before God for the suffering he or she must endure due to the actions of others. However, every adult must take responsibility for troubles that are created by his or her own sinful choices or responses to the actions of others.

One who faces economic difficulties because of personal choices to forego learning a trade, or to shirk employment, or to waste the little one has on drugs, alcohol, entertainment, and other unnecessary things, should accept the fact that prosperity is not owed to him/her at the expense of others. Bearing the responsibility for one’s own choices is a mark of maturity lacking in millions of modern Americans.

How Satan gained this victory in America:

There is an unbroken chain of cause and effect, ending in our present situation, and tracing back to failure in the churches. The one ingredient that has led to our present social state is ungodliness. Most people no longer know or fear God. This cannot be entirely blamed on the rise and influence of the new atheism in recent history, since relatively few Americans are convinced atheists. However, most are practical atheists. They believe there is a God, but they do not take Him seriously. They forget Him, or dishonor Him, in most of the affairs of their lives—their values, their attitudes, their choices, their management of relationships. This loss of God is behind the obvious loss of civility and sanity that once dominated the American psyche.

But to what can we trace this loss of the fear of God in society? It is certainly due to the diminished influence of Christianity in modern civilization. It is no coincidence that the revivals of Christianity have correlated with the improvement of social conditions and the elevation of the social conscience. In fact, Jesus said that His movement, when uncompromised, would always tend to have this effect. Pure Christianity is light and it is salt to the surrounding social milieu. Of course, Jesus also warned that, when Christianity loses its distinctive character (saltiness), it will be disrespected, persecuted and trampled “under the feet of men.”

So what is the cause of this diminished influence of Christianity, in our nation? It is tempting to blame the antichristian bias of the media and of the educational system. However, neither of these influences would sway anyone who had encountered Christ-like Christians. They would easily see that the representations of Christians as judgmental hypocrites in movies and in secular schools do not correspond with the real Christians they actually know. Sadly, these stereotypes too often correspond only too closely to the actual examples of Christians that unbelievers think they have encountered. Those perceived as pompous hypocrites are not an attractive advertisement for Christ.

There are, of course, individual Christians whose lives are stunning examples of Christlikeness, but whose testimonies are blunted and neutralized by the fact that they are significantly outnumbered by the hypocrites and uncommitted members of the Christian community, so that, when unbelievers meet an excellent Christian example, rather than seeing that person as the very description of Christianity, they view him or her as an oddity and an exception to the mass of those whose unimpressive lives are viewed as the norm among those they regard to be Christians.

In other words, it is not the character of a few individuals, but of the Church as a collective witness of Christ, which must demonstrate the superiority of God’s ways over the ways of the world. The early church impressed the world around them by consistently modeling the life of Christ in Christian community. Those who really live like disciples of Jesus today are more likely to be viewed simply as odd departures from the normal society—not only from that of the world, but even from that of the Church.

To what cause can we trace this widespread hypocrisy and lukewarmness among professing Christians, but to churches' failure to 1) preach the true Gospel, 2) to disciple and 3) to discipline the believers.

1) The true Gospel calls people to true repentance or turning—from their sinful past to a life devoted to obeying Christ and glorifying God. Modern presentations of the demands of the Gospel are often totally lacking in any clear communication of this fact.

2) Further, those who are genuinely won to Christ are seldom discipled in the manner that Christ commanded—namely, to “teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Instead of discipling the saints, most churches waste valuable pulpit time in seeking to entertain the audience or add to the number of converts.

3) Church discipline is commanded and described by Jesus (Matt.18:15-17). Modern churches seldom practice this essential means of keeping Christ’s Body healthy and Christ’s Bride pure. Those who are not true disciples of Jesus do not belong to or in the True Church. Evangelism is to be conducted out in the world, but edification of Christians is the purpose of church gatherings. When members of the Church choose to live in sin, they should be confronted, and if they do not repent, they should be removed from the congregation. “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.”

Since these duties are so clearly commanded and taught in scripture, what could possibly account for the failure of church leaders to carry out these duties? Failure to preach the true Gospel, to disciple and to discipline, grows out of the adoption by the church and its leaders of wrong goals and objectives. The goal of many churches is numeric growth. The measure of a church's success is thought to be its need to build larger facilities, rather than in the purity and maturity of its members in Christian community.

In order to achieve such numeric growth, pastors are compelled to preach only what they believe large audiences will find attractive, entertaining, and relevant to their carnal interests. Catering to these man-centered goals, rather than to the biblically mandated goals, has led to the pastoral neglect that has filled many churches with unconverted quasi-believers, whose lives bring reproach on the name of Christ, which they have wrongfully taken on themselves, as if they were His disciples.

Their responsibility is great.

[MMathis]

I agree with you. When I say it I'm called hysterical.
This election was probably the last chance we had as a nation.
I don't think the United states is mentioned as a player in the end times.

[Jepne]

Thank you for this excellent piece. I will send the link out to friends. I have been inconsolable . . .
Thank you again.

[steve]

I posted the above editorial in haste. It had many typographical and grammatical errors. I have now combed through it, correcting what I found. If you find any that have escaped my notice, please let me know.

[brody196]

Well put Steve.

America is changing fast and our society is crumbling in just about every area. I wonder how long it's gonna take for our current government to enact laws against preaching the gospel? They will probably use the "hate crime" language to do so. To tell you the truth, it would not surprise me one bit if our nation ends up in another civil war. With the coming economic collapse and destruction of our civil liberties, it won't take much to thrust us over that threshold.

On a brighter note, I think that the true Church is going to see a revival of sorts. I don't really know why I feel this way, but I do.

[Candlepower]

Since I am not an expert in the area of political theory, my analysis is strictly biblical.

Steve, this is the only part of your essay with which I disagree. In my opinion, the best underpinnings for correct political theory are a good understanding of Scripture, and a right relationship with its Author. You have both, which makes your analysis highly expert.

God bless you. Thanks for sharing truth and wisdom. I'll pass it on.

[Tychicus]

This means that the America that was one of the last bastions of our unique liberties is fast passing away. The citizens no longer desire such unique freedoms, and have chosen carnal and vain systems of security instead.

Yeah, it looks pretty bleak when you look around you.

I just took a look at this video. It shows the hopelessness of our society, but at least at the end offers some hope. His kingdom can still spread, if God's people just stay faithful and serve Him with perseverance.

http://thelinemovie.com/

[Homer]

It is very sad that "we" Christians suffered a loss. The evangelicals (me) seem to be very strongly in support of the Republican side based on moral issues (gay marriage, abortion, marijuana legalization, etc.). The Catholics vote for both Democrats and Republicans because the Catholic Church emphasizes justice for the poor on one hand and moral issues on the other. It seems to me we should be for both and there should be a political party advocating both.

I seem, wherever I go to Church, to be in a fight one way or another pushing for help for the poor. Sadly, today our son commented that the word among waitresses (our granddaughter) is that the day they look forward to the least is Sunday after churches get out because that is when they get the least in tips.

[Tychicus]

It seems to me we should be for both and there should be a political party advocating both [justice for the poor and moral issues ].

I totally agree. But since there is currently no such political party maybe Christians should just go ahead and do both of these things, no matter who won the election.

[jarrod]

I totally agree. But since there is currently no such political party maybe Christians should just go ahead and do both of these things, no matter who won the election.

Amen to that.