Fairness vs. Redistribution

As I listened to the vice-presidential debate the other night, I heard these terms several times. Biden wanted fairness and did not want to call it 'redistribution,' as Palin labeled it. We had a discussion on this topic on an elist I'm on. One post declared Obama a socialist, which caused a heated response in another post indicating that Obama is NOT about socialism but democracy. Her words held within them the ghost of what Biden was trying to say, I think. Fairness. Mandated fairness. Redistribution, again mandated. It's only fair. (Like Canada??)

There is some confusion, I'd say, over these terms. I hear them spoken often, and I am afraid that our lack of knowledge has caused our consciences to fall into a state of grogginess.

I responded to the 2nd post by saying something like this: Our nation was founded upon principles of Christian liberty. One of those was voluntary union and association. Giving to the poor was a moral responsibility, something that was considered voluntary. Our founders would have considered it absurd, at best, to mandate such a thing. Mandated giving is socialism. (Look it up!)

I can hear someone who is reading this objecting by saying that people are not giving to the poor any more. In general, you might be right. Or maybe you just don't see those who give. But the answer does not lie in government mandate. The answer lies in education and virtue. People need to be taught, and they need good examples to follow. The more the government mandates, taxes, restricts and binds, the less the good people of this nation will have to volunteer to the aid of someone else. We must be reeducated in the principles of living within our means, being responsible for ourselves and our families, and the purpose of national government. To begin with.

The more self-governing a people we are, the less we will want/ask the government to do that we ought to do for ourselves.

Did I just agree with Palin? Well, yes, I think I did. But, in reality, I have agreed with the principle, not so much the person, even if I DO like her.

People, we must get back to the founding principles of this great nation!

You want to do something for the poor? Set an example. Meet a need. Teach a man to fish... And vote responsibly.

Tattoos, Cigarettes and 'The Rich'

At our 4th of July celebration, I was appalled to overhear a conversation right next to us regarding the so-called 'rich.'

I had been observing this group for awhile, because my son was rather enjoying petting their dog. And telling them about God... When the 2nd half of the group arrived, I noted all sorts of things. One, there was a rule that no liquor could be brought into the park. Their cooler, right next to me, was filled with it. Another thing I noticed was that they were smoking. You can smoke if you want, but I have a sort 0f asthmatic reaction to cigarette smoke, so I moved away until they were done. No problem, it's a free country, right? The next thing I noticed is that they were using all sort of offensive language, the 'F' word, being quite prominent. Ok, my children could hear all this - they know not to use such language, that it is offensive to God and disrespectful to men. So we could ignore that, just fine, too. If they want to demonstrate their ignorance and need, let them show it. We will do our best to show Christian character, so that there is a contrast.

Their conversation went into the cost of gas. Ok, here we go! I can almost quote the guy - "There's one thing I've learned from OJ Simpson and George Bush, that if you have enough money, you can do anything you want." His next comment, "The rich just keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer."

Ok, now maybe I'm wrong...
Several of them had tattoos all over. If I'm not mistaken, the more color in your tattoo, the more expensive. $150 is not unusual for a medium sized tattoo...from what I've heard. Cigarettes are expensive, too. The one guy had piercings all over his face...I heard the comment from the same man who spoke earlier that he's making 'pretty good money for a high school drop-out.'

Again, maybe I'm wrong...but I just don't see that reason has been applied to this man's thinking.

You should've seen her face!

We went to see the fireworks on the 4th. Music, games, and carnival for the kids, water to play in...it was fun.

Then, just as the sun went down, these girls lit up a sparkler...Ok, so they're illegal, for one thing, but they had been announcing over the speakers at the park that they were not permitted. The news had been playing the warning against their use all week.

A lady police officer approached the girl and told her they were illegal. Her response? "They're illegal??"

You should've seen the policewoman's face as she walked away...! Priceless!

Then, another group lit up a sparkler, less than five minutes later, only a few yards away.

They're illegal for a reason, right? Or are laws really just sort of guidelines....?

Baby Launching??

So this teenage boy lays a baby (yes, a real one!) on an inflated mattress and jumps on it, launching the baby into the air. Then, he video tapes it and posts it on You Tube. The authorities arrested him...You can find it on Fox News and Town Hall.

My question is, how could he POSSIBLY think it was ok to 1. post it on You Tube, and 2. do it, in the first place.

Where was this boy's conscience? Did he not think the baby might be injured by this activity? And if he didn't think so, WHY NOT???? Who educated this boy?

Freedom of Speech...?

Ok, so this guy was preaching at the Liberty Bell. I don't know who he is, or what he was preaching (a little study could answer that question). I only know what the report in World Net Daily gave. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67190 There's a You Tube included in the report.

This made me think, again, about 'freedom of speech.' What does it mean, really? What did it mean in previous generations? And, once again, I find that it relates directly to LOC. Can I speak whatever I want, wherever I want to speak it? What restrictions, if any, are to be put on what the individual speaks, and who is to put those restrictions in place?

Out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks...

Matthew 12 says that we'll be held accountable for every careless word...Oh! So God is the one who holds us accountable...but does man also have a position of holding us accountable? Does the government?

As a matter of conscience, sometimes I must remain silent (wish I could get that one figured out!) and sometimes I must speak up. Well, ok, I don't always figure this one out either. To speak, or not to speak, that is the question...! The Bible is clear on some of it. And we must dig deeper to find the principles that lay the foundation for all of speech.

But, again, who is responsible for the regulation of speech? I submit that it is NOT the government. The purpose of government is to protect the God-given rights we have of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It's actually not that broad of a responsibility. It doesn't cover every little action of the individual, but ONLY those that violate the liberty of others. So the government has the position of stepping in when there is a violation, and the people cannot manage the resolution of the issue. (And what's wrong with us if we can't agree to disagree or if we won't treat others with respect, I ask you!?) There is a judicial branch for that...

So who, then? In order to answer that question, we must have an understanding of personal responsibility. One of the main reasons we have a law for every little thing is because we are abdicating our responsibilities. Who is responsible for what I say? Me! If I lie about someone, or assassinate their character by my speech, then I must answer for it and make restitution. If I speak out of turn or speak without thinking, I must make amends for that. Kind of makes me want to be careful what I write.

Here's another question: When my children come to me and say "So-and-So said...!" should I step in and drop a hammer on the problem? Hm. We teach our children about the role of authorities by how we respond. I hate to second guess every action I take in parenting. I think there is cause here for examining it before it happens.

In LOC, we can, perhaps, conclude very simply regarding the issue of freedom of speech by this: "Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial." And I could add Eph. 4:29 and suggest that we post that on the wall somewhere in our homes. If everyone followed these principles, freedom of speech would not require so much legislation.

Did I just say that the Bible is the best foundation for understanding freedom of speech? I guess I did!

Continuation of LOC

Just to let you know, I'll continue this blog - it is part of our project of writing a book. If you have feedback, I'm interested.

Instantly Swayed

So we studied 1 John 5:4-12 today.

One of the main points that came out of this passage is the idea that we trust the testimony of eye witnesses. If someone was there, we tend to trust their description of the event. Consider a car accident. If I only heard it, but someone else saw it, the one who saw it might be called to testify. But not me, necessarily. My testimony will carry less weight.

The Gospels are an eyewitness account of Christ's life, teaching, death and resurrection. Differences in the testimony can be attributed to viewpoint, such as the fact that Luke was a doctor. John was one of Jesus' best friends.

When considering who Jesus is, the recent movie, The DaVinci Code, made some pretty serious statements about who Jesus was and what kind of character he had. It amazes me that some will jump on this band wagon and believe the testimony of an interpretation of art over the testimony of those who were there.

It also stands to reason that the eyewitness accounts of America's founding are a more trustworthy source for accurate information than recent texts. An example of this is the Boston Tea Party. Many texts will report the event as a mob, a riot, an unruly bunch of hooligans. But if you look at the eyewitness accounts, which are easily found on the web and have sources provided, these recent texts are the opposite of the eye witness accounts.

How many of these newer accounts have been rewritten to teach an opposite viewpoint of the actual event? And what has this done to our understanding of our founding? What has it done to our understanding of God?

Many of us who teach the Principle Approach use source documents to establish the truth of an event. If I could use a megaphone on this blog I would shout out the necessity of taking this action. How can we know the truth that will set us free if we cannot find the truth?

Scripture tells us that, in the last days, we would be 'ever learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.' Taking the testimony of men over the testimony of God is one reason this is true - now. Taking the testimony of men who were not eyewitnesses is another reason. How many of us, Christians!, will accept every 'wind of doctrine' that comes along and allow ourselves to be swayed? How many times have I done it? I shutter to think. How can we be light and salt, if this is true? The early believers 'turned the world upside down' because they SAW it - they touched Him, they listened to Him, they watched Him.

Liberty of conscience addresses this issue quite clearly. We are free to operate according to conscience - the determination of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an action or choice. That being the case, we can believe what we will. But isn't it better to trust the testimony of eye witnesses? How can our conscience properly lead us if it is deceived?

Take care, believers! Guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus, so that you will not be 'instantly swayed' by words that simply 'sound right.'

A New Adventure

Two friends and I are writing a book on LOC...I might post more on this site or not - I'll let you know.

Food for thought

Lately, I've been thinking about the apparent 'lack' of conscience that I've seen and heard of. A 3rd grade teacher told me that the thing that bothers her the most in recent years is that the kids seem to have no conscience. This is not a 'Christian' woman who made this statement. It was a simple observation of her students, after teaching for many years. Recently, in the news, there were two stories about kids who exhibited no conscience. In one, a girl was beaten in a locker room, and later, when the abusers were arrested, they showed no remorse. In the other, 3rd grade (did you hear me say 3RD GRADE?) students plotted to kill, or at least hurt, their teacher. A whole group of them had different assignments, one to tie her up, one to close the classroom curtains, etc. Why? Because the teacher had reprimanded one of their friends. (I'll see if I can pull up these stories and post them here.)

So what is it that is changing in our society? Why is this apparent lack of ability to understand the lawfulness or unlawfulness of our actions increasing?

Sorry, no answers yet. But I'll be looking at this. It seems to me that we must first understand what conscience is, how it operates, how it is hindered or damaged (assuming it can be).

Another question has arisen due to a thread on a forum that I frequent. A young man whose threads I watch posted the idea that man cannot reason to morality. Hm. Interesting topic and it will be included in this discussion of conscience.

But before I go on, I must study. This is not a subject to be taken lightly.

How to Correct a Wrong, Part 2

How then, do we correct a wrong in society?

Many would say (and recently I have heard a number of Christians say) that we NEED someone, i.e. the government, to regulate us. This, by definition of the terms, says that we need external government, not being capable of internal self-government.

I disagree. There is a perfect example in the Pilgrims of Plimoth who agreed by mutual consent to govern themselves, first by conscience. John Locke's assessment of the state of man was clearly understood by these people, that all men are in a state of perfect freedom, but not license. The Law of Nature sets boundaries for us in how we conduct ourselves in community with others. Locke understood our need for society. It is the nature of man - even God said, "it is not good for man to be alone." (It makes sense, since God Himself is not alone, and we are created in His Image.)

Since we are by nature drawn to society, we must have a standard of conduct for how to operate within that society. An examination of the East Coast from 1621 to 1776 is a very enlightening study in the understanding of liberty of conscience. Everywhere you look, from the Pilgrims forward, there are covenants, compacts and constitutions that demonstrate an understanding of 1. liberty of conscience, 2. government by the consent of the governed, and 3. that all men are accountable to God. These societies had no outside force telling them how to behave, UNLESS they failed to operate within the Law of Nature. Often the Scriptures were used to correct those who had misunderstood. An example of this is Virginia Colony. In Virginia, the majority of the men were 'gentlemen.' In England, this meant that they had a station higher than some others. In other words, some men were created more equal than others, in their understanding. This, not being a biblical viewpoint, lead to wrong conclusions about what was expected of each individual. These gentlemen believed that their position exempted them from work. The Scriptures, however, declare that 'if a man will not work, let him not eat.' It doesn't take too much examination to discover that this is the Law of Nature as well.

There are a couple of things that, by the Law of Nature, we learn in examining how wrongs are made right in society. First, the self-governed individual can educate his family and his church community. The Scriptures and history both are resplendent with examples of both self-government and the lack of it and the consequences for both. Education is the key idea here. How can they follow the Scripture if they have not heard it, and how can they hear it if someone doesn't put the Scriptures in their hands? The Reformation began because of the Scriptures. In reading the Scripture for themselves, the people understood their liberty in Christ and began to throw off un-needed restrictions of external law (which, btw, was no longer needed in the face of education in truth). The unchained Bible lead to unchained hearts! They apparently did not need credentialed instructors to tell them what the Scripture meant - go figure!

A recent country song, by Randy Travis, Three Wooden Crosses, expresses this idea quite well.

Another thing we can learn from the Law of Nature, is the idea of virtue. A virtuous individual will, by nature, tend to make his decisions based upon Scripture (or allow for Scripture to show him his errors). In the face of this virtue, external law will have no footing. You don't have to reprimand an individual for something he already knows is wrong. You don't have to regulate an individual in something he already knows is right. (How did he know? By education [often SELF-education] in the Scriptures - see Abraham Lincoln for a very good example.) Simply put, if we move forward in Christian Character, building the next generation, we can create a society that simply does not NEED a law for every little thing. The more self-government that is present, the less external government of self is needed. Create the means to eliminate the need for government intervention. If we are responsible and self-governed, they will have nothing to do. (This raises a question for another post - What is the purpose of government? And another one - What is the purpose of the Church?)

This, of course, is a slower process than many, in our microwave society, are willing to accept, hence, the statement, 'there ought ta be a law.' It is interesting, however, to examine the early Church, and see that, in one generation, 'the world was turned upside down.' They understood this principle and masses were educated in the Scriptures, despite the opposition. Many of them were taught by Paul, who spoke often of conscience before God. It is a main theme of the New Testament.

Simply put, Virtue and Education is the means by which society is changed for the better.

How to Correct a Wrong - Part 1

The early Church is a good example of how God works from internal to external. No one made the disciples of the early Church preach to every man who would listen. These things happened as Christ lived in these men and as they submitted to Him.

Given, then, that God works from internal to external, how are wrongs made right in society?

First, we must examine the individual. How does the individual correct a wrong? He must first understand that a wrong exists (do I sound like a commercial for AA?). How does the individual come to this conclusion? We already addressed the Law of Nature in this, that we can clearly see laws that govern good and evil around us. Further, the Scriptures help us see God's view of good and evil, right and wrong.

The 1828 declares (in the root of the words) that:
Right is straight, true, in line with the will of God
Wrong is twisted, corrupted, out of line with the will of God

I challenge you to look up 'good' and 'evil' in the 1828 as well.

A simple reading of the Scriptures will not, however, bring about a change. The heart must be engaged. I dare say that great pagan philosophers have read the Bible. But by definition, the pagan hears the truth and chooses to reject it. (There's that word again, 'choose.')

So the individual, in seeking God's direction from the Scripture, will learn from the Holy Spirit what it is that needs changing. In God's goodness, He usually only gives us a little at a time. I shudder to think what would have happened if I'd had to change everything at once! But once a wrong has been perceived, then the conscience is engaged, so that we can choose a new path. Knowing the wrong, it would be sin to continue in it.

For the training of children, the Scripture is full of instruction, and so as not to step on any toes, I will not address it. However, it has long been understood that children 'catch' what they learn. How is that? By observing us. We model for them what we believe. Do we have to be perfect then? By no means! Instead, we must model seeking the Lord and repenting of the wrongs he shows us. In this way, we model growth in the Lord.

I'll have to address correcting a wrong in society later - I'm out of time. (Are we still on the subject of conscience? Well, yes!)

Liberty and the Law of Nature

William Blackstone wrote about the Law of Nature in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, stating that, just as God created principles for mobility and certain rules for perpetual direction, "...when He created man, and endued him with free will to conduct himself in all parts of life, He laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that free will is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws." Later, he states that "...He has so intimately connected, so inseparably interwoven the laws of eternal justice with the happiness of each individual, that the latter cannot be attained but by observing the former..."

Blackstone comments that within this Law of Nature are seen "immutable laws of good and evil," leading us again to the idea of liberty of conscience in the judging of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an action or inaction. Blackstone, and others of his time, assert that these are seen, naturally, if only we will observe and then reason through that which we have observed.

Further, beyond the Law of Nature, God has given us His Revealed Law, in the Scriptures, to guide us in making reasonable judgments of our actions, as well as our internal intentions, motives, desires, etc.

The Scripture tells us that men are without excuse, since they have the Law of Nature to lead them to conscientious actions. God's very nature is revealed in what He created. Blackstone reasons that God reveals certain principles to us in the Law of Nature, such as "...that we should live honestly, should hurt nobody, and should render to everyone his due..." These things are reasonable and our consciences bear witness that they are good. As Christians, we understand that they are good because they come from God, who is Goodness defined.

So, in Liberty of conscience, we have a reasonable understanding of our own conduct, how we ought to act, to speak, to respond to others. And we also have a reasonable understanding of how to treat others in order to allow them the same liberty, which is equal to all men. How, then, do we evaluate the very real situations in our world that deny these things? It is clear that tyrants lord it over the people of their nations. It is clear that the slave trade reflects the view that not all men are created equal, a wrong view that smells like smoke.

I would like to conclude this post with a note about William Wilberforce. Mr. Wilberforce saw, by the Law of Nature and the Scriptures that the slave trade represented a wrong view and that it must be stopped. Almost single-handedly, he, driven by conscience, worked to convince others of the truth of his position. Such tenacity proved effective.

In our society, we see many ills. The Law of Nature and the Scriptures declare truth, like Proverbs tells us, that Wisdom calls in the street. Reflecting on the actions and effect of William Wilberforce, I wonder what would happen if God's people demonstrated such conviction? If one man could bring about such a drastic change, what could a whole passel of us do?

Next discussion will be on 'how to correct a wrong'.

Liberty of Conscience...

Liberty: According to the 1828,
1. The state of a free person; exemption from subjection to the will of another claiming ownership of the person or services; freedom; -- opposed to slavery, serfdom, bondage, or subjection.
But ye . . . caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection. Jer. xxxiv. 16.
Delivered fro the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the sons of God. Bible, 1551. Rom. viii. 21.
2. Freedom from imprisonment, bonds, or other restraint upon locomotion.
Being pent from liberty, as I am now. Shak.
3. A privilege conferred by a superior power; permission granted; leave; as, liberty given to a child to play, or to a witness to leave a court, and the like.

John Locke, in Of Civil Government states it this way: "...we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions, and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the Law of Nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man." He comments on this state of nature, that all men are equal IN this state of liberty, and none has any more liberty or less than another. And later, "But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence." Don't we all click our tongues at those who refuse to care for themselves in a proper manner? The "how" might be subjective, but it is a law of nature that one ought to consider how to care for his person and possessions.

When looking at internal property, such as conscience, it stands to reason, then, that we have the privilege to use and dispose of our conscience as we see fit. It is ours, and we have exclusive right to it. Shall we go further, then, and say that no other man can operate our conscience? The choosing of an action or inaction preceded the action or inaction, and is internal, unseen.

By way of further explanation, let us examine the nature of liberty. Liberty falls into two categories - internal and external. In my previous post, I suggested that internal is causative of external. There must, then, be an internal liberty that is causative of external liberty.

Internal liberty consists of spiritual liberty and liberty of conscience. Spiritual liberty is the exclusive right of the individual to choose what he will believe. Can the individual be deceived? Most definately! But it is his choice to believe what he will. No one can force him to believe something contrary to that choice. This is significant for parents as we teach our children about the Scriptures. For a time, they follow our belief. But it is the Law of Nature that they come to a place of decision and choose their own belief. This comes as they labor over the Scripture, given that labor is the precursor to ownership. Liberty of conscience, then, is the exclusive right of the individual to choose an action or inaction and judge the lawfulness or unlawfulness of that action or inaction.

Regarding External liberty, our nation was founded upon the understanding of internal liberty. This is why we have enjoyed such strong and lasting external liberties. These liberties include: religious, economic, civil and political. Our founding documents were written with the understanding of spiritual liberty and liberty of conscience - the right to believe as we choose, and the the right to choose as we believe. Our form of government was based upon the biblical idea of such liberty. Thus, we have a Constitutional Federal Republic.

More on conscience later.

What is Liberty of Conscience? - Part 1

What is Liberty of Conscience?

Well, to begin the study one must understand that God works from internal to external. In 1 Samuel, when David is being selected as king, God tells Samuel not to look on the outward appearance, as man does, but to consider that God looks at the heart.

What does this internal 'look' like? Internal includes all that is unseen in the individual. It is considered primary (most important), as we saw above. It is the cause of what we see externally. Intentions, beliefs, values, motives, mind, soul, spirit, heart...all these and more comprise the internal. This internal is, in fact, your individual property. You own it. You are responsible for it. You can neglect it or your can nurture it. The most valuable aspect of this internal property is your conscience.

What then, is conscience? Most of us probably immediately think of Jimminy Cricket, from Disney's Pinnochio. Let's put away this image for a bit and examine the etymology and definition of this word.

Dictionary.com lists 'conscience' as:


1.
the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates of conscience.
2.
the complex of ethical and moral principles that controls or inhibits the actions or thoughts of an individual.
3.
an inhibiting sense of what is prudent: I'd eat another piece of pie but my conscience would bother me.

Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary of the American Language lists 'conscience' as:

1. Internal or self-knowledge, or judgment of right and wrong; or the faculty, power or principle within us, which decides on the lawfulness or unlawfulness of our own actions and affections, and instantly approves or condemns them. Conscience is called by some writers the moral sense, and considered as an original faculty of our nature. Others question the propriety of considering conscience as a distinct faculty or principle. The consider it rather as the general principle of moral approbation or disapprobation, applied to ones own conduct and affections; alledging that our notions of right and wrong are not to be deduced from a single principle or faculty, but from various powers of the understanding and will.
Being convicted by their own conscience, they went out one by one. John 8.
The conscience manifests itself in the feeling of obligation we experience, which precedes, attends and follows our actions.
Conscience is first occupied in ascertaining our duty, before we proceed to action; then in judging of our actions when performed.
2. The estimate or determination of conscience; justice; honesty.
What you require cannot, in conscience, be deferred.
3. Real sentiment; private thought; truth; as, do you in conscience believe the story?

Etymologyonline.com lists 'conscience' as:

c.1225, from O.Fr. conscience, from L. conscientia "knowledge within oneself, a moral sense," prp. of conscire "be mutually aware," from com- "with" + scire "to know." Probably a loan-translation of Gk. syneidesis. Sometimes nativized in O.E./M.E. as inwit. Rus. also uses a loan-translation, so-vest, "conscience," lit. "with-knowledge." Conscientious objector first recorded 1916.

The common thread here is "to know", or "with knowledge", or "moral sense of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an action or inaction. It is clear in this that the conscience precedes actions. It sets a path and then judges that path. In Scripture, it is said that all Scripture is...able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart (2 Timothy). Hm...sounds awfully close to the definition of conscience.

That's all for now - more later.