I was just looking at reports of today’s rally on the west lawn of the Capitol Building in Washington D.C. One attendee was quoted as saying that it now seems the government has become evil.

I’m glad to see eyes opening to the possibility of evil, even in our own country. Yes, it can happen here. At the same time, I caution anyone who cares to read this against thinking that any government is evil in a civil sense. Governments are gifts from God, to benefit the lives of their citizens in this fallen world. The American system of government is no exception, and neither is the current (or any prior) slate of elected officials.

Government can become twisted in service to evil, until it seems to be inextricably bound to it. Certain 20th Century examples spring to mind, and perhaps present-day Persia. Yet even there, the government as such has certain divinely-assigned responsibilities, which make it a blessing to its people, and even to neighboring nations.

While a government is not intrinsically evil, it is certainly part of this fallen world. That means that it can make mistakes, like the rest of us. The difference is that when I make a mistake, it affects fewer people. I just finished reading a history of the Great Depression called The Forgotten Man, by Amity Schlaes. The disregard of F.D.R. and many of his advisors for the tremendous negative influence of government mistakes is astounding. That disregard was probably induced by the politics of the crisis, but I would rather have a President willing to be denied reelection as the cost of doing the smallest possible harm to others. The governing philosophy of Coolidge might have helped Americans much more, though they would have missed the hollow comforts in F.D.R.’s fireside chats.

Please do not think that government is evil, even when it has done evil. In a spiritual sense, it is no more evil than you or I am evil. (We are all condemned sinners in a world destined for destruction.) Christians who have the forgiveness of sins can appreciate that Christ’s redemption has also provided us a sanctified use of the government. Christians can serve as elected or appointed officials, as bureaucratic employees or soldiers. Whether we do or not, we must also hold our fallen government accountable, so that it does less harm, and promotes the only kind of justice for which God has made it responsible. That’s not “social justice” or “media justice” (which are really different kinds of injustice), but the punishment and suppression of evils that threaten the lives and property of its citizens.

Christians can also take comfort that we are citizens of a better and perfect government. It’s a monarchy, but only subjects of this King are ever truly free. Thanks to the blood and death of our risen Lord, we will enjoy this freedom for eternity. All earthly governments will go the way of Rome, into mere history. Our Lord and King lives forever.

The Church Militant lives in the Kingdom of the Left. That is, the Church of Christ on earth, consisting of all who believe and trust that He is their Savior, exists within the framework of secular and worldly laws and rulers that encompass life on earth. Christians live beside non-Christians, under the same laws.

Individually, Christians have as much interest in laws and justice as everyone else does. The mission of the Church is different. It revolves around the message of the Gospel. When we believe that message, that Jesus Christ, God’s Son, gave His perfect life upon the cross as the sole, sufficient payment for the guilt of the whole world, then God has made us members of the Church, and we possess all of His gifts. On the other hand, the faith that receives this greatest of all gifts in a completely passive way, does not remain passive in our life as Christians.

Christian faith must be active, and that activity takes place in the Kingdom of the Left, within that framework of laws and justice that defines civil society. The activity of our faith is directed by a conscience informed by Holy Scripture. That’s one of the reasons we teach the Ten Commandments in our catechesis: to inform and guide our actions of faith.

When we study the Ten Commandments, they teach us that the Kingdom of the Left — our government — exists as a gift from God, having certain responsibilities that represent His blessings upon us when they are fulfilled. For example, the Fourth Commandment describes not only our responsibility to figures of authority, but implies that they exist to serve our well-being. The Fifth Commandment shows that human life is to be protected, even by our government, when it is not fulfilling its greater responsibility in the Fourth Commandment. The Sixth Commandment reveals that God would also have government protect and encourage lifelong marriage, obviously between one man and one woman. That relationship provides the context for the basic meaning of the Fourth Commandment, “your father and your mother,” so that the institution of marriage is fundamental to civil society itself. The Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Commandments show that God would have government enforce the respect of private property, which is the fruit of our labor. The Eighth shows that God hold government responsible for protecting the good name of its citizens.

God blesses every citizen, Christian or not, when government fulfills these responsibilities. What’s more, Christians are then better able to live our their active faith in love toward their neighbors. Yet before any of those commandments, God commanded that we have only one God, and that we sanctify His name and His Word in their proper and daily uses. If this is forbidden or suppressed in the Kingdom of the Left, then Christians must disobey the errant earthly authority in order to obey the greater authority of God. Certainly, this will result in hardship or even death, especially when the earthly authority is not interested in justice or the other responsibilities that God has given it. It is for that reason that the Bill of Rights is such a blessing to the Church, in particular the First Amendment, guaranteeing the freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion. Of slightly less interest to Christians is the Second and subsequent amendments, which also exist to provide citizens the means to protect their individual freedoms in the rest.

These days, people seem more concerned about the “establishment clause” of the first amendment, prohibiting the government from establishing a national religion — or a state religion, as the Supreme Court has further interpreted it. However, just as important as the “establishment clause” is the “free exercise clause,” which forbids the national (or state) government from prohibiting the free exercise of an individual’s religion. The clause assumes that the religion in question does not threaten the freedoms of other citizens. Especially in this area, Christians in the Church Militant should be concerned and involved in the American government, because it applies directly to the activity and scruples of faith.

For an application of this concern, see Gene Edward Veith’s blog post about how the federal Equal Opportunity Commission is requiring Roman Catholic institutions to pay for birth control in their health insurance plans. You may be tempted to consider it “someone else’s problem” if you’re not Roman Catholic, but that would be unwise. A government willing to ignore the free exercise clause in the case of Roman Catholics will not hesitate to ignore it in the case of Lutherans, Reformed, Evangelicals, Orthodox, etc.

This will make communication so easy! No doubt the good senator will have a good sense of how his constituents are thinking after this. If you’ve ever participated in an audio conference over the phone, then you also know just how easy it is to get your points across. The senator will have people across the entire state on the phone, all at once!

September 28th, 2009 Visit My Web Site | Unsubscribe

Sign up Today to Join Senator Merkley for a Telephone Town Hall Meeting Deadline to Sign Up is Tuesday at 10:00 am PT As Congress continues to tackle the challenge of fixing our health care system, Senator Merkley wants to hear your thoughts, what’s working and what isn’t, and how we can best make it work for Oregon’s families and businesses. Senator Merkley knows that not everyone can make it to his town hall meetings, and that’s why he wanted to make sure Oregonians have every avenue available to them to reach out to him and make their concerns known. This Wednesday, September 30th at 5:50 pm PT, Senator Merkley will hold a Telephone Town Hall, where Oregonians can ask questions and share their views about the current effort to reform health care. The deadline to sign up for the health care telephone town hall is tomorrow, September 29th at 10:00 am PT. Hurry and sign up today! Join Senator Merkley for a Telephone Town Hall and make your voice heard. Please note that any reply to this email address will be sent to an unmonitored email address. To contact Senator Merkley, please visit his website. Visit My Web Site | Contact Me | Unsubscribe

As we ponder this question, we should watch the outcome of this case. It’s interesting that the attempt to restrict religious freedom in this case comes by fiat of a court. Equally important, the ruling is also a repression of parental rights. Long have some considered public education to be an antidote for the influence of religious or conservative parents upon the worldview of their children.

Shades of totalitarian statism.

It makes a lot of sense, actually. Senators can only be responsive to the collective interests of a whole state. The trouble with that is that a whole state of voters with conflicting interests can’t easily hold senators accountable. They can hold their state legislators accountable, though.

Here’s my congressman’s response to the message I’ve already published in a previous post.

As you know, the health care debate in this country is in full swing, and I wanted to give you a quick update regarding where the process stands in Washington, D.C.

In July, five congressional committees began work on similar pieces of legislation that would drastically change health care in this country, putting more responsibility for your care in the hands of the government.

I am a member of one of those committees-the House Energy and Commerce Committee-where a 1,018-page bill was introduced just hours before we began considering amendments to the legislation. Ramming bills through Congress without time to read them has become an all-too-common practice in the nation’s capital. That’s an absurd way to legislate.

I voted against the bill, H.R. 3200, which the Energy and Commerce Committee passed by a narrow 31-28 margin after a rushed and closed process. Five Democrats joined all Republicans in opposition. Hopefully the House leadership will bring some sanity and openness to the process and engage in bipartisan discussion before the bill goes before the full House. I know that’s what Americans expect and deserve from their elected leaders.

Without a doubt, we need to carefully address America’s health care challenges. There are far too many junk lawsuits that drive up the cost for everyone, and billions of dollars could be saved by rooting out the waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid. We can create solutions for small businesses to pursue affordable health coverage for their employees, without raising new taxes.

But the current plan in Congress just creates more government and spends $1.2 trillion in taxpayer money to launch a takeover of health care that would mimic the models in Canada and Europe, where government bureaucrats, not doctors, decide when you will receive the treatment you need. Let me be clear: I will not support a health care system that puts anyone between you and your doctor.

If the government takeover becomes law, as many as two out of three Americans will be forced from their current coverage to a government plan, according to an independent study. Up to 114 million Americans could lose their current health coverage. That’s not right. If you like the coverage you have now, you should be able to keep it.

Like I said earlier, reform is necessary, especially with the spiraling cost of coverage that puts health care out of reach for too many. But according to the nonpartisan head of the Congressional Budget Office, this $1.2 trillion bill does not propose the “fundamental changes” needed to rein in health care spending. It doesn’t even fix the problem (17 million Americans would still lack health coverage under this plan), and it adds $239 billion to the national debt. We can get costs under control, but this bill simply doesn’t do it.

Small businesses would fund much of the new government spending through tax hikes. A penalty equal to 8 percent of payroll would be assessed on employers who are unable to provide “acceptable coverage,” a threshold determined by an unelected government panel. Small business owners tell me they cannot afford a punitive tax or the costs of providing coverage to all their employees, and would either have to shut their doors or lay off significant numbers of employees if this new tax is enacted. Having owned and managed a small business in Oregon for more than 21 years, I certainly relate to these concerns.

The plan jeopardizes the care that some 210,000 Oregon seniors rely upon by drastically cutting Medicare Advantage. In total, the bill would cut nearly $500 billion from Medicare, which results in $311 million in payment cuts to hospitals and over $80 million in cuts to nursing homes in Oregon’s Second District. One Oregon hospital administrator told me his facility might have to close under the plan.

And government care isn’t better care. The highly-respected medical journal Lancet reported that American five-year survival rates for breast, colorectal and prostate cancer rank first or second in the world. Survival rates for breast and prostate cancer in the United States are 83.9 percent and 91.9 percent, respectively. Compare that to the rates in the UK: 69.7 percent and 51.1 percent, respectively. We can’t afford that risk.

In the Energy and Commerce Committee, I came ready to work in good faith to make access to health care more affordable and accessible. Many of our suggested improvements to the bill were rejected, including provisions to allow you to keep the coverage you have if you like it; force members of Congress to enroll in the same health coverage they create in the government takeover; and block cuts to care for those seniors who rely on Medicare.

The Republican alternative I support would allow small businesses to join together to purchase high quality care for their employees at a reasonable price, just as unions already do. For workers who do not receive benefits from their employers, our proposal creates easy-to-understand health-plan finders for workers to identify a plan that fits their needs. We would cut down on frivolous lawsuits and root out waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid that cost American taxpayers billions of dollars every year.

I believe Americans sent us to Washington, D.C. to work together to solve the country’s problems. When Congress reconvenes in September, I hope we can do the deliberative and transparent work that can lead to real, productive reform that this country’s health care system needs.

Finally, here’s a link to a recent article http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/08/column-americans-arent-going-to-buy-health-care-spin-mr-president.html written by the House Republican Leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio. His comments are right on target.

It’s an honor to represent you in the U.S. Congress.

Best regards,

GREG WALDEN Member of Congress

If you’ve been following the uprising of grass-roots resistance to the single-payer health insurance program (a.k.a. “Obamacare”) being forced through congress, then you may be interested in this exchange.

Here is what I sent to Senator Jeff Merkley:

I am a Lutheran pastor in The Dalles and Hood River. I can see that the overall system of health care we have now is not perfect, but I can also see that nothing is truly perfect in this world. In fact, the current system of health insurance is largely working, while plans to socialize health care with a “single-payer” system, where that payer is the government, will inevitably destroy the private health care system, and place enormous burdens upon our economy in the form of taxes, inefficiencies, and reduced incentives for productivity. That means people like I serve in the parish will experience higher unemployment, a lower overall quality of health care, and less personal freedom, as the federal government continues to assume responsibilities far beyond the powers enumerated in the Constitution.

Please Oppose Socialized Health Care. With many others, I will be watching.

Here is his response:

Dear Jesse,

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for single-payer health care. It is an honor to serve as your Senator, and I appreciate hearing from you.

I believe there are many merits to a single-payer system. As a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, I voted for an amendment offered by Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) to the Affordable Health Choices Act that would give states the ability to create a single-payer system at the state level and was disappointed that this amendment was not adopted.

I am pleased, however, that the healthcare legislation approved by the HELP Committee includes a strong public insurance option. I believe it is important that Americans have a choice between private insurance and public coverage. Specifically, a public option would provide competition to private insurance companies, helping to lower costs while creating a pathway to promote quality-enhancing and cost-cutting strategies to ensure the future viability of our health care system. Most importantly, the public option would ensure every American has access to quality, affordable health care, while allowing those individuals who are happy with their current insurance plan to keep it.

Further, the Affordable Health Choices Act would eliminate some of the worst abuses by private health insurance companies. The bill would make it illegal for insurance companies to deny health care coverage because of a person’s preexisting condition or drop coverage when it’s needed most. In addition, under this legislation, individuals would not be subject to annual or lifetime limits on their coverage or see it terminated arbitrarily as a tactic for insurance companies to avoid paying claims. It also expands insurance options and ensures that everyone will have access to affordable coverage no matter what.

As this legislation is considered by the full Senate in the coming months, please know that I will continue to fight for every American’s right to have access to quality, affordable health care, and I will vote for an amendment to the legislation that would create a single payer system. In addition, I will work to make sure the reforms of the HELP Committee are included in the final Senate version of the bill.

Thank you, again, for sharing your thoughts with me. I hope you will continue to keep me informed about the issues that matter most to you.

All my best,

Jeff Merkley United States Senate

It would be in the senator’s best interest to remember that the 17th Amendment has made every senator responsible to the individual voters of his state. While I think that was an unwise amendment, it means that the good senator can be voted out by the people, regardless of the values held at Salem. He is supposed to represent the people, which presupposes that he understand the positions of the people.

Well, he seems to understand one position anyway.

I smiled more reading this than reading the comics. Nearly as much as reading Dave Barry. I hope you enjoy it too. Yes, it looks political, but this isn’t your average negative news story, and you won’t see it on TV, in the newspaper, or in any newsweekly.

Is it possible for Caesar to overstep the divinely-ordained bounds of his authority?

The Founders of the United States would have answered “yes” straight away. Despite the classic Lutheran concern for keeping the fourth commandment (to honor parents and superiors), we also recognize bounds for the authority of earthly rulers. If your ruler forbids you to honor God’s name or keep his word, or commands you to worship an idol, then you must disobey your ruler. Daniel and his three friends provide good examples of this.

What about other aspects of our lives? Can we separate faith from the food we eat? From our health care? From our work ethic? From interactions with our neighbors?

If a person breaks into your house with apparent intent to harm or kill one of its occupants, but the ruler forbids you from using deadly force (either because the person is authorized by the ruler, like the KGB, or because the ruler simply wants a docile populace, like any number of tyrannical regimes), is it wrong to defend your household against the assailant? Early American society agreed that you ought to defend your household, and that doing so was also a necessary defense of our society at large. That was a primary reason that most of the states and finally the nation protected the right of individuals to “keep” arms. In fact, they extended this principle beyond our homes with the right to “bear” arms.

The fifth commandment (You shall not murder) also enjoins Christians to protect the lives of our neighbors, recognizing that there will be some lawless people who murder anyway. If we fail to do what is in our power to protect the lives of others, then we break this commandment. But does this hold true when it would involve defending against those authorized by Caesar? Does it hold true when Caesar simply wants a docile populace?

Martin Luther wrote colorfully against the Roman requirement that priests refrain from marriage. It continues to be recognized that this requirement is contrary to nature, contrary to the way God has made us. Unless there is an unusual gift from God, humans will always find it impossible to remain celibate. Therefore, the priest’s vow is contrary to God’s will, and he should be allowed to marry. (Marriage is the only proper context God has provided for intimate relations.)

Does Caesar have the authority to change what God has established, when the Pope did not? Can Caesar permit or even require intimate relations outside of marriage? Can the ruler rightly forbid his citizens from being joined in holy matrimony? It would seem that the God’s sixth commandment (You shall not commit adultery) should rate higher than the laws of any earthly ruler.

Consider God’s seventh commandment (You shall not steal). Whose property has God forbidden us to steal? Some might try to tell us that it’s the property of the state, perhaps the U.S.S.R. or the communist Cuban state. The Caesars of those places owned everything, and the people owned nothing. Promising to eliminate inequalities among the people, the Caesar made all of them like medieval serfs, taking away their property, their honor, and their ability to improve their own lives.

Private property is also a gift from God. This notion was reinforced by the peculiar property laws in ancient Israel, which protected a family’s land for that family even after it had been sold to pay debts. When the Jubilee arrived, all land reverted to its original owners. While this doesn’t apply to other nations, it does show that God recognizes privately-held property. So then, must Caesar also recognize privately-held property? What may his people do when he does not?

The Founders of the United States would draw a sharp distinction between the American people and those of other nations. We are not subjects, but free citizens. Here, the government serves us. Yet government in general — like all aspects of fallen human nature — tends to overstep its bounds, regardless of the politics involved.

Still, the politics involved these days revolve around the question of Caesar’s role in society. Are there prescribed limits to government power? What may be done if government transgresses such limits? You can answer the first question by reading the United States Constitution and its amendments, but some disagree. Some would have us put the Constitution in a museum as a relic of bygone days. What say you?

In light of this question concerning limits to the powers of Caesar, consider this ongoing summary of the nationalized healthcare bill currently being debated in Congress. Like most citizens, I don’t have time to read the whole thing (though I would expect my representatives in Congress to read it), so I appreciate this “Reader’s Digest” version. Does it represent a transgression on the part of Caesar? If you are an American, you get to decide.

Excerpt:

Continue reading “Render to Caesar” →

Good book. Thoroughly researched and documented. If you’ve ever read the founding documents of the United States, you already know the conclusion, because it’s written in easily-understood English. The Second Amendment follows upon the heels of the first because the individual rights enumerated in the first require the protection afforded by the exercise of the individual right to keep and bear arms.

I’m impressed at how much our our nation has changed since its founding. Some changes are for the better, such as the abolition of slavery. That was a necessary consequence of adopting the ideals in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. However, the people of our country, and particularly its political leaders today do not have the same liberty-loving mindset as its founders. Reagan was a rare recent example of a true statesman who could both articulate and teach the classic American love for liberty. As for the rest, some genuinely try, but progressivism has replaced classical liberalism (now called conservatism) in the ideals of far too many hearts.

As progressives drag us all into their utopian nightmare, it’s encouraging to see that our constitution remains. The Bill of Rights was crafted for such a time as this, and the wisdom of the Second Amendment may well be tested soon, if the forces of progressive tyranny continue to disembowel the principles of personal liberty and responsibility that have been such a blessing to our society.

This book was not a quick read, especially on my schedule, but I recommend it for those who actually care what our constitution says and means, and also for those who would like more insight into the founders’ point of view. Having read this, I could never accept the claim that Americans should be prevented from retaining small arms of any kind, nor from carrying them at will. There are laws currently on the books that likely infringe upon the right protected in the Second Amendment, in the opinion of someone like Thomas Jefferson. Yet for better or worse, the law of our land is interpreted through the imperfect efforts of the judical branch, and some of those battles are yet to be finished.

If you think the abuses against which the Bill of Rights were written “could never happen here,” then you need to pay more attention to the news. Not the news that comes from the professional “news media,” because that’s filtered by the political perspective of those who produce it. Find the news sources that are vilified and mocked by the professional newsies, and read or listen carefully, understanding that everyone has an axe to grind.

The way forward for personal liberty and responsibility, for classical liberalism (aka conservatism), is probably not through the government of our country or even our states. We can elect conservative politicians, but even the best will find the needed reformation to be impossible, when tried only through the government.

The way forward is through regular people, through citizens like you and me. We need to exercise our rights to speech, to religion, to publish, to gather, to petition, and to bear arms. Maybe not all at once, and maybe not all for each person, but as a whole, the people need to be a free people at heart, and then we will be able to reform the soft tyranny that has been progressively gripping our nation through the last century. When we know liberty, then we will know the kind of change that must take place. We the people are the best hope for our country. You and me.

I may have written about it before, but I think I’ll post again soon on why I think freedom is such a precious thing in this world.

I had no idea it was a felony for a mother to breastfeed her infant while intoxicated.
Amazing. So, does that mean that Big Brother also considers it a felony for a mother to get drunk while pregnant with the same child? Heh. I’m not going to count on it.