Category: Uncategorized

Your answer to this question depends upon your doctrinal heritage. The Augsburg Confession actually answers this question, and sets us up well for a good understanding. But as you read the quoted article XVI (from Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions) below, notice the dramatic difference between the Lutheran position and the position labeled “Anabaptist.” The latter comes from the radical reformation, which has ended up rather splintered in our time. Not all of the present-day theological descendants of the Anabaptists agree with their position, but some still do. More significant, I think, is the divergence between the political “Christian right” and those who would make a complete separation between matters of faith and government.

The “Christian right” seems to be most interested in social issues, unless you include the interest of some in the future of modern-day Israel. That interest really has no scriptural support, stemming from 19th Century dispensationalism, and perpetuated by a fascination with misusing the Bible as a code book. However, social issues generally relate to the Ten Commandments and the moral law, which is intended for all people, in all times.

Those who would like to separate matters of faith and government also have a point, in that there are two separate kingdoms of God, which we do well to distinguish. What some fail to realize, however, is that on an individual level, a Christian’s activities related to government are sanctified by faith. That means a Christian citizen is never a mere citizen, and a Christian office-holder is never a mere office-holder. Faith cannot be divorced from life, even where government is concerned. Those who try make a wreck of faith, or of life, or of both.

In fact, one of the main premises of this blog is that necessary connection between faith and life. It applies to faith both in the sense of “having a belief” and in the sense of “a doctrine.” I use it specifically of the Christian faith.

1 Our churches teach that lawful civil regulations are good works of God. 2 They teach that it is right for Christians to hold political office, to serve as judges, to judge matters by imperial laws and other existing laws, to impose just punishments, to engage in just wars, to serve as soldiers, to make legal contracts, to hold property, to take oaths when required by the magistrates, for a man to marry a wife, or a woman to be given in marriage [Romans 13; 1 Corinthians 7:2].

3 Our churches condemn the Anabaptists who forbid these political offices to Christians. 4 They also condemn those who do not locate evangelical perfection in the fear of God and in faith, but place it in forsaking political offices. 5 For the Gospel teaches an eternal righteousness of the heart (Romans 10:10). At the same time, it does not require the destruction of the civil state or the family. The Gospel very much requires that they be preserved as God’s ordinances and that love be practiced in such ordinances. 6 Therefore, it is necessary for Christians to be obedient to their rulers and laws. 7 The only exception is when they are commanded to sin. Then they ought to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29).

I’ve heard about people who printed off “money” on their inkjet printer, and then successfully passed off the counterfeit dollars at McDonalds. I’ve also heard about people who invest heavily in more sophisticated counterfeiting operations. The goal in both cases is for the perpetrator to enrich himself with the buying power of real money by producing it all himself. It’s dishonest. It’s also illegal.

But now I’ve heard it all. Someone making an alternative currency has been convicted of… terrorism? Sounds like a real muddle. Without knowing all the facts of the case, I leave open the possibility that the convict was doing something dishonest. It may have even been illegal. But it doesn’t sound like it was the same thing as counterfeiting money, though the conviction has that ring.

It sounds as though the perp was creating a local currency that could be used as an alternative to US dollars. It’s been done before, and apparently is not usually considered a form of terrorism. In fact, I’m told that the old saying about wooden nickels goes back to a local currency in southern Oregon made from myrtle wood. So what’s different this time? For one thing, the charges give the impression that this particular local currency shared too many design similarities with US Treasury money.

The coins were marked with the dollar sign, the words “dollar,” “USA,” “Liberty,” “Trust in God” (instead of “In God We Trust”) and other features associated with legitimate U.S. coins.

I can understand why the US Treasury would want any local currencies to appear completely distinct, and would assume that the jury found these to be confusingly similar. On the other hand, real counterfeit money is always worth less in materials and work than obtaining the actual US money it represents. Otherwise counterfeiting would be a complete waste of time and effort. It sounds like this currency is actually worth more than American money, because it’s minted with valuable metals, which are not subject to having their value erased by inflation.

The government also is seeking the forfeiture of about 16,000 pounds of Liberty Dollar coins and precious metals valued at nearly $7 million.

OK. What should we make of this? A US Attorney described the government’s investigative and prosecution efforts in very strong language: “We are determined to meet these threats through infiltration, disruption and dismantling of organizations which seek to challenge the legitimacy of our democratic form of government.” How does a superior local currency “challenge the legitimacy of our democratic form of goverment?”

Answer: it provides a means for some American citizens to safeguard the value stored in their money, in a time when the monetary strategy of the United States is to devalue all of our money in an attempt to shrink the impossibly-large debt burden our government has accumulated, and perhaps lessen the titanic trade imbalance that threatens to destabilize our economy. If certain (i.e. the “wrong”) Americans find a way to preserve the value of their savings over against the rest of the country, then it will throw the whole strategy out of whack, as their economic influence increases disproportionately against the rest. That’s my theory, anyway. I hope expressing it doesn’t amount to terrorism.

Does the monetary policy (when to print, when to retire money, how to introduce it into the economy) of your country fall under the fourth commandment (to obey earthly authorities)? It seems there are laws about money, but there seems to be a gray area here. We must pay our taxes in US Dollars, but is it wrong to barter for everything else? Is it a form of terrorism to use a local currency? Maybe it’s wrong only when your money is better than an inflationary fiat money.

Apparently, it means whatever a person may say it means. This, at the Washington Times, as linked from Drudge, says

The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional.

So the President has ruled that an act of Congress is unconstitutional. Does that sound a little strange to anyone? Anyone?

I don’t know about the President’s experience, but when I was in grade school, my teachers taught me that it’s the Court’s job to decide whether an act of Congress is constitutional. If the Executive Branch thinks something is unconstitutional, shouldn’t it follow the same procedure as anyone else? What if I decide that it’s unconstitutional for me to pay the federal income tax? I’m pretty sure that the IRS would come down on me sooner or later regardless of my opinion. But if the Supreme Court decided the same thing, there would be dancing in the streets for days. Literally. In the streets. (Of course, then we’d have to get busy and reconstruct our economy, since the federal government would have to default on its unconscionably, ridiculously, and irresponsibly enormous debt, and all international trade with the US would cease.)

This is just another volley in the corruption-of-our-culture war, but I find it especially disturbing, because of the apparently callous disregard of the Constitution. Hey, here’s an idea. Maybe we should all read it, especially those in elected office. I dare you.

My congressman reports today:

Speaking of items on to-do lists, first and foremost in the nation’s capital is making the difficult decisions to get the runaway spending under control. The most recent estimate now puts this year’s deficit at $1.6 trillion.

How much is 1.6 trillion? A lot more than 1.6. Here’s the number written out: 1,600,000,000,000. A millimeter is really small, right? One point six trillion of them is still one point six million kilometers.

But then, a kilometer is shorter than a mile, so maybe it one point six million kilometers isn’t really all that far. Go to Google and type “1.6 million kilometers in miles”. It seems a BMW car racked up that much mileage on a treadmill, but don’t try it at home. It’s almost a million miles, 1.6 trillion millimeters. You could drive around the earth at the equator about 40 times: 1.6 trillion millimeters.

So the currently-projected federal deficit for 2011 is 1.6 trillion dollars.

My congressman also gave this example:

Here’s an example of how far things have gotten away from us. In 2007, the deficit was $160.7 billion, or 1.2 percent of GDP, and had decreased every year since 2004.

In 2006, the year before Nancy Pelosi took control of the Speaker’s gavel, CBO projected that the deficit in 2011 would be $117 billion. Because of the runaway spending since then, the 2011 deficit will be an astonishing 1,367% higher than what CBO predicted just five years ago.

OK, so how many times could you travel around the world at the equator before you’ve gone 160.7 billion millimeters (the 2007 actual federal deficit)? The first number (the 2007 federal deficit) in millimeters is 99,854 miles, or about four times around the earth.

For 117 billion (the 2006 projection of the 2011 federal deficit) in millimeters, it’s 72,700 miles, or about three times around the earth.

Only four years ago, the congressional budget office predicted a federal deficit for this year comparable to three laps around the earth, when converted to millimeters. Since a deficit means that the federal government is spending money it doesn’t have, I think that’s a bad thing. I believe that government, like people, should live within its means. That is, it should seek to spend no more than it receives, but if that happens anyway, the resulting imbalance should be corrected as soon as possible. That’s just the principle of the matter. But when I realize that the government’s debt is really on my shoulders as a taxpayer, and on the shoulders of my children, those three laps around the earth seem almost criminally irresponsible.

So has the hope and change introduced in 2006 resulted in an improvement? Well, if our goal is to consign all of our descendants to slavery, then yes, we’ve seen a great advancement toward our goal! Instead of the horrible three laps around the globe, we’re expecting to rack up in one year alone, the equivalent of 40 laps around the globe.

Either somebody is incompetent beyond belief, or somebody is actually trying to bring the United States to its knees. Which is more charitable? I’m not sure.

So I’m glad we’ve got people like my congressman in Washington, people who understand that the future of our country, and the future well-being of American children depends, at least partly, upon how responsibly we conduct ourselves in the present.

As Christian citizens, we have a responsibility to “render unto Caesar” with the wisdom we have received from God’s Word. Please try to understand these mind-boggling numbers that float across the news, and their connection to the future of our civilization. Certainly, God is in control, but He has also given Christian invididuals a responsibility to exercise good judgment and act accordingly. We have the privilege of voting in the United States, but also the constitutional right of free speech. Speech can be a powerful tool for good or ill. I know, because it’s most of what I do.

In the civil realm of American society, Martin Luther King Jr. is certainly an important person to remember. He had a positive influence upon our country and the mindset of its citizens. It’s good for us all to recognize this. If I have been irritated that some Lutherans know more about MLK Jr. (because of the emphasis at school) than they know about Martin Luther, his prototypical namesake, that irritation does not diminish my respect for the good that MLK Jr. accomplished for our country and this civil society, despite his theological weaknesses.

Rev. Paul McCain posted a nice little summary about the significance of MLK Jr. on his blog. I agree with what he says there, but I’d like to point out a niggling problem in the way some have described the Civil Rights Movement. It’s become somewhat common to describe its cause as “social justice.” I deny that emphatically, because that term is a lie. It’s an attempt to dress up what we would otherwise call “injustice” as its opposite, and pollute the ideal of civil society with unjust discrimination founded upon race- or behavior-based classifications of people.

MLK Jr. was not a crusader for social justice, but simply for justice. Is it not a plain injustice to segregate a society arbitrarily based upon the pigmentation of our skin, or any arbitrary physical characteristic? Does not the evil of racism manifest itself in straight-out injustice? Is it not the human sense of justice that is violated when perpetrators of violence and murder are allowed to go unpunished on the basis of their skin-color, social standing, wealth, religion, or any other difference between human beings? Attempting to narrow our concept of justice to describe the importance the Civil Rights Movement may sound articulate, but it subverts our understanding of justice itself, and therefore actually robs men like MLK Jr. of their true importance.

If we were to admit the concept of “social justice” as a valid virtue of civil society, we would eventually find ourselves accepting arbitrary preferences in both law enforcement and in the courtroom. “The defendant has certainly robbed, raped, and killed his fellow citizens, including killing a law enforcement officer, but on account of his underprivileged upbringing, and because of his skin color, and even because some of his ancestors were deprived of their human dignity as slaves, this court finds that the circumstances mitigate his guilt in these matters. He is hereby recommended for one year of vocational counseling, and the arresting officers for one year of sensitivity training.” That would be an extreme example of “social justice,” showing that it’s really injustice behind a mask.

The ideal of justice being blind should remain our society’s ideal. She knows nothing of rich or poor, male or female, black or white, Christian or Jew, Catholic or Protestant. She knows only the law, and judges on the basis of our actions under the law. She doesn’t care what we think or believe, because she is is not God. She doesn’t care what we say (with certain exceptions, like “fire” in a crowded theater), because we have freedom of speech. She only cares whether we break the law. Also for this reason, the concept of “hate crimes” is unjust, wrong-headed, and tyrannical. If the deed was a crime, then justice already demands that the doer must be judged guilty. When we add or subtract to plain justice, we foster injustice.

So much for that. The other thing I’ve heard about recently is this justification for eliminating the law-abiding citizens’ right to be armed: “If it only saves the life of one person, it would be worth the loss of freedom for the rest.” This argument is also deceptive, and not limited the subject of arms control. The same argument is often applied to justify the loss of many other kinds of freedom. Allow me to point out that eventual death is certain for us all, but freedom is not. Besides that, I can easily use that argument against the gun-control advocate who makes it by pointing out that weapons carried by law-abiding citizens save lives daily. Therefore, to deprive those citizens of their freedom is to turn the tables and cause a daily loss of life. Who would want that on his conscience? If we err in the civil realm, it should be on the side of freedom and the protection of human life (and of private property, but that’s another blog post).