Inside the Mind of Tyranny
Paul,
My intent is to be helpful. To that end, you misspelled ‘definition’ in the title of your blog.
It seems to me that the ‘church gospel’ you’re fighting against doesn’t exist. You’re trying to catch people in their words through specifically formulated questions which creates the impression to the hearer / reader of your blogs that there is apostasy where there is none. Please stop. 2 Timothy 2:14 – “Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.” There are CRYSTAL CLEAR forms of apostasy all around us (prosperity gospel, ‘New Apostolic Reformation’, etc). Why don’t we battle against that together, OK?
Scott, I am only replying for demonstrative purposes. At least in regard to myself, I have a strong tendency to interact with people based on my assumptions. And what are those assumptions? That people can be persuaded by sound logic. Actually, Scott, your email, this email, may be a historic event in my life because I am finally going to put feet to what I have seen for more than ten years now, but have never acted upon a final resolution. And what is that resolution? Tyrants can’t be reasoned with, and where applicable, they must be defeated. Once someone is defined as a tyrant, you avoid them, but if they are somehow interfering with your endeavor to accomplish the things that are self-evident, all resources must be invested towards their defeat while any attempt to persuade them is a fool’s errand.
Why is this, and how did I reach this and other related conclusions? By reading a lot of Martin Luther. The author John Immel inspired me to understand philosophy and gave me some important first principles, but Martin Luther, the consummate tyrant of the ages, is the one who enabled me to put it all together. And as demonstrated in your email, good people must understand that at times they are dealing with people who view reality differently. You can’t persuade someone who doesn’t share your perception regarding how the world works.
Let’s start with you correcting my grammar. This is such a basic, and telling principle. But first, let me explain something. I am not a laymen, that’s a bad word to use and feeds a whole church worldview that must be completely dismantled for saints who want to a leave a decent legacy in this life. The Bible makes no distinction whatsoever within the body of Christ concerning vocation or so-called “bi-vocational.” I am an elder in the body of Christ, that’s my gift, and I got it from the Spirit when I was born again. And by the way, because of that, I don’t need Al Mohler or any other disgusting stuffed shirt to give me permission to practice my gift. With that said, I practice that gift as an elder of this ministry, I am going to nursing school, and my wife and I are performing more ministry in the life of others than we ever did being under the thumb of the church lie. Hence, when someone like you, a typical overpaid sycophant of the church industrial complex, who has paid staff to boot, points out one of my errors in the midst of a dizzying life effort, it is offensive, but even more offensive is the motive behind the correction.
Such a tiny little detail, but really a gargantuan principle. In the Bible, a very important truth about sin is revealed; it’s not just doing naughty things that God disapproves of, sin seeks to control others. And the Bible is very specific about how that process works. Sin crouches in hiding waiting for a reason to condemn, and when everyday mortal weakness produces the reason, or outright sin, sin pounces with condemnation. Sin really doesn’t care if it was an honest mistake or outright sin, the goal is to use condemnation to enslave. That’s why slander is often used to condemn people; if said target doesn’t produce a reason, one will be made up. It goes something like this: “See what a loser you are? Hence, you need someone like me that is better than you, smarter than you, more moral than you, to rule over your life.” For ten years I have watched this in our marriage counseling: marriage counseling is two people bringing their condemnation lists to you as a case for why one should be able to rule over the other. The diminishing of other people’s self-esteem is also critical to controlling them which is behind the doctrine of total depravity…obviously. Once you understand this dynamic, you see it everywhere, particularly when a women shares with me that her husband says things like this: “You couldn’t make it without me.” This ministry has set several women free from financial slavery and we are happy to do it.
Love makes a legitimate marriage, not some law. Staying in a situation where there is no respect or love whether a job, a church, or a marriage is typical under-law thinking. Love fulfils the law, not law-keeping for the sake of law-keeping. Recently, in a meeting with a runaway slave wife, her tyrant husband, and the tyrant’s pastor, said pastor stated that the goal of the meeting was to “maintain the marriage covenant.” I saw straight away what the pastor’s agenda was going to be: husband confesses sin; wife confesses sin; and since “Christians” are obligated to forgive each other “the way we have been forgiven” the runaway slave wife must now go back to the tyrant husband. Like the church, such husbands refuse to repent of the essence of sin; a lust to control others through condemnation. It’s no accident then that Christ didn’t “come to condemn the world, but to save it.” No accident then that “there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ.”
Again, this dynamic can be seen in the smallest milieus of life to the most epic examples of politics and statecraft. So, why did you correct my grammar? It goes something like this: “look at you, you are contending against men of God, men of renown (you can’t see it, but I am laughing right now), and you can’t even spell correctly!” Nice try Scott, but that doesn’t work on me. The most egregious example of this is ABWE’s public letter of response to the “Missionary Kids” who stood up to a church coverup of unspeakable crimes for something like 40 years. In quoting what the MKs had stated in a formal letter to ABWE previously, one or more “[sic]”s were included to indicate grammar corrections. You see, what had happened to the MKs was nether here nor there in light of the so-called greater church good, and leaving no attempt to regain control of the situation untried, they sought to shame the MKs by pointing out their supposed intellectual anemia. As an aside, for this reason and a book full of others; namely, our ministry’s latest publication, I believe the church to be utterly evil. And why is it evil? Because of its false gospel and skewed version of reality.
Now let’s look at that version of reality; the worldview of tyranny. It’s the oldest and only religion. All other religions flow from it; all politics flow from it. Of course, my illustration is a crassly simplistic version, but conveys the general idea. The material world and everything that can be ascertained by the five senses is evil. The invisible world and all things that cannot be ascertained by the five senses is good. The good, having grace and mercy, decided to save mankind. How all of this supposedly came about is the eschatology of philosophy and will not be included here. In doing so, the good chose those with special wisdom to lead the unwise to the good. And what is that wisdom of the wise? The knowledge that mortal man cannot know anything including reality. Wisdom is knowing that man cannot know. Believing that one can know is the height of all arrogance. Now, this doesn’t include “practical knowledge” that makes things work in the evil material world, and Luther, in the tradition of Dualism, divided that knowledge into “wisdom from above” and “wisdom from below.” Luther’s specific designation was his “Theology of the Cross” defined by the “glory story” versus the “cross story” and Christocentric philosophy which I have written on extensively and will not continue to do so here.
Supposedly, the greatest danger to the survival of mankind is mankind thinking that it has value and can know. The wise must therefore save humanity from itself. Hence, Plato’s philosopher kings, warriors, and producers. The warriors enforce the wisdom of the wise appointed by the good to save mankind. Until the Enlightenment Era produced Americanism, world history was little more than utter darkness accordingly. And what does this have to do with the rest of your email? Pretty much everything. Your email is a glaring example of what I have experience incessantly for ten years when dealing with church advocates. Regardless of what exemplifies our articles and books; ie., systematic arguments comprised of several points of persuasion, those are all summarily dismissed in exchange for some authoritative unction. In the article you write about in your email, you do not supply one counterpoint to the points made in the article. Why? Because the article uses logic and reason as a means to persuade, and the ideology of the tyrant rejects that view of reality out of hand. This is a pattern this ministry has seen over and over and over again for ten years. Salvation comes by doing one thing and one thing only: obeying the philosopher kings, or as Al Mohler states it, “those appointed by God to save his people from ignorance.” He was speaking of pastors. Therefore, dear tyrant, since you are appointed by God to save me from ignorance (because others paid for you to obtain a seminary degree and Al Mohler therefore christens you as such), why would any argument by me have any validity at all in your mind? It wouldn’t.
Like the so-called “looney left” in politics who are not looney at all and know exactly what they are doing, your lame arguments merely cover for the fact that you don’t think anyone who disagrees with you is in touch with reality. Even though I articulated the Protestant gospel in painstaking detail and backed it up with a Protestant holding a Doctorate degree in the discipline, you claim that no such gospel even exists! Does this not make my point in no uncertain terms? You go on to name the real apostates, but based on what? An objective evaluation of their doctrine? No, based strictly on your supposed God-given authority. It is also interesting to note that in our dialogue with parishioners, they respond in the exact same way; they see themselves as speaking with authority because they are repeating what their pastors tell them. Consequently, they also reject all reason out of hand.
This is my advice to all: when giving an account of the sum and substance of your life to the one who granted it to you, no one will be standing there in your defense, not even Christ. In this life, that is the only mind that can be yielded to that will make a difference. Even He seeks to persuade you, and not control you. Obviously, if Christ wanted to control you, He would. He is the only mediator between God and mankind, and when you die, His mediation role is over. “This is my Son, hear ye Him.” Read the Scriptures for yourself, what does Christ use to persuade? Over and over again; reason, period.
The apostle Paul asked rhetorically to the ekklesia at large: “What saith the Scriptures?” Not, “What saith the philosopher kings…and queens?” Christ said, “Consider carefully what you hear.” Clearly, the onus is on the individual alone. All people will stand before God as individuals and that’s where the responsibility ends.
In all life matters, identify the tyrant and avoid them. Do their offers result in you depending on them? Do they lift you up and bolster self-confidence or make you less confident? Do they advocate a forward look towards love or a backward look towards sin? Avoid them in your journey, and if they hinder your journey, defeat them, but waste no time in reasoning with them; it only delays your own journey towards God.
paul
Government Is Not a Business
In the interest of full disclosure, I do not believe Donald Trump would be a good President.
With that being said, that does not mean I will vote for Hillary. I believe it goes without saying that Hillary Clinton should at most be doing time in prison or at the very least be disqualified as a presidential candidate. However…
In the interest of full disclosure, I believe Trump is just as dangerous as Hillary.
In fact, he may be even more so. At least with Hillary we know what we’re getting. But my own observations have led me to conclude that Trump is a pretender; someone who presents himself to be something he’s not. The Trojan Horse comes to mind (and history shows us just how well that worked out for Troy).
Nevertheless, I know that there are plenty of people who consider themselves “conservatives” who think that Trump is the answer to our nation’s woes. My aim here is not to convince those people otherwise (although by the end of this article you might be). One factor that people often point to with regard to Trump is this notion that he is a successful businessman. The merits of such a statement are subject to speculation, especially when one considers Trump’s four bankruptcies, his pending litigation with regard to Trump University, his failed business ventures like Trump Steaks, and the fact that he refuses to open his tax records for public scrutiny. But the topic I would like for you to consider is the question of, does being a successful businessman mean you will be a successful President? Or asked another way, should you run a government like you run a business? (Please notice I said “should” and not “can”)
As a small business owner, I am often amazed by the assumptions most people have when it comes to private business. Probably the greatest fallacy that people have is this idea that a business, any business, exists for the sole purpose of providing them (the consumer) with something they need or want. While this is ultimately an end result of business, it is only a secondary purpose at best.
You must first understand that a business is an independent entity. It exists for the sole purpose of providing for the needs and desires of the OWNER, who is also an independent entity. The reason most people don’t get this is because most of us have been conditioned to think that selfishness is evil. But that is not the case. Believe it or not, the Bible even presents selfishness in a positive manner.
“… Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” ~ Matthew 22:39
“For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” ~ Galatians 5:14
“For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it…” ~ Ephesians 5:29
You will notice that the Bible doesn’t tell us to love ourselves LESS than others. It tells us to love others AS MUCH AS we love ourselves. Loving oneself is intrinsic to who we are as individuals. It is not evil to love oneself. It is in fact a necessary part of survival and self-preservation. We are wired in such a way to instinctively seek out those things that will help further our own existence. Ayn Rand called this the “virtue of selfishness”.
In the quest for furthering one’s existence, some people will discover that they are particularly adept at some skill and will then use that skill to produce those things they need to sustain life; farming, building, making clothes, etc. Those who are especially adept discover that they end up with a surplus of production. Rather than letting the surplus go to waste, they seek out others who may have a surplus of their own production – something they the deem necessary for their own existence – and enter into a fair exchange with another individual, value for value. Trade is nothing more than two individuals, each with a surplus of production, entering into a fair exchange of value. And thus, a business enterprise is born.
So you see, any individual engaging in a business venture is doing so in order to meet his own perceived needs. Therefore, those things produced by a business are a product of the business owner; the individual. A business therefore is a representation of the individual; his “self”. It belongs to him because he produced it. And so, because it belongs to him, it is up to the business owner and him alone to decide how to dispose of it, according to that which will best help him to further his means of sustaining his own existence.
A mutual exchange of value for value is the key to every inter-personal relationship throughout the course of our lives. And it is up to each individual to determine what constitutes “fair and equitable”, and if one party does not consider the exchange to be fair, then he is under no obligation to engage in it.
This mutual exchange extends to employees. When the means of production have become too overwhelming for the business owner to handle by himself, rather than reduce production, he may deem it desirable to hire a labor force to expedite production. This brings up another false assumption that people have about business – that businesses exist to create jobs. My response to this is a resounding NO! Businesses are not in the business of producing jobs, they are in the business of production for the benefit of the business owner alone! But when labor becomes necessary to the success of the owner in achieving his ends, he determines wages based on what he decides to be the value of the TASK, NOT the value of the worker. A potential worker can then decide if he wishes to engage in such an exchange (his labor for agreed-upon wages). But it is important to note that neither party compels the other to engage in an exchange that is not deemed mutually beneficial by both.
Because the business owner is motivated by moral self-interest, any power he has is self-appointed. In other words, he can take whatever steps necessary to achieve his ends, which is rooted in furthering his own existence. The only restraint to his power is another self-actualizing individual. His power ends where another begins. His power cannot violate another individual from furthering his existence. One “self” cannot violate another “self”.
From a certain aspect, the individual/business is much like a tyrant. He makes the rules to benefit himself. He has the liberty to dispose of his resources as he sees fit because he is the owner of them (yes, even labor because remember that labor has been “purchased” in exchanged for something of value that has been mutually agreed upon) because he produced them. They are a representation of “self”. He is free to take whatever action he thinks is necessary to achieve his ends of furthering his ability to exist. But such tyranny and pragmatism is tempered by the morality of mutual exchange of value.
These same characteristics apply even if the business is a corporation. While a corporation is in reality a “collective” that consists of a CEO, board of directors, and shareholders, it is technically considered to be a individual entity, much like a “body” is made up of individual “parts” that function as a whole. Therefore, the same truisms that apply to an individual business owner also hold true for a corporation.
But a government (and for argument’s sake, let us assume the U.S. federal government as prescribed by the Constitution) is not a business. A government does not exist for the benefit of itself. A government exists to secure and preserve the RIGHTS of the individual. The “Founding Fathers” understood this when they penned these words in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”
If there can be said to be any moral justification for government, it is here. We acknowledge that the rights of the individual are endowed to them by virtue of them being individual “self”. That “self” has the right to seek out those things which further its own existence. That government is practical in helping to ensure that such rights are not violated.
So first and foremost, government is not a business because government is not a “self”. If anything, it is a collective appointed by many “selfs” for the express benefit of those “selfs”. Said another way, government is not self-actualizing and it does not exist to serve its own interest, it exists for the express purpose of serving another.
And this brings us to another point, that government only exists by consent. It cannot wield any power without that power first being loaned to it by the consent of those of whom it is to govern. A business needs no consent to exist or wield power any more than an individual needs consent to exercise his power to live. Without consent, however, ANY government is immoral because it presumes to usurp for itself that which does not belong to it.
A third point to consider is that government produces nothing. Let me say that again. Government is a producer of nothing! For government to be a producer it would have to have something of value to offer as a representation “self”, and we have already established that government is not a “self”. And since it is not a “self” and produces nothing, it has nothing to offer in an exchange of value. Unless of course it first confiscates what someone else has produced. Before government can “give” you anything it must first take it from someone else, most often by force. This is the definition of theft.
For these very reasons, by definition and by the proper and moral usage of government, government MUST NOT be run like a business. Any government that attempts to run as such ultimately ends up tyrannical and becomes destructive of the rights of the individual.
Therefore, since government is not a business, the notion that someone would make a good president because he was a good businessman should not even be offered for consideration. I would submit that our federal government has been already been operating like a business (granted, a poorly run business) for far too long. It has been operating for the benefit of itself and those in its collective body instead of operating for the purpose of securing individual rights. Government does not need a different CEO, it needs to operate within the constraints placed upon it by consent of the governed as enumerated by the Constitution.
Is Donald Trump a good businessman? Perhaps. How does he function as a businessman? He spends other people’s money (investors) and then goes bankrupt leaving those investors out to dry. He engages in business ventures that lure in consumers with bait-and-switch tactics. He oversteps the bounds of law in order to achieve his own desired benefit for his business at the expense of others. He uses power, money, and influence to coerce others to do what he wants. Could not the same be said of Hillary? Trump claims he is not a politician, but haven’t politicians engaged in these very same behaviors for decades?
In the end, the argument doesn’t come down to Hillary vs. Trump or whether or not you think Trump is a good businessman or whether or not you think he’s a politician. The argument is first and foremost about the proper role and use of government. The argument is about finding a leader who will be willing to operate under constraint.
Andy
The Oligarchy White Paper – Read All About It!
PPT is excited to announce a new member to the team, Sean Williams, who has accepted the significant assignment of defining and illustrating religious and political oligarchy at our new sister blog called The Oligarchy White Paper.
Sean brings to the table a different perspective and a passion for exposing the truth about the systems which create positions of power in society. He will shed light on aspects of the government that control virtually every facet of our lives to the hierarchy of religious organizations and churches who attempt to do the same. We invite readers to start the journey with us as he begins a series with an article entitled Oligarchy 101.
Welcome aboard, Sean!
Putinanity, Cuba, Bill 1062, and Why Christians Need to Shut Up
Originally posted February 27, 2014
I won’t go completely postal on my fellow Christians because I too once believed that it would be just wonderful if Jerry Falwell was President of the United States. And as a Christian, I have never been interested in Mike Huckabee being President because the world is a dangerous place and the last thing we need is some cornball from Mayberry RFD as leader of the free world.
Let us remember that Jesus could have run for President of the world, and would have won hands down, and could have summoned Michael the archangel to pay the world a little visit if people didn’t like it, but He didn’t. This should cause us to take part in a lost art, especially among Christians, known as “pondering.”
Christians, in our culture, speak out on a lot of things because they are free to do so. America is an open society to everyone. This is not to be confused with democracies that are democratically run by the elitists only. That’s a democratic caste system. In a truly open society, people are free to speak openly whether informed or uninformed. Unfortunately, Christians have cornered the market on uninformed free speech. Worse yet, it’s speech predicated on misinformation concerning what we are supposed to be experts at: the Bible.
As director of the TANC research institute, three years has taught me this: Christians don’t even understand the gospel, much less complicated world affairs. Yet, within Christianity, there is endless debate about various and sundry issues complimented by Scripture stacking along with an absurd claim of societal moral authority. Look, when people in our society have problems, they go to a psychologist or tune into Dr. Phil, and if they go to a pastor for anything more than instruction on what color of car to buy (we wouldn’t want a color symbolic of something we were unaware of), he is going to send you to a psychologist anyway.
This is why being a Christian in America right now is very exciting to me because it’s an adventure, and adventures are always fun when you partake with other people and you experience that adventure together. What is the adventure? We Christians don’t know anything; it’s an adventure of learning. I know, I know, listening to what others want us to know and pulling the rest from where the sun doesn’t shine is much easier, but the results are most unfortunate.
For instance, our research indicates that the VAST majority of Christians do not know the difference between grammatical interpretation versus redemptive interpretation of the Scriptures. These are the only two approaches to interpreting the Bible in Evangelical circles, and yield antithetical results in regard to truth and reality itself. But yet, Christians who do not even know how their own pastors interpret reality are shamelessly weighing in on what they perceive as the exclusive property of Christians: morality.
Why? Because our world is divided between Christians and non-Christians, the former being the only authority on morality. It’s ok to argue about morality in-camp—that’s our way of better defining our “expertise” to the world, and the absurdity of it all is evident. The challenge for Christians is to do life better than the world, but we think we hold that position by default; not so, that is a position earned through wisdom.
Hence, most American Christians think the separation of church and state is to protect the church from the state. State bad; Christianity good. Therefore, if the state is influenced by Christianity, that’s good! This has led to the recent phenomenon of Putinanity, a new form of Christianity:
“Gee-wiz, look, even Vladimir Putin of Russia is reaching out to the Eastern Orthodox Church in his country. I wish our politicians had that much sense!”
And Christians breathe a little easier in regard to Russia accordingly; they think this is like Putin agreeing to do lunch with Joni Eareckson Tada every Monday at noon. What Christians don’t understand is that the separation of church and state was designed to keep the state and the church separate from each other for the protection and freedom of mankind in general.
Church historian John Immel has a superb article on Putinanity that every Christian should read before they weigh in on Facebook. No, Russia is not seizing the international moral high ground from the US because Putin is getting in bed with the church, in fact, as Immel points out in the article, this should send cold chills up and down our spines. Immel lays out the historical background leading up to this contemporary happening that is not an anomaly by any stretch of the informed imagination.
And this is a by-point worth mentioning: Christians do not ask why any event takes place as if events take place in a vacuum. It’s ALWAYS the what, not the why. Example: endless articles concerning confusion over what pastor John Piper does. Some have even suggested that he does these things to get attention. No, if you really understand Piper by following the philosophical paper trail, you know that there is a why for everything he does, and the why may be closer to Putinanity than you think.
Neither is it far from the reality that mass death is always preceded by a promise of paradise. In the same way that a US delegation returned state side and proclaimed Cuba a socialist paradise, Jim Jones promised the same thing until the day 900 of his followers drank from the community Kool-Aid vat. Those who flew from the US to join Jones’ community in Guyana and lived to tell about it, state that they knew they were in big trouble the second they drove through the front gates. Jones was strongly endorsed by Governor Jerry Brown as Jones was part of the San Francisco socialist political machine. In regard to the recent Cuban adoring US delegation, they were called on the carpet by Marco Rubio.
If Christians knew their Bibles better, they would know that God ordained governments to serve mankind for the good of mankind. Government is a servant, not the enforcer of every Christian moralist idea that comes down the pike. The framers of the American Constitution never cited Romans 13 once, but were in agreement with it. Know also that God writes the works of His law on the heart of EVERY person born into the world, and their consciences either accuse or excuse based on that law ( Rom 2:12-15). If Christians aren’t careful, the world can often understand that law better than we do, and that is all too often the case.
This brings me to Arizona bill 1062, and another unfortunate example. Christians weigh in like this: Christian photographers good; homosexuals bad. Government enforcing the right for Christian photographers to refuse to do a homosexual marriage—good, and Putin says, “amen my brothers.” In many countries around the world, homosexuality is a capital offence as well as adultery, and for that matter, my granddaughter would have been put to death in Calvin’s Geneva for throwing a snowball at a pastor’s wife, especially since the offence took place in the sanctuary to boot.
Let me just narrow this issue down to my own family. I am close to family members who are homosexual. We get along great regardless of the fact that they know where I stand. How do they know? They tried to convince me that the Bible condoned it, and that was a conversation initiated by them. I stated my case in no uncertain terms. We get along great because the sensibilities of both parties are respected as a matter of conscience. This is very similar to how Christians who disagree should relate in regard to Romans 14. Sure, the Bible is specific revelation, and conscience is more general, but the latter is why we can live at peace with all men as much as it depends on us.
In fact, NFL players coming out of the closet, which is totally unnecessary, are in one sense demanding the approval of others for their own selfish reasons. Government shouldn’t enforce their supposed right to violate the sensibilities of others by forcing an employer to hire them anymore than Christians should want the Government in people’s bedrooms. So where do you draw the line? Conscience. Most people agree that pedophilia should be against the law, and so it is.
Admittedly, these are VERY difficult questions, but they should be considered by Christians via pondering and not pandering to the dictates of pastors frothing at the mouth while beating their pulpits on Sunday morning. That’s just plain ignorance.
All in all, this post is designed to provoke thought, but there is one place that I can drive a stake: contemporary Christianity is the product of the mindless following of tradition. I believe Bible wisdom is a wide-open frontier in this country. Granted, it is an old frontier, but mostly unchartered by Western bobbleheaded Christians.
Until that changes, we should keep our arrogant despotic mouths shut. Ignorance will not save people from the judgment to come. God does not entrust eternal matters to stupidity.
paul
Politics and Religion Have the Same Soul
Originally posted September 27, 2012
When I didn’t know any better as a Christian, I was indifferent to politics because it made no sense to me. My problem was the following: I was always focused on outcomes. It never made any sense to me that regardless of outcomes, people would vote the same ideologues into office time and time again. In my frustration I would think, “Politics is a waste of time because people are stupid. Regardless of outcomes, they vote these same people into office time and time again.” This made absolutely no sense to me.
Until recently, church never made any sense to me either. Consider this picture: vast institutions pregnant with ultra-educated people coming up with ideas that plainly contrast Scripture. Again, regardless of the poor outcomes, the SYSTEM remains intact. The system seems to offer a devil that we know, and have become comfortable with, as opposed to a devil that we don’t know.
If you think about it, what is the difference between contemporary Christianity and the slave caste system of the Civil War era? To stand up against injustice is really the same thing as challenging the system. Action is stalled because people hope that the system will change (good luck with that)—that’s easy, changing the system is hard. However, we will fight harder to not change the system, as opposed to changing the system because it’s what we know. Hence, the system takes precedent over God’s justice and is protected by political spin dressed in biblical garb.
But people aren’t stupid, they just prefer whatever the normal is for the day—especially if they aren’t the ones being tied between two horses running in opposite directions. Pathetic, but it is what it is. And both politics and religion are kept alive by the same heart in this regard; the epic question of, “Who owns man?” Ownership is the soul of politics and religion.
Since the day that the framers of the American Constitution posed this question and answered it with the resolve of “Give me liberty or give me death,” be sure of this: the question of who owns man is the soul of American politics and always will be. Whether the American public realizes it or not, those who vote for Obama think government owns man. People who vote for Romney (albeit not their preferred choice) believe that we own ourselves, and are responsible to no other than God for the sum and substance of our life.
That’s the crux, until the day that the former wins the day—then politics will not be necessary because everything is decided in regard to the arena of ideas—there won’t be any arena—the government decides what a good idea is, and what it isn’t.
And religion is no different. That’s because the American framers of the Constitution were home wreckers. They caused the divorce between the European marriage of church and state. In Europe prior to the Enlightenment era that gave birth to the framers; as it was in the government, so it was in the church. There was no arena of ideas save the think tanks that devised efficient machines to eliminate free thinkers with as much pain as possible. Never before in human history has more science been poured into the technology of death machines than in Medieval Europe. And as part of the totally depraved masses, suggesting ideas privately or otherwise was extremely hazardous to one’s health.
It was a very efficient marriage. The church came up with the ideas and controlled them, and the government enforced the churches’ ideas. But there was a problem. The problem can be seen in one Bible verse among God’s full philosophical statement to man regarding truth: “Come, let us reason together saith the Lord.”
Reason. Even God presents His truth in an arena for man’s hearing. In the book of Job, we even find God challenging Satan in that arena. Like no other creatures, we are the ones called to reason—it is how we are wired by God. The results of shutting down man’s ability to think are abundantly evident from European history. Man is created to think. A man who is not allowed to think is exactly like a fish out of water. Eventually, he will start flopping around.
The framers understood this. They knew that any attempt by government to control ideas would only result in a repeat of European history. They also knew that religion is the fundamental gene pool in that regard. But systems die hard. Regardless of the eight-hundred-year European raging fire that could not be extinguished with blood, European religious tyrants who came to setup shop in America could only propagate their system in the government protected American-made arena of ideas.
The divorced couple must play by American rules thus far. In the American political system, it’s communism/socialism. In the religious realm, it’s European Reformed theology. The fight between the Europeans and the yanks continues in the arena of ideas instead of the battlefield. But be also certain of this: every drop of blood spilled in human history has been over ideas. The American framers of the Constitution, for the first time in history, invented a caste system that could implement ethics through politics without blood. Preferable in my book. And I am allowed to say so.
The soul of politics and religion is therefore the same. Who owns man? What could be more obvious? Does government own man? Or does man own man? It could be rightfully argued that God owns man, but even he says, “Come, let us reason together” while the European Reformer Martin Luther called reason a “whore” who should have “dung rubbed in her face to make her ugly.” The separated spouse, government, thinks they know best as well. Thinking, ideas, and reason, in the hands of the masses are supposedly the same as handing an eight-year-old a loaded gun as a play toy. And in the American arena of ideas, many are convinced that this is true.
Now you know the heart of the election that is now upon us. Obama has clearly stated that it is common sense that man exists for the government, and doesn’t build anything: “I hear business owners say, ‘I built this or that.’ You didn’t build that.” And obviously, the idea that led to the building project had nothing to do with it as well. The contrast can be pointed out in a recent speech by Romney at the Dayton, Ohio International airport in which he said that FREEDOM of IDEAS are critical to the overall American economy and wellbeing. It is also reflected in his recent bemoaning that 47% of Americans are dependent on the government and will not vote for him. Right. Exactly. That’s the crux: who owns man? And is he created to reason and think? And is it ok with God when man’s ideas produce positive outcomes?
What is at stake in this election? You only need to look at the government’s estranged spouse—the church. For the most part, European Reformed theology has won out in the arena of ideas. The caste system formed by the Westminster Confession and rabid Puritans has been embraced willingly by those convinced that the church owns them. Sure, there is rape. Sure, there is the denial of ideas. Sure, there is injustice. Sure, there are no other answers but “the gospel.” Sure, we are still totally depraved and helpless. Sure, church is boring. Sure, the church is full of mindless followers. But what else is there? If not for the system, then what? If not for the system of Reformed “orthodoxy” enforced by church “polity” and executed by various and sundry unpleasantries that replaced the burning stake forbidden by our American forefathers, then what?
Ownership by government always leads to the same thing. Always. There are no exceptions. Regardless of outcomes, many American voters who like to be owned by their religion will also vote to be owned by the state. I also wonder how much this might be connected to the whole issue of culpability before God. After all, if we are unable to think for ourselves, and our ideas are dangerous to our own wellbeing, how can God hold us responsible? This provokes one to think of Nazi Germany and that people’s refrain, “The government made us do it.”
“One thing we don’t discuss in mixed company is politics and religion.” Right, because there is no doubt; that divorced couple is a volatile subject, especially when the two are poligion. We do know the devil of poligion, but change is hard and inconvenient. Luther suggested that reason be consigned to the “closets of the house” and we have obeyed. And whatever you do, don’t look in the closet—the monster of history is in there.
Nevertheless, when you pull the lever in November, the question isn’t, “Romney or Obama?” The real question is the soul of politics and religion: “Who owns you?”
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
12 comments