Unless and Until

After being away for nine days on a vacation that included no media access (deliberately!), I came home to what may well be the top news story of this summer – Charlottesville. Groups from the alt-X side of politics clashed on the streets. This was followed by the real battle – the attempt by the media and the political establishment to shut down any voice not their own in discussing what had happened.

Trying to get the facts is almost impossible. Who initiated the use of force? In a riot of that size, how many arrests were made? Judging from what is not being said, it seems fairly clear that the alt-left groups most likely started it, but who knows for sure.

One thing is certain however. The idea of Left and Right is woefully inadequate to define today’s political scene. The neo-Nazis were on the “Right” supposedly, but many pundits claim the “Left” groups are funded directly by a man who was himself a literal Nazi (albeit a young one.) More telling, the Left groups are clearly socialist (or communist, if we use the definition of communism being “socialism in a hurry!”) in orientation, but few remember that Nazi stood for National Socialist German Workers Party. In short, if anything of the media’s narrative is to be believed at all, the affair was an intra-family fight. A fight between brothers, over who gets to shear the sheep.

Neither side believed in freedom. Neither side believed in justice. Neither side believed in equality. Love for others was sorely lacking on both sides. If freedom, justice and equality was wanted, there is an ideal that has led the way (irregardless of bumps along that way) throughout history. It is found in the life of the man whose biography is found in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Unfortunately, his words were considered anathema by both groups in Charlottesville. But if history shows anything, it shows that the rejection of that ideal will definitely not end in long-term peaceful community between folks of different views.

P.S. Isn’t it ironic that the man most associated with Charlottesville claimed to esteem the central figure of the gospels, but openly admitted to picking and choosing what parts of that figure’s teachings he believed! Can’t help but wonder – if Jefferson were alive today – would he see the connection between his remaking of Jesus in his own (Jefferson’s) image, and the tragedy that unfolded almost within sight of his home?

Means yield ends

On the face of things, it appears that few things are harder to understand in the ethical realm than the idea that the means chosen determine the end achieved. Only means consistent with the end goal will bring success.

Most people realize this and live it out on a direct, practical level. But when it gets beyond the immediate, practical events, then people seem to forget the principle. Most people realize, on a personal level, that cooperation leads to a better life than conflict does. Yet expand the idea to a social level, and suddenly many people believe that using force against [taking money from] their neighbor is the proper way to achieve the goal they desire. If you doubt that, just substitute the usual method of using force – taxation – in the sentence: many people believe that taxing their neighbor is the proper way to achieve the goal (improve their child’s education, e.g.) they desire. How many people do you know that would disagree with that?

It’s been noted by many scholars that socialism is an attempt to achieve liberal ends by conservative means. The liberal ends are peace, prosperity, happy life, etc. The means chosen by socialists are increased use of force (taxation), restrictions on people’s activities to achieve their goals (regulations), playing favorites (subsidies), etc. It should be no surprise to anyone when the socialist’s policies yield an end state of hatred, class warfare, and a deterioration of prosperity. It’s no surprise because that is the resultant end state created by the means chosen, i.e. taxation, regulations and subsidiaries yield hatred, class warfare, poverty when their implications are worked out. Happens every time.

Liberalism (liberalism as in the beliefs of John Locke, the Founding Fathers, etc.) itself suffered from a similar problem. Liberalism borrowed the end state promised by Christianity – peace, prosperity, happiness – but hoped to achieve it using only some of the means Christianity asserted as necessary. In short, they aimed at Christian goals by secular means. In Christian political theory, the end state of peace, prosperity and happiness was the result of God’s blessing, itself a result of people living the justice and righteousness demanded by God. Liberalism expected peace, prosperity, and happiness while living a life of greed, envy and lust. It didn’t work either.

With centuries of historical experience to observe, you’d think people would understand better. Only means based on a consistent Christian worldview will achieve results pleasing to God and truly helpful to our fellow man. And yet, so often I hear people recommending the use of anti-Christian means, hoping to achieve a Christian goal. Or the use of forceful means to achieve a freedom goal. It ain’t going to work, folks!

Bad Rights Drive Out Good

I was listening to a webinar today discussing the legal ramifications to churches of the social changes going on around us. Specifically, the company putting on the review kept referencing the issues as a conflict between the first and fourteenth amendments — freedom of religion versus equally applied rights.

But that’s not the basic problem. A true “Right” is a negative constraint on government, protecting a person’s allowance to take an action. That’s how it developed, what our Founding Fathers wrote in to the Constitution, and what was understood for many years. But then the Left, in its glorification of the State, and its quest to remove all constraints from government, changed the definition (gradually) to “Right” being an entitlement granted by the state to select group(s) of people against other groups.

True Rights do not contradict each other, nor are they in conflict with each other. They allow my action but put no obligation on another person. The New Rights are different. As an entitlement, they require others to enable my action. Almost by definition, the New Rights suddenly stood in conflict with the True Rights. Under True Rights, interaction between two people can be a win-win situation; cooperation allows both to advance their interests without conflict. Under New Rights, the basic paradigm of interaction is win-lose. As an entitlement, the New Right requires others to provide the wherewithal to enable my New Right without any advancement of their interests while doing so.

This is not a newly-discovered problem, of course. It has been discussed for the last century or so. Perhaps one of the best discussions has been by the British historian Paul Johnson in his series of lectures entitled “The Almost Chosen People.” In lecture three, he points out that the two concepts of rights are incompatible, and that the New Rights (my term, not his) will destroy the True Rights if not checked. By changing the essence within the form, (i.e. changing the definition within the legal wording,) True Rights can no longer be supported, and their destruction will follow.

The Left has almost succeeded in that destruction.

Johnson Amendment Repeal

President Trump is promising to, finally, get rid of the Johnson Amendment. This amendment – an example of how politicians use the force of government to silence and crush their enemies – forbids 501(c)3 organizations, such as churches and many non-profits, from campaigning for or against a political candidate. The penalty for doing so is the loss of the organization’s tax status. It is an egregious display of raw political power and a total violation of the First Amendment.

However, there’s probably not a pastor alive who plans to use his church parishioners as a political machine to sway elections. I’m sure that, for the most part, the reason few pastors even speak to “political” issues has little to do with the Johnson Amendment and the IRS. While many would say that the Bible holds the answer to all our problems, few believe it enough to explore what the Bible says about politics and political issues beyond a few life-style concerns.

This is symptomatic of a cancer at the heart of today’s Christendom. The Pietistic Movement has totally convinced many of America’s Christians that the Bible does not speak to social issues, only to individual issues. That’s why one article I read on this issue claims that almost half of America’s Christians don’t want the pastor to speak on political and social issues. They are comfortable where they’re at, and don’t want anyone, even God, to disturb them.

I hope the repeal passes. It is an encumbrance on speech that should not occur in a “free” country. However, I doubt repeal will change much by itself. From what I can see, most parishioners hold the pastor’s advice in low regard anyway. The morning sermon should give a warm, fuzzy feeling, not advise us on how to live, is a common thought.

Oh my! Maybe it’s time to adopt Wesley’s idea of living a life of piety without adopting the constraints of pietism.