Posted on 07/08/2005 8:29:57 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
Over the last few years, theres been increasing political and cultural pressure to keep Christian influence out of public affairs. Weve seen it in restrictions on prayer at public events, on posting of the Ten Commandments and the recent Supreme Court case. We see it when politicians or the media describe evangelical Christians as bigots.
One of my greatest worries is that the Church will oblige the secularists by retreating into our safe sanctuaries. Ive had religious leaders tell me that all we need to do is lead people to Christ and keep them in our churches, and thats the end of our biblical responsibility. Nonsense.
This is a profoundly dangerous point of view because it would undermine the balance between church and state that is vital for the protection and the rights of all citizens.
We live in a democracy, remember, where the will of the majority is enacted into law. Most people believe that this is the best way to guarantee freedom and to promote the common welfare. And democracy has been hugely successful in the American experiment.
But our founders recognized that unrestrained democracy can lead to a tyranny of the majority. Lets say that the majority believes that its fine to kill people who are designated by doctors as within their last six months of life. Whats to stop them?
The Constitution? Weve seen how judges reinterpret the Constitution, and how the so-called right to die is increasingly being recognized in public policy. Its a short step from a right to die to an obligation to die.
The point, you see, is that there must be restraints on democracy. Thats why our founders described the American founding as an experiment in ordered liberty. That is, order must be maintained for freedom to be enjoyed by everyone. Thats why our founders relied on a prevailing consensus that there was an absolute moral law. Some people thought it came from the Enlightenment, but most recognized it as our biblical heritage.
You may have heard the Church described as the conscience of society. It is the only institution that can provide a moral restraint against the excesses of a tyrannical regime. Therefore, it is essential to preserving human freedom. Our government, whenever it passes laws, makes moral judgments. But it is in no position to enforce a moral code in todays highly pluralistic environment.
Thats why a strong, vibrant Church is requirednot necessary just so you and I can exercise our religious freedom, but so that we can be an influence for the common good in society. In a way, this is Gods gift for the freedom and welfare of all people.
William Wilberforce, the man for whom our Wilberforce Forum is named, wrote that God had laid before him two great objectives: the abolition of the slave trade and the reformation of manners. He knew that both were needed. And our founders, men and women of the same era, understood this as well. The events of July 4, 1776, that we celebrate today began the experiment to see if this balance could be preserved.
This is why the Church today must take its stand: be the Church, with all that means. We ought to be explaining, as well, to our secular neighbors that they dont have anything to fear from the much-maligned Religious Right. Rather they should welcome Christian influence for the common good of all and the preservation of freedom.
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Unfortunately, this is precisely what we did and the secularists trooped right in behind us through the unlocked doors. Already sermons are under attack by those would call the followers of Christ intolerant. The secularists are attempting to lock us in to keep us from speaking out. It messes up their world - a world in which every man is his own god.
What I have read and understood from the Bible is that God and Jesus wants us to help each other by using our own time, treasure and talent and to give from our hearts. Nowhere have I found anything along the lines of "Go out and institute huge bureaucracies that will take money from some people at the point of a sword and give that money to other people as a politician sees fit."
Our Founding Fathers were Christian and very pious men. They founded this country under strong Judeo-Christian tenets and reflected on their religious beliefs on all their decisions. They wrote nothing into the Constitution of any type of government "aid" to help the poor, children or anyone else on purpose. They wanted a very limited government for good reason. Limited government is the best way to ensure that freedom will be preserved. The Scottish philosopher Alexander Tytler, who lived during the time of the American Revolution and writing of the US Constitution, summed these views:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure.
From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years.
These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."
There are many interesting questions if citizens rely on government to do "God's Work."
If a government takes a portion of a man's wages and does good with it, has the man also done good? If a government takes away a portion of a woman's property and does evil with it, has the woman also done evil? When a rich man pays more in taxes than a poor person, is he more Godly? If the government then does evil, is he more to blame? A woman works for the government and uses other people's tax money and does "God Work" with it, is this government woman now a good/Godly woman? If I legally try to avoid paying taxes, does that not make me an "Ungodly" man?
Today, the US government (federal, state and local) takes nearly 50% of a middle-class person's paycheck after all taxes are factored in (income taxes, Social Security, sales tax, real estate taxes, gas tax, death taxes, phone taxes, highway tolls, sad etc.). Uncle Sam will spend more money in just this year (2004) than it spent combined between 1787 and 1900 - even after adjusting for inflation. I cringe at those numbers. The Founding Fathers wanted nothing like the tax-consuming monster that we have as a government today. I also think of all the good work that could have be done if people were allowed to keep more of their own money and give it to organizations/people that they believe in their heart are doing God's work. Maybe it comes down to trust. Will people do the right thing with their own money or must a government take a huge chunk of it to do the "right things?"
Except government rarely does anything right except for those tasks that were explicitly outlined in the Constitution as the Founding Father intended. I could cite many examples (such as where would you rather put $10,000 in retirement money - in Social Security or in your own 401k plan?) but the plight of black America illustrates this failure beyond comparison.
In 1965, the US government was going to wipe out poverty by the "Great Society" programs, in which to date over 3.5 trillion dollars has been spent. These federal programs were designed to "help families and children" or "buy votes" depending on your political viewpoint.
At the beginning of the 1960's, the black out of wedlock birth rate was 22%. In the late 1975 it reached 49% and shot up to 65% in 1989. In some of the largest urban centers of the nation the rate of illegitimacy among blacks today exceeds 80% and averages 69% nationwide. As late as the 1970's there was still a social stigma attached to a woman who was pregnant outside marriage. Now, government programs have substituted for the father and for black moral leadership. The black family and culture has collapsed (and white families are not that far behind).
Illegitimacy leads directly to poverty, crime and social problems. Out of wedlock children are four times more likely to be poor. They are much more likely to live in high crime areas with no hope of escape. In turn, they are forced to attend dangerous and poor-performing government schools, which directly leads to another generation of poverty.
Traditional black areas of Harlem, Englewood and West Philadelphia in the 1950s were safe working class neighborhoods (even though "poor" by material measures). Women were unafraid to walk at night and children played unmolested in the streets and parks. Today, these are some of the worst crime plagued areas of our nation. Work that was once dignified is now shunned. Welfare does not require recipients to do anything in exchange for their benefits. Many rules actually discourage work or provide benefits that reduce the incentive to find work.
The black abortion rate today is nearly 40%. Pregnancies among black women are twice as likely to end in abortion as pregnancies among white and Hispanic women.
The "Great Society" programs all had good intentions. Unfortunately, their real world results are that they have replaced the traditional/Christian models of family/work with that of what a government bureaucrat thinks it should be.
I could make an excellent argument that if the US government had hired former grand wizards of the KKK to run the "Great Society" programs, and if they had worked every day from 1965 to today without rest, they could have hardly have done better in destroying black America than the "Works of God" that the government has done or is trying to do.
I have visited many countries in which the government "guarantees" that everyone has a job, a place to live, education, health care and cradle to grave "government help" for all children and families. It all sounds great except that the people in these countries are/were miserable. They wanted to escape but were forced by their governments, at the end of a gun, to stay. The "worker's paradises" of socialist and communist counties are chilling reminders of letting governments do "God's Work."
The Bible clearly states that we are to help those in need. The question is "Who should help those in need?" I firmly believe that scripture and the historical evidence strongly support that individuals, private organizations and churches should be the ones doing the heavy lifting. Government help should be the last resort.
Very Sincerely,
2banana
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.