Tag Archives: politics

Analysis of the Decision in 303 Creative

11 Wednesday Aug 2021

Posted by in first amendment, law

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

The decision of the 10th Circuit in 303 Creative LLC, et al. v. Elenis, et al. is a remarkable decision for its rejection what should be undisputed constitutional principles. As Ed Whelan wrote in Bonkers Tenth Circuit Ruling Against Free Speech, “It is difficult to imagine a ruling more hostile to free speech.”  The case involved a Christian web developer who said she was unwilling to make a webpage which celebrated a same-sex wedding.

This was not the case of someone who refused to serve a gay customer. The designer specifically stated that it was not the identity of the customer but the content of the message which was the issue: “303 Creative is a for-profit, graphic and website design company; Ms. Smith is its founder and sole member-owner. Appellants are willing to work with all people regardless of sexual orientation. Appellants are also generally willing to create graphics or websites for lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (“LGBT”) customers. Ms. Smith sincerely believes, however, that same-sex marriage conflicts with God’s will.”

The court found that the creation of the website was “speech,” “Appellants’ creation of wedding websites is pure speech.” This is important because in cases such those involving a baker or a florist, there was an issue as to whether the work itself (decorating a cake, arranging flowers) constitutes speech for purposes of the First Amendment. Thus, the speech clause of the First Amendment was unquestionably in play.

Second, the court found that speech at issue also entailed the plaintiff’s religious convictions,  “Ms. Smith holds a sincere religious belief that prevents her from creating websites that celebrate same-sex marriages.”

Free exercise of religion and freedom of speech are guaranteed in First Amendment. Having found speech and religion, it seems that the plaintiff should have easily prevailed. But here, the court found the government could compel speech (and also religious practice).

The First Amendment prohibits compelled speech. (United States v. United Foods, Inc., 533 U.S. 405, 410 (2001); see, Wooley v. Maynard 430 U.S. 705, 714-15, supra) The act of government compulsion as to speech is always demeaning and always wrong. (Janus v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Emps., Council 31 (2018) 138 S. Ct. 2448, 2464 (2018) [“When speech is compelled, however, additional damage is done. In that situation, individuals are coerced into betraying their convictions. Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable is always demeaning, and for this reason, one of our landmark free speech cases said that a law commanding “involuntary affirmation” of objected-to beliefs would require “even more immediate and urgent grounds” than a law demanding silence. Barnette, supra, at 633, 63 S.Ct. 1178; see also Riley, supra, at 796–797, 108 S.Ct. 2667 (rejecting “deferential test” for compelled speech claims).”])

Since this case involves compelled speech, it seems she should have won, but she did not.

The court found that the law was a content-based restriction on speech, meaning that it prohibited certain speech based upon the content of that speech. With few very narrow exceptions (such as a true threats), content based restrictions are simply struck down.

And yet, the 303 court found the State of Colorado could compel Ms. Smith to publicly approve same sex marriage (or be barred from being a web-designer in the state), “We hold that CADA [the law at issue] satisfies strict scrutiny, and thus permissibly compels Appellants’ speech.” The decision also compels Ms. Smith to contradict her religious beliefs and participate in a religious rite if she wants to conduct any business in Colorado.

How did this happen? How could a court find that the government can compel speech, forbid other speech and compel religious practice as the cost of doing business in the State of Colorado?

First, Ms. Smith’s solo operation had to be designated as a “public accommodation.”  The statute defines a public accommodation as a business which is open to the public, “any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public.” Such a definition runs contrary to the history of the meaning of the phrase “public accommodation.” Public accommodations entail public carriers (like a bus line), public accommodations (like a hotel on the interstate). The concept has a long history in American law and then English common law before that. And it is only recently that solo operators have become “public accommodations.”

But the court did more than turn her into a public accommodation, it actually turned her into a special sort of public accommodation: the monopoly, which by virtue of being a monopoly must be open to the public.

The nature of “public accommodations” and the way in which Ms. Smith became a monopoly will be discussed next.

Risk and Politics

06 Wednesday May 2020

Posted by in Politics, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

Just a thought about risks and costs and politics. It was known that a plague was always going to happen. Such things are unavoidable. Globalization made a rapid dissemination of a disease easy and cheap. But the costs of preparation are great and they have to be paid before the risks exists. Second, there is a tendency for things to never become as bad as they could. And no one wants to looked panicked and over-react. Preppers are roundly mocked for being, well, prepared.

But after the bad thing happens, the people who are injured can all complain about the lack of preparation.

If you’re politician, it makes sense to not prepare. (I’m not saying that it is wise, good, or morally acceptable; only that it makes sense if you’re a politician.)

If you prepare now for a future problem, you are spending current money on a currently non-existent problem. The problem may or may not come to pass in X years. The politician will probably be retired in X-1 years. Therefore, not preparing won’t hurt me.

In the present crisis, very few people are complaining about prior governors or presidents or mayors who failed to prepare. The complaints are directed to the current politicians, who are like the last child standing in musical chairs.

To illustrate this point further, consider this:  The earth’s magnetic field is weakening. The magnetic poles may shift. When this shift takes place, it will cause enormous damage to our economy. People will die. It will cause problems quite beyond the current virus.

There are things which can be done to protect against this event. However, those actions will be extraordinarily expensive.

Since no one knows when the poles will shift, no one knows if the end of the world is close or a 1,000-years away. Thus, this real and unimaginably bad event is not being planned for right now. No country is undertaking the expense to protect against it, because it would be politically impossible to undertake the expense.

Or consider the San Andreas fault in California. There will be a massive earthquake some day — any day. In fact, in California we are constantly living under the threat that at any minute my house might collapse and the infrastructure be torn to pieces. Yet, how many people undertake the minimal steps to prepare?

People get ready every now and then – and then we forget where we put the extra water and our stored can goods go bad. It’s hard to keep up the intensity for some unspecified future event.

It is almost as if we live as if we would live forever.

Kuyper, Common Grace 1.10

09 Monday Dec 2019

Posted by in Abraham Kuyper, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , ,

The prior post in this series may be found here.

In Chapter 10, Kuyper considers the issue of governmental legitimacy. The question of legitimacy is of great importance in the matter of government. If a government is legitimate, then the population willing submits to the government and the government rightfully enacts and enforces law.

Most people never consider the basis for legitimacy; rather, we all just know that a government is legitimate or not. For example, in a monarchy, everyone knows that the child of the sovereign is the next sovereign. In a democracy, everyone knows that the winner of a popularity contest may enact law. In both cases, everyone knows that some random crank who declares himself sovereign – even with an elaborate ceremony – is just a crank and not a king.

Conversely, if everyone in a nation were to suddenly know that the leadership was illegitimate, the government would then be nothing other than bandits and tyrants.

How then does legitimacy come to be?

Kuyper considers and rejects three theories of legitimacy. First there the right of a conqueror. At the beginning, a conqueror’s power maintains as long as he is able to maintain sufficient military might to quell any opposition. However, after some time, the duration of rule itself becomes the legitimatizing basis of rule. The trouble here is moral: we don’t forgive a murderer because he murdered to rob and then was able to hold off anyone who attempted to prosecute him for his murder and robbery. Indeed, such a man would be considered peculiarly evil.

A second theory is the “social contract” model: whereby initially free people contract to form a government which has legitimate power based upon the concession of others. A primary trouble here is that such a claim is based upon a fiction: no such universal contractual decision has ever been undertaken by previously unruled individuals.

A third theory looks to spontaneous ordering: such spontaneous development theories appear more factual than the other theories: but this theory too appears as morally questionable. Kuyper raises two objections: (1) The theory cannot distinguish between a morally good and a morally bad order: cruelty and deceit or heroism and virtue could each lead to an actual government of some sort.

(2) Kuyper explains that such a theory is pantheistic: Rather than government be a determined act of God; authority would be something inherent in all that is. Thus, might would be right, because it is.

Having rejected these alternatives, Kuyper explains that what government does itself must be the result of a gracious act of God: not a peculiar saving grace, such as shown to the elect; but, a “common grace” to order the world in such a manner as to limit the effective scope of sin.

Thus, there is the effectuation of a government and the providential placement of a leader in position. Kuyper then explains the basis of legitimacy: if the leader and the populace both accede that God has created the structure, the structure is and all “are accountable to God for the things they know they have done for or against that authority.” Abraham Kuyper, Common Grace: God’s Gifts for a Fallen World: The Historical Section, ed. Jordan J. Ballor, Melvin Flikkema, and Stephen J. Grabill, trans. Nelson D. Kloosterman and Ed M. van der Maas, vol. 1, Abraham Kuyper Collected Works in Public Theology (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press; Acton Institute, 2015), 95–96.

How then is this authority known? It can only come from God, because humans by nature have authority over nothing. The authority granted in Genesis 1 is granted by God: it is not inherent in the creature. God had the authority to grant or forbid the Adam to eat of trees in the Garden – and the authority over all other actions of Adam.

Not having even the least of authority, we certain have no authority by nature over one-another. Kuyper concedes that some sort of pre-Flood governmental authority must have arisen; but such authority would have existed without divine sanction.

A Note on Christian Politics

05 Saturday Oct 2019

Posted by in Politics, Uncategorized, William Gurnall

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

William Gurnall noting how Paul responded to being imprisoned:

But how doth this great apostle spend his time in prison? Not in publishing invectives against those, though the worst of men, who had laid him in; a piece of zeal which the holy sufferers of those times were little acquainted with: nor in politic councils, how he might wind himself out of his trouble, by sordid flattery of, or sinful compliance with, the great ones of the times. Some would have used any picklock to have opened a passage to their liberty, and not scrupled, so escape they might, whether they got out at the door or window: but this holy man was not so fond of liberty or life, as to purchase them at the least hazard to the gospel.

He knew too much of another world, to bid so high for the enjoying of this; and therefore he is fearless what his enemies can do with him, well knowing he was sure of going to heaven whether they would or not. No, the great care which lay upon him, was for the churches of Christ; as a faithful steward, he labours to set this house of God in order before his departure. We read of no despatches sent to court to procure his liberty; but many to the churches to help them to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made them free.

There is no such way to be even with the devil and his instruments, for all their spite against us, as by doing what good we can wherever we are. The devil had as good have let Paul alone, for he no sooner comes into prison but he falls a preaching, at which the gates of Satan’s prison fly open, and poor sinners come forth. Happy for Onesimus that Paul was sent to gaol; God had an errand for Paul to do to him and others, which the devil never dreamed of.

 William Gurnall and John Campbell, The Christian in Complete Armour (London: Thomas Tegg, 1845), 1.

Gurnall’s observations in The Christian in Complete Armour are echoed by Wang Yi’s statement released by his congregation, after his arrest by the Chinese Government:

My Declaration of Faithful Disobedience

On the basis of the teachings of the Bible and the mission of the gospel, I respect the authorities God has established in China. For God deposes kings and raises up kings. This is why I submit to the historical and institutional arrangements of God in China.

As a pastor of a Christian church, I have my own understanding and views, based on the Bible, about what righteous order and good government is. At the same time, I am filled with anger and disgust at the persecution of the church by this Communist regime, at the wickedness of their depriving people of the freedoms of religion and of conscience. But changing social and political institutions is not the mission I have been called to, and it is not the goal for which God has given his people the gospel.

For all hideous realities, unrighteous politics, and arbitrary laws manifest the cross of Jesus Christ, the only means by which every Chinese person must be saved. They also manifest the fact that true hope and a perfect society will never be found in the transformation of any earthly institution or culture but only in our sins being freely forgiven by Christ and in the hope of eternal life.

As a pastor, my firm belief in the gospel, my teaching, and my rebuking of all evil proceeds from Christ’s command in the gospel and from the unfathomable love of that glorious King. Every man’s life is extremely short, and God fervently commands the church to lead and call any man to repentance who is willing to repent. Christ is eager and willing to forgive all who turn from their sins. This is the goal of all the efforts of the church in China—to testify to the world about our Christ, to testify to the Middle Kingdom about the Kingdom of Heaven, to testify to earthly, momentary lives about heavenly, eternal life. This is also the pastoral calling that I have received.

For this reason, I accept and respect the fact that this Communist regime has been allowed by God to rule temporarily. As the Lord’s servant John Calvin said, wicked rulers are the judgment of God on a wicked people, the goal being to urge God’s people to repent and turn again toward Him. For this reason, I am joyfully willing to submit myself to their enforcement of the law as though submitting to the discipline and training of the Lord.

At the same time, I believe that this Communist regime’s persecution against the church is a greatly wicked, unlawful action. As a pastor of a Christian church, I must denounce this wickedness openly and severely. The calling that I have received requires me to use non-violent methods to disobey those human laws that disobey the Bible and God. My Savior Christ also requires me to joyfully bear all costs for disobeying wicked laws.

But this does not mean that my personal disobedience and the disobedience of the church is in any sense “fighting for rights” or political activism in the form of civil disobedience, because I do not have the intention of changing any institutions or laws of China. As a pastor, the only thing I care about is the disruption of man’s sinful nature by this faithful disobedience and the testimony it bears for the cross of Christ.

As a pastor, my disobedience is one part of the gospel commission. Christ’s great commission requires of us great disobedience. The goal of disobedience is not to change the world but to testify about another world.

For the mission of the church is only to be the church and not to become a part of any secular institution. From a negative perspective, the church must separate itself from the world and keep itself from being institutionalized by the world. From a positive perspective, all acts of the church are attempts to prove to the world the real existence of another world. The Bible teaches us that, in all matters relating to the gospel and human conscience, we must obey God and not men. For this reason, spiritual disobedience and bodily suffering are both ways we testify to another eternal world and to another glorious King.

This is why I am not interested in changing any political or legal institutions in China. I’m not even interested in the question of when the Communist regime’s policies persecuting the church will change. Regardless of which regime I live under now or in the future, as long as the secular government continues to persecute the church, violating human consciences that belong to God alone, I will continue my faithful disobedience. For the entire commission God has given me is to let more Chinese people know through my actions that the hope of humanity and society is only in the redemption of Christ, in the supernatural, gracious sovereignty of God.

If God decides to use the persecution of this Communist regime against the church to help more Chinese people to despair of their futures, to lead them through a wilderness of spiritual disillusionment and through this to make them know Jesus, if through this he continues disciplining and building up his church, then I am joyfully willing to submit to God’s plans, for his plans are always benevolent and good.

Precisely because none of my words and actions are directed toward seeking and hoping for societal and political transformation, I have no fear of any social or political power. For the Bible teaches us that God establishes governmental authorities in order to terrorize evildoers, not to terrorize doers of good. If believers in Jesus do no wrong then they should not be afraid of dark powers. Even though I am often weak, I firmly believe this is the promise of the gospel. It is what I’ve devoted all of my energy to. It is the good news that I am spreading throughout Chinese society.

I also understand that this happens to be the very reason why the Communist regime is filled with fear at a church that is no longer afraid of it.

If I am imprisoned for a long or short period of time, if I can help reduce the authorities’ fear of my faith and of my Savior, I am very joyfully willing to help them in this way. But I know that only when I renounce all the wickedness of this persecution against the church and use peaceful means to disobey, will I truly be able to help the souls of the authorities and law enforcement. I hope God uses me, by means of first losing my personal freedom, to tell those who have deprived me of my personal freedom that there is an authority higher than their authority, and that there is a freedom that they cannot restrain, a freedom that fills the church of the crucified and risen Jesus Christ.

Regardless of what crime the government charges me with, whatever filth they fling at me, as long as this charge is related to my faith, my writings, my comments, and my teachings, it is merely a lie and temptation of demons. I categorically deny it. I will serve my sentence, but I will not serve the law. I will be executed, but I will not plead guilty.

Moreover, I must point out that persecution against the Lord’s church and against all Chinese people who believe in Jesus Christ is the most wicked and the most horrendous evil of Chinese society. This is not only a sin against Christians. It is also a sin against all non-Christians. For the government is brutally and ruthlessly threatening them and hindering them from coming to Jesus. There is no greater wickedness in the world than this.

If this regime is one day overthrown by God, it will be for no other reason than God’s righteous punishment and revenge for this evil. For on earth, there has only ever been a thousand-year church. There has never been a thousand-year government. There is only eternal faith. There is no eternal power.

Those who lock me up will one day be locked up by angels. Those who interrogate me will finally be questioned and judged by Christ.  When I think of this, the Lord fills me with a natural compassion and grief toward those who are attempting to and actively imprisoning me. Pray that the Lord would use me, that he would grant me patience and wisdom, that I might take the gospel to them.

Separate me from my wife and children, ruin my reputation, destroy my life and my family – the authorities are capable of doing all of these things. However, no one in this world can force me to renounce my faith; no one can make me change my life; and no one can raise me from the dead.

And so, respectable officers, stop committing evil. This is not for my benefit but rather for yours and your children’s. I plead earnestly with you to stay your hands, for why should you be willing to pay the price of eternal damnation in hell for the sake of a lowly sinner such as I?

Jesus is the Christ, son of the eternal, living God. He died for sinners and rose to life for us. He is my king and the king of the whole earth yesterday, today, and forever. I am his servant, and I am imprisoned because of this. I will resist in meekness those who resist God, and I will joyfully violate all laws that violate God’s laws.

The Lord’s servant,
Wang Yi

Christians and Political Hope

25 Sunday Aug 2019

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

Another word to describe the error being criticized in the second lesson is utopianism. 76 The inability of the Mosaic covenant and Israel’s geopolitical kingdom to deliver a righteous and just political commmunity should have ended visions of heaven on earth by such means. Not even heavenly inscribed laws, divinely handpicked kings or God’s own temple presence could make a difference. Human nature itself needed changing. How strange then that Christians still approach the promise of new constitutions and presidential campaigns with utopian dreams! 77 Christians should rest their hopes for true justice and righteousness not upon the state but upon the son of David and the political community that he is forming: “My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes” (Ezek 37: 24).

Jonathan Leeman, Political Church

Isaiah on Political Leadership

08 Saturday Sep 2018

Posted by in Isaiah, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

After this week, this seems appropriate comment on politics:

1 Ah, the proud crown of the drunkards of Ephraim, and the fading flower of its glorious beauty, which is on the head of the rich valley of those overcome with wine!

2 Behold, the Lord has one who is mighty and strong; like a storm of hail, a destroying tempest, like a storm of mighty, overflowing waters, he casts down to the earth with his hand.

3 The proud crown of the drunkards of Ephraim will be trodden underfoot;

4 and the fading flower of its glorious beauty, which is on the head of the rich valley, will be like a first-ripe fig before the summer: when someone sees it, he swallows it as soon as it is in his hand.

5 In that day the LORD of hosts will be a crown of glory, and a diadem of beauty, to the remnant of his people,

6 and a spirit of justice to him who sits in judgment, and strength to those who turn back the battle at the gate.

7 These also reel with wine and stagger with strong drink; the priest and the prophet reel with strong drink, they are swallowed by wine, they stagger with strong drink, they reel in vision, they stumble in giving judgment.

8 For all tables are full of filthy vomit, with no space left.

Isa28.1-8

Gary Smith in the New American Commentary explains:

The prophet’s audience in Judah could learn several basic theological principles from this woe and salvation oracle. They would know that (a) God hates pride and incompetent leaders; (b) he punishes and removes proud and incompetent leaders; (c) people should glorify God (not any earthly place or political institution); and (d) God is a nation’s true source of strength and his justice provides true hope.

More “Religions”

08 Thursday Feb 2018

Posted by in Culture, Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

I previously posted on politics as religion.  Here is yet another example:

Siegel: Liberalism has taken on a religious aspect. It’s a belief system, and not a system that represents political interests. Liberalism is seen as a source of grace, in religious terms. It is hard to talk to people, when you are effectively suggesting they are not among the blessed (or, to use Thomas Sowell’s phrase, the ‘anointed’), that they are in fact mistaken. Trump is wrong about many things, but you can argue with Trumpism. But it is very hard to argue with contemporary liberalism, especially in its West Coast incarnation.

Just prior to the Super Bowl, the Washington Post wrote on football as Tom Brady’s religion. This is nothing new. The Aztecs played a purposefully religious: “The Aztec ball game had a lot of ritual significance. It was mean to mirror the ball court of the heavens, this being the ball court of the underworld where the sun passed each night.” The games of the ancient Greeks were religious affairs such as the Olympics or Isthmian Games.

Sporting events as religious ceremony has been noted many times:

As Wann and collaborators note, various scholars discuss sport in terms of “natural religion,” “humanistic religion,” and “primitive polytheism” pointing out that “spectators worship other human beings, their achievements, and the groups to which they belong.” And that sports stadiums and arenas resemble “cathedrals where followers gather to worship their heroes and pray for their successes” (1, p. 200). Meanwhile, fans wear the team colors, and bear its flags, icons, and mascots whilst literally singing its praises.

Sport as Religion. Or as The Atlantic writes, “In short, if you look hard at sports, you can’t help but see contours of religion.”

 

 

Politics as Religion

23 Tuesday Jan 2018

Posted by in Politics, Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , ,

A few recent articles have made the point that political positions can function as religion: a totalizing story of sin and sacrifice which gives some sort of meaning to existence. First, there Ta Nehisi Coates with a theory of original sin:

What does the philosopher teach? His philosophy can be summed up in a passing phrase from “Between the World and Me”: “I… felt that the galaxy was playing with loaded dice.”

It’s a passing phrase, but a concept that suffuses his work. At a cosmic level, existence itself is slanted against the flourishing of black people. Chance is not really chance. We already know how history will unfold before it happens: black people will suffer because of white people. That’s what being black means. That’s what being white means.

Here is New York Magazine asking if intersectionality is a religion 

It posits a classic orthodoxy through which all of human experience is explained — and through which all speech must be filtered. Its version of original sin is the power of some identity groups over others. To overcome this sin, you need first to confess, i.e., “check your privilege,” and subsequently live your life and order your thoughts in a way that keeps this sin at bay. The sin goes so deep into your psyche, especially if you are white or male or straight, that a profound conversion is required.

The story continues with the obligatory swipe at the Puritans, which demonstrates that most people know nothing more about Puritans that what they can kind of remember from The Scarlet Letter and what they heard about The Crucible — neither of which has anything to do with the Puritans in reality.

Alan Jacobs asks if Wokeness is a Myth:

The term “woke,” for those who have managed to escape it, means being aware of racial, gender, and economic injustice. It is employed today either in mockery of the woke or in ironic reappropriation by the woke, and it is probably irrecoverable for serious use. But “woke” derives from “waking up” to how things are — and that ought to suggest that to commend wokeness is to invite people to participate in a mythical experience.

There is even redemption — sacrifice — required of this religion:

Go deeper into the cult, and the disciplines get more rigorous. Now white women must admit their role in oppressing women of color. This requires some of the groveling that white males must endure. But it offers the same benefit: a sense of forgiveness, and spiritual progress. Likewise black males must atone to women of color. All straights must bow down to gays. Even gays must make amends for their insensitivity to “trans” people. I am not sure to whom “trans” people of color must apologize. But give intellectuals time, and they’ll find someone. Or invent them.

With little work, I could find many more examples and certainly make a broader argument that all sides of political argument easily slide in a religious dimension — or that the arguments are informed by a story of fall, sin, punishment, sacrifice.

This is important to realize: just because a human being rejects some long-standing religious explanation does not mean that human beings change. The basic elements of fall-sin-punishment-sacrifice-possibly some escape/redemption are inherent in how we understand the world.

As a Christian, I would contend they are necessary for us our thinking. Paul argued for a hardwired, if you will explanation:

Romans 1:18–25 (ESV)

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

The Spiritual Chymist, Meditation XLIX

16 Tuesday May 2017

Posted by in Politics, Uncategorized, William Spurstowe, William Spurstowe

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

(From The Spiritual Chymist, William Spurstowe, 1666). This an interesting discussion as to what a Puritan would have thought the duty of politicians:
Upon a Spring in a High Ground

The additional blessing which Achsah sought of Caleb her father was springs of water for her dry land, who gave her the upper and the nether springs. If the distinct recording of this particular Scripture Carry anything of importance with it, it is not that he gave her some portion of land that was well watered, As the low valleys for the most part art. And that he also gave such springs that by their high lying were apt to convey their stream to the enriching of other parts that stood in need of such help to make them fruitful.

Now what is it that can more commend a spring than a free diffusion of its waters and spreading of its moisture, not only to the grounds that are near, But to such as are at a distance from it; and what can more conduce onto this commodious usefulness then the Springs rise from some hill or place of ascent?

Another spring may haply serve to water some little spot I’ve ground, To benefit some private garden, but an upper spring will greatly advantage a large inheritance.

Such a late difference methinks there is in the moral wellsprings of grace and holiness as is between the natural, according to the diversity of subjects in which they are seated.

Grace and a poor man is as a nether spring, which is not less useful through a defective water let’s ruining capacity to make any large Communication of it in regard of the circumstances in which he stands. His wants, his paucity of friends, a the world takes of him, the slightings that poverty exposes most men unto, are all great obstacles to the eternal diffusions of his grace, though not to the intrinsical fulness of it. But Grace and a great person is like an upper spring, which may convey itself far and near, because of the many advantages which he has above others. His councils will sooner be hearkened onto, his reproofs will over-awe more, his conversation [manner of conduct, not just speech] Will win more, his example having the force of law.

So willing have many been to make greatness their pattern, as that they have imitated their infirmities. Dionysius’ courtiers affected to be purblind and jostle against one another that’s so they may be like their prince. Alexander’s followers would imitate him in their gesture, and go as if their shoulders were one higher than the other, because there was some inequality in his. Among the Persians, they were wont to highly esteem a long and narrow head because some of their kings’ heads of that figure.

Oh what pity is it then that the greatness in goodness should be ever out of conjunction together, or to be stars of different hemispheres, that are never seen shining at the same time? Yes, why should not those who are the highest among men affect also to be the best, that so they might bring a beauty and shine into the world, that they might allure others not only did the hold it, but also to imitate, by conforming themselves to their happy example?

It is the saying of Plutarch, that rare moralist, that God is angry with them that counterfeit his thunder and lightning; his scepter and his Trident; and his thunderbolts he would not have any meddle with: he loves not that any should imitate him an absolute dominion and sovereignty: but he delights to see them guarding for those amiable and cherishing beams of justice, goodness, and clemency. Without these things be conveyed down to others by those who have the reigns of power and government in their hands, though they look upon themselves as gods on earth, yet they are is unlike to the God of heaven as a blazing comment is to a bright and glorious sun, or deceitful glow worm to a heavenly star.

What low thought Solomon himself has of sovereignty when put into an ill hand, we may read in his book of the preacher, we’re he tells us that better is a poor and a wise child, then an old and foolish king who will not be instructed to manage his power and authority for the good of those that are under him.

It is wisdom that makes a man’s face to shine, most of all those that are in highest places. Good in them is most conspicuous, And both more applauded and imitated then in others. What evil can a king not forbid, whose wrath is as the roaring of a lion? What good can he not encourage, whose favor is as a cloud of the latter rain, which promises at a harvest of blessings.
I cannot but wonder at the great changes which this scripture reports to have been made by godly princess in the midst of a general apostasy, such as Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah who purged the land from a spreading idolatry and restored sabbaths, and temple worship to their power and purity, who have bowed the heart of the people towards them like to the top of a fisher’s angling rod, this way or that as it pleases them.

Who but princes that had grace in their hearts, and power in their hands could have ever affected such things as might well seem to be insuperable difficulty? Oh that I could therefore suggest such considerations that might prevail with all whose conditions God has raised above others, to be accordingly instrumental in the doing of good to others that move in the lower sphere. Shall I say, God expects it from you? If I do, it is no other than what he himself has spoken, when he has said, He will get him up to the great man, four they have known the way of the Lord, and the judgment of their God.

Or shall I say, that God signally commands it from you above others? Is it not to you that he particularly calls, Be wise now O ye Kings, Be instructed ye judges of the earth, serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling, kiss the Son lest he be angry and ye perish from the way.

Do you think that greatness does rather exempt from been obliged to obedience, or that you shall have a more favorable audit at the last day when every man must give an account of himself unto God? Be not deceived, God will require what you have done more from him about others, as he has for you about thousands, and will be on to you if you be found too light.

Your exultation in this life will serve only to make your casting down to be the more dismal in the other, and to confirm the truth of that proverb, that hell is paved with the corslets of noble men and the skulls of priests.

Amos: How Politics Relates to Theology

18 Tuesday Apr 2017

Posted by in Amos, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

The prophet Amos begins with a denunciation of the rapine and ravage of the nations against their neighbors. The God of Israel sees what these foreign countries and kings have done and pronounces judgment against them. Thus, the God of Israel was not a local deity concerned with getting his share of the sacrifices (as such deities are), but was a universal king who acted against evil — whether or not those people acknowledged His rule.

Amos thus begins as a prophet concerned with international politics — but the politics are subservient to his theological concerns:

While Amos proclaimed a God of nations who was also a God of humanity, it would be misleading to give the impression that he was interested primarily in politics or even primarily in the principles of humanity as such. He was interested in these; but above them, explaining them and including them, he placed religion. He was concerned above all else with the character of God and with the divine will. If he referred to the political situations of his own nation or of other nations, it was only because he saw in these a field in which God himself was active, and in which God’s will must rule. If he denounced actions that we would regard as offenses against humanity, even when these actions were directed against an enemy nation, it was only because he had been thrilled with a new vision of God’s regard for man as man and had seen the divine importance of a right behavior of men toward each other. The question “Who is my neighbor?” in the great parable of Jesus is really anticipated in spirit by Amos with regard to nations. In a word, his message on this point was “Who is my (national) neighbor?” It is not an easy question for nations to answer.

For him it was religion that was fundamental, and it is abundantly clear that he regarded his whole message as a message of religion. He was not assuming the rôle of statesman or teacher of ethical culture, neither was he offering a gospel of humanity, although all these elements appear in his message; he was first and foremost a religious teacher. As such he demanded a hearing, and only as such has he a claim on us to-day.

It is true that in these ideas he was leading the way toward a much larger view of religion than the one current in his day. Indeed, the expansion of religion to include the affairs of everyday life—the everyday life of business and of politics—is still a novelty. Yet for Amos these were the fields in which religion must operate, and their religious character rested back upon the character and will of God.

To know God as Amos knew him—as a God of honor and equity—means to realize that men cannot be acceptable in the sight of this God unless they themselves possess and exercise the same principles of equity and of honor. This reflection of the life of God in every aspect of the lives of men was for Amos the only true religion, alongside which a religion that contented itself with formal worship, observance of sacred days and seasons, stated offerings, and attendance at the temple was a worthless substitute. Not that these things in themselves were wrong, but that they were not of the essence of man’s most vital acknowledgment of the true God.

Lindsay B. Longacre, Amos, Prophet of a New Order, ed. Henry H. Meyer, Life and Service Series (New York; Cincinnati: The Methodist Book Concern, 1921), 30–31.