Politics archive at Zeal For Truth

Loading Newer »

Less

Archive for the 'Politics' Category

Sarah Palin’s Tea Party Speech Reveals Neo-Conservative Agenda

Published by Colin February 7, 2010 in Politics. 4 Comments

I am not going to do a full dissection of Sarah Palin’s $100k Tea Party speech. Suffice it to say it reminded me of the 2008 presidential debates - when republicans were simultaneously speaking about limited government, the constitution and freedom while, at the very same time, blatantly advocating policies and ideals that are in complete opposition to those values. I am not sure whether I should be more surprised that republican politicians haven’t changed at all or that the Tea Party movement as an actual force for bringing the conservatives back to the principles of the “old right” is effectively dead. If they didn’t boo Palin off the stage when she revealed very clearly that her motives and agenda was to promote the kind of pragmatic Neo-Conservatism which got the GOP slaughtered only a few years ago, you would think they would have done it when she started defending and praising John McCain - an obvious opponent of the Tea Party’s so called principles.

Some gems from her speech:

Now, in many ways, Scott Brown represents what this beautiful movement is all about.

No, Scott Brown is a pretty left-wing republican, and generally supports the idea of government-run healthcare. But even worse, he represents exactly what will completely invalidate this movement: voting party over principle, short-termism over lasting change.

This one made me vomit:

[Speaking of alleged bomber Abdul Mutallab] After he was captured, he was questioned for only fifty minutes. We had a choice in how to do this. The choice was only question him for fifty minutes and then read his Miranda Rights. The administration says then, “There are no downsides or upsides to treating terrorists like civilian criminal defendents.” But a lot of us would beg to differ.

For example, there are questions we would have liked this foreign terrorist to answer because he lawyered up and invoked our U.S. Constitutional right to remain silent…Our U.S. Constitutional rights. Our rights that you sir [PALIN ADDRESSES MALE VETERAN IN AUDIENCE] fought and were willing to die for to protect in our Constitution. The rights that my son, as an infantryman in the United States army is willing to die for. The protections provided—thanks to you sir [PALIN ADDRESSES MALE VETERAN IN AUDIENCE]—we’re going to bestow them on a terrorist who hates our Constitution and wants to destroy our Constitution and our country? This makes no sense because we have a choice in how we’re going to deal with the terrorists. We don’t have to go down that road.

The duplicity here is astounding. First, the principle of innocent until proven guilty is thrown out the window. She then objects to this man being allowed a lawyer to represent him. She effectively invokes nationalism in the name of constitutionalism. Makes the blunder of thinking the military is somehow fighting for our freedom (the constitution, which Palin invokes so often, makes it clear that our rights come from God, not from soldiers killing people on foreign soil). Then lays out a version of that old neo-conservative mantra: “they hate us for our freedom.”

If the tea party eats this up, then this “movement” is just going to be yet another rah-rah-republicans pep rally, ending with a predictable result: GOP victories in 2010 and 2012 which lead to more spending, more imperialism and bigger government.

SEC blames victims for being abused

Published by Atanamis February 4, 2010 in Politics. 0 Comments

Bank of America executives not being held liable for their fraud

In late 2008, Bank of America executives decided that they wanted to acquire Merill Lynch. To approve the large buyout though, they needed the approval of the shareholders (the people who actually own Bank of America). At the time, they were aware that Merill would be losing significantly more money than the market expected exacerbated by huge bonuses being paid to “essential staff” (many of whom left the company soon after anyway). Whether the buyout was desirable or now is definitely debatable, and the executives at Bank of America still claim to have done the right things in buying out Merill.

Investigations conducted by the SEC make is clear that this information was deliberately and illegally withheld from shareholders to distort the vote. Only time will tell if buying Merill was a good decision, but the act of fraud committed is not really up for debate. In early 2009, these same executives threatened the US government late in the process that they would back out if not given subsidies to protect Bank of America from the risks of the buyout. Clearly if that were such a significant concern that it required blackmailing the US government, it should have been presented to the shareholders before the vote.

Nobody really seems to contest the above facts of the case. Where there is more doubt is what should happen as a result. Last September, the FTC proposed that due to the fraud Bank of America should pay $33 million in fines with no acknowledgment of wrongdoing. This agreement between the SEC and Bank of America executives was rejected by a federal judge:

The judge accused Bank of America and the S.E.C. of concocting the settlement to effectively absolve themselves of further responsibility.

“The S.E.C. gets to claim that it is exposing wrongdoing on the part of the Bank of America in a high-profile merger,” he wrote, and “the Bank’s management gets to claim that they have been coerced into an onerous settlement by overzealous regulators.”

The ruling echoes a long-standing criticism that the S.E.C. has largely failed to prosecute cases against corporate executives, opting for quick settlements in which companies themselves are penalized instead of their leaders.

The criticism is that base on fraud committed by executives against the owners of the company for which they work (the stockholders), the company (and therefore the shareholders who own it) was being punished while the executives avoided any admission of wrongdoing. One would hope that the SEC would learn their lesson, and do things better. Unfortunately, they seem to have completely and entirely missed the point altogether. Their new settlement agreement is to just penalize the victims of this fraud MORE, by fining the company more money:

As Mr. Cuomo was announcing his lawsuit, the S.E.C. released details of a settlement with Bank of America on two separate cases. The bank agreed to pay a $150 million fine and strengthen its corporate governance rules

At least now the company is agreeing to strengthen its rules, right? That must mean that they are admitting they did something wrong? Nope:

“The evidence demonstrates that Bank of America and its executives, including Ken Lewis and Joe Price, at all times acted in good faith and consistent with their legal and fiduciary obligations,” Mr. Stickler said in an e-mail message.

This email message was in regard to a lawsuit on behalf of shareholders being filed by attorney general Andrew Cuomo of New York, stating:

“They understated the problems, the losses to the shareholders, they overstated their ability to terminate the arrangement to the federal government to secure $20 billion in TARP money, and that is just a fraud,” Mr. Cuomo said. “The Bank of America and its officials defrauded the government and taxpayers at a very precarious time.”

Again, the facts of what happen don’t really seem to be in question. The only reason Cuomo even needs to be involved here is that the SEC is unwilling to even pursue terms that a federal judge will approve. The SEC isn’t acting as a regulatory agency, but as an advocate for Bank of America trying to get the federal judge to agree to blame a victim for their abuse and penalize that victim for the crime committed against them. The Bank of America executives are demonstrating complete lack of willingness to honestly manage the company on the behalf of its owners, and should all be fired by those owners. A company manager who provides false information to the owner and then seeks to penalize the owner for that fraud should not be trusted to run a company.

The Reluctant Anarchist and Me

Published by Colin January 20, 2010 in Essays, Politics and Philosophy. 5 Comments

This gem of an article definitely sounded familiar to me. The author goes through how the concept of anarchism seemed utterly foreign, radical even “evil.” But as he gradually wrestled with the ideals and principles, he came to some realisations that radically changed his worldview:

As a child I acquired a deep respect for authority and a horror of chaos. In my case the two things were blended by the uncertainty of my existence after my parents divorced and I bounced from one home to another for several years, often living with strangers. A stable authority was something I yearned for. Meanwhile, my public-school education imbued me with the sort of patriotism encouraged in all children in those days. I grew up feeling that if there was one thing I could trust and rely on, it was my government… You love your country as you love your mother – simply because it is yours, not because of its superiority to others, particularly superiority of power.

Growing up, I was also that kid. I was the one who supported authority and order. I remember being in an eighth-grade “graduation” ceremony, and someone blew up a condom and the kids began to bat it around the gymnasium while the principle was talking about us. I was so upset by the disorder of it all, that when it came near me, I grabbed it and gave it to one fo the adults who was desperately trying to get it from the kids. I didn’t do it for their approval or to kiss-up - but it bothered me, deep in my soul, that people weren’t respecting authority and being unified around this ceremony.

I became a philosophical conservative, with a strong libertarian streak. I believed in government, but it had to be “limited” government – confined to a few legitimate purposes, such as defense abroad and policing at home.

Again, I also grabbed Rand and other conservative authors and began to connect the philosophical dots. But even whilst being a “libertarian” - I supported the police, the military, cultural unity and a religious state and a strong “daddy state” which could preserve and protect those values.

Somewhere, at the rainbow’s end, America would return to her founding principles. The Federal Government would be shrunk, laws would be few, taxes minimal. That was what I thought. Hoped, anyway… In a way I had transferred my patriotism from America as it then was to America as it had been when it still honored the Constitution. And when had it crossed the line? At first I thought the great corruption had occurred when Franklin Roosevelt subverted the Federal judiciary; later I came to see that the decisive event had been the Civil War, which had effectively destroyed the right of the states to secede from the Union.

Yes, even while beginning to deplore state abuses of power, I refused to question the structure of power. The ideology of America had become perverted but there was some nugget of truth, of goodness. Like the author, my search for this “goodness” kept going back. First to World War II and the greatest generation, then to the Industrial Revolution, then the Civil War. But each time, it became clear that the accounts I had been told of these events were heavily saturated with he morality of authority and power - and even here, were great abuses of hard ethical and moral principles.

But again, the constitution, that “greatest of documents” surely was the pure point where values, government and order could congeal to form that ideal “limited government” of ideological conservatism and minarchism?

Hans [Hoppe] argued that no constitution could restrain the state. Once its monopoly of force was granted legitimacy, constitutional limits became mere fictions it could disregard; nobody could have the legal standing to enforce those limits. The state itself would decide, by force, what the constitution “meant,” steadily ruling in its own favor and increasing its own power. This was true a priori, and American history bore it out.

Again, like the author, it was Hans Hoppe who finally convinced me that even a government severely limited by a constitution or a contract was still prone to abuses and a gradual erosion of those limits. And this wasn’t just because of the people in charge, but the system itself was flawed. After all, an entity which claims to protect private property by violating property rights (through force) is a contradiction.

But even still - how can anarchism be consistent with Christianity? I had never heard of Christian Anarchists - except ultra-left wing “social justice” types who held a theological view of God and his kingdom which I see as too secular. The author dealt with this as well:

My fellow Christians have argued that the state’s authority is divinely given. They cite Christ’s injunction “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” and St. Paul’s words “The powers that be are ordained of God.” But Christ didn’t say which things – if any – belong to Caesar; his ambiguous words are far from a command to give Caesar whatever he claims. And it’s notable that Christ never told his disciples either to establish a state or to engage in politics. They were to preach the Gospel and, if rejected, to move on. He seems never to have imagined the state as something they could or should enlist on their side.

At first sight, St. Paul seems to be more positive in affirming the authority of the state. But he himself, like the other martyrs, died for defying the state, and we honor him for it; to which we may add that he was on one occasion a jailbreaker as well. Evidently the passage in Romans has been misread. It was probably written during the reign of Nero, not the most edifying of rulers; but then Paul also counseled slaves to obey their masters, and nobody construes this as an endorsement of slavery. He may have meant that the state and slavery were here for the foreseeable future, and that Christians must abide them for the sake of peace. Never does he say that either is here forever.

The state is something that exists, and we suffer under it. As Christians, it is not our job to be revolutionary anarchists. But as long as the state exists, then we are to endure it unless God, in his grace, removes it from us.

Rant: Republicans and Democrats Both Trying to End Last Vestiges of Health Insurance

Published by Colin January 6, 2010 in Politics and Current Events. 14 Comments

I apologise for the slow time during the holiday. I had family visiting for the holidays and was pretty busy. Hopefully you had enough going on this holiday season that you weren’t needing to peruse blogs too much - and spent time with your loved ones.

Nevertheless, I have been trying to figure out how to say a couple of things about health insurance - and then this article came out last week. It really nails a problem with the healthcare debate on the head:

While a public option would certainly hasten the death of the private-insurance market in America, it is not a necessary means to that end. By destroying the economic structure of insurance, House Resolution 3962 would convert an already-overregulated industry into a pseudo-private welfare program. Even without a public option, insurance companies would be kept from controlling costs or adjusting their prices. The inevitable result will be the complete dissolution of the private health-insurance market.

The thing is this:

the United States does not have a free market or capitalist healthcare system
the last vestiges of a price system in the US are about to be destroyed (irrespective of a public option)
republicans may not be proposing a public option (and right-leaning democrats might not endorse one), but their proposal is still fundamentally a socialistic one.

Self-Righteous Conservatives
The 2008 presidential election will forever leave a mark on me as to how ignorant, deluded, hypocritical and unprincipled the conservative elites are, as well as some who mindlessly follow/parrot them. Now we have conservatives claiming to stand on principles against government takeover of healthcare - they are appealing to capitalism and the free market. Meanwhile, they are putting forward a bill which, despite not creating explicit government “running” of healthcare, will make it inevitable.

The US features two prominent political parties: the one which generally ends up supporting legislation increasing government control of the economy by substantial degrees and government violations of civil rights by increments, and the party which ends up supporting legislation which increases government violation of civil rights by substantial degree and control over the economy by increments. Aside from a few rouge politicians and occasional pragmatic dissenters - this seems to be the pattern in Washington.

With healthcare, we have a spectrum of politicians arguing from “government run” healthcare to some form of “mild” intervention. Then there are a few lone voices in the wilderness actually supporting movement away from government control.

But many conservatives will claim to be opposing “socialism” and “government run” healthcare - but these would be supportive of GOP efforts which are effectively the same thing - only by a lesser degree or a different route. So many conservatives are locked into a two dimensional box - politics is either democrat or republican - we can either kill ourselves quickly with anthrax or slowly with rat poison.

But big surprise - many of these same people supported healthcare socialism under George Bush or, at the very least, did not express any concern. They definitely didn’t criticise Bush based on principle.

Pre-Existing Conditions
One of the major problems with the bill that will end up passing, is that it is a foregone conclusion that it will force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions. If there is one thing that is going to drive up the cost of health insurance it is this. Insurance is a product that covers risk - not things which have already happened. It is a market articulation of the subjunctive - what “might” happen - not what “will” or “has” happened. Forcing insurance to cover conditions which already exist is not insurance - it is welfare. It redistributes wealth from the healthy to the sick.

Imagine if car insurance was such that people could make claims on accidents, injuries and wrecks which had happened before being insured! Is anyone deluded enough to think that premiums would be low in order to sustain such payouts?

Entitlements
The fact is, that despite the trappings of capitalism, America is an entitlement society. Many Americans believe that they simply have a foregone right to cheap gas, healthcare, jobs, cars, houses and leisure time. Even if they do not believe they think this way - doing without some or all of these things for some time would quickly reveal the state of things. Conservatives are protesting over healthcare, not necessarily because of the principles at stake, but because they are tied into the same entitlement mentality as many others - they want healthcare, they expect it cheap and they expect it loaded with features. Many are just too self-righteous to admit this. If this weren’t the case, they would be protesting TSA, the police and even the post office. But this isn’t about principles - it’s about blind adherence to party group-think.

People who actually believe in freedom because of principles - not because it happens to be a buzzword of party elites - would do well to remember when the GOP was actively ridiculing, ignoring and excluding them in 2007 and 2008. Right now, there is an opportunity to use the Right to help defend against more government encroachment in healthcare. But let’s not get too comfortable in this bed - they will soon show their true statist colours.

Christian “Manhattan Declaration” Hit and Miss

Published by Colin November 23, 2009 in Religion, Politics and Apologetics. 47 Comments

A group of Christian leaders from Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical churches have signed a seven page declaration which is supposed to affirm an adherence to certain biblical principles which have recently become hot button political issues in the United States:

the sanctity of human life
the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Here is a short clip from Fox News:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwMDuMAXoj4

The group argues that these are “fundamental truths” not so much about God or about conduct within his church, but rather pertain to: “justice and the common good… to human dignity and the well-being of society.”

This is the beginning of what is surely theologically dangerous language. Why do leaders in the church feel the need to make statements and adhere to declarations which apply to the entire secular culture? It is not our job as Christians to threaten civil disobedience for “the common good” - we are to do it for the glory of God and the magnification of his name - among the nations. We are not called to change the behaviour of the nations.

In fact, when a nation simply focusses on changing behaviour without conversion - this is called hypocrisy. When religions leaders are calling for changes of behaviour of non-believers without the essential and fundamental application of the gospel - it is Phariseeism.

I am not saying this declaration is “bad” or that there are not right principles in it. However, it is advertised as primarily a tool for social change, not for conversion of souls. That is a distraction.

It would have been much better to make a declaration affirming Christian’s responsibility to evangelise and to share the gospel, knowing that aside from the essential fruit of salvation and eternal life - believing and trusting in Jesus Christ and repentance from sin will necessary transform this world for the better.

What the Declaration Gets Right
There is also emphasis in the declaration on affirming our duty to God above the state. This is entirely appropriate - and can not be stated enough:

…that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.

This is correct. The modern state, being an authority structure fundamentally and definitionally opposed to Christian principles and the authority of God, is always a threat to Christianity. It is not a complimentary organisation, as many misreadings of Romans 13 would indicate, but rather it is in direct competition with God. Christians should often assert their desire to follow God and his kingdom when these two entities inevitably come into conflict.

Most governments right now permit much religious liberty - but even this language reveals the problem: religious liberty is not a “permission” from the state. The right to worship God comes from him - and he rules over all the earth and all that is in it. The state has no right to dictate what is permissible or not in this arena. The state has no authority here.

Summary
Nevertheless, it is not good to confuse religious liberty, which is a negative right (being free from aggression against us) into a positive right (being entitled to force our customs and behaviours onto others). This declaration conflates these two kinds of rights. We should be affirming our right to not be aggressed against, but we must avoid language which changes “sharing the gospel” - an act consistent with salvation by faith, human freedom and voluntary choice - into “affirming the state’s role to enforce our values in civic life.” We have no right to do this. It is idolatry.

How Do We Determine If Soldiers Are Worthy Of Honor?

Published by Atanamis November 16, 2009 in Politics and Philosophy. 17 Comments

When considering how to view soldiers, it is important to look at both why they join, what they do, and what their nation asks of them. A soldier who joins in expectation that he is putting his life on the line for protection of others should be given credit for that willingness to sacrifice, even if the nation for which he serves uses him for unsavory purposes. A soldier who knowingly commits acts of atrocity should be scorned even if he did so for supposedly noble purposes or at the orders of a superior. In no case should a soldier be “worshiped” or considered to be above reproach, but neither should they be condemned purely because you disagree with policy decisions by their nation.

It is often hard to determine why someone joins the military. Someone who is forced to join to escape prison though clearly isn’t doing so out of an interest in serving others by putting their life on the line. Many people who join militaries do so though in the belief that doing so will protect the safety or liberty of their family, friends, or neighbors. Even if one believes this motivation is naive, the sacrifice it implies is significant. The Bible indicates that there is no greater love than to lay one’s life down for another. Someone who joins purely out of a desire to inflict harm on others though is not worthy of respect for their joining a military. Most who would call for soldiers to be honored likely would NOT call for them to be honored if it was known that they had done so purely out of a blood lust.

A soldier potentially takes that risk in joining a military. Of course, the above quality could potentially also apply to people we might consider terrorists, to those who commit war crimes, or to those who otherwise engage in acts that are unsupportable. No soldier who engages in improper conduct should be honored. The question of what consitutes “improper” is probably the biggest concern for those who oppose honoring troops. Is engaging in an unjust war improper? What about torturing an enemy who has critical information? Some might argue that there are no rules in love or war, and that any action that helps one achieve their goals is acceptable. This is generally the idea behind the view that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. In fact though, each man is responsible for his own actions and cannot beg off on having been given orders to engage in wrongful behavior.

The specifics of what is considered wrongful behavior are likely to be an area of contention, but I would not hold a soldier responsible for actions outside their direct control. This would include decisions like where their military is fighting and with what operational goals. An individual soldier cannot necessarily be expected to be familiar with the larger details of a conflict they are engaged in, or to refuse to be deployed to a given conflict. (That said, a military ought to strive to keep soldiers informed and to allow them to opt out of conflict if they feel strongly that it is unjust.) They do have control over their direct actions, and should not deliberately target civilians or engage in deliberate torture of enemies (regardless of legal combatant status). Targetting soldiers (who have not surrendered) in the case of a war for legitimate reasons is acceptable, since those soldiers have specifically identified themselves as targets.

The final condition to be considered is the cause of the nation for which a soldier fights. It is illegitimate for a soldier to intentionally join a military which they know exists for immoral purposes. If I know my nation is engaging in a genocide, I should not join its military. This raises the question of what constitutes “legitimate” use of a military. The only legitimate use of a military is to remove physical threats to oneself or others. It is always morally legitimate to respond with lethal force if someone is threatening your life or that of a non-aggressor party, regardless of whether one is in a police or military force. If someone points a gun at my wife, I’ll kill them. I can also do this if someone is threatening my neighbor with lethal force. Nations (as gatherings of people) have the right to do the same thing.

Soldiers Give Us Neither Freedom Nor Peace

Published by Colin November 12, 2009 in Religion and Politics. 29 Comments

Yesterday was veterans day in many countries around the world. And while mourning those who have died in conflict and war is a understandable and worthy effort, this holiday has long been used as a means of promoting imperialism, warmongering and soldier/military worship.

If we truly desire to be advocates of peace, justice and freedom in this world, then we would not be supporters of war, militarism, nationalism or imperialism. War does not bring peace in almost any capacity. In the short-term - people are killed, property is destroyed and men are taught to hate other men with whom they otherwise would have no conflict. In the long-term, resentment is fostered, free peoples are occupied and despotic regimes are installed or even elected in response to the memory of violence and aggression.

Our freedoms come from a benevolent and gracious Creator, who has given us life and life abundantly. He has delivered us from our sins and offered us peace with Him and peace with each other. War is not the domain of Christians and it is not in the footsteps of Christ.

Charles Spurgeon once eloquently said:

War is to our minds the most difficult thing to sanctify to God. The genius of the Christian religion is altogether contrary to everything like strife of any kind, much more to the deadly clash of arms. . . . Now I say again, I am no apologist for war, from my soul I loathe it, and I do not understand the position of a Christian man as a warrior, but still I greatly rejoice that there are to be found at this present day in the ranks many of those who fear God and adorn the doctrine of God their Saviour (”A Peal of Bells,” July 7, 1861, Metropolitan Tabernacle).

The freedom to worship, to dissent, to speak, to work, to create, to trade and to associate first come from God. They do not come from the military, or because soldiers are dying in other parts of the world. The military, by its very nature, is destructive of these freedoms. It calls men to worship the state, to pledge allegiance to the state, to be silent and take orders, to sacrifice one’s life, to do as one is told, to eat from the state’s hand and to hate it’s enemies.

Veterans day is not a day to be grateful for the military or the state. It is a day to remember the dead, who have died for the vanity, greed and sin of men. It is a day to pray to the Prince of peace for his intervention in this violent world, that he would not tarry in his coming. It is a day to forsake trusting in men and his sinful appetites, and hope in the assurance of God’s grace and peace which he has promised us, and demonstrated with the blood of his Son.

Christianity and Covenants: Christians And Employers

Published by Colin November 10, 2009 in Religion, Politics, Philosophy and Theology. 3 Comments

This is the third article in a multi-part series examining contracts and Christianity. Here is the full list of written and upcoming works in this series:

Overview
God and Christians
Christians and Marriage
Christians and Employers
Christians and Finances/Debt
Christians and the Local Church
Christians and Governments
Christians and Animals and the Environment

Christians And Employers
I want to preface by saying that some may find this article offensive. However, my goal here is not to judge the decisions that others have made or to condemn them, but to try and look at some biblical passages and consider what they mean with regard to the topic of employment. Let me also state that I am not coming at this from a position of compliance or adherence, my own employment history is full of disregard for biblical principles, and the course to right it is ongoing and has required many sacrifices. So please consider this as a word from one sinner saved by grace to another.

The most fundamental question to ask in working out the mess or the relationship between Christians and their employers is this: what kind of contract do Christians have with their employers?

The Greco-Roman cultural context of the new testament had several classes of labour relationships: slaves/masters, employees/employers, patrons/clients, heads of house/family and others. So when Peter writes “Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear…”(1 Peter 2:18-20) or Paul writes “Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters…” (Ephesians 6:5), we have to keep it in it’s proper historical and cultural context.

Modern employees most certainly are not in the same category as ancient slaves. This is because employees are freely contracted - and they have been able to do this because our culture views a contract as an agreement between two or more parties or equal status. In the ancient world, slaves (and to a lesser extent: debtors and clients) had an inferior status to their masters - and this includes bond-slaves. It’s a concept entirely radical in a modern society which holds equality as a fundamental part of humanity.

Slavery is a relationship also defined by force - that is the threatening or delivering of aggressive violence. People who are being forced to work against their will, without an explicit contract, are slaves. In this sense, the relation of most people to their governments then, is a slave/master relationship - but this will have to be dealt with elsewhere, as we are focussing on employment. However, employment is a voluntary contract - not a coercive or forced one. We choose to work for an employer.

But the point is this: that the biblical language about slaves/servants and masters in not applicable to most employment. You boss is not your master and your co-workers aren’t slaves. However, this doesn’t mean that the bible has nothing to say about employees.

Making Employment Contracts
Because contracts with employers are voluntary, that is, we make them by our own free choice and as people of equal status with our employers, then we are responsible for our decisions. These relationships fall under the same kind of categories as “vows” in the bible - verbal (or written) agreements, often involving mutual obligation. And the bible has plenty to say about these relationships. A few examples:

Proverbs 20:25 - It is a snare for a man to devote rashly something as holy, And afterward to reconsider his vows.

Ecclesiastes 5:4-5 - Pay what you have vowed— Better not to vow than to vow and not pay.

Luke 16:9-13 - And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by unrighteous mammon, that when you fail, they may receive you into an everlasting home. He who is faithful in what is least is faithful also in much; and he who is unjust in what is least is unjust also in much. Therefore if you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? And if you have not been faithful in what is another man’s, who will give you what is your own? No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”

If we agree to do something for our employer, then we should do it, and we should do it with quality and diligence. We need to leave no question that we have fulfilled our vows.

But implied here is a bigger principle - the place where the most care is needed is before we even make an employment contract. We should make vows that can exist in harmony with our Christian lifestyle and worship of God. Before even entering into an employment contract, we need to be asking basic questions:

Could this job interfere with my Christian obligations? As Christians, we are to be part of a local church, sharing the gospel and ministering to the body. It would not be wise to get a job which interferes with these things. Would my workplace be a gospel-free zone? Would my work schedule cause dramatic conflicts with fellowship and ministry in my local church? Does my job place undue burdens on my family, and my ability to lead/serve them? Are my children or spouse lacking in the reception of my biblical role/responsibilities because of this job?

Could this job require me to engage in immoral/unbiblical activities? We might be surprised, if we thought about it, that there are a large number of culturally acceptable jobs which might go against biblical principles. I wonder how many soldiers ask themselves if what they are doing is defending against aggression or if they are actually engaging in a hostile initiation of violence against others. Could my my job be exploiting others? Might it promote, fund or contribute towards advocacy or endorsement of sinful or immoral lifestyle?

Could this job stifle my worship? We need to beware of taking on so much responsibility to our employer that it affects our mental and emotional capacity to engage meaningfully with God. Again the best solution is pro-active: could this job/promotion lead to me not having enough time to pray, to read my bible or consider who God is and what he has done for me?

It’s Never Too Late
We often don’t realise we’ve bit off more than we can chew with our employers until we’ve already made the contract. The bible takes this into account in other places - such as with divorces or marrying an unbeliever. We’re commanded not to do these things, but God has foreseen our inability - and yet he still sent his son to die on the cross for us. He knows that we are but dust. Just because we can’t share the gospel at work, have neglected the raising of our children or find ourselves “too busy” to commune with God does not mean we are hopeless or “outside” of God’s capacity to work with us. My family needs this word just as much as anyone - as we have both taken on plenty of contracts which have interfered with our Christian faith.

Many jobs and responsibilities can be drawn down, altered and amended to provide more time for more important things. However, this could mean that our material lifestyles must also be drawn down. My wife and I will likely never own a house or have a new car - but that is a small sacrifice. And Christians are not entitled to a middle or even lower-middle class lifestyle.

Ideally, a person who is working in an unethical profession would quit as soon as contractually possible. With some military jobs - this may not be possible, but even the military often allows for transfers/demotions to positions which are not directly contributing to the killing or harming of others.

Its easy for a person with a blog to say what should and shouldn’t be, and then throw out life-altering solutions. Trust me, it’s impacting me as well (just wait until I talk about debt!). But the point is that biblical principles aren’t measured relative to the contracts and vows we’ve made - rather, our life needs to conform to these principles.

Media “Whoring” over Alan Grayson Reveals Hypocrisy

Published by Colin October 28, 2009 in Politics and Current Events. 45 Comments

A lot of people in the United States are up in arms over the fact that someone said this of someone else:

“This lobbyist, this K Street whore, is trying to teach me about economics.”

You would think in a country where people swear, cuss, deride others, gossip, slander, lie, cheat and steal on a daily basis - that someone referring to another person in a “derogatory” way would not make national news. You especially wouldn’t think it would lead to requests to the President of the United States to condemn the statement, would you?

By the way, it was a US congressman that said it.

Oh, now I’m MAD!

And he was a Democrat!

Not surprising - Democrats are GODLESS, IMMORAL SOCIALISTS.

Nevermind that “K Street” is well known as the street where numerous think tanks, lobbyists and the rest of Washington DC’s political whoring takes place. Nevermind that “whore” is an accepted term that describes, not merely a seller of sex, but a person who is known to be of sketchy moral character, relaxed ethics and a propensity to deal in a manner of illicit activities. “To whore” is a verb describing , not merely the act of selling one’s body for sex, but to “to compromise one’s principles for personal gain.”

This is an entirely accurate and acceptable term for the Federal Reserve’s new lobbyist based on her job description. To my knowledge she is not a generic whore - but she is most definitely a “K street whore.” (Please don’t call the president on me for saying that!)

But the outcry against Grayson not only exposes the ignorance of so many people with a laptop or a media outlet. It also exposes the self-righteous, hypocritical nature of mankind. I can’t count the number of times I have driven down the street with my wife, and one of us has commented on a woman’s revealing clothing - never using the word “whore,” but meaning that with the way we judged her, if only in our thoughts. How many of us haven’t whored ourselves in our thoughts, committing adultery (by the biblical definition) on our spouses by gazing lustfully at the opposite sex?

But Grayson didn’t even go that far - he never referred to this woman in a sexually degrading way - rather, he articulated in one word, the foul, unethical nature of her profession - and he made it clear that he was doing so by his context of “K Street.”

The hypocritical morality police need to quit trying to pull out non-existent specs from the eyes of others. For Christians especially, the scriptures show us what sin is and help us to identify it so that we can recognise our individual need of a saviour, not so that we can use it as a means to attack US Congressman (many who don’t even believe in Christ) and make ourselves feel righteous by comparison.

That is the essence of hypocricy.

Christianity And Covenants: The Logic of Christian Relationships

Published by Colin October 22, 2009 in Religion, Politics and Theology. 7 Comments

I would like to do a series on Christian relationships - specifically, the logical, theological and philosophical nuts and bolts of how and why Christians form relationships with God, Christians and non-Christians. As I have been thinking about this topic, the word which often popped into my mind was “contracts” rather than “covenants” or “relationships” but I am going to forego using that word because in modern vernacular “contract” has an economic connotation, and I don’t want to confuse this issue.

The covenants/relationships at which I plan to look are (though I may think of more as time goes on):

God and Christians - what kind of covenant exists between God and man? How do issues of free-will and choice come into play? What are the significant differences between God and man that affect this relationship?
Christians and Marriage - is Marriage a “give and take” relationship? Is there a designated “head” of a marriage? What is the fundamental definition of love in marriage?
Christians and the Local Church - what should Christians expect from pastors and ministers? How should Christians serve the church? How is the local church supported? What about fellowship?
Christians and Employers - Does the bible’s language about “slaves” and “masters” apply to business relationships? How can Christians balance obligations to God and obligations to employers? What about work practices and rules which are unethical or restrict Christians?
Christians and Finances/Debt - what kind of contractual obligations do Christians have with their debt? Should Christians go into debt? Is it legitimate for Christians to pay/charge interest? Is bankruptcy a legitimate option for Christians?
Christians and Governments - What role do politics have in the life of a Christian? How should Christians decide when and how to obey leaders? What kind of covenant (if any) exists between Christians and governments?
Christians and Animals and the Environment - what is the nature of a Christian’s interaction with animals and nature? What about pollution? What about property rights? Is animal abuse wrong, and if so, why?

Some Ground Work on Covenants
The most important thing to look at when it comes to these topics is the terms which are being used. A covenant is a (usually) formal agreement between two or more parties to do something or not do something: Colin and Jason agree to be best friends forever. It can also involve a condition: Colin will be Gabe’s best friend forever, if Gabe emails him at least once a year.

Some covenants are formed only for a specific purpose - such as to accomplish a goal or trade material goods: Colin will give a cookie to Phil, if Phil will give Colin a juice-box. Or, in bigger contexts: if a country declares war on England, the United State will declare war against that country.

In additional there are also unilateral covenants (or promises) which are made by one party to another: Colin will love Sadie as long as he lives. These are covenants where there is no condition (no “if”) and there is no agreement or consent from the other party. Again, these can be quite drastic. Japan declaring war on the United States, for example, doesn’t require that the US do or receive anything - it is a unilateral promise by Japan.

Covenants, contracts and relationships make up all of human interaction (including human interaction with God). This is the major premise of my entire discussion on this topic: that human beings have the capacity to act, the inherent right to form covenants and also are the beneficiaries of some unilateral covenants. Moreover, without these things, human relationships could not happen.

Also, if there is anything I’ve missed - feel free to ask about it, or, even better, address the issue yourself in the comments section or submit it for publication.

Zeal For Truth