Category: Guest Writers

Teaching Kids to Be Responsible

By Amy Vassar
Responsibility.  I think that’s one of the weightiest words I ponder as a parent.  What can I do to teach my children responsibility?  How can I prepare them to take ownership of their lives and their decisions?  What is the best way to help them transition from the authority of Dad and Mom to the authority of God, as a person with a free will but a solid moral compass?  Oh man.  Ask yourself those questions once a day and you’ll see an increase in your prayer life!

As a college instructor, I see every day the disservice that has been done to many young people in terms of their view of responsibility.  When did it become normal to turn assignments in late and expect to get credit for them?  At what point did the shift occur that makes students assume they won’t be held responsible for instructions that they overlooked?  Now, this is certainly not true of every student in my classes, but it is a pervasive attitude that seems to be increasing all the time.

As a mom, then, I am on a mission.  I want my children to be prepared to take responsibility in their daily habits, their studies, their jobs, and their relationships.  To accomplish this, in addition to the constant prayer I alluded to earlier, I am working on three basic lessons with them.

1.       Embrace things that are hard.  “Just because something is hard does NOT mean that it should not be done or that you should not be held responsible for it.”  I’m pretty sure there are nights that I say this in my sleep, because of how often I say it to my oldest child.  But of course this cuts both ways; in order to teach my children to embrace difficult tasks, I must do likewise.  My goal is to never let “It’s too hard” be an acceptable excuse in our home.  God created the human mind and will to be capable of incredible things, but unless you’re occasionally pushed to your limits, you won’t know how far you can go.  This can take the form of practical tasks like cleaning and organizing a closet or packing in a load of firewood, or even physical activities like doing a set number of jumping jacks or sit-ups.

2.       Find the information you need.  Sometimes in life we aren’t given all the necessary information for a task.  Marriages and children don’t come with instruction manuals.  When you start a new job, there are usually numerous little parts of your job that you have to figure out on your own.  To prepare our children for this reality, it’s important to sometimes leave out some details and require them to track those down.  For small children, this could be done with little tasks like telling them to put away two things that are on the floor, one of which they don’t know what to do with.  The process of learning to ask questions is so important!

3.       If you can do it, and you know it needs to be done, then it’s your job.  Sorry, I know that phrase doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue.  Likewise, it can be a tricky one to implement and enforce.  But while we are big proponents of designated chores in our house (another way to teach responsibility!), I’m not a fan of the “my chores, no more” attitude that can sometimes develop.  So if my 4-year-old walks past a piece of trash three times without picking it up, he’ll have some explaining to do.  If my 5-year-old knows it’s time to set the table, she is expected to be in there helping get it done.  In this way, we are all taking responsibility for the smooth functioning of the household.

In closing, I certainly don’t have this all mastered, and I am not as consistent yet with enforcing these things as I want to be, but I hope they help stir up some ideas for you.  Now go inspire your children with responsibility!  There’s a generation out there waiting for its leaders.

Amy is a wife, mother, teacher, and photographer. She has been married to her husband Paul for 8 years. Paul is a small business owner and together they home school their 3 children, who are currently in 8th grade, kindergarten, and preschool.  

Amy holds a B.A. in Spanish and an M.A. in Teaching from the College of Idaho, and she is in the process of earning an M.A. in Spanish from New Mexico State University. She is a member of the Spanish faculty at College of Western Idaho, where she formerly served as program head of Modern Language and currently serves on several committees aimed at improving the quality of online and hybrid courses. She is also a freelance photographer, specializing in family and senior portraiture.

Amy is passionate about education and about missions. Her goal in homeschooling is to raise up confident, responsible individuals who know how to learn, how to work hard, and how to pour themselves into whatever mission field God calls them to, whether at home or in other lands.


()

Gun Control: Advocating for Safety or Arrested by Fallacy?

By David Moberly

If you’ve been following the heated discussions on guns, particularly “Assault Weapons,” you are probably becoming very familiar with the redundant and ill-conceived talking points from the pro-gun control crowd. Sensationalists, like Piers Morgan or other leftist miscreants have grown better at confusing the argument through propaganda or extreme rhetoric, than they are at having an honest discussion. Here are a few of the vomit-inducing arguments that you’ve most likely heard:

  • The 2nd Amendment was only for militias … OR the 2nd only protects the rights for access to hunting rifles and muskets.
  • Military Grade weapons belong only in the hands of the police and the military.
  • Semi-Automatic weapons are extremely powerful and civilians should not have access to them.
  • If you think the Government will “grab your guns,” you are an extreme right-winger suffering from conspiratorial paranoia.
  • There is no need for untrained civilians to ever carry a gun that holds more than 10 rounds.

Without re-hashing the misinformation circling the Sandy Hook massacre, consider that any concrete evidence that an AR-15 (defense rifle) was used, is shaky at best. For every article you can find showing it was, I’ll find one showing it wasn’t but the fact is — it doesn’t matter what kind of gun was used. It takes about two and a half seconds to change a clip in most pistols; while it may be inconvenient to perform a mass shooting with a pistol rather than a high capacity drum or magazine, it certainly will not be stopped with Feinstein’s asinine proposed legislation. (Incidentally our VP admitted this exact thing on-air).

We will explore the myth of “Assault Rifles” being excessively high powered weapons in a later post, instead today’s topic will focus on the application of Constitutional rights and the trustworthiness of our government. The primary reason for the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence was to highlight tyranny and protect this nation from being subjected to it in the future. The Bill of Rights was not limited to rights for the government, rather it was primarily rights for the people to ensure the government maintained its proper role — small and unobtrusive. To believe the 2nd Amendment only protected hunting rifles or other firearms inferior to government weaponry is the height of historical stupidity. The framers of these documents were not interested in limiting the rights of citizens, they were clearly establishing inalienable rights that would protect them should government seek to impose its will on the people (as it invariably has throughout history).

You cannot, with any historical knowledge or research, come to a conclusion that the Bill of Rights was a leash on the people unless you are comfortable purposely distorting the truth.

To the argument that people don’t “need” to carry defense weapons with high-capacity magazines: My need is to be able to protect my family from criminals and my nation from tyranny, so my need equals the capacity of criminals and dictators to violate these ends. Their ability to obtain firepower should be the same as mine (or less). On a larger scale, when people say the U.S. doesn’t “need” nukes, the counter to that argument simply is that if our enemies have them, then yes we do. The argument of need is foolish anyway – I could say that children don’t “need” an education, but most would say it’s a right that we should provide (completely different topic). Someone could say that women or minorities don’t “need” to vote, but as equal citizens with inalienable rights, I would fight to protect their suffrage.

The question of need can be either fallacious or accurate depending on context, but you can be sure the anti-gun crowd gets these distinctions wrong every time. I do need a weapon that is sufficient to the threat and even if I didn’t, it is my right to own one.

If there is any politicizing to be done by current events, let me add one more angle.

As of today, February 8th 2013, former Police Officer Christopher Dorner is still on the loose after murdering three people. As a police officer, the pro-gun crowd would say that he “needs” to carry any and all firepower required for his job. Now that he has turned criminal/murderer, what would be the chances that an unarmed citizen could ever survive an encounter with him? The chances are obviously minimal and give us the final reason for unlimited rights to firearms — the government and employees thereof are not incapable of error. History (if you’re willing to honestly learn it) is full of examples of this and it is the very reason for the 2nd Amendment and all other rights listed. Not because our president is a dictator, not because tyranny lurks behind every bush, but because all humans are quite capable of wrong-doing.

This argument seems to be the reason that folks are anti-gun but can we really trust all law enforcement and government to act perfectly in the best interest of the people all of the time? The easy answer is “no” and the easier conclusion is that it is our duty and responsibility to uphold and obey the Constitution — against criminals, against tyranny and even against those with force of firearms who have simply lost their way.

David is former of student of Boise State University where he holds an Associate of Arts with an emphasis in Economics.  He is a recent graduate of Harvest International Training Center, where he received his Bachelor’s Degree in Biblical Studies. He is currently pursuing his Master’s Degree in Theological Studies and works as a Mortgage Lender for First Mortgage Company of Idaho. David is an Idaho born, lifelong resident currently living in Boise, ID. In February of 2013 he will be moving to Meridian with his new wife, Katey. He is passionate about how politics, spiritual truths and historical philosophy all play a key role in determining, “Que Veritas,” or “What is Truth.”

By David Moberly

We’ve been discussing fairness, God’s will for finances, and the Biblical approach to monetary policy. I think we’ve done a good job of debunking the idea that God is expressly Socialistic, but can we determine with certainty that He’s all in for Capitalism? Keep in mind that neither of these systems were in play in any era of Biblical Literature, so we can postulate at best. Here’s where the Scripture, “Love the Lord with all of your heart, mind and soul,” comes into play. We have to use our wisdom and experience to apply Biblical principles to modern socioeconomic thought. To conclude the series today, we will discuss the quality of life as it relates to federal fiscal policy, and how fairness is almost never the outcome of redistribution.

I want to start off by reminding the reader that the government does not create revenue.

They create currencies and monetary policy, they take money in the form of taxes (no goods or services are produced in this process), but they absolutely do not create anything tangible. Government’s fiscal purpose is to facilitate major costs incurred that cannot be handled by an individual such as law enforcement, interstate roads, and other large projects that require too much capital for an individual alone.

To claim that fairness dictates that tax dollars should funnel back to the poor misses two obvious facts:

1) The money used for this purpose was taken by another individual that had no choice in the matter.

2) Incentive is given for someone who has created no value to the economy and to society, to remain in the state they are in — unproductive.

 

These two elements lead to the corruption of a stable, growing economy. Which is really fair: allowing people to keep the money they’ve earned through the creation of goods and services? Or taking that money and giving it to someone else who has not earned income through the creation of goods and services? You may answer that charity demands such behavior! I would argue that charity seeks to give, not take, and never to make better those who are comfortable in failure. So who is being charitable, those who create the goods and services or those who only consume them? The chief aim of charity must be the betterment of the individual and consequently, the benefit of the collective whole — I believe it is a fallacy to call something charity when it misses either of these critical aims.

Most people believe in caring financially for the disabled; most are willing to temporarily support the unemployed or otherwise downtrodden. The problem exists only when programs to facilitate this giving become so large that they are unsustainable except in the very short term. This is the invariable result of any such program being handled on a federal level with less than adequate local oversight. Don’t even get me started on the tyranny of majority that exists in a modern democracy either. When all it takes for more free stuff is half the country plus one to vote for it, what hope does any economy have? Remember that government’s role in monetary policy is only to facilitate tax revenue in a way that is best for both the individual and the commonwealth. If you can answer how two years of unemployment benefits help the commonwealth, I’d love to hear that. If you can explain why almost half of the federal budget is needed to support re-distributive policies, I’m all ears as to how the balance of individual rights vs. rights of the nation as a whole are being met.

The truth is that these policies and programs are crippling to our economy. The truth is that these don’t stimulate growth, they cause capital and investment opportunity to stagnate. The truth is that these are not “doing charity,” only limiting the availability of productive people to create jobs or charity by their own (not mandated) creativity and benevolence. Lastly, if you can explain to me how it’s fair that earned income be allocated (against your will) to support anybody else who cannot support themselves — I’m all ears. Life may not be fair but neither is socialistic monetary policy. Therefore, the fairness argument holds no water!

Giving is good. Generosity is good. But let us not fool ourselves into thinking that the compulsory taxes we have no choice in, really cause us to be a better people and a better nation. It is well and good to believe that higher taxes help pay for the greater good, but call a spade a spade; forced confiscation of private wealth is only a popular concept to those who live on the “generosity” of others.

David is former of student of Boise State University where he holds an Associate of Arts with an emphasis in Economics.  He is a recent graduate of Harvest International Training Center, where he received his Bachelor’s Degree in Biblical Studies. He is currently pursuing his Master’s Degree in Theological Studies and works as a Mortgage Lender for First Mortgage Company of Idaho. David is an Idaho born, lifelong resident currently living in Boise, ID. In February of 2013 he will be moving to Meridian with his new wife, Katey. He is passionate about how politics, spiritual truths and historical philosophy all play a key role in determining, “Que Veritas,” or “What is Truth.”

Was Jesus a Socialist or a Capitalist? #3: Diligence, Charity & Poverty

By David Moberly

Whenever I hear the argument, “higher taxes = doing your part” or “civic duty,” I involuntarily cringe a little. Let’s be honest — is involuntary confiscation of my income really any different than stealing? Even if others benefit from what has been taken by you; generosity — by definition — must be voluntary. If a starving man breaks into my house to steal food for his family, the meal he receives from me was NOT given voluntarily. Even if I’m happy to help the man, I cannot confuse that scenario with sacrificial giving. Here’s what Solomon (reputed to be the wisest man in Biblical Literature) had to say about wealth, hard work, giving, and laziness:

Proverbs 12:24 - The hand of the diligent will rule, But the lazy man will be put to forced labor.
Proverbs 13:4 - The soul of a lazy man desires, and has nothing; But the soul of the diligent shall be made rich.
Proverbs 21:5 - The plans of the diligent lead surely to plenty, But those of everyone who is hasty, surely to poverty.
Proverbs 10:4 - He who has a slack hand becomes poor, But the hand of the diligent makes rich.
Proverbs 14:21 - He who despises his neighbor sins; But he who has mercy on the poor, happy is he.
Proverbs 14:31 - He who oppresses the poor reproaches his Maker, But he who honors Him has mercy on the needy.
Proverbs 17:5 - He who mocks the poor reproaches his Maker; He who is glad at calamity will not go unpunished.
Proverbs 19:17 - He who has pity on the poor lends to the LORD, And He will pay back what he has given.
Proverbs 21:13 - Whoever shuts his ears to the cry of the poor Will also cry himself and not be heard.

It seems that people who advocate pillaging the income of the upper class for governmental support or redistribution are all too willing to spend the hard earned incomes of other people with very little evidence of generosity shown on their own part. They then tout their own goodness and generosity due to their political ideology, but this boasting is erroneous. The Bible tells us that God loves a cheerful giver (2Cor 9:7), and any gift given begrudgingly is not all that interesting to Him. I don’t think that means we should only give when we have warm fuzzies about it but generally, giving should be done with a habit of cheerfulness and generosity. Where is the generosity in excessive government taxation? How many smile at the thought of their paycheck being reduced by 30 – 50 % to fund overly-bureaucratic programs that may not even line up with the values of the owner of that plundered paycheck?

I would argue that Jesus didn’t advocate for the diligent people living on about half of their income because of government intrusion into the name of fairness. I would also argue that He would recommend not getting bent out of shape about money in general. Because He was “The Word Made Flesh” (John1), and came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it, I believe His teachings would echo the sentiment of the Old Testament Law, Prophets and Psalms. I believe He would advocate working hard and not demanding the income of others to supplement your own lack. I believe He would advocate doing good to as many as you can. Neither of these are socialistic concepts — rather they spring from a heart that leans towards doing good for the poor and for carrying your own share of the weight. While He didn’t promote a lifestyle of living to build riches (He argued the opposite actually), He did promote the idea that, “To him who has, more will be given.” He advocated reward for labor, not reward for the labor of somebody else. Salvation is a free gift, so exact comparisons between spiritual things and earthly things is difficult, but I believe that we can sort out by His teaching, and the teaching of Scripture as a whole that man has a responsibility to work, earn and give to the best of his own ability — free from mandate and separate from legislation or forced “charity.”

David is former of student of Boise State University where he holds an Associate of Arts with an emphasis in Economics.  He is a recent graduate of Harvest International Training Center, where he received his Bachelor’s Degree in Biblical Studies. He is currently pursuing his Master’s Degree in Theological Studies and works as a Mortgage Lender for First Mortgage Company of Idaho. David is an Idaho born, lifelong resident currently living in Boise, ID. In February of 2013 he will be moving to Meridian with his new wife, Katey. He is passionate about how politics, spiritual truths and historical philosophy all play a key role in determining, “Que Veritas,” or “What is Truth.”

()

Was Jesus a Socialist or a Capitalist? #2: Stewardship

By David Moberly

Last week we discussed the implications of wealth and sharing, but really only determined that God must not be necessarily against Socialistic or Capitalistic monetary policy. This purpose of this second post is to show that Christ endorsed risk and reward, and rejected the notion of equal results for all. We will address the issue of Stewardship this week, in light of the whole Bible, but mostly the four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

In the Gospels, we have two different parables involving a wealthy land owner and his stewards. In the Matthew 25 version of the story, the Nobleman left talents to three of his hired stewards in the amount of five, two and one talent respectively (note the lack of equality.) After leaving for an extended time, he returned to find that the stewards had traded and secured a return on his investment in the amount of five, two and zero talents. He praised the shrewdness and diligence of the first two, but condemned the cowardly laziness of the third steward who was unable to increase the talent in even a very small amount. Jesus demanded his talent be given to the steward who had ten.

In the Luke 19 version of the story, the nobleman had left with his stewards an equal amount of one mina apiece to do business until his return. Upon his delayed return, the first steward delivered back to the master a total of ten minas, to which the master praised the steward and made him lord over ten cities. A second steward delivered to the master feive minas in exchange for the one he had been given. Again, this steward was praised and given rule over five cities, and enjoyed the favor of his master. Lastly, a cowardly and lazy steward delivered to the master a single mina, having earned nothing from it while the master was away. The master judged this steward with incredible severity and delivered the single mina to the steward with ten minas already.

The point of these two stories is to show that there are some endowments of natural or monetary gifting where there is complete inequality, and some that all humanity shares equal rights to. If Jesus was a socialist by nature, he would have divided the increase among the three stewards and in the name of fairness because the lazy steward had been hindered by society, poor fortune, etc. As it is, we see Christ endorsing the role of risk and reward, labor and creativity in His stewards. While these parables do not prove conclusively that Christ was an endorser of purely capitalistic increase, it does prove conclusively that he did not endorse socialism. Many verses in the Bible condemn the love of money, and many condemn those with no ability to handle money rightly. To properly balance the socioeconomic views of Christ, we must dissect all that the Bible has to say on money. That would be the longest blog ever, but suffice it to say:

  1. Christ did not condemn having riches, only loving them.
  2. Christ did not condemn being poor, only unwilling to labor.
  3. Other Bible writers were equally adamant about the believer’s responsible to work and share.

Paul says in 2Thessalonians 3:10, “For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. (NKJV)” He also tells us in 1Timothy 5:8, “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. (NKJV)” So we cannot assume that we are doing anyone an act of service if we undermine their desire to work hard and supply sustenance for their own family. The entire Bible is full of promises to the diligent and honest, with the rewards being much increase and savings.

Here is the safe conclusion as I read these parables along with the entire counsel of Scripture (more of which we’ll get into next week).  All of us are accountable to God for laboring and providing for ourselves, while keeping our hearts free from greed. We should see opportunities to give as an honor, not a burden; for if God’s love truly abides in our heart, we will be happy to help those in true need. The danger of Socialism is that it promotes the exact opposite. It seeks to eliminate the consequences to the lazy or cowardly, and encourages shirking excellence and hard work. It encourages a reliance for existence upon somebody else, and discourages generosity due to the already over-abundance of government handout programs and excessive taxation.

To oppose Socialism is not to disdain the poor, rather to encourage them to stand on their own two feet (real love). This is NOT an excuse to be greedy or hardened towards the disenfranchised, but to love the opportunity to work to multiply the “talents and minas” that God has graciously given to each one of us. We’re to love earning, saving and giving.  These are principles NOT found in Socialism!

David is former of student of Boise State University where he holds an Associate of Arts with an emphasis in Economics.  He is a recent graduate of Harvest International Training Center, where he received his Bachelor’s Degree in Biblical Studies. He is currently pursuing his Master’s Degree in Theological Studies and works as a Mortgage Lender for First Mortgage Company of Idaho. David is an Idaho born, lifelong resident currently living in Boise, ID. In February of 2013 he will be moving to Meridian with his new wife, Katey. He is passionate about how politics, spiritual truths and historical philosophy all play a key role in determining, “Que Veritas,” or “What is Truth.”  

()

Was Jesus a Socialist or a Capitalist? #1: Defining The Argument

By David Moberly

Recently, our President compared his concepts of wealth redistribution with his opinion of how Jesus would want him to live. President Obama is not the only Progressive to make this claim, this is a typical talking point for the Democratic Party in defense of their efforts to raise taxes on the wealthy in America. I’m all for living according to conscience; in fact, I’m all for that conscience playing a large part in affecting your legislation and politics.  But let us examine whether or not his claim has merit. The premise is that the Bible (and Jesus) endorses the right of government to confiscate private wealth to re-distribute it, whether through programs or disparate taxation, to the impoverished or unemployed. Is this a teaching or concept that Christ taught or implied? This four part series seeks to describe God’s view of money and how that relates to government and everyday life.

Most would look to the story of the Rich Young Ruler as the evidence that Christ believed that wealthy people should always sell off their goods and distribute the proceeds to charity. This story certainly shows us that Jesus was in favor of sharinggiving and charity for the poor — no questions there. The real question is, does this story give us an aggregate view of Christ’s stance on wealth and charity in general, or could this be a case of personal advice given to one man, and not a blanket statement for wealth in general? Jesus concludes this story by telling the disciples that it is harder for a rich man to get into Heaven than for a camel to travel through the eye of a needle. In another example of Jesus’ teachings, He advocates giving to Caesar (government) what is due Caesar, and giving to God that which belongs to God. So we can conclude:

A) Wealth is not necessarily advantageous to eternal life (in fact, it can be a hindrance.)

B) God does indeed favor the idea of wealthy people giving their money of their own free will to help the poor.

C) God favors us paying the taxes we owe to our civil leaders.

None of these lead us to the obvious conclusion that re-distributive legislation is God’s will. They also do not give us a clear moral foundation that God is opposed to people having wealth. Most people in favor of taxing the rich heavily would not say that being wealthy is morally wrong, but rather that their responsibility to society is to either give more to help support those that cannot support themselves and/or pick up a larger share of the tab of government spending. They typically argue from a stance of “fairness,” since it is obvious that those who have money are clearly better with the handling of money than those who do not have money.

In fact, fairness really is the only intelligent argument for excessive taxation of the rich for the benefit of State and the Poor.

Often the arguments for social welfare attempt to show that unemployment and welfare actually benefit the economy. This is, of course, a very weak argument. Unemployment or welfare dollars may be immediately spent back into the economy, therefore creating less of a net loss of opportunity, but that is a far cry from being “beneficial” to the economy as a whole. Handout money, not unlike taxed income, has been transferred with no real production in return. Other advocates of socialist economics point to successful (typically temporary) programs that yielded successful results. Or they use arguments for countries that are not bankrupt as their reason for cling to . The argument may say something like, “If FDR hadn’t adopted socialism, America would not have recovered as quickly from the Great Depression.” Again, these arguments are very weak. For every successful country built upon re-distributive fiscal policies, there are multiple free market economies to counter the argument. To speculate that Keynesian Economics helped to climb out of the Great Depression is simply that, speculation.

So again, I would argue that the only intelligent argument for re-distributive tax policy is the argument “it’s only fair.” In the next three segments, we will explore the fairness argument in light of the teachings of Christ and of the Bible in general.

David is former of student of Boise State University where he holds an Associate of Arts with an emphasis in Economics.  He is a recent graduate of Harvest International Training Center, where he received his Bachelor’s Degree in Biblical Studies. He is currently pursuing his Master’s Degree in Theological Studies and works as a Mortgage Lender for First Mortgage Company of Idaho. David is an Idaho born, lifelong resident currently living in Boise, ID. In February of 2013 he will be moving to Meridian with his new wife, Katey. He is passionate about how politics, spiritual truths and historical philosophy all play a key role in determining, “Que Veritas,” or “What is Truth.”  

()

The Death of Democracies.

By David Moberly

How do inanimate ideas die?

When their relevance has been proven invalid? Or when those who would maintain an idea cease to defend it? This is the case for noble ideas; time or apathy are all that can contain them. Lies cannot, for lies have no substance of their own. Fallacies cannot, for anybody truly interested in truth will navigate through fallacy. Only when an idea is false, or when the people who defend an idea grow fallacious can truly noble ideas die.

Whether the first or latter of these is the application to democracy, I don’t yet know. In theory, a “majority rules policy” must be the safest governing policy as there is protection from the inevitable failure of a few. However, I see more clearly now than ever that majorities are most certainly not always correct, so to be subject to majority rule can be exceedingly dangerous without the safe-guard of another, higher authority. Such is the pitiful history of human existence — tyranny which leads to revolution which leads to democracy which leads to a tyranny of the majority and so on. As an example, I cite social welfare. Most would agree that social welfare is of utmost importance — particularly those who would receive the welfare. What shall be done however, when social welfare becomes the habit of the majority? The only inevitable result must be in a victory of the minority or a stronger authority that trumps the majority.

Is it impossible for men to be self-governed? Even as I declare “No!” with my words, I’m reminded that society remains civil only when an authority enforces that civility. Be it totalitarianism, majority rule or most likely, the fear or love of the greatest authority — God. How can democracy exist without God? I contend that it cannot for two reasons:

  • The first reason is history and experience. The only long term successful attempt at self-governance has been the United States, and we are privy to watching it’s demise before our very eyes. As godlessness and immorality abound, factions so deep as to be irreparable are emerging and I imagine the end result will be revolution or tyranny.  Hopefully I am wrong!
  • The second reason is that we see no evidence of God’s pleasure in people ruling themselves. The greatest accusation of the moral landslide of God’s people occurring in the period of Theocracy is “Every man did what was right in his own eyes.” While things were scarcely improved under most kings, the deciding factor of governmental success was in the spiritual state of the king and the people’s obedience to God. This reason is old fashioned to some, but historical nonetheless. Until modern history convinces me of my error, I stand by the second reason as the greater and more weighty of the two reasons.

What conclusion do we reach in light of such reason? That it is left to each man to either trust in the Lord or to trust in government. While I find great comfort in relying on government, I’m reminded that there is great comfort in standing on a rug when the alternative is cold tile or stone. However, that is also the only place in which our footing can be ripped from underneath us. Often the safest place is not the most comfortable, and I fear that is the climate of today’s political landscape. Many are concerned with comfort, but it is a time to embrace everything that is NOT comfortable. Our godless methods have failed, and without a return to morality, revolution or tyranny seem the only inevitable conclusions.

David is former of student of Boise State University where he holds an Associate of Arts with an emphasis in Economics.  He is a recent graduate of Harvest International Training Center, where he received his Bachelor’s Degree in Biblical Studies. He is currently pursuing his Master’s Degree in Theological Studies and works as a Mortgage Lender for First Mortgage Company of Idaho. David is an Idaho born, lifelong resident currently living in Boise, ID. In February of 2013 he will be moving to Meridian with his new wife, Katey. He is passionate about how politics, spiritual truths and historical philosophy all play a key role in determining, “Que Veritas,” or “What is Truth.”