Bastiat Wisdom

Here is a great quote from the famous French Economist.

The State will always act through means of force, imposing its services, and determining the services people must pay in return under the form of taxes. The problem then boils down to this: What sorts of things do men have a right to impose on their fellow men by resorting to force? I have no right to compel anybody whatever to be religious, charitable, earned, or industrious. But I have a right to compel him to be just…. Precisely because governmental action implies resorting to force such actions must be essentially limited to maintaining order, security, and justice (The State, p40).

Technorati Tags: Bastiat State

Homosexual Ministers

The Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand has got its "knickers in a knot" about the ordination of homosexual ministers.

Wrong issue, wrong time!

In my view, the ordination of straight ministers is a far greater problem for the church than homosexuality. The ordination of a select group of people to do the work of ministry has robbed millions of Christians of their ministry and severely weakened the church. We need a radical vision for leadership that will make the ordination of an elite group unnecessary.

WWGD

What should George Do?

How should I know. I do not even live in the United States.
But there are a couple of things that he could think about.

1. George Bush's role is to defend the United States. The biblical rules for this role are outlined in Defence and War. George has not been appointed as the world's policeman. Tramping round the Middle East in big boots will not bring peace.

2. God does not need to United States to complete his purposes. American civilisation will not save the world. American democracy will not save the world. The United States is currently in danger of becoming part of the problem. Maybe God has stirred up Islam to bring judgment on the United States Empire.

3. Absolute security cannot be achieved, no matter how much is spent on military power. George Bush may not be able to prevent every attack. If American culture is strong then it will survive. Life will go on. The gospel will advance.

4. A relevant passage is 2 Chron 25:8:

Even if you go and fight courageously in battle,
God will overthrow you before the enemy,
for God has the power to help or to overthrow.

Before going to war, you had better be sure that God is on your side. If he is against you, the strength of your forces will be irrelevant.

A Bit more WOT

Gene Redlin said,

I recognize that the Gospel is the weapon that will get us further than any bomb or force. I understand your idea of interchange and communication. I do think this is a war for the ideals good and bad of western civilization. Capitulation defeats us all.

My question of you, and what I wish you would blog on is this: Given that terrorism is a weapon. Given that the USA is not going to be a terrorist nation. Given that terrorism is rooted in a political/religious ideology called Islam (not many Lutherans Blowing themselves and others up) and given that we are not fighting a war that seems to get desired results, if you could have the Presidents ear and give him sound (even Biblical) advice on a strategy that does accomplishes the purpose for which he rules at this point, protecting the people under him, and pursuing the path of peace in the world, What would you advise him to do?

First of all, I need to point out that terror is the weapon. It is a weapon used by some Islamic groups, but the United States military also uses terror as a weapon. A one-ton bomb dropped from a B1 bomber causes just as much terror as bomb let off by a suicide bomber. The difference is that the B1 pilot has better technology than the suicide bomber, so he can cause terror without risking his life. If the latter had the technical ability to hit his target without risking his life, he would probably do so. However, they both cause terror to the people they target. Islam does not have a monopoly on terror.

Secondly, we need to understand that both Islam and Christianity are expansionist religions. They both claim to have a monopoly on truth. They both want the whole world to accept the truth that they hold. This fact puts them on a collision course. The key issue is how they spread their beliefs throughout the world. Will they work towards their goal by sharing ideas, or will they use military power to accept what they believe to be the truth.

Throughout most of history, Christians have used military force to support the spread of Christianity. We now seem to have gone beyond that and most Christians would now prefer that people freely accept the gospel. However, we need to understand that many people in the Middle East see the invasion of Iraq as another attempt by a Christian nation to conquer Islam. I presume they see US threats to bomb Iran in the same way.

Islam’s history is not much better, as Islam was also expanded by acts of war at times. Some Moslems may still want to spread Islam by force. However, it is unfair to dump that on all Moslems. Those who want to use military force are primarily interested in getting rid of invaders like the United States. I presume that you would do the same, if Saudi Arabia had a hundred thousand troops in New Mexico.

I am confident that in the end the gospel of Jesus will be successful, not because we have bigger guns, but because we have the Holy Spirit on our side.

More tomorrow.

More WOT

My comments on the war against terrorism drew a response from Gene Redlin. I will answer his question tomorrow, but first want to respond to his underlying view of the world. Here is what Gene said,

I wasn't comfortable for a while, but they really want to kill us. Kill us all. Nuclear annihilation. I recognize that the Gospel is the weapon that will get us further than any bomb or force. I understand your idea of interchange and communication. I do think this is a war for the ideals, for good and bad of western civilization. Capitulation defeats us all.

Gene, a few of them want to kill you, but if you ignore the posturing, the truth is that they are mostly powerless or incompetent. Most of them just want to survive. They fear that the United States wants to kill them and there is a fair bit of evidence to justify their fears.

The United States assisted the British to overthrow the democratically-elected government of Iran in 1952. They then propped up the Shah of Iran for many years while he ruled with an iron rod. In 1978, the United States helicopters invaded Iran in an attempt to rescue American prisoners. The United States encouraged Iraq to invade Iran in 1980.

At the end of the Kuwait war, the United States encouraged the Shia of Iraq to rebel against Saddam Hussein and then watched in silence while he murdered thousands. The United States currently has a hundred thousand troops in the Middle East. It has powerful aircraft carriers just outside the Persian Gulf. Politicians and think tanks are calling for air strikes on Iran. It has armed its client regime in Saudi Arabia. I am not surprised that the people of Iran think that America wants to destroy them. I am not surprised that they are really afraid, and people who are afraid often fight back.

The people of the United States have very little to fear. You live on a large island that is almost impossible to invade. Even if Iran develops nuclear weapons, it has no way to get them to the United States. Terrorists have found it very difficult to strike against the United States, with only one success in a couple of decades. Far more people are killed by automobile accidents than by terrorists, but there is no war against the automobile.

If Iran had overthrown the Unites States government in the 1950s, or had stationed 100,000 troops in Mexico, or had persuaded Canada to invade the United States, or had several aircraft carriers in the Caribbean Sea, you would have something to worry about. I suspect that American culture has far more to fear from the corrosive growth of state power and the false gospel flowing out of Hollywood.

Government of Governments

Ted Gossard has some good thoughts on politics and the Kingdom of God that set me thinking.

The words "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" roll easily off our lips, but what do these words mean? The modern equivalent would be "government of governments".

What does it mean for Jesus to be "the government of governments"?

What does this mean for Government the United States of America?

State = Government, so...
The Government of United States = Government of united governments

There can only be one government of governments, so one will have to go. Jesus is government of governments, and he is not going anywhere.

So where does that leave the Government of the United States.

All Plank No Spec

The bun fight between our political leaders has turned nasty. The Leader of the Opposition says that the Prime Minister is “corrupt”. The Prime Minister says that the Leader of the Opposition is “corrosive". Neither can see the plank in their own eye, but the true nature of politics is being revealed.

• Politics is a corrupt business.
• Politics is a corrosive activity.

Taking money off people without their permission is usually called theft, robbery, embezzlement or fraud. When politicians do it, it is called fiscal policy. The fact that politicians think that there is a difference shows how corrupt they have become.

Despite an enormous increase in state power over the last century, the world has not become a better place. The reason is that most political activity fails to achieve its goal. So politicians always want more power and more money to fix up the problems that they have created. This shows what a corrosive activity it is. Politics eats away at everything that is good to make it mediocre.

The politicians are talking about conspiracy, but the truth about politics is being revealed.

Is God Silent? No!

If God has given a system of government and it has not been abolished, then why do Christians assume that God is silent about political issues? The answer is that we do not like God’s system. His law is okay, but we want something more. This is just like Israel. They were not satisfied with the law. They wanted the law plus a king (1 Sam 8). We are the same. We want the law plus a constitution, or the law plus democracy. Everyone wants the law and more.

We look in the law and find that there is no laws prohibiting alcohol sales, censoring movies, controlling the money supply, prohibiting monopoly trading or implementing tariffs, so we decide that God’s law is inadequate. We feel that God’s law does not deal with every modern situation, so we want a parliament to create more law.

But we forget what we are saying. We are saying that God’s law is inadequate. Saying that God is wrong is a big call. He does not make many mistakes, so it is more likely that we are wrong and that his law is not inadequate.

Our problem is that we want to use civil government for purposes that God never intended. The reason that the issues that we worry about are not covered in the law is that they cannot be resolved by civil government. Law and More will not work because law cannot do more than God than he specified.

Is God Silent? (4)

The third possibility is that the law is not for the New Testament Age

There is no evidence from the scriptures that the system of government given by God to Israel was abolished by Jesus ministry. There is no indication in the New Testament that it has been replaced by something else.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matt
5:17-19).

There is no indication that civil government was abolished by Jesus (Rom 13). Therefore we do have a biblical system of government and justice that we can test political issues against.

Is God Silent? (3)

The second possiblility is that the Law and Judges were only for Israel.

This does not seem to be true. God also intended the law for the nations around Israel. He expected them to see the wisdom of Israel’s law and copy them for themselves.

Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, "Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people." And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today? (Deut 4:6-8).

The tabernacle and sacrifices were just for Israel, but the civil law was for all nations.

Is God Silent? (2)

The first possiblility is that God has never given his people a system of government.

Many Christians look at the New Testament and find no system of government revealed. They are looking in the wrong place. A system of government is described in Exodus and Deuteronomy. God gave Israel a system of government before they entered into the Promised Land. It was based on his law being applied by judges. We cannot say that God has not provided a system of government.

Is God Silent? (1)

Many Christian believe that God's does not provide a definitive answer about most political issues. Here are some examples from blogosphere.

We must never presume that our political ideas are absolutely correct and perfectly aligned with God's will.

Together with law, economics defines the true meaning of politics: "What is the best way of managing things?" We don't have a specific, definitive answer about this from the Bible.

True, all nations, governments, and parties within governments seek their own self-interest. By definition, they can't represent the kingdom of God. I don't think its possible, or necessary, to work out a dogmatic ethical stance on the many issues this raises that would apply to all people at all times. Christians simply have to strive to follow God's leading on these ambiguous issues. We have to be okay with unresolvable ambiguity and with people having differing perspectives and callings on these matters.

If these statements are true, then the best that we can do is get involved in the political system and hope that democracy will produce good government.
I find this view quite astounding. Civil government is a really important aspect of human life, so I would be amazed if God’s word was silent on political issues.

There are three possible reasons why people might believe that we cannot find solutions to political issues in the bible. I will cover these in the next three posts.

More Moral Mediocrity

The leaders of our two main polical parties are having a bun fight. One accused their opponent of having no integrity. The other accuses their opponent of corruption.

Both are both certain of their own innocence, and they are equally certain their opponent's guilt. I am reminded of Jesus words.

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye (Matt 7:3-5).

We have enough planks to build a platform.

Another reminder than democracy produces moral mediocrity.

Sombre Somme

Celebrations of the ninetieth anniversary of the Battle of the Somme are currently being held in France. The number of casualties during this five-month battle at the end of 1916 exceeded 1 million. More than a quarter of a million men were killed or missing in action.

The First World War was a war without purpose. It was started by kings and politicians, who were too proud, stubborn or stupid to admit that they had made a mistake. Jesus told a parable about counting the costs of war.

Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace (Luke 14:31-32).

I cannot imagine what sort of benefits would justify a million casualties or a quarter of a million deaths.

Nevertheless, when the command was given for the soldiers in the trenches to go “over the top”, they would climb out over the bodies of their fallen comrades and run as hard as they could through the mud until they were cut down by a hail of machine gun bullets. Those who were injured quickly were the lucky ones.

What sort of military commander would order men to die in this way? What sort of political leader could believe that such a waste of life was justified? What I cannot understand is why the men did not refuse to go. Why didn’t they walk a way saying “Fight you own stupid war!”

What caused sensible young men to choose to die for such a pointless cause? What madness swept over them that made them willing to die in such a terrible way. Why were they able to be used as cannon fodder for the foolish plans of politicians and generals? The military commentators say that the soldiers believed that they had “proved themselves”. But what had they proved: that politicians can whip up support for foolish causes?

We should remember the sacrifice of the million men, but we should never glorify such a terrible waste of life. We should also remember that when politicians make terrible mistakes, they still get their statues on Whitehall. Those who died in the mud at the Somme paid the price for the blunders of the politicians. There is very little glory in dying in the mud in a pointless war.

Political Decisions

The City Council has decided to close the Edgeware Swimming Pool. They claim that the pool is not well used and the costs of operation are increasing. The people of Edgeware are out protesting. A group is standing beside a busy road with banners calling for passing cars to honk their horns in support. Others have signs on their fences. This illustrates the problems that arise when economic decisions are turned into political ones.

Think about some examples. There is a video shop in Edgeware. This shop remains open, because the revenue received from renting videos exceeds the cost of running the shop. If people stopped using the shop and revenue declined dramatically, the owners would have to close the shop. The criteria for this decision are simple. If the people of Edgeware are willing to spend enough to cover the costs of running the shop, it will stay open. If they start spending there money somewhere else, it will close.

Consider a business thinking of opening a gymnasium in Edgeware. If the gymnasium can get enough paying customers to cover the costs of running the gymnasium, it will proceed. If the is insufficient people willing to pay the fee that the gymnasium charges, it will have to close.

When the city council provides services, economics is irrelevant. The politicians have no sensible criteria for deciding whether the pool should stay open, because the entry fees to the pool are totally unrelated to the cost of operating the pool (including the cost of capital). Politicians can only respond to political noise, but they never know how many people are making it. If the noise is loud enough, they have no choice but to keep the pool open, because their main objective is to not lose their seats at the next election.

The only way to find out how much the people of Edgeware value their pool is to look at how much money they are willing to pay to use it. Honking of horns tells us nothing, because honking a horn costs nothing. If people are spending their money on other things, they must value them more. From appearances, it seems that most place a higher value on videos than swimming.

Political decisions are totally detached from economic reality. They tend to be bad decisions, because they are based solely on political noise which is cheap.

City Councils should not be making decision about services like swimming pools. If there is sufficient demand for a swimming pool in Edgeware, I would expect an entrepreneurial person to provide one. If there are insufficient people in Edgeware willing to pay an entry fee that covers the full cost of operation, then they do not want a pool that badly.

No doubt someone will raise the issue of the poor with no place to swim. The answer is obvious. I doubt that the City Council has responsibility or authority to care for the poor, but even if it does, there are better ways of assisting the poor than providing a swimming pool at Edgeware. I suspect that the poor people in the area get more pleasure from the video shop down the street from the pool.

Political Morality

A senior politician in New Zealand has been accused of having an affair.

Most modern commentators say that the private lives of politicians are not relevant to their political life. Personal stuff should be off limits to the news media.

The biblical approach to leadership is different. Elders are expected to be temperate and wise. The best way to discern a potential elder is to look at the way they treat their family and their attitude to money (1 Tim 3:1-7).

Politicians have been given responsibility to make laws for their nation. Laws are enforced morality. Therefore, the moral attitudes of parliamentarians are important. If a politicians will cheat on their spouse, why should theybe trusted to put the needs of their people ahead of their own benefit.

Bright Light and Sonic Boom

Last week a meteorite hit the atmosphere over southern New Zealand. The loud sonic boom was heard over much of the South Island. Observers saw a bright light in the sky breaking into pieces, making me think of a bright light being snuffed out.

Was the loud boom meant to wake us up?

Mediocrity and Democracy

People often get upset about the behaviour of their political leaders. What they do not understand is that democracy tends to produce mediocre leaders. In 2004, the United States put enormous time, money and energy into deciding whether George Bush or John Kerry would be president. Yet the most interesting feature of the struggle between two men was their mediocrity. If you made a list of all the wise and talented leaders in the United States, neither would make the top 1000.

This is normal, because democracy generally produces mediocrity.

Democracy sometimes produces incompetency or tyranny, but the best that it can do is produce medocrity.

The amazing thing is that Christians believe so strongly in government by the mediocre.

Profitic Ministry

Michael Kruse has a good post explaining why profits are not evil.

The Book of Proverbs agrees.

All hard work brings a profit,
but mere talk leads only to poverty
(Prov 14:23).

The War on Peanuts

Bill Bonner is wondering about a War on Peanuts.

Since 2001, terrorists have caused fewer deaths in America than allergic reactions to peanut butter. We are awaiting a War on Peanuts....

But the spending...the searches...the bullying...the scare-mongering continue. Why?

Since 9/11, reports The Observer in London, "a highly lucrative industry" has arisen in the United States of America - protecting the homeland from terrorists.

In the entire fifty states, there may not be enough terrorists to fill a small county jail, but that doesn't mean there isn't any money in homeland security. In fact, since the dawn of the 21st century, almost half of all new jobs have come, directly or indirectly, from two booming industries - housing and homeland protection - one a delusion, the other a diddle.

"Seven years ago, there were nine firms with federal homeland security contracts. Now there are 33,890. Since 2000, $130 billion of government contracts have been dished out."

"There is a powerful economic incentive," continues the report, "to exploit the terror threat - even government officials are leaving office to join the gold rush. John Ashcroft, former Attorney General, controversially extended state surveillance powers before leaving to set up the Ashcroft Group, which lobbies on behalf of technology firms aiming to capitalize on the new powers."

The Observer wonders whether the money was well spent. It mentions one contract, for example, to provide bullet-proof vests for dogs in Ohio. Is that a worthwhile expenditure? We don't know. But we will take a wild guess: from now until Hell freezes over, not a single American Homelander will be saved from terrorists by a dog from Ohio wearing a bullet proof vest.