Straight paths through crooked roads

As tyranny grows in Washington, the Kingdom of God must grow in us.

The definition of tyranny is that one source of unquestioned political power rules a country.  The definition of power is the ability of person A to get person B to do something they would not otherwise do.  President Obama is using the necessary power of the executive office to shape policy that will effectively steal the charity of Americans and remove it to the conrol and distribution by the federal government acccording to the philosophy of the state.

The theft freedom and money occurs by discouragement of donors to charity by limiting tax deductions for charitable giving.  Then, the taxes generated to the government can then be disbursed by government programs to those who can be depended upon to support the President's political party. 

The growth of tyranny occurs by reducing the spirit of volunteerism that results in charitable giving and moving the money to government control for redistribution of stolen wealth to a political base. 

The Christian basis of economics is founded first upon the fact that there was such a thing as private ownership of property which was then voluntarily given to charity for distribution to those in need.  (See the fourth chapter of Acts).  The distortion by socialists such as those who support President Obama would be that the community of Christians in Jerusalem shared their wealth.  But, they did not give their wealth to the Romans to distribute, but to the church and on the basis of voluntary charity, not force. 

The transfer of wealth to the government is more than a shift of money, it is a transfer of power to direct that weath to cause a different effect.  The effect will be to gain the dependence of those who receive the benefits of the government to look to government for sustainance rather than to individuals who create a bond of personal compassion.  The effect will be that benefits will the the result of the power of those who wield it rather than the result of the compassion of those who willingly give it. 

This is evil.  The substitution of what is selfish for that which is unselfish is evil.  The taking away of money that would have been contributed and directing it instead to the power of government is theft.  The policy that applies to millions of people is massive theft.  To do so without the ability of people to resist it is tyranny. 

But, Christian, take comfort.  It is the evil of those who do evil that will destroy them.  The very nature of evil is self-destructive. 

Let those who have worked to create their own wealth, be it great or small, rise up as adversaries to this theft, to this evil.  Let us join forces in votes and organization to stem this tide at the very next election in 2010.  Let there be no more transfer of wealth from those who create it to those in government who dissapate it. 

Let those who may have voted for this party take notice of what has been done with the power they give it with their votes.  It may be that they had no indication that such horrible advantage would be taken of them.  It may be that they had no idea of the overwhelming financial cost that would be exacted from America to pay for the extreme views of President Obama's programs.

Furthermore, let those who name the name of Christ as their Redeemer take direction not from anger but from the motivation of the Holy Spirit.  Let the Christian who has the presence of the Holy Spirit living within him or her take direction and spiritual life from the Word of God.  Let the Christian direct their efforts from the wisdom of the truth of God, the compassion of Christ, the faith and faithfulness enabled by the Holy Spirit. 

Such efforts will become the fruit of the Spirit.  These will be the antidote to tyranny.  Christian, rise up and join others to reverse this misuse of power, this theft, this evil, this growth of tyranny.

America's dilemma: can we separate faith from state?

Barak Obama has recently made a profession of faith in Jesus Christ as his own personal Savior and Lord.  Here he is, the presumed candidate for Democratic Party for President of the United States.  He represents a political party which aligns its policies on the relationship between faith and state with the ACLU. 

The American Civil Liberties Union strives to separate church from state in every possible way.   The ACLU, with largely positive support from Democratic office holders, has removed the Ten Commandments from the visible areas of state government buildings, has removed the Manger Scene from Christmas displays of city parks, has removed the expression of the personal religious faith of teachers to their public school students, and much, much more all in the name of the "wall of separation of church and state". 

But, wait a moment.  In the first paragraph the phrase used was "faith and state" and the second paragraph stressed the phrase "church and state".  Are those two phrases used here interchangeably, or is there some message here?  The answer is that, yes, there is a message in the different phrases. 

A church, if the word is taken in a traditional definition, is an organization of Christians actively carrying out some religious activity associated with their beliefs. On the other hand, the word faith can be associated with any philisophy or religious belief.  Everyone carries out their true beliefs, or actual faith every day.  It is impossible to separate faith from any daily living activity, including those who are employed by a government organization.  Thus, it would seem to be impossible to separate faith from state. 

But, where can the line be drawn?  When a Republican President or other office holder states that they are a Bible believing Christian who has accepted Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, the ACLU simply puts that person on notice that they are watching their activities.  However, it will be interesting to see one of two things develop from the statement of Barak Obama on his personal faith in Jesus Christ.

First, due to this statement of belief in Jesus Christ, will the ACLU pursue Barak Obama as they would members of the Republican Party?  Or, will there be a qualification attached to Senator Obama's profession of Christian faith that differentiates it from the profession of others?  That is, will there be a qualitative difference in the type of faith expressed between Senator Obama and others?

Specifically, Senator Obama has called for faith - based organizations to be included in the activities of government as it relates to the welfare of citizens.  However, he has apparently also called for all such faith based organizations to observe the same non-discrimination policies that government agencies are obliged by law to observe.  If this is to mean that homosexuals are to be allowed to participate in church related activities, then the moral standards of certain Jewish orthodox groups and certain Christian related groups as well as Islamic based groups would then be excluded unless they renounce certain articles of their faith.

If that were true, then in a certain sense, those organizations who did deny their own moral standards in this regard in order to be included in the governance of welfare would have had their faith separated from the state.  In fact, they would have had a separation of faith from their own conscience.  In such a case, even the ACLU might applaud the inclusion of such an organization in the activities of government.