There are a lot of biblical reasons to homeschool. There are a lot of biblical reasons to not go to public school. Here is a video that makes me so grateful that I get to homeschool my kids. There is a lot of freedom in homeschooling, and a lot of pain, suffering and time wasted in public school.
This is an elementary school in Unionville, North Carolina. I don’t know why they don’t drop off the kids a couple blocks away and let them walk, but I’ve heard of schools that don’t allow that.
I came across a comment on Facebook that got me thinking. It’s from an anarchocapitalist:
The idea is not to dismantle the U.S. government. The idea is to teach people a system of morality that is universal; that “don’t steal” and “don’t kill” applies to everybody. Once people everywhere, all over the world, understand this basic concept and would cringe at the idea of ruling, taxation and war then all governments will dissolve on their own. Spreading anarchism is a bottom up approach not a top down one.
The part where he says, “The idea is to teach people a system of morality that is universal; that “don’t Steal” and “don’t kill” applies to everybody.” caught me. That is a very good summation of the Great Commission.
And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20).
Jesus said to teach the nations to observe all that He has commanded. The anarchist says we need to teach people universal morality, and even mentions two of the Ten Commandments. I don’t know if he’s a Christian or not, but universal morality can only come from the God of the Bible.
The job of Christians is to teach the nations all the He’s commanded, but we have done such a terrible job of that. Our problem seems to be four fold:
This reminds me of what Bojidar Marinov said. He’s speaking specifically of police, but it applies to all areas of tyrannical government:
“Every single positive change in history starts with change in our hearts, and change in the pulpit. Which means, concerning the standing occupying army of police, we need to first change our hearts and trust God that maintaining a social order is not the same as having a standing army for terrorizing the population. Then we need to purge the pulpits of any preacher who supports the existence of police, or the existence of any other tyranny. At the very least, do not support with your money pulpits which support tyranny.”
I’m ashamed to say it, but I believe Christians are to blame for the tyranny we are suffering under, because we are no longer preaching biblical morality. We need to do better.
How many jokes have you heard about dropping the soap in the jailhouse shower? I’ve heard many, and often they’re told by people who are making the point that if someone breaks a law, they deserve whatever they get. If you don’t want to suffer homosexual rape in jail/prison, don’t commit the crime. However, being sodomized is not a just punishment for any crime.
This is so important that I don’t see how Christians are not all over it. Justice is an absolute. Absolutes come only from God. It’s impossible to speak of justice apart from the absolute standard of justice provided in God’s law. Anytime someone utters something about justice, they’re demonstrating that they’re created in God’s image.
Christians can know what justice is. How is this not a huge selling point for Christianity? How are we not proclaiming justice from the rooftops? But not only are most Christians not giving the life-giving solutions found in God’s laws to our dying society, we join in with non-Christians in misunderstanding and mocking Old Testament laws.
I don’t know Fremont County Sheriff Jim Beicker personally, though I believe he is a regular church-goer. He is accused of covering up the abuse and death of an inmate in his jail. Those who say that criminals get whatever they deserve, probably love Beicker all the more.
However, the punishment for whatever crime this inmate received was not the death penalty, or medical malpractice, or whatever. It is the job of the sheriff to keep inmates alive and safe while depriving them of their freedom.
Of course, it is possible that the just sentence for whatever crime this guy committed was the death penalty. The Bible gives the death penalty to murderers, adulterers, kidnappers, rapists, blasphemers, and those who revile their parents. If he wasn’t convicted of any of those crimes the proper course of action for the civil magistrate is to make him perform restitution.
Whatever crime he committed, he was treated as if he was subhuman, and a Christian like Beicker is supposed to treat everyone, even convicted criminals like they’re created in God’s image.
We all have God’s law written on our hearts, and this terrible situation is an opportunity for Christians to pluck those strings on their hearts to convict the local civil magistrates, and show them what they ought to be doing, and what God expects of them.
You can tell this first cop is used to people just doing whatever he says, and cracking the skulls of any who don’t. The cops can’t detain someone who isn’t breaking the law, as only one cop seems to understand out of all of them.
Larken Rose is an anarchocapitalist who posed these questions to someone who is opposed to anarchism. I’d like to answer his questions from a Christian theonomist perspective.
I have learned a lot from anarchocapitalists, and Larken in particular makes a lot of good points. I’d agree wholeheartedly with much of what anarchists say, but I think they don’t have a philosophical foundation for their system (which only Christianity can provide), though I love to see them ripping our current system to shreds.
So here are his five questions. I’ll put his writing in italics and answer the question just below each question.
3) Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)?
5) When there is a conflict between an individual’s own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally views as wrong in order to “obey the law”?
The success is not very successful. And it’s all funded by theft.
The chart was taken from this article, which is worth your time to read.
Maximum freedom is found in God’s law.
Here’s what Bo Marinov has to say:
The libertarian presuppositions are Biblical presuppositions. Where the libertarian presuppositions deviate from the Bible, they also deviate from libertarianism. Theocracy is the closest thing to radical libertarianism that can be had. Anything short of theocracy is short of libertarianism as well. Thus, if you don’t have libertarian presuppositions, you are not a real theonomist. If you think that there is anything closer to radical libertarianism than theonomy, you don’t understand theonomy, and you don’t understand libertarianism.
Someone asked Bojidar Marinov about whether local church membership is the decentralized solution we hope for, and that speaking of the universal church and downplaying the local church is more of a collectivist (bad) way of thinking.
Bojidar’s Answer:
The argument here is not between the local church and the universal church. The argument here is between the individual and the local church. Notice how no one argues against local ACTION. We are arguing against MANDATORY “local church membership.” If a group of people got together and decided, “We will act locally,” this is one thing. When a group of people got together and said, “No one is legitimate unless they submit to us,” this is another thing altogether.
It is like the clan of which I wrote in my article in clan society. Yes, the clan may act locally, but the ideology of the clan is just as collectivist as that of the totalitarian state. Our argument against the clan is the nuclear family. In the same way, the “local church membership” is where collectivism is. Our argument is: the individual doesn’t need that “membership” in order to be a Christian.
Besides, “local church membership” is never used to ACT locally. It is always used to NOT act at all. No group needs formal membership to act. The very purpose of formal membership is to limit action.
The concept of the universal church here is invoked not to replace the local church as a bureaucracy with the universal church as a bureaucracy. The universal church as defined by the Reformed Confessions is not an organization. It is only used to oppose a different concept of membership to the bureaucratic concept. It is not that an individual “joins” a church. It is that in baptism, an individual becomes part of the Church, and therefore the Church goes with him when he goes out in the world.
To use the example of the clan again, we do not replace the clan with a bigger clan, the state. We oppose the clan with Christendom.
The following is from Bill Evans:
Think an election or a simple act of nullification can change Leviathan? You have no idea of how pervasive and evil the U.S. government is (along with its countless, multi-layered, unelected agencies, departments and bureaus) a fiat currency system run by globalist families, and virtual economic slavery via a tax upon your productivity, reducing us to indentured servitude.
Secession (peaceful separation…if possible) is the biblical response to tyranny; it was the founders response. A national, central government with a messiah complex. is unfixable, precisely because it IS unbiblical.
In the same way that the church, through the ministry of the word of God instructs individuals, families, and ecclesiastical powers, it should be informing civil government and the people, that God’s Law-Word provides the only solutions to our problems. The solution to tyranny presented in God’s word is separation, followed by the establishment of a Christian republic (trinitarian/theonomic,)
aka ‘A shining city on a hill.’
A knowledgeable Christian cop posted this:
I’ve discussed the general error of this meme before, but I ran across it again, and thought I would point out another error it puts forth.
When discussing government, many Christians will quote Romans 13 to you as if that is an argument in itself. Romans 13 defines the purpose of government. Biblical government has one purpose and that is to punish criminals. It’s not the government’s job to protect anyone.
For a knowledgeable Christian to espouse an unbiblical purpose for government shows the level of knowledge among American Christians.