I’m perplexed by the behavior of Christians I know, especially the men. I’m a theonomist. Theonomy is trying to apply all of Scripture to all of life. We reject the idea that the Bible doesn’t talk about politics. I have tried to engage Christians in conversation on biblical topics many times. I’ve tried in person. I’ve tried passing out pamphlets about theonomy in church. I’ve tried on Facebook. I’ve tried to be nice. I’ve tried to be provocative. I tried to get them to go witnessing with me. I taught a Way of the Master class and about 15 people attended. A few went witnessing, but no one stuck with it or ended up coming with us weekly.
No one has ever really engaged with my theonomic arguments. Some have said they agree with me but haven’t really seemed to dive into all the implications of applying the Bible to politics and all of life. Some have opposed what I’ve said, almost all of them women. But none of them have carried on with the discussion. They say I disagree, and some have even explained why they disagree, but they don’t carry on with the conversation. The men have almost all remained silent. A couple days ago, one didn’t remain silent, but didn’t explain why and refuses to carry on the conversation. Here’s that “discussion”. I left a comment on a newspaper article about raising taxes for a swimming pool.
My initial comment consisted of four sentences. Which of the sentences did he disagree with? The first two sentences are absolute statements of fact, so he can’t disagree with that. The third follows from Romans 13:3-4, and all of the Old Testament. The fourth follows logically from the first three sentences. It all seems pretty obvious and true to me.
On one hand, him disagreeing is more than I get from 90% of Calvary Chapel men. On the other hand, why is he not willing to explain himself? Does he not know Scripture? If that’s so, why would he comment? Is he scared of arguing in public? Then why say anything at all? He wants to take a stand and go public as not agreeing while not being in any way capable of defending his position.
I think all of this behavior from these people comes from two errors. 1. Having a false understanding Romans 13. 2. Having a false eschatology (end times view)–premillennialism.
They have been taught the bootlicking interpretation of Romans 13 over and over. They think the government has a blank check to do what it wants. Their pessimistic eschatology teaches that they will be defeated more and more soundly until they are raptured. So, they expect to lose and so they don’t apply Christian ethics to government. I’ve tried to explain this all many times and no one really seems to care. My arguments from Scripture apparently aren’t overcoming their pessimistic presuppositions.
I know people who don’t celebrate Christmas because they think Christmas trees and other Christmas traditions are pagan–same thing with Easter. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t celebrate Independence Day/Fourth of July. Of course, that is the date the Declaration of Independence was signed. That is, political leaders in the 13 colonies told the existing government that they were no longer going to submit to them. They were forming their own new government. They were no longer going to obey the King and his laws or pay their taxes to Britain. In fact, they ended up killing British government agents and soldiers.
The patriots wrote eloquently about resisting tyranny and the God-given rights of men. The king was abusive, but only a fraction as abusive as today’s U.S. government. He charged a very small, yet still unjust tax, a fraction of what we pay today, and the colonists revolted. The way the vast majority of Americans twist Romans 13 into teaching nearly blind obedience to government would indicate that the founding fathers were in grave sin. Yet I know of zero conservative Christian Americans who aren’t proud Americans who celebrate Independence Day with vim and vigor.
When I point out that inland immigration checkpoints are wicked, and police are an unamerican, socialist institution, public schools are funded by the most evil form of taxation–property taxes, and so forth, conservatives get mad at me and say I’m the unamerican one and I should leave the country. But who is really unamerican? What is the definition of what America is and what it ought to be? Is it defined by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bible? Or is it defined by proudly pledging allegiance to whatever it is now? If what defines a good American is how proud you are of what America currently is and saying the pledge of allegiance, then I guess they’re right. I’m unamerican. I’m not pledging my allegiance to a country that has betrayed its founding values. I’m not pledging allegiance to a country that has allowed the murder of 60 million babies and takes 50% or more of our income through all forms of taxation or that stops people as they travel through the southern U.S. to ask them what their citizenship is. By that definition I’m definitely unamerican and so are the founding fathers. However, I think the Bible, the Declaration and to a lesser extent, the Constitution define what a true American is and I’m, unfortunately one of the few true Americans left.
I’m not that smart, but God’s Word is always right. If you agree with it, you will win arguments just because it’s right. These guys made absolute fools of themselves. Not because I’m that smart, but because they are arguing contrary to God’s Word.
The original post with the meme is my post on Nextdoor. You can see the comments below the post.
According to Casey, it’s unamerican to oppose taxes! I can’t believe that came out of his mouth. And Gabriel has officially lost me, though I am in favor of diversifying to other countries and it’s totally awesome that he has an estate in Monaco. I don’t know whether I believe that he owns property in one of the most expensive cities in the world, but good for him if he does.
BTS is a South Korean band, and I’ll admit I’ve never heard of them, but they make a ton of money. They’ve been drafted by the military and will serve a couple years.
Not everything is about money, but it is an excellent measure of what something is worth. What we are paid for our time is an excellent measure of how well we’re serving other people. Obviously, the most profitable use of these guys’ time is making music. As soldiers they’re not using their time wisely. They produce probably about $20,000 per year of value as soldiers.
What’s a good word for describing when someone is forced to work and not properly compensated for their time and talents? Could it be “slavery”?
There’s no doubt that the draft is slavery, unless someone is doing something voluntarily, it’s slavery. You could make the argument that more normally-compensated people getting drafted, and getting paid a sodier’s wage that is nearly equivalent to what they normally make wouldn’t be slavery. But if they are being forced to do a job they don’t want to do, it’s still slavery.
Of course, we no longer have a draft in the U.S. Has slavery of this sort come to an end for us? Looking at it from the BTS example, we all face a milder form of slavery through taxation. They say that a portion of the money we earn, which represents a portion of our time doesn’t belong to us. It belongs to the various levels of government. We aren’t directly enslaved, but we face partial enslavement.
Taxation is theft. Slavery is one specific method of committing the sin of theft–stealing someone’s time and talents. Taxation is theft and it is also more specifically, slavery.
Everything any government does that is useful and worthwhile could be done voluntarily through people volunteering their time or donating or directly paying for a service. If it wasn’t useful (99% of what they do) it won’t get funded or sold.
Anarcho-capitalists have taught me a lot. My worldview is informed by the Bible, and I think a lot of what even unbelieving anarchists say is more biblical than the typical Christian. Anarcho-capitalists are willing to say provocative things to make you think. I will describe the proper, biblical form of government, and if that’s anarchy, fine, and if not, fine.
Romans 13 is the clearest New Testament passage on government. Romans 13:4 says that the magistrates’ only job is to be God’s servants to carry out God’s wrath on the evildoer. It’s not their job to educate kids, give out welfare, maintain roads, inspect buildings or anything else. So, we can eliminate 90%-95% of government right there. That leaves us with the criminal justice system.
But Romans 13 is not an exhaustive passage about government and how they are to punish evildoers. The Bible doesn’t allow government to do whatever it wants as long as they’re only punishing evildoers. Romans 13 is presupposing that you know what the Old Testament says. The Old Testament does give us adequate information about what government should be.
Let’s look at the criminal justice system.
Are cops biblical? No. Cops didn’t exist in this country until the 1840s. There are no cops in Scripture. There shouldn’t be a socialist-funded force roaming around looking for crimes. And as if cops protect anyone, that should be done yourself and with the help of your neighbors or you can hire a security company if you’re really worried.
Is prison biblical? No. Prison is an unust punishment. Why should the people have to pay for the food and shelter of criminals? Rape, murder, kidnapping are death penalty crimes. Other crimes such as assault or theft require restitution.
Is taxation biblical? Romans 13 says you ought to pay your taxes, but the Old Testament doesn’t say there’s a criminal penalty for not paying your taxes. It might be a sin, but it’s not a crime. Taxes are essentially voluntary, and only for a government that’s acting as God’s servants.
We’re down to about 1% of our current government. Courts are the only biblical function of government, but what does a biblical court system look like? The courts are made up of judges who are the wiser, older guys around who know God’s law and can judge righteously. There might be a volunteer judge on your street who might judge the occasional case from your neighborhood. Maybe there’s another judge in your part of the city who’s a little more experienced in tougher cases. The highest judge might be a guy in your town who can handle serious, death-penalty cases. The death penalty is carried out first by the witnesses against the perpetrator in the trial and then by the townspeople.
Ideally, all the participants are volunteers, or maybe there are professional judges that are paid by court fees from civil trials or voluntary taxation. I call myself an anarcho-capitalist or anarcho-reconstructionist. Would the anarchists I respect such as Larken Rose, Jeff Berwick, or Doug Casey call me an anarchist? I don’t know for sure. I’d guess that since I say there is no compulsory taxation, that they’d say I’m an anarchist. I tell people I’m an anarchist.
This guy is a greedy, covetous idolater who wants to take your money to build a very expensive swimming pool to be operated by the government, who are not exactly renowned for their efficient, cost-effective decision making. I told him that, and I told him government can’t give government permission to steal other people’s things. That’s circular logic. So, how exactly does theft mutate into taxation in his mind? Here’s his answer:
He says it’s not exactly government giving government permission to steal. It’s the founding fathers who gave the government permission to steal. So you see, it’s way different. It was all put in writing in 1788, so there’s a document that gives government permission to steal. It all makes perfect sense. Wait just a second. How does the Constitution, written by men, give a government made of men the right to take other people’s property? I have no idea. It’s his religious belief that he obviously takes on blind faith. There is no good reason to believe it. Ultimately the religious belief he has is that might makes right.
Scripture calls covetous people idolaters (Ephesians 5:5) and he’s putting his idolatry on full display. People always scoff at me on Facebook when I point out the religious nature of these discussions. If you want to engage in a discussion of morality and laws and how you can know things, that’s a religious discussion. There is no way to know anything or know right and wrong apart from Scripture.
The thing that is really reprehensible is this line, “Those who don’t wish to abide by it are heartily encouraged to find another country with a government more to their liking.”
Here’s what that means. We’re going to go on stealing from people and oppressing whoever we want. If you don’t want to be stolen from, you have to get far away from us. We’re not interested in just leaving you alone. We will get in your comfort zone with a 9 mm if necessary.
I’m a mean guy. I point out when people are hypocritical and covetous and advocating theft. My comments are just mean. The people who want to rip me off, now, they’re the nice ones. They just want to get along and wonder why everyone they’re threatening to financially attack is being so stingy. Why don’t we care about the children?
I’m particularly sickened by “conservatives” who are advocating socialist programs like public school. They should know better. Here’s an example of someone who pretends to be a rock-ribbed conservative who could explain why socialism is bound to fail and how Bernie Sanders is a moron.
Her post started out asking for people in the tea party group to sign some petition so that her kids’ school district will be slightly less evil. This would be like asking for the strip club her husband frequents every day to reduce the price of their Buffalo wings. It only legitimizes the strip club and her husband’s adultery. All she’s doing when she begs the government for some favor is legitimizing the theft that funds public school and secular humanist education.
Here’s the conversation:
She posted a couple more responses making similar arguments, and then she either blocked me or deleted the post. I was a little bit on the confrontational side, but some people need a wake up call. Good people who yearn for the truth won’t be offended by a little confrontation. They may dislike you in the moment, but they will love you for telling the truth.
I finally found someone with more than two brain cells to rub together to respond to my position that police is a socialist program. I posted this meme in a Tea Party group, and this conservative responded. I like this guy, even though he’s mistaken, but at least he put up a good effort.
I’ll break up his response and italicize his words.
Ok, here we go. Nothing I write here should be taken as a personal criticism of you. My observations will be about the core principle at the foundation of the meme.
The meme is a straw man argument I have seen advanced by liberals for many years. At its core is the false premise that any belief in government, and any belief in a tax, and any belief in any kind of government program is a belief in and an advocacy for socialism.
Liberals are correct when they make that point. American socialist programs don’t work, because government gets paid whether they do a good job or not. Socialism is immoral, because it is based on stealing money from people, i.e. forcing people to pay for something whether they want it or not. Scripture gives the civil penalties for all crimes, and there is no penalty for not paying taxes. It was a sin in the Old Testament to not pay your taxes, but not a crime. Scripture nowhere gives government the right to force anyone to pay for anything, much less all the programs we have today, including police.
The reason we know that to be a false premise is because we live in the real world and we are, or most of us, are students of history. The meme requires the belief that there is no distance, no daylight, between the absence of government–call it what you will–anarchy, chaos, the law of the jungle, might equals right–and socialism.
He’s right that my position is that even a tiny bit of force in government taxation is wrong, and is socialism. That’s not to say that a country with a 1% tax rate is just as bad as a country with a 90% tax rate. It’s just that the 1% is theft and is immoral. I’d also say that when some people are forcing other people to pay for something, because they are stronger and run in packs, that is the law of the jungle. That is more akin to the anarchy by his definition than the anarchy I espouse.
One can believe in government and in taxes, and not be a socialist. In fact, capitalism, including free market capitalism, believes in government and in the proper use of taxes to operate that government. The distinction is the perceptions on the role, purpose and function of government, and the extent and degree of government. Classical liberalism (modern conservativsm) and modern progressivism view government very differently.
Conservatives believe government is the answer to very little, whereas liberals believe government is the answer to almost everything.
How do we know what the proper roles of government are? Liberals would probably say whatever voters decide. Conservatives might say (though they don’t follow through on this belief) that the Constitution determines the proper role of government. There is some truth in that. The states made a voluntary agreement, and if the states as their corporate entities want to stick with that agreement, they’re free to do so, as long as they don’t violate our God-given rights.
God-given rights is something the founders spoke of, and Scripture is the only way we can really know what our rights are and what the proper role of government is. People are free to associate and contract together to do certain things. What they’re not free to do is force me into their contract or infringe on my rights. Our God-given rights are the corollary to God’s law. I have the right to life because God prohibited murder. I have the right to private property, because God prohibited theft. I have the right to not be cheated on by my wife because God prohibited adultery. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER ISN’T A SIN, and even additionally, government has no jurisdiction over the sins that aren’t criminal under God’s law. Anywhere government tries to stop me from doing something that isn’t a sin it is violating my rights. If they take life or property by force (unless I’ve come under their jurisdiction by committing a crime), they are violating my rights.
Conservatives are not anti-government or anti-tax. They believe government is a necessary evil because there are things that only government can do, or do well. Our Founding Fathers were such men. That is why they created a constitutional republic, rooted in federalism to curb a large centralized federal government, and a constitution which limited the federal government to limited and enumerated powers.
When he says there are things that only government can do, he’s wrong. I think what he means is that there are things only people working together can do. The only job of magistrates in Scripture is to punish evildoers (Romans 13:4). There may be many things that people ought to work together to do, such as the infrastructure projects he lists below. If the only way those things can happen is by forcing people to do them, then that’s barbarism.
The role of a federal government in a capitalist society is narrow and constrained and properly limited to such matters as the defining and defense of borders, the creation and maintenance of a military, the management of finance and economics through the creation of and supervision of sound money, the building of large infrastructure projects like roads, bridges, railways, tunnels and canals, law and order including the creation and maintenance of a judicial system to resolve civil and criminal disputes and the establishment of police and fire departments to maintain civil order including protecting private property and personal protection against violence and criminal activity, to include jails and penitentiaries.
I’d definitely disagree with several items on the list. Prison isn’t a just punishment for anything. It isn’t the proper punishment given by God for any crime, but it also punishes society by forcing them to pay for food and shelter for the criminal. Even the victim gets punished by having to pay their share for the criminal’s upkeep.
And he is just making this list up. There is no real basis for saying only government can do these things or that these are the proper roles for government, and the founding fathers would have disagreed with much of the list. There were no police until the 1840s. He’s begging the question.
All civil and orderly societies past and present recognize the legitimate powers of government in such narrow circumstances.
All civil societies? Not Old Testament Israel, and early America didn’t recognize even his short list, though their short list was much longer than Israel’s short list. In fact, any society where people are forced to pay for something isn’t a civil and orderly society at all. And I don’t care how many people are doing it wrong. We have to strive to do it right.
Over time, the United States has drifted from these principles, such as the creation of a postal service. Most believe, mistakenly, that it began with FDR, but it actually began in ernest with Woodrow Wilson. It was under Wilson that a national income tax was created. From the nation’s founding until 1913 the USA had no income tax, yet in that 150 year period we went from a small agrarian society to a world economic power. After 1913, the USA instituted social programs beyond its charter to include the FDA, Social Security, the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Energy and Education, to name a few.
Agreed.
Not all government programs are socialist. The difference between capitalism and socialism is not the presence or absence of government, but the degree to which government controls the society and its economy through government programs, government regulations and laws and enforcement actions.
If the government program forces you to pay for it, that is the problem, and that is what makes it socialist. That means that whatever the program is, they are claiming that you don’t own your money. Your money is collectively owned. It’s not really yours, even if it’s temporarily in your bank account. They will transfer their money out of your bank account and claim it’s not stealing, because you owe it to them. The day it comes due, you will pay them, or they will come to collect, with guns if necessary.
Socialism, as you know, is where the means of production and distribution of goods and services are collectively owned by a central government that plans and controls the economy.
Importantly, capitaism and socialism are not mutually exclusive; they can exist in a blended society on certain issues.
American programs such as police or roads or whatever program conservatives like are socialist for the reasons outlined above. You owe the tax, because that money in your possession now, isn’t really yours.
And how do conservatives know what a valid government program is? The only possible source for such information is Scripture. No one references Scripture. They just make up the list.
A modern day example of confusion on socialism are the Scandinavian countries of Sweden, Norway and Finland. They are often cited as successful examples of socialism. They are not socialist countries. They are free market capitalist countries with socialist policies on two key issues: health care and education. And they have very high taxes to pay for them, except that Finland recently abandoned its public health system because it was bankrupting the country.
He’s right on this, though I hadn’t heard the part about Finland. Some countries are more socialist than others, and some of those countries he listed rival the U.S. for economic freedom. That’s not to say their socialist programs aren’t pure evil, because they are. They just aren’t the bastions of blonde-hair, blue-eyed socialism that liberals like to think. They don’t want you to look at that icky off-white socialism in Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, etc. Of course, they don’t reference the skin color; it’s funny how that works out.
In conclusion, an American who expects his or her taxes to be used to create and fund a government sponsored municipal police force to protect them, their family and their home is not a socialist. I am not a socialist but I expect to get the Social Security benefits promised me. Why? Because the government took my money without my consent and against my will for 47 years of my working life. I want my money back.
Again, the issue is being forced to pay for a program you don’t want. If people aren’t happy with their police service, they should be able to unsubscribe and use a different service, or even switch to a DIY solution such as carrying a gun. The free market will cause firms to innovate new solutions to more efficiently serve people. You will get way better service from the free market for less than the money you pay in taxes, because socialism doesn’t work.
I see his argument about Social Security. The problem is that the only way he’ll get his money is for it to be stolen from someone else. His money was stolen and given away to his socialist grandma. The only possible way for Social Security to come to an end is for someone to have paid into it and receive nothing in return. Who will that be? Well baby boomers will make damn sure it’s not them.
Someone who believes the government can and should provide cradle to grave services and is willing to sacrifice their freedoms and most of their earnings for those services is a socialist. Socialism and communism are a hand and glove. Socialism is an economic system, and communism is a political system that runs a socialist economy.
Some socialists want cradle to grave services. Some socialists just want to sacrifice a little bit of freedom to get government police services. Just a 7% sales tax for police isn’t too much to give up, right? Well, maybe we can bump it up to 8% for the next 20 years if they need bullet-proof vests and new cruisers. Surely sacrificing that little bit of freedom and making my neighbors pay, even if they disagree, isn’t too much freedom to surrender? Well, I for one, refuse to surrender any of my God-given rights to an evil government or my greedy, covetous neighbors.
Communism, as a political form of governance, cannot exist without an underlying socialist economy. Capitalists can and do believe in government and taxes but want them narrowly defined, controlled and exercised.
True capitalists believe that no one can force you to pay for something you don’t want. That isn’t just my opinion. That is what the Bible teaches.
Here’s what this teacher says about the tax increase for the rec center:
“For people saying that this will hike their property tax. You are complaining about 20 dollars a month. The median home price is 305,000. YOU SPEND THAT PER WEEK AT KFC. Investing in youth recreation and community health is good for the whole community. It’s also an easy way to increase the values of your homes.
Maybe it’s not perfect, but it’s something, and something is better than nothing.“
This guy is committing the sins of covetousness and greed, and no one is calling him on it. How is it that no one cares enough to point this out or that pastors don’t preach against this? I don’t get it.
This teacher knows what you spend and he doesn’t like the way you spend it. He has a better plan for your money. He wants that money to go to the rec center. Anyone who disagrees with him is “negative” (according to him in another post). He’s not willing to persuade people to voluntarily donate. He wants to force people under threat of real estate confiscation to pay for his favored project.
Has he donated? If he believes in this project, he can donate and continue donating annually if he believes that is the best use of his money. Projects are financed this way often. He shouldn’t need to be sent a threatening letter (a property tax bill) to remind him to donate to the cause he so heartily believes in.
But for those who don’t believe it’s the best use of their money (annually for the next 30 years) he wants to take away their choice. He doesn’t want to just agree to disagree. He doesn’t want to use persuasive arguments to solicit donations. He wants their money, regardless of what they think.
But Christians are to stand up for the weak and oppressed. He hopes that government power is used to oppress those who disagree with this project. He’s free to donate if he wants. He wants to take away freedom from those who differ. That is the epitome of greed, and covetousness.
Karl Marx (for those who don’t recognize his covetous face)
There are so many wicked teachers that I think that will someday be one of the worst insults you can call someone: “You’re just a teacher!”
I love a good online discussion. The challenge is often keeping my comments short. I’ve learned a lot from reading other people’s conversations and debates. I’ve learned a ton from articles and memes. I love memes, because they are often short and to the point and can be powerful ways of conveying complicated arguments. Memes have challenged me to go on and do a lot of research on my own and change my mind on many things. I’ve often heard people say that no one ever changes their mind because of an online debate/discussion. I don’t know, but maybe that person is not open minded or is so pompous as to think they’ve got it all figured out. That has certainly not been my experience.
I’d say I started debating online around 2007 or 2008. I loved the way Youtube used to do their comments. There would be great debates there. Blogs also used to be great, but no one really does much of that anymore. The comment system on Facebook is terrible, but it’s good enough, and it’s where people are right now.
One of the problems I had when I started was being able to tell when I won an argument. It seemed I would say A, they would say B and then it would go on, and as long as the conversation would go on, as long as they continued, I must not have won the argument. After reading “Always Ready” by Greg Bahnsen (who was a genius), I learned that whenever anyone used a self-contradictory argument, their position was untenable, and they had lost. Also, if they can’t be consistent with their argument, whether that’s from topic to topic or even in the same discussion, they’ve also lost.
But over the last few years, I’ve noticed that people also indicate the loss of their argument in a couple other ways. They will delete all their comments, or they will start attacking me personally. In Facebook, if you reply to someone’s comment, and go on to have a long conversation with them, you can lose the whole conversation if they delete their first comment. You can take screenshots if you start to worry about someone deleting the conversation. At least you won’t lose everything you typed that way. Another way is to not reply to their comment, but to make a separate comment and tag them in it. Then, they may do the same or they may reply to your comment.
I’ve had people insult me personally. Atheists will hurl all types of filth at me personally, but even Christians will insult me personally or say I’m judgmental or change the subject to me or talk about something I might be doing. Here’s an example of that from the woman from my previous post.
Here’s the meme she was referring to. You can see it in yesterday’s post, but it might be too small to read. It is one of my favorites, especially for this individual.
My initial comments are on yesterday’s post, and maybe I’m the biggest jerk in the world, but I presented, rational, logical arguments. Those arguments are either right or wrong, regardless of where I live or how beady my eyes are.
I have recently found most people to be utterly incapable of responding to an argument in a rational way. Even people from my former church want a safe place, and desire safety over truth.
As I said yesterday, Karen is a principal at an elementary school. People send their kids to be educated by this woman who probably hasn’t had a rational thought pass through her head since the late 80s. What results do you expect from public school when the principal is a moron?
Working for the Secession of Fremont County from the Union
