When do we leave America?

[BJClark]

I can't see leaving...not only is there no where to go short of Heaven itself..we are called to put on the Armour of God and do battle not turn tail and run.

I think many times we forget or have even forgotten, our battle is not with this world, or those in this world, but in the Heavenlies..and most Christians have never been taught how to use the tools God has given us to fight this battle.

More importantly, in all the writings of the NT where the apostles deal with how to handle government and society, I don't see any of them suggesting that you bail out in favor of a more "Christian" government. I see all of them saying "obey" and "pray for" your government and obey God rather than man, being willing to suffer with joy if it comes.

If it comes??

I believe it will come..actually it's already here, just not as bad as it is in other countries around the world.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

No thanks Raj.

I think I'll live in a region not being fought over by the Indians and Pakistanis. It's likely to resemble the serenity of glass one of these days given that both countries have nuclear weapons.

 

[etexas]

Is there a point when a Christian should seriously consider leaving the United States? Infanticide, Sodomy, increased perversions of every stripe are growing rapidly. The Pilgrims left England when put under spiritual duress so there is a reformed heritage of leaving paganized lands. If you think a Christian should consider leaving where would they go?

The queen of Mughal king Jahangeer being influenced by the beauty and peace once said, "If there is heaven on earth, it is in Kashmir, it is in Kashmir". So brethern if you really have to leave your country think of this alternative.

Anyone?

I think he was also influenced by some hash.

 

[Raj]

Pls dont get discouraged by Sir Rich

Is there a point when a Christian should seriously consider leaving the United States? Infanticide, Sodomy, increased perversions of every stripe are growing rapidly. The Pilgrims left England when put under spiritual duress so there is a reformed heritage of leaving paganized lands. If you think a Christian should consider leaving where would they go?

The queen of Mughal king Jahangeer being influenced by the beauty and peace once said, "If there is heaven on earth, it is in Kashmir, it is in Kashmir". So brethern if you really have to leave your country think of this alternative.

Anyone?

I think he was also influenced by some hash.

It was the queen Noorjahan, I belive who said that not the king.
Sir, Rich pls dont discurage others to come to Kashmir, the jannat.

 

[matt01]

For those who are strongly in favor of leaving where would you go? While the US is guilty of many abominable sins, is there anywhere that is not?

Ireland - while infanticide may be illegal, it simply means that the women will go elsewhere to kill their babies.

Butcher Ships

 

[Pilgrim]

More importantly, in all the writings of the NT where the apostles deal with how to handle government and society, I don't see any of them suggesting that you bail out in favor of a more "Christian" government. I see all of them saying "obey" and "pray for" your government and obey God rather than man, being willing to suffer with joy if it comes.

While that is technically true, that is not a refutation of the idea. Arguments from silence are not the strongest form of argument.

Ironic that some Reformed favor the Regulative Principle of Worship which as I understand it is basically an argument from silence, i.e. if we can't find it in the NT we shouldn't do it but yet in other respects not related to stated worship use what amounts to a normative principle, i.e. that just because we don't see the NT church doing something doesn't mean we aren't duty bound to do it....

 

[Arch2k]

More importantly, in all the writings of the NT where the apostles deal with how to handle government and society, I don't see any of them suggesting that you bail out in favor of a more "Christian" government. I see all of them saying "obey" and "pray for" your government and obey God rather than man, being willing to suffer with joy if it comes.

While that is technically true, that is not a refutation of the idea. Arguments from silence are not the strongest form of argument.

Ironic that some Reformed favor the Regulative Principle of Worship which as I understand it is basically an argument from silence, i.e. if we can't find it in the NT we shouldn't do it but yet in other respects not related to stated worship use what amounts to a normative principle, i.e. that just because we don't see the NT church doing something doesn't mean we aren't duty bound to do it....

I wouldn't classify the RPW as an argument from silence, as there are explicit and implicit scripture that we are only to worship God as he as commanded us. In fact, I would say that the opposite is true, that the normative principle is an argument from silence. God has not given direction for us to worship in certain ways, but we can because God doesn't forbid it (or speak against it). Their argument is that it is ok, because it is NOT spoken of in scripture.

 

[etexas]

More importantly, in all the writings of the NT where the apostles deal with how to handle government and society, I don't see any of them suggesting that you bail out in favor of a more "Christian" government. I see all of them saying "obey" and "pray for" your government and obey God rather than man, being willing to suffer with joy if it comes.

While that is technically true, that is not a refutation of the idea. Arguments from silence are not the strongest form of argument.

Ironic that some Reformed favor the Regulative Principle of Worship which as I understand it is basically an argument from silence, i.e. if we can't find it in the NT we shouldn't do it but yet in other respects not related to stated worship use what amounts to a normative principle, i.e. that just because we don't see the NT church doing something doesn't mean we aren't duty bound to do it....

Ouch! I agree..........but ouch!

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

The country I live in now -- Cyprus -- is slowly becoming "Europeanized", more licentious and morally lawless. Topless nudes in billboard advertising are common, though not yet as common as in Europe. Yet violent crime here is maybe 70% lower than in the U.S. -- I don't watch my back as I walk down the city streets. Not yet. Though when the teens and 20s generations, most of whom are morally adrift hedonists, take over the culture, one might expect rapid deterioration.

My wife and I plan to return to New York (most likely NYC) when her caregiving for her mom (Alzheimer's) and grandmother (97, and slowly failing) is finished, and I know it will be a culture shock for us both, despite our love for America. There is a spiritual and psychic violence in America unknown here, I suppose because this country has a less-developed communications infrastructure, i.e., is a more primitive society than the U.S. and its various cultures and subcultures.

The youth culture here, nurtured on U.S. and E.U. entertainment, is very similar to those cultures.

Part of the societal problem here is this is a very religious land -- it is said Cyprus has the purest form and strongest form of Greek Orthodoxy -- but without the knowledge of the living Christ. Consequently the young professionals and the youth have jettisoned all remnants of Christian faith and generally opt for either New Age or hedonism. Europe is in more advanced stages of this spiritual degeneration. And EU law is sharpening is anti-Christian teeth with legal initiatives (of the postmodern ilk) that will eventually outlaw the Faith, in my opinion.

Anywhere else in the world one would have to go as a missionary of sorts.

I do have citizenship in the EU (as a dual-national American-Cypriot), but would prefer to reside in the states except perhaps were we to suffer a massive "weapons of mass destruction" event. (I got my citizenship here -- in part -- so as to be able to openly and publicly speak without risk of deportation.)

I could be productive in the states. If it got too hot in terms of persecution/opposition governmentally or societally I suppose I would just take the heat. After all, I am an American, and although I do have a love/hate relation to it (hating some of its evil), it is my land and my home. For all its ills, there is no better place in the world to me.

South Sudan is an attractive place for me, but that is because I know many pastors and believers (having taught many of them), and could be of great use to them. I have a love for those people. I'm a bit old (65) for the rough kind of life required in the primitive areas, what with certain health issues of mine, but I would as well die there as anywhere else. Given my wife is averse to the extreme heat, snakes, and exotic poisonous insects, I would not consider it were she living (and she'll probably outlive me by decades, all things being equal).

So it's the states for me. I know it's going to seed, but the old adage, the greater the darkness the brighter the light, holds true. And I know the states, the people, the cultures, the language and ways of thinking. Moving elsewhere I would have to learn anew a culture, which is not easy seeing as I have a relatively short time.

I think I would be most useful to the Lord and His people in the states. I look forward to returning. And my wife even more than I. Our PCA church in NYC won her heart, and she longs to return to it.

The only safe place in the world is to be in Christ. Without Him, all is perilous.

My somewhat rambling thoughts on a great question.

Steve

 

[raderag]

I don't think its possible to say that "staying is morally superior" OR that "leaving is morally superior," as if the answer were the same for everyone in all circumstances. There were many who left Jerusalem, and Judea, and were scattered, but some stayed.


If I had been living in the days of the Massachusetts Bay (not Plymouth) or one of the other Colonies, I might well have been inclined to leave for the new world. I'm sure it felt "worth it" for the sake of pure worship and for the sake of children. That being said, I don't think that one has to participate fully in the world, when they choose to stay.

For example, as beneficial as it might be as a pastor, to put my kids in a public school--in a small-town environment, to "be a part" of the community and build ties--there have to be better ways, if that school is a part of a larger system that actively attacks the Christian faith, if those teachers and administrators (however good their intentions) are bound by the terms of their employment to deny God, and if real discipline is absent.

So, is there really "no place" to go, anymore? I used to think so, until I stopped thinking like an American. Think about it: the early Colonists had similar thoughts. "How can I leave England, for someplace worse in so many ways?" They decided it was worth it, for a vision of what that frontier could become. And more, they transplanted "England" (New England) with themselves.

So, ask yourself if you are truly in love with principles and ideals, or simply the America of your youth, or your grandparents? There was a lot less freedom then, than at the beginning. When most people say "The US is the best/freest/greatest nation," etc., they usually mean that America has the highest standard of living that they know of. This, they reason, must be because we are so free. So, in other lands, the people must be generally poorer because they are oppressed. But that isn't always the case.

The other major reason why "we're the greatest," is attributed to the prevalence of the rule of law. But if federalism is dead, and the Constitution subverted, are we really under "the rule of law" or not? Or is that just another one of those slogans? If they want to, they can take away your property--eminent domain means whatever those in charge want it to mean. Right to life? Not after Roe v. Wade--privacy, a non-right, has been place over a right spelled out in plain text.

Are we a nation of law? LAWS, yes, enough to make us all lawbreakers every day, whether you know it or not. But not LAW, in the sense of fixed standards, "discovered" as it was once explained, or "derived" from continuity and conversation with the past. The LAW has been rendered wholly positive, and it means in the end, what 5 Supremes say it means.

So, if we are "freer", it is because there are residual echoes of the fixed standard. Those are fading like ripples in the pond. We are very close to the time when Caesar's word will make law once again. Even your RonPaulRevolution is likely nothing but a milepost on the way to despotism. Even if elected, his term would most likely mark the end of the American Experiment. "He stood for what it stood for at the beginning, like a bookend.".

Hi Pastor, I think I see where you are coming from here with your warning about tyranny(i.e. infanticide), but to say we live in a tyrannical society today is to belittle what tyranny really is. I think your posts indicates some sort of longing for the "good ole days" that were never here. Do you know there were far more communing Presidents in 20th century than there were in the 18th and 19th combined? While there is much Godly about our heritage, much of it can be attributed to Deism wrapped in Christian language. The idea that are laws are discovered as you say are based on notions of case law(a very old tradition), and the judicial power of the Supreme court was established in Mabury Vs Madison (1803). The rule of law in this country, while under attack by some, may be better than ever.

With all due respect, while I think you make some lucid points, your posts reads like more like alarmism than a real call to arms. I think that there is much evidence of God's work in our Country, but that can be overshadowed by increasing evil as He separates the wheat from the chaff.

 

[Herald]

The Pilgrims left England when put under spiritual duress so there is a reformed heritage of leaving paganized lands.

In my humble opinion we are nowhere near this point. Persecution of the church in America is mild to nonexistent. The historical dynamics of the 17th century do not exist today. There is no "new world" in which to immigrate to. To borrow from the secular songwriter:

"...for there is no more new frontier, and we have got to make it here."

 

[jbergsing]

Two words: WE DON'T!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Hi Pastor, I think I see where you are coming from here with your warning about tyranny(i.e. infanticide), but to say we live in a tyrannical society today is to belittle what tyranny really is. I think your posts indicates some sort of longing for the "good ole days" that were never here. Do you know there were far more communing Presidents in 20th century than there were in the 18th and 19th combined? While there is much Godly about our heritage, much of it can be attributed to Deism wrapped in Christian language. The idea that are laws are discovered as you say are based on notions of case law(a very old tradition), and the judicial power of the Supreme court was established in Mabury Vs Madison (1803). The rule of law in this country, while under attack by some, may be better than ever.

With all due respect, while I think you make some lucid points, your posts reads like more like alarmism than a real call to arms. I think that there is much evidence of God's work in our Country, but that can be overshadowed by increasing evil as He separates the wheat from the chaff.

Hi Brett,
I could make a few paragraphs in response, but I'll just try to be very brief.

1) Our forefathers founded this country on a huge tax revolt. They called some mildly piddling taxes "tyranny", and listed a number of other things as "tyrannical" in the Declaration, which by today's of a) rates of taxation, b) government intrusion, and c) comparative levels of despotism in other countries make our Rebellion of 1776 look quite inappropriate, if "tyranny" is to be defined by only the "worst" sorts of absolutism. So I don't accept that my use of the term is outside any bounds, or "belittles" those who suffer greater.

2) Your thinking I want "the good ole days" is a naive misreading of my post. If I don't want to go back to 50 years ago, or 100 years ago, I can scarcely be read as advocating a "return to yesteryear." On the other hand, America had greater freedom during the first 100 years of the nation than we have today. How is it improper to desire timeless principles of liberty to flourish in another age? The Presidency today is not the office it was created to be. And there is much less institutional willpower today to resist the impulse to make it an office of "supreme authority" than there used to be. If you are a student of history, I can point you to several prominent examples, both modern and pre-modern, of the rise of dictatorial office. If you say, "Oh, but it couldn't happen here," I will just smile wryly, and think of Cicero.

3) I am no sentimentalist, when it comes to the founders either. You certainly didn't read in what I wrote, any laudatory veneration of them, or baptizing of them or the Constitution as some kind of divinized document. On the other hand, it was the law of the land. You also seem to misread what I wrote on law-principles. I value both discovery and derivation as principles that predate the founding our national legal system. But those principles are NOT the guides any more for law at any level. Legal Positivism is. That principle is antithetical to the whole notion of natural law, or theistic law--or any system you please--of invariable axioms that ground legal action. Law has been placed ultimately within the human system. There is nothing transcendent about law, in such a system. And consequently, there are no effective checks on "the final human authorities." If you think we are in a stronger position "under law" now that our jurists have rejected a transcendent legal order, then we are going to have to disagree on what makes for a firm foundation. Where the Zeitgeist blows, the Law will shift with it.

4) My point stated at the outset was, I don't think there's anything especially "spiritual" about staying here or going anyplace. Each person has to make such a choice before God. I'm not calling anyone to arms. I'm calling them to make an intelligent choice, with their eyes wide open. Don't assume this is where you need to be, if you would do better if you went to live in Paraguay, or went to be a missionary in Tanzania. You don't have to flee the US either, just because things are the way they are. If you start thinking of yourself first as a citizen of Heaven, then suddenly you are tremendously free to go wherever--or stay wherever--God wants you.

 

[raderag]

nt

 

[Theoretical]

I don't think its possible to say that "staying is morally superior" OR that "leaving is morally superior," as if the answer were the same for everyone in all circumstances. There were many who left Jerusalem, and Judea, and were scattered, but some stayed.


If I had been living in the days of the Massachusetts Bay (not Plymouth) or one of the other Colonies, I might well have been inclined to leave for the new world. I'm sure it felt "worth it" for the sake of pure worship and for the sake of children. That being said, I don't think that one has to participate fully in the world, when they choose to stay.

For example, as beneficial as it might be as a pastor, to put my kids in a public school--in a small-town environment, to "be a part" of the community and build ties--there have to be better ways, if that school is a part of a larger system that actively attacks the Christian faith, if those teachers and administrators (however good their intentions) are bound by the terms of their employment to deny God, and if real discipline is absent.

So, is there really "no place" to go, anymore? I used to think so, until I stopped thinking like an American. Think about it: the early Colonists had similar thoughts. "How can I leave England, for someplace worse in so many ways?" They decided it was worth it, for a vision of what that frontier could become. And more, they transplanted "England" (New England) with themselves.

So, ask yourself if you are truly in love with principles and ideals, or simply the America of your youth, or your grandparents? There was a lot less freedom then, than at the beginning. When most people say "The US is the best/freest/greatest nation," etc., they usually mean that America has the highest standard of living that they know of. This, they reason, must be because we are so free. So, in other lands, the people must be generally poorer because they are oppressed. But that isn't always the case.

The other major reason why "we're the greatest," is attributed to the prevalence of the rule of law. But if federalism is dead, and the Constitution subverted, are we really under "the rule of law" or not? Or is that just another one of those slogans? If they want to, they can take away your property--eminent domain means whatever those in charge want it to mean. Right to life? Not after Roe v. Wade--privacy, a non-right, has been place over a right spelled out in plain text.

Are we a nation of law? LAWS, yes, enough to make us all lawbreakers every day, whether you know it or not. But not LAW, in the sense of fixed standards, "discovered" as it was once explained, or "derived" from continuity and conversation with the past. The LAW has been rendered wholly positive, and it means in the end, what 5 Supremes say it means.

So, if we are "freer", it is because there are residual echoes of the fixed standard. Those are fading like ripples in the pond. We are very close to the time when Caesar's word will make law once again. Even your RonPaulRevolution is likely nothing but a milepost on the way to despotism. Even if elected, his term would most likely mark the end of the American Experiment. "He stood for what it stood for at the beginning, like a bookend.".

Hi Pastor, I think I see where you are coming from here with your warning about tyranny(i.e. infanticide), but to say we live in a tyrannical society today is to belittle what tyranny really is. I think your posts indicates some sort of longing for the "good ole days" that were never here. Do you know there were far more communing Presidents in 20th century than there were in the 18th and 19th combined? While there is much Godly about our heritage, much of it can be attributed to Deism wrapped in Christian language. The idea that are laws are discovered as you say are based on notions of case law(a very old tradition), and the judicial power of the Supreme court was established in Mabury Vs Madison (1803). The rule of law in this country, while under attack by some, may be better than ever.

With all due respect, while I think you make some lucid points, your posts reads like more like alarmism than a real call to arms. I think that there is much evidence of God's work in our Country, but that can be overshadowed by increasing evil as He separates the wheat from the chaff.

Brett, you have the rule of law foundations completely inverted. John Locke is secularized Lex Rex+Thomas Hobbes, and the legal foundations of 17th and 18th Century British legal ideas were heavily influenced by an emphasis on God's law and His sovereignty over even the King. I would argue that the Rule of Law in America was a secularized, deistic concept of a foundationally Calvinistic/Christian influence idea of law in society.

As such, the problems we have with the Rule of Law in America come from a Christian set of ideas cut off from its foundations, and thus able to linger for a few generations running off momentum and an overarching Christian worldview. Eventually, however, everything without a foundation comes to an end, and that happened legally in America during the early 1900s.

 

[raderag]

Hi Pastor, I think I see where you are coming from here with your warning about tyranny(i.e. infanticide), but to say we live in a tyrannical society today is to belittle what tyranny really is. I think your posts indicates some sort of longing for the "good ole days" that were never here. Do you know there were far more communing Presidents in 20th century than there were in the 18th and 19th combined? While there is much Godly about our heritage, much of it can be attributed to Deism wrapped in Christian language. The idea that are laws are discovered as you say are based on notions of case law(a very old tradition), and the judicial power of the Supreme court was established in Mabury Vs Madison (1803). The rule of law in this country, while under attack by some, may be better than ever.

With all due respect, while I think you make some lucid points, your posts reads like more like alarmism than a real call to arms. I think that there is much evidence of God's work in our Country, but that can be overshadowed by increasing evil as He separates the wheat from the chaff.

Hi Brett,
I could make a few paragraphs in response, but I'll just try to be very brief.

Thanks for being succinct. It really helps in these sort of conversations.

1) Our forefathers founded this country on a huge tax revolt. They called some mildly piddling taxes "tyranny", and listed a number of other things as "tyrannical" in the Declaration, which by today's of a) rates of taxation, b) government intrusion, and c) comparative levels of despotism in other countries make our Rebellion of 1776 look quite inappropriate, if "tyranny" is to be defined by only the "worst" sorts of absolutism. So I don't accept that my use of the term is outside any bounds, or "belittles" those who suffer greater.

They way I understand it, the American fight for independence was based on many issues, such as taxation without representation, the arbitrary violation of the rights of the colonies, and even civil rights. I don't think the amount of tax had anything to do with it.

2) Your thinking I want "the good ole days" is a naive misreading of my post. If I don't want to go back to 50 years ago, or 100 years ago, I can scarcely be read as advocating a "return to yesteryear." On the other hand, America had greater freedom during the first 100 years of the nation than we have today. How is it improper to desire timeless principles of liberty to flourish in another age? The Presidency today is not the office it was created to be. And there is much less institutional willpower today to resist the impulse to make it an office of "supreme authority" than there used to be. If you are a student of history, I can point you to several prominent examples, both modern and pre-modern, of the rise of dictatorial office. If you say, "Oh, but it couldn't happen here," I will just smile wryly, and think of Cicero.

I'm not sure when there was more freedom than now, especially when you consider the plight of the slaves. I guess you could make an argument pre-war between the states, although there are many documented examples of the arbitrary nature of various governments even then. Now, there did exists an agrarian economy where there seemed to be a high level of autonomy, but I don't know if it was truly a golden age of freedom. First hundred years though? No way.

I never said it couldn't happen here, but rather that it hasn't and we should be calling our brothers to arms not retreat. Your post read like there is nothing that can stop the coming authoritarianism. That to me is not recognizing the freedom that God has graciously given us in our land, and furthermore is not crediting God with the work that is currently doing in the Church.

3) I am no sentimentalist, when it comes to the founders either. You certainly didn't read in what I wrote, any laudatory veneration of them, or baptizing of them or the Constitution as some kind of divinized document. On the other hand, it was the law of the land. You also seem to misread what I wrote on law-principles. I value both discovery and derivation as principles that predate the founding our national legal system. But those principles are NOT the guides any more for law at any level. Legal Positivism is. That principle is antithetical to the whole notion of natural law, or theistic law--or any system you please--of invariable axioms that ground legal action. Law has been placed ultimately within the human system. There is nothing transcendent about law, in such a system. And consequently, there are no effective checks on "the final human authorities." If you think we are in a stronger position "under law" now that our jurists have rejected a transcendent legal order, then we are going to have to disagree on what makes for a firm foundation. Where the Zeitgeist blows, the Law will shift with it.

I agree with you that to the extent that our legal system has been influenced with this line of thought, and it has certainly been to some extent, it is to the peril of our country. On the other hand, I read many critiques of our legal system read as apology of judicial review and case law. I should have known your criticism was more sophisticated. I just wish the court would have been able to use its true constitutional authority during the FDR days;they certainly tried.

I'm not sure if we are in a stronger position "under law", but am quite sure that the rule of law is far stronger than it has been at almost any time in our country. The arbitrary nature of the many governments in our land during the 18th century is well established. The amount of corruption during this time makes our politicians look like saints.

However, I agree that there are very serious problems in how our constitution is being interpreted.

4) My point stated at the outset was, I don't think there's anything especially "spiritual" about staying here or going anyplace. Each person has to make such a choice before God. I'm not calling anyone to arms. I'm calling them to make an intelligent choice, with their eyes wide open. Don't assume this is where you need to be, if you would do better if you went to live in Paraguay, or went to be a missionary in Tanzania. You don't have to flee the US either, just because things are the way they are. If you start thinking of yourself first as a citizen of Heaven, then suddenly you are tremendously free to go wherever--or stay wherever--God wants you.

That sounds fine, but if you are leaving this country because of some distant black helicopters, you may be abandoning the Church itself. Consider how quickly Rome went from Pagan to Christian.

I don't see regression, nor do I see any particular progression of the Kingdom of God in our Country. I see many paradoxes in our Country as God seems to be separating good from evil.

 

[raderag]

I don't think its possible to say that "staying is morally superior" OR that "leaving is morally superior," as if the answer were the same for everyone in all circumstances. There were many who left Jerusalem, and Judea, and were scattered, but some stayed.


If I had been living in the days of the Massachusetts Bay (not Plymouth) or one of the other Colonies, I might well have been inclined to leave for the new world. I'm sure it felt "worth it" for the sake of pure worship and for the sake of children. That being said, I don't think that one has to participate fully in the world, when they choose to stay.

For example, as beneficial as it might be as a pastor, to put my kids in a public school--in a small-town environment, to "be a part" of the community and build ties--there have to be better ways, if that school is a part of a larger system that actively attacks the Christian faith, if those teachers and administrators (however good their intentions) are bound by the terms of their employment to deny God, and if real discipline is absent.

So, is there really "no place" to go, anymore? I used to think so, until I stopped thinking like an American. Think about it: the early Colonists had similar thoughts. "How can I leave England, for someplace worse in so many ways?" They decided it was worth it, for a vision of what that frontier could become. And more, they transplanted "England" (New England) with themselves.

So, ask yourself if you are truly in love with principles and ideals, or simply the America of your youth, or your grandparents? There was a lot less freedom then, than at the beginning. When most people say "The US is the best/freest/greatest nation," etc., they usually mean that America has the highest standard of living that they know of. This, they reason, must be because we are so free. So, in other lands, the people must be generally poorer because they are oppressed. But that isn't always the case.

The other major reason why "we're the greatest," is attributed to the prevalence of the rule of law. But if federalism is dead, and the Constitution subverted, are we really under "the rule of law" or not? Or is that just another one of those slogans? If they want to, they can take away your property--eminent domain means whatever those in charge want it to mean. Right to life? Not after Roe v. Wade--privacy, a non-right, has been place over a right spelled out in plain text.

Are we a nation of law? LAWS, yes, enough to make us all lawbreakers every day, whether you know it or not. But not LAW, in the sense of fixed standards, "discovered" as it was once explained, or "derived" from continuity and conversation with the past. The LAW has been rendered wholly positive, and it means in the end, what 5 Supremes say it means.

So, if we are "freer", it is because there are residual echoes of the fixed standard. Those are fading like ripples in the pond. We are very close to the time when Caesar's word will make law once again. Even your RonPaulRevolution is likely nothing but a milepost on the way to despotism. Even if elected, his term would most likely mark the end of the American Experiment. "He stood for what it stood for at the beginning, like a bookend.".

Hi Pastor, I think I see where you are coming from here with your warning about tyranny(i.e. infanticide), but to say we live in a tyrannical society today is to belittle what tyranny really is. I think your posts indicates some sort of longing for the "good ole days" that were never here. Do you know there were far more communing Presidents in 20th century than there were in the 18th and 19th combined? While there is much Godly about our heritage, much of it can be attributed to Deism wrapped in Christian language. The idea that are laws are discovered as you say are based on notions of case law(a very old tradition), and the judicial power of the Supreme court was established in Mabury Vs Madison (1803). The rule of law in this country, while under attack by some, may be better than ever.

With all due respect, while I think you make some lucid points, your posts reads like more like alarmism than a real call to arms. I think that there is much evidence of God's work in our Country, but that can be overshadowed by increasing evil as He separates the wheat from the chaff.

Brett, you have the rule of law foundations completely inverted. John Locke is secularized Lex Rex+Thomas Hobbes, and the legal foundations of 17th and 18th Century British legal ideas were heavily influenced by an emphasis on God's law and His sovereignty over even the King. I would argue that the Rule of Law in America was a secularized, deistic concept of a foundationally Calvinistic/Christian influence idea of law in society.

As such, the problems we have with the Rule of Law in America come from a Christian set of ideas cut off from its foundations, and thus able to linger for a few generations running off momentum and an overarching Christian worldview. Eventually, however, everything without a foundation comes to an end, and that happened legally in America during the early 1900s.

Scott, I think I more or less agree with you, but perhaps you are reading too much into what I said?

 

[Theoretical]

Hi Pastor, I think I see where you are coming from here with your warning about tyranny(i.e. infanticide), but to say we live in a tyrannical society today is to belittle what tyranny really is. I think your posts indicates some sort of longing for the "good ole days" that were never here. Do you know there were far more communing Presidents in 20th century than there were in the 18th and 19th combined? While there is much Godly about our heritage, much of it can be attributed to Deism wrapped in Christian language. The idea that are laws are discovered as you say are based on notions of case law(a very old tradition), and the judicial power of the Supreme court was established in Mabury Vs Madison (1803). The rule of law in this country, while under attack by some, may be better than ever.

With all due respect, while I think you make some lucid points, your posts reads like more like alarmism than a real call to arms. I think that there is much evidence of God's work in our Country, but that can be overshadowed by increasing evil as He separates the wheat from the chaff.

Brett, you have the rule of law foundations completely inverted. John Locke is secularized Lex Rex+Thomas Hobbes, and the legal foundations of 17th and 18th Century British legal ideas were heavily influenced by an emphasis on God's law and His sovereignty over even the King. I would argue that the Rule of Law in America was a secularized, deistic concept of a foundationally Calvinistic/Christian influence idea of law in society.

As such, the problems we have with the Rule of Law in America come from a Christian set of ideas cut off from its foundations, and thus able to linger for a few generations running off momentum and an overarching Christian worldview. Eventually, however, everything without a foundation comes to an end, and that happened legally in America during the early 1900s.

Scott, I think I more or less agree with you, but perhaps you are reading too much into what I said?

On a re-read it would seem to be that way. Sorry for jumping the gun - you just happened to stumble on a component of my honors thesis research - so I got a bit impulsive.

 

[raderag]

Brett, you have the rule of law foundations completely inverted. John Locke is secularized Lex Rex+Thomas Hobbes, and the legal foundations of 17th and 18th Century British legal ideas were heavily influenced by an emphasis on God's law and His sovereignty over even the King. I would argue that the Rule of Law in America was a secularized, deistic concept of a foundationally Calvinistic/Christian influence idea of law in society.

As such, the problems we have with the Rule of Law in America come from a Christian set of ideas cut off from its foundations, and thus able to linger for a few generations running off momentum and an overarching Christian worldview. Eventually, however, everything without a foundation comes to an end, and that happened legally in America during the early 1900s.

Scott, I think I more or less agree with you, but perhaps you are reading too much into what I said?

On a re-read it would seem to be that way. Sorry for jumping the gun - you just happened to stumble on a component of my honors thesis research - so I got a bit impulsive.

No problem Scott. I'm hardly an expert on any of this stuff anyway.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I'm not sure when there was more freedom than now, especially when you consider the plight of the slaves.

Well put.

Your post read like there is nothing that can stop the coming authoritarianism.

Pessimism. Guilty as charged. But I actually think that the reason the pessimism is warranted is not that I doubt God, but rather that I believe him. I do not see the kind of abandonment of idolatry, or any widespread repentance of sin--either personal or corporate. So I am quite far from thinking God has any inclination to deliver us from what I think are "natural consequences" of human evil. Especially when it is being done despite Christian witness, and (sadly) oftentimes with ecclesiastic boosting.

The arbitrary nature of the many governments in our land during the 18th century is well established. The amount of corruption during this time makes our politicians look like saints.

I agree that one cannot find any era without corruption. But for my part I would rather have countless little pockets of competing petty corruption, than the giant sac of pus that is suffocating the land. I freely admit it: I am without sanguinity on this subject. I have a degree in Government. I have been in the military. I have been a serious student of the subject for 20 years now. And I have learned. I have changed my views on a host of things. And I know that the only allegiance that matters is the one I owe Christ. "Put no confidence in princes."

That sounds fine, but if you are leaving this country because of some distant black helicopters, you may be abandoning the Church itself. Consider how quickly Rome went from Pagan to Christian.

Ignoring the "ArtBell" style reference, I think similar warnings could have been given to the 16th century refugees heading for Geneva, or 17th century Colonists. Or going back farther, to the many Christians who left Jerusalem in the first century. Those people were, in any case, simply trying to be faithful. And so were many who stayed put. No doubt, there were more than a few who went the way that the writer of "Hebrews" warned against--abandoning the church. What does that prove? Rome, the Empire, "went Christian" in about 300 years. I'm sure there were many displacements during those 30 decades.

I don't see regression, nor do I see any particular progression of the Kingdom of God in our Country. I see many paradoxes in our Country as God seems to be separating good from evil.

Can't argue too much with that.

 

[BJClark]

Contra_Mundum;

2) Your thinking I want "the good ole days" is a naive misreading of my post. If I don't want to go back to 50 years ago, or 100 years ago, I can scarcely be read as advocating a "return to yesteryear." On the other hand, America had greater freedom during the first 100 years of the nation than we have today. How is it improper to desire timeless principles of liberty to flourish in another age? The Presidency today is not the office it was created to be. And there is much less institutional willpower today to resist the impulse to make it an office of "supreme authority" than there used to be. If you are a student of history, I can point you to several prominent examples, both modern and pre-modern, of the rise of dictatorial office. If you say, "Oh, but it couldn't happen here," I will just smile wryly, and think of Cicero.

Nothing wrong with wanting to go back to that time frame, however, to me it sounds more like a longing of things to come...in Heaven

4) If you start thinking of yourself first as a citizen of Heaven, then suddenly you are tremendously free to go wherever--or stay wherever--God wants you.

I believe this is something we should all be thinking about...do we really consider ourselves first to be 'citizens of Heaven'? Do we really take to heart that as Christian's we represent Christ, and Heaven? I don't think 'most' that call themselves Christians do.

There was a time when a Man's name and reputation actually meant something to him and to others. This is something we as a society have fallen away from, even within many families, and churches, people just don't seem to care about the name they carry and if it gives the family name a positive or negative image.

 

[raderag]

Pessimism. Guilty as charged. But I actually think that the reason the pessimism is warranted is not that I doubt God, but rather that I believe him. I do not see the kind of abandonment of idolatry, or any widespread repentance of sin--either personal or corporate. So I am quite far from thinking God has any inclination to deliver us from what I think are "natural consequences" of human evil. Especially when it is being done despite Christian witness, and (sadly) oftentimes with ecclesiastic boosting.

Fair enough, we all have our eschatological views, and I'm not even sure where I fit into this picture. Sometimes I wonder quantitative growth with little qualitative growth in the Kingdom is growth at all. The problem is that our History doesn't fit into any neat box. I'm not saying that is where you are trying to put it, but many would.

I agree that one cannot find any era without corruption. But for my part I would rather have countless little pockets of competing petty corruption, than the giant sac of pus that is suffocating the land. I freely admit it: I am without sanguinity on this subject. I have a degree in Government. I have been in the military. I have been a serious student of the subject for 20 years now. And I have learned. I have changed my views on a host of things. And I know that the only allegiance that matters is the one I owe Christ. "Put no confidence in princes."

I appreciate what you bring to the discussion, and I am far less educated on these matters. However, I saw a need to question your conclusions.

 

[sastark]

I am strongly against leaving the U.S., but I am surprised no one has mentioned Zambia as a palce to go. It is Christian nation.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I'll Probably die right here. And I imagine if things get to bad the patriotic vets will stand up and organize. You know.... Many good men have died for the cause of Christ so that their Countrymen could see their witness and testimony. The Reformation was a back and forth fight. It still is. Why wouldn't our Nation have the same thing? I have a reason to live and a reason to die. Either way I hope I can remain faithful and seal the testimony of Christ in my life and or death.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

I am strongly against leaving the U.S., but I am surprised no one has mentioned Zambia as a palce to go. It is Christian nation.

See this thread.

 

[sastark]

I am strongly against leaving the U.S., but I am surprised no one has mentioned Zambia as a palce to go. It is Christian nation.

See this thread.

Hmm... Looks like I don't have access to that page, Andrew. (Is it in the Politics Forum? I don't think I ever requested to join that.)

Care to summarize it for me?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

I am strongly against leaving the U.S., but I am surprised no one has mentioned Zambia as a palce to go. It is Christian nation.

See this thread.

Hmm... Looks like I don't have access to that page, Andrew. (Is it in the Politics Forum? I don't think I ever requested to join that.)

Care to summarize it for me?

Seth -- Yes, it is in the politics forum (surprised that this thread isn't there too!). It's just a thread I started a couple of years ago about the preamble to the Zambian constitution, quoting the actual text which declares it to be a Christian nation, but also wondering aloud how "Christian" it really is.

 

[Barnpreacher]

I think being in a place of persecution would be great, the church grows under persecution.

See ya! Let us all know how that works out for ya...

Richard,

Certainly you are not denying the fact that this principle is seen throughout Scripture and the history of the Church???

Or was that tongue and cheek?

 

[RamistThomist]

I don't think he is denying it, but it is not sound hermeneutics to posit that as normative for the church. For if it is, then:

1) Those who are not being persecuted are not true Christians.
2) Therefore, they must seek persecution.

 

[Barnpreacher]

I don't think he is denying it, but it is not sound hermeneutics to posit that as normative for the church. For if it is, then:

1) Those who are not being persecuted are not true Christians.
2) Therefore, they must seek persecution.

Jacob,

Good point. Perhaps Pastor Faulk would have been better off saying it this way, "There are numerous historical examples of the Church growing under persecution."

I don't think we necessarily have to seek persecution to prove ourselves true Christians, but there is little doubt that many believers did not shy away from it when it came. Paul expounds upon that very point in numerous passages.