Posted on 06/02/2009 3:33:49 AM PDT by John Leland 1789
Conservatives Who May Forfeit the Protecting Hand of God
We have an ever-increasing crowd of leaders who are spoken of as “conservative” who will not defend the historic, traditional mores of the American nation. With them, “conservatism” is either:
1. An unbridled thirst for wealth expansion, open markets—principled or not principled on how their trading partners might use the wealth that it also affords them; some of them being in reality enemies of our free way of life—free trade on libertarian grounds that does not take into account that business people abroad do not have the same definitions of honesty and integrity, that despite the minority of American cheats, had been written in the heart of the American commercial instrument. And/or . . .
2. A strong military, a second-to-none national defense structure—willing to name and confront our enemies; being willing to fight them nose-to-nose if and when necessary—but weak in morals; ignorant of, or deliberately ignoring, the true history and spiritual and moral foundations of the nation. They are weak on the murder of the unborn; weak on the onslaught of the ungodly—sodomites; perverts.
Morality and culture in any nation or region are based and built upon the historic faith system of the people, yes, its prevailing religion. American business had been honest because Christianity teaches honesty; like it or not, the American nation began with the Bible and Christianity being brought on to the shores of the continent by Protestant Christians.
Protestant Christianity produced the faith system and the standard of integrity in the English colonies that became our integrity in business, commerce and contract law. I recommend the Reading of Earth and Man by Arnold Guyot, written after the Civil War. The torch of spiritual Revival was passed to Baptist and independent Christians in the Appalachian Mountain regions later in the 18th Century, and Baptists like John Leland of Virginia were very directly involved with James Madison in securing the promise of a Bill of Rights to be added to the Constitution. Many of our forefathers stated outright or suggested, and they are recorded in the annals of the American people, that the Constitution will not work without a “religious” people, and they were obviously speaking of nothing other that the Christian religion. And I suggest that that is the reason that the Republic would not survive as a Libertarian nation in the modern usage of Libertarian.
Honesty and integrity do not mean the same things in nations where the universities have taught two generations of business and trade students that it is patriotic to cheat foreigners, and use their wealth against them in the long run; patriotic to seek the demise of the western capitalists by entrapping them in debt and making it very difficult to repatriate their profits. I speak particularly of China, where university instruction says, “The western nations did us dirty for two hundred years, and it is now patriotic to do them dirty, and gradually, by nook and crook, transfer the wealth of the west into Chinese coffers.” Destruction of the American economy is the long-range goal of communist countries and what has been called “The Communist Internationalle.”
And now, former Vice President Dick Cheney says that he supports sodomites being able to marry, with this condition, that states, not the federal government, should make the decision. I have held high regard for Mr. Cheney. I have always considered him to be the actual brain of the Bush Administration.
A “conservative” in economics and use of the might of the United States, Richard Cheney now openly registers as a conservative who wants to run away from the historic, traditional Christian mores of the American people. I am terribly saddened by Mr. Cheney’s position. I wonder if his pastor agrees with him. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that Dick Cheney is a member of a “Christian” church. If his pastor agrees with Mr. Cheney’s position, then I really wonder why Mr. Cheney would remain in such a church (because of his ungodly daughter, perhaps?). If his pastor would not agree, would Mr. Cheney back him up when two sodomites approach his pastor to perform their “wedding” ceremony and he refuses? I guess not.
At the National Press Club Vice President Cheney said, "I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone." "I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."
Mr. Cheney did not say that he is opposed to the ungodliness and perversion of sodomy and purveyors of it, but because of his faith in Federalism, he believed the states themselves should and would put a check on it. No! He believes in Federalism, and he believes that freedom means the countenancing of a perverted form of union which he would willingly admit to being “marriage.” He did say “people ought to be free to enter into ANY kind of union they wish, ANY kind of arrangement they wish.” (emphasis mine, but also of Mr. Cheney’s, for he said “any” twice in the same sentence). Sodomites want to call the union of a man with a man “marriage”—that is what they “wish.” Therefore, Mr. Cheney appears to be very fully in support of this wickedness.
Mr. Cheney appears to be a “conservative” who is in favor of the destruction of the home and family, for that is what state sanction of sodomite unions will bring about, and it will do it rapidly. Sodomites do not want their sin in the privacy of their own dwellings. They want it in the public places, they want it in the school classrooms, they want it in the Boy Scouts, they want it in the churches, they want it among our children, they want it in YOUR bedroom, as well as in their own. The idea that someone wants sexual perversion to be left unchecked behind their own walls is ridiculous; utterly foolish.
The sodomites in Genesis chapter nineteen of the Holy Bible serve as illustration enough, if that were the only illustration God gives us in the Bible (it is not the only illustration). Those perverts were in the street, on parade, if you will. They were united in their insistence that sodomy be brought in to a just man’s house; the man’s name was Lot (2 Peter 2:7). They were ready to break down the door of Lot’s house to “do so wickedly.” If it wasn’t sodomy—the men wanted to carnally know the angels that visited Lot’s house—then you have no explanation for what the men of Sodom wanted to do once they had used violence to break down the door. They weren’t there to steal anyone’s TV, computer, or jewelry. They were there to destroy a family and its friends.
Sodomy is a sin that fosters violence, and in our day it still seeks to break down the doors of our homes, schools, and institutions, and destroy the Christian foundations and witness of our nation. No government on earth has leave of our Holy God to put its stamp of approval on it, either tacitly or by legislation or court decisions.
Vice President Cheney is a “conservative” who is as wrong as he could be. He opposes Barack Obama with regard to the use of our military and our defense against Islamic-incited terrorism, but then climbs in the same bed with Obama with regard to the wickedness of sodomy in our land—which is spiritual and moral terrorism.
Both Barak Obama and Richard Cheney are stomping all over the standards of our Holy God; one a leftist, the other known as a “conservative. Do I “get it?” You may know that I do get it; that is the kind of apostasy and peril prophesied of these days in the same Book that warns us against sodomy. Whatever Mr. Cheney’s personal motives, he is part and parcel of the peril that confronts the American people. Both of these men want to ignore that they will answer to God, and so will the entire country, which, as a whole, seems unwilling to stand up for the words of God and for the principles that brought the human race to manhood on the American continent.
America can only look for further receding of the protecting and blessing Hand of God. Without that Hand, we are safe against no enemy, political, military, economic, spiritual, or moral. Without that hand capitalist economics and free enterprise will fail, for these were gifts from God who has the power and prerogative to withdraw them. That is the explanation for the fascism and socialism taking over our once very stable industries. Our military, too, though appearing successful in Iraq and Afghanistan, will see the fruits of their sacrificial work buried in the rushing resurgence of militant Islam once we have brought our troops home. It seems that our Generals are even unwilling to allow some Christian soldiers from distributing Bibles to Iraqi friends. That is substance for a different article, but I declare that because Christianity is forbidden in those countries to so many, they will once again be radically Islamicized beyond what have ever seen in the past . . . once American restraints are removed. We can keep troops there for another hundred years, but in 2110, Islam will again crush those people, and Islam will still be seeking to destroy us.
Or will America already be destroyed by then through our allowance of all that that which offends God? It won’t take another hundred years for the Hand of God to be entirely withdrawn and America left utterly vulnerable.
William Jennings Bryan was an economic progressive. He was mistaken in his economics. But he was a man who loved God and sought the glory and the standards of God in American life. That is why he supported prohibition, opposed evolutionary teaching, and that is why he actively promoted the evangelistic work of Billy Sunday. A nation and its leaders can make some serious mistakes in economics and still not forfeit the protecting, blessing, and rescuing hand of God. On the other hand, a nation and its leaders can be absolutely correct in conservative economic principles as well as its military strategies—but if they trample on the word of God, ignore His Holiness and His standards, live as humanists or practical atheists, and countenance wickedness and perversion, they can not depend on God’s protection. Free enterprise, a strong military, and I dare say the Constitution itself will all fail unless God holds its framework together in mercy for sinners like us.
That's the American Way.
Down with The Man! Power to The People! Socialism Forever!
Then let me be the second. Roaring from the Scriptures indeed. Deut 28 and Ro 1 clearly show us the mind of God in these matters. Obedience, Acknowledgment, and a Thankful heart towards Him is His desire. The rest of our needs, including our economy and defense are in His hands.
Nice job of quoting out of context. Thanks.
Wealth expansion is an American way, and the fruit of correct principle, when “bridled” by higher principles, inward government of truth.
The source of inward government is the Holy Spirit of God through the New Birth (John ch. 3)
Americans in generations past, when not Christian, were guided by direct Christian mores which were in evidence all around them.
When too few people in a society are inwardly governed, and therefore the society is morally “unbridled” then the wealth becomes god number 1, and the intelligence and ability to gain wealth becomes god number 2.
Such is to decide not to know or be thankful to the True and Living God, and degeneration becomes the consequence in that society.
The First Law of Thermodynamics is that energy cannot be created. The Second Law is that heat energy always passes to a colder zone; it dissipates.
Man cannot create his own goodness or righteousness with respect to satisfying the Holiness of God. It must be provided from a source of goodness outside of himself. What goodness he has by the laws of God being written on his heart dissipates; degenerates.
A society loses its goodness when there is none gifted from a source of greater goodness. That source is the God of the Bible.
So a free enterprise society which worships free enterprise for the sake of free enterprise and wealth itself, loses its free enterprise to fascist control of its auto and banking industries.
Free enterprise dissipates, as it is a gift of God, and not from man himself. Once man forgets God, the power of free-enterprise loses its energy to fascist tyrants (the colder regions).
Correctamundo.
Because many of the British colonists, such as the Puritans and Congregationalists, were fleeing religious persecution by the Church of England, much of early American religious culture exhibited the more extreme anti-Catholic bias of these Protestant denominations. Monsignor John Tracy Ellis wrote that a "universal anti-Catholic bias was brought to Jamestown in 1607 and vigorously cultivated in all the thirteen colonies from Massachusetts to Georgia."[5] Colonial charters and laws contained specific proscriptions against Roman Catholics...In 1642, the Colony of Virginia enacted a law prohibiting Catholic settlers. Five years later, a similar law was enacted by the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
In 1649 the Act of Toleration was passed, where "blasphemy and the calling of opprobrious religious names" became punishable offenses, but it was repealed in 1654 and thus outlawing Catholics once again. Puritans condemned ten Catholics to death and plundered the property of the Jesuits. By 1692, Maryland had become a royal colony, the Church of England was established by law, and Catholics were compelled to pay taxes for its support. They were cut off from all participation in public life and additional laws were introduced that forbid religious services and Catholic schools.
God created us with “free will”. It was God’s willful intention that man be free and responsible for his actions.
Therefore the essential component of an economic system must be freedom. The freedom to create goods and services (wealth) and then distribute it.
Therefore there is nothing wrong with Capitalism, provided the people practicing it are honest - unfortunately, in the past few years, we have seen people at high levels of Capitalism who are not honest. They cheat their employees, their customers, their shareholders and even themselves. There is nothing wrong with profiting from hard work, reasonable risk taking, etc., however, the Ponzi schemes and pure greed we have witnessed have given Capitalism a bad name. I think what we have seen for the most part in the past few years, is not true “Capitalism” as we had known it, but rather speculation and greed.
If CEO’s generate true wealth for the shareholders, and make a lot of money, this is one thing. But for CEO’s to be paid enormous amounts of money to run their companies into the ground and cost the shareholders most of their investment, often while skirting the law, is quite another thing.
There is also the issue of economic justice. To try to cheat the employees at every turn, might make some sort of economic sense, but it is not economic justice.
Capitalism will come back, but I hope it is tempered with honesty and justice.
NB: No one has cheated employees more lately than the federal government and the UAW as both consume control of auto companies and negotiate for auto-worker jobs to be sent to Canada and overseas.
God has given us the moral keys with which to do the right thing but as we become a more godless society we will be seeing more not less honesty and justice for all.
Excellent points.
Thx.
Now as to the system upon which the country was built, I would, to a degree, agree with you that it had its roots in the "reformation." But I think, more directly, that it had its roots in the enlightenment that began in the 18th Century. I think that the legal and political structures that were built were built upon an outgrowth of a Utopian interpretation of Reformation Protestantism. (We have been bestowed graces by God, and now it is up to us to create the eternal city using those graces)(Please recall that I am a Catholic, so the comment should be read in that light)
And I see that what has developed from that time is a natural evolution of this into liberal progressive thought (as epitomized by T. Roosevelt and Wilson) that came into vogue during the last quarter of the 19th century and throughout the 20th century.
You don't have to agree with the above, but it's my opinion: take it or leave it.
The essential hypothesis that you advocate, though, is essentially very, very valid. As we, as a society, abandon God in our business dealings, social constructs, and foreign policy, we are becoming progressively weaker and will eventually fall.
But the course of action you appear to advocate will ultimately fail. Prohibition did not work, not because it made spirits illegal, but rather because it imposed a progressive idea on a populace when the populace's hearts and minds were unwilling to accept it. Sodomites will continue to operate with boldness until the culture is changed to show it as it is: a spiritual oppression that will likely result in the commission of mortal sin (sodomy, adultery, fornication). Pornography will continue to flourish until we, as a people at large, stop indulging. Make it illegal and people will just find a way around it. The tragedy is that with the Internet, they can do so from the privacy of their own computers. Disgusting television programs will go off the air when the majority of the people simply stop watching them and start watching edifying programming.
As St. Paul said, "All things are lawful for me," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful for me," but I will not be enslaved by anything.
And we will begin the conversion of Muslims, the majority of whom honestly are seeking after God, when we, as a people, show them goodness (that is presupposed on our culture turning the corner and becoming authentically good) and showing them, through our lives, the grace of Jesus Christ. When that happens, no amount of religious repression, either from the Muslim country or from our own, will be able to stop it.
I have no illusions about us, with our own power, being able to turn the corner and change the culture. We won't. But if we become personally humble to God and allow Him to work within us, then He can do great things through our weakness. Unfortunately, I see far too few Christians willing to truly humble themselves before God, pull the plank from their eye, and prayerfully wait on God.
Just something to consider. FWIW. YMMV.
Thanks, Mark. Your reply is very well taken.
“Utopian” would have been to those “Reformation Protestants” what we term in exchatology as Postmillennialism — meaning (they held) that Revival (”Great Awakening,” Edwards, Whitefield, et al) would continue to spread until virtually the whole world is under its influence, and then Christ would return to take the Throne. I suppose that is could be termed “utopia” in the Christian sense.
I don’t know about the enlightenment thing. Obviously some of our founders were influenced by it, as was Locke. You know, so many have written that Washington was a Deist. But for years we have used a book with our children that contains prayers of George Washington from cover to cover. It is called The Prayers of George Washington, and it is a facsimile of his own handwriting. He prayed, and he often penned down his prayers. They are, every one, in the Name of Jesus Christ, acknowledging the work of the Cross, and the efficacy of the Blood of Christ.
Further Washington prayed for and thanked God for His daily interventions and help for himself, his generals, and the nation. Now that is just not the doctrine of a Deist. Washington appealed to his chaplain, John Gano, a Baptist, for immersion Baptism, and it was administered. A record of it is kept in a church in Connecticut, and a man sometime later did a portait depicting the baptism, which hangs in the John Gano Memorial Library in Liberty, Missouri.
I think you understood my point better than most. I received some scathing replies accusing me of not believing in Free Enterprise, and so forth. One implied I believe in socialism. In fact I do believe in Free Enterprise, and believe the Scriptures support it.
I have not read T. Roosevelt as much as I should have, but I, too, have thought he was more of a Progressive.
I was not really advocating legislated prohibition, or such advocation was not really on my mind when I wrote — I was just mentioning that it was supported by W.J. Bryan, as it was by the well known Christian city-wide evangelists (the early Billy Grahams, I guess one could say) of that era (1880s to WWII).
Bryan travelled ahead of the Billy Sunday evangelistic campaigns and held preparatory meetings with church and business leaders. He was a Presbyterian Sunday School teacher; his classes in Florida later on often had 5,000(!) in attendance. That was not the church service, but just a Sunday School class. Of course, that is easy to explain due to his general fame, having run thrice for the presidency.
I will confess, though, that had I lived in that era, and held the general convictions I hold today, I would have been in every temperance rally I could have gotten to. You can pick on me for that statement — I will take it in all grace.
Well, your respectful reply is very much appreciated by me. You make it hard to pick a fight, you know. Ha!
By the way, the government taking money by force from those who work hard and giving it to those who won't work is a direct violation of scripture.
So say you
It appears that God is judging the nation on the basis of three issues — abortion, homosexual marriage and dividing the land of Israel.
The rest of it isn’t going to matter too much, because after the judgment on these, there’s not going to be too much left to salvage...
“Capitalism (e.g. honest hard work and fair dealing with others while making money) seems to be supported in the scriptures. However, God’s word also shows that a nation running after sin will not be protected by Him. Israel is the perfect example of that.
By the way, the government taking money by force from those who work hard and giving it to those who won’t work is a direct violation of scripture.”
In the Puritan colonies, ALL others were persecuted, Catholics, Baptists, Quakers, Independents . . . They were all taxed to support the Congregational Standing Order churches. Congregationalism became the State Church. All had to support the Congregationalist clergy. Baptists, Quakers, and Independents, too, were forbidden to assemble for worship, forbidden to build their own houses of worship .... were jailed, tortured, fined, expelled from the territories.
We are aligned on many issues, but must be honest that we are not on others.
As a young man, one of the things that gradually started to surprise me is that many of my Reformed friends seemed to think that the USA was a land uniquely loved by God.
Maybe it is the background of where the Saxons that made up the LCMS came from, but that always sounded off to me. The guiding ideology behind the founding fathers was not Christianity, but the enlightenment. While there were some great ideas, there were many bad ones.
And you are right, you can't change the people without changing the culture. Look at the Civil War. It ended “slavery” but a black share cropper in the late 1800’s wouldn't have known that. It took a change in the culture.
“We are aligned on many issues, but must be honest that we are not on others.”
Which really WAS my point you see. Conservatism does not mean either Christian, moral or ethical. My post was listed in the “Religion” forum, not in a “Republican Party” forum, and I was talking about the God of the Bible. Bible-believing Christians, as I believe you would emphasize, see all politics and “conservatism” itself from a Biblicist Christian world view, not from Ayn Rand’s world view.
I will repeat that many of the founders, and drafters of the Constitution, believed that they were writing a Constitution suited to a “Religious” people — in their context, that was the Christian Faith. Those believed that a non-Christian populace would not be able to maintain Constitutional precepts for very long.
Beyond the theocratic nation of OT Israel I do not think there is any Biblical support for God taking on a nationalistic approach to humanity since He established the Church of the Body of Christ.
Even then there is no promise of personal protection...unless you want the same protection that Peter, Paul, and others had.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.