A House Divided

I am reading A Short History of the Confederate States of America by Jefferson Davis giving me an understanding of what prompted the secession of states and the ensuing war. Especially interesting in the account is the legality of secession derived from the United States constitution.

The governments of the States were instituted to secure certain unalienable rights of the citizens with which they were endowed by their Creator. Where must the American citizen look for the security of these rights? To his State Government.

The powers which a State Government possesses for the security of his life, his liberty, his property, his safety, and his happiness are “just powers.” They have been derived from the unconstrained consent of the governed, and they have been organized in such form as seems most likely to effect these objects.

The entire order of the State Government is founded on the free consent of the governed. From this it springs; from this, it receives its force and life. It is this consent alone from which “just powers” are derived. They can come from no other source, and their exercise secures a true republican government. All else are usurpations, their exercise is a tyranny, and their end is the safety and security of the usurper, to obtain which the safety and security of the people are sacrificed. The “just powers” thus derived are organized in such form as seems most likely to effect safety and happiness. It is the governed who determine the form of the government, and not the ruler or his military force, unless he comes as a conqueror to make the subjugated do his will.

What, then, is the Government of the United States? It is an organization of a few years’ duration. It might cease to exist and yet the States and the people continue prosperous, peaceful, and happy. Unlike the governments of the States, which find their origin deep in the nature of man, it sprang from certain circumstances which existed in the course of human affairs. Unlike the governments of the States and of separate nations, which have a divine sanction, it has no warrant for its authority but the ratification of the sovereign States. Unlike the governments of the States, which were instituted to secure generally the unalienable rights of man, it has only the enumerated objects, and is restrained from passing beyond them by the express reservation of all undelegated functions. It keeps no record of property, and guarantees to no one the possession of his estate. Marriage, it can neither confirm nor annul. It is an anomaly among governments, and arose out of the articles of agreement made by certain friendly States which proposed to form a society of States, and invest a common agent with specified functions of sovereignty. Its duration was intended to be permanent, as it was hoped thus to promote the peaceful ends for which it was established; but to have declared it perpetual would have been to deny the right of the people to alter or abolish their government when it should cease to answer the ends for which it was instituted.

The objects which its creation was designed to secure to the States and their people were of a truly peaceful nature, and commended themselves to the approbation of men: “To form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

Notice the flow of authority: first, the state, then the federal. This is how our constitution was conceived and written. As years went by, the federal government took for itself increasing authority over the states, yet states could leave the union if they determined that the decisions or actions of the federal government had overstepped enumerated powers. The most well-known occasion being in 1861 when several southern states seceded for multiple reasons. To thwart this independent action, the federal government took an elitist stance with the guise of national unity in order to force Southern subjugation. Davis describes it this way concerning the state of Tennesse:

Mankind must contemplate with horror the fact that an organization established for such peaceful and benign ends did, within the first century of its existence, lead the assault in a civil war that brought nearly four million soldiers into the field, and destroyed thousands and thousands of millions of treasure, trampled the unalienable rights of the people underfoot, subverted the governments of the States, and ended by establishing itself as supreme and sovereign over all. Now let us proceed to notice the acts of the Federal Government which subjugated the State Governments. In the case of Tennessee, already noted, the Government of the State — which derived its powers from the consent of the governed, so that they were “just powers” — found, in the discharge of its duty to protect the institutions of its people, that there were no means by which it could fulfill that duty but by a withdrawal from the Union, so as to be rid of the Government of the United States, and thus escape the threatened dangers of usurpation and sectional hostility. It, therefore, resolved to withdraw from the Union, and the people gave their assent to that resolution; so that the State no longer considered itself a member of the Union, nor recognized the laws and authority of its Government.

The Government of the United States then, with a powerful military force, planted itself at Nashville, the State capital. It refused to recognize the laws and authority of its Government, or any organization under it, as having any existence, or to recognize the people otherwise than as a hostile community. It said to them, in effect, “I am the sovereign, and you are the subjects. If you are stronger than I am, then drive me out of the State; if I am stronger than you are, then I command an unconditioned surrender to my sovereignty.” It is evident that the Government of the United States was not there by the consent of those who were to be governed. It had not, therefore, any “just powers” of government within the State of Tennessee. “For,” says the Declaration of Independence of our fathers, “governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” By this action, therefore, the Federal Government not only subverted the State Government but annihilated it. It proceeded to establish a new order of affairs, founded on the assumption of Federal sovereignty. It appointed its military governor to be the head of the new order, and recognized no civil or political existence in any man except some of its notorious adherents, until, by betraying the State, he had taken an oath of allegiance to the sovereignty of the United States. Then unalienable rights were systematically denied, freedom of speech was suppressed, freedom of the press was suspended, personal liberty was destroyed. Citizens were arrested, imprisoned, and exiled without the process of law.

I mention the above because the current national rancor is similarly fueled as elitist politicians, media, and corporate executives demonstrate the same attitude of sovereignty trying to build oligarchal structures. As a result, discussions of secession have been fueled—most notably in Texas.

Many have asked if secession is now legal. Those espousing the negative cite Chief Justice Salmon Chase who wrote in his 1869 Texas v. White decision: “The union between Texas and the other states was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original states. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.” Should a state, or group of states, secede anyway? I fear that the federal response would result in carnage sufficient to pale that of the Civil War. But if this drastic action is not seriously attempted, I fear that Washington, D.C., etc. will run roughshod over our civil rights in their desire to be overlords of the masses. Let’s hope neither will come about.

The best solution is to recognize state sovereignty as originally intended, but I will not hold my breath waiting for the federal government to cede back what has been taken.

Voter Accountability

Matthew Cochran has written a piece that asks the question: To Whom Are Christians Accountable for Our Votes? This topic is relevant not just for this election cycle but ongoing as tensions continue to escalate between disparate ideologies.

Matt forms his three points along the lines of Martin Luther’s teaching that we live in three God-created estates: Church, Family, and State.* The first two estates covered pertain to God and family. This makes sense within a biblical framework as Jesus explained to a scribe:

“The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” (Mk 12:29–31)

Matt takes an interesting take on the third estate. There he does not consider government in general, but rather the deposit that has been handed to us.

Accordingly, we have a responsibility to care for what they’ve left to us. While we need not do everything exactly the way they would have, we do need to respect their values and purposes so that we are guided by them. So are you voting in a way that will “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”? Do you even define those words in much the same way as our founding fathers did? If we want to kludge some kind of re-purposing of the government they left to us, then we must beware.

After the Constituional Convention Benjamin Franklin was famously asked what we had been given. He replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” Let us strive to do just that.




* For more on this, consider Bryan Wolfmueller’s helpful compilation.

Why Christians Vote

There are several reasons for Christians to vote whenever given the opportunity.  This year, however, I have read a rather unique and compelling reason to cast a ballot on November 6th in a brief post by Todd Wilken.

Why does a Christian vote?  A Christian doesn’t vote for the same reason the unbeliever votes.

A Christian doesn’t vote because it’s his right.  That’s why the unbeliever votes.  For the Christian, his own rights have nothing to do with it.

A Christian doesn’t vote to get his way.  That’s also why the unbeliever votes.  For the Christian, getting his way has nothing to do with it.

A Christian doesn’t vote to protect his own interests.  For the Christian, his own interests have nothing to do with it.

A Christian votes to serve his neighbor—period.

A Christian votes because he is called to do so by the needs of his neighbor.  This means that a Christian will sometimes vote against his own rights, his own way and his own self-interest; but always in favor of his neighbor and his needs.  At the ballot box, the neighbor comes first.

On election day, don’t vote like an unbeliever.  Make your vote count … for your neighbor.

Explanation, Found It!

This was passed along to me by a friend.  It is too good not to post.

I have often wondered why it is that the conservatives are called the “right” and the liberals are called the “left.”  By chance stumbled upon this verse in the Bible:

Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.

Yep, that's it!

Radio Static

Today I found the following Facebook status:

Hell's radio stations: Rush, Glenn, Sean & Alan, Contemporary Christian music with no commercial interruptions . . .

Lest anyone think these are the words of a liberal secularist bent on destroying the church and all that is sacred, the man who shared these thoughts has an M.Div. from a U.S. seminary and a Ph.D. in Theology and Ethics from University of Edinburgh. He currently teaches at a seminary in the U.S. I realize that with these credentials, he could still be a wolf amongst the flock, but I have known him personally for over 30 years and think his opinions have merit.

Talk radio
Let's start with the political commentators. I admit to listening to the first three men within the past 24 hours via radio and internet feed and have periodically over the years. Each is well-known for his conservative political opinions. There is one thing I have learned from listening: though they each purport to believe in God, each approaches socio-political problems from a humanist perspective. Glenn warns of the rampant spending and uncontrolled "czars." Rush trumpets American ingenuity and exceptionalism. Sean argued with Michael Moore about what constitutes a Christian viewpoint of capitalism. They each cited Jesus' words to bolster his case. Frankly, I doubt any of them knows what a biblical perspective looks like: pray for those who rule; care for widows and orphans in their need; live as resident aliens (because our citizenship is in heaven), seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, etc.

Does that mean I should avoid politics or not speak out? Not at all. When Tertullian wrote The Apology, the intended recipients were "Rulers of the Roman Empire"--the first words written in the treatise. This he did in the face of persecution. It seems no less important to do so while living in a free state, but that does not define us. We are not being made into the image of the Founding Fathers but into the image of Christ.

Contemporary Christian Music
I might be able to count on one hand the number of songs that have been written in the last twenty years having meaningful content. By that I mean words that do not dwell on my feelings or dwell on my relationships or repeat endlessly or repeat endlessly or repeat endlessly or repeat . . .

Music has purpose, and no, it is not to make us feel worshipful on Sunday morning. In the church it is a teaching tool. Look at Colossians 3:16

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

Notice that there are two participial phrases: 1) teaching and admonishing; and 2) singing psalms and hymns spiritual songs. Paul is connecting these thoughts to help believers understand that music is to be doctrinally sound. On the whole, CCM does not fit the description, yet churches insist on using the popular choruses ad infinitum. Many hymns are no better. We just need to be more careful of what is being taught by the praise band.

Someone will say, "But the songs speak to me where I am." Fine, listen to mainstream country. Those artists and songwriters can say it much better. For worship I expect something that points me to the Lord of the universe. Someone else will retort, "But the psalmist talks about feelings." Yes, he does, but the ultimate focus is the person and work of God.

Conclusion
Ask yourself this question: Is my radio-listening governing me, or am I governing my radio-listening? By that, I am saying that you can listen to whatever you desire, but make sure it is active listening "with knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ" (Philippians 1:10).