Some of what I say here is trivial and mundane. Other things are substantive and worthy of record for posterity. Since 2007 this blog site has been a journal of sorts* for what I was doing and learning and thinking. And I know that some few people have read old blog entries because the metrics reveal that they have. In fact, two different people read through many of my old entries recently because every time I would get on the site the “Stats” would reveal one view of 3 to 6 entries, frequently in chronological order. I have a desire to share my thoughts, even if it is only with myself, but I have a greater desire for someone to understand the Gospel of Jesus through what I share here.
So, why the title, “What’s Next?” If you read my last entry, then you will know that I cut it short because some photos would not upload. It turns out that I have reached the 3 GB storage of the site. Now there are several simple solutions. One is to upgrade, but that is more than double of what I pay now. It is a reasonable price, but not one I feel settled about paying with all of the bills right now. A second option is to stop blogging, too much time on electronic media and all that, but this is certainly not mindless surfing the web. In fact, it might even be a good therapy for an aging brain to stay engaged. And there is the fact that I enjoy it. The content must not be too exciting because I get few comments, but I hope it makes some people think about and dwell on what “is true… honorable… right… pure… lovely… of good repute… any excellence… worthy of praise” (Philippians 4:8). Thirdly, I could delete earlier entries to make room for new ones. This is a bitter sweet option for me. I do go back and read entries occasionally, especially to prepare for new ones. But even more so, when talking to someone, I will refer them to a previous entry for more context or further thought. And this may be just the thing that I do. But what do I delete? Do I pick a category, say “Poems” for example, and wipe the blog of all poems? Or do I pick and choose less “useful” or “striking” entries? Or perhaps I just trim off entries as space for the next one requires.
As I said, I don’t get many comments, but I’m going to ask anyway. What do you think? Which option should I go with? If I trim the entries, which and how should I go about it? What do you think? Really, I’d like to know. I have a silly little entry waiting in drafts, but because it would include one picture, I can’t upload it. And I will run out space for words soon…………..
*I feel like a “real” journal would include the good with the bad. I have shared some struggles, but for the most part people don’t really want to hear what you are struggling with, but what you are excited about and learning about. As I commented to a friend on FB recently, “Life is good because God is good, but it is difficult at times.” As the subtitle of this blog reminds me, “Pointing to One who… sustains me.” He has done that and blessed me in good times and difficult times. He is good.
Why our laws are not nor will be just.
Posted in America, Change, Civil Debate, Cultural commentary, Freedom, General, God's Law, Government, Judgment, Repentance, tagged Civil Debate, Constitution, Family Jurisdiction, God's Law, Government Jurisdiction, Repentance, Rule of Law, Unjust Law on June 19, 2020| Leave a Comment »
If you are reading this blog entry and have not read the prequel (“Basis of Civil Debate“), it will seem to lack context and may be confusing. Please read the previous blog entry first so that I may be truly heard in this one.
The debate itself was about the following subject:
Mr. L stated that he hated child labor laws because they represented an abrogation of family jurisdiction. The state does not have the right to tell the family how to function even if the family structure is severely compromised or clearly in the wrong. I pointed out that the reason such laws exist was because of Dickens’ writing about conditions during the Industrial Revolution. Those conditions were not right and needed to be stopped. At least two times, and I think more, I agreed in principle with Mr. L’s statement and Mr. F’s restatement of their point.
In part I may have not been heard because of my initial statement about Dickens. Why you may ask? It was immediately thrown back at me that poor conditions are no reason to lay aside the law of God. Again I agreed, but I was not allowed to state my case. The more I tried the louder the counter repetitions of the first point became.
What then was my point? I agree that it is wrong to lay aside the God-given jurisdiction of the family in favor of a mis-placed jurisdiction of government. However, I do not believe that, for instance, child labor laws are the problem or that eliminating them will solve the problem. In fact, I do not believe that under the present form of government, ruled mostly by emotion rather than law, that child labor laws, or many other family jurisdiction abrogating laws, will be rescinded until the real problem is solved. Why do I believe that? I believe that people will not allow abuse of women and children to continue even if the means of attempting to stop it is wrong and a failure* in practice.
So, what is the real problem and what is the solution? We the people, by and large have turned away from God and His Law. Until and unless we repent and turn back to His way we will not rescind these laws because we think we know better than God. And maybe we should not even try to change the laws and we definitely won’t, because there is too much travesty and hurt in a society where God’s rule is debased and ignored. Does that mean we can never go back to being a godly nation**? No, it does not, but there will need to be some deep repentance on the part of parents and employers and government officials, both bureaucratic and elected, and most notably those who claim to know God. The order of retracing our steps to godliness is more likely repentance, revival, renewal, then reformation of life and law. That does not mean that to have just, God honoring laws we must be a perfect nation, but we must first have a majority of the people acknowledging God and God’s Law. When the travesties of child abuse in the home and the society at large are rarities rather than regular fare, then we will be more likely to correct our laws to reflect God’s Law.
To simplify this idea, let me summarize by saying the following: You don’t legislate morality; morality determines just law. Mr. L stated the first half of my statement at one point in his argument, and I believe he could agree with the second half of the statement if he had truly heard me. That might have involved me having a better handle on how to present it to him and Mr. F.
The Founding Fathers, by in large, got it right. They based our laws on God’s law. Even as we, they had influences that drew them away from the knowledge of God and His law. Therefore, unlike the Scriptures, the Constitution is a human document, which cannot be perfect. It is very likely the best document of its kind produced by humans, because it so largely reflects God’s law. And I agree with Washington when he said to Henry Lee, “Let the reins of government then be braced and held with a steady hand, and every violation of the constitution be reprehended. If defective, let it be amended, but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence.” (letter 10/31/1786) It has been and is being trampled upon because the basis for this document, God’s law, is trampled.
*Yes, child-labor laws stopped children from working in dangerous conditions, but it did not stop the abuse of children.
**I do not equate us with Israel, nor do I say that we have no heinous sins for which God will judge us. However, we have a system that is based on God’s laws with many past examples of godly people and building of God’s kingdom around the world.
Read Full Post »