Purpose Of Government

According to the Bible, what is the purpose of civil government? I'll quote from a book called "10 Things Satan Doesn't Want You To Know". This is from the fourth chapter called The Battle Between Kingdoms.

"Governments, with rare exceptions, seek to expand their power beyond the mandate to restrain evil, preserve order, and promote justice." That's it. Those are the three things a government should be doing.

The purpose of this chapter is to point out that governments tend to go beyond these three things, and that's where we get into the battle between God's kingdom and the kingdom of civil government. On the other hand churches want to get involved in the three mandates of government, and that is equally wrong. The church can point out evil. It's the duty of government to catch criminals, have a trial and give out punishment. The church can point out evil supported by or performed by other governments. It's the duty of government to fight that evil (we call this war). The government is to maintain order through the use of police and the military. No church should never have a police or military force at its command.

When the government expands beyond what it supposed to do, problems will result. When the church expands into taking on government's responsibilities, there will be problems.

The Party Of Inclusiveness

It has been interesting to watch the Democractic primaries. The party of inclusion seems to be one of racism and polarized politics instead of inclusion. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080315/ap_on_el_pr/polarized_politics

This article makes a statement that indicates that the elimination of racism is probably impossible and beyond and mortal capability:

"Those gains have not been enough to erase divisions by race, a task perhaps beyond any mortal and any one election, nor lesser ones between the sexes."

This makes me wonder, since it is the Democractic Party that is split by rasicm, does that mean it is impossible for any other group of people to live, work and govern in harmony? That is the implication here... and it is a very wrong conclusion.

Liberals (they call themselves progressives now) have spoken a lot about inclusiveness, but their actions and policies have not. Their actions and policies have fostered division, Balkinization and exclusiveness. It is not surprising to see this come out in the current campaign.

I have only seen true inclusion in the Christian church. I'm not talking about the liberal Christian church which talks about inclusion, supports gay marriage, but exclude all those who disagree and support the liberial politicians policies that foster division, Balkinization and exclusiveness. I'm talking about the conservative Christian church in which I see mixed marriages, high rates of adoption of children, and people who care about the welfare of others. I'm talking about a place in which people make sacrifices to put their beliefs into action. A place were human life is respected and held in high regard, including the life of children in the womb.

Immediately people say, "But they exclude gays!! They are bigots!!" There go the liberals using words that exclude and divide instead of actions that include. I know of no conservative church that would turn away a gay couple at the door. Although because of the great diversity in conservative churches I am sure there are some. But to turn away anyone at the door* is against the teaching of the Bible. But, to include anyone in Christian fellowship, who is not a Christian, is also against the teaching of the Bible. You don't get to be a Christian just because you want to call yourself a Christian, you must meet certain criteria such as having repented, turned from sin and be trusting solely in Christ for your salvation. If a homosexual does this, they are a Christian.

* Assuming the person at the door is not there to be disruptive or violent.

Is There Any Progress

David Barton has written a good article in which he discusses "Why Christians Must Vote in This Election." He mentions that many Christians are getting discouraged because we don't see our government making any progress... things seem to be getting worse instead of better. But then he points out that the press seems to avoid reporting news that Christians would take as good news. Here are some of the good news he mentions:

"The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act closes down a huge anti-family industry."

"The Broadcast Decency Act imposes significant penalties on networks and stations for public broadcasts of indecent incidents."

"A religious liberty measure was signed into law that reverses the current Pentagon policy preventing military chaplains from praying according to their faith."

"The Fetal Farming Ban prohibits the creation of fetuses solely to be aborted for research purposes."

"The Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act increases availability to patients of cord blood stem-cell treatments."

"The Freedom to Display the American Flag Act."

" The Child Pornography Prevention Act strengthens and enhances prosecution of child pornography."

Read the details about these acts, as well as others, in his editorial on Good News Daily.

America The Beautiful

O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

O beautiful for pilgrim feet
Whose stern, impassioned stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America! America!
God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!

O beautiful for heroes proved In liberating strife.
Who more than self the country loved
And mercy more than life!
America! America!
May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness
And every gain divine!

O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

O beautiful for halcyon skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the enameled plain!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till souls wax fair as earth and air
And music-hearted sea!

O beautiful for pilgrims feet,
Whose stern impassioned stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America ! America !
God shed his grace on thee
Till paths be wrought through
wilds of thought
By pilgrim foot and knee!

O beautiful for glory-tale
Of liberating strife
When once and twice,
for man's avail
Men lavished precious life !
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till selfish gain no longer stain
The banner of the free!

O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till nobler men keep once again
Thy whiter jubilee!

--- Happy Birthday America!!!

Are We Doing What God Told Us To Do?

In the past hour 7,000 people went to hell. Based on the average worldwide death rate, at least 7,000 died in the past hour who did not trust Jesus for their salvation. Every hour of the day, 24 hours a day, 7,000 people go to hell.

What have you done to make a difference in this number?

In America we spend $1,500,000 for each person who is saved. This includes the cost of the buildings, salaries, radio programs... everything that is spent on Christianity. We are supposed to be spreading the Gospel to bring people into God's kingdom... and we're bringing them into God's kingdom at a cost of $1,500,000 each.

In May I went on a mission trip to Russia. Our group spent about $30,000 for this trip. 60 people professed a new faith in Jesus Christ. That's $500 per person who was saved.

Are we spending a lot of money in America on things that are not achieving God's purposes? Are we ignoring God's purposes?

Are we applying WWJD? What would Jesus do? What did Jesus do?

"From that time Jesus began to preach and say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." - Matthew 4:17

Are We Safer Today?

I regularly ask myself if I feel safer today than I did a year ago, or at this time in 2001, or when I was younger (let's say 20 years ago). The answer is "no" in every case. I do not feel safer now.

I do feel safer when it comes to things our military protects us from. What frightens me is that liberals (or "progressives as they now want to be called) seem to be willing to sacrifice everything in their desire for power. They are willing to sacrifice the truth. They are willing to sacrifice their moral principles. They are willing to sacrifice freedom. They are wiolling to sacrifice lives... if they can gain power.

Look at the feminist movement. Their moral stand was to promote freedom and liberation for women. Have you heard them say one thing about what has been accomplished for women in Iraq? No. Their hatred of Bush, and desire for power, overrules what they say they stand for. They are willing to sacrifice women so that their people can return to power.

I feel less safe today because the efforts to attack and bury Christianity in America are growing. Just this week I heard about a roller rink that is being attacked by government official because they played Christian music on an evening dedicated to having Christians kids at the roller rink. That is absurd! What is going on when it even comes into someone's mind that playing Christian music, for Christian kids, in a private facility is something we need to stop? This makes no sense. This makes us less safe.

I feel less safe today because the attacks to erase our Christian heritage in America are growing and spreading. We are rewriting who we are. Why is this happening? Because it will change who we will be... and that is very scary.

Conservatives and Liberals

We have seen a major difference between conservatives and liberals in the process of selecting the last two Supreme Court justices.

Conservatives are focused on selecting judges who will interpret the constitution in the way the original authors, and those who approved the constitution and its ammendements, intended.

Liberals say the constitution is a living document, whose meaning changes so as to adapt itself to the current culture and situations.

Let's think about what each of these positions means, and what practical effect they would have on us.

The constitution is the foundation of all our laws.

If the meaning of the constitution changes over time, we no longer have that foundation. Essentially each day a group of nine people decide what the laws of the land are. One day you are secure in your home, and the next day you discover your local government can take your home and give it to a developer who wants to build a luxury hotel. Surprise! The meaning of the "living document" has changed.

Conservatives also believe the constitution is a living document, but when the law needs to be changed it is not done by nine people. The constitution should always mean what the authors, and those who approved it, intended it to mean. If the law needs to change to adapt to a new culture or situation, that is what amendments are for.

The difference between conservatives and liberals on this issue is a difference in beliefs concerning who can change the law. Conservatives believe that it is congress that changes the law. If the constitution is not serving us well, then there is a process to amend it, as has been done 27 times. Liberals feel that judges have the right to arbitarily change the law. But that's not how our government was set up.

One way to find out who is right is to reverse positions. Until this last week the Supreme Court had been very liberal for a long time. Now it's slightly conservative. Let's say that in the next six months justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires and is replaced by a strong conservative and there is now a strongly conservative Supreme Court. Will liberals still say that the constitution is a living document and judges can interpret to change laws so they are better suited for our current (conservative) culture? I don't think so. That's the flaw in allowing the judiciary to make law. If new situations arise which are not addressed by the original intent of the existing constitutional law, then those situations need to be addressed by new law. That's why we have a legislative branch of government.