Comrade God

I wrote this article several years ago on my old DP blog before the advent of Obamacare--One of the things you often find useful when you've written a blog as long as I have now, (especially when it comes to answering the tired arguments the liberals regurgitate from some website, or equally bad scholarship flowing from shallow minds) is that you have pretty much covered everything they gleefully toss out as if it is earth shattering revelation.

At no time is this behavior from leftist more unfortunate, than when they cherry pick some verse of Scripture out of context, believing it bolsters their woefully ill-informed opinions. They cannot seem to grasp Scripture is a whole and it bears witness for itself. All that to say, I am re-posting this for my new friend and readers who may have missed it in the past to arm you with what you need to overturn this particular leftist fallacy!

Last December I wrote an article titled “Capitalism for Dum Dums” in an attempt to shed light on the leftist’s propensity for perpetually clinging to failed economic models, particularly as it pertains to their distressing healthcare schemes. Think of this article as “Theology for Dum Dums”.

For those of us clinging to a rational view of reality and history, not rendered pie-eyed by the intoxicating rhetoric of utopian collectivists sitting about campfires singing Puff the Magic Dragon and reeking of Patchouli Oil, we know that socialism does not work. Whether it is “The Peoples” farm and toilet paper factory, or universal healthcare, it all invariably collapses, primarily driven by a spirit fostering sluggardly behavior.

The more adventurous leftists, the ones more likely to refer to themselves as “progressives” even hazard a go at selling socialized medicine, even socialism proper, by means of the Holy Bible. They try to accomplish this most often by quoting from the second book of the Acts of the Apostles, verse 44,45:

“And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.”

This would appear to be a compelling argument for socialism on the surface for those inclined towards that sort of tomfoolery. Though, “ as every man had need” suggests that this was not an even distribution of resources, some obviously had less need. The problem with secular leftist Bible experts is that they do not apprehend and cannot comprehend that the Spirit driving acts like the ones depicted in Acts 2:44,45 is just that, spiritual. I like the way the great theologian Matthew Henry puts it:

“The greatness of the event raised them above the world, and the Holy Ghost filled them with such love, as made every one to be to another as to himself, and so made all things common, not by destroying property, but doing away selfishness, and causing charity.”

We see the behavior in Acts 2 repeated in Acts 4. Lets look at the whole thing in context:

And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness. And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.  Acts 4:31-35

So we see these people were filled with the Holy Ghost, the very Spirit of God. Inspired by the resurrection of the Lord, these saints were convicted to lovingly act in concern for the welfare of their brothers. This was a voluntary action not an obligatory one and therein lays the power.

What we see in Acts, is the ultimate manifestation of Christian fellowship, what is mine, is yours and I share it, the ultimate in “mi casa es su casa”. Socialism says what is yours is mine and I’ll take it, an entirely different paradigm, a different Spirit.  In fact, the liberal who favors big government says; you can’t be trusted to do what’s right with what you have, so we’ll do it for you.

The goal in the Acts of the Apostles was not to bring about social or economic justice, this would nullify the Bible’s teachings on sowing and reaping taught with regularity throughout scripture. In fact we are given a harsh lesson in the hypocrisy of false giving in the story of Ananias and Saphira in the very first few lines of Acts chapter five immediately following the liberals celebrated “all things in common” verses.

The Apostles were not in the habit of subsidizing those who could work but refused to, as illustrated by Paul.

“For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing. And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.  Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” II Thessalonians 3:10-15

The fact that the first century church was not a communal society is further illustrated in I Timothy:

“ Honour widows that are widows indeed. But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God. Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day. 3:3-5

We see here that it is family that is foremost responsible for the welfare of its own. If families take care of their own needy, Paul shows they will not be an unnecessary burden on the church, or, to take it further, society on the whole. This of course still requires the spiritual component; you have to have a heart for God. Paul says trust in God and His people. The progressive says trust in the state to do what is right with what it takes from you.

If Christ, the Apostles and the early church were socialist like so many leftists purport, they were not very good ones. If Christ were to appear in Communist China or Cuba and began teaching the parable of the “Laborers in the vineyard” Matthew 20:1-16 , the “Pounds” Luke 19:11-27 or God forbid the “Ten Talents” Matthew 25:14-30 were Jesus Christ begins; “For the kingdom of heaven is as...” and goes on to share a lesson on capitalism that would make Donald Trump blush. It is safe to say they would find themselves in a re-education camp at or even more likely up against a pitted wall before you could say Trotsky three times fast. Come to think of it, that’s exactly what happens to people in those places who teach those parables.

You would think that socialist societies would be more welcome to the teachings of comrade Jesus. No, only the fevered mind of the most dedicated progressive liberal can perceive socialism in the Good News. This is made possible by eyes covered with the cataracts of ideology dimly focused on the teachings of the God quite often they don’t even believe in.

What we find in socialist experiments in history, are that the results of forced and often times indiscriminate redistribution of resources, delivered into the hands of a flawed oligarchy whatever nomenclature is in vogue, leads inevitably to waste and lack.

This is in strong contradiction to the God of the Holy Bible who is conspicuous in His blessing of those who are wise, industrious, and generous. Unlike many of the Eastern philosophies, we who follow Christ are not taught to forsake the physical, but, we are to be mindful that God is less concerned with the physical and temporal.

Christ preached the Kingdom of God above all else and that is eternal and heavenly. He did not teach dependence upon secular government for anything, including universal healthcare in any permutation. It may not be progressive by today’s standards, but it is still true.

Digital Publius

II Samuel 24: 18-24:

Splendid Dupes and Sleepwalkers

“Evil always wins through the strength of its splendid dupes; and there has in all ages been a disastrous alliance between abnormal innocence and abnormal sin.” – G. K. Chesterton

We on the right have used the term "Useful Idiots" in describing the overwhelming majority of liberals for a very long time—The irony that so many liberals take offense to this term is highlighted by the fact it was allegedly coined to describe them by the very socialists whose programs they work so feverishly to ape in their own country. Personally, I prefer Chesterton's splendid dupes, it's so much more poetic.

The reality of what these splendid dues have truly wrought is only now becoming crystal clear to me in a more than simply academic sense! There is no escape from the leftist mindset for the liberal/useful idiot apart from coming to a saving knowledge of Christ! This nation is in serious trouble because so much of our citizenry has been so successfully and unwittingly subverted.

Nowhere is this brought into full relief in so pronounced a fashion than the so-called "Black Church." Once bastions of morality and spiritual growth, our churches have renounced objective Biblical revelation in favor of a social and racial identity gospel obsessed with "Breakthroughs" as opposed to discipling and teaching the moral tenets of a sovereign God. More occupied with spreading self help than the gospel of Christ!

You can attend some black or liberal churches for years and never hear a sermon denouncing abortion or the gay agenda one time--hard to speak against these things from the Holy Bible while you are standing in the pulpit encouraging support for the party most actively engaged in furthering those causes.

Many pastors are not recognizing the gospel they preach is another gospel, reducing God to a genie in a bottle granting wishes if believers have enough "Faith," praying their own will be done instead of His will! Ignoring Scriptures like "He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. But godliness with contentment is great gain." 1 Timothy 6:4-6

Socialism is one of the most pernicious forms of mammon and much of our nation has made their choice as to whom they serve whether they are aware of it or not--The election of Barack Obama, twice, bears witness to that fact. Most of these splendid dupes have no idea they are socialists, I have said before, American socialism is a newer mutation of the same bacillus, just renamed "Progressivism."

Socialism by it's very nature is ungodly, not only because it is needful to undermine belief in a Creator God, (The state becomes your god in socialist societies) but because it cannot exist apart from force! The God of the Holy Bible teaches personal responsibility and free will concerning charity, or the decision to follow Him. Nowhere does it teach dependence upon the largesse of men and man's constructs. When God is your source, you make for a poor "Progressive" because you have chosen to serve the Creator and not the creation.

The establishment leadership of the Republican Party is largely on the left side of the political divide as well in modern America. This is "We the People's" fault, we have been less than vigilant and poor stewards of what God has given us, squandering what the founders of this once proud nation established! We've exchanged faith and freedom for “Hope”, “Change” and “Progress” without understanding you can’t have the high-minded ideals of the latter three without the virtue that is the product of the former.

We are seeing the utter lack of virtue derived from hope, change and progress becoming detached from faith and freedom. In fact, virtue itself is seldom celebrated today. How can your ideas be thought progressive when they have lead only to more dependence upon government?

The only hope the left’s ideas encourage in people is that the state’s coffers don’t run dry before they get their entitlements. Surely not a hope in a brighter tomorrow—How can your tomorrow be brighter if you do not control your own affairs, without the self-respect that comes from independence?

That isn’t the “Change” I want, not for me and certainly not for my children. What I hear from today’s youth is the parabolic opposite of hope. When you see students interviewed at leftist protests, you see despair, they have no confidence in what can be accomplished by them in the future.

All they want to do is tear down without regard to replacing what they have razed to the ground. What will fill the void of the system they find so revolting even as they rush to consume the iPhones, lattes and computers that system makes possible? Who will innovate in the future when there is no capital to fuel ideas? What motivates those dependent upon government to innovate at all apart from force? How good is forced innovation apart from natural inspiration flowing from the possibility of self-advancement?

As the establishment Republican leadership breaks their collective backs bending over to compromise with an unyielding and determined left, here is food for thought, followed by a question: The socialist’s splendid dupe/useful idiot so prevalent on TV, in Hollywood, academia and right next-door could not have been an effective tool without the passive somnambulance characterizing the right.  The right passively sleepwalks past the socialist teaching his kids to subtly and often overtly hate America. Which is more catastrophic for our future?

“For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.” I Thessalonians 5:3

Digital Publius

America: Shut Yo' Mouth!

I hadn’t intended on commenting on the Donald Sterling, Los Angeles Clippers story in any meaningful way…until the NBA issued a life long ban on the tragically unenlightened Mr. Sterling, with the intent of forcing him to sell his franchise. This is extremely dangerous in an Orwellian sense. I’ll be brief.

The NBA Commissioner Adam Silver stated: “The views expressed by Mr. Sterling are deeply offensive and harmful. That they came from an NBA owner only heightens the damage and my personal outrage.”

What the adulterous Sterling said in confidence to his equally adulterous paramour is indeed offensive to me as well, though it does me no personal harm—his racist views are no more so because he owns an NBA team. I am personally more disturbed by the reality that what I say in a private moment can be recorded and then used to strip me of my property. This is a direct assault on Constitutionally protected free speech and property rights.

I freely confess to not knowing whether there are provisions in NBA ownership agreements that may have been violated by Mr. Sterling when his private words were made manifest--As an American, I am suspect of this sort of force.

It is an easy thing to protect speech we agree with, however, the nation’s character is best defined by how we react to speech we disagree with. This is the plumb line that trues the worth of a totally free society. There is no inherent right not to be exposed to the repugnant.

If we look at the history of American professional sports with an honest eye, beginning with Kenny Walker breaking the color line in the National Football League and then Jackie Robinson a year later in Major League Baseball, do you think all those owners bigotry dissolved after those moments? The other owners followed suit because it made economic sense to do so, not because they suddenly saw how despicable they had been.

There are very real consequences to all of our actions, but let us not be hypocrites! I have heard just about every black person I know say some very racist things about whites in private conversation—things they would not like their employers in corporate America to be privy to, including at times similar views on interracial relationships.

I have no problem with fines, but the consequences in the aftermath of Donald Sterling’s loathsome private views made public concerning ownership, should be decided by just that, the public. Not through bureaucratic force, but rather the marketplace. If you are sincerely outraged or “Damaged” by Sterling’s views, don’t go to Clippers games while he is the owner.

If the Staples Center is empty whenever the Clippers are in residence, or whenever they play on the road people stay away in droves, the marketplace will speak firmly: “Bigotry is profoundly frowned upon by decent folk.” If the marketplace does not respond by staying away, that will in fact speak even more loudly of where the nation is on interracial romantic relationships and our tolerance for racist ideology.

If Sterling had said these things publically, it would indeed be damaging for the NBA. But that a bigot exists in professional sports is not the least bit shocking. Bigotry, without regard to race creed or color is symptomatic of man’s fallen nature and if you have prejudices like those expressed by Sterling in your heart it is a sure sign of being a reprobate.

This is true whether it manifests as Sterling’s brand of overt racism, or a more subtle overall obsession with your racial identity to the point it blinds you to the faults within yourself or your own group.

If you don’t like what Sterling said don’t tune into Clippers playoff games, don’t go to the games. If the best players choose to take a large salary to play for him, the money is more important to them than their principles. If the best players of any race refuse to play for him, if people don’t support his team—he will have to sell.

That is how you decide how your speech should be regulated, not by bureaucrats, but by the public’s actions—simply banning him for his wrongheaded beliefs takes away a person’s right to hold wrongheaded beliefs—no change will occur, just more bitterness.

The NBA’s reaction to Sterling’s private comments made public reminds me of the Words of the Lord: “And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness.” Luke 11:39

Digital Publius