An excerpt from my speech to the Consent of the Governed Rally, January 4, 2012:
It is refreshing to read the preamble of the Missouri state constitution. It shows the wisdom of the men and women who formed our government. It provides their view of the justification for government. The preamble of the constitution reads as follows: “We the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness, do establish this constitution for the better government of the state.” The foundation for the government of the state of Missouri is reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe. Who is this Supreme Ruler? I would like to address that question, but before I do I would like to discuss one possible objection.
Someone may ask whether this preamble violates the separation of church and state. I suspect that most of you are aware that the language of separation of church and state is nowhere to be found in the constitution of the United States. That language was first applied to the federal government through the First Amendment in 1878 by the U.S. Supreme Court and later applied to the states in 1947 by that same august body. The language itself comes from Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. Jefferson was not even in the country during the debate of the First Amendment. It is a complete mystery to me how his words could be taken as an interpretation of the First Amendment when he was not present for the debate. To now allow that language to be used as a mantra to rid the nation of its Christian heritage is a travesty. And Missouri’s constitution is evidence of that travesty.
Rather than quoting someone who was not present during the debate on the First Amendment, I would prefer to quote someone who WAS there. This man said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” This command, we know as the Great Commission, is worthy of your reflection in this New Year. Consider it in this election year. What does it mean for our state and our nation?
I would like to make several points regarding this pronouncement. My comments will not be exhaustive. Many of you will have to flesh it out in the days to come. But I do have some preliminary comments. First, Jesus is the Supreme Ruler of the Universe. Note that he claims all authority in heaven and on earth has been given unto him. This is no hollow claim, and it is no hollow recognition by the framers of the Missouri Constitution that they hold reverence to the Supreme Ruler o f the Universe as the foundation of Missouri’s government. Therefore, the Missouri constitution is a covenant between God and the people to conduct themselves in accordance with that relationship, to be in subjection to him.
Second, and likely most importantly, Jesus came to make disciples of nations. Notice that he did not say, go and have people ask for me into their hearts. He did not say I have come to create a new philosophy for you. He commanded much more. He came to change the world by making disciples of all nations. He came to create a new world to follow him. The unfortunate thing about speaking of “Christianity” is that it can be portrayed as a philosophy, as simply a matter of the heart. If post-modern culture is successful in portraying the faith of Christ as simply a philosophy it may put Christianity on the shelf with all of the other post-modern philosophies and relegate it to irrelevancy. Jesus did not come to start a new philosophy. He came to change the world by changing nations.
Third, when Jesus pronounced this command, he made it to his eleven disciples. He made it to those who would found his new Church. He made it to the Church. The institutional Church has authority in this world to execute the change that Christ initiated. I am not claiming that the Church should exert some ruling authority over the state. But I am claiming that there is a place for the institutional Church to reassert its role in the dialogue of the proper authority of the church and of the state. For example, the state has no authority in providing charity to the poor. When the state takes responsibility for charity, it does so by law, and charity dies because it becomes legal obligation and no longer charity. The state exists to execute justice. When the state takes the property of some in order to redistribute it to others, it is doing the exact opposite of what it is supposed to do, execute justice. It is unjustly confiscating the lives of its people. Charity is the role of the church and the church should say so.
Likewise, the Church should reengage in its role in education. Education is the process whereby culture is transferred from one generation to the next. Education is by its very nature religious and cultural. It forms the way the next generation looks at the world. It forms the way we say Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays. It informs what we occupy, whether Wall Street, our own homes, jobs and churches. The Church has its very existence in cultural formation as Jesus claimed. And it is time for the Church to say so.
Fourth, YOU have an obligation as well. When you speak to your elected officials, you must remember that you are not seeking your will but the will of Jesus. This requires wisdom. You must keep several things in mind. You are not speaking for yourself. You are speaking for another. You must know his thoughts and desires.
You must also remember that your elected official is ordained by God to his or her position. It is a position of honor that God has given that elected official, and the position must be respected.
There is great honor in being an elected official in the state of Missouri, but there is also great obligation. Jesus expects the nations to bend the knee to his kingship. He expects them to be disciples. That is an awful position to be in as an elected official. How does an elected official carry out that responsibility? Certainly, there are consequences that flow from a proper or an improper execution of that task. Your job is to assist your elected official to fulfill that obligation if they so choose.
In closing, I say I am slow to speak of Christianity. What Christ gave us is not a philosophy. He gave us a culture. We must pass that culture on to the next generation. I prefer to speak of Christendom, the new culture Christ gave us. And I am optimistic about the role of Christendom in the future. Consider the Great Commission once again. Jesus claimed to have all authority in heaven and on earth. He also commanded his church to make disciples of all nations. If he commands us to so act and he has all authority to bring our actions to success, what can possibly keeping him from completing that task?
Monday, January 9, 2012
Thursday, December 15, 2011
A Christmas Wish for Our Nation
O. Palmer Robertson, in the fourteenth chapter of his book Christ of the Prophets, makes the point that the core theme of the Prophets of the Old Testament is the working of exile and restoration. Exile and restoration are never completely inseparable.
As we read the Old Testament Prophets, it is often hard to make specific applications to our lives. These prophets wrote to a community long ago, to a culture as foreign to ours as any can possibly be, separated by time and history. What we learn from the Old Testament Prophets is an understanding of how Yahweh thinks and acts, particularly how He acts through His covenant. If we read the prophets in the context of the entire Old Covenant, the concepts of exile and restoration are one particular aspect of the blessings and curses of His covenantal dealings with His people.
If we review the blessings and curses in Deuteronomy, we find that the blessings of the covenant are always given in conjunction with the curses of the covenant. Blessing and cursing virtually always work together. Genesis 1-3 provides a key understanding of how this works out in our labor. Labor or work is simultaneously a blessing and a curse. Ecclesiastes portrays this reality in poetic form.
In the Prophets, Yahweh, the covenant God, executes the blessings and curses in exile and restoration. In some cases, curses are the precursor to blessings. In some cases, the curses to one people are blessings to others. In all cases, curses bring about a radical reorientation in people, nations or the world that allow Yahweh to create something completely new.
The pinnacle of His working of His covenantal blessings and curses is the incarnation of His eternal Son in the person of the Lord Jesus. Jesus submitted to the covenantal curse of the cross and in doing so permitted His Father to create something new. The Father, through His Son, created a new reality, a God-man who was suitable to rule all of creation at the right hand of His Father. He is now seated there with all authority in heaven and earth.
This nation and the entire world have been going through a time of cursing. I am not going to speculate on the extent or length of this cursing. However, as we go through this Christmas season, let us remember that cursing is not without result. Cursing brings blessing in some shape or form, all under His care and supervision. The important thing to do is to remember that Yahweh is sovereign. While we work to change our nation for the better, remember not to give into despair. Be willing to submit to the workings of Yahweh. He is creating something new.
As we read the Old Testament Prophets, it is often hard to make specific applications to our lives. These prophets wrote to a community long ago, to a culture as foreign to ours as any can possibly be, separated by time and history. What we learn from the Old Testament Prophets is an understanding of how Yahweh thinks and acts, particularly how He acts through His covenant. If we read the prophets in the context of the entire Old Covenant, the concepts of exile and restoration are one particular aspect of the blessings and curses of His covenantal dealings with His people.
If we review the blessings and curses in Deuteronomy, we find that the blessings of the covenant are always given in conjunction with the curses of the covenant. Blessing and cursing virtually always work together. Genesis 1-3 provides a key understanding of how this works out in our labor. Labor or work is simultaneously a blessing and a curse. Ecclesiastes portrays this reality in poetic form.
In the Prophets, Yahweh, the covenant God, executes the blessings and curses in exile and restoration. In some cases, curses are the precursor to blessings. In some cases, the curses to one people are blessings to others. In all cases, curses bring about a radical reorientation in people, nations or the world that allow Yahweh to create something completely new.
The pinnacle of His working of His covenantal blessings and curses is the incarnation of His eternal Son in the person of the Lord Jesus. Jesus submitted to the covenantal curse of the cross and in doing so permitted His Father to create something new. The Father, through His Son, created a new reality, a God-man who was suitable to rule all of creation at the right hand of His Father. He is now seated there with all authority in heaven and earth.
This nation and the entire world have been going through a time of cursing. I am not going to speculate on the extent or length of this cursing. However, as we go through this Christmas season, let us remember that cursing is not without result. Cursing brings blessing in some shape or form, all under His care and supervision. The important thing to do is to remember that Yahweh is sovereign. While we work to change our nation for the better, remember not to give into despair. Be willing to submit to the workings of Yahweh. He is creating something new.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
The Uniter vs. The Divider
Peggy Noonan last week in her op ‘Ed “The Divider vs. the Thinker” in the Wall Street Journal, asked the question, what is the glue that has held America together for the past 200 years that now appears to be cracking, threatening to allow the many divisions in our nation to drive us to destruction? Ms. Noonan’s answer:
At the founding of our nation, there was a common consensus that the God of the Bible was the king of the universe. The world and the nation were ruled by a king that had given himself to die for the sins of all those who sought to subject themselves to him. This God of mercy and grace not only made a way for a sinner to obtain a right relationship with God and with his fellow man. He taught his subjects how to conduct themselves in society. Our founding fathers established this nation on the proposition that its people would act as Christians, in the same character of mercy and grace as their heavenly father. John Adams claimed that, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that, “The Americans combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other.” Patrick Henry proclaimed, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians not on religionists, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity and freedom of worship here.”
Scripture is replete with declarations that a man or woman will take on the characteristics of his god. If we are being divided, it is only because we have taken on the characteristic of our god. The secular gospel, American exceptionalism, and the Federal Government have become our god. Who do we turn to for security in our employment? The Federal Government. Who do we turn to for security in our old age? The Federal Government. Who do we turn to for the security in our healthcare? The Federal Government. The Federal Government has become our god. Is it any wonder that we are being divided?
Government as god inculcates the character of litigation. In government, there is no room for mercy or compassion. There is only law. Law begets demands of right and obligation. When confiscation through tax policy becomes law, confiscation becomes justice, greed becomes institutionalized.
The core character of government today is divisiveness. White House advisors recommend that the victor in the White House should reap the spoils of his victory for his followers. The media echoes this refrain. Democrats seek to structure tax policy to take away blessings from the rich. Republicans seek to give tax benefits to select mercantile interests. If an interest can obtain 51% of the vote of the elected legislative body, government can legislate a solution and declare more rights and obligations. With each declaration of rights and obligations, we become more and more slaves to our governments.
Occupy Wall Street is a perfect example of how we have taken on the characteristic of our god the Federal Government. Those who occupy Wall Street have some apparent claim that they are entitled to some interest in Wall Street. However, they refuse to share what they have with the less privileged. They occupy but they do not bless. They claim and commit acts of violence. This attitude is far from the attitude embraced by our founders: “Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need. (Eph 4:28 ESV)”
America is exceptional. It is exceptional because it was founded upon two millennia of a growing and developing Christian heritage. To look to America without looking through America to that heritage will reinforce the American idolatry that is making us a divisive nation. It is better to look through America to the God that gave it liberty in the first place. Benjamin Franklin, no evangelical apologist, observed, “The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?” Better than depending on American exceptionalism is the praying the third verse of the old hymn of Henry Harbaugh:
A love of country based on a shared knowledge of how and why it began; a broad feeling among our citizens that there was something providential in our beginnings; a gratitude that left us with a sense that we should comport ourselves in a way unlike the other nations of the world, that more was expected of us, and not unjustly— "To whom much is given much is expected"; a general understanding that we were something new in history, a nation founded on ideals and aspirations—liberty, equality—and not mere grunting tribal wants. We were from Europe but would not be European: No formal class structure here, no limits, from the time you touched ground all roads would lead forward. You would be treated not as your father was but as you deserved. That's from "The Killer Angels," a historical novel about the Civil War fought to right a wrong the Founders didn't right. We did in time, and at great cost. What a country.Ms. Noonan is on to something, but what she is on to remains remotely hidden in the background, hidden behind the word “providential.” There is much good in Ms. Noonan’s piece, much worthy in the way of good advice. However, unless what remains in the background is brought forth, her proposition ironically will simply add to the decline. Ms. Noonan has adequately expressed in her piece the modern day, American secular gospel, something that has come to be known as American exceptionalism. But this secular gospel is a cheap, superficial imitation of the true source of social unity.
At the founding of our nation, there was a common consensus that the God of the Bible was the king of the universe. The world and the nation were ruled by a king that had given himself to die for the sins of all those who sought to subject themselves to him. This God of mercy and grace not only made a way for a sinner to obtain a right relationship with God and with his fellow man. He taught his subjects how to conduct themselves in society. Our founding fathers established this nation on the proposition that its people would act as Christians, in the same character of mercy and grace as their heavenly father. John Adams claimed that, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that, “The Americans combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other.” Patrick Henry proclaimed, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians not on religionists, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity and freedom of worship here.”
Scripture is replete with declarations that a man or woman will take on the characteristics of his god. If we are being divided, it is only because we have taken on the characteristic of our god. The secular gospel, American exceptionalism, and the Federal Government have become our god. Who do we turn to for security in our employment? The Federal Government. Who do we turn to for security in our old age? The Federal Government. Who do we turn to for the security in our healthcare? The Federal Government. The Federal Government has become our god. Is it any wonder that we are being divided?
Government as god inculcates the character of litigation. In government, there is no room for mercy or compassion. There is only law. Law begets demands of right and obligation. When confiscation through tax policy becomes law, confiscation becomes justice, greed becomes institutionalized.
The core character of government today is divisiveness. White House advisors recommend that the victor in the White House should reap the spoils of his victory for his followers. The media echoes this refrain. Democrats seek to structure tax policy to take away blessings from the rich. Republicans seek to give tax benefits to select mercantile interests. If an interest can obtain 51% of the vote of the elected legislative body, government can legislate a solution and declare more rights and obligations. With each declaration of rights and obligations, we become more and more slaves to our governments.
Occupy Wall Street is a perfect example of how we have taken on the characteristic of our god the Federal Government. Those who occupy Wall Street have some apparent claim that they are entitled to some interest in Wall Street. However, they refuse to share what they have with the less privileged. They occupy but they do not bless. They claim and commit acts of violence. This attitude is far from the attitude embraced by our founders: “Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need. (Eph 4:28 ESV)”
America is exceptional. It is exceptional because it was founded upon two millennia of a growing and developing Christian heritage. To look to America without looking through America to that heritage will reinforce the American idolatry that is making us a divisive nation. It is better to look through America to the God that gave it liberty in the first place. Benjamin Franklin, no evangelical apologist, observed, “The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?” Better than depending on American exceptionalism is the praying the third verse of the old hymn of Henry Harbaugh:
Let our rulers ever be
Men that love and honor Thee;
Let the powers by Thee ordained
Be in righteousness maintained;
In the people's hearts increase
Love of piety and peace;
Thus united we shall stand
One wide, free, and happy land.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Using the Right Tool in America
A confluence of events has come together that make it apparent that our governing officials do not know how to use the proper tools in the cultural tool belt. Is it useful to use a hammer on a bolt? Is it effective to drive in a nail with a screw driver? Our carpenters know what tools are useful to build a house but our legislators are not so astute.
Consider that the U.S. government is now in debt in excess of $14 trillion. Social Security is in a shambles. Hurricane relief in New Orleans was a fiasco. More recently, Senators Blunt and McCaskill have complained about relief funds being diverted from Joplin to the east coast. Finally, our state officials have debated whether millions of dollars of tax credits should be given to private enterprises to induce them to make a hub in St. Louis, commonly known as the China Hub or Aerotropolis. Our elected officials have determined that they can do all of these things and they are not doing any of them well.
Western Civilization has, at least until the last century, held a common consensus that there are three cultural tools in the world’s tool box: the family, the church and the magistrate. Each of these institutions has been identified with a recognizable symbol. The family is represented by the rod as described in Proverbs. The rod is a symbol for discipline, discipleship and education. The church has been given the symbol of the keys of the kingdom as Christ gave the keys of the kingdom to the disciples in Matthew 16:19. The keys of the kingdom symbolize spiritual, emotional and physical wellbeing. The magistrate or the state has been given the symbol of the sword as described in Romans 13. More particularly, in America, we have taken on the symbol of lady justice, blindfolded, holding the scales of justice. These two symbols communicate protection of the nation and an impartial judgment of right and wrong.
However, in the past century we have seen the federal government and now the states more and more taking the rod and the keys of the kingdom. Simultaneously, we have seen it and the states relinquish the sword and the scales of justice. What have these efforts obtained? In their taking up of the keys of the kingdom, our federal and state governments have created a social security system that is bankrupt. They have obtained our children’s children being saddled with $14 trillion of debt. They have produced low income housing at a cost in excess of $200,000 per unit. In their usurpation of the rod, our state officials have produced an educational system that is dysfunctional, bordering on a culture of crime. By proselytizing our young minds to be good workers for the state, they have enculturated good little wards of the state. All the while, our borders are breached, our defenses are compromised and our citizens must pay the price by invasions of privacy from laws such as the Patriot Act.
It is interesting to compare two recent events. First, both of Missouri’s U.S. Senators decry the recent diversion of relief funds from Joplin to the east coast to remedy disasters. Second, the Missouri Senate has debated the propriety of giving tax credits to private enterprise to induce the Chinese to create jobs in Missouri. The Senate debate is complex. On the one side, liberals decry the possible reduction in benefits to the needy for the benefit of the industrial class of our culture. In many ways, this is parallel to diversion of funds from Joplin to the east coast. Who is to say who is more deserving? On the other side of the Aerotropolis debate, you have some conservatives claiming that we need to make better investments with taxpayers’ money. But how can a government make investments with a sword and its eyes blindfolded? The common wisdom holds true. If you do that, someone will lose an eye.
In America today, governments love to throw money around to accomplish their social designs. Governments only obtain their money from taxation. Frederic Bastiat referred to taxation for such purposes as “legal plunder.” We, as a nation, have embraced such legal plunder. It is our life blood. Without it, even conservatives believe our culture will collapse. However, the flaw in legal plunder can be seen in the recent events of the east coast hurricane and Aerotropolis. Once you give in to “legal plunder” you must accept the directives that control the legal plunder. You may not like where the planners send your money, but having accepted it to begin with you must abide their decisions. If you accept legal plunder for Joplin, you must accept it when Joplin is plundered for the east coast. If you accept legal plunder for the poor, you must accept it when the poor are plundered for Chinese businessmen. Wouldn’t it be better to let the church and the local community attend to the truly needy and let business tend to itself?
A screw driven by a hammer is ineffective and usually destructive of quality workmanship. Compassion driven by law is messy and destructive of human dignity. It is time for our federal and state governments to reassess their roles and their function. It is time for our elected officials to seriously contemplate what they can do well with a sword and a blindfold on and quit pocking people in the eyes.
Consider that the U.S. government is now in debt in excess of $14 trillion. Social Security is in a shambles. Hurricane relief in New Orleans was a fiasco. More recently, Senators Blunt and McCaskill have complained about relief funds being diverted from Joplin to the east coast. Finally, our state officials have debated whether millions of dollars of tax credits should be given to private enterprises to induce them to make a hub in St. Louis, commonly known as the China Hub or Aerotropolis. Our elected officials have determined that they can do all of these things and they are not doing any of them well.
Western Civilization has, at least until the last century, held a common consensus that there are three cultural tools in the world’s tool box: the family, the church and the magistrate. Each of these institutions has been identified with a recognizable symbol. The family is represented by the rod as described in Proverbs. The rod is a symbol for discipline, discipleship and education. The church has been given the symbol of the keys of the kingdom as Christ gave the keys of the kingdom to the disciples in Matthew 16:19. The keys of the kingdom symbolize spiritual, emotional and physical wellbeing. The magistrate or the state has been given the symbol of the sword as described in Romans 13. More particularly, in America, we have taken on the symbol of lady justice, blindfolded, holding the scales of justice. These two symbols communicate protection of the nation and an impartial judgment of right and wrong.
However, in the past century we have seen the federal government and now the states more and more taking the rod and the keys of the kingdom. Simultaneously, we have seen it and the states relinquish the sword and the scales of justice. What have these efforts obtained? In their taking up of the keys of the kingdom, our federal and state governments have created a social security system that is bankrupt. They have obtained our children’s children being saddled with $14 trillion of debt. They have produced low income housing at a cost in excess of $200,000 per unit. In their usurpation of the rod, our state officials have produced an educational system that is dysfunctional, bordering on a culture of crime. By proselytizing our young minds to be good workers for the state, they have enculturated good little wards of the state. All the while, our borders are breached, our defenses are compromised and our citizens must pay the price by invasions of privacy from laws such as the Patriot Act.
It is interesting to compare two recent events. First, both of Missouri’s U.S. Senators decry the recent diversion of relief funds from Joplin to the east coast to remedy disasters. Second, the Missouri Senate has debated the propriety of giving tax credits to private enterprise to induce the Chinese to create jobs in Missouri. The Senate debate is complex. On the one side, liberals decry the possible reduction in benefits to the needy for the benefit of the industrial class of our culture. In many ways, this is parallel to diversion of funds from Joplin to the east coast. Who is to say who is more deserving? On the other side of the Aerotropolis debate, you have some conservatives claiming that we need to make better investments with taxpayers’ money. But how can a government make investments with a sword and its eyes blindfolded? The common wisdom holds true. If you do that, someone will lose an eye.
In America today, governments love to throw money around to accomplish their social designs. Governments only obtain their money from taxation. Frederic Bastiat referred to taxation for such purposes as “legal plunder.” We, as a nation, have embraced such legal plunder. It is our life blood. Without it, even conservatives believe our culture will collapse. However, the flaw in legal plunder can be seen in the recent events of the east coast hurricane and Aerotropolis. Once you give in to “legal plunder” you must accept the directives that control the legal plunder. You may not like where the planners send your money, but having accepted it to begin with you must abide their decisions. If you accept legal plunder for Joplin, you must accept it when Joplin is plundered for the east coast. If you accept legal plunder for the poor, you must accept it when the poor are plundered for Chinese businessmen. Wouldn’t it be better to let the church and the local community attend to the truly needy and let business tend to itself?
A screw driven by a hammer is ineffective and usually destructive of quality workmanship. Compassion driven by law is messy and destructive of human dignity. It is time for our federal and state governments to reassess their roles and their function. It is time for our elected officials to seriously contemplate what they can do well with a sword and a blindfold on and quit pocking people in the eyes.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
A Friendly Rebuke to the Missouri Chamber of Commerce
I am a fan of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce. I am a proud member. However, on the issue of investing state money in an International Air Cargo Hub, they are simply wrong. In the most recent issue of the Chamber’s newsletter to its members, Daniel Mehan, Chamber President and CEO, urges “lawmakers to show true leadership and finally put the unproductive tax credit debate behind them, and allow opportunities like these to create jobs in Missouri.”
Mr. Mehan casts the issue for discussion as follows: “We are spending time debating the wrong issue. The question is not whether Missouri should invest funds in economic development initiatives. The real question that we should be asking: How can Missouri best invest these funds?” It is very simple to waive the hand and dismiss a question; it is more difficult to engage an issue and resolve it. The remainder of Mr. Mehan’s piece is devoted to a speculative agenda of how investing “these funds” will bring jobs to Missouri. I hope by asking a few simple questions I will bring Mr. Mehan back to the point of asking the first question of whether Missouri should invest the funds and answer it in the negative.
First, if it is so important to invest “these funds,” would the Chamber be willing to provide these funds in its budget to be funded by Chamber members? (Be clear: if so, I will allow my membership to laps. I do not want to be an investor in Aerotropolis, whether it is by Chamber agreement or governmental fiat.) Remember, government produces nothing. Government produces laws. Through law, government must take funds from its citizens in order to pay for its services. To invest “these funds” it must take “these funds” from others. Is this investment important enough that the Chamber would be willing to invest them directly? Or should the legislature confiscate the property of Mr. Mehan to make the investment? If not, why should I be expected to by paying higher taxes?
Second, if it is not appropriate to debate whether “these funds” should be invested, then in every case the ends justify the means. Suppose that I can put four men to work if I possess a backhoe but I cannot afford a backhoe. If my neighbor has a backhoe that he is not using, but refuses to allow me to take it from him, am I justified in stealing it? After all, I can put it to better use than he can. According to Mr. Mehan’s analysis, I should be able to confiscate the useless backhoe, for it is not appropriate to discuss “whether.”
If we are going to have true economic development, it must be an economic development which is based on justice, not coercion. Economic development that is based on governmental incentives is fleeting and counterproductive. If I have a thousand dollars in disposable income, I have the option to spend it as I see fit. I may buy a new television, a new camera, or new equipment for my business. Each of these economic transactions is an investment in economic development. It is an investment in a product or service which has value to not only me but the individuals that previously invested in and developed the product or service. If the government confiscates five hundred dollars, it has not only deprived me of the ability to invest my full thousand dollars, it has invested in an inherently less valuable investment. If the tax credits are required to induce the investment, it is clear that the investment would not have been made but for the economic bribe needed to increase the investment’s return. And once the incentive ceases, there is no expectation that the investment will continue without the incentive.
The fact that the confiscation is guised in the power of the government for most changes the debate. We live in a culture in which government routinely takes from some to give to others. So it is appropriate to do it in this case as well, correct? NO. This is a mindset that must change. This last year, the Missouri Chamber took positions on labor legislation that was designed to reduce government power exercised by unions over employers. I applaud the Chamber’s positions on such matters. Economic liberty means minimizing or eliminating governmental coercion in economic transactions. However, in urging government to use its legal authority to manipulate economic transactions, the Missouri Chamber is undercutting its own position. Socialism is the abuse of governmental power against some citizens for the benefit of other citizens. The Missouri Chamber’s position as framed Mr. Mehan’s article, while being a different type of socialism from the Obama type socialism, i.e. corporate welfare, it is still socialism. Mr. Mehan should not be using the Missouri Chamber as a mouthpiece for economic injustice. If he expects the legislature to provide economic liberty to Chamber members, he should expect them to provide economic liberty for all.
Mr. Mehan casts the issue for discussion as follows: “We are spending time debating the wrong issue. The question is not whether Missouri should invest funds in economic development initiatives. The real question that we should be asking: How can Missouri best invest these funds?” It is very simple to waive the hand and dismiss a question; it is more difficult to engage an issue and resolve it. The remainder of Mr. Mehan’s piece is devoted to a speculative agenda of how investing “these funds” will bring jobs to Missouri. I hope by asking a few simple questions I will bring Mr. Mehan back to the point of asking the first question of whether Missouri should invest the funds and answer it in the negative.
First, if it is so important to invest “these funds,” would the Chamber be willing to provide these funds in its budget to be funded by Chamber members? (Be clear: if so, I will allow my membership to laps. I do not want to be an investor in Aerotropolis, whether it is by Chamber agreement or governmental fiat.) Remember, government produces nothing. Government produces laws. Through law, government must take funds from its citizens in order to pay for its services. To invest “these funds” it must take “these funds” from others. Is this investment important enough that the Chamber would be willing to invest them directly? Or should the legislature confiscate the property of Mr. Mehan to make the investment? If not, why should I be expected to by paying higher taxes?
Second, if it is not appropriate to debate whether “these funds” should be invested, then in every case the ends justify the means. Suppose that I can put four men to work if I possess a backhoe but I cannot afford a backhoe. If my neighbor has a backhoe that he is not using, but refuses to allow me to take it from him, am I justified in stealing it? After all, I can put it to better use than he can. According to Mr. Mehan’s analysis, I should be able to confiscate the useless backhoe, for it is not appropriate to discuss “whether.”
If we are going to have true economic development, it must be an economic development which is based on justice, not coercion. Economic development that is based on governmental incentives is fleeting and counterproductive. If I have a thousand dollars in disposable income, I have the option to spend it as I see fit. I may buy a new television, a new camera, or new equipment for my business. Each of these economic transactions is an investment in economic development. It is an investment in a product or service which has value to not only me but the individuals that previously invested in and developed the product or service. If the government confiscates five hundred dollars, it has not only deprived me of the ability to invest my full thousand dollars, it has invested in an inherently less valuable investment. If the tax credits are required to induce the investment, it is clear that the investment would not have been made but for the economic bribe needed to increase the investment’s return. And once the incentive ceases, there is no expectation that the investment will continue without the incentive.
The fact that the confiscation is guised in the power of the government for most changes the debate. We live in a culture in which government routinely takes from some to give to others. So it is appropriate to do it in this case as well, correct? NO. This is a mindset that must change. This last year, the Missouri Chamber took positions on labor legislation that was designed to reduce government power exercised by unions over employers. I applaud the Chamber’s positions on such matters. Economic liberty means minimizing or eliminating governmental coercion in economic transactions. However, in urging government to use its legal authority to manipulate economic transactions, the Missouri Chamber is undercutting its own position. Socialism is the abuse of governmental power against some citizens for the benefit of other citizens. The Missouri Chamber’s position as framed Mr. Mehan’s article, while being a different type of socialism from the Obama type socialism, i.e. corporate welfare, it is still socialism. Mr. Mehan should not be using the Missouri Chamber as a mouthpiece for economic injustice. If he expects the legislature to provide economic liberty to Chamber members, he should expect them to provide economic liberty for all.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Substantive Due Process: Calder v. Bull 3 U.S. 386 (1798)
This is a concept in Constitutional Law which must be reclaimed:
I cannot subscribe to the omnipotence of a state legislature, or that it is absolute and without control, although its authority should not be expressly restrained by the constitution or fundamental law of the state. The people of the United States erected their constitutions, or forms of government, to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, to secure the blessings of liberty, and to protect their persons and property from violence. The purposes for which men enter into society will determine the nature and terms of the social compact, and as they are the foundation of the legislative power, they will decide what are the proper objects of it. The nature and ends of legislative power will limit the exercise of it. This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free republican governments that no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit. There are acts which the federal or state legislature cannot do without exceeding their authority. There are certain vital principles in our free republican governments which will determine and overrule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power, as to authorize manifest injustice by positive law or to take away that security for personal liberty or private property for the protection whereof of the government was established. An act of the legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority. The obligation of a law in governments established on express compact and on republican principles must be determined by the nature of the power on which it is founded.
A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. A law that punished a citizen for an innocent action, or in other words for an act which when done was in violation of no existing law; a law that destroys or impairs the lawful private contracts of citizens; a law that makes a man a judge in his own cause, or a law that takes property from A. and gives it to B. It is against all reason and justice for a people to entrust a legislature with such powers, and therefore it cannot be presumed that it has done it. The genius, the nature, and the spirit of our state governments amount to a prohibition of such acts of legislation, and the general principles of law and reason forbid them. The legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and punish; It may declare new crimes and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; it may command what is right and prohibit what is wrong, but it cannot change innocence into guilt or punish innocence as a crime or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract or the right of private property. To maintain that our federal or state legislature possesses such powers if it had not been expressly restrained would, in my opinion, be a political heresy altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments.
I cannot subscribe to the omnipotence of a state legislature, or that it is absolute and without control, although its authority should not be expressly restrained by the constitution or fundamental law of the state. The people of the United States erected their constitutions, or forms of government, to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, to secure the blessings of liberty, and to protect their persons and property from violence. The purposes for which men enter into society will determine the nature and terms of the social compact, and as they are the foundation of the legislative power, they will decide what are the proper objects of it. The nature and ends of legislative power will limit the exercise of it. This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free republican governments that no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit. There are acts which the federal or state legislature cannot do without exceeding their authority. There are certain vital principles in our free republican governments which will determine and overrule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power, as to authorize manifest injustice by positive law or to take away that security for personal liberty or private property for the protection whereof of the government was established. An act of the legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority. The obligation of a law in governments established on express compact and on republican principles must be determined by the nature of the power on which it is founded.
A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. A law that punished a citizen for an innocent action, or in other words for an act which when done was in violation of no existing law; a law that destroys or impairs the lawful private contracts of citizens; a law that makes a man a judge in his own cause, or a law that takes property from A. and gives it to B. It is against all reason and justice for a people to entrust a legislature with such powers, and therefore it cannot be presumed that it has done it. The genius, the nature, and the spirit of our state governments amount to a prohibition of such acts of legislation, and the general principles of law and reason forbid them. The legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and punish; It may declare new crimes and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; it may command what is right and prohibit what is wrong, but it cannot change innocence into guilt or punish innocence as a crime or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract or the right of private property. To maintain that our federal or state legislature possesses such powers if it had not been expressly restrained would, in my opinion, be a political heresy altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Clueless on Education
In a recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Jeb Bush and Joel Kline penned their opinion to return the American educational system to excellence. In their initial paragraph they set forth the problem:
Common Core State Standards will not correct the woeful education in our government school system. Education is vastly more than a list of things to know. To their credit, they do pay lip service to the need for more when they write, “The literacy standards require students to make arguments with evidence rather than just restate their own opinions or experiences.” However, to truly understand the full import of educational reform, this simple statement is insufficient.
Education consists in teaching a person how to think and inculcating a love for learning. The ancient Greeks had the concept of making the ideal man, the paideia. The early Christian Church expanded upon this concept for the paideia of God. At the core of the paideia of God was inculcating in each person the love for learning. This classical approach to education recognized that children develop in their educational process through three phases: a grammar phase, a logical phase and a rhetorical phase, more commonly known as the trivium. Any parent can see these phases in his or her children. There is a phase during which a child enjoys and is good at simple memorization. As the child matures, he or she begins to think more abstractly and asks the question “why?” He or she begins to interrelate concepts in order to draw conclusions. An understanding of logic becomes critical at this phase. Finally, there is a stage at which a child revels in argument. The goal of education is to teach a child how to marshal all of the knowledge and logic of situation for the purpose of persuasion, to come to a conclusion for one’s self and for others. The ancient Hebrew would have referred to these characteristics as knowledge, understanding and wisdom.
This brings us to the second flaw in Bush’s and Kline’s analysis: the one responsible for education. The family is the God ordained institution for raising and educating children. This is inherent in the created order. When my wife and I brought our three daughters into the world, they were not immediately swept away to become wards of the state. They were given to my wife and me to love and care for, and to educate. My wife and I know our daughters better than anyone else in the world--at least until their marriage. They remain my responsibility to educate.
Although there has been over the course of the last century a progressive movement to make the state the caretaker of our children, it is this movement that has been the downfall of our culture. What is government? Government is an institution created to enforce rights and administer justice. Government acts through the execution of law. Law is a set of standards by which people must live. When government speaks of common core standards that is all it can speak of: “standards.” By its very nature, government is limited in its ability to provide education in that it can only speak to the grammar phase, the mere content of knowledge. It must truncate its education prior to the logic and rhetoric phase. It cannot teach the beauty of a good syllogism or a beautiful poem, because the student must meet certain “standards” of knowledge.
Some will respond that the government can and typically does go beyond teaching grammar. And I will readily admit that it does, but the question remains, can it appropriately do so. Our founding fathers, who were classically trained, understood that one primary goal of education is the inculcation of virtue in accordance with a standard of truth. An understanding of virtue and truth is critical to a right logic and a right rhetoric. However, today we live in a society of enforced relativism. Who defines virtue and truth? Can the state define virtue? Remember that there is a so called “separation of church and state” in this nation. Whose virtue and truth will the government teach? Either the government must truncate its education at the grammar phase or it must violate the separation of church and state it has so carefully built.
This brings us to the third and most significant flaw of Bush’s and Kline’s analysis. The flaw is that the purpose of education is to make our children servants of our economic machine. This concept is foreign to western civilization up until the last hundred years or so. Western civilization grew on the concept of the paideia. The Renaissance was the recovery in medieval western culture founded on classical thinking, founded on paideia. Classical learning, the Renaissance, produced the greatest works of art, literature, theology, and industry in the medieval age. Our founding fathers were great men who were classically educated in ancient philosophy as well as Christian ideas. Many of them were trained in multiple classical languages and read the original thinkers throughout history. We have rejected these characteristics in return for a smug attitude of technological, economic and utilitarian superiority.
The Missouri Constitution provides that, “A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the general assembly shall establish and maintain free public schools for the gratuitous instruction of all persons in this state within ages not in excess of twenty-one years as prescribed by law.” The first part of the above proposition provides the motivation for the provision of gratuitous instruction. The motivation of the state is to maintain the rights and liberties of the people. Unfortunately, our culture has lost the greater importance of an educated people, the paideia. What should be considered as a safety net for education for the state, has been made the pinnacle of education. What should be considered a last resort has become the paradigm of education.
The paradox of education is that when you design education to achieve a goal, you lose true education. The paradox is similar to the dog and his bone. Upon seeing a reflection of himself in the lake and thinking it was another dog with another bone, he drops his bone in order to obtain the bone of the other dog. In his efforts he loses his bone. As we turn our eyes to a goal of obtaining education for some purpose other than the love for learning, we lose the love for learning and seek only self advancement. By keeping our focus on inculcating a love for learning, we disciple people to love to think. People who love to think can teach themselves to engage in any economic endeavor.
Senator Kurt Schaefer has already expressed his priority for the legislature’s budget next year on the matter of education. Education will become an increasingly significant issue in the years to come. While money is not bad, it should be used in accordance with truly worthy goals and in accordance with appropriate methods. If we are to recover an education system that works, it must inculcate a love for learning, be controlled by parents and produce thinkers, not just those who know things.
The success of today's students will determine our nation's destiny. America's economic strength and standing in the world economy are directly linked to our ability to equip students with the knowledge and skills to succeed in the 21st-century economy. Students are no longer competing with their peers in other cities—they are competing with students across the globe. Business leaders have become champions of education reform, recognizing the role that rigorous academic standards have on their success.Their opinion proceeded to attribute the responsibility for education to the states and to champion the need for common core standards. They concluded with a hopeful eschatology:
It is the states' responsibility to foster an education system that leads to rising student achievement. State leaders, educators, teachers and parents are empowered to ensure every student has access to the best curriculum and learning environment. Governors and lawmakers across the country are acting to adopt bold education reform policies. This is the beauty of our federal system. It provides 50 testing sites for reform and innovation. The Common Core State Standards are an example of states recognizing a problem, then working together, sharing what works and what doesn't.Unfortunately, Messrs. Bush and Kline’s analysis suffers from no less than three flaws. First, they misunderstand the goal of education, the need to make an economic engine out of our children. Second, they misidentify the institution responsible for education. Third, they misidentify the substance of education.
Common Core State Standards will not correct the woeful education in our government school system. Education is vastly more than a list of things to know. To their credit, they do pay lip service to the need for more when they write, “The literacy standards require students to make arguments with evidence rather than just restate their own opinions or experiences.” However, to truly understand the full import of educational reform, this simple statement is insufficient.
Education consists in teaching a person how to think and inculcating a love for learning. The ancient Greeks had the concept of making the ideal man, the paideia. The early Christian Church expanded upon this concept for the paideia of God. At the core of the paideia of God was inculcating in each person the love for learning. This classical approach to education recognized that children develop in their educational process through three phases: a grammar phase, a logical phase and a rhetorical phase, more commonly known as the trivium. Any parent can see these phases in his or her children. There is a phase during which a child enjoys and is good at simple memorization. As the child matures, he or she begins to think more abstractly and asks the question “why?” He or she begins to interrelate concepts in order to draw conclusions. An understanding of logic becomes critical at this phase. Finally, there is a stage at which a child revels in argument. The goal of education is to teach a child how to marshal all of the knowledge and logic of situation for the purpose of persuasion, to come to a conclusion for one’s self and for others. The ancient Hebrew would have referred to these characteristics as knowledge, understanding and wisdom.
This brings us to the second flaw in Bush’s and Kline’s analysis: the one responsible for education. The family is the God ordained institution for raising and educating children. This is inherent in the created order. When my wife and I brought our three daughters into the world, they were not immediately swept away to become wards of the state. They were given to my wife and me to love and care for, and to educate. My wife and I know our daughters better than anyone else in the world--at least until their marriage. They remain my responsibility to educate.
Although there has been over the course of the last century a progressive movement to make the state the caretaker of our children, it is this movement that has been the downfall of our culture. What is government? Government is an institution created to enforce rights and administer justice. Government acts through the execution of law. Law is a set of standards by which people must live. When government speaks of common core standards that is all it can speak of: “standards.” By its very nature, government is limited in its ability to provide education in that it can only speak to the grammar phase, the mere content of knowledge. It must truncate its education prior to the logic and rhetoric phase. It cannot teach the beauty of a good syllogism or a beautiful poem, because the student must meet certain “standards” of knowledge.
Some will respond that the government can and typically does go beyond teaching grammar. And I will readily admit that it does, but the question remains, can it appropriately do so. Our founding fathers, who were classically trained, understood that one primary goal of education is the inculcation of virtue in accordance with a standard of truth. An understanding of virtue and truth is critical to a right logic and a right rhetoric. However, today we live in a society of enforced relativism. Who defines virtue and truth? Can the state define virtue? Remember that there is a so called “separation of church and state” in this nation. Whose virtue and truth will the government teach? Either the government must truncate its education at the grammar phase or it must violate the separation of church and state it has so carefully built.
This brings us to the third and most significant flaw of Bush’s and Kline’s analysis. The flaw is that the purpose of education is to make our children servants of our economic machine. This concept is foreign to western civilization up until the last hundred years or so. Western civilization grew on the concept of the paideia. The Renaissance was the recovery in medieval western culture founded on classical thinking, founded on paideia. Classical learning, the Renaissance, produced the greatest works of art, literature, theology, and industry in the medieval age. Our founding fathers were great men who were classically educated in ancient philosophy as well as Christian ideas. Many of them were trained in multiple classical languages and read the original thinkers throughout history. We have rejected these characteristics in return for a smug attitude of technological, economic and utilitarian superiority.
The Missouri Constitution provides that, “A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the general assembly shall establish and maintain free public schools for the gratuitous instruction of all persons in this state within ages not in excess of twenty-one years as prescribed by law.” The first part of the above proposition provides the motivation for the provision of gratuitous instruction. The motivation of the state is to maintain the rights and liberties of the people. Unfortunately, our culture has lost the greater importance of an educated people, the paideia. What should be considered as a safety net for education for the state, has been made the pinnacle of education. What should be considered a last resort has become the paradigm of education.
The paradox of education is that when you design education to achieve a goal, you lose true education. The paradox is similar to the dog and his bone. Upon seeing a reflection of himself in the lake and thinking it was another dog with another bone, he drops his bone in order to obtain the bone of the other dog. In his efforts he loses his bone. As we turn our eyes to a goal of obtaining education for some purpose other than the love for learning, we lose the love for learning and seek only self advancement. By keeping our focus on inculcating a love for learning, we disciple people to love to think. People who love to think can teach themselves to engage in any economic endeavor.
Senator Kurt Schaefer has already expressed his priority for the legislature’s budget next year on the matter of education. Education will become an increasingly significant issue in the years to come. While money is not bad, it should be used in accordance with truly worthy goals and in accordance with appropriate methods. If we are to recover an education system that works, it must inculcate a love for learning, be controlled by parents and produce thinkers, not just those who know things.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
