Conformity To The Rules

For all of my life I have been concerned about the rules. Attempting to analyze my child self I see a girl who believed obeying the rules was a sign of moral superiority and deserving of praise and promotion. I wanted to be the teacher's pet. I was a tattle-tale. I found security in the rules and my experience in the government schools reinforced that security.

By the rules I mean not only the laws of the state and ordinances of the town, but also the organizational guidelines put in place to make places like schools operate efficiently. For example, standing in line when told, raising a hand and waiting to be called on before speaking, putting my head down on the desk when the teacher was losing control of the classroom, and other rules like that. I could not imagine why anyone would NOT want to obey the rules. I was disgusted by other children who continually flaunted the rules.

I don't have any memories of my parents reinforcing my obsession with rules. I don't remember that they found me irritating, either. My father was a referee for high school sports competitions, and I was always very proud to have a father who was an enforcer. If he had been a cop I would have been over the moon, I suppose.

When I played house and had my imaginary children, they were always perfectly obedient. Why wouldn't they be? Don't all normal, smart children want to obey? I had many experiences baby sitting and I hated it. The children I cared for were persistently disobedient. After I actually had children of my own I always like my own children but never really liked other people's children. It wasn't really that I didn't like them, so much as I was annoyed by them. Other parents didn't make their children obey the rules. Did they want their children to grow up to be criminals?

Secretly, I believed that God was impressed with those who obey all the rules. I have always been careful to stop for a full 3 seconds at stop signs, to stay below posted speed limits and to drive the correct direction in parking lots (as determined by the arrows painted on the pavement). Then I got married to my husband. He doesn't care one wit about rules. He thinks that people who drive should be smart enough not to collide with other drivers, even in the absence of arrows painted on the pavement. He actually believes that driving safely and accident free is more important than following rules. This has caused me physical stress. In some cases, I thought I might even have a heart attack as he drove the WRONG WAY in the  parking lot at the grocery store! What would the neighbors think? How can society exist in such anarchy? "We MUST obey the arrows," shouted every cell in my body.

He laughed. He occasionally poked fun at me, but for the most part, he just ignored me. I am finally starting to really see the difference between self-government and obsessive rule-keeping. And this has changed me. I can finally appreciate people who are different. People who cannot or will not conform their behavior to the acceptable societal norms. These people weren't in need of me or my acceptance of them. I was the one who was impoverished by keeping them at a distance because of my annoyance.

This brings me back to other people's children. I have noticed a near explosion in the number of children I see who are on the autism spectrum or have special personalities that are quirky. In the past, I would have been very uncomfortable around these children. I probably would have been pretty judgmental of their parents for not making them behave appropriately. (Mind you, I still get miffed with parents who don't bother to train their children how to act in public, but I'm talking about children whose issues have nothing to do with training and everything to do with how they just ARE.) But when I stop worrying about the rules, I can allow myself to get to know these children. They aren't dangerous because they speak out of turn. My day is not ruined by their intense interest in spiders and their insatiable desire to tell me about it. So what if they sit upside down on the chair? What is that to me?

What is good? And what does the Lord require from us? Do justice. Love mercy. Walk humbly with God. (see Micah 6:8)

There is nothing in there about obeying all the rules. Certainly nothing about proudly obeying. It isn't a great accomplishment at all.  I was trained to obey by my schooling. That was reinforced by my military training. My husband helped me to get unindoctrinated. I am trying to humbly make a new start. I don't want to be conformed to this world (and its rules), but to be transformed by the renewing of my mind.  It's a life-long journey, I'm afraid. But as the old saying goes, "I'm not what I oughta be, but thank God I'm not what I used to be."

Model Penal Code - From the Pit of Hell

Because of my support of theonomy, it should come as no surprise that I have an interest in how men form their legal codes. It is frustrating to me that most Americans (including most lawyers) have no real understanding of how the United States arrived at their current catastrophe consisting of federal and state law codes. Government education is so inadequate in teaching this that it hardly bears mentioning, but it is sad beyond measure that private schools and Christian schools don't do it any better.

A brief summary of the history of American law goes something like this:  The colonists brought the English Common Law with them when they settled here. The English Common Law draws much of its precepts from the abuses addressed by the Magna Carta as well as from what is often called "natural law" but was more directly drawn from the Ten Commandments. Law was not enshrined in the form of statutes until later. Instead, judges and juries applied the principles of the Common Law to cases, and if there were appeals, the opinions of the judges in those appeals became precedent for future cases, analyzing the specifics of the cases with the enduring principles of law.

Over time, individual colonies, and then states, began to collect their various ordinances and statutes into books. Legislatures became busy bees, drafting new laws as often as they met. This departure from the Common Law led to the birth of the idea that law evolves. Since law evolves, and man is constantly gaining new understanding of how men should relate, it becomes not only preferred, but necessary to revise the actions defined as criminal and punishments proscribed for their violations. Lawyers and legal scholars began to complain about the differences in laws from state to state. Not because there was something fundamentally wrong with creating new law (which there is) but because the legal elite wanted to be in charge of writing those laws, rather than leaving to mere legislators.

Enter The American Law Institute in 1923.  ALI formed a committee to write the document which would become the Model Penal Code. This document was intended, as the name suggests, to be a model for all of the states to adopt as their own state statutes, thereby creating a more uniform set of laws across the several states. It became the new Ten Commandments for a justice system seeking to rid itself of all relations to religion. The result was a separation of the justice system from all justice.

Unfortunately, this abomination is widely praised, endorsed and nearly worshiped by Christians. People will accept all manner of injustice in order to avoid the Law of God. "Any law but God's!" is their cry. While God's so-called people will give lip service to the Ten Commandments and assert that all modern law flows from God's law, they are incapable of showing any connection when challenged. One of the most common "arguments" I hear is that God's command for people to be held responsible for the damages to persons resulting from a fall from their roof is justification for every modern law from building codes, to speeding tickets, to laws against spitting on the sidewalk. I have heard people argue that the Cities of Refuge are justification for keeping criminals in prison.

Show me any positive reference to prisons in the Scriptures. Show me any place in the Law of God where punishment for a crime involves incarceration. You won't find it because that is an abomination. Holding men, created in the image of God, in a cage without access to other humans, to sunshine, to productive work is the very definition of inhumane. The Law of God doesn't even distinguish between what we call "criminal law" and what is called "tort law" or "civil law." There was no difference because justice is focused on restoration and reconciliation, not punishment, isolation and life-long labels.

The subject is vast and can't really be covered in a blog post, but I needed to get this off my chest. I see that the ALI is now working to re-write the Model Penal Code where it touches sexual assault because man's understanding of this issue has allegedly evolved again. No doubt this new revision will further erode fundamental rights of due process and purposely weigh the law against men in favor of women's perceptions of truth.

The Model Penal Code is anti-marriage, anti-family and anti-Christ. It is injustice codified. It is an idolatrous and godless generation that seeks to make man better by increasing the reach of laws. Submit yourself to the perfect law of liberty and you will have no need for any other. 

Overheard at a Community Meeting...

Our local government school board hosted an informational meeting to explain the upcoming 25 year bond for $5,000,000 which will appear on our election ballots in May. The district business manager said this:

A bond is a loan, taken out by the school board. But the school board doesn't pay it back, the taxpayers pay it back. So it is only fair that the taxpayers get to vote on it.

Either this woman is a complete idiot, or she is purposely misleading people. You see, there is no correlation between being a taxpayer (property tax payer) and being a voter, except by coincidence. The voters are made up of all adults (ages 18 and above) who live in the district and have registered to vote. The taxpayers of this bond, if it should pass, are the individuals and businesses who own property within the district. 

We see that voters who don't own property will get to vote on the bond, even though they have no obligation to pay on it for the next 25 years. We also see that  property owners who don't physically reside in the district do not get to vote and businesses that are not individuals get no votes at all.

If the school district business manager intended to note that it would be fundamentally unfair for anyone but the ones paying back the loan to decide whether to pass the bond, she would be correct, but I don't think she really feels that way, or she would be against the bond for its objective unfairness.

The Bible says:

A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children...

The world says leave some debt to your children. It's our duty, after all, to keep those government schools open and then bill the children for it later.  This bond will impose taxes on those with no representation in the matter and it will affect people who aren't even born yet. It is theft. It is evil. It is a bad idea.

Is Taxation Theft?

Thou shalt not steal. 

You may recognize that from Exodus 20:15. It is part of what we call the Ten Commandments, the laws given to God's people, through Moses. I am going to make the case that taxation is a violation of this command.

The reason I'm sort of stirred up about this right now is that our local school board is asking the voters to undertake a 25 year bond in the amount of 5 million dollars which will be paid by adding a levy to what property owners pay every year in property tax. Let's talk about the local school district. 

Current enrollment is 161 students. For the entire district. Kindergarten through grade 12, there are 161 students in the entire district. Including all sources of funding, the spending per student in this district is over $20,000. You read that correctly, $20,000 is being spent per pupil to educate the little crumb crunchers in our district. The state government has awarded a grant (money taken from tax payers all over the state) of 4 million dollars to our local district based upon the fact that we are one of the most impoverished districts in the state. 100% of the students get free breakfast and lunch at school, because our district is so poor. However, the grant comes with strings. The district has to match the grant with at least 4 million dollars from the local taxpayers. (Remember how the state has already determined that we are one of the poorest districts in the state?)

Now, for $20,000 per pupil, I could take charge of the entire district and I would enroll every student at a private school 60 miles away, bus them to school every day, get yearly passes to the zoo and aquarium and science museum (and bus them there twice per year), and provide them with new clothing. That's right, I could arrange for a superior private education for EVERY student in this district for what is being spent to keep them in the local government school. 

So, even if taxation was not theft, which it is, it would still be the height of foolishness to spend one more cent on this over-spending district.

Let's suppose that a man in my town wanted to have relations (of the marital type) with a woman from this town who did not wish to relate to him. Now suppose he took her by force. Would that be rape? Of course it would be. 

Now, let us change the story a bit and say the man in question has the same desire as before, but instead of taking her by force he holds an election. In this election, a majority of town's people vote that the man MAY legally take the woman. The town's enforcers hold her down and the man has his way with her. Is that rape? Why or why not? If the majority of the people vote for the act to occur, does it change from a crime to a legal act? Does it go from being immoral to being moral? Why or why not?

We shall now change the crime from rape to theft. If a man in my town wants a percentage of the value of the property of another man, and he goes to the second man's house with a gun and demands the money, is it not robbery? What if he intends to use the money for a good cause?  Let us now say that the first man holds an election whereat the majority of the people vote that the property owner should turn over a percentage of his property value to the first man. Does it cease to be theft because of an election?

What other crime, besides theft, becomes a non-crime based upon the will of the majority? Murder? Arson?

My conclusion is that theft is theft is theft. My neighbors have no more right to vote on whether my money can be taken and used for a school than they can vote on whether to murder the man who has pink flamingos on his lawn.  

No King But Jesus

I don't know if Christians have always favored statism, or if modern American Christians are just a wonderful example of the success of government schooling. It is a subject I must study further, as I seem to remember reading about certain Christians in the past claiming "No King But King Jesus" and being persecuted for it. Perhaps a reader can enlighten me.

The overwhelming majority of believers with whom I speak and whose stuff I read on the internet and in books seem to think that God wants to rule us through an earthly intermediary, an earthly ruler. I have heard it said countless times that God created 3 institutions, the Church, the family and government. And yet I find no place in Scripture where God instituted government. Romans 13 is used as a proof text, and yet it fails to guide God's people up to the time Paul wrote his letter. Where in God's Law does he ordain governments? Where does He say that His Law is to be executed by governments? To whom was the Law of God given? To His people.

In fact, I see the exact opposite. God wanted to rule His people directly. The book of Judges demonstrates what I believe to be the closest look at how God intended to govern. The Law had been given to Moses, then Joshua led the people of God into the promised land. There is no evidence that they tried to establish a government over all of the land. There are places in Judges where we read of kings within the Israelite lands. These were likely tribal leaders or rulers of cities, but they were not set up to execute God's Laws. The cities also had elders, which is a natural sort of government, if you want to call it that. Elders would hear disputes, represent the city in negotiations with other cities, etc. But they didn't "rule" because the Law of God ruled.

In Judges 8 we see Gideon dealing with city elders who are violating God's command to help their brethren drive out the heathen. After Gideon takes care of that problem and saves Israel from the oppression of foreign kings the people cry out to Gideon to rule over them:

Then the men of Israel said unto Gideon, Rule thou over us, both thou, and thy son, and thy son's son also: for thou has delivered us from the hand of Midian. Judges 8:22

But Gideon, a type of Christ and a deliverer answers this way:

And Gideon said unto them, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you: the LORD shall rule over you. Judges 8:23

It isn't recorded that the people didn't understand what it meant for God to rule over them without a king. I guess it was clear to them. But we modern people just can't grasp it. We know that we won't go on a spree of murder, mayhem and robbery, but our neighbor might. I guess.  If an earthly government isn't controlling our every move and writing thousands upon thousands of laws we are going to destroy each other and the earth? When did we get such an idea? Not from the Bible. The Bible doesn't even hint that God's Law was a good start, but we really need to legislate every tiny detail. The pharisees did just that, and Jesus did not have kind words for them.

What does God say about a people that demand a king? Has God spoken? Is Jesus the same yesterday, today and forever? Did God intend to rule directly over His people by means of His Law? I say that He did and here is where God said the same:

Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah. And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in the thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.  1 Samuel 8:4-7

 Could it be that it pleases God if, when given the choice, we choose to govern ourselves with the Law of God only and reject an earthly government? Is God inadequate for the job? If not, then why subject ourselves to so much tyranny? We are worse than the fools at Galatia who wanted to earn their salvation by works according to the Law. We want to please God by obeying man's Law.

O foolish (Americans), who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?  Galatians 3:1, my paraphrase

 American Christians will reject any notion that they should obey the Law of God, and those same Christians will assert that disobedience to any of the thousands of local, state and federal laws, plus incorporated laws of other nations is sin because God wants us to "obey every ordinance."

If the laws of man contradict or add to the Law of God, are we obligated to obey them while we ignore the commands of the living God? When we measure our righteousness by the standard of man's laws, are we not idolators?

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. Joshua 24:15

 How does one know if he has a king?  The borders of a kingdom are determined by where the kingdom's laws are obeyed. All who obey the law of the king are his subjects. Subjecting oneself to the king means subjecting oneself to the law of the king. If his laws are not obeyed, then he is not the sovereign. Obeying the laws of another realm is evidence of loyalty to that realm.

No king but King Jesus!

The Cult of Statism

One of things that bothers me most about so many, many believers, at least in America, is the extent to which they worship the state without realizing they are doing it. Also, when I attempt to point out their idolatry, it is denied.

Rather than trying to explain what statism is, I'm just going to link to this video and ask you to watch it. Questions?  Let's talk about it.