A Test for the West: Our Moral Response to Evil

Today, I am deeply concerned about the present direction of the world.  Although situations are complex, I'm noticing a troubling pattern.  First, the United States is withdrawing from the position of respected leadership and moral clarity which it had occupied for at least a century.  This American retreat, characterized by an ambiguous and often apologetic stance in foreign policy, seems to reflect ignorance or  misunderstanding of the role of the United States in world history.  Consequently, world axes of evil once restrained by a healthy respect for American moral and military might, are now raising their evil heads on the world scene.  For example, Islamic extremist groups are using the spotlight afforded by international news media to showcase their evil actions that seem like eruptions from the very pit of hell.

Abdullah (right) identified with a vengeful Eastwood character.

But perhaps the most disturbing of all to me are the growing reactions of many of us in the Western World.  Some react to beheadings, burnings, and crucifixions with cheers as if they have been mesmerized by this demonic contagion of evil.  Others are so enraged at the perpetrators of barbarism that they, like King Abdullah of Jordan, respond to the terrorists by promising swift acts of reprisal.  According to a New York Post article, an angry King Abdullah responded to ISIS’s barbarous act of burning a Jordanian citizen alive by quoting Clint Eastwood’s enraged, vengeful character, William Munny, in the movie, Unforgiven.  

It is here, the nexus of evil barbarism and morally restrained civilization, where my greatest concern lies, for it is here that civilized peoples must decide how they will react in the face of evil.  The choice is between reacting to execute justice against evil governed by a sense of moral indignation; or, reacting “in kind” with a zealous anger fueled by hatred and vengeance.  The Western World has plenty of its own unrighteousness to go around; and, the need for repentance ought to be obvious to us.  However, it seems to me that it is precisely the awareness of our own individual and collective depravity as a nation in the face of God’s standards of righteousness that ought to remind us that perfect judgment and vengeance is not ours, but the LORD’s (Romans 12:19).

If Western Civilization reacts out of a spirit of hatred and vengeance it will be pulled downward toward the very pit of hatred and despair that gives rise to this march of evil.  Therefore, the only hope for America and the West is rejection of moral relativism in favor of moral clarity based on the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.  The Scriptures clearly and repeatedly remind us that humans are fallen creatures with no hope apart from humble submission to the saving grace of God that brings redemption and reconciliation (Romans 3: 10, 23; 6: 23).  Those who confess their depravity and complete dependence justification by faith in God’s righteousness are equipped to love God, love their neighbor, and steward their time, talents, and treasures for God’s glory.   God’s redeemed stewards value all of human life and support safeguards against violation of the basic rights to free speech, freedom of worship, and access to protection afforded by just rule of law.  These objective standards for life and liberty based on Scripture are what today’s leaders have in mind when they call for America to respond to evil with moral clarity and righteous indignation. 

Having stated the basis for justifiable moral indignation, my question is, “Can America now exercise moral courage and unified leadership in the face of the lawless hoards on the world scene?”  I’m afraid because of the current moral climate in America, the answer may be, “No.”  How can America speak with one voice against evil when we are so deeply divided on moral issues such as the importance of religious faith in American culture?  How can America stand for the dignity of human life when her courts continue to violate the sanctity of human life, trivialize sexuality and the sanctity of marriage, castigate those of a different ethnic background, and disrespect America’s historic role in relieving human suffering and fostering world peace?

Today, I am remembering the birthday of President Ronald Reagan whose leadership rallied our nation so effectively because of his deep faith in God and respect for others regardless of their politics.  Reagan believed that America would not long survive if she didn’t hold to the moral standards and moral clarity that had made her “good” as well as “great.”  Reagan’s words to the nation in his presidential farewell, in 1989, demonstrated the qualities of his leadership that had revived America’s faith, restored America’s spirit, and made the world safer against the threat of Communism:

Reagan and Gorbachev: Leadership with firm moral resolve.

… we're about to enter the '90s, and some things have changed. Younger parents aren't sure that an unambivalent appreciation of America is the right thing to teach modern children.  And as for those who create the popular culture, well-grounded patriotism is no longer the style. Our spirit is back, but we haven't reinstitutionalized it. We've got to do a better job of getting across that America is freedom--freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise.  And freedom is special and rare. It's fragile; it needs protection.  So, we've got to teach history based not on what's in fashion but what's important:  Why the Pilgrims came here….

The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the "shining city upon a hill." The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.

I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it and see it still.

As I reflect on President Reagan’s leadership, I ask again, “Can America now exercise moral courage and unified leadership in the face of lawless hoards on the world scene?”  The lack of moral clarity and resolve in our current leadership make me doubtful.   The longer America and its allies continue with a policy of token resistance, the greater will be the spread of this evil infection; and, the less likely America will respond out of moral indignation and not out of anger and vengeance –if America responds at all.  

Allow me to conclude with a current contrast in leadership that I believe justifies my concern. On the one hand are the leaders of two of America’s Middle East allies:  Abdullah II, King of Jordan, and Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel.  Both men have clearly expressed their frustration and concern about the growing threat posed by terror groups and hostile nations such as Iran.  Netanyahu in particular has demonstrated much patience, a voice of reason, and a willingness to negotiate peace with neighbors who despise his nation.  On the other hand, President Obama seems unable or unwilling to stand in the tradition of previous American presidents as a voice for moral clarity.   Instead, he appears apologetic for the nation he leads perhaps because he sees America as an unjust intruder on the world scene; a nation that has attained her leadership dishonestly at the expense of other nations.  This line of reason, typical of many secular progressives, suggests that America must leave the stage as leader of the free world and blend into the landscape with other nations she has oppressed. 

We must admit that America’s history has many blemishes because Americans are, in God’s view, depraved people.  However, because of his unwillingness or inability to exercise decisive leadership, President Obama is creating frustration among Americans, confusion within our armed services, and doubt among our allies. 

King Abdullah’s angry reaction to the violent death of a Jordanian citizen this week illustrates what I have stated as perhaps the greatest challenge or test for Western civilization.  The test has one multiple-choice question:  “How will the West react to the current onslaught of evil that emerges from ISIS, Iran, Russia, and numerous terror groups on different continents?   Will the West react with (a) a resolve to confront evil with just retribution based on moral indignation ; or will the West react (b) “in kind” by committing more atrocities out of anger and vengeance? 

As I stated at the beginning, I am concerned about the direction of the world.  I am concerned for America, and for our children and grandchildren.  There is not much we can do as individuals.  But we can pray for our own leadership responsibilities and for our leaders.   I pray that President Obama will communicate in words and in actions the spirit conveyed by Ronald Reagan as he bid farewell to America as her president, in 1989: 

But I never thought it was my style or the words I used that made a difference: It was the content. I wasn't a great communicator, but I communicated great things, and they didn't spring full bloom from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation--from our experience, our wisdom, and our belief in principles that have guided us for two centuries.

Both Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan are known as “great communicators.”   I pray that President Obama will take up the mantel of moral leadership and offer a clear message of hope and encouragement to the America he serves.  May he also send a clear message to the enemies of law and order that America is back and ready to lead its allies in defense of life, liberty, and justice.

“It’s Not Dark Yet, But…”

The following entry grew from a brief response to Michael Brune, Executive Director of the Sierra Club, whose article, “It’s Not Dark Yet, But…”, in his blog “Coming Clean,” invites club members and other blog followers to urge President Obama to make “tackling climate disruption a top priority of his second term:” 

Hello Mr. Brune: 
 I appreciate your concern and zeal for a better environment.  However, the Sierra Club should not invest too much of its time and resources in the polluted waters of Washington with its failing leadership.  For example, I'm trying not to question the president's judgment as he has led Washington's effort to "pick winners" among companies promising "green energy" options.  Unfortunately, he gave us too many losers like Solyndra while wasting tax dollars in the process.  Indeed, my confidence in a leadership that has wasted trillions on bridges to nowhere has waned.   If the same trillions had been invested under the direction of knowledgeable business entrepreneurs guided by good scientific technology, we could be on the road to much cleaner energy and much less political cronyism from Washington.  Witness the difference between FedEx and the US Postal Service.  Or, consider some of the amazing successes coming from private investments in alternative energy based on new technology.

“Getting darker?”   It sure is.  And, unless the US addresses its penchant for borrowing from China, one of the Earth's biggest polluters, America will enter the kind of "darkness" known only to societies like the Soviet Union and China in the mid-20th century where the government had its way in social planning in every area of life.  Programs out of Washington, funded by borrowing more money, have never and will never produce the results possible in a free market economy that is allowed to function in an environment of real justice which is enforced by rule of law. 

Oil derrick of "fracking" operation  near Carrollton, Ohio

"Saving the Earth" is like "Saving Our Children" from the evil intentions of people with guns (or knives or drugs).  In both cases, the focus should not primarily be upon the "outward means" (guns, knives, smokestacks, pipelines and drilling rigs).  Rather, the focus should be upon reclamation of the moral and ethical disposition of those choosing and using the "means."  Aldo Leopold was not opposed to wise use of Earth’s natural resources when he stated:

By and large, our present problem is one of attitudes and implements. We are remodeling the Alhambra with a steam-shovel, and we are proud of our yardage. We shall hardly relinquish the shovel, which after all has many good points, but we are in need of gentler and more objective criteria for its successful use. -- A Sand County Almanac, pp 263-64 [Ballantine edition]

Mr. Brune, caring for the Earth and our children both have major moral and ethical requirements and I like what one of your predecessors, Carl Pope, said:

We sought to transform society, but ignored the fact that when Americans want to express something wiser and better than they are as individuals, by and large they gather to pray. We acted as if we could save life on Earth without the same institutions through which we save ourselves.  -- Sierra Magazine 83 (November/December 1998): 14–15, 14.

It's not dark yet, but... darkness will come unless we realize that climate change, mass shootings, out-of-control national debt, abortion, gay marriage, corporate fraud, etc. are all just the “tips of icebergs”  because we have submerged and suppressed the voice of moral conscience that had come from objective moral absolutes rooted in Judeo-Christian teachings.   If we return to these teachings and apply them, we will have hope of staving off the darkness and seeing a brighter day and a greener, safer Earth. 

Is Romney’s Rhetoric Backed by Character?

This year, Americans have a choice of who will occupy the White House for the next four years.  The presumed nominee for the Democratic Party, Barack Obama, is the only self-proclaimed evangelical on the two presidential tickets.  His Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, is a self-proclaimed Mormon, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  Obama has the advantage of name recognition; and, perhaps a disadvantage in having a track record as president for four years that offers vulnerable targets for his critics.

A majority of self-professing evangelical Christians uphold the sanctity of human life, the sanctity of marriage as being between one man and one woman, and the freedom from coercion toward acts that violate religious convictions in the workplace.  President Obama upholds none of these basic foundations of morality and freedom.   Many social conservatives would say President Obama’s walk is inconsistent with his talk and with the Judeo-Christian principles that have undergirded and distinguished western civilization.   All of these positions should be taken into consideration between now and election day.

But what about Mitt Romney?   Are his actions consistent with his religious faith?  If we wish to be objective, both presidential candidates must be subjected to the same standards.   For example, unlike President Obama, Mitt Romney clearly defends the rights of the unborn, the sanctity of marriage as between a man and a woman, and exercise of religious freedom.  But is this lesser known candidate the “genuine article,” a person with integrity.   To choose a good leader, voters should know whether his walk matches his talk; and, that means seeing more than his tax returns.  [For elaboration, see Oikonomia, March 31, 2012 .]

So, is Mitt really a “good man” as some have said?  And, is he a “good man for the job.”   We may never agree as a nation on either count; or, on how to determine Romney’s “goodness.”  But, let’s see what we can glean from Romney’s own words and from the testimony of those who know him.  Then, we’ll use a third approach.   Because Mitt Romney appears to be reluctant to talk about himself and his accomplishments, we may gain more insights into the man from the answers he seems reluctant to give when he is pressed hard by questioners

First, from Romney himself [Commencement Address, Liberty University, May 12, 2012]:

The American culture promotes personal responsibility, the dignity of work, the value of education, the merit of service, devotion to a purpose greater than self, and, at the foundation, the pre-eminence of the family.   The power of these values is evidenced by a Brookings Institution study [reporting that for]… those who graduate from high school, get a full-time job, and marry before they have their first child, the probability that they will be poor is 2%. But, if those things are absent, 76% will be poor.   Culture matters. 

Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman.

Someone once observed that the great drama of Christianity is not a crowd shot, following the movements of collectives or even nations.  The drama is always personal, individual, unfolding in one’s own life. We’re not alone in sensing this.  Men and women of every faith, and good people with none at all, sincerely strive to do right and lead a purpose-driven life.

Our relationship with our Maker… is entirely in our control, for He is always at the door, and knocks for us.  Our worldly successes cannot be guaranteed, but our ability to achieve spiritual success is entirely up to us, thanks to the grace of God.  The best advice I know is to give those worldly things your best but never your all, reserving the ultimate hope for the only one who can grant it.

People of different faiths, like yours and mine, sometimes wonder where we can meet in common purpose, when there are so many differences in creed and theology.  Surely the answer is that we can meet in service, in shared moral convictions about our nation stemming from a common worldview.  The best case for this is always the example of Christian men and women working and witnessing to carry God’s love into every life – people like the late Chuck Colson.

Those who know Romney claim that it is just not his nature to speak up about his accomplishments.  Meanwhile, his opponents in the primaries, and more recently the Obama campaign, have portrayed him as a wealthy entrepreneur who gained his fortune through the ruthless maneuvering of Bain Capital.   But, here are some fact-checked bits of information that contradict the negative portrayal of Romney:  

Ilyn Ross blogs in “Reason Reigns:”

At the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, he inherited a $370 million deficit. He left behind a $100 million surplus, contributing $1 million of his own money, & drawing no salary for 3 years. As MA governor with both houses of the MA legislature having large Democratic majorities, Romney faced an immediate $650 million shortfall & a projected $3 billion deficit for the next year. By 2006, MA had a $600–700 million surplus. Romney drew a salary of $1 per year.

Mr. Grant Bennett, CEO of CPS Technologies and former consultant with Bain Capital stated at the recent RNC:

I have spent thousands of hours over many years with Mitt Romney.  We spent our time together serving our fellow men and women - we spent it serving in our church.  We embraced Christ's admonition: "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

In our early morning calls, Mitt didn't discuss questions of theology. He found the definition of religion given by James in the New Testament to be a practical guide: "Pure religion ... is to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction."

So, what specifically did Mitt Romney do as our pastor?   For one or two evenings each week and several hours every weekend -- week after week and year after year -- he met with those seeking help with the burdens of real life, burdens we all face at one time or another: unemployment, sickness, financial distress, loneliness.  Mitt prayed with and counseled church members seeking spiritual direction, single mothers raising children, couples with marital problems, youth with addictions, immigrants separated from their families, and individuals whose heat had been shut off.

Mitt seldom delivered the sermon himself - he gave that opportunity to fellow church members.
He sought to involve everyone so everyone could grow.  Mitt taught faith in God, personal integrity, self-reliance and service to our fellow men.   And Mitt did what he challenged us to do. He led by example.   I treasure every minute we served together.  I am grateful for my apprenticeship in "the things that matter most" under the hands of a deeply good man named Mitt Romney.

From Ted Oparowski whose 14-year-old son was diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma:

You cannot measure a man's character based on words he utters before adoring crowds during happy times. The true measure of a man is revealed in his actions during times of trouble.  The quiet hospital room of a dying boy, with no cameras and no reporters -- that is the time to make an assessment.

From Pam Finlayson, who gave birth to a daughter 3½ months premature resulting in severe heart and lung problems:

As I sat with her in intensive care, consumed with a mother’s worry and fear, dear Mitt came to visit and pray with me,” she continued, as the partisan crowd listened in rapt silence. “I will never forget that when he looked down tenderly at my daughter, his eyes filled with tears, and he reached out gently and stroked her tiny back.   I could tell immediately that he didn’t just see a tangle of plastic and tubes; he saw our beautiful little girl, and he was clearly overcome with compassion for her.

When it comes to loving our neighbor, we can talk about it or we can live it.  The Romneys live it every single day.

What is Romney hiding?  We may or may not agree with what Mitt Romney says, or with the positions he takes as a political leader.   We may also question the validity of what his close friends say.  But, we must at least consider those things Romney has only revealed when it seems he’d rather not ‘go there’ or which are revealed by reports from fact-finding research into his past.  Consider a few examples.

Because Mitt is the son of George Romney, former CEO of American Motors, he is sometimes portrayed as having been “born with a silver spoon in his mouth.”  However, when he has been pressed to speak about his inheritance, he responds as recorded by the NY Times:  

Except for a loan from his father to purchase his and Ann’s first home, in Belmont, MA for $42,000, Romney states:   I gave [my inheritance from my father] to a school which Brigham Young University established in his honor, the George W. Romney School of Public Management.

According to Monique Hamm reporting in Human Events (8/26/2012),

One instance that highlights Romney’s style of silent charity is Joey’s Park, a playground named in memory of Joey O’Donnell, who died of cystic fibrosis and was the son of a Romney neighbor.  Romney led the effort to build the park as well as its upkeep. “There he was with a hammer, a Mitt nobody sees,” Joseph O’Donnell, the father of the late boy, told the authors of “The Real Romney.” After the construction, Romney returned with a local Boy Scout troop to ensure that the memorial was maintained. “He did it for like the next five years, without ever calling to say, ‘We did this,’ without a reporter in tow, not looking for any credit.

In the final analysis, voting citizens of this great land must ask themselves, first, “How important is it that a candidate possess a character marked by virtues of humility and reverence for God, love for neighbor, respect for the sanctity of life and sanctity of marriage, valuing of individual effort and hard work, and respect of religious groups and their freedom to worship and practice their faith?”

Second, “Is it important that character virtues like those listed above are demonstrated through the candidate’s promises, actions, and policies?” And, third, “Are we willing to take the time to identify and evaluate the candidates on the basis of how well their words and their actions demonstrate virtuous character?”  As we individually hold ourselves to these standards, and then prayerfully seek answers to at least the three questions above, we will gain a better sense of which presidential candidate best demonstrates the qualities necessary to exercise leadership that America needs.

Disintegration of the United States of America

Many would agree that America has made great strides toward ethnic integration during the past half century.  At the same time, integration of telephone, television, and other digital technology through the world wide web has produced a remarkable expansion in communications.

According to the dictionary, integration is “the process of making whole or entire.”  For an individual or part, integration is “the process of fitting in.” Thus, integration of ethnic minorities involves individuals that ‘fit into’ communities; meanwhile, the community is being “made whole or complete.”  Metaphorically, a cake baked from well stirred ingredients will have the same color and consistency throughout because the individual ingredients have been integrated.  Conversely, an integrated community or nation, would not have pockets of separation (segregation) in which minorities are excluded or at odds with the larger social-political dynamic.  Rather, each individual is given the opportunity to participate in making the community or nation complete.

In his inaugural address, January 20, 2009, Barak Obama emphasized our progress as a nation toward becoming an integrated whole (emphasis mine):

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness.  We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers.  We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself…

Inauguration of Barack Obama, January 20, 2009

Three and one-half years after the president’s inauguration, our daily news is filled with indications that we are becoming more divided as a nation.  Instead of integrating and expressing “our common humanity” around commonly held values and mutual respect for ethnic, cultural, and political diversity, we are “disintegrating” into an increasing number of factions.

A dictionary defines disintegration as-- “to break into parts; dismember; dissolve.”  Things that disintegrate do not actually “disappear.”  Rather, they break into parts too tiny for us to see, like table salt crystals that “disappear” when stirred into water.  Each salt crystal, composed of billions of precisely arranged atoms forming a latticework is “disintegrated” or “dissolved” by the water.  The tiny charged atoms escape from the lattice into the water where they begin a constant, chaotic motion.

Contributing to our current “disintegration” in America is the president’s seeming inability to achieve a bi-partisan effort to rejuvenate the economy, address the growing federal deficit, curb spiraling health care costs, and establish a workable immigration policy.  The Obama campaign, perhaps frustrated by these failed efforts, now seems to promote disagreement and division rather than unity of purpose in the midst of economic hardship. 

Let’s look closer at two evidences of “disintegration” in America-- the “contraceptive mandate” within the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare); and, the president’s push to increase government revenue through higher taxes on wealthy Americans.  Please note that both of these examples of “disintegration” stem from an absence of “integration” of principles rooted in Judeo-Christian values which historically have been interwoven through the moral and ethical fabric of individuals, families, and communities.

Kirk Cameron, in his film production, “Monumental:  In Search of America’s National Treasure,” traces the influence of Judeo-Christian faith on the founding of America.  In the 17^th century, the integration of their Christian faith into daily life prompted Puritan separatists to risk great danger to escape to a little-known continent to gain the freedom to worship and practice their faith.  The influence of their covenant, expressed in the Mayflower Compact, on colonial culture over the following century and a half was instrumental in the drafting of the U.S. Constitution.

With that brief history, let’s return to our two expressions of disintegration in America.  The first relates to the “contraceptive mandate” which would exempt churches but require faith-based institutions to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives, abortifacients, and abortion-related counseling.  Many people of faith oppose this portion of ObamaCare because they see it as a threat to religious freedom. As a result, the federal government now faces 24 lawsuits.

Anthony Picarello and Michael Moses, leaders of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, summarized the moral and legal concerns of church leaders who object to the “…narrow exemption that intrusively and unlawfully carves up the religious community into those that are deemed 'religious enough' for an exemption, and those that are not.”  The idea that Americans can be divided between those who are “religious employees” and those who aren’t suggests a misunderstanding or a denial or even a disdain on the part of the current administration for what it means to “live out ones faith” or to “integrate” ones faith convictions with their personal and professional lifestyle outside of church.

There is a second area in which the “carving knife” is at work on the fabric that has held Americans together.  One can see the gleam of the knife at work when we hear talk of the “unfairness” in the tax code that supposedly favors the wealthy.   We are continually reminded that each American occupies one of three groups-- “the rich,” “the middle class,” and “the poor.”  Here is a now-famous statement by President Obama on the subject of creating and earning wealth:

If you've got a business, you didn't build that.  Somebody else made that happen.
                                – President Barack Obama, July 16, 2012 (Roanoke, VA)

President Obama appears to be suggesting that American entrepreneurs rely so much on the social, economic, and technological infrastructure that they should not mind giving more of their incomes to the government through higher taxes. The president may mean well by saying this, but his statements betray a woeful lack of integration of Judeo-Christian teaching with the entrepreneurial spirit.   Consider how the president’s challenge might sound if it were based on an understanding of biblical truth—here expressed by the Apostle Paul: 

For who regards you as superior?
What do you have that you did not receive?
And if you did receive it,
why do you boast as if you had not received it?   -- I  Corinthians 4:7

Saint Paul’s statement, unlike the president’s, challenges successful entrepreneurs to remember that human capability to earn or create wealth has been permitted by the grace of God, and that he or she is a steward of the power and position God has granted.  Thus, the Scriptural teaching has none of the president’s tone that has led to a divisive and destructive response within our national narrative.  Instead, it credits God, not government as being ultimately responsible for any prosperity we enjoy.

A regular awareness of our dependence upon God should foster a humble stewardship that recognizes that, as we earn or create wealth, we have a responsibility to be generous and to give joyfully to others and to worthy causes.  This obligation is further underscored through another principle of Scripture expressed in the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Ephesians (emphasis mine):

He who steals must steal no longer; but rather he must labor,
performing with his own hands what is good,
so that he will have something to share with one who has need.  
                                                                                 – Ephesians 4:28

Here, the Scriptures emphasize not only the value of hard work and earning an income; but also that we use our income as a channel of God’s provision for those in need.  Rather than President Obama’s approach to “social justice” in which the government is the agency of “wealth redistribution,” the Scriptures appeal to the hearts of people who are blessed with talents, time, and treasures to act voluntarily and generosity to share with the needy of for worthy causes.  If God’s people were to (a) recognize Who it is that has given them the abilities to gain wealth, and then (b) become committed to use their talent, time, and treasures to provide loving help (not handouts) to the needy, the resulting acts from thousands of people acting at the local level would transform individuals and our communities in much more effective ways than welfare programs from far-away Washington.

Historically, a vast number of Americans have exercised great generosity, many having done so as a result of the very faith in and gratitude toward God that we have been describing.  May this spirit be encouraged by a correct understanding of the nature of man, the proper role of government, and the responsibility of individuals to work hard and be generous toward God and neighbor.  May we not abuse the stewardship of our freedoms which have allowed us to strive together as Americans against forces that would disintegrate our families, communities, and nation.

 Prayer:   Father in Heaven, thank you for our freedom in Christ, available to whoever believes and accepts the free gift of eternal life, purchased at the priceless cost of Jesus’ shed blood on the cross for us while we were yet sinners; guaranteed by Christ’s resurrection from the dead, and affirmed by His gift of the Holy Spirit.   Thank you for endowing us, as affirmed in the U.S. Constitution, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, You have seen fit to allow …Governments [to be] instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed….  How blessed we are that America has been founded on principles from Your Word,  and as a result has achieved what no other nation in history has in the way of religious freedom and the accompanying social and cultural successes.  America has been and still is an “exceptional nation.”   Thank You for our leaders who recognize Your authority, and their individual accountability, first to You and Your Word, and then to their constituency.  Grant wisdom to President Obama and to all elected officials and the justices who serve in the courts at every level.  Give these “civil servants” courage to reject political expediency or personal gain for the sake of what honors You and what is best for the individuals, families, and communities of this great land.  As a result, may we continue to have the freedom to labor, to worship and serve You, and to demonstrate Christ’s love to others both at home and abroad.  Finally, help us to understand the respective roles of government and of each individual citizen and not to confuse the two lest we become more and more a nation of entitlement leading to obsession with “our rights” at the expense of striving as faithful stewards to be fruitful and generous spirits that offer assistance to those who need help to become what God intends them to be.    Amen.

Political-Economic Lessons from the "Microcosm"

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges.
                                                – President Barack Obama, July 16, 2012 (Roanoke, VA)

President Obama is right.  Who would deny that we owe much to our parents, family, teachers, pastors, and friends who have taught us by word and example to live virtuous lives and to instill these virtues in our children and associates?   The same is true of our debt to our communities which provide the context within which we have grown and matured (recall Hilary Clinton’s dictum).

Yes, Somebody helped create this unbelievable American system….  Tracing all the way back to the 18th century, we are indebted to our founding fathers and to the European- and African-Americans who fought and died side by side in the American Revolution to win the religious and political freedoms described in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.  Having learned from harsh experience, the founders were careful to name the source of our freedom and opportunity.  They viewed themselves as having been

endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

Powers of government including taxation are derived “from the consent of the governed” not from a monarch such as the King of England.  As we have stated elsewhere in Oikonomia, civil servants are to exercise stewardship of the power and resources granted to them by the governed.  Therefore, President Obama is correct when he says that we “thrive” because of somebody else who invested in roads and bridges.  We have all driven on layer upon layer of asphalt which in turn may have been layered on top of bricks, or even logs from the days of the “corduroy road.”  Taxes and tolls collected by government in the past and present maintain roads and bridges.  But, where does our president go next with his logic?

President Obama continues in his Roanoke speech:

If you've got a business, you didn't build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

Here the President seems to confuse the role of steward and master; or, the source of power and the wielder of power.  He suggests, that if you are a businessman or woman, “you didn’t build that” business; the government did because government built the highways on which your goods are marketed, and the internet which supports your communications and transactions. 

If the President’s logic is true, the founding fathers and many Americans have it backwards; and government is not the steward or “public servant” of the citizens from whom governing powers are derived.  Instead, he views government as “master” and originator of our prosperity.  In the President’s view, government is the green plant in the room—it takes the soil, the water, and the sunshine and supplies “food” to the private sector.   Government is the producer (or autotroph) and we, the governed, are the consumers (heterotrophs) who flourish from the benefits it provides.  Hence, “you didn’t build that”, government did.   But wait, Mr. President.  Did you ever study food chains, producers, and consumers in your science classes?

Although analogies always have their limits, a “producer-consumer analogy” may be helpful.    First, it should be obvious that government is not sustained by drawing its sustenance from soil, water, and sunshine.  Instead, the life blood of government is our tax dollars.  What it doesn’t get from taxes, it prints or borrows.  Therefore, because government is not self-supporting, it is not a producer or autotroph analogous to a green plant or algae.  Instead, government is a consumer or heterotroph that must extract its “nourishment” from another source; namely, the governed, and ultimately, the private sector where tax revenue is generated.   The private sector which produces goods, services, and jobs is the producer; government is the dependent consumer.

I tested this relationship in a couple of tiny models of the “real world”, called microcosms (“little worlds”).  Each microcosm is a 1-pint (373-ml) glass pickle jar containing the following:

>   pond water (not quite filling the jar to allow for an “atmosphere”)
>   algae (Spirogyra) – enough to create a light tinge of green
>   pond weed – 1 sprig for food and scaffolding for animal life
>   1 diving beetle
>   2 aquatic snails (1 small and 1 medium size)
>   1  dead plant stem (5-cm length)
>   Countless tiny crustaceans and microscopic organisms in the pond water

(A) "Microcosm"; (B) Snail and diving beetle; (C) Snail and oxygen from algae

Each microcosm was sealed off from the outside atmosphere with cellophane wrap and a rubber band, and placed in a window receiving indirect sunlight.   After 10 days, all populations were still alive. However, the algae was being consumed by snails faster than it could grow—the first hint that the system was not sustainable.

How about oxygen, the vital gas we all need to live?  Can you imagine aquarium animals living 10 days after the air pump was cut off?  However, in our microcosm, the algae (and pond weed) absorbs sunlight and uses dissolved carbon dioxide and mineral nutrients to “photosynthesize” oxygen needed for all life in the microcosm.  No need for an air pump!  The producer algae also photosynthesizes sugars, proteins, lipids, and other building blocks necessary for growth as well as to provide food for the consumers, snails and countless smaller animal forms.

Interestingly, the diving beetle carries its own oxygen in a large air bubble which it picks up at the interface of the water and atmosphere before it dives down and functions underwater.   When the oxygen level in the bubble drops, the beetle returns to the surface for a fresh “air tank.”  Where does this oxygen in the microcosm’s atmosphere come from?   [Right, it comes from the underwater producer algae and escapes to the atmosphere of the microcosm.]

Can you understand that sunlight is the primary driver of the microcosm as it is in the biosphere of Earth?  Without the sunny window, the producer algae would not have photosynthesized the oxygen and food needed for the consumer snails and other aquatic animals.  Unfortunately, the producer algae were unable grow fast enough to provide food for the consumers.   By day 12, consumer snails had eaten most of the algae-- and thus, their food and oxygen supply for the future.

Our microcosm analogy is limited in its ability to represent the Earth’s biosphere.  The small scale of the tiny jar and the simplicity of its food chain make its survival more precarious than the biosphere of Earth.  However, the fate of our overgrazed algae corresponds closely enough to our overtaxed citizens and bloated government to cause us to pause in serious contemplation when we hear Washington asking us for higher taxes so the government can add new programs for “job creation.”  The government can no more “create jobs” than the snails can create more producer algae.  Instead, the government would do well to encourage the real producers of jobs, the private sector.  In our analogy, the government’s role should be to either enhance the growth of algae or reduce its own consumption.

Some in Washington who recognize the value of the private sector (our producer algae) still favor wrong-headed solutions such as “creating jobs” using tax dollars which ultimately come from the private sector (producer algae). However, we should be learning from the bitter lessons of the billions spent on failed “stimulus packages” and from the poor investment of tax dollars on “green industries” that have gone belly-up in spite of these government subsidies.

Again, the natural order of the creation and even in our microcosmic models suggest that subsidizing the system can cause great damage.  Three days after creating several microcosms, I added a “sugar subsidy” to one microcosm in the form of a small volume of dissolved table sugar.   After all, algae produce sugars by photosynthesis, and sugar is a form of food, so won’t sugar help the microcosm to flourish?

Comparison of "Control" with "+Sugar" on Day 14

On day 10 when our “Control” microcosm was still functioning well, the “+Sugar” microcosm had become cloudy due to the presence of billions of bacteria that were thriving on the sugar.  Meanwhile, the algae and pond weed was turning yellow and becoming unable to photosynthesize food and oxygen in the natural way.   Within a few more days, the snails and other animal forms had died, leaving only the diving beetle which survived on the limited oxygen remaining in the atmosphere above.   The “sugar subsidy” didn’t bring prosperity.

Our experiment suggests that there is a natural order in creation in which the population of producers will determine the numbers or biomass of consumers that can live in a given area.  If the consumers over-consume or otherwise destroy the producers (e.g. overgrazing), it is only a matter of time until the system will crash.  Proper stewardship of the creation should conserve the built-in controls that regulate consumer and producer populations.

Although we have seen that consumers are dependent on producers, we should note that consumers also provide “services” that benefit producers.  For example, producers might be protected from overgrazing by consumers (e.g. white-tail deer) when other consumers (e.g. bear, wolf) prey upon the grazers and thereby maintain a limited, healthy population of grazers.  Likewise, many insects, birds, and bats promote pollination of flowers necessary to produce seeds and reproduction.   Consumers are valuable in creation just as “limited government” by the people has its important role.

The order of creation doesn’t justify total elimination of government.  Just as there are mutually beneficial relationships between producers and consumers in creation, so there are legitimate responsibilities of government-- to protect its citizens from invasion, maintain law and order, and ensure just balances in the market place so that job producers in the private sector can grow their businesses in support of a prosperous economy?

So, President Obama is correct when he says we should thank someone else for our success.  But, I’d start with God Almighty from Whom come our rights including ”Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”  Then, I’m thankful for godly public and civil servants and workers who maintain law and order and an environment in which entrepreneurs can follow their dreams and “get there” by their creativity.   Thankfully, our founding fathers understood the relationship between government and the private sector, and sought to promote the various roles of each under the Constitution they provided for us.