0 Items  Total: $0.00
Archive - Philosophy RSS Feed

General Thanksgiving: A Proclamation by George Washington, 1789

george washington praying valley forge 300x184 General Thanksgiving: A Proclamation by George Washington, 1789On October 3, 1789, President George Washington signed the following decree titled “General Thanksgiving.”

While there were Thanksgiving observances in America both before and after Washington’s proclamation, this represents the first to be so designated by the new national government.

General Thanksgiving
By the PRESIDENT of the United States Of America
A PROCLAMATION

“WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me ‘to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANKSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”

“NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and assign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed;– for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish Constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;– for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge;– and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

“And also, that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions;– to enable us all, whether in publick or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us); and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

“GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.

(signed) G. Washington

*Thanks to Shanon Brooks for bringing this to my attention.

If You Could Have It, Would You Really Want It?

riskydice 300x201 If You Could Have It, Would You Really Want It?If you could have a life completely free of:

  • Risk
  • Stress
  • Sickness
  • Pain
  • Struggle
  • Mystery and uncertainty

…would you really want it?

Imagine if every decision you made was certain to result in exactly what you wanted.

Would that be a life worth living?

Of course not. We intuitively understand what a bland and utterly pointless existence that would be.

(To experience just how bland, read The Giver by Lois Lowry.)

Without those things, we have no context for experiencing true joy. As Robert McKee wrote in Story:

“The depth of joy you experience is in direct proportion to the pain you’re willing to bear.”

I wonder, then, why we resist those things so much.

If we really embraced their purpose, wouldn’t we be much more willing to take calculated, mission-driven risks?

Wouldn’t we stop second-guessing past decisions so much, and stop re-hashing regret?

Wouldn’t we be able to deal with trials with a much healthier and happier frame of mind?

Of course, none of us really craves extreme hardships.

But when they do come, think of what life would be without them.

Truth Doesn’t Pick Sides — and Neither Should You

tugofwar 300x164 Truth Doesnt Pick Sides    and Neither Should YouI’m incredibly bored of rehashing stale and flawed either/or, black/white arguments.

Conservative versus liberal. Republican versus Democrat. Capitalism versus socialism. Individualism versus collectivism.

As if one is all right and the other is all wrong. Please.

There’s truth in every perspective.

By buying into either/or debates we lose depth, substance, nuance. We stifle our intellectual progress. We make enemies unnecessarily. We lose a sense of balance.

Ultimately, we lose freedom.

Truly free citizens are independents. They see beyond black and white, right and wrong debates.

To put it concretely, they don’t view Republicans as good and Democrats as bad, or vice versa.

They identify and incorporate the good and reject the bad in every perspective.

Of course, this requires intellectual maturity. Slapping black and white labels on ideologies, ideas, and philosophies is a very natural thing to do.

It makes life easier for us. It means we don’t have to think as hard.

What makes this kind of thinking difficult is not that we’re trying to choose which side is right and which side is wrong, but rather that we’re trying to reconcile the good of two sides, which are seemingly contradictory.

As the Nobel prize-winning physicist Niels Bohr said:

“The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.”

One of my mentors, Roy H. Williams, put it this way:

“Good things come into conflict. And there is no choice so difficult as the choice between two good things.

  • Justice or mercy?
  • Honesty or loyalty?
  • Inspiration or accuracy?
  • Time or money?
  • Science or romance?

Which way do you lean?

A weak student will choose one side of a duality and disparage the other side while a brilliant student will stand between the poles and feel the energy that passes between them.

F. Scott Fitzgerald put it this way, “The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.”

Life is a tightrope.
Leaning is dangerous.
Balance is what you need.

I’m not suggesting that you seek watery compromise, that mind-numbing “happy medium” cherished by the frightened and the weak. I’m suggesting you find the electricity that flows when two poles of a duality are brought into close proximity.

Electricity is not a compromise. It is an altogether third, new thing that emerges from two potentials.

Can you see the truth in opposite possibilities?
Your opponent isn’t always an idiot.
Your adversary isn’t always evil.
Learn to love your enemy and feel fully alive.
Reach for the electricity.

Roy also said:

“The key to miracles is to recognize the beauty of both sides of a duality – black and white – while not allowing yourself to get trapped in the perspective of either side.”

Not only is it important to see the good in all sides, but also to identify the bad.

One of my favorite books, Beyond Capitalism & Socialism edited by Tobias J. Lanz, is a perfect example of independent, judicious, dialectic thinking that recognizes the good and bad of both capitalism and socialism.

As one author writes:

Communism emphasizes social use to the exclusion of personal rights, and capitalism emphasizes personal rights to the exclusion of social use. …both are wrong, for though the right to property is personal, the use is social…Monopolistic capitalism concentrates wealth in the hands of a few capitalists, and communism in the hands of a few bureaucrats, and both end in the proletarianization of the masses…The Christian concept denies there is an absolutely owned private property exclusive of limits set by the common good of the community and responsibility to the community.”

It’s not a debate between private property or communal property, individual rights or community responsibilities. That’s a flawed construct that can, by default, never lead to truth.

If you want to arrive at truth, you must first start with the right questions. In other words, the framework of the intellectual query must be structured properly.

The question must become not which of those is right or preferred, but rather a recognition that both are good and HOW to properly balance the two with your forms of government and culture.

How can you protect individual rights while simultaneously providing for communal goods, such as caring for the weak and poor, building schools, libraries, roads, etc.

The first step in answer the question of “how” is to take as many factors as possible into consideration, to see the whole picture and to approach it from a holistic perspective.

Most people fail to arrive at the correct framework because their debate is two-dimensional — limited to the two-party political sphere.

The debate revolves around the limited question “What is the proper role of government?”, rather than the more holistic question, “How is ideal society created and sustained?”

In our current two-party monopoly, generally speaking Democrats focus on the power of government, while Republicans focus on the power of business.

In the first place this creates a flawed construct of either government or business, where debaters label one good and the other bad.

But on an even deeper level, this debate doesn’t even take into consideration five other fundamental societal institutions, namely:

  1. Family
  2. Community
  3. Religion
  4. Academia
  5. Media

When you include those in the mix, a whole new world of possibility opens that was never considered before.

Freedom is ultimately cultural, not political.

To preserve freedom, we must move beyond flawed either/or political and ideological debates. We must look for truth in every perspective. And we must consider many more factors than just government and business.

Obama’s Inconsistency: The Blindspot of Modern Liberalism

“One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time.” -Aristotle’s Law of Noncontradiction

barackobama 236x300 Obamas Inconsistency: The Blindspot of Modern LiberalismLast year I read The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream by Barack Obama.

Here’s my take on the man: I like him. I’d love to hang out with him casually and work with him professionally. I respect and admire his drive, his desire to make the world a better place.

Assuming he doesn’t use a ghostwriter, he’s a world-class writer (there is speculation to the contrary). He’s a piercing and holistic thinker, and a top-notch persuader. He is sincere, thoughtful, caring, and judicious.

Here’s my take on his politics: His conclusions and policies are inconsistent and contradictory.

There are many examples, but I want to focus on just one here.

In the chapter entitled Faith, Barack discusses his own religious views and delves into public policy regarding faith and religion. Interestingly, he and I largely agree in this area.

He details not only the glaring dangers, but also the simple realities of mixing religion and government. He writes:

Jefferson and Leland’s formula for religious freedom worked. Not only has America avoided the sorts of religious strife that continue to plague the globe, but religious institutions have continued to thrive…Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

“But let’s even assume that we only had Christians within our borders. Whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? James Dobson’s or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests that slavery is all right and eating shellfish is an abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount — a passage so radical that it’s doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application?”

His point, of course, is that using the force of government to institute, enforce, and/or promote religion is a bad idea.

Two pages later, he makes my point regarding his own politics by saying:

“In judging the persuasiveness of various moral claims, we should be on the lookout for inconsistency in how such claims are applied…we need to recognize that sometimes our argument is less about what is right than about who makes the final determination — whether we need the coercive arm of the state to enforce our values, or whether the subject is one best left to individual conscience and evolving norms.”

Exactly.

Unfortunately for those of us footing the bill to enforce his values, his own views are inconsistent. For one so concerned about not enforcing particular religious views through the government, he’s strangely eager to do that very thing in the economic realm.

He shudders at the thought of religion being imposed through government, while toiling to institute laws that forcefully take from some to give to others. He praises New Deal reforms and champions wealth redistribution.

His perspective is arrived at in the name of such lofty ideals as “helping” and “communal values” and “equal opportunity” — all of which, by the way, I share with him, but in a different context.

But when the decorative language is stripped naked, a cold gun of physical force is exposed.

To quote from Barack again:

“That is one of the things that makes me a Democrat, I suppose — this idea that our communal values, our sense of mutual responsibility and social solidarity, should express themselves not just in the church or the mosque or the synagogue; not just on the blocks where we live, in the places where we work, or within our own families; but also through the government.

“Like many conservatives, I believe in the power of culture to determine both individual success and social cohesion, and I believe we ignore cultural factors at our peril. But I also believe that our government can play a role in shaping that culture for the better — or for the worse.” [emphases added]

This euphemistic rhetoric ignores the hard realities of the nature of government. It sounds nice, but there’s a fundamental difference between churches, communities, businesses and families and the government.

The former institutions are based in voluntarism, while the latter is based in force.

Herein lies the blindspot of modern liberalism. As George Washington warned,

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.”

Barack’s first inconsistency, then, regards how the government should be used. According to Barack, government shouldn’t be used to force religious values, but it should be used to redistribute wealth.

But the second, more perplexing inconsistency, regards why Barack feels the government should be used this way. His reasoning behind his views on the relationship between religion and government rests on values.

truevaluetrashcan 300x262 Obamas Inconsistency: The Blindspot of Modern LiberalismValues are subjective, as the argument goes, so one group cannot rightfully impose their values on another.

And since religious morals are arguably a set of subjective values, the government should not be involved with religion.

Here’s where I’m stumped: How is wealth redistribution any different? How is democratic socialism not fundamentally based in values?

The fact is that wealth redistribution is based on subjective values every bit as much as is religion. The only way for Barack’s perspective to be consistent is if religion is value-ful and economics is value-less.

But it’s not true — economics carries within it values and mores, all of which are arguably subjective, just like religion.

You can’t state that the government should stay away from religion because it’s based on subjective values, while also holding that the government should redistribute wealth in the name of “communal values.”

Both courses equate to the exact same thing — one group of people imposing their subjective views and values upon others through the force of government.

This is the classic intellectual tyrant fallacy — thinking that your values are the right ones, the values that can rightfully be imposed upon society.

Barack is ultra-concerned with religious values being imposed upon himself and others, while simultaneously imposing his economic values upon us.

To clarify, I wholeheartedly support any and all charitable efforts when done through voluntary institutions. I’m not arguing against charity and “communal values” and “equal opportunity”; I’m arguing against illegitimate government force.

I agree 100 percent with Barack and all other liberals who believe that we should love and lift and serve. We agree that vast inequities in wealth distribution pose significant dangers to society.

We agree that individuals and institutions can and should do more to cure societal ills. We agree that wealth should not be used to exploit.

And frankly, I think that more conservatives should agree with these ideals than they seem to.

Our disagreements revolve around the role that the government should play in all of this. Government is force. It’s not a nice community hall where we all come together in the spirit of cooperation to help each other out — that’s the purview of family, community, religion, and business.

The blindspot of modern liberalism is thinking that government is a good place to solve all societal problems. The only problem that the government is qualified and has the natural right to solve is the violation of unalienable rights between individuals and groups.

Keep the government in its proper role of protecting unalienable rights, and use voluntary institutions to perform works of charity.

On Bridge Building

bridge On Bridge BuildingThe purpose of a statesman or stateswoman is to build bridges — bridges between what is and what should be, between estranged individuals, between conflicting cultures, between opposing classes and races, between clashing historical forces.

An education designed for statesmanship, then, will give the student the requisite tools and knowledge that will allow her to be an effective bridge builder.

But as we teach aspiring statesmen and stateswomen, we must always remember that the single most important distance that any of us can bridge — infinitely more important than any other — is the distance between heaven and earth.

A prospective statesman’s relationship with God is infinitely more critical than his relationship with Plato, Shakespeare, Newton, Washington, Churchill, or even a live mentor. In fact, it is his relationship with God that determines the quality, impact, and longevity of all his other relationships.

A student with a strong and active relationship with God will be more in tune with her mission, will study longer and harder, and will have much more impact than the student who shirks in her duties to God.

A student with a deep and broad classical liberal arts education, but without a relationship with God, is ineffectual at the least, and dangerous at the worst.

It would be like a person being given an expensive sports car without keys, or handing the keys to that sports car to a 10 year-old child; the one doesn’t have the ability to drive the car, and the other may be able to drive it but will kill people in the process.

The purpose of acquiring a world-class, statesman’s education is not primarily to amass large amounts of so-called knowledge; those who believe this invariably end up by, as Plato wrote in Apology, “…thinking that they are something when they are really nothing.”

The purpose of gaining a superlative education is to earn the right to approach God in our moments of greatest need, and with complete honesty be able to figuratively look Him in the eye and without reservation say, “I’ve done everything that I know how to do — You must do the rest.”

It is to demonstrate that we have paid the price, taken utmost responsibility, and then have been humble enough to admit that we can’t do it alone, without our humility degenerating into escapism. It is to earn the right and develop the ability to bridge the gap between heaven and earth.

The Dangers of False Allegiances

Those who develop the ability to merge heaven and earth will create generational legacies impacting millions. But for those who do not, the cost is high. They will build half-bridges with half-truths.

They may half-heartedly reach toward heaven in an hour of extreme need, but will find that heaven does not reciprocate because they were not worthy of it.

They will leave gaps that no mortal can fill. Their legacy will be “almost, but not quite,” which is a deeper tragedy than not trying at all.

Can you imagine how that would feel? To come so close to saving the world through sheer personal effort, and then watch with an unforgivable disappointment as it disintegrates because we thought we could do it alone?

The ranks of those would-be statesmen who fail in fulfilling their duties to God include pedantic academics, narrow-minded businessmen, compromising politicians, “benevolent” tyrants, and unprincipled, sacrificial social workers.

Academics certainly have their place, and I don’t want to be guilty of undervaluing education. However, there is a danger when we are not able to place education in context.

The academics I speak of are the prideful and arrogant members of the so-called intelligentsia who rarely offer solutions themselves, but are quick to point out when the men and women of action are doing something wrong in the eyes of the intellectuals.

They are those who cower into the supposed security of intellectualism as a way to escape the responsibility of acting. They want to be the saviors offering advice without being accountable for the implementation of their advice.

They look at people and situations in an objective, idealized, and sterile environment detached from the messiness of practical affairs. They may be practiced visionaries, yet they lack the fortitude and ability to bring their vision to pass through sustained effort in the trenches of practical daily action.

Statesmen and women must be both thinkers and doers. As Theodore Roosevelt said:

“It is not the critic that counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes short again and again — because there is not effort without error and shortcomings — but he who does actually strive to do the deed, who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause. Who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

Having said this, however, it must also be stressed that there is an opposite danger to the academic critic, and that is the uneducated man or woman of action. To possess knowledge without taking corresponding action is irresponsible, yet to act without knowledge is foolish and dangerous.

The world is full of uneducated entrepreneurs, for example, who are great at taking action, but are impatient with obtaining a valuable education, which would greatly enhance their ability to act. Theirs is the school of hard knocks — which has its merits — but it is limited by its very nature.

They are limited by their own experience and don’t take time to learn from the experience of others who have gone before. And if they do, it is usually from a narrow spectrum of people who have achieved success in business, but who are not great examples of statesmanship.

They may be able to run a profitable business, but they don’t know how to use business as a tool to deeply improve society.

As limited as uneducated businessmen are, they are not nearly as harmful as the compromising politicians. Politicians are anxious for positions and titles without developing the ability to handle them. Their focus is on the glory, not the cause.

They are about gaining and maintaining personal power, not on making an impact. When any proposal arises, they ask, “What’s in it for me?” not “Is it right?”

Politicians are about looking good, not doing good. Their allegiance is usually themselves and/or other people, and not God.

Politicians are deceptively ingratiating weasels whose harm is generally indirect; benevolent tyrants are wolves in sheep’s clothing who cause direct and immediate harm. Benevolent tyrants oppress people in the name of helping them.

Alexander Hamilton displayed his understanding of this when he wrote in The Federalist Papers,

“…a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidding appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants.”

Unprincipled social workers seem relatively harmless on the surface, yet when an entire culture embraces a false sense of government-sponsored philanthropy, the long-term consequences are an irresponsible society operating under a crippling sense of entitlement.

The desire to lift and serve others is good, but the danger from the group I speak of comes from using government force to impose their sense of morality upon the populace. This degenerates into a moral cannibalism that ultimately destroys the society.

When the true sense of public virtue is distorted and counterfeited to become forced wealth distribution, the virtue is lost and replaced with resentment and anger by those forced to give, and the loss of dignity and self-reliance on those who depend on the givers. False charity destroys those who know how to fish at the expense of those waiting for fish to be given to them.

The cruel irony is that the people who are hurt the most by forced welfare schemes are the same people that misplaced charity is precisely designed to help. People who set out to “serve society” and who do not operate under moral principles inevitably seek to “lift” the bottom by forcefully taking from the top. The result is a miserable mediocrity for all.

All of the above counterfeits result from good-intentioned people not having the proper allegiance — God — and therefore not being able to bridge the gap between heaven and earth.

Heaven only speaks to those who listen, and those with allegiances to self and/or others only heed the voice in their head or the voices of the crowd.

Without the ability to merge heaven with earth, a world-class, statesman’s education ultimately damns the person receiving it and damages everyone with whom they associate.

A person who gains an education for the purpose of self-aggrandizement is better off — and so is the world at large — not pursuing it at all. They are like the people who, in Christ’s parable of the sower in the book of Matthew, receive the word amongst thorns and, in the words of Christ, “…heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.”

After all, continued Christ, “what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”

The purpose of a statesman’s education is — or should be — to develop the ability and earn the right to seek and acquire the help of God in any endeavor.

Understanding what de Tocqueville says about democracy, or what Tolstoy teaches of aristocracy must be subordinate to what God says about His laws and your mission.

As deep and impactful as they are, Democracy in America or War and Peace are poor substitutes for direct revelation from the Source of all classics, who is able to put the classics in context.

Without God as a foundation and guide, our education will mirror the efforts of the builders of the Tower of Babel–reaching for heaven with the wrong structures and for the wrong purposes, and our “wisdom of men” being scattered to the winds of popular opinion.

A common — though perhaps overlooked — denominator of the greatest statesmen and women in history is that their dependence upon God far outweighed their dependence on themselves and on books.

When we read the writings of George Washington, do we see the prayer at Valley Forge that gave wings, breath, and quiet power to his words and actions?

When we learn of the extensive accomplishments of Benjamin Franklin, do we see the Source of his ingenuity?

Was Gandhi able to free a nation from imperialism by the force of his character alone?

Did Mother Teresa feed and comfort millions of poverty-stricken people with her hands alone?

George Washington

From his writings, it’s clear that George Washington was a wise and knowledgeable man, and that he spent much individual effort on his education. Yet from his own admission, he never acquired the level of education — at least in terms of book knowledge — that many of his peers had.

In The Real George Washington by Parry, Allison, and Skousen, we read that “The historical record is almost silent about the education of George Washington…Whatever the sources of his schooling, George struggled throughout his life under a ‘consciousness of a defective education.’”

Of course, we are familiar with Washington’s struggles to keep an inexperienced and undisciplined army together facing extreme shortages of food, clothing, shelter, and ammunition. We know of his countless sacrifices for his country and posterity when his greatest desire was to live a quiet life of farming in Mount Vernon.

Above all of his individual efforts, however, the most important lesson to be learned from Washington’s example was his willingness to humble himself before God and ask for His help throughout the struggles. Because of the man that he was, Washington merited the blessings of heaven.

georgewashingtonpraying 244x300 On Bridge BuildingHistorical accounts of his prayer at Valley Forge provide the most vivid illustration of Washington’s dependence on God.

Reverend Nathaniel Randolph Snowden, an ordained Presbyterian minister, graduate of Princeton with a degree from Dickinson College, detailed Washington’s Valley Forge prayer in his “Diary and Remembrances.”

Mr. Snowden was born in Philadelphia January 17, 1770 and died November 12, 1851. His writings cover a period from youth to 1846. In his records may be found these observations, in Mr. Snowden’s own handwriting:

“I knew personally the celebrated Quaker Potts who saw Gen’l Washington alone in the woods at prayer. I got it from himself, myself. Weems mentioned it in his history of Washington, but I got it from the man myself, as follows: ‘I was riding with him (Mr. Potts) in Montgomery County, Penn’a near to the Valley Forge, where the army lay during the war of ye Revolution. Mr. Potts was a Senator in our State & a Whig. I told him I was agreeably surprised to find him a friend to his country as the Quakers were mostly Tories. He said, ‘It was so and I was a rank Tory once, for I never believed that America c’d proceed against Great Britain whose fleets and armies covered the land and ocean, but something very extraordinary converted me to the Good Faith!’ ‘What was that,’ I inquired? ‘Do you see that woods, & that plain. It was about a quarter of a mile off from the place we were riding, as it happened.’

‘There,’ said he, ‘laid the army of Washington. It was a most distressing time of ye war, and all were for giving up the Ship but that great and good man. In that woods pointing to a close in view, I heard a plaintive sound as, of a man at prayer. I tied my horse to a sapling & went quietly into the woods & to my astonishment I saw the great George Washington on his knees alone, with his sword on one side and his cocked hat on the other. He was at Prayer to the God of the Armies, beseeching to interpose with his Divine aid, as it was ye Crisis, & the cause of the country, of humanity & of the world.

‘Such a prayer I never heard from the lips of man. I left him alone praying. I went home & told my wife. I saw a sight and heard today what I never saw or heard before, and just related to her what I had seen & heard & observed. We never thought a man c’d be a soldier & a Christian, but if there is one in the world, it is Washington. She also was astonished. We thought it was the cause of God, & America could prevail.’ He then to me put out his right hand & said ‘I turned right about and became a Whig.’”

The Reverend Snowden also wrote of his own experiences with Washington’s faith:

“I felt much impressed in his presence and reflected upon the hand and wonderful Providence of God in raising him up and qualifying him with so many rare qualities and virtues for the good of this country and the world. Washington was not only brave and talented, but a truly excellent and pious man of God and of prayer. He always retired before a battle and in any emergency for prayer and direction.”

Washington also sheds light on his faith in his own words. A Reverend Israel Evans once delivered and printed a sermon to American soldiers. Washington received a printing of the sermon, and wrote to the Reverend and assured him that,

“…it will ever be the first wish of my heart to aid your pious endeavors to inculcate a due sense of the dependence we ought to place in that all wise and powerful Being on whom alone our success depends…”

Washington was ever active and vigilant in doing everything in his power to move the cause of liberty. He never asked God to do his job for him.

But in his efforts, he never sought for praise and glory for himself; no matter how much he did himself, he always recognized that ultimately, his and the nation’s success depended on the blessings of heaven. His efforts were not to gratify his pride and vain ambition; they were to earn the right to Divine help.

Benjamin Franklin

ben franklin On Bridge BuildingBenjamin Franklin was a statesman, scientist, inventor, philanthropist, publisher, writer, revolutionary, and renowned thinker in colonial America with an astounding list of lifetime accomplishments.

Franklin served as governor of Pennsylvania for two terms, represented Pennsylvania at the Continental Congresses, served as a delegate on the convention to write the Constitution, was the nation’s first Postmaster General, and served as an ambassador to France.

Despite all of his accomplishments, one of the most notable stories about Franklin is his contribution to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. After winning the Revolutionary War, the colonies now were faced with the daunting task of creating a constitutional form to govern a newborn nation.

The Convention ran relatively smoothly, until the intensely heated debate of the number of federal representatives per state threatened to fracture the group beyond repair.

In this charged and inflammatory atmosphere, the elder statesman arose and delivered the following speech, presented as it was preserved by his own pen:

“Mr. President, the small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks of close attendance & continual reasonings with each other…our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes and ays, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, some we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of Government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.

In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor.

To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and 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? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.’

I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments be Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.”

Without Franklin’s leadership in bridging the gap between heaven and earth, it is highly doubtful that the Convention could have proceeded any further, let alone produce the document that the British statesman William Gladstone said was “…the most brilliant work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.”

Mahatma Gandhi

gandhi 250x300 On Bridge BuildingGandhi’s life and words spoke for themselves. We know from his words and his actions that his power to free a nation came from his ability to bridge the gap between heaven and earth, not solely from himself. Consider the following quotes from Gandhi:

“Prayer is not an old woman’s idle amusement. Properly understood and applied, it is the most potent instrument of action.”

“I can give you my own testimony and say that a heartfelt prayer is undoubtedly the most potent instrument that man possesses for overwhelming cowardice and all other bad old habits. Prayer is an impossibility without a living faith in the presence of God within…Seek first the Kingdom of Heaven and everything will be added unto you.”

“Who am I? I have no strength save what God gives me. I have no authority over my countrymen save the pure moral. If He holds me to be a pure instrument for the spread of non-violence in place of the awful violence now ruling the earth, He will give me the strength and show me the way. My greatest weapon is mute prayer. The cause of peace is therefore, in God’s good hands.”

“I have but shadowed forth my intense longing to lose myself in the Eternal and become merely a lump of clay in the Potter’s divine hands so that my service may become more certain because uninterrupted by the baser self in me.”

“Spiritual relationship is far more precious than physical. Physical relationship divorced from spiritual is body without soul.”

“Only he can take great resolves who has indomitable faith in God and has fear of God.”

Gandhi derived the awesome strength to throw off chains of oppression through quiet humility and submission to God.

His entire philosophy of non-violent resistance was based on the idea that physical force must not be matched with like physical force, but must rather be met with “soul-force.” Not wishing to leave the whole world “blind and toothless,” he made of his own earthly heart a heaven, and shared that heaven with whomever he associated.

Mother Teresa

mothertheresa 300x208 On Bridge BuildingConsidered by many to be a living saint, Mother Teresa spent her life in devoted service by comforting the poor and poverty-stricken, not only in Calcutta, India, but in numerous locations across the world.

In October of 1950, Teresa received Vatican permission to start her own order, which became known as the Missionaries of Charity, whose mission was to care for (in her own words):

“the hungry, the naked, the homeless, the crippled, the blind, the lepers, all those people who feel unwanted, unloved, uncared for throughout society, people that have become a burden to the society and are shunned by everyone.”

It began as a small order with 12 members in Calcutta; today it has more than 4,000 nuns running orphanages, AIDS hospices, and charity centers worldwide, and caring for refugees, the blind, disabled, aged, alcoholics, the poor and homeless and victims of floods, epidemics and famine in Asia, Africa, Latin America, North America, Poland, and Australia.

By 1996, she was operating 517 missions in more than 100 countries. Today over one million workers worldwide are employed by the Missionaries of Charity.

It was through her quiet, dedicated service that she attracted global attention and won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979. The following excerpt from her Nobel Prize acceptance speech speaks volumes about her ability to draw heaven closer to earth:

“The poor are very wonderful people. One evening we went out and we picked up four people from the street. And one of them was in a most terrible condition. And I told the sisters: ‘You take care of the other three; I will take care of this one that looks worse.’
 
So I did for her all that my love can do. I put her in bed, and there was such a beautiful smile on her face. She took hold of my hand, as she said one word only: ‘thank you’ – and she died. I could not help but examine my conscience before her. And I asked: ‘What would I say if I was in her place?’ And my answer was very simple. I would have tried to draw a little attention to myself. I would have said: ‘I am hungry, I am dying, I am cold, I am in pain,’ or something. But she gave me much more – she gave me her grateful love.
 
“And she died with a smile on her face – like that man who we picked up from the drain, half eaten with worms, and we brought him to the home…’I have lived like an animal in the street, but I am going to die like an angel, loved and cared for.’ And it was so wonderful to see the greatness of that man who could speak like that, who could die like that without blaming, without cursing anybody, without comparing anything.
 
“Like an angel – this is the greatness of our people. And this is why we believe what Jesus has said: ‘I was hungry; I was naked, I was homeless; I was unwanted, unloved, uncared for – and you did it to me.’ I believe that we are not really social workers. We may be doing social work in the eyes of people. But we are really contemplatives in the heart of the world. For we are touching the body of Christ twenty-four hours. We have twenty-four hours in this presence, and so you and I.
 
“You too try to bring that presence of God into your family, for the family that prays together stays together. And I think that we in our family, we don’t need bombs and guns, to destroy or to bring peace – just get together, love one another, bring that peace, that joy, that strength of presence of each other in the home. And we will be able to overcome all the evil that is in the world. There is so much suffering, so much hatred, so much misery, and we with our prayer, with our sacrifice are beginning at home. Love begins at home, and it is not how much we do, but how much love we put in the action that we do.”

Mother Teresa knew — as do all great statesmen and women — that it is our allegiance and submission to God that is the ultimate determinant of our effectiveness and impact.

Conclusion: A Personal Experience

In my first three years of attending George Wythe University, I read more than 150 classic books with topics including philosophy, theology, history, government, economics, politics, business, personal finance, psychology, self-improvement, literature, biography, and family relations.

But aside from the relatively decent amount of knowledge I gained, there is one experience that stands out above all else.

The single most powerful experience that I had occurred in the Constitutional Convention simulation of 2006.

For days, over 150 people waded and fought through confusion, frustration, insecurity, and the hostility that comes from thinking that we knew everything, that if only we could convince the group that our idea, our plan, our solution would save the world. We tried so hard — but of course in vain — when we labored under the lie that we knew anything.

We debated heatedly, we quoted assiduously from our favorite classics, and we reasoned and argued until we were blue in the face.

Then, in the middle of the contention, backbiting, and politicking, the awful moment arrived when we were collectively overcome with the deep and intensely humbling recognition that we knew nothing.

We knew nothing and we knew that we knew nothing as deeply as anyone can know anything.

The debating quieted, the long-held and fiercely contended beliefs surrendered impotently to the realization of our ignorance, and our pathetic arguments were revealed for the naked egoisms that they were.

And then, in the depths of our abject humility, we collectively bowed and knelt before the Source of all Truth, all Knowledge, and all Wisdom and pled our case before Him. We fully understood what Abraham Lincoln meant when he said,

“I have been driven many times to my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go.”

god2 sistine chapel 300x154 On Bridge BuildingThe answers came quickly and unmistakably. The confusion, anger, and frustration vanished and were instantly replaced with peace, harmony, and inspiration. Calm faith replaced anxious desperation.

Never in my entire life have I witnessed a scene where over 150 people were on the same page, striving toward a common goal with nothing but love and humility in the ranks.

The Cause moved forward, the delegates were united, the solutions were Divine. The Constitution was no longer “my” document or “her” idea, but His and ours. Not only was there synergy between the delegates, but there was also synergy between heaven and earth.

This didn’t happen because of our knowledge of Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Montesquieu, Madison, Toffler, and Bobbitt. It happened because we collectively bridged the gap between heaven and earth.

Studying the classics was but one small step toward being worthy of a bridge being extended from heaven to earth. And as we bridged that most important gap, we could tangibly see the other governmental and societal bridges being built, almost in spite of us.

It happened because we, through our diligent study, deep pondering, and pure hard work, were able to approach our Father and say with all honesty and sincerity, “We’ve done everything we are able. It’s Your turn now. You must fill in the gaps of our weaknesses.”

Heaven touched earth, even if briefly, and the result was nothing short of miraculous. We may have paid a small price through our study of the classics, but the classics were not, in the end, what gave us the answers we so desperately needed.

An aspiring statesman who knows the classics but who is a stranger to God is not a statesman at all — he is an ineffective politician, a dangerous tyrant, or both. Students of the classics who do not seek the mind and will of God will get surface-level understandings of the classics at best.

Acquiring a world-class education is not so much to fill our heads with knowledge, as it is to earn the right to call on heaven in our hour of greatest need.

We can’t know — and aren’t expected to know — everything, but God does expect us to prove to Him that we are worthy of His help by our diligence in seeking answers.

Let us remember the wisdom of Winston Churchill who said,

“To every man there comes…that special moment when he is figuratively tapped on the shoulder and offered the chance to do a special thing unique to him and fitted to his talent. What a tragedy if that moment finds him unprepared or unqualified for the work which would be his finest hour.”

Let us never forget that the most critical preparation for an aspiring statesman is to learn how to bridge the gap between heaven and earth.

Throwing Ropes, & Other Thoughts on Charity

I did something stupid in late December 2007. And I don’t mean trivially stupid — I mean life-threateningly stupid.

spry 300x216 Throwing Ropes, & Other Thoughts on CharityA couple friends and I had the brilliant idea to go canyoneering through Spry Canyon in Zion National Park in the middle of winter.

Canyoneering is hiking through slot canyons. It involves rappelling, and hiking through water and extremely rough country.

Did I mention that this time we went in the middle of winter? Oh yeah, there was also six inches of snow on the ground, covering a lot of ice and tons of steep slick rock.

And there was also that minor detail of the head park ranger (a very experienced woodsman who had done our particular hike multiple times) calling us — not once, but twice — to practically beg us not to go in such conditions.

Being the intrepid (i.e. naive) youngsters that we are, we headed out against his advice and, we found out later, pretty much every survival instinct known to man.

An Uneventful — Yet Ominous — Hike

For the first mile or so, we enjoyed a leisurely, level hike down a sandy, dry riverbed. The subsequent hike up about 2,000 feet of snow and ice-covered slick rock should have been our first clue (no wait, second, counting the park ranger’s advice) that it might not be a good idea to attempt the canyon in those conditions.

After much dangerous slipping and sliding, we made it to the top of a high ridge, only to face a precarious descent down the other side.

We made it to the bottom and resumed our hike for probably another half mile, and at 1:15 in the afternoon arrived to the top of the biggest rappel in the entire canyon, a drop of 165 feet.

Staring down from the top of that, with ice and snow completely covering the entire descent, should have been our third clue that we might be getting into something over our heads.

Of course, hindsight is 20/20…

The Plunge

fatefulrappel 300x233 Throwing Ropes, & Other Thoughts on CharityI was the first to go down. The day was filled with dumb mistakes, and this descent was no different.

One major mistake was that we failed to throw our ropes out far enough, so that they would drop to the bottom without getting tangled. As a result, I was fighting tangles and snarls in the rope the entire way down.

The rope got so tangled that it left a fateful knot at the bottom that would play a significant part in the rest of the day.

At the bottom of the cliff lay a pool of water covered in three inches of ice. The pool was about 15 feet wide, and I had no idea how deep it was.

I stood on the ice, held my breath, and prayed that I wouldn’t break through. I took off my backpack, got down onto my hands and knees, and tried to carefully creep across the ice.

After about five feet the ice betrayed me and I heard those sickening creaking and cracking sounds. Sure enough, it was too thin to hold and I plunged into freezing water.

Thankfully, the water was only waist deep, and so I hustled to break through the remaining ice and climb out onto a ledge on the other side.

I climbed out and I couldn’t feel anything from my waist down. It was straight out of those nightmare adventures you see on the Discovery channel or read in Reader’s Digest.

I started jumping up and down to get the blood recirculating. Meanwhile, my friend started his descent. Apparently my plunge into the water hadn’t yet dampened our spirits (or knocked the stupidity out of us).

A Disastrous Knot

After about 45 minutes, all three of us were standing at the bottom of this 165-foot cliff, ready to continue onward.

That’s when I made yet another major mistake.

In all of the anxiety of getting through the water, I failed to remove the knot from my rope and forgot all about it.

I pulled the rope through from the bottom until the knot hit the ring at the top, and my heart dropped through my stomach.

We were stranded.

We couldn’t go forward because our rope was stuck, and to go back up it would require an extremely difficult ascent.

My friend Barry decided to try the ascent. An experienced rock climber, he made it safely to the top.

Next up was Kent, a strong but lightweight guy who made it up with relatively little trouble.

That left me. I’m a 200-pound guy and I’ve never lifted weights in my life. Most one-armed men would have had a better chance of getting up that formidable cliff than me.

When I latched on to the ascenders and attempted to pull myself up, I felt what it must feel like to be a slug.

I was borderline hypothermic, hanging on to a rope and dangling at the bottom of a 165-foot cliff, not having a clue how I was going to drag myself out of that canyon.

Barry and Kent undoubtedly had fleeting thoughts of leaving me, but probably calculated the unpleasant task of telling my wife what happened, and decided against it.

So there I hung. I felt so helpless, and it was painfully frustrating that I had so little to add to the task of getting me to the top.

Somehow, some way, with a combination of Barry doing some innovative pulley systems with the ropes, and both Barry and Kent pulling from the top, we heaved my virtually useless body to the top.

I was completely dependent on the strength and position of Barry and Kent, and Barry’s knowledge, skill and ingenuity with ropes.

Furthermore, Barry’s foresight and preparation in bringing the right equipment saved us all; my lack of preparation, skill and strength was completely at the mercy of my friends.

Had it not been for their help, I would have been stuck at the bottom of that near-disastrous cliff. Where I was weak, they were strong. The process of getting me to the top took about two and a half hours.

After a miserable, 3-hour hike, we finally made it back to our car.

But we made it. We made it together, the strongest and the weakest, through teamwork, patience and longsuffering.

So what does all of this have to do with charity?

We are all on a wearisome journey together, in a slot canyon that we call earth life. We’re all doing the best we can to scramble and struggle our way through the incredibly arduous journey.

All of us make unwise choices or face challenges that are not even of our own making, and find ourselves at the bottom of precipitous cliffs, standing in dangerously cold water, staring up at the top wondering how in the world we’re going to climb out of what seems to be an impossible situation.

When those times come, the only thing that can save us is friends throwing down a rope to us and helping us climb out.

There are even some who refuse to grab the rope when it’s thrown down to them. We can’t force them to hold on, but we must still throw down the rope to every stranded sibling that we find along the way.

That’s our most important and divine job — to throw down ropes to our lost Brothers and Sisters and pull them to the top, so that we can all arrive safely Home together.

The strongest and the weakest, the bravest and the most fearful, the healthy and the afflicted, together, hand in hand.

There may be times when we’re tempted to condemn those we find at the bottom of forbidden cliffs, and justify our lack of charity by saying that they did it to themselves. But we’re all beneficiaries of one rope or another at various times in our lives.

So to whom can you throw a rope today?

Why I Don’t Like “Enlightened Self-Interest”

This is a follow-up to my last article, wherein I write that I prefer the term “submission” over the term “enlightened self-interest.”

My aversion to the term “enlightened self-interest” comes from its common usage in economic and narrowly practical terms.

In other words, it doesn’t go far and deep enough for what I wish to convey with “submission.”

And, once again, understand that this is written from my understanding of Christian epistemology and doctrine. You may take issue with my interpretation/understanding, but if you reject Christian epistemology, then we have no basis for debate.

Enlightened self-interest largely has its roots in Adam Smith’s concept of “the invisible hand,” as found in Wealth of Nations, wherein he writes:

“By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.”

Ayn Rand’s term for this is “rational selfishness.” In The Virtue of Selfishness Rand writes:

“The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and upholds rational selfishness — which means: the values required for man’s survival qua man — which means: the values required for human survival — not the values produced by the desires, the emotions, the ‘aspirations,’ the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial practice of human sacrifices, have never discovered an industrial society and can conceive of no self-interest but that of grabbing the loot of the moment.
 
“The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash — that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value.”

In either case, we find self-interest to be grounded in the material world, confined to a mental, or rational, sphere, and narrowly defined in terms of economic exchange.

Adding the spiritual element, according to my understanding, changes, or at least broadens, the whole picture. When animated by a spiritual connection with a Supreme Being, people do things that may appear to be irrational — at least to those who place the mental realm as the highest realm of existence.

Furthermore, they may do things that may appear to have no or limited economic value, in the strictest of terms.

For example, Christ’s willingness to take upon Himself our sins and weaknesses is ridiculous and irrational to the atheist/strict Objectivist.

(Per Rand’s statement, “In spiritual issues, a trader is a man who does not seek to be loved for his weaknesses or flaws, only for his virtues, and who does not grant his love to the weaknesses or the flaws of others, only to their virtues.”)

His sacrifice, borne of submission to His Father, was not calculated to bring him money, or to prosper in narrow economic terms.

Mother Teresa didn’t run her orphanages for the purpose of exchanging her labor for money for herself. She didn’t start out thinking of “promoting an end which was no part of [her] intention.” She actually intended to achieve altruistic ends.

The good she did in the world wasn’t a mere by-product of pursuing her own interest solely — it was the target, the conscious goal.

Washington didn’t suffer through Valley Forge because of rational, mental, self-interested, economic-based calculations. Left to himself, Washington would have been a quiet farmer his entire life.

But because he had submitted to God, not only did he sacrifice, but his sacrifices actually got him closer to his true self-interest than not making them could have.

(Of course, this is an assumption based on Christian epistemology and an eternal perspective.)

Submission: The Highest Form of Applied Self-Interest

Enlightened self-interest is not, in my estimation, the highest form of applied self-interest.

While it definitely is much more preferable to selfishness, or “irrational selfishness,” it doesn’t go far enough to describe my understanding of Christian doctrine. It’s predicated upon mental calculations intended to bring us the best returns.

And, as I wrote previously, since we can’t have full knowledge of what is in our best interest at any given time, we must rely upon an external source — God — to guide our calculations.

Submission to God seems to me a much better term for the highest form of self-interest. God doesn’t ask us to be irrational brutes; He merely asks us to have faith in Him.

We’re not to shut off our mental calculations; we’re simply to trust that His recommendations (revelation) — no matter how difficult or “irrational” they may seem at the moment — supersede our calculations and will lead to our best interest.

He may ask us to choose a lower-paying job over a higher-paying one for reasons that we don’t understand. He may ask us to do things we don’t like (e.g. Washington).

He may tear our heartstrings — as He did with Abraham — in order to expand our compassion and understanding. His revelations and guidance may lead to our suffering and death (e.g. Joan of Arc, Christ’s original apostles).

Without a belief in and relationship with God, we may never perform the sacrifices that would have led us, in actuality, to our highest self-interest.

Even with a relationship with God, our self-interest can still be limited if our actions are based upon what we see in any given moment. If we can’t see how an action will benefit us immediately, we’ll choose a different (lower) path.

To conclude, I don’t prefer the term “enlightened self-interest” because it’s become, through common usage, limited, narrow, and defined strictly in terms of economic exchange. Submission is my preferred term to describe the highest form of self-interest.

It’s expansive enough to include the concept of “losing our life to save our life.” It implicitly presupposes an omniscient Being to whom we must submit, a Being who knows far better what is in our self-interest than we ever can.

It doesn’t discourage nor negate rational thought; it expands and deepens it. It transcends the physical and mental realms and opens the door into the spiritual realm.

And by the way, I don’t even pretend to be a good example of what I’m describing. I echo Seneca who said,

“I persist in praising not the life that I lead, but that which I ought to lead. I follow it at a mighty distance, crawling.”

Is Self-Interest a Vice?

In one of my past articles, a reader took issue with “the idea that self-interest is somehow a vice, a detriment or a critical flaw” because it is “a denial of one the most most fundamental truths of nature…”

Allow me to clarify. First, understand that my perspective is based on Christian epistemology (at least my version of it), which means that if we do not share that epistemology there will be little, if any, grounds for debate.

I only write this to clarify my position, not to persuade non-Christians, agnostics, atheists, and/or Objectivists that my perspective is right, nor do I write to initiate debate with them.

The Real Flaw of Self-Interest

It’s undeniable that we’re hardwired to pursue our self-interest. Put in different terms, we seek pleasure, joy, happiness, and fulfillment and strive to avoid pain and sorrow.

The pursuit of self-interest is not a “vice, detriment, or critical flaw.” The real flaw, or limitation, of self-interest isn’t the pursuit of it; it’s simply that our knowledge of what is truly in our self-interest is limited at best.

Any parent can see the self-evident nature of this. A child, pursuing her self-interest, is drawn towards the flickering light of an open fireplace. We as parents, possessing greater knowledge, steer the child away.

A self-interested teenager pleads to go to a party, one that we as parents know will be harmful. A child complains about having to work in the home, wanting instead to play, watch TV, or play video games.

As parents, we understand that it is in the self-interest of the child to learn how to work, although the child does not.

In short, self-interest must be guided, or enlightened, by a source external to us, a Source with greater knowledge than us, a loving Source that has our best interest at heart, a Source with the wisdom to know when pain, sorrow, and sacrifice may be to our long-term benefit.

Parents serve this role for children. In a larger sense, as a Christian, I obviously believe this Source to be God.

This type of self-interest has been referred to as “enlightened self-interest.” If that term works for you, by all means use it.

I shy away from it because over time and with wide usage the meaning becomes diluted. I prefer “submission” instead, which will be explored later.

First, we must understand epistemology.

The Relevance of Epistemology

In the simplest terms, epistemology is how human beings determine what is true and untrue.

It deals with the questions, “What is knowledge?”, “How is knowledge acquired?”, “What do people know?”, “How do we know what we know?”

There are a number of epistemologies including, but not limited to, reason, empiricism, tradition, authority, and revelation.

Epistemology is fundamental to self-interest because it is the foundation of how we determine what is in our self-interest, or what is opposed to it. If tradition is my epistemology, then following tradition, cultural or otherwise, is in my self-interest.

If reason is my epistemology, reason will dictate what is in my self-interest. On the other hand, if revelation is my epistemology, then what God tells me determines what is in my best self-interest.

My personal epistemology is what I call “reveleason,” which is the combination of revelation and reason, with revelation being the ultimate authority on what determines truth.

God created us with the ability to reason, which we are expected to use to our advantage. However, He also interacts with, enlightens, and expands our reason and knowledge through revelation.

Again, since our knowledge is limited, we must seek the guidance of an external Source.

“Man Alone” Vs. “Man With God”

Assuming it’s true that we are children of God, then there are two ways to live: with or without God. Man Alone depends on epistemologies other than revelation.

Man Alone does not seek the guidance of metaphysical or spiritual sources to make decisions.

At worst, Man Alone degenerates into unchecked hedonism, exploitation of others, greed, and harmful selfishness. At best, Man Alone is a good citizen living far below his potential.

When it comes to sacrifice, Man Alone either fails to see any virtue in sacrifice, or what sacrifices he does make are limited to very practical, earthly terms.

For example, Man Alone using reason as epistemology may sacrifice time and money to go to college in order to earn more money. But this same person may fail to see any virtue in or purpose behind Abraham’s sacrifice.

Man With God, however, seeks the will of God in the pursuit of his self-interest. His self-interest dictates that he obey the laws of God — whatever he believes them to be — and even when he does not understand them fully.

Man With God is uplifted to achieve far greater things than Man Alone because he follows the will of One who knows what he needs to progress.

Man With God understands the virtue in sacrifice. He understands that God only asks him to do things that are ultimately in his self-interest, although he may not understand why or how at the time he is asked to sacrifice.

In short, Man With God submits his will to the will of God. He lays his uninformed self-interest upon God’s altar and trusts God’s judgment of what is in his best self-interest.

It doesn’t mean that he’s not self-interested or that pursuing his self-interest is a vice; it means that his self-interest is guided, enlightened, enhanced, and expanded by a Source external to Him.

One might say that he is pursuing God-interest, rather than self-interest, although the more he submits his will to God the more those two merge into one.

It is precisely this faith that gives him the desire and ability to sacrifice perceived personal benefit and endure hardship. It’s what the Founders referred to as public virtue.

Examples of Submission

Every great man and woman that I revere in history has displayed the characteristics and habits of Man With God. They have sacrificed and endured hardship because they submitted their self-interest to God.

Jesus Christ

When Christ retired to the Garden of Gethsemane, faced with the awful burden of suffering for our sins, he prayed, “Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.” (Luke 22:42)

John 5:30 records,

“I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.”

John 6:38 explains,

“For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.”

Christ submitted his self-interest to the will of His Father, who led Christ to do excruciating things that were ultimately in his (Christ’s) self-interest.

George Washington

We’re familiar with Washington’s struggles to keep an inexperienced and undisciplined army together facing extreme shortages of food, clothing, shelter, and ammunition. We know of his countless sacrifices for his country and posterity when his greatest desire was to live a quiet life of farming in Mount Vernon.

But he sacrificed so much because he had submitted to God.

His prayer in Valley Forge, as recorded by Reverend Nathaniel Randolph Snowden, an ordained Presbyterian minister, graduate of Princeton with a degree from Dickinson College, in his “Diary and Remembrances.” He details the story of a Mr. Potts, who stumbled upon George Washington praying in the woods near Valley Forge. Mr. Potts recounted:

“It was a most distressing time of ye war, and all were for giving up the Ship but that great and good man. In that woods pointing to a close in view, I heard a plaintive sound as, of a man at prayer. I tied my horse to a sapling & went quietly into the woods & to my astonishment I saw the great George Washington on his knees alone, with his sword on one side and his cocked hat on the other. He was at Prayer to the God of the Armies, beseeching to interpose with his Divine aid, as it was ye Crisis, & the cause of the country, of humanity & of the world. Such a prayer I never heard from the lips of man.”

Reverend Snowden wrote:

“I felt much impressed in his presence and reflected upon the hand and wonderful Providence of God in raising him up and qualifying him with so many rare qualities and virtues for the good of this country and the world. Washington was not only brave and talented, but a truly excellent and pious man of God and of prayer. He always retired before a battle and in any emergency for prayer and direction.”

Washington also sheds light on his faith in his own words. A Reverend Israel Evans once delivered and printed a sermon to American soldiers. Washington received a printing of the sermon, and wrote to the Reverend and assured him that,

“…it will ever be the first wish of my heart to aid your pious endeavors to inculcate a due sense of the dependence we ought to place in that all wise and powerful Being on whom alone our success depends…”

Was Washington self-interested? Of course. Yet his submission to God led him to make sacrifices that most never make. He allowed God to lead him — through revelation — beyond uninformed self-interest to a much higher form of self-interest.

More Examples

Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for her sacrifices. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated for his beliefs and efforts, as was Gandhi. Mother Teresa devoted her life to serving “the hungry, the naked, the homeless, the crippled, the blind, the lepers, all those people who feel unwanted, unloved, uncared for throughout society, people that have become a burden to the society and are shunned by everyone.”

The signers of the Declaration of Independence challenged the greatest military force on earth in order to secure freedom for themselves and their posterity.

The list goes on. The point is to say that Men (and Women) With God think and act differently than Men Alone.

They willingly suffer and sacrifice more — not because they’re not self-interested, but because they submit to God and allow Him to guide the pursuit of their self-interest. They thus achieve and enjoy more.

Conclusion

We are hardwired to be self-interested. It is perhaps the most fundamental aspect of our nature. Desiring self-interest is not a flaw or a vice of human nature. It’s not wrong to pursue self-interest. The problem is that our self-interest is uninformed because of our limited knowledge.

In order for us to achieve our highest potential and do the most good in the world, both for ourselves and for others, we need an external Source to guide and enlighten our self-interest.

Without this external guidance, our lives and contributions are degenerate at worst, and limited at best.

We must submit to God, who, through personal revelation, asks us to sacrifice temporary benefit in order to fulfill long-term self-interest.

Submission requires faith, faith that submitting our will to God is ultimately in our best self-interest.

The goal, then, isn’t to stop pursuing self-interest. Rather, it’s to pursue a much higher form of self-interest than can be found without submitting to God. It’s a Divine Paradox.

“For whosoever will save his life,” taught Christ, “shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.”

Libertarianism: The Threat & the Opportunity

libertariansticker 300x225 Libertarianism: The Threat & the OpportunityCollectivism, though at its apex and seemingly more powerful than ever, is on the decline; individualism is on the rise.

With its rise, individualism, also known as libertarianism, poses threats to American culture and governance.

It also provides significant, positive opportunities that have not been available for more than a century.

It is imperative that we identify the dangers of mainstream libertarian thought and provide alternatives in order to capitalize on the opportunity to create a balanced, sustainable, free, and just society.

As is so common throughout history, we may swing the pendulum from collectivism to libertarianism to find that they are both equally dangerous and unsustainable.

The danger posed by libertarianism — or the opportunity — is predicated upon how it will be defined and practically applied.

The Decline of Collectivism

Collectivist institutions are splitting at the seams and crumbling due to financial infeasibility, dramatically changing age demographics, and the cultural mediocrity that they instill.

Foreign wars, which necessitate higher taxes and thus enable the centralization of power, are becoming less and less popular, both for financial and moral reasons.

All forms of collectivism are showing themselves to be unsustainable as a matter of empirical fact, rather than subjective value judgment.

The popularity of Ron Paul, and a general decline of trust in the government and other modern institutions, especially among the youth, also evidence the decline of collectivism.

The Fragmented Nature of Libertarianism

While there are universal tendencies shared by modern libertarians, libertarianism as a political movement and ideal has not yet gained the coherence necessary to appropriately use it as a specific, functional label.

The tagline of the Libertarian Party is “Smaller government, Lower Taxes, More Freedom,” which is about as universal as the movement gets.

However, Lew Rockwell — one of the most popular and widely read libertarian websites, boasts the tagline “Anti-State, Anti-War, Pro-Market,” which is clearly more ideological, more concentrated, and therefore more divisive.

While Ayn Rand preached the “virtue of selfishness,” Leo Tolstoy advocated self-transcendence and Christian service.

And in contrast to Rand and Tolstoy, whose messages center on personal morals and values, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Henry Hazlitt, and others generally avoid such concerns and focus primarily on the economic aspect of freedom.

Attempting to define libertarianism appears to be an irony and even a contradiction, since at its core libertarianism viscerally rejects any label or identification that would even hint at forced or inauthentic uniformity.

As a response to collectivism — or sameness — libertarianism celebrates diversity and independent thought.

However, since it appears to be the default heir to the decaying throne of American politics and culture, defining it is one of the most vital steps to steer it in the right direction.

And doing so must take place within the context of identifying its flaws, in order to correct them.

Three Prominent Dangers of Libertarianism

In spite of its fragmented nature, libertarianism in general displays three universal characteristics that, unless replaced, will limit its impact and sustainability as a freedom movement.

As a disclaimer, understand that identifying them is a difficult task, since libertarianism largely remains undefined and open to interpretation.

In other words, if you identify yourself as a libertarian yet do not associate yourself with these flaws, then this does not apply to you. If the shoe fits, wear it; otherwise do your best to steer mainstream libertarianism in the right direction.

1. Self-Interest

A product of Ayn Rand, who has emerged as the preeminent spokesperson for modern libertarianism, self-interest is expressed in the oath taken by Rand’s ultimate hero, John Galt:

“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.”

At the heart of libertarian thought seems to be the sentiment, “I want to be left alone to live my life the way I see fit.”

While the quest to be free from governmental oppression is natural and commendable, this is hardly an inspiring alternative to liberalism.

Wanting to be left alone to pursue one’s self-interest is a poor substitute for wanting to make the world a better place.

2. Flawed Definition of Freedom

The default definition of libertarian freedom is the freedom to do whatever a person wants, as long as they do not harm or encroach upon the natural rights of others.

In other words, “license” is probably a more accurate word than “freedom.”

Johnny Kramer, columnist for Lew Rockwell, recently wrote an article entitled What Libertarianism is Not wherein he says,

“Libertarianism is not a philosophy of morality or a guide to proper behavior. It is simply a political philosophy that holds that everyone should be legally free (in other words, free from coercion) to do as they please, so long as they don’t violate anyone’s body or property (in other words, so long as they don’t initiate coercion against anyone else); and that the State, if it should exist, should be bound by the same rules as the rest of society.”

This misguided and limited definition quickly degenerates into hedonism, decadence, and ultimately, societal decay, as displayed by the Greeks and Romans.

3. Emphasizes Individualism; Downplays Family, Community, and Religion

James Ure wrote in a previous article:

“Tellingly, the word ‘individual’ appears fifteen times in the first twenty sentences of the [Libertarian Party] platform, but the words ‘family’ and ‘school’ only appear once each, the words ‘church’ or ‘religion’ only appear a few times, and the words ‘community’ and neighborhood’ do not appear at all.”

As we also learn from Mr. Ure, family, community, and religion are “institutional mediating entities” that balance the desires for individual freedom with the demands of communal cooperation.

An overly individualistic society is a fragmented, unsustainable society, lacking forms to perpetuate itself.

Three Counter-Balancing Ideals

To counteract the above three dangers of libertarianism, three ideals should replace them, with a deliberate, conscious, and transparent effort: public virtue, an expanded definition of freedom, and a shift from focusing on the individual to focusing on family, community, and religion.

1. Public Virtue

“There must be a positive Passion for the public good, the public Interest, Honour, Power and Glory, established in the Minds of the People, or there can be no Republican Government, nor any real liberty.” -John Adams

As one of the Four Foundations of Freedom, public virtue means to voluntarily sacrifice personal benefit for the good of society.

For example, Robert Morris, a relatively obscure figure in American history, was one of the wealthiest colonists who spent his entire fortune — and even borrowed from others — to finance the Revolutionary War.

As Oliver DeMille writes:

“One [historical] record remarked: ‘If it were not [proven] by official records, posterity would hardly be made to believe that the campaign…was sustained wholly on the credit of an individual merchant.’

“When the War ended, this self-made millionaire spent three and a half years in debtors prison after he lost everything. His wife…watched possession after possession disappear during the War. When Robert went to prison after giving so much to the cause of freedom, she tended a borrowed little farm and walked each day to the prison with her daughter Maria to visit her husband.

“Robert left prison a broken down old man and died shortly thereafter. The financier of the Revolution, and his family, understood public virtue…”

In most cases, such a profound display is not necessary; we simply have to do our best to serve others on a daily basis.

It’s grossly incomplete to proclaim that the government should not take care of people; those who are able and privileged have the duty to care for the handicapped and the aged, serve the underprivileged, uplift the impoverished, and educate the illiterate.

The easiest and best way to eliminate bureaucratic and illegitimate government entitlement programs is to replace them with private institutions operated voluntarily by virtuous individuals.

Most libertarians believe that the proper role of government is to protect unalienable rights. But keeping the government contained in its proper sphere is predicated upon the people expanding their love of rights to include a strict adherence to their duties to their fellow man.

As Viktor Frankl wrote,

“Being human always points, and is directed, to something or someone other than oneself — be it a meaning to fulfill or another human being to encounter. The more one forgets himself — by giving himself to a cause to serve or another person to love — the more human he is and the more he actualized himself…Self-actualization is only possible as a side-effect of self-transcendence.”

Instead of starting with the thought, “I want to be left alone,” a better approach would be to start with, “I want to do my best to serve others so that the government doesn’t have to.”

The one says, “Leave me alone”; the other says, “How can I serve?”

It’s obvious which one leads to a more healthy, sustainable society. The incomplete sentence, “The government should not redistribute wealth” must be finished with “…and the people have the duty to ensure that all members of society are well cared for.”

The rejection of forced charity must never lead to the neglect of the right forms of voluntary charity, as does Ayn Rand’s philosophy.

2. Expand the Definition of Freedom

Freedom is so much more than being free from the illegitimate constraints of the government. Freedom is a much broader, more comprehensive concept than “freedom from“; it also includes “freedom to.”

The new definition of freedom must include two critical aspects: 1) a primary focus on how an individual can become personally, internally free regardless of external circumstance, and 2) the fusion of rights with duties.

concentrationcamp1 300x148 Libertarianism: The Threat & the OpportunitySpiritual, financial, physical, mental, and emotional freedom are ultimately far more important than governmental freedom, since the one is predicated upon the other; the more personally free individuals are in a society, the more free their government will be.

Viktor Frankl, locked in a concentration camp cell, is more free than the drug or pornography addict in America.

As Edmund Burke said,

“Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without.”

It’s nice to be free from governmental tyranny. But we must also realize that we are free to love in the face of hatred, forgive cruelty without hesitation or reservation, to love those who hurt us as much as we love those who honor us.

We are free to eradicate all feelings of revenge, bitterness, enmity, and malice; to replace hatred with love, bitterness with understanding, pride with humility, vengefulness with forgiveness, cruelty with mercy and compassion. We are free to choose how we respond to oppression.

Furthermore, we must realize that inherent with our rights to freedom are corresponding duties.

We have a right to free government; we also have the duty to maintain such a government. As Thomas Paine wrote:

“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.”

We have the right to do whatever we choose to do with our bodies; we have the duty to be true to marital covenants and to protect the unalienable rights of unborn children.

We have the right to view whatever we want; we have the duty to shun pornography in all its forms.

We have the right to administer our finances how we see fit; we have the duty to stay out of debt and produce more than we consume.

Political philosophy removed from personal morality is like an individual without a heart or an automobile without an engine; personal morality is what makes political and economic liberty function.

In the words of Benjamin Franklin,

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

3. Shift From Individualism To Familial & Communal Association

Healthy society isn’t comprised of individualistic hedons doing whatever they feel like doing; it’s comprised of virtuous, faithful, and tight-knit families and communities who know and serve one another, who provide support and encouragement to each other, who work together, who mourn with each other, and who share a common heritage and common values.

Collectivism and individualism are opposite sides of the same imbalanced coin. Family, community, and religion provide balance. They preserve and perpetuate culture. They restore society when it has lost its way.

While collectivism leads to an oppressive, centralized breakdown of society, individualism causes divisive decay. The solution to each is to bolster the health, strength, and vitality of family, community, and religion.

Conclusion: The Opportunity

Libertarianism has an unprecedented opportunity to reclaim America’s freedom. But to do so it must eliminate its flaws and define itself appropriately.

Specifically, it must eliminate the flaws of misguided self-interest, a limited definition of freedom, and an excessive focus on individualism.

It must define itself as a movement that includes political and economic freedom from oppression, as well as personal freedom to do what’s right. It must stress duties as much as it stresses rights.

It must shift from individualism to communalism — not forced or governmentally-imposed collectivism, but voluntary familial, communal, and religious associations.

The foundation of libertarianism must be much more than wanting to be left alone; it must be based on a desire to serve, to contribute in meaningful and lasting ways to society.

Some may say that these proposed ideals stray from being universal.

While it’s imperative for any movement to stick with universals in order to create coherency and momentum, it’s even more important to define what those universals are.

If the libertarian universals are simply “smaller government, less taxes, and more freedom,” the impact and sustainability of libertarianism will be severely limited.

If, on the other hand, it expands its universal tenets to include the morality of public virtue, the depth of personal freedom beyond mere political and economic freedom, and the necessity of strong families, communities, and religious associations, it can be the movement that restores the American republic and secures liberty for generations to come.

Was Jesus Christ a Liberal Socialist?

jesuschrist 210x300 Was Jesus Christ a Liberal Socialist?A friend once asked my perspective on the question, “Was Jesus Christ a Liberal Socialist?”

The first step to answer this question is to define the terms. Much disagreement exists not because those arguing fundamentally disagree, but because they’re simply defining terms differently.

If by “liberal socialist” one refers to a person who seeks to serve his fellow man with compassion and charity, and who spends his life voluntarily clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, liberating the captive, educating the ignorant, and caring for the sick and afflicted, then yes, Jesus Christ was a liberal socialist and we should all strive to be liberal socialists.

If being a liberal socialist means striving to attain just and equitable society, a society where there are no rich or poor, where all men are treated equally, then Jesus Christ was a liberal socialist.

If liberal socialism means to give of our talents and substance to serve and uplift others, then Jesus Christ was a liberal socialist.

For those readers who are choking on my words, please read on carefully to digest the full context.

Consider the following excerpts from the Bible:

Matthew 19: 16 – 21
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him…if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness.
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love they neighbour as thyself.
20 The young man saith unto him, All of these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me.

Luke 6:35-38
35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

Matthew 25:34-46
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

In an interview with Pastor Rick Warren, Barack Obama, currently the most prominent liberal in America, said,

“America’s greatest moral failure…has been that we still don’t abide by that basic precept in Matthew, ‘Whatever you do to the least of my brothers, you do for me.’ That basic principle applies to poverty, it applies to racism and sexism, it applies to not…providing ladders of opportunity for people to get into the middle class…This country, as wealthy and powerful as we are, we still don’t spend enough time thinking about the least among us.”

I agree with those words — in a certain context — and I think that Jesus Christ, as I understand His life and teachings, would agree as well.

Content Vs. Context

Let’s pause a moment. Understand that no truth exists without context. Needles are content; using them to insert drugs or life-saving medicine are examples of context. Water is content; watering crops and drowning a person are examples of context. Needles aren’t good or bad — it’s how they are used that determines their virtue, or destructive power.

The words “liberal” and “socialist” are nothing but content; without understanding the context in which they are used it’s impossible to determine whether or not Jesus Christ was a liberal socialist.

To counteract my claims above that Jesus Christ was a liberal socialist, now consider a different context:

If by “liberal socialist” one refers to a person who justifies using force to steal from one person or group of people to give to another, then Jesus Christ was the furthest thing from a liberal socialist.

Force Vs. Voluntarism

gun to head Was Jesus Christ a Liberal Socialist?The crux of the argument lies in understanding the purpose and function of the government. As I have written elsewhere, government is force. No policy can ever be enacted through government without it being backed by a gun to the head of every citizen who chooses to disobey the law.

Those who claim that Jesus Christ was a liberal socialist, and who believe that liberal socialism is enacted by government force, misunderstand the voluntary nature of charity.

As I wrote in an essay entitled On Bridge-Building:

“Unprincipled social workers seem relatively harmless on the surface, yet when an entire culture embraces a false sense of government-sponsored philanthropy, the long-term consequences are an irresponsible society operating under a crippling sense of entitlement. The desire to lift and serve others is good, but the danger from the group I speak of comes from using government force to impose their sense of morality upon the populace. This degenerates into a moral cannibalism that ultimately destroys the society.

“When the true sense of public virtue is distorted and counterfeited to become forced wealth distribution, the virtue is lost and replaced with resentment and anger by those forced to give, and the loss of dignity and self-reliance on those who depend on the givers. False charity destroys those who know how to fish at the expense of those waiting for fish to be given to them. The cruel irony is that the people who are hurt the most by forced welfare schemes are the same people that misplaced charity is precisely designed to help. People who set out to ‘serve society’ and who do not operate under moral principles inevitably seek to ‘lift’ the bottom by forcefully taking from the top. The result is a miserable mediocrity for all.”

The gospel of Jesus Christ is, at its core, one of voluntary virtue. Being forced at gunpoint to support others is not virtue at all — it is unabashed theft.

While Jesus Christ demonstrated the path we should follow by washing Peter’s feet, He also taught, “Thou shalt not steal.”

Interestingly, contemporary liberals and socialists break one of His laws in order to fulfill another. They justify theft in the name of charity — ironically rendering charity obsolete in the process.

I wholeheartedly agree with Barack Obama — and Jesus Christ — that the ideal society is one in which all citizens seek the interest of their neighbors and do everything in their power to serve and uplift the downtrodden, the oppressed, and the underprivileged.

And I also believe and strive to adhere to the commandment, “Thou shalt not steal.”

Using the government to take from one person or group to give to another is an act of force. Strip away all of the nice-sounding language about “social justice” and the concept of the “village” and all it is is one person putting a gun to another person’s head and saying, “You will give this money or you will be shot dead, or at the very least imprisoned.”

“…a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” -Thomas Jefferson

If charity is not implemented on a voluntary basis it is thievery, it is moral cannibalism, and it fails every time, as proven throughout history.

So, was Jesus Christ a liberal socialist? It depends on the definitions and the context. Our challenge is to follow Him without resorting to force.

Page 1 of 212»