Our Misplaced Hope

    To what do we owe our present condition? The devolution of democracy into despotism, or socialism, or whatever evil that may manifest from the aforesaid, decidedly transcends the purlieus of the political to provide adequate explanation as to why our present condition is so perilous. I don't feel the need to enumerate these sufferings, nor advocate the abolition, nor the revolution of our government, as mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. I will, however, in my noblest attempt at lucidity, provide one example before I solicit this issue for an answer. Causes are rarely less than multi-faceted in the context of societal discussions. Be that as it may I find this cause is sufficiently explainable without exploring its enigmatic complexities.

    We may choose, as it has been the conventional action, to select one person or event upon which to exhaust our collective indignation for the purpose of some generic human amelioration. The full bitterness of our invective has been customarily centered around this object of animosity; and perhaps rightly so as there can be no honest argument against accountability. However, we may easily prove ourselves guilty of being the origin of our quandary. When Barack Obama appeared on the political spectrum, we, and I use the word 'we' loosely in reference to the majority principles of democracy, centered around him our affections and in blinded faith ascribed to him a propensity for the future betterment of our nation, in stark contrast to its then present ailments. In him was the vista to the greater future, and the evanescence of the status quo. This was in the greatest spite of his history, associations, and the collective warnings from those who showed, by his own words, that he did not possess the predilection for our future success as we had always held as the American way. Rather than a proclivity for this, he demonstrated a glaring dereliction. The timeless wisdom of Paine proves itself to be such: a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it the superficial appearance of being right. Time makes more converts than reason. Unfortunately, time is what we got. 

    This is one example easily related to the grander cause. These causes, as I've said, reach the ambit of politics not only to elucidate, but also to remedy. In order to capably understand and explain them, we must avoid the compartmentalization of the political from the spiritual. I have outlined my philosophy of this essential indivisibility here.

    The cause is simple: our hope, even our faith, was put into a man, who looked to be able to right the wrongs of the past, and secure the future blessings for our nation. We found ourselves in need of an absolution, in need of a savior. When we find ourselves in a desperate situation, to whom do we turn? Where is our hope? Where is our trust? Do we trust that the world can fix itself of anything? Obviously we have believed this, and in this mindset we have become far from what we were founded on. Who did our founders hope in? To whom did they appeal? “...Appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions...And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence...” Even our money is a daily reminder of this perfect hope: inscribed boldly on every coin is the intentional declaration “In God we trust.” But how often we elevate that money to godhood, relying on its power to fix what we have destroyed in our negligence. How far we have wandered from the paths of God's blessings. I have often wondered why God chose to bless the founding of our nation and why our hopeless war for independence was won. Perhaps it was because these great God-fearing men decided to bless Him, surrendering all of themselves to His ability to rectify their desires in His will that all may freely hear the message of His salvation. Instead of hoping in this world, its manifested evils, and its imperfect reason, we should instead trust the God who has proven Himself time and again. He promises healing to to all: “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.” But the choice is ours. Choose this day whom you will serve.

 
 
 

A Classification of Morals

I have had another challenge of beliefs, and it has given me another chance to examine them and, if I’m fortunate enough to grasp understanding of this subject in which I am about to delve, to further hone my beliefs toward the truth. I will mention quite frankly; I feel no authority over this subject, and its very nature is contrary to human comprehension. However, though I am careful not to speak what I believe to be truth too hastily lest I prove myself wrong later, I feel it beneficial to explore this in a logical fashion, though I will avoid going too deep into it as it is difficult to understand, and my knowledge of it hardly suffices to write with great confidence in my belief. I believe my last post satisfactorily settled the validity of, and belief in the scripture. It is crucial to this exploration.

The challenge is the nature of good and evil. It is difficult to define evil in a secular sense, but in that sense it may be defined as the absence of good. Good, as I asserted earlier, is a feeble word when an attempt is made to define it in such a sense. If evil is the absence of good, then how can we prove an action is evil? If we lack the means or definition by which we may show such absence, how can we show its deficiency? Logically it is impossible to prove something to be evil, since evil is, in the most secular sense, the absence of good. Men cannot prove non-existence, such as the non-existence of good in an action. To do such would require one to supersede his own consciousness as the limits of knowledge thus giving him an omniscient nature, which we all know to be impossible. Such would make us God himself. The scriptures are the only viable means of proving right and wrong to a degree of confidence satisfactory to me.

Since scripture is the perfect foundation of belief, and perfect measure of belief, we should search for dissidence between the action and the scriptures. Many times you will find the action to be explicitly wrong. But the whole point of my thoughts today is to challenge that. Understand that I have no intention of challenging scripture, but man’s mindset toward it. Suppose we instead ask the question “Is this right?” We seem to search the scripture to prove something wrong, but it would seem more fitting to prove something right. I, as a Christian, want to be more than “not wrong.” I would like to be right. Maybe we should ask ourselves, instead of “Is this sin?”, “Will this glorify God?” I believe we, as Christians, should be known for what we think is right, not what we think is wrong; what we love, and not what we hate; who we are, and not who we aren't. We cannot show love to those in need of God’s love if we condemn the world, or isolate ourselves from it, or imitate it. We must define ourselves as doers of what is right, and not those so hasty and eager to condemn that which is wrong. Not even Christ came to condemn, but to save and give righteousness.

A Classification of Belief

It has been a while since my last post, and I haven’t posted consistently in a few years; quite understandably so, since politically I’ve been purposefully ignorant. That, however enticing of a ploy to reduce whatever stresses I might have believed to be coming from my observation of, and discussion of, the politics of America, is not a responsible action. Turning a blind eye to the troubles of Washington, (and of the world also) will only exacerbate the problem, especially if everyone who, in his mind, lacks the strength or power to incite the necessary changes decided to conform to this isolationist ideal.

It is because of my realization of this, that it was only furthering my understanding of the world as it is, that I have decided to continue my writing, perhaps less for you as the reader than for me as the writer. It is an attempt to ascertain what I believe politically, and further, to understand why. I will not constrain the entirety of my time to the parameters of the political since the principles I am about to introduce do not allow it. As to the enumeration of my political ideals:

In order to do this, I must first establish what I am. I consider myself a conservative. But what is conservatism? I consider myself, though purely governmentally, a libertarian. But can I reconcile the latter to the former? After all, conservatism is a worldview while libertarianism is, as aforesaid, a government view. And finally, I have a biblical worldview. Should I reconcile them all to that measure? Or would it be prudent to compartmentalize the various views of these things? Though I certainly thus far lack the answer to this, it is more certainly not unattainable.

A fundamental foundation is the beginning of all ideals and beliefs, for without it we would have no measure upon which to build our case, whether political or any other ideal., and thus it would be difficult to prove, or even explain for that matter, the resolution of ones beliefs while constructing the matrix of thought upon an unsteady foundation. In order to establish what I am, I must establish what I am constructing what I am upon. In man’s search for such a foundation many have been found, but all prove unsatisfying and, more importantly, unsteady. While appealing and wholly believable on the surface, they always prove to have a weakness, whether it be a logical weakness, or moral. But, as this is not a treatise on worldviews, I will not belabor the point of dispelling such views. Rather, I am here to simply establish my foundation, and furthermore, though it seems an unnecessary measure in today’s mindset of relativism, to explain why. The former is much simpler than the latter; statement much simpler than the proof or defense thereof.

There is the only one steadfast foundation upon which one may confidently build a belief, and though it may seem at first thought to some a strange and unrelated foundation for a political view, it is viable and sound. What is politics besides a mere function of society? It is men governing men, and further, imperfect men governing imperfect men. If perfect men governed there would be no need for political views, as there would be no method subject to the failure we so often see. But since it is in fact imperfect, an imperfect foundation would do nothing but aggravate the imperfections, and systems of government built upon such foundations have consistently failed. But as I said before, this is, at least for now, not a dissertation of political systems and it is not up to me to debunk them. But if government were built upon a perfect foundation and the governed also, what would result? A Utopian society? Hardly. Men are still imperfect, and the imperfections would simply manifest themselves as a perversion of the perfect. This is simply a logical string of thought, as causality dictates. However, wouldn’t it hardly require consensus that a perfect foundation is better than an imperfect one?

That perfect foundation is the scripture of God, and all the ideals therein. I will quickly defend the idea of separation of church and state, but even more quickly denounce the perversion of this principle. Instead of the church and state, it has, through the years, become the separation of God and government, the defense of their obligatory unity I have already established.

But further defense is required. We have ascertained that we must have foundation for our beliefs and that this foundation must be perfect. But truth must be attributed to any perfect ideal, otherwise it isn’t perfect. Is something false ever perfect? The answer is obvious; the question is not rhetorical. It is possible to prove, to a degree, the validity of scripture, but reason is hardly adequate to do such. It requires a level of faith to believe the authenticity of parts of it. Mere facts can be proven by scientific method, history by reliable record, but the supernatural only by faith. However, an attempt may be made at proving the morality of the scriptures. Strict adherences to the maxims of scripture have consistently produced good, as feeble of a term there is when defined by anything else but scripture. So we see that only faith in the scriptures is adequate to prove their truth. This circle of logic seems unattainable for some, but it only applies to those supernatural realms of scripture which cannot be proven by scientific or historical method. I am hardly asserting that only some of scripture is true or believable, rather I am stating the obvious. I will not believe on faith that the entirety of scripture is true. But since the historic events have been consistently proven, I can believe that it is accurate and worth believing. It is not a leap of faith to believe the scripture, but a culmination of reason, logic, and small step of faith.

It would seem necessary and logical, since it is so perfect a foundation, to build upon this. That is exactly my intention. Whatever I believe must be reconciled to this perfect measure, lest the conflict of belief to reason become so prominent as to destroy all credibility of it. Likewise, whatever I don’t believe should be derived from a provable dissidence between the ideal and the foundation. This method, in my belief, discounts all attempts at classification of one’s beliefs. Maybe one closely aligns, but never perfectly. Otherwise it would be a replica of the foundation, and thus the foundation itself. I would not, however, be so hasty to disown well-established beliefs, as they have their merits, namely that of being identifiable and recognizable. But where they fail, your foundation should succeed. Conservatism is that belief which most closely aligns with the perfect foundation. When it is necessary to classify yourself as a conservative, I do not believe it unwise to do such. But conservatism is a human principle, solid, but not unbreakable. It has, in theory, the perfect foundation, but too often is corrupted by imperfection. But, as unavoidable as that is, it is not necessary to completely disown it. This is the conclusion I have reached in this sort of crisis of identity. Now that I have concluded with a reasonable of logic and proof what I am, I will be have a provable measure in which to resolve.