Church and Empire

Stephen W. Carson, in his latest article, describes the connection between evangelical Christians and George W. Bush. He likens the relationship to the one early Christians had with the Roman emperor Constantine:

Eusebius and the other Christians at the time actually had fairly good reason to be thankful for the ascendancy of Constantine. The early church had been persecuted numerous times by the Roman Empire. Eusebius' own beloved teacher Pamphilus had been martyred in a recent persecution. When Constantine seemed to genuinely be a Christian and work to stop persecutions of Christians it came as a great relief.

In a very roughly similar way, conservative American evangelical Christians have felt besieged by a secular elite seemingly determined to undermine their way of life through what Murray Rothbard described as "multicultural, socialistic, condomaniacal, anti-Christian public schooling" and in many other ways. Clearly, the parallel is in one sense weak. American Christians have not been fed to the lions. Nevertheless, psychologically Christians have felt besieged. So just as with the arrival of Constantine, the arrival of first Reagan and much more significantly George W. Bush, who has really made a point of speaking to Christian evangelicals in their language, has meant a feeling of real empowerment after many decades of feeling excluded from the mainstream of society.

Carson explains that Bush, like Constantine before him, helped further the intertwining of church and state:

The division between the Empire and the Church began to blur with, for example, Emperor Constantine playing a key role in calling the theologically crucial First Council of Nicea. This process of blurring the lines has already begun in our own time with programs like the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

Carson goes on to point out that "the Roman Empire's embrace of Christianity was an attempt to sustain the Empire with the vitality of the Christian movement. That is, the Empire needed the Church, not the other way around. ... Similarly, the American Empire has lurched forward with renewed energy now that the evangelicals are on board."

The church needs to remember its mission. Becoming another tool for the Empire isn't it.

Ignorant Evangelicals and Their Immoral War

I have often wondered why the Bush Doctrine--the maniacal policy of waging pre-emptive war--has been embraced so enthusiastically by evangelical Christians. What possible reason could believers have for ignoring virtually every biblical principle regarding the issue of war? LewRockwell.com columnist Stephen W. Carson sums it up quite nicely in his latest article, "The Christian Case for War": "There is a whole worldview here with intertwined beliefs about politics, U.S. history, military reality, the press, the presidency, the Middle East and religion. For many of the Christian supporters of this war a profound paradigm shift would be required if they were to see things differently."

Carson presents a dilemma for his brothers and sisters in Christ:

Was the U.S. having a positive effect on the world when allied with Hussein prior to 1991? When it gave Hussein chemical weapons? I do not know why the dodgy alliances that the U.S. government has regularly made do not give Christians pause. I mean here is a political figure that American Christians seem to be unanimous in condemning as a brutal dictator: Saddam Hussein. Yet, the United States government supported Hussein, indeed was instrumental in putting him into power in the first place. The government provided Hussein with weapons, including chemical and biological weapons.

These are fair points. Saddam was a monster of our own creation. If we are justified in what we are doing currently in Iraq, what does that say about our past actions in that country? Were we just as right in supporting his autocratic aspirations in the '70s and '80s as we are now in punishing him for his abuse of power? Does the morality of U.S. foreign policy ebb and flow with the tide of international politics? What does that say about how mainstream evangelicals view the unchanging, infallible Word of God?

Much of their blindness to the injustice of this war can be attributed to the flawed theology of dispensational premillennialism. You know something is wrong when the books of doomsday demagogues like Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins are more popular among Christians than the Bible. Sure, I can see the appeal of wanting to have an active role in the fulfillment of "prophecy," but is it really worth it?

Carson believes that Christians are standing behind the president due to "a short memory (which afflicts Americans in general) and a veritable whirlwind of spin from the interventionist conservative press (National Review, Commentary, etc.)." Of course, ignorance is no excuse, so he adds a word of warning: "When American Christian leaders stand before the Lord on Judgment Day and He asks them why they gave their moral support to U.S. supported atrocities it isn't going to cut it to say, 'William Buckley told me we had to.'"

"If it's all the same to you, Mom, I think I'll stick around for awhile"

What does the pro-choice instruction manual have to say regarding those rare instances when a woman's freedom of choice is thwarted by the very child she tries to murder?:

Boy Is Aborted 3 Times and Lives

A baby survived at least three attempts to abort it from the womb and was born alive at 24 weeks old.

The boy was delivered in hospital after his 24- year-old mother changed her mind about wanting the child after feeling it move on the way home from an abortion clinic.

Although the clinic had told her an ultrasound scan had confirmed the child was dead, she went into labour that afternoon and the boy was born alive.

Now two years old and healthy, he is the first long-term abortion survivor to have been born so prematurely. His remarkable entrance into the world is documented in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. ...

Should this boy be told that his mother's right to choose still outweighs his right to life? Is there any self-respecting abortion advocate who will tell this child that he isn't supposed to be here? That he's a mistake? A freak of nature? Will anyone inform him that his very existence is an insult to everything the pro-death cult stands for?

I didn't think so.

Introducing the States' Rights Review

The birth of this nation was not without its labor pains. Right from the start there was dissension among the Founding Fathers--especially when it came to drafting a new constitution.

The "federalists," stressing the inadequacy of the Articles of Confederation, called for a stronger national government. The "antifederalists," on the other hand, believed that this centralization of power could only lead to tyranny.

States' rights advocate Richard Henry Lee saw the inherent problems of what the federalists were proposing: "To say that a bad government must be established for fear of anarchy is really saying that we should kill ourselves for fear of dying." He didn't want the people of the various states to lose the relative autonomy to which they had grown accustomed.

In that spirit, I would like to introduce the States' Rights Review, a weblog dedicated to the principles espoused by antifederalists like Richard Henry Lee. Let this be a rallying cry for all concerned citizens to hold their elected officials accountable, to help reign in federal power and to stop the erosion of liberty.

For America

- words and music by Jackson Browne

As if I really didn't understand
That I was just another part of their plan
I went off looking for the promise
Believing in the Motherland

And from the comfort of a dreamer's bed
And the safety of my own head
I went on speaking of the future
While other people fought and bled

The kid I was when I first left home
Was looking for his freedom and a life of his own
But the freedom that he found wasn't quite as sweet
When the truth was known

I have prayed for America
I was made for America
It's in my blood and in my bones
By the dawn's early light
By all I know is right
We're going to reap what we have sown

As if freedom was a question of might
As if loyalty was black and white
You hear people say it all the time:
"My country wrong or right"

I want to know what that's got to do
With what it takes to find out what's true
With everyone from the president on down
Trying to keep it from you

The thing I wonder about the dads and moms
Who send their sons to the Vietnams
Will they really think their way of life
Has been protected as the next war comes?

I have prayed for America
I was made for America
Her shining dream plays in my mind
By the rockets red glare
A generation's blank stare
We better wake her up this time

The kid I was when I first left home
Was looking for his freedom and a life of his own
But the freedom that he found wasn't quite as sweet
When the truth was known

I have prayed for America
I was made for America
I can't let go till she comes around
Until the land of the free
Is awake and can see
And until her conscience has been found

"Fixing" Social Security

The general idea behind Social Security is to encourage...no, force people to save. But the government has no business telling me how I should save, where I should save or even if I should save. In a free society, people should have complete control over their own money—quite a novel concept these days.

Contrary to popular belief, there is nothing private or even remotely capitalist about George W. Bush's "privatization" plan. His is a prescription for yet more government control. If he gets his way, bureaucrats—many of whom retire with pensions ranging in the hundreds of thousands of dollars—will tell you which stocks you can invest in, how much you can invest, how much you can withdraw and the rate at which it can be withdrawn. On top of that, in order to make your investments "safe," there will have to be more regulations imposed to prop up those stocks.

Put simply, market forces won't apply. It's a proposal that pays lip service to capitalist ideals while at the same time undermining the free market. (Besides, anyone who honestly believes that the feds will have no way of getting their hands on these so-called "private" accounts is living in a dreamworld.)

Unfortunately, conservatives will go along with this ridiculous plan simply because it's "better" than what the Democrats are proposing. Here's an idea: why not start to phase out Social Security? Fulfill the obligations to those currently collecting checks and then offer a refund to people for evey dime they've paid into it. Finally, allow the rest to opt out completely.

The problem is that Republicans can't even bring themselves to admit that the entire concept of a government-controlled retirement plan is not only unconstitutional, it's immoral. Until we get to that point, things will keep getting worse.