2016 Primary

This has to be quick.

Point 1: I must vote.

Romans 13 says "be subject to the governing authorities." Well, not only does that mean being a responsible citizen, and civically engaged, but it means that because America is a constitutional democratic republic, every one of us IS the government, inasmuch as we vote to elect our representatives who rule on our behalf. So we have an ethical obligation to vote to promote godliness and reject evil.

1. I cannot vote the lesser of two evils. If it's Donald Trump v Hillary Clinton in November, I can't vote for either one of them by arguing that it's worse if 'the other one' gets in. It's unacceptable if either one wins, and I will not positively endorse either one. If you had to choose between Satan and the Antichrist, would you vote for either of them? No, you would refuse on principle and deny the "either-or" choice you've been faced with. It doesn't matter that they're not the same person, they're functionally the same thing and you can't vote for that.

2. I can't not vote, per the above Romans 13 discussion. Delegates are apportioned based on how many people live in the districts where people vote. That means that the delegate count goes to the candidates as if everyone voted, meaning that if you don't vote, you're letting everyone who does vote, vote on your behalf. You delegate your responsibility to the people who aren't too apathetic to vote. If they choose evil, that means you chose evil. You let them represent you without speaking your dissent.

3. The only conclusion then is that if it's a choice between two godless visions for America, then I must either write in a candidate, or - if that's impossible where I happen to live - literally write in to my representatives, announcing my dissent.

This is not about changing the future or influencing the election. It's great if you can. But this is about standing up for righteousness. A vote for righteousness, and against evil, is never wasted. Are we trying to glorify God, or worrying about whether we can feel important/like winners?

Thankfully, there is a choice. This election, I'm happy to see that there is at least one candidate running that doesn't make me cringe over his position on any policy that I know of. I won't go into every little detail of why, here, but that candidate is Ted Cruz.

Here are the main, non-policy-related reasons for my endorsement:

1. He might actually be a Christian. He doesn't have to be, to be a good candidate. And a true believer may not be a great leader. My understanding is that Ronald Reagan was a believer, but he wasn't altogether savvy in managing people in his administration. Cruz is a politician in a good way, in that sense. But to the point: his priorities are God first, and everything else second, which is a sight to see when nearly every politician in the country seems to be political for the sake of being political (also known as "establishment" politics).

2. What most encourages me in this regard is twofold. He can a) actually give credit to his opponents, without acting like the campaign is a zero-sum game that means he has to put everyone else down, in order to win. This is shown in his C-SPAN video calling Mitch McConnell a liar, where he gives credit to Bernie Sanders for opposing crony capitalism, and credits Marco Rubio for his defense of Israel. Second, he b) has self control. Compare how he reacts to being personally attacked, to how Donald Trump reacts to ... well, anything. One of the main words I can think of to describe the difference between the two, is that one lacks self control, and the other is self controlled. Christians who are evaluating someone else's profession of faith should take both of these two points under consideration. They, especially the latter, demonstrate spiritual fruit. And even if they don't prove that Ted Cruz is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and calm with a spiritual calm, they definitely make him stand out as a candidate. Wouldn't it be nice to have a president who doesn't feel compelled to lie or ignore the accomplishments of his opponents lest it conflict with his narrative? Wouldn't it be nice to have a president who doesn't lash out when attacked, but keeps his cool and doesn't let his enemies see all the cards he's holding?

3. His track record is consistent in one key regard: he holds the policy positions he does based on what the Constitution and the Law allows him. Why is he for deporting illegal immigrants? Because federal law requires it. It's not that he necessarily thinks that's the best solution to the issue moving forward, but he, unlike Obama, Trump and Hillary, recognizes that you can't just take whatever position on an issue you want, regardless of what the law says. If a candidate opposes deporting illegal immigrants, at present, then that candidate is advocating for violating federal law as President. In a Constitutional Republic, what we should do, is to change the law. Then go about being lenient with regards to who to deport. Otherwise you're lawless. And the candidate who disregards the law can't be trusted because you can't know what they're going to do -- the law is no indication.

That's why Cruz shines. Immigration isn't even a huge issue for me personally - I live in the Mid-Atlantic, and my career will not be one that cheap labor competes with, so I'm not being directly hurt. But I am so impressed by Cruz's submission to the law, that this alone makes him the best possible candidate in decades. You can actually trust him, because he will be limited by the law. He SELF-limits. This is another sign he's possibly a true believer. Obama selectively chooses when to disregard the law. Cruz would not. This is one of the biggest points of frustration that people have with Obama. And we have a chance to elect a candidate that will actually be beholden to the law and the will of the people, not to an agenda that he will pursue relentlessly at the cost of weakening the foundations of government.

This will suffice for now. I wanted to post to have something on the record.

~ Rak Chazak

Old News, but A Note on the Right to Home-School

Another excerpt from a January(?) 2013 Journal entry where I copied down some important legal information I came across, for my own benefit.

AiG on the Romeike case

"Now the U.S. government is threatening to send them back where they may face fines, imprisonment, and loss of child custody. All Americans should be concerned. Why? The U.S. Attorney General’s arguments, by implication, (1) deny the fundamental liberty of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children; (2) deny that a right is being violated so long as the right is denied to everyone; (3) deny that religious liberty is an individual’s right; and (4) deny that persecution for a belief is genuine persecution because the problem would be solved if the “persecuted” person just changed his mind."

 “The United States Supreme Court affirmed “the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control” way back in 1925 in the case of Pierce v. Society of Sisters. .. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court in Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) ruled that a parent has a fundamental right to “establish a home and bring up children” and the right to “worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.”⁶ And in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the court supported the rights of parents to keep their children out of public schools for religious reasons.”

The footnote embedded will take you to the original article if you're interested. Last I heard, the Romeikes had been allowed to stay in the US, so that's an encouraging resolution.

~ Rak Chazak

Ray Comfort's The Way of The Master, As Told By CS Lewis

 I’ve been reading a few chapters a night out of Mere Christianity, a seminal work by CS Lewis that I’d heard much about and even quoted from but never yet read, which [my friend] gave me. What I didn’t realize was that most of the chapters were initially broadcast pieces that Lewis gave during WWII in Britain, and was actually asked to give by the BBC. Different times, dear reader. With The Battle of Britain in mind, I offer this fascinating excerpt out of Book one, chapter 5, “We Have Cause To Be Uneasy,” fascinating by virtue of the strong similarity it has to Ray Comfort’s The Way of the Master evangelism method, Ken Ham’s argument for Creation as the foundation to understand the Bible, and to a video clip I saw of Paul Washer explaining that the most terrifying truth about God is that He is good. Without further ado:

“For the trouble is that one part of you is on His side and really agrees with His disapproval of human greed and trickery and exploitation. You may want Him to make an exception in your own case, to let you off this one time, but you know at bottom that unless the power behind the world really and unalterably detests that sort of behavior, then He cannot be good.

            On the other hand, we know that if there does exist an absolute goodness it must hate most of what we do. This is the terrible fix we are in.  If the universe is not governed by an absolute goodness, then all our efforts are in the long run hopeless. But if it is, then we are making ourselves enemies to that goodness every day, and are not in the least likely to do any better tomorrow, and so our case is hopeless again. We cannot do without it, and we cannot do with it. God is the only comfort, He is also the supreme terror: the thing we most need and the thing we most want to hide from. He is our only possible ally, and we have made ourselves His enemies. Some people talk as if meeting the gaze of absolute goodness would be fun. They need to think again. They are still only playing with religion. Goodness is either the great safety or the great danger—according to the way you react to it. And we have reacted the wrong way.

            Now my third point. When I chose to get to my real subject in this roundabout way, I was not trying to play any kind of trick on you. I had a different reason. My reason was that Christianity simply does not make sense until you have faced the sort of facts I have been describing. Christianity tells people to repent and promises them forgiveness. It therefore has nothing (as far as I know) to say to people who do not know they have done anything to repent of and do not feel that they need any forgiveness. It is after you have realized that there is a real Moral Law, and a Power behind the law, and that you have broken that law and put yourself wrong with that Power—it is after all this, and not a moment sooner, that Christianity begins to talk. 

                   When you know you are sick, you will listen to the doctor. When you have realized that our position is nearly desperate you will begin to understand what the Christians are talking about. They offer an explanation of how we got into our present state of both hating goodness and loving it. They offer an explanation of how God can be this impersonal mind at the back of the Moral Law and yet also a Person. They tell you how the demands of this law, which you and I cannot meet, have been met on our behalf, how God Himself becomes a man to save man from the disapproval of God. It is an old story and if you want to go into it you will no doubt consult people who have more authority to talk about it than I have. All I am doing is to ask people to face the facts—to understand the questions which Christianity claims to answer. And they are very terrifying facts.

            I wish it was possible to say something more agreeable. But I must say what I think true. Of course, I quite agree that the Christian religion is, in the long run, a thing of unspeakable comfort. But it does not begin in comfort; it begins in the dismay I have been describing, and it is no use at all trying to go on to that comfort without first going through that dismay. In religion, as in war and everything else, comfort is the one thing you cannot get by looking for it. If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end: if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth—only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and, in the end, despair. Most of us have got over the pre-war wishful thinking about international politics. It is time we did the same about religion.”

                        The doctor analogy is also one used frequently by Todd Friel, not highly surprising since he and Ray and Kirk Cameron are close friends on the theological stage. Todd’s response to a Rob Bell video parodied its introduction but then gave a parable followed by demonstrating the difference between the Bell/Friel approaches. Imagine four doctors. Doctor Woo tells everyone how cool and exciting the hospital is. Don’t you just want to check it out? Doctor Scare walks around telling everyone “yer gonna die!! yer gonna die!!” He lets people know they’re ill but doesn’t make them inclined to want to pursue a cure, if they even know how. Doctor Love wants everyone to know that the doctors love them, and come to the hospital so you can sleep on our nice comfortable beds, eat our great cafeteria food, and feel better about yourself. But Dr. Love doesn’t tell the people that all the while they’re carrying dangerous illnesses that will kill them if left untreated. Is that really love? I don’t recall if the fourth doctor was another example of a bad doctor or not, but the final example was I believe Doctor Reason. He treats people with dignity and respect, but tells them the truth that they have a deadly disease. But he doesn’t stop there—he tells the patient that he has a cure. When the patient knows he’s ill, he desires the cure, and receives it with gladness. All of these were metaphors for different approaches by different churches on how to preach the Gospel (or fail to) to the Lost of the world. Dr. Scare symbolizes hellfire preachers who fail to focus on anything but condemnation, leaving out love and grace and forgiveness. Dr. Love fails in the reverse way, not warning people about sin and judgment and failing to generate true converts as a result, just people who have a false sense of security. Dr. Woo represents celebrity preachers or preachers who use gimmicks and showiness to try to lure people in with flashy things that produce people who expect church to be entertaining for them. Dr. Reason represents the “Law-and-Gospel” approach promoted by Ray Comfort and all associated with him, that seeks to inform people of their NEED to be saved, before urging them to take the cure (repentance and faith), knowing that otherwise people simply won’t respond because the message doesn’t connect.

~ Rak Chazak

* Mere Christianity is published by HarperOne, a division of HarperCollins. The citation is taken from pages 30 through 32 of the copy that I have.