Is government God? (Part 5331...)

I notice in the UK press discussion of the idea of a "wealth tax".

The idea is that the rich should have their assets raided, to help the country out of an emergency.

This idea calls for theological and moral analysis. People who have earnt money paid tax on it when they earnt it. The government took what was supposed to be its portion at that point. It will also take a further portion when that money is spent, e.g. in sales taxes.

But government reaching into your pocket and deciding to take money, simply on the grounds that you own it, is a far-reaching idea. It means ultimately that you own nothing, and the state owns everything. If a "wealth tax" is even on the table for discussion, then it means that nothing is your own. Its all only on loan. You are a steward, but the state is the possessor. At any time the all powerful state can claim back exactly as much as it pleases, and re-assign it to other uses as it sees best.

That means that the state is God. Traditionally in British thinking, only God has those kind of rights. The earth is his (Psalm 24:1), and he lends it out to us, as stewards. He can claim it all back, through his providential interventions, or through withdrawing us from the earth, when he pleases. Governments had much more limited rights. They can levy taxes for their legitimate functions; but they do not have an absolutely ownership that allows them to treat what has already been taxed as up-for-grabs again, to take or allow you to continue with as they please, as and when the political winds change.

Secularism pushes out God from the public square. That's its goal. But it's not possible for man to be god-less. Something else has to take God's place. The counterfeit God is the state. The state owns everything. If you own too much land or money, it simply decrees by fiat that it is taking it back from you again. Thought you earned it? Wrong - it was only on loan. If a people won't let God rule it, then they can't escape being ruled; hat's not possible. They will be ruled - but by someone or something far worse. Your judgment is to be ruled, not
mercifully, but by arbitrary despots who do not recognise your ultimate right to possess anything at all. A politician may wake up tomorrow and decide that all you has is now the state's again. When God is no longer God, the result is man's tyranny.

First things first

The first petition of the Lord's Prayer : hallowed be your name.

First things first. The world - and our lives - would and can be quite different if we get that bit right.

Atheism trades on borrowed capital

http://www.uncommondescent.com/atheism/trading-on-borrowed-capital/

Male and female

Carl Trueman asks why some evangelicals make a fuss about the Bible's teaching on role relationships between man and woman... and Douglas Wilson answers. I agree with Wilson. A few of Wilson's recent posts have been making the point that we need to discern where we are in the story. Sexual rebellion is one of the primary characteristics of our age. You can't be faithful to the gospel today - the gospel which calls us to repentance - and yet agree to put aside one of today's primary rebellions for some greater purpose.

\

Online gospel presentation

This is well done. HT: Gervase Markham.

Christ first, Christ always

I am preaching on Mary and Martha in Luke 10:38-42 this weekend, God-willing.

Such a simple message, but so easy to lose track of.

Christ is the foundation. Christ's service to us is needful - our service to him is derivative from that. Christ must be all, otherwise we'll go astray. You can serve Christ and get exhausted, and have made the wrong choice in doing it, unless you prioritise sitting at his feet and letting him minister to you. It's not what we do for Christ - it's what Christ has done and is doing in us.

Changing the label makes no difference

I saw a question asked in a Christian magazine, which began with this line:

My wife and I don’t watch porn, but do sometimes get turned on by sex scenes in mainstream films and TV programmes.

What is the questioner's definition of "porn" ? Apparently it's something different from "displays of other people having sexual relations".

If you watch other people in sexual intimacy, whether they are on "mainstream" media or sold to you by filthy Mick down the market, then by definition, you watch porn. Porn is porn, regardless of whether those purveying it to you wear suits and sit behind desks in White City, or whether they climb out of sewers with filthy leers on their faces.

"Mainstream" just means "what's in our current cultural setting". Your current cultural setting might be jammed full of porn. It doesn't become not-porn just because there's more of it around.

The question finished off with "is this OK?", to which the magazine replied "Yes, I think that's great!". Oh, wow. With Christian magazines like this one, who needs worldly ones?

Watching other people have intercourse is watching people have intercourse. If the question had begun...

My wife and I don't watch porn, but sometimes the neighbours invite us around to watch them making love. Is there a problem with that?

... then I hope most Christians would have been able to answer "Yes, that would be a problem."

And it would be no less of a problem if your neighbour "merely" filmed their escapades and then shared the video with you later.

And it would be no less of a problem if they were not your next door neighbour, but living across the other side of town and employed by the BBC to do the very same thing. The people we see on television are people, and according to Scripture, the people you come across are your neighbours (Luke 10:25-37). If you can perceive a moral problem with your neighbour knocking on your door and asking you "fancy seeing some videos of me and the wife at it?" then you ought to be able to see no less a problem with the BBC piping the same question at you through the TV listings.