How are we able to admit our unfaithfulness

We will only acknowledge the depth of our brokenness to the extent that we recognize (trust in) God's perfect acceptance of us and love for us in and through Christ. 

If our understanding of (and trust in) God and His total acceptance (and love for us) is incomplete, so will be our ability to see and acknowledge our rebellious distrust of God, i.e., the essence of our sinful condition.

And what is the extent of God's acceptance and embrace of us? It is the same as His loving embrace of His Son, i.e., it is perfect! 

"The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,  I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me." - Jesus, praying to His Father right before he's betrayed by Judas and crucified the next day - John 17:22-23 ESV

How much does the Father love the Son? However much that is, is how much he loves us i.e., it is the same as His love for His Son!!! Total and infinite. Selah (reflect on this and ask God to reveal this to you more fully).

The only way to grasp this is to ask God to reveal Himself to you. Otherwise, you (we) will not see it.

"All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." - Matthew 11:27 ESV

"For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named (i.e., bears His image) that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength (that comes to us by faith) to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God." - Eph 3:14-19 ESV

For a closer look at the above passage, click here and bookmark it to read when you are done with this article.

Why does He love us in this way? Because...

1. We are like God - i.e. in His image - and if we are in Christ we are His beloved sons and daughters, not unlike Christ is in the image of God and His only begotten Son. 

2. Christ lived a life of perfect faithfulness to His Father that God intended us to ¹live (but we failed to then and still fail to now), and by faith credits this perfectly righteous life Christ lived to us as if we lived it. Now we are perfectly righteous in the eyes of God. Do you believe this? Paul in his letter to the church in Rome says to ²"reckon" (consider) it so.

And we won't experience the depth of God's love until we acknowledge the depth of our distrust of Him i.e., our lack of faith. And we won't admit that distrust until we grasp (by faith) His total acceptance and loving embrace of us. These go hand in hand. We must see both to fully know and partake of God. 

We must acknowledge our distrust of God and turn from it, so we might more clearly and fully see "...the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God."

For a fuller discussion of Christ being the only begotten Son, click here. 

For a fuller discussion of the love the Father and Son have for each other, click here

For a fuller discussion on why God values us as bearers of His image, click here

______________________________________

Footnotes:

¹as well as died the death we should have died.

²Rom 6:11

English Standard Version
So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Berean Standard Bible
So you too must count yourselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Berean Literal Bible
So also you⁺, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but living to God in Christ Jesus.

King James Bible
Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

must count
λογίζεσθε (logizesthe)
Verb - Present Imperative Middle or Passive - 2nd Person Plural
Strong's 3049: To reckon, count, charge with; reason, decide, conclude; think, suppose.

The devil is a prowling lion

What is a major way the devil works in today's culture and society? Through those in positions of power... "Influencers," if you wish. 

For example, if an outside influence can control U.S. lawmakers, it can control the U.S. laws made. Laws shape behavior and ultimately culture. 

How can lawmakers be controlled?

Bribes, threats, personal ambition.  

All of these are used to influence or control any official within government who holds a position of power and influence, such as judges, governors, AGs, attorneys, administrators, etc. 

Or those outside government, such as company Presidents, CEO's, administrators, board directors or board members, heads of departments, educators, entertainers, reporters, athletes, i.e., those with highly specialized skills in their area of expertise. As well as ministers, priests, pastors, deacons, etc.

The greater someone's influence, the greater the likelihood they will be approached and pursued to be used for harm.

All that is necessary to control the direction of any person or institution - be it a company, a church, a news outlet, a high-profile athlete, ¹entertainer, and any person or organization of influence - is to probe around and find the ²individuals who bite when offered power or money or cave in when threatened i.e., those who are most easily controlled and compromised. These are the ones without strong principles or character but instead are driven to secure for themselves (or protect) their own personal gain and not the benefit or gain of others i.e. they are takers, not givers, and the weak link in the chain of any institution or organization. Most in an organization can be good people, but if you lasso the head, you direct the body.

The reason these controllers - who seek to recruit others to their cause - hate followers of Jesus (or the principles of some philosophy or religion), is that these followers are least likely to be controlled by someone else and are deliberately and uncompromisingly loyal to another e.g. God - in the case of followers of Christ. 

"Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour." - 1 Peter 5:8 ESV

Lions prowl around and roar because they are hungry predators. Their drive is relentless and comes from the need to stay alive. They are parasites looking for a host or predators, driven by emptiness and the need to fill it. They are only interested in filling their own belly.

The above passage is simply saying, keep your eyes open and be aware that satan is always looking to overtake and consume someone. His pursuit is relentless. And if you are not aware and prepared for his attacks, he will catch you off guard and consume you.

To say it another way, if you are a person in an institution of influence, you are a fat target and most likely will be approached and potentially attacked and compromised, so be prepared. He has many ways to compromise feckless, weak humans. He studies, knows, and exploits human frailties - which is true of all of us if we are not anchored in God through Christ. 

If someone is not principled or loyal to a higher good or higher value system beyond their own private gain - such as loving and honoring God and their fellow man or woman - you can almost assume they are compromised in some form or fashion, whether knowingly or unknowingly. 

Globalists are relentless in their pursuit of power and control. They are master manipulators and power-hungry control freaks. Therefore, "...Be sober-minded; be watchful..."

Globalists relentlessly seek to influence and control anything or anyone to further their ends, whether someone willingly cooperates or not. This is why those who wish to remain free and loyal to their Creator must always be vigilant and prepared to resist and fight against globalist (satanic) control. 

These controllers and deceivers are children of Satan - whether knowingly or unknowingly. Satan is the father of lies, the accuser, the destroyer, and the great deceiver all wrapped up in one being. If they are of the same character and conduct themselves in this same way, they are following in his footsteps and thereby become a tool in his hand - whether knowingly or unknowingly. 

What we are talking about in this article is not about skill set or abilities, etc. We're talking about the character of individuals. Individuals who can be equally as gifted (if not more gifted) as those who are principled and have character i.e., you can't tell the difference between those with character or without character by abilities alone. We're talking about people who will use their abilities and position to lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want instead of serving their fellow man and honoring their true Creator.

For a discussion of the difference between dictators and leaders, click here. 

For a discussion of the difference between malicious intent and unintentional incompetence, click here

____________________________________

Footnotes:

¹have you ever wondered why so many actors are politically left-leaning? 

²This is why Trump is least likely to willingly be controlled by others - contrary to many of the conspiracy theories that say he's knowingly part of some bigger plot. 

The globalist controllers will attempt to utilize Trump's actions (or anyone else's) to their ends, and may even have some success, but that is not necessarily because of someone's willing cooperation. 

There is a difference between being a willful co-conspirator vs a useful idiot. Intention matters in how to utilize and compromise each. And if the globalists can't turn someone willfully through bribe or threat, they will try to utilize them some other way and any way possible to further their agenda. 

Trump's weakness is the need for constant praise and the need to be better than anyone else, but this is different than doing things solely for their own benefit. I believe Trump's desire to help others is genuine and sincere. It is the primary means by which he seeks to garner praise. 

This is his Achilles heel, and I think how he got sucked into the COVID narrative... though not one hundred percent. He utilized hydroxychloroquine and pushed back on shutting down schools and businesses. 

For a further discussion on the contrasts between Trump and Fauci's positions on COVID, click here. 

Trump is a pragmatic businessman, not an ideologue i.e., it's all about the bottom line results for Americans and their economy. 

Is "tribalism" ok or racist?

We are most comfortable with those who are most like us. 

Why?

Because we are more affirmed and feel safer (more comfortable) around those like us. It is common ("natural or normal") for everyone to feel this way. It is not unique to any one group - white, black, brown, yellow, etc. 

Why?

It takes a lot more self-denial and sacrifice to relate to those who do not have the same values and interests as we do. If we have any interaction with others we have nothing in common with, or who are at least like us, our focus and energy must be on them, not on our interests and needs. ¹This kind of interaction is more about giving than getting. It requires less effort and sacrifice to interact with those most like us.

For the above reasons, being with those most like us tends to energize us. Being with those least like us tends to drain us. If we are not full of love, loving others different from us is impossible to maintain ⁷long-term. 

For the same reasons, harmony is more pleasant and enjoyable than disharmony. We are naturally drawn to harmony. Harmonious relationships tend to energize us. They affirm and reinforce our interests. Those that drain us tend to be challenging with more conflict.

There is also a practical benefit of working with those who are most like us. When we are in a joint effort, uniformity can result in greater cooperation and efficiency. This is good, not bad.

Some accuse others of racism for having these sentiments and being naturally drawn to those most like themselves. Yet, if we are honest, this is common with all groups. 

Is this ⁵racist? If so, every last one of us - regardless of our ethnicity - is a racist. Hanging out with others for the above reasons is common to everyone. 

Some call this ²tribalism. But is tribalism racism? It is no different from when you and I prefer being with loving friends or family ("our tribe") rather than with a group of strangers.

Having ³these sentiments is common in all relationships and "groups." The very act of accusing someone else of being guilty of this - as if they aren't themselves "guilty" - is exercising this very attitude by the accusation.  

This is why a loving family is so valuable (if we are blessed enough to have one). A healthy, loving family is a place where we are best known for both our strengths and flaws, and still most accepted and embraced. It is usually where we feel most free to be our real selves, with the least concern about ridicule or rejection.

Racism, on the other hand, is very different. It is an attitude of superiority based on one's ethnicity (group/"tribe"). It is believing we - our "group" - are better, ⁶objectively, more important or valuable than others. This may be true subjectively - i.e. more valuable to us - but not objectively.

But isn't this also true of friendships? No one considers having friends racist. Good friends are good, important, and valuable to us personally. They encourage and strengthen us. That is a good thing, is it not?

While close relationships may be more important to us subjectively, they are not necessarily so objectively.

On the other hand, it is not wrong to love those who are ¹different from us. It is what we are called to do. In fact, as followers of Christ, we are called to love those opposed to us, i.e., our enemies. It just takes the most energy of all interactions and ⁴directly the least immediately rewarding, if not harmful - but potentially the most rewarding indirectly. 

To be able to love those least like us is not natural but ¹supernatural. For this reason, it is good to love others who are different from us. It requires greater dependence on God to love others sacrificially. 

In fact, it is impossible to love sacrificially until we experience the sacrificial love of God offered to us in and through Christ. 

God calls us to this because this is how He loves us...

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. " - Matt 5:43-48

But again, is it wrong to gravitate to others we are most like and have the most in common with? This is actually the basis for friendship. No one would suggest friendship is wrong. Yet some would have us believe it is and call it ⁵"tribalism" - which is the "first cousin" to racism according to those who throw these derogatory labels around.  

The irony is it is usually actual racists that push the narrative that being drawn to others most like us is wrong when, in fact, everyone participates in friendship and considers it not only perfectly normal but healthy.  

We are all far more alike than different.

One thing all of us have in common, that unites us at the strongest and most basic level, is we all desire to be loved, valued, affirmed, and important, i.e., we are designed for love because we are designed to be in relationship with God, who is love. We are all like God, who continuously gives and receives love among the Father, Son, and Spirit. We are in His image.  

And what is God like? The most valuable person of all. Without Him, nothing else exists. We are valuable by virtue of being like God - i.e., in His image.

In summary, it is not wrong or racist to feel more comfortable around those who are more like us. Nevertheless, we are called to a higher standard and to reach out and love those who are least like us, even our enemies. Not loving those different from us is not racist. Unloving, yes. Racist, no. 

For a discussion on identity politics Click here

For a discussion on the joys and challenges of giving, click here. 

To see if God has anything to say about immigrants or immigration, click here.

For a discussion on values, culture, and racism, click here.

For a discussion on racism and the necessity of forgiveness, click here

For a discussion on what divides us, click here.

For a discussion of the harmful nature of identity politics, click here.

What is the nature of racial privilege? Click here for a discussion.

___________________________________ 

Footnotes:

¹People who are culturally different from us can have one main thing in common with us. A relationship with God through Christ. This connection is stronger than any natural ties we may have with those most like us culturally, intellectually, in appearance, etc. This is the most significant and deepest common denominator we can have. Especially those least like us naturally. What lovers of Christ have in common is even more significant than the connection among a loving family - though very much like it in important ways. 

If we are among others who have this deep spiritual connection with God, we are dealing with others who are focused on giving and not getting. This is the strongest possible bond we can have with anyone, even immediate family who do not have a love relationship with Christ. True believers are people who seek to love their neighbors as they love themselves. This is the greatest and most unifying value of all. This is also why Christ called loving God and others the greatest commandments.

When this is the central focus of a group of people, it is the strongest point of unity and overrides all other differences. In fact, it allows us to enjoy the differences of others as their uniqueness is a reflection of the creativity of God. This is unity within diversity.

This is why a strong church can be filled with a diversity of cultures and ethnicities yet still be united under this most central point of unity. A relationship of receiving love from our Creator and loving Him in return and our neighbor as we love ourselves. This is greater than any differences and can override them all when we are governed by love.

The two greatest commandments are the greatest not simply because we are told they are but because they summarize the purpose of our existence and the very nature of God and His creatures, i.e., to love as we are loved.

Anything we place a higher value on over our relationship with the Creator is a form of idolatry. Nothing is more valuable than God. Not our culture, race, vocation, or even our family.

This is why churches segregated by race or culture - e.g., white, black, Hispanic, Jewish, etc. - are likely not as honoring to God. To be segregated in this way is to value our culture and personal preferences over loving and valuing God and our neighbor. 

If we are separated by a language barrier, that is a separate issue that can be addressed on a church-to-church basis. But outside of this...

 "...in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise." - Gal 3:26-29

²Some subcultures are so strong they have their very own "lingo."  Some examples would be the hip-hop world, the technology world, the academic world, the world of sports, the medical or health world, etc.  These are subcultures within a culture. 

³Having common values is so important that if we do not, it can even lead to husbands and wives separating. We call it "incompatibility" when, in fact, it is actually a matter of love, or the lack of it. 

⁴By directly, I mean we rarely gain any direct benefit from those we seek to love who are different from us. The benefit we may gain, however, is from seeing others blessed by our efforts to love them. It is an indirect gain. This is not something that comes from them, but comes as a result of loving others as Christ loves, i.e., seeing them flourish because of our efforts. This is what God is like. We are acting like God when we love in this way.  

⁵There can be a problem with tribalism, but it isn't racism as some assert. The problem is it is basically about me, my needs, my wants. So in that sense it is wrong and contrary to our initial design, not because it's racist. 

This focus on self is the result of our rebellion against God and our failed attempt to be our own God. Based on the current condition of the world, it is clear we have failed miserably at being our own gods.

Everything is a mess because of our rebellion. We are now missing the love we once had in a relationship with God, caused by our choosing to disconnect from God, the very Source of love. Now we go about trying to fill that void caused by His absence through created things and our own efforts to obtain them.

The fact is we weren't designed to be our own god and to make life work without the only true God. We were designed to be in union with Him. The source of love, life, and all things, and experiencing a constant flow of love from Him. This enables us to pass love (from Him) on to others. 

We are not an endless spring of love. Only God is. We, on the other hand, are vessels or conduits that can hold and pass on the flow of love from God to and through us to others.

The main point about tribalism is it's not unique to a certain race but common among all humanity, for we have all rebelled from God. But this is not racism as is asserted by some. It is the broken condition of all humanity -  including you and I - not a particular group or race.

⁶ VS subjectively, where someone or some group can be more valuable to us personally.

⁷ Unless or until we find out that all humanity has far more in common at the most fundamental level of who we are as bearers of God's image, i.e., we are all designed by God to love and be loved by Him and to pass on that love to others. This is God's greatest desire i.e. will, directive, commandment etc.

Why do we struggle?

Whatever struggles we go through are only the ¹struggles God knows we need to go through to refine us, draw us closer to Him, and make us more like His Son (Rom 8:28-29). He ¹allows struggles so we might display Him better and delight in Him more. This is for our greatest joy and His highest glory i.e. He is our greatest joy and honoring Him is our highest pursuit. 

God knows exactly what He's ¹doing (and allowing). Nothing is by accident or catches God off guard (though it may catch us off guard).

The why, how, and when of our struggles are by God's wise and loving ¹design, no matter how it might seem the opposite at the time. 

The bottom line? 

God is simply calling us to trust Him more fully. This is the purpose behind everything we experience. Whether our experiences are good, bad, or ugly, the end goal is always the same i.e. His highest glory which is also our greatest good and joy.

The very fact that we struggle with the things we do is because there are lessons yet to be learned from (and through) them. Otherwise, our struggle would cease being struggles.

As we learn those lessons, the struggle subsides. There is less internal turmoil and greater calmness — even though the outer turmoil (circumstances) that cause us to struggle may or may not change.

We experience a peace that is beyond reason (it "passes understanding" Phil Phil 4:6-7), i.e., a peace that doesn't make sense in light of our circumstances. This is the essence of contentment (Phil 4:10-13). It is resting in God. 

___________________________

Footnotes:

¹struggles are the internal and organic outcome of our distrust of God. God works according to our trust or distrust. You could say how God works mirrors what we most need. The more we trust, the less internal turmoil we experience i.e., we are less anxious and upset over difficult circumstances.

malicious intent or unintentional incompetence

Have you ever meet someone who always assumes the worst behind others hurtful actions? Are you someone who approachs life this way yourself? Many do and aren't even aware of it. They go about life with a chip on their shoulder and always seem to be on their guard against others hurting them. 

Why is this? It is almost always due to past hurts. As a result, they're jaded and ¹quick to assume there is malicious intent behind others actions i.e. they think someone is "out to get them." When, in fact, they are more often than not the victim of unintentional incompetence or weakness by the offender, instead of ill intent.

There are people who definitely hurt others out of willful and malicious intent deliberately. But not all. ³I would guess most don't.

I know this is true for myself. Often I have hurt someone, not even knowing how. If I didn't know how I hurt them, clearly I didn't have bad intentions in doing so. 

I would venture to guess this is true for the vast majority of us when we offend others or are offended.

Why does someone assume the worst behind hurtful actions? It is usually because of past hurt(s) they experienced that they have buried and not let go of. As a result, ²they harbor bitterness and are jaded towards anyone who hurts or mistreats them (or hurts those they care about), and they assume the worst intentions behind the offender's actions.

When an offense occurs, does intent matter?

Absolutely. Even our legal system distinguishes between premeditated murder and manslaughter. As a result, the former is a greater offense that carries a greater punishment.

The bible also makes this distinction..

"And that servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more." - Luke 12:47-48 ESV

Knowing that someone hurt you unintentionally rather than maliciously makes a difference. It takes some of the "sting" out of the offense and makes it easier to forgive.

The good news is that whether we hurt people and cause them loss or harm intentionally or unknowingly, there is one who took on and experienced the full consequences of the pain we cause others so we don't have to. His name is Jesus. Have you met Him yet? If not, He'd like to meet you.

For a discussion on the underlying primary wound we all experience, click here

Are we a victim or an offender? Click here

Being a victim or playing the victim? Click here

For a discussion on the difference between being sinful and finite, click here.

___________________________________
Footnotes:

¹To assume the worst possible motive behind an offense may be more an indication of our own intentions, and that we are vindictive vs ignorant because we harbor bitterness over a past offense and have not let it go, i.e., because of bitterness, someone may have malicious intent behind their offensive behavior more than someone who is not bitter. As a result, they assume and project this same motive to others.

²anger and bitterness affect how we interpret everything around us and what happens to us. If we are bitter, we go about life with a victim mindset rather than a learning, growing, and overcoming mindset. As a result, we often skew and misinterpret things instead of seeing them clearly as they truly are. 

³the sad part is people like this tend to trust no one and are suspicious of everything. This skews everything they see and causes them to misinterpret circumstances and experiences in life and the world in general, especially regarding their view of God and Christ. 

I'd go so far as saying that atheism has far more to do with bitterness than intellect. If you haven't noticed, atheists are usually very angry (indignant and self-righteous) in a subtle but mean and cutting way. Particularly in their attitude towards God and those who trust Him. 

The conversion of CS Lewis is particularly revealing. He lost his mom early on in his life and became an atheist. This is true of most atheists. Something painful occurred in their life that triggered them to go in that direction.

Praising God is for our benefit

Praising God (worshiping, honoring, and glorifying Him) is for our benefit not His. 

God, who is ¹worthy of all praise, is still fully God whether we praise him or not. He doesn't need us or our praise to be complete or fulfill something lacking in him. He is not ²diminished by our lack of praise nor in need of it. He is the same God with or without us or our praise. 

"The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything." - Acts 17:24-25

Our praise is for our benefit and the benefit of ³others. For this reason He truly and fully enjoys our praise yet doesn't need it at the same time. 

He is not on an ego trip when he calls us to worship and glorify him. He is seeking to love us by calling us to partake of Him in all His love to the fullest extent possible. He wants us to know and experience Him in the fullness of His love bad enough to die so we might experience this.

God knows we are most fulfilled and whole when we are honoring him. He knows this is essential to our well being and maximum flourishing - better than we do. This is why He regularly calls us to glorify Him.

For a discussion on the humility of God, click here. 

Is God self centered? Click here.

__________________________________

¹God is worthy of the praise of all humanity and deserves praise from all creation, if only because God is the Creator and maintainer of all things. There are many reasons to praise God but this is the fundamental reason by which all men and women should praise him and the only reason necessary even if there were no others reasons. 

²God is diminished in the eyes of others by our lack of praise for Him. But He is not diminished in the essence of His being. God is fully God with or without our praise. This is because He is the God of all glory, honor, and praise within the dynamic, overflowing community of love among and between the Father and Son, in, by, and through the Spirit. 

³Others need to see our praise and love for God - and the resulting faithfulness and obedience to Him - to be drawn to Him. When they are, He is delighted for their sake and ours. It brings Him joy in same way the Father and Son find joy in each other, in, by, and through the Spirit. 

Leaders vs Dictators

Leaders vs Dictators 

A good leader believes in and respects the ¹rule of law and seeks to enforce it. He/she sees truth and law as objective realities, not something they create. 

A strong leader is unwavering in the enforcement of the law and is guided by the ¹rule of law. Unyielding enforcement of the law is not a dictatorship. 

A dictator considers themselves the law and seeks to overthrow objective morality and true law, so they can become the law-giver.

A good leader recognizes the law and acknowledges there is an ultimate ¹law-giver (God) who is the highest (ultimate) authority and not them. 

In the dictator's eyes, they see themselves as the highest authority. This, in large part, is why they seek to be a dictator i.e. to gain power. 

Ironically, this is why a dictator will accuse a law enforcer of being a dictator. The law and those who enforce it are a direct obstacle and threat to dictators who are lawbreakers seeking to establish themselves as the only absolute authority and ruler over others. 

This is also why dictators despise followers of any religion, because followers of a religion see themselves as answering to a higher authority other than those who seek to rule over them. 

Dictators do not recognize that law comes from a source outside of themselves. They believe instead they are the law or should be if they are not.

For a discussion on the basis of morality, click here.

For a discussion on what it means to "obey the authorities" in Romans 13 Click here

____________________________________________

Footnotes:

¹To understand the founding of the United States of America and what distinguished it from all other governments up to that point, we must understand common law and its historical, philosophical, and theological underpinnings. If you do not know this background, you can not truly understand the USA and how it has drifted away from its original moorings but is seeking to return.

What did the founders of the United States mean by common law? 

The founders of the United States—figures like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and others—understood  "common law" primarily as the English legal tradition they inherited as colonists. This was the body of unwritten law developed over centuries through judicial decisions (precedents), customs, and practices in England's courts, rather than through comprehensive statutes or codes. It stood in contrast to "statute law" (enacted by legislatures) or civil law systems (like those derived from Roman law on the European continent). 

* Core Meaning to the Founders

Common law embodied principles of justice, rights, and procedures that were seen as ancient, customary, and rooted in reason and immemorial usage. Key aspects included: 

- Rights and liberties — Protections like trial by jury, due process ("law of the land"), habeas corpus, prohibitions on unreasonable searches, double jeopardy, and safeguards for property and contracts. Many viewed these as "birthrights" of Englishmen, traceable to documents such as Magna Carta (1215), which the founders often invoked. 

- Judge-made development — Law evolved case by case through court rulings, guided by precedent (stare decisis), but judges were ideally "finding" or declaring existing law based on custom and reason, not inventing it arbitrarily. 

- Limited government and rule of law — No one, including the king or Parliament, was above the law. This included remedies in equity (fairness where strict rules fell short) alongside common law courts. 

The founders were steeped in this tradition. William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–1769) was enormously influential in America as a systematic explanation of it; many lawyers and statesmen studied it. 

* Context in the Founding Era

Before independence, colonists repeatedly appealed to common law rights against British policies they saw as violations (e.g., in petitions and the Declaration of Independence's list of grievances). The First Continental Congress in 1774 declared that the colonies were "entitled to the common law of England." After the Revolution, there was debate:

- Many saw it as their inheritance, adapted to American circumstances (e.g., rejecting feudal elements or monarchical overreach).

- Others, especially Jeffersonians, worried about federal judges imposing a national common law, fearing it could undermine republican government or states' rights. The Supreme Court later ruled in cases like United States v. Hudson and Goodwin (1812) that there was no general federal common law of crimes—federal power was limited to statutes and the Constitution. 

States generally received (adopted) English common law as it stood around the time of independence or settlement, modified by local conditions, statutes, and constitutions. The U.S. legal system remains a common law system today (with exceptions like Louisiana's civil law roots). 

* Relation to Founding Documents

- The Declaration of Independence (1776) grounded rights in "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and "unalienable Rights" (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness). Founders often saw natural rights as underlying or harmonious with common law protections, not in conflict. Grievances against King George III frequently referenced violations of English constitutional and common law norms. 

- The Constitution and Bill of Rights built on this foundation. For example: 

  - The Seventh Amendment preserves the right to jury trial "in Suits at common law." 

  - Criminal procedure rights in the Fourth through Sixth Amendments (searches, self-incrimination, confrontation, jury, etc.) drew directly from common law practices. 

  - Terms like "judicial power" in Article III were understood against the backdrop of common law courts deciding "cases" and "controversies." 

Founders like James Wilson and John Adams emphasized common law as a bulwark for liberty under popular sovereignty, not parliamentary supremacy (which they rejected). They adapted it: America had written constitutions as supreme law, appealed to natural rights for justification of independence, and republican institutions. 

In short, when founders referred to "common law," they meant this inherited English system of customary, precedent-based law that protected individual rights and limited arbitrary power—viewed as compatible with (and informed by) natural law principles. It was not "judge-made law" in the modern pejorative sense of activism, but a reasoned evolution of customs and decisions serving justice. This background deeply shaped how they designed the Constitution and understood its terms. Debates persisted (e.g., federal vs. state application), but the core tradition endured as the foundation of American jurisprudence. 

In referring to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" what did God have to do with law in the mind of the founders 

In the minds of the American founders, God had everything to do with law—specifically as the ultimate source, author, and authority behind the moral order that undergirds legitimate human government and rights. The phrase "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence (1776) was not a vague or purely secular reference. It reflected a widespread founding-era understanding, drawn from classical, Christian, and Enlightenment-influenced natural law traditions, that law is not merely a human invention but rooted in a divine moral framework discoverable by reason and, for many, confirmed by revelation. 

* What "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" Meant

Founders distinguished (yet saw as harmonious) two closely related ideas: 

- Laws of Nature: These were the moral principles and rules of human conduct implanted in creation—accessible through reason, conscience, observation of human nature, and the "moral sense." They included self-evident truths like equality in natural rights, the wrongness of harming innocents, obligations of justice, and the duty to pursue happiness without violating others. These were not primarily physical laws (like gravity) but ethical ones governing free human behavior. Thinkers like Cicero, Locke, and Blackstone influenced this view. 

- Laws of Nature's God: This emphasized that these natural laws derive their binding authority from God as Creator and Lawgiver. God established the moral order of the universe, including human relations. The phrase pointed to God's will as expressed in creation (nature) and, for many founders, also in Scripture (revelation). As James Wilson (signer of the Declaration and Constitution, Supreme Court Justice) explained, God's law for humans is communicated "by reason and conscience, the divine monitors within us, and by the sacred oracles [the Bible], the divine monitors without us." 

In short, God was the supreme Legislator. Human laws (including the adapted English common law) had to conform to this higher law or lose legitimacy. Violations of natural law—such as tyranny—justified resistance, as the Declaration argued against King George III. 

* Key Influences on the Founders' View

William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (widely read by American lawyers, including many founders) was pivotal. Blackstone wrote that the law of nature is "the will of [man's] maker" impressed upon creation. When God created humans with free will, He laid down "certain immutable laws of human nature" discoverable by reason. This law is "superior in obligation to any other" and "dictated by God himself." Positive (human) law contrary to it is invalid. Founders adapted this to reject parliamentary supremacy in favor of higher principles. 

Other figures reinforced this: 

- James Wilson: Natural law flows from God as the source of justice and moral obligation. Only God deserves absolute obedience; governments derive just powers from consent and must align with divine moral order. Wilson saw common law as ultimately rooted in this framework. 

- Thomas Jefferson (primary drafter of the Declaration): Rights come from the "laws of nature" and are "endowed by their Creator." In earlier writings, he affirmed God as the giver of life and liberty together. While Jefferson was more rationalist and skeptical of orthodox Christianity than some peers, he still grounded rights in a Creator who designed human nature with moral capacities. 

- John Adams and others: They viewed politics as a "divine science" and saw the common law as arising from the laws of nature and dictates of God. Alexander Hamilton described an "eternal and immutable law" constituted by the Deity from human relations to God and each other. 

The Declaration mentions God four times overall ("Nature's God," "Creator," "Supreme Judge of the world," "divine Providence"), showing a theistic framework where God is active in moral governance and the affairs of nations—not a distant clockmaker who abandons creation. 

* Connection to Common Law and Government

This understanding tied directly to the founders' view of "common law" (as discussed previously). Common law was seen as an inheritance of customary rights and procedures that, at its best, reflected or at least did not contradict natural law. Judges were to "find" law aligned with reason and justice, not invent it against God's moral order. Human governments exist to secure God-given rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness). When they become destructive of those ends, the people have a right and duty to alter or abolish them—because ultimate sovereignty rests with God, not kings or majorities. 

Founders were not uniform in theology (some leaned toward Christian orthodoxy, others toward rational theism or "theistic rationalism"), but virtually all agreed that: 

- Rights are unalienable because they come from a source higher than government (the Creator). 

- Moral law is objective, universal, and authoritative because it reflects God's design for human flourishing. 

- Just civil law must conform to this higher standard; otherwise, it becomes tyranny. 

This provided the philosophical foundation for independence, republican government, and limited power. It was "common sense" to them—not novel invention—drawing on a long tradition where God, nature, reason, and (for many) revelation converged on justice. 

In essence, to the founders, God was not incidental to law but its origin and sanction. Without this divine grounding, rights would be mere grants from government (revocable at will), and law would lack transcendent moral force. This belief helped justify revolution and shape the constitutional order that followed.