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, it's 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 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 back to documents like 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, appeal 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.

Can there be peace on earth?

Due to humanity's spiritual bankruptcy (i.e., brokenness) and the resulting inclination to first take care of "number one" (ourselves), there will never be a complete utopia in this life - the goal of ¹all economic or political systems.

To have a true utopia, the individual parts must be sound. A system, no matter how perfect, cannot work properly if the individual parts are not whole and working properly. 

If you build a wooden structure with boards eaten out by termites, the overall structure is unsound and must be reinforced or artificially propped up, or it will collapse under any sustained weight or pressure.

This does not mean we should abandon living a ²productive life and seek to love God and our neighbor as He has called and designed us to. However, the only way we can is when we are fully plugged in, united, and engaged with Him who is the Source of life, love, and all things. If we are not in union with the Source of life, we are empty vessels at best, focused on filling the void - or trying to. This results in us being takers - in need of being made whole - not givers. The emptiness must be filled in the way it was designed to be if we are to be givers. 

The solution isn't implementing (or imposing on us or others) a particular economic or political system ¹externally but being fully connected and plugged into God himself, which is an internal solution that restores wholeness, resulting in things working outwardly as designed. 

If all the individual parts of a system - i.e., you and I - are not sound, the system will not work, no matter how perfect the outward design of that system may be. Any system composed of flawed individuals (parts) can only result in flawed and inferior outcomes. 

For this reason, a perfect system will never work; only perfect values and people willing and able to pursue them. Ultimately, this can only occur through people who recognize the greatness, worth, beauty, and glory of their Creator, and their dependence on Him and accountability to Him.

The solution ultimately is spiritual, not political or economic. It is in first knowing God and then making him known (the first and second greatest commandments and motto of Columbia International University - the college I attended), not just in word but in deed. To make Him known, we must first know Him in all His infinite love to and for us.

The real question isn't if there can be peace on earth, but how and when will it occur. For more on this, click here.  

For a discussion on giving as you have received, click here.  

For a discussion on obedience as the fruit of abiding, click here.

For a discussion on being fruitful, i.e., sewing and reaping, click here.

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:

¹I am referring to economic systems - such as socialism or communism - externally imposed on us by the state and not internally and organically advanced. We are social-relational creatures, and as God's image-bearers, we are designed to receive and give love, not forced to.  

However, we are also spiritually bankrupt and broken - i.e., unplugged bearers of God's image made to be in union with (plugged into) their Creator. We can no more fully be who we are designed to be than a Christmas tree, ornately decorated, sitting in a dark room, unplugged from the electrical outlet. 

For more on our brokenness, click here.  

²We are clearly instructed in many places within the bible to be "fruitful." Most of these verses address spiritual fruit. However, spiritual fruit is usually manifested by actions that often produce material fruit. In fact, any action that produces material fruit should be driven spiritually i.e. by the Spirit/Love. If it is, it is valid. It is spiritual in motivation (i.e. for God's glory) with a material outcome.  

For several posts addressing operating in the Spirit, click here. 

³There is nothing wrong with personal consumption. Not in itself. If we do not consume vital resources -- water, food, shelter etc. -- we die. Consumption is not just necessary but vital. 

A pursuit that is solely driven by personal and excessive consumption as a substitute for God (i.e. an idol) is our challenge, not consumption itself. 

*Private ownership of property and the opportunity to acquire property through diligence is assumed throughout the bible. The founding fathers who penned America's Constitution and the Declaration of Independence acknowledged this when they declared we had a "right" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What most don't know is that the pursuit of happiness is the right to the fruits of our labor, i.e., property.  

Christ instructs us to pray for his rule and reign to come on earth as it is in heaven. 

"Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven..." - Matt 6:10 

Is this a prayer to usher in the Kingdom now or in the future? Both. 

For a discussion on what the kingdom of God is, click here. 

What Christ and unbelievers have in common

The disdain that many unbelievers have for "Christianity" is sometimes 100% justified.

How?

Their disdain is usually toward the pretense and hypocrisy among those who claim to believe in God. 

Yet Christ himself also disdained and even condemned this attitude and behavior. 

Pretense and hypocrisy are far too common among churchgoers. But why?

Because of a performance or works-based approach to "Christianity" - i.e. legalism - which is not true Christianity at all, but only gives the appearance of being Christian. In reality, it is the opposite of and opposed to the gospel of grace, the essence of Christ's message. 

Unlike a heart "ruled" by grace, performance-based "Christianity" is based on self-salvation which leads to pretense, pride, and hypocrisy. It rejects the necessity of the work of Christ to restore us to the Father - not rejection with their words necessarily (many say the "right things") but in their heart - and believes we can save ourselves without God and His Son, i.e. we don't need the righteousness of Christ assigned to us because of our unrighteousness. To believe this is to also believe our deeds are somehow better than Christ's. 

This is an insult to Christ and all He did to restore us to a right standing with His Father. In effect, we are saying Christ's work is useless, worthless, and unnecessary and ours is superior. 

This approach was also the very same issue Christ had with the self-righteous religious leaders of His day.  

How does this self-righteousness develop?

Many, who live in the Christian community and profess to be Christians, are aware of the high ¹moral standards Christ calls us to e.g. love your enemies, love God with all you are and have, always treat others as you wish to be treated, be grateful for all things at all times, especially the hard stuff etc. 

But they do not know (possess) the power necessary to live these out - i.e. a heart moved by love, not by ²mere will power. 

So on the outside and before others, they pretend to live by those standards because they know this is what is expected of a "good Christian." But behind closed doors, and out of the public eye, their true self is ³revealed. 

This is especially true for those closest to them, particularly their children, and why kids from a "Christian" home often rebel and walk away from this religiosity. 

The criticism often leveled at these so-called "Christians" is they expect others to do as they say but not as they do.

But outward "obedience" only, is not true obedience. True faithfulness springs forth from the heart of someone who knows they are truly unrighteous yet infinitely and perfectly loved at the same time. As a result, their righteousness (right conduct) is a response of loving faithfulness to God in return, not an attempt to earn God's acceptance.

As Christ said, "If you love me you will keep my commandments..."  It doesn't say keep my commands to win my love or impress me and others with your good deeds. 

This was the problem of the Pharisees during the time of Christ. They were all about appearance and pretense to gain the praise of men. They were not about substance - i.e. true faithfulness out of a heart moved by love for God. 

Ironically, those unbelievers who disdain hypocrisy are far more aligned with Christ in this one significant area than many who profess to be Christians.

For a fuller discussion about hypocrisy click here

Why does Christ consider the poor in spirit blessed? Click here.

For a discussion on self-righteousness click here

Should we pursue Jesus or morality? click here

Why religion comes up short click here

Why Christ came with grace not just truth click here

_____________________________________

Footnotes:

¹Also common among those who are legalistic is an overbearing and condescending emphasis on "right doctrine." These self-proclaimed "defenders of truth" can sometimes recite the various teachings in the Bible impeccably, sometimes better than some true lovers of Jesus, but it is from their heads, not their hearts. There is no grace or humility in their criticism of others. It is the fruit of arrogance, not of a humble heart that seeks to honor God by being faithful to His words.  

Those who are like this tend to always be on a spiritual witch hunt to expose those who do not cross their doctrinal "t's" and dot their theological "i's" perfectly according to them. 

However, correctly comprehending things is not the same as believing them. We can understand and even explain things perfectly but that doesn't mean we believe them. And faith in the work of Christ for us - i.e. the gospel - is central to being a true follower of Christ, not perfect doctrine.

²Our wills are certainly involved but not to "obedience" - i.e. outward conformity to prescribed behavior - but to faith. We must either believe the gospel of grace and God's infinite love that comes to us by it, or we do not believe it. This is the true and legitimate exercise of our will and the choice we are called to make. 

Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”- John 6:28-29

³And no one sees this better than our own kids or family. "Do as I say and not as I do" is a common attitude by parents when their kids or extended family push back on the inconsistency between their private life and their public life. This is common among those who are superficial in their Christianity and may be an indication that they are not a true follower of Christ at all. 

For any kids that had such parents growing up, don't miss the true message of Jesus and the good news he offers of crediting his good deeds to us as if we did them and the removal of the condemnation for our rebellion to Him. 

Power...from within or without?

There is much talk these days that we must look within ourselves to find the strength needed to "do life" well. We can't count on anyone else but ourselves. 

Is this true? Does the power to live life well come only from within or also from without? 

It is both, and it is neither. How?

Within

* If by "within" we mean we must find the strength to act solely from within ourselves, independent of God, this is inadequate. It works only short term and eventually leads to burnout and ultimately death. In this sense, it is not inward. 

* If by "within" we mean we must act from the heart, out of love for God and a desire to bring honor to him, then yes, in this sense it is inward. 

Without

* If by "without" we mean, we must look to creation and created things to gain, harness, and use these to derive our sense of value, meaning, and purpose for ourselves, then no, it is not outward.

* If by "without" we mean, we must look outside of ourselves and beyond our resources to God alone for true love, meaning, and purpose, in this sense it is outward. 

More than ever, we must define our terms to be sure we are saying the same thing. Using the same words is no guarantee. We could be saying exactly the opposite of what we are trying to convey with the very same words. 

This appears to be increasingly true the further we get away from an absolute and objective standard of truth, meaning, and morality. This is a by-product - "side effect" - of a postmodern view of the world where the reality of absolute or objective truth is rejected and morality is something we make up. The expression "my truth" is often used to convey this. 

Is there an objective and absolute standard for truth? If so, where do we go to find this standard? 

We can't be the standard ourself because we are not all-knowing, or all-powerful, i.e. we are not the absolute and just enforcer of morality, but we are finite i.e. limited. Therefore, we must go outside of ourselves to find the standard for right and wrong, i.e. morality. 

For a more extensive discussion of the power within Click here

For a discussion on the basis of morality click here. 

For a discussion on how we are designed and the dilemma it causes click here.  

For more on why we all operate by faith click here.

____________________________

The law/obedience... required or not

Is obedience to God and His law a requirement?

In one sense, it is not and in another sense it is.

1. Obedience is not required:

For justification, i.e. We are not, cannot, nor ever will be justified (in right standing with God) by our obedience to God's ³law. 

To approach God's law in this way is saying we can make ourselves "right" with God through our efforts, i.e. we can be good enough to make (or cause) God to accept and love us. 

If so, Christ wouldn't have needed to die to obtain our right standing with God i.e. Christ's death was ⁴unnecessary and a waste. We could simply be our own savior and the cause of our salvation. 

But we have a major problem. In order to be right with God requires a love, faithfulness, worship of and loyalty to God, that is equal to His beauty, majesty, and glory. God, being all glorious, rightfully demands and deserves a matching response. Not because God needs us to respond this way for His sake but because it aligns with who God is and who we are i.e. it is operating according to the reality of what is.

We are to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, because of who He is and the way He loves. Anything less would be inappropriate and inadequate for an infinitely majestic, all-glorious being.

However, this ³does not occur for several reasons.

• To not love and honor God with all we have and are minimizes the beauty, majesty, holiness, glory, and infinite worth of God. The greatness of God justly compels and requires our perfect love and absolute faithfulness, loyalty, and worship of him for who He is - the infinitely beautiful, majestic, and all-glorious God. Because of who God is, nothing less than perfect faithfulness, absolute and total loyalty, is suitable or sufficient for the Creator, Giver, and Sustainer of all things. He deserves all our devotion and rightfully desires no less.

But who among us loves God this way... with all we are and have? Yet everything we are and have is from Him, is it not? At a minimum, this alone demands our perfect loyalty, devotion, and respect, if not our affection. This is also at the heart of greatest commandment. 

• Only God is perfectly loyal in faithfulness; we are not. This is a problem since faithfulness and unfaithfulness in a relationship can not mix. This would be like a married couple with one partner being infinitely good and perfectly loving, loyal, and faithful, while the other partner is off pursuing other "lovers." No normal and healthy relationship works this way.

• Our attempts to earn a right standing with God nullifies the work Christ did to fully restore our broken relationship with God. Attempting this is an insult to Christ and His efforts. By seeking to be acceptable and worthy of God's love by our efforts we are saying Christ's faithfulness to God - which was even unto death - was unnecessary; that I can do better and be good enough and love God well enough to make myself right and acceptable to God without Christ having to do this for me. In effect, this is saying to God and others that Christ died in vain. His death was unnecessary and useless. 

• We simply do not and cannot love/value God perfectly as He deserves, i.e. with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and our neighbor as ourselves, without God empowering us. 

How does He empower us? By love. We are designed to respond to love and be the recipients and conduits of love. We are not the initiators of it. God alone is the source and cause of love. We love Him because He first loved us. 

• And He will not empower us until the fallout (i.e. the harm and consequences) from our rejection of His beauty, majesty, and glory is addressed and accounted for. The veil of blindness that obstructs us from seeing him as He truly is, must be removed. This occurs only when we are restored to a right relationship with God through Christ's efforts, not ours, i.e., we are justified by faith in Him and His efforts on our behalf, not by our efforts on His behalf. 

2. Obedience is a "¹requirement" to experience all God offers us:

If we are to partake of the fullness of God, His life, and bring Him maximum honor and experience our greatest flourishing. 

This has nothing to do with our justification before God as our judge and everything to do with our communing with God and being in a harmonious and fulfilling relationship with Him as our loving Father. Having a "right standing" with God is only possible through Christ's efforts, not ours. Christ alone was perfectly faithful to God - even unto death - not us.

However, being close to God and in a warm relationship with Him is up to us.

• Experiencing God in all his greatness and the full potential He created us for requires our maximum participation in who He is as our all-wise and loving Father and faithfully pursuing all he calls us to do and be. The essence of this is loving him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength as he rightfully deserves and loving our neighbors as ourselves (who, like us, are also in God's image). 

• Our obedience does not cause God to love us but aligns us with Him and "plugs us in" to who He is - His heart-will - as the most lovely of all. Obedience is evidence of our love for him. It is a reflection of our love for God and should match his love for us. 

Obedience to God could be summed up in one simple verse..."John 14:15 ESV

“If you love me, you will keep my commandments."

It also ushers us into his presence more fully. When we draw near to him, ²he draws near to us. 

• God is loving, good, kind, and wise. In Christ, we are his children. When we are aligned with Him, His love flows to us and empowers us so we also become loving, good, kind, and wise. This also reveals and reflects Him to others through us, i.e. It honors him. It brings him glory and also brings us the greatest joy.

In summary, obedience is a requirement as far as our maximum flourishing, experiencing God, and honoring Him, but not as far as our justification. 

The Westminster Catechism asks...

What is the chief end of man?

The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever. God's glory and our joy go hand in hand i.e. our greatest joy is in glorifying God.

"For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen."  Rom 11:36  

For a discussion on how we seek to earn God's love, click here.

For a discussion on the difference between "Cultural Christians" and grace-driven followers of Christ, click here.

For a discussion on how God empowers us, click here and here.

For a discussion on the essence of God's Kingdom, click here.

For a discussion on how God's love is both conditional and unconditional, click here.

For a discussion on whether our focus should be on morality or Jesus, click here.

 

For a discussion on what righteousness is click here

__________________________________
Footnotes:

¹I put "requirement" in quotes to distinguish it from justification. It is a requirement in the sense that drinking water or eating nutritious food is a requirement if we wish to stay alive and experience optimal health. 

God is Life. All we are and have is from Him. Partaking of, experiencing, and fully engaging Him is up to us.

Loving God with all we have and are and our neighbor as ourselves is to operate according to our design (and His will). Things work best when they function as designed. This is especially true of us as creatures who alone are in God's image.

Even as God's child - through Christ - if we stop eating and drinking, we will still die. Nevertheless, we are no less loved by God because we violated God's design to physically sustain us through eating and drinking.

²Not in his disposition and posture of love toward us (Christ already fully took care of this and secured it for us) but in our disposition towards Him. 

God's willingness, desire, and commitment to manifest Himself to us and our being able to experience Him in all his love are perfectly secured for us by Christ. 

But our full participation in all Christ has secured depends on us i.e. on our trust in God and faithful pursuit of Him as spelled out in the greatest command to love Him with all we are and have and our neighbors as ourselves. 

³Not because we shouldn't obey the law or because the law is not good, but because we cannot without His love empowering us.

The entire Bible illustrates this. Every time God sought to advance His purpose through us, we failed. Beginning with Adam, then Abraham, Moses, Jacob, and David.  Each was called to be God's special representative to multiply and advance His loving and righteous rule on earth, and each failed (though God did not, and used them anyway and succeeded).  

Why did God show this throughout the Bible? To demonstrate that he alone, through Christ, could live righteously and satisfy the requirements to faithfully and perfectly honor Him as he deserves i.e. according to God's true honor, glory, and righteousness. 

⁴What a massive insult to Christ and all he went through for us.

What is the good news?

The essence of the gospel is God's love, acceptance, and embrace of us are secured solely by Christ's efforts, not ours. 

Because Christ was and is perfect in every way - and credits or assigns his perfect "track record" or status and union with the Father to us - i.e. God's love and embrace of us is perfect in every way - He loves us in the same way He loves the Son of His eternal affection; as if we were faithful to him exactly the same way Christ was, when we are (and were) not. 

This indeed is good news because we are not required to achieve this status through our efforts and can not mess it up by the lack of effort either! Hard to believe, but true. 

If we truly believe this good news (gospel) - i.e. that in Christ God is now totally for us and no longer against us, (even in our current imperfect state) - the more it will galvanize us in the face of adversity and empower us to become unstoppable for God. The more we grasp this the more unstoppable we become.

If we are not unstoppable for God we have not yet fully grasped the good news that his relentless and boundless love is immovably fixed upon us. 

This gospel isn't simply about entering the Kingdom of God but living and walking in it, i.e. being empowered by God's love to live for Him today and every day!! This is fully and freely extended to us because of Christ's efforts alone.

The 2 key elements needed for this to occur...

1. The good news (gospel) itself - God's part, i.e. he has already fully and perfectly taken care of our sinful status. We don't need to and indeed, can not do this ourselves.

 and

2. The extent to which we believe (fully grasp) this good news - which is our part. Our understand is ongoing and always increasing if we are truly His child.

The first element - the good news - is accomplished only by God in and through Christ and is complete. Nothing can be added to it or be taken away from it. It is what God did - and does - (Rom 8:34b) through Christ and has nothing to do with our efforts, good behavior (or bad for that matter). It is 100% legally ours but ours practically (i.e. experientially) on a day-to-day basis, to the extent we receive and believe it.

The second element - our faith (trust) in this good news - is our part (our "work") regarding our relationship with God. 

It is work in the sense it requires us to humble ourselves and take up our cross daily. This is not easy and is ongoing until we go to be with Him eternally. This is the key to the maturing process, i.e. our spiritual formation (sometimes referred to as sanctification). 

As our trust in God and His perfect, infinite love for us (extended to us freely by grace) increases, our living (and desire to live) for God's honor also increases, i.e. the good news increasingly manifests itself in greater degrees through our words and actions as our trust in Him grows.

The effect this good news has on our day-to-day actions and conduct is small if our grasp (belief) of it is small and great if it is great.

So how do we increase our faith or remedy our unbelief? 

God must first reveal to us the desperateness of our condition without Christ, i.e. how short we come in recognizing the goodness and love of God and also how desperately broken we are without Him. 

Until we see our need for this good news (that there is no hope of being received by God without Christ) we will not desire or seek it. The more we see our desperate need, the greater the impact this good news has on us and the more it changes us. 

Illustration: who appreciates reaching the top of mount Everest most? 

God must also reveal himself to us in all his beauty and glory. The more of his beauty we see the greater our desire for him grows. The greater our desire, the greater our pursuit. 

As God reveals to us both our desperate need and His glorious beauty, our faith ¹grows. Our faith in God is only as good as our view of God (and ourselves) is clear and accurate.

And what is the condition or state we must enter into for God to reveal Himself to us most?

Humility, i.e. recognizing our desperate need of God. 

*Humility is key to seeing God.

*Seeing God is key to great faith.

*Great faith is key to great pursuit of God.

God's strength manifests itself in us most the more we acknowledge our weakness. The essence of the gospel practically is strength in and through weakness  - 'when I am weak, than I am strong."

This is bad news before it is good news.
The extent we are able to admit the bad news is the extent we will receive to good news

How do we not change?

If we change ("obey") because we think we must in order to be accepted by God - i.e. because of external pressure or reasons - it never lasts. True and lasting change only occurs because we want to change, i.e. it comes from self-imposed internal "pressure" i.e. motivation. To truly change we must have a genuine desire to change. And this is only by the Spirit, not human willpower.

"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." - Phil 2:12-13.

Change that comes about from external pressure is not true change, but merely external conformity, which results in self-righteousness, not humility. This is the essence of legalism which unfortunately is common within the Christian community. 

For a discussion on: 

How we are inclined to try and earn God's love click here.

The difference between "Cultural Christians" and grace-driven followers of Christ, click here.

The essence of God's Kingdom click here.

How God's love is conditional and unconditional click here.

Should our focus be on morality or Jesus? click here.

 

What is righteousness click here

________________________________

¹to the extent to which our trust in ourselves diminishes and our trust in God increases, we change.

What is the narrow way

Is the following an accurate picture of what Christ was saying about the broad and narrow way?

With all scriptural passages, we must read them considering what goes on before and after any given verse - i.e., read it in the context - to get an understanding of the true meaning of that verse. And not only the immediate context, but the context of the entire book or letter, as well as the Bible as a whole. 

All scripture is in agreement; there are no contradictions. Though the Bible has many human contributors, it has one ultimate author - God himself - with a unified message. Many things may appear at odds within the Bible, but when you dig deep, you find they are pointing to the same God "...with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change." Jas 1:17 ESV

Before taking a course in hermeneutics (principles of biblical interpretation), many passages in scripture were unclear and confusing to me. For example, the broad and narrow gate (door) passage coming right after the "golden rule" always puzzled me. The broad and narrow gate teaching seemed to be random and inserted into the larger passage with no connection to the surrounding verses. This is how it's usually treated.

But how does it fit in with the rest of this passage or the sermon as a whole?

Is there a common thread that runs through this chapter  (or the entire sermon in chapters 5-7) or all of scripture, for that matter?  If so, what is it?

On close examination, we see a primary thread through this sermon is how to relate to and treat others - whether the "other" is God himself, our neighbors, or anyone (including those who see us as enemies). The entire sermon has to do with loving God and others, i.e., applying the greatest commandment and the 2nd which is like it "...which is a summary of the Law and the Prophets" i.e. the main overall teaching of the OT as well as the NT.

Is the "golden rule" mentioned in verse 12 and the broad and narrow way right after it randomly sandwiched between other teachings of Christ with no apparent relationship to the surrounding verses, i.e., completely out of place and standing on its own? The "golden rule" is actually the unifying thread throughout the whole Sermon on the Mount. We could argue it is the unifying message of the bible itself.

We may have heard the narrow and broad gate is about our eternal destination, who and how many go into eternity, as pictured at the beginning above. But the context is not directly about our eternal destination.

“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." - Matthew 7:12‭-‬14 ESV

In light of this context, how should we interpret the broad and narrow gate (or way)? I offer the following interpretation for consideration.

“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this (my command to love your neighbor as you love yourself) is the Law and the Prophets. “Enter by the narrow gate (of treating others as you want them to treat you). For the gate - of loving yourself more than others - is wide (most go through it) and the way - of loving yourself more than others - is easy (it's much easier to be selfish than selfless. But selfishness...) that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way (of sacrificial love) is hard that leads to life (i.e. life and flourishing now, not necessarily later during our eternal life) and those who find it are few (i.e. very few people connect with God and His infinite love well enough that they are empowered to live and love sacrificially i.e. few live for God and others first instead of just for themselves). Sacrificial living is hard - "faith is hard work." Very few live this way. Matthew 7:12‭-‬14 ESV

The context calls for us to understand that the narrow way of living is by the golden rule. The reason the other gate is broad is that most don't live sacrificially. In fact, very few consistently do. Those who live this way are few. It is truly a narrow gate to go through.

To not live according to the golden rule does in fact lead to great harm and destruction here on earth… our own as well as that of others. We see it daily all around us. It is, in fact, the reason for all ¹human conflict on this planet right now. 

This ultimately leads to our eternal destruction, but in this context, living by the golden rule is primarily about the here and now, not eternity, i.e., how we treat others today.

The Sermon on the Mount deals with the direction of our hearts. Christ knows - and assumes - we cannot live by this sermon without being empowered by God and his love. We can't and won't love God with our heart, soul, mind, and strength unless we know we are loved by God in this way 1st.

_________________________________________

Footnotes:

¹If you look at why some countries do far better morally, socially, or economically, it always points back to whether the values of that country are based on honoring God and others or using - exploiting them.

For a discussion on how we try to exploit God, click here.

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

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

For a further discussion on how prayer is central to the "Sermon on the Mount," click here. 

To get the shot or not

Some within the Christian community have encouraged others to take the vaccine (John Piper, who I otherwise respect - and others - would be high-profile examples). Their reasoning? It is the loving (unselfish) thing to do i.e. it is loving our neighbor.

However, the question isn't whether we should love our neighbor or not but how can we best do so. The answer is not as black-and-white as we might think or have been led to believe. There are several parts to this.

To be an expert in one area does not make one an expert in all areas. Pastors and theologians, like any other area of discipline, are generally trained and gifted in their respective fields of expertise but few of them are doctors or medical experts. We should all be careful therefore in advising people on medical decisions or areas outside our field of training. 

That's not to say they should never give advice outside of their training as long as they've done their due diligence in that area. However, I would not go to a pastor to fix my car or plumbing or ask where to invest my money unless he had expertise in those areas. The medical field is far more involved than cars, plumbing, and investments.

Because technical fields are so numerous and specialized most of us depend on experts in other fields. Unfortunately, even experts are not beyond the influence of those with less than noble intentions, where money is more important than serving our fellow man. There is a strong indication that strategic members of the medical community are influenced by an agenda. The advice given by some at the top appears to be heavily influenced by money more than hard scientific evidence. Many doctors or heads running these agencies appear to have greater loyalty to the pharmaceutical corporations than to science or the patient.

Most are also not aware of the extent of influence and control over media that "big money" has. This ensures that the narrative big money (I call them banksters) wants, is maintained, and factual information contrary to the narrative is suppressed. 

The breakdown of morality in culture is far more invasive than many recognize, resulting in many being swayed by personal gains or desires more than by the principle of loving our neighbors. Unfortunately many in positions of influence or power love mammon (money) more than truth or God (I'm not referring to anyone specifically).

If the vaccine was effective and there was no other way to address this bug then the vaccine would be the loving course to take. However, as time has gone on it has proven to have minimal benefits and ¹substantial (sometimes ²deadly) side effects. Certainly enough to cause us to legitimately pause and ask questions. To be pressured to make such a decision as taking an experimental procedure is unloving at best. More and more information is coming out that the vaccine is not the best option and could also be ¹extremely harmful.

To mandate it also violates our freedom to address our health according to our conscience and responsibility as good stewards of the body God has given us. Especially if there are other equally (if not more) effective and proven treatments.

If the vaccine resulted in harm to you or me, impairing our ability to love our neighbor, not aid it, this is not wise or loving. The greater the harm the less I am able to love and serve others i.e. it would result in the opposite of loving my neighbor. 

The irony is the left side of the political aisle used to argue hardest for the right to choose what we put in us or have done to us and still do, but selectively.

The good news is there are other options (strengthening our immune system, herd immunity, various therapeutic or holistic treatments). But for some reason, these options - and those mentioning them - are either being suppressed, hidden (censored), or vilified.

Why is there such a huge effort made to discredit or hide these other options? The deliberate effort to suppress discussion or discredit information should alone give us pause as to why. To expect us to blindly accept the advice of those who have proven either to be wrong or outright misleading (not Piper but so-called medical experts) is not prudent or loving others well. 

It behooves us to do our due diligence when making such a significant decision or advising others to do so. As the saying goes haste (created by a supposed emergency which in turn creates fear) makes waste. On the coattails of fear deception often rides. The whole push for a vaccine is rooted in fear. Fear is rarely the soil out of which wise choices grow. In this case, what's at stake is far more significant than waste. 

It is becoming increasingly clear our health and possibly our very life - and that of our loved ones - are at stake. No wonder passions run so high on both sides and why sadly this has been such a divisive issue. 

For an excellent panel discussion between highly respected doctors (some highly published - and some have been vaccinated i.e. they are not "anti-vax") who are on the front lines of patient care and treatment, click here.

_____________________________

*A significant number of ADRs (adverse drug reactions) is listed on the WHO site.

http://www.vigiaccess.org/

To search VigiBase data go to the bottom of the page and check the box, then search for “covid-19 vaccine”

To see the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) COVID Vaccine Adverse Event Reports 

Go to 

https://openvaers.com/covid-data or the main page at https://openvaers.com/openvaers

**  For an article on a study of the vaccine's effects on unborn infants click here