Limited government, yes. Limitless bloodshed, no.

Aside from the arguments about states' rights, many of the arguments here have come down to "look at Paul's approach, he's actually done something with the Sanctity of Life bill. Santorum has done nothing."

In a recent response, Tim said what I've been thinking for days:
"But I do wish Paul's supporters would acknowledge how bad some of his statements are. At some point admitting weaknesses of our candidate's leads to a growing respect for the candidate himself, and not simply the honestly of the candidate's supporters."

Yes, it's better to be the son who says "no" and then does, rather than the son who says "yes" and then doesn't. But have all the Paul supporters completely given up on a son that both says "yes" and does? I don't think they have, which is why they keep diverting the attention away from how reprehensible some of Paul's statements are (for example saying that homosexuality is not a sin and that the morning after pill is just a different use of birth control that's protected under the right to privacy).

One final point: Everyone points to Ron Paul's "pro-life" medical practice. It may be, in fact, that Ron Paul ran his practice in a pro-life, anti-abortion way; I don't know. But simply delivering over 4000 babies and not performing abortions (the facts I've heard touted most) do not, by themselves, make a practice anti-abortion. I've known plenty of Ob's who didn't perform abortions who cared nothing for the slaughtered unborn in America.

One more thing, Ron Paul is the only major candidate in who knows how many years that's brought the Constitution and the federal system into the national discussion. That alone is reason enough to hope he continues on and exposes many more people to the wisdom and intent of our republican governmental system.

Ultimately, I believe that without a substantial reformation in the church, no lasting change will occur in the US. That said, governmental affairs are still important and while Ron Paul is certainly no messiah, he's saying some very important things that need to be said and understood by the American people.

I am unconvinced by your logic, Mr. Bayly, with regard to your opening sentence.

It seems to go something like this: "I am Reformed, and I support this specific legal remedy for abortion. Therefore, this specific legal remedy is the standard of what is Reformed."

Our standard of what is Reformed are the Reformed confessions, which are silent matters of constitutional wrangling.

The objects of your barbs may be in error, but this does not make them unreformed.

Neoz,

How is it that the Reformers were Reformers? At the time of their work, they could not point to the Reformed confessions as they had not yet been written. The way that they were Reformers was, when the devil enticed wicked men to go a new direction that wasn't covered by the existing confessions, the Reformers did the hard work of teaching the truth -- and then committed those truths to writing in the confessions so that ground would be more easily kept from being lost again to the enemy.

In our day, wicked men are again going a new direction not covered by the existing confessions. If we are Reformers, we will do as our Reformed fathers did in their time: do the hard work of teaching the truth (and commit them to writing...)

Are you saying that a man properly calls himself Reformed if he stands on the work of the Reformed fathers of the past but refuses to work for reformation in his own time? In an issue so screamingly urgent as the one under discussion?

What a dead reformedness that would be. Like taxidermy.

The magisterial reformers couldn't point to the reformed confessions but they could point to the Bible, the patristics, and the ecumenical creeds.

I'm surprised that so many Christians support a man who's opposed to laws against drugs, homosexuality, pornography, prostitution, gambling, the advertising of all these vices, and perhaps abortion (he's never said he thinks states should ban abortion, only that states have the right either to ban or legalize abortion). I bet, also, that he's totally opposed to the US government doing anything on behalf of Christians being persecuted overseas, since he supports a minimalist foreign policy. That goes for trying to stop genocides such as in Rwanda, too, and foreign aid. (In all this, I go by the libertarian party platform, http://www.lp.org/platform, but these are standard libertarian positions so I doubt very much that Mr. Paul would disagree.) I would guess that he opposed US involvement in the Vietnam War, Korean War, and World War II (which we could have avoided if we had not tried to help China and Britain), and that he thinks we should have let Israel be conquered by its neighbors in 1973.

>>I am unconvinced by your logic, Mr. Bayly, with regard to your opening sentence.

Dear brother, I meant "reformed" not in the technical theological sense, but the as-opposed-to-deformed sense. Hope that clears things up.

* * *

And Tom, I just posted something on my present political philosophy that I hope opens up my mind to you a bit more on these subjects. Thanks for your helpful contributions, dear brother.

Love,

TB

Eric,

First of all, how do you know he's never said that states should ban abortion? His position on abortion on his campaign website appears to be clear ... he believes life begins at conception and we should protect every human life.

Second, you have to distinguish between the federal government and the state governments. He's said on many occasions that, according to the Constitution, the federal government has no authority to outlaw those things (a statement of fact), but legislation concerning these things should be done at the state level. If it was to be done at the federal level, an amendment to the Constitution would be needed. Whether he'd support that kind of legislation in the state he votes in is a different matter and I'd suspect that it might vary depending on the issue.

Third, I'm opposed to the government being involved in a number of the things you list. My objection is not based on some commitment to libertarianism but rather my understanding of human sin and thus, my reluctance to concentrate power in general, and specifically in the government. Because while it's true that in certain situations, the exercise of that power can be for a good end, history shows us that the greatest perpetrator of evil upon people is government. Another thing history teaches us is that as power is centralized in government, people tend to look to the government to supply their needs and not the Sovereign Lord of Heaven and Earth.

Tom

Josh,

I'd guess that of the founders and/or drafters of the constitution who were also Christians, they would agree that homosexuality and prostitution were matters involving the civil authority. And yet, they clearly left those matters and many others to the states.

What do you think of that? Do you see wisdom in a limited national government with enumerated powers, identified in the constitution, and the remainder of civil issues left to the states?

And specifically on the issue of Ron Paul and this election: So, if it's not Ron Paul, who is it? As I've said over and over again, Ron Paul is not an ideal candidate but given the choice of "more of the same" which I believe every other candidate represents and Ron Paul, I'll take Ron Paul any day.

Tom

Dear Tom,

Thank you for your thoughts, and your tone. A couple of responses, in reverse order:

> So, if it's not Ron Paul, who is it?

Well, as Eric said, Santorum's not a bad choice. Unlike Paul, he's a conservative. Unlike Paul, he's willing to defend marriage vociferously and be scorned for it. And, while unquestionably Paul is pro-life, his advocacy on this issue is meager in comparison to Santorum's. I've followed him for many years, and there has hardly been a more eloquent or outspoken defender of the unborn in the history of political debate in this country. And that's hard to ignore.

>Do you see wisdom in a limited national government with enumerated powers, identified in the constitution, and the remainder of civil issues left to the states?

Yes, very much so, and this is why I'm sympathetic to Paul on many, many issues. But I don't favor it without wise interpretation, and not at all costs. We are Christians first, constitutionalists a distant second.

> I'd guess that of the founders and/or drafters of the constitution who were also Christians, they would agree that homosexuality and prostitution were matters involving the civil authority. And yet, they clearly left those matters and many others to the states.

Without wading into a long, complex discussion (which, not being a Constitutional scholar, I'm probably ill-equipped to engage), I'm not convinced that these issues are, in fact, left wholly to the states. There are any number of ways in which the actions of the federal government (both Congress and the administration) deal with, and have dealt with, marriage in a way that is consonant with the enumerated powers granted by the Constitution. One example: Article 3 of DOMA, which defines marriage as one man and one woman "...in determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States."

Beyond that, it's important to remember that we don't live in 1787. The problems we face demand solutions that involve more than supposing we can engage the law without also applying what's been learned in the interim. The founders could never have envisioned that any government or society would grant such a thing as homosexual "marriage." Yet that is precisely what has happened today. I'm not arguing here by any means for an "evolving Constitution" as it's understood by liberal scholars, but I am suggesting that we consider the historic, Christian heritage of law that informed the Constitution, and not assume the Constitution doesn't address these issues simply because they're not as clear as we'd like.

Aside from these matters, though, my greater concern is not so much that Ron Paul would leave these matters to the states, but that he'd prefer to leave government out of them entirely. Note these quotations (from http://articles.boston.com/2011-12-21/political-intelligence/30537247_1_gay-marriage-marriage-issue-bob-vander-plaats):

"Why should the government be telling you what marriage is all about?” Paul said. "You might have one definition. I have another definition.”

"My personal opinion is government shouldn’t be involved. The whole country would be better off if individuals made those decisions and it was a private matter."

"People have a right to do what they want, and say what they want, and associate with the people they want. They shouldn’t be inhibited in any way whatsoever," Paul added.

This is not so much a states' rights man talking as it is a libertarian. Paul is clear here in his preference for all government to be removed from the matter of marriage--only later qualifying that, well, perhaps the states could address it. As Eric's mentioned, he's also shown little taste for saying that states have an *obligation* to protect the unborn, or the institution of marriage, or society from gambling, or the public square from indecency, or women from the sex trade--the list goes on.

Such silence from him strikes me as both politically stupid and all too telling. As a libertarian trying to appeal to conservatives, why would he not do everything to allay their fears? Why would he not say that, though he believes these matters should be left to the states, the states *must* act on them; that he will do everything in his power to oppose states that fail to do so; and that, we, as a nation, cannot abide long where one state kills its children and another protects them? He, as much as anyone, should know that a house divided cannot stand.

But of course, we hear nothing from him on this. Instead, I hear from the homosexuals on his forum, who are thrilled to have found a candidate that will let them die (well, in their words, "live") in peace. I see two-thirds of the liberals in the NH primary supporting him. I hear the enemies of Christ regarding Paul as a harmless curiosity, while meanwhile they spew hatred at Santorum. And again, on all these things, I hear nothing from Paul.

Finally, on the matter of homosexual "marriage", there's a clear path forward that adheres scrupulously to the Constitution: namely, a constitutional amendment. Amending the Constitution is perfectly in line with the principles of the Constitution. Yet this action Ron Paul has repeatedly opposed. In the light of such opposition to a Constitutional process, I fear that Paul's passion for the Constitution's principles is trumped by his allegiance to libertarianism's moral indifference.

Paul has answered, of course, that he believes such an Amendment violates the principles of federalism. I think not; but in any case (as Robert Bork has mentioned), federalism has already been overridden on the matter of marriage. This genie is already out of the bottle, and it won't be put back by a naive, simple, clean appeal to federalism. The foes of marriage are already on the march, and they won't be stopped out of respect for Christians who saluted federalism while refusing to act. The end result of Paul's libertarian truce will not be states that disagree charitably, but full homosexual "marriage" across the land.

Having said all this, I could still vote for Paul, certainly over an Obama. But if I do so, I'll be doing so with full knowledge that I'm embracing a candidate who leans toward a philosophy fraught with peril for the Christian. And in the end, my sense is that, when push comes to shove, Ron Paul really has no taste for *any* laws against societal wickedness, whether by the state or the federal government. This is perfectly consonant with libertarianism, of course, but perfectly opposed to Christian notions of law. And Ron Paul ought to know this. If he doesn't, I worry for his competence. If he does, I fear all the more.

In Christ,

Josh,

Thanks for the long reply. I'd guess that, independent of a discussion on particular candidates, we'd find much in common. I will acknowledge that I've wrestled over the years with what sins should also be codified as law. Obviously, some sins should be codified in law (e.g., murder) but I think we'd all agree that not every sin should be codified in law. Thus, the hard work is determining which one's should and shouldn't. As I said above, because of the recognition of human sinfulness and that, as George Washington said, government is force, I tend to default to minimal government, or at least, distributing power to the lowest possible level.

I would also like to see Ron Paul speak more clearly and with the moral authority proceeding from the Scriptures on some of these matters. I think that's an area where he'll always fall short of what I'd like him to believe and say.

I see this race as a race between a bunch of guys who are trying to get elected and one guy who is trying to persuade people that liberty and limited government are the best and Constitutional approach ... and if that results in him being elected, all the better. The one thing people can never accuse Ron Paul of is pandering for votes.

I believe all the guys who are "just trying to get elected" are basically the same, with small shades of difference. In fact, they're basically the same as the folks who've been governing the nation for years. It's why, whether there's a Republican or Democrat in the White House, or the Republicans or the Democrats control Congress, the size and scope of government continues to grow ... and our problems, as a nation, only increase. And, by the way, nothing has happened over the last 30-40 years to significantly address the issue of abortion even though the Republicans have been in a position, at times, to have their way with legislation.

As far as Santorum is concerned, I'd encourage you to do a little more research. You might not agree with me on the foreign policy issue but I find it disturbing that a supposedly Christian man would find it so easy to go to war here, there, and everywhere (and I realize this is not the same issue as abortion despite others trying to make them equivalent). He's clearly been a supporter of more and more government spending.

All that said, the biggest issue for me is that his reputation is as a ruthless, down-and-dirty politician. This is attested to by his colleagues in the Senate and the PA Republicans who know him. He's seen as a man with a large ego who will do just about anything to advance his career. While he recently put forth a pragmatic reason to endorse Arlen Specter in 2004 over Pat Toomey, a conservative and very pro-life candidate, this again smacks of politics over principle.

I think there's only one candidate who will mount a serious offensive against the status quo and can be relied upon to do what he says. As I've said numerous times, he's not perfect but he's right on enough of the really important issues and he's demonstrated over 30 years in the House that he will follow through on his commitments.

Tom

I think this is one of the best discussions I've seen on the Paul vs. Santorum. Encouraging to see Christian men discussing this matter without resorting to personal put downs.

Regarding Santorum, do we want another Bush in the White House? If yes, he's your man. Was GW any less pro-life than Santorum? And what did GW do for our cause? This abortion debate gets replayed every 4 years. They get us all excited that someone could be in the White House that believes like we do, that believes that unborn children should be protected. Then the morning after...

Would Ron Paul do anything more about abortion as President than Reagan or the Bushes? Remember, the President doesn't pass legislation by himself. And the problem with abortion is not so much legislation as the courts, so legislation wouldn't help either. What is needed is either good judicial appointments (which is slow), or an impeachment campaign against the judges. Ron Paul would not have the political skills to succeed in such a campaign, or, perhaps, even to get appointments like Alito through the Senate.

George W. illustrates this problem well. I'm sure he would have done something about abortion if he could have (tho he wouldn't have been brave enough to do the impeachment campaign). But he couldn't, so he went for goals in other areas instead, where he could succeed. Where could he succeed? In expanding federal controls on education and federal spending on health care, because he could get liberal support there. I fear Ron Paul would end up the same way. He wouldn't be able to abolish the Fed or stop abortion, but he could succeed in ending the federal role in the drug war, internet gambling, and pornography, and in ending fringe benefits to cover the wives of soldiers and federal employees.

I was able to locate it on the home page - please disregard my earlier request.

Josh,

For me, it comes down to who do I believe will actually follow through as President. My dad always said that talk is cheap and in politics, it's even cheaper. If I believed that Santorum would really follow through, and as President, really could effect change, on abortion, I'd support him. However, I have no confidence in this. Reagan, Bush the father, Bush the son, and the whole Republican House and Senate when Republicans had majorities along with the White House did virtually nothing (While it's true that George W did the things you listed, who will really remember him as defender of the unborn, someone who was passionate about the issue, took it to the American people, and used the power, and more importantly, the influence, of his office to educate the populace and end abortion?). I just don't see Santorum as fundamentally different from those men.

While I'd agree that abortion is a higher order issue than say free markets, if I believe that in one scenario, we make no progess against either and likely regress against the second and in another scenario, we make progress against the second and have the possibility of making some progress against the first, I'll take scenario 2. To me, with all his acknowledged faults, I believe Ron Paul represents scenario 2.

Thanks again for the interaction.

Tom

Every time this discussion comes up on BaylyBlog, I read it with interest. But the same question always comes up in my mind which is, what is the biblical response to a government such as ours?

I really wish I had more of a grasp of OT history, specifically how covenant heads turned God's wrath from His people.

Covenants are clearly the way to think of the sin of our nation.

The question is, do we forsake our responsibilities before our sovereign and holy God if we say, "As for me and my state we will serve the Lord"?

I am no supporter of any Libertarian but I find myself making similar arguments as they do, for what I hope are very different reasons.

Regarding the unborn, whenever Christians talk about voting third party they are told that they must vote for the lesser of two evils to prevent the greater of the two.

Is not the greater of evils what our fed will do if it continues unchecked with the power and money it has? The sin of our federal government is what allowed Roe V. Wade to begin with and it will not stop there. Eventually the Fed will set precedent or write law that prevents any state from banning "full-term abortions" - what else will it federally protect? Murdering those with mental retardation? The elderly? Pedophiles by federally lowering the age of consent?

One way the abolition of slavery happened was that entire churches moved from slave to free states and the Lord blessed them due to their obedience and the oppressed were made free.

If we trust in our own mechanisms to control the beast of federal government then that is vanity. Can we dismantle the mechanisms of oppression by removing power from the Fed, or by doing that would we destroy any hope of banning these sins at through the Fed? Do we hang onto an unjust power in the hope that we can use that power for good. If we leave the power at the Fed it will always be abused.

By trying to put the power to ban these evils in the states' hands are we not at least supporting the lesser of two evils and at most making a bold statement and a monument in Shechem declaring our allegiance to God, confessing our sin and making intercession for him to turn His wrath from us? Is that not salt and light? A state on a hill that gives light to all who are in the nation? Does this not create a distinction that proclaims God's holiness?

Granted this would take a lot of faith. Most states would continue to allow the murder of the unborn, but some states have made some bold strides in protecting the unborn and the weak and oppressed. I for one would move my home away from Soddom, especially if my entire church family were coming with me, as those southern abolitionist congregations collectively left slave states.

Do we have any reason to believe that God would not work through a God honoring state government and that He would not pour out His blessing on such a state? Are we hanging onto the Fed as an idol that the Lord would smash. Maybe Christians are to be part of that smashing.