The Rabyd Theologian Looks at the Constitution -- Part 9 == For Ourselves and Our Posterity.

For ourselves and our posterity. in short we want to create a government that does all these things not just for themselves but also for future generations. You can say what you want about the founding fathers but one thing they were not was short sighted. They may have had their public and private doubts about their grand experiment but they went forward thinking ahead for future generations. The design of the rest of the Constitution reflects this desire to create a government that would do what they set it up to do. For themselves and for the future.

Part of this then is that even as we live under the constitution, we also must understand that the blessings of our liberty had to be preserved long term and thought of long term.

Wish that was the case now.

In most cases I find the government never thinks beyond the latest crisis. In general, democracies tend to be like this but of late, we have gotten very good at thinking only for the moment. Evidenced by how much we are willing to go into debt in this country thinking that future generations will pay it off. We are willing as citizens to tolerate a government that will do this because as long as we get ours, who cares what happens to our posterity? Maybe we should look at this line a little more.

The Rabyd Theologian Looks at the Constitution -- Part 8 -- 'Secure the Blessings of Liberity'

This line in my mind is the most significant. The real issue for the Founding Fathers was to make secure the blessings of liberty they had fought so hard to attain. This is why when you look at the rest of the Constitution you will not find what Government is supposed to do but how it is limited so that liberty is not interfered with or destroyed.

This is why you will here Barack Obama and other liberals look at the Constitution as both a flexible document and one that is flawed because it does not establish what government is supposed to do. The fact is the framers and the modern liberal have a very different view on liberty in relationship to government. The framers saw big government as the problem; modern liberal do not.

Liberty is a precious gift whether it is given by a government or God. The framers understood this and in fact revisited this question again and formed the Bill of Rights so that everyone understood how government was limited. They wanted to make it crystal clear what the government could not interfere with in our lives in this country.

Next: For Ourselves and Our Posterity

The Rabyd Theologian Looks at the Constitution -- Part 7 -- 'Promote the General Welfare'

In looking at welfare the framers were looking for an understanding of the common good, not a welfare that promoted one person or class above another. It was about the development of things that genuinely benefited EVERY citizen.

These says welfare has been turned into something that is an instrument of class envy. That is putting the have nots verses the haves. To be fulfilling the governments constitutional mandate at this point we seem to lost the understanding of the word--GENERAL.

The idea is the government should be involved in things that truly benefit everyone. Roads, military, peace and safety, promotion of liberty, creating an unified understanding of economic good without infringing with it. The issue is not to be involved with things that promote specific welfare.

In short if it involves class, race, sex or some other factor that separates people it should be disregarded.

Next: 'Secure the Blessings of Liberty'

The Rabyd Theologian Looks at the Constitution -- Part 6 -- 'Provide for the Common Defense'

National Defense has always been a big issue for me because a lot of people think as a person of the cloth I should be pacifist or something. I will say this I do not like war. War as I have experienced it from the sidelines is not a good thing. I often hold mother's hands as they watch their sons go fight for their country. The stress is enough to drive the best of us mad and I can absolutely say I do not understand what soldiers go through but I respect them with the highest respect.


Bottom line, I am not a pacifist. War is a part of the Bible from almost the beginning. The people of God found themselves at war from The Law under Moses to the very end when Jerusalem was destroyed. Many times it was the direction of God that they were at war. I am not a pacifist because God and I might add Jesus were not a pacifists.

That said, I understand the need that drove the founding fathers to put this line in as well. A nation that does not have the means or desire to defend itself will not exist for long. We live in a world where everyone is not so nice.

Under that Articles of Confederation 'common defense' really did not exist. There were a lot of states who had their own militias but the Continental Army was a problem. In the end one of the founding fathers chief concerns was to address this problem.

The constitution not only allows for the maintenance of the military -- it requires it. Later when the Bill of Rights was created, there was a need to affirm the militias as well. Thus the Second Amendment that allows any citizen to bear arms and keep them without infringement. Every citizen is constitutional empowered defend this nation if necessary because it is --"We the People"

The Rabyd Theologian Looks at the Constitution -- Part 5 -- 'Insure Domestic Tranquility'

One of the problems the country was having under the articles of Confederation was domestic tranquility. One the one hand you had a lawlessness that was allowed in part to no common law enforcement body. Criminals in one state could flee to another and find refuge. On the other hand, there was no common law in the states. In one state something might be illegal but in the other it was not.

The constitution was written in part to give domestic tranquility. The idea was peace through law and order. It was designed to restore the commonality of the rule of law along with enforcement and punishment standards throughout the states. It also provided for a central court to handle matters where disputes between states arose. The idea was peace and quiet.

The Bible has a lot to say about this idea of peace and tranquility and it usually involves obedience to the commands of God. In short, the nation that follows his commands will have peace inside.

Maybe this connection between domestic tranquility and the obedience to God's command is why the Christian right fights so much for their ends. If so it is a noble objective but I think misguided in its methods. We keep trying to legislate it instead of transforming people to want to have it. For me it is simple a statement that we are going to have common law and order policy for all the states.

Next: Provide for the Common Defense

The Rabyd Theologian Looks at the Constitution -- Part 4 -- 'Establish Justice'

Justice -- there are a lot of definitions for this word, but the framers were looking at justice in a very idealistic light, as well they should. The idea that there should be rightness in all dealings where everyone would received what they deserve and were wrongs could be righted.

The problems the framers were facing is that a person could commit a murder in one state and hop over the border to another state and the law from the first state could not pursue them and the central power was too weak to do anything. The framers sought to change this by creating a national court with real power to administer justice even if a fugitive crossed state lines. The original supreme court was about this idea -- to administer the existing laws and not make law from the bench.

Justice is ultimately about rightness, and what the people wanted was a way so both victims of crimes could receive justice. It was also about where those accused would be tried fairly.

Justice is a very Biblical concept starting with the Law of Moses. In fact it is this basis that formed the original courts opinions about what justice was -- "eye for and eye, tooth fora tooth' when applied to justice and not vengeance (what Jesus was correcting in the Sermon on the Mount) as actually a great slogan. Justice then is about restoration. If a man lost an eye the one who made him lose that eye lost his own eye. The thief who stole had to return what he took plus double -- if he couldn't pay he had to work for the one he stole from unlit the debt was paid. The victims in a nation with justice receive back what they lost plus interest. Today, victims remain victimised even if the criminal in convicted because no restitution is ever made to the victim only the state. So much for actual justice. Maybe they should have been clearer about what they meant, but justice is in the heart of anyone who has been wronged.

As an example: A woman is raped. Her assailant is captured -- what would be justice too her? In restitution justice, like what is found in the Bible, what is taken from her is her virtue, her peace of mind and her feeling of safety. As long as the rapist walk on planet earth, this will be true. What is of equal value to these things? They are priceless in the eyes of the Law of God and so the only thing the rapist has of equal value is his own life, which is forfeited as restitution to the victim. Today the rapist is locked up and might get parole. I submit this is not justice becasue the victim remains victimized.

The framers sought to establish justice, but in reality it is only just living men that can do so. At least the Constitution offers a framework to work in, but it does not help us understand what justice really is. That is between God and us.

Next: Insure Domestic Tranquility

The Rabyd Theologian Looks at the Constitution -- Part 3 -- "In Order to Form a More Perfect Union"

"In order to form a more perfect union..."

Now you have to know a little history to understand this line. The original Constitution of the United States called 'The Articles of Confederation' was not working. The unity that had once existed between the various states during the revolution had basically disintegrated. The Articles gave the central government very little power --effectively none unless their was a war. The idea of forming a more perfect union was large in many peoples' minds. The thought of protecting the rights of states to run their own affairs was on the minds of others.

Biblically, a parallel existed as the tribes of Israel were much the same before the advent of the kingdom of Saul. The problem with this is some people believe that things were too free and wanted a king to protect them. The statement in Judges "every man did that which was right in his own eyes" is not a moral statement; it is a political one. Samuel himself was probably the author of judges and he was not pro-monarchy but quite the opposite. He can't be saying that the monarch got people to stop sinning because that was far from the truth. The statement is about the fact that each man stood in his own sovereignty before God himself. There was no king to answer to but God himself. The issue is that people often look to centralized authority in times of crisis. In the case of the time of judges, the authority was supposed to be God and His Law but judges would handle the crisis points empowered by God. Each man was very free and had massive liberty as long as he, by choice, followed the law of God. It was in short: a theocratic democracy.

In the United States at the time of late 1700's God was in the picture but not a ruler but as bystander and each state handled its own affairs, unfortunately there existed no central government with the power to handle things when to states had a dispute with each other. Union was not on any person's mind but states rights. The Constitution is a result of finding a better way to balance states rights with a need for a centralized power to handle crisis and disputes. The result was a limited central power but with strength within its limits.

The Constitution in and of itself was not powerful enough in many respects for some when regarding in the rights of individuals and states. The individual question was answered by the Bill of Right some years later. But the question of states verses Federal rights has always been heated as this was and still is not quite spelled out in the Constitution. This issue got so heated once we had a Civil War over it.

This line was an attempt to placate both sides -- we want to be united but we know it is an attempt at a more perfect union, not one that does not respect states' rights.

Next: Establish Justice

The Rabyd Theologian Looks at the Constitution -- Part 2 -- "We the People"

For step on of this long running series I would like to look at the preamble of the Constitution. By far it is one of the best written things by man that is not Scripture. Here is the whole thing:

'We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'

The thing that starts this off is the "We the People of the United States..." Not a statement by a king or dictator to his subjects but an establishment of sovereignty by the people by the country. The Constitution lets us know who is ordering itself with this Constitution -- the People of the United States. This does have a few implications:

1. The government, whatever is established, is under authority of the people. In short, the people of this country sit as sovereign not the President or Congress or the Supreme Court. The people as a whole are the rulers.

2. There is a Biblical ramification in this for final judgment and relationship with God as a nation. As the people go, so does the relationship. If the people elect ungodly men to run themselves then it is the people that will be held responsible. Also, even if a godly men are placed in office, the sovereignty of the people means that this may not save them from God's judgment as God will hold the people responsible for their actions. There were times that Judah had good kings but because of the wickedness of the people they were still judged.

3. With the people as the sovereign entity, any government established would have to be a limited on so as not to upset this sovereignty. The order of government must be such that "We the People' is never violated.

Next: In Order to Form a More Perfect Union

The Rabyd Theologian Looks at the Constitution -- Part 1 -- Introduction

The will be a long running series like so many others I am working on at the present time. I like to talk politics from time to time but as a conservative, my reactions are pretty straightforward and you can probably get those opinions from many other blogs and they would be the same as mine. Just think Reagan conservative with Rush Limbaugh thrown in and long running Christian faith and that's me. But one thing I want to look at for myself that is long in coming is the Constitution of the United States. One thing I have always wanted to do is apply interpretation techniques to other documents of importance that I would normally reserve for the Bible. If we let the document stand for what it says, it is what do we get?

I really don't know how long this will take, but as I have decided to engage things long term now, I will make sure I take my time and keep going. Over the next weeks I want to look at the document as a whole. and then break apart the Preamble. Along with this I want to consider what the Bible says along side this great document to see how much the Founders were sticking to Biblical principles. Christians often say so, but has there really been an analysis of this or is this just something we say to be political?

I make no bones about it, I believe that we should as much as possible understand both the Constitution and the Bible in the way they were ORIGINALLY to be understood and apply them the same way as much as possible. This notion of both being flexible documents is a lot of hogwash. But that does not mean that in both cases there might not be some room for interpretation. That said I would have to say that I have a full plate.

Next: Reading the Constitution