Ron Paul for President? Why I say “Nay”!

Are you interested in a Ron Paul Presidency? After a recent visit to Iowa, and my noting of Congressman Ron Paul’s continual appeals to the authority of scripture when discussing economic issues, I found it necessary to record the following video clip and share it with friends across the state of Iowa. Enjoy my two minute rebuttal to Ron Paul by clicking the following link: Watch Video Here

In the light of my own video response to Ron Paul’s recent Iowa visit, here’s the interview the Congressman did in 2007 that infuriated me so. Every Christian needs to listen to this 2007 radio interview! It made my blood boil when I heard it, particularly after having so many rabid Christian supporters blather about his alleged “godliness” during the last Iowa Caucus. Please accept this as one reason (among many) that I could NEVER support Ron Paul for president:

Ron Paul Radio Interview.

After listening to Ron Paul’s remarks during the aforementioned radio interview, consider that he was truly amoral and arrogant to pit his “medical background” (which is silly and pathetic, or as the Apostle Paul coined, “counted as dung”, by comparison) against the authority of God’s Divine Law, as expressed in the Holy Scriptures.

Secondly, his comments remain inconsistent with a reputable “medical background”, if for no other reason than the American Psychiatric Association’s own public acknowledgment that so-called “born-gay” science is a fallacy. Oh contraire, Mr. Paul. Homosexuality is, indeed, still a behavior, as it shall ever more remain for the future, despite activist political efforts to push junk science propaganda through the pipe-line of willing and eager media racketeers. Homosexuality is a symptom of what some have called “arrested psycho-sexual development,” and true compassion for the victims of this lifestyle who seek help to change their behavior, is best shown by telling the truth about what it really is! As Jesus put it, it is “the truth” that “shall set you free!”

That said, I am particularly insulted to hear him refer to the scriptures when discussing economics, in the light of his willingness to treat them like an inconvenient embarrassment when it becomes expedient to punt on social issues in front of what at times appears to be flaky and weird libertarian/libertine aficionados.

If  the Congressman allegedly believes the scriptures are authoritative and valuable on MONEY-ISSUES, then how DARE HE REJECT and ignore them on BEHAVIOR-ISSUES!  His own behavior issue demonstrated during his 2007 interview reveals him to be an intellectual hypocrite and a moral coward. Certainly NOT a legitimate choice for president.

I hope you will use the principles I’m prepared to share as a template by which to judge ALL present and future prospective presidential candidates. You see, the belief that the laws of Scripture must be applied to EVERY AREA OF HUMAN LIFE is a major theological distinctive of the Christian faith. As published in a Puritan document of London in 1641, entitled “An Abstract of the Laws of New England”, obedient Christians are commanded to acknowledge that there is ONLY ONE LAW, because THERE IS ONLY ONE LAWGIVER! (See James 4:12.) That said, the trite old saying, “you can’t legislate morality”, is a real hoot-e-nanny! Because if it is true, then the only thing we have left to legislate is… immorality.

Do modern Christians truly believe that civil law is supposed to be determined by arbitrary means of human imagination today? Do they not realize that the New Testament does not offer a thorough template for the construction of modern civil government for a reason…yet it DOES clearly state that such is necessary for human life? (See Romans 13) Do we, as New Testament Christians, believe this fact was an “oversight,” or was it simply deemed unnecessary because IT WAS ALREADY DONE PERFECTLY BY GOD THE FATHER AT MOUNT SINAI in approximately 1534 B.C?

I mean, should we just ignore the civil code produced under the leadership of a man who developed his system of civil law through face to face consultations with God? Seriously?! Do people actually believe Jesus desired for the modern church world to completely ignore the ministry of Moses, particularly when He is on the record stating: “Don’t ever think that I came to set aside Moses’ teachings or the Prophets. I didn’t come to set them aside but to make them come true. I can guarantee this truth: until the earth and the heavens disappear, neither a period nor a comma will disappear from Moses’ teachings before everything has come true. So whoever sets aside any command that seems unimportant and teaches others to do the same will be unimportant in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever does and teaches what the commands say will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (See Matthew 5:17-19 (GW))

Furthermore, can humanity survive without government? If so, then our modern theological “scholars” must explain why God ordained it! If God ordained it, why do modern Christians abandon it to the exploitation of the godless, and then call its pathetic and disgraceful condition an alleged “act of God’s sovereign will”? Again, if not by the Bible, then by what means and upon what authority should men establish and administrate modern civil governments “ordained by God,” according to Romans 13?

There are solid, biblical answers to these questions, my friends, but not many of them are flattering to American Christians.

Libertarians (aka “paleo-conservatives”) and their wily cousins (the “libertines”) consistently dismiss and devalue the practical necessity of the inspired Hebrew civil code’s application in contemporary American law. Yet, to the orthodox Christian, the ancient Hebrew Civil Codex remains the standard by which all nations of the earth shall be inevitably judged. We have been very fortunate, as Americans, to live in a rare nation that, once upon a time, built much of our own legal code directly upon the genius of Moses.

In 1853, the American patriot Enoch Cobb Wines D.D., LL.D., said it this way: “The civil government of the ancient Hebrews was the government of a free people; it was a government of laws; it was a system of self-government. It was not only the first, but the only government of antiquity, to which this description is fully applicable. To Moses… belongs the honor of being the founder of this sort of [American] government. [Moses] constitution was pervaded with popular sympathies and the spirit of liberty…The moderns are not real discoverers; they have but propagated and applied truths and principles, established by the first, the wisest, the ablest of legislators…Moses solved the problem how a people could be self-governed, and yet well governed; how men could be kept in order, and still be free; and how the liberty of the individual could be reconciled with the welfare of the community.”1 [Emphasis added].

In 1931, Judge Charles Lobingier said, “Israel’s law is the connecting link between the earliest and latest legal systems and has proved itself one of the most influential forces in the evolution of the world’s law.”2

Though modern Christian leaders aren’t always very astute on this particular subject, the fact remains that ACCORDING TO THE NEW TESTAMENT…the Old Testament contains God’s eternal attitude! The administrative principles applied to the Hebrews came from perfection, in Heaven. They are immutable and eternal.

Yes, Christ did away with a limited number of ceremonial laws, and some laws that were seasonal (don’t eat shellfish).  But, in contrast, Christ promoted and reinforced the Divine authority of Mosaic law as it applied to His own civil government on numerous occasions. Most notably, Christ promoted His agreement with the law of Leviticus 20:9 (children who curse their parents should be stoned) and used it to rattle sabers with the corrupt Pharisees who were actively creating “legal loopholes” to allow adult children to financially abuse their elderly parents! (See Mark 7:5-13.)

Obviously, Jesus didn’t believe the laws of Leviticus were “fuddy-dud,” “archaic,” or “impractical” as a template for modern human governments. On the contrary, Jesus AGREED with Hebrew civil law and dressed-down his nation’s version of the “legislative branch” (Sanhedrin) for creating loopholes to avoid carrying out the law of Leviticus 20:9…again…commanding ADULT children (not teenagers or toddlers) to be put to death for despising their parents!

WOW! If you aren’t used to the “strong meat of the Word” you may need a spiritual Heimlich maneuver right now.

Moreover, the Apostle Paul made it very clear that considerable portions of the Hebrew Civil Code were STILL RELEVANT to human governments existing during the New Testament, when he wrote to Timothy, saying, “We know that the law [Hebrew civil code] is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law [Hebrew civil code] is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers–and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.” (See 1 Timothy 1:8-10.)

Many modern pastors will insist that the entire Hebrew civil code was “done away by Christ” because “in the New Testament we only have to obey the law of love.” This is simply out of harmony with what the New Testament actually states because it only acknowledges part of the truth. James explains that we are, in fact, governed by the Law of Christ (law of self-sacrificial love), but if we break that HIGHER law of Christ…what awaits us? Why…the LOWER principles of the Hebrew Civil Code, of course! James said it this way:

“If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” (See James 2:8-10.)

The protagonists of what Dietrich Bonhoeffer once referred to as “cheap-grace” (who enjoy unfortunate popularity in Christendom today), will predictably resist these truths, insisting that the moral law has “no application in modern civil government” (despite what Romans 13, 1 Timothy 1, and James 2:8-10 and many others clearly state). They’ll assert that Jesus didn’t directly repeat many of the laws of Moses. This is the old “argument from silence” squabble. It is bad logic, at best! These poor souls can offer no sensible, coherent New Testament rationale for the existence of human government, today. They could not offer a legitimate explanation of Romans 13 to save their lives and are angered when reminded so. That is to their shame and America’s peril! Suffice it to say this: Jesus DID NOT die at Calvary to make civil governments softer on crime!

“Jesus never said anything directly about homosexuality,” they retort, “so we just have to accept them in our churches and make them feel welcome.” This is gross heresy! Why do I say that? Why do I insist that the “argument from silence” approach to scriptural interpretation is intellectually dishonest? Because Jesus never said “don’t trip blind people,” or “don’t spit in the wind while riding on the front seat of a roller coaster,” but we all know He was and is against tripping blind people, and He never would have spit on anyone, unless He intended to heal them of blindness.

Ron Paul’s inability to demonstrate even a most basic Bible literacy is not limited to the subject of sodomy, either. He has consistently resisted efforts to address abortion and marriage at the federal level. His devoted fans routinely claim he has only done so because he is a strict constitutional constructivist and anti-federalist. “But he’s a Christian, and he’s just as passionate about those social issues as you are!” they maintain. I have always asked my libertarian friends if it might be possible that Ron Paul simply uses the clever “I’m a strict constructivist and anti-federalist” line as a cunning ploy to avoid those inconvenient social issues while simultaneously harvesting votes from those, who, unlike him, passionately believe they should and MUST be addressed.

Well, let me be very clear: in the light of his 2007 radio interview where he lacked the courage to call sin a “sin”… I don’t buy it. Ron Paul is wrong, along with most libertarians/libertines, to erringly pit the concept of “decentralized government” against the higher and overarching Divine Law of sacred life (and its partner, sacred marriage) on the federal level, an argument that is counter-intuitive.  At best, it is made under the guise of constitutional constructivism, yet it simultaneously ignores the spirit of the Constitution, its subordination to God’s law, and its own stated purpose (a simple division of powers, beneath the rationale/organic law of the Declaration).

Translation? As much as one might value the concept of decentralized government, one appears silly when attempting to elevate that particular concept against the more important issues of human life or the holy institution from which life is created – marriage. This particular anti-federalist debate between “paleo-cons” and “neo-cons” begs the question: Was life created for the Constitution, or was the Constitution created for human life? It reminds me of Jesus’ question posed to the proverbial “strict constructivists and anti-federalists” of His own Hebrew government, in Luke 6:1-5, who pitted technicalities of the Hebrew civil code against the greater necessities of human life. (Note: Jesus did not take the “paleo-con” side of the debate when He said, “The Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath.”)

In hind-sight, it is probably for the best that Congressman Paul’s plane could not land (due to ice and snow-covered runways) at the round-table forum I was prepared to attend at Dordt College. I began that same morning listening to his 2007 interview and did not feel “cordial” during my 1 hour drive to meet him. I share these thoughts on his candidacy, springing from my deeply held religious conviction that leaders must be demonstrably literate with regard to Divine Law.

While we’re discussing Divine Law, the great philosopher and father of Roman law, Marcus Tullius Cicero, once wrote, “True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, immutable and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts wrongdoing by its prohibitions…It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish entirely…there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for He is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge.”

Cicero was no “Christian believer” per se, yet he possessed better sense than most of our modern jurists and lawmakers, who, based upon recent “green” efforts afoot, apparently (in an almost child-like, superhero fashion) believe that they possess the power to be the very arbiters of our global weather systems. (Think “Storm” Queen of Wakonda/Marvel Comics/Cartoon Fantasies, et. al.)

While I acknowledge Ron Paul is as far from deserving the title “tree-hugger” as a lawmaker could be, I simultaneously find it difficult to ignore the irony of his shared similarity with Al Gore: they both deny the authority of God upon human government, and there, the similarity between Al Gore and Ron Paul begins and ends.

But alas, it is an alarming similarity, is it not?