Believe
How I became a Christian, part seven. Previous posts: My Witness, the introduction; Mourning Dove; Locked Out; Glimpses; Jesus, the Light Of The World; and Abba! Father!
What does the key of belief look like? What does it mean to believe in Jesus Christ?
In the New Testament belief in Jesus Christ is not presented as an irrational leap without content or reason—there are truths to be understood, and there is knowledge we must have. Francis Schaeffer wrote in The God Who Is There:
True Christian faith rests on content. It is not a vague thing which takes the place of real understanding, nor is it the strength of belief which is of value. The true basis for faith is not the faith itself, but the work which Christ finished on the cross. My believing is not the basis for being saved—the basis is the work of Christ. Christian faith is turned outward to an objective person: “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved.”
In other words, I don’t have faith in my faith, I have faith in Jesus Christ.
And who is Jesus Christ? The New Testament gives us the knowledge we need about who Jesus Christ is and about His death and resurrection.
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.1 Corinthians 15:3-8 (ESV)
Having knowledge about the person and work of Jesus Christ is necessary to believe in Him, but those who have only knowledge, even if they believe those facts to be true, believe only in knowledge. They do not believe in Jesus Christ. James is clear about this when he states that even demons believe God is one.
You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!James 2:19 (ESV)
The New Testament teaches that Christians don’t merely know facts, they confess Jesus as Lord. Christian belief is presented as believing into Jesus. We believe in Jesus. We believe on the Lord Jesus.
The Greek word that is translated to believe or belief is also translated as faith. Two different words are used in English, but there is only one basic word in Greek. It comes from a word that means to convince or to persuade. W. E. Vine has this definition:
PISTEUŌ (πιστεύω), to believe, also to be persuaded of, and hence, to place confidence in, to trust, signifies, in this sense of the word, reliance upon, not mere credence.
Christians have understood and acknowledged the reality that before God we stood guilty of sin before Him and under His judgment. We have realized our inability to ever make ourselves right before Him. In repentance we have had, as Vine writes, a “change of mind [that] involves both a turning from sin and a turning to God.” We have believed in Jesus as we acknowledged Him as Lord, having confidence that His death for our sins satisfied the judgment of God we deserved and turning to follow Him in obedience. We have placed our confidence, our trust, our reliance on Him. We have believed in Him.
Paul writes,
…if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.Romans 10:9b-10 (ESV)
We usually think of confess in the context of confessing when we’ve done something wrong; when you do that you’re usually agreeing with someone about what you did. To confess is not only to speak, but to agree. Acknowledge is a synonym of confess. A. T. Robertson has these comments on confessing Jesus as Kurios, the Greek word for Lord:
No Jew would do this who had not really trusted Christ, for Kurios in the LXX [the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament] is used of God. No Gentile would do it who had not ceased worshiping the emperor as Kurios. The word Kurios was and is the touchstone of faith.
A Christian believes God raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus:
…was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord
Sometimes when a person hears about who Jesus is and what it means to be a Christian, belief in Jesus Christ is instantaneous. Sometimes a person has knowledge about Jesus for a time before he comes to belief. But knowledge alone does not make a person a Christian, nor does it save someone from the just wrath of a righteous God. Remember, the words of Paul to the jailer at Philippi were:
“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved”
__________
Key: Glasgow Locksmiths
Francis Schaeffer, The God Who Is There, Inter-Varsity Press, 1968, 133.
W. E. Vine, Old Testament Edited by F. F. Bruce, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1981; Believe: Vol. 1, p. 116, Repentance: Vol. 3, 281.
The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, compiled and edited by Spiros Zodhiates, 1992, 1133.
A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 1931, Vol. IV, 389.
Psalm 94
I’ve been reading through the Psalms, and this morning I found my bookmark at Psalm 94. I thought it was apropos to the uncovering of the subversion of the Bill of Rights by the IRS and its persecution of Christians, Jews, pro-life groups, the National Organization for Marriage, Tea Party groups, and conservatives.
O Lord, God of vengeance,
God of vengeance, shine forth!
Rise up, O Judge of the earth,
Render recompense to the proud.
How long shall the wicked, O Lord,
How long shall the wicked exult?
They pour forth words, they speak arrogantly;
All who do wickedness vaunt themselves.
They crush Your people, O Lord,
And afflict Your heritage.
They slay the widow and the stranger
And murder the orphans.
They have said, “The Lord does not see,
Nor does the God of Jacob pay heed.”Pay heed, you senseless among the people;
And when will you understand, stupid ones?
He who planted the ear, does He not hear?
He who formed the eye, does He not see?
He who chastens the nations, will He not rebuke,
Even He who teaches man knowledge?
The Lord knows the thoughts of man,
That they are a mere breath.Blessed is the man whom You chasten, O Lord,
And whom You teach out of Your law;
That You may grant him relief from the days of adversity,
Until a pit is dug for the wicked.
For the Lord will not abandon His people,
Nor will He forsake His inheritance.
For judgment will again be righteous,
And all the upright in heart will follow it.
Who will stand up for me against evildoers?
Who will take his stand for me against those who do wickedness?If the Lord had not been my help,
My soul would soon have dwelt in the abode of silence.
If I should say, “My foot has slipped,”
Your lovingkindness, O Lord, will hold me up.
When my anxious thoughts multiply within me,
Your consolations delight my soul.
Can a throne of destruction be allied with You,
One which devises mischief by decree?
They band themselves together against the life of the righteous
And condemn the innocent to death.
But the Lord has been my stronghold,
And my God the rock of my refuge.
He has brought back their wickedness upon them
And will destroy them in their evil;
The Lord our God will destroy them.
Jehovah is our help
__________
Photograph of the Hebrew inscription on the monument at the grave of William Bradford, governor of the Pilgrims of plimoth plantation.
XXI. Direct Tax & the Census, Seaports & Duties, Treasury & Appropriation
The Federalist Papers has posted a PDF copy of an Elementary Catechism on the Constitution from 1828 written by Arthur J. Stansbury. I’m publishing it on Mondays in a series of posts. Because the date of publication was 1828, some content has been changed by later Constitutional amendments. There are no sections in the book, so I’m dividing it into any natural breaks of topics and the posts will vary in length. Any emphases within the text are Stansbury’s.
XXI. Direct Tax & the Census, Seaports & Duties, the Treasury & Appropriation
Q. When a direct tax is laid, that is, when Congress order that a certain sum of money must be paid by each citizen, for the public use, what is the rule by which it is to be collected?
A. The census, or public counting of the people.
Q. May any money be required to be paid on goods exported, (that is, carried out,) from any of the States?
A. No.
Q. May any law be passed giving to the ports of one State, (that is, the places where vessels arrive and depart with goods) a preference over those of another, so that goods coming to some ports, shall have less duties to pay to Government than the same goods coming to other ports?
A. No.
Q. May vessels coming from sea with goods which they wish to deliver in one State, be obliged to land those goods, or to enter them, that is, give an account of them at the Custom-house, or to pay the duties on them in another State?
A. No.
Q. When a vessel leaves the ports of one State with goods which she is carrying to sea, can she be obliged to clear those goods, that is, give an account of them at the Custom-house, in another State?
A. No; each State may carry on its own commerce without the interference of any other State.
Q. In what way can the money of the United States be drawn out of the Treasury? (or place where it is kept)
A. It can be drawn out only by authority of a law of Congress; and such a law is called an Appropriation.
Q. Must a full account be kept of all moneys received into the Treasury, and paid out of it; and must this account be published, that is, printed and sold from time to time?
A. Yes.
In the heading under Charters of Freedom, you will find a copy of the Constitution as well as links to other pertinent primary documents and commentary on the Constitution.
Essays at The Heritage Guide to The Constitution:
Elementary Catechism on the Constitution posts:
Read more »
Abba! Father!
How I became a Christian, part six. Previous posts: My Witness, the introduction; Mourning Dove; Locked Out; Glimpses; and Jesus, the Light Of The World.
After that summer night, in the following weeks to my delight and astonishment, I realized that I had entered into a new and real relationship with God. He was there! I knew Him! Not as a result of any mystical effort on my part, but as a result of the abundance of grace given to me through Jesus! I knew my prayers were now being spoken to Him, the living God, and not to the walls or ceiling anymore. The words of the Bible became living words that told me about God and about myself. And as those who know Jesus Christ have experienced over and over to their amazed joy, I felt the very Spirit of God confirm in my heart that I was His beloved child and He was my loving Father. I knew God! It was incredible! I finally knew Him in the closeness and reality I had always desired. In Romans 8:14-16, Paul wrote,
For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!”
The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God…
Years ago Michael Card and John Thompson wrote the song, El Shaddai. Some of the Hebrew names for God from the Old Testament are used in the words. In 1993 I wrote a set of lyrics to express what it means to be able to call El Shaddai, Abba, Father.
Through our lives in all Your ways,
You are cause for ceaseless praise.
You will make us like Your Son,
‘Til our race of faith is won.
El Shaddai, El Shaddai,
Abba, Father, now we cry.
In you our trust shall lie,
El Shaddai.
__________
The word Abba is a transliteration of an Aramaic word.
Little girl walking into the light: ChristianPhotos.net – Free High Resolution Photos for Christian Publications
XX. Habeas Corpus, Bill of Attainder & Ex Post Facto Law
The Federalist Papers has posted a PDF copy of an Elementary Catechism on the Constitution from 1828 written by Arthur J. Stansbury. I’m publishing it on Mondays in a series of posts. Because the date of publication was 1828, some content has been changed by later Constitutional amendments. There are no sections in the book, so I’m dividing it into any natural breaks of topics and the posts will vary in length. Any emphases within the text are Stansbury’s.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 2
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 3
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
XX. Habeas Corpus, Bill of Attainder, and Ex Post Facto Law
Q. Suppose any American citizen is seized and put in prison, may he be kept there as long as those who seized him think fit?
A. No; he may get a writ of Habeas Corpus.
Q. What is that?
A. It is a command from Court, by which the jailor is forced to allow the prisoner to be brought up before a Judge, that the cause of his being put in prison may be examined into ; in order, that if there is no law to keep him there, he may immediately be set at liberty.
Q. Must this command be given whenever it is applied for?
A. Yes, except at certain times, when this privilege is suspended; (that is, interrupted for a time, but not taken away).
Q. When may this right of having a writ of Habeas Corpus, which belongs by the Constitution to every citizen, be suspended?
A. Only in cases of rebellion by our own citizens, or invasion of the country by an enemy; when the public danger is so great as to require persons to be kept in prison, who might otherwise be set at liberty. As soon as this extreme danger is past, the right of Habeas Corpus must be immediately restored.
Q. Is this a very great and important privilege, and ought all Americans to guard it with the greatest care?
A. It is one of the greatest rights of a freeman—and Americans must never surrender it, under any pretext, if they value and would preserve their liberty.
Q. May a man’s children be punished by law for his offence?
A. In some countries, where a man has been guilty of treason, (that is, making war against the Government) a law is passed called a bill of attainder, by which his children are prevented from being, heirs to him or to any other person ; and, if he belonged to what in those countries is called the nobility, and his children would have belonged to it too, they are prevented ; nor can they nor their children, nor their children’s children, recover this privilege, till an act is passed for that purpose. No such law can be made in this country ; it is expressly forbidden by (he Constitution.
Q. May a citizen of the United States be punished for doing what, when he did it, was not forbidden by any law, but against which a law was passed afterwards?
A. No. A law that attempts to punish actions that were done before the law was made, is called an “ex-post-facto law.” This also is expressly forbidden by the Constitution.
In the heading under Charters of Freedom, you will find a copy of the Constitution as well as links to other pertinent primary documents and commentary on the Constitution.
Essays at The Heritage Guide to The Constitution:
- Habeus Corpus by Jonathan Turley
- Bill of Attainder by Daniel Troy
- Ex Post Facto by Daniel Troy
Elementary Catechism on the Constitution posts:
Read more »
XIX. Slaves
The Federalist Papers has posted a PDF copy of an Elementary Catechism on the Constitution from 1828 written by Arthur J. Stansbury. I’m publishing it on Mondays in a series of posts. Because the date of publication was 1828, some content has been changed by later Constitutional amendments. There are no sections in the book, so I’m dividing it into any natural breaks of topics and the posts will vary in length. Any emphases within the text are Stansbury’s.
The Elementary Catechism was written in 1828 after the Missouri Compromise had been passed by Congress in 1820.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 1
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
XIX. Slaves
Q. May slaves be imported, that is, brought into the United States?
A. No, whoever engages in the slave trade is a pirate.
Q. May slaves be held, that is, owned, and made to work—by citizens of the United States?
A. Yes.
Q. If they escape from one State into another, may the State into which they flee set them at liberty?
A. No.
In Slave Trade, an essay on Article I, Section 9, Clause 1, found at The Heritage Guide to The Constitution, Matthew Spalding writes:
…It is significant that the words slave and slavery are not used in the Constitution of 1787, and that the Framers used the word person rather than property. This would assure, as Madison explained in The Federalist No. 54, that a slave would be regarded “as a moral person, not as a mere article of property.” It was in the context of the slave trade debate at the Constitutional Convention that Madison argued that it was “wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.”
Although Southern delegates hoped opposition would weaken with time, the practical effect of the clause was to create a growing expectation of federal legislation against the practice. Congress passed, and President Thomas Jefferson signed into law, a federal prohibition of the slave trade, effective January 1, 1808, the first day that Article I, Section 9, Clause 1, allowed such a law to go into effect.
On April 22, 1820, Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Holmes on the Missouri Compromise:
…I had for a long time ceased to read the newspapers or pay any attention to public affairs, confident they were in good hands, and content to be a passenger in our bark to the shore from which I am not distant. but this momentous question, like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union. it is hushed indeed for the moment. but this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. a geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once concieved and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper. I can say with conscious truth that there is not a man on earth who would sacrifice more than I would, to relieve us from this heavy reproach, in any practicable way. the cession of that kind of property, for so it is misnamed, is a bagatelle which would not cost me in a second thought, if, in that way, a general emancipation and expatriation could be effected: and, gradually, and with due sacrifices, I think it might be. but, as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go….
I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves, by the generation of ‘76. to acquire self government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be that I live not to weep over it. if they would but dispassionately weigh the blessings they will throw away against an abstract principle more likely to be effected by union than by scission, they would pause before they would perpetrate this act of suicide on themselves and of treason against the hopes of the world.
to yourself as the faithful advocate of union I tender the offering of my high esteem and respect.
In the heading under Charters of Freedom, you will find a copy of the Constitution as well as links to other pertinent primary documents and commentary on the Constitution.
Elementary Catechism on the Constitution posts:
Read more »
Jesus, The Light Of The World
How I became a Christian, part five. Previous posts: My Witness, the introduction; Mourning Dove; Locked Out.; and Glimpses.
I knew my sin had separated me from God. I knew I was helpless and locked out in my stumbling search. I had met others who knew God, and I knew I didn’t.
We started to read Romans 5, and for the first time I heard with understanding that God had a purpose in the death of Jesus Christ. I heard with understanding what God’s purpose was. I heard that God Himself had taken action on my behalf.
For while we were still
helpless, at the right time
Christ died for the
ungodly. For one will
hardly die for a righteous
man; though perhaps for
the good man someone
would dare even to die.
But God demonstrates His
own love toward us, in
that while we were yet
sinners, Christ died for us.
As we read we discussed the disobedience of Adam to God, and the entrance of sin and condemnation and death to all mankind. I read that through the obedience of Jesus Christ to God in His death on the cross, sin and death were overcome, and I could be made right with God.
For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
As we were reading, floodgates of comprehension opened, and I understood and believed.
I knew I was a sinner, and I needed a Savior. I understood for the first time that on the cross God was condemning my sin as His Son, Jesus Christ, took my judgment and punishment upon Himself in His death for me. I prayed that night and placed my life in God’s hands, stating my need for forgiveness and thanking Him for the death of His Son, Jesus Christ, for my sin. This gift—this one act of righteousness—meant justification of life to me. Death had come to reign through Adam, but the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus meant I would reign in life through Him.
God shone the light of His truth into my mind and heart, handing me the keys of repentance and belief.
Therefore having such a hope, we use great boldness in our speech, and are not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away. But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.
Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we received mercy, we do not lose heart, but we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake. or God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.2 Corinthians 3:12–4:6
My sin was gone; now no longer separated from Him, I knew Jesus, the Light of the World.
For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son,in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.-Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.”
__________
Stone Cross, St Brelade’s Parish Church, Jersey, The Channel Islands: FreeFoto.com
The Scripture is clear that light used to describe Jesus is not meant to be a reference to an mystical experience untethered to God’s Word, but rather when we repent and believe in Jesus as Lord our removal by God’s gracious forgiveness from the darkness of sin into the light of knowing Jesus and having eternal life and fellowship with Him.
Government & Marriage: Answering Libertarians
…marriage—we will show—has enough objective structure apart from spouses’ preferences, to be legally regulated.1
…As we deprive marriage policy of definite shape, we deprive it of public purpose.2
These two statements are from chapter one, “Challenges to Revisionists,” in What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense. I discussed the structure of marriage described in chapter two, “Comprehensive Union,” in No Longer Two, But One: The Structure of Marriage. and No Longer Two, But One: The Inherent Characteristics of Marriage. In chapter three, “The State and Marriage,” Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert George turn to fully addressing both libertarians and the Left on civil regulation of marriage.
…some on the libertarian Right say that marriage has no public value, and call for the state to get out of the marriage business altogether. Voices on the Left say that marriage has no distinctive public value; they say that the state may work it like clay, remaking marriage to fit our preferences.3
Their answer to the libertarian Right is based on the objective structure of marriage and the public value of marriage:
By regulating marriage entry and exit, and by helping and sometimes requiring the government as well as individuals and civic institutions to treat certain groups as a unit, marriage law sends a strong public message about what it takes to make a marriage—what marriage is. This in turn affects people’s beliefs, and therefore their expectations and choices, about their own prospective or actual marriages. The mutual influence of law and culture is confirmed by empirical evidence on the effects of no-fault divorce laws. But if easing the legal obstacles to divorce has had an effect, surely removing even the hassle and stigma of a legal divorce would. The state’s influence on marriage is extensive.
Indeed, it cannot be otherwise. Abolishing civil marriage is practically impossible. Strike the word ‘marriage’ from the law, and the state will still license, and attach duties and benefits to, certain bonds. Abolish these forward-looking forms of regulation, and they will only be replaced by messier, retroactive regulation — of disputes over property, custody, visitation, and child support. What the state once did by efficient legal presumptions, it will then do by burdensome case-by-case assignments of parental (especially paternal) responsibilities.
The state will only discharge these tasks more or less efficiently — that is, less or more intrusively. It can’t escape them. Why not? Because the public functions of marriage — both to require and to empower parents (especially fathers) to care for their children and each other — require a society-wide coordination. It is not enough if, say, a particular religion presumes a man’s paternity of his wife’s children, or recognizes his rights and duties toward their mother; or if the man and his wife contract to carry out certain tasks. For private institutions can bind only their own; private contracts bind only those who are party to them. A major function of marriage law is to bind all third parties (schools, adoption agencies, summer camps, hospitals; friends, relatives, and strangers) presumptively to treat a man as father of his wife’s children, husbands and wives as entitled to certain privileges and sexually off-limits, and so on. This only the state can do with any consistency.
But more than inevitable or necessary, it is fitting that the state should do this. Consider a comparison. Why don’t even the strictest libertarians decry traffic laws? Firstly, orderly traffic protects health and promotes efficiency, two great goods. Second, these goods are common in two senses: private efforts cannot adequately secure them, and yet failure to secure them has very public consequences. It is not as if we would have had the same (or even just slightly less) safety and efficiency of travel if people just did as they pleased, some stopping only at red lights and others only at green. Nor would damage from the resulting accidents (and slower shipments, etc.) be limited to those responsible for causing it. To ensure safe and efficient travel at all, and to limit harm to third parties, we need legal coordination. Indeed, it is no stretch to say that the state owes its citizens to keep minimum security and order: to these we have a right. Finally, unlike private associations, the state can secure these goods, without intolerable side effects. All this makes it appropriate for the state to set our traffic laws.
In an essay solely on political theory, we might argue the details, but here we can extract from this example a widely acceptable rule: If something would serve an important good, if people have a right to it, if private groups cannot secure it well, everyone suffers if it is lost, and the state can secure it without undue cost, then the state may step in — and should.
All these conditions are met in the case of marriage.4
They undergird their argument by citing the benefits of marriage both to family members and to society at large. Marriage “tends to help spouses financially, emotionally, physically, and socially,”5 and children thrive best when reared by their married biological parents.6 Marriage also “helps create wealth, helps the poor especially, and checks state power.”7 Ryan Anderson reiterates some of their arguments in his commentary for The Heritage Foundation, Redefine Marriage, Make Government Bigger; when government ignored the structure of marriage by denying permanence was an inherent characteristic, the impact on society at large was devastating.
Indeed when the law redefined marriage by introducing no-fault divorce, it taught something about marriage: that it need not entail a real commitment to permanency. It used to be that divorce was issued for fault—the three A’s of common law: abuse, abandonment and adultery—but no-fault divorce allowed a spouse to divorce for any reason or no reason at all. And as a result divorce rates rose from single digits to nearly 50 percent.
And the costs were high.
A Brookings Institution study found that $229 billion in welfare expenditures between 1970 and 1996 can be attributed to the breakdown of the marriage culture and the resulting exacerbation of social ills: teen pregnancy, poverty, crime, drug abuse and health problems. A 2008 study found that divorce and unwed childbearing cost taxpayers $112 billion each year. Utah State University scholar David Schramm estimated that divorce alone costs local, state and federal governments $33 billion each year.
Libertarians who want to get government out of the marriage business are in denial of the importance and widespread influence of legal regulation of marriage.
Related articles by Jennifer Roback Morse at The Witherspoon Institute Public Discourse:
- Privatizing Marriage is not the Answer to the Same-Sex Marriage Debate March 10, 2009
- Privatizing Marriage Is Impossible April 2, 2012
- Privatizing Marriage Will Expand the Role of the State April 3, 2012
- Privatizing Marriage Is Unjust to Children April 4, 2012
The Heritage Foundation pamphlet, What You Need To Know About Marriage: Questions and Answers Driving the Debate, contains some of the same information and reasoning found in What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense. I highly recommend it as an overview of its main points.
__________
My posts on the book, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, are more than a book review or report. Because I think the authors brings so much help and clarity to the ongoing debate on marriage, I’m working through their arguments to support or augment your own thinking on marriage. I recommend buying the book and working through it on your own, and I hope these posts spark your interests. If anything is unclear, please let me know. Any misinterpretations of the authors’ intents are obviously my own, and I will correct any that I discover. Previous posts on What Is Marriage? and references for this post are listed below the fold.
Read more »
XVIII. Congressional Authority On Enactment Of Laws
The Federalist Papers has posted a PDF copy of an Elementary Catechism on the Constitution from 1828 written by Arthur J. Stansbury. I’m publishing it on Mondays in a series of posts. Because the date of publication was 1828, some content has been changed by later Constitutional amendments. There are no sections in the book, so I’m dividing it into any natural breaks of topics and the posts will vary in length. Any emphases within the text are Stansbury’s.
In view of his statements on the “large and general authority” of Congress,” I wanted to reiterate the last two amendments in the Bill of Rights. Here are Amendments IX and X to the Constitution:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
XVIII. Congressional Authority On Enactment Of Laws
Q. What other power is conferred by the Constitution upon the Congress of the United States?
A. A very large and general authority, ” to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers,” (that is, all the powers of which we have been speaking) ” and all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.” Thus, for example, when the Constitution says, that Congress may coin money, that gives Congress power to make all the laws necessary to determine what the coin shall be — how they shall be marked — of what metal they shall be made — what shall be their weight — what shall be their value — where they shall be made — what buildings shall be erected for the purpose — how many persons shall be employed — what their duty shall be — what pay they shall receive — what account they shall keep — what security they shall give, and how they shall be punished if they neglect their duty. It is the same with every other power given by the Constitution; if its execution requires a hundred different laws, Congress may pass them all.
If Mr. Stansbury could see the extent to which Congress has overstepped its constitutional bounds, I can’t help but think he might have moderated his comments and made a few stern warnings about usurpation of power and the decline of liberty.
In the heading under Charters of Freedom, you will find a copy of the Constitution as well as links to other pertinent primary documents and commentary on the Constitution.
Elementary Catechism on the Constitution posts:
Read more »
XVII. Congressional Governance of Washington, D.C. & Military Facilities
The Federalist Papers has posted a PDF copy of an Elementary Catechism on the Constitution from 1828 written by Arthur J. Stansbury. I’m publishing it on Mondays in a series of posts. Because the date of publication was 1828, some content has been changed by later Constitutional amendments. There are no sections in the book, so I’m dividing it into any natural breaks of topics and the posts will vary in length. Any emphases within the text are Stansbury’s.
After the Catechism was written, in 1846, Virginia was granted retrocession of the land in Alexandra originally ceded to be in Washington, D.C., and the town was again part of the state of Virginia.
XVII. Congressional Governance of Washington, D.C. & Military Facilities
Q. Have you mentioned all the powers of Congress?
A. No; they have power to make all the Laws for a certain District, not more than ten miles square, where Congress meets, and where the Chief Officers of Government reside. This is called the Seat of Government.
Q. Has this District no Legislature of its own choice, as the States have?
A. No.
Q. Is it a part of any State?
A. No. It consists of territory, which the States have given up, for the express purpose that it might be the seat of the General Government. The territory at present used for this purpose, is called the District of Columbia; and has been ceded, (that is, given up) by the States of Maryland and Virginia, within which it before lay.
Q. Is there any other place in the United States, which is thus ruled by Congress alone?
A. Yes — all Forts, Magazines, (that is, places where powder and other things used by an army are laid up) Arsenals, (that is, buildings where arms are kept) and Dock-yards; (that is, places where vessels of war are built) which belong to the United States, are governed, not by the Legislatures of the States in which they may be, but by the General Government alone.
In the heading under Charters of Freedom, you will find a copy of the Constitution as well as links to other pertinent primary documents and commentary on the Constitution.
Elementary Catechism on the Constitution posts:
Read more »
