One World Government

William Penn predicted "If we are not governed by God, then we will be ruled by tyrants." His sentiments concerning the issue of leadership reveal a fundamental tension existing between the government and Christians. As Christians, we struggle to comprehend the role of government in light of God's surpassing rule. A balance exists among the importance of government and the doctrine of God- Christians must ultimately conform to the will of God exhibited through laws and/ or leaders. However, God instituted a specific role for government, a role that is consistently being threatened by the growing ideas of a global, secular government. The ramifications of this approach derive their consequences from the abandonment of God within politics

 and a complete trust in the perfection of humanity. 

Basically, a one world government is a corruption of the designated function of leadership and a falsified view of mankind. For instance, the government is limited to performing "two principle roles [which] are to protect the innocent and punish the guilty." (Noebel 318) A global government not only adds an infinite amount of tasks to that list, but will most likely succumb to avoiding these two roles. Government's purpose is clouded by the selfish desires of its citizens and its continual trust being placed in the state. Even more so,  government is comprised of sinful individuals and therefore decisions are tainted by the defects of mankind. Therefore, "We know that power tends to corrupt, so a government that disperses power is better than one that gathers power into the hands of a few." (Noebel 318) Furthermore, consequences such as misuse of authority and inequality will develop from a system that is innately driven by the authority of a small group of people. The decisions of the government would tend toward favoring a select group of people and punishing others. Government acts as an extension of God's doctrine enacted in scripture; by forgoing these designs global governments seek an empty satisfaction. Moreover, ultimately "Christians see justice as the principal reason for the state's existence." (Noebel 320) This belief has multiple implications for the Christian view of government- first of all, global government ignores this precept, government does not control the economy, and thirdly, government should not impose personal opinions upon society. Finally, "government, therefore, has limited responsibility." (Noebel 320) Because a global, secular government denies the existence or relevance of God within politics it will naturally ignore the innate sin of humanity and the perfection of God ordained laws. This government will succumb to rampant immorality, a disregard for leadership, and the citizen's belief in their selfish desires 

as foundational to the government's purpose. 

Slightly more obvious consequences descend from a global government and therefore my opinions regarding the ramifications of a one world government. Firstly, a decrease in diversity will follow the amalgamation of different governments. The differing viewpoints and questioning of other leaders provides a level of accountability and criticize that develops into reformed ideas. Not a decrease in the diversity of people, but a lack of contrasting viewpoints, methods, and functions that each country proudly uplifts. Disagreements are part of a political system that retains patriotism and community within each country. Through the governments cohesion, negativity will rise between countries because of the impact of the global governments decisions and mandates. Anger and disrespect will engender between countries as the loss of identity of each culture and the infringement on previously held beliefs. Also, a misunderstanding of the beliefs and culture of each country will ultimately arise due to the global perceptions of a limited group. Within this global government, representatives will struggle to overcome cultural barriers and thus inefficiency and arguments would ensue. Each of the benefits of a global government share an equally terrible ramifications- such as the loss of cultural uniqueness. Finally, due to the massive amount of issues that will bombard the global government the significance of justice will be overlooked. The government will be dealing with large issues and forget the smaller, but equally important problems of society. Ultimately, government interference will increase exponentially and continually attempt to control the lives of its citizens. A global, secular government is a corruption of the role God provided for leadership and attempts to elevate the gifts of man to include a perfect ruler. 

Artful?

Pablo Picasso mused "Art is a lie that makes us realize truth." His words speak to the complexity and glory of art; its tremendous power to transform perspectives and attitudes. Art derives its purpose and message from the artist, and therefore art is an essential vessel of worldviews. Through his article, The Creative Arts, Leland Ryken theorizes regarding the Christian outlook upon art- his words capture the treasure of art and its manifestation of God's beauty. On the other hand, a documentary named The Philosophy of Art, provides an argument against the ugliness of modern art which lacks the necessary component of God in the analysis of art's function. I really enjoyed Ryken's article; his thoughts and commentary regarding the importance of art and the effect it has were profound. The video was endowed with several thoughtful ideas, but I believe it presented a very limited and narrow view of art's purpose. In fact, I thought it was shallow. The repetition of beauty being essential to art began to become tedious and placed on an exaggerated pedestal. Whereas the article reflected upon the realities of art, noting how "People organize their lives and make their decisions partly in terms of such images as heroes and villains, cross and altar, national emblem and patriotic legend, love song and hymn, landscape painting and portrait", the video focused upon how beautiful art provided meaning to life. (Ryken) I disagreed with the video's emphasis on humanity's need of beautiful art and that this beauty fills the void of god within us. The speaker attempted to replace the God of creation with an elitist view of art. However, I did agree with the video's portrayal of the sacredness of art and the consuming peace of being overwhelmed with the beauty of art. It provides a remedy for suffering, a safe haven, and can be representative of the ideals that do not exist within these modern times. I guess my main criticism of the video is the focus upon modern's art ugliness and the narrow lens through which the commentator viewed art. He proclaimed creativity is not enough, that art must be beautiful and of the highest level of detail and skill. And while, these factors engender fantastic and awesome art, art is not limited to the best. It can be found in the idea, the intention, the imagination presented by the artist. Music remains wonderful even if it is not Bach or Mozart; art remains despite the flaws and imperfections. Mainly, I believe art is a personal gift that is enhanced in enumerable exploits. 

Despite my criticism of the film, I found many similarities between the two critiques on art. The largest difference was the absence of God and therefore the purpose of art shifted in order to "transform the ugliness of the world." Its ultimate task is too exhibit beauty. However, both articles displayed the idea of paradoxes being foundational to the study of art. Each reflection spent time musing over the ordinary becoming extraordinary, and the reality of life being found in the surreal. Moreover, both speakers revealed the importance of contemplation and the simple task of absorbing art. It requires no outside purpose. Art "has its own meaning. A work of art can stand in the art gallery and be cherished for its own sake." (Ryken) Within the trap of a hectic, busy lifestyle, art provides a respite and an opportunity to be a revelation of the beauty of the world. Both discussions explored the duality of the happiness and the tragic within art, and did not limit art to a specific emotion or aspect of life. Indeed, each piece recognized the ability art possesses to capture the glory of tragedies, such as the crucifixion. The two elaborated upon the beauty of the human form and the creativity found within the perfection of the face. The differences between the articles also extend to their examination of modern art- the video declares it a "cult of ugliness", while the article stated "Modern art also possesses its version of these formal qualities, even when the artists claim that they are not using them." (Ryken) The article describes modern art in more subdued tones, but also recognizes a dismissal of the fundamental purposes of art. Again, another difference is dependent upon the Christian worldview through which the article is written. Ryken depicts God's glory revealed through art and therefore the value of developing one's own personal gift. He speaks to the evidence of hope and sin in art and also the various doctrines affirming the goodness of art. Finally, he focuses upon the truth and worldview that art presents and therefore the audience's responsibility to approach art appreciatively and cautiously. 

 The conclusion of each piece stemmed from a relatively similar view of art- a need for sacred contemplation of its worth and an appreciation that transcends a quick glance. The article approached this message through the task of Christians regarding art- our need to reveal the goodness of God through the talents he has gifted us. A passionate fervor is basically a requirement of art. And, I agree. Art is so often thrown aside, considered unimportant, but it is was of the greatest and most powerful tools for communicating the complexities of life. Each piece concluded that art is worthy of attention. An attention that is respectful, absorbed, and aware of the value of what is being presented. It is an opportunity to embrace the joy of heaven upon earth and experience the profoundness of human life. Art spreads hope. 

Really Muhammad?

With the ever growing number of Muslims in America, the doctrine of American law is changing and adapting to the evolving culture. The problems arising from Shari'ah law, the Islamic system of law, amounts to direct opposition to the citizens possession of liberty. Shari' Ah Law is defined as the "Islamic law derived from the Qur'an and the Hadith and applied to the public and private lives of Muslims within the Islamic states. Shari'ah law governs many aspects of day-to-day life- politics, economics, banking, business, contracts, social issues, etc." (Noebel 291) The precedents established within the American judicial system are devoid of religious doctrine and therefore the cohesion of Islamic and American law is impossible. Of fundamental importance is the establishment of law regarding Muslims in America; the law cannot be bent to the will of Allah. Especially as cases continue, Muslims are using the composition of their law as a defense against their crimes. Harassment, abuse, and physical assault are direct results of Muslims attempt to adhere to Shari'ah law within America. Shari'ah law cannot exist in America and most definitely, it would not make America a better place. 

First of all, Shari'ah misunderstands the innate sinfulness of man and therefore their political systems lack safeguards against corruption. By glorifying man, Shari'ah law outlines a do and don't list that its leaders naturally will follow. Thus, their leaders are righteous observers of the mandates of Shari'ah law, but this does not create a brilliant and caring leader. Instead, adherents of Shari'ah law tend toward an obsession over power and ignorance regarding forgiveness and redemption. Ultimately, "Because the Islamist model is predicted on the belief in government by morally impeccable individuals who can be counted on to resist temptation, it does not generate institutions capable of functioning autonomously by means of structural checks and balances" (Noebel 295). In short, Shari'ah law is dependent upon the power of the individual and his understand righteous- this lends toward a corruption of absolute power. For instance, the governments of Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Syria are devoid of the exercise of personal freedom. These governments tend toward monarchies and dictatorship which soon become infested with personal greed and a warped understanding of the needs of their citizens. Shari'ah law basis upon the uprightness of the individual would prove ineffectual in the political atmosphere of America. 

Due to the basis of Shari'ah law, the basic rights of citizens are limited and dependent upon gender and race. This view would prompt bigotry and sexism within any culture and therefore would destroy the fundamental principles of American culture. Although American refutes the existence of God, it acknowledges the evilness of man and utilizes the force of justice. Shari'ah law retracts human rights and promotes a cruel system of rules- thus crippling the goodness find within the American judicial system. Without an understanding of the value of personal liberty, a system of law would be hated and destroyed, an aspect of Shari'ah law that is disgraceful. Furthermore, "the Muslim community cannot find a similar basis for individual freedom within its religion" (295). Due to the absence of personal freedoms, the idea of integrating Shari' ah law into the American system is laughable. The basis of unity within our country is the blessing of personal freedom and liberty. Shari'ah law defies that idea. Therefore, Shari'ah is incompatible with the philosophy of law within American and the purpose of retaining the individual rights of its citizens. Of course, an adequate recognition of the benefits of Shari'ah law is necessary to any argument. Although rigid and strict, it does provide moral guidelines that are virtually nonexistent within in America. Still, morality cannot be forced upon citizens and a system of law so completely in defiance of American's virtues would prompt disarray and anger. 

A Pair of Perfection

Wandering, her hand reached

Desperate to grab the unattainable

She groped in her pockets

The rough, worn fabric producing nothingness

Her fingers found air; she sighed

The pockets were empty

She loved the jeans 

The comforting caress and warmth of artificial heat

A sufficient method of dress

But, Practicality reduces to meaninglessness 

Only in the cold winters

                            did she feel their inadequacy

Their inability to withstand

The toil of daily dysfunctionality

Holes widened, tears appeared

The seams of seeming perfection

Unraveled

The jeans were unable

The mirror whispered the curses of the jeans

Too small, too short, too without

With every squirm and wiggle

The jeans shouted her imperfections

Crushing the dream of the idyllic pair

The ideal person

A pair of the sea's blue, a cloud's comfort, a sunset's beauty

And the girl, ragged and worn,

Fell to the floor

defeated

But, He stepped through the door

Picked up the jeans and tore them in two

Declaring them finished

Their superficiality is diminished

The imperfections unimportant

She stands triumphant

The jeans a mere corruption of the White Robes

An attempt to hide the flaws, the lacks

An empty hope of the greatest burden

The joy lies in the conclusion

In the destruction of the jeans, of the lies, of the weariness

Of the facade in a pair of perfection

The Government's Authority

Often times, society becomes frustrated with the ineffectiveness of the government. Angry for interfering, raising taxes, denying welfare, and the reasons continue; today, dissatisfaction stems from the decisions of the governments. As Christians, we recognize and respect the actions of the government, but easily become infuriated with their social mandate. For instance, the recent fiasco of homosexual marriage. Throughout America, citizens consider it the ultimate authority of the government to create laws and enforce their legislation. Instead, in accordance with our beliefs, Christians comprehend that God is the creator of all things. Therefore, God determines the laws and the governments serves as the enforcer of his declarations. This does not require a kind of Puritan, "Scarlet-Letter" government, merely the recognition by the government of God's supremacy. 

First of all, God created mankind in possession of a conscience, a set belief which determines right and wrong. This is described as natural law. It is the "physical and moral laws revealed in general revelation and built into the structure of the universe (as opposed to the laws imposed by human beings)" (Noebel 285). The government derived its basic laws from their belief of right and wrong- it is wrong to steal, murder, and rape. These corruptions are universally viewed as wrong, but yet the origin of these senses are ignored. Furthermore, the government enacted laws for the betterment of society and understood the most basic principles of right and wrong as the determiner of this. For instance, in Romans 2:14, Paul explains "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law themselves, even though they do not have the law" (Noebel). In the midst of evil and sin, the law is still recognized as true and therefore "the general revelation of natural law is grounded in God" (Noebel). The government cannot create this natural law described and therefore cannot be relied upon for moral decisions. Moreover, the government cannot pretend to legislate morality when it denies the evidence of absolute morality. The government attempts to deny the natural law evident within its citizens in exchange for the cultural preferences and political correctness. Finally, the government cannot be the ultimate authority for creating laws as it did not initiate the principle aspects of society. 

In addition to natural law, the government also lacks the authority of the revelation of God within the Bible. Instead, in American government this principles are mocked and deemed sexist, prejudiced, and narrow. However, the extension of natural law, which speaks of an omnipotent creator, is the declaration of laws for mankind to follow. The government does not have the capabilities or sadly, the desire to enact these laws. Within today's society, demanding its citizens to adhere to Biblical legislation would be basically impossible, but that does not remove God's power to set up laws. Moreover, God uses the Bible to "flesh out that skeletal framework, telling us what God considers moral and lawful" (Noebel). God's laws remains profound, applicable, and righteous. Despite society's exaltation of homosexuality and encouragement of sex, God still declares them "abominations" and their will be consequences to face. (Noebel 286) The Bible provides a practical way for Christians to uphold the will of God and therefore the government cannot dictate the same morality as God. 

The government's power does not extend as far as the laws of God. He remains supreme and absolute, even in the midst of cultural contradiction. Therefore, His laws surpass and overrun the simple, complicated muddle of the government's laws. Indeed, humanity is subjected to divine law which is "any law that comes directly from the character of God via special revelation" (Noebel 286). Although it is difficult to remember the absolute authority of God, in decisions regarding law, this is necessary. Furthermore, "governments exist not so much to create laws as to secure laws- to apply divine law to general and specific situations and to act as an impartial enforcer of such laws" (Noebel 286). The government cannot possess the authority to decide issues regarding adultery, homosexuality, and crimes against God- it is impossible and impractical. The government does not have the ability to declare a man righteous and therefore cannot be viewed as the ultimate authority regarding laws. Finally, God desires that "the responsibility of governments is to encourage people to obey divine law by punishing wrongdoers and protecting those who live in accordance with God's laws" (Noebel 286). 

In conclusion, this does not deny the government the authority to make laws regarding the economy or the military. Merely, it recognizes that God's law is much greater than the desire of the government or the dictation of cultural beliefs. Law transcends the flux of culture and the complexity of society; it speaks to the power and will of God. 

Feminism: A New Definition for Equality

Women fought for equality. They demanded suffrage. They demanded fairness. They demanded respect. But, does the ERA promote any of these rights? In today's society, women have achieved basic equality; of course, prejudices and sexism will continue to arise as we live in a malicious world. However, woman have already been granted the same privileges and rights as men. The ERA simply attempts to condemn the lifestyle of traditional families and destroy the distinction between man and woman. In order to respond to the question of Feminism and the ERA, Christians must look to the definition of gender in the Bible and respond accordingly. 

God created male and female equal. He offered no superiority to gender and declared His image manifest in each person. To be sure, today's society would not view God's actions as equal, but God did not create one gender; he created two, distinct genders. As such, male and female are designated different roles and tasks within the world. Males are set up as the head of the family, the provider, the warrior, and the protector. On the other hand, women are made to give birth, to nurture, to uplift, and to help. These qualities, although seeming confining and discriminatory, actually define the best characteristics of each gender. God's calling for our lives are not regulated to the spheres of 'homemaker' and 'worker', instead these roles normally apply to the attributes of male and female. I fully believe in women's ability to work and possess a career. But, I also recognize God's command for women to submit to her husbands and respect their authority. Relationships are built upon compromises; my aforementioned statement does not imply my belief that women are not incapable of intelligence, strength, and fortitude, merely that God intended the man to lead the female. Certainly, the woman aides the man in this role and provides encouragement and compassion throughout trials. The dynamic between husband and wife requires courtesy and understanding in all actions and decisions. God did not create genders in order to punish or subvert woman; He intended to portray the beautiful relationship and union of man and wife. This gift would be casually dismissed according to today's standards. 

Instead, Christians must be ready to respond to the dilemma of feminist activist with courage and educated, respectful opinions. The ultimate goal of feminism is the equal treatment of woman- something the Church should also be striving toward. In focusing on this particular element, the Church and Feminists would be able to foster a relationship based on fair treatment and justice. By stressing the difference of men and women and not the superiority of men over woman, the Church can spread its lights much further and wider. Presenting the Feminist movement with female figures such as Ruth, Esther, Mary Magadelne would allow the Church to show a their vision of womanhood and the strength God gave to woman. Even more so, the Church needs to explain their belief in the different roles of man and woman. In a positive, open-minded discussion, Feminists and the Church can begin formulate solutions based upon a revived vision. 

The ERA is unsuccessful because it condemns the role of woman as mothers and caretakers and attempts to place them in the front lines of combat. By demanding complete and total equal treatment between man and woman, the ERA defies the natural differences in temperament and physical characteristics. It attempts to deny maternity leave to expecting mothers and would promote same sex bathrooms and prisons. Not only does this legislation denounce privacy, but it reveals society to be blind to the natural contrasts between man and woman. Obviously, bathrooms should be separated by sex because of modesty and respect for each gender. In attempting to improve equality among men and women, the ERA instead prompts inequality. Women deserve maternity leave to care for their children and the opportunity to remain at home, instead of fighting in the workplace or the war. Radical Feminists celebrate rampant and casual sex- ultimately destroying the beauty of virginity and the blessings of strong relationships. It is short sighted and intolerant. The ERA merely serves as legislation to condemn the traditional home and foster extreme ignorance and foolishness within the workplace. 

Sexist and Homophobic?

As a community, Christians have failed to approach these issues with kindness and compassion. Instead, Christianity is now contaminated with the stigmas of sexism and homophobia. We have been unable to share our beliefs in a way that speaks truth and mercy; now, we are characterized by picketing and stupid slogans. Although the Bible does not give us a definite step by step outline, God already revealed to us how these issues should be treated- with prayer, love, and wisdom. A clear answer is not always available, but Christians should rely on the Bible as their instructor. The Bible does not advocate sexism or homophobia, yet, Christians must be ready to give an answer that is not socially acceptable. As to the claim that Christians “are sexist and homophobic”, I would state that although some Christians are, but the Bible does not teach us this. 

First of all, homophobia must be clearly defined because in general, the word is tossed about without any genuine meaning. Homophobia is the extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuals; not the disapproval of their lifestyle, but the legitimate fear of homosexuals. Christians do not despise or become terrified by the thought of homosexuals, that is merely a stereotype. However, the much larger issue is how do we treat homosexuals with regards to our faith. It is a cliche and often considered trite Christian saying, but I feel that it is applicable- “Hate the sin, not the sinner.” Homosexuality is a continual sin, comparable to alcoholism or fornication, and must be treated as such. Of course, society’s mandate accuses this statement to be cruel and politically incorrect, but as to not get into an argument on the legitimacy of homosexuality- we will leave that aside. God grants love and mercy to every person willing to except his grace- this includes homosexuals. Furthermore, as Christians we cannot go about screaming about their damnation, to do so is unbiblical and unhelpful. Instead, by forming genuine and respectful relationships with the homosexual community will provide greater opportunities for ministry. I know this sounds naive. But, I truly believe Christians must begin to develop a new approach to homosexuality (not a new doctrine) and therefore extend God’s love to all. Indeed, Colossians 3:23 tells us “Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.” We are not to judge. We are to be respectful and shine the light of God’s goodness. Let that be enough. 

Now, as to the issue of sexism. Christianity has been accused as demeaning and subjecting women to the desires of men. Many have even used scripture references in order to prove their point. However, multiple flaws exist within their argument. Firstly, God created man and woman in the image of God- therefore equating them to His glory. The Bible does not preach the inequality between man and woman, and even more so- suggests woman to be the completion of man and the giver of life. Yes, woman are generally depicted as mothers and wives, but it is only in our society that this role has been diminished. God granted the glory of life to woman. Furthermore, God did not make man and woman to the same, but that does not make them unequal in power. Instead, God calls each gender to different roles that emphasize their different gifts. Woman have the natural ability to nurture and comfort- mothering highlights these attributes. God did not demean woman by granting her the ability to bear children, indeed God uses female characteristics to describe himself. In today’s society, any word or action can appear sexist, so naturally God’s elevation of mothering is horrible. Finally, God depicted many strong females throughout the Bible such as Rahab, Esther, Ruth, and Mary that defied expectations and relied upon God for strength. As Christians, God did not call us to disgrace genders, but to uplift the different abilities God has granted us.