LeaderPaths Journal
ENGAGE TRUTH & GRACE
Articles and Thoughts from our Contributors
 Anyone who has spent time on Facebook or Twitter has scrolled past long but meaningless arguments which served no purpose other than rousing the anger of whoever participated in or took the time to read them. I’d wager that most people who have spent a lot of time on these and other social media sites have participated in at least one of these disputes, even if they didn’t recognize it until after the fact. These squabbles often continue over dozens of comments and contain nothing but vitriol and slanted, ill-considered arguments that are usually laced with countless logical fallacies. Even the best of us can be dragged into one of these internet debates. These arguments are almost always fruitless, so why do so many of us still fall into the trap? If we are ever about to insert ourselves into any argument, we should first pause and ask ourselves a couple of questions.
The first question we should ask in making an argument, or, indeed, in any endeavor, is: What do I want to accomplish here? If your goal is to persuade the person to whom your comment is directed, you should ask yourself another question. When is the last time you were actually dissuaded from one of your views by a comment on social media? No matter how well worded your reply is, no matter how much time and thought you put into crafting the perfect response, you will not change the other person’s mind. If you really want to have an honest exchange about an issue, social media is the worst communication medium you can possibly use. On the other side of that screen is a human being with whom you disagree. All too often, at least one party (frequently more than one party) forgets this fact and lays into the other without any concern for how an actual person will respond. This starts a vicious cycle which, at best, will lead to your friend or follower becoming more entrenched in his or her own position. At worst, you may damage, or even lose, a relationship with someone you care about. By no means do I suggest that if you disagree with something that someone says on social media then you should necessarily ignore it and move on. Sometimes that is exactly what you should do. If you know that you or your friend cannot have this discussion and remain calm and rational, then breaching the topic is probably not worth it. Having this discussion will just cause a rift between you and your friend and will likely make it harder for you or someone else to change his or her mind further down the road. However, if you believe your friend is mistaken on an important issue, and you know that both you and your friend can remain calm throughout the discussion, then by all means speak up. However, your protest should not be in the form of a comment. Instead, you should invite your friend to talk about it over lunch or a cup of coffee. This way, you will both be speaking to another person, rather than just typing out into the void that is the internet. You are much more likely to change the other person’s mind when talking face to face, than you are over Facebook. You are also more likely to treat the other person like a real person. Always remember to approach your friend with humility and honesty and try to see how he or she is thinking. Remember, you can’t change everyone’s mind, so be prepared to agree to disagree. If your goal is not to persuade, but to whip up some controversy or just to blow off some steam, then please just stop. Put your phone down and go do something else. Nearly anything else would be better than going down this path. It does feel good to troll people on social media, at least in the moment, but in the long run it will only give rise to tension and animosity. In the end, this will make it harder to convince others to join your side. This type of behavior is one of many factors that make our online environment so toxic. As Christians, we are called to be peacemakers. Matthew 5:9 (NASB) says, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” This does not mean that Christians should become pacifists, or that they should silently assent to whatever harsh treatment they receive. Often the opposite is true. Christians should be the first to stand up against injustice, and we should be bold in advancing the things of God. However, Christians should never perpetuate unnecessary conflict for its own sake. We have enough problems in this world without trying to create new ones for ourselves. R. Tate Judicial Review is Democratic, and the People are the Final Interpreters of the Constitution10/21/2020  During Judge Amy Barrett’s confirmation hearings, many Senators, House members, and other notable figureheads tried to avoid conversations concerning the possible overturning of judicial decisions they support. As confirmation proceedings began, those conversations manifested in their questions to the nominee. In those, many have brought up three predominant cases that have shaped much of America’s legislative policies: Roe v. Wade, Obergefell v. Hodges, and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (Obamacare). Notable names have appeared fueling the discussion about the possibility of overruling. Among them, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Chuck Schumer, Presidential Candidate Joe Biden, and many others. The concern over these issues highlights a prevailing problem among the people and, even more so, among elected officials: the Framers of the Constitution, in giving the Court power to nullify congressional acts via judicial review, never designed our judicial institution to be the final interpreters of the Constitution. And this makes judicial review a democratic process—giving the power of final interpretation to the people of America, not to any one institution.
In 2014, President Obama was facing scrutiny over his executive action concerning immigration. Representative James Clyburn (D-S.C.) committed to the all-too-known “deference to the courts” argument by stating, “Let’s let the courts decide whether it’s constitutional. That’s not for Congress to decide, that’s why we have courts to make that decision.” [1] But we have to ask the question, is it really the job of the Congress to defer to the courts? The short answer, no! Turning back to Article III of the US Constitution, section 2 enumerates, “The judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made … under their Authority.” [2] Some argue that this is not a clear description of the powers of the courts, and this may have been given some legitimacy given that the process of judicial review was not "codified" until Chief Justice Marshall gave a non-decision in Marbury v. Madison. In that case, although the appellee was entitled to his commission, the proper channels of appellate review had not been met, and the Supreme Court did not possess original jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act of 1789 to hand down a decision. What Marshall formulated was this idea of judicial review, of which even the Founders’ exposited. In The Federalist Papers, Hamilton constructs an argument that judicial review is democratic, and that the power of original Constitutional interpretation did not reside in the courts. That power belonged exclusively to the people, through the Legislative branch but ultimately by the people in the Constitution. The concern of the Anti-Federalist papers was that “the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void.” [3] But Hamilton, in Federalist no. 78, responds clearly by stating “that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act therefore contrary to the constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that … the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves.” [4] Judges, therefore, do not help make law; they merely judge it based upon the controlling standard of the governing document, a.k.a. the Constitution. So yes, the courts do interpret law, but they interpret law based upon the interpretation of the law as it “proceeds from the legislative body,” and the courts must judge as “the intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority.” [5] If, however, there is an “irreconcilable variance” between the meaning of the Constitution and the meaning of acts that come forth from the legislature, it must be deferred to Congress for clarity and review so that they can exposit further the intent of the act. [6] All of this to say, the people are superior to any branch of the government. The legislative acts upon its own will, which must proceed from the power of the people, and the executive must enforce that law. The courts interpret based on the Constitution so that the theory of self-government can be actualized in the people’s authority. If the courts do overturn the aforementioned rulings, they would not be doing anything unconstitutional, since none of these cases arose from the proper authority. And if the people wish to do something about it, the Constitution ensures that the will of the majority do have courses for remedy. Elected officials can restructure the courts, impeach judges, “strip” appellate jurisdiction from the Court, and the states of the Union can call for a constitutional amendment, all of which are prescribed in the Constitution. But the desire for political expediency, through the legislative ruling of the courts, is a desire most threatening to the political independence of the people. It destroys any hope for a citizen-governed Republic. And contrary to many Democrats’ beliefs about our country, it is most certainly not democratic. If the citizenry of the US wishes to continue having a voice in their government, they must keep their political desires out of the courts, for “where the will of the legislature declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people declared in the constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter, rather than the former.” [7] [1] Greg Weiner, “When Deference is Dereliction,” Law & Liberty, 26 November 2014, https://lawliberty.org/when-deference-is-dereliction/ [2] U.S. Const., art. 3, sec. 2, cl. 1. [3] Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, “Federalist No. 78,” The Federalist Papers: The Gideon Edition, ed. George W. Carey and James McClellan (Indianapolis: The Liberty Fund, 2001), 403. [4] Ibid. [5] Ibid., 404. [6] Ibid. [7] Ibid. - Matthew Ferri (edited February 12, 2021) Four years ago, I had the opportunity to spend a day volunteering for a campaign during the 2016 presidential primary. Throughout the day, I was able to speak with dozens of South Carolinians face to face. I noticed a common thread woven through many of the conversations I had with them. Many told me that they were not worried about who won the election, because they knew that God governed over whoever would lead them, and in the end, they would be taken care of by God all the same. Some people even went so far as to tell me that they didn’t bother with politics because God would order things for their good anyway. Many of them cited Romans 13 as the reason for their beliefs. Romans 13:1 reads in part: “there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.” (NASB) These Christians, like many others I have encountered throughout my life, argued that this verse means that they should not pay much attention to politics because God would take care of those things for them anyway. I do not doubt the sincerity of these Christians’ beliefs. As a matter of fact, they do have somewhat of a point. Inasmuch as things are beyond our control, we Christians should be at peace and trust that God will order all things to the benefit of His Church. But for Christians to eschew involvement in politics altogether because of this verse is a gross misapplication of the true meaning of the passage in question.
In the United States, and in other nations with republican forms of government, God has blessed us with the ability to choose our governing officials. Thanks to the time and place in which we have been born, we have the right as citizens to have significant input on what public policy shall be. According to both the traditions and the founding documents of the United States government, the American people do not elect rulers, they elect public servants to create laws. The very philosophy of our founding affirms that the only legitimate form of government in this country is the one which rules with the consent of the governed. This fact is enshrined in our Constitution. This right to vote and participate in our government is an immense privilege which very few citizens had prior to the 18th century. We should be grateful to our ancestors for securing these rights to us and our fellow citizens. But this is much more than a privilege, it is an awesome responsibility. We as Christians have failed in our duty. We have a duty to elect men and women who will protect the rights that have been given to us by God. Instead, we have elected government officials who have allowed, encouraged, or even funded (whether directly or indirectly) the murder of tens of millions of innocent children. They have funded the destruction of the nuclear family, which is vital to a stable society and to the raising up of healthy children. They have forced on parents the sterilization and mutilation of their confused children, indoctrinated our youth to support evil and reject good, shuttered churches for having the audacity to gather together, and committed countless other evils against the American people. Our governments at federal, state, and local levels have in many cases become sick. All this has taken place while millions of Christians have sat by and said, “God will take care of us.” Meanwhile, our society, whose foundation rests on the solid ground of God’s truth, has largely abandoned God. Our once Christian nation now praises what God calls abhorrent and abominable. Romans 13 does not mean that God will take care of our politics if we just get out of the way. God allows men to establish governments, even those which dishonor God and mistreat His people. When God’s nation of Israel called for a king, God eventually relented and gave them a wicked tyrant in the form of Saul. Now large swaths of the American public call for government which would trample on the rights of all citizens and commit evils against God and His Church. It seems that America is quickly progressing down a road towards destruction. Without the intervention of Providence, we cannot hope to turn around. However, I hope, and I genuinely believe that it is not too late to turn this great country of ours back away from the cliff. I believe that God will hear the cry of his people and see their actions. As long as Christians in large part act in accordance with God’s will, God may see to it that this country is spared from the destruction that seems inevitable. As is the norm in the Christian life, ours is a simple task, but will not be easy. First of all, we must pray. We must implore God for his divine guidance and protection. We must spread the true Gospel to our fellow man, and we must grow in our own understanding of the Gospel. We must vote as God would have us vote. We must elect men and women who would protect children both inside and outside of the womb. We must elect men and women of courage who will stand for the rights of Christians to worship God, and who will encourage families to remain together to raise their children. We must help our fellow citizens when they are in need. We must not allow the government, no matter how well-intentioned, to continue to usurp the role of the Church in taking care of widows, orphans, and the needy. We must raise up our children in the Word of God. If we, the Church in America, will do these things, then perhaps the Lord will see fit to rescue this nation from the precipice of destruction. But one thing is for sure, if we as Christians honor God and act according to His will, He will rescue us, whether in this world or the next. Ronnie Tate  Ancient philosophers wrestled with timeless questions concerning which political regime sufficiently guided citizens toward their proper telos. In Greek, this word can be defined as the inherent purpose that a person or object must come to. However, to answer those questions, the philosopher had to first ask, “what is the natural end that all men must come to?” This is precisely because the flourishing of a community rested upon what was evidently “good” in nature. In turn, this reflection of good would bring healthy social relations among the people. Modern citizens struggle with this idea, predominantly because they have fallen into the philosophical trap of postmodernism. But if we are to correctly gauge justice in society, we must begin with mankind and what is good for them. When a society fails to grasp and define a standard that exists for healthy flourishing, division and strife conquers its heart and habits. A standard does exist, and the habits of citizens are such that a proper telos brings liberty instead of licentiousness, responsibility instead of dependency, and neighborly love instead of material love.
Let us take two philosophers who argued for the idea of good: Plato and Aristotle. Though both men were not Christians, the imago Dei was so evident in their philosophy that they could not deny its existence. Plato, in his cave allegory of the Republic, submits that “in the knowable the last thing to be seen … is the idea of the good; but once seen, it must be concluded that this is in fact the cause of all that is right and fair in everything;” the soul of man, however, in its whole “must be turned around from that which is coming into being together with the whole soul until it is able to endure looking at that which is and the brightest part of that which is.” [1] If you are not familiar with the allegory, imagine being shackled as a prisoner in a cave, unable to see the light that one would see if they were to step outside. Instead, all you see are the shadows of passerby figures that are projected on the cave’s wall. Then, one day you are freed from those shackles and brought out from the mouth of the cave where you can see the reality of those figures because the light has opened your eyes. In other words, the prisoner sees the form (or light) that produces understanding, which is good. Aristotle, although he critiqued much of the Republic, agreed that there exists a standard that is natural. He argued that good is “that for the sake of which everything else is done.” [2] It can be easily understood as a consequential effect that every good thing continues pointing to; thus, there is an “end” to which all other goods converge upon, reaching their end in the “superabundance of goods” that is sufficient and needs nothing to complete it. [3] Politically speaking, and biblically speaking for that matter, the community which reaches its telos is the city, and that “while coming into being for the sake of living, it exists for the sake of living well.” [4] God makes it clear in His revelated Word that societies were formed in a fallen world for a primary purpose: to establish justice under the Moral Law. The Noahic Covenant instituted in Genesis 9 has not been done away with and is at the sovereign directive of God. Specifically, for the shedding of man’s blood, “By man his blood shall be shed” (v. 6a). And we know it has not been done away with because Romans 13:4 reveals to us that government authority is a servant of God for our good, “for it does not bear the sword for nothing.” Because that standard exists, and because it exists beyond ourselves in our Lord, properly ordering our lives provides freedom and liberty. However, this liberty does not give us the option to live licentiously. Alexis de Tocqueville, the famed Frenchman who did not know Christ personally, describes two kinds of liberty: a liberty of “corrupt nature” and a “civil, a moral, a federal liberty.” [5] The former is inconsistent with authority, “impatient of all restraint” and given to personal license; the latter (the better option) is “the proper end and object of authority … which is just and good; for this liberty you are to stand with the hazard of your very lives.” [6] True liberty allows for restraint, and it orders our lives in such a way that we are free to do whatever we want within the proper boundaries. To this end, liberty is more important than equality. This was the danger Tocqueville warned against, for he saw the advancement of “equality of conditions” as a “gradual” and “providential fact.” [7] The question must be asked why? Plainly put, men who desire equality of conditions generally mean the equality of material conditions, or the gain of material property and wealth. And due to this fact, men would rather find themselves comfortable with “general apathy” for the problems that their communities face, which is “the fruit of individualism.” [8] In fact, it is this fear of material discomfort that produces a passion for “public tranquility” that “emanates as the sole political passion that these peoples preserve.” [9] Much has been said about this topic as it relates to the rise of progressivism and “social welfare.” But as this one singular passion increases, every other one slowly weakens until death, “naturally [disposing] citizens to constantly give the central power new rights, or [allowing] it to take them.” [10] Therefore, as men become settled to this habitual nature, the spirit of the city that has long been held as a proper telos is replaced with a devilish one -- one that is revealing its true colors in modern society. That new spirit is the one a child expresses. It is dependent, and it makes citizens believe they are incapable of conducting their own affairs, submitting them to the power that they presume will care for them as a parent and nanny. [11] If we take the adage that “absolute power corrupts absolutely,” we ought not stand for the very thing that has ruined societies throughout history: unrestrained power. If it is true that the people have been given authority, then we must begin to take hold of the appropriate mores that are necessary for living freely and avoid the general apathy of individualism that will instead enslave Americans to an inappropriate telos. We must learn, once again, how it is we are to live freely. For neither apathy nor despotism “can found anything lasting … They rise because nothing can resist them, and they fall because nothing sustains them.” [12] [1] Plato, Republic, trans. Allan Bloom (New York: Basic Books, 1968), 517b-518d. [2] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, trans. Robert C. Bartlett and Susan D. Collins (Chicago: University of Chicago press, 2011), 1097a 18-19. [3] Ibid., 1097a 26-36, 1097b 19. [4] Aristotle, Politics, trans. Carnes Lord (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984, 2013), 1252b 28-30. [5] Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, trans. Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 42. [6] Ibid. [7] Ibid., 6. [8] Ibid., 704. [9] Ibid., 643-644. [10] Ibid., 644. [11] Ibid., 665. [12] Ibid., 704. Matthew Ferri We are so glad that you are here. LeaderPaths has been a labor of love in the making for quite some time, and we hope that by God's grace it will be an encouragement in your discipleship. Our purpose is to live out an unquenchable passion for Truth which has compelled us to show the freedom and hope of the Truth to others. We share this to disciple others through education, experience, and transparency.
Looking at the world around us, finding truth seems so complicated. The church even seems to be confused with variant views consistently popping up. LeaderPaths believes so deeply that truth is objective and found in the One who designed life that we are confident that the gray in our culture can once again be seen clearly as black and white … but we have to be willing to deconstruct the false constructs that have slowly decayed our society and impacted the fullness of joy of the knowledge of our Savior. Our journey of discernment and loving the knowledge and heart of God is not one we venture on alone; we know that there are others out there seeking deeper discipleship and challenging, Christian thought that is theologically and philosophically sound. You will meet fellow disciples as contributors and followers of LeaderPaths. Our journey is not one that the multitudes will desire as people find comfort in groupthink scenarios much as we see today ... no one wants to be left out feeling isolated, so they jump at whatever cause they see as long as someone clothes that cause in terms like “love” or “justice”. Our journey is our cause … Christ, the Sola Veritas. That journey is not one of ease or cultural approval (Luke 14:25-35), but one of the fullness of joy and contentment. To this end, here is what you can expect from LeaderPaths: We will live out our values: · Sufficiency of Christ · Truth & Grace · Spiritual Maturity · Logical Honesty, Classical Approach · Sound Doctrine · Eternal Mindset · Love for God and His creation We will bring content and events to you for your prayerful and faithful study: · LeaderPaths Events - Sage, Scholar, Statesman, Saint · Weekly articles · Daily Scripture and Quotes · Network of podcasts and contributors adding to the discussion weekly · The Question Box – a chance for you to send in your questions on theology, culture, church, life skills, politics, spiritual health, or anything else … we use your questions to fuel future podcasts and articles. We look forward to the journey! Shane Colossians 2:8 |
ArchivesCategories & Authors
All
|
RSS Feed