Whatever you did not do… Matthew 25:44-46

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

From the Constitution of the United States:  “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Like the shepherd, voters in a free society have the power to separate candidates who believe in liberty and justice for all from those who don’t.  Since Christian values can never be required as a qualification to any Office, it is up to the voters to choose candidates that do not turn their backs on the most needy if we are to take the actions required by the Christian faith

 

Am I my brother’s keeper?

Russell Mance

Cain and Abel

by Wayne Blank

Cain and Abel were the first humans born in the usual way. Their parents, Adam and Eve, were created (see The Seven Days Of Creation) – Adam from the “red clay” of the earth, Eve from a part of Adam. Cain was the older of the two, although perhaps not by much. Some students of the Bible interpret the verse which describes their birth as meaning that they were twins. A number of other children were also born to Adam and Eve later.
Cain and Abel were born after their parents had been put out of the Garden of Eden. Cain became a worker of the soil, while Abel became a Shepherd. Back then, there were two choices for a career – you either worked with plants (growing and harvesting) or animals (raising or hunting). Millions of people today continue in these two vital professions – we could not survive without them.

When the day came to make an offering to God, Cain and Abel brought their tribute. Abel brought some of the very finest from his flocks, while Cain deliberately brought an average-quality offering from his crops. Cain could have done better, but he chose not to for some reason. Perhaps he thought that the all-knowing God would not notice.

God accepted Abel’s offering with favor, but He rejected Cain’s offering. It wasn’t due to a preference of meat over vegetables, but rather that Abel had brought the best that he possibly could, and had done it willingly. Cain knowingly brought not his best, and even then brought it grudgingly. The very same offering would have been accepted if it had been the best that he could do, and if he had offered it with the right attitude. Abel was cooperative and generous; Cain was selfish and miserly.

Even though the rejection was his own fault, the incident made Cain very jealous and angry with Abel, entirely without cause. Abel had merely done what God expected of him.

The rest of the tragedy is well known. Cain allowed his jealousy to turn to anger, and then his anger to hate. Instead of bringing himself up by doing better next time (as God plainly explained to him in Genesis 4:7), he chose to take Abel down – he committed the premeditated murder of his own righteous brother.

Abel is described as “righteous” in the New Testament. He didn’t live very long in this life, but he will more than make up for it in the next. With whatever he had to work with, he had simply made his best possible effort – exactly what God expects of us today.

“AM I MY BROTHER’S KEEPER?”

Genesis 4:9

INTRODUCTION

1. Perhaps one of the more thought-provoking questions in the Bible is
that one asked by Cain:
a. Cain had killed his brother because God had accepted Abel’s
offering, but not his own – Gen 4:3-8
b. When the Lord inquired concerning Abel, Cain’s response was:

“Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen 4:9)

2. This is a question we would do well to ask ourselves today…
a. Are we our brother’s keeper?
b. Do we have a responsibility to watch out for and care for one
another?

[When one turns to the New Testament, it becomes clear that the answer
is in the affirmative. In fact, there are many passages which
emphasize…]

I. OUR RESPONSIBILITIES TO ONE ANOTHER

A. WE ARE TO “LOVE ONE ANOTHER”…
1. As commanded by Jesus – Jn 13:34-35; 15:12,17
2. As taught by Paul – Ro 13:8; 1Th 4:9
3. As instructed by Peter – 1Pe 1:22
4. As stressed by John – 1Jn 3:11 (note v.12), 23; 4:7,11-12;
2Jn 5

— But how are we to express such love? Other passages can
provide the answer…

B. HOW WE SHOW OUR LOVE FOR ONE ANOTHER…
1. We are to “receive one another” – Ro 15:7
2. We are to “edify another” – Ro 14:19
3. We are to “serve one another” – Ga 5:13
4. We are to “bear one another’s burdens” – Ga 6:1-2
5. We are to be “forgiving one another” – Ep 4:32
6. We are to be “submitting to one another” – Ep 5:21
7. We are to “exhort one another” – He 3:12-13
8. We are to “consider one another” – He 10:24-25
9. We are to be “hospitable to one another” – 1Pe 4:8-10

[In light of such “one another” passages, is there any doubt that we
are to be our brother’s keeper?

But how well are we doing? To stimulate our thinking and help us
re-examine how well we are fulfilling our obligations to one another,
consider the following questions…]

II. EVALUATING OUR ROLE AS OUR BROTHER’S KEEPER

A. WHEN ONE BECOMES A BROTHER…
1. Do we receive them into the family of God, or ignore them?
Ro 15:7
a. Are they properly assimilated in the family life of the
congregation?
b. Do they remain on the fringe?
— If we do not even know their names, we can be sure that we
are failing as our brother’s keeper!
2. Do we edify them, or put stumblingblocks in their way?
Ro 14:19
a. As individuals, are we “body-builders”, encouraging the
members of the body?
b. Or are we like a cancer, weakening the members of the body
of Christ?
1) By our own example
2) By our words, attitudes, etc.
— It was said of Philemon that he refreshed the hearts of the
brethren; do people say the same of us?
3. Do we submit to them, or arrogantly rule over them? – Ep 5:21
4. Do we serve them in love, or expect them to serve us?
Ga 5:13
5. Do we demonstrate hospitality to them? – 1Pe 4:8-10
a. By visiting them in their need?
b. By inviting them into your home (or accepting invitations
to their home)?

B. WHEN A BROTHER IS OVERTAKEN IN A FAULT…
1. Do we even consider them? – He 10:24-25
a. Are we even aware of who they are?
b. Are we ignorant of their problems? If so, why?
1) Maybe it is because we don’t assemble enough ourselves
2) We may “wonder about them”, but that is not sufficient!
c. Do they drift away, with no one making an effort to reach
them?
2. Do we exhort them, lest they become hardened by sin? – He 3:
12-14

a. Or are we afraid to confront them, for fear of running them
away?
1) If we truly love them and approach them with humility,
they are not likely to run away
2) If they do, they are running away from God, not you!
b. Remember, such exhortation is to be daily! Perhaps we wait
too long…
3. Are we willing bear their burdens? – Ga 6:1-2
a. So as to help them overcome and become stronger
b. Or do we rather not be bothered?
4. Are we quick to forgive them when they repent? – Ep 4:32
a. Fear of not being forgiven and accepted back into the
family may keep some from repenting and returning to the
fold
b. Do we communicate a willingness to accept with open arms
and offer complete forgiveness?

CONCLUSION

1. How we answer such questions may reveal how well or poorly we are…
a. Fulfilling our responsibility to be our brother’s keeper
b. Living up to the one responsibility we have that includes all
others: to love one another as Christ loved us – Jn 13:34-35

2. If we have failed to be our brother’s keeper, we need to…
a. Repent of our lack of concern, our inactivity, or whatever has
hindered us
b. Confess our shortcomings in this area to God
c. Resolve to apply with zeal these “one another” passages!

Are you your brother’s keeper? Are you even identified with a
congregation whereby you can be a working member who cares for all humans,
not just those in the family or congregation?

moral theory of civil liberty

  • US Home values are down 30%
  • Architect of sub-prime mortgage meltdown testifies “I did nothing wrong”
  • Banks and mortgage companies enjoyed huge profits before the meltdown
  • US homeowners and taxpayers bear the $10 trillion loss in national net worth
  • worst CEO was fined by SEC $67.5 million kept most of $600 million net worth

The Moral Theory of Civil Liberty

Henry Ward Beecher 
June 4, 1869

” While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought into bondage.” 2 Peter 11:19

This is a true delineation of the fact that animalism leads to despotism, and necessitates it; and the whole chapter, which I read as the opening service of the evening, illustrates that important and fundamental idea.

There are two essential conditions of civil liberty: first, self-government, and second, the civil machinery of free national life. And in importance they stand in the order in which I have mentioned them.

Self-government is a better term than liberty. We are in the habit of speaking of certain nations as free people. It would be better to speak of them as self-governing people. There is no such thing as absolute liberty. It is quite inconsistent with the very creative notion which we express. There is no such thing as absolute liberty is one’s self; because there is an order of faculty in every man, by the observance of which he can reap happiness, and by the disregard of which he will entail on himself misery. That this is so of the body, we all know. That we are obliged to obey the laws of the ear, of the eye, of the mouth, and of the hand, in order to reap the benefits of these organs, we all know. We can not go backward upon the organization of the body, and have health and comfort. We gain strength and bodily ease and comfort in proportion as we obey law. We are not, therefore, free physically, in regard to the body; and just as little are we free mentally; for there is an order within, which is as real, and the observance of which is as indispensable to comfort and liberty, as the order of the body and its physical organization.

Nor are we absolutely free in our relations to the material world. Physical laws round about us are more potent than walls in a prison are round about the prisoner. Do, obey, and live: disobey, and die. A man is hedged up in his own nature; and he is hedged up just as much in the world in which he was born, and in which he moves. The laws of society—not enacted and voluntary laws, but inevitable civil laws; those laws which existed prior to all human thought about law, and compelled men to think as they did think; the laws which regulate the act of living together in great masses—these laws can not be set at naught, or be disregarded. Society is not a voluntary compact. You might as well say that men are born on compact, as to say that society is the result of agreements among men. The nature of the individual man could never have been developed except by his position in society. Men are necessary to each other. The faculties would grow dumb and dead, if it were not for that help which they get in the expression of themselves by the fact of civil society. This state of things is the design of God; it is the constituted nature of human life; and the laws that regulate it are imperious. So that man is a creature standing in a circle, once, twice, thrice repeated round about him—laws in his own organization, laws in the material world, and laws in the physical world, which demark the bounds beyond which he can not pass—and all his liberty lies in the small space that remains in the centre. There is a certain liberty which a man can exercise; but the extent of that liberty is very small. It is choosing among imperative things.

All these restraints would seem to be restraints upon the sum of life and individual power; but if you analyze it, if you look at it in the root, it will be found that, while there is no such thing as absolute liberty, these restraints all work primarily against the animal nature. All these laws, whether in a man’s own self, in his physical relations, or in his relations to his fellows in civil society, are laws which diminish the liberty, primarily and principally, of the passions and the appetites. And by as much as you diminish the power and dominancy of these elements in man, you give power and liberty to the other parts—to his reason, affections, and moral sentiments. So that while a man is restricted at the bottom, he spreads out at the top, and gains again, with amplitude and augmentation, in the higher realms of his being, all that he loses by the restrains and restrictions which are imposed by great cardinal laws upon his lower nature.

He, then, who is self-governed—that is who accepts his condition, obeys all these laws, and holds himself willingly subject to them—is free; not in the points in which he is restricted, but in other and equivalent directions, in which a man’s life is more to him than his basilar life can be.

All these restraints, therefore, in an intelligent and virtuous society, will be found to fall on the animal propensities, and to set free, by their very limitation, the other part of human nature—its manhood, its divinity.

The more effectually, then, these lower elements are repressed, the more liberty is given to the affections. The degree of liberty attainable by an individual depends upon the restraint which he puts upon the lower nature, and the stimulus which he gives to the higher. The liberty which is attainable by masses of men living together depends on the training that the society which they constitute has had in keeping down the animalism and exalting the true manhood of the citizens in the community. If each man, and all men, have learned self-restraint, then there will be need of but very little restraint on the part of the government; but if self-restraint does not exist in the body of citizens, it must be supplied from without. If men govern the animal that is in them, on which the soul sits astride, like the rider upon his steed, then they are governed. If they will not govern it, it must be governed for them. Government there must be, in some way, if men are going to live together. Society would break up in uproar; it would be like a den of tigers and lions; it would be but a bestial wallow of swine quarreling for their food, and quarreling for their warmth of a winter’s night, and quarreling evermore, if there were no government. To live together as men, and in such a way that men can exercise their higher prerogatives, the lower elements of the human organization must be governed. If men would govern these lower elements themselves, there would be no need of bringing in any other instrument of government; but if they will not do it, it must be done by some other agency.

Despotism is the inevitable government of ignorant and savage natures. It is not that the monarch, seeing his power, takes it upon himself to govern the rude in their helplessness; it is this, that the men who represent in themselves only animal qualities are properly governed by absolute government. The animal nature in men must be governed by force, unless they govern it by their own intelligent and free will. Therefore a low and animal condition of national life is properly crowned and dominated by despotism. Under such circumstances it is not a usurpation; it is not a mischief; it is precisely adapted to the work that is to be done. And an indispensable work it is.

Society can not be free, then, except as the reason and the moral sentiments have a sufficient ascendancy. You have often heard it said that a free government depends upon the intelligence and virtue of the citizens. This is an empirical fact. It is in accordance with the radical nature of man that it should be so. The first and most important condition of liberty, psychologically stated, is that men should learn how to restrain their lower, basilar, passional natures, and should be willing to restrain them, and so give liberty.

Comments: Man’s inhumanity to their fellow man is the lowest form of animal instinct.  Building a consensus for public policy consistent with the Universal Declaration of basic human rights would be a step toward higher pursuits.

“All these laws, whether in a man’s own self, in his physical relations, or in his relations to his fellows in civil society, are laws which diminish the liberty, primarily and principally, of the passions and the appetites. And by as much as you diminish the power and dominancy of these elements in man, you give power and liberty to the other parts—to his reason, affections, and moral sentiments. So that while a man is restricted at the bottom, he spreads out at the top, and gains again, with amplitude and augmentation, in the higher realms of his being.”

Does a member of a humane society have any duty to “be his brother’s keeper”?

 

 

symbiosis

Symbiosis (from Ancient Greek sýn “with” and bíōsis “living“) is close and often long-term interaction between different biological species.  In 1877, Bennett used the word symbiosis (which previously had been used to describe people living together in community) to describe the mutualistic relationship in lichens.  In 1879, the German mycologist Heinrich Anton de Bary defined it as “the living together of unlike organisms.”

The definition of symbiosis is controversial among scientists. Some believe symbiosis should only refer to persistent mutualisms, while others believe it should apply to all types of persistent biological interactions (i.e. mutualisticcommensalistic, or parasitic).

Politicians are increasingly dependent upon corporate funding to win elections.  This dependency can interfere with policy decisions that are consistent with liberty and justice for all.