In the beginning, God did not create a communal hierarchy, and did not want to be the “puppet master” or grand central planner of we who are made in the likeness of God. Therefore put plainly: although God is the overall owner of all things, to a large degree what happens on this earth is not up to Him.

The exercise of this human dominion on earth is another term for free will.

The scriptures teach that “God is love” – and love always honours the free will of others, never seeking to manipulate or to impose. In order to truly honour free will, it is necessary to offer a free choice with all its consequences. Therefore, God made such a choice available to Adam and Eve. Swords Into Plowshares... Paul, Ron Best Price: $4.00 Buy New $15.99 (as of 11:36 UTC - Details)

To make the choice genuinely free, there could be no interference and therefore God was not physically present or visible at the time. The awful consequences of making an evil choice, although made clear to them in advance, were not immediately visible either. Here is the record of that event:

Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”

And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, “You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.”

Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. (Genesis 3:1-6)

The story of the tree, the fruit and the serpent is well known around the world:  A wrong choice was made by both Adam and by Eve at the tree, after listening to a reptile inhabited by Satan – a lesser created being who, with his cohorts, had made his own evil choice long before. The rest is world history – things were to become a lot harder, a mixture of good and evil depending upon the interaction and results of ongoing everyday free will choices.

So it would seem to follow that, if at any time government was going to be instituted by God in response to sin, then surely the ideal place would have been at the time of the first sin – immediately after the “fall” of Adam and Eve his wife.

However, the record shows that it was not… God had in fact already instituted the resilient family framework. Had that not been the best institution for the problems of a fallen world, our Creator would surely have been well aware of it. We Who Dared to Say No... Best Price: $2.50 Buy New $14.75 (as of 08:10 UTC - Details)

The Family Framework

Eve had been taken from the side of Adam, literally a part of him. Originally, this was not a master/slave arrangement; it was a partnership – one a natural leader and one a natural helper. But even with selfishness and sin now in the world, God made clear that there was no alternative to this established order by acknowledging that sinful men would inevitably subjugate their women:

“In pain you shall bring forth children; your desire [shall be] for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” Genesis 3:16

At the fall, God could easily have modified this by establishing some kind of commune/government type arrangement. But where improper subjugation exists, it is far better kept to a minimum and not offered an unlimited path of expansion. Such misbehaviour is restrained and limited best when kept at the lowest possible level:  At least a mistreated woman could normally escape back to her father’s house if things became intolerable, or else become a domestic helper, or in a worst case scenario look for some other escape route.

But today’s ever expanding governments have done their utmost to destroy the decentralised authority of the home. They will use and exaggerate every incident of domestic failure and abuse as an excuse to establish their own subjugation, while covering up systemic abuse – especially of children  in state social systems. Even official abuse figures are fudged – for example, violence by transient partners against an earlier partner’s children is often attributed to the “family”.

Some women have welcomed the growth of the welfare state as a ”liberation” from the moral responsibility that comes with being a mother, bearing children and respecting the natural leader of the home.  But many such women are even more abused, abandoned and much the worse off for transient relationships with irresponsible men. They have in effect, married the state and their children have grown up fatherless, often on government housing estates – a lost and emotionally damaged underclass.

The American Deep Stat... Scott, Peter Dale Best Price: $27.51 Buy New $83.23 (as of 09:30 UTC - Details) There have been many negative social consequences in a culture that trivialises sex in this way, and separates it from family life. In the absence of natural fatherly affection, and sometimes in combination with sexual abuse, not the least of these consequences is a greater susceptibility to sexual disorientation.

Truth or Consequences

Those who advocate sexually loose behaviour in the name of personal rights, entirely fail to consider the rights of third parties not present at the pleasurable moment. Such rights are always violated – be it the right of fathers, mothers, wives, husbands, future spouses, or of dependants, who may suffer terribly from a broken home.

More even than these victims, there is also a potential new third party to consider: The dependent life that the act may bring into the world a short time later – along with financial, emotional and social dependency for many years after that.

Of course, such basic knowledge as this is instinctive. So much so in fact, that counteracting this instinct is intensive work requiring continual indoctrination and personal “mind games” to dull the obvious. This ongoing indoctrination is a primary role of the Hollywood sex cult and of the mainstream media.

Angry, self-righteous support for state social welfare systems is typically one such mind game – a moral and conscience redirection exercise by those who would accommodate or practice loose sexual behaviour, while seeking to absolve themselves from the associated duties and consequences.

The perverse social systems that undergird it all are now coming to an end as the bills to pay for them are finally coming due. But social attitudes will not change so quickly – it will take time and moral re-education to restore a natural social order. That process will take even longer if Christian churches do not themselves re-evaluate their faith in government power and recommit to the principles of the true kingdom of God, in order to take their proper place of leadership and instruction.

Against the State: An ... Rockwell Jr., Llewelly... Best Price: $5.02 Buy New $5.52 (as of 11:35 UTC - Details) This is so especially among religious “social conservatives” whose doctrines superficially appear to uphold morality but in reality empower the state.

Religious Politics, Left and Right

The word “conservative” can be anchored to varying reference points in the past. The type referenced here, is the current prevailing political “social conservative” worldview.

Social conservatism has increasingly come to propose that the same governments which have led people down the dark path of social destruction, are the anointed saviours to lead the people back again – through external micromanagement of their personal lives, by getting the right people in office. But note well that the worst enemies of Jesus were not the sexually immoral sinners – the social “liberals” of the day.

Religious statism is in fact an ancient tradition: “Social Conservatives” are the modern day Pharisees, who would use every real or perceived secondary moral violation as justification for replacing the primary personal jurisdiction established at creation with their own authoritarian, police state control.

But if there is to be genuine Christian concern for family life, then it is important to hear the words of Jesus:

“…beware the leaven of the Pharisees and the Herodians“.

The “Herodians” of the time represented Herod – in an overt and direct appeal to secular politics as an end in itself, especially through “bi-partisan” solutions with the Pharisees and Sadducees: On the one (Right) political hand, were the strict religious Pharisees. But on the other hand, there also existed the more secular Sadducees – who barely even believed in a spiritual realm. They, in other words, were the religious Left. There were doctrinal disputes and infighting, but the power base of both the religious Left and religious Right was based upon backing by Herod and ultimately, Caesar.

The Pharisees and modern puritan dictators in particular, are as dangerous today as they were back then – simply because they use a veneer of morality to justify their craving for power. They appear to be righteous and seem to offer an alternative to decadence. Yet the same satanic agenda of hate and improper control is at work as it is in those of the Left who would more overtly dissolve the family and natural institutions of social welfare.

Natural Social Welfare

The truth is, for all his faults it is rare to find a husband who, at heart, cares nothing for his wife and children. It is in his self-interest and natural to do so – his part in an instinctive and very real social contract.

There will always be some brutes – married or not – but even so, there can be absolutely no adequate replacement for the family as an institution, which is not much more socially destructive. Even legitimate secondary institutions such as extended family, church, neighbours and private charities can only act as effective social safety nets when they respect this primary principle of the family framework.

We see this point underlined in some detail by Paul in the Book of 1 Timothy, Chapter 5 where, notably excluded from the text is any mention of praying for or seeking state provision:

“…if any widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show piety at home and to repay their parents; for this is good and acceptable before God…. if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever… If any believing man or woman has widows, let them relieve them, and do not let the church be burdened, that it may relieve those who are really widows.”

Here, the duty and means of Christian social provision is clearly laid out by Paul, under direction and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, to the extent that the state “supports” by “relieving” extended families, churches and neighbours of these God-given responsibilities, it is in reality an evil which undermines them.

Moreover, such a system creates a cycle of dependency:  As the state produces nothing, it can only rob other families, further diminishing their financial ability to fulfil primary or secondary responsibilities as natural welfare institutions.

Conclusion

Our search for the divine creation of government at the point of origin of sin has been a failure.

When government replaces family, then gradually even the sense of family responsibility is lost until, like today, the instinctive response to ever increasing social problems is to lobby for a larger, “fairer” share of the government cake. Always, this is at the expense of others from whom it must be taken by force. Because unlike the true God, who gives and creates, the State can only take and destroy.

Our conclusion has to be that government clearly was not instituted at the “Fall” to mitigate sin; it is rather an organised manifestation of sin and as such, can only magnify its effects.

The Best of Paul Green