The Myth of Limited Government

This is Discretionary Spending not the Total Budget

The United States of today is a vastly different country from what it was before World War II. 

For example, virtually no income tax existed back then, but 75 years later, approximately 35% of the $3.9 trillion US budget is spent annually on the military industrial complex. 

The rise of Central Banks at the beginning of the 20th century, the resulting method of perpetual indebtedness, and the growth of the US Government in connection with Big Corporations is now viewed as necessary with little faith in viable alternatives. 

It seems that the American form of government has evolved to leave people with the meaningless power to vote for only two choices--a Warfare State or a Welfare State. It seems that the role of representative government is to spend as much money as they can borrow while keeping their subjects busy, one side blaming the other as the source of all problems, based on the myth that if "my side ran the government all would be better." 

No it wouldn't. 

There is only one side in American Government made up of two parties whose only concern is how to spend the money they receive through taxation. 

Source

Both sides have run the government for the last 100 years and it's only gotten worse. Both sides have controlled the US Treasury, Congress and Executive Branches while appointing their Federal Judiciaries and it has only gotten worse.

I believe that an authoritarian worldview of using force and threat of violence through superior and inferior positions keeps this system in place, and more than that, that this principality and power has essentially taken over America behind the scenes.

The power-elite love it when people spend their time blaming each other. It signals to them that their power structure is secure, since they can easily observe that people do not realize what is going on behind the scenes.

As long as people are participating in "partyism" by voting and blaming another party, then no void will be created to fill with something better and nothing will change, and the power-elites will continue their control. Developing more parties would only make it worse. Eliminating a party would only cause a replacement party to emerge. Partyism by nature needs conflict. It cannot exist without it. Peace destroys parties.

Source

I think that the quote below from Lew Rockwell shows how the present military-industrial complex culture controlled by the power-elite affects our understanding and judgment. To me, it reveals how a way of thinking that existed prior to two World Wars would seem foreign today, though once it was common.

He writes,

"In the modern corruption of international law that has prevailed since 1914, neutrality has been treated as somehow deeply immoral. Now, if countries A and B get into a fight, it becomes every nation's moral obligation to figure out, quickly, which country is the "bad guy," and then rush in and pummel it in defense of the "good guy."

"Classic international law was virtually the opposite. Trying to limit war, neutrality was considered not only justifiable but a positive virtue. In the old days, "he kept us out of war" was a high tribute to a president or political leader, but now... condemned is any president who "stands idly by" while "people are being killed." In the old days, "standing idly by" was considered a mark of high statesmanship."

"Not only that: neutral states had 'rights' which were mainly upheld, since every warring country knew that someday it too would be neutral. A warring state could not interfere with neutral shipping to an enemy state; neutrals could ship to such an enemy with impunity all goods except 'contraband,' which was strictly defined as arms and ammunition. Wars were kept limited in those days and neutrality was extolled."

Today, for example, sanctions that kill hundreds of thousands of civilians are common practice, but once they were viewed as acts of war by most nations. The interventionism of 20th Century America was a drastic departure from the previous 100 years of American foreign policy.

Meditating on Rockwell's quote reminded me of Steven Covey's point in his Seven Habits of Highly Effective People book (1989) of how American thinking changed from a character based ethic to a personality based ethic in the 20th century. It also caused me to notice the present day "party" spirit that Paul calls a work of the flesh in Gal. 5:19ff. When we realize who America is, where America is, and how it got here, then we can learn from that and hopefully deter and avoid future negative consequences since we live here.

Enlightened Deists Separating Church from State

The answer is not to blame the other party, or in any way, correct America through the myth of limited government. The answer is to be churches separate from America. America is simply fulfilling her nature through growth of government into a god.

She will never be limited except by the true God of the universe for His own purposes. His way is certainly not for His people to relegate being the nation-body of Christ on Earth in favor of being American.

The church needs to fulfill her nature by separating from the state and stop trying to be a part of just another ungodly nation deceived by the myth of its own exceptionalism. I am talking about an ideological change of our worldview as the starting point to better methods as churches. Existing authoritarian structures will attempt to hinder and suppress truth. We must not submit to their "authority" while being respectful to all in attitude. "We must obey God rather than man."

Jesus Breaking Bread at Supper

I ask you an ideological, but fundamental question:

"Are you an American or a Christian?

It is my belief that we cannot be both in an ideological sense. I feel the two are, at least, mutually exclusive and probably mutually opposed based on my understanding of Church and American history. Attempting to reunite the two based on a myth that once the church and state were united in 1789 American States and seeking to restore that because another party destroyed it does not make it so.

Seeking to be All-American until "we must obey God" should be reversed in my opinion.

The American Revolutionaries First Amendment to their Constitution was:

"The Government Shall Make No Law Regarding the Establishment of Religion..."

That means that their number one assumption was that Church and State should be separate. They were Deists who believed God existed, but did not concern Himself with worldly affairs. Worldly affairs was their job and they accepted that God would judge them in real-time history. They were kicking the Western Church out while acknowledging God's existence and moral system of character.

But now the world led by 20th Century America, and its evolving Enlightenment Thinking through Scientism and Technologism, is doing away with even that character ethic that the American-Deist Founding Father's had.

Google is even investing $425 million in a search for immortality. They believe that a man can live 500 years. Christians have always believed these two things, but our methods are different.

If my belief is shocking to the point of disbelief,  I suggest that it is because of the assumptions in the American worldview and how the present culture affects it.

I say,

"Either we will love the one and hate the other or be devoted to the one and despise the other."

And that,

"Serving two masters" ruins one's character.

And that we would be better to,

"Render to God the things that are God's" and leave to "Caesar the things that are Caesar's."

The churches of Christ don't need America anymore than we need any other Country for our existence.