Government by Consent of the Governed

[Frank Dunkle] Good afternoon, everyone. It's a pleasure to be here. And I say pleasure to be back, been a couple of weeks. I was privileged to get to be at Camp Cotubic this time last week. I know Mr. PerMar was and probably some others that are here with us. And I know Pinecrest is going on right now, so we're in full camp season. But, of course, it's not just summer camp. If you heard what I heard last night around bedtime, you might have thought something going on. It sounded like a war, am I right? Or was it just my neighborhood? And that was a day late.

But as, I believe, Mr. Metzel mentioned for us that are American citizens, we recently celebrated the Independence Day of the United States of America, July 4th. That gives me opportunity to speak on one of my favorite subjects, the American Revolution. Or should I say the Revolutionary War? Others call it the War for American Independence. And these names and many others have been accurately used, and they do mean slightly different things, at least to history professors. So which name I choose might depend on what spiritual lessons I want to draw. And so I did purposely choose American Revolution.

Much as I love analyzing military history, I don't want to go in that direction today. Now, I could discuss the great leaders at that time. And some people say that was the greatest assemblage of great minds and patriotic men in American history and their great character lessons to draw from that. But that's also not what I'm going to talk about. Now, as I realize my introduction might spend as much time telling you what I'm not going to cover as to what I am. I don't want to ignore the opportunities though. The historical event gives us a great opportunity to talk about fulfilled prophecy about the promises that God made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the birthright promises coming to the descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh. But that's also not what I'm going to talk about.

I mentioned the possibilities though, so you'll know I did consider those. What I wrote down is if I don't talk about what you wish I would, it's not that it didn't cross my mind. And I do want to say, I realize not all of us are Americans, especially those of you watching online. But I do think that the lessons I want to draw are something that would be applicable whether you're a U.S. citizen, American or not. So I want to talk today, or at least draw lessons from what some historians call the real American revolution. And use that to discuss the vital change that's necessary in our thinking as part of our conversion.

Now, when I say real American revolution, as I said I'm not talking about the battles, the political votes, government, and I'm not talking about some bizarre conspiracy theory that I'm about to roll out, so you might breathe a sigh of relief. But what I want to... If you attend ABC, you'll hear me do that a lot of times. I want to talk about the widespread change in the way Americans thought. The change in the way Americans saw their place in the world and how they related to it. And this has a lot to do with laws and government. Considering that change to be the real American Revolution is what caused no less a person than John Adams, second president in American history, to write that the American Revolution didn't begin in 1776. We often think of that with the Declaration of Independence.

He said the American Revolution began in 1765. Quite a bit earlier. So to get there I want to review some major events that you might remember from history classes, and I always know when I do this some people love it and some people think, "I didn't like it back in my history classes, so I'll bear with you." Please keep in mind that I'm making an analogy. Realizing that for us to become children of God, to fulfill our calling, to be born into God's family, human beings have to undergo a thorough change in their way of thinking. We have to see our place in the universe differently than before. With that in mind turn with me, if you will, to Romans 7:16. Romans 7:16. I'm going to pull this slightly out of context, but I'll come back and get the context later.

Romans 7:16 Paul says, "If, then, I do what I will not to do," and more modern language might have said if I do what I don't want to do, I wish I wouldn't do, "I agree with the law that it's good." 

And he's speaking of God's law. If you happen to have the older King James version, it uses a word that I kind of want to focus on. The old King James said, "If I do what I will not to do, I consent with the law that it's good." Consenting to God's law. Now, we usually read past this pretty quickly to get to what Paul talks about later with this struggle that goes on inside of every Christian, where we know what we should do and we want to do that, and yet we've got our human nature pulling us to do the other thing that we don't like to do. That's part of the process of conversion that I think is common.

But what I want to note though is the reason there is that conflict is that we've consented to God's law. We agree in our hearts and minds that that is what's good. So we want to be like that. You know, we feel that way sometimes even when we allow our human nature to lead us to break that very law. Well, a lot of what happened in the American Revolution was about consenting to law or not consenting to law. And that's why I said I think there's some value to Christians in that, especially since we just went through the anniversary. It occurred to me, we're just 2 years short of 250 of American independence. Anybody remember the 200th? The bicentennial? I'm glad some do.

I was I'm young enough that it was a huge deal, and I thought I'd never live to see another anniversary like...well, I won't live to see another in one like that. I'm not going to live to the...would it be quadricentennial? Unless I really bone up on my vitamins or... I'm doing what I did last Sabbath at camp getting sidetracked. Let me talk about a brief history of the American Revolution to get at the point that I want to make about Christians consenting. From the time that the earliest British settlements were established in North America, at least the ones that lasted, Jamestown started in 1607, Plymouth in 1620. From that time until the end of what Americans call the French and Indian War in 1763, during that time many things changed for the colonists.

Small towns and cities grew up and prospered. Farms were cleared from forest land and became very productive. Hostile Indian tribes that had dominated were often defeated in battle, driven off, or else convinced to cooperate with the white men, many times selling furs to them. But as these changes happened, one thing lasted and stayed the same through all that time. These so-called colonists...and I say so-called colonists because most of them by 1763 had been born in North America, lived there all their life. And I find it amusing when I read writings by them that they still refer to home as that island across the ocean that they'd never seen. But they thought of themselves as Englishmen, subjects of the British Empire.

And the late success in war against France and its colonies seemed to confirm that matter. Yet some different attitudes and practices in fighting that war began to show them that maybe they weren't so much as they thought. You know, I can say for one thing it was easy for Americans to think of themselves as Englishmen until thousands of actual Englishmen wearing soldiers' red coats showed up in America. And both sides began to see that they didn't always see things the same way. They didn't always do things the same way. Again I'd love to spend the rest of the afternoon talking about that war, but that's outside our purpose. But aside from the soldiers and Americans seeing differences, British government officers in the revenue department noticed a difference.

Something had changed in America, they discovered over the last 150 or so years. Rather than being a group of poor, struggling, starving settlements, colonies were thriving. In many ways, they'd become rather wealthy. And they discovered for the British Empire governing and protecting those colonies was costing Britain quite a bit more money than they were making off of those colonies, at least in tax revenue. And as it was Americans were already paying a way lower tax rates than people in Britain. So for these reasons that seemed quite logical, the British Parliament started passing laws to put new taxes on the Americans. Earlier there was what Americans called a Sugar Act. The big one came though in 1765 called the Stamp Act.

It was designed to raise revenue from a wide variety of transactions. Anytime you needed to have a government transaction or if you bought a newspaper, playing cards, anything like that, there was a small tax. The idea was it will be a relatively painless, little fee on a lot of things that will raise revenue for the British. Nobody in Britain expected animosity or pushback, but, boy, did they get it. There was a huge reaction in America. And that huge reaction is what caused John Adams to say that's when the real American Revolution began. Colonists had a change in their thinking, or maybe they thought they were consistent in their thinking. The way they were thinking brought action.

And I'll try to be brief on some of these details even though they're fun to talk about. Well, one's not fun. They had an economic boycott. We're not going to buy stuff from Britain. In some of the cities, there was mob action, even small riots. Often organized behind the scenes by men like Sam Adams, and not just like Sam Adams but Sam himself did it. He was better at raising riots than he was brewing beer. But along with these illegal activities the Americans sent representatives to New York to meet in what they called a Stamp Act Congress. They made a formal appeal, and they sent it to the King and to parliament asking for a repeal of what they called unconstitutional laws, meaning laws that weren't really legal.

And these debates in Congress and the letters that Americans wrote, help answer for historians the question, why did Americans react to these low taxes? When we see what they were thinking, turns out that it was quite different than what the Brits thought they were thinking. You know, the Brits back in England said, "They just don't want to pay their fair share. You know, they're cheapskates." It's funny, I just thought because I've been called that, and it's accurate for me, but wasn't so for the Americans at that time. The Americans were willing to pay their fair share. Some Brits thought, well, it's the type of tax, the stamp tax. No Americans had actually imposed stamp taxes on themselves before that. But they'd voted on them themselves. And that tells us something vital.

It wasn't how high the tax rates were, it wasn't the type of tax, it was who put them in place and why. What I like to say when it comes down to this is, it was the principle of the thing. Who has that right? Americans encompassed it in a nice rhyming phrase, no taxation without representation. Do you guys remember that one? It was actually accurate. What it was about was it was based on the idea of private property. And that's a concept supported in the Bible by the way. You know, that's why the eighth commandment says, "Thou shalt not steal." It basically says my stuff is mine. When I teach class, I'll just say, "It's my water, no one's allowed to take it from me unless I consent." Okay, are taxes stealing, taking somebody's money without their consent?

Well, the Americans said no, not in a representative or a democratic government. And such governments, we give our consent through our representatives. But the Americans in 1765 said, "Hey, we didn't give our consent. We didn't get to choose anybody in parliament. They're over there voting taxes on us. That's not fair." Now, another way to say what the Americans were focusing on was they wanted government by consent of the governed. We should have a say in these laws. Government by consent of the governed. As I said, there are oversimplified versions of the American Revolution that say well Americans decided they didn't want some king telling them what to do. You've probably heard that phrase. Well, yes and no. That's, again, I think that's oversimplified.

And the truth is King George III didn't have the right to impose taxes. It had to come from parliament. Most Americans were appealing to him, were loyal to him saying, "Hey George..." I'm sure they didn't call him George. Sure they called him, "Your Royal Majesty, save us from your evil parliament that's doing something they shouldn't be doing." You know, the Stamp Act Congress, later the Continental Congress, sent many appeals to the king, "Hey, save us from your unjust representatives." Well, I got to fast forward, but in 1766, after less than a year, parliament did repeal the stamp tax. More because of the politics and the economics than the principle of the thing. Matter of fact they went out of their way to say they didn't agree with what Americans said about the principle because, at the same time, they passed what was called the Declaratory Act. You guys don't have to take notes. You got this in high school history.

But the Declaratory Act was a way of saying, "Okay, we're not going to put taxes on you but we could if we wanted to." And soon after, they imposed several import taxes to raise money. You know, they were called the Townshend Duties, on things Americans bought from Britain. Paint, glass, lead, paper, tea. I emphasize tea because those other duties or custom imports would later go away because they weren't that effective. Some Americans protested and boycotted, but other Americans did what Americans have proved to be adept at doing ever since and that's smuggling. We don't agree with the law, we're going to get around it. So what I'm saying is other events would lead to those other taxes being removed but not the one on tea. That was sort of like a Declaratory Act. "Okay, we're taking these import duties away, but we can do it if we want to." That's going to lead to another major event.

I'll get done with my history lesson soon, I promise. In 1773, parliament made an adjustment in how the tea tax was administered to benefit the British East India Tea Company. If you're a fan of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, I think the British East India Company comes up in that, although don't pay attention to the movie for your history. But it was sort of like the company was having trouble and parliament was trying to bail them out. Similar to the way Congress bailed out General Motors some time ago. Too big to fail. Okay, the way they changed the law actually made the tea in America cost less. It wasn't more expensive tea, it was cheaper tea. And those Americans that said it's the principle of the thing said, "Aha. They're trying to bribe us with cheap tea. We're not going to stand for it." I think there's a story where John Adams went into a coffee shop, and said, "Do you have any good smuggled tea that I can drink?" Okay, they boycotted again.

The Americans wouldn't let the ships unload, and you know where this story is leading. The British passed laws saying the ships can't come back with the tea, so they were at a stalemate. Ships couldn't unload. They couldn't leave. Well, in Boston they came up with a clever solution. They dressed up like Indians, boarded the ship, dumped it all out in the harbor. The famous Boston Tea Party. And since I've gotten this far in my story, I'll push on basically to the end. That led to some pretty severe retaliation from Britain. You know, parliament passed a series of laws to force New England to do what was right. They, basically, put Massachusetts under martial law and moved in regiments of soldiers to impose that, you know, forced obedience. Americans did what they normally do. They protested. They boycotted. They sent petitions to the king. But they also started drilling and, you know, forming their militia companies. Getting the rusty old rifle out from behind the bed and oiling it up and practicing and stockpiling weapons and gunpowder.

And so it was, things came to a head in April of 1775. As a matter of fact, I remember very clearly...well, I don't remember it happening. Contrary to what my son tells me, I'm not that old. But I remember the date because it happens to be my sister's birthday. April 19th of 1775, a British regiment was moving towards Concord, Massachusetts to seize supplies of gunpowder and weapons. The Village of Lexington was on the way, and there they encountered a group of American militia lined up. Harsh words were exchanged. Challenges, and someone, to this day no one knows who, but someone fired the first shot. And other shots followed. It was the shot heard around the world. War was on, and it would go on from there. From that time on, it was less economics, it was less laws that governed what was happening. It was a military conflict. And, oh, I wish I could spend time talking about those battles.

But I want to focus on that real American revolution. I've been leading up to it. That change in American thinking. Because we've already got a long ways, but as the fighting went on, the people changed from first thinking the local British officials were their enemy. That customs official at the port. Then they moved to believing that parliament was their enemy. And, eventually, as the last resort decided that the king was also their enemy. They came to believe that they were being oppressed by a government that did not have their best interests in mind. The government doesn't have our best interest in mind. These laws are not good for us. And Americans said, "We're not going to consent to that government or its laws." When that happened, Americans gradually changed their thinking. They went from thinking of themselves as Englishmen... Remember, I said, back in 1763, until then, they thought of themselves as Englishmen until real Englishmen showed up, and they said, "What's with those guys?" They probably didn't say it quite like that.

But, now after, especially, 1775, Americans started to see themselves as Virginians, North Carolinians, Marylanders, New Englanders, and in time as Americans. American citizens who eventually would vote for independence on the 4th of July in 1776. As I said, I breezed all through that, forcing myself not to talk about the fun stuff like the Battle of Bunker Hill and Washington crossing the Delaware. I've got that nifty painting hanging up in my office. Well, I've got a copy of the painting. It's I'm sure in a museum somewhere, Valley Forge. That didn't fit with what I wanted to draw out today as a lesson. What does fit is that Americans, our founding fathers, were driven to revolution by principle. They believed it was wrong to have to pay taxes on which they didn't vote. No taxation without representation. It wasn't about being too cheap to pay their fair share. And it wasn't about the money.

Although I would have to admit, everybody's happy to pay lower taxes if they can get away with it. But the principle was largely government by consent of the governed. They wanted a government that had their best interests in mind. With that in mind, let's think about why we choose to live by God's law. Is it just to avoid the penalty? Remember the wages of sin is death. I don't fancy that very much. We don't want to die. Do we obey just to get the blessings? If you read through Leviticus 26 or Deuteronomy 28, you can see the national blessings God promised for obedience are wonderful and astounding. And we can reap great individual benefits living God's way.

I can't remember who I had a conversation with recently. It might have been at summer camp last week, where I was saying, you know, I firmly believe that even if there were not a resurrection, if there weren't a kingdom of God coming, it would be worth living by God's law here and now just for the benefits that come here and now. I think that. I know, especially, when I was younger I didn't always see it that way. But do we obey just for the benefit, the blessings? And I'm not saying it's wrong to want to avoid penalty or have blessings, but I propose that if those were the only reasons, we might be like the American colonists who lived under rules imposed by a foreign government only when they didn't have the power to resist or revolt, only when there was armed force making them obey, but they would smuggle when they had the chance or get around it some other way.

I don't think that's the case for us. It shouldn't be. I think that we do, or if we're not quite there yet, eventually, we will accept God's law and His government. We will consent to do it. You've heard that phrase "buying in." Do we buy into the way God does things? I think most of us are here because we do believe, and we need to believe that God's way is our way. Still, I want to be clear, one thing for Christians that will never parallel the experience of the American Revolution is that we won't go set up another government of our own making. We don't get to participate in forming government and laws. God has done that. I know that the parallel I'm making or the analogy could go over a cliff that I don't want to go over. God has given us good government and good laws. So we don't have to worry about taxation without representation, but we can think of having government by consent of the governed.

If you would turn with me to Isaiah 33. Isaiah 33:22. I think, I first noticed this scripture when I was preparing to teach the major prophets class. It had never hit me this way before, but it's kind of one of those nifty things in a scripture. 

Isaiah 33:22 Speaking of God, it says, "The Eternal is our judge. The Eternal is our lawgiver. The Eternal is our king. He will save us." 

Judge, lawgiver, and king. If we looked at the United States government or most national governments, we'd see three branches of government. Legislative, judicial, and executive. God's got all that covered. Why do we have those separate branches of government in human government? Sorry for the repetition. Well, mankind has determined that for human governments it's necessary to have a division of power. We need checks and balances. Why? Because we're human. Humans are faulty.

I won't turn there, but Jeremiah 17:9 tells us, "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked." 

That might well have been one of the first grandma scriptures I ever learned. Humanity on our own, under Satan's influence, is wicked. We deceive ourselves. The founding fathers understood, and I believe the common phrase, that "power corrupts." And, of course, you know, it goes from there, absolute power corrupts absolutely. So what did they do when they met together for the constitutional convention starting in 1787, '88? Boy, I'm supposed to know these things, but I was focused on the revolution, not the constitution. But they set up a government with power divided. We'll have an executive branch, a legislative branch, judicial. And all of those except for the judicial would be subject to votes of the general populace. The legislature would include a large number of representatives over a vast geographic area so that people could have buy-in.

The Americans would have the chance to consent. They would say, "I voted for that guy," or, "maybe, I didn't vote for him, but enough of my neighbors did that he's there representing us." The Americans, the founding fathers, also saw that they wanted to separate from the legislature the power to administer and direct law enforcement. They wanted to separate from the legislature the ability to direct military operations. Partly, because that's what parliament did. You know, parliament at that time they were just developing the prime minister, but he was in parliament. But the Americans they said, "Well, for these, you know, we want to separate those from the legislature because that's too many people running things. We need to have one person in charge to be at efficient." So they created the office of the president. But then, again, to make sure he doesn't become some dictator, imposing things to which people wouldn't consent, they made him dependent on election by the people, and they gave Congress checks on his power.

And I'll say, one thing, you know, that's one of my favorite subjects to study, so I apologize if I'm going on too much. But if you study the constitutional convention, you'll see that there is a widespread movement to limit the president much more than they did. They considered having a body of three men or at least two like ancient Rome did with the consulates. You know, and maybe, we shouldn't let him do this and shouldn't do that. But while they were debating that, they looked up at the person chairing the convention, and there was George Washington. Everybody knows he's going to be president. We trust Washington. So they gave the presidency more power than they would have otherwise because they trusted him not to abuse the power. They trusted him to give it up when the time came. One of the reasons I mention that is we're not looking to George Washington or any other person to be our king, we're looking to Jesus Christ. We can trust Him. We can trust Him to do what's good and right because He's good and right. We're not far from Psalms if you're still in Isaiah. I want to turn to Psalm 34:8. It's a brief scripture, but I like the way it's worded. But I have to read the correct chapter. 

Psalm 34:8 says, "O taste and see that the Lord is good. Blessed is the man who trusts in Him." 

Now, I still think the Hebrew might have been translated a little better because we don't go and taste. Better if it said, "Test and see that the Lord is good." Put Him to the test. You might say try it, you'll like it. He is good. And we can trust Him. That's what it says, "Blessed is the man who trusts in Him." You could refer, or if you want to write this down.

 Matthew 19:17 Jesus said quite plainly, "There is no one good but God." 

That's when someone actually called Him good, and he realized He was in the flesh at the time. Funny they were asking, what should I do to have eternal life? Well, don't call me good. No one's good but God. And then He goes on to tell him if you want to have life, keep the commandments.

Maybe we could touch on that a little bit later, because which commandments? Well, Jesus starts listing the Ten Commandments. They bring life. But saying that God is good is a simple statement. I would even say that's the definition of good. How do you know what good is? It's what God is. Alongside of Matthew 19:17, you could jot down 1 John 4:8. 1 John 4:8 has a three-word sentence, God is love. It's not the entire scripture, but that's what we remember of it. God is love, and He's good. We have a king of the government that we're loyal to who is good, who is loving, He's perfect, He's incorruptible. So it only makes sense that the laws of God are good. They're ways of showing love. They're laws that we can consent to. I'm going to turn to Nehemiah 9:13 which is earlier than Psalms, not after. Nehemiah 9:13. Nehemiah 9 is one of the great summary chapters that goes back and covers much of Israel's history. And it's addressing God. It says somewhat of a prayer.

Nehemiah 9:13 It says, "You," addressing God, "came down also on Mount Sinai, spoke with them, Israel from heaven, and gave them just ordinances, true laws, good statutes and commandments." 

That's worth saying again. Just ordinance, true laws, good statutes and commandments. It's not just a matter though of saying that the law is somehow in some isolated state of goodness. It's not good just on its own. It has the practical application that is good. That's what happens when you put too many polysyllabical words in a row. But I pulled off saying that one. Let's turn to Deuteronomy 6:24. We might not remember where these are, but I hope the principles of what this says become a part of us. 

Deuteronomy 6:24 There we go. "The Lord commanded us to observe all these statutes..." By the way, this is Moses speaking to the children of Israel summarizing what had happened to them and what was going to happen as they were going to the promised land. "The Lord commanded us to observe all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that He might preserve us alive, as it is this day."

The laws and the statutes are for our good. The law is good, and it benefits everyone. The government has our own interests at heart so to speak. Who wouldn't want to consent to a law like that? Let's look at Romans 13. Romans 13, we'll read beginning of verse 8. I keep glancing up the clock. I thought people would give me a pass if I go a little long because the revolution is interesting. Now, I'm looking, I wonder if people give me a pass if I go a little short. They always do actually, but let's read…

Romans 13:8-10 "Owe no one anything except to love one another. For he who loves one another, has fulfilled the law. For the commandments: 'You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, You shall not covet,' and if there is any other commandment, they're all summed up in this saying, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no harm to a neighbor, therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law."

That fits with that saying, "The law is for our good," doesn't do any harm. The law shows us how to love. Now, Paul here meant...he's referring to these laws that govern our dealings with each other. Now, of course, as he said, "Don't bear false witness. Don't steal. Don't covet." If it was Paul's purpose here to also address our dealings with our Creator, God, I'm sure he would have mentioned the greatest law. And you remember when someone asked Jesus what's the first law, the greatest law? He quoted from Deuteronomy 6:5, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and all your might." And the second greatest commandment is just like it, "Love your neighbor as yourself." I should have given you the reference. I've got it written down. That's Matthew 22:37-40. 

Matthew 22:37:40. Love the Lord your God with all you got is the way I would say it. "Love your neighbor just like you love yourself." And He said, "On these two, hang all the Law and the Prophets."

It's all summarized in love. And God is love. God's law shows how to love. And that's why I'm saying that's something I believe we can consent to. Wouldn't it be great if all the laws that were passed by Congress or by parliament and by any of the assemblies or diets or houses of delegates, if they were all derived from the principle of loving God first and loving others as you love yourselves, wouldn't it be great if every law passed by Congress was good because the lawmakers were good? I was expecting people to burst out laughing at that. I know they want to do good. You know, it would be nice. The problem is we don't have their confidence. Congressmen always say the laws are for everyone's good. But divorced from God's law, they have trouble knowing what is good, what is love. You know, the members of parliament who passed the Stamp Act in 1765, believed it was for the good of everyone and, especially, the Americans. But the Americans did not consent that those laws were good. The Americans said, "This isn't government by consent to the governed, and we don't think you have our best interests at heart."

Now, having the Bible say that God's laws are good, is something we accept, but not necessarily everyone accepts that as being the case. A large number of people on the planet, right now, don't accept that. I think that's going to change for them later. But what about us? As I said, you're here today. Why? It's the Sabbath. God commands us to be here. Now, I'll confess, there was a time when I was like 11 years old when the Sabbath wasn't my favorite thing. You know, matter of fact, that went on for a while, and I've told people when I got my first job is when I started to see the Sabbath as a good thing. It's nice to rest. So you're not here probably because you're forced to keep the Sabbath, you know, meanwhile privately resenting that you have to. I don't think that's the case for us. If we were, you know, we would be like the Americans who paid taxes when the British Army was around, but who also became expert smugglers, you know, and got around paying the taxes whenever they could. They were submitting to force. But what they wanted was government by consent of the governed.

And, of course, they set up their own country, their own government. As I said, when it comes to God's government and laws, that's not an option, and it's not at all needed. It's not necessary. We can consent to God's government and laws, and we can adopt his standards as our own, and hopefully, we already have. Are we in Romans? Yes, I want to turn to Romans 7, again. Beginning in verse 12. 

Romans 7:12 Echoes what we've already read, "Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good." 

Okay, the law is holy. God's commandments are holy, they're just, and they're good. Unfortunately, we're not. Not entirely at least. That's why if we skip down to verse 14.

Romans 7:14-16 Paul wrote, "Well, we know the law is spiritual, but I'm carnal." That is, I'm physical. I'm made out of meat. "And I'm sold under sin. What I'm doing, I don't understand. What I will to do, you know, what I wish I would do, I don't practice that. But what I hate, that I do. If then I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law." 

I read this earlier. I consent with the law that it's good. And I noted earlier, the conflict happens because internally we're going through the process of conversion. That's something we tell people, you know, conversion is a process and baptism, sometimes I describe, it's like being at the start of a race and the gun sounds. It's not the finish line, it's the start. And sometimes things seem to get harder at that time. And there's a conflict, Paul is saying, because we have consented. We agree that God's law is good in our hearts and minds. We consent. We consider ourselves to be citizens of the kingdom of God. We will agree to that government. And we probably aren't having God force it on us. And if we are, we'll change that attitude. We willingly consent, as most Americans did to the new government that their constitutional convention set up to maintain their independence from Britain. But when God calls us, we fight a battle, we could say, for independence and for freedom. At least for freedom, if not independence. We fight a battle with our own human nature. If you're still in Romans, turn back a chapter to chapter 6. 

Romans 6:6 It says, "Knowing this, our old man was crucified with Him," that is with Christ, "that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin." 

When it says our old man is crucified with Him, that's speaking symbolically. None of us is going to get nailed up to a piece of wood. But when we undergo baptism, it's like we're symbolically participating in Jesus Christ's death. And I lost my place. Now, verse 12... No. I read verse 6, sorry, I wanted to jump down to verse 11.

Romans 6:11 "Likewise, you also reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord." 

Okay. Reckon ourselves to be dead to sin, but living to Christ. Now, I know one of the interesting things, yeah, it was back in verse 6 where it talks about, you know, we want to put away sin so that we won't be slaves of sin. During the American Revolution, colonists often compared their subjugation to Britain with slavery, which I note the irony because I'm enough of an American historian to know that they were calling for freedom from slavery while those in the South had slaves.

But Patrick Henry famously said, "Give me liberty or give me death." We want freedom because if we don't have freedom from sin, we certainly have death. It's a choice we have to make. But, fortunately, we don't have to fight and win that war on our own. Jesus Christ's sacrifice makes the conquest for us as Paul said. His spirit gives us the victory. So what do we have to do? Well, we do have to willingly consent to God's laws and government. That's what's necessary for us to develop righteous character. God won't force us against our will to develop character. And it can be hard to do. The comparison of this process, you know, in looking at the Americans in the colonial period changing their allegiance from allegiance to Britain to a government of their own making in their own country, as I was writing this, it brought to mind an example from the Bible of another person who changed allegiance from one country to another. And I think that example does illustrate my point. The person I'm speaking of is Ruth. Ruth the Moabite.

If you want to begin turning to the book of Ruth, I'll summarize some and read some, and I'll think about turning there myself. Because she's called Ruth the Moabite. She was born in the country of Moab. And that's why it calls her that. And one of the points I'll make is nobody asked her ahead of time, "Hey do you want to be born in Moab or would you like us to move to Edom? Maybe you'll be born in Israel." No, she was just subject when she was born to the laws of Moab and its king, lived in its culture. And there's a similarity with us because we're born into a world that's dominated by the prince of the power of the air, as I believe Ephesians 2:2 calls it. 2 Corinthians 4:4 calls him the king of this age. But Ruth met a family that would give her a chance to make a choice. To summarize the first verses, you know, it came to pass in the days of the judges when they ruled the land. There was a famine, this is speaking of the land of Israel, Judah in particular. And a certain man of Bethlehem, Judah went to dwell in the country of Moab. He has two sons and his wife.

Now one of her sons...well, the man's name was Elimelech, his wife was Naomi, his two sons, Malon and Kilion. But something bad happened. They went to Moab, remained there, and verse 3 says, "Elimelech, Naomi's husband, died. She was left with her two sons. And they took wives of the women of Moab. Orpah and Ruth." And we don't know if Ruth had much say in that. You know, a lot of, most marriages back then were arranged marriages. So perhaps Naomi talked to the parents of Orpah and Ruth, arranged for this marriage. And they were still in Moab. Ruled by its laws. Dominated by Moabite culture, by Moabite pagan religion. But that's going to change. And verse 5, we see further tragedy. And I'm buzzing through this, and I don't mean to downplay how horrible this must have been, especially for Naomi, who lost her husband and then her two sons. Because both Malon and Kilion also died. So the woman, Naomi, survived her two sons and her husband. And she's there with these two daughters-in-law that are now part of her family. She arose with them to return from the country of Moab.

She had heard that the Lord had visited his people by giving them bread. The drought is over. There's food back home. And Naomi said, "I'm going home." And the two girls, I shouldn't call them girls, they're young women who are now widows, they are going with her. So she went on the way, but in verse 8 it says, she turned, said, "Go, return to your mother's house, and may the Lord deal kindly with you as you have with the dead and with me. The Lord grant you to find rest, each in the house of her husband." And, now, their husbands were dead. What she means is you can remarry. And may you have peace. You don't have to become Israelites. Now, with further discussion, we'll see Orpah finally did what Naomi was urging her to. Orpah and Ruth both had a choice. Where will my allegiance be, to the land that I grew up in with its laws and its government, its culture? Or I could decide to go to Israel and adopt their culture, adopt their laws, their government. In a sense, we could say, they could choose to consent to the laws of God.

As I said, at first, they both said, "We're going to go with you, Naomi." But she said, "No, you should go back," and Orpah did. But if you look at verse 14, "They lifted up their voices and wept. Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her. Naomi said, 'Look, your sister-in-law's gone back to her people and her gods. You go after your sister-in-law.' But Ruth said, 'Entreat me not to leave you.'" Entreat is a word we don't use much. Basically, stop telling me to leave.

Ruth 1:16-17 "'Don't ask me to leave you or turn back. For where you go, I'll go. Wherever you lodge, I'll lodge. Your people shall be my people and your God, my God. And where you die, I'll die. And there I'll be buried. The Lord do so to me and more also of anything but death parts you and me.'" 

I've always found that to be one of the most inspiring passages in the Bible. Ruth was expressing a commitment to Naomi, but I am convinced it was also a commitment to the nation of Israel and to the God of Israel. Your God will be my God. We could see that then perhaps as a commitment to the laws, to the government of Israel.

Ruth consented to God's law, to God's government. And fortunately for her, that God happened to be the God, the only true God, the Creator, the Self-Existing One. That's the same God who's called us, same God who's opened our minds. And He doesn't want to force us to live under His government and law. He wants us to consent willingly the way Ruth did, but I'll say even more than Ruth did, because God has poured out His Spirit on us. And I'm not sure, we could debate whether Ruth might have had God's Spirit working with her, but I know you have God's Spirit working with you and me, I'm pretty sure. If we truly believe that God is doing things for our good, it makes it easier to consent. We're near the beginning of the Bible. I'd like to turn to one last scripture. It's in Deuteronomy 10. It emphasizes...

Deuteronomy 10, beginning in verse 12. This, again, is when Moses is summarizing for Israel the history they'd experienced, explaining the laws that God had given them. Basically, he's telling the generation that would enter the promised land what had happened to their fathers and grandfathers, I should say grandmothers too. But he's telling this, and he says, after summarizing much of it in verse 12.

Deuteronomy 10:12-13 "And, now Israel, what does the Lord require of you?" What is it that God wants from you? "But to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways, to love Him, serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments of the Lord and His statutes, which I command you today for your good."

I don't think we can emphasize that enough. It's for our own good. If we truly believe that God's laws and His ways are for our good, we can serve Him and love Him with all our heart, all our soul, all our might. We could easily consent.

Now, on the 4th of July, we Americans celebrate the independence of our country. I hope we celebrate the tremendous blessings that God has given us, that we haven't deserved or earned, but God has bestowed them on us. I'll say the American Revolution occurred largely because people didn't want to be taxed without representation. They wanted government by consent of the governed, so they formed a new government to which they could consent. Likewise, we need to realize that we need to be freed, freed from sin, not to a tyrannical government. We need to consent to and be ruled by God's law, God's laws of love that are for our good. Ruth the Moabite made a choice like that many years ago, chose to live under God's government and laws. She consented to that government. I think when the resurrection of all people comes, that is coming, most people will likewise consent when they understand it. We don't have to wait for that. We can do that right now. And I say for me, and I hope for all of you, I want to willingly consent to live by God's law of love.