Jeffrey Thayne

I recently read an article by Ed Gantt and Stan Knapp entitled “Marriage: Of Contracts, Commitments, and Covenants,” and want to share some of the things that I learned. As a missionary, I frequently taught investigators the meaning of the word covenant. Because the word is so infrequently used in modern society, I would use an unfortunate metaphor they were already familiar with: an economic contract. We promise God obedience and service, and He promises us salvation and blessings in return. When we hold up our end of the deal, He holds up His. I am not alone in describing covenants this way. As Gantt And Knapp explain, “Today, outside theological circles, the term covenant is most often invoked as a synonym for contract and taken to refer to a two-way promise between mutually interested, and more or less equally powerful, parties.”

Although in many ways this metaphor can approximate the nature of a covenant, it seems clear to me now, however, that covenants and contracts are based upon very different assumptions. “The modern tendency to equate covenant and contract,” Gantt and Knapp continue, “obscures the fact that covenant has historically been used to refer to a relationship with God that cannot be understood as a mere contract.^“1 Continue reading →

Ludwig von Mises’s 1945 book “Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War,” describes how national socialism in Germany led to a rejection of classical liberalism. Here is how von Mises (an Austrian) describes the opposite of national socialism:

In order to grasp the meaning of this liberal program we need to imagine a world order in which liberalism is supreme. Either all the states in it are liberal, or enough are so that when united they are able to repulse an attack of militarist aggressors. In this liberal world, or liberal part of the world, there is private property in the means of production. The working of the market is not hampered by government interference. There are no trade barriers; men can live and work where they want. Frontiers are drawn on the maps but they do not hinder the migrations of men and shipping of commodities. Natives do not enjoy rights that are denied to aliens. Governments and their servants restrict their activities to the protection of life, health, and property against fraudulent or violent aggression. They do not discriminate against foreigners. The courts are independent and effectively protect everybody against the encroachments of officialdom. Everyone is permitted to say, to write, and to print what he likes. Education is not subject to government interference. Governments are like night-watchmen whom the citizens have entrusted with the task of handling the police power. The men in office are regarded as mortal men, not as superhuman beings or as paternal authorities who have the right and duty to hold the people in tutelage. Governments do not have the power to dictate to the citizens what language they must use in their daily speech or in what language they must bring up and educate their children. Administrative organs and tribunals are bound to use each man’s language in dealing with him, provided this language is spoken in the district by a reasonable number of residents.

Continue reading →