I never hear you mention your political views from the pulpit or the “teaching chair;” do you have an opinion of the political climate?
In certain circles I am very boisterous with my political opinions and I am very politically active. However, the Vision in which we’ve been called reigns supreme over any “opinion” and/or ideology generally and politically. That being said, my opinion of the political climate is that people in the United States are divided by definitional complications. Logically speaking, we are divided over the definition of “America,” and whether or not that definition can be, in fact, re-defined. Our politics are influenced by our ideologies, and thus, so are our definitions.
“America” is an ideology of how the United States is to function. The name, “United States ‘of America’” makes the point clear. The “United States” is “of America” and not “America” “of the United States.”
The dilemma is concerning the definition of “America.” There are two main ideologies that have their own distinct definition of “America,” and we are taking-up sides (know it or not) on either side of this definitional dilemma.
Let’s explore the fundamental definition, logically:
“America” is an ideology, of which the Constitution of the United States is its first principle. That which defines “America” must be its first principle or the definition is relative and the ideology is irrelevant. By comparison, the Christian first principle is the Scriptures. The definition of “Christian,” therefore, is dictated by the Christian first principle. Without a first principle, the definition of “Christian” becomes relative and its ideology irrelevant.
This being true, then, based on the first principle, the definition can be interpreted, but such interpretations cannot alter and especially contradict the original intent. Therefore, logic dictates that the original intent of the Scriptures cannot be altered or contradicted by their interpretation. And, likewise, the original intent of the Constitution cannot be altered or contradicted by its interpretation.
Thus, “America” must be defined by the Constitution’s original intent. Just as we ask what the writers meant when they penned the Scriptures, so we ask what the founders meant when they penned the Constitution. We do not align their content with our context, but we are to align our context with the content of their context. We can certainly change the meaning of the original intent by our interpretations, but we cannot call any such conclusions “American” by definition. Again, just as “Christian freedom” doesn’t mean we can do whatever we want, so “American freedom” doesn’t mean that either; logic will not allow such lunacy.
So, the argument is either we seek the Constitution’s original intent, in context, or we re-define the constitution according to our own context. The former defines “America,” while the latter defines something else. This conclusion is not an opinion but a fact based on logic (as exemplified above).
If one wishes to disregard the original intent of the Constitution that one may do so, but that one is not defining “America” by doing so. That one is defining another ideology. One cannot re-define “America” because the “American” ideology has already been defined by its first principle. Again, if one ignores that first principle then it is not “America” which is being defined, but “The United States of ‘Un-America,’” technically.
Incidentally, to further divide this argument into Democrat and Republican is arbitrary. For both of these camps have proponents of “re-definition.” And as such, both of these camps have subjects that are illogical. Re-define what you wish you cannot logically redefine “America,” you can only define another ideology altogether. Whether it’s logical or not is another discussion.