By now you probably know about the smear article published by The New Republic to time with New Hampshire voting. This article trumped up quotations from a newsletter that named Dr. Paul but was neither written nor edited by him. Although this was very old, second-hand nonsense, Dr. Paul released a statement on the article here. Anyone can read Dr. Paul's position on racism here.

While I do believe this propaganda hurt Dr. Paul in New Hampshire, I think the exit polls reveal another problem working against him: ignorance. Not so much that people are ignorant of what Dr. Paul believes or of his consistent record, although I am sure there are still many ignorant of those, but ignorant as to what the Bible says about the civil government.

Among those who attend church more than weekly, Dr. Paul only got 5% of the vote. Huckabee got 34%. Among those who consider themselves "born again" or evangelical, the vote was split between Huckabee and McCain at 28% each. Dr. Paul received only 3%.

There's a word that gets thrown around a lot out there and it is perceived as a very bad word: Theocracy. It comes up quite often in interviews with Huckabee and he is quick to defend himself against it. The American Heritage Dictionary defines a theocracy as "a government ruled by or subject to religious authority." The 1828 Webster's Dictionary defined it as "government of a state by the immediate direction of God; or the state thus governed." It comes from the Greek theokratia: theos "god" + -kratia "strength, power." Daniel 2:21 says,

"And He changes the times and the seasons;
He removes kings and raises up kings;
He gives wisdom to the wise
And knowledge to those who have understanding."

God is sovereign. He does rule the nations. This world is a theocracy whether acknowledged or not.

But here is something very important that is not being acknowledged either: those who attack the concept of a theocracy want a theocracy. No, I do not mean that deep down they really want God to rule their lives. Quite the contrary. But they do want a religion to run their lives and they want it to run your life, too. As I pointed out before, humanism is a religion. (Don't take my word for it, read the post and see the humanists themselves call it religion).

All of that boils down to the distinction I've raised again and again. There are two options in life: theism or humanism. Either God is sovereign, or man is sovereign. Either we listen to God's Word or we listen to man's words.

But what has God said about civil government? The first thing, and what I've just said, is that God is in charge. He removes kings and raises up kings. All authority is delegated from Him.

Many of you will recognize the words of Deuteronomy 6, especially the homeschoolers:

And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

What are these words? That points back to chapter 5, which is the Ten Commandments. But note especially the prefatory reason given to obeying the Ten Commandments:

I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Deuteronomy 5:6

Why were they to keep the Ten Commandments? Because He was the Lord who delivered them. His salvation demanded their obedience. This is crucial to the Biblical concept and limitation of civil government. I will be coming back to this.

God gave man four governments: church, State, family, and self-government. Romans 13:1-7 tells us that the civil government rules as a minister of God. These ministers will either rule according to God's law or their own. When Israel demanded a king, Samuel warned them what would happen:

This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. And he will take your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

1 Samuel 8:11-18

Notice that the king would take a tenth, a tithe. Our "conservative" Republicans have gone far beyond even what Samuel warned of a king.

Psalm 119:45 says, "I will walk at liberty, For I seek Your precepts." Those who walk in the rule of God are at liberty. "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17). But when men follow after the commands of men, their liberties are stripped away from them.

Exodus 18 shows us a Godly government: Moses appointed judges, not to rule over the people, but as a means of appeal for the people. When a dispute arose, the people could go to a Godly judge. If the dispute was too difficult for the judge, he sent it to the next higher authority. It was an appeals court. But each individual was self-governed. The Law was to be read every seven years so the people would remember how to govern themselves (Deuteronomy 31:9-13). (We would do well to remind ourselves of our Constitution every four years before we vote!)

Christ gave the same system of government for handling disputes within the Church in Matthew 18.

Exodus 18:21 says how these judges are selected: "Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens." So God granted the authority to the ruled to choose their own rulers.

This system is the basis for our constitutional republic.

The Law of God is the basis for government. Man is arbitrary, God's Law is absolute. Consistent "natural law" tells us that the fittest should survive: a mother should have the right to kill her defenseless unborn child. That's just one example of why we must follow God's Law, not man's.

Now, back to that earlier principle of salvation demanding obedience. God has delegated authority to His four spheres of government.

As I quoted above, in Deuteronomy 6, God gave the authority to educate children to the parents. When the government usurps that authority, they are opposing God's authority.

Paul told Timothy, "Honor widows who are really widows. But 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. Now she who is really a widow, and left alone, trusts in God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day." (1 Timothy 5:3-5) God gave the authority to care for widows first to their families. If they are really widows, they do not have a family to care for them, then He has given the authority to care for them to the Church. When the government usurps that authority, they are opposing God's authority.

God gives the authority to feed and clothe to the families and the Church. The welfare system and Social Security are means for the State to feed and clothe and establish reliance on the State. The State, in essence, says, "I will protect you. I will provide for you. I will deliver you. I will save you." All they need is a little more power, more authority, more taxes to do it. The State has positioned itself as God.

While all the candidates pay lip service to the Constitution, only Ron Paul has twenty years of consistent submission to the limitations of the Constitution. Only Ron Paul wants to turn the State back to a truly limited government. Check his record.

Look at the National Taxpayers Union's Fiscal "Snapshot" of the candidates here.

The Club for Growth has published white papers on each candidate's economic record:
Rudy Giuliani
Mike Huckabee
John McCain
Ron Paul
Mitt Romney
Fred Thompson

In an article in the Tallahassee Democrat, Michael D. Tanner wrote:

The difference in the two camps is as clear as the difference between Ronald Reagan's saying, "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem," and George W. Bush's saying, "We have a responsibility that when somebody hurts, government has got to move."

Bush's brand of big-government conservatism brought us No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription-drug benefit, and a 23-percent increase in domestic discretionary spending. It may well have cost Republicans control of Congress. After all, on election night 2006, 55 percent of voters said that they thought the Republican Party was the party of big government.

Most of the current Republican candidates fall squarely into the big-government camp. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney imposed a Hillary Clinton-style health plan in his state and not only supports No Child Left Behind but calls for the federal government to buy a laptop computer for every child born in America. He thinks we should increase farm price supports.

John McCain has an admirable record as a fiscal conservative, but he shows a disturbing predilection for making a federal issue of every personal pet peeve from steroids in baseball to airplane service quality. He embraces heavily regulatory environmental policies that hurt businesses and cost jobs, such as expanding the Clean Water and Clean Air acts and implementing the Kyoto Protocols, and compulsory national service. More important, he is also the principal author of a campaign finance bill that severely restricts political speech.

Rudy Giuliani's record on civil liberties suggests he views the Constitution as an afterthought.

Fred Thompson talks a good game, but his record suggests he is closer to McCain-lite.

Mike Huckabee may be an even bigger spender than President Bush, and he never met a tax increase he didn't like.

Thus, when Ron Paul talks about returning to limited constitutional government, a great many Republican primary voters sit up and take notice. For voters hungering for a return to the party of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan rather than the party of George W. Bush, Paul's rhetoric is a breath of fresh air.

In all fairness, this article was entitled, "Ron Paul: He Won't Win the Presidency, But..."

Let me remind you of this, though. In March of 1980, Gerald Ford called Ronald Reagan "unelectable." I may be prejudiced, but I think my wife handled the "unelectable" question rather well.