Acceptable Worship

Acceptable worship used to be a matter of bowing down before the correct altar in the correct temple in the correct mountain.

Now, it's no longer a matter of bowing in this church building on this hill or that church building on that hill, but of truthful bowing in your spirit.

--Jesus, paraphrased

The Right Tool for the Job

I prefer acappella in our assemblies, for practical reasons.

Instruments (and "praise teams") tend to kill congregational singing. It tends to move congregants from the role of participant to the role of spectator.

But I'm very much against abusing scripture, and against making laws which God has not made.

Since the primary goal of assembling is to provoke one another to love and good works, and to encourage one another, and to build up one another, whatever accomplishes that is fair game within the assembly (1 Cor 14:26; Heb 10:24-25). God has made us all different, with different giftings. Some of us are brains, functioning on logic and reason; some of us are ears, functioning on music; some of us are eyes, functioning on art. Different members, and different "moods" within a member, will be best nourished by different foods than will be another member, or "mood". Like in the very earliest church, when sometimes the Jewish believers focused on study in the synagogue, and sometimes they praised God in the "raucous" environment of the Temple, modern Christians need the "everyone participates" congregational singing, and sometimes they need the instrumental-backed singing in the car that drive God-concepts deep into the brain so that those concepts bubble up in your background thinking. Stephen Spielberg does not make movies without instrumental music, because he knows that music has power to communicate very strongly, even without words. Believers should not throw away such a powerful tool that can be very valuable in the task of provoking, encouraging, and edifying, simply because we insist on teaching as doctrine a commandment we've invented which God has not spoken and which violates the principles he has spoken.

But it takes skill to wield instrumental music as that sort of powerful tool, and "praise bands" in our assemblies *generally* do not foster what is supposed to be fostered in our assemblies, at least for me, and at least in my experience. For me, in my experience, acappella, congregational, four-part harmony singing serves that task better.

But I'm not an ear.

Unless a tool has been forbidden (and instrumental music has not been forbidden), use whatever tool best does the job we've been assigned to do. If it provokes, encourages, and/or builds up, use the tool, whether that is a guitar, or a PowerPoint presentation, or a live art illustration, or a skit where one ties a belt around his hands to mime being arrested.

Just Christians

It has been claimed (I've not done the research myself) that US President Teddy Roosevelt was in favor of legal immigration, with the stipulation that the immigrant endeavor to become fully integrated into America, learning the language and the history of America, and becoming an American, not a This-American or a That-American, which spurs division rather than unity.

As I have understood it, this is the essential thrust of the Restoration Movement, to become a Christian, not a This-Christian or a That-Christian, not a Baptist Christian or a Paulite Christian or even a Church of Christ-er Christian.

I believe this is a good goal, and even though the implementation of this goal has been marred by our imperfections, the "Church of Christ" "denomination" at least pays lip-service to this goal.

Continue to reject the failures in the attempts by the Church of Christ-er Christians towards this goal, but I encourage you to join with them in the goal itself - just be a Christian, not a Flavored-Christian, which spurs division rather than unity.

The Meaning of 'ekklesia'

ekklesia, usually translated as "church" in most English versions of the Bible, is a compound word meaning "out of" (ek) and "called" (kaleo). Etymologically it means "the called out".

Whereas it's unwise to accept the etymological meaning of a word as its actual meaning ("pineapple" has nothing to do with either pines or apples [except somewhat for it's appearance in the eyes of medieval botanists]), in this case it's pretty safe.

The earliest usage of the word appears to date back to early Greek City-States, and refers to political restructuring, when citizens might be "called out" of a city to form, as a group, a new government structure. A political coup, so to speak.

By New Testament times it was a little less political, a little less revolutionary, sometimes referring to simply a crowd, even a rowdy one, like when the town clerk dismisses the rioting mob in Acts 19:41, using the word ekklesia.

(The "churches of Christ" in Rom 16:16 could be rendered just as accurately as the "mobs of the Messiah".)

When Jesus announced that he would build his church, he was essentially saying that he was going to call out from the world a people of his own, to form a new government, and we see this sort of description both in earlier scripture:

WEB Isa 9:7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, on David’s throne, and on his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from that time on, even forever.

and later scripture:

WEB 1 Pet 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, that you may proclaim the excellence of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

Originally published at:

http://kentwest.blogspot.com/2022/08/the-meaning-of-ekklesia.html

Christianity Was Exclusively Jewish in the Beginning

Some believe that when the earliest Christians were in the temple of the Jews, they were there only to preach, and no longer behaved as Jews did within the temple.

 

How did Theophilus understand the words of Luke in Acts 2:46-47?

 

You will recall that the book of Acts is essentially The Book of Luke to Theophilus, Vol 2. What did Theophilus learn from Vol 1?

Luke 24:52-53 (WEB) They worshiped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.

When Theophilus later read:

Acts 2:46-47 (WEB) Day by day, continuing steadfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favor with all the people. The Lord added to the assembly day by day those who were being saved.

it is unlikely that he understood the disciples to not be praising God in the temple, but rather to be praising him elsewhere.

 

Rather, he probably understood them to be praising God in the temple and in their homes, both. There is no reason to understand Luke as saying, "They praised God in the temple, until Pentecost, and then they stopped praising God in the temple and praised him only in their homes, but I'm not going to clearly indicate that."

 

We know that after questioning by the temple authorities, Peter and John "returned to their company", and that a congregational prayer was then offered up to God (Acts 4:23ff), and that their company congregated in the Porch of Solomon (Acts 3:11; 5:11-12).

 

Paul was in the temple praying (Acts 22:17), not "disputing with anyone or stirring up a crowd" (24:12). The temple was a "house of prayer" (Matt 21:13), and that's exactly the purpose for which Paul used it; he did not use it at all as a preaching location, which tells us that the Apostles were not in the temple only to preach.

 

The text indicates that the Jewish believers continued being Jewish - they kept circumcising their children, and they kept their Jewish customs (Acts 21:17ff). Even Peter at first resisted the call to go to the "unclean" Gentiles, because that was "against the law" (Acts 10, esp v. 28), and it required a heavenly vision three times to overcome his resistance. The Jewish brothers with Peter were astonished that God's favor was no longer exclusively for the Jewish, but "also" for the Gentiles (Acts 10:45). The other church leaders in Jerusalem also initially condemned Peter for his visit to an unclean Gentile (Acts 11:3), but finally admitted that Gentiles were now welcome into the church:

Acts 11:18 (WEB) When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life!”

It seems clear that in the beginning, the earliest Christians believed that Christianity was exclusively Jewish.

 

Fourteen years later, there was still a question of what was required of Gentiles to become Christians, and a significant portion of brethren believed that such required the Gentiles to become Jews, via circumcision and the keeping of the law of Moses:

Acts 15:1 (WEB) ​ Some men came down from Judea and taught the [Gentile] brothers, “Unless you are circumcised after the custom of Moses, you can’t be saved.” ... Acts 15:5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise [the Gentile believers], and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”

And here's the kicker: the Apostles did not have a definitive, authoritative answer for the question about Gentile believers. It took "much discussion" (Acts 15:7) to come to a decision; not to a "thus saith the Lord", but rather to a "it seemed good to the holy spirit and to us" (Acts 24:28) "decision" (Acts 21:25). Here we see put into action the promise to Peter that whatever is bound on earth will be bound in heaven.

 

So what message does the Bible present? That in the very beginning, the church was exclusively Jewish, continuing to do things in the Jewish ways, abiding by the law of Moses, believing that circumcision and the keeping of the law of Moses was required to be a Christian. It took visions and miracles and much discussion and years to realize that Gentiles don't have to become Jewish to be saved.

 

When we get to Paul in Acts 21, we find this exact same situation: the Jewish believers were zealous for the law of Moses and their customs, but the Gentile believers were not bound by these things:

Acts 21:20 (WEB) They, when they heard it, glorified God. They said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law. ... Acts 21:25 But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written our decision that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from food offered to idols, from blood, from strangled things, and from sexual immorality.”

I believe it is incorrect to believe that the earliest Christians stopped behaving in the temple as Jews behaved within the temple. They were Jews within the temple; they were not something else. What was new about these Jews was not that they behaved differently than the other Jews in the temple, but that they had found their long-awaited Chosen One, their Messiah.

 

Originally published at:

http://kentwest.blogspot.com/2022/08/christianity-was-exclusively-jewish-in.html

The Letter of the Law vs The Spirit of the Law

Did you know ...

In at least one case, God cared more about the person's heart than he did about the person "obeying the command to the letter":

WEB 2 Chron 30:18 For a multitude of the people ... had not cleansed themselves, yet they ate the Passover other than the way it is written. For Hezekiah had prayed for them, saying, “May the good Yahweh pardon everyone who sets his heart to seek God, Yahweh, the God of his fathers, even if they aren’t clean according to the purification of the sanctuary.” Yahweh listened to Hezekiah, and healed the people.

Two Passovers?!

Did you know ...

There were two annual Passover days? One was on the 14th of the first month of the new year, and the second was on the 14th of the second month, reserved for those who had special needs preventing them from celebrating the official day in the first month.

WEB Num 9:2 “Let the children of Israel keep the Passover in its appointed season. On the fourteenth day of this month, at evening, you shall keep it in its appointed season. You shall keep it according to all its statutes and according to all its ordinances.” ... They kept the Passover in the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at evening, in the wilderness of Sinai. According to all that Yahweh commanded Moses, so the children of Israel did. ... Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, “Say to the children of Israel, ‘If any man of you or of your generations is unclean by reason of a dead body, or is on a journey far away, he shall still keep the Passover to Yahweh. In the second month on the fourteenth day at evening they shall keep it; they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. They shall leave none of it until the morning, nor break a bone of it. According to all the statute of the Passover they shall keep it. But the man who is clean, and is not on a journey, and fails to keep the Passover, that soul shall be cut off from his people. Because he didn’t offer the offering of Yahweh in its appointed season, that man shall bear his sin.

It might be noted that the restoration of the Passover by Hezekiah was kept on the second Passover, and God approved:

WEB 2 Chron 30:2 For the king had taken counsel with his princes and all the assembly in Jerusalem to keep the Passover in the second month. For they could not keep it at that [1st month] time, because the priests had not sanctified themselves in sufficient number, and the people had not gathered themselves together to Jerusalem. The thing was right in the eyes of the king and of all the assembly. ... For Hezekiah had prayed for them, saying, “May the good Yahweh pardon everyone who sets his heart to seek God, Yahweh, the God of his fathers, even if they aren’t clean according to the purification of the sanctuary.” Yahweh listened to Hezekiah, and healed the people.

(It might also be noted that doing "what was right in their own eyes" does not necessarily refer to doing wrong.) Hezekiah's great-grandson, however, did it right:

WEB 2 Chron 35:1 Josiah kept a Passover to Yahweh in Jerusalem. They killed the Passover on the fourteenth day of the first month.

God Seems to Like Beer. Huh, who knew?

Did you know... Yahweh commanded that the Israelites offer "strong drink" ("strong wine" - KJV; "beer" - HCSB) to him twice a day, once in the morning and once in the evening?

WEB Numbers 28:1 Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, ... ‘This is the offering made by fire which you shall offer to Yahweh: male lambs a year old without defect, two day by day, for a continual burnt offering. You shall offer the one lamb in the morning, and you shall offer the other lamb at evening ... You shall pour out a drink offering of strong drink to Yahweh in the holy place. ... As the meal offering of the morning, and as its drink offering, you shall offer it, an offering made by fire, for a pleasant aroma to Yahweh.

God Can Speak Through "Pagans"

Did you know ... God spoke through the mouth of a "pagan", to a good righteous King of Judah, who foolishly didn't listen.

WEB 2 Chron 35:22 Nevertheless Josiah would not turn his face from him, but disguised himself, that he might fight with him, and didn’t listen to the words of Neco from the mouth of God, and came to fight in the valley of Megiddo.

Playing with Debian GNU/Hurd

Playing with Debian GNU/Hurd

Singing Praise to God, Among the Gentiles

Paul often quoted from the "Old Testament" as authoritative scripture. For example, here are four quotes from four different OT passages, in four consecutive verses written by Paul:

Rom 15:9-12 WEB 9 and that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. As it is written, “Therefore I will give praise to you among the Gentiles and sing to your name.” 10 Again he says, “Rejoice, you Gentiles, with his people.” 11 Again, “Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles! Let all the peoples praise him.” 12 Again, Isaiah says, “There will be the root of Jesse, he who arises to rule over the Gentiles; in him the Gentiles will hope.”

Something that might interest this list is that the first quote comes from Psalm 108:3, in the context of the very phrase Paul uses elsewhere -- "sing and make music with the inner person" -- and these two Paulian quotes sandwich a detail about how this singing God's praise amongst the Gentiles will take place:

Psa 108:1-3 WEB 1 My heart is steadfast, God. I will sing and I will make music with my soul. 2 Wake up, harp and lyre! I will wake up the dawn. 3 I will give thanks to you, Yahweh, among the nations. I will sing praises to you among the peoples.

This is how Paul expected his readers to understand singing and making melody in the inner person, as they sang praise to God among the Gentiles. It's how his authoritative scripture described the process.

 

Originally published at:
https://kentwest.blogspot.com/2021/08/singing-praise-to-god-among-gentiles.html

"Original" less-than-ness

"sin" does not mean "guilty"; it means "less-than-ness".

Adam had a choice, but prior to that choice, he was not affected by a "less-than-ness" of his physical nature. Once he made that choice however, everyone was affected by an inherited "less-than-ness" of their physical nature (as was the entire cosmos - Rom 8:20), except for one man, who inherited a different set of male genetic material, which was not tainted by this "less-than-ness".

This other man was the Second Adam, who also had a choice, unaffected by a "less-than-ness" of his physical nature. This Second Adam made the right choice, and as a result, those who follow him are free from the condemnation of this law of "less-than-ness" and its resulting death, and in the future, will experience life given to their mortal bodies by the same spirit that resurrected the Second Adam (Rom 8:1-11).

God Requires Us To Live Righteously

I would argue that God *does* require us to live sinlessly.

But we've each failed.

So God came to earth to live sinlessly for us, and then paid the penalty for not living sinlessly. His right-ness, and his penalty-payment, both become ours, as a gift from him. Our job now is to strive to emulate him in his sinlessness, knowing we're still going to fail. Our best right-ness is as filthy rags before him. But the more of his spirit we have within us, the better we'll get at living sinlessly.

Babies Are Not Born in Sin

 We often turn to 1 John 3:4 for our definition of "sin" - a transgression of law.

But the New Testament uses the term more broadly than that one narrow definition. More generally, the term "sin" simply means "falling short of the target".

Paul uses this term in Romans 5-8 in this broader sense: Adam "fell short" of the target of obedience, and brought death into the world. This death then caused the entire cosmos to "fall short" of the target of its created ideal, which brings death to everyone, even those who are innocent of the type of "falling short" committed by Adam. There's a "falling short" that brings guilt, like Adam's, and there's a "falling short" that is not like Adam's, which still brings death even when there is no law to be broken.

So in the sense of "falling short" of law-keeping, it is correct to say that babies are not born in/with "sin".

But in the sense of "falling short" of what God intended in his creation, babies are born in "sin", and this is why innocent babies sometimes die. Such babies are not guilty of breaking law, and thus do not have sin in the way John uses the term, but they do have sin in the sense of falling short of the created ideal, as Paul uses the term.

Saved by "Faith Alone"

There is no such "real" thing as "faith alone".

What we believe determines what we do.

It is the shift from non-faith to faith that alone determines the direction we go (like shifting a car's gears from Reverse to Drive). There are other things involved (having gas in the tank, turning the key, pressing on the accelerator, etc), so it's inaccurate from one semantic viewpoint to say "faith alone saves", as pointed out by the New Testament author James. But from another semantic viewpoint, the only thing that saves one from driving off the cliff and moves him forward into safety is shifting the gear from Reverse to Drive.

Faith is the fundamental difference-maker. In that sense, we are saved by "faith alone". But in a different sense, faith is never "alone"; what you believe determines how you act. And a mere mental acknowledgement without act-changing behavior is a "dead faith" that has no power to save. The demons believe that "God is one". But that's not an action-changing faith; it's only a partial "faith", that doesn't turn them around, that doesn't shift them from Reverse to Drive. Salvation requires a living faith, not a dead faith.

When one has the appropriate faith, that faith saves, and it manifests as appropriate action. It's not the faith alone that saves, but conversely, it's the faith alone that saves. It's just a matter of what is meant by the words. The "faith alone doesn't save" crowd has better wording, or at least a better "my wording is more specifically found in the Bible" argument. But don't wrangle over words; seek unity in the spirit, not in the letter, of what's being said, to strengthen the bond of peace.

Forsake Not the Assembling of the Saints

I'm going to suggest that Heb 10:25 is not as "plain" as most people believe.

The underlying Greek word there for "assembling (or "gathering) together" is ἐπισυναγωγὴν (episynagogen); this word is used in only one other place in the NT:

WEB 2 Thess 2:1 Now, brothers, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our --> gathering together <-- (ἐπισυναγωγῆς) to him, we ask you 2 not to be quickly shaken in your mind, and not be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, or by letter as if from us, saying that the day of Christ has already come.

Now with that in mind, reread the Heb passage:

WEB Heb 10:24 Let’s consider how to provoke one another to love and good works, 25 not forsaking our own --> assembling together <-- (ἐπισυναγωγὴν), as the custom of some is, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.

Is the writer warning against forsaking a periodic gathering of believers, or is s/he warning against giving up on the coming gathering of all saints when Jesus returns? The similarity in these two passages, especially using the same unique word in each, points to the latter. Yet I daresay few find this to be their concept of the "plain language of Heb 10:25".

Even if this is referring to a regular assembly of believers, the focus of the meeting seems to be horizontally, outward-focused one-another oriented ("provoke", "encourage") rather than vertically, upward-focused God oriented ("worship"). It seems to be an "encouragement service" rather than a "worship service".

 

The First Christian Evangelist ("bearer of good tidings") Was a Woman

The very first person whom Jesus appointed to tell the good news of his resurrection was a woman.

And when the men failed to believe her, Jesus rebuked them.

WEB John 20:[17] Jesus said to her, “Don’t hold me, for I haven’t yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

Mark 16:[10] She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. [11] When they heard that he was alive, and had been seen by her, they disbelieved. ... [14] Afterward he was revealed to the eleven themselves as they sat at the table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they didn’t believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

Here's perhaps another way of reading the 1 Cor 14 passage forbidding women to speak: 

Since chapter 7, Paul has been addressing issues that the Corinthians had written to him about. It seems that in some places he quotes what they say, and then replies to that quote.

For example:

Corinthian's Letter to Paul:

"It's good for a man to not touch a woman." 

Paul's Response: 

No, because of sexual immoralities, let each man have his own wife.

or

Corinthians:

"All things are legal for me to do."

Paul: 

Maybe, but not all things are expedient/helpful. So, no, not all things are "legal" for you.

I suggest that Paul is doing the same thing with the silent-women passage:

Corinthians:

"Women must be silent in the church!"

 Paul:

What? Was it from you men that the word of God went out (that is, remember Mary)? Are you men the only ones to whom God has given his word?

Paul had just spent three chapters explaining that God gives gifts, including speaking his word, to whomever he wants to give them, to be used for building up the church. And if God gives the gift of speech to a woman in the midst of an assembly, who do these Corinthian men think they are to say they know better than God how and when his giftings should be used? If it's shameful for a woman to speak among men, then Jesus sent Mary on a "shameful" errand, and then rebuked those who didn't listen to this "shameful" woman. And what law says these things? It's certainly not in the law of Moses, where women occasionally spoke and even took the lead. Maybe it was a Corinthian law, but how does that have bearing on what God's people do?

It is a hard thing to consider that we've misunderstood a passage all our lives, and perhaps this view of the passage is not correct. But I urge you to consider it with an open mind, and not just reject it out-of-hand in favor of your life-long-held traditional belief.

Jesus seems not to have held the typical Rabbinic view of women. According to https://www.bible-history.com/court-of-women/women.html

In the Temple proper the females occupied, according to Jewish tradition, only a raised gallery along three sides of the court. They were allowed to observe the ceremonies but never to participate in them.

Rabbinic literature was filled with contempt for women. The rabbis taught that women were not to be saluted, or spoken to in the street, and they were not to be instructed in the law or receive an inheritance. A woman walked six paces behind her husband and if she uncovered her hair in a public place she was considered a harlot.
...
They could not be disciples of any great rabbi, they certainly could not travel with any rabbi.
...
In court a woman's testimony was considered suspect....

Makes me wonder if the law referenced in 1 Cor 14:34 is the Rabbinic Law, that same law that specified hand-washing before eating, and which Jesus railed against as setting aside the commands of God for the sake of tradition.

It's interesting that Jesus was a rabbi that had a woman student (Mary choosing "the good part, that will not be taken away from her" - Luke 10:42), and had women as followers and fellow-travelers (Luke 8:1-3), despite "the law" forbidding such.

It's interesting that Jesus rebuked the men who disbelieved the woman's testimony, despite the culture's attitude toward the testimony of women.

The Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution, is our National Foundational Document

We're often told that the USA is not a Christian nation. However, Abraham Lincoln, in his Gettysburg Address, justified the Civil War, and by implication his Emancipation Proclamation (freeing the slaves in the Confederate States), by appealing to the Declaration of Independence as our foundational document, even more foundational than the US Constitution. That Declaration serves as the very core piece of why we were justified in seceding from Great Britain and in forming a new nation, and why the Civil War was fought.

That Declaration states quite clearly that "all men are created equal", and "that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights", and that "governments are instituted among men" to secure these rights.

That document further states that the signers are "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world" for the rightness of their declaration, and did so "with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence".

So when Lincoln delivered his Gettysburg Address, he referred back to this document as the justification for the US, and for the subsequent Civil War, so that we, "one nation, under God", might resolve to be dedicated to the unfinished work of the signers of the Declaration, and so that our nation "shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth".

I say all this to say this: the US Constitution, while being our supreme law regulating our government, is not the supreme law (or even supreme document - the Declaration is) that regulates our nation. A US President who reminds the people of this is a president who could turn the country back to its Creator, and to our unalienable rights, and to freedom.

The US Civil War: About Independence, or about Slavery?

If Utah wants to allow polygamy, and the Federal Government says, "No", then Utah would be within its right to secede, provided polygamy was voluntary and not mandated to its citizens.

If Utah wants to force polygyny (multiple wives), and the Federal Government says, "No", and any of the women in Utah object to being in a polygynous marriage, then Utah's attempt to secede must be allowed only if the objectors, and future objectors, are, and will be, allowed to leave Utah.

If the Confederate States of America want to force servitude on Blacks, and the Federal Government says, "No", and any of the Blacks in the CSA object to being enslaved, then the CSA's attempt to secede must be allowed only if the objectors, and future objectors, are, and will be, allowed to leave the CSA.

The War Between the States was not about "Independence"; it was about the issue of "Slavery". And if it were about the philosophical ideal of "Independence", the advocates were inconsistent with their ideal, and they were hypocritical, demanding independence for themselves while denying it to the people they enslaved.

 

The Confederate Flag evokes among many a pride in "Us" of the Southern States, when "we" were an independent nation. But that flag is flown from a pole of, not independence, but slavery. As fond as I am of the independence associated with the rebel flag, I have to acknowledge that this association has been only in my mind, and not in reality. The US Civil War was about slavery, not independence.

How We Can Make Every American Citizen Wealthy in One Generation

The average Social Security monthly check is about $1400. That's $16,800 per year. Let's round it down to 16K.

Rather than focus on government pay-outs of $16,000 a year at the end of someone's life, maybe for five, ten, or thirty years, let's put that money to work at the start of someone's life.

For every baby born to legal American citizens (or a mother legitimately in process of becoming a citizen), we give $30,000 to the baby.

This money is broken up into three individual tax-deferred savings accounts.

One account is a normal IRA, and can't be touched (without hefty penalties) until the person reaches age 60.

The second account is an Education Payment Plan (EPP). The funds are untouchable until age 18, and if a degree is not earned from an accredited institution by age 28, 3/4s of the fund is returned to the government, and the remaining quarter can be rolled over into either of the other two accounts. If a two-year degree is earned, the government return is only half. If the person dies prior to 28, all the funds return to the government.

And the third is a Health Savings Plan (HSP). The funds are untouchable prior to age 24 (the child is hopefully on the parents' insurance until then), at which time the funds can be used to pay insurance premiums or qualified medical expenses. In the case of death prior to age 60, half the funds are accessible to the surviving family, and half are returned to the government. After 60, one-quarter goes to the government, and the survivors keep 75%.

Withdrawals after maturation dates are subject to normal taxation.

Assuming an average rate of interest on each account of 6% with no additional contributions being made, the EPP would have about $25,500 in the account. Maybe not enough to pay completely for college, but it'd help a lot.

Same situation with the HSP, the person would have about $40,500. Again, not much considering how expensive medicine and insurance premiums are, but a help.

And the same conditions with the IRA nets the retiree nearly $330,000. Not a huge nest egg, but for doing nothing, it ain't bad.

Now, let's take those same accounts, and have the person add $10 to each account every month (that's $30 a month). The EPP jumps to $32,000; the HSP goes to $46,500; and the IRA goes to $394,000.

But let's look at six other scenarios.

1 - An interest rate of 8% instead of 6%.

EPP = $40,000
HSP = $63,500
IRA = $1,000,000 (that's one million!)

2 - An interest rate of 6% and $100/month contributions

EPP = $65,500
HSP = $101,500
IRA = $970,000

3 - An interest rate of 8% and $100/month contributions

EPP = $85,000
HSP = $143,500
IRA = $2,500,000

4 - An initial investment of $60,000 instead of $30K, with 6% and $10/month

EPP = 61,000
HSP = $87,000
IRA = $724,000

5 - $60K, 6%, $100/month contributions

EPP = $94,000
HSP = $142,000
IRA = $1,300,000

6 - $60K, 8%, $100/month

EPP = $125,000
HSP = $207,000
IRA = $3,500,000

All this, for the cost of two (or four years in the case of #s 4, 5, and 6) of an average Social Security payout. The go-getters would be more aggressive with their monthly contributions (for example, I'm paying quite a bit more to my monthly IRA - this plan would have saved me a lot!), but even the laziest do-nothings would still wind up with a nice little retirement package ($330K would pay out $2000 a month for almost 14 years (taxed, so maybe back down to $1400/month take-home), even without the continued growth of the fund as it was paid out - so even longer considering that growth). Plus, much of the initial investment by the government would be recouped by the early deaths and non-college grads.

This would not replace all the social services needed, but it'd make a huge dent, and perhaps more importantly, reduce the governmental Nanny state.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that the numbers work.