Marxism as a “secular religion,” trying to build heaven on earth by political means, and in the charge that collectivist systems invert the first commandment; they put a human construct in the place reserved for the Creator. Marx’s own language about abolishing religion and the family is often cited as evidence that the project was never meant to coexist with a transcendent God.

The DSA rejects this interpretation, arguing that caring for the poor and restructuring economic power is fidelity to God, not competition with God.  It is about whether a political program that claims comprehensive authority over how society should be ordered is, in practice, trying to occupy the role of God.

So, God is uncreated, self-existent, and the source of being itself. But no political movement, state, or collective can step into that position no matter how comprehensive its claims. When an ideology treats its program as the final authority on justice, meaning, and the shape of human life, it does not become God, it simply produces a counterfeit that cannot deliver what it promises. The result, in this view, is coercion justified as liberation, and disappointment when the promised transformation of human nature does not occur.

Think of it as a glass city rising on cracked ground. It looks impressive though unfinished, with banners of a new world already flying. But the towers cannot reach the uncreated light in the open sky, or the unshaken horizon beyond them. The city remains a human work. The light does not.

The Bible repeatedly warns against exactly this pattern: human power or human projects claiming the place that belongs only to God, promising a completed world by their own means, and demanding the loyalty that belongs to the Creator.

Let’s examine one familiar to all found in The Ten Commandments, the first of which says, “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3). Anything treated as ultimate, whether nation, king, system, or ideology, is an idol. The Bible warns the absurdity of worshiping what human hands have made. The charge is not that the idol succeeds in becoming God; it is that people act as if it has. Beware those people and systems.

I served on a jury one time in my life. Drunk driving case. Guy blew a .23. In today’s world, he would be three times over the legal limit, and a jury in Ohio is essentially told to find the defendant guilty. Not in 1979. It was just a piece of evidence. 

A couple of people on the jury didn’t like machines. Why should a machine decide it? A couple more just didn’t like the prosecutor, believing him to be arrogant. All agreed they liked the defense attorney. Rather suave, older-looking guy, a Matlock type. Who doesn’t like Andy Griffith?

The thing is that the defendant had a plausible story. I think everyone on the jury had at some time or another driven after or while drinking. So, we had been there, plus the assistant county prosecutor was a creep. 

Because I was starting law school in a few weeks and worked for a local attorney, I was the natural choice as foreman. All I found out was that the foreman does nothing important. “Let’s vote.” “What do you think?” “Yeah, the prosecutor isn’t likable, and I understand about machines.”

More talk about the snot-nosed prosecutor, and how the story made sense. The guy’s driving was probably due to fatigue, not alcohol. After all, it was around 4:00 a.m. “Let’s vote,” I said again. Unanimous. 

Back in the courtroom, the judge looked over to us, inquiring if we had reached a verdict. He already knew because the bailiff had taken it from me and given it to the judge. But that was my cue to stand up to address the court: “Yes, we have, Your Honor; we find the defendant not guilty.”

The prosecutor hit the trial table angrily with his hand, got up, and stormed out. The defense attorney stood, faced us, and thanked us on behalf of his client for diligent attention to the facts and doing justice. The judge thanked us, and off we went. 

The year was 1978. I was almost 26. At the Trumbull County, Ohio Fair that year, one of the featured entertainers was Dolly Parton. Dolly was 32. Though young, it was 20 years after the release of her record Puppy Love.

I knew a person who worked closely with a man named Lyle Williams. I didn’t know Lyle well. He was a county commissioner and had decided to run for Congress as a Republican in an area where Democrats won easily. He would go on to win and remain in Congress for four years before losing to James Traficant, a well‑known name then, though not in a good way.

I was on Dolly’s tour bus, hanging around with some campaign people, when Dolly walked in. I had met quite a few entertainers from previous employment. Of course, I recognized her immediately.

Dolly was larger than I thought she would be, my exposure primarily limited to television appearances. She made her way around the small group inside the bus to warmly greet each person, maybe ask a question or two. She was so warm and gracious.

Given the circumstances, I thought she was there to say a few words on behalf of Williams and maybe mention his name, but I’ve learned she never really got involved in politics. Almost as soon as she finished saying hello, someone from her entourage called to her that it was time for her to take the stage. She made a quick round to say goodbye to us and made her way off the bus. She went off to perform country songs, not my favorite genre, but I enjoyed her songs.

What I remember is her smile, from her entrance to her departure. It seemed real to me, not fake or forced. Dolly would be known as the Queen of Country. Today, at age 80, the Queen departed this realm. Today, and for the next week, the American flag will fly at half‑mast.

[The photos I chose are from 1978]

Scripture shows moments when God is grieved, disappointed, or displeased with His folks. Not because He stops loving them, but because their choices pull them away from the life He intends for them. God is pleased when His people walk in trust, humility, and obedience. He is not pleased when they wander into pride, bitterness, anger, or give in to temptation.  But it’s never the same as rejection. It’s the sorrow of a Father who still holds His children close. In  other words, what we as parents may experience with our own children.  Even when believers fail, even when faith thins, even when choices are poor or hearts grow cold, God’s presence does not withdraw. His love does not loosen. His commitment does not change. He stays near, working patiently to draw His people back into the light where grace restores what weakness has undone.

I started stating Scripture demonstrates this. We can find it throughout the Bible. These three, to me, demonstrate all of this well in my opinion. Ephesians 4:30  says Believers can grieve the Holy Spirit. This shows God is not always pleased with His people. 2 Timothy 2:13  says even when we are faithless, He remains faithful. This means God’s displeasure never becomes abandonment.

My personal favorite is Hebrews 13:5 which says in part, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.” This is a theme in both the Old and New Testaments; God’s presence does not withdraw, even when His people falter.

On August 21, 1858, Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas held their opening debate in Ottawa, Illinois. An estimated 10,000–12,000 people attended in the small town, creating a large outdoor crowd under what are described as hot, dusty conditions. It was the first of seven debates between the two. Compared to today, these were brutal.

Each debate followed a fixed structure lasting about three hours:  

Opening:    60 minutes

Response: 90 minutes

Rebuttal:    30 minutes

Large crowds attended, and the full texts were widely published in newspapers, giving the exchanges a national audience. Lincoln was fairly unknown; Douglas was the incumbent. At the point of the debates, the Republican Party had been formed just four years before, breaking away from the Whig Party.

The debates focused overwhelmingly on slavery, especially whether it should be allowed to expand into the western territories acquired through the Louisiana Purchase and the Mexican Cession. Lincoln did not gain the Senate seat, which at the time was determined by state legislatures, predominantly democrat in Illinois then.  But the debates elevated Lincoln to national prominence and helped set the stage for his 1860 presidential victory against Douglas. 

One of Lincoln’s most famous quotes comes from the debates, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” I suspect we could learn more about candidates with this type of debate format, but I’m pretty certain people seeking a message in a thirty second sound bite would be able to handle it. 

The 1860 field was more than the two of them. In the popular vote, Lincoln received about 39.8% and Douglas about 29.5%. In the Electoral College, it wasn’t close at all. Lincoln won the Electoral College decisively with 180 electoral votes; Douglas received only 12 electoral votes.