Lincoln Parables And Manifest Destinies
Lincoln told a parable between a wolf and a sheep. Rather than re-tell you that parable myself, I think it is better to allow someone else to:
The Wolf and the Sheep story, which would have reminded Lincoln’s audience of the parable of the Good Shepherd from the Gospel of John, comes from a brief, little remembered speech Lincoln gave in Baltimore in April of 1864. The setting itself is important. Maryland, a border state that had remained in the union, was at this time considering a new constitution that would include a provision ending slavery. So Lincoln went to Baltimore to support and persuade Marylanders to adopt the new constitution. The speech marked a rare moment for Lincoln, who seldom left Washington (he lived at the Cottage during the summer months of the war in part because he believed that, as Commander-in-Chief, he needed to remain in the district and in communication with the War Office). The venue where Lincoln gave his speech was a sanitation fair, which was essentially a fundraiser for the United States Sanitary Commission and the work it did on behalf of wounded and sick soldiers.
The speech itself is interesting for several reasons. Lincoln begins by reminding his audience that much has changed since the war began and that the people of Baltimore, especially, had seen much of that change. He alludes to the difficulty Union soldiers had in marching through the city in 1861 when they were faced with riots. Now, three years later, the citizens of Baltimore are raising money and urging support for those same troops. Lincoln goes on to explain that Baltimore has not only changed its view of Union soldiers but has changed in its attitude towards slavery as well.
It is in this context of change that Lincoln uses the Wolf and the Sheep parable. He starts off by explaining that “the world has never had a good definition for the word liberty,” and that in the midst of the Civil War, America is in need of a good definition. He goes on to say that everyone talks about liberty but that when they use that word they don’t all mean the same thing. Lincoln’s remark is surprising: “liberty” is one of the defining words of American history. The revolutionary generation called themselves the Sons of Liberty, so they presumably had a definition for liberty. Jefferson talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence, so he too must have had a definition for liberty. But Lincoln says no: in America, and in the world, liberty means different things to different people.
Lincoln goes on to give us two basic definitions of liberty. He notes that “with some, the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself and the product of his labor” while with others liberty is where men are free to “do as they please with other men and the product of other men’s labor.” He goes on to point out that these two definitions are incompatible. He also points out that each believer in one definition of liberty will call the other definition tyranny. Then, instead of explaining which definition he believes is the correct one, he presents these two definitions in the form of a parable.
Lincoln dives into his parable almost without warning. “The shepherd,” he says, “drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a black one.” He goes on to explain that his policy of emancipation is viewed the same way as the sheep and the wolf view the shepherd, even in the North. But he makes clear that it is the sheep’s definition that he believes is the right one. He goes on to say that the people of Maryland were “doing something to define liberty” and that their work has meant that “the Wolf’s dictionary has been repudiated.”
source: https://www.lincolncottage.org/the-wolf-and-the-sheep/
There is much to be said for the lexicon of a sheep versus that of a wolf. The big difference, perhaps obvious, is that sheep graze–and wolves eat meat–preferably rare. A predator mindset is not the same as the prey. Indeed, prey probably do not think about being in such a category, unless there is a predator around. People, however, with words, tell you which camp they consider themselves as members.
Manifest Destiny is one of those phrases that sounds cool. Heck, we still talk about “manifesting reality” today. (The ‘we’ here is used loosely, New Age folks who talk about vibes are usually the ones who use this phraseology–while I might speak of vibes, it ain’t like that) Back in the day, though, Manifest Destiny was the idea that America needed to expand westward to spread Christianity and the “right religion” to “all them heathens”. Usually, “them heathens” meant “injuns”. Generally speaking, the Whig party, of which Lincoln was a member, opposed the concept of Manifest Destiny, because implicit within all the Manifesting was taking slaves–something the Whigs were against.
Whether Lincoln opposed Manifest Destiny is debated–like most things Lincoln did–since his stances and later actions could support either position. It is clear, however, that he was aware of the differences between sheep and wolves. When wolves decide to go spread their new found wolf ways, disguised as sheep, problems happen. The spread westward was an early form of Replacement Theology in action which was disguised, for its time, as Manifest Destiny.
Native Americans And Westward Expansion
Christianity spreading to the Natives should have resulted in Natives experiencing Christian love, right? Well, some of them did not want that, it turns out, and no excuse was needed to then eliminate those who did not convert, since they were doomed to Hell anyway. Of course, the impetus had been money and land for many, and Manifest Destiny was only the excuse. How many Christian Natives do you see today? Where are they, generally, and what are their feelings toward white settlers in general?
Replacement Theology and Israel
Substitute the word “Jewish person” living in the land of Israel for “native” and “the church” for white settlers, and you have replacement theology. It is as spurious as Manifest Destiny was–in terms of being a valid reason to pursue a given action against a group of people. An article by Greg Denham does an excellent job of dissecting the issue. Despite the example of Messiah, and Paul outright saying Israel is not given up on or replaced, a large group of people are being persuaded that this false doctrine has validity–mostly–and this is important–because it allows them to hate Jewish people. A lazy application of selective theology as a rationale for hatred is not a good methodology for making life decisions–let alone spiritual decisions that influence one’s salvation.
You Cannot Replace People You Actually Love
Despite the dubious wisdom of Beyonce, who seems to be someone consistent with doing witchcraft, you cannot replace those whom you actually love. A bigger picture than that is that you cannot replace people that YHVH loves. Do you think most people have any insight into who YHVH loves? Do you think most people have any idea who are “His people?” More concretely, how many people are passing the bar of Matthew 5:20? For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. If you cannot get into the kingdom of heaven because your righteousness is not where it ought to be, what makes you a capable judge of anything? The answer is obvious: Most people are not anywhere near a category or state to be judging Israel, the United States, or Great Britain. If they intend to start judging, however, they ought to start with their own countries before deciding that another place is “worse” than their own country is. Put differently, the wolves are hungry and they are looking for shepherds that might protect the flock so they have something to blame later when things do not turn out the way they wish–or else to try to find common enemies to help them along their way. Nothing has changed since Lincoln’s time. His parable still holds.
Manifesting Destiny, Witchcraft, Sorcery
Doing one’s own will at the expense of others on any grounds is bad news. A church doing its own will no longer does the will of the Messiah. Whether it calls itself a church or not is by then immaterial. The authority the church held has evaporated in such cases, and it is only a matter of time until YHVH deals with such believers as they have dealt with others. Since such people will have become “A synagogue of Satan”, or at least a “church of devils and miscreants” they ought to understand the sequence of events that unfold against them.