The Christian Doctrine Paradox

“No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” (Mathew 6:24)

What is more inevitable or even more predictable than the concept of people fighting over money? If the god you serve requires you to elevate the value of money and personal interest above our supernatural calling to assist in the well being of others (service), then there is nothing more predictable nor inevitable in all the world. Money is the root of all evil.

Jesus Christ never commanded his followers to fight and kill each other to resolve their financial hardships. This fact should be evident to all bible believing Christians, but it is not.We are now faced with a dire need to recite the obvious. What were Jesus’ commandments regarding money and taxes?

Before revealing the simplest answers belonging to this forgotten gospel, we need to first address the imposed monetary policies set in place at the time leading up to the American Revolution. Understanding the forces and restrictions on currencies used at that time is fundamental when trying to comprehend the actions of our founding fathers.

Money is likely the single most important motivating factor when attempting to assemble a group of people to action if it is implemented well. The same is true for the opposite. When strict monetary policies negatively impact honest hard-working people, a revolution against the people’s government is bound to ensue. Time and time again this is the case. And it was certainly the case once again with Great Britain and her wayward thirteen colonies.

When it came to matters of faith, George III (king of England 1760-1820) did not persecute his Christian subjects, nor was religious persecution authorized by his royal signature. However, no earthly king in their right mind would allow the money coffers to dry up on their watch. The religious faith of a king’s subjects is one thing, but the king’s ability to regulate currency in his kingdom is another thing altogether. To this degree, George III was every bit as cunning a King as he needed to be. Not because he was a Tyrant, as our founding fathers made accusations, but because he inherited one hell of a mess, and his hand was forced to do something about it. The British crown was facing troubles in America long before George III was born.

… … …

The Currency Act of 1751 was the first of two major financial declarations penned by the King of England (in this case, George II – predecessor and kin to George III). The intention was to regain control of the exchange of currencies in the thirteen colonies as well as a direct attempt to curb inflation. After the French and Indian wars, the value of the banknotes printed in the colonies had been substantially depreciated. This was caused by the overprinting of colonial banknotes not backed by hard assets. When crossing paths with the British Pound Sterling, which was backed by precious metals, the English merchants began losing money from trading goods using these devaluing colonial currencies.

In the decades leading up to the American Revolution, there were essentially three major forms of currency being used in the colonies. Locally produced goods and services (a.k.a., bartering) could be used as opposed to “money” in the sense modern societies are accustomed. Anybody in possession of land, a product, a service, or a trade of any kind could essentially make a living without paper money. It was as simple as that. If you were smart enough and capable enough to work for your food, you would always have food on the table.

Even with bartering in full swing as an acceptable means for trade, the colonies were not opposed to using “banknotes”. If the note was backed by the value of the land owned by the individual, it was as good as gold or silver. Landowners were allowed to produce banknotes against their property through the colonial banks.

The third major currency on the table at that time was of course hard assets. Gold, silver, and other precious valuables. All the above were traded commodities in the economic practices of the British American colonies.

As time passed, and after the debilitating economic events surrounding the French and Indian wars, the settlers were faced with paying off debts to their foreign and domestic counterparts who helped finance the war. These so-called “bills of credit” were nothing more than an “I owe you” which were essentially worthless to the British merchants once the merchants were back on British soil. The inflation caused by these actions had not gone unnoticed back in
London.

At the direction of the king, George II (grandfather of George III), and his prime minister on whom he relied heavily, the declaration was made. The Currency Act of 1751 can be summed up as; 1) no new public banks were allowed to be created anywhere in the colonies, 2) the existing banks were no longer allowed to print new paper money, and 3) the colonies could use their “bills of credit” to furnish public debt (such as taxes owed to the crown), but they were prohibited from using their banknotes for private debt (such as payments to sea merchants). When dealing with merchant ships, the colonies were now forced to pay with hard assets. Whatever paper money was circulating in the colonies at that time was to be the last allotment for public debt, and never again to be used for private debt.

Although short-sighted, this was a smart move by the king as it prevented any further inflation that would arise from the colonies’ overprinting. This royal decree also prevented the merchants from losing money on their trade deals with the colonial settlers by not allowing the settlers to pay their debts in colonial banknotes.

The colonies now had to pay merchants exclusively in hard assets which further exacerbated their financial situation over time. The colonial money system was seeing signs of instability while the British Pound was securely backed by the king’s royal chest. The crown must have believed this would somehow fix the issues they were seeing in the colonies. It was a one-sided win-win for the king of England.

George II was never a fan of kingdom politics as is noted by several historians.He trusted his prime ministers and parliament to handle the affairs of the state without too much interference. Although, the king did ultimately approve and sign this decree. Unbeknownst to anyone at the time, kicking a man while he is down is not a good idea. Especially not when that man is your kinfolk holding the keys to the new world… a world 3500 miles across a treacherous ocean.

As you can imagine, many high-browed financially backed politicians in the colonies were not happy with the King’s Currency Act.

… … …

Years later, a bashful and inexperienced young man would be thrust into power when his grandfather (George II) died unexpectedly. George III assumed the throne in 1760 at the ripe age of twenty-two, inheriting a disaster not of his own making. It is said he was a man of faith in his own right but even men of faith have a job to do. One of those jobs was the Currency Act of 1764 decreed and signed by his own pen.

The former restriction put in place prohibiting the printing of new paper bills had been lifted. The colonies could now open new banks and print new bills… with one stipulation. The new bills could not be used to pay their debts to Britain. In the Currency Act signed by his granddad, colonial banknotes were acceptable for paying taxes (public debt) but not merchandise (private debt). In the new decree signed by George III, the colonies were now forbidden from using banknotes for any reason other than their own localized colonial currency.

Parliament had always envisioned that its American colonies should use a monetary system similar, if not identical, to the British system of “hard currency” based on the pound sterling. Feeling that it would be too hard for it to regulate colonial paper money, Parliament chose to simply declare it worthless instead.

The colonies felt devastated by this and protested angrily against the act. Already suffering a deep trade deficit with Great Britain, colonial merchants feared the lack of their own hard capital would make the situation even more desperate.

The Currency Act exacerbated tensions between the colonies and Great Britain and is considered to be one of the many grievances that led to the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence.⁹

As Benjamin Franklin would later say, it was not only “one of many grievances that led to the American Revolution”, but it was in fact the single greatest factor. As it always is, money was the reason to revolt.

… … …

In summary, the over-printing of colonial banknotes to pay off foreign debts led to the inflation of colonial currencies. This inflation then led to English merchants not getting paid in full due to the devaluing of said currency. Angry merchants and unpaid taxes led to two different Currency Acts signed by the King(s) of England. Subsequently, it was these Currency Acts that led to the American Revolution.

It is evident then to suggest the hardships leading up to the American Revolution were not exclusively caused by a “Tyrant” king, but were a great deal, at least in part, self-inflicted wounds by the colonialist leadership themselves. If the colonial bankers had not overinflated their own banknotes, there would have been no cause for the Currency Acts of George II, and later George III. And therefore, if there were no Currency Acts regulating the colonies as a result of
inflation, there would have been no American Revolution.

The foundation of America had nothing whatsoever to do with “fundamental Christian principles” as we have all been led to believe. It was all about currency exchange and monetary policy. The evidence would suggest we modern Christians have been fooled into believing a false characterization of our founding fathers. That, or it is a much more elaborate religious hoax to rewrite history for the purpose of persuading Christians to join the fight for “the homeland”. Satan, once again, has been deceiving the masses all the while using the name of Christ and “God” to accomplish his will.

We can now answer this question with confidence. Why did our founding fathers declare war for independence from Great Britain? Because a wise few at the top had indebted the colonial settlers to their earthly king by way of usury.

… … …

And much, much more.

… … …