Capitalism and the Abrahamic Promise

In the twelfth Chapter of Genesis  God instructs Abram to leave his country and his family to go to a new land that God was going to show him and in that land God was going to bless him and make him a great nation, so that he could be a blessing, not just a blessing to some, but that all the families/nations of the earth were to be blessed in him.

There is an important principle shown in this passage, that I first heard expounded upon many years ago from Lincoln Murdoch in the context of American Christians with our great blessings taking or using those blessing to bless others. I was reminded of this again recently when Terry Schenzel was speaking about the unique characteristics and abilities that each of us have been given by God and developed through education and experience. Our abilities, blessings, gifts, talents, etc. are not really ultimately for us, they are for those around us.

While it is true that our gifts are ultimately for others, it is also true that each of us have desires and dreams that we want to pursue. We want to be successful, we want to provide for ourselves and our families, we want to create. We are made in the image and likeness of God and He is creator God and we want to emulate Him. We want to accomplish something and we want to be significant. Those are good drives and desires and they should be nurtured and encouraged, but they only remain pure when they are balanced with the realization that our gifts are ultimately for others and we will never truly find fulfillment in pursuing our dreams until we see them blessing others.

That brings me to the purpose of this article. I think that the capitalist model is somewhat under attack in the United States and in the church in particular. It is almost as if we are ashamed of the blessings that have accrued to us and I would like to push back against that tide a bit.

In this country, our society is set up so that individuals can pursue their own dreams, whether they be writing, farming, building or any number of varied pursuits, limited only by our imaginations. That is to say that we are capitalists in thought and in occupation and in recreation. Capitalism is typically restricted to defining an economic system and is ”characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.” I would like a more inclusive and less obscure way of defining capitalism such as, individuals (or collections of freely associated individuals) using their skills, abilities and talents to pursue their dreams so as to provide for themselves and their families free from the control or confiscation of others.

Capitalism often has a negative connotation because our understanding is that if people are free to pursue their ambitions, they will do anything to succeed, they will let their ambition turn to greed which is certainly a temptation. We are humans and unless we understand the way we were created, we will think that any blessing that comes our way in any form, is ultimately for us. We will not understand that our highest achievement is to use our blessings to bless others. Without that understanding our blessings become a stagnant and smelly pool instead of a fresh rushing stream. 

I do not want to get into a long discussion of the pros and cons of government intervention in private activities since the point of this blog is to have a discussion of how we should use our skills, talents, blessings, etc to bless others. I will however say that there is no real good way for governments (that does not mean there is no way to increase the likelihood that people will do right) to check the downside of people being free to do what they want with their own possessions. Governments do have to be instituted among men in order to bring order and stability to societies but governments are composed of individuals with just as much propensity to do wrong as anyone else. It is therefore a bit naive to think those individuals in government will be any less likely to go bad than individuals pursuing their dreams could. Optimally when a government is formed it will truly represent the people who establish it and the power used to restrict or constrain individual action would be minimal.

Leaving that discussion for another time and place, my purpose in this piece is not to argue that American capitalism is God’s means of blessing the world or to somehow argue that America is in any way the equal in God’s eyes to Abram (Abraham), but to argue for a society that allows the free pursuit of our hopes, dreams, ideas and creative juices. We have an appetite for success, for achievement and we want a society that facilitates and encourages that, not for those who will selfishly accumulate for themselves, but for those who understand the promise to Abram, that we are blessed to be a blessing.

I think these are ideas that the church can and really should embrace. We do not need, indeed, we should not be embarrassed by the blessings that we have received individually and as a country. That would be false humility. Our task is to recognize blessing from God and then use that blessing to bless others. In other words, since we have learned to fish, let’s teach others. The best blessing is teaching people to do for themselves, not creating a class of people who are dependent on others.

Now it is true that the church can grow under any circumstances, see China or North Korea. God is not handcuffed waiting for free market capitalist republics to emerge, He can use any system to accomplish His purposes. That does not give us the excuse however to be passive or fatalistic. We can and should work for systems that best provide blessings to all. We are charged to bring the Kingdom of God into every area of life, so God can and will use people who understand the promise to Abram. God will use those who do not eschew the blessings of freedom and capitalism. God will use them to bring the Kingdom of God to a poor and needy world in unusual and unexpected ways.

You Say You Want A Revolution?

John Lennon and Paul McCarthy had an interesting lyrical answer to the push for revolution in the 60′s which I have excerpted below. The full lyrics can be seen by clicking the link.

You say you want a revolution
….We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don’t you know that you can count me out
….You say you got a real solution
….You ask me for a contribution
….But when you want money
For people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
….You say you’ll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it’s the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow….

You could maybe say that their objection was more practical than ideological, but that is not the point. The advice given in the song was and is good advice, especially in the “Occupy Wall Street” times we are living in. I wonder sometimes, are the sixties revolutions coming back? Or worse? Keep reading and you tell me.

At this point I should issue my “paranoid conspiracy theory” alert. Since the 2008 elections I have said more than once to my wife (half jokingly) that I feared that the 2008 elections could be our last Presidential election (for reasons I won’t explain for fear of loosing all of you). She never wanted to hear my pessimism, and frankly, I was and am hoping and praying that we will not come to that, although my concerns and fears have only heightened in the three and one-half years that have passed since those elections, by watching world events unfold.

I know those thoughts border on tin foil hat thinking, so imagine my surprise and chagrin when I a friend of mine, Tom Hughes, recently posted a piece from the Canada Free Press. According to this article, my fears may not be all that unfounded. The article quotes a source inside the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as saying,

“The Obama administration and many of the un-elected ‘czars,’ either directly or indirectly, are engaged in covert activities with the occupy movement, various labor protests, and other subversive activities inside the U.S. Using untracked campaign funds, they are paying people to infiltrate the various movements to cause physical destruction of property and disrupt commerce. That began last year, but has increased ten-fold already this year,”

“Obama is using some high-profile people as pawns to foment the revolution. I heard several times through very credible sources that [Louis] Farrakhan is on the CIA payroll. Other have been named as well, but I’m not prepared to identify them yet. Farrakhan is to coordinate the Blacks and the Muslims to prepare for riots this summer, using any means necessary.”

“Mentioned at the meeting Saturday were methods to use pawns to simulate the rioting in the Arab Spring countries, but to the benefit of this administration. A controlled chaos thing.” They envision rioting starting in the urban areas first, such as New York and other major cities, followed by a disruption of business and commerce. This will allow the DHS to mobilize their various teams into the streets of America without objection of the people.” 

“They want to restrict travel, if not through high energy prices, then by checkpoints and curfews mandated by rioting and unrest. They understand we are the most well-armed nation in the world, yet they are aware of our vulnerabilities and intend to fully exploit them.” The whole purpose is to keep Obama in office for another term, no matter how unpopular he is, as he is not finished changing our country from a Constitutional Republic. This is the run-up to the 2012 elections, or perhaps causing enough chaos to delay them – indefinitely.”

I will let you judge if the source is real or credible or if any of this is believable. I just think it is interesting that  this aligns fairly closely to the type of things that happen when freely elected nations morph into centrally controlled bureaucracies (Tyrannies).  We are conditioned in America to think that those types of things happen in places like Cuba or Venezuela or Germany (in the past) but can not happen here. I typically think that. We have a rich history of freedom and liberty and we are not easily subdued and so what happens there does not have to happen here – but could it?   

The easy answer is “of course it could”, but eternal vigilance is the guardian of freedom so it does not have to happen. Actually we should take some comfort in the fact that Occupy Wall Street (OWS) has largely fizzled in its May 1 resurrection from last falls protests. None-the-less I would like to issue a two-part challenge to everyone who knows God and His Son Jesus.

1. God rules the nations, He is alive, He does hear and is moved by the prayers of His children. I urge you to make your prayers known to Him and then humble yourself before Him and pray and seek His face and as He shows you, turn from sin, so that He will hear and forgive us and heal the land, and hold back the hand of the revolutionaries. 

2. We are the true revolutionaries, lets use the weapons of our warfare as we are reminded in Ephesians 6:10-17

¹⁰ Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might. ¹¹  Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. ¹² For our struggle is not against  flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. ¹³ Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. ¹⁴ Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, ¹⁵ and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; ¹⁶ in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. ¹⁷ And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

These are not times to remain on the sidelines.

Can We Pass a Law Saying the Oceans are Full of Fresh Water? Can We Pass a Law Saying Two Men Can be Married to Each Other?

I have previously written about the issue of homosexuality from my perspective as a Christian regarding that behavior, so instead of rehashing whether the behavior is right or wrong from a Biblical perspective, I thought I would look at it from a different, maybe logical point of view.

I suppose the title of this piece might give an indication of my thinking, but before I get to that, I thought a look at the history of marriage would be helpful. It is not surprising to note that in all societies in all times marriage has been recognized in one form or another, but the common denominator has been an almost exclusive recognition that marriage was between a man and a woman. Sometimes the marriages were arranged, sometimes there were exchange marriages where two clans would come together and exchange young people in arranged marriages,  sometimes group marriage, sometimes polygamy, sometimes marriage was restricted to within the family or clan, sometimes marriage was chosen by the partners themselves based on mutual attraction, but once again almost exclusively the union was of men and women in order to order society and to raise children. Marriages have only recently been redefined in some Western (Christian) countries as between members of the same sex. Kind of weird that.

Societies always regulate human relations in order to organize and perpetuate the culture. It is in the interest of society to regulate relations among themselves and they do so, not for the interests of the individuals but for the perpetuation and benefits of society as a whole. If that is the case then is there a reason that some relations are encouraged and others are not?

Well, my wife has written on her blog about the benefits to society of married families, so I refer you to her space. Suffice it to say, there is a very strong interest in society regulating interpersonal behaviour to preserve, perpetuate and prosper their culture.

That gets me to the part about  passing laws. It is laughable to me that we would think that we could pass a law to change the intrinsic nature of a thing. If we passed a law stating that the oceans were filled with fresh water, would it make it so, would we be able to drink it safely? Ridiculous question, of course, but for some reason we think we can pass a law to say that two men or two women can constitute a marriage. We can pass the law, but that does not make it so.

This reminds me of a passage in Psalms 2:

“² The kings of the earth rise up
    and the rulers band together
    against the Lord and against his anointed, saying,
³ “Let us break their chains
    and throw off their shackles.”

⁴ The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
    the Lord scoffs at them.”

So, I reckon God is still in His heaven and is looking at us trying to break His “chains”  and throw off His “shackles” and just laughing at our inept attempts to change the very nature of human relations by passing laws. From His point of view it is pathetically funny, unfortunately, we may have to live through the effects of misguided and ignorant law. It would be similar to passing a law that the  seas were filled with fresh water and then trying to use that water to drink and irrigate our gardens and crops. We would all surely die.

“Monumental”

Fresh from a viewing of Kirk Cameron’s new documentary movie on the foundations of America, I come away inspired and hopeful.

It is a humbling thing to hear about the Puritans who left their homes and lives in England to make a dangerous voyage to an unsettled land solely so that they could practice their faith in God and form a civil society that facilitated the practice of that faith.

The film reminded me once again of how much we take our freedom and liberty for granted, and how little we treasure the precious gift that it is. I am inspired anew to do all I can especially as a Christian, to fight for and defend our God given rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These are not political goals, they are spiritual and evangelistic goals.

As I watched this film I was saddened by the state of the modern church vis a vis the vibrancy and full bodied understanding of Christianity shown by the Puritans and our nations founding fathers, the physical and spiritual descendents of those Puritans.

Is our faith really only a personal spiritual journey or does it go deeper or broader? In Isaiah 59 it says,

“¹⁴ So justice is driven back, and righteousness stands at a distance; truth has stumbled in the streets, honesty cannot enter. ¹⁵ Truth is nowhere to be found, and whoever shuns evil becomes a prey. The LORD looked and was displeased that there was no justice. ¹⁶ He saw that there was no one, he was appalled that there was no one to intervene…” 

Where is justice today, where is righteousness, does it stand at a distance? Is truth esteemed in the street or does it stumble? It seems that this verse goes well beyond our own personal relationship with God, but it extends to wherever injustice is seen. Those founders understood that the tyranny of governments was something to oppose, do we? It is stunning that in the above verse it says that not only was the Lord displeased that there was no justice, but that He was appalled that there was no one to intervene. Ouch, that indictment stings. That is not something I want said about me.

There is a lot of injustice in the world and we mostly recognize it, but too often our solution is to ask the government to do something about it. The Puritans and our founders understood that this is feeding the beast. The more we turn to the government to solve our problems the stronger and stronger it becomes until we no longer have liberty. If we want to fight for justice, we could do no better than to start to unravel the tangled web of deceit that grows in an unwieldy and unresponsive government.

I think our answer is in rediscovering the God of our Fathers and trust in Him as they did. He was their rescue and hope and He stands ready to be ours as well. I want to honor the legacy of those who went before, of those who gave their lives to lay the groundwork for the creation on the freest and most prosperous society in history. I know it begins with my repentance and turning from my selfish, satisfied and wicked ways, humbling myself before God and praying and seeking His face, asking Him to heal this land, after all it is His land that He has given us to steward. How do you want to return it to him?   

So along with Kirk Cameron and the makers of “Monumental” I encourage you to seek God, ask Him to heal our land, and then go out and give the Lord a reason to be pleased and have Him save His being appalled for another time and place.

Politics Can Be Fun With Hillsdale College

Last night was like a breath of fresh air as a group of friends gathered at our house, as been our habit about every other Wednesday for over a year, to begin an elementary course in government. A breath of fresh air about a course in government, you say? Absolutely, it was fresh air because it began to blow away the cobwebs of the small thinking that passes as political discussion today from our political leaders. I think what we learned and will be learning can give us a standard by which we can look at current events and see how they measure up to basic principals and help correct them if necessary. I will revisit that last sentence later.   

Our friends, Alex and Anna Wimmer, Blake and Sangeetha Youngman, Justin and Traci Reeves and Beth Larsen began the Introduction to the Constitution series from Hillsdale College. These are a series of five one-half hour lectures given last fall by Larry Arnn the President of Hillsdale College, to be followed by “Constitution 101” which has already begun. Based on the reviews of the group, I think I can highly recommend this series for your viewing or viewing by groups of friends.

I have always thought the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were brilliant documents, I might even call them miracles and last nights lecture only served to reinforce that opinion. One of the main points of last nights lecture was that the founders through the declaration established that as humans, we have all been created with the same nature and therefore we are equal (All men are created equal) and therefore we must be governed in a certain way. We have to be governed in a way that respects that we are all human beings with a distinct nature that is not mineral, plant or animal, but human and therefore equal with one another. No human is by nature better than any other human.

If we accept this self evident truth that we are all equal, then it follows that certain basic governmental structures must be in place for our nature to be respected and honored. Dr. Arnn argues that the declaration, and then more by construct in the constitution that the general method is through Representative Government; Separation of Powers and Limited Government.

If you are still with me, I will try to briefly make the connection between these three basic structures of government with our basic human nature and our equality in that nature.

If we are to be governed, and there must be governmental structures to bring order to societies of people – lest there be anarchy, and if we are all of the same equal human nature then we must be represented in that governance. That seems to me to be self evident, though we do not often think of that.  

If we are to have representative government, we would by necessity not want to give all power of governance to one person or to one body of people, because we would loose our voice. Power must be separated to ensure that one group could not abuse the people.

Finally, it is important that our power over society be ceded to representatives of us to exercise it more efficiently and then it is important to separate that power, but if we gave all power to even multiple groups of government entities, they could collude and abuse us, so it is important that the power that we give them be limited. This again is self evident, although we do not often think of it.

This may seem dry and very mundane political talk, but I found it fascinating because it took the structure of our government out of the realm of mere political text books and put it squarely in the theological realm. The argument for our representative government goes right to the core of who we are as human beings, to our nature given to us by our creator. This is a theological argument without being a religious or a sectarian argument and is brilliant in its conception and in its execution. Well done founding fathers!

There was a companion point to this that I also found remarkable, even though I intuitively have always thought along these lines, and that is that a representative government can not exist apart from a strong, independent society. This also seems self evident.

Government owes its existence at least we say our government does, by the consent of the governed. If the people are week and dependent what will they do when it comes to the formation of a government? They will give all authority to the government and let the government tell them what they can and can not do. That violates the third point mentioned above, the government is not limited. If the government is not limited, it ceases to be representative. In many ways that is where we are today.

Look around you and ask yourself, are we strong and independent or are we looking for the government to tell us what light bulb is acceptable, what foods are good for us, what fuel efficiency standards should be, what regulations child care providers must meet, what drugs should be provided for free in a health insurance policy, what can be taught children in our schools, whether we can smoke or not, whether we can say certain things or not, whether our children can work on our family farms and on and on. Maybe you think some or all of those things are ok, but there are hundreds of new regulations being issued by different agencies every month and no one can keep up with them. More and more we are being told by some government entity what we can and can not do.

If you look no further than the National Health Care bill you will know that we have ceded too much power to the government and if we ever want to get that power back we will have to elect a different President in November. Barack Hussein Obama is an enemy of limited government and therefore an enemy of a strong and independent society. If he is an enemy of a strong and independent society, he is an enemy of representative government. (Indeed if he had paid any attention to the people during the health care debate he had to know what he was trying to ram through was against the consent of the governed from which he derived his authority) If he is an enemy of that type of government, he is an enemy of humanity that has all been created equal. His brand of governance is not American.

This is not intended as an effort to bash the current resident of the White House, he is only the latest and most egregious iteration of a non-American governing philosophy. We have had a progression of leaders going back 100 years that have slowly and often sneakily, with our hardly paying attention, moved us away from the three pillars of our governing system. Those pillars come from understanding that our rights come from our creator and not from our government. Our current batch of leaders tends to think rights come from the government, but that can not and must not endure.

I believe that it is important that we start now to become stronger and more independent people and families, and communities, and businesses and communities of faith. An important part and probably the most important part of our strengthening is spiritual. We must realize who we are and who made us and we must live lives that will reflect our appreciation and devotion to our creator.

I think a spiritual awakening coincides with an awakening of who we are as a nation, a people who believe in our creator and who believe this government should be representative and limited. The awakening can’t begin soon enough for me, how about you?

Is Rush Right? – Are We Pimping?

We are witnessing an amazing time in history. Could we really ever imaging a time when a woman would be testifying before Congress that she is having so much sex that, although she can afford the expense of a Georgetown Law education, she is unable to afford the contraceptive and abortifacient costs necessary to support her nymphomaniacal habits? In fact it is so bad that she needs the government to mandate that these expenses be covered by a dictate to health care insurance providers. 

Rush doesn’t need me to come to his defense, nor does Miss Fluke need me to condemn her, indeed her comments before congress and before the country should be condemnation enough. Who remembers when women had enough self respect to not brag about the fact that they were “sleeping around”? President Obama thinks her parents should be proud of her. Would he really be proud of Sasha or Malia if they were sleeping with every other man on campus? Maybe he would, I doubt it, but pride is not the first word to describe the emotions I would feel about my daughter if I discovered she was acting the slattern. The terms Rush used to describe her may have been many things including impolite and a bit crude (he has since apologized for the “insulting word choices”), but they were certainly not inaccurate to describe Miss Fluke’s behavior.  

We should actually thank Rush for providing us the opportunity to clarify for ourselves that we are in fact becoming, as a nation, pimps. A pimp is someone who procures sexual partners for a prostitute. If we determine that under Obama’s health care system we must provide free contraception and abortifacients for women then are we not facilitating the procurement of sexual partners? Do we really want to do this, to be the pimp for American women?  Maybe this is too harsh of a way to phrase this, but it is about time we started to look at what we are becoming as a nation. For all of the shocking language Rush has used, the most shocking thing to me is not his language but the behavior he is accurately portraying.

Again, my point is not to condemn Fluke, she has do deal with her own choices (I would not even care but that she has forced her behavior into public where we have to deal with it), but the situation does scream out for some common sense to be applied. We are a nation awash in sex and we are in serious need of some shame for our public acceptance of and championing of such boorish and animalistic behavior. There is no place in the church for the acceptance of this behavior or for the condemnation of one who points out the obvious truth.

Jesus sat and drew in the sand while the woman caught in adultery was facing her accusers. Her sin was obvious, she was caught and she was facing a stoning for her behavior. She was scared and probably a bit ashamed. The men around her were ready to do the deed until Jesus caught them up short and asked that the one who had not sinned, or perhaps participated in the woman’s sin, start the “festivities”. It did not take long for each one of them to examine their conscience and realize that they were all culpable in this woman’s sin and in fact all were guilty of sin before the law. In the face of this truth they dropped their instruments of punishment and death and walked away.

If only Miss Fluke were this woman. She would have been sheepishly dragged before Congress and faced the shame of having her deeds broadcast to the world. She would be a woman looking for one kind man to step in and come to her rescue. She might even be thinking all of these men are hypocrites: they want a sexualized culture but try to trample on those that they exploit.

But, alas, she is not the woman caught in adultery. Instead she is the woman boasting in her adultery and rather than facing the condemnation of the world, she is being applauded for her courage and told that her parents should be proud of her. She is not even in the position of being a grateful woman thankful for a savior who stepped in and said if no one else condemns you than neither do I now go and from now on sin no more.

Faced with that contrast what are we to do? Should we stand idly by and act like her behavior is normal? Maybe I do not have to point out that what Miss Fluke did was wrong since everyone should know that what she did was wrong. Maybe it was not even necessary for Rush to point out that what she did was wrong, but I don’t think so, I am glad he did – even if his pointer was actually a blunt instrument.

While the nation (our children as well) was watching, it was necessary to stand against the tide and say, no, in fact what she is doing is reprehensible. It is a sad commentary on our culture that a radio host had to state the obvious, had to stand up for righteousness and purity. Instead of being pilloried, maybe he should be applauded for standing up for moral values by simply stating the obvious.

I am glad that he exposed this charade for what it was, and is, an attempt to make theU.S.government the pimp for American women. It is shameful what this administration is trying to do. It is unbecoming of people of faith to countenance it and it is high time we spoke out forcefully against it.

No I don’t condemn Miss Fluke, I see her as a dupe of the system of sexual exploitation that this nation is becoming and I would say to her go and sin no more. That may very well be lost on her and it may seem like condemnation to her, but I do not think that we want to become the facilitator of her sexual peccadillos.

In The Face of Media & Administration Lies, Christians Must be As Shrewd as Serpents

You know I have usually felt that brainwashing in the United States was something we joked about and something that only happened in controlled societies where news was carefully crafted and children were indoctrinated in a specific way of thinking, but boy was I brainwashed. Don’t laugh, you probably have been too.

I am reminded of Jesus’ admonition in Matthew 10:16, “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves.” I think that as Christians, particularly, we are much better at being as innocent as doves and much more careless when it comes to being as shrewd as serpents. I think, to some degree, we cringe at the pairing of those two words – shrewd and serpent. I believe we gravitate much more easily and naturally to being innocent, forgiving, believing the best and being gentile like doves. Somehow that seems to be much more Christian – but is it really?

We may be somewhat shrewd at discerning false Christian teachers, such as deniers of the Divinity of Christ or the efficacy of His sacrifice or our path to salvation, but we are not so discerning when it comes to the “false teachers” in all things “secular”. The problem with this is that the first part of Jesus’ admonition actually refers to the fact that he is sending us out into the midst of wolves. He is not here specifically referring to false Christian teachers (although they are certainly to be looked out for) but to the world and all the pitfalls of error that we can fall into and thus be lead astray.

What if we believe things that will lead to harming other people? What if we believe things that will cause us to contribute to evil? If we are just innocent as doves and not shrewd as serpents, we are participants in that evil that causes harm. We are in grave danger.

What if we believed?

• The earth is warming and it is mankind’s fault because we are using too many fossil fuels.
• It is possible to be pro-life and believe that life begins at conception, but also believe a woman should be free to choose what to do with her own body.
• All governments are evil and it is only the leaders that make one government better than another.
• Israelis the reason we are unable to have peace in the Middle East.
• Disagreement with the opinions and policies of a person of color makes you a racist.
• America is a racist nation.
• America is an imperialist nation.
• America is not a Christian nation.
• The constitution requires that religion be separated in every way from public policy. (the separation of Church and State)
• Socialism is as good as, if not better, than capitalism as an economic system.

What if you believed more recent and less generalized lies?

• Newt Gingrich repudiated Ronald Reagan on the floor of the House of Representatives in the late 80’s.
• Mitt Romney said he does not care about the poor.
• The unemployment rate in January dropped from 8.5% to 8.3% and the economy is showing signs of recovery.
• The Middle East is undergoing an Arab spring.
• If it was not for this do-nothing congress, the economy would speed in its recovery.
• Planned Parenthood is providing beneficial woman’s health services.
• Increasing taxes on the rich to provide programs for the poor was a good idea.
• Increasing taxes on the rich to balance the budget was a good idea.

The point is not to go through each one and show how we have been brainwashed with propaganda, only to remind and/or alert us to the fact that we are being and have been lied to about a host of issues. Since we are being lied to, then we need to remember the admonition to be as shrewd as serpents, ferreting out truth from falsehood.

As a case in point, you all heard the exciting news that the unemployment rate was dropping from 8.5% to 8.3%, and how economists are seeing growing strength in the economy, as well as that the President’s policies are working. However, what you probably did not hear is that in December there were about 130M jobs, but in January there were 128M jobs. You also did not hear that there are fewer jobs in the economy today than there were before the recession started, and you probably did not hear a host of other statistics or information about the economy that would put the lie to the rosy unemployment statistic above.   

We are being lied to and you should be aware of that. The lies come not only from our administration, but also from a complicit press that knows these are lies and does not report them.

The press knew that Mitt Romney did not say that he did not care for the poor. The press knew that Newt Gingrich was a champion of Ronald Reagan policies and did not disavow them. In neither case was the press concerned with the truth, they were interested in sensational headlines and in misleading the country.

Likewise, the press knows that congress has actually passed numerous pieces of legislation many of which are being held up in the Senate or would be vetoed by the president if they were passed. The Congress is anything but do-nothing, it just has not done what the President or the press want them to do, so it serves a purpose to call them a do-nothing congress. In 2009 & 2010, when there were heavy Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, there was a lot done; unfortunately it was all bad (Health care / Dodd-Frank / Recovery Act  / Auto company Bailouts etc.) However, since this fit the agenda of the president and the press, the congress was never  portrayed in a bad light, even though they have not passed a budget since 2009, which is a fundamental responsibility of this branch.

Some of these things may seem dry, or just politics as usual, or may even sound like sour grapes to some of you, but I bring some of these examples up only to illustrate that we are routinely lied to, and if we do not seek out the truth we are played for fools.

• Unborn children will continue to be killed with regularity.
• Industrial progress will be slowed to a halt, trapping millions in poverty in third world countries.
• Faulty governments will continue to spring up with no regard for human rights, and no one to call them on it.
• We will continue to appease bad actors on the world stage and jeopardize peace for millions.
• People of goodwill will continually be silenced by charges of racism, to the detriment of the truth.
• The positive aspects of the American form of government and way of life will be continually undermined to the benefit of dictators around the world.
• Socialism will choke the innovation of the individual and stifle the development of new life saving/enhancing technologies.
• The poor will continually be enslaved to a government handout and not released to fulfill their God-ordained destiny.
• Our socialist/Marxist administration will have its warts glossed over in order to maintain their control of a formerly free people.
• The Middle East will become a hot bed of terrorism jeopardizing peace in the entire world.

If we do not seek out truth, we will tend to draw some false and damaging conclusions about public policy. It is as much our responsibility to cleave to biblical orthodoxy as it is to seek out and find truth in the “secular” sphere so that we can be true salt and light to a wolf filled culture. Where do you get your news? What do you do to find out if you are being lied to? Let us be shrewd as serpents and seek the truth in love and be real salt and light to our culture.

The Gospel, Foreign Policy and Rep. Ron Paul

Representative Ron Paul has carved a niche in this year’s Republican Primary election season by focusing on two major themes. The first theme is that we are desperately in need of cutting government spending due to the terrible amount of debt we are piling up. The second major theme is, what many would call, an isolationist foreign policy.

Of course, there are other issues that he is strong on, but these are the two that characterize him the most to me. While I don’t have a beef with him about the domestic spending, I do question his wisdom and his understanding of scripture in regard to our role in international affairs. Before I go too far, I want to make clear that I do not think that we have always conducted international relations in a godly or selfless or even a good way. There is much to be desired in our conduct of international affairs, but I do not think because we have not always conducted ourselves well, we should retreat from the field.

Now, regarding my concerns about Rep. Paul; recently Representative Paul used the idea of doing unto others what we would have them do unto us as a template for foreign policy, which is a good idea and one that should not be booed, but there are other commands from Jesus and scripture in general, that also need to be kept in mind and do seem to run counter to what Representative Paul advocates.

For example, in the parable of the Good Samaritan, it was clear that crossing the street on the other side of the road was not an acceptable response to a person in need. Would that be an acceptable response for a nation? If we are truly going to conduct foreign affairs based on biblical precepts, we need to keep that in mind also. Would that idea have put us in Iraq? Darfur? Afghanistan? Vietnam? Taiwan? The questions are yours to answer, but Representative Paul seems to answer in the negative: “In South Korea, they’re begging and pleading to unify their country, and we get in their way. They want to build bridges and go back and forth. Vietnam, we left under the worst of circumstances. The country is unified. They have become westernized. We trade with them. Their president comes here. And Korea, we stayed there and look at the mess.”

This is dangerous. Vietnam is united, but it is a unity under a repressive communist regime that quickly and violently swept to power as soon as we left in 1975. “After reunification, the government confiscated privately owned land and forced citizens to adopt collectivized agricultural practices. Hundreds of thousands of former South Vietnamese government and military officials, as well as intellectuals previously opposed to the communist cause, were sent to study socialist doctrine in re-education camps, where they remained for periods ranging from months to over 10 years.Vietnam’s 1978 invasion of Cambodia …in particular together with its increasingly tight alliance with the Soviet Union, appeared to confirm suspicions that Vietnam wanted to establish a Soviet-backed hegemony in Indochina.”

This is nothing to be proud of and not a foreign policy to be praised. Does Representative Paul support repression? We betrayed our South Vietnamese allies: “A bitter, tearful President Thieu resigns during a 90 minute rambling TV speech to the people of South Vietnam. Thieu reads from the letter sent by Nixon in 1972 pledging “severe retaliatory action” if South Vietnam was threatened. Thieu condemns the Paris Peace Accords, Henry Kissinger and the U.S. “The United States has not respected its promises. It is inhumane. It is untrustworthy. It is irresponsible.” He is then ushered into exile in Taiwan, aided by the CIA.”

Is this what Representative Paul wants for South Korea? He is misleading at best when he says South Koreans want re-unification but South Koreans know that the re-unification is not something to be taken lightly. Is Representative Paul prepared to abandon our South Korean friends as well?

There is a scripture, I John 3:17 that says “But whoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?” If we are truly to project a biblical foreign policy, how can we, being arguably the richest country in the world turn our backs on the rest of the world and their needs? I do agree with Representative Paul that our fiscal house is a disaster and we must get a reign on our domestic spending, but we would be foolhardy to turn our back on the world in order to do that. That strikes me as the personal equivalent of stopping our tithe until we pay off our credit cards.

There are a lot of things regarding foreign policy that Representative Paul says that make sense. We do prop up dictators to the harm of the citizens of the country and we do provide foreign aid that tends to make dictators and their families rich. We need to be better and allow our international influence to grow because we are a good and prosperous people at home with citizens that want to care for the worlds poor, but it is selfish to become strong and then watch the weak and oppressed of the world remain oppressed because they do not have the ability to stand for their own freedom. Do the free people of Taiwan deserve to be abandoned to the forceful takeover by China?

France may have had nefarious motives, but they were used by God in helping us to win our freedom from England. We would have had a much more difficult time attaining our freedom without their help. Should we turn our back on freedom loving people around the world because we are afraid of angering despotic regimes?

I think it is obvious that war is hell, a hell to which I confess I am completely inexperienced in, but I wonder if it is the worst thing. I recently read with our book club, the Notting Hill Napoleons, the latest Jeff Shaara book, “The Final Storm”. While he says he is not making a case either for or against the use of the atomic bomb against Japan, it is quite apparent as you read the unfolding story, that the dropping of the atomic bomb was a far better choice than continuing the war in the status quo. Even at that, though, the war was a far better thing than allowing the oppression of people that Japan was involved in prior to their bombing of Pearl Harbor. The war was hell, but as Solomon writes in Ecclesiastes, it was a time for war. Our peace at that time would have meant an ongoing hell for many people for many years to come. Maybe that hellish war was not the worst thing.

I bring that up only because, I wonder if our modern sensibilities about the hellishness of war will ever allow us to fight a war again as war has to be fought (They utterly destroyed everything in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword – Joshua 6:21) if it is going to be fought. I wonder if we can really be more merciful than God. Maybe Ron Paul is right about foreign policy, but I wonder if his desire to conduct foreign policy with an unbalanced biblical perspective will only lead to other more hellish outcomes. Proverbs 3:27 – Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, When it is in your power to do it.

America – “A Shining City on A Hill”

Reblogged from inpursuitofreason:

Is America really a Shining City on A Hill, or is it just a dream? Was it once and is no more? Could it ever be? Should we care? Maybe it is just wishful thinking.

In Ronald Reagan’s farewell address to the nation in January of 1989, he said, “We’ve got to do a better job of getting across that America is freedom – freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise.

Read more… 852 more words

This is a repost, but I believe it is still timely

I Thought President Obama Swore To Uphold the U.S. Constitution

We are, once again faced with a serious Constitutional Crisis precipitated by the Presidents refusal to follow the highest law in the land, a law which he swore to uphold and to defend. I have previously written about this administration ignoring the law and specifically asking the President to resign. Since those comments were written, his behavior has not changed, but has only gotten worse, so against my wishes, I am pulling myself out of the palliative of the holidays and the football bowl season to think about much more serious issues.

I must admit, I have had serious fears about this administration since at least November of 2008, some fears of which I will refrain from sharing lest I appear paranoid, but the Presidents actions this week only reinforce my fears. What do I refer to – why to his recess appointments of course? I am sure you have heard all about how unprecedented and unconstitutional and therefore illegal these appointments were from your normal sources of news. What is that you say, you did not hear that? Shocking – sadly this one of the most serious constitutional crises in our nations history, but we are anesthetized by life and unaware that we are rapidly moving from a free republic to a centralized and unaccountable government.

Maybe that is hyperbole, you be the judge. Earlier this week President Barack Obama decided that he would consider the Senate in recess so that he could appoint individuals to unaccountable positions in the Executive branch of government. These positions require Senate confirmation, but if the Senate is in recess the President has the “Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate …..which [appointments] shall expire at the End of their [the Senate’s] next Session”. Article 2, Section 2, Clause 3 –U.S. Constitution. Italics mine.

The problem in this case is that it is very debatable whether or not the Senate is actually in recess. In order to be in recess, both the Congress and the Senate must agree to recess, but the Congress has not agreed to a Senate recess – ergo, the declaration by the President of a Senate recess is at best questionable. In addition, the vacancies that have been filled did not occur during the recess, they have been vacancies for quite some time but the Senate refused, for good reasons and in keeping with their constitutional responsibilities, to approve the appointments.

There have been other Presidents over time, albeit rarely, who have used a recess to appoint individuals who have been blocked, but they have done so when there was in fact an actual recess in place. An excellent piece by Phil Kerpenis vice president for policy at Americans for Prosperity outlines some of these concerns much better than I could.

This is another step in a long list of steps taking us down the road toward a centralized government and loss of freedom. This is not the only transgression of this President or it might not raise so many concerns, but it is the latest in a long list of questionable constitutional moves. A constitution, I will remind you again, he swore to uphold and to defend.  

A partial discussion of unconstitutional acts can be found in detail at Maggie Thornton’s blog, but let me share some of them here along with some of my own concerns: 

1)      Bailouts – The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to spend the taxpayer’s money. Without the consent of Congress, the President cannot legally spend taxpayer money. He believes the Constitution should allow for the redistribution of taxpayer wealth.

2)   Supreme Court – Believes it should redress omissions of the founding fathers. “…the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”

3}  The Czars - The appointment of the many “czars” by the Obama administration are unconstitutional – They are being appointed without the Advise and Consent of Congress.

4)   Government ownership in private business. The seizure of ownership of private business is unconstitutional.

5)   Health Care - Obama’s health care plan is unconstitutional as numerous courts have already determined and most likely will be affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court later this year.

6)   Fast and Furious.

7)   Instructing his Justice Department not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.

8)   Ignoring a Court order to resume drilling in the Gulf of Mexico after the Deep Water Horizon Oil Spill.

9)   Refusing to enforce a judgment against the Philadelphia Black Panthers in a voting rights case.

10) He believes the constitution is flawed.

These are dangerous signs that we have a President that does not respect the rule of law and a Republic can only survive if the office holders have the utmost respect for the positions they steward and are willing to obey the law of the Constitution, which they as well as each of us are subject to. A Republic will not survive without virtue in its leaders and in its people and that has been said in different ways by many, including Abraham Lincoln and James Madison, but that truth is taught to us in Proverbs “It is an abomination for kings to commit wicked acts, for a throne is established on righteousness.” Proverbs 16:12.

It is hard to watch a once great nation fall into decay and as frustrating and angry as you can get watching it, let’s remember these things as an inspiration to pray for our President and all of his appointments, legal or not, that they may rule in righteousness, for if they do not, we will be the ones who suffer. I Timothy 2:1-3 “First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,”

In addition to our prayers, there are two other things we should do. The first thing is that we should share with our friends what we know and ask them to pray with us for our county. The second thing we can and must do is to watch closely the actions of our President, and if he does not repent and turn and honor righteousness and justice, we need to exercise our responsibility as believers and vote for his removal from office in November. These are our rights as citizens and our duties and privileges as those who are called to be salt and light in a dark world.