Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Hon. Christopher Bond
274 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Hon. Claire McCaskill
Hart Senate Office Building, Suite SH-717
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senators Bond and McCaskill:
It is time for the U.S. Government and particularly the United States Senate to change its direction. The U.S. Congress is on a rampage of tyranny the likes of which our country has never seen before. King George’s “taxation without representation” took money from the American colonies to finance a war against France. The present U.S. Congress has far surpassed King George. For decades now the U.S. Government has taken money from Americans for the war to get reelected by providing benefits to the voting bloc de jure, whether welfare, food stamps, farm subsidies, etc. etc. etc.
The present rampage of tyranny accelerated rapidly last year with TARP and Son of Tarp. You have confiscated my property and mortgaged my children’s prosperity to buy clunkers. You seek to enslave me and the vast majority of this nation to your health care whims all for the sake of some campaign promise to buy someone else health care. You now are also proposing to ration our energy usage through capping and trading our carbon. These efforts, my worthy civil servants, violate the basic covenant the U.S. Government has with the American people.
No doubt you believe you have the authority to impose these shackles on the American people and American business. After all you have the right legislate the “general welfare.” However, the “general welfare” cannot be used to trump a person’s right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” It was King George’s taxes which caused the great Samuel Adams to compare King George to the Pharaoh of Egypt and the American people to the Israelites in their quest for freedom. It was this servitude which caused our founders and particularly Sam Adams to declare our right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and to indict King George for his breach of his covenant with the people in the Declaration of Independence. With this as the important foundation of our nation, the “general welfare” can never be used to justify infringing upon the individual’s freedoms.
My words have been strong. Senator McCaskill has exhorted civility in our public discourse. I agree with Senator McCaskill. However, strong threats require strong words. Sometimes strong words are required in order for the message to be heard. The question is whether the words are measured to achieve an appropriate result. I am particularly informed by the violent actions taken by those who are sent to intimidate those who have undertaken their right to discourse with their elected officials in town hall meetings. It was not those who protested the health care proposals but those who sought to intimidate such protests that caused the violence. Based on these observations, our words must be strong.
By your rampage of tyranny you are quickly abdicating your ability to govern. The U.S. Government exists to govern the states of this great land. Governing requires the ability to impartially determine in a righteous manner right from wrong. As you increasingly involve the U.S. Government in every industry and market in this nation, from cars to banks to health care, you decrease its capability to be impartial. A participant cannot be impartial in its judgment because it is always protecting its own self interest. By increasing your participation you are forever abdicating your right to govern.
Your job, should you decide to accept it, is to protect liberty. I realize that by fostering liberty you give up your ability to control people. You give up your ability to control the poor and the needy. However, by protecting a free people, you greatly increase this nation’s ability to care for the poor and needy. A free and righteous people can provide for the poor and needy. Slaves cannot.
David C. Linton
Thursday, August 13, 2009
"Because the federal health benefits are not quite timely."
"But isn't the federal government best qualified to give medical help to all of this country's citizens?"
"And yet you are asking for help to improve the medical care for veterans because the federal program is not adequate. Do you see a problem in the consistency in your positions?"
He hung up on me. Now, I wonder why that was.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
What is good for the electric utility industry is good for the health care industry. As part of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the federal government has undertaken to encourage the development of what has been labeled the "Smart Grid." The Smart Grid is a euphemism for technology that will enable a utility to communicate its time of day price for electricity to its customers and thereby introduce price signals into the retail energy market. Presently, in most retail electricity markets, price does not vary depending on the time of use. Therefore, there is no disincentive to use electricity when prices are high. Smart Grid would allow a customer to see a utility's price that varies with the time of day and load demand. The theory is that it would allow a customer to see the price and to shift his use of electricity away from the system peak to a time when prices are cheaper. Price signals are good, to allow a customer to tailor his conduct based on the value of the service provided.
However, in the health care debate, the federal government is doing exactly the opposite. There are very few price signals in the health care industry today because of Federal Income Tax policy. Federal Income Tax policy encourages employers to provide health insurance to their employees. Broad health care policies to large groups of individuals mask price signals, thereby limiting a customer in his ability to make judgements about the value of the service provided. Pricing does not create a disincentive to use service when costs are high rather than when prices are low. The federal health care proposals would further these distortions. With federally subsidized (subsidized through federal taxes) there would be distorted price signals making them artificially low, further reducing the disincentive to use services when prices are high. You think health care costs are expensive now. Wait until health care is free.
Friday, June 12, 2009
There is an old adage that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This adage has typically been reserved for its application to government. There is nowhere where power and corruption can do so much damage as in the government. Government has the power of the sword and the power to imprison. No other institution on earth has been given this extreme power. Therefore, government must be limited in the exercise of its power. Only when tightly constrained to limits of executing minimum justice can government’s propensity to tyranny be constrained.
We have lost the sense of this warning in our culture. In our culture, government has become god, righting every wrong and capable of managing everything. Government Motors, as shown by Mr. Farago, reminds us that this is a flawed perspective. Remember, what government grants, government can take away.
There are two reasons why Government Motors will be more corrupt than General Motors. First, Government Motors will have more power than General Motors. In the hands of private industry, if General Motors commits a crime, a limited government has the ability to correct that crime. If Government Motors commits a crime, there is no earthly institution over Government Motors to correct that crime. Second, General Motors, in the hands of private industry is motivated by profit. This is a legitimate goal for a business. However, Government Motors will be motivated by competing desires for reelection as Mr. Farago has pointed out. Decisions are no longer made by what is most profitable or in the best economic interest of the business and the market but on which political campaign will receive the biggest boost.
This has serious implications for our economy. Just wait until government takes over all control of our health care.
Friday, May 15, 2009
However, from a logical standpoint, she could have taken a more definitive position. This is not intended as a criticism but simply to highlight how compassionate her answer was. When addressing the issue of marriage, it is important to go back to first principles. In this case, it is impossible to address the issue of marriage without addressing it in its historical context. Marriage, in western civilization, cannot be divorced from the Bible. The western consensus has been from the middle ages and earlier that marriage was established by God in Genesis. “For a man shall leave his father and his mother and cleave unto his wife and the two shall become one flesh.” Genesis 2:24. There is no condemnation here, but if someone seeks to conform his or her conduct to an established norm, it is necessary to conform his or her conduct to the established norm. If you accept marriage as an institution, you must accept the institution as established and not only bits and pieces of it. If you want to be called a lawyer, you have to meet several historically established requirements. Marriage is no different.
It is also rather ironic that the Christian church is attacked for taking this position. Inherent in the institution of marriage is the portrayal of the relationship between Christ and His Church. Those who are attacking Ms. Prejean are attempting to confirm the institution of marriage. Although they confirm it for a different purpose than Ms. Prejean would, they confirm it nonetheless. In their confirmation of the institution, they confirm the institution that images the relationship between Christ and the Church at the same time they attack the Church for defending the image of its relationship. I find this curious.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
I heard this quote during Sunday School this week from Commander Jason Carter (retired). I had originally intended to comment on it. But I don't need to. You can't say it any better than this.
Monday, April 27, 2009
It has recently become popular for conservative Christian academics to belittle the singing of “God Bless America.” I have been in a meeting recently and heard of other events in which, when explaining their participation in public forums, declare their refusal to sing the song. The basis for the objection is their perception of a sense of superiority on the part of American Christians when entering into mission activities as well as an allegation of the religious right worshipping the GOP. I recognize the validity of both complaints. I also, as a devotee of St. Augustine and his foundational book The City of God, recognize that the city of God is not constrained by the city of man. God does not need the USA to achieve His purposes.
Having said that, I am concerned that our Christian academia is being too shrewd for its own good. Christ did command us to make disciples of all nations. During the development of Western Civilization, the Church did make disciples of the west. Western Civilization, since Constantine, has been overwhelmingly influenced by Christianity, so much so that up until the French Revolution, the time period has been referred to as Christendom. America has been especially blessed in its place in history as having been overwhelmingly influence by Christendom. Our founders readily recognized that America was a Christian nation. U.S. Supreme Court opinions recognize the country’s Christian heritage.
What is wrong with singing “God bless America?” Can it be wrong to pray that God would protect our land? Can it be wrong to pray that God would maintain the success the Church has had in making America, at least in part, a disciple? If missions are the driving concern for Christian academia, it strikes me that Christian academia is like the greedy dog, which with a bone sees its reflection in a lake. Not being content with the bone it already has opens its mouth to take the bone from the dog it sees as its reflection. In doing so, it loses what it already has and does not gain anything new.
Certainly, God has all things in control. If He has told us that He has all authority in heaven and on earth and that we should make disciples of all nations, this will come about. It just seems to me that His people are not obeying His plan very well if we are willing to portray an attitude in which we do not encourage the keeping of what the Church has been given. Certainly, our leaders recognize our ambivalence.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
1. In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress.
-- John Adams
2. If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.
-- Mark Twain
Suppose you were an idiot.
And suppose you were a member of Congress.
But then I repeat myself.
-- Mark Twain
4. I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle ..
-- Winston Churchill
5. A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-- George Bernard Shaw
6. A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.
-- G. Gordon Liddy
7. Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
-- James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)
8. Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.
-- Douglas Casey, Classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown University
9. Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
-- P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian
10. Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.
-- Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850)
11. Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases:
If it moves, tax it.
If it keeps moving, regulate it.
And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
-- Ronald Reagan (1986)
12. I don't make jokes.
I just watch the government and report the facts.
-- Will Rogers
13. If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free!
-- P.J. O'Rourke
14. In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.
-- Voltaire (1764)
15. Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you!
-- Pericles (430 B.C.)
16. No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.
-- Mark Twain (1866)
17. Talk is cheap...
except when Congress does it.
18. The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.
-- Ronald Reagan
19. The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings.
The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
-- Winston Churchill
20. The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin.
-- Mark Twain
21. The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
-- Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)
22. There is no distinctly native American criminal class...
-- Mark Twain
23. What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.
-- Edward Langley, Artist (1928-1995)
24. A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
--John Marshall, official eulogy of George Washington, delivered by Richard Henry Lee, 26 December 1799
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
--John Jay, Federalist No. 2
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
15 Whoever puts up security for a stranger will surely suffer harm, but he who hates striking hands in pledge is secure.
18One who lacks sense gives a pledge and puts up security in the presence of his neighbor.
"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Samuel Kercheval, 12 July 1816
"Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage on them." --Thomas Jefferson
Wisdom literature is complex. Wisdom literature does not provide black and white rules. It provides wisdom. There is enough admonition in Proverbs to teach us that incurring debt is typically not a good thing. It is a binding of our future. It makes us slaves to our creditors. The U.S. Government is proposing through this massive bail out to impose on this nation trillions of dollars of debt. Whether we like it or not, that debt will fall on us, and not only us, our children as well. The U.S. Government is seeking to sell us and our children even more into slavery. The founding fathers, as statesmen, understood this principle. I just wish our modern politicians understood this concept.
Home of the free and the brave?
Friday, January 30, 2009
What an interesting verse! I, for one, find it easy to overlook the very jarring concept of a dead man coming simply due to the passage’s familiarity and its easy explanation that Jesus has died for our sins. Therefore, we declare his death and resurrection and our justification until he comes again. This is the common understanding of the commentaries. The commentaries on I Corinthians typically conclude that there must be some sermon associated with the Lord’s Supper. I think there is more here.
A careful reading of I Corinthians 11:17-34 impresses one with the prevalence of legal terms in the passage. Words such as “covenant” and “judgment” are significant. In addition, this passage describes a “new covenant.” Further, “remembrance” of a covenant in old testament parlance indicated something more than mere intellectual reflection. It entailed a reconfirmation and affirmation through action of the covenantal obligations. N.T. Wright, in his book Jesus and the Victory of God, has hypothesized that Jesus, in the Gospels, is portayed as taking to himself the symbols of the temple and the Sabbath. This passage would seem to support that hypothesis.
I have previously opined that the fourth and fifth commandment set forth a dance between generations. The fourth and the fifth commandments are unique in that they are cast as the only two commandments with positive obligations. I don’t deny that all of the commandments hang on the positive obligations to love Yahweh and love your neighbor, but the other eight commandments are cast as prohibitions. Not only are the fourth and fifth commandments obligatory, they are also reciprocal. The fourth obliges the older generation to live out the cycle of labor and rest before the younger generation. The fifth commandment obliges the younger generation to obey the older generation as it does so.
As the history of the covenant progresses, this dance becomes more explicit. It is highlighted beautifully in Hosea 4. In this passage, it almost appears as if the fifth commandment takes on a new principle, no longer just a commandment to be obeyed, but a principle of life. It is almost as if there is an unalterable truth that the younger generation will follow after the older generation. Because the older generation commits idolatry, the younger generation will do likewise. Because the older generation commits adultery, the younger generation will do likewise.
Without pushing too hard, there is a sense of this in Romans 1. Because men exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images of mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles, God gave them over to impure lusts and dishonorable passions. While there is no explicit generational reference here, there is certainly an implicit understanding of a progression over time. There is an old adage that a church is only two generations away from apostocy. A true church can become cold in one generation and nonexistent in the next.
What Paul “received” and “delivered” (two more legal terms) to the Corinthians was the covenantal act of remembrance Jesus called his disciples to practice. He called them to enter into the dance of the generations through his body and blood. Just as the old covenant paradigmatic worship service in Exodus 24 ended in feasting before Yahweh, his disciples are to culminate their worship service in feasting on his body and blood. Just as the older generation was to remember the Sabbath before the younger generation, so the older generation is now to remember the body and blood of the Lord before the younger generation. By doing so, they are proclaiming or inculcating the feast of the Lord before the younger generation.
There is a principle of life aspect to this passage as well. The worthy participation in the sacrament has consequences. Life and health are the blessings of the sacrament. Sickness and death are the curses of the failure to observe the sacrament. And it is the failure to observe the sacrament that is the focus, because Paul makes very clear that they are not observing the sacrament at all in their feast.
The act of the participation in the body and blood of the Lord is a proclamation to our children of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is the primary means of discipleship of our children. Yes, there are other things that flow from our communion with Christ, such as educating our children in the nurture of the Lord. But it starts at the dinner table with Christ. No, this is not an automatic, magical event. It is better. It is conduct in a relationship with a faithful God, who always keeps his promises to His covenant people. God is faithful to his covenant promises. He wants us to be faithful to the covenant as well. He will remember us as we remember him.
AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.
. . . . . .
No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.
It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.
The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.
. . . . .
Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.
In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
“When people accept futility and the absurd as normal, the culture is decadent.”
– Jacques Barzun
When a young state senator from Illinois ascended the platform to give the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, many considered him a rising star in the Democratic Party. But even his zaniest fans could not have anticipated that, in four short years, Barack Obama would have made the leap from state senator to United States Senator, and from United States Senator to the President of the United States.
What does Barack Obama’s rise to power mean? For one thing, it means that the “absurd” has become “normal”: when a large proportion of younger “evangelicals” vote for a man who will help perpetuate the war against the unborn, decadence has obviously set it. For another thing, it means that modern conservatism—the conservatism of William Buckley and Russell Kirk, of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan—is dead. As a matter of fact, it has been dead for a number of years: Election Day 2008 simply provided us the coroner’s report.
For we who consider ourselves “conservative,” it will do us no good to pine away for the glory of days gone by. We can’t re-live the Barry Goldwater campaign; we can’t call Ronald Reagan back from the dead—nor would we want to if we could.
What we Christians in America need to do is to rediscover what our vocation is: we are salt and light; we are strangers and sojourners; we are a nation of priests. This does not mean, as the pietistic Christian might take it to mean, that we are to withdraw from the public square, and simply build our own little Christian ghettoes while clutching our Bibles and waiting for the end of the world. No: the Scriptures call on the people of God to take dominion by being salt and light, to take dominion by being strangers and sojourners, to take dominion by acting as priests on behalf of the world. We are not called to withdraw; rather, we are called to engage the world, ruling as God’s co-regents.
But we have forgotten what it means to rule. We have confused the biblical mandate to “rule” and “take dominion” with the hackneyed imperative to “win the next election.” So what should Christians do in the world of President Barack Obama? How can we better prepare ourselves to be the vice-regents that God wants us to be? I would suggest three things:
1. Pray like a Saint Augustine
2. Know the times like an Edmund Burke
3. Love the law of God like a King Josiah.
To read more, go to http://www.americanvision.org/article/what-to-do-in-an-obama-world/.
I would like to expand a bit on Rev. Martin’s comments as they pertain to loving the law of God like King Josiah. The first thing to note about King Josiah is that when he found the book of the covenant he re-established right worship. And that worship carried forth to destroy the pagan culture in the nation. Worship is our primary weapon in these absurd times. Therefore, change is a product of the effort to the Church community and not individuals.
It is abundantly clear from Scripture that people take on the characteristics of the thing that they worship. If we worship God, we become more like God. If we worship stone or wood, we become more like stone or wood. If we worship man or a human institution, we become more of the same.
To the extent we as individuals pin our hopes on a man or a political party, we worship them. We become more like them. In the past Christians have put their hopes for political change in political parties. This has not stopped the increasing shift to worshipping government. It has only increased it. Both Republicans and Democrats have continued in this shift. Can any now deny that there is a significant segment in our population that worships the president? You can’t if you have watched any of the media coverage of the recent election. It is time for the Church to become the Church and stop relegating itself to the position of a philosophy club intended to improve our own and save a few other souls, while allowing individual Christians to try to reclaim culture through their preferred political party. Christ came to create for himself a new worshipping body, one that would take dominion over creation.
In the early days of our yet unborn republic, the pulpits in the colonies resounded with sentiments of freedom and moral change for the people and their culture based on Scripture. They sent their people out to affect change in culture. The pulpits have lost that voice, fearing to lose their tax exempt status. The Church must find its voice once again. Only by the Church regaining its voice and heralding a message into the culture may we again find a rallying point worthy of our devotion. There is one man that we worship and His name is Jesus, the Christ. It is Christ who is head of his body the Church. We must look to him for change in our culture and the Church must herald that truth through its worship and especially in its benediction. Then the Church as a community must act in accordance with the benediction.
--Benjamin Franklin, Emblematical Representations
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
And yet I wonder, how would you look at our last election for U.S. President? What is it that we cast our votes for? If you listened to the campaigns at all, both candidates believe that you cast your vote for the one that will do the most for you. Who will bring you the best health care? Who will spread the wealth around the best? Who will provide the biggest tax cuts? We are used to this type of campaigning. What is it these candidates bring to us? Social security? Food stamps? Welfare? Entitlements? Did you sell your vote this year? What do we anticipate getting from our election this year? As for me, let the government bring me nothing and take from me nothing except what I deserve as punishment for my crimes and protection from those who would commit crimes against me.
Alexis De Tocqueville once wrote, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” When our hard earned tax dollars become the trough for bribing the public, the wealth of the entire nation is at risk. How long will we endure?
Friday, January 9, 2009
1Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. 2And as people migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. 3And they said to one another, "Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly." And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. 4Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth." 5And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. [Genesis 11]
Have you ever wondered why the U.S. government, having started small, continues to expand and usurp more and more authority and become increasingly socialistic? Here is the problem. Man, by his fallen nature wants to be God, controlling all things. Socialism, by its very nature, attempts to control all things. We can see this in the economic bailout. Our politicians, not content to allow us to have our own money, will bail out the economy by taking our money from us and spending it for us as they see fit. (Remember, government never produces anything. It can only take from those who produce.) Congress thinks that it can plan the economy better than we can. This is the theory of socialism. As the bailout continues, watch for the agenda that our economic planners will follow and ask yourselves, is what they spend our money on the most effective way to grow the economy for us.
While it is likely that socialism will increase in America for some time, it will not increase forever. There is an end to socialism.
6And the LORD said, "Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. 7Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech." 8So the LORD dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. 9Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of all the earth. And from there the LORD dispersed them over the face of all the earth. [Genesis 11]
This is how God works, bringing confusion to the self-seeking efforts of men. This is how He has worked throughout history. When the time comes, there will be confusion, but God will also put something in its place.
1Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. 2And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." [Genesis 12]
Notice how God promises to give Abraham what the nations wanted to take in Genesis 11. And this is how God will work out history today. Christ is the blessing to the nations promised to Abraham. His church, small and seemingly insignificant, is His remedy to socialism. My prayer is that it would engage that challenge today.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
What, you say, should we accept the proposition that worship is an legal formality? This is not my point at all. We should all agree that marriage is primarily a legal transaction in which two people, a man and a woman, become one. It is a legal transaction to joy and to a purpose. The consummation of that legal transaction is found in the marriage bed. What more intimate and emotional experience could there be than a loving couple consummating their covenant vows on their wedding night.
Exodus 19-24 describes this legal transaction for the nation of Israel in a paradigm worship service. In Exodus, God calls His people out of bondage, gives them His law, and vows to be their God. The people of God respond to His call in Exodus 24 and vow to be His people. God consummates the covenant with the “blood of the covenant,” and the people consummate that relationship by eating and drinking in His presence on the mountain of Sinai. They “remember” the covenant through “remembering” the Sabbath.
The Apostle Paul reminds the Corinthians that they too are entering into a legal transaction every time they gather together on the Sabbath:
17But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, 19for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. 22What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.
23For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
This is legal rhetoric. It is founded on tradition. They are undertaking an act that, based on that tradition may be performed properly or improperly. And how they perform that act has significant consequences.
The gravity of the event should not cause us to shun its practice. It is the consummation of our relationship with our covenant God Yahweh. Note the language. The cup is the “new covenant in my blood.” We are to partake of the bread and the cup “in remembrance of me.” Both of these phrases echo Exodus 19 and 24. We proclaim Jesus death until he comes. (Now there is an interesting irony. One who is dead is coming. I must reflect on that some more.) As the people rejoiced in the presence of the Lord in Exodus 24, we are to do likewise. Yes, this is a legal transaction, but it is a transaction of love. James Torrance has captured this idea well in his little book Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace. We have been created to commune as co-lovers with the Trinity.
So as we enter into worship, let us remember that we are consummating our relationship with our loving God. Yes, we are consummating a legal relationship, but also a loving relationship. It is a relationship of joy with a purpose. There is a progression in worship of leaving this sinful world, being cleansed and approaching Him. We consummate that relationship by hearing His law and feasting with and on Him and with each other. And in so doing, we are made proper vessels for discipling the nations in this world.