Democracy problems & other odds & ends

Desiring to bring to the conservative Christians the glaring problems with the Iraqi constitution, I did not focus on my own beliefs. Unfortunately (or fortunately) the internet is wide open for any all readers; thus, there are questions and concerns about what has been (mostly) unsaid in this series.

Being an interactive blog I expected, well, interaction—I was hoping some comments from those concerned about America supporting an Islamic Socialistic state! (But, perhaps, too many people have been accustomed to socialism to even recognize it anymore). Instead, I got various and sundry comments about “neocons” and “Christian fundamentalist”. So, I’ll try to summarize some clarifying comments:

1. This first point acknowledges the comment that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land (article 6) . I do acknowledge that my fourth article/posting is short and vague. Thus, I’ve modified it slightly.

2. “so you're against democracy are you?”
I am against Democracy when defined as direct democracy, majoritarianism , or economic egalitarianism (positions the founders tried to avoid). I believe in a federal republic, sometimes called a representative democracy.

3. " 'the people are the cornerstone to modern society' " - yes, so they should be. the system is known as democracy, the system you seem to oppose."
Besides what is noted above (and not merely believed by a fringe group!) about democracy, the cornerstone of any society should be law—that is what protects the minority from the majority. Thus, the majority cannot enact murder, for instance, against the minority.

4. " 'only God and His Law are our authority and legitimacy' " - so why isn't America a theocracy (maybe that's what you want)"
Maybe—depending on how one defines “theocracy”. The American law-system is based upon certain philosophical doctrines; over the course of our history, there has been a struggle over what those doctrines should be. Currently, we have a non-reflective worldview used in America, Evolutionary Materialism, with relativism as a corollary. Of course, Materialists use logic—which has no physical existence--but that’s another matter.
I would have no problem with the original American set-up in which Protestantism was the recognized “cultural glue”, such that some of the States limited governmental offices to Protestants only. Thus, our nation basically--in its law and cultural expectations-- followed the Ten Commandments. This, however, did not mean any one church ruled the nation, or that people were killed for being Muslim, but it entailed a general belief and practice that most citizens had in common (a worldview). More precisely I would like a return to the older Christian America as consistent with such a worldview (hence, no slaves, etc., but that is another post).

5. "Then again, the Iranians are allowed to vote as well.” Exactly, that is one of the major problems of Democracies. Another Hitler could be voted in. However, if a Republic is based upon a common worldview (that is one against Nazism or Communism), reinforced through the societal institutions, then this would be much less likely. But a free-for-all Democracy is unpredictable and dangerous in the long run.

6. “It seems there's another US christian fundamentalist / neocon who needs to learn more about his own country's history and constitution.” Nope, sorry—too many assumptions: I am not a neocon:I did not vote for Bush; I am against the Iraqi war; I am against international "interventionism". However, if one wishes to continue this friendly dialogue, perhaps his or her philosophical assumption (worldview) should be placed on the table for all to see—making blanket allegations from the cover of cyberspace is too convenient.

As for “fundamentalist”—I am not sure what that is supposed to mean. Some use it as an ad hominem associating Christians with Islamic terrorists; some use it (again as an ad hominem) more narrowly for "unthinking" Christians (which do exists); others use it for Christians who believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures (that's me!). Within conservative Christian circles (in the US anyway) it may mean those who "don't drink, smoke or dance" (i.e. legalists) or those who are dogmatic thinkers. It used to mean simply those who believed in the miracles of the Bible and its inspiration (Torrey's The Fundamentals). It is more proper to call me Reformed Presbyterian (ala Westminster Confession (1646)--OPC)

I guess with that many definitions of "fundamentalist" under my belt, that should preclude me from being "unthinking". Then, again, many non-Christians don't even know this much about Christianity.

I hope I have clarified myself enough. Remember, I am trying to write to a Christian audience--but I'm willing to dialogue with others.

SDG

From Cradle To Grave--Iraqi Constitution Pt. 6/6

Womb to Tomb. Welfare State. Whatever you name it, it is the same thing: State supremacy over the lives of humans.

Thus far, I suspect--and I pray I’m wrong--that many readers have not sustained such a long series. They may believe this is the work of a quack. So, as the last in a series I shall quote copiously and explicitly from the Constitution of Iraq: you decide if this is a government worth defending with American blood:

Article 22: “Work is a right for all Iraqis so as to guarantee them a decent living.”

What more needs to be said? Communism anyone?

Article 25: “The State guarantees the reform of the Iraqi economy in accordance with modern economic principles to insure the full investment of its resources, diversification of its sources and the encouragement and the development of the
private sector.”

Of course, once the Triune God is out of the picture, then economics becomes the plaything of the powerful-and who is more powerful than the government?

Article 23: 1st — Private property is protected and the owner has the right to use it, exploit it and benefit from it within the boundaries of the law.
Article (27): 1st — Public property is sacrosanct, and its
protection is the duty of every citizen.

Remember that game of compare and contrast as a child? It’s a very useful tool: the owner has a right to private property “within the boundaries of the law”; however, “public property is sacrosanct”—that is “regarded as sacred and inviolable.” This language is not used for private property. Note also how protection of-not private property-but public property is the “duty of every citizen”. Da, tvoritsch—yes, comrade: for the State is inviolable and the citizen is expendable.

Article 29: “A. The family is the foundation of society; the State preserves its entity and its religious, moral and patriotic values.”
“B. The State guarantees the protection of motherhood, childhood and old age and shall care for children and youth and provides them with the appropriate conditions to further their talents and abilities.”

How magnanimous of the State to preserve the very entity that should sustain it! Rather, when the government is in the business of taking care of the family, it is no longer recognizing its proper place under God nor its dependence upon the Family. Who takes care of children? The parents. Who takes care of the Family? The Parent-State. Thus, the Family becomes the child of the State.

Article 30: “First: The state guarantee [sic] to the individual and the family--especially children and women--social and health security and the basic requirements for leading a free and dignified life. The state also ensures the above a suitable income and appropriate housing.”

This is quite a blank check; a very expensive check that will most likely (if carried out consistently and faithfully) raise oil prices from Iraq (Article 109: "Oil and gas is the property of all the Iraqi people," i.e. the State). What exactly does “basic requirements for…life” entail? Whatever the legislature determines it! What is “suitable” income and housing? Whatever the State tells the masses. Desiring freedom from “terrorism”, Iraq has bought slavery, willingly and whole-heartedly.

Article 33: “First: Every individual has the right to live in a safe
environment.”
Article (15): "Every individual has the right to life and security and freedom” except "in accordance to the law and based on a ruling by the appropriate judicial body."

So, through careful progression it becomes apparent that nullifying the Triune God of Christianity as the final and ultimate environment of man, the State fills in the vacuum: the State becomes the environment of man, nurturing him, protecting him. For the small price of freedom and individuality, man exchanges liberty for slavery.

Finally, if you are not nauseous yet:

Article (45): Restricting or limiting any of the freedoms and liberties stated in this constitution may only happen by, or according to, law and as long as this restriction or limitation does not undermine the essence of the right or freedom.

Thus, public property is "sacrosanct"--invioable and beyond the authority of others (article 27)--yet all the liberties and freedoms of the people of Iraq are not sacrosanct: they are strictly limited by law. In a little well known country of the world, life, liberty and private property (in theory!) are, under God, sacrosanct--that is why 1776 exploded upon the world! It was the birth of a Republic, not a Democracy.

Iraq has absolutely no Christian history or culture. Its god is the impersonal god of raw causality: Allah. Thus, it does not take individualism seriously (personalism) and makes all the spheres of life (family, church, business, etc.) mechanistic. Having no concept of the Trinity, the many (individuals) becomes absorbed into the one (State). Personhood is subjected to the impersonal laws of the Koran—melding itself naturally to totalitarian rule (either a kingly, oligarchy or democratic (mob) rule). The mechanism of the State is secondary to the results: total protection at the cost of total control.

As Rushdoony aptly points out in The Politics of Guilt and Pity, since all the unregenerate are guilty before God, they try to assuage that guilt: thus, eventually, the State becomes the savior (if anarchy is to be avoided). The State, in place of God, will plan the economy and the society, working all things for the good of them that love it.

May America wake-up from its theological slumbering; may the Conservative Christians (in the truest sense of the words) repent of their political laziness. Pragmatism meets the Welfare State halfway; thus, in principle (since the State has not lost any ground) Pragmatic realpolitik of the Christian Right has succumbed to tyranny. They just don’t realize it yet. They offer only part of the womb or pieces of the tomb to the State, hoping to fend off the ever-hungry alligator. They voted for the very "Republican" (Party) America that has perpetuated this monstrosity of a constitution.

Only time will tell if they learn their lesson.
I, for one, will not put my trust in them or their princes, but in the name of the Lord my God.

The Right To Bare Your Arms--Iraqi Constitution Pt. 5

Unlike our American Constitution, the Iraqi constitution, hailed as a "progress towards peace," has no right to bear arms--although they may bare their arms by wearing short-sleeve shirts. They have no explicit right to own a gun or create militias:

"Article 9: (b) Forming military militias outside the framework of the armed forces is banned. "

So, if, as was gleefully reported by "Mike" the Army sharpshooter on the Laura Ingrahm show today, the only point of creating an Iraqi "democracy" is to "give freedom of choice"--even if it means they "vote for a monarchy"--then the right to bear arms is no longer relevant.

We are right back to making Democracy a god.

The Protestant belief of old--from the Reformers to the Puritans--founded our nation on the natural and Biblical right of self-defense--even if that meant self-defense from our own government. Such a doctrine is absent in Iraq.

That is scary. They could collapse back into a tyranny without any means to protect themselves.

But what is more scary is their lack of a Gospel culture: they have no theological or ideological underpinning to stand-up against tyrants.

Let's face it, they're voting in Socialism--if not outright Communism--so they are already under a form of tyranny.

Pray for them--and pray for us.

Federalism Redefined ?--Iraqi Constitution Pt.4

1. Traditional Definition:
“Federalism is a system of government in which power is constitutionally divided between a central authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces). The two levels of government are interdependent, and share sovereignty.”—Wikipedia

2. Iraqi Definition:
“Article 13: 1st - This constitution shall be considered as the supreme and highest law in Iraq. It shall be binding throughout the whole country without exceptions.
2nd - No law that contradicts this constitution shall be passed; any passage in the regional constitutions and any other legal passages that contradict this constitution shall be considered null.”

Remember: our Constitution was written to limit the federal government, not the state governments. That's why the States have their own constitutions! Compare the Tenth Amendment.

Given the lack of Iraqi legal history, the supremacy of Islam imbedded in the document and the hasty drafting of this constitution, it is not certain how this article will be used.

Is Democracy Our God?--Iraqi Constitution Pt. 3

Vox Populi—the voice of the people.
Democracy—the vote of the people.
Egalitarianism—the equality of the people.
Equal opportunity—the potential of the people.

I see a pattern: the people are the cornerstone to modern politics.
God is out of the picture.

That is why the president (and other neo-cons) stress their desire to “spread democracy” around the world—kinda like spreading a gospel.

Rushdoony’s excellent book, This Independent Republic, summarizes this modern political approach:

“science is methodology [not meaning]. Hence, again, the establishment of democracy is seen as the cure-all for all cultures, since methodology will remake man. Democracy is thus applied to Asiatic, African, and Latin American states without any regard for their historical and cultural conditions, because it is assumed that the form or method is the creator of valid objectives…” (128)

More precisely, America wishes to mold the world—via neocon and liberal politick—into a “safer” place for all. This is a violation of Biblical sphere sovereignty:

“Interventionism is a pretension to deity, a claim to powers of mediation and to divine government, and hence is inadmissible [to a Christian worldview]”

(p.138)

And it is not the Biblical Gospel.
Why? Because the Biblical Gospel is not compatible with depraved people. The Biblical Gospel is not of this world (political) but from above (God). They first need regeneration before they can even begin to vote on principle.

But this will not stop our nation from promoting such falsehoods as:

“The law is sovereign. The people are the source of authorities and its legitimacy…” (Article 5 of the Iraqi Constitution).

Or:

Article 16: “Equal opportunities are guaranteed for all Iraqis. The state guarantees the taking of the necessary measures to achieve such equal opportunities.”

No, dear reader, the law (whatever that may be defined as) is not sovereign—only God is sovereign!
No, fellow Americans, the people are not the arbiters of authority or legitimacy—only God and His Law are our authority and legitimacy.

That is why the Apostles said: “we ought to obey God rather than man”!
Voting is proper, in its place. But they never determine good and evil. Laws, in submission to God’s Law, are proper. But they never trump God.

In the multicultural context of Iraq, and specifically its Islamic roots, it is hard to determine what exactly its constitution means. In contrast, the American constitution has a clearly defined past that helps interpret its meaning. America (theoretically) is a Republic and not a (direct) Democracy.

So, any given statement (such as the Iraqis have “liberties”) can be just as binding as the Old Soviet constitution—which, incidentally, “secured” the rights of religion and the press.
No really—click here .

The Iraqi charter limits many of these freedoms “according to law” but never defines that law.

Well, that does not seem to matter to our leaders since Iraq will have a “democracy”—an opportunity to vote. That’s what matters.

Democracy is the savior of the world; the people must vote!

Then again, the Old Soviets were allowed to vote as well…
Until next time, comrade…

Supporting Islamic Socialism--Iraqi Constitution Pt. 2

There are a plethora of problems with this constitution. Not the least of which is its explicit foundation upon Islam.
As a conservative Christian—Reformed to boot—I highly object to sending American forces to die for a constitution I would never live under.

But I digress.

Because there are so many problems and questionable items in the Iraqi charter, let me outline the major theological and political errors in the Iraqi constitution:

1. Islamic supremacy.
2. The people are sovereign (Vox Populi)
3. Federalism Redefined.
4. Right to bear arms—without guns.
5. From Cradle to Grave.

When articles 22, 25, 28-40 are read then the claim of socialism will be established. When the Preamble, articles 2, 10 and 12 are read then the claim of Islam will be established. Put them together and Islamic Socialism is born.
Case in point:

"Article (2): 1st - Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:

(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the
undisputed rules of Islam.
(b) No law can be passed that contradicts the
principles of democracy.
(c) No law can be passed that contradicts the
rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution."

It is not at all clear how these three statements can stand with each over. Logically, if Islam is the "basic source" of that society then b) and c) are subordinate.

The bigger question is: can we support this?
Can conservative Christians separate their religious beliefs from their political? Of course not! That is why we fight vehemently against pro-death candidates.

But is this as far as we are willing to go? Do we think it is morally acceptable for our leaders to support—with American money and blood—an Islamic regime?

The American Constitutional Republic (not a “democracy”) is not easily planted elsewhere in the world because of our unique Christian history that formed it--our country was based upon covenantal principles which sustained our freedoms (read Mathis’ Genesis of American Freedoms—comment for a copy). But “democracy” is easy to plant.

Is it radical to ask our national leaders not to support an Islamic Socialistic state!?

Perhaps, as in the past, many will rationalize the president’s decision. That’s too bad. As conservative Christians we are to stand upon principle not pragmatism. And I can find no Biblical principle that defends the shedding of American blood to build an Islamic Socialistic State.
_______________________________
[FYI: You can thank my friend who handed me an article about the Iraqi constitution; wishing to verify the info, I began my quest for the elusive Iraqi constitution.]

Socialism As "Progress Toward Peace"--Iraqi Constitution Pt. 1

American conservatives do not believe that work is a guaranteed right, or that health care should be administered and supported by the State. Nor do they believe that the State exists to guarantee equal opportunity, hand out free education or support the basic societal institutions such as the family. They do not endorse Socialism in any of its forms.

Or do they?

The Iraqi constitution (which, interestingly, is not easy to find anywhere on the 'net, let alone talked about in any major news source) is not a document in the spirit of '76. It is more like the red ghost of 1917.

So, when president Bush hails this new step of adopting the constitution, he's really endorsing what this blog title shouts: "Socialistic Constitution As 'Progress Toward Peace'"--a partial quote of Bush himself.

Yes, this sounds wild. But, if you've ever read my posts, I try to avoid shocking statements for the sake of excitment. I'm dead serious. Read the constitution here (BBC).

Or here (voanews).

Here (american chronicle).

Even at USA Today.

All of them from the AP wire service. (Dated August 24 to October 12)

Here's a sneak peek: Article 34 states:

"free education is a right for all Iraqis in all its stages"
--even private education.

That's just a taste of what is to come.

Patience, I'll summarize the salient points.
Stay tuned, comrade.

Connecting the Arctic Dots

As an engineer I've had much training in the basic sciences. I was taught to think logically, to analyze the data, chart it and draw conlusions--to "connect the dots".
As a matter of fact, all Americans who took any science have gone through this process.

That is except for the New York Times.

Using NASA data, Junkscience.com has done a favor and "connected the dots" of artic warming.

For us and for the New York Times.
Read on!

SDG

Learning From the Past

President Bush endorsed Miers, stating that he knew her heart and trusted that she would be an excellent judge. Besides the obvious fact that Bush has erred in trusting someone (witness his endorsement of Mr. Brown at FEMA), or the more obvious truth that Senators need a track record upon which to evaluate nominees, the recent history of electing people who are professing Christians is not encouraging. There is one notable instance of such a case back in the late 80s:

"Wanting to avoid a repeat of that failure [of Bork], President Reagan then nominated Anthony Kennedy, who had no track record as a constructionist but was described as a devout Christian family man. Today, Justice Kennedy cites international law as a basis for his opinions and is a consistent dissenter in "family-friendly" cases."

Read on...

Doubting Dobson?

In the middle of last week, Dobson expressed concerns on the new nomination, Miers. He has some doubts.
After digging into some interviews, I have some doubts about Dobson. He states:

"You know what? I do," Dobson said, affirming her response. "I don't believe that homosexuals should be denied a job."

I don't agree with this. And the Constitution does not agree with this. The doctrine of freedom of association coupled with private rights implies that an owner of a company can hire anyone he choses. If he only wants to hire Christians and not homosexuals, so be it.

The Christian does not live in a mechanistic universe in which all he has to do is hire workers who can do the job. Rather, he lives in a moral universe in which he is accountable to God. And in such a universe, hiring men in such a state of depravity is risky at best.

Dobson has helped many Christians over the years. That cannot be denied. However, believing that homosexuals have a right to any job is not a help to the Christian cause.

Doubting Dobson in this instance is a good thing.

SDG

A Short Review 5: The Art of Prophesying

A Short Book Review 5 William Perkins' The Art of Prophesying

Whether you want a book that will raise eyebrows with your Reformed friends or that will entice non-Reformed acquaintances, this is it. Prophesying has a uniquely Puritan meaning: preaching. As in our time, William Perkins’ day was a time when faithful preaching was rare and great emotional orators were prevalent. In response, he rekindled the “plainness of speech” style that characterized the Puritans.

This simply written little book is evenly divided into two parts: preaching and calling. Perkins defines and defends preaching before setting the ground rules for interpreting Scripture (an extremely useful, non-technical and readable section with an abundance of verses). Perkins dedicates the rest of the book to the calling, function and significance of the true Gospel minister. Ministers are men of God: they rebuke, exhort, and teach in the name of the Lord with a God-given authority. “Yet you must not rage…against it, nor must you hate the minister, nor resort to personal criticism of him. Instead, submit your self to the gospel…if you respond otherwise you will…wrong the minister…and, unfortunately, you will harm yourself even more” (119). There is also blessing: “Do you have a godly pastor? Confer with him. Go to him for comfort and counsel; profit from his company, sit under his ministry frequently; count him worthy of ‘double honor’…Never imagine that it is a…commonplace blessing to have ‘one of a thousand’. Thank God for giving this mercy to you, which he has denied to so many others” (100).

Even if you will never enter the ministry, the first part of the book is worth the price and the latter half should imbibe you with a renewed sense of the greatness of the Gospel Ministry.

Liar, Liar Pants on Fire

Just this night, I was watching channel 4 here in Colorado. The news report interviewed the local butcher-shop--the misnamed Planned Parenthood--which complained that the new judicial nominee, Miers, was against abortion while president of the ABA association in Texas.

Yet earlier the newsreport from cnsnews.com noted that Miers "proposed a referendum that would have allowed the American Bar Association's (ABA) rank and file members to decide whether the organization should take a position on abortion rights." (See also Foxnews)

So, who's telling the truth? It is not necessarily true that since Miers' pushed for such a proposal that she was against abortion--it could be that she believes that such important issues should not bypass the members.

But the interview with channel four stated otherwise. This means either:
1) The abortion representative lied;
2) Channel four lied by virtue of editing the interview;
3) CNS News is lying.

Whether this is lying intentionally or through sloppy research is another question.

But it is sure that many Americans will miss this "discrepancy".
Too bad that liars don't have spontaneous combustion in their clothing.
It would make it easier to spot them.

SDG

Man is Evil—Lessons From Katrina Part 3

Homosexuals throw a street party while thousands suffer.

Corrupt politicians ignored the levy problems for decades.
Now they promise to help those whom they destroyed.

Looting occurred almost instantly.

Rescuers were being attacked and harassed.

There are one million and one examples of the wickedness of man. The refuges are angry, bitter and irate. As they lash out at the local, state and federal governments, they rage not against man but against God. God is in control. And the government is not God. No matter how prepared they could have been God’s will would have been accomplished.

Seeing the awesome might of Almighty God brush the Gulf Coast away as a sun eradicates a moth, they acknowledge Him not but flee to man for refuge.

Such an event is to show God’s wrath and man’s sinfulness. It has done both. But the church also has a job to proclaim these truths. Instead, as the American churches are wont, they send monetary help without Gospel help. They shy from uttering dark pronouncements lest they appear “negative”. They shirk their prophetic responsibility being uncomfortable with the prophets of old:

"The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?” (Jer. 17:9).

According to the buoyant proclamations of the likes of Sean Hannity (a Roman Catholic), these devastations were to bring the “best out of the American people.”

But if one examine a little closer with the eyeglasses of the Bible, one rather finds the manifestations of evil: men and women shaking their fists at God while helping their fellows rebuild their engines of destruction against the Kingdom of God.

If the churches in America would be true to their calling, then as servants of God they must, “in humility [correct] those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will (2 Tim. 2:24ff.)

They will not feel sorrow over their rebellion if they believe there is nothing wrong.
They will not cling to Christ if they believe themselves good.

There are one million and one reasons why men should repent.
The obvious and easiest reason is the first one: man is evil.

SDG

The Government Is God?--Lessons From Katrina, Pt.2

Sometimes how people react to problems shows who or what their God is. When trouble comes, where do people go for help? Help not only for psychological and spiritual issues but also physical help.

So, where did thousands turn when Katrina hit? Did they take their saving and fly out of the city? Did they hitch a ride with friends and family? Did they stock up on food and water to sustain themselves for days?

The answer is obvious: when trouble came, many people turned to the government for help.
But the help did not come in time.
That is why they are angry and frustrated: their god did not come through for them.

From another angle one can find out who or what god is followed by the amount of responsibility given. In God’s Word, He has separated the authorities of life into three main spheres: family, church and state. Whenever one institution usurps or expands its authority, it is claiming autonomy instead of submission to God. It’s just like Adam who desired to follow his own ways instead of God’s Law.

It is interesting to note that an ABC news report with Dan Harris (reporting, 9-6-05) stated that the city had a plan, but implemented it too late (it specified offering free transportation out of the area, but people were sent to the Dome instead); at the state level the governor is supposed to specifically ask for help from the Feds—but she did not. And of course, FEMA had its problems. The mayor blames, the State and Feds; the governor blames the Feds and the Feds will gladly take more responsibility from these institutions!

The president did take responsibility; the mayor and the governor have not. And of course many people took little to no responsibility about their welfare.

Now, billions will be poured into an area where insurance companies do not cover floods and hurricanes (why would they—they’d go broke!) and people will become more dependent upon the government.

In America, for many people the Government is god. So, the next time a large-scale devastation occurs, the Feds will sure to be there, comforting their flock.
And taking more responsibility.

The churches must be faithful & warn people about this danger. Let's pray that many will learn, repent and turn to Christ. The Lord He is God and not the government.

SDG

Blame It On God—Lessons From Katrina, Pt. 1

Thousands are presumed dead in the Gulf Coast area.
Hundreds of thousands are stranded in New Orleans.
Millions, if not billions, of damage wrought in one storm.

And people are asking, “Where is God?”
Anger bubbles from deep within the souls of thousands of angry people: “What kind of God allows this!”

They are blaming God for the disaster.

And they should. He did it. He controls all things in creation.

But why?

Some talk show hosts try to calm people down by reversing the question: “Why has God blessed America all these years?” Or they wish not to speculate at all, glibly replying, “We need to help one another and bring the best out of the American people.”

However, Christians know that all things work for their good and for God’s glory (Rom. 8:32; Rom. 11:36). Furthermore, we know that since there are no longer prophets today, we must be careful in our evaluations.
But this is not all: Christ informs us of at least one reason why bad things happen:

“Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? "I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish." (Luke 13:4, 5).

When such disaster strikes—contrary to some misguided caller to the Medved show—its not because New Orleans was more wicked than San Francisco; one reason for disasters is to bring a wake up call to mankind: the world is full of sin and sinners; we no longer live in paradise.

Americans like to think that God is far away and irrelevant in life. Any prosperity gained is credited to ourselves; any advancements in life is honored to lady luck. Yet when things go bad and calamity knocks on our door—suddenly, it’s God’s fault.

In reality, as Jesus points out, everyone sins—all rebel and hate God, seeking their own desires and following their own lusts (Roms. 1:24ff.). The tower did not fall on some because they were more sinful—it fell because they were sinful. Period.

This is a wake up call. Americans better repent or they will perish.

And they’ll have no one to blame but themselves.

The Sky Is Falling...

California is concerned that potato chips and fries may contain acrylamide—a possible cancer agent. So, since the government is always looking out for slow-witted and uninformed citizenry, California is asking the courts to compel the fast-food and chips industry to warn the average 7th-grade-reading-level American, who always strives to study such small font, of such a feasible existence of such an impending danger.

Of course, I would certainly like to know if my food will cause cancer, or if my snacks carry dangers that threaten my immediate existence.

On the other hand, I’m not in favor of Chicken Little. As the issue now stands, the government of California—in its humanistic desire to be as God, protecting the sparrow that falls to the ground—is trying hard to head off a possible agent that may or may not lead to cancer.

In other words, it does not necessarily cause cancer, even if the agent exists in the first place.

But, then one can never be too sure when it comes to preserving life from any conceivable danger…no matter how remote the possibility.

Don’t worry, Chicken Little will be there, making sure the sparrow’s house is moved to a safer neighborhood.

SDG

1's or 0's?

Binary, that is. On or off. up or down. yes or no. Binary is certainly a useful tool. However, when it comes to surveys, it is a most wretched and deceitful approach.

Granted, some survey questions can fit into two neat bins; yet, the typical questions—“Is the president doing a great job?” “Do you like Walmart”—do not fit nicely. Especially more complex and interesting questions such as: “Do you think the Congress is working hard enough on the economy?” (which is called a ‘loaded’ or ‘complex’ question—a logical fallacy, but that’s another blog…)

For example, I recently received an evening phone call.
The first question was, “How would you rate the president’s performance?—Good or bad?”
“Oh, no,” I thought.
“Mixed,” I replied.
“Ok, I’ll put you down as undecided,” she cheerfully answered.
“No, I am sorry; I said, ‘mixed’—that does not mean undecided,” I calmly replied.
“Well, we have ‘good,’ ‘bad,’ or ‘undecided,’” she gleefully replied.
“I am sorry—if this is how the questions will be pigeon-holed, then I will not answer anymore. Good night,” I calmly replied while reining my tongue in.

See? That is what I mean by deceitful. Just take those answers that are either yes or no and throw them into the ‘neutral’ bin and they fall off the radar screen.

As you can observe, I do not like binary questionnaires.

But as an engineer I like 1s and 0s. And you should too—that’s what makes your computer function. And it helps telephones as well; you know, so that they can call you with those binary questionnaires.

Enjoy your binary life.

SDG

Bad Bovines

"A California air-quality agency is blaming cows for the San Joaquin Valley's terrible smog problem. The flatulence and burping of the valley's 2.5 million cows produce 50 million pounds of organic compunds annually, officials say, far more pollution than is produced by cars. Diary farmers will now be required to install pollution-control technology, and may even have to alter the cows' diets to minimize their production of gas. "We are talking about about a public health crisis, " said an attorney for a local advocacy group..."It's not funny to joke about cow burps...."

This is serious business, not only is mankind destroying the environment...so are the cows!
(The Week, Aug. 12, 2005, p. 6).

Cleanliness is Next To Godliness...

Do you enjoy dining on the floor? Or perhaps eating your steak with the dirt and trash? Well, that is how I feel when I sit down at a restaurant and hear the CRUNCH! of leftover food underneath my rear!

I used to work at fast food restaurants years ago; and the manager would not put up with such sloppiness. We were to clean the table and the seat.

But today, in restaurants such as Bennigan's, Ruby Tuesday's or the like, my wife and I are lead by the host to a deceptively clean booth--but it is only the table that is clean, not the seat. We even wipe off the seat in front of the host, who stares at us with little comprehension.

Fortunately, this does not happen all the time--just enough to annoy me. It's enough to make me think that this could all be an analogy of the "little crumbs of sin" in our nation....nah, too cheesy.

SDG

Sow the Wind; Reap the Whirlwind

"Can't we all just get along?" This is the catch-phrase of postmodern thought as summarized by the infamous Californian, Rodney King. It says that toleration is the god of this age; since, there are no ultimate truths, so all is relative; thus, there should be little debate on issues because everyone is right.

This is all very interesting, but so what? The what is found in the how of its implementation. Western Civilization extols toleration to such an extent, that all kinds of heresies, grotesque ideas and violent, treasonous thoughts permeate the airwaves. It is not a simple relative toleration, but a toleration based upon absolutists rhetoric that cries out: "All should be accepted; none should be quieted!"

And ideas, especially voiced, have consequences. One cannot speak without affecting someone or something. Christians have known that for centuries--that's why God gave us preachers.

So, it should come as no surprise that one of the leading countries in toleration are killing themselves. England has allowed militant, angry, vocal Muslims by the millions into their country. Their leaders voiced physical jihad on TV and the Brits are surprised that such "freedom of speech" lead to violence!

Now, they are killing the very country that pays their welfare checks.

That's gratitude for you....but, hey, if there is no truth, then gratitude is a meaningless feeling with no moral force. If society should be tolerant of all views, then violence is a valid alternative.

And if we reap the wind of full-blown toleration, then we will reap the whirlwind of hate and destruction.

May God bring a merciful revival and reformation.

SDG

Medical Bias

My mother-in-law took hormone pills which worked well for years. She felt normal; she slept normal--everything was great. Suddenly, they took them away from her. She wishes she had them back...

The Today Show interviewed a doctor this morning. She stated that hormone replacement for women and birth control pills have serious effects upon a small percentage of these women.
"BUT," and this was clearl articulated, "we don't discourage taking birth control."
Oh, of course not....can't have that now with such a disciplined society!

Yet, nary a word about making sure women take the hormone pills!
Oh, of course not...can't have women taking such great risks...like 1 in 10,000.

No medical bias here. Oh, of course not....

SDG

Stop Pick'n On Me!

Someone in the previous post just ridiculed my engineering background. As a proud graduate of Colorado University, this swipe at the grammatical and linguistic level of engineers is an affront to all said hard working professionals. It expresses a narrow-mindedness that borders on fanaticism. It expresses a prejudice rooted in a Western-dominated Capitalistic worldview that suppresses all that it cannot understand.


On the other hand, it sure was funny!

Three Strikes & You're Out

Recently, I was reminded by Sean Hanitty that 7 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices were picked by Republicans.

Think of the implications of that statistic!

There are many possibilities for this poor record: "stealth" nominees (the views are concealed); misrepresentation; even changed of views by the Justices themselves.

However, to cut the fat and move straight to the quick: where these past nominees ever asked by those who nominated them the crucial questions? It is possible that all those Justices (such as O'Conner) who were chosen by the Republicans lied, but more than likely those who chose them were of a similar mind.

In other words, those Republicans (and those who supported the decisions) are not as conservative as many Christians would like to believe. Their nominees reflect what, at the least, they would accept as politically viable.

With such a track record in business, the leadership would be fired; with such a track record in sports, the managment would be retired.

Trick me once, shame on you; trick me twice, shame on me; trick me thrice...well, three strikes and you're out!

SDG

A Short Review 4 : Dispensationalism: Today, Yesterday, and Tomorrow

Dispensationalism: Today, Yesterday, and Tomorrow, Crenshaw and Gunn

This helpful book is a must for those interested in understanding or evaluating Dispensationalism. The authors were raised within this system and trained at its leading seminary, Dallas Theological Seminary. Not only is it a straightforward and accurate presentation and critique of this approach to the Bible, it accomplishes these goals without being arrogant and boastful. As the preface contends, it is not the purpose of the book to attack or ridicule Dispensationalism, “I ask my dispensational brethren to receive this books in love, for it was prompted in a desire to be true to God’s Word…” (iii).

This book is divided into two sections, each written by one of the authors. Part one focuses on the principles of interpretation that arise from the Bible and that differ from the “literal” hermeneutic of Dispensationalism. It also highlights the theological and practical tendencies of this system. Part two is an in-depth critique of the major components, interacting with actual references of leading proponents of this approach. Covering many issues, including the relationship of Israel and the Church as well as Christian Zionism, this part of the book is saturated with a multitude of verses, some of which I did not know existed! There are also three useful appendices.

Crenshaw and Gunn’s book is important, not simply for its incisive analysis but because it is an accessible read for laymen and ministers alike. It is not technical, yet its insight into the weakness of this uniquely American system is profound. For those on the edge of leaving Dispensationalism it will benefit greatly.

The Nominee

John Roberts. Savior? Saint? Sinner?

In the weeks to come, we shall see what his real views are. So far, as reported on local news, he co-authored a 1990 document denouncing Roe v. Wade. But a few years ago, during his hearing for the DC position, he stated that Roe v. Wade is a settled issue in this land.

What exactly does that mean? Was he quoted in context?

Prayerfully, he will be a godly judge--or at least someone with enough common grace to act more like a traditional constitutionalist rather than a middle-of-the-road "quiet man".

And if he turns out not to be "up to snuff", then, Lord willing, Christians will put their money where there mouth is. I have heard on Hewitt's program a number of Christians and other express that if Bush does not pull through with the nominee issue, then they will revolt.

They mean it!
Remember what they did to Dole?.....

And the Pope is Protestant.

SDG

The PUSH For Communism

“Walking is work,” exclaimed the guest speaker.

“So, your saying that bums, who have no job, are working just as much as people with jobs?” retort the amazed Medved.

“Of course!”

“Now, do you believe that the typical homeless bum on the street has just as much a right to housing as the average working citizen (with a real job)?”

“Of course,” replied the local Atlanta leader of the Rainbow Coalition PUSH. “Homeless people have the universal right to housing and the government should supply this right.”

Amazing. This is a public endorsement of Communism by a leader of the Rainbow Coalition. The above is a summary of the conversation I heard on the Medved Show (6-27-05, 1650, Afternoon). Michael did an excellent job exposing the true roots of the brouhaha in Atlanta. The Rainbow Coalition leader out of Atlanta said the new city law outlawing panhandling in certain areas (the ‘tourist triangle’) could lead to bum-bombing runs and other terrorist actions! He claimed that all the walking they do is “work” and that they have the right to housing just as much as the average (real) worker in America!

I don’t know what is worse: the recent Supreme Court Socialist ruling or the fact that such organizations have influence in America. Are Americans that naïve about Socialism and Communism? Surely not. I mean given private property taxation, redistribution of wealth through taxation, public schools (and mill levy taxes), political correctness and the like we obviously have no idea what Socialism is. We play games with it: it is similar to staring at a hungry crocodile and cooing, “come here you cute little lizard.” Surely we are not that stupid?

Are we…?

SDG

Hell Hound

Devil Dog. A mutated, malformed, monstrosity of a mutt. A baleful, chthonic, gruesome freak straight from the Grand Guignol itself.

A nightmarish, grisly animal shooting its foul imagery straight into my terrified senses, while assualting the unarmed mind with ferocious malignancy:

Is this real?!?

Thank You Lord for America

In spite of the faults, foibles and sins besetting America, I am truly thankful for my covenant-keeping God for this nation.
Here, I can obtain material wealth unheard of in vast portions of the world: indoor-plumbing, housing, cars, phones and computers are only the tip of the iceburg.
Here, I can obtain political wealth beyond the wildest imaginations of many: voting rights at national, state, county and local levels; freedom of assembly; freedom of petition; freedom to bear arms.
Here, I have obtained spritual wealth that can turn this world upside-down: the vast spiritual treasures of the past are at our fingertips if we would but use them. Our heritage is Christian, especially Reformed, and we are living on that borrowed capital.

All of this is from the Lord, for every good gift is from above.

Thank you Lord for America.

SDG

Fourth of July, Apple Pie...and God's Law?

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled twice against the display of the Ten Commandments and once in its ‘favor’. What is more amazing than the labyrinth of a thought-process of this Court’s present decisions is the howling-for-blood uproar of the various self-appointed guardians of American Conservative Christendom, the Fourth of July and apple pie.

Now, this sounds harsh and judgmental. But I believe I can justify this strong language through demonstrable evidence.

It is clear over the years through the plethora of statistics and polls that a large percentage of Americans claim to be Christian (anywhere from 60-80%). It is also clear that many of these self-proclaimed Christians are red-blooded Americans who vigorously celebrate the Fourth of July, eat apple pie and enjoy “America’s favorite pastime”.

Juxtapose this data with the facts of American ignorance and immorality and one can readily attest to the truth of the old axiom: actions speak louder than words. Over a number of years, Michael Horton’s White Horse Inn would randomly sample the knowledge of various book-buyers, sellers and enthusiasts at local Christian book-seller conferences. The results are dismal: the majority could not name the Ten Commandments. Other statistics point to the same truth.

Should I spell out the irony? The vast majority of Christians—yes, even Evangelical Christians—do not know the Ten Commandments. And more importantly, ignore portions of it as well!

Yet, they are outraged that the Nine Commandments cannot be displayed in our courts (the Sabbath, obviously, is an old Jewish law that is passed away…).

They are livid that the Eight Commandments cannot be upheld in school classrooms (obviously, the Second Commandment does not refer to images of Christ but only crass pagan wooden idols that no one in America follows…).

Eventually, the rest of America will see the hollowness of this Evangelical ire.

But it is more than that—how could vast portions of Americans delude themselves into thinking that they are even Christians when Christ is no longer God, the Bible works with evolution and politics is only practical and not principled?

Americans—even Evangelicals—are proud of being American (as indeed I am), yet too many are boorish ingrates who violate the smallest law (witness the massive aerial displays in my own fireworks-are-illegal neighborhood) and justify it with a slurred drawl: “well *hiccup* everyone else is do’n it!”!?

Indeed, everyone else is “Christian”, so why not him?

Why should we defend that which we are not willing to defend with our own life of Spirit-wrought obedience?

Ignorance is bliss and the Ten Commandments are as American as the Fourth of July and apple pie.

Praise the Lord and pass me the cherry bomb.

Supreme Socialistic Sources

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of a major step toward socialism. Of course, anyone of a paleo-conservative persuasion (as over and against the Reagan Republicans, neo-conservatives, RINOs, etc.) recognizes the downward spiral for decades and even a century. Eminent domain was bad enough for the cause of private property, then they added mill levies—which if not paid (even if you paid off your house) will result in losing one’s house—and now this.

It is clear that righteousness exalts a nation while wickedness devours her soul. Yet, this is simply not another political tirade against the insufferable onslaught of postmodern inanities (witness also the various Donkey Deans of the Democratic Party), but a concise analysis of the spiritual roots of this issue.

I do not claim to know the niceties of the case (reading the long opinions is left to other experts on my side [but who are not in my pocket!])—although I did watch a local PBS Reggie Rivers show wherein two experts agreed that a nuance was accomplished: a nuance that shifted the eminent domain usage of “public use and control” to (the nebulous) “public benefit”, which includes condemning houses for a Megamart which could woo the local city with fantastic—and unproven—predictions of large revenue for the city—but when given certain basic Biblical principles of government and private property, one can a priori determine the illegitimacy of this ruling.

What was the true underlining reason? Could this have been avoided? The answer to the first question depends upon one’s worldview. Mine is rooted deeply in the Reformation doctrine of sphere sovereignty (the demarcation of family, church & state), God’s sovereignty and ecclesiastical and political Republicanism. Yet, part of the root of this problem lies further underground in that first and truly American philosophy: Pragmatism. If it works, do it!

Apparently, part of the rational was that many cities (such as Chicago) were already using eminent domain within this matrix of “what’s good for the greatest is good for all”. (And it seemed to work.) Ironically, this matrix simply expresses the nineteenth century defunct philosophy of Utilitarianism, the cousin of Pragmatism. So: do the greatest good and do the workable. Double whammy.

We so easily forget that these rationales are tools used by postmodern Communists and Socialists. The latter has progressed easily through America by combining both rationales: taxing the rich helps the greatest number; limited land distribution works as well.

Yet, this is not the end of the story: Christians are just as much at fault. The ethics of too many Evangelicals has been that of Utilitarianism or Pragmatism. Laws are passed by the populace because it will “help more people”; politicians are voted in office (again and again) because “they seem to work”. Men are voted into positions of authority because “voting for the right candidate is a losing proposition (not workable), so we vote for the lesser evil (for the greatest good)”. And Christians vote right along with them.

As for the second question (Could this have been avoided?), frankly, given the climate of America in the last thirty years, this could not have been avoided. When the churches spout theological nonsense, it will surely poison the culture associated with it: remember Clinton, Kerry, Jesse and other political and cultural leaders all claim to be Christians!

So, is this blog simply stating a sad state of affairs? No, there is a long-term solution: Principled Politics. Christians need to stand upon the Word and vote the truth—even if it hurts. The American Revolution was accomplished against two-thirds of the populace who were Royalist or indifferent. What’s our excuse? We ought to recognize the sources of the Supreme Court Socialism and act accordingly. We ought to know the Gospel and the power of justification by faith alone in Christ alone instead of justifying our governmental thievery with “well, it works for the greatest number.”

Email-List Withdrawals

Random, sporadic conversations are only the beginning. Eventually after particularly funny jokes, I simply smile or even shape my mouth into an 'o'. Sometimes, I suddenly stop intense discussions and withdrawal to another group of conversationalists. At other times, someone turns to me and asks me a direct question...and I never answer.

I believe these are the classical symptoms of Email-List Withdrawals. That pscyhological condition wherein one carries over the habits of email conversations into everyday life. It even extends into imitating emoticons. It was bound to happen.

At one time I was on four email-lists simultaneously as well as various and sundry personal email conversations. Over time, I dropped these lists. I had to. The blithe emails were becoming repetitive and boring. Engaging in inane and unconducive dialogue (or were they monologues?) was consuming too much time and creating too much frustration. After dropping all the lists and maintaining a short repertoire of private emails, I felt I had the issue under control.

But I like to talk. I like to meet new Christians and engage in real dialogue. (plus, I'm a geek, so I have to do something high-tech all the time). So, I discovered my mind began to imitate email conversations. It was not pretty. It's not a good way to maintain relationships.

I had to do something. The Blog was the answer. Writing this blog is the answer. Hearing from you is the other answer (but I don't remember the question...)

Hopefully, this blog will alleviate some of these symptoms. You know all that random--hey, did you hear the one about the pope and the three presidents, well....


SDG

The Day is Done

It is done.

The Assembly's motions, perfections, amendments, and substitutions are resolved.
The Assembly's communications, overtures and appeals are finished.
The Assembly's prayer, devotion and worship are complete.
The Assembly's fellowship, joy and rest are fulfilled.

Thanks be to God our Father, our Savior and the work of the Holy Spirit for empowering, gifting and moving the elders and ministers of this Assembly to sacrifice their time for Kingdom work.

Thanks be to God for bringing many volunteers to dedicate their gifts for the relief of the physical needs of the Assembly in accordance with 1 Corinthians 12 & 13.

Thanks be to God for achieving His will in us (in spite of our frailties and sins) and completing the good work which was begun by Him.

By His grace, that work will be continued until the full perfection of heaven.
Meanwhile, the Assembly was dissolved and the work accomplished.

By God's power,
our work here is done.

SDG

hot & heavy

Actually, it has not been that hot. But the humidity has been heavy.
That's right: I'm in Grand Rapids, Michigan. And compared to Denver, it's humid.
But, I can live with that. I'm here for the OPC General Assembly as a commissioner.
Administrative issue come before the body, motions are moved, debates ensue and votes are casted. Disciplinary appeals may also come before us.
All of this is for the work of the Church. Heavy work.
And work that may get heated at times as well (for are we not human and frail?).

As it stands, my room-mate (John the Doctor) and I just found an open computer room after wandering around outside in the cool night (I use that in a relative sense). I'm writing this piece to talk to the world, to complain about humidity and to thank the Lord that this Church takes her work seriously--whether the topics or the environment are hot and heavy.

SDG

A Short Review 3: The Mystery of Godliness

A Short Book Review 3

This collection of sermons is based upon the Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus) and expounds a wide variety of doctrine and practices. From the truth of election and salvation to the requirement of godliness and prayer, Calvin’s addresses clearly express a pastor’s heart while articulating a scholar’s grasp of the Bible. With fourteen sermons at about fifteen pages apiece, this book becomes good food for meditation and contemplation.

Being a translation from 1580 and transported to America in 1830, it is written in the style of the King James Bible, but without much of the grammatical oddities. Calvin’s sermons are also more direct than our sensitive ears may be accustomed to hear (as even the original preface of this book points out). He spoke and wrote during a time of great upheaval and direct confrontation with heresies and lies; thus, he was very zealous to comfort and guard the flock, “Let us therefore endeavor to bring back those that have strayed…but when [some]…make confusion in the church…we must not spare them, because the whole salvation of the people of God is in danger.” (p.172). He also has no problems calling public enemies of the gospel “mad beasts” (p.40).

For those without a fear of older writing styles and plain speech, this little treasure will encourage the reader to take the biblical commands of truth and obedience to heart.

Subtle Socialism

A few days ago, the Today Show presented the coveted "Profile in Courage Award"--combing the country for those rare souls that will stand upon conviction with a fortitude that would shame the Congress. These men and women, endowed with strength of character and singular drive, hailed as paladins of American ideals and guardians of the precious institutions undergirding our nation.

And both of them were socialist.

The first gentlemen displayed great boldness and tenacity in trimming the budget at the local state school. Rescuing one of the cheif planks of Karl Marx himself, this lion-heart rescued schools within his purvue from certain financial ruin.

The second person, a veritable Joan of Arc, was the coveted Mayor of Atlanta. Her great deed involved raising city taxes by 50% to eradicate the financial buggabear, unbalanced budgets. She courageously protected the important city services (all of them) by reducing the workers by 12%.

These are tomorrow's heroes today.

Velcome to Amerika.

the man who really should have been Pope

Hans Grapje was raised in a Catholic school in The Hague and as a young man aspired to become a priest. However, he was drafted into the Army during WWII and spent two years co-piloting B17s until his aircraft was shot down in 1943, resulting in the loss of his left arm. Captain Grapje spent the rest of the war as a military chaplain, giving spiritual aid to soldiers, both Allied and enemy. After the war, he became a priest, serving as a missionary in Africa, piloting his own plane (in spite of his handicap) to villages across the continent.

In 1997, Father Grapje (now an Archbishop) was serving in Zimbabwe when an explosion in a silver mine caused a massive cave-in trapping scores of miners deep in the earth.
Archbishop Grapje went down into the mine to administer comfort and last rites to those too
severely injured to be moved. While underground another shaft collapsed and he was buried for three days, suffering multiple injuries, including the loss of his right eye. Some time after being rescued, he developed a severe (but rare) condition known as purpura. This condition is the result of extensive underground time and exposure to the high silver content in the mine's air. It is characterized by purplish skin blotches and is found in many life-long silver miners. For his heroism and selfless service to others, the church elevated him to Cardinal.

With the passing of Pope John Paul II, he joined the other Cardinals in Rome for the funeral and the conclave to select a new Pope from their ranks. Although Cardinal Grapje
devoted his life to the service of God as a scholar, mentor and holy man; church leaders agree he will never ascend to the Papacy.

After all, no one wants a one-eyed, one-armed, flying purple Papal leader.

Philosopher-Kings & Court Jesters

Plato thought the best form of rule over people would be through wise, intelligent and informed leaders who excelled not only in all things worth knowing, but especially in the “love of wisdom”—philosophy. They would debate in a rational and calm manner to find the truth; and they would rule accordingly. Hence, philosopher-kings. Now, fast-forward several thousand years later, where in a land that prides itself in information and knowledge of “all things”, the expert reigns supreme—sociologists, psychologist, etc.; in this land, America, it has one particular expert who is the grandfather of all, an ideal philosopher-king: the “Scientist”. However, these philosopher-kings live in ivory towers in utter contempt of the common man and utter hatred of Christianity….And many cannot argue their way out of a paper-bag. …they are more like court jesters than kings. Is this a simple name-calling from a “radical-right winger”—is this the dreaded “ad hominem”? No; I have hard evidence to back up my claim:

Locale: Nightline, May 9, 2005. Topic: Intelligent Design.

Watching the first three rounds showed an interesting trend: the Darwinian materialist (the one with the disdainful smirk) virtually opened every rebuttal with snide comments against his opponent and the “unnamed” cabal that pulls his strings. The Darwinian materialist virtually never answered the questions raised by the opponent, but accused him of being part of the well-known society (with matching jackets and all) of the “right-wing fundamentalist” creationist—all of whom any one with half a brain would know to be full-blown Pre-millennial, Fundamentalist. The Darwinian materialist virtually opened every rebuttal with a snide…wait, I already said this! He was basically name-calling; this is called an “ad hominem” and is totally irresponsible in any college-educated man—especially one with a Ph.D in philosophy!! (in contrast, the Intelligent Design proponent (not a believer) tried to answer in a somber serious manner—the moderator's cajoling didn’t help much).

Not only was this philosopher more of a laughing court jester--he laughed many a time amidst his repeated declamations (of one form or another): “You can’t really believe that…”—he appeared to be an uneducated boob or a straight-faced liar as well! Why? The fact that the claimed (in point two above) that all creationist were “Premillennial, Apocalyptic Fundamentalist” waiting for the “Rapture” probably showed his historical, theological and philosophical ignorance of the well-known event called the Reformation which was originated by Luther and continued and cemented by Calvin.

Calvinism or Reformed Theology is known in philosophical circles (my philosophy college professor knew—and she did not have a Ph.D (piled higher and deeper?)! Calvinist/Reformed are not “Premillennial, Apocalyptic Fundamentalist”. It was not a debate; there was no direct answer to direct question in a calm and dignified manner--it was a joke! He was a joke! Most television formats (expect maybe PBS) are not conducive to deep debates. This was no exception. The court jester received kudos for thirty-second in-your-face sound-bytes, but his opponent won the debate. Unfortunately, many Americans don’t know that. Many Americans would rather laugh with the jester instead of laughing at his deplorable manners during this so-called “debate.” The kingdom of Darwin, with the Universe-of-Chance God sitting on a throne was well served by their court-jester this day. And neither one had any clothes.

SDG

But We Need More Medicine

From a fellow blogger:
Today was part two (see part I here) of the local health care saga. At 4:00 today I met with about 10 other area citizens to consolidate notes and discuss priorities for reporting our feedback to the Illinois state task force on health care.

I left the meeting accomplishing one of my two goals for participating in this. I didn’t tick anyone off or say something that got me publicly labeled as an extremist. At some point speaking the truth will require me to give up on that goal but for right now I want to continue to participate and that means remaining peaceful.

My second goal? To stop socialized medicine from taking over the system in Illinois and the United States....The rest...

24 is da' bomb!

24--no, this is not a blog about the infamous Genesis debate (goto the OPC report on that!).
This blog is a little about my favorite t.v. series: 24

I stopped watching television in '82. My father threw out our small, white European-made t.v. that fateful day after unsuccessfully trying to break our visual addiction (both my sister and I would stare at the boobtube instead of cleaning the house).

20 years later we have a t.v. (that is another story--all I can say is we got it for free; and I'm all about free). I regulated its watching to a small set of evening shows. It is mainly used for movies (1$ at Redbox-McDonalds [I said I was cheap!]).

The point is that even without a t.v. I knew most the shows were junk. In the military the dayrooms had televisions which I would watch periodically (usually I would play Nintendo)--usually for the movies. Some shows were boring. Others had language. Still others had sexual innuendoes.

All three of these categories have increased ten-fold since then.

But not with 24! This show has it all: action, suspense, plot and *gasp* even character development (no, really!!).

It is intelligently written and directed. It keeps my attention. It is riveting.

Of the cable shows that I know about from others, 24 ranks above them hands-down. There are two reasons: it has no sexual innuendoes and it has a plot.

Many of the famous cable shows (and, of course, t.v. shows) are dependent on cursing or sex. This show is dependent on plot (mostly action) and subplots. Continuing, cross-seasonal subplots. Some characters even die. It is so packed with plot-twists, mystery and characters, it's like watching a movie! I've already forgotten much of the details from the last three seasons.

As I get older, I grow more intolerant of filthy shows and movies. Comedies have too much sex, movies have too much cursing and life is too short. I stick with action flicks and an occasional "slow" movie. But as for t.v. shows--24 is it!!

I told my wife that when I'm 50 she can buy me the complete set.

And I'm sure when I'm 50 the entire industry will be the Hollyweird Filth Show. So, I'm stocking up on good shows right now.

SDG.

Antichrist: Focus on the Family

Antichrist! Don't look at me! This is not one of my eye-catching titles--this is what Colorado Senator Ken Salazar declared!
Not too 'PC' is it?
This is what happens when we send mature men to represent us in the US Congress; they are to stand tall and speak to the issues of the day. Way to go Salazar--show 'em the stuff your made of! (tongue firmly planted in cheek).

On the other hand, the freedom of speech has moved from "hate speech" (why is no one throwing the book at this Democratic Senator?) to "love speech". A local Middle School teacher (as reported this Friday night on 9news) was under fire for changing the pledge of allegiance in his class from "under God" to "under your own private belief-system" (or some such language). He was under fire from the school, but some of the students decided to defend them (isn't that special--teach anti-God politics when they're young!).

What do these two events have in common? They both display the further balkanization and collapse of American Culture. From a theological and philosophical viewpoint, any given culture by definition cannot stay viable if differences become greater than the commonality that is the 'glue' of culture. The radical political view on the left and the conservative religious views of Protestantism are incompatible. Both are fermenting in the "American Experiment". This melting pot will boil over.

The commonality of these two speech events is further expressed in the idea of unacceptable language. One wishes to drag Christians into the mud of unspeakable evil while the other wishes to collapse all religious distinctions and marginalize Christianity in the process. In either case, the traditional (in both Classical Protestantism and Modernism) idea that the limits of free speech express the cultural limits of truth and falsehood are being twisted into a new mold of postmodernism. There is no truth; truth is a "social construct"; thus, truth is reduced to power. And power is best expressed in the greatest and furthest expression it can accomplish: in the machinery of the public government: politics.

Truth becomes political.
It is a tool.

And Salazar used it to attack his "enemies"--he "apologized" (or rather "regretted" the use of the word), of course, but with a wink and nod he has fed more ire and anger to those who actually believe these setiments (just tune into Sean Hennity to hear some of 'em!).
The school teacher used it to attack his "enemies" as well--by marginalizing Christianity in the "marketplace of ideas" and indoctrinating (as all teachers must--for good or ill) his students to think in these terms.

If there is no absolute truth or that truth is unknowable to man (a philosophical impossibility--but that's another story!), then free-speech means the ability to describe reality in any way desired.

And the pope is not catholic.

And not the antichrist...but Focus on the Family is, if you believe Salazar.

SDG

A Short Review 2: Christian Balance

Maintaining the Delecate Christian Balance, Jay Adams
A Short Book Review 2

From explaining biblical love and hate to balancing community and individual, this small book contains twenty-three useful chapters on a host of important issues found in every Christian’s life. The premise of the book is that a healthy and mature life is based on the proper proportion—or balance—of various doctrines and practices of our faith. For instance, Adams points out that Christ calls believers to be shrewd as serpents and harmless as doves; an unbalanced life would follow one at the expense of the other (p. 2). Or some Christians expound a heartless truth while others extol a lying love—neither is biblically balanced. Many believers today take one truth or practice and pit it against its biblically paired truth.

There are two beneficial aspects to this book. It presents a simple model to help look at various problems in the Christian life. Many Scriptural doctrines are exaggerated in America and they affect how we live. True to the book’s focus, at the conclusion Adams does admit there are issues which are not balanced but are in complete antithesis, such as the role of faith and works in justification. Also, the great numbers of topics covered are sure to give the reader plenty to chew on. Although the chapters are short, the thoughtful reader will find many valuable gems and engaging examples for thinking and acting in a balanced manner.

This little book will be useful for brief readings to challenge our inconsistencies and imbalances or for Christian friends who need encouragement to accept all the doctrines of the bible instead of exalting one truth at the expense of the other.

"I smell a Rat"zinger

That's right--just like the surpised utterance of Patrick Henry when he discovered that the creation of the Constitution was accomplished behind closed doors, I, too, after discovering some newer information on the new pope, proclaim: I smell a rat--Ratzinger the Rat!

Sound harsh? In light of the Roman Catholic dogma, utterances, councels and actions, this language is mild! Read the Reformers like Luther, Calvin and Knox--they called the pope the AntiChrist!--A man who decieves the Church and mocks God Almighty with a works-"gospel"!
(A whole other post can be written about American queasiness over calling a "spade a spade").

My language is not used in a puerile manner, but as an accurate description! Here is why (translation couresy of a German Calvinistic Conservative friend):

"[M]uch [of] democratic socialism stood and stands close to the social ethics of catholicism, in any case it [Socialism] considerably has contributed to the development of a social conscience" --Ratzinger (pope Benedict XVI)

What more need I say? Will this be published in the American Press? Will Hewitt, Hannity, Ingraham and Medved quote this or analyze his political works?

If the Roman Catholic history is known, this will not be surprising. This world-organization has been attracted to totalitarianism for centuries (there are theological reasons for this). Professor Nichols of the University of Chicago wrote in his chapter on "Catholicism And the Totalitarian":

"Being contemptuous of democracy anyway, he [Pius XI] developed a policy of supporting militarist authoritarian governments which could be counted on to fight Communism...having thus paved the way for Mussolini's rise to power [by eradicating any political opposition to the Fascist party] by breaking Catholic democracy, the Vatican proceeded from 1926-1929 to draft a series of agreements with the dictator"

(History of Christianity: 1650-1950, p.365ff.)

What more need I say??
Perhaps one more thing: "For most of the war, the Vatican Secretariate of State apparently expected and desired the victory of the Central Powers. Benedict [XV !!] never would speak out in condemnation of the German violations of Belgian neutrality..." (p.365)

So, Ratzinger wants to name himself after that pope?

Long ago, Patrick said "I smell a rat" in Philadelphia--well, I smell a rat in Italy. With the mid-90s Evangelical fawning over the Roman church, will we have learned our lesson? The American Churches better wake up.

SDG
______________________________________
[Reference for the Ratzinger quote: Die Seele Europas" (The soul of Europe) quotes from a book written by the new pope which came out of the printing press last Wednesday: "Werte in Zeiten des Umbruchs" (Values in a time of change); (the leading daily of Munich, Süddeutsche Zeitung, page 8, issue of Wednesday, 8th, headline) Original text: "In vielem stand und steht der demokratische Sozialismus der katholischen Soziallehre nahe, jedenfalls hat er zur sozialen bewußtseinsbildung erheblich beigetragen"]

Know Thyself (Institues I.1.1)

This is part 1 of a monthly series looking at Calvin's Institutes (I.1.1)

In Calvin’s Institutes (book I, chapter 1, section 1, McNeil ed.) he opens his massive tome with epistemology (a very relevant topic today)-the study of how and what we know. Calvin contends that knowledge is two-fold: of ourselves and of God. However, Calvin does not plunge the murky depths of human philosophy nor does he bedazzle the reader with fancy words (like I just did!), he simply points out the common-sense understanding that anyone who honestly thinks of himself will be lead to see God.

Why? How does this follow? For Calvin, from the “feeling of our own ignorance, vanity, poverty, infirmity, and-what is more-depravity and corruption, we recognize” that all goodness, righteousness and light reside in Him alone. That is, recognition of our sins requires recognition of God. For the unbeliever this is not saving knowledge, but for the believer it illumines our minds, blinding our eyes by the majesty of His Holiness. The Spirit through the Law shows us our depravity and rebellion that only make sense in reference to God-Romans 1 argues that all men know God from his handiwork.

But this is not all: without knowledge of God there is no knowledge of self. Again why? How? Calvin asserts that “we always seem to ourselves righteous and upright and wise and holy-this pride is innate in all of us-unless…we stand convinced of our unrighteousness and foulness…” So, he reinforces his first point that an honest examination of ourselves (by the Spirit) will show that we live in rebellion against the King of the universe. Calvin is not saying that we find God in ourselves because we possess a self-sufficient standard of judgment, rather: “we are not thus convinced if we look merely to ourselves and not also to the Lord, who is the sole standard by which this judgment must be measured” (37).

In other words, by seeing our own sin and misery we will be displeased with ourselves and seek God. And we would never even see our true miserable selves without God, the sole standard by which judgment is measured. If you want to know the glories of God’s perfection, pray the Spirit, through the Word, to illumine your eyes and know thy self.

Econ 101

I have a confession to make: I never liked economics. (that is why I am an aspiring polymath).

My one and only class consisted of a half-semester blur of vague terminologies and amorphous ideas. I never had ‘econ’ (as everyone in college called it) in college—I avoided it like the plague.

Now, I signed up for cultural anthropology (i.e. social studies), math, science, English, speech, philosophy and even logic. But no econ. Wouldn’t touch it with a ten-foot pole.

In retrospect, I can understand why. There was no simple model used to explain our complex system called Capitalism (probably because most of the writers were closer to Socialists). However, my thoughts were wooed back to the area of econ through a short essay in Imprimis (highly recommended and free).

This particular month’s speech digest (March) featured Walter Williams of George Mason University. He pointed out that many modern (postmodern?) theorists describe our system as though it were controlled by a small cadre of bigots who grudgingly handed out cash. Many talk as though a large money pile existed somewhere and only the rich know where it is.

In contrast, Wiliams’ model put a positive light on Capitalism: “serving one’s fellow man.” How? He uses a performance model: dollars are “certificates of performance.” I mow your lawn; you give me money; I take the money to the store; I buy something that someone else produced. The cashier takes the money as a claim of performance: “in effect the grocer says: ‘you’re making a claim on something your fellow man produced. You’re asking him to serve you—but did you serve him?’ I say ‘Yes I did.” The grocer responds, “Prove it!” That’s when I show him my certificate of performance”—money.

In opposition to the “man-is-selfish-let-us-monopolize-upon-it” view of Capitalism, Williams’ take seems to have a Christian twist. It is definitely a clear paradigm—easy to digest. I wish I had this in school.

The rest of the speech flushes out the implications and proofs for this approach. But that is for another posting.

I just might start liking econ.
SDG

Blogg'n & Being a Presbyterian

Someone just recently asked " so did you give up on bloggin already?"
The answer is: yes & no.

Yes, because I will not keep the schedule I desired.
No, because I will still write something about twice a week.
Now, of course, you will ask why nothing was sent for almost a week--and I have a ready excuse: Presbytery.

What this means is that twice a year (three times if I go to General Assemby during the summer--which I will), representatives of the churches in Colorado, Utah, and North and South Dakota, meet to consider issues of discipline, doctrine and practice in all our churches. As a Presbyterian, I believe that mutual accountability is best expressed through connectiveness (not independency) and enforceable accountability (as opposed to the not-too-practical accountability of most independent Evangelical churches where if one does not like the discipline he runs off to another church).

Nothing very exciting happened during our meeting. We heard and presented the praises and prayers of the churches. We split off into committees to consider any petitions, concerns and church minutes. Votes were taken. Arguments were made. Overall, we conducted the business of Christ's Church through her ministers and ruling elders working in concert, exercising the rule of government and discipline.

I have another excuse: I have increased my class load to graduate on time. This includes a 75-page M. Div thesis paper on weekly communion.

Yes, I'll be busy. But, then, blogs are supposed to be short.
SDG

Hannity, Hewitt, Ingraham, Medved & the AntiChrist

AntiChrist?! Why would I write Sean Hannity and antichrist in the same sentence, let alone all four of these popular radio talk show hosts? Because Sean and Laura are self-avowed Roman Catholics, Hugh (the Presbyterian!) pays verbal homage to the pope and Micheal talks about the great strides toward common understanding between Jews and Roman Catholics (all in one days worth of listening!).

While driving around searching for yard supplies with my beautiful wife, I was recently reminded of this fact when I heard Sean on the radio pontificating about the Pope. He spent a number of minutes explaining the "fact" that the pope hails from "Saint Peter himself"; he further explained in detail how the Roman Catholic Church chooses a new pope, with the head of the Cardinal Council verifying the death of the pope through uttering his baptismal name three times while striking him with a silver hammer (I won't go there....).

As a dedicated Classical Protestant, I was quite nauseated. My wife was having a conniption (well, not literally). This was free advertisement for the Roman Catholic heresy. Even though many of my spiritual ancestors (especially on the Continent) believed the pope to be the Antichrist, I believe he is an antichirst--one among a history of many within the church.

Of course, it went from bad to worse. He invited a Rabbi on to further bolster the reputation of the pope. Medved also had a Rabbi utter the same spiel. (Maybe its a "vast right-wing conspiracy?).

Naturally, someone with a liberal or postmodern bent will read this and think that I'm "anti-Semitic and anti-Roman Catholic". Of course! That is why I used the word 'antichrist'! However, my "anti-" is not rooted in some irrational fear or morbid hatred; it is based squarily on my religious convictions that modern Jews (whatever brand) and Roman Catholics believe soul-damning doctrines. It's only fair: they, too, believe that there are soul-damning doctrines they should oppose (think: Nazi). Yet, this conviction does not necessitate taking their lives; rather it behooves us to bring the Gospel.

Because they live in an America that was created out of the fires of the post-Reformation era Puritans, both Jews and Roman Catholics are allowed to air their views. My only wish is that there were more Calvinists (the arch-nemesis of the Roman Church) with money to voice a contrary opinion--not just religiously (which would have a small radio audience indeed!)--but also politically! However, to at least even to begin to think in this direction requires a commitment to Calvinism and commitment against antichrist theology.

Alas, many of the modern Presbyterians (I cannot speak for our Reformed Baptist brothers) probably could not even sign on with our forefathers who declared in 1835 that the "Papacy [is] apostate from Christ, and no true Church." (p.248, notes from Dr. Bogue's class on WCF [from Assembly's Digest, 1886, p.789ff.).

I pray for a Reformation; our church prays for a Reformation. But God uses means and the first thing is to realize and know antichrist doctrine no matter who endorses it--be it our neighbor or our popular talk show hosts.