Friday, October 31, 2008

But He's a Nice Stalinist

I heard Barack Obama say on the radio that the big mean oil companies are taking "your money". The implication was that they are stealing it. Feelings and ignorance go a long way in politics. Apparently, when I go to the pump and take gasoline from the owner of the station, I am not supposed to give something in return. However, Barack Obama's tax plan of redistribution (ie: socialism) plans to do exactly that. Why is it that Obama doesn't see the government stealing your money? Why is the government better at redistributing wealth than Exxon?

I have noticed according to one website that Barack has received more campaign donations than McCain. It seems to me that according to his policies, someone needs to tax his campaign and give some of it to the Republican nominee to make it fair. I won't hold my breath though.

It certainly is troubling that Obama can get away with equivocating income in a private industry as being our money. If he can think that way about Exxon, what is to stop him from thinking that way about your income? Although most Leftists deny anyone could think that way, my question is how can they not? If Obama can destroy a private citizen (as all good Stalinists do) for simply asking a question, what makes the rest of us safe? And they are afraid of George Bush?

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Obama On Separation of State and Church

Politics can be a tricky thing, especially when you are a Christian. It is always difficult to maintain the Two Kingdom theory. The temptation to call the United States a Christian nation has always been a part of the Republic's psyche.

Think of yourself coming on the Mayflower to a "new land". Arriving here, you might think this land was the Promised Land. The Laws of this land have mostly acknowledged that there is a Creator who demands morality from His creatures. Many of our founding institutions were distinctly Christian such as Harvard and Yale. The Supreme Court has even said as much.

Now keep in mind, as I critique Obama's answer to Rick Warren, that I have my problems with the Religious Right. Religious Conservatives have done exactly what Theological Liberalism has done in the past. Once we embrace ethics and morality as the Gospel, once we stop preaching Christ from all of Scripture, once we stop seeing the separation of church and state, we become what we have despised in Liberalism. Nevertheless, I would like to offer some points about Barack's statement at Saddleback.

"I am my brother's keeper."
Barack Obama in a highly-touted speech at Saddleback Church on World AIDS Day, Dec. 1, 2oo6.

"I think America’s greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don’t abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me. And notion of — that basic principle applies to poverty. It applies to racism and sexism. It applies to, you know, not having — not thinking about providing ladders of opportunity for people to get into the middle class. I mean, there is a pervasive sense I think that this country is wealthy and powerful as we still don’t spend enough time thinking about the least of these."
Barack Obama on the moral failure of not addressing the least of these, particularly those in poverty at the Saddleback Forum, August 16, 2008.

1) Barack cites Matthew's Gospel. Now is Barack citing Matthew's Gospel as an authoritative source? Is this his personal religious belief? If so, what if I don't agree with Matthew's Gospel? Is this not Barack forcing his religion upon me?

2) The text Barack refers to is a text on the final day of judgment. It will take place at the Second coming of Christ. Is it not obvious that Jesus is separating true Christians from those who are not by the demonstration of their works?

Since this is based on an individual level, why is Barack applying this to the State? surely Jesus is referring to individual works? Barack might respond by saying that Nations are people that are being judged as a group. But again, individuals are separated out from among the nations. How does this even begin to make sense?

Is Barack going to save me by forcing me to do good works with my local government?

3) Is Jesus really teaching the "economic justice" Barack keeps referring to? Where does Jesus command that States provide ladders for people to climb out of poverty? As the Baptist Confession says, the only duty of the State is to provide a defense of the nation and protection among citizens from murderers and such.

Why is Barack not giving away his paycheck to those members of his family that live in poverty? Is it not obvious that Barack is lying and a hypocrite?

4) Is the State the Church? It seems that for Barack, he finds no church to put his religious beliefs into practice. Is he not making the State governement the church.

In the past, Governments would tax people to support the State church. Our form of government has abolished such a notion. Is not Barack's policies simply returning us to a government that taxes people to fund a church? Is it not even worse than before since for Barack the State is the church!?

5) "I mean, there is a pervasive sense I think that this country is wealthy and powerful as we still don’t spend enough time thinking about the least of these."

a) Who is Barack to bring his judgment upon us? Who is he to take his personal religiouss views and force them upon the rest of us.

b) On top of him forcing his views upon the rest of us, he is simply lying. America is the most giving nation in the world. For him to say otherwise requires proof since the evidence is overwhelming. Not only are there government programs that give money away for just about everything, the American people give to charities in huge amounts. Barack is just repeating Left-wing nonsense.

6) "It applies to, you know, not having — not thinking about providing ladders of opportunity for people to get into the middle class."

The race industry will never end. I have watched foreigners become naturalized citizens of this country. The statistics show that Asian immigrants are running rings around the rest of us through hard work. They are able to use their freedom and liberty to rise above their prior economic woes.

For Barack to use his sickening idea of religion to bring about policies that would not bring equal opportuinity but equal outcome is just a Stalinist idea.

7) The idea that God commands everyone to be equal in every way assumes a religious view of God that is simply unworkable in reality. It denies God's providence in bringing about challenges and calamities in our personal lives that may knock us down.

Let me offer an example. We as a nation believe it is fundamental that all men have a right to life. This only means that the government and private citizens do not have the power or authority to take my life from me. It doesn't mean that government owes me a long and healthy life. Only God could even begin to provide such a life, and it is His choosing.

I am certain one could sit here and punch holes in all of the silly thinking of the Radical Left. If you are voting for Obama, keep in mind that he defys all of the Protestant confessions on the role of government (as many on the right do). We have entered a dangerous time when Americans do not understand their liberty that so many have fought and died for.

The beauty about being an American is that one does not have to be a Christian to live here. There is a separation of church and state. However, the One does need to know our form of government and how it is to function. This Obama and the Radical Left may never understand. They simply want a revolution to overthrow the institutions that have made this the greatest city of man the world has ever seen.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

MMFC part 2: Substitutionary Atonement

On the MMFC's website, this statement is made.
7. MMFC believes that God wishes to heal our wounds through the wounds of his Son.
In my email to them for clarification I asked,

"Would MMFC affirm the doctrine of Vicarious Substitutionary Atonement or some form of the Governmental theory of the atonement?"

To which they responded,

"The presuppositions of MMFC are left deliberately broad in certain places, again so as not to exclude advocates of various theories. We're not about taking a theoretical stand, but about providing a healing ministry that has proven itself effective in practice. The presuppositions are written to give each man the freedom to interpret them in a way that does not contradict the doctrines of his church."

In my previous post I stated that MMFC does not believe in the Gospel. The Protestant Reformation is not claiming Substitutionary Atonement as some kind of theory. It is the heart of the Gospel. It ought to be the heart of what transforms men.

Some of you may be thinking I am going a bit far. Yet, what are they explicitly stating? They are saying that various theories are not necessary for transformation. They are using other means other than what God has prescribed. Based upon their Confession, would not a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness or a Christadelphian become transformed?

The Scriptural doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement is that Christ died in my place. Christ bore the wrath of God for all of His people. By true saving faith, I entrust myself to the finished work of another and receive Christ's righteousness. There is no act that I may do to take this knowledge from my head to my heart. Can any Christian truly believe this Gospel, this Good News and not be transformed? Is not the announcement of Christ's finished work sufficient to transform His people?

Once again, it is the Gospel that causes men to do good works. It is men feeding on Christ and His Word. We must go back to the God-given means of spiritual growth, the preaching of the Gospel.

With all of the spiritual immaturity at the church in Corinth, did the Apostle Paul first appeal to "initiations" or group therapy? No, Paul first appealed to the Gospel. To do anything else is to nullify the Gospel. As Paul writes,

1Co 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.
1Co 1:18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
1Co 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
1Co 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
1Co 1:22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom;
1Co 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,
1Co 1:24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
1Co 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1Co 1:26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble;
1Co 1:27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong,
1Co 1:28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are,
1Co 1:29 so that no man may boast before God.
1Co 1:30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,
1Co 1:31 so that, just as it is written, "LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD."

MMFC part 1

A substitute for preaching and sound doctrine are deeds. We are told actions speak louder than words, less creeds and more deeds. We need real transformation from head knowledge to heart knowledge. The assumption is that the Gospel doesn't bring about transformation, but doing certain things will. Evangelicalism is now basically becoming RC. She is now making up her own sacraments.

What am I talking about? Several weeks back I was referred to a para-church ministry, Marked Men For Christ, that ministers to men. I decided to read the website's statement of faith. It was so vague that I really was not even certain if it was Christian. I decided to write them for clarification. Here is part of the response.

"The presuppositions of MMFC are left deliberately broad in certain places, again so as not to exclude advocates of various theories. We're not about taking a theoretical stand, but about providing a healing ministry that has proven itself effective in practice. The presuppositions are written to give each man the freedom to interpret them in a way that does not contradict the doctrines of his church. Our presuppositions are meant to demonstrate that our ministry is not done in a vacuum, or without sufficient theological reflection. On the other hand, we find that men who want to retreat to the realm of clear and distinct ideas are the ones most in need of healing and reintegration in their lived experience of theological doctrines. We seek to move men from their head to their heart where Christ has planted His Spirit. (2Cor.1:22-23) Your questions demonstrate that we have written well because you are not identifying errors in the presuppositions, but asking for further clarifications."

Notice the first and last sentences. They have purposely written their beliefs so as to not be particular. The fact is I can identify errors. But since they are vague they may always squirm out of their statement.

The major error here fits the theme of the last couple of posts. They do not believe in the Gospel. Now I know they would argue that they do, but read the paragraph carefully. Note this point, "We seek to move men from their head to their heart where Christ has planted His Spirit."

The Spirit is in the heart but not the head? Not only is that bogus, but there is a deeper and more fundamental problem. They are seeking to do the work only the Spirit may and can do. They wish to substitute a man-made sacramental system in place of the Holy Spirit's written Word. Only the Spirit may move teachings from the "head to the heart". What is the means the Spirit has chosen? He has told us. The proclamation of the Good news. It is the external word by which (as the WHI often says) men are driven out of themselves (from looking inwardly) to the external Christ.

One of the great consequences of preaching the Gospel is that the Spirit brings men to not only look outwardly to Christ, but he is then driven outwardly to his neighbor. True sanctification is done by the preaching of the Gospel. It is the power of God unto salvation.

Jones On Primacy of Preaching

Since preaching has taken a back seat or at least seen as not God speaking in the power of His Spirit to His people, I'd like to offer some insight from Martin Lloyd-Jones on the nature and primacy of preaching. Keep in mind that Jones spoke there words in a lecture many decades ago. This shows that the problem of unbelief in God's prescribed means of grace occurs in every generation.

Jones speaks of those who distrust of preaching,

"If only these men who have been set aside as preachers, and others who are prominent in the church were to go out and take part in politics and in social activities and philanthropic works they would do much more good than by standing in pulpits and preaching according to the traditional manner."

Is this not what we hear constantly today? Jones also explains what preaching is not. Perhaps many see preaching as lectures or pulpiteering or a public address or essays or the giving of a testimony or someone who is a great orator speaking homilies or "literary effusions" or moralism "social-political talk" or entertainment or counseling.

In referring to all of the methods that men have made up as a substitute for preaching Jones says,

"Well now the great question is-what is our answer to all this? I am going to suggest, and this will be the burden of what I hope to say, that all this at best is secondary, very often not even secondary, often not worthy of a place at all, but at best, secondary, and that the primary task of the church and of the Christian minister is the preaching of the Word of God."

Again, Jones defines the basis of preaching:

"I want to go a step further and to suggest that this evidence from the NT itself, supported and exemplified by the history of the church, leads us to the conclusion that the ultimate justification for asserting the primacy of preaching is theological. In other words I argue that the whole message of the Bible asserts this and drives us to this conclusion. What do I mean by that? Essentially I mean that the moment you consider man's real need, and also the nature of the salvation announced and proclaimed in the Scriptures, you are driven to the conclusion that the primary task of the church is to preach and to proclaim this, to show man's real need, and to show the only remedy, the only cure for it."

"The business of the church, and the business of preaching-and she alone can do this-is to isolate the radical problems and to deal with them in a radical manner. This is specialist work, it is the peculiar task of the church. The Church is not one of a number of agencies, she is not in competition with the cults...religions...psychologists or any other agency, political or social or whatever it may chance to be."

Some may misunderstand this last quote and say, "Yes we agree." They will argue that AA doesn't have Jesus or is missing the "Jesus factor". This however, would miss Jones' point. Jones is not arguing for a "Jesus factor" but for a proclamation. The Gospel comes to men in the preached word and the two sacraments/ordinances. It is an announcement. It is not therapy or good works.

Christians should not try to transform people with new methods and means. Christians must trust what God has told us to do. We must remain faithful to our calling. No matter what so-called Christians may come up with to "bear fruit", if it has abandoned Christ's means of grace, then it is not to be followed.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

It's the Gospel...It Really Is That Simple

Last night I listened to the White Horse Inn broadcast discussing Willow Creek's conclusion of their own massive study. Willow Creek has determined after many years of ministry that programs do not necessarily work in producing spiritual growth. Their solution is that Christians be trained to become "self feeders"

In this video Greg Hawkins discusses his concerns about where the church is and where it needs to go. After years of ministry his "dream is that we fundamentally change the way we do church".

Now I must admit that this is pretty radical. Here are people who I believe are genuinely concerned for the spiritual growth of Christians and admitting that they have missed the boat. However, I believe that not only is their solution wrong, it is based on the wrong premise to begin with.

1) Their view of sanctification is just plain wrong. Why do they have a faulty view of sanctification? I believe the answer is simple. It is based on a faulty view of not only the Gospel, but the biblical means of grace in general. Consistency in theology is a must. As Pastor Fry says, "What you win them with is what you win them to." If you win people to Christ through programs, then you must keep them with such. In the end though, they will fail. It is the Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation, not programs or anything else.

2) Throughout the entire video, I only heard the Bible being able to address this once. All of the video depended upon marketing techniques. Think of what a study is and what it is based upon. In the video the church did what it has always done. It asks people for what their needs are. Why not go to the Bible and see what God has to say about man's true need and how it is to be addressed? Why keep assumptions when you are supposedly trying to fundamentally change what you do? Once a marketer, always a marketer?

3) The Bible explains what man's need truly is. It explains to us the methods of meeting that need. We do not need programs or worship services with fantastic music or circuses with trapeze artists or small groups mini-confessionals for us to receive penance. Man is a sinner. As the White Horse Inn program points out, men need to stop looking inwardly for transformation and start looking outwardly to Christ. Only preaching is the God given means to bring that about. There are also other means of grace such as the Lord's Table and Baptism and prayer.

4) The answer is obvious. Sheep need to eat! What pastors need to do is go back to preaching the Gospel. One minister likened preaching as to being inundated with information. So part of the problem is knowing what preaching actually is. Greg Hawkins desperately needs to learn and trust God's means of grace.

Years ago I was asked about the practical needs of people. How does someone who struggles with sexual immorality or drugs overcome their addictions? My response was simple. The Gospel. Justification is what I live by. Yet this was not enough for this person. This person wanted transformation stuff. If the Gospel is not enough...what is?

Greg mentions in the video that he wants to transform the world. Most pastors do. Yet it is not trying to transform people that people will become transformed. It is not losing weight for Jesus or financial classes or AA that will transform the world. It is the Gospel.

If you are a pastor and you are into marketing strategies to transform the world, you, like this pastor, will struggle the rest of your life looking for new ways to transform lives. Every generation seems to have to learn this over and over again. Stop marketing! Start feeding your sheep.

Here is a series of articles by Albert Mohler explaining the role of the preacher (1, 2, 3). He is to be first and foremost a theologian. He is to prepare a meal for God's people to feast upon. God's people should gather together and recline at Christ's table.

Elders/Pastors! Feed your sheep!

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Palin Is a Drag?

Here is yet another story being reported on YahooNews that Sarah Palin is a "drag" on the McCain ticket. This is plain evidence that the "Drive-By Media" will stop at nothing to depress conservative voters. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Can anyone remember McCain's campaign as being one that energized anyone prior to McCain's pick? Were the precious moderates flocking to McCain prior to this pick? Now that we have Powell endorsing The Socialist, is this not evidence McCain's tactics in trying to win his so-called friends in the Media have been foolish?

Here are some facts. Palin is drawing huge crowds. Biden says things far more foolish on a regular basis than anything Palin has said. Biden has been in hiding as to not make Obama look worse than he already does. The "Drive-bys" ignore Biden's gaffes and Obama's radical Left-wing political views.

The Democrats and the Media are now on full display as to reveal that they are the true Stalinists. If you have any doubt, just ask Joe the Plumber.

Here is an excellent point by Rush:

RUSH: Let me repeat something. We had a call yesterday at just about this time when a guy was all happy, they haven't found anything substantive on Joe the Plumber. And that, folks, that just focused it for me. Stop and think of that. They, the Obama campaign and the media, they haven't found anything on Joe the Plumber. Who the hell are they to look? What gives them the right to look into the private life of a private citizen? He's not part of the McCain campaign; he's not running for anything; he can't raise anybody's taxes; he can't send anybody's kid off to war. And now he can't even work because the plumbers have ganged up on him because he supposedly didn't have a license. What the hell are we becoming? "They haven't found anything substantive on Joe the Plumber." With what business is it of theirs to start prying into Joe the Plumber's life? All he did was ask a question.

Palin attracts large crowds. We know this because the Political Left hates this fact and tries to undermine it. Just google "palin crowd size" and see all of the articles and sites that spend time explaining how the size of the crowd is not official.

The "Drive-bys" lie about Palin crowds yelling "kill him" in reference to Barak Obama. The Secret Service finds no evidence for such a claim.

My point is simple. If Palin were really a "drag", then why all of the attacks on her. She isn't running for President. Any unbiased person can see Biden is by far and away the worse VP pick. The drag isn't coming from Palin. It is coming from the Drive-Bys.

The plain and obvious fact is this. If we could start this whole process over again, Palin would win a "57 state" landslide.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Sam Waldron Makes End Times Simple

Sam Waldron's book, The End Times Made Simple, really is just that. The end times made simple.

There are several things that are great about this book. Unlike the prophetic books on the market that assume passages of Scripture mean what they think they mean, Waldron spends time explaing the subject of hermeneutics or methods of Biblical interpretation. This is extremely helpful as to laying a foundation for the reader as to the presuppositions of the author. It also is helpful in explaining to the reader as to whether or not something is Biblical.

This foundation laying is clearly something that will go much farther than just the subject of End Times. Think of all of the Cults that come knocking on the doors of Christians. How often are Christians left in "doctrinal pretzels" by the time the Cultist leaves their homes? Although this is a book about eschatology, it has far reaching applications.

If you are a pastor and you are an Amillenarian I would highly suggest getting this book and using it as a teaching tool in your church. What congregation doesn't want to discuss End Times?

Another benefit this book has is that its chapters are each broken down to about 10 pages each on average. This is perfect for those laymen, who wish to purchase the book for themselves and follow the teacher.

There are some difficulties with the book as any. But I believe the difficulties that arise are mainly due to the style of such a work. Many in Evangelicalism may be disappointed since there are not helicopters replacing the symbols in the book of Revelation or more sensational stuff such as describing today's news in order to figure out who is the anti-christ. However, I think reading Kim Riddlebarger's books as companions to this one may be of great assistance to the reader and pastor.

Get it. Read it. If you are a typical Evangelical Dispensational or even a Pre/Post-millenialist of any sort, get this book and be challenged.

Clarence Thomas On the Constitution

Kuddos to Pastor Ed for emailing this to me. This is currently posted on the Wall Street Journal here. I am not certain of the copyright issues on something like this. If this is illegal to post, please e-mail me.

The following is an excerpt from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's Wriston Lecture to the Manhattan Institute last Thursday:

When John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural address, "Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country," we heard his words with ears that had been conditioned to receive this message and hearts that did not resist it. We heard it surrounded by fellow citizens who had known lives of sacrifice and hardships from war, the Great Depression and segregation. All around us seemed to ingest and echo his sentiment and his words. Our country and our principles were more important than our individual wants, and by discharging our responsibilities as citizens, neighbors, and students we would make our country better. It all made sense.

Today, we live in a far different environment. My generation, the self-indulgent "me" generation, has had a profound effect on much around us. Rarely do we hear a message of sacrifice -- unless it is a justification for more taxation and transfers of wealth to others. Nor do we hear from leaders or politicians the message that there is something larger and more important than the government providing for all of our needs and wants -- large and small. The message today seems more like: Ask not what you can do for yourselves or your country, but what your country must do for you.

This brings to mind the question that seems more explicit in informed discussions about political theory and implicit in shallow political speeches. What is the role of government? Or more to the point, what is the role of our government? Interestingly, this is the question that our framers answered more than 200 years ago when they declared our independence and adopted our written Constitution. They established the form of government that they trusted would be best to preserve liberty and allow a free people to prosper. And that it has done for over two centuries. Of course, there were major flaws such as the issue of slavery, which would eventually lead to a civil war and casualties of fellow citizens that dwarf those of any of the wars that our country has since been involved in.

Though we have amended the Constitution, we have not changed its structure or the core of the document itself. So what has changed? That is the question that I have asked myself and my law clerks countless times during my 17 years on the court.

As I have traveled across the country, I have been astounded just how many of our fellow citizens feel strongly about their constitutional rights but have no idea what they are, or for that matter, what the Constitution says. I am not suggesting that they become Constitutional scholars -- whatever that means. I am suggesting, however, that if one feels strongly about his or her rights, it does make sense to know generally what the Constitution says about them. It is at least as easy to understand as a cell phone contract -- and vastly more important.

The Declaration of Independence sets out the basic underlying principle of our Constitution. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . . ."

The framers structured the Constitution to assure that our national government be by the consent of the people. To do this, they limited its powers. The national government was to be strong enough to protect us from each other and from foreign enemies, but not so strong as to tyrannize us. So, the framers structured the Constitution to limit the powers of the national government. Its powers were specifically enumerated; it was divided into three co-equal branches; and the powers not given to the national government remained with the states and the people. The relationship between the two political branches (the executive and the legislative) was to be somewhat contentious providing checks and balances, while frequent elections would assure some measure of accountability. And, the often divergent interests of the states and the national government provided further protection of liberty behind the shield of federalism. The third branch, and least dangerous branch, was not similarly constrained or hobbled.

Since Marbury v. Madison the federal judiciary has assumed the role of the interpreter and, now, final arbiter of our Constitution. But, what rules must judges follow in doing so? What informs, guides and limits our interpretation of the admittedly broad provisions of the Constitution? And, more directly, what restrains us from imposing our personal views and policy preferences on our fellow citizens under the guise of Constitutional interpretation?

To assure the independence of federal judges, the framers provided us with life tenure and an irreducible salary -- though inflation has found a way around the latter. This independence, in turn, was to assure our neutrality and impartiality, which are at the very core of judging -- and being a judge. Yet, this independence can also insulate a judge from accountability for venturing beyond the proper role of a judge. But, what exactly is the proper role of a judge? We must understand that before we can praise or criticize a judge. In every endeavor from economics to games there is some way to measure performance.

As important as our Constitution is, there is no one accepted way of interpreting it. Indeed, for some commentators, it seems that if they like or prefer a particular policy or conduct, then it must be constitutional; while the policies that they do not prefer or like are unconstitutional. Obviously, this approach cannot be right. But, it certainly is at the center of the process of selecting judges. It goes something like this. If a judge does not think that abortion is best as a matter of policy or personal opinion, then the thought is that he or she will find it unconstitutional; while the judge who thinks it is good policy will find it constitutional. Those who think this way often seem to believe that since this is the way they themselves think, everyone must be doing the same thing. In this sense, legal realism morphs into legal cynicism. Certainly this is no way to run a railroad, not to mention interpret the Constitution. . . .

Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution -- try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up. No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the latest football scores. To be sure, even the most conscientious effort to adhere to the original intent of the framers of our Constitution is flawed, as all methodologies and human institutions are; but at least originalism has the advantage of being legitimate and, I might add, impartial.

Monday, October 20, 2008

MS Vs. MN View On Self Defense, I Like MS's

A pastor friend of mine from Mississippi would disagree with Piper's assessment of self-defense below. That's ok though. We all may allow Piper to be wrong just this once. :-)

Do You Have Your Sword?

No matter how many laws you pass attempting to ban guns from those who seek to do harm, the bad guys will always obtain them. The notion that violent lawbreakers will somehow be thwarted by creating more rules is about as sensible as thinking that a hormone-filled adolescent will not ogle the emerging debutante because we asked him nicely.

Criminals disobey the law for their own advantage and violent criminals look for victims. The best victims are the weakest victims; those who will not or cannot defend themselves against aggressive wrongdoing. Gun laws are paper tigers that only serve to restrict and forbid good citizens from protecting their family, person, and property.

Even though the civil authorities are instituted by Divine mandate to bear the sword against evil doers, they are not always able to respond quickly and efficiently particularly when someone’s life is in immediate danger. Every school shooting in our country attests to this fact. It just takes too long for law enforcement to respond. Compound that with an entire campus or mall of unarmed and fenced in victims and you have a tremendous recipe for unabated carnage. We should allow those students and citizens who want to be able to defend themselves the ability to do so and not have to rely on merely bare fists, loud shouts and screams, or a belated cavalries for their protection.

Self-defense is godly. Arming oneself for that task is right and biblical. If the use of that defense ends in the termination of the aggressor’s life then that is the price that the criminal paid for his wickedness. When Christ sent out his disciples just before his own arrest and death he gave them a list of things to bring with them.

“When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” They said, “No, nothing.” And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. “For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment. They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.” Luke 22:35-38

Notice that Jesus did not say, “When you go leave your sword behind and simply pray when you are attacked and do the best you can, knowing that you’ll be spared if you remain pacifists.” Instead, he advocated being armed for defense and security. He did not instruct them to kill anyone who got in their way nor did he tell them to be brazen and antagonistic. He wanted them to be safe and to have the tools to ensure it.

Recently a well-known pastor, author, and preacher compared his decision to not arm himself in his household to the same decision that Jim Elliot and his missionary friends made in Ecuador when they were speared to death by hostile natives. They had guns with them but only shot them in the air rather than killing the tribesmen. As he wrote, “they were ready to go to heaven but these natives were not. So why would they kill them rather than being killed themselves?” And so if someone were to attack us in our home, he argues, why would we want to kill them either since they are probably not ready to go to heaven either? Jesus certainly gave other advice.

One of the problems with this theory is that is presupposes that using a gun defensively automatically means killing a person. This is neither true nor desirable. Death is simply the possible risk incurred by the evil doer when he decides to threaten and inflict harm. As an example of this principle in action watch this trailer clip from Boston Legal which makes the point quite nicely.

And so when asked directly whether he is a pacifist or whether he would protect his daughter from harm if he did own a gun he responded by saying, “… the circumstances are so unpredictable. What would you do? Shoot the guy in the head? Or shoot him in the chest? How about the leg? Or just throw the gun at him, or hit him over the head with it? Of course I’m going to protect my daughter! But I’m not aiming to kill anybody, especially an intruder who doesn’t know Christ and would go straight to hell, probably. Why would I want to do that if I could avoid it?” Again, see the above video on how to handle that situation. What is curious to me is his seeming abandonment of God’s sovereignty in election and His promise that He is not willing that any of His own will perish but that all of His children will come to faith and repentance found in 2 Peter 3:9? Am I now ruining God’s plan in redemption because I chose to use intense force in protecting my daughter? My decision to shoot a rapist who I find on top of my daughter with a knife to her throat is now wrong because if I kill him he might go to hell? I’m not advocating killing him for the sake of killing him but am also thoroughly convinced that my decision to be fully armed so that I can protect my children is neither wrong nor going to circumvent God’s purposes in salvation.

Later he makes a comment that “those who live by the gun shall die by the gun” but this, too, is a misapplied principle since owning a firearm for protection is not living by the gun. Owning a handgun for protection is exactly the same as listening to Christ in Luke’s gospel when he told those who were about to journey to arm themselves. Even a sword can kill and those who obeyed Jesus were not guilty of living by the sword either. I think Piper is guided by good motives but led down the wrong path. [click here for John Piper's full blog post]

If more men realized their God-given duty to be ready and able to defend their neighborhoods and person the purposes of evil brought about by willing men would be lessened. That is a good thing.

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Letterman Defends Terrorists

Bill Ayers, Timothy McVey and Gordon Liddy. What do they all have in common? Apparently, they are all terrorists.

In this video, McCain is simply not able to articulate the relationship of Ayers and Obama. Instead David Letterman uses the argument that we all come across people of terrorist views, and we just can't control that. Letterman has no curiosity as to what that relationship was. He then cuts off McCain with linking McCain to Gordon Liddy.

For those of you who may not know who Gordon Liddy is, you may read here.

The questions remain? Are we now going to compare Liddy to Ayers? Is Liddy a terrorist? Was Liddy wanting to kill Americans and overthrow its institutions? Let's face it. What Liddy did is literally nothing compared to what the Political Left has always done and is doing to this day (ACORN anybody?!).

The biggest question is "Does Barak Obama see the world the same way Bill Ayers does?" Simply because Obama has a nice smile doesn't mean he doesn't agree with Ayers. Here is a candidate that we know literally nothing about. We don't know the full extent of his views. We do know he is for infanticide. That is a fact. We do know he is a socialist. That is a fact. We do know he attended an anti-American church for many years. That is a fact. Now I am supposed to believe this relationship with Ayers is superficial? I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday.

The Press or "Drive-by Media"clearly is on the side of those who wish to overthrow the institutions that have made this country great. The irony is that Letterman has become wealthy by the free enterprise and capitalistic system of his country. Due to Shelby Steels's White Guilt, we seem to want to allow the most ridiculous become mainstream in order to ease our consciences.

Would the Media not attack McCain if he had a relationship with Timothy McVey? The double standard is glaring.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Robert Gonzales of Reformed Baptist Seminary has written on Embryonic Stem Cell Research:

An Immoral Proposal: A Case Against Embryonic Stem Cell Research

with 2 comments

In the eighteenth century, an Irish minister by the name of Jonathan Swift wrote a powerful satire, entitled, A Modest Proposal. In the most serious language, Swift suggested that Irish babies be sold for food, and that their skin be used as a kind of soft leather. As a result, there would be fewer mouths to feed, more food to go around, and a new industry that would create many jobs. This was his ‘modest’ proposal.

In reality, Swift did not intend what he was recommending. Actually, he was attacking a common philosophy of the day, called “utilitarianism.” This philosophy taught that “the ends justify the means.” Any moral act can be justified if gives the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people. Swift’s purpose in offering a ‘modest’ proposal was to show people just how far utilitarian philosophy would lead them if they followed it through to its logical conclusion.

Swift’s modest proposal was not carried out in his day. You and I, however, are faced with a very similar proposal today in our own country. Only in our case, it’s not satire. On July 11th, 2001, representatives for the Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine of Norfolk, Virginia, announced that they are intentionally creating human embryos with the express purpose of destroying those embryos and extracting their stem cells. Their goal is to develop these stem cells into therapeutic cures for human diseases, and then to market these cures. According to their ethics committee, “The creation of human embryos for research purposes was justifiable [since] it was our duty to provide humankind with the best understanding of early human development.”

This is only one among hundreds of companies that are poised to do this kind of research. And perhaps the most shocking thing of all has been the response of the American public. Swift’s generation was shocked at his proposal. But for many Americans today, the killing of human embryos not only seems reasonable but even desirable. A recent poll indicated that at least two-thirds of the American public supports this kind of research. In light of this real proposal facing our society, I would like to address the subject of embryonic stem cell research.

Read the rest of the article.

Monday, October 13, 2008

October Surprise

Kuddos to Matt for linking me to this video.

In this video, Philip Berg, a Democrat and lawyer argues that Barak Obama does not comply with the qualifiations to be President. He argues that Barak is not a citizen. You may read about Berg's complaint that has been brought before the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania here. Justia has the complaint here. At Free Republic the case explains the factual allegations:


  1. Since the beginning of the U.S. Constitution, in order to run for Office of the President, you must be a "natural born citizen" and you may not hold dual citizenship or multiple citizenships with foreign Countries. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1.
  2. There are questions as to where Obama was actually born, in the United States or abroad and then registered his birth. There are further questions regarding Obama's United States Citizenship, ifhe ever held such, being expatriated and his failure to regain his citizenship by taking the oath of allegiance once he turned eighteen (18) years of age. There are additional questions regarding Obama's multi citizenships with foreign countries, which he still maintains. To date, Obama has refused to prove he is qualified under the U.S. Constitution and his eligibility to run as President ofthe United States.
  3. The facts are undisputed by Obama that his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a U.S. Citizen however, his father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a Citizen of Kenya. Obama's parents, according to divorce records, were married on or about February 2, 1961.
  4. Obama claims he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961; however, has never given the name of the hospital he was born in; whereas Obama's grandmother on his father's side, half brother and half sister claim Obama was born in Kenya. Reports reflect Obama's mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy, which apparently was a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight. Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and registered Obama's birth. There are records of a "registry of birth" for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii.
  5. Upon investigation into the birth of Barack Hussein Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama's birth is reported as occurring at two (2) separate hospitals, Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital. Wikipedia English Version under the subject "Barack Obama"

So according to Berg, Obama will not produce the Birth Certificate. I decided to go to to see what that site says. They argue:

In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document's authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is "fake."

We beg to differ. staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.

Now what is interesting is that they do have pictures and attempt to quell the allegations. Yet the pink elephant in the room is being overlooked. Why does Obama rely on this website to be some kind of official and legal declaration of the charges against him? Simply provide the Birth Certificate before the Court and be done with it. So far, Obama refuses.

This picture of the certificate doesn't answer some of the other problems such as dual citizenship. What about his having lost his citizenship while overseas as Berg charges? Posting pretty pictures won't make this stuff go away. Perhaps one could answer every question and never get to the end due to political agendas.

Than again, perhaps there is more to this than meets the eye? Internet conspiracies are so much fun.

McCain Opposes Abortion...Maybe...Kinda Sorta...I Don't Know

McCain's reported position on abortion. Does anyone have any idea what this means?


McCain: Opposes abortion rights. Has voted for abortion restrictions permissible under Roe v. Wade, and now says he would seek to overturn that guarantee of abortion rights. Would not seek constitutional amendment to ban abortion.

How does one overturn abortion rights or Roe v Wade without amending the Constitution? Is the U.S. Supreme Court planning on reversing itself? If it is, what does McCain have to do with it? How does McCain plan to "seek to overturn" it?

Now I am supposed to believe McCain is above politics and completely honorable? This guy was tortured in Vietnam but babies that get pulled apart limb from limb or burned to death doesn't seem to be a real issue. I realize McCain is in the political world and issues like this are delicate, but one must lead and demonstrate leadership. McCain certainly is not showing any that I can see.

Once again, maybe he will prove me wrong in the next debate. So far though, McCain's "honorableness" has held him back from leading. Perhaps he really will "whip his you know what".

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Judgment Or Radical Leftist Viewpoint

During this entire campaign, no one wishes to say the other person is wrong in their beliefs. How many times has McCain said Obama is a good person who has made some poor judgment decisions? The fact that Barak has been associated with ACORN seems to not be an issue of what he believes, but that he has made some mistakes. And we local yokel Cable viewers are buy this garbage?!

Within the last few days according to Philip Elliot at, McCain has played nice or honorable,

On Friday during a town hall-style meeting in Lakeville, Minn., a supporter told McCain that he feared what would happen if Obama were elected. McCain drew boos when he defended his rival as a "decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States."

Now I have to wonder if McCain realizes he is running for President. The truth is, Obama's views ought to be feared. David Limbaugh rightly points out what needs to be said.

I disagree with those who've said the most important issue concerning the Obama-Ayers connection is Obama's "judgment." The very word implies that Obama doesn't share and never shared Ayers' views. The crucial question is whether Obama is of like mind with such radicals.

Finally some who gets it. Barak is not just a poor fool who has been duped (as true as that might be). Barak is a Radical Leftist who desires the overthrow of this Nation's Institutions.

This past week the Supreme Court of Connecticut has committed treason and overthrown the constitutional political process. This was a chance for McCain to run an honorable campaign and point out the lunacy of the Left. McCain, however, is not as honorable as he would like to seem. He is more concerned about firing some GOP leader in some county in VA than to stand up against his actual enemies.

Perhaps tomorrow night McCain will prove me wrong. Since McCain keeps talking about character, and since he will probably be consistent in attacking his own, I won't sit up holding my breath.

Friday, October 10, 2008

Bush Leaving Legacy For the Left

For a long time I have been thinking that President Bush may be the biggest reason Conservatism dies. Yahoo News reports,

President Bush said Friday that the government's financial rescue plan was aggressive enough and big enough to work, but would take time to fully kick in. "We can solve this crisis and we will," he said in brief remarks from the White House Rose Garden.

This is just crazy. Does anyone remember the stock market crashing in 87 or the major recession into Bush Sr.'s term? Lots of people lost their businesses and homes. Yet we all got through it. Why, because the government got out of the way. It was Bush Sr.'s increase in taxes that hurt him the most. It was also one of his biggest regrets.

Now Bush Jr. wants to bailout the entire economy. He wants to turn this country into a socialistic country. He is bailing out the socialistic policies of Democratic Presidents that have caused this mess in the first place.

Yahoo reports,

The president said the new $700 billion rescue plan that he signed into law a week ago authorizes the Treasury Department to use a variety of measures to rebuild their balance sheets including "purchasing equity of financial institutions."

Is this what his father would have done? Is this what Reagan would have done? The fact is, no one remembers the crash and recession of the 80s because in the grand scheme of things, it was something that Americans survived due to Reaganomics.

Now President Bush not only wants to have the government own private companies, he is going to violate the U.S. Constitution in a manner that rises to McCain's idiotic dismantling of the First Amendment.

I have supported President Bush for a long time. It is a shame he is going to leave a legacy that not only decimates Conservatism but also a legacy of helping the Radical Left to win the day. If only Bush and McCain would only recognize who their enemies are.

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

V For Vandetta

I finally watched this movie on Dish Network. I am glad that I did not pay to see this Left-Wing propaganda trash in the theater. As a Conservative I have always had disagreements with certain philosophies in movies. Nevertheless, disagreeing and having my own beliefs challenged or even just having fun with stories is always an exercise in thought. Not so with this movie.

In the past, the Wachowski brothers were impressive not only in their ability to make movies, but their ability to discuss ideas through them. The Matrix was simply fun if nothing else. Do we have a purpose? Does everything have a destiny? Do we freely choose that destiny? Plus the rabbit holes one could discuss about the story line. Matrix was simply revolutionary.

V For Vandetta does not even come close to the standard that the Wachoski Brothers have established for themselves. It follows the George Bush is a Nazi thought. Although the story takes place in England, the politics that are engaged throughout the film is obvious to anyone. It is nothing more than the 60's Revolution finally splashing on the big screen, or at least my 32 inch one.

The culture war or America's second civil war is still being advanced. What has impressed me over the years in reading the little bit of history that I have read is that every Revolution has a goal that is being achieved. In order to achieve that goal, most of the time, the masses must be promised one thing, while in the end the promises are always empty. Think of the many revolutions France has had or what the Russians have suffered under. Lies and more lies.

The American Revolution was unique. It had a foundation and solid reasons for the overthrow of the tyranny of England's immoral King. This movie is more akin to those that make promises and deliver nothing. It must lump all Conservatives as Nazis. It advances the idea of blowing up buildings that symbolize the greatness of the past, for they represent opposition to Left-Wing ideas.

V For Vandetta should be named Revolution. Although the movie doesn't justify its philosophical beliefs other than by slandering Conservatives as Nazis and appealing to emotions, it doesn't have to. Stalinists simply need to "clear the field". In this movie, it more likely to blow you up.

Monday, October 06, 2008

Red Sox Win!

Bay hits a double.

Lowrie makes a base hit past the second baseman.

Bay charges around third.

Angels Right Fielder throws the ball to home plate.

Bay slides head first.

Ball enters catchers glove.

Bay touches plate with his hand.

Red Sox Win!!!!!!


Friday, October 03, 2008

Off To Socialim We Go

It is now official. Whatever vestige of Conservatism that remained among House Republicans is now gone. Our mortgage industry is basically owned by the government. The vote less than an hour ago according to Marketwatch:

House lawmakers voted 263 to 171 to pass the bill, reversing the chamber's rejection of it on Monday, which sent the Dow Jones Industrial Average into a record 777-point freefall.

This bill perverts the Constitution in so many ways I have lost count. The article also mentions something scary:

The House's vote follows the Senate's approval on Wednesday and gives the Treasury secretary extraordinary power to buy bad assets from financial companies, boosts federal bank insurance and requires the government to modify some mortgages. It also contains a host of controversial tax breaks and some caps on executive pay.

So now one man has "extraordinary power" that Congress has no authority to grant. Is this not a violation of law? Is this not the same basis that men revolted England over? ie: Governments exceeding their authority.

What troubles me deeply is that the last place I thought Conservatism stood now stands no more. I watched the vote live on C-Span. When the vote finished, approximately half of the Republicans voted in favor of the bill.

Conservatism has truly fallen on hard times. With John McCain's campaign going no where, the Democrats have possibly once again secured their victory by creating a permanent voting block of suffering Americans with constant end of the world scare tactics.

Perhaps a valuable lesson may be learned by Conservative Republicans. Lead already! Why do people at the grass roots level have to make videos plainly explaining how the Democrats have created this mess? Why does there need to be Rush Limbaugh types defending Conservative principles? In essence, why has there been only one Ronald Reagan?

In the end, Conservatism only loses because of fear. Fear has driven this bogus crisis. Fear will get Democrats elected. Fear will give rise to bigger government and bigger bureaucracies. Fear will take away our freedoms and liberties.

Thursday, October 02, 2008

Reducing Abortions From 1 Mill to .5 Mill Is Prolife?

I remember being told years ago that Bill Clinton was Pro-Life. The arguments were clever. It would be argued that his policies would reduce abortions. The idea was that giving women real help and other Left-wing ideas (birth-control, condoms, financial help) would mean that women would choose life. Then the statistics would be used that the number of abortions were actually reduced.

Today, CitizenLink and others are reporting Obama is Pro-life as well. How can this possibly be. Just read here and see the same exact tactics that Clinton used. There truly is nothing new with Obama.

We can drastically reduce abortions by helping reduce unplanned pregnancies and supporting pregnant women and families that need help.

Senator Barack Obama will fight to make sure that every woman in America has the support she needs when facing an unplanned pregnancy. Senator Obama's grass-roots, faith-based approach of support for women and families will help them when they most need it, preventing abortions by supporting women and families to choose life.

I suppose if one equivocates reducing abortions as being Pro-life Obama is your man. However, calling a pile of dog doo doo a rose doesn't change what that stuff is on my shoe after I stepped on Obama's website.

Being Prolife is really simple. First we acknowledge that God is the Creator of human beings. Only God has the right to take a life as He sees fit. Only God has the right to demand from governments how and when a man is to be put to death if such a need arises.

Being Pro-life also recognizes that abortion is murder. Is Obama willing to call abortion what it is? If abortion is murder, then the governments of the world must recognize what the Creator demands of them. Murder is to be stopped. Murderers are to be punished. Is Obama truly Pro-life now?

Obama has stood for infanticide. Even has to admit that Obama stood against legislation in Illinois that would protect aborted infants that are born alive. This is not Pro-life. Call it what you may, Obama is a champion of the industry that murders (over 40 million!) the weakest and most needy of our protection. Obama stands with murderers.

May God have mercy on his soul.

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

Christless Christianity

Michael Horton has published a new book, Christless Christianity. Here is a description of the book.

Christians have always had their differences, but never in church history have there been so many statistics indicating that many Christians today are practicing what can only be described as "Christless Christianity."

Christless Christianity guides the reader to a greater understanding of a big problem within the American religious setting, namely the creeping fog of countless sermons in churches across the country that focus on moralistic concerns and personal transformation rather than the theology of the cross.

Michael Horton's analysis of the contemporary church points believers back to the power of a gospel that should never be assumed.

This video summarizes what may be the most needed wake-up call in Evanjellyism.

Joyful Orthodoxy: Trinity

I love the Trinity. Most people look at me strangely when I say things like that. Here is a video of a pastor that is filled with true religious affection. It reflects what I feel.