Integrity. What is it? What does it mean to say someone is a person of integrity? One definition from wikipedia is consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations and outcome. If a criminal talked the walk, was entirely predictable in his actions based on stated belief, i.e., was fully consistent, would that mean the criminal had integrity? A simple 2-word definition is "moral soundness", but whose morals are we talking about? Maybe, as C.S. Lewis has said "integrity" has been stolen much like being called a "gentleman" had been stolen.
Websters 1928 dictionary expands on "moral soundness": "The entire, unimpaired state of any thing, particularly of the mind; moral soundness or purity; incorruptness; uprightness; honesty. Integrity comprehends the whole moral character, but has a special reference to uprightness in mutual dealings, transfers of property,and agencies for others."
If I were to define a person of integrity I would say it is a property of someone who always behaves or acts good, being true and consistent to their stated [good] confession. In other words, their true belief, or worldview is in agreement with their actions. For example, a couple that takes a pledge to remain faithful to each other "till death do us part". The couples that remain married in spite of difficulty display integrity. Those who split up, well at least for non-life threatening reasons, display a lack of integrity.
I am not a man of integrity when it comes to political corporate welfare. Years ago a major company desired and won huge amounts of taxpayer monies to locate in Tulsa. At the time I spoke out against this taxpayer theft. Today I am silent about another company playing the same hand in my own town. This is because I work for that company and if I spoke up I could lose my job.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
The Bible begins "In the beginning God created the heavens
and the earth." Do you remember the Why? Because .... Why?
Because .... Why? ... games you played as a child? The
final answer to Why? which has no "because" is this verse.
Usually this text from Genesis refers to the physical universe
but it also applies to culture in general and politics in
particular. After conquering death (demonstrating his
Lordship over the physical universe) Jesus said in Matthew
28:18-20 "all authority in heaven and on earth has been given
to me." He continued saying "Go into all the world immersing
the cultures of all people groups in my teachings". Kenneth
Gentry explains _The Greatness of the Great Commission_ in his
book by the same name. The Bible is supposed to be the
politician's instruction manual.
The Greatest need in the United States is to once again allow
the Bible to have legal political authority. Judge Roy Moore,
or more specifically Alabama, lost the right to place the 10
Commandments near the State Supreme Court because the
Federal courts said it was illegal. This Federal decision was evil
and wrong. The fact that so few Christian constitutional
lawyers spoke up for state' rights in this case tells me there
is a problem with our Federal Constitution. Article VI,
paragraph 3 needs to be changed to support one and only one
religious oath affirming the authority of the Bible in our
laws. The Christian Triune God and Jesus Christ as earth's
lawful King deserves no less.
A civil government official "is the servant of God, an avenger
who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer" [Romans 13:4].
Paul ties those things that are "wrongdoings" right back to
the 10 Commandments in verse 9. In Peter's research he
mentioned that the Puritan civil law code came closest to
consciously using the Word of God as the civil law standard.
I believe him. The statement in the Declaration of
Independence that all men (people) are created equal comes
directly from New Testament teachings. Except in cases of
crimes worthy of capital punishment the right to life is part
of the God-given rights of all people. Abortion is evil and I
am thankful to God that you fight for the right to life of
humans in the womb as hard as you do. Don't ever give up that
fight. I would encourage you to make the same claims to the
majority in congress as I have made here. Encourage your
liberal peers who desire legalized abortion and who also claim
the authority of the Bible to exegete their position in this
area.
Lying and stealing are evil. If our Constitution says
something, the Federal branch of Government must do what it
says. Article 1 section 8 says to "establish uniform rules
for naturalization". We need to uphold existing legal
immigration law and quit the nonsense talk of naturalizing
those here illegally. The next statement says to establish
uniform bankruptcy laws. The Federal government has no
authority to take over control of "some" private businesses or
to hand out "bailout" money to some private persons or
businesses. This is favoritism and directly against the
Constitution. God says he detests unequal weights and
measures. Our Constitution says the Federal government is
responsible "to coin money, regulate the value thereof,
... and fix the standard of wights and measures". We as a
nation are headed to either hyper inflation or Federal
bankruptcy if current spending patterns continue. The Bible,
in agreement with our founding fathers and the original intent
of the Federal Constitution, don't authorize compulsory
welfare. This is theft and legalized redistribution of money.
This is evil. Instead of considering another huge commitment,
universal health care, the federal government should be
considering how to extricate itself from the $70 trillion
social security, Medicaid, medicare commitments it has
promised! The Federal Reserve has been protected far too
long and needs to be audited.
The nation's voting has gotten to the point of a besieged city
where the food has run out. The 3 last starving survivors
agreed to be democratic about what to eat for their next meal.
The two adults and child voted. The child lost. It is
immoral to saddle our children and those yet unborn with our
debt.
Respectfully submitted,
Harry A. Rockefeller
and the earth." Do you remember the Why? Because .... Why?
Because .... Why? ... games you played as a child? The
final answer to Why? which has no "because" is this verse.
Usually this text from Genesis refers to the physical universe
but it also applies to culture in general and politics in
particular. After conquering death (demonstrating his
Lordship over the physical universe) Jesus said in Matthew
28:18-20 "all authority in heaven and on earth has been given
to me." He continued saying "Go into all the world immersing
the cultures of all people groups in my teachings". Kenneth
Gentry explains _The Greatness of the Great Commission_ in his
book by the same name. The Bible is supposed to be the
politician's instruction manual.
The Greatest need in the United States is to once again allow
the Bible to have legal political authority. Judge Roy Moore,
or more specifically Alabama, lost the right to place the 10
Commandments near the State Supreme Court because the
Federal courts said it was illegal. This Federal decision was evil
and wrong. The fact that so few Christian constitutional
lawyers spoke up for state' rights in this case tells me there
is a problem with our Federal Constitution. Article VI,
paragraph 3 needs to be changed to support one and only one
religious oath affirming the authority of the Bible in our
laws. The Christian Triune God and Jesus Christ as earth's
lawful King deserves no less.
A civil government official "is the servant of God, an avenger
who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer" [Romans 13:4].
Paul ties those things that are "wrongdoings" right back to
the 10 Commandments in verse 9. In Peter's research he
mentioned that the Puritan civil law code came closest to
consciously using the Word of God as the civil law standard.
I believe him. The statement in the Declaration of
Independence that all men (people) are created equal comes
directly from New Testament teachings. Except in cases of
crimes worthy of capital punishment the right to life is part
of the God-given rights of all people. Abortion is evil and I
am thankful to God that you fight for the right to life of
humans in the womb as hard as you do. Don't ever give up that
fight. I would encourage you to make the same claims to the
majority in congress as I have made here. Encourage your
liberal peers who desire legalized abortion and who also claim
the authority of the Bible to exegete their position in this
area.
Lying and stealing are evil. If our Constitution says
something, the Federal branch of Government must do what it
says. Article 1 section 8 says to "establish uniform rules
for naturalization". We need to uphold existing legal
immigration law and quit the nonsense talk of naturalizing
those here illegally. The next statement says to establish
uniform bankruptcy laws. The Federal government has no
authority to take over control of "some" private businesses or
to hand out "bailout" money to some private persons or
businesses. This is favoritism and directly against the
Constitution. God says he detests unequal weights and
measures. Our Constitution says the Federal government is
responsible "to coin money, regulate the value thereof,
... and fix the standard of wights and measures". We as a
nation are headed to either hyper inflation or Federal
bankruptcy if current spending patterns continue. The Bible,
in agreement with our founding fathers and the original intent
of the Federal Constitution, don't authorize compulsory
welfare. This is theft and legalized redistribution of money.
This is evil. Instead of considering another huge commitment,
universal health care, the federal government should be
considering how to extricate itself from the $70 trillion
social security, Medicaid, medicare commitments it has
promised! The Federal Reserve has been protected far too
long and needs to be audited.
The nation's voting has gotten to the point of a besieged city
where the food has run out. The 3 last starving survivors
agreed to be democratic about what to eat for their next meal.
The two adults and child voted. The child lost. It is
immoral to saddle our children and those yet unborn with our
debt.
Respectfully submitted,
Harry A. Rockefeller
Peter Marshall (http://petermarshallministries.com/), the
son of the more famous Peter and Katherine Marshall
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Marshall), is a
speaker and author who addresses the Christian history of the
United States. I heard him speak last night about how
important it is for Christians to be engaged in our culture.
After his talk a question was asked about how to be faithful
to Christ about evangelism but also be engaged in politics and
other aspects of culture. I suggested, as an example, that
maybe training in a biblical political worldview could be
accomplished by crafting letters to congressmen which wed the
Lordship of Christ, biblical authority, and political opinion.
Peter didn't bite. Since I brought up the idea I thought of
writing these letters to my congressmen and to share them with
others.
So, here we go.
son of the more famous Peter and Katherine Marshall
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Marshall), is a
speaker and author who addresses the Christian history of the
United States. I heard him speak last night about how
important it is for Christians to be engaged in our culture.
After his talk a question was asked about how to be faithful
to Christ about evangelism but also be engaged in politics and
other aspects of culture. I suggested, as an example, that
maybe training in a biblical political worldview could be
accomplished by crafting letters to congressmen which wed the
Lordship of Christ, biblical authority, and political opinion.
Peter didn't bite. Since I brought up the idea I thought of
writing these letters to my congressmen and to share them with
others.
So, here we go.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
A while back I read Nancy Pearcey's book Total Truth. My
main concern is to address what she has to say about two
things. One, the idea of no (religious/spiritual) neutrality
and two, what are her views on the religious/spiritual nature
of civil government.
In general I would say she does a very good job with the first
point. As a Francis Shaffer disciple she shows that religious
thought, attitudes, presuppositions, i.e., belief, form our
every actions. She spends many words exposing the myth that
Christianity affects only one of the two spheres of life. She
uses many word couples to define what she means by these two
spheres: mind vs heart, private vs public, personal preference
vs scientific knowledge, values vs facts, sacred vs secular,
revelation vs reason, etc. She acknowledges many belief
systems and identifies what is their tightest held (core)
presupposition and even says "In this sense, we could say that
every alternative to Christianity is a religion." She ties
this into the first point of the; creation, fall, redemption
model; given to us as Christians. In other words, who (or
what) is held as "creator"? What is one's belief in the
"fall"? Who or what is wrong and needs fixing? She reminds
the Christian of our cultural mandate given both to Adam and
again to Noah and finally realized in the Great Commission
(simply because this cultural mandate was never revoked). In
other words, how can I apply "redemption" or attempt to make
culture better?
Taking up a good chunk of the book is a treatment of
Intelligent Design vs (macro) evolution. If you are
interested in this subject at all Nancy's comments alone in
this area are worth your reading of this book. One of the
ramifications of our culture's acceptance of evolution instead
of Divine creation is found in civil law. Nancy says "Holmes
took the idea that the source of law is nothing but evolving
custom. Whereas traditional Western legal philosophy had
based law on an unchanging source (on natural law, derived
ultimately from divine law)." This pragmatic view of law and
customs "inevitably leads to a pluralism of beliefs, all of
them transient and none of them eternally or universally
true." In a sense, this is the Southern Baptist view of
politics. Dr. Richard Land preaches political pluralism as a
good thing for our culture. But that's another book review.
Nancy quotes Denzel in a way that even she approves of a
political pluralistic society. "It became clear to Denzel
that in a pluralistic society, Christians need to master
apologetics ..."
In conclusion of point one let me quote Nancy. "... it is
possible for even a Christian to be controlled by Satan and do
his work. There is no neutral ground in the spiritual battle
between the forces of God and the forces of the devil. If
some area of our lives is not fully submitted in obedience to
God, then in practice we are under the control of Satan in
that area -- giving him the allegiance that belongs to God
alone."
Concerning the second point, what does Christianity or the
Bible have to say about civil government I started out
hopeful. Early in her book on page 34 she writes "I can say
from experience that few hold an explicitly Christian
political philosophy." She went on to quote a political
staffer who also was a committed Christian "I'm politically
conservative, not because I see how they're rooted in the
Bible." She concludes this early paragraph in her book "[The
staffer] knew he should formulate a biblically based
philosophy of government, but he simply didn't know how to
proceed." But where does she go from there?
Nancy says "I suggest that the assumption of autonomous
individualism is a central factor in the breakdown of American
society today." Does she apply this to certain religious or
civil thinking? She says "the priesthood of all believers was
taken to mean religion of the people, by the people, and for
the people." She mentions John LeLand as one of the backers
of individual liberty in both ecclesiastical as well as
political thought. Toward the end of her book Nancy mentions
the common error. Popular evangelicals were sounding the same
note as the early social contract theorists ... who regarded
social structures ... formed by the consent of autonomous
individuals living in a 'state of nature'."
Nancy concludes with "the dilemma is that humans irresistibly
and unavoidably make moral judgments -- and yet nonbibilical
worldviews give no basis for them." So then what about moral
judgments involving civil law and punishment that have no
biblical basis? She danced about this question but never
really attempted to take it on.
In the study guide section of the book she mentions that "back
in the age of state churches, it was Christian dissenters who
framed the case for pluralism and religious liberty. Today,
in the age of state schools, Christians ought to be framing
the case for pluralism and freedom in education as well."
This seemed to contradict what she had written earlier about
individual autonomy being a major plank of the evil two-story
culture theory. This bothered me so much that I asked her
"[you wrote that] 'Christian dissenters who framed the case
for pluralism and religious liberty' Was this 'case' made
using Scriptural exegesis?" She actually replied -- but in a
two-story cultural manner! Is it any wonder that our
Christian politicians who desire to be biblical are continuing
in languish simply not knowing how to proceed?
main concern is to address what she has to say about two
things. One, the idea of no (religious/spiritual) neutrality
and two, what are her views on the religious/spiritual nature
of civil government.
In general I would say she does a very good job with the first
point. As a Francis Shaffer disciple she shows that religious
thought, attitudes, presuppositions, i.e., belief, form our
every actions. She spends many words exposing the myth that
Christianity affects only one of the two spheres of life. She
uses many word couples to define what she means by these two
spheres: mind vs heart, private vs public, personal preference
vs scientific knowledge, values vs facts, sacred vs secular,
revelation vs reason, etc. She acknowledges many belief
systems and identifies what is their tightest held (core)
presupposition and even says "In this sense, we could say that
every alternative to Christianity is a religion." She ties
this into the first point of the; creation, fall, redemption
model; given to us as Christians. In other words, who (or
what) is held as "creator"? What is one's belief in the
"fall"? Who or what is wrong and needs fixing? She reminds
the Christian of our cultural mandate given both to Adam and
again to Noah and finally realized in the Great Commission
(simply because this cultural mandate was never revoked). In
other words, how can I apply "redemption" or attempt to make
culture better?
Taking up a good chunk of the book is a treatment of
Intelligent Design vs (macro) evolution. If you are
interested in this subject at all Nancy's comments alone in
this area are worth your reading of this book. One of the
ramifications of our culture's acceptance of evolution instead
of Divine creation is found in civil law. Nancy says "Holmes
took the idea that the source of law is nothing but evolving
custom. Whereas traditional Western legal philosophy had
based law on an unchanging source (on natural law, derived
ultimately from divine law)." This pragmatic view of law and
customs "inevitably leads to a pluralism of beliefs, all of
them transient and none of them eternally or universally
true." In a sense, this is the Southern Baptist view of
politics. Dr. Richard Land preaches political pluralism as a
good thing for our culture. But that's another book review.
Nancy quotes Denzel in a way that even she approves of a
political pluralistic society. "It became clear to Denzel
that in a pluralistic society, Christians need to master
apologetics ..."
In conclusion of point one let me quote Nancy. "... it is
possible for even a Christian to be controlled by Satan and do
his work. There is no neutral ground in the spiritual battle
between the forces of God and the forces of the devil. If
some area of our lives is not fully submitted in obedience to
God, then in practice we are under the control of Satan in
that area -- giving him the allegiance that belongs to God
alone."
Concerning the second point, what does Christianity or the
Bible have to say about civil government I started out
hopeful. Early in her book on page 34 she writes "I can say
from experience that few hold an explicitly Christian
political philosophy." She went on to quote a political
staffer who also was a committed Christian "I'm politically
conservative, not because I see how they're rooted in the
Bible." She concludes this early paragraph in her book "[The
staffer] knew he should formulate a biblically based
philosophy of government, but he simply didn't know how to
proceed." But where does she go from there?
Nancy says "I suggest that the assumption of autonomous
individualism is a central factor in the breakdown of American
society today." Does she apply this to certain religious or
civil thinking? She says "the priesthood of all believers was
taken to mean religion of the people, by the people, and for
the people." She mentions John LeLand as one of the backers
of individual liberty in both ecclesiastical as well as
political thought. Toward the end of her book Nancy mentions
the common error. Popular evangelicals were sounding the same
note as the early social contract theorists ... who regarded
social structures ... formed by the consent of autonomous
individuals living in a 'state of nature'."
Nancy concludes with "the dilemma is that humans irresistibly
and unavoidably make moral judgments -- and yet nonbibilical
worldviews give no basis for them." So then what about moral
judgments involving civil law and punishment that have no
biblical basis? She danced about this question but never
really attempted to take it on.
In the study guide section of the book she mentions that "back
in the age of state churches, it was Christian dissenters who
framed the case for pluralism and religious liberty. Today,
in the age of state schools, Christians ought to be framing
the case for pluralism and freedom in education as well."
This seemed to contradict what she had written earlier about
individual autonomy being a major plank of the evil two-story
culture theory. This bothered me so much that I asked her
"[you wrote that] 'Christian dissenters who framed the case
for pluralism and religious liberty' Was this 'case' made
using Scriptural exegesis?" She actually replied -- but in a
two-story cultural manner! Is it any wonder that our
Christian politicians who desire to be biblical are continuing
in languish simply not knowing how to proceed?
Thursday, August 27, 2009
I always find "Imprimis" published by Hillsdale College
intellectually stimulating. The most recent issue _The
Constitution and American Sovereignty_ by Jeremy Rabkin may
be found here: http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp.
As the title suggests it dwells on political rightful
authority. Jeremy opens with sovereignty defined loosely as
"a political community without a political superior". From
there he mentions the first scholarly study, _Six Books of
the Republic_ written in the late 16th century by Jean
Bodin. The King of France took on political sovereignty
apart from the papal Roman church. It wasn't a true
separation of church and state because Bodin "insisted on
the monarch's general obligation to respect the law of
nature and the law of God". Jeremy goes on to give Bodin's
thoughts. "His main practical point was that the government
must be strong enough to protect the people's rights, yet
restrained enough not to do more than that." It's
interesting that this is the only function of civil
government mentioned by the apostle Paul in Romans chapter
13. The civil servant, as God's servant, is to distinguish
between good and evil and punish those who practice evil
deeds. Paul didn't address what deeds should be punished by
the State and which should not. This was because he knew
the Old Testament had already covered that ground.
This same concept of "separation of church and State" was
reiterated in our own Declaration of Independence. The
point both Bodin and Our Declaration recognized was that the
King, Congress, State, etc. really didn't have full
political sovereignty. There were limits they must not
cross, which were defined by God Himself. In other words,
only God is the True political sovereign. Jeremy doesn't
quite get to this conclusion. I'm not sure if he didn't
like it or what his reason was for not following this simple
logic.
Jeremy then discusses our Federal Constitution. The United
States is a Federal republic where the rule of law
originates in a written document. Our Constitution is no
exception. As Jeremy reminds us "it describes itself
unambiguously as 'the supreme Law of the Land'". Every one
of the 50 state Constitutions mentions God in some way or
another as the political sovereign but our Federal
Constitution does not. In fact, in Article VI paragraph 3
it is strictly forbidden to require a religious oath of any
federal official. I think this weakness in being definitive
about the Sovereign God caused our Federal Constitution to
loose clout as being the "supreme Law of the Land". Our
Declaration of Independence still rings clear and True about
the just cause of the founders of our country. The
Constitution however is becoming a -- yawn.
Jeremy goes on to mention economic treaties, and national
conglomerates as detracting authority (sovereignty) from our
Constitution. He concludes with Constitutional sovereignty
giving way to "the notion of some hazy international
standard of conduct that everyone in the world can somehow
agree upon and then enforce on strangers". I agree with
Jeremy. Unfortunately this is true but he doesn't address
this built-in weakness of our Constitution, nor does he
mention the most blatant attack on the Constitution's
sovereignty -- the lack of a full-form birth certificate of
our president.
Jeremy concludes his article by mentioning that Bodin "the
first theorist to write about sovereignty understood
witchcraft as a fundamental threat to lawful authority and
so finally to liberty and property and all the other rights
of individuals". Jeremy simply reminded the reader once
again, without saying so, it's a question of submission to
God's sovereignty in all areas of life.
intellectually stimulating. The most recent issue _The
Constitution and American Sovereignty_ by Jeremy Rabkin may
be found here: http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp.
As the title suggests it dwells on political rightful
authority. Jeremy opens with sovereignty defined loosely as
"a political community without a political superior". From
there he mentions the first scholarly study, _Six Books of
the Republic_ written in the late 16th century by Jean
Bodin. The King of France took on political sovereignty
apart from the papal Roman church. It wasn't a true
separation of church and state because Bodin "insisted on
the monarch's general obligation to respect the law of
nature and the law of God". Jeremy goes on to give Bodin's
thoughts. "His main practical point was that the government
must be strong enough to protect the people's rights, yet
restrained enough not to do more than that." It's
interesting that this is the only function of civil
government mentioned by the apostle Paul in Romans chapter
13. The civil servant, as God's servant, is to distinguish
between good and evil and punish those who practice evil
deeds. Paul didn't address what deeds should be punished by
the State and which should not. This was because he knew
the Old Testament had already covered that ground.
This same concept of "separation of church and State" was
reiterated in our own Declaration of Independence. The
point both Bodin and Our Declaration recognized was that the
King, Congress, State, etc. really didn't have full
political sovereignty. There were limits they must not
cross, which were defined by God Himself. In other words,
only God is the True political sovereign. Jeremy doesn't
quite get to this conclusion. I'm not sure if he didn't
like it or what his reason was for not following this simple
logic.
Jeremy then discusses our Federal Constitution. The United
States is a Federal republic where the rule of law
originates in a written document. Our Constitution is no
exception. As Jeremy reminds us "it describes itself
unambiguously as 'the supreme Law of the Land'". Every one
of the 50 state Constitutions mentions God in some way or
another as the political sovereign but our Federal
Constitution does not. In fact, in Article VI paragraph 3
it is strictly forbidden to require a religious oath of any
federal official. I think this weakness in being definitive
about the Sovereign God caused our Federal Constitution to
loose clout as being the "supreme Law of the Land". Our
Declaration of Independence still rings clear and True about
the just cause of the founders of our country. The
Constitution however is becoming a -- yawn.
Jeremy goes on to mention economic treaties, and national
conglomerates as detracting authority (sovereignty) from our
Constitution. He concludes with Constitutional sovereignty
giving way to "the notion of some hazy international
standard of conduct that everyone in the world can somehow
agree upon and then enforce on strangers". I agree with
Jeremy. Unfortunately this is true but he doesn't address
this built-in weakness of our Constitution, nor does he
mention the most blatant attack on the Constitution's
sovereignty -- the lack of a full-form birth certificate of
our president.
Jeremy concludes his article by mentioning that Bodin "the
first theorist to write about sovereignty understood
witchcraft as a fundamental threat to lawful authority and
so finally to liberty and property and all the other rights
of individuals". Jeremy simply reminded the reader once
again, without saying so, it's a question of submission to
God's sovereignty in all areas of life.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
What do lawyers mean?
I listened to Herb Titus present two talks today at the
SuperWorldview Conference sponsored by AmericanVision and
other Christian organizations. His talks about how state
governments may successfully circumvent Federal law which is
outside of the Federal constitution's 10th amendment were
presented well. Unfortunately the whole idea of separation of
Church (religion) and State (civil law) is still a confused
mess.
This was evident in the question and answer session tonight.
Two questions were asked about the influence of rival
"religions" on our Christian civil laws in a hope that Herb
would offer how Christians may cope or prevent further erosion
of Christian Constitutional law. Herb Titus attempted to
answer that our government was founded on "The Laws of Nature
and of Nature's God" or was it -- Christianity? He was forced
to define "religion" and simply stated a political (civil)
definition is that it is those "things" that we owed our
Creator which the civil authority had no jurisdiction. But
then what "law" prevents the State from (re)defining religion
any way it wants? What would prevent what some justices are
saying -- that our constitution is a living and changing
document interpreted at the whim of judges? I don't think
either of the two questions were really ever answered.
Is our U.S. Constitution a Christian document, as one of
Herb's booklet titles suggests, or is it not? We only should
use a constitutional amendment process to change what
is in error. Article VI paragraph 3 is in error. A religious
oath must be required of our Federal officials. We must
hold them accountable to the Bible.
I listened to Herb Titus present two talks today at the
SuperWorldview Conference sponsored by AmericanVision and
other Christian organizations. His talks about how state
governments may successfully circumvent Federal law which is
outside of the Federal constitution's 10th amendment were
presented well. Unfortunately the whole idea of separation of
Church (religion) and State (civil law) is still a confused
mess.
This was evident in the question and answer session tonight.
Two questions were asked about the influence of rival
"religions" on our Christian civil laws in a hope that Herb
would offer how Christians may cope or prevent further erosion
of Christian Constitutional law. Herb Titus attempted to
answer that our government was founded on "The Laws of Nature
and of Nature's God" or was it -- Christianity? He was forced
to define "religion" and simply stated a political (civil)
definition is that it is those "things" that we owed our
Creator which the civil authority had no jurisdiction. But
then what "law" prevents the State from (re)defining religion
any way it wants? What would prevent what some justices are
saying -- that our constitution is a living and changing
document interpreted at the whim of judges? I don't think
either of the two questions were really ever answered.
Is our U.S. Constitution a Christian document, as one of
Herb's booklet titles suggests, or is it not? We only should
use a constitutional amendment process to change what
is in error. Article VI paragraph 3 is in error. A religious
oath must be required of our Federal officials. We must
hold them accountable to the Bible.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Technology changes things, or does it?
I attended http://www.lifechurch.tv on the Internet this
morning with my wife and daughter-in-law. It seemed different
than those Billy-Graham televised sermons of years ago or was
it? The message was the same: the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The thought came to me that maybe, just maybe, the United
States doesn't have to go through a complete meltdown in order
for our culture to once again embrace Spiritual Truth. The
message of Christ, the milk [Hebrews 5:12], is still being
preached whether at lifechurch.tv or by Billy's son Franklin
Graham. However, growth does appear to be missing.
Christians in the United States are babies who "need milk not
solid food".
"Solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers
of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish
good from evil." [Hebrews 5:14] So, is Nationalizing health
care good or evil? What about that macro-economic sticky
question: since the government literally creates currency can
it be guilty of theft? Or other political (State) economic
questions need answers. When is a robin-hood (take from the
rich to give to the poor) policy evil? When is it good? For
what policies?
In just a few days I'll be in the middle of a conference
hearing about "How Christians Will Change the Future". I hope
it won't be just another conference where people attend get
oooohed and aaaaahed during the event but basically remain the
same afterward. I hope it does have a lasting effect. We
sure do need mature Christians to reshape and redirect our
future (culture).
In years past, I would have used a concordance and a paper
Bible to refresh my memory of these quoted Bible verses.
Tonight I just used my Olive Tree Bible and software on my
cell phone. Technology doesn't really change the core values
or issues within a culture it only provides us better tools.
I attended http://www.lifechurch.tv on the Internet this
morning with my wife and daughter-in-law. It seemed different
than those Billy-Graham televised sermons of years ago or was
it? The message was the same: the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The thought came to me that maybe, just maybe, the United
States doesn't have to go through a complete meltdown in order
for our culture to once again embrace Spiritual Truth. The
message of Christ, the milk [Hebrews 5:12], is still being
preached whether at lifechurch.tv or by Billy's son Franklin
Graham. However, growth does appear to be missing.
Christians in the United States are babies who "need milk not
solid food".
"Solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers
of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish
good from evil." [Hebrews 5:14] So, is Nationalizing health
care good or evil? What about that macro-economic sticky
question: since the government literally creates currency can
it be guilty of theft? Or other political (State) economic
questions need answers. When is a robin-hood (take from the
rich to give to the poor) policy evil? When is it good? For
what policies?
In just a few days I'll be in the middle of a conference
hearing about "How Christians Will Change the Future". I hope
it won't be just another conference where people attend get
oooohed and aaaaahed during the event but basically remain the
same afterward. I hope it does have a lasting effect. We
sure do need mature Christians to reshape and redirect our
future (culture).
In years past, I would have used a concordance and a paper
Bible to refresh my memory of these quoted Bible verses.
Tonight I just used my Olive Tree Bible and software on my
cell phone. Technology doesn't really change the core values
or issues within a culture it only provides us better tools.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Is Biblical Macro-Economics an Oxymoron?
Our church holds weekly Men's Bible studies. We usually have
a layman-led _Man in the Mirror_ video-taped lesson taught by
their founder, Patrick Morley. Patrick has been successful
teaching men for over 30 years. As with many similar
organizations, economic lessons have been popular recently.
When applied to individuals and groups the Bible offers much
wisdom: avoid debt, don't cheat, live within less than 80% of
income (don't covet) giving at least 10% back to God and
saving at least 10%. Dave Ramsey has made a fortune teaching
these straight-forward Biblical principles. But, _Man in the
Mirror_ follows the politically-correct secularist view when
it comes to macro-economics. I have heard it time and again.
"We don't live in a Theocracy anymore." "Old Testament
Judicial (national civil) law is invalid."
What biblical exegesis is offered for this opinion?
Seriously, I don't think there is any. A few months back
Patrick found himself on an airplane sitting next to the
U.S. congressman, Ric Keller. Ric asked Patrick for advice on
decisions he needed to make concerning economic stimulus
"bailout" bills he needed to vote on. Patrick, said "I can't
offer any advice at all for you on this." Granted, Patrick
may not be personally knowledgeable with respect to
macro-economics from a biblical perspective but over the 30
years of teaching men on a national scale, certainly he would
know a bank president, CPA, or other financial expert who
consciously wants to place God and the Bible as the authority
in their profession; someone who would or should know the
answer. No, Patrick didn't have a person, book, author, or
web-site to direct Ric toward. He didn't even accept this as
a challenge: what does the Bible say about macro-economics?
Even though no exegesis is offered there is no stopping
unbiblical teaching in this area. In a later lesson, "What
Jesus has to say about the Old Testament", Patrick says "He
[Jesus Christ] fulfills the judicial law with His
resurrection. If you were to look in I Peter 2:9 and 10 you
would find that the church is God's new nation. We don't live
in a theocracy anymore, we live in the church ...." Just a
few questions shows his confusion of church authority with
civil authority. Why is murder a civil crime if we don't live
in a nation anymore but in the church? Did the New Testament
church negate the political governments in their day? I asked
Patrick for clarification or a biblical exegesis of this
opinion since it contradicts the one I have read by Dr. Greg
Bahnsen found in _Theonomy in Christian Ethics_. I encouraged
him to contact a seminary professor who would and could answer
the question. I got the usual cold shoulder - dead silence.
Patrick and others like him, such as Dr. Richard Land of the
Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission
(ERLC), think they have the upper hand in terms of numbers.
In _The Divided States of America_ Richard Land identifies the
dominionists (reconstructionists) as the "loony fringe"; those
who actually have a biblical exegesis which shows the Bible
does have something to say about macro-economics. There is a
biblical parallel. That generation of Israelites who left
Egypt for the promised land also thought they had the upper
hand in terms of numbers. Indeed, it was the entire nation of
Israel vs Joshua, Caleb, Moses, and maybe Aaron and Mirium.
God answered the revolting majority by swallowing the leader
of the revolt, Korah, in an earthquake. In 1984, after the
United States had abandoned biblical macro-economics
over 50 years earlier, Dr. Gary North wrote in
_Inherit the Earth -- Biblical Principles of Economics_ "we
are self-consciously firing the opening shot. We are calling
the whole Christian community to join with us in a very
serious debate, just as Luther called them to debate him when
he nailed the 95 theses to the church door, over four and a
half centuries ago. It is through such an exchange of ideas
by those who take the Bible seriously that a nation and a
civilization can be saved." What's the result? In the 25 years
since, not much. Thus, The economic earthquake Gary and
others have predicted for quite some time is about to swallow
us all.
However, not all is lost. God always saves a remnant. See
http://www.thegreatreversal.com/ to find out how the
remnant may instigate "the great reversal".
a layman-led _Man in the Mirror_ video-taped lesson taught by
their founder, Patrick Morley. Patrick has been successful
teaching men for over 30 years. As with many similar
organizations, economic lessons have been popular recently.
When applied to individuals and groups the Bible offers much
wisdom: avoid debt, don't cheat, live within less than 80% of
income (don't covet) giving at least 10% back to God and
saving at least 10%. Dave Ramsey has made a fortune teaching
these straight-forward Biblical principles. But, _Man in the
Mirror_ follows the politically-correct secularist view when
it comes to macro-economics. I have heard it time and again.
"We don't live in a Theocracy anymore." "Old Testament
Judicial (national civil) law is invalid."
What biblical exegesis is offered for this opinion?
Seriously, I don't think there is any. A few months back
Patrick found himself on an airplane sitting next to the
U.S. congressman, Ric Keller. Ric asked Patrick for advice on
decisions he needed to make concerning economic stimulus
"bailout" bills he needed to vote on. Patrick, said "I can't
offer any advice at all for you on this." Granted, Patrick
may not be personally knowledgeable with respect to
macro-economics from a biblical perspective but over the 30
years of teaching men on a national scale, certainly he would
know a bank president, CPA, or other financial expert who
consciously wants to place God and the Bible as the authority
in their profession; someone who would or should know the
answer. No, Patrick didn't have a person, book, author, or
web-site to direct Ric toward. He didn't even accept this as
a challenge: what does the Bible say about macro-economics?
Even though no exegesis is offered there is no stopping
unbiblical teaching in this area. In a later lesson, "What
Jesus has to say about the Old Testament", Patrick says "He
[Jesus Christ] fulfills the judicial law with His
resurrection. If you were to look in I Peter 2:9 and 10 you
would find that the church is God's new nation. We don't live
in a theocracy anymore, we live in the church ...." Just a
few questions shows his confusion of church authority with
civil authority. Why is murder a civil crime if we don't live
in a nation anymore but in the church? Did the New Testament
church negate the political governments in their day? I asked
Patrick for clarification or a biblical exegesis of this
opinion since it contradicts the one I have read by Dr. Greg
Bahnsen found in _Theonomy in Christian Ethics_. I encouraged
him to contact a seminary professor who would and could answer
the question. I got the usual cold shoulder - dead silence.
Patrick and others like him, such as Dr. Richard Land of the
Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission
(ERLC), think they have the upper hand in terms of numbers.
In _The Divided States of America_ Richard Land identifies the
dominionists (reconstructionists) as the "loony fringe"; those
who actually have a biblical exegesis which shows the Bible
does have something to say about macro-economics. There is a
biblical parallel. That generation of Israelites who left
Egypt for the promised land also thought they had the upper
hand in terms of numbers. Indeed, it was the entire nation of
Israel vs Joshua, Caleb, Moses, and maybe Aaron and Mirium.
God answered the revolting majority by swallowing the leader
of the revolt, Korah, in an earthquake. In 1984, after the
United States had abandoned biblical macro-economics
over 50 years earlier, Dr. Gary North wrote in
_Inherit the Earth -- Biblical Principles of Economics_ "we
are self-consciously firing the opening shot. We are calling
the whole Christian community to join with us in a very
serious debate, just as Luther called them to debate him when
he nailed the 95 theses to the church door, over four and a
half centuries ago. It is through such an exchange of ideas
by those who take the Bible seriously that a nation and a
civilization can be saved." What's the result? In the 25 years
since, not much. Thus, The economic earthquake Gary and
others have predicted for quite some time is about to swallow
us all.
However, not all is lost. God always saves a remnant. See
http://www.thegreatreversal.com/ to find out how the
remnant may instigate "the great reversal".
Friday, February 27, 2009
My Oklahoma house representative has proposed a bill to allow a privately funded 10-Commandments granite monument be placed on the state capitol grounds. Even in a red state like Oklahoma it has drawn vocal opposition crying "separation of church and state". The press has been fair in its reporting. No taxpayer money is involved. Representative Dr. Mike Ritze said he wants Oklahomans to be reminded of our historical roots but is their more of a motive? Several have asked that in their letters to our local papers. I wondered too. Here is my letter to our local paper, The Broken Arrow Ledger.
What is it that directs our actions?
If you remember _Braveheart_ and Mel Gibson's character, William Wallace, shouting "FREEDOM" with his last breath as he was tortured to death you get my meaning. What is this inner part, conscience, heart, or sole, of a person which dictates nearly every action he takes? Actions of one rise up in opposition to what is strongly believed evil or at least wrong action in others. As the napkin fell out of Mel's hand, we understood William Wallace's action in opposition to the English because of their rape and murder of not just any innocent victim but his own wife. To William this wasn't just a crime of English people, but a crime of civil English law which said such action was legal. Mel, as director, got his point across. Righteous indignation leading to action opposing civil evil was worth fighting, and yes even dying, for.
Why does House Congressman Dr. Ritze want to place a 10-Commandments monument outside the State Capitol building? I think his intent is fairly presented by our media. But why would he want this reminder of the Christian history of our state and nation so close to civil courtrooms? He freely admits there is no *legal* civil relevance today. Is he out to get a reaction from those who disagree? Is he simply wanting some kind of public debate on this?
I say, let's go. Righteous indignation against this proposed law is deserved. The state (capitol building) needs to remain separated from the church (God's 10 Commandments). History was then. Today is now and now people behave civilly one toward another not because of God's 10 Commandments but because of -- something else.
All is not lost if Ritze's bill becomes law and passes judicial muster. The path will have been cleared. One may propose other granite monuments at no taxpayer expense of one's own version of the 10 Commandments, or whatever else one believes defines (or should define) the civil conscience of a people.
In the process, one may come to believe True Christianity has no reasonable rivals. Perhaps this is Dr. Ritze's real intent?
What is it that directs our actions?
If you remember _Braveheart_ and Mel Gibson's character, William Wallace, shouting "FREEDOM" with his last breath as he was tortured to death you get my meaning. What is this inner part, conscience, heart, or sole, of a person which dictates nearly every action he takes? Actions of one rise up in opposition to what is strongly believed evil or at least wrong action in others. As the napkin fell out of Mel's hand, we understood William Wallace's action in opposition to the English because of their rape and murder of not just any innocent victim but his own wife. To William this wasn't just a crime of English people, but a crime of civil English law which said such action was legal. Mel, as director, got his point across. Righteous indignation leading to action opposing civil evil was worth fighting, and yes even dying, for.
Why does House Congressman Dr. Ritze want to place a 10-Commandments monument outside the State Capitol building? I think his intent is fairly presented by our media. But why would he want this reminder of the Christian history of our state and nation so close to civil courtrooms? He freely admits there is no *legal* civil relevance today. Is he out to get a reaction from those who disagree? Is he simply wanting some kind of public debate on this?
I say, let's go. Righteous indignation against this proposed law is deserved. The state (capitol building) needs to remain separated from the church (God's 10 Commandments). History was then. Today is now and now people behave civilly one toward another not because of God's 10 Commandments but because of -- something else.
All is not lost if Ritze's bill becomes law and passes judicial muster. The path will have been cleared. One may propose other granite monuments at no taxpayer expense of one's own version of the 10 Commandments, or whatever else one believes defines (or should define) the civil conscience of a people.
In the process, one may come to believe True Christianity has no reasonable rivals. Perhaps this is Dr. Ritze's real intent?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)