March 2005 and we are bombarded with comments, suggestions and hints regarding who will battle for the President of the United States in November 2008. We are three and half years away from voting! President Bush has nearly four years left of administration. He has a far reaching, aggressive agenda. We really should be dominated by the careful scrutinizing of the presidents policies and plans, not focused on who might do what in 3 years. But that isn’t reality in American politics, is it?
So who might run for the GOP nomination? Rudolph Guliani, a pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, social moderate? John McCain, a renegade, make-a-name-for-myself, self-styled, fiscal conservative? Tom DeLay, a purported conservative Christian who as blameless as Vito Corleone? Dr. Bill Frist, (now we are talking) a quiet, behind the scenes, tough negotiator, a fiscal conservative with an aggressive bent towards foreign policy!
All road appear at this point to be leading to the ever popular Dr. Condoleeza Rice, Secretary of State. Dr. Rice is very diplomatic, aggressively conservative in foreign policy, and genuinely an expert in the region of the world that currently requires most of our foreign policy attention. She has a far reaching network of trusted advisors. She is academic, yet down to earth. She claims to be a born again Christian and her outwardly displayed fruits appear to back that claim. Admittedly, I do not know much about her domestic policy, specifically in regards to fiscal concerns (which incidentally is a major concern to me with the current administration). However, what I do know about her social policies is very disheartening.
Dr. Rice appeared with the ever smug Tim Russert on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday March 13. After making light work of Mr. Russert’s pointed questions regarding, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Iraq, and poppy in Afghanistan, she waffled on a vital social question of our day. Observe:
MR. RUSSERT: You told the Washington Times on Friday you were mildly pro-choice. What does that mean?
DR. RICE: It means that like many Americans I find the issue of abortion very difficult. I believe it ought to be as rare as possible. Nobody wants to see anyone go through that. I favor parental notification. I favor a ban on late-term abortion. But I, myself, am not a fan of the government intervening in the laws.
MR. RUSSERT: You would not outlaw it?
DR. RICE: No.
You can read the whole context at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7173024/.
When I heard Dr. Rice admit, without any hesitation at all, that she would not seek to outlaw the brutal practice of abortion, she lost my vote and all my support for the presidency. She is and will continue to be a very good Secretary of State, serving under the authority and administration of President Bush; however, I cannot support her as a presidential nominee.
But I must say that her response was not at all surprising. It is the prevalent mantra of the socially moderate and left leaning American. “It is a difficult issue.” “It should be as rare as possible.” When is murder a difficult issue? Rare? That’s like saying domestic abuse should be rare. The goal is the eradication of such brutal crimes, not a decrease in their occurrence. Dr. Rice went on to say that she doesn’t favor the “government intervening in the laws.” Is that not the God-ordained and constitutionally dictated role of the government? Isn’t that what the Congress is supposed to do? Article !, Section 8 of the constitution specifically state that the Congress “shall have Power to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States.”
Someone should remind Dr. Rice of the Powers given to the Congress by the Constitution.
In reality, this is all irrelevant. We do not need the Congress to pass a law to ban murder. The laws regarding murder are already on the books. There never has been a law that makes abortion legal. There was an overreaching, legislative decision made by the Supreme Court that excused murder in the case of a child that is yet unborn. But there in no law originating in Congress (as the Constitution requires) for the legalization of murdering unborn humans. By calling abortion legal, we are buying in to the radical thought the judges can legislate from the bench. I just paused to reread Article III of the Constitution (that would be the section defining the role of the judiciary, in case you were unfortunate enough to attend one of most government schools that don’t teach our constitution anymore). The role of judges is not to make law. In fact it is not even to interpret law. The role of the judiciary is judicial. Profound? The Judicial branch the American government is called to enforce existing law. Our Supreme Court went beyond that reach by failing to enforce what had been the law of this land for 200 years. In fact, murder continues to be against any law in this country. We just don’t have a judiciary that will enforce the law. We don’t have legislature with enough will to exercise their Constitutional responsibilities.
I hope someone reminds Dr. Rice that our laws specifically forbid murder, including unborn humans. It is in fact the job of the government to intervene in the law, whether she favors it or not.
I cannot support Dr. Rice for President on the grounds that she fails to be willing to enforce the existing laws of the land and fails to recognize the right of all humans, even those as of yet unborn.
Let us pray that God will send a leader to our great land that has the wherewithal to lead, according to laws of the Constitution.
Grace to you!
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Monday, March 14, 2005
Social Security... is that the government's job?
President Bush has given Social Security “reform” the starring role in his domestic policy this year. He has a long road ahead of him to gain the needed support from his own party, let alone across the aisle. The President has crisscrossed the country pitching his plan for reforming the half-century old socialist hand out, all the while insisting that central to any long term reform would be partial privatization.
All the talk about Social Security leaves out one major part of the discussion. Should the government be controlling my retirement? Should this be included in the scope of government’s jurisdiction? Do you think our Founding Fathers had in mind a government so involved in the private lives of Americans that they demand we put aside money for retirement, in a government run “trust” account no less? Even the Federalist founders, such as Adams and Hamilton, that did have a broader idea of a stronger, federal government than did Washington, Jefferson and Monroe, had no thought a government as far reaching as FDR’s massive social programs that forever redefined the role of the American government, not the least of which was Social Security.
I don’t think it was in the scope of the God’s design for human government either. Romans 13.1-5 outlines some specific responsibilities of a God ordained government.
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.” (ESV)
This passage outlines only two responsibilities of a government. A God-ordained civil government (and they all are, no matter how evil – see verse 1 above), is called to encourage good and punish evil. That’s it! Verse 3 says that when we do good, we will receive the government's approval. When we do evil, we should be very afraid, for the government is given the responsibility to carry out the wrath of God with the “sword.” Earlier in this context (12.17-19) we are told not to take revenge on behalf of ourselves, trusting God to mete out His own vengeance. The means God uses to carry out that vengeance is civil government (13.4).
So in this limited scope of governmental responsibilities, where do we find a call to manage my mandatory retirement account? Is there a call for the government to craft a society that experiences parity in social status by taxing at a much higher percentage those who make more money and giving it out in social programs to those who make less? Is that the God ordained role of government? Is that even the role of government as designed by our Founding Fathers? Then again, there are gone and we know God’s will is not on the reference list for today’s politicians. So this is all irrelevant!
One final thought before I beg for your comments. If President Bush really believes that privatization is the savior of the social security program, why no go all the way? Why is he only proposing to “allow” us to personally invest 4% of our income? Notice the fancy language? It is as though we are getting some special privilege. We are still going to be forced by Uncle Sam (or should I say, Big Brother) to invest 4% of our income into a retirement plan and put an addition 8% or so into the big government pot so they can redistribute the wealth.
Don’t misunderstand me. I think it is wise, biblical stewardship for all of us to be saving, for emergencies now and life in the future. It is common sense, Christian living principles that should drive us to be good stewards of what we have. Joseph gave us a good example in saving during the seven fat years to survive during the seven lean years. But is it the role of the government to force me to do and then actually (poorly) manage those required accounts.
I would appreciate your comments. It is very important for us to have a biblical worldview that allows us to accurately interpret the news of the day.
Grace to you!
All the talk about Social Security leaves out one major part of the discussion. Should the government be controlling my retirement? Should this be included in the scope of government’s jurisdiction? Do you think our Founding Fathers had in mind a government so involved in the private lives of Americans that they demand we put aside money for retirement, in a government run “trust” account no less? Even the Federalist founders, such as Adams and Hamilton, that did have a broader idea of a stronger, federal government than did Washington, Jefferson and Monroe, had no thought a government as far reaching as FDR’s massive social programs that forever redefined the role of the American government, not the least of which was Social Security.
I don’t think it was in the scope of the God’s design for human government either. Romans 13.1-5 outlines some specific responsibilities of a God ordained government.
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.” (ESV)
This passage outlines only two responsibilities of a government. A God-ordained civil government (and they all are, no matter how evil – see verse 1 above), is called to encourage good and punish evil. That’s it! Verse 3 says that when we do good, we will receive the government's approval. When we do evil, we should be very afraid, for the government is given the responsibility to carry out the wrath of God with the “sword.” Earlier in this context (12.17-19) we are told not to take revenge on behalf of ourselves, trusting God to mete out His own vengeance. The means God uses to carry out that vengeance is civil government (13.4).
So in this limited scope of governmental responsibilities, where do we find a call to manage my mandatory retirement account? Is there a call for the government to craft a society that experiences parity in social status by taxing at a much higher percentage those who make more money and giving it out in social programs to those who make less? Is that the God ordained role of government? Is that even the role of government as designed by our Founding Fathers? Then again, there are gone and we know God’s will is not on the reference list for today’s politicians. So this is all irrelevant!
One final thought before I beg for your comments. If President Bush really believes that privatization is the savior of the social security program, why no go all the way? Why is he only proposing to “allow” us to personally invest 4% of our income? Notice the fancy language? It is as though we are getting some special privilege. We are still going to be forced by Uncle Sam (or should I say, Big Brother) to invest 4% of our income into a retirement plan and put an addition 8% or so into the big government pot so they can redistribute the wealth.
Don’t misunderstand me. I think it is wise, biblical stewardship for all of us to be saving, for emergencies now and life in the future. It is common sense, Christian living principles that should drive us to be good stewards of what we have. Joseph gave us a good example in saving during the seven fat years to survive during the seven lean years. But is it the role of the government to force me to do and then actually (poorly) manage those required accounts.
I would appreciate your comments. It is very important for us to have a biblical worldview that allows us to accurately interpret the news of the day.
Grace to you!
I'm back... and Coming soon...
This blog has been silent for nearly two weeks. It doesn't seem that long, but indeed it has been. Two weeks ago, as I mentioned in my last post, I was in Los Angeles for a pastor's conference at Grace Community Church. It was excellent. I was encouraged, challenged, convicted and reinvigorated to faithfully carry out my duties as a shepherd. Much more will be said regarding this conference in coming posts.
Last week I was in Chicago all week. I took a group of students from our college ministry here at the church to be involved with Inner City Impact, an urban youth ministry located in the Logan Square and Humbolt Park areas of Chicago. It was a very eyes opening experience that was challenging and encouraging. The work being done their by B.J. Bechtel and the staff is unbelievable. Take a moment to check out their website - www.innercityimpact.org I will write more about this trip in the near future as well.
COMING SOON
Articles that are currently rolling around in my head that have not yet made it out my fingers...
1. Condi for President?
... wanna hear my answer? You probably won't like it.
2. The Foolishness of the Cross
... evangelistic implication of 1 Cor 1.18-31
3. Social Security ... or Social Engineering?
4. Safe in the Hood
... is the church as secure a place as an inner city gang?
PLEASE COMMENT
A large part of my goal with this Blog was to be sharpened by you, the readers. That only happens when you respond to my comments. Good, bad or indifferent, at least share your initial comments so we can encourage and sharpen one another.
Grace to You!
Last week I was in Chicago all week. I took a group of students from our college ministry here at the church to be involved with Inner City Impact, an urban youth ministry located in the Logan Square and Humbolt Park areas of Chicago. It was a very eyes opening experience that was challenging and encouraging. The work being done their by B.J. Bechtel and the staff is unbelievable. Take a moment to check out their website - www.innercityimpact.org I will write more about this trip in the near future as well.
COMING SOON
Articles that are currently rolling around in my head that have not yet made it out my fingers...
1. Condi for President?
... wanna hear my answer? You probably won't like it.
2. The Foolishness of the Cross
... evangelistic implication of 1 Cor 1.18-31
3. Social Security ... or Social Engineering?
4. Safe in the Hood
... is the church as secure a place as an inner city gang?
PLEASE COMMENT
A large part of my goal with this Blog was to be sharpened by you, the readers. That only happens when you respond to my comments. Good, bad or indifferent, at least share your initial comments so we can encourage and sharpen one another.
Grace to You!
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Trying Not to Make and Idol
I write today sitting in the courtyard of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, CA! That's right! The church where my greatest theological and ministry influence shepherds. I am tremendously privileged to be at the Grace Church Shepherds Conference. Dr. MacArthur spoke this morning, giving us an introduction to a study of Jude - THE LONG HARD BATTLE FOR THE TRUTH. Unbelievable. I am trying not to sound like the proverbial "kid in a candy store," but let's face it... I am in the "Mecca" of fundamental Christendom.
Picture a 30 year old man. He has 8 years of marriage and 8 years of pastoral ministry under his belt. Still learning, but no spring chicken. He fathers 3 children. He is part of a an incredibly gifted pastoral staff. He is a level headed young man, most of the time. He would like to think of himself as fairly mature. Now... place this man right in the center of his greatest spiritual mentors, the men, who through their writings and teachings, have most influenced his thinking and practices. This same man who is usually level headed and mature is like a little leaguer standing in Yankee Stadium with Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Pedro Martinez and some of the other major league greats. The only thing greater for this little slugger would be to bring back the greats of yesteryear such as Babe Ruth or Cy Young. That is me. I am trying to keep my composure. But I am in the midst of John MacArthur, Al Mohler, R.C. Sproul and Phil Johnson. The only thing to make it better would be if we could bring Jonathan Edwards, Martin Luther or C.H. Spurgeon back from the ministry of yesteryear .
God has blessed me today in a special, certianly undeserved way, to be in the presence of such godly, Christ centered, Word exalting men this week, not the least of which is my own pastor Philip DeCourcy. What an honor to learn from these men!
Grace to You!
Picture a 30 year old man. He has 8 years of marriage and 8 years of pastoral ministry under his belt. Still learning, but no spring chicken. He fathers 3 children. He is part of a an incredibly gifted pastoral staff. He is a level headed young man, most of the time. He would like to think of himself as fairly mature. Now... place this man right in the center of his greatest spiritual mentors, the men, who through their writings and teachings, have most influenced his thinking and practices. This same man who is usually level headed and mature is like a little leaguer standing in Yankee Stadium with Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Pedro Martinez and some of the other major league greats. The only thing greater for this little slugger would be to bring back the greats of yesteryear such as Babe Ruth or Cy Young. That is me. I am trying to keep my composure. But I am in the midst of John MacArthur, Al Mohler, R.C. Sproul and Phil Johnson. The only thing to make it better would be if we could bring Jonathan Edwards, Martin Luther or C.H. Spurgeon back from the ministry of yesteryear .
God has blessed me today in a special, certianly undeserved way, to be in the presence of such godly, Christ centered, Word exalting men this week, not the least of which is my own pastor Philip DeCourcy. What an honor to learn from these men!
Grace to You!
Removing Responsibility ... Again!
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday (Monday, Feb 28) in a tight decision (5-4), it is unconstitutional to exercise capital punishment for minors. In commenting for the majority Justice Kennedy stated the most Americans consider people under the age of 18 too young and impressionable to make decisions on their own, thus capital punishment would violate the constitutional prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment.” The decision has immediate consequences for around 70 minors currently on death row around the country.
I wonder what kind of message that our high court is sending the youth of our country. What will be the results of telling minors that they will not be held to the rule of law? Now, I understand that there will still be other consequences should a teenager break the law. But in reality, does not this ruling, unintentional as it may be, communicate a certain free reign for our youth? Is that really a healthy message to be sending America’s teenagers, who already have little sense of self control and personal responsibility? Our culture goes out of its way to invent excuses for inappropriate, even unlawful, behavior. “Newly discovered” behavioral disorder are introduced so fast, publications cannot keep up with them, let alone parents, pastors, teachers or counselors who accept the responsibility to guide the development of these youth. Incidentally, these disorders are “diagnosed” only by their presented symptoms and have no physiological characteristics. They simply become excuses that lead to hopeless despair. Consider two ways to approach a consistently disobedient child.
One: Tell him he has a disorder called Attention Deficit – Hyperactivity Disorder. Give him a high dose of Ritalin and tell him to go on with his routine.
Two: Define his disobedience as rebellion. Explain the consequences of that rebellion. Help him establish a healthy routine of increasing his attention span, controlling his mind, which will enable him to control his actions, and developing a respect for the various authority figures in his life. When the rebellion persists, the consequences are graciously, but consistently doled out.
Which situation will have the better long term effect? Of course, that may actually be part of the problem. We do not want to do the hard work it takes to create a long term fix. We want quick obedience, slavish actually. We want to go about our business and make our life easy. We do not take time to invest in the life of others (not even our own children) with the aim of long term emotional, physical, spiritual maturity.
God speaks to this type of catering to the flesh and short term, quick fixes that hide the heart issues that drive choices. Galatians 6.7,8: “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.”
Let us be about the business in our lives and in the lives that we have the opportunity to shape, of sowing the those things which are eternal. There will be consequences for choices, let us not make light of these, but hold ourselves and other to the high standards of the rule of law, and more importantly, the Law of God.
Thanks to our Supreme Court, today we have it even harder to explain that “Yes! There are consequences to your actions!”
Remember... we must examine the news of the day in light a biblical worldview.
Grace to You!
I wonder what kind of message that our high court is sending the youth of our country. What will be the results of telling minors that they will not be held to the rule of law? Now, I understand that there will still be other consequences should a teenager break the law. But in reality, does not this ruling, unintentional as it may be, communicate a certain free reign for our youth? Is that really a healthy message to be sending America’s teenagers, who already have little sense of self control and personal responsibility? Our culture goes out of its way to invent excuses for inappropriate, even unlawful, behavior. “Newly discovered” behavioral disorder are introduced so fast, publications cannot keep up with them, let alone parents, pastors, teachers or counselors who accept the responsibility to guide the development of these youth. Incidentally, these disorders are “diagnosed” only by their presented symptoms and have no physiological characteristics. They simply become excuses that lead to hopeless despair. Consider two ways to approach a consistently disobedient child.
One: Tell him he has a disorder called Attention Deficit – Hyperactivity Disorder. Give him a high dose of Ritalin and tell him to go on with his routine.
Two: Define his disobedience as rebellion. Explain the consequences of that rebellion. Help him establish a healthy routine of increasing his attention span, controlling his mind, which will enable him to control his actions, and developing a respect for the various authority figures in his life. When the rebellion persists, the consequences are graciously, but consistently doled out.
Which situation will have the better long term effect? Of course, that may actually be part of the problem. We do not want to do the hard work it takes to create a long term fix. We want quick obedience, slavish actually. We want to go about our business and make our life easy. We do not take time to invest in the life of others (not even our own children) with the aim of long term emotional, physical, spiritual maturity.
God speaks to this type of catering to the flesh and short term, quick fixes that hide the heart issues that drive choices. Galatians 6.7,8: “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.”
Let us be about the business in our lives and in the lives that we have the opportunity to shape, of sowing the those things which are eternal. There will be consequences for choices, let us not make light of these, but hold ourselves and other to the high standards of the rule of law, and more importantly, the Law of God.
Thanks to our Supreme Court, today we have it even harder to explain that “Yes! There are consequences to your actions!”
Remember... we must examine the news of the day in light a biblical worldview.
Grace to You!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)