Thinking About Palestine

I just got a forward from a friend saying HB1388 has passed. The text said the President signed an executive order concerning Palestinian refugees. This was another fishy smelling forward. If the House passed a bill, there would be no need for a Presidential executive order. I discovered that the hyperlink in this email is not to the official site of the Federal Register. Anytime you see a .com address, you can bet it is not a government site; they almost all end in .gov. In this case, the web site linked in the email apparently copies some of what goes into the real Federal Register which is found at www.federalregister.gov.

Turns out H.R. 1388 (notice the correct designation is H.R., not HB) is a bill to fund citizen service opportunities like Americorps, as far as I can tell. Nothing on the House website leads to any Palestinian refugees, unless they want to volunteer to clean up America or something. Google HB 1388 and you get dozens of hits about an email spoof about the aid for Palestinians. Funny thing is, I checked the real Federal Register and there is an executive order from February that does give $20million for refugees from Palestine.

Let's look briefly at the thorny issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Those who know me know that, generally speaking, if Obama's for it, I'm agin' it. In this case, I find myself torn because of the massive misinformation that has been floated our way by Christian Zionists (mainly) who wink at some plainly awful actions based on policies that would be detestable if they were from anywhere but Israel. Did you know, for example, that when Israel claimed its land in 1948 that they tossed out Arab Christians as well as Muslims? They stole their property and refused to let them take anything but the clothes they were wearing. Are you aware that even today, the official government policies in Israel treat Palestinians, Muslim or Christian, pretty much the same way the US treated blacks in the post-Civil War era -- that is until civil rights reform in the 1960's?

Jesus called Pharisees who ignored God's commands sons of the Devil. They claimed Abraham as their father, yet Jesus pointed to their hypocrisy and named their true generation. I remain unconvinced that the Israel of today is in line for God's blessing in the last days. If all of the promises of God are fulfilled in Christ, and if His kingdom is "not of this world, why are some Christians looking for a physical kingdom ruled from Jerusalem? Are supporters of Israel's right to Jerusalem on supposedly Biblical grounds making the same mistake as first century Jews? They looked for a physical king to set up a material kingdom in Jerusalem.

I know there is a religious component to the battle in the middle east. But I don't think Christians should be backing Israel without considering whether their actions are righteous. They certainly don't follow the principles in the Torah regarding the treatment of neighbors. How can anyone read the history of Israel in the Old Testament and think that God wants Christians to support Israel unconditionally? God's judgment always fell on His people eventually when they disregarded His commands. Should we "pray for the peace of Jerusalem?" Of course. But let's not walk with the priest and the Levite who passed by the injured man on the roadside. Jesus calls us to imitate the Samaritan.

Tax Revolt, Anyone?

I know history is not a popular subject, and most of us have probably forgotten everything we learned in tenth grade anyway. But, almost everyone should remember the reason the colonists revolted against English rule and founded this country. There were many causes, I know, but the central issue was taxation without representation. The Boston Tea Party was a demonstration against the government imposition of a burdensome tax on the colonists' staple beverage.

Anyone paying even a little attention to the news recently should see a parallel in the current debate about taxing soft drinks, the modern day equivalent of colonial tea. Granted, the government proposing this tax is our very own (supposedly,) yet one wonders if Washington D.C. isn't as far removed from its constituents as King George was from his. Does the average U.S. citizen have the ability to influence the thinking, let alone the actions of his representative holding the reigns of power? Has the ability to vote for a representative voice lost its value in America today?

Closer to home, the governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, has announced another cut in the state per child allotment to public schools. Her expression seemed pained as she spoke, and her plea to the legislature to find some way to reinstate the funds seemed genuine. But she made the cuts anyway. One wonders why the choice was made to cut school funding. The parents of school children have little power to influence Governor Granholm, but the Michigan Education Association certainly does. The MEA was one of Granholm's big supporters when she ran for office. They must regret that decision these days. Where is the influence they imagined they bought with their campaign contributions?

The last example of leadership disconnected from the people comes from my home county. A small school district is in financial trouble due to fiscal irresponsibility spanning many years. An outlandishly expensive new high school was built as a monument to a former superintendent, laying a debt burden on an already strapped budget. The current central administrative staff numbers four times as many as other county schools of comparable size, cronyism being the apparent explanation. The money spent on support versus instruction is the highest percentage in the county. Fearing state intervention because of budget shortfalls, the superintendent is making a unilateral attempt to close schools and lay off teachers, a move which has proved very unpopular with citizens. Here again, the people most directly effected feel powerless to do anything meaningful.

What is a concerned Christian citizen to do? Paul told his Roman audience to pay taxes to whom they were due. This, remember, was during the time of a government by a dictator who was violently persecuting believers. Paul's readers had no voice in their government like we do. First, no matter how much we dislike the policies of a federal, state or local government, we must assume that Paul's directive to the Romans applies to us today. We have every right to protest, but we must pay whatever taxes we owe. Period.

That doesn't mean we can't protest. Our form of government allows "tea parties" as long as they are civil. Our representative democracy also gives us a lever to pull in most cases. Our leverage, pun intended, with politicians is that we hired them and we can fire them as well. Most localities are getting ready to hold elections next month. Christians must not zone out during local elections. The mayor, councilmen and school board members have a more direct effect on daily life than most people in Washington D.C. Two years from now, those of us who are unhappy with the current crop of D.C. politicians will have the chance to dramatically alter the landscape there.

Finally, when decent Christians do run for office, we must support them any way we can. The Roman letter also commanded giving honor to whom honor is due. Let all concerned Christians honor those who are making the choice to work for a more representative government. If we don't get involved, we have no right to complain when we are taxed more heavily to pay for programs we disapprove of strenuously.

Family in Crisis

What is up with families in America? Aren't there any parents anywhere who actually know their kids and what they are up to? Two recent news items compel me to ask the questions. One is somewhat lighthearted with a happy ending; the other is tragic.

Item One: Yesterday the Fox News Network burned over two hours of continuous coverage of a bizarre tale. It seems that a six year old boy was thought to be in the basket of a helium weather balloon built by his storm-chaser dad. The balloon escaped from the youngster's back yard, allegedly with the boy in it. Helicopters followed the balloon for nearly fifty miles while various news personalities kept up a running commentary of mindless speculation.

When the balloon finally dropped safely back to earth, breathless chasers reported that the boy was not on board after all. Then the real search began, only to discover the boy had been back home in the attic of the garage. He supposedly presented himself innocently to his supposedly distraught parents in the living room where they waited for news about him. I say supposedly (twice) because later that night on Larry King's show, the six year old let slip that he had been hiding in the attic because, "You had said we did this for a show."

True enough, this atypical American family has been on a reality show twice, and the dad produces something on YouTube. My guess is that this was some kind of stunt, either planned by the whole family, or maybe perpetrated by two young boys who accidentally let their Dad's fancy balloon get away. Being accustomed to make-believe at a high level of production, the two boys might have enough smarts to pull off something like that.

Item Two: A mother of one of the Columbine High School murderers is breaking her silence. Dylan Klebold's Mom writes in an article coming in next month's Oprah Magazine, "From the writings Dylan left behind, criminal psychologists have concluded that he was depressed and suicidal. When I first saw copied pages of these writings, they broke my heart. I'd had no inkling of the battle Dylan was waging in his mind." I realize that teens think many things, perhaps fight many battles in their minds that their parents might miss. I raised three kids and we all got through the teen years alive, so I know whereof I speak. But I would pray to God that I would not be so blind as to miss the signs that my child was suicidal. (My grown-up kids may be reading this, so I am prepared to hear from them that I am wrong.)

My heart aches for Mrs. Klebold. I do not wish to add to her sorrow by suggesting that anything she and her husband did or did not do contributed to the tragedy. However, the reporting that came out soon after the incident revealed several clear indications that the boys were not doing well. My question is this: If Dylan had been at the supper table with his family every night; if he and his father had spent regular time together in common interests; if there had been no sanctuary where a teenage boy could stockpile weapons and ammunition, would the outcome have been different?

I don't know that either one of these families is Christian. If they are not, their behavior can not be judged by Scripture. They may simply be the product of our sad secular society. But for Christians, the lesson is stark. An old TV commercial used to ask, "It's eleven o'clock; do you know where you children are?" In a day when most teens have easy access to private transportation, the answer is more often than not, "No." Sadly, surveys of Christian homes reveal that few families sit together for even one meal a day. My experience as a Christian school teacher (and parent of teens) suggests that most teens spend several evenings per week in unsupervised travel with their peers.

The Apostle Paul instructs Ephesian parents to bring up children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. In Deuteronomy Moses asks parents to keep the law of God before their children when they come in and when they go out. I fear Christian parents in America are too much bedazzled by the culture of Madison Avenue and Hollywood when it comes to raising their children. Two simple steps could make a world of difference in the next generation: eat supper every night as a family (with meaningful conversation around the table,) and limit the amount of time and mileage teens get in the privacy of an automobile.

Is this an old-fashioned idea? Yup. And decidedly Biblical. To keep your kids away from balloons and bombs, crank up the stove and shut down the car. Ya think?

The Cross Controversy

Here we go again. The cross is in the news because the Supreme Court is taking another look at public display of religious symbols. In case you haven't caught this appearance, it stems from a lower court case involving a WWI memorial in the Mojave desert. Back in the 1930's some veterans erected the cross on a piece of public land. Recently, a park employee sued to get it removed because, you guessed it, it violates the church/state no-contact rule. At least that is what the ACLU is claiming on behalf of their client. (How did I know the ACLU was going to come up in this?)

I understand that if a cross appears on a steeple, the building underneath is expected to be a church (though not always true.) Yet if you are driving down a country road almost anywhere in the western hemisphere and see a plot of ground populated by crosses, you don't think religion, you think graveyard. What would a child in our culture use to mark that special spot in the backyard where the dear, departed goldfish was laid to rest if not a cross?


Still, even though the cross has devolved into a purely secular symbol when it comes to graves, the ACLU wants to have it banned in public places. Shouldn't they have the same concern for rainbows? The bow in the clouds is a significant Biblical symbol. For that matter, shouldn't the secular radicals be opposed to all forms of written communication? The Bible is a written revelation from God. Writing has been used for millenia as a part of religious training and ceremony. Will the ACLU soon be taking up a case against written words?


Okay, that's silly. (Isn't it?) There is something special about the cross as a symbol. The New Testament teaches that it will be a stumbling block to those who don't believe what it stands for. It represents an unmatched turning point in history. All of human endeavor looks either forward or back to the cross of Calvary. This is true whether or not each individual human recognizes the truth of the matter. It should not surprise thoughtful believers that the enemy would take special aim at this most critical symbol.


Lest you think this only effects crosses on public land, think again. Are you aware that when candidate Barak Obama spoke at a religious school, he asked that the cross behind the podium be removed or covered? He didn't mind appearing at a religious institution, but he refused to be seen standing beneath a cross. Were I the head of that school, I would have declined to host the candidate under those conditions. (The school in question acquiesced.)


Worst of all, many of this country's most liberal churches are removing the crosses from their buildings, outside and in. It is offensive, they claim. They are right. See the words of Jesus. It is supposed to be offensive. (Sorry, any PC advocates out there.) Sadder still, many less than liberal churches stopped preaching the cross quite some time ago. The message of the cross doesn't attract the seekers like Starbucks and homey devotional talks.


Yet Jesus was clear on this issue: "Take up your cross and follow me." One does not take up a cross to attend a comfortable social event. The cross to which Jesus referred was a device of torture and death. "Die to yourself, if you would live for me," was Jesus meaning. We desperately need that message to be preached in this society. The battle over the cross in the Mojave is really the continuing cosmic combat over the cross of Calvary. Take up your cross -- do your part in the battle -- where and when you find yourself called into service.

Rush Limgaugh's Big Mistake

Rush Limbaugh brags of being right over 98% of the time. I know it is part of his radio persona to be arrogant and egotistical, while people who know him personally say he is nothing like that. I also believe that the left would be less antagonistic if he weren't so abrasive. He is probably okay with that too, if for no other reason than their antagonism helps boost his ratings. I have always been a little put off by his radio character, but now I think Rush has gone too far. I think he is wrong in his approach to Barak Obama.

Rush Limbaugh, the radio personality, has begun to damage the integrity of the office of President of the United States, in my opinion. I suspect that Rush Limbaugh, the person, has nothing but the highest respect for the office. I started to be uncomfortable during Bill Clinton's term when Rush referred to the Oval Office as the orifice, a veiled reference to Clinton's disgraceful misuse of power. I can think of nothing about Bill Clinton that I respect, but his standing as President, his office, demands a certain level of decorum even if the man holding it does not.

Now, Rush Limbaugh, the radio personality, daily invents new ways to belittle Barak Obama. I agree entirely with the Limbaugh sentiment; President Barak Obama is an embarrassment to me as a republican (small "r") conservative. Our representative government must allow for the possibility that someone elected to represent the whole country will not please everyone in the country. Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems that in the past, Presidents have attempted to walk some kind of middle ground, especially in foreign contexts, in an effort to represent the whole country. This President, in arrogance exceeding even Mr. Limbaugh, apparently believes that being elected by less than half the country gives him a mandate to express his own personal views as if they belonged to the entire population of the United States.

So while I agree with Rush's opinion of Barak Obama generally, I think the radio persona has regressed into slander and ad hominem language that strikes at the root of political dialogue. By that I mean that American political dialogue is rooted in the belief that citizens can say pretty much what they think in most any context. Yet it has historically been understood that name calling for the sake of name calling is unappreciated by sincere, educated, supporters of civil discourse. Just because there have been instances in the past when people (usually candidates) have used hurtful, unsubstantiated personal attacks, this doesn't mean the practice is universally accepted.

The Bible admonishes us to use only words that are useful for building other people up, not tearing them down. While Rush Limbaugh doesn't openly discuss his religious preferences, I have taken enough hints over the years to know he respects the wisdom of the Bible. If he were to read this, I hope he would take note. It is not only his personal life I am concerned with, but his influence on public dialogue as a whole. If his descent into personal attacks on Barak Obama makes even a few of his listeners think it is acceptable, the office of President is again being disrespected and made smaller for the next occupant, hopefully someone who doesn't deserve a smaller office.

Michigan Healthcare Reform

The Michigan Education Association was getting all heated up last summer over a proposal by Michigan House Speaker Andy Dillon that would universalize public employees' health care. Mary Christian, MEA-Retired president was encouraging members to contact their state legislators to "express concern over such a drastic change in our current health plan." What was the drastic change? Dillon proposed placing teachers under the same insurance as other state employees.

The irony here is that the MEA is generally sold out completely to whatever the Democrats propose. Chuck Agerstrand, an MEA retirement consultant said in the same retirement report, "NEA supports health insurance reform that helps to guarantee that every person in America has quality, affordable heath care coverage." This is a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is writing, or else it is a blatant example of the double standard so often evident in progressive politics.

It sounds depressingly similar to the US Congress insisting on universal health care, but exempting themselves from the provisions of the bill they are ramming down Americans' throats. The teachers' union is all for universal health care as long as it doesn't involve giving up the benefits to which they have grown accustomed. Mary Christian's stated concern was, "State control over the health plan of public workers would strip local school districts...and their respective employees of the ability to make the right decisions regarding what is best for them." That sounds like precisely what the opponents of universal health care fear.

I wrote my opinion of universal health care in January. The short version of what I said then is that health care and the insurance which limits exposure by sharing the risk with our neighbors is an optional accessory to life. No one has an absolute right to a certain level of medical care. Were that the case, one must ask where such rights would end. If medical care is a right, then surely nutrition is as well; we should provide food for all our citizens. If nutrition is a right, then surely shelter is as well; we should provide housing for all our citizens. Since mobility is required to function in our sprawling communities, transportation of some sort should be provided for all our citizens.

But wait; haven't I just described the Great Society? Hasn't the progressive/liberal agenda been attempting to provide all such "rights" for half a century or more? And at what cost? The federal budget deficit now looms over our children and grand children so heavily that their prosperity is clearly doomed. The entitlement programs we have come to think of as standard equipment in life are sooner rather than later going to implode from their own weight. If California is any example of what liberal policies lead to, prepare for bankruptcy at all levels of government.

As I said in January, I am not deaf to the needs of the less fortunate; there but for the grace of God go I. What we often misunderstand is that the same Scripture which teaches us to care for the needy and infirm also says, "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." The MEA like most unions, like most of the progressive politicians wants a world where their version of equality is enforced by law. While the idea may sound good, even noble, it has been tried repeatedly throughout history and it never works. Socialism always fails because the sin that infects every human heart passes its contagion into the system rendering it useless to combat the very ills it seeks to address.

We don't need universal health care; we need universal soul care. We need a revival of the spirit which says, "I love my neighbor as myself." Jesus' words about the poor and needy were poignant, even harsh: "You always have the poor with you." Though He doubtless had the power, even the Son of God did not eradicate poverty or disease when He was walking the dusty roads of Palestine. The miraculous healings and feedings He did were merely tokens of what the true and final Kingdom of God will look like. Until that kingdom comes in its fullness, we need to do what Jesus recommended: we need to care for the wounded travelers who fall beside our own Jericho roads.

Six Day Creation

I am not sure if my hyper-analytical mind is a blessing or a curse. I can trace it's roots to my home growing up. Being right was prized above all else at my house. As I have carried this need to be right into the wider world, it has caused me no end of trouble. Over the years I have argued my way out of more jobs and relationships than I care to think about.

Another bothersome side effect of my need to be right all the time is a burning desire to get to the truth behind things. I have an almost neurotic compulsion to have clarity on every issue that floats onto the horizon of my awareness. This may explain in part why I have earned several college degrees which have no apparent practical value. It also explains why the ongoing debate about creation and evolution catches my interest. To my dismay, a recent Bible study brought the six day creation issue back onto my radar, and I am forced once again attempt to settle the issue for myself.

I say this dismays me because I have not been able to find the "right" answer, at least, not one that satisfies me. I think I have heard all the arguments made by the young earth, six literal days people. Sadly, none of them, nor the weight of them totalled is completely convincing. I am not going to debate the issue point by point here, but I am going to attempt to clarify my foggy view of it. I hope that in forcing my thoughts into written form I will discover a comfortable place to land, even though I know before I start, my position will not satisfy everyone.

If you are still following this, you probably are aware of at least the broad outlines of the issue. If not, I will offer a brief recap as I see it. Some Bible scholars insist that sincere readers of the Genesis account of creation must accept a wooden, literal interpretation of the words, or else risk losing all the ground supporting the authority of Scripture. Make the six days of creation anything but six twenty-four hour periods, they say, and you destroy the credibility of all that follows. Those who hold this position sincerely believe that all the rules of hermaneutics and logic are on their side. No one I have heard argue this point is a crackpot, nor does the camp following lack intellectual gravitas.

Still I think they are wrong on both the logical and interpretational fronts. I don't mean to say that they are wrong about the young earth implications or the span of time God covered during creation. The God I serve could have done the job in six twenty-four hour periods if He wished to do so. My beef with the six day literalists is that they insist their view is the only way to see creation and still believe everything else in Scripture. I would like to suggest two reasons why I think that God may not have intended us to read time into His creation account.

Let's look at the interpretational problem first. Because determining the genre of a written text is critical, it must be noted that Genesis is not a science text. God delivered the words to a very pre-scientific people; they were barely out of the stone age (bronze, maybe?) There is no evidence that God was trying to satisfy either Newtonian or Einsteinian physicists with the account He repeated to Moses. I believe Genesis is a credal statement. It outlines what is necessary to believe about the material universe and how the Creator is related to it. The account is dogma, teaching material, that reveals who is responsible for the creation and to whom the creation is responsible. The precise chronology and order of events may be exactly as recorded, or those aspects may be symbolic or ritualistic. Genesis was not intended to give us the "how" of creation, but the "who."

The literalists are fond of noting how many foundational doctrines are linked to Genesis, pointing out that even Jesus quoted from it several times. I could not agree more. One can not fully understand anything that flows from Genesis chapter three onward without firmly grasping the import of the creation narrative. I differ from the literalists in that I can accept a ritual or symbolic interpretation of Genesis chapters one and two and still hold firmly to the authority of the remainder of Scripture.

Did God create the universe? Yes. Did God create a literal Adam as a fully developed human, not an evolved animal? Yes. Did a literal Adam and Eve fall from grace through disobedience to God? Yes. Did all God's work in creation take 144 hours? Possibly. Or, just as possibly, God used the six plus one theme to set a standard for us to follow. He asks us to honor His right of ownership by devoting one day in six to Him, following the ritual pattern He laid out to Moses. This concept is so important to God that He included it in the ten most vital things He wanted us to know about our relationship with Him.

The second reason I choose to differ with the literalists is because they are not being consistent in their interpretation method. Inconsistency is ultimately a question of logic. I'm pretty sure all of the scholars I have heard defend the six day mantra also espouse pre-millenial eschatology. Coincidentally, defenders of this end times scenario also claim to be literalists. Yet when one tries to make sense of their argument, one must keep a friendly commentary close at hand to sort out just which passages or terms are actually literal and which figurative. The only consistency I have seen in their treatment is that they consistently choose a literal over a figurative reading except when only a figurative one will support their argument.

Two examples (there are hundreds) will illustrate what I mean. Apocalyptic literature is well laced with figurative language by its very nature. It also forms the core around which end times prophecy is built. Thus the literalists are bent up like pretzels trying to make sense of the figurative language. The interpretation of Daniel's vision by the angel in chapter 12 includes a timeline of a certain number of days. But the supposedly literal premillenial proponents insist that here days mean years. All the same markers exist in Daniel and Genesis, which should lead to a literal interpretation of days in Daniel, as in Genesis.

The second example I will note is in the twentieth chapter of Revelation, a cornerstone of apocalyptic literature for premillenials, the span of one thousand years is mentioned. It comes up in a passage so dripping with figurative language as to be almost surrealistic. Yet in this case, the premillenials pluck the number out of its context and demand a literal reading. This approach betrays a fundamental principle: Bible interpretation must remain consistent within the context. There is no logical reason to single out one aspect of a passage and apply different standards to it.

As I sit writing this, it is the first day of the week, the one day out of seven I choose to honor the Creator. I honor Him in this way in large part because He based His command to do so on the creation "week." I'm not even going to ask why the harsh literalists don't observe the sabbath as literally commanded (the sabbath being the seventh day, Saturday, not Sunday.) I believe everything about the redemption story as recorded in God's holy Word. Leaving open the meaning of the word "day" in Genesis' first chapter does nothing to hinder my complete acceptance of all Scripture as God-breathed and profitable in so many ways.

Neighborhood Reorganization

The other day Michelle said that until now (meaning until the age of Barak, I guess) people like her didn't have access to the White House. This sounds like her statement during the campaign when she said she had never been proud of America until the people recognized her husband's true potential. (That's my explanation of her statement.) She seems to be implying that they are the first to move into the neighborhood.

I am puzzled as to exactly what difference Michelle is seeing. Surely, this ivy league educated woman can't mean that people of color have not had access to the White House. She must know that Secretary of State Rice had both color and access. Ditto General Powell. She can't mean that those who agitate against the system have never had access; consider Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.

How does Michelle see the age of Barak as something new? I think she means (though she would never say) that no one who hates America has ever listed 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as their residence. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that no one with such complete disregard for the principles upon which America was founded has lived there. I can't see the hearts of Barak and Michelle, so "hate" may not be the right word.

One wonders, though, since Michelle and Barak spent twenty years listening to Pastor Wright, who preached consistently that America was so very wrong. "God damn America," would wake up most pew sitters, no matter how disinterested they had previously been. The Obamas were sincere enough about their faith (or the appearance thereof) to have Pastor Wright baptize their two girls. They were sincere enough about the mission of the church to donate $20,000 in one instance. (Although besides that one large gift, the Obamas are not so generous to charities.)

One wonders about whether "hate" might apply to the Obama heart when one considers the long term association with William Ayres. They worked with Mr. Ayres, socialized with him, held political events with him over a period of many years. Lest we too quickly forgive Bill Ayres for his anti-American past, we must read his recent statements that he has no regret over what he did in his past. Just remember the photo in a recent article showing him standing on the American flag.

A more subtle, but most telling association can be found in Barak's early interest in the radical Sol Olinsky. His book, Rules for Radicals, which young Barak read, seems to be forming the game plan for much of the new President's efforts. I am sure the Olinsky estate appreciates the newfound interest; the book is available on Amazon. Anyone curious about the mindset of someone who preaches social anarchy can read Olinsky and find direct links to the Obama technique.

But maybe Wright and Ayres and Olinsky hate America, and Michelle and Barak don't. Maybe down in their hearts they just want a different America. They want change; they told us that all through the long campaign to gain the White House. Maybe the people (we the people) have never been so disconnected from the founding fathers' vision. Maybe the entitlement mentality has only now infected enough minds for someone like the Obamas to rise to power. Maybe that is why no one like Barak and Michelle has been in the White House until now. Maybe things have changed. Maybe we won't know until 2010 whether the majority of the people are happy with the change.

Women in Church Leadership

Paul tells Timothy that women are not to have authority over men in the church because of a historical/ontological situation dating back to Genesis (I Timothy 2:12-14.) He does not cite cultural reasons, rather, he seems to be implying that the reason women are not to be in authority is rooted in the God-ordained differences in the roles of men and women, citing first the creation order (Adam was formed first) and then pointing out Eve’s deception by the serpent. If Paul’s concern were cultural as some infer, mentioning the place of women in 1st century society or even their separate seating arrangement (assuming they copied the Jewish synagogue,) he would not have needed to go to Genesis for his support. Were he interested in the cultural niceties, he could have used the arguments modern critics supply.

It is also interesting to note that the word translated “have authority over” is found no where else in the New Testament. The English words author and autocrat (those who act on their own authority) derive from the Greek word Paul chose. It also had rather severe connotations in early Greek writing, including the idea of murder or suicide and possibly sexual assault. Clearly, Paul used a word which implied domination or the usurpation of proper roles. In this light, it is easy to understand why Paul did not want women behaving in such a manner in the church. If one assumes that the proper role of women does not include leadership in the church, then Paul’s choice of this unusual word makes sense.

Support for the equality of women in church leadership is often drawn from another statement by Paul found in Galatians 3:28. In Galatians 3 the Apostle is emphasizing the oneness in Christ experienced by all those who come to Him in faith. As he compares three classes of believers, let us assume that parallels may be drawn between them. The first classes are Jews and Greeks. While his point in the preceding verses is well made that faith alone is the basis for salvation, he does well to point out that although he used the father of the Jews, Abraham, as his primary teaching example, in verse 28 he expands the concept of salvation by faith to Greeks (a code word for Gentiles or non-Jews.) It was not Abraham’s Jewishness which won God’s favor, but his faith. So to, Gentiles may achieve the same adoption as children of God through faith.
Likewise, Paul asserts a second pair of classes have similar advantages: bond and free. The bond to which Paul refers is clearly the economic slave of the first century, the Greek “doulos.” The free includes those who would be slave owners or masters. His point appears to be that faith places both slaves and masters in the same relationship with God, i.e. His adopted children. Since all Christians are slaves to Christ, the earthly distinction of master and slave (or freeman and slave) is erased in our heavenly position in Christ.

Finally, the third classes compared by Paul are male and female. Plainly, both men and women are brought into relationship with God through faith in Christ and they experience no distinction as spiritual children. All are one in Christ. And yet, we must see that the case Paul is arguing refers to believers’ position in Christ, and not their position in the world. One can not infer that the Jew relinquishes the benefits of his tradition. Although Paul himself regards his Jewish heritage as refuse compared to his knowledge of Christ, he nonetheless exalts the position of the Jews as bearers of the Scripture (Romans 3:2) and as the true olive tree onto which Gentiles are grafted (Romans 11:17) Similarly the slave remains in bondage to his human master because Paul never counsels him to break free of his earthly chains. On the contrary, slaves are told to continue to work respectfully for their masters. The slave, Onesimus, is sent by Paul back to his master, Philemon, to complete his servitude. Masters are never commanded to free their slaves. The earthly condition is not annulled by being in Christ.

If we are to maintain hermeneutical integrity, we can not assume that Paul meant to equate male and female in an earthly, societal sense, much less an ecclesiastical one. Jews and Greeks continue in their different cultural settings; slaves and masters stay deferentially related; male and female believers still operate under the constrictions of their ordained positions. Husbands remain the heads of their wives; men continue as the only appropriate leaders of the church.
It is for this reason that Paul can say, “The head of every man is Christ; the head of every woman the man; the head of Christ is God.” (I Corinthians 11:3.) It is noteworthy that in this context Paul again uses the creation order to support his position. The woman, he says in verses eight and nine, is created both of and for the man. By verse eleven he echoes his Galatian proposition that in the Lord, they are on similar footing: co-dependent, one might say. While men and women share a dependency on one another and upon God, there remains a distinction in marriage and in matters of church polity and practice. Headship does not grow out of cultural norms, but of created order.

Another argument for placing women in authority in the church is often drawn from the multitude of women reported in ministry in the New Testament. No one can deny that women are to be found in ministry, as well they should be. Every believer is given a ministry by the Holy Spirit upon his or her initiation into the family of God. Every believer receives a spiritual gift (I Corinthians 12:11;) every gift implies a ministry. Men and women alike are to minister in the body of Christ. The fact remains that there are no clear references to women in leadership roles in the New Testament or the early church fathers. If one assumes that the Holy Spirit was giving leadership gifts to women starting in the first century, then one would expect to find countless examples of women elders and pastors in the historical church literature. Such examples do not exist. The fact that a strong push for women in leadership did not arise until after the advent of the women’s liberation movement in the 20th century leads to suspicion that it is a recent idea and a safe conclusion that few if any women were called into leadership in the early church.

It is not from a lack of respect for women that some teach that they should not hold positions of authority in the church, but from a greater respect for the teachings of Scripture. If the biblical proscription of women leaders were cultural, one could argue that modern attitudes toward women trump Paul’s concerns. In fact Paul does not argue from the cultural order, but from the creation order. God saw a need to place men and women in the roles of head and helper respectively as recorded in Genesis chapter two. Sin, making its deadly entrance in chapter three did not create the roles, although it may have distorted God’s perfect purpose for them. Whatever his reasons for the roles, whether we can fathom them or not, our Creator’s design takes precedence over His creature’s desires.

The Fall as Death

I have become increasingly disturbed by the number of Christian authors and church leaders who express a muddled view of Biblical salvation. It is no wonder then, that the average person in the pew is confused as well. Semi-Pelagians will disagree with my Augustinian view of God’s sovereign role in the process. However, if we can agree to respectfully disagree on that issue, there remains a common need to be clear about the true plight of fallen humans and the real nature of sin.

Michael Wittmer’s book, Don’t Stop Believing: Why Living Like Jesus Is Not Enough proposes to answer some of the controversial questions of our day. By way of explaining his approach to the issues the author says, “But the most basic question, the one which determines to a large extent how we answer the others, is whether people are good or bad.” I believe statements like this one of Wittmer’s are misleading.

There is a more basic question than Wittmer asks. Goodness and badness are relative terms needing a standard from which to evaluate behavior. Problems arise immediately when we attempt to determine how good is good, or how bad is bad. Yet even this argument is specious because the Bible teaches throughout that no one is good enough to merit salvation. Being good or bad is not basic, but secondary to the real issues at hand.

The question that really determines how we answer the others is whether people are alive or dead. The Fall recorded in Genesis is referred to as death: “in the day you eat… you will die.” (Genesis 2:17) The death intended here is not a cessation of existence, rather a separation from God. Paul says humans are dead in sin, but made alive in Christ. He also calls us strangers and aliens separated from the life of God. (Ephesians 2:12, 19; 4:18

Humans don’t cease to exist when they die; they change their state of being. Note that theologians speak of the fallen state. The rebellion of Adam brought about the severance of his communion with God; the new state of existence for humans became one of separation from the Creator. The death Adam suffered was passed on to all his offspring; as the Apostle Paul explains, we inherit death from Adam and life from Christ (1Corinthians 15:22)

Discussing sin as behavior or action misleads; sin is state of being. Sin is a near synonym for death; to be in sin is to be dead. Getting saved is not as much about changing behavior as changing affiliation. To ask if homosexuals can be truly Christian misses the point. If we are not saved by our actions we are not unsaved by them either. This is not to say that sin is acceptable, but rather it is irrelevant to this discussion. Can a regenerated person sin? Clearly, yes. Can a regenerated person continue habitually in what he/she knows to be sin? Probably not. Why not? Because the attitude of rebellion (no remorse/repentance) indicates lack of regeneration.

Wittmer continues his explanation: “Because we start life totally depraved, it is easy to see why we need the dramatic rescue of regeneration. And since Scripture says that the Holy Spirit uses truth to do this job, it logically follows that only those who know and rely upon the basic facts of the gospel can be saved.”

Again, Wittmer misleads. “Depraved” is a theologian’s word; it is not frequently used in Scripture to describe fallen humans. The word “depraved” comes directly from a Latin word meaning to make exceptionally crooked or bent.. The idea of being bent leaves open the option to correct by straightening. Yet the Bible presents no such option for our condition post-fall. Humans don’t need straightening, they need remaking.

The Scripture word for our condition is “dead.” A dead person can’t know anything; a dead person can’t be corrected or bent back to life. The only cure for death is regeneration, a word meaning rebirth, just as Jesus told Nicodemus in John chapter three. Jesus told the Pharisee he had to be born a second time, from above to see or enter Kingdom. Jesus did not instruct his midnight pupil to study more to learn how to come to faith. In another place, in fact, Jesus told the friends of Nicodemus that they studied the Scriptures in vain, for He was revealed there not to them, but only to those of faith. (John 5:39-47) He implied that belief precedes saving knowledge.

Humans are not regenerated because they know something; they know something because they get regenerated. “There is no one that seeks after God…” (Romans 3:11) Scripture does not say that the Holy Spirit uses truth to regenerate us as Wittmer suggests. Scripture says that we cannot know or see or understand the truth until the Spirit regenerates us. Paul told the Corinthians that the carnal or natural (Greek: psychical) man can not understand the things of the Spirit. (1 Corinthians 2:14) We do not come to belief because we learn something we didn’t previously know; we learn things about God because we come to believe that He is and that He has previously sought, bought, and re-wrought us.

Salvation, in the final analysis, is a unilateral act of God saving human beings from death, i.e. separation from His presence eternally. Humans are born into this world “dead” because we are children of Adam. David said, “In sin my mother conceived me…” (Psalm 51:5) The only way to escape the fate of Adam’s curse (death) is to be reborn as a child of the Second Adam, Christ Jesus. Neither knowledge nor actions play any role whatsoever in the process of human rebirth through the Holy Spirit of God. We can not choose our spiritual birth parents any more than we can choose our physical parents. One is either in Adam or in Christ; either position is dictated by the sovereign will of God. (Romans 9)

All our bickering about behavior must be at the level of church discipline if corporate, or about fellowship with God if personal. Debating about certain sins as if they are relevant to salvation is to surrender the field to a faulty presumption. Let us have a healthy debate, but let us debate from right premises. The so-called post-moderns Wittmer cites in his book are really post- Christians because they are post-Biblical. A true reading of Scripture reveals that humans are not hell bound because they sin; they sin because they are hell bound. They are hell bound because they are dead. Our only meaningful offering to these lost ones is to make them aware that their Creator has provided an alternative. They must make the ancient choice: remain dead, or choose life through Christ. By God’s grace, through the gift of faith, the elect are enabled to choose life.

Living like Jesus is not enough, as Wittmer’s title suggests. Living in Jesus is the necessary and sufficient cause to warrant confidence of salvation. This condition is brought about by the effective work of the Holy Spirit and creates a state of being: being in Christ, as the Scripture puts it. It is not initiated by nor sustained by anything any human can do; “not by works, lest any one should boast.” (Ephesians 2:9) The question is not about doing, but about being.

Einstien Predicts the Existence of God

The title of this essay, looking as it does like a newspaper headline, is meant to sound dramatic. As far as I know, Albert was not particularly religious, nor did he ever make such a statement. What I mean to prove here is that his famous "discovery" of the theory of relativity itself has something to say about the possibility that God exists. It is my nature to look into the findings of science to uncover additional proofs for the postulate that a being of great intelligence and power not only exists, but can be seen to regularly interact with the events of our known universe. Because my own faith assumptions include the theory that the Bible is an accurate account of such a being's interactive existence, I am delighted when science "proves" one or another Biblical concept.

Before I get to the heart of the issue of relativity, I should take a moment to explain what I mean by "prove," and what exactly it is that Einstein did. Albert Einstein was, among other things, a theoretical physicist. One of the important activities of theoretical physicists is doing thought experiments. By this we mean that they observe the physical universe as it appears and theorize about why it behaves in a certain way. They then test their theories by imagining an experiment in which they operate in the imaginary universe according to their theory and imagine what the result would be. At approximately sixteen years of age, Einstein, for example, wondered what a beam of light would look like if he could run alongside it at the speed of light. It was this basic thought and ten more years of thinking which ultimately gave birth to the famous theory of relativity for which he is so widely recognized.

At first glance, any time spent ruminating about such an unlikely possibility would seem to be a waste of time -- daydreaming is what most would call it. This might seem particularly so in Einstein's 1905 when the fastest anyone could hope to go was that of a fast horse, say thirty miles per hour. But it isn't the actual performance of the thought experiment which lends it value. It is the ability of the imagined consequences in light of known physical laws to produce further theories regarding the behavior of the universe. It is these theories spawned in imaginary situations which populate the thinking of theoretical physicists and eventually trickle into "hard" science and thus into everyday life. The laptop computer on which I am typing this is a direct result of the application of the "theory" of relativity. So are microwave ovens, global positioning satellites and scores of other mundane items. (Yes, nuclear power and weapons also stem from this train of thought.)

Theoretical physicists state their conclusions in typical scientific fashion: if such and such is true, then so and so must result. Because of the "if" at the front of the sentence, the "result" at the end of the sentence is in the form of a probability. If I say for example that I am going to flip a coin into the air and it will land heads up, there is a one in two chance that I will be correct. In this simple "if" there are only two possible results: heads or tails. If I flip the coin one hundred times, it will land heads approximately fifty times and tails the remaining times. (I have to say approximately fifty because one hundred observations are not enough to say it will fulfill the statistical probability exactly.) So if I flip the coin, there is a fifty/fifty chance it will land heads up.

The more likely the "if," the more probable the "result." The "if" in Einstein's theory of relativity has been so convincingly proven to be true in the nearly one hundred years since he postulated it, that it would involve a massive shift in our basic paradigm of scientific understanding if it were ever proven wrong. Therefore, with such a strong "if," I feel confident in proceeding with my own thought experiment to test additional theories about the behavior of the universe. As long as I stay within the parameters of the rest of scientific knowledge, I can make assumptions about the universe with a fairly high degree of probability.

Before we get to my own experiment, however, I must give a rudimentary explanation of the theory of special relativity for those not already familiar with it. Contrary to popular assumption, Einstein's theory is not terribly difficult to state in such a way as to be understood by nearly anyone. It is the implications of the theory for physics which become increasingly complex as one delves deeper into them. The theory itself can be properly summarized to say that the laws of physics apply equally in any uniformly moving frame of reference. Or restated it says objects behave in accordance with the laws of motion no matter where the observer is as long as he is in a state of uniform motion. A simple inverse corollary to this statement would say that observers in different frames of reference will detect differences in the behavior of objects not moving in their frame of reference.

A simple thought experiment will suffice to demonstrate this aspect of the theory of relativity. Imagine you are tossing a tennis ball straight up and catching it again. From your perspective, you are standing still (at rest) and your environment is at rest around you. For our purposes, this is fulfills the requirement of a uniformly moving frame of reference: the motion at this point is none, or resting. You observe the ball travel straight up and then fall straight back into your hand. This behavior follows the laws of physics as you understand them. By applying force to the ball (throwing it,) you cause it to travel up until another force (gravity) causes it to stop and return to your hand. Nothing difficult to understand here.

For the sake of scientific precision, let us imagine you are a veteran tennis player so skilled that you can toss the ball up with exactly the same force on exactly the same path each time so that it travels exactly the same distance before being overcome by gravity. Further let us imagine that it is exactly one second between the time the ball leaves your hand until it falls back into your hand. You have become a human clock: "tick" is when you throw it up and "tock" is when it lands back in your hand. For each "tick-tock" of your clock, one second of time passes. Finally let us imagine the ball travels exactly three feet upward before being halted by gravity and returned to your hand. Thus we have a ball traveling at six feet per second (average speed for three up and three down.) As you observe the ball you see it going up and down, tick-tock at six feet per second each time you throw it.

Now lets imagine a second frame of reference. Now you are in a motor home traveling down the highway at seventy miles per hour. For the sake of this experiment, imagine a perfectly smooth, perfectly straight road with no hills or dips in the pavement. As you travel along at seventy miles per hour, you and your environment appear to be at rest. You can stand up or move about in the motor home without concern for the fact that you are in a frame of reference that is moving. This is because the movement is uniform. If the driver lurched to one side or slammed on the brakes, your peaceful sense of being at rest would be shattered very quickly. In fact if the brakes were applied hard enough it might be the windshield shattering as you passed through it.

Absent those sudden changes in movement, you could conduct yourself in the moving motor home as you would standing still on the side of the road. To pour yourself a cup of coffee you would not take the seventy mile per hour motion into account. You would hold the cup directly under the pot just as you would in your own kitchen. Because all the motion in the motor home is uniform, the laws of physics apply; this is Einstein's theory of special relativity.

If we were to conduct our human clock experiment in the moving motor home, we could duplicate the results we saw when standing still. You could toss the ball in the same tick-tock motion and keep the same time and speed observations. But imagine the motor home has a large window on one side and I am watching you from a point somewhere beside the road on which you are traveling? What would I see? Through the window as you passed by I would see you toss the ball up at one point and then catch it one second later at a point somewhere down the road. I would see the ball traveling not straight up and down, but following a curved path up from where you released it and back down to where you caught it. In fact, at seventy miles per hour, in the second it takes you to throw and catch the ball, you have moved over one hundred feet. From my frame of reference, the ball has traveled not six feet, but over one hundred and six feet. Since we know you are throwing the ball at the same speed as before in your frame of reference (six feet per second,) how do we explain the appearance that it traveled over one hundred feet from my frame of reference? (I warned you that the implications of special relativity would be complex.)

There seem to be only two possible explanations. Since we know the speed of the ball remains steady at six feet per second, either the time in the motor home slowed down to allow the ball to cover the distance required or the distance measure is different such that six feet equals over one hundred feet. I know this seems absurd at first, and I know that there is an obvious explanation which some in the audience have already reached. But let me make one more statement before I reveal the magician's sleight of hand I have used. Even though my proportions are hugely incorrect, the principle is correct as presented. Time and space are different quantities to observers in different frames of reference. This has been proven scientifically by flying highly accurate clocks at supersonic speeds and then comparing them to clocks left on the ground. The clocks in the jets came back a few billionths of a second behind the clocks that didn't move. The faster one goes, the greater the time discrepancy. (This phenomenon is know as time dilation.) If we could travel as fast as some significant fraction of the speed of light, we could begin to see the effects of time dilation on our everyday lives.

The reason my motor home experiment seemed to involve such a large time dilation can be seen by employing a third frame of reference. If you were in an Apollo spacecraft half-way to the moon and you looked back toward earth, it would be obvious that our "still" frame of reference on the side of the road was in fact moving at some speed up to one thousand miles per hour with the rotation of the earth. In addition, from the vantage point of the sun, you would see that the earth itself is moving some tens of thousands of miles per hour in its orbit around the sun's frame of reference. Hence, the seventy mile per hour difference between the moving motor home and the "still" observer was only a fraction of the thousands of miles per hour both were moving. This makes the time dilation in our very slow frame of reference so small as to be unnoticeable.

This completes the physics lesson for now. How does all of this "predict" the existence of God? I believe we can postulate that there is a frame of reference which is "at rest" relative to our known universe. The probability of such a thing is supported by the so-called "big bang" theory which follows from science steeped in the theory of relativity and itself ironically attempts to explain away the existence of a frame of reference from which our known universe might emanate. In fact, if the big bang did occur, it had to occur "somewhere", in some frame of reference. The universe as scientists now know it is expanding rapidly into that "somewhere" from its original bang. If one holds to the big bang theory, one must conclude that the universe has an outer limit, into which it is still expanding at its outermost reaches. In other words, the universe must have a boundary.

What is beyond the boundary? I conclude that it must be the same frame of reference in which the original big bang took place. Unless one takes the very unsatisfying position that the universe is infinite (an impossible position if one subscribes to the big bang theory,) it must have a boundary and that boundary must be infringing upon someplace "else." The theory of relativity instructs us that time and space are relative, so it is no stretch of the imagination to conceive of vastly different conceptions of them in an existence that is someplace "else." Furthermore, the big bang theory postulates that all of the elements which make up our universe were created in the super-energized instant of the bang and its subsequent interactions. It is again no stretch to imagine that "life" of some entirely different constituent elements might exist in that frame of reference somewhere "else." Nor is it impossible to imagine, finally, that a form of intelligence from that frame of reference somewhere "else" might have the capability to insert itself into our known frame of reference. It could be moving so fast or slow relative to us that we would not see it with our limited electromagnetic receivers (otherwise known as “eyes.”) It might have ways of communicating or otherwise interacting which we have no physical means of detecting. It might even be able to speed up or slow down to the point where it becomes physically measurable.

All of this is not only possible, but in my estimation, probable as a result of what Einstein's theory of relativity has taught us about our universe. When I realize that none of this need necessarily contradict the Bible, properly interpreted, I am the more impressed by the fact that the more we learn about the wonders of our universe, the closer we come to understanding the God who created it in the first place.

Open Letter to Debbie Stabenow

Dear Senator Stabenow,

The real difference between your opinion and mine is summarized in the first sentence of your second paragraph: "I believe that health care is a right not a privilege." It is contradictory and inflammatory to propose as a right something which comes at the expense of another's right. If I say to a fellow citizen, "I have the right to end your life," he would surely disagree with me, and I suspect, so would you. My rights end where they impinge on my fellow citizen's rights. Yet you (and your like-minded political peers) think nothing of infringing on my rights to liberty, privacy, property and more by insisting that I pay for my fellow citizens' health care. They do not have the right to ask me to pay for their medical costs any more than I have the right to ask them to pay my mortgage. It does not fundamentally alter the situation if you make the request from the seat of power granted to you by the people.

The "political will" you reference as a justification for your actions is evidently not the will of the people, rather it is the will of a select group (mainly politicians) who desire to remake society after an image not supported by this country's founding documents. The uproar you have been hearing in the last few weeks clearly indicates that the will of the polis (the people,) the true "political will" is not in favor of nationalizing, socializing, government option-izing our health care system. If you wish to do your job properly, you will act as a representative of all the people of Michigan and withdraw your support for any health care reform that requires the robbing of citizen Peter to pay citizen Paul's medical bills. Do that, and I firmly believe you would become an overnight national celebrity, and perhaps stand a chance to be re-elected. Fail to do that, and you may ride out of Washington on wave of voter discontent akin to 1994, only this one may be more like a tsunami.

Sincerely,

Clair H. Verway

Tax Refund Analysis

“I always look forward to getting a nice big tax refund every year.” I don’t know how many times I have heard that, but it always amazes me that people say it -- and believe it is a good thing. There are a few situations which will result in people legitimately getting a refund of some of their withholding, but to expect, or even plan to get a sizeable refund every year is not good planning.

Let’s explore how the income tax withholding process came about. It was probably one of the most ingenious and, at the same time, sinister things the federal government ever did. Franklin Roosevelt had a theory that he could spend the country out of the Great Depression. The problem was the government didn’t have any money to spend. After hitting on the great idea of creating a tax on income, Roosevelt needed a way to be sure the money came into the federal coffers on a regular basis. The answer was to take the money from every wage earner every payday before he ever saw it.

The payroll withholding process allows the government to take money from every working citizen a little at a time, making the income tax easier to bear and more certain to be collected. This is good for government, but not all good for the citizens. Certainly, paying our income taxes a little at a time throughout the year is not as difficult or onerous as having to write a big check every April 15. But the downside of withholding is that we often don’t realize just how much we are paying or whether the amount is appropriate to our circumstances.

The federal income tax withholding tables are designed to take the correct amount from each paycheck to cover the expected tax liability for that individual in that tax year. The tables are complex because there are so many variables. Besides considering the amount earned, the tables have to take into account how the pay is distributed: weekly, bi-weekly, semi-monthly, etc. They allow for marital status and dependent exemptions as well. By selecting the correct categories on the W-4 form, an employee tells the payroll department how much tax to withhold each payday. In theory, the total withholding during the year should equal the amount of tax owed.

What all this means is that the person who is thrilled to get a tax refund in April is only getting back the excess tax paid throughout the year. At best, this might be thought of as an enforced savings program. While saving is generally a good thing, one should try to get a return of some kind for the investment. Although not very substantial right now, savings accounts pay interest to savers allowing their money to grow. Mutual fund money market accounts sometimes pay a little more than straight savings, and market type investments can pay quite a bit more. (They can also lose money in down markets.) The federal government pays nothing to hold excess tax collections for the year. This is a lousy investment for the tax payer.

There is another downside to letting the government use our money all year for free. In America today, there are few families who don’t have at least some consumer debt. The interest rates being charged by banks and stores for their credit are sometimes as high as thirty percent. Every withheld tax dollar that could have paid down debt costs the tax payer his debt interest rate.

If you want an eye-opening exercise, try this. In one column list all the consumer debt you have: mortgage, credit cards, store accounts, vehicle loans, etc. In the second column, list the interest rate you are paying for each item, then multiply the dollar amount of the balance times the interest rate. Write that number in the third column. Total the third column and divide it by the sum of the items in the first column. This is your average debt interest rate. Multiply your tax refund times your debt interest rate to see how much excess withholding costs you. Ouch?

The Bible instructs Christians to pay taxes to whom taxes are due. Fine. Scripture also teaches that we are to be faithful stewards of the resources we have been given. Leaving large amounts of money in the hands of Uncle Sam all year instead of using that money wisely in our own ways is not good stewardship. If you get a large tax refund every year, you should adjust your W-4 so that you come out as close to even as possible on April 15. This will give you the opportunity to make the most of every dollar you earn.