Obama Isn't the Problem

People on the left, aka the progressives, liberals, Democrats, whatever you choose to call them, hate being called socialists. The only thing they hate more is when someone like Rush Limbaugh calls them socialists. Rush went a step further this week and actually said, "the country could survive four more years of Obama... but I don't believe the country can survive in a country full of people that would re-elect him."

Since at least forty percent of the country is currently polling for Obama, this is a sweeping indictment. One must wonder what particular view is so troubling to Rush Limbaugh (and many of the rest of us.) I believe it is simply this: Obama's vision for America is a socialist revolution. The policies his administration and the Democrats in Congress are advancing are blatantly socialist in nature. They openly admit they are patterned after the European (socialist) model. The policies they present will take our country in a different direction from its last two centuries.

Since many people today are convinced there is no difference between the two major political parties in America, it might be instructive to outline the distinguishing economic features. The typical Democrat believes that the answer to every problem is a government program. Conservatives see individual initiative and personal preference as the keys to making things work. Progressives think the government should create equality of outcomes (read wealth redistribution) whereas Republicans typically strive for equal opportunity for all. The liberals want to give the poor a hand out, their opponents prefer to offer a hand up.

Over the years, many Christians have recommended socialism as more in line with Biblical teaching. They believe the socialist model is more compassionate, more loving perhaps. They think it better serves the underprivileged. There are two problems with this. First, the New Testament nowhere suggests that human government is to be God's financial instrument to help the poor. Biblically speaking, stewardship is a personal matter; helping the poor is a church issue, not a state issue. Secondly, in actual practice, the poor fare better in capitalist systems than in socialist economies. Check out Cuba, the former Soviet Union and her satellites or the communist dictatorships in the far east and you will find far more people in poverty on a per capita basis than in any society with a free market capital economy.

Having said that, it must be emphasized that neither system is without flaws. Admittedly, capitalists have abused the underprivileged at times. The problem is not with the system in either case, but with human nature. In a sinless world, any system would work to the benefit of all citizens. But this is not a sinless world. All other things being equal, the freedom granted in a capitalist economy has historically led to better conditions for the majority of its people.

I believe this is what Rush meant when he said we can't survive as a country if a majority want to re-elect Obama. That choice means that a majority want a socialist country. These people apparently are unaware that no socialist society has been able to succeed long-term. The melt-down in Greece and Spain and the impending collapse of the entire European Economic Community should put to rest any thought that socialism works. Sooner or later, it breaks down. America has over 200 years of success with a capitalist system; Europe is coming to the end of her socialist experiment after only 60 years.

That alone highlights the choice we are making this election cycle, although there are numerous other social issues that distinguish the parties as well. But if you take the narrow view as James Carville said a few cycles ago, "It's the economy, stupid," then we have a simple choice: we can stay on the economic train that has a long track record of success, or we can jump on the one that is heading over a cliff. Problem solved.

Getting Away With Murder

There once was a Bible character named Achan who thought he could break the rules and get away with it. His crime was taking forbidden plunder after a military victory. His punishment was death for himself and his entire family. Today we have a political character named Akin who violated the taboo of talking about pregnancies that result from rape. His punishment appears to be the death of his political career and banishment from his party.

The Republican National Committee has withdrawn its financial support for Todd Akin's Senate bid. Other major donors are backing away. CBS news reports that the Romney campaign released a statement denouncing Akin's position saying: "Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin's statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape." I am sorry to hear that. There can be no logical defense for killing an innocent victim of a violent act.

I am not unsympathetic to the emotional plight of a rape victim who discovers that a terrifying moment in her life produced a child. But I am also concerned with the life of the child that some people seem so willing to murder. This is a classical example of the slippery slope. If it is acceptable to kill children conceived in rape, why not children conceived in drunken sex? Why not allow a woman to murder her baby because she realizes that the father doesn't really love her as he claimed when he seduced her? Why not abort pregnancies that result from failed contraception? Why not kill any baby for any reason the mother can muster?

Once you allow that certain humans are disposable, you have crossed a line that should not be crossed. If inconvenient fetuses can be killed, so can inconvenient children or elderly or disabled persons. It is not enough to say that the emotional trauma resulting from a rape warrants death for her unborn child. There is serious emotional trauma when parents discover that their child has a debilitating disease or birth defect. There is real anguish when a husband watches his wife slip into final stages of Alzheimer's. Families can be crushed mentally and financially when an injured loved one lies in a coma for years on end. Yet none of these situations merits murder.

If we believe that life begins at conception, then every conception must be allowed to proceed to its destined conclusion. I don't know what doctor led Todd Akin to believe that a woman's body could prevent a pregnancy if she was raped. If he truly believed that when he made his fateful statement earlier this week, he can be excused for his misunderstanding. After that, he should be applauded for his clarifying remarks in which he stood firm on his belief that pregnancies resulting from rape should not be terminated.

If anyone should be ashamed in this it is the Romney-Ryan campaign for bowing to pressure from ill-advised proponents of abortion in the case of rape. Such proponents often try to justify their position by pointing to the small number of rape induced pregnancies. Statistics are hard to come by, but some estimates suggest about 32,000 rapes occur each year with 5% or 1600 resulting in pregnancies. I cannot imagine another scenario where it would be deemed appropriate to kill 1600 people per year. I am truly sorry, horrified even that evil men perpetrate this kind of tragedy against women. But I am just as horrified that decent men are willing to multiply the tragedy by committing another indecent act against a child. If I lived in Missouri, I would vote for Todd Akin. I hope the good people who do live there will too.

Guilt by Association

Pity Paul Ryan; he's Romney's VP pick.

I used to imagine that being chosen as a Vice-Presidential candidate was an honor. Now I think not so much. Only hours after Mitt Romney chose Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin as his running mate, the poor man was being pummeled by the liberal media.The really vicious ones like Maureen Dowd and the Huffington Post are making him sound like Satan himself.

When you try to see it from the modern progressive (socialist) point of view, perhaps Ryan is their satan. Since few of them believe in the real one, they need to invent one. Representative Ryan burst onto the radar with his budget proposal that actually did something to reign in federal spending by limiting what the government would do in the future. I am not an economist, but I realize that things are more complicated than most people imagine. However, one thing is certain: no entity can spend more than it takes in indefinitely. Ryan's budget tries to address that.

So by limiting the growth of government (note: not shrinking government,) Ryan becomes the pariah who would starve children and kick seniors off Medicare. From my perspective, he seems to be introducing some sanity into the situation. Einstein said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results each time. That sounds like a definition of our federal government. From FDR to LBJ to BHO we have seen massive growth of government create more problems than it solves; yet there are those who want more of the same. Insanity?

Another place Ryan is taking heat is his association with the ideas of Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.) Ryan admits that his inspiration to get into politics was the economic philosophy touted by Rand in Atlas Shrugged. He has also maintained over the years in no uncertain terms that he wants no part in Rand's atheistic libertarianism in social matters. In typical hypocritical fashion, the liberal press calls Ryan a flip-flopper because he dismisses part of Rand's philosophy while embracing another part. This is what they would call a nuanced position if it were discovered in a liberal, but in Ryan it is seen as a faux pas, a weakness.

Perhaps this illustrates why so many raise their hands in despair when it comes to choosing candidates for major political offices. It feels like one must be an expert in the arcane intricacies of global economics or a doctor of philosophy to interpret a candidate's view. It need not be that difficult. If you want to know how someone thinks, look at the authors he reads. While Paul Ryan was reading Ayn Rand, Barak Obama was reading Saul Alinsky. Both men would caution that they are not clones of their favorite authors, but the policies of each display an affinity for a certain type of thinking which can be traced to the authors they read.

This is not foreign to what the Bible teaches. If I may extend a metaphor Jesus used, I would say the roots of a tree represent the influences in our lives which in turn nurture the branches, blossoms and fruit that is ultimately produced. If a tree is known by its fruit, the fruit is "known" by what issues from the roots. Or to change the analogy, if the mouth speaks from the abundance within the heart, one must regard those things influencing the heart as of paramount importance. I realize it was Aesop and not an Apostle who said we are known by the company we keep, but that too squares with Scripture. When selecting the man who will influence the world from the White House, one should look carefully at who influenced him in his house.

Chicago's Chicken Little

"The sky is falling; the sky is falling," said the little chicken.

You would think Henny Penny, or Chicken Little as she is also known, had taken over the soul of Rahm Emanuel.  The Chicago mayor, Obama's former right hand man, announced yesterday that "'Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values."

The frightful position that warrants this harsh and blatantly discriminatory stance by the mayor is the admission by Chick-fil-A's president, Dan Cathy, that he is in favor of traditional marriage. As reported in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Cathy said, "We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."

So apparently traditional family values are no longer acceptable in Chicago if the city's mayor is correct. This is ironic on so many levels that it is hard to believe it is not pure fiction. One wants to ask what planet Rahm Emanuel comes from. You don't have to be homophobic to see that grandstanding against the lifestyle embraced by 90% of the population is ludicrous.

The news outlets seem to be focusing on the surface of this issue; no surprise there. They question whether it is a wise move by any company to offend those who support more liberal values. They wonder if the owner of a private concern has the right to express an opinion that may upset some of his patrons. Do anti-discrimination laws forbid private private business owners from public statements about their personal beliefs, they want to know.

I want to know if anybody sees the larger issue here. Emanuel is joined in his anti-family view by the mayor of Boston and, to read the blogs, every pro-gay spokesperson on the web. There may be an IED in the path of these people. This could blow up in their faces if supporters of traditional family values protest in sufficient numbers, in intelligent arguments that highlight the hypocrisy in this issue. The proponents of tolerance are revealing themselves as the most intolerant of all people.

The last time I wrote in this space I suggested Christians can be opposed to homosexuality for numerous "secular" reasons. Here again Christians, Muslims, anyone who believes in traditional family values can be genuinely outraged by Emanuel's statement with no reference to any religious bias. The position the gay lobby is trying to achieve is simply not constitutional. The First Amendment guarantees the right to hold and to express family values -- even in Chicago.

Ironically, the ACLU has come out on the side of Cathy. This is the first time in my memory that I have agreed with that institution. For once, a liberal outfit decries the unconstitutional treatment of Christian beliefs. If it were not so far to drive, I would go straight to the nearest Chick-fil-A for a celebratory meal in support of the company and the position expressed by Dan Cathy. Even better would be to visit a Chick-fil-A in Chicago (yes, they are there.)

There was a time when being banned in Boston was an honor; that time may have returned. I hope the family values people in Boston and Chicago (and everywhere else) raise a sky pounding noise. Then the sky may start falling as Chicken Little feared; I only hope it hits Rahm Emanuel, not us.

Gay Alternative

A while back I posted a suggestion that Christians can use science to argue against the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender (GLBT) agenda. I do not think that believers should use Biblical arguments in the public square. The highly charged anti-Christian bias in the media and academia overshadows any truth that might be applied directly from the Scriptures. Besides, this is a pluralistic republic; no one religious view is supposed to be imposed on anyone.

Just because we cannot use Biblical arguments in public does not mean they are invalid at home. A mom recently asked for my input with her treatment of a family member being indoctrinated with GLBT propaganda. She had formulated a well-reasoned three prong approach to which I may add a fourth after laying some philosophical groundwork.

We must accept as a foundational truth that some things in the Bible are timeless. We categorically reject the GLBT suggestion that God's injunction against homosexuality was cultural; it is rooted in who we are as creatures in God's image, not how we socialize as humans. That being said, the proscriptions in Leviticus and Paul's exposition in Romans 1 clearly place homosexual behavior out of bounds for sincere believers. There is absolutely no hermeneutic basis for saying that since "only" Paul forbids homosexuality and not Jesus, it is therefore an acceptable practice. I will return to this idea in conclusion.

The second reason the mom chose to defend an anti-gay position is that it is unhealthy. In the post I referenced earlier I linked to an article by the Family Research Council which exposed the health risks of the GLBT lifestyle. Plainly summarized, homosexuals die far younger than heterosexuals. This is due to numerous behaviors associated with gay sex which expose them to multiple diseases in addition to the HIV/aids risk. Believers must warn against all lifestyle choices which endanger health: smoking, excessive alcohol use, workaholism, overeating, and the like.

And while science is the topic, we must counter the argument that there is some genetic or biological cause for homosexual tendencies. No widely accepted, peer-reviewed study has shown any such causal relationship. Even if it were to be discovered, a bio/genetic link would not make the behavior any safer or less sinful. Also, to call something a healthy alternative lifestyle because it is genetic is like saying autism or Down Syndrome or Parkinson's disease are "healthy alternatives." Nonsense; they are aberrations, not "normal" alternatives.

The mom's final point was to remind us that we are called to love sinners regardless of the sin by which they are ensnared. For some reason we tend to create classes of sin which engender a more visceral response. We can love the thief, but hate the pedophile; excuse the glutton or gossip, but condemn the lesbian; support the adulterer, but excommunicate the homosexual. Sin is sin, and we are all sinners saved (or not saved) by grace. Our love is to mirror God's: universal and unconditional.

Having said that, I do believe there is a reason why perversions of a sexual nature get more attention. First, God created humanity as male and female. This dual nature comes closer to representing God's image than either gender could singly. Add the fact that normal male/female association eventually begets children (within God's ordained structure: marriage) and you have the fullest picture of the image of God. I believe the family was intended to come closest to representing the triune character of the Creator: Father, Son, Holy Spirit mirrored by father, mother, child. Mess with the family and you mess with the imageo dei. I believe the strong injunction against aberrant sexual behavior is rooted in the desire of God to protect his image in his creation.

The second reason that sexual sin seems worse is closely related and stems from its unique spiritual nature. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:18-20 that sexual sin affects humans at a deeper spiritual level than other sins. It is my opinion that this is because of the unique bond that God intended to be formed between a man and wife, ultimately producing children.  The intimacy of the conjugal act is reserved for the husband/wife relationship because it speaks to the deepest part of who we are as divine image bearers. All sin tarnishes the image, but Paul suggests that sexual sin actually is in a class by itself.

Many Christians reject this kind of thinking as too harsh, too unforgiving. Post-modernism drifts away from all absolutes of any kind. The uncomfortable truth is that Scripture clearly makes absolute statements about many things. Anyone hoping to forge a Biblical world-view must come to grips with the discomfort of absolute truth. It's either that or make it up as you go along. Inventing reality, playing make-believe is fine for children. It looks kind of foolish in adults.

Why am I Here?

A return to the beginning or why I named this blog what I did.

Some friends and I are reading through Randy Alcorn's Money, Possessions and Eternity. Alcorn's purpose seems to be to get people thinking correctly about the relationship between this life and the "next", as some call it. Very much in line with Biblical teaching, Alcorn reminds readers that life on earth is the prelude to the program, not the whole deal. He rightly asserts that most people, Christians included, have lost the sense of the eternal. "Many of us habitually think and act as if there were no eternity," he says.

Alcorn emphasizes the Scriptural truth that money, possessions and our very lives here are temporal (having to do with time) and our ultimate destiny is eternal (not related to time.) Maybe because forever is such a difficult concept to wrap our finite minds around, we tend to ignore the implications. People have tried to use spatial metaphors to make the point more clear. If time and eternity were both on the same line, time would be a dot and eternity would be the rest of the line stretching enlessly in both directions. This may help, but it still leaves one struggling with what "endlessly" means.

For me, there is a more basic question that even Alcorn may be missing. Why should I care about eternity? (Why does heaven always matter most?) Alcorn points out that "There seems to be built into every person, society, and religion a basic belief that good deserves reward and evil deserves punishment." Got it. What goes around comes around. You eventually have to pay the piper. Karma. Alcorn's thesis is that our treatment of the temporal stuff that consumes our time here dictates our eventual state in eternity. I don't dispute that. But Alcorn, like so many other Christians, focuses on the rewards heaven holds for those who act appropriately on earth.

I wonder if this emphasis remains rooted in our temporal mindset. Forgo earthly pleasure and wealth to earn those same delights in heaven. Delayed gratification remains gratification of the original desire. Yes, the Bible promises temporal things as reward; I suspect this technique is used because we can't even imagine what the eternal reward will be like, so temporal metaphors must suffice. The Apostle Paul said that “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”

I can imagine some pretty cool temporal things. Perfect wind for sailing every day, bike trips with no rain, hole-in-one golf on a regular basis all sound very satisfying. But if I can think them, they are less than what awaits if Paul is to be taken literally. Alcorn quotes some really, really rich people saying that the temporal stuff never does satisfy. Why would we think that an unlimited supply of it in heaven would be so wonderful?

Besides all this, isn't doing the right thing here on earth so we can be materially rewarded in heaven a twisted motive? Pie in the sky by and by is still just pie. Heaven matters most to me because I will be in perfect union with the God who created me. I will be in eternal fellowship with the One who can satisfy every need I have. As a fringe benefit, I believe my relationships with my fellow travellers will also be perfect. Jesus said, "I and the Father are one," and he prayed that we (his followers) would be one in the same way. That is why heaven matters most. It is only there, in eternity that I will be completely fulfilled.

Still, my reason for behaving as I ought here on earth is not just because I will be granted perfect satisfaction in eternity; that would be selfish. I do what I ought because the One who paid my price of admission into eternal bliss asks me to. Out of love for Him and in recognition of the great sacrifice He made for me I do what he asks. And I want others to know that good has its reward and evil its punishment. And I want to make clear what true good is. All this is because I have a hope of heaven, and that is what matters most.

Thanks Vets

Like Christmas or Easter, Memorial Day is one of those times when we focus on something that should be foremost in our minds every day. Every blessing we enjoy in this country has been bought and paid for by the men and women who through the years have given of themselves, sometimes at tremendous personal sacrifice, to ensure our freedoms. So, yes, we salute them today. But what exactly are we honoring?

Do we applaud war? Not me. I abhor the death and destruction that war brings, especially on the innocent. But it is necessary to have a bunch of people in a free society who are willing to stand and defend the rest of us. I am the proud son and father of US servicemen. I came of age in the Vietnam era and participated in the draft. It was a lottery back then, and my number was not called. Although I despised the way the politicians were prosecuting the war, I would have done my duty if asked. Had I not been too old, I might have enlisted after 9/11; seriously.

We are not honoring mayhem and destruction. Killing people and breaking things is not typical Christian activity, but when there are people in the world intent on killing us and breaking our things, it is only wise to have a defensive force to withstand them. The Bible teaches that God ordained certain men to carry swords (that's first century imagery) to restrain evil. Might never makes right, but there are times when right must be defended by might.

Are we honoring the policy decisions of today's leaders. Not me. There are legitimate questions to be asked in light of the shrinking nature of the globe; the libertarians rightfully ask whether it is ultimately in our best interest to project our might into every conflict in any hemisphere. I may not go as far as say, Ron Paul, on this issue, but there is a real need to reconsider America's role in the world when our battles are being financed by our grandchildren. There are many hurting people in the world that compassionate hearts ache to heal, but it seems unwise to mortgage the future give aid today.

On this day we honor the people like my son and my father who did not consider their lives too dear to risk everything to protect the rest of us back home. Forget politics; forget fiscal accountability; forget discussions about Augustine's just war theory. Just remember and salute all those who make it possible to have a free debate about all such issues. Do it today and tomorrow and tomorrow, ad eternum. They deserve it.