Why Do Politicians Want Us To Panic?

John Mark Reynolds explains why political candidates try to incite panic in the public. He also warns us to worry about things we can actually change.

When the public, and the candidates, begin to panic, we "should resolutely mind our own business in this crisis, act charitably toward neighbors in need, comfort the fearful, and resolutely vote against those who would use this crisis to expand their power. The temptation to respond to every trouble brought to our attention by the media is a snare and a delusion."

When we begin to worry about the world, we forget about the things in our sphere of influence. If you worry globally, you become inept locally. "I have students who panic about poverty in the Sudan, but who are disinterested in the poor of our hometown." Is there anything worse than ignoring those needy around you because you are interested in someone's needs you cannot help? If everyone helped those in their direct sphere of influence, wouldn't the global problems begin to wane?

"Our actual neighbor who wants and needs our help is our business, but our culture makes it easier to know the troubles of someone else’s neighbor (across the world), than our physical compatriot. If we are not careful our compassion will be drained by images of all the suffering of mankind in general to the point that we have nothing left to give the particular unemployed fellow in the apartment across the way."

But this kind of idea is contrary to what the candidates want you to think about. They want you to panic, they need you to vote for them. If you are panicking and looking across the nation, and the world, you will want "change" which is the platform both candidates are running on. Different types of change, but change nonetheless.

Reynolds continues, "Politicians generally think every election is the most important of our lifetime, because for them it is." This election is not necessarily more important for my day to day life than any other before it, but I do have a duty to vote my values and conscience for a candidate.

Hopefully, I will vote without fear or dread, but instead with my Christian worldview.

According to Reynolds, the traditional Christian votes "that government will protect our right to life, our absolute liberty to do good deeds, and our pursuit of happiness."

"Government cannot create real rights, such as life, goodness, or happiness, so most traditional Christians wish government to have a restricted role. We want government that defends God-given rights, not government that is god."

This standard makes both candidates seem like socialists, on the one hand we have a man who would (if he could) redistribute all wealth. On the other, the candidate wants to bail out companies responsible for the "recession" we are (and here is where we panic) inevitably in and will be in for years. They both want government which is too big for me.

But the choice is not hard. I will let Reynolds sum up:

"Only one team will protect innocent human life at all stages of development, and only one even pretends to limit the scope and power of government. Only one team lacks messianic pretense, so dangerous in this time. Both teams have promise, but only one has the humility to limit their promises."

"As a result, based on my hopes and not my fears, based on optimism and not anger, I will be voting for Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin."

Yes, I will be voting McCain, Palin!

Independents should vote for McCain

I believe Independents should vote for McCain. A few good reasons for this can be found here.

Socialism abounds

I am astounded by how much both Candidates seem to be pushing socialist policies. When we take from some to give to others this is a socialist ideal. There are three main problems with socialism.

First, it teaches those who work they will not be benefited by working hard. Why work hard if the things you work for will be taken from you.

Second, it teaches those who do not work they do not need to work because someone (govt.) will bail them out. Again, why work hard if you can be dependent and get everything you need.

Third, this takes away the job of the church. The church is called to take care of the poor. You can't be generous, or charitable, if you are compelled. The govt cannot be charitable... it is a contradiction in terms.

Thoughts?

When I "went green" I signed up for this?!?...

C. Michael Patton captures my thoughts on the "green" movement perfectly on his blog. He (like I) does not have a problem with helping the environment, in fact it is one of the duties of a Christian to be a good steward of the environment...

But the "green" movement seems to come with some other baggage...

He writes:

"I think that it is important to distinguish here the difference between “going green” and a biblically based concern for the stewardship of God’s creation. In my mind, “going green” has massive political overtones that not only speak to a concern for the environment, but a prioritized concern for the environment that highlights many “green” issues to the neglect of those that are much more important."

This is my concern exactly. To be an environmentalist it seems you must neglect human beings. Greenies seem to be for abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and an overall neglect for human needs. This seems to be because they think we are raping the environment or something, that we should go back to our natural roots. Well, as Greg Koukl of STR says, "The difference between “just doing what comes naturally” and principled self-restraint is called civilization." I will take civilization any day over what comes naturally.

We also tend to forget, as Christians, where we fall in this creation of God. We are the creation made is His image. We are His most beautiful creation. Saving a penguin is nice, but not at the expense of a Human. Saving a tree is good, but not at the expense of a human.

When someone asks me to think of the most beautiful thing in the world I usually think of an area untouched by man. However, I hope I never forget that when man creates he is reflecting part of God. This is part of how we are made in God's image. When we create we glorify God. This does not mean every creation we make is good, but the process of creating is good. If you don't believe me go see the work of a master artist or architect. A master creates something in harmony with its surroundings. A master enhances the beauty already there. (I hear maybe the best example of this is Michelangelo's David. I hope to see it some day.)

We should preserve the beauty of our environment, but don't forget the hierarchy. Man is God's greatest creation on this planet, don't go green, become a steward.

Legislation to oppose

Here is california new legislation is being considered by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The bill is AB 2567. This bill would make May 22nd Harvey Milk Day. Harvey Milk will be honored in schools every May 22nd. Who is Harvey Milk you might ask? Wikipedia describes Milk as "an American politician who was the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in the United States, as a city supervisor in San Francisco." Milk was open about his homosexuality and the fact he considered religion to be dangerous.

If the legislation is passed the bill calls for Milk to be honored by exercises recognizing his accomplishments. The wording is vague enough to not limit these exercises as well. This is a direct attack on Family Values and would further indoctrinate our children sexually.

If you would like to oppose this legislation call 916-445-2841... then press 1 for English, and then 2 to voice your opinion. At this point the bill AB 2567 will come up under option 1... press 1, then press 2 to oppose this legislation.

Remember 1-2-1-2

Recommended Book

I have been reading Herbert Schlossberg's Idols for Destruction recently. I cannot recommend this book too much. This book is by far the best treatment of our American culture and the idols we worship through our assumption of ideas against God's word. Schlossberg is unparalleled in his analysis and ability to cut through our untried worldview assumptions. If you want to engage our culture thoughtfully and be able to impact the people in it the best way is to take away the unmentioned ideas at the heart of their worldview. This in turn will change their behavior by necessarily, and Schlossberg cuts right to the heart of the matter. Idols for Destruction is a must.

My reasons for my vote

I am not registered to any party the last time I checked. As a Christian, I don't feel I should affiliate myself to anything but God's party. I am no theocrat, but I do serve a King.

That being said, I do find myself consistently voting for one party over another. (Although I have voted Dem in the past, the Pubs do grab my vote probably 80-85% of the time.) After a lot of thought I think I have the words to defend my reasons for voting this way so consistently.

The number one reason I vote this way is I believe in wedge issues. Both parties seem to agree on so much, but there are a couple issues which are clear cut.

For example, although Democrats are commonly pointed to as the party which 'cares for the poor' I personally do not know one Republican who says they think we shouldn't care for the poor, they just disagree on the means, not the ends. Both parties believe the poor should be taken care of, but one party believes this should be done by bigger government, while the other believes people should have the opportunity to do so as private citizens. The disagreement is in the how, not the what.

This seems to be the case for many issues. Poverty, economics, defense, foreign policy, crime, and on and on seems to be issues along this line. There is agreement about what needs to be done, but not how to do it. Because of this, on these issues, at least both sides are trying for the same goal, and even if I don't agree with their idea of how the things should be run I can still be confident they will try and not take the issue lightly.

However, wedge issues cannot fall into this category. These are issues such as abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and so on. In cases like these the disagreements is not only on the means, but also the ends! Democrats consistently posit for the "right for a woman to choose" while Republicans as a party consistently denounce abortion. There is disagreement on the what, as well as the how!

Because of this I cannot in good conscience vote for many Dems. Instead I will use the clear cut issues to determine my vote.

This election my vote goes for McCain-Palin.

Finally!

I can now post again. I am now working again and this means I have Internet access. Hopefully I can get back into the habit.

I will be back

Sorry about not posting for a while, we have recently bought a home and do not have the internet yet. We should have it up and running soon.

On ad hominem

There is something peculiar about truth... it is true no matter what. Truth from any source is still true.

In this, the election year, you will probably hear many attacks against the candidates character. Although these kind of things can help to establish patterns (like honesty, or overall laziness), they cannot however speak to the truth the candidates might be speaking.

For example, assuming base 10, 2 + 2 = 4 all the time. Not just some of the time; not most of the time, but all the time. If we speak to someone from my church and they say the answer is 4, this is correct the same way if we speak to someone from a mental asylum or a math genius and they say it is 4. Who the person is has no bearing on the truthfulness of the answer.

This can mean a lot to Christians. We need to evaluate things for the truth they correspond to. To attack some one's character instead of the merits of their argument is called the ad hominem attack.

Christians love to make ad hominem attacks because, I believe, it helps us to quickly resolve what we think about an issue. In this way we do not need to do the hard work of evaluating truth, instead we will measure character.

As Christ said he is the truth, we also should be striving to seek truth, and stand for truth. John 18:37 states Jesus came to "testify to the truth." This should be the goal of our lives. A Christian has no real room for the ad hominem.

The Gospel without the Kingdom of God

I sat in a lecture hall tonight while one of my theological/philosophical heroes lectured to my apologetics program. I have to say J.P. Moreland has always astounded me, but tonight he was phenomenal.

The nature of the lecture focused on the Kingdom of God.

Moreland started by asserting that the Kingdom of God might be the central theme of the scriptures. The OT was the unfolding of the Kingdom; the NT exhibits the Kingdom clearly. Jesus' central message was the Kingdom, the book of acts is about the expanding of the Kingdom.

Unfortunately, Moreland says, we as a church have largely ignored the Kingdom of God until recently.

Moreland went on to define the Kingdom of God as "the realm in which the will of God is carried out." This exhibits itself in two ways: in the laws of nature, and the hearts and mind of those who are actively placing themselves under Jesus' leadership.

God wants to extend his role, by assimilating more and more Christians who choose to be "co-laborers" with God to produce Goodness, Truth and Beauty. This is who we are as Christians, we are constantly aligning ourselves with his will.

The nature of this Kingdom can be described in 4 basic ways:
1. Now, but not yet: It is here now, it is actually here, but it is not as much as it will be
2. Signs and Wonders: specifically healings. Moreland cites 3 verses here (Matthew 4:23; 9:35; and 11:4-5) and examples from around the world happening today.
3. The Kingdom is subversive and counter-cultural: we should be radical; this is best explained by the inversions of Christianity: We find well being not in circumstances, but living a Kingdom life; The greatest in the Kingdom are the humblest; A pure heart is more important than a great intellect; etc. Another example Moreland gave of the Kingdom being subversive is that Jesus was often not nice! He asks us to consider Matthew 22 (specifically verses 23- 33).
4. Lastly, the Kingdom was taught by Jesus. He also proclaimed it, and demonstrated it. If we look at the sermon on the mount with fresh eyes we will see Jesus is telling us how to live the good life, and how to be a good man.

There are three huge implications of this Kingdom principle, but I want to focus on only one right now.

Moreland stated we should preach the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. He says the model of we have fallen and Jesus is the only way to be saved is true, but it does not give us any real reason for continued discipleship after conversion. This is something I have been thinking about recently a lot. Why don't Christians want to live the "abundant life?" If Moreland is right it might be because of our evangelistic tactics. We do not stress the abundant life in our evangelism. So we are justified by faith (1 Cor 15:3-8), but then we need to preach the continuation. We were meant (telos) to live the abundant life, we were meant to flourish.

We must have discipleship with Jesus; we must live in the Kingdom; experience intimacy with the Triune God; and this will have continuity into the next life.

Wow! The implications of this talk are staggering to me. I will probably be reflecting on this for a long time. Maybe it will require further posting.

For now, I will pray to live in the Kingdom more.

On this the 4th

If you haven't read the Declaration of Independence you should. Pay special attention to the reasons given for leaving the crown. Notice its mentions of God.

One of my greatest ongoing frustrations is the misinformation given to students regarding the reasons we seceded from the English. It all sounds well and good. If you ask anyone who paid any kind of attention in 11 grade US History, they will tell you: "We left the crown because of economic reasons."

They even have a catchy little jingle, "Taxation without representation."

Although, this did play a small part in the reasons for revolution, there were more pressing reasons given by our founders. (Who, contrary to education again, were exceedingly religious, by the way. Twenty-four of them had seminary degrees!)

In the Declaration of Independence, Taxation without Representation is mentioned only once, while other issues, such as abolishment of slavery, religious liberty, and King George's abuse of Judges are mentioned more.

The founding fathers based most of the Declaration of Independence on the book the Two Treatises of Government which references the Bible over 1700 times.

Even the idea of our 3 branches of government (Executive, Judicial, and Legislative) comes from Isaiah 33:22. This verse describes God as King, Lawgiver, and Judge.

I am not sure if I would have been for the war against Britain. I have a feeling I would have been a loyalist, but the government the founders established was new and unique. It was a government designed to let a nation thrive in its Christian roots, and give glory to God, while also being amazingly practical to solving the problems of people by governing.

As we move further and further away from this foundation, we will see more and more breakdown of our society.

On this the 4th of July, let us celebrate our beginnings as truly as we can. We need to go back to our religious (Christian) roots.

An amazing post on a letter from John Adams to his wife on July 3rd, 1776 can be found at str.org under the title Happy Birthday

*Much of the information in this post was from a talk given for Worldview Weekend by David Barton.

Psalm 100: A praiseworthy praise

Sorry I have been out, but I am back. My adventure into God's holy word brings me to my favorite chapter in all the Bible: Psalm 100. I am not kidding, this is the first chapter of the Bible my dad had me memorize. It has stuck with me all these years. It has a special place in my heart.

The psalmist begins by urging us to praise God, and he continues this beautifully through all 5 verses. The prose used is undeniably beautiful. I happen to think the psalms can rival any other writings in terms of beauty.

I especially enjoy the crux of this chapter, the beginning of verse three: Know that the Lord is God!

There is so much packed into that statement! Know that the Lord is God!

If I can live my life following this verse, I will serve Him undeniably. Over the years I have found amazing depths to this chapter of scripture. (As we can find with most all of scripture) I urge you to meditate on these words. Its very short, read it 20-30 times. Let it sink in. Let it permeate you. In other words:

"Know that the Lord is God!"

This Week

I will be "on assignment" at Wheatstone Academy this week. Just kidding... I am really there to observe. But I do not know if and when I might be able to post. We shall see!

This just in: No TV is not the end of the world!!!

I am almost a month into my no-TV experiment. We have not had any kind of TV signal in our house for a little while.

It has not been as tough as I had originally thought it was. I have spent a lot more time reading and preparing my curriculum for next year. Also, there has been a lot of time for blogging (which I thoroughly enjoy and think is much more worthwhile.)

The one thing I have not been able to do, that I have wanted to do more of, is add to the spiritual disciplines. I really need to work these into my life. I know they will benefit my walk with God. If you remember if you could be praying for this I would very much appreciate it.

Psalm 79: All for His Glory!

Psalm 79 is written during a low point in the history of the Israelites. The temple has been destroyed, as well as Jerusalem. The Psalmist pleads with God to be vengeful, retributive against the enemies who destroy.

This Psalm begins, very graphically, by explaining what has happened: Enemies have, invaded your chosen land, polluted your holy temple, they have made blood flow like water, and no one can bury the dead.

What is interesting is the Psalmist seems to blame fellow Israelites for this. He asks, "How long will this go on, O Lord? Will you stay angry forever? How long will your rage burn like fire?" I thought the Lord would be angry with the enemies, but this seems to make it seem God is angry with Israel, and because of this God has let these enemies attack the country.

He goes on later, "Do not hold us accountable for the sins of earlier generations!" Clearly, the Psalmist is arguing for Israel being the reason for the lack of protection by God.

But then the crux of the passage is expressed. The Psalmist asks for God to help, for His own glory. "Help us, O God, our deliverer! For the sake of your glorious reputation, rescue us! Forgive our sins for the sake of your reputation! Why should the nations say, “Where is their God?” Before our very eyes may the shed blood of your servants be avenged among the nations!"

This is amazing! I am learning about this more and more. Everything God does is for his glory. It even seems as though we can appeal to God on this ground. He will save because it glorifies Himself.

The Psalmist appeals, "Why should other countries be able to talk bad about you God? Show them your vengeance. Forgive us because it will glorify you!" The more I think about this, the more I am struck by its importance. John Piper had a commentary just today on this concept at desiringGod.org

The Psalm ends by a promise of the Psalmist that if God will save them they will forever thank Him.

Its over, or maybe a one game playoff?

Tonight is the night. Tonight we see if the Lackers... sorry the Lakers have anything left in the tank. Tonight we see if the Celtics are everything and the Lakers are nothing. Tonight Laker fans either look to next year (what a front line that will be, and with Kobe too) or they look to Thursday.

Tonight is huge for a sports fan like me. But Thursday would be bigger.

Praying for the leaders in the country: Psalm 72

My exploration of scripture has led me to Psalm 72.

Psalm 72 is a prayer for the leader of Israel. Most likely this was Solomon at the time. This prayer is so the king will lead well. If the king leads well the people will prosper.

This psalm is a perfect example of the If-then principle. This means there is a correlation referenced in the Psalm. In other words... the psalmist says... if this happens then this will happen. This is not a hard and fast rule, but instead just a general application to life. If this then this will most likely happen.

The if is the psalmist asking God to bless the king "with the ability to make just decisions!
Grant the king’s son the ability to make fair decisions!"

Almost the whole rest of the psalm is focused on the then. There is quite a list of things that will happen. Here is just a short number of what will happen if the king makes just and fair decisions:

1. People will be fairly judged
2. The less fortunate will be defended
3. People will fear God
4. The godly will flourish
5. There will be peace
6. The needy will be rescued

There are many other things that happen if the ruler makes good, wise decisions.

The Psalm finishes by praising God who "alone accomplishes amazing things" and "deserves praise forever"

To apply to today, do we pray for our leaders? Do we ask God to help them make wise, just decisions? Do we ask Him to help them be help to the weary and oppressed? We should. If we do we might be able to see the end of this Psalm come to fruition.

"May his majestic splendor fill the whole earth!"

Yes!

A misplaced plea

An article on planet wisdom calls for women to dress more modestly during the summer.

Josh Wiehagen explains even though girls want to fashionable, "I can’t say I’m always completely impressed with the . . . coverage."

He goes on to write about how Christians are called to a very tall standard. We are called be completely pure. We are to flee sexual immorality.

Wiehagen's point is that its hard enough to be sexually pure when ladies are completely covered, let alone when they are wearing things which are made specifically to make lust happen. (Mini-skirts and low-cut shirts ARE made for this reason, no matter how much we pretend they are not. For example, a girl might say, "I just want to look good." This begs the question, "For whom?")

I agree with Wiehagen, girls do need to think about the reaction they are really getting. As he points out, "what my flesh would like to see is not what I need to dwell on. And if you think about it, it’s not what you’d want me to dwell on, either." If girls truly thought about the reaction they are getting, they would want to cover up more.

Unfortunately, I think Wiehagen's plea is wrongly focused. I don't think modesty should be asked for, instead it is beauty. I think Wiehagen is actually asking for beauty and he doesn't even know it. This is why he ends with this scripture:

“Don’t be concerned about the outward beauty that depends on fancy hairstyles, expensive jewelry, or beautiful clothes. You should be known for the beauty that comes from within, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is so precious to God. That is the way the holy women of old made themselves beautiful.” (1Peter 3:3-5, NLT)

There is a huge difference between modesty and beauty. While being modest is important, it is also subjective. It changes from person to person, and context to context.

Don't believe me? Try this... can a 3 year old baby run around without a shirt on? Or is it immodest for certain rural tribes' women to not wear shirts? We can easily see both of these situations are not immodest, but this same situation would be very immodest in certain contexts.

Beauty on the other hand is objective, not subjective. Beauty has a standard.

Again, you may not agree, but I think you should. You might think, "Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder." No it is not. Plain and simple. And you don't want it to be either.

If beauty is in the eye of the beholder then there is no standard to strive for. Anything anyone does/wears can be beautiful to them. I am sorry for the blunt and vivid picture coming, but to take the roof off of this argument, I don't know anyone who would say a murderous rape and rampage is a beautiful thing. And the people who might say it is beautiful are probably insane.

But there is a standard for beauty. It is God. He is the Beauty all beauty strives to be like. And if we keep this in mind, we realize this is really what we are appealing to when we ask ladies to "be more modest." We are asking them to dress up to the standard God wants. Look amazing! God looks amazing! Your relationship with God will be beautiful, when you are trying to please him, and this radiates off you. True Beauty is more an experience, and being in line with God's wishes for how we look, sound, interact in our daily lives. When we are in true alignment with the purposes God made for us we are being a reflection of the harmony of the Holy Trinity.

So, again, I would love ladies to wear more, but because of Beauty, not because of modesty. Modesty is a good thing, but is so much less satisfying then striving for true beauty.

A very good commentary on the nature of beauty can be found in a 9 part series by John Mark Reynolds.

On Reading the Bible (Well) pt II

A few days ago I wrote about reading the Bible well. I have noticed people have not been taught how to read the Bible for everything it gives. Instead we are stuck in a world of privatization, where the only application from scripture is for the individual. The problem with this is God revealed the Bible for everyone. Scripture has an original meaning, and we need to understand what God's intention for the message was. Without this we can fall into the trap of internal faith without any real base to stand on.

With this in mind we looked at Revelation 3:14-22. We discovered many people misinterpret this passage, and it can be disastrous for some believers. I have actually heard pastors say God would rather us be completely against Him if we are not going to be "on fire" or "sold out" for Him.

We examined the passage and found, within the context of the time, this is probably not what God was saying at all! Instead, God wants us to stay close to Him the source of being cool and refreshing, or hot and therapeutic. Jesus was using a cultural aspect to show the citizens of Laodicea that they were not close to Him anymore. No, they were far from Him, like lukewarm water, they tasted nasty to Jesus.

How can we avoid this problem? How should we read the Bible?

I have found there are 5 basic, and easy, steps to be able to read the Bible well.

1. Read the passage!

Read the whole passage. Don't just read a verse. Verses are meant to be seen in the larger context of a message.

2. Understand to whom it is being written.

If the passage is directed to exiled Israelites, it might have different cultural considerations then if it was written to brand new Christians in the 1st century.

3. Determine what God was saying to the people He was speaking to.

With the context and culture in mind we can probably understand more about what God was telling them.

4. Seek out and extract the transcendent (timeless) principles.

As mentioned earlier, God's word is written for everyone. It is sufficient for a knowledge of saving grace. If we can see both the cultural and scriptural context then we can see what is the principle God is communicating to everyone.

5. Apply this transcendent principle to the culture and life you live.

We can take what God has told everyone, and apply it to the ways we live. This will ensure we are at least trying to connect with the body of believers.

Christianity is not a private religion. It does have private aspects, but always within the context of the community/church (the body of believers). In order for this to work, we need to see what God wants everyone to know.

In part 3: The 5 Steps applied.