Liberal Guilt

I am always curious about mechanisms that explain unilateral, predictable behavior among political liberals and conservatives.  I do not view myself as either one, because I have massive problems with each.  But conservative behavior is more difficult for me to pinpoint.  I am quite sure that depravity is influencing most conservative political behavior and policy, just as I believe it is influencing liberal political behavior and policy.  I am also quite sure at the same time that common grace has its influence upon both as well.

But liberals seem a little easier to speculate about.  It seems to me that government programs  like medicare, medicaid,  health care,  welfare, etc.,  are viewed by so many as the primary means by which the poor should be cared for in this country.  One could easily see how the beneficiaries of these programs would  support these programs.  But what explains the unilateral support of these programs on the part of liberals?

Perhaps an analogy would be enlightening--I remember when I was on staff at a church for a couple of years in the early 2000's that the church gave its mercy ministry money, ie money intended to help people with heating bills, food, rent, etc, to a local clearing house agency, and would let them fool with the difficult task of evaluating needs.   People would call the church asking for assistance, and the standard response was to have them "call Such-and-Such charitable agency, because we support them and expect them to do this work for us."  When I began working there, I worked differently by becoming involved in people's lives, helping them work up budgets, talking them through problems, and when appropriate, giving them the Gospel.  I also asked the church for money to pass directly to people's needs rather than passing them off to an organization.  It just seemed to me that by using the charitable organization, we were passing off an important responsibility and opportunity.  It seemed to me that we were sort of saying to people who called, "Sorry, I gave at the office."  Our consciences were then salved, and we felt like we had done all that we needed to do.  A sort of legalistic love for our neighbors.

Could it be that support for government programs operates much the same way?  So many feel as if the poor are poor unjustly, and maybe they are in many cases.  But the solution to this guilt appears to be that  government agencies should handle the problem.  We pay taxes and support government agencies so that we can continue on with our lives, and our standard of living, while at the same time minimizing our contact with the poor, and feeling as if we have met their needs at the same time--a salve for the conscience.   Is it possible that sometimes this is the hidden, self-deceived motivation behind support for government assistance for the poor?  The liberal version of "I gave at the office?"

Is there any correlation between the statistical verity that liberals, who predominantly support the expansion of government assistance, tend to be less religious than conservatives?  Is there any debate about this?  Of course politically liberal Christians exist, but they are the exception rather than the rule.  Who will most likely take public stands against perceived Christian morals in society?  Political liberals or political conservatives?   Is there a also a correlation with regard to support for government assistance programs?

Note that I am not saying that we should not help the poor. I do in fact believe that we should.  I question though whether the government is the best solution to the problem of our guilt for the injustice of poverty.  It seems to me that the Christian solution would be to have much more direct involvement with the poor rather than merely rely upon government to perform our responsibilities for us.

Thoughts in flux--which means that they are subject to change.

The Koran-Burning Idiot and the Slobbering Beast

Internet friend and Pastor Bob Bixby has a fascinating post at this link that gives some thoughts that many apparently have not considered.   I echo his assertion that the Koran-Burning Idiot (KBI) is an idiot for the same reasons that he provides.  I would add that the KBI's actions are militant in a worldly sense. The Church has no call to worldly militancy.  We do not fight with swords or spears, but with the Word of God in the power of the Holy Spirit.  The Gospel is our most powerful weapon, and it is to be given in love to all those who need it.  There is no Gospel in the actions of the KBI.  The man is not a wise man and he defames the Glory of God.

I find it all ironic, however, on two counts:  First, this man is doing something very unwise, but due to religious freedom and rights to free speech, this lack of wisdom is protected by our Constitution.  However, the world has been nearly united in condemning him, and many have called for forceful action to prevent him from exercising his foolishness.

The irony comes from the simple fact that another recent incident has also involved people doing something very unwise, but lawful,  in the name of religion.  What makes it ironic is that the most vocal opponents of the KBI have been very supportive of the unwise people in this other incident.  I speak of those who support those who desire to build a mosque near Ground Zero.   If the argument in favor of the mosque at Ground Zero goes like this, "I do not think it is wise for them to do this thing, but this is America, so they have the right,"  then the fact that the same standard is not applied to both situations reveals a telling inconsistency that is characteristic of the unbelieving mind.

However, I am personally far more outraged against the KBI than the Ground Zero Muslims, but not because his actions are an affront to another "legitimate" religion that so many are desperate to appease. I am outraged because the man is doing something in the name of our God that he has not commissioned us to do.  In my mind, he is violating the command of the One True God. But make no mistake, he is not violating Islam's Allah.  That Allah is a figment of the Muslim imagination and a false god.  Allah does not exist, therefore he cannot be violated.

2)  The second irony is pointed out in Bob's post, that this Koran burning incident, as unwise as it may be, reveals something that is being ignored by most of its critics--The Muslim religion is inherently a violent religion.  James White has called it "the Religion of Perpetual Outrage."   It has been outraged and violent from its inception 1500 years ago.  They have sought conversions by the power of the sword, according to the command of their imaginary god, throughout their history.  They have enforced his laws by the power of the sword.   Granted that the Christian religion has also been violent from time to time throughout history, but the difference is that violent Christians have disobeyed God's revealed will.  On the other hand, violent Muslims are simply obeying the revealed will of their god.  The Bible condemns both violent Christians and violent Muslims. Obedient Christians are not violent, but obedient Muslims are authorized to be murderers.   What then do we make of those Muslims who preach peace?  They simply disregard the revealed will of their god.  Those who spew threats and violence are more respectful of the Koran's teaching than those who preach peace.  There is nothing more noble and respectable about those who preach peace; both are prophets of a false religion.

The reaction of Muslims throughout the world has once again revealed the slobbering beast to those who have eyes to see.  They have revealed the true nature of their religion.  And yet, the world comes to their defense, even as Muslims who are true to their religion threaten violence in response.  Look up, Oh World!  Look up from your irrational outrage and religious denial and see the slobbering beast that is hiding in plain sight!

BTW, I am aware that the KBI has backed off at least temporarily because of a supposed deal between him and the Ground Zero Muslims (dubious).   He has attempted to draw attention to the Muslim world's reaction as a sort of justification for his foolishness.   Some might eventually suggest (perhaps even he himself) that this was the substance of his plan all along--to reveal the slobbering beast.  However, I don't believe he is wise enough to have planned this revelation. He is simply a fool.

The Misguided Messianic Character of Conservative Christian Politics

Many conservative Christians believe they have a divine mandate to restore the United States of America to its Christian roots by force of law.  I believe these efforts are misguided and unbiblical.  

The Constitution is not a Christian document in spite of what we believe the religious commitments of its authors to have been.   A simple return to strict interpretations and applications of the Constitution as the Founders intended should never be equated with Christian righteousness.  More than this, it should not be made a standard by which one judges the “Christianness” of a politician or policy. Nowhere in the Bible does God endorse either our constitution or democracy as the standard by which to define a God-glorifying, "Christian" nation.   Waving an American flag or being a patriot is not tantamount to being a Christian.  If it were then the larger majority of Christians around the world and throughout history have lacked the Christian wholeness that being a U.S. citizen apparently provides. Even more, to say that Christians must “pledge allegiance” to conservative politics is to violate the Christian Faith in ways that border on idolatry.

At best, the Founders allowed for democratic rule by the majority, circumscribed by certain generic inalienable rights, regardless of the religious commitments of that majority. What this means is that the prevailing perspectives of the people, whether Christian or not, are constitutionally authorized to become the prevailing policy of the nation.  Thus the Constitution itself may very well inhibit the rechristianization that many political Christians are fighting for.  The Constitution endorses the platitude, “As the people go, so goes the nation.”

Besides the dubiousness of the mission to restore this nation to its "Christian" roots and constitution, the legislation of Christian morality is not an effective tool for accomplishing national repentance. In fact, it is a waste of political time, energy, and influence. Even if Christians could prevail in policy by democratic means, government is still incapable of preventing sin by force of law, because sinfulness is first and foremost a condition of the heart.  Since no law has ever existed that could change the heart (a fundamental tenet that many Christians appear to be ignorant of), the prohibition of sinful behaviors will neither fully prevent them nor alter the sinful heart-condition that spawned them.  On the contrary, according to Scripture such prohibitions will frequently exacerbate sin.  Therefore, governmental efforts to effect behavioral change for merely moralistic reasons are futile.

National repentance can only be accomplished by preaching and teaching God’s law as part and parcel of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Preaching and teaching the Gospel is exclusively the domain of the Church.    Government can and should maintain the right of Christians to preach and teach.  If it does not, Christians should preach and teach anyway, for we should obey God rather than men.  But government itself is neither responsible for, nor capable of, effecting the goal of preaching and teaching.  These separate spheres of responsibility for both Church and State comprise the biblical doctrine of what is secularly called “the Separation of Church and State.”   According to this doctrine, the exclusive authority of the Church to preach and teach the Word of God is an inalienable right bestowed by the Creator. 

What then is government’s separate responsibility with regard to the law of God? It is primarily to protect innocent people from the harmful effects of others’ sins.   By “harm” I do not mean simply the offence of someone’s sensibilities, but actual harm (material or immaterial) to another human being’s person, rights, dignity, or property.   Since government cannot change hearts, it can only protect the innocent from the actions of evil doers.  Government cannot change a thief’s heart, but it can and should prevent a thief from taking someone else’s property. Government cannot change a murderer’s heart, but it can and should prevent the taking of someone else’s life (note that abortion falls here).   These protections from sinful acts fit with the biblical description of government as “God’s servant to bring wrath upon the wrong doer” and the biblical mandate to enforce justice on behalf of constituents.

Although government is powerless to prevent sin and change sinfulness, it stands to reason that it has no right to authorize, endorse, command or empower sin.  It may not be responsible to apply the law of God beyond what is necessary to protect people, but it has no right to fight against the law of God.  By way of analogy, I may not be responsible as a private citizen to punish criminals, but that does not mean that I have the right to aid them in their criminal endeavors.  Similarly, the doctrine of “separate spheres of responsibility” does not mean that government itself is authorized to violate or endorse the violation of the law of God. For example, it is possible that a certain immoral behavior might not have any harmful effect upon anyone other than the willing participants.  Government will overstep its bounds to legislate against this behavior, but at the same time it cannot and should not authorize, endorse, empower, or command this immoral behavior.  Government might not be authorized to legislate against homosexuality or premarital sex, for instance, but it has no right to endorse it.

Therefore, the two most pertinent initial questions for evaluating whether Christians should support moral legislation are these:  1) Is this law necessary to protect the innocent from others’ sins?  2)  Will this law authorize, endorse, command or empower violations of God’s law?   The question of whether or not a law will restore a nation to its Christian roots or bring about a revival of Christian moralism is irrelevant.  There will never be a law that can do such a thing.   Christians who use political activism to accomplish these things are wasting their time with useless efforts that God neither endorses nor commands.   They may even be unwittingly working against God’s created order and his Gospel.

[I recognize the theoretical nature of this essay but hope that it spurs some thoughts. There are huge holes in the theory.  For instance, how does cruelty to animals and conservation of the environment fit into this paradigm?  Granting the need for further consideration, I do believe the basic framework has validity, usefulness, and biblical support.]

We are Finally Number One: A Different Take on Robert Byrd’s Legacy

Senator Robert Byrd, the longest-serving senator in United States history, passed away on June 28, 2010. As a West Virginian, I greatly appreciate the love and respect that he had for our State. But I question whether he has really accomplished what so many have been celebrating upon his passing.

In our local Sunday paper, the public statements of prominent citizens all repeated the same themes: Robert Byrd loved, studied, supported, and protected the constitutional role of the United States Senate, and Robert Byrd loved West Virginia with all his heart. He wrote a multi-volume history of the Senate and always carried a copy of the constitution in his coat pocket. Across the State, at least thirty roads, bridges, buildings, and programs bear his name, representing billions of federal dollars that he has funneled into our State. His affection for and dedication to Senate and the State of West Virginia cannot be questioned.

And yet, at the same time, a constant barrage of statistics throughout his tenure have told us that West Virginia still leads dozens of bad lists and is at the bottom of dozens of good lists, to our great and constant embarrassment. According to Bryan Bolduc of the Wall Street Journal (“Robert Byrd’s Highways to Nowhere,” July 10, 2010), West Virginia ranks 48^th in both median household and per capita income. Over fifty percent of the state’s economy “relies on spending by local, state and federal government—the highest level of any state,” and “West Virginia ranked dead last among the 50 states in the Fraser Institute's Index of Economic Freedom of North America.” All statistics aside, West Virginia has a national reputation of being one of the most poverty stricken and economically backward states in the nation.

Of course, Robert Byrd is not the cause of all these problems. The causes are complex and stretch back through nearly 150 years of statehood. However, in spite of the fact that we have had the longest serving senator in U.S. history, elected again and again by the people of West Virginia, we still have not risen above the bottom in dozens of social, educational, health, and economic categories during his tenure.

Some will argue that since Robert Byrd was a federal senator, he was not responsible for improving conditions on the State and local level. And yet, these are the same people that celebrate the billions of dollars of federally funded projects that they claim are his legacy. Regardless of what Byrd has done for this state, the question remains-- has his federally funded legacy in any way mitigated our endemic problems? Some might say that had Robert Byrd not been our senator for the last 50 years West Virginia might be worse off than what it is. I simply respond that it is harder to get worse off than the bottom.

So, while Robert Byrd is not responsible for our State’s problems, he appears to have done little to alleviate them. Yet, we have elected him again and again and again. And for what? For his constant flag-waving in the name of West Virginia? For his having authored a multi-volume history of the Senate? For his genteel, old-school statesmanship? I doubt the average West Virginian has been motivated to put him back in office for any of these most nationally recognized characteristics. No. West Virginians repeatedly re-elected him for two reasons—1) because he funneled billions of federal funds into dozens of pork projects throughout the state, leading to the perception that he has accomplished something lasting on our behalf, and 2) because he has a reputation for using his political heft to help West Virginians in bad situations. For instance, one person who was repeatedly refused black lung benefits asked for Robert Byrd’s help. Those benefits came through almost immediately with apologies. Every West Virginian knows someone who knows someone who received similar aid from Senator Byrd. And West Virginians have loved him for it, enough to vote him into office for over 50 years.

Of course, Robert Byrd is to be commended for these noble interventions. One cannot help but respect his political clout and willingness to help individuals who needed help. Frankly, however, these anecdotes simply serve to remind us that, though he was a federal senator, Robert Byrd did indeed have great power on the State and local level, and West Virginia remains at the bottom of good lists and at the top of bad ones nonetheless.

What then are we to make of West Virginia’s loyalty to this politician who has not significantly changed our State for the better in spite of 50 years of power? What exactly have we been celebrating upon his passing? Perhaps it is mainly that, finally, we West Virginians have something to be proud of, trivial though it may be. We can now claim to have had the longest serving senator in the history of the United States of America. That was us. No one else. We did it, over and over and over again. We’re number one.

Yea.

West Virginians Have Been Told it is Raining

The Great State of West Virginia remains at or near the top of nearly every bad list and at the bottom of every good list of social, economic, educational, and health statistics. For example--

1. Third highest tax burden per citizen in the nation.
2. Third last in median household income and fourth last in personal income per capita.
3. Fifth from the top in percentage of people who live below the poverty level.
4. Fourth highest high school dropout rate.
5. Dead last in percentage of college degrees; third last in graduate degrees.
6. Fourth in the percentage of mobile homes.
7. Highest rate of children who live with their grandparents.
8. Diabetes rate leads the nation, along with high blood pressure rate, cholesterol rate, and loss of natural teeth.
9. Fourth lowest birth rate.
10. Fifth highest cancer death rate.
11. Highest obesity rate.
12. Highest percentage of smokers and users of smokeless tobacco.
13. First in percentage of people living with a disability.

And yet, West Virginians have overwhelmingly re-elected the same ideology to political office for decades on the national and state level. Speaking of lists, is there one for the greatest percentage of people who have been repeatedly bamboozled, and are happy about it? What do we get for our blind allegiance? Do we really prefer the crumbs of federally-funded bridges, roads, buildings, and programs over real and radical improvement to the state of the State? Honestly, I don't care who they are or what party they are from, can we get someone--anyone--who can do something--anything--to actually make a difference within, oh let's say 50 years or so? Fifty years should be enough time to make a difference. Right?

Whoops! Maybe not.

Source: http://www.statemaster.com/state/WV-west-virginia

See also: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111704575354870221777334.html

A Unified Theory of Politics: Lord Government Almighty

Quantum physics has led scientists to search for a unified theory of everything, i.e. a scientific theory that adequately explains all the properties of physical phenomena and predicts their experimental interactions. To date, they have been unsuccessful in spite of scientific advancements.

For nearly two decades I have wondered whether there might also be a unified theory that explains the apparent predictability of politics. For example, if someone is known to be a liberal regarding one social issue (e.g. abortion), there is a high likelihood he or she will also be liberal on many others (e.g. homosexual rights or environmentalism). Conservatives can be just as monolithic on the other end of the spectrum. Of course exceptions exist, but they do not entirely mitigate the predictable tendencies within political allegiances. To explain the predictability of politics, particularly of the liberal persuasion, I would like to posit that a Unified Theory includes a Unifying Moral Principle, a Unifying Worldview, and a Unifying Messianic Entity.

A Unifying Moral Principle: The Fairness Doctrine

Within the heart of every human being is an impulse that directs the moral values of the human race. The touchstone of this moral impulse is the Imago Dei. Having been created in God’s image, we have an inherent sense of right and wrong that more or less resembles the dictates of the Law of God (Romans 2:14-15). At the Fall of Adam, this reflection of God’s image was shattered and distorted. Though broken and imperfect, the image nonetheless remains and still reflects a vague impression of the heart of its Maker.

This broken moral impulse most frequently manifests itself in human societies through the concept of justice or fairness. Justice or fairness is the remaining radical moral impulse of fallen humanity. Justice requires a standard of some sort. The standard for fallen humanity is every person’s sense of self, or ego. By means of this standard, we determine what is fair or just, because we have a powerful notion of what we want for ourselves. We assume that if we would want it for ourselves, we should want it for others just as well. For instance, we do not want our lives or property taken from us, so we do not want lives or property taken from others. By this standard, we determine that things like murder and thievery are wrong.

We can assume that this ego-instrument was in some way an aspect of the Imago Dei, built into us by God’s perfect design. In a perfect, unfallen world, this sense of self would have served unerringly to direct people to do what was right. Knowing how real our own needs were, we would have lived with a constant awareness of others’ needs and, loving them perfectly, would have possessed an unerring standard by which to serve others.

We know that this is the case because when Christ redeemed those who believe in him, he brought them back to this radical moral principle. He clearly stated, “Love your neighbor like you love yourself.” Instead of encouraging selfishness, a redeemed self-awareness should keenly alert us to the reality of the countless egos surrounding us. Christ viewed this redeemed self-awareness as so reliable that he even restated the timeless Law of Love for practical application—“Do to others what you would have them to do to you.”

So the idea of justice and fairness is simply humanity’s way of applying the fallen ego-instrument. To those of us who understand the biblical concept of depravity, the ego-instrument almost seems counterintuitive. We know ourselves too well and have observed countless times our own selfishness running roughshod over everyone else on the way to assuaging our own desires. However, there is a sense in which the ego-instrument still works and should be celebrated, distorted though it may be, as a manifestation of God’s image in the entire human race. When we see people fighting from the depths of their hearts for justice and fairness, we can acknowledge that they would not fight so hard or at all were it not for the simple fact that they are God’s creation.

Humanity is fallen and depraved, however. So we can expect that its applications of justice and fairness would be skewed away from God. Humanity takes what was initially implanted by God, and because it was distorted by the Fall, misdirects it away from the perfect guidelines provided in the Law of God and implanted within humanity’s conscience. We should expect the result to be a severely warped notion of justice. Lacking the redemption provided through the Son of God, efforts to apply the ego-instrument would frequently result in misdirection, imperfection, injustice, imbalance, and evil.

We can see evidence of this radical moral impulse gone awry in human society, providing examples of good things somehow gone bad. It might have some semblance of nobility in its most basic form, but its misdirection by depravity provides for wrong applications and methods. Homosexuals march on Washington for equal rights, believing it unfair that they cannot marry like heterosexuals. Women fight desperately for the right to abort fetuses because it is unjust that someone else should have the power to tell them what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. Politicians redistribute wealth, power, and healthcare because it is unjust for the wealthy to have more money and resources than the poor. Environmentalists and animal rights activists anthropomorphize the created order and claim that animals and mother earth are treated unjustly. Nearly every act of government on behalf of its people, for better or worse, is rooted in this radical moral impulse that is built into the heart of every person. The issues or causes of nearly every charity, political action committee, or community organization have the concept of justice figuratively emblazoned upon a high-flying banner. This impulse for fairness exists even in the hearts of the most godless of people, though detached from its moral foundation.

Although this unifying moral principle beats within the heart of all humanity, it lacks a divine anchor. Nevertheless, it drives people to seek justice with near religious fervor. Somehow, even those whose morality is detached from its foundation realize that morality requires some sort of religious connection. Ecclesiastes teaches that humans were created with an eternal aspect to their being so that they constantly seek for answers to life’s ultimate questions. Some have called this the “God-sized hole” in the heart of every person. Ecclesiastes makes clear that apart from God humankind will not be able to tell the end from the beginning and the search for answers will be futile. Therefore the search continues incessantly, only in all the wrong places. This search provides the unifying moral principle with a frame of reference and a domain of application. I posit that this frame of reference and domain of application flows from a Unifying Worldview.

A Unifying Worldview: The Cult of the Created Thing

A worldview, in simple terms, is a way of viewing reality. For instance, some people view reality as if God did not exist, and this belief influences how they interpret the world and everything in it. On the other hand, Christians are fond of referring to what they call a Biblical worldview—one that presupposes the existence of God and the truth of Scripture. It purports to accept what the Bible says about reality and tries to integrate that into every area of life including work, entertainment, social experiences, family relationships, politics, etc. A worldview provides an ultimate frame of reference or a paradigm that makes sense of the world in which we live. Worldviews can be expressed or unexpressed, formal or informal, known or unknown, Christian or non-Christian. Regardless, commitment to our various worldviews manifests itself predictably in their domains of application. Worldviews are unifying.

According to the Apostle Paul, those who do not look to God for answers to life’s ultimate questions will seek for them within the only other realm they know—the created order. They seek to fill the religious void within them by means of things that have been created. “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25). This explains why some cultures have been inexorably driven to worship idols made of wood and stone. Other cultures may not claim a specific deity but are still driven to give their most fanatical affections to elements within the created order. Apart from the true worship of the Creator, all religious commitments will inevitably aim at something less than the One True God. I have called these religious commitments the “Cult of the Created Thing.”

When the unifying moral impulse lacks a divine anchor, and when it combines with a lesser religious anchor such as the Cult of the Created Thing, it finds its realm of application restricted to the created order. Similarly, the means (enforcer) of application for the moral impulse cannot be divine, so it must also be restricted to the created order. This inevitably leads humans to seek for a unifying messianic entity that will enforce the unifying moral impulse within the limited domain of the unifying worldview.

A Unifying Messianic Entity: Lord Government Almighty

Apart from the redeeming power of God, mankind’s only effective means for forcing the unifying moral impulse upon other moral agents is entirely earthbound. Throughout history, the supreme moral enforcer in all cultures has been their collective authority organized as government. Apart from God and the Church, human government of some sort has always been the only available and effective enforcer of the radical moral impulse. In a very real sense, government is the religious deity of the Cult of the Created Thing. It is the messiah, the savior to which all must turn to enforce the fairness doctrine.

Once again, Christians should quickly see a good thing gone bad. Scripture teaches that government was ordained by God to be his servant, ordering society by his principles. Still, to a limited extent, government does indeed serve this purpose, preserved by his sovereign power and influenced by the vestigial shattered image that brokenly reflects God’s character. But a government that fails to anchor itself in the divine and limits itself to a Godless reality will display the effects of depravity at every turn. Its applications of the ego-instrument will swerve bizarrely away from the divine standard of God’s Law. It will view itself as messianic, as the only adequate enforcer of a fairness doctrine that is uninformed by God’s love. It will become, in effect, Lord Government Almighty, the only champion of the people.

The Unified Theory of Politics Applied

How then does this paradigm explain the predictability of liberal politics? I will now posit what readers might expect from a conservative Christian—some have progressed farther down a path of depravity than others. Their applications of the fairness doctrine are a grotesque mutation of the Imago Dei. They worship the created thing in forms like unbridled secular humanism and environmentalism. They place their faith and trust in a Godless messiah to enforce justice. With a little thought, it is not difficult to see how each thread of the Unified Theory factors into fanatical obsession with environmentalism, climate change, cap-and-trade, animal rights, homosexual agendas, extreme feminism, abortion rights, welfare, universal health care, government bailouts, and Wall Street salary caps, just to name a few. The notion of degrees of progress down a depraved path might also explain why some lie at each end of the political spectrum and why some fall somewhere in between. Those farther down a path of depravity may have more fully embraced the shattered moral impulse of the ego-instrument, the Godless Cult of the Created Thing, and a messianic view of government.

Are conservatives then unscathed by the depravity’s power? I think not. They may not have traveled the same path of depravity and might have been preserved by God’s common grace to a greater degree, but this a far cry from saying that conservatives represent what is right in the eyes of God. The greed of unrestrained capitalism, the supposed freedom of deregulation, the arrogant and evangelistic rectitude of democracy, the entitlement of inalienable rights, and the legalism of moral legislation are only a few of the conservative ideals that have been polluted by depravity. Conservatives, like liberals, still see government as a sort of champion, particularly with regards to moral issues. We suffer from the delusion that government would be fixed if only we would return to the supposed Christian principles of our Founding Fathers.

Depravity has impacted the entire political spectrum. This means that any government regime, regardless of its political persuasion, cannot be trusted to accurately represent God’s perspectives. At the same time, some people will take the country more quickly into moral decline than others. The solution to all this however, is not a simple democratic victory by the moral majority. They will not be able to legislate God’s Laws in a way that fixes the human condition, and they will not be immune from the deforming effects of depravity upon their own rule. The only power and authority to countermand the effects of depravity rests in the Lord Jesus Christ. There will come a time when government shall be restored to its original created intention. That time will not come until Christ rules within the hearts of all people everywhere.

Some Formative Opinions on Christianity and the Environment

Many environmentalists push Green for Green’s sake. One local non-profit group has created a commercial that presents the following text interspersed with alternating pictures of pristine and damaged mountains: “One million acres ravaged . . . 2000 miles of stream buried . . . 500 mountains destroyed . . . for cheap coal . . . one mountain can still be saved . . . with clean wind energy . . . help build a wind farm and save a mountain.” Perhaps their reasons are more complex than this, but the fact is that many appear to value Green simply for Green’s sake. Save an acre, stream, or mountain because they deserve to be saved for their own sake. Is this a valid reason for Christians to be green? I cannot speak for all, of course, but I can present my own formative thoughts concerning Christianity and environmentalism.

To Continue Reading this Essay Click Here

Dead Bodies, Gas Pump Hoses, and Gun Control

Recent headlines inform us that over 100 bodies were desecrated in an Illinois cemetery over the last several years. Recent headlines have also informed us of two other facts: The people who did this are facing serious charges, and the Illinois legislature is throwing around legislation that will respond to the crisis by increasing regulations for the cemetery industry in Illinois.

On a recent drive through the hills of my beloved West Virginia, I turned into a secluded gas station. There were only two pumps at this station, but taped prominently to each pump were signs written in magic marker on typing paper that said, "$50 Fine For Driving Off with Pump Hose Still in Tank."

As I paid for my gas, I had to ask, "So, is this a big problem in this area? I have never seen signs like that at other gas stations." The attendant gave me a somewhat self-satisfied look and replied, "It happened once, until I put up those signs." There was something about her tone that communicated how clever she thought she was. I just stared at her, not to be rude, but just not knowing what to say. She continued, "Over in Trenton, at Fred's store, there's this one girl that done it THREE TIMES." Apparently it wasn't thievery, just one person's serial idiocy. Or maybe two. There was apparently at least one other person out there driving around with a gas hose in his or her tank. This over-reaction clearly illustrates silliness that might not be so easy to see in other areas of life, especially in the relationship between politics and the masses.

My point is that, while these recent, headline-hogging desecrations may suggest some need for different regulations, e.g., better record keeping, I hope that the Illinois legislature does not over-react to the mindless melded millions who are up in arms over this obviously heinous, though isolated incident. Charges are already filed against the perpetrators according to existing laws. Clearly what they did is already illegal, probably in many different ways. So there is probably no need to uber-criminalize their activity in any rushed manner. However the legislature responds, let it be well-reasoned, time-tempered, and needful. There is no reason to hurry. Common sense should rule situations like this, not pitchfork and torch-type mania.

So I threw "Gun Control" into the headline above to merely draw attention to another parallel. Killing people with guns is already illegal, as is robbing people with guns, threatening people with guns, hurting people with guns, even "brandishing" is a crime. Convicts may not legally own guns, and supplying guns to them is also illegal.

Gun accidents by both well-meaning people and idiots may occur but do not kill as many people as cars, airplanes, boats, ATV's, and water-sports. Therefore the pursuit of additional gun control because of accidents is as often as not, an over-reaction to isolated incidents. Gun violence is already illegal in a hundred different ways. The pursuit of additional gun control because of gun violence is pointless. Criminals disregard both law and human decency. They have and will continue to disregard gun control measures . The result of increased gun control regulations will be that criminals will continue to use guns illegally, and law abiding citizens will have their gun use restricted even further. That is what makes criminals criminals, and law-abiding citizens law-abiding, unless of course additional gun control measures turn law-abiding citizens into criminals.

Dead bodies, gas pump hoses, and gun control all call for non-reactionary common sense. Take your time, do not allow the emotion of the moment to rush you to ill-conceived and disproportionate conclusions and solutions. Let reason rule. Not the momentary emotional monopoly of the mindless melded millions.

The parallels are endless. Can you recognize the dozens of other emotional over- reactions in politics? Can you see any emotional over-reactions in your own life? The millions can be emotionally mindless, but so can individuals. Take your time. Take a deep breath. Think.

From the Bills Blog at www.adoniram.net

A West Virginian on Obama

I have tried to stay neutral in the political race, mainly by keeping my political opinions relatively quiet. I pastor a wonderful church made up of both Democrats and Republicans, fine people who sincerely embrace Christ and his Word. My own political affiliation is independent. In West Virginia, that means that I am registered without a party affiliation. My allegiences are higher than either party for the sake of my congregation.

I am discouraged, however, to see some of my fellow WVians falling for the most elementary political fallacies. Several months ago, West Virginia made national news through "man on the street" interviews that made us look very bad. No doubt, the media picked the interviews that portrayed us in the poorest light. Here is an example of those sorts of interviews.

Today, I ran into one of those folks and heard it with my own ears, and I was amazed. She was not a member of my congregation. The topic of conversation was today's inauguration. Quickly, she asserted that Obama was a Muslim. I could not resist correcting her. "No he is not," I said. "He has publicly stated over and again that he believes himself to be a Christian." We have no valid reason to suspect that he is a Muslim, even if that mattered as a qualification for POTUS. Though I suspect his definition of "Christian" and mine are quite different, I run into supposed "Christians" every day whose definitions are very different from mine.

She continued "But he looks like a Muslim." I responded, "What does that mean? There are millions of blacks all across America. Does being black make one a Muslim?" I stopped short of telling her that such a statement was blatently racist. She finished with the assertion that "he does not salute the flag." Once again, I responded, "One picture has accidently captured Obama before he had a chance to salute during the pledge of allegience. Such an argument cannot be made from a single picture." The fact that she so quickly moved from one desparate reason to reject Obama to the next was revealing.

I think many are looking for excuses to not embrace Obama for reasons that hearken back to a darker time in our nation's history. This is shameful. West Virginia has once again demonstrated that many of us are behind the curve. There may be many legitimate reasons to prefer that someone else be president, but please, oh, please! Fellow West Virginians! Let them be good, accurate, well-reasoned, and unprejudiced!