Because my health has prevented me from blogging regularly, there are a few things I haven’t got to share about in awhile that I want to do before 2009 ends.
1.Christmas – *** Have you noticed how people on television were not saying “Merry Christmas” but “Happy Holidays?” I don’t fault people if they were they trying to be politically correct, but why couldn’t they say “Merry Christmas” AND “Happy Holidays?” When I said “Merry Christmas” to cashiers, I never got a “Merry Christmas” back but usually a “same to you.” It drives me nuts that students no longer have “Christmas vacations” but “Winter breaks” but now I can’t even hear the word “Christmas” said in public. You can probably tell that I feel that being “politically correct” or somehow sensitive to how others feel has just gone much too far.
***The best part of being in some stores or watching any Christmas special on television – even PBS- during Christmas was to hear Christmas carols. It must be a nightmare for the ACLU-Separation of Church and State-Atheist types who want all mention of God erased from the public square. For example, “Glory to the newborn King…God and sinners reconciled…Christ by highest heaven adored; Christ the everlasting Lord…Hail the Heaven born Prince of Peace! Hail the Sun of Righteousness…Born that man no more may die, Born to raise the sons of earth, Born to give them second birth…” (“Hark! the Herald Angels Sing”) Every carol preaches the gospel as clearly as any Sunday morning sermon. Interestingly, though, I did learn that not all Christmas songs speak of Jesus’ birth. For example, in “Joy to the World,” phrases such as “…the Savior reigns,” “He rules the world truth and grace, And makes the nations prove, The glories of His righteousness” speak not of the result of His FIRST coming but of His SECOND coming. It’s just like verses in the Bible where some refer to His first and some to His second coming.
2.Health Care Reform – *** When the “pro-life” Democrat from Nebraska, Senator Ben Nelson, who had said that he would not vote for the bill unless there was clear language in it that prohibited tax payer funding for abortion and represented the ONE vote that would stop the bill from passing the Senate, indicated that he would vote FOR the bill, I all but screamed! Despite what’s been said, the language of the bill he agreed on will NOT, in truth, prevent such funding. If every Republican amendment proposed to CLEARLY outlaw any tax dollars going to abortion services was defeated by the Democrats, do you really believe the final language of the bill was going to do that? (By the way, over 70% of Americans polled do NOT want tax payer funds going to abortion, with over 50% now opposed to abortion on demand.) The Senator knows this. And so, what really caused him to give in – his state was promised an exemption from Medicare taxes that will result from the bill. In other words, he was bought off. Just as I am sure all the other so-called “pro-life” democrats who voted for the bill also did. (Even the mainstream media that can be counted on to support policies promoted by the Democrats were forced to report on what favors many of the not so liberal Senators were given in exchange for their votes.) After Senator Nelson's utter failure to stand on principle and to sell-out the unborn, I believe every person in Congress who says they are "pro-life" should put an asterisk by their name so that we know that it doesn't mean their convictions cannot be bought at the right price.
*** I was stunned that the Senate Democratic leader Reid actually said that there was nothing unusual about this, that these were just “compromises” that are part of negotiations! I was surprised his nose didn’t take on a Pinnochio-size length as he spoke. As someone said when they called into a radio talk show: “The Democrats slogan is: If you have trouble passing a bill, lie, lie, again.” I would change that to say, …lie, bribe, and steal some more.” (Every time they add something to a bill, they increase our national debt and STEAL from future generations.) The real clincher that this wasn’t a compromise was the not-often quoted statement by one of the Democrats that the President got 95% of what he wanted. (This is the President who has made some clear promises to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest provider of abortions.) Wow, he compromised on 5%.
*** When their victory in passing the bill was assured, I was struck by the Senators who were self-congratulatory to gloating. It didn’t seem to matter to them that over 2/3 of Americans polled said that they are not in favor of the Senate’s bill. It seems that they are more interested in getting their way, that they are more interested in what they think is best rather than what the American people want. They call their bill “historic” and any combination of the Senate and House bill probably will be. But not historic in that it will accomplish good but bring great evil to this country. Ever since the election, people have gotten to like the use of that word so much they forget that many things in history were very destructive. Calling something “historic” doesn’t guarantee it will be something good. *** I was so upset by Senator Nelson’s sell-out that I decided against finding some way to share all this the next day because it would not be in keeping with this Christmas season. But I’m still very upset, and if you are pro-life and you care about what the Democrats reform will actually cost this country and future generations, I hope you’re upset. I hope you’ll join me in praying that somehow, as they try to mesh the Senate bill with the House bill, there will be enough problems to derail this very dangerous bill.
3. The President’s First Year in Office: ***During an interview with Oprah, one of his wealthiest supporters, the President was asked what grade would he give himself. While the grade most Americans polled gave the President was a “D,” he said he gave himself a “B+.” It tells you why teachers never ask students what grade they think they deserve. I would give him a “D-.” At least he is sending most of the troops our commander in Afghanistan requested, though it’s not clear to me (and I’m sure most Americans) why it took him 3 months to decide and why he didn’t anticipate such a request long before it was made. And praise God, he FAILED to persuade the Olympic committee to hold the 2016 in Chicago, which would have bankrupt the city that was already dealing with a deficit. (Montreal, Canada, which held the winter Olympics in the ‘70’s only recently paid off its debt from that Olympics!) And double praise, that he did NOT commit America to any binding and debt-incurring commitments at the Copenhagen Climate Conference. I give him low marks for plunging us into so much debt with the stimulus bill, the attempted (praying it still fails) Health Care Reform bill, his attempted energy (cap and trade) bill, his sending US dollars worldwide to provide for abortions during his first few weeks in office, for his approving more federal dollars to go to unnecessary research into EMBRYONIC stem cell research, and his having the federal government assume control of the financial and auto industries. I’m sure there are other things I’ve forgotten in this “historic” year but these were the ones that upset me the most.
*** I could not believe it when the President actually accepted the Nobel Peace Prize. (Did you know he was nominated just 2 weeks after he was sworn in?) He originally said that he didn’t know what he had done to be awarded the prize (as did almost 80% of the American people) and the Nobel committee itself said that it was given for what they HOPED he would do as a result of his overtures to Muslims and others hostile to American policies. (As some have said, it’s like he got a prize just for not being George Bush, who Europeans so dislike.) At least he is said to have given the $1 million plus prize money to charity, though what charity that is has not been disclosed. (Planned Parenthood, ACORN?) And, while on the subject, did you also know that the Nobel Prize was NOT given to Mahatma Gandhi, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (for his part in leading the fight in WWII), nor President Ronald Reagan (whom most credit with helping to end the scourge of Soviet communism and the threat of nuclear war).
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
#47 - What You Haven’t Heard From Environmentalists (3)– THREE (parts one and two were postings on this blog #27 and #28)
On Monday, thousands gathered in Copenhagen, Denmark, for an international conference on climate change over the next two weeks. While those in attendance believe that the science of global warming (or climate change) is “settled,” there are tens of thousands of noted scientists who disagree, something I’m quite sure you’ve not heard about if you’ve been listening to the usual media outlets.
While the biased nature of news reporting was not enough to find disturbing, several weeks ago the world learned that scientists themselves were guilty of bias in THEIR reporting. “On November 23rd, someone hacked a server used by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, and disseminated more than a thousand e-mails and other documents. Climate change skeptics charge that the e-mails show collusion by climate scientists to skew scientific information in favor of manmade global warming. The leaked documents “show that prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of manmade global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data, plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing, and concealed apparently buggy computer code from being disclosed under the Freedom of Information law,” CBS News reported. One climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research was quoted as saying: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” ’ – from Newsmax.com, Dec. 7
To give some balance to the reporting that you will likely hear in the next two weeks coming out of the conference in Copenhagen, I will present here on each posting under the title “What You Haven’t Heard from Environmentalist” several past articles by Chuck Colson and others addressing the climate change/global warming THEORIES we often hear.
Before I present some articles, I’d like to share several quotes I found at: GlobalWarmingHoax.com:
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical. “The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
"Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist
“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.
“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
Global Warming and the Media By Chuck Colson 2/3/2009, Breakpoint.org
Give Us All the Facts
You may have noticed that some of President Obama’s most ardent supporters speak of him in almost messianic terms. But there’s one public figure who apparently means it literally: James Hansen of NASA. Hansen, who is the “father” of the global warming movement, recently told the U.K. Guardian that the new President “has only four years to save the world.” Unless we implement drastic measures like a “moratorium on new power plants that burn coal” and a hefty “carbon tax,” we face an apocalyptic future—“global flooding, wide-spread species loss and major disruptions of weather patterns.”
Of course, Hansen’s warnings made headlines around the world. Not only because “doom and gloom” sells, but because the mainstream media treats any claim about man-made global warming with the utmost credulity. Thus, last summer, when a “researcher” claimed that global warming might lead to more violent earthquakes, news outlets trumpeted the story. In their haste, they neither asked how warmer temperatures can cause earthquakes nor checked the researcher’s credentials. These included previous pieces on something called the “Thiaoouba Prophecy” and reading auras. Really. The story was quickly deleted from the outlets’ websites without retraction or comment.
Less comical but no less telling are the stories about the “disappearing” Arctic ice. A year ago, we were told that the Arctic had reached a “tipping point” and that Arctic ice could be “completely” gone, with dire consequences for polar bears and Santa Claus, within five years. What you probably haven’t heard is that, by October, that same Arctic ice covered 29 percent more area than it did the year before and that by the end of the year, it was approaching its greatest mass since 1979. And it’s still growing. There are countless other examples of where real-world facts conflict with global warming theory, not the least of which is that the Earth has been cooling since at least 2003 and arguably since 1998.
As the chairman of the International Geological Congress has asked, “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?” Those of us shivering this winter have been asking the same question. It’s possible that he and other critics are wrong, of course. What is certain is that we are not getting anything resembling a complete presentation of the facts. The media reports the dire claims, and by the time the claims have been debunked, they have already moved onto the next one. Given the level of dissent and skepticism on the subject, we ought not to let ourselves be panicked and stampeded into taking drastic and costly measures. Nor should we allow the claims about “scientific consensus” to cow us. First, remember, there is no such consensus; and, second, scientists are just as prone to peer pressure and groupthink as everybody else.
This is a major issue. The costs here are immense, not only in terms of dollars, but in terms of human flourishing. I recommend we take a biblical perspective on environmental stewardship. The Acton Institute has produced just such a booklet—a wonderful tool. Come to BreakPoint.org or call in, and we’ll tell you how to get it.
For Further Reading and Information
Read the Acton Institute’s Environmental Stewardship in the Judeo-Christian Tradition.
“Arctic Ice Could Be Gone in Five Years,” Telegraph (UK), 12 December 2007.
“Arctic Ice Melting ‘Faster Than Predicted’,” Telegraph (UK), 24 April 2008.
Dennis Avery, “The Worst Climate Predictions of 2008,” Canada Free Press, 28 December 2008.
“Arctic Sea Ice Now 28.7% Higher than This Date Last Year - Still Rallying,” Watts Up With That?, 15 October 2008.
Regis Nicoll, “Climate Change Science: Long on Faith, Short on Fact,” BreakPoint Online, 5 December 2008.
“Stimulus through Contraception?: Fewer Kids to Feed,” BreakPoint Commentary, 2 February 2009.
“Just Do It: Good Stewardship and Global Warming,” BreakPoint Commentary, 2 November 2007.
The EPA's Assault On Carbon Dioxide (Forbes.com Commentary, 4/12/09) - Richard A. Epstein
The passing of the environmental torch between the Bush and Obama administrations became ever more evident last week when EPA head Lisa Jackson announced that carbon dioxide is now an official pollutant. Not just any pollutant, mind you, but one that moves in the fast company of methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride--all notoriously bad stuff.
For years, the Bush EPA refused to mount even a partial attack on carbon dioxide. In part, its opposition rested on the uncertain science about CO2's uncertain contribution to global warming. In part it rested on the view that the patchwork programs of the Clean Air Act (CAA) did not afford a sensible platform on which to launch such a huge and risky initiative.
Traditional administrative law principles seemed to give the EPA lots of leeway in backing off carbon dioxide. Courts routinely block agencies from implementing programs that go beyond their statutory marching orders. But courts are most reluctant to coax any agency to devote its limited resources to a program it doesn't want to undertake. It is too risky to let different courts order a single agency to march off in different directions. And it is nearly impossible for any court to monitor agency progress on a project that it doesn't want to carry out.
For these reasons, it was a surprise when, in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court pulled that trigger in Massachusetts v. EPA. That decision ordered the EPA to investigate whether it should classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant under section §7251(a)(1) of the CAA, which says that the administrator shall "prescribe by regulation standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."
Justice Stevens held that the EPA's only wiggle room under this statutory command was to decide whether carbon dioxide either caused or contributed to air pollution in ways that endangered public health. Otherwise it had no discretion to back off. And it is hard to deny that carbon dioxide might contribute something to global warming. Nonetheless, most people find it a bit odd to take after poor CO2 as a pollutant when its presence in the atmosphere is a necessary element to sustain life on earth. The rub is that too much carbon dioxide might choke the environment--assuming we could find that tipping point, which looks more uncertain with each passing day.
The science isn't what's troubling with the EPA's recent decision. That honor belongs to targeting new sources of pollution under the CAA, from tail pipes, or for that matter, coal plants. Congress chose to regulate new sources under the CAA in the naïve belief that old ones would quickly fade away. But that grandfathering decision induced people to keep older, more deadly, cars on the road--and power plants stay on line--far longer than they should.New technology produces better pollution controls than old ones--period. For automobiles, the EPA estimates that new cars today emit on average somewhere between 10% and 25% the amount of pollutants that new cars did in 1970 when the EPA became law. The worst new car is better than the best of the old cars, whose inferior pollutant systems only deteriorate with age. Suppose it were 100% sound for the EPA to attack carbon dioxide, then the available strategies under the CAA are the worst possible way to encourage the shift to safer technologies.
No sane libertarian favors death by asphyxiation. The reason we need something like the EPA is because ordinary private lawsuits cannot keep pace with pollution that comes from so many sources and harms so many people. But the legitimacy of ends does not excuse sloppiness on means. First, "do no harm," remains good social policy. The EPA needs to hold off its regulatory offensive against carbon dioxide until it gets statutory authority to tax or regulate those older sources that do most of the damage. And then it has to consider whether a comprehensive attack on CO2 is worth the candle.
Richard A. Epstein is the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law, The University of Chicago, the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow, The Hoover Institution, and a visiting professor at New York University Law School.
Don’t Waste Time Cutting Emissions
By BJORN LOMBORG, Op-Ed Contributor, April 25, 2009,
WE are often told that tackling global warming should be the defining task of our age — that we must cut emissions immediately and drastically. But people are not buying the idea that, unless we act, the planet is doomed. Several recent polls have revealed Americans’ growing skepticism. Solving global warming has become their lowest policy priority, according to a new Pew survey. Moreover, strategies to reduce carbon have failed. Meeting in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, politicians from wealthy countries promised to cut emissions by 2000, but did no such thing. In Kyoto in 1997, leaders promised even stricter reductions by 2010, yet emissions have kept increasing unabated. Still, the leaders plan to meet in Copenhagen this December to agree to even more of the same — drastic reductions in emissions that no one will live up to. Another decade will be wasted.
Fortunately, there is a better option: to make low-carbon alternatives like solar and wind energy competitive with old carbon sources. This requires much more spending on research and development of low-carbon energy technology. We might have assumed that investment in this research would have increased when the Kyoto Protocol made fossil fuel use more expensive, but it has not. Economic estimates that assign value to the long-term benefits that would come from reducing warming — things like fewer deaths from heat and less flooding — show that every dollar invested in quickly making low-carbon energy cheaper can do $16 worth of good. If the Kyoto agreement were fully obeyed through 2099, it would cut temperatures by only 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit. Each dollar would do only about 30 cents worth of good.
The Copenhagen agreement should instead call for every country to spend one-twentieth of a percent of its gross domestic product on low-carbon energy research and development. That would increase the amount of such spending 15-fold to $30 billion, yet the total cost would be only a sixth of the estimated $180 billion worth of lost growth that would result from the Kyoto restrictions.
Kyoto-style emissions cuts can only ever be an expensive distraction from the real business of weaning ourselves off fossil fuels. The fact is, carbon remains the only way for developing countries to work their way out of poverty. Coal burning provides half of the world’s electricity, and fully 80 percent of it in China and India, where laborers now enjoy a quality of life that their parents could barely imagine.
No green energy source is inexpensive enough to replace coal now. Given substantially more research, however, green energy could be cheaper than fossil fuels by mid-century. Sadly, the old-style agreement planned for Copenhagen this December will have a negligible effect on temperatures. This renders meaningless any declarations of “success” that might be made after the conference. We must challenge the orthodoxy of Kyoto and create a smarter, more realistic strategy.
Bjorn Lomborg is the director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center at Copenhagen Business School and the author of “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming.”
While the biased nature of news reporting was not enough to find disturbing, several weeks ago the world learned that scientists themselves were guilty of bias in THEIR reporting. “On November 23rd, someone hacked a server used by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, and disseminated more than a thousand e-mails and other documents. Climate change skeptics charge that the e-mails show collusion by climate scientists to skew scientific information in favor of manmade global warming. The leaked documents “show that prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of manmade global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data, plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing, and concealed apparently buggy computer code from being disclosed under the Freedom of Information law,” CBS News reported. One climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research was quoted as saying: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” ’ – from Newsmax.com, Dec. 7
To give some balance to the reporting that you will likely hear in the next two weeks coming out of the conference in Copenhagen, I will present here on each posting under the title “What You Haven’t Heard from Environmentalist” several past articles by Chuck Colson and others addressing the climate change/global warming THEORIES we often hear.
Before I present some articles, I’d like to share several quotes I found at: GlobalWarmingHoax.com:
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical. “The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
"Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist
“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.
“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
Global Warming and the Media By Chuck Colson 2/3/2009, Breakpoint.org
Give Us All the Facts
You may have noticed that some of President Obama’s most ardent supporters speak of him in almost messianic terms. But there’s one public figure who apparently means it literally: James Hansen of NASA. Hansen, who is the “father” of the global warming movement, recently told the U.K. Guardian that the new President “has only four years to save the world.” Unless we implement drastic measures like a “moratorium on new power plants that burn coal” and a hefty “carbon tax,” we face an apocalyptic future—“global flooding, wide-spread species loss and major disruptions of weather patterns.”
Of course, Hansen’s warnings made headlines around the world. Not only because “doom and gloom” sells, but because the mainstream media treats any claim about man-made global warming with the utmost credulity. Thus, last summer, when a “researcher” claimed that global warming might lead to more violent earthquakes, news outlets trumpeted the story. In their haste, they neither asked how warmer temperatures can cause earthquakes nor checked the researcher’s credentials. These included previous pieces on something called the “Thiaoouba Prophecy” and reading auras. Really. The story was quickly deleted from the outlets’ websites without retraction or comment.
Less comical but no less telling are the stories about the “disappearing” Arctic ice. A year ago, we were told that the Arctic had reached a “tipping point” and that Arctic ice could be “completely” gone, with dire consequences for polar bears and Santa Claus, within five years. What you probably haven’t heard is that, by October, that same Arctic ice covered 29 percent more area than it did the year before and that by the end of the year, it was approaching its greatest mass since 1979. And it’s still growing. There are countless other examples of where real-world facts conflict with global warming theory, not the least of which is that the Earth has been cooling since at least 2003 and arguably since 1998.
As the chairman of the International Geological Congress has asked, “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?” Those of us shivering this winter have been asking the same question. It’s possible that he and other critics are wrong, of course. What is certain is that we are not getting anything resembling a complete presentation of the facts. The media reports the dire claims, and by the time the claims have been debunked, they have already moved onto the next one. Given the level of dissent and skepticism on the subject, we ought not to let ourselves be panicked and stampeded into taking drastic and costly measures. Nor should we allow the claims about “scientific consensus” to cow us. First, remember, there is no such consensus; and, second, scientists are just as prone to peer pressure and groupthink as everybody else.
This is a major issue. The costs here are immense, not only in terms of dollars, but in terms of human flourishing. I recommend we take a biblical perspective on environmental stewardship. The Acton Institute has produced just such a booklet—a wonderful tool. Come to BreakPoint.org or call in, and we’ll tell you how to get it.
For Further Reading and Information
Read the Acton Institute’s Environmental Stewardship in the Judeo-Christian Tradition.
“Arctic Ice Could Be Gone in Five Years,” Telegraph (UK), 12 December 2007.
“Arctic Ice Melting ‘Faster Than Predicted’,” Telegraph (UK), 24 April 2008.
Dennis Avery, “The Worst Climate Predictions of 2008,” Canada Free Press, 28 December 2008.
“Arctic Sea Ice Now 28.7% Higher than This Date Last Year - Still Rallying,” Watts Up With That?, 15 October 2008.
Regis Nicoll, “Climate Change Science: Long on Faith, Short on Fact,” BreakPoint Online, 5 December 2008.
“Stimulus through Contraception?: Fewer Kids to Feed,” BreakPoint Commentary, 2 February 2009.
“Just Do It: Good Stewardship and Global Warming,” BreakPoint Commentary, 2 November 2007.
The EPA's Assault On Carbon Dioxide (Forbes.com Commentary, 4/12/09) - Richard A. Epstein
The passing of the environmental torch between the Bush and Obama administrations became ever more evident last week when EPA head Lisa Jackson announced that carbon dioxide is now an official pollutant. Not just any pollutant, mind you, but one that moves in the fast company of methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride--all notoriously bad stuff.
For years, the Bush EPA refused to mount even a partial attack on carbon dioxide. In part, its opposition rested on the uncertain science about CO2's uncertain contribution to global warming. In part it rested on the view that the patchwork programs of the Clean Air Act (CAA) did not afford a sensible platform on which to launch such a huge and risky initiative.
Traditional administrative law principles seemed to give the EPA lots of leeway in backing off carbon dioxide. Courts routinely block agencies from implementing programs that go beyond their statutory marching orders. But courts are most reluctant to coax any agency to devote its limited resources to a program it doesn't want to undertake. It is too risky to let different courts order a single agency to march off in different directions. And it is nearly impossible for any court to monitor agency progress on a project that it doesn't want to carry out.
For these reasons, it was a surprise when, in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court pulled that trigger in Massachusetts v. EPA. That decision ordered the EPA to investigate whether it should classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant under section §7251(a)(1) of the CAA, which says that the administrator shall "prescribe by regulation standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."
Justice Stevens held that the EPA's only wiggle room under this statutory command was to decide whether carbon dioxide either caused or contributed to air pollution in ways that endangered public health. Otherwise it had no discretion to back off. And it is hard to deny that carbon dioxide might contribute something to global warming. Nonetheless, most people find it a bit odd to take after poor CO2 as a pollutant when its presence in the atmosphere is a necessary element to sustain life on earth. The rub is that too much carbon dioxide might choke the environment--assuming we could find that tipping point, which looks more uncertain with each passing day.
The science isn't what's troubling with the EPA's recent decision. That honor belongs to targeting new sources of pollution under the CAA, from tail pipes, or for that matter, coal plants. Congress chose to regulate new sources under the CAA in the naïve belief that old ones would quickly fade away. But that grandfathering decision induced people to keep older, more deadly, cars on the road--and power plants stay on line--far longer than they should.New technology produces better pollution controls than old ones--period. For automobiles, the EPA estimates that new cars today emit on average somewhere between 10% and 25% the amount of pollutants that new cars did in 1970 when the EPA became law. The worst new car is better than the best of the old cars, whose inferior pollutant systems only deteriorate with age. Suppose it were 100% sound for the EPA to attack carbon dioxide, then the available strategies under the CAA are the worst possible way to encourage the shift to safer technologies.
No sane libertarian favors death by asphyxiation. The reason we need something like the EPA is because ordinary private lawsuits cannot keep pace with pollution that comes from so many sources and harms so many people. But the legitimacy of ends does not excuse sloppiness on means. First, "do no harm," remains good social policy. The EPA needs to hold off its regulatory offensive against carbon dioxide until it gets statutory authority to tax or regulate those older sources that do most of the damage. And then it has to consider whether a comprehensive attack on CO2 is worth the candle.
Richard A. Epstein is the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law, The University of Chicago, the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow, The Hoover Institution, and a visiting professor at New York University Law School.
Don’t Waste Time Cutting Emissions
By BJORN LOMBORG, Op-Ed Contributor, April 25, 2009,
WE are often told that tackling global warming should be the defining task of our age — that we must cut emissions immediately and drastically. But people are not buying the idea that, unless we act, the planet is doomed. Several recent polls have revealed Americans’ growing skepticism. Solving global warming has become their lowest policy priority, according to a new Pew survey. Moreover, strategies to reduce carbon have failed. Meeting in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, politicians from wealthy countries promised to cut emissions by 2000, but did no such thing. In Kyoto in 1997, leaders promised even stricter reductions by 2010, yet emissions have kept increasing unabated. Still, the leaders plan to meet in Copenhagen this December to agree to even more of the same — drastic reductions in emissions that no one will live up to. Another decade will be wasted.
Fortunately, there is a better option: to make low-carbon alternatives like solar and wind energy competitive with old carbon sources. This requires much more spending on research and development of low-carbon energy technology. We might have assumed that investment in this research would have increased when the Kyoto Protocol made fossil fuel use more expensive, but it has not. Economic estimates that assign value to the long-term benefits that would come from reducing warming — things like fewer deaths from heat and less flooding — show that every dollar invested in quickly making low-carbon energy cheaper can do $16 worth of good. If the Kyoto agreement were fully obeyed through 2099, it would cut temperatures by only 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit. Each dollar would do only about 30 cents worth of good.
The Copenhagen agreement should instead call for every country to spend one-twentieth of a percent of its gross domestic product on low-carbon energy research and development. That would increase the amount of such spending 15-fold to $30 billion, yet the total cost would be only a sixth of the estimated $180 billion worth of lost growth that would result from the Kyoto restrictions.
Kyoto-style emissions cuts can only ever be an expensive distraction from the real business of weaning ourselves off fossil fuels. The fact is, carbon remains the only way for developing countries to work their way out of poverty. Coal burning provides half of the world’s electricity, and fully 80 percent of it in China and India, where laborers now enjoy a quality of life that their parents could barely imagine.
No green energy source is inexpensive enough to replace coal now. Given substantially more research, however, green energy could be cheaper than fossil fuels by mid-century. Sadly, the old-style agreement planned for Copenhagen this December will have a negligible effect on temperatures. This renders meaningless any declarations of “success” that might be made after the conference. We must challenge the orthodoxy of Kyoto and create a smarter, more realistic strategy.
Bjorn Lomborg is the director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center at Copenhagen Business School and the author of “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming.”
Sunday, December 6, 2009
#46 - Letters to the Church THREE - The Manhattan Declaration
[from Stan: As I have stated previous, as Christian, I believe that we have a responsibility before God, as stewards of this great country that we are privileged to be citizens, to stand up when evil threatens it. Twenty years ago this past spring, I spent four days in jail with over 600 others for blocking an abortion clinic as an act of civil disobedience, something I did in response to a clear call from God. Last year, a pastor in Scandanavia was jailed for preaching about homosexuality according to the teaching of Scriptures under hate crimes legislation similar to that recently signed into law by our President. (I called this bill to your attention this spring. Knowing they could not have it passed any other way, the Democrats in Congress attached it to a defense appropriations bill to make it almost impossible for conservative Republicans to oppose it.) Recently in Florida, “Michelle Winkler's life as a school administrative assistant dramatically changed the day the ACLU brought CONTEMPT charges against her for asking her husband to pray over a meal at a privately-sponsored employee banquet being held in a neighboring county. The ACLU attorneys had the audacity to ask the court to force Michelle to pay them over $30,000 in attorney's fees!” (For more information on this, I encourage you to check out LiberyCounsel.org where I learned of this.)
The document was recently signed by Christians across denominational and political persuasions asks Christians to get serious about whether or not we will stand up against evil policies that are infecting our society. If you go the appropriate website, ManhattanDeclaratioin.org, you will find the entire document to read and sign. Although it came to 7 pages when I downloaded it, it is a document worth your time reading, having, and signing, which I encourage you and your friends to do. Friend, we must ask ourselves the question: If we say we really care about what is happening morally in our country, are we willing to stand up to say so, even if one day it might mean committing acts of civil disobedience as that pastor in Scandanavia and Christians persecuted throughout the world our doing every day for even more egregious wrongs? I believe that it is sin before God to do any less.]
Manhattan Declaration Hits Almost 200,000 Signatures by Kim Trobee, editor
Statement on Christian beliefs is a clarion call to reach out to the poor and suffering.
The Manhattan Declaration was unveiled at a press conference Nov. 20. Now, more than 200,000 people have signed the document that outlines Christian teaching on abortion, marriage and rights of conscience. Chuck Colson, founder of The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview, said on his daily Breakpoint commentary that the declaration was a proclamation that Christians will protect the tenets of their faith.
"There, in front of all those cameras and lights, Christian leaders lovingly, winsomely and firmly took a stand," he said. "I will never forget the picture. I stood between Archbishop Wuerl of Washington and Cardinal Rigali, Archbishop of Philadelphia. I looked over at Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Jim Daly of Focus on the Family, and Ron Sider, president of Evangelicals for Social Action. It was a foretaste of what we're all going to see in heaven."
Other Christian leaders signing included Bishop Harry Jackson, senior pastor of Hope Christian Church, the Rev. Chad Hatfield, chancellor and CEO of St. Vladimir's Seminary, Robbie George, director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, and Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List.
Just four days after launching the Manhattan Declaration Web site, nearly 100,000 people had signed their support for the document, and that number continues to climb. Jim Daly, president and CEO of Focus on the Family, said it's the kind of communication that captures the spirit of the Christian faith. "Inviting and answering questions, engaging in civil discourse, acknowledging where we've fallen short and investing more energy in doing the right things for other to see," he said. "It's the language of cultural change." Opponents have called the document a political tool to resurrect the "religious right." Colson said that couldn't be further from the truth. "This document is a clarion call to reach out to the poor and the suffering," he said. "It is, in fact, a form of catechism for the foundational truths of the faith. It underscores human rights, and calls on everyone to protect human dignity at every stage of life. The Manhattan Declaration was written for the common good and for justice."
TAKE ACTION
Sign the Manhattan Declaration.
Friday, December 4, 2009
#45 - Alternatives To All That Christmas Shopping
[From Stan: You might consider using the present growing troubles of Tiger Woods as a conversation starter with non-Christian friends. First, ask them what would they consider the marks of a great life they would like to have. Then share with them how “Tiger Woods basically has (had?) it all: he’s a billionaire AND at a young age (financial security for life); he’s married to a beautiful model and has 3 healthy and beautiful children; he has world-wide fame and popularity; he gets to do for a living what he is gifted and obviously enjoys doing and is probably the best in the world at what he does. AND YET, with all that, he was dissatisfied enough to (it appears) commit adultery. He is just one of many stories of famous people (and Hollywood is full of them) who “had it all” and yet were not satisfied. Why do you think this is so?” To paraphrase C.S.Lewis, [if we are not satisfied with the things of this world, it probably means that we were meant to be fulfilled by life rooted in another world (Heaven or things of God).]… Of course, it goes without saying that we should all be praying of Tiger and his wife, that their marriage would be saved, but more importantly, that, as I suspect he and she are not believers in Christ, that they would come to know Him who ALONE fulfills any life as it was meant to be.]
Also, be sure to check out my special “Letter to the Christian Church posting this Sunday, Dec. 6.
Can Christmas Still Change the World? By Mark Earley, December 01, 2009 (from Breakpoint.com)Five pastors.
Five congregations. And one radically different approach to Christmas. What can we learn from it?
In 2006, pastors Rick McKinley, Chris Seay, and Greg Holder had a vision to revitalize the celebration of Christmas in their churches. They found two other like-minded pastors, and, together with their congregations, conspired to restore the meaning of Christmas. As Rick, Chris, and Greg explain in their book Advent Conspiracy, they all recognized and detested the rampant consumerism that turns the remembrance of Jesus’ birth into a cult of materialism. “Our story is consumption and consumerism...We worship less. We spend more. We give less. We struggle more.” That was their perspective. To address the problem, they challenged their congregations to spend less on themselves that Christmas so that they could spend more on others. As a result, this coalition of churches was able to raise around half a million dollars—enough to fund the digging of a high-capacity well in Nicaragua, and 13 deep wells in Liberia.
But these “Advent Conspirators” don’t simply tell us what they’ve accomplished. They challenge us to go and do likewise.At RethinkingChristmas.com, people who have joined the Advent Conspiracy share some practical suggestions on how to spend less money, yet give more love. One mother commented that she planned to make personalized cookbooks for her kids this Christmas. She scanned family recipes written in her handwriting and that of her mother’s, and placed them in a binder. That’s a gift that her children will treasure for years, and hopefully pass on to their children. While this may not have cost much, it involved a wealth of time—something far more meaningful. But our giving should not be limited to family and friends. This is the challenge of the Advent Conspiracy: “As poor people who have met with the righteous wealth of God, it is now our turn to model his generosity by sharing our wealth with those in need.” So far, many participants in the Advent Conspiracy movement have opted to give the money they raise each year to Living Water International, a Christian ministry dedicated to providing access to clean water to people around the world.
But whoever we give to, the point is to get beyond ourselves and love the unloved in the name of Christ. Rick, Greg, and Chris remind us of the blessings that result. As they write, “When we show up and love in the name of God, God shows up. That’s part of the mystery of partnering with Jesus in the work he is still doing.” During this past year of recession, it may be encouraging to remember that God doesn’t expect us to give what we don’t have. Those who have lost jobs may not be able to do much more than the poor widow in Luke 21. Though she only put in two small copper coins, Jesus commended her. While others gave out of their wealth, she gave out of her poverty and from her heart. So this year, as you remember how, long ago, God’s people longed for the coming of the Messiah, and as you look forward to Christ’s coming again, make a change in how you spend. Perhaps this Christmas can be the advent of a deeper faith for you and your family.
< P.S. from Stan: Besides checking out the website “Rethinking Christmas.com, consider doing away with Christmas shopping for the most part (except for children).Instead, may I encourage you to consider giving each person on your “list” a Christmas card telling them that in lieu of a gift, you are giving what you would have spent to a ministry that reaches out to people who are in need – one that gives gifts to children of those in prison, to a Christian pregnancy resource center, to World Vision or some other ministry that helps needy overseas, the Salvation Army, or Open Doors, that helps Christians in third world countries, especially former Muslims, who are persecuted for their faith. (If you need any other ideas or contact info, please let me know.
The reason for doing this is that many times during this time of year, we give with the expectation that we will receive something of possibly equal value in return. Most of us in this country have so much that, in lieu of this season celebrating the birth of Jesus, THE Gift that can never be returned in kind by the recipient, we should celebrate it by giving to those who we have no expectation of ever returning our gift in kind, those who are truly in need. Rather than going into debt (nuts!) and wearing ourselves out trying to find the perfect gift for someone who probably has the means anyway to get that item for themselves, we should think of those who cannot. I just think that doing this will make this season a whole lot less focused on buying stuff and just giving to those who really have needs for basic things.
Also, be sure to check out my special “Letter to the Christian Church posting this Sunday, Dec. 6.
Can Christmas Still Change the World? By Mark Earley, December 01, 2009 (from Breakpoint.com)Five pastors.
Five congregations. And one radically different approach to Christmas. What can we learn from it?
In 2006, pastors Rick McKinley, Chris Seay, and Greg Holder had a vision to revitalize the celebration of Christmas in their churches. They found two other like-minded pastors, and, together with their congregations, conspired to restore the meaning of Christmas. As Rick, Chris, and Greg explain in their book Advent Conspiracy, they all recognized and detested the rampant consumerism that turns the remembrance of Jesus’ birth into a cult of materialism. “Our story is consumption and consumerism...We worship less. We spend more. We give less. We struggle more.” That was their perspective. To address the problem, they challenged their congregations to spend less on themselves that Christmas so that they could spend more on others. As a result, this coalition of churches was able to raise around half a million dollars—enough to fund the digging of a high-capacity well in Nicaragua, and 13 deep wells in Liberia.
But these “Advent Conspirators” don’t simply tell us what they’ve accomplished. They challenge us to go and do likewise.At RethinkingChristmas.com, people who have joined the Advent Conspiracy share some practical suggestions on how to spend less money, yet give more love. One mother commented that she planned to make personalized cookbooks for her kids this Christmas. She scanned family recipes written in her handwriting and that of her mother’s, and placed them in a binder. That’s a gift that her children will treasure for years, and hopefully pass on to their children. While this may not have cost much, it involved a wealth of time—something far more meaningful. But our giving should not be limited to family and friends. This is the challenge of the Advent Conspiracy: “As poor people who have met with the righteous wealth of God, it is now our turn to model his generosity by sharing our wealth with those in need.” So far, many participants in the Advent Conspiracy movement have opted to give the money they raise each year to Living Water International, a Christian ministry dedicated to providing access to clean water to people around the world.
But whoever we give to, the point is to get beyond ourselves and love the unloved in the name of Christ. Rick, Greg, and Chris remind us of the blessings that result. As they write, “When we show up and love in the name of God, God shows up. That’s part of the mystery of partnering with Jesus in the work he is still doing.” During this past year of recession, it may be encouraging to remember that God doesn’t expect us to give what we don’t have. Those who have lost jobs may not be able to do much more than the poor widow in Luke 21. Though she only put in two small copper coins, Jesus commended her. While others gave out of their wealth, she gave out of her poverty and from her heart. So this year, as you remember how, long ago, God’s people longed for the coming of the Messiah, and as you look forward to Christ’s coming again, make a change in how you spend. Perhaps this Christmas can be the advent of a deeper faith for you and your family.
< P.S. from Stan: Besides checking out the website “Rethinking Christmas.com, consider doing away with Christmas shopping for the most part (except for children).Instead, may I encourage you to consider giving each person on your “list” a Christmas card telling them that in lieu of a gift, you are giving what you would have spent to a ministry that reaches out to people who are in need – one that gives gifts to children of those in prison, to a Christian pregnancy resource center, to World Vision or some other ministry that helps needy overseas, the Salvation Army, or Open Doors, that helps Christians in third world countries, especially former Muslims, who are persecuted for their faith. (If you need any other ideas or contact info, please let me know.
The reason for doing this is that many times during this time of year, we give with the expectation that we will receive something of possibly equal value in return. Most of us in this country have so much that, in lieu of this season celebrating the birth of Jesus, THE Gift that can never be returned in kind by the recipient, we should celebrate it by giving to those who we have no expectation of ever returning our gift in kind, those who are truly in need. Rather than going into debt (nuts!) and wearing ourselves out trying to find the perfect gift for someone who probably has the means anyway to get that item for themselves, we should think of those who cannot. I just think that doing this will make this season a whole lot less focused on buying stuff and just giving to those who really have needs for basic things.
Friday, November 20, 2009
#44 - Beijing and Health Care
[Just to let you know: I haven't written for awhile now because my health became even more of a problem about the middle of September. Almost daily, it's prevented me from even getting on the computer long enough to post something on this and my other blog. Even what I post today is just Tuesday's Breakpoint.com commentary. I'd appreciate your prayers that my health will return to where I can at least regularly be posting and even writing things to post on my blog sites - Lord willing, by the end of this year. Thank you for your continued prayers.] P.S. - If you or your teen would like a Christian review of the much talked about new movie, "New Moon," please check my youth blog : stan4youth.blogspot.com
- November 17, 2009, Chuck Colson, Breakpoint.com commentary
Who cares the most about health care reform? The President? Congress? Seniors? The health insurance industry? Well, the answer will surprise you.
The biggest single vote to be cast on health care reform is taking place right now. Not in the halls of Congress or in some smoke-filled back room. Not in the Oval Office. Not in the media.No, the single most important vote on health care is being cast in, of all places, Beijing.As the New York Times reported Sunday, Chinese officials are questioning American officials about health care reform in the U.S. As the Times wrote, “The Chinese were not particularly interested in the public option or universal health care....They wanted to know, in painstaking detail, how the health care plan would affect the [U.S.] deficit.”
Why would the Chinese be so interested in our deficit? Well, for all intents and purposes, China is the official banker of the United States government. China is the number one foreign holder of U.S. Treasury securities. And, as the Times reports, “like any banker, they wanted evidence that the United States had a plan to pay them back.” Somehow, I doubt the President had any such evidence to give them in Beijing this week. The Chinese are nothing if not clever. One investment banker told me that they had converted all of their debt from 30-year maturity to one year. The hard questions they are asking right now are about how much the health care bill will raise the deficit. And make no mistake, if the Chinese decide not to continue financing our debt, the dollar could drop through the floor. America could have a huge financial crisis.
Isn’t it ironic that the communist Chinese are more concerned about the cost of socialized medicine than the President and the Congress? That the Chinese communists are more concerned about the U.S. government printing money like it’s going out of style than we are?If that isn’t a wake-up call to the politicians, the media, and to the American public, I don’t know what it’s going to take. Look at your own personal spending over the past year. Have you cut back on expenditures because of the recession? Have you put off purchases—even ones that a year ago you might have thought to be essential? I know I have.
Sadly, the government doesn’t think that way. The politicians want their pet projects—health care reform or earmarks—and they want them now. No matter that the U.S. budget deficit is at an all-time high. If you or I behaved this way with our personal finances, we’d be broke.Well, the Chinese are having none of it. And what they are proving is that you don’t need huge armies or navies to conquer America. All you need to do is loan the U.S. government all the money it wants for social re-engineering, and then call in the debt.
It’s time we all asked the government to be responsible with our money. Deferred gratification and prudence are virtues worthy of Christian individuals and of governments as well. I and other Christians have voiced numerous concerns over the health care reform bill being debated on Capitol Hill—freedom of conscience, the government being involved in end-of life decisions, publicly funded abortion to name a few. But in the end, it may be that the health care bill being debated on Capitol Hill will turn out to be just too expensive. We cannot afford it. Just ask the Chinese.
Further Reading and Information
China’s Role as Lender Alters Obama’s Visit - New York Times, November 14, 2009
Boondoggle or Worse?: The House’s Health Care Reform Bill – Chuck Colson, BreakPoint Commentary | November 12, 2009
Stinks to Be You: Health Care and the Utilitarian Calculus – Chuck Colson, Breakpoint Commentary | November 11, 2009
- November 17, 2009, Chuck Colson, Breakpoint.com commentary
Who cares the most about health care reform? The President? Congress? Seniors? The health insurance industry? Well, the answer will surprise you.
The biggest single vote to be cast on health care reform is taking place right now. Not in the halls of Congress or in some smoke-filled back room. Not in the Oval Office. Not in the media.No, the single most important vote on health care is being cast in, of all places, Beijing.As the New York Times reported Sunday, Chinese officials are questioning American officials about health care reform in the U.S. As the Times wrote, “The Chinese were not particularly interested in the public option or universal health care....They wanted to know, in painstaking detail, how the health care plan would affect the [U.S.] deficit.”
Why would the Chinese be so interested in our deficit? Well, for all intents and purposes, China is the official banker of the United States government. China is the number one foreign holder of U.S. Treasury securities. And, as the Times reports, “like any banker, they wanted evidence that the United States had a plan to pay them back.” Somehow, I doubt the President had any such evidence to give them in Beijing this week. The Chinese are nothing if not clever. One investment banker told me that they had converted all of their debt from 30-year maturity to one year. The hard questions they are asking right now are about how much the health care bill will raise the deficit. And make no mistake, if the Chinese decide not to continue financing our debt, the dollar could drop through the floor. America could have a huge financial crisis.
Isn’t it ironic that the communist Chinese are more concerned about the cost of socialized medicine than the President and the Congress? That the Chinese communists are more concerned about the U.S. government printing money like it’s going out of style than we are?If that isn’t a wake-up call to the politicians, the media, and to the American public, I don’t know what it’s going to take. Look at your own personal spending over the past year. Have you cut back on expenditures because of the recession? Have you put off purchases—even ones that a year ago you might have thought to be essential? I know I have.
Sadly, the government doesn’t think that way. The politicians want their pet projects—health care reform or earmarks—and they want them now. No matter that the U.S. budget deficit is at an all-time high. If you or I behaved this way with our personal finances, we’d be broke.Well, the Chinese are having none of it. And what they are proving is that you don’t need huge armies or navies to conquer America. All you need to do is loan the U.S. government all the money it wants for social re-engineering, and then call in the debt.
It’s time we all asked the government to be responsible with our money. Deferred gratification and prudence are virtues worthy of Christian individuals and of governments as well. I and other Christians have voiced numerous concerns over the health care reform bill being debated on Capitol Hill—freedom of conscience, the government being involved in end-of life decisions, publicly funded abortion to name a few. But in the end, it may be that the health care bill being debated on Capitol Hill will turn out to be just too expensive. We cannot afford it. Just ask the Chinese.
Further Reading and Information
China’s Role as Lender Alters Obama’s Visit - New York Times, November 14, 2009
Boondoggle or Worse?: The House’s Health Care Reform Bill – Chuck Colson, BreakPoint Commentary | November 12, 2009
Stinks to Be You: Health Care and the Utilitarian Calculus – Chuck Colson, Breakpoint Commentary | November 11, 2009
Saturday, September 19, 2009
#43 - Not in the National Interest
Government-Run Health Care - Chuck Colson, Breakpoint.com, September 18, 2009
Who do you want answering this question: Should we save a baby born at 21 weeks and 5 days?In the midst of the very heated debate going on about health care reform, one thing is becoming clearer and clearer—most Americans do not trust the government to make health care decisions for themselves or their families. You don’t have to look far to see that their mistrust is well founded. Check out the British press virtually any day online, and you will find horror story after horror story about what can happen when the power of life and death is handed over to a government bureaucracy.
I’ve spoken before about Britain’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (and I’ve also pointed out the sinister irony of that organization’s acronym, NICE, which was the center of evil in C.S. Lewis’s famous novel That Hideous Strength). NICE and similar agencies are setting health-care guidelines for the British National Health Service that are leading directly to a devaluing of human life.
Take the story of Bruce Hardy, who was denied the expensive cancer treatment his doctor wanted him to undergo. He was not even given the chance to pay for part of the treatment himself. Just this month, Rosemary Munkenbeck told the Daily Telegraph that doctors withdrew fluids and drugs from her father elderly father, Eric Troake, after he suffered a stroke. He appears to have been treated according to a National Health Service “pathway scheme” for dying patients—even though it was not clear that he was actually dying, and despite having said that he wanted to live to be 100 if he could. “[Doctors] say my sister and I are cruel and are trying to hold on to our father,” Munkenbeck said. “But this man has a right to life....He’s not suffering from a terminal illness, he just had a stroke. We just feel they decided from the beginning that he’s 95 so they’ve written him off.”
And the Daily Mail recently carried the story of Sarah Capewell and her son, Jayden, who was left to die by doctors because he was born at 21 weeks and five days. Had he been born only two days later, Jayden would have been given medical assistance and might have survived. But British government guidelines for National Health Service hospitals state: “If gestational age is certain and less than [22 weeks] it would be considered in the best interests of the baby, and standard practice, for resuscitation not to be carried out.” Though Jayden, delivered by a midwife, was breathing on his own and moving his limbs, doctors refused to treat or even see him. Capewell says she said to one doctor, “You have got to help,” and he responded, “No, we don’t.”
Some lives may indeed be impossible to save. But what we have here is a government bureaucracy that has the power to determine—as a matter of policy—not to save lives that could be saved. In essence, determining whose life is worth the expense. The proper, biblical role of government is to protect the well-being of its citizens—to provide security and promote justice, not to usher them into the next world by denying them medical care. Do we need health care reform? Of course we do; I’ve said so before. But as Christians, we must not assent to giving unaccountable bureaucrats the power to determine the value of a human life—or to withhold medical care from those whose survival is somehow deemed outside the national interest. [Words in italics and bold in this paragraph mine, for emphasis.]
Further Reading and Information
- Daughter Claims Father Wrongly Placed on Controversial NHS End of Life SchemeTelegraph | September 8, 2009'
- Doctors Told Me It Was Against the Rules to Save my Premature Baby'Daily Mail | September 10, 2009
- That Hideous Strength C.S. Lewis
Who do you want answering this question: Should we save a baby born at 21 weeks and 5 days?In the midst of the very heated debate going on about health care reform, one thing is becoming clearer and clearer—most Americans do not trust the government to make health care decisions for themselves or their families. You don’t have to look far to see that their mistrust is well founded. Check out the British press virtually any day online, and you will find horror story after horror story about what can happen when the power of life and death is handed over to a government bureaucracy.
I’ve spoken before about Britain’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (and I’ve also pointed out the sinister irony of that organization’s acronym, NICE, which was the center of evil in C.S. Lewis’s famous novel That Hideous Strength). NICE and similar agencies are setting health-care guidelines for the British National Health Service that are leading directly to a devaluing of human life.
Take the story of Bruce Hardy, who was denied the expensive cancer treatment his doctor wanted him to undergo. He was not even given the chance to pay for part of the treatment himself. Just this month, Rosemary Munkenbeck told the Daily Telegraph that doctors withdrew fluids and drugs from her father elderly father, Eric Troake, after he suffered a stroke. He appears to have been treated according to a National Health Service “pathway scheme” for dying patients—even though it was not clear that he was actually dying, and despite having said that he wanted to live to be 100 if he could. “[Doctors] say my sister and I are cruel and are trying to hold on to our father,” Munkenbeck said. “But this man has a right to life....He’s not suffering from a terminal illness, he just had a stroke. We just feel they decided from the beginning that he’s 95 so they’ve written him off.”
And the Daily Mail recently carried the story of Sarah Capewell and her son, Jayden, who was left to die by doctors because he was born at 21 weeks and five days. Had he been born only two days later, Jayden would have been given medical assistance and might have survived. But British government guidelines for National Health Service hospitals state: “If gestational age is certain and less than [22 weeks] it would be considered in the best interests of the baby, and standard practice, for resuscitation not to be carried out.” Though Jayden, delivered by a midwife, was breathing on his own and moving his limbs, doctors refused to treat or even see him. Capewell says she said to one doctor, “You have got to help,” and he responded, “No, we don’t.”
Some lives may indeed be impossible to save. But what we have here is a government bureaucracy that has the power to determine—as a matter of policy—not to save lives that could be saved. In essence, determining whose life is worth the expense. The proper, biblical role of government is to protect the well-being of its citizens—to provide security and promote justice, not to usher them into the next world by denying them medical care. Do we need health care reform? Of course we do; I’ve said so before. But as Christians, we must not assent to giving unaccountable bureaucrats the power to determine the value of a human life—or to withhold medical care from those whose survival is somehow deemed outside the national interest. [Words in italics and bold in this paragraph mine, for emphasis.]
Further Reading and Information
- Daughter Claims Father Wrongly Placed on Controversial NHS End of Life SchemeTelegraph | September 8, 2009'
- Doctors Told Me It Was Against the Rules to Save my Premature Baby'Daily Mail | September 10, 2009
- That Hideous Strength C.S. Lewis
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
:#42 - The Mission of the Church
Christianity as a Worldview - By Chuck Colson, September 08, 2009
[Have YOU borrowed from the library or bought a copy of "SAVING FREEDOM" by Jim DeMint? It really is the ONE non-fiction book you need to read as soon as possible. If you own a copy, loan it out to friends and have them pass it around. It is THAT good.]
Today I want to tell you about a major new effort to renew the Church and transform the culture.What is the vision of the Church? That was the sermon topic one Sunday a dozen years ago or so when I visited a friend’s church. But as I listened, I found my mind wandering. I had just signed a contract to write a book on Christian worldview, and I was experiencing writer’s remorse. Did this book really need to be written? Suddenly the pastor’s words caught my attention. The mission of the Church, he said, is to prepare for Christ’s return in five ways: prayer, Bible study, worship, fellowship, and evangelism. In that instant, all doubts about writing the book vanished. Of course, these five spiritual exercises are central to the Church’s life, but we can never overlook our responsibility to redeem all of culture as well. Though well-intentioned, the pastor’s words were a prescription for the continued marginalization of the Church. Just like this pastor, many evangelicals define faith strictly in terms of personal salvation. Yet soul-winning is not an end in itself. We are not only saved from sin, we are also saved to something—to the task of cultivating God’s creation. Genesis teaches that on the first five days, God did the work of creating. But on the sixth day, He made human beings in His image to carry on His work—to develop the raw materials of the world He had created.
This is called the “cultural commission,” just as binding as the “Great Commission.” It means our faith is intended to encompass every part of life, every sphere of work, every aspect of the world.In short, our faith must be a complete worldview, the basic set of beliefs that function as a set of glasses helping us to see all of reality through God’s eyes. If God is creator and sovereign over everything, as we confess He is, then everything finds its identity and meaning in relationship to Him—not only our spiritual life but also our work, politics, science, education, the arts, etc. Developing a Christian worldview is not some ivory-tower exercise. It is crucial for every believer—affecting every choice we make. The doctrine of creation tells us that God made the world with a moral and physical order—that there are God-given norms for every aspect of creation.
This is why I’m so excited to announce that we have launched the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. This online Center is the culmination of years of work to help believers understand, articulate, and live out an authentically biblical worldview. I believe in this effort so deeply, that I will be devoting my remaining years of ministry to it. When you visit ColsonCenter.org, you will be able to search for all kinds of articles, speeches, and videos by me and many of the leading Christian worldview thinkers today. We’ll also be providing online courses and opportunities to network with Christians who are passionate about renewing the Church and transforming the culture. Visit us at ColsonCenter.org—and come back often.
If we don’t know the norms God as ordained for every area of life, then we will drift with the tide of this postmodern age, and, instead of transforming the culture, as we’re supposed to, we will transformed by it. The mission of the Church is indeed prayer and evangelism, just as that pastor said that Sunday. But to be effective, we must also develop a comprehensive worldview. And that, too, is the urgent mission of the Church in a post-Christian world.
[Just for Laughs: " I gave up jogging for my health. My thighs kept rubbing together and setting fire to my underwear." - from MickeysFunnies.com]
[Have YOU borrowed from the library or bought a copy of "SAVING FREEDOM" by Jim DeMint? It really is the ONE non-fiction book you need to read as soon as possible. If you own a copy, loan it out to friends and have them pass it around. It is THAT good.]
Today I want to tell you about a major new effort to renew the Church and transform the culture.What is the vision of the Church? That was the sermon topic one Sunday a dozen years ago or so when I visited a friend’s church. But as I listened, I found my mind wandering. I had just signed a contract to write a book on Christian worldview, and I was experiencing writer’s remorse. Did this book really need to be written? Suddenly the pastor’s words caught my attention. The mission of the Church, he said, is to prepare for Christ’s return in five ways: prayer, Bible study, worship, fellowship, and evangelism. In that instant, all doubts about writing the book vanished. Of course, these five spiritual exercises are central to the Church’s life, but we can never overlook our responsibility to redeem all of culture as well. Though well-intentioned, the pastor’s words were a prescription for the continued marginalization of the Church. Just like this pastor, many evangelicals define faith strictly in terms of personal salvation. Yet soul-winning is not an end in itself. We are not only saved from sin, we are also saved to something—to the task of cultivating God’s creation. Genesis teaches that on the first five days, God did the work of creating. But on the sixth day, He made human beings in His image to carry on His work—to develop the raw materials of the world He had created.
This is called the “cultural commission,” just as binding as the “Great Commission.” It means our faith is intended to encompass every part of life, every sphere of work, every aspect of the world.In short, our faith must be a complete worldview, the basic set of beliefs that function as a set of glasses helping us to see all of reality through God’s eyes. If God is creator and sovereign over everything, as we confess He is, then everything finds its identity and meaning in relationship to Him—not only our spiritual life but also our work, politics, science, education, the arts, etc. Developing a Christian worldview is not some ivory-tower exercise. It is crucial for every believer—affecting every choice we make. The doctrine of creation tells us that God made the world with a moral and physical order—that there are God-given norms for every aspect of creation.
This is why I’m so excited to announce that we have launched the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. This online Center is the culmination of years of work to help believers understand, articulate, and live out an authentically biblical worldview. I believe in this effort so deeply, that I will be devoting my remaining years of ministry to it. When you visit ColsonCenter.org, you will be able to search for all kinds of articles, speeches, and videos by me and many of the leading Christian worldview thinkers today. We’ll also be providing online courses and opportunities to network with Christians who are passionate about renewing the Church and transforming the culture. Visit us at ColsonCenter.org—and come back often.
If we don’t know the norms God as ordained for every area of life, then we will drift with the tide of this postmodern age, and, instead of transforming the culture, as we’re supposed to, we will transformed by it. The mission of the Church is indeed prayer and evangelism, just as that pastor said that Sunday. But to be effective, we must also develop a comprehensive worldview. And that, too, is the urgent mission of the Church in a post-Christian world.
[Just for Laughs: " I gave up jogging for my health. My thighs kept rubbing together and setting fire to my underwear." - from MickeysFunnies.com]
Sunday, September 6, 2009
#41 - “Letters to the Church” – TWO
What Makes Faith Real – Part 2
No One Is "Fine" In A War! - “Be kind. Remember EVERYONE [caps mine] you meet is fighting a hard battle." - T.H. Thompson
Imagine: It’s a typical Sunday morning after the worship service. As usual, you are walking through the crowd of familiar faces. As you walk up to someone, shake their hand and say, “Hi, how’re you doing?” And the person replies, not unexpectedly, “Fine” and they walk away. After several encounters like this, you get in your car and head home. As you leave, you hear the Holy Spirit say to you, “So, what did you learn about the others in your church this week?” Immediately, the word “fine” pops in your head and you realize that you really didn’t learn anything at all about anyone else in your body of Christ. You realize that for all intents and purpose, you might have well met strangers after attending a music concert.
I don’t know about you, after any worship service –especially at a church I am a member – its come to where if I hear someone say they are “fine,” I am tempted to scream! In the August 31st entry in his devotional “Daily in Christ,” Neil and Joanne Anderson write: “Other than Himself, God’s primary resource for meeting your needs and keeping you pure is other believers. The problem is that many go to Sunday School, church, and Bible study wearing a sanctimonious mask. Wanting to appear strong and together, they rob themselves of the opportunity of having their needs met in the warmth and safety of the Christian community. In the process they rob the community of the opportunity to minister to their needs.” It’s as though to be recognized as a “good” Christian among other believers, the idea permeates the body that, while we ALL have struggles in our walk with God, it’s just not “socially correct” when with other Christians to be transparent. I’m not talking about unburdening yourself necessarily to everyone you meet at a Christian gathering. But certainly, we should feel comfortable to share how we’re really not “fine” when someone asks us how we are.
I will never forget visiting a church during a time of great turmoil in my life. After the service, I happened upon a friend I had not seen in awhile and began sharing with him the things I was struggling with. Not having had anyone else to share with in awhile, I suddenly became overwhelmed with emotions and before I knew it, I burst out crying so hard that my body not only began to shake, but I found myself falling at his feed crying. After awhile, I noticed that he had not said anything and frankly, might not have known what to say. That was “fine” with me (really!) because all I had needed was someone to just listen to me and allow me to unburden myself. But as helpful as that experience was for me, do you know what was the unexpected result? Someone in the church saw my outburst and reported it to the youth minister whom I had approached about helping with the youth group. Several days later, that youth minister called me, and he stunned me by saying that they could not have someone who had emotional issues as I working with the youth. When he said it, I was so stunned I couldn’t respond. But later, I was so incredulous, afraid I might “get emotional” and lose my temper over the phone, I emailed that youth minister. I simply told him that I was exactly the kind of person he needed to be helping him with the church youth. The youth – and adult Christians as well – need the example of someone who was real about their struggles. What the Church doesn’t need are people who wear the spiritual mask of “The Super Christian.” Sadly, he still saw me as a potential liability rather than an asset and refused to let me work with the youth. (I never returned to that church.)
The Andersons also say: “We all have basic human needs to feel loved, accepted, and worthwhile. When these needs go unmet, it’s very important that we express them to our family members and fellow Christians in a positive way and allow others to minister to those needs. [This is what I find especially insightful.] I believe that one basis for temptation is unmet legitimate needs…By denying the fellowship of believers the privilege of meeting your legitimate needs, you are acting independently of God. You are vulnerable to the temptation of thinking that you can have your needs met in the world, the flesh, and the devil.” I ran across this by chance when I attended a weekly neighborhood gathering while visiting another church. Sometime during the discussion on prayer, the elderly gentleman sitting next to me that I had met just minutes earlier suddenly burst out saying, “I’ve been mad at God since last year when He didn’t answer my prayers for my sick friend last year and he died.” As I reflect back on that statement in light of the Andersons’ teaching, I realize that that man had held in that pain until somehow the discussion that night awakened it and gave him an opportunity to express it. Because of his disappointment with God, that man had been led by Satan to believe the lie that God did not really care for his friend, allowed him to die, and so that man had a right to be mad at God. (Unfortunately, that’s not exactly what I shared with that man but at some future time I will share what I did about how God ALWAYS answers prayer.)
I believe every church sanctuary, every youth group meeting room should have the above quotation over their door: “Be kind. EVERYONE you meet is fighting hard battle.” I agree with John Eldridge. The Christian life is a continuous war – against our fleshly desires, the world’s values, and Satan’s lies. If a Christian is not struggling in some way, than he/she has surrendered in some way. Whenever we are among other believers, we need be feel free to be vulnerable, to not feel that somehow we need to “not bother others with our problems.” We need to ask ourselves if our hesitancy to be vulnerable with others does not reveal the problem of pride in our lives and that we just might have fallen for Satan’s lie – that others will reject us if we are honest with them.
SUGGESTIONS: So how do we create an environment of vulnerability? Well, I believe it might start with the leaders – beginning with the pastor – feeling free to be vulnerable in front of the rest of the church body. Individually, when someone asks us, “How are you doing?” we should begin to catch ourselves if we reply with a simple “Fine.” We could say something like, “You know, I have been struggling with this one thing. Do you have a few minutes I could share it with you?” Afterwards, you could just thank the person for listening to you share and then ask if that person could briefly pray for you. In this way, you’ve demonstrated that it’s okay to be vulnerable AND you’ve given the other person the chance to minister to your need in the best way possible – by lifting you up to God’s throne. Then afterwards, you might ask the person if THEY have something they would like to share and that you can join them in praying about. (If they happen to be in a rush, you can also offer to call that person later in the day to share over the phone.) In my mind, THIS is when real Christian community takes place, THIS is real Christianity. (I believe that tens of thousands are leaving evangelical churches each year in part because people do not sense a real community of caring in the midst of seeker-friendly services and flashy programs.)
An “I dare you to try this” suggestion. Many years ago, I became aware of how little I got to know people on Sunday mornings. And so one Sunday, after the service, I made a point of walking up and introducing myself to the brother of one of the members who was visiting that day. After he told me his name, he started to release his grip on my hand that he had been shaking and was turning to greet someone else. Well, I decided I just wasn’t going to let go of his hand and continued to engage him in conversation. I remember the stunned look on his face as I was not acting “socially correct.” But despite his being uncomfortable, I just asked him question after question trying to learn all I could. We must have been standing there for at least 5 minutes (way beyond the “acceptable” time of no more than 15 seconds) before I finally let go of his hand. Throughout that conversation, I had to fight to keep a straight face because I was so tempted to burst out laughing as I literally had that poor guy prisoner. I just wouldn’t settle for a quick “greet and release (the hand you’re shaking).” If I ever meet you at a Christian gathering, if you shake my hand, I am hereby warning you not to expect a quick “shake and release.” It’s not going to happen.
A Final Suggestion: During the typical church service, there is always the time when everyone is invited to stand and greet the people around them. Well, for a change, what if people were asked to introduce themselves to one person they have either never met or do not know very well. Then, they would each be required to learn two things about that person: 1) their favorite movie of all time (or some such icebreaker question, and 2) what was the one thing they prayed about the most. (If the person says they are not (yet) a believer, you could ask them what they would have most liked someone to pray for them during the past week.) Finally, each person, in turn, would pray no more than 30 seconds for the other person. Later, the pastor or worship leader might ask someone to share what he or she learned about the person they met and what they prayed for them about. That would give a whole new meaning to the usual time of greeting during a service. And, I might be wrong, but that just may be the part of the service that a visitor most remembers and might most incline him/her to return. After all, the one thing someone visiting (as well as any human being) wants to experience is a sense of feeling accepted and loved.
No One Is "Fine" In A War! - “Be kind. Remember EVERYONE [caps mine] you meet is fighting a hard battle." - T.H. Thompson
Imagine: It’s a typical Sunday morning after the worship service. As usual, you are walking through the crowd of familiar faces. As you walk up to someone, shake their hand and say, “Hi, how’re you doing?” And the person replies, not unexpectedly, “Fine” and they walk away. After several encounters like this, you get in your car and head home. As you leave, you hear the Holy Spirit say to you, “So, what did you learn about the others in your church this week?” Immediately, the word “fine” pops in your head and you realize that you really didn’t learn anything at all about anyone else in your body of Christ. You realize that for all intents and purpose, you might have well met strangers after attending a music concert.
I don’t know about you, after any worship service –especially at a church I am a member – its come to where if I hear someone say they are “fine,” I am tempted to scream! In the August 31st entry in his devotional “Daily in Christ,” Neil and Joanne Anderson write: “Other than Himself, God’s primary resource for meeting your needs and keeping you pure is other believers. The problem is that many go to Sunday School, church, and Bible study wearing a sanctimonious mask. Wanting to appear strong and together, they rob themselves of the opportunity of having their needs met in the warmth and safety of the Christian community. In the process they rob the community of the opportunity to minister to their needs.” It’s as though to be recognized as a “good” Christian among other believers, the idea permeates the body that, while we ALL have struggles in our walk with God, it’s just not “socially correct” when with other Christians to be transparent. I’m not talking about unburdening yourself necessarily to everyone you meet at a Christian gathering. But certainly, we should feel comfortable to share how we’re really not “fine” when someone asks us how we are.
I will never forget visiting a church during a time of great turmoil in my life. After the service, I happened upon a friend I had not seen in awhile and began sharing with him the things I was struggling with. Not having had anyone else to share with in awhile, I suddenly became overwhelmed with emotions and before I knew it, I burst out crying so hard that my body not only began to shake, but I found myself falling at his feed crying. After awhile, I noticed that he had not said anything and frankly, might not have known what to say. That was “fine” with me (really!) because all I had needed was someone to just listen to me and allow me to unburden myself. But as helpful as that experience was for me, do you know what was the unexpected result? Someone in the church saw my outburst and reported it to the youth minister whom I had approached about helping with the youth group. Several days later, that youth minister called me, and he stunned me by saying that they could not have someone who had emotional issues as I working with the youth. When he said it, I was so stunned I couldn’t respond. But later, I was so incredulous, afraid I might “get emotional” and lose my temper over the phone, I emailed that youth minister. I simply told him that I was exactly the kind of person he needed to be helping him with the church youth. The youth – and adult Christians as well – need the example of someone who was real about their struggles. What the Church doesn’t need are people who wear the spiritual mask of “The Super Christian.” Sadly, he still saw me as a potential liability rather than an asset and refused to let me work with the youth. (I never returned to that church.)
The Andersons also say: “We all have basic human needs to feel loved, accepted, and worthwhile. When these needs go unmet, it’s very important that we express them to our family members and fellow Christians in a positive way and allow others to minister to those needs. [This is what I find especially insightful.] I believe that one basis for temptation is unmet legitimate needs…By denying the fellowship of believers the privilege of meeting your legitimate needs, you are acting independently of God. You are vulnerable to the temptation of thinking that you can have your needs met in the world, the flesh, and the devil.” I ran across this by chance when I attended a weekly neighborhood gathering while visiting another church. Sometime during the discussion on prayer, the elderly gentleman sitting next to me that I had met just minutes earlier suddenly burst out saying, “I’ve been mad at God since last year when He didn’t answer my prayers for my sick friend last year and he died.” As I reflect back on that statement in light of the Andersons’ teaching, I realize that that man had held in that pain until somehow the discussion that night awakened it and gave him an opportunity to express it. Because of his disappointment with God, that man had been led by Satan to believe the lie that God did not really care for his friend, allowed him to die, and so that man had a right to be mad at God. (Unfortunately, that’s not exactly what I shared with that man but at some future time I will share what I did about how God ALWAYS answers prayer.)
I believe every church sanctuary, every youth group meeting room should have the above quotation over their door: “Be kind. EVERYONE you meet is fighting hard battle.” I agree with John Eldridge. The Christian life is a continuous war – against our fleshly desires, the world’s values, and Satan’s lies. If a Christian is not struggling in some way, than he/she has surrendered in some way. Whenever we are among other believers, we need be feel free to be vulnerable, to not feel that somehow we need to “not bother others with our problems.” We need to ask ourselves if our hesitancy to be vulnerable with others does not reveal the problem of pride in our lives and that we just might have fallen for Satan’s lie – that others will reject us if we are honest with them.
SUGGESTIONS: So how do we create an environment of vulnerability? Well, I believe it might start with the leaders – beginning with the pastor – feeling free to be vulnerable in front of the rest of the church body. Individually, when someone asks us, “How are you doing?” we should begin to catch ourselves if we reply with a simple “Fine.” We could say something like, “You know, I have been struggling with this one thing. Do you have a few minutes I could share it with you?” Afterwards, you could just thank the person for listening to you share and then ask if that person could briefly pray for you. In this way, you’ve demonstrated that it’s okay to be vulnerable AND you’ve given the other person the chance to minister to your need in the best way possible – by lifting you up to God’s throne. Then afterwards, you might ask the person if THEY have something they would like to share and that you can join them in praying about. (If they happen to be in a rush, you can also offer to call that person later in the day to share over the phone.) In my mind, THIS is when real Christian community takes place, THIS is real Christianity. (I believe that tens of thousands are leaving evangelical churches each year in part because people do not sense a real community of caring in the midst of seeker-friendly services and flashy programs.)
An “I dare you to try this” suggestion. Many years ago, I became aware of how little I got to know people on Sunday mornings. And so one Sunday, after the service, I made a point of walking up and introducing myself to the brother of one of the members who was visiting that day. After he told me his name, he started to release his grip on my hand that he had been shaking and was turning to greet someone else. Well, I decided I just wasn’t going to let go of his hand and continued to engage him in conversation. I remember the stunned look on his face as I was not acting “socially correct.” But despite his being uncomfortable, I just asked him question after question trying to learn all I could. We must have been standing there for at least 5 minutes (way beyond the “acceptable” time of no more than 15 seconds) before I finally let go of his hand. Throughout that conversation, I had to fight to keep a straight face because I was so tempted to burst out laughing as I literally had that poor guy prisoner. I just wouldn’t settle for a quick “greet and release (the hand you’re shaking).” If I ever meet you at a Christian gathering, if you shake my hand, I am hereby warning you not to expect a quick “shake and release.” It’s not going to happen.
A Final Suggestion: During the typical church service, there is always the time when everyone is invited to stand and greet the people around them. Well, for a change, what if people were asked to introduce themselves to one person they have either never met or do not know very well. Then, they would each be required to learn two things about that person: 1) their favorite movie of all time (or some such icebreaker question, and 2) what was the one thing they prayed about the most. (If the person says they are not (yet) a believer, you could ask them what they would have most liked someone to pray for them during the past week.) Finally, each person, in turn, would pray no more than 30 seconds for the other person. Later, the pastor or worship leader might ask someone to share what he or she learned about the person they met and what they prayed for them about. That would give a whole new meaning to the usual time of greeting during a service. And, I might be wrong, but that just may be the part of the service that a visitor most remembers and might most incline him/her to return. After all, the one thing someone visiting (as well as any human being) wants to experience is a sense of feeling accepted and loved.
Friday, September 4, 2009
#40 - What Makes Faith Real - Part 1
[Have YOU borrowed from the library or bought a copy of "SAVING FREEDOM" by Jim DeMint? It really is the ONE non-fiction book you need to read as soon as possible. If you own a copy, loan it out to friends and have them pass it around. It is THAT good.]
“The Dark Night of the Soul” - By Chuck Colson, August 28, 2009, Breakpoint.com
"Be kind. Remember EVERYONE [caps mine] you meet is fighting a hard battle." T.H. Thompson
[Note: (1) Do you sometimes feel like others seem to be "more spiritual," to have it all "together" as a believer than you, so much so that you feel somewhat guilty, as though you don't measure up as a Christian? Well, I have, and I doubt there has ever been a Christian who many times feels that way. This article addresses the subject and while it is a bit of heavy reading, note the points I've put in bold type. I will address it further in another special "Letters to the Church" on another special posting this coming Sunday. You won't want to miss checking the posting for this Sunday!; (2) Don't miss my "Just for Laughs" joke at the end of this posting. It's something I'll try to add at the end of every posting. If YOU have one you'd like me to pass on, sent it to me as a comment.; and (3) ]Guess what? I've made some additions to my "Life Truths" posting (#`11)on the movie "Saint Ralph" on my youth blog: (a) First of all there is now an intro to help you make this a truly family friendly movie that you can even show to those in grade school;and (b) points 16, 19, and 22 are NEW.]
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****
Each month on BreakPoint we examine a great book that helped shape Western Christendom. This month, Dr. Ken Boa shines a light on a difficult subject. Perhaps you remember the media frenzy over Mother Teresa’s letters, which were published after her death. Because revealed depression, doubts, and spiritual darkness, many argued that Mother Teresa’s Christian faith could not possibly have been real. Atheist Christopher Hitchens, for instance, insisted that she must have realized that “religion is a human fabrication.” Well, nonsense. Hitchens had no way of understanding Mother Teresa and her faith, but there’s another author who would have understood perfectly. In fact, this man might have said that Mother Teresa’s struggles actually showed just how real her faith was.
John of the Cross, who lived in the 1500s, is the writer, friar, and priest featured in Ken Boa’s latest Great Books Audio CD Series. Ken tells us that this man’s “spiritual development was forged in a life of pain, conflict, and passion for God.” The title of John’s most famous work, The Dark Night of the Soul, is familiar to all of us because we’ve all experienced this, as Christians have through the centuries, the “seasons of darkness and dryness in the spiritual journey. Too frequently, our modern attitude about prayer is to make it all about ourselves instead of about Christ. We focus on a “technique or set of steps” that’s supposed to bring sure results. But this approach can leave us unprepared to deal with the doubts and darkness that can overwhelm even the most faithful Christian. John of the Cross contended that the dry seasons teach us about our own powerlessness and our own need for complete reliance on Christ. He talked about not one, but several different kinds of “nights” that we may go through.
There’s the night that we experience in our senses. But then there’s the far darker kind that we experience in our soul, which leads to terrible feelings of “desolation” and “abandonment.” We may experience these nights in “active” ways, when we must work to reach out to God, and “passive” ways, when we must be still and allow God to act upon us. Of the dark night of the senses, Ken says this: When “the senses are stripped of all pleasure and joy in prayer,” our attention can be drawn toward God, who purifies us and takes us “through dread to eventual joy, not despair.” But we can only experience this kind of growth if we willingly submit to God even when all our feelings seem to be pulling us away from Him. As for the dark night of the soul, John of the Cross explained that it may be used to teach the soul “renunciation and deprivation,” “faith,” and finally, “the ultimate rapture of union with Christ.” As you can imagine, this teaching has been tough for many to take. Even one translator acknowledged that it can be “repelling.” But, as Ken says, it nonetheless has something important to teach us about “the cost of discipleship”—even those of us who will never experience a night as dark as the one Mother Teresa knew. Inspired by The Dark Night of the Soul, we can respond to Christopher Hitchens and others like him that they’ve got it exactly backwards. It’s the shallow faith, the kind that focuses only on our own happiness, that can’t last. The times of darkness, the dark nights of the soul, ultimately serve to make our faith stronger and deeper.
Further Reading and Information
The Dark Night of the Soul - John of the Cross
[Just for laughs (from Reader's Digest, 5/09, pp. 29-30): Johnny's mother stops to watch her son read the Bible to her cat. "Isn't that sweet?" she says. But an hour later, she hears a terrible racket. Running out the door, she finds Johnny stuffing the cat into a bucket of water. "Johnny, what are you dong?" "I'm baptizing Muffin," he replies. "But cat's don't like to be in water." "Well then, he shouldn't have joined my church."]
“The Dark Night of the Soul” - By Chuck Colson, August 28, 2009, Breakpoint.com
"Be kind. Remember EVERYONE [caps mine] you meet is fighting a hard battle." T.H. Thompson
[Note: (1) Do you sometimes feel like others seem to be "more spiritual," to have it all "together" as a believer than you, so much so that you feel somewhat guilty, as though you don't measure up as a Christian? Well, I have, and I doubt there has ever been a Christian who many times feels that way. This article addresses the subject and while it is a bit of heavy reading, note the points I've put in bold type. I will address it further in another special "Letters to the Church" on another special posting this coming Sunday. You won't want to miss checking the posting for this Sunday!; (2) Don't miss my "Just for Laughs" joke at the end of this posting. It's something I'll try to add at the end of every posting. If YOU have one you'd like me to pass on, sent it to me as a comment.; and (3) ]Guess what? I've made some additions to my "Life Truths" posting (#`11)on the movie "Saint Ralph" on my youth blog: (a) First of all there is now an intro to help you make this a truly family friendly movie that you can even show to those in grade school;and (b) points 16, 19, and 22 are NEW.]
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****
Each month on BreakPoint we examine a great book that helped shape Western Christendom. This month, Dr. Ken Boa shines a light on a difficult subject. Perhaps you remember the media frenzy over Mother Teresa’s letters, which were published after her death. Because revealed depression, doubts, and spiritual darkness, many argued that Mother Teresa’s Christian faith could not possibly have been real. Atheist Christopher Hitchens, for instance, insisted that she must have realized that “religion is a human fabrication.” Well, nonsense. Hitchens had no way of understanding Mother Teresa and her faith, but there’s another author who would have understood perfectly. In fact, this man might have said that Mother Teresa’s struggles actually showed just how real her faith was.
John of the Cross, who lived in the 1500s, is the writer, friar, and priest featured in Ken Boa’s latest Great Books Audio CD Series. Ken tells us that this man’s “spiritual development was forged in a life of pain, conflict, and passion for God.” The title of John’s most famous work, The Dark Night of the Soul, is familiar to all of us because we’ve all experienced this, as Christians have through the centuries, the “seasons of darkness and dryness in the spiritual journey. Too frequently, our modern attitude about prayer is to make it all about ourselves instead of about Christ. We focus on a “technique or set of steps” that’s supposed to bring sure results. But this approach can leave us unprepared to deal with the doubts and darkness that can overwhelm even the most faithful Christian. John of the Cross contended that the dry seasons teach us about our own powerlessness and our own need for complete reliance on Christ. He talked about not one, but several different kinds of “nights” that we may go through.
There’s the night that we experience in our senses. But then there’s the far darker kind that we experience in our soul, which leads to terrible feelings of “desolation” and “abandonment.” We may experience these nights in “active” ways, when we must work to reach out to God, and “passive” ways, when we must be still and allow God to act upon us. Of the dark night of the senses, Ken says this: When “the senses are stripped of all pleasure and joy in prayer,” our attention can be drawn toward God, who purifies us and takes us “through dread to eventual joy, not despair.” But we can only experience this kind of growth if we willingly submit to God even when all our feelings seem to be pulling us away from Him. As for the dark night of the soul, John of the Cross explained that it may be used to teach the soul “renunciation and deprivation,” “faith,” and finally, “the ultimate rapture of union with Christ.” As you can imagine, this teaching has been tough for many to take. Even one translator acknowledged that it can be “repelling.” But, as Ken says, it nonetheless has something important to teach us about “the cost of discipleship”—even those of us who will never experience a night as dark as the one Mother Teresa knew. Inspired by The Dark Night of the Soul, we can respond to Christopher Hitchens and others like him that they’ve got it exactly backwards. It’s the shallow faith, the kind that focuses only on our own happiness, that can’t last. The times of darkness, the dark nights of the soul, ultimately serve to make our faith stronger and deeper.
Further Reading and Information
The Dark Night of the Soul - John of the Cross
[Just for laughs (from Reader's Digest, 5/09, pp. 29-30): Johnny's mother stops to watch her son read the Bible to her cat. "Isn't that sweet?" she says. But an hour later, she hears a terrible racket. Running out the door, she finds Johnny stuffing the cat into a bucket of water. "Johnny, what are you dong?" "I'm baptizing Muffin," he replies. "But cat's don't like to be in water." "Well then, he shouldn't have joined my church."]
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
#39 - Mr. President, the FACTS are ...
What Are the Facts? [on Abortion and Health Care Reform] By Chuck Colson| August 31, 2009, Breakpoint.com (bold notations mine)
[Note: As I've said previously, I have read about a dozen books on public policy issues during the past year, books that have been a whole lot scarier than any murder mystery novel I have ever read. However, of all the books, the one I am reading now, "Saving Freedom" is by far the best at explaining the source of why America has been headed in the wrong direction for several decades now. I believe if every American were required to read this book to qualify to vote in the 2010 and 2012 election, our country could again have the leaders to lead us in the right direction. Yes, it's that good. If you can handle the $27.95 price (which incredibly is the about the price of so many books on public policy these days - though you can get about 1 1/3 discount at Amazon.com), please get a copy, read it and pass it around to your friends. If you don't have the bucks as I don't, you should be able to borrow a copy from your public library as I have. However you do it, if you read one non-fiction book in the next year, let it be this one. Again, IT IS THAT GOOD. - Stan ]
It’s hard to figure out what’s in the various health care bills. But one thing has become alarmingly clear.From having worked in the White House, I know how important it is for a President to get his facts clear when he is speaking to the American people. Well, I’m sorry to say, it appears that President Obama has not done that regarding whether or not his health care plan would force Americans to pay for abortions.During a recent conference call with religious leaders, the President said, “I know there’s been a lot of misinformation in this debate, and there are some folks out there who are frankly bearing false witness.”And then he himself said the following: “You’ve heard that this is all going to mean government funding of abortion. Not true. These are all fabrications.”
Are they fabrications? What about the Capps Amendment, which was passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee? The amendment would require “at least one plan covering elective abortions in every federally subsidized exchange,” notes John McCormack of the Weekly Standard. It also gives the secretary of Health and Human Services “the authority to include abortion coverage in the public plan and requires that the public plan cover abortion if the Hyde amendment...is repealed.” The Associated Press, which on August 2 claimed that the President wanted to continue the tradition of not forcing Americans to fund abortions, has backed off its story. On August 5, AP [Associated Press] reporter Ricardo Alonsozaldivar acknowledged, “Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions.” And Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee called the Capps amendment “a sham.” The more recent AP article “confirms what we’ve been saying,” Johnson said. “Under both Obama-backed bills, House and Senate, the federal government would run a huge system of subsidizing elective abortion.”
Finally, FactCheck.org says the bills now before Congress “would allow a new ‘public’ insurance plan to cover abortions, despite language added to the House bill that technically forbids using public funds to pay for them.” FactCheck concludes “that the president goes too far when he calls the statements that government would be funding abortions ‘fabrications.’” There’s also the fact that Congress has shot down every attempt to allow wording that explicitly prevents government funding of abortions. Now, I’m the first to agree that politics is about the art of compromise. But there are some things that Christians simply cannot compromise. One of them is federal funding of abortion—which is nothing more than the killing of unborn children. And it’s very clear that, the President’s statements to the contrary—that you and I will see our tax dollars pay for abortions under the current health care reform bills. Some Congress people, like Rep. Zoe Lofgren, are even telling their constituents that abortion coverage is in the bill.I hope you will let your representatives know that you cannot support, and will not, any health care bills that allow your tax dollars to pay for the slaughter of innocent children. And don’t let them tell you that you are misinformed—because the facts are out there.
Further Reading and Information
^Obama Says "Government Funding of Abortion" is "Fabrication" National Right to Life | August 19, 2009
^Abortion: Which Side Is Fabricating?FactCheck.org | August 21, 2009
^Obama Bears False Witness, Saying Abortion Coverage in Health Bill is a "Fabrication" John McCormack | Weekly Standard | August 19, 2009
^Associated Press Misleads Readers on Abortion, Health Care, and President Obama LifeNews.com | August 3, 2009
^Gov't Insurance Would Allow Coverage for Abortion Associated Press | August 5, 2009
^Health Care and Religious Freedom: Forced to Choose? Chuck Colson | BreakPoint Commentary | August 26, 200
[On the lighter side: I'm not into exercising. Yesterday my wife said, "Let's walk around the block." I said, "Why? We're already here." - comic Wendell Porter]
[Note: As I've said previously, I have read about a dozen books on public policy issues during the past year, books that have been a whole lot scarier than any murder mystery novel I have ever read. However, of all the books, the one I am reading now, "Saving Freedom" is by far the best at explaining the source of why America has been headed in the wrong direction for several decades now. I believe if every American were required to read this book to qualify to vote in the 2010 and 2012 election, our country could again have the leaders to lead us in the right direction. Yes, it's that good. If you can handle the $27.95 price (which incredibly is the about the price of so many books on public policy these days - though you can get about 1 1/3 discount at Amazon.com), please get a copy, read it and pass it around to your friends. If you don't have the bucks as I don't, you should be able to borrow a copy from your public library as I have. However you do it, if you read one non-fiction book in the next year, let it be this one. Again, IT IS THAT GOOD. - Stan ]
It’s hard to figure out what’s in the various health care bills. But one thing has become alarmingly clear.From having worked in the White House, I know how important it is for a President to get his facts clear when he is speaking to the American people. Well, I’m sorry to say, it appears that President Obama has not done that regarding whether or not his health care plan would force Americans to pay for abortions.During a recent conference call with religious leaders, the President said, “I know there’s been a lot of misinformation in this debate, and there are some folks out there who are frankly bearing false witness.”And then he himself said the following: “You’ve heard that this is all going to mean government funding of abortion. Not true. These are all fabrications.”
Are they fabrications? What about the Capps Amendment, which was passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee? The amendment would require “at least one plan covering elective abortions in every federally subsidized exchange,” notes John McCormack of the Weekly Standard. It also gives the secretary of Health and Human Services “the authority to include abortion coverage in the public plan and requires that the public plan cover abortion if the Hyde amendment...is repealed.” The Associated Press, which on August 2 claimed that the President wanted to continue the tradition of not forcing Americans to fund abortions, has backed off its story. On August 5, AP [Associated Press] reporter Ricardo Alonsozaldivar acknowledged, “Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions.” And Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee called the Capps amendment “a sham.” The more recent AP article “confirms what we’ve been saying,” Johnson said. “Under both Obama-backed bills, House and Senate, the federal government would run a huge system of subsidizing elective abortion.”
Finally, FactCheck.org says the bills now before Congress “would allow a new ‘public’ insurance plan to cover abortions, despite language added to the House bill that technically forbids using public funds to pay for them.” FactCheck concludes “that the president goes too far when he calls the statements that government would be funding abortions ‘fabrications.’” There’s also the fact that Congress has shot down every attempt to allow wording that explicitly prevents government funding of abortions. Now, I’m the first to agree that politics is about the art of compromise. But there are some things that Christians simply cannot compromise. One of them is federal funding of abortion—which is nothing more than the killing of unborn children. And it’s very clear that, the President’s statements to the contrary—that you and I will see our tax dollars pay for abortions under the current health care reform bills. Some Congress people, like Rep. Zoe Lofgren, are even telling their constituents that abortion coverage is in the bill.I hope you will let your representatives know that you cannot support, and will not, any health care bills that allow your tax dollars to pay for the slaughter of innocent children. And don’t let them tell you that you are misinformed—because the facts are out there.
Further Reading and Information
^Obama Says "Government Funding of Abortion" is "Fabrication" National Right to Life | August 19, 2009
^Abortion: Which Side Is Fabricating?FactCheck.org | August 21, 2009
^Obama Bears False Witness, Saying Abortion Coverage in Health Bill is a "Fabrication" John McCormack | Weekly Standard | August 19, 2009
^Associated Press Misleads Readers on Abortion, Health Care, and President Obama LifeNews.com | August 3, 2009
^Gov't Insurance Would Allow Coverage for Abortion Associated Press | August 5, 2009
^Health Care and Religious Freedom: Forced to Choose? Chuck Colson | BreakPoint Commentary | August 26, 200
[On the lighter side: I'm not into exercising. Yesterday my wife said, "Let's walk around the block." I said, "Why? We're already here." - comic Wendell Porter]
Sunday, August 30, 2009
#38 - Letters to the Church – ONE
Politics Is NOT A Dirty (Unholy) Word
[I write this and future “Letters” simply in the hopes of encouraging the body of Christ. It is meant as merely the observations of someone who at this point has been a Christian for 35 years.. This first one is rather long but I hope you’ll take the time to read it through. I look forward to your feedback]
Since I started this blog site, until now, I have not shared what initially motivated me 22 years ago to be concerned about issues of public policy. In the fall of 1987, I was attending a special 3 month retreat on Christian worldview. One day, we were shown the video “Silent Scream” in which a former abortionist showed, through a sonogram image, what it was for him to abort a child. As I watched the scalpel enter the womb and see the baby wiggle to try to get away from the obvious danger it faced, I remember getting out of my seat and moving to the back of the room. I was stunned. It was the first time I was shown the absolute horror that is an abortion. After I caught my breath, I asked myself, “Why have I never been told about this before during the 14 years I had been a Christian up to that point.?” I believe it was the Holy Spirit who in that moment made me realize that not only had I never heard the word “abortion” ever mentioned in the churches I had attended, but in the evangelistic ministry that I had been a part of for 12 years up till then, on those very rare occasions when the subject was broached in conversation, the unsaid inference was always, “Well, that’s what Catholics get concerned about. WE are evangelicals who are concerned about the most important thing, seeing people come to Christ.” While I could not disagree that helping as many as possible to hear the gospel message was very important, I also realized for the first time that the killing of unborn babies was not just a “Catholic” issue but an issue for every American who valued the sanctity of human life, especially for evangelical Christians.
As I look back over the many years I’ve been a Christian and the many churches I have visited or been a member, I am struck not just by the rarity it has been to hear abortion presented from the pulpit let alone be a part of the ministry of a church, but also by the rarity it is just to hear of any subject of note and contention in our society mentioned during a worship service. It is as though when a person steps into the doors of a church, he is to only think “spiritual” and to leave the issues of the “world” outside. Today, many are leaving EVANGELICAL churches (the Southern Baptists were said on Monday that 2/3 of their youth are leaving when they become adults!) and I believe it’s in part because they are not being taught how the Scriptures speaks to what is happening in the world they live in outside the church building. For instance, when they hear nothing on any regular basis about abortion because the leaders assume that having told them “it’s wrong” once is enough, they are not prepared for the often convincing pro-abortion rhetoric they will hear if not before college for certain while they are in college. Furthermore, much of the present economic crisis is rooted in Americans spending beyond their means, something that Scripture clearly teaches against. The very popular concept in our society today that those who make a lot of money are just greedy is often rooted in the class warfare notion being promoted by liberal lawmakers who seek to exploit the sinful man’s envy of his/her neighbor – a definite breaking of the tenth commandment (Ex. 20:17).
By the church not addressing these and other issues head on, I am convinced that believers mistakenly get the idea that they should not be concerned about what goes on “in the world.” Just the other day, a long time believer said that he is too busy to read anything about public policy issues. I believe that too many Christians have that very wrong idea that “politics” is not a subject we who are Spiritual need to be concerned about. I think this mindset is reflected in how for many years now less than 30 percent of evangelicals are said to vote in major elections. Besides shunning a basic civic responsibility that we have as “salt” in our society to stand up for biblical values and against the tide of decadence that our country continues to be swept up in, we surrender our country to those who are slowly but surely leading our country down a road of destruction – socially as well as economically. I believe that as citizens of a country blessed by God more than any other, we have stewardship responsibilities before God as Christians that one day we will each be held accountable.
In seeking to draw “seekers,” I believe too many churches are afraid of speaking on subjects that may be controversial.(Did you know that Billy Graham himself never spoke on abortion for that reason, though he did speak up about nuclear disarmament? Go figure.) But, my friend, all truth is God’s truth, and we deceive those very “seekers” we say we are interested in by fashioning a gospel they can find acceptable. How can we forget that the gospel is probably the most controversial subject in our society that increasingly belittles people of faith? Even some who are members of our churches may not feel comfortable hearing the Scripture speak truth about certain subjects. Do we refrain from boldly speaking Biblical truth on whatever the issue might be simply to maintain their fellowship? Not if we are to be faithful to Scripture and to God who calls us to declare all truth. (I actually once got a pastor excited about doing discipleship (!) in his church but when he announced his intentions the following Sunday, he got so many people upset (!) that the week after he rescinded his intentions!)
The main reason I started this blog is to present views on the key issues in our country that I believe are more in line with a Biblical Christian worldview on the issues of our day and which stand in contrast to what we are likely to hear from the major media sources. That is why I often post articles by Chuck Colson because his writings have consistently presented such a worldview. I have not felt versed enough in Scripture to try to present Biblical teaching on some of these subjects, as I believe any pastor should be able to do. (Posting #4 – “An Economic Manifesto” – is a summary of a message given by the late Dr. D. James Kennedy, a great pastor who regularly preached on the issues of the day and in fact, through his church, had a very effective ministry addressing the key issues of the day.) I hope, however, in upcoming “Letters” to make attempts at presenting such teaching on my own. I feel the need to provide a place where believers can come and find insights on the critical issues of the day that can equip them to discuss those issues with others.
And yet, as I try to assist believers (and non-believers) in this way, I long to hear the Scriptural view on the issues of the day clearly presented from our pulpits. I think our Church leaders have a responsibility to equip believers to adequately and confidently engage our culture on whatever the issue from a Christian worldview. I believe it is time the Church stop being hesitant to speak out with clarity on the Biblical perspective on issues that are critical to our nation continuing to be “under God” and for our continuing to live as a free people. “Politics” is defined in the dictionary as “the science of government.” As government dictates more and more the way we live our lives as its policies will always reflect certain values, we desperately need to be be calling for Biblical values to define and guide our nation as it has effectively done in the past. I am, of course, not talking about the Church endorsing certain politicians or a political party. I simply but firmly believe that far from being excluded from our discussions as Christians, matters of public policy (ie, politics or government) need to be a subject regularly addressed Biblically and forthrightly rather than excluded or treated with indifference as some kind of "unholy" subject. I believe indifference from our pulpits feeds indifference in the pews and that that will only cause us to fail to be wise stewards as citizens of our country.
[I write this and future “Letters” simply in the hopes of encouraging the body of Christ. It is meant as merely the observations of someone who at this point has been a Christian for 35 years.. This first one is rather long but I hope you’ll take the time to read it through. I look forward to your feedback]
Since I started this blog site, until now, I have not shared what initially motivated me 22 years ago to be concerned about issues of public policy. In the fall of 1987, I was attending a special 3 month retreat on Christian worldview. One day, we were shown the video “Silent Scream” in which a former abortionist showed, through a sonogram image, what it was for him to abort a child. As I watched the scalpel enter the womb and see the baby wiggle to try to get away from the obvious danger it faced, I remember getting out of my seat and moving to the back of the room. I was stunned. It was the first time I was shown the absolute horror that is an abortion. After I caught my breath, I asked myself, “Why have I never been told about this before during the 14 years I had been a Christian up to that point.?” I believe it was the Holy Spirit who in that moment made me realize that not only had I never heard the word “abortion” ever mentioned in the churches I had attended, but in the evangelistic ministry that I had been a part of for 12 years up till then, on those very rare occasions when the subject was broached in conversation, the unsaid inference was always, “Well, that’s what Catholics get concerned about. WE are evangelicals who are concerned about the most important thing, seeing people come to Christ.” While I could not disagree that helping as many as possible to hear the gospel message was very important, I also realized for the first time that the killing of unborn babies was not just a “Catholic” issue but an issue for every American who valued the sanctity of human life, especially for evangelical Christians.
As I look back over the many years I’ve been a Christian and the many churches I have visited or been a member, I am struck not just by the rarity it has been to hear abortion presented from the pulpit let alone be a part of the ministry of a church, but also by the rarity it is just to hear of any subject of note and contention in our society mentioned during a worship service. It is as though when a person steps into the doors of a church, he is to only think “spiritual” and to leave the issues of the “world” outside. Today, many are leaving EVANGELICAL churches (the Southern Baptists were said on Monday that 2/3 of their youth are leaving when they become adults!) and I believe it’s in part because they are not being taught how the Scriptures speaks to what is happening in the world they live in outside the church building. For instance, when they hear nothing on any regular basis about abortion because the leaders assume that having told them “it’s wrong” once is enough, they are not prepared for the often convincing pro-abortion rhetoric they will hear if not before college for certain while they are in college. Furthermore, much of the present economic crisis is rooted in Americans spending beyond their means, something that Scripture clearly teaches against. The very popular concept in our society today that those who make a lot of money are just greedy is often rooted in the class warfare notion being promoted by liberal lawmakers who seek to exploit the sinful man’s envy of his/her neighbor – a definite breaking of the tenth commandment (Ex. 20:17).
By the church not addressing these and other issues head on, I am convinced that believers mistakenly get the idea that they should not be concerned about what goes on “in the world.” Just the other day, a long time believer said that he is too busy to read anything about public policy issues. I believe that too many Christians have that very wrong idea that “politics” is not a subject we who are Spiritual need to be concerned about. I think this mindset is reflected in how for many years now less than 30 percent of evangelicals are said to vote in major elections. Besides shunning a basic civic responsibility that we have as “salt” in our society to stand up for biblical values and against the tide of decadence that our country continues to be swept up in, we surrender our country to those who are slowly but surely leading our country down a road of destruction – socially as well as economically. I believe that as citizens of a country blessed by God more than any other, we have stewardship responsibilities before God as Christians that one day we will each be held accountable.
In seeking to draw “seekers,” I believe too many churches are afraid of speaking on subjects that may be controversial.(Did you know that Billy Graham himself never spoke on abortion for that reason, though he did speak up about nuclear disarmament? Go figure.) But, my friend, all truth is God’s truth, and we deceive those very “seekers” we say we are interested in by fashioning a gospel they can find acceptable. How can we forget that the gospel is probably the most controversial subject in our society that increasingly belittles people of faith? Even some who are members of our churches may not feel comfortable hearing the Scripture speak truth about certain subjects. Do we refrain from boldly speaking Biblical truth on whatever the issue might be simply to maintain their fellowship? Not if we are to be faithful to Scripture and to God who calls us to declare all truth. (I actually once got a pastor excited about doing discipleship (!) in his church but when he announced his intentions the following Sunday, he got so many people upset (!) that the week after he rescinded his intentions!)
The main reason I started this blog is to present views on the key issues in our country that I believe are more in line with a Biblical Christian worldview on the issues of our day and which stand in contrast to what we are likely to hear from the major media sources. That is why I often post articles by Chuck Colson because his writings have consistently presented such a worldview. I have not felt versed enough in Scripture to try to present Biblical teaching on some of these subjects, as I believe any pastor should be able to do. (Posting #4 – “An Economic Manifesto” – is a summary of a message given by the late Dr. D. James Kennedy, a great pastor who regularly preached on the issues of the day and in fact, through his church, had a very effective ministry addressing the key issues of the day.) I hope, however, in upcoming “Letters” to make attempts at presenting such teaching on my own. I feel the need to provide a place where believers can come and find insights on the critical issues of the day that can equip them to discuss those issues with others.
And yet, as I try to assist believers (and non-believers) in this way, I long to hear the Scriptural view on the issues of the day clearly presented from our pulpits. I think our Church leaders have a responsibility to equip believers to adequately and confidently engage our culture on whatever the issue from a Christian worldview. I believe it is time the Church stop being hesitant to speak out with clarity on the Biblical perspective on issues that are critical to our nation continuing to be “under God” and for our continuing to live as a free people. “Politics” is defined in the dictionary as “the science of government.” As government dictates more and more the way we live our lives as its policies will always reflect certain values, we desperately need to be be calling for Biblical values to define and guide our nation as it has effectively done in the past. I am, of course, not talking about the Church endorsing certain politicians or a political party. I simply but firmly believe that far from being excluded from our discussions as Christians, matters of public policy (ie, politics or government) need to be a subject regularly addressed Biblically and forthrightly rather than excluded or treated with indifference as some kind of "unholy" subject. I believe indifference from our pulpits feeds indifference in the pews and that that will only cause us to fail to be wise stewards as citizens of our country.
Friday, August 28, 2009
#37 - "National Suicide"
[Note: (1) The past few days, the media has focused much on the life of the late Senator Edward Kennedy. While I agree we should applaud anyone who is involved in public service, especially for almost 5 decades, I think that we need to be careful to consider the overall emphasis of his or her years of service. I’d like to remind you that the record of accomplishment the Senator is being lauded for, while in the guise of helping the less fortunate among us, is basically one great government program after another that has enlarged the scope of government’s involvement in our lives and more importantly of government making us citizens more and more dependent on it for our “general welfare” (a phrase ironically found in our Declaration of Independence). And I have to mention that he was a pro-abortion Catholic, which I believe is hypocritical; (2)please check this site on Sunday for the first of a series of special postings – “Letters to the Christian Church” - that I plan to present from time to time; and (3) as always, I invite you to please check out the editorial cartoons (as well as the articles) at Worldmag.com They truly prove that “a picture is worth a thousand words.”; and (4) please check this site for a special "Letter to the Church" posting.]
I’ve been told that people like to have something to laugh about and so, because I rarely can put a humorous spin on the subjects I address on this blog, I will try to present at least one thing to hopefully bring a smile to your face with each posting. Here’s this one:(from Mickey's Funnies.com);">"In Florida they use alligators to make handbags. Isn't it wonderful what they can train animals to do these days?"
- the following book review is taken from an article written by Cal Thomas, dated August 25th, and posted on the Worldmag.com website
In his article, Cal Thomas previews a book to be released next week entitled, "National Suicide: How Washington Is Destroying the American Dream from A to Z." It is written by an investigative reporter, educator, and columnist named Mark Gross. In his book, the author summarizes, as Publisher’s Weekly describes it, “a fiery A-Z compendium of government greed, chicanery, and plain incompetence …[and]enjoys a good rant, but his criticisms are sound and well-supported.” Of course he lists some of those outrageous pork projects [almost a thousand in the stimulus bill that became law earlier this year] – such as the “$107,000 to study the sex life of the Japanese quail; $150,000 to study the Hatfield-McCoy feud [!]” He goes on to point out even bigger expenditures such as the "Alternative Minimum Tax," which he says is ‘based on an accounting lie,’ will cost taxpayers $1 trillion over the next 10 years. America, he writes, spends $700 billion a year on various welfare programs, amounting to $65,000 for each poor family of four, yet we still have the poor with us. "Both political parties, Gross charges, secretly encourage illegal immigration (the Democrats for votes, the Republicans for cheap labor) and then reward the immigrants’ children with automatic U.S. citizenship.”
Gross further sites such things as: (1)1,000 duplicate programs that waste billions; ;">(2) President Bush’s No Child Left Behind education program, “has left behind a lot of misspent money: $24 billion per year, according to Gross, even as primary and secondary education ‘continue to spiral downward;’” and weight:bold;"(3) 1,399 government programs handling disappearing rural areas. [Sure sounds like a bunch of pork barrel projects to buy votes back home.] “Gross does more than just list government’s sins. He offers a solution on ‘How to Better Govern America.’ If ever there was a must-read for people who are sick of the way government operates, this is it.” In his article, Cal Thomas asks us to consider these and many other examples of government mismanagement of our precious national tax dollars in light of the projected budget deficit. “The Obama administration forecast a 10-year budget deficit projection of more than $7.1 trillion, but when confronted with figures from the pesky and bipartisan Congressional Budget Office, the administration was forced this week to raise that projection to approximately $9 trillion. That’s 9,000,000,000,000 dollars. [For most of us who think a $1,000 deposit in our checking accounts is a large amount and a $1,000 credit card balance is too much, $9 trillion is a figure that is almost beyond comprehension. It is certainly beyond defensible. To borrow a phrase used in another context by the House leadership, it is un-American.”
I didn’t know whether or not to break out laughing or screaming when it was reported that our local(just elected last fall) Congressman here in Central Florida, Alan Grayson, (who has voted 98% of the time in support of President Obama and Democratic Party proposals) actually said that we must remember that some of that deficit was what was inherited from the Bush administration. He failed to mention, though, that still inexcusable, that was about $4 trillion dollars accumulated over 8 years whereas the President has added $5 trillion dollars in just his first 8 MONTHS in office. And that doesn’t even include the so-called healthcare reforms he is proposing that he still has not determined how to pay for its $1 trillion plus price tag. That is what I call “chutzpah” of the highest order!
I’ve been told that people like to have something to laugh about and so, because I rarely can put a humorous spin on the subjects I address on this blog, I will try to present at least one thing to hopefully bring a smile to your face with each posting. Here’s this one:(from Mickey's Funnies.com);">"In Florida they use alligators to make handbags. Isn't it wonderful what they can train animals to do these days?"
- the following book review is taken from an article written by Cal Thomas, dated August 25th, and posted on the Worldmag.com website
In his article, Cal Thomas previews a book to be released next week entitled, "National Suicide: How Washington Is Destroying the American Dream from A to Z." It is written by an investigative reporter, educator, and columnist named Mark Gross. In his book, the author summarizes, as Publisher’s Weekly describes it, “a fiery A-Z compendium of government greed, chicanery, and plain incompetence …[and]enjoys a good rant, but his criticisms are sound and well-supported.” Of course he lists some of those outrageous pork projects [almost a thousand in the stimulus bill that became law earlier this year] – such as the “$107,000 to study the sex life of the Japanese quail; $150,000 to study the Hatfield-McCoy feud [!]” He goes on to point out even bigger expenditures such as the "Alternative Minimum Tax," which he says is ‘based on an accounting lie,’ will cost taxpayers $1 trillion over the next 10 years. America, he writes, spends $700 billion a year on various welfare programs, amounting to $65,000 for each poor family of four, yet we still have the poor with us. "Both political parties, Gross charges, secretly encourage illegal immigration (the Democrats for votes, the Republicans for cheap labor) and then reward the immigrants’ children with automatic U.S. citizenship.”
Gross further sites such things as: (1)1,000 duplicate programs that waste billions; ;">(2) President Bush’s No Child Left Behind education program, “has left behind a lot of misspent money: $24 billion per year, according to Gross, even as primary and secondary education ‘continue to spiral downward;’” and weight:bold;"(3) 1,399 government programs handling disappearing rural areas. [Sure sounds like a bunch of pork barrel projects to buy votes back home.] “Gross does more than just list government’s sins. He offers a solution on ‘How to Better Govern America.’ If ever there was a must-read for people who are sick of the way government operates, this is it.” In his article, Cal Thomas asks us to consider these and many other examples of government mismanagement of our precious national tax dollars in light of the projected budget deficit. “The Obama administration forecast a 10-year budget deficit projection of more than $7.1 trillion, but when confronted with figures from the pesky and bipartisan Congressional Budget Office, the administration was forced this week to raise that projection to approximately $9 trillion. That’s 9,000,000,000,000 dollars. [For most of us who think a $1,000 deposit in our checking accounts is a large amount and a $1,000 credit card balance is too much, $9 trillion is a figure that is almost beyond comprehension. It is certainly beyond defensible. To borrow a phrase used in another context by the House leadership, it is un-American.”
I didn’t know whether or not to break out laughing or screaming when it was reported that our local(just elected last fall) Congressman here in Central Florida, Alan Grayson, (who has voted 98% of the time in support of President Obama and Democratic Party proposals) actually said that we must remember that some of that deficit was what was inherited from the Bush administration. He failed to mention, though, that still inexcusable, that was about $4 trillion dollars accumulated over 8 years whereas the President has added $5 trillion dollars in just his first 8 MONTHS in office. And that doesn’t even include the so-called healthcare reforms he is proposing that he still has not determined how to pay for its $1 trillion plus price tag. That is what I call “chutzpah” of the highest order!
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
#36 - A Hero’s Legacy
By Chuck Colson, August 24, 2009
[NOTE: (1) Yesterday, the government’s “Cash for Clunkers” program finally ended. I can’t understand why I only heard on conservative talk radio what was so obvious about the whole thing: it was a government giveaway of our tax dollars. In other words, all of those huge discounts that people got for trading in their old cars came out of the pocket of every tax payer. It was simply more “stimulus” money that the government spent to help the auto industry (assuming of course that the auto dealers do finally get the money that’s owed them). If the free market was allowed to work, the AUTO DEALERS would have been required to give their customers the deals to get rid of their 2009 models (as they usually do anyway) to clear their lots for the 2010 models. (Isn’t the timing of this program interesting?) Furthermore, you have to ask how many of those getting those new cars are actually able to buy them without using credit and going into further debt. Is having Americans go into greater personal debt really going to help them in the long run when people buying homes and other consumer goods they could not afford part of the problem that got us into the economic mess we are in? Did you hear that soon the government will be offering “Cash for Clunker Appliances?” Isn’t the government so cleaver in distributing the money of many into the pockets of a few? Hmm, sounds like …. ;(2) I want to take this time to comment on the President’s involving himself into that incident of the African-American professor being arrested by the white police officer, what the President called a “teachable moment.” So, just what did that incident teach all of us: (a) the entire incident had nothing to do with racial profiling, as any citizen who acted as belligerently as that professor did to any police officer should expect he might be arrested, (b) the professor saying “don’t you know who I am” spoke of elitism and an appeal to being shown favor is something we definitely need to discourage, (c) the President admitting that he didn’t know all the facts and then saying the police officer “acted stupidly” illustrates how we shouldn’t prejudge people as he did, and (d) the President’s excusing himself by saying in effect that he merely chose the wrong words is a good example of how we don’t admit a wrong by defending or trying to explain away our actions. (I find it noteworthy that the same man who had a hard time admitting his own mistakes is always quick to admit the mistakes of the United States when he is visiting other counties – whether those in Europe or South America.)] ; and (3) I agree in this article with Mr. Colson. If I had to pick one foreign leader - past or present- that I hold in highest regard, it is William Wilberforce. It speaks volumes about our media and our public education that I doubt if very few Americans have ever heard of this great man. I encourage you to read anything you can about William Wilberforce, some material of which Mr. Colson lists at the end of this article.]
Today marks the 250th birthday of William Wilberforce, the Christian statesman who, for 18 arduous years, led the crusade against the abominable British slave trade. And I can think of no better gift I could give my listeners than to tell you about some of the traits that made Wilberforce a man who profoundly changed history—and whose legacy so profoundly shaped my life.To speak of Wilberforce is to speak of biblical worldview in action. When Wilberforce, one of the youngest members of Parliament, came to Christ, he contemplated leaving office and becoming a clergyman. Thankfully, William Pitt, who went on to be Great Britain’s youngest prime minister, convinced him otherwise. In a letter to his dear friend, Pitt wrote: “Surely the principles as well as the practice of Christianity are simple and lead not to meditation only, but to action.”
And indeed, for Wilberforce, Christian faith meant action. He could not stand idly by and see the imago Dei of each person, the image of God, abused. His fiercely unpopular crusade against the slave trade ravaged his health and cost him politically. He endured verbal assaults and was even challenged to a duel by an angry slave-ship captain. And when the French Revolution began, what had been merely an unpopular position became a dangerous one. As cries of liberty, equality, and fraternity erupted across the Channel, Wilberforce and his fellow abolitionists who believed so strongly in human equality were suddenly viewed with suspicion by the British people. Nonetheless, Wilberforce persevered year after year. Writing about whether to give up the fight, Wilberforce notes, “a man who fears God is not at liberty” to do so.
But Wilberforce’s worldview led him to engage in more than just the issue of slavery. He fought for prison reform. He founded or participated in 60 charities. He convinced King George III to issue a proclamation encouraging virtue, and reinstated The Proclamation Society to help see such virtue encouraged. He cared for God’s creation, founding the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. And he championed missionary efforts, like founding the British and Foreign Bible Society.
I believe that as we come to understand the depth of our own Christian worldview, it forces us not into a life merely of contemplation, but to one of action. We cannot know God more without being moved to love others more—and to care passionately about justice, mercy, and truth.That’s one reason I’m so eager to tell you about a new initiative we’ll be launching in the spirit of Wilberforce this September: The Colson Center for Christian Worldview. This online center will be a dynamic, searchable database not only of my works, but of the writings of history’s great Christian thinkers. With audio, video, curricula, and communities, it will help believers dig deeper into their faith—and, like William Wilberforce, develop and live out a more robust Christian worldview.I’ll be talking more about The Colson Center for Christian Worldview in the weeks ahead. In the meantime, visit BreakPoint.org for more information and links to resources about my hero, William Wilberforce.
Further Reading and Information:
A Practical View of Christianity - William Wilberforce
William Wilberforce: A Hero for Humanity - Kevin Belmonte
Amazing Grace: William Wilberforce and the Heroic Campaign to End Slavery - Eric Metaxas
Amazing Grace (DVD)
Who Was William Wilberforce?: Finding Real Christianity - Kevin Belmonte | BreakPoint Online | August 1, 2006
A Model for Engagement: Wilberforce and 'The Better Hour' - Chuck Colson | BreakPoint Commentary | February 19, 2008
The Spirit of Wilberforce: Worldview in Action - Chuck Colson | BreakPoint
[NOTE: (1) Yesterday, the government’s “Cash for Clunkers” program finally ended. I can’t understand why I only heard on conservative talk radio what was so obvious about the whole thing: it was a government giveaway of our tax dollars. In other words, all of those huge discounts that people got for trading in their old cars came out of the pocket of every tax payer. It was simply more “stimulus” money that the government spent to help the auto industry (assuming of course that the auto dealers do finally get the money that’s owed them). If the free market was allowed to work, the AUTO DEALERS would have been required to give their customers the deals to get rid of their 2009 models (as they usually do anyway) to clear their lots for the 2010 models. (Isn’t the timing of this program interesting?) Furthermore, you have to ask how many of those getting those new cars are actually able to buy them without using credit and going into further debt. Is having Americans go into greater personal debt really going to help them in the long run when people buying homes and other consumer goods they could not afford part of the problem that got us into the economic mess we are in? Did you hear that soon the government will be offering “Cash for Clunker Appliances?” Isn’t the government so cleaver in distributing the money of many into the pockets of a few? Hmm, sounds like …. ;(2) I want to take this time to comment on the President’s involving himself into that incident of the African-American professor being arrested by the white police officer, what the President called a “teachable moment.” So, just what did that incident teach all of us: (a) the entire incident had nothing to do with racial profiling, as any citizen who acted as belligerently as that professor did to any police officer should expect he might be arrested, (b) the professor saying “don’t you know who I am” spoke of elitism and an appeal to being shown favor is something we definitely need to discourage, (c) the President admitting that he didn’t know all the facts and then saying the police officer “acted stupidly” illustrates how we shouldn’t prejudge people as he did, and (d) the President’s excusing himself by saying in effect that he merely chose the wrong words is a good example of how we don’t admit a wrong by defending or trying to explain away our actions. (I find it noteworthy that the same man who had a hard time admitting his own mistakes is always quick to admit the mistakes of the United States when he is visiting other counties – whether those in Europe or South America.)] ; and (3) I agree in this article with Mr. Colson. If I had to pick one foreign leader - past or present- that I hold in highest regard, it is William Wilberforce. It speaks volumes about our media and our public education that I doubt if very few Americans have ever heard of this great man. I encourage you to read anything you can about William Wilberforce, some material of which Mr. Colson lists at the end of this article.]
Today marks the 250th birthday of William Wilberforce, the Christian statesman who, for 18 arduous years, led the crusade against the abominable British slave trade. And I can think of no better gift I could give my listeners than to tell you about some of the traits that made Wilberforce a man who profoundly changed history—and whose legacy so profoundly shaped my life.To speak of Wilberforce is to speak of biblical worldview in action. When Wilberforce, one of the youngest members of Parliament, came to Christ, he contemplated leaving office and becoming a clergyman. Thankfully, William Pitt, who went on to be Great Britain’s youngest prime minister, convinced him otherwise. In a letter to his dear friend, Pitt wrote: “Surely the principles as well as the practice of Christianity are simple and lead not to meditation only, but to action.”
And indeed, for Wilberforce, Christian faith meant action. He could not stand idly by and see the imago Dei of each person, the image of God, abused. His fiercely unpopular crusade against the slave trade ravaged his health and cost him politically. He endured verbal assaults and was even challenged to a duel by an angry slave-ship captain. And when the French Revolution began, what had been merely an unpopular position became a dangerous one. As cries of liberty, equality, and fraternity erupted across the Channel, Wilberforce and his fellow abolitionists who believed so strongly in human equality were suddenly viewed with suspicion by the British people. Nonetheless, Wilberforce persevered year after year. Writing about whether to give up the fight, Wilberforce notes, “a man who fears God is not at liberty” to do so.
But Wilberforce’s worldview led him to engage in more than just the issue of slavery. He fought for prison reform. He founded or participated in 60 charities. He convinced King George III to issue a proclamation encouraging virtue, and reinstated The Proclamation Society to help see such virtue encouraged. He cared for God’s creation, founding the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. And he championed missionary efforts, like founding the British and Foreign Bible Society.
I believe that as we come to understand the depth of our own Christian worldview, it forces us not into a life merely of contemplation, but to one of action. We cannot know God more without being moved to love others more—and to care passionately about justice, mercy, and truth.That’s one reason I’m so eager to tell you about a new initiative we’ll be launching in the spirit of Wilberforce this September: The Colson Center for Christian Worldview. This online center will be a dynamic, searchable database not only of my works, but of the writings of history’s great Christian thinkers. With audio, video, curricula, and communities, it will help believers dig deeper into their faith—and, like William Wilberforce, develop and live out a more robust Christian worldview.I’ll be talking more about The Colson Center for Christian Worldview in the weeks ahead. In the meantime, visit BreakPoint.org for more information and links to resources about my hero, William Wilberforce.
Further Reading and Information:
A Practical View of Christianity - William Wilberforce
William Wilberforce: A Hero for Humanity - Kevin Belmonte
Amazing Grace: William Wilberforce and the Heroic Campaign to End Slavery - Eric Metaxas
Amazing Grace (DVD)
Who Was William Wilberforce?: Finding Real Christianity - Kevin Belmonte | BreakPoint Online | August 1, 2006
A Model for Engagement: Wilberforce and 'The Better Hour' - Chuck Colson | BreakPoint Commentary | February 19, 2008
The Spirit of Wilberforce: Worldview in Action - Chuck Colson | BreakPoint
Friday, August 21, 2009
#35- Killing Grandma
- by Eric Erickson, Macon City Councilman, Macon , Georgia
[Note: (1) This year, with the inauguration of our new President, I have read about a dozen books on public policy issues - whether about the environment, the War on Terror, the economy, healthcare, etc. And, I've read several books about the policies promoted by our President that didn't get much media coverage during the last election campaign. The more I’ve read about the direction the Democratic Party led national leadership is taking us, the more frightened I've become. In fact, when I tried to read a book of fantasy stories and a novel about a murder mystery, I had to put them away because I decided that they were not near as scary as the REAL LIFE things that are being promoted in this country! By the way, I get all my books (and most of them have been written within the past year or so) from my public library and so I encourage you to check out what YOUR library has available. Ones I’ve read recently include “Catastrophe!” that analyzes every major domestic and foreign policy emphasis of the Obama administration – yikes! The book “America Alone” looks closely at what the state is of countries in Europe (that many liberals want us to model ourselves after) as well as Asia, and to read of the trouble even China and Japan are in is alarming. The book I am reading now, “Meltdown” talks about the national policies that have brought about the present economic crash, and the explanation is not what you are used to hearing. (This book makes me wonder why the subject of economics is not required of every person graduating high school.) And if you want to understand the values behind the policies that our President is promoting, I encourage you to read “The Audacity of Deceit.” So forget that scary mystery you might be reading. There are any number of books about what is happening in our country and the world that will scare you a whole lot more. (2) The following article I found online presents several quotes by the President and other Democrats in Washington as well as a description of the nature of “end of life: patients in Oregon that will give you an idea of why so many seniors are so afraid of Obamacare.]
ABC News reporter Jake Tapper summed up the situation best when he said, “[I]f the president finds himself at a town hall meeting telling the American people that he does not want to set up a panel to kill their grandparents … perhaps, at some point, the president has lost control of the message.” Sarah Palin won the health-care debate with her use of the phrase “death panels.” The national press corps, never having rushed to defend Republicans routinely accused of wanting to cut Medicare, starve children and jail people because of their skin color, raced to defend Democrats against Palin’s charge. Democrats ran away from their “end of life” solution just as quickly.
No one thinks Democrats want to “pull the plug on grandma,” as President Obama put it. The Democrats’ health-care proposals do not mention “euthanasia,” “assisted suicide” or “death panels.” Nonetheless, many seniors are worried, not because of “Republican scare tactics,” but because of the Democrats’ own rhetoric regarding “end of life” planning. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Democrat-W. Va., said in March that as part of responsible healthcare reform people must recognize they would not be able to get every treatment they wanted. The government would use a cost-benefit analysis to determine treatment options. Noted liberal writer Ezra Klein wrote that health-care reform would save money by making tough decisions about a person’s life. “We’re profoundly uncomfortable saying that a person’s life, or health, is not worth the price of a particular procedure,” he wrote, alluding to the need for panels of experts to make those decisions.
Ezekiel Emanuel, Rahm Emanuel’s brother and one of Obama’s health-care advisors, wrote in a January 2009 white paper that health care should be rationed in a way that “promot[es] and reward[s] social usefulness.” He said age could play a factor in determining who can and cannot access health-care resources. Emanuel also wrote, “[S]ervices provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens [in the body politic] are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” Obama addressed this too, saying, “Whether, sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question. ... And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance.”
We see where this road we are now traveling goes out in the real world. Reporter Dan Springer reported in 2008, “Since the spread of his prostate cancer, 53-year-old Randy Stroup of Dexter, Ore., has been in a fight for his life. Uninsured and unable to pay for expensive chemotherapy, he applied to Oregon’s state-run health plan for help.” Oregon denied Mr. Stroup’s request and referred him to an assisted suicide specialist. We will spend money we don’t have to pay for health care, or we will prioritize who gets treatment. It is an inevitable fact of life that the more the government outlays to keep you alive, the more your life becomes subject to a cost/benefit analysis. The Democrats’ proposal would not require doctors or families pull the plug on grandma. The proposal would require that grandma, and others who bureaucrats deem have limited social utility, wither and die while people with greater social utility get treatment first. If the empowered bureaucrats are generous, they might throw in a one way ticket to Oregon to visit an assisted suicide specialist.
[Note: (1) This year, with the inauguration of our new President, I have read about a dozen books on public policy issues - whether about the environment, the War on Terror, the economy, healthcare, etc. And, I've read several books about the policies promoted by our President that didn't get much media coverage during the last election campaign. The more I’ve read about the direction the Democratic Party led national leadership is taking us, the more frightened I've become. In fact, when I tried to read a book of fantasy stories and a novel about a murder mystery, I had to put them away because I decided that they were not near as scary as the REAL LIFE things that are being promoted in this country! By the way, I get all my books (and most of them have been written within the past year or so) from my public library and so I encourage you to check out what YOUR library has available. Ones I’ve read recently include “Catastrophe!” that analyzes every major domestic and foreign policy emphasis of the Obama administration – yikes! The book “America Alone” looks closely at what the state is of countries in Europe (that many liberals want us to model ourselves after) as well as Asia, and to read of the trouble even China and Japan are in is alarming. The book I am reading now, “Meltdown” talks about the national policies that have brought about the present economic crash, and the explanation is not what you are used to hearing. (This book makes me wonder why the subject of economics is not required of every person graduating high school.) And if you want to understand the values behind the policies that our President is promoting, I encourage you to read “The Audacity of Deceit.” So forget that scary mystery you might be reading. There are any number of books about what is happening in our country and the world that will scare you a whole lot more. (2) The following article I found online presents several quotes by the President and other Democrats in Washington as well as a description of the nature of “end of life: patients in Oregon that will give you an idea of why so many seniors are so afraid of Obamacare.]
ABC News reporter Jake Tapper summed up the situation best when he said, “[I]f the president finds himself at a town hall meeting telling the American people that he does not want to set up a panel to kill their grandparents … perhaps, at some point, the president has lost control of the message.” Sarah Palin won the health-care debate with her use of the phrase “death panels.” The national press corps, never having rushed to defend Republicans routinely accused of wanting to cut Medicare, starve children and jail people because of their skin color, raced to defend Democrats against Palin’s charge. Democrats ran away from their “end of life” solution just as quickly.
No one thinks Democrats want to “pull the plug on grandma,” as President Obama put it. The Democrats’ health-care proposals do not mention “euthanasia,” “assisted suicide” or “death panels.” Nonetheless, many seniors are worried, not because of “Republican scare tactics,” but because of the Democrats’ own rhetoric regarding “end of life” planning. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Democrat-W. Va., said in March that as part of responsible healthcare reform people must recognize they would not be able to get every treatment they wanted. The government would use a cost-benefit analysis to determine treatment options. Noted liberal writer Ezra Klein wrote that health-care reform would save money by making tough decisions about a person’s life. “We’re profoundly uncomfortable saying that a person’s life, or health, is not worth the price of a particular procedure,” he wrote, alluding to the need for panels of experts to make those decisions.
Ezekiel Emanuel, Rahm Emanuel’s brother and one of Obama’s health-care advisors, wrote in a January 2009 white paper that health care should be rationed in a way that “promot[es] and reward[s] social usefulness.” He said age could play a factor in determining who can and cannot access health-care resources. Emanuel also wrote, “[S]ervices provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens [in the body politic] are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” Obama addressed this too, saying, “Whether, sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question. ... And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance.”
We see where this road we are now traveling goes out in the real world. Reporter Dan Springer reported in 2008, “Since the spread of his prostate cancer, 53-year-old Randy Stroup of Dexter, Ore., has been in a fight for his life. Uninsured and unable to pay for expensive chemotherapy, he applied to Oregon’s state-run health plan for help.” Oregon denied Mr. Stroup’s request and referred him to an assisted suicide specialist. We will spend money we don’t have to pay for health care, or we will prioritize who gets treatment. It is an inevitable fact of life that the more the government outlays to keep you alive, the more your life becomes subject to a cost/benefit analysis. The Democrats’ proposal would not require doctors or families pull the plug on grandma. The proposal would require that grandma, and others who bureaucrats deem have limited social utility, wither and die while people with greater social utility get treatment first. If the empowered bureaucrats are generous, they might throw in a one way ticket to Oregon to visit an assisted suicide specialist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
