Hope Is Here

 The first week of Advent is about hope.  But hope in what?  Too often Christmas season is saturated with messages of “hope” and “peace” and “good tidings.”  Clark W. Griswold sums up this Christmas relativism when he says the Christmas Star means something different to everyone.  People put their hope in family, jobs, wealth, church.  Then the season goes by, the emotion wears off and they go back to living like people without hope.  They live distracted lives, waiting for the next time their team plays or for the next round of beers or the next episode of Desperate Housewives.  Hope means nothing to them but some emotional high they feel at Christmas time.  Their hope is shallow.

What is Christmas hope all about?   If people slow down and take the time to meditate on Christmas they will come to realize that Jesus is the hope that Christmas is about.  What has Jesus to do with Christmas?  And why is he the “hope of nations?”  You see, if Jesus is a myth like some ill-informed atheist would have you believe there is no reason to hope.  If Jesus is not the reason for Christmas then the grave is the end.  There would be no reason to treat each other nicely, no reason to refrain from punching atheists in the face, no reason to do anything good but for yourself.

Jesus is the only hope for Christmas.  He is the ONLY reason to celebrate Christmas.  The world was put under a curse from the beginning when men chose sin and disobedience rather than fellowship with God.  Mankind realized the evil it chose and found itself lost and separated from God.  BUT God, who is rich in mercy and great in love provided a way to redeem mankind from death and eternal separation.  He didn’t abandon us.  He sent his Son, Jesus, to be our hope.  Until we realize that we need a savior we really have nothing to celebrate this Christmas.

The gift of Jesus is the only thing Christmas is about.  Christmas is not about family, presents, turning over a new leaf, renewing lost relationships, or the absence of conflict.  Without Jesus at the center those things are simply idols in people’s lives.  The hope Jesus brings is all that matters.  The most wonderful thing about Christmas is that the salvation Jesus brings is a gift.

The hopeless condition we are in is that we cannot earn our salvation.  The hopeful reality is that Jesus offers us salvation freely.  For by grace we are saved, through faith.  Salvation is not by anything we have done.  Grace is a gift.  Grace is not a contract.  A contract requires adequate consideration on both sides: the payment of money for the performance of a service.  Our “good” works are insufficient consideration for salvation.  We cannot be good enough to earn it.  It would be futile to try.  In fact it is haughty to come to Jesus and expect to earn your salvation.

You see, grace is the grounds for salvation, faith is the means and good works are the goal.  We are rescued from the consequences of our sin, not because of our good work, but in order to do good works; not because we obey the law, but in order to obey the law.  Grace changes us to fulfill the good works we were meant to do.

This gift is given freely to anyone, no matter what circumstances you find yourself in.  Salvation is offered without regard to your past or your future prospects.  All that matters is now, the present.  All that matters is coming to Jesus, humbly with empty hands, surrendering.  It is in that act of surrender where you find all that you need.  In this act of giving it all that you get everything.  That is the hope of Christmas!  You trade your ashes for His glory.  You exchange your sadness for His joy!

Read Full Post »

Tales in Profiling

Hmmm….Another home-grown right-wing radical militia terrorist.  Oh wait.  This was a Somali-born Muslim named Mohamed?  These Muslims keep ruining the media narrative.  Notice how he was going to strike against a celebration of a Christian holiday.  Islam is the problem.  It is only practiced peacefully where there is a dominant Christian influence in the culture.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/feds-bust-somali-born-teen-in-bomb-plot-at-portland-christmas-tree-lighting/

Read Full Post »

Strict Constructionist or Strict Constitutionalist?

An Associated Press opinion piece by Ben Evans insinuated that GOP members are hypocrites when it comes to support for the Constitution.  If he were to have named John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Lisa Murkowski or other Progressive Republicans Evans might have a point.  He named, however, U.S. Representatives Paul Broun, Michele Bachmann and Pete Hoekstra.  Evans’ point is essentially that these Republicans who say they support the Constitution are hypocrites because they favor constitutional amendments to change the Constitution.  I suspect his aim was to divide “tea party” support for conservative candidates and quell grassroots enthusiasm this election season.

A closer look at his accusations exposes the vapidity of his arguments.  First, he tries to prove that Democrats, “who typically take a more liberal view of the Constitution as an evolving document,” are more “constitutionalist” than Republicans.  To justify his position Evans tries to use numbers.  According to him, in the current Congress Republicans have proposed at least 42 Constitutional amendments compared to only 27 proposed by Democrats.  These numbers, however, work against his point.  Of course liberals would propose fewer Constitutional amendments in Congress since the preferred way (and unconstitutional way) for liberals to amend the Constitution is through a judicial opinion, not through the document itself.  Republicans who revere the Constitution are more likely to follow its procedures for amendments.

Evans’ approach to what it means to be a “Constitutionalist” demonstrates how he and the Democrats view the law.  Without delving into an esoteric discussion, Evans betrays himself as a legal positivist.  Legal positivism is a philosophy that believes all law is a human construct.  Legal positivism is not concerned with the content of the law but on the process that enacts a law.  To a legal positivist the only immoral law is one that is improperly enacted.  A properly enacted law is sacrosanct no matter what the content of the law.  The problem with liberal legal positivists is that they see judicial lawmaking as properly enacted. 

(Most Progressives, however, do believe in a quasi-natural law.  Just look at opinions like the recent same-sex marriage case in California.  In that case, a properly enacted constitutional amendment defined marriage as between one man and one woman.  Progressives couldn’t handle the content of this law, so they appealed to a higher positive law, a misinformed judicial opinion on the U.S. Constitution.  This one judge’s opinion now is positive law to Progressives, and therefore, sacrosanct.  This quasi-natural law, however, has no connection with absolute, divine, self-evident Truth or our founding principles.) 

Legal positivism is at odds with our founding principles that recognize natural law.  Our Founders believed that “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” granted political sovereignty in the people as a whole.  Our Founders believed in absolute, divine self-evident Truth of the equality of all and in the unalienable rights granted by our Creator.  Natural law is concerned with the content of law as well as the proper authority for its enactment.  In Evans’ article, he failed to distinguish between adherence to the Constitution on founding principles and adherence to a document and its amendments simply because it is positive law.

The second jejune argument Evans used is to chastise Republicans’ “hot-and-cold take on the Constitution” for opposing provisions in the Amendments to the Constitution.  He attacks Republicans’ Constitutional credentials simply because they proposed amending the Constitution.  In the mind of Evans, proposing an amendment to the Constitution is “trying to subvert the Constitution.”  If Evans had ever read the Constitution he would notice Article V provides a mechanism for amending the Constitution.  It is consistent to be a “strict constructionist” and want to amend the Constitution constitutionally.

A closer examination of the types of amendments offered shows a divide between Republicans and Democrats.  Republican amendments are grounded in founding principles while Democrat amendments are mired in “social justice” dogma.  Evans trots out as examples of Republican disdain for the Constitution their proposals to end birthright citizenship, federal income tax and direct election of Senators.  What Evans fails to see is that birthright citizenship, federal income taxes, and direct election of Senators were not in the original Constitution handed to us by the Framers.  Birthright citizenship comes to us from the 14th Amendment.  The Progressives gave us federal income taxes through the 16th Amendment and direct election of Senators through the 17th Amendment.

“Other widely supported Republican amendments would prohibit government ownership of private companies, bar same-sex marriage, [and] require a two-thirds vote in Congress to raise taxes….”  Republicans support these amendments because government ownership of private companies violates the principles of enumerated powers and free enterprise.  Barring same-sex marriage protects religious liberty and free speech since, what couples who engage in homosexuality want is to coerce speech and have society to tell them they are married.  A super majority for raising tax revenue protects life, liberty and property from an out-of-control Congress.

By contrast, the Democrat proposed amendments would constitutionally guarantee everyone the right to quality housing and to education.  The only way to meet these social justice goals is to take from the rich and redistribute it to those who do not have quality houses or education.  (And how do we quantify “quality” housing and education anyway?)  The Democrats want to enact Progressive collectivist redistributive change. 

Natural law provides that people have the equal right to pursue life, liberty, property and happiness.  “Equal outcomes” violates natural law since it denies equal access to those who earn wealth to keep their own property.  This rabid egalitarianism violates equal protection under the law since it selects a group of people to punish for engaging in lawful activities while exempting a favored class.

The real aim of Evans’ article may be to confuse the terms “strict constructionist” with “strict constitutionalist.” Being a strict constructionist means you follow the plain meaning of the language and you don’t invent meanings of words they cannot bear simply to enact a policy choice.  By “strict constitutionalist” Evans apparently means a strict adherence to a document regardless of its flaws.  Therefore, anyone who proposes amendments to the document reveres it less than those who want to leave it alone. 

I prefer our representatives be strict constructionists and not strict constitutionalists.  Strict constructionists want to leave the Constitution alone if it embodies natural law and the wisdom of our founding fathers.  But when Progressives change the Constitution or the document doesn’t address issues our founders could not have foreseen—such as judicial lawmaking, abortion on demand, same-sex marriage, secular humanists establishing their religion and running all references to God out of public life— strict constructionists, those who hold to founding, Natural Law principles, use the proper Constitutional process to amend it instead of resorting to unlawful judicial authority.

Read Full Post »

The Road to Redemption

As much as I hate to shovel the driveway, I use it as a time to talk to God.  Listening to the news lately and seeing the economic ruin our leaders are driving us to and who our neighbors are voting for, discouragement has left me with holding my hands up as if to say “What’s the use?”  I’ve felt like I’ve been neglecting to do what God has called me to do.  I’ve felt inadequate on the one hand and been lazy on the other. 

While shoveling snow and listening to my iPod God spoke through a few songs.  One was by Rush of Fools, Wonder of the World. 

“Wonder of the world
You’ve been more wonderful to me
and as long as I can speak 
I will say so
I’ll say so.

Wonder of the world
You are displayed for all to see
and for all eternity 
I will say so.”

God has called me to use my writing to speak his glory.  Too often I try to be impressive, witty, erudite, ostentatious, esoteric, pedantic…there, I’m doing it again.  It has been all for my glory.  Really, I often mask the feelings of being insignificant, inept, common, plain, obvious, ignorant.  Realizing this, I stepped away from writing for a while.  Last year God so clearly showed me that my talents were meant  for his glory.  I’ve shied away from writing because I was too often speaking on my own behalf. 

Another song God shared with me is by MercyMe, In the Blink of an Eye.

“You put me here for a reason
You have a mission for me
You knew my name and You called it
Long before I learned to breathe

Sometimes I feel disappointed
By the way I spend my time
How can I further Your kingdom
When I’m so wrapped up in mine”

I’ve been living for my kingdom and haven’t had time for God’s.  We don’t have much time.  We need to be ready for our King’s return.  When he returns, will he find faith on the earth?  Will he find us about our Father’s business?  Have you discovered what it is the Father wants you to do?  Time is short.  There is no more time to waste.  He has called me to passionately demonstrate Truth in the political realm.

We, in America, have been plagued by the need to feel comfortable and secure.  We yield our liberty because we have been taught that we have to submit to our leaders.  Plus, submitting is easier and more comfortable.  But, didn’t we learn the principle that only lawful authority comes from God?  Romans 13:1 states “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.”

Too many people misuse this scripture to promote submission to tyranny.  “See, it says that we have to submit to the higher powers.”  Notice, the scripture doesn’t say submit to the higher powers simply because they are “the higher powers.”  We submit because they are God’s servants for good.  We submit to only the authority that has been ordained by God.  Authority that does not flow from God is not an authority we are required to submit to.

Furthermore, in America God has made the people sovereign.  Government officials at all levels serve under our authority.  When these officials in government become oppressive and exercise unconstitutional authority, they violate Romans 13:1 because they are not subject to the higher power.  We have a duty to resist them and replace them.

The sovereign people organized in states.  The states created the federal government and shackled it with the Constitution.  Judges, presidents, congressmen, senators, regulators, etc. that abuse their authority are no longer submitting themselves to the higher powers.  They themselves are violating Romans 13:1.  As such, we have no obligation to submit to their unlawful use of authority, only to the lawful decisions they make.

Currently we submit to abuses of authority, like the estate tax, wealth redistribution, protection of abortion, funding of immoral arts, and environmental regulations Congress has not passed, not because the authority they exercise is lawful, but because we don’t want to suffer the consequences a more powerful state can do to us. 

Our road to redemption begins when we recognize the flow of authority: from God to the people, organized in a federal union of separate sovereigns.  The people have to return to an acknowledgement that God is the giver of authority and of our liberty and his law governs how we exercise it.  

“It is in the interest of tyrants to reduce the people to ignorance and vice, for they cannot live in any country where virtue and knowledge prevail.  The religion and public liberty of the people are intimately connected: their interests are interwoven; they cannot subsist separately, and, therefore, they rise and fall together.  For this reason, it is always observable that those who are combined to destroy the people’s liberties practise every art to poison their morals.”
- Samuel Adams

Every time you defend vice, you enable tyrants. I am not talking about criminalizing all vice and it is a strawman argument to suggest Christians want to do so. I am talking that this prevailing attitude in America that enjoys vice, especially sexual vice, will destroy America.  This rejection of moral principles erodes the virtue necessary for a free people to live in liberty.

We must personally reject vice and oppose it where we find without resorting to government authority to criminalize it.  This return to virtue will allow for the moral courage to stand up to tyrants.  Once we no longer fear the consequences of resisting unlawful authority, we will be able to replace the tyrant and live in liberty.  Not fearing the tyrant will lead us down the road to redemption.

Read Full Post »

The Road to Perdition

 Electing conservative, constitutionally literate politicians at all levels of government is only going to treat the symptoms of our problems.  The symptoms are fiscal irresponsibility, government theft of wealth, unbearable environmental regulation, abuse of authority, etc.  The disease is people who have rejected God as the sovereign in the land.  Secular humanism has turned many Americans into their own gods.  Now these man-gods have used the gun of government to rob people.  Instead of saying “Your money or your life” they say “You need to pay your fair share.”

This is where the progressive, liberal “thinker” will offer emotional arguments.  They will say things like “Conservatives want to get rid of government.”  Progressive statists, not satisfied with their own godhood,  have made government their god.  Any attack on big government is a religious attack on their god.  They irrationally lash out at those they perceive challenging their god.

Conservatives, however, do not want to get rid of government.  Thomas Paine stated that “government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil.”  A conservative does not believe that.  Paine, who disgraced himself later in his life with his publishing of his pamphlet The Age of Reason, did not understand that government is God’s servant to do good and to punish evil doers.  See Romans 13.

Because the hearts of men are wicked, government is necessary.  Because government checks that wickedness and allows us to live in peace, government is good.  The problem comes when wicked men control the reins of government.  Barney Frank using his authority to destroy the housing market.  Eric Holder refusing to prosecute voter intimidation because the defendants are black.  A federal judge in California abusing her authority in issuing an injunction to force the Department of Defense to allowing sodomy in their ranks.

Government is not evil.  People are evil.  These wicked people in government positions are placed there by people whose hearts are wicked.  Voters, whose love of money and immorality controls their choice of politician, vote for politicians who will redistribute wealth, fund immorality, and push an agenda without regard to lawful authority.

The problem, the disease in America is not that there aren’t enough conservatives in office.  The American people do not want conservatives everywhere.  The disease is that a large portion of the American people do not recognize God as their sovereign.  They, therefore,  selfishly choose candidates who make their lives easier, or give them benefits at the expense of others.  Many American voters do not love liberty.  They mistake comfort, security, welfare for liberty.  They demand government steal the wealth of others to give to them.

This disease will not be cured with more conservatives in office.  Don’t get me wrong.  More conservatives will slow down the death of America.  But, the cure will only come after a Great Awakening where the hearts of the people return to the Giver of liberty.  Only when we, as a nation, recognize his sovereignty will we be able to live in liberty.  Until then, as this last election demonstrated (Reid’s, Boxer’s, Brown’s, Frank’s, Dingell’s, Murkowski’s re-elections), we will continue down a road to perdition.

Read Full Post »