On Agreeing to Disagreeing

On disagreeing agreeably… Lots of Christian brothers and sisters that I know and love will be, like me, writing someone in or not voting at all rather than voting for Donald Trump. On the other hand, lots of Christian brothers and sisters that I know and love will be voting for him as the lesser of two evils. Now, I can bring out my arguments all day long, but that is not the point of this post. 

So long as we are doing what we are doing – voting for who we are voting for – based on our convictions from Scripture and the leading of God in our lives, we should be able to come out at the end of a political discussion shaking hands and smiling. 

We may disagree – and I by no means intend to suggest that both camps could in some postmodern way be correct at the same time. Only one side can be correct. I think it's crazy to vote for Trump, I think I'm right and the other guys are wrong, and I'm not ashamed to say it. 

Of course I think I'm right. Otherwise I wouldn't agree with myself. The humility we are commanded to clothe ourselves with does not come with an election season exception clause. 

Ultimately, God chooses our next president; there is only one vote that counts and it is His to cast. Jesus is still on His throne whether brother Jim Bob votes for Trump or writes in Darrell Castle. We can't and don't have to hold this thing together (and neither can any president). It is for us simply to be faithful. What happens in November is not important enough to divide the church of Christ over. 

I'll keep passionately speaking against Trump. May the dialogue, the prayer and soul- and Scripture-searching continue. Let's just remember that who is president matters far less than Who is King. 

And there is no end to the reign of the One Who holds that office.

The God Who Laughs

Horror movies are scary because they present a world in which evil triumphs; a world in which there is no hope; a world in which the gates of hell prevail. They present a sick and twisted look at human depravity that fascinates the flesh. They are full of inventions of evil, and the evil they present laughs- laughs at justice, laughs at consequences, laughs at God.

Yet Scripture contains the most terrifying premises imaginable; terrifying, not in a dark and shadowed and sinfully fascinating way, but in an overwhelming and inescapable and terribly beautiful way. While the horrors of sin invite the viewer to fantasize and indulge dark curiosities, the terrors of God send shudders down the spine and invite those who meditate upon them to fall on their knees.

The terrors of sin invite the roaches to explore the kitchen floor. The terrors of God send them scattering.

These are the horror films that Christians should make. These films would not explore the twisted paths of a sinful psyche and offer less inventive minds the chance to wander down the paths of death; they would explore the straight paths of God's holy Justice, and expose in blinding light how twisted the paths of our fallen minds truly are. They would cause terror not at the perversion of the evils but at the perfection of the inescapable justice of God.

These films would explore what it means to suppress the truth for so long that someone actually begins to live a lie, a life of self-inflicted blindness stemming from rebellion against the One True God. They would proclaim the chilling judgments of a righteous God on a rebellious nation, like the prophets did of old. They would show that though the wicked laugh and mock at God's eternal flames, those flames are waiting hungrily and burning all the same. They would show that the One True God is a God Who is to be feared.

In American culture the God of Scripture is not feared; instead, we fear an idol of our own making, carved in the image of tolerance, whose sacrifices are a pinch of apathy, a pound of groveling, and any lingering traces of manhood buried deep within your bones. But this leaves the question- has the American church been presenting God as He presents Himself? Or have we been presenting a god who is sitting up in heaven trying his very best to fight against the evil that is overpowering his forces here in America; a god who is begging, pleading with his enemies to just believe in him so he can bless them?

We serve a God Who laughs. Who holds His enemies in holy and unflinching derision. We serve a God Who is a loving, merciful, forgiving Father- but who is a terrifying, unflinching, fearless adversary.

"He Who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord scoffs at them." (Ps. 2:4)

"I will even laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your dread comes." (Pr. 1:26)

Romans 1 details the descent into madness- a descent which begins with refusing to acknowledge God, and ends with the judgment of God poured out like flooding rains on those who have turned against Him; a deep and chilling blindness so overpowering that the most simple and obvious truths are lost in the confusion like a baseball in a field of corn.

Scripture tells us that everyone knows; the Image of God is so indelibly carved into their being, so inescapably shimmering out of the world around them, that they are without excuse. If Woody would just look at his boot, he would know that he belongs to Andy.

But they've shoved their boot into a sock and have lived that way for so long that they have genuinely begun to believe that there is neither boot nor Andy at all; they've told themselves their own lie for so long that they have actually started to believe it; they have looked at the world through upside-down glasses for so long that their brain is flipping their eyesight to match.

And He Who sits in the heavens laughs. He laughs as the heathen nations rage, like ants picketing on the sizzling pavement outside the air-conditioned office of the exterminator, like pots starting a Facebook campaign against the rights of the potter (who happens also to own the internet... and a sledgehammer). He laughs as America pretends with all her might that magnets don't necessarily have to go N+S... if that N wants to self-identify as an S, who are we to say otherwise? He laughs as we hide from His Truth like a child under the blanket at bedtime, as we run from Reality only to be ambushed by her child, Consequence. He laughs as the brightest minds in the scientific community conclude that the universe is a cosmic accident and claim primordial slime as their heritage. He laughs as the prophets of Babylon dance and prance in a frenzy to a mirror-idol, cutting themselves and shouting louder, louder, louder in hopes that maybe the state will send fire from heaven and consume all the intolerant things they have heaped upon her altar.

And fire will come, but it will not be from the one they worship.

This is the God that Scripture presents; the God who melts mountains with the breath of His nostrils; the God at Whose voice the oceans flee. The scariest villains, both in our little fictions and in God's great reality, are the ones who commit their crimes and laugh. They have no fear; they have no remorse; they cackle at the pain they cause others and mock the sword of justice.

But God is the One Who wields that sword. And He laughs at them. He laughs at their pride, their bravado, their cute little insults which make them feel so big and strong. He is not trying to defeat them. He is defeating them- and that through their own perceived victories. He is defeating them with the ease of a giant wrestling an impertinent child, with the completely unconcerned dominance of a cat toying with a cricket.

He laughs, and knows that the ones who mock at the cup of His wrath will mock no more once they have tasted thereof.

And that is sweet solace for the righteous.

And that is utter terror for the wicked.

This is the God of the Bible. This is a Christianity with teeth. This is the God that the world must see.

What is the beginning of the descent to madness in Romans 1? A refusal to acknowledge God. What, therefore, is the beginning of revival? The submissive acknowledgement of God. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, but how can we expect for wisdom to begin if we never present the truth about the God Who is to be feared? God is in the business of bringing glory to His worthy Name. How can we expect to see true reformation based only on moralistic platitudes, "traditional values," and pleas to acknowledge an ooey-gooey ambiguigod.

The God of the Bible does not share His glory.

And this is the God that we must present to the world.

How can we expect God's blessing if we will not give Him the glory for it? If we want to proclaim the pantheistic and tolerant elephant-shaped god of our own making, then we should only expect help from that god. And since that is no god at all, the rescue we are waiting for will be rather lackluster.

The Kingdom of God does not depend on America. America may fall, and God will not be searching desperately for a plan B. America doesn't need morality. She doesn't need traditional values. She doesn't need conservative fiscal policy.

She needs to fear God.

She needs to kiss the Son. (Ps. 2)

America needs Jesus. Just like every other nation on the earth.

And as Christians, our first duty is to proclaim Him as He says He is.

We serve a God Who laughs. It is time for His people to laugh too- not in pride in ourselves, not in self-exalting superiority, but in humble and childlike submission to the irrefutable Truth of God. In dealing with individuals, we should show Christ-like mercy, compassion, humility- for we, too, are sinners whose only claim is the Grace of God. But as followers of Jesus, we know the Truth; we have nothing to fear from the prophets of error. So in looking at the insanity around us, we should stand on the Word of God, proclaim it with boldness, and laugh fearlessly.

Because when you're looking through the eyes of reality, this stuff is pretty funny.

#KissTheSon
#FillTheEarth

What if Gun Control Really Worked?

Folks, let's say for a moment that gun control really worked. Let's assume for a moment that the government would actually be able to purge the entire US of guns. Let's say that they could actually reduce gun crime to virtually zero.

The simple fact remains that all the firepower would rest in the hands of the government, the criminal communities, and other nations. The people of America would be disarmed and unable to resist an intrusive federal government, a foreign invader, criminal mobs or Islamic aggression.

Let's not forget that the statistics about gun crime are not really the issue. Even if the gun crime was higher, the point is still one of liberty vs. security. We must encourage our fellow Americans to educate and arm themselves; train for such situations; take your children out of public school; *take responsibility.* The government's job, Scripturally and Constitutionally (but not generally at a federal level), is to punish evil- *not* to keep everyone safe and cared for. We need to set aside the victim mentality and take responsibility for our own. That's what free men do. Liberty is dangerous (but not as dangerous as the alternative).

Mass shootings are absolutely terrible. But Nazi regimes, Sharia law, rampant organized crime- these are worse. Even if we assume (wrongly) that gun control would solve the shootings, we must realize that we would be giving up liberty for security.

If you think my examples are extreme, look at the middle east, where ISIS is murdering Christians by the hundreds and the Christians are not prepared to resist; look at Nazi Germany and all the other communist governments that disarmed their populace before bringing them into subjection.

If more Americans were armed and prepared to act, the perpetrators of these heinous crimes would be numbered among the slain- and it would be a much smaller number. That's all there is to it.

It is not compassionate to the victims of these crimes to perpetuate the problem.

I known not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death. I'll take the animated contest of freedom over the tranquil servitude of slavery any day.

I don't trust these mass murderers any more than anyone else does, but I trust governments with incontestable power even less.

In any case, as the protector of my wife and my baby girl, the ability to fire back in their defense is a God-given liberty and responsibility that I am not willing to forsake in the vain hope that an angelic and incorruptible government will save us from all of the evils of a fallen world.

#2A

Life

The Darwinian worldview leads to euthanasia, abortion, sterilization, and genocide. If we assume the truth of Darwinian evolution, that is the simple and logical conclusion; as Hitler's propoganda stated, no good animal breeder allows the unhealthy or inferior animals in his care to breed. If we, too, are just animals, somewhere between apes and supermen, then why would we not want to assist the progress of the species by cutting out those who obviously will not be helping us toward the latter?

The Christian worldview stands in stark opposition. The Author of life claims responsibility for making the deaf and the blind. (Ex. 4:11)

In the Christian worldview, there is no such thing as a "defective" person. The child with Down Syndrome, the cross-eyed man, the woman lame from birth, the deformed, the mute, these people were not rejects from the celestial assembly line.

Certainly, there are natural factors that God uses to bring such things about- some of which we are responsible for.

But the basic Christian assumption is that God made you how He wants you. 

We are responsible for what we do with what He gives us; we are responsible to invest our talents wisely. But He is the One Who gives the talents as He sees fit. (Matt. 25:14-30) 

Sterilizing the "inferior", as America did in the early 1900s, or committing mass acts of genocide, as the Nazi regime did, or murdering the unwanted in the womb like we are doing by the thousands and ten thousands today in this country- this all makes sense if we are the judge of what is "viable," what is "superior," if we can control the factors and predict the results- and if we are not accountable to God for what we do with His souls.

But if God makes people individually by His hand, then it doesn't matter what the child's pedigree is. If God wants him blind, He'll make him blind. If He doesn't want him blind, then the child will not be blind. If the child is blind, there is no blame or shame. That was God's perfect will. That is just as much a person, a life, a soul, in the words of Lewis a "self." And if that child is chosen by God, then he is just as much a member of the Church-Bride of Jesus Christ. God wove that human tapestry and signed it with His image and bought it with His blood. There is no higher pedigree than that which is held by the child of God.

Blind or not, "normal" or not, we do not have the right to determine that life inferior. We can only judge things which are under us. Human creations, human actions. Life is a creation of God. He has the right to tell us when- and why- we may take it from another. 

We did not give it. It is not ours to take unless the One Who gave it tells us to.

‪#‎ProLife‬ ‪#‎DefundPP‬

A Call to War

Please note that in this post I am speaking in general terms about events like 9/11, but I do not at all wish to detract from the very important duty held by every American to remember the brave and courageous individuals who chose honor over life on that day, and on many days like it, throughout our nation's history.  Their legacy should be treasured and honored by every one of us.
_________________

What exactly is it that we remember on September 11th?  What is it that we constantly remind ourselves and one another to "Never Forget"?

On September 11th, this year, I received a soundtrack I had ordered; the music from the film United 93.  On the back of the case, the dedication is begun thus: "This music is a prayer for peace..."

And I am left to ask- a prayer to whom?

I love America.  But in times like these, it is worth asking- what is America?

I love America like Maximus loved the dream that was Rome.

America represents so many wonderful and precious things, and for years has been the bastion of Christian civilization- a city on a hill sending the darkness into terrified retreat before the light of freedom, truth, and law, all of which stem from the Holy Word of God.  And I love those things.  I am, by God's grace, ready to die for those things.  And I love the dream that was America.  And I am ready to die for that dream.

But America is not what she used to be.  Shackled by oppressive government, muzzled by political correctness, and, worst of all, gradually succumbing to a cancer of the soul, America is dying the long, painful death of a nation whose sturdy foundations are slowly crumbling beneath the deteriorating shambles on top.

And all the patriotism in the world, all the bumper-stickers and troop-supporting and #neverforget- they are powerless to change that fact.  Electing Romney instead of Obama might stick some bungee cords on the burning wreckage, but in the long term it is all coming down anyway.

So when days like 9/11 come up, and the cries to remember and the cheers for the American spirit and all the happy hoopla and empty jingoism of today's great American facade explode across social media, I find myself at a loss for words.

The true patriot, it has been said, will not say "my country, right or wrong."  He will say "my country- when right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be made right."

Real patriots are honest, not blind.  So let's be honest.

- Islam (and it's not radical Islam; it's true Islam) is on the rise, flexing its tyrannical muscles and slashing and burning and beheading as it marches over lands protected by Crusaders and forsaken by their children.

- The entire political structure of our nation has hit a point of self-perpetuating implosion.  The economy still has some foundational pieces left, creaking and groaning under the weight of tyranny, and weakening from within because of the rot of moral decay; it is only a matter of time before Atlas shrugs.

- Christendom as a whole- Western civilization, the beacon and anchor of the prosperous world- is committing a convenient suicide, slaughtering millions of their own children and "controlling" the rest from ever entering the world.  We may say with pride that no enemy is necessary; we have found a way to dwindle ourselves into nothing on our own.  If Islam weren't such a bloodthirsty religion, they could wait a few years and rule the world anyway, given the drastic multiplication of their families and the rapid subtraction of ours.

Meanwhile, the Church of Jesus Christ has largely forsaken His Word, throwing the Lion of Scripture into the cage of dispensationalism, retreating from the head of the culture to pass out Gospel tracts among those at the tail.

Judgment starts in the house of God (1 Pet. 4:17), and when we look at the nation we, the Church, have built for ourselves, or rather destroyed for ourselves, this truth should make us tremble.  For "culture is religion externalized," and the culture of America is American Christendom externalized.

To return to my newly acquired CD, the "prayer for peace" is representative of the broader state of "good-ol-boy" religious America.  We're a big fan of "God," though we're generally pretty good about being ambiguous as to his identity, and we hope "God" blesses America, and we send both prayers and good feelings and thoughts to our neighbor in need, and our politicians are good church-going folk, and we are all happily happy in our politically correct mess of religious pottage.

Oh yeah, and we pray for peace.

Problem is, this world is a world at war.  Since the fall of man it has been the children of the woman against the children of the serpent.  Peace is a wonderful thing, but true peace will only happen after complete victory.  Until then, we need to keep the Crusader cross painted bright across our shields, our swords sharp, our arms strong- both physically and spiritually.  Spiritually, for offense, for the Gospel will conquer (Matthew 16:18); physically, for defense, for the godless will kill (Proverb 8:36).

Islam will not hesitate to behead me, or you, or our loved ones.  Humanism generally prefers something more sterile, like abortion, or gas chambers, or euthanasia.  Socialism is happy just to kill the society and leave everyone in it to scrape out whatever existence they can.

But they're all at war against Christ.

What is the solution?  Violence?

No!  Not at all.  Christians should be ready to take up physical arms and shed real blood in real battle if the time comes where they must do so in defense of the innocent.  But Christianity, unlike Islam or Marxism, was never to be propagated by the sword.  The solution is to fulfill the two primary missions of Christendom- the Dominion Mandate, and the Great Commission.  Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; go therefore and make disciples of all nations, and teach them to observe all- all- that Jesus has commanded.

We must have kids, and teach them.  We must love people.  Preach the Gospel.  Live the Gospel.  Grab a trowel and spread the Gospel thickly into every little crack and cranny of life.  Make disciples, not just converts.  Run for office, and make Scripture our platform.  Vote according to Biblical principle, not just conservative ideals.  Engage the culture.  Make the movies, write the music and the books, paint the pictures, tell the stories, take the helm for the Glory, by the Grace, and under the Word of Christ.

The gates of hell cannot prevail against the faithful Church of God.  So if the gates of hell are prevailing, then we need only look at ourselves.  How are we failing in our duty?

There are a few that come readily to my mind; a few gaping holes in the walls of Jerusalem that the reformer-Nehemiahs of today have the opportunity to repair.

- We are ashamed of God's Law, and we are afraid to bring The Bible into the political realm.  We have a cart-before-horse perception of the "separation of Church and State," and it has rendered the Church's influence on American politics largely impotent.

- This has left us, politically, advocating a spayed-and-neutered "conservatism" which tries to adhere to a form of Godliness while denying its power, which is God's Word; the result is just a cleaned-up humanism which, rather than warring against the advance of the realm of darkness, jumps into its sandbox in hopes of slowing its progress on the tower of Babel.

- We have a truncated view of the Gospel.  Instead of a multi-generational, dominion-taking, life-and-world-changing Message, we have reduced It to a matter of "praying a prayer," going to church on Sundays, and exchanging swear words for bywords.  We have made the Gospel into an invitation to a party instead of a call to war.

- Maybe that's the biggest thing.  I think we've lost sight of the antithesis.  We've so highly spiritualized Christianity that we struggle to see Its ramifications for the myriad speculations and lofty things raised up against the knowledge of God which swirl around us day-in and day-out.  Until we realize that we are in the war, we will continue to lose it.  The movies we watch, the food we eat, the jokes we tell, the very way that our children learn math- this is all part of the war, and we must learn to identify it as such and take it captive to the obedience of Christ.

The twin towers were a symbol, and their fall was also symbolic.  Prophetic, even.  That is America's future, unless we repent.

So when we remember the tragedy of September 11th, let us not remember it with the pride of a nation of overcomers looking back on another trial we have surmounted.  Let us remember, and shudder, knowing that, unless we repent and return to the ways and the Word of God, that was only the prelude to the nightmarish symphony that is the future of America.

___

P.S. There is hope.  Lots of hope.  God is doing amazing things in our country, and I'm excited to see His Hand moving and reforming and building the new even as the old collapses around it.  But hope is to be found in Christ, His Word, His Church, His War- not in conservatism or patriotism as an ideal apart from Him.  And that, in a nutshell, is the entire sum of what I'm saying with this post!

The Leftist Jihad

If you haven't heard it, you haven't been involved in politics for very long:

"Jesus was a socialist!"

There's a remarkable, ironic incongruity evident when those who desperately cry against a statue of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse in the same breath plead for their agenda because "that's what Jesus would want."

Yet perhaps the irony fades when seen in the light of two crucial truths; first, that the Jesus of their socialistic gospel is not the Jesus revealed in the pages of Scripture, but is an idol fashioned in the image of Marx; second, that the separation of Church and State is as impossible as the separation of soul and body.

There is perhaps no idea so important, so relevant, as this one is to the political climate of today.  In a culture of bubble-wrapped, emasculated, truthless "tolerance," the political realm can acknowledge no god but Caesar.  Yet this is precisely the dilemma which faces the supposedly irreligious politicos:

They will always acknowledge a god.

The question is not whether religion will be allowed in the realm of politics, but which religion.

Will it be Islam, with its brutal and tyrannical but self-consistent sharia?  Humanism, with its arbitrary, self-contradictory, thoroughly lost and ultimately despotic platitudes?  Christianity, with its loving, perfect, liberating laws?  Or simply government as god, state as savior, the empty promise of redemption through men tainted by the very thing from which redemption is sought- sin?

It is time for the great facade of secular neutrality to be torn down.

This is the real reason why all evidences of true Christianity must be stripped away from America's schools and courtrooms; not because religion cannot be allowed into the state, but because the Christian religion contradicts the religion of the state.

How can "thou shalt not steal" be displayed in a courtroom which endorses theft?  How can "thou shalt not kill" be displayed in a school that provides abortifacients?  How can "thou shalt not commit adultery" be displayed in a town hall which condones homosexuality?

Those remnants of Christian doctrine are heresy in the eyes of the priests and priestesses of this new religion, a religion with a new "Jesus," a new "Bible," and a new god.

The intolerance of the left only makes sense when it is understood for what it truly is; not the confused and arbitrary condemnation of religion by those who desire to preserve political purity, but rather a modern sort of inquisition, a jihad, a crusade against the one religion which the monolithic magisterium of socialism cannot withstand:

Biblical Christianity.

The Church of Marx cannot tolerate the Church of Christ, yet the Church of Marx needs a way to control a population which overwhelmingly claims to be part of the Church of Christ.  Herein lies the sinister genius of the "new Jesus."

The left has at once hidden itself behind a facade of religious neutrality while subtly substituting the true tenets of Christianity with their new gospel; a gospel of redemption through social justice rather than the bloody Cross of Jesus Christ.

Once this substitution has been made, the rest is easy.  In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand sums the idea up nicely:

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them... just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted--and you create a nation of law-breakers--and then you cash in on guilt." 

And so the left has done, both in the literal world of laws and prisons and in the realm of ideas- and it is the ideological prison which has chained America.  By poisoning the well of Truth which is Christianity, by perverting the tenets of Scripture, the left has rendered American Christendom largely confused and politically impotent; instead of standing firm on the truth of Scripture, the Church in America weakly flings conservative platitudes against liberal ones, always a little less wrong than the Marxist, but rarely any more right.

The godless left is just as religious as the Christian right, but the former has convinced the latter that their religion has no place in the political sphere.

The people of God in America have been disarmed of their Sword; worse, they have flung It down and joined their enemies in ridiculing It.  It is not ultimately Marx's fault that America has let go of the legacy of Christian liberty left her by her forefathers; the blame falls squarely at the feet of an unfaithful Church.

It is time for the Church to awake again; to repent, to return, to reform, to again, as the prophets of old, proclaim the real and living Jesus, and decry the new gospel of the Church of Marx for the lie that it is.

Until this is undone, no serious progress towards liberty in this nation can be accomplished.  Jesus said "Whoever is not with Me is against Me."  America needs to remember this.  Any entity which claims to be irreligious is by necessity anti-Christian; any entity which claims to be Christian must by definition submit to the Word of God.

So let the Christian right first remember that the Marxists are just as devout, just as puritanical, just as desperately clinging to their religion as the Christians are.

Then, she must remind the eager evangelist of the Marxian mysteries that in the same Bible which he quotes so glibly it is written: "thou shalt not steal."

Which means that Jesus definitely wasn't a socialist.

Gender Roles from the Bakery

So the Pentagon is opening up more combat roles in the military for women.

Yay! More opportunity for our precious daughters to get shot up and maimed! Progress and stuff!

So glad we got to the point where, as a nation, it's no longer un-cool to send your wife or daughter downstairs to check on the scary noise at night.  For a moment there, I thought I might actually have to protect the women in my life.  THANK YOU, PROGRESS!

My life will be so much more satisfying now that I can guiltlessly choose the path of impotent, bubble-wrapped mediocrity.  Or maybe it'll just be easier... not sure about the whole satisfying thing.

Gender roles?  Can I buy those at the bakery?

It's not like I ever wanted my sons to learn what it meant to love sacrificially; to lay down their lives for their sisters and their wives; to be men who were prepared to come to the aid of the weak and the oppressed.

I mean, goodness, can you imagine how oppressed my poor daughters would be if their brothers opened doors for them all the time?  The chauvinism.  

And if I ever come across a girl being attacked in a dark alley, well, I certainly wouldn't want to interfere with her opportunity to show her equality!  Though I gotta say, I hope she went to the same school of womanhood as Black Widow and Catwoman and all those other movie stars.  

And if she doesn't make it out of the alley alive, no reason for me to lose sleep! Natural selection has worked its will once again!

But I do have one more request.  While we're progressing, and being equal, do you think we could make registration for the draft mandatory for girls, too?  Just being fair 'n stuff.

Massacre

Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook- all come readily to mind when the word "massacre" is spoken. Tragedies, each one- horror stories, chilling for those who hear the tales told, life-changing for those who lived them. Every time the fruit of the sinful heart of some American spills out of the barrel of a gun, the immediate cry is for the gun to be removed. Yet scrawled in blood over the pages of history are the accounts of tragedies far worse, death tolls far higher, which seem to be somehow forgotten in the midst of this debate.

The bloody slaughters of millions of people at the hands of their own governments set the 20th century apart as the single bloodiest century of world history. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Chavez, the list runs on- the greatest murderers in history, perhaps rivaled only by those behind the abortion mills of America. Yet when the line of atrocities is marched into public view which serves as irrefutable evidence for the need for gun control, these holocausts are never mentioned. Massacre after massacre in American theaters and schools is trotted out as evidence for why the people should be disarmed, but not once are these slaughters even hinted at.

Is it because they are irrelevant to the gun-control issue? Not at all. Few things could be more relevant. No, the stories of these genocides cannot, must not be told because they tell the other side of the gun-control story; they are living testimony to the importance of the idea behind the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The American founders were not protecting Americans' right to hunt. They were not protecting Americans' right to protect themselves against would-be rapists and home invaders. They were protecting Americans' right to protect Americans' rights. The Second Amendment puts a wall of lead between the American people and a foe far more dangerous than any dark shape in a back alley. The dangers of a tyrannical government unchecked by an armed populace are illustrated potently by each government-led genocide, each purge, each Auschwitz and every Siberia.

Let the examples be examined- all of them. Let the truth have her day. The death toll of history gives overwhelming evidence that, in spite of the Auroras and Sandy Hooks, the price of a disarmed populace in blood far outweighs the price of an armed one.

#CLASSY - (Another Political Post)

I love how the liberals' best argument isn't.

It is at once hilarious and heartbreaking that so often, instead of offering coherent and compassionate

reasons for their beliefs, they respond with vulgarities, angry name calling, and plenty of ALL CAPS.

Expletives instead of explanations.

This, of course, should win no one to their cause. Really, we should be happy that this is all that they

have to offer. The bankruptcy of their philosophical positions is made evident by their masterful use of

fallacies and their impotent use of pretty much everything else.

But I'm not writing this to the left- may they repent and may God open their eyes.

I'm writing to my fellow conservatives. You know who you are, you Chick-Fil-A eating, freedom-

loving, Bible-thumping, gun-toting, Constitution-quoting patriot. You understand that debt doesn't

make for good economic policy, that inflation is theft, that socialism makes everyone equally poor, that

babies have the right to live, that marriage is something that God defines, not the state.

And you're right. Your arguments are firmly rooted in truth.

But are you acting like it?

A few months ago, a video of an exchange between a Chick-Fil-A employee and a dissatisfied customer went viral. The video showed liberal activist extraordinaire Adam Smith oh-so-tolerantly berating the angelic Chick-Fil-A employee and her company. I say angelic because Rachel's poised and gentle response to the man's childish attacks were exemplary. The reactions of conservatism were far less so.

Adam Smith and his coworkers apparently were threatened with harm (!!!), while Smith was called every name in the book- and some names that aren't in the book. The cries for his apology were

(rightly so) loud and widespread.

Then he apologized.

What did Rachel say? “I forgive you.”

What did conservatism say? “Yeah, right. Whatever, jerk. [expletives]”

And suddenly, we sound just like the liberals.

The Adam Smith issue is just a poignant example of a searing inconsistency within conservatism- that

while sometimes we stand on truth and speak with compassion, truly desiring to see “them” come to

understand the truth, sometimes we drop the truth of the matter, jump in their sandbox, and kick sand

with the best of them. Like so many 3-year-olds.

When we do this, we validate the claims of the Left. We empower their criticism. Why would anyone

want to join a movement that can't accept an apology?

While I'm talking about Adam Smith, it is worth noting that I'm not suggesting that we naively embrace

Adam Smith as a repentant and remorseful prodigal son running into the arms of truth for a touching

reconciliation. We can be compassionate and forgiving without being doormats. Nor am I suggesting

that there is never a place for well-placed satire. The occasional well-placed “You brood of vipers!” is

never amiss.

My plea is that we continue to take the high road- to focus on and fight for truth.

Jesus said this, just hours before His death: “For this I have come to the world, that I may testify to the

truth.”

Of all the things that He could have said, moments before an agonizing death, this is what Christ gave

as His reason for coming to earth.

For those of us who are followers of Christ- isn't that what we aspire to?

For those of you who are conservative but don't claim Christ- what's wrong with you?

I tease. We can argue over that one later- you can yell at me through Twitter.

But in all seriousness, isn't this what we want to do? Testify to the truth? And if this is really about

truth, why are we relying on superior insults and more advanced mastery of curse words instead of

standing on the abundance of evidence that is piled around us?

Has this gone beyond a search for truth and into a matter of pride? Or have the liberals, by their

incessant flow of vitriol, finally worn us down to where we can't argue beyond our own frustration?

If we let them do this, they win. We become the haters.

Scripture commands us to “overcome evil with good.” We all know that this is the most effective

method of argumentation.

We have the truth to stand on. Reality is on our side. We can afford to represent a calm,

compassionate, confident conservatism to the world- and that is far more likely to win others to our

cause than kicking sand.

Let's leave the hate speech to the liberals. It's all they have.

As for us, let's be Rachels.

Not Adam Smiths.

Four More Years

The dust has settled. The 2012 elections are in the past. Barack Obama won. America reelected a president who left Americans to die in Libya, who supports the murder of children, whose policies are communistic, whose methods are tyrannical- indeed, a candidate who stands directly opposed to almost everything that made America great.

Were the elections really honest? Does America really want more of the hope and change that brought them 8% unemployment, $4.00 gas, and $6 trillion in additional debt? Is Obama America’s choice, or the choice of the man behind the curtain? The entire election process is certainly not beyond scrutiny. How much of this victory may be attributed to voter fraud is, at least for now, uncertain, but it is not uncertain at all that America’s political system is no longer trustworthy. It’s for sale.

Whether or not the election process was honest, the question remains: who is to blame for this electoral catastrophe? Is it the Paul-bots? The uncompromising conservatives, the principled third-partiers, the stubborn constitutionalists, the exclusivist Christians? Or is it the GOP? Does the blame rest with a campaign that failed to make Romney a rock star, a party that couldn’t attract the minority vote, a candidate who just wasn’t cool enough? Or maybe conservative principles are too old-fashioned for the New America. Maybe the only way for conservatism to survive is for conservatism to become… well… liberal.

The truth is that conservatism has become liberal, and continues to become liberal, to the point where the distinction between the two is often one of degrees and not of essence. Mitt Romney was not a conservative candidate- he was a less liberal candidate, and so it is with most of the solutions, selections, and salvations offered up by conservatism today. To be a conservative is to be a less-liberal. The basic principles of limited government have been thrown to the wolves. This year, America was presented with two bad choices. Most of conservative America went for the less bad choice, while some pled the third option and elected to vote for someone whom they could actually stand behind. Yes, the party was split, and the wishy-washy politicking of the GOP must be given some credit for this. The Republican establishment has proven to be ambiguous on the issues, untrustworthy in the political process, and, indeed, traitorous to any who do not play their game. After building a reputation like this, the GOP sealed their irrelevance with a kiss by nominating a moderate (read: liberal) as an alternative to Barack Obama.

But this does not go deep enough. The GOP’s impotence is a symptom, not a cause. For politics are only a large-scale representation of the most pervasive worldviews of the populace.

So the problem must be something else entirely. Maybe the blame for this political fiasco must be handed to a group which is, and must be, according to the cultural narrative, the least political institution on earth.

Yes, the blame for the reelection of Barack Obama must rest squarely on the shoulders of the Church.

It is the Church who was told to be the pillar and support of the truth. It is the Church who, as trustees of the word of God, holds in her hand the document which was the foundation for American liberty. It is the Church who allowed herself to be bound and gagged, who accepted permission for what was her right, who neglected to proclaim God’s Truth to every area of life. It is because God’s people have forsaken their place as the leaders of society that America is crumbling. It was the church that hesitated to condemn homosexuality as a crime and sin. It was the church that neglected to preach Scriptural principles of free market economics. It is the church who still fails to expose property and inheritance taxes as theft, public schooling as both unbiblical and unconstitutional, social justice as injustice. We cannot expect the blessing of God on our nation while we continue to walk in contempt of His Word, and we cannot expect secular America to accept this if the American church will not proclaim it. “We are all children of God,” and platitudes like it, may make Americas feel good. “In God we trust” and “God bless America” may give us a feeling of piety, of “God-is-on-our-side.” But, as Ronald Reagan said, the question is not whether God is on our side, but whether we are on His.

The God Who blesses nations and who brings them to their knees has told us in His Word what exactly it means to be “on His side.” Until we submit to His Law, we can expect nothing but judgment.

Meet Billy Joe-Bob

I wrote the following article for Turning Point USA.  It goes into a little bit more depth on the subject that I broached in the video.

Desperate Measures

For a long time, the abolishment of the Department of Education was an outspoken part of the Republican party platform. ( http://www.cato.org/research/articles/gryphon-040211.html ) Today, such a suggestion seems absurd, but is it really such a far-fetched idea? In a nation where the federal government is $16,000,000,000,000 in the red, is a real remedy going to be easy to swallow? Is it possible that a true solution, by the very nature of the immense problem, must itself be far-reaching; that the serious reformation of a gargantuan error must surpass the political bandages of recent years; that, perhaps, the deep economic ditch that America finds herself in can only be escaped by a solution that appears radical?

Scripture leaves no ambiguity about the dangers of debt. Repeatedly God tells the children of Israel that if they would only walk in obedience to Him, they would lend to many nations. The prophesied consequences of disobedience to God's commands, on the other hand, regularly include debt. Scripture says that "the borrower becomes the lender's slave." Is it not a sorry irony that the nation which stands as an unparalleled icon of liberty among all the nations of the world should have enslaved herself to other nations in $16,000,000,000,000 shackles? It is more than ironic; it is sickening. Ten years ago a debt-free nation was clearly in sight, a prize within arm's reach; now, it appears to be an impossibility.

In fact, if America continues down the path that she is currently treading glibly, it will shortly become an impossibility. The issue has been avoided for long enough, buried under rhetoric, danced around with false promises and good but fruitless intentions. A nation can only walk in defiance of the laws of nature and of nature's God for so long before she reaps the fruit that she has sown. It is high time that America woke up, stepped back, and took an honest look at what steps must be taken to bring about a serious reconstruction of America's economic infrastructure. This nation cannot afford to continue with the semantical dances of politics-as-usual. She is fast approaching the point of no return. It has happened to many nations both ancient and modern. To think that America is exempt from the law of sowing and reaping is absurd.

It is time for America to fight for her liberty again; not just in the political sphere, but also in the economic. This nation is built on the foundation of freedom, and she is selling her birthright for the porridge that is temporary pleasure. She has marched down this path too far to be turned back by half-measures.

Are the people of America prepared to make these sacrifices? Are Americans ready to consider eliminating government agencies and overreaching beauracracies that never should have existed in the first place? Or are the people of this once-great nation too enraptured with their comforts and their food stamps and the great facadé that is American prosperity today to make these crucial decisions? Only time will tell.

As Americans, we inherit a legacy of sacrifice. It is because of that sacrifice that we enjoy the legacy of freedom. If we are to perpetuate that legacy, we must choose freedom over free stuff. We must be prepared to bite the bullet and cauterize the cancer that is a bloated federal government. Agencies and programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Department of Education, the USDA, the EPA, and the rest, are all beyond the pale of Scripture and contrary to the intent of the Constitution.

It's time to reject the free stuff. Of course, the truth is that one way or another the free stuff will end. Eventually, as Margaret Thatcher said, we will run out of other people's money. Let us not deceive ourselves. We like to think that we are spending our children's inheritance (and we are), but really we are destroying ourselves. So the choice is ours. We can go down in the history books as the generation that finally said “NO.” Or we can hand our children the broken remnants of a once-great nation and go down in the history books as another sad page in the annals of the world; just another generation that said “sorry.”

The choice is ours. Let's stop pretending. America is sick. Is the disease terminal? Time will tell, but one thing is certain- band-aids are not the solution.

"My son, if you have become surety for your neighbor, have given a pledge for a stranger, if you have been snared with the words of your mouth, have been caught with the words of your mouth, do this then, my son, and deliver yourself; since you have come into the hand of your neighbor, go, humble yourself, and importune your neighbor. Give no sleep to your eyes, nor slumber to your eyelids; deliver yourself like a gazelle from the hunter's hand and like a bird from the hand of the fowler.” - Proverbs 6:1-5

Happily Ever After

Once upon a time, there was a man named Joe.  Joe was a healthy man.  He was always very careful to eat his vegetables, and he exercised every day.

Joe lived on a street with nineteen other people.  These nineteen people were all very unhealthy.  They only ate things that were fried, and their couches had permanent indentations proving that exercise was not a regular habit for them. 

Every morning, Joe would wake up and go for a run in the cool morning breeze.  It was his way of energizing himself- waking up and embracing the challenge and joy of a new day.  Deep breaths of cool, fresh air, a light sweat, the thrill of blood moving glibly through his veins- he loved it.  If ever one of his neighbors happened to be outside (which, of course, wasn't often) he would greet them with a cheery “Good Morning!”

The nineteen other people on the street hated Joe.  Every morning, as he ran past their living-room windows, it reminded them of how unhealthy they were.  Soon enough, they decided to do something.

Joe's neighbors complained to the government.  They marched up and down the street (well, they would have marched if they could have) waving signs that said “We are the 95%”.  They sent letters saying, “save us, government, from this cruel man who takes care of himself without thinking about the rest of us who are so miserably unhealthy!”

The government, of course, was eager to oblige.  The government loves helping their people.  The government cares.

So the “Health and Wellness for Everyone Act” was passed.  The government decided that, in the interest of helping people, the very healthiest people in the nation would have to give some of their health to people who weren't so well off.  This would make life better for everyone!

Now Joe, of course, kept on exercising and eating well.  But he noticed that he was no longer improving at his workouts.  His runs became more difficult every morning.  Soon, he was barely able to pant past his neighbors' houses.  They all laughed at him.  They weren't actually feeling much better, but at least he wasn't feeling better than they were.

Joe was heartbroken.  No matter how hard he tried, he only got in worse shape.  Finally, he gave up.  He joined his neighbors in the ranks of the couch-potatoes.  He traded in his kale chips for corn chips.

Soon enough, the health of the neighborhood deteriorated to worse than it had ever been before.  Eventually, everyone died of heart attacks.  And the government continued to help people happily ever after.

THE END

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Government cannot produce any wealth of actual substantial value.  By its very nature, government exists on the industry of others- real producers of wealth.

When we consider, then, the state of the economy, we need to remember that creating more government jobs actually only extracts more from the national economy.

There are two ways to pay for a government expense: the first is by direct taxation, which should only be done to fund Scriptural and Constitutional programs.  The second is by indirect taxation- inflation, which is always theft.  It waters down the national money supply, and devalues the wealth of the people of the nation.

Free money from the government is an illusion, for two reasons- first, what the government pays for, it likes to think that it owns.  Second, the government is getting that money somewhere- either someone earned it, and the government took it, or the government printed it, thereby stealing it from the national economy as a whole.

So when the government pays welfare checks, medicare, unemployment, or anything else, what is actually happening is that the federal government is transferring money from one American to another American- by force.  In effect, it's stealing from Joe to give to his neighbor.

When this happens, it destroys the incentive to productivity.

The incentive to productivity.

To say it a different way, when the government takes from the rich to give to the poor, it subsidizes poverty.

Many a sign in a park warns visitors not to feed the animals- or they might not learn to feed themselves.  The same holds true of people.

Scripture says that “the worker's appetite works for him, for his hunger urges him on.”  When the choices are work, steal, or starve, work seems like the best option.  There is a strong incentive- hunger- that causes people to want to work.  But when the choices are work, let the government steal for you, or starve, suddenly the path of least resistance leads right over our fellow Americans.

And we don't care.

The objection may arise:

“But taking 30% or even 50% or 70% of a rich guy's millions of dollars will still leave him with plenty enough to survive on.”

True, but taking 100% of that rich guy's millions of dollars will not be enough for the consumers to survive on.

We're $16T in debt.  How's that take-from-the-rich-to-fund-our-programs working for you?

More importantly, though, is the fact that suddenly we've given ourselves the authority to decide who has made too much- who it is right to steal from- who we bleed to keep the rest of us going.

Where did we get the right to take 30%, or even 20% of his income, when we aren't willing to pay the same amount?

By what standard is that OK?

The final thing I want to address is the idea that- well, hey, you're supposed to be a Christian!  The Bible would want the rich guy to give to the poor, right?

Absolutely.  The Bible also says “Thou shalt not steal.”  We don't have the right to take from Joe.  If he wants to give, fine, but stealing from him in order to satiate our arbitrary goal of “fairness” is, quite simply, wrong.

The socialistic view of prosperity is unsustainable.  When 50% of your city is on welfare, as I've heard is the case where I live, that means that half of the people are living off of the labor of others.  Add to that the number of government employees, and the picture becomes frighteningly lopsided.

The path that we are on is unsustainable.  If we do not have a major, major repentance in our country, we must collapse.  Our economy is beyond the point of bandages.  $16T in debt should shock every American.  It's coming, folks.  Atlas is shrugging.  As far as I can see, we have three options.

We can pretend like it's all not real- call it a conspiracy theory- trust that the tree that our forefathers planted will continue to shade us even though we are no longer willing to water it- and wake up homeless and enslaved in the nation that stands among all the earth as the last bastion of Christianity, prosperity, and freedom.

We can repent and reform, cry out to God like Nineveh did, turn from our wicked ways, stop with the games and the politicking, and maybe- just maybe- pull our nation back from the brink.

Or we can take cover and hope that after the facade comes crashing down there will be a remnant left to pick up the pieces.

But until we pay the piper, there can be no happily ever after.

States' Rights - If the Founders saw the Fed

The United States of America was founded slightly over 200 years ago. In the temporal space of those 200 years, much has changed. Technology has advanced, wars have been fought, generations have come and gone, and worldviews and perceptions of Truth have shifted greatly. If the men who founded these United States could visit their progeny today, there would be many things that would astonish them. Some things would no doubt please them. Overall, however, they would be disappointed. This great republican experiment of theirs has forsaken their vision. Corruption and abuse of power now permeate the American political sphere. The founding fathers wrote the United States Constitution to limit the federal government. As the Constitution itself says, "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people." Thomas Jefferson, after quoting this, continues to say that "To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, [no] longer susceptible of any definition." The founding fathers would be saddened to see that the federal government, contrary to their intent, is now its own entity, not only no longer subject to the states, but encroaching upon them.

When the federal government tries to pass "hate crimes" legislation, it is far overstepping its constitutional bounds. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the jurisdiction over the speech, let alone the thoughts of American citizens. To the contrary, the oft-quoted First Amendment ensures the right of the people to speak freely. If there was to be a law against "hate speech," it should certainly not be a federal law. This is not an area of power given to the federal government, therefore it remains in the province of the States and the people. Furthermore, The Law of God as expressed in The Old Testament only justifies punishment for specific physical crimes. Since the Founding Fathers came from a distinctly Biblical point of view, this is an important consideration. That the Founding Fathers came from this worldview is made clear by Patrick Henry, when he says that "It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ." Therefore, The Holy Bible may be seen as a very informative document into the minds of America's forefathers. From both a Biblical and a constitutional perspective, the federal government has no place in legislating against "hate crimes." It would sadden the founders to see this establishment try.

The "healthcare reform" that may soon be mandated to the American people is another example of a top-heavy federal government that is violating the rights of the people and the jurisdiction of the states. While the brutally abused welfare clause of the Constitution might be used to justify this heinous legislation, an honest reading of that same document as a whole, bearing in mind the spirit and history of the times, shows that the "nanny-state" was not our founders' intent. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 32, stresses that "…the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States." The United States are nowhere granted any power in the Constitution even remotely respecting something like healthcare, and to by mandate force the people to subscribe to this "care" is far more blatantly tyrannous. Furthermore, while this welfare clause might at first glance seem to relate to the health of the citizens of the States, the welfare clause specifically applies to the States themselves. Combine this with the Biblical principle that government's role is to bear the sword, and not to give charity, and it becomes clear that the founders would not approve of the federal healthcare legislation that is being planned today.

The founders would also be displeased with the way that the concept of the militia has been almost entirely erased from the modern American's vocabulary, while all of the nation's military might is centralized and under federal control. The Second Amendment to the United States constitution not only makes clear that the people have a right to keep and bear arms, but also that a "well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is an important protection of that and other rights. Yet this necessary ingredient to the security of a free state is not in any way practiced today. Webster, in his 1828 dictionary, defines the militia as "The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies…." This militia structure would give the States much more power, and would put weight behind the demands of the several states. A centralized, federal, standing military is arguably unconstitutional, but it is not arguable that it gives the few in Washington much power, and more so when the States are so rendered impotent by not having an armed and enlightened citizenry. This would not please the founders.

Because of these and many other grievances committed by the federal government against the states and the people, the founding fathers would be disappointed, were they to visit the United States today. They pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for the freedom of their children. Surely they would be displeased to see that their children had apathetically or ignorantly given away to the federal government the liberties that these men worked so hard to ensure. O America, take heed. May the blood and toil of our fathers not be wasted on their sons.