I was a Good Christian. I went to church every Sunday, I gave more than pocket change when the offering plate came around, and I knew my way around the Bible. A testimony could make me weep, and a miracle reported would always elicit a genuine "amen!" from me. My faith was real.
My fifteen year experience as a Christian was comfortable, easy, and unremarkable. I considered myself to be a typical, average, run-of the-mill believer. I knew my Lord, and I knew his mercy, and I desired to serve Him, as much as I was able.
This all may be very familiar to you. It may even describe you to a "T." But what may not be familiar to you is something God did in me on October 4th, 1994. God got my attention that evening. At that moment, the reality of a Sovereign, Almighty God, the Creator who became man, He who died for me, that same One who said "follow Me" fifteen years ago, spoke.
Now, I don't know if God speaks audibly these days or not, but I know God speaking when I hear Him. That inaudible voice was like thunder in my soul; like the rushing of many waters. And I was knocked flat in the deluge and would have drowned if not for His mercy. What caused this to happen?
I'll tell you, but this is a dangerous thing. Occasionally we pray a prayer that we hope (deep down) God doesn't answer, or one that we don't expect the kind of answer we actually receive. I prayed that evening. I prayed for, silly me, to be pure and usable for His perfect purposes. In conjunction with that, I wrote a song.
Permit me to quote some of the words:
"Lord, rekindle me anew, a pleasing sacrifice for you.
I desire a heart of righteousness, Lord please purify my heart.
The time is now to seek holiness, it is time to hear his voice.
To live my confession, I've made my choice, to be conformed within,
and live my life for Him."
I don't know if the contents of this song affected my heart, or if my affected heart brought out this song. I do know that at that moment things would never be the same. God showed me in graphic, horrifying detail the dark corners of my heart, the thick, sturdy walls I had built in an attempt to somehow contain Him. He showed me the treasure I had layed up in heaven: a small lump of gold in a treasure chest filled with ash. Brothers and sisters, my treasure was layed up in earthly things. I was in His kingdom, but avoiding the Consuming Fire.
And so, God answered my prayer that evening. I was about to enter the Consuming Fire, and as one "escaping through the flames," not much was left of me as God did His work. Jer. 4:3-4 says, "Break up your unplowed ground and do not sow among thorns. Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, circumcise your hearts." The plow was on the move.
It is painful to be physically circumcised, but it's the heart that God wants to be circumcised. The heart is where our innermost thoughts are; the depths of our being, where we find what and who we are; it's the place where God meets us when He comes calling. The heart truly represents what we are, it is the place where the dearest things of our lives are treasured. It is here that God writes his word, and where His Holy Spirit dwells. Here also are the secrets, the idols, the barriers we put up to try to shut out the Holy Spirit, the walls behind which we hide from God.
So God circumcised my heart, and I saw the things I had hidden away. I was in despair because of the way I had grieved the Holy Spirit. I claimed to serve Him, but I had wasted these past fifteen years pursuing my own selfish desires, treasuring my idols, silencing His voice. God knocked me down, and I was overcome with the difference between His Holiness and my utter depravity. It is mighty hot in the Consuming Fire!
As I wept like a child at the feet of God, It seemed like his fire was too much to bear. Jeremiah contributes again in Chapter 10, verse 24: "Correct me, Lord, but only with justice - not in your anger, lest You reduce me to nothing." He didn't reduce me to nothing, but l could see it from where I was. Jeremiah again: "My heart is broken within me...because of the Lord and his holy words." Jer: 23:9
After I had finished wrestling with God that evening, my eyes were opened to a new reality. I had been given a new vision of God's purpose for me, and Praise God, He is merciful! Micah says in chapter 6 verse 3: “And what does the LORD require of you? ...to walk humbly with your God." God began a work in me that night, and He is faithful to complete it! I learned that I could no longer hang out at the door of His kingdom vicariously experiencing God's goodness. Being with God's holy people is great, but He wants me to be holy. Going to church is great, but He wants me to dwell in His presence. Seeing God move through His people is awesome, but He wants to work His power through me.
In God's holy football game (I hate sports metaphors!), you're either on offense or defense. You can't sit on the sidelines and cheer the home team. You must be in the game.
But more than that, a new understanding of an old truth lept to life as His Spirit lit up my heart: He has a plan for me! Jeremiah 29, verses 11-13 says, "'For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the Lord, 'plans to prosper and not harm you, plans to give you a hope and a future. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. You will seek and find Me when you seek Me with all your heart:"'
Do you understand the promise contained in that verse? He wants to bless you. He wants to bless you! And He says that you will find Him if you just look! I want to see Jesus. "I pray also that the eyes of your heart will be enlightened, that you may know the hope to which you have been called, and the riches of the glory of his inheritance through the saints, and the exceeding greatness of His power for those who believe." Eph. 1:18-19 God is raising up a people for Himself, a "royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of Him who called you out of the darkness into His wonderful light." 1 Pe. 2:9
He's looking for people who will pray earnestly, who will totally abandon all to Him, who will pursue His presence, and who will stand before Him with clean hands and pure hearts. Don't you want to be a part of God's moving? Are you willing to totally, totally trust Him? Are you willing to turn over control of everything to Him? Everything?
I was satisfied with the small taste of God's goodness, the little sip of His glory. But God has so much more for me! Do you not see the New Thing He is doing? I have had more than my fill of the old wine, and the sweet new wine of His Spirit is what I crave! This is Living Water, and I want more. More!
"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness…" is what Jesus says in Matthew 5, verse 6. Blessed! But, He doesn't leave it there, He gives a promise: "…for they willed be filled." Don't you want to be filled with His righteousness? I tell you, I don't want to miss Him when He moves in this valley. I don't want to miss the blessing, the victory, He has promised. Don't miss what God has for you!
Back to Jeremiah: "Call to Me and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you do not know:" Jer: 33:3 Paul says in 1 Cor. 2:16, "But we have the mind of Christ." God is pleased to show us great and mighty things as we call out to Him in faith. He will work through those who are truly seeking His face in humility and brokenness. I'm not out for some power so that I can show off how holy I am. I want to be used by God as an empty vessel, an instrument of righteousness; I want to be in the center of His will, I want to "…throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles,” and “...run with perserverence the race marked out for us." Heb. 12:1 That verse is followed by, "Let us fix our eyes on Jesus."
Then, after all of this, I am led to something else: Love. "Dear children, do not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth." 1 John 3:18 This is an active love that runs contrary to what the world says. I haven't even scratched the surface in understanding what it means to love like Jesus did when He laid down his life for us.
When we sing, "I love you, Lord, and I lift my voice", or when we say, "I love you; brother," are these empty words or vain repetitions, or do they communicate from the depths of our being? We need to get honest before God, and this usually means being honest with ourselves. God already knows our hearts. I think He wants use to get to the point where we admit to Him what he already knows about us. He wants us to face up to the contents of our hearts and allow Him to be Lord of every part of our being. He is able! How big is your God right now?
"Oh, the depths of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgements, and His paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His counselor? Who has ever given to God, that God should repay Him? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen." Rom. 11: 33-36
Where are you today? Are you in "comfortable" Christianity? What's your love like? Do you, deep down, trust God in all things? Does God need to get your attention? "The hour has come for you to wake from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed." Rom. 13:11
Don't mistake me. This whole thing has hit me personally like I've never been hit. Only you can know where your heart is, and that's between you and God. I find myself coming up painfully short as I ask myself these questions again. But praise God, He is merciful! My heart is filled with joy because of His mercy, and because He has not let me be satisfied with being an average, run-of-the-mill Christian.
Is He speaking to you, too? Does He want to give give you more than you could ever ask or even imagine? Yes. Yes! He will not give you a stone if you ask for bread!
Listen! Is He speaking to You? Listen!
"We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may freely understand what God has given us." 1 Cor. 2:12 May God richly bless you!
Friday, August 31, 2012
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Tangent on "Republicans caused the debt" - FB conversatoin
I posted this: My good friend S.B. posted this link, which blames the Bush tax cuts for the huge national debt. Here's one of the many things wrong with it - Revenues taken in by government increased substantially after the tax cut:
2003 -- $1.782 trillion
2004 -- $2.880 trillion
2005 -- $2.154 trillion
2006 -- $2.407 trillion
2003 -- $1.782 trillion
2004 -- $2.880 trillion
2005 -- $2.154 trillion
2006 -- $2.407 trillion
2007 -- $2.568 trillion (four-year increase of 44%)
Republican National Convention: The one graph you need to see before watching www.washingtonpost.com
Me: The budget deficit in 2007, driven by the final budget passed by a Republican Congress, was $163 billion -- within striking distance of balancing.
R.W.: They always fail to mention how much SPENDING increased.
S.B.: sure, let's LOOK at how much federal spending increased under each president...
https://wickershamsconscience.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/government-spending-5pres.png%3Fw%3D700
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/slowest-spending.png
Me: See, R.W.? All you have to do is shift the 25% spending increase of Obama's first year into Bush's term. And then when the budget is the 25% plus 1.3% in each following year, there is very little spending growth under Obama.
S.B.: actually, if you're talking about the stimulus, my understanding is that the footnote indicates that stimulus/TARP funds initially pushed by the Bush admin but delivered under the Obama admin were ASSIGNED to Obama. I.e., he's being given credit/blame for those costs despite the fact that the ball was set in motion under Bush.
Me: Obama clearly liked the stimulus, and supported it, and doubled down on it. He as a senator voted for every budget.
However, we are veering from the point of my post, which was to illustrated the bounty of tax revenue to the government AFTER the tax cut.
Me: The budget deficit in 2007, driven by the final budget passed by a Republican Congress, was $163 billion -- within striking distance of balancing.
R.W.: They always fail to mention how much SPENDING increased.
S.B.: sure, let's LOOK at how much federal spending increased under each president...
https://wickershamsconscience.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/government-spending-5pres.png%3Fw%3D700
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/slowest-spending.png
Me: See, R.W.? All you have to do is shift the 25% spending increase of Obama's first year into Bush's term. And then when the budget is the 25% plus 1.3% in each following year, there is very little spending growth under Obama.
S.B.: actually, if you're talking about the stimulus, my understanding is that the footnote indicates that stimulus/TARP funds initially pushed by the Bush admin but delivered under the Obama admin were ASSIGNED to Obama. I.e., he's being given credit/blame for those costs despite the fact that the ball was set in motion under Bush.
Me: Obama clearly liked the stimulus, and supported it, and doubled down on it. He as a senator voted for every budget.
However, we are veering from the point of my post, which was to illustrated the bounty of tax revenue to the government AFTER the tax cut.
More on the debt that isn't Obama's -another FB conversation
FB friend R.W. posted this:
B.R.: Have you seen the breakdown of what created that new federal debt? Do you know how much is actually attributed to Obama's policies, and how much was put into motion before he took office?
K.B.: For the first time in US history, we fought a war without raising taxes to pay for it. A dumb move, and Bush built it.
We fought two wars at the same time. Again, no tax increases to pay for it. The GAO said the bill was approximately $8 billion a week to run these twin fiascoes. Again, Bush built it.
We decided to pay for these wars by borrowing money. The Chinese have been speedily and happily buying up our debt. Again, Bush built it.
Now, I am very, very disappointed in Obama for PERPETUATING these actions. He's guilty for continuing it. He's not guilty of starting it.
B.R.: Kevin I agree with you. I wouldn't say I'm satisfied with all of Obama's reactions to his inherited problems, but it's fallacious and dishonest to deal him the guilt for those problems. It would be much less misleading and manipulative to say "Obama hasn't done a good enough job of fixing what was broken before he got there" than to say "Obama broke it".
Me: Obama as a senator voted in favor of every budget and every bail-out.
K.B.: Believe me, I could make a list of things Obama has done (and hasn't done) that have disappointed me. But you can't lay this massive war-built debt at his door.
We lead the world in military spending. We spend more money on defense than the next thirty-six countries, combined. And Romney and Ryan have promised they'll spend more. Where -- exactly -- is that money going to come from?
B.R.: Exactly - if we're going to attack Obama for his record, we need to do it accurately and without manipulating the facts. Just as importantly, if we're going to attack his record during an election year, we need to be able to justify why the other guys would be any better. Electing Romney/Ryan just because of dissatisfaction with Obama is a pretty foolish prospect. Now if they could only tell us what their plans woud be if elected, we could judge one against the other.See More
Me: Lest we forget, Obama the candidate supported the Afghanistan war. He also said that we would be ought of Iraq in 18 months, so we can say he supported that war to some degree. He also started a war in Libya, and did not close Gitmo. We must conclude, then, that Obama is not anti-war.
K.B.: Who said Obama is anti-war? I'M anti-war!! Me!! I'm especially against fighting wars without figuring out how to pay for them. As I said in my previous post, I'm not happy with Obama for perpetuating this unfunded fiasco.
Obama started a war in Libya?!? Hmm ... better fact-check that one. Libya underwent a revolt, and we played wait-and-see.
Me: K.B., the world does not revolve around you. I stated some assertions and came to the conclusion that Obama is not anti-war. That has nothing to do with you.
Libya underwent a revolt, we entered the fray and that made it a war.
K.B.: Read. Evaluated. Still disagree. This was a full-blown war before we had anything to do with it. Except for Odyssey Dawn and Ellamy, we pretty much stayed out of it.
B.R.: Rich, how would you have preferred Obama handle Libya?
Republicans caused the debt - FB conversaton
SB posted this: Really, this graph tells us a LOT about how we got where we are today.
Republican National Convention: The one graph you need to see before watching
C.K.: How is it there are costs for the wars going into 2019?
Me: Flawed assumptions and unwarranted projections are not very persuasive.
M.P.: There you go again with facts and figures trying to sway over folks who just know in their guts it's all the fault of those liberal socialists running the gov't. When you get a feeling, you just know you're right :@
M.P.: Oh, and when the facts don't support your feelings, blame it on somethings else like flawed assumptions and analytic misconduct. And is multiple groups show the same data trends, blame it on a conspiracy.
National Debt Graph by President zfacts.com
C.K.: M.P., just so you know, I am a liberal pinko France loving nancy boy. Still not sure how they a projecting costs for wars that are essentially over. The numbers could be right. Just not sure.
Me: Flawed assumption #1: Tax cuts create debt
Flawed assumption #2: There are no other factors at work that create debt
Flawed assumption #3: The "other debt" would be decreasing had the ennumerated factors not ocurred
Flawed assumption #4: Attributing debts to presidents, not congress
Flawed assumption #5: People who disagree are idiots
R.B.: This is purely a guess: But I believe since this graph is claiming to represent the deficit, not necessarily spending, that the wars show up in the future because of their interest payments.
R.S.: My guess on the question of the war costs is that some of them were deferred, but I don't know for sure. But even if you take that out, the chunk made up by the tax cuts is enormous. I remember thinking in 2000 that it seemed like a bad idea, what with the economy doing well and us looking at surplusses, and all the international goodwill we needed. Republicans have tried twice to make the idea of tax cuts with spending increases work (you can have your cake and eat it too), only to have it fail both times. ...and the article is spot on. Obama inherited this mess, and then had to contend with an idiot congress that wouldn't pass a deficit reduction bill that had something like 9 dollars in spending cuts for every 1 dollar in revenue increases. Surely they could have declared victory and taken the deal. But no....credit rating downgrades are a much better outcome. Ahhhh! Oh well, I digress, lol.
S.B.: Chris -- if you note, the size of debt impact doesn't increase attributable to war doesn't increase visibly beyond about 2013. But neither does it go away, because we are not paying down the debt in those out years either.
Revenue cuts in the absence of commensurate spending cuts do indeed cause an increase in debt.
I do agree with Rich on one point: his flawed assumption #5. I learned long ago not to assume that people who disagree with me are idiots -- even though some of them are. I guess it's that whole causation/correlation thing. ;-)
K.B.: I believe is correct. the costs for the war were deferred and Bush even stated that those costs don't count towards the deficit (uh ok ) but two other factors that debt incurs additional debt because of the increase it causes in interest payments and costs will continue to expand as the vets start claiming benefits as in VA care.
R.G.: I'd say the graph assumes the war ends in about 2013 so it doesn't contribute anything *more* to the debt. That is why the thickness stays the same. (not quite true because gdp is growing, but you get the general idea…)
It would be interesting if they separated the Bush tax cuts into less than/greater than $250k. Those cuts were pretty substantial for the middle class.
B.R.: DoD spending isn't paid for year by year. "Legacy" support for defense programs are planned years, often decades in advance. The Congressional Budget Office tends to figure those programs into their flawed assumptions to make their unwarranted projections.
Me: Quite right, S.B.. Years ago I was convinced that leftists were objectively stupid. I realized later that they were not stupid, they operated on different assumptions than did I, and embraced different fact sets. Granted, there are some leftists that are actually stupid, but most are thinking, caring individuals. I give the benefit of the doubt nowadays.
R.R.: Is there a point at which Obama actually holds responsibility for anything in his first term? I suppose not, when dealing with wiley ole Bush. Why, that crafty devil even managed to sneak into the White House and affix his successor's signature on an extension of his tax cuts!
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
The Harness of the Lord - Bill Britton (1918-1985)
***Editor's note. We found where this was originally published. It was written in the 1960s as part of a much longer presentation.
We have treasured this prophecy for many years, if not decades, ourselves. Our recollection is that it we first read it when it was published in an issue of the Morningstar Journal sometime in the late '90s.
There is a terrific operation of the Spirit going on today to bring the children of God into an absolute obedience to His perfect will. This is the day of preparation, for He is preparing the channel through which He will pour forth His glory for all the world to see: This channel is His body on the earth, the glorious company of people who are being conformed through many fiery tests into the image of the Son of God.
But before God can commit this glorious ministry into our hands, we must submit ourselves to His discipline, letting Him truly be the Lord of every area of our lives. For many of us, God has long since dealt with the question of open sin, but now He is dealing with the inward rebellion of our own wills. Some Christians are not presently being dealt with concerning this, but none of those who pursue the high calling of God will escape it altogether. This is the work of the Refiner's fire. To those who are going through it, some of its aspects seem horrible. Yet such dealings are very necessary, and the end result is glorious.
During a minister's conference in Tulsa, God gave me a vision concerning this harnessing of our wills. The Lord was mightily present to deal with us, and there was such a stern dealing in the Spirit that no one could even go to the pulpit to minister. There was a reluctance among the ministers to say anything except that which was directly ordered by the Spirit. As we sat there in the awesome presence of Almighty God, I was impressed by the way these seasoned servants of God responded to the discipline of the Spirit. It was in the midst of this overwhelming dealing of God with our spirits that the Holy Spirit gave me a vision…
The King's Carriage
On a dirt road in the middle of a wide field stood a beautiful carriage, something on the order of a stagecoach, but edged in gold, with beautiful carvings. It was pulled by six large chestnut horses, two in the lead, two in the middle and two in the rear. Yet they were not moving, not pulling the carriage, and I wondered why.
Then I noticed the driver underneath the carriage, on the ground on his back, just, behind the last two horses' heels, working on something between the front wheels of the carriage. I thought, "My, he is in a dangerous place, for if one of those horses kicked or stepped back, they could kill him, or if they decided to go forward, or somehow got frightened, they would pull the carriage right over him and kill him." But he didn't seem afraid, for he knew that the horses were disciplined and would not move till he told them to move.
The horses were not stamping their feet nor acting restless, and though there were bells on their feet, the bells were not tinkling. There were pom-poms on their harnesses over their heads, but the pom-poms were not moving. They simply were standing quietly and still, waiting for the voice of the Master.
Two Colts In the Field
As I watched the harnessed horses, I noticed two young colts in the open field. They approached the carriage and seemed to speak to the harnessed horses: "Come play with us! We have many fine games and will race with you. Come catch us."
With that, the colts kicked up their heels, flicked their tails, and raced across the open field. But when they looked back and saw the horses were not following, they were puzzled. They knew nothing of harnesses and did not understand why the horses did not want to play. So they called to them: "Why don't you race with us? Are you tired? Are you too weak? Don't you have strength to run? You are much too solemn; you need more joy in life."
But the horses answered not a word, nor did they stamp their feet or toss their heads. Instead, they stood, quiet and still, waiting for the voice of the Master.
Again the colts called to them: "Why do you stand in the hot sun? Come over here in the shade of this nice tree. See how green the grass is? It is so green and tasty. You must be hungry; come and feed with us. You look thirsty, too. Come drink of one of our many streams of cool, clear water." The horses answered them not so much as a glance, but stood still, waiting for the command to go forward with the King.
Colts in the Master's Corral
Then the scene changed: I saw lariat nooses fall around the necks of the two colts, and they were led off to the Master's corral for training and discipline. How sad they were as the lovely green fields disappeared and they were put into the confinement of the corral, with its brown dirt and high fence. The colts ran from fence to fence, seeking freedom, but found they were confined to this place of training: And then the Trainer began to work on them, with His whip and His bridle.
What a death for those who had been all their lives accustomed to such a freedom! They could not understand the reason for this torture, this terrible discipline. What crime had they done to deserve this? Little did they know of the responsibility that was to be theirs when they had submitted to the discipline, learned to perfectly obey the Master, and finished their training. All they knew was that this process was the most horrible thing they had ever known.
Submission and Rebellion
One of the colts rebelled under the training, and said, "This is not for me. I like my freedom, my green hills, my flowing streams of fresh water. I will not take any more of this confinement, this terrible training." So he found a way out, jumped the fence and ran happily back to the meadows of grass.
I was astonished that the Master let him go and did not go after him. Instead, He devoted His attention to the remaining colt. This colt, though he had the same opportunity to escape, decided to submit his own will and learn the ways of the Master. The training got harder than ever, but he was rapidly learning more and more how to obey the slightest wish of the Master, and to respond to even the quietness of His voice. And I saw that had there been no training, no testing, there would have been neither submission nor rebellion from either of the colts.
In the field they did not have the choice of rebelling or submitting; they were sinless in their innocence. But when brought to the place of testing and training and discipline, the obedience of one was manifested, and the rebellion of the other. And though it seemed safer to avoid this place of discipline, I saw that without this there could be no sharing of His glory, no experiencing of true sonship.
Into the Harness
Finally this period of training was over. Was he now rewarded with his freedom, and sent back to the fields? No. He was brought into a confinement even greater than before, as a harness dropped around his shoulders. Now he found there was not even the freedom to runabout the small corral, for in the harness he could only move where--and when--his Master spoke. Unless the Master spoke, he stood still.
The scene changed again, and I saw the other colt standing on the side of a hill, nibbling at some grass. As he gazed across the fields, he saw the King's carriage coming down the road, drawn by six horses. With amazement he realized that in the lead, on the right side, was his brother colt, now made strong and mature on the good corn in the Master's stable. He saw the lovely pom-poms shaking in the wind, noticed the glittering gold-bordered harness about his brother, heard the beautiful tinkling of the bells on his feet-and envy came into his heart.
The unharnessed colt complained to himself: "Why has my brother been so honored, while I am neglected? They have not put bells on my feet, nor pom-poms on my head. The Master has not given me the wonderful responsibility of pulling His carriage, nor put a gold harness on me. Why have they chosen my brother instead of me?" And by the Spirit the answer came to me as I watched: "Because one submitted to the discipline of the Master and one rebelled, thus has one been chosen and the other set aside."
A Famine In the Land
Then I saw a great drought sweep across the countryside, and the green grass became dead, dry, brown and brittle. The little streams of water stopped flowing and dried up, and there was only a small, muddy puddle here and there. I saw the little colt (I was amazed that he never seemed to grow or mature) as he ran to and fro across the fields looking for fresh streams and green pastures, finding none. Still he ran, seemingly in circles, always looking for something to feed his famished spirit. But there was famine in the land, and the rich green pastures and flowing streams of yesterday were not to be had.
One day the colt stood on the hillside on weak and wobbly legs, wondering where to go next to find food and struggling to find strength even to continue his search. It seemed there was no use, for good food and flowing streams were a thing of the past, and all the efforts to find more only taxed his waning strength.
Suddenly he saw the King's carriage coming down the road, pulled by six majestic horses. And he saw his brother, fat and strong, muscles rippling, sleek and beautiful from much grooming. The colt's heart was amazed and perplexed, and he cried out: "My brother, where do you find the food to keep you strong and fat in these days of famine? I have run everywhere in my freedom, searching for food, and I have found none. Where do you, in your awful confinement, find food in this time of drought? Tell me, please, for I must know!"
And the answer came back from a voice filled with victory and praise: "In my Master's house, there is a secret place in the confining limitations of His stables where He feeds me by His own hand. His granaries never run empty, and His well never runs dry."
With this, the Lord gave me an insight for the day when people are weak and famished in their spirits, in the time of spiritual famine. Those who have come into the secret place of the Most High, into utter confinement in His perfect will, shall have plenty of the corn of heaven and a never ending flow of fresh streams of revelation from His Spirit. Here the vision ended.
Interpretation of the Vision
"Write the vision and make it plain on tablets, that he may run that reads it," (Habakkuk 2:2). "Harness the horses, and mount up, you horsemen," (Jeremiah 46:4). I am sure that many of you can already see what the Spirit was showing in the vision, but let me make it plain.
Being born into the family of God, feeding in the green pastures and drinking of the many streams of the unfolding revelation of His purpose is fine and wonderful. But it is not enough. While we were children, we were limited only by the outer fence of the Law that ran around the edges of the pastures, a fence that kept us from getting into the dark pastures of poisonous weeds: God was content to watch us develop and grow into young manhood or womanhood, spiritually speaking. Yet the time came when we who fed in His pastures and drank at His streams were brought into the discipline or "child-training" necessary to make us mature.
Many today cannot understand why those who have put on the harness of God cannot get excited by the religious games and the playful antics of the immature. They wonder
why the disciplined ones don't run after every new revelation or feed on every opportunity m engage in seemingly good and profitable religious activities. They wonder why some will not race with them in their frantic efforts to build great works and notable ministries. They cannot understand the simple fact that this company of saints is waiting for the voice of the Master, and they do not hear God in all this outward activity.
The harnessed ones will move in their time, when the Master speaks. But they will not move before that, though many temptations come from the playful colts. The colts cannot understand why those who seemingly have great strength and abilities are not putting them to good use. "Get the carriage on the road," they say. But the disciplined ones, those in God's harness, know better than to move before they hear the voice of the Master. They will move in their time, with purpose and great responsibility
The Lord impressed on me that there were many whom He had brought into training who had rebelled against the discipline, the chastising of the Father. They could not be trusted with the great responsibility of mature sons and daughters, so He let them go back to their freedom, back to their religious activities and revelations and gifts. They are still His people, still feeding in His pastures, but He has set them aside from His great purposes for the end of the age. So they revel in their freedom, feeling that they were the chosen ones with the many streams of living water, not knowing that they have been set aside as unfit for this great end-time work.
He showed me that though the chastising seems grievous for the time, and the discipline hard to endure, yet the resulting glory is worth it all, and the glory to follow far exceeds the suffering we endure. And though some lose even their lives in this training, yet they will share alike in the glory of His eternal purposes.
So faint not, saints of God, for it is the Lord who will bring you into confinement, and not your enemy. It is for your good and for His glory, so endure all things with praise and thanksgiving that He has counted you worthy to share His glory! Fear not the whip in His hand, for it is not to punish you, but to correct and train you, that you might come into submission to His will and be found in His likeness in that hour. Rejoice in your trials. Glory in His cross and in the confining limitations of His harness, for He has chosen you and taken upon Himself the responsibility of keeping you strong and well fed.
So lean upon Him, and trust not in your own ability and your own understanding. So shall you be fed, and His glory will overshadow you and flow through you as it goes forth to cover the earth. The Lord is wonderful! Let Him be Lord of your life, and don't complain about that which He brings to pass in your life.
Plenty In a Time of Famine
In the hour when famine sweeps the land, He shall feed by His own hand those who are submitted to His will and who dwell in the secret place of the Most High. When terror stalks the land, those in His harness shall not be afraid; for they will feel His bit and bridle and know the guidance of His Spirit. When others are weak and frail and fearful, they shall be strong in the power of His might and shall not lack any good thing. In the hour when the traditions of the religious systems have proven false, and their streams have dried up, then His chosen ones shall speak forth with the true Word of the Lord.
So rejoice that you have been chosen by His grace for this great work in this last hour. The fence that kept the colts in their own meadows and pastures means nothing to the team in the harness; for the gates open to them and they go forth, pulling the King's carriage into many strange and wonderful places. They do not stop to eat the poison weeds of sin, for they feed only in the Master's stable. These fields they trample under their feet as they go forth on the King's business.
And so to those who are brought into absolute subjection to His will, there is no Law. For they move in the grace of God, led only by His Spirit, where all things are lawful but not all things are expedient. This is a dangerous realm for the undisciplined, and many have perished in sin as they leaped over the fence without His harness and His bridle. Some have thought of themselves as being completely harnessed and submissive to Him, only to find that in some venue of their life there swelled rebellion and self-will.
Let us wait before Him until He puts His noose around us and draws us to His place of training. And let us learn of the dealings of God and the movings of His Spirit, until at last we feel His harness drop around us and hear His voice guiding us. Then there will be safety from the traps and pitfalls of sin, and we will abide in His house forever!
We have treasured this prophecy for many years, if not decades, ourselves. Our recollection is that it we first read it when it was published in an issue of the Morningstar Journal sometime in the late '90s.
There is a terrific operation of the Spirit going on today to bring the children of God into an absolute obedience to His perfect will. This is the day of preparation, for He is preparing the channel through which He will pour forth His glory for all the world to see: This channel is His body on the earth, the glorious company of people who are being conformed through many fiery tests into the image of the Son of God.
But before God can commit this glorious ministry into our hands, we must submit ourselves to His discipline, letting Him truly be the Lord of every area of our lives. For many of us, God has long since dealt with the question of open sin, but now He is dealing with the inward rebellion of our own wills. Some Christians are not presently being dealt with concerning this, but none of those who pursue the high calling of God will escape it altogether. This is the work of the Refiner's fire. To those who are going through it, some of its aspects seem horrible. Yet such dealings are very necessary, and the end result is glorious.
During a minister's conference in Tulsa, God gave me a vision concerning this harnessing of our wills. The Lord was mightily present to deal with us, and there was such a stern dealing in the Spirit that no one could even go to the pulpit to minister. There was a reluctance among the ministers to say anything except that which was directly ordered by the Spirit. As we sat there in the awesome presence of Almighty God, I was impressed by the way these seasoned servants of God responded to the discipline of the Spirit. It was in the midst of this overwhelming dealing of God with our spirits that the Holy Spirit gave me a vision…
The King's Carriage
On a dirt road in the middle of a wide field stood a beautiful carriage, something on the order of a stagecoach, but edged in gold, with beautiful carvings. It was pulled by six large chestnut horses, two in the lead, two in the middle and two in the rear. Yet they were not moving, not pulling the carriage, and I wondered why.
Then I noticed the driver underneath the carriage, on the ground on his back, just, behind the last two horses' heels, working on something between the front wheels of the carriage. I thought, "My, he is in a dangerous place, for if one of those horses kicked or stepped back, they could kill him, or if they decided to go forward, or somehow got frightened, they would pull the carriage right over him and kill him." But he didn't seem afraid, for he knew that the horses were disciplined and would not move till he told them to move.
The horses were not stamping their feet nor acting restless, and though there were bells on their feet, the bells were not tinkling. There were pom-poms on their harnesses over their heads, but the pom-poms were not moving. They simply were standing quietly and still, waiting for the voice of the Master.
Two Colts In the Field
As I watched the harnessed horses, I noticed two young colts in the open field. They approached the carriage and seemed to speak to the harnessed horses: "Come play with us! We have many fine games and will race with you. Come catch us."
With that, the colts kicked up their heels, flicked their tails, and raced across the open field. But when they looked back and saw the horses were not following, they were puzzled. They knew nothing of harnesses and did not understand why the horses did not want to play. So they called to them: "Why don't you race with us? Are you tired? Are you too weak? Don't you have strength to run? You are much too solemn; you need more joy in life."
But the horses answered not a word, nor did they stamp their feet or toss their heads. Instead, they stood, quiet and still, waiting for the voice of the Master.
Again the colts called to them: "Why do you stand in the hot sun? Come over here in the shade of this nice tree. See how green the grass is? It is so green and tasty. You must be hungry; come and feed with us. You look thirsty, too. Come drink of one of our many streams of cool, clear water." The horses answered them not so much as a glance, but stood still, waiting for the command to go forward with the King.
Colts in the Master's Corral
Then the scene changed: I saw lariat nooses fall around the necks of the two colts, and they were led off to the Master's corral for training and discipline. How sad they were as the lovely green fields disappeared and they were put into the confinement of the corral, with its brown dirt and high fence. The colts ran from fence to fence, seeking freedom, but found they were confined to this place of training: And then the Trainer began to work on them, with His whip and His bridle.
What a death for those who had been all their lives accustomed to such a freedom! They could not understand the reason for this torture, this terrible discipline. What crime had they done to deserve this? Little did they know of the responsibility that was to be theirs when they had submitted to the discipline, learned to perfectly obey the Master, and finished their training. All they knew was that this process was the most horrible thing they had ever known.
Submission and Rebellion
One of the colts rebelled under the training, and said, "This is not for me. I like my freedom, my green hills, my flowing streams of fresh water. I will not take any more of this confinement, this terrible training." So he found a way out, jumped the fence and ran happily back to the meadows of grass.
I was astonished that the Master let him go and did not go after him. Instead, He devoted His attention to the remaining colt. This colt, though he had the same opportunity to escape, decided to submit his own will and learn the ways of the Master. The training got harder than ever, but he was rapidly learning more and more how to obey the slightest wish of the Master, and to respond to even the quietness of His voice. And I saw that had there been no training, no testing, there would have been neither submission nor rebellion from either of the colts.
In the field they did not have the choice of rebelling or submitting; they were sinless in their innocence. But when brought to the place of testing and training and discipline, the obedience of one was manifested, and the rebellion of the other. And though it seemed safer to avoid this place of discipline, I saw that without this there could be no sharing of His glory, no experiencing of true sonship.
Into the Harness
Finally this period of training was over. Was he now rewarded with his freedom, and sent back to the fields? No. He was brought into a confinement even greater than before, as a harness dropped around his shoulders. Now he found there was not even the freedom to runabout the small corral, for in the harness he could only move where--and when--his Master spoke. Unless the Master spoke, he stood still.
The scene changed again, and I saw the other colt standing on the side of a hill, nibbling at some grass. As he gazed across the fields, he saw the King's carriage coming down the road, drawn by six horses. With amazement he realized that in the lead, on the right side, was his brother colt, now made strong and mature on the good corn in the Master's stable. He saw the lovely pom-poms shaking in the wind, noticed the glittering gold-bordered harness about his brother, heard the beautiful tinkling of the bells on his feet-and envy came into his heart.
The unharnessed colt complained to himself: "Why has my brother been so honored, while I am neglected? They have not put bells on my feet, nor pom-poms on my head. The Master has not given me the wonderful responsibility of pulling His carriage, nor put a gold harness on me. Why have they chosen my brother instead of me?" And by the Spirit the answer came to me as I watched: "Because one submitted to the discipline of the Master and one rebelled, thus has one been chosen and the other set aside."
A Famine In the Land
Then I saw a great drought sweep across the countryside, and the green grass became dead, dry, brown and brittle. The little streams of water stopped flowing and dried up, and there was only a small, muddy puddle here and there. I saw the little colt (I was amazed that he never seemed to grow or mature) as he ran to and fro across the fields looking for fresh streams and green pastures, finding none. Still he ran, seemingly in circles, always looking for something to feed his famished spirit. But there was famine in the land, and the rich green pastures and flowing streams of yesterday were not to be had.
One day the colt stood on the hillside on weak and wobbly legs, wondering where to go next to find food and struggling to find strength even to continue his search. It seemed there was no use, for good food and flowing streams were a thing of the past, and all the efforts to find more only taxed his waning strength.
Suddenly he saw the King's carriage coming down the road, pulled by six majestic horses. And he saw his brother, fat and strong, muscles rippling, sleek and beautiful from much grooming. The colt's heart was amazed and perplexed, and he cried out: "My brother, where do you find the food to keep you strong and fat in these days of famine? I have run everywhere in my freedom, searching for food, and I have found none. Where do you, in your awful confinement, find food in this time of drought? Tell me, please, for I must know!"
And the answer came back from a voice filled with victory and praise: "In my Master's house, there is a secret place in the confining limitations of His stables where He feeds me by His own hand. His granaries never run empty, and His well never runs dry."
With this, the Lord gave me an insight for the day when people are weak and famished in their spirits, in the time of spiritual famine. Those who have come into the secret place of the Most High, into utter confinement in His perfect will, shall have plenty of the corn of heaven and a never ending flow of fresh streams of revelation from His Spirit. Here the vision ended.
Interpretation of the Vision
"Write the vision and make it plain on tablets, that he may run that reads it," (Habakkuk 2:2). "Harness the horses, and mount up, you horsemen," (Jeremiah 46:4). I am sure that many of you can already see what the Spirit was showing in the vision, but let me make it plain.
Being born into the family of God, feeding in the green pastures and drinking of the many streams of the unfolding revelation of His purpose is fine and wonderful. But it is not enough. While we were children, we were limited only by the outer fence of the Law that ran around the edges of the pastures, a fence that kept us from getting into the dark pastures of poisonous weeds: God was content to watch us develop and grow into young manhood or womanhood, spiritually speaking. Yet the time came when we who fed in His pastures and drank at His streams were brought into the discipline or "child-training" necessary to make us mature.
Many today cannot understand why those who have put on the harness of God cannot get excited by the religious games and the playful antics of the immature. They wonder
why the disciplined ones don't run after every new revelation or feed on every opportunity m engage in seemingly good and profitable religious activities. They wonder why some will not race with them in their frantic efforts to build great works and notable ministries. They cannot understand the simple fact that this company of saints is waiting for the voice of the Master, and they do not hear God in all this outward activity.
The harnessed ones will move in their time, when the Master speaks. But they will not move before that, though many temptations come from the playful colts. The colts cannot understand why those who seemingly have great strength and abilities are not putting them to good use. "Get the carriage on the road," they say. But the disciplined ones, those in God's harness, know better than to move before they hear the voice of the Master. They will move in their time, with purpose and great responsibility
The Lord impressed on me that there were many whom He had brought into training who had rebelled against the discipline, the chastising of the Father. They could not be trusted with the great responsibility of mature sons and daughters, so He let them go back to their freedom, back to their religious activities and revelations and gifts. They are still His people, still feeding in His pastures, but He has set them aside from His great purposes for the end of the age. So they revel in their freedom, feeling that they were the chosen ones with the many streams of living water, not knowing that they have been set aside as unfit for this great end-time work.
He showed me that though the chastising seems grievous for the time, and the discipline hard to endure, yet the resulting glory is worth it all, and the glory to follow far exceeds the suffering we endure. And though some lose even their lives in this training, yet they will share alike in the glory of His eternal purposes.
So faint not, saints of God, for it is the Lord who will bring you into confinement, and not your enemy. It is for your good and for His glory, so endure all things with praise and thanksgiving that He has counted you worthy to share His glory! Fear not the whip in His hand, for it is not to punish you, but to correct and train you, that you might come into submission to His will and be found in His likeness in that hour. Rejoice in your trials. Glory in His cross and in the confining limitations of His harness, for He has chosen you and taken upon Himself the responsibility of keeping you strong and well fed.
So lean upon Him, and trust not in your own ability and your own understanding. So shall you be fed, and His glory will overshadow you and flow through you as it goes forth to cover the earth. The Lord is wonderful! Let Him be Lord of your life, and don't complain about that which He brings to pass in your life.
Plenty In a Time of Famine
In the hour when famine sweeps the land, He shall feed by His own hand those who are submitted to His will and who dwell in the secret place of the Most High. When terror stalks the land, those in His harness shall not be afraid; for they will feel His bit and bridle and know the guidance of His Spirit. When others are weak and frail and fearful, they shall be strong in the power of His might and shall not lack any good thing. In the hour when the traditions of the religious systems have proven false, and their streams have dried up, then His chosen ones shall speak forth with the true Word of the Lord.
So rejoice that you have been chosen by His grace for this great work in this last hour. The fence that kept the colts in their own meadows and pastures means nothing to the team in the harness; for the gates open to them and they go forth, pulling the King's carriage into many strange and wonderful places. They do not stop to eat the poison weeds of sin, for they feed only in the Master's stable. These fields they trample under their feet as they go forth on the King's business.
And so to those who are brought into absolute subjection to His will, there is no Law. For they move in the grace of God, led only by His Spirit, where all things are lawful but not all things are expedient. This is a dangerous realm for the undisciplined, and many have perished in sin as they leaped over the fence without His harness and His bridle. Some have thought of themselves as being completely harnessed and submissive to Him, only to find that in some venue of their life there swelled rebellion and self-will.
Let us wait before Him until He puts His noose around us and draws us to His place of training. And let us learn of the dealings of God and the movings of His Spirit, until at last we feel His harness drop around us and hear His voice guiding us. Then there will be safety from the traps and pitfalls of sin, and we will abide in His house forever!
Minimum wage is a Socialistic infringement - Editorial
(The last one of the old Belgrade News editorials, from Friday, March 17, 2006)
A recent article in the Bozeman Chronicle noted that a person came to Bozeman advocating an increase of the state minimum wage to $6.15 an hour. I decided to survey local businesses. I found that none of them pay their employees so little. Every one of them starts their employees at a higher rate. Apparently, this person wants to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
She is quoted as saying, “Nobody working should be poor.” Yet a local representative for the Gallatin Valley Human Rights Task Force asked, “Will this end poverty?” and amazingly, she said, “No it won’t. But it’s the right thing to do.”
She went on to say that increasing the minimum wage “will lay the groundwork to get us a living wage.” So what does this really mean? Please bear with me as I explain.
Generally speaking, an employer-employee relationship is a voluntary arrangement. The employer values the skills and productivity of the employee more than the wage the employer pays. The employee values the employer’s money more than the time and effort the employee spends doing the tasks the employer values.
The employer and employee enter a mutually agreeable arrangement to exchange what they value less for what they value more. If the employee believes that the money being offered is not sufficient for the time and labor being provided, then the employee can either negotiate or move on to another employer that values the employee’s skills more.
Likewise, if the employer thinks that what the employee is not providing enough value for the wage being paid, the employer may also rethink the arrangement. The key element here is that there are two willing parties agreeing on the comparative value of what each is offering the other. This is a voluntary, private, completely legal arrangement.
The marketplace establishes the environment by which these transactions happen. Some skills are valued more than others. A surgeon can command more compensation for her skills than can a waitress. Part of the reason is because the supply of surgeons is smaller than the supply of waitresses. Fewer people possess the exacting skills needed to be a surgeon, while many people possess the skills to be a waitress.
The ability to produce also makes employees more valuable to an employer. For example, if you see some people digging with shovels, and you also see others operating backhoes, who would you expect to be earning a higher wage? The backhoe operators, of course. They are more highly skilled and more productive. A more productive employer is a more valuable one.
Enter the minimum wage/living wage. Now we are no longer talking about the value an employee brings to an employer. It is no longer about productivity. Skills are no longer relevant. Indeed, the private arrangement between two parties is no longer valid. The employer becomes an implementer of government's social agenda, coerced to implement its vision.
Regardless of the skill level, experience, or productivity of an employee, the employer must pay a government mandated wage. Without regard for local economic conditions, the labor pool, or the type of work being performed, the employee now commands an arbitrary income set by law.
But more to the point, what makes a living wage a living wage? If $10 per hour is a living wage, would $11 be better? Or $20? Indeed, if we accept the concept that the government should set wages, why not have everyone make $100 per hour? By the same token, why should Bill Gates earn so much? He could get by on $100 per hour, couldn’t he? Why not have government decide these issues as well?
A recent article in the Bozeman Chronicle noted that a person came to Bozeman advocating an increase of the state minimum wage to $6.15 an hour. I decided to survey local businesses. I found that none of them pay their employees so little. Every one of them starts their employees at a higher rate. Apparently, this person wants to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
She is quoted as saying, “Nobody working should be poor.” Yet a local representative for the Gallatin Valley Human Rights Task Force asked, “Will this end poverty?” and amazingly, she said, “No it won’t. But it’s the right thing to do.”
She went on to say that increasing the minimum wage “will lay the groundwork to get us a living wage.” So what does this really mean? Please bear with me as I explain.
Generally speaking, an employer-employee relationship is a voluntary arrangement. The employer values the skills and productivity of the employee more than the wage the employer pays. The employee values the employer’s money more than the time and effort the employee spends doing the tasks the employer values.
The employer and employee enter a mutually agreeable arrangement to exchange what they value less for what they value more. If the employee believes that the money being offered is not sufficient for the time and labor being provided, then the employee can either negotiate or move on to another employer that values the employee’s skills more.
Likewise, if the employer thinks that what the employee is not providing enough value for the wage being paid, the employer may also rethink the arrangement. The key element here is that there are two willing parties agreeing on the comparative value of what each is offering the other. This is a voluntary, private, completely legal arrangement.
The marketplace establishes the environment by which these transactions happen. Some skills are valued more than others. A surgeon can command more compensation for her skills than can a waitress. Part of the reason is because the supply of surgeons is smaller than the supply of waitresses. Fewer people possess the exacting skills needed to be a surgeon, while many people possess the skills to be a waitress.
The ability to produce also makes employees more valuable to an employer. For example, if you see some people digging with shovels, and you also see others operating backhoes, who would you expect to be earning a higher wage? The backhoe operators, of course. They are more highly skilled and more productive. A more productive employer is a more valuable one.
Enter the minimum wage/living wage. Now we are no longer talking about the value an employee brings to an employer. It is no longer about productivity. Skills are no longer relevant. Indeed, the private arrangement between two parties is no longer valid. The employer becomes an implementer of government's social agenda, coerced to implement its vision.
Regardless of the skill level, experience, or productivity of an employee, the employer must pay a government mandated wage. Without regard for local economic conditions, the labor pool, or the type of work being performed, the employee now commands an arbitrary income set by law.
But more to the point, what makes a living wage a living wage? If $10 per hour is a living wage, would $11 be better? Or $20? Indeed, if we accept the concept that the government should set wages, why not have everyone make $100 per hour? By the same token, why should Bill Gates earn so much? He could get by on $100 per hour, couldn’t he? Why not have government decide these issues as well?
The real issue is, government has no constitutional authority to involve itself in the private, consensual, legal arrangements made between two private parties.
There is a name for the type of government that dictates economic factors, that involves itself in the private affairs of people, that tells people how they must spend their money, that attempts homogenize people.
It is called Socialism.
There is a name for the type of government that dictates economic factors, that involves itself in the private affairs of people, that tells people how they must spend their money, that attempts homogenize people.
It is called Socialism.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
God never causes pain
Gen 3:16: “To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children.”
Josh 7:25: Joshua said, "Why have you brought this trouble on us? The LORD will bring trouble on you today."
Lev 26:23-25: “If in spite of these things you do not accept my correction but continue to be hostile toward me, I myself will be hostile toward you and will afflict you for your sins seven times over. And I will bring the sword upon you to avenge the breaking of the covenant. When you withdraw into your cities, I will send a plague among you, and you will be given into enemy hands.
Deut 28:15-29: “However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today…The LORD will send on you curses, confusion and rebuke in everything you put your hand to, until you are destroyed and come to sudden ruin because of the evil you have done in forsaking him. The LORD will plague you with diseases until he has destroyed you from the land you are entering to possess. The LORD will strike you with wasting disease, with fever and inflammation, with scorching heat and drought, with blight and mildew, which will plague you until you perish. The sky over your head will be bronze, the ground beneath you iron. The LORD will turn the rain of your country into dust and powder; it will come down from the skies until you are destroyed. The LORD will cause you to be defeated before your enemies. You will come at them from one direction but flee from them in seven, and you will become a thing of horror to all the kingdoms on earth. Your carcasses will be food for all the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth, and there will be no one to frighten them away. The LORD will afflict you with the boils of Egypt and with tumors, festering sores and the itch, from which you cannot be cured. The LORD will afflict you with madness, blindness and confusion of mind. At midday you will grope about like a blind man in the dark. You will be unsuccessful in everything you do; day after day you will be oppressed and robbed, with no one to rescue you.”
Deut 32:23-24: "I will heap calamities upon them and spend my arrows against them. I will send wasting famine against them, consuming pestilence and deadly plague; I will send against them the fangs of wild beasts, the venom of vipers that glide in the dust.”
II Sam 11:11 "This is what the LORD says: Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you.”
Neh. 12:18 “Didn't your forefathers do the same things, so that our God brought all this calamity upon us and upon this city? Now you are stirring up more wrath against Israel by desecrating the Sabbath."
Psalm 88:13-16: “But I cry to you for help, O LORD; in the morning my prayer comes before you. Why, O LORD, do you reject me and hide your face from me? From my youth I have been afflicted and close to death; I have suffered your terrors and am in despair. Your wrath has swept over me; your terrors have destroyed me.
Psalm 90:14-15: Satisfy us in the morning with your unfailing love, that we may sing for joy and be glad all our days. Make us glad for as many days as you have afflicted us, for as many years as we have seen trouble.
Psalm 119:75: “I know, O LORD, that your laws are righteous, and in faithfulness you have afflicted me.”
Jer 14:15-16: “Therefore, this is what the LORD says about the prophets who are prophesying in my name: I did not send them, yet they are saying, `No sword or famine will touch this land.' Those same prophets will perish by sword and famine. And the people they are prophesying to will be thrown out into the streets of Jerusalem because of the famine and sword. There will be no one to bury them or their wives, their sons or their daughters. I will pour out on them the calamity they deserve.”
Jer 30:15: “Why do you cry out over your wound, your pain that has no cure? Because of your great guilt and many sins I have done these things to you.”
Jer 32: 42: "This is what the LORD says: As I have brought all this great calamity on this people, so I will give them all the prosperity I have promised them.”
Lam 3:37-39: “Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come? Why should any living man complain when punished for his sins?”
Joel 2:13: “Rend your heart and not your garments. Return to the LORD your God, for he is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love, and he relents from sending calamity.”
Mic 2:3: Therefore, the LORD says: "I am planning disaster against this people, from which you cannot save yourselves. You will no longer walk proudly, for it will be a time of calamity.
2 Thes 1:6-8: “God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.”
Heb 12: 10-11: “Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.”
Josh 7:25: Joshua said, "Why have you brought this trouble on us? The LORD will bring trouble on you today."
Lev 26:23-25: “If in spite of these things you do not accept my correction but continue to be hostile toward me, I myself will be hostile toward you and will afflict you for your sins seven times over. And I will bring the sword upon you to avenge the breaking of the covenant. When you withdraw into your cities, I will send a plague among you, and you will be given into enemy hands.
Deut 28:15-29: “However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today…The LORD will send on you curses, confusion and rebuke in everything you put your hand to, until you are destroyed and come to sudden ruin because of the evil you have done in forsaking him. The LORD will plague you with diseases until he has destroyed you from the land you are entering to possess. The LORD will strike you with wasting disease, with fever and inflammation, with scorching heat and drought, with blight and mildew, which will plague you until you perish. The sky over your head will be bronze, the ground beneath you iron. The LORD will turn the rain of your country into dust and powder; it will come down from the skies until you are destroyed. The LORD will cause you to be defeated before your enemies. You will come at them from one direction but flee from them in seven, and you will become a thing of horror to all the kingdoms on earth. Your carcasses will be food for all the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth, and there will be no one to frighten them away. The LORD will afflict you with the boils of Egypt and with tumors, festering sores and the itch, from which you cannot be cured. The LORD will afflict you with madness, blindness and confusion of mind. At midday you will grope about like a blind man in the dark. You will be unsuccessful in everything you do; day after day you will be oppressed and robbed, with no one to rescue you.”
Deut 32:23-24: "I will heap calamities upon them and spend my arrows against them. I will send wasting famine against them, consuming pestilence and deadly plague; I will send against them the fangs of wild beasts, the venom of vipers that glide in the dust.”
II Sam 11:11 "This is what the LORD says: Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you.”
Neh. 12:18 “Didn't your forefathers do the same things, so that our God brought all this calamity upon us and upon this city? Now you are stirring up more wrath against Israel by desecrating the Sabbath."
Psalm 88:13-16: “But I cry to you for help, O LORD; in the morning my prayer comes before you. Why, O LORD, do you reject me and hide your face from me? From my youth I have been afflicted and close to death; I have suffered your terrors and am in despair. Your wrath has swept over me; your terrors have destroyed me.
Psalm 90:14-15: Satisfy us in the morning with your unfailing love, that we may sing for joy and be glad all our days. Make us glad for as many days as you have afflicted us, for as many years as we have seen trouble.
Psalm 119:75: “I know, O LORD, that your laws are righteous, and in faithfulness you have afflicted me.”
Jer 14:15-16: “Therefore, this is what the LORD says about the prophets who are prophesying in my name: I did not send them, yet they are saying, `No sword or famine will touch this land.' Those same prophets will perish by sword and famine. And the people they are prophesying to will be thrown out into the streets of Jerusalem because of the famine and sword. There will be no one to bury them or their wives, their sons or their daughters. I will pour out on them the calamity they deserve.”
Jer 30:15: “Why do you cry out over your wound, your pain that has no cure? Because of your great guilt and many sins I have done these things to you.”
Jer 32: 42: "This is what the LORD says: As I have brought all this great calamity on this people, so I will give them all the prosperity I have promised them.”
Lam 3:37-39: “Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come? Why should any living man complain when punished for his sins?”
Joel 2:13: “Rend your heart and not your garments. Return to the LORD your God, for he is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love, and he relents from sending calamity.”
Mic 2:3: Therefore, the LORD says: "I am planning disaster against this people, from which you cannot save yourselves. You will no longer walk proudly, for it will be a time of calamity.
2 Thes 1:6-8: “God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.”
Heb 12: 10-11: “Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.”
Misleading about Abstinence - Editorial
(Another old Belgrade News editorial from November 20, 2007)
Every once in a while we get another Associated Press article on how abstinence education is not working.
The sex ed lobby is persistent in its agenda, and in its desire to control the message. It seems that every time Congress reviews abstinence education programs the media quickly put out a story claiming abstinence education doesn’t work.
The latest example is a “new” study promulgated by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, which appeared in a recent Bozeman Daily Chronicle entitled “Report: Abstinence programs don’t work.”
This kind of reporting is why we should never trust what we read in the newspaper.
The article begins, “Programs that focus exclusively on abstinence have not been shown to affect teenager sexual behavior, although they are eligible for tens of millions of dollars in federal grants, according to a study released by a nonpartisan group that seeks to reduce teen pregnancies.”
“Non partisan.” This is our first tip that things are going to go from bad to worse. The article identifies the author of the study, Douglas Kirby, as a researcher for ETR Associates. ETR develops and markets sex education curricula, which Kirby reviewed for the study. At least the AP saw fit to include this in its article.
But, the article fails to mention that the “non partisan” National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy has as one of its “trustee emeriti” ETR’s Douglas Kirby! This kind of incestuous relationship is crucial to understanding the motivation for this study, and the broader issue as well, but there is no mention of this relationship in the article.
So what else is wrong with the AP article?
Well, there is no rebuttal from critics of the study, no quotes from abstinence advocates. The Abstinence Clearinghouse, for example, said this: “This study says nothing new that opponents to abstinence education haven’t already said. This study indicates clearly that it focused primarily on two previous mathematical studies among a few others that evaluated abstinence. They are providing no new information but rather the same old distorted information based on a poorly-designed evaluation with weak results.”
Or how about this: The AP article says that “tens of millions of dollars” in federal grants is paid for abstinence-only education, but fails to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars are paid out by the government for “traditional” sex ed programs.
Leftists, driven by ‘60s free love philosophy, are attempting to increase their stranglehold on public school sex ed programs so that their values will be inculcated into our youth, even if such values confilict with parents’. But what has been the result?
Well. during the 1980s for example, teen pregnancy and birth rates, abortion and STD rates doubled over the course of the decade.
Never letting failure stand in the way of government funding and the subsequent indoctrination of children, the anti-abstinence crowd trots out its self-serving “studies” in order to ensure that only its message is heard.
Interestingly, abstinence-only education HAS worked when the message made past these hostile gatekeepers. But I doubt you’ll ever see an AP article saying that.
Every once in a while we get another Associated Press article on how abstinence education is not working.
The sex ed lobby is persistent in its agenda, and in its desire to control the message. It seems that every time Congress reviews abstinence education programs the media quickly put out a story claiming abstinence education doesn’t work.
The latest example is a “new” study promulgated by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, which appeared in a recent Bozeman Daily Chronicle entitled “Report: Abstinence programs don’t work.”
This kind of reporting is why we should never trust what we read in the newspaper.
The article begins, “Programs that focus exclusively on abstinence have not been shown to affect teenager sexual behavior, although they are eligible for tens of millions of dollars in federal grants, according to a study released by a nonpartisan group that seeks to reduce teen pregnancies.”
“Non partisan.” This is our first tip that things are going to go from bad to worse. The article identifies the author of the study, Douglas Kirby, as a researcher for ETR Associates. ETR develops and markets sex education curricula, which Kirby reviewed for the study. At least the AP saw fit to include this in its article.
But, the article fails to mention that the “non partisan” National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy has as one of its “trustee emeriti” ETR’s Douglas Kirby! This kind of incestuous relationship is crucial to understanding the motivation for this study, and the broader issue as well, but there is no mention of this relationship in the article.
So what else is wrong with the AP article?
Well, there is no rebuttal from critics of the study, no quotes from abstinence advocates. The Abstinence Clearinghouse, for example, said this: “This study says nothing new that opponents to abstinence education haven’t already said. This study indicates clearly that it focused primarily on two previous mathematical studies among a few others that evaluated abstinence. They are providing no new information but rather the same old distorted information based on a poorly-designed evaluation with weak results.”
Or how about this: The AP article says that “tens of millions of dollars” in federal grants is paid for abstinence-only education, but fails to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars are paid out by the government for “traditional” sex ed programs.
Leftists, driven by ‘60s free love philosophy, are attempting to increase their stranglehold on public school sex ed programs so that their values will be inculcated into our youth, even if such values confilict with parents’. But what has been the result?
Well. during the 1980s for example, teen pregnancy and birth rates, abortion and STD rates doubled over the course of the decade.
Never letting failure stand in the way of government funding and the subsequent indoctrination of children, the anti-abstinence crowd trots out its self-serving “studies” in order to ensure that only its message is heard.
Interestingly, abstinence-only education HAS worked when the message made past these hostile gatekeepers. But I doubt you’ll ever see an AP article saying that.
The feminization of the Church - FB conversation
I posted this quote on FB: "I had been suppressing my masculinity because I thought that was what I needed to do to be a good Christian. When I finally figured out what biblical masculinity is I was able to shed that mask. Now I work against real sin in my life and not some legalistic crap developed by the feminized church."
Me: I thought it was an interesting quote. The feminization of Christianity is a problem...
K.L.: It's a great quote Rich, I was originally going to make a wise crack about your masculinity. Thought twice about it. God created us to be both masculine and Godly. The men of church have yielded most of our responsibilities to the women of the church, not because we were called to but because we have succumbed to laziness!
Me: Either laziness or neglect of our anointing.
R.K.: This could be why Ted Turner called Christians whimps, what do you think?
K.L.: Doesn't laziness and neglect go hand in hand?
E.J.: What women are you talking about? After the cross aren't we co-heirs with women? No longer male nor female, free our slave and all that? Why are you blaming a gender for laziness and neglect?
K.L.: I have nothing against women taking their place and following their calling, but you do have to admit that most men are neglecting their calling. And most men wont ever heed their calling because we live in a soft society that makes it far too easy to do anything other than study Gods word and do what we are instructed to do. Until men develop a desire to learn and obey, women will fill the gap. I give credit to women because they have picked up the word and have done what men wont and that is what has lead to the femenization of Christianity in my opinion.
E.J.: If there is blanket statement that defines us as a people, it would be that we spend far to much time avoiding pain. The original christians were put to death for their faith, they had a gospel that was worth living and dying for. As for the term feminization, seems a bit to gender specific. It would infer woman are the problem, if not them specifically, there characteristics. We are the bride of Christ, not sure God is afraid of His church being influenced by woman.
Me: Let's not confuse feminization with female. The two are not the same.
Me: Here's some (controversial?) food for thought: http://churchformen.com/
E.J.: I know the webster dictionary term and meaning, how would you define it?
Me: By feminization I mean what secular feminist goals would be. These tend to line up with Jezebel, who drove Ahab to commit sin, who killed the prophets of the Lord, whose false prophets of Baal were famously confronted by Elijah; witchcraft, manipulation, and usurping of authority.
Men must occupy their place in the Church, and the feminist influence seeks to undermine this, it tries to silence the Word, it rises against the prophetic, and tries to be behind-the-scenes manipulators of power over weak men.
E.J.: Secular feminist's in the church want to do this? I didn't know that, here in Montana? How are they doing it?
Me: It shouldn't surprise you that the enemy wants to render the Church powerless by any means possible. And I'm sure that you know that unholy, worldly ways of thought can influence even the best of us. And it isn't hard to believe that the Church has compromised the truth many times. So why not feminism?
E.J.: How are the feminist's doing it?
Me: I'm not positing a frontal attack where a bunch of women with hairy legs and bad attitudes are plunking themselves down in the pews. I'm talking about subtle shifts in attitudes. Innocuous-seeming teachings. Little things that eventually add up into big things.
Examples: A man who denigrates himself by referring to his wife as the "better half." A pastor who suggests that a husbands ought to put their wives on a pedestal. A church that calls the Pastor's wife "pastor," simply because she's married to the pastor. Teaching that says that "wives, submit to your husbands" is a product of an ancient time and doesn't mean the same thing today. Teaching that Lot's wife was wrong because she kept quiet about her husband. Teaching that the women in the Corinthian church were disrupting services, and that's why Paul corrected them. Teaching that single motherhood is noble. Teaching that divorce is sometimes desirable and good for the woman.
"Jesus is my boyfriend" songs (I want to sit at your feet, drink from the cup in your hand, lay back against you and breathe, and feel your heart beat). Feminine decor in the sanctuary. Tolerating aggressive, overbearing woman (think "woman realtor"). Men who do whatever their wives want in order to "keep the peace." Women who browbeat people who disagree with them. Men who are dragged to church and don't want to be there. Husbands and wives who take separate vacations.
Women who re-do what a man just did because it wasn't good enough. Women who joke about men's inadequacies. Wife's who complain about their husband's lack of communication, cleanliness, hobbies. Women who try to "civilize" their men. Women who say they need alone time to pamper themselves. Men who carry their wive's purses. Men who sit and wait while a woman shops. Woman who insist that the position of the toilet seat must be the way they want it. Women who joke about not being enough room in the closet for the man's stuff. Women who do not treat their men like heros. Woman who emasculate their men in public. Woman who denigrate the "man's world." Woman who say there would not be wars if women were in charge. Woman who believe that men are not really necessary to conceive, bear, or raise children.
I'm just getting started. But, I'll let you chew on this for a while.
Me: I thought it was an interesting quote. The feminization of Christianity is a problem...
K.L.: It's a great quote Rich, I was originally going to make a wise crack about your masculinity. Thought twice about it. God created us to be both masculine and Godly. The men of church have yielded most of our responsibilities to the women of the church, not because we were called to but because we have succumbed to laziness!
Me: Either laziness or neglect of our anointing.
R.K.: This could be why Ted Turner called Christians whimps, what do you think?
K.L.: Doesn't laziness and neglect go hand in hand?
E.J.: What women are you talking about? After the cross aren't we co-heirs with women? No longer male nor female, free our slave and all that? Why are you blaming a gender for laziness and neglect?
K.L.: I have nothing against women taking their place and following their calling, but you do have to admit that most men are neglecting their calling. And most men wont ever heed their calling because we live in a soft society that makes it far too easy to do anything other than study Gods word and do what we are instructed to do. Until men develop a desire to learn and obey, women will fill the gap. I give credit to women because they have picked up the word and have done what men wont and that is what has lead to the femenization of Christianity in my opinion.
E.J.: If there is blanket statement that defines us as a people, it would be that we spend far to much time avoiding pain. The original christians were put to death for their faith, they had a gospel that was worth living and dying for. As for the term feminization, seems a bit to gender specific. It would infer woman are the problem, if not them specifically, there characteristics. We are the bride of Christ, not sure God is afraid of His church being influenced by woman.
Me: Let's not confuse feminization with female. The two are not the same.
Me: Here's some (controversial?) food for thought: http://churchformen.com/
E.J.: I know the webster dictionary term and meaning, how would you define it?
Me: By feminization I mean what secular feminist goals would be. These tend to line up with Jezebel, who drove Ahab to commit sin, who killed the prophets of the Lord, whose false prophets of Baal were famously confronted by Elijah; witchcraft, manipulation, and usurping of authority.
Men must occupy their place in the Church, and the feminist influence seeks to undermine this, it tries to silence the Word, it rises against the prophetic, and tries to be behind-the-scenes manipulators of power over weak men.
E.J.: Secular feminist's in the church want to do this? I didn't know that, here in Montana? How are they doing it?
Me: It shouldn't surprise you that the enemy wants to render the Church powerless by any means possible. And I'm sure that you know that unholy, worldly ways of thought can influence even the best of us. And it isn't hard to believe that the Church has compromised the truth many times. So why not feminism?
E.J.: How are the feminist's doing it?
Me: I'm not positing a frontal attack where a bunch of women with hairy legs and bad attitudes are plunking themselves down in the pews. I'm talking about subtle shifts in attitudes. Innocuous-seeming teachings. Little things that eventually add up into big things.
Examples: A man who denigrates himself by referring to his wife as the "better half." A pastor who suggests that a husbands ought to put their wives on a pedestal. A church that calls the Pastor's wife "pastor," simply because she's married to the pastor. Teaching that says that "wives, submit to your husbands" is a product of an ancient time and doesn't mean the same thing today. Teaching that Lot's wife was wrong because she kept quiet about her husband. Teaching that the women in the Corinthian church were disrupting services, and that's why Paul corrected them. Teaching that single motherhood is noble. Teaching that divorce is sometimes desirable and good for the woman.
"Jesus is my boyfriend" songs (I want to sit at your feet, drink from the cup in your hand, lay back against you and breathe, and feel your heart beat). Feminine decor in the sanctuary. Tolerating aggressive, overbearing woman (think "woman realtor"). Men who do whatever their wives want in order to "keep the peace." Women who browbeat people who disagree with them. Men who are dragged to church and don't want to be there. Husbands and wives who take separate vacations.
Women who re-do what a man just did because it wasn't good enough. Women who joke about men's inadequacies. Wife's who complain about their husband's lack of communication, cleanliness, hobbies. Women who try to "civilize" their men. Women who say they need alone time to pamper themselves. Men who carry their wive's purses. Men who sit and wait while a woman shops. Woman who insist that the position of the toilet seat must be the way they want it. Women who joke about not being enough room in the closet for the man's stuff. Women who do not treat their men like heros. Woman who emasculate their men in public. Woman who denigrate the "man's world." Woman who say there would not be wars if women were in charge. Woman who believe that men are not really necessary to conceive, bear, or raise children.
I'm just getting started. But, I'll let you chew on this for a while.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Here come the taste police - editorial
(Another old Belgrade News editorial from August 26, 2005)
In my last column I wrote of the recent Supreme Court ruling that gave local government the power to abuse “eminent domain.” Shortly thereafter, it was revealed that the Bozeman city commission is going to do just that to a neighborhood in northeast Bozeman, and now on North 7th Avenue as well.
Apparently these are “blighted” areas. My thesaurus gives these synonyms: disfigured, diseased, stained, scarred, afflicted. How offended these property owners must be! In effect, the government has waltzed right into their living rooms as an uninvited guest and told them how ugly their couches are. Government is the busybody who always has a nose in other peoples’ business. Apparently, these homes are a disease, and the Bozeman city commissioners are the cure.
What troubles me most is that elected officials with too much power (and apparently, too much time on their hands) are surveying their kingdom and passing judgment on what is good and desirable and beautiful. It is the same perspective that makes the K-Mart parking lot a “sea of asphalt,” the community food co-op a beautiful structure, and box stores an evil thing.
They have a perspective, and they have the power to impose it on others. Too bad if you disagree with them.
Maybe if I had that power I’d make my own proclamations. For example, I happen to think those old cars on Huffine are the most beautiful thing I’ve ever seen. I’ve had many cars just like that in my garage, some of which I have built back to as-new condition. If I were a city commissioner, I might require that every home in Bozeman have a rusty old car in their front yard.
Of course, I’m not a city commissioner. I don’t have the power to force my taste on other people. And that is the crux of the issue: I don’t think anyone should have this power.
No one should have the power to force law-abiding citizens to perform for the government against their will. No one should have to forfeit that which they worked for years to own, the place where their children grew up, where they have laughed and cried and lived their lives.
I’m not talking about government acting within its constitutionally defined authority; I’m talking about the abuse of power being exercised by people who just because they won an election think that they know better than you.
I know, they have such good reasons. Such noble intentions. Economic development, beautiful buildings, planned communities, and of course, increased tax revenue. The problem is, in this country people do not serve government’s interests. It is never about what is best for government. Government is not the highest expression of good in America.
And according to the principles of private property and individual liberty, whatever is best for the individual, as lawfully and morally chosen by that individual, is what’s best for the community and the country.
In my last column I wrote of the recent Supreme Court ruling that gave local government the power to abuse “eminent domain.” Shortly thereafter, it was revealed that the Bozeman city commission is going to do just that to a neighborhood in northeast Bozeman, and now on North 7th Avenue as well.
Apparently these are “blighted” areas. My thesaurus gives these synonyms: disfigured, diseased, stained, scarred, afflicted. How offended these property owners must be! In effect, the government has waltzed right into their living rooms as an uninvited guest and told them how ugly their couches are. Government is the busybody who always has a nose in other peoples’ business. Apparently, these homes are a disease, and the Bozeman city commissioners are the cure.
What troubles me most is that elected officials with too much power (and apparently, too much time on their hands) are surveying their kingdom and passing judgment on what is good and desirable and beautiful. It is the same perspective that makes the K-Mart parking lot a “sea of asphalt,” the community food co-op a beautiful structure, and box stores an evil thing.
They have a perspective, and they have the power to impose it on others. Too bad if you disagree with them.
Maybe if I had that power I’d make my own proclamations. For example, I happen to think those old cars on Huffine are the most beautiful thing I’ve ever seen. I’ve had many cars just like that in my garage, some of which I have built back to as-new condition. If I were a city commissioner, I might require that every home in Bozeman have a rusty old car in their front yard.
Of course, I’m not a city commissioner. I don’t have the power to force my taste on other people. And that is the crux of the issue: I don’t think anyone should have this power.
No one should have the power to force law-abiding citizens to perform for the government against their will. No one should have to forfeit that which they worked for years to own, the place where their children grew up, where they have laughed and cried and lived their lives.
I’m not talking about government acting within its constitutionally defined authority; I’m talking about the abuse of power being exercised by people who just because they won an election think that they know better than you.
I know, they have such good reasons. Such noble intentions. Economic development, beautiful buildings, planned communities, and of course, increased tax revenue. The problem is, in this country people do not serve government’s interests. It is never about what is best for government. Government is not the highest expression of good in America.
And according to the principles of private property and individual liberty, whatever is best for the individual, as lawfully and morally chosen by that individual, is what’s best for the community and the country.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Corporate welfare - Editorial
(another old Belgrade News editorial from May 24, 2005)
Tom Henderson's letter is below, with my editorial response after:
Responding to Rob Natelson’s commentary in The Belgrade News of May 13, I’d like to respond to two of Natelson’s statements: “Since 2000 Montana has been one of the nations most prosperous states,” and “...enjoy the economic benefits along with the rest of us.”
If Montanans are that prosperous, why do we lead the nation in workers who have two or more jobs, and why is our per capita income one of the lowest in all 50 states? Why are our teachers the second lowest paid in the United States and our beginning teachers the lowest paid in the nation? Why is it necessary to raise taxes to pay for essential government services and why are Republicans trying to start a sales tax?
Because of the leadership (or lack of it) in the last twenty years of the Republican dominated governor’s office and Legislature, big business and corporations have had their nest feathered by sweetheart deals, which gave big business and corporations generous tax write-offs and deductions and until big business and corporations start paying their fair share the average citizen and small business person will be making up the difference. If Rob Natelson and the rest of the “carpet baggers” would force big business and corporations to pay their fair share, the average citizen and small business person would get that tax cut.
In Montana, of the top 50 companies with $80 million or more in gross annual sales, 21 paid less than $1000 in corporate income taxes. Six of these paid the minimum of $50. The company with the highest number of sales paid 0.3 percent of total sales in taxes. Compare that with what you pay.
Almost one-third of these companies declared net losses in 2003 (thanks to 20 years of Republican dominated legislation), so their corporate income taxes were less than $1000 and were often $50. That Montana citizen working two jobs or that lowest paid beginning teacher in the nation gets to make up for the lack of that corporate tax.
Fifty years ago, corporations paid 60 percent of all federal taxes, but by 2003 that was down to 16 percent. Guess who has to make up the difference — the average citizen and small business person. If you want to adequately fund schools, corrections, natural resources, transportation, mental institutions, health and services, add law enforcement and highway patrol, and increase pay to state workers, all you have to do is force big business and corporations to pay their fair share.
Please, Rob Natelson, no more corporate welfare at the expense of Montana workers and taxpayers. If you Republicans would quit wasting time trying to destroy the State Supreme Court and the Helena District Court, trying to pass a sales tax, trying to protect your corporate lobbyists, and join the Democrats to remedy the wrongs of the last 20 years, Montana and Montana taxpayers would be much better off.
Tom G. Henderson
-----------------------------------------
“Corporate Welfare” is one of those incendiary phrases used by the political left to stir up peoples’ emotions. Mr. Tom Henderson of Whitehall attempted to do just that in his recent letter to the editor. Mr. Henderson complains that “...of the top 50 companies with $80 million or more in gross annual sales, 21 paid less than $1000 in corporate income taxes.”
So, did these companies do something illegal? Well, no. They followed existing tax law and took advantage of legal deductions.
I’m pretty sure that Mr. Henderson’s tax returns also reflect every legal deduction and tax credit to which he is entitled. No one is accusing Mr. Henderson of shifting his tax burden to others when he takes his deductions. Why should a corporation be held to a different standard? Indeed, if these corporations filed legal, complete, and honest returns, what exactly is the problem?
He goes on to say that “almost one-third of these companies declared net losses in 2003 ... so their corporate income taxes were less than $1000 and were often $50.” This statement truly begs an obvious question: If a business had a net loss, how can it pay any income tax? It had no net income!
But really, this is all just a smoke screen. Mr. Henderson’s protestations miss this central point. As a matter of simple economics, no matter what the tax structure, businesses do not pay taxes. The amount of taxes levied against a business does not matter.
A business sells a legal product or service to willing consumers. The price of the product is made up of things like business overhead, raw materials, research and development, employee expenses, and profit. Business overhead includes any taxes the business pays. Therefore, the end consumer pays all taxes.
The entirety of the tax structure is borne by the individual, whether directly via his own income tax and social security withholding, or indirectly via the products and services he buys. Every regulation, tax, or fee imposed by the government on a business translates into higher cost to the end user. So Mr. Henderson can either pay corporate taxes via tax shifting, or he can pay them via cost shifting, but he’s the one who will pay every dollar.
But beyond all that, it is clear that those on the political left need to understand a basic principle. The purpose of a business is not to provide revenue to the government. Business is not an extension of government social programs. Business exists to pursue its private, legal pursuits, and hopefully provide a profit to its owners.
The real problem is not where taxes are levied, anyway. Taxes can be distributed in any way the political left wants to dream up. Tax the corporations, soak the rich, give tax breaks to the middle class, whatever inflammatory rhetoric they want to use.
But that won’t make the tax system fair. This is because no tax system that takes too much money is fair. I repeat, no tax system can be fair that takes too much money.
Bottom line: Two-and-a-half trillion dollars is too much money for the federal government, and seven billion dollars is too much for the state. That’s criminal.
Tom Henderson's letter is below, with my editorial response after:
Responding to Rob Natelson’s commentary in The Belgrade News of May 13, I’d like to respond to two of Natelson’s statements: “Since 2000 Montana has been one of the nations most prosperous states,” and “...enjoy the economic benefits along with the rest of us.”
If Montanans are that prosperous, why do we lead the nation in workers who have two or more jobs, and why is our per capita income one of the lowest in all 50 states? Why are our teachers the second lowest paid in the United States and our beginning teachers the lowest paid in the nation? Why is it necessary to raise taxes to pay for essential government services and why are Republicans trying to start a sales tax?
Because of the leadership (or lack of it) in the last twenty years of the Republican dominated governor’s office and Legislature, big business and corporations have had their nest feathered by sweetheart deals, which gave big business and corporations generous tax write-offs and deductions and until big business and corporations start paying their fair share the average citizen and small business person will be making up the difference. If Rob Natelson and the rest of the “carpet baggers” would force big business and corporations to pay their fair share, the average citizen and small business person would get that tax cut.
In Montana, of the top 50 companies with $80 million or more in gross annual sales, 21 paid less than $1000 in corporate income taxes. Six of these paid the minimum of $50. The company with the highest number of sales paid 0.3 percent of total sales in taxes. Compare that with what you pay.
Almost one-third of these companies declared net losses in 2003 (thanks to 20 years of Republican dominated legislation), so their corporate income taxes were less than $1000 and were often $50. That Montana citizen working two jobs or that lowest paid beginning teacher in the nation gets to make up for the lack of that corporate tax.
Fifty years ago, corporations paid 60 percent of all federal taxes, but by 2003 that was down to 16 percent. Guess who has to make up the difference — the average citizen and small business person. If you want to adequately fund schools, corrections, natural resources, transportation, mental institutions, health and services, add law enforcement and highway patrol, and increase pay to state workers, all you have to do is force big business and corporations to pay their fair share.
Please, Rob Natelson, no more corporate welfare at the expense of Montana workers and taxpayers. If you Republicans would quit wasting time trying to destroy the State Supreme Court and the Helena District Court, trying to pass a sales tax, trying to protect your corporate lobbyists, and join the Democrats to remedy the wrongs of the last 20 years, Montana and Montana taxpayers would be much better off.
Tom G. Henderson
-----------------------------------------
“Corporate Welfare” is one of those incendiary phrases used by the political left to stir up peoples’ emotions. Mr. Tom Henderson of Whitehall attempted to do just that in his recent letter to the editor. Mr. Henderson complains that “...of the top 50 companies with $80 million or more in gross annual sales, 21 paid less than $1000 in corporate income taxes.”
So, did these companies do something illegal? Well, no. They followed existing tax law and took advantage of legal deductions.
I’m pretty sure that Mr. Henderson’s tax returns also reflect every legal deduction and tax credit to which he is entitled. No one is accusing Mr. Henderson of shifting his tax burden to others when he takes his deductions. Why should a corporation be held to a different standard? Indeed, if these corporations filed legal, complete, and honest returns, what exactly is the problem?
He goes on to say that “almost one-third of these companies declared net losses in 2003 ... so their corporate income taxes were less than $1000 and were often $50.” This statement truly begs an obvious question: If a business had a net loss, how can it pay any income tax? It had no net income!
But really, this is all just a smoke screen. Mr. Henderson’s protestations miss this central point. As a matter of simple economics, no matter what the tax structure, businesses do not pay taxes. The amount of taxes levied against a business does not matter.
A business sells a legal product or service to willing consumers. The price of the product is made up of things like business overhead, raw materials, research and development, employee expenses, and profit. Business overhead includes any taxes the business pays. Therefore, the end consumer pays all taxes.
The entirety of the tax structure is borne by the individual, whether directly via his own income tax and social security withholding, or indirectly via the products and services he buys. Every regulation, tax, or fee imposed by the government on a business translates into higher cost to the end user. So Mr. Henderson can either pay corporate taxes via tax shifting, or he can pay them via cost shifting, but he’s the one who will pay every dollar.
But beyond all that, it is clear that those on the political left need to understand a basic principle. The purpose of a business is not to provide revenue to the government. Business is not an extension of government social programs. Business exists to pursue its private, legal pursuits, and hopefully provide a profit to its owners.
The real problem is not where taxes are levied, anyway. Taxes can be distributed in any way the political left wants to dream up. Tax the corporations, soak the rich, give tax breaks to the middle class, whatever inflammatory rhetoric they want to use.
But that won’t make the tax system fair. This is because no tax system that takes too much money is fair. I repeat, no tax system can be fair that takes too much money.
Bottom line: Two-and-a-half trillion dollars is too much money for the federal government, and seven billion dollars is too much for the state. That’s criminal.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
The God Who Sings - Christianity Today, July 15, 1983
By
Richard D. Dinwiddie
God is not tone deaf. A perfect God must have truly
"perfect pitch" - no variance of intonation ever escapes him.
He knows, for instance,
whether or not the church’s sanctuary piano or organ is in tune and how close the soloist really is to the melody. All too often I imagine him raising
a divine finger at an errant singer and pleading, “G sharp!" His ear is
better than the finest conductor's. He understands fully the most sophisticated
harmonic and rhythmic structures, and he hears whether or not our performances
have stylistic integrity, appropriate phrasing, the right tonal color, correct
tempos, and proper dynamics.
Our limited insights cannot
possibly approach the musical understanding of the Master Musician. Yet, on any given Sunday, our practices
show that we apparently assume we have unlimited freedom to indulge personal
musical prejudices in the service of God without serious reference to His views - as if what he may have to say about music could not be
important. The results of this misconception have been far reaching and
disastrous - in ministries and in individual lives.
Ministry must always be rooted
in the Word of God, and the ministry of music is no exception. A
proper theology of church music is centered in God, not man, and God is
intensely interested in the music of his creation - especially that which is
used to worship him. He has much to say on the subject, and when we understand
his views more clearly we are able to use music in ways that are more
effective, biblical, and acceptable to him. Then we can direct our music ministries
in confidence, knowing wrhat is expected,
and we will not waste time needlessly "rethinking our position"
whenever a new style or idiom appears.
God's
Musicianship Is Comprehensive
God is a performing artist.
Each member of the Trinity sings.
Legalize the Constitution - Editorial
(Another Belgrade News editorial from Friday, July 24, 2009)
Here's the column I'm responding to, with the column I wrote in response afterwards:
------------
A couple of days ago I saw a sign that said, “Legalize the Constitution.” That seemed a little strange seeing that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that thousands of court cases have been decided with the Constitution as the basis. There are folks, though, who think that the court system has got it all wrong and that they, and not the courts, are in possession of the one true interpretation of the Constitution.
This kind of individual interpretation of the law can get you into trouble. Years ago I knew a fellow who used his house for collateral to get a bank loan. For years he kept up to date on the payments, but suddenly he stopped sending them in. When the bank called they were told that because the money he had borrowed was’t backed by gold it was not legal tender, and he didn’t have to pay it back. He did, however, manage to find some patsies who would accept the money for groceries or whatever, and even though it was worthless as far as he was concerned, he passed it off to unsuspecting pilgrims with all the brazenness of an ace counterfeiter.
The bank, in spite of this newly gained knowledge about the worthlessness of the greenbacks, still wanted them back, maybe just for their sentimental value, but they were serious about it. So serious, in fact, that they foreclosed on the property. The unrepentant borrower was serious, too; so serious that when the Sheriff’s Office contacted him about leaving the house he holed up with a small armory and told them to come get him, which they did. It could have been disastrous, but the borrower, deciding that discretion was the better part of valor, gave himself up and went to jail. After ten days he had a jailhouse conversion and accepted paper money not backed by gold as his personal salvation. He had it right that the money wasn’t backed by gold, but he took it upon himself to make the “legal” decision that it was worthless.
Likewise the Constitution can be interpreted out of context. On their face the words in the Constitution never change, but their meaning is dependent on how subsequent Supreme Court decisions have interpreted them. Documents from the era when the Constitution was written are also taken into account in determining the meaning of the framers’ language The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment is a good case in point because interpretation of its meaning has often lead to controversy: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
The intent of the Establishment Clause was to forbid the establishment of an official national religion, and although the states were free to do as they chose, most of them chose religious freedom over an official religion.
The colonists had had plenty of experience in religious persecution in England where the national religion was Church of England, or Anglican. If you were not Anglican you could hold not elected or appointed office. Maryland, founded as a Catholic colony, passed their Religious Tolerance Act in 1649, but forty years later England declared Anglicanism the official religion in Maryland and forbid the preaching, teaching, or practice of Catholicism.
The framers of the constitution were all too aware of the oppression that religious intolerance can bring because they had fled England to escape from it. At the convention held in North Carolina to ratify the Bill of Rights, Delegate James Iredell said, “Under the color of religious tests the utmost cruelties have been exercised. Those in power have generally considered all wisdom centered in themselves; that they alone had the right to dictate to the rest of mankind; and that all opposition to their tenets was profane and impious.”
Connecticut, however, maintained Congregationalism as their state religion until 1818, causing the Baptist Association of the town of Danbury, who felt discriminated against by Connecticut law, to write President Jefferson in 1801 asking him to intervene. This prompted Jefferson’s famous reply in which he wrote that the Establishment Clause built “a wall of separation between Church & State,” and that phrase that has been used by the courts in making their decisions.
Another rationale for keeping religion and government independent of one another is found in Jefferson’s “Bill for Religious Freedom” passed by Virginia in 1776: “That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern.”
The purpose of the Establishment Clause was not to ban religious principals from government affairs, but to prevent elevating a particular religious sect as the official state religion. It’s all a matter of interpretation, but you have to go beyond the document itself to find how to interpret it.
In his recent column (Opinion, July 21), former state Sen. Jim Elliott found it 'a little strange' that someone would have a bumper sticker that says 'Legalize the Constitution.' I will explain.
The Constitution is a document that defines and restricts government. It tells government, in essence, what it can and cannot do (this is known as 'enumerated powers'). The Bill of Rights is also directed towards government. It really ought to be called 'The Bill of Additional Government Restrictions.'
The average person is perfectly capable of reading the Constitution and understanding its plain words. People know when the Supreme Court invents a novel interpretation. Therefore, when government exceeds its authority citizens are rightly concerned.
For example, the First Amendment begins, "Congress shall make no law..." Is this truly an ambiguous statement that requires endless parsing? Or can we read it and easily come to the understanding that Congress is forbidden to pass any law regarding what follows in the sentence, i.e., religion?
So when the average person comes across one of the many laws passed regarding religion, is it unreasonable to oppose those laws, given the plain statement contained in the Amendment?
It seems Mr. Elliott is suggesting that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution to the point that dissent is not permitted. Or, perhaps, only people with advanced training in the law are qualified to comment.
One might therefore wonder if Mr. Elliott would allow disagreement with the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, when the court declared slavery legal?
Mr. Elliott goes on to write, "... the Constitution can be interpreted out of context." Agreed. But does this mean that he thinks the Court does this, or might he be referring to us uninformed citizens? He continues, "On their face the words of the Constitution never change, but their meaning is dependent on how subsequent Supreme Court decisions have interpreted them." Is Mr. Elliott indicating that he agrees with this, or is he instead noting the Supreme Court's many failures?
We need to realize that the Constitution is not a collection of words with meanings that can vary according to the latest novel interpretation. These words specifically define the operation and authority of government.
Contrary to those who believe that the Constitution should accommodate the shifts in society, the Constitution in its original meaning and context must remain as is. If it is to be changed, there is an avenue for this. It is found in Article 4, Section 4, Amendment. In order to change the Constitution, it must be amended. That's it.
Lastly, Mr. Elliott goes on to mention Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. This is the source of the quote used by the Supreme Court to create a 'wall of separation' between church and state. This 'wall of separation' has been used extensively to prevent public religious expression, which is the exact opposite of what Jefferson was writing about.
Jefferson was assuring the Danbury Baptists that government would not meddle in the affairs of the church.
Mr. Elliott justifies this by saying that it sometimes is necessary to "...go beyond the document itself..." to determine the meaning of the Constitution. I would suggest that if this were the case, then might it be reasonable to at least interpret those excursions correctly?
I have my own suggestion as to how we might go beyond the document itself. How about if we interpreted, say, the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) by using this technique?
Let's go to James Madison, known as the father of the Constitution, who wrote this in the Federalist Papers #45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
This was Madison's view of a constitutional provision, a view that would substantially modify how the Commerce Clause is used today. Clearly, the Commerce Clause is not the carte blanche excuse for every sort of government program. And it is just as clear that "going beyond the document itself" is only embraced when it agrees with Mr. Elliot's agenda.
So, I admit, I am in favor of legalizing the Constitution. It is largely being ignored by government, and needs to be restored as the supreme law of the land.
Here's the column I'm responding to, with the column I wrote in response afterwards:
------------
A couple of days ago I saw a sign that said, “Legalize the Constitution.” That seemed a little strange seeing that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that thousands of court cases have been decided with the Constitution as the basis. There are folks, though, who think that the court system has got it all wrong and that they, and not the courts, are in possession of the one true interpretation of the Constitution.
This kind of individual interpretation of the law can get you into trouble. Years ago I knew a fellow who used his house for collateral to get a bank loan. For years he kept up to date on the payments, but suddenly he stopped sending them in. When the bank called they were told that because the money he had borrowed was’t backed by gold it was not legal tender, and he didn’t have to pay it back. He did, however, manage to find some patsies who would accept the money for groceries or whatever, and even though it was worthless as far as he was concerned, he passed it off to unsuspecting pilgrims with all the brazenness of an ace counterfeiter.
The bank, in spite of this newly gained knowledge about the worthlessness of the greenbacks, still wanted them back, maybe just for their sentimental value, but they were serious about it. So serious, in fact, that they foreclosed on the property. The unrepentant borrower was serious, too; so serious that when the Sheriff’s Office contacted him about leaving the house he holed up with a small armory and told them to come get him, which they did. It could have been disastrous, but the borrower, deciding that discretion was the better part of valor, gave himself up and went to jail. After ten days he had a jailhouse conversion and accepted paper money not backed by gold as his personal salvation. He had it right that the money wasn’t backed by gold, but he took it upon himself to make the “legal” decision that it was worthless.
Likewise the Constitution can be interpreted out of context. On their face the words in the Constitution never change, but their meaning is dependent on how subsequent Supreme Court decisions have interpreted them. Documents from the era when the Constitution was written are also taken into account in determining the meaning of the framers’ language The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment is a good case in point because interpretation of its meaning has often lead to controversy: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
The intent of the Establishment Clause was to forbid the establishment of an official national religion, and although the states were free to do as they chose, most of them chose religious freedom over an official religion.
The colonists had had plenty of experience in religious persecution in England where the national religion was Church of England, or Anglican. If you were not Anglican you could hold not elected or appointed office. Maryland, founded as a Catholic colony, passed their Religious Tolerance Act in 1649, but forty years later England declared Anglicanism the official religion in Maryland and forbid the preaching, teaching, or practice of Catholicism.
The framers of the constitution were all too aware of the oppression that religious intolerance can bring because they had fled England to escape from it. At the convention held in North Carolina to ratify the Bill of Rights, Delegate James Iredell said, “Under the color of religious tests the utmost cruelties have been exercised. Those in power have generally considered all wisdom centered in themselves; that they alone had the right to dictate to the rest of mankind; and that all opposition to their tenets was profane and impious.”
Connecticut, however, maintained Congregationalism as their state religion until 1818, causing the Baptist Association of the town of Danbury, who felt discriminated against by Connecticut law, to write President Jefferson in 1801 asking him to intervene. This prompted Jefferson’s famous reply in which he wrote that the Establishment Clause built “a wall of separation between Church & State,” and that phrase that has been used by the courts in making their decisions.
Another rationale for keeping religion and government independent of one another is found in Jefferson’s “Bill for Religious Freedom” passed by Virginia in 1776: “That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern.”
The purpose of the Establishment Clause was not to ban religious principals from government affairs, but to prevent elevating a particular religious sect as the official state religion. It’s all a matter of interpretation, but you have to go beyond the document itself to find how to interpret it.
-------------------
In his recent column (Opinion, July 21), former state Sen. Jim Elliott found it 'a little strange' that someone would have a bumper sticker that says 'Legalize the Constitution.' I will explain.
The Constitution is a document that defines and restricts government. It tells government, in essence, what it can and cannot do (this is known as 'enumerated powers'). The Bill of Rights is also directed towards government. It really ought to be called 'The Bill of Additional Government Restrictions.'
The average person is perfectly capable of reading the Constitution and understanding its plain words. People know when the Supreme Court invents a novel interpretation. Therefore, when government exceeds its authority citizens are rightly concerned.
For example, the First Amendment begins, "Congress shall make no law..." Is this truly an ambiguous statement that requires endless parsing? Or can we read it and easily come to the understanding that Congress is forbidden to pass any law regarding what follows in the sentence, i.e., religion?
So when the average person comes across one of the many laws passed regarding religion, is it unreasonable to oppose those laws, given the plain statement contained in the Amendment?
It seems Mr. Elliott is suggesting that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution to the point that dissent is not permitted. Or, perhaps, only people with advanced training in the law are qualified to comment.
One might therefore wonder if Mr. Elliott would allow disagreement with the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, when the court declared slavery legal?
Mr. Elliott goes on to write, "... the Constitution can be interpreted out of context." Agreed. But does this mean that he thinks the Court does this, or might he be referring to us uninformed citizens? He continues, "On their face the words of the Constitution never change, but their meaning is dependent on how subsequent Supreme Court decisions have interpreted them." Is Mr. Elliott indicating that he agrees with this, or is he instead noting the Supreme Court's many failures?
We need to realize that the Constitution is not a collection of words with meanings that can vary according to the latest novel interpretation. These words specifically define the operation and authority of government.
Contrary to those who believe that the Constitution should accommodate the shifts in society, the Constitution in its original meaning and context must remain as is. If it is to be changed, there is an avenue for this. It is found in Article 4, Section 4, Amendment. In order to change the Constitution, it must be amended. That's it.
Lastly, Mr. Elliott goes on to mention Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. This is the source of the quote used by the Supreme Court to create a 'wall of separation' between church and state. This 'wall of separation' has been used extensively to prevent public religious expression, which is the exact opposite of what Jefferson was writing about.
Jefferson was assuring the Danbury Baptists that government would not meddle in the affairs of the church.
Mr. Elliott justifies this by saying that it sometimes is necessary to "...go beyond the document itself..." to determine the meaning of the Constitution. I would suggest that if this were the case, then might it be reasonable to at least interpret those excursions correctly?
I have my own suggestion as to how we might go beyond the document itself. How about if we interpreted, say, the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) by using this technique?
Let's go to James Madison, known as the father of the Constitution, who wrote this in the Federalist Papers #45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
This was Madison's view of a constitutional provision, a view that would substantially modify how the Commerce Clause is used today. Clearly, the Commerce Clause is not the carte blanche excuse for every sort of government program. And it is just as clear that "going beyond the document itself" is only embraced when it agrees with Mr. Elliot's agenda.
So, I admit, I am in favor of legalizing the Constitution. It is largely being ignored by government, and needs to be restored as the supreme law of the land.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Not for a moment -Meredith Andrews - lyrics and chords
I moving the chord sheet and video link to my worship song blog. Sorry for making you click one more time.
The myth of the Ten Commandments - Editorial
(Another old Belgrade News editorial from October 27, 2006)
The Ten Commandments are in the local news again, with Bozeman city leaders stating their discomfort in returning the stone monument to the Soroptimist park.
While their discomfort may be more accurately stated as fear — that is, the fear that tolerating the Ten Commandments will bring about a lawsuit from the “tolerant” ones who hate religious expression — perhaps it would be better to focus on what all the conflict is really about.
There is a group of people in this country who believe that religious expression ought to be a solely private matter. That is, they want no public religious expression. Public expression of religious behavior is “offensive” and “coercive.” In their view, religious expression on government property is establishing religion, and religious people (in particular, Christians) are fundamentalist bigots trying to impose their views on others.
At least these are the stated reasons, but one might justifiably wonder if there is an underlying reason for their attempts to relegate religious expression to the back of the free speech bus. Perhaps it is an effort to sanitze society of all positive religious influences, or maybe it’s just a general hatred of God.
(Oh, and by the way, why is the weight of the Soroptimist monument relevant? When Judge Roy Moore was fighting the removal of the monument he installed, why was it always noted how much it weighed?)
Well, anyway, it might be worth our time to explore the issues of the First Amendment.
• “Congress shall...” Congress is not involved here. Since placing the monument is not an act of Congress, it does not violate the First Amendment.
• “...make no law...” Congress is not making a law. In fact, no government body is making a law requiring the placement of the monument. A “law,” by definition, is a codified action of government to command, prohibit, or permit a specific action.
• “...establishment of religion...” If placing the monument is the establishment of religion, then which religion? Christianity? Islam? Judaism? LDS? Jehovah’s Witnesses? All these religions value the Ten Commandments. What religion is being established by an act of government? What state-sanctioned religion is being prevented?
• “...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” The First Amendment separates government from influencing religion, not the other way around. The Constitution is a document that defines and limits government. The First Amendment speaks to government about what it cannot do. There are no statements regarding the granting rights duties to citizens, or restricting their expressions.
If government takes action to forbid the monument, that is an action based on a religious preferences and violates the First Amendment. Government is commanded to take no action in religious matters.
In his letter to American military officers written in 1798, President John Adams said, “The Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the governance of any other.” Values are necessary for the functioning of any society, and all values have a basis of religious understanding, whether pro religion or anti religion. If certain values are not consciously adopted and publicly acknowledged, other values will fill in the vacuum. Values are always in conflict, and government always favors some values over others.
The Ten Commandments are in the local news again, with Bozeman city leaders stating their discomfort in returning the stone monument to the Soroptimist park.
While their discomfort may be more accurately stated as fear — that is, the fear that tolerating the Ten Commandments will bring about a lawsuit from the “tolerant” ones who hate religious expression — perhaps it would be better to focus on what all the conflict is really about.
There is a group of people in this country who believe that religious expression ought to be a solely private matter. That is, they want no public religious expression. Public expression of religious behavior is “offensive” and “coercive.” In their view, religious expression on government property is establishing religion, and religious people (in particular, Christians) are fundamentalist bigots trying to impose their views on others.
At least these are the stated reasons, but one might justifiably wonder if there is an underlying reason for their attempts to relegate religious expression to the back of the free speech bus. Perhaps it is an effort to sanitze society of all positive religious influences, or maybe it’s just a general hatred of God.
(Oh, and by the way, why is the weight of the Soroptimist monument relevant? When Judge Roy Moore was fighting the removal of the monument he installed, why was it always noted how much it weighed?)
Well, anyway, it might be worth our time to explore the issues of the First Amendment.
• “Congress shall...” Congress is not involved here. Since placing the monument is not an act of Congress, it does not violate the First Amendment.
• “...make no law...” Congress is not making a law. In fact, no government body is making a law requiring the placement of the monument. A “law,” by definition, is a codified action of government to command, prohibit, or permit a specific action.
• “...establishment of religion...” If placing the monument is the establishment of religion, then which religion? Christianity? Islam? Judaism? LDS? Jehovah’s Witnesses? All these religions value the Ten Commandments. What religion is being established by an act of government? What state-sanctioned religion is being prevented?
• “...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” The First Amendment separates government from influencing religion, not the other way around. The Constitution is a document that defines and limits government. The First Amendment speaks to government about what it cannot do. There are no statements regarding the granting rights duties to citizens, or restricting their expressions.
If government takes action to forbid the monument, that is an action based on a religious preferences and violates the First Amendment. Government is commanded to take no action in religious matters.
In his letter to American military officers written in 1798, President John Adams said, “The Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the governance of any other.” Values are necessary for the functioning of any society, and all values have a basis of religious understanding, whether pro religion or anti religion. If certain values are not consciously adopted and publicly acknowledged, other values will fill in the vacuum. Values are always in conflict, and government always favors some values over others.
Everyone has religious ideas, some are pro religion, some are anti religion. Therefore, limiting religious expressions is a religious position. Thus, our laws can either be based on the religious values or on a non-theistic value foundation. There is no alternative. Therefore, if public acknowledgement of one value amounts to “establishment of religion,” so is its opposite value.
Laws restrain the outer man, but if the inner man is not restrained, no law can stop a person from being a law breaker. Our moral foundation is gradually being chipped away. The basis of this erosion is a faulty view of the First Amendment.
Let’s restore the moral law of the Ten Commandments back to its position of value and reverence, both personally and in government.
Laws restrain the outer man, but if the inner man is not restrained, no law can stop a person from being a law breaker. Our moral foundation is gradually being chipped away. The basis of this erosion is a faulty view of the First Amendment.
Let’s restore the moral law of the Ten Commandments back to its position of value and reverence, both personally and in government.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Jesus doesn't judge - FB Conversation
FB friend R.W. posted this:
Study: Red states more charitable www.politico.com
Red states give more money to charity than blue states, according to a new study on Monday. The eight states with residents who gave the highest share of their income to charity supported Sen. John McCain in 2008, while the seven states with the least generous residents went for President Barack Oba...
S.H.: You see, this is one of the key differences between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives believe in giving *their own* money to help the less fortunate. Liberals believe in forcing other people to give theirs - except it gets funneled through the government so that a lot of it gets eaten up by administrative costs along the way.
And for those who go on and on about the morality of helping the downtrodden: Jesus taught that *we* were supposed to care for the poor, not that we were supposed to set up government agencies to do it - and I think the reason is very simple: When you spend your own time and money on charitable activities, you reap spiritual rewards. You don't get the same spiritual rewards when the government forcibly takes your money and gives it to someone else whether you like it or not.
For extra credit, compare the percentage of his income that Mitt Romney gave to charity to the percentage of income that the Obamas, or the Bidens, or, say, the Kerrys - who are closer to the Romney's income bracket - gave to charity. (The PERCENTAGE, not the dollar amount.)
R.W.: So well put S.H. And yet my friend B.R.would find fault with it. Probalby because you mentioned Jesus.
B.R.: No I don't find fault with it. I think these are great perspectives you're sharing, even if I feel differently. Lest we forget, Jesus also had a saying about accusing others of doing wrong, ya know.
B.R.: I love Christ, and yes, caring for the poor is important. But where many Christians lose sight of Christ's message is not entitlement programs or charity support, but social issues and human rights.
Me: Christ's message was that everyone is a sinner and he is the only way to God.
As far as Jesus not accusing others of doing wrong, try Matt 3:7, Matt 23:27, John 5:14, John 4:18, just for starters.
B.R.: Christ has many messages for each of us, and thank you for the biblical references.
R.W.: What Sid was saying is charity should not be forced but come from the individual. You believe it should be forced. So you do find fault with his perspective.
Me: Yes, he had many messages. However, the subject of discussion is the claim you made, a specific claim you made in correction to Rick. We are not talking about many messages, we are talking about a specific message, which you elevated above what Rick said.
You were in error about "accusing others of doing wrong," a specific message, not one of many.
B.R.: Is there another way to have these discussions besides having words FORCED into my mouth? I lose all interest in hearing your opinion as soon as you start regurgitating your assumptions and calling them my thoughts. I don't find fault with someone else's perspective, even if I disagree with it. I may be a Liberal, but I do not speak for all Liberals, and you have no cause or benefit to lump me in with your judgments of all Liberals, except your own satisfaction. I do not elevate any message above any other message. I was not in error by reminding you that Jesus says it's senseless to call out one person for a sin when they are guilty of another themselves.
Me: B.R., your rhetorical contortions are the issue here. Please be honest. Of course you elevate messages. You did that very thing. And you compound things by revising your claim to "Jesus says it's senseless to call out one person for a sin when they are guilty of another themselves." And this claim, like your prior claim, is a misrepresentation and patently false.
B.R.: My rhetoric has become the issue. I've been honest. If you want to think of me sharing my opinion as elevating one message above another, go ahead. What I actually did to what Rick said was to deny its truth, because it's untrue. He said I'd find fault because Jesus was mentioned, and that was incorrect. Does that mean I elevated my message above his? Okay...I didn't revise my claim, I made it more specific. Both of my statements about Jesus' words are referencing John 8:7, "When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, 'If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.'" How is this claim a misrepresentation and patently false?
Me: Making your claim more specific is by definition a revision.
Sigh. I suggest you read the entire passage, which starts at 8:1. You will first note that the adulteress was not simply stoned as Jewish law perscribes, she was brought before Jesus. But because of the Roman occupiers, they could not stone her anyway, which of course is why Jesus himself experienced both a trial before the Sanhedrin and a trial before Pilate.
So they intended to trap Jesus, which they frequently tried to do. The whole situation was a set-up. He unmasked the situation and every one eventually left. He alone was left to kill her, but showed his mercy by telling her, "“Go now and leave your life of sin.” So tell me, what does this have to do with accusing people of doing wrong?
B.R.: Alright, you're correct, I revised my claim. Thank you for the retelling of the story, though I knew it when I referenced it. Though my love of Christ is not solely derived from the Bible, I try not to indulge in inaccurate representations of him or his teachings. So he "unmasked the situation" by reminding them that we are all sinners. Right? Am I wrong about that? I referenced this story to indicate that it's not my intention to fault anyone, because any wrong I accuse them of may be matched by a wrong I am doing in their eyes. I don't find fault in Sid or Sid's perspective. I disagree with it, but I respect it. The assumption that I would find fault in it or in him feels to me like an assumption that I place my own righteousness above others', which I don't. And why don't I? Because I may be just as guilty in others' eyes and they are in mine. This is very similar to my personal interpretation of Jesus' meaning when he said 'If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.' I ask you again, how is my personal interpretation of Jesus "a misrepresentation and patently false"?
Me: Of course we are all sinners, but what he unmasked was their attempt to trap him. He also accused them of sin, didn't he (a judgment)? Then, he reiterated her sin (a judgment), and told her to stop sinning (another judgment). So, if we also include the first set of scriptures I cited, we see that he was very judgmental. And there are many more.
This means that you are incorrect in your view regarding judgments. However, I need to point out that I misunderstand the nature and character of God on a regular basis, usually by limiting him. It's a flaw in my thinking that is being revised.
Me: Also, there is a big difference between executing Judgement, that is, what God does with sinners, and discerning of injustice/falsehood/evil. The second requires judgment that doesn't involve the passing of sentence.
B.R.: Rich, my personal interpretation of Christ cannot possibly be incorrect...just different than yours. For that and more, I really appreciate you.
Me: My personal interpretation of Christ is that he doesn't like personal interpretations and other meaningless, amorphous statements.
B.R.: Well, tell your Christ that mine says hello.
Me: Yours speaks? How do you know?
B.R.: Because he lives inside my heart! He is a guide, a counselor, a coach, a commiserator, and a friend. He has come to me in great times of need and deep introspection, and other times has remained a silent conscience behind my thoughts. I believe that his spirit is alive in each of us, regardless of whether we embrace or ignore him.
Me: "I try not to indulge in inaccurate representations ...of him or his teachings." "...my personal interpretation of Christ cannot possible be incorrect." Hmm.
B.R.: Yes, I can see how difficult it may be to comprehend my relationship with Jesus, and that's why it's such a personal thing in nature. My first statement refers to my practice of only using his documented words and actions in ways that are accurate; for instance, it upsets me when people claim that Jesus would support their hatred or warfare, when he clearly stated that loving God and loving your neighbor are more important than anything else. However, it's not for me to decide that those hateful people have an incorrect interpretation of Jesus - he is in their hearts and minds, which I do not and cannot fully understand, and he is more than just the words that other men wrote about him. Based on MY interpretation of Jesus, I believe that these hateful people are incorrect in THEIR interpretation of Jesus, but there's no way to actually prove it, so why would I waste my time? I don't focus on who's got Jesus right and who's got him wrong. Instead I focus on my own relationship with him, and I let that guide my actions. When Jesus points, I don't look at his finger, and I don't look at others to see where they're looking. I look out toward the direction he's pointing. I hope this helps you understand me.
Me: Your Jesus is whatever you want to make up about him, but you're certain that he doesn't judge. You don't want to misrepresent him, but he is whatever happens to be convenient for you. He's rainbows and unicorns, comfortable and non-threatening. If it's unpleasant, confrontational, or violates liberal orthodoxy, well, then in can't be Jesus.
I have no reason at all to question your belief that he lives in you. That's between you and him. His presence in you ought to bear fruit in your life and change you. That means that he is not your personal Christ, he makes you in his image, not the other way around.
But most unfortunately, your claim is one of those conversation killers, where no evidence is required to assert it, and as a result it cannot be discussed rationally. the rhetorical equivalent of shutting someone up. So, taking your cue, I throw up my hands and rue the wasted time.
Study: Red states more charitable www.politico.com
Red states give more money to charity than blue states, according to a new study on Monday. The eight states with residents who gave the highest share of their income to charity supported Sen. John McCain in 2008, while the seven states with the least generous residents went for President Barack Oba...
S.H.: You see, this is one of the key differences between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives believe in giving *their own* money to help the less fortunate. Liberals believe in forcing other people to give theirs - except it gets funneled through the government so that a lot of it gets eaten up by administrative costs along the way.
And for those who go on and on about the morality of helping the downtrodden: Jesus taught that *we* were supposed to care for the poor, not that we were supposed to set up government agencies to do it - and I think the reason is very simple: When you spend your own time and money on charitable activities, you reap spiritual rewards. You don't get the same spiritual rewards when the government forcibly takes your money and gives it to someone else whether you like it or not.
For extra credit, compare the percentage of his income that Mitt Romney gave to charity to the percentage of income that the Obamas, or the Bidens, or, say, the Kerrys - who are closer to the Romney's income bracket - gave to charity. (The PERCENTAGE, not the dollar amount.)
R.W.: So well put S.H. And yet my friend B.R.would find fault with it. Probalby because you mentioned Jesus.
B.R.: No I don't find fault with it. I think these are great perspectives you're sharing, even if I feel differently. Lest we forget, Jesus also had a saying about accusing others of doing wrong, ya know.
B.R.: I love Christ, and yes, caring for the poor is important. But where many Christians lose sight of Christ's message is not entitlement programs or charity support, but social issues and human rights.
Me: Christ's message was that everyone is a sinner and he is the only way to God.
As far as Jesus not accusing others of doing wrong, try Matt 3:7, Matt 23:27, John 5:14, John 4:18, just for starters.
B.R.: Christ has many messages for each of us, and thank you for the biblical references.
R.W.: What Sid was saying is charity should not be forced but come from the individual. You believe it should be forced. So you do find fault with his perspective.
Me: Yes, he had many messages. However, the subject of discussion is the claim you made, a specific claim you made in correction to Rick. We are not talking about many messages, we are talking about a specific message, which you elevated above what Rick said.
You were in error about "accusing others of doing wrong," a specific message, not one of many.
B.R.: Is there another way to have these discussions besides having words FORCED into my mouth? I lose all interest in hearing your opinion as soon as you start regurgitating your assumptions and calling them my thoughts. I don't find fault with someone else's perspective, even if I disagree with it. I may be a Liberal, but I do not speak for all Liberals, and you have no cause or benefit to lump me in with your judgments of all Liberals, except your own satisfaction. I do not elevate any message above any other message. I was not in error by reminding you that Jesus says it's senseless to call out one person for a sin when they are guilty of another themselves.
Me: B.R., your rhetorical contortions are the issue here. Please be honest. Of course you elevate messages. You did that very thing. And you compound things by revising your claim to "Jesus says it's senseless to call out one person for a sin when they are guilty of another themselves." And this claim, like your prior claim, is a misrepresentation and patently false.
B.R.: My rhetoric has become the issue. I've been honest. If you want to think of me sharing my opinion as elevating one message above another, go ahead. What I actually did to what Rick said was to deny its truth, because it's untrue. He said I'd find fault because Jesus was mentioned, and that was incorrect. Does that mean I elevated my message above his? Okay...I didn't revise my claim, I made it more specific. Both of my statements about Jesus' words are referencing John 8:7, "When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, 'If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.'" How is this claim a misrepresentation and patently false?
Me: Making your claim more specific is by definition a revision.
Sigh. I suggest you read the entire passage, which starts at 8:1. You will first note that the adulteress was not simply stoned as Jewish law perscribes, she was brought before Jesus. But because of the Roman occupiers, they could not stone her anyway, which of course is why Jesus himself experienced both a trial before the Sanhedrin and a trial before Pilate.
So they intended to trap Jesus, which they frequently tried to do. The whole situation was a set-up. He unmasked the situation and every one eventually left. He alone was left to kill her, but showed his mercy by telling her, "“Go now and leave your life of sin.” So tell me, what does this have to do with accusing people of doing wrong?
B.R.: Alright, you're correct, I revised my claim. Thank you for the retelling of the story, though I knew it when I referenced it. Though my love of Christ is not solely derived from the Bible, I try not to indulge in inaccurate representations of him or his teachings. So he "unmasked the situation" by reminding them that we are all sinners. Right? Am I wrong about that? I referenced this story to indicate that it's not my intention to fault anyone, because any wrong I accuse them of may be matched by a wrong I am doing in their eyes. I don't find fault in Sid or Sid's perspective. I disagree with it, but I respect it. The assumption that I would find fault in it or in him feels to me like an assumption that I place my own righteousness above others', which I don't. And why don't I? Because I may be just as guilty in others' eyes and they are in mine. This is very similar to my personal interpretation of Jesus' meaning when he said 'If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.' I ask you again, how is my personal interpretation of Jesus "a misrepresentation and patently false"?
Me: Of course we are all sinners, but what he unmasked was their attempt to trap him. He also accused them of sin, didn't he (a judgment)? Then, he reiterated her sin (a judgment), and told her to stop sinning (another judgment). So, if we also include the first set of scriptures I cited, we see that he was very judgmental. And there are many more.
This means that you are incorrect in your view regarding judgments. However, I need to point out that I misunderstand the nature and character of God on a regular basis, usually by limiting him. It's a flaw in my thinking that is being revised.
Me: Also, there is a big difference between executing Judgement, that is, what God does with sinners, and discerning of injustice/falsehood/evil. The second requires judgment that doesn't involve the passing of sentence.
B.R.: Rich, my personal interpretation of Christ cannot possibly be incorrect...just different than yours. For that and more, I really appreciate you.
Me: My personal interpretation of Christ is that he doesn't like personal interpretations and other meaningless, amorphous statements.
B.R.: Well, tell your Christ that mine says hello.
Me: Yours speaks? How do you know?
B.R.: Because he lives inside my heart! He is a guide, a counselor, a coach, a commiserator, and a friend. He has come to me in great times of need and deep introspection, and other times has remained a silent conscience behind my thoughts. I believe that his spirit is alive in each of us, regardless of whether we embrace or ignore him.
Me: "I try not to indulge in inaccurate representations ...of him or his teachings." "...my personal interpretation of Christ cannot possible be incorrect." Hmm.
B.R.: Yes, I can see how difficult it may be to comprehend my relationship with Jesus, and that's why it's such a personal thing in nature. My first statement refers to my practice of only using his documented words and actions in ways that are accurate; for instance, it upsets me when people claim that Jesus would support their hatred or warfare, when he clearly stated that loving God and loving your neighbor are more important than anything else. However, it's not for me to decide that those hateful people have an incorrect interpretation of Jesus - he is in their hearts and minds, which I do not and cannot fully understand, and he is more than just the words that other men wrote about him. Based on MY interpretation of Jesus, I believe that these hateful people are incorrect in THEIR interpretation of Jesus, but there's no way to actually prove it, so why would I waste my time? I don't focus on who's got Jesus right and who's got him wrong. Instead I focus on my own relationship with him, and I let that guide my actions. When Jesus points, I don't look at his finger, and I don't look at others to see where they're looking. I look out toward the direction he's pointing. I hope this helps you understand me.
Me: Your Jesus is whatever you want to make up about him, but you're certain that he doesn't judge. You don't want to misrepresent him, but he is whatever happens to be convenient for you. He's rainbows and unicorns, comfortable and non-threatening. If it's unpleasant, confrontational, or violates liberal orthodoxy, well, then in can't be Jesus.
I have no reason at all to question your belief that he lives in you. That's between you and him. His presence in you ought to bear fruit in your life and change you. That means that he is not your personal Christ, he makes you in his image, not the other way around.
But most unfortunately, your claim is one of those conversation killers, where no evidence is required to assert it, and as a result it cannot be discussed rationally. the rhetorical equivalent of shutting someone up. So, taking your cue, I throw up my hands and rue the wasted time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)