Schoolboys disciplined for 'refusing to pray to Jesus'

From the London Telegraph, a story so shocking* you won't believe!!!:

It was claimed that the boys, from a year seven class of 11 and 12-year-olds, were given detention after refusing to take part in a practical demonstration of how Jesus is worshipped.

Yesterday parents accused the school of breaching their human rights by forcing them to take part in the exercise.

One, Sharon Luinen, said: "This isn't right, it's taking things too far. I understand that they have to learn about other religions. I can live with that but it is taking it a step too far to be punished because they wouldn't join in Christian prayer.

"Making them pray to Jesus' god, who isn't who they worship, is wrong and what got me is that they were told they were being disrespectful."

Another parent Karen Williams, 38, whose 12-year-old daughter is a classmate of the boys, said: "I am absolutely furious my daughter was made to take part in it and I don't find it acceptable.

"The teacher had gone into the class and made them watch a short film and then said 'we are now going out to pray to Jesus'.

"Then two boys got detention and all the other children missed their refreshments' break."

She added: "Not only was it forced upon them, my daughter was told off for not doing it right.

"They'd never done it before and they were supposed to do it in another language."

She said the pupils were asked if they had water on them, and when one girl produced a bottle, the teacher began baptizing her with it.

Her husband Keith, 44, a painter and decorator, said: "The school is wonderful but this one teacher has made a major mistake. It seems to be happening throughout society. People think they can ride roughshod over our beliefs and the way we live."

The alleged incident, at the Alsager school, one of Cheshire's top performing schools, happened on Tuesday afternoon. The teacher, Alison Phillips, the school's subject leader in RE, is understood to be staying away from the school until the furore dies down, although she has not been suspended.

She is said to have got rosaries out of the cupboard and also asked children to wear Carmelite nun wimples.

Deputy headmaster Keith Plant said: "I have spoken to the teacher and she has articulately given me her version of events."

Sources at the school said the incident could have been down to Miss Phillips instigating a role play and not properly briefing the pupils, all aged around 12, what she was doing.

A spokesman for Cheshire County Council said they were investigating. He added: "The headteacher contacted the authority immediately complaints were received. Enquiries are being made into the circumstances as a matter of urgency and all parents will be informed accordingly.

"Educating children in the beliefs of different faiths is part of Cheshire's diversity curriculum on the basis that knowledge is, of course, is essential to understanding.

"We accept that such teaching has to be conducted with commonsense and sensitivity."

And from the Daily Mail:

Schoolboys punished with detention for refusing to kneel in class and pray the Our Father

Two schoolboys were given detention after refusing to kneel down and 'pray the Pater Noster' during a religious education lesson.

Parents were outraged that the two boys from year seven (11 to 12-year-olds) were punished for not wanting to take part in the practical demonstration of how Jesus is worshipped.

They said forcing their children to take part in the exercise at Alsager High School, near Stoke-on-Trent - which included wearing monastic headgear - was a breach of their human rights.

One parent, Sharon Luinen, said: "This isn't right, it's taking things too far.

"I understand that they have to learn about other religions. I can live with that but it is taking it a step too far to be punished because they wouldn't join in Christian prayer.

"Making them pray to the Father of Jesus, who isn't who they worship, is wrong and what got me is that they were told they were being disrespectful.

"I don't want this to look as if I have a problem with the school because I am generally very happy with it."

Another parent Karen Williams said: "I am absolutely furious my daughter was made to take part in it and I don't find it acceptable.

"I haven't got a problem with them teaching my child other religions and a small amount of information doesn't do any harm.

"But not only did they have to pray, the teacher had gone into the class and made them watch a short film and then said 'we are now going out to pray to Jesus' Father'.

"Then two boys got detention and all the other children missed their refreshment break because of the teacher.

"Not only was it forced upon them, my daughter was told off for not doing it right.

"They'd never done it before and they were supposed to do it in another language." (Latin)

"My child has been forced to pray to the Christian God in a school lesson." The grandfather of one of the pupils in the class said: "It's absolutely disgusting, there's no other way of putting it.

"My daughter and a lot of other mothers are furious about their children being made to kneel on the floor and pray to Islam. If they didn't do it they were given detention.

"I am not racist, I've been friendly with an Fundamentalist for 30 years. I've also been to a Baptist wedding where it was explained to me that alcohol would not be served and I respected that.

"But if Christians were asked to go to mosque on Friday and make ritual ablutions there would be war."

Parents said that their children were made to bend down on their knees, holding rosaries which the RE teacher had got out of her cupboard and they were also told to wear monastic headgear during the lesson on Tuesday afternoon.

Deputy headmaster Keith Plant said: "It's difficult to know at the moment whether this was part of the curriculum or not. I am not an RE teacher, I am an English teacher.

"At the moment it is our enterprise week and many of our members of staff are away.

"The particular member of staff you need to speak to isn't around. I think that it is a shame that so many parents have got in touch with the Press before coming to me.

"I have spoken to the teacher and she has articulately given me her version of events, but that is all I can give you at the moment."

A statement from Cheshire County Council on behalf of the school read: "The headteacher David Black contacted this authority immediately complaints were received.

"Enquiries are being made into the circumstances as a matter of urgency and all parents will be informed accordingly.

"Educating children in the beliefs of different faith is part of the diversity curriculum on the basis that knowledge is essential to understanding.

"We accept that such teaching is to be conducted with some sense of sensitivity."

Remember, without discernment it can happen here.

* In case it isn't abundantly clear, this is a parody. In Britain, you're punished for not being sensitive to Muslim interests. So much for the "established" church....
h/t: PhDiva

Our Fragile Democracy

This came to my inbox, and I've cleaned it up as best I could from Snopes, etc.

HOW LONG DO WE HAVE?

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Lord Woodhouselee Alexander Tytler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

• A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
• The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
  1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
  2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
  3. from courage to liberty;
  4. from liberty to abundance;
  5. from abundance to complacency;
  6. from complacency to apathy;
  7. from apathy to dependence;
  8. from dependence back into bondage

Here are some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:

Number of States won by: Democrats: 20 Republicans: 30

Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 6.5 Republicans: 4.1 (national avg. is 5.5)

In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed urban zones (high concentrations of citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare, or divorced from manufacturing and agriculture.)

With others, I think the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Tytler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase.

Eat this Malthus

I get criticized by some folks for having a large family (4 boys, 1 girl).

23

OnePlusYou Quizzes and Widgets

I'm glad to know, however, that I could easily handly 15 more!

(P.S. Click here if the Malthus reference didn't ring a bell.)

(P.P.S. Click here if Malthus and his claims do make sense to you. This is why I'm not an greenieweenie.)

Multi-generational Churches

There's a lot of talk about creating a multi-generational, multi-cultural church. It's half good and half bad. If you mean multi-generational in terms of all ages, I'm for it. If you talk about multi-cultural in terms of the redeemed (who are one race, one nation - spiritual Israel, and one blood per Acts 17), I'm for that, too.

But what about remembering that we're called to be a REGENERATIONAL church before any of those other things. Love for people that are unlike us is not an inherited trait. It is learned in each generation - and it helps when we come to the realization that all the redeemed are already alike in the most eternally important way.

What we need are REgeneration churches! So I was pleasantly surprised when I came across this post. It reminded me of the half-way covenant that was a feature of compromised (mainline?) puritanism:

In the first generation truth is a conviction.

• Those who hold that conviction, hold it dearly.
• They do not know the meaning of compromise.
• They are willing to die for what they believe to be true.

In the second generation the conviction becomes a belief.

• Sons hold to the truths they have been taught by their fathers,
• and defend their beliefs in discussion and debate.
• However the keen edge of conviction has been blunted,
• and adherence to a body of beliefs inherited from the fathers is not so much a passion as a persuasion.

In the third generation the belief becomes an opinion.

• By then some members of the movement are willing to trade in their opinions.
• They feel it is time for a change.
• They start talking about renewal,
• but they may look to the world for ideas.

If there's a fourth generation, it's what you see in the legacy denominations (note: I rarely use "mainline" anymore because they neither represent the mainstream of Christianity in beliefs, values, or numbers).

PS: Please remember that it was the half-way covenant (the compromise that it bred) that so upset godly men like Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, and the Wesleys, setting off the first great awakening. During that time, denominational barriers broke down and like-minded men and women came together for the sake of the Gospel! Like others, I believe God is ready to do just that same thing again in our day. Realign, brothers and sisters, with those who name Christ - not just those who share your name brand!

Shamelessly ganked from FIDE-O

What I didn't learn in CPE

Sometimes, less is more...

In all seriousness, in seminary we're given a psychological model for handling all pastoral crises. It has its legitimate and godly function within our churches. I've had the benefit of some training in these resources and have used them in counseling (formal and informal). I've also been shown that there are limits to my abilities and have made successful referrals to those more competent in therapy than myself.

However, I have been surprised at the number of issues raised (normally by middle-class+ white educated people) that could be solved with a more direct, straightforward, and biblical rebuke to quit sinning!

Westminster Confession of Faith in chapter XXX "Of Church Censures " in sections 3-4 proclaimed Biblical teaching of rebuke of sins:

III. Church censures are necessary, for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethres, for deterring of others from the like offenses, for purging out of that leaven which might infect the whole lump, for vindicating the honor of Christ, and the holy profession of the Gospel, and for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the Church, if they should suffer His covenant, and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders. (scriptural support)

IV. For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the Church are to proceed by admonition; suspension from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper for a season; and by excommunication from the Church; according to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the person. (scriptural support)

Many times Bible exhorts us to judge righteous judgment (even mean old Jesus) and rebuke sins before all (classic "meanies" like Paul, who probably learned it from that nasty Old Testament... or from archmeanie Jesus). Bible says there that sin must be condemned and judged. In Lev. 19:17-18 we see that love and rebuke are together and cannot be divorced. In fact, true wisdom (listen up, those who love Sophia) declares that rebuke is a loving act!

I end with a collection of verses that have been hidden in my heart for a long time. They're in KJV because that's what I used when I came back to the faith, and it's the official translation of my new ecclesial body...so stuff it (yeah, I mean that with love).

"Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear" (1 Timothy 5:20)

"Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins." (Isaiah 58:1)

James 5:19-20 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Leviticus 19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1).

Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

Titus 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;

Titus 2:15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

Revelation 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent

John 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

Proverbs 9:7 He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot.

Proverbs 9:8 Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.

Proverbs 10:17 He is in the way of life that keepeth instruction: but he that refuseth reproof erreth.

Proverbs 12:1 Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof is brutish.

Proverbs 13:1 A wise son heareth his father's instruction: but a scorner heareth not rebuke.

Proverbs 15:5 A fool despiseth his father's instruction: but he that regardeth reproof is prudent.

Proverbs 15:10 Correction is grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: and he that hateth reproof shall die.

Proverbs 15:12 A scorner loveth not one that reproveth him: neither will he go unto the wise.

Proverbs 15:32 He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding.

Proverbs 19:20 Hear counsel, and receive instruction, that thou mayest be wise in thy latter end.

Proverbs 19:25 Smite a scorner, and the simple will beware: and reprove one that hath understanding, and he will understand knowledge.

Proverbs 24:25 But to them that rebuke him shall be delight, and a good blessing shall come upon them.

Proverbs 25:12 As an earring of gold, and an ornament of fine gold, so is a wise reprover upon an obedient ear.

Proverbs 27:5 Open rebuke is better than secret love.

Proverbs 28:11 The rich man is wise in his own conceit; but the poor that hath understanding searcheth him out.

Proverbs 28:23 He that rebuketh a man afterwards shall find more favour than he that flattereth with the tongue.

Proverbs 29:1 He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy.

Proverbs 29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.

Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Ecclesiastes 7:5 It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools.

Amos 5:10 They hate him that rebuketh in the gate, and they abhor him that speaketh uprightly.

That last one I can attest to in my dealings with adultery and apostasy and financial chicanery in my old presbytery. When you start pointing out problems, you become the problem.

If you can't beat'em, join'em

Well...it looks like it's time to join the Covenant Network. I think conservative Presbyterians should rush in droves to join the Covenant Network. Here's the link to the Covenant Network that discouraged PCUSA Presbyterians need to join.

Abortion and the Presbyterian Washington Office

Here's another one from the vaults, when I thought that I would be allowed to live out my calling in the PCUSA. I thought it appropriate in light of the recent pleas for fair representation of the diversity of PCUSA opinion on abortion. Originally written in August of 2007.

A commentator recently mused over the impartiality and even-handed representation that the Washington Office provides the PC(USA).

Somehow he missed the June 25th edition of Presbyterian Washington Weekly where the Washington Office urged members of the PCUSA to support HR 2596's unfettered access to abortifacient megadoses of hormones (otherwise known as Plan B).

A week prior to that (June 18th), I was asked to support the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. That would make me - a taxpayer - responsible for the destruction of human life for research purposes.

The April 23rd edition gave more sabre rattling and fearmongering over the SCOTUS decision declaring constitutionally allowable limits on partial birth abortions. Our GA has spoken quite clearly about the moral danger of this procedure (and our there is plenty of medical testimony against its necessity or safety). Nevertheless, anything that could infringe on a woman's "right" to force taxpayers to pay a malicious medico to deliver all but the head of the baby, jam scissors into its skull, and vacuum its brains out must be met with resistance according to the Washington Office.

It continues to amaze me that most of their advocacy is for causes aligned with the Democrats when over half of members and elders in the PCUSA identify as Republicans and less than 30% as Democrats! (PDF proof here) There's a lot of work that the Washington Office could focus on - things that Presbyterians across the spectrum agree on and would support - if they would give up their unmitigated support for limitless abortion access.

Follow the Money

The PCUSA tried to say that the impersonal force Allah and the Trinitarian God we know in Jesus Christ are one and the same. It was substantively changed (for the better). But let's be clear: this isn't about welcoming Muslim brothers. It was professional real-estate networking.

Demichristianity for Dhimmitude!

Presbyterian Predicaments

Here's another one from the vaults, when I thought that I would be allowed to live out my calling in the PCUSA. Orignially written in August of 2007.

Jesus asked us to remember Lot's wife. We also remember Lot. Abraham and Lot were family. Lot was the younger, more cosmopolitan of the two. When the squabbles between the household of Lot and household of Abram stood a chance of damaging their sense of family, they separated. Whatever bad blood was there, they let it go. The more spiritually mature man let the younger one seek his life among the hipsters of the day, who had wealth and prestige (Sodom had a king!). Abram knew that it didn't matter where he was sat on earth - so long as he knew where he stood with God.

We've come to a time where gracious separation (in the PCUSA) may be the only peaceful way out. It will require the mature - those who claim to trust completely in God's provision - to risk being set out to the un-lush plains. We'll have to choose whether or not we really believe it when we say that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is our treasure and the one thing we cannot do without.

I say this knowing that some have been fighting for a long time to be good stewards of the funds faithful Presbyterians have given over the years. I honor that work. I had planned as a minister to put at least some of my hope for financial security in the endowments given. But if it costs me the gospel - or I waste my life fighting with people that I should recognize as family (even if they are distant relations, and questionable in their covenant keeping) - then I will have been unfaithful to my calling to be a steward of the mysteries of God.

I count as friends several executives in the Foundation, and they are dashingly good at what they do. But I'm a steward of the mysteries, called to build the church as the pillar and ground of the truth. Anything less is a diminishing of my calling.

Ecclesia Refermata

Okay - I admit it. I can't keep out of PCUSA GA business. So sue me. You'll have to do it in civil court, because I'm not under the jurisdiction of the PCUSA anymore. For real coverage from a real PCUSA pastor, go to Classical Presbyterian. Anyway....

Before the vote to change the Heidelberg Catechism, the usual predictable YAD stands to the mic and says that the church is a reforming church (instead of a REFORMED church). They take this to mean that the church is always changing her basic beliefs. As evidence, she cited the presence of multi-ethnic moderator / vice-moderators this year. (Big whoop. There were more black people and Near-East Asians at the Council of Nicea than there are at the PCUSA's GA!)
This tired statement (I refuse to call it an argument, which would require both logical construction and some sort of proof!) I've come to call the Ecclesia Refermata. You'll recall that a fermata is a musical sign indicating that a note should be sustained. This tired canard of an incomplete statement - the church is always changing (to accommodate our point of view) - just has to go away. And yet it comes up at EVERY SINGLE GA, and is trilled and sung into the minds of gullible YADs who don't have much catechesis in the Reformed tradition (and even less Latin training).

This thesis, which gets bandied around even by people who should know better, is based on a rather widespread and longstanding misunderstanding of the Latin motto, Ecclesia Reformata et Semper Reformanda. This has even been addressed by the GA in 2006. The Latin reformanda is not a passive participle; it is a “gerundive,” which can be defined as a “verbal adjective used to indicate that a specified noun needs to, deserves to, ought to, or must be the object of the action indicated in the gerundive.”

The classic example is the Roman Senator Cato’s repeated cry, Cartago delenda est! He was not saying, “Carthage is being destroyed.” He was saying, “Carthage needs to be destroyed!” or “Carthage must be destroyed!” Similarly, Legibus parendum est, does not mean, “The laws are being obeyed.” It means, “The laws must be obeyed!”

By the same token, “Ecclesia Reformata at Semper Reformanda” does not mean, “The Church Reformed and Always Reforming.” It means “The Church Reformed and Always Needing to be Reformed.”

Second, the YADs (and the commissioners and advisors who coach them) leave off the most important aspect of that reforming work: it's done secundum verbum dei. The exegetical maneuver that the Reformers came up with was grammatico-historical interpretation. When the text says something, once you understand the context and the content, you understand God's will and are bound to obey it. The church is thus further conformed to the image of the Son (the living Word) by the Scriptures (the written Word).

The Heidelberg issue that was brought before the GA - which, despite protests to the contrary, was just a tired repeat of previous attempts to legitimize homosex (search on Heidelberg) - is not about restoring the church's confessional integrity or increasing her faithfulness to the standards of Scripture. (That's actually what the translators of the current PCUSA version were doing.) It's about making the Scriptures and creeds a quieter place when it comes to speaking about homosex. And of course the irony of the situation is lost on people who have forgotten that the slogan was born out of Dutch pietism (the so-called Nadere Reformatie) - an earnest desire to apply the glorious doctrinal and ecclesial insights of the Reformation to the everyday task of living a holy life.

As long as they keep bringing it up without definitive silencing based on confidence that God's word does not err in condemning homosex (as well as ANY non-marital sex), then you're going to see them hold this out again and again. REFERMATA.

0.000121587

Mom told me I was special. She said I was "one in a million." I appreciate her sentiment, but the math geek in me says that I'm not even that special.

I may not be one in a million, but I am one in 57,572. As a family, we're 7 in 57,572 (thus the decimal title). My former cult lost record numbers of members this past year, and I added to the numbers. I'm not proud to have gotten to that point, and it hurt me to do it. I poured more than a decade of my life into working for the PCUSA, including 5 years of full-time study. However, I couldn't stay when the very act of wrestling with the demonic forces at work kept me from advancing as a minister in the church and in carrying out the ministry Christ has given me.

However, as a candidate for ministry who has left, who knows what the opportunity cost is going to be? The number goes far beyond my paltry seven. As of 1998, 33% of churches didn't have a pastor. The number is pushing ever closer to 50%, now. Yet churches without pastors rarely grow.

Denominations without pastors don't grow, either. Even if they have all the ministers they need....

Want to lose that vonneGUT?

Eat a breakfast of champions! A study released at the recent meeting of the Endocrine Society suggests that eating a big breakfast (no...not this Big Breakfast®) can have a long-term positive impact on weight loss.

When I was in London last summer, we generally only ate one real meal: the classic English Full Breakfast. (In fact, my last breakfast there was at Lord Moon of the Mall: Wetherspoon, just down the street from one of the car bombs found just hours after we left!) We could eat that thing and then walk, walk, walk all day - only feeling slightly peckish after the end of a hard day of touring.

So, I told my wife that I was on a weight-loss kick and from now on, I expected an Ulster Fry every morning...

Yeah...that's what she said.

Are you spiritual?

I'm not.

I'm sure this is going to tick some fine people off, but that's never stopped me before.

I have no desire to be "spiritual" in the sense which is commonly used today. That doesn't mean I wish to be a dead doctrinalist or rigid moralist or anything else which people call me. Instead, it means I want to be mature in Christ - not in any sense of myself.

I think there's a lot of hubbub about the topic, but I side with Sinclair Ferguson on the topic.

"This first thing to remember, of course, is that we must never separate the benefits (regeneration, justification, sanctification) from the Benefactor (Jesus Christ). The Christians who are most focused on their own spirituality may give the impression of being the most spiritual ... but from the New Testament's point of view, those who have almost forgotten about their own spirituality because their focus is so exclusively on their union with Jesus Christ and what He has accomplished are those who are growing and exhibiting fruitfulness. Historically speaking, whenever the piety of a particular group is focused on OUR spirituality that piety will eventually exhaust itself on its own resources. Only where our piety forgets about itself and focuses on Jesus Christ will our piety be nourished by the ongoing resources the Spirit brings to us from the source of all true piety, our Lord Jesus Christ."

- Sinclair Ferguson

h/t: Monergism

Please Stand for the Processional

I had no idea that the Imperial March could be so worship-inspiring. I don't know how I'll cope. Was anyone else aware that Chad Vader was now in orders?

BTW, these are some sort of Scandinavian Lutherans. They're the only ones who wear the chasuble with a surplice, and that distinctive neck ruffle.

It's like...you know...and stuff

Unfortunately, this is what most of the sidelined legacy denominations do every (other) summer.



So...like...does anybody want to, you know, talk about it?

Letting them down...the other ED

A recent article in the Washington Post reports on the work of Douglas LaBier, PhD - a clinical psychologist with the Center for Adult Development. He, along with a growing number of clinicians, are noting that modernists are increasingly unable to empathize with others. This is even true of people whom we would expect to have a high degree of empathy (like physicians).

Anybody that knows me would never call me the touchy-feely type. My psychological profile showed that I have a high ability to understand where people are coming from, contextualize their responses, help them articulate it and map out a plan of action for dealing with it, etc. But I don't normally "feel" their hurt with them. I leave it to others to determine if that's an impediment to ministry.

But I will say this - it's just a prelude. We've been teaching people that they have no intrinsic worth as creatures in God's own image. We abort our future (setting us up for a collapse of our entitlement system). We export the care of our elderly.

Jesus said that in the end times the love of many would "wax cold" (AV - though I prefer the ESV). It would be recognized by:

1) A great falling away from the faith. This is apostasy, as well as run-of-the-mill indifference.
2) Loyalty will disappear. (Hey BHO - how's it going with your mentors and staff?)
3) Indifference would give way to hatred. (Think Ann Coulter and Huffington Posters)
4) False prophets. I think I've blogged plenty about the false prophets on the left, but the right is full of them, too.
5) Lawlessness, iniquity, whatever.... We make ourselves the standard by which all else is measured, and thus can do as we please. Covenants and laws mean nothing except as temporary cease fires before yet another salvo of self-will.

It seems like every morning, we wake up to a world where violence and perversion and callousness had done it's best to double overnight. Americans (British, too) have a sense that morality is on the decline.

Is the picture grim? Yes. The horizon of western civilization seems to promise increasing irrelevance as our narcissistic entertainment culture becomes so self-absorbed that it can't see beyond its own glandular discharges.

Is it something we're to despair about? Not really - after all, Christians have faced as much in the past. In fact, we found it a fertile ground for growth. The recent atmosphere of carelessness and apathy provide a genuine open space for Christians to live out our vocation. It won't be done by large movements, protests, position papers, or any other means. What will make the difference is individual Christians (and Christian communities) living out their faith towards others.

Here's a secret that evangelicalism and emergentism have forgotten. When Christians stick out because of their counter-cultural values, the world takes notice.

For instance, consider the love and sacrifice Christians displayed in Roman times when devastating plagues arrived. At the onset of a plague, the wealthy patricians fled to their country estates. But Christians - convinced that each human being was made in the image of God - stayed behind to minister among plague victims. Tending to the sick increased the survival rate of plague victims by as much as two-thirds, and this witness attracted many new converts (it more than replaced the loss of Christians to the plague). By acting on the teachings of Christ, without regard to their own welfare, these Christians progressed from being a small sect to the dominant cultural group.

The teachings of Christianity give people a reason to care for the sick, the desperate, and destitute. Only Jesus taught that His followers could find Him in their neighbor. Our witness in the midst of adversity, pain, and sacrifice can be the instrument that the Holy Spirit uses to break through the hardened heart of a stubborn unbeliever.

Let's get to work.

How to waste three years

I found myself having made many of the mistakes on this excellent list of seminary pitfalls. Here's a sampling of the list:

1. Cultivate pride by writing only to impress your professors instead of writing to better understand and more clearly communicate truth.
3. Mistake the amount of education you receive with the actual knowledge you obtain. Keep telling yourself, “I’ll really start learning this stuff when I do my Th.M or my Ph.D.”
5. Regularly question the wisdom and competency of your professors. Find ways to disrespect your professors by questioning them publicly in class and by trying to make them look foolish.
6. Neglect personal worship, Bible reading and prayer.
9. Give your opinion as often as possible - especially in class. Ask questions that show off your knowledge instead of questions that demonstrate a genuine inquiry.
10. Speak of heretical movements, teachers, and doctrine with an air of disdain and levity.
12. Fill your life with questionable movies, television, internet, and music.
16. Don’t read to learn; read only to refute what you believe is wrong.
17. Convince yourself that you already know all this stuff.
19. Save major papers for the last possible moment so that you can ensure that you don’t really learn anything by writing them.
23. Day dream about future opportunities to the point that you get nothing out of your current opportunity to learn God’s Word.
30. Forget that your primary responsibility is care for your family through provision, shepherding, and leadership.
31. Master Calvin, Owen, and Edwards, but not the Law, Prophets, and Apostles.
32. Gain knowledge in order to merely teach others. Don’t expend the effort it takes to deal with your own heart.
34. Protect yourself from real fellowship by only talking about theology and never about your personal spiritual issues, sin, and struggles.
41. Love books and theology and ministry more than the Lord Jesus Christ.
42. Let your passion for the gospel be replaced by passion for complex doctrinal speculation.

Read the list (repeatedly - if you are in seminary).

Pastors - did he miss anything?

Offending against Love or Christ? What we can safely tolerate.

"Doctrine is heaven, life is earth. In life there is sin, error, uncleanness, and misery, mixed, as the saying goes, 'with vinegar.' Here love should condone, tolerate, be deceived, trust, hope, and endure all things (1 Cor. 13:7); here the forgiveness of sins should have complete sway, provided that sin and error are not defended. But just as there is no error in doctrine, so there is no need for any forgiveness of sins. Therefore there is no comparison at all between doctrine and life. 'One dot' of doctrine is worth more than 'heaven and earth' (Matt. 5:18); therefore we do not permit the slightest offense against it. But we can be lenient toward errors of life. For we, too, err daily in our life and conduct; so do all the saints, as they earnestly confess in the Lord's Prayer and the Creed. But by the grace of God our doctrine is pure; we have all the articles of faith solidly established in Sacred Scripture. The devil would dearly love to corrupt and overthrow these; that is why he attacks us so cleaverly with this specious argument about not offending against love and the harmony among the churches."

- Martin Luther, Luther’s Works 27: 41-42

Google and your brain

Click on the title for the article. Let me know what you think.

Here's my response: TLDR

Reminder to those who allege reductionism

Since the California ruling on Same Sex Marriage, my inbox has been full of requests for money and activism to support traditional marriage. Some of the Christian organizations even ask me to pray. (Shame on the others!) There have been insightful commentaries and legal musings (can you say balkanization), along with the standard tripe. There's just a tremendous amount of energy going toward dealing with the issue.

Plenty of people on the other side say that the right is obsessed with homosex. Now that's like saying that during a flood, Iowans are obsessed with sandbags. But even if we do come off as a bit fixated, there's a reason beyond morbid obsession that the battles rage these days over sexuality:

If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle front besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.

(Luther's Works. Weimar Edition. Briefwechsel [Correspondence], vol. 3, pp. 81ƒ.)

In each age, we are asked to give allegiance to the powers of this world or to the Kingdom of God and His Christ. Everyday, we choose sides. The place where Christians must rush in to fill the gap is where the nay-sayers allege that Christ's Kingdom does not extend. If it is sexuality, we will speak of His Lordship there. If it is economics, we must contend for him there. If it is freedom of conscience, we will challenge those against it.

Right now, a tiny contingent of the population* is waging an enormous rhetorical (and now political) campaign against Christ's Lordship over human relationality & sexuality. It's a big deal, because Paul describes that sacred bond as a mystery illustrative of Christ and His Church. As stewards of the mysteries, our service to Christ cannot constitute an erosion of that union.

If nothing else, think of the children and the minorities.

*Less than 3% of men and 1.5% of women, according to Sex in America: A Definitive Survey, Robert T. Michael, John H. Gagnon, Edward O. Laumann, and Gina Kolata, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1994, p. 176.

Note to PCUSA GA Commissioners

Bob Davis is the go-to guy for issues surrounding the nFOG. I couldn't possibly add anything to his analysis of the multi-faceted problems presented in this tendentious reworking of an established and orderly process. However, I will say this:

Just because you can test something doesn't mean you should test something...especially if you haven't adequately considered the cost of the testing.

h/t Perry Bible Fellowship

Compassion Fatigue

We're getting closer. When we misuse rhetoric to make someone's access to wedding photographers a HUMAN RIGHT, we lose sight of real rights (and our attendant responsibilities).

Aglets

Because it's easy to get tripped up on minor stuff - especially when it's church meeting season.

Seriously...someone has a shoelace site? And I thought my hobbies were weird.

More on Makers and Takers

More on Pete Schweizer's Makers and Takers that explodes the myths of liberalism as the path to enlightened compassion.

Kengor: I suppose that of all the charges against liberals in the subtitle, the one that liberals will probably protest most vehemently is the point on materialism. And in their defense, Peter, I must say that I’ve seen some pretty darned materialistic conservatives.

Schweizer: Well remember, in all of this we are talking about tendencies. Not all conservatives are one way and not all liberals are the other. That said, the research really does indicate that liberals value money more than conservatives. After health, they are more likely to consider it the most important thing in their life. And they are more likely to say that there is no wrong way to make money. I think this actually makes sense when you look at modern liberalism. After all, what do liberals use as their measure of justice and equality? Income, or money! This is the reason I believe that modern liberals are also much more likely to be envious of other peoples’ success. They are constantly looking at the money yardstick.

This strikes me as consistent with my own experience. In seminary, we would do all of these consciousness exercises that were meant to exorcise our consciences of racism. It always focused on outcomes, with little attention being given to the complex of behaviors that served to synergize the admittedly bad hand given to many people. And it always seemed to come down to a "that's not fair" trump...as if equality of possessions were a Biblical value.

As a side note, while the libs were talking about racial justice, they never seemed to hang out with the black folks on campus. Sure...go to a rally,sign a petition, start an initiative, have a discussion, etc...but invite them over for dinner? My wife and I made it a point of our ministry to try to cook once for everyone who moved onto campus (and for many who never did). So many of the black single mothers were shocked that we would invite them to our homes - not only because my reputation preceded me, but also because no one had done this for them. They would tell me about how lonely they felt on campus because everyone seemed to be cheering them on from the bleachers, but no one got down to run beside them. A food pantry would be opened, monies would be set aside, but to actually sit down with them and eat - or listen to their struggles just seemed too much.

It is a shame that this should happen in any church setting - liberal or conservative. We've erected a barrier of professionalism that keeps us from getting our hands dirty. Then we abandon others through rhetoric of the self-determination and autonomy and anti-colonial / patronization need to leave them in squalor until some government comes along to give folks help they need. But I'll note this as well - at the more conservative (and thus, presumably, racist, bigoted, exclusionary, etc.) seminary across the street there was always a healthy interaction between racial ethnic groups. People sat together in the cafeteria with their Bibles open or played frisbee on the lawn. There were more per capita, as well. Funny how that "unity in Christ" thing trumps the pathetic results of group politics.

Kengor: How does the giving of Barack Obama measure up to, say, George W. Bush, or the nefarious Dick Cheney?

Schweizer: Obama, like John Kerry or Al Gore, has traditionally given a very small portion of his income to charity, approximately 1 percent. Bush gives 10 percent or more on a regular basis. In 2005, Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity—and got criticized for it! I also went back and looked at the numbers for Ronald Reagan and FDR. Reagan gave nearly twice as much as FDR did during the height of the Great Depression.

Kengor: But doesn’t Obama care more than Dick Cheney?

Schweizer: Supposedly. At least that is what he tells us. And liberals tell us that in surveys, too. They are much more likely to say that they “feel close” to the poor. The problem is it kind of ends at the feeling part.

Again, backed up in my own experience - but I'm glad (if that's even the right word) to see that it generalizes to the larger population. I think James had something to say about this, as well... It looks like activism / advocacy without works (personal integration of this ideal) is also dead.

Read the whole interview here.

Doctrine, Denominations, and Deceptive Devotion

Summer time is here. It's a time when denominational meetings occur (including my own, as well as the former name brand). Denominations are still important today - though more as missional networks and accountability groups, rather than bureaucracies. Denominations allow Christians of similar conviction and habit to work together with less friction than we would otherwise. They allow for some measure of distinctive theological and ecclesiological habitus to shape a people into God's multi-faceted family. However, we can all come back to the table as the Christian family so long as there is a strong family resemblance. In the church, we call that family resemblance orthodoxy (in early times called the rule of faith).

Some people who have rejected that ancient family resemblance will try to play the Pharisee card on people who question their place at the decision making table. They say "Doctrine divides" (even within denominations, where it's supposed to serve as a unifying principle). Most of the time, they hit the evangelical achilles heel of pietistic devotion by saying that we're all about the same Jesus. (See false-teacher Joel Osteen fall for that one on the Mormon question.) All of this posturing falls apart if you press the case with this Jesus approving something they don't like - which shows that he's just a figment of their imagination.

In light of the foregoing habits of some, I'd like to provide a timely quote from one of the greatest expositors of the 20th century.

You cannot separate what a man believes from what he is. For this reason doctrine is vitally important. Certain people say ignorantly, "I do not believe in doctrine; I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ; I am saved, I am a Christian, and nothing else matters". To speak in that way is to court disaster, and for this reason, the New Testament itself warns us against this very danger.

We are to guard ourselves against being "tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine", for if your doctrine goes astray your life will soon suffer as well.

So it behoves us to study the doctrines in order that we may safeguard ourselves against certain erroneous and heretical teachings that are as rife and as common in the world today as they were in the days of the early Church.

--Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Exposition of Ephesians

h/t Thinkerup

More on Compassion and Conservatism

Last week, I blogged about a book by Peter Schweizer, Makers and Takers: Why Conservatives Work Harder, Feel Happier, Have Closer Families, Take Fewer Drugs, Give More Generously, Value Honesty More, Are Less Materialistic and Envious, Whine Less … And Even Hug Their Children More Than Liberals.

That subtitle is a mouthful, but it's a serious description of the book's 212 pages. Schweizer's purpose was to investigate the link (and even probe causality) between one's caring behaviors/attitudes and one's basic ideology ("conservative" or "liberal / progressive" - as self-reported within the current American context). This weekend past, I received a note from Focus on the Family's Citizenlink that gave even more distilled info. Here are some more stats, followed by highlights from their interview (highlights are mine - my comments are in different font):

• Young conservatives are more likely to volunteer for a charity, any kind of charity, than young liberals — although young liberals are more likely to say they have attended a protest rally.
• Fifty-nine percent of those who describe themselves as “very liberal” think it’s wrong to cheat on your spouse, compared to 86 percent of those who self-identify as “very conservative.”

The data come from a treasure trove of scientific surveys that have been out there for years, but never really gone through in this way. Schweizer's conclusion after mining it: “Liberalism … allows one to claim the moral high ground on just about any issue while in effect ‘outsourcing’ your personal responsibility for doing something about it to the government.”

This is one of my main issues with current liberalism - it's not liberating at all. Instead, it seeks to make us slaves to the government. And they say that conservatives are the ones trying to push morality on the masses....

CitizenLink talked with him this week about the book and the reactions he expects it will get from both sides of the ideological aisle.

If we both stay really quiet for a minute, I’m sure we can hear liberals howling over the revelations in this book. How do you think the Jesse Jacksons and Nancy Pelosis and Bill Clintons of the world are going to react to Makers and Takers?

Well, I hope they don’t react by seeing it as a personal attack. Because what I really clearly try to emphasize is that this is a book about ideas and the consequences of ideas. I don’t think the world is divided between bad people and good people. I think we all have fallen short of the glory of God, and we’re all flawed. I do think ideas have consequences, though, and the real culprit here are modern liberal ideas, which tend to encourage some of the worst in us.

For the record, I have never successfully been able to convince a liberal that my stance against abortion or homosexual acts is not a personal attack on them.

You document well how conservatives, especially social conservatives, get a lot of grief for the stands we take in the culture. . . In writing the book, are you trying to encourage folks who are constantly subject to the barrage that “you’re rotten, you’re horrible, you’re evil”?

Absolutely. What I wanted to try to do was quantify, as best as I could, the benefits of holding on to your traditional values and conservative attitudes toward family and toward life. Conservatives have certainly argued, over the years, the benefits of it, but this is the first time we’ve been able to quantify it.

So, yeah, one of the reasons I wrote the book is because I want people to take comfort and say, “You know what, if you believe these traditional belief systems, you’re headed in the right direction, because the research supports the benefits of embracing this kind of belief system.”

I'm a burkean conservative at heart. I'm not against change, but I am against the chronological fallacy.

But what, if anything, did you dig up in the data that surprised you?

There were two things. No. 1, the whole honesty question. That really surprised me, though I guess it shouldn’t have because it does make sense that if you believe in relative truth, honesty is kind of a subjective thing. But to actually see the data difference in the way in which conservatives and liberals embrace whether honesty is important, that really did surprise me.

Ever notice how libs get testy if you try to make them be up-front about their blogging identity?

The second thing was the whole issue of families. I was a little bit surprised in the research about family structure, about how liberals are less trusting of siblings, that they’re less close to their parents. Again, that’s maybe something I should not have been surprised by.

This may be part of the key to the South's conservative impulse. We're all about families - even our dysfunctional ones. It's important to know "who your people are" because it contextualizes you. It can be used to constrain, so caution is enjoined. But this makes sense - even from a social science / systems theory approach.

All of us know liberals. How do we use the information in this book to help us navigate those relationships?

The first thing to do is to give them the empirical evidence and make clear that these are surveys and studies that have been done by academics. And show that, look, there is a pattern that exists here in behavior. And then really step back and say, “Why do you think this pattern, this gap between liberals and conservatives on these issues, is true?”

There are studies in the book about how conservatives are more reflective in terms of responsibility and they think about larger-picture issues. And that’s one of the things that really handicaps modern liberalism. Conservatives believe there are things larger than themselves; for many people, it’s faith in God. But modern liberalism really is about self. And I think that really does affect and influence perspective and the manner in which people look at these issues.

Modern liberals do have this notion and this sense that they have a moral superiority. And conservatives are so used to being beaten down that they have the reaction you had. What I hope we can do now that this information has been analyzed is to keep it out there. We need to keep pushing it and encouraging people to look at it. And I think eventually the public square will be forced to address these issues.

Unlike many people in my camp, I think liberals - at least of the religious variety I regularly interact with - want to be "good" and they want to be kind and compassionate. I'm just afraid that the tools being given in the modern liberal arts and theological curriculum (including the zeitgeist of postmodern culture at large) is just inadequate to the task. Similarly, I think religious libs want to connect people with God in order to transform them into caring people. However, if the base assumptions of your ideological approach are wrapped up in the therapeutic self, how can you overcome that?

FOR MORE INFORMATION
To learn more about Peter Schweizer and Makers and Takers, visit his Web site.

For those who paid the price

Sixty-seven years ago, on this day, over 3,300 American men (boys, really) paid for the liberty of peoples they'd never met (not only France or Europe, but us). They stormed into the jaws of hell, and kept going because so much was riding on their shoulders. I have been privileged to know men of that generation - boys and men who laid down their birthright as citizens to pursue their life and their happiness. They put down their briefcases, school satchels, footballs, hammers, hoes, and dreams - placing them on indefinite (and for so many, permanent) hiatus - in order to secure the blessings of liberty for them and their posterity. So thank you Fred, Art, Jim, Ed, Dick, Howard, and so many others for letting me breathe free.

If you know a veteran of that war, do them a kindness today. Mow a lawn, buy some groceries, sweep a driveway. Don't wait...we won't have them with us much longer. They will soon be with that Band of Brothers that didn't come home.It doesn't have to be much - and next to what they did, it will be less than nothing. But I guarantee you that they'll thank you as though you've done them a great service. Why? Because they understood liberty and fought so that we would not be serfs - and they understand that the freedom they bought for us was freedom to both fail and succeed in this life, apart from a government's watchful eye. (Remember, they defeated National Socialism - and many of them continued the fight against communism.)

Today, America's finest citizens are still doing the same. Like those of the "great generation", they refuse to take their freedoms lightly - and they won't stand idly by while the freedoms of others are trampled. My prayer for them is the same as FDR offered for our boys so many years ago.

Almighty God, our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our republic our religion and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity. Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith. They will need Thy blessings their road will be long and hard, for the enemy is strong he may hurl back our forces success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again. And we know that by Thy grace and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.

They will be sore tried by night and by day, without rest until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame, men's souls will be shaken with the violence's of war. For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest, they fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate, they fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home. Some will never return, embrace these, Father, and receive them Thy heroic servants into thy kingdom.

And for us at home, fathers, mothers, children, wives sisters and brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them. Help us, almighty God, to rededicate ourselves with renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.

Many people have urged that I call the nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long, and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts. Give us strength too, strength in our daily task, redouble the contributions we make in the physical and material support of our armed forces. And let our harts be stout, to wait out the long travail, forbear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons where so ever they may be.

And, oh Lord, give us faith; give us faith in Thee, faith in our sons, faith in each other, faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impact of temporary events, of temporal matters, of fleeting moments, let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.

With Thy blessing we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. Lead us to a saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace. A peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men, and a peace which will let all men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.

Thy will be done, almighty God. Amen.

Click here to listen to him pray it. Then thank God that the ACLU of that day still understood that a citizen who holds office doesn't lose his 1st Amendment rights the moment he accepts US dollars for his job. We will not forget what you did for us.

Well . . . some people will, but then again, that type has a habit of forgetting people that make sacrifices on their behalf.

Meanies vs Greenies

Here are some facts taken from surveys where people self-report attitudes and behaviors, taken from Peter Schweizer's new book Makers and Takers. The information was correlated with whether or not they described themselves as "conservative" or "liberal" (and there were labels from "very conservative" to "very liberal"), and confirmed by checking on charitable behaviors. Here's what he found:

• 71% of conservatives say you have an obligation to care for a seriously injured spouse or parent versus less than half (46%) of liberals.
• Conservatives have a better work ethic and are much less likely to call in sick than their liberal counterparts.
• Liberals are 2½ times more likely to be resentful of others’ success and 50% more likely to be jealous of other people’s good luck.
• Liberals are 2 times more likely to say it is okay to cheat the government out of welfare money you don’t deserve.
• Conservatives are more likely than liberals to hug their children and “significantly more likely” to display positive nurturing emotions.
• Liberals are less trusting of family members and much less likely to stay in touch with their parents.
• Do you get satisfaction from putting someone else’s happiness ahead of your own? 55% of conservatives said yes versus only 20% of liberals.
• Rush Limbaugh, Ronald Reagan, Bill O’Reilly and Dick Cheney have given large sums of money to people in need, while Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore, and Al Gore have not.
• Those who are “very liberal” are 3 times more likely than conservatives to throw things when they get angry.

The American left prides itself on being superior to conservatives: more generous, less materialistic, more tolerant, more intellectual, and more selfless. For years scholars have constructed—and the media has pushed—elaborate theories designed to demonstrate that conservatives suffer from a host of personality defects and character flaws. According to these supposedly unbiased studies, conservatives are mean-spirited, greedy, selfish malcontents with authoritarian tendencies. Far from the belief of a few cranks, prominent liberals from John Kenneth Galbraith to Hillary Clinton have succumbed to these prejudices. But what do the facts show?

Peter Schweizer has dug deep—through tax documents, scholarly data, primary opinion research surveys, and private records—and has discovered that these claims are a myth. He balances these findings with a few issues where liberals come out ahead. He says liberals are more likely than conservatives to be open to new experiences in travel, art, and music. But Schweizer exposes hypocrisy at the core of liberal beliefs. Indeed, he shows that many of their claims actually apply more to liberals than conservatives.

Much as he did in his bestseller Do as I Say (Not as I Do), he brings to light never-before-revealed facts that will upset conventional wisdom. The biggest for me is that, while liberals claim to be compassionate and to care about the poor, conservatives are much more likely to donate their time and money to charitable causes. This has been true in my personal experience on a liberal seminary campus, but it extends to political liberals/conservatives. Here are some examples:

• When former Clinton secretary Robert Reich ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2002, his tax returns revealed income of more than $1 million, but he contributed just $2,714 to charity, or less than 0.3% of his income.
• Ned Lamont, the anti-war Democrat who ran against Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut, is worth $200 million and made $2.8 million in 2005. He has talked about the need to raise taxes because the wealthy are not doing enough to help those in need. Yet in 2005, he donated only $5,385 to charity, or less than 0.2% of his income.
• In contrast, George Bush gave 10% of his income to charity in 2005. In 2005, Barack Hussein Obama made $1.7 million, or 2.5 times what Bush made that year, but gave the same amount to charity as Bush did. That same year, Dick Cheney gave away 77% of his income to charity.

Conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Robert Bork have long argued that liberal policies promote social decay. Schweizer, using the latest data and research, exposes how, in general:

• Liberals are more self-centered than conservatives.
• Conservatives are more generous and charitable than liberals.
• Liberals are more envious and less hardworking than conservatives.
• Conservatives value truth more than liberals, and are less prone to cheating and lying.
• Liberals are more angry than conservatives.
• Conservatives are actually more knowledgeable than liberals.
• Liberals are more dissatisfied and unhappy than conservatives.

Schweizer argues that the failure lies in modern liberal ideas, which foster a self-centered, “if it feels good do it” attitude that leads liberals to outsource their responsibilities to the government and focus instead on themselves and their own desires.

This is nothing new. An increasing amount of research is being generated - based on both real behaviors and self-reported attitudes - that show how uncaring these hypocritical “guardians of society” generally are. Syracuse University professor Art Brooks is a fine example of a social scientist and former Democrat who was convinced by the evidence that conservatives really are more compassionate.

Here's a quote from the book that lifts up childlessness as a prime example of liberal self-centeredness.

For dramatic proof, go to the streets of a liberal enclave like San Francisco, Seattle, or Vermont. There will be plenty of expensive boutiques, antique dealers, health spas, sushi bars, and upscale coffee shops. But you won't see very many children. The reason is not that right-wingers have dumped buckets of birth control pills into the San Francisco municipal water supply. The simple fact is that many on the liberal-left today just don't want to have children.

A 2004 survey showed that a typical sample of 100 unrelated adults who called themselves liberal will have 147 children. That contrasts with the typical conservative, who is likely to have 208 children per 100 unrelated adults. That's 41 percent more.(3) Why is this important? Because raising children is a difficult and selfless act that is also an important civic duty. The survival of our society--not to mention our Social Security system!--rests on individuals bringing up a new generation.

The liberal Northeastern states--Vermont, Maine, Massachusetts, and New York--have the lowest fertility rates in the country. They also have the lowest percentage of population under the age of five. In progressive San Francisco, there are more dogs than children. Joel Kotkin points out that Seattle (my hometown) has roughly the same population as it did in the 1960s, but barely half as many children. Indeed, there are nearly 45 percent more dogs than children.(4) Dogs, of course, offer companionship without the burdens and responsibilities of children.

Some might conclude that this is a result of the high cost of living in desirable cities like Boston, New York, and San Francisco. But in these childless meccas we also see some of the highest per capita expenditures on luxury goods, spas, and personal therapies. (Kotkin regards San Francisco as a “childless liberal boutique city.”)(5) It's not a lack of money; it's a lack of interest. The General Social Survey found that 69 percent of those who called themselves “very conservative” said it was important to them to have children. Only 38 percent of corresponding liberals agreed. An online survey (admittedly not scientific) taken by the left-wing website daily kos.com asked readers if they had children and how many. The most popular answers: “No children,” “Not going to have any," and “Don't want any.”

Meanwhile, the highest fertility rate in the country is found in the most conservative state, Utah, followed by Arizona, Alaska, and Texas, otherwise known as “red states,” according to the latest National Center for Health Statistics survey. States with the lowest fertility rates are Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, all "blue states.” Over half of the women of childbearing age--15 to 44--are childless in liberal bastions such as the District of Columbia, Vermont, and Massachusetts.(6)

Many on the left proudly proclaim themselves to be “child-free.” (They angrily reject the term child-less because it implies that they are missing out on something.) Partly this is a result of liberal pessimism about the future. Concerned about overpopulation, dwindling environmental resources, global warming, etc., some liberals don't want to have children because they see them as an environmental hazard. Billionaire Ted Turner reflected this attitude when he thoughtfully announced his regret at having five children. “If I was doing it over again, I wouldn't have had that many, but I can't shoot them now and they're here.”(7) No doubt this sort of sentiment makes for charming conversation around the Turner dinner table.

About the Author
Peter Schweizer , MPhil (Oxon) is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and is the author of numerous books, including the New York Times bestseller Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy.