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.

Summertime

It's summertime and I'm gRinning from ear to ear, so it's time I told you about a laudable libation I loved in London labeled Hendrick's. Here's a write-up on it that does a better job than I, but here's my take: The gin is small-batched in the Glenfiddich distillery in Scotland. (I know...I know... gin should be from England, but what's an ironclad rule without exceptions? I mean - look at the apothecary bottle they use - it has to be good for you!) It has the raw juniper power of a Tanqueray or Gordon's, while being tempered with the subtlety of Bombay Sapphire or Beefeater's. With this kind of top-shelf quality, there are only three ways to serve it: on ice, G&T, or a dry martini (shaken, if you please). You garnish with cucumber, not lime (and don't even mention lemon, or your comments will be deleted!) - and the difference is ineffable.

Oh..if you've never had it, Pimm's is another delicious treat from the British Isles. It is gin-based, but only 27% alcohol (54 proof), as opposed to a regular gin (Hendrick's is 44% / 88 proof). The concoction is mixed with herbs, fruit juices, and citrus extracts to make a unique and enjoyable beverage. While it's okay straight, it's best as a low-alcohol cocktail - perfect for afternoon events. Try it classic or one of the endless variations of Pimm's cup. It really is deliciously refreshing in the classic form with the other drink of summertime, lemonade (1 part Pimm's, 3 parts lemonade).

Enjoy!

For Memorial Day Newton Presbytery Forgets Jesus

Here's a kicker for your Memorial Day weekend.

The Newton Presbytery has petitioned the 218th General Assembly of the PC(USA) to say that Christians (um...I should say "the PCUSA") believe in the same God as Muslims. Here's the critical text.

2. State that the PC(USA) affirms that Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship a common God, although each understands that God differently;

Now anyone who is a solid Trinitarian (that is, a Christian) can smell the horsehockey on this one. After all, James warned us that even demons believe that there's one God...and they shudder. This kind of faith, I guess, explains why their "About Us" page is so expansive, but their "Spiritual Life" page hasn't been updated in nearly 1 ½ years.

But what got me was a point buried in the rationale.

The Qur'anic message taught by Muhammad is that of a special regard for Christians and Christianity and the Qur'an is the only Holy Book other than the New Testament that describes the miraculous birth of Jesus. ¹⁶

^16. Qur'an, Maryam, Surah 19, 19–22.

Oh how thoughtful. They threw a bone to us fundies. Let me retort:

1. I'll bet that there are precious few who believe in the Virgin Birth of Christ who support this document. I could probably count them all on one elbow.
2. This same rationale (execrable exegesis) needs to be tested in reference to Jesus' propitiating death. Let's see what the Qur'an says: "And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain." Sura 4:157ƒ

They don't even talk about the same Jesus. If the PCUSA still believes Jesus is God, then this is not a common deity. Well... Arianism seems so in vogue with their "let's throw Jesus under the bus" attitude, I guess they'll swallow Docetism, too.

This is what happens when you make tolerance your god . . . Jesus Christ gets denied his rights!

Fun Facts on Life Insurance and the death of a church

Fun Fact:

On this date in 1761, the first American life insurance policy was issued. The policy was available to ministers for the Presbyterian Church. It was provided by the Presbyterian Synods in Philadelphia and New York who set up the Corporation for Relief of Poor and Distressed Widows and Children of Presbyterian Ministers. Nevertheless, it proved to be unpopular as many ministers considered "insurance" to be a form of gambling.

They're still at it - the Presbyterian Church continues to provide death benefits for its minister members, virtually uninterrupted for 250 years. The financial resources of previous generations lend strength to the Board of Pensions, funding its important work. Unfortunately, the denomination has rejected the theological resources of the previous generations. Jettisoning the Westminster Standards (and adopting a sloppy substitute) has resulted in precipitous declines of membership and - more important - missional thinking and acting.

To all my friends in the PCUSA, I say this: There is no death policy for a church. The only thing that can be done for a dying church is to proclaim Christ's Resurrection with unflinching courage and conviction. If you want metaphorical, narrative growth - proclaim a rhetorical resurrection. But if you want real incarnational, missional, personal growth - proclaim his resurrection and ascension in the self-same body that suffered and died for our salvation.

Looking for ways to strengthen your congregation for meeting the great ends of the Church? Become a member of the Westminster Fellowship! (They'll even let Calvinist Anglicans like myself in...hey, it was our collegiate church!)

More Bad News for the Climate Clamorers

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (headed by homeschool champion Dr. Robinson) has released an updated accounting of their research showing that CO2 is not the devil that the greenieweenies are telling us it is. It has already garnered over 31,000 signatures of American scientists - including nearly 4,000 climatologists.* (Wherefore art thou, consensus?) Draconian measures of carbon emission reduction in science, technology, and industry will do nothing to change whatever is happening in the climate - primarily because that is not the initiator, as ice core samples have shown. RealClimate is hard at work telling us that we should trust them when it comes to the recently announced decade cooling trend (based on their analysis of 50 years data). Ironically, they tell us that shortly after they published a warning not to trust short-term trends in the system. In the scientifically approved timescale for earth's climatic history, that's a pretty short stick. Dr. Robinson's work spans recorded history and delves even deeper.

To my readers in the ecotheology movement, (which takes up everyone from ECUSA to Quakers, religious anarchists and anabaptists, and reminds me mostly of the radical anabaptists of the 16th & early 17th c.) whom I've recently taken to affectionately calling the Collared Greens, I say this: why would you advocate for the destruction of the one thing that has shown itself capable of increasing the quality and quantity of human life (viz. energy affluence)? Even if you think we should lay off the fossil fuels (something I would advocate), why not put your energy into advancing nuclear power? If we hadn't had the environuts scaring us witless about it, we could have saved gigatons of carbon being spewed into the atmosphere - and provided electricity to some of the most remote places on the planet. Electricity means refrigerated food, non-dung-cooked food, medical equipment, and information availability for self-improvement. But no...we're too busy denying the real messiah and playing our own hand at taking his place... uggh!

It's a moral issue for "conservative" Christians, too. This falls squarely within our covenantal stewardship. We just tend to agree with the science over the long term than the stuff that comes from the past 20 years.

Come to think of it, we do that with our theology, too.

*The role of relevant scientific expertise is still a hot-topic when it comes to global warming. (Pun intended.)

Story of my life

I feel very sorry for those who go to seminary unwed.

h/t Scott Adams

Public Letter to My Betters

I just checked my online balance at the bank. It looks as though Congress' "let's get re-elected through buying votes from the hoi polloi" faction has used the police power of the state to take profits away from you and give them to me as a "stimulus package." I can't say that it won't come in handy with all the recent expenses of buying a new home, paying for a new baby, homeschooling my children, etc. But I still think it's not right - especially since Congress tries to play as though they've been generous with their own money.

If you want to stimulate an economy, the least effective way is this so-called stimulus package. This takes money that has been generated by hard-working business people (at a rate that is the highest of all developed nations) and gives it to people who are less productive (or in my case, had no federal tax burden). It is sinful, the way this government takes the earnings of citizens at the point of a legislative and litigious gun. If you want an economy to grow (more jobs, more production, and more consumption), it makes much more sense to make more money available to those who have proven that they know what to do with money. That's a biblical principle that shows true again and again.

Anyway, thanks to my generous employers (and entrepreneurs like them who are penalized by Congress for being productive) for this leg up. I'll conclude with Sir Winston Churchill's famous dictum:

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Speech, House of Commons, November 11, 1947.—Winston S. Churchill: His Complete Speeches, 1897–1963, ed. Robert Rhodes James, vol. 7, p. 7566 (1974).

Precipitous Climate Change

Unfortunately for the greenie-weenies (the ones who want to strip you of your freedoms under the aegis of representing Gaea) that change is coming in the form of a rapid cool-off of the planet. This is in spite of increased levels of carbon in the atmosphere.

Here's a chart showing the rapid drop:

Why? Some want to say that the anomaly is due to La Nina. Well...that might be part of the answer. But if you really want to see something scary, look at the Sun. It looks like a new-born babe. That's bad, folks. The sun should look like a pimply teenager, dotted with sunspots. And as geophysicist, astronautical engineer, and NASA Astronaut Phil Chapman reports, that's extremely bad news indeed.

An old flame of mine who happens to be a PhD astrophysicist specializing in solar physics has told me that she's concerned about her observations of decreasing solar-magnetic activity. While we had been in an expected cyclical upspike (as documented in Dennis Avery's Unstoppable Global Warming), it's now time to get ready for a mini-ice-age. It's that scary, folks.

ATTENTION OBAMA

It's really not as hard as you think. On the right, we don't accept everything they say. You don't have to, either.

Bizarro World...er...church

As requested, I've worked my Photoshop-phu on that Bizarro pic so descriptive of the PCUSA's GAPJC ruling on the Janie Spahr case. (Okay...this wasn't done out of a sense of camaraderie. I was just feeling left out when Holston Presbytery endorsed minister, John Shuck, started name-calling.)


Shouldn't you just go ahead and rename the organization the Presbyterian Smirch?