See the article from Bob Munday making the point that there are now two religions calling themselves Christian, and we have to choose which one we will be part of.
I think I agree with him. At the very least, the issues at stake are at least as important as the Greek/Latin split and the Reformation, if not more so.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Saturday, December 3, 2011
God's Economic Justice Interlude
Hans Cornfelder, Editor of Presbyweb, published a Viewpoint article which made reference to many, though by no means all, of the Scriptures I plan on addressing in this series.
I would add this observation about the First Century Jerusalem Church. Among those churches described in the New Testament, only the Jerusalem Church is described as "holding all things in common." And it only for the Jerusalem Church for which Paul needs to collect money.
Lastly, in this season of Thanksgiving and Advent, I would quote from our Calvinist predecessor William Bradford's diary Of Plymouth Plantation:
"[Thy Plymouth colony initially held all land and crops in common. Harvests were poor and there was great hunger among the colonists.] All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor . . . gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves . . . And so assigned to every family a parcel of land . . . This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means . . . The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."
"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labours and victuals, clothes, etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat . . . etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery . . . Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitting for them."
I would add this observation about the First Century Jerusalem Church. Among those churches described in the New Testament, only the Jerusalem Church is described as "holding all things in common." And it only for the Jerusalem Church for which Paul needs to collect money.
Lastly, in this season of Thanksgiving and Advent, I would quote from our Calvinist predecessor William Bradford's diary Of Plymouth Plantation:
"[Thy Plymouth colony initially held all land and crops in common. Harvests were poor and there was great hunger among the colonists.] All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor . . . gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves . . . And so assigned to every family a parcel of land . . . This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means . . . The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."
"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labours and victuals, clothes, etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat . . . etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery . . . Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitting for them."
Sunday, November 20, 2011
How Progressives Think I
The Progressive mind has always been a curiosity to me. I ran across a story in the Chicago Tribune which seems to me to demonstrate two aspects of Progressive thinking.
The story involves the Niles North High School subcontracting out school lunches to a private concern with the result that Niles North students get several good, healthy choices for lunch at a very reasonable price ($2.25/meal). For the enviro-Left, the food is even "sustainable, local and organic." Lower income students get their basic lunch for free. Although less healthy choices remain available, students have gradually shifted preferences to the healthier choices. For those who want them, and can pay for them, additional, higher margin, options are available which helps the private contractor make a profit even while providing free and low-cost basic options. Students, parents, administrators, the contractor and taxpayers are all better off and like the plan.
The new regime takes the place of public employees providing uniform, lower quality and student disliked food at (higher) taxpayer expense. The change sounds great, right? Well apparently not to the Progressive mind. Chef Ann Cooper of Berkeley, California and Boulder, Colorado was quoted as saying:
"I don't want to criticise it, but I worry that when you have some kids who can afford your more expensive lunches and you have other kids who can't you are creating a stigma around the free lunches and increasing the chasm between the haves and the have-nots."
This quote demonstrates two characteristics of Progressive thinking. First is the fetish for uniformity of results. It doesn't matter that lower income students are getting better choices at little or no cost to them. They don't like the fact that some, who can afford it, have more options. That is, they are offended not by poverty, but by wealth, or at least that those with wealth get to spend it on themselves. And this fetish is generalized to their fascination with income inequality. To the conservative, why should it matter if Bill Gates keeps a sizable chunk of the next $1B he creates as long as this wealth benefits the economy as a whole? The idea should not be to weaken the incentives on the rich to save, invest, work, create and profit by higher taxes and restrictive regulation, but to improve the lot and opportunities of the poor. This is done not by redistribution of wealth but by letting people do what they do best in a free economy, create new wealth.
Second, the Progressive thinks she knows better than others what people should want, regardless of what they actually do want. Everybody in Niles likes the plan, but some Chef from Berkeley thinks she knows better what these folks in Niles should want. The Progressive thinks he has a unique, and superior, moral sense of right and wrong, derived from his own head, and the head of other right-thinking types, and not from any objective authority or tradition.
These two peculiar traits of Progressive thinking explain many of the irrational positions that Progressives take. Future posts in this series will explore others.
The story involves the Niles North High School subcontracting out school lunches to a private concern with the result that Niles North students get several good, healthy choices for lunch at a very reasonable price ($2.25/meal). For the enviro-Left, the food is even "sustainable, local and organic." Lower income students get their basic lunch for free. Although less healthy choices remain available, students have gradually shifted preferences to the healthier choices. For those who want them, and can pay for them, additional, higher margin, options are available which helps the private contractor make a profit even while providing free and low-cost basic options. Students, parents, administrators, the contractor and taxpayers are all better off and like the plan.
The new regime takes the place of public employees providing uniform, lower quality and student disliked food at (higher) taxpayer expense. The change sounds great, right? Well apparently not to the Progressive mind. Chef Ann Cooper of Berkeley, California and Boulder, Colorado was quoted as saying:
"I don't want to criticise it, but I worry that when you have some kids who can afford your more expensive lunches and you have other kids who can't you are creating a stigma around the free lunches and increasing the chasm between the haves and the have-nots."
This quote demonstrates two characteristics of Progressive thinking. First is the fetish for uniformity of results. It doesn't matter that lower income students are getting better choices at little or no cost to them. They don't like the fact that some, who can afford it, have more options. That is, they are offended not by poverty, but by wealth, or at least that those with wealth get to spend it on themselves. And this fetish is generalized to their fascination with income inequality. To the conservative, why should it matter if Bill Gates keeps a sizable chunk of the next $1B he creates as long as this wealth benefits the economy as a whole? The idea should not be to weaken the incentives on the rich to save, invest, work, create and profit by higher taxes and restrictive regulation, but to improve the lot and opportunities of the poor. This is done not by redistribution of wealth but by letting people do what they do best in a free economy, create new wealth.
Second, the Progressive thinks she knows better than others what people should want, regardless of what they actually do want. Everybody in Niles likes the plan, but some Chef from Berkeley thinks she knows better what these folks in Niles should want. The Progressive thinks he has a unique, and superior, moral sense of right and wrong, derived from his own head, and the head of other right-thinking types, and not from any objective authority or tradition.
These two peculiar traits of Progressive thinking explain many of the irrational positions that Progressives take. Future posts in this series will explore others.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
God's Economic Justice I
I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the Land of Slavery. . . . You shall not steal. . . . You shall not covet your neighbor's wife. You shall not set your desire on your neighbor's house or land, his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. Deut. 5:5-21 (with ommissions)
Initially let me define what I mean by socialism. The classic definition of socialism is where the government owns the means of production. But ownership consists of, at least, two primary bundles of rights. The right to control what happens to one's property, and the right to the economic benefits generated by one's property. If the government seizes these bundles of rights, through, for example, intrusive regulation, high taxes or "crony capitalism", there is, to the degree of the seizure, socialism. Mere nominal title to the assets is unimportant if the government controls how the property is used, managed or disposed of, and controls how much, if anything, the nominal owner of the property is to receive of the profits generated by the property.
Our Lord is often pictured by the religious Left as a proto-socialist revolutionary figure who would support "spreading the wealth" by coercive government action. And there is, of course, no doubt that He often talked of giving to the poor as a matter of private charity. But is God in favor of socialism, of spreading the wealth by government coercion? This post is the first of a series that will explore this question each focusing on a different passage of Scripture.
Not one, but two, of the Ten Commandments address the issue of private property. The commandment against stealing, of course, makes no sense in the absence of private property. It is essentially a command that private property rights should be respected. Similarly, the Tenth Commandment, against coveting something that belongs to one's neighbor, is meaningless without private property. But it goes further than the Eighth Commandment against stealing by saying that we should not even desire what belongs to another.
There are practical reasons for seeking not to be jealous of what one's neighbor has. First, the desire, which cannot be satisfied except by theft, might lead one to break the Eighth Commandment. But second, and I think more importantly, desiring what one cannot lawfully have leads to unhappiness and distracts from more productive activities. Rather than thinking about how you might like having something belonging to another, it is better to direct one's energy into creating something for yourself.
In these days of Occupy Wall Street, "spreading the wealth" and the collapse of the social welfare states of Europe, we would do well to avoid class warfare which is, at base, founded on a breach of the Tenth Commandment.
Initially let me define what I mean by socialism. The classic definition of socialism is where the government owns the means of production. But ownership consists of, at least, two primary bundles of rights. The right to control what happens to one's property, and the right to the economic benefits generated by one's property. If the government seizes these bundles of rights, through, for example, intrusive regulation, high taxes or "crony capitalism", there is, to the degree of the seizure, socialism. Mere nominal title to the assets is unimportant if the government controls how the property is used, managed or disposed of, and controls how much, if anything, the nominal owner of the property is to receive of the profits generated by the property.
Our Lord is often pictured by the religious Left as a proto-socialist revolutionary figure who would support "spreading the wealth" by coercive government action. And there is, of course, no doubt that He often talked of giving to the poor as a matter of private charity. But is God in favor of socialism, of spreading the wealth by government coercion? This post is the first of a series that will explore this question each focusing on a different passage of Scripture.
Not one, but two, of the Ten Commandments address the issue of private property. The commandment against stealing, of course, makes no sense in the absence of private property. It is essentially a command that private property rights should be respected. Similarly, the Tenth Commandment, against coveting something that belongs to one's neighbor, is meaningless without private property. But it goes further than the Eighth Commandment against stealing by saying that we should not even desire what belongs to another.
There are practical reasons for seeking not to be jealous of what one's neighbor has. First, the desire, which cannot be satisfied except by theft, might lead one to break the Eighth Commandment. But second, and I think more importantly, desiring what one cannot lawfully have leads to unhappiness and distracts from more productive activities. Rather than thinking about how you might like having something belonging to another, it is better to direct one's energy into creating something for yourself.
In these days of Occupy Wall Street, "spreading the wealth" and the collapse of the social welfare states of Europe, we would do well to avoid class warfare which is, at base, founded on a breach of the Tenth Commandment.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Paul Ryan speaks on divisive politics and American Exceptionalism
Paul Ryan made a great speech at the Heritage Foundation today. Simply outstanding and I could not have said it better myself. So I won't try.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Was Jesus a Socialist?
I recently responded to a post linked in Presbyweb which implied, I think, that Jesus was a socialist. I pointed out that the Scriptures he referred to in fact taught just the opposite of what he asserted and added:
"As for your statement that “the poor have hurt no one” (I am assuming you are talking as a class and on average, not that no poor person has ever hurt anyone. I respond in the same way without implying that every poor person has hurt himself or others.), they have hurt themselves and their families first and most, but they have also hurt all of society. When a person drops out of school, joins a gang, commits a crime, takes drugs, gives up trying to support himself, has a child before marriage, etc. that person increases his or her own likelihood of being poor (which would otherwise be nearly zero), ending up in jail or on welfare, and having children who are also poor. But that person, by his or her choices, has also increased society’s costs in law enforcement, welfare, etc. without contributing anything to the overall wealth or well being of society.
"That does not mean that Christians, as individuals, are exempted from their duty to help the poor, but for it to be charity it must be voluntary and not coerced by government “redistribution.” And it should concentrate on those programs that show the most promise of ending people’s dependence, and on people who are willing to try."
"As for your statement that “the poor have hurt no one” (I am assuming you are talking as a class and on average, not that no poor person has ever hurt anyone. I respond in the same way without implying that every poor person has hurt himself or others.), they have hurt themselves and their families first and most, but they have also hurt all of society. When a person drops out of school, joins a gang, commits a crime, takes drugs, gives up trying to support himself, has a child before marriage, etc. that person increases his or her own likelihood of being poor (which would otherwise be nearly zero), ending up in jail or on welfare, and having children who are also poor. But that person, by his or her choices, has also increased society’s costs in law enforcement, welfare, etc. without contributing anything to the overall wealth or well being of society.
"That does not mean that Christians, as individuals, are exempted from their duty to help the poor, but for it to be charity it must be voluntary and not coerced by government “redistribution.” And it should concentrate on those programs that show the most promise of ending people’s dependence, and on people who are willing to try."
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Send Us a Plan IV
The Democrat controlled Senate Budget Committee just released the linked summary of the President's Jobs/Deficit plan showing that the plan involves, even assuming the plan will work out as advertised, no net spending reductions. The new stimulus is 110% paid for by new taxes. The plan also includes no entitlement reforms - other than reducing payments to doctors and hospitals which will only mean shortages of both for medicare and medicaid patients. Indeed, he has threatened to veto any bill that actually reforms entitlements unless he gets his big tax increases. No mention of the free trade agreements which he wants passed but has not sent to the Hill. No mention of the regulatory stranglehold on business. No mention, indeed, of anything that might actually help.
This is the most unhelpful hodgepodge of a proposal I can remember. Even from a Keynsian perspective it makes no sense whatsoever since it amounts to a net deficit decrease. It seems cobbled together from a bunch of policies that either poll well or are favorites of the base.
We know nobody with influence over at the White House has ever run a business. But one wonders, after hearing this, whether anyone over there even took an Econ 101 course.
And, of course, the "plan" is still not real legislation that can be scored by the CBO or taken up by Congress.
November 2012 cannot come soon enough.
This is the most unhelpful hodgepodge of a proposal I can remember. Even from a Keynsian perspective it makes no sense whatsoever since it amounts to a net deficit decrease. It seems cobbled together from a bunch of policies that either poll well or are favorites of the base.
We know nobody with influence over at the White House has ever run a business. But one wonders, after hearing this, whether anyone over there even took an Econ 101 course.
And, of course, the "plan" is still not real legislation that can be scored by the CBO or taken up by Congress.
November 2012 cannot come soon enough.
Howard Dean Admits Companies will Drop Health Coverage Under ObamaCare
Former Democratic Chairman Howard Dean has admitted that, as studies have shown and Republicans predicted, small businesses, and maybe large ones, will "go out of the health care business" by dropping coverage once ObamaCare comes into full effect. This is because it will be much less expensive for businesses to pay the penalty for not covering their employees than for them to buy the insurance. And for the same reason, ObamaCare will be vastly more costly to the taxpayer than predicted by the Administration.
And of course anyone with half a brain who thought about this for more than 30 seconds would see that (1) the penalty is less than the cost of insurance and (2) every rational business would chose the less expensive option. And I simply cannot believe that everyone in the Administration is devoid of the second half-brain, or that they did not think about this during the year ObamaCare was being debated. The conclusion is therefor inescable that the Obamanaughts lied to us, over and over, to impose their unpopular plan on an American people that did not want it.
And what is most galling is the way they lied in such a self-rightous and morally superior way accusing anyone who told the truth about this of being an obstructionist, as if they knew better than the people, and as if they are entitled by their claimed moral superiority to override the wishes of the rest of us.
That is what arrogant tyrants do. True democrats do not.
And of course anyone with half a brain who thought about this for more than 30 seconds would see that (1) the penalty is less than the cost of insurance and (2) every rational business would chose the less expensive option. And I simply cannot believe that everyone in the Administration is devoid of the second half-brain, or that they did not think about this during the year ObamaCare was being debated. The conclusion is therefor inescable that the Obamanaughts lied to us, over and over, to impose their unpopular plan on an American people that did not want it.
And what is most galling is the way they lied in such a self-rightous and morally superior way accusing anyone who told the truth about this of being an obstructionist, as if they knew better than the people, and as if they are entitled by their claimed moral superiority to override the wishes of the rest of us.
That is what arrogant tyrants do. True democrats do not.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Is it a Ponzi scheme?
See Ed Driscoll's article which notes that Rick Perry is not the first to call Social Security a Ponzi scheme.
Shikha Dalmia also points out that in many ways calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme is an insult to Charles Ponzi.
Rhetoric aside, we need to reform Social Security for the long run to:
1) Make sure that, even if there is some "redistribution" among citizens of the same age, overall each generation receives back in benefits only what it paid in to the system, plus interest.
2) Prevent the federal government from using social security contributions to fund other government programs.
3) Encourage savings and investment by all Americans.
Shikha Dalmia also points out that in many ways calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme is an insult to Charles Ponzi.
Rhetoric aside, we need to reform Social Security for the long run to:
1) Make sure that, even if there is some "redistribution" among citizens of the same age, overall each generation receives back in benefits only what it paid in to the system, plus interest.
2) Prevent the federal government from using social security contributions to fund other government programs.
3) Encourage savings and investment by all Americans.
Friday, September 9, 2011
Send us a Plan III
The President's "jobs plan" is really just another speech. It's short on details, contains no specifics that could be "scored" by the CBO, is not in the form of legislation that could actually be passed, or even taken up, by Congress, is alleged to be "fully paid for" but contains no offsets to pay for it. So it's really no plan at all. And instead of staying in town to work on it with Congress, to actually write some legislation, get it scored, identify offsets and get it passed, he is out on the campaign trail excoriating Congress for not passing it. It's the same as complaining that Congress has not passed the free trade agreements when he has not even bothered to send them to the Hill to be voted on. And I haven't even addressed the substance of the "plan" which is only warmed-over Stimulus II. How stupid does he think we are?
And it is reported that the offsets, if and when they are finally proposed, will be in the form of tax increases. How exactly do we get any benefit from cutting some taxes and raising others, particularly when the taxes to be raised are the ones which decrease the expected profit from, and thus the incentives for, business investment, expansion and formation?
And it is reported that the offsets, if and when they are finally proposed, will be in the form of tax increases. How exactly do we get any benefit from cutting some taxes and raising others, particularly when the taxes to be raised are the ones which decrease the expected profit from, and thus the incentives for, business investment, expansion and formation?
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Obama the Anti-Exceptionalist
Shelby Steele, one of my favorite writers on matters of race and culture has an excellent article in Thursday's Wall Street Journal explaining the President's antipathy toward the concept of American Exceptionalism which is, I think, more than the bad economy, the reason the President no longer resonates with the American people.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
The Slippery Slope
Jonathan Turley published an article in the New York Times in which he argues that gays and those wishing to enter into "plural marriages" should make common cause to legalize both. While he tries to rebut Scalia's warning in Lawrence v. Texas of the "slippery slope", it seems to me Turley makes Scalia's point.
For Christians, there is no logical way to draw a line around what sexual conduct is moral and what is immoral except by the authority of Scripture. Once we depart from the obvious meaning of Scripture, the "logic" of Lawrence, and popular culture, take over and there can be no more lines.
For Christians, there is no logical way to draw a line around what sexual conduct is moral and what is immoral except by the authority of Scripture. Once we depart from the obvious meaning of Scripture, the "logic" of Lawrence, and popular culture, take over and there can be no more lines.
Gridlock in Washington
Everyone you talk to complains of “gridlock” in Washington
But should we expect anything other than “gridlock” in Congress with one house controlled by a (newly) fiscally conservative GOP and the other controlled by the Dems, and with a Democratic president? The fact is that the Dems think the way you “stimulate” the economy is through increased spending and deficits, wealth redistribution (to those who will spend the money), targeted (read “more intrusive government”) programs, like “cash for clunkers” to encourage particular economic activity (and discourage other economic activity), stricter regulation and more government control over the economy. That is, the Dems believe that smart, “disinterested” government officials can guide economic activity better than the market and better than businesspeople who are risking their own money.
Republicans believe all these policies will only make things worse. They believe that the way to fix the economy is to reduce the role of government, limit regulation, spend and tax less, encourage businesspeople to invest in new and expanded businesses and basically get out of the way of the economy.
Democrats are inherently disposed to big-government, demand-side, Keynesian fiscal policy to fix the economy because they are favorably disposed to big-government generally. Republicans are, on the other hand, predisposed to favor small-government, supply side, solutions to the economy because they prefer more economic liberty and smaller government in most cases anyway. All this being the case, virtually anything the President will propose will be viewed as counter-productive by the Republicans, and vice versa. There seems almost nothing that they agree upon, except perhaps the free trade agreements which the President has yet to send to the Hill for ratification.
When an economy is entering a cyclical recession, as it was during 2008, consumer demand is usually falling, both because income is less due to job losses and lower business profits and because people are feeling less confident and therefore pay down debt and increase saving. At that point, before businesses have gone through their lay-offs, it makes sense that fiscal stimulus, by putting more money in the hands of consumers, may support demand and slow down layoffs thus making the recession shorter and milder. The hope is that once the stimulus is all spent, the economy is already in a cyclical recovery and will continue to grow. But once demand has leveled off, and businesses have already terminated their excess workers to equalize supply and demand, fiscal stimulus will be much less effective. Since all such stimulus is, by nature, temporary, a rational business person will not hire many new workers to fill government stimulated, temporary, demand, but will rather work his remaining employees harder and longer, liquidate inventory and otherwise do everything that he can to avoid adding to his expenses until the cyclical recovery starts. His profits will go up which he will use to pay down debt or save for the end of the “stimulus” and not use for new workers who he fears he will have to fire anyway as soon as the “stimulus” ends.
It seems to me that this is where we are in this economy. The massive one-time stimulus program that began in early 2009 ended up getting off to a slow start. It did goose the economy for a couple of quarters of 3%-4% growth, but then had little further effect. The cyclical recovery has been delayed or frustrated by the anti-business policies and rhetoric of the administration. In Keynesian terms, any budget deficit, whether by tax cuts or spending increases, is stimulative. We have been running annual deficits of in excess of $1Trillion since 2009 and will, unless something happens, continue to do so in the future. Yet all this Keynes has left us with flat growth so far in 2011. The layoffs have already occurred. Keynesian policies have lost whatever punch they had, and more of the same will not help.
Now what are needed are policies that encourage entrepreneurs to invest in new businesses and expand existing ones. Because of the high profits induced by the “stimulus” existing businesses have plenty of cash. Now all they need is the prospect of actually making, and keeping, a profit on their investments to really create jobs and get growth back on track. Anything that adds to costs or reduces profits, such as new and burdensome regulation, higher taxes, new employer mandates such as ObamaCare, and policy uncertainty will reduce the expected profit from an investment. Anything that directs investment away from economically profitable investment toward politically favored investment (such as so-called "green jobs") restricts growth. Anything that adds to the perceived risk of an investment, rapid or arbitrary regulatory changes, anti-business rhetoric, general lack of confidence, will make it harder to raise capital for a new investment. Anything that threatens to take away profits once earned such as higher income, capital gains and dividend taxes, reduces the “upside” of investment and thus incentives to invest.
Republican job-creation policies thus concentrate on reversing the last three years of progressive governance in order to encourage business people to invest and hire new workers. Majority Leader Cantor yesterday proposed a series of efforts to stop, delay, repeal or improve job-killing regulations and thus increase incentives for job creation. Of course, these proposal have about as much chance of passing the Senate or getting the President’s signature as new spending has of passing the Republican controlled House. Thus gridlock. We will need another election before we see this gridlock resolved.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
To Go or Stay - II
In my last post on this subject I suggested that all of the orthodox in the PCUSA, whether they will go or stay, should go down the road together for as long as they can, giving each other mutual support as true colleagues in ministry. In this post I will suggest one way in which all orthodox believers ordained in the PCUSA can act together and in support of the Truth of Scripture.
The Layman has an article about a retired pastor, Steve Moss of Salisbury, North Carolina, who, as a matter of conscience, advised Salem Presbytery that he will refuse to affirm the ordination or installation of “any officer of the church who refuses to repent of the sin of choosing to live sexually outside of the bonds of holy matrimony between a man and a woman.” A similar action has been taken by Gary Miller (Reforming Gary) an active PCUSA pastor (or is it Teaching Elder now?).
I believe all ordained officers in the PCUSA who continue to affirm the authority of Scripture over all areas of our lives, including sexuality, should act as these two pastors have done. Each teaching elder should write to her Presbytery's Stated Clerk and Committee on Ministry and advise them that she cannot affirm the ordination of any persons who fail to meet the standard of fidelity and chastity, or to treat such persons as colleagues in ministry. Each ruling elder and deacon should advise his Session the same thing and ask that the statement be included in the minutes of the Session.
And in a move perhaps requiring even more courage, every orthodox candidate for ordination as a teaching elder, during his examination, should make the same affirmation and request approval for his departure from his presbytery. Similarly, every newly elected ruling elder and deacon should make the same affirmation to her Session before being approved for ordination.
Sessions and presbyteries can get into the act by adopting resolutions containing similar affirmations and sending them to their respective presbyteries and synods.
As I wrote previously, this dispute is about far more than "fidelity and chastity" and goes to the heart of the faith. So if it were my letter, and it should be in writing, I would add that I could not be a colleague in ministry to any ordained officer who did not affirm the authority of Scripture and that salvation from sin comes only by grace through faith in Jesus Christ as savior and lord. I cannot write a letter of my own because I voluntarily gave up my own ordination as a ruling elder about two years ago after my presbytery overwhelmingly approved a pastor who denied the authority of Scripture (regardless of Its interpretation) and who refused to affirm salvation by grace through faith.
Sessions and Presbyteries can get into the act by passing resolutions including the same affirmations and forwarding them to their respective presbyteries and synods.
These letters of affirmation should be broadly publicized in our congregations, presbyteries and nationally. They will show the depth and breadth of those grieved by the denomination's recent actions, and will challenge the claimed "forbearance" of those on the other side. We will help the whole Church understand that these two positions, that Scripture contains moral rules that govern our lives regardless of our culture, and that It doesn't, cannot both be true, and cannot co-exist for long within the same denomination. And we must stand ready to support, in any way we can, those ordained officers, and candidates for office, who become subject to retaliation for standing up for our beliefs, particularly in liberal presbyteries and congregations.
In this way we can take one more step down the road together.
The Layman has an article about a retired pastor, Steve Moss of Salisbury, North Carolina, who, as a matter of conscience, advised Salem Presbytery that he will refuse to affirm the ordination or installation of “any officer of the church who refuses to repent of the sin of choosing to live sexually outside of the bonds of holy matrimony between a man and a woman.” A similar action has been taken by Gary Miller (Reforming Gary) an active PCUSA pastor (or is it Teaching Elder now?).
I believe all ordained officers in the PCUSA who continue to affirm the authority of Scripture over all areas of our lives, including sexuality, should act as these two pastors have done. Each teaching elder should write to her Presbytery's Stated Clerk and Committee on Ministry and advise them that she cannot affirm the ordination of any persons who fail to meet the standard of fidelity and chastity, or to treat such persons as colleagues in ministry. Each ruling elder and deacon should advise his Session the same thing and ask that the statement be included in the minutes of the Session.
And in a move perhaps requiring even more courage, every orthodox candidate for ordination as a teaching elder, during his examination, should make the same affirmation and request approval for his departure from his presbytery. Similarly, every newly elected ruling elder and deacon should make the same affirmation to her Session before being approved for ordination.
Sessions and presbyteries can get into the act by adopting resolutions containing similar affirmations and sending them to their respective presbyteries and synods.
As I wrote previously, this dispute is about far more than "fidelity and chastity" and goes to the heart of the faith. So if it were my letter, and it should be in writing, I would add that I could not be a colleague in ministry to any ordained officer who did not affirm the authority of Scripture and that salvation from sin comes only by grace through faith in Jesus Christ as savior and lord. I cannot write a letter of my own because I voluntarily gave up my own ordination as a ruling elder about two years ago after my presbytery overwhelmingly approved a pastor who denied the authority of Scripture (regardless of Its interpretation) and who refused to affirm salvation by grace through faith.
Sessions and Presbyteries can get into the act by passing resolutions including the same affirmations and forwarding them to their respective presbyteries and synods.
These letters of affirmation should be broadly publicized in our congregations, presbyteries and nationally. They will show the depth and breadth of those grieved by the denomination's recent actions, and will challenge the claimed "forbearance" of those on the other side. We will help the whole Church understand that these two positions, that Scripture contains moral rules that govern our lives regardless of our culture, and that It doesn't, cannot both be true, and cannot co-exist for long within the same denomination. And we must stand ready to support, in any way we can, those ordained officers, and candidates for office, who become subject to retaliation for standing up for our beliefs, particularly in liberal presbyteries and congregations.
In this way we can take one more step down the road together.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Send us a Plan
So the President is going to take a vacation, and when he gets back he will make a speech about his (new) plan to create jobs in this country. Make a speech, mind you, not actually submit a plan. What I would like to say to the President is this:
Mr. President, now after two and one half years in office, and after having been elected to fix the economy, and having made speech after speech about the economy and blaming everybody else for where we are, stop making speeches! Your dog did not eat the economy.
Just send us a plan for jobs and the debt. Send us a plan that can be scored by the Congressional Budget Office. Send us a plan that can be written into legislation. Send us a plan that can be compared with Paul Ryan’s plan. Send us a plan that you can sit down and negotiate with John Boehner and Mitch McConnell.
And by the way, you say you want Congress to pass the free trade agreements. Well, the Republicans want to pass them, but you haven’t submitted them yet. Send down the treaties, Mr. President.
Send us a plan, Mr. President.
Mr. President, now after two and one half years in office, and after having been elected to fix the economy, and having made speech after speech about the economy and blaming everybody else for where we are, stop making speeches! Your dog did not eat the economy.
Just send us a plan for jobs and the debt. Send us a plan that can be scored by the Congressional Budget Office. Send us a plan that can be written into legislation. Send us a plan that can be compared with Paul Ryan’s plan. Send us a plan that you can sit down and negotiate with John Boehner and Mitch McConnell.
And by the way, you say you want Congress to pass the free trade agreements. Well, the Republicans want to pass them, but you haven’t submitted them yet. Send down the treaties, Mr. President.
Send us a plan, Mr. President.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
To Go or Stay - I
In the wake of the removal of the express “fidelity and chastity” standard in the Book of Order, and the refusal of the GAPJC to enforce the same standard as found in Scripture and the Confessions, the orthodox among Presbyterians are left with the question of whether to leave the denomination, as individuals, or as congregations and presbyteries, or to remain. In that regard I have several observations.
And in all events, whether our Call from God is to go or to stay, we should have regard for those of the orthodox whose call is otherwise, and should help them to the extent we can. We should also go down the road together as far as possible, offering mutual support. What we must not do is to see current events as of little significance, thinking we can retreat within our own congregations and ignore what has happened in our denomination. Each of us must, also in Paul’s words by the Spirit in Second Timothy, “always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill [our] ministry
First, the dispute is much deeper than sexual morality. More than anything else, it is about the authority of Scripture in our lives. Either we come to Scripture seeking truth and instruction and prepared to obey, or we come to it with our own concepts of what is fair and just and seek to impose those concepts on our interpretation of Scripture. For as Paul wrote to Timothy, “. . . [T]he time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions . . .” This is essentially what the Left of the PCUSA has done. They have found theology professors who speculate, without any warrant in the text itself, what Paul might have written had he been a 21st Century progressive. But anyone who reads, for example, Romans 1 with an open mind could not fail to conclude that Paul had in mind a categorical and complete condemnation of, among other things, same-sex sexual activity. The idea that he meant to condemn only temple prostitution or abusive sexual relationships is not supported by the text, and is belied by the fact that sexual activity between two women is also specifically condemned. Anyone who could read Romans 1 to justify “committed same-sex relationships” could justify anything at all from Scripture thus depriving Scripture of any authority over our lives. Losing this battle, though on what might be viewed as a non-essential point, means that we have lost the battle for Scriptural authority in everything else. Sola Scriptura is dead in the PCUSA.
Second, this issue goes to the very nature of our salvation by grace through faith. Because if, rather than repenting and putting our trust in Jesus Christ, salvation can come by redefining our sin as not being sin at all, the entire plan of salvation is changed and the Cross irrelevant.
Third, the alienation of the orthodox from the PCUSA is much broader than sexual morality. It extends to things such as the existence of Israel as a Jewish State, abortion and issues of life generally, salvation only by grace through faith in Christ, the Progressive political and social agenda espoused by the denominational leadership, and many other issues. This is not to say that the orthodox are of one mind on every issue, but for the most part, the denomination represents our views and faith on almost nothing. The only things the orthodox and the left seem to agree upon are some of the issues which divided Protestant Christians from one another during the Reformation. And that may only be because they are no longer worth arguing about.
Fourth, if you think the Left is going to leave the orthodox alone for very long to preach and teach the orthodox faith, and to act on that faith, you are kidding yourself. The Left in the Church is being funded, in large part, by the Arcus Foundation, a secular group which funds, among other things, groups within the Presbyterian Church and other mainline churches which aim to change church doctrine which they view as “anti-gay”. Such a group, and those it supports, are not going to sit still forever if some within the PCUSA continue to preach and teach what they consider to be injustice toward gays. How could they if it is a matter of justice? Perhaps the orthodox may remain unmolested as long as they keep their beliefs to themselves. But already, in some liberal presbyteries, anyone who stands up for orthodox beliefs is treated with contempt. The current restraint is temporary only. As soon as the current flurry passes, and the orthodox frogs that stay get accustomed to the warmer water, the heat will be turned up again.
Fifth, to the extent we lead, or are a part of, orthodox congregations, it will be difficult in the present environment to maintain that orthodoxy, particularly where the congregation is located in a culturally progressive community. It will be made more difficult by continued membership in the PCUSA. Orthodox potential new members may not even visit given the public stance of the denomination, or even if they visit and like our congregations, may be reluctant to join fearing what might happen in the future. Some of our orthodox members may leave for a congregation in a more hospitable denomination. It is hard enough already to preach on issues of sexual morality. Without the denomination behind us, that preaching will, I fear, become less and less frequent. And if they do not hear it from the pulpit, they will not hear it at all or will hear it only from the haters. And if they do not hear it, how will our people resist the current culture of the libertine? As the orthodox leave the denomination, individually or in groups, the orthodox will become more and more isolated, and find it more and more difficult to maintain our orthodoxy in the environment of the PCUSA.
Sixth, the orthodox are not helped by delay or piecemeal decisions. If we delay in the vain hope of something better in the denomination, and end up leaving piecemeal, one member or congregation at a time, it is easier for the denominational authorities to impose harsh conditions upon us. But if we stick together, we are stronger.
And seventh, while I am not advocating giving up legitimate legal claims, the possible loss of church property or a denominational pension should not be the deciding factor on whether to leave, but should influence our path to separation. Otherwise we would be compromising our faith for the sake of material possessions. As people claiming a faith watered, on many occasions, by the blood of martyrs, and being so watered even today in places like Iran, Cuba, Pakistan and China, how can we refuse when called, like the rich young man, to give up our material possessions for the sake of the Gospel?
The key question that we must each, as individuals, congregations and presbyteries, ask ourselves is whether we can carry on our missions better inside or outside the PCUSA. For that, we each must first identify our mission. For all Christians, that mission must include making disciples and teaching obedience to Christ’s commands. Beyond this, our respective missions may differ. The mission of some may be to be Jeremiah to the PCUSA. For others it may be to use our professional skills, from within the system, to give aid to those of the orthodox stuck within the PCUSA. For most, I think, leaving will be the better course. But, at the end of the day, the choice of whether to go or stay must be answered by being in the place where our mission is best accomplished.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)