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.

Gridlock in Washington

Everyone you talk to complains of “gridlock” in Washington.  Congress’ approval rating is close to zero.  And the economy remains in the tank.  The so-called recovery is the slowest and weakest since the Great Depression, which took more than two full terms of FDR’s “New Deal” and World War II before it really got started.  Most of the ire at Congress, and the President, appear connected with this “gridlock.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 21^st 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.

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