Christmas and anti-Christmas religious scrooges…

Christmas is rightfully criticized for the commercialism, materialistic frenzies and general greed the season promotes.

But there is another form of criticism that is promoted by both religious purists and by Jehovah’s Witnesses.  It is the understanding that Christmas has been founded on pagan celebrations from before Christ (winter solstice), it has been infiltrated by pagan symbols and rituals (Santa and every imaginable bangle), and isn’t even celebrated on the authentic time of year of Christ’s birth (springtime).

To these I say, bah, humbug!  Live with it.  Celebrate or don’t celebrate this holiday any way you like.  For the rest of us Christmas is a sacred time of remembering, honoring, and celebrating the birth of our Savior.  What difference does it really make what time of year this is done?  Maybe even once a month would be better.  Celebrate and honor the birth in remembrance of what the Savior’s birth is all about. 

Look upon as many traditions as you can for their sometimes forgotten sacred meanings, whether it is shopping and gift giving (Christ was born to give the ultimate gift), the joy of celebration (Christians have a lot to celebrate), the bright and colorful lights and decorations (Christ brought light to a dark and unforgiving world), and any other symbol of Christmas that receives the glare of criticism. 

As the early church has done, why not turn pagan-centered corruption into sacred, Christ honoring celebration?  The pagans and secularists criticize and debase sacred tradition all the time.  There is nothing wrong with turning the tables and using the pagan’s traditions to promote the real truth of what God came to earth to do.

Fiscal and Social Conservatism: What do these terms REALLY mean?

The terms “fiscal conservative” and “social conservative” are often thrown around loosely when we discuss our opinions or those of others.  Without context, these terms result in circular and fruitless argument.  To have any real meaning and to avoid confusion and misunderstanding, several parameters and scenarios need to be applied to these terms.  Some essentials include:

To whom or what are the terms applied?

• To our own lives and personal behavior?
• To how we select candidates to vote for?
• To the types of public policy and laws we wish our government to adopt and enforce?

The specific topic under discussion:

• How  much debt, if any, is desirable or tolerable.
• Whether other people’s money should be spent on the needs of others, and if so, how much?
• How pervasive should government be in regulating the lives of individuals or businesses?

By what standard?

• What is the basis of our own standard?
• Is the standard universal (objective) applicable to all, or is it personal (subjective) only applicable to those who agree with it?
• What is the strength of conviction of belief in the standard?

Applied to yourself only:

Concerning who the terms apply to, it is pretty straight forward if you define these terms only in regard to how you personally live your own life and don’t intend to exert your influence beyond your own personal behaviors, or perhaps those of your own family.  If you don’t believe in any personal debt and don’t like high risk investments you are a fiscal conservative.  If you avoid watching anything worse than a PG-13 movie, or you teach your daughter that abortion is wrong, you are a social conservative. 

As applied to others:

Things get a little dicier when we start to apply these terms in ways that impact others.  First of all, why would anyone want to either suggest or impose their personal values on another person or group of people to begin with?  Short answer:  If you believe your values are universally true, benefit others, and you care. 

Unfortunately, today, probably more than in recent memory, personal values are highly subjective and not held as universally true.  Our new standard is “what is true for you may not be true for  me (or anyone else).”  This was a rare belief just 50 years ago.  Fiscal prudence, faithfulness in marriage, heterosexuality, effective child discipline, and live births were almost universally respected norms in our culture.  Not any more.

If we do not believe our values are universally true (any more) we will not believe they will benefit anyone else.  Consequently, we will not really care (anymore).

The person who is NOT a social conservative believes that his values are neither universally true nor objective.  Consequently, he believes they should not attempt to impose their personal values on anyone else, as in (to be snarky) “he might have had a very good reason to murder his neighbor.”

The social conservative believes that at least some of his personal values are universally true and objective.  Consequently he believes he should make a sincere attempt to influence others (family, friends, community, nation) in the wisdom of his personal values.

The sincere fiscal and social conservative will be motivated to promote and vote for candidates who promise to promote their views in Congress.  They will be motivated to promote public policy and legislation that implements their views, just as those who have opposing views will certainly do.   If the fiscal and social conservative refrains from voting for candidates and promoting public policy and laws that reflect their values, what will dominate the culture and laws?  Only those values with which they do not agree.

Which of the following issues are worthy of our influence on candidates, public policy and laws?

• Abortion?
• Gay Marriage?
• Immigration policy:  Who stays?  Who goes?  Who is kept out?
• Government involvement in health care?
• Where we send foreign aid?
• How much public debt we approve?
• How much wealth redistribution should government mandate?

My answer:  All of them. 

But what happens if the dog catches the car?  What happens if unpopular legislation or public policy is actually implemented?  If the predominant culture does not accept the values behind public policy or legislation, what will happen?  There will be confusion, dismay, resentment, anger, resistance, legislators will be voted out of office, and the policies will be reversed.  That is the theory.  And at least the first several reactions have occurred so far concerning the “Affordable” Healthcare Act, aka “ObamaCare.”  ObamaCare is the consequence of fiscal and social liberals forcing unpopular legislation through lies and deceit.  The same will occur with the implementation of unpopular conservative values.

Here are the lessons to be learned:

• Conservatives must transform the culture before expecting conservative legislation.  (Liberals have done a more effective job.)
• The groundwork of engaging, prepping, and convincing the culture of particular values needs to precede political/legislative action.
• Legislation (government coercion) follows cultural values; it cannot precede them.

Which comes easier?

Among conservatives, it is easier to be a fiscal conservative than a social conservative.  Fiscal matters are measurable and  have measurable consequences, thus are more objective.  They generally have more immediate, visible consequences and hit people in their wallets which grabs our immediate attention.  Social matters are less tangible, more difficult to measure, and often take longer to manifest themselves in visible consequences.  So it is easier to consider social matters much more subjectively.  Biblical morality attempts to provide a level of objectivity to behaviors that are all too easy to dismiss as “subjective”, as in “that person deserved to be murdered.”  Unfortunately, Biblical literacy is scant among most of us, and we succumb to errors that are promoted more by vested selfish interest than in historically accurate truth. 

One example is the widespread belief that that are many ways to heaven.  A survey of Lutherans (the majority likely from a liberal synod) indicated that 75% claimed that trust in Jesus Christ alone for their salvation was the only way to heaven.  When asked if there were other ways to heaven, 75% of the same sample claimed there were many ways to heaven.  That is subjectivity carried to a very confused level.  Such contradictory beliefs are “doublethink” for some and “cognitive dissonance” for others.

Chickens and Eggs:  Which comes first, fiscal or cultural conservatism?

Some believe that fiscal conservatism enables cultural conservatism, not the other way around.  The most obvious reaction to that is asking why they even attempt that connection if they dismiss cultural conservatism to begin with?  The next most obvious reaction is to recognize that without the values of social conservatism (honesty, thrift, prudence, morality, law-abiding, among dozens of other [formerly] esteemed human qualities), there can be no fiscal conservatism.  Fiscal conservatism does not enable these qualities.  These qualities will enable fiscal conservatism.   Fiscal conservatives who do not admit to being social conservatives are in fact private social conservatives who don’t believe their privately held social values are worthy of promoting to anyone else.  They believe their values are subjective and not universally true.

The role of churches

The majority of mainline churches have adopted the values of the culture instead of promoting the values of the historic orthodox church.  The consequence is what we have become as a nation.  Preaching the gospel was not the only role of the church.  Teaching Biblical values was a significant part of sermons and Sunday schools, a task shared by our public schools until a generation or two ago.  The consequence is what we have become as a nation.

Here are words of pastor Charles Finney in the 1870’s that should be taken to heart by every Christian denomination, seminary, pastor and layman:

“Brethren, our preaching will bear its legitimate fruits.  If immorality prevails in the land, the fault is ours in a great degree.  If there is a decay of conscience, the pulpit is responsible for it.  If the public press lacks moral discrimination, the pulpit is responsible for it.  If the church is degenerate and worldly, the pulpit is responsible for it.  If the world loses its interest in religion, the pulpit is responsible for it.  If Satan rules in our halls of legislation, the pulpit is responsible for it.  If our politics become so corrupt that the very foundations of our government are ready to fall away, the pulpit is responsible for it.  Let us not ignore this fact, my dear brethren; but let us lay it to heart, and be thoroughly awake to our responsibility in respect to the morals of this nation.”

Obamacare: An inherently flawed concept…

A major problem of ObamaCare, aside from its incompetent rollout and overreaching federal paternalism,  lies in its core assumptions.  It’s assumptions are so flawed and unrealistic that it is amazing the legislation made it past the desk of the naïve Pollyanna intern who wrote the first draft, never mind past the President and Congress.

Here are the plan’s assumptions:

1. For the Plan to be self-sufficient it absolutely needs millions of younger, healthy subscribers who don’t require health care benefits to subscribe to it and pay into it every month.
2. The plan allows those with preexisting conditions to subscribe at any time.

Those are the provisions of the plan that make it unworkable unless heavily subsidized by taxpayers not only in its startup years, but forever. 

Here is why:

The American people are not as dumb as the legislation presumes.  The young and healthy see no reason to subscribe.  Why pay $250 to over $500 a month for something they don’t need – especially when they can buy it later when you DO need it?

Conversely, and here is the killer, only people who need the coverage for imminent expensive medical treatment will sign up, whether they are young or old.

The young (under 40’s, mostly) will say, “hey, I’m healthy.  If and when I get sick or a disease, cancer, whatever, I can always sign up and start paying out.  No problem.  I might even get the Cadillac plan then.”

The 40, 50 and 60 somethings are more likely to sign up because they realize they may need coverage and expensive treatment sooner rather than later.  However, even the more affluent and healthy among this group may defer until Medicare kicks in.

The consequences are painfully obvious – so painfully obvious that even I might need to sign up to relieve the pain.

The people who don’t need health care RIGHT NOW will NOT sign up.  They will not pay into the Plan.  The people that believe they need health care RIGHT NOW WILL sign up – and they will suck out hundreds of times the amount they paid into the Plan.  Translated for the benefit of any progressives reading this:  The Plan’s expenses will greatly exceed the plan’s revenues and it will FAIL.  It will fail either because of a cataclysmic revenue shortfall, or because premiums and deductibles and out of pockets will have to be raised to astronomic levels.  It is as if the Pollyanna interns who wrote this had no idea why insurance professionals had actuarial tables for centuries. 

Oh darn, I forgot a detail about the ultimate goal of this legislative fiasco.  Progressives want the taxpayers, the REST of us, subscriber or not, to SUBSIDIZE Obamacare, the “Affordable” Health Care Act. 

The whole thing is a crock, all the way down to its lying, deceitful name.  Everyone who is associated with promoting, adopting and defending this deeply flawed piece of deception needs to be thrown out of office if not also convicted of  conspiracy to deceive the American public.  If stupidity were a crime, they would serve life.

Why “progressive” programs fail…

A view from a retired government bureaucrat.

Having been in public administration for 35 years I have both been and managed eager, wild-eyed, inexperienced, college-trained Pollyannas.  That experience gives me a valuable perspective of “governments gone wild”, also known as failed public programs.  Fortunately in my younger career years, I was significantly influenced by private sector reason and practicality.  I learned that government programs and mandates have consequences. 

At the federal level most bureaucrats and politicians are insulated from the immediate impact of consequences – it may take years for repercussions of their actions to appear.

ObamaCare will be a notorious case study in failed public policy and programs for the next 50 years.  It will also be a case study in dishonest public communications.

How does such a fiasco come about?  Here are the ingredients:

• Progressives believe government is the only entity capable of solving all personal and social problems.
• Progressives in Federal Government believe the Federal Government is the only entity capable of solving all personal and social problems.
• Progressives have a disdain for the private sector and business, believing that only government can provide the “social justice” they seek.
• Progressives are smitten with and influenced by eager, wild-eyed, inexperienced, academically-trained Pollyannas.
• Progressives look to academia much more than to the private sector for guidance in solving problems and implementing solutions.
• Progressives in government, both elected and administrative, tend to hire staffers from the ranks of academia more than from the private sector.
• Consultants and employees from the ranks of academia most often have little or no private sector real world experience.  Their experience is primarily theoretical and ideological.
• Consequently, they have more interest in initiating programs than actually knowing they will work in the real world.
• The world is a test tube for progressive government programs, thus Nancy Pelosi’s statement that we need to adopt it to know what’s in it.
• Progressives do not care about testing their theories and programs before they are implemented.  They are impatient to implement them. 
• Failure is acceptable because the whole thing is a social engineering experiment.
• Progressives are not concerned with the inefficiencies and financial costs of their experiments because they are dictating the use of other peoples time and money.
• We are academia’s and progressive’s lab rats.

The world view of the progressive is that government is the highest good and the individual and business are selfish animals that are not to be trusted and must be controlled.

The world view of those who seek smaller government and greater individual responsibility and liberty (conservatives, generally) is that either God (for the theist) or the individual (for the atheist) represents the highest good and therefore the less government there is, the more room there is for individual responsibility, motivation, innovation, productivity and liberty. 

Conservatives believe 1) The government is involved in numerous areas it has no business in, and 2) Those areas the government MUST bre involved in must be managed by individuals who have real world experience in the areas they are charged with administering.  Their programs must be proven to work as intended before they are inflicted on the American people.

Abuse of liberty destroys liberty…

The latest social trend – actually going on for a few decades now – is an anything goes mentality, a new amoral standard that there is no right and wrong, we are at liberty to do just about anything we damned well please.

Faith is mocked, churches are mocked, Christianity is mocked.  Morality is old fashioned and those who promote it are called old fashioned, bigots, or intolerant.  In fact, “tolerate everything” is the new highest value.

Our several million morally challenged citizens fail to realize that their abuse of liberty destroys their liberty and ours, as if they care.  How is our liberty being abused?  By the absence of personal responsibility.  Personal liberty without personal responsibility results in chaos and anarchy – unless government comes to the rescue.  This explains the unbridled growth of government to do the things that the irresponsible citizens refuse to do.  Everything from educating our children, to babysitting, to feeding, to health care, to protecting us from ourselves in a thousand ways is the new found role of our federal government.

The relationship between the level of our personal responsibility, the resulting demand for more government (to do or control the things that the irresponsible fail to do or control)  and the resulting loss of liberty is illustrated in the graphic below.

Here are the relationships that our population refuses to grasp:

• The greater we exercise our self discipline and personal responsibility as individuals, the LESS government is needed to provide for or to control us.
• The less we exercise our self discipline and personal responsibility, the MORE government is needed to provide for or to control us.

***

• The MORE we allow or demand government to provide for or control us, the fewer liberties we retain.  They are subject to the arbitrary and universal requirements of the government.
• The LESS we allow or demand government to provide for or control us, the MORE liberties we retain.   We retain our own autonomy to do what we believe is best for ourselves.

These are facts of life which are basic Biblical principles.  Namely, the more we trust Christ, the more we will desire to obey his moral commandments and the less we will need external coercive means (like oppressive, depersonalized government) to control our behavior or to make up for our irresponsibility.

The remaing problem is which level of governance if most appropriate for what type of activity or human need.

The main levels of governance are, from smallest to largest are:

• The individual
• The family
• The neighborhood
• The city
• The county
• The region
• The state
• The nation
• Multi-national institutions (League of Nations; United Nations)

Each level has an appropriate set of duties and responsibilities.  Unfortunately, too many duties and responsibilities have been pushed to higher and higher levels primarily because of the failure of exercising responsible behavior at the individual and local government levels.

Starting with the individual, he is either a believer and follower of God (the one True God) or he is not.  To the extent he is a believer/follower, he will be governed by the laws of God (God’s moral principles).  He will do this willingly out of love for and sense of awe toward his Creator.  This is different from the compulsion felt from ideologies like Islam, where fear and intimidation through human actions force compliance.

Without such faith in God, the individual is left to his own devices, more like a pack of animals.   The pack animal behavior in the US is growing, but is still constrained by the remnants of Christian morality left over from past decades.  As Christian faith and  morality recede, the pack animal instincts will increase.  A stark example of this is the behavior of people in predominantly Islamic countries of the Middle East.  If it isn’t Islam that controls the population, it will be some form of oppressive dictatorship that is required to control the population that otherwise lacks a sense of self-discipline and personal responsibility.

The higher the levels of government, such as the nation or multi-national institutions, the more they should be limited to research, voluntary coordination, or advisory roles and the less they should impose mandates on the lower levels of government.  Unfortunately that has not been the case.  The exception, and the primary legitimate purpose of the federal government is the national defense and facilitation of trade between nations.  This role has been exceeded a thousand-fold.

As progressives insist, we are “progressing” toward less and less personal responsibility, more and more oppressive government, and less and less personal liberty. 

That is the price of jettisoning our centuries of Christian faith and moral compass.

Obama: Lying and Lying World Views…

Conservatives are generally of two types: There are fiscal conservatives and social conservatives.

Fiscal conservatives are those who live by and promote the practice of living within our financial means, both personally and governmentally.

Social conservatives are those who live by and promote the practice of living by means of Godly standards set forth in Judeo-Christian scriptures, both personally and governmentally, whether or not they actually go to synagogue or church.

Some of us are both. Most social conservatives are also fiscal conservatives. But fewer fiscal conservatives are also social conservatives.

Does it matter if you or our elected leaders are social conservatives or not?  Yes, it DOES matter.

Example: To lie or not to lie.

The major world views (predisposition to believe and act certain ways) that promote or indulge lying are these:

• Communism: The end justifies the means, including lying
• Liberalism: Bigger government justifies the means, including lying
• Islamism: The promotion of Islam justifies the means; Taqiyya (a significant Islamic doctrine) is lying or deception to defend Muslims or to promote Islam.
• Narcissism:  Personal happiness or reputation justifies the means, including lying.

Judeo-Christianity explicitly condemns lying, e.g. “thou shalt not bear false witness”; “the Lord strongly dislikes a lying tongue” and many others.  Sure, some Jews and Christians, in human weakness, lie, but their faith condemns it. To the contrary, many other world views either officially promote or live with the practice to achieve the purposes of their world view.

Now enter President Obama, the narcissistic Communist/Islam-inspired liberal. Does he lie? Absolutely! His most recent lies are his infamous statements about Obama Care and keeping our own health plans and doctors when many cannot. And then saying he didn’t say it when he DID say it - over 29 times, explicitly, as in “period.” And the liberal, narcissistic  legislators calling it the “Affordable Health Care Act” when it is anything but. Obama lies so much that there is a website devoted to his lies:

http://obamalies.net/

Congress could use their own lying website.

 

Obama and his administration provide a stark example of our Judeo-Christian-inspired nation living off the receding light of Biblical morality.

Does social conservatism matter? If we want less lying it does.  And our experience with Obama should tell us it most certainly does matter.

One more tidbit about "social conservatism."  Social conservatism has as its foundation the concept of morality, mostly rooted in Biblical morality.  Our nation's monetary system is based on the full faith and credit of the US government.  Our leaders represent our government.  If our leaders are corrupt, so is our government.  What happens to our "fiat" currency which is dependent on faith in a government that is perceived as being corrupt?  Answer:  Faith is lost in our monetary system, our monetary system is seen as corrupted and worthless and ultimately collapses.  Wishful thinking only survives so much corruption.

HERE is a concise article explaining the connection between a moral society and a sound monetary system.  This is based on the following principle:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."  John Adams.

This applies equally to our monetary system.

How would an EMP attack affect The Villages?

An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) generated either by a solar coronal mass ejection (CME, aka “solar flare”) or a high altitude nuclear detonation via an enemy attack over a portion of the United States will create havoc.  The three primary variables that affect the impact on any specific area are:

• Size of the nuclear device or intensity of the CME
• Geographic location of the nuclear detonation or target of the CME
• Altitude of the nuclear detonation.

Most combinations of the above variables will destroy much of the electrical infrastructure and electronic components within hundreds of miles of the central point of the origination of the pulse.  Everything from electrical generating stations, to high voltage transmission lines to local transformer substations, to water plant electronics, to communications systems including the internet, phone service, both land lines and cell, banking, and commerce of all sorts would be crippled or destroyed for weeks or months.

Two scenarios of how an EMP could impact the region of north central Florida between Ocala and Leesburg along the I-70 and US441 corridors are provided below:

Scenario one:  A high altitude nuclear blast over the northeast United States that destroys most of the electrical infrastructure north of the Carolinas and westward to Ohio. 

Scenario two:  A high altitude nuclear blast over central Georgia that destroys most of the electrical infrastructure throughout north and central Florida.

HERE is a website where you can model the area impacted by various types of EMP generating nuclear detonations over the United States.

Either scenario is possible given existing technology of both missiles and nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran or North Korea.  For example, available missiles possessed by either nation launched from a freighter in the middle of the night from 100 miles off the east coast of the United States would need to travel less than 600 miles to significantly penetrate our border and achieve needed altitude to produce widespread effect.  For example, several Iranian Shahab missiles have a range exceeding 1,000 miles.  The location of many nuclear weapons in the world are not accounted for, even if North Korea or Iran do not yet possess their own creations.

Here are the conditions to expect in the aforementioned region of Central Florida:

Scenario one:  The electrical infrastructure and electronic devices are not impacted.  However, massive infrastructure failures throughout the northeast covering 8 to 15 states might have a cascading effect on our local systems. 

Day 1:  Power outages lasting at least several days, but will likely be restored in nearby grids.  Water systems shut down for several days.  Communications for retail credit card and banking transactions down.  Most phone service disrupted.  Runs on food and water sources begin.   People resort to using cash.

What you should do first  if minimally prepared:  Get cash.  Banks will close early.  Credit will be non-existent.  Stock up on essentials:  canned goods, water.

Week 1:  Power gradually restored but disconnected from the NE grid.  Communications outside of region cut off.  Refugees from points north begin to drift south.  Food supplies begin to run short in grocery stores.  Gasoline shortages begin.  Signs of civil unrest increase.  Shortage of essential medications begin to be felt.  Less prepared people especially from adjacent areas would descend on The Villages to scavenge scarce resources.  Residents form alliances to share resources and create defenses.  Bartering begins displacing the use of cash.

Month 1:  Mass immigration from impacted areas in the NE begin to overwhelm the local population and crippled infrastructure.  Food shortages severe and widespread.  Civil unrest is epidemic and widespread.  Widespread death from lack of essential medications and civil unrest.  Bartering is primary means of commerce.

Beyond:  Depends on speed of recovery of the areas in the northeast impacted by the EMP.

Scenario two:  The electrical infrastructure and electronic devices in the immediate region ARE destroyed. 

Day 1:  No power, no communications, no banking, trade significantly crippled due to no use of credit machines.  Only cash is used.  Most motor vehicles not operational.  Public water supplies switch to emergency power if emergency power systems are not destroyed.  Initial uncertainty; later panic by many. 

What you should do first if minimally prepared:  Procure rain barrels from Home Depot, Lowes, Tractor Supply; stock up on water, canned goods, medicines.   It may be too late to get cash.  Stock up on highly barterable items:  Food, ammo, water (some recommend cigarettes and booze to take advantage of people’s addictions and bad habits – but as for me, no.)

Week 1:  Most emergency power systems for public water, hospitals, and other infrastructure fail if not already destroyed.  Runs on banks and grocery stores which run out of food within 2 to 3 days.  Many households are low on food.  Medicines are in short supply.  Civil unrest significantly increases.  Less prepared people especially from adjacent areas would descend on The Villages to scavenge scarce resources.  Residents form alliances to share resources and create defenses.  Cash loses value.  Bartering increases.

Month 1:  Most households are out of food and become scavengers.  People die from civil unrest, starvation, and medicine shortages.  Bartering is primary means of trade.

Beyond:  Depends on extent of infrastructure destruction in other parts of the nation and speed of recovery.

In either scenario, local law enforcement, fire/rescue, civil defense and FEMA-related assistance will be depleted or unavailable at some point within the first week due to the impact on those families.  Military/National Guard assistance may or not be available due to either inoperable vehicles, lack of fuel or shortage of manpower.

The greatest likelihood is that each family will be on their own to survive for the duration that their own preparedness supplies of food, water, medicines, and self-defense will last.  In these scenarios, outside assistance is not likely for weeks or months.

For additional information on the nature and impacts of this kind of disaster, please go to THIS WEBSITE and THIS ONE.

Misled churches in Nazi Germany: Lessons for US?

Many reasons are given for the German population being sucked into the whole Nationalist Socialist Party scheme.  Things all the way from a charismatic leader (Hitler) to  discriminatory feelings (anti-Semitism) to abused doctrine of the state church (Lutheran/Reformed Two Kingdoms) to fear of a threatening nation and ideology (Russia and Communism).  Stoke these feelings of anguish, fear, and hope in a population and the folks will follow you anywhere.  And they did.

We have parallel reasons why an authoritarian government  in the United States is well on its way.  In fact, with some minor changes of actors and circumstances the factors are eerily similar.

Hitler was a charismatic leader.  And so is Obama and who knows who will follow him.

Anti-Semitic feelings were part of Germany’s social fabric since well before Hitler.  Part of the prejudice originated in religious differences, especially the latent belief among some Christians that Jews killed Christ.  But there is a more practical reason, one that hits on pride and pocketbook.  And that is the intellect and success of the Jews in Europe. 

Here is a little background from http://web.mnstate.edu/shoptaug/AntiFrames.htm

When Jews entered into Europe in large numbers during the Middle Ages, "they found themselves living among primitive Western people who were repelled by their superior intelligence and their clever business acumen. There was mutual contempt and hate . . . the two peoples were living geographically alongside each other, but they were immersed in different cultural stages."

This contempt and hate grew and became part of the fabric of the German culture up until much of it (not all) was wrung out by Germany’s defeat in WWII. 

This situation has its parallels in present day United States.  Today we call it pitting one class against another which Obama does very well.  This began in the form of the so-called 1%, i.e. the Occupy Wall Street movement.  Even though the accused 1% may be 50% of our population, this 50% is seen as having an “unfair” advantage over the masses in terms of income, wealth and influence.   It doesn’t matter that this 50% is more responsible, works harder, and is more law abiding.   The “masses” have in fact captured the power structure of the federal government and are using the government to discriminate against the 50% of us they call the 1%.  This is today’s equivalent of the Jews in Germany’s  Hitler era.  Both the Jews of Germany and the “1%” in the US are seen as evil due to the jealousy of the many slackers within the entitlement community.  That is visceral and motivational for the prejudiced.  And both the government in Germany and the government in the United States have taken advantage of that jealousy and gradually developed policies to put the rest of us in our place:  The Jews first, and now conservative Christians.  (Note for those who might take offense:  Conservative Christians and Jews, even those of lower income or receiving aid of some sort, are less likely to develop the jealousy and quest for revenge that comes to the entitled masses so easily.)

Now comes the Church.  Protestantism was by far the primary religion in Germany, double the number of Catholics.  And Lutheranism was by far the largest denomination of Protestants.  That church was funded by the State.  So you can imagine how little separation between church and state there really was, a concept foreign to Germany.

At the same time, the Lutherans and Reformed churches had a pervasive doctrine called “Two Kingdoms.”  The portion of that doctrine used by the State and embraced by the churches was that part of Romans Chapter 13 that says, in its first few verses:

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. ² Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. ³ For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.

The parts of the Two Kingdoms doctrine the churches downplayed and mostly forgot was the separateness of the Spiritual Domain (the Church) from the Secular Domain (the State) and the need to be “salt and light” in a fallen world. An abusive government is what occurred when the above Romans 13 verses were elevated above all others.  What made it even worse was the Church’s reliance on government funding, causing the Church to be virtually one and the same as the Third Reich.   So, the  Church was not merely separate and silent; it not merely failed to exert itself with Christian boldness to influence the government for Bible-based morality, but the Church partnered with the State, forgetting its own job description.

What is happening with the Church in THIS country?  For starters, the Church has lost its way.  It has succumbed in many denominations, the biggest ones, to a secular world view – jettisoning the orthodox values of Christianity for the secular orthodoxy of the culture and the Federal Government.  The Church has established not merely separation from the State, but a rigid taboo against any attempt to influence the government for Bible-based morality.  In fact, in many respects, a growing number of denominations are actually partnering with the government to either go along with or endorse and promote governmental mandates concerning morality:  abortion, birth control, and gay marriage come to mind.  This is little different than the State Churches of Germany partnering with the Third Reich.

And yet again many churches are abusing the Two Kingdoms doctrine as if “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities…” is the only verse of Scripture.  Churches are silent about government encroachment into the Spiritual Domain.  And we have no Dietrich  Bonhoeffers on the horizon to give us courage. 

The US equivalent of government funding is the church’s tax exempt status.  Many church leaders quash any message that smacks of criticizing or influencing public policy because of their fear of losing their tax exempt status – an overblown fear.  It is likely that church leader fears of losing tax exempt status is conveniently hidden by their over interpretation of their “separation” or two kingdoms doctrine.  They can feel really “Biblical” that way – in a perverted sense.  It is sad the way doctrine can be so easily manipulated into conforming with the culture and government in vogue at the moment.  Is this Biblical adaptation or Biblical unfaithfulness?

And finally, The Threat.  What threat will our government use to rally the masses around an authoritarian Big Brother government?  What will be the US equivalent to the German people’s fear of Russia and Communism?  This is the remaining unknown before our nation lapses full throttle into an oppressive and out of control nation a la Nazi Germany.

Some guesses include Islamic terror (this is popular among conspiracy theorists who still consider 9-11 to be a “false flag” event perpetrated by our government to create a catalyst for enabling government overreach.  This theory is a mixed bag.  We do have a number of blatant losses of liberty due to enhanced national security on one hand.  On the other hand our government denies the threat of Islam.  Strange to say the least.)

Other guesses include a purposeful financial collapse.  This appears more likely given endless federal policies to spend more, increase the debt more, and tax more.

And some others guess it could be a cataclysmic world event that affects our interests, such as a nuclear Iran attacking Israel.

We don’t know what it will be, but most of the pieces are in place that set the stage for our government turning tyrannical.  This will be due in large part to the failure of our churches doing their job of influencing our culture and public policy with Biblical morality, attitudes, and values.

Useless Republicans

Republicans in Congress, especially the so-called ‘moderates’ proved themselves to be as useless as, excuse the expression, “tits on a hog.”

The Cruz’s of the world didn’t fare much better, refusing to “delay” the Senate vote.  So much for “conviction.”  His excuse was it was a lost cause.  Hmmm.

What a waste of time and effort – caving even before the White House was fully tested and put on the spot.  I have NO idea why the Republicans were blamed for the shutdown and being called “obstructionist” when it was clearly the President and liberals in Congress who refused reasonable offers.  The Democrats brinksmanship paid off.  Republican lack of conviction and infighting did not.

The Republican promises to kill Obamacare died this week.  They failed to follow through.  They are exceedingly untrustworthy.  They decided their cause was a waste of time, their efforts were worthless, and their spine resembled jelly.

The Republicans clearly deserve greater condemnation for prematurely throwing in the towel than if they stuck to their alleged convictions.

And at the final meeting of the House during this debacle, the delusional House members gave Boehner a standing ovation in celebration of their collective, useless, and shameful efforts.  “I think he has strengthened his position in leadership,” Representative John Fleming says about Boehner.

You.Have.Got.To.Be.Kidding.  Un.Believable!

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/361432/last-conference-jonathan-strong

Another example of persecution–and it WILL get worse…

Those of us who sincerely express our religious views better have lots of faith, finances, and a good attorney.

A FOX sportscaster was fired because, get this, not because of something vile he said on air – that would probably be OK.  He was fired for statements he made helping out with a friend’s political campaign months ago.  And just what did he say during this months-ago campaign?

"People choose to be gay.  I think it's a choice, I do. Same-sex marriage, if someone chooses to do that, that's done. And God's going to judge each one of us in this room for our actions. And in that case right there, they're going to have to answer to the Lord for their actions."

That’s it.  That’s his politically incorrect statement.  It is Biblically and morally right on the money, but politically incorrect.  And he was fired for it.

Yes, in today’s morally corrupt society, what he said is considered “mean-spirited” and fire-worthy.  For two-thousand years what he said was common knowledge and taken for granted.  The scene has change only in the last few decades.

And the topics of gay marriage and homosexuality are just the tips of the iceberg of topics that will get Christians fired, or the very least, sequestered into a few weeks of sensitivity training, aka reprogramming into mindlessly accepting perverse behaviors and keeping our mouths shut.

And what is particularly disgusting about all this is that many if not most churches are complicit.  It reminds me of the coopting of much of the Lutheran Church by the Nazis in the 30’s and 40’s.  The churches went along with the government doctrine (naively accepting a corrupt interpretation of Scripture – Romans 13) that Christians must obey the state, no matter what.  In our modern case, in addition to following government doctrine, churches are following our corrupt culture as well.

That’s why sermons, instead of teaching the truth of Biblical morality, are reinterpreting Scripture to proclaim what was sin is no longer sin.  And what is now sin is our intolerance of sin – or even just talking about sin.

So now the “faithful remnant”, the minority of us who still hold fast to Biblical morality, have three choices:

• Convert to immoral secular beliefs
• Keep our mouths shut (lose our first amendment rights)
• Be subject to persecution, loss of income, and loss of reputation

This reminds me so much of the three choices of Infidels in Islamic cultures:

• Convert to Islam
• Lose civil rights within the culture
• Beheading

To the western mind, loss of income comes close to beheading.  So the form of beheading is the only real distinction – for now.

Expect things to get worse for conservative (formerly all) Christians.  Persecution will spread from this single issue to expression of belief in the Bible and God.  It is just a matter of time.  The pressures will mount.  The churches are caving.  The hardening of atheistic, unGodly resolve is gaining momentum.  This attitude is the core of public education, it is the prevailing attitude of University leadership, professors, and student culture, it is the public policy of our government and the prevailing editorial policy of the media.

Are even so-called “conservative” churches preaching on this topic?  I haven’t heard it yet.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2013/October/Craig-James-Opens-Up-about-Fox-Discrimination-Suit/

Should churches encourage and equip Bible-believing Christians to influence public policy?

Christian influence in our nations’ formative centuries, the 1700 and 1800’s was intense and provided the moral foundation for our laws, stability, and ultimate reputation for being not only the land of the free and home of the brave, but of unparalleled economic success.  We were a blessed nation.

Not any more.  Today many churches and denominations have written off any attempt to equip their members to engage in and influence civic affairs.  Aside from  the essential gospel, the balance of topics in most churches are most often addressing such personal matters as fear, anger, relationships, addictions, and how to be happy, as if they were a religious Ann Landers.  (See a prior blog on this topic)

The church has retreated from the public square into a private closet.  And the moral and (greed-created) economic decline bears testimony of this sad state of affairs.  Surprising to me, this is at least as much a doctrinal choice by our churches as it is a fear of losing 501 (c) 3 tax exempt status.

What are the various church/state doctrines that have gained and lost favor in various nations over the years?

Here is a categorization adapted from Norman Geisler’s Systematic Theology" page 1201:

Pure secularism:  Government is secular; there is freedom from all religions, belief in God is discouraged; civil law is based on human experience only; practiced by Communist countries, e.g. China, Cuba, former Soviet Union and with remnants in present day Russia.

Jeffersonianism:  The government is “just”, based at least on remnants of Christian influence; there is freedom for all religions; belief in God is encouraged; civil law is based on natural law (general revelation); practiced by early United States

Reconstructionism:  Government is religious; the most freedom for a single dominant religion; belief in god (or Allah) is required; civil law is based on Divine law (special, often false, revelation); practiced by Islamic nations like Iran, Saudi Arabia.

These are extreme examples of degrees of religious influence in government.  Of course, the United States today is much closer to the Pure Secularism side than the so-called “Jeffersonianism”.

A more nuanced version of how Christians understand Romans Chapter 13 is adapted from the Life Application Study Bible.  I attached my own labels to their descriptions for quick identification:

Jehovah’s Witness version of Church and State:  The state is so corrupt that Christians should have as little to do with it as possible.  Although they should be good citizens as long as they can do so without compromising their beliefs, they should not pledge allegiance to any country, vote in elections or serve in the military.

Two Kingdoms version of Church and State:  God has given the state authority in certain areas and the church authority in others.  Christians can be loyal to both and can work for either.  They should not, however, confuse the two.  In this view, church and state are concerned with two totally different spheres – the spiritual and the physical – and thus complement each other but do not work together.  Most larger Christian denominations follow this approach.  Some misapply it to the point of discouraging Christian influence in our culture and government.

Christian Dominion version of Church and State:  Christians have a responsibility to influence the state for good.  They do this politically by electing Christian or other high-principled leaders.  They can also do this morally, by serving as an influence for good in society.  In this view, church and state ideally work together for the good of all.   This was the view of our nation’s founding fathers.  Today this view is practiced by a minority of faithful churches but is frowned upon by the majority of denominations and by the society and government at large.

The “Two Kingdoms” as most commonly defined are comprised of spheres or realms of life: One based on Natural Law (secular) and the other based on God’s law (spiritual).  It is understood in the mainstream of Christianity to be the middle ground; the inoffensive moderate approach.  Misapplication has created some problems, however.  One example is an overly aggressive application of the so-called “separation of Church and State” that is applied to prohibit any display of Christian faith in the all-pervasive and growing government run or sponsored programs or facilities.

Natural Law is said to provide an innate “conscience” much like the Pope recently described as the basis for salvation without knowing God or Christ.  This natural law is illuminated by “the light of God.”  Unfortunately, such light becomes exceedingly dim when cultures turn from God.  When the conscience of much of a culture embraces evil and is in rebellion against God, darkness prevails.  When the light of God is dim a “good” conscience by way of Natural Law cannot overcome the original sin inherited by all humanity since Adam and Eve.  Under these conditions, a good Natural Law-induced conscience cannot compete with original sin.  It is not surprising that the concept of  Natural law is not a creation of Christianity or even Judaism but has been ascribed to ancient Hindi, Chinese, and Greek writings. (Geisler page 1202).  Natural law without the light of God, the gospel, and Christian influence is useless for both salvation and a moral government.

It appears to my superficial understanding of these things that many of our Churches are on the wrong track.  They have become unfaithful in promoting God’s truth not only in their own congregations, but within their culture, neighborhoods and nation.  Church leaders and most denominations have gotten their theology infiltrated by doctrines that are opposed to a Christian Biblical cultural mandate.

For example, the Two Kingdoms approach, when misapplied, results in a  “don’t–even-try-to influence-our-culture” extreme as in a book entitled “Civil Government:  God’s Other Kingdom”.  Here is an excerpt of a review of that book (not mine) illustrating the problems that can result when the Two Kingdoms doctrine is carried to extremes:

…At one point in the book the author basically states that "if you become an elected official, you have to check your religion at the door. You cannot use the Bible to persuade others to make law that is in conformance with God's law. You can only argue based on Natural Law."

The problem is that each person's view of Natural Law is relative. Without God's Holy Word we cannot determine whose interpretation of Natural Law is the correct one.

Without using God's Word for law you get things like the Pro-death abortion laws. How do you argue against the mom's "choice" to kill her baby from Natural Law. Obviously the abortion doctors and those that support abortion have a warped view of Natural Law, but without using God's Word as a guide to make law, that is what we end up with. That and homosexual marriage, how do you argue against homosexual marriage from natural law and get a result other than what we see in the states that have passed homosexual marriage laws?

This view of not using God's Word to argue for a law to pass also assumes that there are no other Christians in the law making body. It further assumes that all scripture is not ... profitable for ...., for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16) We cannot take away the only sure foundation, God's Word, from law and think we will have good law.

How do you argue against spending money to indoctrinate children into believing that the true God of heaven did not create the world in 6 days, but instead the false religion of evolution that teaches a bunch of stuff happened that breaks all the LAWS of science and can't be reproduced, is the correct belief system of origins? You can't. You can't prove a 6 day creation. So, because we checked our beliefs at the door we accept laws that say "there is no god". God is not please at this. Our nation will not be blessed when we turn our back on God. It is not the unbeliever that is turning their back, but the Christian that checks their faith at the door.

I believe the author needs to rethink his portion about obeying the government also. What if the government is the law breaker (written law, not necessarily a specific portion of God's law). When the government enacts laws which are contrary to the constitution, and try to enforce it, we have a duty to resist the tyranny. For the government then becomes the law breaker, both the constitution and God's law. Under God's Law, the constitution is the highest law of the land for the US governments. The law breaker is the rebel, not the person trying to see the law enforced….

…It is no wonder we are in the state that we are when we have seminary professors teaching the pastors who then teach the congregants they should check their beliefs at the door. Anything goes for law, homosexual marriage, abortion, etc….

While the reviewers terminology is imprecise - for example using the term “God’s Word” instead of “Biblical principles” might offend some purists -he does highlight the dangers in miscommunicating the Two Kingdoms doctrine.  The above review  represents just one reviewer’s opinion (it is the only review of the book on Amazon) but it identifies a danger if the Two Kingdoms approach is interpreted as being a gag order preventing Christian influence in the public square.

While “whose Christianity” and “whose interpretation of the Bible” have been arguments against any Christian influence in the secular realm, we must not use that as an excuse to keep our Christian values to ourselves.  Our culture is showing clear signs of the consequence of our self-imposed restraining order.  Silence is a terrible option.

Why churches have lost their influence and relevance…

It is obvious that in the last several decades in America (and in Europe) the Christian Church has lost its influence and relevance in our culture.  In most instances it has become a theatre to entertain the “faithful”, a social center, a place to come to feel empowered and receive an enhanced self esteem – where what were formerly understood to be sinful behaviors are not only forgiven but celebrated.  It has become a place where one commentator calls a super fun rock band church.  A place of appeasement of the soul.  Instead of “the law and the gospel” it has become “guffaw at the faithful.”

Here is a quick laundry list of what has caused this slide into irrelevance:

• Political correctness; culture of “not offending anyone”; tolerance as the highest value
• Catering to lack of faith (don’t insult anyone with God’s miracles)
• Church growth movement:  Growth is more important than truth
• Follow the money:  The biggest donors set policy
• Spiritualizing nearly everything in the Bible; almost nothing is fact
• Marginalization:  The Church’s self-imposed retreat into a small corner of our culture
• From counter-cultural to part of the culture; a Kiwanis/Rotary Club/women’s/men’s social club in a permanent building

The great majority of sermons of most churches are basic lessons on “how to behave as a human being and feel better about it”, stuff we all should have learned by 2nd grade but haven’t.  The most relevant connection to our lives sermons can muster  is how to overcome swearing on the golf course – how to overcome anger, impatience, lack of confidence, or fear – all nice topics for a Dale Carnegie course.

On the other hand, we have the likes of Martin Luther and Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  Luther preached on what was offensive to the corrupt church he was a part of.   He promoted “liberty of conscience” contrary to prior Catholic edicts.  He was not politically correct.  He didn’t tolerate evil, he didn’t follow the money, he didn’t care all that much about church growth or spiritualizing everything in the Bible.  In fact, he was outspoken about the man-made spiritualizing the Catholic Church was deeply engaged in.  But he was instrumental in starting a more faithful, God-honoring church, and guilted the Catholic Church into adopting many needed reforms along the way.

We have Bonhoeffer who preached against the evils of Hitler and his fellow Nazi’s and the crimes against humanity they were committing.  He condemned the German Christian movement that allowed most churches to become a puppet of the Nazi party.  He argued that Christians should not retreat from the world but act within it which was contrary to what fellow Lutheran Martin Luther promoted as a “two spheres” doctrine which separated “the world” from spiritual concerns.  Bonhoeffer raised the first voice for church resistance to Hitler's persecution of Jews, declaring that the church must not simply "bandage the victims under the wheel, but jam the spoke in the wheel itself.”

D. James Kennedy, a prominent Presbyterian minister of the 1970’s through 1990’s was known for highlighting the Christian foundations of the United States and the dire need for a Christian influence in our government and culture.  His efforts were criticized by those who believed that Christian faith should be marginalized into a corner of our culture and not be involved in attempting to influence public policy. 

So much for not retreating from the world.

Christian isolationists have prevailed in our recent culture.  Even leaders of our most conservative denominations have embraced doctrines of cultural surrender in favor of two alternatives approaches:

1. Teaching the Bible as ancient history with little application to today’s world, or
2. Teaching the Bible as God’s word for the individual, but not making any application to the world around us, whether it be government policy, the threat of Islam, or declining morality and faithlessness.

Here are a few examples of topics that ought to get a lot more air time in our churches as opposed to the Ann Landers-type sermons we hear most of the time:

• Persecution of Christians and church burnings in Islamic majority nations, what’s behind it and how it is spreading.
• The declining influence of Christianity and Biblical morality in America and the coming persecution of faithful Christians within our own land.
• The dangers of a “tolerate everything” culture where avoidance of offending is more important than the truth.
• The need to be “salt and light” in our culture by speaking up with kindness to those around us about what Christians believe.
• Yes, the need to actively influence public policy with Christian ideals.
• The dangers to our own civilization of immorality promoted by media that impacts birth rates and family-building, including homosexuality, abortion, tax policy, and the general mocking of family life.
• How Islam is a major threat to our faith and freedoms and not just another religion.  Yes, so-called “cults” are not orthodox and take away potential church goers, but none have promoted supremacism, terror, evil and hatred like Islam does.
• Competing world views such as humanism, big government as a God-substitute, scientism, and other views that ignore God.

Any one of these topics could be the centerpiece of a multi-part sermon series.  The overarching themes of Law and Gospel could be the foundation of every one of these topics.

So why doesn’t this happen?  Certainly these topics are more relevant to our faith and freedoms than why we shouldn’t cuss on the golf course or why we shouldn’t fear adversity.  Are we that immature as Christians that week after week we have to be told what a three year old is told?  That is outrageous.  Is it the denominational mandates that prohibit anything that might be the least controversial?  Is it the Church bureaucracy or is it the local pastor that’s the problem?  Or is it the weak Christians in the congregations who object to this degree of relevance and demand pabulum?

Whatever the problem is, it needs to be fixed.  Whether God does it through allowing great destruction as he has many times throughout history, or through another Great Awakening or better, the 2nd coming, let it come.  Maranatha.

Here are words from a famous sermon given by Charles G. Finney, December 4, 1873, who is credited with the first Great Awakening:

“Brethren, our preaching will bear its ligitmate fruits.  If immorality prevails in the land, the fault is ours in a great degree.  If there is a decay of conscience, the pulpit is reponsible for it.  If the public press lacks moral discrimination, the pulpit is respnsible for it.  If the church is degenerate and worldly, the pulpit is responsible for it.  If the world loses its interest in religion, the pulpit is respnsible for it.  If Satan rules in our halls of legislation, the pulpit is responsible for it.  If our politics become so corrupt that the very foundations of our government are ready to fall away, the pulpit is responsible for it.  Let us not ignore this fact, my dear brethren; but let us lay it to heart, and be thoroughly awake to our responsibility in respect to the morals of this nation.”

I don’t know that any Charles Finneys exist in our nation today.