Pastor's Blog

Too often we expect positive changes to take place in one fell swoop. Whether in matters of personal sanctification, institutional reform, cultural renewal, or transformation of the political landscape, we too often look for one dramatic event that gains us a quick, easy, and permanent victory. But this doesn't seem to be how God normally works. The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed on the ground. He sleeps and rises night and day, and the seed sprouts and grows; he knows not how. The earth produces by itself, first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear. But when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come (Mk. 4:26-29). The seed doesn’t produce its fruit overnight. Maturity requires growth, and growth takes time. It is not the time to complain that no fruit is visible when the blade first appears. We should not despise the day of small things (Zech. 4:10). The Lord promised the people of Israel that he...

I have never quite understood those Christians who have said that believers should not be politically active by supporting candidates, contributing to campaigns, speaking out on the issues of the day (even from the pulpit), and advocating for particular pieces of legislation and public policy. “Just preach the gospel,” they say, “and when people’s hearts are changed, culture and the law will change, too. In the meantime lead by example.” I am all for preaching the gospel. I readily admit that changed hearts eventually result in a change in culture and the law. And it’s true that example is a powerful thing. But why must we think of the matter as an either/or proposition:  either we preach the gospel and lead by example, or we are politically active? Why can we not do both? Imagine yourself living in the days when the slave trade flourished and you felt compelled by Christian conviction to speak out against it and to support officials who had similar convictions. And supp...

Last week we began to examine what the Bible teaches concerning man. Some of the most important points we considered were that (1) man is not the product of blind evolutionary forces, but is instead the very handiwork of God; (2) the creation of man was a collaborative effort of the Holy Trinity; (3) man was created in the image of God; (4) the human race is one (implication:  since we are all descendants of one man, we are all distantly related and there is no room in the thinking of a Christian for racism); and (5) man was created to glorify God. What we did not have time for last week, but is nevertheless essential for us to discuss—especially after the decisions of the Supreme Court this past week—is the fact that God made man  male  and  female . In our opening text we read this: So God created man in his own image,             in the image of God he created him;     ...

I have been slowly making my way through Jacques Barzun's From Dawn to Decadence: 1500 to the Present . In his treatment of George Bernard Shaw he describes the political confusion that took place during the 19th and 20th centuries such that labels and realities often do not match. What Shaw and all the other publicists who agitated the social question helped to precipitate was the onset of the Great Switch. It was the pressure of Socialist ideas, and mainly the Reformed groups in parliaments and the Fabian outside, that brought it about. By Great Switch I mean the reversal of Liberalism into its opposite. It began quietly in the 1880s in Germany after Bismarck “stole the Socialists’ thunder”—as observers put it—by enacting old-age pensions and other social legislation. By the turn of the century Liberal opinion generally had come to see the necessity on all counts, economic, social, and political, to pass laws in aid of the many—old or sick or unemployed—who could no longer pro...

I recently acquired the above mentioned  book  by the highly esteemed legal scholar,  Harold J. Berman.  A quick perusal of its introduction makes me think I'll enjoy it even more than I originally expected. Just a brief quote and a few quick comments: The principal affirmation is that law and religion are two different but interrelated aspects, two dimensions of social experience--in all societies, but especially in Western society, and still more especially in American society today [1973]. Despite the tensions between them, one cannot flourish without the other. Law without (what I call) religion degenerates into a mechanical legalism.  Religion without (what I call) law loses its social effectiveness . [Italics added] Indeed. Law is a necessary and inescapable part of life in this world. Civilization cannot function without it. For Christians to ignore or deny God's law and its ongoing applications both for the individual as well as for society at la...

Recently a friend alerted me to a KU News Release, " Distractions, quick thinking lead to conservative thoughts, research finds ." It begins, Could knocking back a few beers influence a person's views on property rights or the role of government in production and trade? By asking bargoers to take a political survey and blow into a Breathalyzer, a scholarly investigator at the University of Kansas has found that as blood alcohol levels rise, people become increasingly intoxicated with conservative policies, too. Sounds interesting, methinks. So I pours meself a cold one and reads on. The press release refers to a study, Low-Effort Thought Promotes PoliticalConservatism , by two researchers from the University of Arkansas and one each from universities of Kansas and Wisconsin. They introduce their study thus,   Conservative political ideology in Western democracies may be identified by several components, including an emphasis on personal responsibility, ac...

Good interview with Thomas Woods, author of "Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century," with the standard leftist group-think zombie-like responses.

One of the most important things that distinguishes conservatives from liberals is that the latter tend to believe more government is the answer to everything. Rousseau was one of the first (at least in modern times) to champion this delusional notion. He wrote ‘those who control a people’s opinions control its actions.’ Such control is established by treating citizens, from infancy, as children of the State, trained to ‘consider themselves only in their relationship to the Body of the State’.   ‘For being nothing except by it, they will be nothing except for it. It will have all they have and will be all they are.’   Again, this anticipates Mussolini’s central Fascist doctrine: ‘Everything within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.’ The educational process was thus the key to the success of the cultural engineering needed to make the State acceptable and successful; the axis of Rousseau’s ideals was the citizen as child and the State ...

A while back I wrote a piece on the danger of  idolizing of democracy .  Further evidence that democracy is not an inherent good can be found here and here .

Lawrence O'Donnell's interview of Herman Cain last week illustrates one of the major differences between liberals and conservatives (of the paleo variety). The Left sees all of life as being essentially political. There is not a problem in the world that can not and should not be addressed politically. O'Donnell found fault with Cain for abiding by the advice of his father to "keep his nose clean" by avoiding the civil rights marches and sit-ins in the 1960s. Instead, Cain diligently applied himself to his studies to earn a B. A. in mathematics in 1968 from Morehouse College and then a master's degree in computer science from Purdue in 1971 while working full time in ballistics for the U.S. Department of the Navy. And of course he went on to have a very successful career in business. In doing so, he "saved" and created far more j0bs (for people of all colors) than the current administration could ever hope to do. "Ts...

We said it was coming, but they didn't believe us. They said we were over-reacting, exaggerating, just trying to scare people. They were wrong. We were simply pointing out the logical implications of their position. The magnificent R. L. Dabney (1820-1898) understood better than any in his day the consequences of ideas. He lived in a day of rapid social change that seems almost tame by comparison with what's going on today. In his essay, Women's Rights Women , he wrote, In our day, innovations march with so rapid a stride that they quite take away one's breath. The fantastical project of yesterday, which was mentioned only to be ridiculed, is to-day the audacious reform, and will be to-morrow the accomplished fact. Speaking of the usual conservative reaction to "fantastical" social projects, he says, This is the party [conservatives] which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party,...