An open letter to President Obama, and all people in power

Dear President Obama,

You may want to consider the following words from a 'Good Book' that I have:

Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against his anointed, saying, “Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us.”

He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision. Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying, “As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill.”

I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me and I will make the nations your heritage and the ends of the earth your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”

Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

Thank you for your time.

A bunch of random thoughts concerning the election

In no particular order, kind of a 'stream of consiousness' thing:

1. I have read many comments from liberals about the fact that poor ole McCain supporters were not really for McCain, but just AGAINST Obama, as if that is in any ways important. If you are a liberal with this view, suppose one side was someone you really did not much care for (say George Bush) and the other side was Adolph Hitler. Would you be more voting for Bush or against Hitler? The choices are what they are and a person just has to make what he thinks is the wisest choice among what is there - even though he may not like even the wisest choice. In my case, I decided to cast a vote that I could feel good about (3rd Party vote) even knowing the guy had a zero chance of winning. Admittedly, if the race would have been close in Alabama, I would have voted for McCain.

2. I don't for the life of me understand why when there is potentially really controversial information about a candidate, it is wrong for us to wonder about it or even speak about it. There have of course been rumors that Obama was Muslim. I have heard rumors that he had been addicted to Cocaine at one point in his life. I had heard rumors that he was gay or bi. Now, admittedly these may be crazy. They may be flat made up. They may be totally baseless. My personal feeling right now is that Obama is not a Muslim (more on this later, though). I do not think he shows any characteristics of a drug addict, although I have actually seen him admit to smoking pot frequently when he was younger. I really know nothing about his sexual preferences, but have no knowledge of any deviancy on his part. So, unless someone could really produce evidence for any of these, then of course it is silly, immature, and unChristian to spread such rumors around. If there is any evidence for any of these, then I think they are legitimate concerns and are open for discussion in a campaign.

However, there are are other areas in which there have been persistent rumors that seem to have more backbone. Mr. Obama's past activities and ties with other people and organizations would say a lot about who he is. He has been associated with who knows who.

At the very least we could talk about Jeremiah Wright. 'Pastor' Wright has openly touted 'Black Liberation Theology" and the writings of James H. Cone including "A Black Theology of Racism" (you can find Wright touting this book on youtube and he has in the past at least, cited this book as a founding document for his church. ) This book and this man and this "theology" which term is used in the loosest way possible, is simply hate filled anti-American racism. The major premise of the book is that community defines theology. Therefore, the 'black' community can define a 'black theology" that suits their needs. Of course, the other premise is that historical orthodox Christian theology is "White Theology" which has been used to oppress blacks. Note here then that 'theology' which correctly would be the objective study of God with no racial connotations at all now becomes the subjective statement of our own racial prejudices clothed in the righteous garb of religion. There is 'oppresive' white theology and black 'liberation' theology. Where is God in this view?

According to Cone and Wright, they can not worship a God who is not on the side of the Black Liberation movement. If God is on the 'side' of Whiteness then they hate that God.

Here are a few excerpts from this book:

1. "[W]hiteness is the symbol of the Anti-christ."
2. "The goal of black theology is the destruction of everything white, so that blacks can be liberated from alien gods."
3. "The black experience is the feeling one has when attacking the enemy of black humanity by throwing a Molotov cocktail into a white-owned building and watching it go up in flames. We know, of course, that getting rid of evil takes something more than burning down buildings, but one must start somewhere."
4. "Black theology seeks to analyze the satanic nature of whiteness and by doing so prepare all nonwhites for revolutionary action."
5. "We have reached our limit of tolerance, and if it means death with dignity or life with humiliation we will choose the former. And if that is the choice, we will take some honkies with us."
6. "To be black is to be committed to destroying everything this country loves and adores."

Now, I ask you dear reader, rearrange the black and white above and what would our media do to anyone even remotely associated with it? Anyone white who can even by the third or fourth degree be remotely associated with anyone even remotely racist can have their any hope of attaining public office destroyed. Remember Pat Buchanan in 1996? Remember Trent Lott?

But, what did we do in this case? We elected a man president who for twenty years attended a church that was self described as based on these racists writings/rantings. Then, when it briefly became a political issue, he dropped it like a hot rock and the rest of us are suppose to just shut up and never mention it?? Excuse me??? I am absolutely sure I would get labeled a racist by some for even mentioning it here.

No, I do not believe Obama is a Muslim. I believe Obama is a lifelong member of a church that falsely uses the name of Christ to buttress marxism and anti-white bigotry.

Add to this other known ties at some level or other with terrorists, Chicago mafia types, marxists, vote fraud scams and the like and there is tons of smoke, but we simply must assume that there is absolutely no fire. If we want to do a fire investigation, we are labeled as fearmongers, haters, racists, etc. It really boggles the mind.

3. Sarah Palin was absolutely unready to be President, we are told. But Barack? Oh noooo. Time as a street agitator, a while in the Illinois State House, and a hudnred some days in the Senate make him uniquely qualified for the most powerful job in the world. Wright, er. Right.

4. I didn't much care for McCain, that is for sure. I do think much that McCain would do would be much the same as Bush. I do not agree at all with the direction of the country under Bush. I think we are heading in the wrong direction. However, with politics, there is a multitude of directions we could go. It is not that we go the MCCain way or we go the Obama way (which in a lot of instances are not all that different) There are a million other directions to proceed. So it is not just that since I do not like the current direction, I must vote for the change that Obama represents.

5. As bad as I think Bush has been and McCain would have been, it would still be far easier to turn things back and right the ship had McCain been elected. If Obama get's his way, and with majorities in both houses, he might, he can do almost irreperable damage. Once you let the cat of socialized medicine out of the bag, you absolutely can not be put back in. If his policies go through, we are stuck with them short of a revolution of colonial American proportions.

6. Related to this, let's just be as clear as possible. Obama is a socialist. I know I am not suppose to say this just like we are not suppose to bring up any ties to any shady characters in his past (or present). But it is the truth. People misunderstand this in many ways. a. they do not even know what socialism is b. they think they know and they actually think it is a good thing. c. they think it is allowed in the constitution d. they think it is Christian, etc. All of these thoughts are dead wrong. Socialism not only has never really worked (though through extensive use of smoke and mirrors has been made to look like it is working for a time) but actually socialism CAN NEVER work. It is an impossibility. it inevitably leads to lower standards of living and higher government power and persecution. It is impossible for it to do otherwise.

7. Obama has given indication that he will go to great lenghts not only to not allow further restricitons on abortions but to propogate more and more abortions. He has stated that the first thing he would do as president is sign the freedom of choice legislation. Ok, we know where his prioirities lie. In Illinois, he voted against legislation that would have protected the life of a child that survived an abortion procedure. Instead, they were just throwing the child in the garbage to die. Even many other liberal pro-aborts supported this legislation, but not Mr. Obamonation. Obama would be by far the most pro-abortion President in the history of the United States. What, therefore will he do in court appointments? What legislation will he push, and sign if it passes? If you are a Christian and voted for Obama, how do you justify voting for someone who is so pro-abortion?

8. Obama has given indications that he is rabidly pro-gay agenda. Now, I do not mean to imply that a candidate for president should desire to bust into homes of homosexuals and cart them off to the Gulags. Although I find the practice disgusting, and a horrible abomination against a holy God for which there will be a price to pay, I do not think it necessarily the job of the government, esp from a presidential office, to interfere with what two consenting adults may do in private. (The church has a major job to do here, for sure, though! But that is through preaching, teaching, admonishing, ministering, etc.)

But, if Mr. Obama gets his way, it may soon be illegal to preach against homosexuality. The homosexual agenda may be ramrodded at our kids through the schools, etc.

The link below is to a blog by a Robert Gagnon. Now, he is not some sort of blinded conservative. He is actually from a theologically far more liberal tradition than I. He has written a book about the Biblical view of homosexual practice that has garnered rave reviews by both conservative and liberal reviewers, even a liberal homsexual advocate. In other words, he is not simply on some sort of conservative soapbox. However, he details his concerns here about the above items (Obama's views on abortion and homosexuality) There are tons of links on this as well.

Again, how/why would a Christian have voted for this man?

http://robgagnon.net/ObamaWarOnChristians.htm

9. I am not the least bit upset over the fact that a black man got elected. I actually can truly understand why millions of black Ameicans would be very excited at the prospect of voting for a Black man. I have not experienced what they have. While there is a lot that is perception, there is a lot of reality to the history of blacks in this nation as being in an oppressed state. This is vindication of sorts for them. I understand that.

In fact, I am all for racial reconciliation and a Black president could go a long way toward that end.

Unfortunately, this is not the case with Obama. His policies will do far more harm than good, maybe even irreparable harm. I believe at the very least he has some very bigoted associates. He is from a marxist background. He is pro-death, pro-gay agenda. He is not the person, regardless of his race or gender, to lead this nation where it needs to go. He is apparently going to lead it in precisely the opposite direction than where it needs to go.

I hope it is obvious to anyone reading this that neither I, nor millions of other, white conservatives were against Obma because he is Black. We are against him because of his issues.

10. Nontheless, I am adamant that we all, black, white, liberal, conservative, need to pray for our leaders - democrat, republican, white, black, male, female, conservative, liberal. We need to pray not that our will or their will be done, but that God's will be done to His Glory and for our good.

Further Thoughts on the Upcoming Election

The closer we get to the election, the more uncertain I become of which way to go.

In brief, here is my delimma:

I absolutely do not like and can not support Obama/Biden. They clearly represent everything I am against, and are against everything I represent.

I do not care much at all for McCain. I am not real sure what it is he does represent. I don't care for his personality, such as it is. On a great variety of issues I see no huge difference between him and Obam/Biden.

I am very intrigued by Sarah Palin.

On the whole from what I know, Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party would be far closer to what I would feel comfortable supporting (though he/they are not perfect). But, he has exactly zero chance of winning the election.

The struggle is this - is the addition of Palin enough to make me vote for the Republican ticket?

Palin has in her favor in my mind several things which the liberals scoff at her for:

1. She is a biblical literalist (I do not know exactly what her interpretive principles are and if they are the same as mine, but just the fact that she accepts the Bible as God's inerrant word to be taken seriously is good for me) I know a great many would question what in the world this has to do with being a national leader, but I would say it has plenty. She also has the guts (if she were a man, I would possible use another bodily reference) to state this publically and stand by it. This colors a lot of her other views in a positive light, some of which I'll mention here.

2. She is VERY pro-life. Not kinda sorta in a politically correct way when it is convenient, but solidly staunchly biblically pro-life as best I can tell. She also lives consistently with this, giving birth to a Downs Syndrome child and having her daughter carry her pregnancy through. It is not as if she says one thing then acts another way.

3. She has pursued action in Alaska consistent with not pushing the gay agenda - including wanting to rid the schools of pro-gay readings.

4. Most consistently, she has publically stated her belief in the literal reading of Genesis - meaning God created the world in six days not so very long ago. Adam and Eve were real people, etc. I recently read a liberal columnists which used this as reason enough to be scared silly of her. She must just be stoopid to believe that fairy tale, ya know!

These things makes me tend to want to have huge respect for her. Maybe even God is using this time of wimpy men to raise up another Deborah, as Douglas Wilson pointed out. (Deborah had to deal with a wimpy leader named, of all things, Barak!)

However, I do have a few reservations about making her VP, and with a certain turn of events, eventually President.

1. This may sound silly, but the fact that she is sided with John McCain makes me uncomfortable. I know Joseph had to work for the Pharoah. I know Daniel had to work with the leaders of his day. But, these great Godly leaders did not have to politically bow to the leadership direction they served under. Quite the opposite, Joseph and Daniel rose to the top by staying faithful to God even when it was unpopular, even dangerous. I have know idea what the level of faith of John McCain is, but some of his positions are not what I believe someone who understands biblical government, our constitution, and the relation between the two would be. The political reality of our day is that a VP has to be almost an exact echo of the Pres. How far is Palin willing to compromise? Or is that even a compromise for her? Is she politically comfortable with McCain?

2. A specific example was displayed to me in an interview I recently heard. I believe it was Sean Hannity who repeatedly asked her what was the problem with the economy, and what was the solution. Her consistent answer was that THE cause of our current economic woes was corruption on Wall Street and that THE solution was more government in the form of regulation. Now, I do not at all deny that there is some corruption on Wall Street. Only an imbecile, and Ayn Rand would. And I do not even deny that the government has a legitimate role to play in dealing with corruption (its job being to administer justice). However, the totality of our current economic problems is really a long and complex result of over one hundred and forty years of bad economic policy and too much government. There are so so many other things she could have more accurately stated as being major causes of our current economic woes and so many other directions she could have taken to point the way out. But, instead, she says that THE problem is Wall Street corruption and THE solution is more government. She even mocked the idea of 'self regulation' stating that it was actually 'no regulation.' My question to this is always then, who regulates the regulaters? At some point somewhere, someone is 'self regulated.' For all the dangers associated with the money of Wall Street, I feel much better with them being 'self regulated' than with the government empowered regulaters being 'self regulated.'

All this fits in nicely with McCain's own direction. He brags that while he is a Republican (presumably pro-big money interest) he has attacked Wall Street, Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Money Campaign Financing, etc. If McCain is a "Maverick" it is because in what little difference there is in the actual direction of the Republican and Democratic parties, there are some issues in which his rhetoric is that of Democrats instead of Republicans.

So, in the end, I am uncertain if I can swallow all of this and vote for McCain/Palin or if I should cast a protest vote.

Any help would be appreciated!

Is God Pleased With Our Works?

This thought hit me as we began worship this past week: "Surely God is pleased with the praises of His people."

Now, His people are sinners, and in one sense can bring nothing to Him that could or would please Him. We are in rebellion against Him, and only by His grace can we even come into His presence. Yet, we come into His presence, and He condescends to us and is actually pleased with the worship we bring Him. That is actually a good example of His grace - that he not only accepts, but delights in our praise.

I do not think very many Christians, even specifically Christians in the Reformed branch(es) of the church, would deny that sentiment - that God delights in the praises of His people. Yet, the Reformed are quick to question any idea that God could be in anyway pleased, or even delight in, the works of His people. Any time people start talking about our works, Reformed people get very uncomfortable. We are only acceptable to God because of Christ's works, and our works are, it would appear, meaningless.

It is absolutely true that without the work of Christ, we could not approach The Father. However, the work of Christ actually makes our works acceptable. Worship itself is actually a work, as should be obvious. Even the word liturgy has a meaning associated with our work. In worship we do things (which is work) We pray, sing, kneel, stand, talk, listen, eat, AND bring our other works to the Father in the form of our offerings. What are our offerings, but the results of our works?

The Father delights in all of this when it is done in the name of the Son and through the Spirit. The Triune God delights in our worship - which is but one aspect of our works. It is therefore not at all wrong to think that God could be pleased with our works - when performed in the same manner on a regular basis as our 'special' work on each Lord's Day.

A Hero Falls

How many of you knew that Alexandr Solzhenitsen (sp?) recently passed away?

How many of you know who Alexandr Solzhenitsen was?

While he was an often hard to deal with old man, one whom I no doubt would have had at least a few major differences of opinion with, he was in the end one of a tiny handful of men that I would consider to be a hero.

Solzhenitsen spent about eight years in the horrid world of the Russian Prison Camps during the 1940s and 1950s. Unlike many millions of others, he lived to tell (and write!) about it. He was released during the first supposed Communist reform era of Russia. Decades before the mid to late 80s reforms, the mid 1950s reforms of Kruchev occured. This was the first hint of "Yeah, we're a bunch of totalitarians who can not support ourselves, so we'll act like we are reforming in order to get continued Western support" that continued for decades.

After his release, Solzhenitsen eventually wrote and published (1962 I think) a small novel entitled "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisavich." This was a fictional account of one day in the life of a Soviet Political prisoner in the Gulags of Stalin. This work eventually won Solzhenitsen a Nobel Prize for Literature.

As is always the case with tyrants, eventually the communists tired of Solzhenitsen's continued critiques of their ways. They eventually exiled him. He wound up in the US - Vermont in particular. However, rather than embracing the capitalism of the west, Solzhentisen criticized it, its decadence, its consumerism, its un-reverent religion of status, just as harshly as he criticized the Soviet tyrants.

This marginalized him and his writings. The extreme liberals of the west hated him because he was so staunchly opposed to the religion of statism. The 'conservatives' (mostly modern neo-con Republicans) could not tout him too loudly because he so staunchly opposed the 'religion' of capitalism and consumerism.

However, between the release of "One Day", his exile to the US, and his eventual return to Russia in the late eighties or early nineties, Solzenhitsen published many important works. Most notably, in my opinion, were the novel Cancer Ward and the massive three volume work about life in the prison camps entitled The Gulag Archipelego.

These are literary works based on his own biography. He had himself spent time in a Russian Hospital in the Cancer ward. Gulag was a semi-fictional, semi-factual series of tales from the prison camps. These works, it was said, held a mirror up to Soviet Society. Exactly how much they influenced the eventual fall of communism is up for debate, and likely unknowable. However, they did contribute. This adds to his hero status in my book.

However his hero status actually is based not on his works alone, important though they are. To me they are based on his resiliiance, and the steadfastness of his Faith. (Even though, he as a Russian Orthodox Christian, and me as a Reformed Christian would no doubt argue over the Faith itself) Perhaps there is no more moving sentence in anything that I have ever read than one, near the end of Volume II of Gulag, where, after spending literally hundreds of pages documenting the horrors of the place, could say "Thank you prison, for having been in my life." That is, Solzhenitsen saw clearly that all things are governed by God for his ultimate purpose. This includes the tragedy of spending eight years in a place that could only be described as 'hell on earth.' Sozhentisen recognized he would not be who he was, nor who God intended him to be, without going through this seemingly meaningless madness. Faith puts meaning into both joy and suffering. In fact, it puts joy into suffering.

We would all do well to have have cuch faith!

The City of God

I just recently started reading St. Augustine's"The City of God." I have gotten through the first two books (out of twenty two) - which translates to about 80 pages out of over 800.

For those who do not know, the context of TCOG is that the city of Rome was attacked by the Goth's in 410 AD. Many of the leaders of the city were placing blame on the Christians for the calamities. They said that since the Christians were not worshiping the gods of Rome, the gods had abandoned the city, and the city was now falling. Augustine began writing TCOG during this time to refute this accusation.

The thing that has struck me the most so far is, believe it or not, how contemporary it is. You could change the language slightly, change the names of the philosophers and writers he refers to, and voila, he is talking about the condition of today's United States, and the position of our modern liberal leadership.

Time and space do not permit me to elaborate, but I wonder who else has noticed any parallels??


J

Theological Book Recommendations - II - James B. Jordan

Time to follow up on the theological book recommendations. Previously I wrote about Dr. Leithart. Today, I want to speak of one of his great friends and mentors – James B. Jordan.
Mr. Jordan has received an A.B. Degree in Comparative Literature from The University of Georgia, and an M. S. and Th.M. in Theology from Westminster Theological Seminary, as well as a D.Litt. from the Central School of Religion. He has served numerous churches in various capacities, and currently operates Biblical Horizons in Niceville, Florida, which is linked on this blog.

Jordan’s gift is in understanding and explaining the depths of the biblical text. He does so much more than a simple straightforward wooden literlist interpreter would do – but not at the expense of the literal truth of God’s word. I hinted around in my post about Dr. Leithart what some of the interpretive principles are. Again, these include 1) typology 2) poetry 3) chiastic structures 4) panel layouts 5) parallelism 6) symbolism and many other principles – each of which in itself is a deep, textured, multi-faceted topic worthy of many lengthy blogs.

Mr. Jordan rails against what he terms ‘interpretive minimalism’ – that is, simply reading the text straight prose without digging deeper into these other interpretive methods. None of this is to deny or even downplay in the least the literal truth of what is literally the Word of God. Quite the opposite, really. So much deeper, more meaningful truth can be brought out when a broader, deeper, interpretive method is followed. Unfortunately, in these blogs, I simply do not have the space to really discuss all this, and the real purpose of these blogs is not to explain it in detail anyway, but to point my millions of followers in the direction of some great works to read for themselves.

That said, let me mention a few of Jordan’s works:

Through New Eyes

Subtitled Developing a Biblical View of the World. On my post concerning Dr. Leithart, I highly recommended his book A House For My Name. In his preface, Dr. Leithart semi-jokingly stated that he toyed with the idea of titling that book "Through New Eyes for Dummies." (In fact, in nearly all of Dr. Leithart’s works, he gives thanks to Mr. Jordan for his influence.) Probably even more so than A House… I would recommend Through New Eyes as a starting place for anyone seeking to get a deeper understanding of Scripture and even more importantly to get a deeper understanding of how to read, study, and interpret scripture in the future. I simply can not recommend this book highly enough.

If you do ever find yourself reading this book and get bogged down in the opening pages, please keep plodding through. Once some original groundwork is laid, the book to me actually gets much easier to read and understand.

While not as straight of an Old Testament Survey as A House…this book nonetheless at points does present something of an Old Testament history culminating in the coming of Christ – especially in Part 4. However, it is much broader than that, spending a great deal of the bulk of the book discussing the topics of typology, symbolism, etc. as interpretive tools. The chapter titles are as follows:

Part 1 The Nature of the World

1. Interpreting the World Design;
2. The Purpose of the World;
3. Symbolism and Worldview;

Part 2 The Features of the World

4. The World as God’s House;
5. Sun, Moon, and Stars;
6. Rocks, Gold and Gems;
7. Trees and Thorns;
8. Birds and Beasts;
9. Angels;

Part 3 the Transformation of the World

10. Breaking Bread – the Rite of Transformation;
11. Man – The Agent of Transformation;
12. Eden – The World of Transformation;

Part 4 The Movement of History

13. The World of Noah;
14. The World of the Patriarchs;
15. The World of the Tabernacle;
16. The World of the Temple;
17. The Worlds of Exile and Restoration;
18. The New World;
19. The Course of History.

There are also lots of diagrams which are usually helpful. This book has helped me more than any other single work in developing an understanding of the Biblical text. I highly recommend this work.

Primeval Saints

Subtitled Studies in the Patriarchs of Genesis this 150 page gem looks at such heroes and villains (often both found in the same person!) as Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph among others. Some of the persons and events we have often associated as being negative are shown in a positive light – for example Abraham ‘lying’ about Sarah being his sister, Jacob tricking Isaac for his blessing, etc. Very simple read – very informative also.

Creation in Six Days

Subtitled A Defense of the Traditional reading of Genesis One. This book is not a ‘defense’ of creationism as opposed to some sort of Godless evolution. Instead, it is a defense of interpreting the creation account as teaching a six day, relatively recent creation as opposed to the interpretation of other Bible believing Christians who have tried to explain away the creation story as being somehow symbolic, poetic, or whatever. As should be obvious, Jordan see a Bible filled with poetry, symbolism, etc. and often this gives us deeper, richer theological meaning to the text. However, this does not mean that the straight reading is totally meaningless and can be ignored. The literary features add to the straight readings – it does not make it null and void.
According to Jordan, almost the ONLY people who have tried to make the case that the creation account actually does not teach a literal six day recent creation are Bible believing evangelical Christians. Liberals say that it teaches this, but the Bible is not the infallible Word of God, and therefore it is ok if it teaches this and is incorrect. Atheists and evolutionists say it teaches this which only shows that the Bible is unreliable and Christians are simply crazy to believe it because you know, obviously the world is gazillions of years old and species, including mankind, were not created whole but evolved over long periods of time. Faced with this, conservative, Bible believing Christians have been forced to say that well, The Bible is God’s infallible Word and can not be wrong, but since ‘obviously’ the world is gazillions of years old, and evolution has ‘obviously’ occurred, the Creation account must actually not teach a literal recent six day creation. Therefore, several alternate theories have cropped up, including a couple of varients of what is known as the ‘framework interpretation,’ an interpretation known as ‘anthropomorphic days,’ one known as the ‘limited geography interpretation.’ Jordan takes these on one at a time and shows they simply do not work as interpretations of the creation account. The only consistent, sensible interpretation of the creation account is the traditional one that the world was created in six, normal days, not so very long ago.

Now, if the actual interpretation of the creation account is that the world was created in six days and this relatively recently, then we as Christians have but two choices. Hold fast to the Word of God in the face of ridicule by modern science or somehow, someway, deny the Scripture (and therefore its author??)

Going on from there, a couple of brief books concerning worship/liturgy that are very worthwhile if you already have some interest are Liturgical Nestorianism and the Regulative Principle, and The Liturgy Trap. These two books are quite particular in their content, and if you do not already have some understanding of the various philosophies of worship – esp. as seen in reformed worship controversies, then these may not interest you. However, if you ever actually do read some of these recommendations, sooner or later you will have interest enough to read these works.

The only other book I currently own of Jordans is Covenant Sequence in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. At this point this is the only book of Jordan’s that I do not give a wholehearted recommendation for. This is not because I have some sort of disagreement with it, but because this is the only book of the ones I’ve mentioned so far that is just simply too technical for me to get much out of it. This book is only like 70 pages, but I’ve never been able to read it thorough because I keep getting bogged down. Actually, this book would have probably been much more readable at 300-400 pages instead of 70, because at 70 it is just too dense.

Other writings by Jordan that I have read include various essays which appear in essay collection books (a lot of the same ones as Leithart). His essay Merit Verses Maturity in the book The Federal Vision is worth the price of the book. He also has really countless essays available in various forms that can be found and or purchased for his Biblical Horizons website linked on this page.

For future reading for me, I desire at some point to find his commentary on the book of Judges. A reading of this book along with Leithart’s books on Samuel and Kings would really give one a solid basis for this period of Biblical history. (If my pastor Rich Lusk can ever get his book on Ruth done, that would be the icing on the cake!)

In addition to this, another book I long to get to is his Sociology of the Church which is really, I believe a collection of topical essays more than a full concept book. He also has a Brief Readers Guide to the Book of Revelation which is likely worth the effort. Finally, his most recent publication is his long awaited commentary on the Book of Daniel entitled Handwriting on the Wall. Unfortunately it is a bit pricey, and may be out of a philosophers budget right now!
Anyway, James Jordan would be an excellent choice to begin reading if you want to broaden you theological understanding. Start with Through New Eyes – followed by perhaps Leithart’s A House for My Name and you’ll be off and running!!

Theological Book Recommendations - I

I recently wrote several book suggestions for economics. I would like to write a few recommendations on religious/theological works as well. This list is by no means complete – even of the books that I would recommend. Also, as with all subjects, there are countless books published on the topic, and I have not read even one one-hundredth of one percent, so there are probably innumerable books out there that others could recommend to me. Therefore, these are simply recommendations – not an attempt to be an end-all discussion about which books one must read.

I would like to start off discussing my favorite theological authors and list several books by each with brief discussions of each. I really enjoy each of these writers a great deal, and the order they appear below is simply the order they came to my mind, not necessarily an order of favorites. In this post, I will start with one of my favorite authors.

Peter Leithart

I would recommend to anyone anywhere to read anything they can get their hands on by Dr. Leithart. He is simply one of the most brilliant minds on the planet. I have fallen far behind on reading his books, because he seems to write books faster than I can read them. I will list and discuss several here.

Before discussing, though, I would like to make a caveat. Most of the writers I am going to be discussing come from the Presbyterian/Reformed tradition. That may seem at first to pigeonhole my exposure to one small section of the total Christian Tradition. And certainly Leithart and many of the others are firmly planted in the Presbyterian/Reformed Tradition. However, certainly with Leithart (as well as Jordan, our next author) you really get the best of all worlds. These guys are extremely well read across the vast array of the Christian tradition. They constantly quote or reference scholars/authors/thinkers/pastors from all sorts of various Christian denominational affiliations. Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and others are referenced extensively – or if not, their influence can be seen in their writings. Therefore, you get a truly Catholic (in the good sense of the word) reflection on things theological along with the doctrinal boundaries of the broader Reformed world. This makes it far more interesting, readable, and informative than someone stuck only within the reformed world, while at the same time not losing the moorings that reformed doctrinal boundaries give you.

That said, allow me to discuss Leithart’s work.

The Kingdom and the Power

I think this was his first major book length publication. I have seen evidence on Amazon of earlier books or collaborations, but I believe these are minor compared to this. This is absolutely one of my favorite books. Very readable, very thought provoking. It is scholarly (filled with endnotes referencing a variety of sources) yet accessible, in my opinion, to the average, or even slightly below average reader. This is my favorite level of book to read. Most popular level stuff is just so much fluff, not really saying anything. On the other end of the spectrum is scholarly work that makes my eyes gloss over while I try to read it. This book (as with most of Leitharts work) is incredibly deep while still being readable.

The topic of this book is pretty much given in its subtitle Rediscovering the Centrality of the Church. Leithart discusses the Christians role in the current "cultural wars." Written in the early 1990s some of the issues and people mentioned may seem a tad dated now, fifteen years later, but this is not even distracting. Leithart’s argument is not that Christians should be politically active in some certain way, or not active, or anything of the like. (He discusses early some of his own activism and/or lack thereof in the anti-abortion movements) His point is that actually the most political thing the church can do is to be the church. The church is most politically active when her people are gathering on a regular basis and corporately worshipping the One True and Living God, praying, singing, confessing, loving one another, communing. This is where the Kingdom is manifest. This is how societies will change primarily. Any political or social activism by Christians individually or collectively needs to flow out of a culture of coroporate worship.

A House for My Name

Subtitled A Survey of the Old Testament. This book is exactly what that subtitle says – well almost. It is not really a full survey of the entirety of the Old Testament Writings (Torah, historical books, wisdom literature, Psalms, Prophets). Instead it is really a survey of Old Testament History – basically outlining the major themes from Genesis through the intertestamental period. Like any good OT discussion should do, he finishes with the wonder of the Gospel and how it fits into, and completes, the story. The Old and New Testaments are not two separate entities, but are indeed one story that the OT starts, and the NT completes.
This book does not simply reiterate the stories told in the OT, but discusses the typology of the OT. This very brief review can not begin to touch on what this means – you’ll just have to buy the book! However, this is one of those handfuls of books that I absolutely recommend to everyone. You can gain so much from learning that the OT is not simply a collection of stories designed to be example to us. What does the creation story mean? What was the Garden? What does the flood and Ark of Noah signify? How does the Ark relate back to creation? How does it relate to Eden? Why is the basket of Moses referred to as an Ark? Why are there multiple stories that repeat similar themes? Barren women conceiving? Women killing bad guys (usually with a head injury)? What are literary panel structures? What are chiastic structures? How does worship and covenant renewal fit into the OT? How does it flow into the NT? I could go on and on. Great, great book. Again, deep and scholarly, yet readable and accessible to even a simpleton like me!

Blessed are the Hungry

Subtitled Meditations on the Lord’s Supper. Another great book. Unfortunately, in most protestant churches the Lord’s Supper is just not a noticeable part of the culture. Oh maybe once per quarter, or if you are lucky, once per month (I went to one Baptist Church for about 3 ½ years and celebrated communion, I think, twice!) you get to chew on a bland cracker and have a sip of, ugh, grape juice. However, Leithart considers the Supper to be the "world in miniature; it has cosmic significance. Within it we find clues to the meaning of all creation and all history, to the nature of God and the nature of man, to the mystery of the world, which is Christ. It is not confined to the first day, for its power fills seven. Though the table stands at the center, its effects stretch out to the four corners of the earth."

That’s heavy stuff. Leithart then goes on to 28 Old and New Testament Passages concerning the importance of the communion meal. He relates areas you would have never thought of back to the Supper. Some are easy – think of the feeding the five thousand. Jesus took the food in his hand, gave thanks, and distributed it, thereby feeding thousands. He follows the same procedure in the Last Supper. Some of the OT passages may seem to be a stretch, until you start to realize how common such things are, and that really all of scripture is ultimately about Christ communing with His Church. All of a sudden, another key to understanding Scripture is opened up. This with the previous book will certainly bring you a long way to better scriptural wisdom.

This book closes with the only long essay in the whole thing (Most of them are less than 5-6 pages.) The long essay looks at the Lord’s Supper in Christian history, suggesting that most of the controversy has focused on the wrong thing. The question is not what happens or does not happen to the communion elements. The question is what happens to the communion participants. Good Stuff!

Against Christianity

Yes, the title may sound shocking. I think it was intentionally provocative on the author’s part. As should be obvious, Dr. Leithart is not against the faith, Our Lord, Scripture, Christian living, etc. However, he is against what many people seem to posit as the faith. That is, namely, that we can reduce all of scripture to some list of propositions and call this list of propositions "Christianity." Then of course, anyone who assents to these propositions is a "Christian". This is a major truncation, in fact a misrepresentation, of what the faith actually is. The faith is really a whole new way of being human. It is not something we assent to and maybe participate in on Sunday Morning, then leave at the altar. It is something to be lived. We are followers of Christ morning, noon, and night, seven days a week. Our whole life is not simply colored by our Christian beliefs (assents to propositions) but in fact our very nature and existence is dead and resurrected into newness. The depth of this relatively short book is simply mind boggling. The writing is among Leithart’s best, though at times least accessible. I did notice that when I re-read the book a second time, I got a whole lot more out of it. This is also among Dr. Leithart’s most controversial works. Particularly since a large portion of the Presbyterian/Reformed world actually does believe that "Christianity" is simply an "assent to certain propositions."

A Son to Me

This book is an exposition on the books of I and II Samuel. Many typological themes are picked up on and hammered home. Think of this as A House for My Name expanded to greater detail – honed in on a particular book of the Bible. It’s been a while since I read this, so it is hard to comment. However, as the title suggests, the theme of ‘sonship’ runs throughout the book(s) of Samuel. Samuel became a ‘son’ first to Hannah, of course, but also then to Eli. David became a ‘son’ to Samuel. Hmmm, the Father and the Son. Any Christian implications in this book of the Old Testament?

From Silence to Song

Subtitled The Davidic Liturgical Revolution. This book picks up on the fact that early in the history of the nation of Israel (Leviticus in particular) there was no music involved in worship. With the kingship of David, this changed. (I’m sure you all noticed that when studying the OT , didn’t you??? Me neither!!!) David instituted Levitical Choirs, and instrumentalists. ‘Song’ is really glorified speech and prayer. This represents a major step forward in redemptive history. Dr. Leithart draws out many important implications of this for Christian life, worship, and finally for eschatology. Pretty short book, yet fairly deep reading.

Others

I have read at one time or another all of the books above, but Dr. Leithart has written many more which I will briefly mention here. Yes, they are all on my reading list!

The Brazos Commentary on I and II Kings

( I am not sure if this is the exact title) The publishing company Brazos is working on a series of Biblical commentaries by various heavyweight theologians. Dr. Leithart seems to have great interest in Old Testament Studies, particularly the periods covered by Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. He has done extensive studies in these areas. I have heard great reviews about this book. I would think it would stand alongside A Son to Me, (Samuel) and From Silence to Song (which is largely from Chronicles) along with the relevant sections of A House for My Name to give the unseasoned a great overall view of this period of Biblical history.

Other books that I have not yet read, but certainly intend to at some point include The Promise of His Appearing. This is a commentary on the NT book of II Peter. Solomon Among the Postmoderns; The Baptized Body; Deep Comedy: Trinity, Tragedy, and Hope in Western Literature. In addition to this, he has written other literary works including Brightest Heaven of Invention: A Christian Guide to Six Shakespear Plays. Miniature in Morals: The Christian Novels of Jane Austin. Writer of Fancy; The Playful Piety of Jane Austin. Heroes of the City of Man: A Christian Guide to Select Ancient Literature. And finally Ascent to Love: A Guide to Dante’s Divine Comedy. As you can see, the man has a widespread knowledge of theology, history, and literature.

One other work worth mentioning is The Priesthood of the Plebs which was actually Leithart's doctoral thesis at Cambridge University in England concerning baptism. All of these works are available all over the web, although some are getting hard to find and sometimes expensive. And really, there are other books and untold articles and essays by Dr. Leithart. Several essay collection books (The Federal Vision, The Case for Covenant Communion and several others) have essays by Dr. Leithart. Hopefully I have wet your appetite and you may start checking some of these out.

I have actually had the great privilege of meeting Dr. Leithart on several occasions, even attending a small gathering for dinner a couple of times. For someone obviously in the upper echelon (did I even spell that correctly?) of intellectualism, he is as down to earth and pleasant to be around as one could imagine – even autographing several of my books. Great Guy. Great Books. I have heard him teach and preach – several times on the Samuel and Kings sections that he was working through while working on his books – What a treat! In fact, he will be here in town at our church in July '08. Check out our web page to the right if you want to find out about it.

If I had to recommend only one Leithart book (that would be very difficult) I think it would be A House for My Name. I think every Christian needs to read this book. It will help so much in your biblical studies and understand. And isn't understanding God's Word one of our highest callings as Christians?

Whenever I get around to posting again, I will write about James B. Jordan who has actually been something of a mentor for Dr. Leithart. Again great stuff!

Reading List

This post is a continuation of the previous post below. There, I talked about the lack of knowledge of the general population in the area of economics. I ended by stating that I would continue with a brief reading list. Before perusing this list, you may want to read the previous post to get an idea of where I am coming from.

I do have a few of caveats concerning this list: 1) This list is not to suggest that any and every thing said by each of these is absolutely without error – this is not a wholesale endorsement of any or every of these writers and their work 2) some of these writers are Christian of one stripe or the other, and some are not. Ultimately, I do believe that real truth is only to be found in God, its author. Therefore, real truth on earth can only be ascertained by those who faithfully believe in Him. However, this does not mean that unbelievers are not capable of getting glimpses of this truth or teaching it to others. An absolute atheist may be able to calculate the distance between the earth and sun, but have no comprehension of the maker of the earth and sun. 3) I have not myself read all of these. In fact, there are a great many that I have not. However, I am familiar enough with most of the authors to comment. I will try to comment on these issues where appropriate.

Henry Hazlitt

The first place that I send every person I can to get an overall, simple, easy to read explanation is to a book entitled Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. (I have absolutely no idea what his religious views, if any, were) This is a relatively short work made up of numerous, relatively short and easy to understand essays on a variety of topics including some of those listed above (minimum wage laws, etc.) His "one lesson" is essentially what I have written about in the previous post, but in his words it is stated thusly: "From this aspect, therefore, the whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence. The art of economics consists of looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.

He then goes on to do just that, tracing the consequences of various policies and ideas for all groups. I can not recommend this work highly enough. If you never read another work on economics in your life, please read this one.

Clarence Carson

Another writer who is not known to the major portion of the general populace, but who is worth seeking out is Dr. Clarence B. Carson. Dr. Carson was from small town rural Alabama, received an education from Auburn University and Vanderbilt University, taught at both high school and college level, and wrote numerous books and countless articles. His main area of study was history. However, in this he developed an interest and aptitude in economics. Dr. Carson’s most important contribution to this field was, in my opinion, his book The War on the Poor. This book was written in the late 1960s during the peak of President Johnson’s "Great Society" program. Carson demonstrated, both theoretically and with empirical evidence, that all these programs aimed supposedly at helping the poorer people actually causes them harm. (Again, this is Hazlitt’s ‘one lesson’ of economics.) Thus, the so called "war on poverty" of LBJ was actually a "war on the poor." This work is mostly unknown and overlooked. I think it should be essential reading in our classrooms today. Dr. Carson also wrote a book entitled Basic Economics. This is more an overall view of economic thought with the various economic theories explained. I do believe Dr. Carson was a man of faith, though I am uncertain his denominational affiliation.

Gary North

Dr. Gary North is a controversial figure for numerous reasons. I will very briefly mention them here, but without any personal bias. Dr. North is a very conservative Christian with ties to certain minority wings within the reformed Christian right. This alone, of course, makes him at the very least a little suspect to those anywhere to the left of Jerry Falwell. However, the biggest problem within the circles he has run in seems to be in-fighting. All points theological and otherwise are firmly marked out and anyone within those circles who steps outside the lines then becomes outcast, or makes the others outside their own lines out to be the outcast. North has probably been on both sides of the "I’m the real reformed Christian" arguments.

As an example, North had strong ties with Dr. R. J. Rushdoony - probably the most important man in the circles in which he runs. He even became Dr. Rushdoony’s son in law. However, North and Rushdoony eventually had a falling out from which they apparently still had not mended at the time of Rushdoony’s death a few years back.

Dr. North is also noted for his sensationalism which is sometimes a bit over the top. He was one of the louder voices forecasting the Y2K disaster. He even personally staked his own professional reputation on his being right about the pending doom stating essentially that if he was wrong about it then no one should ever listen to anything he had to say again. Many of his followers spent tons of money preparing for the disaster. Of course he turned out to be wrong. Of course he keeps on opining on a variety of topics and of course a large contingent of his followers were unswayed by his inaccuracy.

Although I have never met nor spoken to the man, I know several who have had direct contact with him. My understanding is that there can be a lack of Christian love, humility and charity in his personality.

All the above is simply expanding on my caveats that I started with. I know Dr. North is a Christian and I do not question the sincerity or orthodoxy of his faith for one minute. However, I would be very uncomfortable totally aligning myself with his name.

That said, Dr. North has done a tremendous amount of work in the area of Biblical economics (which seems to be his area of special expertise.) If we ignore him because of the above stated reasons we may be missing out on some thoughtful insight. Some of Dr. North’s books include his being publisher of a series of books called Biblical Blueprints. In addition to being the publisher, he was the author of several of the volumes. Pertinent titles in this series include Inherit the Earth: Biblical Principals in Economics; Honest Money:Biblical Principals of Money and Banking; In the Shadow of Plenty; Biblical Principals of Welfare and Poverty (Written by George Grant). In addition to this series, Dr. North has written An Introduction to Christian Economics and Coined Freedom: Gold in the Age of the Bureaucrats. Finally, Dr. North’s lifelong project has been to produce an economic commentary on every book of the Bible. This is a very ambitious project and will likely not be completed. However, he has produced several such commentaries. Dr. North also writes numerous newsletters and has various websites he either runs or contributes to.

I have read several of his works and find them to be solid in the area of economics and would recommend them. This is not a wholesale endorsement of everything he has ever said, nor even of the theories of economics laid out in these books. However as part of forming an overall understanding of economics from a Christian perspective, Dr. North is very valuable.

I would absolutely recommend Honest Money as being almost as indispensable as Hazlitt’s work.

David Chilton

David Chilton was a theological writer who produced one of the greatest comentaries on the book of Revelation ever written. He was also for a time closely associated with Dr. North. (I think they ended in a theological squabble.) While he was working with Dr. North, Chilton produced a book entitled Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators. This book was a biting, somewhat sarcastic response to a book published previously by Ronald Sider entitled Rich Christians in and Age of Hunger. Sider’s thesis was that it is a disgrace that there are Christians (mostly American) who are rich while the world is full of poverty. His solution, of course, was government programs. He attempted to use scripture to justify this position stating that God is always on the side of the poor and against the rich. Chilton demolishes this thesis biblically.

Because of his sometimes caustic wit, this book is often looked down upon as negative. However, if one can read through the biting humor, one can learn quite a bit about biblical economics here. Chilton’s book is not anti-poor, nor anti-charity. It is anti-forced governmental solutions to these problems. If you are somewhat sympathetic to his views, this will be one of the most entertaining books on economics you will ever read. If you are not sympathetic to his views, I would not recommend reading this until you have had a full cardiac exam.

Ludwig von Mises

Mises was, as far as I know, not a Christian. I am not even sure I understand exactly where he is coming from. Mises did not necessarily see some form of moral correctness or superiority of the free market, honest money system. He simply saw very clearly that the outcomes of this system were always superior to the outcomes of any form of planned or managed economy. On the one hand, therefore, he wrote from an empirical standpoint. We can study the theories behind the various economic systems and come to definite conclusions. We can then study these systems in practice and see these outcomes.

On the other hand, Mises was, correctly I believe, doubtful of the ability of the economist’s ability to empirically study a specific effect of a specific economic activity. That is because unlike with the physical sciences, economic factors can not be isolated in a laboratory type setting. We can not, for instance, hold all things constant while varying minimum wage, then measure the effects of the minimum wage. This is impossible. The economy is dynamic, not static. The whole economy is constantly changing. How can we therefore, amidst all this change, measure the effects of minimum wage? However, minimum wage can be shown very definitely in theory to have a negative impact. We can look at the overall economic policy of a nation and determine if it is sound or not theoretically. We can then look and see if our predicted effects are generally coming about in the economy.

The system of economics that Mises is associated with is called the Austrian School of Economics. This line of thought is not necessarily religious. However, the economic theories on paper are quite similar to what some see as the biblical system of economics (sound money, limited government intervention, etc) Because of this, Mises and his crowd were known to at least cross paths with Rushdoony, North, and their crowd.

Mises wrote tremendous volumes. I mentioned several of them previously. Human Action, The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality; Socialism; The Theory of Money and Credit are among his most widely read works. Much can be learned about Mises and the Austrian School from the Ludwig von Mises Institute located in Auburn, Alabama. They also have a website. It may be worth researching.

Murray Rothbard

Rothbard was a student of Mises. He was not a Christian, though apparently he had a great deal of respect for the Christian tradition of the West. Of interest are his book America’s Great Depression and his magnum opus Man, Economy, and State. He wrote many others as well as countless articles and essays.

His America’s Great Depression absolutely demolishes the myth that the depression was caused by the free market and that the nation was rescued by government intervention. The actual truth is that the depression was caused by government intervention, made longer and deeper by further government intervention, then masked by yet further government intervention which continues to this day.

Other writers who may be of varying interests include Dr. George Grant, Thomas Sowell, Llewellyn Rockwell and others. Do some internet searches. Also, the standard historical read for economics students would be Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations (1776).

Generally speaking then, I would recommend the following:

Start with Hazlitt to get a simple, easy to read, easy to understand introduction into general economic thought. Next read Carson’s Basic Economics to get a broader, overall view of the study of economics, followed by his The War on the Poor. From there, if you are still interested, read some of North, et al Biblical Blueprints series, at least the ones that are economic in nature. Particularly Honest Money is a must. From there, go where you may, including possibly some of the others listed above, or others I have not listed.

The Dismal State of Economic Knowledge

I guess about half of what I have posted on here is about how I do not have time to post!!! Unfortunately, I don’t. I have attempted start regular posts on a variety of topics (music, etc.) but have been unable to do anything regular at all. So, I’ll just give up any pretense at regular posting, and just come and go as I can!

The one thing that the nation needs is a religious revival. Every area of life is corrupted by sin, and can only be redeemed by true religion. It has happened before, both on this continent and abroad. It can happen again. If it does, we can expect to see every area of life show signs of redemption. If it doesn’t….well….I’m afraid to speculate.

Religion, faith, God, etc. encompass every single area of life. One area of life that definitely needs redeeming right now is education. Specifically, I am thinking of the level of knowledge and understanding by the general public of economic issues.

In a way, economics is like religion. That is because, like religion, it is universal. That is, economics covers every area of life as well. Every thing you do or do not do, every decision you make, all things in all areas of your life are really ‘economic.’ And since they are done under the One True and Living God who created and governs all things, they are all ‘religious.’ It might seem that if religion is all encompassing, and economics is all encompassing, then either 1) religion and economics are the same thing or 2) religion and economics are competing things. However, this is not necessarily so. To perhaps misuse the amended rules in Orwell’s Animal Farm that stated that while all animals are equal, some are more equal than others, we can argue that while religion and economics are both universal, religion is more universal than economics. Economics is ‘universal’ in that every thing you do is economic or has economic ramifications. However, it does not get to the heart of the meaning and purpose in life – not to mention life’s origins and conclusions. Religion is more broadly universal. But, in relation to our day to day life, what we see, do, act upon, etc. economics can and should be considered universal.

The idea that economics, properly viewed, is in this sense universal, was apparently the view of Ludwig von Mises, one of the leading economists of the twentieth century. While he wrote voluminously on the topic, with such book titles as The Theory of Money and Credit, Socialism, The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, etc., his most famous work is his overall thesis on economics entitled Human Action. What is economics? Broadly speaking, the study of economics can be defined as the study of human action. Broadly speaking, then, using the term "the economy" is simply a way of speaking about the totality of all human activity. When we say that America’s economy is strong, what we are saying is that by and large, the people’s use of their time and talents is being utilized in a way that is generally beneficial to all. (there are always exceptions, of course) When we say that America’s economy is weak or struggling, we are really saying that people’s use of their time and talents is not being efficiently harnessed for the good of all. This may be for any number of reasons. However, I do believe that if our citizens had a better overall understanding of economics, then by necessity our economy would tend to be strong, rather than struggling.

I know when you think of the word ‘economics’ the first word that pops into your head is ‘money.’ Even Mises of Human Action fame, also wrote, as we said, The Theory of Money and Credit. But, ask yourself, what is money? The answer is that money is really only a medium of exchange. Money facilitates ‘human action.’ It is nothing more, and nothing less. Money is one of the means utilized by humans to allow themselves the most productive use of their time and talents, by dividing their time and talents into usable portions (e.g. dollars) to be traded to others for useful portions of their time and talents.

While every single thing we do is economic, the level of understanding of economics in twenty-first century America is disgraceful. I can not think of a topic that more people know less about than economics, while at the same time people think they know a lot about it. Yet, (other than religion) it is the most widely relevant subject there is.

It is at least partly because of this abysmal understanding of economics that our nation’s ‘economy’ is going in the tank. People do not understand the basic principle of what money is, where it comes from, and how it operates. They do not understand that as far as humans can control such outcomes (which is only so far), as a general rule those who have the most money are the ones who have the most talent and energy, or have used their level of talent and energy in the most useful and productive ways.

They also do not understand (and this is vitally important) that activity by the government, aimed at supposedly improving the ‘economy’, have never and can never actually work. Two caveats are due here. First, the economic interests and security of a people is aided by government when government sticks to what it is suppose to do. Therefore, the preceding comment is not to be taken as a call to anarchy. Property and liberty are at great jeopardy when there is no government. In fact, protecting life, liberty, and property (or even more broadly, the pursuit of happiness) is in fact the very purpose of government. When government does this, and only this, a nation can prosper. It is when government oversteps its boundary lines and tries to do all sorts of things above and beyond this, even including ‘spurring the economy,’ that real actual harm is done to the economic interests of the nation.

The second caveat is that often times what government does ‘for’ the economy does have an immediately obvious and observable positive impact. However, this is usually discriminatory (it ‘benefits’ one group of people at the expense of others), and is always temporary. The end result is always that more harm is done to the whole of society than could ever be justified by the temporary gain by a few. In the long run too, it is usually the early ‘beneficiaries’ who ultimately are harmed the most. And of course, this is usually the poorer among us.

To consider some examples of the above think of government action such as welfare payments, minimum wage laws, rent controls, price controls, public works projects, work week regulations, tariffs to protect industry, pro union legislation, windfall profits tax, and on and on. These are all economic intrusions by the government, are all aimed either at helping the lower classes or conversely ‘soaking’ the rich. They all can have immediate, obvious benefits to some group (I make $5 an hour and the government magically makes $7 an hour the legal ‘minimum’ wage – I get a $2 an hour, or $4160 per year raise – great, right???). However, all of these intrusions in the end are impossible to accomplish, hurt the overall economic system of the nation, and in the end, hurt the very people they intended to help. (Consider the worker who got laid off because he was only worth $5 an hour to his company and not $7)

What inevitably happens though, and this is why I believe our economy is possibly on the brink of disaster, is that our leaders pass such laws as these and more; they may or may not have a temporary, limited positive impact; then the longer term, wider impact is negative – economic indicators grow worse. The response of our leaders is always the same. It is not to repeal the damaging laws. Instead it is to pass yet more of the same. This does two things. First, it may (or may not) ‘spur’ the economy, or some portion thereof temporarily. Secondly, though, it makes the situation even more precarious. Economic indicators eventually take a down turn again, and the government responds with more of the same.

The long term impact of this is that of visibly perceived wealth and greatness of a nation, propped up on a horribly shoddy foundation. To use religiously charged language, it is a house built upon the sand. You know what happens to such houses? Eventually they fall, and "great is that fall."

In essence our economy is stacked up on phony money generated by phony government action. To put it in individual terms that are easy to understand, consider that you or I could live an apparently wonderful prosperous life if we had several credit cards with no or very high limits. We could spend and spend. We could also finance fancy cars and large homes, high class vacations, etc. To all the world we look rich. But one day, citi and Capital One will come calling, as will the auto financiers and the mortgage company. If we live like that there are only three possible outcomes: 1) we fall and fall hard 2) we repent of our economic sin, tighten our belt, sell off what we can and pay down our debts and begin living responsibly if it is not too late or 3) we get lucky and die before the fall, leaving it to our children and grandchildren to pick up the pieces.

Our politicians and their in-house economists are banking on number three. One of the leading economists of the last century even admitted it. When asked about the long term effects of his economic plans, John Maynard Keynes stated, "In the long run, we are all dead." That is the type of people who are planning and running our economy.

In summary, I believe our nation needs first and foremost a religious revival. Secondly, and on the heels of this revival, we need a revival of knowledge and understanding – especially in the universal area of human action known as economics. Until this happens, we will continue to get more of the same and this skyscraper built on sand will eventually fall.

To perhaps prime the pump a bit, the following post will contain a few suggested readings.

For Whom are the Sacraments?

The Bible is full of word-pictures. These pictures often tell us much about God - Father, son, and Holy Spirit - man, sin, family relationships, political relationships, and so on. They also often tell us something about God's covenant relationship to his people - a relationship which is itself often the model for these other relationships. Particularly, we are informed in dramatic fashion about Christ's relationship to those whom the Father has given him, i.e. the church.

Four very specific instances of the above occur throughout the gospels, epistles, and the Revelation, but perhaps most clearly and specifically in the writings of the Apostle John. We are told repeatedly that Christ is a shepherd and we are the sheep. The sheep hear their master's voice and those who belong to that master know his voice. Likewise, we are like the branches on a vine. "I am the vine, you are the branches." Third, we find that Christ is the Head, and we, the church, are the body. Finally we find that Christ is the Bridegroom, and we, the church, are the bride. This last is related to the previous, for we are informed that in our earthly covenant relationships of marriage, the husband is the head and the wife is his body. The wife is to submit to the husband, for he is the head. The church is to likewise submit to the authority of its head, namely Christ. The husband loves the wife, for she is his own body. The husband should be willing to lay down his life for his bride as Christ did for His. When husband and wife are united in marriage, the two become one. In like manner, Christ and His Church are so united as to become one. We are united to Christ in His life, His obedience, and even His death. Our earthly covenant relationship of marriage at its best is a scale model of Christ's relationship to His church - His body. Our other relationships and those of nature are also scale models. We are His branches, His flock, and so on.

These word pictures can and should inform us greatly as to the nature of our relationship to Christ. But what do they tell us? What can we learn from this? A cursory look at these pictures should provide us with some very edifying thoughts - thoughts which should color our prayer life, our individual and corporate worship and relationship to the Triune God. In a paper so brief, we can only hint at the depth and breadth of this whole matter. However, even being so shallow and narrow here, these thoughts can and should add significantly to the potential depth and breadth of our relationship.

Individual and Corporate

One of the first things that strike us is that hidden within these word pictures are the concepts of both of the individual and the corporate. We are individually sheep. I can not pass the muster for you, nor you for I. We are individually branches. If you or I are counterproductive in the yielding of fruit, we can and should be cut off and destroyed. Yet Christ has one bride, not many. One flock, not many. One body, not many. And Christ is one vine. Many branches yes, but all on one vine.

This is at once liberating and fear-inducing. It is liberating to know that perhaps if I err, as a sickly member of Christ's body, I will be healed by that Great physician - the Head, the Master, the Vine, the Groom. Not only this, but I have the other members of this same body working with and for me to bring this healing. If I am unfruitful, I have the pruning nature of God's discipline to spur on more fruit production, as well as the other branches of this same vine working in concert with me. If I stray like a lost sheep, I have a patient, caring, and loving Master who will leave the ninety and nine and seek after me and bring me home. I hear not only His voice, but also the voices of the others calling me back into the fold. If I am unfaithful to Him, I have the faithful Bridegroom always ready to forgive and forget.

However, this can be fearful, for if I refuse the medicine and ignore the rest of the body, I may, like the wayward eye or hand spoken of by our Lord in Matthew, be cut off and thrown into the fire. If I refuse to produce fruit, I can be cut off (more than a mere pruning) and be thrown to the fire. If I stray and ignore his voice, I can be finally given up for lost, and may never hear that kind voice again. If I am unfaithful with no repentance, I may be served divorce papers.

Therefore, it is I who must work out my own salvation. My mother can't do it for me, nor my father, nor my wife, nor my children. Yet Christ is kind to me, and is forgiving, and faithful. As an individual member of this vine, flock, body, and bride, I must individually seek Him, pray, worship, serve, and (ah this is hard sometimes) produce fruit. Yet, if all this totally depended on me individually, I would suffer endlessly, never getting where I need to go. If I seem to be grappling for words here there is a reason. I am! The depth and breadth of this is too wonderful for me to know!

But, enter here the corporate side. Corporately I pray and worship together with the rest of the flock, vine, body, and bride. Together we renew covenant weekly (not weakly!) in the breaking of bread - again a picture of the body of Christ. This act strengthens, renews, refreshes, and cheers me. In addition, I can meet with the body, or some small part of it on any other kind of basis as well - for prayer, study, and singing. The edifying power of Christ's institutional body is grand indeed.

The Sacraments

In addition to the above brief and inadequate description, these word pictures I believe, help express something very important in relation to Christ's sacramental provisions for His body/flock/branches/bride. With both sacraments, there is much misinformation within our world of Protestant Christianity. It is a major point of faith among many that the sacrament of baptism is only for those who have reached some subjective level of saving faith. It is even a wider belief that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is for such as these. In relation to this, let us first consider what these word pictures tell us when approached literally.

When a man owns a flock of animals, he owns not only the flock, but also their offspring. When one animal is born to his flock, he does not discard it. To do so would dwindle his flock in short order! He does not send the animal away and disown it, then hope and pray that it comes back to him at a later time in its life. Sure, he may buy other animals, and if he is interested in growing his little 'kingdom' exponentially he does. But, in good times and bad, he can be sure to keep those he has, and to keep their offspring. And let us not neglect to understand that often to indicate ownership, the man will place some form of identifying mark on those that are his. A brand or a tag on the ear or some other similar mark shows ownership.

Likewise, when a child is born to those who already belong to God in Christ, does He discard that child? Surely not! To do so would not make sense. While it is true that God 'owns' everything and everyone, He 'owns' His flock in a special sense. When one is born to His flock, they are His as well.

Naturally, if that little sheep grows up to be unfaithful to Him and unproductive for Him, he may discard of it then. However, if the rest of the flock (that's us!) does its job, this really should not be a problem. Also, clearly, our Lord is adding to his flock from those outside of what He currently owns. There is nothing unusual in that, for He is growing his kingdom through various means. (Also, when He does purchase a new sheep from outside the fold, he then owns their offspring as well.) But he most certainly does not say to a new arrival, "You're not mine! Go away and come back another day when you have a clearer understanding of my love for you, and when you can convince the rest of he sheep that you belong with them. I want you to submit to me first, through your own initiative and then I will claim ownership of you (if it is alright with the rest of the sheep)." Does a shepherd treat the offspring of his own sheep in such manner?

Now, does Christ have a brand or a tag that he places on his sheep? Certainly! It is baptism. Christian baptism for covenant infants and small children should be the norm, rather than the exception that it is fast becoming.

In similar manner, when a new twig sprouts on a vine, does the vine dresser immediately clip it off and hope it will grow outside the vine? Then, if it miraculously does so, does he graft it back in? Or does he dress the entire vine, and "cut off" only those branches that work against his primary goal, the production of fruit? Sure, he may prune the vine to spur it on to greater production, but he does not clip each and every new branch that sprouts.

Does a husband love parts of his bride, but not the whole? Does the band on the finger mean that part of the bride belongs to the husband, or does it mean that the whole of the bride does? Does a man cut off parts of his own body without reason? Or does he only cut off a part that is so diseased as to cause damage to the whole?

The whole flock, all of the branches, the whole bride, the whole body belong to the Shepherd, Vine, Groom, and Head. It is a unified whole - far more than the sum of its parts - and woefully incomplete without all of its parts. As concerns baptism, the picture of the flock is the most useful. Again, the shepherd does not discard the newborns of his flock. He places his mark of ownership on them, and treats them as his own.

In addition to owning them is the fact that he cares for them as well. He does not feed the full-grown sheep only, but feeds the little lambs as well. Sure, in the early stages of their life, the littlest lambs are fed indirectly, as the shepherd provides nourishment for the mother, who in turn provides it to her babe. However, as soon as this babe is able to feed on its own, the shepherd provides the needed nourishment to this little lamb. In the beginning, the lamb likely does not understand that it is the shepherd that is providing for it. But, over time, this feeding process certainly builds the understanding in the lamb that it is the shepherd who is his provider. Through this caregiving, the lamb comes to know to whom he belongs and who is providing all of his needs. He then becomes committed to the shepherd, hears his voice and obeys his commands.

Surely, this tells us a great deal about how Christ, our Shepherd, nourishes us with the meal of His Body and Blood! When we are too young to take this meal directly, we take it indirectly through our mother's milk. However, as we begin to grow and mature, we are able to partake in it ourselves. We may not understand right from the beginning that it is in fact our Great Shepherd that is providing this vital nourishment to our souls, but, over time, this fact becomes clear. We hear His voice and cheerfully obey His commands.

Likewise, the new twig sprouting on the vine does not know from where it gets its life giving nourishment, but it does in fact receive it. The vine does not shut off its supply of life from the new twig until it grows up. If so, it would never grow up. But, the twig receives its life from the vine because it itself is an integral part of that vine. It is not separated and cared for in a different manner, only to become grafted back in at a later date.

A man does not neglect part of his body, cut it off and remove it, then re-attach it at a later date if it is deemed worthy. Instead, he cares for the whole body, and only cuts off what is dead or diseased. A man does not love part of his wife, and discard the other parts, waiting on a hopeful future date when he can love the remainder of her body.

Perhaps my words here are not perfectly stated, and they may indeed be in need of revision. However, I think it is plain from these and other word-pictures of the Bible that the sacraments are not for some of Christ's body, bride, branches, and sheep, but for all. Christ owns us and Christ provides what is needed for us. This includes all our body parts, all our branches, and all the sheep of the fold, including the newborns. Given this, why on earth would we neglect so great an ownership, and so great a care?

Dare we tell Christ that no, he can't have our little ones yet until we are satisfied to our set of standards that they know that they belong to Him? Dare we neglect His ownership, and His care? I contend that we do so only at great risk of becoming unfruitful ourselves, and then we risk the horrible prospect of being cut off and discarded.

The Atheists Ego

Again - something from years past

________________________________

A recent writer to the Reader's Opinion section of the Birmingham News made the following statement: "(T)here can be no God who would sanction or allow an attack like this or, for that matter, many other events happening all over the world." The writer would do well to contemplate his own words a little deeper.

In essence, what he means is this: "I can not fathom a God who would sanction or allow an attack like this, etc., and since I can not fathom Him, He can not exist." In other words, this writer is informing us that it is he who has the final say on what God can or can not be or do or allow. This writer has set his own intellect up as the sole and final judge over the possibility of God's existence. To so do, this writer must evidently see himself as omnipotent, having the ability to see all, comprehend all, and judge all.

I believe this writer does believe in a god. But his god is himself. No other God can exist without his personal approval. This is the absolute height of arrogance.

The "problem" of evil, pain, and suffering is perhaps the atheist's final plea. However, he must come to understand that without God, he can not even define good and evil. He has to assume that his own intellect, which by his creed is only a series of random eletro-chemical impulses, can somehow define what is good and what is evil.

Perhaps when the writer, and others like him, contemplate that without God they are setting their own minds up as omnipotent, while yet their own minds are only the result random chance and chaos, they will conclude that God does indeed exist, based on the impossibility of the contrary.

Church Signs

Here is just a handful of the silly church signs I have seen.

"Go and sin no more."…We believe this is possible. (Pentecostal Church near Tuscaloosa.)

Anger is one letter short of danger. ( Near Boaz)

God is not mad at you no matter what. (near Huntsville)

The Flock that Rocks. (Newspaper add for a church in Florida Today.)

Atheistic Presuppositions

This is something I wrote years ago. I found it recently and thought I'd post it. Yeah, it's a little unpolished, but in case you haven't noticed, everything I post is!

______________________________________________________________


The events of September 11 have shaken many Americans to the core. While no one rejoices at this tragedy, many atheists and skeptics have happily used it to attempt to further their cause. The cause of the atheists and skeptics is to deny the existence of God, or at the very least, to place it in extreme doubt. God can not be "proven" to exist using the natural order they would tell us, as if limiting a discussion of the supernatural to the natural in any way made sense.

However, in addition to attempting to limit all discussions to the natural order, the atheists and skeptics also have a reliable old friend they bring out at every opportunity to cast doubt on the possibility of God's existence. This "friend" is known as "the problem of evil."

The argument goes something like this: The God of the Bible can not exist if evil exists in the world. (And the events of September 11 were indeed evil, as we all know). That is because the Bible teaches that God is all good, with no mixture of sin or evil, and that God is all powerful, and can cause to happen or not happen whatever He desires. If God desires only good, and can do anything at all, then there should be no evil in the world. Since there most assuredly is evil in the world, then it is impossible that such a God could exist.

According to many an atheist and skeptic, this is the one argument a Christian simply can not get around, and it is almost universally one of the main reasons many unbelievers are unbelievers. How can an all-good and all-powerful God sanction evil or allow evil to exist? Obviously, an all-good and all-powerful God would not allow such. Yet evil exists. Therefore, God, at least the God of the Bible, must not exist.

Unfortunately for the unbeliever who clings to this line of reasoning, he has not thought out all of the implications tied to the making of that argument, particularly in light of his reluctance to even discuss things beyond the natural realm. The very concept of "good and evil" is itself outside of the natural realm, and hence should be off limits to the atheists who claim to only believe what can be empirically verified.

The problem for the atheist goes much further than this, however. To understand how much further it goes, we will need to briefly discuss the atheistic presuppositions.

The impossibility of a world without God

Everyone has presuppositions, that is, underlying worldviews that provide the foundation for, and inevitably bias, his views on any topic. The Christian presupposition is that the God of the Bible exists, that He is all-good, all-powerful, and so forth. He created the world out of nothing by His mere power in the span of six days. He providentially controls whatsoever comes to pass.
The atheist's presupposition is that no God exists. Nothing outside of the natural order - that is, things that can be seen, heard, smelt, tasted, and felt - can exist.

Right off the bat the atheist has a problem. For, if this world which we live in exists, which it obviously does, then from whence did it come? They deny the possibility of a Creator, yet can not explain the very existence of our universe. In order for our universe to be here as it is now, there are only two possibilities. One, that it, in some form or other, has always existed for all of eternity past; or two, that it began to exist at some point in history. Both of these possibilities are impossible for the human mind, using natural assumptions, to fathom. We can not even begin to imagine the very concept of an eternity past. Additionally, the second law of thermodynamics simply (when viewed through the lens of naturalistic presuppositions) will not allow the universe to have existed for an eternity. The amount of energy in the universe is finite. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that, left free of outside input, energy passes from a useful form to a non-useful form. That is, things go from order, to disorder. Over an eternity, obviously the order or usefulness of the energy in the universe, will long since have been completely dissipated. Unless…

Unless the amount of energy, space, and matter in the universe is itself infinite. Now, can the human mind fathom an infinite amount of space, energy, and matter, which has eternally existed? Of course not. Is there a natural explanation to such a thing? Of course not.
The second option is really no better for the atheist. There, he has to assume that the universe did not exist until some certain point in history, then it began to exist. How does he explain this phenomena, using only naturalism? He can't.

Even with this second option, the unbeliever is faced with such difficult questions as "Is the universe finite, or infinite?" The mind goes into spasms at the thought of either. The thought of an infinite universe is inconceivable to us. Yet, if it is finite, we must ask, why does it not continue beyond its limits? How can it possibly have a physical end? The human mind is not capable of comprehending the answers to these eternal riddles. The consistent atheist knows this and admits it. The ultimate origins and extents of our universe are not part of the realm of natural science, and therefore can not be commented on by scientists. How convenient! The scientist can only look at and analyze what can be sensed. With this admission, though, the atheist has just given away the game. For at this point, it can be said that the existence of God is at the very least as plausible - to the atheist himself - as is His non-existence.

The atheist, however, then continues with his presupposition that God does not exist, even though it is admittedly outside of his self imposed limits to say so. At this point, he has to conjure up a way in which not only does the universe exist, (a fact that he can not explain using naturalistic limitations), but he also has to explain how the planet earth has come to exist in all its splendor and all of its various levels of life forms.

Obviously, without an intelligent, designing force behind it, the only explanation for the development of our planet, and the various life forms on it, is that somehow order has come out of chaos. How? Well, according to the atheistic assumptions, it has basically been a long series of random chances that have had the cumulative effect of producing what we now see. Random chance bringing order out of chaos is the only explanation the unbeliever has. This is the basis of evolution.

Granted, they attempt to find in the natural order of things a mechanism that causes this. But, tracing this mechanism back to the very origins of the universe is futile to even think about. Granting for the sake of argument only that such a mechanism exists, how does one explain its existence in a universe of unexplained origins, with no intelligence behind it to "jump start" such a mechanism?

Further, the atheist must then admit, for he has no other option, that he himself is the product of order from chaos by the process of random chance. His very thoughts are not in any way spiritual, nor do they in any way have any deep meaning to them, because the spiritual does not exist. They are instead nothing more than electrochemical impulses.

In conclusion then, when the atheist thinks about anything, according to his own creed all that is occurring is an electrochemical process, brought to order out of chaos, through a process of random chance. There is no basis for any type of morality here. In fact, he sits teetering on the fence between being and non-being. Obviously, an electrochemical impulse is not a being. It is a thing. As for other people and objects around him, what guarantee does he have that they exist either, and are not merely the result of some electrochemical process in his own mind? The world of the atheist is fraught with uncertainty!

Back to the problem of evil

Now, this brings us back to our original intent. This atheist that we have just described, sits on his self-constructed throne and tells us that God can not exist because of the problem of evil. However, the question must now be asked, on what basis does the atheist say there is such a thing as good and evil? To begin with, good and evil are supernatural terms, not naturalistic ones. Additionally, since the atheist, and everyone else for that matter, is simply a product of random chance, with no supernatural authority behind it and no spirituality, the very concept of good and evil does not even exist. On what does the atheist base his idea of good and evil? He absolutely can not base it on his own presuppositions, which have been described above. Therefore, he must borrow these concepts, and their definitions, and their foundations, from the theists. He has to assume a theistic worldview in order to argue against it. Surely this can be clearly seen as a precarious position.

Further, after borrowing the worldview of the believer in order to attempt to use it against him, the atheist goes one giant step further. He now says that using his enemies' definitions, which by his own presuppositions must be totally alien to him, he can by his own intellect (which is simply an electrochemical impulse derived from chaos by random chance), define what type of God could or could not exist under those definitions. That is, while his own worldview teaches that he is nothing but the product of random chance magically producing order out of chaos, with no loving or intelligent Being behind it, he now tells us that his intellect is the final judge of what type of omnipotent, omniscient, all-good, all-loving being may or may not exist.

No doubt, the atheist who so argues is terribly blind to his own arrogance and ignorance, as well as to the precarious perch he is sitting on. He reminds us of countless cartoon characters we have see who run off of a high ledge, and remain momentarily suspended in mid-air with no support whatsoever under them. Once they look down and realize that they have no support, they immediately start a free fall.

Likewise, the atheist thinks he is safe and supported fully. However, when he examines the very presuppositions he bases his belief on, then realizes that using his own presuppositions he can not begin to make sense of the world, and that he must borrow the presuppositions of his avowed enemies in order to argue against them, then he will realize that he is about to free fall.
I would advise him to open his Bible and begin studying it. In that situation, it would make and excellent parachute!