Der Kommissar's in town

Four months since my last post and I start by making a reference to an 80's pop song. https://youtu.be/vBfFDTPPlaM

This is the world in which we find ourselves.  In my state of Pennsylvania, we have had millions, er
thous, wait hundr... tens!  Yes, tens of cases of COVID-19!  76 as of Tuesday morning, March 17 to be exact.

Before you accuse me of insensitivity or thought-crime, I understand the seriousness with which the government and the media imbue this crisis.

Governor Wolf (according to his website www.governor.pa.gov) "strongly urged non-essential businesses across the state to close for at least 14 days to help mitigate the spread of COVID-19." Strongly urged? That sounds ominous. He also, "ordered all restaurants and bars close their dine-in facilities."  Ordered? That is ominous. Finally, Governor Wolf is "relying on businesses to act before the Governor or the Secretary of Health finds it necessary to compel closure." And there we have it- compel closure.  All this over tens of cases.

To be fair to Dear Leader Wolf, he is only following the lead of Emperor Trump. And really, when we run out of toilet paper we can just use our copies of the Constitution of the United States of America. We have a right to assembly pursuant to the First Amendment- but for some reason we have decided that we can do without that.

35 Pa Code §§7301 et seq places responsibility for dealing with crises in the Governor. Specifically the governor "may issue executive orders, proclamations and regulations which shall have the force and effect of law." (Emphasis added). Among the specific powers awarded the governor is the ability to "suspend or limit the sale, dispensing or transportation of alcoholic beverages, firearms, explosives and combustibles."  Anyone see a problem with this? Bueller?\

There is another solution- one so painfully obvious there should be no need to pose it. But I will.

Let the people decide!! If a business owner believes it is wise to close the business, let it close. Likewise, a business owner may decide to keep the business open and, as the owner sees fit, implement whatever strategies are desirable.  And We the People can decide which businesses we want to patronize. Are we really that feeble-minded that we can't decide these things for ourselves? Yes, some people will get set. Yes, some people will die.

Or let Der Kommissar decide. "He's got the power and you're so weak."

One Libertarian's View on Impeachment

We are being duped.

Why are we going through this impeachment debacle?

Representatives Schiff (D) and Pelosi (D) may be able to present a case that would be voted upon by the Democrat controlled House.  Suppose that the House of Representatives votes in favor of forwarding the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.  What then? 

A hearing would be held in the U.S. Senate, led by its President Pro Tempore Chuck Grassley (R). The hearing would be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts.  With a Republican controlled Senate, what do you think the result would be?  Even if there was a slim chance of conviction, we would inaugurate President Michael Pence.

What about President Trump? Why does he persist in attacking the character of witnesses instead of the facts?  Why does President Trump not release all the information he has at his disposal to demonstrate his innocence- or at least support his position?

The voting citizenry? The latest polls have shown that we are equally divided on the result.  Pro-Trump and Anti-Trump voters are entrenched. Very few people will actually have an open mind and objectively assess the evidence.

We are being duped.

Why are we going through this impeachment debacle?  When one examines the situation, it makes no sense.

Except it makes perfect sense if you are Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Grassley. It makes perfect sense if you are the Republican National Committee or the Democratic National Committee.  It makes perfect sense if you realize this is not about impeachment.  This is about money.

We are being duped.

This is a great fundraising opportunity.  Republicans will be able to cry “foul” if/when the Democrats pass the Articles of Impeachment. Democrats will be able to cry “foul” if/when the Senate votes to acquit.  In both cases, the donors will contribute more money to the coffers to keep their preferred party in power.  In Washington D.C., money is power.

Who else makes money? The media.  No matter which side you are own, your involvement leads to increased value in advertisement spots.  The longer the media, both Pro-Trump and Anti-Trump, make money by making sure that they keep stirring the pot of discontentment.

A crazy conspiracy theory?  Maybe.  Or, are you being duped?

Elegy for a Moribund Church

Elegy for a Moribund Church

Some go to church to take a walk; some go there to laugh and talk.

Some go there to meet a friend; some go there their time to spend.

Some go there to meet a lover; some go there a fault to cover.

Some go there for speculation; some go there for observation.

Some go there to doze and nod; the wise go there to worship God.

Charles H. Spurgeon (1834-1892)

This is a painful post to write.  I have played my part in the decline.  I bear responsibility.  As someone who is responsible for the decline, it is my duty to do what I can to reverse the decline.

It is no secret that the Mainline Denominations are losing membership.  A recent (October 17, 2019) report from the Pew Research Center on Religion and Public Life notes a decline of 12% in the number of people who identify as “Christian” in the past decade. While one statistic from a longer research project means little, I encourage you to read the entire report, along with the supporting tables which break down the demographics to smaller groups. All can be found at: https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/

In its Religious Landscape Survey, the Pew Research Center found among Mainline Protestants:

66% are absolutely certain there is a God

54% Pray at least daily

29% Look to religion to determine right and wrong (51% rely on common sense)

32% Believe that there are absolute standards of right and wrong (65% believe it depends

            on the situation)

24% Believe the Bible as the literal Word of God; 35% believe the Bible but not as literal.[1]

28% Believe the Bible is not the Word of God.

80% Believe in Heaven

60% Believe in Hell

https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/religious-tradition/mainline-protestant/

The Church, both local and universal is in decline.  Attendance at worship is declining. Opportunities for Bible study and learning outside of worship is declining.  Programs that once thrived have either dwindled or ceased entirely.

I can speak directly of one program that I led. One day, after the pastor of the church belittled me in front of guests, I decided to end the program. Lest you think my decision was hasty I was previously told by a program overseer that the same pastor did not consider my program as celebratory of God.  I also asked those non-guests who were present at the belittling if I heard what I thought I heard. I was assured that the comment was made to put me down and to build her up.  Pardon the digression, but I put included the situation to reach my final point: No one outside of the participants noticed that the program had ended. 

The culmination of all of this was when I was asked to leave the church.  And for that I thank God. As so often happens when we ignore God, God takes the steps necessary to get our attention.  I am now blessed to be attending a growing church. A church that faithfully believes the Bible to be the inspired (we should say “expired”) Word of God, subscribes to its traditional confessions of faith, and hears the Word preached expositorily.  Expository preaching is essential, because it forces the pastor and the congregant to deal with difficult passages; passages that expose our sinful nature.

To the moribund church, I beseech you, listen to God!!  The signs are all about you.  You have replaced the God of the Bible with the God of self.  When only 66% believe in God, there are 34% who have replaced God with something else. When 51% rely on common sense, they have replaced God with themselves.  If only 80% believe in Heaven and 60% believe in Hell, they have no hope in salvation and no belief in damnation.

God is forgiving and God is patient. In the Old Testament covenant, God gave His people a law to establish a relationship between them and God. To paraphrase, if you obey God and observe his laws, God will set you above all nations, but if you do not obey God and observe his laws, God will send on you cursing until you are destroyed because of your wickedness. (Deut. 28:1-20).  I and II Chronicles and I and II Kings are replete with stories of curses visited upon rebellious people and blessings visited upon those who obeyed.

In the New Testament, Jesus tells us, “If you love Me, keep My commandments.” (John 14:15).

The answers to your situation are clear. Return to God. Seek Him out. Read and believe His Word. Pray and give thanks at least once a day. Cleanse your temple of the gods of self and the secular world. Find teachers who “preach the word… for the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.” (II Tim 4:2-4). May God bless you in your journey.

---

[1] This is problematic. The chart itself does not take into account the use of personification, hyperbole, and metaphor.  If you read the Bible like you read any other book, you know that you don’t read poetry like you read history. The writers of God’s word used poetry, narrative, proverb, epistle, sermon and many other styles. I bring this up to posit that you may not believe the Bible is not the literal Word of God simply because of the use of textual devices.

The Hugest Book Ever

Did you ever get book expecting one subject only to find it was based on something else? Did the premise challenge your beliefs? Did you come away with a new appreciation for an unexpected concept and tips to make you a more effective person? I just had one of those experiences.

At a recent book sale, I picked up a copy of Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don’t Matter. (Adams, Scott; Penguin Random House, 2017). Expecting some satirical take on President Trump (I’m not a fan) from the author of Dilbert (I am a fan), the book I was expecting was not at all what I read.

Well-written, carefully explained, and thoroughly illustrated with examples from the campaign, Adams explains why Trump was elected. While a basic knowledge of psychology might be helpful, the reader can rest assured that Adams takes terms and simplifies them to a level that most everyone can understand. Concepts such as “cognitive dissonance,” “confirmation bias,” and “persuasion” are the foundation. He then goes on to show how Mr. Trump used these tools to become President Trump. And after reading this you might come away with the idea, as I did, that President Trump is destined for a second term.

The analysis of the Trump victory is the main course. The ability to use those tactics in any situation where you may need to persuade others is the dessert. This is one of those rare books that I will re-read and take notes. My synopsis could never adequately describe the book. I can only highly recommend this to anyone who wants to improve their communication skills.

What the Bible Doesn't Say and What Calvinists Don't Believe

I was recently given a book to read: Half Truths: God Helps Those Who Help Themselves and Other Things The Bible Doesn’t Say. (Hamilton, Adam; Abingdon Press 2016). On its surface this seems like a practical book. We are familiar with the “money is the root of all evil” fallacy (if not, read I Tim. 6:10 carefully). I was expecting similar gems.

I like to read new books “cold.” I’d rather not research the author and come to writings with a preconceived notion of the author’s intent. The first chapter is entitled, “Everything Happens for a Reason.” As a Calvinist geek- the chapter title didn’t seem too controversial. Hamilton summarizes a number of tragedies and notes that believing in God’s will alleviates us from personal responsibility, makes God responsible for everyone’s actions, and ultimately leads us to fatalism and indifference. At this point, I didn’t like where this was going.

Hamilton then moves on to a summary of the beliefs of John Calvin (1509-1564):

Calvin seemed to believe that for God to be sovereign- that is, to be the highest authority and to have dominion over the universe- then God must will and, in some ultimate sense, cause everything that happens. If something happens that is not God’s will, Calvin argues, then God does not in fact have dominion over everything.

(p. 26).

Hamilton then develops his straw man. Certainly it is ridiculous to believe that God controls the weather when science has given us satellites. (p. 27). Certainly it is ridiculous to believe that God “closed up” or “opened” a woman’s womb when science has given us physiological and biochemical answers. (p. 28). He then goes on to assert that we can have no original ideas, but that God has planted those ideas in our heads. Id. Finally, Hamilton gives us his concept of “predestination.” (p. 29). By this time I had already correctly identified Hamilton as Methodist.

Straw man arguments are great because you just mischaracterize what others believe so that you can easily defeat their position. Hamilton fails to acknowledge that God’s knowledge and plan is not necessarily Man’s knowledge and plan. In other words, just because God knows doesn’t mean we know. While God may know what we are going to do before we are born, it does not mean that we know. The concept of free will may be technically illusory, but in all practicality we still have free will. This does not relieve us responsibility for our actions.

Furthermore, God cannot be the author of sin or evil because then God would not be God. God can, however, use evil for His own good purposes. For further reading, and a more accurate summarization of Calvinism as it applies to foreknowledge and predestination, I refer Pastor Hamilton and the reader to Chapter XVII of The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. (Boettner, Loraine; Presybterian and Reformed Publishing Co. 1932) In fact, the entire book presents a thorough summary of, and biblical foundation for, Calvinism.

By page 26 of Hamilton’s book, I’ve already run into my first problem. This is not to say my Arminianist (Methodist) friends won’t enjoy the book. It is just that when you find logical fallacy after reading only the first 15% of the book, it is going to be a long slog. I will not bore my reader any further with my review. Let me just conclude by acknowledging that I did not disagree with everything Hamilton wrote- but I often found his analysis tended toward Arminianism (as can be expected) and was generally sloppy as he contrasted it with a more Calvinist alternative.

Can a Christian be a Libertarian?

This debate seems to have popped up around me lately. In my last blog post, I made the point that although I am Christian (Reformed and Complementarian) and a Libertarian, if someone wants to have an abortion, that is their right. I don’t condone the action and don’t ask me to participate, but I won’t stop them.

Dr. Albert Mohler would have difficulty with that position. For those not in the know, Dr. Mohler is president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and the Joseph Emerson Brown Professor of Christian Theology. In his recent podcast, The Briefing, Dr. Mohler makes the following relevant observations regarding the death of David Kock.

“The important thing to recognize here is that the traditional conservative movement in the United States has consisted of three parts for the last several decades. That would include big business and corporate interests and then the libertarian movement and then Christian conservatives. Those three have been necessary components of that larger conservative movement, although the worldview of those three components is not exactly the same.”

“In the news story on David Koch's death in the Wall Street Journal, the reporters write, "Although he was a liberal on social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, Mr. Koch used his fortune to support conservative causes such as lower taxes, free trade, and fewer regulations." It also notes, "He was the Libertarian Party's 1980 vice-presidential candidate." Again, the Libertarian Party, the Libertarian Movement. And here's where we need to recognize something very, very important. David Koch was often identified as a conservative. But the Wall Street Journal says even as he was a conservative on fiscal matters, he was a liberal on social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage."

"This is where the Christian worldview reminds us that when you are looking at the dignity of human life and the structures of human life given to us in creation that allow for human happiness and human flourishing, then you're not a conservative if you argue for or allow for the revolution and rejection of both human dignity when it comes to the life of the unborn and the dignity and sanctity of marriage. My final observation based upon a biblical worldview is this. If you do not recognize the full measure of human dignity and if you do not recognize the sanctity of marriage as given to us by the Creator, then there will be virtually nothing left to conserve, and that includes free enterprise.” (Emphasis added).

(For the entire podcast or a transcript of the relevant portion, I will provide this link:

https://albertmohler.com/2019/08/26/briefing-8-26-19  

https://albertmohler.com/2019/08/26/briefing-8-26-19, part IV.

The purpose of my blogs is to express my views and not as a forum for debate, but a reader also questioned my position as it relates to Matthew 18. (Which I will ask the reader to review on his own- it is simply too long to reprint for my purposes here).

I have long realized that there may be some confusion or perceived inconsistency between my beliefs. It was always my intention to address the intersection of my faith and my politics. Now is as good a time as any.

I cannot compare my bona fides to those of Dr. Mohler. His opinions are his and they are well-reasoned. I concede that Dr. Mohler is correct that Libertarianism may not align with traditional Christianity. I can, however, raise what I feel to be a cogent and persuasive argument for my position. Libertarianism and traditional, conservative Christianity are not mutually exclusive.

I begin with the Westminster Confession of Faith of which I am familiar as a former Presbyterian (and perhaps soon to be Reformed Baptist). I recognize that the Westminster Confession of Faith is not as persuasive as the Bible, but since it is based upon Reformed biblical precepts, I believe that it provides a sound introduction to my reasoning.

Chapter V, Paragraph 1 provides that “God, the great Creator of all things, doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.” (footnotes omitted although I encourage you to check the footnotes for the Biblical texts that support this and the following citations).

I am completely unable to do anything without the prior action of God. This does not relieve me of free-will, nor does this relieve me of my responsibility to spread the Gospel. Furthermore, Chapter III provides that “some men are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting death.” Now, if you are not a believer in the Reformed concept of pre-destination, stop reading now and we will just continue to disagree. (I will not debate Reformed theology when many theologians more capable than I can make the position more clearly than I).

If you are a Reformed-kind of person, you can see where I am going. I cannot control what another person is going to do. I can only spread the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. I maintain my principles and share them, but I cannot force them on you. Only God can convict the heart of mankind. I am not responsible for your sin unless I propogate that sin. If you are ordained to accept God’s Word, it is solely through the actions of God.

Assuming that the reader is inclined to accept, if not fully agree, with my position, the reader may raise another question: Why wouldn’t I support laws that would further the Kingdom?

As I see it, there is one very dangerous consequence to this action. You cannot legislate God. It would change the government of these United States into a Theocracy. For those of you who believe this is a good idea, you must have forgotten about the Old Testament. David and Solomon, both held up as the best of the Kings fell short of a Godly ideal. It didn’t work out so great then… why would today be any better? Short answer- it would not. Man is totally incapable of following God’s Word and we would very quickly fall into the risk of false idols and teachings.

Thus, I believe that Libertarianism is the best and most consistent response for me. Christians continue to spread the Good News. God works in the hearts of all. I cannot control, but I can use my God-given talents to persuade. You are free to take the actions that you feel led to take- less government involvement in the day-to-day life of everyone. And in the meantime, I look forward to the perfect Rule of God in Heaven.

The Christian Attorney and Free Speech

The Christ-professing attorney may soon become extinct.  Once again, the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is recommending a change to the Rules of Professional Conduct.  Yes, attorneys have Rules of Professional Conduct.

The proposed amendment "is intended to make it professional misconduct for a lawyer, in the practice of law, to intentionally manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment or discrimination."  This proposal was made by the Disciplinary Board in the belief that, "it is in the best interests of the profession and the public to amend its rules to formally disapprove the conduct of any lawyer" who engages in such conduct.  In a curious turn, the Board continues that this "does not limit the ability of the lawyer to accept, decline or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16." 

Now, I must admit- I'm a libertarian kind-of guy (person?). I want to be free to live my life, and I want you to be free to live yours. I am pro-life, but if you are not- that is your right. I disagree, but I won't stop you. All I ask is that you don't ask me to participate.

I am, what I am now informed, is a cis-gendered male. Fine. I prefer "male." I don't really care how you identify. You may torture the language in your choice of pronoun and I will do my best to accommodate you. 

I am also a God-inspired-the-whole-Bible believing Christian who affirms that "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting death." (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter III, paragraph 3).  I have QUILTBAG (I prefer this acronym over the LGBT...) friends and acquaintances. I love them as fellow humans, but they may undertake actions of which I cannot approve. I also have cis-gendered friends, but they may undertake actions of which I cannot approve. In these cases, I may not- in good faith- represent them.  My life is already one of sin- but I don't need to flaunt these before God.

The Disciplinary Board wants me to take my faith and sacrifice it on the altar of secularism. Or at least not profess my faith too loudly, lest it make someone feel harassed or discriminated against. This seems like letting the camel's nose under the tent. As an attorney, I know there is a difference between a rule and the interpretation of the rule. Once my ability to express myself as a Christian is restricted, it will soon be gone.