Caffeinated Thoughts

Anne Graham Lotz Won’t Vote for an Atheist. Is That the Standard?
Conservatives Adrift with Romney at the Helm
Book Review: Erasing Hell
Our Geography (and Foreign Policy) Challenged President
Suffering Indignity at the Hands of the TSA
Apparently Mitt Romney Doesn’t Plan to Shore Up the Base
A Time to Dance?
CyHawkThoughts: Basketball Finale

Anne Graham Lotz Won’t Vote for an Atheist. Is That the Standard?

Posted: 17 Apr 2012 04:22 AM PDT

Civic Center Park, Denver, Colorado, USA.

Evangelist Billy Graham’s daughter, Anne Graham Lotz, who is also a preacher, told a group of panelists that she could not vote for an atheist for president. It appears she was in the minority. Good for her. But will she and scores of other prominent preachers and Christian leaders maintain a Biblical standard for civil magistrates? Graham is right to identify as a qualification that the candidate “Fear God“. But the phrase must be defined as the Bible does.

What does it mean to fear God?

First, it means they must be a Christian: Psalm 2 requires that kings, just like everybody else, bow the knee to Jesus.

Psalm 2:10-12:

Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

This fear of God in Christ means that the candidate must not serve other gods or believe in more than one God. The Bible is clear that if one does not accept the Son, he or she has rejected the Father, as well.

Second, the fear of God means keeping the Commandments: ALL Ten! If the candidate is a habitual liar, adulterer or thief, or if he unrepentantly blasphemes God or worships idols, he is not qualified for office. Eccesiastes 12:13 says,

The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man

I have written elsewhere:

Before the U.S. Constitution was ratified, atheists could not serve in the civil realm in most states, because they could not honestly take the oath of office, which required belief in God.^{^[1]} Maryland required "a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion." The North Carolina Constitution of 1776 also required that

No person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments…shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.^{^[2]}

It should be also noted that North Carolina, like many other states, forbade a practicing member of the clergy to serve in civil office as well, for the prevailing thought was that his ministry would be corrupted if he tried to be a pastor and governor at the same time:

That no clergyman, or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of being a member of either the Senate, House of Commons, or Council of State, while he continues in the exercise of pastoral function.^{^[3]} (emphasis mine)

By the early 1800s, nearly all of the provisions of the U.S. Constitution were either applied to the states or adopted by the states, including Article 6 which abolished religious tests.

In light of the ban on the religious test for holding office, is it right for Christians to consider whether a candidate fears God or not? Of course it is. The ban only forbids a legal religious test for holding office; it does not keep voters from using this to make their own decisions. Some have argued that keeping the spirit of the injunction requires individuals to block religion from their evaluations. But that is like saying that in keeping with the spirit of the 1^st Amendment parents must allow their children to swear, or that in the spirit of the 2^nd Amendment all businesses must allow guns on their premises.

A religious test recognizes that men who take oaths in God's name will be held to a higher accountability than just their own notions, or even fear of being caught by other men in violating the oath of office.

How will the fear of God make governors more able to carry out their duties? First, it will make them rule justly (1Sa 23:3). It will also keep them from ruling with an iron fist or with cruelty (Neh. 5:15),^{^[4]} make them personally generous (Acts 10:2), give them respect for the disabled and the aged (Lv. 19:14, 32) and help them to see the plight of the poor and the immigrant (Lv. 25:35f).

Fearing God means that the leader will not be swayed by the ever-changing whims of a fickle electorate. He will strive to obey the commandments of God in his personal life. The Scriptures speak of righteousness and holiness. The world speaks of ethics and morality. What are the differences between the two characteristics? The latter speak of one's outward behavior only and usually only in relation to fellow men. Christians recognize the Bible requires an inward righteousness as a gift of grace. It demands a right relation to God. Of course, no one claims to be able to read the heart of another. But still, one's actions and words can display what is in the heart.

[1] http://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=69

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] See Matthew Poole, Commentary, Volume 1, Encyclopedia Puritannica, p. 891

Conservatives Adrift with Romney at the Helm

Posted: 17 Apr 2012 01:27 AM PDT

Conservatives Adrift.

Our illustrious and caffeinated leader, Shane Vander Hart, has correctly pointed out that Mitt Romney appears to be ready for a lurch to the left. But I say, who can blame him? In 2008, Romney tried to cater to social conservatives and where did it get him? He lost to Mike Huckabee by a large margin in Iowa, and went on to finish third. This time around, he moved to the center of the GOP, barely lost Iowa (34 votes!), then fended off or outlasted many conservatives and is now running away with the delegate count. Since the New Hampshire Primary, he has only had to look back at chasers, never ahead to another front-runner. In other words, since he will have won the GOP nomination without conservatives, why should he change strategies when there are fewer conservatives by percentage in the general electorate than in the primaries? It is not gonna happen.

There are two possible explanations for Romney’s success:

1. Conservatives don’t make up as great percentage of the GOP as we thought.

2. “Conservatives” aren’t really that conservative.

I think principled social conservatives actually make up a minority of the Republican party. Winning the nomination is not proof enough that our numbers are small, for I grant that social conservatives did not coalesce around a single alternative to Romney, but there is no guarantee Santorum, for example, would win even in a two-man race from the start. Romney has won nearly half the delegates even though the party is supposedly conservative. This “split-vote” theory also doesn’t tell us why conservatives are now gathering around Romney so quickly, not even playing hard to get.

Many of them have admitted that he is “not the best candidate”, but a few have pledged to no longer speak of his flaws for the sake of beating Obama. Soon they will be touting him as the next Ronald Reagan, even as he will continue to move to the left, especially on abortion and the protection of marriage. And those without moorings and without Christ at their helm will continue to drift leftward, right along with him.

_____________________________________________________________

Further Reading:

In my book, With Christ in the Voting Booth, I lament the advance of Libertarian social philosophy on the Republican party and wrote:

“Are we so desperate for conservative icons and economic freedom that we don't care what poison we have to accept in the mixture?” (p. 84)

Book Review: Erasing Hell

Posted: 16 Apr 2012 10:16 PM PDT

Francis Chan

In recent years, certain topics have become verboten in Christian circles in order to be “seeker friendly” and avoid speaking Christianese (i.e. using traditional Christian terms or phrases to communicate meaning) and one of the biggest off-limit topics is, “Hell.” Indeed, Author and Pastor Rob Bell released his book, Love Wins which calls into question the existence of Hell. If Bell doesn’t open the door to Universalism, he at least goes to the front step.

Francis Chan’s Erasing Hell is in part a response to Bell’s question as well as other critiques of existence of Hell. Preston Sprinkle co-wrote the book with Chan, lending a scholarly presence to the work. Chan and Sprinkle take on some of the arguments popularly used against Hell (such as the Sheol was a garbage dump theory) as well as examining the words of Jesus both in scripture as well as in the context of his time.

If all Chan had done in the book was to make the case for Hell, the book would be nothing out of the ordinary. Indeed, it would probably be superflous. However Erasing Hell stands out for two reasons.

First, is the heart of Frances Chan. Many books and sermons on contentious scriptural issues have all the love and compassion of an online political screed. Chan writes of hell and those going there in a heartbroken compassionate way, as he wrestles with the question of Hell and its implications.

Second and perhaps more importantly, Chan turns his attention to a much larger question than Hell, Why do American Christians feel the need to censor God? Chan is painfully honest as he admits that for years he tried to “cover for God” by avoiding unpleasant parts of scripture. Chan calls Christians to a deeper understanding and respect for God and who He is. Chan writes:

Our God is not a person who is slightly more intelligent: His thoughts are infinitely higher than ours. Knowing that the gap is so large, shouldn’t we put our energy towards submitting rather than over analyzing?

The challenge to trust God and let Him be who He who He is provides the core message of Erasing Hell and it’s one that’s much needed today.

Our Geography (and Foreign Policy) Challenged President

Posted: 16 Apr 2012 07:45 PM PDT

I think perhaps he spent some time at Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's v ery own beer summit in Colombia before making his latest gaffe. But we shouldn't be surprised that President Obama confused the Malvinas with the Maldives which are some 8000 miles apart since this isn't his first geography related gaffe. First he ran an exhaustive campaign having visited our 57 states. He invents the Austrian language. He condemned the storming of the English embassy in Iran. Then he said he was born in Asia which will spark more fuel for the fire of birthers, but unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your perspective) he was referring to Hawaii.

So perhaps the gaffe at the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia doesn’t seem as bad unless you consider the foreign policy implications behind the error… or more to the point what he meant to say. In his address he said that he wanted to stay neutral between Argentina and the UK in their dispute over the Falkland Islands. So why did he use the Argentinian name? Everyone else calls the islands the Falklands. The United Kingdom has controlled these Islands, of whom the population is 90% British, since 1830. The UK fought to liberate the Islands after Argentina invaded in 1982.

The U.S. declared support for Britain in their war with Argentina so it is telling that the supposedly "neutral" President Obama would call the Islands by the Argentine name after Argentina has been ramping up talk of invading the Falklands again on the 30th anniversary of that war.

Another geography gaffe on top of another foreign policy gaffe, just another day in the Obama administration.

Suffering Indignity at the Hands of the TSA

Posted: 16 Apr 2012 03:30 PM PDT

TSA-Child Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit recorded the video above at the Madison, WI airport. A contributor or a reader of his blog named Andrea Ryan made the following point that I thought was interesting.

Not specific to this incident… 1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of sexual violence in her lifetime. And the statistic is higher when considering the number of women who do not come forward. Rape-Related Post-traumatic Stress Disorder is a legitimate diagnosis, and among the symptoms is "re-experiencing the trauma". The TSA's groping of passengers' genitals is a complete violation of our dignity and personhood, and must be so much worse for those healing from previous traumatic experiences. This is criminal.

Hoft notes that Israel, who has a 100% security success rate at their airports, do not treat their travelers this way. So what's the point? The Washington, D.C. CBS affiliate made the following observation in their report of the incident:

TSA agents have been under fire recently over the aggressive manner in which they conduct their searches on members of the general public.

Agents have been accused of patting down a 3-year-old boy who was in a wheelchair and also making a 95-year-old woman stricken with cancer remove her adult diaper.

Tabitha Hale last November described her humiliating experience of being pat down by the TSA. Then you have their nonsensical pat downs of children. It's time to disband the Transportation Security Agency or at the very least ban the random pat downs. They're out of control.

Apparently Mitt Romney Doesn’t Plan to Shore Up the Base

Posted: 16 Apr 2012 02:30 PM PDT

Some telling comments over the weekend made by the GOP "presumptive" nominee as reported by Byron York.

Romney said his campaign has been treated well by Fox News but that he needs to expand his audience beyond the leading cable news channel.

"Fox is watched by the true believers," Romney told donors, according to the Wall Street Journal. "We need to get the independents and the women."

Romney singled out CNN’s Wolf Blitzer as a good newsman, and today the campaign circulated a photo of Romney and wife Ann walking in Boston with ABC’s Diane Sawyer, with whom the couple is doing an extensive interview. So Romney is indeed broadening his media strategy.

Being treated well by Fox News is the understatement of the year. York, who is a Fox News contributor pointed out Romney's erroneous view of Fox News.

A few years ago, Pew Research did a survey of the partisan makeup of television news audiences and found that, while a lot of Republicans do watch Fox, so do a lot of Democrats and independents. "Democrats comprise a larger share of the Fox News audience than Republicans do of CNN’s audience," Pew reported.

Pew found that 39 percent of regular Fox watchers are Republicans, while 33 percent are Democrats. For CNN, Pew found that 51 percent of viewers are Democrats, while just 18 percent are Republicans. According to Pew, 22 percent of Fox’s audience, and 23 percent of CNN’s, are independents.

I don't want to launch a defense of Fox News, but rather point out Romney's motive to want to pull away from Fox News – because it is watched by "true believers" and he wants to reach out to "independents." I certainly agree that reaching out to independents is extremely important in a general election. However Romney still has a huge problem with the base of the party, the "true believers" so to speak. Perhaps he thinks they'll fall in line.

I'm sure John McCain, Bob Dole and George H.W. Bush thought that too.

HT: Twitchy

A Time to Dance?

Posted: 16 Apr 2012 11:09 AM PDT

Rapture erupted this weekend over the long-awaited announcement of a Hollywood couple’s wedding engagement – a couple whom I would rather not dignify by naming, much less suggest I want anything to do with the general ogle. Many celebrate their heroism in waiting to marry until “everyone has the right.” But as they clap, I grieve. True, while “there is a time to mourn,” there is also “a time to dance.” I, for one, don’t relish being a killjoy, scowling at the merry. But how can I cheer when the angels mourn? They mourn over the tragedy of the obvious. They watch a nation of reckless prodigals slurring a toast in their self-destructive orgy. Cheering the pretentious vows of those who have only cheapened and made them redundant. (Really now, did their strike involve any conjugal self-denial?) Fawning over them because they are so insanely popular and yessing their every utterance because, of course, gorgeousness equals wisdom.

True rejoicing will begin when the angels in heaven rejoice over one sinner that repents. When they see the party over, a groggy prodigal waking up, coming to his senses, and heading home to the Father. And if there is rapture over one sinner that repents, think of the volume for a nation of them.

* * *

Originally posted at reformedparish.com.

CyHawkThoughts: Basketball Finale

Posted: 16 Apr 2012 10:54 AM PDT

Steve and Chuck are joined by Nate Blair for this edition of CyHawkThoughts. They cover the NCAA tournament and give their final thoughts on the college basketball season. Spring football is in full force, and the guys way in on how Iowa & Iowa State are looking so far. Enjoy the basketball finale!

Horoscop

marți, 17 aprilie 2012

Caffeinated Thoughts

Caffeinated Thoughts

Un comentariu: