Caleb's Testimony

          Caleb is a walking testament to the faithfulness of God.  At eighty-five, he was still strong, still capable of trusting God to bring victory in the midst of a culture of unbelief.  He spent forty years wandering in the desert because the Israelites were afraid of the Anakites- the giants in the land.  Now, when he could be planning a well-deserved rest from his labors, he has bigger vision. 
          Caleb wants the city of the Giant.  The biggest, baddest of all those that Israel feared was targeted by the aged Caleb.  Caleb wanted his mountain, his city.  With God's help, he would take it so that it would never be a stumbling-block to Israel again.  May God give us that kind of courage in our day!
          Here are some lessons we can learn from Caleb:
1.  Let us not speak of a good and broad land as a land of fear and poverty.
2.  Let us not speak of our own abilities as the only possible source for our deliverance.
3.  Let us be strong and do exploits so that God's work might be commended to the next generations.

Confidence in Men WILL Fail Us

          The worldview of society has taught us to have confidence in man, in ourselves.  The two candidates for president are the epitome of that value.  They have amorally clawed their way to this position and we all look to their wisdom to lead us forward.  Money, Sex, and Power are both tools and rewards for climbing to the top of the heap.  Both candidates have known decades of unaccountable power, to do as they pleased for the good of others or for themselves.  If we can just choose the right people with the right power, they can make things happen!
          Why are we so confident in their abilities?  Why do we double-down on corruption and perversity believing that good will result?  The reason is society has taught us that confidence in man is the only option we have.  Psychology has taught us that good self-esteem, to be confident in ourselves, will lead to emotional health.  Sociology has taught us that man guides his own steps and that if religion is at all necessary, it should be a privatized, personal warm feeling.  Science has taught us that our existence is random purposelessness.  We pull ourselves us by our own bootstraps because that is all there is.  Government has taught us that we need have no regard for God, that a secular authority is all that is needed.  Law has taught us that good is negotiable and morals are pragmatic.  Man decides what is best in any given circumstance.
          But what if it is not in man to direct his steps?  What if there is a curse, as Jeremiah indicates, on all -individually or corporately- who trust in man?  If I am not supposed to trust in my own resources because "it is not in man to direct his steps,"  then a country, with all of its intellectual elite, will not discover the best way forward either.
          Why are we so confident in men?  Because we have been taught that there are no other choices.  We have been taught that God does not exist and that ideas concerning morality, ethics, are not sourced in God but in the pragmatic whims of the powerful and influential.  We, individually and corporately, have been taught that trust in God is not an option.  So we trust in man.  We breed leaders who are corrupt and perverse and their influence becomes normalized.  It is the way man is. 
           If we cannot recover the individual and national ability to trust in God, this great experiment in freedom and representative democracy is lost.  Corruption and perversity are our future and righteousness will go into hiding.  Would you agree?
         

What the Evangelical Voting Block Believes (if it were a monolithic voting block)

     Some have speculated that, in the fall election, the evangelical vote will have an important role to play in the selection of our next president.  Is there really such a voting block that walks lockstep toward evangelical goals?  Does the evangelical voting block have a clear choice for a presidential candidate?  Here’s how to identify that evangelical political mind:

1.      

            Acknowledgment of God in Public life.  Evangelicals see God as the author and sustainer of all that is.  In public life, He is the one who gives mankind his inherent human rights.  He is the one who gives religious freedom because He does not coerce His followers.  He is the standard of right and wrong.  A nation who does not recognize His authority makes both laws and rights arbitrary and invites those with lust for power to rule with only consensus and coercion as tools for advancing an agenda.

2.   

                     Sanctity of Human Life.  Evangelicals see human life as specially protected by God.  Human life is valuable, whether healthy or compromised, whether old or young, whether in the womb or outside of it.  A nation that does not recognize the sanctity of human life is going to become a terror to the weak, infirm, mentally ill, aged, and those children not yet born. 

3.      

                     Sanctity of Marriage.  Evangelicals see marriage as one of the basic institutions of society.  It protects children and provides for their needs, allows for their education and nurture by both a maternal and a father figure.  Sociologists have traditionally assumed that such a traditional covenant give children the best chance at a stable home and future.  The definition of marriage comes from God’s design.  A nation that does not recognize marriage as a covenantal relationship of a man and woman will promote a horror both in the home and in the society.

4.    

                   Sanctity of Work.  Evangelicals see work as a fundamental human vocation through which we receive respect and value for our contribution in the world.  It is a primary tool for teaching individual responsibility.  A nation that does not promote the value of work breeds both depression, victimization, and entitlement.

5.  

                  Sanctity of Law.  Evangelicals see ethics in an objective way.  Right and wrong are not subjectively based on events, circumstances, or political maneuvering.  They are grounded in the unchanging character of the Christian God.  A nation whose leadership believes legal decisions should be made from the wisdom of man alone, without regard to the wisdom of God, will breed immorality, and run the risk of approving that which is objectively wrong because it is politically correct.

6. 

                  Limited Government.  Because Evangelicalism sees mankind as fallen, they believe that all men, given power and political influence, will be tempted to abuse that power and influence.  To prevent the rise of an intellectual elite or an arbitrary lawmaker, Evangelicals see the need to limit the power of government officials to specific political goals.  The Framers would have agreed.  A nation who sees no threat in the national accumulation of power among a small group of progressive theorists is a nation about to victimized on a grand level.

     These fundamental values are not respected in the current political climate.  If the Evangelical Voting Block were real, these values would be respected.  These values would shape the legal and judicial landscape as they once did.  It is possible that an evangelical voting block could exist if they centered around a core set of beliefs as outlined above and began to push for the protection of those values.  Until then, an evangelical voting block is really just another interest group.

2016 Voter's Guide: Political Life and Honoring God

     If my people who are called by my name humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

- II Chronicles 7:14

     Political correctness and rampant religious secularism do not have the power to aid our nation.  An obstinate refusal to recognize Christ in the public square because someone might be offended has crippled our nation.  We arrogantly assume we have the ability to fix anything by way of government without divine interference.  Yet, even the wisest of men, Solomon, could not stop national conflict when he wandered from a faithful relationship with God (I Kings 11:6-14).

     Truth is that which corresponds to reality.  Turning away from the Creator is cosmic rebellion.  Rebellion brings judgment.  The judgment is not halted simply because we don't believe in God anymore.  The desire to run our lives and our governments without respect to honoring God does not mean we can do it effectively.  "It is not in man to direct his steps" (Jeremiah 17:5).  Our best and brightest, our intellectual elite, can only bring us to ruin.

     Psalm 2 pictures the Trinity watching as kings strategize against Their authority, trying to throw off the chains of sovereign providence.  God laughs at the attempt.  "Kiss the Son" is the only reasonable response.  Otherwise, the whole ship slips underwater.

     How should people who wish to restore the rightful place of God in society respond?  Prayer.  Public Prayer.  In the face of Disapproval.  It is time to bring God back.  Let's not blind ourselves to our precarious condition.  Either God intervenes...

2016 Voter's Guide: Vote Against or Vote for?

         It is a ridiculous election strategy.  Convince the voting population that your opponent is a horrible choice whose election would bring about the dramatic end of our great nation.  Such attacks accomplish two things:  They hide the vulnerability of the accuser.  They avoid the discussion of specific political goals and objectives.
     Suppose you had a candidate who was famous for ad hominem attacks and political statements that need to be clarified or "walked back" later.  The personal attacks and the abstractions are logical fallacies.  Such things happen when a candidate's knowledge of the topic is incomplete or when the candidate desires to hide his real goals and intentions.  These facts alone would give you pause.  Would you be willing to vote for that candidate or his or her merit alone?
     Suppose you had a candidate who had exhibited real carelessness in managing secure national documents.  The candidate chose political cover in a knowing falsehood in a diplomatic tragedy.  Political donations come from nations with questionable political goals.  These facts alone would give you pause.  Would you be willing to vote for that candidate on his or her merit alone?
     Your answer is probably no.  So, in the current political climate, you are asked to choose between them.  You are told you are responsible to use your vote to support a candidate you cannot support, simply on the argument that not voting will result in the election of the other candidate.
     The same reasoning is used for not supporting a third party.  Your vote would be "wasted."  Your lack of support for the lesser of two evils will result in the worst possible election result. 
     On the other hand, if the candidate I vote for is elected, he may then assume he has a mandate.  My vote has encouraged him to continue in his ways and to pursue his own political ideas and selfish ends.  I have approved of the decisions that candidate has made in the past and the diplomatic tragedies that had resulted.  The candidate has no more need to change his political direction or ethical decision-making.  The voice of dissent is gone.
     If those two options are my only choices, should I vote?  Should I use my sole opportunity to give voice to my political views to support what is unsupportable?  This fall, support those candidates who exhibit your political and ethical views.  It is time for candidates to repent of their past and begin to speak about what is good to do politically for the welfare of our nation.  As a whole.  I'll be waiting.

2016 Voter's Guide: What is a Vote?

     The Framers gave each citizen of the United States an important privilege and duty.  The leaders in our Republic would respond to the will of the people because the people were given a strategic tool of accountability:  The Vote.  The temptation to form a political intelligensia would be muted by the idea that the common man was the constituency.  The Framers even made sure that the power of the purse at the federal level would be held by the House of Representatives because it would be the closest to the people and the most responsive to their disapproval.
     It is true that the Framers wanted to protect the government from a sudden whim of the people so they put checks and balances even on the power of the people.  A wave of populism would have to be sustained over number of years to be effective.  The House of Representatives would be vulnerable but the Senate would be more secure (at six year terms).  The Electoral College was also a protection against that populism.
     However, the Framers gave the right to vote to the citizens so they could choose their own leaders and hold them accountable.  An educated populace would be a safeguard against overreach, a vigilant people would be a protection against tyranny.  Liberty would be in our own hands, ours to keep or ours to lose.
     A vote is a formal indication of a choice between candidates or courses of action.  It is the clearest expression of our political judgment.  It is the way we make our voice heard.  It shows our leaders what direction we desire to head and what priorities we expect to be pursued.  Our vote tells what persons or causes share our values.  It tells with whom we wish to identify.
     The purpose of the vote was not to try to pick the winning race horse.  It was to express your sentiment.  It was not to pick the winning candidate or cause but to express our choice.  It is an important civil responsibility because it is our voice.  This fall, don't mess it up by trying to choose the winning candidate.  Choose the candidate whose views best mirror your own.

2016 Voter's Guide: Curbing Federal Overreach

     The idea of checks and balances in government was based on the idea that power corrupts and the safest way to manage government was to spread the power out.  As originally conceived, each branch would watch the other two and hold them accountable when they tried to reach beyond the boundaries of their office.  They did not anticipate the lack of vigilance by the Legislative Branch.
     Special Interest Groups realized long ago that they could end run the Legislature by bringing social issues before the Supreme Court .  A judgment in their favor had the effect of law.  If they couldn't get the Legislature to pass a law (because of the will of the people), they could get a judge to accomplish their goal another way.
     The Executive Branch has also gained power.  The Framers gave the power of executive order to the president because he was responsible for administering the federal government.  Like any executive, he could make rules which everyone in the administration was responsible to follow.  As the Federal government grows, his power grows.  When we ask the Federal government to fund our roads, schools, and healthcare, we also allow the president to make the rules with regard to how that law will be implemented.
     In this way, the states have lost considerable amounts of power, influence, and self-government.  They must wade through mountains of federal red tape to get a project done.  They must also pursue the President's favor as lobbyists for the welfare of their state.
     How can this trend be reversed?  Shrink the size of the Federal government by balancing the budget and then incrementally reducing it.  Return funds and responsibility for programs to the states.  Let states compete with each other and not the federal government.  Finally, this fall, vote for members of the Legislature who will stand up for their right to make law and not to let that power slide to one of the other branches.